text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'We report the results of three [*Chandra*]{} observations covering most of the extent of the TeV $\gamma$-ray source HESS J1616–508 and a search for a lower energy counterpart to this source. We detect 56 X-ray sources, of which 37 have counterparts at lower frequencies, including a young massive star cluster, but none of them appears to be a particularly promising counterpart to the TeV source. The brightest X-ray source, CXOU J161423.4–505738 with a flux $F_{\rm 0.5-7kev}\approx5\times10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, has a hard spectrum that is well fit by a power-law model with a photon index $\Gamma=0.2\pm0.3$ and is a likely intermediate polar CV candidate. No counterparts of this source were detected at other wavelengths. CVs are not known to produce extended TeV emission, and the source is also largely offset $(19'')$ from HESS J1616–508, making them unlikely to be associated. We have also set an upper limit on the X-ray flux of PSR J1614–5048 in the 0.5-8 keV band ($F_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}<5\times10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ at a 90% confidence level). This makes PSR J1614–5048 one of the least X-ray efficient pulsars known, with an X-ray efficiency $\eta_{\rm 0.5-8keV}=L_{\rm 0.5-8kev}/\dot{E} < 2\times10^{-5}$. We find no evidence supporting the association between the pulsar and the TeV source. We rule out a number of X-ray sources as possible counterparts to the TeV emission and do not find a plausible counterpart among the other sources. Lastly, we discuss the possible relation of PSR J1617–5055 to HESS J1616–508 in light of the new observations.'
author:
- 'Jeremy Hare, Oleg Kargaltsev, George G. Pavlov, Blagoy Rangelov, Igor Volkov'
title: 'Chandra Observations of the field containing HESS J1616–508 '
---
Introduction
============
The High Energy Stereoscopic System (H.E.S.S.) is an array of atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes sensitive to photons above 100 GeV, which has discovered $>$ 75 TeV sources in the Galactic plane [@2005Sci...307.1938A][^1]. Among these sources there are a few that have not been associated with any known objects ( ; @2013arXiv1305.2552K [[email protected]]). The most straightforward way to understand what type of source is producing the high energy emission is to use observations at longer wavelengths. However, for some of the TeV sources, attempts to find their X-ray counterparts with [*Chandra*]{} or [*XMM-Newton*]{} either failed or produced an ambiguous result, causing these sources to be dubbed “[*dark accelerators*]{}” [@2005Sci...307.1938A]. Observations of these fields with [*Fermi-LAT*]{} have revealed possible GeV counterparts for many TeV sources (@2012ApJS..199...31N [[email protected]]; @2013ApJ...773...77A [[email protected]]; @2015ApJS..218...23A [[email protected]]), but the angular resolution of the LAT is often not sufficient to establish a firm association.
Spatially extended TeV sources are often associated with energetic pulsars located nearby (10$'$$-$15$'$ from the center of the TeV emission; see @2012ASPC..466..167K [[email protected]] and @2013arXiv1305.2552K [[email protected]] for reviews). Pulsars eject relativistic particles into their surroundings and can fill large bubbles (plerions) with these particles during their lifetime. These particles can produce TeV photons by inverse Compton (IC) upscattering of background photons. The large observed offsets between pulsar position and TeV source could, in some cases, be explained by the [*crushed plerion scenario*]{}, which assumes that the asymmetric reverse shock from the host supernova remnant (SNR) has displaced the plerion from the pulsar [@2001ApJ...563..806B]. The offset extended TeV source would then represent a [*relic plerion*]{} filled with aged electrons. These same pulsars can also power compact X-ray pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe), whose synchrotron emission is produced by “younger,” more energetic electrons. In some cases, such nebulae are detected before the pulsar is discovered (see Table 1 in @2013arXiv1305.2552K [[email protected]]) revealing the nature of the TeV source.
HESS J1616–508 (hereafter HESS J1616) is one of the brightest unidentified extended ($\sim16'$ rms size) TeV sources [@2006ApJ...636..777A]. The source has a 1$-$10 TeV flux $F_{\rm 1-10 TeV}\approx1.7\times10^{-11}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$, and its spectrum can be fit by a power-law model with $\Gamma=2.34\pm0.06$. HESS J1616’s center is located about $10'$ east of the young ($\tau\equiv P/2\dot{P}=8.13$ kyr) and energetic ($\dot{E}=1.6\times10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$) pulsar, PSR J1617–5055 (PSR J1617 hereafter; @1998ApJ...503L.161K [[email protected]]). PSR J1617 has a period $P=69$ ms, magnetic field $B=3.1\times10^{12}$ G, and is estimated to be at a distance of 6.5 kpc. This pulsar is energetic enough to power the TeV source, however, no other links between the PSR J1617 and HESS J1616 have been found (@2009ApJ...690..891K [[email protected]]; K+09 hereafter).
The field of HESS J1616 has been observed in X-rays multiple times. [@2007PASJ...59S.199M] observed the center of the HESS J1616 field with [*Suzaku*]{} XIS but found no counterpart to a limiting flux of 3$\times10^{-13}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the 2$-$10 keV energy range. The field was also observed with [*INTEGRAL*]{}/IBIS/ISGRI and [*Swift*]{} XRT. The data were analyzed by [@2007MNRAS.380..926L]; however, due to the lack of any other obvious X-ray counterpart, they concluded that the most likely counterpart to the TeV source was PSR J1617.
K+09 analyzed a dedicated 60 ks [*Chandra X-ray Observatory*]{} ([*CXO*]{}) observation of PSR J1617, as well as the available archival data (including [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} observations of nearby SNRs). K+09 found that the under-luminous X-ray PWN ($L_{\rm 0.5-8 keV,PWN}\sim 3.5\times10^{33}$ erg s$^{-1} \sim0.2L_{\rm 0.5-8 keV, PSR} \sim 2\times10^{-4}\dot{E}$, at $d = 6.5$ kpc) does not extend in the direction toward the center of the TeV source (unlike, e.g., the X-ray PWN of PSR B1823–13 and HESS J1825–137; @2008ApJ...675..683P [[email protected]]). K+09 suggested that even if PSR J1617 is responsible for a fraction of the TeV emission, it could be that HESS J1616 is a double or multiple source, which might include an unknown SNR or PWN. K+09 also reported an X-ray source, dubbed “Source X”, with a flux $F_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}\sim2\times10^{-13}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the $0.5-8$ keV band located close to the center of the TeV source. However, this source was imaged 16$'$ off-axis (in an archival [*Chandra*]{} observation), making it impossible to distinguish between a single extended source or several point sources.
There is also an extended ($\sigma\sim19'$) source reported at the exact same coordinates in both the [*Fermi-LAT*]{} 3FGL and 2FHL source catalogs (@2015ApJS..218...23A [[email protected]]; @2016ApJS..222....5A [[email protected]]), named 3FGL J1616.2–5054e and 2FHL J1616.2–5054e, respectively. This source is spatially coincident with the TeV source (i.e., the center of this [*Fermi-LAT*]{} source is only $\sim 36''$ from the center of HESS J1616). The LAT source has fluxes $F=(1.56\pm0.08)\times10^{-10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the 1$-$100 GeV band, $F=(7.3\pm1.7)\times10^{-11}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ in the 50 GeV$-$2 TeV band and spectral indices $\Gamma=2.14\pm0.03$, $\Gamma=1.74\pm0.18$ in the 3FGL and 2FHL catalogs, respectively. The spectrum of this source shows no sign of curvature, which is typically seen in the [*Fermi-LAT*]{} spectra of pulsars[^2] [@2013ApJS..208...17A].
Another potential counterpart of HESS J1616 is PSR J1614–5048 (PSR J1614 hereafter; @1992MNRAS.255..401J [[email protected]]), located $22'$ west of the TeV source center. PSR J1614 is a young pulsar, based on its spin-down age $\tau=7.4$ kyr. However, in some cases, this age may be a poor indicator of the true age. The pulsar is estimated to be at $d\sim7$ kpc determined from its dispersion measure DM$=586$ pc cm$^{-3}$ [@1993ApJ...411..674T]. The pulsar has a period $P=232$ ms, a rather low spin-down power for a young pulsar $\dot{E}=1.6\times10^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$, and a high surface dipole magnetic field $B=1.1\times10^{13}$ G [@2000MNRAS.317..843W]. This pulsar is also interesting because it has experienced two of the largest glitches ever observed and is also one of the noisiest pulsars (@2000MNRAS.317..843W [[email protected]]; @2013MNRAS.429..688Y [[email protected]]).
Here we report the results of our analysis of three new [*Chandra*]{} observations, two of them cover the center of HESS J1616 (ObsIDs 16956 and 17676) and another one (ObsID 16955) covers the field of PSR J1614 (Section \[data\]). We also search for multi-wavelength (MW) counterparts to the detected X-ray sources (Section \[counter\]), use the MW data to classify the X-ray sources detected in these observations, and discuss whether any of these sources could be a counterpart to HESS J1616 (Section \[result\]). We find that PSR J1614 is not detected in X-rays (Section \[J1614\]) and summarize our findings in Section \[conc\].
 
[*Chandra*]{} Observations and Data Reduction {#data}
=============================================
We have analyzed three [*Chandra*]{} observations. The first two, ObsIDs 16956 and 17676 observed on 2015 June 18 and 19, covered the central region of HESS J1616 (Field 1 hereafter; 24.7 ks and 33.6 ks exposures, respectively), while the third observation, ObsID 16955 observed on 2015 June 15, covered the field containing PSR J1614 (Field 2, hereafter; 59.3 ks exposure). Fields 1 and 2 are shown in Figure \[MWfig\]. All three observations were obtained with the ACIS-I instrument operated in timed exposure mode using the Very Faint telemetry format. The data were processed with the [*Chandra*]{} Interactive Analysis of Observations (CIAO[^3]) software version 4.6 and the [*Chandra*]{} Calibration Database (CALDB) version 4.6.3. We restricted our analysis to the 0.5–7 keV range, unless otherwise specified. The spectra were fit using XSPEC version 12.8.2.
CIAO’s source detection routine [wavdetect]{} [@2002ApJS..138..185F] was used to detect X-ray point sources and determine their coordinates in the [*Chandra*]{} images (see Table \[tab1\] and Figure \[cxofig\]). In order to detect fainter point sources, the data for ObsIDs 17676 and 16956 (Field 1) were merged[^4] prior to running [wavdetect]{}. The [srcflux]{} CIAO tool was then run individually on each observation (using the coordinates found by running [wavdetect]{} on Field 1) and the fluxes were averaged by weighting the flux in each observation with its corresponding exposure time. There were 26 and 21 sources detected with a [wavdetect]{} reported significance $>$ 6 for Field 1 and Field 2, respectively (see Figure \[cxofig\]). A cut on significance is needed to ensure that meaningful hardness ratio values can be obtained. Several off-axis sources (5 in Field 1 and 4 in Field 2) had [wavdetect]{} significance values $<6$ due to a higher background in their immediate vicinity caused by nearby very faint sources or hints of extended emission. We have added these sources to our source list by hand and marked them with green labels in Figure \[cxofig\].
The X-ray spectra for the five brightest sources ($\geq$ 100 counts) have been created by the [srcflux]{} CIAO tool. For sources with $>$ 200 counts, we have binned the X-ray spectra to have a minimum of 10 counts per bin. Otherwise, the spectra were not binned and were fit using C-statistics [@1979ApJ...228..939C]. For Field 1, the spectra were extracted separately for each observation and combined using the [*combine\_spectra*]{} CIAO tool[^5]. All fits used the XSPEC [tbabs]{} model [@2000ApJ...542..914W] for interstellar absorption.
[ccccccccc]{} 1 & 1 & J161637.3–505705 & 244.15530 & $-$50.95141 & 1.4 & $25\pm7$ & 1.0(4) & ?\
1 & 2 & J161653.3–505647 & 244.22213 & $-$50.94635 & 1.2 & $41\pm10$ & 0.9(4) & YSO (72)\
1 & 3 & J161658.6–505558 & 244.24418 & $-$50.93278 & 0.9 & $67\pm12$ & 4(1) & ?\
1 & 4 & J161608.3–505348 & 244.03436 & $-$50.89669 & 1.3 & $22\pm6$ & 0.8(4) & AGN (100)\
1 & 5 & J161638.4–505240 & 244.15991 & $-$50.87771 & 0.6 & $29\pm7$ & 1.6(8) & AGN (100)\
1 & 6 & J161723.7–505152 & 244.34871 & $-$50.86454 & 0.8 & $184\pm20$ & 5.3(9) & STAR (99)\
1 & 7 & J161611.5–505152 & 244.04781 & $-$50.86456 & 0.8 & $44\pm10$ & 1.5(6) & ?\
1 & 8 & J161647.1–505119 & 244.19630 & $-$50.85513 & 0.8 & $14\pm5$ & 0.3(2) & ?\
1 & 9 & J161634.3–505110 & 244.14304 & $-$50.85288 & 0.5 & $25\pm7$ & 1.6(8) & ?\
1 &10 & J161656.1–505107 & 244.23365 & $-$50.85182 & 1.0 & $18\pm6$ & 0.4(2) & ?\
1 &11 & J161650.0–505025 & 244.20819 & $-$50.84026 & 0.7 & $36\pm8$ & 2(1) & AGN (100)\
1 &12 & J161634.4–505015 & 244.14317 & $-$50.83755 & 0.5 & $60\pm11$ & 1.6(5) & STAR (99)\
1 &13 & J161551.0–504925 & 243.96233 & $-$50.82370 & 0.7 & $388\pm28$ & 12(1) & STAR (72)\
1 &14 & J161557.8–504921 & 243.99093 & $-$50.82259 & 1.1 & $72\pm12$ & 2.5(7) & STAR (81)\
1 &15 & J161657.6–504842 & 244.24010 & $-$50.81172 & 0.7 & $82\pm11$ & 1.9(5) & ?\
1 &16 & J161632.2–504837 & 244.13400 & $-$50.81039 & 1.0 & $17\pm6$ & 0.3(2) & STAR (99)\
1 &17 & J161655.6–504713 & 244.23184 & $-$50.78698 & 1.1 & $41\pm9$ & 1.5(6) & AGN (100)\
1 &18 & J161643.5–504604 & 244.18131 & $-$50.76780 & 0.8 & $116\pm16$ & 5(1) & ?\
1 &19 & J161650.5–505935 & 244.21025 & $-$50.99296 & 2.0 & $51\pm12$ & 0.9(4) & STAR (78)\
1 &20 & J161657.8–505505 & 244.24097 & $-$50.91803 & 1.3 & $21\pm7$ & 0.5(3) & ?\
1 &21 & J161711.6–505242 & 244.29837 & $-$50.87837 & 1.4 & $28\pm8$ & 0.6(3) & ?\
1 &22 & J161718.5–505241 & 244.32714 & $-$50.87801 & 1.4 & $50\pm11$ & 2.2(8) & ?\
1 &23 & J161655.8–504722 & 244.23247 & $-$50.78940 & 0.8 & $82\pm13$ & 3.1(9) & ?\
1 &24 & J161624.4–504714 & 244.10171 & $-$50.78713 & 1.4 & $19\pm5$ & 0.7(3) & AGN (100)\
1 &25 & J161703.6–504705 & 244.26489 & $-$50.78476 & 0.9 & $100\pm15$ & 3.8(9) & YSO (80)\
1 &26 & J161640.4–504344 & 244.16843 & $-$50.72899 & 1.8 & $57\pm12$ & 1.1(4) & STAR (75)\
2 & 1 & J161423.4–505738 & 243.59749 & $-$50.96054 & 0.9 & $663\pm26$ & 47(3) & ?\
2 & 2 & J161353.0–505259 & 243.47086 & $-$50.88308 & 1.1 & $50\pm7$ & 1.5(4) & STAR (73)\
2 & 3 & J161411.5–505245 & 243.54776 & $-$50.87906 & 0.8 & $59\pm8$ & 1.0(2) & YSO (70)\
2 & 4 & J161356.1–505156 & 243.48378 & $-$50.86546 & 1.2 & $24\pm5$ & 1.9(6) & AGN (100)\
2 & 5 & J161409.0–505124 & 243.53754 & $-$50.85665 & 0.7 & $38\pm6$ & 0.8(2) & STAR (75)\
2 & 6 & J161420.2–505110 & 243.58398 & $-$50.85288 & 0.8 & $24\pm5$ & 0.5(1) & YSO (76)\
2 & 7 & J161349.3–505110 & 243.45531 & $-$50.85279 & 1.2 & $30\pm6$ & 0.8(2) & STAR (81)\
2 & 8 & J161446.5–505102 & 243.69362 & $-$50.85054 & 1.3 & $27\pm5$ & 1.6(5) & ?\
2 & 9 & J161411.1–505058 & 243.54634 & $-$50.84936 & 0.9 & $16\pm4$ & 1.2(4) & ?\
2 &10 & J161350.7–505014 & 243.46142 & $-$50.83718 & 1.0 & $27\pm5$ & 0.5(2) & STAR (88)\
2 &11 & J161346.3–505008 & 243.44293 & $-$50.83566 & 0.8 & $87\pm9$ & 2.0(4) & STAR (95)\
2 &12 & J161345.4–504928 & 243.43905 & $-$50.82436 & 1.2 & $25\pm5$ & 0.18(6) & STAR (89)\
2 &13 & J161342.2–504824 & 243.42573 & $-$50.80661 & 0.8 & $84\pm9$ & 3.3(6) & YSO (90)\
2 &14 & J161443.0–504759 & 243.67929 & $-$50.79973 & 0.7 & $79\pm9$ & 1.9(4) & ?\
2 &15 & J161432.4–504744 & 243.63479 & $-$50.79554 & 0.9 & $17\pm4$ &0.9(3) & AGN (100)\
2 &16 & J161351.1–504732 & 243.46269 & $-$50.79212 & 1.0 & $27\pm5$ & 1.0(3) & AGN (100)\
2 &17 & J161359.5–504555 & 243.49771 & $-$50.76525 & 0.8 & $33\pm6$ & 1.8(5) & AGN (100)\
2 &18 & J161421.2–504511 & 243.58837 & $-$50.75317 & 0.7 & $54\pm7$ & 3.2(7) & AGN (100)\
2 &19 & J161352.1–504453 & 243.46697 & $-$50.74800 & 1.3 & $25\pm5$ & 0.9(3) & STAR (78)\
2 &20 & J161356.2–504158 & 243.48395 & $-$50.69956 & 1.4 & $61\pm8$ & 4(1) & STAR (86)\
2 &21 & J161457.3–505119 & 243.73884 & $-$50.85535 & 1.7 & $40\pm7$ & 2.5(7) & ?\
1 &27 & J161654.6–505943 & 244.22763 & $-$50.99525 & 1.8 & $75\pm14$ & 3(1) & STAR (71)\
1 &28 & J161544.9–505551 & 243.93705 & $-$50.93097 & 2.4 & $55\pm12$ & 0.8(3) & AGN (100)\
1 &29 & J161606.2–505437 & 244.02600 & $-$50.91042 & 1.5 & $22\pm7$ & 0.8(5) & AGN (100)\
1 &30 & J161604.2–504630 & 244.01771 & $-$50.77508 & 2.0 & $28\pm9$ & 2(1) & STAR (85)\
1 &31 & J161605.9–504450 & 244.02439 & $-$50.74739 & 2.1 & $46\pm10$ & 46(14) & ?\
2 &22 & J161445.3–505657 & 243.68883 & $-$50.94925 & 2.7 & $58\pm9$ & 6(1) & STAR (79)\
2 &23 & J161321.3–505303 & 243.33866 & $-$50.88428 & 2.6 & $66\pm9$ & 7(2) & ?\
2 &24 & J161401.0–505406 & 243.50411 & $-$50.90169 & 1.6 & $27\pm6$ & 2.3(7) & ?\
2 &25 & J161405.9–503908 & 243.52452 & $-$50.65225 & 2.5 & $59\pm9$ & 8(2) & ?\
\[tab1\]
MW Counterparts to X-ray Sources {#counter}
================================
Along with calculating X-ray properties for each source (i.e., the 0.5$-$2 keV flux, 2$-$7 keV flux, and two hardness ratios), we have also searched MW catalogs for potential counterparts[^6] to these sources and compiled a set of MW parameters for each of the sources with counterparts. The MW photometry was taken in optical from the USNO-B [@2003AJ....125..984M] catalog, the near-infrared (NIR) from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS; @2006AJ....131.1163S [[email protected]]), and in the IR from the [*Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer*]{} ([*WISE*]{}; @2012wise.rept....1C [[email protected]]). We found that 16 out of 31 and 14 out of 25 of the X-ray sources had MW counterparts in Field 1 and Field 2, respectively. MW sources were considered potential counterparts if they were within the error radius of each X-ray source. This error radius was calculated using the empirical relations provided by the [*Chandra*]{} Multi-wavelength Project (see Equation 12 in @2007ApJS..169..401K [[email protected]]). Then, we followed the [*Chandra*]{} Source Catalog [@2010ApJS..189...37E], and added an additional 2$\sigma$ astrometric error of $0\farcs39$ in quadrature (see Table \[tab1\]). The average 2$\sigma$ error circle for all of the sources in both fields is 1$\farcs2$. The chance coincidence probabilities for each catalog were calculated by finding the average source density in these fields, $\rho$, and calculating the probability of having one or more sources within a randomly placed circle, $P=1-\exp{(-\rho\pi r^2)}$. The source densities for each of the catalogs in these fields are $\rho_{\rm USNOB}=0.00342$ arcsec$^{-2}$, $\rho_{\rm 2MASS}=0.00895$ arcsec$^{-2}$, and $\rho_{\rm WISE}=0.00168$ arcsec$^{-2}$, leading to chance coincidence probabilities of $1.5\%$, $4.0\%$, and $0.8\%$, respectively, for $r=1\farcs2$. The 2MASS catalog has the largest chance coincidence probability (of the cross-matched catalogs), which implies that up to $\sim$2 2MASS sources may be spurious cross-matches with an X-ray source for both fields combined. None of the X-ray sources had more than one [*WISE*]{} or 2MASS counterpart; however, two X-ray sources (19 and 26 in Field 2) had two USNO-B counterparts. For these cases, the closest optical source to the X-ray source position was taken to be the optical counterpart. The MW magnitudes for each counterpart are given in Table \[17MW\].
The magnitudes[^7] for the MW counterparts together with the X-ray properties (fluxes in two bands and two hardness-ratios), add up to 19 features (or parameters), which are then used to classify these sources with our machine learning pipeline (see the Appendix of @2016ApJ...816...52H [[email protected]]). One minor change to the pipeline used in [@2016ApJ...816...52H] is that we no longer use the See5 implementation of the C5 decision tree algorithm [@1993cpml.book.....Q] and solely rely on a Random Forest classifier [@breiman2001] implemented in python[^8] [@2012arXiv1201.0490P]. We have also reddened the AGNs in the training dataset using the total Galactic absorption column in the direction of our observations ($N_{H}=2.4\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$; ) to make them similar to the background AGNs in this field.
To search for possible radio counterparts we used radio data from The Sydney University Molonglo Sky Survey (SUMMS; @2003MNRAS.342.1117M [[email protected]]) taken at 843 MHz, which is shown in the top panel of Figure \[MWfig\]. The bottom panel of Figure \[MWfig\] shows a false color (red–8.0 $\mu$m green–5.8 $\mu$m blue–3.6 $\mu$m) [*Spitzer*]{} IRAC image. There is a bright radio source seen towards the top of CXO Field 1, which can also be seen in the [*Spitzer*]{} image. This is a known young massive stellar [@2004AJ....127.2817R] with a lower limit on the bolometric luminosity of $8.7\times10^{4}$ $L_{\odot}$, it contains a number of O and B type stars (35 cluster member candidates detected down to the completeness limit). Field 2 partially covers the SNRs Kes 32 and G332.0+0.2, with Kes 32 partially seen in the [*CXO*]{} image. G332.0+0.2 is not detected in the [*Chandra*]{} observation.
Lastly, we have also searched the [*INTEGRAL/IBIS*]{} 7-year source catalog , which has been observing the field of HESS J1616 regularly since 2013 February. We found only one source (associated with the nearby pulsar PSR J1617) within $30'$ of the center of each field. Therefore, we conclude that there are no [*INTEGRAL*]{} counterparts to any other sources in these fields down to a limiting flux of 3.7$\times10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ in the 17-60 keV energy band .
[ccccccccccc]{} 1 & 1 & ... & ... & ... & 15.62 & 14.41 & 13.79 & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 2 & ... & ... & ... & 13.21 & 12.68 & 12.49 & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 6 & 10.38 & 9.77 & 9.56 & 8.92 & 8.713 & 8.66 & 8.51 & 8.56 & 8.32\
1 & 7 & ... & ... & ... & 14.19 & 11.83 & 10.06 & 7.91 & 6.94 & 3.26\
1 & 10 & 19.97 & 17.68 & 18.02 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 12 & ... & ... & ... & 10.59 & 9.88 & 9.39 & 8.36 & 7.92 & 6.54\
1 & 13 & 14.42 & 11.81 & 11.01 & 9.88 & 9.21 & 8.99 & 8.81 & 8.84 & 7.57\
1 & 14 & 15.40 & 13.67 & 12.86 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 16 & 17.59 & 15.59 & 14.70 & 14.22 & 13.60 & 13.42 & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 19 & 14.80 & 14.18 & 13.37 & 12.15 & 11.74 & 11.62 & 11.44 & 11.39 & 7.02\
1 & 20 & ... & ... & ... & 13.63 & 13.07 & 12.95 & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 21 & ... & ... & .... & 13.58 & 12.12 & 11.49 & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 22 & ... & ... & ... & 12.86 & 10.99 & 10.18 & 9.72 & 9.66 & 9.23\
1 & 25 & ... & ... & ... & 14.17 & 12.59 & 11.59 & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 26 & 14.82 & 13.73 & 13.09 & 12.80 & 12.35 & 12.16 & 12.44 & 12.92 & 7.78\
2 & 2 & 18.63 & 16.25 & 15.84 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 3 & ... & ... & ... & 11.84 & 11.14 & 10.96 & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 5 & 17.49 & 14.82 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 6 & ... & ... & ... & 13.97 & 13.37 & 13.26 & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 7 & 19.03 & 17.02 & 16.19 & 14.96 & 14.39 & 14.08 & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 10 & 17.28 & 15.69 & 15.37 & 14.42 & 13.90 & 13.76 & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 11 & 16.55 & 14.59 & 13.76 & 13.45 & 12.77 & 12.67 & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 12 & ... & ... & ... & 11.83 & 11.26 & 11.19 & 10.95 & 10.97 & 9.86\
2 & 13 & ... & ... & ... & 14.52 & 13.34 & 12.83 & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 14 & ... & ... & ... & 14.50 & 13.58 & 13.33 & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 19 & 19.31 & 16.79 & 15.77 & 14.14 & 12.92 & 12.38 & 12.24 & 12.38 & 8.62\
2 & 20 & 21.07 & 18.88 & 18.12 & 15.57 & 14.26 & 13.46 & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 21 & ... & 14.30 & 16.11 & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 27 & ... & ... & ... & 13.26 & 12.70 & 12.53 & ... & ... & ...\
1 & 31 & 17.45 & 14.94 & 14.01 & 12.99 & 12.44 & 12.13 & ... & ... & ...\
2 & 22 & 17.17 & 15.14 & 14.04 & 13.05 & 12.41 & 12.20 & ... & ... & ...\
\[17MW\]
Detected [*Chandra*]{} Sources
===============================
Out of the 56 sources listed in Table \[tab1\] only five had enough counts ($\geq100$) for meaningful spectral fitting. The count rate spectra of these sources have been created using the [specextract]{} CIAO tool called by the [srcflux]{} CIAO script. This script creates circles with differing[^9] radii that enclose 90% of the PSF at 1 keV at a given location on the chip. The background is also automatically extracted by the [srcflux]{} script from adjacent annular regions. We fit each of the five spectra with a blackbody (BB), power-law (PL), and APEC [@2001ApJ...556L..91S] models and report the results of the best-fit models in Table \[sparam\]. We show the best-fit spectra in Figure \[spectra\]. Due to the low number of counts for sources 18 and 25 in Field 1, their spectra were left unbinned and fit using C-statistics.[^10]
\[result\]
Brighter Sources in Fields 1 and 2
----------------------------------
### Field 2 Source 1 (CXOU J161423.4–505738)
Source 1 in Field 2 has 663 background subtracted counts, which makes it the brightest source in either of the two fields. The spectrum for this source was extracted from an $r=10''$ circle, and the background was taken from an $10''<r<50''$ annulus around the source. The spectrum is well fit ($\chi^2_{\nu}=$1.1 for $\nu=58$ degrees of freedom) by a PL model with a photon index $\Gamma=0.2\pm0.3$ and intervening hydrogen absorption column $N_{H}=3.6^{+0.9}_{-0.8}\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ (see Figure \[spectra\]). The total Galactic HI column density in the direction of this source is $N_{H}=2.1\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ , suggesting that this source is at a distance of at least a few kpc. In fact, the fitted $N_{H}$ is almost identical to the $N_{H}$ found by K+09 in their spectral fits for PSR J1617, implying that they may lie at similar distances. If we assume that this source is at a distance of 5 kpc, it would then have an X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm 0.5-7keV}=1.4\times10^{33} d^2_{5}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The nearest object to this source at other wavelengths is 54 away and therefore is unlikely to be related to the X-ray source.
Despite the very hard spectrum in the 0.5-7.0 keV band, there is no [*INTEGRAL/IBIS*]{} counterpart for this source down to a limiting flux of 3.7$\times10^{-12}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. Using the online WebPIMMS tool[^11], we have extrapolated our [*Chandra*]{} fit in the 0.5-7.0 keV band to the [*INTEGRAL*]{} 17-60 keV band and found that the expected flux should be a factor of $\sim$ 4-11 higher than the [*INTEGRAL*]{} catalog detection limit for a photon index between 0.5 and 0.0, respectively. This suggests that the spectrum has a break (or a cut-off) at an energy that lies within the hard X-ray band (10-60 keV) or that the source is variable.
Periodicities have been found in sources with similarly hard X-ray spectra (e.g., ), so we have carried out a periodicity search for this source. A Z$^{2}_1$ test was used to search for a periodic signal. First, the arrival times of the photons were corrected to the solar system barycenter using the CIAO tool [axbary]{}. We then searched $\sim$10$^4$ equally spaced frequencies between $\nu\approx$0.16–3.4$\times10^{-5}$ Hz. The largest Z$^{2}_1= 21.3$ ($77\%$ signal detection confidence) was found at a period of 55.4 s, implying that there is no hard evidence of a periodic signal in the period range of 6.5 s–8.2 ks. We have also found no signs of variability in the light curve of this source using a number of different sized bins.
It is still possible that this source is either a low mass X-ray binary (LMXB) or a cataclysmic variable (CV) with a companion that is too absorbed and too distant to be detected at other wavelengths. The hardness of the spectrum makes this source less likely to be a LMXB. However, CVs with such hard X-ray spectra, a spectral break in the hard X-ray band, and counterparts too faint to be detected by the MW surveys used here have been discovered (see e.g., the intermediate polar IGR J18293–1213; @2016MNRAS.461..304C [[email protected]]). This source is largely offset ($\sim 19'$) from the center of the TeV source making it unlikely to be related to the TeV emission. Furthermore, although there have been claims of TeV emission from CVs (see @2011MNRAS.411.1701B [[email protected]] and references therein), they are not known to be extended TeV sources. This source’s spectrum is also too hard for an isolated pulsar, which could otherwise power a relic PWN. Due to the lack of MW information, our MW classification tool was unable to confidently classify this source. Future observations in the hard X-ray band and deeper NIR/IR observations could shed more light on the this source’s nature.
Field 1 Source 6 (CXOU J161723.7–505152)
----------------------------------------
The spectrum for this source was extracted from an $r=$ 7$''$ circle centered on the source. The background was extracted from a $7''<r<35''$ annulus. There are 184 net counts in the $0.5-7$ keV band. This source has no optical, NIR, or IR counterpart within its 2$\sigma$ positional error radius (0$\farcs$8). However, there is a star (HD 146183, $B=10.38$) that is $1\farcs7$ (based on the Gaia position) offset from the X-ray position[^12]. Despite the fact that HD 146183 is just outside of the 2$\sigma$ X-ray positional error circle, Source 6’s soft X-ray spectrum suggests that the emission can be associated with the corona of the bright, nearby star. Therefore, we consider the star as the MW counterpart of Source 6. The MW magnitudes can be seen in Table \[17MW\] and are included when classifying this source with our pipeline. HD 146183 has a rather large proper motion listed in the Gaia catalog $\mu_{\alpha}=(-20.521)$ mas yr$^{-1}$, $\mu_{\delta}$=(-27.979) mas yr$^{-1}$ and has a spectral type F0IV ( ; ; @1978mcts.book.....H [[email protected]]). The parallax distance to this star is 300 pc .
Of the three models, the spectrum is best fit by the APEC model, but there is an excess of high energy photons. A better fit can be obtained by adding a second, higher temperature component. However, due to the small number of counts, the uncertainties in the second component’s parameters are too large to derive any meaningful constraints, so this fit is omitted. The best-fit parameters are given in Table \[sparam\]. We found no evidence of variability in the light curve of this source. Our classification pipeline also classifies this source as a star with a high confidence (99%). The parallax distance to HD 146183 implies an X-ray luminosity L$_{\rm 0.5-7kev}=5.7\times10^{29}$ erg s$^{-1}$, which is consistent with X-ray luminosity of a coronally active star. This makes Source 6 an unlikely counterpart to the TeV source.
Field 1 Source 13 (CXOU J161551.0–504925)
-----------------------------------------
Source 13’s spectrum was extracted from an $r=7''$ circle, while the background was taken from a $7''<r<34''$ annulus. This source has 388 net counts and is the second brightest source detected in either of the [*Chandra*]{} fields. It should be noted that Source 13 is the closest source with $>$100 counts to the center of the TeV emission ($\sim 7'$ offset). There is a very bright ($B$=14.42, $J$=9.88, $W1$=8.80) counterpart detected in USNO-B, 2MASS, and [*WISE*]{}, which is offset from the X-ray position by $\sim0\farcs5$. It is also found in The Second-Generation Guide Star Catalog [@2008AJ....136..735L]. This object has a measured proper motion in the UCAC4 catalog of $\mu_{\alpha}\cos{\delta}=(-7.7\pm1.8)$ mas yr$^{-1}$, $\mu_{\delta}=(-8.5\pm1.8)$ mas yr$^{-1}$ [@2012yCat.1322....0Z], ruling out the possibility that it is an AGN. It is possible, although unlikely, that the optical/IR source is accidentally projected at the X-ray source position. However, the X-ray hardness ratios[^13] also rule out the possibility that this source is an obscured AGN undetected in the optical/NIR (see Figure \[src118\]). The X-ray spectrum is well fit by either an absorbed APEC or PL model. The APEC model produces a temperature of $kT=4.1^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$ keV and absorption column $N_{H}=(2^{+0.2}_{-0.1})\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$, while the best-fit absorbed PL model has a photon index $\Gamma=2.3\pm0.3$ and absorption column $N_{H}=(4\pm2)\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ (see Figure \[spectra\] for the spectrum and best-fit PL model).
The large amount of MW data provided for this source allowed us to fit for a photometric spectral classification. We used the SEDfitter[^14] [@2007ApJS..169..328R] code to fit the photometry of this source to stellar models from [@2004astro.ph..5087C]. The best fit models for this source are those of M0V–M3V M-dwarf stars. The X-ray to $B$ band luminosity ratio $\log(L_{\rm 0.5-2 keV}/L_{B})=-3.1$ is also consistent with a late type star. Our classification pipeline also classified this source as a star with a confidence of 72% (the Guide Star Catalog also classifies this source as a star). The distance to this source, using the source’s V band magnitude V=13.04 [@2012yCat.1322....0Z], is 74–29 pc giving and X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm 0.5-7keV}\sim8-1\times10^{28}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for M0V and M3V spectral types, respectively. This X-ray luminosity is within the typical range for M-type stars (see e.g., and @2005ApJS..160..390P [[email protected]]). We have also searched for variability in the light curve of this source but none was found. The classification as a late-type dwarf star makes this source an unlikely counterpart to the TeV source.
Field 1 Source 18 (CXOU J161643.5–504604)
-----------------------------------------
The spectrum for this source was extracted from a circle surrounding the source with a radius of $r= 5''$. The background was extracted from a $5''<r<23''$ annulus. In total, this source has 116 net counts. The best fit model for this source is an absorbed PL with $\Gamma=1.8\pm0.5$ and $N_{H}=(5\pm4)\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$. The nearest optical/NIR source is 4.8$''$ away, making it an unlikely MW counterpart.
The absorption column density ($\sim$ 1/4 of the total Galactic value) suggests that this source is fairly nearby, assuming that the chosen spectral model is meaningful. The source spectrum and lack of a counterpart is consistent with an isolated pulsar interpretation. Therefore, it could be a relatively nearby unknown pulsar with a relic PWN. The relative proximity would relax the demands for the TeV luminosity and large physical size of the TeV source. If we assume that this source and HESS J1616 are associated we get, then the TeV to X-ray luminosity ratio $L_{\rm 1-10TeV}/L_{\rm 0.5-8keV}=340$. This is consistent with known pulsars with relic PWN and associated TeV emission (see Figure 4 in @2013arXiv1305.2552K [[email protected]]). However, no hints of extended X-ray emission around this source are detected. We have plotted the hardness ratios of Source 18 on top of the sources in our training dataset (see Figure \[src118\]). The AGN fluxes used in the calculation of the hardness ratios in this plot have been corrected for the extinction in the direction of HESS J1616. Source 18 lies within a parameter space far away from the AGN, implying that is unlikely to be an AGN. Due to the lack of MW counterparts our pipeline was unable to confidently classify this source. More X-ray data and deeper MW limits are needed to identify the nature of this object.
Field 1 Source 25 (CXOU J161703.6–504705)
-----------------------------------------
The spectrum for this source was extracted from a circle surrounding the source with a radius of $r=5''$. The background was extracted from a $5''<r<27''$ annulus surrounding the source. This source only has 100 net counts and was fit using C-statstics. The spectrum can be equally well fit by all three models. The best fit parameters for each model can be seen in Table \[sparam\]. This source has a likely NIR counterpart in the 2MASS Extended Catalog (2MASX; @2006AJ....131.1163S [[email protected]]) and is detected at 5 GHz in radio with a flux S($\nu$)$=$3.3 Jy ( ; see Figure \[MWfig\] for an 843 MHz radio image). The X-ray source (see Figure \[cxofig\]), which is possibly surrounded by some diffuse X-ray emission, is embedded within the extended NIR/IR emission ($\sim70''$ half-light radius in the $J$ band) seen in the [*Spitzer*]{} image (see Figure \[MWfig\]). The likely MW counterpart is a known young, massive stellar cluster with two components (the first component being brighter by a factor of $\sim$10 in the NIR) mostly made up of zero-age main-sequence O8 and B0.5 type stars, respectively [@2004AJ....127.2817R]. Our automated classification pipeline supports the association of the X-ray source with the star forming region and has classified this source as a YSO.
There are several O spectral type stars located in this cluster, suggesting that the cluster is relatively young (a few Myr). This cluster is embedded in an HII region, which has an upper limit on its age of $<$10 Myr . The X-ray luminosity of this source (using the distance of 3.7 kpc assumed by @2004AJ....127.2817R [[email protected]]) is $L_{\rm 0.5-7keV}\approx6\times10^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$, which is typical an O type star or small group of O-type stars (see e.g., @2011ApJS..194....7N [[email protected]]). It is possible that a young, energetic NS or a BH could have been produced in this cluster, but we find no evidence of it. Another possibility is that the TeV emission could be produced by massive colliding wind binaries (see e.g., @2006ApJ...644.1118R [[email protected]]). However, the TeV luminosity of HESS J1616 is too large ($\sim 3\times10^{34}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at 3.7 kpc) to be consistent with this scenario, assuming a similar particle injection spectrum and model as in . Also, the size of the TeV source is much larger than the cluster size. Therefore, we conclude that the most likely cause of the X-ray emission is that it is coming from a group of YSOs or O/B$-$type stars and their winds. Even if some of the TeV emission could be attributed to the shocks driven by winds of massive stars, it is likely to be a relatively small fraction of the TeV emission from HESS J1616.
[ccccccc]{} & & & $\times$10$^{-5}$ & $\times$10$^{22}$ & $.../{\rm keV}$ &\
2 & 1 & PL & 2.0$^{+1.4}_{-0.8}$ & 3.6$^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ & $\Gamma=0.2\pm0.3$ & 64.16/58\
1 & 6 & AP & 2.4$^{+0.6}_{-0.5}$ & 0.2$+0.1$ & kT$ =0.96^{+0.06}_{-0.07}$ & 114.01/91 (C)\
1 & 13 & PL & 4.7$^{+1.6}_{-1.2}$ & 0.4$\pm0.2$ & $\Gamma=2.3\pm0.3$ & 32.34/32\
1 & 13 & AP & 8.1$^{+1.4}_{-0.9}$ & 0.2$^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ & kT$=4.1^{+1.1}_{-1.0}$ & 32.99/32\
1 & 18 & PL & 1.0$^{+0.9}_{-0.4}$ & 0.5$\pm0.4$ & $\Gamma=1.8\pm0.5$ & 89.96/90 (C)\
1 & 25 & BB & 570$^{+560}_{-270}$ & 0.6$^{+0.5}_{-0.4}$ & kT$=0.9\pm0.2$ & 62.76/94 (C)\
1 & 25 & PL & 3.0$^{+5.1}_{-1.8}$ & 2.0$^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ & $\Gamma=2.3\pm0.7$ & 62.94/94 (C)\
1 & 25 & AP & 5.5$^{+2.7}_{-1.7}$ & 1.8$^{+0.7}_{-0.6}$ & kT$=3.7^{+5.3}_{-1.4}$ & 62.28/94 (C)\
\[sparam\]
    
Remaining Sources
-----------------
Our MW machine-learning pipeline was able to confidently (i.e., $\geq70\%$ confidence) classify 32 of the remaining 51 sources that were not bright enough to fit a constraining spectrum. The majority (16) of these sources were classified as stars while the others were classified as either AGN (12) or YSOs (4). All but one of the sources classified as an AGN have no MW counterparts, and none have fluxes in the ultra-soft or soft [*CXO*]{} bands, implying heavy absorption. Therefore these sources are likely AGN, but we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of an obscured X-ray binary in quiescence at a large distance in our Galaxy. AGN and X-ray binaries can be TeV emitters, but these sources are typically point-like and cannot be responsible for the extended nature of the TeV source if it is a single source. Stars and YSOs are not known to produce TeV emission, so we can rule out these sources.
The closest source to “Source X” discussed in K+09 is Source 29 in Field 1. This source is surrounded by a number of faint point sources and possibly faint extended emission. The X-ray source is coincident with a star forming region that can be seen in the [*Spitzer*]{} image in Figure 1. Therefore, we rule out “Source X” as a possible counterpart to the TeV source.
Non-detection of PSR J1614–5048 {#J1614}
================================
PSR J1614 was imaged $\sim 0\farcm8$ away from the optical axis in Field 2. We find 5 photons with energies between 0.5 and 8 keV[^15] within the source region defined as an $r=2\farcs1$ circle centered on the interferometric radio position, $\alpha=16^{\rm h}14^{\rm m}11{\fs}6(8)$, $\delta=-50^{\circ}48\farcm01\farcs9(1)$ [@1999MNRAS.308..609S]. The local background estimated from the annular, $2\farcs1<r<35''$, region centered on J1614 is 0.085$\pm0.005$ counts arcsec$^{-2}$. On average, $\sim$one count within the source region is expected to be due to the background implying a detection with only $\sim 2\sigma$ source significance. Therefore, we calculate a 90% confidence upper limit of 0.15 counts ks$^{-1}$ on the count rate from PSR J1614 and its possible compact PWN using Table 1 in [@1986ApJ...303..336G]. To calculate the upper limit on the unabsorbed flux in the 0.5–8 keV band, we used PIMMS and assumed an absorbed PL model with $\Gamma=2$ and $N_H=1.75\times10^{22}$ cm$^{-2}$ derived from the pulsar’s DM=582.8 cm$^{-3}$ pc according to equation 2 from [@2013ApJ...768...64H]. The estimated upper limit of $5.0\times10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ corresponds to an X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}=2.9\times10^{31}$ erg s$^{-1}$ at an assumed distance $d=7$ kpc. This makes PSR J1614 one of the least efficient X-ray pulsars known, with an upper limit on its X-ray efficiency of $\eta_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}\equiv L_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}/\dot{E}\sim2\times10^{-5}$ (see Figure \[xefffig\], top panel).
PSR J1614 is not detected at GeV energies, which is similar to some other pulsars with small X-ray efficiencies (e.g., PSR J1906+0746, PSR J1913+1011). One exception is the Vela pulsar [@2001ApJ...552L.129P], which has a small X-ray efficiency and is detected at GeV energies. However, Vela is much closer ($\sim 300$ pc; @2003ApJ...596.1137D [[email protected]]) than the aforementioned pulsars. To understand how PSR J1614 compares to other similar pulsars, we have looked at the nearest pulsars on the $P$–$\dot{P}$ diagram[^16] (see Figure \[xefffig\], bottom panel) with comparably high magnetic fields (i.e., $\gtrsim10^{13}$ G). Unlike PSR J1614, neither of the two neighboring pulsars in the $P$–$\dot{P}$ diagram (i.e., J1640–4631 and J0007+7303) are detected at radio wavelengths, which could be due to a low intrinsic radio efficiency or a misalignment of their radio beams with the line of sight.
Interestingly, PSR J1640–4631 has been associated with the TeV source HESS J1640–465 and the corresponding 1FHL source J1640.5–4634 [@2014ApJ...788..155G]. This pulsar has been detected by [*XMM-Newton*]{}, pulsations were discovered by [*NUSTAR*]{} [@2014ApJ...788..155G], and a PWN was resolved with [*Chandra*]{} [@2009ApJ...706.1269L]. This pulsar is a factor of two younger than PSR J1614 (based on the spin-down ages) but it may be a factor of two more distant ($d=12$ kpc based on the DM; @1993ApJ...411..674T [[email protected]]). However, the younger age and slightly higher spin-down luminosity $\dot{E}=4.4\times10^{36}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (a factor of 2.8 larger than that of PSR J1614) can hardly explain the 100 times higher X-ray efficiency ($\eta_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}\approx2\times10^{-3}$).
PSR J0007+7303 also has both an extended TeV counterpart detected by VERITAS (likely the PWN; @2013ApJ...764...38A [[email protected]]) and a [*Fermi-LAT*]{} counterpart [@2012ApJ...744..146A] with pulsations detected, as well as extended emission, likely from the PWN. This pulsar and its wind nebula have also been detected by [*Chandra*]{} [@2004ApJ...612..398H]. PSR J0007+7303 is a factor of two older than PSR J1614 with a characteristic age $\tau=13.9$ kyr, and it has a lower spin-down luminosity $\dot{E}=4.5\times10^{35}$ erg s$^{-1}$. It has a low X-ray efficiency $\eta_{\rm 0.5-10 keV}\approx10^{-5}$ comparable to that of PSR J1614.
Overall, it is interesting to note that several of the pulsars that are nearest to PSR J1614 on the $P$–$\dot{P}$ diagram have TeV sources associated with their PWN, implying that it may be possible for PSR J1614 to power a relic PWN that is responsible for the TeV emission. However, if we assume that PSR J1614 is responsible for the TeV emission, then the lower limit on the TeV to X-ray luminosity ratio of its undetected PWN, $L_{\rm 1-10TeV}/L_{\rm 0.5-8keV}>3400$, is larger than any other known pulsar with associated TeV emission (see Figure 4 in @2013arXiv1305.2552K [[email protected]]). We can also compare the lower limit on the GeV to X-ray luminosity $L_{\rm 1-100 GeV}/L_{\rm 0.5-7 keV}\gtrsim11500$, which is larger than all but two pulsars (PSR J1836–5925 and PSR J2021+4026) in the [*Fermi*]{} second pulsar catalog [@2013ApJS..208...17A]. The fact that PSR J1614 is an outlier in the TeV and GeV to X-ray flux ratios (assuming it is the counterpart to these sources), the lack of a PWN, and the large offset from the TeV source makes it an unlikely counterpart to HESS J1616.
 {width="11.8cm" height="10cm"}
Conclusions and Outlook {#conc}
=======================
TeV emission can be produced by a number of different source types, including blazars, SNRs, PWNe, and $\gamma$-ray binaries (see e.g., @2012APh....39...61H [[email protected]]). However, only PWNe and SNRs (or SNRs interacting with molecular clouds) are known to produce extended TeV emission. There are three SNRs detected at radio frequencies surrounding the center of HESS J1616 including Kes 32, RCW 103, and G332.0+0.2, but their rather large offsets ($\sim$ 14$'$, 15$'$, and 29$'$, respectively) and difference in morphology, compared to HESS J1616, make them unlikely counterparts to the TeV emission. Therefore, among the known types of TeV emitters, the only other candidates are relic PWNe, which can be dim in X-rays. The relic plerion scenario can also account for the offset between the known pulsars, within the extent of HESS J1616, and the TeV emission peak. However, until an X-ray or radio PWN with a preferential extension toward the TeV source is detected, this scenario will remain unconfirmed. Observations with the SKA may be able to detect synchrotron emission from such relic plerions.
The [*Fermi*]{} source, 3FGL J1616.2–5054e, is coincident with the TeV emission. This source is extended and similar in size to HESS J1616. The spectra of the GeV and TeV sources smoothly connect to each other (see Figure 6.8 in @2014arXiv1401.6718L [[email protected]]). The hard spectral index $\Gamma=1.74$ listed in the 2FHL catalog [@2016ApJS..222....5A] is typical of other PWNe detected by [*Fermi*]{} [@2013ApJS..208...17A]. We have analyzed three [*Chandra*]{} observations of the field containing HESS J1616 and searched among the 56 detected X-ray sources for a possible counterpart. Of these, 30 were classified with $\geq$70% confidence, primarily as either AGN or non-degenerate stars. Stars are not known to produce TeV emission, while AGNs seen at TeV energies do not produce extended emission with the size of HESS J1616, so any of these sources can be ruled out as sole counterparts to HESS J1616. Five sources were bright enough ($\geq 100$ counts) to extract and fit their spectra. Of these, only Source 18 in Field 1 may be of interest because we cannot rule out an isolated pulsar interpretation. If this source is a nearby pulsar, it could host a relic PWN that could be responsible for the TeV emission. The TeV to X-ray luminosity ratio is compatible with other pulsars detected at TeV energies, but there are no hints of extended X-ray emission. Better quality X-ray data and deeper MW limits for a possible counterpart of this source are necessary to classify it.
We did not detect PSR J1614 and set an upper limit on its X-ray flux ($F_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}<5\times10^{-15}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ at a 90% confidence level). This makes PSR J1614 one of the least efficient X-ray pulsars known, with an upper limit on its X-ray efficiency $\eta_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}$ $\lesssim 2\times10^{-5}$. While, the lack of an X-ray PWN does not preclude the existence of a relic TeV PWN, it does not allow us to look for any PWN asymmetry, which could lend support to the association. Lastly, the large offset between PSR J1614 and HESS J1616 of $\sim 22'$ (45 pc at $d=$7 kpc) makes the association doubtful, so we consider PSR J1614 an unlikely counterpart to HESS J1616.
The only other known pulsar energetic enough to power a relic PWN in this region is PSR J1617. The offset from HESS J1616 is smaller for PSR J1617 ($10'$, is 19 pc at $d=6.5$ kpc). The faint extended X-ray PWN of PSR J1617 was detected by [*CXO*]{}, but it does not extend in the direction toward the TeV source center making the association ambiguous (see K+09 for a discussion). If we assume that the PWN of PSR J1617 is responsible for the TeV emission, then the TeV to X-ray luminosity ratio is $L_{\rm 1-10 TeV}/L_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}\sim23$ and the GeV to X-ray luminosity ratio is $L_{\rm 1-100 GeV}/L_{\rm 0.5-8 keV}\sim91$. These ratios are consistent with other PWN observed at TeV energies and pulsars detected by [*Fermi*]{} (@2013arXiv1305.2552K [[email protected]]; @2013ApJS..208...17A [[email protected]]). Therefore, PSR J1617 remains a possible counterpart of the TeV source, given that the associations of the other X-ray sources in this field appear to be less likely.
Future observations with CTA and SKA will be able to shed more light onto this source’s nature, in particular by testing wether it is a single extended or multiple blended source, and whether there is any spatially-dependent spectral structure or other morphological connection to PSR J1617.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} Support for this work was provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration through Chandra Awards G05-16075X and AR3-14017X issued by the Chandra X-ray Observatory Center, which is operate by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory for and on the behalf of the National Aeronautics Space Administration under contract NAS8-03060. JH would like to thank George Younes for useful discussions regarding this paper. We would like to thank the anonymous referee for careful reading of the paper and useful comments.
Abdo, A. A., Wood, K. S., DeCesar, M. E., et al. 2012, , 744, 146
Abdo, A. A., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. 2013, , 208, 17
Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2013, , 773, 77
Acero, F., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. 2015, , 218, 23
Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Atwood, W. B., et al. 2016, , 222, 5
Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Aye, K.-M., et al. 2005, Science, 307, 1938
Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Bazer-Bachi, A. R., et al. 2006, , 636, 777
Aharonian, F., Akhperjanian, A. G., Barres de Almeida, U., et al. 2008, , 477, 353
Aliu, E., Archambault, S., Arlen, T., et al. 2013, , 764, 38
Bednarek, W., & Pabich, J. 2011, , 411, 1701
Blondin, J. M., Chevalier, R. A., & Frierson, D. M. 2001, , 563, 806
Breiman, L., 2001, Machine Learning, 45, 5?32, Springer
Buccheri, R., Bennett, K., Bignami, G. F., et al. 1983, , 128, 245
Cash, W. 1979, , 228, 939
Castelli, F., & Kurucz, R. L. 2004, arXiv:astro-ph/0405087
Caswell, J. L., & Haynes, R. F. 1987, , 171, 261
Clavel, M., Tomsick, J. A., Bodaghee, A., et al. 2016, , 461, 304
Corti, M. A., Baume, G. L., Panei, J. A., et al. 2016, , 588, A63
Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2012, Explanatory Supplement to the WISE All-Sky Data Release Products
del Palacio, S., Bosch-Ramon, V., Romero, G. E., & Benaglia, P. 2016, , 591, A139
Dickey, J. M., & Lockman, F. J. 1990, , 28, 215
Dodson, R., Legge, D., Reynolds, J. E., & McCulloch, P. M. 2003, , 596, 1137
Evans, I. N., Primini, F. A., Glotfelty, K. J., et al. 2010, , 189, 37-82
Farrell, S. A., Gosling, A. J., Webb, N. A., et al. 2010, , 523, A50
Freeman, P. E., Kashyap, V., Rosner, R., & Lamb, D. Q. 2002, , 138, 185
Gehrels, N. 1986, , 303, 336
Gotthelf, E. V., Tomsick, J. A., Halpern, J. P., et al. 2014, , 788, 155
G[ü]{}del, M. 2004, , 12, 71
Halpern, J. P., Gotthelf, E. V., Camilo, F., Helfand, D. J., & Ransom, S. M. 2004, , 612, 398
Hare, J., Rangelov, B., Sonbas, E., Kargaltsev, O., & Volkov, I. 2016, , 816, 52
He, C., Ng, C.-Y., & Kaspi, V. M. 2013, , 768, 64
H[ø]{}g, E., Fabricius, C., Makarov, V. V., et al. 2000, , 355, L27
Holder, J. 2012, Astroparticle Physics, 39, 61
Houk, N. 1978, Ann Arbor : Dept. of Astronomy, University of Michigan : distributed by University Microfilms International, 1978-,
Johnston, S., Lyne, A. G., Manchester, R. N., et al. 1992, , 255, 401
Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., & Wong, J. A. 2009, , 690, 891
Kargaltsev, O., Durant, M., Pavlov, G. G., & Garmire, G. 2012, , 201, 37
Kargaltsev, O., Pavlov, G. G., & Durant, M. 2012, Electromagnetic Radiation from Pulsars and Magnetars, 466, 167
Kargaltsev, O., Rangelov, B., & Pavlov, G. G. 2013, arXiv:1305.2552
Kaspi, V. M., Crawford, F., Manchester, R. N., et al. 1998, , 503, L161
Kim, M., Kim, D.-W., Wilkes, B. J., et al. 2007, , 169, 401
Krivonos, R., Tsygankov, S., Revnivtsev, M., et al. 2010, , 523, A61
Lande, J. 2014, arXiv:1401.6718
Landi, R., de Rosa, A., Dean, A. J., et al. 2007, , 380, 926
Lasker, B. M., Lattanzi, M. G., McLean, B. J., et al. 2008, , 136, 735
Lemiere, A., Slane, P., Gaensler, B. M., & Murray, S. 2009, , 706, 1269
Lindegren, L., Lammers, U., Bastian, U., et al. 2016, , 595, A4
Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A., & Hobbs, M. 2005, , 129, 1993
Matsumoto, H., Ueno, M., Bamba, A., et al. 2007, , 59, 199
Mauch, T., Murphy, T., Buttery, H. J., et al. 2003, , 342, 1117
Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B., et al. 2003, , 125, 984
Naz[é]{}, Y., Broos, P. S., Oskinova, L., et al. 2011, , 194, 7
Nolan, P. L., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. 2012, , 199, 31
Pavlov, G. G., Zavlin, V. E., Sanwal, D., Burwitz, V., & Garmire, G. P. 2001, , 552, L129
Pavlov, G. G., Kargaltsev, O., & Brisken, W. F. 2008, , 675, 683-694
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., et al. 2012, arXiv:1201.0490
Preibisch, T., & Feigelson, E. D. 2005, , 160, 390
Quinlan, J. R. 1993, The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Machine Learning, San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, |c1993,
Reimer, A., Pohl, M., & Reimer, O. 2006, , 644, 1118
Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., & Wood, K. 2007, , 169, 328
Roman-Lopes, A., & Abraham, Z. 2004, , 127, 2817
Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163
Smith, R. K., Brickhouse, N. S., Liedahl, D. A., & Raymond, J. C. 2001, , 556, L91
Stappers, B. W., Gaensler, B. M., & Johnston, S. 1999, , 308, 609
Taylor, J. H., & Cordes, J. M. 1993, , 411, 674
Tibolla, O. 2011, International Cosmic Ray Conference, 6, 202
Wang, N., Manchester, R. N., Pace, R. T., et al. 2000, , 317, 843
Wilms, J., Allen, A., & McCray, R. 2000, , 542, 914
Yu, M., Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G., et al. 2013, , 429, 688
Zacharias, N., Finch, C. T., Girard, T. M., et al. 2012, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 1322,
[^1]: See <https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/pages/home/som/2016/01/>.
[^2]: The source is also listed as being variable in the 3FGL catalog, but this is solely due to a processing issue that occurs with extended sources described in Section 3.6 of [@2015ApJS..218...23A].
[^3]: <http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/>
[^4]: Standard CIAO procedures found at <http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/wavdetect_merged/> were followed to merge the data. We used an exposure time weighted average PSF map in the calculation of the merged PSF.
[^5]: We have verified that simultaneous fitting produces the same results (within errors) in this particular case.
[^6]: We attempted to correct the absolute astrometry (following the procedure described in <http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/threads/reproject_aspect/>) of the ACIS images by cross-matching the detected X-ray sources with the 2MASS catalog sources [@2006AJ....131.1163S] in each field. However, the resulting corrections were insignificant. They did not impact the choice of MW counterparts for any of the X-ray sources.
[^7]: All magnitudes for the USNO-B, 2MASS, and [*WISE*]{} catalogs are in the Vega-magnitude system.
[^8]: <http://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/sklearn.ensemble.RandomForestClassifier.html>
[^9]: The CXO PSF becomes wider with increasing off-axis angle
[^10]: <https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/xanadu/xspec/manual/XSappendixStatistics.html>
[^11]: <https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/Tools/w3pimms/w3pimms.pl>
[^12]: The star’s USNO–B coordinates are $1\farcs3$ offset from the X-ray source position
[^13]: The hardness ratios are defined as HR2=$(F_{\rm 1.2-2 keV}-F_{\rm 0.2-1.2 keV})/(F_{\rm 1.2-2 keV}+F_{\rm 0.2-1.2 keV})$ and HR4=$(F_{\rm 2-7 keV}-F_{\rm 0.5-2 keV})/(F_{\rm 2-7 keV}+F_{\rm 0.5-2 keV})$.
[^14]: https://github.com/astrofrog/sedfitter
[^15]: This energy range was used instead of 0.5-7 keV for the purpose of comparison with other pulsars.
[^16]: <http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/pulsar/psrcat/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A new proof of the conformal covariance of the powers of the flat Dirac operator is obtained. The proof uses their relation with the Knapp-Stein intertwining operators for the spinorial principal series. We also treat the compact picture, i.e. the corresponding operators on the sphere, where certain polynomials of the Dirac operator appear. This gives a new representation-theoretic framework for earlier results in [@bo; @es; @lr]. [^1]'
author:
- 'Jean-Louis Clerc and Bent Ørsted'
date:
title: Conformal covariance for the powers of the Dirac operator
---
Introduction
============
The powers of the (flat) Dirac operator are known to satisfy a covariance property with respect to the Möbius group (see [@b; @pq; @es]). We give a new proof by interpreting the powers of the Dirac operator as *residues* of a meromorphic family of Knapp-Stein intertwining operators. The proof is elementary and does not involve any Clifford analysis. We also give in the last section the corresponding meromorphic family and its residues on the sphere. This corresponds to the so-called *compact picture* of the induced representations. In particular we find as residues on the sphere the polynomials $D(D^2 - 1^2) \cdots (D^2 - m^2)$ of the Dirac operator $D$. These were found earlier by other methods in [@es; @lr] (in these references the polynomials are not with constant coefficients, and it still needs some consideration to see that they may be identified with the polynomials above).
The conformal group of the sphere
=================================
Let $\big(E^{n+1}, (\,.\,,\,.\,)\big)$ be a Euclidean vector space of dimension $n+1$, and denote by $(x,y)$ the inner product of two vectors $x$ and $y$. Let $S=S^n$ be the unit sphere of $E$. The *Lorentz space* is $$E^{1,n+1} =\mathbb R \oplus E= \{(t, x), t\in \mathbb R, x\in E^{n+1}\}$$ endowed with the symmetric bilinear form $[\,.\,,\,.\,]$ given by $$[(t,x), (u,y)] =tu -(x,y)\ .$$
Let $\mathcal S$ be the set of isotropic lines in $E^{1,n+1}$. The map $$S\ni x\longmapsto d_x = \mathbb R(1,x) \in \mathcal S$$ is a one-to-one correspondance of $S$ onto $\mathcal S$, which is moreover a diffeomorphism for the canonical differential structures on $S$ (as a submanifold of $E^{n+1}$) and $\mathcal S$ (as a submanifold of the projective space of $E^{1,n+1}$).
Let $G= SO_0(E^{1,n+1})\simeq SO_0(1,n+1)$ be the connected component of the neutral element in the group of isometries of $E^{1,n+1}$. Then $G$ acts on $\mathcal S$ and hence on $S$. This action is *conformal* in the sense that for any $g$ in $G$ and $x\in S$, the differential $Dg(x) : T_x\longrightarrow T_{g(x)}$ is a similarity of the tangent space $T_x$ of $S$ at $x$, i.e. $$Dg(x) = \kappa(g,x)\, r(g,x)\ ,$$ where $r(g,x)$ is a positive isometry of $T_x$ into $T_{g(x)}$ and $\kappa(g,x) >0$ is the *conformal factor* of $g$ at $x$.
The group $K=SO(E^{n+1})\simeq SO(n+1)$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $G$, associated to the standard Cartan involution $g\longmapsto \theta(g) = (g^t)^{-1}$. The group $K$ acts transitively on $S$.
Let $(e_0,\dots, e_n)$ be an orthonormal basis of $E^{n+1}$, and choose $e_0$ as origin in $S$. Let $E^n= e_0^\perp$ be the hyperplane orthogonal to $e_0$ in of $E^{n+1}$. The stabilizer of $e_0$ in $K$ is the subgroup $M\simeq SO(n)$, and this gives a realization of $S\simeq K/M$ as a *compact Riemannian symmetric space*. On the other hand, let $P$ be the stabilizer of $e_0$ in $G$. Then $P$ is a parabolic subgroup of $G$, and $S\simeq G/P$ is a realization of $S$ as a *flag manifold*.
Let $e_{-1}=(1,0, \dots, 0)\in E^{1,n+1}$, so that $\{e_{-1},e_0,\dots, e_n\}$ is a basis of $E^{1,n+1}$. Introduce the subgroups of $G$ defined by
$$A = \left\{ a_s = \begin{pmatrix}\cosh s&\sinh s&0&\dots&0\\\sinh s& \cosh s&0&\dots&0\\0&0&1 & &\\ \vdots&\vdots&&\ddots&\\0&0&&&1\end{pmatrix},\quad s\in \mathbb R\right\}$$ and $$N= \left\{\ n_u =\begin{pmatrix}1+\frac{\vert u\vert^2}{2}&-\frac{\vert u\vert^2}{2}&&u^t&\\\frac{\vert u\vert^ 2}{2}&1-\frac{\vert u\vert^2}{2}&&u^t&\\
&&1&&
\\u&-u&&\ddots&\\&&&&1
\end{pmatrix},\quad u\in \mathbb R^n\simeq E^n\right\}\ .$$ Then $P=MAN$ is a Langlands decomposition of $P$. Let $\overline N = \theta N$ be the opposite unipotent subgroup, given by $$\overline N = \left\{\ \overline n_v =\begin{pmatrix}1+\frac{\vert v\vert^2}{2}&\frac{\vert v\vert^2}{2}&&v^t&\\-\frac{\vert v \vert^ 2}{2}&1-\frac{\vert v\vert^2}{2}&&-v^t&\\
&&1&&
\\v&v&&\ddots&\\&&&&1
\end{pmatrix},\quad v\in \mathbb R^n\right\}\ .$$
We also let $$w=\begin{pmatrix} 1& & & & &\\& -1& & & & &\\ & &-1&& & &\\ & & &1& & &\\ & & & & \ddots &\\ & & & & & 1\end{pmatrix}\ .$$ The element $w$ is in $K$, acts on $S^n$ by $(x_0,x_1,x_2,\dots, x_n) \longmapsto (-x_0,-x_1,x_2,\dots, x_n)$, satisfies $wa_sw^{-1}=a_{-s}$, thus realizes the non trivial Weyl group element. The map $$c : v \longmapsto \Big(\frac{\vert v\vert^2-1}{\vert v \vert^2+1},\ \frac{2}{\vert v\vert^2+1}\,v \Big)$$ is a diffeomorphism from $E^n$ onto $S\setminus\{e_0\} $. Its inverse is the classical *stereographic projection* from the source ${e_0}$.
As a convention let $\overline E^n = E^n\cup \infty$ be the one-point compactification of $E_n$. Then clearly the map $c$ can be extended to $\overline E_n$ by setting $c(\infty) = e_0$, to get a one-to-one correspondance between $\overline E^n$ and $S^n$. This allows to transfer the action of $G$ on $S$ to an action of $G$ on $\overline E^n$. In this way, the group $G$ is realized as a group of rational conformal transformations of $E^n$, usually called the *Möbius group* $M_+(\overline E_n)$. The subgroup $P$ is now realized by affine similarities, the group $M$ is the group of rotations of $E$ with center at $0$, $A$ is the group of positive dilations with center $0$ and $N$ is the group of translations of $E$. The element $w$ acts as the *twisted inversion* $$(x_1,x_2,\dots, x_n) \longmapsto \Big(-\frac{x_1}{\vert x\vert^2}, \frac{x_2}{\vert x\vert^2}, \dots, \frac{x_n}{\vert x\vert^2}\Big)\ .$$ When using this model for the sphere, we refer to the *noncompact picture*.
The Vahlen-Maass-Ahlfors realization of the twofold covering of the Möbius group
================================================================================
There is a quite useful realization of (a twofold covering of) $G$ acting on $\overline E_n$ via the Clifford algebra $Cl_{n-1}$, initiated by Vahlen ([@v]), revived by Maass ([@m]) and well presented by Ahlfors ([@a], see also [@gm], [@r1]).
Let $E^{n-1}$ be the vector subspace generated by $e_2,\dots, e_n$, and form the *Clifford algebra* $Cl_{n-1} = Cl(E^{n-1})$, i.e. the algebra (with unit $1$) generated by the vector space $E^{n-1}$ and the relations $$uv+vu +2(u,v) = 0\ .$$ The space $E^n$ is identified with the subspace $\mathbb R \oplus E^{n-1}$ of $Cl(E^{n-1})$, the element $e_1$ corresponding to the unit of the Clifford algebra. Following Ahlfors, elements of $E^n$ will be called *vectors*.
Recall the three involutions of the Clifford algebra : the *principal automorphism* $a\mapsto a'$, obtained by sending $e_j$ to $-e_j$ for $2\leq j\leq n$, the *reversion* $a\mapsto a^*$ which is the antiisomorphism mapping $e_j$ to $e_j$ for $2\leq j \leq n$ and the *conjugation* $a\mapsto \overline{a}$ which is the composition of the two first.
There exists a canonical inner product on $Cl_{n-1}$ extending the inner product on $E^{n-1}$, the corresponding norm is denoted by $\vert \ \vert$.
For vectors $x=x^*$, $x'=\overline x$, and $x\overline x = x_1^2+\dots + x_n^2=\vert x\vert ^2$, so that any vector $x\neq 0$ is invertible with inverse equal to $x^{-1} = \frac{\overline x}{\vert x\vert^2}$.
The *Clifford group* $\Gamma_n$ is the set of all elements of the Clifford algebra $Cl_{n-1}$ which can be written as products on non-zero vectors. If $a, b $ are in $\Gamma_n$, then $$a\overline a = \vert a\vert^2\ ,\quad \vert ab\vert = \vert a\vert \vert b\vert$$
Let $a$ be in $\Gamma_n$. Then $a$ is invertible and $a^{-1} = \frac{\overline a}{\vert a\vert^2}$. For $x$ in $E^n$, $ax{a'}^{-1}\in E^n$, and the map $x\mapsto ax{a'}^{-1}$ is a positive isometry of $E^n$.
\[Cmatrix\] A matrix $g=\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\ c&d\end{pmatrix}$ is a *Clifford matrix* if
$i) \ a,b,c,d \in \Gamma_n \cup \{0\}$
$ii)\ ad^* - bc^* = 1$
$iii)\ ab^* \text{ and } cd^* \in E^n$
Under matrix multiplication, the Clifford matrices form a group, denoted by $SL_2(\Gamma_n)$.
The following observation will be useful later : for $a, b\in \Gamma_n$, the conditions $ab^*\in E^n$ and $a^{-1}b \in E^n$ are equivalent.
Let $g=\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\ c&d\end{pmatrix}$ in $SL_2(\Gamma_n)$ and $x$ in $\overline E^n$. We recall the meaning of the expression $g(x) = (ax+b)(cx+d)^{-1}$.
First $cx+d$ is either $0$ or is invertible :
$\bullet$ if $c\neq 0$, $c$ is in $\Gamma_n$. Condition $iii)$ and the remark imply that $c^{-1}d\in E^n$, so that $cx+d = c(x+c^{-1}d)$ is either $0$ or invertible.
$\bullet$ if $c=0$, then $ii)$ implies that $d\neq 0$ so that $cx+d=d$ is in $\Gamma_n$, hence is invertible.
Next, observe that $ax+b$ and $cx+d$ cannot be both $0$. In fact assume the contrary. By $ii)$, $a$ and $c$ can not be both $0$. So, assume that $a\neq 0$. Hence $a$ is invertible and $x=-a^{-1} b= b^* {a^*}^{-1}$. Hence $$0 = cx+d = -c b^* (a^*)^{-1} +d\ .$$ Multiplying both sides on the left by $a^*$ yields $-c^*b+d a^*= 0$ which is incompatible with $ii)$. A similar argument holds if $c\neq 0$.
So, if $cx+d\neq 0$, $(ax+b)(cx+d)^{-1}$ is a well defined element of $Cl_{n-1}$. If $cx+d=0$, then set $(ax+b)(cx+d)^{-1} =\infty$. Finally, let $(a\infty +b)(c\infty +d)^{-1} = ac^{-1}$ is $c\neq 0$ and $=\infty$ if $c=0$.
${ }$
$i)$ For any $g$ in $SL_2(\Gamma_n)$ and $x\in \overline E^n$, $g(x) = (ax+b)(cx+d)^{-1}$ belongs to $\overline E^n$
$ii)$ The map $\iota_g : \overline E^n \ni x\mapsto g(x) \in \overline E^n$ belongs to the Möbius group $M(\overline E^n)$
$iii)$ The homomorphism $g\mapsto \iota_g$ is a twofold covering of the Möbius group, with kernel $\pm\operatorname{Id}_2$.
See [@a] for a proof.
In the sequel , we let $\widetilde G = SL_2(\Gamma_n)$. The stabilizer of $\infty$ in $\widetilde G$ is the subgroup $$\widetilde P=\Bigg\{ \begin{pmatrix} a&b\\0&d\end{pmatrix},\quad ad^* =1,\ ab^*\in E^n\Bigg\}\ .$$ The Langlands decomposition of $\widetilde P$ is $\widetilde P = \widetilde L N = \widetilde M AN$, where
$$N= \Bigg\{ \begin{pmatrix} 1&v\\0&1\end{pmatrix},\quad v\in E^n \Bigg\}$$
$$\widetilde L= \Bigg\{ \begin{pmatrix} a&0\\0&{a^*}^{-1}\end{pmatrix},\quad a\in \Gamma^n \Bigg\}$$ $$A = \Bigg\{a_t= \begin{pmatrix} t&0\\0&t^{-1}\end{pmatrix},\quad t>0\Bigg\}$$
and the group $\widetilde M$ is realized as $$\widetilde M =\Bigg\{ \begin{pmatrix}m&0\\0&{m^*}^{-1}\end{pmatrix}, \quad m\in \Gamma_n, \vert m\vert =1 \Bigg\}\ .$$
The element $\begin{pmatrix}m&0\\0&{m^*}^{-1}\end{pmatrix}$ of $\widetilde M$ acts on $E^n$ by $\sigma_m : x\longmapsto mxm^*$ and the map $\sigma : m\longmapsto \sigma_m$ is a twofold covering of $\widetilde M \simeq Spin_n$ onto $SO(n)$.
Let $H = \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\0&-1\end{pmatrix}$, so that, for $t>0$ $a_t=\exp \log t H$. A complex linear form on $\mathfrak a$ is identified with the complex number $\lambda$ equal to the value of the linear from on the element $H$. The half-sum of the roots $\rho$ corresponds to the number $n$, and we let $a_t^\lambda= t^\lambda , t>0, \lambda\in \mathbb C$.
The group $N$ acts by translations $x\mapsto x+v$.
An element of $\overline N$ is of the form $\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\x&1 \end{pmatrix}$ where $x\in E^n$. We will identify $\overline N$ with $E_n$.
The non trivial Weyl group element is realized by the matrix $ w= \begin{pmatrix} 0&-1\\ 1&0 \end{pmatrix}$.
The *Bruhat decomposition* of an element $g=\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}$, where $a\neq 0$ is given by
$$\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\ca^{-1}&1\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} a&0\\0&{a^*}^{-1}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} 1&a^{-1}b\\0&1\end{pmatrix}\ .$$ The proof of this identity reduces to $\ ca^{-1}b+{a^*}^{-1}= d\ $ , which is a consequence of the assumptions on $a,b,c$ and $d$ (see Definition \[Cmatrix\]).
Let $g\in \widetilde G$, $x,y \in E^n$ and assume that $g(x), g(y)\in E^n$. Then $$\label{globalcov}
g(x)-g(y) = {(cy+d)^*}^{-1}(x-y) (cx+d)^{-1}\ .$$
\[localcov\] Let $g$ be in $\widetilde G$, $x\in E^n$ and assume that $g(x)\in E^n$. Then the differential of the action of $g$ at $x$ is given by $$Dg(x) \xi= {(cx+d)^*}^{-1}\xi (cx+d)^{-1}\ .$$ The conformal factor of $g$ at $x$ is given by $\kappa(g,x) = \vert cx+d\vert^{-2}$ and the rotation factor is given by $\sigma((cx+d)' \vert cx+d\vert^{-1})$.
Proposition \[globalcov\] is proved in [@a] (see also [@gm]). The formula for the differential in Proposition \[localcov\] is a consequence. For the last part of the proposition, observe that $a=(cx+d)$ is in $\Gamma_n$ and $${a^*}^{-1} \xi a^{-1} = \vert a\vert^{-2} \Big(\frac{a}{\vert a\vert}\Big)^{*-1}\,\xi\, \Big(\frac{a}{\vert a\vert}\Big)^{-1}= \vert a\vert^{-2}\,\frac{a'}{\vert a\vert}\,\xi\, \Big(\frac{a'}{\vert a\vert}\Big)^*\ .$$ Another formula will be useful later.
Let $g=\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}$ be in $SL_2(\Gamma_n)$. Let $x\in E^n$, assume that $g$ is defined at $x$ and let $y=(ax+b)(cx+d)^{-1}$. Then $$\label{invcov}
(-c^*y+a^*) = (cx+d)^{-1}$$
The identity follows from $$(-c^*y+a^*)(cx+d)= -c^*(ax+b) +a^*(cx+d) = -c^*b+a^*d\ ,$$ and the fact that $a^*d -c^*b=1$, a consequence of the conditions satisfied by $a,b,c,d$ (see Definition\[Cmatrix\]).
The map $\widetilde \theta$ defined on $\widetilde G$ by $$\widetilde \theta \ \begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} d'&-c'\\-b'&a'\end{pmatrix}$$ is an involution of $\widetilde G$, which covers the standard involution $\theta$ on $G$. The fixed points set of $\widetilde \theta$ is the subgroup $\widetilde K$ given by $$\widetilde K = \Bigg\{ \begin{pmatrix} a&b\\-b'&a'\end{pmatrix}, a,b,\in \Gamma_n\cup \{0\}, \vert a\vert^2+\vert b\vert^2 = 1, ab^*\in E^n\Bigg\}\ .$$ The subgroup $\widetilde K$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $\widetilde G$, isomorphic to $Spin(n+1)$ and is a twofold covering of $K$.
The sphere $S^n$ can be interpreted as $\widetilde G/\widetilde P$ (flag manifold) and as $\widetilde K/\widetilde M$ (compact symmetric space).
To determine the Lie algebra of $Spin_n$ in this model, we will describe one-parameter groups, and find the associated vector field.
First consider, for $2\leq j\leq r$ $$m_t = \cos \frac{t}{2} +\sin \frac{t}{2} e_j, \quad t\in \mathbb R\ .$$ Then $$\sigma_{m_t}= \begin{pmatrix}\cos t & & -\sin t& &\\&1&&\\ \sin t& &\cos t&&\\ & & &1&\\\end{pmatrix}$$
For $2\leq j<k$, let $$m_t = \cos \frac{t}{2} e_j + \sin \frac{t}{2} e_k\ .$$
Then $$\sigma_{m_t} = \begin{pmatrix} 1&&&&&&&&\\&&\cos t&&&-\sin t&&\\&&&&1&&&&\\&&\sin t&&&\cos t&&\\&&&&&&&&1\end{pmatrix}$$ So, a basis of the Lie algebra of the spin group is $$\frac{1}{2} e_j,\quad 2\leq j \leq n,\quad \frac{1}{2} e_je_k,\quad 2\leq j<k\leq n \ .$$
The spinor representation
=========================
We recall some well-known results on the spinor representations. We will use the standard realization of $Spin$ in $ Cl_n$, (not to be confused with the realization of the same group in $Cl_{n-1}$ we used in the previous section), namely
$$Spin_n=\{ a=v_1\dots v_{2k},\quad v_j\in \mathbb R\oplus \mathbb R^n, \vert v_j\vert =1, k\in \mathbb N\}\ .$$
A finite dimensional complex Hilbert space $\mathcal H$ is said to be a *Clifford module* if there exists $n$ skew-Hermitian operators $E_1,\dots, E_n$ on $\mathcal H$, such that $$\label{Ej}
E_iE_j + E_jE_i=-2\delta_{ij} \operatorname{Id}, \qquad 1\leq i,j\leq n\ .$$ By the universal property of the Clifford algebra, there exists a (uniquely defined) representation $(\tau, \mathcal H)$ of the *complex* Clifford algebra $\mathbb Cl_n$, which satisfies $\tau(e_j)=E_j$, and conversely, any representation of the Clifford algebra is obtained in this manner. Note that, for any $a\in \mathbb Cl_n$, $\tau(\overline a)$ is the adjoint of $\tau(a)$ for the Hilbert product on $\Sigma $.
Viewing $Spin_n$ as a subset of $\mathbb Cl_n$, we obtain by restriction of $\tau$ a representation of $Spin_n$ on $\mathcal H$, still denoted by $\tau$, which is unitary by the last remark.
The results concerning the *irreducible* representations of $\mathbb Cl_n$ depend on the parity of $n$.
Assume first that $n$ is *even*. Then the *complex Clifford algebra* $\mathbb Cl_n$ has a unique irreducible representation (up to isomorphism) for $n$ even. Let $\Sigma_n$ the complex (finite-dimensional) Hilbert space on which the representation acts, and denote by $\sigma : \mathbb Cl_n \longrightarrow \operatorname{End}(\Sigma_n)$ the representation. When restricted to $Spin_n$ (or equivalently to the even part $\mathbb Cl_n^{ev}$), the representation $(\sigma, \Sigma_n)$ splits into two inequivalent representations.
In case $n$ is *odd*, then there are two inequivalent irreducible representations, denoted by $(\sigma^+, \Sigma^+_n)$ and $(\sigma^-, \Sigma_n^-)$. To distinguish them, let $$\omega^\mathbb C = i^{[\frac{n+1}{2}]}e_1e_2\dots e_n$$ be the *volume element*. Observe that the oddness of $n$ implies that $\omega^\mathbb C$ is in the center of $\mathbb Cl_n$ . By Schur’s lemma, $\tau(\omega)=\pm\operatorname{Id}$ for $\tau$ an irreducible representation. Hence $\sigma^\pm(\omega^\mathbb C)=\pm \operatorname{Id}$ on $\Sigma_n^\pm$, which distinguishes the two representations, and shows that they are not equivalent. When restricted to $\mathbb Cl_n^{ev}$ (or to $Spin_n$), both restrictions of $\sigma^\pm$ stay irreducible and are equivalent representations. Let $\Sigma_n=\Sigma_n^+\oplus \Sigma_n^-$, and let $\sigma = \sigma^+\oplus \sigma^-$.
In any case of parity, we call $(\sigma, \Sigma_n)$ *the spinor representation* of $\mathbb Cl_n$ (or of $Spin_n$). On $\Sigma$, there is a Hermitian scalar product for which $\sigma(x)$ is unitary for any $x\in \mathbb R^n$ with unit length. For this inner product, $\Sigma$ is a Clifford module. For $1\leq j\leq n$, let $E_j=\sigma(e_j)$. Then the $E_j$’s are skew Hermitian and satisfy the defining relations .
Finally, we have to connect the standard realization of $Spin_n$ with the realization of $\widetilde M$ in the Vahlen-Maass-Ahlfors approach. The linear map $\gamma : E^{n-1}\longmapsto \mathbb Cl^{ev}_n$ given by $$\gamma(e_j) = e_1e_j, \quad 2\leq j\leq n$$ satisfies $\gamma(e_i)\gamma(e_j) +\gamma(e_j)\gamma(e_i)= -2\delta_{ij} $ and hence can be extended to yield an isomorphism (still denoted by $\gamma$) of $Cl(E^{n-1})$ onto $Cl_n^{ev}$. The map $\gamma$ induces an isomorphism of $\widetilde M$ onto $Spin_n$. For $a\in Cl(E^{n-1})$, let $\tau(a) = \sigma(\gamma(a))$. Then $(\tau, \Sigma)$ is a representation of $Cl(E^{n-1})$ and, by restriction to $\widetilde M$, a representation of $\widetilde M$, called the *spinor representation*. For $x\in E^n$, $$\tau(x_1+x_2e_2+\dots+x_ne_n) = x_1\operatorname{Id}+ x_2 E_1E_2+\dots + x_n E_1E_n\ .$$
Recall that the element $\widetilde w = \begin{pmatrix} 0&-1\\1&0\end{pmatrix}$ is a representative of the nontrivial Weyl group element.
Let $\tau$ be the spinor representation of $\widetilde M$, and let $w\tau$ be the representation of $\widetilde M$ given by $w\tau(m) = \tau(\widetilde w^{-1}m\widetilde w)$. Then $$w\tau=\tau'\ ,$$ where $\tau'$ is the restriction to $\widetilde M$ of the representation of $\mathbb Cl_{n-1}$ given by $\tau'(a)=\tau(a')$, for $a\in \mathbb Cl_{n-1}$.
For $a\in \Gamma_n$,
$$\begin{pmatrix} 0&1\\-1&0\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} a&0\\0&{a^*}^{-1}\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} 0&-1\\1&0\end{pmatrix}= \begin{pmatrix}{a^*}^{-1}&0\\0&a\end{pmatrix}\ .$$ If moreover, $\vert a \vert =1$, then ${a^*}^{-1}= a'$, so that the automorphism of $\widetilde M$ induced by $\widetilde w$ coincides with the principal automorphism. The statement follows.
For any $a\in Cl(E^{n-1})$, $$\label{tautau'}
E_1\,\tau'(a) = \tau(a)\,E_1\ .$$
It suffices to verify the statement for any vector $x\in E^n$. Let $x= x_1+x_2e_2+\dots +x_ne_n$. Then $$\tau(x)E_1 = (x_1\operatorname{Id}+ x_2 E_1E_2+\dots x_nE_1E_n)\,E_1 = x_1 E_1 +x_2E_2+\dots +x_nE_n$$ whereas $$E_1 \tau'(x) = E_1\,(x_1\operatorname{Id}-x_2E_1E_2-\dots -x_nE_1E_n) = x_1 E_1+x_2E_2+\dots +x_nE_n\ .$$
The principal spinorial series of $\widetilde G$ and the associated intertwining operators
===========================================================================================
Let us first recall the general theory of Knapp-Stein intertwining operators. Let $G$ be a semisimple Lie group (connected and with finite center), $P$ a minimal parabolic subgroup. Let $\theta$ be a Cartan involution, with fixed points $K$, which is a maximal compact subgroup of $G$. Let $P=MAN$ be a Langlands decomposition of $P$ adapted to $\theta$. In particular, $M=P\cap K$. Let $M'$ be the normalizer of $A$ and $W\simeq M'/M$ be the corresponding Weyl group. Let $X=G/P\simeq K/M$, and let $o=eP$ be the origin in $X$. Let $\mathfrak a$ be the Lie algebra of $A$, and let $\exp$ be the exponential map from $\mathfrak a$ onto $A$. Let $\rho\in \mathfrak a'$ (the dual of $\mathfrak a$) be the half-sum of the positive roots relative to $N$.
The map $$K\times A\times N \ni (k,a,n)\longmapsto kan \in G$$ is a diffeomorphism onto $G$. If $g$ is in $G$, we write $g=\kappa(a) \exp H(g) \nu(g)$ for the *Iwasawa decomposition* .
Let $\overline N = \theta N$. The map $$\overline N\times M\times A\times N \ni (\overline n,m,a,n)\longmapsto \overline nman \in G$$ is a diffeomorphism onto a dense open set of $G$. For $g$ an element in the image, let $$g=\overline n(g) m(g)a(g)n(g)$$ be the corresponding *Bruhat decomposition*.
Let $\tau$ be a unitary representation of $M$ on a (finite dimensional) Hilbert space $V$ and let $\lambda$ be a complex linear form on $\mathfrak a = Lie(A)$. Let $\tau_\lambda$ be the representation of $P$ defined by $$\tau_\lambda(man) = a^\lambda \tau(m), \quad m\in M,\ a\in A,\ n\in N\ ,$$ where $a^\lambda = e^{\lambda(\log a)}$.
Form the *induced representation* $\pi_{\tau,\lambda}= \operatorname{Ind}_{MAN}^G (\sigma\otimes\exp \lambda\otimes 1)$. We will work with the *noncompact picture* of this induced representation. Introduce the space $L^2_\lambda(\overline N)$ as the space of functions $f$ on $\overline N$, valued in $V$, which satisfy $$\int_{\overline N} \vert f(x)\vert^2 e^{2\Re \lambda \big(H(\overline n)\big)} d\overline n <+\infty\ .$$ We state the noncompact realization of the induced representation as a proposition (see [@kn] ch VII).
For $g\in G$, $$\pi_{\tau,\lambda}(g) f (\overline n) = e^{-(\lambda+\rho)\log a(g^{-1}\overline n)}\tau\big(m(g^{-1} \overline n)\big)^{-1} f\big(\overline n(g^{-1}\overline n)\big)\ .$$ defines a representation $\pi_{\tau,\lambda}$ of $G$ by bounded operators on $L^2_\lambda(\overline N)$.
Let $w$ be an element of $W$, and choose a representative (still denoted by $w$) in $M'$. Let $w\tau$ be the representation of $\widetilde M$ defined by $w\tau(m) = \tau(\widetilde w^{-1}m\widetilde w)$. The Knapp-Stein theory of intertwining operators offers a construction of an intertwining operator between $\pi_{\tau,\lambda}$ and $\pi_{w\tau,w\lambda}$. We state it as a proposition (see [@kn] ch VII, (7.39).
Set, for $f$ a function on $\overline N$ and $x\in \overline N$ $$J_{\tau,\lambda,w} f(x)= \int_{\overline N} e^{(-\rho+\lambda) \log a(w^{-1}\overline n)} \tau(m(w^{-1}\overline n)) f(x\overline n) d\overline n$$
The operator $J_\lambda$ is an intertwining operator between $\pi_{\tau,\lambda}$ and $\pi_{w\tau,w\lambda}$, namely for any $g\in G$, $$J_{\tau,\lambda,w}\circ \pi_{\tau, \lambda}(g) = \pi_{w\tau, w\tau_\lambda}(g)\circ J_{\tau,\lambda,w}\ .$$
The proposition lets aside the convergence of the integral, which is true for $\lambda$ in some open set of $\mathfrak a'_\mathbb C$. The intertwining operator $J_{\tau,\lambda,w}$ can then be extended meromorphically to the whole space.
This general scheme applies to our situation. Let $(\tau, \Sigma)$ be the spinor representation of $\widetilde M$ and let $\lambda\in \mathbb C$. Define the representation $\tau_\lambda$ of $\widetilde P$ by $$\tau_\lambda(ma_tn) = t^{2\lambda} \tau(m)\ .$$
Let $\pi_\lambda= {\operatorname{Ind}\, } _{\widetilde P}^{\widetilde G}\, \tau_\lambda$. Following the procedure just described above, we obtain the following realization of these representations (*noncompact picture*).
For $\lambda\in \mathbb C$ and $g=\begin{pmatrix} a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}$, the formula $$\pi_\lambda(g) f(x) = \vert d^*-b^*x\vert^{-2\lambda-n}\, {\tau\Bigg(\frac{d^*-b^*x}{\vert d^*-b^*x\vert}\Bigg)}^{-1}\,f\big((-c^*+a^*x)(d^*-b^*x)^{-1}\big)$$ defines a representation of $\widetilde G$ by bounded operators on $L^2_\lambda (E^n,\Sigma)$.
For $x\in E$, $$g^{-1}\overline n_x= \begin{pmatrix} d^*-b^*x&-b^*\\-c^* +a^*x&a^*\end{pmatrix} .$$ The components in the Bruhat decomposition of this element are $$(ma)(g^{-1} \overline n_x) = d^*-b^*x, \quad \overline n (g^{-1} \overline n_x)= (-c^*+a^*x)(d^*-b^*x)^{-1}\ .$$ Hence the formula is a consequence of the general statement.
There is another closely related representation. In fact, the same construction can be done using the representation $\tau'$ of $\widetilde M$ we introduced earlier instead of $\tau$. The corresponding representation will be denoted by $\pi_\lambda'$. It is related to $\pi_\lambda$ be the following elementary result, which follows from Proposition \[tautau’\].
For any $g\in \widetilde G$ $$\label{E1intw}
E_1\pi'_\lambda (g) = \pi_\lambda(g)E_1\ .$$
We now apply Knapp-Stein theory to get an intertwining operator between $\pi_\lambda$ and $\pi_{-\lambda}'$.
Let $\overline n = \begin{pmatrix}1&0\\y&1\end{pmatrix}$. Then $$w^{-1}\overline n = \begin{pmatrix}0&1\\-1&0\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}1&0\\y&1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix} y&1\\-1&0\end{pmatrix}$$ so that $$t(w^{-1} \overline n) = \vert y\vert, \quad m(w^{-1}\overline n) = \frac{y}{\vert y\vert}\ .$$ Hence the Knapp-Stein operator is given by
$$J_\lambda f(x) = \int_{E^n} \vert y\vert^{2\lambda-n} \tau\Big(\frac{y}{\vert y\vert}\Big)f(x-y) dy$$
For $\lambda\in \mathbb C$, let $$J_\lambda f(x) = \int_{E^n} \vert y\vert^{2\lambda-n} \tau\Big(\frac{y}{\vert y\vert}\Big)f(x-y) dy\ .$$ For $\Re \lambda >0$ and $f\in L^2_\lambda(E^n, \Sigma)$, the integral converges and the operator $J_\lambda$ thus defined is bounded on $L^2_\lambda(E^n, \Sigma)$ and for any $g\in \widetilde G$ satisfies $$\label{intw}
J_\lambda\, \pi_\lambda(g) =\pi_{-\lambda}'(g)\, J_\lambda\ .$$
Although this is a consequence of the Knapp-Stein theory, we may offer a direct proof (compare with [@gm]).
Let $g=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\c&d\end{pmatrix}$. Let $\gamma=\begin{pmatrix} a^*&-c^*\\-b^*&d^*\end{pmatrix}$ which is easily seen to be an element of $\widetilde G$.
Let $f$ be in $\mathcal C^\infty_c(E^n, \Sigma)$. Then $$J_\lambda f (x) = \int_{E^n} \vert x-y\vert^{2\lambda-n} \tau\Big(\frac{x-y}{\vert x-y\vert}\Big)f(y)\,dy\ ,$$ so that $$\pi'_{-\lambda} (g)J_\lambda f(x) = \dots$$$$= \vert d^*-b^*x\vert^{2\lambda-n}\tau'\Big(\frac{d^*-b^*x}{\vert d^*-b^*x}\Big)^{-1}\int_{E^n}\vert \gamma(x)-y\vert^{2\lambda-n}\tau\Big(\frac{\gamma(x)-y}{\vert \gamma(x)-y\vert}\Big) f(y)dy\ .$$ Use the change of variable $y=\gamma(z)$, and hence $dy = \vert d^*-b^*z\vert^{-2n} dz$ to get $$\vert d^*-b^*x\vert^{-2\lambda-n} \tau'\Big(\frac{d^*-b^*x)}{\vert d^*-b^*x\vert}\Big)^{-1} \int_{E^n}\vert \gamma(x)-\gamma(z)\vert^{2\lambda-n} \tau\Big(\frac{\gamma(x)-\gamma(z)}{\vert \gamma(x)-\gamma(z)}\Big) \vert d^*-b^*z\vert^{-2n} f\big(\gamma(z)\big)dz\ .$$ Now, using
$$\gamma(x)-\gamma(z) = {(d^*-b^*x)^*}^{-1}(x-z)(d^*-b^*z)^{-1}$$ $$\vert \gamma(x)-\gamma(z)\vert = \vert d^*-b^*x\vert^{-1} \vert x-z\vert \vert d^*z-b^*z\vert^{-1}$$ $$\frac{\gamma(x)-\gamma(z)}{\vert\gamma(x)-\gamma(z) \vert} ={\Big( \frac{d^*-b^*x)}{\vert d^*-b^*x\vert}\Big)^*}^{-1} \frac{x-z}{\vert x-z\vert}\Big(\frac{d^*-b^*z}{\vert d^*-b^*z}\Big)^{-1}\ .$$ For $u\in \Gamma_n$ such that $\vert u \vert =1$, ${\tau(u^*}^{-1})= \tau(u') = \tau'(u)$ so that $$\pi'_{-\lambda}(g)J_\lambda f(x)$$$$= \int_{E^n} \vert x-z\vert^{2\lambda-n}\vert d^*-b^*z\vert^{-2\lambda-n} \tau\Big(\frac{d^*-b^*z}{\vert d^*-b^*z\vert}\Big)^{-1}f\big((a^*z-c^*)(d^*-b^*z)^{-1}\big) dz$$ $$= J_\lambda \pi_\lambda(g)f(x)\ .$$
For $s\in \mathbb C$, let, for $x\in E^n, x\neq 0$ $$d_s(x) = \vert x\vert^{s-1} \sum_{j=1}^n x_jE_j\ ,$$ and let $D_s$ be the associated convolution operator defined by $$D_sf(x) = \int_{E^n} d_s(y) f(x-y) dy\ .$$
Let $\Re s>-n$. For any $g\in \widetilde G$, $$\label{dsintw}
D_s\circ \pi'_{\frac{s+n}{2}}(g) = \pi'_{-(\frac{s+n}{2})}(g)\circ D_s$$
By using the trivial intertwining relations and , we can transform the intertwining relation to get
$$J_\lambda E_1 \circ \pi'_{\lambda}(g) = \pi'_{-\lambda}(g)\circ J_\lambda E_1\ ,$$ for any $g\in \widetilde G$. Next, for any $x\in E^n, x\neq 0$ $$\vert x\vert^{2\lambda-n-1}(x_1+x_2E_1E_2+\dots + x_nE_1E_n)E_1 = d_{2\lambda-n}(x)\ .$$ The statement follows, with $\lambda = \frac{s+n}{2}$.
The fundamental identity and its consequences
=============================================
For $\Re s>-n$, $d_s$ is an integrable function on $E^n$ (with values in $\operatorname{End}(\Sigma)$), hence a (tempered) distribution. We want to meromorphically continue this distribution to $\mathbb C$.
Let $D$ be the Dirac operator on $E^n$. By definition, it acts on smooth functions on $E^n$ with values in $\Sigma$ by $$Df(x) = \sum_{j=1}^n E_j\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_j} (x)\ .$$
Extend this formula to $\operatorname{End}(\Sigma)$ valued function : if $S(x)$ is such a function, let $\displaystyle DR(x) = \sum_{j=1}^n E_j \frac{\partial R}{\partial x_j}(x)$. Notice that the associated convolution operator satisfies $$D(R\star f) = DR\star f\ .$$ In both cases, $D^2 f= -\sum_{j=1}^n \frac{\partial^2f}{\partial x_j^2}$, which we write as $D^2 = \Delta$, where $\Delta$ is the (extension to $\Sigma$ or $End(\Sigma)$-valued functions of the) standard Laplacian on $E^n$.
\[Fundamental identity\] Let $s\in \mathbb C, \Re s > -n$. Then, for $x\in E^n, x\neq 0$ $$\label{PBS}
D \vert x\vert^{s+1} = (s+1) d_s\ ,$$ where both sides are $End(\Sigma)$-valued functions.
It amounts to the formula $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j} \vert x\vert^{s+1} =(s+1)\,x_j\,\vert x \vert^{s-1}\ .$$
As the meromorphic continuation of the distribution $\vert x\vert^s$ is well known (see [@gs]), equation allows the meromorphic continuation of the distribution $d_s$.
The distribution $\vert x\vert^s$ can be continued meromorphically to $\mathbb C$, with simple poles at $s=-n-2k$, for $k\in \mathbb N$. The residue at $s=-n-2k$ is given by $$Res\,(\vert x\vert^s, -n-2k) = c_k \Delta^k \delta\ ,$$ where $\displaystyle c_k= \frac{2\pi^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2})}\, \frac{1}{2^k \,k!\,n(n+2)\dots(n+2k-2)}\ $.
The distribution $d_s$ can be meromorphically continued to $\mathbb C$ with simple poles at $s=-n-2k-1, k\in \mathbb N$. The residue of $d_s$ at $-n-2k-1$ is given by $$Res\,(d_s, -n-1-2k) = c_k \, D^{2k+1}\delta\ .$$
Let $f$ be a function in $\mathcal C^\infty_c(E^n,\Sigma)$. Use , recall that the $E_j$’s are skew Hermitian and integrate by part to get
$$\int_{E^n} d_s(x) f(x) dx = \frac{1}{s+1} \int_{E^n} \vert x\vert^{s+1} Df(x)dx\ .$$ This identity is valid [*a priori*]{} for $\Re s>-n$. The right hand side can be extended to a meromorphic function, with poles at $s+1 = -n-2k, k\in \mathbb N$. This serves to *define* the left hand side. At $s=-n-2k-1$, the residue of the right hand side is $c_k\, \Delta^k(Df)(0)$. But $D^2 = \Delta$, so that $\Delta^k = D^{2k}$, hence the proposition follows.
For any positive integer $k$, and any $g\in \widetilde G$, $$\label{Dintw}
D^{2k+1} \circ \pi'_{-k-\frac{1}{2}}(g) = \pi_{k+\frac{1}{2}}'(g)\circ D^{2k+1}$$
Recall the intertwining relation . It is clearly valid for $s$ in $\mathbb C$, provided $s$ is not a pole. But at a pole, say $s=-n-2k-1$, we may pass to the limit on both sides of , thus obtaining .
The compact picture
====================
The results above may also be realized in the compact picture, i.e. on the sphere, where the induced representation, the Knapp-Stein operators and their residues may also be computed. The main result is an explicit expression of the residues as a polynomial in the Dirac operator of the sphere. Recall from [@kn] that our induced representation may also be realized in the compact picture, see Chapter VII, (7.3a), and the intertwining operator given as in [@kn] (7.37) as follows: Set, for $f$ a function on $K$ and $x\in K$ $$J_{\tau,\lambda,w} f(x)= \int_K e^{(-\rho+\lambda) \log a(w^{-1}k)} \tau(m(w^{-1}k)) f(xk) dk
\ .$$
Now we can repeat the arguments from Euclidian space and realize the Knapp-Stein operator as a kernel operator, acting on sections of the spin bundle over $S^n$, and we may find the residues of this meromorphic family. For this is it convenient to calculate the spectrum of the Knapp-Stein operator, i.e. its eigenvalues on the $K$-types in the induced representation. Recall the method of spectrum-generating [@boo], which we can apply in an elementary way to obtain the $K$-spectrum as in the following result.
When $n$ is odd, the spin representation of $\widetilde M$ has highest weight $(\frac{1}{2}, \dots , \frac{1}{2})$ (we use the standard choices of a Cartan subalgebra of $\mathfrak m$ and a basis inside). The induced representation space (sections of the spin bundle over $S^n$) decomposes under the action of $\widetilde K$ without multiplicity, and the corresponding highest weights of the $\widetilde K$-types are $(j,\pm) =(j, \frac{1}{2}, \dots ,\frac{1}{2}, \pm \frac{1}{2})$ with $j \in \mathbb N + \frac{1}{2}$.
When $n$ is even, the spin representation of $\widetilde M$ is a sum of two representations, say $\sigma^+$ and $\sigma^-$, with respective highest weights $(\frac{1}{2},\dots, \frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2})$ and $(\frac{1}{2},\dots, \frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2})$. Each induced representation ($(\pi^+_\lambda, \mathcal S^+_\lambda)$ from $\sigma_+$, $(\pi^-_\lambda, \mathcal S^-_\lambda)$ from $\sigma_-$) decomposes under the action of $\widetilde K$ without multiplicity, and the corresponding heighest weights of the $\widetilde K$-types are $(j, \frac{1}{2},\dots,\frac{1}{2})$ with $j\in \mathbb N +\frac{1}{2}$.
Define the spectral functions as in [@boo] by $$Z_{j,\pm}(\lambda) = \pm \frac{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2} + j -\lambda)}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2} + j +\lambda)}$$ When $n$ is odd, the operator acting on the $(j, \pm)$ $\widetilde K$-type by the scalar $Z_{j,\pm}(\lambda)$ is an intertwining operator between $\pi_{\lambda}$ and $\pi_{-\lambda}$.
When $n$ is even, the operator acting from $\mathcal S^\pm_\lambda$ into $\mathcal S^\mp_\lambda$ on the $\widetilde K$-type $(j, \frac{1}{2},\dots, \frac{1}{2})$ by the scalar $Z_{j,\pm}(\lambda)$ is an intertwining operator between $\pi_\lambda= \pi_\lambda^+ \oplus \pi_\lambda^-$ and $\pi_{-\lambda} = \pi_{-\lambda}^+ \oplus \pi_{-\lambda}^-$.
See [@boo], noticing that the parameter $r$ there coincides with $-\lambda$ in our present context. Because of the generic uniqueness of the intertwining operator between $\pi_{\lambda}$ and $\pi_{-\lambda}$, the intertwining operator thus constructed is a multiple (by some meromorphic function of $\lambda$) of the one we use in the first part. The poles of the former were at $\lambda = -\frac{1}{2} -k, k\in \mathbb Z$. They now correspond to non singular values of the spectral functions, so that the residues are replaced by true values. The normalization is in fact such that the value of the intertwining operator at $\lambda = -\frac{1}{2}$ is exactly the Dirac operator on $S^n$. More precisely, for $\lambda=-\frac{1}{2}$, we obtain the spectrum of the Dirac operator on $S^n$.
The spectrum of the Dirac operator $\mathbb D$ is given by $$Z_{k+\frac{1}{2},\, \pm} (-\frac{1}{2})= \pm (\frac{n}{2}+k)\ .$$
[**Remark**]{}. An alternative determination of the spectrum of the Dirac operator on $S^n$ was given in [@bo], using a more complicated argument which however is only using conformal geometry). See also [@ch].
For the other poles $\lambda = -\frac{1}{2}-m, m\in \mathbb N$, the computation of the values of the spectral functions and the previous result yield the following result.
Let $m\in \mathbb N$. The differential operator
$$\mathbb D_m = \mathbb D(\mathbb D^2-1)(\mathbb D^2-4)\dots (\mathbb D^2-m^2)$$ is covariant with respect to $(\pi_{-\frac{1}{2}-m},\pi_{\frac{1}{2}+m})$.
For $j= \frac{1}{2}+ k$, $$Z_{k+\frac{1}{2},\, \pm}(-\frac{1}{2} -m)=\pm \,(\frac{n}{2} +k+m)(\frac{n}{2} +m-1)\dots(\frac{n}{2}+k-m)$$ which coincides with the spectral function of the operator $$\mathbb D_m =(\mathbb D+m)(\mathbb D+m-1)\dots (\mathbb D-m)\ .$$ Hence the statement.
For other approaches to the covariance properties of powers of the Dirac operator on $S^n$, see [@es], [@lr].
[99]{}
Ahlfors L., [*Möbius transformations in $\mathbb R^n$ expressed through $2\times 2$ matrices of Clifford numbers*]{}, Complex variables [**5**]{} (1986) 215–224
Bojarski B., [*Conformally covariant differential operators*]{}, in Proc. of the XX Iranian Math. Congress, Teheran (1989)
Bourguignon J-P. et al., [*Dirac operators : yesterday and today*]{}, Proc. Summer School and workshop, Lebanon, September 2001, international Press (2005)
Branson, Thomas and Ørsted, Bent, [*Spontaneous generation of eigenvalues*]{}. J. Geom. Phys. [**56**]{} (2006), no. 11, 2261–2278
Branson, Thomas; Olafsson, Gestur and Ørsted, Bent, [*Spectrum generating operators and intertwining operators for representations induced from a maximal parabolic subgroup*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. [**135**]{} (1996), no. 1, 163–205.
Camporesi R. and Higuchi A., [*On the eigenfunctions of the Dirac operator on spheres and real hyperbolic spaces*]{}, J. Geom. Phy. [**20**]{} (1996) 1–18
Eastwood G. and Ryan J., [*Aspects of Dirac operators in analysis*]{}, Milan J. math. [**75**]{} (2007) 91–116
Eelbode D. and Sou${\check {\rm c}}$ek V., [*Conformally invariant powers of the Dirac operator in Clifford analysis*]{}, [*Math. Methods Appl. Sci.*]{} [**33**]{} (2010), no. 13, 1558–1570.
Gelfand I. and Shilov G., [*Generalized functions*]{}, vol. 1, Academic Press (1964)
Gilbert J.E. and Murray M., [*Clifford algebras and Dirac operators in harmonic analysis*]{}, Cambridge studies in advanced mathematics, Cambridge University Press (1991)
Knapp A., [*Representation theory of semisimple Lie groups. An overview based on examples*]{}, Princeton Math. Series, [**36**]{}, Princeton University Press (1986)
Liu, Hong and Ryan, John, [*Clifford analysis techniques for spherical PDE.*]{}, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. [**8**]{} (2002), no. 6, 535–563.
Maass H., [*Automorphe Funktionen von mehreren Veränderlichen und Dirichletsche Reihen*]{}, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg [**16**]{} (1949) 53–104
Peetre J. and Qian T., [*Möbius covariance of iterated Dirac operators*]{}, J. Austral. Math. Soc. [**56**]{} (1994) 404–414
Ryan J., [*Intertwining operators for iterated Dirac operators over Minkowski type spaces*]{}, J. of math. Analysis and Applications [**177**]{} (1993) 1–23
Ryan J., [*Dirac operators, conformal transformations and aspects of classical harmonic analysis*]{}, J. Lie Theory, [**8**]{} (1998) 67–82
Vahlen K., [*Über Bewegungen und komplexe Zahlen*]{}, Math. Annalen [**55**]{} (1902) 585–593
`[email protected], [email protected] `
[^1]: 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification : 22E45, 43A80
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We begin the search for extremely-low mass ($M\leq0.3M_{\odot}$, ELM) white dwarfs (WDs) in the southern sky based on photometry from the VST ATLAS and SkyMapper surveys. We use a similar color-selection method as the Hypervelocity star survey. We switched to an astrometric selection once Gaia Data Release 2 became available. We use the previously known sample of ELM white dwarfs to demonstrate that these objects occupy a unique parameter space in parallax and magnitude. We use the SOAR 4.1m telescope to test the Gaia-based selection, and identify more than two dozen low-mass white dwarfs, including 6 new ELM white dwarf binaries with periods as short as 2 h. The better efficiency of the Gaia-based selection enables us to extend the ELM Survey footprint to the southern sky. We confirm one of our candidates, J0500$-$0930, to become the brightest ($G=12.6$ mag) and closest ($d=72$ pc) ELM white dwarf binary currently known. Remarkably, the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) full-frame imaging data on this system reveals low-level ($<0.1$%) but significant variability at the orbital period of this system ($P=9.5$ h), likely from the relativistic beaming effect. TESS data on another system, J0642$-$5605, reveals ellipsoidal variations due to a tidally distorted ELM WD. These demonstrate the power of TESS full-frame images in confirming the orbital periods of relatively bright compact object binaries.'
author:
- Alekzander Kosakowski
- Mukremin Kilic
- 'Warren R. Brown'
- Alexandros Gianninas
title: 'The ELM Survey South. I. An Effective Search for Extremely Low Mass White Dwarfs'
---
Introduction
============
The single-star evolution of a solar-metallicity main sequence star with mass below about 8 M$_\odot$ typically results in the formation of a CO-core white dwarf with mass of around 0.6-0.8 M$_\odot$ or an ONe-core white dwarf with mass of around 1.0 M$_\odot$ [@Woosley2015; @Lauffer2018]. The formation of low mass He-core white dwarfs ($M<0.5$ M$_\odot$) requires that the progenitor loses a significant amount of mass while on the red giant branch. This mass loss can occur in metal-rich single-stars [@kilic2007] or in close binary systems, in which the companion strips the low-mass white dwarf progenitor of its outer envelope before it begins Helium burning.
Extremely Low Mass white dwarfs (ELM WDs) are a relatively rare population of $M\leq0.3 {\rm M}_\odot$ He-core white dwarfs that form after severe mass loss. Because the main sequence lifetime of an ELM WD progenitor through single-star evolution is longer than a Hubble time, these ELM WD systems must form through binary interaction, typically following one of two dominant evolutionary channels: Roche lobe overflow or common-envelope evolution [@li2019]. While almost all of the known ELM WD systems are found in compact binaries, @justham2009 predict a population of single ELM WDs that are the surviving cores of giant stars whose envelope was stripped by a companion during a supernova explosion.
In support of binary evolution models, virtually all known ELM WDs are found in binary systems, with about half of the known systems expected to merge within a Hubble time due to the emission of gravitational waves [@kilic10; @brown10; @Brown2020]. Compact double-degenerate merging systems are the dominant sources of the gravitational wave foreground at mHz frequencies [@nelemans01; @nissanke12; @korol17; @lamberts19]. Identification of additional merging systems allows for better characterization of the gravitational wave foreground for the upcoming Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) mission. At the time of writing, three of the strongest seven LISA calibration sources are compact double-degenerate binaries, all of which contain an ELM WD [@Brown2011; @Kilic2014; @Burdge2019].
The fate of ELM WD systems is strongly dependent on the mass ratio of the stars in the system. The system’s mass ratio determines whether eventual mass transfer is stable or unstable [@marsh04; @kremer17], which then determines the system’s merger timescale and merger outcomes. Potential outcomes for these merging systems include single massive white dwarfs, supernovae, Helium-rich stars such as R CorBor stars, and AM CVn systems. While it is generally thought that stable mass transfer results in an AM CVn, [@Shen2015] have shown that, through dynamical friction caused by nova outbursts, all interacting double-degenerate white dwarf systems may merge [see also @brown16]. To fully understand the formation channels of these various merger outcomes, a more complete sample of merging progenitor systems is needed. Because ELM WD systems are signposts for compact binary systems, increasing the ELM WD sample directly improves the sample of merging systems.
Previous surveys targeting ELM WDs have taken advantage of the abundance of photometric measurements of the northern sky to select candidate systems for follow-up observations. At the conclusion of the ELM Survey, [@Brown2020] had identified 98 double-degenerate white dwarf binary systems through careful photometric cuts in SDSS photometry, which account for over half of the known double-degenerate systems in the Galaxy. With almost all of the currently known ELM systems located in the northern sky, we begin the search for ELM systems in the southern sky with two different target selection methods based on ATLAS, SkyMapper, and Gaia photometry.
The layout of this paper is as follows. In section 2, we begin by discussing our ATLAS+SkyMapper color target selection method and observations. We discuss results and briefly comment on the detection efficiency. In section 3, we discuss our Gaia parallax target selection method and discuss the results and efficiency. Finally, we summarize our conclusions in section 4.
A Survey Based on ATLAS and SkyMapper Colors
============================================
The ELM Survey has been successful at identifying a large number of double white dwarfs based on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) photometry. The $u-g$ and $g-r$ colors are excellent indicators of surface gravity and temperature, respectively. With the availability of the $u-$band data from the VST ATLAS and SkyMapper surveys in the southern sky, we based our target selection on color cuts to the VST ATLAS Data Release 2 and Data Release 3 [@Shanks2015] and SkyMapper Data Release 1 [@wolf18].
ATLAS Color Selection
---------------------
VST ATLAS is a southern sky survey designed to image 4,500 deg$^2$ of the southern sky at high galactic latitudes in the SDSS $ugriz$ filter set with similar limiting magnitude to SDSS ($r\sim22$). With the release of DR3 in March 2017, each filter has a total southern sky coverage of $\approx3,000-3,700$ deg$^2$.
We constructed our color cuts based on the results of the previous ELM WD [@Brown2016] and Hypervelocity Star [@Brown2014] surveys. We defined our color cuts to include the region of color-space including late-B type hypervelocity star candidates, which coincidentally overlaps with the low-mass white dwarf evolutionary tracks. Figure \[atlas\_selection\_plot\] shows our color selection region.
To construct our VST ATLAS DR2+DR3 sample, we first de-reddened and converted the native ATLAS colors into SDSS ($u_0$, $g_0$, $r_0$, and $i_0$) using reddening values of [@Schlegel1998] and color conversion equations of [@Shanks2015]. We exclude targets located along the line of sight to the Galactic bulge and restricted target $g_0$ magnitude to $15\leq g_0 <20$. We remove quasars from the list by imposing a cut on $r-i$, and limit our sample to objects with $11,000 {\rm\ K} \lesssim T_{\rm eff} \lesssim 22,000 {\rm\ K}$ by imposing a $g-r$ color cut. While our temperature limits are chosen to avoid contamination from sdA and sdB stars, which are generally found outside of this temperature range, such a temperature cut introduces a selection bias against ELM WD systems that form through stable Roche lobe overflow [@li2019]. Our exact photometric cuts are defined by
SkyMapper Color Selection
-------------------------
SkyMapper is a southern sky survey designed to image the entire southern sky in the $uvgriz$ filter set. SkyMapper DR1, released June 2017, provides data on over 20,000 deg$^2$ of the southern sky, with approximately 17,200 deg$^2$ covered by all six filters. SkyMapper DR1 is a shallow survey with limiting magnitude around 17.75 for each filter.
From the SkyMapper DR1 dataset, we selected all objects with $E(B-V)<0.1$ and stellarity index $\textmyfont{class\_star}>0.67$, where $\textmyfont{class\_star}=1.0$ represents a star. We then removed targets along the line of sight of the Galactic Bulge and the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. Finally, we de-reddened and applied the following color cuts in the native SkyMapper $uvgriz$ system [@Bessell2011] to create a clean sample. Figure \[skymapper\_selection\_plot\] shows our target selection region.
Observations
------------
Because the previously known ELM WDs in the main survey [@Brown2020] display an average 240 km s$^{-1}$ velocity semi-amplitude, our observation setup is optimized to obtain radial velocity uncertainty of 10 km s$^{-1}$, which allows for reliable orbital solutions. We initially observed candidates based on color information. We perform atmospheric fits to each target at the end of each night. Targets with atmosphere solutions consistent with ELM WDs are followed up with at least eight radial velocity measurements, including back-to-back exposures and exposures separated by 1 day to search for short and long-period variability. After our initial measurements, we then attempt to sample the fitted RV curve to reduce period aliasing.
Our target selection and observing strategy lead to a bias against the ELM WDs that form through the stable Roche Lobe overflow channel [see figure 10 in @li2019]. Some of these are predicted to be found in longer period systems with lower velocity semi-amplitudes. Our observing strategy works well for the ELM WDs that we discover, but we are less likely to find the longer period systems by design.
A summary of our observing setup for each our ATLAS+SkyMapper target lists is available in Table 1.
We observed 532 unique systems over 14 nights across three observing campaigns on March 2017 (NOAO Program ID: 2017A-0076), August 2017 (NOAO Program ID: 2017B-0173), and March 2018 (NOAO Program ID: 2018A-0233) using the SOAR 4.1-meter telescope located on Cerro Pachón, Chile. We used the Goodman high throughput spectrograph [@clemens04] with the blue camera and $0.95\arcsec$ or $1.01\arcsec$ slits with 930 lines mm$^{-1}$ grating resulting in spectral resolution of $\approx$2.5Å covering the wavelength range 3550 - 5250Å, which includes all of the Balmer lines except H$\alpha$. To ensure accurate wavelength calibration, we paired each target exposure with an FeAr or FeAr+CuAr calibration lamp exposure. We obtained multiple exposures of spectrophotometric standard stars each night to facilitate flux calibration. The median seeing for each night ranged from $0.8-1.0\arcsec$.
We observed 134 additional systems using the Walter Baade 6.5-meter telescope with the MagE spectrograph, located at the Las Campanas Observatory on Cerro Manqui, Chile. We used the 0.7$\arcsec$ slit with the 175 lines mm$^{-1}$ grating resulting in spectral resolution of $\approx$1.0Å covering 3,600 - 7,000Å.
We observed 12 additional systems using the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory (FLWO) 1.5-meter Tillinghast telescope with the FAST spectrograph, located on Mt. Hopkins, Arizona. We used the 1.5$\arcsec$ or 2.0$\arcsec$ slits with the 600 lines mm$^{-1}$ grating resulting in spectral resolution of $\approx$1.7Å or $\approx$2.3Å between 3,600Å - 5,400Å.
We observed 31 additional systems using the MMT 6.5-meter telescope with the Blue Channel Spectrograph, located on Mt. Hopkins, Arizona. We used the 1.0$\arcsec$ or 1.25$\arcsec$ slits with the 832 lines mm$^{-1}$ grating resulting in spectral resolution of 1.0Å or 1.2Å covering the wavelength range 3,500 - 4,500Å.
Radial Velocity and Orbital Fits
--------------------------------
We used the IRAF cross-correlation package [RVSAO, @Kurtz1998] to calculate radial velocities. For each object, we first cross-correlated all spectra with a low-mass white dwarf template and then summed them to produce a zero-velocity spectrum unique to that object. We then measured radial velocities for each exposure against the object-specific zero-velocity template and corrected for the Solar System barycentric motion. We obtained median radial velocity uncertainty of 10 km s$^{-1}$. To confirm the binary nature of our candidates, we performed orbital fitting to radial velocity measurements using a Monte Carlo approach based on [@Kenyon1986].
Stellar Atmosphere Fits
-----------------------
We obtained stellar atmosphere parameters by fitting all of the visible Balmer lines H$\gamma$ to H12 in the summed spectra to a grid of pure-Hydrogen atmosphere models that cover the range of 4,000 K $\leq T_{\text{eff}}$ $\leq$ 35,000 K and $4.5\leq\log{g}\leq9.5$ and include Stark broadening profiles of [@Tremblay2009]. Extrapolation was performed for targets with temperatures or $\log{g}$ outside of this range. Specifics for our fitting technique can be found in detail in [@Gianninas2011; @Gianninas2014]. For the systems in which the Ca II K line is visible, we mask out the data in the wavelength region surrounding and including the Ca II 3933.66Å line from our fits.
ELM WDs in ATLAS+SkyMapper
--------------------------
We fit pure-Hydrogen atmosphere models to all 709 unique targets that show Balmer lines and note that only 33 of these systems are consistent with ELM WD temperature and surface gravity. Of these systems, J0027$-$1516 and J1234$-$0228 are previously published ELM WDs [@Brown2020; @Kilic2011]. We obtained follow-up spectra and constrained the orbit of three of these systems and confirm that two (J123619.70$-$044437.90 and J151447.26$-$143626.77) are ELM WDs, while the third system (J142555.01$-$050808.60) is likely a metal-poor sdA star. We briefly discuss J1425$-$0508 in the following section. Figures \[a1236b1514\_rv\] and \[a1236b1514\_fits\] show our orbital and model atmosphere fits for J1236$-$0444 and J1514$-$1436.
J1236$-$0444 is an ELM WD with best-fit atmosphere solution of $\log{g}=6.28\pm0.02$ and $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 11,100 $\pm$ 110 K. [@Istrate2016] He-core ELM WD evolutionary tracks indicate that J1236$-$0444 is a 0.156$\pm$0.01 M$_\odot$ white dwarf. Orbital fits to the 17 radial velocity measurements give a best-fit period of 0.68758 $\pm$ 0.00327 d with velocity semi-amplitude of 138.0 $\pm$ 6.6 km s$^{-1}$ (Figure \[a1236b1514\_rv\], left). Using the binary mass function
with primary ELM WD mass $M_1$, orbital period $P$, velocity semi-amplitude $K$, and inclination $i=90^\circ$, we calculate the minimum companion mass $M_{2,{\rm min}}=0.37\pm0.04$ M$_\odot$.
J1514$-$1436 is an ELM WD with best-fit atmosphere solution of $\log{g}=5.91\pm0.05$ and $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 9,170 $\pm$ 30 K. [@Istrate2016] He-core ELM WD evolutionary tracks indicate that J1514$-$1436 is a 0.167$\pm$0.01 M$_\odot$ white dwarf. Orbital fits to the 16 radial velocity measurements give a best-fit period of 0.58914 $\pm$ 0.00244 d with velocity semi-amplitude 187.7 $\pm$ 6.6 km s$^{-1}$ (Figure \[a1236b1514\_rv\], right). The minimum companion mass for this system is 0.64 $\pm$0.06 M$_\odot$.
The orbit of compact double degenerate systems slowly decays due to the loss of angular moment caused by the emission of gravitational waves [@Landau1958]. The merger timescale of these systems can be calculated if the mass of each object and their orbital period is known by using the equation
where $M_1$ and $M_2$ are the ELM WD and companion star masses in solar masses, and $P$ is the period in hours. We use Equation 2 together with the minimum companion mass, $M_{2,{\rm min}}$, to estimate the maximum merger time for these systems. Neither J1236$-$0444 nor J1514$-$1436 will merge within a Hubble time.
sdAs in ATLAS+SkyMapper
-----------------------
In addition to cool ELM WDs, there exists a large population of subdwarf A-type (sdA) stars with $7,000$ K $<T_{{\rm eff}}<20,000$ K (with most below 10,000 K) and $4.5<\log{g}<6.0$ [@kepler16; @Pelisoli2018a] that are often confused with ELM WDs in low-resolution spectroscopy. @Brown2017 and @Pelisoli2018a [@Pelisoli2018b] have shown that the surface gravities derived from pure-hydrogen atmosphere model fits suffer from up to 1 dex error for sdA stars. This is likely due to metal line blanketing that is missing in the pure-hydrogen atmosphere models and the lower signal-to-noise ratio of observed spectra below 3,700 Å.
We note that while 33 of our objects appear to have atmospheres consistent with ELM WDs, 29 are cool ($T_{\rm eff}<10,000$ K) and share their parameter space with sdA stars. @Yu2019 have shown through binary population synthesis that only 1.5% of sdA stars in a 10 Gyr old population are ELM WDs, with the remaining 98.5% being metal-poor main sequence stars [see also @Pelisoli2018a; @Pelisoli2019]. Therefore, the majority of our 29 candidates with $\log{g}=5-7$ and $T_{\rm eff}=8,000-10,000$ K are likely metal-poor main-sequence stars.
We obtained 25 radial velocity measurements for one of these candidates, J1425$-$0508. Figure \[a1425\_total\] displays our best-fit model atmosphere and orbital fits. J1425$-$0508 is best-explained by a 8,570 K and $\log{g}=5.59$ model based on the assumption of a pure Hydrogen atmosphere. Our radial velocity measurements result in the best-fit period of 0.798 $\pm$ 0.005 d with velocity semi-amplitude $K=54.1\pm3.4$ km s$^{-1}$. As demonstrated by @Brown2017 and @Pelisoli2018a, the surface gravity for such a cool object is likely over-estimated, and the relatively low semi-amplitude of the velocity variations and the Gaia parallax of 0.25 $\pm$ 0.08 mas favors a low-metallicity main-sequence sdA star, rather than a cool ELM WD.
Given the problems with distinguishing ELM WDs from sdAs, we use the eclipsing system NLTT 11748 [@steinfadt2010] as a prototype to estimate the radii of each of our candidates. NLTT 11748 is a well-studied eclipsing ELM WD system with $T_{\rm eff}\approx8,700$ K and $R\approx0.043$ ${\rm R}_\odot$ [@Kaplan2014]. We use a similar approach to what is done by @Brown2020 and compare the Gaia parallax for each candidate with its predicted parallax if it were similar in nature to NLTT 11748, obtained by inverting the distance calculated from the candidate’s apparent magnitude and the absolute magnitude of NLTT 11748. This comparison provides a radius estimate relative to a known ELM WD.
Figure \[nltt11748\] shows the comparison between predicted parallax and Gaia parallax for each of our 29 candidates with the 1:1 and 50:1 lines overplotted. We note that most candidates are consistent with the 50:1 line to within 2$\sigma$, suggesting that they are $\sim$50 times larger than NLTT 11748 with radii $R$$\sim$2 ${\rm R}_\odot$. J0155-4148 is a strong ELM WD candidate; it lies along the 4:1 line with a radius compatible with an ELM WD. We note that there are four additional candidates that are consistent with the 1:1 line, but their Gaia parallax values are uncertain with . We will present our follow-up observations of J0155$-$4148 in a future publication.
Survey Efficiency
-----------------
From our ATLAS+SkyMapper color-selection method, we observed 709 unique systems. Of these systems, we confirm only four to contain an ELM WD, two of which were previously known. In addition to these four confirmed ELM WDs, we report 123 DA white dwarfs with $\log{g}>7.0$ (Table 4) and 29 additional candidates with $5.0<\log{g}<7.0$ (Table 5). This low efficiency in our photometric selection may be due to potential color calibration issues in the ATLAS DR3 dataset. In addition, the low efficiency of the SkyMapper selection is likely due to the shallow depth of the SkyMapper DR1, which limits the survey volume for ELM WDs.
Figure \[atlas\_teff\_plot\] shows the distribution of temperatures and surface gravities for all targets observed as a part of our ATLAS + SkyMapper color selection with $\log{g}\geq5.0$. We mark the locations of the four observed ELM WD systems with red stars. We overplot the 0.2 M$_\odot$ (light blue) and 0.3 M$_\odot$ (purple) WD evolutionary tracks of [@Istrate2016].
In total, we confirm that only four of our systems (plus the candidate system J0155$-$4148) contain an ELM WD, two of which are new discoveries. Our ATLAS + SkyMapper target selection method has an ELM WD detection efficiency of $\sim$0.6% and a white dwarf detection efficiency of about 18%, making the majority of our targets unaligned with our targets of interest.
We note that all four of our confirmed ELM WDs originated from our ATLAS sample. Given the surface density of ELM WDs between $17<g<20$ in the SDSS footprint, we expect to find $\sim$10 ELM WDs in our observed ATLAS sample. However, the spatial distribution of our candidates varied systematically over the ATLAS DR3 footprint, suggesting that photometric calibration in the VST ATLAS DR3 varied across the survey. Similarly for the $15<g<17$ ELM WD sample in the SDSS footprint, we expect to find one ELM WD within our observed SkyMapper sample. While we have not yet confirmed the nature of J0155$-$4148, this system originated from our SkyMapper sample and is likely an ELM WD. Our SkyMapper results are consistent with what is expected given the lower limiting magnitude.
Gaia Parallax Based Selection
=============================
The availability of Gaia DR2 in April 2018 opened a new window into ELM WD target selection. Gaia photometry and parallax measurements provide a direct measurement of the luminosity of each object, enabling a clear distinction between low-luminosity WDs and brighter main-sequence stars. ELM WDs are a few times larger in radii compared to average 0.6 $M_{\odot}$ WDs at the same temperature (color), but they are still significantly smaller than A-type stars. Hence, Gaia parallaxes provide a powerful method to create relatively clean samples of ELM WDs [see also @Pelisoli2019b], and also for the first time enable an all-sky survey.
Since the ELM Survey has already observed the SDSS footprint, here we focus on the southern sky, but exclude the Galactic plane ($|b| < 20^{\circ}$) due to significant extinction and avoid the Small and Large Magellanic Clouds. We also apply cuts to astrometric noise and color excess based on recommendations from [@Lindegren2018]. Figure \[gaia\_selection\_plot\] shows the distances and Gaia magnitudes for sources with $-0.4 < G_{\rm BP} - G_{\rm RP} < 0.2$. This color range corresponds to $T_{\rm eff} = 8,000 - 25,000$ K, where Balmer lines are relatively strong. Green lines mark the region for $M_G = 6.0-9.7$ mag objects, and blue and red triangles mark the previously confirmed normal WDs and ELM WDs in this magnitude range, respectively. Magenta triangles mark other types of previously known objects, like subdwarf B stars and cataclysmic variables (CVs).
For a more intuitive look at our target selection region, we plot the same sample on a color-magnitude diagram in Figure \[gaia\_cmd\]. The WD sequence stretches from $M_G = 10$ mag on the left to about 12 mag on the right. Our Gaia-selected targets are all over-luminous compared to this sequence and are dominated by relatively hot WD candidates with bluer colors. Since we did not impose a cut on parallax errors, the top right portion of this diagram is dominated by non-WD stars that are scattered into this region due to large parallax errors.
To minimize contamination from main-sequence stars, we limit our target selection to the region defined by parallax-distance $(1/\varpi)<1.2$ kpc, and to remove potential contamination from poorly-calibrated colors on fainter targets, we limit the apparent Gaia G-band magnitude to $G<18.6\ {\rm mag}$. Because normal WDs dominate at larger absolute magnitudes, we impose an absolute G-band magnitude limit of $M_G<9.7$ to avoid large numbers of normal WDs. Our Gaia target selection resulted in 573 candidates, 180 of which were also identified by @Pelisoli2019b as ELM WD candidates.
Our Gaia target selection is defined by
We observed a total of 82 unique systems over four consecutive nights in March 2019 (NOAO Program ID: 2019A-0134). All observations were taken with the SOAR 4.1-meter telescope using the Goodman Blue Spectrograph with the 1.01$\arcsec$ long-slit resulting in a spectral resolution of 2.6Å covering the wavelength range of 3550Å - 5250Å. Median seeing for each night was between $0.8-1.0$ arcsec. Radial velocities, orbital solutions, and model atmosphere fits were obtained identically to as described in section 2.
Results
-------
We fit pure-Hydrogen atmosphere models to all 82 targets and identify six systems consistent with ELM WDs. Figure \[elm\_fits\] shows our model fits to the Balmer line profiles for these six systems. All six are hotter than 10,000 K, have $\log{g}=5-7$, and show significant velocity variability. However, we were only able to constrain the orbital period for four of these systems so far. Details for each system are discussed below.
[J0500$-$0930]{} {#j0500-0930 .unnumbered}
----------------
J050051.80$-$093056.98 (2MASS J05005185$-$0930549) was originally identified as an ELM WD candidate by [@Scholz2018] for its high proper motion. To explain its over-luminous nature, [@Scholz2018] suggested that the system contains an ELM WD and estimate atmospheric parameters $\log{g} \approx 6-6.5$ and $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 11,880 $\pm$ 1,100 K.
We obtained $\log{g} = 6.39\pm0.02$ and $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 10,810 $\pm$ 40 K from fitting our SOAR spectra with pure H atmosphere models, in agreement with the original estimates of [@Scholz2018]. We obtained seven radial velocity measurements of J0500$-$0930 with SOAR 4.1-meter telescope using the Goodman spectrograph, 50 with the FLWO 1.5-meter telescope using FAST, and one with the MMT 6.5-meter telescope with the Blue Channel Spectrograph. Fitting an orbit to this combined dataset of 58 spectra resulted in a best-fit period of $P=0.39435\pm0.00001$ d with velocity semi-amplitude $K=146.8\pm8.3$ km s$^{-1}$ (Figure \[elm\_rv\_fits\]). We use the ELM WD evolutionary models of [@Istrate2016] to estimate its mass to be 0.163 $\pm$ 0.01 M$_\odot$ and calculated its minimum companion mass to be 0.30 $\pm$ 0.04 M$_\odot$, potentially making this a double low-mass WD system. With apparent Gaia G-band magnitude of 12.6 and Gaia parallax of 13.97 $\pm$ 0.05 mas, this is currently both the brightest and closest known ELM WD system. This system will not merge within a Hubble time.
J0500$-$0930 was within the field of view of the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite [TESS, @ricker15] during Sector 5 observations. TESS provides Full-Frame Images (FFIs) of each sector at 30-minute cadence over a roughly 27 d observing window. We used the open source Python tool eleanor [@feinstein19] to produce a light curve for J0500$-$0930. We downloaded a time series of 15 pixels by 15 pixels “postcards” containing TESS data for the target and its immediate surroundings from the Mikulski Archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute (MAST). We then perform background subtraction, aperture photometry, and correct for instrumental systematic effects. We use the corrected flux measurements with data quality flags set to 0 to remove data points that are affected by issues like attitude tweaks or cosmic rays [@feinstein19].
We use the Astropy implementation of the Lomb Scargle periodogram to check for variability in the TESS data. Figure \[g109\_tess\] shows the TESS FFI light curve of J0500$-$0930, its Lomb Scargle periodogram, and phase folded light curve at the highest-peaked frequency. Remarkably, there is a small (0.074$^{+0.008}_{-0.007}$%) but significant peak at a frequency of 2.5391 $\pm$ 0.0025 cycles per day. This frequency is within 1.3$\sigma$ of the orbital frequency measured from our radial velocity data. The predicted amplitude of the relativistic beaming effect in J0500$-$0930 is $\sim0.1$% [@Shporer2010]. However, since the TESS pixels are relatively large (21 arcsec pixel$^{-1}$) and 90% of the point spread function is spread over 4 pixel$^2$, dilution by neighboring sources is common in the TESS data. There are two relatively red sources with $G_{\rm RP}=16.0$ and $16.9$ mag within a 2 pixel radius of J0500$-$0930 that likely dilute the variability signal. Hence, the observed photometric variability is consistent with the relativistic beaming effect, confirming our orbital period measurement from the radial velocity data.
[J0517$-$1153]{} {#j0517-1153 .unnumbered}
----------------
J051724.97$-$115325.85 has a best-fit atmosphere solution of $\log{g}=5.82\pm0.02$ and $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 14,780 $\pm$ 70 K (Figure \[elm\_fits\]), making this a clear ELM WD system. We obtained 13 spectra of this object over four nights and detect significant radial velocity variations. However, due to significant period aliasing in the best-fit orbit, further follow-up is required to constrain its orbit and determine companion mass and merger time. TESS full-frame images of J0517$-$1153 do not reveal any significant photometric variability.
[J0642$-$5605]{} {#j0642-5605 .unnumbered}
----------------
J064207.99$-$560547.44 is an ELM WD with $\log{g}=5.08\pm0.02$ and $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 10,460 $\pm$ 70 K (Figure \[elm\_fits\]). We obtained 14 spectra, resulting in best-fit orbit with period $P=0.13189\pm0.00006$ d and velocity semi-amplitude $K=368.0\pm27.0$ km s$^{-1}$ (Figure \[elm\_rv\_fits\]). The minimum companion mass is 0.96 $\pm$ 0.17 M$_\odot$. J0642$-$5605 will merge within 1.3 Gyr.
J0642$-$5605 is within the continuous viewing zone of the TESS mission, and was observed as part of Sectors 1-13, except Sector 7. Figure \[g138\_tess\] shows the TESS FFI light curve of J0642$-$5605 obtained over almost a year, its Lomb Scargle periodogram, and phase folded light curve at the highest-peaked frequency. This WD shows 2.77 $\pm$ 0.02% photometric variability at a frequency of 15.17820 cycles per day, which is roughly twice the orbital frequency measured from our radial velocity data. In addition, there is a smaller but significant peak at the orbital period of the system as well. Hence, TESS data not only confirm the orbital period, but also reveal variability at half the orbital period, revealing ellipsoidal variations in this system. These variations are intrinsic to the source, and are also confirmed in the ASAS-SN data [@kochanek17].
[J0650$-$4925]{} {#j0650-4925 .unnumbered}
----------------
J065051.48$-$492549.46 is an ELM WD with best-fit atmosphere solution of $\log{g}=5.47\pm0.03$ and $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 11,210 $\pm$ 90 K (Figure \[elm\_fits\]). From our 13 radial velocity measurements, we obtained a best-fit orbital period $P=0.17453\pm0.00028$ d with velocity semi-amplitude $K=284.2\pm39.4$ km s$^{-1}$ (Figure \[elm\_rv\_fits\]). The minimum companion mass is 0.67 $\pm$ 0.21 M$_\odot$. J0650$-$4925 will merge within a Hubble time, with a maximum gravitational wave merger time of 3.6 Gyr. TESS full-frame images on J0650$-$4925 do not reveal any significant photometric variability.
[J0930$-$8107]{} {#j0930-8107 .unnumbered}
----------------
J093008.47$-$810738.32 is an ELM WD with best-fit atmosphere solution of $\log{g}=6.14\pm0.02$ and $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 23,350 $\pm$ 120 K (Figure \[elm\_fits\]). Fitting 14 radial velocity measurements, we obtained for the best-fit period $P=0.08837\pm0.00005$ d with velocity semi-amplitude $K=212.0\pm9.0$ km s$^{-1}$ (Figure \[elm\_rv\_fits\]). J0930$-$8107 has a mass of 0.24 $\pm$ 0.01 M$_\odot$ with minimum companion mass of 0.29 $\pm$ 0.02 M$_\odot$, potentially making this a double ELM WD system. J0930$-$8107 will merge within a Hubble time, with a maximum gravitational wave merger time of 0.9 Gyr.
J0930$-$8107 is included in Sectors 11, 12, and 13 of the TESS mission full-frame images. The combined light curve and its FT show a peak at 7.084 cycles per day with $0.035 \pm 0.006$ amplitude. However, this peak is only visible in the Sector 11 data, indicating that it is most likely not intrinsic to the star. J0930$-$8107 is the shortest period system presented here, and the observed variability in the TESS data does not match the orbital period (11.3 cycles per day), and is likely caused by contamination from neighboring sources in the TESS images.
[J1239$-$2041]{} {#j1239-2041 .unnumbered}
----------------
J123950.37$-$204142.28 has a best-fit atmosphere solution of $\log{g}=7.03\pm0.04$ and $T_{\text{eff}}$ = 17,750 $\pm$ 210 K (Figure \[elm\_fits\]). We obtained six spectra of J1239$-$2041 over three nights and measure significant radial velocity variations. However, due to significant period aliasing, additional follow-up is required to constrain the orbit and determine companion mass and merger time. Based on the [@Istrate2016] He-Core ELM WD models, J1239$-$2041 is a 0.30 $\pm$ 0.01 M$_\odot$ He-core WD. TESS full-frame images on J1239$-$2041 do not reveal any significant photometric variability.
Survey Efficiency
-----------------
We observed 82 unique systems using our Gaia parallax target selection method. Of these 82 systems, six contain an ELM WD based on stellar atmosphere fits. We confirmed all six of these to be in compact binary systems and obtained precise orbital periods for four systems, two of which will merge within a Hubble time.
Figure \[gaia\_teff\_plot\] shows a $\log{g}$ vs $T_{\rm eff}$ plot of the objects fit with Hydrogen atmospheres and $\log{g}>5.0$. Black points are objects observed in this survey, identified through Gaia parallax. Red stars mark the location of the six new ELM systems identified through Gaia parallax. Blue stars mark the locations of the two new ELM WDs identified in our ATLAS + SkyMapper color selection discussed earlier in this work. Purple points mark the locations of the ELM WDs previously published in the ELM Survey. We overlay the @Istrate2016 0.2 M$_\odot$ (light blue) and 0.3 M$_\odot$ (purple) He-core ELM WD evolutionary tracks, Helium main-sequence (HeMS, silver dashed line) and Zero-Age Extreme-Horizontal Branch (ZAEHB, gold dashed line) for reference.
In addition to the six new ELM systems, we identify 49 white dwarfs (Table 6), 20 of which are low-mass ($0.3 {\rm M}_\odot \leq M_{\rm WD} \lesssim 0.5 {\rm M}_\odot$), seven subdwarf B stars (Table 7), and four emission-line systems. We present the spectra of the emission line systems in the appendix (Figure \[cv\]). We note that 37 of the 49 white dwarfs in Table 6 are hotter than 25,000 K, the upper limit of our target selection criterion. We believe this is due to reddening. Since extinction correction is problematic in Gaia filters, it is not surprising that we are finding a large number of hot WDs contaminating our sample. The reduced spectra used for atmosphere and orbital fitting for all targets published here is archived in Zenodo[^1] in format [@zenodorepo].
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
We present the results from a targeted survey for ELM WDs in the southern sky using two different techniques. Prior to the Gaia DR2, we relied on photometry from the VST ATLAS and SkyMapper surveys to select blue stars with low-surface gravity. We note that the VST ATLAS DR4, released April 2019, offers an improved calibration based on Gaia photometry and a larger southern sky footprint over DR2+DR3 used in our survey. Similar to VST ATLAS DR4, SkyMapper DR2 provides not only an extended southern sky footprint, but deeper photometry in the $uvgriz$ bands with limiting magnitudes of about 19 mag in the $g$ and $r$ filters.
With the release of Gaia DR2 astrometry, we developed a new target selection method using Gaia parallax measurements and tested it in March 2019 using 82 objects. We identified 6 new ELM WD binary systems and 20 additional systems with $M<0.5 M_{\odot}$, which correspond to $\sim7$% and $\sim32$% efficiency for ELM and low-mass WDs with $M<0.5 M_{\odot}$, respectively. In total, we identified eight new ELM WD systems, and constrained the orbital parameters for six of these systems, three of which will merge within 4 Gyr. We present a summary of the physical and orbital parameters for these eight new ELM WD systems in Tables \[table:elms\_table\] and \[table:elms\_orbit\_table\], respectively.
While it appears that Gaia parallax is an efficient method for targeting ELM WDs, we note that [@Pelisoli2019b] have created a target list of 5672 (including 2898 with Dec$<0^\circ$) ELM WD candidates based on Gaia colors and astrometry with no restrictions on reddening. Five of our eight new ELM WD systems are also included in [@Pelisoli2019b] as ELM WD candidates, but three are missing from their catalog as @Pelisoli2019b applied stricter cuts to create their catalog. In addition to these five ELM systems, 27 of our other targets with SOAR spectra were also included in [@Pelisoli2019b]. Almost all of these are normal DA white dwarfs or sdB stars, indicating a non-negligible contamination of their ELM candidate list.
The shortest period ELM WD binaries will serve as multi-messenger laboratories, when they are detected by the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). Hence, the discovery of additional systems now is important for characterizing such systems before LISA is operational. We are continuing to observe the remaining Gaia selected targets in our sample, and along with the eclipsing and/or tidally distorted ELM WD discoveries from the Zwicky Transient Facility [@Burdge2019b] and the upcoming Large Synoptic Survey Telescope, we hope to significantly increase the known population of ELM WDs in the next few years.
We thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions that greatly improved the quality of this work. This work was supported in part by the Smithsonian Institution, and in part by the NSF under grant AST-1906379. This project makes use of data obtained at the Southern Astrophysical Research (SOAR) telescope, which is a joint project of the Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovaçãos e Comunicaçãoes do Brasil, the U.S. National Optical Astronomy Observatory, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Michigan State University. This research made use of Astropy,[^2] a community-developed core Python package for Astronomy [@astropy2013; @astropy2018].
Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip[ő]{}cz, B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123 Bessell, M., Bloxham, G., Schmidt, B., et al. 2011, , 123, 789 Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2010, , 723, 1072 Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Hermes, J. J., et al. 2011, , 737, L23 Brown, W. R., Geller, M. J., & Kenyon, S. J. 2014, , 787, 89 Brown, W. R., Gianninas, A., Kilic, M., et al. 2016, , 818, 155 Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kenyon, S. J., et al. 2016b, , 824, 46 Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., & Gianninas, A. 2017, , 839, 23 Brown, W. R., Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2020, , 889, 1 Clemens, J. C., Crain, J. A., & Anderson, R. 2004, , 331 Drake, A. J., Djorgovski, S. G., Catelan, M., et al. 2017, , 469, 3688 Burdge, K. B., Coughlin, M. W., Fuller, J., et al. 2019, , 571, 528 Burdge, K. B., Yan, L., Prince, T., et al. 2019b, The Astronomer’s Telegram, 12959, 1 Feinstein, A. D., Montet, B. T., Foreman-Mackey, D., et al. 2019, , 131, 094502 Geier, S., Raddi, R., Gentile Fusillo, N. P., et al. 2019, , 621, A38 Gentile Fusillo, N. P., Tremblay, P.-E., G[ä]{}nsicke, B. T., et al. 2019, , 482, 4570 Gianninas, A., Bergeron, P., & Ruiz, M. T. 2011, , 743, 138 Gianninas, A., Dufour, P., Kilic, M., et al. 2014, , 794, 35 Istrate, A. G., Marchant, P., Tauris, T. M., et al. 2016, , 595, A35 Justham, S., Wolf, C., Podsiadlowski, P., et al. 2009, , 493, 1081 Kaplan, D. L., Marsh, T. R., Walker, A. N., et al. 2014, , 780, 167 Kenyon, S. J., & Garcia, M. R. 1986, , 91, 125 Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Koester, D., et al. 2016, , 455, 3413 Kilic, M., Stanek, K. Z., & Pinsonneault, M. H. 2007, , 671, 761 Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2010, , 716, 122 Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Allende Prieto, C., et al. 2011, , 727, 3 Kilic, M., Brown, W. R., Gianninas, A., et al. 2014, , 444, L1 Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., et al. 2017, , 129, 104502 Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., Groot, P. J., et al. 2017, , 470, 1894 Kosakowski, Alekzander, Kilic, Mukremin, Brown, Warren, & Gianninas, Alexandros. (2020). The ELM Survey South I \[Data set\]. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3635104 Kremer, K., Breivik, K., Larson, S. L., et al. 2017, , 846, 95 Kurtz, M. J., & Mink, D. J. 1998, , 110, 934 Lamberts, A., Blunt, S., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2019, , 490, 5888 Landau, L. D., & Lifshitz, E. M., 1958, The Classical Theory of Fields, (Oxford: Oxford Pergamon Press) Lauffer, G. R., Romero, A. D., & Kepler, S. O. 2018, , 480, 1547 Li, Z., Chen, X., Chen, H.-L., et al. 2019, , 871, 148 Lindegren, L., Hern[á]{}ndez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, , 616, A2 Marsh, T. R., Nelemans, G., & Steeghs, D. 2004, , 350, 113 Nelemans, G., Yungelson, L. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2001, , 375, 890 Nissanke, S., Vallisneri, M., Nelemans, G., et al. 2012, , 758, 131 Pelisoli, I., Kepler, S. O., & Koester, D. 2018a, , 475, 2480 Pelisoli, I., Kepler, S. O., Koester, D., et al. 2018b, , 478, 867 Pelisoli, I., Bell, K. J., Kepler, S. O., et al. 2019, , 482, 3831 Pelisoli, I., & Vos, J. 2019, , 488, 2892 Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525 Shanks, T., Metcalfe, N., Chehade, B., et al. 2015, , 451, 4238 Shen, K. J. 2015, , 805, L6 Shporer, A., Kaplan, D. L., Steinfadt, J. D. R., et al. 2010, , 725, L200 Scholz, R.-D., Meusinger, H., Schwope, A., et al. 2018, , 619, A31 Steinfadt, J. D. R., Kaplan, D. L., Shporer, A., et al. 2010, , 716, L146 Tremblay, P.-E., & Bergeron, P. 2009, , 696, 1755 Wolf, C., Onken, C. A., Luvaul, L. C., et al. 2018, , 35, e010 Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2015, , 810, 34 Yu, J., Li, Z., Zhu, C., et al. 2019, , 885, 20
Additional Systems: Emission Line Objects
=========================================
Among all of the systems observed throughout our survey, we identified a handful of emission line systems. For completeness, here we display the optical spectrum for these four objects (Figure \[cv\]). J0409$-$7117 (Figure \[cv\], top) shows evidence of an accretion disk in its Balmer and metal (e.g., Mg) emission lines. J0409$-$7117 was identified as a CV or WD+M candidate by @Pelisoli2019b. One of these emission line objects, J1358$-$3556 (Figure \[cv\], bottom), shows variability at a frequency of 12.3 cycles per day in the TESS full-frame images. J1358$-$3556 was also identified as a CV or WD+M candidate by @Pelisoli2019b. There are two additional targets in our sample that show variability in TESS data. J0950$-$2511 is a low-mass WD with an estimated mass of $M=0.44 \pm 0.02 M_{\odot}$, but with weak Balmer emission lines visible in the line cores. The Catalina Sky Survey found variations with a period of 0.318654 d [@drake17], and TESS full-frame images also show variability at the same period. In addition, J0711$-$6727 shows significant variations at a frequency of 4.86 cycles per day. Follow-up spectroscopy would be useful to constrain the nature of variability in these systems.
Data Tables
===========
[^1]: <http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3635104>
[^2]: http://www.astropy.org
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the absorption of light with emission of one $S_{tot}=1$ magnetic excitation in systems with a spin gap induced by quantum fluctuations. We argue that an electric dipole transition is allowed on the condition that a virtual phonon instantaneously breaks the inversion symmetry. We derive an effective operator for the transition and argue that the proposed theory explains the polarized experiments in [$\rm CuGeO_3$ ]{}and [ $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ ]{}.'
author:
- 'O. Cépas$^{a,b}$, and T. Ziman$^b$'
title: 'Theory of phonon-assisted “forbidden” optical transitions in spin-gapped systems'
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Techniques of using the interactions between light and spin-waves to study the excitations of magnetic solids were developed shortly after the invention of the laser. Single magnon scattering of photons was first predicted from the Zeeman coupling of the magnetic field of the photon field to the magnetic spins, leading to magnetic dipole transitions.[@BassKaganov] Later it was pointed out [@ElliottLoudon; @ShenBloembergen] that the electric field of the electromagnetic radiation could also couple to the spin, by an indirect process in which spin-orbit interactions act on electronic states excited virtually by electric-dipole transitions. Experiments in antiferromagnets [@FleuryLoudon] showed that this latter mechanism dominated the magnetic-dipole transitions to single magnon excitations. The Raman spectrum also revealed relatively strong two-magnon scattering. This was argued [@FleuryLoudon] to be due to an independent mechanism: excited-state exchange interactions. The same mechanism, by which the magnetic exchange interaction is modified by electric-dipole excitation of the magnetic electrons, was advanced [@Tanabe] to explain far-infrared absorption. A variant is to replace the virtual electronic excitation by a virtual lattice distortion that modifies the magnetic exchange.[@Lorenzana] The intensities of such transitions can be calculated by writing effective operators for absorption or Raman scattering in terms of the spin operators.[@FleuryLoudon; @ElliottThorpe] This theory is considered generally to give good account of inelastic light scattering and optical absorption. For an isotropic system the effective operator conserves total spin and what is commonly called the “Fleury-Loudon” theory is used to analyse the spectroscopy of spin conserving transitions.
Optical techniques are now well established as probes of magnetic excitations, whether it be by Raman scattering, i.e. inelastic scattering of optical frequencies, electron spin resonance (ESR), i.e. resonant absorption of electromagnetic radiation with sweeping magnetic field, or by transmission measurements of infrared radiation. The techniques have been further enhanced by the increasing flexibility of light sources and detectors in the far-infrared region that is useful to much of magnetism. ESR studies using sources derived from far-infrared lasers rather than the traditional cavities are now available up to THz frequencies and may be made in large static or pulsed magnetic fields.[@Motokawa] Transmission studies in the far infrared range have the advantage of allowing for measurement in zero external magnetic field. While restricted to small momentum transfer, $q \approx 0$, compared to neutron inelastic scattering, the optical techniques have the advantage of much higher frequency resolution. The possibility of polarising the electromagnetic radiation means different transition mechanisms may be distinguished.
Optical measurements are particularly useful for precise measurements of the spin gap properties in strongly correlated systems and spin-liquid systems with magnetic singlet ground states. Because of the frequencies now available, one can apply an electromagnetic source with sufficient energy to excite the first triplet $S_{tot}=1$ excited state from the singlet $S_{tot}=0$ ground state. Many systems of interest are highly isotropic with respect to spin rotations and transitions between the singlet $S_{tot}=0$ ground state of the spin-liquid to the first triplet $S_{tot}=1$ excited state would be forbidden by symmetry in the isotropic limit. Even the weaker magnetic-dipole coupling should give zero intensity as the ground state is a spin singlet. One would then expect to see the excited singlets, i.e. two magnon states only. Nonetheless the “forbidden” transitions to the single magnon states have been observed in many spin-liquid, ranging from the S=1/2 quasi-one-dimensional systems [$\rm CuGeO_3$ ]{}[@Boucher; @Loosdrecht; @Damascelli; @Nojiri; @Takehana; @Room-cugeo] and [ $\rm NaV_2O_5$ ]{}[@NojiriNaV2O5; @Takehana2], to 2d system such as [ $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ ]{}[@Nojiri2; @Room] and to the spin-1 chain compound, NENP [@Renard]. Despite detailed experiments, no clear understanding of the mechanism of these transitions has emerged. It is clear that spin-orbit coupling, that breaks the conservation of total spin, must be included as it is then possible *a priori* to have a transition to a one-magnon state. As mentioned, the photon can couple to the spin degrees of freedom in different ways, via direct magnetic dipole transitions or indirect electric dipole transitions with spin-phonon or spin-orbit couplings. As one of the purposes of performing high resolution spectroscopy is to resolve the weak anisotropies, it is important to distinguish between these mechanisms, i.e. to find the one which gives the strongest absorption. As in the original studies [@FleuryLoudon] this is done by establishing, and then verifying experimentally, selection rules. For one-magnon absorption, previous estimations favored a purely electric dipole transition for NENP.[@Mitra] In the case of $\rm CuGeO_3$ the suggestion that a staggered field would give rise to a magnetic dipole transition [@UhrigLett] has been ruled out by the polarized experiments.[@Damascelli] Furthermore the first order corrections to the Hamiltonian in spin-orbit coupling lead to vanishing magnetic dipole intensity owing to a lattice selection rule.[@Sakai] In the compound [ $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ ]{}it has been shown experimentally that varying the direction of the electric field of the wave (while keeping the magnetic field of the wave fixed) changes the intensity of the absorption, suggesting that the transition is electric-dipole in nature.[@Room] One would also like to know which of the two electric dipole mechanisms applies, absorption involving solely the electronic degrees of freedom or with the lattice degrees of freedom. In the original theory of Elliott and Loudon of light scattering by magnons, the electric dipole coupling indeed leads to the creation of one-magnon excitations.[@ElliottLoudon; @FleuryLoudon] Although such two photon processes are not forbidden in infrared absorption, they are much smaller in intensity since they involve the weak coupling to light to second order in perturbation theory. Alternatively in the presence of strong spin-orbit coupling, it is possible to have single photon coupling to spin excitations[@ElliottThorpe; @Rado] but as this is of second order in the spin-orbit coupling, we shall assume that the linear order will dominate for these materials, which are close to isotropic. In addition lattice symmetries such as centers of inversion between the magnetic ion may eliminate such terms, or at least reduce them further, if the inversion symmetry is slightly broken, as in [ $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ ]{}.[@noteborate]
In this paper we shall show that an effective operator of [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}symmetry [@Dzyaloshinski; @Moriya] acting on the spin degrees of freedom,
$$H_E = \sum_{i,a,\beta,\gamma} \textbf{\mbox{E}}^{\beta}(t) \textbf{\mbox{A}}_{\beta \gamma}(a) (\textbf{\mbox{S}}_i \times \textbf{\mbox{S}}_{i+a})^{\gamma}
\label{effectiveoperator}$$
can be used to explain the polarized experiments of [$\rm CuGeO_3$ ]{}and [ $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ ]{}. Here $\textbf{\mbox{E}}^{\beta}(t)$ is the component $\beta$ of the applied electromagnetic field at time *t*. The indices *i* and *a* define the lattice of magnetic bonds and the coefficients $\textbf{\mbox{A}}_{\beta \gamma}$ will be made explicit in section \[effective operator\]. They couple the component $\beta$ of the electric field with the component $\gamma$ of the vector product of the spin operators. An electric dipole operator (1) can arise from an electronic mechanism, as may be the case in NENP [@Mitra], but centers of inversion at the middle of the Cu-Cu bonds in [$\rm CuGeO_3$ ]{}and [ $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ ]{}[@noteborate], would forbid generation of the operator from purely electronic processes. A lattice distortion may, however, break the inversion symmetry *instantaneously*, and allow terms of the form in (1). We therefore consider the phonons explicitly, and in section \[effective operator\] we derive in detail the effective transition operator, which includes an anisotropic part of the form (1). The essential physical mechanism is that the electric field excites a virtual phonon state $S_{tot}=0$ which is coupled to the $S_{tot}=1$ state by an anisotropic spin-phonon coupling which originates in spin-orbit coupling. An explanation involving the modulation of static [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}interactions has been put forward recently for the case of [ $\rm NaV_2O_5$ ]{}.[@Gros] In that compound, however, no polarized experiments are available and moreover, it is difficult to distinguish with a magnetic dipole transition which turns out not to be forbidden by a lattice selection rule.[@Sakai] The mechanism we develop here is more general in that it does not require the presence of a static [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}interaction. It only needs the *instantaneous* breaking of the inversion center which is assured by the appropriate phonons. This allows us to consider the operator (\[effectiveoperator\]) on the strongest bonds irrespective of whether the bond lacks an inversion center or not. In section \[effective operator\], we give the selection rules and the order of magnitude of such electric dipole transitions. We compare with the experiments in $\rm CuGeO_3$ and $\rm
SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ in section \[application\].
Effective Magnetic Operator and Selection Rules {#effective operator}
===============================================
In this section we show that the first-order spin-orbit correction to the spin-phonon coupling leads indeed to an effective magnetic operator for the optical transitions. We note that a phonon-assisted optical transition is the usual explanation for the occurrence of the singlet $S_{tot}=0$ bound states of two magnon states in the spectrum of the high Tc’s cuprates.[@Lorenzana] The spin-orbit correction should then lead to transition to $S_{tot}=1$ states.
We start with a magnetic Hamiltonian for a chain or a layer of Cu atoms, for instance, that can be motivated by the usual super-exchange arguments:
$$H= \sum_{iad} \textbf{\mbox{S}}_i \textbf{\mbox{J}}(\{\textbf{\mbox{u}}_{id}\}) \textbf{\mbox{S}}_{i+a} + H_{ph} - \textbf{\mbox{E}}.\textbf{\mbox{P}}_{ph}$$
where $\textbf{\mbox{S}}_i$ is a spin operator, $\textbf{\mbox{u}}_{id}$ is the displacement vector of the ion $d$ in the unit-cell $i$, $H_{ph}$ is the phonon Hamiltonian which takes into account the kinetic part of the ions and the spring constants, $\textbf{\mbox{P}}_{ph}$ is the electric dipole of the ions and $\textbf{\mbox{E}}$ is the external electric field. The magnetic couplings, $\textbf{\mbox{J}}(\{\textbf{\mbox{u}}_{id}\})$, can be expanded to first order in the ion displacements. Including the first order in spin-orbit coupling, there is an extra term of [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}symmetry:
$$H_{sp} = \sum_{iad \alpha \beta} g_{d}^{\alpha} u^{\alpha}_{id}
\textbf{\mbox{S}}_i. \textbf{\mbox{S}}_{i+a} + d^{\alpha \beta}_d u^{\alpha}_{id}
( \textbf{\mbox{S}}_i \times \textbf{\mbox{S}}_{i+a})^{\beta}
\label{spinphonon}$$
where $g_d^{\alpha}$ is the partial derivative of the diagonal part of $\textbf{\mbox{J}}(\{\textbf{\mbox{u}}_{id}\})$ with respect to $\textbf{\mbox{u}}_{id}$ (it depends on the bond $i,a$ but we will not write it explicitly in the following). The origin of $d^{\alpha
\beta}_d$ is explained below. This is indeed a general form for the spin-phonon coupling and there is no restriction to be added on the grounds of symmetry. The static [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}interaction is forbidden when there is an inversion center at the middle of the bond. If the set of displacements $\textbf{\mbox{u}}_{id}$ is such as to remove the inversion center (which is the general case) then such an interaction takes place. For example if we take the two symmetric ninety degrees super-exchange paths Cu-O-Cu, there is a center of inversion and there is an interference between the two paths that leads to no [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}interaction. Suppose now that the two oxygens move upwards. Because the hopping of the electrons is much faster than the typical phonon frequency, the electrons see a frozen distorted lattice on that time scale. The interference therefore does not occur anymore and there is an effective [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}interaction linear in the displacements in the first order. This is the origin of the second term of (\[spinphonon\]) which involves a tensor $d_d^{\alpha \beta}$ since the displacements in one direction, $\alpha$, generally produce a [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}vector in another direction, $\beta$. Strictly speaking, $d_d^{\alpha \beta}$ also depends upon the bond $i,a$, but we do not write it explicitly. Note that this term is derived in a super-exchange approach by taking into account the spin-orbit coupling in first-order in perturbation theory in the lines of the original Moriya’s article.[@Moriya] We shall refer to it as a *dynamical* [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}interaction in the following.
The transition probability is then given at zero temperature by the “golden rule”:
$$\begin{aligned}
I(\omega) &=& \mid \langle f | \textbf{\mbox{E}}.\textbf{\mbox{P}}_{ph} | 0 \rangle \mid^2 \delta(\omega -
\omega_f) \\ \textbf{\mbox{P}}_{ph} &=& \sum_{id} q_d \textbf{\mbox{u}}_{id}
\label{transition dipolaire electrique}\end{aligned}$$
where $\omega_f$ is the energy of the excitation, typically the one-magnon energy. At first order in $H_{sp}$ in perturbation theory the matrix element is written in terms of a sum over the excited states:
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle f | \textbf{\mbox{E}}.\textbf{\mbox{P}}_{ph} | 0 \rangle &=&
\sum_{n} \frac{\langle f' | \textbf{\mbox{E}}.\textbf{\mbox{P}}_{ph} | n \rangle \langle n | H_{sp} | 0'
\rangle}{\omega_0 - \omega_{n}} \nonumber \\
&+& \sum_{n} \frac{\langle f' | H_{sp} | n \rangle \langle
n | \textbf{\mbox{E}}.\textbf{\mbox{P}}_{ph} | 0' \rangle}{\omega_f - \omega_{n}}
\label{perturbation}\end{aligned}$$
The intermediate states that contribute to the sum over $n$ contain one phonon (whereas the initial and final states we are interested in do not contain any phonon). The partial phonon matrix elements are calculated out, but we keep the general form for the magnetic states at this stage. In other words the phonons are integrated out and we end up with an effective matrix element acting between different magnetic states:
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle f | \textbf{\mbox{E}}.\textbf{\mbox{P}}_{ph}| 0 \rangle &=&
\langle f' \mid \sum_{ia} \gamma \textbf{\mbox{S}}_{i}. \textbf{\mbox{S}}_{i+a} +\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$} . ( \textbf{\mbox{S}}_{i} \times \textbf{\mbox{S}}_{i+a}) \mid 0' \rangle \label{result} \\
\gamma &=& \sum_s \frac{ \Omega_s}{\omega_f^2 - \Omega_s^2} g_s (\textbf{\mbox{D}}_s. \textbf{\mbox{E}}) \\
\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$} &=& \sum_s \frac{ \Omega_s}{\omega_f^2 - \Omega_s^2} \textbf{\mbox{d}}_s (\textbf{\mbox{D}}_s. \textbf{\mbox{E}})
\label{delta}\end{aligned}$$
where $\textbf{\mbox{D}}_s= \sum_d q_d
\mbox{\boldmath$\lambda$}_{dsq=0}$ is the amplitude of the instantaneous electric dipole of the unit cell due to the phonon mode $s$ with energy $\Omega_s=\Omega_{q=0,s}$. The final magnetic state has an energy $\omega_f$. $g_s=\sum_{d,\alpha} g_d^{\alpha}
\lambda^{\alpha}_{ds}$ is the amplitude of the variation of the magnetic exchange energy due the atomic distortions of the phonon $s$ ($\lambda^{\alpha}_{ds}$ is the amplitude of the motion of the atom $d$, in the direction $\alpha$ due to the phonon $s$ at $q=0$). Similarly, $d_s^{\alpha}=\sum_{\beta d} d_d^{\alpha \beta}
\lambda^{\beta}_{ds}$ is the amplitude of the instantaneous Dzyaloshinski-Moriya vector due to the phonon $s$. The resulting $\gamma$ and $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}$ depend on the bond considered. They would usually couple the nearest neighbors, but could be introduced for neighbors at larger distances if such super-exchange processes were likely to take place. They can be introduced on the basis of the symmetry which is usually reduced with respect to the crystal symmetry by the presence of the external electric field. Thus we have written an effective operator announced in eq. \[effectiveoperator\] with $\textbf{\mbox{A}}_{\beta \gamma}=\frac{\partial \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}^{\gamma}}{\partial \textbf{\mbox{E}}^{\beta}}$.
The selection rules are:
- \(i) $ \textbf{\mbox{D}}_s. \textbf{\mbox{E}} \neq 0$: the virtual phonon $s$ creates distortions that carry an instantaneous electric dipole $\textbf{\mbox{D}}_s$. In other words, the phonon $s$ must be infra-red active.
- (ii)
- $g_s \neq 0$: The distortion of the unit cell due to the phonon $s$ modulates the magnetic exchange between the spins. The transition at $\Delta S_{tot}=0$ is allowed.
- $\textbf{\mbox{d}}_s \neq 0$: It implies that the distortion of the unit cell due to the phonon $s$ must break instantaneously the symmetry by inversion at the middle of the bond; so that to allow an instantaneous Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction which amplitude is given by $\textbf{\mbox{d}}_s$. The transitions between states that differ by the spin, $\Delta S_{tot}=1$, are allowed and have an intensity $\sim \delta^2$.
Suppose that there is only one phonon mode $s$ which gives a major contribution to the sum. In addition, we know that this active phonon mode will appear in the infrared spectrum at the energy $\Omega_{q=0,s}$, with an intensity given by $I_{ph,s}=(\textbf{\mbox{D}}_s.\textbf{\mbox{E}})^2$. We can therefore rewrite the intensity of the $\Delta S_{tot}=1$ line as:
$$I_e = \left[ \frac{1}{2} \frac{ \Omega_s \textbf{\mbox{d}}_s}{\omega_f^2 - \Omega_s^2} \right]^2 I_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph,s}}}
\label{probabilite dipolaire electrique estimation 1}$$
We denote by $E$ the order of magnitude of the variation of the magnetic exchange energy due to the phonon and following Moriya,[@Moriya] we estimate $d_s \sim (\frac{\Delta g}{g}) E$. That gives:
$$I_e \sim \left( \frac{\Delta g}{g} \right)^2 \left[ \frac{ \Omega_s E}{\omega_f^2 - \Omega_s^2} \right]^2 I_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph,s}}}
\label{probabilite dipolaire electrique estimation 2}$$
This expression gives the intensity of such a process compared to the intensity of the optically active phonon. It is reduced by two factors: the spin-orbit coupling (in the cuprate materials, $\Delta
g/g$ can be $0.1$) and the ratio of the energy modulation of the magnetic exchange due to the phonon by roughly the energy of the same phonon. The latter is difficult to estimate : in $\rm CuGeO_3$, the first optical phonons have $\Omega \sim 10 \rm meV$, and the modulation can be as large as $E \sim 1 \rm meV$.[@Braden] That gives $I_e \sim 10^{-4} I_{ph}$.
Another way to compare with is to consider that singlet excited states, as for example the $S=0$ bound-state below the continuum in $\rm CuGeO_3$, appear in the optical spectrum due to the isotropic spin-phonon coupling (the $\gamma$ term). We denote their intensity by $I_e^{singlet}$. Then we have: $I_e^{triplet} \sim \left( \frac{\Delta
g}{g} \right)^2 I_e^{singlet}$. It means that if the singlet bound-state appears in the optical spectrum with an intensity $I_e^{singlet}$ due to the isotropic spin-phonon coupling, the triplet states should also appear with an intensity which is roughly 100 times smaller, if Moriya’s estimate applies.
*Effect of a magnetic field*. We consider a basic triplet excitation here. A magnetic field lifts the degeneracy of the triplet into three branches. When $\textbf{\mbox{H}} \parallel
\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}$ ($\parallel z$), $S^z$ is a good quantum number and the transition should satisfy $\Delta S^z=0$. Therefore, only the mode $S^z=0$ could be observed and its intensity does not depend on the strength of the field. By contrast, when the magnetic field is perpendicular to $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}$, the wave-function is a superposition of wave-functions with different $S^z$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Psi^{\pm \prime} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} |1,0 \rangle + \nonumber \\
&\pm& \left( \frac{H_{\perp}}{2 \mid
H_{\perp} \mid} |1,1 \rangle + \frac{H_{\perp}^{*}}{2 \mid H_{\perp} \mid}
|1,-1 \rangle \right) \\ \Psi^{0^{\prime}} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
\left(\frac{H_{\perp}^{*}}{ \mid H_{\perp} \mid} |1,-1 \rangle - \frac{H_{\perp}}{ \mid
H_{\perp} \mid} |1,1 \rangle \right)\end{aligned}$$
where the vector notation stands for $|S,S^z \rangle$. The transition is allowed to the states $\Psi^{\pm \prime}$ with quantum numbers $S^{\perp}=\pm 1$ and the mode which energy does not depend on the field has no intensity. The magnetic field dependence is therefore very different from what is expected for magnetic dipole transitions.[@Sakai] This is basically because the electric field conserves the $S^z$ quantum number. As we have just seen, however, in transverse magnetic field, $S^z$ is no longer conserved and the magnetic field-dependent branches may appear in the optical spectrum. They do indeed appear in [$\rm CuGeO_3$ ]{}.[@Loosdrecht]
We now compare the intensities of the magnetic dipole transitions with those of the electric dipole transitions that we have made explicit here. To make such a comparison, we consider the following two models that give intensity to the optical transitions. First a purely magnetic model and magnetic dipole transitions. In order to have an intensity, we need to add a static magnetic anisotropy, such as a Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction or an anisotropy in the $g$ factor, which are both first order in the spin-orbit coupling, so that in the most favourable case (when no lattice selection rule forbids it), the matrix element is of order $\sim
\Delta g/g$ at best. In the second model, we consider an isotropic magnetic model, but we add the anisotropic spin-phonon coupling that we have considered above. The intensities of the transitions of the two models are given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
I_M &=& |\langle f | g\mu_B \textbf{\mbox{h}}.\textbf{\mbox{S}}_{tot} |
0 \rangle |^2 \sim [g \mu_B h]^2 \left( \frac{\Delta g}{g}
\right)^2 \\ I_E &=& \mid \langle f |
\textbf{\mbox{D}}. \textbf{\mbox{E}} \mid 0 \rangle \mid^2 \sim \left( \frac{\Delta g}{g} \right)^2
\left(\frac{ \Omega_s E}{\omega_f^2 -
\Omega_s^2}\right)^2 (\textbf{\mbox{D}}_s.\textbf{\mbox{E}})^2\end{aligned}$$
So that the ratio is:
$$\frac{I_E}{I_M} \sim \left(\frac{\textbf{\mbox{D}}_s.\textbf{\mbox{E}}}{g \mu_B H} \right)^2 \left(\frac{ \Omega_s E}{\omega_f^2 - \Omega_s^2}\right)^2$$
where $E=cH$, $c$ is the speed of light. $D$ is given by $D \sim e \lambda$ where $\lambda \sim
\sqrt{\frac{\hbar^2}{M \Omega}}$ is the amplitude of the motion of the ion and $e$ is its charge.
$$\frac{I_E}{I_M} \sim \left( \frac{ec \lambda}{g \mu_B} \right)^2 \left(\frac{ \Omega E}{\omega_f^2 - \Omega^2}\right)^2 \sim 40$$
with $M_{Cu}=63 \rm g/mol$ ($M_{at} \sim 10^{-25}\rm kg$), $\Omega =
10 \rm meV$, we find $\lambda \sim 0.1 \rm \AA$. $g\mu_B=120 \mu \rm
eV/T$. We take $\omega=5 \rm meV$ for the energy of the magnetic mode and $g=2 \rm meV$ for the spin-phonon coupling. This estimation has to be taken with a pinch of salt because of the the crude order of magnitude given above, but it shows that there is no particular reason to not consider the electric dipole transition due to dynamical Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction.
Application to $\rm CuGeO_3$ and $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$. {#application}
======================================================
We compare the selection rules derived above with the experimental observation in $\rm CuGeO_3$. Experimentally, the absorption has been observed in the configuration $\textbf{\mbox{E}} \perp c$ but an extinction has been reported for $\textbf{\mbox{E}} \parallel c$,[@Damascelli] even in the presence of a magnetic field.[@Room-cugeo]
We have a natural interpretation of this fact: when $\textbf{\mbox{E}}
\parallel c$, the only contributions to $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}$ come from the virtual phonons $s$ that have $\textbf{\mbox{D}}_s
\parallel c$, or, in other words, the virtual phonons involved are those which are optically active in this configuration. The vector $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}$ is given by $\sum_{\beta} d_d^{\alpha
\beta} \lambda_{ds,q=0}^{\beta}$ where $\lambda_{ds,q=0}^{\beta}$ are the displacements of the atoms, the same as those that appear at higher energy in the real phonon state $s$. In the configuration $\textbf{\mbox{E}} \parallel c$, the atoms in the phonon state $s$ roughly move along the $c$-axis. In a crystal with many atoms per unit cell, this is not exactly true and the displacements will acquire other components (a full study of the phonons that have been theoretically predicted in Ref. does not change the picture). Then, according to the figure \[d\], the dynamical Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction is forbidden $\textbf{\mbox{d}}_s=0$ because of the mirror plane containing the atoms and the mirror plane perpendicular to the previous plane and containing the Cu atoms. Therefore, the intensity vanishes in this special configuration. In other configurations, however, there is no such symmetry arguments leading to a cancellation of the dynamical Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction, and an intensity is expected in agreement with the experiment performed in $\rm CuGeO_3$.
We now consider the electric dipole transitions in $\rm
SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ in greater detail. The obvious advantage of this compound is that, neglecting anisotropies, it is described by the Shastry-Sutherland[@ShastrySutherland] Hamiltonian that possesses an exactly known ground state as a product of local singlets.[@Miyahara] Optical transitions have been observed between this ground state and each of the zero-field three-split triplet states [@Nojiri; @Room] (see Fig. \[excitationspectrum\]) that have been described previously.[@Cepas] The probability of a transition between the ground state $\Psi_0$ and an excited state $f$ is given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle f | \sum_{nn} \gamma \textbf{\mbox{S}}_i.\textbf{\mbox{S}}_j +
\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_{ij}.(\textbf{\mbox{S}}_i \times \textbf{\mbox{S}}_j)
| \Psi_0 \rangle
\label{general pattern0}\end{aligned}$$
We have restricted the operator $H_E$ to the nearest neighbor spins (nn) in order to find the largest effect. The first part of it does not change the total spin but may generate transitions to the first excited states if the system has some anisotropy. We have considered previously the existence of a Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction whose vector is perpendicular to the plane.[@Cepas] We have shown that such first-order anisotropy does not give intensity within the assumption of magnetic dipole transitions. Here we start by considering the electric dipole transitions generated by the first part of the operator (\[general pattern0\]) and in presence of the static Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction. Using a symmetry argument we show that this part actually vanishes. $S^z$ is a conserved quantity so that we only need to consider the matrix elements with a $S^z=0$ final state. The symmetry by the mirror plane perpendicular to the (ab) plane and passing through a dimer is a symmetry of the crystal. In this symmetry, the ground state and the operator $\sum_{nn} \gamma \textbf{\mbox{S}}_i.\textbf{\mbox{S}}_j$ are both even. However the triplet state $S^z=0$ adiabatically connected to the local triplet at $J^{\prime}=0$ (the next nearest neighbor exchange) is odd. Then the matrix element vanishes. Additional spin anisotropy of the [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}symmetry with extra in-plane components is present because of the small buckling of the crystal structure at low temperatures.[@Kakurai] However, this (together with possible exchange anisotropies) would, in any case, respect the same mirror-plane symmetry. So the first term is not expected to give intensity, because of this special symmetry.
In $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$, the transitions have been studied using polarized electromagnetic waves and exhibit very peculiar polarisation properties: in the configuration $\textbf{\mbox{E}} \parallel (ab)$, at zero field, only the state at 24.2cm$^{-1}$ (i.e. the $S^z=0$ state \[the middle state\]) appears in the spectrum, but an external in-plane magnetic field gives intensity in the two other modes (upper and lower modes).[@Room] Similarly when the magnetic field lies in the $(ab)$ plane, only the upper state at 25.4cm$^{-1}$ (i.e. the $S^z=
\pm 1$) appears at zero magnetic field while an in-plane magnetic field allows observation of the middle state, but not the lower one. [@Room]
We now show that these observations are compatible with the dynamical Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction which leads to the second part of the effective operator (\[effectiveoperator\]). To explain these results we need to find the particular pattern of *dynamical* Dzyaloshinski-Moriya vectors and then the $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_{ij}$. That crucially depends on the direction of the electric field of the wave, according to eq. (\[delta\]). In the following, we will determine the $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_{ij}$ but we restrict them to nearest neighbor interactions.
*Configuration $\textbf{\mbox{E}}(t) \parallel (ab)$*. Let us consider first the case of a wave-vector of the electromagnetic wave parallel to the $c$-axis, then the electric field lies in the $ab$ plane. According to the first selection rule (i), only the virtual phonons which carry an electric dipole $D_s \parallel (ab)$ may contribute to the sum (\[delta\]). We basically assume that the main displacements of the atoms in such a virtual phonon mode are confined into the (ab) plane. We make the assumption that the main components of $\mbox{\boldmath$\lambda$}_{ds}$ are parallel to the electric field, so that we should be able to find the main components of the Dzyaloshinski-Moriya vectors $\textbf{\mbox{d}}_{ij,s}$ (eq. \[delta\]). To estimate them (and then $\mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}_{ij}$), we fix the atoms $d$ at the distorted positions $\mbox{\boldmath$\lambda$}_{ds}$ and we then apply the Moriya’s rules which give the constraints on the Dzyaloshinski-Moriya vectors. In this case, the plane remains instantaneously an approximate mirror plane for the crystal structure. Subsequently, the instantaneous $d$-vector between the spins, generated by the distortions, should be perpendicular to this plane (parallel to the $c$-axis). The effective operator is therefore written:
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{E \parallel (ab)} &=& \sum_{nn,A} \delta_z^A (\textbf{\mbox{S}}_i \times \textbf{\mbox{S}}_j)^z + \sum_{nn,B} \delta_{z}^B (\textbf{\mbox{S}}_i \times \textbf{\mbox{S}}_j)^z
\label{confEab}\end{aligned}$$
where $z$ is here again the $c$-axis. We have introduced two different $\delta_z^{A,B}$ to take into account the existence of two dimers per unit-cell. Taking the same would not change the argument. In the following we take the notation $\delta_z^2=[(\delta_z^{A})^2+(\delta_z^{B})^2]/2$. The operator (\[confEab\]) does not break the symmetry by rotation around the $c$-axis. A transition to the $S^z=\pm 1$ when the external magnetic field is parallel to the $c$-axis is still forbidden. Only the $S^z=0$ triplet mode (at the middle of the others [@Cepas]) is allowed to appear in the spectrum (this is in agreement with the general symmetry argument given above since the electric field breaks the symmetry by mirror plane). This is in agreement with the experimental result at zero-field.[@Room] We further predict that a magnetic field parallel to the $c$-axis does not change the picture and gives no intensity in the other branches. We can give an estimation of the intensity assuming an approximate wave-function for the excited state that we take from the strong dimerization limit. In this approximation, the excitation with $S^z=0$ is a purely local triplet on the dimer A or B. This gives an intensity:
$$\begin{aligned}
I_E^0(H_{\parallel}) &=& |\langle \Psi_{q=0}^{A,0}|H_E|\Psi_0 \rangle|^2+|\langle \Psi_{q=0}^{B,0}|H_E|\Psi_0 \rangle|^2 = \delta_z^2/2 \\
I_E^{\pm}(H_{\parallel}) &=& 0 \end{aligned}$$
We now consider the effect of a transverse magnetic field ($\textbf{\mbox{H}} \perp c$) on the intensities. A transverse magnetic field splits the modes into three branches (figure \[excitationspectrum\], left). To evaluate the intensity of each branch, we first calculate the excited states in the approximation used above, taking into account the *static* [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}interaction which is responsible for the zero-field splitting. Note that the other in-plane components do not play any role in the triplet spectrum at $q=0$,[@Kakurai] so that only the perpendicular component appear in the following.
The eigenvalues are in fact twice degenerate. The eigenvectors are denoted by $\Psi_{q=0}^{(\pm,0)}$ and $\Psi_{q=0}^{(\pm,0) \prime}$ with energies $E_q^{(\pm,0)}$. We then calculate the matrix elements as a function of the transverse magnetic field:
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{E \parallel (ab)}^{(\pm,0)}(H_{\perp}) \equiv |\langle \Psi_{q=0}^{(\pm,0)}|H_E|\Psi_0 \rangle|^2+|\langle \Psi_{q=0}^{(\mp,0) \prime}|H_E|\Psi_0 \rangle|^2\end{aligned}$$
We find:
$$\begin{aligned}
I^{0}_E(H_{\perp}) &=& \frac{\delta_z^2}{2} \frac{1}{1+h^2} \label{ieparab1} \\
I^{\pm}_E(H_{\perp}) &=& \frac{\delta_z^2}{4} \frac{h^2}{1+h^2} \label{ieparab2}\end{aligned}$$
where $ h = g \mu_B H_{\perp}/2D $ is the transverse magnetic field in the units of the *static* Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction. A transverse field transfers intensity into the lower and upper modes. The two curves given by $I^{0}_E(H_{\perp})$ and $I^{+}_E(H_{\perp})+I^{-}_E(H_{\perp})$ are shown in figure \[transitions optiques sous champ magnetique\] together with the experimental results of Ref. . We have used the non-renormalized value of $D=0.09 \rm meV$ extracted from the energy spectrum [@Cepas] (all the calculations we performed here are in the limit $J^{\prime}/J \rightarrow 0$, so that we use the value of $D$ we would have extracted from such a calculation and not the renormalized value). Note that if we take $I^{0}_E(H_{\perp})$ and $I^{+}_E(H_{\perp})$ for instance, they cross at a given field $H_{\perp}=2\sqrt{2}D/(g\mu_B) \sim 2.1 T$, which is in good agreement with the crossing of the fitted intensities in the original experimental article ($H_{\perp}=2.3 T$)[@Room]. This is most probably coincidental since we are using the wave-functions that are not renormalized by the interaction $J^{\prime}$.
*Configuration $\textbf{\mbox{E}}(t) \parallel c$*. We consider the case of an electric field perpendicular to the plane $\textbf{\mbox{E}}(t)
\parallel c$. Let us suppose that the atoms move out of plane. According to the figure \[d\], the dynamical Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction would be in plane and perpendicular to the $\rm Cu-Cu$ bond. The dimers are, however, perpendicular to one another. Therefore the dynamical Dzyaloshinski-Moriya vectors of adjacent dimers should be perpendicular as well. The effective electric operator is:
$$H_{E \parallel c} = \sum_{nn,A} \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}.(\textbf{\mbox{S}}_i \times \textbf{\mbox{S}}_j) + \sum_{nn,B} \mbox{\boldmath$\delta$}^{\prime}.(\textbf{\mbox{S}}_i \times \textbf{\mbox{S}}_j)$$
where $\delta$ (respectively $\delta^{\prime}$) is perpendicular to the Cu-Cu bond of the dimers $A$ (resp. B), so parallel to $y$ (resp. $x$). Note that we take the same $|\delta|$ and $|\delta^{\prime}|$. Strictly speaking there is no reason why they should be the same but taking into account the special direction of the field we can reasonably assume that the motions of the atoms which belong to adjacent dimers are similar at least for the low-energy phonons. Let us apply this operator on the ground state which is approximately a product of singlet states on the dimers (we thus neglect the effect the static Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interactions have on the ground state which would give small corrections to the result).
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{E \parallel c} |\Psi_0 \rangle &=& \frac{\delta}{2 \sqrt{2}} \left(\Psi_{q=0}^{A,S^z=+1} + i \Psi_{q=0}^{B,S^z=+1} \right) \nonumber \\ &-& \frac{\delta}{2 \sqrt{2}} \left( \Psi_{q=0}^{A,S^z=-1} - i \Psi_{q=0}^{B,S^z=-1} \right) \\
&=& \frac{ \delta}{2} \left( \Psi_{q=0}^{+,S^z=+1} - \Psi_{q=0}^{-,S^z=-1} \right) \end{aligned}$$
Note that $\Psi_{q=0}^{+,S^z=+1}$ and $\Psi_{q=0}^{-,S^z=-1}$ are both eigenstates of the Hamiltonian restricted to triplet states with the same energy $J+2D$. Depending on the sign of $D$, therefore, only the *upper* mode or the *lower* mode should appear in the spectrum. Experimentally, the upper mode has been found in such a polarised configuration,[@Room] so that we conclude that $D>0$. Only a detailed super-exchange calculation of $D$ would be able to infer it. The matrix elements giving the intensities are given by:
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{E \parallel c}^{+,+1}(H_{\parallel}) \equiv |\langle \Psi_{q=0}^{+,S^z=+1}|H_{E \parallel c}|\Psi_0 \rangle|^2= \delta^2/4 \\ I_{E \parallel c}^{-,-1}(H_{\parallel}) \equiv |\langle \Psi_{q=0}^{-,S^z=-1}|H_{E \parallel c}|\Psi_0 \rangle|^2= \delta^2/4\end{aligned}$$
In zero external magnetic field, the two final states are degenerate so that the total intensity of the optical transitions is the sum of the two, i.e. $\delta^2/2$. In a magnetic field parallel to the c-axis ($z$-axis), the upper mode splits into two branches with equal intensity $\delta^2/4$.
Furthermore, we calculate the intensities as a function of a transverse magnetic field. The excited states $\Psi_{q=0}^{(\pm,0)}$ and $\Psi_{q=0}^{(\mp,0) \prime}$ are twice degenerate, so we calculate:
$$\begin{aligned}
I_{E \parallel c}^{(\pm,0)}(H_{\perp}) \equiv |\langle \Psi_{q=0}^{(\pm,0)}|H_E|\Psi_0 \rangle|^2+|\langle \Psi_{q=0}^{(\mp,0) \prime}|H_E|\Psi_0 \rangle|^2\end{aligned}$$
We find the following expressions for the intensity of the upper (+), lower (-) and middle (0) states:
$$\begin{aligned}
I^{\pm}_{E \parallel c}(H_{\perp}) &=& \frac{\delta^2}{8} \frac{h^4}{\left[1 + h^2 \right] \left[\pm \sqrt{1+ h^2}-1\right]^2} \label{ieparc1} \\
I^{0}_{E \parallel c}(H_{\perp}) &=& \frac{\delta^2}{4} \frac{h^2}{1+h^2}
\label{ieparc2}\end{aligned}$$
where $ h = g \mu_B H_{\perp}/2D $. The corresponding curves are given in the figure \[transitions optiques sous champ magnetique1\]. Note that the crossing between $I_E^+$ and $I_E^0$ occurs at $g \mu_B H_{\perp}=4 \sqrt{2} D$, therefore at a field two times larger than in the configuration $\textbf{\mbox{E}} \parallel (ab)$. The agreement with the experiment is very good since such a balance of the intensities has been observed.[@Room] The lower mode does not actually appears in the spectrum experimentally and this is compatible with the low intensity we found. If we take the non-renormalized value of $D=0.09 \rm meV$, the crossing of the intensities occur at $H_{\perp}=4.6 T$ which is in good agreement with the experimental value ($\sim 6T$), as well as the overall behavior of the curves.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we have considered optical transitions with emission of one magnetic excitation, $\Delta S_{tot}=1$. We give a mechanism in terms of phonon-assisted transitions in which a virtual phonon is involved. The selection rules of such processes were made explicit: in brief we need a coupling to an infrared active phonon that breaks, at least instantaneously, the symmetry of inversion between magnetically coupled ions. The intensity of such a process has been estimated and we argue that it should be larger than a magnetic-dipole transition, at least in systems in which spin-phonon couplings are appreciable. It provides an alternative to purely electronic transitions that are not allowed when an inversion center is present.
We note that we have considered uniquely the consequences of phonon assisted optical transitions in the context of single-phonon experiments, i.e. ESR and absorption. The same mechanism can lead to processes in Raman scattering allowing single magnon creation, with similar selection rules concerning centers of inversion in the lattice. The effective operators will have similar symmetry but are not identical, involving the polarisations of both incoming and outgoing photons. Experimentally there are extra contributions linear in both spin operators and spin-orbit couplings that are not present in the single photon case. While for the spectroscopy of single magnons in the materials studied, Raman scattering should be useful, single photon experiments may permit more direct comparison with microscopic estimates of intensities.
In the final section we have studied the two specific case of [$\rm CuGeO_3$ ]{}and [ $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ ]{}for which polarised experiments are available. We have shown that predictions of the phonon-assisted theory agrees well both with observed extinctions and also, for the case of [ $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ ]{}where detailed results are available, with the dependence of intensities as function of the external magnetic field. Further optical data should be analysed in terms of an effective operator of the [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}symmetry for the matrix elements in the electric dipole approximation. Potentially such optical experiments can provide a means of probing microscopically the spin-phonon coupling which may be relevant to other experiments, for example neutron inelastic scattering experiments at finite momentum transfer, and a way of studying four-spin correlation functions involving some sort of local chiralities.
We would like to thank T. R$\tilde{\mbox{o}}$$\tilde{\mbox{o}}$m for correspondance and for providing us with his experimental results, J.-P. Boucher, H. Nojiri, and T. Sakai for stimulating discussions. O.C acknowledges financial supports from the I.L.L. and the Indo-French grant IFCPAR/2404.1.
[99]{} F. F. Bass and M. I. Kaganov, Soviet Phys.-JETP **10**, 986 (1960). R. J. Elliott and R. Loudon, Phys. Lett. **3**, 189 (1963). Y. R. Shen and N. Bloembergen, Phys. Rev. **143**, 372 (1966). P. A. Fleury and R. Loudon, Phys. Rev. **166**, 514 (1968). Y. Tanabe, T. Moriya, and S. Sugano, Phys. Rev. Lett. **15**, 1023 (1965). J. Lorenzana and G. A. Sawatzky, Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 1867 (1995) ; Phys. Rev. B **52**, 9576 (1995). R. J. Elliott and M. Thorpe, J. Phys. C: (Solid St. Phys.) **2**, 1630 (1969).
M. Motokawa, RIKEN Review **27**, 64 (2000). T.M. Brill, J.P. Boucher, J. Voiron, G. Dhalenne, A. Revcolevschi, and J.P. Renard, Phys. Rev. Lett. **73**, 1545 (1994). P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, S. Huant, G. Martinez, G. Dhalenne, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B **54**, R3730 (1996). A. Damascelli, D. van der Marel, F. Parmigiani, G. Dhalenne, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B **56**, R11374 (1997). H. Nojiri, H. Ohta, S. Okubo, O. Fujita, J. Akimitsu, and M. Motokawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn, **68**, 3417 (1999). K. Takehana, T. Takamasu, M. Hase, G. Kido, K. Uchinokura, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 5191 (2000). J. J. McGuire, T. R$\tilde{\mbox{o}}$$\tilde{\mbox{o}}$m, T. E. Mason, T. Timusk, H. Dablowska, S. M. Coad, D. McK. Paul, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 1157 (1999). S. Luther, H. Nojiri, M. Motokawa, M. Isobe, and Y. Ueda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **67**, 3715 (1998); H. Nojiri , S. Luther, M. Motokawa, M. Isobe, and Y. Ueda, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn, **69**, 2291 (2000). K. Takehana, T. Takamasu, G. Kido, M. Isobe and Y. Ueda, Physica B **294-295**, 79 (2001). H. Nojiri, H. Kageyama, K. Onizuka, Y. Ueda, and M. Motokawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **68**, 2906 (1999). H. Nojiri, H. Kageyama, Y. Ueda, and M. Motokawa, cond-mat/0212479, to be published in J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. T. R$\tilde{\mbox{o}}$$\tilde{\mbox{o}}$m, U. Nagel, E. Lippmaa, H. Kageyama, K. Onizuka, and Y. Ueda, Phys. Rev. B **61**, 14342 (2000). W. Lu, J. Tuchendler, M. von Ortenberg, and J. P. Renard, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 3716 (1991). P.P. Mitra and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **72**, 912 (1994). G.S. Uhrig, Phys. Rev. Lett. **79**, 163 (1997). T. Sakai, O. Cépas, and T. Ziman, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn **69**, 3521 (2000). G.T. Rado, Phys. Rev. Lett. **6**, 609 (1961). Note that there is a small buckling in the crystal structure of [ $\rm SrCu_2(BO_3)_2$ ]{}in the low temperature phase that actually removes the inversion center. Nevertheless the buckling is very small. Therefore while the corresponding operator would not vanish exactly, it will be strongly reduced. The consequences on static [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}interactions have been discussed in Ref. . Recently effects of the extra components of the [Dzyaloshinski-Moriya ]{}generated on the magnetic-dipole induced transitions have been considered in S. Miyashita, A. Ogasahra J. Phys. Soc. Japan **72**, 2350 (2003). K. Kakurai, N. Aso, K. Nukui, M. Nishi, H. Kageyama, Y. Ueda, H. Kadowaki, and O. Cépas, in Quantum Properties of Low-Dimensional Antiferromagnets, editors Y. Ajiro and J.-P. Boucher, Kyushu University Press (2002). I. Dzyaloshinski, J. Phys. Chem. Solids **4**, 241 (1958). T. Moriya, Phys. Rev. Lett. **4**, 228 (1960) ; Phys. Rev. **120**, 91 (1960). R. Valenti, C. Gros and W. Brenig, Phys. Rev. B **62**, 14164 (2000). M. Braden, G. Wilkendorf, J. Lorenzana, M. Aïn, G. J. McIntyre, M. Behruzi, G. Heger, G. Dhalenne, and A. Revcolevschi, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 1105 (1996). R. Werner, C. Gros, and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. B **59**, 14356 (1999). S. Shastry and B. Sutherland, Physica [**108B**]{}, 1069 (1981). S. Miyahara and K. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. **82**, 3701 (1999). O. Cépas, K. Kakurai, L.P. Regnault, T. Ziman, J.P. Boucher, N.Aso, M. Nishi, H. Kageyama and Y.Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 167205 (2001). We thank T. R$\tilde{\mbox{o}}$$\tilde{\mbox{o}}$m (private communication) for providing us with the correct intensities.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the framework of homological characterizations of relative hyperbolicity, Groves and Manning posed the question of whether a simply connected $2$-complex $X$ with a linear homological isoperimetric inequality, a bound on the length of attaching maps of $2$-cells and finitely many $2$-cells adjacent to any edge must have a fine $1$-skeleton. We provide a positive answer to this question. We revisit a homological characterization of relative hyperbolicity, and show that a group $G$ is hyperbolic relative to a collection of subgroups $\mc P$ if and only if $G$ acts cocompactly with finite edge stabilizers on an connected $2$-dimensional cell complex with a linear homological isoperimetric inequality and $\mc P$ is a collection of representatives of conjugacy classes of vertex stabilizers.'
address: |
Memorial University\
St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada A1C 5S7
author:
- 'Eduardo Martínez-Pedroza'
title: A note on fine graphs and homological isoperimetric inequalities
---
Introduction
============
In this article, we investigate the relation between the notion of fine graph and homological isoperimetric inequalities of combinatorial complexes. We work in the category of combinatorial complexes and combinatorial maps as defined, for example, in [@BrHa99 Chapter I.8, Appendix]. All group actions on complexes are by combinatorial maps.
The notion of fine graph was introduced by Bowditch in his investigations on the theory of relatively hyperbolic groups [@Bo12].
A *graph* $\Gamma$ is a $1$-dimensional combinatorial complex. A *circuit* is a simple closed combinatorial path. A graph $\Gamma$ is *fine* if for every edge $e$ and each integer $L>0$, the number of circuits of length at most $L$ which contain $e$ is finite.
Let $\K$ denote either $\Z$, $\Q$ or $\R$. For a cell complex $X$, the cellular chain group $C_i(X, \K)$ is a free $\K$-module with a natural $\ell_1$-norm induced by a basis formed by the collection of all $i$-dimensional cells of $X$, each cell with a chosen orientation from each pair of opposite orientations. This norm, denoted by $\|\gamma\|_1$, is the sum of the absolute value of the coefficients in the unique representation of the chain $\gamma$ as a linear combination over $\K$ of the elements of the basis.
\[def:FVX\] The *homological Dehn function of a cell complex $X$ over $\K$* is the function $FV_{X, \K} \colon\N \to \K \cup \{\infty\}$ defined as $$FV_{X, \K} (k) = \sup \left \{ \ \| \gamma \|_{\partial} \colon \gamma \in Z_1(X, \Z), \ \| \gamma \|_1 \leq k \ \right \},$$ where $$\| \gamma \|_{\partial, \K} = \inf \left \{ \ \| \mu \|_1 \colon \mu \in C_{2}(X, \K), \ \partial ( \mu ) = \gamma \ \right \},$$ where the supremum and infimum of the empty set are defined as zero and $\infty$ respectively. In words, $FV_{X, \K}(k)$ is the most efficient upper bound on the size of fillings by $2$-chains over $\K$ of $1$-cycles over $\Z$ of size at most $k$.
The following result exhibits the natural relation between the notions of fine graph and homological Dehn function in the context of $G$-spaces. Observe that a necessary condition for $FV_{X, \K}$ being finite-valued is that $X$ has trivial first homology group over $\K$.
\[prop:main\] Let $X$ be a cocompact $G$-cell complex with finite stabilizers of $1$-cells. The following two statements are equivalent:
1. $X$ has fine $1$-skeleton and $H_1(X, \Z)$ is trivial,
2. \[main2\] $FV_{X, \Z}(k)<\infty$ for any integer $k$.
\[def:hom-isop-ineq\] Let $X$ be a complex. We shall say that $X$ satisfies a *homological isoperimetric inequality over $\K$* if $FV_{X, \K}(k)<\infty$ for any integer $k$, and we say that $X$ satisfies a *linear homological isoperimetric inequality over $\K$* if there is a constant $A\geq 0$ such that $FV_{X, \K}(k)\leq kA$.
The definition of linear homological isoperimetric inequality above is equivalent to the definition used by Groves and Manning [@GrMa09 Definition 2.28], see Proposition \[prop:definitions\]. The following question was raised in [@GrMa09].
\[question\] [@GrMa09 Question. 2.51] Let $X$ be a simply connected $2$-complex with a homological (linear?) isoperimetric inequality, a bound on the length of attaching maps of $2$-cells and finitely many $2$-cells adjacent to any edge. Must $X$ be fine?
Question \[question\] was raised in the context of homological isoperimetric inequalities over the rational numbers. It can also be interpreted in the context of homological isoperimetric inequalities over the integers. In both cases the question is answered in the positive by Theorem \[thm:answer\] below, but we remark that in the rational case our argument requires the suggested hypothesis of a linear isoperimetric inequality.
\[thm:answer\] Let $X$ be a cell complex such that each $1$-cell is adjacent to finitely many $2$-cells. The $1$-skeleton of $X$ is a fine graph if either
1. $FV_{X, \Z}(k)<\infty$ for any integer $k$, or
2. \[answer2\] $X$ is simply-connected, there is a bound on the length of attaching maps of $2$-cells, and there is $C\geq 0$ such that $FV_{X, \Q}(k)\leq Ck$ for every $k$.
The question of whether in Theorem \[thm:answer\], for the rational case, the assumption $FV_{X, \Q}(k)<\infty$ for every $k$ is sufficient to conclude fineness remains open. In this regard, there is a related question raised by Gersten of whether there is a constant $C\geq 0$ such that $ FV_{X, \Z}(k) \leq C\cdot FV_{X, \Q}(k)$, see [@GerstenCohomology Section 4, open question] and [@Ge99 Introduction]. A positive answer to Gersten’s question would imply that in Theorem \[thm:answer\], for the rational case, only the assumptions that $X$ is simply-connected and $FV_{X, \Q}(k)<\infty$ are sufficient to conclude fineness.
We provide a proof of the following converse of Theorem \[thm:answer\] in the class of cocompact $G$-spaces. For a definition of hyperbolic graph we refer the reader to [@Bo12; @BrHa99]. We shall say that a complex $X$ is *$1$-acyclic* if it is connected and has trivial first homology group over the integers.
\[thm:forfuture\] Let $G$ be a group. Let $Y$ be a $1$-acyclic cocompact $G$-complex with fine and hyperbolic $1$-skeleton and finite $G$-stabilizers of $1$-cells. Then there is $C\geq 0$ such that $FV_{Y, \Z}(k)\leq Ck$ for every $k$. In particular, $FV_{Y, \Q}(k) \leq Ck$ for every $k$.
There are results implying hyperbolicity with assumptions in terms of homological linear isoperimetric inequalities over $\Q$ or $\R$. These are more subtle results. In the case that $X$ is the universal cover of a $K(G, 1)$ with finite $2$-skeleton and $FV_{X, \K}$ is linearly bounded, Gersten proved that $FV_{X, \Z}$ is also linearly bounded using constructions by Papasoglu and Ol’shanskii, see [@GerstenCohomology Theorems 5.1 and 5.7] and the references there in. This argument was revisited by Mineyev in [@Mi02 Theorem 7]. Groves and Manning remarked that these arguments do not rely in the complex $X$ being locally finite, and observed that the following result holds.
\[prop:hyperbolicity\][@GrMa09 Theorem 2.30] Let $X$ be a simply-connected complex such there is a bound on the length of attaching maps of $2$-cells. If $FV_{X, \Q}$ is bounded by a linear function then the $1$-skeleton of $X$ is a hyperbolic graph.
The type of homological functions of Definition \[def:FVX\] have been considered in the contexts of relatively hyperbolic groups for example in [@GrMa09; @MP15; @MiYa]. Combining Theorems \[thm:answer\], \[thm:forfuture\] and \[prop:hyperbolicity\] allows us to provide a characterization of relatively hyperbolic groups in terms of homological Dehn functions stated as Theorem \[thm:chrhyp\] below. This characterization resembles the approach to relative hyperbolicity by Osin in terms of a relative Dehn function [@Os06], strengthens the homological characterization by Groves and Manning [@GrMa09 Theorem 3.25], and extends a characterization of hyperbolic groups by Gersten [@Ge96 Theorem 3.1].
We use the definition of relatively hyperbolic groups by Bowditch in terms of cocompact actions on fine graphs [@Bo12]. This approach is equivalent to the well known definitions by Gromov [@Gr87] and Osin [@Os06] when one restricts to the class of finitely generated groups, see [@HK08; @Os06].
\[def:BowRH\][@Bo12] A group $G$ is *hyperbolic relative to a finite collection of subgroups $\mc P$* if $G$ acts on a connected, fine, $\delta$-hyperbolic graph $\Gamma$ with finite edge stabilizers, finitely many orbits of edges, and $\mc P$ is a set of representatives of distinct conjugacy classes of vertex stabilizers (such that each infinite stabilizer is represented). A $G$-graph $\Gamma$ with all these properties is called a $(G, \mc P)$-graph.
We remark that in Definition \[def:BowRH\] the group $G$ is not assumed to be finitely generated, and there are no assumptions on the subgroups in $\mc P$. Recall that a complex $X$ is *$1$-acyclic* if it is connected and has trivial first homology group over the integers.
\[thm:chrhyp\] Let $G$ be a group and let $\mc P$ be a finite collection of subgroups. Then $G$ is hyperbolic relative to $\mc P$ if and only if there is an $1$-acyclic $G$-complex $X$ such that
1. the $G$-action on $X$ is cocompact,
2. there is $C\geq 0$ such that $FV_{X, \Z}(k)\leq Ck$ for every $k$.,
3. the $G$-stabilizers of $1$-cells of $X$ are finite, and
4. $\mc P$ is a collection of representatives of conjugacy classes of $G$-stabilizers of $0$-cells such that each infinite stabilizer is represented.
A complex studied in the context of relatively hyperbolic groups is the coned-off Cayley complex $\widehat C$ of a finite presentation of $G$ relative to a collection of finitely generated subgroups $\mc P$, for a definition of this complex see [@GrMa09 Definition 2.47] or the last section of this note. The statement of Theorem \[thm:chrhyp\] replacing $X$ by the coned-off Cayley complex is a homological characterization of relative hyperbolicity by Groves and Manning [@GrMa09 Theorem 3.25]. Finding a more direct proof of this characterization was one of the motivations of Question \[question\]. A precise statement of this characterization together with a discussion of its proof is in Section \[sec:3.3\].
The rest of the article is organized in two parts. The first section contains results on the relation between fine graphs and homological Dehn functions and, in particular, the proof of Theorem \[prop:main\]. The second section contains the proofs of Theorems \[thm:answer\], \[thm:forfuture\] and \[thm:chrhyp\]; this part concludes with a discussion of coned-off Cayley complexes.
Fine graphs and The homological Dehn function over $\Z$
=======================================================
Through this article, when considering a complex $X$, we assume that for each cell of positive dimension an orientation has been chosen once and for all. As usual, the group of $n$-cycles $C_n(X, \Z)$ is understood as the free abelian group with free basis the collection of $n$-cells with their chosen orientation. These chosen orientations are necessary in order to define the boundary maps.
In this section, we only consider homological Dehn functions over $\Z$, so through all the section $FV_{X}$ and $\|\cdot\|_\partial$ shall denote $FV_{X, \Z}$ and $\|\cdot \|_{\partial, \Z}$. For statements of results we use the standard notation.
Proof of Theorem \[prop:main\]
------------------------------
\[prop:fine-crit\] Let $X$ be a complex such that $FV_{X, \Z}(k)<\infty$ for every integer $k$, and each $1$-cell of $X$ is adjacent to finitely many $2$-cells. Then the $1$-skeleton of $X$ is a fine graph.
For the proof of Proposition \[prop:fine-crit\], we introduce the notions of *disjoint $1$-chain* and *special $2$-chain*.
Let $X$ be a complex and consider the free abelian group of chains $C_1(X, \Z)$ with basis the collection of $1$-cells of $X$. Two $1$-chains $\alpha, \beta \in C_1(X, \Z)$ are *disjoint* if, when considering their unique expressions as linear combinations in the basis, there is no element of the basis having non-zero coefficients in both expressions.
\[lem:key-observation\] Let $\gamma \in Z_1(X, \Z)$ be a cellular $1$-cycle induced by a circuit in the $1$-skeleton of $X$. If $\gamma = \alpha+\beta$ where $\alpha, \beta \in Z_1(X, \Z)$ are disjoint then either $\alpha$ or $\beta$ is trivial.
Let $\{e_i\}_{i\in I}$ be the collection of $1$-cells of $X$. Suppose that $\gamma = \sum_{i\in I} c_i e_i$. Since $\gamma$ is induced by a circuit, observe that for every proper subset $J \subsetneq I$ we have that either $\sum_{i\in J} c_i e_i=\gamma$, or $\sum_{i\in J} c_i e_i = 0$, or $\partial \left( \sum_{i\in J} c_i e_i \right) \neq 0$. Therefore, if $\gamma = \alpha+\beta$ where $\alpha, \beta \in Z_1(X, \Z)$ are disjoint, then either $\alpha=0$ or $\beta=0$.
Let $X$ be a complex and consider $C_1(X, \Z)$ and $C_2(X, \Z)$ with their free $\Z$-bases corresponding to the collections of $1$-cells and $2$-cells of $X$ respectively. Let $e$ be a $1$-cell of $X$. A *special $2$-chain based at $e$* is a $2$-chain $\mu$ such that there is a sequence $f_1, \ldots , f_n$ of elements of the basis of $C_2(X, \Z)$ such that $\mu = \sum_{i =1}^n \epsilon_i f_i$ where $\epsilon_i= \pm 1$ and
1. $\|\mu\|_{1}=n$,
2. the $1$-chains $e$ and $\partial f_1$ are not disjoint, and
3. for every $k<n$ the $1$-cycles $\partial \sum_{i=1}^k \epsilon_i f_i$ and $\partial f_{k+1}$ are not disjoint.
If $\mu = \sum_{i =1}^n \epsilon_i f_i$ is a special $2$-chain of $X$ based at $e$, then for every $k\leq n$, the chain $\sum_{i =1}^k \epsilon_i f_i$ is special.
Consider $C_1(X, \Z)$ and $C_2(X, \Z)$ with their free $\Z$-bases corresponding to the collections of $1$-cells and $2$-cells of $X$ respectively. We will show that for any $1$-cell $e$, any circuit $\gamma$ containing $e$ is (as a $1$-cycle) the boundary of a special $2$-chain $\mu$ based at $e$ such that $\|\mu\|_1\leq FV_X (\|\gamma\|_1)$, this is Claim 1 below. Since $FV_X$ is finite-valued, it follows that it is enough to prove that for each positive integer $n$ and each $1$-cell $e$ of $X$, there are finitely many special $2$-chains based at $e$ with $\ell_1$-norm bounded from above by $n$, this is Claim 2 below.
*Claim 1, minimal area fillings are special.* Let $\gamma$ be a $1$-cycle induced by a circuit in the $1$-skeleton of $X$ containing $e$, and let $\mu$ be a $2$-chain such that $\partial \mu=\gamma$ and $\|\mu\|_1=\|\gamma\|_\partial $. Then $\mu$ is a special $2$-chain based at $e$, and in particular $\|\mu\|_1\leq FV_X(\|\gamma\|_1)$.
Indeed, we have a unique expression $\mu = \sum_{i \in I} \epsilon_i f_i$ where each $f_i$ is an element of the basis of $C_2(X, \Z)$, $\epsilon_i= \pm 1$, and $\|\mu\|_1$ equals the cardinality of $I$. Consider a non-empty proper subset of $J\subsetneq I$ and consider the $1$-cycles $\alpha=\partial \left( \sum_{i\in J} \epsilon_i f_i \right)$ and $\beta = \partial \left ( \sum_{i\in I\setminus J} \epsilon_i f_i \right )$. Since $\|\mu\|_1=\|\gamma\|_\partial$, we have that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are non-zero cycles. Since $\gamma=\alpha+\beta$ is a $1$-cycle induced by a circuit, Lemma \[lem:key-observation\] implies that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are not disjoint. An induction argument then shows that we can order $I=\{1,\cdots, n\}$ so that $\mu = \sum_{i =1}^n \epsilon_i f_i$, the $1$-chains $e$ and $\partial f_1$ are not disjoint, and for every $k<n$ the $1$-cycles $\sum_{i=1}^k \epsilon_i f_i$ and $\partial f_{k+1}$ are not disjoint.
*Claim 2.* Let $n$ be a positive integer and let $e$ be a $1$-cell of $X$. Then there are finitely many special $2$-chains based at $e$ with $\ell_1$-norm equal $n$
Now we use the hypothesis that each $1$-cell of $X$ is adjacent to finitely many $2$-cells. Let $\sum_{i =1}^n \epsilon_i f_i$ be a special $2$-chain based at $e$. By the hypothesis, there are finitely many choices for $f_1$. Once we have chosen $\sum_{i =1}^k \epsilon_i f_i$ special based at $e$, since $\partial \left ( \sum_{i =1}^k \epsilon_i f_i \right)$ and $\partial f_{k+1}$ are not disjoint, the hypothesis implies that there are finitely many choices for $f_{k+1}$.
\[lem:criterionFV\] Let $X$ be a cocompact $G$-complex with trivial first homology and fine $1$-skeleton. Then $FV_{X, \Z}(k)<\infty$ for every integer $k$.
[@Ge98 Lemma A2]\[lem:circuitd\] Let $X$ be a complex. Any $1$-cycle $\gamma \in Z_1(X, \Z)$ can be expressed as a finite sum $\sum_{i} \alpha_i$ where each $\alpha_i$ is a $1$-cycle induced by a circuit and $\|\gamma\|_1 = \sum_{i} \|\alpha_i\|_1$.
Since the $1$-skeleton of $X$ is fine graph and $G$ acts cocompactly, then for each positive integer $n$, the $G$-action on the collection of circuits in the $1$-skeleton of $X$ of length at most $n$ has finitely many orbits.
Observe the induced actions of $G$ on the cellular chain groups $C_i(X)$ preserve the $\ell_1$-norm and commute with the boundary maps. In particular, the norm $\|\cdot\|_\partial$ on $Z_1(X, \Z)$ induced by $C_2(X, \Z)$ is $G$-equivariant.
Since $X$ has trivial first homology and has finitely many circuits of length at most $n$ in the $1$-skeleton up to the $G$-action, there exists a constant $B_n<\infty$ with the following property: $\|\alpha\|_\partial \leq B_n$ for every $1$-cycle $\alpha$ such that $\|\alpha\|_1\leq n$ and $\alpha$ is represented by a circuit of length at most $n$ in the $1$-skeleton of $X$.
Let $\gamma \in \Z_1(X)$ be a cellular $1$-cycle of $X$ such that $\|\gamma\|_1\leq n$. Invoke Lemma \[lem:circuitd\] to have an expression $\gamma=\gamma_1+\gamma_2+\cdots+\gamma_k$ where each $\gamma_i$ is a $1$-cycle represented by a circuit and such that $\|\gamma\|_1=\|\gamma_1\|_1+ \cdots + \|\gamma_k\|_1$ and $k\leq n$. Observe that $\|\gamma\|_\partial \leq \|\gamma_1\|_\partial+ \cdots + \|\gamma_k\|_\partial$. It follows that $\|\gamma\|_\partial \leq nB_n$ and hence $FV_X(n) \leq n B_n$.
Observe that if $X$ is a cocompact $G$-cell complex with finite stabilizers of $1$-cells, then each $1$-cell is adjacent to finitely many $2$-cells. The result follows from Proposition \[lem:criterionFV\] and Proposition \[prop:fine-crit\].
Isoperimetric functions and $FV_{X, \Z}$
----------------------------------------
We refer the reader to [@BrHa99 Appendix: Combinatorial 2-Complexes] for a discussion on van Kampen diagrams which are used below.
A function $f\colon \N \to \N$ is an *isoperimetric function* for a complex $X$ if it is monotonic non-decreasing and whenever $P$ is a closed edge path of $X$, there is van Kampen diagram $D$ for $P$ with area bounded from above by $f(|P|)$, where $|P|$ denotes the combinatorial length of the path.
A function $f\colon \N \to \N$ is superadditive if $f(m)+f(n)\leq f(m+n)$ for every pair $m,n\in \N$. For an arbitrary function $g\colon \N \to \N$, let $\bar g$ denote the least function such that $g\leq \bar g$ and $\bar g$ is super-additive. Specifically, $$\bar g(n) = \max \{f(n_1)+\cdots +f(n_k) \colon n_1+n_2+\cdots +n_k=n \},$$ where the maximum is taken over all $k\leq n$ and all partitions $n_1+n_2+\cdots +n_k$ of $n$. We shall refer to $\bar g$ as the *superadditive closure* of $g$.
\[rem:linearclosure\] If $f(n)=Cn$ then $\bar f (n) =Cn$.
[@Ge99 Proposition 2.4]\[prop:finiteFV\] Let $X$ be a simply-connected complex admitting an isoperimetric function $f\colon \N \to \N$. Then $FV_{X, \Z}(n) \leq \bar f(n)$ for every $n\in \N$, where $\bar f$ is the superadditive closure of $f$.
Let $\gamma \in Z_1(X)$ be a $1$-cycle in $X$ such that $\|\gamma\|_1=n$. By Lemma \[lem:circuitd\], there is an expression $\gamma=\gamma_1+\cdots+\gamma_k$ where each $\gamma_i$ is a $1$-cycle represented by a closed path $P_i$ such that $\|\gamma\|_1=\|\gamma_1\|_1+ \cdots + \|\gamma_k\|_1$ and $\|\gamma_i\|_1=|P_i|$. For each $i$, there is a van Kampen diagram $D_i$ with boundary path $P_i$. Observe the diagram $D_i$ induces a $2$-chain $\mu_i$ such that $\partial \mu_i = \gamma_i$. Since $\|\gamma_i\|_\partial \leq \|\mu_i\|_1 \leq \operatorname{\mathsf{Area}}(D_i) \leq f(|P_i|) = f(\|\gamma_i\|_1)$, and $\|\gamma\|_\partial \leq \|\gamma_1\|_\partial+ \cdots + \|\gamma_k\|_\partial,$ we have $|\gamma|_\partial \leq \bar f(n)$. Therefore $FV_X(n) \leq \bar f(n)$.
The following proposition is a version of the statement that hyperbolicity in terms of thin triangles implies a linear isoperimetric inequality.
[@Bo12 Proposition 3.1] \[lem:simply-connected-complex\] Let $\Gamma$ be a hyperbolic graph with hyperbolicity constant $k$. Then there is a constant $n=n(k)$ with the following property. If $\Omega_n(\Gamma)$ is the $2$-complex with $1$-skeleton the graph $\Gamma$ and such that each circuit of length at most $n$ is the boundary of a unique $2$-cell, then $\Omega_n(\Gamma)$ is simply-connected and admits a linear isoperimetric function.
Barycentric subdivisions, fineness, and and $FV_X$
--------------------------------------------------
\[lem:subdivision\] Let $X$ be complex with a bound on the length of attaching maps of $2$-cells, and let $Y$ be the barycentric subdivision of $X$. Then there is a constant $B=B(X)$ such that $FV_{X, \Z}(n) \leq FV_{Y, \Z}(Bn)$ and $FV_{Y, \Z}(n)\leq B\cdot FV_{X, \Z}(Bn) + Bn$ for every integer $n$.
Denote by $X'$ the cell-complex obtained subdividing each $1$-cell of $X$ into two $1$-cells by inserting an extra $0$-cell at the “midpoint” of each $1$-cell, and let $X''$ denote the barycentric subdivision of $X$. One verifies that $FV_{X''}(n)\leq C \cdot FV_{X'}(2Cn)+ 2Cn,$ where $C$ is the maximal length of the boundary path of a $2$-cell in $X$, from which follows that $FV_{X''}(n) \leq C\cdot FV_{X}(4Cn)+2Cn.$ Analogously one can show that $FV_X(n)\leq FV_{X''}(2n).$
[@MW11 Lemma 2.9][@Bo12 Lemma 2.4] \[lem:gsubdivision\] Let $X$ be a cocompact $G$-complex with fine $1$-skeleton and finite edge stabilizers. Then the $1$-skeleton of its barycentric subdivision has fine $1$-skeleton.
Observe that the barycentric subdivision of a fine graph is fine. Moreover, the $1$-skeleton of the barycentric subdivision of $X$ is obtained from the barycentric subdivision of the $1$-skeleton of $X$ after $G$-equivariantly attaching finitely many orbits of new arcs (the half-diagonals or diagonals of higher dimensional cells). This type of construction was explicitly shown to preserve fineness in [@MW11 Lem. 2.9]; alternatively it also follows from [@Bo12 Lem. 2.4].
Homological Dehn Functions and Relative Hyperbolicity
=====================================================
Linear isoperimetric inequalities and hyperbolicity
---------------------------------------------------
[@Ge96 Def. 6.1]\[def:Gersten\] Let $\Gamma$ be a graph. For an integer $N$, we shall say that $\Gamma$ satisfies condition $FZ_N$ if for any circuit $\gamma$ in $\Gamma$ there are circuits $\gamma_1, \gamma_2, \ldots , \gamma_k$ each of length at most $N$ such that $$\label{eq:FZ} [\gamma] = \sum_{i=1}^k \epsilon_i [\gamma_i]$$ where $[\gamma]$ denotes the class of $\gamma$ in $H_1 (\Gamma, \Z)$ and $\epsilon_i=\pm 1$. If $\Gamma$ satisfies $FZ_N$, then the *weak area* of the circuit $\gamma$ is the minimum $k$ in all expressions . The graph $\Gamma$ satisfies a *weak linear isoperimetric inequality* if there are integers $N$ and $C$ such that $\Gamma$ satisfies $FZ_N$ and the weak-area of each circuit $\gamma$ is at most $C |\gamma|$ where $|\gamma|$ denotes the length of the circuit.
The following theorem is a version by Gersten of the fact that a (standard) linear isoperimetric inequality implies hyperbolicity.
[@Ge96 Thm. 6.3]\[thm:weak-isop\] If $\Gamma$ is a connected graph satisfying $FZ_N$ and a weak linear isoperimetric inequality then $\Gamma$ is a hyperbolic graph.
\[cor:suskey\] Let $X$ be a $1$-acyclic $2$-dimensional cell complex such that there is a bound on the length of attaching maps of $2$-cells. If $FV_{X, \Z}$ is linearly bounded then the $1$-skeleton of $X$ is a fine hyperbolic graph.
The assumption that there is a bound on the length of the attaching maps of $2$-cells implies that the $1$-skeleton of $X$ and the one of its barycentric subdivision are quasi-isometric. Since hyperbolicity is invariant under quasi-isometry, in view of Lemma \[lem:subdivision\], we can replace $X$ with its barycentric subdivision and assume that the attaching maps of $2$-cells are circuits. Let $\gamma$ be a circuit in the $1$-skeleton of $X$. Abusing notation we denote by $\gamma$ the induced $1$-cycle. Since $X$ has trivial first homology, there is a $2$-chain $\beta \in C_2(X)$ such that $\partial \beta = \gamma$ and $\|\gamma\|_\partial = \|\beta\|_1$. Let $N$ be an upper bound for the length of boundary paths of $2$-cells of $X$, which are assumed to be circuits. It follows that $\gamma = \partial \beta = \sum_{i=1}^m \epsilon_i \gamma_i$ where each $\gamma_i$ is a $1$-cycle induced by a circuit of length at most $N$, and $m=\|\beta\|_1$. It follows that $m=\|\beta\|_1 \leq FV_{X, \Z}(\|\gamma\|_1)\leq C \|\gamma\|_1$, where $C$ depends only on $X$. Therefore the $1$-skeleton of $X$ is $FZ_N$ and satisfies a weak linear isoperimetric inequality. By Theorem \[thm:weak-isop\], the $1$-skeleton of $X$ is a hyperbolic graph. Since $FV_X$ is finite-valued, Proposition \[prop:fine-crit\] implies that the $1$-skeleton of $X$ is fine.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:answer\]
-------------------------------
The first statement of the theorem is Proposition \[prop:fine-crit\]. For the second statement, the assumptions together with Theorem \[prop:hyperbolicity\] imply that the $1$-skeleton of $X$ is hyperbolic. It follows that $X$ admits a linear isoperimetric inequality in the standard sense, this follows for example from [@BrHa99 Ch.III.H Proposition 2.2] or Proposition \[lem:simply-connected-complex\]. Then Proposition \[prop:finiteFV\] together with Remark \[rem:linearclosure\] imply that $FV_{\Z, X}$ is bounded by a linear function, and hence Proposition \[prop:fine-crit\] implies that the $1$-skeleton of $X$ is fine.
Proposition \[prop:definitions\] shows that the Definition [@GrMa09 2.28] and Definition \[def:hom-isop-ineq\] of linear homological isoperimetric inequality are equivalent.
\[prop:definitions\] A complex $X$ satisfies a [linear homological isoperimetric inequality over $\K$]{} if and only if there is a constant $A\geq 0$ such that for any circuit $c$ in the $1$-skeleton of $X$ there is $\beta\in C_2(X, \K)$ such that $\partial \beta$ equals the $1$-cycle induced by $c$ and $\|\beta\|_1 \leq A |c|$.
The *only if part* follows from the observation that for a circuit $c$, the $\ell_1$-norm of the induced $1$-cycle and the combinatorial length $|c|$ are equal. For the *if part*, invoking Lemma \[lem:circuitd\], any cycle $\gamma \in Z_1(X, \Z)$ is a finite sum $\sum_{i} \alpha_i$ where each $\alpha_i$ is a $1$-cycle induced by a circuit and $\|\gamma\|_1 = \sum_{i} \|\alpha_i\|_1$. For this type of expression, we have that $\|\gamma\|_\partial \leq \sum_{i} \|\alpha_i\|_\partial$ from which the implication follows.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:forfuture\]
----------------------------------
\[rem:linearity\] Let $X$ be a complex and suppose there is $C\geq 0$ such that $FV_{X, \Z}(k)\leq Ck$ for every $k$. Then $FV_{X, \Q}(k) \leq Ck$ for every $k$. Indeed, let $\alpha$ by a $1$-cycle in $Z_1(X, \Q)$. Then there is an integer $m$ such that $m\alpha \in Z_1(X, \Z)$. It follows that there is a $2$-chain $\beta \in C_2(X, \Z)$ such that $\partial \beta = m\alpha$ and $\|\beta\|_1 \leq FV_{X, \Z}(\|m\alpha\|_1) \leq C\|m\alpha\|_1\leq mC\|\alpha\|_1.$ In particular, $ \partial \frac1m \beta =\alpha$ and $\|\frac1m \beta\|_1 \leq C\|\alpha\|_1$. Since $\alpha$ was an arbitrary element, we have $FV_{X, \Q}(k)\leq Ck$.
The following lemma uses notation introduced in Lemma \[lem:simply-connected-complex\].
\[lem:omegan2\] Let $\Gamma$ be a connected, fine, hyperbolic graph equipped with a cocompact $G$-action with finite edge stabilizers. If $n$ is a large enough integer, then $X=\Omega_n(\Gamma)$ is a simply-connected cocompact $G$-complex such that $FV_{X, \Z}$ is bounded from above by a linear function.
Invoke Proposition \[lem:simply-connected-complex\] to obtain an integer $n$ such that $X=\Omega_n(\Gamma)$ is a simply-connected complex with $1$-skeleton $\Gamma$ and with linear isoperimetric function. The $G$-action on $\Gamma$ extends to an action on $X$. By construction, the collection of $2$-cells of $X$ are in one-to-one correspondence with circuits in $\Gamma$ of length at most $n$. Since there are finitely many $G$-orbits of $1$-cells in $\Gamma$ and each $1$-cell appears in finitely many circuits of length at most $n$, there are finitely many $G$-orbits of $2$-cells. Remark \[rem:linearclosure\] and Lemma \[prop:finiteFV\] imply that $FV_{X, \Z}$ is bounded from above by a linear function.
By taking a (double) barycentric subdivision of $Y$, assume that attaching maps of $2$-cells of $Y$ are embedded circuits in its $1$-skeleton and there no pairs of $2$-cells with the same boundary path. Observe that taking barycentric subdivisions preserve the hypothesis on $Y$ in view of Lemmas \[lem:subdivision\] and \[lem:gsubdivision\].
Let $\Gamma$ be the $1$-skeleton of $Y$. By Lemma \[lem:omegan2\], there is $n$ such that $X=\Omega_n(\Gamma)$ is a simply-connected cocompact $G$-complex such that $FV_{X, \Z}$ is bounded from above by a linear function. By the assumption on the attaching maps of $2$-cells of $Y$, taking $n$ large enough implies that $Y$ can be considered as a $G$-equivariant subcomplex of $X$.
By Theorem \[prop:main\], $FV_{X, \Z}(k)<\infty$ and $FV_{Y, \Z}(k)<\infty$ for every $k$. Since $Y$ and $X$ have the same $1$-skeleton, if we let $C=FV_{Y,\Z}(n)$ then $FV_{Y,\Z}(k) \leq C\cdot FV_{X,\Z}(k)$ for every $k$. Indeed, this follows by observing that any $2$-chain $\mu \in C_2(X)$ can be replaced by a $2$-chain $\nu \in C_2(Y)$ such that $\partial \mu =\partial \nu$ and $\|\nu\|_1 \leq C\|\mu\|_1$. It follows that $FV_{Y, \Z}$ is also bounded from above by a linear function.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:chrhyp\]
-------------------------------
Suppose $G$ is hyperbolic relative to $\mc P$. A complex $X$ with the required properties is obtained by invoking Lemma \[lem:omegan2\].
Conversely, suppose that there is a complex $X$ with the four properties. By cocompactness there is a bound on the length of attaching maps of $2$-cells. Then Corollary \[cor:suskey\] implies that the $1$-skeleton $\Gamma$ of $X$ is a fine hyperbolic graph, and hence the $G$-action on $\Gamma$ satisfies Definition \[def:BowRH\] of relative hyperbolicity.
Coned-off Cayley Complexes and Homological Dehn Functions {#sec:3.3}
---------------------------------------------------------
Let $G$ be a group and let $\mc P$ be a finite collection of finitely generated subgroups. Suppose there is a finite relative presentation $\langle S, \mc P | r_1, \ldots, r_m \rangle$ of $G$ with respect $\mc P$, for a definition see [@Os06]. Assume that each $P\in \mc P$ is generated by $S\cap P$, and that $S$ is symmetrized, that is, $S=S^{-1}$. Assume that for each $s\in S$, the relation $ss^{-1}$ is one of the $r_i$’s.
The *coned-off Cayley graph $\hat \Gamma = \hat \Gamma (G, \mc P, S)$ of $G$ relative to $\mc P$ and $S$* is the $G$-graph obtained from the standard Cayley graph of $G$ with respect to $S$, by adding a new (cone) vertex $v(gP)$ for each left coset $gP$ with $g\in G$ and $P\in \mc P$, and edges from $v(gP)$ to each element of $P$. The cone-vertices are in one-to-one correspondence with the collection of left cosets of subgroups in $\mc P$, the $G$-action on the cone-vertices is defined using the corresponding $G$-action on left cosets by $G$.
The *coned-off Cayley complex $\hat C$* induced by the relative presentation $\langle S, \mc P | r_1, \ldots, r_m \rangle$, it is the $2$-complex obtained by equivariantly attaching $2$-cells to the coned-off Cayley graph $\hat \Gamma$ as follows. Observe that the relators $r_i$ correspond to loops in $\hat \Gamma$. Attach a $2$-cell with trivial stabilizer to each such loop, and extend in a manner equivariant under the $G$-action on $\hat \Gamma$. Similarly, for each $P\in \mc P$, for each generator in $s\in S\cap P$ and each $g\in G$ corresponds a loop in $\hat \Gamma$ of length three passing through the vertices $g, gs, v(gP)$, where $v(gP)$ is the cone-vertex corresponding to the left coset $gP$. Attach a $2$-cell with trivial stabilizer to each such loop, equivariantly under the $G$-action. This definition of the coned-off Cayley complex appears in [@GrMa09 Definition 2.47].
The following characterization of relative hyperbolicity in terms of linear homological Dehn functions on coned-off Cayley complexes appears in the work of Groves and Manning [@GrMa09 Theorem 3.25]. Their proof uses other characterizations of relative hyperbolicity. Below we provide the sketch of a more direct proof of this characterization using the results of this note.
Let $G$ be a group and let $\mc P$ be a finite collection of finitely generated subgroups. The following statements are equivalent.
1. \[eq1\] $G$ is hyperbolic relative to $\mc P$ in the sense of Bowditch, Definition \[def:BowRH\].
2. \[eq2\] $G$ is finitely presented relative to $\mc P$, and for any finite relative presentation $\langle S, \mc P | \mc R \rangle$, the coned-off Cayley complex $\hat C = \hat C(G, \mc P, S)$ satisfies a linear homological isoperimetric inequality over the integer numbers.
3. \[eq3\] There is a finite relative presentation $\langle S, \mc P | \mc R \rangle$ such that the corresponding coned-off Cayley complex $\hat C = \hat C(G, \mc P, S)$ satisfies a linear homological isoperimetric inequality over the integer numbers.
4. \[eq4\] $G$ is finitely presented relative to $\mc P$, and for any finite relative presentation $\langle S, \mc P | \mc R \rangle$, the coned-off Cayley complex $\hat C = \hat C(G, \mc P, S)$ satisfies a linear homological isoperimetric inequality over the rational numbers.
5. \[eq5\] There is a finite relative presentation $\langle S, \mc P | \mc R \rangle$ such that the corresponding coned-off Cayley complex $\hat C = \hat C(G, \mc P, S)$ satisfies a linear homological isoperimetric inequality over the rational numbers.
The implications $\eqref{eq2} \Rightarrow \eqref{eq3}$ and $\eqref{eq4} \Rightarrow \eqref{eq5}$ are trivial. The implications $\eqref{eq2} \Rightarrow \eqref{eq4}$ and $\eqref{eq3} \Rightarrow \eqref{eq5}$ follow from the observation that for a complex $X$, if $FV_{X, \Z}$ is linearly bounded, then $FV_{X, \Q}$ is linearly bounded as well; see Remark \[rem:linearity\].
$$\nonumber \xymatrix{
\eqref{eq2} \ar@{=>}[dd] \ar@{=>}[rr] & & \eqref{eq3} \ar@{=>}[dd]\\
& \eqref{eq1} \ar@{=>}[lu] & \\
\eqref{eq4} \ar@{=>}[rr] \ar@{=>}[rr] & & \eqref{eq5} \ar@{=>}[lu]
}$$
The implication $\eqref{eq5} \Rightarrow \eqref{eq1}$ is proved as follows. If $\hat C$ is the coned-off Cayley complex corresponding to a finite relative presentation satisfying a linear homological isoperimetric inequality over the rational numbers, then its $1$-skeleton is a cocompact $G$-graph with trivial edge stabilizers by construction, it is simply-connected [@GrMa09 Lemma 2.48], it is fine by Theorem \[thm:answer\], and it is hyperbolic by Theorem \[prop:hyperbolicity\].
The implication $\eqref{eq1} \Rightarrow \eqref{eq2}$ is proved as follows. Let $\mc K$ be a $(G, \mc P)$-graph, see Definition \[def:BowRH\]. Then Lemma \[lem:omegan2\] implies that $\mc K$ is the $1$-skeleton of a simply-connected cocompact $G$-complex, and from here one verifies that $G$ is finitely presented relative to $\mc P$. Let $\langle S, \mc P | \mc R \rangle$ be an arbitrary finite relative presentation of $G$ with respect to $\mc P$, let $\hat C$ be the corresponding coned-off Cayley complex, and let $\hat \Gamma$ be its $1$-skeleton. The a combinatorial construction shows that $\hat \Gamma$ quasi-isometrically embeds as a subgraph of a $(G, \mc P)$-graph; this construction has been studied by different authors, first in Dahmani’s thesis [@Da03 Proof of Lemma A.4], then in Hruska’s work [@HK08 Proof of (R-H4) $\Rightarrow$ (RH-5)], and also by Wise and the author of this note [@MaWi11 Proposition 4.3]. Since hyperbolicity is preserved by quasi-isometry and fineness is preserved by taking subgraphs, it follows that $\hat \Gamma$ is a $(G, \mc P)$-graph. Then Theorem \[thm:forfuture\] implies that $\hat C$ satisfies a homological linear isoperimetric inequality over the integers.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Gaelan Hanlon for useful comments on an early draft of this note. We also thank the referees of the article for comments and suggestions. The author is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, NSERC.
[10]{}
B. H. Bowditch. Relatively hyperbolic groups. , 22(3):1250016, 66, 2012.
Martin R. Bridson and Andr[é]{} Haefliger. , volume 319 of [ *Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\]*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999.
F. Dahmani. . PhD thesis, Univ. Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, France, 2003.
S. M. Gersten. A cohomological characterisation of hyperbolic groups. Available at http://www.math.utah.edu/ sg/Papers/ch.pdf.
S. M. Gersten. Homological dehn functions and the word problem. Available at http://www.math.utah.edu/ sg/Papers/df9.pdf.
S. M. Gersten. Subgroups of word hyperbolic groups in dimension [$2$]{}. , 54(2):261–283, 1996.
S. M. Gersten. Cohomological lower bounds for isoperimetric functions on groups. , 37(5):1031–1072, 1998.
M. Gromov. Hyperbolic groups. In [*Essays in group theory*]{}, volume 8 of [*Math. Sci. Res. Inst. Publ.*]{}, pages 75–263. Springer, New York, 1987.
Daniel Groves and Jason Fox Manning. Dehn filling in relatively hyperbolic groups. , 168:317–429, 2008.
G. Christopher Hruska. Relative hyperbolicity and relative quasiconvexity for countable groups. , 10(3):1807–1856, 2010.
Eduardo Mart[í]{}nez-Pedroza. Subgroups of relatively hyperbolic groups of bredon cohomological dimension 2. arXiv:1508.04865.
Eduardo Mart[í]{}nez-Pedroza and Daniel T. Wise. Local quasiconvexity of groups acting on small cancellation complexes. , 215(10):2396–2405, 2011.
Eduardo Mart[í]{}nez-Pedroza and Daniel T. Wise. Relative quasiconvexity using fine hyperbolic graphs. , 11(1):477–501, 2011.
Igor Mineyev. Bounded cohomology characterizes hyperbolic groups. , 53(1):59–73, 2002.
Igor Mineyev and Asli Yaman. Relative hyperbolicity and bounded cohomology. preprint.
Denis V. Osin. Relatively hyperbolic groups: intrinsic geometry, algebraic properties, and algorithmic problems. , 179(843):vi+100, 2006.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report the detection of several molecular gas-phase and ice absorption features in three photometrically-selected young stellar object (YSO) candidates in the central 280 pc of the Milky Way. Our spectra, obtained with the Infrared Spectrograph (IRS) onboard the [*Spitzer Space Telescope*]{}, reveal gas-phase absorption from CO$_2$ ($15.0\mu$m), C$_2$H$_2$ ($13.7\mu$m) and HCN ($14.0\mu$m). We attribute this absorption to warm, dense gas in massive YSOs. We also detect strong and broad $15\mu$m CO$_2$ ice absorption features, with a remarkable double-peaked structure. The prominent long-wavelength peak is due to CH$_3$OH-rich ice grains, and is similar to those found in other known massive YSOs. Our IRS observations demonstrate the youth of these objects, and provide the first spectroscopic identification of massive YSOs in the Galactic Center.'
author:
- |
Deokkeun An, Solange V. Ramírez, Kris Sellgren, Richard G. Arendt, A. C. Adwin Boogert,\
Mathias Schultheis, Susan R. Stolovy, Angela S. Cotera,\
Thomas P. Robitaille, and Howard A. Smith
title: |
First Spectroscopic Identification of Massive Young Stellar Objects\
in the Galactic Center
---
Introduction
============
The Central Molecular Zone (CMZ) is the innermost $\sim200$ pc region of the Milky Way Galaxy. It is a giant molecular cloud complex delineated by a gradient in the CO column density and temperature. The CMZ contains $\sim10\%$ of the Galaxy’s molecular gas, and produces $5\%$–$10\%$ of its infrared and Lyman continuum luminosities [see a review by @morris:96 and references therein].
Evidence is mounting that conditions for star formation in the CMZ are significantly different from those in the Galactic disk. The gas pressure and temperature are higher in the CMZ than in the average disk, conditions that favor a larger Jeans mass for star formation and an initial mass function biased towards more massive stars. Furthermore, the presence of strong magnetic fields, tidal shear, and turbulence challenges the standard paradigm of slow gravitational collapse of molecular cloud cores.
The CMZ provides several signposts of [*in situ*]{} star formation, such as H$_2$O masers, (ultra-)compact regions, young OB stars, and young supernova remnants. However, young stellar objects (YSOs or protostars), which are the direct tracers of current star formation, have so far eluded detection in the CMZ. They have been inferred to be present based on infrared photometry [e.g., @felli:02; @schuller:06; @yusefzadeh:09], but spectroscopic observations are required to confirm their status as a YSO. This is because evolved stars can look like YSOs in broad-band photometry, if they are heavily dust attenuated [e.g., @schultheis:03], a problem towards the Galactic Center (GC), where $A_V \approx 30$.
In this [*Letter*]{}, we present spectroscopic follow-up observations of YSO candidates in the CMZ, using the Infrared Spectrograph [IRS; @houck:04] onboard the [*Spitzer Space Telescope*]{} [@werner:04]. Massive YSO candidates were photometrically selected from the point source catalog [@ramirez:08], which was extracted from images of the CMZ [@stolovy:06] made using the Infrared Array Camera [IRAC; @fazio:04]. This high sensitivity and high spatial resolution image has led to a better identification of YSO candidates and their follow-up spectroscopic observations.
Photometric Sample Selection
============================
The IRAC point source catalog [@ramirez:08] contains photometry for more than a million point sources in the entire CMZ ($2\arcdeg \times 1.4\arcdeg$ or $280 \times
200$ pc) in four channels ($3.6\mu$m, $4.5\mu$m, $5.8\mu$m, and $8.0\mu$m). Initially, we selected point sources with ${\rm [3.6] - [8.0]} \geq 2.0$, corresponding to YSOs with $M_* \ga 2.5 M_\odot$ [@whitney:03; @whitney:04]. We further confined the sample to those within $|b| < 15\arcmin$, resulting in $1207$ objects. When we had photometric measurements in at least 5 bandpasses from IRAC, 2MASS , and/or ISOGAL [$7\mu$m and $15\mu$m; @omont:03], we selected YSO candidates by comparing the observed spectral energy distribution (SED) with YSO models [@robitaille:06] using a SED fitting tool by @robitaille:07. Otherwise, we applied additional color constraints from @whitney:04 [${\rm [3.6]-[4.5]}
\geq 0.5$, ${\rm [4.5]-[5.8]} \geq 0.5$, and ${\rm [5.8]-[8.0]} \geq 1.0$] to identify YSO candidates. SED fitting and color selection narrowed down our sample to about $200$ objects.
Then, we carefully inspected IRAC three-color images to select objects that are distinct within the IRS slit entrances against the crowded stellar field and bright local background. Finally, a literature search was carried out for the selected objects, and one Wolf-Rayet star and four OH/IR stars were discarded. Our final sample is composed of 107 objects, among which 25 were previously known YSO candidates from ISOGAL [@felli:02].
IRS Observations and Data Reduction
===================================
[lcccc]{} R.A.(J2000.0) & h:m:s & 17:45:39.86 & 17:47:23.68 & 17:47:26.29 Decl.(J2000.0) & d:m:s & -29:23:23.4 & -28:23:34.6 & -28:22:1.5 UKIDSS $J$ & mag & & $18.23\pm0.06$ & $17.39\pm0.03$ UKIDSS $H$ & mag & & $14.68\pm0.01$ & $16.60\pm0.05$ UKIDSS $K$ & mag & $15.71\pm0.10$ & $12.92\pm0.01$ & $14.37\pm0.02$ IRAC ${\rm[3.6]}$ & mag & $11.42\pm0.01$ & & $12.22\pm0.02$ IRAC ${\rm[4.5]}$ & mag & $ 8.63\pm0.01$ & $9.41\pm0.01$ & $ 8.97\pm0.01$ IRAC ${\rm[5.8]}$ & mag & $ 7.08\pm0.01$ & $7.66\pm0.01$ & $ 7.24\pm0.01$ IRAC ${\rm[8.0]}$ & mag & $ 6.13\pm0.01$ & $5.64\pm0.01$ & $ 5.11\pm0.01$ MIPS ${\rm[24]}$ & mag & $ 1.54\pm0.01$ & $0.55\pm0.01$ & ${\rm T_{\rm ex}~(C_2H_2~gas)}$ & K & $300\pm150$ & $200\pm150$ & $300\pm150$ ${\rm T_{\rm ex}~(HCN~gas)}$ & K & $400\pm50$ & $100\pm50$ & $100\pm50$ ${\rm T_{\rm ex}~(CO_2~gas)}$ & K & $200\pm50$ & $100\pm50$ & $100\pm50$ ${\rm N_{col}~(C_2H_2~gas)}$ & $10^{16}$cm$^{-2}$ & $7.9\pm3.3$ & $1.0\pm0.3$ & $2.0\pm0.8$ ${\rm N_{col}~(HCN~gas)}$ & $10^{16}$cm$^{-2}$ & $15.8\pm4.6$ & $1.0\pm0.4$ & $2.0\pm0.9$ ${\rm N_{col}~(CO_2~gas)}$ & $10^{16}$cm$^{-2}$ & $20.0\pm5.6$ & $5.0\pm1.5$ & $7.9\pm2.8$ ${\rm N_{col}~(CO_2~solid)}$ & $10^{19}$cm$^{-2}$ & $0.11\pm0.01$ & $0.13\pm0.01$ & $0.21\pm0.01$ ${\rm N_{col}~(H_2O~solid, 6\mu m)}$ & $10^{19}$cm$^{-2}$ & $<1.7$ & $<2.3$ & $<4.7$ ${\rm N_{col}~(H_2O~solid, 13\mu m)}$& $10^{19}$cm$^{-2}$ & $0.6\pm0.4$ & $1.3\pm0.4$ & $1.9\pm0.3$ ${\rm N_{col}~(H_2)}$ & $10^{22}$cm$^{-2}$ & $2.3\pm0.2$ & $5.0\pm0.5$ & $5.8\pm0.7$ ${\rm N_{C_2H_2} / N_{H_2}}$ & $10^{-7}$ & $34.3\pm14.7$ & $2.0\pm0.6$ & $3.4\pm1.4$ ${\rm N_{HCN} / N_{H_2}}$ & $10^{-7}$ & $68.7\pm20.9$ & $2.0\pm0.8$ & $3.4\pm1.6$ ${\rm N_{CO_2,gas} / N_{H_2}}$ & $10^{-7}$ & $87.0\pm25.5$ & $10.0\pm3.2$ & $13.6\pm5.1$ ${\rm N_{CO_2,gas} / N_{CO_2,solid}}$& & $0.18\pm0.05$ & $0.04\pm0.01$ & $0.04\pm0.01$ ${\rm N_{CO_2,solid} / N_{H_2O,solid}}$& & $0.18\pm0.12$ & $0.10\pm0.03$ & $0.11\pm0.02$ $A_V~(\tau_{9.7\mu m})$ & mag & $27\pm3$ & $53\pm5$ & $62\pm7$ $A_V$ (color) & mag & $29.0\pm2.6$ & $32.0\pm2.6$ & $27.0\pm5.4$
We obtained spectroscopic data for 107 YSO candidates using the four IRS modules in May and October 2008. We observed each target in IRS staring mode with 4 exposures per source (2 cycles). Exposure times were 6 sec–120 sec in SH (short-high; short wavelength, high resolution), 6 sec–60 sec in LH (long-high), 6 sec–14 sec in SL (short-low), and 6 sec in LL (long low) modules, depending on the source’s brightness, to achieve a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of at least $50$ in SH and SL, and a minimum S/N of $10$ in LH and LL. We reduced the IRS spectra from the basic calibrated data (BCD) products version S17.2.0 and S18.1.0, using the SSC software packages [IRSCLEAN]{} (to correct for bad pixel values) and [SPICE]{} (to extract spectra).
Because the GC exhibits strong, spatially variable background, we observed multiple off-source measurements (one cycle, $1\times1$ mapping mode) to derive backgrounds near each of our YSO candidates in the four IRS modules. The on-source and the off-source observations were taken consecutively to minimize zodiacal light and instrumental variations. For the high resolution observations, we observed and extracted four background positions ($\sim \pm1\arcmin$ offsets in either R.A. or Decl.). For the low resolution observations, we took spectra from two background positions at $\sim \pm1\arcmin$ away in the direction perpendicular to the slit, and extracted two additional background spectra at positions along the on-source slit. In all of the four different IRS modules, we tried to extract the background spectra at the same position as much as possible, to minimize the flux difference from different modules.
We made an interpolation of a plane in three dimensional space (positions on the IRAC map and wavelength) to obtain a background spectrum at the source position. We estimated an error in each source’s background from the dispersion of four different background spectra, constructed from alternate sets of three out of the four background pointings.
A complete analysis of spectra for all of our 107 YSO candidates will be presented elsewhere (D. An et al. 2009, in preparation). For the current analysis, we selected three targets (Table \[tab:tab1\]) from among those showing characteristic spectral features of massive YSOs, which include gaseous molecular absorptions from C$_2$H$_2$, HCN, CO$_2$ [e.g., @lahuis:00; @boonman:03; @knez:09], and a solid-phase absorption from CO$_2$ ice bending mode [e.g., @gerakines:99].
Both SSTGC 797384 and SSTGC 803187 are associated with a relatively weak radio continuum source [SGR B2(P) and SGR B2(R), respectively; @mehringer:93]. They are on the outskirts of the Sgr B2 molecular cloud ($\sim2$ pc–$4$ pc from the well-studied radio source SGR B2(M)), which is one of the most active complexes of compact regions in the Galaxy [e.g., @mehringer:95]. @mehringer:93 derived zero-age main-sequence spectral types of B0 and O6.5 for these compact regions, respectively, from the number of ionizing photons. SSTGC 524665 does not have radio continuum emission associated with it. However, it is coincident with an H$_2$O maser [@forster:89], and is adjacent to a region of $4.5\mu$m excess emission [@yusefzadeh:09], possibly tracing shocked molecular outflows [e.g., @smith:06].
For SSTGC 803187, we used a non-standard extraction aperture in SL, because of a nearby source ($\approx7\arcsec$ south of the target) along the slit. We followed the prescription on the IRS data reduction website[^1] to calibrate the flux. We trimmed the end of the orders to remove the noisy part of spectra, and spectra from different orders in high-resolution modules were averaged using a linear ramp. After background subtraction, the SH and LH spectra were scaled down in flux to LL over the common wavelength interval for SSTGC 797384 and SSTGC 803187. The SL spectra were then scaled to SH. For these sources, we assumed that the flux mismatch is due to narrower slit entrances in SH and SL. For SSTGC 524665, we used the SL as a basis for the scaling, because our observations in LL and LH were contaminated by extended emission from a nearby ($\approx10\arcsec$ southwest of the target) bright source on the $24\mu$m MIPS image [@carey:09; @yusefzadeh:09]. The background for this target is likely to be over-subtracted, because the target lies on a dark cloud with high extinction, while background spectra were taken at brighter spots. The potential problem of the background subtraction results in H$_2$ lines (arising from the surrounding sky) appearing in absorption in SSTGC 524665. In the following initial analysis, we did not use LH data for all targets, but focused on the spectral features in other modules.
Analysis and Results
====================
Figure \[fig:all\] displays background-subtracted spectra of SSTGC 797384, in SL ($\lambda \leq 11.2\mu$m), SH ($11.2\mu$m $\leq \lambda \leq 19.3\mu$m), and LL ($\lambda \geq 19.3\mu$m). The observed spectrum is characterized by an extremely red SED \[$\alpha \equiv d\log(\lambda F_\lambda)/d\log(\lambda) \approx 2$\], strong and deep silicate absorptions at $9.7\mu$m and $18\mu$m, ice absorption features at $6\mu$m, $6.85\mu$m, $13\mu$m, and $15.2\mu$m. Although the presence of forbidden lines indicates that these objects are likely associated with an (ultra-)compact region, it could be also due to under-subtracted emissions from the background.
Figure \[fig:gas\] shows gas-phase molecular absorptions at $13.71\mu$m (C$_2$H$_2$ $\nu_5 = 1-0$), $14.05\mu$m (HCN $\nu_2 = 1-0$), and $14.97\mu$m (CO$_2$ $\nu_2 = 1-0$), detected in three YSO candidates. To derive the excitation temperature ($T_{\rm ex}$) and column density ($N_{\rm col}$) for each molecular species, we used model spectra from @spectrafactory based on [HITRAN04]{} linelist [@hitran] for C$_2$H$_2$ and HCN, and those based on [HITEMP]{} [@hitemp] for CO$_2$. A second order polynomial was used to set a local continuum at $13.30\mu$m $\leq \lambda \leq 14.55\mu$m for C$_2$H$_2$ and HCN, and $14.77\mu$m $\leq \lambda \leq 15.06\mu$m for CO$_2$. We did not include isotopes in the computation because of the limited parameter span in the model grids. However, even a relatively high fraction of isotopes in GC has a negligible impact in the model fitting.
We first made a fit to C$_2$H$_2$, and subtracted its contribution to the absorption near weaker HCN bands. Best-fitting model $T_{\rm ex}$ and $N_{\rm col}$ were found by searching the minimum $\chi^2$ of the fits over 100 K $\leq T_{\rm ex} \leq$ 1000 K in steps of $\Delta T_{\rm ex} = 100$ K, and $15 \leq \log{N_{\rm col}} \leq 18$ for C$_2$H$_2$, $16 \leq \log{N_{\rm col}} \leq 18$ for HCN, and $16 \leq \log{N_{\rm col}} \leq 22$ for CO$_2$ with intervals of $0.1$ dex. Solid lines in Figure \[fig:gas\] show our best-fitting models, and their $T_{\rm ex}$ and $N_{\rm col}$ are listed in Table \[tab:tab1\]. Errors in these parameters were estimated from $\Delta \chi^2$, where $1\sigma$ measurement errors were taken from the scatter of flux in the spectra. Systematic errors from background subtraction and nodding differences were then added in quadrature. We tested with varying covering factors, but found that best-fitting case yields its value equal to or close to unity.
These gaseous bandheads have been detected in absorption toward YSOs, tracing the warm and dense gas in the circumstellar disk and/or envelopes [e.g., @lahuis:00; @boonman:03; @knez:09]. They are sometimes detected in the photosphere and/or the circumstellar envelope of carbon-rich asymptotic giant branch stars [e.g. @aoki:99], but carbon stars have not been found in the GC region [e.g., @guglielmo:98].
The above estimates are based on models with a Doppler parameter $b = 3\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}}$. The line width measurements of these molecules for several massive YSOs and that of the strongest H$_2$CO absorption components near SSTGC 803187 are in the range of $b = 1-7\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}}$ [e.g., @mehringer:95; @vandertak:00; @knez:09]. There are limited model grids at $b = 10\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}}$ for C$_2$H$_2$ and HCN, but $T_{\rm ex}$ and $N_{\rm col}$ were generally found within $2\sigma$ from those at $b = 3\ {\rm km\ s^{-1}}$.
Figure \[fig:co2\] shows optical depth spectra of our sources (grey) at $\sim15.2\mu$m, where the strong and wide CO$_2$ ice absorption is seen. We set a local continuum over $14.5\mu$m $\leq \lambda \leq 16.5\mu$m using a 3rd order polynomial, and followed the prescription in @pontoppidan:08 to decompose the absorption profile with five laboratory spectral components: polar (CO$_2$:H$_2$O $= 14:100$ at 10 K; dotted line, centered at $\sim15.3\mu$m), apolar (CO:CO$_2 = 100:70$ at 10 K; dotted line, centered at $\sim15.1\mu$m), pure CO$_2$ (15 K; blue shaded), diluted CO$_2$ (CO:CO$_2 = 100:4$ at 10 K; black solid line), and $15.4\mu$m shoulder CO$_2$ ice profile (modeled with two Gaussians in wavenumber space; orange shaded). We found a best-fitting set of models from the non-linear least squares fitting routine MPFIT [@markwardt:09]. Green solid line represents the sum of all of the ice components, and the CO$_2$ ice column density in Table \[tab:tab1\] was estimated from the integrated absorption, adopting the integrated line strength $A = 1.1\times10^{-17} {\rm cm\ molecule^{-1}}$ [@gerakines:95].
Unlike the CO$_2$ absorption profiles observed in quiescent molecular clouds [e.g. @whittet:09], the $15.2\mu$m band in Figure \[fig:co2\] shows a remarkable double-peaked profile. Double peaked profiles are commonly observed toward YSOs [e.g., @gerakines:99; @pontoppidan:08], and are ascribed to pure CO$_2$ ices resulting from crystallization of heated H$_2$O-rich ices. However, the double peaks toward the GC candidate YSOs are centered at longer wavelengths ($15.15\mu$m and $15.4\mu$m vs. $15.10\mu$m and $15.25\mu$m), and result from CO-rich ($15.15\mu$m peak) and CH$_3$OH-rich ices ($15.4\mu$m peak; see Fig. \[fig:co2\]).
The strength of the $15.4\mu$m peak is similar to that of the well-studied embedded massive YSO W33A [@gerakines:99 bottom panel in Fig. \[fig:co2\]]. It is ascribed to a Lewis acid-base interaction of CO$_2$ (the Lewis acid) with CH$_3$OH [@dartois:99a]. Other species could be acting as a base as well, but CH$_3$OH is preferred due to its high abundance toward W33A: $5\%$–$22\%$ relative to solid H$_2$O [@dartois:99b]. Two other YSOs (AFGL 7009S, AFGL 2136) show a prominent $15.4\mu$m peak, and indeed these sources have high CH$_3$OH abundances as well [@dartois:99b; @gibb:04]. This suggests that the GC candidate YSOs have high solid CH$_3$OH abundances as well.[^2] Although the origin of the large quantities of CH$_3$OH in the previously studied massive YSOs is not fully understood [@dartois:99a], so far all lines of sight with high solid CH$_3$OH abundances are associated with star formation, strengthening the idea that the sources studied in this paper are indeed YSOs.
To derive abundances of these molecular absorptions with respect to the hydrogen and solid H$_2$O column densities, we followed the procedure in @boogert:08 to fit the H$_2$O ice and silicate absorption profiles to SL and LL spectra. Figure \[fig:continuum\] shows an example for SSTGC 797384. We used the silicate absorption profiles in the line of sight to the GC [GCS 3 spectrum; @kemper:04] plus a laboratory spectrum of pure amorphous H$_2$O ice at $T = 10$ K [@hudgins:93]. We simultaneously fit a second-order polynomial for a pseudo-continuum (i.e., including corrections for the continuous extinction), the silicate profile, and H$_2$O ice absorption to the $5\mu$m $\leq \lambda \leq 32\mu$m spectrum. We masked absorption features at $6\mu$m, $7\mu$m, and $15\mu$m, and all unresolved emission lines, before performing a non-linear least squares fit.
Best-fitting parameters are listed in Table \[tab:tab1\]. We obtained a total hydrogen column density from the optical depth of the $9.7\mu$m silicate absorption, assuming $A_V / \tau_{9.7} = 9$ [@roche:85] and $N_{\rm H} / A_V \approx 1.87
\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2} {\rm mag}^{-1}$ [@bohlin:78] at $R_V = 3.1$. The H$_2$ column density was then approximated by $N_{\rm H_2} = N_{\rm H}/2$. The ice column density for the $13\mu$m librational H$_2$O absorption was estimated from the integrated absorption of the best-fitting H$_2$O model. The H$_2$O ice column density from the $6\mu$m bending mode, fit separately after fixing the continuum and extinction to previously found values, is an upper limit because the $6\mu$m absorption is not solely due to H$_2$O ice. We adopted the integrated line strengths $A = 1.2\times10^{-17} {\rm cm\ molecule^{-1}}$ for the bending mode and $A = 3.1\times10^{-17} {\rm cm\ molecule^{-1}}$ for the librational mode [@gerakines:95]. Errors in these parameters (Table \[tab:tab1\]) are formal estimates made by varying the range of wavelengths that we used for the $9.7\mu$m silicate fitting, or by taking a few different ways of setting the continuum.
The gas-phase molecular abundances relative to H$_2$ are listed in Table \[tab:tab1\]. Our derived abundances of $\sim10^{-7}$–$10^{-6}$ for C$_2$H$_2$ and HCN are comparable to those found for massive YSOs [@lahuis:00; @knez:09], although abundances for SSTGC 524665 have large errors. Intervening molecular clouds in the line of sight to the GC are less likely the main cause of these absorptions, because the average HCN abundance of $2.5\times10^{-8}$ [@greaves:96] towards Sgr B2(M) is an order of magnitude lower than our measurements. Our gas-phase CO$_2$ abundances are an order of magnitude larger than those found towards massive YSOs in @boonman:03, but our gas to solid abundance ratios for CO$_2$ are consistent with their estimates ($10^{-1}$–$10^{-2}$). Our abundance of CO$_2$ ice relative to H$_2$O ice is within the range ($0.10$–$0.23$) found towards massive YSOs [@gerakines:99].
Finally, Table \[tab:tab1\] lists our estimates on $A_V$ from the $9.7\mu$m silicate absorption and those from @schultheis:09, based on the 2MASS and IRAC color-magnitude diagrams of GC red giant branch stars within $2\arcmin$ of the source. Both SSTGC 797384 and SSTGC 803187 have higher $A_V$ values than the average for field stars, implying that a significant fraction of the attenuation is intrinsic to the source. SSTGC 524665 has a lower $A_V$, comparable to the average value for surrounding field stars. We also note that SSTGC 524665 is located at $b \approx -0.2\arcdeg$, so it is possible that it is in front of the GC. If we assume a distance of $8$ kpc for all three sources, and adopt the extinction of surrounding field stars as the foreground extinction to each source, then we derive stellar masses of $12\pm3M_\odot$, $14\pm3M_\odot$, $17\pm6M_\odot$ for SSTGC 524665, SSTGC 797384, and SSTGC 803187, respectively, by using a grid of YSO models [@robitaille:06; @robitaille:07]. More detailed discussion of the model fitting will presented in a future paper.
To summarize, we presented the evidence from IRS spectra for the first spectroscopic identification of massive YSOs in the GC. In our next paper (D. An, 2009, in preparation), we will present the results for all 107 YSO candidates, together with additional data from millimeter to radio observations, and use them to better understand the nature of these embedded sources.
We thank David Ardila for helpful discussions of the IRS data reduction. We thank Sean Carey for providing us MIPS photometry before publication. D. An and S. Ramírez thank John Stauffer for helpful discussions. This work is based on observations made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA. Support for this work was provided by NASA through an award issued by JPL/Caltech. This research has made use of the SIMBAD database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
Aoki, W., Tsuji, T., & Ohnaka, K. 1999, , 350, 945
Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., & Drake, J. F. 1978, , 224, 132
Boogert, A. C. A., et al. 2008, , 678, 985
Boonman, A. M. S., van Dishoeck, E. F., Lahuis, F., & Doty, S. D. 2003, , 399, 1063
Cami J., Markwick-Kemper A.J., Van Malderen R., 2009, submitted
Carey, S. J., et al. 2009, , 121, 76
Dartois, E., Demyk, K., d’Hendecourt, L., & Ehrenfreund, P. 1999a, , 351, 1066
Dartois, E., Schutte, W., Geballe, T. R., Demyk, K., Ehrenfreund, P., & D’Hendecourt, L. 1999b, , 342, L32
Fazio, G. G., et al. 2004, , 154, 10
Felli, M., Testi, L., Schuller, F., & Omont, A. 2002, , 392, 971
Forster, J. R., & Caswell, J. L. 1989, , 213, 339
Gerakines, P. A., Schutte, W. A., Greenberg, J. M., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 1995, , 296, 810
Gerakines, P. A., et al. 1999, , 522, 357
Gibb, E. L., Whittet, D. C. B., Boogert, A. C. A., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2004, , 151, 35
Greaves, J. S., & Nyman, L.-A. 1996, , 305, 950
Guglielmo, F., Le Bertre, T., & Epchtein, N. 1998, , 334, 609
Houck, J. R., et al. 2004, , 154, 18
Hudgins, D. M., Sandford, S. A., Allamandola, L. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 1993, , 86, 713
Kemper, F., Vriend, W. J., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2004, , 609, 826
Knez, C., Lacy, J. H., Evans, N. J., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Richter, M. J. 2009, , 696, 471
Lahuis, F., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2000, , 355, 699
Markwardt, C. B. 2009, arXiv:0902.2850
Mehringer, D. M. 1995, , 454, 782
Mehringer, D. M., Palmer, P., Goss, W. M., & Yusef-Zadeh, F. 1993, , 412, 684
Morris, M., & Serabyn, E. 1996, , 34, 645
Omont, A., et al. 2003, , 403, 975
Pontoppidan, K. M., et al. 2008, , 678, 1005
Ram[í]{}rez, S. V., Arendt, R. G., Sellgren, K., Stolovy, S. R., Cotera, A., Smith, H. A., & Yusef-Zadeh, F. 2008, , 175, 147
Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., Wood, K., & Denzmore, P. 2006, , 167, 256
Robitaille, T. P., Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., & Wood, K. 2007, , 169, 328
Roche, P. F., & Aitken, D. K. 1985, , 215, 425
Rothman, L. S., et al. 1996, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 60, 665
Rothman, L. S., et al. 2005, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 96, 139
Schuller, F., Omont, A., Glass, I. S., Schultheis, M., Egan, M. P., & Price, S. D. 2006, , 453, 535
Schultheis, M., Lan[ç]{}on, A., Omont, A., Schuller, F., & Ojha, D. K. 2003, , 405, 531
Schultheis, M., Sellgren, K., Ram[í]{}rez, S., Stolovy, S., Ganesh, S., Glass, I. S., & Girardi, L. 2009, , 495, 157
Skrutskie, M. F., et al. 2006, , 131, 1163
Smith, H. A., Hora, J. L., Marengo, M., & Pipher, J. L. 2006, , 645, 1264
Stolovy, S., et al. 2006, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 54, 176
van der Tak, F. F. S., van Dishoeck, E. F., Evans, N. J., II, & Blake, G. A. 2000, , 537, 283
Wannier, P. G. 1980, , 18, 399
Warren, S. J., et al. 2007, arXiv:astro-ph/0703037
Werner, M. W., et al. 2004, , 154, 1
Whittet, D. C. B., Cook, A. M., Chiar, J. E., Pendleton, Y. J., Shenoy, S. S., & Gerakines, P. A. 2009, , 695, 94
Whitney, B. A., Wood, K., Bjorkman, J. E., & Cohen, M. 2003, , 598, 1079
Whitney, B. A., Indebetouw, R., Bjorkman, J. E., & Wood, K. 2004, , 617, 1177
Yusef-Zadeh, F., et al. 2009, arXiv:0905.2161
[^1]: See http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/IRS/calib.
[^2]: This needs to be verified by independent L-band spectroscopy of the $3.53\mu$m C-H stretch mode of CH$_3$OH [e.g., @dartois:99b].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Taking into account Goodenough’s superexchange rules, including both full structural relaxation and spin-orbit coupling, and checking strong correlation effects, we look for compensated half metals within the class of oxide double perovskites materials. Identifying likely half metallic (or half semimetallic) antiferromagnets, the full complications including orbital magnetism are included in order to arrive at realistic predictions of designed magnetic compounds with (near) vanishing net moment. After sorting through several candidates that have not been considered previously, two materials, K$_2$MnRhO$_6$ and La$_2$CrWO$_6$, remain as viable candidates. An important factor is obtaining compounds either with very small induced orbital moment (helped by closed subshells) or with an orbital moment that compensates the spin-orbit driven degradation of half metallic character. While thermodynamic stability of these materials cannot be ensured, the development of layer-by-layer oxide deposition techniques does not require that materials be thermodynamically stable to be synthesized.'
author:
- Victor Pardo
- 'Warren E. Pickett'
title: Compensated magnetism by design in double perovskite oxides
---
Introduction
============
Double perovskites have drawn considerable attention in the field of spintronics, particularly since the discovery[@nature_srfemo] of colossal magnetoresistance in Sr$_2$FeMoO$_6$ that is believed to be a half metallic (HM) ferromagnet (FM). The HM property is highly desired in spintronics applications, where spin currents are utilized as well as charge currents. The double perovskite family of oxides has been one of the most popular classes within which to look for HMFMs.[@katsnelsonRMP]
Recently, with wider application of deposition techniques leading to better materials and improved understanding, layer by layer deposition of perovskite oxides has led to unusual and potentially useful physical properties.[@chakalian] Most such depositions of perovskites have used the (001) growth direction, resulting in a wide variety of oxide heterostructures with tetragonal symmetry. Double perovskite materials can be considered as single unit cell, multilayered perovskite structures that have been grown along the (111) direction, and such growth is a promising direction for synthesizing new members of this class.
Although HMFM character will provide new (and highly sought after) magnetoelectronic properties, there is a subclass that is more exotic. When half metallicity occurs and in addition the moments compensate, a “compensated half metal” (historically called a half metallic antiferromagnet[@leuken]) arises. This state has magnetic order but vanishing macroscopic spin magnetization, it could support a new type of superconductivity,[@sss] and one can imagine numerous possible applications for a half metal that is relatively impervious to external magnetic fields. However, this spin-only picture is an idealization; spin-orbit coupling (SOC) couples the two spin directions and thereby destroys the precise spin compensation, and in addition generates spin-induced orbital moments. Thus a fully compensated half metal with vanishing macroscopic magnetization is an idealization, and the focus must be on finding realizations that are as close as possible to full compensation.
Interest has been rekindled recently in the effects of spin-orbit coupling in oxides because, unlike the degradation of half metallicity that is commonly discussed and expected, it can also lead to more exotic effects in the spin- and orbital-magnetism, especially in $d^1$ or d$^5$ ions in $t_{2g}$ subshells where large orbital moments may arise.[@eschrig] A dramatic possibility is the promotion of compensating spin and orbital moments. In Ba$_2$NaOsO$_6$, for example, calculations[@bnoo] indicate that the $d^1$ spin moment of Os is compensated by the $t_{2g}$ L=1 orbital moment induced by SOC, and it is the partial orbital quenching by the environment that destroys the compensation of the moment. In Sr$_2$CrOsO$_6$, neglect of SOC leads to a semimetallic compensated half metal, which is destroyed by the large SOC in this system.[@scoo] In isovalent Sr$_2$CrRuO$_6$, where weaker SOC arises on Ru compared with Os, the reduced spin and induced orbital moments conspire to nearly cancel, giving a real possibility for an effectively compensated half metal. In correlated insulators, strong SOC can lead to much more complex magnetic coupling, thereby complicating the resulting magnetic order[@jackeli] and reducing the likelihood of achieving a compensated half metal.
Half-metallic antiferromagnetic (HMAF) materials have not been obtained experimentally yet. Several theoretical efforts have been carried out in predicting half-metallic antiferromagnetism, but experimentally, this state remains elusive. HMAFs have been predicted for various double perovskites,[@pickett_hmafm; @lasrvruo6; @lacavoso6; @lacavmoo6] tetrahedrally coordinated compounds[@tetra] and for Heusler-structured materials.[@cr2mnz; @heusler1; @heusler2] Design of materials with desired properties is a long-standing hope that is gaining momentum,[@canfield] and the considerable experience that has been accumulated in oxide double perovskites provides guidelines to focus design efforts.
In this paper we build on previous studies, and extend the earlier work by considering all of factors: ion size, structural relaxation, and SOC. Our general strategy is:\
i) we focus on the double perovskite structure, with the chemical formula A$_2$MM’O$_6$, where M and M’ are transition metal ions lying on a rocksalt type sublattice. An ordered double perovskite is more likely to occur if M and M’ differ in ionic radius, and differ in formal charge.\
ii) we use ab initio calculations to relax the structure, including volume optimization, $c/a$ optimization, and internal coordinate relaxation, thereby obtaining structures that are dynamically stable, and energetically metastable if not stable.\
iii) we include SOC, which mixes the spin moment with an orbital moment, and also analyze the effects of correlation corrections by using the LSDA+U method,[@lsdau1; @lsdau2] to check the dependence of the magnetic and electronic structure properties on U (the on-site Coulomb repulsion). The objective is to determine to what degree the spin-compensation is maintained, and to understand the interplay of structural changes, SOC, and effects of electronic correlation.
We use the Goodenough-Kanamori-Anderson (GKA) rules for superexchange[@goody] for the 180$^{\circ}$ metal-oxygen-metal bond occurring in perovskites to guide our choices. According to these authors, and the expected moments, only a few d$^n$-d$^m$ electronic configurations that would lead to a spin-compensated situation are likely. In addition, we aim to maximize the likelihood of obtaining an ordered perovskite by mixing a 3d row element with another metal cation from the 4d or 5d row, so that the size mismatch will make chemical ordering more likely. According to GKA, the possible antiferromagnetically coupled electronic configurations are: d$^2$-d$^2$, d$^2$-d$^4$(LS), d$^3$-d$^3$, d$^8$-d$^8$ and other combinations that include in all cases high spin (HS) cations: d$^4$-d$^4$, d$^5$-d$^5$, d$^4$-d$^6$, d$^6$-d$^6$, d$^7$-d$^7$. These latter options have not been pursued because it is difficult to stabilize HS states with those large moments for the 4d and 5d elements, which usually take on a higher valence state than the 3d element, and hence the relatively strong crystal field will favor low-spin states. Particularly interesting is the d$^3$-d$^3$ configuration when SOC is taken into account. Since it deals with a completely filled t$_{2g}$ band, the effective angular momentum will be very small, although there is also the possibility of insulating states. We will discuss this issue later in the paper.
Computational details
=====================
Electronic structure calculations were performed within density functional theory[@dft] using [wien2k]{},[@wien] which utilizes an augmented plane wave plus local orbitals (APW+lo)[@sjo] method to solve the Kohn-Sham equations. This method uses an all-electron, full-potential scheme that makes no shape approximation to the potential or the electron density. The exchange-correlation potential used was the Perdew and Wang version of the local density approximation[@lda] and strong correlation effects were introduced by means of the LSDA+U scheme[@sic; @ylvisaker] including an on-site U (Coulomb repulsion) and J (Hund’s rule exchange) for the metal d states. We have used option nldau= 1 in [wien2k]{}, i.e. the so-called “fully-localized limit". Structural optimizations (unless otherwise stated) were performed using the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof version of the generalized gradient approximation.[@gga] Spin-orbit coupling was introduced using the scalar relativistic approximation. All the calculations were converged with respect to all the parameters used, to the precision necessary to support our calculations (converged forces and total energy differences), up to R$_{mt}$K$_{max}$= 7 and an 8 $\times$ 8 $\times$ 8 k-mesh.
Revisiting previously found materials
=====================================
La$_2$VCuO$_6$: d$^1$-d$^9$
---------------------------
It had been reported previously that this material is a HMAF,[@pickett_hmafm; @la2vcuo6] but previous studies did not consider the structural relaxation that we have now carried out, and that is expected to be important in this strongly Jahn-Teller active system. At the LSDA+U level, this compound converges to a HMAF, which remains when one relaxes the structure. We have done a relaxation within a tetragonal symmetry (but the ratio $c/a$ $\sim$ 1.00, to 1% accuracy, as expected), obtaining $a$= 3.64 Å. The internal structure relaxes to accommodate the Jahn-Teller distortion of the Cu$^{2+}$ and V$^{4+}$ cations. Depending on the value of U chosen (the same U was chosen for both cations in our calculations), this distortion varies, being larger for a larger U. For relatively small values of U (effective U of only 4 eV) there is a large Jahn-Teller distortion, the oxygen octahedra around the Cu$^{2+}$ cation become elongated by about 4% to accommodate the d$^9$ cation and around V$^{4+}$, the octahedron is shortened along one axis by about 4% to accomodate a d$^1$ cation. The system becomes a Mott insulator for U= 4.8 eV and J= 0.7 eV. The electronic structure is presented in Fig. \[la2vcu\] for U= 3.5 eV, where the system is still half-metallic.
Figure \[la2vcu\] shows that half-metallicity occurs with the Fermi level falling within a 2 eV wide band of Cu e$_g$ and V t$_{2g}$ character, even when degeneracy is broken by the Jahn-Teller distortion. The bottom of the band (a two band complex) is strongly Cu d in character, while the V d character dominates the upper part of the bands.
We expect a small influence of SOC because only 3d elements are involved. The full moment compensation that occurs within LSDA+U will be kept when including SOC. This d$^9$-d$^1$ configuration has small magnetic coupling according to GKA rules (AF according to our calculations), and is spin-compensated according to our results. The orbital angular momentum of the Cu atoms is 0.1 $\mu_B$, but is negligible for V and the electronic structure is not affected by the introduction of SOC. Spin-compensation remains unaltered when SOC is introduced, thus the total moment of the system is approximately 0.1 $\mu_B$/f.u., quite close to the desired result.
![Density of states plots of the tetragonal double perovskite compound La$_2$VCuO$_6$ in a HMAF state within an LSDA+U scheme with U= 3.5 eV for both V and Cu. Upper (lower) panel shows up (down) spin channel. The spin moment is precisely compensated.[]{data-label="la2vcu"}](pardo_pickett_hmafm_fig1.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Sr$_2$NiOsO$_6$: d$^8$-d$^2$
----------------------------
This material has been synthesized[@srnios_expt] recently and also has been studied using ab initio methods.[@srnios_abinit] Experimental results were interpreted in terms of a competition between FM and AF interactions, caused by the d$^8$-d$^2$ (Ni$^{2+}$-Os$^{6+}$) electronic structure. The closed subshell (d$^8$), open subshell (d$^2$) should favor half metallicity. According to GKA rules, the e$_{g}^2$-O-e$_{g}^0$ FM superexchange should be the strongest in this system. However, the magnetic susceptibility data shows both a positive $\Theta_{CW}$ (showing that FM is dominant at high temperature) and an AF downturn below 50 K, indicating that AF correlations exist at low temperature. Our ab initio calculations show the FM and AF configurations are similar in total energy, but FM is distinctly the ground state by 20 meV/metal atom (using the experimental structure). Also, the spin-compensation that results within LSDA+U is degraded seriously by SOC, with the large orbital angular momentum leading to a total moment of approximately 1 $\mu_B$/f.u. This value arises from orbital moments of 0.5 $\mu_B$ for Os and 0.2 $\mu_B$ for Ni, plus the 0.2 $\mu_B$ from the total spin moment of the system arising from SOC-induced spin mixing. Hence, the condition of a small magnetic moment is not obtained for this compound. The d$^2$-d$^8$ electronic structure has the drawback that, when an antialigned spin configuration is set, the orbital angular momenta align and add up rather than (partially) canceling (Hund’s third rule for the atoms).
We have performed a structural analysis similar to the one described for La$_2$VCuO$_6$ with the same preconditions. Comparing with experimental structural data,[@srnios_expt] our calculated volume is quite good (1% larger than experiment) and the $c/a$ ratio is 1% smaller than the experimental value.
Parameter Experimental[@srnios_expt] This work
---------------------------- ---------------------------- -----------
$a$ 5.49 5.53
c 7.99 7.94
Ni-O distance ($\times$ 4) 2.02 1.99
Ni-O distance ($\times$ 2) 2.04 2.03
Os-O distance ($\times$ 4) 1.91 1.92
Os-O distance ($\times$ 2) 1.96 1.94
: Calculated versus experimental structural parameters and selected bond lengths for Sr$_2$NiOsO$_6$ showing agreement to within 1% accuracy in the lattice constants.[]{data-label="tab_srnios"}
For large values of U this compound becomes a Mott insulator. Half-metallicity occurs only for U smaller than 3.5 eV for Os (with J= 0.7 eV) and values of U not larger than 7 eV for Ni. Realistic values of U and J would be close to the metal-insulator transition. No experimental information on its conduction properties is available so far. For smaller values of U, we obtain conduction coming from the Os majority spin channel (the unfilled subshell), as can be seen in Fig. \[sr2nios\].
![Density of states plots of the tetragonal double perovskite Sr$_2$NiOsO$_6$ in a HMAF state within an LSDA+U scheme with U= 5 eV for Ni and 3 eV for Os, including spin-orbit coupling. Upper (lower) panel shows up (down) spin channel.[]{data-label="sr2nios"}](pardo_pickett_hmafm_fig2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
New findings
============
Two materials with the desired properties have been clearly identified. Both possess a d$^3$-d$^3$ electronic configuration so a high-spin, magnetic band insulator situation is a possibility. This particular electronic configuration has several advantages, that we will discuss, over other possible electronic configurations that will promote a spin-compensated state, and they have AF coupling by the GKA rules, so they become plausible candidates for being spin-compensated half metals or half semimetals. In addition, we have analyzed a compound with a d$^2$-d$^2$ configuration, and we discuss distinctions.
Sr$_2$VReO$_6$: d$^2$-d$^2$
---------------------------
This compound is calculated to have a d$^2$-d$^2$ electronic configuration. The unoccupied t$_{2g}$ shells lead to a distortion from cubic symmetry. Relaxing the structure within tetragonal symmetry, the resulting $c/a$ ratio is 1.02, together with a sizable elongation of the oxygen cages to accommodate the d$^2$ electronic state (3% difference in the V-O distance and a smaller 1% difference for the Re-O distance). A summary of the structural parameters obtained is given in Table \[tab\_srvre\].
Atom Wyckoff position Atomic parameter
------ ------------------ ---------------------
Sr 4d (0.5,0,0.25)
V 2a (0,0,0)
Re 2b (0,0,0.5)
O1 8h (0.2521,0.2521,0.5)
O2 4e (0,0,0.2494)
: Calculated structural parameters for Sr$_2$VReO$_6$ in the space group I4/mmm (no. 139). $a$= 5.52 Å($\sqrt{2}$ $\times$ 3.90 Å), c=7.96 Å(2 $\times$ 3.98 Å).[]{data-label="tab_srvre"}
We have studied the electronic structure of this yet-unreported compound with both LSDA+U and SOC. Due to slight band overlap, there is substantial but not total spin-moment compensation, leading to a total spin moment of less than 0.1 $\mu_B$. However, because of the unfilled t$_{2g}$ shells in both cations, large orbital angular moments develop, particularly large for Re (0.4 $\mu_B$). The result is a total magnetic moment of approximately 0.5 $\mu_B$ for U(V)= 7 eV and U(Re)= 3 eV (J= 0.7 eV for both cations). While there is no true gap in the V majority spin channel, there is a very large fractional spin polarization in the density of states at the Fermi level, as can be seen in Fig. \[sr2vre\].
![Density of states plots of the tetragonal double perovskite Sr$_2$VReO$_6$ in a HMAF state within an LSDA+U scheme with U= 5 eV for V and 3 eV for Re, including spin-orbit coupling. Upper (lower) panel shows up (down) spin channel.[]{data-label="sr2vre"}](pardo_pickett_hmafm_fig3.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
K$_2$MnRhO$_6$: d$^3$-d$^3$
---------------------------
As we have just seen in the case of Sr$_2$VReO$_6$, having unfilled shells encourages orbital angular moments. In that respect, the following two examples are materials which have a d$^3$-d$^3$ electronic configuration, so the filled t$_{2g}$ shells will give very small orbital moments to obscure the spin compensation.
We calculate that this K$_2$MnRhO$_6$ compound has the configuration Mn$^{4+}$: d$^3$ - Rh$^{6+}$: d$^3$, which couples AF. The Rh moment is strongly delocalized on the oxygen neighbors (up to 0.3 $\mu_B$ per oxygen and only 1 $\mu_B$ in the Rh muffin-tin sphere), but all in all, this compound is near HMAF with Fermi level lying very near band edges. The lattice parameter $a$ was optimized and atomic positions were relaxed within the Fm$\overline{3}$m space group (no. 225), and $a$= 3.94 Å was obtained. The d$^3$-d$^3$ configuration of ions with cubic symmetry leaves a cubic structure, leaving only a small relaxation of the oxygen cages around the cations (Rh-O distance of 2.00 Å and Mn-O distance of 1.94 Å).
As mentioned, very small values of the orbital angular momentum arise when SOC is introduced: 0.05 $\mu_B$ on Rh, 0.01 $\mu_B$ on Mn. Adding spin and orbital angular momenta, the net moment is only 0.02 $\mu_B$, and it remains very close to compensated half metal for values of U of 6 eV for Mn and 4 eV for Rh. Even though Fig. \[k2mnrh\] looks similar to a zero-gap situation, on the verge of a metal-insulator transition, bands cross the Fermi level even for larger values of U, and (half) semimetal character is maintained.
![Density of states plots of the tetragonal double perovskite K$_2$MnRhO$_6$ in a HMAF state within an LSDA+U scheme with U= 5 eV for Mn and 3 eV for Rh, including spin-orbit coupling. Upper (lower) panel shows up (down) spin channel.[]{data-label="k2mnrh"}](pardo_pickett_hmafm_fig4.eps){width="0.65\columnwidth"}
La$_2$CrWO$_6$: d$^3$-d$^3$
---------------------------
This is another example of a d$^3$-d$^3$ AF coupling situation, and again, it is a not-yet-synthesized material, completely ab initio designed. Structural relaxation was carried out allowing tetragonal distortion. No tetragonal distortion was obtained, and $a$ = 4.00 Å. The difference in ionic radii leads to a Cr-O distance of 1.97 Å and W-O distance of 2.03 Å.
Evolution with U and SOC indicates that the latter does not seriously degrade the moment compensation. For large values of U, where the material is still a metal, the total moment stays below 0.2 $\mu_B$/f.u. W has an orbital moment of 0.15 $\mu_B$ and a much smaller one, and opposite in an AF configuration, arises from Cr. Even for large values of U (7 eV for Cr and 4 eV for W), the system remains metallic (half-metallic) and the total magnetic moment, including spin and orbital components, does not exceed 0.10 $\mu_B$/f.u. Metallicity comes from a broad W d band that crosses the Fermi level, as can be seen in Fig. \[la2crw\]. An electron pocket is formed in an itinerant W d band and a corresponding La-character hole pocket (not shown) appears.
![Density of states plots of the tetragonal double perovskite La$_2$CrWO$_6$ in a HMAF state within an LDA+U scheme with U= 5 eV for Cr and 3.5 eV for W, including spin-orbit coupling. Upper (lower) panel shows up (down) spin channel.[]{data-label="la2crw"}](pardo_pickett_hmafm_fig5.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Unpromising compounds
=====================
On our way to detecting these spin-compensated half-metals, we studied other seemingly promising double perovskites. We will discuss these only briefly, since they do not show the desired behavior.
d$^1$-d$^9$
-----------
Even though superexchange rules predict this coupling to be negligible, we have previously studied a system that could be promising. Hence, as an analogy with the Jahn-Teller compound La$_2$VCuO$_6$, we tried changing each of the 3d elements by a corresponding 4d element, without changing the electron count, i.e. La$_2$CuNbO$_6$ and La$_2$VAgO$_6$ which are less likely to be Mott insulators. In these cases, Nb and Ag respectively are non-magnetic, and the spin-compensation is lost.
d$^2$-d$^4$
-----------
This electronic configuration could lead to a spin-compensated state, if the d$^4$ cation is in a low-spin state. We have tried Ba$_2$FeCrO$_6$ (also with Sr and Ca with similar results), which could assume a d$^2$-d$^4$ electronic configuration. It is indeed the case, but Fe is in a HS state (not allowing for spin compensation to happen). A similar problem appears with the compound K$_2$FeRuO$_6$, where also Fe$^{4+}$ is also in a HS state. This electronic configuration has been studied in the past[@lasrvruo6; @lacavoso6] for several perovskites with general formula AA’BB’O$_6$.
d$^2$-d$^8$
-----------
We have found several cases where always the FM exchange mediated by the e$_g$ electrons is more intense than the AF coupling between the t$_{2g}$ electrons. Starting from Sr$_2$NiOsO$_6$ compound discussed above and substituting Os by Ru to form Sr$_2$NiRuO$_6$, we find that FM coupling remains. This is the standard prediction of GKA rules. Apart from these, we have also identified that FM coupling is more favorable in La$_2$CrNiO$_6$ (and also with W and Mo on the Cr site). This material is calculated to be an interesting FM insulator (of which there are relatively few examples), where instead of promoting the possible Jahn-Teller distorted Ni$^{3+}$ cation, it leads to the formation of a Cr$^{2+}$-Ni$^{4+}$ configuration. This charge ordered state is thought to occur to prevent the system from developing a Jahn-Teller distortion when it is close to the itinerant electron limit.[@CO_vs_JT]
Disordered LaCr$_{0.5}$Ni$_{0.5}$O$_3$ is known experimentally to be insulating,[@lacrnio6_mit] but close to a metal-insulator transition (the Ni end of the series LaNiO$_3$ is a metal). Our calculations show that the electronic structure of the charge ordered material explains the insulating state found experimentally, together with the prediction of FM coupling between the d$^2$ and d$^8$ cations, making the system potentially interesting as another FM insulator. For these calculations, we have taken the lattice parameters from the experiment[@lacrnio6_struct] with the disordered system and relaxed only the internal coordinates. The different ionic radii lead to different metal-oxygen bond lengths (1.90 Å for Cr and 1.96 Å for Ni).
Antiferrimagnetic insulators
----------------------------
We have found the following magnetically-compensated insulators with double perovskite structure: i) La$_2$CrMoO$_6$ is isoelectronic to the spin-compensated metal La$_2$CrWO$_6$, but introducing Mo instead of W opens up a gap at the Fermi level. It is the greater itineracy of the 5d element that leads to the metallic state that we analyzed above. ii) In analogy with Sr$_2$CrOsO$_6$,[@scoo] we have tried with a bigger alkaline-earth cation. The compound Ba$_2$CrOsO$_6$ is found to be an antiferromagnetic insulator, with configuration d$^3$-d$^3$. As an isovalent compound, Sr$_2$CrRuO$_6$ is calculated to be an antiferromagnetic insulator.
Summary
=======
In this paper we have suggested two very nearly spin-compensated half metals (or half semimetals): K$_2$MnRhO$_6$ and La$_2$CrWO$_6$, both with a formally d$^3$-d$^3$ configuration. It is found that, within a double perovskite structure, a d$^3$-d$^3$ electronic configuration promotes the chances to obtain a nearly spin-compensated half-metal, due to several factors. i) No competition between FM and AF interactions occurs as happens when there is partial occupation of e$_g$ states in one of the metal cations. ii) Having the t$_{2g}$ shell completely filled leads to a very small orbital angular moment, which works even further in favor of a very small magnetic moment solution. iii) Having less than half-filled d shells in both metal ions helps to avoid imbalance in the total moment that occurs when spin-orbit coupling is important, specially for 4d and 5d elements. Having both cation d shells less than half filled means that the orbital angular momenta of both cations will also orient antiparallel to the spin, preventing the system from having a larger net magnetic moment. iv) The large S=3/2 spins make our calculations more realistic; ordering of low spin ions is often more affected by quantum fluctuations. Both materials that we have discussed at length are designed [*ab initio*]{}, no experimental information on them yet exists to the best of our knowledge.
Acknowledgments
===============
We have benefited from discussion on this topic with J. Chakhalian. This project was supported by DOE grant DE-FG02-04ER46111 and through interactions with the DOE’s Predictive Capability for Strongly Correlated Systems team of the Computational Materials Science Network. V.P. acknowledges financial support from Xunta de Galicia through the Human Resources Program.
[34]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Due to the availability of references of research papers and the rich information contained in papers, various citation analysis approaches have been proposed to identify similar documents for scholar recommendation. Despite of the success of previous approaches, they are, however, based on co-occurrence of items. Once there are no co-occurrence items available in documents, they will not work well. Inspired by distributed representations of words in the literature of natural language processing, we propose a novel approach to measuring the similarity of papers based on distributed representations learned from the citation context of papers. We view the set of papers as the vocabulary, define the weighted citation context of papers, and convert it to weight matrix similar to the word-word co-occurrence matrix in natural language processing. After that we explore a variant of matrix factorization approach to train distributed representations of papers on the matrix, and leverage the distributed representations to measure similarities of papers. In the experiment, we exhibit that our approach outperforms state-of-the-art citation-based approaches by 25%, and better than other distributed representation based methods.'
address: 'School of Data Science and Computer, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China'
author:
- Han Tian
- Hankz Hankui Zhuo
bibliography:
- 'all.bib'
title: 'Paper2vec: Citation-Context Based Document Distributed Representation for Scholar Recommendation'
---
Introduction
============
WoS Scopus CiteSeerX DBLP PMC arXiv
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------
Full text availability No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Records in millions $\sim90$ $\sim55$ $\sim6$ $\sim3$ $\sim3$ $\sim1$
: \[tab:datasets\]List of some popular datasets. Citation index often contains much more records than full-text dataset.
Recommender systems have been introduced into many academic services, such as CiteSeerX[^1], Google Scholar[^2], PubMed[^3], and scholar social network such as ResearchGate[^4], reference managers such as CiteULike[^5], Docear[^6], Mendeley[^7]. Due to the availability of paper references, many approaches based on citation analysis have been proposed to enhance the performance of relevant-document search [@meuschke2015citrec]. Reseachers found document retrieval methods using citation linkages are able to find additional relevant documents than conventional word indexing methods [@leepao1993term]. While full text documents are not always open access, citation indexes such as Web of Science, Google Scholar and Microsoft Academic Search can track citation linkage for most papers. Table \[tab:datasets\] demonstrates some popular scholar datasets and citation indexes.
Most of citation based methods view the number of co-occurrence of the citation linkages as similarity measurement via considering different citation linkage types with different weighting schemes. In those approaches, they require that there is at least one item shared in the contexts of two papers in order to calculate their similarity [@Beel2015]. However, it is common for lots of pairs of documents that are similar but having no shared citation linkages. It may be caused by the fact that they come from different sources: technical reports, books, case-report and so on, or the time span between two papers are too long or too short. Table \[tab:egPapers\] demonstrates some examples from dataset.
In this paper, we present a novel approach, called , indicating that each paper is represented by a real valued vector. Inspired by distributed representations of words proposed in the area of NLP, which have recently demonstrated state-of-the-art results across various NLP tasks, we view each scholar paper (or paper ID specifically) as a word, and learn the distributed representations of words based on the citation context of papers, to capture the implicit scholar topics contained in the citation linkage set. Our paper distributed vectors are trained in a stochastic way based on matrix factorization on the citation relations data. And the cosine similarity of vectors is used as the document similarity measurement to find relevant scholar papers. The stochastic training way also makes Paper2vec easy for online learning.
[C[6cm]{}|C[6cm]{}]{} &\
&\
&\
&\
&\
&\
&\
&\
&\
&\
As far as we know, there is no related research based on distributed representation for citation based algorithm. [@le2014distributed] also proposed a way to train documents as vectors under the framework of recent distributed representation models of NLP, however, it’s based on the full text corpus of papers. In summary, our contributions are shown as follows.
- we can calculate the similarity between any pair of document without the need of intersection of citation linkage sets.
- full text is not needed for Paper2vec, which makes it possible to be applied into scholar databases where full text is not supported.
- the stochastic learning process and the corpus structure make it possible an online learning process. When a new paper is included into the database, it can be transformed into training data and learned immediately.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review the related work of Paper2vec, from the citation-based similarity measures (Section \[sub:Citation-based-algorithms\]) to the word distributed representation training algorithms (Section \[sub:Word2vec\]). Section 3 describes Paper2vec in details and the similarity between paper vectors and word vectors. Section 4 contains the details of the evaluation experiment, and Section 5 draws some conclusions and addresses future aspects of our work.
Related Work
============
\[sub:Citation-based-algorithms\]Citation-based Algorithms
----------------------------------------------------------
Many different similarity measures were proposed derived from document citation structure. A lot of research have proved that the search performance can be enhanced by incorporating citation algorithms into IR systems [@eto2013evaluations]. Among them the most widely used three basic methods are Co-citation, Bibliographic Coupling and Amsler, invented in the 60s and 70s [@cristo2003link]. They calculate the intersection of different citation linkage sets. While Co-citation regards the times two documents are cited together, namely “co-cited”, as the similarity measure, Bibliographic Coupling consider the number of documents they share in their references. To combine the two basic algorithms to get better results, Amsler proposed an algorithm considering the intersection of the union of two citation linkage sets mentioned above. Pairs of documents under all three models cannot be compared without co-occurrence items.
Context information of citation were introduced recently into the co-citation based similarity measure with different weighting schemes to quantify the degree of relevance between co-cited documents. Citation Proximity Analysis (CPA) [@gipp2009citation], for instance, takes fixed value reflecting the proximity between two citations in the full text as the strength of the relevance of two co-cited papers, while [@callahan2010contextual] use another proximity function to get co-citation strength based on document structure. However, they have the same problems as the classical methods do, and the need of full text of such context-based co-citation methods limits their availability in some large datasets such as Web of Science, where full text is not supported.
\[sub:Word2vec\]Word Distributed Representation Models
------------------------------------------------------
The distributed representation for words were initially applied to solve the curse of dimensionality caused in language modeling based on discrete representation of words [@bengio2003neural]. Under the hypothesis that words having similar context are similar, which suggests that contextual information nicely approximates word meaning, distributional semantic models (DSMs) use continuous short vectors to keep track of the context information collected in large corpus, namely the word distribution nearby the specific word. [@baroni2014don] classified DSMs into two types, count models and predict models. While count models are the traditional methods to generate distributed vectors by transforming the feature vectors with various specific criteria, predict models build a probabilistic model based on word vectors, which are trained on large corpus to maximize the probability of the occurrences of the contexts of observed words. Because the probability function is smooth and calculated totally by the distributed word vectors instead of discrete word features, the word distributed representation obtained by predict models makes it possible to regard two words similar when the distribution of context word vectors are similar. Evaluation performed in [@baroni2014don] shows context-predicting models are superior than count-based models on several measures.
Among existing predict models, SkipGram uses a simple probability function and achieved promising performance. SkipGram was proposed in [@Mikolov2013c] and improved in [@mikolov2013distributed], which tries to predict the context of observed words $P(context\vert w)$ across the corpus. The context of word is defined as a window around the word, the window size can be parameterized. Some efficient approximation methods are proposed to accelerate the training process such as hierarchical softmax and negative sampling [@Mikolov2013c]. The training process is stochastic and iterates several times across the large corpus. [@NIPS2014_5477] proved SkipGram with negative sampling is implicitly factorizing a shifted point-wise mutual information (PMI) transformed word-context occurrence matrix. [@Mikolov2013c] have also proposed another algorithm named CBOW, which is an approximation version of SkipGram.
Different from SkipGram, GloVe [@pennington2014glove] minimize the cost function corresponding to the probabilistic function SkipGram maximizes, which is based on the word-word co-occurrence matrix collected from training corpus. The nonzero elements on the matrix are trained to obtain word representations. This model efficiently leverages global statistical information and connects local context window methods such as SkipGram to the well-established matrix factorization methods, our algorithm is inspired by it.
\[sec:Paper2vec\]Paper2vec
==========================
The latent vertex dimensions learned should be continuous and informative of the context. In this section we describe the Paper2vec algorithm, which learns distributed vertex embeddings from matrix factorization on the weighted context definition of node.
Weighted Citation Link Context
------------------------------
The scholar database of research papers $D$ containing citation relation; Distributed embeddings of research papers contained in $D$, $W$; Build the citation relation network from $D$; Construct the citation linkage weight matrix of research papers from the network; Minimize the cost function stochastically to get the paper vectors $W$; $W$;
Many citation based similarity measurements are based on the assumption that papers having similar citation relation are similar. If we model the citation relation of papers to a directed graph, where nodes representing the documents, links representing citation relations, a classical similarity measurement approach is to measure the intersection of sets of neighbor nodes of the compared nodes representing the compared documents [@cristo2003link]. The set implicitly demonstrates the semantic content of the target paper. We define the set as “citation link context” of a document because the context set is based on the citation relation of papers[^8].
However, we find that the citation link context is not limited to the direct citation relation, but can extend to papers having indirectly citation relation with the target paper, which also implicit the semantic context, with a weaker weight. Our first task is to define a new weighted citation link context that extends the neighbor nodes, which can help us better measure the similarity between documents.
The weight scheme of citation link context should consider the following characteristics we observe in the scholar dataset:
- Cited papers and citing papers together help predicting the content of the current paper. While cited papers reflect the topics at the publication time, citing papers focus more on the academic significance afterwards.
- Decrease with distance. Papers indirectly cited are not so relevant than the directly cited papers and have smaller weight.
- Transitivity. Weights can be transmitted. Assume paper A cites paper B and paper B cites paper C, weaker the weight of citation link between A and B or B and C, weaker the weight of link between A and C.
To satisfy the above properties, we define a weight scheme based on random walk propability. We don’t treat cited link and the citing link differently. So we can get a undirected graph from the citation relation of dataset. In the graph, we consider the probability randomly walking from node $A$ to node $B$ as the weight of B to A, which implicit the weight scheme is not symmetric. To simplify the calculation, we only concern nodes in a predefined window $win$, meaning only taking the nodes having less than $win$ steps away from the target node along the link path into account. Farther nodes may have too small to have an impact for the result. We define $A$ as the transition matrix of nodes, $A_{ij}$ meaning the probability walking from node $i$ to node $j$. The transition matrix only consider the probability between neighbor nodes, and the probability from node to its neighbors are equally allocated. Then the weight can be calculated as follows:
$$X(j \mid i)=max(0,\log{[\sum_{o=1}^{win}\sum_{k=1}^{o}A^{k}]_{ij}}+\lambda)$$
The weight is the shifted positive logarithm of expected time we arrive node $j$ when random walk from node $i$ for $win$ steps. $X(j \mid i)$ represents the weight of node $j$ for node $i$. We use logarithm function to change the exponential decay of weight with respect to the distance to the target node to linear decay, then we shift it to get positive weights, which are asymmetric and not fixed. The parameter $\lambda$ should be chose based on the dataset and the window to guarantee most of the weight information are reserved. With the weight scheme we define a new richer citation link context, which can help us find a better similarity measurement.
\[sub:Learning-Vertex-Dimensions\]Learning Vertex Dimensions with Citation Link Context
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$grad=2*f(X(i \mid j)(w_{i}^{T}\widetilde{w_{j}}+b_{i}+\widetilde{b_{j}}-X(i \mid j))$ $temp_{i}=alpha*grad*\widetilde{w_{j}}$ ; $temp_{j}=alpha*grad*w_{i}$ $\widetilde{w_{j}}=\widetilde{w_{j}}+temp_{j}$; $w_{i}=w_{i}+temp_{i}$
Distributed representation have recently demonstrated state-of-the-art results across various NLP tasks. The successful application is based on the assumption that words having similar context are similar. The similarity between the assumptions inspired us to use distributed representation to represent papers, which is learned from the weighted citation link context we get in the last section. While word distributed representations can implicit the semantic and syntatic information of word, we expect scholar document to be represented by distributed vectors to capture the implicit scholar topics contained in the citation link set.
Now the question is how to utilize the weighted citation link set. We can transfer it to a sparse weight matrix $W$, where $W_{ij}$ representing the weight node $j$ for node $i$. Then matrix factorization approach can be used to obtain vectors representing nodes. The cost function for training is defined as follows:
$$J=\sum_{i,=1}^{V}\sum_{j=1}^{V}f(X(j \mid i))(w_{i}^{T}\widetilde{w_{j}}+b_{i}+\widetilde{b_{j}}-X(j \mid i))^{2}$$
where $w$ and $\widetilde{w}$ are respectively the paper embeddings and the context embeddings. $f(X_{ij})$ controls the weight of elements in the matrix. While small $X(j \mid i)$ may mean less information and more noise, we give a weighting function $f(X(i \mid j))$ for every element in the matrix as follows:
$$f(X(j \mid i))=[\sum_{o=1}^{win}\sum_{k=1}^{o}A^{k}]_{ij}$$
Notably, we use bias $b$ and $\widetilde{b}$ to loose the constraint of $\lambda$ in the weight scheme, making cost function more flexible. When the cost function is satisfied and according to the weight scheme, the exponential of the inner product of the paper vector and the context vector represents the random walk probability of the context paper:
$$\exp^{w_{i}^{T}\widetilde{w_{j}}}=\frac{[\sum_{o=1}^{win}\sum_{k=1}^{w}A^{k}]_{ij}}{\exp^{b+\widetilde{b}-\lambda}}$$
When the window of random walk is set to $win$, the sum of probability of all context nodes is $win$. So the exponential value of inner product represents the probability ratio. The cost function approximates the document embeddings from a different way compared with DeepWalk [@perozzi2014deepwalk].
Given the definition of context and the weight scheme, we can minimize the cost function to get representations representing the items. We note that the weight is not symmetric, $X(j \mid i)\text{\ensuremath{\not\not\not}=}X(i \mid j)$, different from the word-word co-occurrence matrix in the area of NLP, and is often the case for the relationship between items and friends. We tried to average the weight for $X(j \mid i)$ and $X(i \mid j)$, but the former won. The updating procedure is described in detailed in Algorithm \[alg:algorithm1-1\].
The complete algorithm of Paper2vec is described in Algorithm \[alg:algorithm1\]. The same as GloVe, Paper2vec will use a stochastic learning way to iterate the nonzero items in the matrix. Because the citation corpus is not as redundant as text corpus, the iteration time is often larger than that used in NLP tasks. After training, the context vectors are dropped and we obtain the paper vectors after normalizing, which can be used to measure similarity by calculating the cosine similarity of vectors of two documents as similarity measurement:
$$paper2vec(d_{i},d_{j})=p{}_{i}^{T}p_{j}$$
Experiment
==========
Conducting a nice evaluation experiment is challenging in research-papers recommender system, relating to the lack of datasets and gold standards [@Beel2015; @meuschke2015citrec]. Our experiment is conducted based on CITREC, an open evaluation framework for citation-based similarity measures proposed in [@meuschke2015citrec], which provides scholar datasets, baseline measurement and some implementations of previous citation-based algorithms.
Dataset
-------
CITREC has collected the data from the PubMed Central Open Access Subset (PMCOS) and the TREC Genomics collection. PubMed Central is a repository of full text documents from biomedicine and the life sciences maintained by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). The NLM offers a subset of 860,000 documents for downloading and processing. TREC Genomics Collection is a test collection used in the Genomics track of the TREC conference 2006, which comprises approx. 160 thousands Open Access biomedical full text articles.
We extracted the citation relation from the full text with the methods CITREC provided and constructed a database with documents, references for both datasets. With reference information collected in full text, we conducted entity resolution between documents and references based on PubMed ids, titles and authors, et al. We collected 252673 documents and 9379146 references for PMCOS, 160446 documents and 6312425 references for TREC Genomics. In order to make datasets self-containment, we only construct distributed vectors for papers contained in recorded documents. For other baseline methods, we also limit the available references data to the subset of that included in the recorded documents.
Gold Standards
--------------
The standard similarity score is calculated based on the Medical Subject Headings thesaurus (MeSH), which are a poly-hierarchical thesaurus of subject descriptors, maintained by experts at the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), and available for two scholar datasets mentioned above. CITREC include a gold standard suggested by [@lin1998an] based on MeSH to reflect topical relevance between documents. The similarity measurement demonstrates the proximity of the subject descriptors of two papers across the concept hierarchical tree, which can be considered as a suitable way to measure the semantic similarity between papers [@meuschke2015citrec].
Baseline Methods
----------------
We compare our proposed method to some representative methods for citation-based analysis and network representation learning approaches which can be transfered to this area.
- Amsler [@cristo2003link]: This model calculate the intersection of papers having citing or cited relation with the measured pair of papers. The similarity score can be formalized as follows:
$$amsler(d_{i},d_{j})=\frac{(P_{d_{i}}\cup C_{d_{i}})\cap(P_{d_{j}}\cup C_{d_{j}})}{\vert(P_{d_{i}}\cup C_{d_{i}})\cup(P_{d_{j}}\cup C_{d_{j}})\vert}$$
$P_{d_{i}}$ in the Equation is defined as the paper set citing $d_{i}$ and $C_{d_{i}}$ the cited paper set of $d_{i}$.
- CPA [@gipp2009citation]: Context information of citation were introduced into the this model to build co-citation based similarity measure with different weighting schemes. To quantify the degree of relevance between co-cited documents, Citation Proximity Analysis (CPA) maps the proximity between two citations in the full text to the strength of the relevance of two co-cited papers. Two papers having more strength of the co-cited relevance are more similar.
- DeepWalk [@perozzi2014deepwalk]: DeepWalk is a learning algorithm to obtain distributed representation for vertices in a network, which was used in the original paper for relational classification problem. As the paper citation relation is similar to a network while papers can be regard as the vertices, DeepWalk can be easily introduced to get paper vectors. The core idea in DeepWalk is to take random walk paths from network as sentences, while the vertices as words. The built corpus is then dropped to SkipGram to generate corresponding distributed representation of vertices. DeepWalk declared a 10% promotion based on $F_{1}$ score on relational classification tasks than state-of-the-art methods for social network representations. We transder the model to learn vectors of papers in citation network for our task.
Evaluation
----------
With the calculated similarity scores by various algorithms, we can get the rank of the most $K$ similar documents of every document in the database. Because classical similarity methods cannot get the similarity score for every pair arbitrarily, $K$ is not fixed, so we conducted experiment under different $K$ to get a comprehensive result. Intersection ratio are used as evaluation measurement for our experiment for their invariance of $K$. Intersection ratio take the average ratio of intersection between the top-$K$ document sets ranked according to the similarity measure and the Mesh baseline respectively.
Results
-------
We train 500-dimensional vectors for Paper2vec and DeepWalk and the window size is both set 3. There are several variants of CPA model, we only list the best result around them. The compared result under different $K$ is showed in Figure \[fig:Evaluation-results-based\].
DeepWalk and Paper2vec are both based on distributed representation and outperform other models significantly, which implies the promising future of distributed representation in this area. Paper2vec is better than DeepWalk on small $K$, meaning it can find better results in the first few documents, which is important for scholar recommendation.
Model Analysis: Window Size
---------------------------
Larger window should contains richer information about the context and results in better performance. So we look into the relation between the window size $win$ and the performance of the model. We trained Paper2vec model on datasets mentioned above for various training window size $win$. Parameters relating to training are the same as before and we consider the situation $K=10$. The result is showed in Figure \[fig:windowsize\]. We can see a monotonic increase in performance as the window size $win$ increases, since larger context tends to contain more information about current document, as we supposed. With the increasing of window size, the marginal profit of information gained is diminishing and the curve slope is descending. The curve suggests the information distribution among the structure.
Model Analysis: Novelty
-----------------------
Novelty are highly desirable features for scholar recommendation, for the goal of scholar recommendation system is to help researchers find papers that are relevant but have not be found by themselves. However, models based on cooccurrences of links prefer items having more links. For example, CPA prefers popular papers that are cited frequently and all similar documents found by CPA should at least be cited at once. It is not the case for distributed representation based algorithms, which give every document a vector and just consider the distance between vectors. So we suppose our Paper2vec model tend to be more popularity independent than classical models. Inspired by novelty measurement in [@bellogin2010study], we define a similar novelty measurement in a global perspective based on the concept of entropy in information theory. Considering the top-K similar documents found by all documents in the collection, given the collection set $S$, we get, $$novelty=-\sum_{i\in{S}}{p_i\log{p_i}}$$ where, $$p_i=\frac{{\vert \{j \vert i \in{R_j} \} \vert}}{\sum_k{\vert R_k\vert}}$$ $R_j$ denotes the top-K similar documents found by model for documnet j. The numerator part of the equation denotes the frequency document $i$ appears in other documents’ similar lists. In information theory, the novelty measurement could be seen as the expect value of the information contained in the distribution of documents in the relevant set of all documents in the collection. The maximum value happens when all documents appear in relevant set at the same frequent, which is the ideal situation that there is no popular documents any more. More frequently one of the documents appears than others, smaller the novelty measurement, meaning model prefering some items than others when recommending. The measurement also decreases when the coverage of relavant set decreases. We name this measurement Entropy Novelty for it’s derived from the concept of entropy in information theory. In equation $\vert R_k \vert$ is not fixed to K because in cooccurence model the size of similar documents set for every document is variant.
We calculated the Entropy Novelty for Paper2vec and other models mentioned in the baseline methods section on datasets PMCOS and TREC Genomics. The gold standard measurement MeSH is also calculated as control group. The result is showed on Figure \[fig:novelty\]. While all distributed representation based models surpass cooccurence based models apparently, Paper2vec is the best around all models considered in both datasets, which proves distributed representation based models tend to consider semantic similarity of papers without the influence of other effects, such as popularity. This property can help users to find relevant papers that are hard to find by other classical models.
Conclusion & Discussion
=======================
We proposed Paper2vec, a novel approach for learning latent distributed representations from citation relations between documents reflecting the topics. We define a weighted citation linkage context for papers based on probability, and utilize a variant of matrix factorization to obtain document distributed representation, which can be used for tasks such as document clustering, relational classification, similarity measurement and so on. For paper recommendation, the similarity measure of any pair of documents can be calculated, the full text is not necessary, and the stochastic training process make it possible to update the new papers introduced into the database without training the whole corpus again and easy to be parallelized. The advantages and better performance of Paper2vec make it a promising method combined with text-based method for future scholar recommender systems.
In addition, there are more untapped potential hidden in distributed representation. [@Mikolov2013c] finds the vector difference of distributed representation can suggest the similarity of pair of words. For instance, vector(King) - vector(Man) + vector(Woman) results in a vector closed to vector(Queen). [@levy2014linguistic] gave an math explanation of the property. If the paper vectors have the same property, which can be used for finding papers that having a specific topic relation with the input document by simple vector algebraic operation. More research are needed to verify this hypothesis.
[^1]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
[^2]: http://scholar.google.com
[^3]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
[^4]: https://www.researchgate.net
[^5]: http://www.citeulike.org
[^6]: http://www.docear.org/
[^7]: https://www.mendeley.com/
[^8]: The concept “citation context” has been used to describe the text surrounding the citation position in full text in previous research.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'F.O. Goncharov[ [^1] ]{}'
- 'R. G. Novikov$^*$[^2]'
title: |
An example of non-uniqueness for\
the weighted Radon transforms\
along hyperplanes in multidimensions
---
Introduction {#sect.introd}
============
We consider the weighted Radon transforms $R_W$, defined by the formulas: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RW_def}
&R_Wf(s,\theta) = \int\limits_{x\theta=s} W(x,\theta)
f(x)\, dx, \, (s,\theta)\in {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}, \, x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d, \, d\geq 2,\end{aligned}$$ where $W = W(x,\theta)$ is the weight, $f = f(x)$ is a test function on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$.
We assume that $W$ is real valued, bounded and strictly positive, i.e.: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weight.cond.pos}
W = \overline{W} \geq c > 0, \, W\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d\times {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\overline{W}$ denotes the complex conjugate of $W$, $c$ is a constant.
If $W\equiv 1$, then $R_W$ is reduced to the classical Radon transform $R$ along hyperplanes in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. This transform is invertible by the classical Radon inversion formulas; see [@radon1917].
If $W$ is strictly positive, $W\in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d\times {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1})$ and $f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$, then in [@beylkin1984inversion] the inversion of $R_W$ is reduced to solving a Fredholm type linear integral equation. Besides, in [@boman1987support] it was proved that $R_W$ is injective (for example, in $L_0^2({\mathbb{R}}^d)$) if $W$ is real-analytic and strictly positive. In addition, an example of $R_W$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with infinitely smooth strictly positive $W$ and with non-trivial kernel $\mathrm{Ker}R_W$ in $C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ was constructed in [@boman1993example]. Here $C_0^{\infty}, \, L_0^2$ denote the spaces of functions from $C^{\infty}, \, L^2$ with compact support, respectively.
In connection with the most recent progress in inversion methods for weighted Radon transforms $R_W$, see [@goncharov2016iterative].
We recall also that inversion methods for $R_W$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ admit applications in the framework of emission tomographies (see [@goncharov2016analog]).
In the present work we construct an example of $R_{W}$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d,\, d\geq 3$, with non-trivial kernel $\mathrm{Ker}R_W$ in $C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d)$. The related $W$ satisfies . In addition, our weight $W$ is infinitely smooth almost everywhere on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$.
In our construction we proceed from results of [@boman1993example] and [@goncharov2016analog].
In Section \[sect.weight.transf\], in particular, we recall the result of [@goncharov2016analog].
In Section \[sect.bom.exmp\] we recall the result of [@boman1993example].
In Section \[sect.main.thm\] we obtain the main result of the present work.
Relations between the Radon and the ray transforms {#sect.weight.transf}
==================================================
We consider also the weighted ray transforms $P_w$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$, defined by the formulas: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{weighted.ray.def}
&P_wf(x,\theta) = \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}}}w(x + t\theta, \theta) f(x + t\theta)\, dt,
\, (x,\theta)\in T{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1},\\
&T{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1} = \{(x,\theta) \in {\mathbb{R}}^d \times {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1} : x\theta = 0\}, \, d \geq 2,\end{aligned}$$ where $w=w(x,\theta)$ is the weight, $f=f(x)$ is a test-function on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$.
We assume that $w$ is real valued, bounded and strictly positive, i.e.: $$w = \overline{w} \geq c > 0, \, w\in
L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d\times {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}).$$ We recall that $T{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$ can be interpreted as the set of all oriented rays in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$. In particular, if $\gamma = (x,\theta)\in T{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&\gamma = \{y\in {\mathbb{R}}^d : y = x + t\theta, \, t\in {\mathbb{R}}\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ gives the orientation of $\gamma$.
We recall that for $d=2$, transforms $P_w$ and $R_W$ are equivalent up to the following change of variables: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{R_WtoP_W}
&R_Wf(s,\theta) = P_wf(s\theta, \theta^\perp), s\in {\mathbb{R}}, \, \theta\in {\mathbb{S}}^1,\\
\begin{split} \label{Wtow}
&W(x,\theta) = w(x,\theta^\perp), \, x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2, \,
\theta \in {\mathbb{S}}^1, \\
&\theta^\perp = (-\sin\phi, \cos\phi)
\text{ for } \, \theta = (\cos\phi, \sin\phi), \,
\phi\in [0,2\pi),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is a test-function on ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
For $d=3$, the transforms $R_W$ and $P_w$ are related by the following formulas (see [@goncharov2016analog]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{reduction.formula1}
&R_Wf(s,\theta) = \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}}}
P_wf(s\theta + \tau[\theta,\alpha(\theta)], \, \alpha(\theta))\, d\tau, \, (s,\theta)\in {\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{S}}^2,\\ \label{reduction.formula2}
&W(x,\theta) = w(x,\alpha(\theta)), \, x\in {\mathbb{R}}^3,\, \theta \in {\mathbb{S}}^2,\\
\label{alpha_theta_3d}
&\alpha(\theta) = \begin{cases}
\dfrac{[\eta,\theta]}{|[\eta,\theta]|},
\text{ if } \theta\neq \pm\eta,\\
\text{ any vector }e\in {\mathbb{S}}^2, \text{ such that } e \perp \theta,
\text{ if } \theta = \pm \eta,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is some fixed vector from ${\mathbb{S}}^2$, $[\cdot, \cdot]$ denotes the standard vector product in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$, $\perp$ denotes the orthogonality of vectors. Actually, formula gives an expression for $R_Wf$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{S}}^2$ in terms of $P_wf$ restricted to the rays $\gamma = \gamma(x,\theta)$, such that $\theta\perp \eta$, where $W$ and $w$ are related by .
Below we present analogs of - for $d > 3$.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{plane_d}
&\Sigma(s,\theta) = \{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d : x\theta = s\}, \, s\in {\mathbb{R}}, \, \theta\in {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1},\\
\label{plane_2D}
&\Xi(v_1,\dots, v_k) = \mathrm{Span}\{v_1,\dots, v_k\}, v_i\in {\mathbb{R}}^d, \, i=\overline{1,k}, 1\leq k \leq d,\\ \label{Msphere}
&\Theta(v_1,v_2) = \{\theta\in {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1} : \theta \perp v_1, \theta\perp v_2\}
\simeq {\mathbb{S}}^{d-3}, \, v_1, v_2 \in {\mathbb{R}}^d, \, v_1\perp v_2, \\
\label{constant_basis_choice}
&(e_1,e_2, e_3, \dots , e_d)
\text{ - be some fixed orthonormal, positively oriented basis in } {\mathbb{R}}^d.\end{aligned}$$ If $(e_1,\dots, e_d)$ is not specified otherwise, it is assumed that $(e_1,\dots, e_d)$ is the standard basis in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$.
For $d\geq 3$, the transforms $R_W$ and $P_w$ are related by the following formulas: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RW_PW_d}
&R_Wf(s,\theta) = \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}}^{d-2}} P_wf(s\theta +
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{d-2}\tau_i \beta_i(\theta), \alpha(\theta))\,
d\tau_1\dots d\tau_{d-2}, \, (s,\theta)\in{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{S}}^{d-1},\\ \label{W_w_d}
&W(x,\theta) = w(x,\alpha(\theta)), \, x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d, \,
\theta\in {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1},\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha(\theta), \, \beta_i(\theta), \, i = \overline{1,d-2}$, are defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{direction_alpha}
&\alpha(\theta) = \begin{cases}
\text{direction of one-dimensional intersection }
\Sigma(s,\theta)\cap \Xi(e_1,e_2), \text{ where}\\
\text{the orientation of } \alpha(\theta) \text{ is chosen such that }
\det(\alpha(\theta), \theta, e_3, \dots, e_d) > 0,
\text{ if }\theta\not\in \Theta(e_1,e_2),
\vspace{0.1cm}\\
\text{any vector }e\in {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}\cap \Xi(e_1,e_2), \text{ if } \theta\in \Theta(e_1,e_2),
\end{cases}\\
\label{basis_on_hypp}
&(\alpha(\theta), \beta_1(\theta), \dots, \beta_{d-2}(\theta))
\text{ is an orthonormal basis on }\Sigma(s,\theta),\end{aligned}$$ and $\Sigma(s,\theta), \,\Theta(e_1,e_2)$ are given by , , respectively. Here, due to the condition $\theta\not\in \Theta(e_1,e_2)$: $$\label{intersect_dim}
\dim(\Sigma(s,\theta)\cap \Xi(e_1,e_2)) = 1.$$
Formula is proved in Section \[sect\_proof\_formula\].
Note that formulas - are also valid for $d=3$. In this case these formulas are reduced to -, where $e_3 = -\eta$.
Note that, formula gives an expression for $R_Wf$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$ in terms of $P_{w}f$ restricted to the rays $\gamma = (x,\alpha)$, such that $\alpha \in {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}\cap \Xi(e_1,e_2)$.\
**Remark 1.** In one can also write: $$\label{hodge_star}
\alpha(\theta) = (-1)^{d-1} \star (\theta \wedge e_3\wedge\dots \wedge e_d),
\text{ if } \theta\not\in \Theta(e_1,e_2),$$ where $\star$-denotes the Hodge star, $\wedge$ - is the exterior product in $\Lambda^*{\mathbb{R}}^d$ (exterior algebra on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$); see, for example, Chapters 2.1.c, 4.1.c of [@shigeyuki2001diff].
Note that the value of the integral in the right hand-side of does not depend on the particular choice of $(\beta_1(\theta), \dots, \beta_{d-2}(\theta))$ of .
Note also that, due to , , , , the weight $W$ is defined everywhere on ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}, \, d\geq 3$. In addition, this $W$ has the same smoothness as $w$ in $x$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ and in $\theta$ on ${\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}\backslash \Theta(e_1,e_2)$, where $\Theta(e_1,e_2)$ is defined in and has zero Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}$.
Boman’s example {#sect.bom.exmp}
===============
For $d=2$, in [@boman1993example] there were constructed a weight $W$ and a function $f$, such that: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ray_b_props}
&R_{W}f \equiv 0 \text{ on } {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{S}}^1, \\ \label{w_b_props}
&1/2 \leq W \leq 1, W\in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2\times {\mathbb{S}}^1), \\ \label{f_b_properties}
&f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2), \, f\not\equiv 0, \, {\mathrm{supp}}\, f\subset\overline{B^2}
=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2 : |x|\leq 1\}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, as a corollary of , , -, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ray_boman}
&P_{w_0} f_0 \equiv 0 \text{ on } T{\mathbb{S}}^1,\hspace{5.2cm}\\
&1/2 \leq w_0\leq 1, \, w_0 \in C^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2\times {\mathbb{S}}^1),\\
&f_0\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^2), \, f_0\not\equiv 0, \, {\mathrm{supp}}\, f\subset\overline{B^2}
=\{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2 : |x|\leq 1\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ray_boman_weight}
&w_0(x, \theta) = W(x, -\theta^\perp), \, x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2,\, \theta\in {\mathbb{S}}^1,\\
\label{ray_boman_func}
&f_0 \equiv f.\end{aligned}$$
Main results {#sect.main.thm}
============
Let $$\begin{aligned}
&B^{d} = \{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d : |x| < 1\}, \\
&\overline{B^d} = \{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d : |x| \leq 1\},\\ \label{choice_eta}
&(e_1,\dots, e_d) \text{ - be the canonical basis in } {\mathbb{R}}^d.\end{aligned}$$
\[main.thm\] There are $W$ and $f$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{RW_zero}
&R_Wf \equiv 0 \text{ on } {\mathbb{R}}\times {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1},\\ \label{Wf_props}
&W \text{ satisfies \eqref{weight.cond.pos}}, \, f\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^d), \,
f\not \equiv 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where $R_W$ is defined by , $d\geq 3$. In addition, $$\label{almost_sur_smooth_prop}
1/2 \leq W\leq 1, \, W \text{ is } C^{\infty}\text{-smooth on } {\mathbb{R}}^d\times ({\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}\backslash
\Theta(e_1,e_2)),$$ where $\Theta(e_1,e_2)$ is defined by . Moreover, weight $W$ and function $f$ are given by formulas , - in terms of the J. Boman’s weight $w_0$ and function $f_0$ of , .
**Remark 2.** According to , , $W(x,\theta)$ for $\theta\in \Theta(e_1,e_2)$ can be specified as follows: $$\label{W_overdefined}
W(x,\theta) = W(x_1,\dots, x_d, \theta) {\overset{def}{=}}w_0(x_1,x_2, e_1), \, \theta\in \Theta(e_1,e_2), \, x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d.$$
We define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rayweight.def}
&w(x,\alpha) = w(x_1,\dots,x_d, \alpha) {\overset{def}{=}}w_0(x_1,x_2,\alpha_1,\alpha_2),\\ \label{test_func_def}
&f(x) = f(x_1,\dots,x_d) {\overset{def}{=}}\psi(x_3,\dots, x_d) f_0(x_1,x_2),\\ \nonumber
&\text{for }
x = (x_1,\dots,x_d)\in {\mathbb{R}}^d,
\, \alpha = (\alpha_1, \alpha_2, 0, \dots ,0)\in {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}\cap \Xi(e_1,e_2)\simeq {\mathbb{S}}^1,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{psi.def}
&\psi\in C_0^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{d-2}), \, {\mathrm{supp}}\, \psi =
\overline{B^{d-2}} \text{ and } \psi(x) > 0 \text{ for } x\in B^{d-2}.\end{aligned}$$ From , , - it follows that: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{PW_alpha_zero}
\begin{split}
P_wf(x,\alpha) &= \int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}}}
w(x_1 +t\alpha_1 ,x_2 + t\alpha_2, x_3,\dots, x_d, \alpha)
f(x_1 +t\alpha_1 ,x_2 + t\alpha_2, x_3, \dots, x_d)\,dt\\
&= \psi(x_3, \dots, x_d)\int\limits_{{\mathbb{R}}}w_0(x_1 +t\alpha_1 ,x_2 + t\alpha_2, \alpha_1, \alpha_2)
f_0(x_1 +t\alpha_1, x_2 + t\alpha_2)\, dt\\
&= \psi(x_3,\dots, x_d) P_{w_0}f_0(x_1,x_2, \alpha_1,\alpha_2) = 0
\text{ for any }\alpha = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2, 0,\dots , 0)\in \Xi(e_1,e_2)\cap {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1}\simeq {\mathbb{S}}^1.
\end{split}
\end{aligned}$$ Properties - follow from -, , , , , .
Theorem \[main.thm\] is proved.
Proof of formula {#sect_proof_formula}
=================
Note that $$\dim(\Xi(e_1,e_2)) + \dim(\Sigma(s,\theta)) = d+1 > d,$$ which implies that the intersection $\Sigma(s,\theta)\cap \Xi(e_1,e_2)$ is one of the following:
1. The intersection is the one dimensional line $l = l(s,\theta)$: $$\label{line_intersection}
l(s,\theta) = \{x\in {\mathbb{R}}^d : x = x_0(s,\theta) + \alpha(\theta) t ,\, t\in {\mathbb{R}}\}, \,
\alpha(\theta)\in {\mathbb{S}}^2,$$ where $x_0(s,\theta)$ is an arbitrary point of $\Sigma(s,\theta)\cap \Xi(e_1,e_2)$, the orientation of $\alpha(\theta)$ is chosen such that: $$\label{direct.alpha}
\det(\alpha(\theta), \, \theta, \, e_3, \dots, e_d) > 0.$$ Condition fixes uniquely the direction of $\alpha(\theta)$ of .
Formulas , , imply that can hold if and only if $\theta\not\in \Theta(e_1,e_2)$.
2. The intersection is the two-dimensional plane $\Xi(e_1,e_2)$. Formulas , imply that it is the case if and only if $$s = 0,\, \theta\perp e_1, \, \theta\perp e_2.$$
3. The intersection is an empty set. Formulas , imply that it is the case if and only if $$s \neq 0,\, \theta\perp e_1, \, \theta\perp e_2.$$
Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cases_occurence}
\begin{split}
&\text{cases 2 and 3 occur if and only if } \theta \perp e_1, \,
\theta \perp e_2, \text{ i.e., }\theta\in \Theta(e_1,e_2).
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
This completes the proof of formula .
Acknowledgments
===============
This work is partially supported by the PRC $n^{\circ}$ 1545 CNRS/RFBR: Équations quasi-linéaires, problèmes inverses et leurs applications.
[Bom85]{}
G. Beylkin. . , 37(5):579-599, 1984.
J. Boman, E. Quinto. . , 55(4):943-948, 1987.
J. Boman. . , 61(1):395–401, 1993.
F. O. Goncharov, R. G. Novikov. An analog of [C]{}hang inversion formula for weighted [R]{}adon transforms in multidimensions. , 4(2):23-32, 2016.
F. O. Goncharov. Iterative inversion of weighted Radon transforms in 3D. , 2017. A. Markoe, E. Quinto. An elementary proof of local invertibility for generalized and attenuated Radon transforms. , 16(5):1114–1119, 1985.
S. Morita. Geometry of differential forms. ., 2001.
J. Radon. ber die [B]{}estimmung von [F]{}unktionen durch ihre [I]{}ntegralwerte l[ä]{}ngs gewisser [M]{}annigfaltigkeiten. , 69:262–267, 1917.
[^1]: CMAP, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, 91128 Palaiseau, France; email: [email protected]
[^2]: IEPT RAS, 117997 Moscow, Russia; email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Joel Oredsson,'
- Johan Rathsman
bibliography:
- '2HDMbib.bib'
title: '2-loop RG evolution of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{}-violating 2HDM'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (2HDM) is one of the most studied minimalistic extensions of the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics and serves as an effective theory for many Beyond the SM (BSM) models. It offers a rich scalar sector with its three neutral plus a charged pair of Higgs bosons. One of the neutral ones should make up the 125 GeV scalar particle that has been discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) by the ATLAS [@Aad:2012tfa] and CMS [@Chatrchyan:2012xdj] collaborations; that, so far, resembles the SM Higgs boson [@Khachatryan:2016vau]. According to the LHC data, it is ruled out that the discovered particle is a pure [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} odd scalar [@Khachatryan:2014kca]; however, there is still the possibility that it is a mixture of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} even and [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} odd states.
While the 2HDM is well studied in the literature, it is most often the [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} conserving one even though the 2HDM exhibits the possibility of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation. It is well known that, to fulfill the Sakharov’s criteria for baryogenesis [@Sakharov:1967dj], new sources of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation are needed to sufficiently explain the excess of matter over anti-matter in the universe. The possibility for [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation in the 2HDM is therefore an intriguing feature, which was the original motivation for studying the 2HDM in the first place [@Lee:1973iz].
There are several experiments that limit the amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation one can have in the 2HDM. One of the most troublesome observables is that one easily generates a large Electric Dipole Moments (EDMs) for particles; which are severely constrained by experiments. The electron’s EDM (eEDM) has recently received an upper limit from the ACMEII collaboration [@Andreev:2018ayy], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ACMEII}
|d_e| < 1.1 \times 10^{-29}~\text{e cm}.\end{aligned}$$
Another well known problem of the general 2HDM, not exclusive to the [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violating case, is the presence of Flavor-Changing-Neutral currents (FCNCs) and one popular solution is to impose a [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry on the model [@Glashow:1976nt; @Paschos:1976ay]; although, often one allows for a soft [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry breaking term.
In recent years, the softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetric 2HDM has been confronted with data from the LHC as well as the limits coming from EDMs [@Shu:2013uua; @Jung:2013hka; @Inoue:2014nva; @Cheung:2014oaa; @Ipek:2013iba; @Bian:2014zka; @Chen:2015gaa; @Fontes:2017zfn; @Egana-Ugrinovic:2018fpy]. In this work, we investigate the complex, [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violating, 2HDM by probing its behavior under Renormalization Group (RG) evolution, while also revisiting the constraints from collider data and the eEDM. We focus on RG effects such as how different choices of [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{} symmetry can affect the energy range of validity and look for any symmetry breaking, or [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation, that spreads across the Yukawa and scalar sectors.
There are many studies that analyze the 2HDM using 1-loop RG Equations (RGEs), *e.g.* [refs. [@Dev:2014yca; @Penuelas:2017ikk; @Botella:2018gzy; @Gori:2017qwg; @Basler:2017nzu; @Ferreira:2015rha; @Bijnens:2011gd]]{}, but also some that use the 2-loop ones [@Chowdhury:2015yja; @Krauss:2018thf; @Oredsson:2018yho]. We use the code [`2HDME`]{} [@Oredsson:2018vio] to perform the RG evolution at 2-loop order. It is essential to go to 2-loop order if one is interested in studying how all sectors affect each other during RG evolution; since the quartic couplings enter the Yukawa couplings’ RG Equations (RGEs) first at this order.
To investigate the parameter space of the 2HDM, we set up numerical parameter scans of different physical scenarios; each with their own level of [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry in each sector. In addition to looking for Landau poles in the RG evolution, we perform tree-level checks of unitarity and stability. We also compute the oblique parameters $S$, $T$ and $U$; as well as the branching ratios for all Higgs decays with a modified version of [`2HDMC`]{} [@Eriksson:2009ws]. To check whether a parameter point is excluded by collider data, we use the codes [`HiggsBounds`]{} [@Bechtle:2008jh; @Bechtle:2011sb; @Bechtle:2013wla] and [`HiggsSignals`]{} [@Bechtle:2013xfa]. Finally, we use the eEDM as an additional constraint on the amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation. We calculate this observable by summing up all the relevant Barr-Zee diagrams [@Barr:1990vd] that contribute. This calculation is also implemented in a recent update of [`2HDME`]{}.
This paper is structured as follows: we begin in [section \[sec:2HDM\]]{} by giving a brief review of the 2HDM and present the notation that we use. We describe the different scenarios of parameter scans in [section \[sec:scenarios\]]{}. The constraints that we implement are listed in [section \[sec:constraints\]]{}. To illustrate the characteristic change in behavior of the 2HDM when allowing for [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation, we vary the amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation in an example point in [section \[sec:examplePoint\]]{} and look at various observables. The main results of the parameter scans are presented in [section \[sec:results\]]{} and we subsequently summarize our conclusions in [section \[sec:conclusions\]]{}. Some plots of the generic basis of 2HDM in the first scenario are collected in [appendix \[app:GenBase\]]{}. In [appendix \[app:BarrZee\]]{}, we list all the formulas for every Barr-Zee diagram that we use to calculate the eEDM.
The 2HDM {#sec:2HDM}
========
Since 2HDM is one of the most studied BSM theories, we will only briefly describe it here and for a full review we refer to [ref. [@Branco:2011iw]]{}. Throughout this work, we use the notation employed in the basis independent treatment of the 2HDM in [refs. [@Davidson:2005cw; @Haber:2006ue; @Haber:2010bw]]{}.
The most general gauge invariant renormalizable scalar potential for two hypercharge $+1/2$ Higgs doublets, $\Phi_{1,2}$, can be written $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:GenericPotential}
-\mathcal{L}_V=&m_{11}^2\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_{1} +
m_{22}^2\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_{2} -
(m_{12}^2\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_{2}+\text{h.c.}) +
\frac{1}{2}\lambda_1\left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_{1}\right)^2
+\frac{1}{2}\lambda_2\left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_{2}\right)^2\nonumber\\
&+\lambda_3\left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_{1}\right)\left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2\right)
+\lambda_4\left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_{2}\right)\left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_1\right)
\nonumber\\
&+\left[\frac{1}{2}\lambda_5\left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2\right)^2
+\lambda_6\left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_1\right)\left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2\right)
+\lambda_7\left(\Phi_2^\dagger\Phi_2\right)\left(\Phi_1^\dagger\Phi_2\right)+\text{h.c.}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $m_{12}^2$ and $\lambda_{5,6,7}$ are potentially complex while all the other parameters are real; resulting in a total of 14 degrees of freedom.
After electroweak symmetry breaking, $SU(2)\times U(1)_Y\rightarrow
U(1)_{\text{em}}$, both the scalar fields acquire a Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV). Using global $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)$ rotations, the fields’ VEV take the forms $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle \Phi_1\right\rangle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ v_1 \end{array}\right)
&&
\text{and}
&&
{\left\langle \Phi_2\right\rangle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ v_2e^{i\xi} \end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $v=\sqrt{v_1^2+v_2^2}\approx 246$ GeV and we define $\tan\beta \equiv
t_\beta \equiv v_2/v_1$. By convention, we take $0\leq \beta \leq \pi/2$ and $0\leq \xi\leq 2\pi$. Note that, if the two Higgs fields are identical by having equal quantum numbers, one is free to perform a Higgs flavor basis transformation and $\tan\beta$ is an unphysical parameter [@Haber:2006ue].
Minimizing the potential results in the tadpole equations $$\begin{aligned}
m_{11}^2 =~&m_{12}^2e^{i\xi}t_\beta - \frac{1}{2}v^2\left[\lambda_1 c_\beta^2
+(\lambda_3+\lambda_4+\lambda_5e^{2i\xi})s_\beta^2 \right.{\nonumber}\\
&\hspace{3cm}\left.+(2\lambda_6e^{i\xi}+\lambda_6^*e^{-i\xi})s_\beta c_\beta+ \lambda_7s_\beta^2 t_\beta e^{i\xi}\right],\\
m_{22}^2 =~&m_{12}^2e^{i\xi}t_\beta^{-1} - \frac{1}{2}v^2\left[\lambda_2 s_\beta^2 + (\lambda_3+\lambda_4+\lambda_5^*e^{-2i\xi})c_\beta^2 \right.{\nonumber}\\
&\hspace{3cm}\left.+(\lambda_7e^{i\xi}+2\lambda_7^*e^{-i\xi})s_\beta c_\beta+ \lambda_6^*c_\beta^2 t_\beta^{-1} e^{-i\xi}\right],\\
\text{Im}(m_{12}^2 e^{i\xi}) =~& \frac{1}{2}v^2\left[\text{Im}(\lambda_5e^{2i\xi})s_\beta c_\beta+\text{Im}(\lambda_6e^{2i\xi})c_\beta^2+ \text{Im}(\lambda_7e^{i\xi}) s_\beta^2\right].\end{aligned}$$ These are used to fix $m_{11}^2$, $m_{22}^2$ and $\xi$.
The Higgs basis {#sec:HiggsBasis}
---------------
In [eq. ]{} the general scalar potential for the 2HDM is written in the generic basis. Another basis is the Higgs basis [@Branco:1999fs; @Davidson:2005cw], where only one Higgs field gets a VEV. The Higgs basis fields in terms of the previously defined generic basis fields are[^1] $$\begin{aligned}
H_1 \equiv \hat{v}_{\bar{a}}^* \Phi_a, && H_2 \equiv \hat{w}_{\bar{a}}^* \Phi_a,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{w}_b \equiv \hat{v}_{\bar{a}}^*\epsilon_{ab}$ ( $\epsilon_{12}=-\epsilon_{21}=1$) and $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{v}_a \equiv \left( \begin{array}{c} c_\beta
\\ s_\beta e^{i\xi} \end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ These fields acquire the VEVs $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle H_1^0\right\rangle} = v/\sqrt{2} , && {\left\langle H_2^0\right\rangle} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The scalar potential in the Higgs basis takes a similar form as in the generic basis, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:HiggsPotential}
-\mathcal{L}_V =~& Y_1 H_1^\dagger H_1 + Y_2 H_2^\dagger H_2 +
\left(Y_3H_1^\dagger H_2 + \text{h.c.}\right) + \frac{1}{2}Z_1(H_1^\dagger H_1)^2 +
\frac{1}{2}Z_2(H_2^\dagger H_2)^2{\nonumber}\\ &+ \frac{1}{2}Z_3(H_1^\dagger
H_1)(H_2^\dagger H_2)+ \frac{1}{2}Z_4(H_1^\dagger H_2)(H_2^\dagger H_1){\nonumber}\\ &+\left\{\frac{1}{2}Z_5(H_1^\dagger H_2)^2 + \left[Z_6(H_1^\dagger H_1) +
Z_7(H_2^\dagger H_2)\right]H_1^\dagger H_2 + \text{h.c.}\right\}, \end{aligned}$$ where $Y_3$ and $Z_{5,6,7}$ are potentially complex. The tree-level tadpole equations are given by $$\begin{aligned}
Y_1 = -\frac{1}{2}Z_1 v^2, && Y_3 = -\frac{1}{2}Z_6 v^2.\end{aligned}$$ The Higgs basis is unique up to a rephasing of $H_2$. During a Higgs flavor transformation of the generic basis, $\Phi_a \rightarrow U_{a\bar{b}}\Phi_b$, the Higgs fields transform as [@Haber:2006ue] $$\begin{aligned}
H_1 \rightarrow H_1, && H_2 \rightarrow (\det U) H_2.\end{aligned}$$ Thus from inspection of the Higgs potential in [eq. ]{}, it follows that $Y_{1,2}, Z_{1-4}$ are invariant, while $$\begin{aligned}
\{Y_3, Z_{6,7}\} \rightarrow (\det U)^{-1} \{Y_3, Z_{6,7}\}, && Z_5\rightarrow (\det U)^{-2} Z_5\end{aligned}$$ are pseudo-invariants under the Higgs flavor transformation.
The Higgs doublets are expanded around the VEV and parameterized as $$\begin{aligned}
H_1 =\left(\begin{array}{c} G^+ \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v+\phi_1^0 + i G^0) \end{array}\right)
&&
\text{and}
&&
H_2 =\left(\begin{array}{c} G^+ \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_2^0 + i a^0)
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $G^{0,+}$ are Goldstone bosons that will be eaten by $Z$ and $W^\pm$. The physical scalar degrees of freedom, after electroweak symmetry breaking, correspond to three neutral ones that we will order according to their mass and denote as $h_{1,2,3}$; and one $U(1)_{em}$ charged pair of Higgs bosons that we will denote as $H^{\pm}$. In the [$\mathcal{CP}$]{}-conserving case, the neutral mass eigenstates have definite [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} properties; while all the neutral Higgs bosons mix and have indefinite [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} properties in the [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violating case. The neutral mass matrix in the $\phi_1^0 - \phi_2^0 - a^0$ basis is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M} = v^2 \left( \begin{array}{ccc} Z_1 & {\mathrm{Re}\left(Z_6\right)} & -{\mathrm{Im}\left(Z_6\right)}\\
{\mathrm{Re}\left(Z_6\right)} & \frac{1}{2}\left[Z_3+Z_4+{\mathrm{Re}\left(Z_5\right)}\right]+Y_2/v^2 &
-\frac{1}{2} {\mathrm{Im}\left(Z_5\right)}\\
-{\mathrm{Im}\left(Z_6\right)} & -\frac{1}{2}{\mathrm{Im}\left(Z_5\right)} &
\frac{1}{2}\left[Z_3+Z_4-{\mathrm{Re}\left(Z_5\right)}\right]+Y_2/v^2 \end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which can be diagonalized with the rotation matrix $$\begin{aligned}
R = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} c_{12}c_{13} &
-s_{12}c_{23}-c_{12}s_{13}s_{23} & -c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}+s_{12}s_{23} \\
s_{12}c_{13} & c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{13}s_{23} &
-s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}-c_{12}s_{23} \\
s_{13} & c_{13}s_{23} & c_{13}c_{23} \end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $s_{ij}(c_{ij})$ denotes $\sin\theta_{ij}(\cos\theta_{ij})$. From these angles, one can construct the Higgs flavor independent quantities $q_{kl}$ [@Davidson:2005cw]:
$k$ $q_{k1}$ $q_{k2}$
----- ---------------- -------------------------
1 $c_{12}c_{13}$ $-s_{12}-ic_{12}s_{13}$
2 $s_{12}c_{13}$ $c_{12}-is_{12}s_{13}$
3 $s_{13}$ $ic_{13}$
4 $i$ $0$
,
which we will use to parametrize various couplings. The angle $\theta_{23}$ is however not invariant under a $U(2)$ Higgs flavor transformation, but instead obeys $$\begin{aligned}
e^{i\theta_{23}} \rightarrow (\det U)^{-1}e^{i\theta_{23}}.\end{aligned}$$
The Yukawa sector {#sec:YukawaSector}
-----------------
In this work, we do not include any mechanism to provide masses for the neutrinos. The Yukawa sector that couples the Higgs fields to the fermion fields is in the generic basis $$\begin{aligned}
-\mathcal{L}_Y=&\bar{Q}_L^0\cdot\tilde{\Phi}_{\bar{a}}\eta_a^{U,0}U_R^0+\bar{Q}_L^0\cdot\Phi_a\eta_{\bar{a}}^{D,0\dagger}D_R^0
+ \bar{L}_L^0\cdot\Phi_a\eta_{\bar{a}}^{L,0\dagger}E_R^0 + \text{h.c.}~,\end{aligned}$$ where the left-handed fermion fields in the weak eigenbasis are $$\begin{aligned}
Q_L^0 \equiv \left( \begin{array}{c} U_L^0 \\ D_L^0 \end{array} \right), &&
L_L^0 \equiv \left( \begin{array}{c} \nu_L^0 \\ E_L^0 \end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ and $\tilde{\Phi}\equiv i\sigma_2 \Phi^*$.
In the Higgs basis, the Yukawa sector takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
-\mathcal{L}_Y =~& \bar{Q}_L \tilde{H}_1 \kappa^U U_R + \bar{Q}_L H_1 \kappa^{D\dagger} D_R + \bar{L}_L H_1 \kappa^{L\dagger} E_R{\nonumber}\\
&+ \bar{Q}_L \tilde{H}_2 \rho^U U_R + \bar{Q}_L H_2 \rho^{D\dagger} D_R + \bar{L}_L H_2 \rho^{L\dagger} E_R + \text{h.c.},\end{aligned}$$ where we have performed a biunitary transformation to go to the fermion mass eigenbasis such that the $\kappa^F=V_L^F\kappa^{F,0}V_R^{F\dagger}$ matrices are diagonal. In the end, the $\kappa^F$ matrices are related to $\eta^F$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa^U =~& \hat{v}_{\bar{a}}^*\eta_a^U=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v}\text{diag}(m_u,m_c,m_t),{\nonumber}\\
\kappa^D =~& \hat{v}_{\bar{a}}^*\eta_a^D=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v}\text{diag}(m_d,m_s,m_b),{\nonumber}\\
\kappa^L =~& \hat{v}_{\bar{a}}^*\eta_a^L=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{v}\text{diag}(m_e,m_\mu,m_\tau),\end{aligned}$$ and $\rho^F=\hat{w}_{\bar{a}}^*\eta_a^F$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_a^F \equiv& V_L^F\eta_a^{F,0}V_R^{F\dagger}.\end{aligned}$$ The unitarity transformation matrices are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
F_L \equiv V_L^F F_L^0, && F_R \equiv V_R^F F_R^0,\end{aligned}$$ where $F\in \{U,D,E\}$ denotes each fermion species. The CKM matrix is composed out of the left-handed transformation matrices, $V_{CKM} \equiv
V_L^UV_L^{D\dagger}$.
The $\kappa^F$ matrices are, of course, invariant under Higgs flavor transformations, while $\rho^F$ transforms as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^F \rightarrow (\det U)\rho^F.\end{aligned}$$ In general, each $\rho^F$ is left as an arbitrary 3-by-3 complex matrix.
Couplings to mass eigenstates {#couplings-to-mass-eigenstates .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
We parameterize the couplings of neutral Higgs bosons, $k=1,2,3$, to fermions as $$\begin{aligned}
-\mathcal{L} = \bar{F} \left(c_k^F + \tilde{c}_{k}^Fi\gamma_5\right)F h_k,\end{aligned}$$ where $F$ corresponds to $U$, $D$ and $L$, which are the Dirac fermions as vectors in generation space. These couplings can be expressed in a basis-independent way as $$\begin{aligned}
c_k^U =~& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\kappa^U q_{k1} +
\frac{1}{2}( q_{k2}^*e^{i\theta_{23}}\rho^U
+ q_{k2}e^{-i\theta_{23}}\rho^{U\dagger}) \right],\\
\tilde{c}_k^U =~& \frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}\left( q_{k2}e^{-i\theta_{23}}\rho^{U\dagger}
- q_{k2}^* e^{i\theta_{23}} \rho^U \right),\\
c_k^D =~& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\kappa^D q_{k1} + \frac{1}{2}(
q_{k2}^*e^{i\theta_{23}}\rho^D +q_{k2}e^{-i\theta_{23}}\rho^{D\dagger})\right],\\
\tilde{c}_k^D =~&
\frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}\left(q_{k2}^*e^{i\theta_{23}}\rho^{D} -
q_{k2}e^{-i\theta_{23}}\rho^{D\dagger}\right),\\
c_k^L =~& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\kappa^L q_{k1} + \frac{1}{2}(
q_{k2}^*e^{i\theta_{23}}\rho^L +q_{k2}e^{-i\theta_{23}}\rho^{L\dagger})\right],\\
\tilde{c}_k^L =~&
\frac{i}{2\sqrt{2}}\left(q_{k2}^*e^{i\theta_{23}}\rho^{L} -
q_{k2}e^{-i\theta_{23}}\rho^{L\dagger}\right),\end{aligned}$$
The couplings of charged Higgs to fermions is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
-\mathcal{L} = \bar{U}\left(c_{H^+}^Q + \tilde{c}_{H^+}^Q i \gamma_5\right)D H^+
+ \bar{\nu}\left(c_{H^+}^L + \tilde{c}_{H^+}^L i \gamma_5 \right) E H^+ + \text{h.c.},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
c_{H^+}^Q =~& \frac{1}{2}\left(V_{CKM}\rho^{D\dagger} - \rho^{U\dagger}V_{CKM}\right),\\
\tilde{c}_{H^+}^Q =~& -\frac{i}{2} \left(V_{CKM}\rho^{D\dagger} + \rho^{U\dagger} V_{CKM}\right),\\
c_{H^+}^L =~& \frac{1}{2}\rho^{L\dagger},\\
\tilde{c}_{H^+}^L =~& -\frac{i}{2}\rho^{L\dagger}.\end{aligned}$$
The three scalar coupling of neutral to charged Higgs, is parameterized as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = - \lambda_{kH^\pm} v h_k H^+H^-,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{kH^\pm} = q_{k1}Z_3 + \text{Re}\left(q_{k2}e^{-i\theta_{23}}Z_7\right).\end{aligned}$$
Finally, we write the coupling of neutral Higgs to vector bosons as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = g_{kVV} h_k\left(\frac{2m_W^2}{v}W_\mu W^\mu
+ \frac{m_Z^2}{v}Z_\mu Z^\mu\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{kVV} = q_{k1}$.
Flavor-changing-neutral currents and [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{} symmetry {#flavor-changing-neutral-currents-and-mathbbz_2-symmetry .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Since the $\rho^F$ matrices are in general completely arbitrary, the 2HDM suffers from FCNCs at tree-level. The most popular solution is to impose a [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry on the 2HDM [@Glashow:1976nt; @Paschos:1976ay]. By making one Higgs odd and the other even under the [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry, there are four different choices of charge assignments of the fermions as listed in [table \[tab:Z2symmetries\]]{}. With such a symmetry, the $\rho^F$ matrices become proportional to the diagonal $\kappa^F$ matrices; hence solving the problem of having tree-level FCNCs.
Type $U_R$ $D_R$ $L_R$ $a^U$ $a^D$ $a^L$
------ ------- ------- ------- ------------- -------------- --------------
I + + + $\cot\beta$ $\cot\beta$ $\cot\beta$
II + $-$ $-$ $\cot\beta$ $-\tan\beta$ $-\tan\beta$
Y + $-$ + $\cot\beta$ $-\tan\beta$ $\cot\beta$
X + + $-$ $\cot\beta$ $\cot\beta$ $-\tan\beta$
: Different [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetries that can be imposed on the 2HDM. $\Phi_1$ is odd($-1$) and $\Phi_2$ is even($+1$). For every type of [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry, the $\rho^F$ matrices become proportional to the diagonal mass matrices, $\rho^F = a_F \kappa^F$. []{data-label="tab:Z2symmetries"}
One can also make the ansatz of having an aligned Yukawa sector by itself [@Pich:2009sp]. Then one has $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:alignedYuk}
\rho^F = a_F \kappa^F,\end{aligned}$$ with $a_F$ being completely arbitrary complex coefficients. It is well known that this alignment ansatz is not stable during RG evolution [@Jung:2010ik; @Ferreira:2010xe; @Botella:2015yfa; @Oredsson:2018yho], but at one particular energy scale it results in diagonal Yukawa couplings. Though, if one allows for complex $a_F$ coefficients, one runs into the trouble of inducing a large eEDM [@BowserChao:1997bb]; as we will show in more detail later.
Another solution is the Cheng-Sher ansatz [@PhysRevD.35.3484], where one parameterizes the $\rho^F$ Yukawa couplings as $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^F \equiv \lambda_{ij}^F \frac{\sqrt{2m_im_j}}{v}.\end{aligned}$$ This allows for mass suppressed FCNCs when the $\lambda_{ij}^F$ are of the same magnitude. Neutral meson oscillations sets a rough upper limit of $\lambda_{i\neq j}^F \lesssim 0.1$ [@Bijnens:2011gd]. We will use this parameterization when looking at the sizes of non-diagonal Yukawa couplings, since it gives a clear estimate of how large they are.
[$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation scenarios {#sec:scenarios}
======================================
The scalar potential and vacuum are [$\mathcal{CP}$]{}-conserving if and only if [@Davidson:2005cw; @Gunion:2005ja; @Lavoura:1994fv; @Botella:1994cs] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CPVparams}
{\mathrm{Im}\left(Z_5^* Z_6^2\right)} = {\mathrm{Im}\left(Z_5^* Z_7^2\right)} = {\mathrm{Im}\left(Z_6^*Z_7\right)} = 0.\end{aligned}$$ These quantities are of course base invariant. Furthermore, we will use these as a measure of the amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation in the scalar sector.
To get a quantitative estimate on the amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation that is allowed in the 2HDM and see how it affects the RG evolution, we set up parameter scans for a number of physical scenarios with different levels of [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry. In this work, we only investigate bottom-up RG running; in that we impose different starting conditions at the EW scale and then run up. One could also consider scenarios where the starting conditions are fixed at some high energy UV scale and one instead run down to the EW scale. In a way, that would seem more natural, since a more symmetric model at the UV scale might be a more realistic scenario. However, we assume the RG effects to be symmetrical, *e.g.* the symmetry breaking parameters spread in equal amounts in bottom-up and top-down running. This has also been checked in some of the cases below. To perform top-down running is computationally more expensive; since one has to fit the evolved parameters to physical observables. This is the reason why we limit ourselves to bottom-up scenarios to investigate the RG effects.
Imposing an exact [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry fixes the Yukawa structure and forbids the $m_{12}^2$ and $\lambda_{6,7}$ parameters in the scalar potential. With these being forbidden, the only potentially complex parameter is $\lambda_5$; which can be rendered real by a Higgs flavor transformation. Hence, the strict [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetric 2HDM does not allow for any explicit [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation. One can, however, allow for a softly [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}breaking non-zero $m_{12}^2$ term. Then, one cannot rotate away all the complex phases and hence we will only investigate scenarios with at least a softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry. We will also require aligned VEVs, without loss of generality, by setting $\xi=0$ and we use one of the tadpole equations to fix the phase of $m_{12}^2$.
When performing RG evolution of a complex 2HDM, an interesting question is how the phases spread during the evolution. By inspection of the 2-loop RGEs[^2], one finds that there is no parameter that depends on the phase of $\lambda_5$ in the softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry case. One needs a hard [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}breaking in either the Yukawa or scalar sector to allow for parameters being rendered complex during the RG running.
We construct the following scenarios for investigation:
Scenario I: softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry {#scenario-i-softly-broken-mathbbz_2-symmetry .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------------
The simplest scenario is the softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetric 2HDM. This is also the most studied 2HDM. Here, we scan over the free parameters in the scalar potential. This is done in the generic basis with a flat random distribution. The Yukawa sector is fixed to type I or type II.
We will also restrict ourselves to scenarios where all $|\lambda_i|\lesssim 2$. The opposite case with large scalar couplings is often problematic in that it exhibits large radiative corrections and many tree-level calculations cannot be trusted [@Braathen:2017jvs; @Oredsson:2018yho; @Kainulainen:2019kyp]. In the [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} conserving case, this is related to the decoupling limit [@Haber:1989xc; @Gunion:2002zf], where the lightest Higgs boson resembles the 125 GeV SM one and the others are heavier.
The parameter ranges are: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_i \in [-2,2], && |m_{12}^2| \in [10^2, 2\times 10^5], && \beta \in
[\text{atan}(0.5), \text{atan}(50)],\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_5$ has a random phase and the phase of $m_{12}^2$ is fixed from one of the tadpole equations.
Scenario II: hard [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry breaking in the scalar potential {#scenario-ii-hard-mathbbz_2-symmetry-breaking-in-the-scalar-potential .unnumbered}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the same as scenario I, but with an addition of small hard [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry breaking complex parameters, $\lambda_{6,7}$, in the scalar potential at the electroweak scale. We restrict these to be in the range $|\lambda_{6,7}|< 0.5$, with random phases.
Scenario III: hard [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry breaking in the Yukawa sector {#scenario-iii-hard-mathbbz_2-symmetry-breaking-in-the-yukawa-sector .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, we have a [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} conserved scalar potential with a softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry. The parameters of the potential are distributed as in scenario I, but all are real. The Yukawa sector will be aligned as in [eq. ]{} at the EW scale. The $a_F$ parameters are equal to the [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetric values in magnitude; however, we let them be complex with independent phases. We will investigate type I, II and X as listed in [table \[tab:Z2symmetries\]]{}.
This can be seen as a hard [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry breaking in the Yukawa sector and consequently $\lambda_{6,7}$ and non-diagonal Yukawa couplings will be generated in the RG running.
Constraints {#sec:constraints}
===========
There is a considerable amount of freedom when choosing the parameters of the 2HDM. To constrain the parameter space we will use a number of theoretical and experimental constraints.
It is well known that the mass of $m_{H^\pm}$ gets a lower bound from weak radiative $B$-meson decays [@Deschamps:2009rh; @Mahmoudi:2009zx; @Hermann:2012fc; @Misiak:2015xwa; @Misiak:2017bgg], *e.g.* from $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ interactions. With a type I Yukawa symmetry, the bound is heavily $\tan\beta$ dependent and becomes irrelevant for us when $\tan\beta \gtrsim 2$. For a type II 2HDM the bound is largely $\tan\beta$ independent; with a conservative lower value of 580 GeV [@Misiak:2017bgg]. We will, however, not impose these constraints for the charged boson mass in this paper.
Consistency {#consistency .unnumbered}
-----------
On the theoretical side, we make basic checks to ensure tree-level stability of the scalar potential [@Ivanov:2006yq; @Ivanov:2007de] and that the VEV is in a global minimum [@Ivanov:2015nea]. We also check the unitarity of the scattering matrix for scalar particles at high energies [@Ginzburg:2005dt]. These tests are implemented in [`2HDME`]{} [@Oredsson:2018vio].
Collider data {#collider-data .unnumbered}
-------------
The first check of each parameter point is that the lightest Higgs scalar falls in the range $m_{h_1} \in [120, 130]$ GeV.
To check whether a parameter point is allowed by the current collider data from LEP, the Tevatron and LHC, we make use of the codes [`HiggsBounds`]{} [@Bechtle:2008jh; @Bechtle:2011sb; @Bechtle:2013wla] and [`HiggsSignals`]{} [@Bechtle:2013xfa]. [`HiggsBounds`]{} excludes models at a 95 % confidence level by comparing to experimental cross section limits and [`HiggsSignals`]{} ensures that the 125 GeV Higgs boson in the model resembles the one observed at the LHC. These codes require the calculations of the decay rates for each scalar particle, which we compute with [`2HDMC`]{} [@Eriksson:2009ws][^3].
Precision measurements {#precision-measurements .unnumbered}
----------------------
The oblique electroweak corrections to precision measurements, involving the $W$ and $Z$ bosons, are tightly constrained and simultaneously sensitive to additional scalar particles. We calculate the parameters $S$, $T$ and $U$ [@Peskin:1990zt; @Peskin:1991sw] using the formulas for the 2HDM in [ref. [@Haber:2010bw]]{} and make sure they are within the allowed 68 % confidence region of [ref. [@Baak:2014ora]]{}.
Electric dipole moment of the electron {#electric-dipole-moment-of-the-electron .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
\vcenter{\hbox{
\begin{fmffile}{images/barrZee}
\begin{fmfgraph*}(80,60)
\fmfleft{i1}
\fmfright{o1}
\fmfbottom{b1,b2}
\fmftop{t1}
\fmf{fermion,tension=10}{b1,v1,v2,b2}
\fmf{photon,tension=0.6,label=$V$}{m1,v1}
\fmfblob{0.3w}{m1}
\fmf{photon,tension=1.2}{m1,t1}
\fmf{dashes,tension=0.6,label=$S$}{m1,v2}
\fmflabel{$\gamma$}{t1}
\fmflabel{$e$}{b1}
\fmflabel{$e$}{b2}
\end{fmfgraph*}
\end{fmffile}
}} \end{aligned}$$
There is currently no direct evidence of an EDM for a fundamental particle and an observation would indicate a violation of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{}. It is a very difficult task to perform an experiment to measure the EDM of a charged particle. The electron serves as the easiest particle to try to measure the EDM of and the current limit in [eq. ]{} are set by the ACMEII collaboration [@Andreev:2018ayy] using a system of ThO molecules. Even though the SM predicts a non-zero eEDM, it is many orders of magnitude below the current limit. New scalar particles and sources of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violating phases in the 2HDM can quite easily generate EDMs of the order of $10^{-30}$ to $10^{-26}$ e cm; making a check vital for the survivability of any model.
There have been many studies of EDMs in the 2HDM [@Shu:2013uua; @Jung:2013hka; @Cheung:2014oaa; @Ipek:2013iba; @Bian:2014zka; @Chen:2015gaa; @Egana-Ugrinovic:2018fpy]. It is a well known phenomenon, that while in general there can be a large contribution to the eEDM for a single Higgs boson, there are regions in parameter space which exhibit cancellations among all the contributions; thus, making regions with large [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violating phases allowed. Therefore we take into consideration all the Higgs bosons in the calculation of the EDM. The largest contributions, and the only ones relevant for this study, are the 2-loop Barr-Zee diagrams [@Barr:1990vd] illustrated in [figure \[fig:BarrZee\]]{}. We have collected the necessary formulas and details of the calculation in [appendix \[app:BarrZee\]]{}. A numerical implementation of the computation is also available in [`2HDME`]{}.
Renormalization group evolution {#renormalization-group-evolution .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
By evolving the 2HDM in energy, we investigate the energy range where the model is valid and thus probe the stability of the model. If the model is not complete and consequently breaks down in the evolution, it would signal the need for new physics at a higher energy scale. Sensitivity to starting conditions is also an indication of fine tuning in choosing the parameters.
The RG evolution is performed at 2-loop order using [`2HDME`]{}. For technical details, we refer to [refs. [@Oredsson:2018vio; @Oredsson:2018yho]]{}.
In the RG evolution, we look for a breakdown of tree-level stability and unitarity as mentioned above. We also check for the presence of Landau poles where a parameter of the model goes to infinity; which we will refer to as a violation of perturbativity. This is most effectively imposed as a limit of $|\lambda_i|<4\pi$. It should, however, not be interpreted as an exact perturbativity limit, but simply a numerical cut-off; evolving beyond this limit is more computationally demanding and yield no additional information. The true Landau pole will lie at a slightly higher energy scale.
Example of phase dependence {#sec:examplePoint}
===========================
Allowing for [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation can induce effects that are otherwise absent in a [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} conserving 2HDM. The softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetric 2HDM contains only one phase in its scalar potential. By a Higgs flavor transformation, one can therefore fix all parameters to be real except for $\lambda_5$. Here, we show the phase dependence of different quantities by varying arg$(\lambda_5)$ in a softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetric 2HDM of type I, using the fixed values $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:genEx}
\tan\beta =~& 2.5, &&& M_{12}^2 =~& 73~000\text{ GeV}^2,{\nonumber}\\
\lambda_1 =~& 0.47, &&& \lambda_2 =~& 0.40,{\nonumber}\\
\lambda_3 =~& -0.17, &&& \lambda_4 =~& 0.16,{\nonumber}\\
|\lambda_5| =~& 0.25, &&& \lambda_6 =~& \lambda_7 = 0.\end{aligned}$$ The Higgs boson masses are dependent on the phase of $\lambda_5$ as can be seen in the left plot in [figure \[fig:1Dphase5\_2\]]{}.
-- --
-- --
Varying arg$\lambda_5$ has a large effect on the oblique parameters $S$, $T$ and $U$, as can be seen in the right plot in [figure \[fig:1Dphase5\_2\]]{}. In [figure \[fig:1Dphase5\_1\]]{}, it is shown how a non-zero phase quickly induces a large EDM, $d_e$, for the electron. There can be non-trivial cancellations among the many contributions to $d_e$; with the lightest Higgs boson usually dominating. Including the $(d_e)^{\gamma h_{2,3}}$ diagram is however important since it is at the same order of magnitude.
In [figure \[fig:1Dphase5\_3\]]{} we show the branching ratios of the Higgs bosons as a function of arg$\lambda_5$. There are a number of new possible decays opening up when going to a [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violating 2HDM since the neutral Higgs bosons all mix together. For example, one can have $h_2$ and $h_3$ simultaneously decaying into $Zh_1$ as well as to $h_1h_1$.
-- --
-- --
Results {#sec:results}
=======
In the parameter scan, we perform the RG evolution from the top mass scale until the evolution breaks down. We define the energy scale $\Lambda$ as the breakdown energy scale; meaning the energy where either perturbativity, stability or unitarity is violated.
If nothing else if mentioned, the figures presented below are constructed from the parameter points that are allowed by [`HiggsBounds`]{} and [`HiggsSignals`]{} as well as within the limits of $S$, $T$ and $U$.
Scenario [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{} Pass HB Pass HS Pass ST Pass eEDM Pass all
---------- --------------------- --------- --------- --------- ----------- ----------
I type I 43% 9% 80% 9% 1.3%
I type II 39% 7% 80% 6% 0.5%
II type I 38% 8% 74% 5% 0.7%
II type II 36% 6% 74% 2% 0.2%
III type I 44% 9% 80% 3% 0.4%
III type II 44% 8% 79% 1% 0.01%
III type X 43% 8% 79% 1% 0.01%
: Statistics of the parameter scans of scenario I-III. HB (HS) refers to [`HiggsBounds`]{} ([`HiggSignals`]{}). There is a total of 50 000 points in each scenario. The [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry for scenario III sets the magnitude for the complex $a_F$ coefficients.[]{data-label="tab:stats"}
The fraction of points that survives the different constraints at the starting scale of the parameter scans is shown in [table \[tab:stats\]]{} for all the scenarios. In [table \[tab:eEDMStats\]]{}, we also list the three largest contributions to the eEDM.
Scenario [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{} 1st 2nd 3rd
---------- --------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------ ------------------------
I type I $\gamma h_1 (W)$: 85 % $\gamma h_2 (W)$: 10 % $\gamma h_2 (t)$: 3 %
I type II $\gamma h_1 (W)$: 60 % $\gamma h_1 (t)$: 24 % $\gamma h_2 (t)$: 5 %
II type I $\gamma h_1 (W)$: 79 % $\gamma h_2 (W)$: 12 % $\gamma h_2 (t)$: 5 %
II type II $\gamma h_1 (W)$: 58 % $\gamma h_1 (t)$: 20 % $\gamma h_2 (t)$: 11 %
III type I $\gamma h_2 (t)$: 31 % $\gamma h_3 (t)$: 22 % $\gamma h_1 (W)$: 19 %
III type II $\gamma h_2 (t)$: 31 % $\gamma h_1 (W)$: 25 % $\gamma h_3 (t)$: 22 %
III type X $\gamma h_2 (t)$: 31 % $\gamma h_2 (W)$: 25 % $\gamma h_3 (t)$: 23 %
: Statistics of the top three largest contributions to the eEDM for all 50 000 parameter points in each scenario. The notation is according to [figure \[fig:BarrZee\]]{}, *i.e.* $VS$(loop particle).[]{data-label="tab:eEDMStats"}
Scenario I
----------
**Scenario I**\
-------- ---------
type I type II
-------- ---------
**Scenario I**\
-------- ---------
type I type II
-------- ---------
**Scenario I**\
-------- ---------
type I type II
-------- ---------
**Scenario I**\
-------- ---------
type I type II
-------- ---------
**Scenario I**\
-------- ---------
type I type II
-------- ---------
Because of the small quartic couplings, the mass spectrum falls easily into an aligned scenario with $q_{11}\sim 1$. It is easy to find parameter points with heavy $h_{2,3}$ and $H^\pm$ as can be seen in [figure \[fig:CPVI1\]]{}; however, heavier masses implies that the model is more aligned, *i.e.* $q_{11}$ goes to 1 as the masses increase. In the figure, the maximum breakdown energy in each bin is shown as a function of the masses, mass differences as well as $q_{11}$. From the figure, it is also clear that only models with small mass differences between the heavy Higgses can be evolved to high scales. There is also a preference for $q_{11}$ being very close to 1.
The general property that only very aligned models are viable at the starting scale is because these are the only ones allowed by [`HiggsBounds`]{} and [`HiggsSignals`]{}. To illustrate this, we show the eEDM as a function of the angles $s_{12}$ and $c_{13}$ in [figure \[fig:CPVI2\]]{}. There, two figures for each Yukawa symmetry are displayed: one before running the parameter points through [`HiggsBounds`]{} and [`HiggsSignals`]{} and one with only the points allowed by these programs. The allowed points with a small eEDM all fall in the aligned region of $s_{12} \sim 0$ and $c_{13} \sim 1$.
To see if a small eEDM also implies a 2HDM that can be evolved to high energies, we show a scatter plot of the breakdown energy and eEDM in [figure \[fig:CPVI3\]]{}. As can be seen from the figure, this is not the case; there is no definite correlation saying that small eEDM gives a high $\Lambda$. Most points have a too high eEDM and points that are valid up to the Planck scale exist, presumably, in the entire region.
Even though there is only one phase in scenario I, $\arg \lambda_5$, that is the source of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation in the scalar potential, we find that the base invariant quantities in [eq. ]{} are better measures of the amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation in the 2HDM. This is because they are also dependent on $\tan\beta$ and other quartic couplings that for example also influence the eEDM; in addition, it also simplifies the comparison between different scenarios. All parameter points that pass the ACMEII bound have these quantities at the order of $0.1$. The eEDM as a function of Im$(Z_5^*Z_6^2)$ and Im$(Z_6^*Z_7)$ is shown in [figure \[fig:CPVI4\]]{}. In [figure \[fig:CPVI5\]]{}, we show the maximum breakdown energy as a function of the same [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violating quantities and there one can see that all parameter points that are valid all the way to the Planck scale have Im$(Z_5^*Z_6^2) \sim
$Im$(Z_6^*Z_7)\sim 10^{-2}$, thus constraining these parameters even further.
Scenario II
-----------
**Scenario II**\
-------- ---------
type I type II
-------- ---------
The results of scenario II are largely following that of scenario I; one gets the same mass spectrum characteristics and the parameter points that survive are aligned in a similar way as in [figure \[fig:CPVI1\]]{}. The addition of non-zero $\lambda_{6,7}$ parameters does, however, have some effects.
We first note that base-invariant quantities $Z_5^*Z_6^2$ and $Z_6^*Z_7$ get additional contributions from $\lambda_6$ and $\lambda_7$. In [figure \[fig:CPVII1\]]{} we see that this increases the allowed range of the imaginary parts of these quantities, while still having an allowed eEDM.
**Scenario II**\
-------- ---------
type I type II
-------- ---------
**Scenario II**\
-------- ---------
type I type II
-------- ---------
Since the $\lambda_{6,7}$ parameters break the [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry hard, the symmetry breaking spreads in the RG running to the Yukawa sector as well. This does not have a huge impact, however, since the quartic couplings enter the Yukawa couplings RGEs first at 2-loop order. The maximum induced non-diagonal Yukawa coupling as a function of the imaginary parts of $Z_5^* Z_6^2$ and $Z_6^*Z_7$ is shown in [figure \[fig:CPVII2\]]{}. There we see that although the effect is much larger with a type II Yukawa sector, one does not get size-able FCNCs after RG running. For type I (type II) the maximum generated non-diagonal Yukawa element is $\lambda_{i\neq
j}^F \sim 10^{-3} (10^{-2})$ at the breakdown energy scale. Similar findings are presented in [ref. [@Oredsson:2018yho]]{} in the [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} conserving case. In this [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violating case, one can generate a non-trivial amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation in the Yukawa sector though. To see this, we show the maximum generated imaginary part of the base invariant quantity $\lambda_{11}^L\lambda_{33}^{U*}$ in [figure \[fig:CPVII3\]]{}. This parameter is chosen because it needs to be small to not yield a too large eEDM; as is discussed in scenario III.
**Scenario II**\
-------- ---------
type I type II
-------- ---------
The imaginary parts of $Z_5^* Z_6^2$ and $Z_6^*Z_7$ serves as good measures of the amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation in the 2HDM as seen in [figure \[fig:CPVII1\]]{}; all the points that satisfy the eEDM bound are centered around them being zero. The parameter points that are valid up to the highest energies also exhibit small Im$(Z_5^*
Z_6^2)$ and Im$(Z_6^*Z_7)$ as can be seen in [figure \[fig:CPVII4\]]{}.
Scenario III
------------
**Scenario III**\
-- -- --
-- -- --
**Scenario III**\
-- -- --
-- -- --
**Scenario III**\
-- -- --
-- -- --
**Scenario III**\
-- -- --
-- -- --
**Scenario III**\
-- -- --
-- -- --
**Scenario III**\
-- -- --
-- -- --
The maximum breakdown energy as function of the aligned coefficients $a_F$ is shown in [figure \[fig:CPVIII1\]]{} for the three different types. The results are largely independent on the phase of each $a_F$, while the regions around zero tend to be better for higher breakdown energies. For type I, this means that $\tan\beta$ has to be quite large since $|a_F| = 1/\tan\beta$, whereas for type II and X there is a balance between $|a_U| = 1/\tan\beta$ being small and at the same time $|a_D| =\tan\beta$ and/or $|a_L| = \tan\beta$ not being too large ($\lesssim 10$).
As measure of the [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation, we use the base invariant quantities Im$(a_L
a_U^*)$ and Im$(a_L a_D^*)$. These give the contribution $(d_e)^{WH}_{tb}$ in [eq. ]{}; which is the largest contribution in $\sim 10$ % of the parameter points. The term involving $a_U$ is the dominant one because of the top mass and therefore one gets a very clear limit on Im$(a_La_U^*)$ as can be seen in [figure \[fig:CPVIII2\]]{}, where the single contribution $(d_e)^{WH}_{tb}$ is shown as a function of Im$(a_La_U^*)$ and Im$(a_La_D^*)$. There, the Im$(a_La_U^*)$ needs to be below $\sim 0.01$ for all types to be within the limits of ACMEII[^4]. In [figure \[fig:CPVIII3\]]{} we show the total eEDM as a function of the same parameters. Although, there are some cancellations that make the limit on Im$(a_La_U^*)$ fuzzier, the eEDM still gives quite a severe constraint; especially for type I, although for type II and X we are facing the problem of running out of statistics. For type II and X there are some points with large Im$(a_L a_U^*)$ and Im$(a_L a_D^*)$ that still give an allowed eEDM. There could even be regions for these last types that could pass all constraints and still be valid all the way to the Planck scale; although this requires more study.
Breaking the [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry in the Yukawa sector can give rise to non-diagonal Yukawa couplings. In [figure \[fig:CPVIII4\]]{}, this is shown as a function of Im$(a_La_U^*)$ and Im$(a_La_D^*)$. Similarly as in scenario II, type II is generating the most FCNCs in the RG evolution. The regions in type I that are within the eEDM limits generate a very low amount of FCNCs.
The hard [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry breaking quartic couplings $\lambda_{6,7}$ are also generated in general; as seen in [figure \[fig:CPVIII5\]]{}, where max$(\lambda_{6,7})$ as a function of Im$(a_La_U^*)$ and Im$(a_La_D^*)$ is plotted. All scenarios generate size-able $\lambda_{6,7}$ easily.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have analyzed the [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violating 2HDM by performing numerical parameter scans in three different physical scenarios. Using [`2HDME`]{}, we have performed 2-loop RG running to study the properties under RG evolution looking for Landau poles as well as a breakdown of unitarity or stability. Experimental collider data has been used to restrict the parameter space with the codes [`HiggsBounds`]{} and [`HiggsSignals`]{} and we also checked the oblique parameters $S$, $T$ and $U$. The amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation was constrained by calculating the eEDM; which now is an implemented feature of [`2HDME`]{}.
The physical scenarios we have investigated start from a 2HDM with a softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry and quartic couplings $|\lambda_i| \leq 2$, to which we add additional sources of (hard) [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}breaking.
With a softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry and [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation in the scalar potential, we found that having $|\lambda_i|\leq 2$ gives an aligned 2HDM with the alignment parameter $q_{11}\rightarrow 1$ as the BSM Higgs masses become heavy. We also find that the amount of [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation is severely constrained by the eEDM. The limit from ACMEII requires the base invariant quantities Im$(Z_5^* Z_6^2)$ and Im$(Z_6Z_7^*)$ to be $\sim 0.1$ for parameter points to be allowed. For the points that are valid up to the Planck scale, these quantities are even further constrained, $\sim 0.01$.
We also investigated the complex 2HDM with a small hard breaking of the [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry in the scalar potential by having non-zero $\lambda_{6,7}$ at the EW scale. While finding similar findings as the softly broken symmetry case, one also gets the effect of inducing a [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry breaking in the Yukawa sector during the RG running. Although, we found that there are no sizeable FCNCs being produced, the [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation in the scalar sector can spread to the Yukawa sector by a non-trivial amount.
Lastly, we investigated three scenarios of aligned Yukawa sector based on type I, II and X, but with complex coefficients. For the type I based scenario, we find that it is severely constrained by the eEDM, which requires Im$(a_La_U^*)\lesssim 10^{-2}$. This is most easily satisfied if $\tan\beta$ is large. For the type II and X based scenarios, the constraint on Im$(a_La_U^*)$ tends to be weaker due to cancellations between different contributions to the eEDM. At the same time, these scenarios are in general much worse than that of type I. During RG running, the symmetry breaking spreads to the scalar sector and induces complex $\lambda_{6,7}$ as well as FCNCs. The FCNCs are, however, not very large for parameter points that have an allowed eEDM.
The authors would like to thank Nils Hermansson Truedsson for useful discussions.
This work is supported in part by the Swedish Research Council grants contract numbers 621-2013-4287 and 2016-05996 and by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 668679).
Generic basis in scenario I {#app:GenBase}
===========================
**Scenario I**\
-- --
-- --
The parameter scans are generating the scalar potential in the generic basis with flat random distributions. The breakdown energy scale as a function of the quartic couplings and $m_{12}^2$ is shown in [figure \[fig:CPVIgenBase\]]{}.
Barr-Zee diagrams for EDM {#app:BarrZee}
=========================
The largest contributions to light fermions’ EDM comes from 2-loop *Barr-Zee* diagrams [@Barr:1990vd], as shown in [figure \[fig:BarrZee\]]{}. The computation of these diagrams in the context of the 2HDM was first done in [ref. [@Chang:1990sf]]{}. A general framework to compute them is presented in [ref. [@Nakai:2016atk]]{}. The results for the 2HDM can be found in various sources, *e.g.* [ref. [@Inoue:2014nva]]{}. Most of the literature, however, deal with a softly broken [$\mathbb{Z}_2$ ]{}symmetry. We found that these results are incomplete, *e.g.* when investigating the 2HDM with a complex aligned Yukawa sector, and therefore compliment the EDM computation with diagrams involving $W^\pm,H^\pm$ and a fermion loop. This additional contribution as well as all other contributions, for completeness, are presented below.
We denote each contribution to the electrons EDM as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deDef}
(d_e)^{VS}_l,\end{aligned}$$ where $l$ denotes the particles of the 1-loop blob in [figure \[fig:BarrZee\]]{}. Although some formulas below are written for a general loop particle, diagrams with light particles participating in the loops are very suppressed. Therefore we only include the third generation in the total electron EDM; which then reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
d_e = \sum_h\left\{\sum_{f=t,b,\tau} \left[ (d_e)^{\gamma h}_f + (d_e)^{Z h}_f\right]
+ (d_e)^{\gamma h}_W +
(d_e)^{\gamma h}_{H}
+ (d_e)^{Z h}_{H}+ (d_e)_{hH}^{WH}\right\} + (d_e)^{W H}_{tb}
,\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ denotes the charged Higgs.
The tree-level Higgs masses vary with renormalization scale. To circumvent this, we always use the Higgs mass which satisfies $m_{h}(\mu) = \mu$, which is independent on renormalization scale.
All the couplings in each contribution are defined at the mass scale of the heaviest particle participating in the loop diagram and we use full 2-loop RGEs to run between the energy scales. The theoretical uncertainty in the calculation is rather high since the running of couplings change some quantities rather dramatically and the choice of renormalization scale for each diagram is somewhat arbitrary. To get an estimate, we varied the renormalization scale for each diagram to be twice or half the highest participating mass in the loop, which can change $d_e$ by a factor of 2. This is, however, good enough for any conclusions we make in this work.
Fermion loops {#fermion-loops .unnumbered}
-------------
For each fermion $f$, the contribution to the electrons EDM is $$\begin{aligned}
(d_e)^{\gamma h}_f =~& \frac{N_c Q_f^2 e^3}{32\pi^4m_f}
\times \sum_{k=1}^3\left[f(z_f^k)(c_k^F)_{ff}(\tilde{c}_{k}^L)_{ee}
+ g(z_f^k)(\tilde{c}_{k}^F)_{ff}(c_k^L)_{ee}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where the loop functions are listed at the end of this section. We define the ratio of masses as $z_x^k \equiv m_x^2/m_{h_k}^2$.
The similar diagram with a $Z$ boson instead of the internal $\gamma$ is $$\begin{aligned}
(d_e)^{Z h}_f =~& \frac{N_ce g_{Zee}^Vg_{Zff}^V}{32\pi^4m_f}
\times \sum_{k=1}^3\left[\tilde{f}(z_f^k, m_f^2/m_Z^2)(c_k^F)_{ff}(\tilde{c}_{k}^L)_{ee}
+ \tilde{g}(z_f^k,
m_f^2/m_Z^2)(\tilde{c}_{k}^F)_{ff}(c_k^L)_{ee}\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{Zff}^V= g(T_3^f - 2 Q_f \sin^2\theta_W)/(2\cos\theta_W)$.
For a general Yukawa sector, there is also an important contribution coming from a $W^\pm-H^\pm$ diagram with a fermion loop. This single contribution is investigated in [ref. [@BowserChao:1997bb]]{}, where they only keep the term proportional $\rho^U$. We have computed this again with the framework in [ref. [@Nakai:2016atk]]{} and kept also the $\rho^D$ term. The result for the third generation fermions is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deWH}
(d_e)^{W H}_{tb} =~&
\frac{N_c e^3 |(V_{CKM})_{tb}|^2}{512\pi^4\sin^2\theta_W(m_{H^\pm}^2-m_W^2)}
\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}x \left[Q_t x + Q_b(1-x)\right]{\nonumber}\\
&\times \left\{\text{Im}\left[(\rho^L)_{ee}(\rho^{U})^*_{tt}\right]m_t x(1+x) +
\text{Im}\left[(\rho^L)_{ee}(\rho^{D})^*_{bb}\right]m_b x(1-x)\right\}{\nonumber}\\
&\times \left[ G\left(\frac{m_t^2}{m_{H^\pm}^2}, \frac{m_b^2}{m_{H^\pm}^2}\right)
- G\left(\frac{m_t^2}{m_{W}^2},
\frac{m_b^2}{m_{W}^2}\right)\right].\end{aligned}$$ This is the same formula as one gets for the case of *magnetic dipole moment*, derived in [ref. [@Ilisie:2015tra]]{}; except that it is the imaginary part of the couplings instead of the real part.
$W$ loops {#w-loops .unnumbered}
---------
With a $W$ internal gauge boson, one gets the contributions $$\begin{aligned}
(d_e)^{\gamma h}_W =~& -\frac{e^3}{128 \pi^4 v}
\sum_{k=1}^3 \left[\left(6+\frac{1}{z_W^k}\right)f(z_W^k)
+ \left(10 -
\frac{1}{z_W^k}\right)g(z_W^k)\right]g_{kVV}
(\tilde{c}_k^L)_{ee}.\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(d_e)^{Z h}_W =~& \frac{e g_{ZWW}g_{Zee}^V}{128 \pi^4 v}
\sum_{k=1}^3 \left[\left(6-\text{sec}^2\theta_W +
\frac{2-\text{sec}^2\theta_W}{2z_W^k}\right)
\tilde{f}(z_W^k,\cos^2\theta_W)\right.
{\nonumber}\\
&\left.+ \left(10 - 3 \text{sec}^2\theta_W -
\frac{2-\text{sec}^2\theta_W}{2z_W^k}\right)\tilde{g}(z_W^k,
\cos^2\theta_W)\right] g_{kVV} (\tilde{c}_{k}^L)_{ee},\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{ZWW} \equiv e \cot\theta_W$.
Scalar loops {#scalar-loops .unnumbered}
------------
The charged scalar contribution is $$\begin{aligned}
(d_e)^{\gamma h}_{H} =~& - \frac{e^3 v}{128 \pi^4m_{H^\pm}^2} \sum_{k=1}^3
\left[f(z_H^k) - g(z_H^k)\right]\lambda_{kH^\pm} (\tilde{c}_{k}^L)_{ee}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(d_e)^{Z h}_{H} =~& - \frac{e v g_{Zee}^V g_{ZH^\pm}}{128 \pi^4m_{H^\pm}^2}
\sum_{k=1}^3 \left[\tilde{f}(z_H^k,m_{H^\pm}^2/m_Z^2)
- \tilde{g}(z_H^k, m_{H^\pm}^2/m_Z^2)\right]\lambda_{kH^\pm} (\tilde{c}_{k}^L)_{ee},\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{Z H^\pm}\equiv e \cot\theta_W (1-\tan^2\theta_W)/2$.
The gauge invariant contribution from charged and neutral scalars has been calculated in [ref. [@Abe:2013qla]]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
(d_e)_{hH}^{WH} =~& \frac{e}{256 \pi^4 v}
\times \sum_{k=1}^3 \left[ \frac{e^2}{2\sin^2\theta_W}
\mathcal{I}_4(m_{h_k}^2, m_{H^\pm}^2) g_{kVV}
-\mathcal{I}_5(m_{h_k}^2, m_{H^\pm}^2)
\lambda_{kH^\pm}\right](\tilde{c}_k^L)_{ee}.\end{aligned}$$
Miscellaneous functions {#miscellaneous-functions .unnumbered}
-----------------------
$$\begin{aligned}
f(z) =~& \frac{z}{2}\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}x \frac{1-2x(1-x)}{x(1-x)-z}\log\left(\frac{x(1-x)}{z}\right),\\
g(z) =~& \frac{z}{2}\int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}x
\frac{1}{x(1-x)-z}\log\left(\frac{x(1-x)}{z}\right),\\
\tilde{f}(x,y) =~& \frac{yf(x)}{y-x} + \frac{xf(y)}{x-y},\\
\tilde{g}(x,y) =~& \frac{yg(x)}{y-x} + \frac{xg(y)}{x-y},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
G(r_1, r_2) = \frac{\log\left(\frac{r_1 x +
r_2(1-x)}{x(1-x)}\right)}{x(1-x)-r_1 x - r_2 (1-x)},\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}_{4,5}(m_1^2,m_2^2) =~& \frac{m_W^2}{m_{H^\pm}^2-m_W^2}
\left[I_{4,5}(m_W^2,m_1^2) - I_{4,5}(m_2^2,m_1^2)\right],\\
I_4(m_1^2,m_2^2) =~& \int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}z (1-z)^2
\left(z-4+z \frac{m_{H^\pm}^2-m_2^2}{m_W^2}\right){\nonumber}\\
&\times\frac{m_1^2}{m_W^2(1-z) + m_2^2 z - m_1^2 z(1-z)}
\log\left(\frac{m_W^2 (1-z) + m_2^2z}{m_1^2z(1-z)}\right),\\
I_5(m_1^2,m_2^2) =~& \int_0^1 {\mathrm{d}}z
\frac{m_1^2z(1-z)^2}{m_W^2(1-z) + m_2^2 z - m_1^2 z(1-z)}
\log\left(\frac{m_W^2 (1-z) + m_2^2z}{m_1^2z(1-z)}\right).\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: The bar notation keep tracks of complex conjugation. That is, replacing a barred index to an unbarred corresponds to complex conjugation [@Davidson:2005cw; @Haber:2006ue; @Haber:2010bw].
[^2]: These can be found in [`C++`]{} form in the source code of [`2HDME`]{} [@Oredsson:2018vio]. Since they are very lengthy, we do not show them in this article.
[^3]: Although a modified version that generalizes the original [`2HDMC`]{} code to the complex scenario with [$\mathcal{CP}$]{} violation.
[^4]: The hard limits on $a_La_U^*$ and $a_La_D^*$ for type II and X arise from the ansatz $|a_U|=1/\tan\beta$ and $|a_{D,L}| = \tan\beta$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This is the write-up of the talk I gave at the 23rd International Symposium on Mathematical Programming (ISMP) in Bordeaux, France, July 6th, 2018. The talk was a general overview of the state of the art of time-varying, mainly convex, optimization, with special emphasis on discrete-time algorithms and applications in energy and transportation. This write-up is mathematically correct, while its style is somewhat less formal than a standard paper.'
author:
- 'Andrea Simonetto, *IBM Research Ireland, Dublin*'
bibliography:
- 'PaperCollection00.bib'
title: |
Time-Varying Optimization:\
Algorithms and Engineering Applications
---
#### Acknowledgements.
Many thanks to all the collaborators that are or have been working with me on these themes. Their names appear in the references at the end of this write-up.
Introduction
============
With time-varying optimization, we mean the task of finding the minumum of an optimization problem that changes continuously in time. Let $f: \mathbf{R}^n \times \mathbf{R}_{+} \to \mathbf{R}$ be a convex function parametrized over time, i.e., $f(x; t)$, where $x \in \mathbf{R}^n$ is the decision variable and $t\geq 0$ is time. Let $X(t)\subseteq \mathbf{R}^n$ be a convex set, also changing in time. Then the problem at hand can be formulated as finding $$\label{tvp}
\min_{x\in X(t)} \, f(x; t), \quad \textrm{for all } t\geq 0.$$ That is, we want to find the minimum at each point in time. These types of problems appear naturally in many applications, for example energy, robotics, transportation, as we will see.
In this talk, we will sample Problem at defined sampling times $t_k$, with $k = 0, 1, \ldots$ and sampling period $h = t_{k+1} - t_k$, and arrive at a sequence of time-invariant problems $$\label{tip}
\min_{x\in X_k} \, f(x; t_k).$$
When one can sample Problem at the desired sampling frequency and solve the resulting time-invariant problems at the desired accuracy within the sampling period, we are in a batch solution mode. This batch approach is hardly viable, except for low dimensional problems that can be sampled with sufficient long sampling periods (i.e., when the problem changes sufficiently slowly). We won’t follow this approach, instead we will pursue an on-line approach, which will find approximate solutions of each of the time-invariant problems and eventually will get close to the minimum trajectory.
To generate approximate solutions we will use running (or correction-only, or catching-up) algorithms and prediction-correction algorithms. We will touch upon primal and dual algorithms.
Background
----------
Time-varying optimization has been around for quite some time, e.g., [@Polyak1987].
Continuous-time platforms have been discussed, e.g., in [@Ye2015; @Rahili2015a; @Rahili2015; @Gong2016; @Fazlyab2015; @Fazlyab2016].
Running methods on discrete-time platforms can be traced back to Moreau [@Moreau1977], and subsequently have appeared in many contexts [@Popkov2005; @Tu2011; @Bajovic2011; @Dontchev2013; @Zavlanos2013; @Jakubiec2013; @Ling2013; @Simonetto2014c; @Simonetto2014d; @Ye2015; @Xi2016a; @Sun2017; @Maros2017].
A recent and fairly complete treatment is in [@Simonetto20XX] (which forms also the basis for part of the results I will present here).
Prediction-correction methods arise from non-stationary optimization [@Polyak1987; @Popkov2005], parametric programming [@Robinson1980; @Dontchev2009; @Zavala2010; @Dontchev2013; @Kungurtsev2017], and continuation methods in numerical mathematics [@Allgower1990]. It also resembles evolutionary variational inequalities [@Cojocaru2005; @Nagurney2006] and path-following methods in interior point solvers [@Nesterov2012].
Part of the work that I present here is in [@Paper1; @Paper2; @Paper3; @Paper4].
Formulation
===========
Our main starting point is the time-invariant problem . Unless otherwise said, we will assume that the function is nicely behaving, that for us means that
\[as.1\] Function $f(x; t)$ is $m$ strongly convex ($m>0$) and $L$ strongly smooth ($L>0$) over $x \in \mathbf{R}^n$, uniformly in time.
Assumption \[as.1\] guarantees that the solution (i.e., the minimizer of ) exists and its unique at every time $t_k$ (of course assuming that $X_k$ is non-empty). This implies also that the *solution trajectory* $x^*(t)$ of is well-defined.
To see situations for which this is not true see [@Guddat1990].
Running algorithms
==================
Running algorithms or, as we said, correction-only/catching-up algorithms have always the same prototype structure. Here I present the work of [@Simonetto20XX] (so theorems and results are properly defined there); see the original paper for references to previous work.
Running algorithms start with a approximate solution $x_0$ and generate a sequence $\{x_k\}$ by acquiring a new function at time $t_{k+1}$ and performing $C$ iterations of the selected method. For example, for the case of the running projected gradient, one does the following
- Time $t_0$, guess $x_0$
- Time $t_{k+1}$
1. Acquire a new function $f(\cdot; t_{k+1})$ and the constraint set $X_{k+1}$
2. Set $y_{0} = x_{k}$
3. Perform $C$ times: $$\label{run}
y_{i+1} = \Pi_{X_{k+1}}[y_i - \alpha \nabla_{x} f(y_i; t_{k+1})]$$
4. Set $x_{k+1} = y_{C}$
In , $\alpha>0$ is the stepsize, while $\Pi_{X}$ is the projection onto the convex set $X$.
Theoretical results
-------------------
Typical theoretical results of running algorithms go as follow. Assume that the optimizer trajectory is well-behaved, that is that
\[as.2\] The change in the optimizers of is upper bounded as $$\|x^*(t_{k+1}) - x^*(t_k)\| \leq K, \quad \forall k\geq0.$$
Assumption \[as.2\] guarantees that the optimizers are indeed trackable. Note that $K$ can be big, so we are not limited to small variations; on the other hand, the bounds will be big too if $K$ is big.
Then, we have
\[th.1\]*(Informal)* If your favorite method $\mathcal{M}$ converges Q-linearly to the optimizer of a time-invariant problem as $$\|x_k - x^*(t_k)\| \leq \varrho^C \|x_{k-1} - x^*(t_k)\|, \quad \varrho <1,$$ then the same method $\mathcal{M}$ converges Q-linearly to the optimizer trajectory of a time-varying problem up to an error bound as $$\|x_k - x^*(t_k)\| \leq \varrho^C (\|x_{k-1} - x^*(t_{k-1})\|+K),$$ and $$\limsup_{k\to\infty} \|x_k - x^*(t_k)\| = \varrho^C O(K).$$
The theorem is fairly general and its based on the triangle inequality. What it says is that the sequence $\{x_k\}$ will track the solution trajectory up to a ball of size $\varrho^C O(K)$. If $C \to \infty$, we solve the time-invariant problem exactly and we are back to the time-invariant/batch mode (and the error is $0$).
Based on this theorem, one can derive a corollary for the projected gradient method
For $\alpha < 2/L$, the projected gradient method applied in a running mode generate a sequence $\{x_k\}$ that converges to the error bound $\varrho^C O(K)$ Q-linearly, with rate $\varrho = \max\{|1-\alpha m|,|1-\alpha L|\}$.
Equation can be substituted with other methods, and Theorem \[th.1\] is true for a variety of methods $\mathcal{M}$, such as
- Proximal point method, for $f(\cdot; t_{k})$ strongly convex, $X_{k} \subseteq \mathbf{R}^n$;
- Forward-backward splitting (minimizing $f(x; t) + g(x; t)$), for $f(\cdot; t_{k})$ strongly smooth and strongly convex, $g$ CCP, $X_{k} \subseteq \mathbf{R}^n$;
- Dual ascent (for the problem $\min_{x\in\mathbf{R}^n} f(x; t)$ subject to $A x = b$), for $f(\cdot; t_{k})$ strongly smooth and strongly convex;
- D-R splitting, ADMM, doubly-regularized saddle-points, $\ldots$, for similar assumptions.
Beyond strong convexity/strong smoothness
-----------------------------------------
We briefly touch here (and in this subsection alone) the more general case of relaxing the Assumption \[as.1\], to generic convex problems. In particular, the previous tracking results can be extended also in case of more general $f(x;t)$, by using fixed-point theory in compact sets $X(t)$.
E.g., for the projected gradient, if the function is only strongly smooth and $\alpha<2/L$, one can arrive at results of the form of
- Average fixed-point residual tracking: $$\frac{1}{T}\sum_{k=1}^T \|\Pi_{X_{k}}(x_{k} - \alpha \nabla_{x}f(x_k; t_{k})) - x_k\|^2 \leq O(1/T) + O(\tilde{K}D + \tilde{K}^2)$$ where $\tilde{K}$ is a bound on a sequence of optimizers $\{x^*(t_{k})\}$, i.e., $\|x^*(t_{k+1}) - x^*(t_{k})\| \leq \tilde{K}$, (note that the optimizers need not be unique now); and $D = \max_t$ diam $X(t)$
- Dynamic regret (aka objective function tracking): $$\frac{1}{T}\underbrace{\sum_{k=1}^T f(x_{k}; t_{k}) - f(x_{k}^*; t_{k})}_{=:\, {\bf Reg}_T} \leq O(1/T) + O(\tilde{K}D + \tilde{K}^2) + O(K')$$ where $\tilde{K}, D$ are as before, and $K'$ is a bound on the functional variations as $|f(x; t_{k+1}) - f(x; t_{k})| \leq {K}', \forall x \in X(t)$.
Similar results hold for other methods.
Interlude: functions Lipschitz in time
======================================
An interesting and useful result can be derived when the dependence of the cost function $f(x;t)$ over time is bounded in some sense. In particular, assume that $f$ has a well-defined gradient and the time derivative of the gradient in bounded, i.e.
\[as.3\] The time derivative of the gradient of $f(x;t)$ in bounded uniformly in time, $$\|\nabla_{tx} f(x; t)\| \leq C_0, \quad \forall x\in\mathbf{R}^n, t\geq 0.$$
Assumption \[as.3\] is more restrictive than Assumption \[as.1\] and it implies it $$\textrm{Assumption~\ref{as.3}} \implies \textrm{Assumption~\ref{as.1}},$$ with $K = h\, C_0/m$, where we remind that $h$ is the sampling period. (One can see this in e.g., [@Dontchev2009]).
Assumption \[as.3\] is a sort of Lipschitz condition in time, and when it is valid implies that all the running methods yield an asymptotical error of the order of $O(h)$ (i.e., linear in the sampling period).
Prediction-correction algorithms
================================
Prediction-correction are methods that attempt at reducing the asymptotical error below $O(h)$. We look here at the results presented in [@Paper1; @Paper2; @Paper3; @Paper4].
To get better bounds, one needs stronger assumptions. In addition to Assumption \[as.1\], here we will assume
\[as.4\] Higher derivatives of the cost function are bounded as $$\|\nabla_{xxx} f(x; t)\| \leq C_1, \quad \|\nabla_{txx} f(x; t)\| \leq C_2, \quad \|\nabla_{ttx} f(x; t)\| \leq C_3$$ uniformly in time and for all $x \in \mathbf{R}^n$.
Assumption \[as.4\] is an extension of Newton’s assumptions (for Newton’s method one requires $C_1$) that also requires the time variations of the Hessian and gradient to be bounded.
Prediction-correction methods attempt at inferring how the optimizers are changing in time, by applying a pertinent Taylor’s expansion of the optimality conditions.
For example, if we were to solve the unconstrained problem $$\min_{x \in \mathbf{R}^n} f(x; t),$$ and we wanted to predict the optimizer at time $t_{k+1}$, only from data available at time $t_k$, one could start from the optimality condition at time $t_{k+1}$ $$\nabla_x f(x^*(t_{k+1}); t_{k+1}) = 0$$ (which we can’t solve) and Taylor expand as $$\nabla_x f(x^*(t_{k+1}); t_{k+1}) \approx \nabla_x f(x^*(t_{k}); t_{k}) + h\, \nabla_{tx} f(x^*(t_{k}); t_{k}) + \nabla_{xx} f(x^*(t_{k}); t_{k}) \delta x = 0$$ Since we don’t have $x^*(t_k)$, we can substitute $x_k$ and obtain a class of prediction schemes: $$\nabla_x f(x_k; t_{k}) + h\, \nabla_{tx} f(x_k; t_{k}) + \nabla_{xx} f(x_k; t_{k}) \delta x = \gamma \nabla_x f(x_k; t_{k}),$$ and the prediction $x_{k+1|k}$ is given by $$x_{k+1|k} = x_k + \delta x = x_k - [\nabla_{xx} f(x_k; t_{k})]^{-1}( h\, \nabla_{tx} f(x_k; t_{k}) +(1-\gamma) \nabla_{x} f(x_k; t_{k}) ).$$ Here $\gamma \in [0,1]$ is an extra tuning parameter. For $\gamma = 1$, we have a tangential update: we are moving along the “iso-suboptimal manifold”. When $\gamma = 0$, we have a Newton-like update, so that on top of predicting we are also going towards the optimizer. See a nice figure in [@Simonetto2017].
If we were to solve the constrained problem $$\min_{x \in X} f(x; t),$$ then we would do prediction over the generalized inequality $$\nabla_{x} f(x^*(t_{k+1}); t_{k+1}) + N_X(x^*(t_{k+1})) \ni 0,$$ where $N_X$ is the normal cone operator, which leads to $$\nabla_{x} f(x_k; t_{k}) + h\, \nabla_{tx} f(x_k; t_{k}) + \nabla_{xx} f(x_k; t_{k})\,(x_{k+1|k}-x_k) +N_X(x_{k+1|k}) \ni {0}$$ or equivalently, calling $Q_k = \nabla_{xx} f(x_k; t_{k})$, $c_k = h\, \nabla_{tx} f(x_k; t_{k})$, $$\label{qp}
x_{k+1|k} = \textrm{arg}\min_{y\in X} \{ 1/2 y^T Q_k y + c_k^T y\}.$$
Now, since we don’t want to solve an optimization problem with another optimization problem (however easy), we can set up an approximate scheme for as $$y_{i+1} = \Pi_{X}[ y_i - \beta (Q_k y_i + c_k)]$$ that is a projected gradient method that has to run for $P$ prediction steps and with stepsize $\beta>0$.
If we were to solve a linearly constrained problem, a similar construct would apply for both primal and dual variable in a dual ascent setting.
Prototypical algorithm
----------------------
As for the running methods, we report here a prototypical prediction-correction algorithm, here focussed on the projected gradient (but similar for gradient and dual ascent)
- Time $t_0$, guess $x_0$
- Time $t_{k}$
1. Set $Q_k = \nabla_{xx} f(x_k; t_{k})$, $c_k = h\, \nabla_{tx} f(x_k; t_{k})$
2. Set $y_{0} = x_{k}$
3. Perform $P$ prediction steps: $$\label{pred}
y_{i+1} = \Pi_{X}[ y_i - \beta (Q_k y_i + c_k)]$$
4. Set $\tilde{x}_{k+1|k} = y_{P}$ (approximate prediction)
- Time $t_{k+1}$
1. Acquire a new function $f(\cdot; t_{k+1})$
2. Set $y_{0} = \tilde{x}_{k+1|k}$
3. Perform $C$ correction steps: $$\label{run}
y_{i+1} = \Pi_{X}[y_i - \alpha \nabla_{x} f(y_i; t_{k+1})]$$
4. Set $x_{k+1} = y_{C}$
Note that updates are computationally cheap to carry out, once $Q_k$ and $c_k$ have been computed once, while updates may be more expensive.
Theoretical results
-------------------
Typical theoretical results goes as follows. Under Assumptions \[as.1\], \[as.3\], \[as.4\], and a proper selection of stepsizes, number of prediction and correction steps, and sampling period, one is expect to track the solution trajectory up to a bound that depends on the problem properties and the sampling period. Depending on the method and on $P$ and $C$ we can have asymptotical errors that range from $O(h)$ to $O(h^4)$.
We report the result for projected gradient in prediction-correction mode as defined in the previous subsection.
\[th.2\]*(Informal)* The projected gradient method in prediction-correction mode generates a sequence $\{x_k\}$ as follows.
Choose $\alpha,\beta < 2/L$.
Under Assumptions \[as.1\], \[as.3\], there exists a minimal number of prediction and correction steps $P, C$ for which globally $$\limsup_{k \to \infty} \|x_{k} - x^*(t_{k})\| = O(\varrho_1^C\, h)$$ In addition, under Assumptions \[as.4\], then locally (and for small $h$), there exists a minimal number of prediction and correction steps $P, C$ so that $$\limsup_{k \to \infty} \|x_{k} - x^*(t_{k})\| = \underbrace{O(\varrho_1^C \,h^2)}_{\textrm{prediction gain}} + \underbrace{O(\varrho_1^C \varrho_2^P\, h)}_{\textrm{approximation error}}$$ where $\varrho_1,\varrho_2 < 1$, and $\varrho_1,\varrho_2$ are the contraction rates for $\alpha$ and $\beta$, respectively.
Convergence is Q-linear in both cases.
Theorem \[th.2\] says that tracking is not worse than correction-only method in the worst case. If the function has extra properties and we are interested in a local result, then a better asymptotical error can be achieved, provided some (stricter) conditions on the number of prediction and correction steps are verified.
The asymptotical error is composed of two terms; one which is labeled as approximation error, which is due to the early termination of the prediction step (if $P \to \infty$ and prediction is exact, this term goes to $0$). The other, named prediction gain is the gain coming from using a prediction step, which brings the error down to a $O(h^2)$ dependence on the sampling period.
If $C$ grows, then the error reduces, as expected.
Theorem \[th.2\] can be modified for gradient methods and dual ascent methods.
A summary
=========
We give now a short comparison between running and prediction-correction methods.
**Correction-only** **Prediction-correction**
------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Assumptions Weak (mainly standard) Stronger
Complexity Low Higher
Error $O(h)$ $O(h)$ - $O(h^4)$
Methods Many, see [@Simonetto20XX] A few, see [@Paper1; @Paper2; @Paper3; @Paper4]
: Comparison between correction-only and prediction-correction methods
As one can see, correction-only method can tackle a larger class of problems up to a limited accuracy. Prediction-correction methods can achieve a better asymptotical error at the price of stronger assumptions and computational complexity.
We note that, in some cases, even keeping the computational time fixed, prediction-correction may achieve better errors than correction-only methods. This is because prediction steps are computationally easier than correction steps, and one can trade-off a few correction steps for many prediction ones. So, prediction-correction are very relevant even in practice.
Applications
============
Many applications entail some degree of time-varying optimization. We report below a collection of tested applications (either in correction-only mode or prediction-correction).
- Energy: e.g., time-varying optimal power flow and related, see [@DallAnese2016; @DallAnese2017; @DallAnese2017a; @Hauswirth2017; @Tang2017; @Liu2017; @Zhang2017; @Liu2018; @Zhou2018]
- Transportation: [@Su2009; @Eser2018]
- Robotics: e.g., dynamic consensus [@verscheure2009time; @Zavlanos2013; @Ling2013; @Fazlyab2015; @Fazlyab2016; @Li2018]
- Control: e.g., model predictive control [@Jerez2014; @Hours2014; @Gutjahr2016; @Anitescu2017; @Paternain2018]
- Signal processing: e.g., estimation in data streams, [@Asif2014; @Yang2015; @Vaswani2015; @Balavoine2015; @Simonetto2015a; @Sopasakis2016; @Maros2017]
- Others: economics [@Dontchev2013], computational history [@Nagurney2006]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'One characteristic feature of soft matter systems is their strong response to external stimuli. As a consequence they are comparatively easily driven out of their ground state and out of equilibrium, which leads to many of their fascinating properties. Here, we review illustrative examples. This review is structured by an increasing distance from the equilibrium ground state. On each level, examples of increasing degree of complexity are considered. In detail, we first consider systems that are quasi-statically tuned or switched to a new state by applying external fields. These are common liquid crystals, liquid crystalline elastomers, or ferrogels and magnetic elastomers. Next, we concentrate on systems steadily driven from outside e.g. by an imposed flow field. In our case, we review the reaction of nematic liquid crystals, of bulk-filling periodically modulated structures such as block copolymers, and of localized vesicular objects to an imposed shear flow. Finally, we focus on systems that are “active” and “self-driven”. Here our range spans from idealized self-propelled point particles, via sterically interacting particles like granular hoppers, via microswimmers such as self-phoretically driven artificial Janus particles or biological microorganisms, via deformable self-propelled particles like droplets, up to the collective behavior of insects, fish, and birds. As we emphasize, similarities emerge in the features and behavior of systems that at first glance may not necessarily appear related. We thus hope that our overview will further stimulate the search for basic unifying principles underlying the physics of these soft materials out of their equilibrium ground state.'
address: |
Institut für Theoretische Physik II: Weiche Materie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Universitätsstra[ß]{}e 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany;\
phone number: +49-211-81-12056\
author:
- 'Andreas M. Menzel'
title: 'Tuned, driven, and active soft matter'
---
[*A corresponding version of this manuscript has been accepted for publication by Physics Reports.\
Journal Reference: Phys. Rep. **554**, 1 (2015)\
URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157314003871\
DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.10.001* ]{}
soft matter ,non-equilibrium ,active materials ,self-propelled particles ,nonlinear dynamics
64.60.Cn ,87.18.Gh ,82.70.Dd ,83.80.Uv ,47.65.Cb ,83.80.Qr ,61.30.Vx
Introduction
============
It is easy to motivate the study of soft matter systems. Everyday life provides us with the most immediate examples. When we go shopping, we carry home our groceries in plastic bags made from polymers. Most flat screen displays exploit the switching behavior of liquid crystals in an electric field. We use solutions of surfactants when we soap ourselves while taking a shower. And finally, a major part of ourselves is actually soft matter, as almost all biological cells are. Considering the shear amount of soft matter distributed commercially, research activities in this field naturally extend far beyond purely academic purposes.
It is much less straightforward to give a definite, unambiguous, and precise definition of what the term “soft matter” actually means or which states of matter it actually includes. Maybe one should proceed the other way around and explain which materials it *ex*cludes by comparison to common other states of matter.
On the one hand, we interpret the term “softness” as a strong response to a comparatively weak force [@doi2013soft]. This becomes most illustrative when we compare the elastic behavior of metal solids and ordinary rubbery materials. The Young modulus of a rubber can for example be ten thousand times lower than that of steel [@treloar1975physics]. I.e. applying a tensile force to that piece of rubber can stretch it about ten thousand times further than when applying it to a corresponding piece of steel. In general, due to these huge responses to external forces, the observed behavior of soft materials is markedly nonlinear [@doi2013soft].
On the other hand, the response of soft matter systems to external stimuli is generally comparatively slow [@doi2013soft]. The relaxation times in polymers can be hours or days (or even more) [@strobl1997physics], whereas it takes nanoseconds in simple liquids [@hansen2006theory]. It is therefore easy to drive and maintain the systems out of equilibrium, and non-equilibrium effects play a central role in the study of soft materials [@doi2013soft].
One reason for these properties is the size of the building blocks [@doi2013soft]. These sizes typically fall into the range of several nanometers up to about a hundred micrometers. Some examples together with a rough classification of the possible associated dimensions are schematically depicted in Fig. \[fig\_lengths\]. Clearly, small rod-like liquid crystalline molecules like PAA with a length of about two nanometers are on the lower end [@degennes1993physics]. Colloids, i.e. mesoscopic particles stabilized in a permanent dispersion, cover a broad range of the considered sizes by definition [@dhont1996introduction; @palberg1999crystallization; @ivlev2012complex]. On the contrary, a rubber made of sufficiently chemically crosslinked polymer chains can actually be considered as one giant molecule and reach macroscopic dimensions [@strobl1997physics]. At this point a strict definition via the size of the constituents becomes more involved.
![Schematic illustration of typical examples of soft-matter building blocks and materials, together with a rough estimate of their characteristic sizes (horizontal bars indicate a broader range of possible occurring length scales). The rod-like molecule PAA is a common representative of low-molecular-weight liquid crystals [@degennes1993physics] that can show an orientationally ordered anisotropic nematic phase. Surfactant molecules combine two antagonistic features on one building block: their head is usually hydrophilic, whereas their tail(s) is (are) mostly hydrophobic [@witten2004structured]. This leads, for instance, to the formation of closed bilayer membranes in the form of vesicles [@jones2002soft], with giant unilamellar vesicles (GUVs) as an extreme example (in reality, unlike the schematic, the layer thickness is orders of magnitude smaller than the radius) [@hub1982preparation; @mueller1983formation; @sakuma2011model]. Polymers [@strobl1997physics; @doi2007theory] in the simplest case can be treated as flexible linear chain-like objects. When covalently chemically crosslinked in the form of rubbers and elastomers (crosslinks are indicated by dots) a macromolecule of macroscopic dimension can be obtained [@treloar1975physics; @strobl1997physics]. Block copolymers feature chemically different parts (marked by different colors) that can micro-phase separate into regularly ordered structures [@hamley1998physics], here indicated for a lamellar texture. In colloids, the constituting particles are stabilized to form a permanent dispersion [@dhont1996introduction; @palberg1999crystallization; @ivlev2012complex]. Again, different sides of the particles can be functionalized with different chemical properties so that the resulting Janus particles [@walther2008janus] form clusters or even regular lattices [@chen2012janus; @jiang2010janus]. Finally, biological cells such as motile bacteria [@harshey2003bacterial; @darnton2007torque; @kearns2010field] combine a multitude of functionalities. Collective arrangements of biological cells in the form of biological tissue reaches macroscopic dimensions.[]{data-label="fig_lengths"}](figure01.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Nevertheless, we can often say that soft matter building blocks are large enough so that quantum effects can be neglected, but small enough that thermal fluctuations play a significant role [@hamley2007introduction; @jones2002soft]. For example, most of the elastic behavior of rubbers must be attributed to entropy, i.e. thermal fluctuations [@strobl1997physics; @doi2007theory]. Entropy also supports the stabilization of colloidal dispersions as a complement to the necessary artificial stabilization mechanisms [@dhont1996introduction; @ivlev2012complex].
Apart from that, the size of the building blocks allows us to use coarse-grained descriptions to characterize their collective physical behavior [@jones2002soft]. Chemical details can often be neglected, which leads to a certain degree of “universality” in the characterization. This point of view got particularly famous in the field of polymer physics [@degennes1979scaling].
Finally, the size of the constituents makes it possible to arrange different or even antagonistic properties on one building block. Some examples are depicted in Fig. \[fig\_lengths\]. These are block copolymers, where chemically different connected parts of the molecules tend to micro-phase separate into regular spatial textures [@hamley1998physics]; surfactant molecules composed of hydrophobic (“water-fearing”) and hydrophilic (“water-loving”) parts that self-assemble for instance into bilayer membranes and vesicles in an aqueous environment [@jones2002soft; @witten2004structured]; and colloidal Janus particles [@walther2008janus] that can form finite clusters or regular lattices [@chen2012janus; @jiang2010janus].
With all these facts in mind, it is not surprising that the rheological behavior of such systems is relatively complex when compared to simple liquids [@larson1999structure]. Many soft matter systems are therefore also classified as “complex fluids”. Sometimes the terms “soft matter” and “complex fluids” are even used interchangeably [@degennes1992soft].
In the following, we will concentrate on soft matter systems out of their equilibrium ground state. It is impossible to cover all aspects and areas of this subfield, which was expanding so rapidly over the past decades. Instead, we will mainly focus on typical representatives in each part and embed these examples into the broader context. Roughly, we will increase the degree of activation that leads to non-equilibrium states through the subsequent sections.
First, we consider the switching or tuning of the states of soft matter systems by external fields. For example, as noted above, in display devices the orientation of the optical axis in liquid crystals is switched by external electric fields. Through a static external field, the system is forced out of its initial equilibrium ground state. However, it can reach a new static equilibrium state in the presence of the external field. \[mod\_intro\] We will mainly concentrate on liquid crystalline as well as superparamagnetic or ferromagnetic gels and elastomers, the optical and mechanical properties of which can be tuned by external fields. They can serve as soft actuators, and even their possible role as “artificial muscles” was pointed out. Next, we focus on systems permanently driven out of equilibrium by steady external shear flows. A brief account of the rheological behavior of liquid crystals and block copolymers is included. Coming back to the introductory cases mentioned above, an example situation from everyday life would be soap or body lotion while we are spreading it on our skin. Related to this topic, we address the progress made on the dynamics of vesicles when driven by an external shear flow.
The broadest section is devoted to the recently exploding field of “active” soft matter systems. We understand the word “active” in the sense that individual building blocks have a sort of propulsion mechanism, which leads to motion. Crawling cells or swimming bacteria can run this mechanism for instance by consuming fuel or food, whereas colloidal particles can self-propel via self-phoretic effects. In general, a key point is that the direction of motion is not prescribed from outside. These ingredients lead to new and fascinating properties of the individual constituents and when they collectively act together. There is a significant overlap between the fields of soft matter and biological physics in this area.
Finally, a short summary is appended. We conclude by giving a brief impression of the current state of the field and its evolution.
Tuned soft matter
=================
By “tuning” we understand an adjustment of the material properties to a state that serves the current purpose or convenience. The crucial point with the soft matter systems introduced below comes with the non-invasive way of this adjustment. An external field is applied to the closed cell or piece of material to achieve the new setting. In general, a static external field can force the system to acquire a new static equilibrium state in the presence of the field. If the external field is increased or decreased in small steps, after each adjustment the system finds itself in a weakly non-equilibrium situation. It has to find the new equilibrium state in the presence of the switched external field. Frequently, this process can be described by simple relaxation dynamics following the minimum of the modified free energy landscape. If the external field is adjusted slowly enough, a quasi-static switching can often be achieved, avoiding genuinely non-equilibrium situations. If our focus is on the process of conversion of external field energy to reach a new state of the system, we may speak of “actuation”.
Low-molecular-weight liquid crystals {#lmwlc}
------------------------------------
As a starting point, let us briefly recall the well-known Fréedericksz transition in nematic liquid crystals [@degennes1993physics]. This transition can be induced from outside, for instance by applying an external electric field. As will be explained in more detail below, it involves a collective reorientation on the molecular level, changing the optical birefringence properties of a sample cell. In this way, the light transmittance of the cell can be reversibly tuned from outside. In the most illustrative case, the liquid crystalline building blocks are small rod-like organic molecules. The molecular structure of one characteristic example, namely PAA, was depicted in Fig. \[fig\_lengths\]. It shows the typical dimensions, which in this case are about two nanometers in length and about half a nanometer in thickness [@degennes1993physics]. At high enough temperatures, the material is in an isotropic disordered liquid state as schematically illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_lc-phases\] (a).
![Schematic illustration of typical phases of common low-molecular-weight liquid crystals consisting of elongated rod-like molecules. (a) The disordered isotropic liquid-like state shows neither long-ranged orientational nor long-ranged positional order. (b) In the nematic phase, there is no long-ranged positional order. However, apart from thermal fluctuations, the long axes of the molecules on average orient along a common direction called the director. (c) Smectic phases are characterized by a layer-like positional arrangement of the molecules, while in the depicted smectic-C state there is no long-ranged positional order within each layer. (d) Finally, crystalline solids show the highest degree of order with long-ranged positional order in the form of stacking of the molecules on regular lattice sites and long-ranged orientational order. Transitions between the depicted phases can be induced in corresponding liquid crystalline materials for example by temperature changes.[]{data-label="fig_lc-phases"}](figure02.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
The system does not feature any long-ranged positional nor orientational order of the constituents. It behaves in an isotropic way. In contrast to that, we find both positional and orientational order at low enough temperatures when the material forms a crystal. Then the molecules are stacked on regular lattice sites and orient their long axis along a common direction, see Fig. \[fig\_lc-phases\] (d). Between these two extremes of a disordered liquid and a crystalline solid, liquid crystals feature further intermediate phases, the so-called mesophases. These liquid crystalline phases show a higher degree of order (corresponding to a lower degree of symmetry) than the fluid but a lower degree of order (corresponding to a higher degree of symmetry) than the crystal. For example, in the nematic state, the one that we will refer to in the following, there is no long-ranged positional order. However, on average, the molecules orient along a common direction, see Fig. \[fig\_lc-phases\] (b). In this way, the material becomes anisotropic. Smectic states, which we will come back to later in this review, feature a regular stacking in layers, see Fig. \[fig\_lc-phases\] (c). More precisely, they show a quasi-long-ranged positional order in one spatial dimension.
When the system is in the nematic phase, the building blocks tend to collectively order their long axes along a common direction. This average orientation is called the nematic director $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ [@degennes1993physics]. Genuinely nematic phases are non-polar, that is the directions $+\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ and $-\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ cannot be distinguished. The degree of orientational order is measured by a scalar order parameter $$\label{eq:s}
s = \frac{1}{2}\left\langle(3\cos^2\vartheta-1)\right\rangle,$$ where the average $\langle...\rangle$ is taken over all molecules in the sample, and $\vartheta$ for each individual molecule measures the angle between its long axis and the average orientation $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$. We obtain $s=0$ in the disordered isotropic liquid state, and $s=1$ in a perfectly ordered nematic state. A combined symmetric traceless order parameter tensor $\mathbf{S}$ can be introduced, which contains both information, the degree of orientational order and the average orientation $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$, $$\label{eq:nematicOPtensor}
\mathbf{S} = s\left(\mathbf{\hat{n}}\mathbf{\hat{n}}-\frac{1}{d}\mathbf{I}\right).$$ Here, $\mathbf{\hat{n}}\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ denotes a dyadic product, $d$ is the dimension of space (usually $d=3$), and $\mathbf{I}$ represents the unity matrix[^1].
On the one hand, since $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ corresponds to the average orientation of the ordered molecules, it is an axis of anisotropy. For example, the dielectric constants $\epsilon_{\|}$ and $\epsilon_{\bot}$ measured parallel and perpendicular to $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$, respectively, generally differ from each other. Let us consider the case in which the dielectric anisotropy $\epsilon_a=\epsilon_{\|}-\epsilon_{\bot}$ is positive, $\epsilon_a>0$. Then a static external electric field $\mathbf{E}$ tends to orient the director $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ along itself. This tendency is reflected by a corresponding contribution to the effective thermodynamic potential $$\label{F:elec}
F_{elec} = - \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_a(\mathbf{\hat{n}}\cdot\mathbf{E})^2.$$ In this expression, possible constant prefactors due to the system of measure are absorbed into the dielectric anisotropy $\epsilon_a$.
On the other hand, spatial variations of the director, i.e. spatial distortions, increase the thermodynamic potential and are therefore suppressed. One way of quantifying this thermodynamic penalty is by contracting the tensor $\nabla\mathbf{\hat{n}}$, $$\label{F:dist}
F_{dist} = \frac{1}{2}K\,(\nabla\mathbf{\hat{n}})\!:\!(\nabla\mathbf{\hat{n}}),$$ with $K>0$ another material-dependent parameter[^2]. As an example, the nematic liquid crystal can be confined in a thin cell between two parallel plates as depicted in Fig. \[fig\_lc\_frederiks\].
![Reorientation of the nematic director induced by an external electric field in a thin cell of prescribed boundary conditions. The nematic director is indicated by the double-headed arrow. At the upper and lower confining plate it is rigidly anchored horizontally. On the one hand, if the sample is thin enough, this leads to a homogeneous horizontal alignment of the director to avoid spatial distortions in the director orientations (left). On the other hand, for positive dielectric anisotropy of the nematic molecules, a vertically applied external electric field $\mathbf{E}$ tends to orient the nematic molecules and the director in vertical direction (center). Both effects – horizontal alignment due to the boundary conditions and vertical alignment through the external electric field – compete with each other. Balancing the two resulting torques leads to a finite angle of director reorientation with respect to the horizontal direction (right) above a non-vanishing critical threshold amplitude of the electric field.[]{data-label="fig_lc_frederiks"}](figure03.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
The surfaces of the cell can be prepared such that they anchor the orientation of the director, for instance in a parallel way, as indicated on the left-hand side of Fig. \[fig\_lc\_frederiks\]. This, via Eq. (\[F:dist\]), sets a uniform director orientation in the whole cell.
If now an external electric field is switched on with an orientation perpendicular to the cell surfaces, see the center of Fig. \[fig\_lc\_frederiks\], it tends to reorient the director and align it parallel to itself as given by Eq. (\[F:elec\]). However, via Eq. (\[F:dist\]), such a reorientation induces thermodynamically penalized distortions because of the surface anchoring on the plates. The competition between the two effects leads to a critical electric field amplitude that has to be exceeded for director reorientations to become possible. Above this threshold field amplitude, director reorientations are induced. From Eqs. (\[F:elec\]) and (\[F:dist\]) this critical field amplitude follows directly as $$E_c=\frac{\pi}{d}\sqrt{\frac{K}{\epsilon_a}},$$ where $d$ is the thickness of the cell and the impact of possible electric currents has been neglected. In the new static reoriented state, the two effects of the reorienting electric field and the counteracting surface anchoring balance each other. This is indicated on the right-hand side of Fig. \[fig\_lc\_frederiks\]. When the electric field is switched off, the director rotates back into its initial state due to the surface anchoring.
In this way, the anisotropy properties of the presented sample cell can be reversibly tuned from outside. Naturally, this anisotropy in a real sample is connected to optical birefringence. Thus the optical transmission properties of the cell can be reversibly switched and adjusted by the external electric field. This is the underlying principle extensively used to construct optical display devices that are based on liquid crystals [@kawamoto2002history]. However, the technical realizations today involve much more complicated geometries than the simple Fréedericksz cell outlined above.
Liquid crystalline elastomers
-----------------------------
Commonly used liquid crystals have relatively low molecular weight and are classified as complex fluids. As suggested by the name, they typically flow away when not maintained by a containing cell. Another promising material would be one that is stable and self-standing without supporting container walls, but still features the optical transmission properties of common liquid crystals. Such materials were actually realized by stepping towards higher molecular weights in the form of liquid crystalline polymers and elastomers.
In general, polymers are synthesized by covalently binding together from hundreds up to millions identical molecular repeat units, the so-called monomers. In this way, new huge macromolecules are formed [@strobl1997physics]. Different chemical routes for this procedure are available. The number of monomers on the resulting polymeric molecule defines the degree of polymerization. In the simplest case, long linear chain-like molecules are obtained, but several further molecular architectures can be realized.
The simplest theoretical model describing linear polymer chains is the freely-jointed chain model [@strobl1997physics]. It already gives us enough qualitative insight to understand the discussion below. In this model, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_freely-jointed-chain\], the polymeric molecule is reduced to a chain of $N$ straight segments that are linked to each other at their ends.
![ Illustration of the freely-jointed chain model for a linear polymer chain. The chain is represented by $N$ freely-jointed segments of end-to-end vectors $\mathbf{r}_n=\mathbf{R}_n-\mathbf{R}_{n-1}$ ($n=1,...,N$), where $\mathbf{R}_n$ ($n=1,...,N-1$) give the positions of the joints. All segments are of identical length, $\|\mathbf{r}_n\|=b$ for all $n$, and their orientations are completely independent of each other. $\mathbf{R}=\mathbf{R}_N-\mathbf{R}_0$ is the end-to-end vector of the whole polymer chain. []{data-label="fig_freely-jointed-chain"}](figure04.pdf){width="4.5cm"}
Each segment has an identical length $b$ much larger than the size of a single monomer. We denote the positions of the joints between the segments as $\mathbf{R}_n$ for $n=1,...,N-1$, while $\mathbf{R}_0$ and $\mathbf{R}_N$ give the positions of the two ends of the whole resulting chain, see Fig. \[fig\_freely-jointed-chain\]. The chain is “freely” jointed in the sense that each segment orientation is independent of the orientation of all other segments. Thus, for each segment, the probability distribution $\psi(\mathbf{r}_n)$ of its end-to-end vector $\mathbf{r}_n=\mathbf{R}_n-\mathbf{R}_{n-1}$ is given by $$\psi(\mathbf{r}_n) = \frac{1}{4\pi b^2}\,\delta\left(\|\mathbf{r}_n\|-b\right) \qquad (n=1,...,N),$$ where $\delta(\cdot)$ denotes the Dirac $\delta$-function. It serves here to prescribe the length $b$ of the segment. In this minimum model, the probability distribution to find a certain chain configuration is simply given by the product of these individual single-segment probability distributions $\psi(\mathbf{r}_n)$.
On this basis, it is straightforward to determine the probability distribution for the end-to-end vector $\mathbf{R}=\mathbf{R}_N-\mathbf{R}_0$ of the whole chain. For $N\gg1$, we obtain $$\label{eq:end-to-end}
\psi(\mathbf{R}) = \left(\frac{3}{2\pi Nb^2}\right)^{3/2}\exp\left\{ -\frac{3\mathbf{R}^2}{2Nb^2} \right\}.$$ Obviously, this is of Gaussian form.
From a statistical mechanics point of view, we expect the probability distribution to be of the form $\psi(\mathbf{R})\sim\exp[-F(\mathbf{R})/k_BT]$. Here $F(\mathbf{R})$ denotes the energy of the chain configuration with end-to-end vector $\mathbf{R}$, $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $T$ the temperature. Comparison with Eq. (\[eq:end-to-end\]) shows that $$\label{eq:spring}
F(\mathbf{R}) = \frac{1}{2} \frac{3k_BT}{Nb^2} \mathbf{R}^2.$$ Thus the polymer chain behaves like an elastic spring between its two end points $\mathbf{R}_0$ and $\mathbf{R}_N$. In the unstrained state the length of this spring vanishes. We find $3k_BT/Nb^2$ for the magnitude of its elastic constant.
Based on this simple model, we see that polymeric materials show an elastic response. The important point is that these elastic forces mainly do not origin from an internal energy. They are mostly entropic in nature. Everything that enters Eq. (\[eq:end-to-end\]) is the entropy resulting from the single-chain configuration. The elastic constant in Eq. (\[eq:spring\]) is set by the temperature $T$.
As a next step, one would like to obtain an elastic material of macroscopic dimension. For this purpose, many polymer chains are chemically crosslinked, i.e. covalently bound, to form one chemical unit. In this way, an elastomer or rubber is obtained. The main source of elasticity is again of entropic origin and referred to as “rubber elasticity” [@treloar1975physics].
To make the connection to the field of liquid crystals, first liquid crystalline polymers were synthesized. Two principal architectures are available: on the one hand, liquid crystalline molecules can be part of the polymer backbone chains in liquid crystalline main-chain polymers [@percec1991liquid], see Fig. \[fig\_mcsc\] (a); on the other hand, the liquid crystalline molecules can be attached as side-groups to a polymer backbone in liquid crystalline side-chain polymers [@finkelmann1978model], see Fig. \[fig\_mcsc\] (b).
![Schematic illustration of two architectures of liquid crystalline polymers. Again the liquid crystalline rod-like components are indicated by ellipsoids as in Fig. \[fig\_lc-phases\]. Non-liquid-crystalline parts of the polymer “backbone” chains are depicted by the bright strings. (a) On the one hand, in main-chain liquid crystalline polymers, the liquid crystalline units are part of the polymer backbones. (b) On the other hand, the liquid crystalline units are attached as side groups to the polymer chains in side-chain liquid crystalline polymers. Usually this is achieved via shorter hydrocarbon chains, so-called spacer groups, which here are indicated in darker color.[]{data-label="fig_mcsc"}](figure05.pdf){width="9.cm"}
When in a later step such liquid crystalline polymers were chemically crosslinked, rubbery liquid crystalline elastomers were obtained [@finkelmann1981liquid; @bergmann1997liquid]. In this way, the properties of liquid crystals and those of elastic rubbers could be combined in one material. The coupling provides new interesting features as described below.
There are different protocols available to obtain different kinds of liquid crystalline elastomers concerning the nematic orientational alignment in the samples. Without special aligning mechanisms it is natural for nematic bulk materials in general not to feature a globally aligned nematic director. Already for low-molecular-weight liquid crystals, bulk samples in the nematic phase usually appear turbid. They strongly scatter light [@degennes1993physics]. The reason are thermal fluctuations in the director orientations. As a consequence, the nematic director is not macroscopically aligned, but continuously varies over space. Additional effort, such as the prescribed alignment on the sample surfaces depicted in Fig. \[fig\_lc\_frederiks\], is necessary to achieve a global alignment of the director orientation.
Naturally, thermal orientational fluctuations also occur in polymeric substances. Therefore, if during the crosslinking process of synthesizing a liquid crystalline elastomer no special action is taken, polydomain samples are obtained [@finkelmann1994liquid]. The director in these polydomain materials is not globally uniform in the nematic state but continuously varies over space. However, protocols to manufacture monodomain samples featuring a macroscopically aligned director are available. For this purpose, during the final crosslinking step of the manufacturing process, the sample must be maintained in the liquid crystalline phase and the director must be homogeneously aligned in the polymer solution. In practice, this was achieved by external magnetic fields [@legge1991memory; @mitchell1993strain; @rogez2011influence], external electric fields [@rogez2011influence], aligning boundary conditions [@urayama2005electrooptical; @komp2005versatile; @urayama2007stretching], or stretching a pre-crosslinked sample [@kupfer1991nematic; @kupfer1994liquid]. A corresponding memory of the director orientation during crosslinking is then imprinted into the material during the crosslinking procedure. When the liquid crystalline molecules were reoriented by some external action, they were observed to rotate back into the memorized orientations after the external influence is switched off again. This was experimentally verified even for polydomain samples crosslinked in the liquid crystalline state [@urayama2006slow; @urayama2009polydomain]. Apparently the orientations are stored in the architecture of the polymer network.
The most interesting properties of liquid crystalline elastomers arise from their orientational-deformational coupling. On the one hand, a mechanical deformation like stretching or compression can tune the state of birefringence and the optical properties. As one specific example, liquid crystalline elastomers were used to experimentally demonstrate the possibility to construct mirrorless lasers of a wave-length that is tunable by mechanical deformations [@finkelmann2001tunable; @schmidtke2005probing]. More in general, it was shown for various different samples that mechanical deformations can reorient the director [@kupfer1991nematic; @mitchell1993strain; @kupfer1994liquid; @kundler1995strain; @roberts1997single; @kundler1998director; @urayama2007stretching]. This is indicated on the left-hand side of Fig. \[fig\_lc\_elastomer\]:
![Coupling between director reorientations and elastic deformations in nematic liquid crystal elastomers. The nematic director is indicated by the double-headed arrow, whereas the rectangular box illustrates the deformations of the elastomer. An initial ground state is depicted in the center. When an external stretch (marked by the vertical broad arrows on the left) is applied in the direction perpendicular to the initial director orientation, the coupling to the director can induce its reorientation into the stretching direction. For practical purposes, the inverse effect would be beneficial, i.e. mechanical deformations induced by applying an electric field that reorients the director, as illustrated on the right. Unfortunately, the necessary field amplitudes turn out to be too high for practical purposes, except for materials swollen with conventional small-molecule liquid crystals.[]{data-label="fig_lc_elastomer"}](figure06.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
when a nematic liquid crystalline elastomer is stretched perpendicularly to its initial director orientation, a reorientation of the director into the stretching direction can result. The reorientation process involved a pronounced nonlinearity in the corresponding stress-strain curves [@kupfer1991nematic; @kupfer1994liquid; @urayama2007stretching; @krause2009nematic]. On the other hand, it was demonstrated that the inverse effect is also within reach experimentally: reorientations of the director can induce mechanical deformations. From an application point of view, this would allow the construction of soft actuators. One could use an external electric field to reorient the director, which is transformed into mechanical actuation. Unfortunately, so far the necessary field amplitudes were found to be too high for practical purposes. However, for samples swollen with a common low-molecular-weight (small-molecule) liquid crystal, a sizeable amount of so-called electro-mechanical coupling was observed [@yusuf2004swelling; @urayama2005electrically; @yusuf2005low; @urayama2005electrooptical; @urayama2006swelling; @urayama2006deformation; @cho2006electrooptical; @urayama2007selected; @cho2007trifunctionally; @fukunaga2008dynamics; @hashimoto2008multifunctional]. In this case the director can be reoriented by an external electric field, which can result in deformations of up to the lower double-digit per-cent regime.
Prestretching a material to the point where director reorientation sets in may allow to observe the electric-field-induced effect also in conventional non-swollen samples, as outlined theoretically [@menzel2009response]. Close to this critical point, the reorienting external stretching deformation on the one hand and the imprinted memory that anchors the director on the other hand approximately balance each other. Then a relatively weak additional external mechanical or electric field can result in a comparatively large response in the director orientation.
Apart from that, other routes of regulation or actuation were demonstrated experimentally, for example photo- [@finkelmann2001new; @sanchez2011opto] or temperature-induced [@yusuf2004hystereses; @cho2006thermo; @sawa2010thermally; @fleischmann2012one] deformations. Possible applications as soft actuators or even “artificial muscles” were discussed [@hebert1997dynamics; @yu2006soft; @ohm2010liquid; @yang2011micron; @jiang2013actuators]. Large length changes of several $100$ % were observed for loaded and unloaded samples under reversible heating and cooling through the isotropic-nematic transition [@wermter2001liquid; @krause2009nematic]. For many applications, however, control parameters different from temperature are more desirable.
On the theoretical side, we mention two principal routes of approach that reproduce the measured nonlinear stress-strain behavior as well as the detected deformations due to director reorientations. The first one is based on the concept of rubber elasticity [@treloar1975physics]. It assumes Gaussian statistics for the step lengths along the polymer strands [@warner2003liquid]. As a starting point, it further assumes that the main role of the liquid crystalline building blocks is to introduce an anisotropy direction into these Gaussian statistics. Thus, instead of Eq. (\[eq:end-to-end\]), the end-to-end vectors of the polymer strands between network points of the polymer mesh are assumed to follow the distorted distribution $$\psi(\mathbf{R}) \propto \exp\left\{ -\frac{3}{2\tilde{L}^2}\,\mathbf{R}\cdot(\mathbf{I}-r_a\mathbf{\hat{n}}\mathbf{\hat{n}})\cdot\mathbf{R} \right\},$$ where $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ again indicates the nematic director, $r_a$ is an anisotropy parameter, $\mathbf{I}$ indicates the unity matrix, and $\tilde{L}$ is an effective length connected to the actual contour lengths of the polymer strands. Open issues concerning this picture are how valid the assumption of the distorted Gaussian statistics generally is [@rogez2011influence], and particularly how the orientational memory influences the statistics. A different microscopic approach was proposed in the form of randomly crosslinked anisotropically interacting rigid dimers [@xing2008nematic], which reproduces the expressions for the theory of rubber elasticity on a more coarse-grained level.
The second route is macroscopic and based on symmetry arguments. It couples the continuum descriptions of liquid crystals and elastic materials [@degennes1980weak; @brand1994electrohydrodynamics; @lubensky2002symmetries; @muller2005undulation; @menzel2006rotatoelectricity; @menzel2007cholesteric; @menzel2008instabilities; @ye2007semisoft; @menzel2007nonlinear; @menzel2009nonlinear; @ye2009phase]. We noted above that a memory of the director orientation during synthesis is imprinted into the network structure of the polymer mesh. One central ingredient to many of the macroscopic studies is therefore the observation that rotations of the director out of its memorized equilibrium orientation cost energy. Such “relative rotations” between the director and the polymer network environment are included as additional variables [@degennes1980weak; @brand1994electrohydrodynamics; @muller2005undulation; @menzel2006rotatoelectricity; @menzel2007cholesteric; @menzel2008instabilities]. First proposed for small deviations from the initial state, this concept was later generalized to the nonlinear regime [@menzel2007nonlinear; @menzel2009nonlinear]. It is schematically illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_relrot\].
![Illustration of the concept of relative rotations in liquid crystalline elastomers. In the ground state (center) the director takes the orientation memorized by the architecture of the polymer network from the time of crosslinking. Relative rotations as a macroscopic variable describe how the director is rotated with respect to that memorized orientation. This can occur by a reorientation of the director relatively to the polymeric network (left), or a rotation of the network together with the imprinted memorized direction with respect to the actual director orientation (right). The variables of relative rotations test whether the results from both processes differ from each other and allow a formal inclusion in the corresponding energetic considerations. In all pictures, the strong-colored double-headed arrow indicates the actual director orientation, and the bright box symbolizes the polymeric network. On the left- and on the right-hand side, the light double-headed arrow represents the imprinted ground-state director orientation memorized by the network structure at the moment of crosslinking.[]{data-label="fig_relrot"}](figure07.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Ferrogels and magnetic elastomers
---------------------------------
Another example of externally tunable polymeric soft matter systems is given by magnetic gels and elastomers [@filipcsei2007magnetic]. Again, these materials combine the features of two different classes of complex fluids: those of ferro- and magnetorheological fluids [@rosensweig1985ferrohydrodynamics; @odenbach2002ferrofluids; @odenbach2003ferrofluids; @odenbach2003magnetoviscous; @huke2004magnetic; @odenbach2004recent; @fischer2005brownian; @ilg2005structure; @klapp2005dipolar; @holm2005structure; @embs2006measuring; @ilg2006structure; @gollwitzer2007surface; @vicente2011magnetorheological] with those of crosslinked polymers [@strobl1997physics].
The systems can be classified as composite magnetic hybrid materials [@jolivet2002synthesis; @garcia2003mesoporous; @yuan2011one; @sarkar2012polymer; @kao2013toward]. They consist of superparamagnetic or ferromagnetic particles that are embedded in a crosslinked polymer matrix. Depending on the degree of swelling of such a magnetic elastomer with a solvent it may rather be called a magnetic gel [@jolivet2002synthesis; @messing2011cobalt; @frickel2011magneto]. In the dry state, the materials can become hard and glass-like [@jolivet2002synthesis].
Different sizes of the embedded magnetic particles, typically in the range of nano- to micrometers [@filipcsei2007magnetic], can lead to qualitatively different material behavior. If the particles are smaller than ten to fifteen nanometers, the direction of their magnetic moment is not fixed with respect to the particle axes. Instead, thermal fluctuations can lead to a reorientation of the magnetic moment [@neel1949theorie], which is called Néel mechanism. For larger particles, reorientations of the magnetic moments mainly occur via the Brownian or Debye mechanism [@coffey1993ferromagnetic], i.e. rigid rotations together with the whole particle. Still larger particles, from around a hundred nanometers, can feature multidomains of internal magnetization [@frenkel1930spontaneous; @brown1968fundamental; @aharoni1988elongated; @seynaeve2001transition; @hergt2006magnetic].
In the absence of an embedding polymer matrix, suspensions of such magnetic particles in a carrier liquid were stabilized in the form of ferro- and magnetorheological fluids [@rosensweig1985ferrohydrodynamics; @odenbach2002ferrofluids; @odenbach2003ferrofluids; @odenbach2003magnetoviscous; @huke2004magnetic; @odenbach2004recent; @fischer2005brownian; @ilg2005structure; @klapp2005dipolar; @holm2005structure; @embs2006measuring; @ilg2006structure; @gollwitzer2007surface; @vicente2011magnetorheological]. Such fluids show properties of high practical relevance [@raj1990commercial; @raj1995advances]. In particular, their dynamic flow behavior determined by their macroscopic viscosity can be tuned reversibly through an external magnetic field. This feature, commonly referred to as “magnetoviscous effect”, was observed experimentally and explained theoretically [@rosensweig1969viscosity; @mctague1969magnetoviscosity; @zubarev2002rheological; @thurm2002magnetic; @thurm2002magnetoviscous; @thurm2003particle; @odenbach2003ferrofluids; @pop2004microstructure; @odenbach2004recent; @ilg2005anisotropy; @pop2006investigation]. It is attributed on the one hand to a hindrance of particle rotations that would reorient the magnetization axes of the particles away from the aligning external magnetic field direction. On the other hand, it results from the formation of micro-aggregates in the presence of external magnetic fields. Typically, the second contribution, when present, exceeds the first one. The important point is that the adjustment of the viscosity can be achieved in a non-invasive way reversibly from outside.
We turn back to the presence of an embedding polymer matrix in magnetic gels and elastomers. In analogy to the viscous behavior of magnetic fluids, for magnetic gels and elastomers the resistance to elastic deformations, quantified by the elastic moduli [@landau1986elasticity], was experimentally probed. It turned out that the elastic moduli can be tuned reversibly from outside by external magnetic fields [@deng2006development; @filipcsei2007magnetic; @stepanov2007effect; @chen2007investigation; @bose2009magnetorheological; @evans2012highly; @borin2013tuning]. This is one of the most outstanding properties of these materials. From an application point of view, it is for example interesting for the construction of novel externally tunable damping devices [@sun2008study] or vibration absorbers [@deng2006development].
The analysis of theoretical minimum models demonstrated that the spatial distribution of the magnetic particles plays a central role and qualitatively determines the nature of this effect [@ivaneyko2011magneto; @ivaneyko2012effects; @ivaneyko2014mechanical]. It was found that the tensile elastic modulus decreases or increases with increasing amplitude of an external magnetic field applied along the tension axis, depending on the particle arrangement. For instance, a regular simple-cubic or bcc lattice arrangement of the particle positions implied a decreasing tensile elastic modulus [@ivaneyko2011magneto; @ivaneyko2012effects]. In contrast to that, the modulus increased for an fcc structure [@ivaneyko2012effects].
To a certain degree, the particle distribution can in fact be influenced during the synthesis of the materials. When a strong external magnetic field is applied before and during the crosslinking procedure, the magnetic particles were observed to form chain-like aggregates [@collin2003frozen; @varga2003smart; @filipcsei2007magnetic; @gunther2012xray; @borbath2012xmuct; @gundermann2013comparison]. After the crosslinking has been completed, the field can be switched off with the anisotropic particle distribution persisting. The anisotropy has been locked into the materials.
It has been demonstrated in experiments that this imprinted anisotropy can support the tunability of the elastic modulus by an external magnetic field [@filipcsei2007magnetic]. In that case, the largest effect of tunability was found when all three directions were aligned: the imprinted anisotropy direction, the additional external magnetic field to tune the mechanical properties, as well as the direction of mechanical deformation to measure the elastic modulus [@filipcsei2007magnetic]. This trend could be reproduced in a numerical study that assumed affine deformations of the material [@camp2011modeling; @camp2011effects]. Although the degree of anisotropy in this case was significantly lower than that of chain-like aggregates, the effect was clearly observed.
We remark that the assumption of affine deformations, which maps the macroscopic length changes linearly to all distances within the system, constitutes a major simplification. Yet it is often necessary to allow theoretical progress at all. Nevertheless, the more irregular the distributions of the magnetic particles within the samples become, the more this can lead to increasingly erroneous and even qualitatively incorrect results. Care has to be taken when this approximation is applied to realistic systems as has recently been pointed out on the basis of a simple dipole-spring model [@pessot2014structural].
Allowing for non-affine deformations, an explicit numerical investigation on the impact of chain-like particle arrangements was performed using finite element simulations [@han2013field]. It showed that deviations from a straight chain architecture in the form of a zig-zag structure can qualitatively influence the behavior under external magnetic fields: the zig-zag angle determines whether the compressive elastic modulus decreases or increases with increasing amplitude of the external magnetic field. Even non-monotonic behavior is possible. The behavior within one linear chain was studied in a minimum dipole-spring model of hard spheres connected by elastic springs [@annunziata2013hardening]. When the magnetic moment of the spheres is increased by an external magnetic field such that the hard spheres attract each other, they will come closer until they finally touch. Neglecting thermal fluctuations of the spheres, this process has the signature of a phase transition. It is of second order when the initial separation is small. If the initial separation is large, it is of first order, with the spheres clashing together in the final part of approach. A critical point separates both scenarios. Since the compressive elastic modulus along the chain diverges when the spheres touch each other, the process was called “hardening transition”. At the critical point, just before the spheres touch each other, the compressive elastic modulus along the chain vanishes. Also the behavior of free-standing filamental chains was studied numerically [@sanchez2013filaments; @cerda2013phase]. In this case, various different states like compact, helicoidal, partially collapsed, simply closed, and extended open configurations were detected.
A second fascinating property of magnetic elastomers and gels arises from their reversible deformations that can be induced by external magnetic fields. The spatial arrangement of the magnetic particles can qualitatively impact whether elongation or contraction occurs along the field direction, as pointed out by theory and simulations [@stolbov2011modelling; @zubarev2013effect]. An example is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_ferrogel\].
![In magnetic gels and elastomers the spatial distribution of the magnetic particles can qualitatively influence the macroscopic behavior. Here, this is illustrated for the magnetostrictive behavior of a two-dimensional sheet in a homogeneous external magnetic field (see Ref. [@stolbov2011modelling]). Left-hand side: for a random “gas-like” distribution of magnetic particles switching on the external magnetic field was observed to result in a contraction along the field direction [@stolbov2011modelling]. Right-hand side: in contrast to that, for randomly oriented doublets of magnetic particles, the same set-up was found to lead to an elongation along the field direction [@stolbov2011modelling]. []{data-label="fig_ferrogel"}](figure08.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Apart from the magnetostrictive behavior [@guan2008magnetostrictive; @stolbov2011modelling; @gong2012full; @zubarev2012theory; @zubarev2013magnetodeformation; @allahyarov2014magnetomechanical], i.e. deformations induced by homogeneous external magnetic fields, particularly the “actuation” by inhomogeneous external magnetic fields [@zrinyi1996deformation; @zrinyi1997direct] was investigated in experiments and by modeling. To minimize the free energy, the materials are drawn into regions of higher magnetic field. This can lead to elastic deformations. After switching off the external field, the elastic energy is released and the probe can reversibly switch back to its initial state. It was demonstrated for a real sample that frequencies around $40\mbox{~Hz}$ can easily be followed [@filipcsei2007magnetic]. Consequently these materials again are ideal candidates for the construction of soft actuators [@zimmermann2006modelling; @filipcsei2007magnetic] or “artificial muscles” [@zrinyi2000intelligent]. These applications involve dynamic properties, which so far have been addressed in only a few studies on the theoretical side [@jarkova2003hydrodynamics; @bohlius2004macroscopic; @tarama2014tunable], requiring further investigation in the future. Apart from that, the use of magnetic gels as sensors indicating magnetic fields and field gradients by deformation was experimentally outlined [@szabo1998shape; @ramanujan2006mechanical; @liu2006magnetic]. Other studies discuss their application to control by external magnetic fields the amount and rate of drug release [@liu2006magnetic; @brazel2009magnetothermally]. A further subject is the combat against cancer cells. For this purpose, magnetic particles are embedded into the corresponding cell tissue. A quickly alternating external magnetic field can be applied that continuously remagnetizes the particles. Through hysteretic losses during the remagnetization cycles, heat is generated. Such hyperthermic treatment [@jordan1999magnetic; @babincova2001superparamagnetic; @lao2004magnetic; @hergt2006magnetic] can destroy the cancer cells.
For all these purposes, the degree of the so-called magneto-mechanical coupling should be maximized. A recent attempt in this direction was to not only embed the magnetic particles in the polymer matrix, but to directly crosslink them into the polymer network [@frickel2009functional; @frickel2011magneto; @messing2011cobalt], see Fig. \[fig\_kinds-ferrogels\].
![Schematic illustration of two qualitatively different kinds of ferrogels implying different degrees of magneto-mechanical coupling. (a) In the classical materials the magnetic particles are simply embedded in the surrounding mesh of polymer chains that form the polymer matrix. For spherical particles, there may not be any permanent restoring torque induced by particle rotations. (b) In a new class of ferrogels, the polymer chains are covalently bound to the surface of the magnetic particles [@frickel2011magneto; @messing2011cobalt]. Thus the magnetic particles serve as crosslinkers. Rotations of the spherical particles inevitably induce deformations of the surrounding polymer mesh, leading to permanent restoring torques. In both cases, the density of polymer chains is significantly higher than indicated in the simplified schematics.[]{data-label="fig_kinds-ferrogels"}](figure09.pdf){width="9.cm"}
During sample preparation, this was achieved via surface-functionalization of the magnetic particles by attaching reactive groups on their surfaces. As a consequence, the magnetic particles themselves can serve as crosslinkers. Rotating the particles, the polymer chains attached to their surfaces get “rolled up” around the particles as investigated by a simulation study [@weeber2012deformation]. This “rolling-up” leads to restoring torques. An orientational memory of the particle orientations arises, implying an energetic penalty when the particles rotate relatively to their environment [@annunziata2013hardening]. It can have a significant impact on the appearance of the system. For example, depending on the orientational memory, qualitatively different energetic ground states were obtained for a linear chain of ferromagnetic particles in a dipole-spring model [@annunziata2013hardening]: ferromagnetic, with the magnetic moments aligned along the chain axis; antiferromagnetic-like, with neighboring dipoles rotated by 180 degrees around the chain axis; or a spiral-like magnetization, with neighboring dipolar moments rotated by an intermediate angle around the chain axis. Even stronger magneto-mechanical coupling might be achieved through the use of elongated instead of spherical magnetic particles [@roeder2012shear].
Links between liquid crystalline and magnetic elastomers
--------------------------------------------------------
At the end of this section, we include a brief qualitative comparison between the two classes of materials considered above, i.e. liquid crystalline and magnetic elastomers and gels. We only concentrate on a few selected points that may be important when a mutual support of the two fields is considered. With the macroscopic theories for the two classes of material being partially mappable onto each other, also their observable behavior in analogous experiments may be so.
Both materials combine the elastic behavior of polymeric substances with the anisotropy arising from an orientational ordering of their constituents. In the case of liquid crystalline elastomers, this anisotropy results from the average orientation of the liquid crystalline molecules along the director. For magnetic elastomers and gels, it is identified with the orientation of the magnetic moments in the equilibrium configuration.
Depending on the procedure of synthesis, a more or less pronounced memory of the initial orientations at the crosslinking time is locked into the samples. Then relative rotations between this locked-in memory direction and the actual orientation cost energy. We outlined above the use of such relative rotations as a variable in the macroscopic characterization of liquid crystalline elastomers [@degennes1980weak; @brand1994electrohydrodynamics; @menzel2007nonlinear; @menzel2009nonlinear; @menzel2009response], see Fig. \[fig\_relrot\], and in a mesoscopic model of magnetic gels and elastomers [@annunziata2013hardening]. Furthermore, relative rotations have already been considered in a macroscopic characterization of anisotropic magnetic gels [@bohlius2004macroscopic]. A next step will be to connect the mesoscopic and the macroscopic descriptions of magnetic gels by an appropriate coarse-graining procedure. Similarities between the two classes of materials, i.e. between liquid crystalline elastomers and magnetic gels, were pointed out on the macroscopic scale [@brand2011physical].
Generally, it is an interesting question, how the memory actually gets locked into the architecture on the molecular level. In other words, what structural changes occur for a polymer network in comparison to a conventional material without memory. The differences between the two classes of materials are of course large, already in view of the corresponding length scales. On the one hand, the liquid crystalline molecules are relatively small and can even be part of the polymer backbones in main-chain liquid crystalline elastomers. Therefore one would expect that an orientational memory should be reflected on the molecular level by the structure of the crosslinked polymer network. On the other hand, magnetic elastomers are real composite materials of mesoscopic colloidal magnetic particles embedded in a polymer matrix. Here, the spatial arrangement of the mesoscopic magnetic particles within the elastic matrix can be the source of the orientational memory. So the mechanism of memorizing may be quite different in the two cases.
Nevertheless, based on the similarities in the macroscopic theories, it would be worthwhile to test the materials in those experiments in which the respective other material class features its outstanding properties. The experience acquired for one of the two material classes may help to guide the way also for the other material class. On the one hand, this means to clarify the question, whether an orientational coupling between strain deformations and the anisotropy direction also exists within anisotropic magnetic gels. In a next step, this would lead to the question, whether this property is likewise connected to a marked nonlinear stress-strain behavior as observed for liquid crystalline elastomers. On the other hand, in analogy to the elastic moduli that are reversibly tunable by external magnetic fields in the case of magnetic gels, a similar effect may be observable for liquid crystalline elastomers and gels. Here, rather an externally applied electric field would serve to tune the elastic properties. It would be satisfying to observe a mutual benefit between the two fields of liquid crystalline elastomers and magnetic gels.
Moreover, instead of only tuning their properties, the materials could also be utilized as model systems for driven and active soft matter in genuinely non-equilibrium situations. We mentioned that both liquid crystalline elastomers and magnetic gels can be used as soft actuators by switching an appropriate external field [@yusuf2005low; @urayama2006deformation; @urayama2007selected; @cho2007trifunctionally; @fukunaga2008dynamics; @hashimoto2008multifunctional; @urayama2005electrooptical; @urayama2005electrically; @finkelmann2001new; @sanchez2011opto; @cho2006thermo; @sawa2010thermally; @fleischmann2012one; @hebert1997dynamics; @yu2006soft; @ohm2010liquid; @yang2011micron; @jiang2013actuators; @filipcsei2007magnetic; @stolbov2011modelling; @guan2008magnetostrictive; @gong2012full; @zubarev2012theory; @zubarev2013magnetodeformation; @allahyarov2014magnetomechanical; @zrinyi1996deformation; @zrinyi1997direct; @zimmermann2006modelling; @zrinyi2000intelligent]. In a next step, these materials could be steadily driven by external fields so that they cannot reach an equilibrium state any more. Examples of driven soft matter will be addressed in the subsequent part of this review. In another step, they can be continuously “activated” and then be categorized as active soft materials. For instance, the potential of liquid crystalline elastomers for the construction of light-activated swimmers was experimentally outlined [@camacho2004fast]. Similarly, an efficient production of light-activatable microscopic artificial cilia was demonstrated via inkjet printing [@vanoosten2009printed]; induced deformations of these slender artificial fibers [@vanoosten2009printed] mimic the deformation cycle of natural cilia that are found on bacterial surfaces and serve for self-propulsion of the microorganisms [@brennen1977fluid]. Likewise, magnetically activated elastic filaments were used to construct propelling artificial microswimmers [@dreyfus2005microscopic]. We will come back to the migration of self-propelled particles and microswimmers in the later part of this review. Apart from that, on the theoretical side, the macroscopic characterizations of gels featuring orientational degrees of freedom can be extended to include active stresses that result for example from chemical reactions. Such approaches were used to identify and describe possible mechanisms for the motility of crawling biological cells [@kruse2004asters; @kruse2005generic; @juelicher2007active; @carlsson2011mechanisms; @recho2013contraction; @recho2014optimality].
Driven soft matter
==================
Naturally, in each system thermal fluctuations lead to a sort of “internal drive”. For instance, colloidal particles are subject to Brownian motion, which adds to prevent them from sedimentation in a gravitational field and keeps them suspended [@dhont1996introduction]. Another example are experiments on colloidal particles thermally driven along the top of aligned membrane tubes that adhere to a substrate [@wang2009anomalous; @wang2012brownian]. An interesting crossover between exponential and Gaussian forms of the displacement statistics was observed in the latter context. Generally, when asymmetric ratchet-like conditions direct the internal thermal drive, net motion can arise [@peskin1993cellular; @faucheux1995optical].
In contrast to that, we here focus on soft matter systems driven from outside. In our case this is achieved by externally imposed shear flows. The simplest situation is the one of an imposed planar linear shear profile as the one schematically indicated in Fig. \[fig\_linear-shear-flow\]. This geometry is characterized by three different directions: the flow direction, here horizontally oriented; the direction of the shear gradient, here vertically oriented; and the vorticity direction perpendicular to the shear plane, i.e. here pointing into the plane of the figure.
![The flow profile corresponding to a planar linear shear flow is depicted on the left. It reveals the three different directions indicated on the right: the flow direction oriented along the flow velocity $\mathbf{v}$ (horizontal); the direction of the shear gradient $\mathbf{\nabla}\|\mathbf{v}\|$ (vertical); and the vorticity direction along $\mathbf{\nabla}\times\mathbf{v}$, here oriented perpendicular to the shear plane.[]{data-label="fig_linear-shear-flow"}](figure10.pdf){width="4.5cm"}
In practice, the strategy to approximately realize this flow field in simple situations is to horizontally drive the top and/or bottom plate(s) of the confining cell with constant speed.
We start by repeating simple effects that emerge for bulk-filling low-molecular-weight nematic liquid crystals. Increasing the complexity, we then briefly review aspects occurring for bulk-filling periodically modulated phases such as they appear in block copolymer systems. Finally we address localized structures in the form of vesicles.
Flow alignment and director tumbling in nematic liquid crystals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Similar to the previous chapter, we first turn to conventional low-molecular-weight liquid crystals deep in the nematic phase. Locally, the liquid crystalline molecules align on average along an ordering direction, the so-called director $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ [@degennes1993physics], see also Sec. \[lmwlc\]. In the hydrodynamic equations describing the macroscopic dynamic behavior of a nematic liquid crystal, the director orientation $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ couples to the hydrodynamic flow field $\mathbf{v}$ [@degennes1993physics; @pleiner1996pattern]. For an imposed flow field as the one depicted in Fig. \[fig\_linear-shear-flow\], we now consider a bulk state of vanishing director distortions $\nabla\mathbf{\hat{n}}=\mathbf{0}$. Then the hydrodynamic equation for the director orientation becomes [@pleiner1996pattern; @rienacker1999orientational] $$\label{eq:dyn-n}
\frac{\partial\mathbf{\hat{n}}}{\partial t} =
\mathbf{\Omega}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{n}} +
\lambda \left[
\mathbf{A}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{n}}-(\mathbf{\hat{n}}\cdot\mathbf{A}\cdot\mathbf{\hat{n}})\,\mathbf{\hat{n}}
\right].$$ In general, the two gradient tensors $\mathbf{\Omega}=[(\nabla\mathbf{v})^T-(\nabla\mathbf{v})]/2$ and $\mathbf{A}=[(\nabla\mathbf{v})^T+(\nabla\mathbf{v})]/2$ contain the rotational and elongational effect of the flow field $\mathbf{v}$, respectively. Here ${\nabla}\mathbf{v}$ again denotes a dyadic product and the superscript $^T$ its transpose. A convective contribution $\mathbf{v}\cdot\nabla\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ vanishes in our case due to the assumed spatially homogeneous director orientation $\nabla\mathbf{\hat{n}}=\mathbf{0}$.
We can see from Eq. (\[eq:dyn-n\]) that, besides the shear rate set by the imposed flow field, only one parameter $\lambda$ determines the dynamic behavior. It can be written as the ratio between two viscosities and thus represents material properties [@degennes1993physics; @rienacker1999orientational]. Depending on the magnitude of this parameter, the director can show qualitatively different types of behavior in the shear flow. On the one hand, for $|\lambda|\geq1$, the director reaches a steady-state orientation within the shear plane [@leslie1968some; @degennes1993physics; @gahwiller1972temperature; @pieranski1974two]. This situation is typically called “flow alignment” or “shear alignment” and is depicted in Fig. \[fig\_lc\_shear\] (a).
![Illustration of three dynamic modes of a nematic liquid crystal under an imposed planar shear. The nematic director is indicated by the double-headed arrow, whereas the orientation of the shear is given by the two arrows in the top right and bottom left in each panel. (a) In the case of “flow alignment” or “shear alignment” the director takes a steady orientation within the shear plane and with a finite tilt angle with respect to the flow direction. (b) When “wagging”, the director oscillates within the shear plane around an orientation of usually non-vanishing tilt with respect to the flow direction. (c) During “tumbling” motions the director makes full rotations in the shear plane.[]{data-label="fig_lc_shear"}](figure11.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
The orientation angle with respect to the flow direction, i.e. the “flow alignment angle”, remains constant and is determined by the parameter $\lambda$. On the other hand, the director does not find a steady-state orientation, but continuously rotates in the shear plane, for $|\lambda|<1$. This dynamic state is usually referred to as “tumbling” [@gahwiller1972temperature; @pieranski1974two], see Fig. \[fig\_lc\_shear\] (c), and consequently $\lambda$ is often referred to as the tumbling parameter. Using the Fokker-Planck approach, these two dynamic regimes were connected to properties on the molecular level [@risken1996fokker; @zwanzig2001nonequilibrium; @archer1995molecular; @kroger1995viscosity]. The above considerations imply that the shear rate of the imposed flow field is low enough so that the degree of nematic ordering, see Eq. (\[eq:s\]), is not significantly altered from its equilibrium value.
Director tumbling was also observed and discussed for mixtures of liquid crystals [@ternet1999flow] and for liquid crystalline polymers [@burghardt1991role; @rienacker1999orientational]. For certain parameter values, a transition was found with increasing shear rate from tumbling to flow alignment via an intermediate third dynamic state called “wagging” [@larson1990arrested; @rienacker1999orientational]. In this third state, which is included in Fig. \[fig\_lc\_shear\] (b), the director oscillates back and forth instead of performing full tumbling rotations. Still further dynamic modes were identified later, including chaotic types of motion [@rienacker2002chaotic].
Alignment and reorientations in periodically modulated phases
-------------------------------------------------------------
At our next level of complexity, we concentrate on materials that in their ground states cannot be considered as spatially homogeneous any more. Instead, they feature regular periodic modulations in their density or in the concentrations of their constituents. An illustrative example are block copolymer melts or solutions.
To understand the situation in block copolymer melts, it is instructive to recall the problem of mixing of two polymers of a different kind. This scenario is addressed by the Flory-Huggins theory [@strobl1997physics]. For low-molecular-weight liquids, a spontaneous mixing is usually driven by a gain in translational entropy: each molecule is now provided with the extended volume of the whole mixture, not only with the one of its initial single component liquid. In polymers, however, this effect is strongly reduced. The monomers are chemically trapped in the polymer chains. Only each polymer chain as a whole can increase its translational entropy. Therefore the gain in translational entropy under mixing is significantly lower than for low-molecular-weight liquids. Instead, the inter-species interactions between the monomers of different kinds in comparison to the intra-species interactions between monomers of the same kind determine whether the polymers mix or form two separated phases. In most cases, this competition favors the separated state. Most pairs of polymers do not form homogeneous mixtures at ambient temperatures [@strobl1997physics].
![Schematic illustration of the two-dimensional patterns shown by micro-phase separated linear diblock copolymers. The temperature must be low enough so that micro-phase separation can take place. In the series from left to right, the fraction of one kind of polymer on the diblock copolymer chain with respect to the other one increases. This is depicted by a typical chain in each panel. If one species strongly dominates by its volume fraction, the state is disordered, i.e. not micro-phase separated, as in the most left and right examples. When the volume fractions become more balanced but still one species dominates, hexagonal textures can be observed as in the second examples from left and right. In three dimensions these would correspond to hexagonally arranged cylinders elongated perpendicular to the plane of the picture. Lamellar structures (center) appear for approximately equal volume fractions of the two blocks and are likewise obtained in three dimensions. []{data-label="fig_microphase"}](figure12.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
The situation becomes interesting in block copolymers. Here, the different polymer chains that tend to demix under the previous conditions are combined into one molecule. For example, a diblock copolymer chain is composed of two chains of chemically different polymers that are covalently bound to each other at one of their ends. Due to the covalent bonds between the blocks, a macroscopic demixing is not possible for block copolymers. Consequently, demixing can only occur on the length scale of a single block in the form of a micro-phase separation. These demixed blocks can then arrange into spatially periodic patterns. Depending mostly on temperature and the volume fractions of the two different blocks, lamellar phases, hexagonally arranged cylinders, bcc or fcc (in solutions) structures, and more complicated textures are obtained [@meier1969theory; @leibler1980theory; @ohta1986equilibrium; @fredrickson1987fluctuation; @bates1990block; @fredrickson1996dynamics; @strobl1997physics; @hamley1998physics; @hamley2001structure; @teramoto2002double; @nonomura2003formation; @yamada2004kinetics]. For approximately equal volume fractions of the two blocks, a lamellar micro-phase separated state emerges. It features a layered arrangement of the different blocks and was depicted in Fig. \[fig\_lengths\]. Patterns expected for two-dimensional arrangements of linear diblock copolymers are depicted in Fig. \[fig\_microphase\].
When such materials are exposed to shear, an orientation of the periodic structures with respect to the shear velocity and its gradient has been observed in numerous experimental studies [@koppi1992lamellae; @winey1993interdependence; @balsara1994shear; @balsara1994insitu; @patel1995shear; @zhang1995frequency; @zhang1995symmetric; @zhang1996annealing; @fredrickson1996dynamics; @zhang1997symmetric; @maring1997threshold; @wiesner1997lamellar; @chen1997pathways; @chen1998flow; @pople1999shear; @wang1999ordering; @leist1999double; @zipfel1999shear; @wang2000birefringence; @hamley2000effect; @hamley2001structure; @langela2002microphase]; see Fig. \[fig\_linear-shear-flow\] for the shear geometry. The most illustrative example is the one of lamellar layered textures [@koppi1992lamellae; @winey1993interdependence; @balsara1994shear; @balsara1994insitu; @patel1995shear; @zhang1995frequency; @zhang1995symmetric; @zhang1996annealing; @fredrickson1996dynamics; @zhang1997symmetric; @maring1997threshold; @wiesner1997lamellar; @chen1997pathways; @chen1998flow; @pople1999shear; @leist1999double; @zipfel1999shear; @hamley2000effect; @hamley2001structure; @langela2002microphase]. For a simple planar linear shear flow, three principal orientations of the lamellae are possible as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_bcp\_shear\]:
![Illustration of the three principal orientations of a lamellar sheet-like structure under an imposed planar shear: (a) parallel, (b) transverse, and (c) perpendicular.[]{data-label="fig_bcp_shear"}](figure13.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
a “parallel” orientation with the lamellae normals parallel to the direction of the shear gradient; a “transverse” orientation with the lamellae normals parallel to the direction of the shear flow; and a “perpendicular” orientation with the lamellae normals perpendicular to the two previous cases, i.e. parallel to the vorticity direction.
Interestingly, when a steady linear shear flow was applied to a lamellar block copolymer sample, the signature of the transverse orientation was observed at low shear rates [@pople1999shear]. This is surprising because it leads to a significant distortion of the lamellar layers. Switching to higher shear rates, a reorientation process occurred with the layer normals now lying in the plane spanned by the directions of the shear gradient and the vorticity [@pople1999shear]. This implies a combination between the parallel and the perpendicular alignment, which was also observed in other studies [@balsara1994shear; @balsara1994insitu]. However, the steady shear could not induce a perfect reorientation. Even more, the steady shear led to defects in previously well-aligned lamellar samples for example in the form of focal conical textures [@winey1993interdependence]. It turned out that large-amplitude oscillatory shear was much more effective to align these samples than steady shear flow. Thus the orientational effects of oscillatory shear were studied extensively.
For large-amplitude oscillatory shear, reorientation transitions in lamellar phases were observed by varying the shear frequency or the shear amplitude [@koppi1992lamellae; @balsara1994insitu; @patel1995shear; @zhang1995frequency; @zhang1995symmetric; @zhang1996annealing; @zhang1997symmetric; @maring1997threshold; @wiesner1997lamellar; @chen1997pathways; @chen1998flow; @leist1999double; @zipfel1999shear; @hamley2001structure; @langela2002microphase]. Even a “double-flip” reorientation process can be found for increasing shear frequency. At low frequencies, a parallel orientation is often obtained [@balsara1994shear; @balsara1994insitu; @zhang1995frequency; @zhang1996annealing; @zhang1997symmetric; @maring1997threshold; @wiesner1997lamellar; @leist1999double; @zipfel1999shear]. An increase in the shear frequency can lead to a flip to the perpendicular orientation [@zhang1995frequency; @zhang1996annealing; @zhang1997symmetric; @maring1997threshold; @wiesner1997lamellar; @leist1999double; @zipfel1999shear]. Very high frequencies, however, can induce a second flip back into the parallel geometry [@patel1995shear; @zhang1995frequency; @maring1997threshold; @wiesner1997lamellar; @leist1999double]. Despite the significant distortion of the lamellae, the transverse orientation was also observed in the case of oscillatory shear [@zhang1995symmetric; @wiesner1997lamellar; @chen1997pathways].
Experimentally, the investigations can be performed in a Couette cell or using rheometric devices as displayed in Fig. \[fig\_rheometer\].
![Schematic illustration of two principal types of shear rheometer. (a) In the plate-plate geometry, the sample is sandwiched between two parallel plates, one of them rotating relatively with respect to the other around their common axis. The displacements on the plate surface and thus the shear amplitude increase linearly from the rotation axis in the center to the outside. (b) A cone-plate geometry counteracts this effect because the sample thickness likewise increases linearly from the central rotation axis to the outside. In both cases, steady shear (darker single-headed arrow) or oscillatory shear (brighter double-headed arrow) can be applied. The arrows also coincide with the local direction of the shear velocity, see Fig. \[fig\_linear-shear-flow\]. []{data-label="fig_rheometer"}](figure14.pdf){width="9.cm"}
In the plate-plate geometry, the sample is sandwiched between two parallel plates that rotate relatively with respect to each other around their common axis. At the surface of the rotating plate, the displacement increases linearly with increasing distance from the rotation axis in the center. Thus effects of different shear amplitude, defined here as displacement versus sample thickness, can be investigated simultaneously. A cone-plate geometry counteracts this effect. Here, one plate is replaced by a cone, leading to a linearly increasing sample thickness from the rotation axis in the center to the outside. Generally, the principal lamellar orientation in the sample cell can for instance be determined by small-angle x-ray or neutron scattering [@koppi1992lamellae; @winey1993interdependence; @balsara1994shear; @balsara1994insitu; @patel1995shear; @zhang1995frequency; @zhang1995symmetric; @zhang1996annealing; @fredrickson1996dynamics; @zhang1997symmetric; @maring1997threshold; @wiesner1997lamellar; @chen1997pathways; @chen1998flow; @wang1999ordering; @leist1999double; @zipfel1999shear; @pople1999shear; @hamley2000effect; @hamley2001structure; @langela2002microphase]. From the results of different beam directions, conclusions can be drawn about the orientational state.
Understanding the underlying reasons for the orientational behavior under shear is a complicated task and also material dependent. Several different effects connected to various length scales play together and determine the overall behavior. For example, the boundary of the sample cavity can have an aligning effect on the structure [@boker2002large]; the micro-phase separated textures are distorted by shear deformations, leading to elastic strains [@kawasaki1986phase; @yamada2006elastic; @tamate2008structural]; structural fluctuations can couple to shear deformations [@bruinsma1992shear]; viscosity contrasts are present in each sample due to the stacking of the molecules and due to the material properties of the different blocks [@patel1995shear; @zhang1995frequency]; the molecules are elongated along the layer normal, which sets a preferred path of molecular motion in particular for entangled polymers at higher molecular weights [@zhang1995symmetric]; shear can induce a tilting of the elongated chains away from the layer normal, leading to a restoring torque [@chen1997pathways; @auernhammer2000undulation; @auernhammer2002shear; @soddemann2004shear]; and as we have seen in the previous section on low-molecular-weight liquid crystals, elongated molecules by themselves can already show various types of dynamic alignment behavior. Apparently, different frequencies and amplitudes of the applied shear can be used to preferably address some of these ingredients. In this way, their relative impact on the collective dynamic response can be modified and the overall appearance of the sample can be tuned.
Other materials like common smectic (layered) low-molecular-weight liquid crystals [@safinya1991nematic; @bruinsma1992shear; @larson1993rheology; @panizza1995effects], see Fig. \[fig\_lc-phases\] (c), or lamellar phases of surfactant solutions [@bruinsma1992shear; @berghausen1998shear; @zipfel1999influence; @zipfel2001cylindrical; @mortensen2001structural; @richtering2001rheology] can similarly feature orientational effects due to their “sheet-like” structure. Reorientations under shear can also be observed in structural phases different from the lamellar one [@fredrickson1996dynamics; @daniel2000effect; @wang2000birefringence; @hamley2000effect; @hamley2001structure; @angelescu2004macroscopic]. Besides, for hexagonally arranged cylinders as well as for spheres ordered in bcc- and fcc-textures, a sliding of whole structural sheets over each other was suggested [@doi1993anomalous; @ohta1993anomalous; @koppi1994epitaxial; @berret1996shear; @molino1998identification; @daniel2000effect; @daniel2001nonlinear; @hamley2001structure].
Applying shear to block copolymer systems is an issue of high practical relevance. Due to the reorientation effects, it can serve to heal multi-domain textures and obtain a monodomain structure [@winey1993morphology; @winey1993interdependence; @larson1993rheology; @molino1998identification; @chen1998flow; @wang1999ordering]. Apart from shear, alignments can also be induced by other routes, for example by applying external electrical fields to materials that show a dielectric contrast between their blocks [@amundson1991effect; @amundson1993alignment; @amundson1994alignment; @gurovich1994microphase; @gurovich1995why; @boker2002microscopic; @boker2002large; @kyrylyuk2002lamellar; @zvelindovsky2003comment; @boker2003electric; @xu2005electric; @olszowka2006large; @lyakhova2006kinetic; @olszowka2008control; @liedel2012beyond]. From a technological point of view, block copolymers possess a high potential for applications in the nano-sciences [@hamley2003nanostructure; @park2003enabling; @darling2007directing]: they provide regular periodic arrays of tunable material properties on the molecular length scales of the different blocks. This can be exploited for nano-lithographic processes, to produce regular arrays of nano-dots or nano-wires, or to synthesize nanoporous materials. Monodomain structures are often beneficial for this purpose. Therefore understanding and clarifying the possible routes to generate them is a task of central importance.
Vesicles in shear flow
----------------------
In the above cases, we considered the properties of bulk-filling phases under shear flow. This is different from the following examples, where we focus our attention on localized finitely-sized objects such as closed membranes and vesicles. In contrast to a bulk-filling periodic phase, complete rotations of a limited object in a liquid environment is easily possible. Together with the deformability of the considered entities, this leads to new dynamic states.
The systems that we focus our attention on are based on amphiphilic molecules in an aqueous environment [@lipowsky1991conformation; @seifert1997configurations]. Such molecules typically feature a hydrophilic (“water-loving”) head group and one or more hydrophobic (“water-fearing”) tails, usually based on hydrocarbon chains; see Figs. \[fig\_lengths\] and \[fig\_micellar-aggregates\] (a).
![Schematic examples of amphiphilic (surfactant) molecules and illustration of some of the aggregates that they can form in an aqueous solution. (a) Two extreme examples of typical structures of amphiphilic molecules are displayed. Both have a hydrophilic (“water-loving”) head group, typically in the form of some polar or charged molecular groups. The tails are usually based on hydrocarbon chains and hydrophobic (“water-fearing”). In the first example, the head group is relatively bulky and there is only one shorter tail. In the second example, there are two tails of approximately the same diameter as the head group. The formation of aggregates in an aqueous environment in both cases is possible above a certain concentration. It leads to a screening of the hydrophobic tails from the aqueous environment by the hydrophilic head groups. (b) Due to their geometric properties, the molecules of the first kind favor the formation of micellar aggregates of high surface curvature. (c) The molecules of the second kind, due to their geometric shape, are suitable to generate flat bilayer membranes. Thermal fluctuations are of course present but not indicated here. To close the membranes at their outer ends, some arrangements of high surface curvature and thus higher energy are necessary. (d) For large membranes, this can be avoided by forming closed surfaces in the form of vesicles. The ratio of their radius versus the membrane thickness in reality can be much larger than depicted here, so that locally the surface curvature of the vesicle becomes negligible. See also the indicated sizes in Fig. \[fig\_lengths\].[]{data-label="fig_micellar-aggregates"}](figure15.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
To reduce the contact with the surrounding water molecules, the hydrophobic chains above a critical concentration tend to form intermolecular aggregates. This is again a sort of micro-phase separation. A simple example is depicted in Fig. \[fig\_micellar-aggregates\] (b) in the form of a micelle. In this aggregate, the hydrophobic chains can hide away from the water molecules and form the core of the micelle. They are screened from the water molecules by the outward-pointing hydrophilic head groups that search the contact to the aqueous environment. Both, the concentration and the geometry of the single amphiphilic molecules determine which sort of intermolecular aggregates form. If the head groups are very bulky and if there is only one short chain per molecule, the formation of spherical micelles as depicted in Fig. \[fig\_micellar-aggregates\] (b) is supported. They have a high curvature of their surface. In contrast to that, if the hydrophilic head and the hydrophobic tail groups have approximately the same diameter, the formation of aggregates with low curvature of the surface is beneficial. This situation can for example be observed for bilayer membranes. In this case, the amphiphilic molecules are arranged in two adjacent layers stacked on each other as illustrated in Figs. \[fig\_lengths\] and \[fig\_micellar-aggregates\] (c). Here, the hydrophobic chains point to the inside of the two stacked layers and expel the water molecules. The hydrophilic heads point to the outside and screen the inner region from the aqueous environment.
At its lateral rims, the bilayer membrane would either have to expose some of the hydrophobic chains to the aqueous environment or show an unnaturally high curvature of its surface. To avoid such high-energy regions at the lateral rims, the bilayer can bend on length scales large compared to its thickness and form a closed surface. The resulting closed bilayer membrane is called a vesicle and also indicated in Figs. \[fig\_lengths\] and \[fig\_micellar-aggregates\] (d). Typically, an aqueous solution is found on both sides of the bilayer membrane, i.e. outside the vesicle and also enclosed on the inside.
Interesting dynamic states arise due to the typical constraints following from the architecture of vesicles. On experimental time scales, their inner volume is generally conserved [@deuling1976curvature; @seifert1997configurations]. Most importantly, also the surface area of vesicles remains practically constant [@deuling1976curvature; @seifert1997configurations]. This is in contrast to simple liquid drops and qualitatively affects their shape and dynamics [@danker2007rheology; @danker2008rheology]. Apart from that, a possible viscosity contrast between the inner encapsulated fluid and the outer fluid impacts the dynamic behavior [@biben2002advected; @biben2003tumbling; @beaucourt2004steady; @rioual2004analytical; @biben2005phase; @kantsler2005orientation; @kantsler2006transition; @mader2006dynamics; @misbah2006vacillating; @noguchi2007swinging; @lebedev2007dynamics; @danker2007dynamics; @danker2007rheology; @mader2007coupling; @finken2008two; @kessler2009elastic; @messlinger2009dynamical; @deschamps2009phase; @noguchi2009swinging; @ghigliotti2010rheology; @finken2011micro; @farutin2011symmetry; @biben2011three; @zabusky2011dynamics; @farutin2012squaring; @gires2012hydrodynamic; @farutin2013analytical; @lamura2013dynamics]. The same is true for a possible friction between the two layers of amphiphilic molecules that form the bilayer membrane and may slide over each other during certain dynamic modes [@seifert1997configurations].
On the one hand, the membrane may correspond to a two-dimensional liquid that does not sustain in-plane shear stresses, see Fig. \[fig\_inplaneshear\].
![A schematic vesicle is half-cut to show the membrane location. Within the plane of the membrane, a shear stress is applied to the membrane as indicated by the two arrows. If the membrane does not sustain an in-plane shear stress but behaves like a two-dimensional liquid, the vesicle is called a “fluid vesicle”. Likewise, it is referred to as a “viscous vesicle” when the effect of the intra-membrane viscosity is emphasized. In contrast to that, if the membrane does sustain in-plane shear stresses, the vesicle is called an “elastic vesicle”. []{data-label="fig_inplaneshear"}](figure16.pdf){width="6.cm"}
Then the vesicles are called “fluid vesicles” [@lipowsky1991conformation; @seifert1997configurations]. We concentrate on the dynamics of such objects in simple linear planar shear flow as introduced in Fig. \[fig\_linear-shear-flow\]. If there are no viscosity contrasts between the liquid on the inside and on the outside of the vesicle, a dynamic state called “tank-treading” is forecast by modeling and observed experimentally [@kraus1996fluid; @haas1997deformation; @biben2002advected; @biben2003tumbling; @beaucourt2004steady; @kantsler2005orientation; @mader2006dynamics; @noguchi2007swinging; @lebedev2007dynamics; @danker2007dynamics; @danker2008rheology; @messlinger2009dynamical; @deschamps2009phase; @biben2011three; @zabusky2011dynamics]. It is depicted in Fig. \[fig\_vesicle\_shear\] (a): due to the elongational part of the shear flow the vesicle becomes oriented within the shear plane, but with a constant inclination angle to the flow direction; the rotational part of the shear flow induces a rotational motion of the membrane around the vesicle interior.
![Illustration of three dynamic modes of a vesicle under an imposed planar shear flow. The vesicle is indicated by the ellipsoid. (a) While “tank-treading”, the vesicle takes a steady finitely inclined orientation with respect to the flow direction within the shear plane. Only the vesicle membrane performs a continuous rotational motion along its contour. (b) During “swinging” motions (also “trembling” or “vacillating breathing”) the long axis of the vesicle oscillates within the shear plane around an orientation that is usually finitely inclined with respect to the flow direction. (c) When “tumbling” the vesicle performs full rotations in the shear plane.[]{data-label="fig_vesicle_shear"}](figure17.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Increasing the viscosity contrast at not too high shear rates, a bifurcation to a different type of motion called “tumbling” is predicted from modeling and observed experimentally [@biben2002advected; @biben2003tumbling; @beaucourt2004steady; @rioual2004analytical; @kantsler2006transition; @mader2006dynamics; @noguchi2007swinging; @lebedev2007dynamics; @danker2007dynamics; @danker2008rheology; @messlinger2009dynamical; @deschamps2009phase; @biben2011three; @zabusky2011dynamics]. It is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_vesicle\_shear\] (c). Here, the vesicle as a whole rotates in the shear flow, instead of only its membrane tank-treading around its interior. Thermal fluctuations can induce tumbling already for vanishing viscosity contrast at low shear rates [@abreu2012effect]. At higher shear rates, “swinging” (also “trembling” or “vacillating breathing”) was observed instead of pure tumbling at least for intermediate viscosity contrasts [@kantsler2006transition; @misbah2006vacillating; @noguchi2007swinging; @danker2007dynamics; @lebedev2007dynamics; @danker2008rheology; @messlinger2009dynamical; @deschamps2009phase; @biben2011three; @zabusky2011dynamics]. In this state, the long axis of the vesicle does not perform full rotations as in the tumbling mode, but only oscillates up and down as indicated in Fig. \[fig\_vesicle\_shear\] (b). Summarizing, a tendency towards the right-hand side in the series of panels (a)–(c) in Fig. \[fig\_vesicle\_shear\] is generally supported by an increasing viscosity contrast between the outside and the inside of the vesicle and a decreasing shear rate. Yet, the situation can be more involved in each individual case. More complex dynamic modes were identified recently [@biben2011three; @farutin2012squaring], and the qualitative influence that thermal fluctuations can have were pointed out [@deschamps2009dynamics; @zabusky2011dynamics; @levant2012amplification; @abreu2013noisy].
Apart from that, the impact of an explicitly viscous membrane was investigated [@noguchi2004fluid; @noguchi2005dynamics; @noguchi2005vesicle; @noguchi2007swinging]. These “viscous vesicles” generally show a reduced inclination angle during tank-treading. Increasing the membrane viscosity can further induce a transition from tank-treading to tumbling or swinging.
On the other hand, the membrane may for example be polymerized so that it does sustain in-plane shear stresses [@lipowsky1991conformation; @seifert1997configurations], see Fig. \[fig\_inplaneshear\]. Such objects are referred to as “elastic vesicles” [@noguchi2005shape]. The basic features of the dynamics of fluid vesicles in linear shear flow are recovered both from modeling and experiments: a tumbling motion at low shear rate and a tank-treading motion at high shear rate emerge [@abkarian2007swinging; @kessler2008swinging; @kessler2009elastic; @noguchi2009swinging; @abreu2012effect; @koleva2012deformation]. However, during the tank-treading motion, the orientation angle with respect to the flow direction oscillates due to the shape-memory [@abkarian2007swinging; @kessler2008swinging; @kessler2009elastic; @noguchi2009swinging; @abreu2012effect; @koleva2012deformation]. This is referred to as “swinging”. Furthermore, if the viscosity inside becomes large compared to the outside viscosity, an intermittent type of motion is observed as a combination between the swinging tank-treading and the tumbling dynamics [@abkarian2007swinging; @kessler2008swinging; @kessler2009elastic; @noguchi2009swinging; @abreu2012effect].
From a biological point of view, elastic vesicles form an important topic because red blood cells fall into this category [@abkarian2007swinging; @dupire2010chaotic]. To understand the transport of red blood cells in blood vessels, the dynamics of elastic vesicles subjected to Poiseuille flows in cylindrical tubes, see Fig. \[fig\_poiseuille\] (a), is studied extensively.
![Schematic illustration of different possible shapes adopted by vesicles in a Poiseuille flow. The snapshots have to be considered as two-dimensional cross-sectional views through the center of a tube-like channel. (a) Profile of the Poiseuille flow across the channel. (b) Elongation of a discoidal vesicle along the fluid flow. (c) Parachute-like shape and orientation. (d) Slipper-like configuration. Gray bars indicate the channel walls.[]{data-label="fig_poiseuille"}](figure18.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Whereas fluid vesicles of initially discoidal shape typically elongate in the Poiseuille flow, see Fig. \[fig\_poiseuille\] (b), or show axisymmetric “parachute” shapes in strong flow fields, see Fig. \[fig\_poiseuille\] (c), elastic vesicles usually adopt a parachute-like deformation or an asymmetric “slipper”-like shape as indicated in Fig. \[fig\_poiseuille\] (d) [@noguchi2005shape; @kaoui2009why]. Many vesicles together in a tube were found to adopt disordered distributions with discoidal shapes, ordered states of aligned parachutes, as well as slippers arranged in a zigzag-like fashion [@mcwhirter2009flow; @mcwhirter2011deformation; @mcwhirter2012ordering] depending on the flow velocity and packing fraction. Hydrodynamic lift forces keep the vesicles away from the walls [@seifert1999hydrodynamic; @cantat1999lift; @lorz2000weakly; @sukumaran2001influence; @abkarian2002tank; @callens2008hydrodynamic; @messlinger2009dynamical]. In addition to that, further dynamic effects have been discovered, for example a wrinkling deformation of the elastic membrane in shear flows [@walter2001shear; @finken2006wrinkling; @finken2011micro].
Analytical approaches included the above-mentioned constraints following from the vesicle architecture and were able to analyze the resulting dynamic properties [@keller1982motion; @seifert1999hydrodynamic; @rioual2004analytical; @finken2006wrinkling; @misbah2006vacillating; @noguchi2007swinging; @lebedev2007dynamics; @skotheim2007red; @mader2007coupling; @danker2007dynamics; @danker2007rheology; @finken2008two; @danker2008rheology; @kessler2009elastic; @noguchi2009swinging; @danker2009vesicles; @noguchi2009swinging; @farutin2011symmetry; @finken2011micro; @abreu2012effect; @gires2012hydrodynamic; @abreu2013noisy]. Due to the curved vesicle surfaces, elements from differential geometry are necessary to perform these calculations. Apart from the analytical approaches, two simulation routes were particularly successful to investigate the dynamic behavior of vesicles in a liquid environment. One of them is particle-based and referred to as multi-particle collision dynamics [@noguchi2004fluid; @noguchi2005dynamics; @noguchi2005shape; @noguchi2005vesicle; @noguchi2006dynamics; @finken2008two; @messlinger2009dynamical; @mcwhirter2009flow; @noguchi2010dynamics; @mcwhirter2011deformation; @mcwhirter2012ordering; @lamura2013dynamics]. It includes the surrounding and encapsulated fluid particles, modeling the many-particle interactions in an effective way. Still, it correctly obeys the physical conservation laws. The second route is a phase field model [@biben2002advected; @biben2003tumbling; @beaucourt2004steady; @biben2005phase; @jamet2007towards; @jamet2008toward; @ghigliotti2010rheology]. It is based on an auxiliary continuous scalar order parameter field. Two different constant values of this scalar order parameter are used to distinguish between the inside and the outside of the vesicle, for example $-1$ and $+1$, respectively. At the location of the membrane, the order parameter field rapidly but continuously changes between these two values. In this way, the boundary of the vesicle can easily be identified. It can be effectively tracked by simply advecting the order parameter field with the hydrodynamic flow of the system.
A third route to the problem was outlined in the form of a density-field approach [@menzel2011density]. For periodic bulk-filling textures, such a procedure had for example been introduced for block copolymer structures [@ohta1986equilibrium; @kawasaki1986phase; @bahiana1990cell; @ohta1993anomalous; @doi1993anomalous; @drolet1999lamellae; @nonomura2001growth; @chen2002lamellar; @yamada2006elastic; @yamada2007interface; @tamate2008structural] or for crystalline materials via the phase field crystal approach [@elder2002modeling; @elder2004modeling; @berry2006diffusive; @athreya2007adaptive; @provatas2007using; @tupper2008phase; @chan2009molecular; @chan2010plasticity]. These kinds of formalism are based on a single scalar real order parameter naturally given by the density field. They apply on diffusive time scales. A corresponding free energy density to obtain localized nonperiodic structures was introduced in a phenomenological way and the resulting density-field description was coupled to hydrodynamic flow fields [@menzel2011density]. In this way, in two spatial dimensions, characteristics of tank-treading were observed in linear shear flow, and folding into the parachute form as well as an elongation in a Poiseuille channel flow were obtained [@menzel2011density]. A challenging task for the future is to derive such density-field approaches starting from a more microscopic and particle-resolved basis.
Active soft matter
==================
So far we have been concerned with “passive” systems that at most were driven from outside. We now turn to “active” or “self-driven” materials. It is not always straightforward to clearly distinguish between such “active” soft matter [@ebbens2010pursuit; @ramaswamy2010mechanics; @romanczuk2012active; @cates2012diffusive; @marchetti2013hydrodynamics] and “externally driven” soft matter as considered in the previous section. The term “active” generally implies that at least some components of the system feature an individual “internal drive”. Unfortunately, this definition requires a sort of restricted point of view. There is always a residual coupling of the internal driving mechanism to the outside world. We understand this statement by considering examples of active self-propelled particles.
One case of particularly well studied artificial self-propelled microswimmers is given by dispersed colloidal Janus particles [@paxton2004catalytic; @howse2007self; @jiang2010active; @volpe2011microswimmers; @buttinoni2012active; @theurkauff2012dynamic; @buttinoni2013dynamical]. In general, colloids are made of mesoscopic particles or droplets of sizes between $1$ nm and $10-100$ $\mu$m, see also Fig. \[fig\_lengths\], dispersed in another substance [@dhont1996introduction; @palberg1999crystallization; @ivlev2012complex]. Everyday examples are ink, paint, and milk. To stabilize colloidal suspensions, coagulation of the particles must be hindered. For this purpose, the refractive index of the colloidal particles and their environment should be matched to each other to reduce the van-der-Waals interaction. Furthermore, electric charges on the particles can lead to stabilization due to repulsion. Apart from that, also steric stabilization is possible, when the colloidal particles are covered by polymer brushes: close contact between the particles would restrict the possible configurations of the polymer chains, which induces an effective entropic short-range repulsion. Micron-sized colloidal particles offer the advantage that they can easily be tracked by optical methods.
There are different ways to cover one side of the surface of a colloidal particle by a material of significantly different properties than the other side [@hong2006simple; @walther2008janus; @jiang2010janus; @chen2012janus]. Such colloidal particles are then called Janus particles. This can be exploited, e.g., to selectively heat the stronger absorbing side by laser light irradiated from outside [@jiang2010active]. As a result, a self-propelled motion can be induced via thermophoretic effects: the particle via its asymmetric light absorption generates a temperature gradient around itself; this leads to hydrodynamic stress gradients that can set the surrounding fluid into motion, which effectively leads to particle motion [@golestanian2007designing]. A further possibility is to enforce demixing of a binary fluid on the heated side [@volpe2011microswimmers; @buttinoni2012active; @buttinoni2013dynamical] or to selectively catalyze chemical reactions only on the surface of one side of the particles [@howse2007self; @theurkauff2012dynamic]. The arising concentration gradients can lead to self-propulsion via diffusiophoretic effects analogous to the case of thermophoresis [@golestanian2007designing]. However, the fuel to drive these chemical reactions needs to be provided from outside, as must be the irradiated laser light in the case of thermophoretic motion.
Granular hoppers on a vibrating plate form another model system to study self-propelled motions [@narayan2007long; @kudrolli2008swarming; @deseigne2010collective; @deseigne2012vibrated]. Here, typically the motion in the plane parallel to the surface of the plate is observed. However, this motion is initiated and driven from outside by the externally tuned vibration. Finally, even such units as swimming bacteria [@berg1972chemotaxis; @wada2007model; @suematsu2011localized; @drescher2011fluid], crawling cells and amoebae [@rappel1999self; @szabo2006phase; @peruani2012collective], or molecular motors that can set filaments into motion [@schaller2010polar; @sanchez2012spontaneous] are not completely independent of their surroundings. At some point they need to take up the food or fuel provided by their environment.
We thus further narrow our present definition of active motion. The internal drive of the active units may be induced from outside. However, their motion must break a symmetry of the system. In other words, there must be a degree of freedom in the direction of induced motion that is not prescribed by the external driving. For example, a vertical vibration of the substrate can induce the motion of granular hoppers on a horizontal plate. However, the direction of motion within the plane of the plate surface is not specified. In that sense, the active particles are free to choose their migration direction.
In the following, we are mainly interested in collective effects that arise when many active and self-propelled particles act together. Several aspects of this complex behavior seem to have general character and can already be understood from minimal model systems. Therefore, we increase the level of complexity of the systems under investigation. We start from the simplest case of point-like self-propelled particles featuring a constant self-propulsion velocity. Although this is an idealized situation, basic principles of the collective behavior are revealed. In a next step, we include systems where steric interactions occur, e.g. dry granular systems. After that, we outline the consequences of replacing the constant self-propulsion velocity by an active driving force. Artificial microswimmers like self-propelling colloidal Janus particles and biological swimmers in the form of bacteria are addressed. The influence of hydrodynamic interactions on their behavior is discussed. We then outline the role of particle deformability. Finally, we give examples of studies dedicated to the collective behavior of animals.
Point-like self-propelled particles
-----------------------------------
The most prominent and fundamental model introduced in the context of idealized point-like particles is the one by Vicsek et al. [@vicsek1995novel], which is illustrated in Fig. \[vicsekmodel\] and explained in the following.
![Illustration of the Vicsek model [@vicsek1995novel] in two spatial dimensions. All particles, marked by the dark bullets, self-propel with the same speed $v_0$. This is indicated by the velocity vectors attached to the bullets that all have the same magnitude. At each discrete numerical time $t$, the velocity orientation $\vartheta_i(t)$ of each particle $i$ is updated: it is set to the average velocity orientation of all particles located within a distance $r_0$ from the $i$th particle; furthermore some orientational noise is added. During each time step $\Delta t$, the particles move along their velocity orientations by a discrete distance $v_0\Delta t$, here shown for a unit time step $\Delta t=1$.[]{data-label="vicsekmodel"}](figure19.pdf){width=".9\textwidth"}
In this model, $N$ particles self-propel in a two-dimensional plane of periodic boundary conditions. As a key ingredient and major simplification, the magnitude of the individual velocities of all particles, i.e. their speed, is assumed to be equal to a constant $v_0$. It remains identical and unchanged for all times. The current orientation of the velocity vector of the $i$th particle can be parameterized by an angle $\vartheta_i$, $i=1,...,N$. This orientational angle $\vartheta_i$ is adjusted at each time step to the mean of the velocity orientations of all particles $j$ that are located within a spherical environment of radius $r_0$ around the $i$th particle: $$\label{vicsek_vartheta}
\vartheta_i(t+\Delta t) = \langle \vartheta_j(t) \rangle_{r_0} + \eta_i(t).$$ Here, $\langle...\rangle_{r_0}$ describes this average over all particles within the sphere of radius $r_0$ around the $i$th particle. $t$ marks the time and $\Delta t$ sets the discrete time step. Furthermore, the angular noise $\eta_i(t)$ is originally taken as a random number with uniform probability out of a centered interval at each time step. After each time step $\Delta t$, the particle positions $\mathbf{r}_i$ are updated as $$\label{eq:vicsek_rupdate}
\mathbf{r}_i(t+\Delta t) = \mathbf{r}_i(t)+\Delta t\, v_0
\left(\begin{array}{c} \cos\left[\vartheta_i(t)\right] \\ \sin\left[\vartheta_i(t)\right] \end{array}\right).$$
As a result of the competition between the alignment with the local environment and the stochastic noise, a phase transition is observed. This is a transition between a phase of disordered motion of zero net particle flux on the one hand and a phase of ordered collective motion on the other hand. In the second case, all self-propelled particles migrate on average collectively into the same direction. The two phases are schematically indicated in the bottom insets of Fig. \[fig\_do-phase-transition\].
![Schematic illustration of the order-disorder transition in the Vicsek model and its variants. The transition can be induced by increasing the characteristic noise amplitude or by decreasing the mean particle density. In the ordered state (bottom left inset) the particles on average migrate collectively into a common direction, whereas in the disordered state (bottom right inset) coherent particle motion does not occur. The order parameter $P$ is calculated from the magnitude of the sample-averaged velocity orientations, see Eq. (\[eq:Pvicsek\]). Close to the transition, spatial inhomogeneities are usually observed in the form of density bands that travel perpendicularly to their elongation direction through a diluted disordered background (top right inset).[]{data-label="fig_do-phase-transition"}](figure20.pdf){width="9.cm"}
An order parameter to quantify this order-disorder transition is given by the magnitude of the sample-averaged velocity orientations, $$\label{eq:Pvicsek}
P(t) %= \left\|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \mathbf{\hat{v}}_i(t) \right\|
= \left\|\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \left(\begin{array}{c} \cos\left[\vartheta_i(t)\right] \\ \sin\left[\vartheta_i(t)\right] \end{array}\right) \right\| ,$$ where the velocity orientations are parameterized by the orientation angles $\vartheta_i$ ($i=1,...,N$) \[see Eqs. (\[vicsek\_vartheta\]) and (\[eq:vicsek\_rupdate\]) as well as Fig. \[vicsekmodel\]\]. The magnitude of the order parameter is $P=1$ in a completely ordered state of all particles collectively migrating into the same direction, and $P=0$ in the disordered state. As indicated in Fig. \[fig\_do-phase-transition\], the phase transition from the ordered to the disordered state of motion can be induced by decreasing the mean particle density or increasing the characteristic noise amplitude.
This transition was studied in detail over the past few years [@bertin2006boltzmann; @chate2008collective; @bertin2009hydrodynamic]. In simulations of large systems, it was found that the transition is of first order [@gregoire2004onset; @bertin2006boltzmann; @chate2008collective; @bertin2009hydrodynamic]. The discontinuity in the transition is apparently related to spatial inhomogeneities that arise in the particle density around the transition point. Density bands emerge that tend to collectively migrate perpendicularly to their elongation [@chate2008collective; @bertin2009hydrodynamic; @mishra2010fluctuations; @peruani2011polar] as indicated by the top inset in Fig. \[fig\_do-phase-transition\]. Due to this directed collective migration, they can pick up further particles from the environment of disordered motion. Such a process further increases the density within the band. In this sense, a kind of self-supporting mechanism develops [@gopinath2012dynamical]. Also in real experiments, traveling density bands have been observed [@schaller2010polar].
The nature of these traveling density bands was discussed in the framework of solitons [@chate2008collective; @bertin2009hydrodynamic]. Typically the density bands feature a sharp front and an extended tail. Recently, their behavior under head-on collisions is increasingly investigated for point- and non-point-like particles [@ihle2013invasion; @yamanaka2014formation; @tarama2014individual]. Penetration of colliding density bands and recovery after collision have been observed [@ihle2013invasion; @yamanaka2014formation]. It has been demonstrated that they are obtained as different propagating solutions of conventional continuum models for self-propelled particle crowds [@toner1995long; @toner1998flocks] in the form of multiple parallel density bands, single solitary bands, and single active droplets [@caussin2014emergent].
Several variants of the Vicsek model were pointed out and analyzed [@chate2008modeling]. For example, the effects of metric-free alignment interactions [@ginelli2010relevance] were discussed. In three spatial dimensions, the traveling density bands were recovered in the form of migrating density planes [@chate2008collective]. Other studies replaced the discrete nature of the dynamic equations Eqs. (\[vicsek\_vartheta\]) and (\[eq:vicsek\_rupdate\]) by differential equations. In particular, the discrete averaging process $\langle...\rangle_{r_0}$ in Eq. (\[vicsek\_vartheta\]) was replaced by a more continuous functional form [@peruani2008mean; @peruani2010cluster; @menzel2012collective]: $$\frac{d\vartheta_i(t)}{dt} = -\frac{\partial U}{\partial\vartheta_i}+\Gamma_i(t), \qquad \frac{d\mathbf{r}_i}{dt}=v_0\left(\begin{array}{c} \cos\left[\vartheta_i(t)\right] \\ \sin\left[\vartheta_i(t)\right] \end{array}\right), \qquad i=1,\dots,N.$$ For simplicity, the orientational noise $\Gamma_i(t)$ is assumed to result from a Gaussian white process. The continuous function $U$ is based on pairwise alignment interactions between the particles. For example, the functional form $$\label{eq_U}
U(\mathbf{r}_1,\dots,\mathbf{r}_N,\vartheta_1,\dots,\vartheta_N) = -\sum_{\substack{i,j=1\\ i<j}}^N \Theta\left(r_0-\|\mathbf{r}_i-\mathbf{r}_j\|\right)\cos(\vartheta_i-\vartheta_j)$$ again leads to pairwise velocity alignment for particles closer to each other than the distance $r_0$. Here, $\Theta$ represents the Heaviside step function. The snapshot in the top inset of Fig. \[fig\_do-phase-transition\] was obtained from a numerical calculation following a procedure along these lines.
Using such an approach, the situation of a binary mixture was considered for different rules of the inter-species velocity alignment [@menzel2012collective]. Starting from the particle picture, continuum equations for the one-particle probability densities were derived [@menzel2012collective] within the Fokker-Planck framework [@risken1996fokker; @zwanzig2001nonequilibrium; @lee2010fluctuation; @savel2003controlling]. Also macroscopic hydrodynamic-like continuum equations for the macroscopic order parameters were obtained and analyzed [@menzel2012collective]. Interestingly, when the above-mentioned density bands appear in one species, they can induce spatial heterogeneities in the other species via the inter-species coupling [@menzel2012collective]. These results may be interesting for the dynamics of biofilm formation. Biofilms are surface- or interface-attached communities of microorganisms [@otoole2000biofilm; @stoodley2002biofilms], in nature usually composed of more than one species [@an2006quorum; @elias2012multi]. Often at least part of the microorganisms in a film adopts a motile state [@kearns2005cell; @an2006quorum; @vlamakis2008control; @veening2010gene]. Their collective behavior should be influenced by inter-species interactions.
Other variants of the Vicsek model, such as polar particles of apolar alignment interactions [@chate2008modeling; @peruani2008mean; @ginelli2010large; @peruani2010cluster; @peruani2011polar] or nematic particles that randomly reverse their migration direction [@chate2006simple; @chate2008modeling] were investigated. For the first kind of systems, density bands with particle migration along the contour of the band were observed [@chate2008modeling; @ginelli2010large; @peruani2011polar], in contrast to the above-mentioned density bands that migrate perpendicularly to their elongation direction. An example of apolar alignment interaction is depicted in Fig. \[fig\_apolar\].
![ Schematic illustration of polar alignment rules on the left and apolar alignment rules on the right. Self-propelled particles are indicated by rectangular boxes, while the arrows inside the boxes mark the direction of active drive. For polar alignment rules, the particles always tend to align their velocity orientations into the same direction. In the case of apolar alignment rules, which may be induced, for example, by steric interactions of elongated particles, an antiparallel orientation of the velocity vectors is equally preferred. []{data-label="fig_apolar"}](figure21.pdf){width="11.cm"}
A further characteristic feature of self-propelled particle systems has been outlined for the active nematic case [@ramaswamy2003active]. We denote the average number of active particles in a subregion of the whole system by $N$ and the fluctuations of this number by $\delta\! N$. Typically a relation of the form ${\langle(\delta\! N)^2\rangle}^{1/2}\propto N^{\zeta}$ is obtained, with $\zeta=0.5$ in equilibrium systems. In the two-dimensional case of active nematics, an exponent $\zeta=1$ was predicted [@ramaswamy2003active; @toner2005hydrodynamics] and later confirmed through simulations [@chate2006simple]. These large density fluctuations were termed “giant number fluctuations”. Likewise, in the case of active polar particles an elevated exponent $\zeta>0.5$ was predicted [@toner1995long; @toner1998flocks] and confirmed in simulations [@chate2008modeling; @ginelli2010large; @peruani2011polar]. Such large number fluctuations were also observed in experiments [@narayan2007long; @deseigne2010collective; @deseigne2012vibrated]. As mentioned below, in systems featuring steric interactions, large number fluctuations can result from a cluster transition during which self-propelled particles mutually block their active migration [@fily2012athermal; @redner2013structure; @buttinoni2013dynamical; @bialke2013microscopic; @fily2014freezing; @stenhammar2013continuum; @stenhammar2014phase].
Finally, we note that two-dimensional systems of self-propelled particles can feature a long-ranged orientational order of their migration directions [@toner1995long; @toner1998flocks; @toner2005hydrodynamics]. This is in marked contrast to equilibrium systems [@mermin1966absence]. Long-ranged order can emerge in the active case because information about the orientations is additionally propagated by the self-propelled motion of the particles.
Self-propelled particles featuring steric interactions
------------------------------------------------------
Originally, the point-like self-propelled particles in the Vicsek model [@vicsek1995novel] only interact via the alignment of their velocity orientations. In principle, this can lead to artifacts such as an unbounded growth of the local particle density.
As a first step to solve this problem, modifications of the Vicsek approach were introduced. For example, the migration directions of particles that come too close to each other can be reversed to bound the density [@czirok1996formation]. Or a pairwise alignment of the velocity vectors into opposite directions is induced for particles that are not well separated [@romenskyy2013statistical; @menzel2013unidirectional; @weber2014defect]. Another route adjusts the migration direction according to an inter-particle potential [@gregoire2003moving]. If a finite intermediate distance is preferred, crystal-like arrangements can arise within the particle swarm [@gregoire2003moving]. Such a situation can be interpreted as a combination of steric repulsive and cohesive attractive interactions [@gregoire2004onset].
In addition to steric interactions between the particles, also steric interactions with confining walls can be considered. An example is a channel geometry made by two parallel confining plates [@menzel2013unidirectional]. Using a functional form for the alignment interactions as in Eq. (\[eq\_U\]) in combination with discrete time steps, pattern formation was observed at intermediate overall particle densities in the channel [@menzel2013unidirectional]. On the one hand, lanes emerge along the channel direction that are either directly supported by the walls or “free-standing” in the interior [@menzel2013unidirectional], see Fig. \[fig\_unidirectional\] (a). These lanes are “unidirectional” in the sense that all particles in the channel self-propel on average into the same direction. On the other hand, at slightly higher particle densities, active cluster crystals form that collectively migrate along the channel [@menzel2013unidirectional], see Fig. \[fig\_unidirectional\] (b). The mechanism behind the formation of these structures results from a combination of two ingredients: first discrete migration steps of the self-propelled particles, and second the possibility for overreactions in the velocity alignment.
![ Pattern formation in a modified Vicsek model of self-propelled particles confined in a channel between two parallel horizontal plates [@menzel2013unidirectional]. The patterns appear at intermediate overall particle densities. As indicated by the arrows, the structures in both cases collectively migrate along the channel direction. (a) Increasing the overall particle density from below, first a state of [unidirectional]{} laning appears [@menzel2013unidirectional]: all particles on average migrate into the *same* direction. (b) At slightly higher particle densities, migrating cluster crystals emerge [@menzel2013unidirectional]. Each lattice point in this state is occupied by several self-propelled particles. The mechanism leading to the pattern formation is based on discrete migration steps of the self-propelled particles and the possibility of an overreaction in their velocity alignment. Channel walls are indicated by the gray bars and periodic boundary conditions are applied in the horizontal direction. []{data-label="fig_unidirectional"}](figure22.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
From an experimental point of view, dry systems of manifestly sterically interacting self-propelled particles can be realized by granular hoppers [@blair2003vortices; @volfson2004anisotropy; @galanis2006spontaneous; @narayan2007long; @aranson2007swirling; @kudrolli2008swarming; @deseigne2010collective; @deseigne2012vibrated]. For this purpose, the granular particles are typically set into motion by a vertical vibration of the horizontal substrate. Only the in-plane displacements are recorded. Both, the migrations and ordering of apolar [@blair2003vortices; @galanis2006spontaneous; @narayan2007long; @aranson2007swirling] and polar [@kudrolli2008swarming] rod-like objects were investigated, as well as the motion of polar disks [@deseigne2010collective; @deseigne2012vibrated; @weber2013long]. In the latter case, the steric interactions between the particles are isotropic due to the disk-like shape and do not explicitly provide an alignment interaction. Interestingly, the collective behavior of these vibrated polar disks could nevertheless remarkably well be mapped onto the Vicsek model [@deseigne2012vibrated].
A polar granular hopper features an anisotropic density distribution along its body to break the forward-backward symmetry. Under vibration it thus shows an imposed preferred migration direction [@kudrolli2008swarming]. In contrast to that, for apolar hoppers the symmetry must be broken from outside by an additional horizontal mode of vibration [@aranson2007swirling], or the symmetry must be broken spontaneously to perform steps of propagation. Vibrated apolar rods were observed to incline with respect to the substrate surface and to preferentially migrate into the inclination direction [@blair2003vortices; @volfson2004anisotropy]. The mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking was investigated in more detail for a dimer model particle [@dorbolo2005dynamics]. In the case of vibrated polar disks, the polarity results from breaking the symmetry of contact with the vibrating substrate by attaching two asymmetric legs [@deseigne2012vibrated]. As revealed by these studies [@volfson2004anisotropy; @dorbolo2005dynamics], the “dry” friction between the particles and the substrate plays a major role for the propagation mechanism. The displacement statistics of “dry” objects on vibrated substrates were analyzed experimentally, also as a function of the substrate inclination [@goohpattader2009experimental; @goohpattader2010diffusive; @goohpattader2011stochastic]. Interestingly, the displacement distribution functions appear to have exponential tails [@goohpattader2009experimental; @goohpattader2010diffusive; @goohpattader2011stochastic]. Similar results were obtained for vibrated water droplets [@goohpattader2009experimental; @mettu2010stochastic]. Typically the interactions with the substrate are modeled by a “dry” friction term of the Coulomb type [@persson2000sliding]. Generally, a simple model equation for the one-dimensional motion of a single granular particle exposed to dry friction with the substrate and an additional dynamic (viscous) friction with the remaining environment can be written in the form of a Langevin equation as [@gennes2005brownian; @hayakawa2005langevin; @baule2010path; @baule2011stick; @menzel2011effect; @baule2013rectification] $$\label{Coulomb}
m\frac{dv}{dt} = -m\frac{v}{\tau}-\sigma(v)\Delta+\gamma(t), \qquad\frac{dx}{dt}=v.$$ Here, $m$ is the effective mass of the particle, $v$ its (generally non-constant) velocity, and $x$ its position. The first term on the right-hand side of the velocity equation denotes the dynamic (viscous) friction with a relaxation time $\tau$. $\sigma(v)$ returns the sign of $v$, i.e. $\sigma(v>0)=+1$, $\sigma(v=0)=0$, and $\sigma(v<0)=-1$. Thus the second term on the right-hand side includes the dry Coulomb friction of constant strength $\Delta$. It implies that a moving particle is always slowed down by the same amount of deceleration, independently of its current speed. Finally, $\gamma(t)$ describes a stochastic force, which may arise from fluctuations of the environment and stochastic noise in the vibration mechanism. Transferring Eq. (\[Coulomb\]) to the Fokker-Planck framework [@risken1996fokker; @zwanzig2001nonequilibrium; @kawarada2004non; @gennes2005brownian; @hayakawa2005langevin; @menzel2011effect], one finds that the steady-state velocity distribution function features a cusp at $v=0$ due to Coulomb friction [@kawarada2004non; @hayakawa2005langevin; @gennes2005brownian; @baule2010path; @baule2011stick; @menzel2011effect; @baule2012singular]. Interestingly, the irreversible part of the resulting Fokker-Planck equation can be mapped onto the case of a quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator with a pinning delta-potential at its center [@avakian1987spectroscopy; @janke1988statistical; @patil2006harmonic; @touchette2010brownian; @menzel2011effect]. Starting from a sharp initial state, the spatial particle distributions develop non-Gaussian tails on intermediate time-scales [@menzel2011effect]. Multiple time-scales emerge in the evolution of the distribution functions due to Coulomb friction [@menzel2011effect]. Nevertheless, despite such a non-Gaussian behavior, the mean-square displacement of the particles still grows linearly in time [@wang2009anomalous; @menzel2011effect; @wang2012brownian]. It will be an interesting problem for the future to study in more detail the effect of aspects of the friction mechanism on the collective behavior of granular hoppers.
Active driving force instead of constant velocity {#sec-active-driving-force}
-------------------------------------------------
In the previous sections, we reported about the success of the Vicsek model, which, despite its simplicity, could even reflect the collective behavior in an example system of granular hoppers [@deseigne2012vibrated]. One of the key assumptions in the Vicsek model is the constant self-propulsion speed of each individual particle [@vicsek1995novel]. This is an adequate simplification in a dilute system. However, it becomes problematic in dense systems of interacting particles. In particular, jammed situations where particles mutually block their ways cannot be described adequately in this model.
It is then reasonable to switch to the picture of an active driving force [@hagen2011brownian; @henkes2011active; @zottl2012nonlinear; @fily2012athermal; @bialke2012crystallization; @wittkowski2012self; @redner2013structure; @ni2013pushing; @zottl2013periodic; @ferrante2013collective; @ferrante2013elasticity; @abkenar2013collective; @bialke2013microscopic; @buttinoni2013dynamical; @hagen2014gravitaxis] instead of a constant self-propulsion velocity. In the simplest general case, the particles are now characterized by their position $\mathbf{r}$, by their velocity $\mathbf{v}$, and by a polar unit vector $\mathbf{\hat{p}}$ that gives the current orientation of the active driving force. Here, situations can arise, in which the direction of the velocity $\mathbf{v}$ and the orientation $\mathbf{\hat{p}}$ of the driving force are not parallel. The magnitude of the velocity $\mathbf{v}$ can change over time, whereas the strength of the active driving force $F_{d}$ is usually kept constant for simplicity.
In many cases, the motion of the particles is overdamped. This is true for instance for colloidal Janus particles [@paxton2004catalytic; @howse2007self; @jiang2010active; @volpe2011microswimmers; @buttinoni2012active; @theurkauff2012dynamic; @buttinoni2013dynamical] or bacteria [@berg1972chemotaxis; @wada2007model; @suematsu2011localized; @drescher2011fluid] that self-propel in an aqueous environment at low Reynolds numbers [@purcell1977life]. Overdamped Brownian dynamics is appropriate to describe this kind of motion and the velocity variable becomes redundant. The structure of the rescaled dynamic equations for an isotropic self-propelled particle of constant strength $F_d$ of its active driving force can be written as $$\frac{d\mathbf{r}}{dt}=-\nabla U+F_{d}\,\mathbf{\hat{p}}+\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$\unboldmath},
\qquad\frac{d\mathbf{\hat{p}}}{dt}=(\mbox{\boldmath$\omega$\unboldmath}+\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$\unboldmath})\times\mathbf{\hat{p}}.
\label{constantdriving}$$ Here, the potential $U$ contains for example the influence of external fields like gravity, the steric interactions with other particles, or the steric interactions with confining walls. The angular velocity $\mbox{\boldmath$\omega$\unboldmath}$ results from the torque on the particle for example due to external alignment by a magnetic field. Both, $\mbox{\boldmath$\xi$\unboldmath}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath$\eta$\unboldmath}$, include the impact of stochastic fluctuations. So far, most of the corresponding studies have been restricted to two spatial dimensions.
First, the stochastic motion of single isolated self-propelled particles was analyzed [@howse2007self; @hagen2011brownian]. In the long-time limit, the stochastic noise determines the statistical properties. Consequently, in the long-time regime, the motion appears diffusive. However, the magnitude of the corresponding overall diffusion constant can be significantly increased by self-propulsion when compared to the case of an analogous passive particle [@howse2007self; @hagen2011brownian; @zheng2013non]. In contrast to that, self-propulsion significantly alters an intermediate time regime. For example, non-Gaussian displacement statistics can emerge at intermediate times in spite of a Gaussian form of the stochastic noise [@hagen2011brownian]. These results were confirmed by comparison to experimental systems of self-propelling colloidal Janus particles [@zheng2013non]. Also the impact of an external flow field was studied [@zottl2012nonlinear; @zottl2013periodic].
Apart from that, Eqs. (\[constantdriving\]) were generalized and investigated for the case of rod-like particles, where the diffusion and friction matrices become uniaxially anisotropic [@teeffelen2009clockwise]. For general particle shapes, aligning torques can arise due to steric interactions between anisotropic particles or because of interactions with confining boundaries. These aligning torques enter the equations via the angular velocity $\mbox{\boldmath$\omega$\unboldmath}$. Furthermore, a torque that leads to a continuous reorientation of the polar direction $\mathbf{\hat{p}}$ can arise from the mechanism of self-propulsion in combination with the particle shape or be actively generated. The stochastic motions of such circle swimmers were analyzed [@teeffelen2008dynamics; @teeffelen2009clockwise] and compared with experiments [@kummel2013circular]. Self-organization in array-like vortex textures was found [@kaiser2013vortex]. Moreover, it was demonstrated that in three spatial dimensions the asymmetry of biaxial self-propelled particles can lead to helical and even to superhelical trajectories [@wittkowski2012self].
Concerning the collective behavior of many interacting particles, we first focus on the case of spherical objects [@henkes2011active; @fily2012athermal; @bialke2012crystallization; @bialke2013microscopic; @buttinoni2013dynamical; @ni2013pushing]. Due to their isotropic shape, they do not feature a steric alignment interaction. This promotes the emergence of new truly non-equilibrium effects. A spherical particle that self-propels towards a hard wall is blocked in its motion and slowed down [@elgeti2013wall]. It can only escape again when the direction of active drive has reoriented away from the wall. The time scale for this process is set by rotational diffusion and thus indirectly by the temperature of the system. During this time, other particles can hit and additionally get blocked, if the density and self-propulsion speed are high enough.
![ Schematic illustration of the blocking mechanism of isotropically sterically interacting self-propelled particles. The self-driven particles are of spherical shape. Arrows indicate the direction of active drive which can reorient by rotational diffusion. A two-dimensional motion of the particles within the plane of the figure is assumed. (a) Two particles block each other, supported by a rigid wall. (b) Self-supported blocking can also occur in the bulk. If rotational diffusion is slow enough in comparison to the active drive and the density is high enough, both situations can serve as seeds for the formation of larger clusters. []{data-label="fig_trapped"}](figure23.pdf){width="9.cm"}
Through such a mutual blocking, see Fig. \[fig\_trapped\] (a), wall-supported clusters can emerge[^3]. Interestingly, the analogous process is also observed in a self-supported way in the bulk [@fily2012athermal; @redner2013structure] in two-dimensional systems, see Fig. \[fig\_trapped\] (b). Here, the blocking mechanism was analyzed in more detail [@bialke2013microscopic] and also investigated experimentally [@buttinoni2013dynamical]. A real phase separation into a clustered and a gas-like phase can be obtained as a steady state of the system [@redner2013structure; @cates2013active; @stenhammar2013continuum]. For clarity, it is stressed that these clusters form in the absence of any attractive forces and despite purely repulsive interactions between the particles. The clusters emerge solely from mutual steric blocking of the migration due to the non-equilibrium active drive.
Continuum equations were derived that trace the phase separation into the gas-like and clustered phases back to a force imbalance arising from the mutual steric blocking [@bialke2013microscopic], and a weakly nonlinear stability analysis [@cross1993pattern] was carried out [@speck2014effective]. In this way, the nature of the transition of phase separation could be investigated in more detail. Interestingly, the onset of the clustering transition can be mapped onto the phase separation of passive particles described by the famous Cahn-Hilliard model [@cahn1958free]. In particular, this implies the existence of an effective free energy density that can characterize the non-equilibrium clustering transition [@speck2014effective]. The analysis suggests a change of the clustering transition from continuous at high particle densities to discontinuous at lower particle densities. This change in the nature of the clustering transition was confirmed by numerical investigations [@speck2014effective]. Naturally, the clusters imply large fluctuations of the local particle density [@fily2012athermal]. A reentrance of the fluid phase is observed as a function of the driving force [@bialke2013microscopic].
At high densities, the active systems become jammed [@henkes2011active; @ni2013pushing] or crystallize [@bialke2012crystallization; @redner2013structure]. Active crystals were also observed experimentally [@palacci2013living], with attractive particle interactions typically being involved in the crystallization process [@palacci2013living; @mognetti2013living].
On the one hand, active crystals have been studied numerically by particle simulations [@bialke2012crystallization; @redner2013structure; @ferrante2013collective; @ferrante2013elasticity; @weber2014defect]. The self-organization of purely repulsively interacting actively driven particles into crystal-like structures was investigated [@bialke2012crystallization]. Furthermore, the collective behavior of self-propelled particles that are ordered in crystal-like arrangements and interact by harmonic-spring potentials has been analyzed in detail [@ferrante2013collective; @ferrante2013elasticity]. In the latter case, there is no explicit alignment interaction between neighboring particles. Nevertheless, the elastic interactions between them channel the individual attempts of self-propulsion towards one global orientation of motion. Finally, the whole structure collectively migrates into one common direction.
On the other hand, a field-theoretic approach was introduced to study the collective behavior of active crystals [@menzel2013traveling; @menzel2014active]. It can be derived microscopically from classical dynamical density functional theory [@marconi1999dynamic; @archer2004dynamical; @elder2007phase; @teeffelen2009derivation; @tegze2009diffusion; @jaatinen2009thermodynamics; @lowen2010phase; @wittkowski2010derivation; @wittkowski2011polar] applying appropriate assumptions. Two microscopic order parameter fields were used to characterize the state of the system composed of many self-driven particles. The first one is a particle-resolved density field $\psi(\mathbf{r},t)$; the second one is a polar order parameter field $\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{r},t)$ that characterizes the locally preferred orientation of the active driving direction $\mathbf{\hat{p}}$, see Eqs. (\[constantdriving\]). Coupled dynamic equations describe the time evolution of these order parameter fields [@menzel2013traveling; @menzel2014active]. Resulting periodic structures are displayed in Fig. \[fig\_activecrystal\]. Concepts from two prominent continuum descriptions were unified in this approach. The first one is the phase field crystal model characterizing periodic modulations in the density field. This model was successfully used to reproduce solidification and crystallization phenomena in conventional passive crystalline structures on particle-resolved length and diffusive time scales [@elder2002modeling; @elder2004modeling; @stefanovic2006phase; @elder2007phase; @teeffelen2009derivation; @tegze2009diffusion; @jaatinen2009thermodynamics; @stefanovic2009phase; @chan2010plasticity; @ramos2010dynamical; @tegze2011faceting]. The second prominent approach contained here stems from the macroscopic Toner-Tu model for the collective motion of non-crystallized self-propelled particles [@toner1995long; @toner1998flocks]. It can distinguish between systems that feature spontaneous directed self-propulsion, for example emerging from explicit alignment interactions, and systems without spontaneous alignment of their self-propulsion directions. Starting from initially disordered active systems, the field-theoretic approach shows that an active single crystal can form via the coarsening of multi-domain structures [@menzel2013traveling]. If a local alignment mechanism for the active driving directions of the particles exists, the crystal finally collectively travels into one common migration direction. If there is no such alignment, the active crystal remains at rest for small active drive, see Fig. \[fig\_activecrystal\] (a). However, beyond a threshold value of the active drive, the crystal still finds a common migration direction and starts to collectively travel. This is similar to the above-mentioned results from the particle-resolved simulations of active crystalline structures [@ferrante2013collective; @ferrante2013elasticity]. With increasing active drive, a transition from traveling hexagonal to traveling rhombic, quadratic, and lamellar structures was observed [@menzel2013traveling]. Such a transition series is displayed in Fig. \[fig\_activecrystal\] (b)–(d).
![Active crystals as modeled and displayed in Refs. [@menzel2013traveling; @menzel2014active]. The particle-resolved density field $\psi(\mathbf{r},t)$ is encoded by the color, where brighter color means higher density. Thin needles, pointing from the thicker to the thinner ends, indicate the local orientation and magnitude of the polar orientational order parameter field $\mathbf{P}(\mathbf{r},t)$. Thick arrows mark directions of collective motion. Panels from left to right were obtained for an increasing strength of the active drive. Here, explicit alignment mechanisms for the self-propulsion directions were not included. Therefore the hexagonal active crystal in panel (a) at low active drive remains at rest. Beyond a threshold magnitude of the active drive, however, this structure can nevertheless start to migrate, as shown for the traveling hexagonal crystal in panel (b). Increasing the active drive further, structural transitions to traveling rhombic and quadratic (c) as well as traveling lamellar textures (d) were observed. []{data-label="fig_activecrystal"}](figure24.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
In addition to that, using the active phase field crystal theory [@menzel2013traveling], a linear stability analysis of the traveling active single crystalline structures was performed [@menzel2014active]. This analysis is complicated by the fact that the density field in the crystalline ground state is already spatially modulated. It was found that the investigated collectively traveling active single crystals are linearly stable. The impact of hydrodynamic interactions on the stability of such active crystals was considered and is discussed in the next section.
Turning now to non-spherical self-propelled particles, a well-studied example is given by self-propelled rods actively driven parallel to their long axis [@peruani2006nonequilibrium; @wensink2008aggregation; @baskaran2008enhanced; @baskaran2008hydrodynamics; @elgeti2009self; @yang2010swarm; @wensink2012meso; @baskaran2010nonequilibrium; @wensink2012emergent; @mccandlish2012spontaneous; @kaiser2012how; @abkenar2013collective; @kaiser2013vortex; @kaiser2013capturing]. The biological motivation arises for instance from experimental investigations on elongated bacteria crawling or gliding on a substrate [@harshey2003bacterial; @peruani2006nonequilibrium; @aranson2007model; @kearns2010field; @peruani2012collective]. Another biological example are filaments actively driven by molecular motors. These motors can be fixed on a substrate at one end [@schaller2010polar; @schaller2011frozen] or directly work between the filamental rods [@sanchez2011cilia; @sanchez2012spontaneous]. Non-biological artificial experimental systems can in particular be realized by vibrating polar granular rods [@kudrolli2008swarming]. In all these cases, the anisotropy of the steric interactions provides a mechanism of particle alignment. It turns out that the self-propulsion supports nematic ordering of rod-like particles by lowering the transition density from the isotropic to the nematic state [@baskaran2008enhanced]. This is in line with the prediction of long-ranged orientational order in two-dimensional self-propelled particle systems [@toner1995long; @toner1998flocks; @toner2005hydrodynamics]. Apart from that, various different collective states of migration have been revealed for interacting self-propelled rods [@peruani2006nonequilibrium; @wensink2008aggregation; @yang2010swarm; @wensink2012meso; @wensink2012emergent; @mccandlish2012spontaneous; @abkenar2013collective]. Among those are disordered, jammed, clustered, and swarming states, where in the latter case the rods organize in localized packets of common migration direction[^4]. Laning states were identified [@wensink2012meso; @wensink2012emergent; @mccandlish2012spontaneous; @abkenar2013collective] that feature parallel stripes or lanes within which all particles propel into the same direction. However, neighboring lanes in these systems show antiparallel migration directions, see Fig. \[fig\_laning\] for a schematic illustration.
![ Schematic illustration of a laning state. Darker particles move upwards, whereas brighter particles migrate downwards. The particles organize themselves into neighboring lanes of opposite migration directions. Either the opposite migration directions of the individual particles are explicitly imposed from outside for particles driven by an external force; or the opposite migration directions emerge due to self-organization in systems of identical self-driven particles. In reality the lane thickness is not necessarily as regular as depicted here and can comprise different numbers of particles. []{data-label="fig_laning"}](figure25.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
This is in contrast to the above-mentioned case of unidirectional laning [@menzel2013unidirectional]. Laning as in Fig. \[fig\_laning\] was previously observed in systems of externally driven particles, where for different particles a driving force into opposite directions was imposed from outside [@dzubiella2002lane; @chakrabarti2004reentrance; @rex2008influence; @wysocki2009oscillatory; @lowen2010particle; @vissers2011lane; @ikeda2012instabilities; @glanz2012nature]. In the case of self-propelled particles, laning appears spontaneously without explicitly superimposing the opposite migration directions. Finally, even turbulent states were discovered in simulations, theory, and experiments on swimming bacteria [@cisneros2007fluid; @wensink2012meso; @dunkel2013fluid], although these organisms swim in an environment of low Reynolds numbers. The source of this turbulence at low Reynolds numbers is the continuous energy input on the length scale of the individual self-driven particles.
Apart from that, the behavior of active particles featuring various shapes more complicated than rod-like was studied [@wensink2014controlling; @nguyen2014emergent]. In particular, forward-backward symmetries can be broken through the particle shape [@wensink2014controlling]. Identical shapes, but differently applied active driving forces can lead to phase separation [@wensink2014controlling]. Depending on the relative orientation of the self-propulsion direction with respect to the particle shape, concave particles can self-organize into micro-rotors [@wensink2014controlling]. Finally, for binary mixtures of non-spherical active rotors, a phase separation into domains of clockwise and counter-clockwise rotations was identified [@nguyen2014emergent].
Role of hydrodynamic interactions
---------------------------------
Many realizations of self-propelled particles exist in a liquid environment. Examples are artificial microswimmers as for instance the colloidal Janus particles addressed above [@paxton2004catalytic; @howse2007self; @jiang2010active; @volpe2011microswimmers; @buttinoni2012active; @theurkauff2012dynamic; @buttinoni2013dynamical], and swimming bacteria [@berg1972chemotaxis; @wada2007model; @suematsu2011localized; @drescher2011fluid]. Any self-propelling swimmer sets its surrounding fluid into motion. The motion of the other swimmers, which are suspended in the fluid, is naturally influenced by this fluid flow. In turn, also the motion of all the other swimmers acts back onto the first one. These fluid-mediated interactions are referred to as hydrodynamic interactions. They are long-ranged.
To include hydrodynamic interactions, we must take into account the fluid flow. It is typically a very good approximation to consider the – often aqueous – surrounding liquid as incompressible, i.e. to set its mass density $\rho$ equal to a constant. Then the central equation of motion in fluid dynamics that determines the fluid flow, the Navier-Stokes equation [@landau1987fluid], can be written in the form $$\label{eq:NS}
\rho\,\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r},t)}{\partial t} + \rho \left[\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r},t)\cdot\nabla\right]\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r},t) = -\nabla p(\mathbf{r},t) + \eta\nabla^2\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r},t) + \mathbf{f}(\mathbf{r},t).$$ It describes the influence of volume force densities acting on a fluid element at position $\mathbf{r}$ and time $t$. $\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{r},t)$ is the resulting flow velocity field of the fluid at position $\mathbf{r}$ and time $t$. The left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:NS\]) gives the inertial contribution; here the second term expresses the fact that the actual motion of the fluid elements must be taken into account to correctly determine the change of momentum at a spatial position $\mathbf{r}$. On the right-hand side, the first term denotes the force density due to gradients in the pressure field $p(\mathbf{r},t)$, the second term includes dissipation with $\eta$ the viscosity of the fluid, and the last term takes into account any additional force density field $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{r},t)$ acting on the fluid. In our case, $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{r},t)$ contains the force densities that each swimmer exerts on its liquid environment.
Rescaling all lengths by a characteristic length scale $L$, all velocities by a characteristic velocity $V$, time by $L/V$, pressure by $\rho V^2$, and force density by $\rho V^2/L$, Eq. (\[eq:NS\]) takes the form $$\label{eq:NSresc}
\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}'}{\partial t'} + \left[\mathbf{v}'\cdot\nabla'\right]\mathbf{v}' = -\nabla' p' + \mbox{Re}^{-1}\nabla'^2\mathbf{v}' + \mathbf{f}',$$ with space and time dependencies not marked explicitly any more. We find $$\label{eq:Re}
\mbox{Re}=\frac{\rho L V}{\eta}$$ for the famous dimensionless Reynolds number. Typical microswimmers in the form of colloidal Janus particles and swimming bacteria have dimensions $L$ in the range between $10$ nm and $10$ $\mu$m. A characteristic swimming speed would for example be $10$ $\mu$m$/$s. Thus, we can see from Eq. (\[eq:Re\]) that their swimming in an aqueous environment usually occurs at low Reynolds numbers $\mbox{Re}\ll1$ [@purcell1977life].
We can infer the consequences of this estimate from Eq. (\[eq:NSresc\]). For low Reynolds numbers, the inertial terms on the left-hand side can be neglected when compared to the dissipative contribution on the right-hand side. Hydrodynamics at low Reynolds numbers is thus described by Stokes’ equation [@happel1983low]: $$\label{eq:Stokes}
\mathbf{0} = -\nabla' p' + \mbox{Re}^{-1}\nabla'^2\mathbf{v}' + \mathbf{f}'.$$ This equation leads to some peculiarities for swimming at low Reynolds numbers that are markedly different from our every-day experiences. In particular, the equation is linear in the velocity field and instant in time. Consequently, for balanced pressure gradients, flow immediately stops when no further force density $\mathbf{f}'$ is applied to the fluid. This has qualitative consequences when we compare to the situation at higher Reynolds numbers.
At high enough Reynolds numbers, a swimmer can move by reciprocal shape changes, see also Fig. \[figure\_reciprocal\]: first a quick shape change is performed in the form of a power stroke; then a slow recovery stroke follows in the exactly inverse way of the power stroke, only that it is performed significantly more slowly.
![Illustration of the qualitatively different situation for swimming at high and low Reynolds number (“scallop theorem”) [@purcell1977life]. The simple swimmer (black) performs a reciprocal shape change, i.e. the shape change during the power stroke is just the inverse of the shape change during the recovery stroke. Only the speed of shape change is significantly higher during the power stroke than during the recovery stroke. At high Reynolds numbers this leads to a net displacement after the cycle is completed due to inertial effects. At low Reynolds number, inertial effects are negligible and a net displacement cannot be achieved in this way. []{data-label="figure_reciprocal"}](figure26.pdf){width=".8\textwidth"}
So the central difference between the two strokes lies in the speed of execution. In this situation, the inertial terms on the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:NS\]) can lead to a symmetry breaking and net motion. However, reciprocal shape changes of the swimmer cannot lead to such net motion at low Reynolds numbers. The symmetry-breaking inertial terms are missing in the Stokes equation Eq. (\[eq:Stokes\]). These facts are often referred to as the “scallop theorem” [@purcell1977life].
Furthermore, in the absence of pressure gradients, the swimmer motion completely stops together with the fluid flow $\mathbf{v}'$ as soon as the swimmer does not apply any force density $\mathbf{f}'$ to the fluid any longer. Apart from that, the sum of all instant forces exerted by a low Reynolds number swimmer on the surrounding fluid vanishes because each stroke that it performs is balanced by a counter-acting drag force due to the motion of its body. It can be shown that, with increasing distance from such a “force-free” swimmer, the induced flow field decays significantly more quickly than for an object that exerts a net force on the surrounding fluid [@yeomans2014introduction]. Furthermore, the swimmer must provide a suitable mechanism to break the symmetry and achieve a net forward motion [@lauga2011life].
Different routes to reach this goal were pointed out. One example are non-reciprocal cycles of contraction and expansion of a straight three-linked-sphere swimmer [@najafi2004simple; @golestanian2008analytic] as displayed in Fig. \[fig\_swimmertypes\] (a).
![Illustration of different self-propulsion mechanisms for swimming at low Reynolds numbers. Panel (a) shows the three-linked-sphere swimmer suggested in Ref. [@najafi2004simple]. Its deformation cycle (snapshots from top to bottom) is nonreciprocal. Due to hydrodynamic interactions, contraction or expansion of one bond leads to a different net displacement depending on whether the other bond is in the contracted or expanded state. The vertical bar is added for clarity to highlight that a net propulsion to the right has occurred during the cycle. Panel (b) depicts the nonreciprocal deformation cycle (again snapshots from top to bottom) of the two-linked-sphere swimmer introduced in Ref. [@avron2005pushmepullyou]. In the completely contracted or expanded state of the bond, the swimmer exchanges the volume of the two spheres, for example by pumping the contents from one side to the other through the bond. Since the viscous drag is higher for the sphere of larger radius, the swimmer features a net propulsion to the right (again the vertical bar is added to make the net motion visible). Finally, panel (c) displays the minimal model swimmer suggested in Ref. [@aditi2002hydrodynamic]. The outer spheres are small and experience a negligible viscous drag by the fluid. However, they represent centers of forces acting on the fluid and setting it into motion (indicated by the bright arrows). Due to the antiparallel alignment of the forces, the total applied force vanishes. In the upper case, the swimmer pushes the fluid outwards, which is why it is referred to as a “pusher”, while in the lower case, it pulls the fluid inwards and would be called a “puller”. The main swimmer body is asymmetrically located with respect to the force centers. Thus it experiences a net viscous drag by the self-induced fluid flow.[]{data-label="fig_swimmertypes"}](figure27.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
Another example are volume changes of the spheres of a two-linked-sphere swimmer during contraction and expansion [@avron2005pushmepullyou], see Fig. \[fig\_swimmertypes\] (b). Apart from that, the rigid structure of a swimming object can already break the symmetry by itself. Ideal candidates for this purpose are helical objects that have a certain handedness [@berg2003rotary; @yonekura2003complete; @wada2007model; @ghosh2009controlled; @zhang2009artificial; @spagnolie2011comparative; @tottori2012magnetic]. And as mentioned above, Janus particles intrinsically break the forward-backward symmetry, which can be exploited to start a net-propulsion mechanism [@paxton2004catalytic; @howse2007self; @jiang2010active; @volpe2011microswimmers; @golestanian2007designing; @buttinoni2012active; @theurkauff2012dynamic; @buttinoni2013dynamical].
One swimming strategy for a swimmer at low Reynolds numbers is to exploit the drag resulting from its self-induced fluid flow. To understand this principle, it is most illustrative to consider two force centers as shown in Fig. \[fig\_swimmertypes\] (c). In the upper case, the forces applied to the fluid are oriented in a way that the swimmer pushes the fluid outwards. It is therefore called a pusher. The bottom case shows the opposite situation, in which the swimmer pulls the fluid inwards. Thus the swimmer is referred to as a puller. If the swimmer body is located asymmetrically with respect to the centers of force acting on the surrounding fluid, it will experience a drag from the self-induced fluid flow [@aditi2002hydrodynamic; @hatwalne2004rheology; @baskaran2009statistical]. Thus the swimmer will show a net propulsion. This propulsion principle can be generalized to more realistic swimmer shapes.
We now turn to the situation of more than one swimmer suspended in the fluid. Then one of them feels the drag due to the resulting fluid flow induced by all other swimmers, and vice versa. The impact that these hydrodynamic interactions between active swimmers has on their net interactions and on their collective behavior is still under investigation. For the three-linked-sphere swimmer mentioned above [@najafi2004simple], the pairwise hydrodynamic interaction was analyzed explicitly [@pooley2007hydrodynamic]. A complicated dependence on the relative distance, orientation, and phase of the shape change was obtained. Another study focused on the averaged flow fields around circle swimmers [@fily2012cooperative]. For particles that propel by pushing the fluid, a repulsive interaction was found on average, whereas for swimmers that pull the fluid, the average interaction was attractive. A pair of counterrotating pullers performs a net translational motion [@leoni2010dynamics; @fily2012cooperative]. Straight-swimming pullers that were forced to swim parallel to each other were observed to repel each other [@gotze2010mesoscale; @molina2013hydrodynamic], whereas pushers in the same set-up were found to attract each other [@cisneros2007fluid; @gotze2010mesoscale]. However, when released from the constraint of parallel swimming, no permanently bound state due to hydrodynamic interaction was found in spite of the initially attractive configuration [@gotze2010mesoscale].
Several cases of motion in a liquid environment were identified in which hydrodynamic effects seem not to play a crucial role. For bacterial cells, it was demonstrated that generally cell-cell interactions and cell-surface interactions are dominated by orientational diffusion, steric interactions, and lubrication forces, and that hydrodynamic interactions play a minor role [@drescher2011fluid]. Apart from that, different collective effects observed experimentally for microswimmers were successfully reproduced in simulations without including hydrodynamic interactions. Examples are the previously addressed observations of clusters and turbulent states [@buttinoni2013dynamical; @wensink2012meso].
Nevertheless, there are many situations in which hydrodynamic interactions were shown to be important, both for the single-swimmer and for the collective behavior. For instance, hydrodynamic interactions with confining walls can modify the migration properties [@blake1971note; @or2009dynamics; @elgeti2010hydrodynamics; @brotto2013hydrodynamics; @li2014hydrodynamic; @zottl2014hydrodynamics]. As demonstrated numerically, the nature of the propulsion mechanism can determine whether active microswimmers preferentially orient towards a confining surface, or whether they turn away and leave the wall [@li2014hydrodynamic]. Under narrow confinement between two walls, the propulsion mechanism can support orientations towards one of the walls or orientations parallel to their surfaces, which supports blocking or planar swimming motion, respectively [@li2014hydrodynamic; @zottl2014hydrodynamics]. Naturally, this influences the formation of the clusters mentioned in Sec. \[sec-active-driving-force\] [@buttinoni2013dynamical; @li2014hydrodynamic; @zottl2014hydrodynamics]. Apart from that, a speed-up of microswimmers through hydrodynamic interactions with a flexible confining tube was predicted [@ledesma2013enhanced]. Microswimmers confined in a harmonic trap were found to orientationally order due to hydrodynamic interactions and induce a net fluid flow [@hennes2014self]. Moreover, in experiments, a transient capturing of microswimmers in circular trajectories around passive colloidal spheres was observed [@takagi2014hydrodynamic]. Generally, hydrodynamic interactions can induce the formation of vortices and swirls [@hernandez2005transport]. In that sense, hydrodynamic interactions can destroy long-ranged orientationally ordered collective motion, but also more localized orientational order in swarms [@lushi2014fluid]. Likewise, in the case of two-dimensional active traveling crystals, destabilizing effects of hydrodynamic interactions were observed numerically [@menzel2014active]. The self-propelling particles forming the active crystal were considered to migrate on a substrate covered by a thin fluid film. As a consequence of the resulting flow fields, the traveling single crystal can break up into different domains, or the crystalline lattice structure can vanish altogether. The stability of different lattice structures under hydrodynamic interactions was analyzed [@desreumaux2012active].
Recently, it became clear from theoretical and numerical investigations that hydrodynamic far-field and near-field interactions can differ in their influence on the orientational order and stability of the suspension. Naturally, far-field interactions prevail in dilute suspensions whereas near-field interactions become important in concentrated solutions of microswimmers. Most of these studies were performed using yet another swimmer model called “squirmer” [@lighthill1952squirming; @blake1971spherical; @ishikawa2006hydrodynamic]: a non-vanishing flow field is prescribed as a boundary condition for the surrounding fluid on the surface of each swimmer; the swimmers themselves are often considered as rigid objects, but the non-vanishing surface flow drives them through the liquid environment. Following these lines, we first consider dilute suspensions of swimmers that solely interact hydrodynamically. For those, it was demonstrated that orientationally ordered states are always unstable [@saintillan2008instabilities; @saintillan2008pattern; @saintillan2013active]. Furthermore, for elongated swimmers featuring a puller propulsion mechanism, it was found that isotropic and spatially homogeneous suspensions are stable [@saintillan2008instabilities; @saintillan2008pattern; @saintillan2013active]. In contrast to that, homogeneous isotropic suspensions of elongated pushers are unstable and show an interesting nonlinear dynamics including enhanced mixing [@saintillan2008instabilities; @saintillan2008pattern; @saintillan2013active]. When concentrated suspensions or the close proximity of confining boundaries are addressed, hydrodynamic near-field interactions become important. It is then often mandatory to explicitly resolve the induced flow fields in the vicinity of the swimmers. For this purpose, squirmer models are ideal candidates [@gotze2010mesoscale; @evans2011orientational; @alarcon2013spontaneous; @zottl2014hydrodynamics; @li2014hydrodynamic]. In the case of concentrated suspensions of spherical squirmers in the bulk, net polar orientational ordering of the swimming directions due to hydrodynamic interactions was numerically observed [@evans2011orientational; @alarcon2013spontaneous]. This is in contrast to the above-mentioned results for dilute swimmer suspensions [@saintillan2008instabilities; @saintillan2008pattern; @saintillan2013active]. For pullers the degree of order was higher than for pushers [@evans2011orientational; @alarcon2013spontaneous]. Likewise, as indicated above, hydrodynamic near-field interactions between two confining walls determine the relative orientation with respect to the boundaries [@li2014hydrodynamic; @zottl2014hydrodynamics]. An enhanced cluster formation results for pusher squirmers when compared to pullers [@li2014hydrodynamic; @zottl2014hydrodynamics]. Finally, hydrodynamic interactions can lead to synchronization. This particularly applies when active rotors or driven filaments are considered [@reichert2005synchronization; @kim2006pumping; @vilfan2006hydrodynamic; @yang2008cooperation; @polin2009chlamydomonas; @kotar2010hydrodynamic; @uchida2010synchronizationprl; @uchida2010synchronization; @uchida2011generic; @uchida2011many; @golestanian2011hydrodynamic; @osterman2011finding; @reigh2012synchronization; @reigh2013synchronization; @elgeti2013emergence; @theers2013synchronization; @theers2014effects]. It was summarized that rotor pairs can only synchronize if the system is not symmetric under exchanging the two rotors [@lenz2006collective; @golestanian2011hydrodynamic]. Carpets of driven hydrodynamically coordinated active rotors were suggested to be used to pump or mix fluid in microfluidic devices [@uchida2010synchronizationprl]. Furthermore, carpets of actively driven deformable filaments are found on the surfaces of certain bacteria and can be used for self-propulsion [@brennen1977fluid; @vilfan2006hydrodynamic; @osterman2011finding]. Their coordinated motion can provide a swimming mechanism for these cells at low Reynolds numbers.
Deformable self-propelled particles
-----------------------------------
On our way of increasing complexity in active particle systems we now add a further degree of complication. Several self-propelled objects are not rigid. They deform as it is observed for instance for certain cells that crawl on substrates [@rappel1999self; @maeda2008ordered; @kaindl2012spatio]. Particularly obvious examples are self-propelled droplets on interfaces [@lee2002chemical; @nagai2005mode; @chen2009self] or in bulk fluid [@thutupalli2011swarming; @kitahata2011spontaneous; @kitahata2012spontaneous]. These droplets maintain chemical reactions [@thutupalli2011swarming; @kitahata2011spontaneous; @kitahata2012spontaneous] that lead to concentration gradients along their surfaces. A similar mechanism works by depositing chemicals from their inside to the outside [@lee2002chemical; @nagai2005mode; @chen2009self]. In effect, all these processes induce and maintain gradients of surface tension along their surfaces [@chen2009self; @kitahata2011spontaneous; @kitahata2012spontaneous; @schmitt2013swimming; @yoshinaga2014spontaneous]. These lead to stress gradients along the surfaces. On rigid substrates, such stress gradients on the droplet surface can directly push or pull on the droplet and lead to a net drive. In fluid environments, the surface gradients can induce convective flows on the inside and outside of the droplet surface. These convective flows in turn propel the droplets [@kitahata2011spontaneous; @schmitt2013swimming; @yoshinaga2014spontaneous]. If no special action is taken from the outside, the droplet motion has to start by spontaneous symmetry breaking; for instance by a sufficiently strong concentration fluctuation along its surface. In the ideal case, the concentration fluctuation leading to the net motion is maintained in a self-supported way by the resulting motion [@yoshinaga2012drift], for example when the concentration gradients are enhanced by the induced fluid flows. It was demonstrated that self-propelled droplets can be relatively robust deformable objects. In an experiment, they were observed to deform and squeeze themselves through steric barriers [@chen2009self] and recover afterwards.
To study the impact of deformability on the particle motion, shape deviations from a spherical undeformed state can be taken into account in a systematic way [@hiraiwa2010dynamics]. The lowest order deformations are of axially symmetric elliptic shape. Such elliptic deformations can be described by a symmetric traceless tensor $\mathbf{S}$ of second rank [@ohta2009deformation]. It is formally equivalent to the order parameter tensor introduced in Eq. (\[eq:nematicOPtensor\]) to characterize nematic liquid crystalline phases [@degennes1993physics]. Now, however, $s$ parameterizes the degree of deformation, while $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$ represents the orientation of the symmetry axis of the elliptic shape changes, see also Fig. \[fig\_deformable\].
![A self-propelled particle that deviates from its spherical ground state by axially symmetric elliptic deformations. The elliptically deformed state is described by the degree of deformation $s$ and by the orientation of the resulting ellipsoid. Since there is no deformational forward-backward asymmetry along the symmetry axis of the ellipsoid, we indicate its orientation by a double-headed arrow referred to as $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$. The self-propulsion contributes to the velocity $\mathbf{v}$ of the particle. Although representing separate degrees of freedom for each particle, the velocity $\mathbf{v}$ and the deformation tensor $\mathbf{S}=s(\mathbf{\hat{n}}\mathbf{\hat{n}}-\mathbf{I}/d)$ are generally coupled to each other, see Eqs. (\[eq:ohtaohkuma1\]) and (\[eq:ohtaohkuma2\]).[]{data-label="fig_deformable"}](figure28.pdf){width="4.cm"}
The relation to the nematic order parameter tensor comes from the fact that axially symmetric elliptic deformations are forward-backward symmetric. In Fig. \[fig\_deformable\] this is indicated by the double-headed arrow that marks the symmetry axis of the ellipsoid.
Coupled dynamic equations between the elliptic deformation tensor $\mathbf{S}$ and the velocity vector $\mathbf{v}$ of the particle were derived on symmetry grounds and evaluated [@ohta2009deformable]. To lowest order in the coupling terms, they read [@ohta2009deformable]: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\mbox{d}\mathbf{v}}{\mbox{d} t} &=& \gamma\mathbf{v}-\mathbf{v}^2\mathbf{v} -a\,\mathbf{S}\cdot\mathbf{v},
\label{eq:ohtaohkuma1}
\\[.1cm]
\frac{\mbox{d}\mathbf{S}}{\mbox{d} t} &=& -\kappa\mathbf{S}+b\!\left(\mathbf{v}\mathbf{v}-\frac{1}{d}\mathbf{v}^2\,\mathbf{I}\right).
\label{eq:ohtaohkuma2}\end{aligned}$$ In passive systems, the coefficient $\gamma$ would be negative and the term would correspond to linear viscous friction with the environment. On the contrary, in active systems, this coefficient can become positive, $\gamma>0$. Then, the first two terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:ohtaohkuma1\]) can lead to a stationary solution of non-vanishing velocity $\mathbf{v}\neq\mathbf{0}$, i.e. self-propulsion. An analogous approach can be found in the famous macroscopic continuum characterization of flocks of self-propelled particles by Toner and Tu [@toner1995long; @toner1998flocks]. The orientation of the resulting non-vanishing velocity vector $\mathbf{v}$ is not fixed a priori and results from spontaneous breaking of the continuous rotational symmetry. In the second equation, i.e. in Eq. (\[eq:ohtaohkuma2\]), the coefficient $\kappa>0$ expresses that the shape tends to relax back to the undeformed ground state for vanishing velocity $\mathbf{v}$. As before, $\mathbf{v}\mathbf{v}$ represents a dyadic product, $d$ the dimensionality of the system, and $\mathbf{I}$ the unity matrix. Most importantly, the terms with the coefficients $a$ and $b$ include the leading-order coupling terms between the dynamic variables $\mathbf{v}$ and $\mathbf{S}$. These contributions are to a big extent responsible for the peculiar behavior of deformable self-propelled particles as it is briefly summarized in the following.
In two spatial dimensions, the deformability can induce a bifurcation from straight to circular motion with increasing active drive [@ohta2009deformable]. Also quasiperiodic motions as well as array-like trajectories featuring rectangular edges were observed [@hiraiwa2010dynamics]. Applying an external electric field to polarizable particles or an external gravitational field, further types of trajectories such as different kinds of zig-zag motions and cycloidal motions appear [@tarama2011dynamics]. In the absence of external fields but in three spatial dimensions, additional helical trajectories are obtained [@shitara2011deformable; @hiraiwa2011dynamics].
The collective behavior in two spatial dimensions was studied extensively [@ohta2009deformable; @ohkuma2010deformable]. First, a global coupling was introduced that forces the deformed particles to align along their globally averaged deformation axis [@ohta2009deformable]. This coupling can lead to chaotic motion [@ohta2009deformable; @ohkuma2010deformable]. After that, instead of the global coupling, a pairwise alignment interaction between deformed particles was imposed [@itino2011collective; @itino2012dynamics]. In addition to that, as a steric interaction, a soft pairwise repulsive Gaussian potential was applied. Starting from random initial conditions at low or vanishing orientational noise amplitudes, the particles collectively order their migration directions as a function of time as expected [@vicsek1995novel]. All particles then collectively propel into the same direction. Moreover, they also tend to locally positionally order in a hexagonal way. Interestingly, it was observed that under compression of the system, implying an increase in the particle density, the ordered collective migration breaks down at a critical density [@itino2011collective; @itino2012dynamics]. The system becomes disordered and fluid-like. This is just the opposite effect as to that expected from the Vicsek model, in which the orientational order in the motion increases continuously with the particle density [@vicsek1995novel]. In a later study that used an anisotropic pairwise repulsive Gaussian potential, it was concluded that the disorder transition from a collectively traveling hexagonal crystal to a fluid-like state is enabled by the soft Gaussian interaction potential [@menzel2012soft]. The effect is well known in corresponding equilibrium systems. At low densities, these equilibrium systems are in a fluid phase, they crystallize at intermediate densities, but they return to a fluid state at high densities [@stillinger1976phase; @prestipino2005phase; @prestipino2011hexatic; @prestipino2007phase]. A central ingredient for this reentrant fluidization is the boundedness of the Gaussian interaction potential, even when two particles are placed at the same position [@stillinger1976phase]. It is concluded that the analogous effect is observed in active systems of self-propelled particles interacting sterically by a pairwise Gaussian potential [@menzel2012soft] and can be supported by their deformability [@itino2011collective; @itino2012dynamics; @menzel2012soft].
Apart from that, mutual deformations of the particles due to steric interactions between them were considered [@menzel2012soft]. This process can provide an implicit alignment mechanism for their self-propulsion directions as illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_deformable\_alignment\] for two particles. In many-particle systems, hexagonal lattices of self-propelled particles featuring a common migration direction can emerge that represent active collectively traveling crystals. Introducing a cut-off for the steric Gaussian interaction potential, traveling crystals of rectangular lattice structure are obtained. Likewise, active resting cluster crystals with more than one particle on each lattice site are observed, as they were previously reported for equilibrium systems [@likos1998freezing; @schmidt1999an]. In cases of strong particle deformations, laning patterns can appear from randomly initialized systems [@menzel2012soft]. Adding orientational noise, the Vicsek transition [@vicsek1995novel] from collectively ordered to disordered motion is recovered with increasing noise amplitude [@menzel2012soft].
![Aligning steric interactions between deformable self-propelled particles [@menzel2012soft]. Depicted is a time series from bottom to top with dotted lines indicating the particle paths. Two deformable self-propelled particles migrate towards a common point. At this point, their active drive pushes them together. Due to steric interactions, this leads to deformations. Eqs. (\[eq:ohtaohkuma1\]) and (\[eq:ohtaohkuma2\]) imply that the deformations can reorient the self-propulsion directions, here towards the common axis of elongation of the particles. The outgoing angle between the particles is smaller than the ingoing angle, which means that an effective alignment mechanism is at work.[]{data-label="fig_deformable_alignment"}](figure29.pdf){width="4.8cm"}
Finally, the formation of propagating fronts was reported for two different cases. First, large systems of repulsive Gaussian interactions and reentrant fluidity become inhomogeneous at the reentrance density [@itino2012dynamics; @tarama2014individual]. They show regions of collectively ordered and regions of disordered motion. In contrast to the traveling density bands observed in the Vicsek model [@chate2008collective; @bertin2009hydrodynamic; @peruani2011polar; @menzel2012collective], here a front of disordered motion propagates into the region of collectively ordered migration. Furthermore, the disordered region has a higher density than the area of ordered collective motion. Second, and in analogy to the results from the Vicsek model [@chate2008collective; @bertin2009hydrodynamic; @peruani2011polar; @menzel2012collective], traveling high-density bands of ordered collective motion emerge in systems of density-dependent active drive [@yamanaka2014formation]. The active drive in this case is set to increase with density. Such traveling density bands were shown to survive and penetrate through each other under repeated head-on collisions [@yamanaka2014formation].
Apart from that, the model was complexified in two different directions. On the one hand, the next-higher mode of deformation was included [@hiraiwa2010dynamics]. It can be described by a third-rank tensor [@ohta2009deformation] that is familiar from the study of liquid crystals of tetrahedratic order [@fel1995tetrahedral; @brand2005tetrahedratic]. This uneven mode of deformation breaks the forward-backward symmetry of the particle shape. In this case, a zig-zag trajectory and chaotic motions can be obtained already for a single particle in the absence of an external field [@hiraiwa2010dynamics]. The description was further extended to include the lowest four modes of deformation [@tarama2013oscillatory]. On the other hand, in addition to self-propulsion and deformability, an active rotational (spinning) motion was experimentally observed [@nagai2013rotational] and theoretically considered [@tarama2012spinning]. Different kinds of circular and quasi-periodic orbital trajectories result from this modification [@tarama2012spinning]. Furthermore, period-doubling and chaotic behavior is observed in the trajectories and in the state variables such as in the degree of deformation [@tarama2012spinning]. Helical types of motion are found in three spatial dimensions, among them also one with a superhelical trajectory [@tarama2013dynamics].
In a next step, the two-dimensional dynamics of a deformable self-propelled particle in a swirl flow [@tarama2014deformable] and in a planar linear shear flow were analyzed [@tarama2013dynamicsshear]. When exposed to shear, the elongational part of the flow tends to additionally deform the particle as depicted in Fig. \[fig\_deformable\_elongation\].
![Elongation of a deformable particle by an externally imposed shear flow [@tarama2013dynamicsshear]. Initially spherical deformable particles like droplets (left) are deformed due to the elongational component of the flow (right). In addition to that, the rotational component of the shear flow tends to induce further dynamical processes, see Figs. \[fig\_lc\_shear\] and \[fig\_vesicle\_shear\].[]{data-label="fig_deformable_elongation"}](figure30.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Moreover, in the case of the planar linear shear flow, the rotational contribution of the flow field tends to reorient the particle axes and can complexify the dynamic behavior. For this situation, an active straight motion, a winding motion, as well as different types of cycloidal motion were predicted [@tarama2013dynamicsshear]. An interesting issue for future studies is to find out, whether these kinds of motion represent the active analogues to the flow-aligned or tank-treading, wagging or swinging, and tumbling modes, respectively, displayed in Figs. \[fig\_lc\_shear\] and \[fig\_vesicle\_shear\]. Experimentally, the shear geometry could be realized by placing self-propelling droplets on the surface of a liquid [@nagai2005mode; @takabatake2011spontaneous] that is confined between two parallel counterpropagating walls.
The situation gets even more complex, when an additional active rotational spinning of the particle is considered in the shear flow [@tarama2013dynamicsshear]. In this case, active spinning with the same sense of rotation as the externally imposed flow field must be distinguished from active spinning with the opposite sense. When the active and the externally imposed rotations counteract and balance each other, a kind of active straight trajectory is recovered. Other types of observed dynamics are periodic, quasi-periodic, different kinds of cycloidal and undulated cycloidal, different kinds of winding, as well as different kinds of chaotic motions. To summarize the situation, we can say that the additional degrees of freedom arising from the deformability lead to quite complex dynamics, even for isolated active particles. Combining deformability, active propulsion, active rotation, and the various types of external influences – in our example the imposed shear flow – opens the way to a nearly unbounded number of dynamical states.
Collective behavior of animals
------------------------------
At the end of this review, we now reach the uppermost spring of our ladder of complexity in the field of active systems. By construction this is a highly non-trivial topic and we can only touch the surface of it in the present framework. The main question that needs to be answered in this context is how much the characterization of each of the following systems can be simplified. The physicist’s goal is naturally to map the animal behavior onto a minimum model that captures the central ingredients but can still be evaluated efficiently. How will this work for living creatures that have their own mind and make their own decisions?
Already for microorganisms the situation is quite difficult [@cates2012diffusive]. For example, reversals or changes in their migration directions are often observed [@wada2013bidirectional; @tailleur2008statistical; @berg1972chemotaxis; @macnab1972gradient; @polin2009chlamydomonas; @min2009high]. The latter can lead to a type of run-and-tumble motion [@berg1972chemotaxis; @macnab1972gradient; @polin2009chlamydomonas; @min2009high; @bennett2013emergent; @cates2013active]. On the one hand, this behavior may result from the complicated propulsion mechanism [@bennett2013emergent]. On the other hand, it can be the manifestation of an “active decision” [@yi2000robust]. If the change in migration direction occurs in response to an external stimulus, the reaction is generally referred to as “taxis” or “tactic” behavior. For instance, microorganisms can react in a chemotactic way when they detect chemicals that indicate nutrition, or they use chemicals for communication between each other without physical contact [@berg1972chemotaxis; @macnab1972gradient; @cluzel2000ultrasensitive; @miller2001quorum; @waters2005quorum; @an2006quorum; @taktikos2012collective]. Further examples concern the reaction to light (phototaxis) [@hader1987polarotaxis; @suematsu2011localized; @garcia2013light], gravitation (gravitaxis) [@yoshimura2003gravitaxis; @roberts2006mechanisms], flow fields (rheotaxis) [@marcos2012bacterial], adhesion gradients (haptotaxis) [@kolmakov2010designing; @kolmakov2011designing], and other external stimuli. Nevertheless, aspects of the collective behavior can often be described by simple particle descriptions in the form of extended Vicsek approaches [@czirok1996formation; @szabo2006phase] or by minimum continuum models [@aranson2007model; @wensink2012meso; @dunkel2013fluid; @svensek2013collective].
Grasshoppers (or locusts) form a class of insects the collective dynamics of which has attracted attention for at least one reason: cannibalism is observed for these insects and seems to influence their individual and collective behavior [@simpson2006cannibal; @hansen2011cannibalism; @bazazi2011nutritional]. On the one hand, an individual tries to rush after grasshoppers ahead of itself. On the other hand, it tries to flee from individuals behind itself. This was demonstrated by restricting the visual field through paintings on part of their eyes [@bazazi2008collective]. A restricted ability to detect approaching members in a group reduces motion and promotes cannibalism [@bazazi2008collective], which indicates that cannibalism supports migration. The situation was modeled in a pursuit-escape approach by finite-size random walkers that experience friction with the substrate and social interactions [@romanczuk2009collective; @romanczuk2012swarming]: other individuals moving away in the front are hunted after, whereas they are fled from if they approach from behind. In particular, the pursuit interaction tends to increase the orientational order in the collective motion. It increases the mean migration speed, which is also the case for the escape interaction at higher densities. A further study analyzed the radial distribution of other grasshoppers around one individual [@buhl2012using]. It revealed an isotropic shape in contrast to the anisotropic one obtained from minimum pursuit-escape approaches. The situation might still be more complex.
Another group of animals repeatedly studied in the context of collective motion are fish. Data can be obtained by video-tracking the individuals of a swarm in artificial water tanks [@hensor2005modelling; @becco2006experimental; @gautrais2009analyzing; @herbert2011inferring; @katz2011inferring; @gautrais2012deciphering; @tunstrom2013collective]. It was observed that fish swarms were of smaller size when food sources were detected [@hoare2004context] and of larger size in reaction to predator attacks [@hoare2004context]. The swarms are generally elongated and denser at the front than at the back [@katz2011inferring; @hemelrijk2012schools]. Increasing the mean density of fish in a container, a transition to cooperative collective motion could be detected at a threshold density [@becco2006experimental; @cambui2012density] similarly to the predictions of the Vicsek model [@vicsek1995novel]. However, the interaction rules deduced for individuals appear to be quite different from those assumed in the Vicsek model: direct orientational alignment seems to be weak [@herbert2011inferring; @katz2011inferring], interactions are restricted to the one single nearest neighbor [@herbert2011inferring] or at least are not a simple average over all pairwise interactions [@katz2011inferring], and variations of swimming speed are important [@herbert2011inferring; @katz2011inferring]. In a recent study, three modes of collective swimming motion were identified [@tunstrom2013collective]: a swarming state of relatively low order, a polarized state, and a milling state of high global rotation. Transitions were frequently observed. These forms of collective behavior should be compared to the motion of single isolated fish. In the latter case, relatively continuous trajectories without sharp bends or kinks were observed, corresponding to persistently turning walkers rather than conventional random walks [@gautrais2009analyzing; @gautrais2012deciphering].
While the swimming motion of small fish can still be effectively confined to a quasi two-dimensional geometry in the lab, the study of fish and bird swarms in nature must typically consider three-dimensional textures. An exception are linear string-like and V-shaped arrangements (skeins) of, e.g., migrating geese, the structure and dynamics of which was recorded and analyzed [@hayakawa2010spatiotemporal; @hayakawa2012group]. To empirically study real three-dimensional flocks of birds, however, new tools had to be developed to effectively reconstruct the individual positions within the swarm from recorded two-dimensional image data [@cavagna2008starflag1; @cavagna2008starflag2; @cavagna2013diffusion]. In contrast to the observations made for fish, starling swarms were denser at their outer boundary than in the center [@ballerini2008empirical; @cavagna2013diffusion] without a systematic front-back asymmetry [@ballerini2008empirical]. A correlation between the density and number of individuals in the swarm could not be identified [@ballerini2008empirical]. On average, the probability to find a nearest-neighboring bird in the direction of motion was markedly depleted compared to other directions [@ballerini2008empirical; @ballerini2008interaction]. Maybe most importantly, the interactions between the individuals were observed to follow topological rather than metric rules [@ballerini2008interaction; @bialek2012statistical]: the interactions occur with a fixed number of nearest neighbors instead of all neighbors within a fixed interaction distance. Qualitative differences arise from this subtlety, for example the swarms are more cohesive under predator attacks [@ballerini2008interaction]. Furthermore, in the famous Vicsek model [@vicsek1995novel], a change to non-metric topological interactions renders the order-disorder transition for collective motion continuous, without the emergence of density bands [@ginelli2010relevance]. This example demonstrates the importance of intensified recording and comparing to empirical data – a task that is highly non-trivial for such complex systems as animal swarms.
Conclusions
===========
In the above, we took a tour through various subtopics concerning the physics of soft matter out of its equilibrium ground state. The field of soft matter has grown far too broad for all its aspects to be touched in such a brief account. Only selected issues could be included. We were guided by two central aspects characteristic for soft matter systems: they typically show large responses to external stimuli; and they are easily driven out of equilibrium. The degree of non-equilibrium served to order the different topics, where in each case we considered systems of increasing complexity.
Static external fields can switch the state of a system from its initial equilibrium ground state to a new static equilibrium state. We considered external electric fields that reorient the director in cells of low-molecular-weight liquid crystals as well as in swollen or prestretched liquid crystalline elastomers. In the latter materials, also mechanical fields can be applied to change the director orientation. Furthermore, the electric fields can induce mechanical deformations in swollen liquid crystalline elastomers, which makes these materials candidates for the use as soft actuators. The same is true for ferrogels or magnetic elastomers when they are exposed to external magnetic fields. Apart from that, the external fields can be used to tune the mechanical properties. For example, the elastic moduli can be reversibly adjusted in a non-invasive way by applying an external field.
After that, we addressed externally imposed shear flows that lead to steady and dynamic states of motion. In such shear flows, the director of nematic liquid crystals can be observed to “flow align”, i.e. to take a steady inclination angle with respect to the flow within the shear plane; it can oscillate in a “wagging” motion; or it can describe continuous full “tumbling” rotations. In certain cases, these states can also be observed successively with decreasing shear rate. Orientational effects under shear are further found in bulk-filling, but spatially periodically modulated systems. We considered the example of micro-phase-separated block copolymer melts or solutions. Especially under large-amplitude oscillatory shear, reorientations of the structures with respect to the shear directions occur as a function of the shear rate and amplitude. Furthermore, for localized objects such as vesicles that are composed of closed bilayer membranes a picture similar to the one for the director of nematic liquid crystals emerges under steady shear flow. The steady state of constant inclination angle is called “tank-treading”, with the bilayer membrane running around the interior of the vesicle; an oscillating inclination angle is referred to as “swinging”, “trembling”, or “vacillating breathing”; and, again, full rotations occur in the “tumbling” mode. A non-vanishing viscosity contrast between the liquid on the inside and on the outside of the vesicle is necessary to obtain these states successively with decreasing shear rate.
Finally, we turned to systems composed of constituents that themselves are considered to be active. They feature a mechanism of self-propulsion and possibly also of active rotations. Our focus was on the collective non-equilibrium states arising from the interactions between these constituents. Examples are ordered collective motion, traveling density bands, laning, resting and traveling crystals, or non-equilibrium clustering. We increased the complexity from point-like particles to finitely-sized objects including steric interactions; from particles propelling with constant velocity to those featuring a constant strength of active drive; from dry systems to those interacting hydrodynamically; from rigid particles to those being deformable; and, eventually, by briefly addressing recent studies on living creatures. Quite remarkably, basic aspects, such as the formation of flocks of individuals that order their migration directions at high enough density, can be found on all levels of complexity. This supports the idea that it is possible to develop basic underlying concepts and systematic methods to describe also such kinds of genuinely non-equilibrium systems.
As a concluding remark, we would like to append a central argument in favor of this field. Although often emerging from topics of daily life or biology, many of its subareas are relatively young. The boundaries are rapidly being pushed forward, thus continuously providing new interesting problems of research. Far from equilibrium, i.e. inherently for active systems, the tools of understanding still need to be established, although often an intuitive picture can straightforwardly be developed. Therefore, especially for young researchers, soft matter physics provides a promising opportunity in a meanwhile well-recognized environment.
Acknowledgments
===============
In the first place, the author thanks Hartmut Löwen for his continuous support. Apart from him, the author thanks Takeaki Araki, Günter Auernhammer, Stefan Bohlius, Alexander Böker, Dmitry Borin, Helmut Brand, Peet Cremer, Burkhard Dünweg, Heino Finkelmann, Paul Goldbart, Nigel Goldenfeld, Steve Granick, Hisao Hayakawa, Marco Heinen, Sascha Hilgenfeldt, Christian Holm, Jürgen Horbach, Thomas Ihle, Shoichi Kai, Andreas Kaiser, Toshihiro Kawakatsu, Ken Nagai, Stefan Odenbach, Takao Ohta, Yoshitsugu Oono, Harald Pleiner, Miha Ravnik, Eric Roeben, Lisa Roeder, Takahiro Sakaue, Masaki Sano, Annette Schmidt, Matthias Schmidt, Michael Schmiedeberg, Maksim Sipos, Thomas Speck, Torsten Stühn, Daniel Svenšek, Yuka Tabe, Kazumasa Takeuchi, Mitsusuke Tarama, Nariya Uchida, Kenji Urayama, Axel Voigt, Hirofumi Wada, Bo Wang, Rudolf Weeber, Rik Wensink, Fangfu Ye, Natsuhiko Yoshinaga, and many others for scientific discussions and interactions. Over the past years, support leading to the above presentation was received from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through the FOR 608 “Nonlinear dynamics of complex continua”, a DFG research fellowship, the Japanese-German core-to-core collaboration program “Non-equilibrium phenomena in Soft Matter”, the SPP 1681 “Feldgesteuerte Partikel-Matrix-Wechselwirkungen: Erzeugung, skalenübergreifende Modellierung und Anwendung magnetischer Hybridmaterialien”, and the SPP 1726 “Microswimmers – from single particle motion to collective behavior”.
References
==========
[100]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
M. Doi, Soft Matter Physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.
L. R. G. Treloar, The Physics of Rubber Elasticity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1975.
G. Strobl, The Physics of Polymers, Springer, Berlin, 2007.
J.-P. Hansen, I. R. McDonald, Theory of Simple Liquids, Academic Press, San Diego, 2006.
P. G. De Gennes, J. Prost, The Physics of Liquid Crystals, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.
J. K. G. Dhont, An Introduction to Dynamics of Colloids, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1996.
T. Palberg, Crystallization kinetics of repulsive colloidal spheres, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 11 (28) (1999) R323–R360.
A. Ivlev, H. L[ö]{}wen, G. Morfill, C. P. Royall, Complex plasmas and colloidal dispersions, World Scientific, Singapore, 2012.
T. A. Witten, P. A. Pincus, Structured Fluids: Polymers, Colloids, Surfactants, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
R. A. L. Jones, Soft Condensed Matter, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
H. H. Hub, U. Zimmermann, H. Ringsdorf, Preparation of large unilamellar vesicles, FEBS Lett. 140 (2) (1982) 254–256.
P. Mueller, T. F. Chien, B. Rudy, Formation and properties of cell-size lipid bilayer vesicles, Biophys. J. 44 (3) (1983) 375–381.
Y. Sakuma, M. Imai, Model system of self-reproducing vesicles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (19) (2011) 198101.
M. Doi, S. F. Edwards, The Theory of Polymer Dynamics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.
I. W. Hamley, The Physics of Block Copolymers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.
A. Walther, A. H. E. M[ü]{}ller, Janus particles, Soft Matter 4 (4) (2008) 663–668.
Q. Chen, J. Yan, J. Zhang, S. C. Bae, S. Granick, Janus and multiblock colloidal particles, Langmuir 28 (38) (2012) 13555–13561.
S. Jiang, Q. Chen, M. Tripathy, E. Luijten, K. S. Schweizer, S. Granick, Janus particle synthesis and assembly, Adv. Mater. 22 (10) (2010) 1060–1071.
R. M. Harshey, Bacterial motility on a surface: many ways to a common goal, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 57 (1) (2003) 249–273.
N. C. Darnton, L. Turner, S. Rojevsky, H. C. Berg, On torque and tumbling in swimming scherichia coli, J. Bacteriol. 189 (5) (2007) 1756–1764.
D. B. Kearns, A field guide to bacterial swarming motility, Nature Rev. Microbiol. 8 (9) (2010) 634–644.
I. W. Hamley, Introduction to Soft Matter, Wiley, Cichester, 2007.
P. G. de Gennes, Scaling Concepts in Polymer Physics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1979.
R. G. Larson, The Structure and Rheology of Complex Fluids, Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.
P.-G. de Gennes, Soft matter (nobel lecture), Angew. Chem. Int. Edit. 31 (7) (1992) 842–845.
H. Kawamoto, The history of liquid-crystal displays, P. IEEE 90 (4) (2002) 460–500.
V. Percec, M. Kawasumi, Liquid-crystalline polyethers based on conformational isomerism, Macromolecules 24 (23) (1991) 6318–6324.
H. Finkelmann, H. Ringsdorf, J. H. Wendorff, Model considerations and examples of enantiotropic liquid crystalline polymers, Makromol. Chem. 179 (1) (1978) 273–276.
H. Finkelmann, H.-J. Kock, G. Rehage, Liquid crystalline elastomers – a new type of liquid crystalline material, Makromol. Chem. Rapid Commun. 2 (1981) 317–322.
G. H. F. Bergmann, H. Finkelmann, Liquid-crystalline main-chain elastomers, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 18 (1997) 353–360.
H. Finkelmann, H. R. Brand, Liquid crystal elastomers – a class of materials with novel properties, Trends Polym. Sci. 2 (7) (1994) 222–226.
C. H. Legge, F. J. Davis, G. R. Mitchell, Memory effects in liquid crystal elastomers, J. Phys. II France 1 (10) (1991) 1253–1261.
G. R. Mitchell, F. J. Davis, W. Guo, Strain-induced transitions in liquid-crystal elastomers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (18) (1993) 2947–2950.
D. Rogez, F. Br[ö]{}mmel, H. Finkelmann, P. Martinoty, Influence of swelling on the shear mechanical properties of monodomain side-chain liquid-crystal elastomers: aussian versus non-aussian elasticity, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 212 (24) (2011) 2667–2673.
K. Urayama, S. Honda, T. Takigawa, Electrooptical effects with anisotropic deformation in nematic gels, Macromolecules 38 (9) (2005) 3574–3576.
A. Komp, J. R[ü]{}he, H. Finkelmann, A versatile preparation route for thin free-standing liquid single crystal elastomers, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 26 (10) (2005) 813–818.
K. Urayama, R. Mashita, I. Kobayashi, T. Takigawa, Stretching-induced director rotation in thin films of liquid crystal elastomers with homeotropic alignment, Macromolecules 40 (21) (2007) 7665–7670.
J. K[ü]{}pfer, H. Finkelmann, Nematic liquid single crystal elastomers, Makromol. Chem., Rapid Commun. 12 (12) (1991) 717–726.
J. K[ü]{}pfer, H. Finkelmann, Liquid crystal elastomers: influence of the orientational distribution of the crosslinks on the phase behaviour and reorientation process, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 195 (1994) 1353–1367.
K. Urayama, S. Honda, T. Takigawa, Slow dynamics of shape recovery of disordered nematic elastomers, Phys. Rev. E 74 (4) (2006) 041709.
K. Urayama, E. Kohmon, M. Kojima, T. Takigawa, Polydomain-monodomain transition of randomly disordered nematic elastomers with different cross-linking histories, Macromolecules 42 (12) (2009) 4084–4089.
H. Finkelmann, S. T. Kim, A. Muñoz, P. Palffy-Muhoray, B. Taheri, Tunable mirrorless lasing in cholesteric liquid crystalline elastomers, Adv. Mater. 13 (14) (2001) 1069–1072.
J. Schmidtke, S. Kniesel, H. Finkelmann, Probing the photonic properties of a cholesteric elastomer under biaxial stress, Macromolecules 38 (4) (2005) 1357–1363.
I. Kundler, H. Finkelmann, Strain-induced director reorientation in nematic liquid single crystal elastomers, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 16 (9) (1995) 679–686.
P. M. S. Roberts, G. R. Mitchell, F. J. Davis, A single director switching mode for monodomain liquid crystal elastomers, J. Phys. II France 7 (10) (1997) 1337–1351.
I. Kundler, H. Finkelmann, Director reorientation via stripe-domains in nematic elastomers: influence of cross-link density, anisotropy of the network and smectic clusters, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 199 (1998) 677–686.
S. Krause, F. Zander, G. Bergmann, H. Brandt, H. Wermter, H. Finkelmann, Nematic main-chain elastomers: coupling and orientational behavior, C. R. Chimie 12 (1) (2009) 85–104.
Y. Yusuf, Y. Ono, Y. Sumisaki, P. E. Cladis, H. R. Brand, H. Finkelmann, S. Kai, Swelling dynamics of liquid crystal elastomers swollen with low molecular weight liquid crystals, Phys. Rev. E 69 (2) (2004) 021710.
K. Urayama, H. Kondo, Y. O. Arai, T. Takigawa, Electrically driven deformations of nematic gels, Phys. Rev. E 71 (5) (2005) 051713.
Y. Yusuf, J.-H. Huh, P. E. Cladis, H. R. Brand, H. Finkelmann, S. Kai, Low-voltage-driven electromechanical effects of swollen liquid-crystal elastomers, Phys. Rev. E 71 (6) (2005) 061702.
K. Urayama, R. Mashita, Y. O. Arai, T. Takigawa, Swelling and shrinking dynamics of nematic elastomers having global director orientation, Macromolecules 39 (24) (2006) 8511–8516.
K. Urayama, S. Honda, T. Takigawa, Deformation coupled to director rotation in swollen nematic elastomers under electric fields, Macromolecules 39 (5) (2006) 1943–1949.
D. Cho, Y. Yusuf, S. Hashimoto, P. E. Cladis, H. R. Brand, H. Finkelmann, S. Kai, Electrooptical effects of swollen polydomain liquid crystal elastomers, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 75 (8) (2006) 083711.
K. Urayama, Selected issues in liquid crystal elastomers and gels, Macromolecules 40 (7) (2007) 2277–2288.
D. Cho, Y. Yusuf, P. E. Cladis, H. R. Brand, H. Finkelmann, S. Kai, Trifunctionally cross-linked liquid single crystal elastomers: swelling dynamics and electromechanical effects, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 1 46 (3A) (2007) 1106–1113.
A. Fukunaga, K. Urayama, T. Takigawa, A. DeSimone, L. Teresi, Dynamics of electro-opto-mechanical effects in swollen nematic elastomers, Macromolecules 41 (23) (2008) 9389–9396.
S. Hashimoto, Y. Yusuf, S. Krause, H. Finkelmann, P. E. Cladis, H. R. Brand, S. Kai, Multifunctional liquid crystal elastomers: large electromechanical and electro-optical effects, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92 (18) (2008) 181902.
A. M. Menzel, H. Pleiner, H. R. Brand, Response of prestretched nematic elastomers to external fields, Eur. Phys. J. E 30 (4) (2009) 371–377.
H. Finkelmann, E. Nishikawa, G. G. Pereira, M. Warner, A new opto-mechanical effect in solids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (1) (2001) 015501.
A. S[á]{}nchez-Ferrer, A. Merekalov, H. Finkelmann, Opto-mechanical effect in photoactive nematic side-chain liquid-crystalline elastomers, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 32 (8) (2011) 671–678.
Y. Yusuf, P. E. Cladis, H. R. Brand, H. Finkelmann, S. Kai, Hystereses of volume changes in liquid single crystal elastomers swollen with low molecular weight liquid crystal, Chem. Phys. Lett. 389 (4) (2004) 443–448.
D.-U. Cho, Y. Yusuf, P. E. Cladis, H. R. Brand, H. Finkelmann, S. Kai, Thermo-mechanical properties of tri-functionally crosslinked liquid single crystal elastomers, Chem. Phys. Lett. 418 (1) (2006) 217–222.
Y. Sawa, K. Urayama, T. Takigawa, A. DeSimone, L. Teresi, Thermally driven giant bending of liquid crystal elastomer films with hybrid alignment, Macromolecules 43 (9) (2010) 4362–4369.
E.-K. Fleischmann, H.-L. Liang, N. Kapernaum, F. Giesselmann, J. Lagerwall, R. Zentel, One-piece micropumps from liquid crystalline core-shell particles, Nature Commun. 3 (2012) 1178.
M. H[é]{}bert, R. Kant, P.-G. de Gennes, Dynamics and thermodynamics of artificial muscles based on nematic gels, J. Phys. I France 7 (7) (1997) 909–919.
Y. Yu, T. Ikeda, Soft actuators based on liquid-crystalline elastomers, Angew. Chem. Int. Edit. 45 (33) (2006) 5416–5418.
C. Ohm, M. Brehmer, R. Zentel, Liquid crystalline elastomers as actuators and sensors, Adv. Mater. 22 (31) (2010) 3366–3387.
H. Yang, G. Ye, X. Wang, P. Keller, Micron-sized liquid crystalline elastomer actuators, Soft Matter 7 (3) (2011) 815–823.
H. Jiang, C. Li, X. Huang, Actuators based on liquid crystalline elastomer materials, Nanoscale 5 (12) (2013) 5225–5240.
H. Wermter, H. Finkelmann, Liquid crystalline elastomers as artificial muscles, e-Polymers 1 (1) (2001) 111–123.
M. Warner, E. M. Terentjev, Liquid crystal elastomers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.
X. Xing, S. Pfahl, S. Mukhopadhyay, P. M. Goldbart, A. Zippelius, Nematic elastomers: from a microscopic model to macroscopic elasticity theory, Phys. Rev. E 77 (5) (2008) 051802.
P. G. de Gennes, Weak nematic gels, in: W. Helfrich, G. Heppke (Eds.), Liquid Crystals of One- and Two-Dimensional Order, Springer, Berlin, 1980, pp. 231–237.
H. R. Brand, H. Pleiner, Electrohydrodynamics of nematic liquid crystalline elastomers, Physica A 208 (3–4) (1994) 359–372.
T. C. Lubensky, R. Mukhopadhyay, L. Radzihovsky, X. Xing, Symmetries and elasticity of nematic gels, Phys. Rev. E 66 (1) (2002) 011702.
O. M[ü]{}ller, H. R. Brand, Undulation versus rederiks instability in nematic elastomers in an external electric field, Eur. Phys. J. E 17 (1) (2005) 53–62.
A. M. Menzel, H. R. Brand, Rotatoelectricity in cholesteric side-chain liquid single crystal elastomers, J. Chem. Phys. 125 (19) (2006) 194704.
A. M. Menzel, H. R. Brand, Cholesteric elastomers in external mechanical and electric fields, Phys. Rev. E 75 (1) (2007) 011707.
A. M. Menzel, H. R. Brand, Instabilities in nematic elastomers in external electric and magnetic fields, Eur. Phys. J. E 26 (3) (2008) 235–249.
F. Ye, R. Mukhopadhyay, O. Stenull, T. C. Lubensky, Semisoft nematic elastomers and nematics in crossed electric and magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (14) (2007) 147801.
A. M. Menzel, H. Pleiner, H. R. Brand, Nonlinear relative rotations in liquid crystalline elastomers, J. Chem. Phys. 126 (2007) 234901.
A. M. Menzel, H. Pleiner, H. R. Brand, On the nonlinear stress-strain behavior of nematic elastomers – materials of two coupled preferred directions, J. Appl. Phys. 105 (1) (2009) 013503.
F. Ye, T. C. Lubensky, Phase diagrams of semisoft nematic elastomers, J. Phys. Chem. B 113 (12) (2009) 3853–3872.
G. Filipcsei, I. Csetneki, A. Szil[á]{}gyi, M. Zrínyi, Magnetic field-responsive smart polymer composites, Adv. Polym. Sci. 206 (2007) 137–189.
R. E. Rosensweig, Ferrohydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.
S. Odenbach (Ed.), Ferrofluids, Vol. 594 of Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Berlin, 2002.
S. Odenbach, Ferrofluids – magnetically controlled suspensions, Colloid Surface A 217 (1–3) (2003) 171–178.
S. Odenbach, Magnetoviscous effects in ferrofluids, Springer, Berlin, 2003.
B. Huke, M. L[ü]{}cke, Magnetic properties of colloidal suspensions of interacting magnetic particles, Rep. Prog. Phys. 67 (10) (2004) 1731–1768.
S. Odenbach, Recent progress in magnetic fluid research, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16 (2004) R1135–R1150.
B. Fischer, B. Huke, M. L[ü]{}cke, R. Hempelmann, Brownian relaxation of magnetic colloids, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 289 (2005) 74–77.
P. Ilg, M. Kr[ö]{}ger, S. Hess, Structure and rheology of model-ferrofluids under shear flow, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 289 (2005) 325–327.
S. H. L. Klapp, Dipolar fluids under external perturbations, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 (15) (2005) R525–R550.
C. Holm, J.-J. Weis, The structure of ferrofluids: a status report, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 10 (3–4) (2005) 133–140.
J. P. Embs, S. May, C. Wagner, A. V. Kityk, A. Leschhorn, M. L[ü]{}cke, Measuring the transverse magnetization of rotating ferrofluids, Phys. Rev. E 73 (3) (2006) 036302.
P. Ilg, E. Coquelle, S. Hess, Structure and rheology of ferrofluids: simulation results and kinetic models, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18 (38) (2006) S2757–S2770.
C. Gollwitzer, G. Matthies, R. Richter, I. Rehberg, L. Tobiska, The surface topography of a magnetic fluid: a quantitative comparison between experiment and numerical simulation, J. Fluid Mech. 571 (2007) 455–474.
J. de Vicente, D. J. Klingenberg, R. Hidalgo-Alvarez, Magnetorheological fluids: a review, Soft Matter 7 (8) (2011) 3701–3710.
J.-P. Jolivet, [É]{}. Tronc, C. Chan[é]{}ac, Synthesis of iron oxide-based magnetic nanomaterials and composites, C. R. Chimie 5 (10) (2002) 659–664.
C. Garcia, Y. Zhang, F. DiSalvo, U. Wiesner, Mesoporous aluminosilicate materials with superparamagnetic $\gamma$-e$_2$$_3$ particles embedded in the walls, Angew. Chem. Int. Edit. 42 (13) (2003) 1526–1530.
J. Yuan, Y. Xu, A. H. E. M[ü]{}ller, One-dimensional magnetic inorganic-organic hybrid nanomaterials, Chem. Soc. Rev. 40 (2) (2011) 640–655.
S. Sarkar, E. Guibal, F. Quignard, A. K. SenGupta, Polymer-supported metals and metal oxide nanoparticles: synthesis, characterization, and applications, J. Nanopart. Res. 14 (2) (2012) 1–24.
J. Kao, K. Thorkelsson, P. Bai, B. J. Rancatore, T. Xu, Toward functional nanocomposites: taking the best of nanoparticles, polymers, and small molecules, Chem. Soc. Rev. 42 (2013) 2654–2678.
R. Messing, N. Frickel, L. Belkoura, R. Strey, H. Rahn, S. Odenbach, A. M. Schmidt, Cobalt ferrite nanoparticles as multifunctional cross-linkers in m ferrohydrogels, Macromolecules 44 (8) (2011) 2990–2999.
N. Frickel, R. Messing, A. M. Schmidt, Magneto-mechanical coupling in oe$_2$$_4$-linked m ferrohydrogels, J. Mater. Chem. 21 (23) (2011) 8466–8474.
L. Néel, Théorie du traînage magnétique des ferromagnétiques en grains fins avec application aux terres cuites, Ann. Géophys. 5 (2) (1949) 99–136.
W. T. Coffey, P. J. Cregg, Y. P. Kalmykov, On the theory of ebye and éel relaxation of single domain ferromagnetic particles, Adv. Chem. Phys. 83 (1993) 263–464.
J. Frenkel, J. Dorfman, Spontaneous and induced magnetisation in ferromagnetic bodies, Nature 126 (3173) (1930) 274–275.
W. F. Brown Jr., The fundamental theorem of fine-ferromagnetic-particle theory, J. Appl. Phys. 39 (2) (1968) 993–994.
A. Aharoni, Elongated single-domain ferromagnetic particles, J. Appl. Phys. 63 (12) (1988) 5879–5882.
E. Seynaeve, G. Rens, A. V. Volodin, K. Temst, C. Van Haesendonck, Y. Bruynseraede, Transition from a single-domain to a multidomain state in mesoscopic ferromagnetic o structures, J. Appl. Phys. 89 (1) (2001) 531–534.
R. Hergt, S. Dutz, R. M[ü]{}ller, M. Zeisberger, Magnetic particle hyperthermia: nanoparticle magnetism and materials development for cancer therapy, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18 (38) (2006) S2919–S2934.
K. Raj, R. Moskowitz, Commercial applications of ferrofluids, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 85 (1) (1990) 233–245.
K. Raj, B. Moskowitz, R. Casciari, Advances in ferrofluid technology, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 149 (1) (1995) 174–180.
R. E. Rosensweig, R. Kaiser, G. Miskolczy, Viscosity of magnetic fluid in a magnetic field, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 29 (4) (1969) 680–686.
J. P. McTague, Magnetoviscosity of magnetic colloids, J. Chem. Phys. 51 (1) (1969) 133–136.
A. Y. Zubarev, S. Odenbach, J. Fleischer, Rheological properties of dense ferrofluids. ffect of chain-like aggregates, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 252 (2002) 241–243.
S. Thurm, S. Odenbach, Magnetic separation of ferrofluids, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 252 (2002) 247–249.
S. Odenbach, S. Thurm, Magnetoviscous effects in ferrofluids, in: S. Odenbach (Ed.), Ferrofluids, Vol. 594 of Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, Berlin, 2002, pp. 185–201.
S. Thurm, S. Odenbach, Particle size distribution as key parameter for the flow behavior of ferrofluids, Phys. Fluids 15 (6) (2003) 1658–1664.
L. M. Pop, J. Hilljegerdes, S. Odenbach, A. Wiedenmann, The microstructure of ferrofluids and their rheological properties, Appl. Organometal. Chem. 18 (10) (2004) 523–528.
P. Ilg, M. Kr[ö]{}ger, S. Hess, Anisotropy of the magnetoviscous effect in ferrofluids, Phys. Rev. E 71 (5) (2005) 051201.
L. M. Pop, S. Odenbach, Investigation of the microscopic reason for the magnetoviscous effect in ferrofluids studied by small angle neutron scattering, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18 (38) (2006) S2785–S2802.
L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Theory of Elasticity, Elsevier, Oxford, 1986.
H.-X. Deng, X.-L. Gong, L.-H. Wang, Development of an adaptive tuned vibration absorber with magnetorheological elastomer, Smart Mater. Struct. 15 (5) (2006) N111–N116.
G. V. Stepanov, S. S. Abramchuk, D. A. Grishin, L. V. Nikitin, E. Y. Kramarenko, A. R. Khokhlov, Effect of a homogeneous magnetic field on the viscoelastic behavior of magnetic elastomers, Polymer 48 (2) (2007) 488–495.
L. Chen, X.-L. Gong, W.-Q. Jiang, J.-J. Yao, H.-X. Deng, W.-H. Li, Investigation on magnetorheological elastomers based on natural rubber, J. Mater. Sci. 42 (14) (2007) 5483–5489.
H. B[ö]{}se, R. R[ö]{}der, Magnetorheological elastomers with high variability of their mechanical properties, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 149 (1) (2009) 012090.
B. A. Evans, B. L. Fiser, W. J. Prins, D. J. Rapp, A. R. Shields, D. R. Glass, R. Superfine, A highly tunable silicone-based magnetic elastomer with nanoscale homogeneity, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 324 (4) (2012) 501–507.
D. Y. Borin, G. V. Stepanov, S. Odenbach, Tuning the tensile modulus of magnetorheological elastomers with magnetically hard powder, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 412 (1) (2013) 012040.
T. L. Sun, X. L. Gong, W. Q. Jiang, J. F. Li, Z. B. Xu, W. Li, Study on the damping properties of magnetorheological elastomers based on cis-polybutadiene rubber, Polym. Test. 27 (4) (2008) 520–526.
D. Ivaneyko, V. P. Toshchevikov, M. Saphiannikova, G. Heinrich, Magneto-sensitive elastomers in a homogeneous magnetic field: a regular rectangular lattice model, Macromol. Theor. Simul. 20 (6) (2011) 411–424.
D. Ivaneyko, V. Toshchevikov, M. Saphiannikova, G. Heinrich, Effects of particle distribution on mechanical properties of magneto-sensitive elastomers in a homogeneous magnetic field, Condens. Matter Phys. 15 (3) (2012) 33601.
D. Ivaneyko, V. Toshchevikov, M. Saphiannikova, G. Heinrich, Mechanical properties of magneto-sensitive elastomers: unification of the continuum-mechanics and microscopic theoretical approaches, Soft Matter 10 (2014) 2213–2225.
D. Collin, G. K. Auernhammer, O. Gavat, P. Martinoty, H. R. Brand, Frozen-in magnetic order in uniaxial magnetic gels: preparation and physical properties, Macromol. Rapid Commun. 24 (12) (2003) 737–741.
Z. Varga, J. Fehér, G. Filipcsei, M. Zr[í]{}nyi, Smart nanocomposite polymer gels, Macromol. Symp. 200 (1) (2003) 93–100.
D. G[ü]{}nther, D. Y. Borin, S. G[ü]{}nther, S. Odenbach, X-ray micro-tomographic characterization of field-structured magnetorheological elastomers, Smart Mater. Struct. 21 (1) (2012) 015005.
T. Borb[á]{}th, S. G[ü]{}nther, D. Y. Borin, T. Gundermann, S. Odenbach, X$\mu$ analysis of magnetic field-induced phase transitions in magnetorheological elastomers, Smart Mater. Struct. 21 (10) (2012) 105018.
T. Gundermann, S. G[ü]{}nther, D. Borin, S. Odenbach, A comparison between micro- and macro-structure of magnetoactive composites, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 412 (1) (2013) 012027.
D. S. Wood, P. J. Camp, Modeling the properties of ferrogels in uniform magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. E 83 (1) (2011) 011402.
P. J. Camp, The effects of magnetic fields on the properties of ferrofluids and ferrogels, Magnetohydrodyn. 47 (2) (2011) 123–128.
G. Pessot, P. Cremer, D. Y. Borin, S. Odenbach, H. Löwen, A. M. Menzel, Structural control of elastic moduli in ferrogels and the importance of non-affine deformations, J. Chem. Phys. 141 (12) (2014) 124904.
Y. Han, W. Hong, L. E. Faidley, Field-stiffening effect of magneto-rheological elastomers, Int. J. Solids Struct. 50 (14–15) (2013) 2281–2288.
M. A. Annunziata, A. M. Menzel, H. L[ö]{}wen, Hardening transition in a one-dimensional model for ferrogels, J. Chem. Phys. 138 (20) (2013) 204906.
P. A. Sánchez, J. J. Cerdà, T. Sintes, C. Holm, Effects of the dipolar interaction on the equilibrium morphologies of a single supramolecular magnetic filament in bulk, J. Chem. Phys. 139 (4) (2013) 044904.
J. J. Cerd[à]{}, P. A. S[á]{}nchez, C. Holm, T. Sintes, Phase diagram for a single flexible tockmayer polymer at zero field, Soft Matter 9 (29) (2013) 7185–7195.
O. V. Stolbov, Y. L. Raikher, M. Balasoiu, Modelling of magnetodipolar striction in soft magnetic elastomers, Soft Matter 7 (18) (2011) 8484–8487.
A. Y. Zubarev, Effect of chain-like aggregates on ferrogel magnetodeformation, Soft Matter 9 (20) (2013) 4985–4992.
X. Guan, X. Dong, J. Ou, Magnetostrictive effect of magnetorheological elastomer, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 320 (3–4) (2008) 158–163.
X. Gong, G. Liao, S. Xuan, Full-field deformation of magnetorheological elastomer under uniform magnetic field, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100 (21) (2012) 211909.
A. Y. Zubarev, On the theory of the magnetic deformation of ferrogels, Soft Matter 8 (11) (2012) 3174–3179.
A. Zubarev, Magnetodeformation of ferrogels and ferroelastomers. ffect of microstructure of the particles’ spatial disposition, Physica A 392 (20) (2013) 4824–4836.
E. Allahyarov, A. M. Menzel, L. Zhu, H. Löwen, Magnetomechanical response of bilayered magnetic elastomers, Smart Mater. Struct. 23 (11) (2014) 115004.
M. Zr[í]{}nyi, L. Barsi, A. B[ü]{}ki, Deformation of ferrogels induced by nonuniform magnetic fields, J. Chem. Phys. 104 (21) (1996) 8750–8756.
M. Zrínyi, L. Barsi, D. Szab[ó]{}, H.-G. Kilian, Direct observation of abrupt shape transition in ferrogels induced by nonuniform magnetic field, J. Chem. Phys. 106 (13) (1997) 5685.
K. Zimmermann, V. A. Naletova, I. Zeidis, V. B[ö]{}hm, E. Kolev, Modelling of locomotion systems using deformable magnetizable media, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18 (38) (2006) S2973–S2983.
M. Zrínyi, Intelligent polymer gels controlled by magnetic fields, Colloid Polym. Sci. 278 (2) (2000) 98–103.
E. Jarkova, H. Pleiner, H.-W. Müller, H. R. Brand, Hydrodynamics of isotropic ferrogels, Phys. Rev. E 68 (4) (2003) 041706.
S. Bohlius, H. R. Brand, H. Pleiner, Macroscopic dynamics of uniaxial magnetic gels, Phys. Rev. E 70 (6) (2004) 061411.
M. Tarama, P. Cremer, D. Y. Borin, S. Odenbach, H. Löwen, A. M. Menzel, Tunable dynamic response of magnetic gels: impact of structural properties and magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. E 90 (4) (2014) 042311.
D. Szabó, G. Szeghy, M. Zrínyi, Shape transition of magnetic field sensitive polymer gels, Macromolecules 31 (19) (1998) 6541–6548.
R. V. Ramanujan, L. L. Lao, The mechanical behavior of smart magnet-hydrogel composites, Smart Mater. Struct. 15 (4) (2006) 952–956.
T.-Y. Liu, S.-H. Hu, T.-Y. Liu, D.-M. Liu, S.-Y. Chen, Magnetic-sensitive behavior of intelligent ferrogels for controlled release of drug, Langmuir 22 (14) (2006) 5974–5978.
C. S. Brazel, Magnetothermally-responsive nanomaterials: combining magnetic nanostructures and thermally-sensitive polymers for triggered drug release, Pharm. Res. 26 (3) (2009) 644–656.
A. Jordan, R. Scholz, P. Wust, H. F[ä]{}hling, R. Felix, Magnetic fluid hyperthermia (mfh): cancer treatment with magnetic field induced excitation of biocompatible superparamagnetic nanoparticles, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 201 (1) (1999) 413–419.
M. Babincov[á]{}, D. Leszczynska, P. Sourivong, P. [Č]{}i[č]{}manec, P. Babinec, Superparamagnetic gel as a novel material for electromagnetically induced hyperthermia, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 225 (1) (2001) 109–112.
L. L. Lao, R. V. Ramanujan, Magnetic and hydrogel composite materials for hyperthermia applications, J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med. 15 (10) (2004) 1061–1064.
N. Frickel, R. Messing, T. Gelbrich, A. M. Schmidt, Functional silanes as surface modifying primers for the preparation of highly stable and well-defined magnetic polymer hybrids, Langmuir 26 (4) (2009) 2839–2846.
R. Weeber, S. Kantorovich, C. Holm, Deformation mechanisms in 2d magnetic gels studied by computer simulations, Soft Matter 8 (2012) 9923–9932.
L. Roeder, P. Bender, A. Tsch[ö]{}pe, R. Birringer, A. M. Schmidt, Shear modulus determination in model hydrogels by means of elongated magnetic nanoprobes, J. Polym. Sci. Pol. Phys. 50 (24) (2012) 1772–1781.
H. R. Brand, P. Martinoty, H. Pleiner, Physical properties of magnetic gels, in: D. Broer, G. Crawford, S. Zumer (Eds.), Cross-linked liquid crystalline systems: from rigid polymer networks to elastomers, The liquid crystals book series, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, 2011, pp. 529–563.
M. Camacho-Lopez, H. Finkelmann, P. Palffy-Muhoray, M. Shelley, Fast liquid-crystal elastomer swims into the dark, Nature Mater. 3 (5) (2004) 307–310.
C. L. van Oosten, C. W. M. Bastiaansen, D. J. Broer, Printed artificial cilia from liquid-crystal network actuators modularly driven by light, Nature Mater. 8 (8) (2009) 677–682.
C. Brennen, H. Winet, Fluid mechanics of propulsion by cilia and flagella, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 9 (1) (1977) 339–398.
R. Dreyfus, J. Baudry, M. L. Roper, M. Fermigier, H. A. Stone, J. Bibette, Microscopic artificial swimmers, Nature 437 (7060) (2005) 862–865.
K. Kruse, J. F. Joanny, F. J[ü]{}licher, J. Prost, K. Sekimoto, Asters, vortices, and rotating spirals in active gels of polar filaments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (7) (2004) 078101.
K. Kruse, J. F. Joanny, F. J[ü]{}licher, J. Prost, K. Sekimoto, Generic theory of active polar gels: a paradigm for cytoskeletal dynamics, Eur. Phys. J. E 16 (1) (2005) 5–16.
F. Jülicher, K. Kruse, J. Prost, J.-F. Joanny, Active behavior of the cytoskeleton, Phys. Rep. 449 (1–3) (2007) 3–28.
A. E. Carlsson, Mechanisms of cell propulsion by active stresses, New J. Phys. 13 (7) (2011) 073009.
P. Recho, T. Putelat, L. Truskinovsky, Contraction-driven cell motility, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (10) (2013) 108102.
P. Recho, J.-F. Joanny, L. Truskinovsky, Optimality of contraction-driven crawling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (21) (2014) 218101.
B. Wang, S. M. Anthony, S. C. Bae, S. Granick, Anomalous yet rownian, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (36) (2009) 15160–15164.
B. Wang, J. Kuo, S. C. Bae, S. Granick, When rownian diffusion is not aussian, Nature Mater. 11 (6) (2012) 481–485.
C. S. Peskin, G. M. Odell, G. F. Oster, Cellular motions and thermal fluctuations: the rownian ratchet, Biophys. J. 65 (1) (1993) 316–324.
L. P. Faucheux, L. S. Bourdieu, P. D. Kaplan, A. J. Libchaber, Optical thermal ratchet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (9) (1995) 1504–1507.
H. Pleiner, H. R. Brand, Hydrodynamics and electrohydrodynamics of liquid crystals, in: A. Buka, L. Kramer (Eds.), Pattern formation in liquid crystals, Springer, New York, 1996, pp. 15–67.
G. Rien[ä]{}cker, S. Hess, Orientational dynamics of nematic liquid crystals under shear flow, Physica A 267 (3) (1999) 294–321.
F. M. Leslie, Some constitutive equations for liquid crystals, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 28 (4) (1968) 265–283.
C. G[ä]{}hwiller, Temperature dependence of flow alignment in nematic liquid crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 (24) (1972) 1554–1556.
P. Pieranski, E. Guyon, Two shear-flow regimes in nematic $p$-$n$-hexyloxybenzilidene-$p'$-aminobenzonitrile, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (17) (1974) 924–926.
H. Risken, [The Fokker-Planck Equation: Methods of Solution and Applications]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1996.
R. Zwanzig, [Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics]{}, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
L. A. Archer, R. G. Larson, A molecular theory of flow alignment and tumbling in sheared nematic liquid crystals, J. Chem. Phys. 103 (8) (1995) 3108–3111.
M. Kr[ö]{}ger, H. S. Sellers, Viscosity coefficients for anisotropic, nematic fluids based on structural theories of suspensions, J. Chem. Phys. 103 (2) (1995) 807–817.
D. J. Ternet, R. G. Larson, L. G. Leal, Flow-aligning and tumbling in small-molecule liquid crystals: pure components and mixtures, Rheol. Acta 38 (3) (1999) 183–197.
W. R. Burghardt, G. G. Fuller, Role of director tumbling in the rheology of polymer liquid crystal solutions, Macromolecules 24 (9) (1991) 2546–2555.
R. G. Larson, Arrested tumbling in shearing flows of liquid-crystal polymers, Macromolecules 23 (17) (1990) 3983–3992.
G. Rien[ä]{}cker, M. Kr[ö]{}ger, S. Hess, Chaotic and regular shear-induced orientational dynamics of nematic liquid crystals, Physica A 315 (3) (2002) 537–568.
D. J. Meier, Theory of block copolymers. . omain formation in - block copolymers, J. Polym. Sci. Pol. Sym. 26 (1) (1969) 81–98.
L. Leibler, Theory of microphase separation in block copolymers, Macromolecules 13 (6) (1980) 1602–1617.
T. Ohta, K. Kawasaki, Equilibrium morphology of block copolymer melts, Macromolecules 19 (10) (1986) 2621–2632.
G. H. Fredrickson, E. Helfand, Fluctuation effects in the theory of microphase separation in block copolymers, J. Chem. Phys. 87 (1) (1987) 697–705.
F. S. Bates, G. H. Fredrickson, Block copolymer thermodynamics: theory and experiment, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 41 (1) (1990) 525–557.
G. H. Fredrickson, F. S. Bates, Dynamics of block copolymers: theory and experiment, Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 26 (1) (1996) 501–550.
I. W. Hamley, Structure and flow behaviour of block copolymers, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 13 (33) (2001) R643–R671.
T. Teramoto, Y. Nishiura, Double gyroid morphology in a gradient system with nonlocal effects, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 71 (7) (2002) 1611–1614.
M. Nonomura, K. Yamada, T. Ohta, Formation and stability of double gyroid in microphase-separated diblock copolymers, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15 (2003) L423–L430.
K. Yamada, M. Nonomura, T. Ohta, Kinetics of morphological transitions in microphase-separated diblock copolymers, Macromolecules 37 (15) (2004) 5762–5777.
K. A. Koppi, M. Tirrell, F. S. Bates, K. Almdal, R. H. Colby, Lamellae orientation in dynamically sheared diblock copolymer melts, J. Phys. II France 2 (11) (1992) 1941–1959.
K. I. Winey, S. S. Patel, R. G. Larson, H. Watanabe, Interdependence of shear deformations and block copolymer morphology, Macromolecules 26 (10) (1993) 2542–2549.
N. P. Balsara, B. Hammouda, Shear effects on solvated block copolymer lamellae: polystyrene-polyisoprene in dioctyl phthalate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (3) (1994) 360–363.
N. P. Balsara, B. Hammouda, P. K. Kesani, S. V. Jonnalagadda, G. C. Straty, In-situ small-angle neutron scattering from a block copolymer solution under shear, Macromolecules 27 (9) (1994) 2566–2573.
S. S. Patel, R. G. Larson, K. I. Winey, H. Watanabe, Shear orientation and rheology of a lamellar polystyrene-polyisoprene block copolymer, Macromolecules 28 (12) (1995) 4313–4318.
Y. Zhang, U. Wiesner, H. W. Spiess, Frequency dependence of orientation in dynamically sheared diblock copolymers, Macromolecules 28 (3) (1995) 778–781.
Y. Zhang, U. Wiesner, Symmetric diblock copolymers under large amplitude oscillatory shear flow: entanglement effect, J. Chem. Phys. 103 (11) (1995) 4784–4793.
Y. Zhang, U. Wiesner, Y. Yang, T. Pakula, H. W. Spiess, Annealing effects on orientation in dynamically sheared diblock copolymers, Macromolecules 29 (16) (1996) 5427–5431.
Y. Zhang, U. Wiesner, Symmetric diblock copolymers under large amplitude oscillatory shear flow: dual frequency experiments, J. Chem. Phys. 106 (7) (1997) 2961–2969.
D. Maring, U. Wiesner, Threshold strain value for perpendicular orientation in dynamically sheared diblock copolymers, Macromolecules 30 (3) (1997) 660–662.
U. Wiesner, Lamellar diblock copolymers under large amplitude oscillatory shear flow: order and dynamics, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 198 (11) (1997) 3319–3352.
Z.-R. Chen, J. A. Kornfield, S. D. Smith, J. T. Grothaus, M. M. Satkowski, Pathways to macroscale order in nanostructured block copolymers, Science 277 (5330) (1997) 1248–1253.
Z.-R. Chen, J. A. Kornfield, Flow-induced alignment of lamellar block copolymer melts, Polymer 39 (19) (1998) 4679–4699.
J. A. Pople, I. W. Hamley, J. P. A. Fairclough, A. J. Ryan, G. Hill, C. Price, A shear induced transition of lamellar alignment in a concentrated diblock copolymer solution, Polymer 40 (20) (1999) 5709–5714.
H. Wang, M. C. Newstein, A. Krishnan, N. P. Balsara, B. A. Garetz, B. Hammouda, R. Krishnamoorti, Ordering kinetics and alignment of block copolymer lamellae under shear flow, Macromolecules 32 (11) (1999) 3695–3711.
H. Leist, D. Maring, T. Thurn-Albrecht, U. Wiesner, Double flip of orientation for a lamellar diblock copolymer under shear, J. Chem. Phys. 110 (17) (1999) 8225–8228.
J. Zipfel, J. Berghausen, G. Schmidt, P. Lindner, P. Alexandridis, M. Tsianou, W. Richtering, Shear induced structures in lamellar phases of amphiphilic block copolymers, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 1 (17) (1999) 3905–3910.
H. Wang, M. C. Newstein, M. Y. Chang, N. P. Balsara, B. A. Garetz, Birefringence and depolarized light scattering of an ordered block copolymer melt under shear flow, Macromolecules 33 (10) (2000) 3719–3730.
I. W. Hamley, The effect of shear on ordered block copolymer solutions, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 5 (5) (2000) 342–350.
M. Langela, U. Wiesner, H. W. Spiess, M. Wilhelm, Microphase reorientation in block copolymer melts as detected via rheology and , Macromolecules 35 (8) (2002) 3198–3204.
A. B[ö]{}ker, A. Knoll, H. Elbs, V. Abetz, A. H. E. M[ü]{}ller, G. Krausch, Large scale domain alignment of a block copolymer from solution using electric fields, Macromolecules 35 (4) (2002) 1319–1325.
K. Kawasaki, T. Ohta, Phase amiltonian in periodically modulated systems, Physica A 139 (2-3) (1986) 223–255.
K. Yamada, T. Ohta, Elastic theory of microphase-separated interconnected structures, Europhys. Lett. 73 (2006) 614–620.
R. Tamate, K. Yamada, J. Vi[ñ]{}als, T. Ohta, Structural rheology of microphase separated diblock copolymers, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 77 (3) (2008) 034802.
R. Bruinsma, Y. Rabin, Shear-flow enhancement and suppression of fluctuations in smectic liquid crystals, Phys. Rev. A 45 (2) (1992) 994–1008.
G. K. Auernhammer, H. R. Brand, H. Pleiner, The undulation instability in layered systems under shear flow – a simple model, Rheol. Acta 39 (3) (2000) 215–222.
G. K. Auernhammer, H. R. Brand, H. Pleiner, Shear-induced instabilities in layered liquids, Phys. Rev. E 66 (6) (2002) 061707.
T. Soddemann, G. K. Auernhammer, H. Guo, B. D[ü]{}nweg, K. Kremer, Shear-induced undulation of smectic-: molecular dynamics simulations vs. analytical theory, Eur. Phys. J. E 13 (2) (2004) 141–151.
C. R. Safinya, E. B. Sirota, R. J. Plano, Nematic to smectic- phase transition under shear flow: a nonequilibrium synchrotron x-ray study, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (15) (1991) 1986–1989.
R. G. Larson, K. I. Winey, S. S. Patel, H. Watanabe, R. Bruinsma, The rheology of layered liquids: lamellar block copolymers and smectic liquid crystals, Rheol. Acta 32 (3) (1993) 245–253.
P. Panizza, P. Archambault, D. Roux, Effects of shear on the smectic phase of thermotropic liquid crystals, J. Phys. II France 5 (2) (1995) 303–311.
J. Berghausen, J. Zipfel, P. Lindner, W. Richtering, Shear-induced orientations in a lyotropic defective lamellar phase, Europhys. Lett. 43 (6) (1998) 683–689.
J. Zipfel, J. Berghausen, P. Lindner, W. Richtering, Influence of shear on lyotropic lamellar phases with different membrane defects, J. Phys. Chem. B 103 (15) (1999) 2841–2849.
J. Zipfel, F. Nettesheim, P. Lindner, T. D. Le, U. Olsson, W. Richtering, Cylindrical intermediates in a shear-induced lamellar-to-vesicle transition, Europhys. Lett. 53 (3) (2001) 335–341.
K. Mortensen, Structural studies of lamellar surfactant systems under shear, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 6 (2) (2001) 140–145.
W. Richtering, Rheology and shear induced structures in surfactant solutions, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 6 (5) (2001) 446–450.
C. Daniel, I. W. Hamley, W. Mingvanish, C. Booth, Effect of shear on the face-centered cubic phase in a diblock copolymer gel, Macromolecules 33 (6) (2000) 2163–2170.
D. E. Angelescu, J. H. Waller, D. H. Adamson, P. Deshpande, S. Y. Chou, R. A. Register, P. M. Chaikin, Macroscopic orientation of block copolymer cylinders in single-layer films by shearing, Adv. Mater. 16 (19) (2004) 1736–1740.
M. Doi, J. L. Harden, T. Ohta, Anomalous rheological behavior of ordered phases of block copolymers. 2, Macromolecules 26 (18) (1993) 4935–4944.
T. Ohta, Y. Enomoto, J. L. Harden, M. Doi, Anomalous rheological behavior of ordered phases of block copolymers. 1, Macromolecules 26 (18) (1993) 4928–4934.
K. A. Koppi, M. Tirrell, F. S. Bates, K. Almdal, K. Mortensen, Epitaxial growth and shearing of the body centered cubic phase in diblock copolymer melts, J. Rheol. 38 (1994) 999.
J. F. Berret, F. Molino, G. Porte, O. Diat, P. Lindner, The shear-induced transition between oriented textures and layer-sliding-mediated flows in a micellar cubic crystal, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 8 (47) (1996) 9513.
F. R. Molino, J.-F. Berret, G. Porte, O. Diat, P. Lindner, Identification of flow mechanisms for a soft crystal, Eur. Phys. J. B 3 (1) (1998) 59–72.
C. Daniel, I. W. Hamley, M. Wilhelm, W. Mingvanish, Non-linear rheology of a face-centred cubic phase in a diblock copolymer gel, Rheol. Acta 40 (1) (2001) 39–48.
K. I. Winey, S. S. Patel, R. G. Larson, H. Watanabe, Morphology of a lamellar diblock copolymer aligned perpendicular to the sample plane: transmission electron microscopy and small-angle -ray scattering, Macromolecules 26 (16) (1993) 4373–4375.
K. Amundson, E. Helfand, D. D. Davis, X. Quan, S. S. Patel, S. D. Smith, Effect of an electric field on block copolymer microstructure, Macromolecules 24 (24) (1991) 6546–6548.
K. Amundson, E. Helfand, X. Quan, S. D. Smith, Alignment of lamellar block copolymer microstructure in an electric field. 1. lignment kinetics, Macromolecules 26 (11) (1993) 2698–2703.
K. Amundson, E. Helfand, X. Quan, S. D. Hudson, S. D. Smith, Alignment of lamellar block copolymer microstructure in an electric field. 2. echanisms of alignment, Macromolecules 27 (22) (1994) 6559–6570.
E. Gurovich, On microphase separation of block copolymers in an electric field: four universal classes, Macromolecules 27 (25) (1994) 7339–7362.
E. Gurovich, Why does an electric field align structures in copolymers?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (3) (1995) 482–485.
A. B[ö]{}ker, H. Elbs, H. H[ä]{}nsel, A. Knoll, S. Ludwigs, H. Zettl, V. Urban, V. Abetz, A. H. E. M[ü]{}ller, G. Krausch, Microscopic mechanisms of electric-field-induced alignment of block copolymer microdomains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (13) (2002) 135502.
A. V. Kyrylyuk, A. V. Zvelindovsky, G. J. A. Sevink, J. G. E. M. Fraaije, Lamellar alignment of diblock copolymers in an electric field, Macromolecules 35 (4) (2002) 1473–1476.
A. V. Zvelindovsky, G. J. A. Sevink, Comment on “icroscopic mechanisms of electric-field-induced alignment of block copolymer microdomains”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (4) (2003) 49601.
A. B[ö]{}ker, H. Elbs, H. H[ä]{}nsel, A. Knoll, S. Ludwigs, H. Zettl, A. V. Zvelindovsky, G. J. A. Sevink, V. Urban, V. Abetz, A. H. E. M[ü]{}ller, G. Krausch, Electric field induced alignment of concentrated block copolymer solutions, Macromolecules 36 (21) (2003) 8078–8087.
T. Xu, A. V. Zvelindovsky, G. J. A. Sevink, K. S. Lyakhova, H. Jinnai, T. P. Russell, Electric field alignment of asymmetric diblock copolymer thin films, Macromolecules 38 (26) (2005) 10788–10798.
V. Olszowka, M. Hund, V. Kuntermann, S. Scherdel, L. Tsarkova, A. B[ö]{}ker, G. Krausch, Large scale alignment of a lamellar block copolymer thin film via electric fields: a time-resolved sfm study, Soft Matter 2 (12) (2006) 1089–1094.
K. S. Lyakhova, A. V. Zvelindovsky, G. J. A. Sevink, Kinetic pathways of order-to-order phase transitions in block copolymer films under an electric field, Macromolecules 39 (8) (2006) 3024–3037.
V. Olszowka, V. Kuntermann, A. Böker, Control of orientational order in block copolymer thin films by electric fields: a combinatorial approach, Macromolecules 41 (15) (2008) 5515–5518.
C. Liedel, C. W. Pester, M. Ruppel, V. S. Urban, A. B[ö]{}ker, Beyond orientation: the impact of electric fields on block copolymers, Macromol. Chem. Phys. 213 (3) (2012) 259–269.
I. W. Hamley, Nanostructure fabrication using block copolymers, Nanotechnology 14 (10) (2003) R39–R54.
C. Park, J. Yoon, E. L. Thomas, Enabling nanotechnology with self assembled block copolymer patterns, Polymer 44 (22) (2003) 6725–6760.
S. B. Darling, Directing the self-assembly of block copolymers, Prog. Polym. Sci. 32 (10) (2007) 1152–1204.
R. Lipowsky, The conformation of membranes, Nature 349 (6309) (1991) 475–481.
U. Seifert, Configurations of fluid membranes and vesicles, Adv. Phys. 46 (1) (1997) 13–137.
H. J. Deuling, W. Helfrich, The curvature elasticity of fluid membranes: a catalogue of vesicle shapes, J. Phys. France 37 (11) (1976) 1335–1345.
G. Danker, C. Misbah, Rheology of a dilute suspension of vesicles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (8) (2007) 088104.
G. Danker, C. Verdier, C. Misbah, Rheology and dynamics of vesicle suspension in comparison with droplet emulsion, J. Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech. 152 (1) (2008) 156–167.
T. Biben, C. Misbah, An advected-field method for deformable entities under flow, Eur. Phys. J. B 29 (2) (2002) 311–316.
T. Biben, C. Misbah, Tumbling of vesicles under shear flow within an advected-field approach, Phys. Rev. E 67 (3) (2003) 031908.
J. Beaucourt, F. Rioual, T. S[é]{}on, T. Biben, C. Misbah, Steady to unsteady dynamics of a vesicle in a flow, Phys. Rev. E 69 (1) (2004) 011906.
F. Rioual, T. Biben, C. Misbah, Analytical analysis of a vesicle tumbling under a shear flow, Phys. Rev. E 69 (6) (2004) 061914.
T. Biben, K. Kassner, C. Misbah, Phase-field approach to three-dimensional vesicle dynamics, Phys. Rev. E 72 (4) (2005) 041921.
V. Kantsler, V. Steinberg, Orientation and dynamics of a vesicle in tank-treading motion in shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (25) (2005) 258101.
V. Kantsler, V. Steinberg, Transition to tumbling and two regimes of tumbling motion of a vesicle in shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (3) (2006) 036001.
M.-A. Mader, V. Vitkova, M. Abkarian, A. Viallat, T. Podgorski, Dynamics of viscous vesicles in shear flow, Eur. Phys. J. E 19 (4) (2006) 389–397.
C. Misbah, Vacillating breathing and tumbling of vesicles under shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2) (2006) 028104.
H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Swinging and tumbling of fluid vesicles in shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (12) (2007) 128103.
V. V. Lebedev, K. S. Turitsyn, S. S. Vergeles, Dynamics of nearly spherical vesicles in an external flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (21) (2007) 218101.
G. Danker, T. Biben, T. Podgorski, C. Verdier, C. Misbah, Dynamics and rheology of a dilute suspension of vesicles: higher-order theory, Phys. Rev. E 76 (4) (2007) 041905.
M.-A. Mader, H. Ez-Zahraouy, C. Misbah, T. Podgorski, On coupling between the orientation and the shape of a vesicle under a shear flow, Eur. Phys. J. E 22 (4) (2007) 275–280.
R. Finken, A. Lamura, U. Seifert, G. Gompper, Two-dimensional fluctuating vesicles in linear shear flow, Eur. Phys. J. E 25 (3) (2008) 309–321.
S. Kessler, R. Finken, U. Seifert, Elastic capsules in shear flow: analytical solutions for constant and time-dependent shear rates, Eur. Phys. J. E 29 (4) (2009) 399–413.
S. Me[ß]{}linger, B. Schmidt, H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Dynamical regimes and hydrodynamic lift of viscous vesicles under shear, Phys. Rev. E 80 (1) (2009) 011901.
J. Deschamps, V. Kantsler, V. Steinberg, Phase diagram of single vesicle dynamical states in shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (11) (2009) 118105.
H. Noguchi, Swinging and synchronized rotations of red blood cells in simple shear flow, Phys. Rev. E 80 (2) (2009) 021902.
G. Ghigliotti, T. Biben, C. Misbah, Rheology of a dilute two-dimensional suspension of vesicles, J. Fluid Mech. 653 (1) (2010) 489–518.
R. Finken, S. Kessler, U. Seifert, Micro-capsules in shear flow, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 23 (18) (2011) 184113.
A. Farutin, C. Misbah, Symmetry breaking of vesicle shapes in oiseuille flow, Phys. Rev. E 84 (1) (2011) 011902.
T. Biben, A. Farutin, C. Misbah, Three-dimensional vesicles under shear flow: numerical study of dynamics and phase diagram, Phys. Rev. E 83 (3) (2011) 031921.
N. J. Zabusky, E. Segre, J. Deschamps, V. Kantsler, V. Steinberg, Dynamics of vesicles in shear and rotational flows: modal dynamics and phase diagram, Phys. Fluids 23 (4) (2011) 041905.
A. Farutin, C. Misbah, Squaring, parity breaking, and tumbling of vesicles under shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (24) (2012) 248106.
P. Y. Gires, G. Danker, C. Misbah, Hydrodynamic interaction between two vesicles in a linear shear flow: asymptotic study, Phys. Rev. E 86 (1) (2012) 011408.
A. Farutin, C. Misbah, Analytical and numerical study of three main migration laws for vesicles under flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (10) (2013) 108104.
A. Lamura, G. Gompper, Dynamics and rheology of vesicle suspensions in wall-bounded shear flow, Europhys. Lett. 102 (2) (2013) 28004.
M. Kraus, W. Wintz, U. Seifert, R. Lipowsky, Fluid vesicles in shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (17) (1996) 3685–3688.
K. H. De Haas, C. Blom, D. Van den Ende, M. H. G. Duits, J. Mellema, Deformation of giant lipid bilayer vesicles in shear flow, Phys. Rev. E 56 (6) (1997) 7132–7137.
D. Abreu, U. Seifert, Effect of thermal noise on vesicles and capsules in shear flow, Phys. Rev. E 86 (1) (2012) 010902.
J. Deschamps, V. Kantsler, E. Segre, V. Steinberg, Dynamics of a vesicle in general flow, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (28) (2009) 11444–11447.
M. Levant, V. Steinberg, Amplification of thermal noise by vesicle dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (26) (2012) 268103.
D. Abreu, U. Seifert, Noisy nonlinear dynamics of vesicles in flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (23) (2013) 238103.
H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Fluid vesicles with viscous membranes in shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (25) (2004) 258102.
H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Dynamics of fluid vesicles in shear flow: effect of membrane viscosity and thermal fluctuations, Phys. Rev. E 72 (1) (2005) 011901.
H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Vesicle dynamics in shear and capillary flows, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 (45) (2005) S3439–S3444.
H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Shape transitions of fluid vesicles and red blood cells in capillary flows, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102 (40) (2005) 14159–14164.
M. Abkarian, M. Faivre, A. Viallat, Swinging of red blood cells under shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (18) (2007) 188302.
S. Kessler, R. Finken, U. Seifert, Swinging and tumbling of elastic capsules in shear flow, J. Fluid Mech. 605 (2008) 207–226.
I. Koleva, H. Rehage, Deformation and orientation dynamics of polysiloxane microcapsules in linear shear flow, Soft Matter 8 (13) (2012) 3681–3693.
J. Dupire, M. Abkarian, A. Viallat, Chaotic dynamics of red blood cells in a sinusoidal flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (16) (2010) 168101.
B. Kaoui, G. Biros, C. Misbah, Why do red blood cells have asymmetric shapes even in a symmetric flow?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (18) (2009) 188101.
J. L. McWhirter, H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Flow-induced clustering and alignment of vesicles and red blood cells in microcapillaries, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (15) (2009) 6039–6043.
J. L. McWhirter, H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Deformation and clustering of red blood cells in microcapillary flows, Soft Matter 7 (22) (2011) 10967–10977.
J. L. McWhirter, H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Ordering and arrangement of deformed red blood cells in flow through microcapillaries, New J. Phys. 14 (8) (2012) 085026.
U. Seifert, Hydrodynamic lift on bound vesicles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (4) (1999) 876–879.
I. Cantat, C. Misbah, Lift force and dynamical unbinding of adhering vesicles under shear flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (4) (1999) 880–883.
B. Lorz, R. Simson, J. Nardi, E. Sackmann, Weakly adhering vesicles in shear flow: tanktreading and anomalous lift force, Europhys. Lett. 51 (4) (2000) 468–474.
S. Sukumaran, U. Seifert, Influence of shear flow on vesicles near a wall: a numerical study, Phys. Rev. E 64 (1) (2001) 011916.
M. Abkarian, C. Lartigue, A. Viallat, Tank treading and unbinding of deformable vesicles in shear flow: Determination of the lift force, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (6) (2002) 68103.
N. Callens, C. Minetti, G. Coupier, M.-A. Mader, F. Dubois, C. Misbah, T. Podgorski, Hydrodynamic lift of vesicles under shear flow in microgravity, Europhys. Lett. 83 (2) (2008) 24002.
A. Walter, H. Rehage, H. Leonhard, Shear induced deformation of microcapsules: shape oscillations and membrane folding, Colloid Surf. A 183 (2001) 123–132.
R. Finken, U. Seifert, Wrinkling of microcapsules in shear flow, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18 (15) (2006) L185–L191.
S. R. Keller, R. Skalak, Motion of a tank-treading ellipsoidal particle in a shear flow, J. Fluid Mech. 120 (1982) 27–47.
J. M. Skotheim, T. W. Secomb, Red blood cells and other nonspherical capsules in shear flow: oscillatory dynamics and the tank-treading-to-tumbling transition, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (7) (2007) 078301.
G. Danker, P. M. Vlahovska, C. Misbah, Vesicles in oiseuille flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (14) (2009) 148102.
H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, Dynamics of vesicle self-assembly and dissolution, J. Chem. Phys. 125 (16) (2006) 164908.
H. Noguchi, G. Gompper, L. Schmid, A. Wixforth, T. Franke, Dynamics of fluid vesicles in flow through structured microchannels, Europhys. Lett. 89 (2) (2010) 28002.
D. Jamet, C. Misbah, Towards a thermodynamically consistent picture of the phase-field model of vesicles: local membrane incompressibility, Phys. Rev. E 76 (5) (2007) 051907.
D. Jamet, C. Misbah, Toward a thermodynamically consistent picture of the phase-field model of vesicles: curvature energy, Phys. Rev. E 78 (3) (2008) 031902.
A. M. Menzel, Density and concentration field description of nonperiodic structures, Phys. Rev. E 84 (5) (2011) 051505.
M. Bahiana, Y. Oono, Cell dynamical system approach to block copolymers, Phys. Rev. A 41 (12) (1990) 6763–6771.
F. Drolet, P. Chen, J. Vi[ñ]{}als, Lamellae alignment by shear flow in a model of a diblock copolymer, Macromolecules 32 (25) (1999) 8603–8610.
M. Nonomura, T. Ohta, Growth of mesophases in morphological transitions, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 70 (4) (2001) 927–930.
P. Chen, J. Vi[ñ]{}als, Lamellar phase stability in diblock copolymers under oscillatory shear flows, Macromolecules 35 (10) (2002) 4183–4192.
K. Yamada, T. Ohta, Interface between lamellar and gyroid structures in diblock copolymer melts, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76 (2007) 084801.
K. R. Elder, M. Katakowski, M. Haataja, M. Grant, Modeling elasticity in crystal growth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (24) (2002) 245701.
K. R. Elder, M. Grant, Modeling elastic and plastic deformations in nonequilibrium processing using phase field crystals, Phys. Rev. E 70 (5) (2004) 051605.
J. Berry, M. Grant, K. R. Elder, Diffusive atomistic dynamics of edge dislocations in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. E 73 (3) (2006) 031609.
B. P. Athreya, N. Goldenfeld, J. A. Dantzig, M. Greenwood, N. Provatas, Adaptive mesh computation of polycrystalline pattern formation using a renormalization-group reduction of the phase-field crystal model, Phys. Rev. E 76 (5) (2007) 056706.
N. Provatas, J. A. Dantzig, B. Athreya, P. Chan, P. Stefanovic, N. Goldenfeld, K. R. Elder, Using the phase-field crystal method in the multi-scale modeling of microstructure evolution, JOM 59 (7) (2007) 83–90.
P. F. Tupper, M. Grant, Phase field crystals as a coarse-graining in time of molecular dynamics, Europhys. Lett. 81 (2008) 40007.
P. Y. Chan, N. Goldenfeld, J. Dantzig, Molecular dynamics on diffusive time scales from the phase-field-crystal equation, Phys. Rev. E 79 (3) (2009) 035701.
P. Y. Chan, G. Tsekenis, J. Dantzig, K. A. Dahmen, N. Goldenfeld, Plasticity and dislocation dynamics in a phase field crystal model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (1) (2010) 15502.
S. J. Ebbens, J. R. Howse, In pursuit of propulsion at the nanoscale, Soft Matter 6 (4) (2010) 726–738.
S. Ramaswamy, The mechanics and statistics of active matter, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1 (2010) 323–345.
P. Romanczuk, M. B[ä]{}r, W. Ebeling, B. Lindner, L. Schimansky-Geier, Active rownian particles – from individual to collective stochastic dynamics, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 202 (1) (2012) 1–162.
M. E. Cates, Diffusive transport without detailed balance in motile bacteria: does microbiology need statistical physics?, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75 (4) (2012) 042601.
M. C. Marchetti, J. F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liverpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, R. A. Simha, Hydrodynamics of soft active matter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (3) (2013) 1143–1189.
W. F. Paxton, K. C. Kistler, C. C. Olmeda, A. Sen, S. K. St. Angelo, Y. Cao, T. E. Mallouk, P. E. Lammert, V. H. Crespi, Catalytic nanomotors: autonomous movement of striped nanorods, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 126 (41) (2004) 13424–13431.
J. R. Howse, R. A. L. Jones, A. J. Ryan, T. Gough, R. Vafabakhsh, R. Golestanian, Self-motile colloidal particles: from directed propulsion to random walk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (4) (2007) 048102.
H.-R. Jiang, N. Yoshinaga, M. Sano, Active motion of a anus particle by self-thermophoresis in a defocused laser beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (26) (2010) 268302.
G. Volpe, I. Buttinoni, D. Vogt, H.-J. K[ü]{}mmerer, C. Bechinger, Microswimmers in patterned environments, Soft Matter 7 (19) (2011) 8810–8815.
I. Buttinoni, G. Volpe, F. K[ü]{}mmel, G. Volpe, C. Bechinger, Active rownian motion tunable by light, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24 (28) (2012) 284129.
I. Theurkauff, C. Cottin-Bizonne, J. Palacci, C. Ybert, L. Bocquet, Dynamic clustering in active colloidal suspensions with chemical signaling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (26) (2012) 268303.
I. Buttinoni, J. Bialké, F. Kümmel, H. Löwen, C. Bechinger, T. Speck, Dynamical clustering and phase separation in suspensions of self-propelled colloidal particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (23) (2013) 238301.
L. Hong, S. Jiang, S. Granick, Simple method to produce anus colloidal particles in large quantity, Langmuir 22 (23) (2006) 9495–9499.
R. Golestanian, T. B. Liverpool, A. Ajdari, Designing phoretic micro-and nano-swimmers, New J. Phys. 9 (5) (2007) 126.
V. Narayan, S. Ramaswamy, N. Menon, Long-lived giant number fluctuations in a swarming granular nematic, Science 317 (5834) (2007) 105–108.
A. Kudrolli, G. Lumay, D. Volfson, L. S. Tsimring, Swarming and swirling in self-propelled polar granular rods, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (5) (2008) 058001.
J. Deseigne, O. Dauchot, H. Chat[é]{}, Collective motion of vibrated polar disks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (9) (2010) 098001.
J. Deseigne, S. L[é]{}onard, O. Dauchot, H. Chat[é]{}, Vibrated polar disks: spontaneous motion, binary collisions, and collective dynamics, Soft Matter 8 (20) (2012) 5629–5639.
H. C. Berg, D. A. Brown, Chemotaxis in scherichia coli analysed by three-dimensional tracking, Nature 239 (5374) (1972) 500–504.
H. Wada, R. R. Netz, Model for self-propulsive helical filaments: kink-pair propagation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (10) (2007) 108102.
N. J. Suematsu, S. Awazu, A. Izumi, S. Noda, S. Nakata, H. Nishimori, Localized bioconvection of uglena caused by phototaxis in the lateral direction, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 80 (6) (2011) 064003.
K. Drescher, J. Dunkel, L. H. Cisneros, S. Ganguly, R. E. Goldstein, Fluid dynamics and noise in bacterial cell-cell and cell-surface scattering, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 (27) (2011) 10940–10945.
W.-J. Rappel, A. Nicol, A. Sarkissian, H. Levine, W. F. Loomis, Self-organized vortex state in two-dimensional ictyostelium dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (6) (1999) 1247–1250.
B. Szabó, G. J. Szöllösi, B. Gönci, Z. Jurányi, D. Selmeczi, T. Vicsek, Phase transition in the collective migration of tissue cells: experiment and model, Phys. Rev. E 74 (6) (2006) 061908.
F. Peruani, J. Starruß, V. Jakovljevic, L. Søgaard-Andersen, A. Deutsch, M. Bär, Collective motion and nonequilibrium cluster formation in colonies of gliding bacteria, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (9) (2012) 098102.
V. Schaller, C. Weber, C. Semmrich, E. Frey, A. R. Bausch, Polar patterns of driven filaments, Nature 467 (7311) (2010) 73–77.
T. Sanchez, D. T. N. Chen, S. J. DeCamp, M. Heymann, Z. Dogic, Spontaneous motion in hierarchically assembled active matter, Nature 491 (7424) (2012) 431–434.
T. Vicsek, A. Czir[ó]{}k, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, O. Shochet, Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (6) (1995) 1226–1229.
E. Bertin, M. Droz, G. Gr[é]{}goire, Boltzmann and hydrodynamic description for self-propelled particles, Phys. Rev. E 74 (2) (2006) 022101.
H. Chat[é]{}, F. Ginelli, G. Gr[é]{}goire, F. Raynaud, Collective motion of self-propelled particles interacting without cohesion, Phys. Rev. E 77 (4) (2008) 046113.
E. Bertin, M. Droz, G. Gr[é]{}goire, Hydrodynamic equations for self-propelled particles: microscopic derivation and stability analysis, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 (44) (2009) 445001.
G. Gr[é]{}goire, H. Chat[é]{}, Onset of collective and cohesive motion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2) (2004) 025702.
S. Mishra, A. Baskaran, M. C. Marchetti, Fluctuations and pattern formation in self-propelled particles, Phys. Rev. E 81 (6) (2010) 061916.
F. Peruani, F. Ginelli, M. B[ä]{}r, H. Chat[é]{}, Polar vs. apolar alignment in systems of polar self-propelled particles, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 297 (1) (2011) 012014.
A. Gopinath, M. F. Hagan, M. C. Marchetti, A. Baskaran, Dynamical self-regulation in self-propelled particle flows, Phys. Rev. E 85 (6) (2012) 061903.
T. Ihle, Invasion-wave-induced first-order phase transition in systems of active particles, Phys. Rev. E 88 (4) (2013) 040303.
S. Yamanaka, T. Ohta, Formation and collision of traveling bands in interacting deformable self-propelled particles, Phys. Rev. E 89 (1) (2014) 012918.
M. Tarama, Y. Itino, A. M. Menzel, T. Ohta, Individual and collective dynamics of self-propelled soft particles, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 223 (1) (2014) 121–139.
J. Toner, Y. Tu, Long-range order in a two-dimensional dynamical model: how birds fly together, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (23) (1995) 4326–4329.
J. Toner, Y. Tu, Flocks, herds, and schools: A quantitative theory of flocking, Phys. Rev. E 58 (4) (1998) 4828.
J.-B. Caussin, A. Solon, A. Peshkov, H. Chaté, T. Dauxois, J. Tailleur, V. Vitelli, D. Bartolo, Emergent spatial structures in flocking models: a dynamical system insight, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (14) (2014) 148102.
H. Chat[é]{}, F. Ginelli, G. Gr[é]{}goire, F. Peruani, F. Raynaud, Modeling collective motion: variations on the icsek model, Eur. Phys. J. B 64 (3) (2008) 451–456.
F. Ginelli, H. Chat[é]{}, Relevance of metric-free interactions in flocking phenomena, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (16) (2010) 168103.
F. Peruani, A. Deutsch, M. B[ä]{}r, A mean-field theory for self-propelled particles interacting by velocity alignment mechanisms, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 157 (1) (2008) 111–122.
F. Peruani, L. Schimansky-Geier, M. B[ä]{}r, Cluster dynamics and cluster size distributions in systems of self-propelled particles, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 191 (1) (2010) 173–185.
A. M. Menzel, Collective motion of binary self-propelled particle mixtures, Phys. Rev. E 85 (2) (2012) 021912.
C. F. Lee, Fluctuation-induced collective motion: a single-particle density analysis, Phys. Rev. E 81 (3) (2010) 031125.
S. Savel’ev, F. Marchesoni, F. Nori, Controlling transport in mixtures of interacting particles using rownian motors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (1) (2003) 010601.
G. O’Toole, H. B. Kaplan, R. Kolter, Biofilm formation as microbial development, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 54 (1) (2000) 49–79.
P. Stoodley, K. Sauer, D. G. Davies, J. W. Costerton, Biofilms as complex differentiated communities, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 56 (1) (2002) 187–209.
D. An, T. Danhorn, C. Fuqua, M. R. Parsek, Quorum sensing and motility mediate interactions between seudomonas aeruginosa and grobacterium tumefaciens in biofilm cocultures, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103 (10) (2006) 3828–3833.
S. Elias, E. Banin, Multi-species biofilms: living with friendly neighbors, FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 36 (5) (2012) 990–1004.
D. B. Kearns, R. Losick, Cell population heterogeneity during growth of acillus subtilis, Genes Dev. 19 (24) (2005) 3083–3094.
H. Vlamakis, C. Aguilar, R. Losick, R. Kolter, Control of cell fate by the formation of an architecturally complex bacterial community, Genes Dev. 22 (7) (2008) 945–953.
J.-W. Veening, O. P. Kuipers, Gene position within a long transcript as a determinant for stochastic switching in bacteria, Mol. Microbiol. 76 (2) (2010) 269–272.
F. Ginelli, F. Peruani, M. B[ä]{}r, H. Chat[é]{}, Large-scale collective properties of self-propelled rods, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (18) (2010) 184502.
H. Chat[é]{}, F. Ginelli, R. Montagne, Simple model for active nematics: quasi-long-range order and giant fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (18) (2006) 180602.
S. Ramaswamy, R. A. Simha, J. Toner, Active nematics on a substrate: giant number fluctuations and long-time tails, Europhys. Lett. 62 (2) (2003) 196.
J. Toner, Y. Tu, S. Ramaswamy, Hydrodynamics and phases of flocks, Ann. Phys. New York 318 (1) (2005) 170–244.
Y. Fily, M. C. Marchetti, Athermal phase separation of self-propelled particles with no alignment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (23) (2012) 235702.
G. S. Redner, M. F. Hagan, A. Baskaran, Structure and dynamics of a phase-separating active colloidal fluid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (5) (2013) 055701.
J. Bialké, H. Löwen, T. Speck, Microscopic theory for the phase separation of self-propelled repulsive disks, Europhys. Lett. 103 (3) (2013) 30008.
Y. Fily, S. Henkes, M. C. Marchetti, Freezing and phase separation of self-propelled disks, Soft Matter 10 (2014) 2132–2140.
J. Stenhammar, A. Tiribocchi, R. J. Allen, D. Marenduzzo, M. E. Cates, Continuum theory of phase separation kinetics for active rownian particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (14) (2013) 145702.
J. Stenhammar, D. Marenduzzo, R. J. Allen, M. E. Cates, Phase behaviour of active rownian particles: the role of dimensionality, Soft Matter 10 (10) (2014) 1489–1499.
N. D. Mermin, H. Wagner, Absence of ferromagnetism or antiferromagnetism in one- or two-dimensional isotropic eisenberg models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 (22) (1966) 1133–1136.
A. Czir[ó]{}k, E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, T. Vicsek, Formation of complex bacterial colonies via self-generated vortices, Phys. Rev. E 54 (2) (1996) 1791.
M. Romenskyy, V. Lobaskin, Statistical properties of swarms of self-propelled particles with repulsions across the order-disorder transition, Eur. Phys. J. B 86 (3) (2013) 91–100.
A. M. Menzel, Unidirectional laning and migrating cluster crystals in confined self-propelled particle systems, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25 (50) (2013) 505103.
C. A. Weber, C. Bock, E. Frey, Defect-mediated phase transitions in active soft matter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 168301.
G. Gr[é]{}goire, H. Chat[é]{}, Y. Tu, Moving and staying together without a leader, Physica D 181 (3) (2003) 157–170.
D. L. Blair, T. Neicu, A. Kudrolli, Vortices in vibrated granular rods, Phys. Rev. E 67 (3) (2003) 031303.
D. Volfson, A. Kudrolli, L. S. Tsimring, Anisotropy-driven dynamics in vibrated granular rods, Phys. Rev. E 70 (5) (2004) 051312.
J. Galanis, D. Harries, D. L. Sackett, W. Losert, R. Nossal, Spontaneous patterning of confined granular rods, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2) (2006) 028002.
I. S. Aranson, D. Volfson, L. S. Tsimring, Swirling motion in a system of vibrated elongated particles, Phys. Rev. E 75 (5) (2007) 051301.
C. A. Weber, T. Hanke, J. Deseigne, S. Léonard, O. Dauchot, E. Frey, H. Chaté, Long-range ordering of vibrated polar disks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (20) (2013) 208001.
S. Dorbolo, D. Volfson, L. Tsimring, A. Kudrolli, Dynamics of a bouncing dimer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (4) (2005) 044101.
P. S. Goohpattader, S. Mettu, M. K. Chaudhury, Experimental investigation of the drift and diffusion of small objects on a surface subjected to a bias and an external white noise: roles of oulombic friction and hysteresis, Langmuir 25 (17) (2009) 9969–9979.
P. S. Goohpattader, M. K. Chaudhury, [Diffusive motion with nonlinear friction: apparently rownian]{}, J. Chem. Phys. 133 (2010) 024702.
P. S. Goohpattader, S. Mettu, M. K. Chaudhury, Stochastic rolling of a rigid sphere in weak adhesive contact with a soft substrate, Eur. Phys. J. E 34 (11) (2011) 120.
S. Mettu, M. K. Chaudhury, Stochastic relaxation of the contact line of a water drop on a solid substrate subjected to white noise vibration: roles of hysteresis, Langmuir 26 (11) (2010) 8131–8140.
B. N. J. Persson, Sliding Friction: Physical Principles and Applications, Springer, Berlin, 2000.
P. G. de Gennes, [Brownian motion with dry friction]{}, J. Stat. Phys. 119 (5) (2005) 953–962.
H. Hayakawa, Langevin equation with oulomb friction, Physica D 205 (1) (2005) 48–56.
A. Baule, E. G. D. Cohen, H. Touchette, [A path integral approach to random motion with nonlinear friction]{}, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43 (2010) 025003.
A. Baule, H. Touchette, E. G. D. Cohen, Stick-slip motion of solids with dry friction subject to random vibrations and an external field, Nonlinearity 24 (2) (2011) 351–372.
A. M. Menzel, N. Goldenfeld, Effect of oulombic friction on spatial displacement statistics, Phys. Rev. E 84 (1) (2011) 011122.
A. Baule, P. Sollich, Rectification of asymmetric surface vibrations with dry friction: an exactly solvable model, Phys. Rev. E 87 (3) (2013) 032112.
A. Kawarada, H. Hayakawa, [Non-aussian velocity distribution function in a vibrating granular bed]{}, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 73 (8) (2004) 2037–2040.
A. Baule, P. Sollich, Singular features in noise-induced transport with dry friction, Europhys. Lett. 97 (2) (2012) 20001.
M. P. Avakian, G. S. Pogosyan, A. N. Sissakian, V. M. Ter-Antonyan, [Spectroscopy of a singular linear oscillator]{}, Phys. Lett. A 124 (4-5) (1987) 233–236.
W. Janke, B. K. Cheng, [Statistical properties of a harmonic plus a delta-potential]{}, Phys. Lett. A 129 (3) (1988) 140–144.
S. H. Patil, [Harmonic oscillator with a $\delta$-function potential]{}, Eur. J. Phys. 27 (2006) 899–911.
H. Touchette, E. Van der Straeten, W. Just, Brownian motion with dry friction: okker-lanck approach, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 43 (44) (2010) 445002.
B. ten Hagen, S. van Teeffelen, H. L[ö]{}wen, Brownian motion of a self-propelled particle, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 23 (19) (2011) 194119.
S. Henkes, Y. Fily, M. C. Marchetti, Active jamming: self-propelled soft particles at high density, Phys. Rev. E 84 (4) (2011) 040301.
A. Z[ö]{}ttl, H. Stark, Nonlinear dynamics of a microswimmer in oiseuille flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (21) (2012) 218104.
J. Bialké, T. Speck, H. Löwen, Crystallization in a dense suspension of self-propelled particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (16) (2012) 168301.
R. Wittkowski, H. L[ö]{}wen, Self-propelled rownian spinning top: dynamics of a biaxial swimmer at low eynolds numbers, Phys. Rev. E 85 (2) (2012) 021406.
R. Ni, M. A. C. Stuart, M. Dijkstra, Pushing the glass transition towards random close packing using self-propelled hard spheres, Nature Commun. 4 (2013) 2704.
A. Z[ö]{}ttl, H. Stark, Periodic and quasiperiodic motion of an elongated microswimmer in oiseuille flow, Eur. Phys. J. E 36 (1) (2013) 4.
E. Ferrante, A. E. Turgut, M. Dorigo, C. Huepe, Collective motion dynamics of active solids and active crystals, New J. Phys. 15 (9) (2013) 095011.
E. Ferrante, A. E. Turgut, M. Dorigo, C. Huepe, Elasticity-based mechanism for the collective motion of self-propelled particles with springlike interactions: a model system for natural and artificial swarms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (26) (2013) 268302.
M. Abkenar, K. Marx, T. Auth, G. Gompper, Collective behavior of penetrable self-propelled rods in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. E 88 (6) (2013) 062314.
B. ten Hagen, F. K[ü]{}mmel, R. Wittkowski, D. Takagi, H. L[ö]{}wen, C. Bechinger, Gravitaxis of asymmetric self-propelled colloidal particles, Nature Commun. 5 (2014) 4829.
E. M. Purcell, Life at low eynolds number, Am. J. Phys. 45 (1) (1977) 3–11.
X. Zheng, B. ten Hagen, A. Kaiser, M. Wu, H. Cui, Z. Silber-Li, H. L[ö]{}wen, Non-aussian statistics for the motion of self-propelled anus particles: experiment versus theory, Phys. Rev. E 88 (3) (2013) 032304.
S. van Teeffelen, U. Zimmermann, H. L[ö]{}wen, Clockwise-directional circle swimmer moves counter-clockwise in etri dish- and ring-like confinements, Soft Matter 5 (22) (2009) 4510–4519.
S. van Teeffelen, H. L[ö]{}wen, Dynamics of a rownian circle swimmer, Phys. Rev. E 78 (2) (2008) 020101.
F. Kümmel, B. ten Hagen, R. Wittkowski, I. Buttinoni, R. Eichhorn, G. Volpe, H. Löwen, C. Bechinger, Circular motion of asymmetric self-propelling particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 198302.
A. Kaiser, H. L[ö]{}wen, Vortex arrays as emergent collective phenomena for circle swimmers, Phys. Rev. E 87 (3) (2013) 032712.
J. Elgeti, G. Gompper, Wall accumulation of self-propelled spheres, Europhys. Lett. 101 (4) (2013) 48003.
H. H. Wensink, H. L[ö]{}wen, Aggregation of self-propelled colloidal rods near confining walls, Phys. Rev. E 78 (3) (2008) 031409.
M. E. Cates, J. Tailleur, When are active rownian particles and run-and-tumble particles equivalent? onsequences for motility-induced phase separation, Europhys. Lett. 101 (2) (2013) 20010.
M. C. Cross, P. C. Hohenberg, Pattern formation outside of equilibrium, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65 (3) (1993) 851–1112.
T. Speck, J. Bialké, A. M. Menzel, H. Löwen, Effective ahn-illiard equation for the phase separation of active rownian particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (21) (2014) 218304.
J. W. Cahn, J. E. Hilliard, Free energy of a nonuniform system. . nterfacial free energy, J. Chem. Phys. 28 (2) (1958) 258–267.
J. Palacci, S. Sacanna, A. P. Steinberg, D. J. Pine, P. M. Chaikin, Living crystals of light-activated colloidal surfers, Science 339 (6122) (2013) 936–940.
B. M. Mognetti, A. [Š]{}ari[ć]{}, S. Angioletti-Uberti, A. Cacciuto, C. Valeriani, D. Frenkel, Living clusters and crystals from low-density suspensions of active colloids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (24) (2013) 245702.
A. M. Menzel, H. L[ö]{}wen, Traveling and resting crystals in active systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (5) (2013) 055702.
A. M. Menzel, T. Ohta, H. Löwen, Active crystals and their stability, Phys. Rev. E 89 (2) (2014) 022301.
U. M. B. Marconi, P. Tarazona, Dynamic density functional theory of fluids, J. Chem. Phys. 110 (16) (1999) 8032–8044.
A. J. Archer, R. Evans, Dynamical density functional theory and its application to spinodal decomposition, J. Chem. Phys. 121 (9) (2004) 4246–4254.
K. R. Elder, N. Provatas, J. Berry, P. Stefanovic, M. Grant, Phase-field crystal modeling and classical density functional theory of freezing, Phys. Rev. B 75 (6) (2007) 064107.
S. Van Teeffelen, R. Backofen, A. Voigt, H. L[ö]{}wen, Derivation of the phase-field-crystal model for colloidal solidification, Phys. Rev. E 79 (5) (2009) 051404.
G. Tegze, L. Gr[á]{}n[á]{}sy, G. I. T[ó]{}th, F. Podmaniczky, A. Jaatinen, T. Ala-Nissila, T. Pusztai, Diffusion-controlled anisotropic growth of stable and metastable crystal polymorphs in the phase-field crystal model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 (3) (2009) 035702.
A. Jaatinen, C. V. Achim, K. R. Elder, T. Ala-Nissila, Thermodynamics of bcc metals in phase-field-crystal models, Phys. Rev. E 80 (3) (2009) 031602.
H. Löwen, A phase-field-crystal model for liquid crystals, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 22 (2010) 364105.
R. Wittkowski, H. L[ö]{}wen, H. R. Brand, Derivation of a three-dimensional phase-field-crystal model for liquid crystals from density functional theory, Phys. Rev. E 82 (3) (2010) 031708.
R. Wittkowski, H. L[ö]{}wen, H. R. Brand, Polar liquid crystals in two spatial dimensions: the bridge from microscopic to macroscopic modeling, Phys. Rev. E 83 (6) (2011) 061706.
P. Stefanovic, M. Haataja, N. Provatas, Phase-field crystals with elastic interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (22) (2006) 225504.
P. Stefanovic, M. Haataja, N. Provatas, Phase field crystal study of deformation and plasticity in nanocrystalline materials, Phys. Rev. E 80 (4) (2009) 046107.
J. A. P. Ramos, E. Granato, S. C. Ying, C. V. Achim, K. R. Elder, T. Ala-Nissila, Dynamical transitions and sliding friction of the phase-field-crystal model with pinning, Phys. Rev. E 81 (1) (2010) 011121.
G. Tegze, G. I. T[ó]{}th, L. Gr[á]{}n[á]{}sy, Faceting and branching in 2d crystal growth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (19) (2011) 195502.
F. Peruani, A. Deutsch, M. B[ä]{}r, Nonequilibrium clustering of self-propelled rods, Phys. Rev. E 74 (3) (2006) 030904.
A. Baskaran, M. C. Marchetti, Enhanced diffusion and ordering of self-propelled rods, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (26) (2008) 268101.
A. Baskaran, M. C. Marchetti, Hydrodynamics of self-propelled hard rods, Phys. Rev. E 77 (1) (2008) 011920.
J. Elgeti, G. Gompper, Self-propelled rods near surfaces, Europhys. Lett. 85 (3) (2009) 38002.
Y. Yang, V. Marceau, G. Gompper, Swarm behavior of self-propelled rods and swimming flagella, Phys. Rev. E 82 (3) (2010) 031904.
H. H. Wensink, J. Dunkel, S. Heidenreich, K. Drescher, R. E. Goldstein, H. Löwen, J. M. Yeomans, Meso-scale turbulence in living fluids, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109 (36) (2012) 14308–14313.
A. Baskaran, M. C. Marchetti, Nonequilibrium statistical mechanics of self-propelled hard rods, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. 2010 (04) (2010) P04019.
H. H. Wensink, H. Löwen, Emergent states in dense systems of active rods: from swarming to turbulence, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24 (46) (2012) 464130.
S. R. McCandlish, A. Baskaran, M. F. Hagan, Spontaneous segregation of self-propelled particles with different motilities, Soft Matter 8 (8) (2012) 2527–2534.
A. Kaiser, H. H. Wensink, H. Löwen, How to capture active particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (26) (2012) 268307.
A. Kaiser, K. Popowa, H. H. Wensink, H. Löwen, Capturing self-propelled particles in a moving microwedge, Phys. Rev. E 88 (2) (2013) 022311.
I. S. Aranson, A. Sokolov, J. O. Kessler, R. E. Goldstein, Model for dynamical coherence in thin films of self-propelled microorganisms, Phys. Rev. E 75 (4) (2007) 040901.
V. Schaller, C. A. Weber, B. Hammerich, E. Frey, A. R. Bausch, Frozen steady states in active systems, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 (48) (2011) 19183–19188.
T. Sanchez, D. Welch, D. Nicastro, Z. Dogic, Cilia-like beating of active microtubule bundles, Science 333 (6041) (2011) 456–459.
J. Dzubiella, G. P. Hoffmann, H. L[ö]{}wen, Lane formation in colloidal mixtures driven by an external field, Phys. Rev. E 65 (2) (2002) 021402.
J. Chakrabarti, J. Dzubiella, H. L[ö]{}wen, Reentrance effect in the lane formation of driven colloids, Phys. Rev. E 70 (1) (2004) 012401.
M. Rex, H. L[ö]{}wen, Influence of hydrodynamic interactions on lane formation in oppositely charged driven colloids, Eur. Phys. J. E 26 (1) (2008) 143–150.
A. Wysocki, H. L[ö]{}wen, Oscillatory driven colloidal binary mixtures: axial segregation versus laning, Phys. Rev. E 79 (4) (2009) 041408.
H. L[ö]{}wen, Particle-resolved instabilities in colloidal dispersions, Soft Matter 6 (14) (2010) 3133–3142.
T. Vissers, A. Wysocki, M. Rex, H. L[ö]{}wen, C. P. Royall, A. Imhof, A. van Blaaderen, Lane formation in driven mixtures of oppositely charged colloids, Soft Matter 7 (6) (2011) 2352–2356.
M. Ikeda, H. Wada, H. Hayakawa, Instabilities and turbulence-like dynamics in an oppositely driven binary particle mixture, Europhys. Lett. 99 (6) (2012) 68005.
T. Glanz, H. L[ö]{}wen, The nature of the laning transition in two dimensions, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24 (46) (2012) 464114.
L. H. Cisneros, R. Cortez, C. Dombrowski, R. E. Goldstein, J. O. Kessler, Fluid dynamics of self-propelled microorganisms, from individuals to concentrated populations, Exp. Fluids 43 (5) (2007) 737–753.
J. Dunkel, S. Heidenreich, K. Drescher, H. H. Wensink, M. Bär, R. E. Goldstein, Fluid dynamics of bacterial turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (22) (2013) 228102.
H. H. Wensink, V. Kantsler, R. E. Goldstein, J. Dunkel, Controlling active self-assembly through broken particle-shape symmetry, Phys. Rev. E 89 (1) (2014) 010302.
N. H. P. Nguyen, D. Klotsa, M. Engel, S. C. Glotzer, Emergent collective phenomena in a mixture of hard shapes through active rotation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (7) (2014) 075701.
L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, Elsevier, Oxford, 1987.
J. Happel, H. Brenner, Low eynolds Number Hydrodynamics, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1983.
J. M. Yeomans, D. O. Pushkin, H. Shum, An introduction to the hydrodynamics of swimming microorganisms, Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 223 (9) (2014) 1771–1785.
E. Lauga, Life around the scallop theorem, Soft Matter 7 (7) (2011) 3060–3065.
A. Najafi, R. Golestanian, Simple swimmer at low eynolds number: three linked spheres, Phys. Rev. E 69 (2004) 062901.
R. Golestanian, A. Ajdari, Analytic results for the three-sphere swimmer at low eynolds number, Phys. Rev. E 77 (2008) 036308.
J. E. Avron, O. Kenneth, D. H. Oaknin, Pushmepullyou: an efficient micro-swimmer, New J. Phys. 7 (1) (2005) 234.
R. Aditi Simha, S. Ramaswamy, Hydrodynamic fluctuations and instabilities in ordered suspensions of self-propelled particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (5) (2002) 058101.
H. C. Berg, The rotary motor of bacterial flagella, Biochemistry 72 (1) (2003) 19–54.
K. Yonekura, S. Maki-Yonekura, K. Namba, Complete atomic model of the bacterial flagellar filament by electron cryomicroscopy, Nature 424 (6949) (2003) 643–650.
A. Ghosh, P. Fischer, Controlled propulsion of artificial magnetic nanostructured propellers, Nano Lett. 9 (6) (2009) 2243–2245.
L. Zhang, J. J. Abbott, L. Dong, B. E. Kratochvil, D. Bell, B. J. Nelson, Artificial bacterial flagella: fabrication and magnetic control, Appl. Phys. Lett. 94 (6) (2009) 064107.
S. E. Spagnolie, E. Lauga, Comparative hydrodynamics of bacterial polymorphism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (5) (2011) 058103.
S. Tottori, L. Zhang, F. Qiu, K. K. Krawczyk, A. Franco-Obreg[ó]{}n, B. J. Nelson, Magnetic helical micromachines: fabrication, controlled swimming, and cargo transport, Adv. Mater. 24 (6) (2012) 811–816.
Y. Hatwalne, S. Ramaswamy, M. Rao, R. A. Simha, Rheology of active-particle suspensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (11) (2004) 118101.
A. Baskaran, M. C. Marchetti, Statistical mechanics and hydrodynamics of bacterial suspensions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 (37) (2009) 15567–15572.
C. M. Pooley, G. P. Alexander, J. M. Yeomans, Hydrodynamic interaction between two swimmers at low eynolds number, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (22) (2007) 228103.
Y. Fily, A. Baskaran, M. C. Marchetti, Cooperative self-propulsion of active and passive rotors, Soft Matter 8 (10) (2012) 3002–3009.
M. Leoni, T. B. Liverpool, Dynamics and interactions of active rotors, Europhys. Lett. 92 (6) (2010) 64004.
I. O. G[ö]{}tze, G. Gompper, Mesoscale simulations of hydrodynamic squirmer interactions, Phys. Rev. E 82 (4) (2010) 041921.
J. J. Molina, Y. Nakayama, R. Yamamoto, Hydrodynamic interactions of self-propelled swimmers, Soft Matter 9 (19) (2013) 4923–4936.
J. R. Blake, A note on the image system for a stokeslet in a no-slip boundary, Math. Proc. Cambridge 70 (1971) 303–310.
Y. Or, R. M. Murray, Dynamics and stability of a class of low eynolds number swimmers near a wall, Phys. Rev. E 79 (4) (2009) 045302.
J. Elgeti, U. B. Kaupp, G. Gompper, Hydrodynamics of sperm cells near surfaces, Biophys. J. 99 (4) (2010) 1018–1026.
T. Brotto, J.-B. Caussin, E. Lauga, D. Bartolo, Hydrodynamics of confined active fluids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (3) (2013) 038101.
G.-J. Li, A. M. Ardekani, Hydrodynamic interaction of microswimmers near a wall, Phys. Rev. E 90 (1) (2014) 013010.
A. Z[ö]{}ttl, H. Stark, Hydrodynamics determines collective motion and phase behavior of active colloids in quasi-two-dimensional confinement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (11) (2014) 118101.
R. Ledesma-Aguilar, J. M. Yeomans, Enhanced motility of a microswimmer in rigid and elastic confinement, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (13) (2013) 138101.
M. Hennes, K. Wolff, H. Stark, Self-induced polar order of active rownian particles in a harmonic trap, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 238104.
D. Takagi, J. Palacci, A. B. Braunschweig, M. J. Shelley, J. Zhang, Hydrodynamic capture of microswimmers into sphere-bound orbits, Soft Matter 10 (11) (2014) 1784–1789.
J. P. Hernandez-Ortiz, C. G. Stoltz, M. D. Graham, Transport and collective dynamics in suspensions of confined swimming particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (20) (2005) 204501.
E. Lushi, H. Wioland, R. E. Goldstein, Fluid flows created by swimming bacteria drive self-organization in confined suspensions, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111 (27) (2014) 9733–9738.
N. Desreumaux, N. Florent, E. Lauga, D. Bartolo, Active and driven hydrodynamic crystals, Eur. Phys. J. E 35 (8) (2012) 68.
M. J. Lighthill, On the squirming motion of nearly spherical deformable bodies through liquids at very small eynolds numbers, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 5 (2) (1952) 109–118.
J. R. Blake, A spherical envelope approach to ciliary propulsion, J. Fluid Mech. 46 (01) (1971) 199–208.
T. Ishikawa, M. P. Simmonds, T. J. Pedley, Hydrodynamic interaction of two swimming model micro-organisms, J. Fluid Mech. 568 (2006) 119–160.
D. Saintillan, M. J. Shelley, Instabilities and pattern formation in active particle suspensions: kinetic theory and continuum simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (17) (2008) 178103.
D. Saintillan, M. J. Shelley, Instabilities, pattern formation, and mixing in active suspensions, Phys. Fluids 20 (12) (2008) 123304.
D. Saintillan, M. J. Shelley, Active suspensions and their nonlinear models, C. R. Physique 14 (6) (2013) 497–517.
A. A. Evans, T. Ishikawa, T. Yamaguchi, E. Lauga, Orientational order in concentrated suspensions of spherical microswimmers, Phys. Fluids 23 (11) (2011) 111702.
F. Alarcon, I. Pagonabarraga, Spontaneous aggregation and global polar ordering in squirmer suspensions, J. Mol. Liq. 185 (2013) 56–61.
M. Reichert, H. Stark, Synchronization of rotating helices by hydrodynamic interactions, Eur. Phys. J. E 17 (4) (2005) 493–500.
Y. W. Kim, R. R. Netz, Pumping fluids with periodically beating grafted elastic filaments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (15) (2006) 158101.
A. Vilfan, F. J[ü]{}licher, Hydrodynamic flow patterns and synchronization of beating cilia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (5) (2006) 058102.
Y. Yang, J. Elgeti, G. Gompper, Cooperation of sperm in two dimensions: synchronization, attraction, and aggregation through hydrodynamic interactions, Phys. Rev. E 78 (6) (2008) 061903.
M. Polin, I. Tuval, K. Drescher, J. P. Gollub, R. E. Goldstein, Chlamydomonas swims with two gears in a eukaryotic version of run-and-tumble locomotion, Science 325 (5939) (2009) 487–490.
J. Kotar, M. Leoni, B. Bassetti, M. C. Lagomarsino, P. Cicuta, Hydrodynamic synchronization of colloidal oscillators, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (17) (2010) 7669–7673.
N. Uchida, R. Golestanian, Synchronization and collective dynamics in a carpet of microfluidic rotors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (17) (2010) 178103.
N. Uchida, R. Golestanian, Synchronization in a carpet of hydrodynamically coupled rotors with random intrinsic frequency, Europhys. Lett. 89 (5) (2010) 50011.
N. Uchida, R. Golestanian, Generic conditions for hydrodynamic synchronization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (5) (2011) 058104.
N. Uchida, Many-body theory of synchronization by long-range interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (6) (2011) 064101.
R. Golestanian, J. M. Yeomans, N. Uchida, Hydrodynamic synchronization at low eynolds number, Soft Matter 7 (2011) 3074–3082.
N. Osterman, A. Vilfan, Finding the ciliary beating pattern with optimal efficiency, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 (38) (2011) 15727–15732.
S. Y. Reigh, R. G. Winkler, G. Gompper, Synchronization and bundling of anchored bacterial flagella, Soft Matter 8 (16) (2012) 4363–4372.
S. Y. Reigh, R. G. Winkler, G. Gompper, Synchronization, slippage, and unbundling of driven helical flagella, PloS One 8 (8) (2013) e70868.
J. Elgeti, G. Gompper, Emergence of metachronal waves in cilia arrays, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110 (12) (2013) 4470–4475.
M. Theers, R. G. Winkler, Synchronization of rigid microrotors by time-dependent hydrodynamic interactions, Phys. Rev. E 88 (2) (2013) 023012.
M. Theers, R. G. Winkler, Effects of thermal fluctuations and fluid compressibility on hydrodynamic synchronization of microrotors at finite oscillatory eynolds number: a multiparticle collision dynamics simulation study, Soft Matter 10 (32) (2014) 5894–5904.
P. Lenz, A. Ryskin, Collective effects in ciliar arrays, Phys. Biol. 3 (4) (2006) 285–294.
Y. T. Maeda, J. Inose, M. Y. Matsuo, S. Iwaya, M. Sano, Ordered patterns of cell shape and orientational correlation during spontaneous cell migration, PloS One 3 (11) (2008) e3734.
T. Kaindl, H. Rieger, L.-M. Kaschel, U. Engel, A. Schmaus, J. Sleeman, M. Tanaka, Spatio-temporal patterns of pancreatic cancer cells expressing 44 isoforms on supported membranes displaying hyaluronic acid oligomers arrays, PloS One 7 (8) (2012) e42991.
S.-W. Lee, D. Y. Kwok, P. E. Laibinis, Chemical influences on adsorption-mediated self-propelled drop movement, Phys. Rev. E 65 (5) (2002) 051602.
K. Nagai, Y. Sumino, H. Kitahata, K. Yoshikawa, Mode selection in the spontaneous motion of an alcohol droplet, Phys. Rev. E 71 (6) (2005) 065301.
Y.-J. Chen, Y. Nagamine, K. Yoshikawa, Self-propelled motion of a droplet induced by arangoni-driven spreading, Phys. Rev. E 80 (1) (2009) 016303.
S. Thutupalli, R. Seemann, S. Herminghaus, Swarming behavior of simple model squirmers, New J. Phys. 13 (7) (2011) 073021.
H. Kitahata, N. Yoshinaga, K. H. Nagai, Y. Sumino, Spontaneous motion of a droplet coupled with a chemical wave, Phys. Rev. E 84 (1) (2011) 015101.
H. Kitahata, N. Yoshinaga, K. H. Nagai, Y. Sumino, Spontaneous motion of a elousov-habotinsky reaction droplet coupled with a spiral wave, Chem. Lett. 41 (10) (2012) 1052–1054.
M. Schmitt, H. Stark, Swimming active droplet: a theoretical analysis, Europhys. Lett. 101 (4) (2013) 44008.
N. Yoshinaga, Spontaneous motion and deformation of a self-propelled droplet, Phys. Rev. E 89 (1) (2014) 012913.
N. Yoshinaga, K. H. Nagai, Y. Sumino, H. Kitahata, Drift instability in the motion of a fluid droplet with a chemically reactive surface driven by arangoni flow, Phys. Rev. E 86 (1) (2012) 016108.
T. Hiraiwa, M. Y. Matsuo, T. Ohkuma, T. Ohta, M. Sano, Dynamics of a deformable self-propelled domain, Europhys. Lett. 91 (2) (2010) 20001.
T. Ohta, T. Ohkuma, K. Shitara, Deformation of a self-propelled domain in an excitable reaction-diffusion system, Phys. Rev. E 80 (5) (2009) 056203.
T. Ohta, T. Ohkuma, Deformable self-propelled particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (15) (2009) 154101.
M. Tarama, T. Ohta, Dynamics of a deformable self-propelled particle under external forcing, Eur. Phys. J. B 83 (3) (2011) 391–400.
K. Shitara, T. Hiraiwa, T. Ohta, Deformable self-propelled domain in an excitable reaction-diffusion system in three dimensions, Phys. Rev. E 83 (6) (2011) 066208.
T. Hiraiwa, K. Shitara, T. Ohta, Dynamics of a deformable self-propelled particle in three dimensions, Soft Matter 7 (7) (2011) 3083–3086.
T. Ohkuma, T. Ohta, Deformable self-propelled particles with a global coupling, Chaos 20 (2) (2010) 023101.
Y. Itino, T. Ohkuma, T. Ohta, Collective dynamics of deformable self-propelled particles with repulsive interaction, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 80 (3) (2011) 033001.
Y. Itino, T. Ohta, Dynamics of deformable self-propelled particles with repulsive interaction, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 81 (10) (2012) 104007.
A. M. Menzel, T. Ohta, Soft deformable self-propelled particles, Europhys. Lett. 99 (5) (2012) 58001.
F. H. Stillinger, Phase transitions in the aussian core system, J. Chem. Phys. 65 (10) (1976) 3968–3974.
S. Prestipino, F. Saija, P. V. Giaquinta, Phase diagram of the aussian-core model, Phys. Rev. E. 71 (5) (2005) 050102.
S. Prestipino, F. Saija, P. V. Giaquinta, Hexatic phase in the two-dimensional aussian-core model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (23) (2011) 235701.
S. Prestipino, F. Saija, Phase diagram of aussian-core nematics, J. Chem. Phys. 126 (19) (2007) 194902.
C. N. Likos, M. Watzlawek, H. L[ö]{}wen, Freezing and clustering transitions for penetrable spheres, Phys. Rev. E 58 (3) (1998) 3135–3144.
M. Schmidt, An ab initio density functional for penetrable spheres, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 11 (1999) 10163–10169.
L. G. Fel, Tetrahedral symmetry in nematic liquid crystals, Phys. Rev. E 52 (1) (1995) 702–717.
H. R. Brand, H. Pleiner, P. E. Cladis, Tetrahedratic cross-couplings: novel physics for banana liquid crystals, Physica A 351 (2–4) (2005) 189–197.
M. Tarama, T. Ohta, Oscillatory motions of an active deformable particle, Phys. Rev. E 87 (6) (2013) 062912.
K. H. Nagai, F. Takabatake, Y. Sumino, H. Kitahata, M. Ichikawa, N. Yoshinaga, Rotational motion of a droplet induced by interfacial tension, Phys. Rev. E 87 (1) (2013) 013009.
M. Tarama, T. Ohta, Spinning motion of a deformable self-propelled particle in two dimensions, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 24 (46) (2012) 464129.
M. Tarama, T. Ohta, Dynamics of a deformable self-propelled particle with internal rotational force, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2013 (1) (2013) 013A01.
M. Tarama, A. M. Menzel, H. Löwen, Deformable microswimmer in a swirl: capturing and scattering dynamics, Phys. Rev. E 90 (2014) 032907.
M. Tarama, A. M. Menzel, B. ten Hagen, R. Wittkowski, T. Ohta, H. L[ö]{}wen, Dynamics of a deformable active particle under shear flow, J. Chem. Phys. 139 (10) (2013) 104906.
F. Takabatake, N. Magome, M. Ichikawa, K. Yoshikawa, Spontaneous mode-selection in the self-propelled motion of a solid/liquid composite driven by interfacial instability, J. Chem. Phys. 134 (11) (2011) 114704.
H. Wada, D. Nakane, H.-Y. Chen, Bidirectional bacterial gliding motility powered by the collective transport of cell surface proteins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (24) (2013) 248102.
J. Tailleur, M. E. Cates, Statistical mechanics of interacting run-and-tumble bacteria, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (21) (2008) 218103.
R. M. Macnab, J. D. E. Koshland, The gradient-sensing mechanism in bacterial chemotaxis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 69 (9) (1972) 2509–2512.
T. L. Min, P. J. Mears, L. M. Chubiz, C. V. Rao, I. Golding, Y. R. Chemla, High-resolution, long-term characterization of bacterial motility using optical tweezers, Nature Methods 6 (11) (2009) 831–835.
R. R. Bennett, R. Golestanian, Emergent run-and-tumble behavior in a simple model of hlamydomonas with intrinsic noise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (14) (2013) 148102.
T.-M. Yi, Y. Huang, M. I. Simon, J. Doyle, Robust perfect adaptation in bacterial chemotaxis through integral feedback control, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97 (9) (2000) 4649–4653.
P. Cluzel, M. Surette, S. Leibler, An ultrasensitive bacterial motor revealed by monitoring signaling proteins in single cells, Science 287 (5458) (2000) 1652–1655.
M. B. Miller, B. L. Bassler, Quorum sensing in bacteria, Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55 (1) (2001) 165–199.
C. M. Waters, B. L. Bassler, Quorum sensing: cell-to-cell communication in bacteria, Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 21 (2005) 319–346.
J. Taktikos, V. Zaburdaev, H. Stark, Collective dynamics of model microorganisms with chemotactic signaling, Phys. Rev. E 85 (5) (2012) 051901.
D.-P. H[ä]{}der, Polarotaxis, gravitaxis and vertical phototaxis in the green flagellate, uglena gracilis, Arch. Microbiol. 147 (2) (1987) 179–183.
X. Garcia, S. Rafa[ï]{}, P. Peyla, Light control of the flow of phototactic microswimmer suspensions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (13) (2013) 138106.
K. Yoshimura, Y. Matsuo, R. Kamiya, Gravitaxis in hlamydomonas reinhardtii studied with novel mutants, Plant Cell Physiol. 44 (10) (2003) 1112–1118.
A. M. Roberts, Mechanisms of gravitaxis in hlamydomonas, Biol. Bull. 210 (2) (2006) 78–80.
Marcos, H. C. Fu, T. R. Powers, R. Stocker, Bacterial rheotaxis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109 (13) (2012) 4780–4785.
G. V. Kolmakov, V. V. Yashin, S. P. Levitan, A. C. Balazs, Designing communicating colonies of biomimetic microcapsules, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (28) (2010) 12417–12422.
G. V. Kolmakov, V. V. Yashin, S. P. Levitan, A. C. Balazs, Designing self-propelled microcapsules for pick-up and delivery of microscopic cargo, Soft Matter 7 (7) (2011) 3168–3176.
D. Svenšek, H. Pleiner, H. R. Brand, Collective stop-and-go dynamics of active bacteria swarms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (22) (2013) 228101.
S. J. Simpson, G. A. Sword, P. D. Lorch, I. D. Couzin, Cannibal crickets on a forced march for protein and salt, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103 (11) (2006) 4152–4156.
M. J. Hansen, J. Buhl, S. Bazazi, S. J. Simpson, G. A. Sword, Cannibalism in the lifeboat – collective movement in ustralian plague locusts, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65 (9) (2011) 1715–1720.
S. Bazazi, P. Romanczuk, S. Thomas, L. Schimansky-Geier, J. J. Hale, G. A. Miller, G. A. Sword, S. J. Simpson, I. D. Couzin, Nutritional state and collective motion: from individuals to mass migration, Proc. R. Soc. B 278 (1704) (2011) 356–363.
S. Bazazi, J. Buhl, J. J. Hale, M. L. Anstey, G. A. Sword, S. J. Simpson, I. D. Couzin, Collective motion and cannibalism in locust migratory bands, Curr. Biol. 18 (10) (2008) 735–739.
P. Romanczuk, I. D. Couzin, L. Schimansky-Geier, Collective motion due to individual escape and pursuit response, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 (1) (2009) 010602.
P. Romanczuk, L. Schimansky-Geier, Swarming and pattern formation due to selective attraction and repulsion, Interface Focus 2 (6) (2012) 746–756.
J. Buhl, G. A. Sword, S. J. Simpson, Using field data to test locust migratory band collective movement models, Interface Focus 2 (6) (2012) 757–763.
E. Hensor, I. D. Couzin, R. James, J. Krause, Modelling density-dependent fish shoal distributions in the laboratory and field, Oikos 110 (2) (2005) 344–352.
C. Becco, N. Vandewalle, J. Delcourt, P. Poncin, Experimental evidences of a structural and dynamical transition in fish school, Physica A 367 (2006) 487–493.
J. Gautrais, C. Jost, M. Soria, A. Campo, S. Motsch, R. Fournier, S. Blanco, G. Theraulaz, Analyzing fish movement as a persistent turning walker, J. Math. Biol. 58 (3) (2009) 429–445.
J. E. Herbert-Read, A. Perna, R. P. Mann, T. M. Schaerf, D. J. T. Sumpter, A. J. W. Ward, Inferring the rules of interaction of shoaling fish, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 (46) (2011) 18726–18731.
Y. Katz, K. Tunstr[ø]{}m, C. C. Ioannou, C. Huepe, I. D. Couzin, Inferring the structure and dynamics of interactions in schooling fish, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 (46) (2011) 18720–18725.
J. Gautrais, F. Ginelli, R. Fournier, S. Blanco, M. Soria, H. Chat[é]{}, G. Theraulaz, Deciphering interactions in moving animal groups, PLoS Comput. Biol. 8 (9) (2012) e1002678.
K. Tunstr[ø]{}m, Y. Katz, C. C. Ioannou, C. Huepe, M. J. Lutz, I. D. Couzin, Collective states, multistability and transitional behavior in schooling fish, PLoS Comput. Biol. 9 (2) (2013) e1002915.
D. J. Hoare, I. D. Couzin, J.-G. J. Godin, J. Krause, Context-dependent group size choice in fish, Anim. Behav. 67 (1) (2004) 155–164.
C. K. Hemelrijk, H. Hildenbrandt, Schools of fish and flocks of birds: their shape and internal structure by self-organization, Interface Focus 2 (6) (2012) 726–737.
D. S. Cambu[í]{}, A. Rosas, Density induced transition in a school of fish, Physica A 391 (15) (2012) 3908–3914.
Y. Hayakawa, Spatiotemporal dynamics of skeins of wild geese, Europhys. Lett. 89 (4) (2010) 48004.
Y. Hayakawa, S. Furuhashi, Group-size distribution of skeins of wild geese, Phys. Rev. E 86 (3) (2012) 031924.
A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, A. Orlandi, G. Parisi, A. Procaccini, M. Viale, V. Zdravkovic, The starflag handbook on collective animal behaviour: 1. mpirical methods, Anim. Behav. 76 (1) (2008) 217–236.
A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, A. Orlandi, G. Parisi, A. Procaccini, The starflag handbook on collective animal behaviour: 2. hree-dimensional analysis, Anim. Behav. 76 (1) (2008) 237–248.
A. Cavagna, S. M. Duarte Queir[ó]{}s, I. Giardina, F. Stefanini, M. Viale, Diffusion of individual birds in starling flocks, Proc. R. Soc. B 280 (1756) (2013) 20122484.
M. Ballerini, N. Cabibbo, R. Candelier, A. Cavagna, E. Cisbani, I. Giardina, A. Orlandi, G. Parisi, A. Procaccini, M. Viale, V. Zdravkovic, Empirical investigation of starling flocks: a benchmark study in collective animal behaviour, Anim. Behav. 76 (1) (2008) 201–215.
M. Ballerini, N. Cabibbo, R. Candelier, A. Cavagna, E. Cisbani, I. Giardina, V. Lecomte, A. Orlandi, G. Parisi, A. Procaccini, M. Viale, V. Zdravkovic, Interaction ruling animal collective behavior depends on topological rather than metric distance: evidence from a field study, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105 (4) (2008) 1232–1237.
W. Bialek, A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, T. Mora, E. Silvestri, M. Viale, A. M. Walczak, Statistical mechanics for natural flocks of birds, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109 (13) (2012) 4786–4791.
[^1]: Also another notation is common, in which the letters $S$ and $\mathbf{Q}$ are used instead of $s$ and $\mathbf{S}$, respectively.
[^2]: We here use a simplified version of this thermodynamic expression. Due to the anisotropy of the system, the coefficient $K$ in general is replaced by a fourth-rank tensor [@degennes1993physics].
[^3]: This was demonstrated for rod-like particles [@wensink2008aggregation]. In that case, after a certain time, the clusters can slip off the wall, supported by the reorienting steric interactions with the wall [@elgeti2013wall]. On the contrary, due to their isotropic steric interactions, self-propelled spheres are more effectively blocked by walls than rod-like particles [@elgeti2013wall].
[^4]: The notation in this context is not unambiguous. Sometimes polar swarms are also denoted as clusters, whereas sometimes non-polar clusters are denoted as swarms.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose and analyze a method for computing failure probabilities of systems modeled as numerical deterministic models (e.g., PDEs) with uncertain input data. A failure occurs when a functional of the solution to the model is below (or above) some critical value. By combining recent results on quantile estimation and the multilevel Monte Carlo method we develop a method which reduces computational cost without loss of accuracy. We show how the computational cost of the method relates to error tolerance of the failure probability. For a wide and common class of problems, the computational cost is asymptotically proportional to solving a single accurate realization of the numerical model, i.e., independent of the number of samples. Significant reductions in computational cost are also observed in numerical experiments.'
author:
- Daniel Elfverson
- Fredrik Hellman
- Axel Målqvist
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: A multilevel Monte Carlo method for computing failure probabilities
---
Introduction
============
This paper is concerned with the computational problem of finding the probability for failures of a modeled system. The model input is subject to uncertainty with known distribution and a failure is the event that a functional (quantity of interest, QoI) of the model output is below (or above) some critical value. The goal of this paper is to develop an efficient and accurate multilevel Monte Carlo (MLMC) method to find the failure probability. We focus mainly on the case when the model is a partial differential equation (PDE) and we use terminology from the discipline of numerical methods for PDEs. However, the methodology presented here is also applicable in a more general setting.
A multilevel Monte Carlo method inherits the non-intrusive and non-parametric characteristics from the standard Monte Carlo (MC) method. This allows the method to be used for complex black-box problems for which intrusive analysis is difficult or impossible. The MLMC method uses a hierarchy of numerical approximations on different accuracy levels. The levels in the hierarchy are typically directly related to a grid size or timestep length. The key idea behind the MLMC method is to use low accuracy solutions as control variates for high accuracy solutions in order to construct an estimator with lower variance. Savings in computational cost are achieved when the low accuracy solutions are cheap and are sufficiently correlated with the high accuracy solutions. MLMC was first introduced in [@Gil08] for stochastic differential equations as a generalization of a two-level variance reduction technique introduced in [@Keb05]. The method has been applied to and analyzed for elliptic PDEs in [@ClGiScTe11; @ChScTe13; @TeScGiUl13]. Further improvements of the MLMC method, such as work on optimal hierarchies, non-uniform meshes and more accurate error estimates can be found in [@LNST14; @CHNST14]. In the present paper, we are not interested in the expected value of the QoI, but instead a failure probability, which is essentially a single point evaluation of the cumulative distribution function (cdf). For extreme failure probabilities, related methods include importance sampling [@Gly96], importance splitting [@GlHeShZa96], and subset simulations [@AuBe01]. Works more related to the present paper include non-parameteric density estimation for PDE models in [@EsMaTa09], and in particular [@EEHM14]. In the latter, the selective refinement method for quantiles was formulated and analyzed.
In this paper, we seek to compute the cdf at a given critical value. The cdf at the critical value can be expressed as the expectation value of a binomially distributed random variable $Q$ that is equal to $1$ if the QoI is smaller than the critical value, and $0$ otherwise. The key idea behind selective refinement is that realizations with QoI far from the critical value can be solved to a lower accuracy than those close to the critical value, and still yield the same value of $Q$. The random variable $Q$ lacks regularity with respect to the uncertain input data, and hence we are in an unfavorable situation for application of the MLMC method. However, with the computational savings from the selective refinement it is still possible to obtain an asymptotic result for the computational cost where the cost for the full estimator is proportional to the cost for a single realization to the highest accuracy.
The paper is structured as follows. Section \[sec:problem\_formulation\] presents the necessary assumptions and the precise problem description. It is followed by Section \[sec:failure\] where our particular failure probability functional is defined and analyzed for the MLMC method. In Section \[sec:MLMC\] and Section \[sec:selective\] we revisit the multilevel Monte Carlo and selective refinement method adapted to this problem and in Section \[sec:SMLMC\] we show how to combine multilevel Monte Carlo with the selective refinement to obtain optimal computational cost. In Section \[sec:heuristic\] we give details on how to implement the method in practice. The paper is concluded with two numerical experiments in Section \[sec:numerical\].
Problem formulation {#sec:problem_formulation}
===================
We consider a model problem $\mathcal{M}$, e.g., a (non-)linear differential operator with uncertain data. We let $u$ denote the solution to the model $$\label{eq:model}
\mathcal{M}(\omega,u) = 0,$$ where the data $\omega$ is sampled from a space $\Omega$. In what follows we assume that there exists a unique solution $u$ given any $\omega\in\Omega$ almost surely. It follows that the solution $u$ to a given model problem $\mathcal{M}$ is a random variable which can be parameterized in $\omega$, i.e., $u=u(\omega)$.
The focus of this work is to compute failure probabilities, i.e., we are not interested in some pointwise estimate of the expected value of the solution, ${\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[u{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$, but rather the probability that a given QoI expressed as a functional, $X(u)$ of the solution $u$, is less (or greater) than some given critical value $y$. We let $F$ denote the cdf of the random variable $X = X(\omega)$. The failure probability is then given by $$\label{eq:failure}
p=F(y) = \Pr(X \le y).$$ The following example illustrates how the problem description relates to real world problems.
As an example, geological sequestration of carbon dioxide () is performed by injection of in an underground reservoir. The fate of the determines the success or failure of the storage system. The propagation is often modeled as a PDE with random input data, such as a random permeability field. Typical QoIs include reservoir breakthrough time or pressure at a fault. The value $y$ corresponds to a critical value which the QoI may not exceed or go below. In the breakthrough time case, low values are considered failure. In the pressure case, high values are considered failure. In that case one should negate the QoI to transform the problem to the form of equation .
The only regularity assumption on the model is the following Lipschitz continuity assumption of the cdf, which is assumed to hold throughout the paper.
\[ass:lip\] For any $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$, $$|F(x)-F(y)| \leq {C_{L}}|x-y|.$$
To compute the failure probability we consider the binomially distributed variable $Q = \mathbbm{1}{(X\le y)}$ which takes the value $1$ if $X\le y$ and $0$ otherwise. The cdf can be expressed as the expected value of $Q$, i.e., $p=F(y)= {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$. In practice we construct an estimator $\widehat{Q}$ for ${\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$, based on approximate sample values from $X$. As such, $\widehat Q$ often suffers from numerical bias from the approximation in the underlying sample. Our goal is to compute the estimator $\widehat Q$ to a given root mean square error (RMSE) tolerance $\epsilon$, i.e., to compute $$\label{eq:rmse}
{e{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\widehat Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}
= {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(\widehat Q- {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^2{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^{1/2} ={\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\widehat Q {\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} + {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\widehat Q- Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^2{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^{1/2} \leq \epsilon$$ to a minimal computational cost. The equality above shows a standard way of splitting the RMSE into a stochastic error and numerical bias contribution.
The next section presents assumptions and results regarding the numerical discretization of the particular failure probability functional $Q$.
Approximate failure probability functional {#sec:failure}
==========================================
We will not consider a particular approximation technique for computing $\widehat Q$, but instead make some abstract assumptions on the underlying discretization. We introduce a hierarchy of refinement levels $\ell = 0,1,\ldots$ and let $X'_\ell$ and $Q'_\ell =
\mathbbm{1}{(X'_\ell \le y)}$ be an approximate QoI of the model, and approximate failure probability, respectively, on level $\ell$. One possible and natural way to define the accuracy on level $\ell$ is by assuming $$\label{eq:uniformerror}
{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X - X'_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \le \gamma^\ell,$$ for some $0 < \gamma < 1$. This means the error of all realizations on level $\ell$ are uniformly bounded by $\gamma^\ell$. In a PDE setting, typically an a priori error bound or a posteriori error estimate, $${\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X(\omega) - X_h(\omega){\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \le C(\omega) h^{s},$$ can be derived for some constants $C(\omega)$, $s$, and a discretization parameter $h$. Then we can choose $X'_\ell = X_h$ with $h = {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(C(\omega)^{-1}\gamma^\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^{1/s}$ to fulfill .
For an accurate value of the failure probability functional the condition in is unnecessarily strong. This functional is very sensitive to perturbations of values close to $y$, but insensitive to perturbations for values far from $y$. This insensitivity can be exploited. We introduce a different approximation $X_\ell$, and impose the following, relaxed, assumption on this approximation of $X$, which allows for larger errors far from the critical value $y$. This assumption is illustrated in Figure \[fig:numericalerror\].
\[ass:qoierror\] The numerical approximation $X_\ell$ of $X$ satisfies $$\label{eq:numerror}
{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X - X_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \le \gamma^\ell \quad \text{ or } \quad {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X - X_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| < {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X_\ell - y{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}|$$ for a fix $0 < \gamma < 1$.
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
We define $Q_\ell = \mathbbm{1}{(X_\ell \le y)}$ analogously to $Q'_\ell$. Let us compare the implications of the two conditions and on the quality of the two respective approximations. Denote by $X'_\ell$ and $Q'_\ell$ stochastic variables obeying the error bound and its corresponding approximate failure functional, respectively, and let $X_\ell$ obey . In a practical situation, Assumption \[ass:qoierror\] is fulfilled by iterative refinements of $X_\ell$ until condition is satisfied. It is natural to use a similar procedure to achieve the stricter condition for $X'_\ell$. We express this latter assumption of using similar procedures for computing $X_\ell$ and $X'_\ell$ as $$\label{eq:similarmethods}
|X - X_\ell| \le \gamma^\ell \text{ implies } X'_\ell = X_\ell,$$ i.e., for outcomes where $X_\ell$ is solved to accuracy $\gamma^\ell$, $X'_\ell$ is equal to $X_\ell$. Under that assumption, the following lemma shows that it is not less probable that $Q_\ell$ is correct than that $Q'_\ell$ is.
Let $X'_\ell$ and $X_\ell$ fulfill and , respectively, and assume holds. Then $\Pr(Q_\ell = Q) \ge
\Pr(Q'_\ell = Q)$.
We split $\Omega$ into the events $A = \{\omega \in \Omega : |X -
X_\ell| \le \gamma^\ell\}$ and its complement $\Omega \setminus
A$. For $\omega \in A$, using , we conclude that $Q'_\ell = Q_\ell$, hence $$\Pr(Q_\ell = Q \;|\; A) = \Pr(Q'_\ell = Q \;|\; A).$$ For $\omega \notin A$, we have $|X - X_\ell| > \gamma^\ell$, and from that $|X - X_\ell| < |X_\ell - y|$, i.e., $Q_\ell = Q$ and hence $$\Pr(Q_\ell = Q \;|\; \Omega \setminus A) = 1.$$ Since $\Pr(Q'_\ell = Q \;|\; \Omega \setminus A) \le 1$, we get $\Pr(Q_\ell = Q) \ge \Pr(Q'_\ell = Q)$.
Under Assumption \[ass:qoierror\] we can prove the following lemma on the accuracy of the failure probability function $Q_\ell$.
\[lem:assEVW\] Under Assumption \[ass:lip\] and \[ass:qoierror\], the statements
M1
: ${\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}|\leq {C_1}\gamma^\ell$,
M2
: ${\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \leq
{C_2}\gamma^{\ell}$ for $\ell \geq 1$,
are satisfied where ${C_1}$ and ${C_2}$ do not depend on $\ell$.
\[proof:assEVW1\] We split $\Omega$ into the events $B = \{\omega \in \Omega :
\gamma^\ell \ge |X_\ell - y|\}$ and its complement $\Omega \setminus
B$. In $\Omega \setminus B$, we have $Q_\ell = Q$, since $|X -
X_\ell| < |X_\ell - y|$ from . Also, we note that the event $B$ implies $|X - X_\ell| \le \gamma^\ell$, hence $|X - y|
\le 2\gamma^\ell$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell - Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| & = {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|\int_{B} Q_\ell(\omega) - Q(\omega)\,\mathrm{d}P(\omega){\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}|
\le \int_{B} 1\,\mathrm{d}P(\omega) \\
& \le \Pr(|X - y| \le 2\gamma^\ell)
= F(y - 2\gamma^\ell) - F(y + 2\gamma^\ell) \\
& \le 4C_L\gamma^\ell, \\
\end{aligned}$$ which proves **M1**. **M2** follows directly from **M1**, since $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} & = {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[(Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1})^2{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} - {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}^2 \\
& \le {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-2Q_\ell Q_{\ell-1} + Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \\
& \le {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| + {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|2{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell Q_{\ell-1}-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| + {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_{\ell-1}-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \\
& \le 2{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| + 2{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_{\ell-1}-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \\
& \le C_2\gamma^\ell, \\
\end{aligned}$$ where $(Q_\ell)^2 = Q_\ell$ was used.
Interesting to note with this particular failure probability functional is that the convergence rate in **M2** cannot be improved if the rate in **M1** is already sharp, as the following lemma shows.
Let $0 < \gamma < 1$ be fixed. If there is a $0<c\leq 1$ such that the failure probability functional satisfies $$c\gamma^\ell \leq|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell - Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| \leq {C_1}\gamma^\ell$$ for all $\ell=0,\ldots$, then $${\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell - Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \leq {C_2}\gamma^{\beta\ell},$$ where $\beta = 1$ is sharp in the sense that the relation will be violated for sufficiently large $\ell$, if $\beta>1$.
Assume that ${\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell - Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}\leq C\gamma^{\beta\ell}$ for for some constant $C$ and $\beta>1$. For two levels $\ell$ and $k$, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell - Q_k{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| &\geq {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}| |{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}|-|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_k-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}|{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \geq {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(c-\gamma^{\ell-k}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})\gamma^k.
\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $\ell$ and $k$ such that $\ell > k$ and $c-\gamma^{\ell-k}>0$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(c-\gamma^{\ell-k}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})\gamma^k &\leq |{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell - Q_k{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| \leq \sum_{j=k}^{\ell-1}|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_{j+1} - Q_j{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| \leq \sum_{j=k}^{\ell-1}{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[(Q_{j+1} - Q_j)^2{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \\
& = \sum_{j=k}^{\ell-1}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_{j+1} - Q_j{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} + {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_{j+1} - Q_j{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^2{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}) \\
& \leq \sum_{j=k}^{\ell-1}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(C\gamma^{\beta j} + \mathcal{O}(\gamma^{2j}){\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}) \le \widetilde C\gamma^{\beta k} + \mathcal{O}(\gamma^{2k}).
\end{aligned}$$ For $\ell,k \to \infty$ we have a contradiction and hence $\beta\leq 1$, which proves that the bound can not be improved.
Multilevel Monte Carlo method {#sec:MLMC}
=============================
In this section, we present the multilevel Monte Carlo method in a general context. Because of the low convergence rate of the variance in **M2**, the MLMC method does not perform optimally for the failure probability functional. The results presented here will be combined with the results from Section \[sec:selective\] to derive a new method to compute failure probabilities efficiently in Section \[sec:SMLMC\].
The (standard) MC estimator at refinement level $\ell$ of ${\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$ using a sample $\{\omega^{i}_\ell\}_{i=1}^{N_\ell}$, reads $$\label{eq:MC}
{\widehat Q^{MC}_{N_\ell,\ell}} = \frac{1}{N_\ell}\sum_{i=1}^{N_\ell}Q_\ell(\omega^{i}_\ell).$$ Note that the subscripts $N_\ell$ and $\ell$ control the statistical error and numerical bias, respectively. The expected value and variance of the estimator ${\widehat Q^{MC}_{N_\ell,\ell}}$ are ${\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{MC}_{N_\ell,\ell}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}={\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$ and ${\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{MC}_{N_\ell,\ell}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} =
N_\ell^{-1}{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$, respectively. Referring to the goal of the paper, we want the MSE (square of the RMSE) to satisfy $$\label{eq:MCerror}
{e{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{MC}_{N_\ell,\ell}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}^2 = N_\ell^{-1}{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} + {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^2\leq \epsilon^2/2 + \epsilon^2/2=\epsilon^2,$$ i.e., both the statistical error and the numerical error should be less than $\epsilon^2/2$. The MLMC method is a variance reduction technique for the MC method. The MLMC estimator ${\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}$ at refinement level $L$ is expressed as a telescoping sum of $L$ MC estimator correctors: $${\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}} = \sum_{\ell=0}^L\frac{1}{N_\ell}\sum_{i=1}^{N_\ell}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(Q_\ell(\omega^{i}_\ell) - Q_{\ell-1}(\omega^{i}_\ell){\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}),$$ where $Q_{-1}=0$. There is one corrector for every refinement level $\ell = 0,\ldots,L$, each with a specific MC estimator sample size $N_\ell$. The expected value and variance of the MLMC estimator are $$\label{eq:MLCMexpvar}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} &= \sum_{\ell=0}^L{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} = {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_L{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}\quad \text{and} \\
{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} &= \sum_{\ell=0}^LN_\ell^{-1}{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]},
\end{aligned}$$ respectively. Using the MSE for the MLMC estimator can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
{e{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}^2 &= \sum_{\ell=0}^LN_\ell^{-1} {\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}+{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_L-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^2,
\end{aligned}$$ and can be computed at expected cost $${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} = \sum_{\ell=0}^L N_\ell c_\ell,$$ where $c_\ell={\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}+{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$. Here, by ${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\cdot{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$ we denote the expected computational cost to compute a certain quantity. Given that the variance of the MLMC estimator is $\epsilon^2/2$ the expected cost is minimized by choosing $$\label{eq:MLMCoptimalNl}
N_\ell = 2\epsilon^{-2}\sqrt{{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}/ c_\ell}\sum_{k=0}^L\sqrt{{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_{k}-Q_{k-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}c_k}$$ (see Appendix \[optimalNl\]), and hence the total expected cost is $$\label{eq:MLMCtotalcost}
{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} = 2\epsilon^{-2}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(\sum_{\ell=0}^L \sqrt{{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}c_\ell}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^2.$$ If the product ${\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}c_\ell$ increases (or decreases) with $\ell$ then dominating term in will be $\ell=L$ (or $\ell = 0$). The values $N_\ell$ can be estimated on the fly in the MLMC algorithm using while the cost $c_\ell$ can be estimated using an a priori model. The computational complexity to obtain a RMSE less than $\epsilon$ of the MLMC estimator for the failure probability functional is given by the theorem below. In the following, the notation $a \lesssim b$ stands for $a \le Cb$ with some constant $C$ independent of $\epsilon$ and $\ell$.
\[thm:MLMC\] Let Assumption \[ass:lip\] and \[ass:qoierror\] hold (so that Lemma \[lem:assEVW\] holds) and ${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \lesssim \gamma^{-r
\ell}$. Then there exists a constant $L$ and a sequence $\{N_\ell\}$ such that the RMSE is less than $\epsilon$, and the expected cost of the MLMC estimator is $${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \lesssim
\begin{cases}
\epsilon^{-2} & \quad r < 1\\
\epsilon^{-2}(\log\epsilon^{-1})^2 & \quad r = 1 \\
\epsilon^{-1-r} & \quad r > 1. \\
\end{cases}$$
For a proof see, e.g., [@ClGiScTe11; @Gil08].
The most straight-forward procedure to fulfill Assumption \[ass:qoierror\] in practice is to refine all samples on level $\ell$ uniformly to an error tolerance $\gamma^\ell$, i.e., to compute $X'_\ell$ introduced in Section \[sec:failure\], for which ${\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X - X'_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \leq \gamma^{\ell}$. Typical numerical schemes for computing $X'_\ell$ include finite element, finite volume, or finite difference schemes. Then the expected cost ${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q'_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$ typically fulfill $$\label{eq:costmodel}
{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q'_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} = \gamma^{-q\ell},$$ where $q$ depends on the physical dimension of the computational domain, the convergence rate of the solution method, and computational complexity for assembling and solving the linear system. Note that one unit of work is normalized according to equation (\[eq:costmodel\]). Using Theorem \[thm:MLMC\], with $Q'_\ell$ instead of $Q_\ell$ (which is possible, since $Q'_\ell$ trivially fulfills Assumption \[ass:qoierror\]) we obtain a RMSE of the expected cost less than $\epsilon^{-1-q} = \epsilon^{-1}{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q'_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$ for the case $q > 1$.
In the next section we describe how the selective refinement algorithm computes $X_\ell$ (hence $Q_\ell$) that fulfills Assumption \[ass:qoierror\] to a lower cost than its fully refined equivalent $X'_\ell$. The theorem above can then be applied with $r =
q - 1$ instead of $r = q$.
Selective refinement algorithm {#sec:selective}
==============================
In this section we modify the selective refinement algorithm proposed in [@EEHM14] for computing failure probabilities (instead of quantiles) and for quantifying the error using the RMSE. The selective refinement algorithm computes $X_\ell$ so that $$\label{eq:numerror2}
{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X - X_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \le \gamma^{\ell} \quad \text{ or } \quad {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X - X_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| < {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X_\ell - y{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}|$$ in Assumption \[ass:qoierror\] is fulfilled without requiring the stronger (full refinement) condition $$\label{eq:uniformerror2}
{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|X - X_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \le \gamma^\ell.$$ In contrast to the selective refinement algorithm in [@EEHM14], Assumption \[ass:qoierror\] can be fulfilled by iterative refinement of realizations over all realizations independently. This allows for an efficient totally parallell implementation. We are particularly interested in quantifying the expected cost required by the selective refinement algorithm, and showing that the $X_\ell$ resulting from the algorithm fulfills Assumption \[ass:qoierror\].
Algorithm \[alg:selective\] exploits the fact that $Q_\ell=Q$ for realizations satisfying $|X - X_\ell| < |X_\ell - y|$. That is, even if the error of $X_\ell$ is greater than $\gamma^\ell$, it might be sufficiently accurate to yield the correct value of $Q_\ell$. The algorithm works on a per-realization basis, starting with an error tolerance $1$. The realization is refined iteratively until Assumption \[ass:qoierror\] is fulfilled. The advantage is that many samples can be solved only with low accuracy and hence the average cost per $Q_\ell$ is reduced. Lemma \[lem:selective\_satisfies\_assumption\] shows that $X_\ell$ computed using Algorithm \[alg:selective\] satisfies Assumption \[ass:qoierror\].
Input arguments: level $\ell$, realization $i$, critical value $y$, and tolerance factor $\gamma$ Compute $X_\ell(\omega^i_\ell)$ to tolerance $1$ Let $j = 0$ Recompute $X_\ell(\omega^i_\ell)$ to tolerance $\gamma^j$ Let $j = j + 1$ Final $X_\ell(\omega^i_\ell)$ is the result
\[lem:selective\_satisfies\_assumption\] Approximations $X_\ell$ computed using Algorithm \[alg:selective\] satisfy Assumption \[ass:qoierror\].
At each iteration in the while-loop of Algorithm \[alg:selective\], $\gamma^j$ is the error tolerance of $X_\ell(\omega^i_\ell)$, i.e., $|X(\omega^i_\ell) -
X_\ell(\omega^i_\ell)| \le \gamma^j$. The stopping criterion hence implies Assumption \[ass:qoierror\] for $X_\ell(\omega^i_\ell)$.
The expected cost for computing $Q_\ell$ using Algorithm \[alg:selective\] is given by the following lemma.
\[lem:cost\_selective\] The expected cost to compute the failure probability functional using Algorithm \[alg:selective\] can be bounded as $$\label{eq:costselective}
{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \lesssim \sum_{j=0}^\ell\gamma^{(1-q)j}.$$
Consider iteration $j$, i.e., when $X_\ell(\omega^i_\ell)$ has been computed to tolerance $\gamma^{j-1}$. We denote by $E_{j}$ the probability that a realization enters iteration $j$. For $j \le
\ell$, $$\label{eq:probToEnter}
\begin{aligned}
\Pr(E_{j}) & = \Pr(y-\gamma^{j-1} \le X_\ell \le y + \gamma^{j-1}) \\
& \le \Pr(y - 2\gamma^{j-1} \le X \le y + 2\gamma^{j-1}) \\
& = F(y+2\gamma^{j-1}) - F(y-2\gamma^{j-1}) \\
& \leq 4{C_{L}}\gamma^{j-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ Every realization is initially solved to tolerance $1$. Using that the cost for solving a realization to tolerance $\gamma^j$ is $\gamma^{-qj}$, we get that the expected cost is $$\label{eq:costselective1}
{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} = 1 + \sum_{j=1}^\ell \Pr(E_j) \gamma^{-qj} \le 1 + \sum_{j=1}^\ell4{C_{L}}\gamma^{j-1}\gamma^{-qj} \lesssim \sum_{j=0}^\ell\gamma^{(1-q)j}$$ which concludes the proof.
Multilevel Monte Carlo using the selective refinement strategy {#sec:SMLMC}
==============================================================
Combining the MLMC method with the algorithm for selective refinement there can be further savings in computational cost. We call this method multilevel Monte Carlo with selective refinement (MLMC-SR). In particular, for $q>1$ we obtain from Lemma \[lem:cost\_selective\] that the expected cost for one sample can be bounded as $$\label{eq:costmodel_selective}
\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \lesssim \sum_{j=0}^\ell\gamma^{(1-q)j} \lesssim \gamma^{(1-q)\ell}.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Theorem \[thm:MLMC\] with $r = q-1$ yields the following result.
\[thm:workMLMCsel\] Let Assumption \[ass:lip\] and Assumption \[ass:qoierror\] hold (so that Lemma \[lem:assEVW\] holds) and suppose that Algorithm \[alg:selective\] is executed to compute $Q_\ell$. Then there exists a constant $L$ and a sequence $\{N_\ell\}$ such that the RMSE is less than $\epsilon$, and the expected cost for the MLMC estimator with selective refinement is $${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \lesssim
\begin{cases}
\epsilon^{-2} & \quad q<2 \\
\epsilon^{-2}(\log\epsilon^{-1})^2 & \quad q = 2 \\
\epsilon^{-q} & \quad q>2.
\end{cases}$$
For $q>1$, follows directly from Theorem \[thm:MLMC\] since Lemma \[lem:assEVW\] holds with $r=q-1$. For $q \le 1$, we use the rate $\epsilon^{-2}$ from the case $1 < q < 2$, since the cost cannot be worsened by making each sample cheaper to compute.
In a standard MC method we have $\epsilon^{-2}\sim N$ where $N$ is the number of samples and $\epsilon^{-q}\sim {\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q'_L{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$ where ${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q'_L{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$ is the expected computational cost for solving one realization on the finest level without selective refinement. The MLMC-SR method then has the following cost, $${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \lesssim
\begin{cases}
N & \quad q< 2 \\
{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q'_L{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} & \quad q > 2.
\end{cases}$$ A comparison of MC, MLMC with full refinement (MLMC), and MLMC with selective refinement (MLMC-SR), is given in Table \[tab:comparison\]. To summarize, the best possible scenario is when the cost is $\epsilon^{-2}$, which is equivalent with a standard MC method where all samples can be obtained with cost $1$. This complexity is obtained for the MLMC method when $q<1$ and for the MLMC-SR method when $q<2$. For $q>2$ the MC method has the same complexity as solving $N$ problem on the finest level $N{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q'_L{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$, MLMC has the same cost as $N^{1/2}$ problem on the finest level $N^{1/2}{\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q'_L{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$, and MLMC-SR method as solving one problem on the finest level ${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q'_L{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$.
Method $0\leq q<1$ $1< q < 2$ $ q>2$
--------- ------------------- ------------------- -------------------
MC $\epsilon^{-2-q}$ $\epsilon^{-2-q}$ $\epsilon^{-2-q}$
MLMC $\epsilon^{-2}$ $\epsilon^{-1-q}$ $\epsilon^{-1-q}$
MLMC-SR $\epsilon^{-2}$ $\epsilon^{-2}$ $\epsilon^{-q}$
: Comparison of work between MC, MLMC with full refinement (MLMC), and MLMC with selective refinement (MLMC-SR) for different $q$.[]{data-label="tab:comparison"}
Heuristic algorithm {#sec:heuristic}
===================
In this section, we present a heuristic algorithm for the MLMC method with selective refinement. Contrary to Theorem \[thm:workMLMCsel\], this algorithm does not guarantee that the RMSE is $\mathcal{O}(\epsilon)$, since we in practice lack a priori knowledge of the constants ${C_1}$ and ${C_2}$ in Lemma \[lem:assEVW\]. Instead, the RMSE needs to be estimated. Recall the split of the MSE into a numerical and statistical contribution: $${\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q-\widehat Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^2\leq \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^2\quad\text{and}\quad {\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\widehat Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \leq \frac{1}{2}\epsilon^2.$$ With $\widehat Q$ being the multilevel Monte Carlo estimator ${\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}$, we here present heuristics for estimating the numerical and statistical error of the estimator.
For both estimates and $\ell \ge 1$, we make use of the trinomially distributed variable $Y_\ell(\omega) = Q_\ell(\omega) -
Q_{\ell-1}(\omega)$. We denote the probabilities for $Y_\ell$ to be $-1$, $0$ and $1$ by $p_{-1}$, $p_{0}$ and $p_{1}$, respectively. For convenience, we drop the index $\ell$ for the probabilities, however, they do depend on $\ell$. In order to estimate the numerical bias ${\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q - {\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} = {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q - Q_L{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$, we assume that ${\bf M1}$ holds approximately with equality, i.e., ${\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q-Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \approx
{C_1}\gamma^\ell$. Then the numerical bias can be overestimated, $|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q - Q_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| \le |{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}|(\gamma^{-1}-1)^{-1}$, since $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}| {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} {\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| & = {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}| {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} - {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_{\ell-1}-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} {\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \\
& \ge {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}| |{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| - |{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_{\ell-1}-Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| {\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \\
& \approx {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}| {C_1}\gamma^\ell - {C_1}\gamma^{\ell-1} {\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}| \\
& = {C_1}\gamma^{\ell}(\gamma^{-1} - 1). \\
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we concentrate our effort on estimating $|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}|$.
It has been observed that the accuracy of sample estimates of mean and variance of $Y_\ell$ might deteriorate for deep levels $\ell \gg 1$, and a continuation multilevel Monte Carlo method was proposed in [@CHNST14] as a remedy for this. That idea could be applied and specialized for this functional to obtain more accurate estimates. However, in this work we use the properties of the trinomially distributed $Y_\ell$ to construct a method with optimal asymptotic behavior, possibly with increase of computational cost by a constant.
We consider the three binomial distributions $[Y_\ell = 1]$, $[Y_\ell = -1]$ and $[Y_\ell \ne 0]$ which have parameters $p_1$, $p_{-1}$ and $p_1 + p_{-1}$, respectively ($[\cdot]$ is the Iverson bracket notation). These parameters can be used in estimates for both the expectation value and variance of the trinomially distributed $Y_\ell$. Considering a general binomial distribution $B(n, p)$, we want to estimate $p$. For our distributions, as the level $\ell$ increases, $p$ approaches zero, why we are concerned with finding stable estimates for small $p$. It is important that the parameter is not underestimated, since it is used to control the numerical bias and statistical error and could then cause premature termination. We propose an estimation method that is easy to implement, and that will overestimate the parameter in case of accuracy problems, rather than underestimate it, while keeping the asymptotic rates given in Lemma \[lem:assEVW\] for the estimators.
The standard unbiased estimator of $p$ is $\hat p = xn^{-1}$, where $x$ is the number of observed successes. The proposed alternative (and biased) estimator is $\tilde p = (x + k)(n + k)^{-1}$ for a $k >
0$. This corresponds to a Bayesian estimate with prior beta distribution with parameters $(k+1, 1)$. Observing that $$\label{eq:ev_p}
\begin{aligned}
|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| & = |p_1 - p_{-1}|, \\
{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} & = p_1 + p_{-1} - (p_1 - p_{-1})^2
\end{aligned}$$ and considering Lemma \[lem:assEVW\] (assuming equality with the rates), we conclude that all three parameters $p \propto \gamma^\ell$ (where $\propto$ means asymptotically proportional to, for $\ell \gg
1$). With the standard estimator $\hat p$, the relative variance can be expressed as ${\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\hat p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}({\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\hat p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]})^{-2}$. This quantity should be less than one for an accurate estimate. We now examine its asymptotic behavior. The parameter $n$ is the optimal number of samples at level $\ell$ (equation ) and can be expressed as $$\label{eq:n_asymptotic}
n \propto \gamma^{\frac{1}{2}\ell q - \frac{1}{2}L(2+q)},$$ where we used that $\epsilon \propto \gamma^L$, ${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \propto
\gamma^{(1-q)\ell}$ and ${\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} \propto \gamma^\ell$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\hat p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}}{{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\hat p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}^{2}} & = \frac{n^{-1}p(1-p)}{p^2} = \frac{1-p}{np}
\propto \gamma^{\frac{2+q}{2}(L-\ell)}.
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, for $\ell = L$, the relative variance is asymptotically constant, but we don’t know a priori how big this constant is. When it is large (greater than $1$), the relative variance of $\hat p$ might be very large. An analogous analysis on $\tilde p$ yields $$\label{eq:relative_variance}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\tilde p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}}{{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\tilde p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}^{2}} & = \frac{(n+k)^{-2}np(1-p)}{(n+k)^{-2}(np + k)^2} = \frac{np(1-p)}{(np+k)^2} \le \frac{np}{(np+k)^2}. \\
\end{aligned}$$ Maximizing the bound in with respect to $np$, gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\tilde p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}}{{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\tilde p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}^{2}} & \le \frac{1}{4k}. \\
\end{aligned}$$ Choosing for instance $k = 1$ gives a maximum relative variance of $1/4$. Choosing a larger $k$ gives larger bias, but smaller relative variance. The bias of this estimator is significant if $np \ll k$, however, that is the case when we have too few samples to estimate the parameter accurately, and then $\tilde p$ instead acts as a bound. The estimate $\tilde p$ keeps the asymptotic behavior ${\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\tilde p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}
\propto \gamma^\ell$, since $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\tilde p{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} & = \frac{np + k}{n+k} \propto \frac{np + k}{n} = p + \frac{k}{n} \propto p,
\end{aligned}$$ where we use that $n$ dominates $k$ for large $\ell$.
Now, estimating the parameters $p_1$, $p_{-1}$ and $p_{1} + p_{-1}$ as $\tilde p_1$, $\tilde p_{-1}$ and $\tilde p_{\pm 1}$, respectively, using the estimator $\tilde p$ above (note that the sum $p_1 + p_{-1}$ is estimated separately from $p_1$ and $p_{-1}$) we can bound (approximately) the expected value and variance of $Y_\ell$ in : $$\label{eq:expected_p}
\begin{aligned}
|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}| & \le \max(p_1, p_{-1}) \approx \max(\tilde p_1, \tilde p_{-1})
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:variance_p}
{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} & \le p_1 + p_{-1} \approx \tilde p_{\pm 1}
\end{aligned}$$ for $\ell \ge 1$. For $\ell = 0$, the sample size is usually large enough to use the sample mean and variance as accurate estimates. Since the asymptotic behavior of $\tilde p$ is $\gamma^\ell$, the rates in Lemma \[lem:assEVW\] still holds and Theorem \[thm:workMLMCsel\] applies (however, with approximate quantities).
The algorithm for the MLMC method using selective refinement is presented in Algorithm \[alg:MLMCselective\]. The termination criterion is the same as was used in the standard MLMC algorithm [@Gil08], i.e., $$\label{eq:termination}
\begin{aligned}
\max(\gamma |{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_{L-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}|, |{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_{L}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}|) < \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\gamma^{-1} - 1)\epsilon,
\end{aligned}$$ where $|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_{L-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}|$ and $|{\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_{L}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}|$ are estimated using the methods presented above. A difference from the standard MLMC algorithm is that the initial sample size for level $L$ is $N_L = N\gamma^{-L}$ instead of $N_L = N$, for some $N$. This is what is predicted by equation and is necessary to provide accurate estimates of the expectation value and variance of $Y_\ell$ for deep levels. Other differences from the standard MLMC algorithm is that the selective refinement algorithm (Algorithm \[alg:selective\]) is used to compute ${\widehat Q^{MC}_{N_\ell,L}}$, and that the estimates of expectation value and variance of $Y_\ell$ are computed according to the discussion above.
Pick critical value $y$, cost model parameter $q$, tolerance factor $\gamma$, initial number of samples $N$, parameter $k$, and final tolerance $\epsilon$ Set $L=0$ Let $N_L = N\gamma^{-L}$ and compute ${\widehat Q^{MC}_{N_\ell,L}}$ using selective refinement (Algorithm \[alg:selective\]) Estimate ${\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$ using Estimate the optimal $\{N_\ell\}_{\ell=0}^L$ using and cost model Estimate ${\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q_\ell-Q_{\ell-1}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}$ using Terminate if converged by checking inequality Set L = L + 1 The MLMC-SR estimator is ${\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}} = \sum_{\ell=1}^L {\widehat Q^{MC}_{N_\ell,\ell}}$
Numerical experiments {#sec:numerical}
=====================
Two types of numerical experiments are presented in this section. The first experiment (in Section \[sec:demonstrational\]) is performed on a simple and cheap model $\mathcal{M}$ so that the asymptotic results of the computational cost, derived in Theorem \[thm:workMLMCsel\], can be verified. The second experiment (in Section \[sec:single-phase\]) is performed on a PDE model $\mathcal{M}$ to show the method’s applicability to realistic problems. In our experiments we made use of the software FEniCS [@FenicsBook] and SciPy [@SciPy].
Failure probability of a normal distribution {#sec:demonstrational}
--------------------------------------------
In this first demonstrational experiment, we let the quantity of interest $X$ belong to the standard normal distribution and we seek to find the probability of $X \le y = 0.8$. The true value of this probability is $\Pr(X \le 0.8) = \Phi(0.8) \approx 0.78814$ and we hence have a reliable reference solution. We define approximations $X_h$ of $X$ as follows. First, we let our input data $\omega$ belong to the standard normal distribution, and let $X(\omega) =
\omega$. Then, we let $X_h(\omega) = \omega +
h(2U(\omega,h)-1+b)/(1+b)$, where $b = 0.1$ and $U(\omega,h)$ is a uniformly distributed random number between $0$ and $1$. Since we have an error bound $|X_h - X| \le h$, the selective refinement algorithm (Algorithm \[alg:selective\]) can be used to construct a function $X_\ell$ satisfying Assumption \[ass:qoierror\]. With this setup it is very cheap to compute $X_h$ to any accuracy $h$, however, for illustrational purposes we assume a cost model ${\mathcal{C}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[X_h{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} = h^{-q}$ with $q = 1$, $2$, and $3$ to cover the three cases in Theorem \[thm:workMLMCsel\].
For the three values of $q$, and eight logarithmically distributed values of $\epsilon$ between $10^{-3}$ and $10^{-1}$, we performed $100$ runs of Algorithm \[alg:MLMCselective\]. All parameters used in the simulations are presented in Table \[tab:demonstrational\].
Parameter Value
------------ ---------------------- -- --
$y$ $0.8$
$q$ $1$, $2$, $3$
$\gamma$ $0.5$
$N$ $10$
$k$ $1$
$\epsilon$ $(10^{-3}, 10^{-1})$
: Parameters used for the demonstrational experiment.[]{data-label="tab:demonstrational"}
For convenience, we denote by $\widehat Q_i$ the MLMC-SR estimator ${\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}$ of the failure probability from run $i = 1,\ldots,M$ with $M
= 100$. For each tolerance $\epsilon$ and cost parameter $q$, we estimated the RMSE of the MLMC-SR estimator by $${e{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}
= {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}({\widehat Q^{ML}_{\{N_\ell\},L}}- {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^2{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^{1/2}
\approx {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(\frac{1}{M}\sum_{i=1}^{M}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(\widehat Q_i - {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^2{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})^{1/2}.$$ Also, for each of the eight tolerances $\epsilon$, we computed the run-specific estimation errors $|\widehat Q_i - {\mathbb{E}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Q{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}|$, $i=1,\ldots,M$. In Figure \[fig:rmse\] we present three plots of the RMSE vs. $\epsilon$, one for each value of $q$. We can see that the method yields solutions with the correct accuracy.
[0.49]{} ![RMSE (square markers and line) plotted vs. tolerance for the experiment described in Section \[sec:demonstrational\]. The dashed line is the tolerance $\epsilon$ and the dots are the individual errors for the $100$ runs at each tolerance.[]{data-label="fig:rmse"}](rmseq=1.eps "fig:")
[0.49]{} ![RMSE (square markers and line) plotted vs. tolerance for the experiment described in Section \[sec:demonstrational\]. The dashed line is the tolerance $\epsilon$ and the dots are the individual errors for the $100$ runs at each tolerance.[]{data-label="fig:rmse"}](rmseq=2.eps "fig:")
[0.49]{} ![RMSE (square markers and line) plotted vs. tolerance for the experiment described in Section \[sec:demonstrational\]. The dashed line is the tolerance $\epsilon$ and the dots are the individual errors for the $100$ runs at each tolerance.[]{data-label="fig:rmse"}](rmseq=3.eps "fig:")
[0.49]{} ![RMSE (square markers and line) plotted vs. tolerance for the experiment described in Section \[sec:demonstrational\]. The dashed line is the tolerance $\epsilon$ and the dots are the individual errors for the $100$ runs at each tolerance.[]{data-label="fig:rmse"}](legend.eps "fig:")
In order to verify Theorem \[thm:workMLMCsel\], we estimated the expected cost for each tolerance $\epsilon$ and value of $q$ by computing the mean of the total cost over the $100$ runs. The cost for each realization was computed using the cost model in equation . The cost for realizations differs not only between levels $\ell$, but also within a level $\ell$ owing to the selective refinement algorithm. For each run $i$, the costs of all realizations were summed to obtain the total cost for that run. We computed a mean of the total costs for the $100$ runs. A plot of the result can be found in Figure \[fig:work\]. As the tolerance $\epsilon$ decreases the expected cost approaches the rates given in Theorem \[thm:workMLMCsel\]. The reference costs are multiplied by constants to align well with the estimated expected costs.
![Computed mean total cost (diamond, triangle, square markers and lines) plotted with theoretical reference cost (dashed lines) for the experiment described in Section \[sec:demonstrational\]. The reference costs for the three values of $q$ are: $20\epsilon^{-2}$ for $q=1$; $2\log(\epsilon^{-1})^2\epsilon^{-2}$ for $q=2$; and $6\epsilon^{-3}$ for $q=3$.[]{data-label="fig:work"}](work.eps)
Single-phase flow in media with lognormal permeability {#sec:single-phase}
------------------------------------------------------
We consider Darcy’s law on a unit square $[0,1]^2$ on which we have impearmeable upper and lower boundaries, high pressure on the left boundary ($\Gamma_1$) and low pressure on the right boundary ($\Gamma_2$). We define the spaces $H^1_f({\mathscr{D}})
= \{v \in H^1({\mathscr{D}}) : v|_{\Gamma_1} = f \text{ and } v|_{\Gamma_2}
= 0\}$, and let $n$ denote the unit normal of ${\mathscr{D}}$.
The weak form of the partial differential equation reads: find $u \in H^1_1({\mathscr{D}})$ such that $$(a(\omega,\cdot) \nabla u, \nabla v) = 0\quad \text{ in } {\mathscr{D}},$$ for all $v \in H_0^1({\mathscr{D}})$, and $a$ is a stationary log-normal distributed random field $$a(\omega,\cdot) = \exp(\kappa(\omega,\cdot)),$$ over ${\mathscr{D}}$, where $\kappa(\cdot,x)$ has zero mean and is normal distributed with exponential covariance, i.e., for all $x_1, x_2 \in
{\mathscr{D}}$ we have that $${\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[\kappa(\cdot,x_1)\kappa(\cdot,x_2){\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} = \sigma^2\exp{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}( \frac{-\|x_1-x_2\|_2}{\rho} {\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}).$$ We choose $\sigma = 1$ and $\rho=0.1$ in the numerical experiment.
We are interested in the boundary flux on the right boundary, i.e., the functional $X(\omega) = \int_{\Gamma_2} n \cdot a(\omega)\nabla u
{\,\mathrm{d}}x = (a(\omega,\cdot) \nabla u, \nabla g)$, for any $g \in
H^1({\mathscr{D}})$, $g|_{\Gamma_1} = 0$ and $g|_{\Gamma_2} = 1$. The last equality comes by a generalized Green’s identity, see [@GiRa86 Chp. 1, Corollary 2.1].
To generate realizations of $a(\omega,\cdot)$, the circulant embedding method introduced in [@DiNe97] is employed. The mesh resolution for the input data of the realizations generated on level $\ell$ in the MLMC-SR algorithm is chosen such that the finest mesh needed on level $\ell$ is not finer than the chosen mesh. For a fixed realization on level $\ell$ we don’t know how fine data we need, because of the selective refinement procedure. This means that the complexity obtained for the MLMC-SR algorithm do not apply for the generation of data. The circulant embedding method has log-linear complexity. A remedy for the complexity of generating realizations is to use a truncated Karhunen-Loève expansion that can easily be refined. However, numerical experiments show that we are in a regime where the time spent on generating realizations using circulant embedding is negligible compared to the time spent in the linear solvers.
The PDE is discretized using a FEM-discretization with linear Lagrange elements. We have a family of structured nested meshes $\mathcal{T}_{h_m}$, where a mesh $h_m$ is the maximum element diameter of the given mesh. The data $a(\omega,\cdot)$ is defined in the grid points of the meshes. Using the circulant embedding we get an exact representation of the stochastic field in the grid points of the given mesh. This can be interpreted as not making any approximation of the stochastic field but instead making a quadrature error when computing the bilinear form.
The functional for a discretization on mesh $m$ is defined as $X_{h_{m}}(\omega) = (a(\omega,\cdot) \nabla u_{h_m}, \nabla g)$. The convergence rates in energy norm for log-normal data is $h^{1/2-\delta}$ for any $\delta > 0$ [@ChScTe13]. Using postprocessing, it can be shown that the error in the functional converges twice as fast [@GiSu02], i.e, $|X_{h_{m}}-X_{h_{m}}(\omega)|\leq Ch^{s-2\delta}$ for $s=1$. We use a multigrid solver that has linear $\alpha=1$ (up to $\log$-factors) complexity. The work for one sample can then be computed as $\gamma^{-q\ell}$ where $\gamma^{\ell}$ is the numerical bias tolerance for the sample and $q\approx 2\alpha/s = 2$, which was also verified numerically. The error is estimated using the dual solution computed on a finer mesh. Since it can be quite expensive to solve a dual problem for each realization of the data, the error in the functional can also be computed by estimating the constant $C$ and $s$ either numerically or theoretically.
We choose $\gamma=0.5$, $N=10$, and $k=1$ in the the MLMC-SR algorithm, see Section \[sec:heuristic\] for more information on the choices of parameters. The problem reads: find the probability $p$ for $X\leq y=1.5$ to the given RMSE $\epsilon$. We compute $p$ for $\epsilon=10^{-1}$, $10^{-1.5}$, and $10^{-2}$. All parameters used in the simulation are presented in Table \[tab:lognomal\].
Parameter Value
------------ -----------------------------
$y$ $1.5$
$q$ $2$
$\gamma$ $0.5$
$N$ $10$
$k$ $1$
$\epsilon$ $10^{-1},10^{-1.5},10^{-2}$
$\rho$ $ 0.1$
$\sigma$ $ 1$
: Parameters used for the single-phase flow experiment. The parameters $y,q,\gamma,N,k,\epsilon$ are used in the MLMC-SR algorithm and $\rho$, $\sigma$ to define the log-normal field.[]{data-label="tab:lognomal"}
To verify the accuracy of the estimator we compute $100$ simulations of the MLMC-SR estimator for each RMSE $\epsilon$ and present the sample standard deviation (square root of the sample variance) of the MLMC-SR estimators in Table \[tab:lognormal-result\].
$\epsilon$ Mean $p$ Sample std Target std ($\epsilon/\sqrt{2}$)
------------- ---------- --------------------- ----------------------------------
$10^{-1}$ $0.8834$ $6.472\cdot10^{-2}$ $7.071\cdot10^{-2}$
$10^{-1.5}$ $0.8890$ $1.873\cdot10^{-2}$ $2.236\cdot10^{-2}$
$10^{-2}$ $0.8933$ $5.557\cdot10^{-2}$ $7.071\cdot10^{-3} $
: The mean failure probability $p$ and sample standard deviation (std) is computed using 100 MLMC-SR estimators and compared to the target std which is the statistical part of the RMSE error $\epsilon$.[]{data-label="tab:lognormal-result"}
We see that in all the three cases the sample standard deviation is smaller than the statistical contribution $\epsilon/\sqrt{2}$ of the RMSE $\epsilon$. Since the exact flux is unknown, the numerical contribution in the estimator has to be approximated to be less than $\epsilon/\sqrt{2}$ as well, which is done in the termination criterion of the MLMC-SR algorithm so it is not presented here. The mean number of samples computed to the different tolerances on each level of the MLMC-SR algorithm is computed from 100 simulations of the MLMC-SR estimator for $\epsilon = 10^{-2}$ and are shown in Table \[tab:work\].
$\ell$ $0$ $1$ $2$ $3$ $4$
--------------- ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------
Mean $N_\ell$ $16526.81$ $9045.41$ $4524.83$ $1471.63$ $738.63$
$j = 0$ $16526.81$ $4520.99$ $2265.23$ $734.21$ $366.9$
$j = 1$ $4524.42$ $1486.62$ $484.11$ $244.69$
$j = 2$ $772.98$ $232.33$ $116.77$
$j = 3$ $20.98$ $9.76$
$j = 4$ $0.51$
: The distribution of realizations solved to different tolerance levels $j$ for the case $\epsilon = 10^{-2}$. The table is based on the mean of $100$ runs.[]{data-label="tab:work"}
The table shows that the selective refinement algorithm only refines a fraction of all problems to the highest accuracy level $j =
\ell$. Using a MLMC method (without selective refinement) $N_\ell$ problem would be solved to the highest accuracy level. Using the cost model $\gamma^{-q\ell}$ for $\epsilon = 10^{-2}$ we gain a factor $\sim 6$ in computational cost for this particular problem using MLMC-SR compared to MLMC. From Theorem \[thm:workMLMCsel\] the computational cost for MLMC-SR and MLMC increase as $\epsilon^{-2}\log(\epsilon^{-1})^2$ and $\epsilon^{-3}$, respectively.
Derivation of optimal level sample size {#optimalNl}
=======================================
To determine the optimal sample level size $N_\ell$ in equation , we minimize the total cost keeping the variance of the MLMC estimator equal to $\epsilon^2/2$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\text{min} & \sum_{\ell=0}^L N_\ell c_\ell \\
\text{subject to} & \sum_{\ell=0}^LN_\ell^{-1}{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} = \epsilon^2/2,
\end{aligned}$$ where $Y_\ell = Q_\ell - Q_{\ell-1}$. We reformulate the problem using a Lagrangian multiplier $\mu$ for the constraint. Define the objective function $$g(N_\ell,\mu) = \sum_{\ell=0}^L N_\ell c_\ell + \mu{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(\sum_{\ell=0}^LN_\ell^{-1}{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} - \epsilon^2/2{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}).$$ The solution is a stationary point $(N_\ell,\mu)$ such that $\nabla_{N_\ell,\mu}g(N_\ell,\mu)=0$. Denoting by $\hat N_\ell$ and $\hat \mu$ the components of the gradient, we obtain $$\nabla_{N_\ell,\mu}g(N_\ell,\mu)={\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(c_\ell - \mu N_\ell^{-2}{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})\hat N_\ell + {\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}(\sum_{\ell=0}^LN_\ell^{-1}{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]} - \epsilon^2/2{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright})\hat \mu.$$ Choosing $N_\ell= \sqrt{\mu{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[ Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}/ c_\ell}$ makes the $\hat
N_\ell$ components zero. The $\hat \mu$ component is zero when $\sum_{\ell=0}^LN_\ell^{-1}{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}= \epsilon^2/2$. Plugging in $N_\ell$ yields $
2\epsilon^{-2}\sum_{\ell=0}^L\sqrt{{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}c_\ell}= \sqrt{\mu}$ and hence the optimal sample size is $$N_\ell = 2\epsilon^{-2}\sqrt{{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[ Y_\ell{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}/ c_\ell}\sum_{k=0}^L\sqrt{{\mathbb{V}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\originalleft}[Y_k{\aftergroup\egroup\originalright}]}c_k}.$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
Centre de Mathématiques Laurent Schwartz\
École Polytechnique\
91128 Palaiseau Cedex
author:
- Claude SABBAH
date: Janvier 2012
subtitle: 'd’après T. Mochizuki'
title: 'Théorie de Hodge et correspondance de Hitchin-Kobayashi sauvages'
---
Introduction: le théorème de Lefschetz difficile {#introduction-le-théorème-de-lefschetz-difficile .unnumbered}
================================================
### Les $\cD$-modules holonomes simples {#les-cd-modules-holonomes-simples .unnumbered}
Soient $Z^o$ une variété quasi-projective lisse complexe irréductible et $(V,\nabla)$ un fibré vectoriel algébrique muni d’une connexion intégrable (sans courbure), sans sous-fibré propre stable par la connexion (simple). C’est le type d’objet auquel on s’intéresse dans cet exposé. Choisissons une compactification projective $j:Z^o\hto Z$ et un plongement de $Z$ dans une variété projective lisse $X$. Il est connu qu’un tel $(V,\nabla)$ se prolonge de manière unique en un $\cD_X$-module ($\cO_X$-module avec connexion intégrable $\nabla$) holonome simple à support dans $Z$ et qu’on obtient ainsi tous les $\cD_X$-modules holonomes simples à support dans $Z$, lisses sur $Z^o$.
Pour un tel $\cD_X$-module $\cM$, le complexe de de Rham analytique $$\DR\cM:=(\Omega_{X^\an}^{\cbbullet+\dim X}\otimes\cM,\nabla)$$ est à cohomologie $\CC$-constructible, d’après un théorème de Kashiwara. Plus précisément, c’est un *faisceau pervers*.
Quels sont les faisceaux pervers qu’on obtient de cette manière? On ne connaît pas la réponse à cette question. Néanmoins, on sait [@Kashiwara84; @Mebkhout84; @Mebkhout84b] que la correspondance de Riemann-Hilbert $\cM\mto\DR\cM$ est une équivalence entre la catégorie des $\cD_X$-modules holonomes réguliers (analytiques) et celle des faisceaux pervers. Ceci, joint au théorème GAGA pour les modules holonomes réguliers [@K-K81], implique que tout *faisceau pervers simple* est obtenu de cette manière. D’après [@B-B-D81] et [@G-M83bis], un tel faisceau pervers n’est autre (au décalage par $\dim Z$ près) que le complexe d’intersection $\IC_Z(\cL)$ de Goresky-MacPherson (extension intermédiaire $j_{!*}\cL$) associé à un faisceau localement constant irréductible $\cL$ sur $Z^o$ (une représentation linéaire irréductible de $\pi_1(Z^o,\star)$).
Il est par ailleurs facile d’obtenir des complexes $\DR\cM$ qui ne sont pas des faisceaux pervers simples, ni même semi-simples (sommes directes d’objets simples), si on accepte que $\cM$ simple ait des singularités irrégulières. Une façon d’obtenir de tels exemples consiste à utiliser la transformation de Fourier.
Soient $T_1,\dots, T_r$ ($r\geq2$) des éléments de $\GL_n(\CC)$ ($n\geq2$) dont le produit est égal à l’identité et qui n’ont pas de vecteur propre commun. Supposons aussi que $1$ ne soit pas valeur propre des $T_i$ (multiplier chaque $T_i$ par $\lambda_i\in\CC^*$ assez général, en faisant en sorte que $\prod\lambda_i=1$). Ils définissent une représentation irréductible du groupe fondamental de $\PP^1$ privé de $r$ points, tous à distance finie, donc un faisceau localement constant irréductible de rang $n$ sur cet espace. Son complexe d’intersection sur $\Afu$ (coordonnée $z$) correspond à un module holonome $M$ sur l’algèbre de Weyl $\CC[z]\langle\partial_z\rangle$, dont toutes les singularités sont régulières.
Le transformé de Fourier $\Fou M$ est $M$ lui-même sur lequel on voit $\partial_z$ opérer comme la multiplication par une variable $\zeta$ et $-z$ comme la dérivation $\partial_\zeta$. Si $M$ est simple, $\Fou M$ l’est aussi, mais on peut montrer (voir par exemple [@Malgrange91]) que ce dernier a une singularité irrégulière en $\zeta=\infty$, une singularité régulière en $\zeta=0$, et pas d’autre singularité. On peut aussi montrer que les hypothèses faites sur les $T_i$ impliquent que, sur l’ouvert $\zeta\neq0$, le faisceau localement constant de ses sections horizontales est de rang égal à $nr$, et sa monodromie a pour seule valeur propre $1$, avec $r$ blocs de Jordan de taille $2$ et $(n-2)r$ blocs de taille $1$. Ce faisceau localement constant n’est donc pas semi-simple.
Soit $\FcM$ l’unique $\cD_{\PP^1}$-module holonome simple dont la restriction à $\Afu$ (coordonnée $\zeta$) est $\Fou M$. Si $\DR\FcM$ était pervers semi-simple, il serait somme directe de faisceaux à support ponctuel et de complexes d’intersection de faisceaux localement constants irréductibles (à un décalage près), parmi lesquels le faisceau localement constant ci-dessus, d’où une contradiction.
Nous allons voir cependant que les faisceaux pervers $\DR\cM$, pour $\cM$ simple, satisfont tous au théorème de Lefschetz difficile. Dans la suite, nous travaillerons dans le cadre analytique complexe uniquement, contrairement au début de cette introduction.
### Le théorème de Lefschetz difficile {#le-théorème-de-lefschetz-difficile .unnumbered}
Dans différents exposés en 1996 (voir [@Kashiwara98b]), Kashiwara a conjecturé une version très générale du théorème de Lefschetz difficile en géométrie algébrique complexe, qui a été démontrée récemment par TMochizuki [@Mochizuki08]:
\[th:HLT\] Soit $X$ une variété algébrique projective complexe lisse et soit $L$ l’opérateur de cup-produit par la classe de Chern d’un fibré en droites ample sur $X$. Alors, pour tout $\cD_X$-module holonome simple $\cM$ sur $X$ et tout $k\geq1$, l’itéré $k$-ième $L^k:\bH^{-k}(X,\DR\cM)\to\bH^k(X,\DR\cM)$ est un isomorphisme.
\[rem:H0\] Avec le décalage définissant $\DR$, $\bH^k$ peut être non nul seulement pour $k\in[-\dim X,\dim X]$. De plus, pour $\cM$ simple et différent de la connexion triviale $(\cO_X,\rd)$, on a aussi nullité pour $k=-\dim X,\dim X$. En effet, considérons d’abord le complexe $\Gamma(X,\DR\cM)$: son $H^{-\dim X}$ est l’espace des sections de $\cM$ sur $X$ annulées par $\nabla$; il y a donc un sous-module $H^{-\dim X}\otimes(\cO_X,\rd)$ contenu dans $\cM$, et l’hypothèse $\cM$ simple et $\neq(\cO_X,\rd)$implique $H^{-\dim X}=0$. La suite spectrale d’hypercohomologie montre que $\bH^{-\dim X}\subset H^{-\dim X}$, d’où la nullité de $\bH^{-\dim X}$. Un argument de dualité permet aussi d’en déduire $\bH^{\dim X}=0$. Ainsi, l’énoncé \[th:HLT\] est de peu d’intérêt lorsque $X$ est une courbe.
Pour obtenir un théorème de ce type, on montre d’abord l’existence d’une structure plus riche, qui fait apparaître une notion de pureté [@DeligneHI]. La théorie de Hodge joue ce rôle en géométrie algébrique complexe modérée(voir l’excellent panorama [@C-M09]):
\[enum:caslisse\] Si $(V,\nabla)$ est un fibré holomorphe à connexion intégrable sur $X$, le complexe $\DR(V,\nabla)=(\Omega_X^{\cbbullet+\dim X}\otimes V,\nabla)$ n’a de cohomologie qu’en degré $-\dim X$, c’est le système local $V^\nabla$ des sections horizontales de $\nabla$ (théorème de Cauchy-Kowalewski et lemme de Poincaré holomorphe); (\[enum:caslisse\]$'$) si de plus $(V,\nabla)$ sous-tend *une variation de $\QQ$-structure de Hodge polarisable*, le théorème de Lefschetz difficile $L^k:H^{\dim X-k}(X,V^\nabla)\isom H^{\dim X+k}(X,V^\nabla)$ a été montré par Deligne (voir [@Zucker79 Th2.9]), le théorème de Lefschetz difficile proprement dit, démontré par Hodge (voir [@Hodge50]) étant le cas $(V,\nabla)=(\cO_X,d)$.
\[enum:casouvert\] L’extension de ce résultat au cas où $(V,\nabla)$ est un fibré holomorphe à connexion intégrable sur le complémentaire $X^o$ d’une hypersurface $D$ de $X$ et satisfait (\[enum:caslisse\]$'$) a fait l’objet de nombreux travaux ([@Schmid73; @Zucker79; @C-K82; @C-K-S86; @C-K-S87; @Kashiwara85; @K-K87]), aboutissant au théorème de Lefschetz difficile pour la cohomologie d’intersection sur $X$ du système local $V^\nabla$, lorsque $D=X\moins X^o$ est un diviseur à croisements normaux.
\[enum:cassing\] MSaito [@MSaito86] a supprimé l’hypothèse $X$ lisse et $D$ à croisements normaux en introduisant la catégorie des $\cD$-modules de Hodge polarisables. Le théorème \[th:HLT\] s’applique aux complexes $\DR\cM=\IC_Z(\cL)[\dim Z]$ pourvu que $\cL$ sous-tende une variation de $\QQ$-structure de Hodge polarisable (voir aussi [@B-B-D81; @C-M03; @C-M09] pour d’autres approches dans le cas des systèmes locaux d’origine géométrique).
Dans et , on travaille avec le prolongement de Deligne de $(V,\nabla)$, qui est singularité régulière à l’infini (le long de $D$), et ce comportement modéréest nécessaire *a priori* pour appliquer les méthodes de la théorie de Hodge, d’après le théorème de régularité de Griffiths-Schmid [@Schmid73 Th4.13]). Par contre, la notion de *variation de structure de twisteur polarisée*, introduite par Simpson [@Simpson97] autorise des singularités irrégulières à l’infini, et permet d’aborder, par une théorie de Hodge sauvage, le théorème \[th:HLT\] pour les $\cD$-modules holonomes simples à singularités éventuellement irrégulières.
Cette notion de variation de structure de twisteur polarisée intervient déjà en l’absence de singularité (sous la forme d’une *métrique harmonique*, voir le dictionnaire du §\[sec:dictionnaire\]). Pour une variation de structure de Hodge polarisée, c’est la structure qui reste lorsqu’on ne garde que la connexion plate et la métrique hermitienne de polarisation. Sous la seule hypothèse de semi-simplicité de $(V,\nabla)$ ou, de manière équivalente, du faisceau localement constant $V^\nabla$, le cas lisse du théorème \[th:HLT\] provient de l’existence, due à Corlette [@Corlette88], d’une métrique dite *harmonique* pour $(V,\nabla)$ (le cas où $(V,\nabla)$ est unitaire ou, plus généralement, une variation de structure de Hodge polarisée, en étant un cas très particulier). On peut en effet développer dans ce cadre la théorie harmonique du laplacien et obtenir les identités de Kähler, qui conduisent au théorème \[th:HLT\] (voir [@Simpson92]). Il faut noter que l’hypothèse de semi-simplicité de $V^\nabla$ est importante, et il est facile de donner un exemple où \[th:HLT\] est en défaut sans cette hypothèse: sur une courbe de genre $g\geq2$, toute extension non triviale $\cL$ du faisceau constant $\CC$ par un système local non constant de rang $1$ satisfait à $\dim H^0(X,\cL)\neq\dim H^2(X,\cL)$.
Nonobstant la remarque \[rem:H0\], Simpson [@Simpson90] a montré, dans le cas où $X$ est une courbe, l’existence d’une métrique harmonique $h$ pour $(V,\nabla)$ sur $X^o\subset X$, avec un comportement modéré aux points de $D$ (voir aussi [@Biquard91; @J-Z97] en dimension $\geq1$). L’analyse asymptotique qu’il fait de cette métrique au voisinage de $D$ prolonge à ce cadre celle faite par Schmid [@Schmid73] dans le cas des variations de structures de Hodge polarisées, ce qui permet notamment de calculer la cohomologie d’intersection $H^1(X,j_*V^\nabla)$ ($j:X^o\hto X$) comme un espace de cohomologie $L^2$ relativement à $h$ et à une métrique de type Poincaré sur $X^o$, et qui prolonge les résultats de Zucker [@Zucker79] ([@Biquard97], voir aussi [@Bibi01c §6.2], [@Mochizuki07 §20.2], [@J-Y-Z07]). Ceci aboutit à un énoncé analogue à la dégénérescence en $E_1$ de la suite spectrale Hodge $\implique$ de Rham, à savoir le calcul de $\dim H^1(X,j_*V^\nabla)$ en terme de la cohomologie de Dolbeault du fibré de Higgs parabolique associé.
Le cas modérédu théorème \[th:HLT\] est celui où le $\cD_X$-module $\cM$ est à singularités régulières, $\DR\cM=\IC_Z(\cL)[\dim Z]$ avec $Z$ irréductible et $\cL$ simple sur $Z^o$. TMochizuki a résolu ce cas dans [@Mochizuki07] en étendant les méthodes évoquées ci-dessus. La stratégie de la démonstration, qui vaut aussi pour le cas sauvage, c’est-à-dire lorsque $\cM$ est à singularités irrégulières, sera expliquée au §\[sec:strategie\]. Le cas modéré a aussi été résolu par Drinfeld [@Drinfeld01] par une méthode de réduction à la caractéristique $p$ réminiscente de [@B-B-D81]. Drinfeld s’appuyait cependant sur une conjecture faite par de Jong [@Jong01], démontrée depuis [@B-K03; @Gaitsgory04].
Récemment, Krämer et Weissauer [@K-W11] ont utilisé le cas modéré de \[th:HLT\] pour montrer un théorème d’annulation, pour tout faisceau pervers $\cF$ sur une variété abélienne complexe $X$, des espaces $\bH^j(X,\cF\otimes\cL)$ pour tout $j\neq0$ et presque tout système local $\cL$ de rang $1$.
La suite du texte insistera donc sur les nouveaux outils introduits par TMochizuki [@Mochizuki08] (après ceux de [@Mochizuki07]) pour passer du cas modéréau cas sauvage.
### Remerciements {#remerciements .unnumbered}
Ils vont à TMochizuki, ainsi qu’à MSaito, ChSchnell, ChSevenheck et CSimpson pour les multiples suggestions qui m’ont aidé à améliorer la version préliminaire de ce texte.
Dictionnaire {#sec:dictionnaire}
============
Je vais expliciter le dictionnaire fibré plat harmonique/fibré de Higgs harmonique/variation de structure de twisteur polarisée pure de poids $0$ (voir [@Simpson92; @Simpson97]), car il est essentiel pour le cas singulier. Les équations ci-dessous et l’idée de la construction sur l’espace twistoriel d’un fibré avec $\hb$-connexion remontent à Hitchin [@Hitchin87]. Drinfeld m’a aussi indiqué les travaux de Zakharov, Mikhailov et Shabat [@Z-M78; @Z-S79] où on trouve ce type d’équation sous le nom de chiral field equations.
Soient $(V,\nabla)$ un fibré holomorphe muni d’une connexion holomorphe intégrable, et $(H,D=\nabla+\ov\partial)$ le fibré $C^\infty$ plat associé. À toute métrique hermitienne $h$ sur $H$ on associe ([@Simpson92]) une unique connexion métrique $\partial_E+\ov\partial_E$ caractérisée par le fait que, si on considère les deux morphismes $\cC^\infty_X$-linéaires $\theta:=\nabla-\partial_E:H\to\cA_X^{1,0}\otimes H$ et $\theta^\dag:=\ov\partial-\ov\partial_E:H\to\cA_X^{0,1}\otimes H$, alors $\theta^\dag$ est le $h$-adjoint de $\theta$ (si $D$ est déjà compatible à $h$ on a $\theta=0$, $\theta^\dag=0$). On dit que $(V,\nabla,h)$ est un *fibré plat harmonique*[^1] si sa *pseudo-courbure* $G(\nabla,h)$ est nulle: $$\label{eq:pseudocourbure}
G(\nabla,h):=-4(\ov\partial_E+\theta)^2=0,\quad\text{\ie\ }\ov\partial_E^2=0,\quad\ov\partial_E(\theta)=0,\quad\theta\wedge\theta=0.$$ (Ces trois conditions sont redondantes, les deux dernières impliquant la première; sur une variété kählérienne compacte, on peut même se contenter de la seconde, voir [@Mochizuki07 Rem21.33 & Prop21.39].) Pour un fibré plat harmonique, $E\defin\ker\ov\partial_E:H\to\cA_X^{0,1}\otimes H$ est un fibré holomorphe, et $\theta:E\to\Omega^1_X\otimes E$ est un morphisme holomorphe, qui satisfait à $\theta\wedge\theta=0$. Ainsi, $(E,\theta)$ est un *fibré de Higgs* holomorphe.
Partant maintenant d’un fibré de Higgs holomorphe $(E,\theta)$ ($\theta\wedge\theta=0$) et d’une métrique hermitienne $h$ sur $E$, on dit que $(E,\theta,h)$ est un *fibré de Higgs harmonique* si, notant $\partial_E+\ov\partial_E$ la connexion de Chern associée à la métrique $h$ sur le fibré holomorphe $E$, et $\theta^\dag$ le $h$-adjoint de $\theta$, alors la connexion $\partial_E+\ov\partial_E+\theta+\theta^\dag$ sur $H:=\cC^\infty_X\otimes_{\cO_X}E$ est *intégrable*.
On a ainsi une correspondance bi-univoque $$\text{fibré plat harmonique}\longleftrightarrow \text{fibré de Higgs harmonique.}$$
Lorsque $(V,\nabla,h)$ ou $(E,\theta,h)$ sont harmoniques, il y a en fait une famille à un paramètre de fibrés holomorphes plats qui dégénère sur le fibré de Higgs associé: pour tout $\hb\in\CC$, on pose $V^\hb=\ker(\ov\partial_E+\hb\theta^\dag:H\to\cA_X^{0,1}\otimes H)$, muni de l’opérateur $\nabla^\hb:=\hb\partial_E+\theta$, qu’on appelle une *$\hb$-connexion*. Si $\hb\neq0$, l’opérateur $\frac1\hb\nabla^\hb$ est une connexion holomorphe intégrable sur $V^\hb$ tandis que, si $\hb=0$, on retrouve le fibré de Higgs $(E,\theta)$.
\[exem:rankone\] Considérons le cas d’un fibré (trivial) de rang $1$ sur le disque unité épointé $\Delta^*$ de coordonnée $z$, muni d’une métrique hermitienne $h$. Nous noterons $\gU$ l’ensemble des classes d’équivalence de couples $\gu=(a,\alpha)\in\RR\times\CC$ modulo $\ZZ\times\{0\}$. Alors:
*L’ensemble des classes d’isomorphisme de fibrés de Higgs (ou de fibrés plats) harmoniques de rang $1$ sur $\Delta^*$ est en correspondance bijective avec l’ensemble des couples $(\psi,\gu)$, avec $\psi\in\cO(\Delta^*)$ sans terme constant et $(\gu\bmod\ZZ)\in\gU$.*
Nous la ferons dans le cas Higgs, le cas plat étant similaire. Soit $(E,\theta,h)$ un fibré de Higgs harmonique de rang $1$ sur $\Delta^*$. Nous allons lui associer un unique couple $(\psi,\gu\bmod\ZZ)$. Soit $\epsilon$ une base holomorphe de $E$. On a $$\theta \epsilon=\varphi(z)\,\epsilon\,\rd z,\quad \text{$\varphi(z)$ holomorphe sur $\Delta^*$.}$$ Posons $\varphi(z)=\partial_z\psi(z)+\alpha/z$ avec $\psi\in\cO(\Delta^*)$ sans terme constant et $\alpha\in\CC$. Posons aussi $\norme{\epsilon}_h=\exp(\eta(z))$ où $\eta$ est réelle et $C^\infty$ sur $\Delta^*$. On peut vérifier que la condition d’harmonicité de $(E,\theta,h)$ équivaut au fait que la fonction $\eta$ est *harmonique* sur $\Delta^*$. Elle s’écrit donc $\reel\gamma(z)-a\log|z|$ avec $\gamma$ holomorphe sur $\Delta^*$ et $a\in\RR$. Remplaçant $\epsilon$ par $e=\exp(-\gamma(z))\cdot \epsilon$, on peut supposer que $\eta(z)=-a\log|z|$ avec $a\in\RR$, et on a alors $\norme{e}_h=|z|^{-a}$. On a ainsi obtenu un couple $(\psi,\gu)$.
On calcule ensuite que $v:=|z|^{-2\ov\alpha}\exp(\psi-\ov\psi)\cdot e$ est une base holomorphe du fibré plat $V$ associé, de norme $\norme{v}_h=|z|^{-a-2\reel\alpha}$. De plus, $$\theta e=(z\partial_z\psi+\alpha)\frac{\rd z}{z}\otimes e,\quad \nabla v=(2z\partial_z\psi+\ge(1,\gu))\frac{\rd z}{z}\otimes v,\quad\ge(1,\gu):=-a+2i\im\alpha.$$ Soient $\epsilon'$ une autre base holomorphe de $E$, et $e'$ construite comme plus haut avec $\Vert e'\Vert_h=|z|^{-a'}$ pour un certain . D’où un couple $(\psi',\gu')$. Alors $e'=\nu(z)e$ avec $\nu(z)$ holomorphe et à croissance modérée, donc méromorphe, d’où $a'-a\in\ZZ$. Le champ de Higgs a la même expression dans les bases $e$ et $e'$, ce qui implique $\psi=\psi'$ et $\alpha=\alpha'$.
Posons maintenant, pour tout $\hb\in\CC$ fixé, $$\label{eq:pe}
\gp(\hb,\gu)=a+2\reel(\ov\alpha\hb),\quad\ge(\hb,\gu)=\alpha-a\hb-\ov\alpha\hb^2,\quad\text{et}\quad v^\hb= e^{\ov\hb\psi-\hb\ov\psi}|z|^{-2\ov\alpha\hb}\cdot e.$$ Alors $v^\hb$ est une base holomorphe de $V^\hb$, de norme $\Vert v^\hb\Vert_h=|z|^{-\gp(\hb,\gu)}$ et $$\label{eq:vhb}
\nabla^\hb v^\hb=((1+|\hb|)^2z\partial_z\psi+\ge(\hb,\gu))\frac{\rd z}{z}\otimes v^\hb.$$
Revenons à la situation générale. Ces deux notions équivalentes (fibré plat harmonique et fibré de Higgs harmonique) sont aussi équivalentes à la notion de *variation de structure de twisteur polarisée pure de poids $0$*. Pour la définir, introduisons la droite projective $\PP^1$ munie de deux cartes affines $\CC_\hb,\CC_\mu$ de coordonnées respectives $\hb$ et $\mu$, avec $\mu=1/\hb$ sur l’intersection des deux cartes. La présentation qui suit n’est pas exactement celle donnée par Simpson [@Simpson97], mais lui est équivalente et sera plus commode dans les situations singulières. Il s’agit de décrire des fibrés sur $X\times\PP^1$ qui sont holomorphes par rapport à $\PP^1$ et $C^\infty$ par rapport à $X$. Cette présentation permet de ne travailler qu’avec des fibrés holomorphes sur $X\times\CC_\hb$ et, plus loin (§\[sec:Dmodtw\]), avec des $\cR_{X\times\CC_\hb}$-modules holonomes.
Soit $\sigma:\PP^1\to\ov\PP^1$ l’involution anti-holomorphe qui prolonge continûment l’application $\CC_\mu\to\CC_\hb$, $\mu\mto\hb=-1/\ov\mu$. Si $f(x,\hb)$ est holomorphe en $x$ et $\hb$, alors la fonction $(\sigma^*\ov f)(x,\mu)=\ov{f(x,-1/\ov\mu)}$ est anti-holomorphe en $x$ et holomorphe en $\mu$. Si $\cH$ est un fibré holomorphe sur $X\times\CC_\hb$, alors $\sigma^*\ov\cH$ est un fibré holomorphe sur $\ov X\times\CC_\mu$, où $\ov X$ est la variété complexe conjuguée de $X$. Si $\cH',\cH''$ sont deux fibrés holomorphes sur $X\times\CC_\hb$, un *pré-recollement* (entre le dual $\cH^{\prime\vee}$ et $\sigma^*\ov\cH{}''$) est un accouplement $\cO_{X\times\bS}\otimes_{\cO_{\bS}}\cO_{\ov X\times\bS}$-linéaire $$C:\cH'_{|X\times\bS}\otimes_{\cO_{\bS}}\sigma^*\ov\cH{}''_{|X\times\bS}\to\cC^{\infty,\an}_{X\times\bS},$$ où $\bS=\{|\hb|=1\}$, $\cO_{\bS}$ est le germe le long de $\bS$ de $\cO_{\CC_\hb}$ et $\cC^{\infty,\an}_{X\times\bS}$ le faisceau des germes le long de $X\times\bS$ de fonctions $C^\infty$ holomorphes par rapport à $\hb$. Si $\cH'$ et $\cH''$ sont munis de $\hb$-connexions, on demande que $C$ soit compatible en un sens naturel. Ces triplets forment naturellement une catégorie. L’*adjoint* $(\cH',\cH'',C)^*$ est le triplet $(\cH'',\cH',C^*)$, avec $C^*(u'',\sigma^*\ov u{}')\defin \ov{C(u',\sigma^*\ov u{}'')}$, et les $\hb$-connexions restent compatibles à $C^*$.
Une *variation de structure de twisteur* est une telle donnée $(\cH',\cH'',C)$ avec $\hb$-connexions intégrables telle que, pour tout $x\in X$, l’accouplement induit par $C$ soit non dégénéré et définisse donc un fibré holomorphe sur $\PP^1$ par recollement de $\cH^{\prime\vee}_{|\{x\}\times\CC_\hb}$ et $\sigma^*\ov\cH{}''_{|\{x\}\times\CC_\mu}$. C’est une variation de structure de twisteur *pure de poids $w\in\ZZ$* si, pour tout $x$, le fibré obtenu est isomorphe à une puissance de $\cO_{\PP^1}(w)$. Si le poids $w$ est nul, les sections globales de ce fibré à $x$ fixé forment un espace vectoriel $H_x$ de dimension égale au rang de $\cH'$ et $\cH''$, et l’adjoint a pour sections globales l’espace adjoint $\ov H{}_x^\vee$. On définit alors une *polarisation* comme un isomorphisme $\cS$ de $(\cH',\cH'',C)$ sur son adjoint $(\cH',\cH'',C)^*$, compatible aux $\hb$-connexions, tel que, pour tout $x$, l’isomorphisme induit $H_x\isom \ov H{}_x^\vee$, vu comme un accouplement sesquilinéaire sur $H_x$, soit une forme hermitienne *définie positive*. Le fibré $H$ sur $X$ dont les fibres sont les $H_x$ est alors un fibré $C^\infty$ muni d’une métrique hermitienne $h$.
Soit $(\cH',\cH'',C,\cS)$ une variation de structure de twisteur polarisée de poids $0$. La restriction $\cH''$ à $\hb=1$ ($\hb=0$) munie de la connexion (le champ de Higgs) induite par la $\hb$-connexion est un fibré holomorphe plat (de Higgs) de fibré $C^\infty$ sous-jacent isomorphe à $H$, et la métrique $h$ en fait un fibré plat (de Higgs) harmonique.
Réciproquement, la construction $V^\lambda$ à partir d’un fibré plat (de Higgs) harmonique permet de définir une variation de structure de twisteur polarisée pure de poids $0$ en posant $\cH'=\cH''=\ker(\ov\partial_\hb+\ov\partial_E+\hb\theta^\dag:\cC^\infty_{X\times\CC_\hb}\otimes_{\cC^\infty_X}H\to\cA_{X\times\CC_\hb}^{0,1}\otimes_{\cC^\infty_X} H)$, $\cS=\id$, $C$ est induit naturellement par $h$ et la $\hb$-connexion par $\hb\partial_E+\theta$.
[Exemple \[exem:rankone\], suite]{} Considérons maintenant $v^\hb$ comme dépendant de $\hb$. Alors la formule montre que $\nabla^\hb$ ne s’exprime de manière holomorphe en $\hb$ que si $\psi=0$. Si $\psi\neq0$, on peut considérer la base holomorphe $\wt v{}^\hb=e^{-|\hb|^2\psi}\cdot v^\hb$ pour corriger le problème. On constate alors que, d’une part, il n’y a pas unicité de choix (on pourrait tout aussi bien prendre $e^{c-|\hb|^2\psi}\cdot v^\hb$, avec $c\in\CC$), et d’autre part tous les choix conduisent à une base dont la norme n’est plus à croissance modérée à l’origine, si $\hb\neq0$ et $\psi$ n’est pas holomorphe à l’origine. Mais, dans ce cas, en faisant dépendre la métrique de $\hb$ de manière convenable, on retrouve la propriété de croissance modérée par rapport à cette métrique modifiée (on retrouvera ceci au point du §\[subsec:hbvariable\]).
Stratégie de la démonstration {#sec:strategie}
=============================
La stratégie utilisée pour démontrer le théorème \[th:HLT\] suit celle de MSaito [@MSaito86].
1. \[enum:programme1\] La première étape consiste à enrichir la structure de $\cD_X$-module holonome (où $X$ est une variété analytique complexe quelconque) afin de pouvoir disposer d’une notion de poids.
- La catégorie des $\cD_X$-modules holonomes munis d’une bonne filtration et d’une structure rationnelle (un isomorphisme du complexe de de Rham et du complexifié d’un $\QQ$-faisceau pervers) a été considérée par Saito [@MSaito86]. L’oubli de la filtration et de la structure rationnelle définit un foncteur d’oubli vers la catégorie des $\cD$-modules holonomes.
- Dans le cas présent, on généralise les objets $(\cH',\cH'',C)$ du §\[sec:dictionnaire\]: notant $\cR_{X\times\CC}$ le faisceau des opérateurs $\hb$-différentiels engendré par les fonctions $\cO_{X\times\CC}$ et les $\hb$-champs de vecteurs $\hb\partial_{z_i}$, on considère les triplets $(\cM',\cM'',C)$, où $\cM',\cM''$ sont des $\cR_{X\times\bS}$-modules holonomes (en un sens naturel) et $C$ est un accouplement entre $\cM'_{|X\times\bS}$ et $\sigma^*\ov\cM{}''_{|X\times\bS}$ à valeurs dans le faisceau des distributions sur $X\times\nobreak\bS$ qui dépendent continûment de $\bS$. La restriction $\cM''/(\hb-1)\cM''$ définit un foncteur d’oubli à valeurs dans la catégorie des $\cD$-modules holonomes.
2. Sans plus de contraintes, les catégories ci-dessus ne sont pas abéliennes.
- \[enum:programme2\] L’idée de Saito consiste essentiellement à imposer des conditions supplémentaires locales: pour tout germe de fonction holomorphe $f$ sur $X$ le foncteur $\psi_f^\rmod$ des *cycles proches modérés* le long de $f=0$, défini *a priori* sur la catégorie des $\cD$-modules holonomes à l’aide de la $V$-filtration de Kashiwara-Malgrange, doit exister pour les objets filtrés considérés. Il impose donc d’une part l’existence d’un tel foncteur et d’autre part que le résultat donne un objet du même type (à graduation près par la filtration dite monodromique) avec une dimension de support strictement plus petite. Lorsque la dimension du support est nulle, on impose d’obtenir une structure de Hodge polarisée. Le cas le plus simple de ce procédé est la restriction à un point d’une variation de structure de Hodge. On obtient ainsi la catégorie des $\cD$-modules de Hodge polarisables [@MSaito86].
- Cette idée se transporte assez directement aux triplets $(\cM',\cM'',C)$, la définition de $\psi_f^\rmod$ sur l’accouplement $C$ s’obtenant en prenant le résidu en différentes valeurs de $s$ du transformé de Mellin de la distribution $|f|^{2s}C$. On obtient ainsi la catégorie des $\cD$-modules holonomes avec structure de twisteur polarisable modérée [@Bibi01c; @Mochizuki07].
- Pour le cas sauvage (singularités irrégulières), l’utilisation des cycles proches modérés est insuffisante. Les cycles proches irréguliers, tels que définis par Deligne [@Deligne83] sont par contre suffisants ([@Bibi06b], [@Mochizuki08]). On obtient la catégorie des $\cD$-modules holonomes avec structure de twisteur polarisable sauvage [@Mochizuki08] (voir le §\[sec:Dmodtw\]).
3. \[enum:programme3\] On montre alors le théorème \[th:HLT\] pour les $\cD$-modules de Hodge polarisables ou avec structure de twisteur polarisable. Les espaces d’hypercohomologie sont soit des espaces complexes filtrés avec une structure rationnelle et une polarisation, soit des triplets $(\cH',\cH'',C)$ formés de $\cO_{\CC_\hb}$-modules et d’un accouplement. On montre de plus que les morphismes de Lefschetz sont strictement compatibles aux filtrations ou restent des isomorphismes par restriction à $\hb=1$. Ceci est obtenu en montrant que les espaces d’hypercohomologie sont des structures de Hodge pures ou des structures de twisteur pures. On en conclut que tous les $\cD$-modules obtenus par oubli de la filtration à partir des $\cD$-modules de Hodge polarisables ou par restriction à $\hb=1$ de $\cD$-modules avec structure de twisteur polarisable satisfont au théorème de Lefschetz difficile.
4. \[enum:programme4\] Les résultats du sont obtenus par la méthode de pinceaux de Lefschetz. On se ramène ainsi à les montrer dans le cas des courbes.
- Pour les $\cD$-modules de Hodge polarisables [@MSaito86], on s’appuie sur les théorèmes calculant la cohomologie $L^2$ obtenus par Zucker [@Zucker79], car la restriction d’un tel $\cD$-module filtré à un ouvert de Zariski dense de la courbe n’est autre qu’une variation de $\QQ$-structure de Hodge polarisable.
- Pour les $\cD$-modules avec structure de twisteur polarisable, on commence par remarquer que la restriction à un ouvert de Zariski dense fournit, par le dictionnaire du §\[sec:dictionnaire\], un fibré holomorphe plat avec métrique harmonique. De plus, cette métrique est modérée, au sens de [@Simpson90], ou sauvage, au sens expliqué au §\[sec:sauvage\]. Les résultats de [@Simpson90] puis de [@Mochizuki08] dans le cas des courbes pour de telles métriques permettent d’adapter la méthode de Zucker, comme indiqué dans l’introduction (une approche un peu différente dans le cas modéré est utilisée dans [@Biquard97] et [@Bibi01c]; voir aussi [@Bibi98] pour un lemme de Poincaré $L^2$ dans le cas sauvage).
5. \[enum:programme5\] On arrive maintenant à la deuxième partie du programme, qui est plus analytique. Il s’agit d’identifier exactement les $\cD$-modules holonomes produits au point . Dans la mesure où on a mis en place, durant la preuve du théorème \[th:HLT\] pour les catégories de $\cD$-modules de Hodge polarisables ou avec structure de twisteur polarisable, les outils tels que l’image directe par un morphisme projectif et le théorème de décomposition analogue à celui de [@B-B-D81], on peut ramener cette identification au cas où le support $Z$ est lisse et où l’ouvert de Zariski $Z^o$ de lissité du $\cD$-module holonome a pour complémentaire un diviseur à croisements normaux.
- Pour les $\cD$-modules de Hodge polarisables, MSaito [@MSaito87 Th3.21] les identifie, via la correspondance de Riemann-Hilbert, à ceux qui correspondent aux complexes d’intersection de variations de structure de Hodge polarisable. Un point délicat est la reconstruction, à partir d’une telle variation, d’un $\cD$-module de Hodge polarisable, et l’ingrédient essentiel est le théorème d’existence d’une structure de Hodge mixte limite, dû à Cattani, Kaplan et Schmid d’une part, Kashiwara et Kawai de l’autre, ainsi que la description de celle-ci, généralisant en toute dimension le théorème de Schmid en dimension $1$ (voir l’introduction).
- Pour les $\cD$-modules avec structure de twisteur polarisable *modérée*, Mochizuki identifie les $\cD$-modules holonomes produits au point à ceux correspondant, par Riemann-Hilbert, aux complexes d’intersection de fibrés plats munis d’une métrique harmonique modérée (voir le §\[sec:sauvage\] ci-dessous). La reconstruction (voir le §\[sec:prolong\]) s’appuie aussi, *in fine*, sur la théorie asymptotique des variations de structure de Hodge polarisable.
- Dans le cas sauvage, on se ramène d’abord à considérer une situation mieux contrôlée (cas sauvage et bon, voir §\[sec:sauvage\]). Mochizuki a montré, comme conséquence de sa démonstration de la correspondance de Hitchin-Kobayashi sauvage (§\[sec:HK\]), l’existence d’une compactification convenable $(Z,D)$ de $Z^o$ pour laquelle cette propriété est satisfaite. On peut désormais déconnecter cet argument de l’ensemble de la démonstration, et utiliser ici les résultats de Kedlaya [@Kedlaya09; @Kedlaya10] (voir le §\[subsec:singirreg\]), ce que je ferai pour simplifier l’exposé.
6. \[enum:programme6\] La correspondance de Hitchin-Kobayashi, expliquée dans ce cadre à la section \[sec:HK\], permet enfin à Mochizuki de mettre en correspondance bijective les fibrés plats harmoniques modérés ou sauvages et bons sur $(Z,D)$ avec les fibrés *méromorphes plats semi-simples* lisses sur $Z^o$, généralisant ainsi le théorème de Corlette [@Corlette88] du cas projectif (voir aussi [@J-Z97] pour le cas quasi-projectif). Ceux-ci sont eux-mêmes en correspondance bijective avec les $\cD_Z$-modules holonomes semi-simples lisses sur $Z^o$. La démonstration aux §\[sec:HK\] et \[sec:prolong\] insistera sur l’aspect reconstruction(essentielle surjectivité dans le théorème \[th:equiv\] ci-dessous). Il faut noter cependant que, dans le cas sauvage, l’aspect direct (les $\cD$-modules obtenus au point sont semi-simples) et la pleine fidélité sont des points non triviaux car, notamment, on ne dispose pas du prolongement méromorphe canonique de Deligne (§\[subsec:singirreg\]). Cette question est traitée au §19.3 de [@Mochizuki08].
En conclusion, les $\cD$-modules holonomes produits au point sont exactement les $\cD$-modules holonomes semi-simples sur $X$, ce qui termine la démonstration du théorème \[th:HLT\].
On a ici perdu un peu de symétrie entre fibrés de Higgs et fibrés plats. En effet, les fibrés de Higgs harmoniques sauvages et bons sur $(Z,D)$ sont en correspondance bijective avec les fibrés de Higgs poly-stables avec nombres caractéristiques paraboliques nuls (voir le §\[subsec:locab\]). Mais on ne sait pas identifier les objets de Higgs obtenus au point par restriction à $\hb=0$, en tant que $\cO_{T^*X}$-modules cohérents.
Fibrés de Higgs sauvages et fibrés méromorphes plats à singularités irrégulières {#sec:sauvage}
================================================================================
Convention {#subsec:convention}
----------
Dans tout ce texte, nous appellerons situation globalela donnée d’une variété lisse $X$ et d’un diviseur $D$ à croisements normaux dans $X$. On note l’inclusion. Les composantes du diviseur, supposées lisses, sont indexées par un ensemble fini $\ccI$. On se donne aussi un fibré en droites ample $L$ sur $X$.
Par situation locale, nous entendrons plutôt que $X$ est un produit $\Delta^n$ de disques muni de coordonnées $(z_1,\dots,z_n)$, et $D$ a pour équation $z_1\cdots z_\ell=\nobreak0$, de sorte que l’ensemble fini $\ccI$ est ici égal à $\{1,\dots,\ell\}$.
Fibrés de Higgs sauvages {#subsec:Higgssauvage}
------------------------
Considérons la situation locale. Soit $(E,\theta)$ un fibré de Higgs holomorphe sur $X^o$. On écrit le champ de Higgs sous la forme $\theta=\sum_{i=1}^\ell F_i\rd z_i/z_i+\sum_{j=\ell+1}^nG_j\rd z_j$, où les $F_i,G_j$ sont des endomorphismes holomorphes de $E$. Les coefficients $f_{i,k},g_{j,k}$ des polynômes caractéristiques des $F_i$ et des $G_j$ sont des fonctions holomorphes sur $X^o$.
Le fibré de Higgs $(E,\theta)$ est *modéré* (dans la carte considérée) si $f_{i,k},g_{j,k}$ se prolongent en des fonctions *holomorphes* sur $X$ (on notera de la même manière ces prolongements) et $f_{i,k|D_i}$ est *constante* pour tous $i,k$. En particulier, les valeurs propres (et leur multiplicité) de $F_{i|D_i}$ sont constantes et égales à celles de $F_i(0)$. Du fait de la condition de Higgs, les endomorphismes $F_i,G_j$ commutent. On en déduit que $(E,\theta)$ se décompose localement suivant l’ensemble $\Sp(\theta)$ des valeurs propres $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_\ell)$ de $(F_1(0),\dots,F_\ell(0))$ en somme directe de sous-fibrés de Higgs modérés (voir [@Mochizuki07 §8.2.1]):
Dans le cas sauvage, les fonctions $f_{i,k},g_{j,k}$ sont autorisées à avoir des pôles le long de $D$, mais de manière contrôlée. Travaillant toujours dans des coordonnées locales, on notera $\cO(*D)$ l’espace des fonctions méromorphes sur $X$ à pôles d’ordre arbitraire le long de $D$, et on s’intéressera aux parties polaires $\cO(*D)/\cO$.
Le fibré de Higgs $(E,\theta)$ a une *décomposition sauvage sans ramification* s’il existe une famille finie $\Irr(\theta)\subset\cO(*D)/\cO$ de parties polaires et une décomposition $$\label{eq:decomp}
(E,\theta)=\bigoplus_{\ga\in\Irr(\theta)}(E_\ga,\theta_\ga)$$ telle que, pour chaque $\ga\in\Irr(\theta)$, le fibré de Higgs $(E_\ga,\theta_\ga-\rd\ga\otimes\id)$ soit *modéré* (cette condition ne dépend que de la partie polaire $\ga$, et pas d’un relèvement à $\cO(*D)$, d’où le raccourci de notation). Le fibré de Higgs $(E,\theta)$ a une *décomposition sauvage avec ramification* s’il admet une décomposition après image inverse par un morphisme fini ramifié autour de $D$, décrit en coordonnées locales convenables par $\rho:(x_1,\dots,x_n)\mto(z_1,\dots,z_n)=(x_1^{\nu_1},\dots,x_\ell^{\nu_\ell},x_{\ell+1},\dots,x_n)$. Enfin, $(E,\theta)$ est dit *sauvage* si, pour tout point de $D$, il existe une modification projective $\pi$ d’un voisinage de ce point telle que $\pi^{-1}(D)$ soit encore à croisements normaux et $\pi^*(E,\theta)$ admette une décomposition sauvage avec ramification au voisinage de tout point de $\pi^{-1}(D)$.
[Exemple \[exem:rankone\], suite]{} Puisque $\psi$ est sans terme constant, on peut écrire $\psi=\rd(\ga+\eta)$ avec $\eta$ holomorphe et $\ga$ holomorphe en $z^{-1}$ sans terme constant. Le fibré de Higgs $(E,\theta)$ est modéré si et seulement si $\ga=0$. Il est sauvage si et seulement si $\psi$ est méromorphe en $z=0$ ($\ga\in z^{-1}\CC[z]$).
\[rem:Higgsmodsauv\]
\[rem:Higgsmodsauv1\] Ce sera une constante du traitement modéré/sauvageque de ramener le cas sauvage au cas modéré par adjonction de tels $\rd\ga$ et sommes directes, éventuellement avec ramification. Le cas des fibrés plats se compliquera par l’introduction de structures de Stokes, qui n’apparaissent pas pour les fibrés de Higgs.
\[rem:Higgsmodsauv2\] Les conditions ci-dessus ne dépendent pas du choix des coordonnées adaptées à $D$, et si $\dim X=1$ elles se réduisent à l’holomorphie (la méromorphie) sur $X$ des coefficients du polynôme caractéristique de $F_1$. En dimension $\geq2$, la propriété de décomposition sauvage avec ramificationimplique qu’après ramification, le polynôme caractéristique $\chi_{F_i}(T)$ de $F_i$ se décompose en $\prod_\ga P_{i,\ga}(T-z_i\partial_{z_i}\ga)$, où les $P_{i,\ga}(T)$ sont à coefficients holomorphes pour tous $i,\ga$, et $\chi_{G_j}(T)=\prod_\ga P_{j,\ga}(T-\partial_{z_i}\ga)$, où les $P_{j,\ga}$ sont à coefficients holomorphes. Cette dernière propriété est *a priori* plus forte que la méromorphie des coefficients des $\chi_{F_i},\chi_{G_j}$.
\[rem:Higgsmodsauv3\] Les conditions modéréou sauvagene disent rien sur l’éventuel prolongement du fibré $E$ en un fibré sur $X$ ni, le cas échéant, du prolongement des $F_i,G_j$ comme endomorphismes méromorphes ou holomorphes de ce fibré prolongé.
\[rem:Higgsmodsauv4\] Ces conditions sont préservées par image inverse par un morphisme $f:(X',D')\to(X,D)$ de variétés munies d’un diviseur à croisements normaux avec $D'=f^{-1}(D)$. Inversement, étant donné $(E,\theta)$ sur $X^o$, *existe-t-il une modification propre $\pi:X'\to X$ qui est un isomorphisme au-dessus de $X^o$, telle que $X'\moins X^o$ soit un diviseur à croisements normaux, et que $(E,\theta)$ admette une décomposition sauvage avec ramification sur $X'$?* Puisqu’une telle modification est un isomorphisme hors d’un ensemble de codimension $1$ dans $D$, il est nécessaire *a priori* que $\theta$ soit sauvage au voisinage de tout point d’un ouvert de Zariski dense de $D$. Réciproquement, Mochizuki montre [@Mochizuki08 Chap15] que c’est bien le cas si les propriétés suivantes sont satisfaites:
- $D$ est à croisements normaux dans $X$,
- $\theta$ admet une décomposition sauvage avec ramification génériquement le long de $D$,
- au voisinage de tout point de $D$, et dans des coordonnées locales adaptées, on a, après ramification finie éventuelle, une décomposition $\chi_{F_i}(T)=\prod_{\ga\in A_i} P_{i,\ga}(T-\nobreak z_i\partial_{z_i}\ga)$ comme plus haut.
Fibrés plats à singularités irrégulières {#subsec:singirreg}
----------------------------------------
Arrêtons-nous un instant pour imaginer l’analogue des deux propriétés modéré/sauvagepour un fibré holomorphe plat $(V,\nabla)$ sur $X^o$ lorsque $D$ est à croisements normaux. Considérer comme ci-dessus les polynômes caractéristiques des coefficients de la matrice de connexion n’a plus de sens, mais il existe un unique prolongement méromorphe[^2] de $(V,\nabla)$ dans une base duquel les sections horizontales de la connexion ont des coefficients à croissance modérée (prolongement de Deligne). De plus, il existe un prolongement holomorphe canonique sur lequel la connexion est à pôles logarithmiques, et les résidus le long des composantes de $D$ sont constants. C’est la situation modérée(à singularités régulières), qui se comporte donc mieux que l’analogue pour les fibrés de Higgs. L’analogue de la propriété sauvagenécessite par contre un prolongement méromorphe de référence du fibré $V$ pour être définie, contrairement au cas Higgs. Tout prolongement méromorphe $(\cV,\nabla)$ distinct du prolongement de Deligne sera dit à *singularités irrégulières*. Dans la situation de l’introduction, si $Z$ est lisse, la condition d’algébricité de $(V,\nabla)$ fournit un prolongement méromorphe bien déterminé du fibré holomorphe associé $(V,\nabla)^\an$.
La propriété de décomposition (après ramification) paramétrée par des parties polaires $\ga$ analogue à n’est pas satisfaite en général, même si $\dim X=1$. Dans ce cas, elle n’est satisfaite que si on autorise des changements de jauge *formels* pour la connexion.
Pour $\dim X=2$, il était conjecturé (et démontré dans quelques cas particuliers) dans [@Bibi97 Conj2.5.1], qu’une telle propriété est satisfaite après éclatements de $X$. Cette propriété a été démontrée par TMochizuki [@Mochizuki07b] lorsque la connexion est définie algébriquement, par une méthode de réduction à la caractéristique $p$ et une utilisation de la $p$-courbure comme ersatz d’un champ de Higgs, pour laquelle on peut appliquer un énoncé du type de celui de la remarque \[rem:Higgsmodsauv\]. Quelque temps après, Kedlaya [@Kedlaya09] a proposé une démonstration complètement différente du même énoncé, sans condition d’algébricité de la connexion. Elle repose sur des techniques inspirées des équations différentielles $p$-adiques.
Dans [@Mochizuki08 Th16.2.1], TMochizuki a étendu ce résultat en toute dimension (toujours pour une connexion définie algébriquement), en s’appuyant sur le résultat en dimension $2$ et en utilisant une métrique harmonique pour faire l’aller-retour entre fibré plat et fibré de Higgs par la correspondance de Hitchin-Kobayashi sauvage expliquée plus bas. De ce fait, la démonstration contient une grosse partie d’analyse. Par ailleurs, Kedlaya [@Kedlaya10] a aussi pu étendre ses propres méthodes à la dimension quelconque, sans hypothèse d’algébricité.
\[th:LT\] Soit $X'$ une variété algébrique lisse (un germe de variété analytique complexe) et soit $(\cV,\nabla)$ un fibré méromorphe sur $X'$ à connexion intégrable, holomorphe sur un ouvert de Zariski $X^{\prime o}$ de $X'$. Il existe alors une modification projective $\pi:X\to X'$ avec $X$ lisse, qui est un isomorphisme au-dessus de $X^{\prime o}$, telle que $X\moins X^{\prime o}$ soit un diviseur à croisements normaux $D$, et qu’en tout point $x\in D$, le formalisé $(\wh\cO_{X,x}\otimes_{\cO_x}\cV,\wh\nabla)$ se décompose, après ramification éventuelle autour des composantes locales de $D$, sous la forme $$\tag{$\ref{th:LT}\,*$}\label{eq:LT}
(\wh\cO_{X,x}\otimes_{\cO_x}\cV,\wh\nabla)=\bigoplus_{\ga\in\Irr_x(\nabla)}(\wh\cV_\ga,\wh\nabla_\ga),$$ où $\wh\nabla{}_\ga^\reg:=\wh\nabla_\ga-\rd\ga\otimes\id_{\wh\cV_\ga}$ est à singularités régulières ([@Deligne70]).
Ce théorème, tel que démontré par ces auteurs dans sa version plus précise avec la propriété (Bon) ci-dessous, était le chaînon manquant pour analyser les singularités irrégulières de systèmes holonomes d’équations aux dérivées partielles.
[Exemple \[exem:rankone\], suite]{} Pour $\hb\neq0$, la dichotomie singularité régulière/irrégulière pour $(V^\hb,\frac1\hb\nabla^\hb)$ est la même que la dichotomie modéré/sauvage du cas Higgs.
La condition sauvage et bon {#subsec:goodwild}
---------------------------
La propriété de décomposition (après ramification locale autour des composantes du diviseur $D$) pour un fibré de Higgs ou, en prenant des coefficients formels, pour un fibré méromorphe à connexion plate, est encore insuffisante lorsque $n=\dim X\geq2$ pour l’analyse des propriétés asymptotiques d’une métrique harmonique ou du phénomène de Stokes. Par exemple, dans le cas de deux variables $x_1,x_2$, on cherche à éviter l’existence de sections horizontales de la connexion qui ont un comportement en $\exp(x_1/x_2)$ à cause de la forme indéterminéede la limite de $x_1/x_2$ quand $x_1,x_2\to0$. Par contre, on accepte $\exp(1/x_2)$ ou $\exp(1/x_1x_2)$.
Dans des coordonnées locales adaptées au diviseur comme au §\[subsec:Higgssauvage\], on associe à toute partie polaire $\ga\in\cO(*D)/\cO$, écrite sous la forme $\sum_{\bmm\in\ZZ^\ell\times\NN^{n-\ell}}\ga_\bmm z^{\bmm}$, le polyèdre de $\RR^n$ enveloppe convexe des octants $\RR_+^n$ (pour négliger $\cO$) et $\bmm+\RR_+^n$ pour lesquels $\ga_\bmm\neq0$.
Une famille finie $S$ de parties polaires, telle que $\Irr(\theta)$, est dite *bonne* si la propriété suivante est satisfaite:
\[Pour plusieurs questions, on peut se contenter de la condition plus faible que les polyèdres des $\ga-\gb$, pour $\ga,\gb\in S$, sont des octants de sommets dans $-\NN^\ell\times\{0_{n-\ell}\}$, auquel cas elle ne concerne que les fibrés de rang $\geq2$. Notons aussi que l’une ou l’autre de ces propriétés est toujours satisfaite en dimension $1$.\]
On dit qu’un fibré de Higgs sur $X^o$ est *sauvage et bon* le long de $D$ si la décomposition a lieu au voisinage de tout point de $D$ après ramification locale, avec un ensemble local $\Irr(\theta)$ *bon*.
De même, on dit qu’un fibré méromorphe plat $(\cV,\nabla)$ sur $X$ à pôles le long de $D$ admet une *bonne structure formelle le long de $D$* si, pour tout point $x\in D$, le fibré à connexion tensorisé par $\CC\lcr z_1,\dots,z_n\rcr[1/z_1\dots z_\ell]$ admet, après ramification, une décomposition paramétrée par un ensemble fini et *bon* $\Irr_x(\nabla)\subset\cO(*D)/\cO$. Cette propriété a été utilisée lorsque $D$ est *lisse*, dans l’étude des déformations isomonodromiques d’équations différentielles d’une variable à singularités irrégulières. Les premiers travaux dans le cas des croisements normaux, après les premiers cas considérés dans [@L-vdE82], sont ceux de Majima [@Majima84], poursuivis par [@Bibi97] dans le cas de deux variables. La situation est maintenant claire grâce à l’analyse très détaillée faite par TMochizuki dans [@Mochizuki10b; @Mochizuki08].
Comme pour les singularités régulières avec le prolongement canonique de Deligne [@Deligne70], il est important de pouvoir travailler avec un $\cO_X$-module cohérent $\ccV$ tel que $\cV=\cO_X(*D)\otimes_{\cO_X}\nobreak\ccV$, appelé *réseau* de $\cV$. L’existence globale d’un tel réseau n’est pas évidente. Même dans la situation locale, lorsque $(\cV,\nabla)$ admet une bonne structure formelle, il n’est pas clair qu’existe un réseau dont le formalisé soit adapté à la décomposition . L’existence d’un tel réseau est pourtant essentielle pour exhiber les propriétés asymptotiques des sections horizontales de la connexion au voisinage du diviseur: c’est d’abord dans une base locale d’un tel réseau qu’on arrive à les exprimer.
Un *bon réseau* est un $\cO_X$-sous-module cohérent sans torsion $\ccV$ du fibré méromorphe $\cV$, qui l’engendre par tensorisation par $\cO_X(*D)$ et tel que le formalisé $\wh\ccV:=\wh\cO_{X,x}\otimes_{\cO_{X,x}}\ccV$ en chaque point $x\in D$ soit la partie invariante par l’action du groupe de Galois d’une ramification locale d’un *bon réseau non ramifié*, c’est-à-dire qui se décompose de manière compatible à la décomposition de $\wh\cO_{X,x}\otimes_{\cO_{X,x}}\cV$, de sorte que sur la composante $(\wh\ccV_\ga$, $\wh\nabla{}_\ga^\reg)$ soit à pôles logarithmiques au sens de [@Deligne70].
Malgrange [@Malgrange95] a montré l’existence d’un réseau canoniquequi est *bon sur un ouvert de Zariski dense de $D$*. La construction est locale et, comme pour le réseau canonique de Deligne dans le cas des singularités régulières, c’est en contrôlant les résidus le long des composantes de $D$ que Malgrange peut globaliser diverses constructions locales. Ce réseau est appelé *réseau canonique de Deligne-Malgrange* par Mochizuki. Du point de vue de l’analyse asymptotique au voisinage des singularités de $D$, ce réseau est encore insuffisant, mais Mochizuki montre:
Si $(\cV,\nabla)$ admet une bonne structure formelle le long de $D$, alors le réseau canonique de Deligne-Malgrange est bon en tout point de $D$.
La notion de bon réseau s’étend de manière évidente au cas d’une $\hb$-connexion si $\hb\neq0$. Dans le cas Higgs ($\hb=0$), il est même inutile de passer au formalisé.
Dans les résultats mentionnés à la remarque \[rem:Higgsmodsauv\] ainsi qu’au théorème \[th:LT\], c’est la propriété sauvage et bonqui est obtenue après éclatements, autrement dit les ensembles $\Irr_x(\theta)$ et $\Irr_x(\nabla)$ sont bons pour tout $x\in D$.
Dans la suite, nous admettrons le théorème \[th:LT\], dans la mesure où il possède maintenant une démonstration indépendante par Kedlaya. Dans [@Mochizuki08], Mochizuki ne pouvait pas se permettre ce raccourci, n’ayant alors pas à sa disposition ce théorème, et il l’a démontré par les arguments indiqués plus haut, que nous n’expliciterons pas.
Fibrés harmoniques sauvages (et bons)
-------------------------------------
La propriété modéréou sauvagepour un fibré plat (ou de Higgs) muni d’une métrique harmonique porte sur le champ de Higgs associé. Dans le cas d’une courbe, la propriété modéréa été introduite par Simpson [@Simpson90]. Elle a été étendue par Biquard [@Biquard97] au cas où $D$ est un diviseur lisse, puis par Mochizuki [@Mochizuki02; @Mochizuki07] à celui où $D$ est un diviseur à croisements normaux. La condition sauvage, déjà mentionnée par Simpson [@Simpson90], a été considérée sur les courbes dans [@Bibi98; @B-B03; @Bibi06b] et enfin, en toute généralité, dans [@Mochizuki08].
Un fibré plat harmonique $(V,\nabla,h)$ (un fibré de Higgs harmonique $(E,\theta,h)$) sur $X^o$ est *sauvage* (*sauvage et bon*) si le fibré de Higgs associé $(E,\theta)$ est sauvage, voir §\[subsec:Higgssauvage\] (*sauvage et bon*, voir §\[subsec:goodwild\]).
Pour un fibré de Higgs *harmonique*, l’holomorphie des $f_{i,k}$ (voir §\[subsec:Higgssauvage\]) implique la constance des $f_{i,k|D_i}$ (voir [@Mochizuki07 Lem8.2]). Dans le cas d’un fibré de Higgs harmonique satisfaisant à , il n’est pas clair *a priori* que les composantes $(E_\ga,\theta_\ga-\nobreak\rd\ga\otimes\nobreak\id)$, munies de la métrique induite, soient harmoniques. Il faut donc les traiter comme des fibrés de Higgs quelconques, et imposer la constance des $f_{i,k|D_i}$.
Mochizuki [@Mochizuki07 Chap8] donne, pour un fibré de Higgs harmonique, un critère de modération par restriction aux courbes transverses à la partie lisse de $D$, réminiscent de celui donné par Deligne [@Deligne70] pour les connexions plates à singularités régulières.
Correspondance de Hitchin-Kobayashi sauvage {#sec:HK}
===========================================
Dans la suite du texte, nous allons esquisser la démonstration du fait que tout $\cD_X$-module holonome simple provient d’un $\cD$-module holonome avec structure de twisteur polarisable (point du §\[sec:strategie\]). Nous commençons par la fin, à savoir le point .
Dans la situation globale (voir convention \[subsec:convention\]), soit $(V,\nabla)$ un fibré algébrique plat sur $X^o$. Il correspond de manière biunivoque à un $\cO_X(*D)$-module cohérent $\cV$ à connexion plate $\nabla$. Supposons $(V,\nabla)$ simple. Mochizuki montre l’existence d’une métrique harmonique pour $(V,\nabla)$ avec de bonnes propriétés. Décrivons les étapes en renvoyant plus bas pour les définitions précises.
La construction de Malgrange d’un réseau canonique [@Malgrange95] permet de munir $(\cV,\nabla)$ d’une filtration parabolique $_\bbullet\cV^\DM$.
Étant donné un fibré ample $L$ sur $X$, on associe à tout $\cO_X(*D)$-module cohérent plat parabolique une pente $\mu_L$, d’où une notion de $\mu_L$-stabilité. Alors $(\cV,\nabla)$ est simple si et seulement si $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV^\DM,\nabla)$ est $\mu_L$-stable.
On a aussi une notion de nombres caractéristiques paraboliques. D’après le théorème \[th:LT\] (en utilisant la version de Kedlaya), quitte à changer $X$ et $D$, on peut même supposer que $(\cV,\nabla)$ admet une bonne structure formelle le long de $D$. Dans ce cas, les nombres caractéristiques de $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV^\DM)$ sont nuls.
La correspondance de Hitchin-Kobayashi consiste alors, dans ce cadre, en la construction d’une métrique harmonique $h$ pour $(V,\nabla)$ adaptée à la filtration $({}_\bbullet\cV^\DM)$, d’où un fibré de Higgs harmonique $(E,\theta,h)$ et une variation de structure de twisteur polarisée pure de poids $0$ sur $X^o$. Cette construction repose aussi sur le fait que le fibré de Higgs harmonique $(E,\theta,h)$ ainsi obtenu est sauvage et bon.
Les questions qui restent en suspens sont de savoir si $(E,\theta)$ se prolonge (et comment) à $X$, et si la variation de structure de twisteur polarisée se prolonge (et comment) à $X$. Nous les aborderons au §\[sec:prolong\].
Filtrations paraboliques et métriques adaptées {#subsec:locab}
----------------------------------------------
Nous nous plaçons dans la situation locale ou globale (convention \[subsec:convention\]). Mochizuki a considéré une propriété analogue à la propriété suivante dans [@Mochizuki07 §4.2].
### Filtration parabolique {#filtration-parabolique .unnumbered}
Soit $_\inftyg E$ un $\cO_X(*D)$-module cohérent sans torsion. Une *filtration parabolique* de $_\inftyg E$ consiste en la donnée d’une filtration croissante, indexée par $\RR^\ccI$ muni de son ordre partiel naturel, de $_\inftyg E$ par des sous-$\cO_X$-modules cohérents sans torsion $_\bma E$, qui satisfait aux propriétés suivantes:
1. (translation) pour tout $\bma\in\RR^\ccI$, on a $_\inftyg E=\cO_X(*D)\otimes_{\cO_X}{}_\bma E$ et, pour tout $\bnn\in\ZZ^\ccI$, $_{\bma-\bnn}E=\cO_X(-\sum_{i\in\ccI}n_iD_i)\otimes_{\cO_X}{}_\bma E$;
2. (finitude) il existe pour tout $i\in\ccI$ un sous-ensemble $\ccA_i\subset\RR$ fini modulo $\ZZ$ tel que la filtration soit déterminée par sa restriction à $\ccA=\prod_{i\in\ccI}\ccA_i$, c’est-à-dire que pour tout $\bma'\in\RR^\ccI$, on a $_{\bma'}E=\bigcup_{\substack{\bma\in\ccA\\\bma\leq\bma'}}{}_\bma E$.
Si les $_\bma E$ sont $\cO_X$-localement libres, on dira aussi que $({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ est un *fibré méromorphe parabolique sur $(X,D)$*. Si ${}_\inftyg E$ est localement libre de rang $1$, la donnée d’une filtration parabolique est équivalente à la donnée de $\bmb\in\RR^\ccI$ modulo $\ZZ^\ccI$. On a alors localement $_\bma E\simeq\cO_X(\sum_i[a_i+b_i]D_i)$. La proposition suivante simplifie différentes notions introduites dans [@Mochizuki06 Chap3], [@Mochizuki07 Chap4] et [@I-S07 §2].
\[prop:locab\] Tout fibré méromorphe parabolique $({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ sur $(X,D)$ est localement abélien, localement isomorphe à une somme directe de fibrés paraboliques de rang $1$.
\[def:eprime\] Soit $({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ un fibré méromorphe parabolique sur $(X,D)$. Une base locale $\bme$ de $_\inftyg E$ comme $\cO_X(*D)$-module est dite *adaptée* à la filtration parabolique si elle définit une décomposition de $({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ en fibrés paraboliques de rang $1$. Chaque élément $e_k$ a alors un multi-ordre $\bma(k)$. On associe à $\bme$ une base normalisée $\bme'$ définie par $e'_k=\prod_{i=1}^\ell|z_i|^{a_i(k)}\cdot e_k$.
### Nombres caractéristiques paraboliques {#nombres-caractéristiques-paraboliques .unnumbered}
Soit $({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ un fibré méromorphe parabolique. Considérons l’un des fibrés $_\bma E$ (pour $\bma\in\ccA$, c’est suffisant). Sur chaque composante $D_i$ de $D$ on dispose alors du $\cO_{D_i}$-module localement libre $_\bma E/{}_{\bma^{-_i}} E$, si $\bma^{-_i}$ est le prédécesseur de $\bma$ dans la direction $i$ uniquement. Notons $_\bma E_{||D_i}$ ce fibré et $\rg{}_\bma E_{||D_i}$ son rang. On observe que, pour $\bmb\in\ccA$, la restriction usuelle $_\bmb E_{|D_i}={}_\bmb E/{}_{\bmb-1_i}E$ a pour rang $$\rg{}_\bmb E_{|D_i}=\sum_{\substack{a_i\in{}]b_i-1,b_i]\\ a_j=b_j\,\forall j\neq i}}\rg{}_\bma E_{||D_i}$$
Dans la situation globale, soit $L$ un fibré ample sur $X$. Le *degré parabolique* $\parc\deg_L({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ est défini par la formule, indépendante du choix de $\bmb\in\RR^\ccI$, $$\parc\deg_L({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)=\deg_L{}_\bmb E-\sum_{i\in\ccI}\Big(\sum_{a_i\in{}]b_i-1,b_i]}a_i\rg{}_\bma E_{||D_i}\Big)\deg_LD_i.$$ La *pente* $\mu_L({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ est le quotient $\parc\deg_L({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)/\rg{}_\inftyg E$.
On peut aussi définir une classe $\parc c_1({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ en remplaçant dans la formule ci-dessus le nombre $\deg_LD_i$ par la classe $[D_i]$ dans $H^2(X,\RR)$ et $\deg_L{}_\bmb E$ par $c_1({}_\bmb E)$, et on peut aussi définir un nombre $\parc\deg_L\mathrm{ch}_2({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ (voir ).
### Métrique hermitienne adaptée à une filtration parabolique {#métrique-hermitienne-adaptée-à-une-filtration-parabolique .unnumbered}
Dans la situation locale, soit $({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$ un fibré méromorphe parabolique sur $(X,D)$. Soit par ailleurs $h$ une métrique hermitienne sur $E={}_\inftyg E_{|X^o}$. Pour chaque $\bma\in\RR^\ccI$, définissons le sous-faisceau de $\cO_X$-modules $_\bma \wt E\subset j_*E$ par $$\forall U\subset X,\quad{}_\bma \wt E(U)=\Big\{e\in E(U\moins D)\mid\forall\epsilon>0,\,|e|_h=O\big(\ts\prod_{i\in\ccI}|z_i|^{-a_i-\epsilon}\big)\,\text{loc.\,sur\,$U$}\Big\},$$ et $_\inftyg\wt E=\bigcup_\bma {}_\bma \wt E$, qui est un $\cO_X(*D)$-module, filtré par les $\cO_X$-sous-modules sans torsion $_\bma\wt E$. En général, ces faisceaux n’ont aucune propriété de cohérence.
\[def:adapte\] La métrique $h$ est dite *adaptée au fibré méromorphe parabolique $({}_\inftyg E,{}_\bbullet E)$* si ${}_\bma\wt E={}_\bma E$ pour tout $\bma\in\RR^\ccI$.
La filtration de Deligne-Malgrange
----------------------------------
Revenons à notre problème, dans la situation globale. Soit $(\cV,\nabla)$ un $\cO_X(*D)$-module cohérent à connexion intégrable. Lorsque $(\cV,\nabla)$ est à *singularités régulières* le long de $D$, Deligne [@Deligne70] a construit un fibré vectoriel canonique, sur lequel la connexion est à pôles logarithmiques et les valeurs propres $\alpha_i$ de l’endomorphisme résidu sur la composante $D_i$ de $D$ ont une partie réelle dans $[0,1[$. Pour chaque $\bma\in\RR^\ccI$, on peut définir le fibré à connexion logarithmique $_\bma\cV$ en imposant que $-\reel\alpha_i\in{}]a_i-1,a_i]$ pour tout $i\in\ccI$. On obtient ainsi la *filtration canonique de Deligne* et un fibré méromorphe plat parabolique $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV,\nabla)$, tout ceci compatible à la formation du déterminant. Dans le cas de rang $1$, la connexion sur le fibré $C^\infty$ associé est à coefficients distributions, et la formule de Chern-Weil (au sens des courants) pour $c_1({}_\bmb\cV)$ montre que $\parc c_1(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV)=\nobreak0$, et ceci reste vrai en tout rang par passage au déterminant, de même que l’égalité $\parc\deg_L(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV)=0$.
On remarque aussi que tout $\cO_X(*D)$-sous-module cohérent de $\cV$ stable par la connexion est encore $\cO_X(*D)$-localement libre, et la connexion y est encore à singularités régulières. De plus, la filtration de Deligne de $\cV$ induit sur ce sous-module sa propre filtration de Deligne.
On dira que le fibré méromorphe plat parabolique $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV,\nabla)$ est $\mu_L$-stable si tout sous-fibré méromorphe plat, muni de la filtration parabolique induite, est de pente strictement plus petite.
On vérifie alors que $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV,\nabla)$ est $\mu_L$-stable si et seulement si $(\cV,\nabla)$ est simple (en effet, la filtration de Deligne induit sur tout sous-fibré méromorphe plat non trivial la filtration de Deligne de celui-ci, qui est donc de pente nulle, en contradiction avec la stabilité).
Lorsque $(\cV,\nabla)$ est à singularités irrégulières, Malgrange [@Malgrange95] a construit un réseau canonique (§\[subsec:goodwild\]) en imposant des conditions analogues sur les résidus des connexions $\wh\nabla_\ga^\reg$, qui existent *a priori* sur un ouvert de Zariski dense de chaque $D_i$. On en déduit une filtration canonique $({}_\bbullet\cV^\DM,\nabla)$, dite *de Deligne-Malgrange*. Il faut noter que chaque $({}_\bma\cV^\DM,\nabla)$ n’est pas nécessairement logarithmique, et n’est pas nécessairement localement libre. Néanmoins, chaque ${}_\bma\cV^\DM$ est $\cO_X$-cohérent et réflexif (voir [@Mochizuki08 Lem2.7.8]).
Si de plus $(\cV,\nabla)$ admet une bonne structure formelle le long de $D$ alors, comme indiqué au §\[subsec:goodwild\], le réseau canonique de Deligne-Malgrange est localement la partie invariante dans une ramification d’un réseau qui se décompose formellement au voisinage de chaque point de $D$ comme $(\cV,\nabla)$. Il en résulte que c’est un fibré vectoriel, et $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV^\DM)$ est un fibré méromorphe plat parabolique. Dans le cas de rang $1$, se préoccuper de bonté et de ramification est superflu et, utilisant le quasi-isomorphisme $\Omega^\cbbullet(\log D)\simeq\Omega^\cbbullet(*D)$ (voir [@Deligne70 PropII.3.13]), on montre que la connexion $\nabla+\ov\partial$ sur $\cC^\infty_X\otimes\cV$ s’écrit comme la somme d’une connexion plate $C^\infty$ logarithmique et d’une forme exacte $\rd\varphi$ avec $\varphi\in\Gamma(X,\cC^\infty_X(*D))$. Il s’ensuit que, comme dans le cas logarithmique, on a, en tout rang, $\parc c_1(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV)=\nobreak0$ et $\parc\deg_L(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV)=0$.
On montre de même que tout $\cO_X(*D)$-sous-module cohérent de $\cV$ stable par la connexion est encore $\cO_X(*D)$-localement libre, et admet une bonne structure formelle le long de $D$ (avec des facteurs exponentiels locaux contenus dans ceux de $(\cV,\nabla)$). Enfin, la filtration de Deligne-Malgrange de $\cV$ induit celle de ses sous-modules.
On en déduit, de même que plus haut, l’équivalence $\mu_L$-stabilité de $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV^\DM,\nabla)\iff{}$ simplicité de $(\cV,\nabla)$ (voir [@Mochizuki08 §2.7.2.2]). On a aussi:
On a $\parc\deg_L\mathrm{ch}_2({}_\bbullet\cV^\DM)=0$.
Construction d’une métrique harmonique adaptée
----------------------------------------------
On suppose que $(\cV,\nabla)$ est simple et admet une bonne structure formelle le long de $D$. On cherche à construire une métrique harmonique adaptée à la structure parabolique de Deligne-Malgrange.
### Le cas de rang $1$ {#le-cas-de-rang-1 .unnumbered}
Il est instructif de commencer par considérer le cas des fibrés de rang $1$. On remarque d’abord que, en rang $1$, la pseudo-courbure $G(\nabla,h)$ () est égale à deux fois la courbure de $h$ (voir [@Mochizuki09c Lem2.31]). Il s’agit donc de construire une métrique à courbure nulle adaptée à une filtration parabolique, elle-même déterminée par la donnée de $\bma\in\RR^\ccI$. On construit une métrique singulière $h_0$ sur ${}_\bma\cV$ en imposant d’abord que, dans toute situation locale, une base locale $e$ de $_\bma\cV$ ait pour norme $\Vert e\Vert_{|h_0}=|z|^{-\bma}\cdot\Vert e\Vert_{h_\loc}$, où $h_{\loc}$ est une métrique $C^\infty$ locale sur ${}_\bma\cV$, puis en utilisant une partition de l’unité pour recoller. La courbure $R(h_0)$ est la somme d’une forme $C^\infty$ fermée $R'(h_0)$ de type $(1,1)$ sur $X$ et d’un courant fermé de type $(1,1)$ porté par $D$, et sa classe est $c_1({}_\bma\cV)$. La correction parabolique est faite pour que la classe de $R'(h_0)$ soit égale à $\parc c_1(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV)$, dont on a vu plus haut qu’elle est nulle. La théorie de Hodge implique alors que $R'(h_0)=\ov\partial\partial g$ pour une certaine fonction $g$ de classe $C^\infty$, et la métrique $h=e^{-g}h_0$ est encore adaptée à ${}_\bma\cV$ et de courbure nulle.
### Le cas des courbes {#le-cas-des-courbes .unnumbered}
Dans la situation globale, soit $X$ une courbe algébrique lisse et $(\cV,\nabla)$ un fibré méromorphe à connexion sur $(X,D)$. La filtration de Deligne-Malgrange est définie de manière classique dans ce cas (voir [@Malgrange95]) et la condition de bonté est trivialement satisfaite. Supposons $(\cV,\nabla)$ simple. Il résulte essentiellement des travaux de Simpson [@Simpson90] (voir [@Bibi98]) qu’il existe une métrique harmonique $h$ pour $(\cV_{|X^o},\nabla)$ adaptée à la filtration de Deligne-Malgrange.
Dans [@B-B03] Biquard et Boalch étendent ce résultat à une situation parabolique plus générale, et le précisent en une correspondance de Hitchin-Kobayashi entre fibrés plats et fibrés de Higgs.
Dans [@Mochizuki08 §13.4], Mochizuki donne une autre démonstration de ce résultat, dans l’esprit de celle de [@Simpson90], et il précise une propriété d’unicité de la métrique harmonique.
### Un théorème de type Metha-Ramanathan {#un-théorème-de-type-metha-ramanathan .unnumbered}
Ce résultat de réduction aux courbes générales lorsque $\dim X\geq2$ est important à plusieurs endroits de la preuve qui suit. L’argument de Simpson [@Simpson92] a déjà été généralisé par Mochizuki dans [@Mochizuki06] au cas des singularités régulières, et la démonstration est étendue au cas des singularités irrégulières:
\[prop:MR\] Dans la situation globale, soit $(\cV,\nabla)$ un fibré méromorphe plat à pôles le long de $D$ et $L$ un fibré ample sur $X$. Alors $(\cV,\nabla)$ est simple si et seulement si sa restriction à toute courbe intersection complète assez générale de sections de $L^{\otimes m_\nu}$, pour une suite $m_\nu\to+\infty$, est simple.
### Construction d’une métrique harmonique adaptée {#construction-dune-métrique-harmonique-adaptée-1 .unnumbered}
Soit $(\cV,\nabla)$ un fibré méromorphe plat sur $(X,D)$. Supposons que $(\cV,\nabla)$ admette une *bonne structure formelle le long de $D$*, et donne ainsi lieu à un fibré méromorphe plat parabolique $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV^\DM,\nabla)$. Supposons aussi que $(\cV,\nabla)$ est *simple*, de sorte que $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV^\DM,\nabla)$ est $\mu_L$-stable, à nombres caractéristiques nuls. De plus, comme indiqué plus haut, la première classe de Chern parabolique est nulle. On peut définir un fibré méromorphe plat parabolique de rang $1$, à savoir le déterminant $\det(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV^\DM,\nabla)$, qui est aussi à $\parc c_1$ nul et qui, d’après ce qu’on a vu plus haut, admet une métrique harmonique $h_{\det}$.
\[th:existharm\] Dans ces conditions, il existe une unique métrique harmonique adaptée à $(\cV,{}_\bbullet\cV^\DM,\nabla)$ normalisée par $\det(h)=h_{\det}$. De plus cette métrique fait du fibré de Higgs harmonique associé $(E,\theta,h)$ un fibré de Higgs sauvage et bon.
Considérons d’abord la dernière propriété, qui sera utile pour montrer l’unicité, et en dernier ressort l’existence en dimension $\geq3$. C’est un résultat plus général.
Soit $(\cV,\nabla)$ un fibré méromorphe plat sur $(X,D)$ admettant une bonne structure formelle le long de $D$. Supposons aussi $(\cV,\nabla)_{|X^o}$ muni d’une métrique harmonique $h$ adaptée à ${}_\bbullet\cV^\DM$. Alors le fibré de Higgs harmonique associé $(E,\theta,h)$ est sauvage et bon.
### Unicité dans \[th:existharm\] {#unicité-dans-thexistharm .unnumbered}
Prenons deux telles métriques $h_1$ et $h_2$. En restriction à une courbe générale $C$ comme en \[prop:MR\], $(\cV,\nabla)$ est simple et sauvage (automatiquement bon en dimension $1$). Anticipant sur la section suivante (Théorèmes \[th:acceptable\] et \[th:harmacceptable\]), l’estimation du théorème \[th:acceptable\] pour $({}_\bbullet\cV^\DM,h)$ se restreint à la courbe $C$, ce qui permet de voir que les restrictions de $h_1,h_2$ à $C^o$ sont adaptées à $({}_\bbullet\cV^\DM)_{|C}$. L’unicité vue plus haut dans le cas des courbes montre que $h_{1|C^o}=h_{2|C^o}$. Puisqu’on peut faire passer une telle courbe générale par chaque point de $X^o$, on en déduit l’unicité.
### Existence dans \[th:existharm\] {#existence-dans-thexistharm .unnumbered}
La technique a été développée par Mochizuki dans le cas modéré dans [@Mochizuki07; @Mochizuki09c] et s’adapte au cas sauvage et bon à l’aide des résultats déjà obtenus et ceux des paragraphes \[subsec:accept\] et \[subsec:acceptwild\] ci-dessous. Résumons-la *très* rapidement.
D’une part Mochizuki étend des résultats de Donaldson et Simpson (voir [@Simpson88]), et d’autre part il commence par le cas des surfaces. Dans ce cas, il construit une famille, paramétrée par $\epsilon>0$, de perturbations de la structure parabolique pour supprimer l’éventuelle partie nilpotente des gradués paraboliques des résidus de $\wh\nabla_\ga^\reg$ le long des composantes de $D$. À l’aide des résultats de Donaldson et Simpson généralisés, et à partir d’une métrique convenable sur les différents fibrés gradués paraboliques plats sur les composantes $D_i$, il obtient pour chaque $\epsilon$ une métrique harmonique[^3] adaptée à la filtration parabolique perturbée. Il montre ensuite la convergence de ces métriques pour $\epsilon\to0$, en un sens convenable, vers une métrique harmonique[^4] adaptée à la filtration parabolique $({}_\bbullet\cV^\DM)$.
Le cas de la dimension $\geq3$ se traite grâce à l’argument d’unicité: la métrique définie sur chaque surface assez générale, grâce à \[prop:MR\], est bien la restriction d’une métrique existant sur $X^o$, et elle satisfait aux propriétés requises.
Prolongement de fibrés harmoniques sauvages {#sec:prolong}
===========================================
Les problèmes du prolongement
-----------------------------
On se place dans la situation locale. Soit $(E,\theta,h)$ un fibré de Higgs harmonique sauvage et bon sur $X^o$. On cherche en particulier à résoudre les problèmes suivants:
\[enum:pbextension1\] prolonger le fibré $E$ en un fibré méromorphe $\cE$ ($\cO_X(*D)$-module localement libre de rang fini) sur $X$,
\[enum:pbextension2\] montrer que $\theta$ se prolonge de manière méromorphe au prolongement $\cE$ (les coefficients de $\theta$ dans une base locale de $\cE$ sont méromorphes),
\[enum:pbextension3\] pour chaque $\hb$, prolonger aussi les fibrés plats $(V^\hb,\nabla)$ en des fibrés méromorphes plats $(\cV^\hb,\nabla)$.
\[enum:pbextension4\] effectuer ce dernier prolongement de manière holomorphe par rapport à $\hb$.
On explique dans cette section comment Mochizuki procède dans le cas sauvage et bon [@Mochizuki08], après avoir résolu ces questions dans le cas modéré [@Mochizuki07].
Dans la mesure où le problème de prolongement local est résolu canoniquement à l’aide de la métrique (voir ci-dessous), il conduit à des résultats applicables dans la situation globale.
Fibrés holomorphes hermitiens acceptables {#subsec:accept}
-----------------------------------------
Considérons la situation locale. Soit $(E,h)$ un fibré holomorphe hermitien sur $X^o$. La condition d’*acceptabilité* remonte à l’article de Cornalba et Griffiths [@C-G75], et a été utilisée dans ce cadre par Simpson [@Simpson88; @Simpson90]:
Le fibré hermitien $(E,h)$ est *acceptable* si la norme de la courbure de $h$, calculée par rapport à $h$ elle-même (sur le fibré des endomorphismes) et à la métrique de Poincaré sur $U\moins D$, est *bornée*.
Mochizuki raffine les résultats sur les fibrés acceptables de la manière suivante, avec la notation utilisée à la définition \[def:adapte\]:
\[th:acceptable\]
\[th:acceptable1\] Si $(E,h)$ est acceptable, alors chaque $_\bma\wt E$ est $\cO_X$-localement libre et $({}_\bma\wt E)$ fait de $_\inftyg\wt E$ un fibré méromorphe parabolique $(_\inftyg\wt E,{}_\bbullet\wt E)$.
\[th:acceptable2\] De plus, si $\bme$ est une base locale de $_\inftyg\wt E$ adaptée à la décomposition donnée par la proposition \[prop:locab\] et $\bme'$ la base normalisée associée (voir définition \[def:eprime\]), les valeurs propres $\eta(z)$ de la matrice $h(\bme',\bme')$ de la métrique dans cette base satisfont aux inégalités $$C\Big(\sum_{i=1}^\ell\rL(z_i)\Big)^{-N}\leq\eta(z)\leq C'\Big(\sum_{i=1}^\ell\rL(z_i)\Big)^N$$ pour $C,C',N$ positifs convenables, en posant $\rL(z)=|{\log|z|}|$ ($|z|<1$).
\[th:acceptable3\] Enfin, le fibré $(\End{}_\inftyg\wt E,h)$ est aussi acceptable, et $_{\mathbf{0}\!}\End{}_\inftyg\wt E$ est le faisceau des endomorphismes de $_\inftyg\wt E$ qui préservent la filtration $_\bma\wt E$ et dont la restriction à chaque composante $D_i$ préserve la filtration naturelle de $_\bma\wt E_{|D_i}$.
Acceptabilité des fibrés harmoniques sauvages et bons {#subsec:acceptwild}
-----------------------------------------------------
Restons dans un cadre local comme plus haut. Soit $(E,\theta,h)$ un fibré de Higgs harmonique sur $X^o$. La courbure de la connexion de Chern se calcule, du fait de l’harmonicité, par la formule $R(h,\ov\partial_E)=-[\theta,\theta^\dag]$. Plus généralement, pour tout $\hb\in\CC$, $R(h,\ov\partial_E+\hb\theta^\dag)=-(1+|\hb|^2)[\theta,\theta^\dag]$. Lorsque $(E,\theta,h)$ est sauvage et bon, Mochizuki montre l’acceptabilité de $(E,h)$, qui entraîne donc celle de tous les $(V^\hb,h)$. Plus précisément, il donne une interprétation géométrique de cette propriété, que nous décrivons maintenant, généralisant celle donnée par Simpson [@Simpson90] en dimension $1$ et dans la situation modérée.
La décomposition peut se raffiner: $(E,\theta)\simeq\bigoplus_{(\ga,\alphag)}(E_{(\ga,\alphag)},\theta_{(\ga,\alphag)})$, en utilisant . Cette décomposition ne dépend que du champ de Higgs, et on va l’analyser par rapport à la métrique $h$. On dira que $E_{(\ga,\alphag)}$ est *$g_{(\ga,\alphag),(\gb,\betag)}$-asymptotiquement $h$-orthogonal à $E_{(\gb,\betag)}$* si la norme de la projection de $E_{(\gb,\betag)}$ sur $E_{(\ga,\alphag)}$ parallèlement à $E_{(\ga,\alphag)}^{\perp_h}$ et celle de $E_{(\ga,\alphag)}$ sur $E_{(\gb,\betag)}$ parallèlement à $E_{(\gb,\betag)}^{\perp_h}$ sont localement bornées par une fonction $g_{(\ga,\alphag),(\gb,\betag)}(z)$.
Dans la suite, on prendra $g_{\epsilon,(\ga,\alphag),(\gb,\betag)}(z)=\exp(-\epsilon|z^{\ord(\ga-\gb)}|)\prod_{j|\alpha_i\neq\beta_i}|z_i|^\epsilon$ ($\epsilon>0$). La condition (Bon) implique en effet que pour tous $\ga\neq\gb$, $\ga-\gb=z^{-\bmm}\gc(z)$ avec $\gc$ holomorphe et $\gc(0)\neq0$, pour un certain multi-indice $\bmm\in\ZZ^\ell\moins\NN^\ell$, qu’on note $\ord(\ga-\nobreak\gb)$. On voit donc que si $\ga\neq\gb$, la fonction $g_{\epsilon,(\ga,\alphag),(\gb,\betag)}$ est à décroissance exponentielle au voisinage de l’origine, tandis que si $\ga=\gb$, on a seulement une décroissance modérée.
\[th:harmacceptable\] Soit $(E,\theta,h)$ un fibré de Higgs harmonique sauvage et bon. Alors $(E,h)$ est acceptable, de même que tout $(V^\hb,h)$, et $(\End V^\hb,h)$. Plus précisément, pour tous $(\ga,\alphag),(\gb,\betag)$,
$E_{(\ga,\alphag)}$ est $g_{\epsilon,(\ga,\alphag),(\gb,\betag)}$-asymptotiquement $h$-orthogonal à $E_{(\gb,\betag)}$ pour $\epsilon>0$ assez petit;
la norme de la composante $[\theta,\theta^\dag]_{(\ga,\alphag),(\gb,\betag)}$ relativement à $h$ et à la métrique de Poincaré est $O(g_{\epsilon,(\ga,\alphag),(\gb,\betag)})$.
Ce type d’estimation remonte au travaux de Simpson [@Simpson90 §2] et est pour cette raison baptisé Simpson’s main estimatepar Mochizuki. Il est remarquable que la présence de parties polaires non nulles *améliore nettement* les estimations d’orthogonalité asymptotique par rapport au cas modéré, puisqu’exponentiellement petites. Un tel phénomène avait déjà été observé en dimension $1$ par Biquard et Boalch [@B-B03 Lem4.6]. Néanmoins, ne nous réjouissons pas trop vite...
Prolongement à $\hb$ fixé
-------------------------
Supposons toujours $(E,\theta,h)$ harmonique sauvage et bon dans la situation locale du §\[subsec:Higgssauvage\]. Les résultats généraux sur les fibrés hermitiens acceptables (théorème \[th:acceptable\]) et le théorème d’acceptabilité des fibrés harmoniques sauvages et bons (théorème \[th:harmacceptable\]) permettent de répondre aux questions et du début de cette section. Plus précisément, pour chaque $\hb$, on obtient un fibré méromorphe parabolique sur $X$, noté $(\ccP\cE^\hb,\ccP{}_\bbullet \cE^\hb)$.
\[th:nablahbmero\] Pour tout $\hb$, la $\hb$-connexion $\nabla^\hb$ est méromorphe sur $\ccP{}_\bma \cE^\hb$ pour tout $\bma\in\RR^\ell$ (et logarithmique dans le cas modéré), et en fait un bon réseau, qui est non ramifié si $\theta$ l’est.
La démonstration du cas modéré peut être adaptée et étendue au cas sauvage, grâce notamment à l’orthogonalité asymptotique vue ci-dessus. Supposons de plus que $(E,\theta,h)$ est sauvage sans ramification et bon. La décomposition fait intervenir un ensemble fini $\Irr(\theta)$ de parties polaires. Mochizuki obtient de plus:
(\[th:nablahbmero\]$*$)*Pour tout $\hb\neq0$, l’ensemble $\Irr(\nabla^\hb)$ paramétrant la décomposition pour $(\ccP\cE^\hb,\nabla^\hb)$ est égal à $(1+|\hb|^2)\Irr(\theta)$.*
Ce comportement complète le comportement des valeurs propres du résidu de $(\wh\nabla^\hb)_{(1+|\hb|^2)\ga}^\reg$, qui est régi par la fonction $\ge$ (eigenvalue) introduite dans , ainsi que l’avaient montré Simpson en dimension $1$ et Mochizuki en toute dimension, dans le cas modéré. La fonction $\gp$ (parabolique) régit, quant à elle, le comportement par rapport à $\hb$ de la structure parabolique, que nous n’avons pas détaillé ici. La mauvaise nouvelle, anticipée dans l’exemple \[exem:rankone\], est que, contrairement à $\ge$, le comportement de $\Irr(\nabla^\hb)$ n’est pas holomorphe en $\hb$.
Prolongement à $\hb$ variable {#subsec:hbvariable}
-----------------------------
Dans le cas modéré, le passage de $\hb$ fixé à $\hb$ variable n’engendre pas de complication importante. Il faut simplement prendre garde à l’uniformité locale par rapport à $\hb$ des estimations asymptotiques. En particulier, dans l’estimation du théorème \[th:acceptable\], on remplace les $\big(\sum\rL(z_i)\big)^{\pm N}$ par $\prod|z_i|^{\mp\epsilon}$. Aussi je n’insisterai pas sur ce point, traité en détail dans [@Mochizuki07].
Par contre, dans le cas sauvage, le comportement de l’exemple \[exem:rankone\] vu à la fin du §\[sec:dictionnaire\] n’est pas du tout anodin, et nécessite la mise en place d’une description fidèle, dans le cas sauvage et bon à plusieurs variables, des fibrés méromorphes munis d’une $\hb$-connexion intégrable en terme de l’objet formel associé et d’une *structure de Stokes*. C’est ce qui est fait dans les chapitres 2 à 4, et 20 (appendice) de [@Mochizuki08], et représente un apport majeur dans la théorie des $\cD$-modules holonomes, indépendamment des autres points considérés ici. La question qui nous importe est alors traitée dans les chapitres 9 à 11. Le tout occupant plus de 200 pages, il ne sera pas question de rentrer dans les détails.
Considérons la situation simplifiée, à $\hb=1$ fixé, d’un fibré méromorphe $(\cV,\nabla)$ à connexion sur un disque $\Delta$ de coordonnée $z$, avec un unique pôle en $z=0$. Le théorème de Levelt-Turrittin donne, après une ramification convenable $z'\mto z=z^{\prime q}$, une décomposition du formalisé de $(\cV,\nabla)$ en $0$. Supposons pour simplifier l’explication que $q=1$ (cas non ramifié). On a donc une décomposition .
\[prop:isomono\] Soit $t$ un réel ${}>0$. Il existe, de manière canonique et fonctorielle, un fibré méromorphe à connexion $(\cV_t,\nabla_t)$ qui a pour décomposition formelle $$(\wh\cV_t,\wh\nabla_t)\simeq\bigoplus_{\ga}(\wh\cV_\ga,\wh\nabla{}_\ga^\reg+t\cdot\rd\ga\otimes\id_{\wh\cV_\ga}).$$
En particulier, pour $t=1$ on retrouve $(\cV,\nabla)$, et si $t=|\tau|$ avec $\tau\in\CC^*$, alors la famille $(\cV_t,\nabla_t)$ est *isomonodromique* par rapport à $\tau$.
La démonstration de la proposition repose sur la correspondance de Riemann-Hilbert irrégulière, telle qu’elle est expliquée par exemple dans [@Deligne78] (voir aussi [@B-V89], [@Malgrange91 ChapIV]). La structure formelle du supposé $(\cV_t,\nabla_t)$ étant fixée par la décomposition, il suffit, pour montrer son existence, de l’enrichir par une structure de Stokes (passer d’un système local $I$-gradué à un système local $I$-filtré, dans le langage de ). Une fois la décomposition formelle fixée, la structure de Stokes dépend de la structure combinatoire sur le cercle unité des ensembles définis par les inéquations $\arg(t\ga-t\gb)\in[-\pi/2,\pi/2]$ pour $\ga\neq\gb$ intervenant dans la décomposition de $(\wh\cV,\wh\nabla)$. Ces intervalles étant indépendants de $t>0$, la structure de Stokes donnée par $(\cV,\nabla)$ pour $t=1$ se prolonge de manière unique pour tout $t>0$.
Pour adapter cette démonstration il convient, dans la situation locale considérée plus haut,
\[enum:hbvariablea\] d’étendre, pour un fibré à connexion méromorphe sur $X$ à pôles le long de $D$, qui est sauvage et bon, la théorie asymptotique de Sibuya-Majima; on a besoin pour cela de l’existence d’un bon réseau (voir §\[subsec:goodwild\]) pour argumenter par récurrence sur la dimension;
\[enum:hbvariableb\] d’étendre à ce cas la correspondance de Riemann-Hilbert irrégulière; Mochizuki a ainsi redécouvert la notion de système local $I$-filtré de [@Deligne78], l’a adaptée en dimension quelconque en prouvant aussi l’efficacité de cette approche, du point de vue métrique notamment;
\[enum:hbvariablec\] d’appliquer, *pour $\hb$ fixé*, l’analogue de la proposition \[prop:isomono\] à $\ccP\cE^\hb$ avec le multiplicateur $1/(1+|\hb|^2)$ pour obtenir un prolongement noté $\ccQ\cE^\hb$;
\[enum:hbvariabled\] d’étendre aussi la correspondance de Riemann-Hilbert irrégulière aux familles de connexions paramétrées par $\hb$, comme celles induites par une $\hb$-connexion si $\hb\neq0$;
\[enum:hbvariablee\] de corriger la dépendance non holomorphe des facteurs exponentiels par un argument analogue à celui de la proposition \[prop:isomono\] en choisissant convenablement le multiplicateur (correspondant à $t$) pour que, en fixant $\hb$ on retrouve $\ccQ\cE^\hb$; la caractérisation du prolongement $\ccQ\cE$ ainsi obtenu par une condition de croissance modérée nécessite de modifier la métrique $h$ et de la faire dépendre de $\hb$; \[un tel type de correction apparaît déjà dans [@Szabo07] pour un calcul de transformé de Nahm d’un fibré de Higgs, et dans [@Bibi04] pour un calcul de transformé de Fourier\];
\[enum:hbvariablef\] de recoller la construction précédente, faite pour $\hb\neq0$, à $\ccP\cE^0$ (dans le cas Higgs, il n’y a pas de structure de Stokes et la décomposition est déjà holomorphe).
On en déduit:
\[th:QE\] Si $(E,\theta,h)$ est un fibré de Higgs harmonique sauvage et bon, il existe un unique $\cO_{X\times\CC_\hb}(*(D\times\CC_\hb))$-module localement libre $\ccQ\cE$ à $\hb$-connexion méromorphe dont la restriction à chaque $\hb$ soit égale à $(\ccQ\cE^\hb,\nabla^\hb)$.
Le fait que le phénomène de Stokes n’apparaisse pas pour certaines questions reliées au cas sauvage (il n’apparaît pas dans [@B-B03] par exemple) provient du fait que ce phénomène n’existe pas pour les fibrés de Higgs et que, pour le cas des fibrés méromorphes plats, plusieurs points peuvent se traiter à l’aide d’une approximation à un ordre assez grand de la structure formelle.
$\cD$-modules avec structure de twisteur sauvage {#sec:Dmodtw}
================================================
Nous avons vu à l’étape du §\[sec:strategie\] que le prolongement d’une variation de structure de twisteur polarisée sur $X^o$ va se chercher dans une catégorie de quadruplets $(\cM',\cM'',C,\cS)$, où $\cS$ sera la polarisation. La construction $\ccQ\cE$ du théorème \[th:QE\] est l’étape principale pour construire $\cM'$, et on posera $\cM''=\cM'$ et $\cS=\id$ pour avoir un modèle simple quand le poids $w$ est nul. Pour passer de $\ccQ\cE$ à $\cM'$, il manque l’analogue du prolongement intermédiaire $j_{!*}$. Il aussi important de prolonger $C$ obtenu à partir de la métrique harmonique comme dans le dictionnaire du §\[sec:dictionnaire\].
Un point essentiel à assurer, pour cette construction, et pour les constructions qui vont suivre, est que les $\cR_{X\times\CC_\hb}$-modules soient *stricts*, c’est-à-dire sans $\cO_{\CC_\hb}$-torsion. On la sous-entendra cependant dans la suite. Par exemple, pour l’image directe par un morphisme propre, la préservation de cette condition est analogue à la dégénérescence en $E_1$ de la suite spectrale Hodge $\implique$ de Rham.
Les cycles proches
------------------
Nous nous intéressons dans ce paragraphe à des propriétés locales pour un $\cR_{X\times\CC_\hb}$-module holonome.
La construction du foncteur des cycles proches modérés $\psi_f^\rmod$ par rapport à une fonction holomorphe $f:X\to\CC$ pour un $\cD_X$-module holonome $M$ s’appuie sur le théorème d’existence d’un polynôme de Bernstein-Sato, et s’exprime comme la graduation par rapport à la filtration de Kashiwara-Malgrange du $\cD_X$-module. Alors $\psi_f^\rmod M$ est un $\cD_X$-module holonome muni d’un endomorphisme semi-simple et d’un endomorphisme nilpotent $\rN$ qui commutent. Pour un $\cR_{X\times\CC_\hb}$-module holonome $\cM$, un tel polynôme de Bernstein-Sato n’existe pas nécessairement, mais on peut définir la sous-catégorie des $\cR_{X\times\CC_\hb}$-modules modérément spécialisables le long de tout germe de fonction holomorphe sur $X$ en imposant l’existence d’une équation fonctionnelle de type Bernstein-Sato. Pour $\cM$ spécialisable, $\psi_f^\rmod\cM$ est défini, à support dans $\{f=0\}\times\CC_\hb$ et muni de deux endomorphismes comme plus haut.
Pour les $\cD_X$-modules holonomes à singularités irrégulières, ce foncteur $\psi_f^\rmod$ peut être de peu d’utilité. Par exemple, dans la situation de l’exemple \[exem:rankone\], pour toute fonction holomorphe $f(z)$ telle que $f(0)=0$, le foncteur $\psi_f^\rmod$ appliqué au $\cD_\Delta$-module $\cD_\Delta/\cD_\Delta\cdot\nobreak(z^2\partial_z+1)$ donne pour résultat $0$. Dans [@Deligne83], Deligne a défini à partir de $\psi_f^\rmod$ un foncteur que nous notons $\psi_f^\Del$, et qui permet d’éviter ce comportement trivial: on a $\psi_f^\Del(\cM,\nabla)=\bigoplus_\ga\psi_f^\rmod(\cM,\nabla+\rd\ga)$, où $\ga$ parcourt l’ensemble des parties polaires de la variable $z^{1/q}$ et $q$ est un entier quelconque $\geq1$. On peut alors définir la sous-catégorie des $\cR_{X\times\CC_\hb}$-modules Deligne-spécialisables le long de tout germe de fonction holomorphe sur $X$, et pour $\cM$ Deligne-spécialisable, $\psi_f^\Del\cM$ est à support dans $\{f=0\}\times\CC_\hb$ et est muni de deux endomorphismes comme plus haut. Dans ce cadre, la filtration monodromique$\rM_\bbullet\psi_f^\Del\cM$ associée à l’endomorphisme nilpotent $\rN$ est bien définie ([@Deligne80 Prop1.6.1]), et on considérera ci-dessous les foncteurs $\gr_\ell^\rM\psi_f^\Del$. Ces foncteurs s’étendent de manière naturelle aux accouplements $C$.
Enfin, la propriété de décomposabilité suivant le support, introduite par Saito, sera aussi importante. Les $\cR_{X\times\CC_\hb}$-modules holonomes stricts $\cM$ que nous considérons ont pour support un sous-ensemble analytique (ou algébrique) fermé $Z\times\CC_\hb$ de $X\times\CC_\hb$. Au voisinage de tout point $x$ de $Z$, on dispose des sous-modules $\cM_i$ à support dans un germe de sous-ensemble analytique fermé irréductible $Z_i$ de $Z$ en $x$. La condition de *S-décomposabilité* consiste à demander une décomposabilité locale $\cM=\bigoplus_i\cM_i$ en tout point de $Z$. Si on dispose d’un accouplement $C$, on impose aussi la diagonalité de $C$ vis-à-vis de cette décomposition.
La catégorie des $\cD$-modules holonomes avec structure de twisteur polarisable sauvage
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cette catégorie est définie (voir [@Bibi06b]) en suivant le procédé de Saito pour les modules de Hodge polarisables, par récurrence sur la dimension du support.
\[def:wildtw\] La catégorie $\MTw_{\leq d}(X,w)$ des $\cD$-modules holonomes avec structure de twisteur sauvage pure de poids $w\in\ZZ$ est la sous-catégorie pleine de la catégorie des triplets $\cT=(\cM',\cM'',C)$ dont les objets satisfont aux propriétés suivantes:
$\cT$ est holonome, S-décomposable et a un support de dimension $\leq d$ dans $X$.
$(\MTw_{>0})$ Pour tout ouvert $U\subset X$ et toute fonction holomorphe $f:U\to\nobreak\CC$, $\cT$ est Deligne-spécialisable le long de $\{f=0\}$ et, pour tout entier $\ell\geq0$, le triplet $\gr_\ell^{\rM}\Psi_f^\Del \cT$ est un objet de $\MTw_{\leq d-1}(X,w+\ell)$.
$(\MT_0)$ pour tout $x_o\in X$, la S-composante $(\cM'_{\{x_o\}},\cM''_{\{x_o\}},C_{\{x_o\}})$ est une masse de Diracen $x_o$ portant une structure de twisteur pure de poids $w$.
On peut aussi définir les objets polarisables par des contraintes analogues sur la polarisation $\cS$.
Nous avons indiqué au §\[sec:strategie\] que le théorème \[th:HLT\] s’applique à ces objets polarisables. Nous renvoyons à [@Mochizuki08 Chap18] pour la démonstration, qui s’inspire de la démonstration de Saito pour les modules de Hodge polarisables.
Fin de la démonstration du théorème de Lefschetz difficile
----------------------------------------------------------
Soit $Z^o$ une variété quasi-projective lisse irréductible. Nous avons vu (§\[sec:dictionnaire\]) qu’une variation de structure de twisteur polarisable pure de poids $0$ sur $Z^o$ correspond à un fibré de Higgs harmonique. Nous dirons que cette variation est *sauvage* s’il existe une compactification projective $Z'$ de $Z^o$ telle que $Z'\moins Z^o$ soit un diviseur à croisements normaux dont toutes les composantes sont lisses et que le fibré de Higgs harmonique soit sauvage et bon le long de ce diviseur. On note $\VTPw(Z^o,0)$ la catégorie correspondante.
Soit d’autre part $Z$ une compactification projective quelconque de $Z^o$ contenue dans une variété projective lisse $X$ et $\MTPw(Z,Z^o,0)$ la catégorie des $\cD_X$-modules holonomes avec structure de twisteur sauvage pure de poids $0$ et polarisable, lisses sur $Z^o$ et sans composante à support dans un fermé strict de $Z$.
\[th:equiv\] La restriction à $Z^o$ définit un foncteur $\MTPw(Z,Z^o,0)\to\VTPw(Z^o,0)$. Ce foncteur est une équivalence de catégories.
Les objets ci-dessus sont munis d’un twist de Tate $(k)$ pour tout $k\in\frac12\ZZ$, de manière analogue aux structures de Hodge complexes. Ce twist fait passer du poids $0$ au poids $-2k$.
Ce théorème répond au point du §\[sec:strategie\]. Un des points difficiles est l’essentielle surjectivité du foncteur. La construction du $\cR_{X\times\bS}$-module $\ccQ\cE$, aboutissement du §\[sec:prolong\], en est l’ingrédient essentiel. La construction du prolongement de l’accouplement $C$, ainsi que la démonstration des propriétés $\MTPw$ de l’objet $\cT$ ainsi obtenu, dans le cas où $Z$ est lisse, $Z\moins Z^o$ est un diviseur à croisements normaux et la variation est sauvage et bonne le long de $Z\moins Z^o$, sont expliquées dans (et dans [@Mochizuki07 Chap18] pour le cas modéré). Enfin, le cas général est traité dans le chapitre 19 de , en utilisant, comme Saito le faisait dans [@MSaito86], une version relative du théorème \[th:HLT\] pour passer d’une bonne compactification de $Z^o$ à une moins bonne.
Théorie de Hodge sauvage
========================
### Variations de structure de Hodge complexe et variations intégrables de structure de twisteur {#variations-de-structure-de-hodge-complexe-et-variations-intégrables-de-structure-de-twisteur .unnumbered}
La théorie précédente ne fournit que peu d’invariants numériques nouveaux pour les $\cD$-modules holonomes simples, contrairement à la théorie de Hodge classique qui fournit les nombres de Hodge $h^{p,q}$. On sait ([@Simpson97]) que les variations de structure de twisteur polarisable de poids $w$ qui proviennent d’une variation de structure de Hodge polarisable de poids $w$ sont celles qui sont munies d’une action naturelle de $\CC^*$ (sur le facteur $\CC_\hb$), action qui permet de récupérer la graduation de Hodge. On peut aussi les caractériser comme celles admettant une action infinitésimale de $\CC^*$, lorsque la base $X^o$ est quasi-projective, si on impose la condition de modération à l’infini (théorème \[th:HS\] ci-dessous).
Une variation de structure de twisteur $(\cH',\cH'',C)$ (voir le §\[sec:dictionnaire\]) est *intégrable* si les $\hb$-connexions sur $\cH'$ et $\cH''$ proviennent d’une connexion plate (absolue) avec un pôle de rang de Poincaré égal à $1$ le long de $\hb=0$, et si $C$ est compatible (en un sens naturel) à ces connexions.
Autement dit, il existe $\nabla:\cH'\to\frac1\hb\Omega^1_{X\times\CC_\hb}(\log\{\hb\!=\!0\})\otimes\cH'$ (idem pour $\cH''$), telle que $\nabla^2=0$, que la composante sur $\frac1\hb\Omega^1_{X\times\CC_\hb/\CC_\hb}$ soit la $\hb$-connexion, et enfin $$\hb\frac{\partial}{\partial\hb}\,C(m',\sigma^*\ov{m''})=C(\hb\nabla_{\partial_\hb}m',\sigma^*\ov{m''})-C(m',\sigma^*\ov{\hb\nabla_{\partial_\hb}m{}''}).$$
\[th:HS\] Les variations intégrables de structure de twisteur polarisée de poids $w$ sur un ouvert de Zariski $X^o$ de $X$ (projective lisse) qui sont modérées à l’infini correspondent bijectivement aux variations de structure de Hodge complexe polarisée munies d’un automorphisme semi-simple auto-adjoint pour $h$.
Plus généralement, on peut alors considérer les variations intégrables et sauvages de structure de twisteur pure polarisée sur une variété quasi-projective comme des analogues irréguliers des variations de structure de Hodge complexe polarisée.
Hertling [@Hertling01] a observé qu’un nouvel invariant apparaît dans ce cadre, déjà considéré par les physiciens Cecotti et Vafa [@C-V91; @C-F-I-V92], appelé nouvel indice super-symétrique. Une structure de twisteur pure de poids $0$ et polarisée correspond simplement à un espace vectoriel complexe muni d’une forme hermitienne définie positive. Elle est intégrable si elle se trouve de plus munie de deux endomorphismes $\cU$ et $\cQ$, avec $\cQ$ auto-adjoint relativement à la forme hermitienne. L’espace vectoriel se décompose suivant les valeurs propres $p\in\RR$ de $\cQ$, et les composantes ont une dimension notée $h^{p,-p}$. Pour une structure de Hodge complexe polarisée pure de poids $0$, ceci n’est autre que la décomposition de Hodge et les nombres de Hodge, avec $p\in\ZZ$ dans ce cas, et on a aussi $\cU=0$.
Dans une variation paramétrée par $x\in X$, l’exposant $p$ peut varier avec $x$ de manière analytique réelle, alors qu’il est constant (entier) pour les variations de structure de Hodge. Aussi, regrouper les espaces propres de $\cQ$ suivant les $p$ ayant même partie entière, pour avoir une décomposition de Hodge au sens usuel, peut provoquer des sauts de dimension suivant les valeurs de $x$.
Le comportement de cet indice à l’infini d’une telle variation (modérée ou sauvage) est analysé dans [@Bibi08] en dimension $1$ et dans [@Mochizuki08b] en toute dimension.
### Structures réelles et rationnelles {#structures-réelles-et-rationnelles .unnumbered}
Hertling [@Hertling01] a aussi considéré de telles variations avec une structure réelle (structure qu’il appelle TERP). Le théorème précédent est en fait montré avec structure réelle.
Plus récemment, Katzarkov, Kontsevich et Pantev [@K-K-P08] ont proposé la notion de structure rationnelle (voir aussi [@Bibi11]), et dans ce cadre l’appellation de variation de structure de Hodge non commutative.
### Théorie de Hodge mixte sauvage {#théorie-de-hodge-mixte-sauvage .unnumbered}
De manière analogue à la théorie des modules de Hodge mixtes de MSaito [@MSaito87], TMochizuki [@Mochizuki11] a développé la théorie des $\cD$-modules holonomes avec structure de twisteur mixte sauvage, éventuellement intégrable. Il explicite en particulier un foncteur de dualité, qui n’était pas défini dans le cadre précédent, qui permet notamment de définir la notion de structure réelle. Seule manque encore la structure rationnelle, mais les arguments de [@Mochizuki10] devraient pouvoir s’appliquer aussi à ce cadre.
### Application à la cohomologie quantique {#application-à-la-cohomologie-quantique .unnumbered}
Les résultats de HIritani sur la symétrie miroir pour les variétés de Fano toriques [@Iritani09; @Iritani09b] (voir aussi [@R-S10]), joints aux résultats sur la transformation de Fourier de [@Bibi05], permettent de montrer que le $\cD$-module quantique d’une variété de Fano torique sous-tend une variation de structure de Hodge non commutative.
[CFIV92]{}
– *Local moduli for meromorphic differential equations*, Ast[é]{}risque, vol. 169-170, Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de France, Paris, 1989.
– [Faisceaux pervers]{}, in *Analyse et topologie sur les espaces singuliers*, Ast[é]{}risque, vol. 100, Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de France, 1982, p. 7–171.
– , *Bull. Soc. math. France* **119** (1991), p. 231–257.
, , *Ann. Sci. [É]{}cole Norm. Sup. (4)* **30** (1997), p. 41–96.
– , *Compositio Math.* **140** (2004), p. 179–204.
– , *Compositio Math.* **142** (2006), no. 2, p. 271–294.
– , *Indiana Univ. Math. J.* **58** (2009), no. 1, p. 137–180.
– [Polarized mixed [Hodge]{} structure and the monodromy of a variation of [Hodge]{} structure]{}, *Invent. Math.* **67** (1982), p. 101–115.
– [ Degeneration of [Hodge]{} structures]{}, *Ann. of Math.* **123** (1986), p. 457–535.
, [ and intersection cohomologies for a polarizable variation of [Hodge]{} structure]{}, *Invent. Math.* **87** (1987), p. 217–252.
– , *Nuclear Phys. B* **386** (1992), p. 405–452.
– , *Nuclear Phys. B* **367** (1991), p. 359–461.
– [Flat [$G$]{}-bundles with canonical metrics]{}, *J. Differential Geom.* **28** (1988), p. 361–382.
– , *Invent. Math.* **28** (1975), p. 1–106.
– [The [H]{}odge theory of algebraic maps]{}, *Ann. Sci. [É]{}cole Norm. Sup. (4)* **38** (2005), no. 5, p. 693–750.
, [The decomposition theorem, perverse sheaves and the topology of algebraic maps]{}, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.)* **46** (2009), no. 4, p. 535–633.
– *[É]{}quations différentielles [à]{} points singuliers réguliers*, Lect. Notes in Math., vol. 163, Springer-Verlag, 1970.
, [Théorie de [H]{}odge. [I]{}]{}, in *Actes du [C]{}ongrès [I]{}nternational des [M]{}athématiciens ([N]{}ice, 1970), [T]{}ome 1*, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1971, p. 425–430.
, , *Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes [É]{}tudes Sci.* **52** (1980), p. 137–252.
, , in *[Singularités irrégulières, Correspondance et documents]{}*, Documents mathématiques, vol. 5, Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de France, Paris, 2007, p. 25–26.
, , in *[Singularités irrégulières, Correspondance et documents]{}*, Documents mathématiques, vol. 5, Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de France, Paris, 2007, p. 37–41.
– , *Math. Res. Lett.* **8** (2001), p. 713–728.
– , *Israel J. Math.* **157** (2007), p. 155–191.
– , *Invent. Math.* **71** (1983), p. 77–129.
– , *J. reine angew. Math.* **555** (2003), p. 77–161.
– , *Adv. in Math.* **223** (2010), p. 1155–1224.
– [The self-duality equations on a [R]{}iemann surface]{}, *Proc. London Math. Soc. (3)* **55** (1987), no. 1, p. 59–126.
– , in *Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Cambridge, Mass., 1950), vol.1*, American Mathematical Society, 1952, p. 182–192.
– [An integral structure in quantum cohomology and mirror symmetry for toric orbifolds]{}, *Adv. in Math.* **222** (2009), no. 3, p. 1016–1079.
, , arXiv: [0906.1307](0906.1307), 2009.
– [A relation between the parabolic [C]{}hern characters of the de [R]{}ham bundles]{}, *Math. Ann.* **338** (2007), no. 2, p. 347–383.
– [A conjecture on arithmetic fundamental groups]{}, *Israel J. Math.* **121** (2001), p. 61–84.
– [ Cohomologies of unipotent harmonic bundles over noncompact curves]{}, *J. reine angew. Math.* **609** (2007), p. 137–159.
– , *J. Differential Geom.* **47** (1997), p. 469–503.
– [The [Riemann-Hilbert]{} problem for holonomic systems]{}, *Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ.* **20** (1984), p. 319–365.
, , *Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ.* **21** (1985), p. 853–875.
, [Semisimple holonomic $\mathcal{D}$-modules]{}, in *[Topological Field Theory, Primitive Forms and Related Topics]{}* (M. Kashiwara, K. Saito, A. Matsuo I. Satake, ), Progress in Math., vol. 160, Birkh[ä]{}user, Basel, Boston, 1998, p. 267–271.
– , *Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ.* **17** (1981), p. 813–979.
, , *Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ.* **23** (1987), p. 345–407.
– , in *[From Hodge theory to integrability and TQFT: tt\*-geometry]{}* (R. Donagi [ ]{} K. Wendland, ), Proc. Symposia in Pure Math., vol. 78, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008, p. 87–174.
– [Good formal structures for flat meromorphic connections, [I]{}: surfaces]{}, *Duke Math. J.* **154** (2010), no. 2, p. 343–418.
, [Good formal structures for flat meromorphic connections, [II]{}: excellent schemes]{}, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* **24** (2011), no. 1, p. 183–229.
– , arXiv: [1111.4947](1111.4947), 2011.
– *[Irregular singularities in several variables]{}*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 40, no. 270, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1982.
– *Asymptotic analysis for integrable connections with irregular singular points*, Lect. Notes in Math., vol. 1075, Springer-Verlag, 1984.
– *[É]{}quations différentielles [à]{} coefficients polynomiaux*, Progress in Math., vol. 96, Birkh[ä]{}user, Basel, Boston, 1991.
, , *Invent. Math.* **124** (1996), p. 367–387.
– , *Compositio Math.* **51** (1984), p. 55–62.
, , *Compositio Math.* **51** (1984), p. 63–68.
– , *J. Differential Geom.* **62** (2002), p. 351–559.
, *Kobayashi-[H]{}itchin correspondence for tame harmonic bundles and an application*, Astérisque, vol. 309, Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de France, Paris, 2006.
, *[Asymptotic behaviour of tame harmonic bundles and an application to pure twistor $D$-modules]{}*, vol. 185, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., no. 869-870, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2007.
, , in *[Algebraic Analysis and Around]{}*, Advanced Studies in Pure Math., vol. 54, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2009, p. 223–253.
, [Kobayashi-[H]{}itchin correspondence for tame harmonic bundles. [II]{}]{}, *Geom. Topol.* **13** (2009), no. 1, p. 359–455.
, , arXiv: [1001.2336](1001.2336), 2010.
, *[Wild harmonic bundles and wild pure twistor $D$-modules]{}*, Ast[é]{}risque, vol. 340, Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de France, Paris, 2011.
, , *Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ.* **47** (2011), no. 2, p. 419–534.
, , *Journal de l’Institut mathématique de Jussieu* **10** (2011), no. 3, p. 675–712.
, , arXiv: [1104.3366](1104.3366), 2011.
– , arXiv: [1010.2118](1010.2118), 2010.
– , *Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)* **49** (1999), p. 1265–1291.
, *[[É]{}quations différentielles [à]{} points singuliers irréguliers et phénomène de Stokes en dimension [$2$]{}]{}*, Ast[é]{}risque, vol. 263, Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de France, Paris, 2000.
, , *Russian Math. Surveys* **59** (2004), no. 6, p. 1165–1180, II, *Moscow Math. J.* **9** (2009) 4, p. 885–898.
, *[Polarizable twistor $\mathcal{D}$-modules]{}*, Ast[é]{}risque, vol. 300, Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de France, Paris, 2005.
, , *J. reine angew. Math.* **621** (2008), p. 123–158.
, , in *[Algebraic Analysis and Around]{}*, Advanced Studies in Pure Math., vol. 54, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2009, p. 293–353.
, , in *[New developments in Algebraic Geometry, Integrable Systems and Mirror symmetry (Kyoto, January 2008)]{}*, Advanced Studies in Pure Math., vol. 59, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2010, p. 289–347.
, , *Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)* (2011), to appear, arXiv: [1107.5890](1107.5890).
– [Modules de [Hodge]{} polarisables]{}, *Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ.* **24** (1988), p. 849–995.
, , *Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ.* **26** (1990), p. 221–333.
– [Variation of [Hodge]{} structure: the singularities of the period mapping]{}, *Invent. Math.* **22** (1973), p. 211–319.
– [Constructing variations of [Hodge]{} structure using [Yang-Mills]{} theory and applications to uniformization]{}, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* **1** (1988), p. 867–918.
, [Harmonic bundles on noncompact curves]{}, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* **3** (1990), p. 713–770.
, [Higgs bundles and local systems]{}, *Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes [É]{}tudes Sci.* **75** (1992), p. 5–95.
, [Mixed twistor structures]{}, Prépublication Université de Toulouse & arXiv: [math.AG/9705006](math.AG/9705006), 1997.
– *Nahm transform for integrable connections on the [R]{}iemann sphere*, M[é]{}m. Soc. Math. France (N.S.), vol. 110, Soci[é]{}t[é]{} Math[é]{}matique de France, Paris, 2007.
– , *Soviet Phys. JETP* **74** (1978), no. 6, p. 1953–1973.
– , *Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen.* **13** (1979), no. 3, p. 13–22.
– , *Ann. of Math.* **109** (1979), p. 415–476.
[^1]: \[footnote:harmonique\]Nous suivons ici la terminologie de [@Simpson92]; Mochizuki emploie le terme pluri-harmoniquepour l’équation , afin de la distinguer de l’équation *a priori* plus faible sur une variété kählérienne, aussi considérée dans [@Corlette88; @Simpson92], à savoir $\Lambda G(\nabla,h)=0$.
[^2]: un $\cO_X(*D)$-module localement libre de rang fini $\cV$ muni d’une connexion intégrable $\nabla$.
[^3]: au premier sens de la note page .
[^4]: au sens pluri-harmoniquede la note page .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We characterize those valued fields for which the image of the valuation ring under every polynomial in several variables contains an element of maximal value, or zero.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, L8S 4K1 Ontario, Canada'
- 'Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Saskatchewan, 106 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada S7N 5E6'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, 209 South 33rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6395, USA'
author:
- Salih Azgin
- 'Franz-Viktor Kuhlmann'
- Florian Pop
date: '7. 12. 2009'
title: Characterization of Extremal Valued Fields
---
[^1]
[Introduction]{} The notion of [*extremality*]{} for valued fields was introduced by Yuri Ershov in [@ershovext] in connection with valued skew fields which are finite-dimensional over their center. It turns out that the original definition given in that paper (and also in talks given by its author) is flawed in the sense that there are no extremal valued fields except algebraically closed valued fields, and Proposition 2 of that paper is false. We fix this flaw by slightly modifying the definition of extremality; see Definition \[ext\] below.
The notion of extremality, restricted to certain classes of polynomials, has since become very useful for the characterization of various properties of valued fields, cf. [@kuhlmann].
In valuation theory and particularly the model theory of valued fields, power series fields and, more generally, maximal fields (valued fields without proper immediate extensions) are usually known to have very good properties. For instance, all of them are henselian, and what is more, algebraically complete. So it seemed likely that all of them are also extremal. Our results in this paper will show that this is not the case.
In the present paper, we obtain the following characterization of extremal valued fields with residue characteristic $0$:
\[char0\] Extremal valued fields with residue characteristic $0$ are precisely
- henselian valued fields whose value group is a $\mathbb{Z}$-group, and
- henselian valued fields whose value group is divisible and residue field is large.
More generally, we prove in Section \[sectchar\]:
\[gen\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}};v)$ be a valued field. If ${\mathcal{K}}$ is extremal, then ${\mathcal{K}}$ is algebraically complete and
- $\Gamma$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-group, or
- $\Gamma$ is divisible and ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ is large.
If $K$ is perfect with ${\operatorname{char}}{{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}}={\operatorname{char}}{K}$, then also the converse holds.
It remains an open question whether the above characterization also holds in the case of mixed characteristic. In the case of non-perfect valued fields, it does not hold. While for every field $k$, the formal Laurent Series Field $k((t))$ with its canonical valuation $v_t$ is extremal according to Theorem \[zgroup\] below, we will show in Section \[sectchar\]:
\[counter\] There exist non-extremal algebraically complete valued fields of equal positive characteristic with value group a ${\mathbb{Z}}$-group, and such that under a coarsening of their valuation, they are still not extremal, have divisible value group and non-perfect large residue field.
See the following section for the definitions of [*algebraically complete valued field*]{}, [*$\mathbb{Z}$-group*]{} and [*large field*]{}.
The authors would like to thank Sergei Starchenko for poining out the flaw in the definition of extremality and for providing the first example given in Remark \[ershovw\] below.
[Preliminaries]{}
We assume familiarity with the basic concepts of valued fields and their model theoretic properties. We consider valued fields as three-sorted structures $${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}; v)$$ where $K$ is the underlying field, $\Gamma$ is the value group, ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ is the residue field, $v: K^\times \to \Gamma$ is the valuation, with valuation ring $${\mathcal{O}}_v:=\{a \in K:\ v(a) \geq 0\}$$ and maximal ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}_v:=\{a \in K: v(a)>0\}$ of ${\mathcal{O}}$. We have the residue class map $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{}&:{\mathcal{O}}_v \to {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}\\
&a \mapsto a + {\mathfrak{m}}_v
\end{aligned}$$ and the [*residue characteristic of $K$*]{} is the characteristic of ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$. We often refer to $K$ as the valued field, instead of ${\mathcal{K}}$. When there are more than one valuations defined on the same field we use the notations $Kv$ and $vK$ to denote the residue field and value group of $K$ respectively for the valuation $v$. We also use the notation $av$ to denote the residue class of an element in ${\mathcal{O}}_v$. For a subset $\Delta$ of an ordered group $\Gamma$ we use the notation $$\gamma < \Delta$$ as a shorthand for $\gamma < \delta$ for all $\delta \in \Delta$. We set $v(0):=\infty > \Gamma$, ${\Gamma_{\infty}}:=\Gamma \cup \{\infty\}$, $-\infty<\Gamma$ and for $\gamma \in \Gamma$ the intervals $(-\infty,\gamma)$ and $(\gamma, \infty)$ are defined as usual. We use $m,n, \dots$ to denote elements of $\mathbb{N}$ unless specified otherwise.
A valued field ${\mathcal{K}}$ is called [*algebraically maximal*]{} if it does not admit proper immediate algebraic extensions (that is, extensions which preserve value group and residue field). Since henselizations are immediate algebraic extensions, every algebraically maximal field is henselian.
A valued field ${\mathcal{K}}$ is called [*algebraically complete*]{} if it is henselian and for every finite extension $(L,\Delta, {{{\boldsymbol{l}}}}; w)$ we have $$\label{dl}
[L:K]=(\Delta:\Gamma)[{{{\boldsymbol{l}}}}:{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}]\>.$$ If equation (\[dl\]) holds, then the extension is called [*defectless*]{}.
An ordered group is [*regular*]{} if for each $n$ every open interval that contains $n$ elements contains an $n$-divisible element. A [*$\mathbb{Z}$-group*]{} is a regular group which is discrete, i.e., has a smallest positive element. An ordered group is [*dense*]{} if for any two elements $\alpha<\beta$ there is an element $\gamma$ in the group such that $\alpha<\gamma<\beta$.
Note that $\mathbb{Z}$-groups are exactly the ordered groups which are elementarily equivalent to $\mathbb{Z}$. If $\Gamma$ is dense and regular then for each $n$ and $\gamma \in \Gamma$ there is an increasing sequence $\{n\gamma_\rho\}_{\rho<\lambda}$ which is cofinal in $(-\infty,\gamma)$. We state two useful facts on regular groups, from [@robinson-zakon] and [@conrad] respectively.
\[reg1\] A regular group is either a $\mathbb{Z}$-group or it is dense.
\[reg2\] An ordered group $\Gamma$ is regular if and only if $\Gamma/\Delta$ is divisible for every nonzero convex subgroup $\Delta$ of $\Gamma$.
Take $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathcal{B}$ to be an extension of two structures of a first order language. Then $\mathcal{A}$ is [*existentially closed in*]{} $\mathcal{B}$ if every existential sentence with parameters from $\mathcal{A}$ that holds in $\mathcal{B}$ also holds in $\mathcal{A}$.
A field ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ is [*large*]{} if every curve over $k$ which has a smooth $k$-rational point, has infinitely many such points.
Algebraically closed fields, real closed fields, pseudo-algebraically closed fields, fields equipped with a henselian valuation are all large fields. Finite fields are not large. Note that a field ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ is large if and only if it is existentially closed in ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}((t))$ ([@pop]; see also [@kuhlmann3]).
For the following result, see Theorem 17 of [@kuhlmann3].
\[lec\] Suppose that ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ is a large and perfect subfield of a field $F$. If ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ is the residue field of a valuation on $F$ which is trivial on ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$, then ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ is existentially closed in $F$ (as a field).
Finally, we will need the following two well known technical lemmas.
\[ww\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}};v)$ be a valued field such that $v=w\circ
\bar w$. Then ${\mathcal{K}}$ is henselian if and only if $w$ is henselian on $K$ and $\bar w$ is henselian on the residue field $Kw$ of $K$ under $w$. The same holds for “algebraically complete” in the place of “henselian”.
By use of Hensel’s Lemma, one proves:
\[emb\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}};v)$ be a perfect and henselian valued field. Then every embedding of a subfield of ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ such that $v$ is trivial on the image can be extended to an embedding of ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ such that $v$ is trivial on the image.
[Properties of extremal fields]{} \[sectprop\]
\[ext\] A valued field ${\mathcal{K}}$ is [*extremal*]{} if for every multi-variable polynomial $F(X_1, \dots , X_n)$ over $K$ the set $$\{v(F(a_1,\dots,a_n)): a_1,\dots a_n \in {\mathcal{O}}_v\}
\subseteq {\Gamma_{\infty}}$$ has a maximal element.
\[ershovw\] The original definition presented in [@ershovext] asks for a maximal element of the set $$\{v(F(a_1,\dots,a_n)): a_1,\dots a_n\in K\}
\subseteq {\Gamma_{\infty}}$$ where $K$ and $F$ are as above. This condition is not satisfied for the polynomial $$F(X,Y)=X^2+(XY-1)^2$$ over the Laurent series field $\mathbb{R}((t))$ as $$v\big(F(t^n, t^{-n})\big)=2n$$ and $F(a,b) \neq 0$ for all $a,b \in \mathbb{R}((t))$. Hence, Proposition 2 of [@ershovext] does not hold for the original definition.
Suppose that $K$ is a valued field which is not algebraically closed. Take a polynomial $f(x)=x^n+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+\cdots+a_0 \in K[x]$ with no zeros in $K$ and let $$G(X,Y)=X^n+a_{n-1}X^{n-1}Y+\cdots+a_0Y^n$$ be its homogenization. Then the polynomial $F(X,Y)=G(X,XY-1)$ does not satisfy the above condition. Indeed, $G(X,Y)$ can only be zero if $Y$ is zero and then, consequently, also $X$ is zero. So $F(X,Y)$ can only be zero if $XY-1$ and $X$ are zero, which is impossible. On the other hand, for $a\ne 0$ we have that $vF(a,a^{-1})=v(a^n)=nv(a)$, which shows that $\{v(F(a,b)\mid a,b\in K\}$ has no maximum.
The following is a consequence of Theorem 1.5 of [@kuhlmann]:
\[eam\] Every extremal field is algebraically maximal and hence henselian.
\[exreg\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma, {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}; v)$ be a valued field with $\Gamma$ dense and regular. If ${\mathcal{K}}$ is extremal, then $\Gamma$ is divisible.
Let $\gamma \in \Gamma$ be positive and not divisible by $n>1$. Consider the polynomial $$F(x,y)=x^{4n}+\epsilon(xy-\epsilon^2)^n+\epsilon^2y^{4n}$$ over $K$ where $v(\epsilon)=\gamma$. Note that for all $a, b \in K^{\times}$, $$v(a^{4n}),\quad v(\epsilon(ab-\epsilon^2)^n),\quad v(\epsilon^2b^{4n})$$ are distinct elements of ${\Gamma_{\infty}}$ since $\gamma$ is not $n$-divisible. Hence the valuation of $F(a,b)$ is equal to the minimum of the three distinct elements above.
We claim that for all $a, b \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$, $v(F(a,b))<4n\gamma+\gamma$. Assume otherwise. Then $v(a^{4n}) \geq 4n\gamma+\gamma$ and since equality is not possible, $$4nv(a)>4n\gamma+\gamma.$$ Also, $v(\epsilon(ab-\epsilon^2)^n) \geq 4n\gamma+\gamma$ and so $v(a)+v(b) = 2\gamma$. Consequently, $$4nv(b)=8n\gamma-4nv(a)$$ which gives $4nv(b)< 4n\gamma -\gamma$. Then $$v(F(a,b))\leq v(\epsilon^2b^{4n})=2\gamma+4nv(b)< 4n\gamma + \gamma,$$ contradiction.
Since $\Gamma$ is dense and regular we can take a sequence $\{4n\delta_{\rho}\}_{\rho<\lambda}$ in $\Gamma$ which is cofinal in the interval $(4n\gamma,4n\gamma+\gamma)$. For each $\rho<\lambda$, pick $a_{\rho} \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$ with $v(a_{\rho})=\delta_{\rho}<2\gamma$ and let $b_\rho:=\epsilon^2a_\rho^{-1} \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$. Then for all $\rho$ $$v(a_\rho^{4n})=4n\delta_\rho <4n\gamma+\gamma<
v(\epsilon^2b_\rho^{4n})=2\gamma+4n(2\gamma - \delta_\rho)$$ and hence $v(F(a_\rho,b_\rho))=4n\delta_\rho$. Together with the previous claim, this shows that $\{v(F(a,b)):a,b \in {\mathcal{O}}_v\}$ has no maximal element and so ${\mathcal{K}}$ is not extremal.
\[exnreg\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma, {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}, v)$ be an extremal valued field. Then for each nonzero convex subgroup $\Delta$ of $\Gamma$, the quotient group $\Gamma/\Delta$ is divisible.
Let $\gamma \in \Gamma$ be such that the coset $\gamma + \Delta$ is not divisible by $n$ in $\Gamma/\Delta$. Consider the polynomial (as introduced in the previous theorem) $$F(x,y)=x^{4n}+\epsilon(xy-\epsilon^2)^n+\epsilon^2y^{4n}$$ over $K$ where $v(\epsilon)=\gamma$.
The arguments in the proof of Proposition \[exreg\] can be applied to the ordered group $\Gamma / \Delta$ to conclude that for all $a, b \in
{\mathcal{O}}_v$, $$\label{Delta1}
v(F(a,b))<4n\gamma+\gamma+\Delta\>.$$
[**Claim:**]{} $\{v(F(a,b):a,b \in {\mathcal{O}}_v\}$ has no maximal element. Take $a,b \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$ and set $\theta=v(F(a,b))$. We aim to find $a',b' \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$ with $v(F(a',b'))>\theta$. Take any positive $\delta\in\Delta$. From (\[Delta1\]) it follows that $$\label{Delta2}
\theta +4n\delta < 4n\gamma+\gamma-4n\delta\>.$$
Note that $v(F(\epsilon,\epsilon))=4n\gamma$, so we assume that $4n\gamma<\theta$. As $v(\epsilon)=\gamma$ is not divisible by $n$, $\theta$ is equal to the minimum of $4nv(a)$, $\gamma+nv(ab-\epsilon^2)$ and $2\gamma+4nv(b)$. Therefore, $$4n\gamma < \theta \leq v(\epsilon(ab-\epsilon^2)^n)$$ and hence $$v(b)=2\gamma - v(a)\>.$$
Assume that $\theta=4nv(a)$. Together with $4nv(a) < 4n\gamma+\gamma$, (\[Delta2\]) shows that $$\label{1}
4nv(a)+4n\delta< \gamma + 4n\gamma -4n\delta
< 2\gamma + 8n\gamma - 4nv(a)-4n\delta\>.$$ Now take $a' \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$ with $v(a')=v(a)+\delta$ and let $b'=\epsilon^2/a' \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$. Then $v(b')=2\gamma-v(a)-\delta$ and (\[1\]) implies that $4nv(a')<2\gamma+4nv(b')$. Therefore $v(F(a',b'))=4nv(a')=4nv(a)+4n\delta>\theta$ as required.
Next assume that $\theta=\gamma+nv(ab-\epsilon^2) \geq 4n\gamma$. Then $\theta<4nv(a)$ and $\theta<2\gamma+4nv(b)$. With $b'=\epsilon^2/a \in
{\mathcal{O}}_v$, we have $v(b')=v(b)$ and therefore $v(F(a,b')) \geq \min
\{4nv(a), 2\gamma+4nv(b')\} > \theta$.
It remains to consider the case $\theta=2\gamma+4nv(b)$. Together with $2\gamma+4nv(b)=\theta< 4n\gamma+\gamma$, (\[Delta2\]) shows that $$\begin{aligned}
2\gamma+4nv(b)+4n\delta & < & 4n\gamma+\gamma-4n\delta +
(4n\gamma+\gamma - 2\gamma-4nv(b))-4n\delta\\
& = & 8n\gamma - 4nv(b) - 4n\delta\>.\end{aligned}$$ Now take $b' \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$ with $v(b')=v(b)+\delta$ and let $a'=\epsilon^2/b' \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$. Then $v(a')=2\gamma - v(b) - \delta$ and the above inquality implies that $2\gamma + 4nv(b')<4nv(a')$. Therefore $v(F(a',b'))=2\gamma+4nv(b)+4n\delta>\theta$ as required. This completes the proof of our claim and we conclude that ${\mathcal{K}}$ is not extremal.
\[ndnzne\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}};v)$ be an extremal valued field. Then $\Gamma$ is divisible or a $\mathbb{Z}$-group.
Proposition \[exnreg\] shows that $\Gamma$ has no nonzero convex subgroup $\Delta$ such that $\Gamma/\Delta$ is not divisible. Therefore, $\Gamma$ is regular by Theorem \[reg2\]. If $\Gamma$ is not a $\mathbb{Z}$-group then, by Theorem \[reg1\], $\Gamma$ is dense and Proposition \[exreg\] yields that $\Gamma$ is divisible.
\[exnlar\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}};v)$ be an extremal valued field with non-algebraically closed residue field ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ and divisible value group $\Gamma$. Then there is no polynomial $f(Y,Z)$ over ${\mathcal{O}}_v$ such that
1. there are $\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_m
\in {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ such that the equation $$\bar{f}(\alpha, z)=0$$ over ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ has no solution in ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ whenever $\alpha \neq \alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_m$;
2. for all $\epsilon \in {\mathfrak{m}}_v$, $f(\epsilon, Z)=0$ has a solution in ${\mathcal{O}}_v$.
Let $\beta_0,\dots,\beta_{n-1} \in {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ be such that $x^n+\cdots + \beta_1 x+\beta_0=0$ has no solutions in ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$. Consider the polynomial $$F(X,Y)= X^n + \cdots + b_1 X Y^{n-1} + b_0 Y^n$$ over ${\mathcal{O}}_v$ where $\bar{b}_i=\beta_i$ and $b_i=0$ if $\beta_i=0$, for $i=0,\dots,n-1$. Note that for all positive $\gamma \in \Gamma$, $$v(F(a,b)) \geq \gamma \Longrightarrow v(a),v(b) \geq \gamma/n.$$ Let $G(X,Y,Z):=F(F(X,Y),Z)$. For positive $\gamma \in \Gamma$, if $v(G(a,b,c)) \geq \gamma$ then $v(a), v(b) \geq \gamma/n^2$ and $v(c) \geq \gamma/n$.
Let $a_1,\dots,a_m \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$ be such that $\bar{a}_j=\alpha_j$ and $a_j=0$ if $\alpha_j=0$ (where $\alpha_j$ is as in (i) above) for $j=1,\dots,m$. Consider the polynomial $$H(X,Y,Z):=G\big(X, f(Y,Z), XY(Y-a_1)\cdots (Y-a_m)-\epsilon\big)$$ over $K$ where $v(\epsilon)=\gamma>0$. We claim that $$v(H(a, b, c))<n^2\gamma$$ for all $a,b,c \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$. Otherwise, we would have $$v(a) \geq \gamma \text{ and } v\big(ab(b-a_1)\cdots
(b-a_m)-\epsilon\big) \geq n\gamma.$$ Therefore $v(ab(b-a_1)\cdots(b-a_m))=v(\epsilon)=\gamma$, which in turn gives $$v(a)=\gamma, \quad v(b)=0 \text{ and } v(b-a_i)=0 \quad \text{for}
\quad i=1,\dots,m.$$ So $\bar{b} \neq \alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_m$ and hence for all $z \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$, $\bar{f}(\bar{b},\bar{z})) \neq 0$. Then $v(H(a,b,c))=v(f(b,c))=0$, contradiction, and we establish the claim.
Let $\{\gamma_\rho\}_{\rho<\lambda}$ be a decreasing sequence such that $\gamma_\rho \rightarrow 0$ and pick $b_\rho \in {\mathfrak{m}}_v$ with $v(b_\rho)=\gamma_\rho$ for all $\rho<\lambda$. Let $a_\rho$ be such that $a_{\rho}b_\rho(b_\rho-a_1)\dots(b_\rho-a_m)=\epsilon$. Note that $v(a_\rho) \rightarrow \gamma$, and in particular we may assume that $a_\rho \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$ for all $\rho<\lambda$. Pick $c_\rho \in {\mathcal{O}}_v$ such that $f(b_\rho, c_\rho)=0$ for each $\rho<\lambda$. Then $$v\big(H(a_\rho, b_\rho, c_\rho)\big)=n^2v(a_\rho)$$ and hence $\{v(H(a_\rho, b_\rho, c_\rho))\}$ is cofinal in $(0,n^2\gamma)$. We conclude that ${\mathcal{K}}$ is not extremal.
\[dnlne\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}; v)$ has a divisible value group. If ${\mathcal{K}}$ is extremal, then ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ is large.
Since ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ is not large, there is a curve $C$ defined over ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ which has a smooth ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$-rational point, but has only finitely many ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$-rational points. But then by the theory of algebraic curves, the curve $C$ is birational to a curve in the affine ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$-plane $C_h=V(h)\subset{\bf A}^2_{{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}}$, where $h=h(Y,Z)\in{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}[Y,Z]$ is a polynomial in the variables $Y,Z$ satisfying the following:
1. $C_h({{{\boldsymbol{k}}}})=\{(\alpha,\beta)\in{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^2\mid h(\alpha,\beta)=0\}$ is finite.
2. $h(0,0)=0$ and $\partial h/\partial Z(0,0)\neq0$, hence in particular, $(0,0)$ is a smooth $k$-rational point of $C_h$. (Actually these conditions imply that $h(Y,Z)$ has the form $h(Y,Z)=\gamma_{10}Y+\gamma_{01}Z+(\hbox{non-linear terms})$ with $\gamma_{01}\neq0$.)
Setting $h(Y,Z)=\sum_{i,j}\gamma_{ij}Y^iZ^j$, let $f(Y,Z)=\sum_{i,j}c_{ij}Y^iZ^j\in{\mathcal{O}}[Y,Z]$ be a preimage of $h(Y,Z)$ such that $c_{ij}=0$ if $\gamma_{ij}=0$, hence $c_{ij}\in{\mathcal{O}}^\times$ if $\gamma_{ij}\neq 0$. Finally, let $\{\alpha_1=0,\dots,\alpha_m\}$ be the set of all the $Y$-coordinates of the points $(\alpha,\beta)\in C_h({{{\boldsymbol{k}}}})$. We claim that $f(Y,Z)\in{\mathcal{O}}[Y,Z]$ satisfies the conditions (i), (ii) from Proposition \[exnlar\]. Indeed, condition (i) is obviously satisfied, because $\overline f(Y,Z)=h(Y,Z)$, and $h(Y,Z)$ satisfies condition (i)$'$. For condition (ii), proceed as follows: For $\epsilon\in{\mathfrak{m}}_v$ set $f_\epsilon(Z):=f(\epsilon,Z)\in{\mathcal{O}}[Z]$. Then $\overline f_\epsilon(Z)=h(0,Z)$, hence $Z=0$ is a simple zero of $\overline f_\epsilon(Z)=h(0,Z)$, by condition (ii)$'$. Therefore, by Hensel’s Lemma there exists a unique $\eta\in {\mathfrak{m}}_v$ such that $f_\epsilon(\eta)=0$, hence equivalently, $f(\epsilon,\eta)=f_\epsilon(\eta)=0$.
By Proposition \[exnlar\] we conclude that ${\mathcal{K}}$ is not extremal.
The results proved so far enable us to give a version of Proposition 1 of [@ershovext] for the modified notion of “extremal field”.
We say that a basis $b_1,\ldots,b_n$ of a valued field extension $(K,\Gamma, {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}; v)\subset (L,\Delta, {{{\boldsymbol{l}}}}; w)$ is a [*valuation basis*]{} if for all choices of $c_1,\ldots,c_n\in K$, $$w\sum_{i=1}^{n}c_ib_i\;=\;\min_i wc_ib_i\>.$$ Note that every finite defectless extension admits a valuation basis.
Every finite defectless extension of an extremal field is again an extremal field.
Take an extremal field ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma, {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}; v)$ and a finite defectless extension $(L,\Delta, {{{\boldsymbol{l}}}}; w)$ of degree $m$; we wish to show that the latter is an extremal field. From Theorem \[ndnzne\] we know that $\Gamma$ is divisible or a $\mathbb{Z}$-group. Therefore, all cosets of $\Gamma$ in $\Delta$ admit representatives that are either $0$ or lie between $0$ and the smallest positive element of $\Gamma$. Consequently, we can choose a valuation basis $b_1,\ldots,b_m$ of the extension such that the values $wb_i$ have the same property. Write $\overline{Y}=(Y_1,\ldots,Y_m)$ and take $$h(\overline{Y})\>=\>N_{L(\overline{Y})|K(\overline{Y})}
\left(\sum_{i=1}^{m} b_i Y_i\right)$$ be the norm form with respect to the basis $b_1,\ldots,b_m$ of the extension $L(\overline{Y})|K(\overline{Y})$.
Take a polynomial $F(X_1, \dots , X_n)$ over $L$; we wish to show that the set $$\{w(F(a_1,\dots,a_n)): a_1,\dots a_n \in {\mathcal{O}}_w\}$$ has a maximal element. Denote by $G(\overline{Z})$ the polynomial obtained from $F$ by substituting $\sum_{i=1}^{m} b_i Z_{ij}$ for $X_i$, $1\leq i\leq n$. The polynomial $G(\overline{Z })$ can be written as $G(\overline{Z})=\sum_{i=1}^{m} b_i
G_i (\overline{Z})$ with $G_i (\overline{Z})\in
K[\overline{Z}]$ for every $i$. Now let $$H(\overline{Z})\>=\>h(G_1 (\overline{Z}),\ldots,
G_m (\overline{Z}))\>=\>N_{L(\overline{Y})|K(\overline{Y})}
(G(\overline{Z}))\in K[\overline{Z}]\;\>.$$ Since ${\mathcal{K}}$ is extremal, there exist elements $c_{ij}\in{\mathcal{O}}_v$, $1\leq i\leq m$, $1\leq j\leq n$, such that $$vH(\overline{c})\>=\>\max\{wH(\overline{c'})\mid c'_{ij}\in
{\mathcal{O}}_v\}\>.$$ For $1\leq j\leq n$, we set $d_j=\sum_{i=1}^{m} b_i c_{ij}$. We wish to show that $$wF(\overline{d})\>=\>\max\{wF(\overline{d'})\mid d'_j\in
{\mathcal{O}}_w\}\>.$$ Note that $vN_{L|K}(a)=mwa$ for every $a\in L$ since ${\mathcal{K}}$ is henselian by Proposition \[eam\]. Take $d'_j\in{\mathcal{O}}_w$ and write $d'_j=\sum_{i=1}^{m} b_i c'_{ij}$ with $c'_{ij}\in K$. Since the $b_i$ form a valuation basis, $$0\>\leq\>vd'_j\>=\>w\sum_{i=1}^{m} b_ic'_{ij}\>=\>
\min_i wb_ic'_{ij}\>.$$ Hence for $1\leq i\leq m$ and $1\leq j\leq n$, $wb_i+vc'_{ij}\geq 0$. By our assumptions on the values $wb_i$, this implies that $c'_{ij}\in
{\mathcal{O}}_v$. Now we compute $$\begin{aligned}
wF(\overline{d'}) & = & \frac{1}{m}\,vN_{L|K}(F(\overline{d'}))
\>=\>\frac{1}{m}\,vH(\overline{c'})\\
& \leq & \frac{1}{m}\,vH(\overline{c}) \>=\>
\frac{1}{m}\,vN_{L|K}(F(\overline{d})) \>=\> wF(\overline{d})\>.\end{aligned}$$
This lemma yields:
\[eac\] a) Every extremal valued field is algebraically complete.
b\) Every finite extension of an extremal field is again an extremal field.
a): By Proposition \[eam\], every extremal field is algebraically maximal. Hence our assertion follows from the preceding lemma once we know that a valued field is algebraically complete if each of its finite defectless extensions is algebraically maximal. This holds by Corollary 2.10 of [@kuhlmann]. For the convenience of the reader, we give a sketch of the proof. Every finite extension of an algebraically complete field is again algebraically complete, hence algebraically maximal. For the converse, take a valued field ${\mathcal{K}}$ such that every finite extension is algebraically maximal. Then ${\mathcal{K}}$ is itself algebraically maximal, hence henselian. Take a finite extension ${\mathcal{L}}$ of ${\mathcal{K}}$. In order to show that it is defectless, it suffices to show that its normal hull ${\mathcal{N}}$ is a defectless extension of ${\mathcal{K}}$. Denote by ${\mathcal{N}}'$ the maximal separable subextension of ${\mathcal{N}}|{\mathcal{K}}$, and by ${\mathcal{R}}$ the ramification field of this Galois extension. Then ${\mathcal{R}}|{\mathcal{K}}$ is defectless. On the other hand, ${\mathcal{N}}'|{\mathcal{K}}$ is a $p$-extension, where $p$ is the characteristic of the residue field. Consequently, ${\mathcal{N}}|{\mathcal{K}}$ is a tower of (separable or purely inseparable) extensions of degree $p$. As ${\mathcal{R}}|{\mathcal{K}}$ is defectless, there is a maximal field ${\mathcal{L}}'$ in the tower such that ${\mathcal{L}}'|{\mathcal{K}}$ is defectless. By assumption, ${\mathcal{L}}'$ is algebraically maximal. If ${\mathcal{L}}'\ne {\mathcal{N}}$, then the next larger field ${\mathcal{L}}''$ in the tower is an extension of degree $p$ of ${\mathcal{L}}'$ and it is not immediate, hence defectless. By multiplicativity of the defect, we find that ${\mathcal{L}}''|{\mathcal{K}}$ is defectless, contradicting the maximality of ${\mathcal{L}}'$.
b): By part a), every finite extension of an extremal field is defectless. Hence the assertion of part b) follows from the preceding lemma.
[Characterization of extremal fields]{} \[sectchar\]
The first non-algebraically closed examples of extremal fields were provided by Proposition 2 in [@ershovext]:
\[zgroup\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma, {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}; v)$ be an algebraically complete valued field with $\Gamma{\simeq}\mathbb{Z}$. Then ${\mathcal{K}}$ is extremal.
By Remark \[ershovw\], this theorem would be false with the definition of extremality as stated in [@ershovext]. However, it is easy to check that the proof of Theorem \[zgroup\] given in [@ershovext] is valid with the revised definition of extremality.
Note that extremality is a first order condition for valued fields. Hence we can apply the following Ax-Kochen-Ershov Principle for tame valued fields proved in [@kuhlmann2], to show extremality for larger classes of valued fields:
\[AKE\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma, {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}; v)$ and ${\mathcal{L}}=(L,\Delta, {{{\boldsymbol{l}}}}; w)$ be two perfect algebraically complete valued fields with ${\operatorname{char}}{{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}}={\operatorname{char}}{K}$ and ${\operatorname{char}}{{{{\boldsymbol{l}}}}}={\operatorname{char}}{L}$. If ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}\equiv{{{\boldsymbol{l}}}}$ and $\Gamma\equiv\Delta$, then ${\mathcal{K}}\equiv{\mathcal{L}}$. If in addition ${\mathcal{L}}$ is an extension of ${\mathcal{K}}$, and if ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}\prec{{{\boldsymbol{l}}}}$ and $\Gamma\prec\Delta$, then ${\mathcal{K}}\prec{\mathcal{L}}$. The same holds with “${\prec_{\exists}}$” in the place of “$\prec$” as soon as ${\mathcal{K}}$ is perfect and algebraically complete with ${\operatorname{char}}{{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}}={\operatorname{char}}{K}$.
Here, “$\equiv$” denotes “elementarily equivalent, “$\prec$” denotes “elementary extension” and “${\prec_{\exists}}$” denotes “existentially closed in”.
If the residue field has characteristic 0, then “perfect algebraically complete” is equivalent to “henselian”; this is a consequence of the Lemma of Ostrowski. As a corollary to Theorems \[zgroup\] and \[AKE\], we obtain:
\[zge\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K, \Gamma, {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}; v)$ be a henselian valued field with $\Gamma$ a $\mathbb{Z}$-group and ${\operatorname{char}}{{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}}= {\operatorname{char}}{K}=0$. Then ${\mathcal{K}}$ is extremal.
The following theorem includes also the case of fields of positive characteristic:
\[divisible\] Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K, \Gamma, {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}};v)$ be a perfect algebraically complete valued field with divisible value group $\Gamma$ and large residue field ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ with ${\operatorname{char}}{{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}}={\operatorname{char}}{K}$. Then ${\mathcal{K}}$ is extremal.
In view of Theorem \[AKE\], we only have to prove our theorem in the case where $\Gamma$ is the ordered additive group of the real numbers. Take any polynomial $F\in K[X_1,\ldots,X_n]$. Take ${\mathcal{K}}^*= (K^*,
\Gamma^*, {{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*;v^*)$ to be a $|K|^+$-saturated elementary extension of ${\mathcal{K}}$. Then $\Gamma^*$ is an elementary extension of $\Gamma$ and ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*$ is an elementary extension of ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$. Now we distinguish two cases.
: $\{v(F(a_1,\dots,a_n)): a_1,\dots a_n \in
{\mathcal{O}}_v\} \setminus \{\infty\}$ is cofinal in $\Gamma$. We wish to show that $F$ has a zero in ${\mathcal{O}}_v^n$.
By our choice of ${\mathcal{K}}^*$ there are $a_1^*,\dots,a_n^*\in
{\mathcal{O}}_{v^*}$ such that $v^*(F(a_1^*,\dots,a_n^*))>\Gamma$. Hence there exists a valuation $w$ on ${\mathcal{K}}^*$ that is coarser than $v^*$, satisfies $wF(a_1^*,\dots,a_n^*)>0$, but is trivial on $K$. So we can consider $K$ as a subfield of the residue field $K^*w$ of $K^*$ under $w$. We write $v^*=w\circ\bar{w}$ where $\bar{w}$ is the valuation induced by $v^*$ on $K^*w$. Note that $a_1^*, \dots,a_n^*\in{\mathcal{O}}_{w}$. We obtain that $0=F(a_1^*,\dots, a_n^*)w= F(a_1^*w,\dots,a_n^*w)$ and that $a_1^*w,\dots,a_n^*w\in {\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{w}}$. Denote the value group of $\bar{w}$ on $K^*w$ by $\Gamma'$. Since $\Gamma$ is divisible, $\Gamma{\prec_{\exists}}\Gamma'$. Further, ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*$ is equal to the residue field of $K^*w$ under $\bar w$, and ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{\prec_{\exists}}{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*$. Hence by Theorem \[AKE\], ${\mathcal{K}}{\prec_{\exists}}(K^*w,\Gamma',{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*;\bar w)$. Since $F$ has a zero in the valuation ring of the latter field, this implies that there are $a_1,\dots,a_n\in {\mathcal{O}}_v$ such that $F(a_1,\dots,a_n) =0$.
: $\{v(F(a_1,\dots,a_n)): a_1,\dots a_n \in
{\mathcal{O}}_v\}$ is not cofinal in $\Gamma=\mathbb{R}$. Then there is some real number $r$ which is the supremum of this set. We wish to show that it is a member of the set.
By our choice of ${\mathcal{K}}^*$ there are $a_1^*,\dots,a_n^*\in
{\mathcal{O}}_{v^*}$ such that $\delta^*:=v^*(F(a_1^*,\dots,a_n^*))\geq
v(F(a_1,\dots,a_n))$ for all $a_1,\dots,a_n\in {\mathcal{O}}_v$. On the other hand, $\delta^*\leq r$ in $\Gamma^*$. So $0\leq r-\delta^*<s$ for all positive $s\in \mathbb{R}=\Gamma$. We take $\Gamma_0$ to be the largest convex subgroup of $\Gamma^*$ such that $\Gamma_0\cap\Gamma=\{0\}$. Then we take $w$ to be the coarsening of $v^*$ with respect to $\Gamma_0$, that is, ${\mathcal{O}}_{w}$ is generated over ${\mathcal{O}}_{v}$ by all elements whose values under $v$ lie in $\Gamma_0$, and the value group of $w$ on $K^*$ is $\Gamma^*/\Gamma_0$. Again, we write $v^*=w\circ\bar{w}$ where $\bar{w}$ is the valuation induced by $v^*$ on the residue field $K^*w$. We observe that $v=w$ on $K$ (after identification of equivalent valuations). Further, $w(F(a_1^*,\dots,a_n^*))=r$.
Now we have that $(K^*,\Gamma^*/\Gamma_0,K^*w; w)$ is an extension of ${\mathcal{K}}$. We have canonical embeddings of ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ in $K^*w$ and of $\Gamma$ in $\Gamma^*/\Gamma_0$. Since $\Gamma$ is divisible, $\Gamma{\prec_{\exists}}\Gamma^*/\Gamma_0$. The residue field $K^*w$ has a valuation $\bar w$ with residue field ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*$. Being an elementary extension of $K$, also $K^*$ is perfect. It follows that its residue fields $K^*w$ and ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*$ are perfect. Since every algebraically complete valued field is henselian, Lemma \[ww\] shows that $K^*w$ is henselian under $\bar w$. By Lemma \[emb\], the canonical embedding of ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$ in $K^*w$ can be extended to an embedding of ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*$ in $K^*w$. Via this embedding we may assume that ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*$ is a subfield of $K^*w$. Since ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*$ is an elementary extension of ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}$, it is again a large field. Thus by Theorem \[lec\], ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}^*{\prec_{\exists}}K^*w$ and consequently, ${{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}{\prec_{\exists}}K^*w$. It now follows from Theorem \[AKE\] that ${\mathcal{K}}{\prec_{\exists}}(K^*,\Gamma^*/\Gamma_0, K^*w; w)$. Hence there are $a_1,\dots,a_n\in
{\mathcal{O}}_v$ such that $vF(a_1,\dots,a_n) =r$.
Theorem \[gen\] now follows from Theorems \[zge\], \[divisible\], \[ndnzne\], \[dnlne\] and \[eac\].
We will now give an example that will prove Theorem \[counter\]. Its construction is given in the paper [@kuhlmann4]; we will use the same notation as in that paper. Taking the valued field $(K,v)$ appearing in the construction to be $(\mathbb{F}_p((t),v_t)$, where $\mathbb{F}_p$ is the field with $p$ elements and $v_t$ is the canonical $t$-adic valuation on $\mathbb{F}_p((t))$, we obtain a valued field extension $(L,v)$ of $(\mathbb{F}_p((t)),v_t)$ with the following properties:
a\) $L|\mathbb{F}_p((t))$ is a regular extension of transcendence degree 1,
b\) $(L,v)$ is algebraically complete,
c\) the value group $vL$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-group with smallest positive element $v(t)$,
d\) the residue field $Lv$ is equal to $\mathbb{F}_p\,$,
e\) $v=w\circ v_t$ for the finest valuation $w$ that is coarser than $v$,
f\) the value group $wL=\mathbb{Q}$ is divisible and by Lemma \[ww\], $(L,w)$ is algebraically complete,
g\) the residue field $Lw=\mathbb{F}_p((t))$ is a large field as it carries a henselian valuation,
h\) for the polynomial $G(X_0,X_1)=X_0^p-X_0 +tX_1^p-x$ (where $x=s^{-1}$ in the notation of [@kuhlmann4]), $w(G(x_0,x_1))< 0$ for all $x_0,x_1\in L$ (because it is shown in [@kuhlmann4] that if $w(G(x_0,x_1))\geq 0$, then $x_1$ must be transcendental over $L$).
The equality $Lw=\mathbb{F}_p((t))$ holds because in the construction, $(L,w)$ is an immediate extension of a field $(L_2,w)$ with residue field $L_2w=K=\mathbb{F}_p((t))$.
Using the notation of [@kuhlmann4], in particular the recursive definition $$\xi_1\>=\>x^{1/p} \quad\mbox{ and }\quad \xi_{j+1}\>=\>
(\xi_j-c_1s^{-p/q_j})^{1/p}$$ with $c_1=t$, and setting $$a_k\>=\>\sum_{j=1}^{k}\xi_j\quad\mbox{ and }\quad
b_k\>=\>\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} s^{-1/q_j}\;,$$ we compute: $$\begin{aligned}
x-(a_k^p-a_k)-c_1 b_k^p & = & x-\sum_{j=1}^{k}(\xi_j^p-\xi_j)
-c_1 \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} s^{-p/q_j}\\
& = & x-\xi_1^p -\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}(\xi_{j+1}^p-\xi_j) +\xi_k
-c_1 \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} s^{-p/q_j}\\
& = & \sum_{j=1}^{k-1} c_1 s^{-p/q_j} +\xi_k
-\sum_{j=1}^{k-1} c_1 s^{-p/q_j}\\
& = & \xi_k\;.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$w(G(a_k,b_k))\>=\>w\xi_k\>=\>-\frac{1}{p^k}ws\><\>0\;.$$ This shows that $\{w(G(a_k,b_k))\mid k\in \mathbb{N}\}$ is cofinal in the negative part $wL^{<0}$ of $wL$.
By the definition of $a_k$, we have $w(a_k)=w(\xi_1)=\frac{1}{p}w(x)=
-\frac{1}{p}w(s)<0$ for all $k$. Similarly, $w(b_k)=w(s^{-1/q_1})=
-\frac{1}{q_1}w(s)<0$ for all $k$. Consequently, $w(sa_k)>0$, $w(sb_k)>0$ and hence $sa_k,sb_k\in {\mathcal{O}}_v\subset{\mathcal{O}}_w$. Now set $$F(X,Y)\>=\>G(s^{-1}X,s^{-1}Y)=s^{-p}X^p-s^{-1}X
+ts^{-p}Y^p-s^{-1}\;.$$ Then $w(F(sa_k,sb_k))=w(G(a_k,b_k))$, but we still have that $w(F(a,b))< 0$ for all $a,b\in L$. So we see that $\{w(F(a,b))\mid
a,b\in {\mathcal{O}}_w\}$ is a cofinal subset of $wL^{<0}$ and thus has no maximal element. This proves that $(L,w)$ is not extremal.
Observe that $w(F(a,b))<0$ is equivalent to $v(F(a,b))<
v_t\mathbb{F}_p((t))$. As the set $\{w(F(a,b))\mid a,b\in {\mathcal{O}}_w\}$ is a cofinal subset of $wL^{<0}$, the set $\{v(F(a,b))\mid a,b\in
{\mathcal{O}}_v\}$ is a cofinal subset of the set of all values $<v_t\mathbb{F}_p((t))$ in $vL$ and thus has no maximal element. This proves that $(L,v)$ is not extremal.
[Some further results]{}
An Ax-Kochen-Ershov Principle as in Theorem \[AKE\] also holds for formally $\wp$-adic fields (see [@preroq]) and, more generally, for finitely ramified fields (see [@ershov], [@ziegler]). A formally $\wp$-adic field is $\wp$-adically closed if and only if it is henselian and its value group is a $\mathbb{Z}$-group. Formally $\wp$-adic and finitely ramified fields are algebraically complete as soon as they are henselian. Hence, we obtain from Theorems \[zgroup\] and \[char0\] via the Ax-Kochen-Ershov Principle:
\[fr\] A formally $\wp$-adic field is extremal if and only if it is $\wp$-adically closed. A finitely ramified field is extremal if and only if it is henselian and its value group is a $\mathbb{Z}$-group.
If ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}};v)$ is a valued field such that $v=w\circ\bar
w$, then by Lemma \[ww\], $v$ is henselian if and only if $w$ and $\bar w$ are. The same holds for “algebraically complete” in the place of “henselian”. The corresponding assertion for “extremal” is not entirely known. We leave the easy proof of the following result to the reader:
If ${\mathcal{K}}$ is extremal, then $K$ is also extremal with respect to every coarsening $w$ of $v$.
From our characterization of extremal fields we obtain:
Let ${\mathcal{K}}=(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}};v)$ be a perfect algebraically complete valued field such that ${\operatorname{char}}{{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}}}={\operatorname{char}}{K}$ and $v=w\circ\bar{w}$. Then ${\mathcal{K}}=
(K,\Gamma,{{{\boldsymbol{k}}}};v)$ is extremal if and only if $K$ is extremal with respect to $w$ and the residue field of $K$ under $w$ is extremal with respect to $\bar{w}$.
[1]{}
Paul F. Conrad. Regularly ordered groups. , 13:726–731, 1962.
Francoise Delon. Quelques propriétés des corps valués en théories des modèles. Thèse Paris VII (1981).
Yu. L. Ershov. On the elementary theory of maximal valued fields III. Algebra Logika [**6**]{}:3 (1967), 31–38
Yu. L. Ershov. Extremal valued fields. , 43(5): 582–588, 631, 2004.
F.-V. Kuhlmann. Elementary properties of power series fields over finite fields. J. Symb. Logic [**66**]{} (2001), 771–791.
F.-V. Kuhlmann. On places of algebraic function fields in arbitrary characteristic. Advanves in Math. [**188**]{} (2004), 399–424.
F.-V. Kuhlmann. A classification of Artin-Schreier defect extensions and a characterization of defectless fields. to appear.
F.-V. Kuhlmann. The model theory of tame valued fields. In preparation. Preliminary version published in: Structures Algébriques Ordonnées, Séminaire 2007–2008, Paris VII (2009)
Florian Pop. Embedding problems over large fields, (1996), 1–34
Alexander Prestel and Peter Roquette. Formally $p$-adic fields. Lecture Notes Math. [**1050**]{}, Berlin–Heidelberg–New York–Tokyo (1984).
Abraham Robinson and Elias Zakon. Elementary properties of ordered abelian groups. , [**96**]{} 222–236, 1960.
Martin Ziegler. Die elementare Theorie der henselschen Körper. Inaugural Dissertation, Köln (1972).
[^1]: 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: primary: 12J10; secondary: 12E30.\
A major part of this research was done while the authors were attending the o-minimality program at the Fields Institute, Jan.-June 2009. The authors would like to thank the Fields Institute for its support and hospitality. The second author was partially supported by a Canadian NSERC grant and by a sabbatical grant of the University of Saskatchewan.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In the last decade, the demand for Internet applications has been increased, which increases the number of data centers across the world. These data centers are usually connected to each other using long-distance and high-speed networks. As known, the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is the predominant protocol used to provide such connectivity among these data centers. Unfortunately, the huge Bandwidth-Delay Product (BDP) of these networks hinders TCP from achieving full bandwidth utilization. In order to increase TCP flexibility to adapt for high-BDP networks, we propose a new delay-based and RTT-independent Congestion Control Algorithm (CCA), namely Elastic-TCP. It mainly contributes the novel Window-correlated Weighting Function (WWF) to increase TCP bandwidth utilization over high-BDP networks. Extensive simulation and testbed experiments have been carried out to evaluate the proposed Elastic-TCP by comparing its performance to the commonly used TCPs developed by Microsoft, Linux, and Google. The results show that the proposed Elastic-TCP achieves higher average throughput than the other TCPs, while it maintains the sharing fairness and the loss ratio. Moreover, it is worth noting that the new Elastic-TCP presents lower sensitivity to the variation of buffer size and packet error rate than the other TCPs, which grants high efficiency and stability.'
author:
- |
Mohamed A. Alrshah$^{1,2*}$ (Senior Member, IEEE), Mohamed A. Al-Moqri$^3$,\
Mohamed Othman$^{1,4}$ (Senior Member, IEEE)
title: 'Elastic-TCP: Flexible Congestion Control Algorithm to Adapt for High-BDP Networks.'
---
addtoreset[footnote]{}[page]{}
[Alrshah : Elastic-TCP: Flexible Congestion Control Algorithm to Adapt for High-BDP Networks.]{}
Elastic TCP, Delay-based, Congestion Control, High-speed TCP, High-BDP Networks, Long-distance Networks.
Introduction {#Intro}
============
Recently, the demand for Internet applications has been increased, which increases the number of data centers across the world. In order to improve the connectivity between these data centers, high-speed and long-distance networks are widely used across many countries and continents. As known, Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) is the main protocol used to provide an efficient connectivity among these data centers. Unfortunately, the huge Bandwidth-Delay Product (BDP) of these high-speed and long-distance networks hampers TCP from fully utilizing bandwidth, which is considered as a waste of very expensive and important network resources [@Afanasyev2010; @Scharf2011; @xu2011; @Callegari2012b; @Callegari2014; @wang2016tcp; @cardwell2017; @rhee2018cubic].
Indeed, high-BDP networks are not a typical environment for which most TCP Congestion Control Algorithms (CCAs) are designed. Specifically, this environment causes two major unavoidable problems that negatively affect the general performance of TCP. The first problem is the long Round Trip Time (RTT) caused by long-distances of network links and by applying big buffer regimes. The second problem is the need for expanding the congestion window (*cwnd*) to a big number of packets in order to utilize the available bandwidth due to the high-BDP of these networks. In the congestion avoidance stage, TCP requires around an RTT to increase its *cwnd* by one and because the RTT in such networks is long, thus, the increase of *cwnd* becomes severely slow [@xu2011; @alrshah2014; @alrshah2017; @kanagarathinam2018d].
As a result of the aforementioned two problems, TCP spends a long period of time to grasp the maximum capacity of high-BDP links, which under-utilizes the network bandwidth. Moreover, after reaching the maximum bandwidth limit, congestion losses (periodically happen) cause an acute *cwnd* degradation. In turn, TCP requires additional time to reach the maximum *cwnd* again, which increases its sensitivity to packet loss. In the recent years, many TCP CCAs have been suggested to solve the aforementioned problems. Although these TCP CCAs have made many improvements, they are still incapable to efficiently utilize the available bandwidths of such high-BDP links and even they present a very high sensitivity to packet loss [@Afanasyev2010; @Scharf2011; @xu2011; @Callegari2012b; @Callegari2014; @wang2016tcp; @cardwell2017; @rhee2018cubic; @alrshah2014; @acharya2012; @alrshah2009].
This paper proposes a new delay-based and RTT-independent TCP CCA, namely Elastic-TCP, which mainly contributes the novel Window-correlated Weighting Function (WWF) in order to augment the bandwidth utilization over high-BDP networks. The WWF improves the ability of Elastic-TCP to deal with big buffers, long delays and high-BDP networks. Extensive simulation and testbed experiments have been carried out to evaluate the proposed Elastic-TCP compared to C-TCP, Cubic, Agile-SD, and TCP-BBR.
The remainder of this article is coordinated as follows: the related works are presented in Section \[RW\] while the proposed Elastic-TCP is exhibited in Section \[Algo\]. Sections \[PE\] and \[PET\] show the performance evaluation based on simulation and testbed, respectively. Finally, Section \[disc\] presents the summary and discussion of results, and Section \[Conc\] concludes the work and points out the future directions.
Related Works {#RW}
=============
In the recent years, many CCAs have been developed to solve network congestion problems and also to enhance the overall performance of TCP, especially in high-BDP networks. Table \[history\] shows the historical development of TCP CCAs designed for high-speed networks.
\[t\]
Date TCP CCA Based on Windows Linux Solaris
------ -------------------------- ---------------------- ---------- ----------- ---------
1999 NewReno [@floyd1999] Reno \*NI $>$2.1.36 7.0
2003 HS-TCP [@Floyd2003] NewReno \*NI $>$2.6.13 \*NI
2003 S-TCP [@Kelly2003] NewReno \*NI $>$2.6.13 \*NI
2003 Fast [@jin2003] Vegas \*NI \*NI \*NI
2004 H-TCP [@Leith2004] NewReno \*NI $>$2.6.13 \*NI
2004 Hybla [@Caini2004] NewReno \*NI $>$2.6.13 \*NI
2004 BIC-TCP [@xu2004] HS-TCP \*NI $>$2.6.12 \*NI
2005 AFRICA [@King2005] HS-TCP, Vegas \*NI \*NI \*NI
2005 NewVegas [@JoelSing2005] Vegas \*NI \*NI \*NI
2005 AReno [@shimonishi2006] Westwood, Vegas \*NI \*NI \*NI
2006 C-TCP [@Tan2006] NewReno,HS-TCP,Vegas V,7,8,10 $>$2.6.14 \*NI
2006 illinois [@Liu2008] NewReno, DUAL \*NI $>$2.6.22 \*NI
2007 Fusion [@Kaneko2007] Westwood, Vegas \*NI \*NI $>$10
2007 YeAH [@Baiocchi2007] S-TCP, Vegas \*NI $>$2.6.22 \*NI
2008 Cubic [@Ha2008] BIC-TCP, H-TCP \*NI $>$2.6.16 \*NI
2015 Agile-SD [@alrshah2015] NewReno \*NI $\geq$4.0 \*NI
2017 TCP-BBR [@cardwell2017] Vegas \*NI $\geq$4.9 \*NI
: TCP variants designed for H-BDP networks and their implementations in popular operating systems [@Afanasyev2010; @alrshah2014].
NI = Not Implemented
\[history\]
In high-BDP networks, loss-based CCAs are very sensitive to packet loss, and delay-based CCAs are highly sensitive to RTT changes, while RTT-dependent CCAs are suffering from severe throughput degradation and low fairness [@Afanasyev2010; @alrshah2014; @alrshah2015]. RTT-dependent CCAs increase their *cwnd*, at congestion avoidance stage, by one every RTT. Thus, if the RTT is small the increase will be fairly fast otherwise it will be unacceptably slow. In fact, RTT-dependency causes unfair share among competing flows that have different RTT lengths, in which the shorter the RTT the higher the aggressiveness and vice versa. RTT-dependency also increases the sensitivity to packet loss and negatively influences the overall performance of TCP [@Afanasyev2010; @Callegari2012b; @alrshah2014; @alrshah2015]. For these reasons, RTT-independent CCAs are highly recommended for high-BDP networks. RTT-independency allows TCP to increase its *cwnd* based on the changes of underlaying network instead of RTT magnitude, which significantly improves throughput.
In 2006, C-TCP [@Tan2006] proposed a new hybrid CCA, which improved the performance of TCP to some extent. However, it inherits the RTT estimation problem from TCP Vegas [@brak1995], which increases its sensitivity to RTT changes and negatively affects the fairness. Moreover, C-TCP is also an RTT-dependent CCA, which makes the growth of its *cwnd* very slow, notably over high-BDP networks. Despite all, C-TCP has been set as the default TCP for MS Windows since its first implementation in Windows Vista, which makes it one of the most widely used TCP in the world [@Afanasyev2010], [@alrshah2014].
In 2008, Cubic [@Ha2008] became the default TCP of the afterward versions of Linux kernel. It improved the scalability over high-BDP networks by increasing its *cwnd* in the congestion avoidance stage using $cubic$ root of the elapsed time since last loss. However, it becomes a time-consuming protocol since it is an RTT-dependent TCP, which results in an underutilization of bandwidth over high-BDP networks [@Afanasyev2010; @alrshah2014; @alrshah2015].
In 2017, Agile-SD [@alrshah2017] was proposed to reduce the sensitivity to packet loss and to grant the ability to deal with small buffers over high-speed networks. Agile-SD was designed for short-distance networks, where the delay-based approach is not functioning due to the triviality of RTT variation in such networks. Despite that Agile-SD significantly improved the performance over short-distance networks, it still has a limited performance over high-BDP networks.
In 2018, TCP-BBR [@cardwell2017] was proposed by a research group at Google as a model-based CCA. It estimates the bottleneck, bandwidth, and RTT in order to improve the link utilization while keeping the bottleneck queue un-congested. Despite the implementation of TCP-BBR in Google and YouTube Infrastructure, it is still suffering from maintaining un-congested queue at the expense of bandwidth utilization. Specifically, if a TCP-BBR flow concurrently shares a bottleneck with another Cubic flow, the latter will aggressively fill up the queue while the former will trigger its draining function to empty that queue. Consequently, TCP-BBR flows will get smaller share compared to Cubic flows. On the other hand, TCP-BBR will not properly function for short-term flows, such as request/response flows, since TCP-BBR needs many cycles to estimate its parameters. Moreover, TCP-BBR presents a very high level of code complexity compared to other algorithms, as shown in Table \[code\].
CCA TCP-BBR Cubic C-TCP Elastic-TCP Agile-SD
------------ --------- ------- ------- ------------- ----------
Code lines 553 342 219 149 115
: Number of code lines for the studied algorithms in terms.
\[code\]
At the congestion avoidance stage, most TCP CCAs increase their *cwnd* by $Inc$, which varies from CCA to another. This $Inc$ is calculated based on different parameters, such as predefined constants and time, depends on the applied CCA. If the *cwnd* is small (short-distance), the increase will be reasonably fast and even aggressive sometimes. However, if the *cwnd* is large (long-distance), the increase will be severely slow. The main cause of this problem is that TCP does not correlate the value of $Inc$ to the magnitude of the *cwnd* itself.
For example, Reno and NewReno calculate their $Inc$ as $\frac{\alpha}{cwnd}$, where $\alpha$ is a predefined constant usually equal to 1. In C-TCP, $Inc$ is calculated as the sum of $cwnd_{reno}$ and $cwnd_{fast}$, where $cwnd_{reno}$ is the Reno increase as calculated above and $cwnd_{fast}$ is the HS-TCP increase, which is calculated as $cwnd_{fast} - (\zeta . \Delta)$, where $\Delta$ is the Vegas-estimate and $\zeta$ is a predefined constant. As for Agile-SD, $Inc$ is calculated as $\frac{\hspace{0.1cm}\lambda\hspace{0.1cm}}{cwnd}$, where $\lambda$ is dynamically calculated based on the change in *cwnd* and always $\lambda \geq 1$. As for Cubic, $Inc$ is calculated as $C (\Delta - \sqrt[3]{\frac{\beta * cwnd}{C}})^3$, where $C$ is a preset constant and $\beta$ is the multiplicative decrease factor while $\Delta$ indicates the elapsed time since last loss.
Based on the aforementioned $Inc$ calculations, it can be clearly observed that $Inc$ (in Reno, NewReno, C-TCP and Agile-SD) is reversely proportional to *cwnd* with no correlation to the magnitude of that *cwnd*. As for Cubic, the $Inc$ is directly proportional to the *cwnd*, but the greater the magnitude of *cwnd* the smaller the value of $Inc$. Thus, in high-BDP networks, where the magnitude of *cwnd* is very large, the growth of *cwnd* in all studied CCAs is severely slow. In all studied TCPs, the $Inc$ calculations are directly correlated to the predefined constants, which hampers the ability of these TCPs to adapt to both small and large *cwnd* scenarios simultaneously. Consequently, TCP setting which can be appropriate for short-distance networks, is usually improper for high-BDP networks and vice versa.
For better understanding, let us consider an example of NewReno over a low-BDP network link with $1Gbps$ bandwidth, $1ms$ RTT, and $1Kbyte$ packet size. The BDP of this link is approximately 125 packets based on Equation (\[eq1\]) [@Ha2008] below: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq1}
\textit{BDP(packets)} &= \frac{\textit{Bandwidth(bps) }\times \textit{ RTT(seconds)}}{\textit{Packet Size(bits)}}\end{aligned}$$
Mostly, TCP degrades its *cwnd* to the half of link BDP ($\approx$ 62 packets) after congestion occurrence. Then, it starts another epoch using the additive increase (one packet per RTT) to attain the maximum *cwnd* again. Consequently, it consumes 62 RTTs per epoch, which is about 62 milliseconds in this example, to reach the maximum link BDP. Thus, this behavior gives an acceptable throughput and, in turn, achieves a fair level of bandwidth utilization.
However, if the RTT in the aforementioned example is prolonged to be $100ms$ in order to emulate high-BDP link scenarios, the link BDP will become about 12,500 packets based on Equation (\[eq1\]). As above-mentioned, TCP decreases its *cwnd* to the half of link BDP . In the following epochs, TCP will consume about 6,250 RTTs per epoch to attain the maximum *cwnd*. Thus, this very sluggish behavior degrades the performance and harshly under-utilizes the link bandwidth. Furthermore, when the network bandwidth is increased to $10$, $100Gbps$ or more, such problem will become significantly more severe.
In this work, we propose the Elastic-TCP to enhance the bandwidth utilization over high-BDP networks, in which RTTs are very long, buffers are very large and packet loss are very common. Elastic-TCP is a new delay-based and RTT-independent CCA contributing a novel WWF function that correlates the value of *cwnd* increase to the *cwnd* magnitude. Besides, the gained increase is balanced using the weighting function according to the variation of RTT in order to maintain the fairness. Consequently, this behavior improves the ability of TCP to adapt to different networks with variable *cwnd* magnitudes, which especially improves the bandwidth utilization over high-BDP networks.
Elastic-TCP: The Proposed Algorithm {#Algo}
===================================
Elastic-TCP is a delay-based and RTT-independent CCA designed for high-BDP networks to improve the bandwidth utilization without jeopardizing the fairness. For more details, Figure \[fig:flowchart\] shows the control flow diagram of the proposed Elastic-TCP and Algorithm \[algo01\] describes the internal functionality of it while the following subsections provide a deep explanation of its unique mechanism.
![The control flow diagram of Elastic-TCP[]{data-label="fig:flowchart"}](flowchart){width="0.9\linewidth"}
[latex@errorgobble]{}
**Initialization:**\
$RTT_{max} \leftarrow 0, RTT_{current} \leftarrow 0,$\
$RTT_{base} \leftarrow \text{0x7FFFFFFF},$ $cwnd \leftarrow 2$\
Window-correlated Weighting Function (WWF)
------------------------------------------
WWF is the primary contribution of this work. Substantially, WWF aims at improving TCP bandwidth utilization over high-BDP networks without jeopardizing the fairness. Elastic-TCP relies on the variation of RTT to measure the utilization ratio ($UR$), which is calculated and used in a different way other than those ways presented by TCP-Dual, Vegas, and Fast-TCP.
As known, the variation of RTT can be used to quantify the level of congestion and/or the level of link utilization at the bottleneck [@Afanasyev2010; @jin2003; @brak1995; @wang1992]. In this work, we defined the utilization ratio ($UR$) as a percentage of the utilized buffer and BDP, as shown in Figure \[fig:ur\]. Thus, the proposed Elastic-TCP quantifies the $UR$ at the bottleneck link as in Equation below: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq11010}
UR = \frac{RTT_{current}}{RTT_{max}},\end{aligned}$$ where $RTT_{current}$ is the current RTT obtained from the last ACK, $RTT_{base}$ and $RTT_{max}$ are the minimum and maximum RTT seen over this connection, respectively, where ($RTT_{base} \leq RTT_{current} \leq RTT_{max}$), ($RTT_{base} > 0$), ($RTT_{max} > RTT_{base}$) and ($UR \in [0, 1]$).
\[htpb\] ![The impact of RTT on UR.[]{data-label="fig:ur"}](ur "fig:"){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Hence, the underutilization ratio ($\overline{UR}$), which reflects the under-utilized portion of BDP plus the empty buffer size, can be quantified using Equation : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq110108}
\overline{UR} = \frac{RTT_{max} - RTT_{current}}{RTT_{max}} = 1 - UR,\end{aligned}$$ where $UR=1$ only when the bandwidth and buffer at the bottleneck link are fully utilized because the $RTT_{current}$ approaches the maximum delay ($RTT_{max}$) only when the bottleneck link capacity and buffer are about to be full, which results in ($\overline{UR}=0$), as shown in Figure \[fig:ur\]. Then, the $UR$ is used to calculate the weighting function ($\Delta$), as $\Delta = \frac{1}{UR}$, where $\Delta = 1$ only when $UR = 1$, and $\Delta > 1$ otherwise. Hence, the under-utilized portion of bandwidth at the bottleneck $(\bar{\Delta})$, as shown in Figure \[fig:delta\], can be calculated as $\bar{\Delta} = \Delta - 1$.
\[htpb\] ![The impact of RTT on $\Delta$.[]{data-label="fig:delta"}](delta "fig:"){width="0.75\linewidth"}
It is very clear that $\Delta$ is inversely proportional to $RTT_{current}$, which exhibits a semi-hyperbolic curve, as shown in Figure \[fig:delta\]. In other words, $\Delta$ is enlarged, up to the maximum possible value ($\Delta_{max}$), when the $RTT_{current}$ moves towards the $RTT_{base}$, which indicates to light traffic loaded network, as shown in Equation (\[eq3\]) below: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{max} &= \lim_{RTT_{current} \to RTT_{base}} \frac{RTT_{max}}{RTT_{current}} = \frac{RTT_{max}}{RTT_{base}} \label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$
Contrarily, $\Delta$ is shrunk, up to the minimum possible value ($\Delta_{min}$), if the $RTT_{current}$ moves towards the $RTT_{max}$, which indicates to heavy traffic loaded network, as shown in below: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{min} &= \lim_{RTT_{current} \to RTT_{max}} \frac{RTT_{max}}{RTT_{current}} = 1 \label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$
The main purpose of $\Delta$ is to estimate the maximum possible *cwnd* $(cwnd_{est})$ for the underlying network, which is calculated as $cwnd_{est} = \Delta \times cwnd.$ Since $\Delta = 1 + \bar{\Delta}$, thus $cwnd_{est} = cwnd + (\bar{\Delta} \times cwnd)$, which always guarantees that ($cwnd_{est} \geq cwnd$). In order to increase the adaptability of Elastic-TCP to deal with different scenarios of diverse *cwnd* magnitudes, the value of the increase in *cwnd* should be correlated to the magnitude of $cwnd_{est}$.
The correlation function should create a convex-up curve to reduce the under-utilized area above the curve, where the more the convexity the best the utilization. However, increasing the convexity more than necessary will lead to severe data loss. Further, the function should grow aggressively when the current *cwnd* is close to the multiplicative decrease point $(\beta*cwnd_{max})$ and should grow conservatively when the current *cwnd* is approaching the maximum bottleneck capacity or the maximum *cwnd* $(cwnd_{max})$, as shown in Figure \[fig:sqrt\]. Furthermore, the needed function must be a low-complexity function since it will be implemented in the core space of the Linux kernel, which does not provide any high-level user-defined function. For these reasons, we have been searching for a new window growth function that is able to satisfy the above-mentioned constraints. We tested some functions, where we found that the square-root function is able to fulfill the requirements. Thus, we implemented Newton-Raphson iteration method to calculate the square root of $cwnd_{est}$ as
\[h!\] ![The window growth function of Elastic-TCP using the square root.[]{data-label="fig:sqrt"}](square "fig:"){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Finally, the resulted value of WWF is used, in the stage of congestion avoidance, to increase the *cwnd*, as shown in Equation below: $$\begin{aligned}
cwnd &= cwnd + \dfrac{WWF}{cwnd} \label{eq5}\end{aligned}$$
By this behavior, the novel Elastic-TCP increases its ability to probe the status of the underlying network, as shown in figures \[fig:ur\] and \[fig:delta\]. Also, this behavior results in a convex-up curve of increase, in the congestion avoidance stage, which cuts down the epoch time in order to diminish the area of under-utilized bandwidth, as shown in Figure \[fig:cwnd-evo\]. Specifically, this behavior makes the fast-recovery stage of the Elastic-TCP much faster compared to (1) NewReno, as in Figure \[fig:newreno\], (2) Cubic, as in Figure \[fig:cubic\], and (3) C-TCP, as in Figure \[fig:ctcp\]. Besides, this behavior grants low sensitivity to packet losses. Hence, it is very clear that the Elastic-TCP guarantees higher bandwidth utilization and lower sensitivity to packet loss degradation than the existing CCAs while it maintains the fairness.
\[htpb\]
The Elastic-TCP Overall Behavior
--------------------------------
Elastic-TCP starts exponentially as it uses the standard slow start. Then, after detecting the first loss, either by receiving 3-duplicate acknowledgments or by an expiration of the timeout counter, it reduces its *cwnd* by the multiplicative decrease factor $(\beta)$, then it enters the stage of congestion avoidance. In this stage, the Elastic-TCP increases its *cwnd* by $\frac{WWF}{cwnd}$, as shown in Equation , to produce short epochs with convex-up curves of increase. If a packet loss occurs in this stage, the Elastic-TCP reduces its *cwnd* using the multiplicative decrease factor $(\beta)$ to start another epoch of the same stage.
As shown in figures \[fig:newreno\], \[fig:cubic\] and \[fig:ctcp\], this behavior helps the Elastic-TCP to increase its *cwnd* faster than the examined TCP CCAs, which obviously improves the bandwidth utilization. That is to say, the faster the *cwnd* growth the higher the bandwidth utilization and vice versa. However, the most important issue is to which limit *cwnd* has to be increased in order to prevent the problem of over injecting data into the network. Fortunately, the new Elastic-TCP has the ability to improve the bandwidth utilization while keeping data loss as low as in NewReno.
Performance Evaluation of Elastic-TCP using Simulation {#PE}
======================================================
This work aims at developing a new TCP CCA, namely Elastic-TCP, that improves the bandwidth utilization of high-BDP networks, without jeopardizing the fairness among competing TCP flows. For the purpose of performance evaluation, NS-2 network simulator is used. As well-known, NS-2 provides two ways of TCP implementation, either as a simulation-based module or as a Linux-based module. In this work, we implement the Elastic-TCP into NS-2 as a Linux-based module, which is ready for implementation into Linux kernel.
Simulation Setup
----------------
In this paper, NS-2.35 has been used to carry out extensive simulation experiments in order to compare the performance of Elastic-TCP, C-TCP, Cubic, and Agile-SD. The studied algorithms have been examined in three main scenarios:
1. Single-flow scenario: this scenario mimics the ideal case of network, which is used to evaluate the performance of TCP over an ideal case of non-congested network, in order to show the maximum achievable bandwidth utilization in the best conditions. This scenario has only one sender and one receiver, the sender starts sending FTP data to the destination from the beginning until the end of simulation.
2. Sequentially established/terminated multiple-flows scenario: it is used to evaluate the performance of TCP over congested bottleneck in order to simulate a real network scenario. This scenario shows the impact of different establishment and termination time of multiple flows on the throughput and on the quality of bandwidth sharing. In this scenario, the flows are established one by one after every 5 seconds starting from time 0 in a manner of point-to-point flows, for example, S1 to D1 at time 0, S2 to D2 at time 5, S3 to D3 at time 10, and so on.
3. Synchronously established/terminated multiple-flows scenario: this scenario shows the impact of synchronized packet loss that occur over all flows on the throughput and on the sharing fairness. In this scenario, all senders start sending FTP data to destinations at the same time (when simulation time $= 0$ sec) and they finish by the end of simulation (when simulation time $= 100$ sec) in a manner of point-to-point flows, for example, S1 sends to D1, S2 sends to D2, and so on.
In the single flow scenario, the used network topology is as shown in Figure \[fig:topology-ideal\], while the topology shown in Figure \[fig:topology\] is used in multiple-flows scenarios. In the single-bottleneck topology shown in Figure \[fig:topology\], $n$ senders compete to send data to $n$ receivers via a shared bottleneck link, where speed and propagation delay are set to $1Gbps$ and $100ms$, respectively. All end-system nodes are linked to bottleneck routers using wired links, where speed and propagation delay are set to $1Gbps$ and $1ms$, respectively [@Wang2013].
In all scenarios, the performance of the examined TCP CCAs is evaluated with various buffer sizes varying from $50$ to $6400$ packets and Packet Error Rates (PERs) of $10^{-4}$, $10^{-5}$ and $zero$. The buffer size and PER changes only applied to R1 and R2 in order to mimic real bottleneck behavior. As an endeavor to ensure the accuracy of the results, the simulation experiments have been repeated for 30 times for each set of parameters, as shown in Table \[params\], then the averages are calculated for each set of parameters.
Parameter Value (s)
----------------------------------- -------------------------
TCP CCAs Cubic, C-TCP, Agile-SD,
Link Speed of All Links 1Gbps
PC-to-Router 2-way Delay 1 milliseconds
Bottleneck 2-way Delay 100 milliseconds
Packet Error Rate (PER) $10^{-4}, 10^{-5}, 0$
Buffer Size at Bottleneck Routers 50 to 6400 pckts
Data Packet Size 1 KB
Management Droptail algorithm
Flow Type FTP
Simulation Time 100 seconds
Simulation Runs for Each Scenario 30 times
: Simulation parameters setting.
\[params\]
As well-known, the types of TCP traffic such as HTTP and Telnet are considered as short-lived traffic types, which are not significantly influenced by TCP improvements. In short-lived traffic, tasks are usually accomplished before entering the system steady state. That is why, only FTP traffic is used in this work because it is a long-lived TCP traffic type that represents a great portion of Internet traffic.
\[htpb\]
Substantially, the aim of these experiments is two-fold: First, to demonstrate the impact of network congestion, variable buffer size, and inconstant PER on the overall performance of examined TCP CCAs. Second, to compare the overall performance of the proposed Elastic-TCP to Cubic, C-TCP and Agile-SD. In all experiments of this work, the simulation time has been set to 100 seconds, which is more than enough for all CCAs to show their behavior in the steady state.
The main goal of this work is to improve the performance of TCP by reducing its sensitivity to packet loss and by increasing its scalability to be able to deal with different networks characteristics. In order to evaluate the performance of TCP at the transport layer, throughput, loss rasio, and sharing fairness index are measured.
Throughput is the rate of successful data delivery over a network link from sender to receiver. It is usually measured in bits per second (bps) or any unit of its multiples such as Mbps or Gbps. Throughput can be computed as per flow throughput or as system throughput. Say that one TCP flow transmits an amount of data to the receiver side, which received data $(data)$ in bits over a period of time $(time)$ in seconds, thus, the throughput $(Thr)$ of this flow is calculated as $Thr = \frac{data}{time}$. As for the system throughput, suppose that we have a number of flows $(n)$ that send data simultaneously, the system throughput $(SysThr)$ is calculated as below: $$\begin{aligned}
SysThr = \dfrac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} data_i}{time},\end{aligned}$$ where $data_i$ is the data received form the $i^{th}$ flow, and $time$ is the time consumed to receive the $data$ of all flows.
As well-known, data packets can be lost during the data transmission over any type of networks due to many reasons such as congestion, fading, interference. In this work, we count all types of data loss together as one type ($loss$), where this loss is equal to the difference between total data sent ($Sdata$) by a TCP sender and total data received ($Rdata$) by the relative TCP receiver. The loss ratio ($LR$) is calculated as a ratio of data loss to the total data sent ($Sdata$) for all flows ($n$) as calculated below: $$\begin{aligned}
LR = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}SData_i - RData_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}SData_i} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}loss_i}{\sum_{i=1}^{n}SData_i},\end{aligned}$$ where ($Sdata_i$) and ($Rdata_i$) are the total data sent and the total data received for flow ($i$), respectively.
The sharing fairness index is calculated to show whether the competing TCP flows are getting a fair share of the bottleneck link bandwidth. In this work, three types of sharing fairness, namely intra-fairness, RTT-fairness and inter-fairness, are measured using the well-known Jain’s fairness index (JFI) [@jain1984], as shown in Equation below: $$\begin{aligned}
JFI(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n) = \dfrac{(\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i)^2}{n \cdot \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i^2} \label{ch3:fair},\end{aligned}$$ where ($n$) is the number of flows, and ($ x_i $) denotes the average throughput of the $i^{th}$ flow. Intra-fairness is to measure how fair is the distribution of bottleneck bandwidth among the flows of the same TCP variant, and RTT-fairness is to measure how fair is the distribution of queuing delay among the competing flows originated from the same TCP variant. As for Inter-fairness, it is to measure how fair is the distribution of bottleneck bandwidth among the flows of different TCP variants.
Simulation Results and Discussion
---------------------------------
This subsection analytically discusses the behavior shown by Elastic-TCP compared to the other CCAs. Moreover, it presents the performance results in terms of throughput, loss ratio, and fairness in order to exhibit the effect of error rate and buffer size on the overall performance.
### The *cwnd* evolution
The evolution of *cwnd* is the spirit of all CCAs, as it directly influences other performance metrics such as throughput, bandwidth utilization, loss ratio, and sharing fairness. Due to its unique behavior, Elastic-TCP expectedly presents faster *cwnd* growth compared to Cubic, C-TCP, and Agile-SD, as shown in Figure \[fig:CWND\]. This fast *cwnd* growth allows Elastic-TCP to be an RTT-independent, which in turn shrinks its epoch time, where the faster the growth of *cwnd* the shorter the epoch and vice versa. Indeed, shortening the epoch itself is not an aim, but it is only a way to increase the bandwidth utilization. By this approach, Elastic-TCP does not only increase the average throughput but also minimizes the loss ratio while maintaining the sharing fairness.
\[h!\]
On one hand, Figure \[fig:CWND\] shows the *cwnd* evolution of the studied CCAs in the scenario of single-flow, where the faster increase is presented by the Elastic-TCP followed by Cubic, C-TCP, and Agile-SD. Clearly, the Elastic-TCP reaches roughly 31,000 packets in about 10 seconds, then it begins fluctuating to draw convex-up curves in very short epochs, as shown in Figure \[fig:cwnd-agileld\]. With regard to Cubic, it reaches about 30,000 packets in 40 seconds, thereafter, it starts fluctuating to exhibit very long epochs due to its cubic function of the increase, as shown in Figure \[fig:cwnd-cubic\]. While C-TCP does not exceed 25,000 packets, Agile-SD fixes its *cwnd* to around 26,000 packets. Hence, it can be concluded that only the Elastic-TCP and Cubic have the ability to fully utilize the bandwidth in the ideal network, where the former is still better than the later by a difference of 1,000 packets (about 1Mbyte per RTT).
On the other hand, Figure \[fig:CWND2\] presents the *cwnd* evolution of the studied CCAs in the scenario of multi-flows, with sequential flows establishments, to show the intra-fairness among these competing flows. Since the higher the convergence among concurrent flows the higher the intra-fairness, thus, the Elastic-TCP shows the highest intra-fairness level followed by C-TCP, Cubic and Agile-SD, and also Elastic-TCP shows higher utilization.
\[h!\]
More specifically, Elastic-TCP flows start converging with each other in around 35 seconds and they finish with a very high level of intra-fairness, while C-TCP flows start their convergence in about 40 seconds, but they finish with slightly lower intra-fairness than the former. As for Cubic, the flows start converging very slowly in 50 seconds and they give a moderate level of intra-fairness. Regarding Agile-SD, it exhibits a low level of fairness and very low bandwidth utilization with *cwnd* not more than 900 packets, while the *cwnd* of the other CCAs varies from 4,000 to 9,000 packets.
Figure \[fig:CWND3\] shows a comparison between the studied CCAs in terms of *cwnd* evolution. It shows the average *cwnd* of four concurrent flows for each CCA in the case of zero PER and $10^{-5}$ PER. From Figure \[fig:aggcwnd-zero\], it is clear that Elastic-TCP reaches the maximum *cwnd* earlier than C-TCP and Cubic, while Agile-SD is not able to reach reasonable *cwnd* value since it is not designed for high-BDP networks. Moreover, C-TCP and Cubic show lower *cwnd* than Elastic-TCP even after they reach their steady states. In Figure \[fig:aggcwnd-10-5\], Cubic and C-TCP show high sensitivity to packet loss and both degrade their *cwnd* to less than 50%, while Elastic-TCP shows very low sensitivity to packet loss which allows it to maintain a high level of performance.
\[h!\]
### The average throughput
The single-flow scenario shows an ideal congestion-free network to study the capability of TCP CCAs on fully utilizing the available bandwidth. The proposed CCA shows slight enhancement on average throughput compared to other CCAs due to the fast increase of its *cwnd* resulted by its unique mechanism of WWF, as shown in Figure \[fig:single-0per-throughput\]. Moreover, the Elastic-TCP shows more sustainability in presence of PER compared to other CCAs, as shown in figures \[fig:single-2per-throughput\] and \[fig:single-3per-throughput\], where Cubic, C-TCP, and Agile-SD are highly influenced by the PER. In general, the Elastic-TCP outperforms other CCAs in terms of throughput in most cases even in harsh network environments where PER is high. This clearly enhances the bandwidth utilization by up to 22% in some scenarios.
\[h!\]
In the second scenario, figures \[fig:seq-0per-throughput\], \[fig:seq-2per-throughput\] and \[fig:seq-3per-throughput\] show that the Elastic-TCP achieves better throughput compared to other CCAs, even with small buffer size and high PER, which enhances the bandwidth utilization up to 40%.
\[h!\]
In the synchronous multiple-flows scenario, the Elastic-TCP also outperforms the other CCAs in most cases, especially with high PER and it significantly achieves up to 50% of improvement in some cases, as shown in figures \[fig:sync-0per-throughput\], \[fig:sync-2per-throughput\] and \[fig:sync-3per-throughput\].
\[h!\]
### The loss ratio
Fundamentally, TCP aims at maximizing the throughput while minimizing the loss ratio. Thus, in all scenarios, the new Elastic-TCP along with the studied CCAs produce very trivial loss ratios, which is not more than 0.5%, as shown in Table \[fig:lr\], where the rest of results have no much difference.
------ ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------
Cubic C-TCP Agile-SD Elastic-TCP
50 0.006840 0.036343 0.058301 0.009872
100 0.004418 0.031290 0.060696 0.003612
200 0.006269 0.017994 0.062253 0.024834
400 0.010915 0.024560 0.063563 0.028342
800 0.018782 0.012103 0.065065 0.035166
1600 0.030127 0.022083 0.065139 0.045517
3200 0.044965 0.040465 0.065239 0.063763
6400 0.071371 0.075520 0.070707 0.094607
------ ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------
: Loss ratio vs. buffer size: synchronous multi-flows scenario, $zero$ PER.
\[fig:lr\]
### The fairness
Simulation results show that all examined CCAs attain similar intra-fairness and RTT-fairness. However, thanks to the weighting function that enabled the Elastic-TCP to achieve slightly higher fairness index than other CCAs, especially in high PER and small buffer cases. Due to the trivial difference in fairness results among examined CCAs, figures \[fig:intra\] and \[fig:rtt\] were chosen to show samples of intra-fairness and RTT-fairness, respectively.
\[h!\]
Moreover, the inter-fairness of the examined CCAs against standard NewReno is measured in an individual experiment using the topology shown in Figure \[fig:topology\], where the result of this metric is shown in Figure \[fig:inter\]. For inter-fairness to NewReno, the Elastic-TCP achieves the highest score, which is around 91%, while Cubic-TCP and C-TCP achieve about 85% inter-fairness measurement. With regard to inter-fairness to Cubic-TCP, the Elastic-TCP and NewReno achieve the highest index which is about 84% while C-TCP achieves only 78%. For inter-fairness to C-TCP, both Elastic-TCP and NewReno attain about 85% while Cubic-TCP attains only 78%. In fact, the Elastic-TCP achieves a high level of inter-fairness to other standard CCAs due to its unique functionality of WWF.
Performance Evaluation of Elastic-TCP using Testbed {#PET}
===================================================
The proposed Elastic-TCP is compiled into the Linux kernel, version 4.9 using openSUSE Leap 42.2, to carry out the testbed experiment, in order to show the performance of Elastic-TCP in the real environment. Since Elastic-TCP is designed for long-distance networks, we used the Linux-based NetEm to emulate the delay and to control the buffer size.
Testbed Setup
-------------
A testbed of single dumbbell topology is built in our using real PCs connected to each other through 1Gbps wired links, as shown in Figure \[fig:testbed\]. In order to build this network topology, we installed Linux openSUSE 42.2 Leap over all servers and clients. Thereafter, we implemented our Elastic-TCP module into the Linux kernel over all servers and clients. In order to evaluate the tested CCAs, we transfer large files from the clients to the servers simultaneously, while the network traffic is monitored using TCPdump. As for NetEm, it is configured at all end-systems to provide 100ms round-trip time for all links. The experiment is repeated 30 times for every buffer size scenario, where the buffer size is varied from 50 to 12,500 packets. For the average throughput, the Standard Deviation (SD) with 95% Confident Interval (CI) and Standard Error have been calculated for every 30 runs for every set of parameter setup.
Moreover, the studied CCAs are evaluated over two scenarios, single-flow and multiple-flows scenario. In order to make our performance evaluation up to date, we included the TCP-BBR to our comparison. TCP-BBR is recently developed by Google and currently becomes the most promising candidate to replace current congestion control protocols in the upcoming 4.9 Linux kernel. Table \[params2\] shows the testbed parameters’ setup and configuration.
Parameter Value (s)
------------------------ ------------------------------------
TCP CCAs Cubic, C-TCP, TCP-BBR, Elastic-TCP
Link capacity 1Gbps for all links
Two-way delay 100ms for all links
Buffer size from 50 to 12500 packets
Packet size 1500 bytes
Queuing Algo Drop Tail
Traffic type FTP
Transfered file size 5.1GB
Runs for Each Scenario 30 times
: Testbed parameters setup and configuration.
\[params2\]
Testbed Results and Discussion
------------------------------
This subsection analytically discusses the testbed results and shows the average throughput, loss ratio, and fairness measurements in order to show the impact of long-delay and buffer size on the overall performance.
### The average throughput
As shown in Figure \[fig:14\], Elastic-TCP achieves higher average throughput compared to other TCP CCAs as a result of its fast *cwnd* growth resulted by its unique WWF mechanism. The Elastic-TCP performs better than the compared CCAs in most cases, particularly when the applied buffer size is small. In single-flow scenario, the Elastic-TCP improves the average throughput by up to 14% over TCP-BBR, up to 13% over Cubic and up to 154% over C-TCP. In multiple-flows scenario, Figure \[fig:17\] shows that the Elastic-TCP outperforms the compared CCAs, in terms of average throughput, in many cases, especially when the applied buffer size is small. Briefly, it enhances the average throughput by up to 23% over TCP-BBR, up to 14% over Cubic and up to 81% over C-TCP.
### The loss ratio
In the single-flow scenario, Elastic-TCP and TCP-BBR lose about 1 packet from every 10,000 packets (0.01%), Cubic loses about 10 packet from every 10,000 packets (0.1%), and C-TCP loses about 30 packets from every 10,000 packets (0.3%), as shown in Figure \[fig:15\]. In the multiple-flows scenario, in the cases of small buffers, Elastic-TCP and Cubic show the lowest loss ratio, where Elastic-TCP loses about 7 packets from every 1000 packets (0.7%) and the Cubic loses about 10 from every 1000 packets (1%) while TCP-BBR and C-TCP losses up to 1.4% and 2.1%, respectively. As for the large buffer scenarios, the loss ratio of all algorithms is between 0.8% to 1.5%, where the lowest loss ratio is provided by Elastic-TCP, as shown in Figure \[fig:18\].
\[h!\]
\[h!\]
### The fairness
The examined TCP CCAs have achieved similar intra-fairness in most cases. In the case of 50 packets buffer, C-TCP seems fairer than the compared CCAs followed by TCP-BBR, Elastic-TCP, and Cubic. However, the difference between the higher fairness and the lower fairness measurment ranges from 2% to 10%, which is slightly acceptable.
Summary and discussion of results {#disc}
=================================
The results reveal that Elastic-TCP is able to achieve higher bandwidth utilization compared to other TCP CCAs, while it minimizes the loss ratio and maintains the fairness. Due to its unique function, the proposed Elastic-TCP shows less sensitivity to the changes of PER and buffer size. In general, it shows better performance compared to other TCP CCAs, which is considered a significant improvement in terms of bandwidth utilization.
Based on simulation, Elastic-TCP improves: (1) up to 22% in the case of single flow, (2) up to 40% in the case of sequential multiple flows and (3) up to 50% in the case of synchronous multiple flows. In the second scenario, which represents a real network case where the coexisting TCP flows are not synchronously established or terminated, Elastic-TCP utilizes up to 80% of the available bandwidth while the others could not exceed 66% in case of large buffer size. Moreover, Elastic-TCP achieves from 47% to 66% bandwidth utilization, in the case of small buffer size, while the bandwidth utilization of the compared TCP CCAs varies from 5% to 29%. With regards to the impact of synchronized losses among the competing flows, the third scenario is used to show the impact of these losses on the average throughput. Fortunately, Elastic-TCP improves the throughput up to 50%, especially when the PER is high.
Furthermore, a testbed experiment is conducted to compare the performance of Elastic-TCP to the recent TCP CCAs available in the upcoming Linux kernel version 4.9, including Cubic, C-TCP, Agile-SD, and TCP-BBR. Indeed, TCP-BBR, which is recently developed by Google, is the most promising candidate to replace the current congestion control algorithms in the upcoming Linux kernel. However, the results show that the proposed Elastic-TCP can outperform Cubic, C-TCP, Agile-SD, and even TCP-BBR. Elastic-TCP improves the average throughput by up to 23% over TCP-BBR, up to 14% over Cubic and up to 81% over C-TCP.
Conclusion {#Conc}
==========
In this work, a novel RTT-independent and delay-based TCP CCA, namely Elastic-TCP, is proposed and evaluated. Elastic-TCP mainly contributes a new Window-correlated Weighting Function (WWF). Basically, the necessity of Elastic-TCP has been arisen by the inability of the existing CCAs in achieving full bandwidth utilization over high-BDP networks, especially when the used buffer is small and/or the packet losses are common. Further, a new Elastic-TCP module is designed, developed and attached to the NS-2 as a Linux-TCP module, which is ready for implementation into Linux kernel. Thereafter, simulation and testbed experiments are carried out to examine the performance of Elastic-TCP compared to TCP-BBR, Cubic, C-TCP, and Agile-SD. Elastic-TCP introduces significant improvement in terms of bandwidth utilization especially over congested networks, where the available buffer at the bottleneck is small and the loss ratio is very high.
The utility of Elastic-TCP is maximized if the sender-side end systems are Linux-based, which is very likely since a large number of Internet servers are Linux-based. However, since Elastic-TCP is an algorithm, it is not bound to a specific operating system and it can be implemented in any operating system such as Windows, Macintosh, and Sun Solaris.
Finally, the Elastic-TCP should be evaluated over satellite networks in order to take into account any potential issues. Also, there is a strong intention to examine the Elastic-TCP over wireless and mobile networks to study the impact of route changing and hand-off.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work is supported by Universiti Putra Malaysia and Al Asmarya Islamic University - Libya.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[ l@\#1 =l@\#1 \#2]{}]{}
A. Afanasyev, N. Tilley, P. Reiher, and L. Kleinrock, “[Host-to-Host Congestion Control for TCP]{},” *IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials*, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 304–342, 2010.
M. Scharf, “[Comparison of end-to-end and network-supported fast startup congestion control schemes]{},” *Computer Networks*, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1921–1940, 2011.
W. Xu, Z. Zhou, D. Pham, C. Ji, M. Yang, and Q. Liu, “Hybrid congestion control for high-speed networks,” *Journal of Network and Computer Applications*, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1416–1428, 2011.
C. Callegari, S. Giordano, M. Pagano, and T. Pepe, “[Behavior analysis of TCP Linux variants]{},” *Computer Networks*, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 462–476, 2012.
——, “A survey of congestion control mechanisms in linux tcp,” in *Distributed Computer and Communication Networks*, ser. Communications in Computer and Information Science, V. Vishnevsky, D. Kozyrev, and A. Larionov, Eds.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emSpringer International Publishing, 2014, vol. 279, pp. 28–42.
J. Wang, J. Wen, J. Zhang, Z. Xiong, and Y. Han, “Tcp-fit: An improved tcp algorithm for heterogeneous networks,” *Journal of Network and Computer Applications*, vol. 71, pp. 167–180, 2016.
N. Cardwell, Y. Cheng, C. S. Gunn, S. H. Yeganeh *et al.*, “[BBR]{}: congestion-based congestion control,” *Communications of the ACM*, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 58–66, 2017.
I. Rhee, L. Xu, S. Ha, A. Zimmermann, L. Eggert, and R. Scheffenegger, “Cubic for fast long-distance networks,” February 2018, [RFC]{} 8312, IETF Network Working Group.
M. A. [Alrshah]{}, M. [Othman]{}, B. [Ali]{}, and Z. M. [Hanapi]{}, “Comparative study of high-speed linux tcp variants over high-[BDP]{} networks,” *Journal of Network and Computer Applications*, vol. 43, pp. 66–75, 2014.
——, “Modeling the throughput of the linux-based [Agile-SD]{} transmission control protocol,” *IEEE Access*, vol. 4, pp. 9724–9732, 2017.
M. R. Kanagarathinam, S. Singh, I. Sandeep, A. Roy, and N. Saxena, “D-tcp: Dynamic tcp congestion control algorithm for next generation mobile networks,” in *Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), 2018 15th IEEE Annual*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6.
S. Acharya, “Study and analysis of tcp/ip congestion control techniques: A review,” *Illinois Journalism Education Association*, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 57–62, 2012.
M. A. [Alrshah]{} and M. [Othman]{}, “Test-bed based comparison of single and parallel tcp and the impact of parallelism on throughput and fairness in heterogenous networks,” in *ICCTD ’09. International Conference on Computer Technology and Development, 2009.*, vol. 1, Nov 2009, pp. 332–335.
S. Floyd and T. Henderson, “The newreno modification to tcp’s fast recovery algorithm,” April 1999, [RFC]{} 2582, IETF Network Working Group.
S. Floyd, “[HighSpeed TCP for Large Congestion Windows]{},” April 2003, [RFC]{} 3649, IETF Network Working Group.
T. Kelly, “[Scalable TCP : Improving Performance in Highspeed Wide Area Networks]{},” *ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review*, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 83–91, 2003.
C. Jin, D. Wei, S. H. Low, J. Bunn, H. D. Choe, J. C. Doylle, H. Newman, S. Ravot, S. Singh, F. Paganini, G. Buhrmaster, L. Cottrell, O. Martin, and W. chun Feng, “Fast tcp: from theory to experiments,” *IEEE Network*, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 4–11, 2005.
R. S. [D. Leith]{}, “H-tcp: Tcp for high-speed and long distance networks,” in *Proceedings of PFLDnet*, 2004, pp. 95–101.
C. Caini and R. Firrincieli, “[TCP Hybla: a TCP enhancement for heterogeneous networks]{},” *International Journal of Satellite Communications and Networking*, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 547–566, Sep 2004.
L. Xu, K. Harfoush, and I. Rhee, “Binary increase congestion control (bic) for fast long-distance networks,” in *INFOCOM 2004. Twenty-third Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies*, vol. 4, 2004, pp. 2514–2524.
R. King, R. Baraniuk, and R. Riedi, “[TCP-Africa: An adaptive and fair rapid increase rule for scalable TCP]{},” in *INFOCOM 2005. 24th Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Proceedings IEEE.*, 2005, pp. 1–11.
and [Ben Soh]{}, “[TCP New Vegas: Improving the Performance of TCP Vegas Over High Latency Links]{},” in *Fourth IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emIEEE, 2005, pp. 73–82.
H. Shimonishi, T. Hama, and T. Murase, “Tcp-adaptive reno for improving efficiency-friendliness tradeoffs of tcp congestion control algorithm,” in *Proc. PFLDnet*, 2006, pp. 87–91.
K. Tan and J. Song, “Compound tcp: A scalable and tcp-friendly congestion control for high-speed networks,” in *in 4th International workshop on Protocols for Fast Long-Distance Networks (PFLDNet)*, 2006, pp. 80–83.
S. Liu, T. Ba[ş]{}ar, and R. Srikant, “Tcp-illinois: A loss-and delay-based congestion control algorithm for high-speed networks,” *Performance Evaluation*, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 417–440, 2008.
K. Kaneko, T. Fujikawa, Z. Su, and J. Katto, “[TCP-Fusion : A Hybrid Congestion Control Algorithm for High-speed Networks]{},” in *Proc. PFLDnet, ISI, Marina Del Rey (Los Angeles), California.*, 2007, pp. 31–36.
A. Baiocchi, A. P. Castellani, and F. Vacirca, “[YeAH-TCP : Yet Another Highspeed TCP]{},” in *Proc. PFLDnet.*, Roma, Italy, 2007, pp. 37–42.
S. Ha and I. Rhee, “[CUBIC: A New TCP-Friendly High-Speed TCP Variant]{},” *SIGOPS Operating Systems Review*, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 64–74, 2008.
M. A. [Alrshah]{}, M. [Othman]{}, B. [Ali]{}, and Z. M. [Hanapi]{}, “[Agile-SD: A Linux-based [TCP]{} congestion control algorithm for supporting high-speed and short-distance networks]{},” *Journal of Network and Computer Applications*, vol. 55, pp. 181–190, 2015.
L. S. Brakmo and L. L. Peterson, “Tcp vegas: End to end congestion avoidance on a global internet,” *Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on*, vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 1465–1480, 1995.
Z. Wang and J. Crowcroft, “[Eliminating periodic packet losses in the 4.3-Tahoe BSD TCP congestion control algorithm]{},” *ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review*, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 9–16, 1992.
G. Wang, Y. Wu, K. Dou, Y. Ren, and J. Li, “Apptcp: The design and evaluation of application-based tcp for e-vlbi in fast long distance networks,” *Future Generation Computer Systems*, vol. 39, pp. 67–74, 2014.
R. Jain, D.-M. Chiu, and W. R. Hawe, *A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared computer system*. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emEastern Research Laboratory, Digital Equipment Corporation, 1984.
[Mohamed A. Alrshah]{} (M’13–SM’17) received his BSc degree in Computer Science from Naser University - Libya, in June 2000. Then, he received his MSc and Ph.D degrees in communication technology and networks from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) in May 2009 and Feb 2017, respectively. Now, he is an Assistant Professor (Senior Lecturer) in the Department of Communication Technology and Networks, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). He has published a number of articles in high-impact factor scientific journals. His research interests are in the field of high-speed TCP protocols, high-speed wired and wireless network, WSN, MANET, VANET, parallel and distributed algorithms, IoT and cloud computing.
[Mohamed A. Al-Moqri]{} received his BSc degree in Computer Science from Almustanseriah University - Iraq, in 2004. Then, he received his MSc and Ph.D degrees in communication technology and networks from Universiti Putra Malaysia in 2009 and 2016, respectively. Now, he is a Lecturer and Head of department of Information Technology in the Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Azal University for Human Development, Sana’a, Yemen. He has published a number of articles in high-impact factor scientific journals. His research interests are in the field of high-speed TCP protocols, high-speed network, QoS, scheduling algorithms, admission control and wireless networks.
[Mohamed Othman]{} (M’06–SM’18) received his Ph.D from the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) with distinction (Best Ph.D Thesis in 2000 awarded by Sime Darby Malaysia and Malaysian Mathematical Science Society). Now, he is a Professor in the Department of Communication Technology and Networks, Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). He is also an associate researcher at the Lab of Computational Science and Mathematical Physics, Institute of Mathematical Research (INSPEM), UPM. He published more than 160 International journals and 230 proceeding papers. His main research interests are in the fields of high-speed network, parallel and distributed algorithms, software defined networking, network design and management, wireless network (MPDU- and MSDU-Frame aggregation, MAC layer, resource management, and traffic monitoring) and scientific telegraph equation and modelling.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Conformally gauge-fixed Polyakov D1 brane action is seen to be a constrained system in the sense of Dirac when it is considered on the light-front in contrast to the case when it is consdired in the instant-form. The model is quantized using the standard constraint quantization techniques on the light-front.'
---
[**“Polyakov D1 Brane Action On the Light-Front” [^1]** ]{}\
D.S. Kulshreshtha\
Department of Physics and Astrophysics,\
University of Delhi, Delhi-110007, India.\
Email: [email protected]\
**Conformally Gauge-Fixed Polyakov D1 Brane\
Action**
============================================
Conformally gauge-fixed Polyakov D1 brane action [@1; @2] is quantized on the light-front using the equal light-cone (LC) world-sheet (WS) time framework on the hyperplanes of the LF defined by the LC-WS time $\sigma^{+} = (\tau + \sigma) = $ constant. The Polyakov D1 brane action which describes the propagation of a D1 brane in a d-dimensional curved background $h_{\alpha \beta}$ (with d = 10 for the fermionic and d = 26 for bosonic D1 brane) is defined by [@1; @2]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde S &=& \int \tilde{\cal L} d^{2} \sigma \\
\label{1a}
\tilde{\cal L} &=& \biggl[ - \frac{T}{2} {\sqrt{-h}} h^{\alpha\beta} G_{\alpha\beta} \biggr] \quad ; \quad h = \det (h_{\alpha\beta}) \\
\label{1b}
G_{\alpha\beta} &=& {\partial}_{\alpha} X^{\mu} {\partial}_{\beta} X^{\nu} {\eta}_{\mu\nu}; ~ {\eta}_{\mu\nu} = {\rm diag} (-1,+1,...,+1) \\
\label{1c}
\mu,\nu &=& 0,1, i ; ~ i = 2,3,....,(d-1) \quad;\quad \alpha,\beta = 0,1
\label{1d} \end{aligned}$$
Here $\sigma^{\alpha} \equiv (\tau,\sigma)$ are the two parameters describing the worldsheet (WS). The overdots and primes would denote the derivatives with respect to $\tau$ and $\sigma$. $T$ is the string tension. $G_{\alpha\beta}$ is the induced metric on the WS and $X^{\mu}(\tau, \sigma)$ are the maps of the WS into the $d$-dimensional Minkowski space and describe the strings evolution in space-time [@1; @2]. $h_{\alpha\beta}$ are the auxiliary fields (which turn out to be proportional to the metric tensor ${\eta}_{\alpha\beta}$ of the two-dimensional surface swept out by the string). One can think of ${\tilde S} $ as the action describing $d$ massless scalar fields $X^{\mu}$ in two dimensions moving on a curved background $h_{\alpha\beta}$. Also because the metric components $h_{\alpha\beta}$ are varied in the above equation, the 2-dimensional gravitational field $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is treated not as a given background field, but rather as an adjustable quantity coupled to the scalar fields [@1]. The action ${\tilde S} $ has the well-known three local gauge symmetries given by the 2-dimensional WS reparametrization invariance (WSRI) and the Weyl invariance (WI) [@1; @2]. We could use the three local gauge symmetries of the theory to choose $h_{\alpha\beta}$ to be of a particular form [@1; @2]:
$$\begin{aligned}
h_{\alpha\beta} &=& {\eta}_{\alpha\beta} =
\left( \begin{array}{ll} -1 & ~~0 \\ ~~0 & +1 \end{array} \right) \\
{\sqrt{-h}} &=& {\sqrt{-\det(h_{\alpha\beta})} } = +1
\label{2}\end{aligned}$$
This is the so-called conformal gauge (CG) and the action ${\tilde S} $ in this CG becomes:
$$\begin{aligned}
S^{N} &=& \int {\cal L}^{N} d^{2} \sigma \\
\label{3a}
{\cal L}^{N} &=& (-T/2) {\sqrt{-h}} h^{\alpha\beta} G_{\alpha\beta} \\
\label{3b}
&=& (-T/2) {\partial}^{\beta} X^{\mu} {\partial}_{\beta} X_{\mu} \\
\label{3c}
\mu,\nu &=& 0,1, i ; ~ i = 2,3,....,(d-1) \quad;\quad \alpha,\beta = 0,1
\label{3d} \end{aligned}$$
The canonical momenta conjugate to $X^{\mu}$ obtained from the above equation is seen to be expressible and therefore the system is unconstrained in the sense of Dirac[@4] and the quantization of the system is therefore trivial. The nonvanishing equal WS-time (EWST) commutation relations for the theory are given by [@1; @2]:
$$[ X^{\mu}(\sigma, \tau)~ ,~ P_{\nu} (\sigma' , \tau)] = i {\delta}^{\mu}_{\nu} \delta(\sigma - \sigma')
\label{4}$$
where $\delta( \sigma - \sigma' )$ is the Dirac distribution function.
Light-Front Quantization
=========================
For the LFQ of the theory we use the three local gauge symmetries of the theory to choose $h_{\alpha\beta}$ to be of a particular form as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
h_{\alpha\beta} &:=& {\eta}_{\alpha\beta} =
\left( \begin{array}{ll} ~~~~0 & -1/2 \\ -1/2 & ~~~~0 \end{array} \right) \\
{\sqrt{-h}} &=& {\sqrt{- \det(h_{\alpha\beta)}} } = + 1/2 \\
h^{\alpha\beta} &:=& {\eta}^{\alpha\beta} = \left( \begin{array}{ll} ~~0 & -2 \\ -2 & ~~0 \end{array} \right)
\label{5}\end{aligned}$$
This is the so-called conformal gauge (CG) in the LFQ of the theory. In this LC formulation, we use the LC variables defined by [@1; @2]:
$${\sigma}^{\pm} := (\tau \pm \sigma) \quad {\rm and} \quad X^{\pm} := (X^{0} \pm X^{1})/ {\sqrt 2}
\label{6}$$
The action ${\tilde S} $ in the above CG, in the LF quantization reads:
$$\begin{aligned}
S^{N} &=& \int {\cal L}^{N} d {\sigma}^{+} d {\sigma}^{-} \\
\label{7a}
{\cal L}^{N} &=& (-T/2) {\partial}^{\beta} X^{\mu} {\partial}_{\beta} X_{\mu} \\ \label{7b}
&=& \biggl[\frac{-T}{2} \biggr] \biggl[ ({\partial}_{+} X^{+}) ({\partial}_{-} X^{-} ) + ({\partial}_{+} X^{-} )({\partial}_{-} X^{+} ) + ({\partial}_{+} X^{i} ) ({\partial}_{-} X^{i} )\biggr] \\
\label{7c}
\mu,\nu &=& + , - , i \quad ;\quad i = 2,3,... (d-1) \quad;\quad \alpha , \beta = + , -
\label{7d}\end{aligned}$$
Now onwards we study the Polyakov D1 brane LC action $S^{N} $ defined by the above equation. This theory is seen to possess 26 primary constraints[@2; @3; @4]:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\chi}_{1} & = & (P^{+} + \frac{T}{2} {\partial}_{-} X^{+}) \approx 0 \\
\label{8a}
{\chi}_{2} & = & (P^{-} + \frac{T}{2} {\partial}_{-} X^{-}) \approx 0 \\
\label{8b}
{\chi}_{i} & = & (P_{i} + \frac{T}{2} {\partial}_{-} X^{i} ) \approx 0
\quad ; \quad i = 2,3,.....,(d-1).
\label{8c}\end{aligned}$$
The canonical Hamiltonian density corresponding to ${\cal L}^{N} $ is seen to vanish weekly in the sense of Dirac[@4]. After including these primary constraints in the canonical Hamiltonian density ${\cal H}^{N}_{c}$ with the help of Lagrange multiplier fields $u, v$ and $w_{i}$, which are dynamical, the total Hamiltonian density ${\cal H}^{N}_{T} $ could be written as
$${\cal H}^{N}_{T} = \biggl[ u(P^{+} + \frac{T}{2} {\partial}_{-} X^{+}) + v( P^{-} + \frac{T}{2} {\partial}_{-} X^{-} ) + w_{i} (P_{i} + \frac{T}{2} {\partial}_{-} X^{i}) \biggr]
\label{9}$$
The Hamilton’s equations obtained from the total Hamiltonian are the equations of motion of the theory that preserve the constraints of the theory in the course of time. Demanding that the primary constraints ${\chi}_{1}, {\chi}_{2}$ and ${\chi}_{i}$ be preserved in the course of time one does not get any secondary constraints. The theory is thus seen to possess only 26 constraints ${\chi}_{1}, {\chi}_{2}$ and ${\chi}_{i}$. The Hamilton’s equations obtained from the above total Hamiltonian describe the correct dynamics of the system. Now, following the standard Dirac quantization procedure in the Hamiltonian formulation [@4], the nonvanishing equal LC world-sheet-time (ELCWST) commutators of the theory described by the Polyakov D1 brane LC action $S^{N} $ could be obtained after a lengthy but straight forward calculation and are omitted here for the sake of brevity[@3; @4; @5]. In the path integral formulation, the transition to the quantum theory, is, however, made by writing the vacuum to vacuum transition amplitude called the generating functional $Z [ J_{k} ]$ of the theory in the presence of external sources $J_{k}$ which is obtained for the present theory as follows [@2; @3] :
$$Z [J_{k}] := \int[d\mu] \exp \biggl[ i \int d {\sigma}^{+} d {\sigma}^{-}\biggl[ (- T/2) [ u({\partial}_{-} X^{+}) + v({\partial}_{-} X^{-} ) + w_{i}({\partial}_{-} X^{i} ) ] + J_{k} {\Phi}^{k} \biggr]
\label{10}$$
where the phase space variables of the theory are $ {\Phi}^{k} \equiv (X^{+},X^{-}, X^{i},u,v,w_{i} )$ with the corresponding respective canonical conjugate momenta: ${\Pi}_{k} \equiv (P^{-},P^{+},P_{i},p_{u},p_{v}, {p}_{w_{i}} )$. The functional measure $[d\mu]$ of the generating functional $Z [J_{k}]$ is obtained as [@2; @3]:
$$\begin{aligned}
[d\mu] &=& [T {\partial}_{-} \delta( {\sigma}^{-} - {\sigma'}^{-} ]^{3/2} [dX^{+}][dX^{-}][dX^{i}]
\nonumber \\
& & [du][dv][dw_{i}] [dP^{-}][dP^{+}][dP_{i}]
\nonumber \\
& & [dp_{u}][dp_{v}] [dp_{w_{i}}] \delta [(P^{+} + \frac{T}{2} {\partial}_{-} X^{+} ) \approx 0]
\nonumber \\
& & \delta [(P^{-} + \frac{T}{2} {\partial}_{-} X^{-}) \approx 0] \delta [ ( P_{i} + \frac{T}{2} {\partial}_{-} X^{i} ) \approx 0].
\label{11}\end{aligned}$$
The LC Hamiltonian and path integral quantization of the Polyakov D1 brane action $S^{N} $ under the conformal gauge using the ELCWST framework on the hyperplanes of the world-sheet defined by LC world-sheet time: $ {\sigma}^{+} = ( \sigma + \tau )$ = constant is now complete. Also because this is a (conformally) gauge-fixed action, the theory is therefore gauge noninvariant as expected and the associated constraints of the theory form a set of second-class constraints. The problem of operator ordering that occurs while making a transition from the Dirac brackets to the corresponding commutation relations could be resolved by demanding that all the string fields and momenta of the theory are Hermitian operators and that all the canonical commutation relations be consistent with the hermiticity of these operators [@2]. It is important to mention here that in our work we have not imposed any boundary conditions (BC’s) for the open and closed strings separately. There are two ways to take these BC’s into account: (a) one way is to impose them directly in the usual way for the open and closed strings separately in an appropriate manner [@1; @2], and (b) an alternative second way is to treat these BC’s as the Dirac primary constraints [@6] and study the theory accordingly [@6]. In conclusion, the conformally gauge-fixed Polyakov D1 brane action is seen to be a constrained system in the sense of Dirac when it is considered on the light-front in contrast to the case when it is consdired in the instant-form. The model is quantized using the standard constraint quantization techniques on the light-front.
[99]{}
D. Luest and S. Theisen, “Lectures in String Theory” Lecture Notes in Physics, [**346**]{} Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1989; L. Brink and M. Henneaux, “Principles of String Theory” Plenum Press 1988; C.V. Johnson, “D-Brane Primer”, hep-th/0007170; M. Aganagic, J. Park, C. Popescu and J. Schwarz, “Dual D-Brane Actions”,Nucl. Phys. [**B496**]{}, 215-230 (1997) (hep-th/9702133); M. Abou Zeid and C.M. Hull, “Intrinsic Geometry of D-Branes”, Phys. Lett. [**B404**]{}, 264-270 (1997) (hep-th/9704021); C. Schmidhuber, Nucl. Phys. [**B467**]{}, 146 (1996); S. P. de Alwis, K. Sato, phys. Rev. [**D53**]{}, 7187 (1996); A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. [**469**]{}, 51 (1996).
Usha Kulshreshtha and D.S. Kulshreshtha, Phys. Lett. [**B555**]{}, (Nos. 3-4), 255-263 (2003); Usha Kulshreshtha and D.S. Kulshreshtha, European Physical Journal [**C29**]{}, 453-461 (2003); International J. Theor. Phys. [**43**]{}, 2355-2369 (2004); International J. Theor. Phys. [**44**]{}, 587-603 (2005); D.S. Kulshreshtha, hep-th/0711.1342.
M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim, “Quantization of Gauge Systems”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1992.
P.A.M. Dirac, Canadian J. Math. [**2**]{}, 129 (1950).
P.A.M. Dirac. Rev. of Mod. Phys. [**21**]{}, 392 (1949); for a recent review on the FF/LCQ see, e.g., S.J. Brodsky, H.C. Pauli and S.S. Pinsky, Phys. Rep. [**301**]{}, 299 (1998).
M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and A. Shirzad; “Boundary Conditions as Dirac Constraints”, Euro. Phys. J. [**C19**]{}, 795-802 (2001)(hep-th/9907055).
[^1]: “Invited Contributed Talk” delivered at the International Conference On "Light Cone 2008: Relativistic Nuclear and Particle Physics (LC2008)”, Mulhouse, France, July 07-11, 2008.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Eigenstates of a particle in a localized and unconfined harmonic potential well are investigated. Effects due to the variation of the potential parameters as well as certain results from asymptotic expansions are discussed. Key words: short-range harmonic oscillator; bound states; confluent hypergeometric function'
author:
- |
L.B. Castro and A.S. de Castro[^1]\
\
UNESP - Campus de Guaratinguetá\
Departamento de Física e Química\
12516-410 Guaratinguetá SP - Brazil\
title: 'Trapping of a particle in a short-range harmonic potential well'
---
Introduction
============
Systems confined have received considerable attention in quantum mechanics. The hydrogen atom confined in a spherical enclosure was first analyzed in 1937 [@mic], the restricted rotator in 1940 [@som1] and the harmonic oscillator in 1943 [@cha]. Since then the one-dimensional oscillator immersed in an infinite square potential has received some attention [aul]{}-[@vaw]. It should also be mentioned that two different cases for a sort of one-dimensional half-oscillator have also been reported, one of them bound by an infinite wall [@dea], [@mei] and the other one by a finite step potential [@mei]. Recently, the D-dimensional confined harmonic oscillator appeared in the literature [@mon1]-[@mon2].
The square well potential is an unconfined potential with vertical walls that has been used to model band structure in solids [@kro] and semiconductor heterostructures [@esa]-[@red]. The use of a quantum well with sloping sides might be of interest to refine those models. As a matter of fact, a sort of localized triangular potential has been an item of recent practical [@cha2]-[@ban] and theoretical [@lui]-[castro]{} investigations.
In this paper we consider the bound-state problem for a particle immersed in an one-dimensional harmonic potential which vanishes outside a finite region. To the best of our knowledge this sort of trapping has never been solved. By using confluent hypergeometric functions the process of solving the Schrödinger equation for the eigenenergies is transmuted into the simpler and more efficient process of solving a transcendental equation. Such as for the well-known square potential, a graphical method provides some qualitative conclusions about the spectrum of this short-range potential well. Approximate analytical results for the special cases of low-lying states and high-lying states are obtained with the help of asymptotic representations and limiting forms for the confluent hypergeometric function. It is shown that the localized harmonic potential yields the full harmonic potential and the square well potential as limiting cases. Although the quantization condition has no closed form expressions in terms of simpler functions, the exact computation of the allowed eigenenergies can be done easily with a root-finding procedure of a symbolic algebra program. Proceeding in this way, the whole bound-state spectrum is found. Nevertheless, our purpose is to investigate the basic nature of the phenomena without entering into the details involving specific applications. In other words, the aim of this paper is to explore a simple system which can be of help to see more clearly what is going on into the details of a more specialized and complex circumstance such as that one in Ref. [@cru].
The particle in a short-range harmonic potential well
=====================================================
Let us write the short-range harmonic potential well as $$\begin{aligned}
V(x) &=&\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^{2}\left( x^{2}-rL^{2}\right) \left[ \theta
\left( x+L\right) -\theta \left( x-L\right) \right] \nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
&=&\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^{2}\left( x^{2}-rL^{2}\right) \\
\\
0%
\end{array}%
\begin{array}{c}
{\textrm{for }}|x|<L \\
\\
{\textrm{for }}|x|>L%
\end{array}%
\right. \label{VV}\end{aligned}$$where $\theta \left( x\right) $ is the Heaviside function, $2L$ is the range of the potential, $m$ is the mass of the particle and $\omega $ is the classical frequency of the oscillator. The parameter $r=V(0)/[V(0)-V(L)]$ characterizes four different profiles for the potential as illustrated in Fig. 1. This potential admits scattering states (with $E>0$) and bound states (with $V(0)<E<0$ and $r>0$). In what follows we will consider the bound-state problem.
Let us introduce the new variable$$z=\alpha \,x,\quad \alpha =\sqrt{\frac{2m\omega }{\hslash }} \label{w}$$so that, for $|x|<L$, the Schrödinger equation$$\frac{d^{2}\psi (x)}{dx^{2}}+\frac{2m}{\hslash ^{2}}\left[ E-V\left(
x\right) \right] \psi (x)=0 \label{sch}$$turns into the dimensionless form $$\frac{d^{2}\psi (z)}{dz^{2}}-\left( \frac{z^{2}}{4}+a\right) \psi (z)=0
\label{airy}$$where$$a=\frac{V(0)-E}{\hslash \omega } \label{a}$$The general solution for Eq. (\[airy\]) can be written as a superposition of definite-parity functions [@abr]$$\psi =c_{e}\,y_{1}(a,z)+c_{o}\,y_{2}(a,z) \label{psi}$$where$$y_{1}(a,z)=e^{-z^{2}/4}\,M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},\frac{%
z^{2}}{2}\right)$$$$y_{2}(a,z)=e^{-z^{2}/4}\,z\,M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{2},%
\frac{z^{2}}{2}\right) \label{eq}$$where $M(a,b,z)=\,_{1}F_{1}\left( a;b;z\right) $ is the confluent hypergeometric function (Kummer’s function)$$M(a,b,z)=\frac{\Gamma \left( b\right) }{\Gamma \left( a\right) }%
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\frac{\Gamma \left( a+n\right) }{\Gamma \left(
b+n\right) }\,\frac{z^{n}}{n!} \label{m}$$$\Gamma \left( z\right) $ is the gamma function, and $c_{e}$ and $c_{o}$ are arbitrary constants. For $x>L$, the evanescent free-particle solution ($\psi
$ must vanish as $x\rightarrow \infty $) is expressed as $$\psi =c\,e^{-kx} \label{s2}$$where $c$ is an arbitrary constant and $$k=\sqrt{\frac{-2mE}{\hslash ^{2}}}=\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{L}\sqrt{\frac{r}{4}+%
\frac{a}{z_{L}^{2}}} \label{epsilon}$$Here, $$z_{L}=\alpha L=\sqrt{2}\,\frac{\sqrt{\omega }L}{\sqrt{\hslash /m}}
\label{zl}$$is the value of $z$ at $x=L$. Because $V\left( -x\right) =V\left( x\right) $, the Schrödinger equation is invariant under space inversion ($%
x\rightarrow -x$) and so we can choose solutions with definite parities. The even ($\psi _{e}$) and odd ($\psi _{o}$) parity eigenfunctions on the entire $x$-axis can be written as$$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{e}\left( x\right) &=&c_{e}\,e^{-\alpha ^{2}x^{2}/4}\,M\left( \frac{a%
}{2}+\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},\frac{\alpha ^{2}x^{2}}{2}\right) \left[ \theta
\left( x+L\right) -\theta \left( x-L\right) \right] \nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
&&+\,c\,e^{-k|x|}\left[ \theta \left( x-L\right) +\theta \left( -x-L\right) %
\right] \label{funpp}\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
\psi _{o}\left( x\right) &=&c_{o}\,\alpha \,x\,e^{-\alpha
^{2}x^{2}/4}\,M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{2},\frac{\alpha
^{2}x^{2}}{2}\right) \left[ \theta \left( x+L\right) -\theta \left(
x-L\right) \right] \nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
&&+\,c\,e^{-k|x|}\left[ \theta \left( x-L\right) -\theta \left( -x-L\right) %
\right] \label{funii}\end{aligned}$$The even parity solutions satisfy the homogeneous Neumann condition at the origin ($d\psi (x)/dx|_{x=0}=0$) and the odd ones the homogeneous Dirichlet condition ($\psi (0)=0$). In this circumstance it is enough to concentrate our attention on the positive side of the $x$-axis and use the continuity of $\psi (x)$ and $d\psi (x)/dx$ at $x=L$. Making use of the recurrence formulas involving $y_{1}$ and $y_{2}$ defined in (\[eq\]) [@abr]$$\frac{dy_{1}(a,z)}{dz}+\frac{z}{2}\,y_{1}(a,z)=\left( a+\frac{1}{2}\right)
y_{2}(a+1,z)$$$$\frac{dy_{2}(a,z)}{dz}+\frac{z}{2}\,y_{2}(a,z)=y_{1}(a+1,z) \label{recrec}$$one has as a result$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\psi }{dx} &=&\alpha e^{-z^{2}/4}\left\{ c_{e}\,z\left[ \left( a+%
\frac{1}{2}\right) M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{5}{4},\frac{3}{2},\frac{z^{2}}{2%
}\right) -\frac{1}{2}M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},\frac{z^{2}%
}{2}\right) \right] \right. \nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
&&+\left. c_{o}\left[ M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{2},\frac{z^{2}%
}{2}\right) -\frac{z^{2}}{2}M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{2},%
\frac{z^{2}}{2}\right) \right] \right\} \label{difdif}\end{aligned}$$The continuity of $\psi $ at $x=L$ says that$$c\,e^{-kL}$$is equal to$$c_{e}\,e^{-z_{L}^{2}/4}\,M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},\frac{%
z_{L}^{2}}{2}\right) \label{p1}$$for even parity solutions, and equal to $$c_{o}\,e^{-z_{L}^{2}/4}z_{L}\,M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{2},%
\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}\right) \label{i1}$$for odd parity solutions. Matching $d\psi /dx$ at $x=L$ makes$$-kc\,e^{-kL}$$equal to$$c_{e}\,\alpha \,e^{-z_{L}^{2}/4}\,z_{L}\left[ \left( a+\frac{1}{2}\right)
M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{5}{4},\frac{3}{2},\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}\right) -%
\frac{1}{2}M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2},\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}%
\right) \right] \label{p2}$$for even parity solutions, and equal to$$c_{o}\,\alpha \,e^{-z_{L}^{2}/4}\,\left[ M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{3}{4},%
\frac{1}{2},\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}\right) -\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}M\left( \frac{a}{2%
}+\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{2},\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}\right) \right] \label{i2}$$for odd parity solutions. Remembering the definition of $k$ from ([epsilon]{}) and dividing (\[p2\]) by (\[p1\]), and (\[i2\]) by (\[i1\]), one finds the quantization condition$$f=g \label{alpha2}$$where$$f=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{2}-\left( a+\frac{1}{2}\right) \frac{M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{5}{4}%
,\frac{3}{2},\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}\right) }{M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{1}{4},%
\frac{1}{2},\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}\right) } \\
\\
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{z_{L}^{2}}\,\frac{M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{3}{4},\frac{%
1}{2},\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}\right) }{M\left( \frac{a}{2}+\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{2%
},\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}\right) }%
\end{array}%
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{for even parity solutions} \\
\\
\\
\\
\textrm{for odd parity solutions}%
\end{array}%
\right. \label{g}$$and$$g=\sqrt{\frac{r}{4}+\frac{a}{z_{L}^{2}}} \label{f}$$By solving the quantization condition for $a$ in the range$$-r\,\left( \frac{z_{L}}{2}\right) ^{2}<a<0 \label{res}$$one obtains the possible energy levels for a particle trapped in the potential well by inserting the allowed values of $a$ in (\[a\]). Hence,$$E=V\left( 0\right) +|a|\,\hslash \omega \label{e2}$$Notice that $a$ only depends on the potential parameters via $r$ and $z_{L}$.
Qualitative analysis
====================
A few qualitative results can be obtained with the aid of a plot of the functions $f$ and $g$ on the same grid. Figure 2 shows the behaviour of $f$ against $|a|$ for two different values of $\sqrt{\omega }L$, and $g$ $\ $for three different values of $r$. The eigenenergies are determined by the intersections of the curves defined by $f$ with the square-root function defined by $g$ ($0<g<\sqrt{r}/2$). Without ever solving the quantization condition one is now apt to draw some conclusions about the localized oscillator. It is instructive to note that this process for determining the spectrum for the localized oscillator looks similar to that one for the square potential. Notwithstanding, the zeros and poles of $f$ do not occur at regular intervals as they do for $\tan \left( x\right) $ and $\cot \left(
x\right) $.
Seen as a function of $|a|$, $f$ presents branches of monotonically increasing curves limited by vertical asymptotes due to the zeros of $%
M\left( a/2+1/4,1/2,z_{L}^{2}/2\right) $ and $M\left(
a/2+3/4,3/2,z_{L}^{2}/2\right) $. For large $\sqrt{\omega }L$ and small $|a|$, the abscissae of those asymptotes become approximately $n+1/2$, where $n$ is a nonnegative integer, and so do the zeros of $f$.
Since the confluent hypergeometric function goes to $1$ as $z_{L}\rightarrow
0$, one has that $f\rightarrow |a|$ for even parity solutions and $%
f\rightarrow -\infty $ for odd ones as $\sqrt{\omega }L\rightarrow 0$. Then, because the square-root function vanishes for $|a|=r\left( z_{L}/2\right)
^{2}$ just one eigenenergy, that one associated with an even parity eigenfunction with $|a|\simeq 0$, is allowed.
The number of possible bound states grows with $r\left( z_{L}/2\right) ^{2}$ but it is restricted by the value of $|a|$ which makes the square-root function vanish. Therefore, the bound-states solutions constitute a finite set of solutions if the potential parameters are finite.
The spectrum consists of energy levels associated with eigenfunctions of alternate parities. The number of allowed bound states grows as the potential parameters increase and there is at least one solution, no matter how small the parameters are. All the eigenenergies, in the sense of $|a|$, tend asymptotically to the values $n+1/2$ as $\sqrt{\omega }L\rightarrow
\infty $ ($n=0,1,2,3,\ldots $). The energy levels tend to higher energies as the parameter $r$ increases. As a function of $\sqrt{\omega }L$, the energy level is a monotonous increasing function for $r\leq 1$ but enclosing the oscillator with vertical walls ($r>1$) makes the energy level to reach a maximum for some value of $\sqrt{\omega }L$.
Approximate analytical calculations
===================================
Asymptotic representations and limiting forms for the confluent hypergeometric function allow us to obtain approximate analytical results for the special cases of low-lying states and high-lying states.
The asymptotic expression which determines $M\left( a,b,z\right) $ for $%
a\rightarrow -\infty $ reads [@abr]$$M(a,b,z)=\Gamma (b)e^{z/2}\left( \frac{1}{2}bz-az\right) ^{\frac{1}{4}-\frac{%
b}{2}}\pi ^{-1/2}$$$$\times \cos \left[ \sqrt{2bz-4az}+\left( \frac{1}{4}-\frac{b}{2}\right) \pi %
\right] \left[ 1+\mathcal{O}\left( |b/2-a|^{-1/2}\right) \right] ,\quad
\textrm{for }z\in \mathbb{R}$$Since $\Gamma \left( 3/2\right) =\Gamma \left( 1/2\right) /2$, it follows that the quantization condition expressed by (\[alpha2\]) takes the form$$kL-\frac{z_{L}^{2}}{2}\simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\left( \sqrt{|a|}z_{L}\right) \tan \left( \sqrt{|a|}z_{L}\right) \\
\\
-\left( \sqrt{|a|}z_{L}\right) \cot \left( \sqrt{|a|}z_{L}\right)
\end{array}%
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{for even parity solutions} \\
\\
\textrm{for odd parity solutions}%
\end{array}%
\right. \label{QC3}$$A further simplification occurs for $V(L)-V(0)<<|E|<<|V(0)|$, when $%
kL>>z_{L}^{2}/2$:$$kL\simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\left( \sqrt{|a|}z_{L}\right) \tan \left( \sqrt{|a|}z_{L}\right) \\
\\
-\left( \sqrt{|a|}z_{L}\right) \cot \left( \sqrt{|a|}z_{L}\right)
\end{array}%
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{for even parity solutions} \\
\\
\textrm{for odd parity solutions}%
\end{array}%
\right.$$In this case the eigenfunction inside the well turns into$$\psi \left( x\right) \simeq c_{e}\,\cos \left( \sqrt{|a|}\alpha x\right) +%
\frac{c_{o}}{\sqrt{|a|}}\,\sin \left( \sqrt{|a|}\alpha x\right)$$Here we considered high-lying states in a harmonic potential extending far down ($r>>1$) and got the solutions for a square well potential. It means that we may neglect any effects associated with the bottom of $V(x)$ as far as high-lying states are concerned. It is instructive to note that the condition $V(L)-V(0)<<|V(0)|$ makes the bottom of the potential look flat.
For small $z$, the hypergeometric function $M\left( a,b,z\right) $ goes like$$M\left( a,b,z\right) =1+\frac{a}{b}\,z+\frac{a\left( a+1\right) }{2b\left(
b+1\right) }\,z^{2}+\ldots \label{z0}$$Thus, the quantization condition for $z_{L}<<1$ turns into$$\begin{array}{c}
|a|+\left( |a|^{2}-\frac{r}{4}\right) z_{L}^{2}\simeq 0 \\
\\
\,1+\frac{|a|}{3}\,z_{L}^{2}\simeq 0%
\end{array}%
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{for even parity solutions} \\
\\
\\
\textrm{for odd parity solutions}%
\end{array}%$$Hence, just one root is allowed: $|a|\simeq 0$ for the even parity solution. This quasi-null eigenenergy solution and its very delocalized eigenfunction are valid for $\sqrt{\omega }L<<\sqrt{\hslash /m}$ when $V(0)\simeq 0$. In this case the potential looks like a little ripple, a shallow well.
On the other hand, for large values of $|z|$ one has [@abr]$$\frac{M\left( a,b,z\right) }{\Gamma \left( b\right) }\simeq \frac{%
e^{z}\,z^{a-b}}{\Gamma \left( a\right) }\,,\quad \textrm{for Re }z>0
\label{ass}$$In conjunction with the identity $\Gamma \left( z+1\right) =z\,\Gamma \left(
z\right) $ and with the fact that $\Gamma \left( z\right) $ has simple poles at $z=-n$ $\ $with $n=0,1,2,3,\ldots $, the insertion of (\[ass\]) into (\[g\]) furnishes$$f\simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
-1/2 \\
\\
{\textrm{undefined}}%
\end{array}%
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{for }|a|\neq n+1/2 \\
\\
\textrm{for }|a|=n+1/2%
\end{array}%
\right. \label{asy}$$for both even and odd parity solutions. The singular behaviour of $f$ when $%
|a|=n+1/2$ is the reason that it undergoes infinite discontinuities at those values of $|a|$, as can be grasped from Figure 2. It follows that, for sufficiently large $z_{L}$, the square-root function can be expressed by$$g\simeq \frac{\sqrt{r}}{2} \label{squareroot}$$and the values $$|a|\simeq \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
2n+1/2 \\
\\
2n+3/2%
\end{array}%
\begin{array}{c}
\textrm{for even parity solutions} \\
\\
\textrm{for odd parity solutions}%
\end{array}%
\right. \label{qc2}$$fulfill the quantization condition. Eq. (\[qc2\]) represents a convenient approximation as far as one considers the lowest values of $|a|$. As a matter of fact, the intersections of the functions $f$ and $g$ occur just slightly below the abscissae of the vertical asymptotes of $f$. Indeed, a better approximation is obtained as $r$ grows. Nevertheless, for all the values of $r$, the agreement improves as $z_{L}$ gets larger. In this approximation, $M\left( a,b,z\right) $ reduces to a polynomial of degree $n$ in $z$ when $a=-n$. In particular, for $b=1/2$ and $b=3/2$ one has [@abr]$$\begin{aligned}
H_{2n}\left( x\right) &=&\left( -1\right) ^{n}\frac{\left( 2n\right) !}{n!}%
M\left( -n,\frac{1}{2},x^{2}\right) \nonumber \\
&& \nonumber \\
H_{2n+1}\left( x\right) &=&\left( -1\right) ^{n}\frac{\left( 2n+1\right) !}{%
n!}\,2x\,M\left( -n,\frac{3}{2},x^{2}\right) \label{he}\end{aligned}$$where $H_{n}\left( x\right) $ is the Hermite polynomial. Therefore, for $%
\sqrt{\omega }L>>\sqrt{\hslash /m}$ one gets the condensed form$$E_{n}\simeq V\left( 0\right) +\left( n+\frac{1}{2}\right) \,\hslash \omega
,\quad \psi _{n}\left( x\right) \simeq N_{n}\,e^{-\alpha
^{2}x^{2}/4}H_{n}\left( \frac{\alpha x}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$$where $N_{n}$ is a normalization factor. The approximate results for $\sqrt{%
\omega }L>>\sqrt{\hslash /m}$ are expected to be exact in the limit $%
L\rightarrow \infty $ when the potential goes over to the full-space harmonic oscillator. It is comforting to note that the particular values of $%
|a|$ obtained from the quantization condition are the same as those which make the eigenfunction normalizable on the interval $\left( -\infty ,+\infty
\right) $. The harmonic oscillator approximation for $\sqrt{\omega }L$ finite, though, is only reasonable for the low-lying states, i.e. for energy levels so near of the bottom of the potential that edge effects can be neglected.
Exact results
=============
The only remaining question is how to determinate exact results. With the eigenfunctions on the whole line expressed by (\[funpp\]) and (\[funii\]), the problem resumes to find the eigenenergies. Although the quantization condition has no closed form solutions in terms of simpler functions, the numerical computation of the allowed values of $|a|$ can be done easily with a root-finding procedure of a symbolic algebra program.
Figure 3 is a plot of the first low-lying energy levels, in the sense of $|a|
$, as a function of $\sqrt{\omega }L$. The bound-states solutions of the localized and unconfined oscillator constitute a finite set of solutions. The number of allowed bound states increases with $\sqrt{\omega }L$ and there is at least one solution, no matter how small is $\sqrt{\omega }L$. All the eigenvalues tend asymptotically to the values $n+1/2$ as $\sqrt{%
\omega }L\rightarrow \infty $ ($n=0,1,2,3,\ldots $). The energy levels tend toward higher energies as the parameter $r$ increases, as can also be seen in Figure 2. As a function of $\sqrt{\omega }L$, the energy level is a monotonous increasing function for $r\leq 1$ but enclosing the oscillator with a square well potential ($r>1$) makes the energy level reach a maximum for some value of $\sqrt{\omega }L$.
Figure 4 shows the results for the ground-state eigenfunction against $x$ for $\sqrt{\omega }L=3/2\sqrt{\hslash /m}$ and $L$ equal to a Compton wavelength. Included for comparison is the ground-state eigenfunction for the full harmonic oscillator. The normalization $\int_{-\infty }^{+\infty
}dx\,|\psi |^{2}=1$ was done numerically. The eigenfunctions for $r=2$ ($%
|a|\simeq 0.520$) and $r=1/2$ ($|a|\simeq 0.416$) differ from that for the full harmonic oscillator. The approximation does better for $r=2$, as it does for the eigenvalue. In fact, the agreement is not bad even though we have used $\sqrt{\omega }L\sim \sqrt{\hslash /m}$. Just as expected from the above qualitative analysis, a more successful agreement for all the values of $r$ should be obtained for $\sqrt{\omega }L>>\sqrt{\hslash /m}$.
Conclusions
===========
We have assessed the bound-state solutions of the Schrödinger equation with a localized and unconfined harmonic potential well. We have derived the energy eigenvalue equation and shown explicitly the eigenfunctions. We have discussed the structure of the solutions of the eigenvalue equation. The structure of the eigenfunctions has also been presented. The satisfactory completion of this task has been alleviated by the use of graphical methods and tabulated properties of the confluent hypergeometric functions. Finally, the exact results have been presented.
As mentioned in the introduction of this work, the three-parameter oscillator potential presents a richness of physics which might be relevant for calculations in different fields of solid state physics, particularly in electronics and computer components. Furthermore, it renders a sharp contrast to the oscillator confined by infinite walls [@aul]-[@vaw].
**Acknowledgments**
This work was supported in part by means of funds provided by CAPES and CNPq.
[99]{} A. Michels, J. de Boer and A. Bijl, Physica **4**, 981 (1937).
A. Sommerfeld and H. Hartmann, Ann. Phys. (Lpz.) **37**, 333 (1940).
S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. **97**, 263 (1943).
F. C. Auluck and D. S. Kothari, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. **41**, 175 (1945).
J. S. Baijal and K. K. Singh, Prog. Theor. Phys. **14**, 214 (1955).
T. E. Hull and R. S. Julius, Can. J. Phys. **34**, 914 (1956).
P. Dean, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. **62**, 277 (1966).
R. Vawter, Phys. Rev. A **174**, 749 (1968).
W. N. Mei and Y. C. Lee, J. Phys. A **16**, 1623 (1983).
H. E. Montgomery, Jr., N. A. Aquino and K. D. Sen, Int. J. Quantum Chem. **107**, 798 (2007).
S. M. Al-Jaber, Int. J. Theor. Phys. **47**, 1853 (2008).
H. E. Montgomery, Jr., G. Campoy and N. A. Aquino, math-ph/0803.4029.
R. de L. Kronig and W. G. Penney, Proc. R. Soc. London, ser. A, **130**, 499 (1930).
L. L. Chanz and L. Esaki, Phys. Today **45**, 36 (1992).
C. W. J. Beenakker and A. A. M. Staring, Phys. Rev. B **46**, 9667 (1992).
N. Maitra and E. J. Heller, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 3035 (1997).
C. V. Reddy et. al., App. Phys. Lett. **77**, 1167 (2000).
A. Chandra e L. F. Eastman, J. Appl. Phys. **53**, 9165 (1982).
S. L. Ban, J. E. Hasbun and X. X. Liang, Journal of Luminescence **87**, 369 (2000).
W. W.Lui and M. Fukuma, J. Appl. Phys. **60**, 1555 (1986).
Y.Ma et al., IEEE Trans. Electron Devices **47**, 1764 (2000).
N. A. Rao and B. A. Kagali, EJTP **5**, 169 (2008).
L. B. Castro and A. S. de Castro, EJTP **7**, 155 (2010).
H. Cruz, A. Hernández-Cabrera and A. Muñoz, Semicond. Sci. Technol. **6**, 218 (1991).
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover, Toronto, 1965.
{width="10cm"} \[fig:Fig3\]
{width="10cm"} \[fig:Fig4\]
[^1]: Corresponding author: A.S. de Castro, [email protected], tel. number:+551231232800, fax number:+551231232840.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We develop some techniques for studying various versions of the function space $BMO$. Special cases of one of our results give alternative proofs of the celebrated John-Nirenberg inequality and of related inequalities due to John and to Wik. Our approach enables us to pose a simply formulated “geometric” question, for which an affirmative answer would lead to a version of the John-Nirenberg inequality with dimension free constants.\
A more detailed summary of the main ideas and results of this paper can be found at `http://www.math.technion.ac.il/~mcwikel/bmo/CwikSaghShvaSummary.pdf`
address:
- 'Cwikel and Shvartsman: Department of Mathematics, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel '
- 'Sagher: Department of Mathematics, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA '
author:
- 'Michael Cwikel, Yoram Sagher and Pavel Shvartsman'
title: |
A new look at the John-Nirenberg and\
John-Strömberg theorems for BMO Lecture Notes
---
[^1]
\[sec:intro\]Introduction. Our main question.
=============================================
We begin by inviting the reader to consider and hopefully even answer the following question. We will subsequently refer to it as “Question A”.
*Do there exist two absolute constants $\tau\in(0,1/2)$ and $s>0$ which have the following property?*
***For every positive integer $d$ and for every cube $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, whenever $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ are two disjoint measurable subsets of $Q$ whose $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measures satisfy $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}),\lambda(E_{-})\right\} >\tau\lambda(Q\setminus E_{+}\setminus E_{-})\,,$$ then there exists some cube $W$ contained in $Q$ for which$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap E_{+}),\lambda(W\cap E_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\,$$***
We are led to consider this question because of our interest in the space $BMO$ of functions of bounded mean oscillation introduced by John and Nirenberg [@JohnNirenberg]. We recall that these are the functions $f:\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}$ which have the property that $$\sup_{Q}\frac{1}{\lambda(Q)}\int_{Q}\left|f-f_{Q}\right|d\lambda<\infty$$ where the supremum is taken over all cubes $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and where $f_{Q}$ is the average of $f$ on $Q$.
We will show that an affirmative answer to Question A would have very interesting consequences for the study of a remarkable property of functions of bounded mean oscillation. It would imply (see Theorem \[thm:mainjs\]) that the following “dimension free” version $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:\left|f(x)-m_{f}\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le\max\left\{ \frac{1}{2\tau},2\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\tau}}\right\} \cdot\lambda(Q)\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha s\log\frac{1}{2\tau}}{8\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}}\right)\label{eq:newurp}$$ of the John-Nirenberg inequality [@JohnNirenberg] holds for every $\alpha\ge0$. It would also imply some slightly stronger inequalities. (Here $m_{f}$ is any median of the measurable function $f$ on the cube $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.)
Having formulated our question, let us now state to what extent we have been able, so far, to answer it or to simplify it.
For each particular value of $d\in\mathbb{N}$ we *can* find numbers, $\tau\in(0,1/2)$ and $s>0$ which *do* have the property sought in Question A. Furthermore we can show that their having this property, implies that the inequality (\[eq:newurp\]) is satisfied.
We do not yet have an answer to Question A, because at least one of our constants $\tau$ and $s$ depends on $d$. We can take, for example, $\tau=\sqrt{2}-1$, but, for that choice of $\tau$, we have only been able to obtain a value of $s$ which depends on $d$, namely $s=2^{-d}\left(3-2\sqrt{2}\right)$.
Regardless of whether $\tau$ and $s$ really have to depend on the dimension, it seems of interest that, in the expression of the form $C\lambda(Q)\cdot\exp\left({\displaystyle -\frac{c\alpha}{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}}}\right)$ on the right hand side of our version (\[eq:newurp\]) of the John-Nirenberg inequality, we have revealed a quite explicit connection between the constants $C$ and $c$ and a geometric property expressed by the constants $\tau$ and $s$.
It also seems of interest that the “geometric” condition sought in Question A is, more or less “equivalent” to an analytic condition which compares certain kinds of $BMO$ “norms” of functions $f$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with related kinds of $BMO$ “norms” of their rearrangements $f^{*}$ on $(0,\infty)$. (The implications, in two opposite directions, which express this “sort of equivalence” are precisely formulated and established in Theorems \[thm:Nultra\] and \[thm:Ninverse\].)
As we shall show in Section \[sec:attempts\], if Question A can be answered affirmatively in some special cases, then this will suffice to answer it in general. In particular it would suffice to give an affirmative answer in the case where the subsets $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ are each finite unions of dyadic subcubes of $Q$. Thus Question A can be considered to be a combinatoric question as much as a geometric one.
Our results can be expressed in more abstract terms, and they apply to other versions of the space $BMO$ including the one considered by Wik [@wik], where cubes are replaced by “false cubes”.
This preliminary version of our paper is written more or less in the style of “lecture notes”. We hope that this will make it helpful for graduate students and that experts will forgive us for writing more, maybe much more than they need to read about various things. We have attempted to find some sort of reasonable middle way between what may suit these two subsets of our audience by relegating quite a number of better known facts, results and proofs to the appendices in Section \[sec:Appendices\].
We have surely omitted references to some very pertinent papers about this topic, but we hope to correct at least some of our omissions in future versions. The reader is invited to draw our attention to any such omissions.
\[sec:Notation-and-terminology\]Notation, terminology and some more introduction
================================================================================
Throughout this paper $d$ will denote a positive integer and $\lambda$ will denote $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. The value of $d$ will always be clear from the context. When $d=1$ we will also often use the notation $\left|E\right|$ instead of $\lambda(E)$ for each measurable subset $E$ of $\mathbb{R}$. By a *cube* in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ we will always mean a $d$-dimensional closed cube with sides parallel to the axes.
\[def:admissibleset\]To save tedious repetitions of terminology, we will say that a set $E$ is *admissible* if it is a measurable subset (i.e., a Lebesgue measurable subset) of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and its $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure satisfies $0<\lambda(E)<\infty$.
For each admissible set $E$ and each measurable real valued function $f$ whose domain of definition contains $E$, we define the *mean oscillation* of $f$ on $E$ by $$\mathbf{O}(f,E):=\inf_{c\in\mathbb{R}}\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}\left|f-c\right|d\lambda\,.\label{eq:defv}$$
It is convenient to fix some notation for two other frequently used variants of the functional $\mathbf{O}(f,E)$. So we set $$\mathbf{A}(f,E):=\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}\left|f-f_{E}\right|d\lambda$$ for every function $f$ which is integrable on $E$, and where $f_{E}:=\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}fd\lambda$. We also set $$\mathbf{D}(f,E):=\frac{1}{\lambda(E)^{2}}\iint_{E\times E}\left|f(x)-f(y)\right|d\lambda(x)d\lambda(y)$$ (“**A**” and “**D**” are our abbreviations for “average” and “double integral” respectively). We recall that the set of medians of $f$ on $E$ consists of all numbers $c\in\mathbb{R}$ which satisfy $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)<c\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda(E)\mbox{ and }\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>c\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda(E)\,.$$ This set is always non empty, and the infimum in (\[eq:defv\]) is attained, i.e., $$\mathbf{O}(f,E)=\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}\left|f-c\right|d\lambda\label{eq:newmib}$$ whenever $c$ is a median of $f$. We also recall that $$\mathbf{O}(f,E)\le\mathbf{A}(f,E)\le\mathbf{D}(f,E)\le2\,\mathbf{O}(f,E)\,\label{eq:avao}$$ for all functions $f$ which are integrable on $E$. For the reader’s convenience we recall the easy proofs of these standard facts in Appendix \[sub:mediansandoscillation\].
\[def:bmode\]Let $D$ be some measurable subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with positive measure and let $\mathcal{E}$ be some collection of admissible subsets $E$ of $D$. We define the space $BMO(D,\mathcal{E})$ to consist of all (equivalence classes of) measurable functions $f:D\to\mathbb{R}$ for which the seminorm $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}:=\sup_{E\in\mathcal{E}}\mathbf{O}(f,E)\label{eq:osn}$$ is finite.
One may also define $BMO(D,\mathcal{E})$ equivalently via either one of the seminorms $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{A})}:=\sup_{E\in\mathcal{E}}\mathbf{A}(f,E)\label{eq:blonk}$$ or $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{D})}=\sup_{E\in\mathcal{E}}\mathbf{D}(f,E)\label{eq:fronk}$$ which (cf. (\[eq:avao\])) are each equivalent to the seminorm (\[eq:osn\]) to within constants of equivalence $1$ and $2$.
Of course if $f$ coincides a.e. with a constant function then $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}=0$. The reverse implication may also be true for suitable choices of $D$ and $\mathcal{E}$. In all cases the seminorm $\left\Vert \cdot\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}$ defines a norm on suitable equivalence classes of functions in $BMO(D,\mathcal{E})$ which may, for suitable choices of $D$ and $\mathcal{E}$, be simply equivalence classes of functions modulo constants.
The most frequently considered way of choosing $D$ and $\mathcal{E}$ is:
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
D\mbox{ is either }\mathbb{R}^{d}\mbox{ or some fixed cube in }\mathbb{R}^{d}\mbox{ and }\mathcal{E}\mbox{ is chosen }\\
\mbox{to be }\mathcal{Q}(D),\mbox{ the collection of all cubes contained in }D\mbox{.}\end{array}\right.\label{eq:jnc}$$
As the reader no doubt recalls, functions of the space $BMO(D,\mathcal{E})$ were first introduced and studied by John and Nirenberg [@JohnNirenberg] for the case where $D$ is a cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\mathcal{E=Q}(D)$. The original motivation for studying these functions apparently came from John’s study [@johnRandS] of problems in the theory of elasticity, related in particular to the concept of elastic strain. One of the first applications of [@JohnNirenberg] was in a paper [@moser] by Moser extending Harnack’s theorem about harmonic functions to functions which are solutions of elliptic second order PDEs. But the space of these functions and its analogues have since turned out to also have many other deep properties and numerous other, sometimes quite surprising applications in analysis. One particularly notable example of such an application is the connection with $H^{p}$ spaces revealed in the paper [@FS] of Fefferman and Stein.
The choice of $D$ and $\mathcal{E}$ specified in (\[eq:jnc\]) is only one among several possible interesting choices, and we will list four more examples of such choices now, taking the opportunity to also fix our notation for them, notation which will be used thoughout the paper. In each of these examples we will take the set $D$ to either be $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ or some measurable subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with non empty interior.
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{E}\mbox{ is chosen to be }\mathcal{D}(D),\mbox{ the collection of all dyadic cubes }\\
\mbox{contained in }D\mbox{ .}\end{array}\right.\label{eq:dyadic}$$
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{E}\mbox{ is chosen to be }\mathcal{B}(D),\mbox{ the collection of all euclidean balls}\\
\mbox{contained in }D\mbox{ .}\end{array}\right.\label{eq:balls}$$
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{E}\mbox{ is chosen to be }\mathcal{K}(D),\mbox{ the collection of all bounded closed}\\
\mbox{convex subsets of }D\mbox{ \mbox{which have non empty interiors}.}\end{array}\right.\label{eq:fedja}$$
$$\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
\mathcal{E}\mbox{ is chosen to be }\mathcal{W}(D),\mbox{ the collection of all \textit{special rectangles} }\\
\mbox{contained in }D\mbox{ .}\end{array}\right.\label{eq:wik0}$$
By special rectangles we mean all those subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ which are the cartesian products $I_{1}\times I_{2}\times...\times I_{d}$ of $d$ bounded closed intervals of positive length, where, for each $j=1,2,....,d$, the length $\left|I_{j}\right|$ of $I_{j}$ equals either $\min_{k=1,2,...,d}\left|I_{k}\right|$ or $2\min_{k=1,2,...,d}\left|I_{k}\right|$. Such sets, and their associated space $BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d},\mathcal{W}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))$ were introduced and studied by Wik in [@wik]. He used the terminology “false cubes” for special rectangles. Below we will describe his results in more detail.
Of course the seminorm $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{K}(D))}$ is larger than any of the other seminorms $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E}))}$ arising from the other choices of $\mathcal{E}$ listed just above, and for this reason it will be of less interest for us here for the particular aims of this paper. However we remark that a result of Nazarov, Sodin and Vol’berg ([@nsv] p. 13 and [@nsv2]) shows that every polynomial $P:\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}$ of degree $n$ satisfies $$\left\Vert \log\left|P\right|\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{K}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))}\le\frac{4+\log4}{2}n\,.\label{eq:nsv}$$ It is remarkable that there is no dependence on the dimension $d$ in this inequality. We are naturally led to ask whether the left side of (\[eq:nsv\]) can also be bounded from below by $cn$ for some absolute positive constant $c$. If this can be shown to be the case, then other results in [@nsv] would imply that a dimension free version of John-Nirenberg inequality holds, for $D=\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\mathcal{E=K}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$, at least for all functions of the special form $\log\left|P\right|$. An analogous question with analogous consequences can be asked for the apparently more difficult and perhaps more interesting case where $\mathcal{E}$ is chosen to be $\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$.
There are also other more “exotic” versions of the space $BMO$. But these seem to be quite beyond the scope of what we will study in this paper. For example, the measure $\lambda$ may be replaced by a more general measure, and, furthermore, the underlying set $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ may be replaced by other suitable sets. There is even a version of $BMO$ in the setting of martingales.
We have already alluded above to the following result in [@JohnNirenberg], in fact the main result of that paper. Let $D$ be a cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $f:D\to\mathbb{R}$ be a function belonging to the space $BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))$. Then$$\begin{array}{c}
{\displaystyle \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\le B\lambda(D)\exp\left(-\frac{b\alpha}{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{A})}}\right)}\\
\mbox{for every }\alpha>0\,,\phantom{xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx}\end{array}\label{eq:jne}$$ where $B$ and $b$ are constants which depend only on the dimension $d$. (In fact in the formulation of the main result (Lemma 1) of [@JohnNirenberg] the number $f_{D}$ appearing on the right side of (\[eq:jne\]) is not explicitly chosen to be the average of $f$ on $D$. Nor is the functional $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{A})}$ explicitly chosen for estimating the mean oscillation of $f$. However such choices are made in Lemma 1’ of the same paper which is used to obtain Lemma 1.)
\[rem:optimallystrong\]The result that (\[eq:jne\]) holds is an optimally strong result, in the following sense: Suppose that $f:D\to\mathbb{R}$ is an arbitrary integrable function which satisfies an estimate like (\[eq:jne\]) for every subcube $Q$ of $D$, but with some fixed constant independent of $Q$ in place of $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{A})}$. Then a simple calculation shows that $f\in BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))$. Conversely, the result of [@JohnNirenberg] obviously gives us that a function $f\in BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))$ satisifes an estimate like (\[eq:jne\]) for every subcube $Q$ of $D$.
The inequality (\[eq:jne\]), together with various generalizations and variants of it, will be at once our main motivation and our main interest in this paper. In fact (\[eq:jne\]) is the key to obtaining various other properties of $BMO$ and has been widely studied further since its original discovery. The proof of (\[eq:jne\]) in [@JohnNirenberg] uses a famous lemma of Calderón and Zygmund. Among other proofs of (\[eq:jne\]), one of the simpler ones is due to Bennett, DeVore and Sharpley [@bds] (see the remark at the end of Section 3 on p. 607 of [@bds]) using a covering lemma which appeared previously in [@bs].
\[rem:bge1\]It is a simple exercise to show that the constant $B$ in (\[eq:jne\]) must necessarily satisfy $B\ge1$. Furthermore, versions of (\[eq:jne\]) have been proved in which $B=2$. (See e.g., [@stein] or the results of [@wik] which we shall also discuss below.)
\[rem:difver\]It seems appropriate to make one specific remark regarding the differing formats of results in quite a number of papers which have followed on from [@JohnNirenberg]. These are papers which present other proofs of (\[eq:jne\]) or similar inequalities, some of them generalizing to other settings and to other variants of $BMO$. By “similar inequality” we mean a version of (\[eq:jne\]) which is modified in one or more of the following ways: For example the seminorm $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}$ or $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{D})}$ may appear in place of $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{A})}$. Or the set $$\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|>\alpha\right\}$$ may be replaced by $\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|\ge\alpha\right\} $, or by $\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-m\right|>\alpha\right\} $ or $$\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\}$$ where $m$ is a median of $f$ on $D$. Our remark is this: It is quite straightforward to check that such changes give an essentially equivalent inequality. More precisely, if an inequality with any or all of these changes holds for all $\alpha\ge0$ then, first of all, this implies that $B\ge1$ (cf. Remark \[rem:bge1\]). But, furthermore, this also implies that an inequality exactly of the form (\[eq:jne\]) holds for all $\alpha\ge0$, but with possibly new positive constants $b'$ and $B'$ replacing the positive constants $b$ and $B$. Conversely, if (\[eq:jne\]) holds for all $\alpha\ge0$, then each of the above mentioned variants of (\[eq:jne\]) also holds for all $\alpha\ge0$, again possibly with new constants $b'$ and $B'$ replacing $b$ and $B$. Moreover, if it is necessary to change $b$ and/or $B$ when making any of these transitions from one version of (\[eq:jne\]) to another, then the new constants $b'$ and $B'$ will always satisfy $b/2\le b'\le b$ and $1\le B\le B'\le e^{b}B$. For the reader’s convenience, we include the calculations justifying these implications in Appendix \[sub:dfojne\].
In this paper we begin the development of some techniques for studying $BMO$ type spaces which are apparently somewhat different from those used so far. We will use them to give an alternative proof of a somewhat abstract result which includes, as special cases, both (\[eq:jne\]) and an analogous result of Wik for special rectangles, which we will describe in a moment. Our proof will not be obviously shorter or simpler than the analogous proofs in [@JohnNirenberg] and [@bds] and [@wik] and elsewhere. Nor does it give better constants than the ones obtained by previously published proofs. But it seems distinctly possible that, with further development and refinement, some elements of our approach here may be able to give new information about the behaviour of the constants $B$ and $b$, for large values of the dimension $d$ and perhaps even ultimately lead to determining whether these constants can both be taken to be independent of the dimension $d$. In Wik’s analogue of the inequality (\[eq:jne\]) in the context (\[eq:wik0\]) of special rectangles (see (\[eq:wik1\])), the relevant constants are independent of $d$. Our proof in the same context also gives constants independent of $d$, but Wik’s constants are better than ours. (See Remark \[rem:specialrectangles\] for details.)
Let us recall some of Wik’s results more explicitly. For each measurable function $f:\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}$ he defines $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}^{\prime}$ to be the seminorm (\[eq:fronk\]) where $\mathcal{E=\mathcal{W}}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ is the collection of all special rectangles (or “false cubes”) in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, i.e., in our notation $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}^{\prime}=\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d},\mathcal{W}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))}^{(\mathbf{D})}\,.\label{eq:WikDef}$$ He defines $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}$ analogously, except that here $\mathcal{E}$ is $\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$, i.e., $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}=\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d},\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))}^{(\mathbf{D})}\,.$$ The particular interest of the seminorm $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}^{\prime}$ lies in the following inequality which is proved by Wik:
$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:\left|f(x)-m_{Q}\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le2\lambda(Q)\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\ln2}{16\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}^{\prime}}\right)\,.\label{eq:wik1}$$
(We have written it here using notation slightly different from that of [@wik], to make it more convenient for comparison with (\[eq:jne\]).) This holds for every special rectangle $Q$, and for every $\alpha\ge0$ and for every number $m_{Q}$ which is a median of $f$ on $Q$. As an immediate consequence of (\[eq:wik1\]) and another result comparing the seminorms $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}^{\prime}$ and $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}$, Wik obtains a variant of (\[eq:jne\]) which (in view of considerations mentioned in the latter part of Remark \[rem:difver\], cf. also Lemma \[lem:av2med\]) implies that the original inequality (\[eq:jne\]) holds in fact for $$b=\frac{\ln2}{32\left(2+6\sqrt{\frac{d}{\pi}}\right)}\mbox{ and \ensuremath{B=2e^{b}.}}$$
Here we list some of the features of our approach, some of which have already been discussed or alluded to:
$\bullet$ Probably the most important feature of this paper is that it provides the framework for posing “Question A”, whose positive resolution would, as we show, give a dimension free John-Nirenberg inequality.
$\bullet$ The “geometrical” component of our proof (Theorem \[thm:maingt\]), or the more abstract hypothesis which can replace it, has to be applied only once in the course of proving our versions of (\[eq:jne\]) (in contrast to some other known proofs of analogous results). It is difficult to claim that this component is any simpler than the Calderón-Zymund Lemma, or the covering lemma of [@bs] p. 202. But there is perhaps more hope for strengthening it to a dimension free version, than there is for doing away with the dependence on dimension in approaches based on either of those two lemmata.
$\bullet$ In one of the decisive steps of our proof of the John-Nirenberg inequality (see Theorem \[thm:Nultra\]), we find that in some sense we have reduced our argument to the case where we only have to consider functions which take the three values $0$, $1$ and $2$.
$\bullet$ In some sense, we only have to consider the easy case where $d=1$ and the relevant set $D$ in (\[eq:jne\]) is an interval and $f$ is a non increasing right continuous function on that interval. The “geometrical” result of Theorem \[thm:maingt\], which gives an affirmative answer to a “dimension dependent” version of Question A, is the tool for reducing the general case of functions of $d$ variables to this easy case.
$\bullet$ Instead of working with the seminorms$$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}\mbox{ or \ensuremath{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{D})}}or }\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{A})}$$ we mainly use another functional, which we denote by $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO_{0,s}}$ or $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$. This functional was introduced by John [@john] and then further studied by Strömberg [@stromberg]. The condition sought in Question A implies an inequality of the form $$\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO_{0,\sigma}(\mathbb{R})}\le\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO_{0,s}(\mathbb{R}^{d})}$$ for suitable values of the parameter $\sigma$ and a suitable class of functions $f$. Conversely (see Theorem \[thm:Ninverse\]) if such an inequality holds for some other appropriate value of $\sigma$, then it implies the condition sought in Question A.
$\bullet$ Our approach gives a version of the “dimension free” result of Wik [@wik] for special rectangles.
\[sec:SignedRearrangements\]Properties of non increasing rearrangements
=======================================================================
In this section we shall recall some properties of the non increasing rearrangements of measurable functions which are defined on an arbitrary measure space $\left(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu\right)$. Most, indeed probably all of these are well known. A detailed discussion of them can be found, for example, in [@hunt]. Among other relevant references we mention [@bl] and [@sagher].
For each measurable $f:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$, one first defines the distribution function $f_{*}:(0,\infty)\to[0,\infty]$ of $f$ by $$f_{*}(\alpha)=\mu\left(\left\{ \omega\in\Omega:\left|f(\omega)\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\,.$$ One can then define the non increasing rearrangement $f^{*}:(0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ of $f$, provided $f_{*}(\alpha)$ is finite for some positive $\alpha$. It is given by the formula $$f^{*}(t)=\inf\left\{ \alpha>0:f_{*}(\alpha)\le t\right\}$$ for each $t>0$. It is, roughly speaking, the right continuous “inverse” of the distribution function.
In all our applications here, we will only need to consider the non increasing rearrangements of functions for which the set on which they are non zero has finite measure. Thus the required condition about the finiteness of the distribution function will always be fulfilled.
Here are the properties of the non increasing rearrangement that we will need in this paper. They all hold for any measurable function $f:\Omega\to\mathbb{R}$ for which $f_{*}(\alpha)<\infty$ for some $\alpha>0$. Recall that we denote the one dimensional Lebesgue measure of subsets $G$ of $(0,\infty)$ by $\left|G\right|$.
\(i) $f^{*}$ is non negative, non increasing and right continuous on $\left(0,\infty\right)$.
\(ii) $f$ and $f^{*}$ have the same distribution functions, i.e., they satisfy
$$\left|\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)>\alpha\right\} \right|=\mu\left(\left\{ \omega\in\Omega:\left|f(\omega)\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\mbox{ for all }\alpha\in[0,\infty)\,.\label{eq:df}$$
\(iii) If $f_{*}(\beta)<\infty$ for some $\beta\ge0$ then, $$\left|\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)\ge\alpha\right\} \right|=\mu\left(\left\{ \omega\in\Omega:\left|f(\omega)\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\mbox{ for all }\alpha\in(\beta,\infty)\,\label{eq:df2}$$ and $$\left|\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)=\alpha\right\} \right|=\mu\left(\left\{ \omega\in\Omega:\left|f(\omega)\right|=\alpha\right\} \right)\mbox{ for all }\alpha\in(\beta,\infty)\,\label{eq:df3}$$
\(iv) The set $\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)>\alpha\right\} $ is the open interval $\left(0,f_{*}(\alpha)\right)$ for each $\alpha\in[0,\infty)$.
\(v) If $\mu(\Omega)<\infty$, then a variant of (\[eq:df3\]) holds for all $\alpha\in[0,\infty)$, namely $$\mu\left(\left\{ \omega\in\Omega:\left|f(\omega)\right|=\alpha\right\} \right)=\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\mu(\Omega)):f^{*}(t)=\alpha\right\} \right|\,.\label{eq:df4}$$
We refer, e.g. to [@hunt] for proofs of properties (i) and (ii). We can easily deduce (\[eq:df2\]) from (\[eq:df\]) with the help of a sequence of numbers $\left\{ \alpha_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ which satisfies $\beta<\alpha_{n}<\alpha_{n+1}<\alpha$ for each $n$ and also $\lim_{n\to\infty}\alpha_{n}=\alpha$. We have $$\left|\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)>\alpha_{n}\right\} \right|=\mu\left(\left\{ \omega\in\Omega:\left|f(\omega)\right|>\alpha_{n}\right\} \right)<\infty$$ for each $n$ and we can apply the contracting sequence theorem. We can then immediately obtain (\[eq:df3\]) by subtracting (\[eq:df\]) from (\[eq:df2\]).
Now let us check that property (iv) holds. Since $f^{*}$ is non increasing, the set $$\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)>\alpha\right\}$$ must be an interval whose left endpoint is $0$. In view of property (ii) the right endpoint of this interval must be $f_{*}(\alpha)$. If this interval is unbounded then of course it is open. If it is bounded and if $\alpha>0$ then the continuity from the right of $f^{*}$ implies that this interval cannot contain its right endpoint. If $\alpha=0$ then the interval is the union of the sequence of open intervals $\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)>1/n\right\} $, $n=1,2,....$ and is therefore also open.
It follows from (iv), and the fact that $f_{*}(\alpha)\le\mu(\Omega)$ for all $\alpha\in[0,\infty)$, that $$\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)>\alpha\right\} =(0,\mu(\Omega))\cap\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)>\alpha\right\} =\left\{ t\in(0,\mu(\Omega)):f^{*}(t)>\alpha\right\} \label{eq:wwn-1}$$ also holds for every $\alpha\in[0,\infty)$.
Here now is the proof of (v). We have $\mu(\Omega)<\infty$, which enables us to obtain (\[eq:df4\]) in the case where $\alpha=0$, by first using (\[eq:df\]) and then (\[eq:wwn-1\]), as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\left(\left\{ \omega\in\Omega:\left|f(\omega)\right|=0\right\} \right) & = & \mu\left(\Omega\right)-\mu\left(\left\{ \omega\in\Omega:\left|f(\omega)\right|>0\right\} \right)\\
& = & \left|\left(0,\mu(\Omega)\right)\right|-\left|\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)>0\right\} \right|\\
& = & \left|\left(0,\mu(\Omega)\right)\right|-\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\mu(\Omega)):f^{*}(t)>0\right\} \right|\\
& = & \left|\left\{ t\in(0,\mu(\Omega)):f^{*}(t)=0\right\} \right|\,.\end{aligned}$$ We easily obtain (\[eq:df4\]) in the remaining case where $\alpha>0$ by first applying (\[eq:df3\]) using $\beta=0$, and then observing that in this case $$\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)=\alpha\right\} \subset\left\{ t>0:f^{*}(t)>0\right\} \subset\left(0,\mu(\Omega)\right)\,.$$
We close this section with the following lemma which will be needed in Section \[sec:JohnStrombergFunctional\].
\[lem:psm\]Let $Q$ be an admissible subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Let $g:Q\to[0,\infty)$ be a measurable function. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):\left|g^{*}(t)-c\right|\le\alpha\right\} \right| & = & \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:\left|g(x)-c\right|\le\alpha\right\} \right)\nonumber \\
\label{eq:z}\\\mbox{for all }c\in\mathbb{R}\mbox{ and all }\alpha\ge0\,.\phantom{sss}\,\,\,\,\,\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
*Proof.* The set which appears on the left side of (\[eq:z\]) coincides with $$\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):c-\alpha\le g^{*}(t)\le c+\alpha\right\}$$ and the set appearing on the right side of (\[eq:z\]) coincides with $$\left\{ x\in Q:c-\alpha\le g(x)\le c+\alpha\right\} \,.$$ If $c+\alpha<0$ then both of these sets are empty. This is because $g^{*}$ is non negative by definition, and because we have imposed the condition that $f$ is non negative and therefore so is $g$. Accordingly, we only have to prove (\[eq:z\]) in the case where $c+\alpha\ge0$. In that case the above-mentioned two sets coincide respectively with $\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):\gamma\le g^{*}(t)\le\delta\right\} $ and $\left\{ x\in Q:\gamma\le g(x)\le\delta\right\} $, where $\gamma=\max\left\{ 0,c-\alpha\right\} $ and $\delta=c+\alpha$. This reduces the proof of (\[eq:z\]) to showing that $$\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):\gamma\le g^{*}(t)\le\delta\right\} \right|=\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:\gamma\le g(x)\le\delta\right\} \right)\mbox{ whenever }0\le\gamma\le\delta\,.\label{eq:gamdel}$$
In order to check that (\[eq:gamdel\]) holds we first note that $$\left\{ x\in Q:\gamma\le g(x)\le\delta\right\} =\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)\le\delta\right\} \backslash\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)<\gamma\right\}$$ and $$\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)<\gamma\right\} \subset\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)\le\delta\right\} \,.$$ Therefore, $$\left|\left\{ x\in Q:\gamma\le g(x)\le\delta\right\} \right|=\left|\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)\le\delta\right\} \right|-\left|\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)<\gamma\right\} \right|\,.$$ Analogously, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):\gamma\le g^{*}(t)\le\delta\right\} \right|\\
& = & \left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):g^{*}(t)\le\delta\right\} \right|-\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):g^{*}(t)<\gamma\right\} \right|\,.\end{aligned}$$ So it will suffice to show that $$\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):g^{*}(t)\le\delta\right\} \right|=\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)\le\delta\right\} \right)\label{eq:fordel}$$ and $$\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):g^{*}(t)<\gamma\right\} \right|=\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)<\gamma\right\} \right)\label{eq:forgam}$$ We have that $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)\le\delta\right\} \right)=\lambda(Q)-\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)>\delta\right\} \right)\,.$$ Then, by property (i) of non increasing rearrangements (one among several such numbered properties presented at the beginning of this section), since $g$ is non negative, this last expression equals $\lambda(Q)-\left|\left\{ t>0:g^{*}(t)>\delta\right\} \right|$ which in turn equals $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(Q)-\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):g^{*}(t)>\delta\right\} \right| & = & \left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):g^{*}(t)\le\delta\right\} \right|\end{aligned}$$ which establishes (\[eq:fordel\]). If $\gamma=0$ then we immediately obtain (\[eq:forgam\]) since empty sets have measure $0$. In the remaining case, where $\gamma>0$, we can first use property (iii) of non increasing rearrangements (and again the non-negativity of $g$) to obtain that $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)\ge\gamma\right\} \right)=\left|\left\{ t>0:g^{*}(t)\ge\gamma\right\} \right|=\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):g^{*}(t)\ge\gamma\right\} \right|\,.$$ This, combined with the facts that $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)<\gamma\right\} \right)=\lambda(Q)-\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:g(x)\ge\gamma\right\} \right)$$ and $$\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):g^{*}(t)<\gamma\right\} \right|=\lambda(Q)=\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):g^{*}(t)\ge\gamma\right\} \right|$$ immediately gives us (\[eq:forgam\]) and so completes the proof of (\[eq:gamdel\]), which, as already explained, also completes the proof of (\[eq:z\]) and therefore of the lemma. $\qed$
\[sec:JohnStrombergFunctional\]The functional of John and Strömberg for characterizing $BMO$.
=============================================================================================
Given an admissible subset $E$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, a real valued function $f$ which is defined and measurable on $E$, and a number $s\in(0,1)$, it is convenient to introduce the notation $\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)$ for a special functional which was introduced and studied in[@john] and then considered in greater generality in[@stromberg]. Thus we set $$\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)=\inf_{c\in\mathbb{R}}\left(\inf\left\{ \alpha\ge0:\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)<s\lambda(E)\right\} \right)\,.\label{eq:OrigDefn}$$ (Here, as always in this paper, $\lambda$ denotes $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.) In [@john] and [@stromberg] the set $E$ is always taken to be a cube, and the functional $\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)$ is shown to be a kind of counterpart, a very useful counterpart, of the functionals $\mathbf{O}(f,E)$, $\mathbf{A}(f,E)$ and $\mathbf{D}(f,E)$.
There is another, perhaps more convenient formula for $\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)$, namely $$\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)=\inf_{c\in\mathbb{R}}\left((f-c)\chi_{E}\right)^{*(L)}(s\lambda(E))\,.$$ (Here $u^{*(L)}$ denotes the *left* continuous rearrangement of a measurable function $u$.) This formula is mentioned e.g., in [@lerner98], [@YoramPasha98] and [@pasha99]. In this section we shall obtain yet another formula for $\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)$ in terms of rearrangements. (See Proposition \[pro:prop\]).
In our case $E$ will often be a cube or special rectangle, or, more generally, a member of some collection $\mathcal{E}$ of admissible subsets which is used, as in (\[eq:osn\]), together with some measurable set $D\subset\mathbb{R}^{d}$, to define a seminorm for some version of the space $BMO$. Indeed for such $\mathcal{E}$ and $D$, following the model of [@john] and [@stromberg], and analogously to the seminorm defined by (\[eq:osn\]), we consider the functional $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}:=\sup_{E\in\mathcal{E}}\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)\,.\label{eq:rtp}$$
In the case where $D=\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\mathcal{E=}\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ it is known [@JawerthTorchinsky; @pasha99] that this quantity is equivalent to a certain $K$-functional. More explicitly, $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},e^{-t})}\sim K(t,f;L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d}),BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d},\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))\,.$$
Despite the choice of notation in (\[eq:rtp\]), $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$ is not a norm nor even a seminorm. At least it is homogeneous, i.e., as follows almost immediately from the definition, $$\mathbf{J}(rf,E,s)=\left|r\right|\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)\mbox{ and so }\left\Vert rf\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=\left|r\right|\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\mbox{ for each }r\in\mathbb{R}\,.\label{eq:homog}$$ Let us note another simple property of these functionals: If $T$ is an invertible affine transformation of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, i.e., if $Tx=rx+x_{0}$ for some non zero $r\in\mathbb{R}$ and $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, and if $g(x)=$$f(rx+x_{0})$, then a simple routine calculation (see Appendix \[sub:affinecommute\]) shows that $$\mathbf{J}(g,E,s)=\mathbf{J}(f,rE+x_{0},s)\label{eq:preaffine}$$ for each admissible set $E$ contained in the domain of $g$. Consequently $$\left\Vert g\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(T(D),T(\mathcal{E}))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\label{eq:affinestuff}$$ where $T\left(\mathcal{E}\right)$ is of course the collection of sets $\left\{ T(E):E\in\mathcal{E}\right\} $. In various natural examples, where $D=\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ is any one of the collections $\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$, $\mathcal{D}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$, $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$, $\mathcal{K}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ or $\mathcal{W}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ we of course have $T(D)=D$ and $T(\mathcal{E})=\mathcal{E}$.
Suppose that $D=\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and (as in (\[eq:jnc\])) $\mathcal{E}$ is the collection $\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ of all cubes in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. In this case it will sometimes be convenient to adopt the notation of [@stromberg] and write$$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO_{0,s}}=\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d},\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\label{eq:pone}$$ and also $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}=\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d},\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d}))}\,.$$ It is known that $$s\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO_{0,s}}\le\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}\le C_{d}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO_{0,s}}\label{eq:sbjo}$$ for every measurable $f:\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}$, whenever $0<s\le\frac{1}{2}$, where $C_{d}$ is a constant depending only on the dimension $d$. This result was originally obtained by John [@john] for $0<s<\frac{1}{2}$, and then extended by Strömberg [@stromberg] to include the case $s=\frac{1}{2}$. Thus the functional $\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)$ enables one to characterize $BMO$ functions in an alternative way.
The result (\[eq:sbjo\]) is false for $s>1/2,$ although the definition (\[eq:OrigDefn\]) is valid for all $s\in(0,1)$. This is because $\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)=0$ and $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO_{0,s}}=0$ for certain non constant functions $f$ whenever $s>1/2$. (Cf. the remark on p. 522 of [@stromberg].)
\[rem:Cheb\]The essential content of (\[eq:sbjo\]) is the second inequality. Let us recall the elementary proof of (a more general version of) the first inequality of (\[eq:sbjo\]). By Chebyshev’s inequality we have $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{\alpha}\int_{E}\left|f-c\right|d\lambda=\frac{\lambda(E)}{\alpha}\mathbf{O}(f,E)$$ for each admissible $E$, each $\alpha>0$, each $f$ which is measurable on $E$, and each median $c$ of $f$ on $E$. Thus, every $\alpha$ satisfying $\alpha>\frac{1}{s}\mathbf{O}(f,E)$ also satisfies $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)<s\lambda(E)$$ for some $c\in\mathbb{R}$. Accordingly, $$\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)\le\frac{1}{s}\mathbf{O}(f,E)$$ which immediately implies that $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le\frac{1}{s}\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}.\label{eq:talpt}$$ The first inequality in (\[eq:sbjo\]) is a special case of (\[eq:talpt\]).
The method which we develop in this paper will obviously imply an alternative proof of (\[eq:sbjo\]), but (so far) only for quite small values of $s$.
We will sometimes need to use the following very simple result.
\[lem:JLIP\]Suppose that the function $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ satisfies $$\left|\varphi(s)-\varphi(t)\right|\le\left|s-t\right|$$ for all $s,t\in\mathbb{R}$. Then
$$\mathbf{J}(\varphi\circ f,E,s)\le\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)$$ for every admissible set $E$, every $s\in(0,1)$, and every real valued function $f$ which is defined and measurable on $E$.
*Proof.* This follows immediately from the obvious inclusion $$\left\{ \left\{ x\in E:\left|\varphi\left(f(x)\right)-\varphi(c)\right|>\alpha\right\} \right\} \subset\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\}$$ and the definition of $\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)$. $\qed$
An analogous result holds for the usual $BMO$ seminorm and functional $\mathbf{O}(f,E)$. See Lemma \[lem:lipz\] in Appendix \[sub:LipschitzAndBMO\].
We remark that, for each $f$ , $E$ and $s$ as above, and for each $c\in\mathbb{R}$ and each $\alpha\ge0$, the condition $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)<s\lambda(E)$$ is equivalent to $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-c\right|\le\alpha\right\} \right)>(1-s)\lambda(E)\,.$$ So we also have $$\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)=\inf_{c\in\mathbb{R}}\left(\inf\left\{ \alpha\ge0:\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-c\right|\le\alpha\right\} \right)>(1-s)\lambda(E)\right\} \right)\,.\label{eq:altdef}$$
The following proposition gives us another way to calculate and “visualize” $\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)$, at least for functions which are either univariate and monotone, or non negative. This other way, for some purposes, seems to be an easier alternative than working with the original definition. It enables us to work with just one variable (here denoted by $u$), instead of having to deal with the two variables $\alpha$ and $c$ in the original definition.
\[pro:prop\]
\(i) For each $q>0$ and each non increasing right continuous function $h:(0,q)\to\mathbb{R}$, the formula $$\mathbf{J}(h,(0,q),s)=\frac{1}{2}\inf\left\{ h(u)-h\left(u+(1-s)q\right):0<u<sq)\right\} \label{eq:preffnn}$$ holds for each $s\in(0,1)$.
\(ii) Furthermore, the formula $$\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)=\frac{1}{2}\inf\left\{ \left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}(u)-\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}\left(u+(1-s)\lambda(Q)\right):0<u<s\lambda(Q)\right\} \label{eq:ffnn}$$ holds for each admissible subset $Q$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, each $s\in(0,1)$ and each **non negative** real valued function $f$ which is defined and measurable on $Q$.
In our main applications of this proposition the set $Q$ will be a cube or a special rectangle. But we stress that, despite the choice of letter, the set $Q$ in (\[eq:ffnn\]) can be an *arbitrary* admissible subset.
\[rem:mtjm\]Restated informally, part (ii) of this proposition tells us that $2\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)$ is the “minimum” amount that $\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}$ can decrease on any closed subinterval of $\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right)$ of length exactly $(1-s)\lambda(Q)$.
It is easy to see from the original definition or from the formula (\[eq:ffnn\]), that, for each fixed $Q$ and $f$ the function $s\mapsto\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)$ is non increasing. As is explained in Appendix \[sub:lrconj\] (but is not needed for any other purposes in this paper), $s\mapsto\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)$ is also left continuous, but in general not right continuous.
*Proof of Proposition \[pro:prop\].* We will first deal with part (i). (To understand the rather simple ideas behind our proof of (\[eq:preffnn\]), the reader may care to first look at the rather shorter and simpler proof given below in Remark \[rem:fyed\] for the special case where $h$ is strictly decreasing and uniformly continuous on $(0,q)$, and to draw some relevant pictures of the graph of $h$.)
Let $\beta$ equal the right side of (\[eq:preffnn\]). We will now prove one “half” of (\[eq:preffnn\]), namely that $\mathbf{J}(h,(0,q),s)\le\beta$. Obviously $\beta\ge0$ and there exists a non increasing sequence $\left\{ \beta_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ which tends to $\beta$ and a sequence $\left\{ u_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of numbers satisfying $0<u_{n}<sq$ such that $$\beta_{n}=\frac{1}{2}\left(h(u_{n})-h(u_{n}+(1-s)q)\right)\,.$$ Since $u_{n}+(1-s)q<q$ and $h$ is right continuous, there exists $v_{n}$ such that $u_{n}+(1-s)q<v_{n}<q$ and $$0\le h\left(u_{n}+(1-s)\lambda(Q)\right)-h(v_{n})\le\frac{1}{n}\,.$$ If we set $c_{n}=\frac{1}{2}\left(h(u_{n})+h(v_{n})\right)$ and $\alpha_{n}=\frac{1}{2}\left(h(u_{n})-h(v_{n})\right)$ then $$\begin{aligned}
[u_{n},v_{n}] & \subset & \left\{ t\in(0,q):h(v_{n})\le h(t)\le h(u_{n})\right\} \\
& = & \left\{ t\in(0,q):c_{n}-\alpha_{n}\le h(t)\le c_{n}+\alpha_{n}\right\} \\
& = & \left\{ t\in(0,q):\left|h(t)-c_{n}\right|\le\alpha_{n}\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\left|\left\{ t\in(0,q):\left|h(t)-c_{n}\right|\le\alpha_{n}\right\} \right|\ge v_{n}-u_{n}>(1-s)q\,.$$ Consequently (by (\[eq:altdef\])) we have $\mathbf{J}(h,(0,q),s)\le\alpha_{n}$ for each $n$. Since $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\alpha_{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\beta_{n}=\beta$$ this shows that $\mathbf{J}(h,(0,q),s)\le\beta$.
Next we shall prove the reverse of the preceding inequality, namely that $\beta\le\mathbf{J}(h,(0,q),s)$. Here again we will use sequences denoted by $\left\{ \alpha_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, $\left\{ c_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, $\left\{ u_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $\left\{ v_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$. But they will be defined differently from their definitions in the preceding part of the proof. By (\[eq:altdef\]), there exists a non increasing sequence $\left\{ \alpha_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of non negative numbers which tends to $\mathbf{J}(h,(0,q),s)$ and a sequence $\left\{ c_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of real numbers such that $$\left|\left\{ t\in(0,q):c_{n}-\alpha_{n}\le h(t)\le c_{n}+\alpha_{n}\right\} \right|>(1-s)q\,.\label{eq:feup}$$
Let us define $$u_{n}:=\inf\left\{ t\in\left(0,q\right):h(t)\le c_{n}+\alpha_{n}\right\}$$ and $$v_{n}:=\sup\left\{ t\in\left(0,q\right):h(t)\ge c_{n}-\alpha_{n}\right\} \,.$$ Then, by definition, for each $m\in\mathbb{N}$, we have that $$\left[u_{n}+1/m,v_{n}-1/m\right]\subset\left\{ t\in\left(0,q\right):c_{n}-\alpha_{n}\le h(t)\le c_{n}+\alpha_{n}\right\} \subset[u_{n},v_{n}]\cap\left(0,q\right)\,.$$ Since we can choose $m$ arbitrarily large, this implies that the intervals $$\left(u_{n},v_{n}\right)\mbox{ and }[u_{n},v_{n}]\cap\left(0,q\right)$$ must have the same length as the interval $$\left\{ t\in\left(0,q\right):c_{n}-\alpha_{n}\le h(t)\le c_{n}+\alpha_{n}\right\} \,.$$ In view of (\[eq:feup\]), this gives us that $v_{n}-u_{n}>(1-s)q$. Furthermore, $0\le u_{n}<v_{n}\le q$. Therefore, for some sufficiently small $\varepsilon_{n}>0$, we have $v_{n}-u_{n}>2\varepsilon_{n}+(1-s)q$ and $$0\le u_{n}<u_{n}+\varepsilon_{n}<u_{n}+\varepsilon_{n}+(1-s)q<u_{n}+\varepsilon_{n}+v_{n}-u_{n}-2\varepsilon_{n}=v_{n}-\varepsilon_{n}<v_{n}\le q\,.$$ Since the two points $u_{n}+\varepsilon_{n}$ and $u_{n}+\varepsilon_{n}+(1-s)q$ are both in $(0,q)$, the number $\beta$ defined above satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
2\beta & \le & h\left(u_{n}+\varepsilon_{n}\right)-h\left(u_{n}+\varepsilon_{n}+(1-s)q\right)\\
& \le & h\left(u_{n}+\varepsilon_{n}\right)-h\left(v_{n}-\varepsilon_{n}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By the definitions of $u_{n}$ and $v_{n}$ this last expression is dominated by $$c_{n}+\alpha_{n}-\left(c_{n}-\alpha_{n}\right)=2\alpha_{n}\,.$$ Thus $\beta\le\alpha_{n}$ for all $n$. This gives us the remaining required inequality $\beta\le\mathbf{J}(h,(0,q),s)$ and completes the proof of (\[eq:preffnn\]) and part (i) of the proposition.
Now we turn to part (ii) and the proof of the formula (\[eq:ffnn\]). We will see that in fact (\[eq:ffnn\]) can be deduced from (\[eq:preffnn\]), essentially by a careful application of the fact that the functions $f$ and $\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}$, when restricted to $Q$ and to $\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right)$ respectively, have the same distribution function.
The function $\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}$ is non increasing and right continuous on $\left(0,\infty\right)$ and therefore also on the subinterval $\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right)$. So, we can set $q=\lambda(Q)$ and $h=\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}$ and apply (\[eq:preffnn\]) to obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
& & \mathbf{J}\left(\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*},\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right),s\right)=\nonumber \\
\label{eq:did-1}\\ & & \frac{1}{2}\inf\left\{ \left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}(u)-\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}\left(u+(1-s)\lambda(Q)\right):0<u<s\lambda(Q)\right\} \,.\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
We remark that we have used the notation $\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}$ rather than $f^{*}$ in (\[eq:ffnn\]) because, in future applications of this proposition, $f$ might possibly be defined on all of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ or on some other set which is strictly larger that $Q$. (Indeed the statement of the proposition explicitly allows for this possibility.) To simplify the notation in the rest of our proof we will let $$g=f\mid_{Q}\,,$$ i.e., $g:Q\to[0,\infty)$ will denote the function defined *only* on $Q$ which is the restriction of $f$ to $Q$. Thus we can unambiguously write $g^{*}$ instead of $\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}$, and of course $\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)=\mathbf{J}(g,Q,s)$. In view of (\[eq:did-1\]), in order to complete the proof of (\[eq:ffnn\]) and part (ii) of Proposition \[pro:prop\], it will suffice to show that $$\mathbf{J}(g,Q,s)=\mathbf{J}\left(g^{*},\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right),s\right)\,.\label{eq:gqgst}$$
In view of (\[eq:altdef\]), we can immediately obtain (\[eq:gqgst\]) if we know that$$\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):\left|g^{*}(t)-c\right|\le\alpha\right\} \right|=\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:\left|g(x)-c\right|\le\alpha\right\} \right)$$ for all $c\in\mathbb{R}$ and all $\alpha\ge0$. This is exactly the result which was proved in Lemma \[lem:psm\] and therefore the proof of part (ii) of Proposition \[pro:prop\] is complete. $\qed$
\[rem:fyed\]Here, as promised above, is the simpler proof of (\[eq:preffnn\]) for the case where $h$ is uniformly continuous, and strictly decreasing. In this case $h$ has a unique extension to a continuous function on $\left[0,q\right]$ which we will also denote by $h$. For each pair of numbers $c\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\alpha\ge0$, let $$E(c,\alpha):=\left\{ t\in[0,q]:\left|h(t)-c|\le\alpha\right|\right\} =\left\{ t\in[0,q]:c-\alpha\le h(t)\le c+\alpha\right\} \,.$$ This set is clearly a closed interval $\left[u,u+r\right]$ contained in $\left[0,q\right]$, on which $h$ attains a minimum value $m$ (at $u+r)$ and a maximum value $M$ (at $u$), and these values both lie in the interval $\left[c-\alpha,c+\alpha\right]$. If we set $c'=\frac{1}{2}(M+m)$ and $\alpha'=\frac{1}{2}(M-m)$ then of course $E(c',\alpha')=E(c,\alpha)$ and $0\le\alpha'\le\alpha$. Of course the length $r$ of the interval $E(c,\alpha)$ is the same as the length of the not necessarily closed interval $\left\{ t\in(0,q):\left|h(t)-c|\le\alpha\right|\right\} $. So, in order to calculate $\mathbf{J}(h,(0,q),s)$, we have to consider all intervals $E(c,\alpha)$ which have length exceeding $(1-s)q$ and find the infimum of all values of $\alpha$ which they can have. If, as above, we write $E(c,\alpha)$ as $[u,u+r]$, then $M=h(u)$ and $m=h(u+r)$ and $$\alpha'=\frac{1}{2}(M-m)=\frac{1}{2}\left(h(u)-h(u+r)\right)\,.$$ Thus $\mathbf{J}(h,(0,q),s)$ is the infimum of the set $\Omega$ of all numbers $\frac{1}{2}\left(h(u)-h(u+r)\right)$ for which $r>(1-s)q$ and $0\le u\le u+r\le q$. In view of the continuity and monotonicity of $h$, we can optimally choose $r=(1-s)q$, so that the above infimum is equal to the infimum of the set $\Omega_{1}$ of all numbers $\frac{1}{2}\left(h(u)-h\left(u+(1-s)q\right)\right)$ for which $0\le u\le u+(1-s)q\le q$. (The infimum is of course attained for some particular $u\in[0,q]$.) Again by continuity, this infimum is also equal to the infimum of the subset $\Omega_{2}$ of $\Omega_{1}$ $$\Omega_{2}=\left\{ \frac{1}{2}\left(h(u)-h\left(u+(1-s)q\right)\right):0<u,\, u+(1-s)q<q\right\} \,.$$ This last fact is exactly what is expressed by the formula (\[eq:preffnn\]), and so completes the proof.
We conclude this section by mentioning two more results, consequences of the formula (\[eq:ffnn\]), which each apply in the “limiting” case $s=1/2$ to any given admissible $Q$ and to each measurable real function $f$ defined on $Q$. We will not actually need to use them further in the current version of this paper. The first of these is the inequality$$\begin{aligned}
& & \mathbf{J}(f,Q,1/2)\\
& \ge & \frac{1}{2}\min\left\{ \left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}\left(\frac{\lambda(Q)}{4}\right)-\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}\left(\frac{\lambda(Q)}{2}\right),\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}\left(\frac{\lambda(Q)}{2}\right)-\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}\left(\frac{3\lambda(Q)}{4}\right)\right\} \end{aligned}$$ which follows from (\[eq:ffnn\]) combined with the simple observation that any closed subinterval $I$ of $(0,\lambda(Q))$ of length $\lambda(Q)/2$ must contain at least one of the two closed intervals $\left[\frac{\lambda(Q)}{4},\frac{\lambda(Q)}{2}\right]$ and $\left[\frac{\lambda(Q)}{2},\frac{3\lambda(Q)}{4}\right]$. For our second result we also note that, since the above interval $I$ is closed, it must also contain the point $\lambda(Q)/2$ in its interior. Consequently (\[eq:ffnn\]) also gives us that $$\mathbf{J}(f,Q,1/2)\ge\frac{1}{2}\left(\lim_{t\nearrow\lambda(Q)/2}\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}(t)-\left(f\chi_{Q}\right)^{*}\left(\frac{\lambda(Q)}{2}\right)\right)\,.$$
\[sec:FnOfOneVariable\]non increasing functions of one variable in BMO. Some simple calculations.
=================================================================================================
Suppose that $d=1$, that $D$ is a bounded open interval, and that $f:D\to\mathbb{R}$ is non increasing and right continuous. Our main aim in this section is to prove that a slight variant of the John-Strömberg inequality (namely (\[eq:odms\])) holds for these very special choices of $D$ and $f$.
The proof of (\[eq:odms\]) in this special case is of course much simpler than any known proofs of the John-Nirenberg or John-Strömberg inequalities for the general case. But the results of other sections will enable us to deduce the general case from this special case, albeit with not particularly good constants, and with restrictions on the range of the parameter $s$ appearing in the John-Strömberg functional.
We obtain (\[eq:odms\]) as a consequence of the following two lemmata. The first of these bounds the functional $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$ by another functional which has been found to be useful in various contexts and is more or less connected to the functional $\sup_{t>0}f^{**}(t)-f^{*}(t)$ which was introduced in [@bds]. Other results about these and similar functionals can be found, for example, in [@BagbyKurtz1; @BagbyKurtz2; @lerner98; @YoramPasha02] and in a large number of subsequent papers.
For simplicity, we only consider (and in fact only need to consider) the interval $I=(0,1)$ at this stage.
\[lem:bromp\]Suppose that $s\in(0,1/2)$ and $\rho=\frac{s}{1-s}$. Suppose that $f:(0,1)\to\mathbb{R}$ is a non increasing right continuous function. Then $$\sup_{t\in(0,1/2]}\left(f(\rho t)-f(t)\right)\le2\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left((0,1),\mathcal{Q}((0,1))\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\,.$$
Lerner [@lerner98 Theorem 3.1, p. 52] has obtained a much more general result with a much more elaborate proof, which essentially implies this lemma.
*Proof.* The properties of $f$ permit us to use the formula (\[eq:preffnn\]) of Proposition \[pro:prop\]. Let $(a,b)$ be an arbitrary open subinterval of $(0,1)$. Via an obvious change of variables (translation, e.g. apply (\[eq:preaffine\]) with $r=1$ and $x_{0}=a$) the formula (\[eq:preffnn\]) tells us that $$\mathbf{J}(f,(a,b),s)=\frac{1}{2}\inf\left\{ f(a+u)-f\left(a+u+(1-s)(b-a)\right):0<u<s(b-a)\right\} \,.\label{eq:upq}$$
Let $[c,d]$ be an arbitrary closed subinterval of $(a,b)$ of length $(1-s)(b-a)$. Then $d$ must satisfy $$d>a+(1-s)(b-a)$$ and $c$ must satisfy $$c<b-\left(1-s\right)(b-a)\,.$$ From these estimates it follows that $$f(d)\le f(a+(1-s)(b-a))\mbox{ and }f(b-(1-s)(b-a))\le f(c)\,.$$ These estimates imply that $$f\left(b-\left(1-s\right)(b-a)\right)-f\left(a+(1-s)(b-a)\right)\le f(c)-f(d)\,.$$ Taking the infimum over all subintervals $[c,d]$ of $\left(a,b\right)$ which have length $(1-s)(b-a)$ and applying (\[eq:upq\]), we see that $$f\left(b-\left(1-s\right)(b-a)\right)-f\left(a+(1-s)(b-a)\right)\le2\mathbf{J}(f,(a,b),s)\le2\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\label{eq:tds}$$ whenever $0\le a<b\le1$.
In particular, for an arbitrary $t\in(0,1/2]$, let us choose $a=0$ and $b=\frac{t}{1-s}$. Since $s\in(0,1/2)$ we have $b\in(t,2t)\subset(t,1)$. For these choices of $a$ and $b$, the left hand side of (\[eq:tds\]) equals $f(\rho t)-f(t)$. So the proof of the lemma is complete. $\qed$
Our second lemma enables us to bound the size of our function $f$ by an expression depending on the functional $\sup_{t\in(0,1/2]}\left(f(\rho t)-f(t\right)$ and consequently to obtain an inequality which is quite close to the one that we need.
\[lem:bonk\]The inequality $$f(u)-f(v)\le\left(1+\frac{\log\frac{v}{u}}{\log(1/\rho)}\right)\sup_{t\in(0,1/2]}\left(f(\rho t)-f(t)\right)\label{eq:burp}$$ holds for every non increasing function $f:(0,1)\to\mathbb{R}$, every $\rho\in(0,1)$, and every $u$ and $v$ satisfying $0<u<v\le1/2$.
As an immediate consequence we obtain
If $f$ and $\rho$ are as in the preceding lemma and if then$$\left|\left\{ t\in(0,1):f(t)-f(1/2)\ge\alpha\right\} \right|\le\frac{1}{2\rho}\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\log(1/\rho)}{c}\right)\mbox{ for each }\alpha\ge0\,.\label{eq:ejn}$$
*Proof of the lemma and its corollary.* Let $N$ be the unique positive integer for which $\rho^{N}v\le u<\rho^{N-1}v$. Then $(1/\rho)^{N-1}<\frac{v}{u}$ and so $N<1+\frac{\log\frac{v}{u}}{\log(1/\rho)}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
f(u)-f(v) & \le & f\left(\rho^{N}v\right)-f\left(\rho^{0}v\right)=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\left(f\left(\rho^{n}v\right)-f\left(\rho^{n-1}v\right)\right)\\
& \le & N\sup_{t\in(0,1/2]}\left(f(\rho t)-f(t)\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ This, combined with our estimate for $N$, establishes (\[eq:burp\]).
Now let us prove (\[eq:ejn\]) under the stated hypothesis. Setting $v=1/2$ in (\[eq:burp\]) gives us that $$f(u)-f(1/2)\le c\left(1-\frac{\log2u}{\log(1/\rho)}\right)\mbox{ for all }u\in(0,1/2)\,.\label{eq:tsjdt}$$ For each $\alpha\ge0$, the set $\left\{ t\in(0,1):f(t)-f(1/2)\ge\alpha\right\} $ is of course an interval contained in $(0,1/2]$. It follows from (\[eq:tsjdt\]) that the length of this interval cannot exceed $\frac{1}{2\rho}\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\log(1/\rho)}{c}\right)$. $\qed$
The preceding two lemmata and corollary have the following immediate consequence.
Let $f:I\to\mathbb{R}$ be a non increasing right continuous function on the interval $I=(0,1)$. Then, for each $s\in(0,1/2]$,
$$\left|\left\{ t\in I:f(t)-f\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\ge\alpha\right\} \right|\le\frac{1-s}{2s}\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\log\left(\frac{1}{s}-1\right)}{2\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\mbox{ for all }\alpha\ge0\,.\label{eq:jtddms}$$
Note that here we can also permit $s$ to take the limiting value $s=1/2$ and we can permit $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$ to be infinite (provided we agree to interpret both $1/\infty$ and $0/\infty$ as $0$). In such cases the right hand side of (\[eq:jtddms\]) is greater than or equal to $1/2$ which means that (\[eq:jtddms\]) is also true, trivially so, in these “limiting” cases.
It will now be a very simple matter to deduce a more general version of (\[eq:jtddms\]) for the case where $I$ is an arbitrary open interval $(a,b)$. Suppose that $f:(a,b)\to\mathbb{R}$ is right continuous and non increasing. Define $g:(0,1)\to\mathbb{R}$ by $g(t)=f(a+(b-a)t)$. Then (cf. (\[eq:preaffine\]) and (\[eq:affinestuff\])) we have $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=\left\Vert g\right\Vert _{BMO\left((0,1),\mathcal{Q}(0,1)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$. Furthermore, the set $$E_{1}=\left\{ t\in(a,b):f(t)-f\left(\frac{a+b}{2}\right)\ge\alpha\right\}$$ coincides with the set $(b-a)E_{2}+a$ where $$E_{2}=\left\{ x\in(0,1):g(x)-g(1/2)\ge\alpha\right\} \,.$$ Therefore, applying (\[eq:jtddms\]) to the function $g$ and multiplying both sides of the resulting inequality by $b-a=\left|I\right|$ gives us that $$\left|\left\{ t\in I:f(t)-f\left(c_{I}\right)\ge\alpha\right\} \right|\le\frac{1-s}{2s}\cdot\left|I\right|\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\log\left(\frac{1}{s}-1\right)}{2\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\label{eq:odms}$$ for every $\alpha\ge0$ and every $s\in(0,1/2]$ and for every open interval $I$, where $c_{I}$ denotes the midpoint of $I$.
This is the inequality that we need to apply in the proof of our main result, Theorem \[thm:mainjs\] of Section \[sec:Putting\].
One immediate consequence of (\[eq:odms\]) together with the inequality (\[eq:talpt\]) recalled in Remark \[rem:Cheb\], is that $$\left|\left\{ t\in I:f(t)-f\left(c_{I}\right)\ge\alpha\right\} \right|\le\frac{1-s}{2s}\cdot\left|I\right|\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha s\log\left(\frac{1}{s}-1\right)}{2\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}}\right)\label{eq:brerp}$$
\[rem:transit\]The inequality (\[eq:odms\]) is not exactly the John-Strömberg inequality, and (\[eq:brerp\]) is not exactly the John-Nirenberg inequality for the non increasing function $f$ on the interval $I$, since the John-Strömberg and John-Nirenberg inequalities are for the measure of the sets $\left\{ t\in I:\left|f(t)-f\left(c_{I}\right)\right|>\alpha\right\} $ and $\left\{ t\in I:\left|f(t)-f_{I}\right|>\alpha\right\} $ respectively, where $f_{I}=\frac{1}{\left|I\right|}\int_{I}f(t)dt$. But a simple argument (cf. the proof of Lemma \[lem:temjemt\]) enables us to replace $f(x)-f(c_{I})$ by $\left|f(x)-f(c_{I})\right|$ in the left hand side of (\[eq:odms\]), provided that we also multipy the right hand side by $2$. The possibility of replacing $f(c_{I})$ (which is of course the median of $f$ on $I$) by $f_{I}$ has already been discussed in Remark \[rem:difver\]. This replacement can be made, again at the price of increasing the constant on the right hand side. (More details about doing this are given in Lemma \[lem:av2med\] of Appendix \[sub:dfojne\].) We recall that a version of the John-Nirenberg inequality is given in [@koren1990] in which it is shown, for $d=1$, that the optimal value of the constant $b$ in (\[eq:jne\]) is $2/e$. See also [@korenovskii] p. 77. It is not difficult to check that the inequality obtained from (\[eq:brerp\]) by applying these simple steps does not have this optimal value for $b$.
\[sec:simplifyJohnStromberg\]A reduction of the proof of the John-Strömberg Theorem to a special case.
======================================================================================================
Having, in the previous section, prepared the auxiliary results that we need about special functions of one variable, we now turn to consider functions of several variables.
In our (very slightly) different notation, Lemma 3.1 on p. 517 of [@stromberg] states that
$$\begin{array}{c}
{\displaystyle \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:\left|f(x)-m_{f}(Q)\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\le C\lambda(Q)\exp\left(-\frac{c\alpha}{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO_{0,s}}}\right)}\end{array}\label{eq:threeone}$$
for all $\alpha\ge0$ and $s\in(0,1/2]$.
Here $C$ and $c$ are positive constants depending only on $d$ and $m_{f}(Q)$ is a median of $f$ on the arbitrary cube $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
(Here we are again using the notation specified in (\[eq:pone\]). Note that there is a small misprint in [@stromberg], namely the factor $\lambda(Q)$ (or $\left|Q\right|$) has been omitted there.)
Our main goal in this section is to show that, in order to prove the inequality (\[eq:threeone\]) for the specified values of $\alpha$ and $s$, and some other inequalities like it, it suffices to obtain such inequalities, but with different values of the constants $c$ and $C$, in the special case where $f$ is a non negative function taking only integer values. This fact will be precisely formulated as Theorem \[thm:temjemt-1\]. (The question of whether such inequalities actually do hold in that special case will be deferred to Section \[sec:Putting\]. We will be able to answer it there, with the help of results from other sections.)
Here we can just as easily work in the rather more general context of the space $BMO(D,\mathcal{E})$ of Definition \[def:bmode\]. Indeed, doing so will be convenient, since we will later want to apply the result of this section in such a general context, which will include, for example, the particular case of special rectangles (\[eq:wik0\]) as well as the case of usual cubes (\[eq:jnc\]). Thus, throughout this section $D$ will denote some arbitrary but fixed measurable subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ will denote some arbitrary but fixed collection of admissible subsets of $D$.
Our first (easy) step is to reduce everything to the case of non negative functions.
\[lem:temjemt\]Let $E$ be a fixed admissible set in $\mathcal{E}$, let $s$ be a fixed number in $(0,1/2]$, and let $c$ and $C$ be positive constants. Suppose that every non negative measurable function $f:D\to[0,\infty)$ satisfies the inequality
$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)\le C\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{c\alpha}{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\mbox{ for all }\alpha\ge0\,.\label{eq:pozthreeone}$$
Then every measurable function $f:D\to\mathbb{R}$ satisfies
$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-m\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\le2C\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{c\alpha}{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\mbox{ for all }\alpha\ge0\label{eq:newthreeone}$$
whenever $m$ is a median of $f$ on $E$.
In fact this same conclusion also holds under weaker hypotheses, namely if it is only known that (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) holds for those non negative functions $f:D\to[0,\infty)$ having the additional property that $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>0\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda(E)\,.\label{eq:addprop}$$
Our “natural” applications of Lemma \[lem:temjemt\], will be in the case where the collection $\mathcal{E}$ includes the set $D$ itself, and we choose $E=D$.
*Proof*. We have to prove (\[eq:newthreeone\]) for an arbitrary measurable function $f:D\to\mathbb{R}$ with median $m$ on $E$. Let $g=f-m$. Obviously $\mathbf{J}(g,E,s)=\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)$ and $\left\Vert g\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$ and so it will suffice to prove that$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|g(x)\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\le2C\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{c\alpha}{\left\Vert g\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\mbox{ for all }\alpha\ge0\,.\label{eq:gthreeone}$$ The left hand side of (\[eq:gthreeone\]) equals $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:g(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)+\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:g(x)<-\alpha\right\} \right)\\
& = & \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:g_{+}(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)+\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:g_{-}(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)\end{aligned}$$ where, as usual, $g_{+}=\max\left\{ g,0\right\} $ and $g_{-}=g_{+}-g=\max\left\{ -g,0\}\right\} $. We can apply Lemma \[lem:JLIP\] with $\varphi(t)=\max\left\{ t,0\right\} $ to obtain that $$\left\Vert g_{+}\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le\left\Vert g\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\mbox{ and }\left\Vert g_{-}\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le\left\Vert -g\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}.$$ Obviously $\left\Vert -g\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=\left\Vert g\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$. Thus, if we apply (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) to each of the non negative functions $g_{+}$ and $g_{-}$ and sum the results, we obtain (\[eq:gthreeone\]) and therefore that $f$ indeed satisfies (\[eq:newthreeone\]).
It remains to justify the claim in the last sentence of the statement of the lemma. Since $m$ is a median of $f$, it follows that $0$ is a median of $g$ and so the two functions $g_{+}$ and $g_{-}$ to which we have applied (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) satisfy $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:g_{+}(x)>0\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda(E)\mbox{ and }\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:g_{-}(x)>0\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda(E)\,.$$ $\qed$
Our next step is to reduce the proof of (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) to the case of appropriate integer valued functions.
\[lem:intval\]Let $E$, $\mathcal{E}$, $s$, $c$ and $C$ be as in the statement of Lemma \[lem:temjemt\]. Suppose that (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) holds for every non negative measurable function $f:D\to[0,\infty)$ which takes only integer values and satisfies $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le1/2$ and (\[eq:addprop\]). Then (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) also holds for every measurable $f:D\to[0,\infty)$, which satisfies (\[eq:addprop\]), but with the constants $C$ and $c$ replaced by $c_{1}=c/4$ and $C_{1}=\max\left\{ C,e^{c}\right\} $.
It will be clear from the following proof that we can also obtain the following additional result: Suppose that in the above lemma we impose the stronger condition that (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) holds also for every non negative measurable function $f:D\to[0,\infty)$ which takes only integer values and satisfies $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le1/2$ but does not necessarily satisfy (\[eq:addprop\]). Then we obtain the stronger conclusion that (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) holds for every measurable $f:D\to[0,\infty)$, but with the constants $C$ and $c$ replaced by $c_{1}=c/4$ and $C_{1}=\max\left\{ C,e^{c}\right\} $. I.e., in this case we can obtain (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) also for functions $f:D\to[0,\infty)$ which do not satisfy (\[eq:addprop\]).
*Proof.* We shall use the function $\varphi:[0,\infty)\to[0,\infty)$ which is defined by $$\varphi(t)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
0 & , & 0\le t\le1/2_{\phantom{Q}}\\
n & , & n-1/2<t\le n+1/2\mbox{ for each }n\in\mathbb{N^{\phantom{T}}}\,.\end{array}\right.$$ We will need the following three obvious or easily verified properties of $\varphi$:
$$\varphi([0,\infty))=\mathbb{\mathbb{N}}\cup\left\{ 0\right\} \,,$$
$$\varphi(t)-\varphi(s)\in\left\{ 0,1\right\} \mbox{ whenever }0\le s\le t\le s+1/2\,\label{eq:phat}$$
and $$\varphi(t)\ge t-1/2\mbox{ for all }t\ge0\,.\label{eq:gerp}$$
Suppose that $f:D\to[0,\infty)$ is an arbitrary measurable function which satisfies (\[eq:addprop\]) and also $$0<\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}<\frac{1}{3}\,.\label{eq:ner}$$ The composed function $\varphi\circ f$ also satisfies (\[eq:addprop\]) since $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\varphi\circ f(x)>0\right\} \right) & = & \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\varphi\circ f(x)\ge1\right\} \right)\\
& = & \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>1/2\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda(E)\,.\end{aligned}$$ We will next show that, furthermore, $\varphi\circ f$ satisfies $$\left\Vert \varphi\circ f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le1/2\,.\label{eq:wih}$$ Let $W$ be an arbitrary set in $\mathcal{E}$. Then (\[eq:ner\]) implies that $\mathbf{J}(f,W,s)<1/3$. Therefore (cf. (\[eq:altdef\])) there exists some $\alpha\in[0,1/3)$ and some $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in W:\left|f(x)-\gamma\right|\le\alpha\right\} \right)>(1-s)\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:ovmt}$$ Let us choose $$\gamma_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi(\gamma-\alpha)+\varphi(\gamma+\alpha)\right)\mbox{ and }\alpha_{1}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi(\gamma+\alpha)-\varphi(\gamma-\alpha)\right)\,.$$ Since $0\le\alpha<1/3$ we obtain from (\[eq:phat\]) that $\alpha_{1}$ is either $0$ or $1/2$. Since $\varphi$ is non decreasing, we also obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ x\in W:\left|f(x)-\gamma\right|\le\alpha\right\} & = & \left\{ x\in W:\gamma-\alpha\le f(x)\le\gamma+\alpha\right\} \\
& \subset & \left\{ x\in W:\varphi(\gamma-\alpha)\le\varphi\circ f(x)\le\varphi(\gamma+\alpha)\right\} \\
& = & \left\{ x\in W:\gamma_{1}-\alpha_{1}\le\varphi\circ f(x)\le\gamma_{1}+\alpha_{1}\right\} \\
& = & \left\{ x\in W:\left|\varphi\circ f(x)-\gamma_{1}\right|\le\alpha_{1}\right\} \,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we deduce, using (\[eq:ovmt\]) and (\[eq:altdef\]) once more, that $$\mathbf{J}\left(\varphi\circ f,W,s\right)\le\alpha_{1}\le1/2$$ and this establishes (\[eq:wih\]).
Since the function $\varphi\circ f$ is also non negative and integer valued, we have, according to the hypotheses of the lemma, that$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\varphi\circ f(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)\le C\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{c\alpha}{\left\Vert \varphi\circ f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\mbox{ for all }\alpha\ge0\,.\label{eq:dddiy}$$
The inequality (\[eq:gerp\]) implies that $$\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>\alpha\right\} \subset\left\{ x\in E:\varphi\circ f(x)>\alpha-1/2\right\} \,,$$ and consequently, for all $\alpha>1/2$, it follows, using (\[eq:dddiy\]) and then (\[eq:wih\]) and then (\[eq:ner\]), that$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>\alpha\right\} \right) & \le & C\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{c(\alpha-1/2)}{\left\Vert \varphi\circ f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\\
& \le & C\lambda(E)\exp\left(-2c(\alpha-1/2)\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ If we now restrict $\alpha$ to the range $\alpha\ge1$, we also have $\alpha-1/2\ge\alpha/2$ and so $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>\alpha\right\} \right) & \le & C\lambda(E)\exp\left(-c\alpha\right)\le C_{1}\lambda(E)\exp\left(-c\alpha\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ recalling, as stated in the lemma, that $C_{1}=\max\left\{ C,e^{c}\right\} $.
Now let us consider the range of values $0\le\alpha<1$. Of course $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)\le\lambda(E)$$ for these (and all other) values of $\alpha$. Furthermore, for each $\alpha\in[0,1)$ we have $C_{1}e^{-c\alpha}\ge1$ and therefore $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)\le C_{1}\lambda(E)\exp\left(-c\alpha\right)\,.$$ We have thus now shown that, subject to the hypotheses of the lemma, the inequality $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>\beta\right\} \right)\le C_{1}\lambda(E)\exp\left(-c\beta\right)\label{eq:kromp}$$ holds for all $\beta\ge0$ and for all those measurable functions $f:D\to[0,\infty)$ which satisfy $$0<\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}<1/3\label{eq:slish}$$ and (\[eq:addprop\]). Now we can easily obtain the required inequality (\[eq:pozthreeone\]) without having to impose (\[eq:slish\]). Given an arbitrary measurable function $f:D\to[0,\infty)$ satisfying (\[eq:addprop\]) and any $\alpha>0$, we let $\widetilde{f}=f/4\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$ and choose $\beta=\alpha/4\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$. Then by homogeneity (cf. (\[eq:homog\])), we have $\left\Vert \widetilde{f}\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=1/4$ and of course $\widetilde{f}$ also satisfies (\[eq:addprop\]). So we can apply (\[eq:kromp\]) to $\widetilde{f}$ and obtain (\[eq:pozthreeone\]), completing the proof of the lemma. $\qed$
We can summarize the results of this section by the following theorem, whose proof follows immediately from the previous two lemmata.
\[thm:temjemt-1\]Let $E$ be a fixed admissible set in $\mathcal{E}$, let $s$ be a fixed number in $(0,1/2]$, and let $c$ and $C$ be positive constants. Let $\Phi$ be the set of all non negative measurable functions $f:D\to[0,\infty)$ which take only integer values, and which satisfy $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le1/2$ and $\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>0\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda(E)$. Suppose that every $f\in\Phi$ satisfies $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)\le C\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{c\alpha}{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\mbox{ for all }\alpha\ge0\,.\label{eq:brinz}$$ Then every measurable function $f:D\to\mathbb{R}$ satisfies$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-m\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\le2\max\left\{ C,e^{c}\right\} \lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{c\alpha}{4\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\label{eq:inxz}$$ for all $\alpha\ge0$, whenever $m$ is a median of $f$ on $E$.
The “geometrical” component of our proof
========================================
A “balancing act” between two subsets of a cube. The “bi-density” constant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We begin by stating a simple result which is a sort of “prototype” of the main result that we seek in this section. It will also be a tool for proving that main result.
\[lem:prototype\]Let $Q$ be a cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $E$ be a measurable subset of $Q$ such that $0<\lambda(E)<\lambda(Q)$. Then there exists a cube $W$ contained in $Q$ such that $$\lambda(W\setminus E)=\lambda(W\cap E)=\frac{1}{2}\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:zprop}$$
We can just as easily prove a slightly more general result. See Lemma \[lem:prehlfm\] below. Setting $s=1/2$ in that lemma will give the result just stated here.
If the cube $Q$ in Lemma \[lem:prototype\] is dyadic, and we want to only consider subcubes $W$ which are also dyadic, then (as is made explicit below in Remark \[rem:bestdyadic\]) we cannot hope in general to obtain one of them which satisfies (\[eq:zprop\]). Instead, as the next lemma states, we can obtain a dyadic subcube $W$ satisfying a rather weaker property.
\[lem:prototype-1\]Let $Q$ be a dyadic cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $E$ be a measurable subset of $Q$ such that $0<\lambda(E)<\lambda(Q)$. Then there exists a dyadic cube $W$ contained in $Q$ such that $$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\setminus E),\lambda(W\cap E)\right\} \ge2^{-d}(1-2^{-d})\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:wprop}$$
*Proof.* Clearly any measurable set $W$ (whether or not it is a dyadic cube) satisfies the condition $$2^{-d}\lambda(W)\le\lambda(W\setminus E)\le(1-2^{-d})\lambda(W)\label{eq:mxm8}$$ if and only if it satisfies $$2^{-d}\lambda(W)\le\lambda(W\cap E)\le(1-2^{-d})\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:btr}$$ Any cube $W$ satisfying these conditions of course also satisfies (\[eq:wprop\]). Thus the only case which we have to consider is when (\[eq:mxm8\]) and (\[eq:btr\]) are not satisfied for any dyadic subcube $W$ of $Q$. Then, in particular, $Q$ itself must satisfy either $$\lambda(Q\cap E)<2^{-d}\lambda(Q)\label{eq:aak}$$ or $\lambda(Q\cap E)>(1-2^{-d})\lambda(Q)$. We can and will suppose that the former of these two conditions holds. If the latter condition holds then the proof is exactly the same, except for an interchange of the roles of the sets $E$ and $F$ where $F=Q\setminus E$.
Let $x$ be a density point of $E$ in the interior of $Q$. By an appropriate version of the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, (see e.g. [@WheedenZygmund] Theorem 7.16 pp. 108–109) there exists a dyadic cube $U$ such that $x\in U\subset Q$ and $$\lambda(U\cap E)\ge(1-2^{-d})\lambda(U)\,.\label{eq:aakz}$$ Consider the finite sequence of dyadic cubes $\left\{ U_{n}\right\} _{n=1}^{N}$ for which $U_{1}=U$ and $U_{N}=Q$ and which satisfy $U_{n}\subset U_{n+1}$ and $\lambda(U_{n+1})=2^{d}\lambda(U_{n})$ for each $n=1,2,...,N-1$. In view of (\[eq:aak\]) and (\[eq:aakz\]) the inequality $$\lambda(U_{n}\cap E)\ge(1-2^{-d})\lambda(U_{n})\label{eq:imk}$$ holds for $n=1$ but not for $n=N$. So there must exist some integer $n$ with $1\le n\le N-1$ for which (\[eq:imk\]) holds and also $$\lambda(U_{n+1}\cap E)<(1-2^{-d})\lambda(U_{n+1})\,.\label{eq:ronz}$$ Since we have excluded the possibility that $U_{n+1}$ satisfies (\[eq:btr\]), it follows from (\[eq:ronz\]) that $\lambda(U_{n+1}\cap E)<2^{-d}\lambda(U_{n+1})$, or, equivalently, that $\lambda(U_{n+1}\setminus E)>(1-2^{-d})\lambda(U_{n+1})$. Using (\[eq:imk\]), we see that $$\lambda(U_{n+1}\cap E)\ge\lambda(U_{n}\cap E)\ge2^{-d}(1-2^{-d})\lambda(U_{n+1})$$ and so the dyadic cube $W=U_{n+1}$ satisfies (\[eq:wprop\]). $\qed$
\[rem:bestdyadic\]We have not bothered to check whether it is possible to obtain a stronger conclusion in Lemma \[lem:prototype-1\] where the constant $2^{-d}(1-2^{-d})$ in (\[eq:wprop\]) is replaced by some larger constant. However any such improvement would not be very significant, since the simple example where $E$ is a dyadic subcube of $Q$ shows that the constant in (\[eq:wprop\]) cannot exceed $2^{-d}$.
Referring back to the terminology introduced in (\[eq:jnc\]), (\[eq:dyadic\]), (\[eq:balls\]), (\[eq:fedja\]) and (\[eq:wik0\]) we can see that Lemma \[lem:prototype\] gives us information about the collection $\mathcal{Q}(D)$ of subcubes of $D$, and Lemma \[lem:prototype-1\] gives us analogous information about the collection $\mathcal{D}(D)$ of dyadic subcubes of $D$. The following notion will put the results of these two lemmata in a more general context.
Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a collection of admissible subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. We say that a number $\delta$ is a *bi-density constant* for $\mathcal{E}$ if, for each $Q\in\mathcal{E}$ and for each measurable set $E$ for which $0<\lambda(Q\cap E)<\lambda(Q)$, there exists some set $W\in\mathcal{E}$ with $W\subset Q$ such that $$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap E),\lambda(W\setminus E)\right\} \ge\delta\lambda(W)\,.$$
Thus Lemma \[lem:prototype\] tells us that $\delta=1/2$ is a bi-density constant for $\mathcal{Q}(D)$. The next lemma will show (when we substitute $s=1/2$) that this is also the case for the collections $\mathcal{K}(D)$ and $\mathcal{W}(D)$ (defined above in (\[eq:fedja\]) and (\[eq:wik0\])). The value $1/2$ is in fact optimal since, clearly, any bi-density constant for any collection $\mathcal{E}$ always has to satisfy $\delta\le1/2$. Lemma \[lem:prototype-1\] and Remark \[rem:bestdyadic\] tell us that every bi-density constant $\delta$ for $\mathcal{D}(D)$ must satisfy $2^{-d}(1-2^{-d})\le\delta\le2^{-d}$.
\[lem:prehlfm\]Let $K$ be a convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with non empty interior and let $E$ be a measurable subset of $K$ such that $0<\lambda(E)<\lambda(K)$. Then, given an arbitrary number $s\in(0,1)$, there exists a cube $W\subset K$ for which $$\frac{\lambda(W\cap E)}{\lambda(W)}=s\,.\label{eq:tpdh}$$
*Proof.* Since the boundary of a convex subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ always has measure zero (see Appendix \[sub:convexboundary\]), we may assume without loss of generality that $E$ is contained in the interior $K^{\circ}$ of $K$.
By the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, almost every point of the set $E$ is a point of density. So there exists a subcube $W_{a}$ of $K$ centred at one of these density points for which $$\frac{1}{\lambda(W_{a})}\int_{W_{a}}\chi_{E}d\lambda>s\,.$$ Similarly there exists another subcube $W_{b}$ of $K$ centred at some density point of $F:=K^{\circ}\backslash E$ for which $$\frac{1}{\lambda(W_{a})}\int_{W_{a}}\chi_{E}d\lambda=1-\frac{1}{\lambda(W_{b})}\int_{W_{b}}\chi_{F}d\lambda<s\,.$$ Now we define a family $\left\{ W(t)\right\} _{t\in[0,1]}$ of subcubes of $K$ such that $W(0)=W_{a}$ and $W(1)=W_{b}$ and such that $W(t)$ varies continuously as a function of $t$ on $[0,1]$. It is easy to see how to do this, but we will nevertheless give an explicit recipe.
Let $c(a)$ and $c(b)$ be the centres of $W_{a}$ and $W_{b}$ respectively, and let $r(a)$ and $r(b)$ be the side lengths of $W_{a}$ and $W_{b}$ respectively. For convenience, and without of loss of generality, we may suppose that $r(a)\le r(b)$.
If $r(a)=r(b)$ then we simply define $W(t)$ to be the cube of sidelength $r(a)$ centred at the point $(1-t)c(a)+tc(b)$ for each $t\in[0,1]$.
If $r(a)<r(b)$ then we first define $W(t)$ on $[0,1/2]$ by letting it be the cube of sidelength $r(a)$ centred at the point $(1-2t)c(a)+2tc(b)$. Then, for $t\in[1/2,1]$ we let $W(t)$ be the cube centred at $c(b)$ with sidelength $r(a)(2-2t)+r(b)(2t-1)$.
In both of the above cases, the fact that $K$ is convex guarantees that $W(t)\subset K$ for all $t\in[0,1]$.
It is easy to see that $t\mapsto\frac{1}{\lambda(W(t))}\int_{W(t)}\chi_{E}d\lambda$ is a continuous function of $t$ on $[0,1]$. Therefore it must take the value $s$ at some point $t_{*}\in(0,1)$. The cube $W=W\left(t_{*}\right)$ satisfies (\[eq:tpdh\]). $\qed$
Some preparations for a “balancing act” between three subsets of a cube.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the previous subsection we considered cubes $Q$ which are the unions of *two* disjoint sets $E$ and $Q\setminus E$ which both have positive measure, and we have obtained a subcube $W$ of $Q$ whose intersections with $E$ and with $Q\setminus E$ are both “significant” proportions of $W$. Our main goal in the sequel will be to “upgrade” these kinds of results to a situation where the cube $Q$ (or a more general set) is the union of *three* disjoint sets, which we may denote by $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ and $G$. We will show (in Theorem \[thm:maingt\]) that, under certain conditions, there is a kind of “tri-density constant”. Let us try to express this a little more explicitly: If $G$ is a “relatively small” part of $Q$ then we will show that there is a subcube $W$ of $Q$ whose intersections with $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ are “significant” proportions of $W$. We will formulate this result in a more general context where $Q$ and $W$ are not necessarily cubes, but are members of some suitable collection $\mathcal{E}$ of admissible sets. In Section \[sec:crux\] we will see the implications of this property of three subsets for the study of various versions of $BMO$.
In order to express our main result for a more general choice of collections $\mathcal{E}$ of admissible sets, we need to define some more notions. Our point of departure for doing this comes from considering two important examples:
\(i) Every cube $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is of course the union of $2^{d}$ non overlapping subcubes, each having volume $2^{-d}\lambda(Q)$. Then each of these subcubes can of course in turn be subdivided into $2^{d}$ non overlapping subcubes of volume $2^{-2d}\lambda(Q)$, .... and this process can be continued indefinitely.
\(ii) Every special rectangle $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is of course the union of $2$ non overlapping special rectangles, each having volume $2^{-1}\lambda(Q)$. Then each of these special rectangles can of course in turn subdivided into $2$ non overlapping special rectangles of volume $2^{-2d}\lambda(Q)$, .... and this process too can be continued indefinitely.
Here is a notion which incorporates these two examples, and ultimately other examples.
\[def:multilevel\]Let $E$ be an admissible set in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Let $M\ge2$ be a positive integer. We will say that the doubly indexed sequence $\left\{ E_{j,k}\right\} _{j\ge0,1\le k\le M^{j}}$ of admissible sets is a *multilevel decomposition of $E$ with multiplicity $M$* if it satisfies the following conditions:
\(i) $E_{0,1}=E$, and, more generally, $$E=\bigcup_{k=1}^{M^{j}}E_{j,k}$$ for each fixed $j\ge0$.
\(ii) For each fixed $j\ge1$ the sets $E_{j,k}$ satisfy $\lambda\left(E_{j,k}\cap E_{j,k'}\right)=0$ whenever $k\ne k'$.
\(iii) $\lambda(E_{j,k})=M^{-j}\lambda(E)$ for each $j\ge0$ and $k\in\left\{ 1,2,....,M^{j}\right\} $.
\(iv) For each fixed $j\ge1$, and $k\in\left\{ 1,2,...,M^{j}\right\} $, the set $E_{j,k}$ is the union of $M$ sets from among the $M^{j+1}$ sets $E_{j+1,m}$. More explicitly, $$E_{j,k}=\bigcup_{m=M(k-1)+1}^{Mk}E_{j+1,m}\,.$$
\(v) The diameters of the sets $E_{j,k}$ tend to zero uniformly as $j$ tends to infinity, i.e.,$$\lim_{j\to\infty}\left(\max_{1\le k\le M^{j}}\mathrm{diam}E_{j,k}\right)=0\,.\label{eq:diamtz}$$
The preceding definition leads us immediately to this next one.
\[def:Mmultidecomp\]Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a collection of admissible subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $M\ge2$ be an integer. We will say that $\mathcal{E}$ is *$M$-multidecomposable* if every set $E\in\mathcal{E}$ has a multilevel decomposition $\left\{ E_{j,k}\right\} _{j\ge0,1\le k\le M^{j}}$ of multiplicity $M$ where all of the sets $E_{j,k}$ are also in $\mathcal{E}$.
So, of course, for any open subset $D$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, the collections $\mathcal{Q}(D)$ and $\mathcal{D}(D)$ are both $2^{d}$-multidecomposable, and the collection $\mathcal{W}(D)$ is $2$-multidecomposable. It is probably easy to show that the collection $\mathcal{K}(D)$ is also $2$-decomposable.
Our main “geometrical” result. The promised “balancing act” between three subsets of a (generalized) cube.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[thm:maingt\]Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a $M$-multidecomposable collection of admissible subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ for some $M\ge2$. Let $\tau$ be a positive number. Let $\delta$ be a bi-density constant for $\mathcal{E}$.
Suppose that $Q$ is a set in $\mathcal{E}$ and there exist three pairwise disjoint measurable sets $E_{+}$, $E_{-}$ and $G$ which satisfy
$$Q=E_{+}\cup E_{-}\cup G$$ and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}),\lambda(E_{-})\right\} >\tau\lambda(G)\,.\label{eq:tlm}$$ Then there exists a subset $W$ of $Q$ such that $W\in\mathcal{E}$ and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}\cap W),\lambda(E_{-}\cap W)\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\label{eq:pdev}$$ where $$s=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
{\displaystyle \min\left\{ \frac{\tau-\tau^{2}}{M(1+\tau)},\delta\right\} } & , & 0<\tau\le\sqrt{2}-1\\
\\{\displaystyle \min\left\{ \frac{3-2\sqrt{2}}{M},\delta\right\} } & , & \sqrt{2}-1\le\tau\,.\end{array}\right.$$
It will be convenient to explicitly state some immediate consequences of Theorem \[thm:maingt\] for some special choices of $Q$ and $\mathcal{E}$,
\[cor:cmaingt\]Suppose that $Q$ is, respectively (i), a cube, or (ii) a dyadic cube or (iii) a special rectangle in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and that, respectively,
\(i) $\mathcal{E=Q}(Q)$, or (ii) $\mathcal{E=D}(Q)$, or (iii) $\mathcal{E=W}(Q)$. Suppose that $Q$ is the disjoint union of the three sets $E_{-}$, $E_{+}$ and $G$ and that $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}),\lambda(E_{-})\right\} >\left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)\lambda(G)\,.$$ Then there exists a set $W\subset Q$ which is, respectively, (i) a cube, or (ii) a dyadic cube or (iii) a special rectangle, and which satisfies $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}\cap W),\lambda(E_{-}\cap W)\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)$$ where, respectively, (i) $s=2^{-d}(3-2\sqrt{2})$, or (ii) $s=2^{-d}(3-2\sqrt{2})$ (again), or (iii) $s=(3-2\sqrt{2})/2$.
*Proof of Corollary \[cor:cmaingt\].* We simply apply Theorem \[thm:maingt\], substituting the known values for $\delta$ and $M$ in the formula $s=\min\left\{ \frac{3-2\sqrt{2}}{M},\delta\right\} $ in each of the three cases. $\qed$
Theorem \[thm:maingt\] and Corollary *\[cor:cmaingt\]* motivate us to introduce another notion. This notion will enable a convenient formulation of the main question raised by this paper, and also a convenient proof of the consequences that an affirmative answer to that question would have.
\[def:jsconst\]Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a collection of admissible subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Let $\tau$ and $s$ be positive numbers with the following property:
Let $Q$ be a set in $\mathcal{E}$ and let $E_{+}$, $E_{-}$ and $G$ be arbitrary pairwise disjoint admissible sets whose union is $Q$. Suppose that$$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}),\lambda(E_{-})\right\} >\tau\lambda(G)\,.\label{eq:isms}$$ Then there exists a set $W\subset Q$ which is also in $\mathcal{E}$ and for which$$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}\cap W),\lambda(E_{-}\cap W)\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:blerk}$$ Then we will say that *$\left(\tau,s\right)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{E}$*.
The preceding definition is formulated for all possible positive values of $\tau$ and $s$. However, for our particular applications we are interested only in cases where $\tau<1/2$. This is why, in the formulation of Question A, we apply this latter restriction to $\tau$.
\[exa:emaingt\]We can reformulate Corollary \[cor:cmaingt\] as follows: We take $\tau=\sqrt{2}-1$. Then, for any open set $D$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, we have that
\(i) $\left(\sqrt{2}-1,2^{-d}(3-2\sqrt{2})\right)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{Q}(D)$ and also for $\mathcal{D}(D)$.
\(ii) $\left(\sqrt{2}-1,\frac{3-2\sqrt{2}}{2}\right)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{W}(D)$.
\[rem:unitcube\]In the special case where $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{Q}(D)$ for some open subset $D$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ then, obviously, $\left(\tau,s\right)$ is a John-Strömberg pair if and only if the condition appearing in the second paragraph of Definition \[def:jsconst\] holds for just one particular cube $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, for example for the unit cube $Q=[0,1]^{d}$. The cube $Q$ does not have to be contained in $D$. (In fact the particular choice of $D$ is irrelevant in this case. $\left(\tau,s\right)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{Q}(D)$ if and only if it is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$.)
\[rem:tauIsLittle\]We can now express Question A concisely in the language of Definition \[def:jsconst\]. Question A simply asks whether there exist two absolute constants $s>0$ and $\tau\in(0,1/2)$ such that $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ for *every* $d\in\mathbb{N}$.
\[rem:JSimpliesBIDENSITY\]In Definition \[def:jsconst\] the set $G$ may be chosen to be empty. Therefore any number $s$, which happens to form a John-Strömberg pair $(\tau,s)$ for $\mathcal{E}$ with some positive number $\tau$, will also automatically be a bi-density constant for $\mathcal{E}$. The particular value of $\tau$ is immaterial here.
\[rem:sbth\]Although the only restriction that we explicitly impose on $s$ is that it has to be positive, we see from (\[eq:blerk\]) that some cube $W$, which has positive measure, must satisfy $$\lambda(W)\ge\lambda(E_{+}\cap W)+\lambda(E_{-}\cap W)\ge2\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}\cap W),\lambda(E_{-}\cap W)\right\} \ge2s\lambda(W)\,.$$ Thus the constant $s$ in the above definition can never be greater than $1/2$.
\[rem:dim\]The first of the two inequalities which appear in Definition \[def:jsconst\] (and also in Question A) is strict and the second is not. But would it really change anything if both or neither of them were strict? It would seem that not. We refer to Remark \[rem:equality\] in connection with this issue.
*Proof of Theorem \[thm:maingt\].* In view of the regularity of $\lambda$ there exist compact subsets $H_{+}$ and $H_{-}$ of $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ respectively such that $$\min\left\{ \lambda(H_{+}),\lambda(H_{-})\right\} >\tau\lambda(G)\,.$$ If there exists $W\in\mathcal{E}$ such that $W\subset Q$ and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(H_{+}\cap W),\lambda(H_{-}\cap W)\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)$$ then obviously $W$ also satisfies (\[eq:pdev\]). This means that we may assume without loss of generality that $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ are themselves compact sets. Since they are also disjoint, it follows that$$\rho:=\mathrm{dist}\left(E_{+},E_{-}\right)>0\,.$$
We will say that the set $W$ is a *good set* if $W\in\mathcal{E}$ and $W\subset Q$ and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}\cap W),\lambda(E_{-}\cap W)\right\} >\tau\lambda(G\cap W)\,.$$
(We mention that a slight variant of this definition will play a role later, in Subsection \[sub:diffspec\], in particular in the proof of Theorem \[thm:newred\], which will have some similarities with some of the arguments here.)
Let $\left\{ Q_{j,k}\right\} _{j\ge0,1\le k\le M^{j}}$ be a multilevel decomposition of $Q$ of multiplicity $M$ where all of the sets $Q_{j,k}$ are in $\mathcal{E}$. A sequence $\left\{ Q^{(n)}\right\} _{0\le n<\ell}$ of sets in $\mathcal{E}$, where $\ell$ can be finite or infinite, will be called a *chain* if $Q^{(0)}=Q$ and, if for each $n$ such that $1\le n<\ell$ we have $Q^{(n)}=Q_{n,k_{n}}$ for some integer $k_{n}\in\left\{ 1,2,...,M^{n}\right\} $. When $\ell=\infty$, we have (by (\[eq:diamtz\])) that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathrm{diam}Q^{(n)}=0$. So there must exist some $n_{1}$ such that $\mathrm{diam}Q^{(n)}<\rho$ for all $n\ge n_{1}$. Thus, for $n\ge n_{1}$ the set $Q^{(n)}$ cannot intersect with both of $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ and so cannot be a good set.
Let construct a particular chain $\left\{ Q^{(n)}\right\} _{0\le n<\ell}$ in the following way. We of course have to start with $Q^{(0)}=Q$. If among all the sets $Q_{1,k}$ for $k\in\left\{ 1,2,...,M\right\} $ there is no set which is good, then we set $\ell=1$ and our construction is complete. Otherwise we choose $Q^{(1)}$ to be a good set from the above list. Next we check whether, among those of the sets $Q_{2,k}$ for $k\in\left\{ 1,2,...,M^{2}\right\} $ which are contained in $Q^{(1)}\,$, there is one which is a good set. If so we choose $Q^{(2)}$ to be such a set. If not, we set $\ell=2$ and our construction is complete. The continuation of this process is now clear. At the $n$th stage we seek a good set, which we will call $Q^{(n)}$, from among those of the sets $Q_{n,k}$ which are contained in $Q^{(n-1)}$. If no such set exists, then we set $\ell=n$ and the construction is complete. In view of the arguments presented in the previous paragraph, we must have $\ell<\infty$, i.e., the construction necessarily has to terminate after finitely many steps.
Thus we have obtained a good set $Q^{(\ell-1)}$ which is one of the sets $Q_{\ell-1,k}$ for some integer $k$ and it will enable us to complete the proof of the theorem. Let us denote the $M$ sets of the form $Q_{\ell,m}$ which are contained in $Q^{(\ell-1)}$ by $W_{1}$, $W_{2}$,...., $W_{M}$. By our construction, none of these sets are good sets. For the rest of the proof we will assume that $$\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap E_{-})\le\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap E_{+})\,.$$ If the reverse inequality holds then we will simply use an exact analogue of the proof that we are about to give, where we will simply interchange the roles of $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$.
We have to consider three cases:
Case (i). Suppose that $\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap G)=0$. Then, since $\delta$ is a bi-density constant for $\mathcal{E}$, and since $\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap E_{+})$ and $\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\setminus E_{+})=\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap E_{-})$ are both positive, there exists $W\in\mathcal{E}$ such that $W\subset Q^{(\ell-1)}$ and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap E_{+}),\lambda(W\cap E_{-})\right\} \ge\delta\lambda(W)\ge s\lambda(W)\,,\label{eq:tcpt}$$ completing the proof of the theorem.
Case (ii). Suppose that $\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})=\lambda(W_{m})$ for some $m\in\left\{ 1,2,...,M\right\} $.
Then $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap E_{+}) & \ge & \lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap E_{-})\ge\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})=\lambda(W_{m})=M^{-1}\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)})\\
& \ge & s\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)})\,.\end{aligned}$$
So we see that in this case the set $W=Q^{(\ell-1)}$ has the properties required to complete the proof of the theorem.
Case (iii). This is the remaining case where cases (i) and (ii) are excluded. I.e., we have $\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap G)>0$ and $$\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})<\lambda(W_{m})\mbox{ for all }m\in\left\{ 1,2,...,M\right\} \,.\label{eq:omp-1}$$
The inequality $$\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap E_{-})>\tau\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap G)>0$$ (which holds because $Q^{(\ell-1)}$ is good) can be rewritten (in view of condition (ii) of Definition \[def:multilevel\]) as$$\sum_{m=1}^{M}\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})>\sum_{m=1}^{M}\tau\lambda(W_{m}\cap G)>0\,.\label{eq:qtyp}$$ Let $N$ be the (possibly empty) set of all integers $m$ in $\left\{ 1,2,...,M\right\} $ which satisfy $$\lambda(W_{m}\cap G)=0\,.$$ If $\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})>0$ for some $m\in N$, then, since (\[eq:omp-1\]) also holds, we can again, analogously to what was done in Case (i), invoke the bi-density condition to obtain some $W\in\mathcal{E}$ with $W\subset W_{m}$ which satisfies (\[eq:tcpt\]) and so completes the proof. This means that we can now assume that $\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})=0$ for all $m\in N$. Therefore (\[eq:qtyp\]) can be rewritten as$$\sum_{m\in\{1,2,..,M\}\backslash N}\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})>\sum_{m\in\{1,2,..,M\}\backslash N}\tau\lambda(W_{m}\cap G)>0\,.$$ It follows that there exists at least one $m\in\left\{ 1,2,...,M\right\} \setminus N$ which satisfies $$\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})>\tau\lambda(W_{m}\cap G)>0\,.$$ Recall that, by our construction, $W_{m}$ is not good. Therefore we must have $$\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{+})\le\tau\lambda(W_{m}\cap G)\,.$$ We use this and the preceding inequality to obtain that$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-}) & > & \tau\lambda(W_{m}\cap G)=\tau\left[\lambda(W_{m})-\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})-\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{+})\right]\\
& \ge & \tau\left[\lambda(W_{m})-\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})-\tau\lambda(W_{m}\cap G)\right]\\
& \ge & \tau\left[\lambda(W_{m})-\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})-\tau\lambda(W_{m})\right]\\
& = & \left(\tau-\tau^{2}\right)\lambda(W_{m})-\tau\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})\,.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that $$\lambda\left(W_{m}\cap E_{-}\right)>\frac{\tau-\tau^{2}}{1+\tau}\lambda(W_{m})=M^{-1}\frac{\tau-\tau^{2}}{1+\tau}\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)})\,.$$ Let us consider the case where $\tau$ is in the range $0<\tau\le\sqrt{2}-1$. Since $$\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap E_{+})\ge\lambda(Q^{(\ell-1)}\cap E_{-})\ge\lambda(W_{m}\cap E_{-})$$ and $M^{-1}\frac{\tau-\tau^{2}}{1+\tau}=s$ for this range of values of $\tau$, we see that in this case $W=Q^{(\ell-1)}$ satisfies (\[eq:pdev\]). In the remaining case, where $\tau>\sqrt{2}-1$, we simply observe that the given condition (\[eq:tlm\]) also holds when $\tau$ is replaced by the smaller number $\sqrt{2}-1$ and so we can apply the same argument for this smaller value of $\tau$ to obtain the required conclusion. This completes the proof of the theorem. $\qed$
\[sec:crux\]Applying our “geometrical” result. The non increasing rearrangement of a BMO function.
==================================================================================================
Suppose that a function $f$ of $d$-variables is in $BMO\left(D,\mathcal{Q}(D)\right)$ for some cube $D$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. It is known [@bds], [@garsiarodemich74] that this implies that the function of one variable $f^{*}$, i.e., the non increasing rearrangement of $f$, is in $BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)$ and that $$\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}\le C\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(D,\mathcal{Q}(D)\right)}\label{eq:ffstar}$$ for some constant $C$ depending only on $d$. (Of course here we are in fact considering only the restriction of $f^{*}$ to the interval $\left(0,\lambda(D)\right)$.) Apparently the optimal value of $C$ for which (\[eq:ffstar\]) holds for all such $f$ is not yet known. Nor is it known yet whether or not $C$ can be chosen to in fact be independent of $d$. It is known [@koren1990] that $C=1$ when $d=1$. An analogous result holds for dyadic intervals [@klemes].
In this section we wish to obtain inequalities analogous to (\[eq:ffstar\]), in terms of the functional of John and Strömberg, namely inequalities of the form $$\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}\le C\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(D,\mathcal{E}\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\label{eq:vmjet}$$ where, as above, $I$ is the interval $I=(0,\lambda(D))$ and $s$ and $\sigma$ are suitably chosen numbers in $(0,1/2]$. We will be particularly interested in the cases where $D$ is a cube or a special rectangle and $\mathcal{E}$ is $\mathcal{Q}(D)$ or $\mathcal{W}(D)$. But our results for these will be consequences of an analogous result for more general choices of $D$ and $\mathcal{E}$.
The constant $C$ in our versions of (\[eq:vmjet\]) will be $C=1$ and this is apparently the best possible constant for any and every choice of the parameters $\sigma$ and $s$ in $(0,1/2]$. We will be able to take our parameter $\sigma$ to be any number satisfying $$\frac{1}{2}\ge\sigma>\frac{2\sqrt{2}-2}{2\sqrt{2}-1}\approx0.453082\,.$$ (As mentioned earlier, values of $\sigma>1/2$ are not particularly interesting, since $\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}$ can equal $0$ also when $f$ is not a constant function.) Our parameter $s$ will depend on our choice of $\mathcal{E}$. In fact it will be exactly the parameter given by the formula $s=\min\left\{ \frac{3-2\sqrt{2}}{M},\delta\right\} $ in Theorem \[thm:maingt\]. Thus, exactly as in Corollary \[cor:cmaingt\], we will have $s=2^{-d}(3-2\sqrt{2})$ if $\mathcal{E}$ is either $\mathcal{Q}(D)$ or $\mathcal{D}(D)$ and $D$ is, respectively a cube, or a dyadic cube, and, furthermore, we will have $s=(3-2\sqrt{2})/2$ if $\mathcal{E=W}(D)$ and $D$ is a special rectangle.
We should now stress that we will not obtain our versions of the inequality (\[eq:vmjet\]), which we have spent the last few paragraphs describing, in as much generality as the reader may have been led to expect. We will only obtain them for the very special class of those measurable functions $f$ on $D$ which take only non negative integer values, and which satisfy $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO\left(D,\mathcal{E}\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le1/2$. But, in view of the results of Section \[sec:simplifyJohnStromberg\], notably Theorem \[thm:temjemt-1\], this will be sufficient for our subsequent purposes.
It is perhaps surprising, and perhaps even amusing, that, at a certain stage, it will turn out to be sufficient to consider an even more restricted subclass of the very special class of functions just referred to, namely those functions which only assume at most three consecutive integer values, which may just as well be $0$, $1$ and $2$.
All the results which we have just described are immediate consequences of the following theorem (Theorem \[thm:UltraNewMain\]). In turn Theorem \[thm:UltraNewMain\] will follow from a more general theorem (Theorem \[thm:Nultra\]) which will be formulated after this one.
In the formulation of both of the following two theorems we consider a collection $\mathcal{E}$ of admissible sets and a particular set $Q\in\mathcal{E}$. Instead of $\mathcal{E}$, we use the subcollection $\mathcal{E}(Q)$ of all sets in $\mathcal{E}$ which are contained in $Q$. We are essentially forced to do this because our function $f$ is defined only on $Q$. Obviously, if $f$ happens to be defined on all sets in $\mathcal{E}$ the conclusions of both theorems will remain true if we replace $\mathcal{E}(Q)$ by the larger collection $\mathcal{E}$.
\[thm:UltraNewMain\]Let $\mathcal{E}$ be an $M$-multidecomposable collection for some $M\ge2$. Let $\delta$ be a bi-density constant for $\mathcal{E}$. Let $Q$ be a set in $\mathcal{E}$ and let $\mathcal{E}(Q)$ be the collection of all sets in $\mathcal{E}$ which are contained in $Q$. Suppose that the function $f:Q\to\mathbb{N}\cup\left\{ 0\right\} $ is measurable and satisfies $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E}(Q))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le1/2$ for $s=\min\left\{ \delta,\frac{3-2\sqrt{2}}{M}\right\} $. Let $\sigma$ be a number in the range $$\frac{2\sqrt{2}-2}{2\sqrt{2}-1}<\sigma\le\frac{1}{2}\,.\label{eq:ams}$$ Then the function $f^{*}:(0,\lambda(Q))\to[0,\infty)$, i.e., the non increasing rearrangement of $f$ restricted to the interval $I:=(0,\lambda(Q))$ satisfies $$\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}\le\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E}(Q))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\,.$$
We want to obtain this theorem as a consequence of the following somewhat more abstract and general theorem, which is formulated in terms of John-Strömberg pairs $(\tau,s)$ for the collection $\mathcal{E}$. By introducing this extra level of abstraction we also make it possible to formulate the consequences of an affirmative answer to Question A in a (hopefully) clearer and more organized way.
\[thm:Nultra\]Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a collection of admissible subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Let $Q$ be a set in $\mathcal{E}$ and let $\mathcal{E}(Q)$ be the collection of all sets in $\mathcal{E}$ which are contained in $Q$. Let $\tau\in(0,1/2)$ and $s\in(0,1/2)$ be such that $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{E}$. Suppose that the function $f:Q\to\mathbb{N}\cup\left\{ 0\right\} $ is measurable and satisfies $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E}(Q))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le1/2$. Let $\sigma$ be a number in the range $$\frac{2\tau}{1+2\tau}<\sigma\le\frac{1}{2}\,.\label{eq:Nams}$$ Then the function $f^{*}:(0,\lambda(Q))\to[0,\infty)$, i.e., the non increasing rearrangement of $f$ restricted to the interval $I:=(0,\lambda(Q))$, satisfies $$\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}\le\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E}(Q))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\,.\label{eq:Nyphwu}$$
\[rem:conversethm\]We find it interesting that the “geometric” condition of the existence of a John-Strömberg pair turns out to be in some sense “almost equivalent” to the “analytic” condition expressed by the inequality (\[eq:Nyphwu\]). This is revealed by combining Theorem \[thm:Nultra\] with an auxiliary result (Theorem \[thm:Ninverse\]) which we will defer to the end of this section, since it will not be needed for obtaining our main result in Section \[sec:Putting\]. Theorem \[thm:Ninverse\] will be a sort of converse to Theorem \[thm:Nultra\]. (The fact that we use $\mathcal{E}(Q)$ rather than $\mathcal{E}$ in the previous two theorems makes their results more closely comparable with the result of Theorem \[thm:Ninverse\].)
*Proofs of Theorems \[thm:UltraNewMain\] and\[thm:Nultra\].*
Let us first show that Theorem \[thm:UltraNewMain\] is a consequence of \[thm:Nultra\]. Since the conclusions of both theorems are the same, this simply amounts to showing that the conditions imposed on $\mathcal{E}$ and $s$ and $\sigma$ in Theorem \[thm:UltraNewMain\] suffice to guarantee that $\mathcal{E}$ and $s$ and $\sigma$ satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:Nultra\] for some suitable choice of $\tau$. In fact we will choose $\tau=\sqrt{2}-1$ so that $\frac{2\tau}{1+2\tau}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}-2}{2\sqrt{2}-1}$. So when, in Theorem *\[thm:UltraNewMain\]*, we require $\sigma$ to satisfy (\[eq:ams\]), this ensures that $\sigma$ will be in the range specified in (\[eq:Nams\]). It remains only to check that $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{E}$ when $\tau=\sqrt{2}-1$ and $s=\min\left\{ \delta,\frac{3-2\sqrt{2}}{M}\right\} $. But this is exactly what is stated by Theorem \[thm:maingt\] for these choices of $\tau$ and $s\,$.
Thus we can now turn to the proof of Theorem \[thm:Nultra\]. Since we only have to deal with sets of $\mathcal{E}$ which are contained in $Q$ we may suppose from here onwards that $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}(Q)$.
The fact that all values taken by $f$ are in $\mathbb{N\cup}\left\{ 0\right\} $ readily implies that the same is true for all values of $f^{*}$. To explain this more precisely, since $\lambda(Q)<\infty$, we can invoke (\[eq:df4\]) to obtain that $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)=m\right\} \right)=\left|\left\{ t\in\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right):f^{*}(t)=m\right\} \right|\,\mbox{for all }m\in\mathbb{N}\cup\left\{ 0\right\} \,.\label{eq:intval}$$ Then the fact that $$\sum_{m=0}^{\infty}\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)=m\right\} \right)=\lambda(Q)$$ implies that the subset of $\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right)$ where $f^{*}$ takes non integer values has measure zero.
Let us first dispose of three easier special cases where we can readily see that (\[eq:Nyphwu\]) holds.
The first of these cases is when $f$ takes only one value (on sets of positive measure). Then of course $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}=0$ no matter how we choose $\sigma$ and $s$. So we obtain (\[eq:Nyphwu\]).
The second case is when $f$ takes only two values (on sets of positive measure). In this case $f=a\chi_{A}+b\chi_{Q\setminus A}$ for some $A\subset Q$ such that $0<\lambda(A)<\lambda(Q)$ and where $b<a$. Since (cf. Remark \[rem:JSimpliesBIDENSITY\]) $s$ is also a bi-density constant for $\mathcal{E}$, there exists some set $W_{0}\in\mathcal{E}$ contained in $Q$ such that $$\min\left\{ \lambda(W_{0}\cap A),\lambda(W_{0}\setminus A)\right\} \ge s\lambda(W_{0})\,.$$ This means that the restriction of $\left(f\chi_{W_{0}}\right)^{*}$ to the interval $\left(0,\lambda(W_{0})\right)$ is given by the formula $\left(f\chi_{W_{0}}\right)^{*}=a\chi_{(0,r)}+b\chi_{[r,\lambda(W_{0}))}$ for some number $r\in[s\lambda(W_{0}),(1-s)\lambda(W_{0})]$. For all choices of the number $u$ which satisfy $u\in\left(0,s\lambda(W_{0})\right)$ we have $u\in(0,r)$ and $$u+(1-s)\lambda(W_{0})\in[r,\lambda(W_{0}))\,.$$ Consequently, $\left(f\chi_{W_{0}}\right)^{*}(u)=a$ and $\left(f\chi_{W_{0}}\right)^{*}\left(u+(1-s)\lambda(W_{0})\right)=b$. This implies, by Proposition \[pro:prop\], that $\mathbf{J}(f,W_{0},s)=\frac{a-b}{2}$ for this particular set $W_{0}$. Proposition \[pro:prop\] also tells us that $\mathbf{J}(f,W,s)\le\frac{a-b}{2}$ for all other sets $W$ in $\mathcal{E}$, so we conclude that $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=\frac{a-b}{2}$. Since $1/2$ is a bi-density constant for $\mathcal{Q}(I)$ and $\sigma\in(0,1/2]$ it follows that $\sigma$ is also a bi-density constant for $\mathcal{Q}(I)$. So we can show, by applying reasoning to $f^{*}$ and $\sigma$, which is exactly analogous to the reasoning just applied to $f$ and $s$, that $\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}=\frac{a-b}{2}$. Thus we see that (\[eq:Nyphwu\]) holds in this case also.
The third and last of these easier cases is when $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}<1/2$. We will deal with this case by showing that here $f$ has to be a constant. The fact that $f$ and $f^{*}$ are integer valued, together with the formula (\[eq:ffnn\]), tells us that the two functionals $\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}$ and $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$ are each infima of appropriate subsets of the set $\left\{ (n-1)/2:n\in\mathbb{N}\right\} $ of non negative half-integers. Thus these functionals themselves can only take non negative half integer values. More explicitly, if $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}<1/2$, then $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=0$. If $f$ is constant a.e., then so is $f^{*}$ and, as in the first case, we see, trivially that (\[eq:Nyphwu\]) holds. We shall now show that this is the only possibility. Suppose, on the contrary, that $f$ is not a constant a.e. Then let $b$ be the smallest non negative integer (there must exist at least two such integers) for which the set $B=\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)=b\right\} $ has positive measure. Then the set $$A=\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)>b\right\} =\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)\ge b+1\right\}$$ must also have positive measure and we must have $\lambda(B)+\lambda(A)=\lambda(Q)$.
Let us now define the functions $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ and $\psi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ by $\psi(t)=\max\left\{ t,b\right\} $ and then $\varphi(t)=\min\left\{ b+1,\psi(t)\right\} $. Obviously $\psi$ and therefore also $\varphi$ are both 1-Lipschitz functions and therefore, by Lemma \[lem:JLIP\], we have that $$\left\Vert \varphi\circ f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=0\,.\label{eq:mma}$$ We also have $\varphi\circ f=b\chi_{B}+(b+1)\chi_{A}$ almost everywhere. Therefore, the same calculation that we did in case (ii) for a function taking *only two different values* a.e., gives here that $$\left\Vert \varphi\circ f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=\frac{\left|(b+1)-b\right|}{2}=\frac{1}{2}\,.$$ This contradicts (\[eq:mma\]) and shows that $f$ indeed must be a constant, completing our treatment of this case.
Having disposed of these three cases, we can, from this point onwards, assume that $f$ takes three or more different values on sets of positive measure, and we can also assume that $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=1/2$. Let us suppose that (\[eq:Nyphwu\]) does not hold, i.e., that $$\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}>1/2\,.\label{eq:wa}$$ We will complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:Nultra\] by showing that (\[eq:wa\]) leads to a contradiction. It follows from (\[eq:wa\]) that there exists some subinterval $I^{\prime}=(a,b)$ of $I$ such that $\mathbf{J}(f^{*},I^{\prime},\sigma)>1/2$. This means that the number $\alpha=1/2$ is not in the “competition” for the infimum in the formula analogous to (\[eq:altdef\]) for $\mathbf{J}(f^{*},I^{\prime},\sigma)$. So, for every $c\in\mathbb{R}$, we have $$\left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):\left|f^{*}(t)-c\right|\le1/2\right\} \right|\le(1-\sigma)(b-a)\,.$$ If $k$ is any integer and if we choose $c=k+1/2$, then, since $f$ and $f^{*}$ only take integer values, we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ t\in(a,b):\left|f^{*}(t)-c\right|\le1/2\right\} & = & \left\{ t\in(a,b):c-1/2\le f^{*}(t)\le c+1/2\right\} \\
& = & \left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)\in\{k,k+1\}\right\} \,.\end{aligned}$$ So, in fact, $$\left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)\in\{k,k+1\}\right\} \right|\le(1-\sigma)(b-a)\mbox{ for each }k\in\mathbb{Z}\,.\label{eq:bomp}$$ (It may of course happen that this set is empty for some or even most values of $k$.)
Since $$(a,b)=\bigcup_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)<k\right\}$$ and since the set $\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)<0\right\} $ is empty, there exists a unique integer $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that$$\begin{array}{rcl}
\left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)<k-1\right\} \right| & \le & {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma}{2}}(b-a)<\left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)<k\right\} \right|\\
\\ & = & \left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)\le k-1\right\} \right|\,\end{array}\label{eq:jomp}$$
The interval $(a,b)$ is the union of the three disjoint sets $\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)<k-1\right\} $, $\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)\in\{k-1,k\}\right\} $ and $\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)\ge k+1\right\} $. By (\[eq:bomp\]) and (\[eq:jomp\]), the measure of the union of the first two of these does not exceed $\left(1-\frac{\sigma}{2}\right)(b-a)$. Therefore we conclude that $$\left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)\ge k+1\right\} \right|\ge\frac{\sigma}{2}(b-a)\,.\label{eq:klomp}$$
This implies that there exists some integer $m\ge k+1$ for which the set $$\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)=m\right\}$$ has positive measure. Let us also show that the set $\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)=k-1\right\} $ has positive measure. Its measure satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
& & \left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)=k-1\right\} \right|\\
& = & \left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)\le k-1\right\} \right|-\left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)\le k-2\right\} \right|\\
& = & \left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)<k\right\} \right|-\left|\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)<k-1\right\} \right|\end{aligned}$$ which, by (\[eq:jomp\]), is indeed positive.
We now know that on the interval $(a,b)$ the function $f^{*}$ assumes at least one value strictly larger than $k$ and at least one value strictly less than $k$. Since $f$ is non increasing, this means that $$\left\{ t\in(a,b):f^{*}(t)=k\right\} =\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):f^{*}(t)=k\right\} \,.\label{eq:fromp}$$ Now let us define the three sets $$E_{-}=\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)\le k-1\right\} ,\, G=\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)=k\right\} \mbox{ and }E_{+}=\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)\ge k+1\right\} .$$ By properties of the non increasing rearrangement, or, more specifically, in view of (\[eq:intval\]), we obtain that the $\lambda$ measures of these three sets are equal, respectively, to $$\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):f^{*}(t)\le k-1\right\} \right|\mbox{ and }\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):f^{*}(t)=k\right\} \right|$$ and $\left|\left\{ t\in(0,\lambda(Q)):f^{*}(t)\ge k+1\right\} \right|$. Consequently, using (\[eq:fromp\]) and then (\[eq:bomp\]), we see that $\lambda(G)\le(1-\sigma)(b-a)$. Then (\[eq:jomp\]) and (\[eq:klomp\]) give us that $\lambda(E_{-})\ge\frac{\sigma}{2}(b-a)$ and $\lambda(E_{+})\ge\frac{\sigma}{2}(b-a)$. Therefore we have $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{-}),\lambda(E_{+})\right\} \ge\frac{\sigma}{2(1-\sigma)}\lambda(G)\,.\label{eq:utmdtv}$$ It is a routine matter to check that the condition (\[eq:Nams\]) is equivalent to $$\tau<\frac{\sigma}{2(1-\sigma)}\le\frac{1}{2}\,.\label{eq:sywc}$$
Let us pause for a moment to point out that we have finally reached the *only* step of the proof which needs a non trivial “geometric” input, namely the fact that $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{E}$.
To know that we have this fact in the particular case that appears in the formulation of Theorem \[thm:UltraNewMain\] we need to apply our “geometric” Theorem \[thm:maingt\]. To know that we have this fact for other particular collections $\mathcal{E}$, or with better values of the constant $s$, we would need an affirmative answer to Question A, or to some other question. In the present theorem we have simply “axiomatized the ’geometric’ problem away” by invoking a convenient definition.
Now let us resume our formal proof: The estimates (\[eq:sywc\]) and (\[eq:utmdtv\]) give us the inequality (\[eq:isms\]) which appears in Definition \[def:jsconst\]. Since we have required that $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{E}$, this guarantees that there exists a set $W\in\mathcal{E}$ for which $W\subset Q$ and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}\cap W),\lambda(E_{-}\cap W)\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:smdtv}$$
Let us now, analogously to what we did in the easy case (iii) above, define the functions $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ and $\psi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ by $\psi(t)=\max\left\{ t,k-1\right\} $ and then $\varphi(t)=\min\left\{ k+1,\psi(t)\right\} $. Here again it is obvious that $\psi$ and therefore also $\varphi$ are both 1-Lipschitz functions. Therefore, again by Lemma \[lem:JLIP\] and by our hypotheses on $f$, we have that $$\left\Vert \varphi\circ f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\le1/2\,.\label{eq:ityb}$$ Note also that the function $\varphi\circ f$ takes precisely three values, namely $k-1$, $k$ and $k+1$.
Our final step will be to show that the set $W$ which satisfies (\[eq:smdtv\]) must also satisfy $$\mathbf{J}(\varphi\circ f,W,s)\ge1\,.\label{eq:rc}$$ This will contradict (\[eq:ityb\]) and so show that the assumption (\[eq:wa\]) must be false, and thus will suffice to complete the proof of Theorem r\[thm:Nultra\].
To simplify the notation, let us set $g=\varphi\circ f$. As already remarked above, this non negative function takes only the three values $k-1$, $k$, and $k+1$. More precisely, when we restrict $g$ to the cube $W$, it takes these three values, respectively, on the sets $E_{-}\cap W$, $G\cap W$ and $E_{+}\cap W$, whose union is $W$.
Thus the restriction of $(g\chi_{W})^{*}$ to the interval $\left(0,\lambda(W)\right)$ is given by $$(g\chi_{W})^{*}(t)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
k+1 & , & 0<t<a\\
k & , & a\le t<b\\
k-1 & , & b\le t<\lambda(W)\end{array}\right.$$ where $a=\lambda(E_{+}\cap W)$ , $b-a=\lambda(G\cap W)$ and $\lambda(W)-b=\lambda(E_{-}\cap W)$.
Let $I=\left[u,u+(1-s)\lambda(W)\right]$ be an arbitrary closed interval of length $(1-s)\lambda(W)$ which is contained in $\left(0,\lambda(W)\right)$. Since the left interval $(0,a)$ has length not less than $s\lambda(W)$ we conclude that the left endpoint of $I$ must line in $(0,a)$. Similarly, since the right interval $[b,\lambda(W))$ also has length not less than $s\lambda(W)$, the right endpoint of must lie in $[b,\lambda(W))$. We deduce that $$\left(g\chi_{W}\right)^{*}(u)-\left(g\chi_{W}\right)^{*}\left(u+(1-s)\lambda(Q)\right)=(k+1)-(k-1)=2\,.$$ Therefore, by Proposition \[pro:prop\], we have that $\mathbf{J}(g,W,s)=1$ which establishes (\[eq:rc\]). As already explained above, this suffices to complete the proof of Theorem \[thm:UltraNewMain\]. $\qed$
We conclude this section by stating and proving the auxiliary result alluded to above in Remark \[rem:conversethm\], which is a sort of converse to Theorem \[thm:Nultra\] but which will not be needed for other purposes here. Note that here the connection (\[eq:Nams\]) between $\tau$ and $\sigma$ of Theorem \[thm:Nultra\] has to be replaced by the different connection (\[eq:NNams\]). Also the collection $\mathcal{E}$ appearing in (\[eq:Nyphwu\]) has to be replaced by the closely related collection $\mathcal{E}(Q)$.
\[thm:Ninverse\]Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a collection of admissible subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Let $s$ and $\sigma$ be two given numbers in $(0,1/2)$ and let $\tau$ be any number in $(0,1)$ satisfying$$0<\sigma<\frac{\tau}{1+2\tau}\,.\label{eq:NNams}$$ Suppose that, for each $Q\in\mathcal{E}$, the inequality $$\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}\le\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E}(Q))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\label{eq:NNyphwu}$$ holds for the interval $I=\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right)$ and for every measurable function $f:Q\to\mathbb{R}$ which assumes only the three values $0$, $1$ and $2$. Here $\mathcal{E}(Q)$ denotes the collection of all those sets in $\mathcal{E}$ which are contained in $Q$.
Then $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{E}$.
*Proof.* Let $Q$ be an arbitrary set in $\mathcal{E}$. Suppose that $Q$ is the disjoint union of measurable sets $E_{+}$, $E_{-}$ and $G$. Suppose that $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}),\lambda(E_{-})\right\} >\tau\lambda(G)\,.\label{eq:ctau}$$ We have to show that there exists some $W\in\mathcal{E}$ such that $W\subset Q$ and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}\cap W),\lambda(E_{-}\cap W)\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:hrp}$$ We may also suppose, without loss of generality, that $$\lambda(E_{-})\le\lambda(E_{+})\,,\label{eq:mlp}$$ since, if not, we can simply interchange the roles of $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$. Let $f:Q\to[0,\infty)$ be the measurable function $f=2\chi_{E_{-}}+\chi_{G}$. Then $$f^{*}=2\chi_{(0,\lambda(E_{-}))}+\chi_{[\lambda(E_{-}),\lambda(E_{-})+\lambda(G))}\,.$$ In view of (\[eq:mlp\]), the interval $I_{0}:=(0,2\lambda(E_{-})+\lambda(G))$ is contained in $\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right)$. In view of (\[eq:ctau\]), $$\left|I_{0}\right|=2\lambda(E_{-})+\lambda(G)>(2\tau+1)\lambda(G)$$ and therefore $\lambda(G)<\frac{1}{2\tau+1}\left|I_{0}\right|$. Since the inequality (\[eq:NNams\]) implies that $\frac{1}{2\tau+1}<1-2\sigma$, we deduce that $$\lambda(G)<(1-2\sigma)\left|I_{0}\right|\,.\label{eq:omq}$$ On the interval $I_{0}$, the function $f^{*}$ takes the value $1$ on a subinterval $I_{G}$ of length $\lambda(G)$ located centrally in $I_{0}$ and it takes the values $2$ and $0$, respectively, on two intervals $I_{-}$ and $I_{+}$, both of length $\lambda(E_{-})$, located respectively on the left and right sides of $I_{G}$. In view of (\[eq:omq\]), each of these two intervals has length greater than $\sigma\left|I_{0}\right|$. Now let $$I_{1}=\left[u,u+(1-\sigma)\left|I_{0}\right|\right]$$ be an arbitrary closed interval of length $(1-\sigma)\left|I_{0}\right|$ contained in $I_{0}$. This means that $0<u<\sigma\left|I_{0}\right|$. The fact that $u<\sigma\left|I_{0}\right|$ ensures that the left endpoint of $I_{0}$ must lie in the interior of $I_{-}$. The fact that $u>0$ ensures that the right endpoint of $I_{1}$ must lie in the interior of $I_{+}$. It follows that $$f^{*}(u)-f^{*}(u+(1-\sigma)\left|I_{0}\right|)=2$$ for each such interval $I_{1}$. Consequently, using (\[eq:ffnn\]), we deduce that $\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}=1$. The hypotheses of the current theorem include the assumption that our function $f$ satisfies (\[eq:NNyphwu\]). Note also that the formula (\[eq:ffnn\]) and the fact that the ranges of $f$ and $f^{*}$ are both contained in $[0,2]$ guarantee that neither $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E}(Q))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$ nor $\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}$ can be greater than $1$. We deduce that $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E}(Q))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}=1\,.\label{eq:mqtpat}$$ We now use (\[eq:mqtpat\]) to deduce the existence of a set $W\in\mathcal{E}(Q)$ such that $$\mathbf{J}\left(f,W,s\right)=1\,.\label{eq:otpat}$$ (When calculating $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E}(Q))}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}$ we take the supremum of a set of numbers which is a subset of $\left\{ 0,\frac{1}{2},1\right\} $.)
To complete the proof we have to show that $W$ is a set with the required property (\[eq:hrp\]). Let us suppose that this is not the case and show that this leads to a contradiction. Our supposition means that at least one of the two sets $(E_{+}\cup G)\cap W$ and $(E_{-}\cup G)\cap W$ must have $\lambda$ measure strictly greater than $(1-s)\lambda(W)$.
Let $h:(0,\lambda(W))\to[0,\infty)$ be the restriction to $\left(0,\lambda(W)\right)$ of the non increasing rearrangement of $f\chi_{W}$. Then the statement of the last sentence of the preceding paragraph means that there exists an subinterval $I_{0}$ of the interval $(0,\lambda(W))$ which has length strictly greater than $(1-s)\lambda(W)$ on which $h$ takes only two values, and that these two values are either $0$ and $1$ or $1$ and $2$. This enables us to find a closed interval $\left[u,u+(1-s)\lambda(W)\right]$ contained in the interior of $I_{0}$ for which $$h(u)-h\left(u+(1-s)\lambda(W)\right)\le1$$ and therefore $\mathbf{J}\left(f,W,s\right)\le1/2$. This contradicts (\[eq:otpat\]) and therefore completes the proof of the theorem. $\qed$
\[sec:Putting\]Putting all the pieces together.
===============================================
Now at last we can combine our results from previous sections to obtain our versions of the John-Nirenberg and John-Strömberg inequalities. The following theorem does this. It also explicitly and immediately shows (keeping in mind Remark \[rem:tauIsLittle\]) the consequence of an affirmative answer to Question A, thus proving what we claimed at the very beginning of this paper.
The hypotheses imposed on $\mathcal{E}$, $Q$, $\tau$ and $s$ in this theorem are exactly those which were imposed in Theorem \[thm:Nultra\]. But here the parameter $\sigma$ does not need to be explicitly mentioned.
\[thm:mainjs\]Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a collection of admissible subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Let $Q$ be a set in $\mathcal{E}$ which contains all other sets of $\mathcal{E}$. Let $\tau\in(0,1/2)$ and $s\in(0,1/2)$ be such that $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for $\mathcal{E}$. Then, for every constant $r$ in the range $1\le r\le1/2\tau$, the inequalities$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le\max\left\{ r,2\sqrt{r}\right\} \cdot\lambda(Q)\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\log r}{8\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\label{eq:Neimed}$$ and$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le\max\left\{ r,2\sqrt{r}\right\} \cdot\lambda(Q)\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha s\log r}{8\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}}\right)\label{eq:Nbeimed}$$ hold for every $\alpha\ge0$, every measurable $f:Q\to\mathbb{R}$, and every median $m$ of $f$ on $Q$.
\[rem:choosingr\]The inequality (\[eq:newurp\]) which appears at the very beginning of this paper is of course simply (\[eq:Nbeimed\]) with $r=1/2\tau$. This is in some sense the most “pertinent” value of $r$ to choose since it gives the best control of the left hand side of (\[eq:Nbeimed\]) when we consider large values of $\alpha$
*Proof of Theorem \[thm:mainjs\].* Let us prepare some ingredients which will later enable us to apply Theorem \[thm:temjemt-1\]. In our application the sets $D$ and $E$ which appear in the statement of Theorem \[thm:temjemt-1\] will both be taken to equal the set $Q$ specified in the formulation here of Theorem \[thm:mainjs\]. Let $f:Q\to\mathbb{N}\cup\left\{ 0\right\} $ be an arbitrary function in the class $\Phi$ which is defined in Theorem \[thm:temjemt-1\]. Let $\sigma$ be a number satisfying the condition (\[eq:Nams\]) which is imposed in Theorem \[thm:Nultra\]. Then, since $f$ and $\sigma$ and $s$ satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:Nultra\], we can deduce from Theorem \[thm:Nultra\] that $$\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO(I,\mathcal{Q}(I))}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}\le\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}\,,\label{eq:flimp}$$ where $I$ is the interval $\left(0,\lambda(Q)\right)$. The fact that $f^{*}$ is right continuous and non increasing on $I$ ensures that, for every $\alpha\ge0$, it satisfies the inequality corresponding to (\[eq:odms\]) which here takes the form $$\left|\left\{ t\in I:f^{*}(t)-f^{*}\left(\lambda(Q)/2\right)\ge\alpha\right\} \right|\le\frac{1-\sigma}{2\sigma}\cdot\left|I\right|\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\log\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}-1\right)}{2\left\Vert f^{*}\right\Vert _{BMO\left(I,\mathcal{Q}(I)\right)}^{(\mathbf{J},\sigma)}}\right)\,.\label{eq:jerp}$$
As an element of $\Phi,$ the function $f$ must satisfy $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)>0\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda(Q)\,.\label{eq:vergp}$$ This implies that $f^{*}(t)=0$ for all $t>\lambda(Q)/2$ and therefore also that $f^{*}\left(\lambda(Q)/2\right)=0$. (Use properties (i) and (ii) of Section \[sec:SignedRearrangements\].)
Now, for every $\alpha>0$ we can apply (\[eq:df2\]) to the left hand side of (\[eq:jerp\]) and use (\[eq:flimp\]) to bound the right hand side of (\[eq:jerp\]) from above. This gives us that $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le\frac{1-\sigma}{2\sigma}\cdot\lambda(Q)\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\log\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}-1\right)}{2\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\,.\label{eq:oink}$$
We deduce, using (\[eq:oink\]) when $\alpha>0$, and using (\[eq:vergp\]), together with the fact that $\frac{1-\sigma}{2\sigma}\ge\frac{1}{2}$, when $\alpha=0$, that $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:f(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)\le\frac{1-\sigma}{2\sigma}\cdot\lambda(Q)\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\log\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}-1\right)}{2\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)$$ for all $\alpha\ge0$. This last inequality corresponds to the inequality (\[eq:brinz\]) of Theorem \[thm:temjemt-1\], and the fact that it holds for every $f\in\Phi$ is exactly what we need to justify applying Theorem \[thm:temjemt-1\]. Since here the constants $C$ and $c$ of (\[eq:brinz\]) are respectively $$\frac{1-\sigma}{2\sigma}\mbox{ and }\frac{\log\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}-1\right)}{2},$$ the formula (\[eq:inxz\]) furnished by Theorem \[thm:temjemt-1\] takes the form
$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in Q:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le2\max\left\{ \frac{1-\sigma}{2\sigma},\sqrt{\frac{1-\sigma}{\sigma}}\right\} \cdot\lambda(Q)\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha\log\left(\frac{1}{\sigma}-1\right)}{8\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(Q,\mathcal{E})}^{(\mathbf{J},s)}}\right)\,.\label{eq:eimed}$$
Let us put $r=\frac{1}{\sigma}-1=\frac{1-\sigma}{\sigma}$. Since $\sigma$ satisfies (\[eq:Nams\]) and since, as already observed during the proof of Theorem \[thm:Nultra\], (\[eq:Nams\]) is equivalent to (\[eq:sywc\]), it follows that $\tau<1/2r\le1/2$ and so $1\le r<1/2\tau$. Thus (\[eq:eimed\]) gives us (\[eq:Neimed\]) for all $r\in[1,1/2\tau)$, and therefore also, by continuity, at the endpoint $r=1/2\tau$. Finally (\[eq:Nbeimed\]) follows immediately, in view of (\[eq:talpt\]). $\qed$
\[rem:specialrectangles\] Let us consider Theorem \[thm:mainjs\] in the particular case where $Q$ is a special rectangle and $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{W}(Q)$. Then we know (cf. Corollary \[cor:cmaingt\] or Example \[exa:emaingt\]) that we can take $\tau=\sqrt{2}-1$ and $s=(3-2\sqrt{2})/2\approx0.0857864$. So the parameter $r$ can range between $1$ and $1/(2\sqrt{2}-2)\approx1.20711$. Consequently, the right hand side of (\[eq:Nbeimed\]) can be, for example, $$2/\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}-2}\cdot\lambda(Q)\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{\alpha(3-2\sqrt{2})\log\left(1/(2\sqrt{2}-2)\right)}{16\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}^{\prime}}\right)$$ where $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}^{\prime}$ is the seminorm defined in (\[eq:WikDef\]). This expression is approximately equal to $2.197\cdot\lambda(Q)\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{0.002\alpha}{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}^{\prime}}\right)$. Wik obtains a smaller expression, approximately equal to $2\lambda(Q)\exp\left(-\frac{0.043\alpha}{\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}^{\prime}}\right)$.
\[sec:attempts\]Towards an answer to Question A
===============================================
The reader who has already traversed all the previous sections of this paper to get to here is presumably convinced by now that it is worth trying to answer Question A. So let us spend this section trying to offer some help towards that goal. We will formulate three new questions. The first and second of them seem to be somewhat easier to answer than Question A, and we shall see that they are each essentially equivalent to Question A. The third question is of a somewhat different nature, and not equivalent. But we shall indicate why we consider it also to be well worth considering.
For each $x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $r>0$ we recall the standard notation $Q(x,r)$ for the set $$Q\left(x,r\right)=\left\{ y\in\mathbb{R}^{d}:\left\Vert y-x\right\Vert _{\ell_{d}^{\infty}}\le r\right\} \,.\label{eq:defqxr}$$ This is of course the closed cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ centred at the point $x$ and having side length $2r$. We will need to use two simple properties of such cubes, which we state in the following lemma:
\[lem:SimplePropsCubes\]Let $\left\{ x_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of points in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $\left\{ r_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of positive numbers which converge, respectively to the point $x_{*}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and the positive number $r_{*}$.
\(i) If all of the cubes $Q(x_{n},r_{n})$ are contained in some closed set $Q$ then $Q(x_{*},r_{*})$ is also contained in $Q$.
\(ii) Let $A$ be a fixed measurable subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Then $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\lambda(A\cap Q(x_{n},r_{n}))=\lambda(A\cap Q(x_{*},r_{*}))\,.\label{eq:ttz}$$
The proof of this lemma is an easy exercise. In this preliminary version of our paper we include it as Appendix \[sub:ProveSimpleProps\].
Reducing the description of John-Strömberg pairs to the case of sets which are finite unions of cubes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following theorem shows that, in order to obtain an affirmative answer to Question A, or merely to determine any pairs $(\tau,s)$ which are John-Strömberg pairs for the collection of all cubes in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, it suffices to consider only those sets $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ which are of a comparatively simple form. This also suggests that one might choose to reformulate Question A and the question of finding John-Strömberg pairs for cubes in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ in terms which are more in the realm of combinatorics, counting lattice points etc.
\[thm:onlyneedcubes\]Suppose that the numbers $\tau\in(0,1/2)$ and $s>0$ have the following property:
Whenever $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are disjoint subsets of the closed unit cube $Q=[0,1]^{d}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ such that **$$\min\left\{ \lambda(F_{+}),\lambda(F_{-})\right\} >\tau\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\,,$$** and also each of the sets $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ is the union of finitely many dyadic cubes, then there exists some cube $W$ contained in $Q$ for which**$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap F_{+}),\lambda(W\cap F_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\,.$$**
Then $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for the collection of cubes in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
*Proof.* We will use the notation “$\flat$” to stand for a subscript that is either “$+$” or “$-$”. More precisely, whenever we write a formula where $\flat$ appears as a subscript in one or more places, this expresses the fact that the formula holds in both of the cases:
\(i) whenever that subscript is replaced throughout by the subscript $+$, and also
\(ii) whenever it is replaced throughout by the subscript $-$.
We start by writing down two simple formulae which will be useful later:
Suppose that $V_{+}$ and $V_{-}$ are two disjoint measurable subsets of $Q$ and that $U_{+}$ and $U_{-}$ are measurable subsets, respectively, of $V_{+}$ and of $V_{-}$. Then, obviously, $$\lambda(V_{\flat})=\lambda(U_{\flat})+\lambda\left(V_{\flat}\setminus U_{\flat}\right)\label{eq:os1}$$ and so, consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\left(Q\setminus U_{+}\setminus U_{-}\right) & = & \lambda(Q)-\lambda(U_{+})-\lambda(U_{-})\nonumber \\
& = & \lambda(Q)-\lambda(V_{+})-\lambda(V_{-})+\lambda(V_{+}\setminus U_{+})+\lambda(V_{-}\setminus U_{-})\nonumber \\
& = & \lambda\left(Q\setminus V_{+}\setminus V_{-}\right)+\lambda(V_{+}\setminus U_{+})+\lambda(V_{-}\setminus U_{-})\,.\label{eq:os2}\end{aligned}$$
After this preparation, let us suppose that $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ are disjoint arbitrary measurable subsets of the cube $Q$ which satisfy***$$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}),\lambda(E_{-})\right\} >\tau\lambda(Q\setminus E_{+}\setminus E_{-})\,.$$*** In order to prove the theorem, we have to find a cube $W$ contained in $Q$ for which ***$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap E_{+}),\lambda(W\cap E_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:wwnn}$$*** The obvious fact that we need only consider the case where $Q$ is the unit cube $Q=[0,1]^{d}$ was already pointed out in Remark \[rem:unitcube\].We can of course assume without loss of generality that $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ are both contained in $Q^{\circ}$, the interior of $Q$.
Since Lebesgue measure is inner regular, there exist compact sets $H_{+}$ and $H_{-}$ contained respectively in $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ such that $\lambda$$(E_{+}\setminus H_{+})$ and $\lambda$$(E_{-}\setminus H_{-})$ are both sufficiently small to guarantee (of course via formulae like (\[eq:os1\]) and (\[eq:os2\])) that***$$\min\left\{ \lambda(H_{+}),\lambda(H_{-})\right\} >\tau\lambda(Q\setminus H_{+}\setminus H_{-})\,.$$***
We let $\varepsilon_{0}$ be a positive number which is chosen sufficiently small so that it satisfies $$2\varepsilon_{0}+4\tau\varepsilon_{0}<\min\left\{ \lambda(H_{+}),\lambda(H_{-})\right\} -\tau\lambda(Q\setminus H_{+}\setminus H_{-})\,.\label{eq:cdz}$$ Let $\delta=\mathrm{dist}\left(H_{+},H_{-}\right)$.This is of course a positive number, since $H_{+}$ and $H_{-}$ are disjoint and compact. We shall use $\delta$ to obtain two disjoint open sets $\Omega_{+}$ and $\Omega_{-}$ contained in $Q^{\circ}$, such that $H_{\flat}\subset\Omega_{\flat}$, and $$\mathrm{dist}(\Omega_{+},\Omega_{-})\ge\frac{\delta}{2}\,.\label{eq:ompmd}$$ Initially we can choose $\Omega_{\flat}$ to be the set $\Omega_{\flat}=Q^{\circ}\cap\bigcup_{x\in H_{\flat}}(x+B)$, where $B$ is the open ball of radius $\delta/4$ centred at the origin, and this indeed will guarantee that (\[eq:ompmd\]) holds. But then, furthermore, since Lebesgue measure is outer regular, we can, by replacing $\Omega_{\flat}$ if necessary by its intersection with some other open set containing $H_{\flat}$, assume also that $$\lambda(\Omega_{\flat}\setminus H_{\flat})<\varepsilon_{0}\label{eq:pinq}$$ and so (cf. (\[eq:os1\]) $$\lambda(H_{\flat})\le\lambda\left(\Omega_{\flat}\right)<\lambda(H_{\flat})+\varepsilon_{0}\,.\label{eq:tema}$$ Now we use the fact (see e.g. [@WheedenZygmund] Theorem (1.11) p. 8) that every open set $\Omega$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is the union of some sequence $\left\{ D_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of non overlapping closed dyadic cubes. In particular we shall write $\Omega_{\flat}=\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}D_{\flat,n}$ for both choices of $\flat$. Obviously all of the dyadic cubes $D_{\flat,n}$ have to be contained in $Q$.
Let $N$ be a positive integer which is sufficiently large to ensure that $$\sum_{n=N+1}^{\infty}\lambda(D_{\flat,n})<\varepsilon_{0}\label{eq:tevma}$$ for both choices of $\flat$. Of course there exists such an $N$ since $$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\lambda(D_{\flat,n})=\lambda(\Omega_{\flat})\le\lambda(Q^{\circ})<\infty\,.$$ Then let $F_{\flat}$ be the compact set $F_{\flat}=\bigcup_{n=1}^{N}D_{\flat,n}$.
We want to be able to apply the hypotheses of the theorem to the two disjoint sets $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$. So we need estimates from below for the measures of each of these sets. But first we note that $F_{\flat}\subset\Omega_{\flat}$ and, by (\[eq:tevma\]), $$\lambda\left(\Omega_{\flat}\setminus F_{\flat}\right)=\lambda\left(\bigcup_{n>N}D_{\flat,n}\right)<\varepsilon_{0}\,.\label{eq:inq}$$ It follows (cf. (\[eq:os1\])) that $$\lambda(F_{\flat})\le\lambda(\Omega_{\flat})<\lambda(F_{\flat})+\varepsilon_{0}\,.$$ This last estimate, together with (\[eq:tema\]), gives us that $$\left|\lambda(F_{\flat})-\lambda(H_{\flat})\right|<2\varepsilon_{0}\,.\label{eq:twinq}$$
Now we substitute $V_{\flat}=\Omega_{\flat}$ and $U_{\flat}=H_{\flat}$ in (\[eq:os2\]) and then apply (\[eq:pinq\]) to obtain that $$\left|\lambda(Q\setminus H_{+}\setminus H_{-})-\lambda(Q\setminus\Omega_{+}\setminus\Omega_{-})\right|<2\varepsilon_{0}\,.$$ Then, analogously, we substitute $V_{\flat}=\Omega_{\flat}$ and $U_{\flat}=F_{\flat}$ in (\[eq:os2\]) and then apply (\[eq:inq\]) to obtain that $$\left|\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})-\lambda(Q\setminus\Omega_{+}\setminus\Omega_{-})\right|<2\varepsilon_{0}\,.$$ The preceding two inequalities imply that $$\left|\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})-\lambda(Q\setminus H_{+}\setminus H_{-})\right|<4\varepsilon_{0}\,.\label{eq:brompz}$$
We can now deduce our required estimates from below for $\lambda(F_{\flat})$. In the following calculation we shall use (\[eq:twinq\]) in the first line, and then (\[eq:cdz\]) in the third line, and then (\[eq:brompz\]) in the fourth line.
$$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(F_{\flat}) & \ge & \lambda(H_{\flat})-2\varepsilon_{0}\\
& \ge & \min\left\{ \lambda(H_{+}),\lambda(H_{-})\right\} -2\varepsilon_{0}\\
& > & \tau\lambda\left(Q\setminus H_{+}\setminus H_{-}\right)+(2\varepsilon_{0}+4\tau\varepsilon_{0})-2\varepsilon_{0}\\
& > & \tau\lambda\left(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}\right)+(2\varepsilon_{0}+4\tau\varepsilon_{0})-2\varepsilon_{0}-4\tau\varepsilon_{0}\\
& = & \tau\lambda\left(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Since the sets $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are disjoint and are each finite unions of dyadic intervals, the estimate which we have just obtained for $\lambda(F_{+})$ and $\lambda(F_{-})$ is exactly the one which we require to apply the hypothesis of our theorem. That hypothesis implies that there exists a cube, which we will denote by $W(\varepsilon_{0})$ contained in $Q$, for which***$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap F_{+}),\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap F_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0}))>0\,.\label{eq:op131}$$***
We deduce from (\[eq:ompmd\]) that $\mathrm{dist}(F_{+},F_{-})\ge\frac{\delta}{2}$. This in turn implies that the cube $W(\varepsilon_{0})$ must satisfy $$\mathrm{diam}W(\varepsilon_{0})\ge\frac{\delta}{2}\label{eq:diamb}$$ since it contains points of $F_{+}$ and also points of $F_{-}$.
It follows from (\[eq:pinq\]) that $$\lambda\left((W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap\Omega_{\flat})\setminus(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap H_{\flat})\right)<\varepsilon_{0}$$ and, from (\[eq:inq\]), that $$\lambda\left((W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap\Omega_{\flat})\setminus(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap F_{\flat})\right)<\varepsilon_{0}\,.$$ Therefore, for both choices of $\flat$,$$\begin{aligned}
& & \left|\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap F_{\varepsilon})-\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap H_{\flat})\right|\\
& \le & \left|\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap F_{\varepsilon})-\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap\Omega_{\flat})\right|+\left|\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap\Omega_{\varepsilon})-\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap H_{\flat})\right|\\
& \le & 2\varepsilon_{0}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Combining this inequality with (\[eq:op131\]) gives us that
$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap H_{+}),\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0})\cap H_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{0}))-2\varepsilon_{0}\,.\label{eq:miy}$$
Note that we fixed the sets $H_{+}$ and $H_{-}$ and therefore also the number $\delta$, before we chose the number $\varepsilon_{0}$. This means that, for each number $\varepsilon$ satisfying $0<\varepsilon\le\varepsilon_{0}$, we can use exactly the same arguments as were used from (\[eq:cdz\]) to (\[eq:miy\]) to obtain a subcube $W\left(\varepsilon\right)$ of $Q$ which satisfies (\[eq:diamb\]) and (\[eq:miy\]), but with $\varepsilon$ in place of $\varepsilon_{0}$. In fact we shall do this for each $\varepsilon_{n}$ in a sequence $\left\{ \varepsilon_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of numbers in the interval $(0,\varepsilon_{0}]$ which converges to $0$. Thus we obtain a sequence $\left\{ W(\varepsilon_{n})\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of subcubes of $Q$ which, for each $n$, satisfy the counterparts of (\[eq:diamb\]) and (\[eq:miy\]), namely$$\mathrm{diam}W(\varepsilon_{n})\ge\frac{\delta}{2}\label{eq:slmi}$$ and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(W(\varepsilon_{n})\cap H_{+}),\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{n})\cap H_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{n}))-2\varepsilon_{n}\,.\label{eq:injb}$$
For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ let $r_{n}>0$ and $x_{n}\in Q$ be the half side length and centre, respectively, of $W(\varepsilon_{n})$. I.e., as in (\[eq:defqxr\]), we have $W(\varepsilon_{n})=Q(x_{n},r_{n})$. By passing, if necessary, to a subsequence, we can assume that the sequences $\left\{ r_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $\left\{ x_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ are both convergent, to limits $r_{*}\ge0$ and $x_{*}\in Q$ respectively. The condition (\[eq:slmi\]) ensures that in fact $r_{*}>0$. Using part (i) of Lemma \[lem:SimplePropsCubes\], we see that the cube $W:=Q(x_{*},r_{*})$ is contained in $Q$. Then, applying part (ii) of the same lemma with $A$ chosen to be the set $H_{\flat}$, we obtain that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{n})\cap H_{\flat})=\lambda(W\cap H_{\flat})$$ for both choices of the subscript $\flat$. Obviously we also have $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\lambda(W(\varepsilon_{n}))=\lim_{n\to\infty}r_{n}^{d}=r_{*}^{d}=\lambda(W)\,.$$ Thus a passage to the limit as $n$ tends to $\infty$ in (\[eq:injb\]), shows that the cube $W$ satisfies $\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap H_{+}),\lambda(W\cap H_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)$. Since $H_{\flat}\subset E_{\flat}$ this last inequality immediately implies that $W$ satisfies (\[eq:wwnn\]). This, together with the fact that $W\subset Q$ and the fact that the sets $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ were chosen arbitrarily, suffices to show that $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for cubes in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. $\qed$
\[rem:equality\]We have not bothered to write out the details, but it seems very likely that techniques similar to those in the proof of the preceding theorem might show that whenever $(\tau,s)$ is a John-Strömberg pair for the collection of all cubes in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ then it also has the following slightly stronger property:
Whenever $E_{+}$ and $E_{-}$ are disjoint admissible subsets of the cube $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ such that ***$$\min\left\{ \lambda(E_{+}),\lambda(E_{-})\right\} \ge\tau\lambda(Q\setminus E_{+}\setminus E_{-})\,,\label{eq:gyiq}$$*** then there exists some cube $W$ contained in $Q$ for which***$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap E_{+}),\lambda(W\cap E_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\,.$$*** In other words, it seems very likely that, even if equality holds in (\[eq:gyiq\]), this is still enough to imply the existence of a cube $W$ with the same properties as before.
\[sub:diffspec\]A reduction of Question A to a different special case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a variant of Question A. We will call it Question A$^{\prime}$.
*Do there exist two absolute constants $\tau'\in(0,1/2)$ and $s>0$ which have the following property?*
***For every positive integer $d$ and for every closed cube $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, whenever $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are two disjoint compact subsets of $Q$ which each have positive measure, which are each the union of finitely many closed rectangles, and whose $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measures satisfy $$\min\left\{ \lambda(F_{+}),\lambda(F_{-})\right\} \ge\tau'\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\,,\label{eq:ehyp}$$ then there exists some cube $W$ contained in $Q$ for which$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap F_{+}),\lambda(W\cap F_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:econ}$$***
Here the terminology *closed rectangle* means a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ which is the cartesian product of $d$ bounded closed intervals. Our reason for using rectangles rather than cubes here will become apparent later (in Remark \[rem:splurg\]). Note that if we did not include the requirement that both of $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ have positive measure, then, in view of the possibility of taking $F_{+}=Q$, the answer to the above question would be negative.
It follows immediately from Theorem \[thm:onlyneedcubes\], that an affirmative answer to Question A$^{\prime}$ for some constants $\tau'$ and $s$ would imply an affirmative answer to Question A for every choice of the constant $\tau$ satisfying $\tau\in(\tau',1/2)$ and for the same constant $s$. Thus we may transfer our attention from Question A to Question A$^{\prime}$. By the same simple reasoning as in Remark \[rem:sbth\], if Question A$^{\prime}$ has an affirmative answer, then the constant relevant constant $s$ has to satisfy $s\le1/2$.
We shall show that we can reduce Question A$^{\prime}$ to yet another question which is, in principle, easier to answer. However its formulation is more technical and requires the following three definitions. (The second of them is reminiscent of, but slightly different from a definition used in the course of the proof of Theorem \[thm:maingt\].)
\[def:toptimal\]Let $Q$ be a closed cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ be two disjoint compact subsets of $Q$ which (as in Question A$^{\prime}$) are each unions of finitely many closed rectangles. Let $\tau'$ be a number in $(0,1/2)$. Let $V$ be a closed subcube of $Q$.
\(i) We will say that $V$ is an *exceptional subcube* if $\lambda(V\cap F_{+})$ and $\lambda(V\cap F_{-})$ are both strictly positive and $\lambda(V\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})=0$.
\(ii) We will say that $V$ is a *good $\tau'$-subcube* if $\lambda(V\cap F_{+})$ and $\lambda(V\cap F_{-})$ are both strictly positive and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(V\cap F_{+}),\lambda(V\cap F_{-})\right\} \ge\tau'\lambda(V\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})>0\,.$$
\(iii) We will say that $V$ is $\tau'$*-minimal* if it is a good $\tau'$-subcube but every strictly smaller closed subcube of $V$ is neither exceptional nor a good $\tau'$-subcube.
\[rem:splurg\]Of course, even though our chosen terminologies do not explicitly express it, all three of the above notions depend crucially on the choice of the cube $Q$ and of its subsets $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$. When occasionally necessary, we can replace these terminologies by the more explicit *exceptional $(Q,F_{+},F_{-})$-subcube* and *good $(\tau',Q,F_{+},F_{-})$-subcube* and *$(\tau',Q,F_{+},F_{-})$-minimal subcube.* In connection with this we will need the following three simple observations. We make them in the context where $V$, $V_{*}$ and $Q$ are closed cubes which satisfy $V\subset V_{*}\subset Q$, and $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are two disjoint compact subsets of $Q$ which are unions of finitely many closed rectangles. Then of course $V_{*}\cap F_{+}$ and $V_{*}\cap F_{-}$ are disjoint compact subsets of $V_{*}$ which are finite unions of closed rectangles. (We could not make an analogous claim if we considered finite unions of cubes instead of rectangles.)
Our observations are that
\(i) $V$ is an exceptional $(Q,F_{+},F_{-})$-subcube if and only if\
it is an exceptional $(V_{*},V_{*}\cap F_{+},V_{*}\cap F_{-})$-subcube,
\(ii) $V$ is a good $(\tau',Q,F_{+},F_{-})$-subcube if and only if\
it is a good $(\tau',V_{*},V_{*}\cap F_{+},V_{*}\cap F_{-})$-subcube,
and so, in view of (i) and (ii),
\(iii) $V$ is $(\tau',Q,F_{+},F_{-})$-minimal if and only if\
it is good $(\tau',V_{*},V_{*}\cap F_{+},V_{*}\cap F_{-})$-minimal.
When we try to obtain a positive answer for Question A$^{\prime}$ we of course have to start with a given cube $Q$ and subsets $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ of $Q$ such that, in the language of Definition \[def:toptimal\], $Q$ itself is a good $\tau'$-subcube. Our simplification, which we will state formally in a moment (as Theorem \[thm:newred\]), is that we only have to consider the special case where $Q$ is also $\tau'$-minimal. Thus it would be of interest to study the properties of $\tau'$-minimal cubes. One simple and easily established property of such cubes will be given below in Lemma \[lem:aprelim\]. Later (in Subsection \[sub:AnotherQ\]) the reader will be invited to consider whether $\tau'$-minimal cubes have a certain other simple but much less evident property. If they do, this would lead to an affirmative answer to Questions A$^{\prime}$ and A.
Here then is the reduction of Question A$^{\prime}$ alluded to above.
\[thm:newred\]Let $\tau'$ and $s$ be constants satisfying $\tau'\in(0,1/2)$ and $s\in(0,1/2]$. Let $Q$ be a closed cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
Suppose that, whenever $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are two disjoint compact subsets of $Q$ which are each unions of finitely many closed rectangles, and are such that $Q$ is a $\tau'$-minimal subcube (of itself), then there exists a cube $W$ contained in $Q$ such that**$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap F_{+}),\lambda(W\cap F_{-})\right\} \ge s\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:omqd}$$** Then Question A$^{\prime}$ has an affirmative answer for the same constants $\tau'$ and $s$.
It will be convenient to present some parts of the proof of this theorem separately in the following lemma.
\[lem:aprelim\]Let $Q$, $F_{+}$, $F_{-}$ and $\tau'$ be as in Definition \[def:toptimal\].
\(i) If there exists an exceptional subcube of $Q$, then there exists a subcube $W$ of $Q$ which satisfies $$\lambda(W\cap F_{+})=\lambda(W\cap F_{-})=\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap F_{+}),\lambda(W\cap F_{-})\right\} =\frac{1}{2}\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:urp}$$
\(ii) If $V$ is a $\tau'$-minimal subcube of $Q$, then it satisfies $$\min\left\{ \lambda(V\cap F_{+}),\lambda(V\cap F_{-})\right\} =\tau'\lambda(V\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})>0\label{eq:fap}$$ and every subcube $W$ of $V$ which is strictly smaller than $V$ satisfies at least one of the two conditions$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap F_{+}),\lambda(W\cap F_{-})\right\} =0\label{eq:asap}$$ and $$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap F_{+}),\lambda(W\cap F_{-})\right\} <\tau'\lambda(W\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\,.\label{eq:bsap}$$
*Proof.* We first deal with part (i). Suppose that $V$ is an exceptional subcube of $Q$. We want to use Lemma \[lem:prototype\]. The roles of the cube denoted by $Q$ and of the subset $E$ of $Q$ in the statement of that lemma will now be played here, respectively, by the cube $V$ and by its subset $V\cap F_{+}$. To apply the lemma we need to know that $\lambda(V\cap F_{+})>0$ which is part of the definition of exceptional subcubes, and we also need to know that $\lambda(V\cap F_{+})<\lambda(V)$. This second inequality follows from the given condition $\lambda(V\cap F_{-})>0$ (again part of the definition) and the inclusion $V\cap F_{-}\subset V\setminus F_{+}=V\setminus(V\cap F_{+})$ which together give that $0<\lambda(V\cap F_{-})\le\lambda(V)-\lambda(V\cap F_{+})$. Thus Lemma \[lem:prototype\] can be applied to provide us with a subcube $W$ of $V$ for which $$\lambda\left(W\setminus(V\cap F_{+})\right)=\lambda\left(W\cap(V\cap F_{+})\right)=\frac{1}{2}\lambda(W)\,.\label{eq:sbema}$$ Obviously $$\lambda\left(W\cap(V\cap F_{+})\right)=\lambda\left(W\cap F_{+}\right)\,,\label{eq:mdpcm}$$ and, since $V$ is essentially the union of $V\cap F_{+}$ and $V\cap F_{-}$, it will also be easy to deduce that $$\lambda\left(W\setminus(V\cap F_{+})\right)=\lambda\left(W\cap F_{-}\right)\,.\label{eq:meb}$$ More explicitly, since $F_{+}\cap F_{-}=\emptyset$ and $W\subset V$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
W\cap F_{-} & \subset & W\setminus F_{+}\subset W\setminus(V\cap F_{+})\subset W\setminus(W\cap F_{+})\\
& \subset & W\setminus F_{+}=\left(\left(W\setminus F_{+}\right)\setminus F_{-}\right)\cup\left(\left(W\setminus F_{+}\right)\cap F_{-}\right)\\
& \subset & \left(V\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}\right)\cup\left(W\cap F_{-}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ These inclusions and then the fact that $V$ is an exceptional subcube, imply that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(W\cap F_{-}) & \le & \lambda\left(W\setminus(V\cap F_{+})\right)\\
& \le & \lambda\left(V\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}\right)+\lambda\left(W\cap F_{-}\right)=0+\lambda\left(W\cap F_{-}\right)\end{aligned}$$ which establishes (\[eq:meb\]). The required formula (\[eq:urp\]) now follows immediately from (\[eq:sbema\]), (\[eq:mdpcm\]) and (\[eq:meb\]).
We now deal with part (ii) of the lemma. Suppose that $V$ is a $\tau'$-minimal subcube of $Q$. The fact that every strictly smaller subcube $W$ of $V$ satisfies at least one of the two conditions (\[eq:asap\]) and (\[eq:bsap\]) is simply a rewriting of definitions. More explicitly, suppose that some such subcube $W$ fails to satisfy both (\[eq:asap\]) and (\[eq:bsap\]). Then, in the case where $\tau'\lambda(W\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})=0$, this implies that $W$ is an exceptional subcube. In the case where $\tau'\lambda(W\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})>0$ this implies that $W$ is a good $\tau'$-subcube. The given condition on $V$ excludes both of these possibilities, so at least one of (\[eq:asap\]) and (\[eq:bsap\]) must be satisfied.
Finally, suppose that $V$ does not satisfy (\[eq:fap\]). Then, since $V$ is a good $\tau'$-subcube, it must satisfy $$\min\left\{ \lambda(V\cap F_{+}),\lambda(V\cap F_{-})\right\} >\tau'\lambda(V\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})>0\,.\label{eq:vfpm}$$ Now let $W$ be a subcube of $V$ such that $\lambda(V\setminus W)<\varepsilon$. If $\varepsilon$ is sufficiently small, it follows from (\[eq:vfpm\]) (see Remark \[rem:brichj\]) that $$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap F_{+}),\lambda(W\cap F_{-})\right\} >\tau'\lambda(W\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})>0\label{eq:bromx}$$ which means that $W$ is also a good $\tau'$-subcube, contradicting the $\tau'$-minimality of $V$. This shows that (\[eq:fap\]) holds and so completes the proof of the lemma. $\qed$
\[rem:brichj\]More explicitly, the inequalities which enable us to deduce (\[eq:bromx\]) from (\[eq:vfpm\]) for sufficiently small $\varepsilon$ are, first of all $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(W\cap F_{+}) & \le & \lambda(V\cap F_{+})\le\lambda(W\cap F_{+})+\lambda\left((V\setminus W)\cap F_{+}\right)\\
& \le & \lambda(W\cap F_{+})+\varepsilon\,,\end{aligned}$$ then the counterpart of this where $F_{+}$ is replaced by $F_{-}$, and then, finally, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(W\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}) & \le & \lambda(V\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\le\lambda(V\setminus W\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})+\lambda(W\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\\
& \le & \varepsilon+\lambda(W\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\,.\end{aligned}$$
*The proof of Theorem \[thm:newred\].* Our approach here will have some features in common with the proof of Theorem \[thm:maingt\]. Let $Q$ be an arbitrary cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ be arbitrary disjoint subsets of $Q$ which are both finite unions of bounded closed rectangles and satisfy (\[eq:ehyp\]). We have to show that there exists a subcube $W$ of $Q$ which satisfies (\[eq:econ\]). In one case this is very easy to do, namely when $Q$ has a subcube which is an exceptional cube. We simply invoke part (i) of Lemma \[lem:aprelim\] to obtain a cube $W$ satisfying (\[eq:urp\]) and therefore (\[eq:econ\]), since $s\le1/2$. This leaves us free to assume, for the rest of this proof, that $Q$ does not contain any exceptional subcubes.
Let us now consider the collection $\mathcal{G}$ of all subcubes of $Q$ which are good $\tau'$-subcubes. This is non empty since $Q$ itself is such a cube. Since $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are disjoint and compact, we have that $$\rho:=\mathrm{dist}\left(F_{+},F_{-}\right)>0\,.$$ Since every good cube must intersect with both $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$, it follows that the diameter of each $V\in\mathcal{G}$ satisfies $\rho\le\mathrm{diam}\, V\le\mathrm{diam}\, Q$. Consequently the infimum $\rho_{*}:=\inf_{V\in\mathcal{G}}\mathrm{diam}\, V$ is strictly positive. Furthermore, there exists a sequence of cubes $\left\{ V_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ in $\mathcal{G}$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathrm{diam\,}V_{n}=\rho_{*}$. For each $n$, let $V_{n}=Q\left(x_{n},r_{n}\right)$ (here again using the standard notation (\[eq:defqxr\])). By passing to a subsequence of $\left\{ V_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ if necessary, we can assume that the sequences $\left\{ x_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $\left\{ r_{n}\right\} _{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converge, respectively, to a point $x_{*}\in Q$, and to the positive number $r_{*}=\rho_{*}/2\sqrt{d}$. We let $V_{*}=Q(x_{*},r_{*})$. Since each $V_{n}$ is in $\mathcal{G}$ we have $$\min\left\{ \lambda(F_{+}\cap Q(x_{n},r_{n})),\lambda(F_{-}\cap Q(x_{n},r_{n})\right\} \ge\tau'\lambda\left(Q(x_{n},r_{n})\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}\right)>0\,.\label{eq:ntn}$$ We can pass to the limit in these inequalities, using three applications of part (ii) of Lemma \[lem:SimplePropsCubes\], where we choose the set $A$ to be, respectively, $F_{+}$, $F_{-}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{d}\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}$. This gives $$\min\left\{ \lambda(F_{+}\cap Q(x_{*},r_{*})),\lambda(F_{-}\cap Q(x_{*},r_{*})\right\} \ge\tau'\lambda\left(Q(x_{*},r_{*})\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}\right)\ge0\,.\label{eq:tmtdb}$$
In fact, we have $$\lambda\left(Q(x_{*},r_{*})\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}\right)>0\,.\label{eq:spy}$$ We will defer the proof of (\[eq:spy\]) for a moment. It follows from part (i) of Lemma \[lem:SimplePropsCubes\] that $V_{*}\subset Q$. This, together with (\[eq:tmtdb\]) and (\[eq:spy\]), implies that $V_{*}$ is a good $\tau'$-subcube. Since $\mathrm{diam}\, V_{*}=\rho_{*}$ no strictly smaller subcube of $V_{*}$ can be a good $\tau'$-subcube. Furthermore, using the assumption that we showed that we could make above, no subcube of $V_{*}$ can be exceptional. This means that $V_{*}$ is $\tau'$-minimal. Thus, in the terminology of Remark \[rem:splurg\], the cube $V_{*}$ is also $\left(\tau',V_{*},V_{*}\cap F_{+},V_{*}\cap F_{-}\right)$-minimal. Now we are ready to invoke the hypothesis of our theorem, but where here the role of the cube $Q$ is now played by $V_{*}$ and the roles of the sets $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are played by $V_{*}\cap F_{+}$ and $V_{*}\cap F_{-}$. The hypothesis ensures that there is a subcube $W$ of $V_{*}$, and therefore also of $Q$ which satisfies$$\min\left\{ \lambda(W\cap V_{*}\cap F_{+}),\lambda(W\cap V_{*}\cap F_{-})\right\} \ge s_{0}\lambda(W)\,.$$ Since of course $W\cap V_{*}=W$ and $s_{0}\ge s$ the cube $W$ satisfies (\[eq:econ\]) and is therefore the cube required to complete the proof of the theorem.
It remains only to show that (\[eq:spy\]). Suppose, on the contrary, that $$\lambda\left(Q(x_{*},r_{*})\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}\right)=0\,.\label{eq:urz}$$ Since we have excluded the possibility that the cube $V_{*}=Q(x_{*},r_{*})$ is an exceptional subcube, this means that at least one of $\lambda(V_{*}\cap F_{+})$ and $\lambda(V_{*}\cap F_{-})$ must equal $0$. We can suppose that $\lambda(V_{*}\cap F_{-})=0$, since the other case, where $\lambda(V_{*}\cap F_{+})=0$, can be treated exactly analogously. This supposition, together with (\[eq:urz\]), implies that $$0=\lambda(V_{*}\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})=\lambda(V_{*}\setminus F_{+})-\lambda\left((V_{*}\setminus F_{+})\cap F_{-}\right)=\lambda(V_{*}\setminus F_{+})$$ and so $\lambda(V_{*})=\lambda(V_{*}\setminus F_{+})+\lambda(V_{*}\cap F_{+})=\lambda(V_{*}\cap F_{+})$. This means that every subset of $V_{*}$ with positive measure must contain points of $F_{+}$. Consider the cube $Q\left(x_{*},r_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2\sqrt{d}}\right)$, where, as above, $\rho=\mathrm{dist}(F_{+},F_{-})$. Every point in this cube is at distance strictly less than $\rho$ from some points in $V_{*}$ and therefore also at distance strictly less than $\rho$ from points in $F_{+}$. Therefore,$$F_{-}\cap Q\left(x_{*},r_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2\sqrt{d}}\right)=\emptyset\,.\label{eq:nta}$$ On the other hand, if $n$ is chosen large enough, we obtain that $$\left\Vert x_{*}-x_{n}\right\Vert _{\ell_{d}^{\infty}}+r_{n}<r_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2\sqrt{d}}\,,$$ which implies that the cube $Q(x_{n},r_{n})$ is contained in $Q\left(x_{*},r_{*}+\frac{\rho}{2\sqrt{d}}\right)$. In view of (\[eq:ntn\]) the cube $Q(x_{n},r_{n})$ contains points of $F_{-}$. This contradicts (\[eq:nta\]), and thus shows that (\[eq:urz\]) cannot hold. This proves (\[eq:spy\]) and completes the proof of the theorem. $\qed$
\[sub:AnotherQ\]Another question which should be considered.
-------------------------------------------------------------
As already remarked in the previous subsection, in view of Theorem \[thm:newred\], it could be very helpful if we can discover some concrete consequences of the apparently very stringent condition on a cube that it is $\tau'$-minimal. More explicitly we invite the reader to consider the following question, which we shall call Question B.
***Let $Q$ be a cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ be disjoint compact subsets of $Q$ which are each finite unions of closed rectangles. Suppose further that $Q$ is $\tau'$-minimal for some $\tau'\in(0,1/2)$. Does this imply that $\lambda(F_{+})=\lambda(F_{-})$?***
This question attracts our attention for reasons expressed by the following two propositions.
\[pro:cdeo\]In the case where $d=1$, the answer to Question B is affirmative for every choice of the constant $\tau'\in(0,1/2)$.
\[pro:bimpa\]If Question B has an affirmative answer for arbitrary dimension $d$ and for some constant $\tau'\in(0,1/2)$ which does not depend on $d$, then this implies affirmative answers for Questions A and A$^{\prime}$.
In the light of these two propositions we have very strong motivation for attempting to answer Question B for the case $d=2$. An affirmative answer may point the way to an affirmative answer for all $d$ and thus also for Questions A$^{\prime}$ and A. A negative answer for $d=2$ would apparently lead to a negative answer for all $d>2$. While this in itself would not imply negative answers to Questions A or A$^{\prime}$ it could perhaps indicate some path towards such negative answers.
*Proof of Proposition \[pro:cdeo\].* We begin with the remark that, since $d=1$, we can and will make use of the following convenient fact:
*Whenever $A$ and $B$ are cubes with a common endpoint and*\
*such that $A\subset B$, then $B\setminus A$ also coincides a.e. with a cube.*
Unfortunately this fact is not available when $d>1$.
Let $\tau'$ be an arbitrary constant in $\left(0,1/2\right)$. Let $Q$ be a closed interval $Q=[a,b]$ and suppose that $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are disjoint subsets of $Q$ which are each unions of finitely many closed intervals. (In fact our proof will only use the fact that $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are measurable and disjoint). Suppose furthermore that $Q$ is $\tau'$- minimal, (i.e., that it is $\left(\tau',Q,F_{+},F_{-}\right)$-minimal in the notation of Remark \[rem:splurg\]). It will be convenient to write $G:=Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}$. We may apply part (ii) of Lemma \[lem:aprelim\] to obtain that equality must hold in at least one of the two inequalities $$\lambda(F_{+})\ge\tau'\lambda(G)\mbox{ and }\lambda(F_{-})\ge\tau'\lambda(G).$$ (Cf. (\[eq:fap\]).) We will suppose, without loss of generality, that $\lambda(F_{-})=\tau'\lambda(G)$. (The other case can be treated exactly analogously.)
Suppose, in contradiction to what we seek to prove, that $\lambda(F_{+})\ne\lambda(F_{-})$. For this to happen we must have $$\lambda(F_{+})>\tau'\lambda(G)\,.\label{eq:xrtp}$$
Let us define the functions $u:[a,b]\to\mathbb{R}$ and $v:[a,b]\to\mathbb{R}$ by $$u(t)=\lambda\left([a,t]\cap F_{-}\right)-\tau'\lambda\left([a,t]\cap G\right)$$ and $$v(t)=\lambda\left([t,b]\cap F_{-}\right)-\tau'\lambda\left([t,b]\cap G\right)\,.$$
Note that $u(t)=v(t)=0$ for $t=a$ and for $t=b$. Furthermore $$u(t)+v(t)=\lambda(F_{-})-\tau'\lambda(G)=0\mbox{ for all }t\in[a,b]\,.\label{eq: baawer}$$
Suppose that $u(s)=0$ for some $s\in(a,b)$. Then $v(s)=0$. Since $Q$ is the union of the two non overlapping intervals $I_{1}:=[a,s]$ and $I_{2}:=[s,b]$ it follows from (\[eq:xrtp\]) that the inequality $$\lambda\left(F_{+}\cap I_{j}\right)>\tau'\lambda\left(G\cap I_{j}\right)$$ must hold for at least one of the two values $j=1$ and $j=2$. Since we also have $\lambda\left(F_{-}\cap I_{j}\right)=\tau'\lambda\left(G\cap I_{j}\right)$ for both these values of $j$, it follows that $I_{j}$ is a good $\tau'$-subcube of $Q$ for at least one value of $j$. This contradicts the $\tau'$-minimality of $Q$ and shows that we must have $u(s)\ne0$ for all $s\in(a,b)$. It follows by an analogous argument, or simply from (\[eq: baawer\]), that $v(s)\ne0$ for all $s\in(a,b)$. Since both $u$ and $v$ are continuous functions, they cannot change sign on $(a,b)$ and so one of them is strictly positive and the other is strictly negative on the whole interval $(a,b)$.
Let us consider the first case, where $u(t)>0$ for all $t\in(a,b)$. In view of (\[eq:xrtp\]) the continuous function $$w(t):=\lambda\left([a,t]\cap F_{+}\right)-\tau'\lambda\left([a,t]\cap G\right)$$ is strictly positive for $t=b$ and therefore for some choice (in fact infinitely many choices) of $s\in(a,b)$ sufficiently close to $b$ we have $w(s)>0$. This, together with the fact that $u(s)>0$, implies that the interval $[a,s]$ is a $\tau'$-good subcube of $[a,b]$ for these values of $s$. This contradicts the supposition that $[a,b]$ is $\tau'$-minimal. In the remaining case, where $v(t)>0$ for all $t\in(a,b)$, an analogous argument implies that $[s,b]$ is a $\tau'$-good subcube for all values of $s\in(a,b)$ sufficiently close to $a$ and thus also gives a contradiction. Since we have shown that, in all cases, the assumption that $\lambda(F_{+})\ne\lambda(F_{-})$ leads to a contradiction, our proof is complete. $\qed$
*Proof of Proposition \[pro:bimpa\].* Suppose then that Question B has an affirmative answer for all $d\in\mathbb{N}$ and for at least one value of the constant $\tau'\in(0,1/2)$, a value which does not depend on $d$. We will see that this implies that the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:newred\] is always satisfied, in fact for a positive constant $s$ which depends only on the given constant $\tau'$.
Explicitly, suppose that $Q$ is a cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and that $F_{+}$ and $F_{-}$ are two disjoint subsets of $Q$ which are finite unions of closed rectangles. Suppose furthermore that $Q$ is a $\tau'$-minimal subcube of itself, i.e., a $\left(\tau',Q,F_{+},F_{-}\right)$-minimal subcube in the terminology of Remark \[rem:splurg\]. In order to be able to apply Theorem \[thm:newred\] we have to find a subcube $W$ of $Q$ which satisfies (\[eq:omqd\]) for a value of $s$ which does not depend on $d$. We will show that we can simply take $W=Q$.
In view of the supposed affirmative answer to Question B, we have that $\lambda(F_{+})=\lambda(F_{-})$. This, together with the fact that $Q$ is a good $\tau'$-subcube (of itself), implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(Q) & = & \lambda(F_{+})+\lambda(F_{-})+\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\\
& = & 2\min\left\{ \lambda(Q\cap F_{+}),\lambda(Q\cap F_{-})\right\} +\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\\
& \ge & 2\tau'\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})+\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-}).\end{aligned}$$ The previous three lines imply that $\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\le\frac{1}{2\tau'+1}\lambda(Q)$ and also that $$2\min\left\{ \lambda(Q\cap F_{+}),\lambda(Q\cap F_{-})\right\} =\lambda(Q)-\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})$$ which together give us that $$\begin{aligned}
\min\left\{ \lambda(Q\cap F_{+}),\lambda(Q\cap F_{-})\right\} & = & \frac{1}{2}\left(\lambda(Q)-\lambda(Q\setminus F_{+}\setminus F_{-})\right)\\
& \ge & \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{2\tau'+1}\right)\lambda(Q)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the cube $Q=W$ indeed satisfies (\[eq:omqd\]) for $$s=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{1}{2\tau'+1}\right)=\frac{1}{2+1/\tau'}\,.$$ This shows that an affirmative answer to Question B ensures the validity of the condition that is required in Theorem \[thm:newred\] to imply a positive answer to Question A$^{\prime}$ for the given constant $\tau'$ and for $s=\frac{1}{2+1/\tau'}$. Therefore an affirmative answer to Question B also implies a positive answer to Question A for any $\tau\in(\tau',1/2)$ and for the same value of $s$. $\qed$
\[sec:Appendices\]Appendices
============================
The material in this section is quite standard and/or elementary. This section, or some parts of it, may be removed from future versions of the paper.
\[sub:mediansandoscillation\]Medians and the mean oscillation of a function
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this subsection $\left(\Omega,\Sigma,\lambda\right)$ is an arbitrary measure space, $E$ is a measurable subset of $\Omega$ satisfying $0<\lambda(E)<\infty$, and $f$ is a measurable real function whose domain of definition contains $E$. If $f$ is integrable we set $f_{E}=\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}fd\lambda$. We will sometimes use the notation $f^{-1}(H)$ to mean the set $\left\{ x\in E:f(x)\in H\right\} $, where $H$ is some subset of $\mathbb{R}$.
In essentially all our applications in this paper of the (standard) results of this subsection, $\Omega$ is $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ or some Lebesgue measurable subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, and $\Sigma$ consists of all Lebesgue measurable subsets of $\Omega$, and $\lambda$ is $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure.
\[lem:medianexists\]There exists at least one median of $f$ on $E$, i.e., a number $m$ which satisfies $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)<m\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda\left(E\right)\mbox{ and }\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>m\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda\left(E\right)\,.\label{eq:fynz}$$
*Proof.* Let $$A=\left\{ \alpha\in\mathbb{R}:\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)>\alpha\right\} \right)>\frac{1}{2}\lambda\left(E\right)\right\}$$ and $$B=\left\{ \alpha\in\mathbb{R}:\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)<\alpha\right\} \right)>\frac{1}{2}\lambda\left(E\right)\right\} \,.$$ Both of these sets are non empty, by the expanding sequence theorem. The set $A$ is an interval whose left endpoint is $-\infty$. The set $B$ is an interval whose right endpoint is $+\infty$. It is also clear that $A\cap B$ is empty. Thus the set $M=\mathbb{R}\backslash A\backslash B$ is non empty and is a bounded interval (which may also happen to be a single point) whose endpoints are $\sup A$ and $\inf B$. Every number $m\in M$ must satisfy (\[eq:fynz\]). $\qed$
\[lem:medianoptimal\]The mean oscillation of $f$ on $E$ satisfies $$\mathbf{O}(f,E)=\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}\left|f-m\right|d\lambda\label{eq:vfm}$$ for each median $m$ of $f$ on $E$.
*Proof.* Suppose that $m$ is any median of $f$ on $E$. This implies that$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)<m\right\} \right)\le\frac{1}{2}\lambda\left(E\right)\le\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:f(x)\ge m\right\} \right)\,.\label{eq:hromp}$$ We can perform the following calculation for each number $c$ satisfying $c\le m$. The transition from the third and fourth lines to the fifth and sixth lines uses (\[eq:hromp\]) and the fact that $m-c\ge0$. $$\begin{aligned}
& & \int_{E}\left|f-m\right|d\lambda\\
& = & \int_{f^{-1}\left((-\infty,m)\right)}(m-f)d\lambda+\int_{f^{-1}\left([m,\infty)\right)}(f-m)d\lambda\\
& = & \int_{f^{-1}\left((-\infty,m)\right)}(c-f)d\lambda+\int_{f^{-1}\left([m,\infty)\right)}(f-c)d\lambda\\
& & +(m-c)\lambda(f^{-1}\left((-\infty,m)\right))+(c-m)\lambda(f^{-1}\left([m,\infty)\right))\\
& \le & \int_{f^{-1}\left((-\infty,m)\right)}(c-f)d\lambda+\int_{f^{-1}\left([m,\infty)\right)}(f-c)d\lambda\\
& & +(m-c)\lambda(f^{-1}\left([m,\infty)\right))+(c-m)\lambda(f^{-1}\left([m,\infty)\right))\\
& = & \int_{f^{-1}\left((-\infty,m)\right)}(c-f)d\lambda+\int_{f^{-1}\left([m,\infty)\right)}(f-c)d\lambda+0_{_{-}}\\
& \le & \int_{f^{-1}\left((-\infty,m)\right)}\left|c-f\right|d\lambda+\int_{f^{-1}\left([m,\infty)\right)}\left|f-c\right|d\lambda=\int_{E}\left|f-c\right|d\lambda\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the remaining case, i.e., for each $c>m$, we can apply the previous calculation to the function $-f$. Since $-m$ is a median of $-f$ on $E$ and $-c<-m$, we obtain that $$\int_{E}\left|-f+m\right|d\lambda\le\int_{E}\left|-f+c\right|d\lambda\,.$$ From these two cases we see that $$\int_{E}\left|f-m\right|d\lambda\le\int_{E}\left|f-c\right|d\lambda$$ for every $c\in\mathbb{R}$.We can now obtain (\[eq:vfm\]) by taking the infimum over all $c\in\mathbb{R}$. $\qed$
\[lem:gtyl\] The inequality $$\left|f_{E}-m\right|\le\mathbf{O}(f,E)\label{eq:gty}$$ holds for every median $m$ of $f$ on $E$.
*Proof.* $$f_{E}-m=\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}(f_{E}-m)d\lambda=\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}(f-m)d\lambda\le\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}|f-m|d\lambda=\mathbf{O}(f,E)$$ and essentially the same argument shows that $m-f_{E}\le\mathbf{O}(f,E)$. These two estimates of course give us (\[eq:gty\]). $\qed$
Let us now prove (\[eq:avao\]).
Suppose that $m$ is a median of $f$ on $E$. Then, by Lemma \[lem:medianoptimal\], $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}\left|f(x)-m\right|d\lambda(x) & \le & \frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}\left|f(x)-f_{E}\right|d\lambda(x)\\
& = & \frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}\left|\frac{1}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}\left(f(x)-f(y)\right)d\lambda(y)\right|d\lambda(x)\\
& \le & \frac{1}{\lambda(E)^{2}}\iint_{E\times E}\left|f(x)-f(y)\right|d\lambda(x)d\lambda(y)\end{aligned}$$ establishing the first two inequalities of (\[eq:avao\]). For the remaining inequality we observe that
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{1}{\lambda(E)^{2}}\iint_{E\times E}\left|f(x)-f(y)\right|d\lambda(x)d\lambda(y)\\
& \le & \frac{1}{\lambda(E)^{2}}\iint_{E\times E}\left|f(x)-m\right|d\lambda(x)d\lambda(y)+\frac{1}{\lambda(E)^{2}}\iint_{E\times E}\left|m-f(y)\right|d\lambda(x)d\lambda(y)\\
& = & \frac{2}{\lambda(E)}\int_{E}\left|f-m\right|d\lambda\,,\end{aligned}$$
which completes the proof of (\[eq:avao\]).
Let $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ be medians of $f$ on $E$ with $m_{1}<m_{2}$. Then $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:m_{1}<f(x)<m_{2}\right\} \right)=0\,.$$
*Proof.* The sets $f^{-1}\left((-\infty,m_{1}]\right)$ and $f^{-1}\left([m_{2},\infty)\right)$ must each have $\lambda$ measure greater than or equal to $\frac{1}{2}\lambda(E)$. So, since they are disjoint subsets of $E$, they must in fact both have measure equal to $\frac{1}{2}\lambda(E)$. Thus $f^{-1}\left((m_{1},m_{2})\right)$, the complement of their union in $E$, must have zero $\lambda$ measure. $\qed$
\[sub:dfojne\]Implications between different forms of the John-Nirenberg inequality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned in Section \[sec:Notation-and-terminology\], various papers present slightly different versions of the inequality (\[eq:jne\]). Let us explicitly show the connections between these versions. Although we have formulated some of these connections for the special case where the collection $\mathcal{E}$ of admissible subsets of $D$ is taken to consist only of cubes, i.e, for $\mathcal{E}=\mathcal{Q}(D)$, the same connections clearly apply when $\mathcal{E}$ is chosen to be any other collection of admissible subsets, even not necessarily all contained in $D$.
We have to consider three kinds of “transition”:
$\bullet$ In some variants of (\[eq:jne\]) the seminorm $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}$ or $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{D})}$ appears in place of $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(D,\mathcal{Q}(D))}^{(\mathbf{A})}$. But, since these seminorms are equivalent to each other to within a factor of $2$, an inequality using one of them obviously implies analogous inequalities using the others, of course sometimes with the constant $b$ replaced by $b/2$.
$\bullet$ Sometimes the set $\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|>\alpha\right\} $ may be replaced by the possibly larger set $\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|\ge\alpha\right\} $. But, for $\alpha>0$, this of course does not change anything. The given inequality remains valid since the right hand side of the inequality is a continuous function of $\alpha$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|>\alpha\right\} \right) & \le & \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\\
& = & \lim_{n\to\infty}\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|>\alpha-1/n\right\} \right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ This explanation cannot be applied for $\alpha=0$. But since we know (by the argument of Remark \[rem:bge1\] or some obvious variant of it) that the constant $B$ satisfies $B\ge1$, the case $\alpha=0$ is a triviality. An exactly analogous argument shows that the given inequality remains valid if we replace the set $\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-m\right|>\alpha\right\} $ by the possibly larger set $\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\} $, when $m$ is a median of $f$ on $D$.
$\bullet$ Sometimes the average $f_{D}$ in the set $\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|>\alpha\right\} $ or in the set $$\left\{ x\in D:\left|f(x)-f_{D}\right|\ge\alpha\right\}$$ may be replaced by a median $m$ of $f$ on $D$. We can invoke the following lemma to describe the implications of such a change.
\[lem:av2med\]Let $D$ be some subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $\mathcal{E}$ be some collection of admissible subsets $E$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Suppose that $N(f)$ denotes one of the three seminorms (\[eq:osn\]), (\[eq:blonk\]) or (\[eq:fronk\]) and that it is known that the inequality $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-f_{E}\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\le B\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{b\alpha}{N(f)}\right)\label{eq:a1}$$ holds for some fixed $E\in\mathcal{E}$ and for all $\alpha\ge0$ and for certain fixed positive constants $b$ and $B$. Then $B\ge1$ and the inequality
$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le e^{b}B\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{b\alpha}{N(f)}\right)$$ holds for every median $m$ of $f$ on $E$ and each $\alpha\ge0$.
Conversely, suppose that it is known that the inequality $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-m\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\le B\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{b\alpha}{N(f)}\right)\label{eq:b1}$$ holds for some fixed $E\in\mathcal{E}$ and for all $\alpha\ge0$ and for certain fixed positive constants $b$ and $B$ and for some median $m$ of $f$ on $E$. Then $B\ge1$ and the inequality
$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-f_{E}\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le e^{b}B\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{b\alpha}{N(f)}\right)\label{eq:b2}$$
holds for every $\alpha\ge0$.
*Proof.* If the inequality (\[eq:a1\]) or, respectively, the inequality (\[eq:b1\]) holds for all $\alpha\ge0$, then (cf. Remark \[rem:bge1\]) the constant $B$ necessarily satisfies $B\ge1$, and, furthermore , as already explained above, it also follows that the same inequality (respectively (\[eq:a1\]) or (\[eq:b1\])) still holds when “$>\alpha$” is replaced by “$\ge\alpha$” in the definition of the set on the left hand side.
In view of Lemma \[lem:gtyl\] and (\[eq:avao\]) we have $\left|f_{E}-m\right|\le N(f)$ for every median $m$ of $f$ on $E$. So, for each $x\in E$, $$\left|f(x)-m\right|-N(f)\le\left|f(x)-f_{E}\right|$$ and $$\left|f(x)-f_{E}\right|-N(f)\le\left|f(x)-m\right|\,.$$ These inequalities imply, respectively, that
$$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\} & \subset & \left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-f_{E}\right|\ge\alpha-N(f)\right\} \,.\label{eq:hlte}\end{aligned}$$
and that
$$\begin{aligned}
\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-f_{E}\right|\ge\alpha\right\} & \subset & \left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha-N(f)\right\} \,.\label{eq:fpdh}\end{aligned}$$
If (\[eq:a1\]) holds for all $\alpha$, then, by (\[eq:hlte\]), for all $\alpha\ge N(f)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right) & \le & \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-f_{E}\right|\ge\alpha-N(f)\right\} \right)\\
& \le & B\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{b(\alpha-N(f))}{N(f)}\right)\\
& = & Be^{b}\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{b\alpha}{N(f)}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ If $\alpha\in[0,N(f))$, then$$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le\lambda(E)=\lambda(E)e^{b}\cdot e^{-b}\le\lambda(E)e^{b}\cdot\exp\left(-\frac{b\alpha}{N(f)}\right)$$ and so, in all cases, $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(x)-m\right|\ge\alpha\right\} \right)\le e^{b}B\lambda(E)\exp\left(-\frac{b\alpha}{N(f)}\right)\,,$$ as required.
The proof that (\[eq:b1\]) implies (\[eq:b2\]) is exactly analogous, of course using (\[eq:fpdh\]) in place of (\[eq:hlte\]). $\qed$
\[sub:LipschitzAndBMO\] Compositions of BMO functions with Lipschitz functions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would not be at all surprised if the result (Proposition \[pro:ttbf\]) presented in this appendix is already known. But somehow we have not found a reference for it yet. The following completely obvious lemma and not very difficult proposition are not needed for obtaining the main results of this paper. But they may be of independent interest. They are also a kind of motivation for some of the steps for proving our main results.
\[lem:lipz\]Suppose that the function $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ satisfies the Lipschitz condition $$\left|\varphi(s)-\varphi(t)\right|\le\left|s-t\right|\mbox{ for all }s,t\in\mathbb{R}\,.\label{eq:lcwc}$$ Then, for each function $f\in BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ the composed function $\varphi\circ f$ is also in $BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ and satisfies $$\left\Vert \varphi\circ f\right\Vert _{BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d})}\le\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d})}\,.$$
*Proof.* Let $Q$ be an arbitrary cube in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and let $c$ be an arbitrary real constant. It follows immediately from (\[eq:lcwc\]) that $$\int_{Q}\left|\varphi\circ f-\varphi(c)\right|d\lambda\le\int_{Q}\left|f-c\right|d\lambda$$ which completes the proof. $\qed$
Note that in the following proposition we do not even need to require the function $f$ to be locally integrable. One of its immediate consequences is that a measurable function $f:\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}$ is in $BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ if and only if the $BMO$ seminorms of all the bounded functions $f_{k}(x)=k\arctan\left(\frac{f(x)}{k}\right)$ are all dominated by a (finite) constant which is independent of $k\in\mathbb{N}$. The same conclusion follows when the bounded functions $f_{k}$ are defined instead by $$f_{k}(x)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
-k & , & f(x)<-k\\
f(x) & , & -k\le f(x)\le k\\
k & , & f(x)>k\,.\end{array}\right.$$
\[pro:ttbf\]Let $\left\{ \varphi_{k}\right\} _{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a sequence of non decreasing functions which each satisfy the Lipschitz condition (\[eq:lcwc\]). Suppose also that $\lim_{k\to\infty}\varphi_{k}(t)=t$ for all real $t$ and that, for each bounded interval $(a,b)$ there exists an integer $N$ such that $\varphi_{k}$ is strictly increasing on $(a,b)$ for each integer $k\ge N$.
For each integer $k\in\mathbb{N}$, let $f_{k}:\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}$ be defined by $f_{k}(x)=\varphi_{k}(f(x))$. Then $f\in BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ if and only $f_{k}\in BMO$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\limsup_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\left\Vert f_{k}\right\Vert _{BMO}$ is finite. In fact, for each $f\in BMO(\mathbb{R}^{d})$, the sequence $\left\{ \left\Vert f_{k}\right\Vert _{BMO}\right\} _{k\in\mathbb{N}}$ converges to a finite limit and $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}=\lim_{k\to\infty}\left\Vert f_{k}\right\Vert _{BMO}\,.$$
*Proof.* In view of Lemma\[lem:lipz\] we have $\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}\ge\limsup_{k\to\infty}\left\Vert f_{k}\right\Vert _{BMO}$ which immediately establishes one of the implications and means that it remains only to prove that $$\left\Vert f\right\Vert _{BMO}\le\liminf_{k\to\infty}\left\Vert f_{k}\right\Vert _{BMO}\label{eq:mtj}$$ whenever $\limsup_{k\to\infty}\left\Vert f_{k}\right\Vert _{BMO}$ is finite.
So let us indeed suppose that $\limsup_{k\to\infty}\left\Vert f_{k}\right\Vert _{BMO}$ is finite.
Choose an arbitrary cube $Q$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Suppose that $c$ is a median of $f$ on $Q$. Let us choose an integer $N$ such that, for each $k\ge N$, the non decreasing function $\varphi_{k}$ is strictly increasing on the interval $(c-1,c+1)$. Then $\varphi_{k}(f(x))>\varphi_{k}(c)$ if and only if $f(x)>c$, and, similarly, $\varphi_{k}(f(x))<\varphi_{k}(c)$ if and only if $f(x)<c$. It follows that $c_{k}:=\varphi_{k}(c)$ is a median of $f_{k}$ on $Q$. We also have $\lim_{k\to\infty}c_{k}=c$. For each fixed positive number $M$ we can use the dominated convergence theorem to obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{Q\cap\left\{ x:-M\le f(x)\le M\right\} }\left|f-c\right|d\lambda & = & \lim_{k\to\infty}\int_{Q\cap\left\{ x:-M\le f(x)\le M\right\} }\left|f_{k}-c_{k}\right|d\lambda\\
& = & \liminf_{k\to\infty}\int_{Q\cap\left\{ x:-M\le f(x)\le M\right\} }\left|f_{k}-c_{k}\right|d\lambda\\
& \le & \liminf_{k\to\infty}\int_{Q}\left|f_{k}-c_{k}\right|d\lambda\,.\end{aligned}$$ In view of (\[eq:newmib\]) (cf. Lemma \[lem:medianoptimal\]), this last expression is dominated by
$$\lambda(Q)\liminf_{k\to\infty}\left\Vert f_{k}\right\Vert _{BMO}\,.$$ So, by applying the monotone convergence theorem, we deduce that $$\int_{Q}\left|f-c\right|d\lambda=\lim_{M\to\infty}\int_{Q\cap\left\{ x:-M\le f(x)\le M\right\} }\left|f-c\right|d\lambda\le\lambda(Q)\liminf_{k\to\infty}\left\Vert f_{k}\right\Vert _{BMO}$$ which shows that $f\in BMO$ and establishes (\[eq:mtj\]), so completing the proof. $\qed$
To obtain the results mentioned in the preamble to the preceding proposition we of course simply choose $\varphi_{k}$ defined by $\varphi_{k}(t)=k\arctan\left(\frac{t}{k}\right)$ or $$\varphi_{k}(t)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ccc}
-k & , & t<-k\\
f(x) & , & -k\le t\le k\\
k & , & t>k\end{array}\right.$$ respectively.
\[sub:convexboundary\]The boundary of a convex set in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is surely very very well known that the boundary $\partial K$ of a convex $K$ set in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ satisfies $\lambda\left(\partial K\right)=0$. But let us give an explicit proof of this in this preliminary “lecture notes” version of the paper. By translating $K$ if necessary, we can assume that the origin $\vec{0}=\left(0,0,...,0\right)$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is in $K$. We will also temporarily assume that $K$ is bounded. If $\lambda(K)=0$ there is nothing to prove. This means that we can assume that $K$ is not contained in any $d-1$ dimensional subspace of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Consequently $K$ contains the convex hull of $\vec{0}$ and $d$ more points whose “span” is $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. It follows that $K$ must contain a cube $Q$. Since we are permitted to translate $K$ yet again if necessary, we may now assume that the centre of $Q$ is at $\vec{0}$. For each $r\in(0,1)$ and each $x\in K$ the set $rx+(1-r)Q$ is contained in $K$. This means that the convex set $rK$ is contained in the interior $K^{\circ}$ of $K$. Thus $\lambda\left(K^{\circ}\right)\ge r^{d}\lambda(K)$ for every $r\in(0,1)$. Consequently $\lambda(K^{\circ})=\lambda(K)$ which of course implies that $\lambda\left(\partial K\right)=0$.
Finally, if $K$ is unbounded, we can set $K_{n}=\left\{ x\in K:\left\Vert x\right\Vert \le n\right\} $ and use the fact that $\partial K\subset\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\partial K_{n}$.
\[sub:affinecommute\]The functional $\mathbf{J}(f,E,s)$ “commutes” with affine transformations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the straightforward calculation which proves (\[eq:preaffine\]) and therefore also (\[eq:affinestuff\]) for the function $g$ defined by $g(x)=f(rx+x_{0})$ where $r$ is a non zero real number and $x_{0}$ is a constant point in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and $E$ is an admissible set in the domain of definition of $g$. $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|g(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right) & = & \lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|f(rx+x_{0})-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\\
& = & \lambda\left(\left\{ rx\in rE:\left|f(rx+x_{0})-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\\
& = & \lambda\left(\frac{1}{r}\left\{ y\in rE:\left|f(y+x_{0})-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\\
& = & r^{-d}\lambda\left(\left\{ y\in rE:\left|f(y+x_{0})-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\\
& = & r^{-d}\lambda\left(\left\{ y+x_{0}\in rE+x_{0}:\left|f(y+x_{0})-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\\
& = & r^{-d}\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in rE+x_{0}:\left|f(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\} -x_{0}\right)\\
& = & r^{-d}\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in rE+x_{0}:\left|f(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)\,.\end{aligned}$$
This calculation, together with the fact that $\lambda(rE+x_{0})=r^{d}\lambda(E)$, shows that the condition $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in E:\left|g(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)<s\lambda(E)$$ is equivalent to $$\lambda\left(\left\{ x\in rE+x_{0}:\left|f(x)-c\right|>\alpha\right\} \right)<s\lambda(rE+x_{0})$$ which is exactly what we need to show that $\mathbf{J}(g,E,s)=\mathbf{J}(f,rE+x_{0},s)$ for each admissible set $E$.
\[sub:lrconj\]Left continuity and right discontinuity of the function $s\mapsto\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suppose that $Q$ and $f$ are as in part (ii) of Proposition \[pro:prop\]. Then the function $s\mapsto\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)$ is non increasing and left continuous.
*Proof.* Since we know that $s\mapsto\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)$ is non increasing, in order to show that this function is also left continuous, we only need to prove that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbf{J}\left(f,Q,s-1/n\right)\le\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)$$ for each fixed $s\in(0,1)$. As in the proof of Proposition \[pro:prop\], let $g:Q\to\mathbb{R}$ denote the function which is the restriction of $f$ to $Q$. Fix an arbitrary positive number $\varepsilon$. In view of (\[eq:ffnn\]) there exists $u\in(0,s\lambda(Q))$ such that $$g^{*}(u)-g^{*}(u+(1-s)\lambda(Q))\le\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)+\varepsilon/2\,.$$ Of course we have $u<(s-1/n)\lambda(Q)$ for all sufficiently large $n$. Furthermore, because of the right continuity of $g^{*}$, the inequality $$g^{*}\left(u\right)-g^{*}(u+(1-s+1/n)\lambda(Q))\le\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)+\varepsilon$$ also holds for all sufficiently large $n$. These last two inequalities imply, again in view of (\[eq:ffnn\]), that $\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s-1/n)\le\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)+\varepsilon$ for all sufficiently large $n$, and this suffices to complete the proof. $\qed$
\[rem:rexample\]Suppose that $d=1$ and $Q=(0,1)$ and $a\in(0,1)$. Let $N$ be the smallest integer for which $Na\ge1$ and let $f$ be the restriction to $(0,1)$ of the function $$N\chi_{(0,a)}+(N-1)\chi_{[a,2a)}+(N-2)\chi_{[2a,3a)}...+\chi_{[(N-1)a,Na)}\,.$$ Then $f$ is non increasing and right continuous and $f^{*}=g^{*}=f$ on $(0,1)$. Consequently, by (\[eq:ffnn\]), $\mathbf{J}(f,(0,1),s)\ge1/2$ for $s\in(0,1-a]$ and $\mathbf{J}(f,(0,1),s)=0$ for $s\in(1-a,1)$. This shows that, in general, $s\mapsto\mathbf{J}(f,Q,s)$ is not right continuous.
\[sub:ProveSimpleProps\]The proof of Lemma \[lem:SimplePropsCubes\].
--------------------------------------------------------------------
For part (i), let $y$ be an arbitrary point of $Q(x_{*},r_{*})$. For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ we set $y_{n}=x_{n}+\frac{r_{n}}{r_{*}}(y-x_{*})$. Since $\left\Vert y-x_{*}\right\Vert _{\ell_{d}^{\infty}}\le r_{*}$ it follows that $y_{n}\in Q(x_{n},r_{n})$. Therefore $y_{n}\in Q$. Since $Q$ is closed it follows that $y=\lim_{n\to\infty}y_{n}$ is also in $Q$ and this shows that $Q(x_{*},r_{*})\subset Q$.
For part (ii) we observe that $$\begin{array}{cl}
& \left|\lambda(A\cap Q(x_{n},r_{n}))-\lambda(A\cap Q(x_{*},r_{*}))\right|\le\left|\int_{Q(x_{n},r_{n})}\chi_{A}d\lambda-\int_{Q(x_{\ast},r_{\ast})}\chi_{A}d\lambda\right|_{\phantom{Q}}\\
= & \left|\int_{Q(x_{n},r_{n})\setminus Q(x_{\ast},r_{\ast})}\chi_{A}d\lambda-\int_{Q(x_{\ast},r_{\ast})\setminus Q(x_{n},r_{n})}\chi_{A}d\lambda\right|_{\phantom{Q}}^{\phantom{T}}\\
\le & \lambda\left(Q(x_{n},r_{n})\setminus Q(x_{\ast},r_{\ast})\right)+\lambda\left(Q(x_{\ast},r_{\ast})\setminus Q(x_{n},r_{n})\right)^{\phantom{\begin{array}{cc}
\end{array}}}\,.\end{array}\label{eq:zerpluf}$$ Let $R_{n}=\left\Vert x_{n}-x_{*}\right\Vert _{\ell_{d}^{\infty}}+\max\left\{ r_{*},r_{n}\right\} $. It is clear (from (\[eq:defqxr\])) that the cube $Q(x_{*},R_{n})$ contains both of the cubes $Q(x_{*},r_{*})$ and $Q(x_{n},r_{n})$. Therefore the expression in the last line of (\[eq:zerpluf\]) is dominated by $$\begin{aligned}
& & \lambda\left(Q(x_{\ast},R_{n})\setminus Q(x_{\ast},r_{\ast})\right)+\lambda\left(Q(x_{\ast},R_{n})\setminus Q(x_{n},r_{n})\right)\\
& = & R_{n}^{d}-r_{*}^{d}+R_{n}^{d}-r_{n}^{d}\,.\end{aligned}$$ This last expression tends to $0$ as $n$ tends to $\infty$. This establishes (\[eq:ttz\]) and so completes the proof of the lemma. $\qed$
[27]{} R. J. Bagby and D. S. Kurtz, Covering lemmas and the sharp function, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **93** (1985), 291–296.
R. J. Bagby and D. S. Kurtz, A rearranged good-$\lambda$ inequality, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **293** (1986), 71–81.
C. Bennett, R. A. DeVore and R. Sharpley, Weak-$L^{\infty}$ and BMO, *Annals of Math.,* **113** (1981), 601–611.
C. Bennett and R. Sharpley, Weak-type inequalities for $H^{p}$ and BMO, *Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.* **35** (I) (1979), 201–229.
J. Bergh and J. Löfström, *Interpolation spaces. An Introduction,* Springer, Berlin 1976.
C. Fefferman and E. M. Stein, $H^{p}$ spaces of several variables, *Acta Math.* **129** (1972), 137–193.
A. M. Garsia and E. Rodemich, Monotonicity of certain functionals under rearrangements, *Ann. Inst. Fourier, Grenoble,* **24** (1974), 67–116.
R. A. Hunt, On $L\left(p,q\right)$ spaces, *L’Enseignement Math.* **12** (1966), 249–276.\
Since this journal may not be available in some mathematics department libraries we refer to the site:\
`http://retro.seals.ch/cntmng?type=pdf&rid=ensmat-001:1966:12::91&subp=hires `
B. Jawerth and A. Torchinsky, Local sharp maximal functions, *J. Approx. Th.* **43** (1985), 231–270.
F. John, Rotation and strain, *Comm. Pure Appl. Math.* **14** (1961), 391–413.
F. John, Quasi isometric mappings, Semineri 1962–1963 di Analisi Algebra, Geometria e Topologia, Vol II, Rome, 1965.
F. John and L. Nirenberg, On functions of bounded mean oscillation, *Comm. Pure Appl. Math.* **14** (1961), 415–426.
I. Klemes, A mean oscillation inequality, *Proc. Amer. Math Soc.* **93** (1985), 497–500.
A. A. Korenovskii, The connection between mean oscillations and exact exponents of summability of functions, *Mat. Sb.* **181** (1990), no. 12, 1721–1727 (Russian); translation in *Math. USSR-Sb.* **71** (1992), no. 2, 561–567.
A. A. Korenovskii, Mean oscillations and equimeasurable rearrangements of functions, Lecture Notes of the Unione Matematica Italiana, 4. Springer, Berlin; UMI, Bologna, 2007.
A. K. Lerner, Maximal functions with respect to differential bases measuring mean oscillation, *Anal. Math.* **24** (1998), 41–58.
J. Moser, On Harnack’s Theorem for Elliptic Differential Equations, *Comm. Pure Appl. Math.* **14** (1961), 577–591.
F. Nazarov, M. Sodin and A. Vol’berg, The geometric Kannan-Lovász-Simonovits lemma, dimension-free estimates for volumes of sublevel sets of polynomials, and distribution of zeroes of random analytic functions, `arXiv:math/0108212v2 [math.CA]`
F. Nazarov, M. Sodin and A. Vol’berg, The geometric Kannan-Lovász-Simonovits lemma, dimension-free estimates for the distribution of the values of polynomials, and the distribution of the zeros of random analytic functions, *Algebra i Analiz* **14** (2002), no. 2, 214–234 (Russian); translation in *St. Petersburg Math. J.* **14** (2003), no. 2, 351–366
Y. Sagher, *Lecture Notes on Measure Theory and Real Analysis.* (In preparation).
Y. Sagher and P. Shvartsman, On the John-Strömberg-Torchinsky characterization of $BMO$, *J. Fourier Anal. Appl.* **4** (1998), 521–548.
Y. Sagher and P. Shvartsman, Rearrangement-Function Inequalities and Interpolation Theory, *J. Approx. Theory* **119** (2002), 214–251.
P. Shvartsman, The $K$-functional of the pair $(L_{\infty}(w),BMO)$, Function spaces, interpolation spaces, and related topics (Haifa, 1995), 183–203, Israel Math. Conf. Proc., 13, Bar-Ilan Univ., Ramat Gan, 1999.
E. M. Stein, *Harmonic analysis: real-variable methods, orthogonality, and oscillatory integrals.* With the assistance of T. S. Murphy. Princeton Mathematical Series, 43. Monographs in Harmonic Analysis, III. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993. xiv+695 pp.
J.-O. Strömberg, Bounded mean oscillation with Orlicz norms and duality of Hardy spaces, *Indiana Math. J.* **28** (1979), 511–544.
R. Wheeden and A. Zygmund, *Measure and integral. An introduction to real analysis.* Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 43. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York-Basel, 1977.
I. Wik, On John and Nirenberg’s theorem, *Ark. Mat.*, **28** (1990), 193–200.
[^1]: The research of the first and third named authors was supported by funding from the Martin and Sima Jelin Chair in Mathematics, by the Technion V.P.R. Fund and by the Fund for Promotion of Research at the Technion.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition (CAD) algorithm is a comprehensive tool to perform quantifier elimination over real closed fields. CAD has doubly exponential running time, making it infeasible for practical purposes. We propose to use the notions of clause normal forms and virtual substitutions to develop a preprocessor for CAD, that will enable an input-level parallelism. We study the performance of CAD in the presence of the preprocessor by extensive experimentation. Since parallelizability of CAD depends on the structure of given prenex formula, we introduce some structural notions to study the performance of CAD with the proposed preprocessor.'
author:
- |
Hari Krishna Malladi and Ambedkar Dukkipati\
\
bibliography:
- 'harikrishnamalladi.bib'
date:
- 31 December 2011
- 8 June 2012
title: |
**A Preprocessor Based on Clause Normal Forms and Virtual Substitutions to Parallelize\
Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition**
---
Introduction
============
The study of real algebraic geometry deals with the study of the real roots of an equation as, more often than not, the real roots are the most desired solutions to a system of equations. It is important to note that for some problems there are no counterparts in complex algebraic geometry. Given a first-order formula in real algebraic geometry with both quantified and quantifier-free variables, the process of finding an equivalent first-order formula in these quantifier-free variables is called quantifier elimination. When the first-order formula is a boolean combination of polynomial equations and inequalities, we can consider quantifier elimination as a problem in real algebraic geometry.
The algorithm specified by Tarski [@tarski] for quantifier elimination is highly resource intensive. So newer and more efficient algorithms have come up and replaced it. The fact that projections upon parameters of a semialgebraic set (semialgebraic set is defined as the solution space of polynomial equations and inequalities) are also semialgebraic (Tarski-Seidenberg principle) has led to Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition (CAD) [@collins], which eventually became the standard algorithm for quantifier elimination. The time complexity of CAD algorithm is doubly exponential in the number of variables (both quantified and quantifier-free).
CAD is a recursive algorithm, which constitutes of a sequence of projections, followed by a sequence of constructions. It has undergone an extensive array of developments, such as Hong’s Partial CAD [@partialcad], Hong’s projection operator [@hongproj], Scott McCallum’s projection operator [@mccallumproj], etc. An application of Gröbner Bases to CAD to improve the time complexity is studied in [@qegrob]. There were also some efforts to parallelize CAD [@issac89]. In spite of all these improvements, the fact that CAD’s time complexity is doubly exponential makes quantifier elimination through CAD impossible for a wide range of real-world applications.
Parallelism has appeared to be the trend, while addressing algorithms which have a significant amount of independence in their structure. Speeding up executions by scaling the existing CPU speeds has been found to be inefficient. The maximum possible clock speed has remained at around 3 GHz for the past 12 years, for a desktop microprocessor, in spite of being scaled by about 100 times in the 1990s. Multicores have achieved prominence, as dual-cores and quad-cores have become ubiquitous in the past 7 years. This suggests that the only major way to improve an existing algorithm’s running time is through parallelism. We use this as a motivation to introduce an input-level parallelism in the CAD algorithm.
In this paper, we study a possibility to preprocess the input prenex formula, so that several instances of CAD can be run in parallel on it. Input-level parallelism is not directly applicable to CAD because of the constraints imposed by first-order logic itself. Thus, clause normal forms and virtual substitutions are used to ‘separate’ a given input formula so that it’s components can be executed in parallel using existing CAD implementations. We study the preprocessor algorithm through extensive experimentation using the QEPCAD B tool, running several instances on a cluster.
The work by Saunders et. al. [@issac89] has brought up the notion of a parallel version of CAD, where they introduce an execution-level parallelism to make the phases of CAD work in parallel. Since our work introduced input-level parallelism, our preprocessor can be used along with Saunders’ approach.
The paper is organized as follows. The preliminary notations and the original CAD algorithm are briefly introduced in Section 2. The use of clause normal forms and virtual substitutions and the preprocessor itself are described in Section 3. In Section 4, we introduce some notions to define structure in a prenex formula. An experimental characterization of the preprocessor algorithm, are presented in Section 5. Extensions sought for the proposed algorithm and a few concluding remarks have been made in Section 6.
Preliminaries
=============
Basic Definitions and Notation
------------------------------
Let $k [x_1,. . .,x_n]$ denote the set of all polynomials in variables, $ x_1,. . .,x_n $ and coefficients from the field $k $. The base field, $k $ is assumed to be the set of real numbers, $\mathbb{R}$ throughout the paper.
A formula of the form $$(Q_{1}x_{1}),. . .,(Q_{n}x_{n}) [\psi(y_{1},. . .,y_{m},x_{1},. . .,x_{n})]$$ is called a *prenex* formula, where $Q_{i} \in \{ \exists, \forall \}$ and $\psi$ is a quantifier-free formula in $x_1,,. . .,x_n,y_1,. . .,y_m$.
$V \subset \mathbb{R}$ is said to be a semialgebraic set if there exists $ f_1,. . .,f_s \in \mathbb{R} [x_1,. . .,x_n]$ and $g_1,. . .,g_t \in \mathbb{R} [x_1,. . .,x_n]$ such that $V = \{ (a_1,. . .,a_n) \in \mathbb{R} : f_i(a_1,. . .,a_n) = 0, i=1,. . . ,s, g_j(a_1,. . .,a_n) \geq 0, i=1,. . .,t\}$.
A connected subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is called a ‘region’ in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Consider a region $R$ and functions $f_i : \mathbb{R}^n \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}, i=1,. . .,l$ satisfying, $f_{1} < f_{2} < ... < f_{l}$. This ordering ensures that these functions do not intersect each other. Graph of $f_{i}$ is called ‘$f_{i}$-section’. In other words, ‘$f_{i}$-section is the set containing all points of the form $(a,b)$, where a $\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and $b = f(a)$. An ‘(f$_{i}$,f$_{i+1}$)-sector’ is the set of all points $(a,b)$, where a $\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and $f_{i}(a)$ $< b <$ $f_{i+1}(a)$. A ‘cylinder’ over a region $R$ is the set of all points $(a,b)$, where $a \in R$ and $b \in \mathbb{R}$. A ‘stack’ over a region $R$ is the collection of sections and sectors that occur in the cylinder over $R$. A partition of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ into semialgebraic partitions is called an ‘algebraic decomposition’ of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
An algebraic partition of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ satisfying the following two properties is called a ‘cylindrical algebraic decomposition’:
1. If $n=1$, then the CAD is a set of points and open intervals.
2. If $n>1$, every region of the CAD of $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ has a stack over it, which is a disjoint subset of the CAD of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$.
A set of polynomials, $F$ is said to be ‘sign invariant’ on the region $R$ iff no polynomial in $F$ changes its sign anywhere on $R$.
A CAD $C$ of $\mathbb{R}^n$ is sign invariant with respect to a set of polynomials, $P$ if and only if $P$ is sign invariant on every cell of $C$.
The algorithm to generate the CAD of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$(which shall be referred to as ‘CAD Algorithm’) has two phases of execution, namely projection and construction. Projection is specified by a projection operator, whereas construction depends on the projection phase.
Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition Algorithm
---------------------------------------------
CAD takes as input, a set of polynomials in $n$ variables and generates a cylindrical algebraic decomposition of the $n$-dimensional real space. This algorithm works recursively to produce a series of projections on lesser dimensions and builds the CAD of each dimension while returning the recurring functions. An outline of CAD algorithm [@20yrs] is presented below. The intricate details have been omitted as the purpose of this presentation is to provide a glimpse into the algorithm, rather than to study the algorithm itself.
1. Project each polynomial onto lesser dimensions. Polynomials in $n$ variables are taken as input and a set of polynomials in $n-1$ variables is obtained as output, upon applying a projection operator. This process is continued till a set of univariate polynomials is obtained.
2. These univariate polynomials can easily be solved (using Sturm’s theorem iteratively or otherwise). The roots of these univariate polynomials and the intervals between them are taken as the regions in the CAD of one dimensional real space. Designate a point in each region as a sample point.
3. For the two dimensional CAD, substitute the sample point found in each one-dimensional region, $R$ in each of the polynomials in the 2-dimensional projection to again get univariate polynomials. Find the roots of these polynomials and create two dimensional regions that form the stack over the region $R$. Designate sample points for these regions as well. Suppose we are given a CAD for $k$-dimensional real space, we use the projected set for $k+1$-dimensions and substitute the sample points of the $k$-dimensional CAD in them to get univariate polynomials. These can now be solved to get $k+1$-dimensional CAD.
Now, this information can be used by Algorithm 1 to perform quantifier elimination [@andreas]. Assume that the variables $x_1,...,x_k$ are quantifier-free and $x_{k+1},...,x_n$ are quantified, and let $Q_i$ be the corresponding quantifier for $i\in\{k+1,...,n\}$.
1. For $k \leq i < n$, we have
1. If $Q_{i+1}$ is $\exists$, then a cell,$C \in D_{i}$ is valid if at least one cell in the stack over $C$ is valid.
2. If $Q_{i+1}$ is $\forall$, then a cell,$C \in D_{i}$ is valid if all cells in the stack over $C$ are valid.
2. A region, $C$ in $D_{n}$ is valid if $\psi(t_{C})$ is TRUE, where $t_{C}$ is the sample point of that cell.
3. Obtain the cells of $D_{k}$ which are TRUE. The disjunction of the formulae of these cells is the required quantifier-free formula and is returned.
Towards Parallelization
=======================
Using Clause Normal Forms
-------------------------
In this section we introduce the application of miniscoping and clause normal forms to obtain a preprocessor that can parallelize CAD. Miniscoping is prevalent in the standard literature as a way of localising quantifiers. One can use an algorithm by Nonnengart and Weidenbach [@miniscoping] to compute ‘clause normal forms’.
A sentence $\phi$ is said to be in ‘Clause Normal Form’, if $\phi = \forall x_1,. . . ,\forall x_{k}[C_1 \wedge . . . \wedge C_{k}]$ where $C_{i} = L_{i,1} \vee . . . \vee L_{i,l_{i}}$ and each $L_{i,j}$ is a literal. Clause normal forms shall be represented by ‘CNF’ throughout this paper.
Their work introduces this algorithm and proves that it terminates in a finite amount of time and that the generated clause normal form is equivalent to the input. The time complexity of this algorithm is polynomial in the number of statements.
The algorithm to compute clause normal forms uses the concept of skolemization to eliminate existential quantifiers (by systematic replacement of existentially quantified variables by functions of universally quantified variables). Skolemization may introduce skolem functors of high exponents, but the doubly exponential running time of CAD enables us to cope with them in practice, due to a reduction in the number of variables (brought about by skolemization).
CNFs are used to impose a structure on the input prenex formulae, that will make computation easier. But, a well-crafted transformation on a prenex formula may result in a form which performs better than the CNF case. But, such well-crafted transformations usually require a great amount of computational power (and possibly non-determinism) to achieve in practical scenarios. Thus, the CNF has been used to give a measure of speed-up that can be achieved in an average case, as the CNF can be obtained using a deterministic algorithm, which terminates for any input.
Using Virtual Substitutions
---------------------------
The CAD algorithm benefits from substitutions, which might reduce the number of variables in some clauses, prior to the separation phase. This may decrease the dependence of one clause on another. But substitutions can be non-trivial and in many cases, impossible. Substitutions can be used with linear and quadratic equations and inequalities directly. For cubic and quartic polynomials, substitutions can be used only if it is obtained easily. Newton and Cardano’s formulas for quartics and cubics involve complex roots, and hence cannot be used. For quintic and higher order polynomials, there exists no generic closed form solution, as proved by Abel.
We would like to use the algorithm to perform virtual substitutions by Volker Weispfenning [@weispfenning]. While Weispfenning’s work on virtual substitution seeks to find a quantifier-free equivalent by itself, we would like to adapt it to minimize dependencies within the clauses and hence, to increase parallelism.
In our notion of substitutability, we classify polynomials into two classes, namely (i) substitutor and (ii) substituend.
A ‘substitutor’ polynomial is used to substitute for a variable in other polynomials. A ‘substituend’ polynomial is one, in which a variable is replaced.Assume that $P$ is any polynomial and $T$ is a substitutor. We say that $T$ is ‘substitutable’ in $P$ if, the process of replacing a variable in $P$ by virtual substitution results in a decrease in the number of variables in the polynomial $P$.
We use the results proved by Weispfenning and Christopher Brown [@brownsub], which state that virtual substitution leads to an equi-satisfiale formula.
The Proposed Preprocessor
-------------------------
In this section we present a preprocessor to the CAD algorithm that is motivated by the notion of clause normal forms and virtual substitutions.
Virtual substitutions would be performed prior to clause normal form computation, as substitutions might result in an increase in the number of clauses.
The clause normal form has been chosen as the preferred format for computational efficiency. The fact that any given prenex formula can be converted to a clause normal form enables us to perform the experimental evaluation on test cases containing solely of clause normal forms.
We now list the proposed algorithm.
1. Compute the negation normal form of $f$ and call it $f'$.
2. Perform virtual substitutions after identifying substitutors and substituends and call the resulting formula, $f''$.
3. Compute the clause normal form of $f''$ and call it $f'''$.
4. Call an instance of CAD for each clause in $f'''$, with each instance being an independent thread of execution.
5. Concatenate the outputs of the $k$ instances of CAD using boolean conjunction.
Structural Notions of the Prenex Formulae and the Preprocessor
==============================================================
The introduction of CNF computation introduces the notion of partitioning the space of all prenex formulae into classes, depending on how many clauses it could be separated into. To interpret the results presented above, we use the following definitions.
A prenex formula is said to be separable if it can be split into two or more clauses. Separability is a property of the prenex formula. Separability may result in the loss of structure in a given prenex formula. By this we mean that the interdependencies among the formula’s constituent polynomials might be lost, resulting in wasteful and redundant computations, which would not have been required if the formula was not separated. We need a formal, quantitative definition of ‘structure’ with respect to a given formula to study it’s effects on the running time of the proposed algorithm.
The ‘sharing factor’ existing among two given prenex formulae, $f$ and $g$, is the number of variables that are shared between $f$ and $g$. It’s denoted by $T_{f,g}$.
The sharing factor essentially captures the distribution of variables among the constituent polynomials of a prenex formula. If formulae $f$ and $g$ have $k$ variables in common, it implies that $f$ imposes conditions on $g$ in $k$ dimensions. The sharing factor gives a measure of structure present in a formula, as the sharing of variables between polynomials causes interdependencies among them. Having defined the sharing factor, we now define the operation, decomposition, where the sharing of variables comes into consideration.
Consider a prenex formula, $f$, which has $n$ variables, out of which, there are $k$ quantified variables and $n-k$ quantifier-free variables. We say that the decomposition of $f$, $F$ is the set consisting of all the clauses which occur in the CNF of $f$.
This definition of decomposition defines separability as a property of the formula. In the remainder of this section, we assume that all prenex formulae are in variables, $x_1,. . .,x_n$. It is natural to classify prenex formulae into classes based on the number of clauses it can be separated into. Thus, we have the following definition.
A prenex formula is defined to be k-separable if its CNF has at least $k$ clauses. The set of all k-separable formulae shall be denoted by $S_k$.
According to this definition, we can observe that $S_k \subset S_{k-1}$. The set of 1-separable formulae is the set of all prenex formulae, which shall be denoted by $P$. We assume that we have only a constant number of processors, and we denote this by $K$. This leads to a definition of the class of separable problems.
Consider a set $S \subset P$. $S$ is called the ‘separable class’ if the following conditions hold.
- $S \subset S_2$
- If $f$ is a prenex formula and $F$ is it’s decomposition, $\forall f \in F$, $\exists x_i \in \{x_1,...,x_n\}$ such that $f$ is independent of $x_i$.
The property of separability is not uniform in this separable class. It depends heavily on the sharing factor of the formula. The quantification of the term structure enables us to define the ‘centre of $S_k$’ for $k < K$.
The centre of $S_k$ is the set of all prenex formulae, $f$ in $n$ variables ($x_1, . . . ,x_n$) with decomposition $F$, such that the clause $f_i \in F$ contains exactly the variables $x_{\frac{i-1}{k}+1}, . . . ,x_{\frac{i}{k}}$.
Unlike the classes $S_1, . . . ,S_k$, the classes $C_1, . . . ,C_k$ do not form a nesting chain structure. In other words, $C_i$ need not contain $C_{i+1}$.
This centre of a separable class, $S_i$, is the set of formulae which pose a ‘best case’ scenario for the CAD algorithm to run in parallel for an input prenex formula containing $i$ variables. The lower the maximum sharing factor in a prenex formula, the faster it’s execution would be on the cluster, using the parallel CAD algorithm. This has been demonstrated by considering prenex formulae with zero sharing factor.
But, as the sharing factor between two clauses increases, we find that these two clauses become interdependent to a greater extent. Thus, executing them in parallel would lead to greater amount of work being done, as compared to the case where the conditions imposed by one clause influences the computation of CAD on another clause.
Experimental Evaluation
=======================
The simulation results in this paper utilize the clause normal form (CNF), to ease the process of generating prenex formulae. The test cases are always in the CNF. The simulations are performed on a cluster, comprising of 36 nodes, with 8 Intel Xeon quad-core CPUs in each node. The preprocessor is implemented using C and the OpenMP library. The code used for these experiments has been uploaded at http://algoalgebra.csa.iisc.ernet.in/Preprocessor/.
The experimental setup is as follows:
(i) The dependence of running time of QEPCAD B on number of terms, highest exponent and total number of terms in a prenex formula,
(ii) The distribution of prenex formulae according to the number of clauses in their corresponding CNFs,
(iii) The comparison of running times of QEPCAD B, with and without the preprocessor and
(iv) The structure imposed be dependence among polynomials is studied in terms of the sharing factor.
On the Parameters of CAD
------------------------
Maximum number of terms per polynomial and the highest exponent across all polynomials in a CNF are two of the major parameters which influence the running time of the CAD algorithm. As there is no closed expression for running time of CAD in terms of these parameters, it seems appropriate to plot the variations of these parameters versus the running time. The values presented are averaged over 100 randomly generated prenex formulae. Each prenex formula that is generated, is a CNF, where each clause consists of a set of polynomial equations or inequalities separated by the boolean disjunction. The default random number generator, `rand()` was used.\
\
\
\
\
\
First we fix the maximum number of terms, say T. The number of terms in each polynomial is a random number in between $0$ and $T$. The number of clauses, the highest exponent and number of variables in the prenex formula were kept constant. The increase in running time was observed to be close to exponential in this case, as depicted in Fig. 1.\
This increase is not surprising as an increase in the number of terms per polynomial results in an exponential increase in the total number of terms that are processed, throughout the course of execution. This is due to an increase in number of terms in each set of projected polynomials.
The highest exponent, $E$, was kept constant in each stage of the experiment and all other exponents were taken as random numbers between $0$ and $E$. All other parameters such as number of clauses, maximum number of terms and the number of variables were kept constant. The experiment was performed for both, a 2 variable case and a 3 variable case. The increase in the running time was observed to closely mimic Fig. 1, as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.\
This increase is expected as an increase in the exponent results in an increase in the number of regions, when the construction phase of CAD reaches the variable with the exponent $E$. This is leads to an almost exponential increase in the number of regions, as each previously generated region spawns more regions in the higher dimensions. This would result in a stark increase in running time.
One can conclude that number of terms and exponents contribute equally to the running time of CAD.
This was conducted for a 2 variable case, with a maximum of $5$ terms per polynomial and a maximum of 2 polynomials per clause. The number of clauses was varied from $2$ to $6$. The results were averaged over 50 randomly generated prenex formulae. An almost exponential increase is observed in this case, as shown in Fig. 4.
One could infer from this decrease in gradient that the total number of terms in a collection of projected polynomials depends to a greater extent on the number of terms per polynomial, than on the number of polynomials.
On Validity of the Preprocessor
-------------------------------
As the analysis is performed on the assumption that the input is in the CNF format, with each prenex formula containing two or more clauses, it is necessary to give an account on the percentage of randomly generated prenex formulae, that can be converted to a CNF containing more than one clause. A CNF is a conjunctive normal form with universally quantified variables. Hence, 100 prenex formulae were randomly generated, which do not conform to the normal form defined previously. They were subjected to a logic converter, which converts them to a minimal conjunctive normal form. We have observed the following from the plot in Fig. 5: only 8% of the formulae were 1-separable. Hence, in 92% of the cases, the algorithm would lead to a parallel execution of CAD.\
\
On the Performance of CAD with the Proposed Preprocessor
--------------------------------------------------------
With the above two analyses in place, the next step is to experimentally compare the running times of an implementation of CAD algorithm with and without the preprocessor. The analysis is done for 2,3 and 4 variable cases. In each case, the prenex formula is 100-separable and is in Clause Normal Form. Each clause has at most 5 polynomials and each polynomial has at most 5 terms. The analysis is done for the 2, 3 and the 4 variable case. The implementation uses OpenMP library to divide the processing of the prenex formula into independent threads of execution, each running on a separate Intel Xeon CPU. Each of these threads runs an instance of QEPCAD B. The final results are averaged over 50 different randomly generated prenex formulae.\
\
The comparison between the running times of QEPCAD B with the preprocessor and without are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 6 compares the running times (with and without the preprocessor) of QEPCAD B over 50 different prenex formulae in two variables.
Variables No. of terms per polynomial No. of polynomials Time without the preprocessor Time with the preprocessor
----------- ----------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------
2 5 5 3 Sec 0.3 Sec
3 5 5 $\infty$ 92 Sec
4 2 2 77000 Sec 2 Sec
\
\
An example of such a randomly generated formula in 2 variables from the separable class $S_{10}$, each with at most 5 polynomials and each polynomial with at most 5 terms is,
$(\forall x0)[[[(58) {x_{0}}^{8} {x_{1}}^{2} + (-68) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{4} + (73) + (-4) + (-28) {x_{0}}^{9} = 0] \vee[(44) {x_{0}}^{4} {x_{1}}^{5} + (-88) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{4} + (11) {x_{1}}^{9} + (-70) + (-19) {x_{0}}^{6} {x_{1}}^{5} = 0] \vee[(20) {x_{0}}^{7} + (-61) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{3} + (-71) + (81) {x_{0}}^{3} {x_{1}}^{5} + (14) {x_{0}}^{7} = 0] \vee[(-58) {x_{1}}^{5} + (-35) {x_{0}}^{10} + (5) + (30) + (45) {x_{1}}^{5} = 0] \vee[(-69) {x_{0}}^{5} {x_{1}}^{6} + (71) {x_{0}}^{10} + (40) + (5) + (-90) {x_{1}}^{5} = 0]] \wedge [[(-67) {x_{0}}^{2} {x_{1}}^{6} + (-17) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-18) {x_{1}}^{3} + (14) + (37) {x_{0}}^{6} = 0] \vee[(76) {x_{0}}^{5} {x_{1}}^{1} + (-7) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-44) {x_{0}}^{5} {x_{1}}^{6} + (-96) {x_{0}}^{5} + (-69) {x_{0}}^{1} {x_{1}}^{6} = 0] \vee[(-73) + (-42) {x_{0}}^{10} + (67) {x_{0}}^{7} {x_{1}}^{2} + (-50) {x_{1}}^{9} + (-12) {x_{1}}^{1} = 0] \vee[(63) {x_{0}}^{2} {x_{1}}^{7} + (23) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-74) {x_{1}}^{5} + (31) + (17) {x_{0}}^{7} = 0] \vee[(-47) {x_{0}}^{1} {x_{1}}^{9} + (-31) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{1} + (17) + (17) + (-88) {x_{1}}^{6} = 0]] \wedge [[(78) {x_{0}}^{9} + (-43) {x_{0}}^{10} + (5) {x_{0}}^{6} + (4) {x_{1}}^{7} + (-76) = 0] \vee[(-23) {x_{0}}^{3} + (81) {x_{0}}^{10} + (36) + (35) + (54) {x_{1}}^{1} = 0] \vee[(-29) {x_{0}}^{5} + (54) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{2} + (-20) {x_{0}}^{6} {x_{1}}^{1} + (57) {x_{0}}^{2} + (62) {x_{0}}^{9} {x_{1}}^{4} = 0] \vee[(77) {x_{1}}^{6} + (97) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{6} + (-42) + (-11) {x_{0}}^{1} + (93) {x_{0}}^{3} {x_{1}}^{4} = 0] \vee[(37) {x_{0}}^{7} + (1) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-18) {x_{0}}^{1} {x_{1}}^{9} + (36) + (25) {x_{0}}^{6} = 0]] \wedge [[(-35) {x_{0}}^{3} + (22) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-80) {x_{0}}^{3} + (13) {x_{1}}^{3} + (96) {x_{1}}^{5} = 0] \vee[(-73) + (-25) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{5} + (79) + (-16) + (88) {x_{0}}^{3} {x_{1}}^{7} = 0] \vee[(-94) {x_{0}}^{8} {x_{1}}^{6} + (86) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-52) {x_{0}}^{2} + (15) + (32) {x_{0}}^{2} = 0] \vee[(49) + (-36) {x_{0}}^{10} + (51) {x_{0}}^{5} {x_{1}}^{8} + (59) {x_{0}}^{4} + (-37) = 0] \vee[(99) {x_{0}}^{8} + (71) {x_{0}}^{10} + (73) {x_{1}}^{5} + (68) {x_{0}}^{8} {x_{1}}^{3} + (51) {x_{0}}^{1} {x_{1}}^{1} = 0]] \wedge [[(70) + (-53) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{5} + (73) {x_{0}}^{7} {x_{1}}^{9} + (61) {x_{1}}^{3} + (-59) {x_{0}}^{3} {x_{1}}^{9} = 0] \vee[(-32) {x_{0}}^{3} {x_{1}}^{5} + (-80) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-28) + (-88) {x_{0}}^{4} + (35) {x_{0}}^{1} = 0] \vee[(-65) + (-81) {x_{0}}^{10} + (35) {x_{0}}^{9} {x_{1}}^{6} + (8) {x_{0}}^{7} {x_{1}}^{4} + (-38) {x_{0}}^{3} = 0] \vee[(-24) {x_{1}}^{6} + (26) {x_{0}}^{10} + (15) {x_{0}}^{1} + (80) {x_{1}}^{6} + (93) = 0] \vee[(-42) {x_{0}}^{1} + (84) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-13) {x_{0}}^{5} + (33) + (-17) {x_{0}}^{5} {x_{1}}^{7} = 0]] \wedge [[(75) {x_{0}}^{8} + (26) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{7} + (-47) {x_{0}}^{5} + (8) + (-81) {x_{0}}^{8} {x_{1}}^{9} = 0] \vee[(-96) {x_{0}}^{4} + (24) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{8} + (-78) + (82) {x_{1}}^{6} + (-22) {x_{0}}^{4} = 0] \vee[(69) {x_{1}}^{5} + (12) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{3} + (-9) {x_{1}}^{2} + (63) {x_{0}}^{1} + (-39) {x_{0}}^{2} = 0] \vee[(-27) + (1) {x_{0}}^{10} + (44) {x_{0}}^{9} {x_{1}}^{4} + (-68) {x_{0}}^{8} {x_{1}}^{2} + (-3) = 0] \vee[(94) {x_{1}}^{3} + (-85) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{2} + (-63) + (22) {x_{1}}^{6} + (-74) {x_{1}}^{8} = 0]] \wedge [[(-97) + (-7) {x_{0}}^{10} + (27) {x_{0}}^{8} {x_{1}}^{7} + (71) + (-26) {x_{0}}^{9} {x_{1}}^{1} = 0] \vee[(15) {x_{1}}^{8} + (13) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-15) + (9) + (16) {x_{0}}^{3} {x_{1}}^{2} = 0] \vee[(7) {x_{1}}^{6} + (13) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{1} + (7) {x_{0}}^{9} + (-87) + (13) {x_{1}}^{3} = 0] \vee[(-8) + (-27) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{6} + (-44) {x_{0}}^{3} {x_{1}}^{4} + (-66) {x_{0}}^{2} {x_{1}}^{9} + (42) {x_{1}}^{3} = 0] \vee[(-13) + (-95) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{6} + (48) {x_{0}}^{3} {x_{1}}^{7} + (8) {x_{1}}^{3} + (-95) {x_{0}}^{5} = 0]] \wedge [[(-51) {x_{0}}^{5} + (-40) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{3} + (-18) {x_{0}}^{6} + (22) {x_{1}}^{2} + (-65) = 0] \vee[(-22) {x_{0}}^{7} + (-73) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{5} + (19) {x_{0}}^{9} + (84) {x_{0}}^{7} + (43) {x_{0}}^{8} = 0] \vee[(39) {x_{1}}^{8} + (95) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{3} + (-57) {x_{1}}^{2} + (-1) {x_{1}}^{3} + (21) = 0] \vee[(21) {x_{1}}^{3} + (-80) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-14) + (56) {x_{1}}^{5} + (4) {x_{0}}^{4} {x_{1}}^{9} = 0] \vee[(-56) + (-88) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{1} + (90) {x_{1}}^{9} + (31) + (-63) {x_{0}}^{2} = 0]] \wedge [[(73) {x_{1}}^{3} + (91) {x_{0}}^{10} + (79) {x_{0}}^{9} + (72) {x_{0}}^{8} + (-97) {x_{1}}^{4} = 0] \vee[(-36) {x_{0}}^{8} + (2) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{5} + (-46) {x_{0}}^{7} {x_{1}}^{2} + (11) + (28) {x_{0}}^{7} {x_{1}}^{7} = 0] \vee[(-38) {x_{0}}^{5} + (94) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{9} + (-15) {x_{0}}^{1} + (-91) + (-5) {x_{1}}^{3} = 0] \vee[(93) + (52) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{2} + (-5) {x_{0}}^{3} {x_{1}}^{2} + (-20) + (-5) = 0] \vee[(-47) {x_{0}}^{7} + (80) {x_{0}}^{10} + (76) + (54) {x_{1}}^{3} + (86) {x_{1}}^{4} = 0]] \wedge [[(-21) {x_{0}}^{6} {x_{1}}^{8} + (-83) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{5} + (67) {x_{0}}^{3} + (80) {x_{0}}^{5} + (57) {x_{1}}^{2} = 0] \vee[(-24) {x_{1}}^{6} + (78) {x_{0}}^{10} + (-68) {x_{0}}^{6} + (83) {x_{0}}^{8} + (66) = 0] \vee[(-60) + (97) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{7} + (-6) {x_{0}}^{3} + (53) {x_{1}}^{9} + (-36) {x_{1}}^{4} = 0] \vee[(83) {x_{0}}^{1} {x_{1}}^{5} + (-55) {x_{0}}^{10} {x_{1}}^{6} + (-48) + (69) {x_{0}}^{2} + (-44) = 0] \vee[(15) + (-49) {x_{0}}^{10} + (90) + (-23) {x_{0}}^{6} {x_{1}}^{4} + (85) {x_{1}}^{4} = 0]]].$
An example of the actual input, which consists of 100 clauses could not be provided here due to space constraints (as it would occupy four pages). This also proves the robustness of the algorithm, as CAD in practice relies on the systematic factorization of the polynomials. Using random formulae demonstrates the applicability of the algorithm even if the probability of such factorization is 0.
The behaviour of the running time of QEPCAD B with the preprocessor for 50 randomly generated prenex formulae is depicted in Fig. 7.
On Effectiveness of the Sharing Factor
--------------------------------------
This experiment aims to study the sharing factor and the impact it can have on the amount of computational work done by the CAD algorithm. The space utilized for execution is taken as a metric for computational work. The number of cells utilized is provided by the QEPCAD B tool. A formula from the separable class $S_2$ is considered, with 2 polynomials per clause, 2 terms per polynomial and 6 variables. The sharing factor is varied from 0 to 3. The first clause is kept constant for all the cases and the second clause is varied. The second clause uses $k$ variables, out of those used in the first clause, for a sharing factor of $k$.
QEPCAD B is run twice for each sharing factor, the first run being the whole formula and the first clause being truncated in the second run. Any structure imposed by the first clause on the second clause should appear as the difference between the space utilized by both the runs. As the same clause is deleted in all 4 cases, the experiment should not react to factors other than the sharing factor. As shown in Table 2, in the 0 sharing factor case (which is from $C_2$), the space utilized in both cases is almost identical. The difference increases as the sharing factor increases. The case with sharing factor of 1 is taken as an anomaly, where there is a greater amount of dependence on the one variable that is shared. This demonstrates the existence of corner cases.
As an example, we provide the formula used for the experiment concerning sharing factor of 3.
$(\forall x_0)(\forall x_1)(\forall x_2)(\forall x_3)[[[(85) x_1^1 x_2^2 + (64) x_0^3 x_2^1 = 0] \vee [(41) x_0^1 x_2^1 + (-96) x_0^3 x_1^2 x_2^2 = 0]] \wedge [[(-18) x_4^1 + (-44) x_0^3 x_2^1 x_4^2 x_5^1 = 0] \vee [(-78) x_1^1 x_3^1 x_4^1 x_5^2 + (31) x_0^3 x_1^1 x_2^2 x_4^2 x_5^2 = 0]]]$
The variables $x_0,x_1,x_2$ are shared among the two clauses in this example. The first clause is common to all the four cases studied.
**Sharing Factor** **Percentage of space utilized (with the first clause)** **Percentage of Space utilized (without the first clause)**
-------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------
0 shared variables 7.6%(38187 cells) 3.7%(18723 cells)
1 shared variables 44.18%(279058 cells) left after 49 garbage collections 5.14%(25735 cells)
2 shared variables 69.31%(346561 cells) 3.32%(16614 cells)
3 shared variables 65.4%(327124 cells) left after 2 garbage collections 5.04%(25234 cells)
: An analysis of the effectiveness of sharing factor to study the structure of a prenex formula
Concluding Remarks
==================
In this paper, a preprocessor to CAD is proposed based on the notions of clause normal forms and virtual substitutions. This preprocessor uses clause normal forms to impose a structure on an input formula and runs several instances of CAD on these clauses. The effectiveness of this preprocessor is studied experimentally and some theoretic notions of structure inherent in a formula and the consequences of losing it are presented. The paper ends by providing the notion of an ‘idealistic’ scenario and a measure of deviation that a random prenex formula has from it.
Though the notion showing factor reflects parallelizability of CAD to some extent it cannot completely describe the best-case scenario for the preprocessor. We seek to improve upon this notion by considering parameters other than just the sharing factor. This will help us to theoretically analyze the time and space complexity of CAD with the proposed preprocessor.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Real networks exhibit nontrivial topological features such as heavy-tailed degree distribution, high clustering, and small-worldness. Researchers have developed several generative models for synthesizing artificial networks that are structurally similar to real networks. An important research problem is to identify the generative model that best fits to a target network. In this paper, we investigate this problem and our goal is to select the model that is able to generate graphs similar to a given network instance. By the means of generating synthetic networks with seven outstanding generative models, we have utilized machine learning methods to develop a decision tree for model selection. Our proposed method, which is named “Generative Model Selection for Complex Networks" (GMSCN), outperforms existing methods with respect to accuracy, scalability and size-independence.'
author:
- Sadegh Motallebi
- Sadegh Aliakbary
- Jafar Habibi
bibliography:
- 'shortbib.bib'
title: 'GMSCN: Generative Model Selection Using a Scalable and Size-Independent Complex Network Classifier'
---
> A realistic network generative model can generate artificial graphs similar to real networks. But there is no “best universal generative model” for all situations. In any application, among different existing generative models, we should choose the best model for that specific application. So, “generative model selection” is a prerequisite for creating artificial realistic networks. In this paper, we consider the problem of model selection and propose a method for finding the model that best fits a given network. The selected generative model helps us infer the growth mechanisms of the given network. It can also generate artificial networks similar to the given network for tasks like simulation, prediction, extrapolation, and hypothesis testing. We propose utilizing a combination of different local and global network features for learning a model selection decision tree. We also devise a new network feature based on the quantification of the degree distribution. We show that Our proposed method is robust, scalable, independent from the size of the given network, and more accurate than the baseline method.
\[Introduction\]Introduction
============================
Complex networks appear in different categories such as social networks, citation networks, collaboration networks, and communication networks [@Newman; @StatisticalMechanics; @SurveyOfMeasurements; @GraphConcepts]. In recent years, complex networks are frequently studied and many evidences indicate that they show some non-trivial structural properties [@Newman; @SurveyOfMeasurements; @StructDynam; @DynamicalSys; @WaterDistribution; @MusicRecom]. For example, power law degree distribution, high clustering and small path lengths are some properties that distinguish complex networks from completely random graphs.\
An active field of research is dedicated to the development of algorithms for generating complex networks. These algorithms, called “generative models", try to generate synthetic graphs that adhere the structural properties of complex networks [@SurveyOfMeasurements; @StatisticalMechanics]. Realistic generative models have many applications and benefits. Once a generative model is fitted to a given real network, we can replace the real network with artificial networks in tasks such as simulation, extrapolation (by generating similar graphs with larger sizes), sampling (reverse of extrapolations), capturing the network structure and networks comparison [@Kronecker; @RTG].\
Despite the advances in the field, there is no universal generative model suitable for all network types and features. The prerequisite of network generation is the stage of generative model selection. In fact, when we generate synthetic networks, we hope to reach graphs that are structurally similar to a target network. In the model selection stage, the properties of a given network (called *target network*) are analyzed and the best model suitable for generating similar networks is selected. A model selection method tries to answer this question: “Among candidate generative models, which one is the most suitable one for generating complex network instances similar to the given network?" In this paper, we investigate this problem and by the means of machine learning algorithms, we propose a new model selection method based on network structural properties. The proposed method is named “Generative Model Selection for Complex Networks" (GMSCN). The need for model selection is frequently indicated in literature [@ModelSelection; @NetSamplingClassification; @Drosophila]. More specifically some works [@ModelSelection; @Drosophila; @Superfamilies] are based on counting subgraphs of small sizes (called *graphlets* or *motifs* [@Motifs; @Superfamilies; @GraphConcepts; @SubgraphCounting; @NetMotifDiscovery; @EngineeringView; @EffectOfNetTopology; @ModelSelection; @Drosophila]), and some others concentrate on structural features of complex networks [@NetSamplingClassification], and some are based on manually selecting a model through watching a small set of network features [@RichClub]. We will show that by using an appropriate combination of local and global network features, we can develop a more accurate model selection method. In our proposed method (GMSCN), we consider seven prominent generative models by which we have generated datasets of network instances. The datasets are used as training data for learning a decision tree for model selection. Our method also consists of a special technique for quantification of degree distribution. In comparison to existing methods [@ModelSelection; @Drosophila; @NetSamplingClassification], we have considered wider, newer and more significant generative models. Due to a better selection of network features, GMSCN is also more efficient and more scalable than similar methods [@ModelSelection; @Drosophila].\
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[RelatedWorks\] reviews the related work. Section \[ProposedMethod\] presents GMSCN. Section \[Evaluation\] is dedicated to evaluation of GMSCN. Section \[CaseStudy\] describes a case study on some real network samples. The results and evaluations of this paper are discussed in Section \[Discussion\]. Finally, Section \[Conclusion\] concludes the paper.
\[RelatedWorks\]Related Work
============================
Network Generation Models
-------------------------
In this subsection, we briefly introduce the leading methods of network generation:
- *Kronecker Graphs Model (KG)* [@Kronecker]. This model generates realistic synthetic networks by applying a matrix operation (the kronecker product) on a small initiator matrix. This model is mathematically tractable and supports many network features such as small path lengths, heavy tail degree distribution, heavy tails for eigenvalues and eigenvectors, densification and shrinking diameters over time.
- *Forest Fire Model (FF)* [@GraphsOverTime]. In this model, edges are added in a process similar to a fire-spreading process. This model is inspired by Copying model [@WebAsGraph] and Community Guided Attachment [@GraphsOverTime] but supports the shrinking diameter property.
- *Random Typing Generator Model (RTG)* [@RTG]. RTG uses a process of “random typing" for generating node identifiers. This model mimics real world graphs and conforms to eleven important patterns (such as power law degree distribution, densification power law and small and shrinking diameter) observed in real networks [@RTG].
- *Preferential Attachment Model (PA)* [@EmergenceOfScaling]. The classical preferential attachment model generates scale-free networks with power law degree distribution. In this model, the nodes are added to the network incrementally and the probability of the attachments depends on the degree of existing nodes.
- *Small World Model (SW)* [@SmallWorld]. This is another classical network generation model that synthesizes networks with small path lengths and high clustering. It starts with a regular lattice and then rewires some edges of the network randomly.
- *Erd[ö]{}s-Rényi Model (ER)* [@ER]. This model generates a completely random graph. The number of nodes and edges are configurable.
- *Random Power Law Model (RP)* [@RP]. The RP model generates synthetic networks by following a variation of ER model that supports the power law degree distribution property.
Other generative models are also available (we have not utilized them but they are used in related model selection methods), such as Copying Model (CM) [@WebAsGraph], Random Geometric Model (GEO) [@RandomGeoGraphs], Spatial Preferential Attachment (SPA) [@SpatialWebGraph], Random Growing (RDG) [@RandomlyGrown], Duplication-Mutation-Complementation (DMC) [@ProteomeEvolution], Duplication-Mutation using Random mutations (DMR) [@RandomlyGrown], Aging Vertex (AGV) [@HighlyClustered], Ring Lattice (RL) [@RandomGraphs], Core-periphery (CP) [@CorePeriphery], and Cellular model (CL) [@CellularNets].
Model Selection Methods
-----------------------
The aim of this paper and the model selection methods is to find the best generative model that fits a given network instance. Some model selection methods are based on graphlet counting [@ModelSelection; @Drosophila; @Superfamilies]. Graphlets are subgraphs of bounded sizes (e.g., all possible subgraphs with three or four nodes) and the frequency of graphlets in a network is considered as a way of capturing the network structure [@ModelSelection]. In some works, directed graphs and graphlets are considered [@Superfamilies; @Motifs] and some others consider the network as simple (undirected) graphs [@ModelSelection; @Superfamilies].\
Janssen et al. [@ModelSelection] have tested both graphlet features and structural features (degree distribution, assortativity and average path length) in the model selection problem. They conclude that counting graphlets of three and four nodes is sufficient for capturing the structure of the network, i.e., appending structural features to the feature vector of graphlet counts does not improve the accuracy of the model selector. In this paper, we critique this claim and show that using a better set of local (such as transitivity) and global (such as effective diameter [@GraphEvolution; @GraphsOverTime]) network structural features, along with an appropriate degree distribution quantification algorithm, actually improves the accuracy of the model selection. In fact, graphlet counts are limited local features and are not able to reflect the structural properties of a network instance. Janssen et al [@ModelSelection] implemented six generative models and generated a dataset of synthetic networks as the training data for decision tree learning [@MulticlassADT]. In this method, candidate generative models are: PA [@EmergenceOfScaling], CM [@WebAsGraph], GEO [@RandomGeoGraphs] (GEO2D and GEO3D) and SPA [@SpatialWebGraph] (SPA2D and SPA3D).\
A similar method is proposed by Middendorf et al. [@Drosophila]. In this method, the feature vectors are the counts of graphlets with small sizes. Seven different generative models are considered by which network instances are generated as the training data. Candidate generative models are: ER [@ER], PA [@EmergenceOfScaling] , SW [@SmallWorld], RDG [@RandomlyGrown] , DMC [@ProteomeEvolution], DMR [@RandomlyGrown] and AGV [@HighlyClustered]. The authors have used a generalized decision tree called alternating decision tree (ADT) as the learning algorithm.\
Airoldi et al. [@NetSamplingClassification] propose to form feature vectors according to structural network properties. They have considered some classical generative models and generated a dataset by which a na[ï]{}ïve Bayes classifier is learned. Candidate generative models are: PA [@EmergenceOfScaling], ER [@ER], RL [@RandomGraphs], CP [@CorePeriphery] and CL [@CellularNets]. This method is dependent on the size and average connectivity of the target network and this dependency is one of its limitations.\
Patro et al. [@MissingModels] propose a framework for implementing network generation models. The user of this framework can specify the important network features and the weight of each feature. In other words, we consider each generative model as a class of networks. This model, more than to be a specific method, is a relatively open framework and the user should determine different parameters of the framework according to the target application.\
\[ProposedMethod\]The Proposed Method
=====================================
GMSCN is based on learning a classifier for model selection. The goal of a classifier is to accurately predict the target class for a given network instance and in our method, generative models play the role of network classes. In GMSCN, the classifier suggests the best model that generates networks similar to a given network. The inputs of the classifier are the structural properties of the target network and the output is the selected model among the candidate network generation models.
\[subsec:Methodologys\]Methodology
----------------------------------
Fig. \[fig:Methodology\] shows the high-level methodology of GMSCN. The methodology is configurable by several parameters and decision points, such as the set of considered network features, the chosen supervised learning algorithm and the candidate generative models. The steps of constructing the network classifier, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Methodology\], are described in the following:
1. Many artificial network instances are synthesized using the candidate network generative models. These network instances will form the dataset (training and test data) for learning a network classifier. In this step, the parameters of the generative models are tuned in order to synthesize networks with densities similar to the density of the given target network.
2. After generating the network instances, the structural features (e.g., the degree distribution and the clustering coefficient) of each network instance are extracted. The result is a dataset of labeled structural features in which each record consists of topological features of a synthesized network along with the label of its generative model.
3. The labeled dataset forms the training and test data for the supervised learning algorithm. The learning algorithm will return a network classifier which is able to predict the class (the best generative model) of the given network instance.
4. The structural features of the target network are also extracted. The same “Feature Extraction" block which is used in the second step is applied here. The structural features of the target network are used as input for the learned classifier.
5. The learned network classifier is a customized “model selector" for finding the model that fits the target network. It gets the structural features of the target network as input and returns the most compatible generative model.
![ \[fig:Methodology\] The methodology of learning a network classifier](Methodology)
In this methodology, the density of the target network is considered as an important property of the target network. Network density is defined as the ratio of the existing edges to potential edges and is regarded as an indicator of the sparseness of the graph. In the proposed methodology, generative models are configured to synthesize networks with densities similar to the density of the target network. This decision is due to the fact that it is hard to compare networks of completely different densities for predicting their growth mechanism and generation process. On the other hand, even with similar network densities, various generative models create different network structures. So, we try to keep the density of the generated networks similar to the density of the target network. In this manner, the network classifier can learn the difference among the structure of various generative models with similar network densities.\
It is also worth noting that it is not possible to generate networks with exactly equal densities with some of the existing generative models. This is because some generative models (such as Kronecker graphs and RTG) are not configurable for finely tuning the exact density of synthesized networks. So, we generate the networks of training data with similar, and not exactly equal, densities to the density of the given network.\
Our proposed methodology, unlike existing methods [@ModelSelection; @NetSamplingClassification; @Drosophila], is not dependent on the size (number of nodes) of the target network. Size-independence is an important feature of our method. It enables the classifier to learn from a dataset of generated networks with sizes different -perhaps smaller- from the size of the target network, but with a similar density. This facility decreases the time of network generation and feature extraction considerably. We will demonstrate the size-independence property of the GMSCN in the evaluation section.\
GMSCN is actually a realization of the described methodology. In the following subsections, we further illustrate the details of GMSCN by specifying the open parameters and decision points of the methodology.
\[subsec:NetworkFeatures\]Network Features
------------------------------------------
The process of model selection, as described in Fig. \[fig:Methodology\], utilizes structural network features in the second and fourth steps. There are plenty of different network features, so we clarify the considered features in GMSCN here.\
To capture the properties of a network, we should analyse a wide and diverse feature set of network connectivity patterns. We propose the utilization of a combination of local and global network structural features. The utilization of a limited set of local features (graphlet counts) in similar methods [@ModelSelection; @Drosophila] has resulted in a lower precision for the model selector. As explained later, we have utilized ten network features from four feature categories. While trying to find the best and minimal set of network features, we considered features that are not only effective on the classification accuracy, but also efficiently computable and size-independent. One may consider a longer list of network features, even from different feature categories (e.g. eigenvalues). In such an approach, automatic methods for feature selection such as the methodology explained in Ref. [@Zanin] may be helpful. But supporting specified diverse criteria (effectiveness, efficiency and size-independence) for selected features is quite difficult in such an automatic methodologies.\
The utilized features and measurements in GMSCN are:
- *Transitivity of relationships*. In this category of network features, we consider two measurements of “average clustering coefficient" [@SmallWorld; @Newman] and “transitivity" [@TransitivityProp].
- *Degree correlation*. The measure of assortativity [@Newman] is selected from this category of network features.
- *Path lengths*. There are different global features about the path lengths in a network, such as diameter [@DiameterProp], effective diameter [@GraphEvolution; @GraphsOverTime] and average path length [@SurveyOfMeasurements]. We selected the “effective diameter" measurement since it is more robust [@Kronecker] and also because of its less computation cost and sensitivity to small network changes [@Sensitivity]. Effective diameter indicates the minimum number of edges in which 90 percent of all connected pairs can reach each other [@Kronecker; @GraphEvolution; @InternetTopology]. Effective diameter is well defined for both connected and disconnected networks [@GraphEvolution].
- *Degree distribution*. It is a common approach to fit a power law on the degree distribution and extract the power law exponent as a representative quantity for the degree distribution. But a single number (the power law exponent) is too limited for representing the whole degree distribution. On the other hand, some real networks do not conform to the power law degree distribution [@Slashdot; @GooglePlus; @WhatIsTwitter]. We propose an alternative method for quantification of the degree distribution by computing its probability percentiles. The percentiles are calculated from some defined regions of the degree distribution according to its mean and standard deviation. We devise $K$ intervals in the degree distribution and then calculate the probability of degrees of each interval. $K$ is always an even number greater than or equal to four. The size of all intervals, except the first and the last one, is considered equal to $p\sigma$ where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the distribution and $p$ is a tunable parameter. In any application, we can configure the values of $K$ and $p$ in a manner that the percentile values become more distinctive. In our experiments we let $K=6$ and $p=0.3$, so we extract six quantities (DegDistP1..DegDistP6 percentiles) from any degree distributions. If we increase the value of $K$, we should normally decrease the value of $\sigma$ so that most of the interval points stay in the range of existing node degrees. Smaller values for $\sigma$ also necessitate larger values for $K$. Large values (e.g., $K=100$) and small values (e.g., $K=1$) for $K$ will also decrease the distinction power of the extracted features vector. The specified values for $\sigma$ and $K$ are found through trial and error. Equation \[eq:IntervalPoint\] shows the interval points of the degree distribution and Equation \[eq:DegDistP\] specifies the probability for a node degree to sit in the $ i $th interval. The set of six percentiles (DegDistP1..DegDistP6) are used as the network features representing the degree distribution.\
Let $IP_{i}$ be the $i$th interval point and $D$ be the degree random variable.
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:IntervalPoint}
IP_{i} = \left\{
\begin{matrix}
min(D) &&i=1\\
\mu-(\frac{k}{2}-i+1)p\sigma &&i=2..K\\
max(D) &&i=K+1
\end{matrix}\right.\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:DegDistP}
DegDistP_{i} = P(IP_{i} \: < D \: < IP_{i+1}), \: i=1..K\end{aligned}$$
Learning the Classifier
-----------------------
The third step of the proposed methodology is the utilization of a supervised machine learning algorithm. The learning algorithm constructs the network classifier based on the features of generated network instances as the training data. Each record of the training data consists of the structural features -as described in the previous subsection- of a generated network along with the label of its generative model. By the means of supervised algorithms, we can learn from this training data a classifier which predicts the best generative model for a given network with the specified structural features.\
We examined several supervised learning algorithms such as decision tree learning [@QC4.5; @MulticlassADT], Bayesian networks [@BayesianRef], support vector machines [@SMORef] (SVM) and neural networks [@NeuralNetRef] among which the LADTree method showed better results. A short description of examined learning algorithms is presented in Appendix \[App:LearningAlg\]. In our experiments, although some methods (such as Bayesian networks) resulted in a small improvement in the accuracy of the learned classifier, but the decision tree learned by LADTree algorithm was obviously more robust and less sensitive to noises than other learning methods. The robustness to noise analysis is described in the evaluation section. To avoid over-fitting, we always used stratified 10-fold cross-validation.\
Network Models
--------------
Among several existing network generative models, we have selected seven important models: Kronecker Graphs [@Kronecker] Model, Forest Fire [@GraphsOverTime] Model , Random Typing Generator [@RTG] Model, Preferential Attachment [@EmergenceOfScaling] Model, Small World [@SmallWorld] Model, Erd[ö]{}s-Rényi [@ER] Model and Random Power Law [@RP] Model. The selected models are the state of the art methods of network generation. The existing model selection methods such as Ref. [@ModelSelection] and Ref. [@Drosophila] have ignored some new and important generative models such as Kronecker Graphs [@Kronecker], Forest Fire [@GraphsOverTime] and RTG [@RTG] models.
\[Evaluation\]Evaluation
========================
In this section, we evaluate our proposed method of model selection (GMSCN). We also compare GMSCN with the baseline method [@ModelSelection] and show that it outperforms state of the art methods with respect to different criteria.\
Despite most of the existing methods, GMSCN has no dependency on the size of the given network. In other words, we ignore the number of nodes of the target network and we only consider its density in generating the training data. Because the baseline method is dependent on the size of the target network, we evaluate the methods in two stages. In the first stage, we fix the size of the generated networks to prepare a fair condition for comparing GMSCN with the baseline method. Although size-dependence is a drawback for the baseline method, the evaluation shows that GMSCN outperforms the baseline method even in fixed network size condition. In the second stage, we allow the generation models to synthesize networks of different sizes. In this stage, we show that the size diversity of generated networks does not affect the accuracy of the learned decision tree. As described in Section \[ProposedMethod\], GMSCN is based on learning a decision tree from a training set of generated networks. In each evaluation stage, we generated 100 networks from each network generative model and with seven candidate models, we gathered 700 generated networks. We used these network instances as the training and test data for learning the decision tree.
The Baseline method
-------------------
We have selected the graphlet-based method proposed by Janssen et al. [@ModelSelection] as the baseline method. The baseline method has some similarities to GMSCN: it is based on considering some network generative models and then learning a decision tree for network classification with the aid of a set of generated networks. In the baseline method, eight graphlet counts are considered as the network features. All subgraphs with three nodes (two graphlets) and four nodes (six graphlets) are considered in the baseline method (Fig. \[fig:Graphlet\]). A similar approach is also proposed by Middendorf et al. [@Drosophila], with distinctions on the learning algorithm and the set of candidate generative models. The graphlet-based method is selected as the baseline because it is a new method and its evaluations show a high accuracy, and it is proposed similarly in different research domains such as social networks [@ModelSelection] and protein networks [@Drosophila].\
![\[fig:Graphlet\]The graphlets with three and four nodes](Graphlets_2_47)
Despite the similarities, there exist some important differences between GMSCN and the baseline method. First, the baseline method is based on counting graphlets in networks while GMSCN proposes a wider set of local and global features. Janssen et al. [@ModelSelection] conclude that considering structural features does not improve the accuracy of the graphlet-based classifier, but we will show that choosing a better set of local and global network features and with the aid of our proposed degree distribution quantification method, structural features will play an undeniable role in model selection. Second, the baseline method is size-dependent, i.e., it considers both the size and the density of the target network, and it generates network instances according to these two properties. On the other hand, GMSCN is size-independent and we only consider the density of the target network in the network generation phase. Third, GMSCN employs newer and more important generative models such as the Kronecker Graphs [@Kronecker] model, the Forest Fire [@GraphsOverTime] model and the RTG [@RTG] model. Fourth, we examined different learning algorithms and then selected LADTree as the best learning algorithm for this application. Our evaluation of GMSCN is more thorough, considering different evaluation criteria. We have also presented a new algorithm for quantifying the network degree distribution.\
Graphlet counting is a very time consuming task and there is no efficient algorithm for computing the full counts of graphlets for large networks. To handle the algorithmic complexity, most of the graphlet-counting methods (e.g., Refs. ) propose a sampling phase before counting the graphlets. But the sampling algorithm may affect the graphlet counts and the resulting counts may be biased towards the features of the sampling algorithm. It is also possible to estimate the graphlet counts with approximate algorithms [@SubgraphCounting; @Graft], but this approach may also bring remarkable errors in graphlet counts. To prepare a fair comparison situation, we have counted the exact number of graphlets in original networks and have not employed any sampling or approximation algorithms. It is worth noting that reported accuracy of the baseline method in this paper is different from the report of the original paper [@ModelSelection], mainly because the set of generative models are not the same in the two papers.
\[subsec:AccuracyOfTheModelClassifier\]Accuracy of the Model Classifier
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We first set a fixed size for generated networks of the dataset and generate networks with about 4096 nodes. Almost all the generated networks in our dataset contain 4096 nodes, but the networks generated by RTG [@RTG] model have small variations in their size. Number of nodes in these networks is in the range of 4000 to 4200 and this is because the exact number of nodes is not configurable in the RTG model. Since the Kronecker Graphs model generates networks with $2^{x}$ nodes in its original form, we chosen 4096 $(2^{12})$ as the size of the networks. The average density of networks in this dataset is equal to 0.0024.\
In addition to overall accuracy, we evaluate the precision and recall of the learned decision tree for different network models. “Precision" shows the percentage of correctly classified instances calculated for each category (e.g., $ Precision_{FF} = \frac{number \: of \: correctly \: predicted \: FF \: intances}{number \: of \: FF \: predicted \: instances}$), “Recall" illustrates the ability of the method in finding the instances of a category (e.g., $ Recall_{FF} = \frac{number \: of \: correctly \: predicted \: FF \: intances}{number \: of \: FF \: instances}$), and “Accuracy" is an indicator of overall effectiveness of the classifier across the entire dataset (i.e., $ Accuracy = \frac{number \: of \: correctly \: predicted \: intances}{total \: number \: of \: instances}$). The overall accuracy of GMSCN is 97.14% while the accuracy of the baseline method is 78.57% which indicates 18.57% improvements. Fig. \[fig:TwoMethodsPrecisions\] and Fig. \[fig:TwoMethodsRecalls\] show the precision and recall of GMSCN and the baseline method respectively for different network models. In addition to an apparent improvement in the precision and recall for most of the generative models, the figures show the stability (less undesired deviation) of GMSCN over the baseline method. The accuracy and precision of GMSCN show small deviation for different generative models, while these measures for baseline method vary in a wide range. Table \[tab:GMSCNResults\] shows the details of GMSCN results for different network models. For example, the first row of this table indicates that among 700 network instances, 104 networks are predicted to be generated by the ER model but in fact 97 (out of 104) instances are ER, six instances are the KG model and one is generated by the SW model. Because we have utilized cross-validation, all of the 700 network instances are included in the evaluation. Table \[tab:BaselineResults\] shows corresponding results for the baseline method.\
It is worth noting that considering both the graphlet counts and the structural features does not improve the accuracy of the classifier considerably. Since we want to prepare a size-independent and efficient method, we do not consider the graphlet counts in feature vectors.
![\[fig:TwoMethodsPrecisions\]Precision of GMSCN compared to baseline method for different generative models](Precision_With_Baseline)
![\[fig:TwoMethodsRecalls\]Recall of GMSCN compared to baseline method for different generative models](Recall_With_Baseline)
------------------ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Pred. ER
Pred. FF
Pred. KG
Pred. PA
Pred. RP
Pred. SW
Pred. RTG
**Class Recall**
------------------ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
------------------ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Pred. ER
Pred. FF
Pred. KG
Pred. PA
Pred. RP
Pred. SW
Pred. RTG
**Class Recall**
------------------ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
\[subsec:SizeIndependence\]Size Independence
--------------------------------------------
GMSCN for model selection is independent from the size of the target network. When we want to find the best model fitting a real network, we can discard the number of nodes in the network and generate the training data only according to its density. The size-independence is an important feature of GMSCN which is missing in the baseline method. This feature is especially important when we want to find the generative model for a relatively large network. In this condition, we can generate the training network instances with smaller sizes than the target network. This feature also increases the applicability, scalability and performance of GMSCN.\
For evaluating the dependency of GMSCN to the size of the network, we generate a new dataset with networks of different sizes. Instead of fixing the number of nodes in each network instance (such as about 4096 nodes in the previous evaluation) we allow networks with different number of nodes in the dataset. In this test, with each of the generative models, we generated 100 networks of different sizes: 24 networks with 4,096 nodes, 24 networks with 32,768 nodes, 24 networks with 131,072 nodes, 24 networks with 524,288 nodes and four networks with 1,048,576 nodes. Again, the only exception is the RTG model which generates networks with small variations from the specified sizes. The node counts are powers of two because the original version of Kronecker graph model is able to generate networks with $2^{n}$ nodes. The average density of networks in this dataset is equal to 0.000885.\
Table \[tab:SizeIndependent\] shows the precision and recall of GMSCN for this dataset. In this evaluation, the overall accuracy of the classifier is 97.29% which is very close to the accuracy of the system in the evaluation with fixed network sizes. This fact shows that GMSCN is not dependent on the size of the target network. The average density of networks in this dataset (0.000885) is different from the average density of networks in the fixed-size dataset (0.0024). So, the model selection is also performing well for different densities of the given network. We also extended this experiment to ensure that there is no meaningful lower bound for GMSCN in terms of network size. The new experiment is configured similar to the previous trial, but it examines a wider range of network sizes. Fig. \[fig:SizeIndependence\] plots the result of this experiment at each number of nodes. It indicates that GMSCN shows good performance for the varying network sizes. Obviously, the baseline method is size-dependent [@ModelSelection; @Drosophila] because the graphlet counts completely depend on the size of the network. So, it is not necessary to show the precision and recall of the baseline method for dataset of networks of different sizes. We ignored such a useless evaluation because the calculation of graphlet counts for large networks is very time consuming.
--------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
**Precision**
**Recall**
--------------- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
: \[tab:SizeIndependent\]Precision and Recall of GMSCN for networks of different sizes
![\[fig:SizeIndependence\]Accuracy of GMSCN for different network sizes.](ExtendedExp)
Robustness to Noise
-------------------
We also evaluate the robustness of GMSCN with respect to random changes in networks. For each test-case network, we randomly select a fraction of edges, rewire them to random nodes, and test the accuracy of the classifier for the resulting network. We start from the pure network samples and in each step, we change five percent of the edges until all the edges (100 percent change) are randomly rewired. In other words, in addition to pure networks, we generated 20 test-sets with from zero to 100 percent edge changes, each of which containing 700 network samples from seven generative models.\
As discussed before, we have chosen LADTree as the supervised learning algorithm in GMSCN. Fig. \[fig:Robustness\] shows the average accuracy of GMSCN for different random change fractions. This figure shows the effect of choosing different learning algorithms for GMSCN. As the figure shows, LADTree results in a more robust classifier for this application, since it is less sensitive to noise. The accuracy of GMSCN is smoothly decreasing nearly linear with random changes. There is no sudden drop in the chart of the GMSCN (based on LADTree). With 100 percent random changes (the right end of the diagram), the accuracy of the classifier reaches the value of 14.43 percent, which is near to 1/7 (i.e., $ \frac{1}{number \: of \: candidate \: models} $). This is due to existence of seven network models and indicates that almost all the characteristics of the generative model is eliminated from a generated network with 100 percent edge rewiring.\
![\[fig:Robustness\]Robustness of the different classification methods with respect to random edge rewiring.](Robustness_Accuracy)
Scalability and Performance
---------------------------
The aim of GMSCN is finding a generative model best fitting a given real network. We define the scalability of such a method as its ability to handle networks of large sizes as the input. Noting to the methodology of the proposed method (Fig. \[fig:Methodology\]), the most time-consuming part of the model classification is the feature extraction task. For the feature extraction task, GMSCN is obviously more scalable than the baseline method. There is no efficient algorithm for counting the graphlets in large networks. The selected network features in GMSCN (effective diameter, clustering coefficient, transitivity, assorativity and degree distribution percentiles) are efficiently computable by existing algorithms. We have also discarded “timely to extract" features such as “average path length" because their extraction has more computationally complex algorithms.\
Most of the graphlet-based methods such as Ref. [@ModelSelection] and Ref. [@Drosophila] try to increase their scalability by incorporating a pre-stage of network sampling with very small rates such as 0.01% (one out of 10,000) in Ref. [@ModelSelection]. But such sampling rates decreases the accuracy of graph counts and the chosen sampling algorithm will also bias the graph counts. On the other hand, if sampling or approximation algorithms are accepted for baseline method, these techniques will improve the performance of GMSCN too. In other words, utilization of sampling and approximation algorithms increases the scalability of both of the baseline method and GMSCN similarly. Some notes about the implementation and evaluation of GMSCN are presented in the Appendix \[App:ImplementationNotes\].
Effectiveness of the Degree Distribution Quantification Method
--------------------------------------------------------------
As described in Section \[ProposedMethod\], we have proposed a new method for the quantification of the degree distribution based on its mean and standard deviation. In this subsection, we test the effectiveness of this quantification method. We show that without the proposed features of degree distribution, the accuracy of the network classifier will diminish. Table \[tab:WithoutDegDist\] shows the results of GMSCN by eliminating six features related to the degree distribution (DegDistP1..DegDistP6 percentiles). By this change, the overall accuracy of the method decreases about eight percent (from 97.14% to 89.29%). This can be seen by comparing the values in Table \[tab:WithoutDegDist\] with those of Table \[tab:GMSCNResults\] which reflects the results of GMSCN when employing all the features. Precision and recall are improved for almost all the models with incorporating features related to the degree distribution. This fact shows the effectiveness of our proposed quantification method for degree distribution.
--------------- ------- ------ -------- -------- -------- ----- -------
**Precision** 89.1% 100% 79.41% 94.17% 76.47% 96% 90.7%
**Recall** 90% 95% 81% 97% 78% 96% 88%
--------------- ------- ------ -------- -------- -------- ----- -------
: \[tab:WithoutDegDist\]The results of GMSCN after excluding the features of degree distribution
\[CaseStudy\]Case study
=======================
We applied GMSCN for some real networks. The real network instances and the result of applying GMSCN on these networks are illustrated here:
1. “dblp\_cite" [^1] (with 475,886 nodes and 2,284,694 edges) is a network which is extracted from the DBLP service. This network shows the citation network among scientific papers. GMSCN proposes Forest Fire as the best fitting generative model for this network. Leskovec et al. [@GraphsOverTime] also propose Forest Fire model for two similar graphs of arXiv and patent citation networks.
2. “dblp\_collab" [^2] (with 975,044 nodes and 3,489,572 edges) is a co-authorship network of papers indexed in the DBLP service. A node in this network represents an author and an edge indicates at least one collaboration in writing papers between the two authors. GMSCN suggests Forest Fire for this network instance too.
3. “p2p-Gnutella08" [^3] (with 6,301 nodes and 20,777 edges) is a relatively small P2P network with about 6000 nodes. The best fitting model suggested by GMSCN for this network instance is Kronecker Graphs.
4. Slashdot, as a technology-related news website, presented the Slashdot Zoo which allowed users to tag each other as friends. “Slashdot0902" [^4] (with 82,168 nodes and 543,381 edges) is a network of friendship links between the users of Slashdot, obtained in February 2009. The output of GMSCN for this social network is the Random Power Law model.
5. In the “web-Google" [^5] (with 875,713 nodes and 4,322,051 edges) network, the nodes represent web pages and directed edges represent hyperlinks among them. We ignored the direction of the links and considered the network as a simple undirected graph. The random Power Law model is also proposed for this network by GMSCN.
6. “Email-EuAll" [^6] (with 265,214 nodes and 365,025 edges) is a communication network of email contacts which is predicted to follow the RTG model.
7. Finally, for the small network of “Email-URV" [^7] (with 1,133 nodes and 5,451 edges), which is another communication network of emails, GMSCN suggests the Small World model.\
As explained above, various real networks, which are selected from a wide range of sizes, densities, and domains, are categorized in different network models by the GMSCN classifier. This fact indicates that no generative model is dominated in GMSCN for real networks and it suggests different models for different network structures. The case study also verifies that no generative model is sufficient for synthesizing networks similar to real networks and we should find the best model fitting to the target network in each application. As a result, it is worth noting that the task of generative model selection is an important stage before generating network instances.
\[Discussion\]Discussion
========================
We evaluated GMSCN from different perspectives. GMSCN proposes a size-independent methodology for building the network classifier based on a wide range of local and global network features as the inputs of a decision tree. It shows a high accuracy in predicting the generative model for a given network. It is tolerant and insensitive to small network changes. In addition to size-independence, GMSCN outperforms the baseline method –that only considers local features of graphlet counts with respect to accuracy and efficiency. A new structural feature is also proposed in GMSCN which quantifies the network degree distribution.\
One may argue that the size of the training set (700 network instances) is relatively small for a machine learning task. But we have actually utilized many more network instances in the process of evaluating GMSCN. Our dataset for evaluating GMSCN includes 15,400 different network instances: 700 instances in the fixed-size evaluation, 700 instances in the size-independence test and 14,000 (20$\times$700) instances in the robustness test. The dataset size seems to be sufficient for evaluating the learned classifier because the network instances are generated with different parameters (e.g., different sizes) and the results for various evaluation steps are stable.\
It can also be argued that the definition of “Accuracy" in the evaluations is not fair. When we compute the accuracy of the classifier, given that a network is generated precisely according to one of seven models, the classifier attempts to determine the generative model. One may argue that real networks are unlikely to be determined by one of these models, so accuracy in predicting the origin of artificially generated networks does not necessarily imply accuracy for real networks. But we have shown that GMSCN is able to classify synthesized network instances even with random noises (in subsection \[subsec:SizeIndependence\]). In other words, networks that are not completely compatible to one of the generative models are also well categorized with GMSCN. We should note that no accepted benchmark exists for suggesting the best generative model for real networks. So, the computation of the actual accuracy of a model selection algorithm for real networks is fundamentally impossible.\
Considering the existing model selection methods, we summarize the main distinctions and contributions of GMSCN here. First, we have proposed new structural network features based on the quantification of degree distribution. We have shown the effectiveness of these features in improving the accuracy of the model selection method. Second, we proposed a set of local and global network features for the problem of model selection. The baseline method suggests a set of graphlet counts that are limited local features and the evaluations show that such features are not sufficient for this application. It is not possible to capture important characteristics of real networks such as heavy-tailed degree distribution, small path lengths, and degree correlation (assortativity) only by counting graphlets, while such characteristics are among the main distinctions of generative models. For example, the Small World model generates networks with high clustering and small path lengths and artificial networks generated by most of the models demonstrate heavy-tailed degree distributions. Third, GMSCN is a size-independent method and the learned classifier is applicable for networks of different sizes. This is an important feature especially in the case of suggesting a generative model for a large network. In this case, we can generate the training set of artificial networks with a relatively smaller number of nodes. Fourth, although our proposed methodology is not dependent on the generative models, we have chosen seven important and outstanding network generative models as the candidate models of the classifier. Important models such as Kronecker graphs, Forest Fire and RTG are not considered in similar existing methods. Fifth, we have investigated different learning algorithms and reached LADTree as the most robust learning algorithm for this application. Sixth, we have presented a diverse set of evaluations for GMSCN with different criteria such as precision, recall, accuracy, robustness to noise, size-independence, scalability and effectiveness of the features.
\[Conclusion\]Conclusion
========================
In this paper, we proposed a new method (GMSCN) for network model selection. This method, which is based on learning a decision tree, finds the best model for generating complex networks similar to a specified network instance. The structural features of the given network instance are utilized as the input of the decision tree and the result is the best fitting model. GMSCN outperforms the existing methods with respect to different criteria. The accuracy of GMSCN shows a considerable improvement over the baseline method [@ModelSelection]. In addition, the set of supported generative models in GMSCN contains wider, newer and more important generative models such as Kronecker graphs, Forest Fire and RTG. Despite most of the existing methods, GMSCN is independent from the size of the input network. GMSCN is a robust model and insensitive to small network changes and noises. It is also a scalable method and its performance is obviously better than the baseline method. GMSCN also includes a new and effective algorithm for the quantification of network degree distribution. We have examined different learning algorithms and as a result, decision tree learning by LADTree method was the most accurate and robust model. We showed that the local structural features, such as graphlet counts, are insufficient for inferring the network mechanisms and it is a must to consider a wider range of local and global structural features to be able to predict the network growth mechanisms.\
In future, we will investigate the effect of network structural features and growth mechanisms on dynamics and behavior of the network when it is faced with different processes. For example, we will evaluate the similarity of the information diffusion process in a network and its counterparts synthesized by the selected network generation model.
We wish to thank Masoud Asadpour, Mehdi Jalili and Abbas Heydarnoori for their great comments.
\[App:LearningAlg\]Brief Introduction to Classification Methods
===============================================================
Machine Learning is a subfield of Artificial Intelligence in which the main goal is to learn knowledge through experience. Classification is a learning task of inferring a classification function from labeled training data. Here, we explain some classifiers that are used in this paper.\
***Support Vector Machines (SVM)***[@SMORef]. SVM performs a classification by mapping the inputs into a high-dimensional feature space and constructing hyperplanes to categorize the data instances. The best hyperplanes are those that cause the largest margin among the classes. The parameters of such a maximum-margin hyperplane are derived by solving an optimization problem. Sequential Minimal Optimization (SMO) [@SMORef] is a common method for solving the optimization problem.\
***Bayesian Networks Learning*** [@BayesianRef]. A Bayesian network model is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of random variables and their conditional dependencies by a directed acyclic graph. The nodes in this graph represent the random variables and an edge shows a conditional dependency between two variables. Bayesian network learning aims to create a network that “best describes” the probability distribution over the training data. To find the best network among the set of possible Bayesian networks, the heuristic search techniques has been frequently used in the literature.\
***Artificial Neural Networks***[@NeuralNetRef]. ANN is inspired by human brain neural network. An ANN consists of neuron units, arranged in layers and connected with weighted links, which convert an input vector into some outputs. Usually, the networks are defined to be feed-forward, with no feedback to the previous layer. In the training phase, the weights of the links are tuned to adapt an ANN to the training data. Back-propagation algorithm is a common method for the training phase.\
***C4.5 Decision Tree Learning***[@QC4.5]. A decision tree is a tree structure of decision rules which can be used as a classification function (leaf nodes show the returned classes). C4.5 constructs a decision tree based on a labeled training data. C4.5 uses “information entropy” to evaluate the goodness of branches in the tree.\
***LADTree***[@MulticlassADT].This classifier generates a multi-class alternating decision tree and it uses the “boosting” strategy. Boosting is a well-established classification technique that combines some weak classifiers to form a single powerful classifier. A prediction node in a LADTree includes a score for each of candidate classes. LADTree calculates confidences for different classes according to their visited score in prediction nodes, and it returns the best class according to the confidences.
\[App:ImplementationNotes\]Implementation Notes
===============================================
To implement Kronecker Graphs, Forest Fire model, Preferential Attachment, Small World, and Random Power Law models, we utilized the SNAP library (<http://snap.stanford.edu/snap/>). The implementation of RTG model is available in a MATLAB library (<http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~lakoglu/>). We also developed our own implementation of the ER model. The features are extracted by the aid of different network analysis tools. The igraph package (<http://igraph.sourceforge.net/>) of the R project helped us calculate the assortativity and transitivity measures. We used the SNAP library for measuring the effective diameter, average clustering coefficient, density and also the graphlet counts. Since we proposed a new method for quantifying network degree distribution, we have implemented this method ourselves. We utilized RapidMiner as an open source tool for machine learning. The implementation of LADTree and Bayesian network learning and SVM are actually part of the Weka tool which is embedded in RapidMiner. The amount of computation needed for this research, especially counting the exact number of graphlets, was enormous. We utilized three virtual machines on a super-computer for this enormous computation task, each of which simulated a computer with 16 processing cores of 2.8 GHz and 24 GB of memory. Most of the computation time was spent for counting the graphlets of the generated network instances.
[^1]: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/xml
[^2]: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/xml
[^3]: http://snap.stanford.edu
[^4]: http://snap.stanford.edu
[^5]: http://snap.stanford.edu
[^6]: http://konect.uni-koblenz.de
[^7]: http://deim.urv.cat/\~aarenas
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'University of California, Riverside, USA'
author:
- Jun Tanaka
date: 'January, 10, 2008'
title: Fuzzy Signed Measure
---
Introduction
============
It is well known that one could obtain the Caratheodory Extension Theorem on fuzzy measurable space. Now a fuzzy measure is defined on $\sigma$-algebras. As one already saw, Fuzzy measure is a classical measure, provided that fuzzy sets are restricted to classical sets. As the classical measure theory goes, we will define a fuzzy signed measure on $\sigma$-algebras, as well as positive and negative sets. Herein, we will show that the Fuzzy Hahn Decomposition Theorem, which is a generalization of the classical Hahn Decomposition Theorem, decompose any space X into a positive set A and a negative set B such that A+B=X and the signed measure of $A \wedge B $ is 0.
Preliminaries
=============
In this section, we shall briefly review the well know facts about lattice theory (e.g. Birkhoff \[1\], Iwamura), propose an extension lattice, and investigate its properties. Later in this section, we shall review Caratheodory Extension Theorem on fuzzy measurable sets. (L,$\wedge $,$\vee $) or simply L, under closed operations $\wedge $ $\vee $, is called a lattice. If it satisfies in addition to the distributive law is called a lattice. For two lattices L and L’, a bijection from L to L’, which preserves lattice operations are called a lattice isomorphism, or simply an isomorphism. If there is an isomorphism from L to L’, then L is called lattice-isomorphic with L’, and we write L $\cong$ L’. We write x $\leq $ y if x $\wedge$ y = x or, equivalently, if x $\wedge$ y = y. L is called complete, if any subset A of L includes the supremum $\vee $A, and infimum $\wedge$A, with respect to the above order. A complete lattice L includes the maximum and minimum elements, which are denoted by I and O, or 1 and 0, respectively \[1\].
Unless otherwise stated, X is a space and $\mu_{\Box} $ is a membership function of any fuzzy set $\Box$. If a family $\sigma$ of membership functions on X satisfies the following conditions, then it is called fuzzy $\sigma$-algebra;
\(1) $\forall \alpha \in $ \[0,1\], $ \alpha $ is constant; $ \alpha \in \sigma$.
\(2) $\forall \mu \in \sigma$, 1-$ \mu \in \sigma$.
\(3) if $(\mu_{n} )_{n \in N} \in \sigma^{N}$, then $ \sup \mu_{n} \in \sigma $.
\[De:2\] If m : $\sigma$ $\mapsto$ $\mathbb{R} \cup \{\infty \}$ satisfying the following properties, then m is called a fuzzy measure.
\(1) m $ (\emptyset) $ = m $ (0)$ = 0.
\(2) $\forall \mu , \eta \in \sigma$ s.t. $m( \mu) , m(\eta) \geq $ 0 : $\mu \leq \eta$ $ \Rightarrow $ m $ ( \mu) \leq $ m $(\eta)$.
\(3) $\forall \mu , \eta \in \sigma$ : m$( \mu \vee \eta ) + $ m$( \mu \wedge \eta ) = $ m$( \mu) + $ m$ (\eta) $.
\(4) $( \mu_{n} )_{n \in N} $ $\subset \sigma^{N} $ such that $\mu_{1} \leq \mu_{2} \leq \cdots \leq \mu_{n} \leq \cdots $ : $\sup \mu_{n} = \mu$ $\Rightarrow$ m$ ( \mu ) = \lim $ m$( \mu_{n} )$.
\[De:3\] By an outer fuzzy measure $m^{\ast}$, we mean an extended real-value set function defined on \[0,1\]$^{X}$, having the following properties:
\(1) $m^{\ast}$(0) = 0
\(2) $m^{\ast}$ $ ( \mu) \leq $ $m^{\ast}$ $(\eta)$ for $\mu \leq \eta$
\(3) $m^{\ast} ( \vee_{i=1}^{\infty} \mu_{E_{i}} ) $ $ \leq $ $\vee_{i=1}^{\infty} m^{\ast}( \mu_{E_{i}} )$.
Suppose $$m^{\ast}(\mu_{E} ) =
\begin{cases}
0 \quad & \mu_{E} = 0 \\
1 \quad & \mu_{E} \neq 0
\end{cases}$$
Then $m^{\ast}$ is an outer fuzzy measure which is not fuzzy measure on \[0,1\]$^X$, if X has at least two points.
\[Pro:1\] Let F be a class of fuzzy subsets of X containing empty set such that for every $\mu_{A} \leq \mu_{X}$, there exists a sequence $(\mu_{B_{n}})^{\infty}_{n=1} $, $\mu_{B_{n}} \in F$ such that $\mu_{A} \leq$ $\sup(\mu_{B_{n}})^{\infty}_{n=1}$. Let $\tau$ be an extended real-valued function on F such that $\tau (0)$ = 0 and $\tau(\mu_{A}) \geq$ 0 for $\mu_{A} \in $ F. Then $m^{\ast}$ defined on \[0,1\]$^{X}$ by $m^{\ast} (\mu_{A})$ = $\inf \{ \tau ( \vee^{\infty}_{i=1} \mu_{B_{n}}) : \mu_{B_{n}} \in F $ s.t. $ \mu_{A} \leq \vee^{\infty}_{i=1} \mu_{B_{n}} \} $ is a outer fuzzy measure.
Clearly, $m^{\ast} ( \emptyset)$ = 0. Secondly, if $\mu_{A_{1}} \leq \mu_{A_{2}}$ and $\mu_{A_{2}} \leq \vee^{\infty}_{i=1} \mu_{B_{n}} $, then $\mu_{A_{1}} \leq \vee^{\infty}_{i=1} \mu_{B_{n}} $. Thus $m^{\ast} (\mu_{A_{1}}) \leq m^{\ast} (\mu_{A_{2}})$.
Finally, let $\mu_{E_{n}} \leq \mu_{X}$ for each natural number n. Then $m^{\ast}$($\mu_{E_{n}}$) = $\infty $ for some n, $m^{\ast}$($\vee_{n=1}^{\infty} \mu_{E_{n}}$) $\leq$ $\vee_{n=1}^{\infty} m^{\ast} \mu_{E_{n}} $.
The following theorem is an extension of the above proposition.
\[Theo:1\] The class B of $m^{\ast}$-fuzzy measurable sets is a $\sigma$-algebra. Also $\overline{m}$, the restriction of $m^{\ast}$ to B, is a measure.
\[Theo:2\] Let m be a fuzzy measure on a $\sigma$-algebra $\sigma \subseteq $ \[0,1\]$^X$.
Suppose for $\mu_{E} \leq \mu_{X}$ $$m^{\ast} ( \mu_{E} ) = \inf \{ m ( \vee^{\infty}_{i=1} \mu_{E_{n}}) : \mu_{E_{n}} \in \sigma s.t. \mu_{E} \leq \vee^{\infty}_{i=1} \mu_{E_{n}} \}$$
Then the following properties hold:
\(i) $ m^{\ast}$ is an outer fuzzy measure.
\(ii) $ \mu_{E} \in \sigma$ implies m($\mu_{E} $) = $ m^{\ast}$($\mu_{E} $)
\(iii) $ \mu_{E} \in \sigma$ implies $ \mu_{E}$ is $m^{\ast}$-fuzzy measurable.
\(iv) The restriction $\overline{m}$ of $m^{\ast}$ to the $m^{\ast}$-fuzzy measurable sets in an extension of m to a fuzzy measure on a fuzzy $\sigma$-algebra containing $\sigma$.
\(v) If m is fuzzy $\sigma$-finite, then $\overline{m}$ is the only fuzzy measure (on the smallest fuzzy $\sigma$-algebra containing $\sigma$) that is an extension of m.
Fuzzy Signed Measure
====================
Let $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ be fuzzy measures defined on the same $\sigma$-algebra $\sigma$. If one of them is finite, the set function $m ( \mu_{E} ) = m_{1}( \mu_{E} ) - m_{2}( \mu_{E} )$ , $\mu_{E} \in \sigma $ is well defined and countably additive on $\sigma$. However, it is not necessarily nonnegative; it is called a signed measure.
\[De:1\] By a fuzzy signed measure on the fuzzy measurable space (X, $\sigma$) we mean $\nu$ : $\sigma$ $\mapsto$ $\mathbb{R} \cup \{\infty \}$ or $\mathbb{R} \cup \{- \infty \}$, satisfying the following property:
\(1) $\nu (\emptyset) $ = $\nu (0)$ = 0.
\(2) $\forall \mu , \eta \in \sigma$ s.t. $\nu( \mu) , \nu(\eta) \geq $ 0 : $\mu \leq \eta$ $ \Rightarrow $ $ \nu( \mu) \leq \nu(\eta)$.
$\forall \mu , \eta \in \sigma$ s.t. $\nu( \mu) , \nu(\eta) \leq $ 0 : $\mu \leq \eta$ $ \Rightarrow $ $ \nu(\eta) \leq \nu( \mu)$.
\(3) $\forall \mu , \eta \in \sigma$ : $\nu( \mu \vee \eta ) + \nu( \mu \wedge \eta ) = \nu( \mu) + \nu(\eta) $.
\(4) $( \mu_{n} )_{n \in N} $ $\subset \sigma^{N} $ such that $\mu_{1} \leq \mu_{2} \leq \cdots \leq \mu_{n} \leq \cdots $ : $\sup \mu_{n} = \mu$ $\Rightarrow$ $ \nu( \mu ) = \lim \nu( \mu_{n} )$.
This is meant in the sense that if the left-hand side is finite, the series on the right-hand side is convergent, and if the left-hand side is $ \pm \infty $, then the series on the right-hand side diverges accordingly.
The Fuzzy signed measure is a fuzzy measure when it takes only positive value. Thus, the fuzzy signed measure is a generalization of fuzzy measure.
A is a positive fuzzy set if for any fuzzy measurable set E in A, $\nu (\mu_{E}) \geq 0$. Similarly, B is a negative fuzzy set if for any fuzzy measurable set E in B, $\nu (\mu_{E}) \leq 0$.
\[Le:1\] Every fuzzy subset of a positive fuzzy set is a positive fuzzy set and any countable union of positive fuzzy sets is a positive fuzzy set.
The first claim is clear. Before we show the second claim, we need to show that every union of positive sets is a positive set. Let A, B be fuzzy positive sets and E $\leq$ A $\vee $ B be a fuzzy measurable set. By (2) in Definition $\ref{De:1}$, 0 $\leq $ $\nu (\mu_{B} \wedge \mu_{E}) $ - $\nu (\mu_{A} \wedge \mu_{B} \wedge \mu_{E}) $. By (3), $\nu (\mu_{E}) \geq$ 0. Now by induction, every finite union of fuzzy positive sets is a positive fuzzy set. Let $A_{n}$ be a positive fuzzy set for all n and E $\leq$ $\vee $ $A_{n}$ be a fuzzy measurable set. Then $\mu_{E_{m}}$ := $ \mu_{E} \wedge \vee_{n=1}^{m} \mu_{A_{n} } $ = $\vee_{n=1}^{m} \mu_{ E} \wedge \mu_{A_{n} } $. Then $E_{m}$ is a fuzzy measurable set and a positive fuzzy set. In particular, $\mu_{E_{m}} \leq \mu_{E_{m+1}}$ for all n and $ \mu_{E}$ = $ \vee_{n=1}^{\infty} \mu_{E_{m} }$. Thus 0 $\leq \lim \nu ( \mu_{E_{m}} ) $ = $\nu ( \mu_{E }) $. Therefore $\vee $ $A_{n}$ is a positive set.
\[Le:2\]
Let E be a fuzzy measurable set such that 0 $< \nu (\mu_{E}) < \infty$. Then there is a positive fuzzy set A $\leq E$ with $ \nu (\mu_{A}) >$ 0.
If E is a positive fuzzy set, we take A=E. Otherwise, E contains a set of negative measure. Let $n_{1}$ be the smallest positive integer such that there is a measurable set $E_{1} \subset $ E with $ \nu ( \mu_{E_{1} }) < - \frac{1}{n_{1}} $. Proceeding inductively, if E$\wedge \wedge_{j=1}^{k-1} E_{j}^C $ is not already a positive set, let $n_{k}$ be the smallest positive integer for which there is a fuzzy measurable set $ E_{k} $ such that $ E_{k} \leq E \wedge \wedge_{j=1}^{k-1} E_{j} $ and $\nu ( \mu_{E_{k}}) < - \frac{1}{n_{k}} $.
Let A = $( \vee E_{k})^C $.
Then $\nu (\mu_{E})$ = $ \nu ( \mu_{E} \wedge \mu_{A} ) + \nu(\mu_{E} \wedge \vee \mu_{E_{k} } ) $ = $ \nu (\mu_{E} \wedge \mu_{ A } ) + \nu( \vee \mu_{E_{k}} ) $. Since $\nu (\mu_{E})$ is finite, $ \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \nu( \vee^{n} \mu_{E_{k}} )$ is finite and $ \nu( \vee \mu_{ E_{k} } ) \leq$ 0. Since $\nu (\mu_{E}) >$ 0 and $ \nu( \vee \mu_{E_{k}} ) \leq$ 0, $ \nu (\mu_{E} \wedge \mu_{A} ) >$ 0.
We will show that A is a positive set. Let $ \epsilon >$ 0. Since $ \frac{1}{n_{k}} \rightarrow $ 0, we may choose k such that $-\frac{1}{n_{k} - 1} $, which is greater than $ - \epsilon $. Thus A contains no fuzzy measurable sets of measure less than $ - \epsilon $. Since $ \epsilon $ was arbitrary positive number, it follows that A can contain no sets of negative measure and so must be a positive fuzzy set.
Fuzzy Hahn Decomposition
========================
Without loss of generality, let’s omit + $\infty $ value of $\nu$. Let $\lambda$ = $\sup \{ \nu (\mu_{A}) : A $ is a fuzzy positive set $ \} $.
Then $\lambda \geq$ 0 since $\nu (\emptyset) $ = 0.
Let [$A_{i} $]{} be a sequence of positive fuzzy sets such that $\lambda$ = $\lim \nu (\mu_{A_{i}} )$ and $\mu_{ A}$ = $\vee \mu_{A_{i} }$. By Theorem $\ref{Le:1}$, A is a positive fuzzy set and $\lambda \geq \nu (\mu_{A})$.
$\vee^{n} \mu_{ A_{i}} \leq $ $\mu_{A}$ for any n implies $\nu ( \vee^{n} \mu_{ A_{i}}) \geq$ 0 for any n. Thus $\lambda$ = $\lim \nu ( \mu_{ A_{i} })$ = $ \nu (\mu_{A}) $ = 0.
Let $E \leq A^C$ be a positive set. Then $\nu (\mu_{E}) \geq$ 0 and $A \vee E $ is a positive fuzzy set. Thus $\lambda \geq$ $ \nu ( \mu_{A} \vee \mu_{E} ) = \nu ( \mu_{A} ) + \nu ( \mu_{E} ) - \nu (\mu_{ A } \wedge \mu_{E} ) $ = $\lambda + \nu ( \mu_{E}) - \nu ( \mu_{A } \wedge \mu_{E} ) $. Thus $\nu (\mu_{E}) = \nu ( \mu_{A} \wedge \mu_{E} ) $. $\nu (\mu_{E})$ = 0 since $ \mu_{A } \wedge \mu_{E} \leq \mu_{A} \wedge \mu_{A}^C$ and $\nu ( \mu_{A} \wedge \mu_{A}^C ) $ = 0.
Thus, $A^C$ contains no fuzzy positive subsets of positive measure and hence no subsets of positive measure by Lemma $\ref{Le:2}$. Consequently, $A^C$ is a negative fuzzy set.
conclusion
==========
Let X be a space. Then by the previous theorem, we find such a positive fuzzy set A and a negative fuzzy set B (= $A^C$). By the fuzzy measurability of $\nu$, $\nu ( \mu_{A} \wedge \mu_{A}^C ) $ = 0. $A + A^C$ = X in the sense that $\mu_{A} + \mu_{A^C}$ = 1. These characteristics provides X = $ A \cup B$ and $ A \cap B = \emptyset$ in the classical set sense.
[99]{}
1\. G. Birkhoff, Lattice Theory 3rd ed., AMS Colloquim Publications, Providence, RI, 1967\
\
2 T. Iwamura, Sokuran, Kyoritu Shuppan, Tokyo, 1966.\
\
3. Z. Wang G.J. Klir, Fuzzy Measure Theory, Springer, 1993.\
\
4. L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform and Control 8 (1965), 338-353\
\
5. L.A. Zadeh, Calculus of Fuzzy restrictions, Fuzzy Sets and their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes, L.A. Zadeh et al., eds., Academic Press, New York, 1975, pp. 1-39.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Gabriele Vezzosi\
\
\
date: July 2010
title: '**A note on the cotangent complex in derived algebraic geometry**'
---
This short and elementary note originated from questions asked by many algebraic geometers when they were first exposed to a sketch of derived algebraic geometry. It is aimed at giving an example of how deformation theory takes a very transparent and uniform geometrical form when viewed into the world of derived algebraic geometry. In particular, we show how the cotangent complex of a scheme $X$ already contains informations about $X$ viewed as a derived scheme so that, in some sense, the cotangent complex was already, “secretly”, an object in derived algebraic geometry long before this theory existed. By reversing this point of view, one could also say that, believing that the *entire* cotangent complex is a natural geometric object leads one directly to the basic set-up of derived algebraic geometry.\
The proofs of the statements below are all in one form or another already contained in [@hagII]; the main point here is merely to extract or give a guide to the few needed results from [@hagII], and put them in a form that could hopefully constitute a more direct answer to the various questions I have been asked.\
I would like to thank Daniel Huybrechts for his questions and comments, Luchezar L. Avramov for useful explanations, and Bertrand Toën for many recent conversations on this and related topics.\
The few concepts and definitions we need from the theory of derived algebraic geometry, can be found in [@hagII], or in the reviews [@hagdag; @seattle]; another very good reference, though in a different framework, is [@lu]. As a tiny bit of notation, $\mathrm{Hom}_*$ will denote the Hom-sets in the category $\mathbf{Sch}_{*}$ of pointed schemes, while $\mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_*$ will denote the Hom-sets in the homotopy category $\mathbf{dSch}_{*}$ of pointed derived schemes (or stacks). $\mathbf{dSt}_{k}$ will be the model category of derived stacks for the Žtale topology (denoted as $k-D^{-}Aff^{\sim ,\, \textrm{\'et}}$ in [@hagII Def. 2.2.2.14]). The acronym cdga stands for commutative differential graded algebra, with cohomological differential and concentrated in non-positive degrees.\
**1. Derived interpretation of the cotangent complex –** Let $X$ be a scheme over a field $k$ and $\mathbb{L}_{X}$ be its cotangent complex. Deformation theory of $X$ relates to the first two Ext-groups of $\mathbb{L}_{X}$ with values in $k$. If we pick a point $x$ in $X(k)$, the relevant spaces for classical deformation theory of $X$ around $x$ are $\mathrm{Ext}^{0}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},k)$ and $\mathrm{Ext}^{1}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},k)$, where we have put $\mathbb{L}_{X,x}:=x^{*}\mathbb{L}_{X}$. But while $\mathrm{Ext}^{0}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},k)$ has a geometric and modular interpretation, as $\mathrm{Hom}_{*}(D_0:=\mathrm{Spec}\, k[\varepsilon_0], (X,x))$ (where $k[\varepsilon_0]$ is the usual ring of dual numbers over $k$), already $\mathrm{Ext}^{1}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},k)$ does not have an analogous interpretation. More precisely, there is no pointed *scheme* $D_1$ (abelian co-group object in $\mathbf{Sch}_{*,k}$) together with a natural (group) isomorphism $$\mathrm{Ext}^{1}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},k)\simeq \mathrm{Hom}_{*}(D_1, (X,x))$$ for each scheme $X$ and any $x\in X(k)$. Derived algebraic geometry solves this problem, and at the same time uniformly answers the same question for all $\mathrm{Ext}^{i}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},k)$, $i\geq 0$: such a geometric/modular interpretation exists but one has to allow “schemes” with values in arbitrary cdga’s or simplicial commutative algebras. $\mathbb{L}_{X}$ does encode (via its Ext-groups) precisely all *deformations* of $X$, as long as one interprets these deformations as deformations in *higher derived directions*. Let me make this more precise. And, in the hope of being more understandable, let me suppose that $k$ is of characteristic $0$, so that I can use cdga’s (instead of simplicial commutative algebras) which are usually more familiar to algebraic geometers.\
**Definition 1.1** Let $i\in \mathbb{N}$ and $k[i]$ be the $k$-dg-module having $k$ just in degree $-i$; we can then consider the trivial square zero extension $k$-cdga $$k[\varepsilon_i]:= k\oplus k[i].$$ Note that $k[\varepsilon_i]$ is concentrated in non-positive degrees (with a cohomological, i.e. degree-increasing, differential), and that its only nontrivial cohomology groups are concentrated in degrees $0$ an $-i$, where they both equal $k$. $k[\varepsilon_i]$ is called the *dg-ring of $i$-th order dual numbers* over $k$, and its derived spectrum $\mathbf{D}_i:=\mathbb{R}\mathrm{Spec}\, k[\varepsilon_i]$ is called the *derived $i$-th order infinitesimal disk* over $k$. Note that, for odd $i$, $k[\varepsilon_i]$ is the free cdga on the $k$-dg module $k[i]$, i.e. on one generator in degree $-i$.\
**Proposition 1.2.** If $x\in X(k)$ is a $k$-rational point in $X$, then for each $i\in \mathbb{N}$, there is a canonical group isomorphism $$\mathrm{Ext}_{k}^{i}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},k)\simeq \mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}(\mathbf{D}_i, (X,x)),$$ where $\mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}=\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{Spec}\, k/dSt_{k})}.$\
In other words, for any $i\in \mathbb{N}$, the functor $$\mathbf{Sch}_{*,k}\longrightarrow \mathbf{Ab}\, \,\,: \, (X,x)\longmapsto \mathrm{Ext}_{k}^{i}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},k),$$ while not co-representable in $\mathbf{Sch}_{*,k}$, it is indeed co-represented, by $\mathbf{D}_i$, in the larger (homotopy) category $\mathbf{dSch}_{*,k}$ of pointed derived schemes. Therefore, this can also be used to give an alternative, more geometrical, definition of the full cotangent complex.\
Proposition 1.2 is an immediate corollary of the following, more general\
**Proposition 1.3.** Let $R$ be a commutative $k$-algebra and $x:\mathrm{Spec}\, R\rightarrow X$ be a (classical) $R$-valued point of $X$. Then for each $i\in \mathbb{N}$, there is a canonical group isomorphism $$\mathrm{Ext}_{R}^{i}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},R)\simeq \mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}(\mathbf{D}_{i,R}, (X,x)),$$ where $\mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}:=\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{Spec}\, R/dSt_{k})},$ and $\mathbb{L}_{X,x}:=x^{*}\mathbb{L}_{X}$.\
**Proof.** The proof is almost tautological, the only thing one really needs to remark is that Illusie’s cotangent complex for a scheme $X$ coincide with the cotangent complex of $X$, viewed as a derived scheme or stack, as defined in [@hagII §1.4.1.]. Given this, we simply observe that $\mathrm{Ext}_{R}^{i}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},R)\simeq \mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}(R)}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},R[i])$ and, by [@hagII 1.4.1.5 (1), p. 99 and 1.4.1.4, p. 98 ] (with the notations used there) $$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{D}(R)}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},R[i])\simeq \pi_{0}(\mathbb{D}\mathrm{er}_X(R,R[i]))\simeq \mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{Spec}\, R/dSt_{k})}(\mathbf{D}_{i,R}, (X,x)),$$ where $\mathbf{D}_{i,R}=\mathbb{R}\mathrm{Spec}(R)[R[i]]$, in the notations of [@hagII p. 98], which is a co-group object.
$\Box$\
**Remark 1.4.** One could also define, for any scheme $X$ over $k$ and any $i\in \mathbb{N}$, the $i$-th order derived tangent stack of $X$ as $$\mathbf{T}^{i}X:=\mathbb{R}\mathrm{HOM}_{\mathbf{dSt}_{k}}(\mathbf{D}_{i}, X),$$ where $\mathbb{R}\mathrm{HOM}_{\mathbf{dSt}_{k}}$ denotes the derived *internal* Hom in $\mathbf{dSt}_{k}$ (so that $\mathbf{T}^{i}X$ is indeed a derived stack over $k$). However the usefulness of this definition is doubtful, at least as far as the interpretation of the cotangent complex in derived algebraic geometry is concerned. In fact, already $\mathbf{T}^{0}X\equiv \mathbf{T}X$ (in the notations of [@hagII Def. 1.4.1.2]) contains all the (cohomological) informations about $\mathbb{L}_{X}$.\
**2. Global –** Of course, there is a corresponding *global* version saying that, for any $i\in \mathbb{N}$, there is a canonical group isomorphism $$\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}^{i}(\mathbb{L}_{X},\mathcal{O}_{X})\simeq \mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}(\mathbf{D}_{i,X}, X),$$ where $\mathbf{D}_{i,X}$ is the derived pullback of $\mathbf{D}_{i}$ to $X$, i.e. $\mathbf{D}_{i,X}=\mathbb{R}\underline{\mathrm{Spec}}_{X}(\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus \mathcal{O}_{X}[i])$, and $\mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}$ now denotes the Hom-set in the homotopy category of $X/\mathbf{dSt}_{k}$. In other words, $\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}^{i}(\mathbb{L}_{X},\mathcal{O}_{X})$ is in bijection with *retractions* of the canonical map $X\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{i,X}$ (given by the first projection $\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus \mathcal{O}_{X}[i]\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X}$). This follows from a straightforward analog of Proposition 1.3 :\
**Proposition 2.1.** **(i)** Let $R$ be a commutative $k$-algebra, $M$ a $R$-dg-module and $x:\mathrm{Spec}\, R\rightarrow X$ be a (classical) $R$-valued point of $X$. Then for each $i\in \mathbb{N}$, there is a canonical group isomorphism $$\mathrm{Ext}_{R}^{i}(\mathbb{L}_{X,x},M)\simeq \mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}(\mathbf{D}_{i,R}(M), (X,x)),$$ where $\mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}:=\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Ho}(\mathrm{Spec}\, R/dSt_{k})},$ $\mathbb{L}_{X,x}:=x^{*}\mathbb{L}_{X}$ and $\mathbf{D}_{i,R}(M):= \mathbb{R}\mathrm{Spec}(R\oplus M[i])$.\
**(ii)** Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_{X}$-dg-Module on $X$. Then for each $i\in \mathbb{N}$, there is a canonical group isomorphism $$\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_X}^{i}(\mathbb{L}_{X}, \mathcal{M})\simeq \mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}(\mathbf{D}_{i,X}(\mathcal{M}), X),$$ where $\mathbb{R}\mathrm{Hom}_{*}:=\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Ho}(X/dSt_{k})}$ and $\mathbf{D}_{i,X}(\mathcal{M}):=\mathbb{R}\underline{\mathrm{Spec}}_{X}(\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus \mathcal{M}[i]).$ Note that $\mathbf{D}_{i,X}(\mathcal{M})$ is contravariantly functorial in $\mathcal{M}$.\
**3. Kodaira-Spencer class and obstructions –** Using the geometric and modular interpretation of the cotangent complex given above, the Kodaira-Spencer class and obstructions are visible as *morphisms* of derived schemes. Let’s see this, to fix ideas, in the classical setup of a flat extension of a flat morphism through a square-zero closed immersion. Let $$\xymatrix{X\ar[r]^-{f} & Y \ar[r] & S}$$ be morphisms of schemes, with $f$ flat, and $j:Y\hookrightarrow Y'$ be a closed immersion of $S$-schemes defined by a square-zero quasi-coherent Ideal $J$. It is well known ([@ill Th. 2.17 (ii)]) that there is an obstruction $\mathrm{Obs}(f;J)\in \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}^{2}(\mathbb{L}_{X/Y}, f^{*}J)$ which vanishes if and only if $f$ admits a lift to $f':X'\rightarrow Y'$ where $X\hookrightarrow X'$ is the closed immersion defined by the Ideal $f^{*}J$. Moreover, one has $$\mathrm{Obs}(f;J)= f^{*}[j] \times \mathrm{KS}(X/Y/S)$$ where $[j]\in \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_{Y}}^{1}(\mathbb{L}_{Y/S}, J)$ classifies $j$, $\mathrm{KS}(X/Y/S)\in \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}^{1}(\mathbb{L}_{X/Y}, f^{*}\mathbb{L}_{Y/S})$ is the Kodaira-Spencer class associated to $X\rightarrow Y \rightarrow S$ and $\times$ denotes the Yoneda composition product. We will now recover both the Kodaira-Spencer and obstruction classes as morphisms between derived schemes.\
- - First let us notice that, by Proposition 2.1, the identity map $\mathbb{L}_{X/Y}\rightarrow \mathbb{L}_{X/Y}$ induces a morphism of derived stacks $$\mathbb{R}\underline{\mathrm{Spec}}_{X}(\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus \mathbb{L}_{X/Y})\longrightarrow X$$ which is a retraction of the canonical map $X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}\underline{\mathrm{Spec}}_{X}(\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus \mathbb{L}_{X/Y})$. Now, the transitivity triangle associated to $X\rightarrow Y \rightarrow S$ yields a map $\mathbb{L}_{X/Y}\rightarrow f^{*}\mathbb{L}_{Y/S}[1]$, which induces, by functoriality, a map of derived schemes $$\mathbf{D}_{1,X}(f^{*}\mathbb{L}_{Y/S})=\mathbb{R}\underline{\mathrm{Spec}}_{X}(\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus f^{*}\mathbb{L}_{Y/S}[1])\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}\underline{\mathrm{Spec}}_{X}(\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus \mathbb{L}_{X/Y})=\mathbf{D}_{0,X}(\mathbb{L}_{X/Y}).$$ The composition (*Kodaira-Spencer morphism*) $$\mathrm{ks}(X/Y/S): \, \mathbf{D}_{1,X}(f^{*}\mathbb{L}_{Y/S})\longrightarrow \mathbf{D}_{0,X}(\mathbb{L}_{X/Y})\longrightarrow X$$ gives back, by Proposition 2.1, an element $\mathrm{KS(X/Y/S)}\in \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}^{1}(\mathbb{L}_{X/Y}, f^{*}\mathbb{L}_{Y/S} )$: this is the classical Kodaira-Spencer class of $X\rightarrow Y \rightarrow S$. In a similar way one can get geometrically higher Kodaira-Spencer classes in higher cohomology.\
- - Now we can recover the obstruction $\mathrm{Obs}(f;J)$ as a composite of morphisms between derived schemes. First observe that the shifted $j$-class $[j][1]\in \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_{Y}}^{2}(\mathbb{L}_{Y/S}, J)\simeq \mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_{Y}}^{0}(\mathbb{L}_{Y/S}[1], J[2])$ is equivalent by Proposition 2.1, to a morphism $$\mathbf{D}_{2,X}(f^{*}J)=\mathbb{R}\underline{\mathrm{Spec}}_{X}(\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus f^{*}J[2])\longrightarrow \mathbb{R}\underline{\mathrm{Spec}}_{X}(\mathcal{O}_{X}\oplus f^{*}\mathbb{L}_{Y/S}[1])=\mathbf{D}_{1,X}(f^{*}\mathbb{L}_{Y/S})$$ which can be composed with the Kodaira -Spencer morphism $\mathrm{ks}(X/Y/S)$ above to get a retraction (*obstruction morphism*) $$\xymatrix{\mathrm{obs}(f;J): \mathbf{D}_{2,X}(f^{*}J)\ar[r] & \mathbf{D}_{1,X}(f^{*}\mathbb{L}_{Y/S})\ar[rr]^-{\mathrm{ks}(X/Y/S)} & & X}.$$ By Proposition 2.1, this morphism corresponds to a element in $\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathcal{O}_{X}}^{2}(\mathbb{L}_{X/Y}, f^{*}J)$ which is exactly the obstruction class $\mathrm{Obs}(f;J)$. Note that the Yoneda product obviously translates into a composition of morphisms of derived schemes.\
**4. Derived cotangent complex –** Moreover, the derived cotangent complex $\mathbb{L}_{F}$ (i.e. the cotangent complex as considered in derived algebraic geometry) is also defined, along the same lines, for any algebraic *derived* (possibly higher) *stack* $F$, and still have a similar geometric/modular interpretation which makes it natural and therefore computable. Given any moduli underived $1$-stack $\mathcal{X}$, there is usually a nice *derived moduli extension* $\mathcal{X}^{\mathrm{der}}$, i.e. a derived stack classifying an appropriate derived version of the geometric objects classified by $\mathcal{X}$, and whose truncation is $\mathcal{X}$. If one defines $\mathbb{L}^{\mathrm{der}}_{\mathcal{X}}:= \mathbb{L}_{\mathcal{X}^{\mathrm{der}}}$, then $\mathbb{L}^{\mathrm{der}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ is *different*, in general, from the usual underived stacky cotangent complex of $\mathcal{X}$, which is often not known even for commonly studied moduli stacks; and it is $\mathbb{L}^{\mathrm{der}}_{\mathcal{X}}$ that controls the full deformation theory of the stack $F$. Even when the stacky cotangent complex agrees with a truncation of $\mathbb{L}^{\mathrm{der}}_{\mathcal{X}}$, it is the latter that have nicer functorial properties and, as shown above in the case of schemes, a more natural geometrical interpretation. To give an example, let us consider $\mathcal{X}:=\mathbf{Vect}_{n}(X)$, the stack of rank $n$ vector bundles on a smooth projective variety $X$. There is a quite natural derived extension $\mathbf{Vect}_{n}(X)^{\mathrm{der}}$ classifying rank $n$ *derived vector bundles* on $X$ ($\mathbf{Vect}_{n}(X)^{\mathrm{der}}$ is denoted as $\mathbb{R}\mathbf{Vect}_{n}(X)$ in [@hagII; @hagdag]). And, if $x:\mathrm{Spec}\, k \rightarrow \mathbf{Vect}_{n}(X)^{\mathrm{der}}$ is a classical point, corresponding to a vector bundle $E\rightarrow X$, we have $$\mathbb{L}^{\mathrm{der}}_{\mathbf{Vect}_{n}(X),\, x}= \mathbb{L}_{\mathbf{Vect}_{n}(X)^{\mathrm{der}},\, x} \simeq \mathrm{C}_{\mathrm{Zar}}^{*}(X, \mathrm{End}(E))^{\vee}[-1]$$ which is exactly the complex everybody uses to compute the correct deformation theory of $\mathbf{Vect}_{n}(X)$ at $x$. But it *cannot* be the stacky cotangent complex of *any* algebraic $1$-stack (or even $n$-stack) locally of finite presentation, because it is perfect and of amplitude not in $[-1,\infty)$ for arbitrary $X$. Indeed, it follows from a result by Avramov ([@avr]) that if $\mathcal{X}$ is an algebraic $n$-stack locally of finite presentation over $k$[^1], and its stacky cotangent complex $\mathbb{L}$ is of *bounded* amplitude, then $\mathbb{L}$ has in fact amplitude in $[-1,\infty)$ (actually in $[-1,n]$). The positive degrees are the (higher) stacky ones, while the negative degree $-1$ is there because it is already there e.g. for an lci scheme; the other negative degrees are forbidden by the boundedness assumption on $\mathbb{L}$ and Avramov’s theorem.\
Actually, *any* derived extension $\mathcal{X}^{\mathrm{der}}$ of a stack $\mathcal{X}$ endows $\mathcal{X}$ with a deformation/obstruction theory (via the pullback of $\mathbb{L}_{\mathcal{X}^{\mathrm{der}}}$ along the closed immersion $\mathcal{X}\hookrightarrow\mathcal{X}^{\mathrm{der}}$); there is usually one natural such extension but there might be more, and different extensions could give a priori different deformation/obstruction theories. Conversely, from a $1$-stack endowed with a choice of a (perfect) obstruction theory one is able to essentially reconstruct the derived (quasi-smooth) extension whose derived cotangent complex induces the chosen obstruction theory. This might be compared, e.g., to the example of different obstruction theories (the *standard* and the *reduced* one) for the stack of stable maps to a $K3$-surface ([@MP 2.2] and [@mpt §4 and App. A]), which should indeed correspond to different derived extensions of this stack. It would be interesting to unravel the moduli interpretation of the derived stack corresponding to the reduced obstruction theory.\
We address the reader to [@seattle 4.1] where most of the topics of this $\S$ are discussed more extensively.\
[50]{}
L. L. Avramov, *Locally complete intersection homomorphisms and a conjecture of Quillen on the vanishing of cotangent homology*, Ann. of Math. (2) 150 (1999), 455-487
L. Illusie, *Complexe cotangent et déformations I*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics **239**, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1971.
J. Lurie, *Derived algebraic geometry - IV*, www.math.harvard.edu/$\sim$lurie/.
D. Maulik, R. Pandharipande, *Gromov-Witten theory and Noether-Lefschetz theory*, Preprint ArXiv:0705.1653.
D. Maulik, R. Pandharipande, R. P. Thomas (with an appendix by A. Pixton), *Curves on K3-surfaces and modular forms*, Preprint ArXiv:1001.2719.
B. Toën, G. Vezzosi, *Homotopical algebraic geometry II: Geometric stacks and applications*, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 193 (2008), no. 902, x+224 pp.
B. Toën, *Higher and derived stacks: a global overview*, In Algebraic geometry I, Seattle 2005. Part 1, volume 80 of Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., pages 435-487. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2009.
B. Toën, G. Vezzosi, *From HAG to DAG: derived moduli stacks*, dans Axiomatic, enriched and motivic homotopy theory, 173–216, NATO Sci. Ser. II Math. Phys. Chem., 131, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2004.
[^1]: The result holds true if $\mathrm{Spec} \, k$ is replaced by any noetherian regular affine scheme, or more generally, if $\mathrm{Spec} \, k$ is replaced by any noetherian affine scheme $S$ and the morphism $\mathcal{X}\rightarrow S$ is assumed to be locally of finite flat dimension.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'An algorithm recently presented by Lake to obtain all static spherically symmetric perfect fluid solutions, is extended to the case of locally anisotropic fluids (principal stresses unequal). As expected, the new formalism requires the knowledge of two functions (instead of one) to generate all possible solutions. To illustrate the method some known cases are recovered.'
author:
- |
L. Herrera$^1$[^1], J. Ospino$^{2}$[^2] and A Di Prisco$^1$[^3]\
\
\
\
\
title: 'All static spherically symmetric anisotropic solutions of Einstein’s equations'
---
Introduction
============
As is well known, static spherically symmetric perfect fluid distributions in general relativity, are described by a system of three independent Einstein equations for four variables (two metric functions, the energy density and the isotropic pressure). Thus, aditional information in the form of an equation of state or an heuristic assumption involving metric and/or physical variables has to be provided in order to integrate the system. This situation suggests the possibility of obtaining any possible solution, giving a single generating function. A formalism to obtain solutions in this way has been recently presented by Lake [@KLake] (see also [@viser]).
The purpose of this work is to extend the above mentioned formalism to the case of locally anisotropic fluids.
The motivation for doing so is provided by the fact that the assumption of local anisotropy of pressure, which seems to be very reasonable for describing the matter distribution under a variety of circumstances, has been proved to be very useful in the study of relativistic compact objects (see [@PR]- [@N] and references therein).
In the next section we shall present the general equations and the formalism to obtain the solutions, then we shall apply the method to analyze some specific cases.
The Einstein equations for static locally anisotropic fluids
============================================================
In curvature coordinates the line element reads $$ds^2=-e^{\nu (r)} dt^2+e^{\lambda (r)}
dr^2+r^2d\theta^2+r^2sin^2\theta d\phi^2 \label{metric}$$
which has to satisfy the Einstein equations. For a locally anisotropic fluid they are $$8\pi \rho=\frac{1}{r^2}-e^{-\lambda}
\left(\frac{1}{r^2}-\frac{\lambda'}{r} \right), \label{fieq00}$$
$$8\pi P_r =-\frac{1}{r^2} +e^{-\lambda}
\left(\frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{\nu'}{r}\right), \label{fieq11}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
8\pi P_\bot = \frac{e^{-\lambda}}{4} \left(2\nu''+\nu'^2 -
\lambda'\nu' + 2\frac{\nu' - \lambda'}{r}\right), \label{fieq2233}\end{aligned}$$
where primes denote derivative with respect to $r$, and $\rho, P_r$ and $P_\bot$ are the proper energy density, radial pressure and tangential pressure respectively.
The algorithm
-------------
From (\[fieq11\]) and (\[fieq2233\]) it follows:
$$8\pi(P_r-P_\bot)=e^{-\lambda}(-\frac{\nu^{\prime
\prime}}{2}-(\frac{\nu^{\prime}}{2})^2+\frac{\nu^{\prime}}{2r}+\frac{1}{r^2})+e^{-\lambda}\frac{\lambda^{\prime}}{2}(
\frac{\nu^{\prime}}{2}+\frac{1}{r})-\frac{1}{r^2}. \label{anis}$$
Then, introducing the variables $$e^{\nu (r)}=e^{\int (2z(r)-2/r)dr}
\label{v1}$$
and $$e^{-\lambda}=y(r)
\label{v2}$$ and feeding back into (\[anis\]) we get:
$$y^{\prime}+y[\frac{2z^\prime}{z}+2z-\frac{6}{r}+\frac{4}{r^2
z}]=-\frac{2}{z}(\frac{1}{r^2}+\Pi(r)), \label{eq1}$$
with $\Pi(r)=8\pi (P_r-P_\bot).$
Integrating (\[eq1\]) we obtain for $\lambda$:
$$e^{\lambda (r)}=\frac{z^2(r) e^{\int(\frac{4}{r^2 z(r)}+2z(r))dr}}
{r^6(-2\int\frac{z(r)(1+\Pi (r)r^2 ) e^{\int(\frac{4}{r^2
z(r)}+2z(r))dr}}{r^8}dr+C)}.\label{lambda}$$
where $C$ is a constant of integration. Then, using (\[v1\]) and (\[lambda\]) in (\[metric\]) we get: $$ds^2=-e^{\int (2z(r)-2/r)dr}dt^2+\frac{z^2(r) e^{\int(\frac{4}{r^2
z(r)}+2z(r))dr}} {r^6(-2\int\frac{z(r)(1+\Pi (r)r^2)
e^{\int(\frac{4}{r^2
z(r)}+2z(r))dr}}{r^8}dr+C)}dr^2+r^2d\theta^2+r^2sin^2\theta
d\phi^2. \label{metric2}$$ Thus any solution describing a static anisotropic fluid distribution is fully determined by means of the two generating functions $\Pi$ and $z$.
It will be convenient to express the physical variables in terms of metric and generating functions, in order to impose conditions leading to physically meaningful solutions. Thus we have: $$4\pi P_r=\frac{z(r-2m)+m/r-1}{r^2}\label{Pr}$$
$$4\pi \rho =\frac{m^{\prime}}{r^2}\label{rho}$$
and $$4\pi P_\bot=(1-\frac{2m}{r})(z^{\prime}+z^2-\frac{z}{r}+\frac{1}{r^2})+z(\frac{m}{r^2}-\frac{m^{\prime}}{r})
\label{Pbot}$$ where the mass function $m(r)$ is defined as usual by $$e^{-\lambda}=1-\frac{2m(r)}{r}
\label{m}$$
Physically meaningful solutions must be regular at the origin, and should satisfy the conditions $\rho>0$, $\rho>P_r, P_\bot$. If stability is required then $\rho$ and $P_r$ must be monotonically decreasing functions of $r$.
To avoid singular behaviour of physical variables on the boundary of the source ($\Sigma$), solutions should also satisfy the Darmois conditions on the boundary . Implying $(P_r)_\Sigma=0$ and $$e^{\nu_\Sigma}=e^{-\lambda_\Sigma}=1-\frac{2M}{r_\Sigma}
\label{ens}$$ with $m_\Sigma=M$, and $r_\Sigma$ denotes the radius of the fluid distribution.
The locally isotropic case
--------------------------
If we impose the isotropic condition on pressure $$\Pi=8\pi(P_r-P_\bot)=0$$ in (\[metric2\]) we obatin:
$$ds^2=-e^{\int (2z(r)-2/r)dr}dt^2+\frac{z^2(r) e^{\int(\frac{4}{r^2
z(r)}+2z(r))dr}} {r^6(-2\int\frac{z(r)e^{\int(\frac{4}{r^2
z(r)}+2z(r))dr}}{r^8}dr+C)}dr^2+r^2d\theta^2+r^2sin^2\theta
d\phi^2 \label{metric3}$$
which is the same result obtained in [@KLake],with $z(r)=\Phi(r) ^{\prime}+\frac{1}{r}$.
Some examples
=============
We shall next apply the algorithm to reproduce some known situations.
Conformally flat anisotropic fluids
-----------------------------------
Instead of giving two generating functions, we may provide one generating function and an additional [*[ansatz]{}*]{}. Thus for example, in the spherically symmetric case we know that there is only one independent component of the Weyl tensor. Therefore the conformally flat condition reduces to a single equation which reads$$\frac{\nu ^{\prime
\prime}}{2}+(\frac{\nu ^{\prime}}{2})^2-\frac{\nu^{\prime}\lambda
^{\prime}}{4}-\frac{\nu^{\prime}-\lambda^{\prime}}{2r}+\frac{1-e^{\lambda}}{r^2}=0.\label
{E}$$
Equation (\[E\]) has been integrated in [@j1], giving: $$e^{\frac{\nu}{2}}=c\,r \,cosh(\int
\frac{e^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}}{r}dr),\label{nulambda}$$ which, in term of $z$ becomes $$z=\frac{2}{r}+\frac{e^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}}{r}\, tanh(\int
\frac{e^{\frac{\lambda}{2}}}{r}dr).\label{zlambda}$$ On the other hand from (\[fieq2233\]) and (\[E\]), it follows: $$\Pi=r(\frac{1-e^{-\lambda}}{r^2})^\prime.
\label{Pilambda}$$ Thus the system is completely determined (in this case) provided a single generating function $z$ is known.
Bowers– Liang solution
----------------------
This solution corresponds to an anisotropic fluid with an homogeneous energy density distribution $\rho=\rho_0=constant$ [@Bowersliang], and is given by: $$e^\nu = \left[\frac{3 \left(1 - 2M/r_\Sigma\right)^{h/2} -
\left(1 - 2m/r\right)^{h/2}}{2}\right]^{2/h}
\label{esn}$$
$$m(r) = \frac{4 \pi}{3} r^3 \rho_0 \qquad ; \qquad
M = \frac{4 \pi}{3} r_\Sigma ^3 \rho_0
\label{mM}$$
The two generating functions for this metric are: $$z=\frac{\frac{2m}{r^2}(1-\frac{2m}{r})^{\frac{h}{2}-1}}{3(1-\frac{2M}{r_\Sigma})^{\frac{h}{2}}-(1-\frac{2m}{r})^{\frac{h}{2}}}+\frac{1}{r}
\label{ok}$$
and $$\Pi=-6C\frac{(z-\frac{1}{r})^2(1-\frac{2M}{r_\Sigma})^{\frac{h}{2}}}{(1-\frac{2m}{r})^{\frac{h}{2}-1}}
\label{k}$$ with $h=1-2 C=Constant$. The case $h=1$ reproduces the well known Schwarzschild interior solution, whereas the case $h=0$ describes the Florides solution [@florides].
Anisotropic solutions with a non–local equation of state
--------------------------------------------------------
An interesting family of solutions may be found from the assumption that the energy density and the radial pressure are related by a non–local equation of state of the form [@HHLN1] $$P_r(r)=\rho(r)-\frac{2}{r^3}\int_{0}^{r}\tilde r^2\rho(\tilde
r)d\tilde r+\frac{C}{2\pi r^3}\label{NLES}$$ or, using(\[rho\]) $$P_r(r)=\frac{m^\prime}{4\pi r^2}-\frac{m}{2\pi r^3}+\frac{C}{2\pi
r^3} \label{NLES1},$$
From (\[Pr\]) and (\[NLES1\]) it follows that these solutions are defined by the generating function $z$ of the form: $$z=\frac{rm^\prime-3m+2C+r}{r(r-2m)}. \label{zNLES}$$
Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
================
JO acknowledges financial support from the Junta de Castilla y Leon (Spain) under grant SA010C05. LH wishes to thank Kayll Lake for pointing out (after the completion of this manuscript) a previous paper [@Lake2] where the anisotropic case is considered.
[88]{} K. Lake, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**67**]{}, 104015 (2003). S. Rahman and M. Visser, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**19**]{}, 935 (2002). L. Herrera and N. O. Santos, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**286**]{}, 53 (1997) L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, J. Martín, J. Ospino, N. O. Santos and O. Troconis, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**69**]{}, 084026 (2004)
C. Cattoen, T. Faber and M. Visser, [*Class.Quantum Grav.*]{} [**22**]{}, 4189 (2005).
A. DeBenedictis, D. Horvat, S. Ilijic, S. Kloster and K. Viswanathan, [*Class.Quantum.Grav.*]{} [**23**]{}, 2303 (2006). G. Bohmer and T. Harko, [*Class.Quantum Grav.*]{} [**23**]{}, 6479 (2006), W. Barreto, B. Rodríguez, L. Rosales and O.Serrano, [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**39**]{}, 23 (2007). M. Esculpi, M. Malaver and E. Aloma, [*Gen. Rel. Grav.*]{} [**39**]{}, 633 (2007). G. Khadekar and S. Tade, [*Astr.Space.Sci.*]{} [**310**]{}, 41, (2007). G. Bohmer and T. Harko, [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**379**]{}, 393, (2007). S. Karmakar, S. Mukherjee, R. Sharma and S. Maharaj, [*Pramana J.*]{} [**68**]{}, 881 (2007). H. Abreu, H. Hernández and L. A. Núñez,[*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**24**]{}, 4631 (2007). L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco, J. Ospino and E. Fuenmayor, [*J. Math Phys.*]{} [**42**]{}, 2129 (2001). R. Bowers and E. Liang, [*Astrophys. J.,*]{} [**188**]{}, 657 (1974). P. S. Florides,[*Proc. Roy. Soc. London* ]{} [**A337**]{}, 529 (1974). H. Hernández, L. A. Núñez, [*Can. J. Phys.*]{} [**82**]{}, 29 (2004). K. Lake [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{}, 051101 (2004)
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Occlusion edges in images which correspond to range discontinuity in the scene from the point of view of the observer are an important prerequisite for many vision and mobile robot tasks. Although occlusion edges can be extracted from range data, extracting them from images and videos is challenging and would be extremely beneficial for a variety of robotics based applications. We trained a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) to identify occlusion edges in images and videos with both RGB-D and RGB inputs. The use of CNN avoids hand-crafting of features for automatically isolating occlusion edges and distinguishing them from appearance edges. Other than quantitative occlusion edge detection results, qualitative results are provided to demonstrate the trade-off between high resolution analysis and frame-level computation time which is critical for real-time robotics applications.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'RGBD\_DL.bib'
title: 'Using Deep Convolutional Networks for Occlusion Edge Detection in RGB-D Frames'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Occlusion edge detection is a fundamental capability of computer vision systems as is evident from the number of applications and significant attention it has received [@jacobson2012online; @ayvaci2011detachable; @sargin2009probabilistic; @marshall1996occlusion; @stein2009occlusion]. Occlusion edges are useful for a wide array of tasks including object recognition, feature selection, grasping, obstacle avoidance, navigating, path-planning, localization, mapping, stereo-vision and optic flow. In addition to numerous applications, the concept of occlusions edges is supported by the human visual perception research [@wagemans2012century] where it is referred to as figure/ground determination. Once occlusion boundaries have been established, depth order of regions become possible [@sundberg2011occlusion; @smith2004layered] which aids navigation, simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) and path planning. Occlusion edges help image feature selection by rejecting features generated from regions that span an occlusion edge. As these are dependent on viewpoint position, removing these variant feature saves on further processing and increases recognition accuracy [@gil2010comparative]. In many object recognition problems, the shape of the object is better for recognition rather than its appearance, which can be easily dramatically altered e.g., by painted objects, camouflage and people wearing different clothes. However, shape determination is not the approach for state-of-the-art SIFT based object recognition algorithms. Furthermore, knowledge of occlusion edges helps with stereo vision [@belhumeur1992bayesian] and optic flow algorithms [@sundberg2011occlusion]. In robotics, geometric edges of objects demarcate their spatial extents helping with grasping, manipulation as well as maneuvering through the world without collision and therefore, knowledge of occlusion edges is essential.
In this context, this paper evaluates the efficacy of Deep Learning tools [@BO11] for the task of occlusion edge detection. Recently, this class of techniques have emerged as the top performing machine learning tool for various tasks such as object recognition [@KSH12], speech recognition [@HDY12], denoising [@VLB08], hashing [@SH09] and data fusion [@SS14]. While Deep Neural Networks (DNN) pre-trained using Deep Belief Networks (DBN) [@RB08; @HS06] perform quite well in most data types, deep Convolutional Neural Networks [@KSB10] have been shown to be most suited for images. The better performance is primarily attributed to the preservation of local structures (i.e., localized pixel dependencies) by CNN as opposed to DBN-DNN (where, typically layers are fully connected bipartite graphs). The occlusion edge detection task can logically be conceived as a two step process: identifying edges in an image followed by distinguishing between occlusion and appearance edges. Therefore, deep neural networks are particularly interesting for this problems as they extract hierarchical features (features of features) from data and visualization of intermediate optimized filters [@KSH12] show that edge type features are very common. It also should be noted that such an approach eliminates the need for complicated hand-crafting of features that is commonly done in many current approaches. Due to availability of GPUs and recent advancements in the algorithmic/implementation side, large CNNs can be learnt without significant overfitting from high volume of data for complex problems [@KSH12]. In fact, the CNN model size (depth and breadth) can be optimized iteratively for a certain problem. Often however, memory of the implementing GPU becomes the bottle-neck.
In this paper, the main contributions are: (i) formulation of an occlusion edge detection problem as a classification of center-pixels of an image patch with RGB-D channels (ii) performance evaluation of CNN with various input information, namely RGB-D single time frame and RGB single time frame (iii) fusion of patch predictions to generate frame-wide occlusion edges. The study uses a publicly available benchmark RGB-D data set captured with moving camera in an indoor environment by the Computer Vision group at Technische Universität München (TUM) [@SEE12]. The optimized and hardware-accelerated CNN implementation has been done on NVIDIA K-40 GPU. The paper is organized in seven sections including the introduction. The problem formulation along with the data set description is provided in Section \[sec:problem\]. While Section \[sec:CNN\] provides the details of architecture and training parameters for the CNN, testing and post-processing are discussed in Section \[sec:testing\]. Various experiments with corresponding quantitative results are provided in Section \[sec:exp\] and qualitative observations are articulated in Section \[sec:qual\]. Finally, the paper is summarized and concluded with future research directions in Section \[sec:con\].
Problem Formulation and Generating the Training data {#sec:problem}
====================================================
{width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"}
In general, it is difficult to define edge pixels rigorously. In an image, edges manifest along paths of high contrast and are due to four main reasons: (i) texture change, i.e., abrupt change in surface color, (ii) lighting change, i.e., sharp shadows, (iii) range discontinuity, i.e., abrupt change in distance from the observer and (iv) surface normal change, e.g., intersection of two planes. It is important to appreciate the distinction in the causes of image edges. Texture change and illumination edges are not observed by 3D sensors. Therefore, the remaining geometric edge types are range discontinuities and abrupt surface normal changes. Surface normal changes are pose invariant, however edges due to range discontinuities can vary with observer position. These surface normal and range discontinuities are illustrated in the last image of Fig. \[fig\_edge\_types\]. The cylinder sides in Fig. \[fig\_edge\_types\] are examples of range discontinuities. The position of these edges varies in 3D space as the position of the observer shifts whereas the cylinder rim edge position is consistent regardless of observer position. For use in mapping, the following characteristics is desired from extracted edge voxels: they should be generally invariant to rotation and translation, and they should be helpful in terms of constraining pose. Therefore, in this study the focus is on identifying the third and fourth type of edges.
Traditional approaches for detect geometric edges in 3D data include a keypoint detector based on a 3D extension of the Harris corner operator in the Point Cloud Library [@rusu2011_icra_PCL]. This detector operates on local normals of points. A related approach for selecting interest points on 3D meshes was introduced in [@sipiran2011harris]. In principle, this study is similar to a recent work on indoor scene segmentation [@CFN13]. However, this study focuses on if only occlusion edges can be isolated using CNNs and also if reasonable performance can be achieved without using the depth channel of the RGB-D data. As mentioned earlier, this paper uses a benchmark RGB-D data set the Computer Vision group at Technische Universität München (TUM). The data set contains RGB and depth images of a Microsoft Kinect sensor that was recorded at full frame rate (30 Hz) and sensor resolution $640 \times 480$ by moving camera in an indoor environment. The occlusion edge detection problem is formulated as a classification problem and the procedure of generating training data is provided in the following subsection.
Training data {#sec:training}
-------------
The occlusion edge information is largely present in the depth (D) channel of an RGB-D frame. Therefore, occlusion edge label for a pixel, i.e., the ground truth can be automatically determined using the depth channel data. The label generation procedure is illustrated in Fig. \[fig\_rgb\_edge\]. From left to right, the three plates in the figure shows an example RGB frame, the corresponding D channel data and classification frame generated using a simple thresholding only on the depth data. Other than gray (signifying no edge) and white (signifying occlusion edges) colors, the black color can be seen in the classification frame. This signifies bad depth measurements due to presence of absorbing surface or larger than maximum distance allowed between the sensor and the surface.
{width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"} {width="0.32\linewidth"}
{width="100.00000%"}
\[fig:training\]
The RGB-D data set was collected using a camera motion along a certain trajectory in an indoor environment. The trajectory is divided into disjoint training and testing sections so that the trained model can be tested using previously unseen data. The frames in the RGB-D data set are $480 \times 640$ in size. In order to create training examples for the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), $32 \times 32$ patches are extracted from the large frames in the training section. The training label for each patch is determined by the pixels located at the center [@YGS02; @KBC12]. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:training\], if majority of the pixels ($2 \times 2$ in this case) at the center of a $32 \times 32$ patch contains occlusion edges, the patch is labeled as an **Occlusion** patch. On the other hand, if center pixels contain appearance edges or no edge, corresponding patch is labeled as a **No Occlusion** patch. Patches with considerable number of bad or unlabeled pixels are pre-filtered and not used for training.
CNN Architecture and Model Learning {#sec:CNN}
===================================
{width="100.00000%"}
\[fig:CNN\]
The architecture of the Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) used in this paper is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:CNN\]. The CNN has three pairs of convolution-pooling layers followed by softmax output layer \cite{}. This section articulates details of those layers as well as various hyper-parameters used for model learning.
***Description of layers:*** As described in Section \[sec:training\], $32 \times 32$ patches were used as data for the CNN in this study. Depending on the experiment, different number channels are used for the input data. For example, while $4$ channels were used for single (time) frame RGB-D data, $3$ channels were used for a RGB frame. More detailed description of various experiments will be provided in Section \[sec:exp\]. The layer size parameters here correspond to the RGB-D experiment with $4$ channels. The first convolutional layer uses $32$ filters (or kernels) of size $5 \times 5 \times 4$ with a stride of $1$ pixel and padding of $2$ pixels on the edges. The CNN is configured with Rectified Linear Units (ReLUs), as they train several times faster than their equivalents with $\tanh$ connections \[[@Nair2010Rectified-]\]. A two-fold sub-sampling or pooling layer follows the convolutional layer that generates the input data (of size $16 \times 16 \times 32$) for the second convolutional layer. This layer uses $32$ filters of size $5 \times 5 \times 32$ with a stride of $1$ pixel and padding of $2$ pixels on the edges. A second pooling layer with the same specification as the first one is used after that to generate input with size $8 \times 8 \times 32$ for the third convolutional layer that uses $64$ filters of size $5 \times 5 \times 32$ with same stride and padding strategies as before. The third pooling layer also has the same configuration as the two before it and leads to a softmax output layer with two labels corresponding to **No Occlusion** and **Occlusion** classes.
***Hyper-parameters:*** The CNN described above was trained using stochastic gradient descent with a mini-batch size of $100$ examples. Although biases of convolutional layer neurons were initialized with constant values zero, weights of the neurons were initialized with zero-mean Gaussian distributions with standard deviations as: $0.0001$ for first, $0.01$ for second and $0.01$ for third convolutional layer. Interestingly, the network performed better with a comparatively larger initialization of the weight standard deviation ($0.3$) for the output layer. The learning rate and momentum used for all the convolutional layers and for all training epochs were $0.001$ and $0.9$ respectively. Finally, $L2$-regularizers were used for all convolutional layers as well with weight $0.001$. No dropout was used for model training in this study.
***Training with GPU:*** The NVIDIA Kepler series K40 GPUs are FLOPS/Watt efficient and are being used to drive real-time image processing capabilities. The Kepler series GPU consists of a maximum of 15 Streaming Execution (SMX) units and up to six 64-bit memory controllers. Each SMX unit has 192 single-precision CUDA cores and each core comprises of fully pipelined floating-point and integer arithmetic logic units. The K40 GPUs consist of 2880 cores with 12 GB of on-board device memory (RAM). Deep Learning applications have been targeted on GPUs previously in [@KSH12] and these implementations are both compute and memory bound. Stacking of the channels for the RGB and the RGBD experiments result in a vector of $32 \times 32 \times 3$ and $32 \times 32 \times 4$ respectively, which is suitable for the Single Instruction Multiple Datapath (SIMD) architecture of the GPUs. At the same time, the training batch size caches in the GPU memory, so the utilization of the K40 GPU’s memory is very high. This also results in our experiments to run successfully on a single GPU instead of partitioning the different layers over multiple GPUs.
Testing and Post-processing {#sec:testing}
===========================
Performance testing of CNN is done in both quantitative and qualitative manner with various input information as will be explained in Section \[sec:exp\]. For quantitative results, classification errors are computed based on the model’s ability to predict label of the center pixels of a test patch collected from a frame captured in testing section of camera motion. The qualitative observations and visualization are made using a post-processing scheme as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:testing\]. In this scheme, classification confidence for a patch center pixels is collected from the softmax posterior distribution and it is extrapolated across the patch using a Gaussian distribution with Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM). Such Gaussian kernels from overlapping patches are fused in a mixture model to generate smooth occlusion edges in the testing frame.
{width="100.00000%"}
\[fig:testing\]
Experiments and Quantitative Results {#sec:exp}
====================================
Different experiments are performed with different sets of input data for comparative evaluation. They are described below along with corresponding quantitative performance of the CNN model:
{width="0.45\linewidth"} {width="0.45\linewidth"}
**RGB-D frame** The first set of experiments used single temporal frames of RGB-D data (i.e., $4$ channels). This task may seem rather straight forward as the depth information is directly available as one of the channels in the input data. However, majority of edges in the current frames are appearance edges and RGB channels clearly provide that information. Therefore, the task for the CNN model is to detect edges via automatic feature extraction and distinguishing occlusion edges from appearance edges.
**RGB frame** The second set of experiments used single temporal frames of RGB data (i.e., $3$ channels). The goal here was to investigate if discriminative features exist and can be extracted by CNN from just RGB channels in order to classify patches into **Occlusion** and **No occlusion** edges. Ideally, without temporal information RGB channels may not carry a lot of occlusion information. However, occlusion information may remain in certain features such as shadows. Therefore, the objective is to investigate if such features can be recognized by a CNN to detect occlusion edges.
Channels Overall error False alarm Missed detection
---------- --------------- ------------- ------------------
RGB-D 15.7% 15.38% 43.59%
RGB 15.74% 15.42% 45.71%
: Occlusion detection performance of CNN with RGB-D and RGB inputs
\[table:error\_comparisons\]
Numerical results are provided below for both of these cases. For training the CNN, $57,518$ training patches extracted from large image frames (collected in training section of the camera trajectory) are used. During testing, $1,271,002$ patches (collected in testing section of the camera trajectory) are used to provide quantitative performance data. Figure \[fig:error\] shows training and testing error plots (for both cases) over various epochs and specifically the training error graph clearly demonstrates that the training process does not saturate. This is due to the ReLU connections used in the CNN. As provided in Table 1, for both cases, false alarm performance is significantly better compared to missed detection performance. Numerically, overall error percentage is very close to false alarm rate as majority of the test example patches do not contain occlusion edges. Finally, as expected detection performance with RGB input is inferior (by $2\%$) to that of RGB-D input. However, false alarm rates are quite comparable. Overall, it is interesting to observe that performance degradation is not very large as input data changes as the depth (D) channel is removed.
Qualitative Observations {#sec:qual}
========================
This section presents qualitative results in order to understand the efficacy of the deep learning tools for occlusion edge detection and for robotics applications as a whole. Figures \[fig:rgbd4\] and \[fig:rgbd8\] show performances with RGB-D input with stride $4$ and $8$ (see Section \[sec:testing\] for details on strides) on a testing frame. As expected, occlusion edge generation is better with a lower value of stride as more information is available per pixel in this case. It can be noted in the marked regions (circled in red) in the figures that false detection of occlusion edges reduces with a lower value of stride. The trade-off lies in computational speed. With a lower value of stride, the frame processing time increases linearly with increase in number of test patches. Therefore, this trade-off has to be chosen properly for real-time robotics applications.
{width="100.00000%"}
\[fig:rgbd4\]
{width="100.00000%"}
\[fig:rgbd8\]
Figures \[fig:rgb4\] and \[fig:rgb8\] show performances with RGB input with stride $4$ and $8$ on the same testing frame and very similar observations can be made in this case as well. The heat maps also demonstrate decrease in detection confidence in this case compared to that of RGB-D input.
{width="100.00000%"}
\[fig:rgb4\]
{width="100.00000%"}
\[fig:rgb8\]
Conclusions and Future works {#sec:con}
============================
In this study, we trained deep convolutional neural networks in a supervised manner in order to detect occlusion edges in RGB-D frames. The problem is formulated as a center-pixel classification problem for an image patch extracted from a larger frame. Apart from RGB-D inputs, experiments were performed to investigate the performance degradation associated with dropping the depth (D) channel. It is noted that although the missed detection rate increases slightly without depth data, the false alarm performance does not degrade significantly. A testing and post-processing scheme is developed to visualize the testing performance. The trade-off between high resolution patch analysis and frame-level computation time is discussed which is critical for real-time robotics applications. RGB-D and RGB frames lie on the two ends of the spectrum of input data information content. Therefore, investigations are currently being pursued with multiple time-frames of RGB input in order to extract structure from motion. Apart from this task, the other research directions are: (i) design of motion planning using decisions from CNNs and (ii) analysis of computation speed vs accuracy trade-off for real-time operation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Because of a logarithmic enhancement from soft, collinear magnetic gluons, in dense quark matter the gap for a color superconducting condensate with spin zero depends upon the QCD coupling constant $g$ not as $\exp(-1/g^2)$, like in BCS theory, but as $\exp(-1/g)$. In weak coupling, the ratio of the transition temperature to the spin-zero gap at zero temperature is the same as in BCS theory. We classify the gaps with spin one, and find that they are of the same order in $g$ as the spin-zero gap.'
address: |
a) Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973-5000, USA\
b) RIKEN BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973-5000, USA
author:
- 'Robert D. Pisarski$^{a}$ and Dirk H. Rischke$^{b}$'
title: Gaps and Critical Temperature for Color Superconductivity
---
In cold, dense quark matter, the attractive interaction between quarks of different colors generates color superconductivity [@bl; @general; @schafer0; @prlett; @prscalar; @son; @schuster; @schafer; @hong; @hongetal]. In this Letter we discuss in what aspects color superconductivity differs from the classic model of Bardeen, Cooper, and Schrieffer (BCS) [@BCS], and in which aspects it resembles it.
One way in which color superconductivity differs from BCS theory is the dependence of the condensate on the coupling constant. In theories with short-ranged interactions, such as BCS theory, the gap depends upon the coupling constant $g$ as the exponential of $1/g^2$. We argued previously, though, that static magnetic interactions are [*not*]{} screened to any finite order in $g$ [@prlett; @son]. The scattering of quarks near the Fermi surface is then logarithmically enhanced by the emission of collinear, nearly static magnetic gluons, and this changes the gap from an exponential in $1/g^2$ to one in $1/g$.
The explicit value of the gap in weak coupling was first computed by Son [@son]. Using an elegant renormalization group argument, he found that there is an instability at a scale $\phi_0 \sim b_0 \, \mu \, g^{-5}\, \exp(-c_0/g)$, where $\mu$ is the quark-chemical potential, $c_0 = 3 \pi^2/\sqrt{2}$, and $b_0$ is a pure number. To explicitly compute the magnitude of the spin-zero gap at zero temperature, $\phi_0$, it is necessary to solve a gap equation. This was initiated by Son [@son]. In this Letter we first extend Son’s analysis to estimate the constant $b_0$. To the order in $g$ at which we work, all of our results are manifestly gauge invariant. Details will be presented elsewhere [@wip].
Next, we solve the gap equation at non-zero temperature, $T$, and show that the critical temperature for the onset of color superconductivity, $T_c$, divided by $\phi_0$ is [*equal*]{} to the value in BCS theory [@BCS], $T_c/\phi_0 \simeq 0.567 + O(g)$.
Finally, we classify the gaps for massless fermions with total spin $J=1$. There are two types, longitudinal and transverse to the direction of momentum of the quarks in the condensate, $\phi_1^{\parallel}$ and $\bbox{\phi}_1^{\perp}$, respectively. In agreement with Son [@son], we find that all spin-one gaps are of the same order as the spin-zero gap: $\phi_1/\phi_0$ is a pure number of order one.
Our results are of practical importance. Bailin and Love assumed in their original analysis [@bl] that static magnetic interactions are screened, so that the gaps are BCS-like, and thus tiny, $\phi_0 \sim 10^{-3} \mu$. Our results are only valid perturbatively, but if we extrapolate to strong coupling, we find that because the constant $b_0$ is huge, the gaps can become quite large: as seen in fig. 1, $\phi_0$ peaks at $\phi_0 \sim 0.26 \, \mu$, with a big $T_c \sim 0.15 \, \mu$. At AGS energies, heavy-ion collisions can probe the region of $\mu \sim 600$ MeV and $T \sim 100$ MeV. Therefore, by triggering on collisions in which [*cool*]{}, dense nuclear matter is formed, it may be possible to observe color superconductivity.
That $J=1$ gaps are not exponentially suppressed is important for quark stars. At very high densities, the chemical potential of up, down, and strange quarks are nearly equal, so the $J=0$ color-flavor locked condensate is surely favored [@general]. At intermediate densities, however, because of the large strange quark mass, and the requirement of charge neutrality, these chemical potentials will differ. This suppresses the formation of $J=0$ gaps, which are predominantly flavor off-diagonal. The $J=1$ gaps, however, can form between quarks of the same flavor, and will be significant.
We follow the notations and conventions of our previous work [@prlett; @prscalar]. For massless quarks there are four types of spin-zero condensates [@bl; @prlett; @prscalar]: right-handed condensates $\phi^\pm_{r,\pm}$, and left-handed condensates $\phi^\pm_{\ell,\mp}$. The superscript refers to particles or antiparticles, while the subscript denotes helicity. In perturbation theory, QCD is manifestly chirally symmetric, so that the gap equations for $\phi^\pm_r$ and $\phi^\pm_\ell$ are [*identical*]{} order by order in $g^2$. Although the magnitude of the gaps for $\phi_{r}$ and $\phi_{\ell}$ must then be equal, because they are complex numbers, they differ by an arbitrary phase. This phase represents the spontaneous breaking of parity by a spin-zero, color superconducting gap in an instanton-free regime [@prlett; @prconf].
Without loss of generality, then, we can consider only the right-handed gaps, denoted as $\phi^+$ and $\phi^-$, and take them to be real and positive. Suppressing chiral projectors, and the color and flavor indices [@color], the gap function is $$\Phi(Q) = \phi^+(Q) \; \Lambda^+({\bf q})
+ \phi^-(Q) \; \Lambda^-({\bf q}) \; . \;
\label{e3}$$ The condensate is formed from a quark, with four-momentum $Q=(q^0,{\bf q})$, and a charge conjugate antiquark. $\Lambda^\pm ({\bf q}) \equiv (1 \pm \gamma_0 \bbox{\gamma}
\cdot \hat{\bf q})/2$ are projectors for energy; ${\bf q} = q \, \hat{\bf q}$, $\hat{\bf q}^2 = 1$.
Including the gap, from (15) of [@prscalar] the quark propagator is $$G(Q) = \left[
\frac{\Lambda^{+}({\bf q})}{q_0^2 -
\epsilon^+_q\,^2}
+\, \frac{ \Lambda^{-}({\bf q})}{q_0^2-
\epsilon^-_q\,^2}
\right]
(\gamma \cdot Q - \mu \gamma_0) ,
\label{e4}$$ where $\epsilon^\pm_q$ is the energy of the quark relative to the Fermi surface: $$\epsilon^\pm_q \equiv \sqrt{( q \mp \mu)^2 +
\phi^\pm(Q)^2} \,\, .
\label{e5}$$ The poles with $\mp \epsilon^+_q$ represent quasiparticles and their holes, those with $\mp \epsilon^-_q$ quasi-antiparticles and their holes [@prscalar]. At the Fermi surface, $q = \mu$, it takes very little energy to excite a quasiparticle, $\epsilon^+_q = -\phi^+$, and a lot to excite a quasi-antiparticle, $\epsilon^-_q \approx -2 \mu$.
At one-loop order, from (A35) of [@prscalar] the equation for the gap function $\Phi(K)$ is $$\Phi(K) = \frac{2 g^2}{3}
%\int \frac{d^4 Q}{(2 \pi)^4}
\frac{T}{V}\sum_Q
\Delta_{\mu \nu}(K\!\!-\!\!Q)
\gamma^\mu G_0^-(Q) \Phi(Q) G(Q) \gamma^\nu .
\label{e6}$$ Here $G_0^-(Q) = 1/(\gamma \cdot Q - \mu \gamma_0)$ is the bare propagator for charge-conjugate quarks [@color]. To evaluate the Matsubara sum over $q^0$ we use spectral representations [@lebellac].
In the gap equation, the gluon propagator $\Delta^{\mu \nu}$ includes the effects of “hard dense loops” (HDL) [@lebellac]. The basic parameter of the HDL Lagrangian is the gluon “mass”, $m_g$; for $N_c$ colors and $N_f$ flavors of massless quarks, $$m_g^2 \; = \; N_f \, \frac{g^2 \mu^2}{6 \pi^2} \; + \;
\left( N_c + \frac{N_f}{2} \right)
\frac{g^2 T^2}{9} \; .
\label{e2}$$ For the time being we take strict Coulomb gauge for the HDL propagator. HDL corrections can be neglected for the quark propagator and the quark-gluon vertex, as the quark lines are hard, $q \sim \mu$.
We solve the gap equation by including the effects of the superconducting state in the simplest possible way for the quark, Eq. (\[e4\]), and not at all for the gluon. This is reasonable in weak coupling, because the scale of the condensate, $\phi_0 \sim \mu \, \exp(-c_0/g)$, is much smaller than either $\mu$ or $m_g \sim g \mu$ [@gap].
As in strong coupling BCS theory [@BCS], $\Phi(K)$ has an imaginary part, but for small $g$ this can be neglected in QCD [@imag]. Consequently, the only values of the gap functions $\phi^\pm(Q)$ which enter into the gap equation are those on either the quasiparticle mass shell, $\phi^+(\pm \epsilon^+_q,q)$, or the quasi-antiparticle mass shell, $\phi^-(\pm \epsilon^-_q,q)$.
Gap equations for $\phi^\pm(\epsilon^\pm_k,k)$ are derived from (\[e6\]) via projection with $\Lambda^\pm({\bf k})$. As is typical in models of superconductivity [@BCS], the dominant terms arise from the quasiparticle poles. These correspond physically to scattering of quarks near the Fermi surface. As this involves little energy transfer between the quarks, it suffices to use the nearly static limit of the gluon propagator.
With these approximations, denoting $\epsilon_k^+ = \epsilon_k$, the gap equation for $\phi(k) \equiv
\phi^+(\epsilon_k,k)$ becomes [@wip] $$\phi(k) = \frac{g^2}{36\pi^2} \int_{\mu-\delta}^{\mu +\delta}
\frac{{\rm d}q}{\epsilon_q} \; \frac{1}{2}
\, \ln \left( \frac{b^2 \mu^2}{\epsilon_q^2 -\epsilon_k^2} \right)
\tanh \left(\frac{\epsilon_q}{2T} \right) \phi(q) \,\, ,
\label{e7}$$ $$b = \frac{b_0}{g^5} = b_{\rm t}^2 \; b_{\rm l}^3 \; b_0'
= 256 \; \pi^4 \left(\frac{2}{g^2 N_f}\right)^{5/2} b_0'\;,
\label{e8}$$ where $ b_{\rm t} = 4 \sqrt{2}\, \mu/(\sqrt{3 \pi} \,m_g)$, and $b_{\rm l} = 2 \, \mu/(\sqrt{3} \, m_g)$. The logarithm $\sim \ln[1/(\epsilon_q^2 - \epsilon_k^2)]$ arises from the cut term in the spectral density of a nearly static transverse gluon [@prlett; @son]. In the gap equation, there are also terms $\sim \ln(1/g)$ which arise from the non-static transverse gluons and from static longitudinal gluons; these produce the constants $b_{\rm t}$ and $b_{\rm l}$, respectively. In addition, there are terms $\sim 1$ in the gap equation which contribute to the constant $b_0'$; we did not compute these terms. In deriving (\[e7\]) we assume that $\epsilon_k, \epsilon_q < \mu$, so we introduce a cut-off $\delta$ on the $q$-integration; the final result is independent of $\delta$.
At $T=0$, an approximate solution of (\[e7\]) is [@wip] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e10}
\phi(k) & = & \phi_0 \, \sin (\bar{g}\, y_k) \,\, , \\
\bar{g} \equiv \frac{g}{3\sqrt{2}\pi} & , & \;\;\;
y_k \equiv \ln \left( \frac{2b\mu}{|k-\mu|+\epsilon_k} \right)\;,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi_0$ denotes the value of the condensate at the Fermi surface, $k = \mu$. (This is similar, but not identical to the solution of [@son; @schafer; @hongetal].) As $y_\mu = \ln(2b\mu/\phi_0)$, Eq. (\[e10\]) requires $\bar{g}\, y_\mu = \pi/2$, [*i.e.*]{}, $$\label{e1}
\phi_0 = 2\, b \mu \, \exp\left(-\frac{\pi}{2 \bar{g}}\right)\;.$$ Our results for $c_0$ and the prefactor $1/g^5$ are in agreement with Son [@son]. The constants $b_{\rm t}$ and $b_{\rm l}$ are the same found in an independent analysis by Schäfer and Wilczek [@schafer]; see also Hong [*et al.*]{} [@hongetal].
In BCS-like theories with zero-ranged interactions, such as Nambu–Jona-Lasinio (NJL) models [@general], all particle pairs around the Fermi surface contribute with [*equal*]{} weight to build up the BCS-logarithm, so that the gap function is constant: $\sim g^2 \int
{\rm d}q / \epsilon_q \simeq g^2 \ln(2\delta/\phi_0)$, with solution $\phi_0 \sim 2 \delta \, \exp(-1/g^2)$. In a model where fermions interact with scalar bosons of mass $M_s \sim g \mu$ [@prscalar], scattering of particle pairs through small angles is [*favored*]{}. The collinear singularity is cut off by $M_s \neq 0$, so that logarithmic factors of $\sim \ln (\mu/M_s) \sim \ln(1/g)$ appear in the gap equation.
In QCD, the scattering of quark pairs through small angles is again favored. If the exchanged gluon is electric, the collinear singularity is cut off by the Debye mass, $\sqrt{3}\,
m_g$. This produces $\ln (1/g)$ terms which contribute to the prefactor $1/g^5$ in $b$, Eq. (\[e8\]). If the exchanged gluon is magnetic, the collinear singularity is only cut off by the difference in energies between the incoming and outgoing pairs. In the gap equation (\[e7\]), this generates the logarithmic enhancement factor $\sim \ln[1/(\epsilon_q^2 -
\epsilon_k^2)]$. The dependence of the gap function on $\epsilon_k$ is then not negligible. Quasiparticles with momenta exponentially close to the Fermi surface, $\epsilon_q \sim b \mu \, \exp(-c/g)$, dominate the integral, with a contribution which is enhanced by $ \ln(b\mu/\epsilon_q) \sim c/g$. The gap function $\phi(q)$ is weighted towards these pairs, as $\phi(q)/\phi_0 \sim \sin(\pi c/2c_0) \sim 1$. For quasiparticles which are not exponentially close to the Fermi surface, $\epsilon_q \sim \mu$ and $c\sim g$, the gap function is down by $\phi(q)/\phi_0 \sim g$ [@imag].
The temperature dependence of the condensate can be computed from Eq. (\[e7\]) as follows. We assume that the temperature $T$ is of the order of the gap at zero temperature, $\phi_0$. Let us introduce a dimensionless parameter $\kappa \gg 1$, and divide the integration region into $ \epsilon_q\geq \kappa \phi_0$ and $\epsilon_q < \kappa \phi_0$. Away from the Fermi surface, $\epsilon_q \gg \phi_0$, the Fermi–Dirac distribution becomes a Boltzmann distribution, so $\tanh (\epsilon_q/2T) \simeq 1$, and thermal effects are negligible. Near the Fermi surface, the thermal factor $\tanh (\epsilon_q/2T)$ cuts off any singularity, even at the critical temperature, $T_c$, when $\phi(q) \rightarrow 0$. Then the gap function is the same as (\[e10\]) for $\epsilon_k \gg \kappa \phi_0$, and a constant for $\epsilon_k \ll \kappa \phi_0$. Matching the two regions at $\kappa \phi_0$, and then sending $\kappa \rightarrow \infty$, we derive the condition $$\label{e12}
\int_0^\infty {\rm d}|q-\mu| \left[ \frac{1}{\epsilon_q} \,
\tanh\left(\frac{\epsilon_q}{2T}\right) - \frac{1}{\epsilon_q^0}
\right] = 0\;,$$ where $\epsilon_q = \sqrt{(q-\mu)^2 +\phi^2(T)}$, with $\phi(T)$ the gap at the Fermi surface at a temperature $T$, and $\epsilon_q^0 = \sqrt{(q-\mu)^2 +\phi_0^2}$. This is correct to leading order in $g$. Equation (\[e12\]) implicitly determines the function $\phi(T)/\phi_0$; it is [*identical*]{} to that obtained in BCS theory in weak coupling [@BCS; @wip]. In particular, the ratio of the critical temperature to the zero-temperature gap is the same as in BCS, $T_c/\phi_0 = \zeta/2 +O(g)$, where the constant $\zeta=2\, e^\gamma /\pi\simeq 1.13$. ($\gamma \simeq 0.577$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant.)
Following the classification of [@prlett; @prscalar], for massless quarks a spin-one condensate has the form $$\sum_{h, e} \left( \bbox{\phi}^{\parallel e}_h(Q)
\cdot \hat{\bf q} + \bbox{\phi}^{\perp e}_h(Q)
\cdot {\bf P}({\bf q}) \cdot \bbox{\gamma}
\right) {\cal P}_h \, \Lambda^{e}({\bf q}) \;,$$ where the sum runs over chiralities, $h= r,\ell$, and energies, $e=\pm$. ${\cal P}_{r,\ell} = (1 \pm \gamma_5)/2$ is the chiral projector, and ${\bf P}({\bf q})={\bf 1} - \hat{\bf q} \hat{\bf q}$ a projector onto the subspace orthogonal to ${\bf q}$. Because a spin-one condensate is a three-vector, there are 12 types of condensates, four longitudinal, $\phi_{1,h}^{\parallel e} \equiv \bbox{\phi}^{\parallel e}_{h} \cdot
\hat{\bf q}$, and eight transverse, $\bbox{\phi}_{1,h}^{\perp e} \equiv
\bbox{\phi}^{\perp e}_h \cdot {\bf P} ({\bf q})$. This classification is equivalent to that of [@bl]. While the spin-zero gaps are symmetric in the simultaneous interchange of color and flavor indices [@bl; @prlett; @prscalar], the longitudinal gaps $\phi_{1,h}^{\parallel e}$ are antisymmetric. The transverse gaps fulfill a more complicated relationship, $(\bbox{\phi}^{\perp \pm}_{r, \ell})^T = - \bbox{\phi}^{\perp \mp}_{\ell,r}$. The spin-zero gaps and the longitudinal spin-one gaps do not mix quarks of different chirality; the transverse spin-one gaps do, and thus break chiral symmetry. The gap equations can be constructed as in the spin-zero case [@wip]. We find that both the longitudinal as well as the transverse gaps fulfill the same gap equation as the spin-zero gaps, with identically the same solution as in (\[e1\]), except that the constant analogous to $b_0'$ (which we do not compute) may differ.
In the static limit, gauge dependent terms in the gluon propagator $\Delta^{\mu \nu}(P)$ are $\sim p^\mu p^\nu/p^2$ [@lebellac]. These terms contribute to the gap equation, but neither to $c_0$, the power of $g$ in the prefactor, $b_{\rm t}$, nor $b_{\rm l}$. They do appear to contribute to the undetermined constant $b_0'$, but we suggest that in the end, $b_0'$ is gauge invariant. There are other effects which contribute to $b_0'$ [@wip]. One-loop diagrams with a [*soft*]{}, transverse HDL gluon propagator renormalize the quark [@wave] and gluon wave functions, and the quark-gluon vertex. Other contributions arise from the influence of the condensate on the gluon propagator [@gap], and the admixture of quasi-antiparticle modes in the quasiparticle gap equation. It is important to calculate $b_0'$, since its numerical value determines exactly [*which*]{} patterns of symmetry breaking are favored.
While the results which we have derived are rigorously valid only in weak coupling, it is interesting to plot $\phi_0/\mu$ as a function of $g$, fig. 1. We take $N_f=2$ (note that $b_0 \sim 1/N_f^{5/2}$). From (\[e8\]), $\phi_0/\mu$ is proportional to $b_0'$; in fig. 1 we set this undetermined constant equal to 1. Equation (\[e1\]) has the form of a semiclassical tunneling probability, including a prefactor from five zero modes. Because of the “zero modes”, the gap function peaks at a value of $\phi_0/\mu \sim 0.26$ when $g \sim 4.2$.
Extending the picture of Schäfer and Wilczek [@schafer0], we view quark matter as a color superconducting “liquid”, and hadronic matter as a color superconducting “vapor”. From [@prlett] there is a first-order phase transition between these liquid and vapor phases at $\mu=\mu_c$ and $T=0$. Then perhaps at several times nuclear matter density, the liquid phase occurs at the maximum of $\phi_0/\mu$, and the vapor phase at larger $g$, providing a qualitative explanation for the smallness of the analogous gaps in hadronic matter [@general].
We conclude by using (\[e6\]) to estimate the validity of perturbation theory. Perturbative calculations break down when $m_g \simeq \mu$ or $T$. For $N_c= 3$ and $N_f = 2$, at $T \neq 0$ and $\mu =0$, $m_g = T$ when the QCD fine structure constant is tiny, $\alpha_s \equiv g^2/4 \pi \sim 0.18$. In contrast, at $\mu \neq 0$ and $T = 0$, $m_g = \mu$ when $\alpha_s$ is much larger, $\alpha_s \sim 2.4$. This suggests to us that while perturbation theory is not a good approximation for hot quark-gluon matter [@temp], it may well be a reasonable guide to understanding dense quark matter, as long as it is cold, $T < 0.3 \mu$.
This work was supported in part by DOE grant DE-AC02-98CH10886. We thank M. Alford, J. Berges, W. Brown, V. Emery, D.K. Hong, S.D.H. Hsu, J.T. Liu, V.N. Muthukumar, K. Rajagopal, H.C. Ren, T. Schäfer, D. Son, and F. Wilczek for enlightening discussions. We especially thank T. Schäfer for discussions on the ratio $T_c/\phi_0$. D.H.R. thanks RIKEN, BNL and the U.S. Department of Energy for providing the facilities essential for the completion of this work.
D. Bailin and A. Love, Phys. Rep. [**107**]{}, 325 (1984).
M. Alford, K. Rajagopal, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. [**B422**]{}, 247 (1998); M. Alford, K. Rajagopal, and F. Wilczek, Nucl. Phys., 443 (1999); R. Rapp, T. Schäfer, E.V. Shuryak, and M. Velkovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 53 (1998); hep-ph/9904353; N. Evans, S.D.H. Hsu, and M. Schwetz, Nucl. Phys. [**B551**]{}, 275 (1999); Phys. Lett. [**B449**]{} 281, (1999); J. Berges and K. Rajagopal, Nucl. Phys. [**B538**]{}, 215 (1999); T. Schäfer and F. Wilczek, Phys. Lett. [**B450**]{}, 325 (1999); G.W. Carter and D. Diakonov, Phys. Rev. D [**60**]{}, 016004 (1999); K. Langfeld and M. Rho, hep-ph/9811227; M. Alford, J. Berges, and K. Rajagopal, hep-ph/9903502.
T. Schäfer and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 3956 (1999); hep-ph/9903503.
R.D. Pisarski and D.H. Rischke, nucl-th/9811104, to appear in Phys. Rev. Lett.
R.D. Pisarski and D.H. Rischke, nucl-th/9903023, to appear in Phys. Rev. D.
D.T. Son, Phys. Rev. D [**59**]{}, 094019 (1999).
E. Shuster and D.T. Son, hep-ph/9905448.
T. Schäfer and F. Wilczek, hep-ph/9906512.
D.K. Hong, hep-ph/9812510, hep-ph/9905523.
D.K. Hong, V.A. Miransky, I.A. Shovkovy, and L.C.R. Wijewardhana, hep-ph/9906478.
J.R. Schrieffer, [*Theory of Superconductivity*]{} (New York, W.A. Benjamin, 1964); D.J. Scalapino, in: [*Superconductivity*]{}, ed. R.D. Parks, (New York, M. Dekker, 1969), p. 449ff.
R.D. Pisarski and D.H. Rischke, manuscript in preparation.
R.D. Pisarski and D.H. Rischke, nucl-th/9906050.
The interaction between two quarks contains two pieces, which are symmetric or antisymmetric in the color indices of the fundamental representation. The antisymmetric representation is attractive to lowest order in $g$; for an $SU(N_c)$ gauge theory, the coefficient in (\[e6\]) is $g^2(N_c+1)/(2 N_c)$ [@schuster]. When $N_c = 3$, the antisymmetric representation is the color $\overline{{\bf 3}}$ representation, the symmetric the color ${\bf 6}$. Fermi statistics for a $J=0$ gap imposes constraints which require the number of massless flavors, $N_f \geq 2$ [@prlett]. The form of the quark propagator in (\[e4\]) is only valid when $N_f=2$, and the $(SU(3)_c,SU_{r,\ell}(N_f))$ representation is $(\overline{{\bf 3}}, {\bf 1})$ [@prlett]. When $N_f =3$, the $(\overline{{\bf 3}}, {\overline {\bf 3}})$ representation mixes with the $({\bf 6}, {\bf 6})$ [@prlett]. This mixing only affects the gap equation to higher order $\sim \phi_0^2$, which is negligible in weak coupling.
M. Le Bellac, [*Thermal Field Theory*]{} (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Due to infrared singular factors, the effective action for the condensate is $\sim |D_\mu \phi|^2/\phi_0^2$, so that the (true) gluon mass from color superconductivity is not $m_{super}
\sim g \phi_0$, as one would naively expect, but much larger, $m_{super} \sim g \mu$. (We thank T. Schäfer for discussions on this point.) To the order at which we work, this is irrelevant for the gap equation, because the dominant momenta are $\gg \phi_0$, and on that scale, corrections from the condensate are small, $\sim g^2 \phi_0/q$ at large $q \gg \phi_0$.
From (\[e7\]) the imaginary part of $\phi(k)$ arises from the cut in the logarithm for $\epsilon_q < \epsilon_k$, $
{\rm Im}\, \phi(k) \sim g^2 \int_{\phi_0}^{\epsilon_k}
{\rm d}\epsilon_q/\epsilon_q\; \phi(q)
\simeq g^2 \, \ln(\epsilon_k/\phi_0) \phi_0 .
$ Taking $\epsilon_k \sim b \mu \, \exp(-c/g)$, momenta exponentially close to the Fermi surface occur when $c \sim 1$. In this region, the imaginary part of the gap function, ${\rm Im}\, \phi(k) \sim g (c_0-c) \phi_0$, is [*down*]{} by $g$ relative to the real part, ${\rm Re}\, \phi(k) \sim \sin(\pi c/2 c_0) \phi_0$. Away from the Fermi surface, $\epsilon_k \sim \mu$, so $c \sim g $, and $\phi(k)$ is strongly damped, with the real and imaginary parts of comparable magnitude, $ {\rm Re}\, \phi(k) \sim {\rm Im}\, \phi(k) \sim g \phi_0$.
T. Holstein, R.E. Norton, and P. Pincus, Phys. Rev. B [**6**]{}, 2649 (1973).
J.O. Andersen, E. Braaten, and M. Strickland, hep-ph/9902327, hep-ph/9905337; J.-P. Blaizot, E. Iancu, and A. Rebhan, hep-ph/9906340.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We introduce smooth $L^{\infty}$ differential forms on a singular (semialgebraic) set $X$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Roughly speaking, a smooth $L^{\infty}$ differential form is a certain class of equivalence of ’stratified forms’, that is, a collection of smooth forms on disjoint smooth subsets (stratification) of $X$ with matching tangential components on the adjacent strata and bounded size (in the metric induced from ${\mathbb{R}}^n$).
We identify the singular homology of $X$ as the homology of the chain complex generated by semialgebraic singular simplices, i.e. continuous semialgebraic maps from the standard simplices into $X$. Singular cohomology of $X$ is defined as the homology of the Hom dual to the chain complex of the singular chains. Finally, we prove a De Rham type theorem establishing a natural isomorphism between the singular cohomology and the cohomology of smooth $L^{\infty}$ forms.
address:
- 'Instytut Matematyczny PAN, ul. Sw. Tomasaza 30, 31-027 Krakow, Poland'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, 40 St. George st, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 2E4 '
author:
- Leonid Shartser and Guillaume Valette
title: 'De Rham theorem for $L^\infty$ forms and homology on singular spaces.'
---
Introduction
============
In a recent paper J.-P Brasselet and M.J.Pflaum \[BPf\] proved a De Rham type theorem for Whitney functions. Namely, they showed that the cohomology of the complex of Whitney differential forms naturally coincides with the singular cohomology of a subanalytic set.
In the present work we study the cohomology of the cochain complex of the, so called, smooth $L^\infty$ forms (see Definition \[l\_infty\_class\]), which is intrinsically defined for the singular spaces in question.
The singular spaces considered in this paper are semialgebraic subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Let $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a semialgebraic set. A stratification of $X$ is a collection of smooth (semialgebraic) locally closed manifolds (strata) in $X$ such that the boundary of each stratum is a union of strata.
We introduce a version of De Rham theory for $L^{\infty}$ differential forms on $X$ for which we prove a De Rham type theorem. An $L^{\infty}$ differential form on $X$ is, roughly speaking, the data of a stratification $\Sigma$ of $X$ and a collection of smooth forms on the nonsingular strata such that the tangential components of the forms on the adjacent strata match and the size of the form is bounded (in the metric induced from ${\mathbb{R}}^n$). We consider two $L^\infty$ forms to be equivalent if there exists a stratification of $X$ on which the restrictions of the two forms coincide. The exterior derivative of such forms is defined by the exterior derivatives of their restrictions to strata. The $L^{\infty}$ forms with $L^{\infty}$ exterior derivatives form a cochain complex. The main theorem of this paper is a De Rham type theorem (Theorem \[De Rham\]). Namely, we prove that the map $$\omega \stackrel{\psi}{\mapsto} "c \mapsto \int_c \omega "\ ,$$ from the complex of $L^{\infty} $ forms to the space of semialgebraic singular cochains, is a natural map of chain complexes that induces an isomorphism on cohomology.\
All of the considered subsets and mappings will be assumed to be semialgebraic, except the differential forms which will be smooth on each stratum.\
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec\_main\_results\] we set the notations and define the objects of study. In Section \[sec\_stokes\] we prove the Stokes’ formula for $L^\infty$ forms, that is, we prove that $\psi$ is a chain-map. In Section \[sec\_de\_rham\] we prove Theorem \[De Rham\]. One of the key ingredients in the proof of De Rham Theorem is the $L^\infty$ version of Poincaré lemma, i.e. locally closed $L^\infty$ forms are exact. An essential tool in proving our Poincaré lemma is a Lipschitz strong deformation retraction that preserves a certain stratification. In Section \[sec\_retract\] we construct such deformation retractions. We prove that for any point $p\in X$ there exists a set $N\subset X$ that contains $p$ with $\dim N<\dim X$ and a Lipschitz strong deformation retraction to $N$ of a neighborhood $U$ of $N$ preserving a given stratification of $U$ (see Theorem \[retraction\]). In Section \[smoothing\] we prove the $L^\infty$ Poincaré Lemma.
**Acknowledgment.** We would like to thank Pierre Milman for raising the question, helpful discussions and important comments.
The Main Results {#sec_main_results}
================
We begin by introducing the basic notations and definitions. All of the considered subsets and mappings will be assumed to be semialgebraic unless explicitly specified otherwise except the differential forms which will be smooth on each stratum.
Suppose that $f:X\to Y$ is a map of topological spaces. We write $f(x)\to y$ as $x\to a$ to denote $\lim_{x\to a} f(x)=y$. Suppose that $S\subset X$. The graph of $f$ over $S$ is $$\Gamma_f(S):=\{(x,y)\in S\times Y : y=f(x) \}$$ Denote by ${\mathbb{G}}^k_n$ the Grassmaniann manifold of $k$ dimensional subspaces of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Suppose that $S\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$. The [**closure**]{} of $S$ is denoted by $\overline S$ and the [**topological boundary**]{} of $S$ is defined by ${\partial}_{T} S:=\overline S - \overline{({\mathbb{R}}^n-S)}$. If $S$ is a manifold then the [**boundary**]{} of $S$ is ${\partial}S:=\overline S - S$. Note that ${\partial}S$ is a subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ of dimension at most $\dim S - 1$ (not necessarily smooth).
A [**stratified**]{} space $(X,\Sigma)$ is a set $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ together with a partition (stratification) $\Sigma$ of $X$ into locally closed manifolds (strata) such that the boundary of each stratum is a union of strata in $\Sigma$. If $S$ and $S'$ are two strata in $\Sigma$ such that $S'\subset\partial S$ then we write $S'\leq S$. Denote by $\Sigma^k$ the collection of all strata in $\Sigma$ of dimension $k$, by $\Sigma^{(k)}$ the collection of all strata up to dimension $k$ and by $|\Sigma|$ the union of all strata in $\Sigma$. A [**refinement**]{} of $\Sigma$ is a stratification $\Sigma'$ such that each stratum of $\Sigma$ is a union of strata of $\Sigma'$. We then write $\Sigma'\prec\Sigma$. If $f:X\to Y$ is a map and $\Sigma$ is a stratification of $X$ then we write $f(\Sigma)$ to denote the collection of sets $\{f(S):S\in\Sigma\}$.
The [**tangent bundle**]{} of $(X,\Sigma)$ is $$TX:=\cup_{x\in X}\{x\}\times T_x X\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}^n,$$ with the subspace topology, where $T_x X:=T_x S$ , if $x\in S\in\Sigma$. Similarly, define the exterior product of the tangent bundle as $$\wedge^k TX:=\cup_{x\in X} \{x\}\times\wedge^k T_x X\subset \wedge^k(T{\mathbb{R}}^n) .$$
A [**stratified (resp. smooth) $k$-form**]{} on $X$ is a pair $(\omega,\Sigma)$, where $\Sigma$ is a stratification of $X$ and $\omega=(\omega_S)_{S \in\Sigma}$ where $\omega_S$ is a continuous (resp. smooth) differential $k$-form on $S\in\Sigma$, such that the graph of $\omega : \wedge^k TX \to {\mathbb{R}}$, $(x,\xi)\mapsto \omega(x;\xi)$ is closed in $\wedge^k TX\times{\mathbb{R}}$.
The [**exterior derivative**]{} of a smooth stratified form $(\omega,\Sigma)$ is defined as $(d\omega_S)_{S \in\Sigma}$ and denoted by $(d\omega,\Sigma)$.
The [**weak exterior derivative**]{} of a $k$-form $\omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a $(k+1)$-form $\overline d\omega$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that for any smooth $(n-k-1)$-form $\varphi$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, with compact support, we have $$\label{weak_ext_der}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \overline d \omega\wedge\varphi = (-1)^{k+1}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \omega\wedge d\varphi\ .$$
Suppose that $S$ is a manifold and $\omega$ is a $k$-form on $S$. A $(k+1)$-form $\overline d \omega$ on $S$ is called the weak exterior derivative of $\omega$ if for every $p\in S$ there exists an open neighborhood $U$ of $p$ and a diffeomorphism $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to U$ such that (\[weak\_ext\_der\]) holds with $\omega$ replaced by $\phi^*\omega$ and $\overline d\omega$ replaced by $\phi^*\overline d \omega$.
The weak exterior derivative of a stratified form $(\omega,\Sigma)$ is defined as $(\overline d\omega_S)_{S \in\Sigma}$ and denoted by $(\overline d\omega,\Sigma)$.
When there is no confusion possible, we write $\omega$, $d\omega$ and $\overline d\omega$ instead of $(\omega,\Sigma)$, $(d\omega,\Sigma)$ and $(\overline d \omega,\Sigma)$.
If $(\omega,\Sigma)$ is a stratified form then a refinement $\Sigma'\prec\Sigma$ induces a stratified form $(\omega,\Sigma')$ in a canonical way.
Furthermore, given a stratified $k$-form $(\omega,\Sigma)$ on $X$, we say that $\omega$ is [**bounded**]{} if $|\omega_{S}|\leq
C$ for all $S\in\Sigma$ and some positive constant $C$, where the norm $|\cdot|$ is induced from ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. The set of all stratified and bounded $k$-forms on $X$ with stratified exterior derivatives is denoted by $\widetilde \Omega^k(X)$.
Let $V$ be a vector space, $v_i$, $i=1,\dots ,m$ be some elements of $V$ and $I=(i_1,\dots,i_k)$ be a multi-index. We denote by $v_I$ the element $v_{i_1}\wedge\dots\wedge v_{i_k}\in \wedge^k(V)$. Sometimes we will use superscripts instead of subscripts.
Bounded stratified forms have the following continuity property.
\[cont\_property\] If $\omega=(\omega,\Sigma)$ is a stratified and bounded $k$-form then for any pair $(S,S')\in\Sigma\times\Sigma$ with $S'\leq S$, any sequence of points $p_{n}\in S $ with $\lim_{n\to\infty} p_{n}=p\in S'$ and any sequence of multivectors $\xi_{n}\in \wedge^k T_{p_{n}} S$ with $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\xi_{n}=\xi \in {\wedge}^k T_{p} S'$$ we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \omega(p_n;\xi_{n})= \omega(p;\xi).$$
Since $\omega$ is bounded there exists a subsequence $(p_{n_j},\xi_{n_j})$ and a real number $a$ such that $$\lim_{j\to\infty} \omega(p_{n_j};\xi_{n_j})= a.$$ But since the graph of $\omega$ is closed, it follows that $a=\omega(p,\xi)$.
\[wedge\_product\] Suppose that $(X,\Sigma)$ is a stratified set in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $(\alpha,\Sigma)$ and $(\beta,\Sigma)$ are smooth and bounded stratified forms of degree $k$ and $l$ respectively. Then $\alpha\wedge\beta$ is a smooth and bounded stratified form of degree $k+l$.
First let us recall that if $S$ is a smooth manifold, $v_1,\dots,v_{k+l}$ are some vectors in $T_x{S}$, $\alpha\in \Omega^{k}(S)$ and $\beta\in \Omega^{l}(S)$ then we have the following representation formula $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wedge_rep_form}
&&\\ \nonumber
(\alpha\wedge\beta)(x;v) =
\sum_{\sigma} sgn(\sigma) \alpha(x;v_{\sigma(1)}\wedge\dots\wedge v_{\sigma(k)})
\beta(x; v_{\sigma(k+1)}\wedge\dots\wedge v_{\sigma(l+k)})\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma$ varies over all permutations of $\{1,\dots,k+l\}$, $sgn(\sigma)$ is $1$ if $\sigma$ is even and $(-1)$ if $\sigma$ is odd and $v=v_1\wedge\dots\wedge v_{k+l}$. It follows from (\[wedge\_rep\_form\]) that there exists an universal constant $C > 0$ such that $$|\alpha\wedge\beta|\leq C|\alpha||\beta| .$$ Next we show that the graph of $\alpha\wedge\beta$ is closed. Observe that if $\xi_1\wedge\dots\wedge\xi_m\in \wedge^{m}(T_x X)$ is of size $1$, then there exists an orthonormal set $\{v_1,\dots,v_m \}$ in $T_x X$ such that $\xi_1\wedge\dots\wedge\xi_m=v_1\wedge\dots\wedge v_m$.
Let $S$ and $S'$ be two strata of $\Sigma$ such that $S'\leq S$. Suppose that $(x_m;\xi_m)\in \wedge^{k+l}(TS)$ is a sequence that tends to $(x;\xi)\in \wedge^{k+l}(TS')$. We have to show that if $(\alpha\wedge\beta)(x_m;\xi_m)$ is convergent then the limit is $(\alpha\wedge\beta)(x;\xi)$.
First assume that $\xi_m=A_m\xi^1_m\wedge\dots\wedge\xi^{k+l}_m$. We may assume, by the observation above, that $\{ \xi^j_m: j=1,\dots,k+l\}$ is an orthonormal set for each $m\in{\mathbb{N}}$. There exists an increasing sequence of natural numbers $m_t$, $t\in {\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\xi^j_{m_t}\to \xi^j$ and $A_{m_t}\to A$ as $t\to\infty$ for $j=1,\dots,k+l$. By uniqueness of the limit we clearly have $\xi=A\xi^1\wedge\dots\wedge\xi^{k+l}$. We may assume without loss of generality that $m_t=t$. Using formula (\[wedge\_rep\_form\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(\alpha\wedge\beta)(x_m;\xi_m) &=&
A_m\sum_{\sigma} sgn(\sigma) \alpha(x_m;\xi_m^{\sigma(1)}\wedge\dots\wedge\xi_m^{\sigma(k)})
\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\beta(x_m;\xi_m^{\sigma(k+1)}\wedge\dots\wedge\xi_m^{\sigma(l+k)}).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By letting $m\to\infty$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{m\to\infty}(\alpha\wedge\beta)(x_m;\xi_m) &=&
A\sum_{\sigma} sgn(\sigma) \alpha(x;\xi^{\sigma(1)}\wedge\dots\wedge\xi^{\sigma(k)})
\times\nonumber\\
&\times&\beta(x;\xi^{\sigma(k+1)}\wedge\dots\wedge\xi^{\sigma(l+k)})
\\&=&
(\alpha\wedge\beta)(x;\xi).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For the general case, suppose that $\xi_m=\sum_I a^I_m \xi^I_m $ with $\{\xi^i_m: i=1,\dots,\dim T_{x_m} X) \}$ an orthonormal set for all $m\in {\mathbb{N}}$. By choosing a subsequence, similarly to the argument above, we may assume that $a^I_m\to a^I$ and $\xi^I_m\to\xi^I$ as $m\to\infty$ for each $I=(i_1,\dots,i_{k+l})$. Thus we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{m\to\infty}(\alpha\wedge\beta)(x_m;\xi_m)
&=&
\lim_{m\to\infty} \sum_I a_m^I (\alpha\wedge\beta)(x_m;\xi^I_m)
\nonumber \\ &=&
\sum_I a^I (\alpha\wedge\beta)(x;\xi^I)
\\&=& (\alpha\wedge\beta)(x;\xi) .
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\[semi\_diff\_strat\] Let $(X,\Sigma)$ and $(Y,\Sigma')$ be two stratified sets in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. A continuous map $h: X \to Y$ is [**semi-differentiable**]{} (see \[MT\]) if
1. For any $S\in \Sigma$ there is a stratum $S'\in\Sigma'$ such that $h$ maps $S$ into $S'$ in a smooth way.
2. The differentials $dh_i$, $i=1,\dots,n$ of the components of $h$ are smooth stratified forms on $(X,\Sigma)$.
Semi-differentiability implies Lipschitzness with respect to the inner metric.
In the following proposition we prove that composition of semi-differential maps is a semi-differential map.
\[comp\_semi\_diff\] Suppose that $(X,\Sigma_X), (Y,\Sigma_Y)$ and $(Z,\Sigma_Z)$ are stratified subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Let $f:X\to Y$ be a semi-differentiable map with respect to $\Sigma_X$ and $g:Y\to Z$ be a semi-differentiable map with respect to $\Sigma_Y$. Then, the composition $g\circ f:X\to Z$ is semi-differentiable with respect to $\Sigma_X$ and $\Sigma_Z$.
The verification of the first part of Definition \[semi\_diff\_strat\] is obvious, so we go directly to the proof of the second part.
Suppose that $S'\leq S$ are two strata in $\Sigma_X$. Let $(x_n;\xi_n)\in T_{x_n} S$ be a sequence converging to $(x;\xi)\in T_{x} S'$. Note that by the chain rule we have $$d(g\circ f)(x_n;\xi_n) = dg (f(x_n);df(x_n;\xi_n)).$$ Since $f$ is semi-differentiable $(f(x_n);df(x_n;\xi_n))$ converges to $(f(x),df(x;\xi))$ and since $g$ is semi-differentiable, it follows that $(g(f(x_n)); dg (f(x_n);df(x_n;\xi_n)))$ converges to $(g(f(x)),dg(f(x);df(x;\xi)))$.
$\mathcal L^\infty$ Category
----------------------------
We introduce here the category ’$\mathcal L ^\infty$’ in which we work. The objects of $\mathcal L ^\infty$ are sets. A morphism, or an $L^\infty$ map, between two objects $X$ and $Y$ is a map $f : X \to Y$ such that there exists a stratification $\Sigma_X$ of $X$ and a stratification $\Sigma_Y$ of $Y$ with respect to which $f$ is a semi-differentiable map. It follows from Lemma \[comp\_semi\_diff\] that composition of morphisms is a morphism. Now it is clear that the latter indeed defines a category.\
\[lip\_infty\] Let $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $Y\subset{\mathbb{R}}^m$ then the map $f:X\to Y$ is Lipschitz if and only if $f$ is an $L^\infty$ morphism.
The proof of this proposition is in Section 4.
Now we can define the notion of an $L^\infty$ form that fits well into the setting of $\mathcal L ^\infty$ category.
\[l\_infty\_class\] Let $X$ be a set and define an equivalence relation on $\widetilde \Omega^k(X)$ $$(\omega,\Sigma) \approx (\omega',\Sigma')$$ if there exists a stratification $\Sigma''$ that refines both $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ such that $(\omega|_{\Sigma''},\Sigma'')=(\omega'|_{\Sigma''},\Sigma'')$. Denote by $\Omega_\infty^k (X) $ the classes of equivalence of $'\approx'$. An element of $\Omega_\infty^k (X)$ is called an [**$\bf L^\infty$ form**]{}.
The exterior algebra structure is defined on $\Omega^{\bullet}_\infty (X):=\cup_k \Omega_\infty^k(X)$ in a natural way. The sum of two $L^\infty$ forms $\omega$ and $\omega'$ is an $L^\infty$ form $\omega''$ that can be constructed as follows. If $(\omega,\Sigma)$ and $(\omega,\Sigma')$ represent $\omega$ and $\omega'$ then $(\omega+\omega',\Sigma'')$ represents $\omega''$ where $\Sigma''$ is any stratification refining both $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$. The exterior product is defined in a similar fashion.
Pull backs of $L^\infty$ forms {#pull-backs-of-linfty-forms .unnumbered}
------------------------------
\[prop\_pull\_back\] Let $f: X \to Y$ be an $L^\infty$ map and $\omega\in\Omega^k_\infty(Y)$. For any stratification $\Sigma_X$ of $X$ and $\Sigma_Y$ of $Y$ for which $f$ is semi-differentiable and $(\omega,\Sigma_Y)$ is a stratified form, the form defined by $f|_S^* \omega$ on each $S\in\Sigma_X$ defines a unique $L^\infty$ form which is called [**the pullback of $\omega$**]{} by $f$ and denoted by $f^*\omega$.
We have to show that $f^*\omega$ is well defined and $f^*\omega$ is an $L^\infty$ form. Let $\Sigma_X$ and $\Sigma_Y$ be stratifications of $X$ and $Y$ respectively such that\
(\*) $f$ is semi-differentiable with respect to $\Sigma_X$ and $\Sigma_Y$ and $(\omega,\Sigma_Y)$ is a stratified form.\
We have to show that the graph of $f^*\omega$ is closed and the class of $\eta:=(f^*\omega,\Sigma_X)$ is independent of the choices of $\Sigma_X$ and $\Sigma_Y$. First we show that the graph of $f^*\omega$ is closed. Suppose that $X\subset {\mathbb{R}}^l$ and $Y\subset {\mathbb{R}}^m$. Let $S'\leq S$ be two strata in $\Sigma_X$ and $(x_n;\xi_n)\in \wedge^k(TS)$ be a sequence converging to $(x;\xi)\in\wedge^k(TS')$. Suppose that $f|_S^*\omega(x_n;\xi_n)$ is convergent. We may assume, by possibly choosing a subsequence, that $(f(x_n),df|_S(x_n;\xi_n)\to (f(x),\xi)$. Since $f$ is semi-differentiable, it follows that $f|_S^*\omega(x_n;\xi_n)\to f|_{S'}^*\omega(x;\xi)$ as . To see that $f^*\omega$ is independent of the chosen stratifications, let $\Sigma'_X$ and $\Sigma'_Y$ be another stratifications of $X$ and $Y$ satisfying (\*) and denote by $\eta':=(f^*\omega,\Sigma'_X)$ the form obtained from $f|_S^*\omega$ for any $S\in \Sigma'_X$. Let $\Sigma''_X$ be a common refinement of $\Sigma_X$ and $\Sigma'_X$, and let $\Sigma''_Y$ be a common refinement of $\Sigma_Y$ and $\Sigma'_Y$. Let $\eta'':=(f^*\omega,\Sigma''_X)$ then clearly $\eta\approx\eta''\approx\eta'$.
Integration of $L^\infty$ forms {#integration-of-linfty-forms .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
[$\ $]{}$\ $\
Let $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^k$ be $k$-dimensional oriented compact semialgebraic sub-manifold with corners of ${\mathbb{R}}^k$, where $k\leq n$ and the orientation of $A$ is induced by the standard orientation of ${\mathbb{R}}^k$. Let $\sigma:A\to X$ be a map. We want to define the integral of an $L^\infty$ $k$-form $\omega$ over $\sigma$. Let $\Sigma_X$ and $\Sigma_A$ be stratifications of $X$ and $A$ respectively such that $(\sigma^*\omega,\Sigma_A)$ is a stratified form. The integral of $\omega$ over $\sigma$ is defined by $$\label{def_int}
\int_\sigma \omega := \sum_{S\in\Sigma_A^k} \int_S \sigma_S^*\omega\ .$$
Let $X$, $\omega$, $A$ and $\sigma$ be as in the above paragraph then the integral of $\omega$ over $\sigma$, as defined in (\[def\_int\]), is well defined i.e. independent of the stratifications.
It is enough to prove that for any $\Sigma'_A\prec\Sigma_A$ $$\sum_{S'\in\Sigma'^k_A} \int_{S'} \sigma_{S'}^*\omega = \sum_{S\in\Sigma_{A}^k} \int_{S} \sigma_S^*\omega\ ,$$ since if $\Sigma''_A$ is a different stratification then set $\Sigma'_A$ to be a common refinement of $\Sigma_A$ and $\Sigma''_A$. For any $k$-stratum $S\in\Sigma^k_A$ we can find $S'_1,...,S'_l\in \Sigma'^k_{A}$ such that $\bar S = \overline {\cup_j S'_j}$. The set $\bar S \setminus \cup_j S'_j$ is a semialgebraic set of dimension smaller than $k$ and therefore of Hausdorff $k$ dimensional measure $0$. Hence $$\sum_{j=1}^l \int_{S'_j} \sigma_{S'_j}^*\omega = \int_{S} \sigma_S^*\omega\ .$$
Integration over Chains {#integration-over-chains .unnumbered}
-----------------------
Let $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$. Define $C_k(X)$ to be the chain complex generated by semialgebraic continuous singular simplices, or simply singular simplices, $\sigma:\Delta^k\to X$, where $\Delta^k$ is the standard $k$ simplex in ${\mathbb{R}}^k$. Set $C^k(X):=\text{Hom}(C_k(X),{\mathbb{R}})$ to be the complex of cochains with differential $d:=\partial^*$.
Let $c=\sum_{j=1}^L a_j\sigma_j \in C_k(X)$, where $\sigma_j$ is a singular simplex, $a_j\in{\mathbb{R}}$ for $j=1,\dots,L$ and $\omega\in\Omega^k_\infty(X)$. Define the integral of $\omega$ over the chain $c$ by $$\int_c \omega := \sum_{j=1}^L a_j\int_{\sigma_j} \omega\ .$$
The De Rham Theorem {#the-de-rham-theorem .unnumbered}
-------------------
Let $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ . Define $H ^k (X)$ to be the cohomology of $C^k(X)$ and $H_\infty^k(X)$ to be the cohomology of $\Omega^k_\infty(X)$.
Semialgebraic homology was studied by many authors (see \[K\] for a list of references). In 1981 Hans Delfs \[D\] proved that semialgebraic homology is isomorphic to simplicial homology of a semialgebraic set over a real closed field. In 1996 Woerheide \[Wo\] showed that homology theory of singular definable simplices in a o-minimal structure satisfies Eilnberg-Steenrod axioms and therefore coincides with the standard singular homology theory. Complete proofs of comparison theorems for o-minimal homology (in particular for semialgebraic sets over ${\mathbb{R}}$ ) can be found in a recent paper by Edmundo and Wortheide \[EWo\].
The main result of this article is
\[De Rham\] (De Rham) Let $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a compact set then the map $$\psi : \Omega^k_\infty(X)\to C^k(X),\ \ \ \psi(\omega)c := \int_c \omega$$ induces an isomorphism on cohomology.
Stokes’ Theorem {#sec_stokes}
===============
Stokes’ formula for singular spaces was previously considered in the literature, see for example, \[L\] and \[Paw\]. In \[L\] Stokes’ formula was considered for bounded subanalytic forms. In \[Paw\] Stokes’ formula is proven for subanalytic leaves. In this section we give an alternative proof of Stokes’ formula for semialgebraic chains.
First we recall the definition of a cylindrical cell decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and prove some basic but useful facts from semialgebraic geometry.
\[ccd\] We define a [**cell of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$**]{} by induction on $n$. For $n=1$ a cell is either a point or an open interval. For $n>1$, a cell in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is either a graph of a smooth function over a cell in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ or a band, a set delimited by graphs of two smooth functions over a cell in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$, i.e. where $C'$ is a cell in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$. A finite collection ${\mathcal{C}}$ of disjoint cells of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is called [**cylindrical cell decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$**]{} if the union of all cells in ${\mathcal{C}}$ covers ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
A [**refinement**]{} of a collection of cells ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a collection of cells ${\mathcal{C}}'$ such that every cell in ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a union of cells in ${\mathcal{C}}'$. We write ${\mathcal{C}}'\prec{\mathcal{C}}$.
We say that a collection ${\mathcal{C}}$ of cells of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is compatible with a set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ if every cell that intersects $A$ is contained in $A$.
We will need the following definition for the next lemma.
Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a collection of cells in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. We say that ${\mathcal{A}}$ satisfies the [**frontier condition**]{} if the boundary of each cell is a union of cells in ${\mathcal{A}}$.
\[str\_front\] Let $A_1,\dots,A_l\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be compact sets. There exists cylindrical cell decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ compatible with $A_1,\dots,A_l$ that satisfies the frontier condition.
The proof is by induction on $n$. For $n=1$ the sets $A_1,\dots,A_l$ are points and intervals so we can clearly find a decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}$ into a union of points and open intervals that is compatible with the sets $A_i$.
Suppose that $n>1$. For the proof of this step we need to introduce a notation. Suppose that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a collection of cells in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ and $\Xi$ is a collection of smooth and bounded functions $\xi_{C,j}:C\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $C\in{\mathcal{A}}$, $j=1,\dots,m_{C}$. Denote by $GB_{\Xi}({\mathcal{A}})$ the collection of cells in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ that is obtained by taking graphs and bands of the functions in $\Xi$. We will prove the following\
[**Claim:** ]{} Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a collection of cells in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ that satisfies the frontier condition and $\Xi$ be a collection of smooth functions $\xi_{C,j}:C\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $C\in{\mathcal{A}}$, $j=1,\dots,m_{C}$ such that $GB_{\Xi}({\mathcal{A}})$ is compatible with the sets $A_1,\dots,A_l$. Then, there exists a refinement $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}\prec{\mathcal{A}}$ and a collection of functions $\tilde\Xi$ of functions defined over the cells of $\tilde A$ such that $GB_{\tilde \Xi}(\tilde{\mathcal{A}})$ refines $GB_{\Xi}({\mathcal{A}})$, satisfies the frontier condition and is compatible with the sets $A_1,\dots,A_l$.
Before we prove the claim let us show that it implies the step of the induction. Let $\pi_n:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ be the projection to the first $n-1$ coordinates. Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a cylindrical cell decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ compatible with $A_1,\dots,A_l$. Set ${\mathcal{C}}':=\pi_n({\mathcal{C}})$. By induction hypothesis there exists a refining cell decomposition ${\mathcal{A}}\prec{\mathcal{C}}'$ that satisfies the frontier condition. Let $\Xi'$ be the collection of all functions defined over the cells of ${\mathcal{C}}'$ such that $GB_{\Xi'}({\mathcal{C}}')={\mathcal{C}}$. Set $\Xi$ to be the collection of functions that is obtained by restricting the functions in $\Xi'$ to the cells of ${\mathcal{A}}$. It follows from the claim that there exists a refinement $\tilde {\mathcal{A}}\prec {\mathcal{A}}$ and a collection of functions $\tilde \Xi$ such that ${\mathcal{B}}:=GB_{\tilde \Xi}(\tilde {\mathcal{A}})\prec {\mathcal{C}}$ satisfies the frontier condition and is compatible with $A_1,\dots,A_l$. Therefore, ${\mathcal{B}}$ is the desired cell decomposition.
To complete the lemma we prove the claim. The proof of the claim is by induction on $k=\max \dim \{C: C\in {\mathcal{A}}\}$. If $k=0$ then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is a finite collection of points and therefore the functions in $\Xi$ are constant functions. Set $\tilde {\mathcal{A}}:={\mathcal{A}}$ and $\tilde \Xi:=\Xi$.
Suppose that $k>0$. Set $${\mathcal{A}}_1 = {\mathcal{A}}-\{\text{cells of ${\mathcal{A}}$ of dimension $k$}\}$$ Let $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_1$ be a cell decomposition of $\pi_n^{-1}(|{\mathcal{A}}_1|)$ that is compatible with ${\partial}\Gamma_{\xi_C,j}$, $C\in {\mathcal{A}}$, $\xi_{C,j}\in \Xi$ ,$j=1,\dots,m_{C}$. Let $\hat {\mathcal{A}}_1'$ be the cells of $\hat {\mathcal{A}}_1$ that are contained in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$. Note that $\hat {\mathcal{A}}_1'\prec {\mathcal{A}}_1$. We may assume that $\hat {\mathcal{A}}_1'$ satisfies the frontier condition, since if not, by induction hypothesis of the lemma, we may find a refinement of $\hat {\mathcal{A}}_1'$ that satisfies the frontier condition. Set $\Xi'_1$ to be a collection of functions defined over the cells of $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_1'$ such that $GB_{\Xi'_1}(\hat{\mathcal{A}}_1')=\hat {\mathcal{A}}_1$. Since $\max \dim \{C\in\hat{\mathcal{A}}_1'\} < k$ we may apply the induction hypothesis of the claim to $\hat{\mathcal{A}}_1'$ and $\Xi_1'$ to obtain a refinement ${\mathcal{B}}\prec \hat{\mathcal{A}}_1'$ and a collection of functions $\Xi_{{\mathcal{B}}}$ such that $GB_{\Xi_{{\mathcal{B}}}}({\mathcal{B}})$ satisfies the frontier condition and compatible with $A_1,\dots,A_l$. Now, let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the collection of cells in ${\mathcal{A}}$ of dimension $k$ and set $\Xi_{{\mathcal{C}}}$ to be the subset of $\Xi$ consisting of all the functions that are defined over the cells in ${\mathcal{C}}$. Set $\tilde {\mathcal{A}}:= {\mathcal{B}}\cup{\mathcal{C}}$ and $\tilde \Xi:=\Xi_{{\mathcal{C}}}\cup\Xi_{{\mathcal{B}}}$.
Let us check that $\mathcal D:=GB_{\tilde \Xi}(\tilde {\mathcal{A}})$ satisfies the frontier condition. First suppose that $D$ is a graph or band over a cell $D'\in {\mathcal{B}}$. In this case $D\in GB_{\Xi_{{\mathcal{B}}}}({\mathcal{B}})$ so it satisfies the frontier condition by construction. Now suppose that $D$ is a graph or a band over a cell $D'\in {\mathcal{C}}$.\
[**case I: $D=\Gamma_{\xi_{D'}}$.**]{} In this case $\xi_{D'}\in\Xi_{{\mathcal{C}}}$ and ${\partial}D={\partial}\Gamma_{\xi_{D'}}$. Recall that $GB_{\Xi_{{\mathcal{B}}}}{({\mathcal{B}})}$ is compatible with ${\partial}\Gamma_{\xi_{D'}}$. In particular, ${\partial}D$ is contained in a union of cells of $GB_{\Xi_{{\mathcal{B}}}}({\mathcal{B}})$.\
[**case II:**]{} $D$ is a band delimited by graphs of two functions $\xi_1 < \xi_2$. In this case $\xi_1,\xi_2 \in\Xi_{{\mathcal{C}}}$ and $${\partial}D=\Gamma_{\xi_1}(D')\cup\Gamma_{\xi_1}(D')\cup R,$$ where $R$ is a set that projects into ${\partial}D'$. Now, since cells in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$ satisfy the frontier condition, there exist cells $D_1,\dots,D_p$ such that ${\partial}D'=\cup_{j=1}^{p} D_j$. As in case I, $GB_{\Xi_{{\mathcal{B}}}}({\mathcal{B}})$ is compatible with ${\partial}\Gamma_{\xi_i}$ for $i=1,2$ and therefore, the set $R$ is given by graphs and bands of some functions in $\Xi_B$ that are defined over the cells $D_1,\dots,D_p$.
\[str\_to\_str\] Let $X,Y\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be compact subsets with stratifications $\Sigma_X$ and $\Sigma_Y$, $f:X\to Y$ a map. There exist refining stratifications $\Sigma'_X$ and $\Sigma'_Y$, that are cell decompositions, such that $f(S)\in\Sigma'_Y$ for any $S\in \Sigma'_X$ and moreover, if $\dim f(S)=\dim S$ then $f|_S$ is a diffeomorphism.
Let $Gr:=\{(f(x),x):x\in\ X\}\subset Y\times X$. By Lemma \[str\_front\], there exists cylindrical cell decomposition ${\mathcal{C}}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{2n}$ that is compatible with $Gr$ and $Y\times X$, refines $\Sigma_Y\times\Sigma_X$ and satisfies the frontier condition. Define $\Sigma'_X$ to be the union of projections of all the the cells in $Gr$ to $X$ and similarly, $\Sigma'_Y$ to be the union of projections of all the cells in $Y\times X$ to $Y$. Note that $\Sigma'_Y$ is a stratification since by definition of cell decompositions cells in $Y\times X$ project to cells in $Y$. Clearly $f(x)=\pi_Y\circ i_{Gr}(x)$ where $i_{Gr}(x)=(f(x),x)$ and therefore $f$ maps cells to cells.
Suppose that $\dim f(S)=\dim S$ for $S\in\Sigma'_X$. Suppose that the cell $C_l:=\{(f(x),x):x \in S\}\subset Gr$ was obtained inductively as follows. The first cell $C_1$ is a cell in $Y$ and $C_j$ is a graph or a band over the cell $C_{j-1}$. Clearly, $$f(S)=\pi_Y(\{(f(x),x):x \in S\}) = C_1 .$$ It follows that $\dim C_1=\dim C_l$ and therefore each $C_j$, $j=1,\dots,l$ is a graph. In particular $\pi_Y$ restricted to $C_l$ is a one to one map and therefore $f|_S$ is a diffeomorphism.
The following Lemma is a version of the well known Wing Lemma (cf. \[BCR\] Theorem 9.7.10, \[Paw\] Theorem 1.1 and \[Wa\] Proposition on page 342).
\[wing\] Let $X\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a locally closed manifold of dimension $k$. There exists a set $B\subset \overline X$, $\dim B<k-2$ such that every point $p\in {\partial}X-B$ has a neighborhood $W\subset \overline X$ that is a union of finitely many manifolds $W_1,\dots,W_m$ with a common boundary $W\cap {\partial}X$. Moreover, if $X$ is a cell then $m=1$.
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a cell decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ that is compatible with $\overline X$. Let $S\in {\mathcal{C}}$, $S\subset X$, $\dim S = k$ and $\overline S \cap {\partial}X\neq \emptyset$. We claim that there exists a set $B\subset {\partial}X$, $\dim B<k-2$ such that every point $p\in {\partial}S-B$ has a neighborhood $U\subset \overline S$ that is a manifold with boundary $U\cap{\partial}S$. Before we prove this claim let us show that the lemma follows from it. Indeed, for each point $p\in {\partial}X-B$ there exist a cell $S'$ of dimension $(k-1)$ and cells $S_1,\dots,S_m$ of dimension $k$ such that $S'\leq S_j$ for all $j=1,\dots,m$ and $\cup_{j=1}^m \overline S_j$ contains an open neighborhood of $p$ in $\overline X$. Take $W_j\subset \overline S_j$ to be an open set such that $W_j$ is a manifold with boundary $W_j\cap{\partial}S_j$ for $j=1,\dots,m$. Set $W:=\cup_{j=1}^m W_j$.
Next, we prove the claim. Let $G:S\to {\mathbb{G}}_{n}^{k}$ be the Gauss map, $x\mapsto T_x S$. Let $\Gamma:=\Gamma_G(S)$ be the graph of $G$. Since $S$ is semialgebraic, $\dim {\partial}\Gamma< \dim \Gamma=k$. Therefore, the set $E:={\partial}\Gamma \cap ({\partial}S \times {\mathbb{G}}_n^{k})$ is of dimension at most $k-1$. Let $\pi :{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{G}}_n^{k}\to {\mathbb{R}}^n $ be the standard projection. Note that $\pi(E)\subset {\partial}S$ and hence we have $\pi|_E:E \to {\partial}S$. Thus we conclude that there exists a set $B'\subset {\partial}S$ such that any fiber of $\pi$ over ${\partial}S - B'$ must be a connected set of dimension $0$ and therefore must be a point. It follows that the Gauss map can be uniquely extended to a continuous map in a neighborhood of any point $p\in {\partial}S - B'$. We will keep denoting the extension of the Gauss map by $G$. Let $G':{\partial}S - B'\to {\mathbb{G}}^{k}_n$, $G'(p):=G|_{{\partial}S - B'}=\lim_{q\to p}G(q)$. The map $G'$ is a continuous semialgebraic map and hence ${\partial}S - B'$ can be stratified so that $G'$ is smooth on every stratum. Let $B''\subset{\partial}S - B'$ be the union of all the strata of dimension smaller than $k-1$. Clearly, $G'$ is smooth on ${\partial}S - (B'\cup B'')$.
Let $\Sigma$ be a Whitney (a) stratification of $\overline S$ and set $B:=B'\cup B''\cup |\Sigma^{(k-2)}\cap{\partial}S|$. Let $p\in{\partial}S - B$. In particular $p$ belongs to some stratum $S'\in\Sigma$ of dimension $(k-1)$. We will show that $\overline S$ is a manifold with boundary near $p$. Set $L_q:=T_q S'$. By Whitney (a) condition we have $L_q \subset G(q)$. Since $G$ is continuous we may pick a small enough ball $U_0:=B(p,{\varepsilon})\cap\overline S$ such that the Grassmanian distance between $G(q)$ and $G(p)$, $q\in U_0$, is so small that there exists an orthogonal projection $\pi_{G(p)}:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to G(p)$ such that $\pi_{G(p)}|_{G(q) }$ is one to one for every $q\in U_0$. Similarly, by possibly shrinking $U_0$, we may assume that there exists an orthogonal projection $\pi_{L_p}:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to L_p$ such that $\pi_{L_p}|_{L_q }$ is one to one for every $q\in U'_0:=U_0\cap S'$. In other words, the neighborhood $U_0$ is chosen to be so small that the tangent spaces at points of $U_0$ are nearly parallel to $G(p)$ and the tangent spaces to $U_0\cap S'$ are nearly parallel to $L_p$.
Let $n_q\in L{_q}^{\perp}\subset G(q)$ be a unit normal vector pointing inside $S$. Note that since the spaces $G'(q)$ and $L_q$ vary smoothly for $q\in U'_0$ it follows that $q\mapsto n_q$ is a smooth map. Now we construct a diffeomorphism from $\gamma:U'_0\times[0,{\varepsilon})\to \overline S$ for some small ${\varepsilon}>0$. For each point $q\in U'_0$ consider an affine space $\tilde L_q$ centered at $q$ and parallel to $L_q$. Let $\pi_{\tilde L_q}:{\mathbb{R}}^n \to \tilde L_q$ be an orthogonal projection. The fiber $\pi_{\tilde L_q}^{-1}(q)\cap S$ is an arc that can be arc-length parametrized by $\gamma(q,t)$ with $\gamma(q,0)=q$. Set $\gamma_{q,s}$ to be the set $\{\gamma(q,t):0\leq t\leq s\}$. Choose ${\varepsilon}$ to be small enough so that $\gamma_{q,{\varepsilon}}$ are disjoint for $q\in U'_0$. To see that $\gamma$ is smooth note that $\gamma$ has expansion $$\gamma(q,t) = q+n_qt + \dots$$
\[StokesThm\](Stokes’ formula) Let $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a compact set, $\sigma$ be a singular $k$-simplex and $\omega$ be an $L^\infty$ $(k-1)$-form on $X$. Then $$\label{stks}
\int_{\sigma}d\omega=\int_{{\partial}\sigma}\omega\ .$$
Suppose that $(\omega,\Sigma'_X)$ is a stratified form. Let $\Sigma_\Delta$ and $\Sigma_X\prec\Sigma'_X$ be stratifications of $\Delta$ and $X$ given by Lemma \[str\_to\_str\] for the map $\sigma$. It is enough to prove that $$\int_{S}d\omega=\int_{{\partial}S}\omega \ ,$$ where $S=\sigma(S')\in\Sigma_X$, with $S'\in\Sigma_\Delta$, $\dim S' = k$, such that $\sigma|_{S'}$ a diffeomorphism onto $S$. Note that $S'$ is an orientable manifold since it is a cell. Fix such $S$ and set $$S_{\varepsilon}:=\{x\in S: d(x,\overline {S} - S)\geq{\varepsilon}\}\ ,$$ where $d(.,.)$ denotes the Euclidean metric. Note that $S_{\varepsilon}$ is a smooth manifold with boundary and $\omega$ is a smooth form on it, so by the classical Stokes’ formula $$\int_{S_{\varepsilon}}d\omega = \int_{{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}}\omega\ .$$ Therefore, to prove (\[stks\]), we only have to show that $$\label{eq_1}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \int_{S_{\varepsilon}}d\omega = \int_{S}d\omega$$ and $$\label{eq_2}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \int_{{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}}\omega=\int_{{\partial}S}\omega \ .$$ Equality (\[eq\_1\]) is clear since $d\omega$ is integrable on $S$ (because $d\omega$ is bounded) and $\mu_k(S -S_{\varepsilon})\to 0$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$, where $\mu_k(\cdot)$ denotes the $k$-dimensional Hausdorff measure. To prove equality (\[eq\_2\]), let $\delta\in{\mathbb{R}}_+$ and suppose that $B\subset{\partial}S$, $\dim B < k-1$, is given by Lemma \[wing\]. Set $$A_\delta:=\{x\in{\partial}S : d(x,\Sigma_X^{(k-2)}\cup B)\geq\delta \}\ ,$$ and $$B_\delta:=\{x\in S : d(x,B\cup\Sigma_X^{(k-2)}\cap {\partial}S)\leq\delta \}\ .$$ Note that $A_\frac{\delta}{2}$ is a smooth manifold with boundary and for every interior (in $A_\frac{\delta}{2}$) point $p\in A_\frac{\delta}{2}$ there exist open neighborhoods $\tilde U_p\subset \overline S$ and $U_p\subset A_\frac{\delta}{2}$ such the set $\tilde U_p$ is manifold with boundary $U_p$. Let $\phi^p: D\times[0,{\varepsilon}_p)\to \tilde U_p$, $D\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{k-1}$ an open subset, ${\varepsilon}_p>0$, be a smooth parametrization of $\tilde U_p$ such that $\phi^p|_{D\times\{0\}}$ is a parametrization of $U_p$. To simplify the notations we write $\phi(.,.)$ instead of $\phi^p(.,.)$ when $p$ is clear from the context. We may assume, by possibly shrinking $U_p$, that $D$ is a unit ball. We may also assume that the curves $t\mapsto \phi(x,t)$ with $x\in D$ fixed, are arc length parametrized. Since otherwise, we may consider a change of coordinates $(x,t)\mapsto(x,t')$ given by $$t:=\int_0^{t'} |\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}\phi(x,s)|ds .$$
Observe that since the curves $t\mapsto \phi(x,t)$ are arc length parametrized we have ${\partial}S_t \cap \tilde U_p = \{\phi(x,t): q\in D\}$. In particular it follows that for all $t\in[0,{\varepsilon}_p)$ the map $\phi_t:D\to {\partial}S_t \cap \tilde U_p$, $\phi_t(x):=\phi(x,t)$ is a diffeomorphism. Clearly, $\phi_t$ tends uniformly to $\phi|_{D\times\{0\}}$ in $C^1$ topology as $t\to 0$.\
Therefore, for each $\tilde U_p$ we have $$\label {int_U_p}
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \int_{{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}\cap \tilde U_p}\omega=
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \int_{\phi_{\varepsilon}(D)}\omega=
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0} \int_{D}\phi_{\varepsilon}^*\omega=
\int_{{\partial}S\cap\tilde U_p}\omega\ .$$ Since $S$ is bounded, the set $A_\delta\subset A_{\frac{\delta}{2}}$ is compact and therefore we may choose finitely many sets $U_i:=U_{p_i}$ that cover $A_\delta$. Set $\tilde U'_i:=\phi^{p_i}((U_i\cap A_\delta)\times[0,{\varepsilon}_0))$ where ${\varepsilon}_0=\min_{i} {\varepsilon}_{p_i}$ and $U_\delta:=\cup \tilde U'_i$. Note that if $\delta>0$ is fixed then for ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough we have ${\partial}S_{\varepsilon}\subset U_{\delta} \cup B_\delta$ and therefore $$\int_{{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}} \omega = \int_{{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}\cap U_\delta} \omega + \int_{{\partial}s_{\varepsilon}\cap (B_\delta-U_\delta)}\omega\ .$$ Let $\{\varphi_i\}$ be a partition of unity subordinate to the cover $\{\tilde U'_i\}$. Thus by (\[int\_U\_p\]) we obtain $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}\cap U_\delta} \omega = \lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\sum \int_{{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}\cap \tilde U'_i} \varphi_i\omega = \sum \int_{{\partial}S \cap \tilde U'_i\cap A_\delta} \varphi_i\omega
= \int_{A_\delta} \omega\ .$$
To complete the proof of (\[eq\_2\]), it is enough to show that $\mu_{k-1}(B_\delta\cap{\partial}S_{\varepsilon})$ is small in terms of $\delta$ i.e., bounded by a function $g(\delta)$ with $g(\delta)\to 0$ as $\delta \to 0$ for every ${\varepsilon}>0$. Since then, because $\omega$ is integrable (bounded), $$\left| \int_{{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}\cap (B_\delta-U_\delta)} \omega\right|
\to 0
\text{ as } \delta \to 0\ \text{ uniformly in }{\varepsilon}.$$ For that matter, we use the well known Cauchy-Crofton formula \[F\] that can be formulated as follows. Let $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and set $$K_j^P(A):=\{q\in P : \#\left(\pi_P^{-1}(q)\cap A \right)=j \},$$ where $\pi_P$ is the orthogonal projection from ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ to $P$. The $k$-dimensional Hausdorff measure of $A$ is given by $$\label{CC_statement}
\mu_{k}(A)=
\int_{P\in{\mathbb{G}}^{k}_n}\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}j\mu_{k}(K_j^P(A)) d\gamma(P)\ ,$$ where $\gamma$ is a finite measure on ${\mathbb{G}}^{k}_n$. Substituting $B_\delta\cap{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}$ in formula (\[CC\_statement\]) we obtain
$$\label{Cauchy-Crofton}
\mu_{k-1}(B_\delta\cap{\partial}S_{\varepsilon})=
\int_{P\in{\mathbb{G}}^{k-1}_n}\sum_{j=1}^{N(\delta,{\varepsilon})}j\mu_{k-1}(K_j^P(B_\delta\cap{\partial}S_{\varepsilon})) d\gamma(P)\ ,$$
where $$N(\delta,{\varepsilon}):=\max\{\#\left(\pi_P^{-1}(q)\cap B_\delta\cap{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}\right)<\infty:P\in {\mathbb{G}}^{k-1}_n, q\in P\}\ .$$ We remark that the number $N({\varepsilon},\delta)$ can be bounded from above by an integer $N_0$ independent of ${\varepsilon}$ and $\delta$, as a consequence of uniform boundness principle for families of semialgebraic sets (see \[BCR\]). Since $\gamma$ is a finite measure, it is enough to bound each $\mu_{k-1}(K_j^P(B_\delta\cap{\partial}S_{\varepsilon}))$ in terms of $\delta$ where $P\in{\mathbb{G}}^{k-1}_n$. Note that $$K_j^P(B_\delta\cap{\partial}S_{\varepsilon})\subset \pi_P(B_\delta)\ .$$ Denote by $Y$ the set $B\cup \Sigma^{(k-2)}_X\cap {\partial}S$. Clearly $\dim Y\leq k-2$ and $B_\delta=\{x\in S: d(x,Y)\leq \delta \}$. Therefore $$\pi_P(B_\delta)\subset \{x\in \pi_P(S):d(x,\pi_P(Y))\leq \delta \} \ .$$ Since $\dim \pi_P(Y) < k-1$ it follows that $\mu_{k-1}(\pi_P(B_\delta))\to 0$ as $\delta \to 0$. Set $$g(P,\delta):=\mu_{k-1}(\pi_P(B_\delta))\ .$$ Clearly the function $g$ is bounded and therefore by Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem
$$\int_{{\mathbb{G}}^{k-1}_n} g(\delta,P)d\gamma(P)\to 0\text { as } \delta\to 0\ .$$ From (\[Cauchy-Crofton\]) it follows that: $$\mu_{k-1}(B_\delta\cap{\partial}S_{\varepsilon})\leq
\int_{P\in{\mathbb{G}}^{k-1}_n}\sum_{j=1}^{N_0}jg(P,\delta) d\gamma(P)
\text{ as } \delta\to 0\ .$$
De Rham Theorem {#sec_de_rham}
===============
Elementary forms {#elm_form}
----------------
$\ $\
In this section we recall the concept of elementary differential forms introduced in \[W Ch. IV, 27\] and adapt it to our setting.
Let $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a compact set, and $T:|K|\to X$ be any triangulation, that is, a homeomorphism from a simplicial complex $K$, $|K|\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, that is smooth on every open simplex $\sigma\in K$.
Let $S_j(K)$ be the real vector space generated by all $j$-simplices in $K$ and let $\=:S_j(K)\to S_{j-1}(K)$ be the standard boundary operator defined in the usual way. Endow $S^j(K):=Hom(S_j(K),{\mathbb{R}})$ with the coboundary operator $d:={\partial}^*$. Identify the canonical basis of $S_j(K)$ consisting of all $j$-simplices $\sigma^j_l$ of $K$, $1\leq l\leq \dim S_j(K)$ with a basis of $S^j(K)$ by $\sigma^j_l \leftrightarrow <\sigma^j_l,\cdot>$ where $<.,.>$ denotes the inner product defined by $<\sigma^j_l,\sigma^j_i>=\delta_{l,i}$.
Given $\sigma\in K$, [**the star of $\sigma$**]{}, $St(\sigma)$, is defined as the union of all open simplices that contain $\sigma$ in their closure.
Let $T:|K|\to X$ be a triangulation and let $\{Q_i\}_{i\in {\mathcal{I}}}$ be a finite cover of $X$ with $Q_i$ open in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ for $i\in{\mathcal{I}}$, such that $X\cap Q_i\subset St(T(p_i))$ where $p_i$ is a vertex. Let $\phi_i$ be a smooth partition of unity subordinate to the cover $\{Q_i\}_{i\in {\mathcal{I}}}$. Any $j$-simplex $\sigma\in K$ can be represented by its vertices as $(p_{i_0},\dots, p_{i_j})$. Set $$\phi_{T,\sigma}:=j!\sum_{k=0}^{j}(-1)^{k}\phi_{i_k}d\phi_{i_0}
\wedge\dots\hat{d\phi_{i_k}}\dots\wedge d\phi_{i_j}\ .$$ The forms $\phi_{T,f}$ are called the [**elementary $j$-forms**]{}. We extend this definition to all $S^j(K)$ by linearity via the identification of $S_j(K)$ with $S^j(K)$, that is if $f\in S^j(K)$, $f=\sum_k a_k\sigma^j_k$ then $$\phi_{T,f}:=\sum_k a_k\phi_{T,\sigma^j_k}\ .$$
\[elem\_prop\] For any triangulation $T:|K|\to X$ the elementary forms have the following properties:
1. $\phi_{T,df}|_X=d\phi_{T,f}|_X$ for all $f\in S^j(K)$,
2. $\psi\phi_{T,f}=f$ for all $f\in S^j(K)$.
For a proof of this proposition see \[W Ch. IV, 27\].
For any triangulation $T$ of $X$, the elementary forms are $L^\infty$ forms since they are restrictions of smooth forms from the ambient ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
Let $\Omega^j_{elm}(T,X)$ be the linear span of the set of all elementary $j$-forms and exterior derivatives of $(j-1)$-forms. By construction, $(\Omega^\bullet_{elm},d)$ is a chain complex. Denote by $H_{elm}^k(T,X)$ the $k^{th}$ cohomology group of $(\Omega^\bullet_{elm},d)$. As a consequence of Proposition \[elem\_prop\] we have
\[cohom\_elem\_isom\] There exists an isomorphism $\Phi_T:H^k(X)\to H^k_{elm}(T,X)$.
Define $\Phi_T$ as follows. Let $f$ be a closed singular $k$-cochain. Then $[f]\in Hom(H_k(X),{\mathbb{R}})$, where $[f]$ denotes an equivalence class of $f$ in $Hom(H_k(X),{\mathbb{R}})$. Since simplicial cohomology is isomorphic to singular cohomology, there exists a closed simplicial $k$-cochain $f'\in S^k(K)$ that has the same class as $f$ in singular $k$-cohomology of $X$. Note that $\phi_{T,f'}$ is a closed form by Proposition \[elem\_prop\] (1). Set $$\Phi_T([f]):= [\phi_{T,f'}].$$
[*The map $\Phi_T$ is well defined.*]{} Indeed, if $f''$ is another element of $S^k(K)$ that defines the same cohomology class as $f'$ then, $f''-f'=dg$ for some simplicial $(k-1)$-cochain $g$, so $\phi_{T,f''}-\phi_{T,f'}=\phi_{T,dg}=d\phi_{T,g}$.
[*The map $\Phi_T$ is one to one.*]{} Suppose that $\Phi_T([f])=[\phi_{T,f'}]$, $f-f'=dg$, $g\in C^{k-1}(X)$ and $\phi_{T,f'}=d\phi_{T,f'_1}$, $f'_1\in S^{k-1}$. It follows from Proposition \[elem\_prop\] (1) that $\phi_{T,f'}=\phi_{T,df'_1}$ and by Proposition \[elem\_prop\] (2) we have $$f'=\psi\phi_{T,f'}=\psi\phi_{T,df'_1}=df'_1.$$
[*The map $\Phi_T$ is onto.*]{} Let $\phi_{T,f}$ be a closed elementary $k$-form. By Proposition \[elem\_prop\] (1) we have $0=d\phi_{T,f}=\phi_{T,df}$ and then, by Proposition \[elem\_prop\] (2), we get $0=\psi\phi_{T,df}=df$. Now it is clear that $\Phi_T([f])=\phi_{T,f}$.
Proof of The De Rham Theorem
----------------------------
The proof of the De Rham Theorem relies on the following Poincaré Lemma for $L^\infty$ forms.
\[Poincare\](Poincaré Lemma) Let $\omega$ be a closed smooth $L^\infty$ $k$-form on $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $p\in X$. There exists a neighborhood $U_p$ of $p$ in $X$, and a smooth $L^\infty$ $(k-1)$-form $\gamma$ defined on $U_p$ such that $\omega= d\gamma$ in $U_p$.
We prove this theorem is in Section \[smoothing\].
\[rk\_poincare\] In the case of a smooth form on a smooth manifold the Poincaré lemma can be proved for any star shaped domain independently of the form in question. In Theorem \[Poincare\] the neighborhood for which the theorem is formulated depends on the given form. Nevertheless, for a given closed $L^\infty$ $k$-form $\omega$ on a compact set $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$, there exists ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that for any $p\in X$ there exists an $L^\infty$ $(k-1)$-form $\eta_p$ in $B(p,{\varepsilon})\cap X$ such that $\omega=d\eta_p$ there. Indeed, let $\{B(p,{\varepsilon}_p)\cap X\}_{p\in X}$ be a cover of $X$ such that $\omega=d\eta_p$ on $B(p,{\varepsilon}_p)\cap X$. Since $X$ is compact, we can pick a finite sub-cover $\{U_{p_i}\}_{i=1}^{L}$ and set ${\varepsilon}$ to be the Lebesgue number for this cover.
For the next theorem we will need a simple lemma from linear algebra.
\[lin\_alg\] Let $V,W_1$ and $W_2$ be real finite dimensional vector spaces, and $f\in Hom(V,{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $$ker\ f \supset ker\ \varphi_1\ \cap\ ker\ \varphi_2 .$$ There exist $g_1\in Hom(W_1,{\mathbb{R}})$ and $g_2\in Hom(W_2,{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $$f=\varphi_1^*g_1+\varphi_2^*g_2 .$$
Let $\psi:V\to W_1\oplus W_2$, $\psi(x)=(\varphi_1(x),\varphi_2(x))$. Clearly $\psi$ yields an isomorphism $$V/(ker\ \psi)\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} Im(\psi),$$ let $\xi:Im(\psi)\to V/(ker\ \psi)$ be its inverse. Note that $$ker\ \psi=ker\ \varphi_1\ \cap\ ker\ \varphi_2\ \subset ker\ f,$$ and therefore the functional $f$ defines an element of $Hom(V/(ker\ \psi),{\mathbb{R}})$ that we continue denoting by $f$. Let $g':=\xi^*f\in Hom(Im(\psi),{\mathbb{R}})$ and let $g$ be any extension of $g'$ to $W_1\oplus W_2$. Set $$g_1(x):=g(x,0) \text{ and } g_2(x):=g(0,x).$$ We claim that $f=\varphi_1^*g_1+\varphi_2^*g_2$. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_1^*g_1(x) + \varphi_2^*g_2(x) &=& g_1(\varphi_1(x))+g_2(\varphi_2(x)) \\
&=&
g(\varphi_1(x),0)+g(0,\varphi_2(x))\\ &=&
g(\varphi_1(x),\varphi_2(x)) \\ &=&
g'(\varphi_1(x),\varphi_2(x))\\ &=&
f(\xi(\varphi_1(x),\varphi_2(x))) \\&=&
f(\xi(\psi(x)))\\&=&
f(x).
\end{aligned}$$
\[inj\](Injectivity of the De Rham isomorphism) Let $X$ be a compact set and $\omega$ any smooth closed $L^\infty$ $k$-form defined on $X$ such that $\int_c \omega=0$ for any $c\in H_k(X)$, then there exists a smooth $L^\infty$ $(k-1)$-form $\eta$ on $X$ such that $\omega=d\eta$.
We prove the theorem by induction on $k$. For $k=0$ the theorem is trivial. Let $k>0$ and let $\omega$ be a closed $L^\infty$ $k$-form on $X$. **STEP 1:** Suppose that $X=A\cup B$, $\omega=d\eta_A$ in $A$ and $\omega=d\eta_B$ in $B$ where $A$ and $B$ are closed sets. Suppose also that $X=A'\cup B'$ where $A'\subset A$ and $B'\subset B$ are closed sets. We will prove in this step that there exists a smooth $L^\infty$ form $\eta$ such that $\omega=d\eta$ in $X=A\cup B$. Set $\eta_{AB}:=\eta_A-\eta_B$ in $A\cap B$, and note that it is a closed $(k-1)$-form there. We claim that there exist closed forms $\phi_A$ near $A$ and $\phi_B$ near $B$ such that $$\int_{[c]} (\eta_{AB}-\phi_A-\phi_B) =0 \text{ for any }[c]\in H_{k-1}(A\cap B)\ .$$ Let us assume for a moment that we have found such $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$. Then, by induction hypothesis there exists a $(k-2)$-form $\xi'_{AB}$ on $A\cap B$ such that $$\eta_{AB}-\phi_A-\phi_B=d\xi'_{AB}. $$ Let $\varphi$ be a smooth function on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ that is identically $1$ near $A'\cap B'$ and $0$ near $X-A\cap B$. Let $\xi_{AB}=\varphi\xi'_{AB}$ and set
$$\eta = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\eta_A-\phi_A & \text{ on } A' \\
\eta_B+d\xi_{AB}+\phi_B & \text{ on } B'\ .
\end{array} \right.$$ Clearly $\eta$ is a well defined form and $d\eta=\omega$.
Now we only have to find the forms $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$. In order to apply Lemma \[lin\_alg\] we set $$V:=H_{k-1}(A\cap B)\ ,\ W_1:=Im(H_{k-1}(A\cap B)\to H_{k-1}(A))\ ,$$ $$W_2:=Im(H_{k-1}(A\cap B)\to H_{k-1}(B))\ \text{ and } f([c])=\int_{[c]}\eta_{AB}\ ,$$ with $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ being the maps induced by inclusions of $A\cap B$ into $A$ and $B$. Note that $$ker\ f\ \supset ker\ \varphi_1\ \cap\ ker\ \varphi_2$$ since if $\varphi_1([c])=\varphi_2([c])=0$ for $[c]\in H_{k-1}(A\cap B)$ then there exist chains $c_1$ in $A$ and $-c_2$ in $B$ such that $c={\partial}c_1=-{\partial}c_2$, but then $$f([c])=\int_{[c]}\eta_A-\eta_B=\int_{{\partial}c_1}\eta_A + \int_{{\partial}c_2}\eta_B
=\int_{c_1+c_2}\omega=0\ .$$ Therefore, by Lemma \[lin\_alg\] there exist $g_1\in Hom(W_1,{\mathbb{R}})$ and $g_2\in Hom(W_2,{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $f=\varphi^*g_1+\varphi^*g_2$. Since we work over ${\mathbb{R}}$, we may identify $H^{k}(Z)$ with $Hom(H_k(Z),{\mathbb{R}})$ for any space $Z$. Let $g'_1$ and $g'_2$ be any extensions of $g_1$ and $g_2$ to $H^{k-1}(A)$ and $H^{k-1}(B)$. Set $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$ to be the elementary forms corresponding to $g_1'$ and $g_2'$ (see Sections \[elm\_form\] and Proposition \[cohom\_elem\_isom\]). Since $g'_1$ and $g'_2$ are closed cochains, the forms $\phi_A$ and $\phi_B$ are closed. Since $\int_{[c]} \phi_A=g'_1([c])$ for $[c]\in H_{k-1}(A)$ and $\int_{[c]} \phi_B=g'_2([c])$ for $[c]\in H_{k-1}(B)$ it follows that for any $[c]\in H_{k-1}(A\cap B)$ $$\int_{[c]}(\eta_{AB}-\phi_A-\phi_B)=f([c])-g'_1([c])-g'_2([c])= 0\ .$$ And this concludes the first step. **STEP 2:** Let ${\mathcal{U}}=\{U_i\}_{i=1}^N$ be a cover of $X$ such that $\omega=d\eta_i$ near each $U_i$ which is possible due to compactness of $X$ and Theorem \[Poincare\] (see Remark \[rk\_poincare\]). Set $V_l=\bigcup_{i=1}^{l}U_i$. We claim that for each $l\leq N$ there exists a form $\xi_l$ near $V_l$ such that $\omega=d\xi_l$ there. We prove this claim by induction on $l$. For $l=1$ the claim follows by the choice of the cover. Let $l>1$. By STEP 1, applied to $V_l$ and $U_{l+1}$ there exists a form $\xi_{l+1}$ near $V_{l+1}$ such that $\omega=d\xi_{l+1}$. Therefore the claim is proven and the theorem follows for $l=N$.
*Proof of Theorem \[De Rham\]. * (Compare with \[W\] Ch. IV ,27). Theorem \[inj\] implies that the map induced by $\psi$ on cohomology is injective. To see that the latter map induces a surjective map on cohomology, let $f$ be a closed singular $k$-cochain. Let $T$ be any triangulation of $X$ and choose $f'$ to be a simplicial cochain in the same cohomology class as $f$. By Proposition \[cohom\_elem\_isom\], all the forms in $\Phi_T([f])$ have the same cohomology class in $H^k_{elm}(X)$. So, let $\phi_{T,f'}\in\Phi_{T}([f])$. By Proposition \[elem\_prop\] (2) we have $\psi \phi_{f',T} = f' $. $\ \ \square $
Lipschitz Retractions {#sec_retract}
=====================
One of the main ingredients for the proof of $L^\infty$ version of Poincaré lemma, Theorem \[Poincare\], is a Lipschitz strong deformation retraction that preserves a certain stratification. The main result of this section is
(Retraction Theorem)\[retraction\] Let $(X,\Sigma_X)$ be a stratified set in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $p\in X$ then:
1. There exists a stratified neighborhood $(U,\Sigma_U)$ of $p$ in $X$ such that $\Sigma_U\prec\Sigma_X\cap U$.
2. \[L2ret\] There exists $N\subset U$, $p\in N$, $\dim N< \dim U$ and Lipschitz strong deformation retraction $r:U\times [0,1]\to \ U$ to $N$ such that
1. $\Sigma_N:=\Sigma_U\cap N$ is a stratification of $N$.
2. $r_0(x)\in N$ and $r_1(x)=x$ where $r_t(x):=r(x,t)$ for $t\in[0,1]$.
3. $r|_{S\times(0,1]}$ is smooth and $r(S\times(0,1])\subset S$ for any stratum $S\in \Sigma_U$.
4. For any $S\in\Sigma_U$ there exists $S'\in\Sigma_N$ such that $r_0(S)\subset S'$.
5. $d_x r_t|_S(x)\to d_x r_0|_S (x)$ as $t\to 0$, for any $x\in S\in\Sigma_U$.
This section is organized as follows. In the first part we establish some useful technical tools and prove Proposition \[lip\_infty\]. In the second part we prove Theorem \[retraction\]. In what follows we will use the following notation.
Suppose that $f:X\to Y$ is a map. Set $\gamma_f:X\to X\times Y$ to be the map defined by $\gamma_f(x):=(x,f(x))$.
\[lem graph a reg hor c1\] Let $\xi:(X,\Sigma) \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a Lipschitz function that is smooth on every stratum $S\in\Sigma$. Assume that $\gamma_\xi (\Sigma)$ is a Whitney $(a)$ stratification of $\gamma_\xi (X)$. Then $\gamma_\xi$ is a semi-differentiable map with respect to $\Sigma$ and $\gamma_\xi(\Sigma)$.
Let $S\in \Sigma$ be a stratum and let $x_n\in S$ be a sequence tending to $x\in S'\in \Sigma$. Let $u_n \in T_{x_n}S$ be a sequence of vectors tending to a vector $u \in T_x S'$. The vector $v_n : =(u_n;d_{x_n} \xi|_S\cdot u_n)$ (resp. $v:=(u;d_x \xi|_{S'}\cdot u))$ is the unique vector of $T_{\gamma_\xi (x_n )} \gamma_\xi (S)$ (resp. $T_{\gamma_\xi(x)} \gamma_\xi (S')$) that projects onto $u_n$ (resp. $u$). Assume that the sequence $v_n$ does not tend to $v$. Extracting a subsequence, if necessary, we may assume that $v_n$ has another limit, $v_1 \neq v$, and that the limit $\tau :=\lim T_{\gamma_\xi (x_n )} \gamma_\xi (S)$ exists. The vector $v$ lies in $\tau$ and is actually the unique vector that projects onto $u$. By Whitney $(a)$ condition $T_{\gamma_\xi(x)} \gamma_\xi (S') \subset \tau$ and hence $v=v_1$. This is a contradiction, therefore $v_n \to v$ .
\[Lip\_semi\_diff\] Let $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a set and $\xi:X\to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a Lipschitz function. There exists a stratification $\Sigma$ of $X$ such that $\xi$ is semi-differentiable with respect to $\Sigma$ and the trivial stratification $\{{\mathbb{R}}\}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}$.
Let $\pi:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be the standard projection to the first $n$ components and $\pi_1:{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be the standard projection to the last component. Let $\Sigma_\xi$ be a Whitney (A) stratification of $\Gamma_{\xi}(X)$. Set $\Sigma:=\pi(\Sigma_\xi)$. By Lemma \[lem graph a reg hor c1\] we know that the map $\gamma_\xi$ is semi-differentiable with respect to $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_\xi$. Note that the map $\pi_1$ is smooth on ${\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$ and therefore it is semi-differentiable with respect to $\Sigma_\xi$ and $\{{\mathbb{R}}\}$. Since $\xi=\pi_1\circ \gamma_\xi$ it follows from Proposition \[comp\_semi\_diff\] that $\xi$ is semi-differentiable with respect to $\Sigma$ and $\{{\mathbb{R}}\}$.
We turn now to prove Proposition \[lip\_infty\].
We have already mentioned that an $L^\infty$ map is Lipschitz. For the other implication denote by $f_i:X\to{\mathbb{R}}$ the components of $f$, $i=1,\dots,m$. By Corollary \[Lip\_semi\_diff\] there exist stratifications $\Sigma_i$, $i=1,\dots,m$ of $X$ such that each $f_i$ is semi-differentiable with respect to $\Sigma_i$ and $\{{\mathbb{R}}\}$. Let $\Sigma_0$ be a common refinement of all the $\Sigma_i$’s. Let $\Sigma_Y$ be a stratification of $Y$ compatible with $f(\Sigma_0)$. Let $\Sigma_X$ to be a refinement of $\Sigma_0$ that is compatible with $f^{-1}(\Sigma_Y)$. It follows that for each $S'\in\Sigma_X$ there exists a stratum $S\in\Sigma_Y$ such that $f(S')\subset S$.
In what follows we will use the following notations. Set $e_i$ , $i=1,...,n$ to be the standard basis of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $S^{n-1}$ to be the unit sphere of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Let $\lambda \in S^{n-1}\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, denote by $N_\lambda$ the normal space to $\lambda$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and by $\pi_\lambda$ the projection onto $N_\lambda$. Given $q \in {\mathbb{R}}^n$ , $q_\lambda$ denotes the coordinate along $\lambda$. We say that a set $H\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ is a graph for $\lambda$ if there exists a function $\xi : {\mathbb{R}}^n \to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$H=\{ q\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1} : q_\lambda=\xi(\pi_\lambda(q)) \} .$$
A [**Lipschitz cell decomposition of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$**]{} is a cylindrical cell decomposition ${\mathcal{C}}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ (see Definition \[ccd\]) which is also a stratification such that for $n>1$ each cell $C\in{\mathcal{C}}$ is either a graph of a Lipschitz function or a band delimited by two Lipschitz functions over some cell $C'$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n-1}$. The vector $e_n$ is said to be [**regular**]{} for ${\mathcal{C}}$ if for each cell $C\in{\mathcal{C}}$ on which $\pi_n:=\pi_{e_n}$ is one-to-one, there exists a Lipschitz function $\xi:\pi_n(C)\to {\mathbb{R}}$ such that $C$ is the graph of $\xi$ over $\pi_n(C)$.
The proof of Theorem \[retraction\] relies on technique developed in \[V1\]. For completeness, we state some terminology and results from \[V1\] that will be used in the proof.
\[family regulier d hypersurface\] A [**regular family of hypersurfaces**]{} of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ is a family $H=(H_k;\lambda_k)_{1 \leq k \leq b}$ with $b\in{\mathbb{N}}$, of subsets of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ together with elements $\lambda_k$ of $S^n$ such that the following properties hold for each $k < b $:
- The sets $H_k$ and $H_{k+1}$ are respectively the graphs for $\lambda_k$ of two global Lipschitz functions $\xi_k$ and $\xi'_k$ such that $\xi_k \leq \xi'_k$.
- We have: $$E(H_{k+1};\lambda_k)=E(H_{k+1};\lambda_{k+1}),$$
where $$E(H_k,\lambda_k)=\{ q\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1} : q_\lambda \leq \xi( \pi_\lambda (q)) \} \ .$$ Let $A$ be a subset of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ of empty interior. We say that the family $H$ is [**compatible**]{} with $A$, if $A \subseteq
\bigcup_{k=1} ^{b} H_k$. An [**extension**]{} of $H$ is a regular family compatible with the set $\bigcup_{k=1} ^b H_k$.
\[boule reguliere\] Let $A$ be a set of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$. An element $\lambda$ of $S^n $ is said to be [**regular** ]{} for $A$ if there is $\alpha >0 $ such that $$d(\lambda;T_x A_{reg}) \geq \alpha$$ for any $x \in A_{reg}$ where $A_{reg}$ denotes the regular (smooth) part of $A$.
Given two functions $f,g: A\to{\mathbb{R}}$ we say that $f$ is [**equivalent**]{} to $g$, $f\sim g$, if there exist $c_1>0$ and $c_2>0$ such that $c_1f\leq g\leq c_2f$. If $f \leq c_1 g$, we write $f\lesssim g$. We say that $f$ is [**comparable**]{} with $g$ if the difference $f-g$ has a constant sign.
\[prop\_3\_10\] [**\[V1\]**]{} For each semi-algebraic set $A\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ of empty interior, there exists a regular family of hypersurfaces of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ compatible with $A$ .
\[lem function eq aux distances\][**\[V1\]**]{} Given a function $f$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, there exist a finite number of subsets $W_1, \dots,W_s$, and a partition of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that $f$ is equivalent to a product of powers of distances to the $W_j$’s on each element of the partition.
\[r1\] ${\ }$
- If $A$ is a union of graphs for a direction $\lambda$ of functions $\theta_1 , \dots , \theta_k$ over ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ then we may find an ordered family of functions $\xi_1 \leq \dots
\leq\xi_k$ such that $A$ is a union of graphs of these functions for $\lambda$.
- Given a family of Lipschitz functions $f_1, \dots, f_k$ defined over ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ we can find a cell decomposition ${\mathcal{C}}'$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and some Lipschitz functions $\xi_1\leq \dots \leq \xi_m$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that over each cell $C=\{ q=(x\ ;\ q_{n+1})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1} :\ x\in C' ,\ \xi_i\leq q_{n+1} \leq \xi_{i+1}\}$ where $C'\in{\mathcal{C}}'$, the functions $|q_{n+1}-f_i(x)|$ are comparable with each other and comparable with functions $f_i \circ \pi_n$. Indeed, it suffices to consider the graphs of functions $f_i$, $f_i+f_j$ and $\frac{f_i+f_j}{2}$ and now the family $\xi_1, \dots, \xi_m$ is given by the previous point.
Proof of the retraction Theorem.
--------------------------------
$\ $\
We prove Theorem \[retraction\] by induction on $n$ where the induction hypothesis is\
$\mathbf{(H_n)}$: Suppose that $X_1,\dots ,X_s\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, that contain $p$ in their closure and a collection of bounded functions $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_l:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}_+$ are given. Then, there exist a bi-Lipschitz transformation $g:{\mathbb{R}}^n\to {\mathbb{R}}^n$, and a stratified neighborhood $(U,\Sigma_U)$ of $p$ in $X$ compatible with $X_1\cap U,\dots,X_s\cap U$ such that
1. $g|_S$ is a diffeomorphism for every $S\in\Sigma_U$ and $\Sigma_V:=\{g(S)\}_{S\in\Sigma}$ is a stratification of $V:=g(U)$.
2. There exist a set $N\subset V$, $\dim N<\dim V$ and Lipschitz strong deformation retraction $r:V\times [0,1]\to V$ to $N$ that satisfies \[L2ret\].1-\[L2ret\].5 in the statement of the Theorem.
3. \[xi\_ineq\] $\xi_j\circ g^{-1}(r(x,t))\lesssim\xi_j\circ g^{-1}(x)$ for all $x\in V$.
As the statement for $n=1$ is clear we proceed to the proof of $\mathbf{(H_{n+1})}$ assuming $\mathbf{(H_{n})}$. Throughout the proof, we represent points of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ by $q=(x,y)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n}\times{\mathbb{R}}$. Let $X_1,\dots,X_s\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ that contain $p$ in their closure and $\xi_1,\dots,\xi_l:{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\to{\mathbb{R}}_+$ be bounded functions. We divide the proof into 3 steps. In the first step we reduce the problem to the case where all the sets are subsets of graphs of Lipschitz functions. In the second step we “prepare” the functions $\xi_j$ and in the final step we construct the bi-Lipschitz map $g$ and the Lipschitz strong deformation retraction $r$.\
[**STEP I: Reduction of the problem.**]{}
By Theorem \[lem function eq aux distances\] there exists a finite partition $\{V_i\}_{i\in I}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ and a finite family of subsets $\{W_{j}\}_{j\in J}$ with empty interiors (if not, we may replace them by their topological boundaries), such that on each element $V_i$ that contains $p$ in its closure we have: $$\label{prod_dist}
\xi_k(q)\sim \prod_{j\in J}{d(q,W_j)^{w_{ijk}}}\ ,\ \ q\in V_i\ ,$$ where $1\leq k\leq l$ and $w_{ijk}\in{\mathbb{Q}}$. We may assume that $p\in W_{j}$ for all $j\in J$ since we can remove all $W_{j}$ that do not contain $p$ without affecting formula (\[prod\_dist\]). By Theorem \[prop\_3\_10\] there exists a regular system of hypersurfaces $H={(H_k;\lambda_k)_{1 \leq k \leq b}}$ compatible with the topological boundaries of $X_i$’s, $V_i$’s and $W_j$’s. Next, we reduce the problem to the case where we have a stratification $\Sigma_1$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ compatible with the sets $X_i$, $V_i$ and $W_i$ such that all the topological boundaries of $X_i$, $V_i$ and $W_i$ are union of strata, which are graphs of Lipschitz functions for $e_n$ over strata in ${\mathbb{R}}^{n}$. The reduction is obtained by constructing a bi-Lipschitz map $h:{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ and a stratification ${\mathcal{A}}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ such that $h|_{A}$ is a diffeomorphism for every $A\in{\mathcal{A}}$ and setting $\Sigma_1$ to be $h({\mathcal{A}})$.
We define $h$ over $E(H_k;\lambda_k)$, by induction on $k$, in such a way that $$h(E(H_k;\lambda_k))=E(F_k ;e_n)$$ (and hence $h(H_k)=F_k$) where $F_k$ is the graph of a Lipschitz function $\eta_k$ for $e_n$. For $k=1$ choose an orthonormal basis of $N_{\lambda_1}$ and set $h(q)=(x_{\lambda_1};q_{\lambda_1})$ where $x_{\lambda_1}$ are the coordinates of $\pi_{\lambda_1}(q)$ in this basis. Then, let $k \geq 1$ and assume that $h$ has already been constructed on $E(H_k;\lambda_k)$. By $(i)$ of Definition \[family regulier d hypersurface\] the sets $H_k$ and $H_{k+1}$ are the graphs for $\lambda_k$ of two Lipschitz functions $\zeta_k$ and $\zeta'_k$. For $q \in E(H_{k+1};\lambda_{k})
\setminus E(H_k;\lambda_k)$ define $h(q)$ to be the element : $$h(\pi_{\lambda_k}(q);\zeta_k \circ \pi_{\lambda_k}(q))
+(q_{\lambda_k}-\zeta_k \circ \pi_{\lambda_k}(q))e_n.$$
Thanks to the property $(ii)$ of Definition \[family regulier d hypersurface\] we have $ E(H_{k+1};\lambda_{k+1})=
E(H_{k+1};\lambda_{k})$, so that $h$ is actually defined over $
E(H_{k+1};\lambda_{k+1})$. Since $\zeta_k$ is Lipschitz this is a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism. Note also that the image is $E(F_{k+1};e_n)$ where $F_{k+1}$ is the graph of the Lipschitz function $$\eta_{k+1}(q)=\eta_k \circ \pi_{e_n}(q)+(\zeta'_k-\zeta_k)
\circ \pi_{\lambda_k}\circ h^{-1}(q;\eta_k \circ \pi_{e_n}(q)).$$ This gives $h$ over $E(H_b ; \lambda_b)$. To extend $h$ to the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ do it as in the case $k=1$ (use $\lambda_b$ instead of $\lambda_1$). Now it is easy to check that this defines a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism.
Next, we construct a stratification ${\mathcal{A}}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ such that $h|_A$ is a diffeomorphism for every $A\in {\mathcal{A}}$ and moreover, $h(A)$ is either included in a graph of one of the $\eta_i$’s or is a band delimited by the graphs of two consecutive $\eta_i$’s.
By induction on $k$ we define a family of stratifications ${\mathcal{F}}_k:=\{{\mathcal{A}}_{1,k},\dots,{\mathcal{A}}_{k,k} \}$ such that for each $i$, ${\mathcal{A}}_{i,k}$ is a stratification of $H_i$ that refines ${\mathcal{A}}_{i,k-1}$.
For $k=1$ define ${\mathcal{A}}_{1,1}$ to be a stratification of $H_1$. Suppose that ${\mathcal{F}}_k$ was constructed we construct ${\mathcal{F}}_{k+1}$ as follows.
Define ${\mathcal{A}}_{k+1-j,k+1}$ by induction on $j$. For $j=0$ set ${\mathcal{A}}_{k+1,k+1}$ to be a stratification of $H_{k+1}$. Suppose that ${\mathcal{A}}_{k+1-j,k+1}$ was constructed we construct ${\mathcal{A}}_{k-j,k+1}$. Since the hypersurface $H_{k+1-j}$ is a graph of a Lipschitz function for $\lambda_{k-j}$, we set ${\mathcal{A}}_{k-j,k+1}$ to be a refinement of ${\mathcal{A}}_{k-j,k}$ that is compatible with all $\pi_{\lambda_{k-j}}^{-1}(A)\cap H_{k-j}$ for $A\in{\mathcal{A}}_{k-j+1,k+1}$.
Now, the family ${\mathcal{F}}_b$ consists of stratifications of the hypersurfaces\
${(H_k;\lambda_k)_{1 \leq k \leq b}}$ that induces a stratification ${\mathcal{A}}$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ in the following way. The strata of ${\mathcal{A}}$ are:
- The strata of each ${\mathcal{A}}_{j,b}$, $j=1,\dots,b$
- The bands delimited by the graphs of $\zeta_k$ and $\zeta'_k$ for $\lambda_k$ intersected with $\pi_{\lambda_k}^{-1}$(A) where $A\in {\mathcal{A}}_{k,b}$ and $k=1,\dots,b$.
- $\{q:q_{\lambda_{b}}>\zeta_b(q)\}$ and $\{q:q_{\lambda_{1}}<\zeta_1(q)\}$
By the construction of $h$, it is evident that $h|_A$ is smooth for all $A\in{\mathcal{A}}$ and $\Sigma_1:=\{h(A)\}_{A\in{\mathcal{A}}}$ forms a stratification of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$.
Note that the projection of $\Sigma_1$, $\Sigma_1':=\pi_n(\Sigma_1)$ forms a stratification of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ that is compatible with $\{\pi_n (h(W_{j}))\}_{j\in J},\ \{\pi_n (h(V_i))\}_{i\in I},\ \{\pi_n (h(X_i))\}_{1\leq i\leq s}$ and the restrictions of all the $\eta_j$’s to the strata of $\Sigma_1'$ are smooth. We may identify $h$ with the identity map. Indeed, suppose that we proved $\mathbf{(H_{n+1})}$ for the sets in $\Sigma_1$ and the functions $\xi_j\circ h^{-1}$ obtaining a bi-Lipschitz map $g_h:{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, a stratified neighborhood $(U_h,\Sigma_{U_h})$ and a Lipschitz strong deformation retraction $r_h : V_h\times I \to V_h$ to a set $N_h\subset V_h$, where $V_h:=h(U_h)$, that satisfy the conclusion of $(H_{n+1})$. Set $$g:=g_h\circ h,\ U:=h^{-1}(U_h)\ \text{ and }\ \Sigma_U:=h^{-1}(\Sigma_{U_h}).$$ Note that $\Sigma_{U_h}$ is compatible with the sets in $\Sigma_1\cap U_h$ and therefore $h^{-1}$ is still a diffeomorphism on the strata of $\Sigma_{U_h}$. It follows that $g|_S$ is a diffeomorphism for every $S\in\Sigma$ and $\{g(S)\}_{S\in\Sigma}$ is a stratification of $V=V_h=g(U)$. So we set $r:=r_h$ and $N:=N_h$, which trivially satisfy conditions \[L2ret\].1-\[L2ret\].5 in the statement of the Theorem. The last condition of $\mathbf{(H_{n+1})}$ is obviously preserved.\
[**STEP II: Preparation of functions $\xi_j$.**]{}
The aim of this step is to find a refining stratification ${\mathcal{C}}$ of $\Sigma_1$ such that over each cell $C\in{\mathcal{C}}$ one has $$\label{xi_m_prepared}
\xi_k(q)\sim |y-\eta_{\nu_k}(x)|^{w_{k}}a_k(x)\ ,$$ where $(a_k) 's$ are functions to be specified later and $\nu_k,{w_{k}}$, ${w_{\nu,\nu'}}$, and ${w'_{jk}}$ are constants.
Note that $$\label{split_sum}
d(q, W_{j}\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu})\sim |y-\eta_\nu(x)|+
d(x, \pi_n(W_{j}\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu}))\ ,\ \ q\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\ ,$$ where $j\in J$ and $1\leq\nu\leq b$. By Remark \[r1\], there exists a collection of Lipschitz functions $\{\theta_1,\dots,\theta_{b'}\} \supset \{\eta_1,\dots,\eta_b\}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ such that there exists a cell decomposition ${\mathcal{C}}_0$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ with the following properties.
1. The cells of ${\mathcal{C}}_0$ are obtained from $\Sigma_1$ by adding the graphs and bands of the $\theta_i$’s over the cells of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$.
2. The functions $d(x, \pi_n(W_j\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu}))$, $\eta_\nu$, $|\eta_\nu-\eta_{\nu'}|$ , and $|y-\eta_\nu|$, where $1\leq\nu,\nu'\leq b$ and $j\in J$, are pairwise comparable with each other.
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be a stratification of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ that is obtained from ${\mathcal{C}}_0$ by refining the cells in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ in such a way that the stratification of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$, resulting by taking graphs and bands of the restrictions of $\theta_j$’s to those cells, forms a Whitney (a) stratification.
Let $C$ be an open cell of ${\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ that is delimited by the graphs of $\theta_{j_0}$ and $\theta_{j_0+1}$ over a cell $C'$ of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$. Due to the fact that the cell decomposition ${\mathcal{C}}$ is compatible with the graphs of the $\eta_i$’s, we have either $\eta_i|_{C'}\geq\theta_{j_0+1}$ or $\eta_i|_{C'}\leq\theta_{j_0}$ for any $i\in\{1,\dots,b\}$. Note that for any $j\in J$, $$d(q,W_j)=\min_\nu d(q,W_j\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu})\ .$$ So, by (\[prod\_dist\]) and (\[split\_sum\]) there exists $i$ such that on $V_i$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_k(q) &\sim& \prod_{j\in J} (\min_\nu d(q,W_j\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu}))^{w_{ijk}}\\
&\sim&
\prod_{j\in J} \left(|y-\eta_\nu(x)|+ d(x, \pi_n(W_j\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu}))\right)^{w_{ijk}}\ . \end{aligned}$$ Each expression of the form $$\left(|y-\eta_\nu(x)|+
d(x, \pi_n(W_{j}\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu}))\right)^{w_{ijk}}$$ is equivalent to $$\label{a_le_0}
\min\left( |y-\eta_\nu(x)|^{w_{ijk}},
d(x, \pi_n(W_{j}\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu}))^{w_{ijk}} \right)
\quad\text{ if ${w_{ijk}}<0$ }$$ and equivalent to $$\label{a_ge_0}
\max\left( |y-\eta_\nu(x)|^{w_{ijk}},
d(x, \pi_n(W_{j}\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu}))^{w_{ijk}} \right)
\quad\text{ if ${w_{ijk}}>0$\ . }$$
Since over the cell $C$, the functions $|y-\eta_\nu(x)|$, $|\eta_\nu-\eta_{\nu'}|$ and are pairwise comparable with each other for all $1\leq\nu,\nu'\leq b$, $i\in I$, $j\in J$ and $1\leq k\leq s$, the expressions in (\[a\_le\_0\]) and (\[a\_ge\_0\]) are equal to either $|y-\eta_\nu(x)|^{w_{ijk}}$ or $d(x, \pi_n(W_{j}\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu}))^{w_{ijk}}$ on $C$. Also, one of the following 3 holds
- $|y-\eta_\nu(x)|\sim |y-\eta_{\nu'}(x)|$
- $|y-\eta_\nu(x)|\sim |\eta_\nu(x)-\eta_{\nu'}(x)|$
- $|y-\eta_{\nu'}(x)|\sim |\eta_\nu(x)-\eta_{\nu'}(x)|$ .
It follows from here that, there exist constants $\nu_k,{w_{k}}$, ${w_{\nu,\nu'}}$, and ${w'_{jk}}$ such that over the cell $C$ formula (\[xi\_m\_prepared\]) holds with $$a_k(x)=\prod_{\nu,{\nu'}}|\eta_\nu-\eta_{\nu'}|^{w_{\nu,\nu'}}
\prod_{j\in J} d(x, \pi_n(W_{j}\cap\Gamma_{\eta_\nu}))^{w'_{jk}}\ .$$\
[**STEP III: Construction of the map $g$ and the deformation retraction $r$.**]{} Apply the induction hypothesis to the cells of ${\mathcal{C}}':=\pi_n({\mathcal{C}})$ in $\pi_n({\mathbb{R}}^{n+1})={\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ that contain $p':=\pi_n(p)$ in their closure and to the following collection of functions
- $|\theta_j(x)|$ for $1\leq j\leq b'$,
- $|\eta_j(x)-\eta_{j+1}(x)|$ for ${1\leq j\leq b-1}$,
- $|\theta_j(x)-\theta_{j+1}(x)|$ for ${1\leq j\leq b'-1}$,
- $\min\left(a_k(x)|\theta_j(x)-\theta_{j+1}(x)|^{w_{k}},1\right)$ for ${1\leq j\leq b'-1}$, ${1\leq k\leq l}$ ,
- $\min\left(a_k(x)|\theta_j(x)-\eta_{\nu_k}(x)|^{w_{k}},1\right)$ for ${1\leq j\leq b'}$, ${1\leq k\leq l}$,
- $\min\left(a_k(x)|\theta_{j+1}(x)-\eta_{\nu_k}(x)|^{w_{k}},1\right)$ for ${1\leq j\leq b'-1}$, ${1\leq k\leq l}$.
This provides a bi-Lipschitz map $g':{\mathbb{R}}^n\to{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and stratified neighborhood $(U',\Sigma')$ compatible with the cells of ${\mathcal{C}}'$ such that $g'|_S$ is a diffeomorphism for all $S\in\Sigma'$ and $\{g(S)\}_{S\in\Sigma'}$ is a stratification of $V':=g'(U')$. Also, this provides a set $N'\subset V'$, $\dim N'< \dim V'$ and a Lipschitz deformation retraction $r':V'\times I\to V'$ to $N'$ that preserves the strata of $\Sigma'_V:=g'(\Sigma')$.\
Define $g:{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}\to{\mathbb{R}}^{n+1}$ by $$g(q)= (g'(\pi_n(q)),q\cdot e_{n+1}),$$ where $'\cdot'$ denotes the standard scalar product.\
Define $$U:=\bigcup_{C} g^{-1}(\pi_n^{-1}(U')\cap C),$$ where $C$ runs over all the cells in ${\mathcal{C}}$ that contain $p$ in their closures.\
Define $$N:=N'\times{\mathbb{R}}\cap U\ .$$ To construct $\Sigma=\Sigma_U$ we note that $\Sigma'$ is a refinement of ${\mathcal{C}}'$. Therefore, $\Sigma'$ induces a cylindrical cell decomposition $\Sigma$ that refines ${\mathcal{C}}$ in the following way. The strata of $\Sigma$ are the strata of $\Sigma'$ and graphs and bands of functions that define the cells of ${\mathcal{C}}$ restricted to the cells in $\Sigma'$. It follows from the construction of $g$ and $\Sigma$ that $g|_S$, $S\in\Sigma$ is a diffeomorphism. For the rest of the proof we will identify $\Sigma$ with its image by $g$. The lift of $r'$ is defined as follows. Let $C$ be a cell in $\Sigma$. The cell $C$ can be either a graph of a function $\theta_j$ over a cell of $\Sigma'$ or a the set between two consecutive graphs of $\theta_j$ and $\theta_{j+1}$ over a cell of $\Sigma'$. In the former case the lift of $r'$ to $C$ is defined by $$r(q,t)=(r'(x,t),\theta_j(r'(x,t))),$$ where $q=(x,y)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$. In the other case, we represent $y$ as\
where $\tau:C\to[0,1]$ is defined by $$\tau(q):=\frac{y-\theta_j(x)}{\theta_{j+1}(x)-\theta_j(x)}\ .$$ Set $$\label{set_r}
r(q,t):=(r'(x,t),\tau(q)\theta_{j+1}(r'(x,t))+(1-\tau(q))\theta_{j}(r'(x,t)))\ .$$ We have to show that $r$ is Lipschitz, $(d_xr_t|_C)(q) \to (d_x r_0|_C)(q)$ as $t\to 0$ and that condition (\[xi\_ineq\]) of $\mathbf{(H_{n+1})}$ holds.
*Proof that condition (\[xi\_ineq\]) of $\mathbf{(H_{n+1})}$ holds.* In the case that $C$ is a graph over a cell of $\Sigma'$ condition (\[xi\_ineq\]) follows easily from the induction hypothesis. In the other case, the cell $C$ is delimited by $\theta_j$ and $\theta_{j+1}$ and we assume that each $\xi_k$, $1\leq k\leq s$ , is of the form (\[xi\_m\_prepared\]) and either $\eta_{\nu_k}\leq\theta_j$ or $\eta_{\nu_k}\geq\theta_{j+1}$. Let us assume, without loss of generality that the former case holds. Thus, $$|y-\eta_{\nu_k}(x)|=|y-\theta_j(x)|+|\eta_{\nu_k}(x)-\theta_j(x)|\ .$$ Set $$\theta(x):=|\theta_{j+1}(x)-\theta_j(x)| \text{ and } \eta(x):=|\eta_{\nu_k}(x)-\theta_j(x)|\ .$$ Therefore, $$\label{xi_mq}
\xi_k(q)\sim a_k(x)\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\min(|y-\theta_j(x)|^{w_{k}},
\eta(x)^{w_{k}} ) & w_{k} <0\\
\max (|y-\theta_j(x)|^{w_{k}},
\eta(x)^{w_{k}} ) & w_{k} >0\ .
\end{array} \right.$$ Let $z:=z(t)=(z_1(t),z_2(t))$ be the components of the retraction $r=r(q,t)$ where $(z_1(t),z_2(t))\in {\mathbb{R}}^n\times{\mathbb{R}}$, where $q=(x,y)$. To simplify the notation we will write $(z_1,z_2)$ instead of $(z_1(t),z_2(t))$. From (\[set\_r\]) and (\[xi\_mq\]) it follows that, $$\label{xi_m1}
\xi_k(z)= a_k(z_1)\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\min\{|\tau(z)\theta(z_1)|^{w_{k}},
\eta(z_1)^{w_{k}}\} & w_{k} <0\\
\max\{|\tau(z)\theta(z_1)|^{w_k},
\eta(z_1)^{w_{k}} \} & w_{k} >0\ .\\
\end{array} \right.$$ Note that $\tau(q)=\tau(z)$. If ${w_k}<0$ then, since $\xi_k$ is bounded, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{xi_m_le0}
\xi_k(z) \sim \min\{ \min(a_k(z_1)|\tau(z)\theta(z_1))|^{w_k},1),
\min(a_k(z_1)\eta(z_1)^{w_k},1) \}\ .\end{gathered}$$
We remark that if condition (\[xi\_ineq\]) of the induction hypothesis holds for $f_1$ and $f_2$ then it also holds for $\min\{f_1,f_2\}$. Also note that if $f$ is a non-negative and bounded function then $f\sim \min(f,1)$. Therefore, it is enough to prove that $$\min(a_k(z_1)|\tau(z)\theta(z_1))|^{w_k},1)\lesssim
\min(a_k(x)|\tau(q)\theta(x)|^{w_k},1)$$ and $$\min(a_k(z_1)\eta(z_1)^{w_k},1) \lesssim
\min(a_k(x)\eta(x)^{w_k},1)\ .$$ The latter immediately follows from the induction hypothesis. For the former inequality we note that by induction hypothesis $$\min(a_k(z_1)\theta(z_1)^{w_k},1)\lesssim
\min(a_k(x)\theta(x)^{w_k},1)$$ and therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xi_m2}
\min(a_k(z_1)|\tau(z)\theta(z_1))|^{w_k},1) &=&
\min\{\tau(z)^{w_k} a_k(z_1)\theta(z_1)^{w_k},\tau(z)^{w_k},1\}\nonumber\\&=&
\min\{\tau(z)^{w_k}\min( a_k(z_1)\theta(z_1)^{w_k},1),1\}\nonumber\\&\lesssim&
\min\{\tau(q)^{w_k} a_k(x)\theta(x)^{w_k},1\}\nonumber\ . \end{aligned}$$
Suppose now that ${w_k}>0$. It follows from the fact that $\xi_k$ is bounded, formula (\[xi\_m1\]) and the induction hypothesis that $$\label{xi_mge0}
a_k(z_1)|\tau(z)\theta(z_1)|^{w_k} \lesssim
a_k(x)|\tau(q)\theta(x)|^{w_k}\ .$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_k(z) &\sim&
\max\{ (a_k(z_1)|\tau(z)\theta(z_1)|^{w_k},
a_k(z_1)\eta(z_1)^{w_k} \} \\
&\lesssim&
\max(a_k(x)|\tau\theta(x)|^{w_k},
a_k(x)\eta(x)^{w_k} )\\
&\sim& \xi_k(q)\ .\end{aligned}$$ *Proof that $r$ is Lipschitz and $(d_x r_t|_C)(q)\to (d_x r_0|_C)(q)$ as $t\to 0$.* To prove that $r$ is Lipschitz we show that the differential of $r$ is bounded where defined. In the case that the cell $C$ is a graph of $\theta_j$ over a cell $C'$ of $\Sigma'$, it follows immediately from the induction hypothesis that $r$ is Lipschitz.
To see that $(d_x r_t|_C)(q)\to (d_x r_0|_C)(q)$ as $t\to 0$, fix $q=(x,\theta_j(x))\in C$. Recall that the graph of $\theta_j$ is Whitney (a) stratified over ${\mathcal{C}}'$ and therefore, by Lemma \[lem graph a reg hor c1\], $\theta_j$ is semi-differentiable with respect to ${\mathcal{C}}'$ and therefore semi-differentiable with respect to $\Sigma'$. Using the chain rule we compute (to simplify the notations we use the symbol ’$d$’ inplace of ’$d_x$’) $$(d r_t|_C)(q)=(dr'_t(x), d(\theta_j(r'_t(x))))=(dr'_t(x), d\theta_j(r'_t(x))dr'_t(x) ).$$ Let $u\in T_{x} C'$ $$\left((d r_t|_C)(q)\right)u =
((dr'_t(x))u, d\theta_j(r'_t(x))(dr'_t(x))u ).$$ By induction hypothesis we have $(dr'_t(x))u\to dr'_0(x)u$ as $t\to 0$ and since $\theta_j$ is semi-differentiable we also have $$d\theta_j(r'_t(x))(dr'_t(x))u \to d\theta_j(r'_0(x))(dr'_0(x))u\ \text{ as } t\to 0.$$ It follows that $(d r_t|_C)(q)\to (d r_0|_C)(q)$ as $t\to 0$.
In the other case, when $C$ is a band, the derivatives of the first $n$ components of $r$ are bounded by induction hypothesis so we only have to consider the derivative of the last component. For the sake of this computation we may assume that $\theta_j\equiv 0$ since if not we may consider a bi-Lipschitz change of coordinates $x\mapsto x $, $y\mapsto y-\theta_j(x)$. Set $f:=\theta_{j+1}$. With those assumptions, the last component of the map $r(x,y,t)$ is given by $$r_{n+1}(x,y,t)=\frac{y}{f(x)}f(r'(x,t))\ ,\quad
0 \leq y \leq f(x).$$ We estimate the derivatives of $r_{n+1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{der_est}
{\partial}_y \left( y\frac{f(r'(x,t))}{f(x)}\right) &=& \frac{f(r'(x,t))}{f(x)} \nonumber \\
&\lesssim& 1 \quad \text{ (by induction hypothesis) ,}\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\left| {\partial}_{x_j} \left( y\frac{f(r'(x,t))}{f(x)}\right)\right| &=& \left| y\left[\frac{{\partial}_{x_j}\left( f(r'(x,t))\right)f(x)-f(r'(x,t))f_{x_j}(x) } {f^2(x)}\right]\right|\nonumber\\
&\lesssim&
\left|{\partial}_{x_j}\left( f(r'(x,t))\right) \right| +
\left| f_{x_j}(x)\right|\nonumber \\ &\lesssim& 1\ .\end{aligned}$$ Similarly ${\partial}_t r_{n+1}$ is bounded. To show that $(d_x r_t|_C)(q)\to (d_x r_0|_C)(q)$ as $t\to 0$ it is enough to show that $d_{(x,y)} r_{n+1}(x,y,t) \to d_{(x,y)} r_{n+1}(x,y,0) $ as $t\to 0$. $$d_{(x,y)} r_{n+1}(x,y,t)=\frac{f(r'(x,t))}{f(x)}dy + y\frac{f(x)d(f(r'(x,t)))-f(r'(x,t))df(x)}{f^2(x)} .$$ Note that for fixed $x$, $f(r'_t(x))\to f(r'_0(x))$ and as in the case where $C$ is a graph, we also have $d_x(f(r'(x,t)))\to d_x(f(r'(x,0))) $ as $t\to 0$.
Proof of the Poincaré Lemma via Regularization of stratified forms {#smoothing}
===================================================================
The purpose of this section is to prove Theorem \[Poincare\]. We begin by proving a somewhat weaker version of the Poincaré Lemma.
\[weakPoincare\] Let $\omega$ be a closed smooth $L^\infty$ $k$-form on $X\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $p\in X$.There exists a neighborhood $U_p$ of $p$ in $X$, and an $L^\infty$ $(k-1)$-form $\gamma$ defined on $U_p$ such that $\omega=\overline d\gamma$ in $U_p$.
The proof is by induction on $\dim X$. In the case that $\dim X = 1$, the Theorem is just the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Suppose that $\dim X>1$. Let $(\omega,\Sigma)$ be a stratified form. By Theorem \[retraction\] there exist a stratified neighborhood $(U_p,\Sigma')$ of $p$ such that $(\omega|_{U_p}, \Sigma')$ is a stratified form, $N\subset U_p$ and $r:U_p\times I\to U_p$ a Lipschitz strong deformation retraction of $U_p$ to $N$, that preserves the strata of $\Sigma'$. The pull back of $\omega$, $r^*\omega$ is a smooth $L^\infty$ $k$-form on $U_p\times I$ that can be represented as $\alpha+dt\wedge\beta$. Note that since $r$ preserves the strata in $\Sigma'$ the forms $(\alpha,\Sigma'\times \Sigma_I)$ and $(\beta,\Sigma'\times \Sigma_I)$ are stratified forms on $U_p\times I$, where $\Sigma'\times \Sigma_I$ denotes the stratification of $U_p\times I$ obtained by taking cross products of strata in $\Sigma'$ with any of $\{0\}, \{1\}$ and $(0,1)$. Set $$\gamma_0:=\int_0^1\beta(x,t) dt\ .$$ We claim that $$\overline d\gamma_0=r_1^*\omega-r_0^*\omega$$ We will show that for any stratum $S$ and any smooth $(n-k)$-form with compact support in $S$ we have $$\int_S \overline d \gamma_0\wedge\phi=\int_S(r_1^*\omega-r_0^*\omega)\wedge\phi.$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\int_S \overline d\gamma_0\wedge\phi
=
(-1)^k\int_S \gamma_0\wedge d \phi
&=&
(-1)^k\int_{S\times I} r^*\omega \wedge d\phi
\nonumber \\ &=&
\int_{S\times I} d(r^*\omega \wedge \phi)
\nonumber\\ &=&
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{S\times ({\varepsilon},1]} d(r^*\omega \wedge \phi)
\nonumber \\&=&
\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{{\partial}(S\times ({\varepsilon},1])} r^*\omega \wedge \phi
\nonumber \\&=&
\int_S r_1^*\omega \wedge \phi - \lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{S} r_{{\varepsilon}}^*\omega \wedge \phi.\end{aligned}$$ Since $d_x r_t|_S\to d_x r_0|_S $ it follows that $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0}\int_{S} r_{{\varepsilon}}^*\omega \wedge \phi= \int_{S} r_{0}^*\omega \wedge \phi.$$ Note that $r_1^*\omega=\omega$ and $r_0^*\omega|_N=\omega|_N$. By induction hypothesis for the set $N$ and the form $\omega|_N$ we obtain a form $\gamma'$ on $N$ such that $\omega|_N=\overline d\gamma'$. But then, since $r_0$ is a bounded Lipschitz map we have $$r_0^*\omega=\overline d r_0^*\gamma' .$$ Thus, we set $\gamma:=\gamma_0+r_0^*\gamma'$ and obtain $$\overline d\gamma=\overline d (\gamma_0+r_0^*\gamma')=\omega \ .$$
In the rest of this section we will develop tools to “smoothen” the form $\gamma$ that was constructed in Lemma \[weakPoincare\]. We adopt an approach introduced by B. Youssin in \[Y\]. Our method is an extension of the method in \[Y\] to the setting of stratified sets and $L^\infty$ forms (see subsection \[approx\_strat\]).
Let $X$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with boundary ${\partial}X$.\
Let $(\Omega_{DR}^k(int\ X),d)$ be the cochain complex of smooth $k$-forms on $int\ X:=X-{\partial}X$ and $(\overline{\Omega}_{DR}^k(int\ X),\overline d)$ be the cochain complex of continuous and bounded weakly differentiable forms with continuous and bounded weak differentials. Denote the cohomology of $\Omega_{DR}^k(int\ X)$ by $H^k(\Omega_{DR}^\bullet(int\ X))$ and by $H^k(\overline\Omega_{DR}^\bullet(int\ X))$ the cohomology of $\overline\Omega_{DR}^k(int\ X)$.
\[appr\_1\] Let $\omega\in \overline\Omega_{DR}^k(int\ X)$. There exists a family of smooth $k$-forms $\omega_{\varepsilon}$, ${\varepsilon}>0$ such that
1. $\omega_{\varepsilon}(x)\to\omega(x)$ for every $x\in X$ as ${\varepsilon}\to0$.
2. $d\omega_{\varepsilon}(x)\to \overline d\omega(x)$ for every $x\in X$ as ${\varepsilon}\to0$.
The proof of the lemma relies on classical smoothening techniques which we introduce prior to proving the lemma. Let $\alpha\in\Omega^k_{DR}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $\beta \in\Omega^j_{DR}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ be forms with compact supports. Suppose that $$\alpha = \sum_K a_K(x) dx_K,$$ where $K$ runs over all multi-indices of size $k$ and $dx_K=dx_{K_1}\wedge\dots\wedge dx_{K_k}$. Similarly, suppose that $$\beta = \sum_J b_J(x) dx_J,$$ where $J$ runs over all multi-indices of size $j$. The [**convolution of $\alpha$ and $\beta$**]{} with respect to the standard coordinates of ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ is defined by $$\alpha*\beta:= \sum_{I,J} (a_I*b_J)(x) dx_I\wedge dx_J,$$ where $$(a_I*a_J)(x):=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}a_I(x)b_J(x-y)dy.$$ Define also $$\tilde\alpha(x):=\alpha(-x)=\sum_I a_I(-x)dx_I .$$ The important properties of convolution of functions extend to the case of differential forms. We summarize them in the following proposition.
\[conv\_prop\] Suppose that $\alpha\in\Omega^k_{DR}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$, $\beta \in\Omega^j_{DR}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ and $\gamma \in\Omega^l_{DR}({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ have compact supports and $k+j+l=n$. Then,\
(1) $\alpha*\beta=(-1)^{jk}\beta*\alpha$ .\
(2) $d(\alpha*\beta)=(d\alpha)*\beta=(-1)^k\alpha*d\beta$.\
(3) $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} (\alpha*\beta)\wedge\gamma = \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \alpha\wedge(\tilde \beta*\gamma)$.\
(4) $d\tilde\alpha=-\widetilde{ d\alpha}$.\
(5) Suppose that $\phi_{\varepsilon}$, ${\varepsilon}> 0$ is a family of smooth functions such that $\text{supp }\phi_{\varepsilon}\subset B(0,{\varepsilon})$, $\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\phi_{\varepsilon}(x)dx_1\dots dx_n=1$ and $\phi_{\varepsilon}=\tilde\phi_{\varepsilon}$. Then, $\|\alpha - \alpha*\phi_{\varepsilon}\|\to 0$ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$.
Suppose that $\alpha=\sum_{K} a_K dx_K$, $\beta=\sum_{J} b_J dx_J$ and $\gamma=\sum_{L} a_L dx_L$.\
[*Proof of (1):* ]{} $$\alpha*\beta=\sum_{K,J} (a_K*b_J) dx_K\wedge dx_J=(-1)^{jk}\sum_{I,J} (b_J*a_K) dx_J\wedge dx_K=(-1)^{jk}\beta*\alpha.$$ [*Proof of (2):* ]{} Observe that $$d(\alpha*\beta)=d\left(\sum_{K,J} (a_K*b_J) dx_K\wedge dx_J\right)=
\sum_{K,J,i} (\frac{{\partial}a_K}{{\partial}x_i}*b_J) dx_i\wedge dx_K\wedge dx_J=(d\alpha)*\beta.$$ This computation together with (1) shows that $$(-1)^{k(j+1)} \alpha*d\beta= (d\beta)*\alpha=d(\beta*\alpha)=(-1)^{jk}d(\alpha*\beta)=(-1)^{jk}(d\alpha)*\beta.$$ (2) follows.\
[*Proof of (3):*]{} In the following computation we set $dy_{[n]}:=dy_1\wedge\dots\wedge dy_n$. $$\begin{aligned}
& &\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \sum_{K,J,L} (a_K*b_J)(x) c_L(x) dx_K\wedge dx_J \wedge dx_L
\\&=&
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \sum_{K,J,L} \left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} a_K(y)b_J(x-y)dy_{[n]}\right) c_L(x) dx_K\wedge dx_J \wedge dx_L
\\&=&
\sum_{K,J,L} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} a_K(y)b_J(x-y)c_L(x) dy_{[n]}dx_K\wedge dx_J \wedge dx_L
$$ interchanging the order of integration we get $$\begin{aligned}
& &\sum_{K,J,L} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} a_K(y)b_J(x-y)c_L(x) dx_{[n]}dy_K\wedge dy_J \wedge dy_L
\\&=&
\sum_{K,J,L} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} a_K(y)(\tilde b_J*c_L)(y) dy_K\wedge dy_J \wedge dy_L
\\&=& \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \alpha\wedge(\tilde\beta*\gamma).\end{aligned}$$ [*Proof of (4):*]{} Trivial.\
[*Proof of (5):*]{} Note that $$\alpha-\alpha*\phi_{\varepsilon}= \sum_I \left(a_I(x)-a_I*\phi_{\varepsilon}(x) \right) dx_I.$$ Since $a_I$’s are continuous functions, classical arguments imply that $\| a_I - a_I*\phi_{\varepsilon}\|\to 0 $ as ${\varepsilon}\to 0$. Therefore, $$\|\alpha-\alpha*\phi_{\varepsilon}\| = \|\sum_I \left(a_I(x)-a_I*\phi_{\varepsilon}(x) \right) dx_I\| \leq
\sum_I \|a_I-a_I*\phi_{\varepsilon}\|\to 0 \text { as } {\varepsilon}\to 0.$$
Next we proceed to the proof of Lemma \[appr\_1\].
Let $\{U_i\}$, $i\in L:=\{1,\dots,L\}$ be a cover of $X$ by coordinate charts. Let $\phi_i$ be a partition of unity subordinate to the cover $\{U_i\}_{i\in L}$. Since $\omega = \sum _{i\in L} \phi_i \omega$, it is enough to prove the lemma for a form supported in one coordinate chart. Therefore, we may assume that $X={\mathbb{R}}^n$, $\omega = \sum_I a_I(x) dx_I $, where $x$ denotes the standard coordinates in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and $a_I$’s are continuous functions with compact supports. Let $\phi_{\varepsilon}$ be a family of smooth functions as in Proposition \[conv\_prop\] (5) and set $$\omega_{\varepsilon}:=\omega*\phi_{\varepsilon}.$$It follows from Proposition \[conv\_prop\] (5) that $\omega_{\varepsilon}(x)\to\omega(x)$ for all $x$. To show (2) it is enough to show $ d\omega_{\varepsilon}= \overline d \omega * \phi_{\varepsilon}$, since $(\overline d\omega*\phi_{\varepsilon}) (x)\to \overline d \omega(x) $. We show that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left( \overline d \omega * \phi_{\varepsilon}\right)\wedge\varphi =
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} d\omega_{\varepsilon}\wedge\varphi ,$$ for any smooth $(n-k-1)$-form with compact support. Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\left( \overline d \omega * \phi_{\varepsilon}\right)\wedge\varphi &=&
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\overline d \omega\wedge\left( \varphi*\phi_{\varepsilon}\right)
\\&=&
(-1)^{n}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} \omega\wedge \left(\varphi*d\phi_{\varepsilon}\right)
\\&=&
(-1)^{n+nk}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}(\varphi*d\phi_{\varepsilon})\wedge\omega\\ &=& (-1)^{n+nk}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}\varphi\wedge(\widetilde{d\phi_{\varepsilon}}*\omega)
\\&=&
(-1)^{n+nk+1+(n-k-1)(k+1)}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n}({d\phi_{\varepsilon}}*\omega)\wedge\varphi\\&=&
\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^n} d\omega_{\varepsilon}\wedge\varphi.\end{aligned}$$
\[Stk\] Let $\omega\in \overline\Omega_{DR}^k(int\ X)$ and $M\subset int\ X$ be a compact sub-manifold with boundary of dimension $(k+1)$. Then, $$\int_M \overline d\omega = \int_{{\partial}M} \omega \ .$$
By Lemma \[appr\_1\] we may find a sequence of smooth forms $\omega_n$ on $M$ such that $\omega_n\to\omega$ and $d\omega_n\to\overline d \omega$ in $L^\infty$ norm (since $M$ is compact). So, $$\int_M \overline d\omega =\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_M d\omega_n =\lim_{n\to\infty}\int_{{\partial}M} \omega_n=
\int_{{\partial}M} \omega \ .$$
In this case $$H^k(\overline\Omega_{DR}^\bullet(int\ X))\cong H^k(\Omega_{DR}^\bullet(int\ X)) \ .$$
We take a sheaf theoretic approach. We will show that the complex of sheaves of germs of forms from $\Omega_{DR}^\bullet(int\ X)$ and $\overline\Omega_{DR}^\bullet(int\ X)$ form exact fine resolutions of the sheaf of locally constant functions, which would prove the theorem. Clearly, both complexes of sheaves are fine. Exactness of $\Omega_{DR}^\bullet(int\ X)$ is the classical Poincaré Lemma so we only have to demonstrate exactness of $\overline\Omega_{DR}^\bullet(int\ X)$. For that matter we introduce some notations. Let $U$ be some contractible open coordinate chart in $X$ with $\overline U\cap {\partial}X=\phi$ and $r:U\times I\to U$ be a smooth strong deformation retraction to a point $p$ that is, $r(x,0)=p$ and $r(x,1)=x$. Let $\omega\in \overline\Omega_{DR}^k(int\ X)$ be a closed form. Set $$\gamma:= \int_{t=0}^{t=1} r^*\omega.$$ We have to show that that $\overline d \gamma=\omega$, that is, $$\int_U \gamma \wedge d\phi = (-1)^{k}\int_U \omega\wedge\phi\ ,$$ where $\phi$ is a smooth $(n-k)$-form with compact support in $U$. $$\begin{aligned}
\int_U \gamma\wedge d\phi = \int_U \left( \int_I r^*\omega \right)\wedge d\phi &=&
\int_{U\times I} r^*\omega\wedge d\phi
\\&=&
(-1)^k\int_{U\times I} d(r^*\omega\wedge\phi)\\ = (\text{by Theorem \ref{Stk}})
&=&
(-1)^k\left(\int_U r_1^*\omega\wedge\phi - \int_U r_0^*\omega\wedge\phi\right)
\\&=&
(-1)^k\int_U \omega\wedge\phi. \end{aligned}$$
Approximation on Manifolds.
----------------------------
$\ $\
Suppose that $X$ is a compact manifold with boundary ${\partial}X$ consisting of two disjoint components ${\partial}_1 X$ and ${\partial}_2 X$. Let $U_j$ be a neighborhood of ${\partial}_j X$ for $j=1,2$.
\[prop 2.6.1\] Suppose that we have the data $(X,{\partial}X,U_1,U_2,\omega)$ where $\omega\in \overline \Omega^k_{DR}(int\ X)$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ in $U_1$ and $\overline d \omega$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ in $X$. Then for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists a form $\psi_{\varepsilon}\in \overline \Omega^k_{DR}(X)$ such that $\| \psi_{\varepsilon}\|<{\varepsilon}$, $\|d\psi_{\varepsilon}\|<{\varepsilon}$, $\omega+\overline d\psi_{\varepsilon}$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ on $X-U_2$ and $supp\ \psi_{\varepsilon}$ does not intersect ${\partial}X$.
The proof is the same as the proof of Proposition 2.6.1 in \[Y\].\
\[prop 2.6.2\] Let $S\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a Riemannian manifold with compact closure. Suppose that $\omega\in \overline \Omega^k_{DR}(S)$ with $\overline d\omega$ a ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ form. Then, for any positive lower semi-continuous function $\delta:S\to{\mathbb{R}}_+$ with $\delta(x)\to 0$ as $x$ approaches any point in ${\partial}S$, there exists a form $\psi\in \overline \Omega^k_{DR}(S)$ such that $|\psi(x) |< \delta(x)$, $|\overline d \psi (x)| < \delta(x)$ and $\omega+\overline d\psi$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$.
The proof is essentially taken from \[Y\] Proposition 2.6.2 with a modification to accommodate the pointwise estimates for $|\psi(x)|$ and $|\overline d\psi(x)|$. Let $f:S\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ function such that $f^{-1}((-\infty,c])$ is compact for any $c\in{\mathbb{R}}$. There exists an increasing unbounded sequence $c_1,c_2,\dots\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $f^{-1}(c_i)$ is a smooth sub-manifold of $S$ for any $i=1,2,\dots\ $.
Let $Y_i:=f^{-1}([c_{i-2},c_{i+1}])$ be a smooth compact manifold with boundary ${\partial}Y_i= f^{-1}(c_{i-2})\cup f^{-1}(c_{i+1})$, where $c_0=c_{-1}=-\infty$. Note that $int\ Y_i=Y_i-{\partial}Y_i=f^{-1}((c_{i-1},c_{i+1}))$. Set $$\delta_i:=\frac{1}{3}\min \{\delta(x): x\in Y_i\cup Y_{i+1}\cup Y_{i+2}\}\ .$$ We construct $\psi$ as $\psi=\xi_1+\xi_2+...$ where $\xi_i\in \overline\Omega^{k-1}_{DR}(S) $, $supp\ \xi_i\subset int\ Y_i$, $\|\xi_i\|<\delta_i$, $\|\overline d \xi_i\|<\delta_i$. Suppose for a moment that the forms $\xi_i$ were constructed for all $i\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Then, for any $x\in S$ there exists $i$ such that $x\in Y_{i}\cap Y_{i+1}\cap Y_{i+2}$ and $x\notin Y_j$ for $j\in{\mathbb{N}}-\{i,i+1,i+2\}$ so, $$|\psi(x)|=\|\xi_i+\xi_{i+1}+\xi_{i+2}\| < \delta_{i}+\delta_{i+1}+\delta_{i+2} < \delta(x)\ ,$$ and $$|\overline d\psi(x)|=\|\overline d\xi_i+\overline d\xi_{i+1}+\overline d\xi_{i+2}\| < \delta_{i}+\delta_{i+1}+\delta_{i+2} < \delta(x)\ ,$$
The rest of the proof is exactly as in \[Y\]. The forms $\xi_i$ are constructed inductively such that\
$\phi_i:=\omega+\overline d(\xi_1+\xi_2+\cdots+\xi_i)$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ on $f^{-1}((-\infty,c_i])$. For $i=0$ set $\phi_0:=\omega$ which is smooth on $f^{-1}(-\infty,c_0])=\phi$. So, we have to construct $\xi_{i+1}$ so that $\phi_i+\overline d \xi_{i+1}$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ on $f^{-1}((c_{i+1},c_{i+2}])$.
Apply Proposition \[prop 2.6.1\] to the data $(Y_{i+1},{\partial}Y_{i+1},U_1,U_2, \phi_i|_{Y_{i+1}})$, where ${\partial}_1 Y_{i+1}=f^{-1}(c_{i-1})\ $ and $\ {\partial}_2 Y_{i+1}=f^{-1}(c_{i+2})$, $\ U_1:=f^{-1}([c_{i-1},c_i))\ $ and $\ U_2:=f^{-1}((c_{i+1},c_{i+2}])$. We note that $\phi_i$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ on $U_1$ by induction hypothesis and $\overline d\phi_i$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ on $Y_{i+1}$. Proposition \[prop 2.6.1\] provides us with a form $\psi_{\delta_{i+1}}\in\overline\Omega^{k-1}_{DR}(Y_{i+1})$ such that $\|\psi_{\delta_{i+1}} \|<\delta_{i+1}$, $\|\overline d\psi_{\delta_{i+1}} \|<\delta_{i+1}$, $\phi_i+\overline d\psi_{\delta_{i+1}}$ is ${\mathcal{C}}^\infty$ on $Y_{i+1}-U_2=f^{-1}([c_{i-1},c_{i+1}])$ and $supp\ \psi_{\delta_{i+1}}$ is a compact subset of $f^{-1}((c_{i-1},c_{i+1}))$. The latter property shows that $\psi_{\delta_{i+1}}$ can be extended by $0$ to all of $S$; denote by $\xi_{i+1}$ this extension. So, $$\|\xi_{i+1}\|=\|\psi_{\delta_{i+1}}\|<\delta_{i+1}\ , \ \|\overline \xi_{i+1}\|= \|\overline d\psi_{\delta_{i+1}}\|<\delta_{i+1}\ .$$
Approximation on stratified sets. {#approx_strat}
---------------------------------
$\ $\
Let $(X,\Sigma)\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ be a stratified set. We will need a notion of a [**tubular neighborhood**]{} of a stratum $S\in\Sigma^k$. The stratum $S\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$ is a smooth sub-manifold so by \[BCR\] Corollary 8.9.6, there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $S$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ and a smooth retraction $\pi:U\to S$ such that $d(x,S)=d(x,\pi(x))$ for every $x\in U$.
For each smooth function $\rho_S:S\to{\mathbb{R}}_+$, $\rho_S(x)\to 0$ as $x$ approaches ${\partial}S$ we associate a [**tubular neighborhood**]{} of $S$ in $U$: $$N_{\rho_S}(S) := \{ x\in U: d(x,S) < \rho_S(\pi(x))\}.$$
Let $\phi_S:N_{\rho_S}(S)\to{\mathbb{R}}$ be a continuous function and smooth on every stratum that intersects $N_{\rho_S}(S)$, identically equal to $1$ on $\{x:d(x,S)<1/2{\rho_S}(\pi(x))\}$ and $0$ away from $\{x:d(x,S)<3/4{\rho_S}(\pi(x))\}$.
\[gamma\_ext\] Let $\gamma$ be a form on a stratum $S\in\Sigma$ such that $$\label{bdgm}
|\gamma(x)|\lesssim\sup \{(1+|d\phi_S(y)|)^{-2}:\pi(y)=x \}, \text{ } x\in S.$$ Then, there exists an $L^\infty$ form $\hat \gamma$ on $X$ such that $\hat \gamma|_S = \gamma$.
Set $\hat \gamma$ to be the extension by $0$ to $X-N_{\rho_S}(S)$ of $\phi_S\pi^*\gamma$. To see that $\hat \gamma$ is $L^\infty$ we only have to check that $d\hat\gamma$ is a bounded stratified form. $$d\hat \gamma= d\phi_S\wedge\pi^*\gamma+\phi_S d\pi^*\gamma\ .$$ The second summand is clearly bounded and stratified. For the first summand we have $ |(d\phi_S\wedge \pi^*\gamma)(x)|\to 0 $ as $x$ approaches ${\partial}S$ due to (\[bdgm\]).
Next we prove Theorem \[Poincare\].\
*Proof of Theorem \[Poincare\].* We will prove the following statement. Let $\omega$ be a closed $L^\infty$ $k$-form on $X$, $p\in X$. There exists a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ in $X$ and a stratification $\Sigma$ of $U$, such that $(\omega,\Sigma)$ is a stratified form, and there exist finitely many $L^\infty$ forms on $U$, $\gamma^0,\dots,\gamma^n$, that satisfy the following properties.
1. $\overline d\gamma^j=\omega$ for all $j$.
2. $\gamma^j_l:=\gamma^j|_{\Sigma^{l}}$ is smooth for all $l\leq j$.
Clearly, Theorem \[Poincare\] follows by setting $\gamma:=\gamma^n$. Set $\Sigma$ to be the stratification constructed in Lemma \[weakPoincare\] and set $\gamma^0$ to be the form provided by Lemma \[weakPoincare\]. Suppose that $\gamma^1,\dots,\gamma^{k-1}$ were constructed and we have to construct $\gamma^k$. Denote by $N(\Sigma^k)$ the collection of tubular neighborhoods of strata in $\Sigma^k$. By an appropriate choice of functions $\rho_S$ we may assume that the tubular neighborhoods in $N(\Sigma^k)$ are pairwise disjoint. As $\gamma^{k-1}_k$ may not be smooth, by Proposition \[prop 2.6.2\], we may find forms $\psi^k_S$ on each $S\in\Sigma^k$ such that $\gamma^{k-1}_k+\overline d\psi^k_S$ is smooth and $$|\psi^k_S(x)|\leq
\sup\{(1+|d\phi_{S}(y)|)^{-2}: \pi(y)=x\}.$$ By Lemma \[gamma\_ext\] there exists an extension $\hat\psi^k_S$ of $\psi^k_S$ to $X$. Since the tubular neighborhoods $N(\Sigma^k)$ do not intersect each other, there exists an $L^\infty$ form $\hat\psi^k$ on $X$ that extends all the $\hat\psi^k_S$ for $S\in\Sigma^k$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^k_j&:=&\gamma^{k-1}_j\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text { if } j<k, \nonumber\\
\gamma^k_j&:=&\gamma^{k-1}_{j}+\overline d\hat\psi^k \ \ \text{ if } j\geq k. \end{aligned}$$ $\square$
[V1]{}
J. Bochnak,M.Coste and M.-F.Roy, Real Algebraic Geometry. Ergebnisse der Math. 36, Springer-Verlag(1998). J.-P Brasselet, M.J.Pflaum, On the homology of algebras of Whitney functions on subanalytic sets, Ann. Math. 167 no. 1 (2008), 1-52. Brasselet J.-P, Goresky M., MacPherson R., Simplicial differential forms with poles. Amer. J. Math. 113, no. 6, 1019–1052, 1991.
H.Delfs Kohomologie affiner semialgebraischer Räume Diss. Univ. Regensburg 1980.
M. Edmundo, A. Woerheide, Comparison theorems for o-minimal singular (co)homology, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), 4889-4912.
Fédérer, H., Geometrie measure theory, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1969.
V. M. Gol’dshtein, V. I. Kuz’minov and I. A. Shvedov, integration of differential forms of the classes $W^*_{p,q}$, Sib. Mat. Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 63–79, 1982.
M. Knebusch, Semialgebraic topology in the last ten years, Real algebraic geometry (Rennes, $1991)$, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1524, Springer, Berlin, 1992, pp. 1–36.
S. Lojasiewicz, Theoreme de Pawlucki. La formule de Stokes sous-analytique. Geometry Seminars, 1988-1991 (Italian) (Bologna, 1988-1991), 79-82, Univ. Stud. Bologna, Bologna, 1991
C. Murolo, D. Trotman, Semi-differentiable stratified morphisms, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences - Series I - Mathematics Volume 329, Issue 2, 15 July 1999, Pages 147-152
W. Pawłucki,Quasi-regular boundary and Stokes’ formula for a sub-analytic leaf, Springer-Verlag L.N.M. 1165 (1985), 235-252
G. Valette, Lipschitz triangulations, Illinois Journal of Math., Vol. 49, No 3, Fall 2005, P 953-979
G. Valette, Vanishing homology, to appear in Selecta Mathematica. G. Valette, Volume, density and Whitney conditions, preprint. G. Valette, Volume, Whitney conditions and Lelong number, Ann. Polon. Math. 93 (2008), 1–16. H.Whitney, Geometric integration Theory. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1957. 15+387 pp. C.T.C. Wall, Regular stratifications, Dynamical Systems Warwick 1974, Lecture Notes in Mathe- matics 468, Springer, Berlin and New York, 1975, 332-344. A. Woerheide, o-minimal homology, PhD Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1996
B. Youssin, $L^p$-cohomology of cones and horns, J. Differential Geom. Volume 39, Number 3 (1994), 559-603.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Large-scale variations still pose a challenge in unconstrained face detection. To the best of our knowledge, no current face detection algorithm can detect a face as large as $800 \times 800$ pixels while simultaneously detecting another one as small as $8 \times 8$ pixels within a single image with equally high accuracy. We propose a two-stage cascaded face detection framework, Multi-Path Region-based Convolutional Neural Network (MP-RCNN), that seamlessly combines a deep neural network with a classic learning strategy, to tackle this challenge. The first stage is a Multi-Path Region Proposal Network (MP-RPN) that proposes faces at three different scales. It simultaneously utilizes three parallel outputs of the convolutional feature maps to predict multi-scale candidate face regions. The “atrous” convolution trick (convolution with up-sampled filters) and a newly proposed sampling layer for “hard” examples are embedded in MP-RPN to further boost its performance. The second stage is a Boosted Forests classifier, which utilizes deep facial features pooled from inside the candidate face regions as well as deep contextual features pooled from a larger region surrounding the candidate face regions. This step is included to further remove hard negative samples. Experiments show that this approach achieves state-of-the-art face detection performance on the WIDER FACE dataset “hard” partition, outperforming the former best result by 9.6% for the Average Precision.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'paper\_abridged.bib'
title: 'Multi-Path Region-Based Convolutional Neural Network for Accurate Detection of Unconstrained “Hard Faces”'
---
=1
face detection; large scale variation; tiny faces; “atrous”; MP-RCNN; MP-RPN; WIDER FACE; FDDB; deep neural network
Introduction
============
Although face detection has been extensively studied during the past two decades, detecting unconstrained faces in images and videos has not yet been convincingly solved. Most classic and recent deep learning methods tend to detect faces where fine-grained facial parts are clearly visible. This negatively affects their detection performance in the case of faces at low-resolution or out-of-focus blur, which are common issues in surveillance camera data. The lack of progress in this regard is largely due to the fact that current face detection benchmark datasets (e.g., FDDB [@r01], PACAL FACE [@r02] and AFW [@r03]) are biased towards high-resolution face images with limited variations in scale, pose, occlusion, illumination, out-of-focus blur and background clutter. Recently, a new face detection benchmark dataset, WIDER FACE [@r04], has been released to tackle this problem. WIDER FACE consists of 32,203 images with 393,703 labeled faces. Images in WIDER FACE also have the highest degree of variations in scale, pose, occlusion, lighting conditions, and image blur. As indicated in the WIDER FACE report [@r04], of all the factors that affect face detection performance, scale is the most significant.
In view of the challenge created by facial scale variation in face detection, we propose a Multi-Path Region-based Convolutional Neural Network (MP-RCNN) to detect big faces and tiny faces with high accuracy. At the same time, it is noteworthy that by virtue of the abundant feature representation power of deep neural networks and the employment of contextual information, our method also possesses a high level of robustness to other factors. These are a consequence of variations in pose, occlusion, illumination, out-of-focus blur and background clutter, as shown in Figure 1.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
MP-RCNN is composed of two stages. The first stage is a Multi-Path Region Proposal Network (MP-RPN) that proposes faces at three different scales: small (8-32 pixels in height), medium (32-360 pixels in height) and large (360-900 pixels in height). These scales cover the majority of faces available in all public face detection databases, e.g., WIDER FACE [@r04], FDDB [@r01], PASCAL FACE [@r02] and AFW [@r03]. We observe that the feature maps of lower-level convolutional layers are most sensitive to small-scale face patterns, but almost agnostic to large-scale face patterns due to a limited receptive field. Conversely, the feature maps of the higher-level convolutional layers respond strongly to large-scale face patterns while ignoring small-scale patterns. On the basis of this observation, we simultaneously utilize three parallel outputs of the convolutional feature maps to predict multi-scale candidate face regions. We note that the path of medium-scale (32-360) and large-scale (360-900) span a much larger scale range than the small-scale (8-32) path does. Thus we additionally employ the so-called “atrous” convolution trick (convolution with up-sampled filters) [@r05] together with normal convolution to acquire a larger field of view so as to comprehensively cover the particular face scale range. Moreover, a newly proposed sampling layer is embedded in MP-RPN to further boost the discriminative power of the network for difficult face/non-face patterns.
To further contend with difficult false positives while including difficult false negatives, we add a second stage Boosted Forests classifier after MP-RPN. The Boosted Forests classifier utilizes deep facial features pooled from inside the candidate face regions. It also invokes deep contextual features pooled from a larger region surrounding candidate face regions to make a more precise prediction of face/non-face patterns.
Our MP-RCNN achieves state-of-the-art detection performance on both the WIDER FACE [@r04] and FDDB [@r01] datasets. In particular, on the most challenging so-called “hard” partition of the WIDER FACE test set that contains just small faces, we *outperform* the former best result by 9.6% for the Average Precision.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews related work. Section 3 introduces the proposed MP-RCNN approach to the problem of unconstrained face detection. Section 4 presents experimental results to demonstrate the rationale behind our network design and compares our method with other state-of-the-art face detection algorithms on the WIDER FACE [@r04] and FDDB [@r01] datasets. Section 5 concludes the paper and proposes future work.
Related work
============
There are two established sets of methods for face detection, one based on deformable part models [@r02; @r03] and the other on rigid templates [@r06; @r07; @r08; @r09]. Prior to the resurgence of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) [@r10], both sets of methods relied on a combination of “hand-crafted” feature extractors to select facial features and classic learning methods to perform binary feature classification. Admittedly, the performance of these face detectors has been increasingly improved by the use of more complex features [@r07; @r08; @r11] or better training strategies [@r03; @r06; @r12]. Nevertheless, using “hand-crafted” features and classic classifiers has stymied the development of seamlessly connecting feature selection and classification in a single computational process. In general, they require that many hyper-parameters be heuristically set. For example, both [@r12] and [@r11] needed to divide the training data into several partitions according to face poses and train a separate model for each partition.
Deep neural networks, with its seamless concatenation of feature representation and pattern classification, have become the current trend of rigid templates for face detection. Farfade et al. [@r13] proposed a single Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) model based on AlexNet [@r10] to deal with multi-view face detection. Li et al. [@r14] used a cascade of six CNNs for alternative face detection and face bounding box calibration. However, these two methods need to crop face regions and rescale them to specific sizes. This increases the complexity of the training and testing. Thus they are not suitable for efficient unconstrained face detection where faces of different scales coexist in the same image. Yang et al. [@r15] proposed applying five parallel CNNs to predict five different facial parts, and then evaluate the degree of face likeliness by analyzing the spatial arrangement of facial part responses. The usage of facial parts makes the face detector more robust to partial occlusions, but like DPM based face detectors, this method can only deal with faces of relatively large size.
Recently, Faster R-CNN [@r16], a deep learning framework, achieved state-of-the-art object detection because of two novel components. The first is a Region Proposal Network (RPN) to recommend object candidates of different scales and aspect ratios. The second is a Region-based Convolutional Neural Network (RCNN) to pool the object candidates to construct a fixed-length feature vector, which is employed to make a prediction. Zhu et al. [@r17] proposed a Contextual Multi-Scale Region-based CNN (CMS-RCNN) face detector, which extended Faster RCNN [@r16] in two respects. First, RPN was replaced by a Multi-Scale Region Proposal Network (MS-RPN) to propose face regions based on the combined information from multiple convolutional layers. Secondly, a Contextual Multi-Scale Convolution Neural Network (CMS-CNN) was proposed to replace RCNN for pooling features. This was not restricted to the last convolutional layer, as in RCNN, but also from several lower level convolutional layers. In addition, contextual information was also pooled to promote robustness. Thus MS-RCNN [@r17] has indeed improved RPN by combining feature maps from multiple convolutional layers in order to make a proposal. However, it is necessary to down-sample the lower-level feature maps to concatenate the feature maps of the last convolutional layer. This down-sampling design inevitably diminishes the network’s discriminative power for small-scale face patterns.
The Multi-Path Region Proposal Network (MP-RPN) presented in this paper enhances the discriminative power by eliminating the down-sampling and concatenation steps and directly utilizes feature maps at different resolutions. It proposes faces at different scales: lower-level feature maps are used to propose small-scale faces, while higher-level feature maps do so for large-scale faces. In this way, the scale-aware discriminative power of different feature maps is fully exploited.
It has been pointed out [@r18] that the Region-of-Interest (ROI) pooling layer applied to low-resolution feature maps can lead to “plain” features due to the bins collapsing. We note that this “lost” information will lead to non-discriminative small regions. However, since detecting small-scale faces is one of the main objectives of this paper, we have instead pooled features from lower-level feature maps to reduce information collapsing. For example, we reduce information collapsing by using conv3\_3 and conv4\_3 of VGG16 [@r19], which have higher resolution, instead of conv5\_3 of VGG16 [@r19] used by Faster RCNN [@r16] and CMS-RCNN [@r17]. The pooled features are then trained by a Boosted Forest (BF) classifier as is done for pedestrian detection [@r18]. But unlike [@r18], we also pool contextual information in addition to the facial features to further boost detection performance.
Although the practice of adding a BF classifier makes our method not an end-to-end deep neural network solution, the combination of MP-RPN and a BF classifier has two advantages. First, features pooled from different convolutional layers need not be normalized before concatenation since the BF classifier treats each element of a feature vector separately. In contrast, in CMS-RCNN [@r17], three different normalization scales need to be carefully selected to concatenate the RoI features from three convolutional layers. Secondly, both MP-RPN and the BF classifier only need to be trained once, which is as efficient as the four-step alternative training process used in Faster RCNN [@r16] and CMS-RCNN [@r17].
The proposed MP-RPN shares some similarity with the Single Shot Multibox Detector (SSD) [@r20] and the Multi-Scale Convolutional Neural Network (MS-CNN) [@r21]. Both methods use multi-scale feature maps to predict objects of different sizes in parallel. However, our work differs from these in two notable respects. First, we employ a fine-grained path to classify and localize tiny faces (as small as $8\times 8$ pixels). Both SSD and MS-CNN lack such a characteristic since both were proposed to detect general objects, such as cars or tables, which have a much larger minimum size. Second, for medium- and large-scale path, we additionally employ the “atrous” convolution trick (convolution with up-sampled filters) [@r05] together with the normal convolution to acquire a larger field of view. In this way, we are able to use three paths to cover a large spectrum of face sizes, from $8\times 8$ to $900\times 900$ pixels. By comparison, SSD [@r20] utilized six paths to cover different object scales, which makes the network much more complex.
Approach
========
In this section, we introduce the proposed MP-RCNN face detector, which consists of two stages: a Multi-Path Region Proposal Network (MP-RPN) for the generation of face proposals and a Boosted Forest (BF) for the verification of face proposals.
Multi-Path Region Proposal Network
----------------------------------
The detailed architecture of a Multi-Path Region Proposal Network (MP-RPN) is shown in Figure 2. Given a full image of arbitrary size, MP-RPN proposes faces through three detection branches: Det-4 for proposing small-scale faces (8-32 pixels in height), Det-16 for medium-scale faces (32-360 pixels in height) and Det-32 for large-scale faces (360-900 pixels in height). We adopt the VGG-16 net [@r19] (from Conv1\_1 to Conv5\_3) as the CNN trunk and the three detection branches emanate from different layers of the trunk. Since the branches of Det-4 and Det-16 stay close to the lower layers of the trunk network, they affect the gradients of the corresponding lower layers more than the Det-32 branch. Thus we add L2 normalization layers [@r22] to these two branches to avoid the potential learning instability.
{width="0.95\linewidth"}
Similar to RPN in Faster RCNN [@r16], for each detection branch, we slide a $3 \times 3$ convolutional network (Conv\_det\_4, Conv\_det\_16, and Conv\_det\_32 in Figure \[fig2\]) over the feature map of the prior convolutional layer (Concat1, conv\_reduce1, and conv\_reduce2 in Figure \[fig2\]). This convolutional layer is fully connected to a $3 \times 3$ spatial window of the input feature map. Each sliding window is mapped to a 512-dimensional vector. The vector is fed into two sibling fully connected layers, a box-classification layer ($c_i$ in Figure \[fig2\], $i=1$ for Det-4 branch, $2$ for Det-16 branch, and $3$ for Det-32 branch) and a box-regression layer ($b_i$ in Figure \[fig2\], $i=1$ for Det-4 branch, $2$ for Det-16 branch, and $3$ for Det-32 branch). At each sliding window location, we simultaneously predict $k$ region proposals of different scales (aspect ratio is always set to $1$). The $k$ proposals are parameterized relative to $k$ reference boxes, called anchors [@r16]. Each anchor is centered at the sliding window and associated with a scale. The anchors are necessary because they refer to both the scale and position information so that face of different sizes located in any position of an image can be detected by the convolutional network. Table \[table0\] shows the anchor scales (in pixel) allocated to each branch.
Branch Det-4 Det-16 Det-32
--------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
Anchor Scales $8^2$, $16^2$, $32^2$ $32^2$, $64^2$, $128^2$, $256^2$, $360^2$ $360^2$, $512^2$, $720^2$, $900^2$
: Anchor scales (in pixel) of each detection branch[]{data-label="table0"}
During training, the parameters $W$ of the MP-RPN are learned from a set of $N$ training samples $S = \{ ({X_i},{Y_i})\} _{i = 1}^N$, where $X_i$ is an image patch associated with an anchor, and $Y_i=(p_i,b_i)$ the combination of its ground truth label $p_i=\{0,1\}$ ($0$ for non-face and $1$ for face) and ground truth box regression target ${b_i} = (b_i^x,b_i^y,b_i^w,b_i^h)$ associated with an ground truth face region. They are the parameterizations of the four coordinates following [@r16]: $b_i^x = ({x_{gt}} - {x_i})/{w_i}, b_i^y = ({y_{gt}} - {y_i})/{h_i}, b_i^w = \log ({w_{gt}}/{w_i}), b_i^h = \log ({h_{gt}}/{h_i})$, where $x,y,w,h$ denote the two coordinates of the box center, width, and height. Variables $x_i,x_{gt}$ are for the image patch $X_i$ and its ground truth face region $X_i^{gt}$ respectively (likewise for $y$, $w$, and $h$).
We define the loss function for MP-RPN as $$l(W) = \sum\limits_{m = 1}^M {{\alpha _m}} {L^m}({\{ ({X_i},{Y_i})\} _{i \in {S^m}}}|W)$$ where $M=3$ is the number of detection branches, ${\alpha _m}$ is the weight of loss function $L^m$, and $S = \{ {S^1},{S^2},...,{S^M}\}$, where $S^m$ contains the training samples of the $m^{th}$ detection branch. The loss function for each detection branch contains two objectives $$\begin{split}
{L^m}({\{ ({X_i},{Y_i})\} _{i \in {S^m}}}|W) &= \frac{1}{{{N_m}}}\sum\limits_{i \in {S^m}} {{L_{cls}}} (p({X_i}),{p_i}) \\&+ \lambda \left[\kern-0.15em\left[ {{p_i} = 1}
\right]\kern-0.15em\right]{L_{reg}}(b({X_i}),{b_i})
\end{split}$$ where $N_m$ is the number of samples in the mini-batch of the $m^{th}$ detection branch, $p({X_i}) = ({p_0}({X_i}),{p_1}({X_i}))$ is the probability distribution over the two classes, non-face and face, respectively. $L_{cls}$ is the cross entropy loss, $b({X_i}) = ({b^x}({X_i}),{b^y}({X_i}),{b^w}({X_i}),{b^h}({X_i}))$ is the predicted bounding box regression target, $L_{reg}$ is the smoothL1 loss function defined in [@r23] for bounding box regression and $\lambda$ is a trade-off coefficient between classification and regression. Note that $L_{reg}$ is computed only when a training sample is positive ($\left[\kern-0.15em\left[ {{p_i} = 1}\right]\kern-0.15em\right]$).
### Details of Each Detection Branch
: Although Conv4\_3 layer (stride = 8 pixels) might seem to already be sufficiently discriminative on regions as small as $8\times 8$ pixels, this is not the case. We found in preliminary experiments that when a $8\times 8$ face happened to be located between two neighboring anchors, neither could be precisely regressed to the face location. Thus, to boost the localization accuracy of small faces, we instead use Conv3\_3 layer (with stride = 4 pixels) to propose small faces. At the same time, the feature maps of Conv4\_3 layer are up-sampled (by a deconvolution layer) and then concatenated to those of the Conv3\_3 layer. The higher-level Conv4\_3 layer provides Conv3\_3 layer with some “contextual” information and helps it to remove hard false positives.
: This detection branch is forked from Conv5\_3 layer to detect faces from $32\times 32$ to $360\times 360$ pixels. However, this large span of scales cannot be well accounted for by a single convolutional path. Inspired by the “atrous” spatial pyramid pooling [@r05] used in semantic image segmentation, we employ three parallel convolutional paths: a normal $3\times 3$ convolutional layer, an “atrous” convolutional layer with “atrous” rate 2 and an “atrous” convolutional layer with “atrous” rate 4. These three convolutional layers have increasing receptive field sizes and are able to comprehensively cover the large face scale range.
: This detection branch is forked from Conv6\_2 layer to detect faces from $360\times 360$ to $900\times 900$ pixels. Similar to , three parallel convolutional paths are employed to fully cover the scale range.
{width="0.85\linewidth"}
### Online Hard Example Mining (OHEM) layer
The training samples for MP-RPN are usually extremely unbalanced. This is because face regions are scarce compared to background (non-face) regions, so only a few anchors can be positive (matched to face regions) and most of the anchors are negative (matched to background regions). As indicated by [@r24], explicitly mining hard negative examples with high training loss leads to better training and testing performance than randomly sampling all negative examples. In this paper, we propose an Online Hard Example Mining (OHEM) layer specifically for MP-RPN. It is applied independently to each detection branch in Figure 2 in order to mine both hard positive and negative examples at the same time. We fix the selection ratio of hard positive examples and negative examples to 1:3, which experimentally provides more stable training. These selected hard examples are then used in back-propagation for updating network weights.
Two steps are involved in the OHEM layer. : Given all anchors (training samples) and their classification loss, we compare each anchor with its eight spatial neighbors (top, left, right, bottom, top-left, top-right, bottom-left and bottom-right). If the loss is greater than all of its neighbors, this anchor is kept as is; otherwise it is suppressed by setting its classification loss to zero. : All anchors are sorted in the descending order of their classification loss and hard positive and negative samples are selected according to this order. The ratio between the selected positives and negatives was chosen as 1:3.
The proposed OHEM layer is “online” in the sense that it is seamlessly integrated into the forward pass of the network to generate a mini-batch of hard examples. Thus we do not need to freeze the training model to mine hard examples from all training data, and used the hard examples to update the current model.
Note that unlike [@r24], which proposed an OHEM layer for fast RCNN [@r23], here the OHEM layer is used in MP-RPN but it can also be generally used in other Region-based Proposal Networks, such as RPN in faster RCNN [@r16] and MS-RPN in CMS-RCNN [@r17].
Feature Extraction and Boosted Forest
-------------------------------------
The detailed architecture of Stage 2 is shown in Figure \[fig3\]. Given a complete image of arbitrary size and a set of proposals provided by the MP-RPN, RoI pooling [@r23] is used to extract features in the proposed regions from the feature maps of both Conv3\_3 and Conv4\_3. Conv3\_3 contains fine-grained information, while Conv4\_3, with a larger receptive field, implicitly contains “contextual” information. Similar to [@r18], the “atrous” convolution trick is employed to Conv4\_1, Conv4\_2 and Conv4\_3. This increases the resolution of the feature maps of Conv4\_3 to twice its original value. This change produces better experimental results.
Inspired by [@r02; @r17], apart from extracting features from a proposed region, we also explicitly extract “contextual” features from a large region surrounding the proposal region. Suppose the original region is $[l, t, w, h]$, where $l$ is the horizontal coordinate of its left edge, $t$ the vertical coordinate of the top edge, and $w$, $h$ the width and height of the region, respectively. We set the corresponding “contextual” region to $[l-w, t, 3w, 3h]$, which is $3\times 3$ bigger than the original region and approximately covers the upper body of a person.
A Boosted Forest classifier is introduced after OHEM. Features from both the original and “contextual” regions are pooled using a fixed resolution of $5\times 5$, and then concatenated and input to a Boosted Forest classifier. We mainly follow [@r18] to set the hyper-parameters of the BF classifier. Specifically, we bootstrap the training by six cascaded forests with an increasing number of trees: 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024 and 1536. The tree depth is set at 5. The initial training set contains all positive samples ($\sim$160k in the WIDER FACE training set) and randomly selected negative samples ($\sim$100k). After each stage, additional negative samples ($\sim$10k) are mined and added to the training set. At last, a forest of 2048 trees is trained as the final face detection classifier. Note that unlike an ordinary Boosted Forest, which equally initializes the confidence score of training samples, we directly use the “faceness” probability given by MP-RPN as the initial confidence score for each training sample.
Experiments
===========
In this section, we first introduce the datasets used for training and evaluating our proposed face detector, and then compare the proposed MP-RCNN to state-of-the-art face detection methods on the WIDER FACE dataset [@r04] and the FDDB dataset [@r01]. The full implementation details of MP-RCNN used in the experiments are given in appendix A.
In addition, we conduct a set of detailed model analysis experiments to examine how each model component (e.g., detection branches, “atrous” convolution, OHEM, etc.) affects the overall detection performance. These can be found in appendix B. Moreover, the running time of our algorithm is reported in appendix C.
Datasets
--------
WIDER FACE [@r04] is a large public face detection benchmark dataset for training and evaluating face detection algorithms. It contains 32,203 images with 393,703 labeled human faces (each image has an average of 12 faces). Faces in this dataset have a high degree of variability in scale, pose, occlusion, lighting conditions, and image blur. Images in the WIDER FACE dataset are organized based on 61 event classes. For each event class, 40%, 10% and 50% of the images are randomly selected for training, validation and test sets. Both the images and associated ground truth labels used for training and validation are available online[^1]. For the test set, only the images are available. The detection results must be submitted to an evaluation server administered by the authors of the WIDER FACE dataset in order to obtain Precision-Recall curves. Moreover, this test set was divided into three levels of difficulty by the authors of [@r04] : “Easy”, “Medium”, “Hard”. These categories were based on the detection rate of EdgeBox [@r28], so that the Precision-Recall curves need to be reported for each difficulty level[^2].
The other test set used in our experiments is the FDDB dataset [@r01], which is a standard database for evaluating face detection algorithms. It contains the annotations for 5,171 faces in a set of 2,845 images. Each image in FDDB dataset has less than two faces on average. These faces mostly have large sizes compared to those in the WIDER FACE dataset.
Our proposed MP-RCNN was trained on the training partition of the WIDER FACE dataset, and then evaluated on the WIDER FACE dataset test partition and the whole FDDB dataset. The validation partition of the WIDER FACE dataset is used in the model analysis experiments (appendix B) for comparing different model designs.
Comparison to the state-of-the-art
----------------------------------
In this subsection, we compare the proposed MP-RCNN to state-of-the-art face detection methods on the WIDER FACE [@r04] and FDDB datasets [@r01].
***Results on the WIDER FACE test set*** Here we compare the proposed MP-RCNN with all six strong face detection methods available on the WIDER FACE website: Two-stage CNN [@r04], Multiscale Cascade [@r04], Multitask Cascade [@r29], Faceness [@r15], Aggregate Channel Features (ACF) [@r12] and CMS-RCNN [@r17]. Figure 4 shows the Precision-Recall curves and the Average Precision values of the different methods on the Hard, Medium and Easy partition of the WIDER FACE test set, respectively. On the hard partition, our MP-RCNN outperforms all six strong baselines by a large margin. Specifically, it achieves an increase of 9.6% in Average Precision compared to the $2^{nd}$ place CMS-RCNN method. On the Easy and Medium partitions, our method both rank in $2^{nd}$ place, only lagging behind the recent CMS-RCNN method by a small margin. See Figure 6 in appendix D for some examples of the face detection results using the proposed MP-RCNN on the WIDER FACE test set.
***Results on the FDDB dataset*** To show the general face detection capability of the proposed MP-RCNN method, we directly apply the MP-RCNN previously trained on the WIDER FACE training set to the FDDB dataset. We also make a comprehensive comparison with 15 other typical baselines: ViolaJones [@r09], SurfCascade [@r07], ZhuRamanan [@r03], NPD [@r08], DDFD [@r13], ACF [@r12], CascadeCNN [@r14], CCF [@r30], JointCascade [@r06], HeadHunter [@r11], FastCNN [@r31], Faceness [@r15], HyperFace [@r32], MTCNN [@r29] and UnitBox [@r33]. The evaluation is based on a discrete score criterion, that is, if the ratio of the intersection of a detected region with an annotated face region is greater than 0.5, a score of 1 is assigned to the detected region, and 0 otherwise. As shown in Figure \[fig5\_onecol\], the proposed MP-RCNN outperforms ALL of the other 15 methods and has the highest average recall rate (0.953). See Figure \[fig7\_onecol\] in appendix E for some examples of the face detection results on the FDDB dataset.
![ROC curves of the proposed MP-RCNN and other published strong methods on the FDDB dataset [@r02]. Numbers in the legend show the average recall rates.[]{data-label="fig5_onecol"}](figure6_new.pdf){width="0.98\linewidth"}
Conclusion
==========
We have proposed MP-RCNN, an accurate face detection method for tackling the challenge of large-scale variation in unconstrained face detection. Most previous methods extract the same features for faces at different scales. This neglects the face pattern variations due to scale changes and thus fails to detect both large and tiny faces with high accuracy. In this paper, we introduce MP-RCNN, which utilizes a newly proposed Multi-Path Region Proposal Network (MP-RPN) to extract features at various intermediate network layers. These features possess different receptive field sizes that approximately match the facial patterns at three different scales. This leads to high detection accuracy for faces across a large range (from $8\times 8$ to $900 \times 900$) of facial scales.
MP-RCNN also employs a boosted forest classifier as the second stage, which uses the deep features pooled from MP-RPN to further boost face detection performance. We observe that although MP-RCNN is designed mainly to deal with the challenge of scale variation, the powerful feature representation of deep networks also enables a high level of robustness to variations in pose, occlusion, illumination, out-of-focus blur and background clutter. Experimental results demonstrate that our proposed MP-RCNN consistently achieves the best performance on both the WIDER FACE and FDDB datasets. In the future, we intend to leverage this across-scale detection ability to other tiny object detection tasks, e.g., facial landmark localization of small faces.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the McGill Engineering Doctoral Award (MEDA). They would also like to thank the support of the NVIDIA Corporation for the donation of a TITAN X GPU through their academic GPU grants program.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Implementation Details
----------------------
The code of MP-RPN and the deep feature extraction was built using Caffe [@r25], and the Boosted Forest was based on Piotrs Computer Vision Matlab Toolbox [@r26].
Before training and testing, each full image of arbitrary size was resized such that its shorter edge had $N$ pixels ($N=900$ in the WIDER FACE dataset and $400$ in the FDDB dataset).
For MP-RPN training, an anchor was assigned as a positive sample if it had an Intersection-over-Union (IOU) ratio greater than 0.5 with any ground truth box, and as a negative sample if it had an IOU ratio less than 0.3 with any ground truth box. Each mini-batch contains 1 image and 768 sampled (using OHEM) anchors, 256 for each detection branch. The ratio of positive and negative samples is 1:3 for all detection branches. The CNN backbone (from Conv1\_1 to Conv5\_3 in Figure \[fig2\]) was a truncated VGG-16 net [@r19] pre-trained on the ImageNet dataset [@r27]. The weights of all the other convolutional layers were randomly initialized from a zero-mean Gaussian distribution with standard deviation 0.01. We fine-tuned the layers from conv3\_1 and up, using a learning rate of 0.0005 for 80k mini-batches, and 0.0001 for another 40k mini-batches on the WIDER FACE training dataset. A momentum of 0.9 and a weight decay of 0.0005 were used. Face proposals produced by MP-RPN are post-processed individually for each detection branch in the following way. First, non-maximum suppression (NMS) with a threshold of 0.7 was adopted to filter face proposals based on their classification scores. Then the remaining face proposals were ranked by their scores. For BF training, 150, 40, 10 top-ranked proposals in an image were selected from Det-4, Det-16 and Det-32, respectively. At test time, the same number (150, 40, 10) of proposals were selected from the corresponding branch, and finally all output proposals from the different branches were merged by NMS with a threshold of 0.5.
Model Analysis
--------------
In this subsection, we discuss controlled experiments on the validation set of the WIDER FACE dataset to examine how each model component affects the overall detection performance. Note that in order to save training time, experiment 1-3 employed face detection models trained for 30k iterations on only 11 out of the total 61 event classes. The learning rate was selected to be 0.0005 for the first 20k iterations, and 0.00005 for the remaining 10k iterations. Other hyper-parameters were determined as stated earlier in appendix A. The selected event classes are the first eleven classes (i.e., Traffic, Parade, Ceremony, People Marching, Concerts, Award Ceremony, Stock Market, Group, Interview, Handshaking and Meeting), which take up about 1/5 of the whole training set. In Experiment 4, the face detection model was trained with the whole WIDER FACE training set (61 event classes). All hyper-parameters in Experiment 4 were the same as stated in appendix A.
***Experiment-1: The roles of individual detection layers*** Table \[table1\] shows the detection recall rates of the various detection branches as a function of face height in pixels. We observe that each detection branch has the highest detection recall for the faces that match its scale. The combination of all detection branches (the last row of Table \[table1\]) achieves the highest recall for faces of all scales. Note that the recall rate for small scale faces (8$\le$height$\le$32) is much lower than that of medium scale faces (32$<$height$\le$360) and large scale faces (360$<$height$\le$900), indicating the obvious expectation of the increasing difficulty of face detection as scale drops.
Branch 8$\le$height$\le$32 32$<$height$\le$360 360$<$height$\le$900 All scales
---------- --------------------- --------------------- ---------------------- ------------
Det-4 **0.7994** 0.4173 0 0.6683
Det-16 0.2862 **0.9076** 0 0.9759
Det-32 0 0.0488 **0.9919** 0.02
Combined **0.8035** **0.9263** **0.9919** 0.8454
: Detection recall of various detection branches on WIDER FACE validation set as a function of face height in pixels[]{data-label="table1"}
***Experiment-2: The roles of atrous convolutional layers*** Table \[table2\] shows the detection recall rates of the proposed MP-RPN in terms of different design options (with/without “atrous” convolution and with/without OHEM). By comparing rows 1 and 3, as well as 2 and 4, we observe that the inclusion of the “atrous” convolution trick increases the detection recall rate of all branches.
---------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Atrous? OHEM?
$\times$ $\times$ 0.7524 0.9196 0.9839 0.8083
$\times$ 0.7813 0.9059 0.9839 0.8239
$\times$ 0.8031 0.9214 0.9919 0.8435
**0.8035** **0.9263** **0.9919** **0.8454**
---------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
: Detection Recall of MP-RPN with different options on the WIDER FACE validation set as a function of face height in pixels[]{data-label="table2"}
***Experiment-3: The roles of the OHEM layers*** By comparing rows 1 and 2, as well as 3 and 4 in Table \[table2\], we can conclude that, in most cases, the inclusion of the OHEM layer increases the detection recall rate. However, in the absence of “atrous” convolution, the use of OHEM layer causes a slight recall drop for medium size faces (32$<$height$\le$360). By comparing rows 1 and 4, we see observe that the simultaneous inclusion of “atrous” convolution and OHEM consistently increases the detection recall of all face scales.
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
***Experiment-4: The roles of BF with various options*** Table \[table3\] displays the average precision of various Boosted Forest (BF) options. We observe that although MP-RPN already achieves high average precision as a stand-alone face detector, the inclusion of a BF classifier further boosts the detection performance for faces of all levels of difficulty. Specifically, a BF classifier with “face” features (features pooled from the original proposal regions[^3]) achieves a relatively higher average precision gain for “easy” and “medium” faces, but a lower average precision gain for “hard” faces, compared to a BF classifier with “context” features (features pooled from a larger region surrounding the original proposal regions[^4]). When pooling complementary “face” and “context” features, the BF classifier achieves the highest gain for all “Easy”, “Medium” and “Hard” faces.
--------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
Easy Medium Hard
MP-RPN 0.856 0.848 0.722
MP-RPN + BF(face) 0.860 0.851 0.726
MP-RPN + BF(context) 0.857 0.849 0.728
MP-RPN + BF(face+context) **0.862** **0.852** **0.734**
--------------------------- ----------- ----------- -----------
: Average Precision of Boosted Forest (BF) Classifier with various options on WIDER FACE validation set.[]{data-label="table3"}
Average processing time
-----------------------
We randomly selected 100 images from the WIDER FACE validation set. An image patch of resolution $640 \times 480$ was cropped from the center of each image[^5], thus creating 100 new images. Both the proposed MP-RCNN and the classical Viola-Jones algorithm [@r09] were employed to process these 100 images. The average processing time per image is shown in Table \[table4\] below. Note that in order to guarantee a fair comparison, both algorithms were tested on a 3.5 GHz 8-core Intel Xeon E5-1620 server with 64GB of RAM, and the image loading time was excluded from the processing time for both algorithms. The Viola-Jones algorithm[^6] used only CPU resources. An Nvidia GeForce GTX Titan X GPU was used for the CNN computations in MP-RCNN.
Method Programming Language Average processing time (sec.)
------------- ---------------------- --------------------------------
Viola-Jones C++ 0.092
MP-RCNN Matlab and C++ 0.216
: A comparison of average processing time[]{data-label="table4"}
From Table \[table4\], we observe that the proposed MP-RCNN runs at about 4.6 FPS compared to the 10.9 FPS obtained by classical Viola-Jones algorithm.
Face detection results on WIDER FACE test set
---------------------------------------------
Figure \[fig6\] shows some examples of the face detection results using the proposed MP-RCNN on the WIDER FACE test set.
Face detection results on FDDB
------------------------------
Figure \[fig7\_onecol\] shows some examples of the face detection results using the proposed MP-RCNN on FDDB dataset.
![Example of face detection results on the FDDB dataset [@r02] using the proposed MP-RCNN method.[]{data-label="fig7_onecol"}](figure7_new.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
[^1]: http://mmlab.ie.cuhk.edu.hk/projects/WIDERFace/index.html
[^2]: We have no knowledge about the difficulty level of the images in the test set. In fact, it is necessary to submit all predicted face boxes to the server, which then provided three ROC curves based on “hard”, “medium” and “easy” partitions.
[^3]: See Section 3.B for details.
[^4]: See Section 3.B for details.
[^5]: If the original image had a height less than 640 or a width less than 480 pixels, we padded the cropped image patch from the bottom and the right with zeros to make it exactly $640 \times 480$.
[^6]: We used the code provided by the OpenCV website: <http://docs.opencv.org/2.4/modules/objdetect/doc/cascade_classification.html>. The face model used in the code was “haarcascade\_frontalface\_default”.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a practical method to compute the vibrational resonant Raman spectra in solids with delocalized excitations. We apply this approach to the study of tetrahedrous amorphous carbon. We determine the vibrational eigenmodes and eigenvalues using density functional theory in the local density approximation, and the Raman intensities using a tight binding approximation. The computed spectra are in good agreement with the experimental ones measured with visible and UV lasers. We analyze the Raman spectra in terms of vibrational modes of microscopic units. We show that, at any frequency, the spectra are dominated by the stretching vibrations. We identify a very rapid inversion in the relative Raman intensities of the $sp^2$ and $sp^3$ carbon sites with the frequency of the incident laser beam. In particular, the spectra are dominated by $sp^2$ atoms below 4 eV and by $sp^3$ atoms above 6 eV.'
address: |
Laboratoire de Minéralogie-Cristallographie de Paris,\
Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252, Paris, Cedex 05, France
author:
- Mickael Profeta and Francesco Mauri
title: Theory of resonant Raman scattering of tetrahedral amorphous carbon
---
Introduction
============
Tetrahedral amorphous carbon is a very studied material because of its physical properties, which are close to those of diamond. It is composed of carbon atoms with $sp^3$ and $sp^2$ hybridization, with a fraction of $sp^3$ sites larger than 40 %. The properties of tetrahedral amorphous carbon are very dependent on its microscopic structure. Thus, the knowledge of the microscopic structure can be used to improve the synthesis of the material. Raman spectroscopy have often been applied to the study of tetrahedral amorphous carbon.[@Robertson] However visible Raman spectroscopy is much more sensitive to $sp^2$ than to $sp^3$ carbons.[@visible] Recently, it has been shown that it is possible to probe the vibrations of $sp^3$ carbons with UV Raman,[@uv; @uv2] but few UV spectra have been presented in literature up to now. In absence of further experimental data, a theoretical study can elucidate the detailed dependence of the Raman spectra on the laser frequency.
A theory to compute the Raman spectra under [*non-resonant*]{} conditions is well established. Indeed, the Placzek approximation[@bruesh] links the scattered Raman intensity with the electronic susceptibility of the sample. However, for resonant Raman the Placzek approximation is not justified. In this work, we develop a practical method for the calculation of [*resonant*]{} Raman spectra in solids with delocalized excitations. We apply this theory to amorphous carbon, using density functional theory in the local density approximation to compute the vibrational modes and frequencies and a tight binding approximation to obtain the resonant Raman intensities. We compare our results to the experimental visible and UV Raman spectra and we analyze our theoretical spectra in terms of the motion of microscopic units.
Theoretical results {#theory}
===================
In Raman spectroscopy a sample of matter is irradiated by a monochromatic laser beam of pulsation $\omega_{\rm L}$, and the intensity of the scattered light $I(\omega)$ is measured, as a function of the pulsation $\omega$. The intensity $I(\omega)$ has a main elastic peak at the incident light pulsation, $\omega=\omega_{\rm L}$, and a smaller inelastic contribution at $\omega\ne\omega_{\rm L}$ associated to energy transfers between the light and the sample. In this paper, we will focus on first-order vibrational Stokes spectroscopy, in which the light excites a single vibrational mode.
In order to describe the vibrational Raman scattering and to fix the notation, we need to introduce the Born-Oppenheimer (BO) approximation. Within the BO approximation the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian with eigenvalues $E_{k}^e$ can be written as $ |\psi_{e,{\bf
R}}\rangle \otimes |\nu_{e,k} \rangle $, where the kets $
|\psi_{e,{\bf R}}\rangle$ and $|\nu_{e,k} \rangle $ are defined on the Hilbert space of the electronic and nuclear coordinates, respectively. The kets $|\psi_{e,{\bf R}}\rangle$ are the eigenvectors with eigenvalues $E_e({\bf R})$ of the electronic Hamiltonian $H^{el}({\bf R})$, which depends parametrically on the positions ${\bf R}$, of the N nuclei (${\bf R}$ represents a vector of 3N coordinates). For every $e$, each $E_e({\bf R})$ defines a BO potential energy surface. Finally the wave-functions $|\nu_{e,k} \rangle $ satisfy the eigenvalue equation: $$\label{bo}
[T + E_e({\bf R})] |\nu_{e,k} \rangle = E_{k}^e
|\nu_{e,k} \rangle ,$$ where $T$ is the kinetic energy of the nuclei. It is possible to define a vibrational energy as: $$\epsilon_{k}^e = E_{k}^e - E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_e),$$ where ${\bf R}^{\rm eq}_e$ is the equilibrium position of the nuclei on the BO surface $E_e({\bf R})$.
In vibrational Raman spectroscopy, before the scattering, the system is on the ground state BO surface, $E_0({\bf R})$, and in the vibrational state $\epsilon_{i}^0$, after the scattering the system is still on the ground state BO surface but in a different vibrational state $\epsilon_{f}^0$. In first-order Stokes Raman the harmonic approximation is assumed and the final state differs from the initial one by the creation of a phonon with energy $\omega_s$.[@footnotehbar]
In non-resonant Raman scattering the energy of incident light is very far from any electronic excitation. Under this condition, a simple and well established theory to compute the scattering intensity $I(\omega)$, have been developed by Placzek.[@Placzek; @bruesh] Within the Placzek’s approximation the intensity of scattered light is expressed in terms of the electronic susceptibility at the laser frequency $\chi_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}{\bf u}}(\omega_{\rm L})$: $$\label{placzek}
I({\bf u}_{\rm L},{\bf u},\omega) \propto \sum_s \frac{\omega^4}{\omega_s}
\left|\frac{\partial \chi_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}{\bf
u}}(\omega_{\rm L})}{\partial Q_s}\right|^2 (\langle n_{s} \rangle +
1) \delta (\omega -\omega_{\rm L} +
\omega_s),$$ where ${\bf u}_{\rm L}$ and ${\bf u}$ are the polarization of the incident and scattered light, $\langle n_{s} \rangle =
[\exp(\omega_s/(k_BT))-1]^{-1}$ is the average thermal occupation of the vibrational state $s$, and the derivative of the susceptibility with respect to the vibrational normal mode $Q_s$ is: $$\frac{\partial \chi_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}{\bf u}}(\omega_{\rm L})}{\partial
Q_s}=\sum_J
\sum_{\alpha=x,y,z} \frac{\partial \chi_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}{\bf
u}}(\omega_{\rm L})}{\partial
R_J^\alpha}q_J^{\alpha,s} = \frac{\partial \chi_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}{\bf
u}}(\omega_{\rm L})}{\partial {\bf R}}\cdot{\bf q}^s.$$ Here $ q_J^{\alpha,s}$ is a component of the unit vector of normal mode $Q_s$ for vibration $s$ on the atom J with normalization ${\bf q}^s \cdot {\bf q}^{s^\prime}=\delta_{s,s^\prime} $. The Placzek’s approximation have been used successfully for the first principles computation of the non-resonant vibrational Raman intensity, (see e.g. Refs. ).
In resonant Raman spectroscopy the energy of incident light is in resonance with an electronic transition. Under this condition the Placzek’s approximation is, in principle, not justified. However Eq.(\[placzek\]) has also been applied to resonant Raman scattering in solids[@cardona] in order to interpret experimental measurements on semiconductors.
In this paper, we will derive an expression for the scattering intensity in solids which is valid both in the non-resonant and resonant case. This derivation will be used in the following section to analyze the Raman spectra of amorphous carbon.
We start our derivation from the general expression for the vibrational Raman intensity, which can be obtained from theory of second quantization of light:[@quantique] $$\begin{aligned}
I({\bf u}_{\rm L},{\bf u},\omega) & \propto & \sum_{i,f} \rho(i)
\omega^4 |{\mathcal{A}}_{i,f}|^2\delta(\omega-\omega_{\rm
L}-\epsilon_i^0+\epsilon_{f}^0), \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{initial}
\lefteqn{{\mathcal{A}}_{i,f}=\sum_{e,k} \left( \frac{ \langle
\nu_{0,i}|f^e_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}({\bf R})|\nu_{e,k}\rangle\
\langle \nu_{e,k}|f_{{\bf u}}^{e\ast}({\bf R})|\nu_{0,f}\rangle}
{E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_e)+\epsilon_{k}^e -E_0({\bf R}^{\rm
eq}_0)+\epsilon_{i}^0-\omega_{\rm L}-i\gamma}\right.}\nonumber \\
&& \left.+ \frac { \langle \nu_{0,i}| f^e_{{\bf u}}({\bf
R})|\nu_{e,k}\rangle \ \langle\nu_{e,k}|f_{{\bf u}_{\rm
L}}^{e\ast}({\bf R})|\nu_{0,f} \rangle }
{E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_e)+\epsilon_{k}^e -E_0({\bf R}^{\rm
eq}_0)+\epsilon_{i}^0+\omega+i\gamma}\right). \end{aligned}$$ Here, $\rho(i)$ is the probability to find the system in the initial state $i$, $\gamma$ is a small real number added for calculation in order to treat correctly the poles of the expression and $$f^e_{\bf u}({\bf R})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}\langle \psi_{0,{\bf R}}|{\bf u}\cdot{\bf D}({\bf
r},{\bf R})|\psi_{e,{\bf R}} \rangle,$$ where ${\bf D}$ is the ionic and electronic dipole moment, $V$ is the sample volume, and ${\bf r}$ is the position vector for the electrons. Placzek’s expression, Eq. (\[placzek\]), has been derived in the non resonant case starting from Eq. (\[initial\]).[@Placzek; @bruesh] Notice that Eq. (\[initial\]) is much more complicated to be evaluated than the Placzek’s expression, Eq. (\[placzek\]), since it requires the knowledge of the vibrational eigenfunctions, $|\nu_{e,k}\rangle$, on the excited BO surfaces.
Before presenting our derivation we recall, for comparison, that of the Placzek’s approximation.[@Placzek; @bruesh] In the Placzek derivation Eq. (\[initial\]) is approximated by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{plac_1}
\lefteqn{{\mathcal{A}}_{i,f}=\sum_{e} \left( \frac{\sum_{k} \langle
\nu_{0,i}|f^e_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}({\bf R})|\nu_{e,k}\rangle\
\langle \nu_{e,k}|f_{{\bf u}}^{e\ast}({\bf R})|\nu_{0,f}\rangle}
{E_e({\bf R}) -E_0({\bf R})-\omega_{\rm
L}-i\gamma}\right.}\nonumber \\
&& \left.+ \frac { \sum_{k} \langle \nu_{0,i}| f^e_{{\bf
u}}({\bf R})|\nu_{e,k}\rangle \ \langle\nu_{e,k}|f_{{\bf u}_{\rm
L}}^{e\ast}({\bf R})|\nu_{0,f} \rangle }
{E_e({\bf R}) -E_0({\bf R})+\omega+i\gamma}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using the completeness relation $\sum_k
|\nu_{e,k}\rangle\langle \nu_{e,k}|=1$, Eq. (\[plac\_1\]) becomes: $$\label{plac_2}
{\mathcal{A}}_{i,f}=\sum_{e} \left(\frac{ \langle
\nu_{0,i}|f^e_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}({\bf R})f_{{\bf
u}}^{e\ast}({\bf R})|\nu_{0,f}\rangle}
{E_e({\bf R}) -E_0({\bf R})-\omega_{\rm
L}-i\gamma}
+ \frac { \langle \nu_{0,i}| f^e_{{\bf
u}}({\bf R})f_{{\bf u}_{\rm
L}}^{e\ast}({\bf R})|\nu_{0,f} \rangle }
{E_e({\bf R}) -E_0({\bf R})+\omega+i\gamma}\right),$$ which finally leads to Eq. (\[placzek\]). In order to obtain Eq. (\[plac\_1\]), we drop the dependence of the denominators of Eq. (\[initial\]) on the excited vibrational states $|\nu_{e,k}\rangle$, by replacing $[E_e({\bf R}^{\rm
eq}_e)+\epsilon_{k}^e -E_0({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)+\epsilon_{i}^0]$ with $[E_e({\bf R}) -E_0({\bf R})]$. In this way, we neglect in the denominators an energy term $$\Delta_e^k=E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_e)- E_e({\bf
R})+\epsilon_{k}^e-[E_0({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)-E_0({\bf
R})+\epsilon_{i}^0].$$ This approximation is justified if $E_e({\bf
R}) -E_0({\bf R})-\omega_{\rm L} \gg \Delta_e^k$. Since we are using the completeness relation, the above inequality should, in principle, held for every vibrational states $k$, and not just for the one phonon excitations. In particular, the relation must be verified for excitations, and energy differences $\Delta_e^k$, involving an arbitrary number of phonons and even for unbounded states in the energy continuum. This condition can obviously never be satisfied. The use of Placzek approximation relies on the hope that the inclusion of excitations involving a limited amount of phonons are sufficient to fulfill the completeness relation. When the laser frequency is close to an electronic transition, the Placzek’s approximation could not be applied in general since, in this case, the dependence on $\Delta_e^k$ could not be ignored and the completeness relation could not be used.
Here, to compute the Raman spectra in a periodic solid, we simplify Eq. (\[initial\]) using an approximation different from Placzek’s. In a periodic solid with dispersive bands, the electronic excitations are generally delocalized. In this case, the excited BO surfaces are obtained from the ground-state one by a constant vertical displacement, and we can assume that $|\nu_{e,k}\rangle \simeq |\nu_{0,k}\rangle $, ${\bf R}^{\rm eq}_e \simeq {\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0$, and $\epsilon_{k}^e \simeq
\epsilon_{k}^0 $. This leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A}
\lefteqn{ {\mathcal{A}}_{i,f}({\bf u}_{\rm L},{\bf u})=\sum_{e,k}
\left( \frac{ \langle \nu_{0,i}|f^e_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}({\bf R})|\nu_{0,k}\rangle
\ \langle \nu_{0,k}| f_{\bf u}^{e\ast}({\bf R})|\nu_{0,f}\rangle
}{ E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)-E_0({\bf R}^{\rm
eq}_0)+\epsilon_{k}^0-\epsilon_{i}^0-\omega_{\rm L}-i\gamma}\right.}
\nonumber \\ && \left. + \frac{ \langle \nu_{0,i}|f^e_{\bf u}({\bf
R})|\nu_{0,k}\rangle \ \langle \nu_{0,k}|f_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}^{e\ast}({\bf
R})|\nu_{0,f}\rangle }{ E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)-E_0({\bf R}^{\rm
eq}_0)+\epsilon_{k}^0-\epsilon_{i}^0+\omega+i\gamma}\right).\end{aligned}$$ We expand the expression of $f^e_{{\bf u}}({\bf R})$ at first order around ${\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0$, $f^e_{{\bf u}}({\bf R}) \simeq f^e_{{\bf u}}({\bf
R}^{\rm eq}_0) +({\bf R}-{\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)\cdot \partial f^e_{\bf
u}({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)/\partial {\bf R}$ and we extract all the terms of degree one in $({\bf R}-{\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)$ in Eq. (\[A\]). The term ${\bf R}-{\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0$ can be written using the operators of creation and annihilation of one phonon of energy $\omega_s$. If we extract Stokes terms, we can write the amplitude as a function of a vibration $s$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumovers}
I({\bf u}_{\rm L},{\bf u},\omega) & \propto & \sum_{s,n_s}\rho(n_s)\omega^4
|{\mathcal{A}}_{s}|^2\delta(\omega-\omega_{\rm L}+\omega_s),\end{aligned}$$ where $n_s$ is the occupation number of the mode $s$, $\omega_s=\epsilon_f^0-\epsilon_{i}^0$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{as}
{\mathcal{A}}_{s}&=&\sum_e
\sqrt{\frac{n_s+1}{2\omega_s}}
\left( \frac{
{\bf q}_s \cdot
(\frac{\partial f^e_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}}
{\partial {\bf R}})_{{\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0}
f_{\bf u}^{e\ast}({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0) }
{ E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)-E_0({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)
+\omega_s-\omega_{\rm L}-i\gamma}
+\frac{
f^e_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0){\bf q}_s \cdot
(\frac{\partial f_{\bf u}^{e\ast}}{\partial {\bf R}})_{{\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0} }
{ E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)-E_0({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)
-\omega_{\rm L}-i\gamma}\right. \\
&+&\frac{{\bf q}_s \cdot (\frac{\partial
f^e_{\bf u}}{\partial {\bf R}})_{{\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0} f_{{\bf
u}_{\rm L}}^{e\ast}({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0) }{ E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)-E_0({\bf
R}^{\rm eq}_0)+\omega_{\rm L}+i\gamma} \nonumber \left. + \frac{ f^e_{\bf
u}({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0){\bf q}_s \cdot(\frac{\partial f_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}^{e\ast}}{\partial
{\bf R}})_{{\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0} }{ E_e({\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0)-E_0({\bf
R}^{\rm eq}_0)+\omega_{\rm L}+i\gamma-\omega_s}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we neglect the dependence of the denominator over $\omega_s$. Indeed, we expect that ${\mathcal{A}}_s$ has the same behavior with respect to $\omega_L$ as the electronic susceptibility, $\chi(\omega_L)$. In a solid with delocalized excitations, away from the van Hove singularities, $\chi(\omega_L)$ is a smooth function such that $\chi(\omega_L\pm
\omega_s)\simeq \chi(\omega_L)$. Therefore, we expect that in a solid with delocalized excitations we can drop the term $\pm \omega_s$ in the denominator of Eq. (\[as\]). Notice that the validity requirements of our approximation are less stringent than those of the Placzek’s approximation. Our approximation neglects the dependence of the denominators on the one phonon excitation energies $\omega_s$, whereas the Placzek’s approximation neglects the multi-phonons excitation energies $\Delta_e^k$. Therefore our approximation requires that $\chi(\omega)$ is flat on the energy scale of one phonon excitations whereas the Placzek’s approximation requires that $\chi(\omega)$ is flat on the energy scale of multiple phonon excitations.
$$\label{kappa}
{\mathcal{A}}_{s}= \sqrt{
\frac{n_s+1}{2\omega_s}}\ {\bf q}_s\cdot
\left. \frac{\partial \kappa({\bf R},{\bf R}',\omega_{\rm L})}{\partial {\bf
R}}\right|_{{\bf R}={\bf R}'={\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0},$$
where $$\label{kappa1}
\kappa_{{\bf u}_{\rm L},{\bf u}}({\bf R},{\bf R}',\omega_{\rm L})=\sum_e
\frac{f^e_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}({\bf R})f_{\bf u}^{e\ast}({\bf R})} {E_e({\bf
R}')-E_0({\bf R}')-\omega_{\rm L}-i\gamma} + \frac{f^e_{\bf u}({\bf
R})f_{{\bf u}_{\rm L}}^{e\ast}({\bf R})} {E_e({\bf R}')-E_0({\bf
R}')+\omega_{\rm L}+i\gamma}.$$ Eqs. (\[sumovers\]), (\[kappa\]), and (\[kappa1\]) are the working expressions that we will use in the next section to compute the Raman intensity.
It is interesting to compare our final expression with that of the Placzek’s approximation. To this purpose we notice that the electronic susceptibility $\chi$ can be obtained as a special case of the function $\kappa$, indeed $\chi_{{\bf u}_{\rm L},{\bf u}}({\bf R},\omega_{\rm L})=
\kappa_{{\bf u}_{\rm L},{\bf u}}({\bf R},{\bf R},\omega_{\rm L})$. Thus, the Placzek’s expression differs from the expression we derived just by an additional partial derivative. Indeed, if we assume that $${\mathcal{A}}_{s}^{\rm Placzek}= \sqrt{
\frac{n_s+1}{2\omega_s}}\ {\bf q}_s\cdot
\left[ \frac{\partial \kappa({\bf R},{\bf R}',\omega_{\rm L})}{\partial {\bf
R}}+\frac{\partial \kappa({\bf R},{\bf R}',\omega_{\rm L})}{\partial {\bf
R}'}\right]_{{\bf R}={\bf R}'={\bf R}^{\rm eq}_0},$$ we obtain Eq. (\[placzek\]) from Eq. (\[sumovers\]).
Calculation on amorphous carbon
===============================
We compute the vibrational spectra and the Raman intensities of tetrahedral amorphous carbon using a model generated in Ref. by tight binding (TB) molecular dynamics. The model contains 64 atoms in a periodic cubic cell of 7.57 Å. Among the 64 atoms, 18 atoms are three-fold coordinated ($sp^2$ hybridized) and the others are four-fold coordinated ($sp^3$ hybridized). In this model all $sp^2$ atoms are inserted into a double bonded link, i.e. there are no electronic defects associated to dangling $p$ orbitals. This kind of defects has been identified in other computed generated models of amorphous carbon.[@drabold; @mauriNMRac; @bernasconi] Fig. \[sp2\] shows a ball and stick model of the $sp^2$ carbon atoms in the cell. The $sp^2$ atoms are arranged in four pairs and two chains of four and six atoms respectively. No aromatic ring are present in the sample. We compute the dynamical matrix and the vibrational eigenvalues and eigenvectors using density functional theory in the local density approximation.[@cpmd] The C atoms are described by a Troullier Martins[@tm2] pseudo-potential with $s$ non-locality. The wave-functions are expanded in a plane wave basis set with a kinetic energy cut-off of 40 Ry. The dynamical matrix is obtained by displacing each atom and computing the resulting forces. The Brillouin zone is sampled with the $\Gamma$ ${\bf k}$-point only. We compute the intensities of the resonant Raman spectra using Eqs. (\[sumovers\]), (\[kappa\]), and (\[kappa1\]). The evaluation of the intensity at a resonant frequency requires a very fine Brillouin zone k-point mesh, for which a fully ab-initio calculation is not affordable. Therefore we evaluate the function $\kappa_{{\bf u}_{\rm L},{\bf u}}({\bf R},{\bf R}',\omega_{\rm L})$ and the electronic susceptibility $\chi_{{\bf u}_{\rm L},{\bf u}}({\bf R},\omega_{\rm L})$ within a TB approximation. We use a TB model with [*s*]{} and [*p*]{} orbitals.[@kmho] We verified that this TB Hamiltonian well reproduces the ab-initio random-phase-approximation (RPA) dielectric constant of diamond[@rpa] for laser frequencies smaller than 10 eV, which is the range of energies used in this work for the calculation of the Raman spectra. The correct description of the dielectric constant for frequencies larger than 10 eV would require the inclusion in the TB model of [*d*]{} or [*s$^*$*]{} orbitals. The Brillouin zone of the 64 atoms supercell is sampled with 108 special k-points. We use a value of 0.05 eV for the constant $\gamma$ in Eq. (\[kappa1\]). The derivative in Eq. (\[kappa\]) is computed by numerical differentiation.
In Fig. \[dos\] we present our theoretical vibrational density of state (DOS). The total DOS is decomposed in its partial contributions coming from the $sp^2$ and $sp^3$ hybridized carbons and from the stretching and bending modes.[@footnotestreben] The $sp^2$ vibrations cover the entire range of frequencies of the total DOS, whereas the $sp^3$ vibrations form a large peak centered at 1000 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$, which dies over 1400 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$. Thus, the modes above 1400 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$ involve only $sp^2$ carbons. The decomposition between bending and stretching contributions shows two separated peaks, centered at 600 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$ and 1000 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$, respectively. Above 1000 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$ the stretching modes contribute alone to the DOS. Similar theoretical results have been presented in Ref. for a model of hydrogenated amorphous carbon.
Before discussing the results for the Raman spectra, we present in Fig. \[susc\] the real and imaginary part of the electronic dielectric constant, $\epsilon(\omega_L)=1+4\pi\chi(\omega_L)$. Our theoretical value of 5.8 for the static dielectric constant is in good agreement with the value of 6.2, measured experimentally for a tetrahedral amorphous carbon sample.[@susceptibilite] Notice that, for $\omega > 5$ eV, the function $\epsilon(\omega_L)$ is quite smooth, whereas, under 5 eV, three resonant peaks at 1.3, 3.0 and 3.9 eV show up. The presence of such peaks, which involve transitions between localized $\pi$ states, is an artifact due to the limited size of our model which contains only 9 $\pi$-bonds. This kind of features should disappear in larger models. The electronic structure has a gap of about 0.9 eV, above this value the incident light can be absorbed by the sample, as shown by the non zero value of the imaginary part of the dielectric constant. Thus, Raman spectra both in the visible and ultra-violet (UV) regions are collected under resonant conditions.
Fig. \[raman-vis\] and \[raman-uv\] present the calculated Raman spectra of amorphous carbon for an incident laser beam of 1.8 eV and 4.3 eV, respectively. The laser beam energies are chosen to be away from the three resonant peaks of $\epsilon(\omega_L)$. For each spectrum, we show a decomposition between $sp^2$, $sp^3$, bending, and stretching vibrations. We also plot the overlap between the different contributions[@overlap]. The decompositions are meaningful only if the overlap is small. Again, the details of the shape of the Raman spectra coming from $sp^2$ atoms are affected by the limited number of $sp^2$-$sp^2$ bonds in our model. For example the division of the contribution above 1300 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$ in two peaks is an artifact due to the lack of statistic. In good agreement with the experimental observation,[@visible] the visible Raman spectrum is essentially due to $sp^2$ carbons which give a large contribution above 1200 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$, centered at 1500 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$. Only a little $sp^3$ contribution, centered at 1000 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$, can be noticed. In the UV Raman spectrum, on the contrary, a contribution of $sp^3$ hybridized atoms can clearly be noticed through the large peak centered at 1000 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$. Due to a larger number of $sp^3$ hybridized atoms in our model, the shape of this peak is more reliable, and its position and shape closely match the experimental results. [@uv; @uv2] A peak centered at 1600 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$, due to $sp^2$ sites, can still be observed, as in experiments. Both visible and UV Raman spectra are in a large majority due to the stretching vibrations, only a little contribution of bending vibrations can be noticed at about 600 $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$, which has sometimes been observed in the experimental spectra (see e.g. Fig. 1 of Ref. ).
For a given laser pulsation, $\omega_{\rm L}$, we compute the integrated Raman Stokes intensities as the total area of the Stokes spectra. The total integrated Raman intensity and its decomposition in $sp^2$, $sp^3$, bending, and stretching contributions are presented in Figs. \[intensity\] and \[int-rel\] as a function of $\omega_{\rm L}$. These data show that whatever the energy of the incident light, the intensity of the Raman spectrum is always dominated by stretching modes, whose contribution is always at least an order of magnitude larger than that of bending modes. Regarding the relative decomposition in the $sp^2$ and $sp^3$ contributions, Fig. \[intensity\] and \[int-rel\] clearly show an inversion at about 5 eV. Under 4 eV almost 90% of the intensity is due to $sp^2$ carbons, whereas over 6 eV almost 90% of the intensity is due to $sp^3$ carbons. Notice that this inversion happens very quickly, thus, in an experimental measurement a little increase in the energy of the incident light in the UV region can lead to a major modification of the Raman spectra.
Finally, in Fig. \[compare\], we compare the total Raman intensities computed using our method and the Placzek’s approximation. The Raman spectra computed with the Placzek’s approximation show stronger singularities in correspondence to the $sp^2-sp^2$ electronic transitions. Instead, the intensity of the spectra computed with our approach is similar for laser frequency in resonance with $sp^2-sp^2$ transitions and with $sp^3-sp^3$ transitions. We did not find any experimental data for the total intensity as a function of the laser frequency, but according to the discussion of Section \[theory\] the use of our approximation is more justified in the resonant case.
conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have presented a practical method to compute the vibrational resonant Raman spectra in solids. Our approach is justified if the electronic excitations are delocalized. We use our method to compute the vibrational resonant Raman spectra of tetrahedral amorphous carbon. The computed spectra are in good agreement with the experimental ones measured with visible and UV lasers. In particular, the theoretical visible Raman spectra present a broad feature between 1200 and 1700 cm$^{-1}$ associated with $sp^2$ stretching as found in experiments.\cite{} In the theoretical UV Raman spectra a second broad peak around 1000 cm$^{-1}$ associated to $sp^3$ stretching shows up. The location and the shape of this peak agree very well with the experimental UV spectra. \cite{} We have analyzed in detail the evolution of the Raman spectra as a function of the laser frequency. We have shown that, at any frequency, the spectra are dominated by the stretching vibrations. We have identified a very rapid inversion in the relative Raman intensities of the $sp^2$ and $sp^3$ sites with the frequency of the incident laser beam. In particular, the spectra are dominated by $sp^2$ atoms below 4 eV and by $sp^3$ atoms above 6 eV. According to our results, it would be interesting to collect a UV spectrum of tetrahedral amorphous carbon with a laser frequency larger than those used in the actual experiments, to further emphasize the contribution of the tetrahedral $sp^3$ carbon sites.
We acknowledge D. A. Drabold for providing us with the model of tetrahedral amorphous carbon. We thank Dr. M. Marangolo for a critical reading of the manuscript. The calculations have been performed at the Idris computer center of the CNRS.
[10]{}
A. C. Ferrari and J. Robertson, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 14095 (2000), and references therein.
Q. Wang, D. D. Allred, and J. González-Hernández, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 6119 (1993).
V. I. Merkulov [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Letter [**78**]{}, 4869 (1997).
K. W. R. Gilkes [*et al.*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1980 (1997).
P. Brüesch, [*Phonons, theory and experiments II : experiments and interpretation of experimental results*]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1986).
Here and in the following we will use atomic units, with which $\hbar=1$.
G. Placzek, in [*Handbuch der Radiologie*]{}, edited by E. Marx (Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig, 1934), Vol. 6, p. 209.
D. Porezag and M. R. Pederson, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 7830 (1996).
P. Giannozzi and S. Baroni, J. Chem. Phys. [**100**]{}, 8537 (1994).
P. V. Santos [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 12158 (1995).
R. Loudon, [*The Quantum Theory of Light*]{} (Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press, New York, 1983).
D. A. Drabold, P. A. Fedders, and P. Stumm, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 16415 (1994).
F. Mauri, B. G. Pfrommer, and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 2340 (1997).
N. Marks [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 9703 (1996).
J. Hutter [*et al.*]{}, CPMD Version 3.3.5, MPI für Festkörperforschung and IBM Research Laboratory, 1990-1998.
N. Troullier and J. L. Martins, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 1993 (1991).
C. H. Xu, C. Z. Wang, C. T. Chan, and K. M. Ho, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [ **4**]{}, 6047 (1992).
L. X. Benedict, E. L. Shirley, and R. B. Bohn, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, R9385 (1998). To perform the projection we have defined for each bond a ‘stretching’ vector in the space of the $3 N_{\rm atom}$ displacements. The components of each vector involve the displacement of two atoms in the direction of the bond and with opposite orientations. We use these vectors as a (non-orthonormal) basis of the stretching subspace. We define the bending subspace as the complement of the stretching subspace.
F. Mauri and A. D. Corso, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**75**]{}, 644 (1999).
Z. Y. Chen and J. P. Zhao, J. Appl. Phys. [**87**]{}, 4268 (2000).
In the expression of intensity, Eq. (\[sumovers\]), ${\mathcal{A}}_s
={\mathcal{A}}_s^{\rm stretching}+{\mathcal{A}}_s^{\rm bending}$ where the contributions ${\mathcal{A}}_s^{\rm stretching}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_s^{\rm bending}$ are obtained substituting in Eq. (\[kappa\]) the vibrational eigenvector ${\bf q}_s$ with its projections in the stretching and bending subspaces, respectively. The intensity is then proportional to $|{\mathcal{A}}_s|^2 =
|{\mathcal{A}}_s^{\rm stretching}|^2 +|{\mathcal{A}}_s^{\rm bending}|^2 + 2
{\mathcal{A}}_s^{\rm stretching}{\mathcal{A}}_s^{\rm bending} $. The first two terms correspond to the contributions of stretching and bending modes, respectively, whereas the last term corresponds to the overlap term. A similar repartition is used to define the $sp^3$ and $sp^2$ contributions.
![\[sp2\] A ball and stick model of the $sp^2$ carbon atoms in the unit cell. A bond is drawn when the distance between two atoms is less than 1.9 Å. The $sp^2$ atoms are arranged in chains, no aromatic ring are present in the model.](fig0_MProfeta.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[dos\] The total vibrational density of states of tetrahedral amorphous carbon is decomposed in the contributions coming from $sp^2$ and $sp^3$ carbon sites (upper panel) and in the contributions coming from bending and stretching modes (lower panel). To obtain continuous curves in this figure and in Figs. \[raman-vis\] and \[raman-uv\] we use a Gaussian smearing with $\sigma=50$ $\mbox{cm}^{-1}$.](fig1_MProfeta.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[raman-vis\] Visible Raman spectrum of tetrahedral amorphous carbon computed for $\omega_{\rm L}= 1.8$ eV. The Raman intensity is plotted as a function of the Stokes shift, $(\omega_{\rm L}-\omega)$. The total Raman spectrum is decomposed in the contributions coming from $sp^2$, $sp^3$ atoms, and their overlap (upper panel) and in the contributions coming from stretching and bending vibrations and their overlap (lower panel). Note that the presence of two peaks for energies larger than 1200 cm$^{-1}$ is an artifact due to the small total number of $sp^2$ sites in our theoretical model. ](fig3_MProfeta.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[raman-uv\] UV Raman spectrum of tetrahedral amorphous carbon computed for $\omega_{\rm L}= 4.3$ eV. The Raman intensity is plotted as a function of the Stokes shift, $(\omega_{\rm L}-\omega)$. The total Raman spectrum is decomposed in the contributions coming from $sp^2$, $sp^3$ atoms, and their overlap (upper panel) and in the contributions coming from stretching and bending vibrations and their overlap (lower panel). ](fig4_MProfeta.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[intensity\] Absolute integrated intensities of the Raman spectra of tetrahedral amorphous carbon plotted as a function of the energy of incident laser beam, $\omega_{\rm L}$. In this figure, we present the absolute intensity divided by $\omega^4$ (see Eq. (\[sumovers\])) of the 64 atoms model using a logarithmic scale for the intensity axis. The total integrated intensity is decomposed in the contributions coming from $sp^2$ and $sp^3$ atoms (upper panel) and in the contributions coming from stretching and bending vibrations (lower panel). ](fig5_MProfeta.eps){width="8cm"}
![\[int-rel\] Fractional integrated intensities of the Raman spectra, plotted as a function of the energy of incident laser beam, $\omega_{\rm L}$. Here, we present the fraction of the $sp^2$ and $sp^3$ intensity per site. For each value of $\omega_{\rm L}$, we compute the intensities per site, $i^{sp3}(\omega_{\rm L})$ and $i^{sp2}(\omega_{\rm L})$, by dividing the absolute $sp^3$ and $sp^2$ intensities presented in Fig. \[intensity\], by the number of $sp^3$ and $sp^2$ atoms in the model, respectively. In this figure we plot the fractional intensities, $i^{sp3}(\omega_{\rm L})/[i^{sp3}(\omega_{\rm L})+i^{sp2}(\omega_{\rm L})]$ and $i^{sp2}(\omega_{\rm L})/[i^{sp3}(\omega_{\rm L})+i^{sp2}(\omega_{\rm L})]$. ](fig6_MProfeta.eps){width="8cm"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The relaxion scenario presents an intriguing extension of the standard model in which the particle introduced to solve to the strong CP problem, the axion, also achieves the dynamical relaxation of the Higgs boson mass term. In this work we complete this framework by proposing a scenario of inflationary cosmology that is consistent with all the observational constraints: the relaxion hybrid inflation with an asymmetric waterfall. In our scheme, the vacuum energy of the inflaton drives inflation in a natural way while the relaxion slow-rolls. The constraints on the present inflationary observables are then matched through a subsequent inflationary epoch driven by the inflaton. We quantify the amount of fine-tuning of the proposed inflation scenario, concluding that the inflaton sector severely decreases the naturalness of the theory.'
author:
- Stefano Di Chiara
- Kristjan Kannike
- Luca Marzola
- Antonio Racioppi
- Martti Raidal
- Christian Spethmann
bibliography:
- 'relaxion.bib'
title: 'Relaxion Cosmology and the Price of Fine-Tuning'
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction .unnumbered}
============
The existence of large hierachies between the Planck scale and other observed scales in Nature poses one of the most perplexing puzzles of contemporary physics. The separation between the Planck scale and the scale of vacuum energy, for instance, spans 31 orders of magnitude and is connected to the famous cosmological constant problem. In order to explain the origin of this separation, in 1984 Abbott [@Abbott:1984qf] proposed a relaxation mechanism that recovered the desired vacuum energy value through quantum tunneling, owing to a linear term added to the periodic potential of the QCD axion.
A similar idea was proposed to explain the origin of the electroweak scale[@Dvali:2003br; @Dvali:2004tma] and more recently refined in [@Graham:2015cka]. In the “relaxion” scenario, the large hierarchy between the Higgs mass scale and the high-energy cut-off of the theory results from the interplay between the dynamics of the QCD axion[^1] and a feedback mechanism arising from the electroweak (EW) symmetry breaking. As the (rel)axion rolls down a linear potential, its coupling to the Higgs boson induces a negative effective mass term. As a result, the Higgs field acquires a non-zero vacuum expectation value (VEV), which breaks the EW symmetry, and a series of increasingly high barriers appears in the relaxion potential. This feedback mechanism stops the rolling of the axion field soon after the onset of the symmetry breaking, leading in a natural way to the generation of the observed EW scale.
Since its proposal, the relaxion mechanism has been thoroughly scrutinised and several analyses have improved on the original model [@Espinosa:2015eda; @Hardy:2015laa; @Patil:2015oxa; @Antipin:2015jia; @Jaeckel:2015txa; @Gupta:2015uea; @Batell:2015fma; @Matsedonskyi:2015xta; @Marzola:2015dia; @Choi:2015kq; @Kaplan:2015fuy; @Kobakhidze:2015jya]. In this work we extend the relaxion framework with a consistent scenario of inflationary cosmology that naturally provides the large number of $e$-folds required by the relaxation mechanism. Our setup complies with observational constraints through a second phase of inflation, which is triggered after the Higgs VEV has stabilized. In this regard, we find that although the relaxion mechanism solves the fine tuning problem at the level of current experimental measurements of the Higgs sector, requiring the compatibility with inflationary cosmology worsens the naturalness of the theory.
In the following, after briefly reviewing the original model, we detail our inflation scenario and the resulting reheating dynamics. We then discuss the issue of fine-tuning and finally draw our conclusions.
The QCD relaxion {#sec:Fine tuning in the relaxion model .unnumbered}
================
In the relaxion model [@Graham:2015cka], the QCD axion $\phi$ interacts with the standard model (SM) Higgs boson $h$ through the effective Lagrangian $$-\mathcal{L} \supset \frac{1}{2} (M^2 - g \phi) \; h^2 + V(g \phi) +
\Lambda^4 \cos \frac{\phi}{f},
\label{eq:relax}$$ where $M$ is the cut-off scale of the theory and $g$ is a small constant with dimension of mass. We take the relaxion potential, at the leading order, to be $$V(g \phi) \simeq -M^2 g \phi+ \frac{1}{2} g^2 \phi^2.$$ The energy scale $\Lambda$ that regulates the amplitude of the periodic part of the relaxion potential is linear in the Higgs VEV and the QCD quark condensate: $$\Lambda^4 \sim v_{h} \; \langle \bar{q} q \rangle .$$ Because in the limit $g \to 0$ the periodic discrete shift symmetry of the relaxion field is restored, any value $g \ll M$ can be regarded as technically natural.
The hierarchy between the Higgs boson and the cut-off scale is naturally explained by requiring a large field excursion of $\phi,$ $$\Delta \phi \gtrsim \frac{M^{2}}{g},
\label{eq:field_excursion}$$ which yields an effective Higgs boson mass that gradually scans all the values from the cut-off scale down to the measured one. In order for the feedback mechanism that stabilises the Higgs boson mass to work, the relaxion must descend its potential in a slow-roll regime. This is ensured by a first inflation era which, in order to guarantee the required field excursion, must proceed for $$N \gtrsim \frac{H^{2}}{g^{2}} \simeq10^{42}$$ $e$-folds.
In the original framework [@Graham:2015cka], the present cosmological constraints are then supposedly satisfied through a second inflation era in a hybrid inflation setup. However, since the barriers in the relaxion potential result from the backreaction of the QCD dynamics, the Hubble constant $H$ during inflation must not exceed the typical QCD scale of about one GeV. This constraint, on top of the required duration of the first inflation era, strongly constrains the mechanism and questions the viability of inflationary cosmology within the QCD relaxion scenario. In the following we propose a hybrid inflation scenario that naturally complies with the requirement posed by the relaxation mechanism and respects, at the same time, the present observational bounds on inflation.
Relaxion cosmology {#relaxion-cosmology .unnumbered}
==================
A viable inflation scenario {#sec:A viable inflation scenario .unnumbered}
---------------------------
In order to build a working inflation scenario, we extend the potential in to a generic polynomial potential which contains all the possible renormalisable interactions with a scalar inflaton $\sigma$: $$\begin{split}
V &= \mu_{1 \phi }^{3} \phi + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{\phi}^{2} \phi^{2}
+ \frac{1}{2} \mu_{H}^{2} h^{2} + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{\phi H} \phi h^{2}
\\
&
+ \frac{1}{4} \lambda_{H} h^{4} + \kappa \, h \cos \frac{\phi}{f} + \frac{1}{4} \lambda_{H\sigma} \sigma^{2} h^{2}
\\
&+ \Lambda^{4}_{\sigma} + \mu_{1\sigma}^{3} \sigma + \frac{1}{2} \mu_{\sigma}^{2} \sigma^{2} + \frac{1}{3} \mu_{3\sigma} \sigma^{3}
+ \frac{1}{4} \lambda_{\sigma} \sigma^{4} \\
&
+ \frac{1}{2} \mu_{H\sigma} \sigma h^{2}
+ \mu_{\phi \sigma}^{2} \phi \sigma
+ \frac{1}{2} \mu'_{\phi \sigma} \phi \sigma^{2}
+ \frac{1}{2} \mu''_{\phi \sigma} \phi^{2} \sigma
\\
&+ \frac{1}{4} \lambda_{\phi\sigma} \phi^{2} \sigma^{2}
+ \frac{1}{4} \lambda'_{\phi\sigma} \phi \sigma^{3} + \frac{1}{4} \lambda''_{\phi\sigma} \phi^{3} \sigma.
\end{split}
\label{eq:rel:infl}$$ Supposing that the relaxion is moving towards positive field values, the relaxation mechanism is implemented for $\mu_{H}^{2} = M^{2}$, $\mu_{\phi H} = -g$, $\mu_{1\phi}^{3} = -M^{2} g$ and $\mu_{\phi}^{2} = g^{2}$. Note that all these terms break the linear shift symmetry of the axion and are assumed to arise from the same source. There will be loop corrections to the terms, but these are of higher order in $g$ and have been neglected.
![The inflaton potential before (dashed line) and after (solid line) the EW symmetry breaking.[]{data-label="fig:inflaton:V"}](Vinflaton){width="48.00000%"}
The large number of $e$-folds required by the relaxion mechanism can naturally be produced in a hybrid inflation setup. The dynamics in our mechanism proceeds through the following stages:
1. **Relaxation era**\
In a first phase the $\sigma$ field is confined in minimum of its potential characterised by a non-vanishing potential value (dashed line in Fig. \[fig:inflaton:V\]) while the relaxion field is rolling down its potential. The potential energy provided by the $\sigma$ field acts as an effective cosmological constant that drives the inflation dynamics and ensures that the relaxion field is slow-rolling.[^2]
2. **EW symmetry breaking**\
The relaxion field continues to slow-roll until, by effect of the back-reaction due to the QCD barriers triggered by the EW symmetry breaking, it settles in a minimum of its periodic potential. Consequently, the relaxion field acquires a vev $\phi = v_{\phi} \simeq (M^2+\mu^2_{H, \, \mathrm{SM}})/g$ where $\mu^2_{H, \, \mathrm{SM}}$ is the magnitude of the negative Higgs mass term in the SM. This ensures that the resulting Higgs VEV $v_{h}$ matches the measured value.
3. **Asymmetric waterfall inflation**\
As in the case of the Higgs boson, the interactions between relaxion and inflaton yields a negative mass term for the inflaton. In fact, once the relaxion acquires a VEV as described before, we have $$\mu_{\sigma,\text{eff}}^{2} =
\mu_{\sigma}^{2} + \mu^\prime_{\phi\sigma} v_{\phi} + \frac{1}{2} \lambda_{\phi\sigma} v_{\phi}^{2}+ \frac{1}{2} \lambda_{H\sigma} v_{h}^{2}$$ and the shape of the inflaton potential is consequently modified. The inflaton field, therefore, rolls down from its original position to a new potential minimum $v_{\sigma}$ following an asymmetric waterfall (solid line in Fig. \[fig:inflaton:V\]).
We require that the second inflation era respect the following theoretical and experimental constraints: 1) during inflation $H < \Lambda_{\text{QCD}}$; 2) $V(v_{\phi}, v_{h}, v_{\sigma}) \simeq 0$ to account for the observed dark energy density; 3) the number of $e$-folds from $\sigma_N = 0$ to the end of inflation $N \in [50, 60]$ [@BenDayan:2009kv]; and observational conditions that 4) amplitude of the spectrum $A_{s} = 2.195 \times 10^{-9}$; and 5) $n_s = 0.968$ at $\sigma_{N}$ [@Ade:2015lrj].
In order to solve the strong CP problem of QCD, the slope of the relaxion potential must decrease to achieve the correct value of the QCD phase $\theta \lesssim 10^{-10}$. In contrast to [@Graham:2015cka], where $g = 10^{-31}$, our inflaton VEV is non-vanishing and, therefore, we give the relaxion potential a larger initial slope $g = 10^{-31}/\theta \simeq 10^{-21}$ and then *subtract* a contribution arising from the interaction with the inflaton and proportional to the VEV of the latter. We set our potential in a way that $\theta = 0$ at the end of the asymmetric waterfall inflation, however the presented results hold also for different values of the QCD phase.
We take the height of the barrier $\kappa \, v_{h} = \Lambda^{4} = 0.1~\text{GeV}^{4}$, the constant $f = 10^{9}~\text{GeV}$ and the cut-off $M = 10^{4}~\text{GeV}$ from [@Graham:2015cka], and set the Higgs quartic coupling to its SM value $\lambda_{H} = 0.1291$. The values of potential parameters for our reference point are given in Table \[tab:ref:point\]. The VEV of the relaxion is $v_{\phi} = 1.0 \times 10^{29}~\text{GeV}$.
![The dependence of the inflaton potential parameters on the inflation scale.[]{data-label="fig:infl:params"}](infl_params){width="48.00000%"}
Setting the inflation scale at $\Lambda_{\sigma} = 10^{6}~\text{GeV}$ and the number of $e$-folds $N = 60$, together with the above constraints, fixes the parameters $\mu_{1\sigma,\text{eff}}^{3}$, $\mu_{\sigma,\text{eff}}^{2}$, $\mu_{3\sigma,\text{eff}}$, and $\lambda_{\sigma}$ in the inflaton potential. Their dependence on the inflation scale is shown in Fig. \[fig:infl:params\]. We choose the value of $\mu_{\sigma}^{2}$ for the inflaton potential to have a minimum at the origin in the symmetric phase and the value of $\lambda_{H\sigma}$ to allow for successful reheating. The resulting inflaton VEV is then $v_{\sigma} = -4.97 \times 10^{12}$ GeV and its mass is $m_{\sigma} = 0.69~\text{GeV}$. The Hubble constant at $\sigma_{N}$ is $H = 2.4 \times 10^{-7}~\text{GeV}$.
In order to simultaneously satisfy the minimization equations and guarantee the correct values for $\mu_{1\sigma,\text{eff}}^{3}$, $\mu_{\sigma}^{2}$, $\mu_{\sigma,\text{eff}}^{2}$, $\mu_{3\sigma,\text{eff}}$, we solve for $\mu_{H\sigma}$, $\mu'_{\phi\sigma}$, $\mu_{1\sigma}^{3}$, $\mu_{3\sigma}$, $\lambda_{\phi\sigma}$, taking $\mu_{\phi \sigma}^{2}$, $\mu''_{\phi \sigma}$, $\lambda'_{\phi\sigma}$ and $\lambda''_{\phi\sigma}$ to zero to avoid generation of large linear and cubic terms for the inflaton.[^3] All the interactions of the inflaton $\sigma$ with the relaxion also break the shift symmetry, but they are required to be small enough already by constraints from inflation itself.
As a result, the predicted tensor-to-scalar ratio is $r \simeq 10^{-42}$, in agreement with the current bound $r < 0.07$ [@Array:2015xqh]. We remark that the presented inflationary sector emerges from the most general renormalizable potential allowed in scalar extensions of the relaxion framework. The adopted values of the coefficients have been derived by fitting the current inflationary observables, for instance the spectral index and the spectral amplitude which we set to to their observed values, respectively $n_{s}=0.968$ and $A_{s} = 2.195 \times 10^{-9}$. Therefore, the potential we propose yields [*the most general*]{} single-field realization of inflationary dynamics that can be achieved through a renormalizable potential, given the constraints imposed by the relaxion framework. Thus, improving on our results would necessarily require an extended particle content or the presence of non-renormalizable interactions in the inflaton potential.
Parameter Value
-------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
$\kappa v_{h}$ $0.1~\text{GeV}^{4}$
$f$ $10^{9}~\text{GeV}$
$\mu_{H}^{2}$ $10^{8}~\text{GeV}^{2}$
$\mu_{\phi H}$ $-10^{-21}~\text{GeV}$
$\mu_{1\phi}^{3}$ $-10^{-13}~\text{GeV}^{3}$
$\mu_{\phi}^{2}$ $10^{-42}~\text{GeV}^{2}$
$\Lambda_{\sigma}$ $10^{6}$ GeV
$\mu_{1\sigma,\text{eff}}^{3}$ $2.84 \times 10^{-16}~\text{GeV}^{3}$
$\mu_{\sigma,\text{eff}}^{2}$ $-2.77 \times 10^{-15}~\text{GeV}^{2}$
$\mu_{3\sigma,\text{eff}}$ $9.79 \times 10^{-14}~\text{GeV}$
$\lambda_{\sigma}$ 1.97 $\times 10^{-26}$
$\mu_{\sigma}^{2}$ $10~\text{GeV}$
$\lambda_{H\sigma}$ $10^{-14}$
$\mu_{H\sigma}$ $0.025~\text{GeV}$
$\mu'_{\phi\sigma}$ $-2.00 \times 10^{-28}~\text{GeV}$
$\mu_{1\sigma}^{3}$ $-752.95~\text{GeV}^{3}$
$\mu_{3\sigma}$ $9.79 \times 10^{-14}~\text{GeV}$
$\lambda_{\phi\sigma}$ $2.00 \times 10^{-57}$
: Non-zero potential parameters for our reference point.
\[tab:ref:point\]
Reheating {#reheating .unnumbered}
---------
Given the inflaton mass $m_\sigma = 0.69~\text{GeV}$, the reheating can proceed via the decay into electrons, muons, photons and pions through the mixing with the Higgs boson. The reheating temperature is given by $$T_{\rm RH} = \left( \frac{90}{g_{*} \pi^{2}} \right)^{\frac{1}{4}} \sqrt{\Gamma_\sigma M_{\rm P}},$$ where $g_{*} \sim 100$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom and $$\Gamma_\sigma \simeq \sin^2 \alpha \ \Gamma_{H}(m_\sigma),$$ is the total decay width of the inflaton. Here $\alpha$ is the mixing angle between the Higgs boson and the inflaton, and $\Gamma_{H}(m_\sigma)$ is the SM Higgs decay width, computed at a mass $m_\sigma$. We find $\Gamma_{H}(0.69~\text{GeV}) \simeq 2 \times 10^{-8}$ GeV and consequently $$T_{\rm RH} \simeq 10^5 \sin \alpha \text{ GeV}.
\label{TRH}$$ The lower bound on the reheating temperature $T_{\text{RH}} > 4.7$ MeV [@Dai:2014jja; @Munoz:2014eqa; @TRHbound] then requires that the portal coupling be necessarily larger than $$\sin \alpha \gtrsim 4 \times 10^{-8}.$$ For our reference point we obtain $\sin \alpha = 3.91 \times 10^{-4}$.
On the other hand, through the same equation, the current LHC measurements [@Cheung:2015dta] result in upper bound on the reheating temperature in our model $$T_{\rm RH} \lesssim 7 \times 10^{4} \text{ GeV}$$ which, besides successful nucleosynthesis, allows for the generation of the baryon asymmetry of the Universe via neutrino oscillations [@Akhmedov:1998qx], as well as via resonant leptogenesis [@Flanz:1996fb; @Covi:1996wh; @Pilaftsis:2003gt].
Fine-tuning {#sec:Measuring the fine-tuning .unnumbered}
===========
We investigate now the impact of the proposed extension on the naturalness of the relaxion mechanism. To this purpose, we first introduce a measure for the fine-tuning and then compute this quantity in both the original model and the proposed extension.
Quantifying the fine-tuning {#quantifying-the-fine-tuning .unnumbered}
---------------------------
Given a set of parameters $\{a_i\}$ and a scalar VEV $v(a_i,a_j,\dots)$ related to them by minimization conditions, we quantify the amount of fine-tuning $\Delta_{a_i}$ by [@Barbieri:1987fn; @Ellis:1986yg] $$\label{ft}
\Delta_{a_i}=\frac{\partial\log v^2(a_i,a_j,\dots)}{\partial\log a_i},$$ corresponding to the ratio of the relative changes in the involved quantities.
According to the chosen definition, the largest fine tuning of the SM arises from the mass term in the potential $$\label{VSM}
V_{\text{SM}}=\frac{1}{2}\mu_{H}^2 h^2+\frac{1}{4}\lambda_{H} h^4,$$ which, including the relevant one-loop corrections, can be written as [@Djouadi:2005gi] $$\label{muSM}
\mu_{H}^{2}\left(M\right)=\mu_{H}^{2}\left(m_Z\right)+\frac{3 M^2}{16\pi^2}\left[2\lambda+\frac{g_1^2+3g_2^2}{4}-2y_t^2\right],$$ where the tree level contribution is determined by: $$\label{muSMmin}
\partial_h V_{\text{SM}}=0\,\implies \,\mu_{H}^{2}(m_Z)=-\lambda v_h^2 .$$ From eqs. (\[ft\],\[muSM\],\[muSMmin\]) we then find that for the considered cut-off value, $M\simeq 10^4$ GeV, the SM fine tuning amounts to $$\label{ftSM}
\Delta_{\mu^2}=328.$$ We remark that the fine-tunings of simple extensions of the SM presenting scalar inflaton sectors essentially amount to the fine-tuning of the SM alone. The measured inflationary parameters, in fact, set monomial inflation in its natural energy range of about $10^{13}$ GeV negligible, resulting in a negligible contribution to the fine-tuning of the theory. We will therefore use the SM value as a reference value in the following discussion.
Local fine-tuning in the relaxion {#sub:Fine Tuning of the proposed scenario .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
Within the original relaxion framework, the Higgs boson VEV is determined by the interplay between the relaxation mechanism and a feedback effect triggered by the electroweak symmetry breaking. In more detail, after the EW symmetry breaking, the QCD dynamics stop the excursion of the relaxion field[^4] in a local minimum of its potential where $$g M^2 \approx \frac{\kappa}{f} v_{h},$$ with $\kappa$ proportional to the QCD condensate. According to Eq. , the fine tuning is then $$\Delta_g \simeq \Delta_{M^2} \simeq {\cal O}(1),$$ confirming the naturalness of the EW scale within the relaxion framework.
Notice, however, that at a “local” level the situation is remarkably different.[^5] Suppose that the value of one of the input parameter of the theory, $M$ or $f$ for instance, is modified by such a small amount that the induced change in the final value of the relaxion field is $\delta\phi$, $$\label{deltaPhi}
\delta \phi < 2 \pi f ,$$ implying that the relaxion is still stuck in the same local minimum selected by the relaxation mechanism before. Computing now the fine-tuning according to Eq. with respect to the Higgs VEV under the assumption [(\[deltaPhi\])]{}, we obtain $$\Delta_g \simeq \Delta_{M^2} = 12800,$$ which exceeds the corresponding value obtained for the SM, Eq. , by two orders of magnitude. We interpret the above result as the “local” fine-tuning of the relaxion framework: the fine-tuning that the mechanism would have if the experimental value of the Higgs boson VEV had to be matched at a precision comparable with the maximal change induced by $\delta \phi$, quantified by $$\delta v_{h} = \frac{g}{v_{h} \lambda} \delta \phi < 10^{-4} \; \mathrm{eV}.$$ Our explanation for such a result is that in the relaxion model the cancellation between the large numbers behind the EW scale generation takes place at the tree level, with the tree level parameters being of order of the cut-off scale. In contrast, within the SM, the corresponding cancellation happens at the one-loop level and the same fine-tuning is suppressed by the loop factor. We remark that in the present calculation we adopted the tree-level expression for the parameters in the relaxion model when computing the corresponding fine-tuning. Thus, the value of local fine-tuning that we present could be further enhanced by the contributions of loop corrections.
Given, however, the precision currently achieved by the EW experiments, the relaxion mechanism is certainly far away from being plagued by its local fine-tuning and the scheme can, indeed, be safely regarded as natural.
Fine-tuning in the inflaton sector {#fine-tuning-in-the-inflaton-sector .unnumbered}
----------------------------------
The fine-tuning of the parameters introduced by our inflaton sector can be quantified through Eq. . According to our calculation, the largest amount of fine-tuning is due to the squared mass parameter of the inflaton with respect to the relaxion VEV $v_\phi$: $$\label{fti}
\Delta_{\mu_\sigma^2}\simeq 10^{14}\ .$$ This large fine-tuning is generated by $$\left|\frac{\partial \mu_\sigma^2}{\partial v_\phi}\right|=\mu^\prime_{\phi \sigma }+\lambda _{\phi \sigma } v_{\phi },$$ which appears in the denominator of $\Delta_{\mu_\sigma^2}$ and is constrained to be of $O\!\left(g v_h^2 v_\sigma^{-2}\right)$ by the minimization condition of the potential along the $\phi$ direction. An identical amount of fine tuning, evaluated with respect to the inflaton VEV $v_\sigma$, affects the relaxion-inflaton portal coupling $\lambda_{\phi\sigma}$. On top of that, the fine-tuning of the spectral tilt $n_{s}$ with respect to $\Lambda_{\sigma}$ and $\mu_{1\sigma}^{3}$ is $\Delta_{n_{s}} \simeq 10^{14}$, due the inflation scale being much lower than the usual scale of $\mathcal{O}(10^{13})~\text{GeV}$ found within quadratic inflation, for instance.[^6]
Our conclusion is, therefore, that the required inflation sector is severely fine-tuned. However, the inflation fine-tuning is still significantly lower than the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant within every known inflation scenario.
Hence, in absence of a valid mechanism to enforce the dissipation of any form of vacuum energy, the significance of the above computation toward the naturalness of the theory could indeed be questioned. If the fine-tuning connected with the inflation sector itself is ignored, our computations show that the global and local-fine tuning of the Higgs and relaxion sector are essentially unmodified by the inflation sector.
conclusions {#sec:conclusion .unnumbered}
===========
In the present work we extended the relaxion framework with a viable inflationary sector which respects the observational constraints. During the relaxation, the inflaton field is held at a potential minimum with a non-vanishing potential value. This provides the vacuum energy that sustains inflation throughout the relaxation process. Once the relaxation is completed, the inflaton is dragged toward a new potential minimum in an asymmetric waterfall, giving rise to a second inflation era which satisfies the experimental bounds and predicts a vanishing tensor-to-scalar ratio $r\simeq10^{-42}$. In order to look into whether the proposed extension worsens the naturalness of the relaxion mechanism, we investigated the change in fine-tuning due to the additional terms in our potential. We find that whereas the naturalness of the Higgs sector is essentially unaltered, the fine-tuning in the inflaton sector is severe but still lower than the fine-tuning required for the cosmological constant within every inflation scenario.
The authors thank Matti Heikinheimo for useful discussions. This work was supported by Estonian Research Council grants PUT716, PUT799, PUT1026, IUT23-6 and PUTJD110, by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, and by the EU through the ERDF CoE program.
[^1]: The relaxion mechanism can also be implemented with a generic axion-like particle. We focus, however, on the more attractive possibility in which this new particle has the right properties to solve the strong CP problem of QCD.
[^2]: Notice that even in the absence of a third scalar field, the vacuum energy of the Higgs field can sustain hybrid inflation up to the EW symmetry breaking.
[^3]: Notice that the values of inflaton potential parameters given in Table \[tab:ref:point\] are approximate, since we cannot present them to the required large number of decimal places.
[^4]: We neglect the effect of quantum fluctuations which, as pointed out in the original framework, would yield a collection of VEVs having similar values.
[^5]: By calling it “local” we stress that the fine-tuning is calculated in one local minimum, in agreement with the common prescription for fine-tuning.
[^6]: If we were to take the Hubble constant close to the highest acceptable level, e.g. $H = 0.1\, \Lambda_{\text{QCD}}$, the fine-tuning of $n_{s}$ would decrease to $\Delta_{n_{s}} \simeq 10^{10}$. Nonetheless, $\Delta_{\mu_\sigma^2}$, which is proportional to $\mu_{\sigma}^{2}$, would increase by about 11 orders of magnitude, since at that scale $\mu_{\sigma}^{2} = 10^{9}$ GeV is necessary to keep the inflaton field at the origin.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'There are many contexts in algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, and homological algebra where one encounters a functor that has both a left and right adjoint, with the right adjoint being isomorphic to a shift of the left adjoint specified by an appropriate “dualizing object”. Typically the left adjoint is well understood while the right adjoint is more mysterious, and the result identifies the right adjoint in familiar terms. We give a categorical discussion of such results. One essential point is to differentiate between the classical framework that arises in algebraic geometry and a deceptively similar, but genuinely different, framework that arises in algebraic topology. Another is to make clear which parts of the proofs of such results are formal. The analysis significantly simplifies the proofs of particular cases, as we illustrate in a sequel discussing applications to equivariant stable homotopy theory.'
author:
- 'H. Fausk, P. Hu, and J.P. May'
title: Isomorphisms between left and right adjoints
---
We give a categorical discussion of Verdier and Grothendieck isomorphisms on the one hand and formally analogous results whose proofs involve different issues on the other. Our point is to explain and compare the two contexts and to differentiate the formal issues from the substantive issues in each. The philosophy goes back to Grothendieck’s “six operations” formalism. We fix our general framework, explain what the naive versions of our theorems say, and describe which parts of their proofs are formal in §§1–4. This discussion does not require triangulated categories. Its hypotheses and conclusions make sense in general closed symmetric monoidal categories, whether or not triangulated. In practice, that means that the arguments apply equally well before or after passage to derived categories.
After giving some preliminary results about triangulated categories in §5, we explain the formal theorems comparing left and right adjoints in §6. Our “formal Grothendieck isomorphism theorem” is an abstraction of results of Amnon Neeman, and our “formal Wirthmüller isomorphism theorem” borrows from his ideas. His paper [@Nee] has been influential, and he must be thanked for catching a mistake in a preliminary version by the third author. We thank Gaunce Lewis for discussions of the topological context, and we thank Sasha Beilinson and Madhav Nori for making clear that, contrary to our original expectations, the context encountered in algebraic topology is not part of the classical context familiar to algebraic geometers. We also thank Johann Sigurdsson for corrections and emendations.
The starting point: an adjoint pair $(f^*,f_*)$
===============================================
We fix closed symmetric monoidal categories ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$ with respective unit objects $S$ and $T$. We write ${\otimes}$ and $\Hom$ for the product and [*internal*]{} hom functor in either category, and we write $X$ (sometimes also $W$) and $Y$ (sometimes also $Z$) generically for objects of ${\scr{C}}$ and objects of ${\scr{D}}$, respectively. We write ${\scr{C}}(W,X)$ and ${\scr{D}}(Y,Z)$ for the categorical hom sets. We let $DX = \Hom (X,S)$ denote the dual of $X$. We let $\text{ev}\colon \Hom(X,W){\otimes}X{\longrightarrow}W$ denote the evaluation map, that is, the counit of the $({\otimes},\Hom)$ adjunction $${\scr{C}}(X{\otimes}X',W){\cong}{\scr{C}}(X,\Hom (X',W)).$$
We also fix a strong symmetric monoidal functor $f^*\colon {\scr{D}}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{C}}$. This means that we are given isomorphisms $$\label{symmon}
f^*T {\cong}S \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ f^*(Y{\otimes}Z){\cong}f^*Y{\otimes}f^*Z,$$ the second natural, that commute with the associativity, commutativity, and unit isomorphisms for ${\otimes}$ in ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$. We assume throughout that $f^*$ has a right adjoint $f_{*}$, and we write $${\varepsilon}\colon f^*f_*X {\longrightarrow}X\2 \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ {\eta}\colon Y{\longrightarrow}f_*f^* Y$$ for the counit and unit of the adjunction. This general context is fixed throughout.
The notation $(f^*,f_*)$ meshes with standard notation in algebraic geometry, where one starts with a map $f\colon A{\longrightarrow}B$ of spaces or schemes and $f^*$ and $f_*$ are pullback and pushforward functors on sheaves. In our generality there need be no underlying map “$f$” in sight. Some simple illustrative examples are given in §3.
The assumption that $f^*$ is strong symmetric monoidal has several basic implications. To begin with, the adjoints of the isomorphism $f^*T{\cong}S$ and the map $$\xymatrix@1{
f^*(f_*W{\otimes}f_*X){\cong}f^*f_*W{\otimes}f^*f_*X \ar[r]^-{{\varepsilon}{\otimes}{\varepsilon}} & W{\otimes}X}\\$$ are maps $$\label{symmon2}
T{\longrightarrow}f_*S \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ f_*W{\otimes}f_*X{\longrightarrow}f_*(W{\otimes}X).$$ These are not usually isomorphisms. This means that $f_*$ is [*lax*]{} symmetric monoidal.
The adjoint of the map $$\xymatrix@1{
f^*\Hom(Y,Z){\otimes}f^*Y {\cong}f^*(\Hom(Y,Z){\otimes}Y) \ar[r]^-{f^*(\text{ev})}
& f^*Z\\}$$ is a natural map $$\label{al}
{\alpha}\colon f^*\Hom(Y,Z){\longrightarrow}\Hom(f^*Y,f^*Z).$$ It may or may not be an isomorphism in general, and we say that $f^*$ is [*closed symmetric monoidal*]{} if it is. However, the adjoint of the composite map $$\xymatrix@1{
f^*\Hom(Y,f_*X)\ar[r]^-{{\alpha}} &\Hom(f^*Y,f^*f_*X)\ar[rr]^-{\Hom(\id,{\varepsilon})} & & \Hom(f^*Y,X)\\}$$ is a natural isomorphism $$\label{recipy2}
\Hom(Y,f_*X) {\cong}f_*\Hom(f^*Y,X).$$ In particular, $\Hom(Y,f_*S){\cong}f_*Df^*Y$. Indeed, we have the following two chains of isomorphisms of functors. $${\scr{D}}(Z,\Hom(Y,f_*X)) {\cong}{\scr{D}}(Z{\otimes}Y,f_*X) {\cong}{\scr{C}}(f^*(Z{\otimes}Y),X)$$ $${\scr{D}}(Z,f_*\Hom(f^*Y,X)) {\cong}{\scr{C}}(f^*Z,\Hom(f^*Y,X)){\cong}{\scr{C}}(f^*Z{\otimes}f^*Y, X)$$ By the Yoneda lemma and a check of maps, these show immediately that the assumed isomorphism of functors in (\[symmon\]) is [*equivalent*]{} to the claimed isomorphism of functors (\[recipy2\]). That is, the isomorphism of left adjoints in (\[symmon\]) is adjoint to the isomorphism of right adjoints in (\[recipy2\]). Systematic recognition of such “conjugate” pairs of isomorphisms can substitute for quite a bit of excess verbiage in the literature. We call this a “comparison of adjoints” and henceforward leave the details of such arguments to the reader.
Using the isomorphism (\[recipy2\]), we obtain the following map ${\beta}$, which is analogous to both ${\alpha}$ and the map of (\[symmon2\]). Like the latter, it is not usually an isomorphism. $$\label{be}
\xymatrix@1{
{\beta}\colon f_*\Hom(X,W) \ar[rr]^-{f_*\Hom({\varepsilon},\id)} & & f_*\Hom(f^*f_*X,W)\ar[r]^-{{\cong}} &\Hom(f_*X,f_*W).\\}$$
Using (\[symmon2\]), we also obtain a natural composite $$\label{recipy1}
\xymatrix@1{
\pi\colon Y{\otimes}f_*X \ar[r]^-{{\eta}{\otimes}\id} & f_*f^*Y{\otimes}f_*X \ar[r] & f_*(f^*Y{\otimes}X).\\}$$ Like ${\alpha}$, it may or may not be an isomorphism in general. When it is, we say that the [*projection formula*]{} holds.
As noted by Lipman [@Lip p.119], there is already a non-trivial “coherence problem” in this general context, the question of determining which compatibility diagrams relating the given data necessarily commute. An early reference for coherence in closed symmetric monoidal categories is [@EK], and the volume [@coh] contains several papers on the subject and many references. In particular, a paper of G. Lewis in [@coh] gives a partial coherence theorem for closed monoidal functors. The categorical literature of coherence is relevant to the study of “compatibilities” that focuses on base change maps and plays an important role in the literature in algebraic geometry (e.g. [@Lip; @Conrad; @De2; @DeGro; @Hart]). A study of that is beyond the scope of this note. A full categorical coherence theorem is not known and would be highly desirable.
We illustrate by recording a particular commutative coherence diagram, namely $$\label{silly}\xymatrix{
f^*DY{\otimes}f^*Y \ar[r]^-{{\cong}} \ar[d]_{{\alpha}{\otimes}\id} & f^*(DY{\otimes}Y) \ar[r]^-{f^*(ev)}
& f^*T \ar[d]^{{\cong}}\\
Df^*Y{\otimes}f^*Y \ar[rr]_-{ev} & & S. \\}$$ We shall need a consequence of this diagram. There is a natural map $$\nu\colon DX{\otimes}W{\longrightarrow}\Hom(X,W),$$ namely the adjoint of $$DX{\otimes}W{\otimes}X {\cong}DX{\otimes}X{\otimes}W \overto{ev{\otimes}\id} S{\otimes}W{\cong}W.$$ The commutativity of the diagram (\[silly\]) implies the commutativity of the diagram $$\label{sillier}\xymatrix{
f^*DY{\otimes}f^*Z \ar[r]^-{{\cong}}\ar[d]_{{\alpha}{\otimes}\id} & f^*(DY{\otimes}Z) \ar[r]^-{f^*\nu}
& f^*\Hom(Y,Z) \ar[d]^{{\alpha}}\\
Df^*Y{\otimes}f^*Z \ar[rr]_{\nu} & & \Hom(f^*Y,f^*Z).\\}$$
We assume familiarity with the theory of “dualizable” (alias “strongly dualizable” or “finite”) objects; see [@May1] for a recent exposition. The defining property is that $\nu\colon DX{\otimes}X {\longrightarrow}\Hom(X,X)$ is an isomorphism. It follows that $\nu$ is an isomorphism if either $X$ or $W$ is dualizable. It also follows that the natural map ${\rho}: X{\longrightarrow}DDX$ is an isomorphism, but the converse fails in general. When $X'$ is dualizable, we have the duality adjunction $$\label{dualad}
{\scr{C}}(X{\otimes}X',X'') {\cong}{\scr{C}}(X, DX'{\otimes}X'').$$
As observed in [@LMS III.1.9], (\[symmon\]) and the definitions imply the following result.
\[easyLMS\] If $Y\in {\scr{D}}$ is dualizable, then $DY$, $f^*Y$, and $Df^*Y$ are dualizable and the map ${\alpha}$ of (\[al\]) restricts to an isomorphism $$\label{D1}
f^*DY {\cong}Df^*Y.$$
This implies that ${\alpha}$ and $\pi$ are often isomorphisms for formal reasons.
\[alpi\] If $Y\in{\scr{D}}$ is dualizable, then $${\alpha}\colon f^*\Hom(Y,Z){\longrightarrow}\Hom(f^*Y,f^*Z)\ \ \ \text{and} \ \ \
\pi\colon Y{\otimes}f_*X {\longrightarrow}f_*(f^*Y{\otimes}X)$$ are isomorphisms for all objects $X\in {\scr{C}}$ and $Z\in{\scr{D}}$. Thus, if all objects of ${\scr{D}}$ are dualizable, then $f^*$ is closed symmetric monoidal and the projection formula holds.
For the first statement, ${\alpha}$ coincides with the composite $$f^*\Hom(Y,Z) {\cong}f^*(DY{\otimes}Z){\cong}f^*DY{\otimes}f^*Z{\cong}Df^*Y{\otimes}f^*Z{\cong}\Hom(f^*Y,f^*Z).$$ For the second statement, $\pi$ induces the isomorphism of represented functors $${\scr{D}}(Z,Y{\otimes}f_*X) {\cong}{\scr{D}}(Z{\otimes}DY,f_*X) {\cong}{\scr{C}}(f^*(Z{\otimes}DY), X) {\cong}{\scr{C}}(f^*Z{\otimes}f^*DY, X)$$ $$\hspace*{12mm} {\cong}{\scr{C}}(f^*Z{\otimes}Df^*Y,X)
{\cong}{\scr{C}}(f^*Z,f^*Y{\otimes}X){\cong}{\scr{D}}(Z,f_*(f^*Y{\otimes}X)). \qed$$
The general context: adjoint pairs $(f^*,f_*)$ and $(f_!,f^!)$
==============================================================
In addition to the adjoint pair $(f^*,f_*)$ of the previous section, we here assume given a second adjoint pair $(f_!,f^!)$ relating ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$, with $f_!\colon {\scr{C}}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{D}}$ being the left adjoint. We write $${\sigma}\colon f_{!}f^{!} Y{\longrightarrow}Y \ \ \text{and}\ \ {\zeta}\colon X{\longrightarrow}f^{!}f_{!} X$$ for the counit and unit of the second adjunction.
The adjunction ${\scr{D}}(Y,f_*X){\cong}{\scr{C}}(f^*Y,X)$ can be recovered from the more general “internal $\Hom$ adjunction” $\Hom(Y,f_*X) {\cong}f_*\Hom(f^*Y,X)$ of (\[recipy2\]) by applying the functor ${\scr{D}}(T,-)$ and using the assumption that $f^*T{\cong}S$. Analogously, it is natural to hope that the adjunction ${\scr{D}}(f_!X,Y){\cong}{\scr{C}}(X,f^!Y)$ can be recovered by applying the functor ${\scr{D}}(T,-)$ to a similar internal $\Hom$ adjunction $$\Hom(f_!X,Y){\cong}f_*\Hom(X,f^!Y).$$
However, unlike (\[recipy2\]), such an adjunction does not follow formally from our hypotheses. Motivated by different specializations of the general context, we consider two triads of basic natural maps that we might ask for relating our four functors. For the first triad, we might ask for either of the following two duality maps, the first of which is a comparison map for the desired internal $\Hom$ adjunction. $$\label{Ver}
{\gamma}\colon f_*\Hom(X,f^!Y) {\longrightarrow}\Hom(f_!X,Y).$$ $$\label{Ver'}
{{\delta}}\colon \Hom(f^*Y,f^!Z) {\longrightarrow}f^!\Hom(Y,Z).$$ We might also ask for a [*projection formula map*]{} $$\label{proj2}
\hat{\pi}\colon Y{\otimes}f_!X {\longrightarrow}f_!(f^*Y{\otimes}X),$$ which should be thought of as a generalized analogue of the map $\pi$ of (\[recipy1\]). These three maps are not formal consequences of the given adjunctions, but rather must be constructed by hand. However, it suffices to construct any one of them.
\[three\] Suppose given any one of the natural maps ${\gamma}$, ${\delta}$, and $\hat{\pi}$. Then it determines the other two by conjugation. The map ${\delta}$ is an isomorphism for all dualizable $Y$ if and only if its conjugate $\hat{\pi}$ is an isomorphism for all dualizable $Y$. If any one of the three conjugately related maps is a natural isomorphism, then so are the other two.
The second triad results from the first simply by changing the direction of the arrows. That is, we can ask for natural maps in the following directions. $$\label{WirVer}
\bar{{\gamma}} \colon \Hom(f_!X,Y){\longrightarrow}f_*\Hom(X,f^!Y).$$ $$\label{WirVer'}
\bar{{\delta}}\colon f^!\Hom(Y,Z){\longrightarrow}\Hom(f^*Y,f^!Z).$$ $$\label{proj3}
\bar{\pi}\colon f_!(f^*Y{\otimes}X){\longrightarrow}Y{\otimes}f_!X.$$ Here $\bar{{\delta}}$ is to be viewed as a generalized analogue of the map ${\alpha}$ of (\[al\]).
\[three3\] Suppose given any one of the natural maps $\bar{{\gamma}}$, $\bar{{\delta}}$, and $\bar{\pi}$. Then it determines the other two by conjugation. The map $\bar{{\delta}}$ is an isomorphism for all dualizable $Y$ if and only if its conjugate $\bar{\pi}$ is an isomorphism for all dualizable $Y$. If any one of the three conjugately related maps is a natural isomorphism, then so are the other two.
Of course, when the three maps are isomorphisms, the triads are inverse to each other and there is no real difference. However, there are two very different interesting specializations: we might have $f_! = f_*$, or we might have $f^!=f^*$. The first occurs frequently in algebraic geometry, and is familiar. The second occurs in algebraic topology and elsewhere, but seems less familiar. With the first specialization, the first triad of maps arises formally since we can take $\hat{\pi}$ to be the map $\pi$ of (\[recipy1\]). With the second specialization, the second triad arises formally since we can take $\bar{{\delta}}$ to be the map ${\alpha}$ of (\[al\]). Recall the isomorphism (\[recipy2\]), the map ${\beta}$ of (\[be\]), and Proposition \[alpi\].
\[threea\] Suppose $f_!=f_*$. Taking $\hat{\pi}$ to be the projection map $\pi$ of (\[recipy1\]), the conjugate map ${\gamma}$ is the composite $$\xymatrix@1{
f_*\Hom(X,f^!Y) \ar[r]^-{{\beta}} & \Hom(f_*X,f_*f^!Y) \ar[rr]^-{\Hom(\id,{\sigma})} & & \Hom(f_*X,Y)\\}$$ and the conjugate map ${\delta}$ is the adjoint of the map $$\xymatrix@1{
f_*\Hom(f^*Y,f^!Z) {\cong}\Hom(Y,f_*f^!Z) \ar[rr]^-{\Hom(\id,{\sigma})} & & \Hom(Y,Z).\\}$$ Moreover, $\pi$ and ${\delta}$ are isomorphisms if $Y$ is dualizable.
When $f^!=f^*$, passage to adjoints from $S{\cong}f^*T$ and the natural map $$\xymatrix@1{
W{\otimes}X\ar[r]^-{{\zeta}{\otimes}{\zeta}} & f^*f_!W{\otimes}f^*f_!X {\cong}f^*(f_!W{\otimes}f_!X)\\}$$ gives maps, not usually isomorphisms, $$\label{symmon3}
f_!S{\longrightarrow}T \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ f_!(W{\otimes}X){\longrightarrow}f_!W{\otimes}f_!X.$$ This means that $f_!$ is an [*op-lax*]{} symmetric monoidal functor.
\[threeb\] Suppose $f^!=f^*$. Taking $\bar{{\delta}}$ to be the map ${\alpha}$ of (\[al\]), the conjugate map $\bar{\pi}$ is the composite $$\xymatrix@1{
f_!(f^{*}Y{\otimes}X) \ar[r] & f_!f^{*}Y{\otimes}f_!X
\ar[r]^-{{\sigma}{\otimes}\id} & Y{\otimes}f_!X\\}$$ and the conjugate map $\bar{{\gamma}}$ is the adjoint of the map $$\xymatrix@1{
f^*\Hom(f_!X,Y)\ar[r]^-{{\alpha}} & \Hom(f^*f_!X,f^*Y)\ar[rr]^-{\Hom({\zeta},\id)}
& & \Hom(X,f^*Y).\\}$$ Moreover ${\alpha}$ and $\bar{\pi}$ are isomorphisms if $Y$ is dualizable.
We introduce names for the different contexts in sight.\
(i) [*The Verdier-Grothendieck context:*]{} There is a natural isomorphism $\hat{\pi}$ as in (\[proj2\]) (projection formula); taking $\bar{\pi} = \hat{\pi}^{-1}$, there are conjugately determined natural isomorphisms ${\gamma}= \bar{{\gamma}}^{-1}$, and ${\delta}= \bar{{\delta}}^{-1}$.\
(ii) [*The Grothendieck context:*]{} $f_!= f_*$ and the projection formula holds.\
(iii) [*The Wirthmüller context:*]{} $f^!=f^*$ and $f^*$ is closed symmetric monoidal.
Thus, in the Grothendieck context, the strong symmetric monoidal functor $f^*$ is the left adjoint of a left adjoint. In the Wirthmüller context, it is a left and a right adjoint.
The Verdier-Grothendieck context encapsulates the properties that hold for suitable derived categories ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$ of sheaves over locally compact spaces $A$ and $B$ and maps $f:A{\longrightarrow}B$; see [@Borel; @Iv; @V]. Here $f_!$ is given by pushforward with compact supports. The same abstract context applies to suitable derived categories ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$ of complexes of ${\scr{O}}_A$-modules and of ${\scr{O}}_B$-modules for schemes $A$ and $B$ and maps $f:A{\longrightarrow}B$. In either context, we have $f_!=f_*$ when the map $f$ is proper. For the scheme theoretic context, see [@De; @DeGro; @Hart] and, for more recent reworkings and generalizations, [@Lip; @Conrad; @Lip2; @Nee]. There is a highly non-trivial categorical, more precisely $2$-categorical, coherence problem concerning composites of base change functors in the Verdier-Grothendieck context. A start on this has been made by Voevodsky [@De2]. Since his discussion focuses on base change relating quadruples $(f^*,f_*,f_!,f^!)$, ignoring ${\otimes}$ and $\Hom$, it is essentially disjoint from our discussion. The relevant coherence problem simplifies greatly in either the Grothendieck or the Wirthmüller context, due to the canonicity of the maps in Propositions \[threea\] and \[threeb\].
We repeat that our categorical results deduce formal conclusions from formal hypotheses and therefore work equally well before or after passage to derived categories. Much of the work in passing from categories of sheaves to derived categories can be viewed as the verification that formal properties in the category of sheaves carry over to the same formal properties in derived categories, although other properties only hold after passage to derived categories. A paper by Lipman in [@Lip] takes a similarly categorical point of view.
While the proofs of Propositions \[three\] and \[threea\] are formal, in the applications to algebraic geometry they require use of [*unbounded*]{} derived categories, since otherwise we would not have closed symmetric monoidal categories to begin with. These were not available until Spaltenstein’s paper [@Spalt], and he noticed one of our formal implications [@Spalt §6]. Unfortunately, as he makes clear, in the classical sheaf context his methods fail to give the $(f_!,f^!)$ adjunction for all maps $f$ between locally compact spaces. It seems possible that a model theoretic approach to unbounded derived categories would allow one to resolve this problem. In any case, a complete reworking of the theory in model theoretical terms would be of considerable value.
In the algebraic geometry setting, smooth maps lead to a context close to the Wirthmüller context, but that is not our motivation. In that context, we think of $f^*$ as a forgetful functor which does not alter underlying structure, $f_!$ as a kind of extension of scalars functor, and $f_*$ as a kind of “coextension of scalars” functor.
For example, let $f: H{\longrightarrow}G$ be an inclusion of a subgroup in a group $G$ and let ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$ be the categories of $H$-objects and $G$-objects in some Cartesian closed category, such as topological spaces. Let $f^*:{\scr{D}}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{C}}$ be the evident forgetful functor. Certainly $$f^*(Y\times Z){\cong}f^*Y\times f^*Z.$$ The left and right adjoints of $f^*$ send an $H$-object $X$ to $G\times_H X$ and to $\text{Map}_H(G,X)$. Clearly $G\times_H(X\times X')$ is not isomorphic to $(G\times_H X)\times (G\times_H X')$. Our motivating example is a spectrum level analogue of this for which there is a Wirthmüller isomorphism theorem [@LMS; @W]. Our formal Wirthmüller isomorphism theorem below substantially simplifies its proof [@M]. One can hope for such a result in any context where group actions and triangulated categories mix.
For another example, let $f:A{\longrightarrow}B$ be an inclusion of cocommutative Hopf algebras over a field $k$ and let ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$ be the categories of $A$-modules and of $B$-modules. These are closed symmetric monoidal categories under the functors $\otimes_k$ and $\Hom_k$. Indeed, using the coproduct on $A$, we see that if $M$ and $N$ are $A$-modules, then so are $M{\otimes}_kN$ and $\Hom_k(M,N)$. The commutativity of ${\otimes}_k$ requires the cocommutativity of $A$. The unit object in both ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$ is $k$. Again, if $f^*:{\scr{D}}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{C}}$ is the evident forgetful functor, then $$f^*(Y{\otimes}_k Z)=f^*Y{\otimes}_k f^*Z.$$ The left and right adjoints of $f^*$ send an $A$-module $X$ to $B{\otimes}_A X$ and to $\Hom_A(B,X)$, and again $B{\otimes}_A(X{\otimes}_k X')$ is not isomorphic to $(B{\otimes}_A X)\otimes_k (B{\otimes}_A X')$. This example deserves investigation on the level of derived categories.
Isomorphisms in the Verdier–Grothendieck context
================================================
We place ourselves in the Verdier–Grothendieck context in this section.
For an object $W\in {\scr{C}}$, define $D_W X = \Hom(X,W)$, the [*$W$-twisted dual of $X$*]{}. Of course, if $X$ or $W$ is dualizable, then $D_W X{\cong}DX{\otimes}W$. Let ${\rho}_W: X{\longrightarrow}D_WD_WX$ be the adjoint of the evaluation map $D_WX{\otimes}X {\longrightarrow}W$. We say that $X$ is [*$W$-reflexive*]{} if ${\rho}_W$ is an isomorphism.
Replacing $Y$ by $Z$ in (\[Ver\]) and letting $W=f^!Z$, the isomorphisms ${\gamma}$ and ${\delta}$ take the following form: $$\label{dualform}
f_*D_WX {\cong}D_Z f_!X\ \ \text{and} \ \ D_Wf^*Y {\cong}f^!D_ZY.$$ This change of notation and comparison with the classical context of algebraic geometry explains why we think of ${\gamma}$ and ${\delta}$ as duality maps. If $f_!X$ is $Z$-reflexive, the first isomorphism implies that $$\label{onesort}
f_!X {\cong}D_Z f_*D_W X.$$ If $Y$ is isomorphic to $D_ZY'$ for some $Z$-reflexive object $Y'$, the second isomorphism implies that $$\label{twosort}
f^!Y {\cong}D_W f^*D_Z Y.$$ These observations and the classical context suggest the following definition.
\[dobject\] A [*dualizing object*]{} for a full subcategory ${\scr{C}}_0$ of ${\scr{C}}$ is an object $W$ of ${\scr{C}}$ such that if $X\in {\scr{C}}_0$, then $D_WX$ is in ${\scr{C}}_0$ and $X$ is $W$-reflexive. Thus $D_W$ specifies an auto–duality of the category ${\scr{C}}_0$.
\[dcontext\] In algebraic geometry, we often encounter canonical subcategories ${\scr{C}}_0\subset {\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}_0\subset {\scr{D}}$ such that $f_!{\scr{C}}_0\subset {\scr{D}}_0$ and $f^!{\scr{D}}_0\subset {\scr{C}}_0$ together with a dualizing object $Z$ for ${\scr{D}}_0$ such that $W=f^!Z$ is a dualizing object for ${\scr{C}}_0$. In such contexts, (\[onesort\]) and (\[twosort\]) express $f_!$ on ${\scr{C}}_0$ and $f^!$ on ${\scr{D}}_0$ in terms of $f_*$ and $f^*$.
For any objects $Y$ and $Z$ of ${\scr{D}}$, the adjoint of the map $$\xymatrix@1{
f_!(f^*Y{\otimes}f^{!}Z){\cong}Y{\otimes}f_!f^{!}Z \ar[r]^-{\id{\otimes}{\sigma}}& Y{\otimes}Z\\}$$ is a natural map $$\label{YYYV}
{\phi}\colon f^*Y{\otimes}f^{!}Z {\longrightarrow}f^{!}(Y{\otimes}Z).$$ It specializes to $$\label{phiV}
{\phi}\colon f^*Y{\otimes}f^{!}T {\longrightarrow}f^{!}Y,$$ which of course compares a right adjoint to a shift of a left adjoint. A [*Verdier–Grothendieck isomorphism theorem*]{} asserts that the map ${\phi}$ is an isomorphism; in the context of sheaves over spaces, such a result was announced by Verdier in [@V §5]. The following observation, abstracts a result of Neeman [@Nee 5.4]. In it, we only assume the projection formula for dualizable $Y$.
\[dualGr\] The map ${\phi}\colon f^*Y{\otimes}f^{!}Z {\longrightarrow}f^{!}(Y{\otimes}Z)$ is an isomorphism for all objects $Z$ and all dualizable objects $Y$.
Using Proposition \[easyLMS\], the projection formula, duality adjunctions (\[dualad\]), and the $(f_!,f^{!})$ adjunction, we obtain isomorphisms $${\scr{C}}(X,f^*Y{\otimes}f^{!}Z) {\cong}{\scr{C}}(f^*DY{\otimes}X,f^{!}Z) {\cong}{\scr{D}}(f_!(f^*DY{\otimes}X),Z)$$ $$\hspace*{12mm} {\cong}{\scr{D}}(DY{\otimes}f_!X, Z) {\cong}{\scr{D}}(f_!X, Y{\otimes}Z)
{\cong}{\scr{C}}(X,f^{!}(Y{\otimes}Z)).$$ Diagram chasing shows that the composite isomorphism is induced by ${\phi}$.
It is natural to ask when ${\phi}$ is an isomorphism in general, and we shall return to that question in the context of triangulated categories. Of course, this discussion specializes and remains interesting in the Grothendieck context $f_!=f_*$.
We give some elementary examples of the Verdier–Grothendieck context.
\[trivex\] An example of the Verdier–Grothendieck context is already available with ${\scr{C}}={\scr{D}}$ and $f^* = f_* = \Id$. Fix an object $C$ of ${\scr{C}}$ and set $$f_!X = X{\otimes}C \ \ \text{and} \ \ f^!(Y) = \Hom(C,Y).$$ The projection formula $f_!(f^*Y{\otimes}Z){\cong}Y{\otimes}f_!Z$ is the associativity isomorphism $$(Y{\otimes}Z){\otimes}C{\cong}Y{\otimes}(Z{\otimes}C).$$ The map ${\phi}\colon f^*Y{\otimes}f^!Z{\longrightarrow}f^!(Y{\otimes}Z)$ is the canonical map $$\nu\colon Y{\otimes}\Hom(C,Z) {\longrightarrow}\Hom(C,Y{\otimes}Z).$$ It is an isomorphism if $Y$ is dualizable, and it is an isomorphism for all $Y$ if and only if $C$ is dualizable.
The shift of an adjunction by an object of ${\scr{C}}$ used in the previous example generalizes to give a shift of any Verdier-Grothendieck context by an object of ${\scr{C}}$.
For an adjoint pair $(f_!,f^!)$ and an object $C\in {\scr{C}}$, define the twisted adjoint pair $(f^C_!,f^!_C)$ by $$\label{shift1}
f_{!}^C(X) = f_{!}(X{\otimes}C) \ \ \text{and}\ \ f^{!}_CY = \Hom(C,f^{!}Y).$$
If $(f^*,f_*)$ and $(f_!,f!)$ are in the Verdier-Grothendieck context, then so are $(f^*,f_*)$ and $(f_!^C,f!_C)$.
The isomorphism $\hat{\pi}$ of (\[proj2\]) shifts to a corresponding isomorphism $\hat{\pi}_C$.
We also give a simple example of the context of Definition \[dobject\]. Recall that dualizable objects are $S$-reflexive, but not conversely in general. The following observation parallels part of a standard characterization of “dualizing complexes” [@Hart V.2.1]. Let $d{\scr{C}}$ denote the full subcategory of dualizable objects of ${\scr{C}}$.
$S$ is $W$-reflexive if and only if all $X\in d{\scr{C}}$ are $W$-reflexive.
Since $S$ is dualizable, the backwards implication is trivial. Assume that $S$ is $W$-reflexive. Since $W{\cong}D_WS$, $\Hom(W,W)=D_WW{\cong}D_WD_W S$. In any closed symmetric monoidal category, such as ${\scr{C}}$, we have a natural isomorphism $$\Hom(X{\otimes}X',X''){\cong}\Hom(X,\Hom(X',X'')),$$ where $X$, $X'$, and $X''$ are arbitrary objects. When $X$ is dualizable, $$\nu\colon DX{\otimes}X'{\longrightarrow}\Hom(X,X')$$ is an isomorphism for any object $X'$. Therefore $$D_WD_WX {\cong}\Hom(DX{\otimes}W,W){\cong}\Hom(DX,\Hom(W,W)){\cong}DDX{\otimes}D_WD_WS.$$ Identifying $X$ with $X{\otimes}S$, is easy to check that ${\rho}_W$ corresponds under this isomorphism to ${\rho}_S{\otimes}{\rho}_W$. The conclusion follows.
Let $W$ be dualizable. Then the following are equivalent.
1. $W$ is a dualizing object for $d{\scr{C}}$.
2. $S$ is $W$-reflexive.
3. $W$ is invertible.
4. $D_W\colon d{\scr{C}}^{op}{\longrightarrow}d{\scr{C}}$ is an auto–duality of $d{\scr{C}}$.
If $X$ is dualizable, then $D_WX{\cong}DX{\otimes}W$ is dualizable. The proposition shows that (i) and (ii) are equivalent, and it is clear that (iii) and (iv) are equivalent. Since $W$ is dualizable, $D_WD_WS{\cong}\Hom(W,W){\cong}W{\otimes}DW$, with ${\rho}_W$ corresponding to the coevaluation map $coev: S{\longrightarrow}W{\otimes}DW$. By [@May1 2.9], $W$ is invertible if and only if $coev$ is an isomorphism. Therefore (ii) and (iii) are equivalent.
Finally, we have a shift comparison of Grothendieck and Wirthmüller contexts.
Start in the Grothendieck context, so that $f_!=f_*$, and assume that the map $\phi\colon f^*Y{\otimes}f^!T{\longrightarrow}f^!Y$ of (\[phiV\]) is an isomorphism. Assume further that $f^!T$ is invertible and let $C=Df^!T$. Define a new functor $f_!$ by $f_!X = f_*(X{\otimes}DC)$. Then $f_!$ is [*left*]{} adjoint to $f^*$. Replacing $X$ by $X{\otimes}C$, we see that $$f_*X {\cong}f_!(X{\otimes}C).$$ In the next section, we shall consider isomorphisms of this general form in the Wirthmüller context. Conversely, start in the Wirthmüller context, so that $f^!=f^*$, and assume given a $C$ such that $f_*S{\cong}f_!C$ and the map ${\omega}\colon f_*X{\longrightarrow}f_!(X{\otimes}C)$ of (\[omega\]) below is an isomorphism. Define a new functor $f^!$ by $f^!Y=\Hom(C,f^*Y)$ and note that $f^!T {\cong}DC$. Then $f^!$ is [*right*]{} adjoint to $f_*$. If either $C$ or $Y$ is dualizable, then $\Hom(C,f^*Y){\cong}f^*Y{\otimes}DC$ and thus $f^*Y{\otimes}f^!T {\cong}f^!Y$, which is an isomorphism of the same form as in the Grothendieck context.
The Wirthmüller isomorphism
===========================
We place ourselves in the Wirthmüller context in this section, with $f^!=f^*$. Here the specialization of the Verdier–Grothendieck isomorphism is of no interest. In fact, ${\phi}$ reduces to the originally assumed isomorphism (\[symmon\]). However, there is now a candidate for an isomorphism between the right adjoint $f_*$ of $f^*$ and a shift of the left adjoint $f_!$. This is not motivated by duality questions, and it can already fail on dualizable objects. We assume in addition to the isomorphisms ${\alpha}= \bar{{\delta}}$, hence $\bar{\pi}$ and $\bar{{\gamma}}$, that we are given an object $C\in{\scr{C}}$ together with an isomorphism $$\label{Dobject}
f_*S{\cong}f_!C.$$ Observe that the isomorphism $\bar{{\gamma}}$ specializes to an isomorphism $$\label{D3}
Df_!X {\cong}f_*DX.$$ Taking $X=S$ in (\[D3\]) and using that $DS{\cong}S$, we see that (\[Dobject\]) is equivalent to $$\label{Dobjalt}
Df_{!} S{\cong}f_{!}C.$$ This version is the one most naturally encountered in applications, since it makes no reference to the right adjoint $f_*$ that we seek to understand. In practice, $f_!S$ is dualizable and $C$ is dualizable or even invertible. It is a curious feature of our discussion that it does not require such hypotheses.
Replacing $C$ by $S{\otimes}C$ in (\[Dobject\]), it is reasonable to hope that it continues to hold with $S$ replaced by a general $X$. That is, we can hope for a natural isomorphism $$\label{Wirth}
f_*X{\cong}f_{\sharp}X, \ \ \text{where} \ \ f_{\sharp}X \equiv f_!(X{\otimes}C).$$ Note that we twist by $C$ before applying $f_!$. We shall shortly define a particular natural map ${\omega}\colon f_*X{\longrightarrow}f_{\sharp}X$. A [*Wirthmüller isomorphism theorem*]{} asserts that ${\omega}$ is an isomorphism. We shall show that if $f_!S$ is dualizable and $X$ is a retract of some $f^*Y$, then ${\omega}$ is an isomorphism. However, even for dualizable $X$, ${\omega}$ need [*not*]{} be an isomorphism in general. A counterexample is given in the sequel [@M]. We shall also give a categorical criterion for ${\omega}$ to be an isomorphism for a particular object $X$. An application is also given in [@M].
Using the map $T{\longrightarrow}f_*S$ of (\[symmon2\]), the assumed isomorphism $f_*S{\cong}f_{!}C$ gives rise to maps $$\xymatrix@1{
{\tau}\colon T{\longrightarrow}f_*S {\cong}f_!C\\}$$ and $$\xymatrix@1{
\xi\colon f^*f_!C {\cong}f^*f_*S \ar[r]^-{{\varepsilon}} & S\\}$$ such that $$\xi{\circ}f^*{\tau}= \id\colon S{\longrightarrow}S.$$ Using the alternative defining property (\[Dobjalt\]) of $C$, we can obtain alternative descriptions of these maps that avoid reference to the functor $f_*$ we seek to understand.
\[altalt\] The maps ${\tau}$ and $\xi$ coincide with the maps $$\xymatrix@1{
T{\cong}DT \ar[r]^-{D{\sigma}} & Df_!f^*T {\cong}Df_!S {\cong}f_!C\\}$$ and $$\xymatrix@1{
f^*f_!C {\cong}f^*Df_!S{\cong}Df^*f_!S
\ar[r]^-{D{\zeta}} & DS {\cong}S.\\}$$
The isomorphism $Df_!S{\cong}f_!C$ used in the displays is the composite of the given isomorphism (\[Dobject\]) and the special case (\[D3\]) of the isomorphism $\bar{{\gamma}}$. The proofs are diagram chases that use the naturality of ${\eta}$ and ${\varepsilon}$, the triangular identities for the $(f_!,f^*)$ adjunction, and the description of $\bar{{\gamma}}$ in Proposition \[threeb\].
Using the isomorphism $(\ref{proj3})$, we extend ${\tau}$ to the natural map $$\label{tau}
\xymatrix@1{
{\tau}\colon Y{\cong}Y{\otimes}T \ar[r]^-{\id{\otimes}{\tau}} & Y{\otimes}f_!C
{\cong}f_!(f^*Y{\otimes}C) = f_{\sharp}f^*Y.\\}$$ Specializing to $Y=f_*X$, we obtain the desired comparison map ${\omega}$ as the composite $$\label{omega}
\xymatrix@1{
{\omega}\colon f_*X \ar[r]^-{{\tau}} & f_{\sharp}f^*f_*X
\ar[r]^-{f_{\sharp}{\varepsilon}} & f_{\sharp}X.\\}$$ An easy diagram chase using the triangular identity ${\varepsilon}{\circ}f^*{\eta}= \id$ shows that $$\label{tauom}
{\omega}{\circ}{\eta}= {\tau}\colon Y {\longrightarrow}f_{\sharp}f^* Y.$$ If ${\omega}$ is an isomorphism, then ${\tau}$ must be the unit of the resulting $(f^*,f_{\sharp})$ adjunction.
Similarly, using (\[symmon\]) and (\[proj3\]), we extend $\xi$ to the natural map $$\label{xipa}
\xymatrix@1{
\xi\colon f^*f_{\sharp}f^*Y = f^*f_!(f^*Y{\otimes}C)
{\cong}f^*Y{\otimes}f^*f_!C \ar[r]^-{\id{\otimes}\xi} & f^*Y{\otimes}S{\cong}f^*Y.\\}$$ We view $\xi$ as a partial counit, defined not for all $X$ but only for $X=f^*Y$. Since $\xi{\circ}f^*{\tau}=\id\colon S{\longrightarrow}S$, it is immediate that $$\label{oneform}
\xi{\circ}f^*{\tau}=\id\colon f^*Y{\longrightarrow}f^*Y,$$ which is one of the triangular identities for the desired $(f^*,f_{\sharp})$ adjunction. Define $$\label{psi}
{\psi}\colon f_{\sharp}f^*Y{\longrightarrow}f_*f^* Y$$ to be the adjoint of $\xi$. The adjoint of the relation (\[oneform\]) is the analogue of (\[tauom\]): $$\label{omtau}
{\psi}{\circ}{\tau}= {\eta}\colon Y{\longrightarrow}f_*f^* Y.$$
If $Y$ or $f_! S$ is dualizable, then ${\omega}: f_*f^*Y{\longrightarrow}f_{\sharp}f^*Y$ is an isomorphism with inverse ${\psi}$. If ${\psi}$ is an isomorphism for all $Y$, then $f_!S$ is dualizable. If $X$ is a retract of some $f^*Y$, where $Y$ or $f_!S$ is dualizable, then ${\omega}: f_*X{\longrightarrow}f_{\sharp}X$ is an isomorphism.
With $X=f^*Y$, the first part of the proof of the following result gives that ${\psi}{\circ}{\omega}= \id$, so that ${\omega}= {\psi}^{-1}$ when ${\psi}$ is an isomorphism. We claim that ${\psi}$ coincides with the following composite: $$f_{\sharp}f^*Y = f_{!}(f^*Y{\otimes}C){\cong}Y{\otimes}D(f_{!}S)
\overto{\nu}\Hom(f_{!} S, Y){\cong}f_*\Hom(S,f^*Y) = f^*Y.$$ Here the isomorphisms are given by (\[proj3\]) and (\[Dobjalt\]) and by (\[WirVer\]). Since $\nu$ is an isomorphism if $Y$ or $f_{!}S$ is dualizable, the claim implies the first statement. Note that ${\psi}= f_*\xi{\circ}{\eta}$ and that the isomorphism $\bar{{\gamma}}$ of (\[WirVer\]) is $f_*\Hom({\zeta},\id){\circ}f_*{\alpha}{\circ}{\eta}$. Using the naturality of ${\eta}$ and the description of $\xi$ in Lemma \[altalt\], an easy, if lengthy, diagram chase shows that the diagram (\[sillier\]) gives just what is needed to check the claim. The second statement is now clear by the definition of dualizability: it suffices to consider $Y = f_!S$. The last statement follows from the first since a retract of an isomorphism is an isomorphism.
We extract a criterion for ${\omega}$ to be an isomorphism for a general object $X$ from the usual proof of the uniqueness of adjoint functors [@Mac p. 85].
\[onebyone\] If there is a map $\xi\colon f^*f_{\sharp} X= f^*f_{!}(X{\otimes}C){\longrightarrow}X$ such that
$$\label{keypt}
f_{\sharp}\xi{\circ}{\tau}= \id\colon f_{\sharp}X{\longrightarrow}f_{\sharp}X$$
and the following (partial naturality) diagram commutes, then ${\omega}\colon f_*X{\longrightarrow}f_{\sharp}X$ is an isomorphism with inverse the adjoint ${\psi}$ of $\xi$. $$\label{natdiag}
\xymatrix{
f^*f_{\sharp}f^*f_* X \ar[r]^-{\xi} \ar[d]_{f^*f_{\sharp}{\varepsilon}} & f^*f_* X \ar[d]^{{\varepsilon}} \\
f^*f_{\sharp} X \ar[r]_{\xi} & X \\}$$ Moreover, (\[keypt\]) holds if and only if the following diagram commutes. $$\label{altkey}
\xymatrix{
X{\otimes}C \ar[r]^-{{\zeta}} \ar[d]_{{\zeta}} & f^*f_{!}(X{\otimes}C) \\
f^*f_{!}(X{\otimes}C) \ar[r]_-{f^*{\tau}}
& f^*f_{!}(f^*f_{!}(X{\otimes}C){\otimes}C)
\ar[u]_{f^*f_{!}(\xi{\otimes}\id)} \\}$$
In the diagram (\[natdiag\]), the top map $\xi$ is given by (\[xipa\]). The diagram and the relation $\xi{\circ}f^*{\tau}=\id$ of (\[oneform\]) easily imply the relation $\xi{\circ}f^*{\omega}= {\varepsilon}$, which is complementary to the defining relation ${\varepsilon}{\circ}f^*{\psi}=\xi$ for the adjoint ${\psi}$. Passage to adjoints gives that ${\psi}{\circ}{\omega}= \id$. The following diagram commutes by (\[tauom\]), the triangular identity $f_*{\varepsilon}{\circ}{\eta}=\id$, the naturality of ${\eta}$ and ${\omega}$, and the fact that ${\psi}$ is adjoint to $\xi$. It gives that ${\omega}{\circ}{\psi}= f_{\sharp}\xi{\circ}{\tau}= \id$.
$$\xymatrix{
f_{\sharp}X \ar[rrr]^-{{\tau}} \ar[dr]^{{\eta}} \ar[ddd]_{{\psi}} & & & f_{\sharp}f^*f_{\sharp}X \ar[ddd]^{f_{\sharp}\xi} \ar@{=}[dl] \\
& f_*f^*f_{\sharp}X \ar[r]^-{{\omega}} \ar[d]_{f_*f^*{\psi}} & f_{\sharp}f^*f_{\sharp}X \ar[d]^{f_{\sharp}f^*{\psi}} & \\
& f_*f^*f_*X \ar[r]^-{{\omega}} \ar[d]^{f_*{\varepsilon}} & f_{\sharp}f^*f_*X \ar[dr]^{f_{\sharp}{\varepsilon}}& \\
f_*X \ar@{=}[r] \ar[ur]^{{\eta}} & f_*X \ar[rr]_-{{\omega}} & & f_{\sharp}X. \\}$$ The last statement is clear by adjunction.
The map ${\omega}$ can be generalized to the Verdier–Grothendieck context. For that, we assume given an object $W$ of ${\scr{C}}$ such that $$f_{!}C{\cong}Df_{!}f^{!}T;$$ compare (\[Dobjalt\]). As in Lemma \[altalt\], we then have the map $$\xymatrix@1{
{\tau}\colon T{\cong}DT \ar[r]^-{D{\sigma}} & Df_!f^!T {\cong}f_!C.\\}$$ This allows us to define the comparison map $$\xymatrix@1{
{\omega}\colon f_*X {\cong}f_*X{\otimes}T\ar[r]^-{\id{\otimes}{\tau}} & f_*X{\otimes}f_!W {\cong}f_!(f^*f_*X{\otimes}C)
\ar[r]^-{f_!({\varepsilon}{\otimes}\id)} & f_{!}(X{\otimes}C.\\}$$
A study of when this map ${\omega}$ is an isomorphism might be of interest, but we have no applications in mind. We illustrate the idea in the context of Example \[trivex\].
Returning to Example \[trivex\], we seek an object $C'$ of ${\scr{C}}$ such that $f_{!}C' {\cong}D(f_{!}f^{!}S)$, which is $$C'{\otimes}C{\cong}D(DC{\otimes}C).$$ If $C$ is dualizable, then the right side is isomorphic to $C{\otimes}DC{\cong}DC{\otimes}C$ and we can take $C'=DC$. Here the map $${\omega}\colon X = f_*X{\longrightarrow}f_{!}(X{\otimes}DC) = X{\otimes}DC{\otimes}C$$ turns out to be $\id{\otimes}({{\gamma}}{\circ}coev)$, where $coev\colon S{\longrightarrow}C{\otimes}DC$ is the coevaluation map of the duality adjunction (\[dualad\]) and ${{\gamma}}$ is the commutativity isomorphism for ${\otimes}$. We conclude (e.g., by [@May1 2.9]) that ${\omega}$ is an isomorphism if and only if $C$ is invertible.
Preliminaries on triangulated categories
========================================
We now go beyond the hypotheses of §§1–4 to the triangulated category situations that arise in practice. We assume that ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$ are triangulated and that the functors $(-){\otimes}X$ and $f^*$ are exact (or triangulated). This means that they are additive, commute up to isomorphism with ${\Sigma}$, and preserve distinguished triangles. For $(-){\otimes}X$, this is a small part of the appropriate compatibility conditions that relate distinguished triangles to ${\otimes}$ and $\Hom$ in well-behaved triangulated closed symmetric monoidal categories; see [@May2] for a discussion of this, as well as for basic observations about what triangulated categories really are: the standard axiom system is redundant and unnecessarily obscure. We record the following easily proven observation relating adjoints to exactness (see for example [@Nee2 3.9]).
\[adexact\] Let $F\colon {\scr{A}}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{B}}$ and $G:{\scr{B}}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{A}}$ be left and right adjoint functors between triangulated categories. Then $F$ is exact if and only if $G$ is exact.
We also record the following definitions (see for example [@HPS; @Nee]).
A full subcategory ${\scr{B}}$ of a triangulated category ${\scr{C}}$ is [*thick*]{} if any retract of an object of ${\scr{B}}$ is in ${\scr{B}}$ and if the third object of a distinguished triangle with two objects in ${\scr{B}}$ is also in ${\scr{B}}$. The category ${\scr{B}}$ is [*localizing*]{} if it is thick and closed under coproducts. The smallest thick (respectively, localizing) subcategory of ${\scr{C}}$ that contains a set of objects ${\scr{G}}$ is called the thick (respectively, localizing) subcategory generated by ${\scr{G}}$.
\[compact\] An object $X$ of an additive category ${\scr{A}}$ is [*compact*]{}, or [*small*]{}, if the functor ${\scr{A}}(X,-)$ converts coproducts to direct sums. The category ${\scr{A}}$ is [*compactly generated*]{} if it has arbitrary coproducts and has a set ${\scr{G}}$ of compact objects that detects isomorphisms, in the sense that a map $f$ in ${\scr{A}}$ is an isomorphism if and only if ${\scr{A}}(X,f)$ is an isomorphism for all $X\in{\scr{G}}$. When ${\scr{A}}$ is symmetric monoidal, we require its unit object to be compact; thus it can be included in the set ${\scr{G}}$.
In the triangulated case, this is equivalent to Neeman’s definition [@Nee 1.7]. With our version, we have the following generalization of a result of his [@Nee 5.1].
\[preserve\] Let ${\scr{A}}$ be a compactly generated additive category with generating set ${\scr{G}}$ and let ${\scr{B}}$ be any additive category. Let $F\colon {\scr{A}}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{B}}$ be an additive functor with right adjoint $G$. If $G$ preserves coproducts, then $F$ preserves compact objects. Conversely, if $F(X)$ is compact for $X\in {\scr{G}}$, then $G$ preserves coproducts.
Let $X\in{\scr{A}}$ and let $\{Y_i\}$ be a set of objects of ${\scr{B}}$. Then the evident map $f:\amalg G(Y_i){\longrightarrow}G(\amalg Y_i)$ induces a map $$f_*\colon {\scr{A}}(X,\amalg G(Y_i)) {\longrightarrow}{\scr{A}}(X,G(\amalg Y_i)).$$ If $X$ is compact and $f_*$ is an isomorphism, then, by adjunction and compactness, it induces an isomorphism $$\amalg {\scr{B}}(F(X), Y_i) {\longrightarrow}{\scr{B}}(F(X),\amalg Y_i),$$ which shows that $F(X)$ is compact. Conversely, if $X$ and $F(X)$ are both compact, then $f_*$ corresponds under adjunction to the identity map of $\amalg {\scr{B}}(F(X),Y_i)$ and is therefore an isomorphism. Restricting to $X\in{\scr{G}}$, it follows from Definition \[compact\] that $f$ is an isomorphism.
While this result is elementary, it is fundamental to the applications. We generally have much better understanding of left adjoints, so that the compactness criterion is verifiable, but it is the preservation of coproducts by right adjoints that is required in all of the formal proofs.
Returning to triangulated categories, we justify the term “generating set” by the following result. Its first part is [@Nee 3.2], and its second part is [@HPS 2.1.3(d)].
\[thickgen\] Let ${\scr{A}}$ be a compactly generated triangulated category with generating set ${\scr{G}}$. Then the localizing subcategory generated by ${\scr{G}}$ is ${\scr{A}}$ itself. If the objects of ${\scr{G}}$ are dualizable, then the thick subcategory generated by ${\scr{G}}$ is the full subcategory of dualizable objects in ${\scr{A}}$, and an object is dualizable if and only if it is compact.
The following standard observation works in tandem with the previous result.
\[wrap\] Let $F, F'\colon {\scr{A}}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{B}}$ be exact functors between triangulated categories and let ${\phi}\colon F{\longrightarrow}F'$ be a natural transformation that commutes with ${\Sigma}$. Then the full subcategory of ${\scr{A}}$ whose objects are those $X$ for which ${\phi}$ is an isomorphism is thick, and it is localizing if $F$ and $F'$ preserve coproducts.
Since a retract of an isomorphism is an isomorphism, closure under retracts is clear. Closure under triangles is immediate from the five lemma. A coproduct of isomorphisms is an isomorphism, so closure under coproducts holds when $F$ and $F'$ preserve coproducts.
The formal isomorphism theorems
===============================
We assume throughout this section that ${\scr{C}}$ and ${\scr{D}}$ are closed symmetric monoidal categories with compatible triangulations and that $(f^*,f_*)$ is an adjoint pair of functors with $f^*$ strong symmetric monoidal and exact.
For the Wirthmüller context, we assume in addition that $f^*$ has a left adjoint $f_!$. The maps (\[proj3\])–(\[WirVer’\]) are then given by (\[al\]) and Proposition \[threeb\]. When $${\bar{\pi}}\colon f_!(f^{*}Y{\otimes}X) {\longrightarrow}Y{\otimes}f_!X$$ is an isomorphism, the map $${\omega}: f_*X{\longrightarrow}f_{!}(X{\otimes}C)$$ is defined. Observe that ${\bar{\pi}}$ is a map between exact left adjoints and that ${\bar{\pi}}$ and ${\omega}$ commute with ${\Sigma}$. The results of the previous section give the following conclusion.
\[FWD\] Let ${\scr{C}}$ be compactly generated with a generating set ${\scr{G}}$ such that ${\bar{\pi}}$ and ${\omega}$ are isomorphisms for $X\in {\scr{G}}$. Then ${\bar{\pi}}$ is an isomorphism for all $X\in {\scr{C}}$. If the objects of ${\scr{G}}$ are dualizable, then ${\omega}$ is an isomorphism for all dualizable $X$. If $f^*X$ is compact for $X\in{\scr{G}}$, then ${\omega}$ is an isomorphism for all $X\in {\scr{C}}$.
The force of the theorem is that no construction of an inverse to ${\omega}$ is required: we need only check that ${\omega}$ is an isomorphism one generating object at a time. Proposition \[onebyone\] explains what is needed for that verification.
For the Grothendieck context, we can use the following basic results of Neeman [@Nee 3.1, 4.1] to construct the required right adjoint $f^{!}$ to $f_*$ in favorable cases. A main point of Neeman’s later monograph [@Nee3] and of Franke’s paper [@Fr] is to replace compact generation by a weaker notion that makes use of cardinality considerations familiar from the theory of Bousfield localization in algebraic topology.
\[BR\] Let ${\scr{A}}$ be a compactly generated triangulated category. A functor $H\colon {\scr{A}}^{op}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{A}}b$ that takes distinguished triangles to long exact sequences and converts coproducts to products is representable.
\[TAFT\] Let ${\scr{A}}$ be a compactly generated triangulated category and ${\scr{B}}$ be any triangulated category. An exact functor $F\colon {\scr{A}}{\longrightarrow}{\scr{B}}$ that preserves coproducts has a right adjoint $G$.
Take $G(Y)$ to be the object that represents the functor ${\scr{B}}(F(-), Y)$.
The map $${\pi}\colon Y{\otimes}f_*X {\longrightarrow}f_*(f^*Y{\otimes}X)$$ of (\[recipy1\]) commutes with ${\Sigma}$. When ${\pi}$ is an isomorphism, $${\phi}\colon f^*Y{\otimes}f^{!}Z {\longrightarrow}f^{!}(Y{\otimes}Z)$$ is defined and commutes with ${\Sigma}$. We obtain the following conclusion.
\[FGD\] Let ${\scr{D}}$ be compactly generated with a generating set ${\scr{G}}$ such that $f^*Y$ is compact and ${\pi}$ is an isomorphism for $Y\in{\scr{G}}$. Then $f_*$ has a right adjoint $f^{!}$, ${\pi}$ is an isomorphism for all $Y\in{\scr{D}}$, and ${\phi}$ is an isomorphism for all dualizable $Y$. If the functor $f^{!}$ preserves coproducts, then ${\phi}$ is an isomorphism for all $Y\in{\scr{D}}$.
As a right adjoint of an exact functor, $f_*$ is exact by Lemma \[adexact\], and it preserves coproducts by Lemma \[preserve\]. Thus $f^{!}$ exists by Theorem \[TAFT\]. Now ${\pi}$ is an isomorphism for all $Y$ by Proposition \[wrap\], ${\phi}$ is an isomorphism for dualizable $Y$ by Proposition \[dualGr\], and the last statement holds by Propositions \[thickgen\] and \[wrap\].
When $f^{!}$ is obtained abstractly from Brown representability, the only sensible way to check that it preserves coproducts is to appeal to Lemma \[preserve\], requiring ${\scr{C}}$ to be compactly generated and $f_*X$ to be compact when $X$ is in the generating set.
For the Verdier-Grothendieck context, we assume that we have a second adjunction $(f_!,f^!)$, with $f_!$ exact. We also assume given a map $$\hat{\pi}\colon Y{\otimes}f_!X {\cong}f_!(f^*Y{\otimes}X)$$ that commutes with ${\Sigma}$. When $\hat{\pi}$ is an isomorphism, the map $${\phi}\colon f^*Y{\otimes}f^{!}Z {\longrightarrow}f^{!}(Y{\otimes}Z)$$ is defined and commutes with ${\Sigma}$. Using Proposition \[dualGr\] and the results of the previous section, we obtain the following conclusion.
\[FVD\] Let ${\scr{D}}$ be compactly generated with a generating set ${\scr{G}}$ such that $f^*Y$ is compact and $\hat{\pi}$ is an isomorphism for $Y\in{\scr{G}}$. Then $\hat{\pi}$ is an isomorphism for all $Y\in{\scr{D}}$, and ${\phi}$ is an isomorphism for all dualizable $Y$. If the functor $f^{!}$ preserves coproducts, then ${\phi}$ is an isomorphism for all $Y\in{\scr{D}}$.
In many cases, one can construct a more explicit right adjoint $f^{!}_{0}$ from some subcategory ${\scr{D}}_0$ of ${\scr{D}}$ to some subcategory ${\scr{C}}_0$ of ${\scr{C}}$, as in Remark \[dcontext\]. In such cases we can combine approaches. Indeed, assume that we have an adjoint pair $(f_{!},f^{!}_{0})$ on full subcategories ${\scr{C}}_0$ and ${\scr{D}}_0$ such that objects isomorphic to objects in ${\scr{C}}_0$ (or ${\scr{D}}_0$) are in ${\scr{C}}_0$ (or ${\scr{D}}_0$). Then, by the uniqueness of adjoints, the right adjoint $f^{!}$ to $f_{!}$ given by Brown representability restricts on ${\scr{D}}_0$ to a functor with values in ${\scr{C}}_0$ that is isomorphic to the explicitly constructed functor $f^{!}_{0}$. That is, the right adjoint given by Brown representability can be viewed as an extension of the functor $f^{!}_{0}$ to all of ${\scr{D}}$. This allows quotation of Proposition \[three\] or \[threea\] for the construction and comparison of the natural maps (\[proj2\])–(\[Ver’\]).
We give an elementary example and then some remarks on the proofs of the results that we have quoted from the literature, none of which are difficult.
\[trivex2\] Return to Example \[trivex\], but assume further that ${\scr{C}}$ is a compactly generated triangulated category. Here the formal Verdier duality theorem says that ${\phi}=\nu: Y{\otimes}\Hom(C,Z){\longrightarrow}\Hom(C,Y{\otimes}Z)$ is an isomorphism if and only if the functor $\Hom (C,-)$ preserves coproducts. That is, an object $C$ is dualizable if and only if $\Hom (C,-)$ preserves coproducts.
\[rkpfs\] Clearly Theorem \[TAFT\] is a direct consequence of Theorem \[BR\]. In turn, Theorem \[BR\] is essentially a special case of Brown’s original categorical representation theorem [@Brown]. Neeman’s self-contained proof closely parallels Brown’s argument. The first statement of Proposition \[thickgen\] is used as a lemma in the proof, but it is also a special case. To see this, let ${\scr{B}}$ be the localizing subcategory of ${\scr{A}}$ generated by ${\scr{G}}$. Then, applied to the functor ${\scr{A}}(-,X)$ on ${\scr{B}}$ for $X\in{\scr{A}}$, the representability theorem gives an object $Y\in{\scr{B}}$ and an isomorphism $Y{\cong}X$ in ${\scr{A}}$. The second part of Proposition \[thickgen\] is intuitively clear, since objects in ${\scr{A}}$ not in the thick subcategory generated by ${\scr{G}}$ must involve infinite coproducts, and these will be neither dualizable nor compact. The formal proof in [@HPS] starts from Example \[trivex2\], which effectively ties together dualizability and compactness.
[9]{}
L. Alonso Tarrío, A. Jerem’as López, and J. Lipman. Studies in duality on Noetherian formal schemes and non-Noetherian ordinary schemes. Cont. Math., 244. Amer. Math. Soc. 1999.
A. Borel, et al. Intersection cohomology. Birkhäuser. 1984.
E.H. Brown, Jr. Abstract homotopy theory. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 119(1965), 79-85.
B. Conrad. Grothendieck duality and base change. Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 1750. 2000. (Errata: http://www-math.mit.edu/ dejong)
P. Deligne. Cohomologie à support propre en construction du foncteur $f^{!}$. Appendix to: Residues and duality. Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 20. 1966, pp. 404–421.
P. Deligne. Cohomologie à supports propres, Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale des schemes (SGA 4), tome 3. Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 305, 1973, pp. 250–461.
P. Deligne. Voevodsky’s lectures on cross functors, Fall 2001. http://www.math.ias.edu/ vladimir/delnotes01.ps. S. Eilenberg and G.M. Kelly Closed categories. Proc. Conf. Categorical Algebra (La Jolla, Calif., 1965) pp. 421–562. Springer-Verlag. 1966.
J. Franke. On the Brown representability theorem for triangulated categories. Topology.
A. Grothendieck. Théorèmes de dualité pour les faisceaux algbraiques cohérents. Séminaire Bourbaki no. 149. Secr. Math. I.H. P. Paris. 1957.
R. Hartshorne. Residues and duality. Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 20. 1966.
M. Hovey, J. H. Palmieri, and N. P. Strickland. Axiomatic stable homotopy theory. Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. No 610. 1997.
B. Iverson. Cohomology of sheaves. Springer-Verlag. 1986.
G.M. Kelly, M. Laplaza, G. Lewis, and S. MacLane. Coherence in categories. Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 281. 1972.
J. Lipman. Notes on derived categories and derived functors. www.math.purdue.edu/ lipman.
L. G. [Lewis, Jr.]{}, J. P. May, and M. Steinberger (with contributions by J. E. McClure). Equivariant stable homotopy theory. Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 1213. 1986.
S. MacLane. Categories for the working mathematician, 2nd edition. Springer-Verlag. 1998.
J.P. May. Picard groups, Grothendieck rings, and Burnside rings. Advances in Mathematics 163(2001), 1–16.
J.P. May. The additivity of traces in triangulated categories. Advances in Mathematics 163(2001), 34–73.
J.P. May. The Wirthmüller isomorphism revisited. Preprint. 2001.
A. Neeman. Stable homotopy as a triangulated functor. Invent. Math. 109(1992), 17–40.
A. Neeman. The Grothendieck duality theorem via Bousfield’s techniques and Brown representability. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 9(1996), 205–236.
A. Neeman. Triangulated categories. Annals of Mathematics Studies Vol 148. Princeton University Press. 2001.
N. Spaltenstein. Resolutions of unbounded complexes. Compositio Math65(1988), 121–154.
J.-L. Verdier. Dualité dans la cohomologie des espaces lacalement compacts. Séminaire Bourbaki, Exp. 300, 1965–66.
J.-L. Verdier. Base change for twisted inverse images of coherent sheaves. Collection: Algebraic Geometry (Intern. Colloq.), Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Bombay. 1968. pp. 393–408.
K. Wirthmüller. Equivariant homology and duality. Manuscripta Math. 11(1974), 373–390.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this survey, we discuss four classes of identities due principally to Basmajian, McShane, Bridgeman-Kahn and Luo-Tan on hyperbolic manifolds and provide a unified approach for proving them. We also elucidate on the connections between the various identities.'
address: |
Boston College\
Chestnut Hill, Ma 02116, USA\
email:\
National University of Singapore\
10 Lower Kent Ridge Road, S(119076), Singapore\
email:
author:
- 'Martin Bridgeman[^1] and Ser Peow Tan[^2]'
title: Identities on Hyperbolic Manifolds
---
Hyperbolic manifolds, identities, orthogeodesic, ortholength, orthospectrum, simple geodesics, geodesic flow.
Introduction {#s-1}
============
In the last couple of decades, several authors have discovered various remarkable and elegant identities on hyperbolic manifolds, including Basmajian [@Bas93], McShane [@McS91; @McS98], Bridgeman-Kahn [@B11; @BK10] and Luo-Tan [@LT11]. Some of these identities have been generalized and extended, with different and independent proofs given in some cases. In addition to their intrinsic beauty and curiosity value, some of the identities have found important applications, in particular, the McShane identity as generalized by Mirzakhani to surfaces with boundary played a crucial role in Mirzakhani’s computation of the Weil-Petersson volumes of the moduli spaces of bordered Riemann surfaces, as well as some subsequent applications; the Bridgeman-Kahn identity gave lower bounds for the volumes of hyperbolic manifolds with totally geodesic boundary. Many of these identities were proven independently of each other, for example, although the Basmajian and McShane identities appeared at about the same time, the authors seemed unaware of each other’s work at that point; the Bridgeman-Kahn identity, although it appeared later was also proven somewhat independently of both of these works. The exception is the Luo-Tan identity which borrowed inspiration from the previous works.
The aim of this article is to explore these identities, to analyse the various ingredients which make them work, and to provide a common framework for which to understand them. We hope that this will not only put the identities in a more natural setting and make them easier to understand, but also point the way towards a more unified theory with which to view these beautiful identities, and also point the direction towards possible applications for these identities. The unifying idea behind all of these identities is fairly simple. One considers a set $X$ with finite measure $\mu(X)$ associated with the hyperbolic manifold $M$, (for example $X=\partial M$, the boundary of $M$, or $X=T_1(M)$, the unit tangent bundle of $M$) and look for interesting geometric/dynamical/measure theoretic decompositions of $X$. Typically, by exploring some geometric or dynamical aspect of $M$, one can show that the set $X$ decomposes into a countable union of disjoint subsets $X_i$ of finite non-zero measure, and a set $Z$ which is geometrically and dynamically complicated and interesting, but which has measure zero (this is what we mean by a measure theoretic decomposition of $X$). One deduces the fact that $Z$ has measure zero from a deep but well-known result from hyperbolic geometry or dynamical systems. The identity is then just the tautological equation $$\mu(X)=\sum_i\mu(X_i).$$ The second part of the problem consists of analysing the sets $X_i$, in particular, to compute their measures in terms of various geometric quantities like spectral data. This can be relatively simple, for example in the case of the Basmajian identity, somewhat more complicated, like the McShane and Bridgeman-Kahn identities or considerably more involved, as in the Luo-Tan identities. A typical feature is that the sets $X_i$ are indexed by either simple geometric objects on $M$ like orthogeodesics, or simple subsurfaces of $M$, like embedded one-holed tori or thrice-punctured spheres. In particular, their measures depend only on the local geometry and data, and not on the global geometry of $M$.
One can develop this viewpoint further, for example letting $X$ be the set of geodesics on $M$ with the Liouville measure and associating to $X$ the length of the geodesic as a random variable and computing the moment generating function of this. In this way, for example, the Basmajian and the Bridgeman-Kahn identities can be viewed as different moments of the same generating function, see [@BT13].
Alternatively, as in the case of Bowditch’s proof [@Bow96] of McShane’s original identity, one can adopt a different viewpoint, and prove it using a combination of algebraic and combinatorial techniques. This has been developed further in [@Bow97; @Bow98; @TWZ06b; @TWZ08; @TWZ08c] etc, and provides an interesting direction for further exploration.
Our main aim in this survey is to demystify these identities and to show that the basic ideas involved in deriving them are very simple. As such, the exposition will be somewhat leisurely, and where necessary, we will present slightly different proofs and perspectives than the original papers. We will refer the reader to the original papers for the more technical details of computing the measures $\mu(X_i)$.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next couple of sections we first state the four sets of identities, and then sketch the proofs for these identities from our perspective. Subsequently, we give a short discussion of the moment point of view adopted in [@BT13] which allows one to view the Basmajian and Bridgeman identities as different moments of the same variable and follow this with a short discussion of the Bowditch proof of the McShane identity and subsequent developments. We conclude the survey with some open questions and directions for further investigations.
Literature
----------
The literature on the subject is fairly large and growing. To aid the reader we will now give a brief synopsis by identity.
[**McShane Identity:**]{} The McShane identity first appeared in McShane’s 1991 thesis [@McS91], “A remarkable identity for lengths of curves”. This was subsequently generalized (to higher genus surfaces) and published in [@McS98]. In the papers [@Bow96; @Bow97; @Bow98], Bowditch gives a proof of the McShane identity using Markov triples, with extensions to punctured torus bundles and type-preserving quasi-fuchsian representations, see also [@AMS2004; @AMS2006] by Akiyoshi, Miyachi and Sakuma for variations. The identity was extended to surfaces with cone singularities in Zhang’s 2004 thesis [@Zhang04], see also [@TWZ06]. A Weierstrass points version of the identity was derived by McShane in [@McS04], and the identity was also generalized to closed surfaces of genus two in [@McS06], using similar techniques. Both of these can also be derived using the hyperelliptic involution on the punctured torus and on a genus two surface, and using the identity on the resulting cone surfaces, as explained by Tan, Wong and Zhang in [@TWZ06]. Mirzakhani gave a proof of the general McShane identity for bordered surface in her 2005 thesis [@Mir05] which was subsequently published in [@Mir07]. In [@TWZ06b], the identity was generalized to the $\mbox{SL}(2,{\mathbb{C}})$ case by Tan, Wong and Zhang and for non-orientable surfaces by Norbury in [@Nor]. The identity was generalized to $\mbox{PSL}(n,{\mathbb R})$ for Hitchin representations by Labourie and McShane in [@LaMcS09]. A version for two-bridge links was given by Lee and Sakuma in [@LS13]. Recent work of Hu, Tan and Zhang in [@HTZ13; @HTZ13b] have also given new variations and extensions of the identity to the context of Coxeter group actions on ${\mathbb{C}}^n$.
[**Basmajian Identity:**]{} The Basmajian identity appears in the 1993 paper [@Bas93], “The orthogonal spectrum of a hyperbolic manifold”. A recent paper of Vlamis [@V13] analyses the statistics of the Basmajian identity and derives a formula for the moments of its associated hitting random variable. In the recent paper [@PP13], Paulin and Parkkonen derive formulae for the asymptotic distribution of orthogonal spectrum in a general negatively curved space.
[**Bridgeman-Kahn Identity:**]{} The Bridgeman-Kahn identity was first proven in the surface case by the first author in the 2011 paper [@B11] “Orthospectra and Dilogarithm Identities on Moduli Space”. An alternate proof was given by Calegari in [@Cal10a]. The general case was proven by Bridgeman-Kahn in the paper [@BK10]. The paper [@Cal10b] of Calegari analyses the connections between the Bridgeman-Kahn identity and Basmajian identity and gives an orthospectrum identity that has the same form as the Bridgeman-Kahn identity but arises out of a different decomposition. A recent paper of Masai and McShane [@MasMcS] has shown that the identity obtained by Calegari is in fact the original Bridgeman-Kahn identity. In the paper [@BT13] the authors consider the statistics of the Bridgeman-Kahn identity and derive a formula for the moments of its associated hitting random variable. We show that the Basmajian and Bridgeman-Kahn identities arise as the first two moments of this random variable.
[**Luo-Tan identity:**]{} The Luo-Tan identity appears in the 2011 preprint [@LT11] “A dilogarithm identity on Moduli spaces of curves”. A version of the identity for small hyperbolic surfaces can be found in [@HT13] and for surfaces with boundary and non-orientable surfaces in [@LT13].
[*Acknowledgements.*]{} We are grateful to Dick Canary, Francois Labourie, Feng Luo, Greg McShane, Hugo Parlier, Caroline Series, and Ying Zhang for helpful discussions on this material.
Two orthospectra identities
===========================
We let $M$ be a finite volume hyperbolic manifold with non-empty totally geodesic boundary. In [@Bas93], Basmajian introduced the notion of orthogeodesics for hyperbolic manifolds. An [*orthogeodesic*]{} $\alpha$ for $M$ is an oriented proper geodesic arc in $M$ which is perpendicular to $\partial M$ at its endpoints (see figure \[ortho\]). Let $O_M$ be the collection of orthogeodesics for $M$ and $L_M$ the set of lengths of orthogeodesics (with multiplicity). The set $L_M$ is the [*ortholength spectrum*]{}, note that all multiplicities are even since we consider oriented orthogeodesics.
![Two orthogeodesics, one simple, one non-simple[]{data-label="ortho"}](ortho.png){width="4in"}
Basmajian Identity
-------------------
In the 1993 paper [@Bas93], [*The orthogonal spectrum of a hyperbolic manifold*]{}, Basmajian derived the following orthospectrum identity:
[(Theorem A: Basmajian’s Identity, [@Bas93])]{} Let $M$ be a compact volume hyperbolic manifold with non-empty totally geodesic boundary and $V_k(r)$ the volume of the ball of radius $r$ in ${\mathbb{H}}^k$. Then $${\mbox{Vol}}(\partial M) = \sum_{l \in L_M} V_{n-1}\left(\log\left(\coth\frac{l}{2}\right)\right).$$
Bridgeman-Kahn identity
------------------------
In the 2011 paper [@BK10], [*Hyperbolic volume of n-manifolds with geodesic boundary and orthospectra*]{}, Bridgeman and Kahn obtained the following identity for the volume of the unit tangent bundle $T_1(M)$, again in terms of the ortholength spectrum $L_M$.
[(Theorem B: Bridgeman-Kahn Identity, [@BK10])]{} Let $M$ be a compact hyperbolic manifold with non-empty totally geodesic boundary, then $${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(M)) = \sum_{l \in L_M} F_{n}(l)$$ where $F_n:{\mathbb R}_+ \rightarrow {\mathbb R}_+$ is an explicitly described smooth monotonically decreasing function depending only on the dimension $n$.
We note that as ${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(M)) = {\mbox{Vol}}(M).{\mbox{Vol}}({\mathbb{S}}^{n-1})$, the above identity can also be thought of as an identity for the hyperbolic volume of the manifold $M$.
The surface case of Theorems A and B
------------------------------------
Theorems A and B are particularly interesting in the case of hyperbolic surfaces as they give identities for deformation spaces of Riemann surfaces with boundary. They also relate in this context to the McShane and Luo-Tan identities which we describe in the next section. The Bridgeman-Kahn identity in fact arose from a generalization of a previous paper of the first named author [@B11] which provided an explicit formula for the function $F_2(l)$ in Theorem B in terms of the Roger’s dilogarithm. We have:
[(Theorem $A'$: Basmajian identity for surfaces)]{} Let $S$ be a hyperbolic surface with non-empty boundary $\partial S$. Then $$\mbox{Length}(\partial S) = \sum_{l \in L_S} 2 \log\left(\coth\frac{l}{2}\right).$$
[(Theorem $B'$: Bridgeman identity)]{} Let $S$ be a hyperbolic surface with non-empty boundary $\partial S$. Then $${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(S)) = 2\pi\mbox{Area}(S) = \sum_{l \in L_S} 4.{\mathcal R}\left(\sech^2\frac{l}{2}\right)$$ where ${\mathcal R}$ is the Rogers dilogarithm function.
The function ${\mathcal R}$ was introduced by Rogers in his 1907 paper [@Rog07]. This function arises in hyperbolic volume calculations; the imaginary part of ${\mathcal R}(z)$ is the volume of an ideal tetrahedron with vertices having cross-ratio $z$.
Alternative derivations of the Bridgeman and Bridgeman-Kahn Identity
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the paper [@Cal10a], Calegari gives an alternate derivation of the Bridgeman identity. Also in [@Cal10b], Calegari derived an orthospectrum identity for all dimensions $\ge 2$ which arose from a different decomposition of the unit tangent bundle, he showed in the surface case that it is equal to the Bridgeman identity. In a recent preprint [@MasMcS] by Masai and McShane, it was shown that for higher dimensions, it is also equal to the Bridgeman-Kahn identity.
Two Simple Spectra identities for hyperbolic surfaces
=====================================================
Let $S$ be a finite area hyperbolic surface, we will consider various cases including when $S$ has cusps, totally geodesic boundary, cone singularities (with cone angles $\le \pi$), and finally, when $S$ is a closed surface. We saw already in the previous section that when $S$ has non-empty totally geodesic boundary, we can define the collection of orthogeodesics $O_S$, which provided an index set for the Basmajian and Bridgeman identities, which are then expressed in terms of the ortholength spectrum $L_S$. This set can be extended in a natural way for surfaces which also have cusps or cone singularities. For the purposes of the next two classes of identities however, it is more useful to consider the smaller collection $SO_S$ of [*simple orthogeodesics*]{}, that is, orthogeodesics which do not have self intersection, and also the collection $SG_S$ of [*simple closed geodesics*]{} on $S$. We will see that $SO_S$, together with collections of certain subsets of $SG_S$ consisting of one, two or three disjoint geodesics satisfying some topological criteria will be useful as index sets for the identities.
(Generalized) McShane Identity
------------------------------
Let $S_{g,n}$ denote a hyperbolic surface of genus $g$ with $n$ cusps. In his 1991 thesis, [*A remarkable identity for lengths of curves*]{}, McShane proved an identity for the lengths of simple closed geodesics on any once-punctured hyperbolic torus $S_{1,1}$ which he generalized later in [@McS98] to more general cusped hyperbolic surfaces $S_{g,n}$, $n \ge 1$.
[(Theorem C: McShane Identity, [@McS91], [@McS98])]{}
1. If $S_{1,1}$ is a hyperbolic torus with one cusp, then $$\sum_{\gamma} \frac{1}{1+e^{l(\gamma)}} = \frac{1}{2}$$ where the sum is over all simple closed geodesics $\gamma$ in $S_{1,1}$.
2. If $S_{g,n}$ is a hyperbolic surface of genus $g$ with $n$ cusps, where $n \ge 1$, then $$\sum_{\gamma_1, \gamma_2} \frac{1}{1+exp(\frac{l(\gamma_1)+l(\gamma_2)}{2})} = \frac{1}{2}$$ where the sum is over all unordered pairs of simple closed geodesics $\{\gamma_1, \gamma_2\}$ which bound together with a fixed cusp an embedded pair of pants in $S_{g,n}$. Here we adopt the convention that $\gamma_1$ or $\gamma_2$ may be one of the other cusps on $S_{g,n}$, considered as a (degenerate) geodesic of length $0$.
The case of the punctured torus can be regarded as a special case of the surface $S_{g,n}$ where in the sum, $\gamma=\gamma_1=\gamma_2$ since any simple closed geodesic $\gamma$ on $S_{1,1}$ cuts it into a pair of pants.
In her 2005 thesis [*Simple geodesics and Weil-Petersson volumes of moduli spaces of bordered Riemann surfaces*]{}, see [@Mir05; @Mir07], Mirzakhani gave a general version of the McShane identity for hyperbolic surfaces with geodesic boundaries and cusps, which was an important tool for her computation of the Weil-Petersson volumes of the moduli spaces. Independently, Ying Zhang in his 2004 thesis [*Hyperbolic cone surfaces, generalized Markoff Maps, Schottky groups and McShane’s identity*]{}, see [@Zhang04; @TWZ06], also gave a generalization of the McShane identity for surfaces, with (non-empty) boundary consisting of cusps, totally geodesic boundaries, or cone singularities with cone angle $\le \pi$, with slightly different forms for the functions involved in the identity. We first state Mirzakhani’s generalization and explain how to interprete the identity for cone surfaces later.
[(Theorem $C'$: Generalized McShane-Mirzakhani Identity, [@Mir05; @Mir07])]{} Let $S$ be a finite area hyperbolic surface with geodesic boundary components $\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_n$, of length $L_1,\ldots,L_n$. Then $$\sum_{\{\gamma_1, \gamma_2\}} D(L_1, l(\gamma_1), l(\gamma_2)) + \sum_{i=2}^n \sum_{\gamma} R(L_1,L_i,l(\gamma)) = L_1$$ where the first sum is over all unordered pairs of (interior) simple closed geodesics bounding a pair of pants with $\beta_1$, and the second sum is over simple closed geodesics bounding a pair of pants with $\beta_1, \beta_i$ and $$D(x,y,z) = 2\log\left(\frac{e^{\frac{x}{2}}+e^{\frac{y+z}{2}}}{e^{-\frac{x}{2}}+e^{\frac{y+z}{2}}}\right), ~~ R(x,y,z) = x- \log\left(\frac{\cosh(\frac{y}{2})+\cosh(\frac{x+z}{2})}{\cosh(\frac{y}{2})+\cosh(\frac{x-z}{2})}\right).$$
The case where some of the other boundaries are cusps but $\beta_1$ is a geodesic boundary can be deduced from the above, by considering cusps to be boundaries of length $0$, where again we adopt the convention that a cusp may be regarded as a geodesic of length $0$ in the summands above. The case where $\beta_1$ is also a cusp, that is, $L_1=0$ is more interesting, in this case, the original McShane identities can be deduced from the above by taking the infinitesimal of the limit as $L_1 \rightarrow 0$, or taking the formal derivative of the above identity with respect to $L_1$ and evaluating at $L_1=0$. More interestingly, a cone singularity of cone angle $\theta$ may be regarded as a boundary component with purely imaginary complex length $i\theta$, and the above identity is also valid if some of the boundary components are cone singularities of cone angles $\le \pi$ as shown in [@Zhang04; @TWZ06]. The restriction to cone angles $\le \pi$ is necessary in the argument, this guarantees a convexity property and the existence of geodesic representatives for essential simple closed curves on the surface. For example, if $S$ is a surface of genus $g>1$ with one cone singularity $\Delta$ of cone angle $\theta$, then we have $$\sum_{\{\gamma_1, \gamma_2\}} D(i\theta, l(\gamma_1), l(\gamma_2)) = i\theta$$ where $\{\gamma_1, \gamma_2\}$ are unordered pairs of simple closed geodesics bounding a pair of pants with $\Delta$. We note that each of the summands of the identity in Theorem $C'$ is the measure of some subset $X_i$ of $\beta_1$: the summands in the first sum of Theorem $C'$ correspond to sets which are indexed by (a subset of) the simple orthogeodesics from $\beta_1$ to itself, the summands in the second sum correspond to sets which are indexed by simple orthogeodesics from $\beta_1$ to $\beta_i$ as we will see in the proof later.
Luo-Tan identity
-----------------
The Basmajian, Bridgeman and McShane identities for surfaces were in general only valid for surfaces with boundary; in the first two cases, for surfaces with geodesic boundary, in the third case, to surfaces with at least some cusp or cone singularity. They do not extend to general closed surfaces without boundary. However, for the genus $2$ hyperbolic surface $S_2$, by considering $S_2/hyp$ where $hyp$ is the hyper-elliptic involution on $S_2$, one may lift the identity on the cone surface $S_2/hyp$ to obtain identities on the closed genus two surface $S_2$, see [@McS06; @TWZ06]. This method however does not generalize to higher genus. In their 2011 preprint, [*A dilogarithm identity on moduli spaces of curves*]{}, F. Luo and the second author derived the following identity for closed hyperbolic surfaces.
[(Theorem $D$: Luo-Tan identity, [@LT11])]{} Let $S$ be a closed hyperbolic surface. There exist functions $f$ and $g$ involving the dilogarithm of the lengths of the simple geodesic loops in a 3-holed sphere or 1-holed torus, such that $${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(S)) = \sum_{P}f(P) + \sum_{T} g(T)$$ where the first sum is over all properly embedded 3-holed spheres $P
\subset S$ with geodesic boundary, the second sum is over all properly embedded 1-holed tori $T \subset S$ with geodesic boundary.
The functions $f$ and $g$ are defined on the moduli spaces of simple hyperbolic surfaces ($3$-holed spheres and $1$-holed tori) with geodesic boundary and given in terms of ${\mathcal R}$, the Rogers dilogarithm function as follows:
Suppose $P$ is a hyperbolic 3-holed sphere with geodesic boundaries of lengths $l_1, l_2, l_3$. Let $m_i$ be the length of the shortest path from the $l_{i+1}$-th boundary to the $l_{i+2}$-th boundary ($l_4=l_1$, $l_5=l_2$). Then [$$\label{eqn:deffp}
f(P): =4 \sum_{i \neq j}\left[2{\mathcal R}\left(\frac{1-x_i}{1-x_i y_j}\right)
-2{\mathcal R}\left(\frac{1-y_j}{1-x_i y_j}\right)-{\mathcal R}(y_j)
-{\mathcal R}\left(\frac{(1-x_i)^2y_j}{(1-y_j)^2 x_i}\right)\right]$$]{} where $x_i = e^{-l_i}$ and $y_i=\tanh^2(m_i/2)$.
Suppose $T$ is a hyperbolic 1-holed torus with geodesic boundary. For any non-boundary parallel simple closed geodesic $A$ of length $a$ in $T$, let $m_{A}$ be the distance between $\partial T$ and $A$. Then $g(T):=$ [$$\label{eqn:definitionofg}
4\pi^2+8\sum_{A} \left[ 2{\mathcal R}\left(\frac{1-x_A}{1-x_Ay_A}\right) - 2{\mathcal R}\left(\frac{1-y_A}{1-x_Ay_A}\right)
-2 {\mathcal R}(y_A) -{\mathcal R}\left(\frac{(1-x_A)^2y_A}{(1-y_A)^2 x_A}\right)\right]$$]{} where $x_A = e^{-a}$ and $y_A=\tanh^2(m_A/2)$ and the sum is over all non-boundary parallel simple closed geodesics $A$ in $T$.
Luo-Tan identity for surfaces with boundary and non-orientable surfaces
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Luo-Tan identity also holds for surfaces $S$ with geodesic boundary and cusps, however, in this case, the functions $f$ and $g$ need to be modified when $P$ or $T$ share some boundary component with $S$, similar to the McShane-Mirzakhani identity for surfaces with more than one boundary component, see [@LT13]. In this case, the identity is trivial for the one-holed torus - however, one can obtain a meaningful identity involving the lengths of the simple closed geodesics in $T$ by a topological covering argument, using the identity for a four-holed sphere, see [@H13; @HT13]. For example, for a once-punctured hyperbolic torus $T$, we obtain $$\label{eqn:LuoTanfortorus}
\sum_{\gamma} \left[{\mathcal R}(\sech^2(l(\gamma)/2))+2\left({\mathcal R}\left(\frac{1+e^{-l(\gamma)}}{2}\right)-{\mathcal R}\left(\frac{1-e^{-l(\gamma)}}{2}\right)\right)\right]=\frac{\pi^2}{2}$$ where the sum extends over all simple closed geodesics $\gamma$ in $T$.
For non-orientable surfaces, one also obtain an analogous identity, in this case, the summands include terms coming from embedded simple non-orientable surfaces, namely, one holed Klein bottles and one-holed Möbius bands, see [@LT13].
Proofs of Theorems A and C - Boundary flow
==========================================
As remarked in the introduction, the proofs of all the results will be based on a decomposition of certain sets $X$ associated to $M$. In particular for Theorems A and C, $X$ will be subsets of $T_1(M)$ associated to the boundary $\partial M$ and the proofs arise from consideration of the boundary flow on $X$.
Proof of Basmajian Identity
---------------------------
Let $T_1(M)$ be the unit tangent bundle of $M$ and $\pi: T_1(M)
\rightarrow M$ be the projection map. For the Basmajian identity, we let $X$ be the set of unit tangent vectors $v$ whose basepoint are on $\partial M$, and which are perpendicular to $\partial M$, and point into the interior of $M$, that is, $$X=\{v \in T_1(M)~:~ \pi(v) \in \partial M, v \perp \partial M, v ~\mbox{points into}~ M\}.$$ Clearly, $X$ identifies with $\partial M$ under $\pi$, and we define the measure $\mu$ on $X$ to be the pullback of Lebesgue measure on $\partial M$ under $\pi$. In particular, $\mu(X)=\mbox{Vol}(\partial M)$. We consider the unit speed geodesic $g_v$ starting at $p=\pi(v) \in
\partial M$ obtained by exponentiating $v$. Thus $g_v$ is the geodesic arc obtained by flowing from $\pi(v)$ until you hit the boundary. To derive the Basmajian identity, we let $$Z=\{v \in X ~:~ {\mbox{Length}}(g_v)=\infty \}.$$ It follows from the fact that the limit set of $M$ is measure zero, that $Z$ has zero volume. For each of the remaining vectors, $g_v$ is a geodesic arc of finite length with endpoints on $\partial M$. We define an equivalence relation on these by defining $v \sim w$ if $g_v, g_w$ are homotopic rel. boundary in $M$. Then each oriented orthogeodesic $\alpha$ defines an equivalence class $E_\alpha$ given by $$E_\alpha = \{ v \in X-Z\ |\ g_v \mbox{ is homotopic rel boundary to } \alpha\}.$$ Also, by lifting to the universal cover and using a tightening argument, we see that for every $v
\in X \setminus Z$, $g_v$ is homotopic rel. boundary to a orthogeodesic $\alpha$, so $\{E_\alpha\}_{\alpha \in O_M}$ covers $X \setminus Z$. Furthermore if $\alpha \neq \beta$ then $E_\alpha \cap E_\beta =\emptyset$ as no two orthogeodesics are homotopic rel boundary. Thus we have the partition $ X= Z \sqcup \bigsqcup_{\alpha} E_\alpha$ and the associated identity $${\mbox{Vol}}(X) = {\mbox{Vol}}(\partial M)=\sum_{\alpha \in O_M} {\mbox{Vol}}(E_\alpha)$$ To calculate ${\mbox{Vol}}(E_\alpha)$, we lift to the universal cover so that $\alpha$ lifts to a geodesic arc $\tilde \alpha$ orthogonal to two boundary hyperplanes $P, Q$. As $\alpha$ is oriented, we assume $\tilde\alpha$ is oriented from $P$ to $Q$. Thus any $g_v$ homotopic rel boundary to $\alpha$ has a unique lift $\tilde g_v$ which is a geodesic arc perpendicular to $P$ going from $P$ to $Q$. Hence $\tilde g_v$ has basepoint in the orthogonal projection of $Q$ onto $P$. Thus the set $\pi(E_\alpha)$ lifts to a disk of radius $r(\alpha)$ given by orthogonal projection of $Q$ onto $P$. Let $r(\alpha), l(\alpha)$ be the two finite sides of a hyperbolic quadrilateral with one ideal vertex and finite angles $\pi/2$ (see figure \[basmajian1\]). By elementary hyperbolic geometry (see [@Bear95], for example), $\sinh(r(\alpha)).\sinh(l(\alpha)) =
1$, giving $r(\alpha) = \log(\coth(l(\alpha)/2))$ and we obtain $${\mbox{Vol}}(\partial M) = \sum_{\alpha \in O_M} {\mbox{Vol}}(E_\alpha) = \sum_{\alpha \in O_M} V_{n-1}(\log(\coth(l(\alpha)/2))).$$
![Orthogonal Projection onto a plane[]{data-label="basmajian1"}](basmajian1.jpg){width="3.5in"}
[Remark]{}: The identity generalizes to hyperbolic manifolds with cusps, as long as the boundary contains some non-empty geodesic component. This is necessary to deduce that $\mu(Z)=0$. Othogeodesics ending in a cusp have infinite length and do not contribute to the summands of the identity.
Proof of the Generalized McShane Identity
-----------------------------------------
We consider a hyperbolic surface $S$ with a finite number of geodesic boundary components, cusps and cone singularities (with cone angles $\le \pi$).
For simplicity we first consider the case where $\partial S$ has only geodesic components $\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_n$ with lengths $L_1, \ldots, L_n$, the basic idea of the proof is the same for the more general case, we will explain later how to modify the proof if some of the $\beta_i$’s are cusps or cone singularities of cone angle $\le \pi$. We derive the identity based at $\beta_1$, as such, define $$X=\{v \in T_1(S)~:~ \pi(v) \in \beta_1, v \perp \beta_1, v ~\mbox{points into}~ S\}.$$ Clearly, $\pi$ induces a bijection from $X$ to $\beta_1$, so $\mu(X)= \mbox{Length}(\beta_1)=L_1$. Again, as in the proof of the Basmajian identity, we are going to consider the unit speed geodesic obtained by exponentiating $v \in X$, however, this time, we are going to stop when the geodesic hits itself, or the boundary $\partial S$. More precisely, let $G_v:[0,T] \rightarrow S$ be the geodesic arc obtained by exponentiating $v \in X$ such that $G_v$ is injective on $[0,T)$ and either $G_v(T)=G_v(s)$ for some $s\in
[0,T)$, or $G_v(T)\in \partial S$. If $G_v[0,t]$ is defined and injective for all $t>0$, then $T=\infty$, that is $G_v$ is a simple geodesic arc of infinite length. A good analogy for the difference between $g_v$ in the Basmajian proof and $G_v$ in the McShane proof is that we should consider $g_v$ as a laser beam starting from $\partial M$ which is allowed to intersect itself any number of times, until it hits the boundary, whereas $G_v$ should be thought of as a wall, which terminates when it hits itself, or the boundary.
Now let $Z \subset X$ be the set of vectors for which $G_v$ has infinite length, that is, $T=\infty$. Again, by the same argument as before, $\mu(Z)=0$ since the limit set of $S$ has measure zero, and the endpoints of the lifts of $G_v$ must land on the limit set if $v
\in Z$. However, if $\beta$ is a cusp, then we need a stronger result, namely, the Birman-Series result [@BS85] that the set of simple geodesics on the surface has Hausdorff dimension 1, which implies that $\mu(Z)=0$. Similarly, if $\beta$ is a cone point, we require a generalization of the Birman-Series result, see [@TWZ06]. We note that $Z$ has a rather complicated Cantor set structure, and McShane analysed this set carefully in [@McS98]. However, for the purposes of proving the identity, the structure of $Z$ is irrelevant, and one only really needs to know that $\mu(Z)=0$.
We now look at $G_v$ for $v \in X \setminus Z$, in this case $G_v$ is either a finite geodesic arc ending in a loop (a lasso), or a simple geodesic arc from $\beta_1$ to $\partial S$.
- If $G_v$ is a lasso, or a simple arc ending in $\beta_1$, then a regular neighborhood $N$ of $\beta_1 \cup G_v$ in $S$ is topologically a pair of pants, where one of the boundary components is $\beta_1$. The other two boundary components can then be [*tightened*]{} to geodesics $\gamma_1, \gamma_2$ which are [*disjoint*]{} and which bound together with $\beta_1$ an embedded pair of pants in $S$ which [*contains*]{} $G_v$ (note that in the case where $S$ is a one-holed torus, then $\gamma_1=\gamma_2:=\gamma$, where $\gamma$ is a simple closed geodesic on $S$ disjoint from $G_v$, otherwise, $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are distinct and disjoint).
- If $G_v$ is a simple arc from $\beta_1$ to $\beta_i$ where $i
\neq 1$, then a regular neighborhood of $\beta_1 \cup G_v \cup
\beta_i$ is again a pair of pants, where $\beta_1$ and $\beta_i$ are two of the boundary components. The third boundary can again be tightened to a simple closed geodesic $\gamma$, and again $G_v$ is contained in the resulting pair of pants.
One can prove the assertions in the previous paragraph by a cut and paste argument as follows: Cut $S$ along $G_v$ to obtain a (not necessarily connected) convex hyperbolic surface $S_{cut}$ with either two piece-wise geodesic boundaries (if $G_v$ is a lasso or simple arc from $\beta_1$ to itself), or one piece-wise geodesic boundary (if $G_v$ is a simple arc from $\beta_1$ to $\beta_i$, $i \neq 1$), and other geodesic boundaries. Note that if $S$ is a one-holed torus then $S_{cut}$ is a cylinder whose core is a geodesic $\gamma$ disjoint from $\partial S_{cut}$. Otherwise, in the first case, let $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ be the two disjoint geodesics which bound the convex core of $S_{cut}$ which again are disjoint from $\partial S_{cut}$. Regluing along $G_v$, we see that $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ bound together with $\beta_1$ a pair of pants in $S$ (basically the complement of the convex core of $S_{cut}$) which contains $G_v$, as asserted. The same argument applies to the second case to obtain a pair of pants bounded by $\beta_1, \beta_i$ and a geodesic $\gamma$.
To recap, for every $v\in X \setminus Z$, $G_v$ is a geodesic arc contained in a [*unique*]{} pair of pants embedded in $S$ bounded by $\beta_1$ and a pair of geodesics $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$ (where one of $\gamma_1, \gamma_2$ may be a different boundary component $\beta_i$ of $S$). Let $\mathcal P$ be the set of all such pairs of pants embedded in $S$ (equivalently, all unordered pairs of geodesics $\{\gamma_1, \gamma_2\}$ in $S$ which bound a pair of pants with $\beta_1$), and for each $P \in {\mathcal P}$, we define $$X_P=\{v \in X \setminus Z ~:~ G_v \subset P\},$$ then $X$ is the disjoint union of $Z$ and the $X_P$’s, hence $$L_1=\sum _{P\in {\mathcal P}} \mu(X_P).$$
To derive the formulae for $\mu(X_P)$ we consider a general pair of pants $P$ with boundary $a,b,c$ of lengths $x,y,z$. We consider perpendicular geodesics $\alpha_p$ from points $p$ on $a$. We let $p_1,p_2$ be the two points on $a$ such that $\alpha_{p_i}$ is a simple geodesic spiraling towards $b$ (one for each direction) and let $q_1,q_2$ be the two points on $a$ such that $\alpha_{q_i}$ is a simple geodesic spiraling towards $c$. Also assume that $p_1,q_1,q_2,p_2$ is the cyclic ordering of the points on $a$, which divide $a$ into the intervals $[p_1,q_1], [q_1, q_2], [q_2,p_2]$ and $[p_2,p_1]$ with disjoint interiors (see figure \[pants\]). Each interval contains a unique point $m$ such that $\alpha_m$ is a [*simple orthogeodesic*]{} from $a$ to $a, c, a$, and $b$ respectively. We see that for $p\in (p_2,p_1)$, $\alpha_p$ is a simple geodesic from $a$ to $b$, similarly, for $p\in (q_1,q_2)$, $\alpha_p$ is a simple geodesic from $a$ to $c$. For $p \in (p_1,q_1) \cup (q_2,p_2)$, $\alpha_p$ is either a simple geodesic from $a$ to itself or it has self-intersections. Furthermore, $L[p_2,p_1]$ is precisely the orthogonal projection of $b$ to $a$, similarly $L[q_1,q_2]$ is the orthogonal projection of $c$ to $a$, and $L[p_1,q_1]=L[q_2,p_2]$ by symmetry.
![Pants P with spiraling geodesics[]{data-label="pants"}](pants.png){width="4in"}
Now let $P \in {\mathcal P}$ where $a=\beta_1$. We have:
- If $b=\gamma_1$ and $c=\gamma_2$ are interior curves of $S$, then $G_v \subset X_P$ if and only if $\pi(v) \in (p_1,q_1) \cup (q_2,p_2)$. Then $\mu(X_P)=D(x,y,z)=2L[p_1,q_1]$. By elementary hyperbolic geometry we have $$D(x,y,z) = 2\log\left(\frac{e^{\frac{x}{2}}+e^{\frac{y+z}{2}}}{e^{-\frac{x}{2}}+e^{\frac{y+z}{2}}}\right),$$
- If say $b=\gamma$ is an interior geodesic and $c=\beta_i$ is a boundary geodesic of $S$, then $G_v \in X_P$ if and only if $\pi(v) \in (p_1,q_1) \cup
(q_1,q_2) \cup(q_2,p_2)$. We have ${\mbox{Length}}[p_2,p_1] =
\log(\coth(Z/2))$ where $Z$ is the length of the perpendicular arc from $a$ to $b$. Applying the hyperbolic cosine rule we get $$R(x,y,z) = x- \log\left(\frac{\cosh(\frac{y}{2})+\cosh(\frac{x+z}{2})}{\cosh(\frac{y}{2})+\cosh(\frac{x-z}{2})}\right).$$
The generalized McShane identity now follows by substitution.
Cusps and cone points
---------------------
If $\beta_1$ is a cusp, we can take a horocycle $C$ of length 1 about the cusp and remove the neighbourbood of the cusp bounded by $C$. We now take $X$ to be the set of vectors in $T_1(S)$ such that $\pi(v) \in C$ and $v$ is perpendicular to $C$ and pointing into $S$. Essentially the same analysis works to give a decomposition of $X$, with suitable modifications of the functions $D$ and $R$, which now only depend on two variables. In the tightening argument, we need the fact that the horocycle chosen is sufficiently small so that it is dijoint from all simple closed geodesics, choosing length one as we did works. If all other boundaries are cusps, then we recover the original McShane identity since in this case, $$D(y,z)=R(y,z)=\frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{y+z}{2}}}.$$ If $\beta_1$ is a cone point of cone angle $\theta_1$, we decompose the set of tangent vectors based at the cone point again in essentially the same way. We note that in order for the suface obtained after cutting to be convex, the restriction that the cone angle $\le \pi$ is necessary, we need this to perform the tightening argument. Similarly, we require all other cone angles to be $\le \pi$ if we want every essential simple closed curve to be represented by a geodesic (or the double cover of a geodesic segment between two cone points of angle $\pi$).
Here it is useful to regard a cone point as an axis through the point perpendicular to the hyperbolic plane, and use the complex measure of length between two skew axes in ${\mathbb{H}}^3$. With this, the measure of the angle is purely imaginary. Similarly, other components $\beta_i$ which are cone angles should be regarded as axes perpendicular to the plane, and we recover exactly the same identity as that obtained by Mirzakhani, with the same functions, with the convention that cone points have purely imaginary lengths, see [@TWZ06] for details.
Index sets and the relation with Basmajian identity
---------------------------------------------------
The set $X$ in the McShane identity is decomposed into the disjoint union of $Z$, a set of measure 0 and a countable union of disjoint open intervals $X_{\alpha}$, which from the previous observation is indexed by $\alpha \in SO_S(\beta_1)$, the set of [*simple*]{} orthogonal geodesics on $S$ with base point on $\beta_1$. Each such simple orthogeodesic gives rise to an interval in $\beta_1$, all of which are disjoint. The first sum consists of summands corresponding to the (two) intervals from the simple orthogeodesics from $\beta_1$ to itself contained in the pants $P$ where $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ are interior geodesics, a summand of the second sum consists of three intervals, the extra interval coming from the simple orthogeodesic contained in $P$ from $\beta_1$ to $\beta_i$.
If $\alpha \in SO_S(\beta_1)$ goes from $\beta_1$ to itself, then $\mu(X_{\alpha})=L[p_1,q_1]=D(x,y,z)/2$ (note that this length depends on the geometry of the pants $P$ and not just the length of $\alpha$) and if $\alpha$ is a simple orthogonal geodesic from $\beta_1$ to another component $\beta_i$, then $\mu(X_{\alpha})=2
\log\left(\coth\frac{l(\alpha)}{2}\right)$, the projection of $\beta_i$ to $\beta_1$ along $\alpha$.
The index set for the Basmajian identity is much larger, and strictly contains the index set for the McShane identity. In this sense, the Basmajian identity for surfaces, as restricted to $\beta_1$ is a refinement of the McShane identity: the terms corresponding to simple geodesics from $\beta_1$ to a different component $\beta_i$ are the same for both identities, however, in the McShane identity, each set $X_{\alpha}$ where $\alpha$ is a simple geodesic from $\beta_1$ to itself contains infinitely many terms in the Basmajian identities, as infinitely many non-simple orthogeodesics have the non-intersecting beginning part (the geodesic segment $G_v$ defined earlier) contained in the same pants $P$.
We note also that the index set for the McShane identity can be regarded as the set of all embedded pairs of pants in $S$ which contain $\beta_1$ as a boundary. These in turn split into two subsets, pairs of pants $P$ for which $\partial P \cap \partial S =\beta_1$ or $\partial P \cap \partial S=\beta_1 \cup \beta_i$ for some $i \neq 1$. The first type gives the first sum, the second type the second sum in Theorem $B'$. This point of view is useful as it generalizes to the Luo-Tan identity.
Proofs of Theorems B and D: Interior Flow
=========================================
For the Bridgeman-Kahn and Luo-Tan identities, we consider $M$ a hyperbolic manifold and $T_1(M)$ its unit tangent bundle. We let $X
= T_1(M)$ with $\mu$ the volume measure on $T_1(X)$. We then consider for each $v \in T_1(M)$ the geodesic obtained by flowing in both directions. We will show that the two identities described are obtained by considering the dynamical properties of this geodesic.
Proof of the Bridgeman-Kahn identity
------------------------------------
Let $M$ be a hyperbolic manifold with totally geodesic boundary. We let $X = T_1(M)$ and $\mu$ be the volume measure on $T_1(M)$. For each $v \in T_1(M)$ we let $g_v$ be the maximal geodesic arc tangent to $v$. To derive the Bridgeman-Kahn identity, we let $Z$ be the set of $v$ such that $g_v$ is not a proper geodesic arc (i.e. the flow does not hit the boundary in at least one direction). Once again, as the limit set of $M$ is measure zero, the set $Z$ satisfies $\mu(Z) =
0$. For $v \not\in Z$ we have that $g_v$ is a proper geodesic arc, and as in the Basmajian identity, we define an equivalence relation by $v \sim w$ if $g_v, g_w$ are homotopic rel boundary. Once again, each orthogeodesic $\alpha$ defines an equivalence class $E_\alpha$ and as before, they form a partition. Thus we have the associated identity $${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(M)) = \sum_{\alpha \in O_M} {\mbox{Vol}}(E_\alpha)$$ To calculate ${\mbox{Vol}}(E_\alpha)$, we lift $\alpha$ to the universal cover such that it is perpendicular to two boundary planes $P,Q$. By definition, any $v \in E_\alpha$ has $g_v$ homotopic rel boundary to $\alpha$. Thus $g_v$ has a unique lift to a geodesic $\tilde g_v$ which has endpoints on $P,Q$. Hence $E_\alpha$ also has a unique lift to $\tilde E_\alpha$ where $$\tilde E_\alpha = \left\{ v\in T_1({\mathbb{H}}^n)\ | \ \exists\ a \leq 0, b \geq 0 \mbox{ such that } \tilde g_v(a) \in P, \tilde g_v(b) \in Q\right\}.$$ The volume of this set only depends on $l(\alpha) = d(P,Q)$ and the dimension. Therefore we have $${\mbox{Vol}}(E_\alpha) = F_n(l(\alpha))$$ for some function $F_n$ which gives the Bridgeman-Kahn identity. To derive a formula for $F_n$, we let $\Omega$ be the volume measure on the unit tangent bundle to the upper half space model for ${\mathbb{H}}^n$, invariant under $Isom({\mathbb{H}}^n)$. We let $G({\mathbb{H}}^n)$ be the space of oriented geodesics in ${\mathbb{H}}^n$ and identify $G({\mathbb{H}}^n) =
({\mathbb{S}}^{n-1}_\infty\times{\mathbb{S}}^{n-1}_\infty \setminus\mbox{Diagonal})$ by assigning to $g$ the pair of endpoints $(x,y)$. We have a natural fiber bundle $p:T_1({\mathbb{H}}^n)\rightarrow G({\mathbb{H}}^n)$ by letting $p(v)$ be the oriented geodesic tangent to $v$. We obtain a parametrization of $T_1({\mathbb{H}}^n)$ by choosing a basepoint on each geodesic. We let $b
\in {\mathbb{H}}^n$ and for each geodesic $g$, let $b_g$ be the nearest point of $g$ to $b$. Then to each $v \in T_1({\mathbb{H}}^n)$ we assign the triple $(x,y,t) \in {\mathbb{S}}^{n-1}_\infty\times {\mathbb{S}}^{n-1}_\infty \times
{\mathbb R}$ where $(x,y) = p(v)$ and $t$ is the signed hyperbolic distance along the geodesic $p(v)$ from $b_{p(v)}$ to $v$. In terms of this parametrization, $$d\Omega = \frac{2dV_x dV_ydt}{|x-y|^{2n-2}}$$ where $dV_x = dx_1dx_2\ldots,dx_n$ and $|x-y|$ is the Euclidean distance between $x,y$ (see [@Nic89]). We choose planes $P, Q$ such that $d(P,Q) =
l$ to be given by the planes intersecting the boundary in the circles of radius $1, e^l$ about the origin. We define $$E_l = \left\{ v\in T_1({\mathbb{H}}^n)\ | \ \exists\ a \leq 0, b \geq 0 \mbox{ such that } \alpha_v(a) \in P, \alpha_v(b) \in Q\right\}.$$ If $g = (x,y)$ is a geodesic intersecting planes both $P,Q,$ we let $L(x,y,l) = d(P\cap g, Q \cap g)$, the length between intersection points. Alternately we have $L(x,y,l) = {\mbox{Length}}(p^{-1}(g) \cap
E_l)$. Then integrating over $t$ we have $$F_n(l) = \int_{E_l} d\Omega = \int_{g \in p(E_l)} \left( \int_{p^{-1}(g) \cap E_l} dt\right)\frac{2 dV_x dV_y}{|x-y|^{2n-2}}$$ giving $$F_n(l) = \int_{|x| < 1} \int_{|y| > e^l} \frac{2L(x,y,l)dV_x dV_y}{|x-y|^{2n-2}}.
\label{bk_int_form}$$ This integral formula can be simplified to obtain a closed form in even dimensions and can be reduced to an integral over the unit interval of a closed form in odd dimensions, in particular, when $n=2$, it takes on the explicit form given in the Bridgeman identity which we describe in the next subsection.
Dilogarithm Identities
----------------------
We first describe the Rogers dilogarithm. We define the $k$th polylogarithm function $Li_k$ to be the analytic function with Taylor series $$Li_k(z) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{z^n}{n^k}\qquad \mbox{ for } |z| < 1.$$ Then we have $$Li_0(z) = \frac{z}{1-z} \qquad Li_1(z) = -\log(1-z).$$ Also they satisfy the recursive formula $$Li_k'(z) = \frac{Li_{k-1}(z)}{z}.$$ The function $Li_2$ is the dilogarithm function and Rogers dilogarithm function is a normalization of it given by $${\mathcal R}(z) = Li_2(z) + \frac{1}{2}\log|z|\log(1-z).$$ In the paper [@B11], the first author considered the surface case of the Bridgeman-Kahn identity. We let $S$ be a finite area surface with totally geodesic boundary. Then boundary components of $S$ are either closed geodesics or bi-infinite geodesics (such as the case when $S$ is an ideal polygon). A [*boundary cusp*]{} of $S$ is a cusp on the boundary of $S$ bounded by two bi-infinite geodesics contained in the boundary of $S$. Let $N_S$ be the number of boundary cusps. Then we have the following generalized version
[(Bridgeman, [@B11])]{} Let $S$ be a finite area hyperbolic surface with totally geodesic boundary. Then $${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(S)) = 2\pi \mbox{Area}(S) = \sum_{l \in L_S} 4.{\mathcal R}\left(\sech^2\frac{l}{2}\right) + \frac{2\pi^2}{3}N_S.$$ where ${\mathcal R}$ is the Rogers dilogarithm function.
In order to prove this, we once again take $X = T_1(S)$ and $\mu$ volume measure. We again define $Z$ to be the set of $v$ such $g_v$ is not a proper geodesic arc. Then if $v \not\in Z$, $g_v$ is a proper geodesic arc and we define $v \sim w$ if $g_v, g_w$ are homotopic rel boundary. There are two cases, either $g_v$ is homotopic rel boundary to an orthogeodesic $\alpha$ or $g_v$ is homotopic to a neighborhood of a boundary cusp $c$. Thus we have equivalence classes $E_\alpha$ for each orthogeodesic and $E_c$ for each boundary cusp. Therefore $${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(S)) = \sum_{\alpha} {\mbox{Vol}}(E_\alpha) + \sum_{c_i} {\mbox{Vol}}(E_{c_i}).$$ We have by definition that ${\mbox{Vol}}(E_\alpha) = F_2(l(\alpha))$. Also, the sets $E_{c_i}$ are all isometric. Therefore $${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(S)) = \sum_{l \in L_S} F_2(l) + N_S{\mbox{Vol}}(E_{c}).$$ As the above identity holds for $S$ an ideal triangle $T$ we have $${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(T)) = 2\pi^2 = 3 {\mbox{Vol}}(E_c).$$ Therefore $${\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(S)) = \sum_{l \in L_S} F_2(l) + \frac{2\pi^2}{3}N_S.$$ The proof of the identity then follows by showing that $F_2(l) = 4.{\mathcal R}(\sech^2(\frac{l}{2}))$ where $\mathcal R$ is the Rogers dilogarithm (in [@B11] the index was over all unoriented orthogeodesics so the constant there was $8$). In [@B11] this is done by directly computing the integral in the formula \[bk\_int\_form\] for $F_2$. We now describe an alternate approach that avoids this computation.
Finite identities
-----------------
The surface identity is only a finite identity when $S$ is an ideal n-gon. In this case we have a finite orthospectrum $l_1,\ldots, l_k$. We then have $$2\pi^2(n-2) = \sum_{i} F_2(l_i) + \frac{2\pi^2n}{3}.$$ We rewrite this as $$\sum_{i} F_2(l_i) = \frac{4\pi^2(n-3)}{3}.$$ We let $R$ be the function defined such that $F_2(l) = 8.R(\sech^2(\frac{l}{2}))$. Then $R$ satisfies $$\sum_{i} R\left(\sech^2\left(\frac{l_i}{2}\right)\right) = \frac{(n-3)\pi^2}{6}.$$ If the ideal polygon $S$ has cyclically ordered vertices $x_i$, then the $i$th side can be identified with the geodesic with endpoints $x_i, x_{i+1}$. Then an orthogeodesic is the perpendicular between geodesic $x_i, x_{i+1}$ and geodesic $x_j, x_{j+1}$ where $|i-j| \geq 2$ which we label $\alpha_{ij}$ of length $l_{ij}$. We define the cross ratio of four points by $$[a,b;c,d] = \frac{(a-b)(d-c)}{(a-c)(d-b)}.$$ Then a simple calculation shows that $$[x_i, x_{i+1}; x_j, x_{j+1}] = [1,-1,-e^{l_{ij}}, e^{l_{ij}}] = \frac{(1+1)(e^{l_{ij}}+e^{l_{ij}})}{(1+e^{l_{ij}})(1+e^{l_{ij}})} = \sech^2(l_{ij}/2)$$ Therefore we can rewrite the identity in the finite case as $$\sum_{|i-j| \geq 2} R\left([x_i,x_{i+1};x_j,x_{j+1}]\right) = \frac{(n-3)\pi^2}{6}.$$
[**Ideal Quadrilaterals and Euler’s identity:**]{} For $n=4$, $S$ is an ideal quadrilateral with two ortholengths $l_1, l_2$ and vertices $x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4$. Thus as $[x_1, x_2;x_3,x_4] = 1 -[x_3,x_4;x_1,x_2]$, for any $0 < x < 1$ we have $$R(x) + R(1-x) =\frac{\pi^2}{6}.$$ This identity was proved for the dilogarithm function by Euler (see Lewin’s book [@Lew91] for details). Also by symmetry $R(1/2) = \pi^2/12$ and similarly $R(0) = 0 , R(1) = \pi^2/6$.
[**Ideal Pentagons and Abel’s identity:**]{} If $S$ is a ideal pentagon then there are $5$ orthogeodesics. We send three of the vertices to $0, 1, \infty$ and the other two to $u,v$ with $0 < u < v < 1$. Then the cross ratios in terms of $u,v$ are $$u, \qquad 1-v, \qquad \frac{v-u}{v} , \qquad \frac{v-u}{1-u}, \qquad \frac{u(1-v)}{v(1-u)}$$ Putting into the equation we obtain the following equation. $$\begin{aligned}
R\left(u\right)+R\left(1-v\right)+R\left(\frac{v-u}{v}\right)+R\left(\frac{v-u}{1-u}\right)+ R\left(\frac{u(1-v)}{v(1-u)}\right) = \frac{\pi^{2}}{3}.
\end{aligned}$$ Letting $x = u/v, y = v$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
R\left(xy\right)+R\left(1-y\right)+R\left(1-x\right)+R\left(\frac{y(1-x)}{1-xy}\right)+ R\left(\frac{x(1-y)}{1-xy}\right) = \frac{\pi^{2}}{3}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now by applying Euler’s identity for $x,y$, we obtain Abel’s pentagon identity $$\begin{aligned}
R\left(x\right)+R\left(y\right) =R\left(xy\right)+R\left(\frac{y(1-x)}{1-xy}\right)+R\left(\frac{x(1-y)}{1-xy}\right) .
\end{aligned}$$
To show $R = {\mathcal R}$ we use the observation of Calegari in [@Cal10a], that by a result of Dupont (see [@Du87]), the Rogers dilogarithm is characterized by satisfying the Euler and Abel identities, and therefore $R = {\mathcal R}$.
Proof of the Luo-Tan identity
-----------------------------
We let $S$ be a closed hyperbolic surface. We note that as $\partial
S=\emptyset$, the Basmajian and Bridgeman identities do not make sense as there are no orthogeodesics. Similarly, it is not clear how to extend the McShane identity to this case as there is no starting point, i.e., no boundary component or horocycle to decompose. Furthermore, since the generalization of the McShane identity to cone surfaces has a restriction that all cone angles are $\le \pi$, we cannot deform a cone singularity to a smooth point to obtain an identity.
However, one can combine two key ideas from the Bridgeman-Kahn and the McShane proofs to obtain an identity, which is what Luo and the second author did. The key idea from the Bridgeman-Kahn identity is to start from any point and any direction, that is, to define $X = T_1(S)$ with $\mu$ the volume measure. The key idea we use from the proof of the McShane identity is that instead of flowing in both directions indefinitely, as in the Bridgeman identity, we flow until we get intersection points. In this way, for a generic vector $v \in T_1(S)$, we construct a geodesic graph $G_v$ with Euler characteristic $-1$ and use this to obtain a decomposition of $X$. From this decomposition we calculate the measures of the components to obtain the Luo-Tan identity.
More precisely, given $v \in T_1(S)$, consider the unit speed geodesic rays $\gamma_v^+(t)$ and $\gamma_v^-(t)$ $(
t \geq 0)$ determined by exponentiating $\pm v$. If the vector $v$ is generic, then both rays will self intersect transversely by the ergodicity of the geodesic flow, otherwise, we have $v \in Z \subset X$ where $\mu(Z)=0$.
![Graph $G_v$[]{data-label="lt1"}](lt1){width="4in"}
Each $v\in X \setminus Z$ will determine a canonical graph $G_v$ as follows (see figure \[lt1\]). Consider the path $A_t=\gamma_v^-([0,t]) \cup \gamma_v^+([0,t])$ for $t
>0$ obtained by letting the geodesic rays $g_v^{-}$ and $g_v^+$ grow at equal speed from time $0$ to $t$. Let $t_+>0$ be the smallest positive number so that $A_{t_+}$ is not a simple arc, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\gamma_v^+(t_+) \neq
\gamma_v^-(t_+)$ by ignoring a set of measure zero (i.e. putting it into $Z$). Say $\gamma_v^+(t_+) \in \gamma_v^-([0,t_+]) \cup
\gamma_v^+([0, t_+))$. Next, let $t_-
> t_+$ be the next smallest time so that $\gamma_v^-(t_-) \in \gamma_v^-([0,
t_-)) \cup \gamma_v^+[0, t_+])$.
The union $\gamma_v^-([0, t_-])
\cup \gamma_v^+([0, t_+])$ is the graph $G_v$ associated to $v$.
From the definition, $G_v$ has Euler characteristic is $-1$. We call an embedded pair of pants (three hole sphere) or one-hole torus with geodesic boundary in $S$ a [*simple geometric embedded subsurface*]{}. The following result allows us to decompose $X\setminus Z$ into subsets indexed by the set of simple geometric embedded subsurfaces.
![Subsurface $\Sigma_v$, with $G_v \subset \Sigma_v$[]{data-label="lt2"}](lt2){width="4in"}
\[prop:loopisembedded\](Proposition 3.1 of [@LT11]) The graph $G_v$ is contained in a unique simple geometric embedded subsurface $\Sigma_v\subset S$.
Cutting the surface $S$ open along $G_v$, we obtain a surface whose metric completion $\hat S$ is a compact hyperbolic surface with convex boundary. The boundary of $\hat S$ consists of simple piecewise geodesic loops (corresponding to $G_v$), each boundary has at least one corner. If $\hat \gamma$ is a simple piecewise geodesic loop in $\partial \hat S$, it is freely homotopic to a simple closed geodesic $\gamma$ in $\hat S$ which is a component of the boundary of $core( \hat S)$, the convex core of $ \hat S$. Furthermore $\hat \gamma$ and $\gamma$ are disjoint by convexity. Therefore, $\hat \gamma$ and $\gamma$ bound a convex annulus exterior to $core(\hat S)$ and $G_v$ is disjoint from $core(\hat S)$. The simple geometric subsurface $\Sigma_v$ containing $G_v$ is the union of these convex annuli bounded by $\hat \gamma$ and $\gamma$ (see figure \[lt2\]). The Euler characteristic of $\Sigma_v$ is $-1$ by the construction. Furthermore, the surface $\Sigma_v$ is unique. Indeed, if $\Sigma' \neq \Sigma \subset S$ is a simple geometric subsurface so that $G_v\subset \Sigma'$, then $\Sigma'$ has a boundary component say $\beta$ which intersects one of the boundaries $ \gamma$ of $\Sigma$ transversely (we use here in an essential way the fact that the surfaces $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ are simple). Therefore, $\beta$ must intersect the other boundary $\hat \gamma$ of the convex annulus described earlier, otherwise we have a hyperbolic bigon, a contradiction. Hence it intersects $G_v$ which contradicts $G_v\subset \Sigma'$.
The above discussion gives a decomposition of $T_1(S)\setminus Z$ indexed by these simple subsurfaces, namely, for any simple subsurface $\Sigma \subset S$, define $$X_{\Sigma}:=\{v \in X ~:~ G_v \subset \Sigma \}.$$ Then $\mu(X)=\mu(T_1(S))=\sum_P \mu(X_P)+\sum_T\mu(X_T)$ where the first sum is over all simple geometric embedded pairs of pants and the second sum over all simple geometric embedded one-hole tori. It remains to calculate for a simple hyperbolic surface $\Sigma=P$ or $T$ the volume of the set of all unit tangent vectors $v\in T_1(\Sigma)$ so that $G_v$ is strictly contained in $\Sigma$, that is, $G_v$ is a spine for $\Sigma$, this will give us the functions $f$ and $g$ in Theorem $D$.
Computing the measures of $X_P$ and $X_T$
-----------------------------------------
By definition, we have $f(P)=\mu(X_P)$ and $g(T)=\mu(X_T)$. It is complicated to compute the measures directly, it turns out that it is easier to compute $\mu(X_P)$ and $\mu(X_T)$ by calculating the measure of the complementary set in $T_1(\Sigma)$ instead. The idea is that the vectors $v \in T_1(P)$ in the complementary set can be divided into a small number of disjoint types which can be described quite easily geometrically, hence the complementary set decomposes into a finite number of disjoint subsets whose measures can be computed in a similar way to the computation for the Bridgeman identity.
Suppose $P$ is a hyperbolic 3-holed sphere, and $i \in\{1,2,3\}$ taken mod $ 3$. Denote the boundary geodesics of $P$ by $L_i$, the simple orthogeodesics from $L_{i+1}$ to $L_{i+2}$ by $M_i$ and the simple orthogeodesic from $L_i$ to itself by $N_i$, see figure \[fig6\](a). Denote the lengths of the boundary geodesics and the orthogeodesics by the corresponding lower case letters, that is $l_i$, $m_i$ and $n_i$ respectively.
![3-holed spheres and 1-holed tori[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6a.png "fig:"){width="2.25in"} ![3-holed spheres and 1-holed tori[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6b.png "fig:"){width="1.5in"}
For $v \in T_1(P)$ we define $\gamma_v$ to be the maximal geodesic arc in $P$ tangent to $v$. We modify the definition of $G_v$ appropriately, to take into account the fact that $\partial P \neq \emptyset$, that is, $$\hat{G}_v=\gamma_v^-([0, t_-])
\cup \gamma_v^+([0, t_+])$$ as before but the times $t_+$ and $t_-$ may also occur when the geodesic hits $\partial P$ in which case we stop generating the geodesic in that direction.
From the definitions, it is clear that $\hat{G}_v \subset \gamma_v$, and $v \in X_P$ if and only if $\hat{G}_v \cap \partial P=\emptyset$. In particular, if $v \in T_1(P) \setminus X_P$, and $v \not\in Z$, then $\hat{G_v}$ is either simple, with both endpoints on $\partial P$, or has one endpoint on $L_i$ and the other end is a loop freely homotopic to $L_j$, $j \neq i$, we call this a [*lasso*]{} around $L_j$ based at $L_i$ (note that the loop cannot be homotopic to $L_i$). The following gives a decomposition of $T_1(P) \setminus X_P$ into finitely many types:
- Define $H(M_i)=\{v\in T_1(P) ~|~ \gamma_v \sim M_1~ {\hbox{rel. boundary}}\}$. If $v \in H(M_i)$, then $\gamma_v$ is simple, $\hat{G}_v=\gamma_v$, and $v \not\in X_P$. The measure of these sets, computed by Bridgeman in [@B11], depend only on $m_i$ and is given by $\mu(H(M_1))=8.{\mathcal R}\left(\sech^2\frac{m_i}{2}\right)$.
- Define $H(N_i)=\{v\in T_1(P) ~|~ \gamma_v \sim N_1~ {\hbox{rel. boundary}}\}$. If $v \in H(N_i)$, then $\gamma_v$ intersects $M_i$ exactly once, the point of intersection divides $\gamma_v$ into two components $\gamma_v^+$ and $\gamma_v^-$. This case is more complicated as $\gamma_v$ may have arbitrarily many self-intersections, however, $\gamma_v^+$ and $\gamma_v^-$ are both simple. This can be seen by cutting $P$ along $M_i$ to obtain a convex cylinder bounded on one side by $L_i$ and the other by a piecewise geodesic boundary. Then both $\gamma_v^+$ and $\gamma_v^-$ are geodesic arcs from one boundary of the cylinder to the other, so must be simple. In particular, in the construction of $\hat{G}_v$, we see that in this case, $\hat{G}_v$ is either a simple geodesic arc from $L_i$ to itself, or it must be a lasso based at $L_i$. That is, for all such $v$, $\hat{G}_v$ intersects $L_i$ so $v \not\in X_P$. Again, by Bridgeman the measure is $\mu(H(N_i))=8.{\mathcal R}\left(\sech^2\frac{n_i}{2}\right)$. Note that these sets are disjoint from those in the first case.
- The remaining case is when $\hat{G}_v$ is a lasso, but does not come from case two above, we call these [*true*]{} lassos. For $\{i,j,k\}=\{1,2,3\}$ distinct, let $$W(L_i,M_j)=\{v\in T_1(P) ~|~ \hat{G}_v ~\hbox{is a true lasso around $L_i$ based at $L_k$ }\}.$$ Consider say that $\hat{G}_v$ is a lasso based at the point $q$ on $L_1$ with (positive) loop around $L_2$, but such that $\gamma_v$ is not homotopic relative to the boundary to $N_1$. It is convenient to understand the set of $v$ generating such $\hat{G}_v$ in the universal cover, $\tilde P \subset {\mathbb{H}}^2$ (we use the upper half space model). We work with the following setting:\
Consider a fundamental domain for $P$ in ${\mathbb{H}}^2$ consisting of two adjacent right angled hexagons $H$ and $H'$ such that $H$ is bounded by $\tilde L_1$, $\tilde L_2$ and $\tilde L_3$ and $H'$ is bounded by $\tilde L_2$, $ \tilde L_1'$ and $\tilde L_3$, see figure \[fig7\]. Given $x, y \in {\mathbb{H}}^2\cup \partial {\mathbb{H}}^2$, $x \neq y$, let $G[x,y]$ denote the geodesic in ${\mathbb{H}}^2$ from $x$ to $y$. Normalize so that $\tilde L_1=G[c,d]$, $\tilde L_2=G[\infty, 0]$, and $\tilde L_3=G[e,f]$, where $e,f, c, d \in \mathbb R$ satisfy $0<e<f<c<d$. Further normalize so that $ \tilde L_1'=G[1,a]$ where $1<a<e$. By elementary calculations, we have $c=e^{l_2},~d=e^{l_2} \coth^2(m_3/2)$.
![Universal Cover of $P$ in ${\mathbb{H}}^2$[]{data-label="fig7"}](fig7.png){width="4in"}
We can choose a lift of $\hat{G}_v$ so that the end point $q$ lies on $\tilde L_1=G[c,d]$. Let $G[y,x]$, $y, x \in \mathbb{R}^2$ be the complete geodesic in ${\mathbb{H}}^2$ containing this lift, in particular, by construction $y \in (c,d)$. We claim that there is a unique lift so that $0<x<1$. The cases $x=0$ are $x=1$ are important limiting cases. When $x=0$, $\hat{G}_v$ is a simple geodesic of infinite length which spirals around $L_2$ in the positive direction, when $x<0$, $\hat{G}_v$ is homotopic to $M_3$, so is a simple finite geodesic arc from $L_1$ to $L_2$. When $x$ is small and positive, $\hat{G}_v$ is a lasso with positive loop around $L_2$. When $x=1$, $\gamma_v$ spirals around $L_1$ with infinite number of self intersections, and $\hat{G}_v$ is still a lasso from $L_1$ with positive loop around $L_2$. As $x$ ranges between $1$ and $a$, $\gamma_v$ is homotopic to $N_1$ and $\hat{G}_v$ ranges from being a lasso with positive loop around $L_2$ to being simple and then a lasso with negative loop around $L_3$. In particular, if $\hat{G}_v$ is a lasso with end point at $L_1$ and positive loop around $L_2$, but $\gamma_v$ is not homotopic to $N_1$ we have a unique lift so $0<x<1$ and $c<y<d$. However, not all tangent vectors on $T_1(G[y,x])$ generate $\hat{G}_v$. By the construction of $\hat{G}_v$, the midpoint of the loop, $p$ of $\hat{G}_v$ is a critical point, all vectors which project to the longer part of $\hat{G}_v$ will generate $\hat{G}_v$, those which project to the shorter part (consisting of half of the loop) will generate a different $\hat{G}_v$, by construction. Also, the loop of $\hat{G}_v$ bounds with $L_2$ a convex cylinder in $P$ so $p$ is the point on the loop which is closest to $L_2$. Hence, $p$ is the point on $G[y,x]$ such that the ray $0p$ is tangent to $G[y,x]$. To calculate the volume, we need to integrate the length of the geodesic from $q$ to $p$ over the set of all geodesics in ${\mathbb{H}}^2$ with endpoints $x,y$ where $0<x<1$ and $c<y<d$, with respect to the Liouville measure on the space of geodesics. Since both forward and backward vectors on this set generate $\hat{G}_v$, we multiply the result by 2, that is we want twice the volume of the set $\Omega$ where $$\label{eqn:123} \Omega = \{ v \in T_1({\mathbb{H}}^2)~ |~ \\ v \in T_1(G[q,p]), \\
0<x<1,\\ c<y<d\}.$$ The computation of $Vol(\Omega)$ is elementary but somewhat messy, the final integral which needs to be computed is given by the following:
(Prop 4.1 of [@LT11]) The volume of $\Omega$ is given by
$$\label{eqn:VolofOmega}
\int_0^1 \left(\int_c^d \frac{ \ln \left| \frac{
y(x-c)(x-d)}{x(y-c)(y-d)}\right|}{(y-x)^2} dy\right) dx.$$
Note that the above integral only depends on $c$ and $d$ which are given by $c=e^{l_2},~d=e^{l_2} \coth^2(m_3/2)$. More generally, define the Lasso function $La(l,m)$ to be the above integral where $c=e^{l},~d=e^{l} \coth^2(m/2)$. We have:
\[lem:simplificationforlassofunction\](Prop 4.6 of [@LT11]) The lasso function $La(l,m)$ is given by $$La(l,m) =2\left({\mathcal R}(y) -{\mathcal R}\left(\frac{1-x}{1-xy}\right) +
{\mathcal R}\left(\frac{1-y}{1-xy}\right)\right)$$ where $x=e^{-l}$ and $y=\tanh^2(m/2)$, ${\mathcal R}(z)$ is the Roger’s dilogarithm.
As remarked earlier, we need to take twice the volume of $\Omega$ to obtain the volume of the set of vectors generating true lassos from $L_1$ with a positive loop around $L_2$, the volume for those with a negative loop around $L_2$ is the same by symmetry, hence we have: $$Vol(W(L_i,M_j))=4La(l_i,m_j).$$ Now $\mu(X_P)$ can be computed by subtracting away from $\mu(T_1(P))$ the measures of the sets $H(M_i)$, $H(N_i)$, $i=1,2,3$ and $W(L_i,M_j)$, $i\neq j$. To obtain the expression in Theorem D, we use some of the pentagon relations satisfied by the Roger’s dilogarithm function, for details, see [@LT11].
The computation of $\mu(X_T)$ for an embedded one-holed torus is similar, with an extra observation. Again, $v \not\in X_T$ if $\hat{G}_v \cap \partial T \neq \emptyset$, ($\partial T$ has only one component). In this case $\hat{G}_v$ is either a simple geodesic arc from $\partial T$ to itself, or is a lasso based at $\partial T$ with a loop homotopic to an essential, non boundary parallel simple closed geodesic. In either case, $\hat{G}_v$ is disjoint from a [*unique*]{} simple closed geodesic $A \subset T$, see figure 6b. Cutting along $A$ produces a pair of pants $P_A$, and from the previous calculations, we can calculate the set of all $v \in T_1(P_A)$ such that $\hat{G}_v$ intersects $\partial T$ but not the other two boundary components of $P_A$. Summing up the measures over all possible simple closed geodesics $A$ we obtain the measure of the complement of $X_T$ in $T_1(T)$. Again, by manipulating the expressions using the identities for $\mathcal R$, we obtain the expression in Theorem D for $g(T)$, see [@LT11] for details.
Moments of hitting function
===========================
We consider all four identities and their associated measure space $(X,\mu)$. Associated to this we have a hitting function $L:X \rightarrow {\mathbb R}_+$ where $L(x)$ is the length of the geodesic arc associated to $x$. The function $L$ is measurable and we can consider it as a random variable with respect to the measure $\mu$. For $k \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, the $k^{th}$ moment of $L$ with respect to the measure $\mu$ is then $$M_k(X) = (L_*\mu)(x^k) = \int_X L^k(x) d\mu.$$ In particular $M_0(X) = \mu(X)$. Also the measurable decomposition $X = Z \cup \bigcup_i X_i$ gives us a formula $$M_k(X) = \sum_i \int_{X_i} L^k(v) d\mu.$$ In each identity it is easy to again show that each integral in the summation on the right only depends on the spectrum associated with the identity. Therefore one can find smooth functions $F_k$ such that $$M_k(X) = \sum_{l \in S} F_k(l)$$ where $S$ denotes the spectrum of the given identity. In particular, this formula is the original identity in the case $k = 0$. Also the average length of the geodesic associated with an element of $X$, called the [*average hitting time*]{} $A(X)$, is then given by $$A(X) = \frac{M_1(X)}{\mu(X)} = \frac{M_1(X)}{M_0(X)}.$$
Moments of Bridgeman-Kahn Identity
----------------------------------
In a recent paper, we consider the moments of the Bridgeman-Kahn identity and show that both the Bridgeman-Kahn and Basmajian identities arise as identities for its moments.The Bridgeman-Kahn identity obviously arises as the identity for the $k=0$ moment. We show that the Basmajian identity appears as the identity for the $k=-1$ moment, giving a link between the two identities. We also derive an integral formula for the moments and an explicit formula for $A(X)$ in the surface case.
[(Bridgeman-Tan, [@BT13])]{} There exists smooth functions $F_{n,k}: {\mathbb R}_+ \rightarrow {\mathbb R}_+$ and constants $C_n > 0$ such that if $X$ is a compact hyperbolic n-manifold with totally geodesic boundary $\partial X \neq \emptyset$, then
1. The moment $M_k(X)$ satisfies $$M_k(X) = \sum_{l \in L_X} F_{n,k}(l)$$
2. $M_{0}(X) = {\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(X))$ and the identity is the Bridgeman-Kahn identity.
3. $M_{-1}(X) = C_n.{\mbox{Vol}}(\partial X)$ and the identity for $M_{-1}(X)$ is the Basmajian identity.
4. The average hitting time $A(X)$ satisfies $$A(X) = \frac{1}{{\mbox{Vol}}(T_1(X))}\sum_{l \in L_X} F_{n,1}(l) = \sum_{l \in L_X} G_{n}(l).$$
\[moments\]
In the surface case we obtain an explicit formula for the function $G_2$ and hence $A(X)$ in terms of polylogarithms. Furthermore, besides compact surfaces obtained as quotients of Fuchsian groups, the identity holds more generally for finite area surfaces with boundary cusps.
[(Bridgeman-Tan, [@BT13])]{} Let $S$ be a finite area hyperbolic surface with non-empty totally geodesic boundary. Then $$A(S) = \frac{1}{2\pi\mbox{Area}(S)}\left(\sum_{l \in L_S} F\left(\sech^2\frac{l}{2}\right) + 6\zeta(3)C_S\right)$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
F(a) &=& -12\zeta(3)-\frac{4\pi^2}{3}\log(1-a)+6\log^2(1-a)\log(a)-4\log(1-a)\log^2(a)\\
&& \qquad -8\log\left(\frac{a^2}{1-a}\right)Li_2(a)
+24Li_3(a)+12Li_3(1-a),\end{aligned}$$ for $Li_k(x)$ the $k^{th}-$polylogarithm function, and $\zeta$ the Riemann $\zeta-$function. \[avehit\]
Moments of Basmajian Identity
-----------------------------
In the recent preprint [@V13], Vlamis considers the moments for the Basmajian identity.
[(Vlamis, [@V13])]{} Let $X$ be a compact hyperbolic manifold with totally geodesic boundary and $m_k(X)$ be the moments of the boundary hitting function with respect to lebesgue measure on $\partial M$. Then $$m_k(X) = \sum_{l \in L_X} f_{n,k}(l)$$ where $$f_{n,k}(l) = \Omega_{n-2} \int_0^{\log \coth(l/2)} \left(\log\left(\frac{\coth l + \cosh r}{\coth l - \cosh r}\right)\right)^k\sinh^{n-2}r dr$$ and $\Omega_{n-2}$ is the volume of the unit $(n-2)$-dimensional sphere.
Vlamis derives an explicit formula in odd-dimensions and further derives a formula for the first moment in the case of a surface $S$.
[(Vlamis, [@V13])]{} Let $S$ be a compact hyperbolic surface with non-empty totally geodesic boundary. Then $$A(S) = \frac{1}{2\pi\mbox{Area}(S)} \sum_{l \in L_S} \left( Li_2\left(-\tanh^2\frac{l}{2}\right) -Li_2\left(\tanh^2\frac{l}{2}\right) + \pi^2/4\right).$$
The Bowditch proof of the McShane identity and generalizations
==============================================================
Bowditch gave an algebraic-combinatorial proof of the original McShane identity for the punctured torus in [@Bow96], and extending the method, proved variations for punctured torus bundles in [@Bow97] and representations of the punctured torus group (including the quasi-fuchsian representations) satisfying some conditions he calls the Q-conditions in [@Bow98]. One advantage of the proof is that it avoids the use of the Birman-Series result on the Hausdorff dimension of the set of points on simple geodesics on a hyperbolic surface. Akiyoshi, Miyachi and Sakuma refined the identity for punctured torus groups in [@AMS2004] and found variations for quasi-fuchsian punctured surface groups in [@AMS2006].
Let $T$ be a once punctured hyperbolic torus, and $\pi:=\pi(T)=\langle X,Y\rangle$ the fundamental group of $T$, a free group on two generators, and $\rho: \pi \rightarrow {\mathrm{PSL}(2,{\mathbb R})}$ the holonomy representation. Define an equivalence relation $\sim$ on $\pi$, by $X \sim Y$ if $X$ is conjugate to $Y$ or $Y^{-1}$. The classes correspond to free homotopy classes of closed curves on $T$, let $\Omega \subset \pi/\sim$ be the set of classes corresponding to [*essential, simple, non-peripheral*]{} simple closed curves on $T$. Classes in $\Omega$ have representatives which form part of a generating pair for $\pi$, we call them primitive classes. For $X \in \Omega$, $x:={\rm tr}\rho(X)$ is well defined up to sign, and is related to the length $l$ of the unique geodesic representing the class by $$\cosh^2( l/2)=x^2/4.$$ McShane’s orginal identity for the once-punctured torus then has the form $$\label{eqn:Bowditch}
\sum_{X \in \Omega}h(x)=\sum_{X \in \Omega}\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{4}{x^2}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}$$ where we let $x={\rm tr} \rho(X)$, and $h(x)=1-\sqrt{1-\frac{4}{x^2}}$. This is the form which was proven by Bowditch, and generalized to type-preserving representations (i.e., ${\rm tr} \rho(XYX^{-1}Y^{-1})=-2$) of $\pi$ into ${\mathrm{SL}(2,{\mathbb C})}$ satisfying the following conditions which he calls the Q- conditions, we call here the BQ-conditions:
A represention $\rho$ from $\pi$ into ${\mathrm{SL}(2,{\mathbb C})}$ satisfies the Bowditch Q-conditions (BQ-conditions) if
1. ${\rm tr} \rho (X) \not \in [-2,2]$ for all $X \in \Omega$;
2. $|{\rm tr} \rho (X)| \le 2$ for only finitely many (possibly none) $X \in \Omega$.
The basic idea of the proof was to represent the values taken by elements of $\Omega$ in an infinite trivalent tree. This arises from the fact that $\Omega$ can be identified with ${\mathbb Q} \cup \infty$ by considering the slopes of the curves in $T$, and the action of the mapping class group of $T$ on this set is essentially captured by the Farey tessellation, whose dual is an embedded infinite trivalent tree in ${\mathbb{H}}$. In this way, $\Omega$ is identified with the set of complementary regions of the dual tree, and the values ${\rm tr}\rho(X)$ for $X \in \Omega$ satisfy vertex and edge relations which come from the Fricke trace identities. Using this function and the vertex and edge relations, Bowditch was able to cleverly assign a function on the directed edges of the tree which satisfied some simple conditions and applied a Stoke’s theorem type argument to prove the identity.
Subsequently, Tan, Wong and Zhang extended the Bowditch method to prove versions of the identity for general representations of the free group $\pi$ into ${\mathrm{PSL}(2,{\mathbb C})}$ satisfying the Q-conditions and closed hyperbolic three manifolds obtained from hyperbolic Dehn surgery in [@TWZ08; @TWZ06b]. Specifically, let $\rho \in {\rm Hom }(\pi, {\mathrm{SL}(2,{\mathbb C})})$ be a representation satisfying the BQ-conditions and let $\tau={\rm tr} \rho(XYX^{-1}Y^{-1})$. We call $\rho$ a $\tau$-representation. Define the function ${\mathfrak h}:={\mathfrak h}_{\tau}$ as follows:
For $\tau \in {\mathbf C}$, set $\nu=\cosh^{-1}(-\tau/2)$. We define
${\mathfrak h}={\mathfrak h}_\tau: {\mathbf C}
\backslash \{\pm \sqrt{\tau+2}\} \rightarrow {\mathbf C}$
by $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak h}(x)
&=&2 \tanh^{-1}\bigg(\frac{\sinh\nu}{\cosh\nu+e^{l(x)}}\bigg)
\label{eqn:frak h(x)=2tanh^-1} \\
&=&\log\frac{e^{\nu}+e^{l(x)}}{e^{-\nu}+e^{l(x)}} \label{eqn:frak h(x)=log I} \\
&=&\log\frac{1+(e^{\nu}-1)\,h(x)}{1+(e^{-\nu}-1)\,h(x)},
\label{eqn:frak h(x)=log II}
$$ where (\[eqn:frak h(x)=2tanh\^-1\]), (\[eqn:frak h(x)=log I\]) and (\[eqn:frak h(x)=log II\]) are equivalent (see [@TWZ08] for details). We have:
\[thm:TWZ\](Tan-Wong-Zhang, Theorem 2.2 , [@TWZ08]) Let $\rho: \pi \rightarrow {\rm SL}(2, \mathbb C)$ be a $\tau$-representation [(]{}where $\tau \neq 2$[)]{} satisfying the BQ-conditions. Set $\nu=\cosh^{-1}(-\tau/2)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:TWZ}
\sum_{X \in \Omega}{\mathfrak h} (x)=\nu \mod 2 \pi i,\end{aligned}$$ where the sum converges absolutely, and $x:={\rm tr}\rho(X)$.
When $\rho$ arises as the holonomy of a hyperbolic structure on a one-hole torus with geodesic boundary, or with a cone point, then the above is equivalent to the Mirzakhani [@Mir07] and the Tan-Wong-Zhang [@TWZ06] variations of the McShane identity.
Recently, revisiting the original Bowditch proof, Hu, Tan and Zhang proved new variations of the identity for representations of $\pi$ into ${\mathrm{PSL}(2,{\mathbb C})}$ satisfying the BQ-conditions [@HTZ13], we have:
\[thm:HTZ1\](Hu-Tan-Zhang, [@HTZ13]) Let $\rho: \pi \rightarrow {\rm SL}(2, \mathbb C)$ be a $\tau$-representation [(]{}where $\tau \neq 2$[)]{} satisfying the BQ-conditions. Let $\mu=\tau+2$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:TWZ}
\sum_{X \in \Omega}{g} (x)=\sum_{X \in \Omega}\left(1-\frac{3x^2-2\mu}{3(x^2-\mu)}\sqrt{1-\frac{4}{x^2}}\right)=\frac{1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ where the sum converges absolutely, and $x:={\rm tr}\rho(X)$.
Note that the type-preserving case occurs when $\tau=-2$ so $\mu=0$ and the above reduces to the original McShane identity in this case.
They also extended this in [@HTZ13b] to identities for orbits of points in ${\mathbb C}^n$ under the action of the Coxeter group $G_n$ generated by $n$-involutions which preserve the varieties defined by the Hurwitz equation. At the moment, it is not clear what is the underlying geometric interpretation of these identities.
Concluding remarks
==================
We have shown that the identities obtained by Basmajian, McShane, Bridgeman-Kahn and Luo-Tan are obtained by considering decompositions of certain sets $X$ with finite measure $\mu$ associated to the manifold $M$ obtained by considering some kind of geodesic flow, either from the boundary, or from the interior. Typically, there is a subset of measure zero which is complicated but which does not contribute to the identity, and the subsets of non-zero measure in the decomposition are indexed by some simple geometric objects on the manifold. The measures of each subset typically depends only on the local geometry and data, and not on the global geometry of $M$, which may be easy or fairly complicated to compute. One can apply this general philosophy to try to obtain other interesting identities. There are also many other interesting directions for further research and exploration in this area, we list a number of them below:
1. Find good applications for the identities, for example use them to say something about the moduli space of hyperbolic surfaces. The McShane-Mirzakhani identity was an important ingredient in the work of Mirzakhani in the study of the Weil-Petersson geometry of the moduli space of bordered Riemann surfaces. It would be interesting to find similar applications for the Basmajian, Bridgeman and Luo-Tan identities.
2. Generalize the McShane/Luo-Tan identities to hyperbolic manifolds of higher dimension or to translation surfaces.
3. The Basmajian and Bridgeman-Kahn identities do not generalize easily to complete finite volume hyperbolic surfaces with cusps (or cone points) as in this case the limit set does not have measure zero. It would be interesting to find other interesting decompositions of horocycles which would generalize these identities, some progress on this has been made recently by Basmajian and Parlier [@BasPar].
4. It would be interesting to extend the Bowditch method to general surfaces of genus $g$ with $n$ cusps, some progress has been been recently by Labourie and the second author, [@LaT13].
5. Give a geometric interpretation of the variation of the McShane identity (Theorem \[thm:HTZ1\]) obtained by Hu-Tan-Zhang using the extension of the Bowditch method, and also the identity for the $n$-variables case.
6. Extend the identities to other interesting representation spaces, see for example the work of Labourie and McShane in [@LaMcS09], and Kim, Kim and Tan in [@KKT12]
7. Extend the moment generating point of view, and derive formulae for the moments of the McShane and Luo-Tan identities.
8. Obtain identities for general closed hyperbolic manifolds.
9. Analyze the asymptotics of the functions $f$ and $g$ in the Luo-Tan identity and use it to study the asymptotics of embedded simple surfaces in a hyperbolic surface.
[1]{}
H. Akiyoshi, H. Miyachi and M. Sakuma, A refinement of McShane’s identity for quasifuchsian punctured torus groups, , [**355**]{}, 21 – 40, 2004.
H. Akiyoshi, H. Miyachi and M. Sakuma, Variations of McShane’s identity for punctured surface groups, , 151-185, 2006.
A. Basmajian, The orthogonal spectrum of a hyperbolic manifold, , [**115**]{} 1139–1159, 1993.
A. Basmajian, H. Parlier, private communication.
A. Beardon, The Geometry of Discrete Groups, , 1995 J. Birman, C. Series, Geodesics with bounded intersection number on surfaces are sparsely distributed. (1985), 217-225. F. Bonahon, The geometry of Teichmüller space via geodesic currents, (1988), 139–162.
B. Bowditch, A proof of McShane’s identity via Markov triples, , [**28**]{} (1996) 73–78. B. Bowditch, A variation of McShane’s identity for once-punctured torus bundles, , [**36**]{} (1997) 325–334. B. Bowditch, Markoff triples and quasi-Fuchsian groups, , [**77**]{} (1998) 697–736.
M. Bridgeman, Orthospectra and Dilogarithm Identities on Moduli Space. , Volume 15, Number 2, 2011 M. Bridgeman, D. Dumas, Distribution of intersection lengths of a random geodesic with a geodesic lamination. , 27(4), 2007 M. Bridgeman, J. Kahn, Hyperbolic volume of n-manifolds with geodesic boundary and orthospectra. , Volume 20(5), 2010 M. Bridgeman, S. P. Tan, Moments of the boundary hitting function for the geodesic flow on a hyperbolic manifold. preprint 2013 D. Calegari, Bridgeman’s orthospectrum identity, , 38, 173-179, 2011 D. Calegari, Chimneys, leopard spots, and the identities of Basmajian and Bridgeman, , 10(3), 1857–1863, 2010 J. Dupont, The dilogarithm as a characteristic class for flat bundles. , 44(1987), no. 1-3, 137-164. W. Goldman, G. Margulis, Y. Minsky, Complete flat Lorentz $3$-manifolds and laminations on hyperbolic surfaces, H. Hu, Identities on hyperbolic surfaces, group actions, the Markoff and Hurwitz equations, PhD thesis, National University of Singapore,[*in preparation*]{}.
H. Hu and S.P. Tan, Dilogarithm identities for small hyperbolic surfaces,
H. Hu, S.P. Tan, Y. Zhang, New variations of the McShane identity,
H. Hu, S.P. Tan, Y. Zhang Coxeter group actions on ${\mathbb C}^n$ preserving the Hurwitz equation - dynamics and identities,
I. Kim, J. Kim, S. P. Tan, McShane’s Identity in Rank One Symmetric Spaces .
F. Labourie, G. McShane, Cross ratios and identities for higher Teichmüller-Thurston theory, (2009), no. 2, 279–345
F. Labourie, S.P. Tan, Extension of Bowditch’s proof of McShane’s identity to higher genus. [*in preparation*]{}.
D. Lee, M. Sakuma, A variation of McShane’s identity for 2-bridge links, [*to appear, Geometry and Topology*]{}.
L. Lewin. Structural Properties of Polylogarithms, [*Mathematical Surveys and Monographs*]{}, AMS, Providence, RI, 1991. F. Luo, S. Tan, A dilogarithm identity on Moduli spaces of curves, F. Luo, S. Tan, A dilogarithm identity on moduli spaces of compact surfaces with boundary and non-orientable surfaces,
H. Masai, G. McShane, Equidecomposability, volume formulae and orthospectra, B. Maskit, Kleinian Groups, [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}, Springer-Verlag, 1987. G. McShane, A remarkable identity for lengths of curves, Phd. Thesis, Warwick, 1991. G. McShane, Simple geodesics and a series constant over Teichmuller space, (1998), no. 3, 607–632. G. McShane, , Bull. London Math. Soc. [**36**]{} (2004), no. 2, 181–187.
G. McShane, Simple geodesics on surfaces of genus 2, 2006, 31-38. M. Mirzakhani, Simple geodesics and Weil-Petersson volumes of moduli spaces of bordered Riemann surfaces, Phd. Thesis, Harvard, 2005. M. Mirzakhani, Simple geodesics and Weil-Petersson volumes of moduli spaces of bordered Riemann surfaces, (2007), no. 1, 179-222.
P. Nicholls. , volume 143 of [ *London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series*]{}. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.
P. Norbury Lengths of geodesics on non-orientable hyperbolic surfaces, (2008), 153-176. A. Papadopoulos, G. Théret, Shortening all the simple closed geodesics on surfaces with boundary, (2010), 1775-1784 J. Parkkonen, F. Paulin, Counting common perpendicular arcs in negative curvature. H. Parlier, Lengths of geodesics on Riemann surfaces with boundary, (2005), no. 2, 227-236. L.J. Rogers. On Function Sum Theorems Connected with the Series $\sum_{1}^{\infty} \frac{x^n}{n^2}$ [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} 4, 169-189, 1907 D. Sullivan, The density at infinity of a discrete group of hyperbolic motions, [*Publ. Math. IHES,*]{} [**50**]{} (1979), pp. 171-202. S.P. Tan, Y.L. Wong and Y. Zhang, Generalizations of McShane’s identity to hyperbolic cone-surfaces, (2006), no. 1, 73–112. S.P. Tan, Y.L. Wong and Y. Zhang, Necessary and sufficient conditions for McShane’s identity and variations, (2006), 119–217.
S.P. Tan, Y.L. Wong and Y. Zhang, Generalized Markoff maps and McShane’s identity, , [**217**]{} (2008) 761-813. S.P. Tan, Y.L. Wong and Y. Zhang, McShane’s identity for classical Schottky groups, (2008) 183–200.
S.P. Tan, Y.L. Wong and Y. Zhang, End invariants for ${\rm SL}(2, {\mathbf C})$ characters of the one-holed torus, (2008) 385–412.
N. Vlamis, Moments of a Length Function on the Boundary of a Hyperbolic Manifold. Y. Zhang, Hyperbolic cone-surfaces, generalized Markoff maps, Schottky groups and McShane’s identity, Ph.D. Thesis, National University of Singapore, 2004.
[^1]: This work was partially supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (\#266344 to Martin Bridgeman)
[^2]: Tan was partially supported by the National University of Singapore academic research grant R-146-000-156-112.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
---
Research highlight 1
Research highlight 2
[00]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The properties of underluminous type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) of the 91bg subclass have yet to be theoretically understood. Here, we take a closer look at the structure of the dim SN Ia 2005bl. We infer the abundance and density profiles needed to reproduce the observed spectral evolution between $-$$6$d and $+$$12.9$d with respect to $B$ maximum. Initially, we assume the density structure of the standard explosion model W7; then we test whether better fits to the observed spectra can be obtained using modified density profiles with different total masses and kinetic energies. Compared to normal SNe Ia, we find a lack of burning products especially in the rapidly-expanding outer layers ($v$$\gtrsim$$15000$[km s$^{-1}$]{}). The zone between $\sim$$8500$ and $15000$[km s$^{-1}$]{} is dominated by oxygen and includes some amount of intermediate mass elements. At lower velocities, intermediate mass elements dominate. This holds down to the lowest zones investigated in this work. This fact, together with negligible-to-moderate abundances of Fe-group elements, indicates large-scale incomplete Si burning or explosive O burning, possibly in a detonation at low densities. Consistently with the reduced nucleosynthesis, we find hints of a kinetic energy lower than that of a canonical SN Ia: The spectra strongly favour reduced densities at $\gtrsim$$13000$[km s$^{-1}$]{} compared to W7, and are very well fitted using a rescaled W7 model with original mass ($1.38$${M_{\odot}}$), but a kinetic energy reduced by $\sim$$30\%$ (i.e. from $1.33$$\cdot$$10^{51}$erg to $0.93$$\cdot$$10^{51}$erg).'
author:
- |
Stephan Hachinger$^{1}$, Paolo A. Mazzali$^{1,2,3}$, Stefan Taubenberger$^{1}$,\
[Rüdiger Pakmor$^{1}$, Wolfgang Hillebrandt$^{1}$]{}\
$^1$Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, 85748 Garching, Germany\
$^2$Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, 56126 Pisa, Italy\
$^3$Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica-OAPd, vicolo dell’Osservatorio 5, 35122 Padova, Italy
date: 'arXiv v2, 2009-11-02. The definitive version is available at [www.blackwell-synergy.com](http://www.blackwell-synergy.com) (MNRAS 399, 1238).'
title: |
Spectral analysis of the 91bg-like Type Ia SN 2005bl:\
Low luminosity, low velocities, incomplete burning.
---
supernovae: general – techniques: spectroscopic – radiative transfer
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) play a key role in modern astrophysics. They are invaluable as distance indicators for cosmology (e.g. @per97 [@per99; @rie98; @ast06; @woo07]) because of the high accuracy with which the absolute luminosity of most SNe Ia can be inferred. The luminosity varies among different objects, but the variations correlate with distance-independent light-curve parameters such as the decline in magnitudes in the $B$-band within 15 days after $B$ maximum [@phi93]. Luminosity calibration techniques exploiting this fact are mostly applied to “normal” SNe Ia [@bra93] not showing poorly-understood peculiarities. These SNe supposedly emerge from a homogeneous sample of progenitors, which are thought to be C-O white dwarfs (WDs) accreting matter from a non-degenerate companion star (single-degenerate scenario).
In the single-degenerate paradigm, the smooth variations among “normal” SNe Ia [@bra93; @nug95] can be explained within a delayed-detonation scenario [@kho91]: an initially subsonic explosion (deflagration) undergoes a deflagration-detonation transition (DDT) and proceeds as a supersonic detonation afterwards. The efficiency and extent of burning in the initial deflagration may then vary from object to object, which affects the nucleosynthesis and causes the observed variability [@maz07].
Extremely sub- or superluminous SNe Ia [e.g. @fil92bg; @phi92; @lei93; @how06], on the other hand, are more difficult to explain. Here, progenitors deviating from the Chandrasekhar mass may play a role, or some explosions might result from a merger of two WDs (double-degenerate scenario). Progenitor systems producing peculiar SNe Ia might also produce some rather “normal” explosions, contaminating the sample of homogeneous explosions used for distance determination. Clarifying which explosion scenarios lead to SNe Ia at which rates is therefore important for supernova cosmology, but it will also be of value for other fields. Studies concerned with the binary progenitors and population synthesis [e.g. @rui09], observed supernova rates [@gre08] or the impact of supernovae on their surroundings [e.g. @sat07] will profit from understanding the origin of peculiar supernovae.
Thus motivated, we analyse the 91bg-like SN 2005bl [@tau08]. SNe of the 91bg subclass are dim and decline rapidly [e.g. @fil92bg; @lei93; @tur96; @gar04]. They were used, with other SNe, to infer the slope of the relation between luminosity and decline rate of SNe Ia [@phi93], but later it became clear that dim SNe decline even more rapidly than expected from a linear luminosity$-$decline-rate relation among normal SNe [@phi99; @tau08]. Spectroscopically, 91bg-like SNe show characteristic peculiarities, such as low line velocities around $B$ maximum [e.g. @fil92bg] and clear spectral signatures of [Ti [ii]{}]{}, indicating lower ionisation [@maz97bg]. All these properties together are consistent with a low mass of newly-synthesised [$^{56}$Ni]{}. To date, no elaborate explosion models have convincingly reproduced 91bg-like SNe Ia. Pure deflagration models show even lower expansion velocities than observed in these objects, especially when little [$^{56}$Ni]{} is produced [cf. @sah08]. Delayed-detonation models might explain 91bg-like objects within a unified scenario for SNe Ia [@maz07]. Yet, there are hints of qualitative differences. One example are the improved fits to spectra of SN 1991bg of @maz97bg, enabled by a reduction in ejecta mass and kinetic energy with respect to canonical values. Ultimately, only refined analyses of photometric and spectroscopic properties can constrain explosion models.
We use a spectral synthesis code to analyse the structure and abundance stratification of SN 2005bl, reproducing its observed spectral evolution. The “abundance tomography“ method [@ste05], which we use, exploits the fact that the optically thick region of the ejecta becomes smaller as time progresses. Thus, deeper and deeper layers contribute to spectrum formation. Modelling a time series of spectra, we infer the abundance profile from the outer envelope to as deep a layer as possible. We then test whether variations in mass or explosion energy are needed to explain the differences between spectra of normal and dim SNe Ia. This is done performing abundance tomography with various density profiles, and assessing the quality of the resulting spectral fits. The range in masses and energies sampled by the modified models starts at $0.5$$\cdot$$M_{\textrm{Ch}}$ / $\sim$5$\cdot$$10^{50}$erg and extends to $1.45$$\cdot$$M_{\textrm{Ch}}$ / $\sim$2$\cdot$$10^{51}$erg ($M_{\textrm{Ch}}$: Chandrasekhar mass, $1.4{M_{\odot}}$). This choice has been motivated by parameters inferred for observed extreme SNe Ia of all kinds [@maz97bg; @how06].
The paper is structured as follows: First, we give a short introduction to the methods employed (Sec. \[sec:method\]). We then present the models for SN 2005bl (Sec. \[sec:models\]), discuss and assess them (Sec. \[sec:discussion\]), and finally draw conclusions (Sec. \[sec:conclusions\]).
Method {#sec:method}
======
The radiative transfer code we use and the abundance tomography method have already been described [@ste05; @maz08eo]. Thus, we focus on aspects necessary for an understanding of the present study.
Radiative transfer
------------------
We use a 1D Monte Carlo (MC) radiative transfer code (@abb85, @maz93a, @luc99, @maz00 and @ste05) to compute SN spectra from a given density and abundance profile. The aim is to infer the chemical structure adjusting the abundances within the envelope until an optimal fit to the observed spectra is obtained.
The code computes the radiative transfer through the SN ejecta above an assumed photosphere. The densities within the envelope are calculated from an initial density profile describing the state of the ejecta after homologous expansion has set in, which is a few seconds after the explosion (e.g. @roe05). The ejecta expand radially with $r=v\cdot t$, where $r$ is the distance from the centre, $t$ the time from explosion (see beginning of Sec. \[sec:models\]), and $v$ the velocity. Radius and velocity can be used interchangeably as coordinates.
From the photosphere, which is located at an adjustable $v_{\textrm{ph}}$, thermal radiation \[$I_{\nu}^{+}=B_{\nu}(T_{\textrm{ph}})$\] is assumed to be emitted into the atmosphere. This is of course quite a crude approximation to the pseudo-continuous radiation field deep in the ejecta [@sau06]. Notable deviations mainly appear in the red and infrared, where a departure of the flux level from that of the observed spectra sometimes cannot be avoided.
The radiation is simulated as ”photon packets“, which undergo Thomson scattering as well as line excitation-deexcitation processes, treated in the Sobolev approximation. The process of photon branching is included, which implies that the transitions for excitation and deexcitation can be different. In a branching event, the photon packet is not split up. Instead, it is emitted as a whole with a new frequency corresponding to a possible downward transition. This ”indivisible packet“ approach [@luc99] enforces radiative equilibrium. The downward transition is randomly selected, taking into account effective emission probabilities. Thus, if a large number of packets are simulated, the distribution of decays reflects the actual one.
A modified nebular approximation, which mimics effects of non-local thermodynamic equilibrium (NLTE), is used to calculate the action of the radiation field onto the gas. For each of the $30$ zones into which the envelope is discretised here, a radiation temperature $T_R$ and an equivalent dilution factor $W$ are calculated. These quantities mostly determine the excitation and ionisation state [@abb85]. Only the variables describing the state of the gas are discretised; for the paths and redshifts of photons, and for the positions of interaction surfaces of lines, continuous values are allowed.
The code iterates the radiation field and the gas conditions. Furthermore, $T_\textrm{ph}$ is automatically modified so as to match a given output luminosity $L$, taking backscattering into account. After convergence, the emerging spectrum is obtained from a formal integral solution of the transfer equation [@luc99].
Model $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E'_{\textrm{k}} / E_{\textrm{k},W7}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $M'\!/ M_{W7}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E'_{\textrm{k}}$ \[$10^{51}$ erg\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $M'$ \[${M_{\odot}}$\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{M'}$ / $\left(\frac{E_{\textrm{k}}}{M}\right)_{\!W7\!\!\!\!\!}$
------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w7e0.35 0.35 1.00 0.47 1.38 0.35
w7e0.5m0.5 0.50 0.50 0.66 0.69 1.0
w7e0.5m0.7 0.50 0.70 0.66 0.97 0.7
w7e0.5 0.50 1.00 0.66 1.38 0.5
w7e0.5m1.25 0.50 1.25 0.66 1.73 0.4
w7e0.7m0.7 0.70 0.70 0.93 0.97 1.0
w7e0.7 0.70 1.00 0.93 1.38 0.7
w7e0.7m1.25 0.70 1.25 0.93 1.73 0.6
w7e0.7m1.45 0.70 1.45 0.93 2.00 0.5
w7m0.7 1.00 0.70 1.33 0.97 1.4
w7 1.00 1.00 1.33 1.38 1.0
w7m1.25 1.00 1.25 1.33 1.73 0.8
w7m1.45 1.00 1.45 1.33 2.00 0.7
w7e1.45m1.45 1.45 1.45 1.93 2.00 1.0
: Density models used in this work, and their total kinetic energy $E'_\textrm{k}$ and mass $M'$. The models are named according to the scaling factors for kinetic energy and mass with respect to W7 $\left(\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{E_{\textrm{k},W7}}\textrm{ and }\frac{M'}{M_{W7}}\right)$, and sorted according to their kinetic energy $E'_\textrm{k}$.[]{data-label="tab:scaledmodels"}
Density profiles {#sec:densityprofile}
----------------
As a first step, we adopt the density structure of the standard explosion model W7 [@nom84] as a basis for our calculations. We then repeat the abundance tomography with modified density profiles, changing the total mass and kinetic energy of the explosion. To achieve this, the values for each grid point in the W7 velocity-density structure are scaled uniformly (i.e. all velocities by one scaling factor, and all densities by another one) according to: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho'& = &\rho_{W7}\cdot\left(\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{E_{\textrm{k},W7}}\right)^{-3/2}\cdot\left(\frac{M'}{M_{W7}}\right)^{5/2}\\
v' & = & v_{W7}\cdot\left(\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{E_{\textrm{k},W7}}\right)^{1/2}\cdot\left(\frac{M'}{M_{W7}}\right)^{-1/2}.\end{aligned}$$
Here, $\rho'$ and $v'$ are the density and velocity coordinates of each grid point after the scaling. $E'_\textrm{k}$ and $M'$ are the new total kinetic energy and mass.
The scaled density models used in this work are listed in Table \[tab:scaledmodels\], which gives an overview of the respective $\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{E_\textrm{k}}$ and $\frac{M'}{M}$ ratios. We have not implemented every possible energy-mass combination within the limits given in Section \[sec:introduction\]. Instead, we first constrained ourselves to a few test cases. Then, we sampled the $E'_\textrm{k}$$-$$M'$ plane more densely in the region where models of acceptable quality emerged (see Sec. \[sec:assessment\]).
W7 naturally shows some differences with respect to more recent and realistic hydrodynamical simulations, and the scaled density profiles can also be expected to do so. However, it is possible to obtain good fits to spectra of “normal“ SNe Ia like SN 2002bo [@ste05] using the W7 density structure. The results for the scaled profiles should therefore bring out possible differences between dim SNe Ia and normal ones.
Abundance tomography
--------------------
The abundance tomography method [@ste05] uses a series of photospheric spectra to establish the abundance distribution within a supernova. The idea is that the opaque core of the expanding ejecta shrinks with time. Thus, a time series of spectra carries information about the abundances in the ejecta at different depths. In the picture adopted in our code, involving an approximate photosphere, the photosphere recedes to lower velocities with time. Deeper and deeper layers become visible, leaving their imprint on the spectra.
The earliest spectrum available can be used to obtain the photospheric velocity at that time and the abundances in the outer envelope. To this aim, we optimise the code input parameters to match that spectrum, as in a one-zone spectral model (e.g. @maz97bg). The subsequent spectrum will carry the imprint of the material in the outer envelope and additionally that of the layers inside which the photosphere has receded. Because the abundances in the outer zone are already known, the abundances of the layers which have become visible can now be inferred, together with the new velocity of the photosphere. This procedure is then continued with later spectra.
The optimum parameters inferred from a spectral model are subject to some uncertainty (see also the discussion in @maz08eo). One important reason for this can be degeneracy, which makes the spectra appear similar for different parameter sets. The composition adopted for an outer layer in an early-epoch model may therefore be in conflict with a later spectrum, if the later spectrum is still influenced by the outer layers. In such cases, we revised the parameters for the outer layers so as to optimise the earlier and later spectra at the same time.
Models {#sec:models}
======
{width="14.5cm"}
We analyse five spectra of SN 2005bl, taken at , , , and with respect to $B$ maximum. Observational data and one-zone spectral models have already been presented in @tau08. As in that paper, we assume a total reddening of $E(B-V)$$=$$0.20$ and a $B$-band rise time of 17d to calculate the time $t$ from the onset of the explosion.
Later spectra were not modelled, as the photosphere has already receded to $v_\textrm{ph}$$<$$3500$[km s$^{-1}$]{} at \[for comparison, @maz08eo found $v_\textrm{ph}$$=$$4700$[km s$^{-1}$]{} at and $v_\textrm{ph}$$=$$2800$[km s$^{-1}$]{} at in SN 2004eo\]. As the photosphere reaches the [$^{56}$Ni]{}-rich zone, some energy deposition should realistically take place above the photosphere itself. This is is not taken into account in our code. Thus, to explore the innermost layers one would need to model nebular spectra (which are not available for SN 2005bl) at least as a consistency check.
The outermost ejecta of SNe Ia may partly consist of unburned material [cf. @maz07]. As the one-zone models for SN 2005bl [@tau08] showed too much absorption by burned material at high velocities, we introduced a zone with strongly reduced abundances of burning products above $v$$\gtrsim$$15000$[km s$^{-1}$]{}. This was done limiting the mass fractions of burning products in this zone to $\lesssim$$\frac{1}{10}$ their value at the photosphere at . The unburned material at $v$$\gtrsim$$15000$[km s$^{-1}$]{}, which then constitutes $\gtrsim$$98$$\%$ by mass at these velocities, is assumed to consist of carbon and oxygen in a $\sim$$1$:$1$ ratio. In a preliminary stratified-abundance model, this was found clearly to improve the synthetic spectra, also with respect to the one-zone models (cf. Sec. \[sec:taubenbergercomparison\]). Consequently, we implemented such a zone in all our stratified-abundance models (except when using the w7e0.35 density profile, which has negligible densities in the outer layers).
Below, we first discuss an abundance tomography experiment based on the original W7 density structure. We compare our synthetic spectra with the observed ones and with the one-zone model spectra of @tau08. After discussing the abundance profile, we then present models with different total mass and kinetic energy. Parameters (abundances, photospheric velocities, etc.) of all models are compiled in Appendix \[app:modelparameters\].
Abundance tomography based on W7
--------------------------------
The spectral models discussed here are shown in Fig. \[fig:sequence-w7\], where the most important spectral features are marked.
### 2005 April 16: -6d, $v_\textrm{ph}$$=$$8400\mathrm{km}\;\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ {#sec:firstspectrum-w7}
At this epoch, the supernova shows a spectrum dominated by singly-ionised species. In normal SNe, usually also doubly-ionised species are detected at such early epochs (e.g. @maz08eo). The zone between $8400$ and $15000\textrm{{km~s$^{-1}$}}$ is dominated by oxygen. The absence of the [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$ emission peak suggests absorption by [C [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6580$. However, the mass fraction of C between $8400$ and $15000\textrm{{km~s$^{-1}$}}$ must be $<$$10\%$; otherwise the [C [ii]{}]{} feature would become too deep. Burned material (oxygen as a burning product excluded) makes up for no more than $\sim$$15\%$ in mass according to the observed line depths.
While numerous lines of intermediate-mass elements (IME) are visible, there are no absorptions that can unambiguously be attributed to Fe. We determined an upper limit to the Fe abundance of $0.01\%$, avoiding the appearance of a spurious [Fe [ii]{}]{} feature at $\sim$$4950\textrm{\AA}$. Yet, some burning products heavier than Si and S are seen in the spectra: some per mille of Ti and Cr are necessary to model the absorption trough at $\sim$$4100\textrm{\AA}$ and the feature at $\sim$$4700\textrm{\AA}$, respectively. These elements also contribute significantly to line blocking in the UV [@sau08].
### 2005 April 17: -5d, $v_\textrm{ph}$$=$$8100\mathrm{km}\;\mathrm{s^{-1}}$
The April 17 spectrum is very similar to the previous one. As the material directly above the photosphere is highly ionised, many features in this spectrum depend strongly on the abundances above $8400$[km s$^{-1}$]{}.
At $\sim$$4950\textrm{\AA}$, the stratified model has an absorption trough too deep. This is mostly due to the [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda5049$ line, whose strength largely depends on the Si abundance above $v$$=$$8400$[km s$^{-1}$]{}. We chose this abundance so as to match the [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda5972$ line of this and the previous spectrum, and a simultaneous match of the [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda5049$ line was not possible. Apart from this and some flux mismatch in the red, the observations are fitted well.
### 2005 April 19: -3d, $v_\textrm{ph}$$=$$7500\mathrm{km}\;\mathrm{s^{-1}}$
This model again matches the observed spectrum nicely in most regions. The Ti-dominated trough at $\sim$$4100\textrm{\AA}$ is now deeper than in the earlier spectra, and relatively hard to fit. A good model requires Ti abundances of the order of a few percent at the photosphere, and relatively large Ti abundances in the zones above. Thus, we set the Ti mass fraction to $1\%$ between $8100$ and $8400$[km s$^{-1}$]{}. At larger velocities, the abundances are sharply constrained to some per mille by the features in the spectrum.
There is still no evidence for significant amounts of Fe in the spectrum. Fe mass fractions of a few per cent in the layers between $7500$ and $8400$[km s$^{-1}$]{} are compatible with the observations, but not strictly required.
### 2005 April 26: +4.8d, $v_\textrm{ph}$$=$$6600\mathrm{km}\;\mathrm{s^{-1}}$ {#sec:05blw7-p48}
In order to fit this spectrum with its low flux in the UV and blue, the model atmosphere must contain sufficient amounts of Ti, Cr and Fe. The layers at $v$$>$$8400$[km s$^{-1}$]{} contain relatively small amounts of these elements, as dictated by the pre-maximum spectral features and UV flux. To compensate for this, large amounts are needed close to the photosphere. While the flux-blocking in the UV is quite sensitive to the abundances close to the photosphere, the depth of individual features (such as [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda5972$) is still more strongly influenced by the composition at $>$$8400$[km s$^{-1}$]{}.
The most notable deviation the model from the observed spectrum occurs in the blue wing of [O [i]{}]{} $\lambda 7773$, where there is too much absorption. In the outermost zone, O could only be replaced by C, but we already have a $\sim$1$:$1 C-O mixture there. If we wanted to reduce the [O [i]{}]{} absorption strength by a factor of 2 in these layers, we would have to postulate a $\sim$3$:$1 C-O mixture, which would seem quite ad-hoc. In the layers between $8400$ and $15000\textrm{{km~s$^{-1}$}}$, the amount of oxygen cannot be reduced (cf. Sec. \[sec:firstspectrum-w7\]). In Sec. \[sec:w7e0.7spectra\], we will show that a reduction of the density in the outer layers can cure this problem.
There is some mismatch around $5700$Å, which seems to be caused by a low pseudo-continuum. This impression is however also due to [Na [i]{}]{}$\;\!$D absorption at the peak between the [S [ii]{}]{} trough and the [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda5972$ feature. We introduced a small amount of Na above $8100$[km s$^{-1}$]{} to obtain at least some [Na [i]{}]{}$\;\!$D absorption at . The spurious absorption appearing at then indicates inaccuracies in the Na ionisation profile and its evolution with time, a common issue with synthetic spectra [@maz97bg].
### 2005 May 04: $+12.9\mathrm{d}$, $v_\textrm{ph}$$=$$3250\mathrm{km}\;\mathrm{s^{-1}}$
This model carries some conceptual uncertainty, as a possible energy deposition by [$^{56}$Ni]{} above the photosphere is not simulated in our code. Yet, the overall fit is satisfactory. Some incompatibilities with the abundances inferred for the outer layers could not be resolved. It was, for example, impossible to get rid of the absorptions at $\sim$$6500$ and $\sim$$7700\textrm{\AA}$, which are due to [Ti [ii]{}]{} $\lambda\lambda6680,6718,6785$ and [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda7849$, respectively. These lines were not visible in the earlier spectra.
The photosphere is now deep inside the Si-dominated zone. The extended red wing of the observed feature at $\sim$$9000$Å, caused mostly by [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda 9242$, indicates a large Si mass fraction. On the other hand, the small flux in the blue and UV already demands a larger fraction of Fe-group elements. While the exact amounts of Fe, Co and Ni are somewhat uncertain, their sum can be estimated to be $\sim$$30\%$. The exact number depends on the abundances of other elements blocking UV flux (mostly Ti and Cr) between $3250$ and $6600$[km s$^{-1}$]{}, which are somewhat uncertain.
![Abundances of W7 nucleosynthesis calculations [@iwa99 top panel] vs. abundance tomography of SN 2005bl, based on the original W7 density profile ( model, bottom panel).[]{data-label="fig:abundances-w7"}](abundances-w7-orig.eps "fig:"){width="8.0cm"}\
![Abundances of W7 nucleosynthesis calculations [@iwa99 top panel] vs. abundance tomography of SN 2005bl, based on the original W7 density profile ( model, bottom panel).[]{data-label="fig:abundances-w7"}](abund-models-05bl-w7.eps "fig:"){width="8.0cm"}
### Comparison to one-zone models {#sec:taubenbergercomparison}
Compared to one-zone models \[@tau08, shown in Fig. \[fig:sequence-w7\] as the magenta line\], the stratified model sequence clearly constitutes an improvement in fitting the observations. The main reason for this is the C/O-dominated shell introduced at $v$$>$$15000\textrm{{km~s$^{-1}$}}$, which makes spectral lines of burned material narrower. The changes with respect to the one-zone model are especially apparent in the pre-maximum spectra: the [Ca [ii]{}]{} H&K and [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$ lines absorb less at high velocities, so that in the blue wings of the features only small mismatches are left. The [Ti [ii]{}]{}-dominated trough around $4100$Å now has more structure. Some deviations, even a bit more apparent then in the one-zone models, remain in the red wing of [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$ in the earliest spectra. This is largely due to re-emission in this wavelength range, caused by elements such as Ti and Cr which block and redistribute UV flux. These elements are, however, necessary to model the spectral features (see Sec. \[sec:firstspectrum-w7\]).
### Abundance profile
In Fig. \[fig:abundances-w7\], we compare the abundance profile derived in our tomography experiment to the nucleosynthesis in W7 [@iwa99], which approximately represents a normally-luminous SN Ia [@nom84]. In our models, unburned material (counting in all of the oxygen) constitutes a much larger fraction of the ejecta, almost the outer $\sim$$0.7{M_{\odot}}$. Our analysis of the outer layers is still a bit coarse. A better-resolved analysis, yielding more exact results e.g. for the amount of IME between $8400$ and $15000$[km s$^{-1}$]{}, would be possible if spectra at earlier epochs were available (see Sec. \[sec:earlierspectra\]).
Below the outer $\sim$$0.7{M_{\odot}}$, the ejecta of SN 2005bl are dominated by IME. The transition happens in the zone between $6400$ and $8400$[km s$^{-1}$]{}. The exact transition velocity is difficult to infer, as the post-maximum spectra show only a limited sensitivity to the Si abundances below $8400$[km s$^{-1}$]{}. @maz97bg have conducted a fine analysis of the [O [i]{}]{} $\lambda7773$ line profile in SN 1991bg, and found a lower cut-off velocity of $8600$[km s$^{-1}$]{} for O. We thus implemented a relatively sharp decrease of the O abundance in favour of Si below the photosphere.
The layers between $6400$ and $8400$[km s$^{-1}$]{} already consist of $\sim$$100\%$ [$^{56}$Ni]{} in W7. We, in contrast, find (besides IME) comparatively large abundances of Ti and Cr as products of incomplete burning at these velocities (peak values in the order of some per cent). These elements contribute to the formation of the observed trough around $\sim$$4200$Å which is characteristic of 91bg-like objects past maximum, but also to the line blocking in the UV. To some extent, their effects can also be mimicked by Fe, Co and Ni. With overly large amounts of Fe, however, individual lines in the optical may show up, and the flux distribution in the UV and blue may deviate from what is observed. Large abundances of [$^{56}$Ni]{} or its decay product [$^{56}$Co]{} outside the centre would be in conflict with the nebular spectra of dim SNe Ia, which show very narrow lines [@maz97bg].
The deepest zones that we reach with our analysis are still dominated by IME. However, there are signs of a transition to the NSE-burning zone: the large amount of line blocking and flux redistribution needed to fit the spectrum clearly points towards Fe-group abundances of several $10\%$.
Compared to the one-zone models of @tau08 epoch by epoch, the abundances of burning products at the respective photospheres are larger. In a model with homogeneous composition, the inferred abundances will always be some average between those at the photosphere and those further outwards, where less burning products are present.
Models with modified density profiles {#sec:modelcomparison}
-------------------------------------
{width="16cm"}
{width="16cm"}
We now show some representative spectral models based on modified density profiles (Sec. \[sec:densityprofile\]). The reader interested in the abundances is referred to Section \[sec:w7e0.7discussion\] and Appendix \[app:modelparameters\]. Here, we focus on the differences in the spectra with respect to the W7-based models. To facilitate the understanding of these differences, we first discuss the properties of the scaled density models.
Our scaled density models span a range of masses and kinetic energies (see Table \[tab:scaledmodels\]). Scaling the total mass and energy, the amplitude and/or form of the W7 density structure is changed. What exactly happens depends on the $\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{M'}$ ratio of the final profile with respect to $\frac{E_{W7}}{M_{W7}}$. Here, we distinguish the following three cases, which result in three classes of scaled density profiles:
- $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{M'}\! = \! \frac{E_{W7}}{M_{W7}}$: In this case, the scaled velocity-density profile is obtained from W7 by reducing the density at each velocity by a uniform factor. The form of the density profile in velocity space is thus left unchanged.
- $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{M'}\! < \! \frac{E_{W7}}{M_{W7}}$: Here, the energy per unit mass is reduced. This means that mass elements are ”shifted“ towards lower velocities. The density profile becomes steeper in velocity space, and the relative amount of mass at high velocities is smaller.
- $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{M'}\! > \! \frac{E_{W7}}{M_{W7}}$: Increasing the energy per unit mass ”shifts“ material outwards, opposite to the case before. As the spectra of 91bg-like SNe Ia lack absorption at high velocities in *all* lines, this is generally disfavoured. Thus, we calculated only one model sequence with such a density profile (w7m0.7).
The models we discuss below are exemplary for these three scaling types. They are named after the underlying density models (e.g. is based on w7m0.7).
### Reduced mass and energy, $\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{M'}\! = \! \frac{E_{W7}}{M_{W7}}$:
In these models, the density is decreased at all radii. This leads to a slight improvement of the spectra (Fig. \[fig:sequence-w7e0.7m0.7\]), as the photospheres are deeper inside the ejecta, and the absorption velocities tend to be lower. Owing to the lower densities, larger mass fractions of burned material are necessary to fit the line depths. At high velocities, however, oxygen still dominates and the high-velocity absorption in the [O [i]{}]{} $\lambda 7773$ line only becomes a bit weaker.
### Reduced energy, $\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{M'}\! < \! \frac{E_{W7}}{M_{W7}}$: {#sec:w7e0.7spectra}
In the w7e0.7 density profile (Fig. \[fig:sequence-w7e0.7\]), the densities are significantly increased below $\sim$$6500$[km s$^{-1}$]{} and decreased above $\sim$$13000$[km s$^{-1}$]{}. Thus, the spectral features become narrower compared to the W7-based sequence. Line widths and positions now generally fit the structure of the observed spectra better.
Owing to the lower densities in the outer part, there is less line blocking by heavy elements. This decreases the flux redistribution, so that the flux level in the red wing of [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$ and redwards is matched better, especially at early times.
At the same time, the spurious high-velocity absorption is practically gone in Ca H&K and [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$, but even more importantly in [O [i]{}]{} $\lambda7773$. The reason for this is again the decreased density in the outer layers. As the abundances in the outer layers, especially of oxygen, are not fundamentally changed with the density modification, the decrease in density translates into weaker absorption at high velocities.
### Increased mass, $\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{M'}\! < \! \frac{E_{W7}}{M_{W7}}$:
{width="16cm"}
Despite the larger mass, the spectra show a somewhat improved quality compared to W7 (Fig. \[fig:sequence-w7m1.25\], see also line velocity measurements in Sec. \[sec:assessment\]). This illustrates that a super-Chandrasekhar total mass is not necessarily incompatible with the spectra of SN 2005bl. Remarkably, the improvement over the W7-based sequence is due to *decreased* densities in the outermost layers ($v$$\gtrsim$$15000$[km s$^{-1}$]{}) of the warped density profile.
### Reduced mass, $\frac{E'_\textrm{k}}{M'}\! > \! \frac{E_{W7}}{M_{W7}}$:
{width="16cm"}
Here, the densities in the outermost layers are increased with respect to W7. This can directly be seen in the spectra (Fig. \[fig:sequence-w7m0.7\]): all the problems which are reduced in (compared to the original W7-based model sequence) are now exacerbated.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Assessment of the models based on different density profiles – mass and kinetic energy of dim SNe Ia. {#sec:assessment}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having discussed some representative cases in Section \[sec:modelcomparison\], we now systematically compare all models calculated on the basis of different density profiles. Our aim is to judge the quality of each model sequence in a simple and meaningful manner. To achieve this, we introduce three quality criteria:
1. *Consistence of spectra.* The main motivation to test modifications of the density were mismatches in the line velocities or widths remaining in the W7-based model sequence, especially in [O [i]{}]{} $\lambda7773$ and [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$. Other lines of the spectrum did not show deviations as apparent, apart from [Ca [ii]{}]{} H&K, which behaves quite similar to [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$[^1]. To assess if the lines are better fitted using different density profiles, we measured the velocities of [O [i]{}]{} $\lambda7773$ and [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$ in each synthetic and observed spectrum at , and . Then we calculated, for each model sequence and line, the velocity difference between the observed and the synthetic spectra, averaged over the epochs.
2. *Consistence of kinetic energy.* We calculated a hypothetical kinetic energy ($E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}$) for each of the abundance profiles inferred. This is the nuclear energy release (assuming a pre-explosion composition of equal amounts C and O) minus the binding energy $|E_\textrm{bind}|$ of the WD (gravitational energy[^2] minus thermal and, in case of rotation, rotational energy). To judge the quality of a model sequence, we then compared the kinetic energy assumed in the density scaling ($E'_\textrm{k}$) to $E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}$. The calculation of $E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}$ depends on some assumptions, the first of which is that the mass fraction of IME in the obscured core below the photosphere is $\frac{1}{2}$ of that above the photosphere. Actually, this mass fraction may be between zero and the IME mass fraction above the photosphere. The possible error due to this is given below. The binding energy $|E_\textrm{bind}|$ of the progenitors (except for the $0.69$${M_{\odot}}$ ones) was calculated following @yoo05, who assume a white dwarf rotation profile resulting from binary evolution. We used their ”$BE(M;\rho_c)$“ relation (eq. 33), assuming a central density $\rho_c$ of $2.0$$\cdot$$10^9$$\textrm{g}/\textrm{cm}^3$ (which is typical for WD ignition) for $M'$$\geq$$M_\textrm{Ch}$. For sub-Chandrasekhar WDs, the central densities are lower even in the absence of rotation. We assumed negligible rotation for these cases, and obtained the central density for a given mass inverting formula (22) of @yoo05[^3].
3. *Expected light-curve width.* For models with good consistence based on the first two criteria, we additionally can check whether the density and abundance structure implies a width of the bolometric light curve ($\tau_\textrm{LC}$) compatible with that of dim SNe Ia. We calculated an expected light curve width for each model sequence, following @maz07, from the respective kinetic energy $E_{\mathrm{k}}$, ejecta mass $M'$, and total masses of IME and NSE material $M_{\textrm{IME}},M_{\textrm{NSE}}$ as: $$\tau_{\textrm{LC}}=\mathcal{N}\cdot \tilde{\kappa}^{\frac{1}{2}} E_{\mathrm{k}}^{-\frac{1}{4}} M'^{\frac{3}{2}}.$$ Here, $\tilde{\kappa}\!=\!(0.1M_{\textrm{IME}}+M_{\textrm{NSE}})/M'$ is proportional to the opacity estimate of @maz07, and $\mathcal{N}$ is a normalisation factor chosen so as to agree with their estimates of light-curve widths. In order to calculate $\tilde{\kappa}$, we can assume different burning efficiencies in the core, as above; additionally, we may adopt as $E_{\mathrm{k}}$ either the hypothetical value $E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}$ or the value $E'_{\textrm{k}}$ from the density scaling. We thus calculated again an average $\tau_{\textrm{LC}}$ and an estimate of the error introduced by these degrees of freedom. In order to judge the models, the values $\tau_{\textrm{LC}}$ were compared to $\tau_{\textrm{LC,dim}}$$=$$13.9$d, which is the average expected light curve width for the similarly dim SNe 1991bg and 1999by [@maz07].
We now discuss the quality of the models in terms of the three criteria.
### Line velocities – consistence of spectra
The differences in Doppler velocity of the [O [i]{}]{} $\lambda7773$ and [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$ lines between observed and synthetic spectra are shown in Table \[tab:velocities\]. In this table, the models are ranked according to the absolute value of the ”mean velocity difference“, which is the average over both lines and all epochs.
Model $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E'_{\textrm{k}} / E_{\textrm{k},W7} $ $\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $M' / M_{W7}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\langle\Delta{}v(\textrm{{Si~{\sc ii}}\ }\lambda 6355)\rangle$ $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$ $\langle\Delta{}v(\textrm{{O~{\sc i}}\ }\lambda 7773)\rangle$ $\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!\!\!$ $\langle\Delta{}v\rangle$ $\!\!$
------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
05bl-w7e0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 64.1 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -54.7 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.7
05bl-w7m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 206.0 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 86.6 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 146.3
05bl-w7e0.5m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -26.5 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -283.8 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -155.1
05bl-w7e0.7m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -117.2 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -386.0 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -251.6
05bl-w7e0.5m0.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 292.2 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 222.2 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 257.2
05bl-w7m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 368.1 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 359.5 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 363.8
05bl-w7e0.7m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 380.4 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 454.9 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 417.7
05bl-w7e0.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -325.5 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -618.0 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -471.7
05bl-w7e0.7m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -223.4 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -798.2 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -510.8
05bl-w7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 494.7 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 1012.4 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 753.5
05bl-w7e1.45m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 594.9 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 942.8 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 768.8
05bl-w7e0.5m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -592.6 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -976.9 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -784.7
05bl-w7e0.35 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.35 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -846.7 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -1131.7 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ -989.2
05bl-w7m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 457.9 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 1815.7 $\quad\ $ $\!\!\!\!$ 1136.8
A decent match of line velocity is obtained especially for the model, but also, for example, for some super-Chandrasekhar mass models with $E'_\textrm{k}/M'$ lower than W7. This shows that a reduced density in the outer layers is the key to a better fit in the lines. To fit the observed lines well, models near the Chandrasekhar mass need a $E'_\textrm{k}/M'$ smaller by $\sim$$30$$-$$40\%$ with respect to W7. With too large a reduction in energy, line velocities become too low (see e.g. negative velocity differences for the model). At low masses, generally a smaller reduction in $E'_\textrm{k}/M'$ suffices: ($M'$$=$$0.69{M_{\odot}}$) as an extreme model still gives a satisfactory fit with $E'_\textrm{k}/M'$$=$$\left(E_\textrm{k}/M\right)_{W7}$.
Remarkably, for all mass values probed in this work, a reasonably good model can be obtained (judged by the line velocities). The kinetic energy $E'_\textrm{k}$ of all well-fitting models, however, is lower than $E_{\textrm{k},W7}$.
### Energetic consistence
In Table \[tab:energetics\] we show our hypothetical kinetic energy values, as well as the quantities from which they were calculated. We then judge the models by the ratio of $E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}$ to the kinetic energy assumed in the density scaling ($E'_\textrm{k}$). Ideally, this ratio should be equal to one; the larger the deviation, the lower the rank of a model.
------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E'_{\textrm{k}}/E_{\textrm{k},W7}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $M'/M_{W7}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E'_\textrm{k}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E_{\textrm{nucl}}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E_{\textrm{bind}}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E_\textrm{k,hyp}$$^\textrm{a}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!\frac{E_\textrm{k,hyp}}{E'_\textrm{k}}\!-\!1\!\!\!\!$
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[$10^{51}$erg\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[$10^{51}$erg\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[$10^{51}$erg\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[$10^{51}$erg\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$
05bl-w7e0.7m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.93 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 2.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.15 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.96$\,\pm\,$0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\ $
05bl-w7e0.7m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.93 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.73 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.85 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.88$\,\pm\,$0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.05 $\ $
05bl-w7e0.5m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.66 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.87 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.13 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.74$\,\pm\,$0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.11 $\ $
05bl-w7e0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.93 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.26 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.49 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.77$\,\pm\,$0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.17 $\ $
05bl-w7e0.5m0.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.66 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.60 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.53$\,\pm\,$0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.20 $\ $
05bl-w7e0.5m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.66 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.89 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.85 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.04$\,\pm\,$0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.23 $\ $
05bl-w7e0.7m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.93 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.80 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.13 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.68$\,\pm\,$0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.27 $\ $
05bl-w7m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.33 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.90 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.15 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.75$\,\pm\,$0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.43 $\ $
05bl-w7e0.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.66 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.44 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.49 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.95$\,\pm\,$0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.43 $\ $
05bl-w7m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.33 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.56 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.85 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.71$\,\pm\,$0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.47 $\ $
05bl-w7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.33 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.14 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.49 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.65$\,\pm\,$0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.51 $\ $
05bl-w7m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.33 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.65 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.13 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.53$\,\pm\,$0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.60 $\ $
05bl-w7e1.45m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.93 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.69 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.15 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.54$\,\pm\,$0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.72 $\ $
05bl-w7e0.35 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.35 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.46 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.55 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.49 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.07$\,\pm\,$0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.29 $\ $
------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$^\textrm{a}$ The error estimate only reflects the error due to the unknown composition below the photosphere at .
For density profiles with the same mass, but different kinetic energy ${E'_\textrm{k}}$, the hypothetical kinetic energy ${E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}}$ usually varies systematically. In density models with smaller ${E'_\textrm{k}}$, densities are reduced in the high-velocity layers (see Sec. \[sec:w7e0.7spectra\]), which contain mostly unburned material. At the same time, densities are increased in lower layers, where the material is mostly burned. The velocity at which the transition (between unburned and burned material) happens does not vary much from model to model as it is constrained by spectral features. Therefore, the change in the density profile results in a larger ratio of burned to unburned material and a larger ${E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}}$. Similarly, when ${E'_\textrm{k}}$ is increased, ${E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}}$ decreases. Equality, i.e. consistence, between $E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}$ and $E'_\textrm{k}$ is usually reached at a reduced value of $E'_\textrm{k}/M'$ with respect to W7. The required reduction varies with the mass of the models (see Sec. \[sec:modeldiagram\]).
In Table \[tab:energetics\], two supermassive models (, ) rank top. However, it should be noted that the energetic quality criterion again does not single out a certain mass, but sets a point of energetic consistence for each mass. All models with larger ${E'_\textrm{k}}$ will then feature too little nucleosynthesis to explain the assumed kinetic energy. The opposite holds for models with lower ${E'_\textrm{k}}$.
### Expected light-curve width
We calculated estimates of the width of the bolometric light curve for the models ranking best in spectroscopic and energetic consistence at each mass $M'$. The resulting values, and those of the quantities needed for the calculation, are given in Table \[tab:lcwidth\].
----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E'_{\textrm{k}}/E_{\textrm{k},W7}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $M'/M_{W7}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E'_\textrm{k}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $M'$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $E_{\textrm{k,hyp}}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\tilde{\kappa}$$^\textrm{a}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\tau_{\textrm{LC}}$$^\textrm{a}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\frac{\tau_{\textrm{LC}}}{\tau_{\textrm{LC,dim}}}\!-\!1\!\!\!\!$
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[$10^{51}$erg\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[${M_{\odot}}$\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[$10^{51}$erg\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[d\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$
05bl-w7e0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.93 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.31 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.77 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.31$\,\pm\,$0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 13.8$\,\pm\,$2.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\quad\ $
05bl-w7e0.5m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.66 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.97 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.74 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.34$\,\pm\,$0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 11.7$\,\pm\,$1.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.16 $\quad\ $
05bl-w7e0.7m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.93 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.73 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.88 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.32$\,\pm\,$0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 16.1$\,\pm\,$3.4 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.16 $\quad\ $
05bl-w7e0.5m0.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.66 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.69 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.53 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.47$\,\pm\,$0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 11.2$\,\pm\,$1.2 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -0.19 $\quad\ $
05bl-w7m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.33 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 2.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.75 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.28$\,\pm\,$0.11 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 16.9$\,\pm\,$4.6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.21 $\quad\ $
05bl-w7e0.7m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.93 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 2.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.96 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.35$\,\pm\,$0.16 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 18.5$\,\pm\,$4.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.34 $\quad\ $
----------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$^\textrm{a}$ The error estimate reflects the errors due to the unknown composition below the photosphere at , and due to the uncertainties in $E_\textrm{k}$.
The deviation of $\tau_{\textrm{LC}}$ from $\tau_{\textrm{LC,dim}}$$=$$13.9$d strongly depends on the mass $M'$. Models with larger mass clearly tend to have a larger light-curve width, although they often have lower values of $\tilde{\kappa}$, as relatively small abundances of burning products are needed to match the observed line strengths with the synthetic spectra.
Although our expected light-curve widths are quite rough estimates, one can clearly state that the criterion disfavours masses largely deviating from the Chandrasekhar mass. The least massive model, with a mass of $M'$$=$$0.5$$M_\textrm{Ch}$, presumably will not produce a broad enough light curve. Likewise, the models at $M'$$=$$1.45$$M_\textrm{Ch}$ will probably exhibit too broad a light curve, although these models are not strictly incompatible with $\tau_{\textrm{LC,dim}}$, as a large inaccuracy in $\tau_{\textrm{LC,dim}}$ results from the large mass in the obscured core.
Location of consistent models in the $E'_\textrm{k}$$-$$M'$ plane {#sec:modeldiagram}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
{width="12.5cm"}
Fig. \[fig:modeldiagram\] gives an overview of all models in an $E'_\textrm{k}$$-$$M'$ plane. According to their quality in spectroscopic terms, the models are marked with different colours; the energetic consistence is indicated by hatches.
In the figure, we also indicate where spectroscopically and energetically consistent models can generally be expected in the plane: a black line is drawn approximately where the transition between too large and too small line velocities occurs. This line is straight and runs from massive models with low $E'_\textrm{k}/M'$ to submassive models with $E'_\textrm{k}/M'$$\approx$$\left(E_\textrm{k}/M\right)_{W7}$. A green line approximately divides the regions of too large and too small nucleosynthetic energy yields. It lies in the same region as the line of spectroscopic consistence, but is curved because the WD binding energy shows a disproportionately strong increase with WD mass. For models up to $M'$$\approx$$0.7 M_\textrm{Ch}$, the binding energy is negligible compared to the nuclear energy release, whereas at higher masses it is considerable, forcing the line of consistence towards smaller $E'_\textrm{k}$ and larger nucleosynthesis yields.
The two lines of consistence are especially close to one another for masses $M'$$\lesssim$$M_\textrm{Ch}$. Models at $M'$$=$$1.45$$M_\textrm{Ch}$ are either spectroscopically or energetically inconsistent, at least under the assumptions we made in this work. Additionally, the light-curve criterion indicates that the width of the light curve is too large for these most massive models. Our least massive models with $M'$$=$$0.5$$M_\textrm{Ch}$ are also disfavoured in this respect, as they would probably show too rapid a light-curve evolution.
Criteria like those used here could give stricter limits still, if the chemical composition in the inner layers was known. This requires studies of nebular spectra of dim SNe Ia.
as a reference model {#sec:w7e0.7discussion}
---------------------
![w7e0.7 compared to the standard W7 and the w7m1.25e0.7 density profiles.[]{data-label="fig:density-reference"}](rho-w7e0.7.eps){width="8.0cm"}
As discussed above, our models give no clear indication for a deviation from the Chandrasekhar mass. The simplest modification leading to better spectral fits and roughly consistent energetics is simply a moderate downscaling of the energy, as in the model. Thus, we consider the model a “reference”. In Figures \[fig:density-reference\] and \[fig:abundances-reference\], we show the density and abundance profiles of the model. Other spectroscopically consistent models show similar densities in the outer layers, and thus also similar abundances in that zone. This can be verified in Figures \[fig:density-reference\] and \[fig:abundances-reference\], where the model is also plotted for comparison.
The model features $0.46$${M_{\odot}}$ of unburned material (including all oxygen; C constitutes $0.04$${M_{\odot}}$). IME are dominant, with a total abundance of $0.55$${M_{\odot}}$ above $3350$[km s$^{-1}$]{}, the velocity of the photosphere at . Stable Fe is present in significant amounts ($0.05$${M_{\odot}}$). The mass of [$^{56}$Ni]{} (including decay products) above $3350$[km s$^{-1}$]{} is $0.06$${M_{\odot}}$, which is a bit higher than the $0.016$$-$$0.026{M_{\odot}}$ found in @maz97bg above $3500$[km s$^{-1}$]{} for SN 1991bg. However, some of the [$^{56}$Ni]{} could be replaced by other UV-blocking elements without changing the quality of the fit. Some $0.23$${M_{\odot}}$ of material are still hidden below the photosphere, where the IME abundances may still be significant (Si of the order of several $10\%$).
{width="8.0cm"} {width="8.0cm"}\
{width="8.0cm"} {width="8.0cm"}\
Alternative spectroscopically consistent models show similar patterns in the abundance profile in velocity space, but the exact densities and abundances below $\sim$$10000$[km s$^{-1}$]{} are somewhat different. In , as an example, the densities in the inner zones are larger. Thus, the abundances of Fe, Ti and Cr must be lower too keep UV opacities reasonable. For Si, moderate changes in the number density do not cause big changes in the spectra. Therefore, the smaller Fe, Ti and Cr abundances can be balanced by slightly larger Si abundances.
The need for early time and nebular spectra of dim SNe Ia {#sec:earlierspectra}
---------------------------------------------------------
The analysis presented here could still be refined for the outermost and innermost layers. The exact abundance stratification in the outer envelope cannot be inferred from the spectrum at , whose photospheric velocity is already quite low. For the inner layers, especially the density structure and thus the abundance of Si is somewhat uncertain (see Sec. \[sec:w7e0.7discussion\]). In order to make a more precise study of dim SNe Ia possible, additional spectra in the very early and in the nebular phase are needed.
The potential of an analysis of the nebular spectra has already been shown in @maz97bg. Here, we would like to illustrate the benefit of early time spectra, showing their sensitivity to the abundances in the outer envelope. We checked the influence of the abundances between $v$$\approx$$11000$[km s$^{-1}$]{} and $15000$[km s$^{-1}$]{} on the spectrum, and found that these abundances have some effects difficult to distinguish from those of the chemical composition at lower velocities. Moreover, the (small) abundances of burned material at $\gtrsim$$15000$[km s$^{-1}$]{} cannot be exactly determined, as these only affect the extreme blue wings of the spectral features.
To explore the effect of the abundances in the outer envelope on early-time spectra, we calculated model spectra at and (Fig. \[fig:earlytimespectra\]). The luminosities at these epochs were crudely estimated from the luminosity at under the assumption of a quadratic light curve rise [cf. @rie99]. We first calculated spectra assuming the density and abundance structure. For each of the two epochs, the photospheric position was shifted from its value at to higher velocities, until the backscattering was reasonably reduced. This resulted in photospheric velocities of $11750$ and $15200$[km s$^{-1}$]{}, respectively.
After calculating these initial models, we explored the effect of changes in the chemical composition, performing three additional code runs for each epoch. In the first two runs, we reduced IME and heavier elements to $20\%$ of their original abundances, respectively. For the model, these changes were applied to the whole atmosphere. In the model, we kept the original composition at velocities $>$$15200$[km s$^{-1}$]{}constant, in order to show the sensitivity to the abundances in the zone not probed by the spectrum. In the third code run, finally, we removed oxygen in favour of carbon (so that the mass fraction $X(\textrm{C})$$=$$80\%$). This change was applied to the whole atmosphere, also at -10d, as otherwise an inverted composition (larger C abundances further inwards) would have resulted.
In Fig. \[fig:earlytimespectra\], we show the resulting spectra and give line identifications to clarify the effect of the modified abundances. Moreover, it is indicated which lines do and which do not change significantly with the modifications. At , the synthetic spectrum looks vastly different from the spectrum of a normal SN Ia. We illustrate this in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:earlytimespectra\] by additionally plotting the earliest SN Ia spectrum ever observed (SN 1990N at , @lei91). Compared to spectra of normal SNe Ia, but also to the spectrum, lines of less ionised species appear owing to the low temperatures, which result from the low luminosity. [Si [ii]{}]{} and [S [ii]{}]{} lines, which normally characterise SNe Ia, are absent. The spectrum is especially sensitive to the abundances of Na, Ca and Fe-group elements (with Na, uncertainties in the ionisation remain a caveat, see Sec. \[sec:05blw7-p48\]). Furthermore, [C [i]{}]{} features are present around $6800$Å and $8700$Å. As the C abundance is already quite large in the outermost layers of , these features do not react strongly to a further increase of $X($C$)$. However, if much less carbon was present, they should gradually disappear.
At , the structure of the spectrum resembles somewhat more that at . Yet, the spectrum has little in common with that of the moderately subluminous, spectroscopically rather normal SN 2004eo at (@pas07; plotted in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:earlytimespectra\]). Compared to , the spectrum still shows hints of lower temperatures: because of the scarce population of excited levels, the [S [ii]{}]{} “W-trough” does not show up. For the same reason, the [C [ii]{}]{} $\lambda 6580$ feature is weak. In the model with a larger C mass fraction, however, some of the strongest lines of [C [i]{}]{} begin to absorb at $\sim8700$Å. Furthermore, there are absorptions due to [O [i]{}]{}, [Na [i]{}]{}, [Si [ii]{}]{}, [Ti [ii]{}]{}, [Cr [ii]{}]{} and [Fe [ii]{}]{}, which should allow for an analysis of the abundances in the outer layers as soon as observations are available.
The amount of extra information which can be inferred from early-time spectra will, of course, also depend on the actual luminosity of the SN at these epochs. Larger luminosities mean higher temperatures, making lines of different ions appear. However, our results already suggest that there are interesting possibilities to infer the chemical composition of the outermost ejecta.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
{width="11.5cm"} {width="11.5cm"}
We conducted an abundance tomography of SN 2005bl and confirmed that nuclear burning in dim, 91bg-like SNe Ia stops at less advanced stages compared to normal SNe Ia. The spectra indicate that the abundance of burned material above $\sim$$8500$[km s$^{-1}$]{} is much lower than even in moderately-luminous objects [@maz08eo]. From $\sim$$8500$[km s$^{-1}$]{} down to $\sim$$3300$[km s$^{-1}$]{}, IME dominate the ejecta. This points towards large-scale incomplete Si-burning or explosive O burning [e.g. @woo73]. A detonation at low densities, as it proceeds in the outer layers of delayed-detonation models [@kho91], may be responsible for the abundance pattern we find. Assuming this, we need to understand how low densities could prevail in such a large fraction of the envelope at the onset of the detonation. Up to now, all explosion models which pre-expand the star by a deflagration and then detonate (e.g. @hil00, @bad03, @gam04, @roe07, @bra09) produce larger amounts of [$^{56}$Ni]{}. This indicates that either the pre-expansion is too weak or the amount of [$^{56}$Ni]{} produced in the deflagration stage is already too large. As it is uncertain whether a suitable single-degenerate model can be found, the possibility of a double-degenerate origin of dim SNe Ia deserves attention.
Besides the abundances, we have obtained information about the density profile of SN 2005bl. We showed that the spectra are incompatible with the presence of significant amounts of oxygen at $v$$\gtrsim$$13000$[km s$^{-1}$]{}. Together with the low abundances of burning products, this indicates a general lack of material at high velocities, albeit less extreme than in objects like SN 2005hk [@sah08]. We tested whether a good fit to the observed spectra is possible using a modified W7 model, scaled to a different total mass and/or energy. Indeed, a reduction of $\sim$$30\%$ in total kinetic energy yielded a spectroscopically, and also energetically consistent Chandrasekhar-mass model (). Such consistence can also be reached with somewhat super- or sub-Chandrasekhar mass density profiles, provided that they are similar to w7e0.7 at $v$$\gtrsim$$13000$[km s$^{-1}$]{}. Deviations of $\gtrsim$$30\%$ from the Chandrasekhar mass seem disfavoured. With our most massive models ($1.45$$M_\textrm{Ch}$), it proved impossible to obtain spectroscopic and energetic consistence at the same time. In addition, these models as well as the least massive ones ($0.5$$M_\textrm{Ch}$) most likely would yield a light curve not matching that of a dim SN Ia.
Sharper constraints on density models, as well as on the abundance structure in the innermost and outermost layers may be obtained from very-early-epoch and nebular spectra of dim SNe Ia. More extensive observations are needed in order to complete our picture of these objects, and of SNe Ia in general.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2002-00303, ‘The Physics of Type Ia Supernovae’, and by the DFG-TCRC 33 “The Dark Universe”. We would like to thank the anonymous referee for constructive comments.
P., et al., 2006, [A&A]{}, 447, 31 Abbott D. C., Lucy L. B., 1985, [ApJ]{}, 288, 679 Badenes C., Bravo E., Borkowski K. J., Domínguez I., 2003, [ApJ]{}, 593, 358 Branch D., Fisher A., Nugent P., 1993, [AJ]{}, 106, 2383 Bravo E., García-Senz D., Cabezón R. M., Domínguez I., [ApJ]{}, 695, 1257 Filippenko A. V. et al., 1992, [AJ]{}, 104, 1543 Garnavich P. et al., 2004, [ApJ]{}, 613, 1120 Gamezo V.N., Khokhlov A.M., Oran E.S., 2004, Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 211102 Greggio L., Renzini A., Daddi E., 2008, [MNRAS]{}, 388, 829 Hillebrandt W., Niemeyer J. C., 2000, ARA&A, 38, 191 Howell D. A. et al., 2006, [Nature]{}, 443, 308 Iwamoto K., Brachwitz F., Nomoto K., Kishimoto N., Umeda H., Hix W. R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, [ApJS]{}, 125, 439 Khokhlov, A. M., 1991, [A&A]{}, 245, 114 B., [Kirshner]{} R. P., [Filippenko]{} A. V., [Shields]{} J. C., [Foltz]{} C. B., [Phillips]{} M. M., [Sonneborn]{} G., 1991, [ApJ]{}, 371, L23 Leibundgut B. et al., 1993, [AJ]{}, 105, 301 Lucy L. B., 1999, [A&A]{}, 345, 211 Mazzali P. A., 2000, [A&A]{}, 363, 705 Mazzali P. A., Lucy L. B., 1993, [A&A]{}, 279, 447 Mazzali P. A., Chugai N., Turatto M., Lucy L. B., Danziger I. J., Cappellaro E., della Valle M., Benetti S., 1997, [MNRAS]{}, 284, 151 Mazzali P. A., Röpke F. K., Benetti S., Hillebrandt W., 2007, [Sci]{}, 315, 825 Mazzali P. A., Sauer D. N., Pastorello A., Benetti S., Hillebrandt W., 2008, [MNRAS]{}, 386, 1897 Nomoto K., Thielemann F.-K., Yokoi K., 1984, [ApJ]{}, 286, 644 Nugent P., Phillips M., Baron E., Branch D., Hauschildt P., 1995, [ApJ]{}, 455, L147 Pastorello A. et al., 2007, [MNRAS]{}, 377, 1531 Perlmutter S. et al., 1997, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., 29, 1351 Perlmutter S. et al., 1999, [ApJ]{}, 517, 565 Phillips M. M., Wells L. A., Suntzeff N. B., Hamuy M., Leibundgut B., Kirshner R. P., Foltz C. B., 1992, [AJ]{}, 103, 1632 Phillips M. M., 1993, [ApJ]{}, 413, L105 Phillips M. M., Lira P., Suntzeff N. B., Schommer R. A., Hamuy M., Maza J., 1999, [AJ]{}, 118, 1766 Riess A. G. et al., 1998, [AJ]{}, 116, 1009 Riess A. G. et al., 1999, [AJ]{}, 118, 2675 Röpke F. K., Hillebrandt W., 2005, [A&A]{}, 431, 635 Röpke F. K., Niemeyer J. C., 2007, [A&A]{}, 464, 683 Ruiter A. J., Belczynski K., Fryer C. L., 2009, [ApJ]{}, 699, 2026 Sahu D. K. et al., 2008, [ApJ]{}, 680, 580 Sato K., Tokoi K., Matsushita K., Ishisaki Y., Yamasaki N. Y., Ishida M., Ohashi T., 2007, [ApJ]{}, 667, L41 Stehle M., Mazzali P. A., Benetti S., Hillebrandt W., 2005, [MNRAS]{}, 360, 1231 Sauer D. N., Hoffmann T. L., Pauldrach A. W. A., 2006, [A&A]{}, 459, 229 Sauer D. N. et al., 2008, [MNRAS]{}, 391, 1605 Taubenberger S. et al., 2008, [MNRAS]{}, 385, 75 Timmes F. X., Arnett D., 1999, [ApJS]{}, 125, 277 Turatto M., Benetti S., Cappellaro E., Danziger I. J., della Valle M., Gouiffes C., Mazzali P. A., Patat F., 1996, [MNRAS]{}, 283, 1 W. M., et al., 2007, [ApJ]{}, 666, 694 Woosley S. E., 1973, [ApJS]{}, 26, 231 Yoon S.-C., Langer N., 2005, [A&A]{}, 435, 967
Parameters of the models {#app:modelparameters}
========================
Table \[tab:modelparameters\] shows the code input parameters of all spectral models mentioned in the main paper. Apart from the abundances, the code takes as input the photospheric velocity $v_\textrm{ph}$, the time from explosion $t$ (see main text) and the bolometric luminosity $L_\textrm{bol}$. For different models of a given spectrum, these luminosities can differ a bit, depending on the model spectral energy distribution. In addition to the input values, Table \[tab:modelparameters\] also gives the calculated temperature of the photospheric black body emission, $T_\textrm{BB}$, for each model.
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- --
Model $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!$ epochs $\!\!\!\!\!\!$ $\!$ $\mathrm{lg}\!\left(\frac{L_\textrm{bol}}{{L_{\odot}}}\right)$ $\!\!\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $v_{\textrm{ph}}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $T_\textrm{BB}$ $\!\!\!$
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[d\] $\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[[km s$^{-1}$]{}\] $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ \[K\] $\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(C) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(O) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(Na) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(Mg) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(Al) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(Si) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(S) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(Ca) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(Ti) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(Cr) $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$(Fe)$_{0}{}^{\textrm{a)}}$ $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ $X$([$^{56}$Ni]{})$_{0}{}^{\textrm{a)}}$
05bl-w7e0.35 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.520 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9574.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.87 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0080 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0025 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0016 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0017 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.622 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7975 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10024.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.20 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0050 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0025 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.60 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0070 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0035 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0750 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.753 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10377.4 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.15 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0015 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.13 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.870 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7050 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8658.6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.11 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.55 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0850 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0850 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.609 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10611.0 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.08 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.65 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0111 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0111 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0800 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1600
05bl-w7e0.5m0.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.510 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9626.0 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.72 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0080 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.13 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0070 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0007 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.618 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7275 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10220.3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.17 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0040 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.08 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0070 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.60 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0300 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0300 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.736 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10242.6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0030 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.52 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.837 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 6400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8613.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.17 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.2550 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.2550 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.2550 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.570 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9195.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.17 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.2150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.2150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1300 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.2600
05bl-w7e0.5m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.520 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7900 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9734.1 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.83 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0060 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0025 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.618 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10242.2 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0030 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0025 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.62 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.740 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10727.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0017 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.55 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.15 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0750 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0750 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.845 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 6550 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8764.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.53 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1225 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1225 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1650 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.590 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9582.3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.68 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0800 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1550
05bl-w7e0.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.525 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8300 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9705.2 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.88 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0070 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.625 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8050 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10185.4 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0035 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0300 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.748 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7550 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10745.4 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.62 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.14 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0625 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0625 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.866 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 6900 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8959.2 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.62 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0675 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0675 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.602 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10432.1 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.78 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0190 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0190 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1200
05bl-w7e0.5m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.517 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10038.1 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.87 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0045 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0018 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0013 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.615 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10511.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.13 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0045 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0018 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.62 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0220 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0220 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.748 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7650 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10658.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.64 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.16 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.861 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8628.6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.65 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0900 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0900 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0850 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0085
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.595 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10835.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.82 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0070 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0070 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1100
05bl-w7e0.7m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.514 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7950 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9749.2 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.75 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0050 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0035 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.619 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10346.2 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0025 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0035 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0300 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.744 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10760.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0018 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.60 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.09 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0700 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0700 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.843 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 6550 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8730.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.51 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.587 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9539.3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.50 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0590 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0590 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.2500
05bl-w7e0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.520 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9764.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.86 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0060 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0025 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.617 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10135.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.13 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0030 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0025 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.68 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0070 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.745 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10632.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0015 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.11 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0533 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0367 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0900 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.861 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 6800 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8930.6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.71 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0550 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.594 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10071.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.77 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0167 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0167 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0650 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1300
05bl-w7e0.7m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.523 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8700 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9667.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.86 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0045 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.623 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10101.1 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.13 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.70 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0075 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.750 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7950 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10346.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.80 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.14 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0110 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0080 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.858 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8750.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.76 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.08 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0290 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0240 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0900 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.594 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10598.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.84 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0140 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0140 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0800
05bl-w7e0.7m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.519 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8700 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9896.0 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.09 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.82 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0055 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0009 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.620 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8450 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10296.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.13 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0030 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.60 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0220 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0220 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.752 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10222.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.76 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0013 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0275 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0275 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0450 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.864 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8761.1 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.78 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0333 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0333 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0700 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0070
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.605 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3525 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10682.2 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.87 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0170 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0170 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0650
05bl-w7m0.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.520 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9593.4 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.80 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0060 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0060 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0008 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.630 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7850 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9927.4 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.11 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0050 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.72 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0050 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0050 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0050 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.745 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7475 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9998.2 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.72 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.15 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0375 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0375 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0475 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.844 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 6550 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8654.3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.60 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0900 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0900 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.566 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9133.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.46 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0800 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0800 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.2500
05bl-w7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.525 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9845.6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.84 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0025 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0032 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0004 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0001 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.627 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10291.1 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.17 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0013 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0032 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.65 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0175 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.754 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10859.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0011 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.69 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0800 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.859 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 6600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9110.3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.69 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0675 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0675 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0100
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.594 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3300 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9957.4 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.64 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0950 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1900
05bl-w7m1.25 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.515 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8800 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9685.6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.08 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.81 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0040 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0023 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.02 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0002 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0002 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0002 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.622 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10207.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0040 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.05 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0023 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.65 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.08 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0160 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0120 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0190 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.756 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7950 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10729.3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.72 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.15 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0425 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.862 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8996.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.78 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.09 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0450 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0450 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0400 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0050
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.598 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3325 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10378.3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.80 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0135 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0135 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0600 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.1100
05bl-w7m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.520 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8800 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9990.6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.83 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0040 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.06 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0006 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.628 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8550 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10483.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.04 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0020 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.65 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0150 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.758 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10562.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0010 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.78 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0275 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0275 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0525 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.861 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7175 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9017.1 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.78 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.08 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0300 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0300 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0700 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0070
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.605 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3475 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10418.1 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.87 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0097 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0097 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0700
05bl-w7e1.45m1.45 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -6 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.524 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10051.5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.08 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.71 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0043 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0035 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.03 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0002 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0002 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0003 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0005 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -5 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.623 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8700 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10534.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.09 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.12 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0043 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0035 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.55 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.10 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0002 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0225 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0225 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0200 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ -3 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.760 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8100 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 11060.7 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0015 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.68 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.14 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0002 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0500 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0750 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 4.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.868 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 7000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 9313.8 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.01 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.72 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.07 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0002 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0650 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0650 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0675 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0067
$\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 12.9 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 8.607 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 3450 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 10342.2 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0000 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.84 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.00 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0002 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0350 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0250 $\!\!\!\!$ $\!\!\!\!$ 0.0600
------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- --
${}^{\textrm{a)}}$ The abundances of Fe, Co and Ni in our models are assumed to be the sum of [$^{56}$Ni]{} and its decay chain products ([$^{56}$Co]{} and [$^{56}$Fe]{}) on the one hand, and directly synthesised / progenitor Fe on the other hand. Thus, they are conveniently given in terms of the [$^{56}$Ni]{} mass fraction at $t=0$ \[$X($[$^{56}$Ni]{}$)_0$\], the Fe abundance at $t=0$ \[$X(\textrm{Fe})_0$\], and the time from explosion onset $t$.
[^1]: [Ca [ii]{}]{} H&K, [Si [ii]{}]{} $\lambda6355$ and [O [i]{}]{} $\lambda7773$ are usually the strongest lines in our spectra, which therefore have the highest probability of developing high-velocity absorptions.
[^2]: By ”binding energy“ and ”gravitational energy“ we always mean the absolute values here, i.e. we treat them as positive numbers.
[^3]: This formula cannot be applied for our lowest-mass models. Therefore, we inferred the binding energy of a $0.69$${M_{\odot}}$ progenitor from a WD model with constant temperature, which uses the Timmes equation of state [@tim99]. This equation of state takes into account a variable degree of electron degeneracy.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Supernova 1006 is the first shell type supernova remnant to show evidence of particle acceleration to TeV energies. In the present paper we examine this possibility by modeling the observed X-ray non-thermal emission in terms of synchrotron radiation from Fermi accelerated electrons. The predicted synchrotron spectrum fits the radio and non-thermal component of the observed soft X-ray to hard X-ray emission quite well. These particles can produce TeV gamma rays by inverse Compton scattering on the microwave radiation and other ambient fields, and the derived electron distribution is also used to calculate the expected inverse Compton flux. We find that if the remnant is characterised by a magnetic field strength lower than $\sim 7\mu$G, then the TeV flux can be higher than that of the Crab Nebula. About 75% of the TeV emission from SN 1006 is expected to be concentrated in the synchrotron bright NE and SW rims (the “hard aegis") of the remnant, which would allow a sensitive search if the Atmospheric Imaging Cherenkov Technique is used.'
author:
- 'A. Mastichiadis'
- 'O.C. de Jager'
date: 'Received ; accepted'
title: TeV emission from SN 1006
---
Introduction
============
The type Ia supernova remnant G327.6+14.6, or SN 1006, is the remnant of the explosion which took place in AD 1006. The distance to this source is between 1.4 and 2.1 kpc (Green 1988). Its mean expansion rate has been measured as $0.44\pm 0.13$ arcsec/yr, which implies a present expansion speed of $3700\pm 1300$ km/s for an average distance of 1.8 kpc. The time dependence of the expansion ($R\propto t^{0.48\pm 0.13}$) is consistent with Sedov expansion, or with a forward/reverse shock pair moving into constant-density material (Moffett, Goss, & Reynolds 1993).
The ASCA detection of power law X-ray emission from the bright northeastern (NE) and southwestern (SW) rims of SN 1006 led Koyama et al. (1995) to infer the existence of electrons accelerated by the first order Fermi mechanism up to energies of $\sim 200$ TeV. The detection of TeV $\gamma$-rays from this system will prove the existence of such ultrarelativistic electrons (De Jager et al. 1995, Mastichiadis 1996, Pohl 1996).
In Section 2 we will compile the non-thermal radio to X-ray spectrum, which may be due to synchrotron emission from these electrons, and in Section 3 we will compare the acceleration and loss timescale for electrons accelerated by the first order Fermi process, and show that the resulting maximum electron energy predicts a synchrotron cutoff frequency which is consistent with observations. The best-fit spectrum also leads to the derivation of the magnetic field strength $B_*$ associated with the shell. In Section 4 we will calculate the inverse Compton (IC) $\gamma$-ray spectrum associated with this best-fit model spectrum from Section 3. The detection of TeV $\gamma$-rays from SN 1006 will enable the observer to determine the magnetic field strength, and an important parameter associated with Fermi acceleration from the observed $\gamma$-ray flux.
The observed synchrotron spectrum of SN 1006
============================================
The radio morphology shows two bright arcs towards the NE and SW (see e.g. Reynolds & Gilmore 1993), with a composite spectrum which is given by $$\label{snu}
F_{\nu}=16(\frac{\nu}{10^9\;{\rm Hz}})^{-0.56}\;\;{\rm Jy},$$ and shown in Fig. 1. The individual radio flux measurements for the total emission from SN 1006 (reproduced from Fig. 1 of Reynolds 1996) are also shown for comparison.
ROSAT imaging observations of SN 1006 shows that the soft X-ray remnant is dominated by thermal ($kT=0.15$ keV) emission towards the SE, whereas the X-ray counterparts of the NE and SW radio rims (or “hard aegis") are characterized by a power law spectrum which dominates the total emission from the remnant above $\sim 1$ keV (Willingale et al. 1996). Spatially resolved spectral results by ASCA have shown that these bright rims are responsible for $\sim 75\%$ of the total X-ray flux from SN 1006 above 1 keV, and the interior of the remnant also contains this non-thermal emission, which dominates the thermal component above 2 keV (Koyama et al. 1995). The results from earlier non-imaging instruments are therefore useful to obtain the non-thermal spectrum above 1 keV from the entire remnant. For example: TENMA (Koyama et al. 1987), EXOSAT (Jones & Pye 1989), and Ginga (Ozaki et al. 1994) obtained well-constrained spectral energy indices ranging between $-$2.0 and $-$2.3 for energies between 1.5 keV and $\sim 10$ keV. This is confirmed by the energy index of $-2.0\pm 0.2$ of the NE rim found by ASCA (Koyama et al. 1995). The EXOSAT ME field of view was just large enough to cover the entire remnant, without significant background contamination, and the energy spectrum above 1.5 keV (derived from the given energy flux) is given by $$\label{hard}
F_{\epsilon}=0.066\epsilon_{\rm keV}^{-2.0}\;\;{\rm keV.cm^{-2}s^{-1}keV^{-1}},$$ which is shown together with the radio spectrum in Fig. 1.
The change from a $-$0.56 radio energy index to a $\sim -2$ X-ray energy index above $\sim 1$ keV is indicative of a spectral turnover or break around $\epsilon_b\sim 0.25$ keV, where the spectral energy index should be around $-$1 (depending on the sharpness of the cutoff). In fact, soft X-ray imaging observations of the hard aegis by the EINSTEIN SSS (Becker et al. 1980) and EXOSAT LE (Jones & Pye 1989) resulted in a consistent spectral energy index of $-$1.2. Willingale et al. (1996) used ROSAT PSPC observations to separate the thermal and non-thermal energy fluxes of the hard aegis and the rest of the remnant, with the same finding as Koyama et al. (1995) that the non-thermal soft X-ray flux from the hard aegis contributes to $\sim 75\%$ of the total non-thermal soft X-ray flux of $2.66\times 10^{-10}$ ergs/cm$^2$/s (for the 0.1 keV to $\sim 2$ keV range). Assuming the average spectral index of $-$1.2 found by EINSTEIN and EXOSAT (Willingale et al. 1996 obtained a spectral index for the SW limb only), but using the ROSAT normalization for the total non-thermal flux from SN 1006, the resulting energy spectrum for this energy range is therefore $$\label{soft}
F_{\epsilon}\sim 0.047\epsilon_{\rm keV}^{-1.2}
\;\;{\rm keV.cm^{-2}s^{-1}keV^{-1}},$$ and is indicated by its spectral index in Fig. 1.
First order Fermi acceleration of electrons in SN 1006
======================================================
The non-thermal synchrotron emission of SN1006 from shock accelerated electrons has been discussed by Reynolds & Chevalier (1981), Ammosov et al. (1994) and, more recently, by Reynolds (1996). Here we apply the method given in Mastichiadis (1996 - henceforth M96). This allows us to treat the problem in a self-consistent manner by calculating the electron distribution function at each instant in time from the solution of a time-dependent kinetic equation for electrons. The physical picture is according to the ‘Onion-shell-model’ (Bogdan & Völk 1983) as applied to time-dependent acceleration (Ball & Kirk 1992). Therefore we assume that electrons are accelerated in the (parallel) shock wave of the expanding supernova remnant and at each instance there is a flux of relativistic electrons which escape downstream and subsequently radiate. For these we assume to have a power law spectrum in energy, i.e. $Q_{\rm e}(E,t)=Q_{\rm e,0}(t) E^{-s}$ with $E\le E_{\rm max}(t)$ and an exponential cut-off for $E > E_{\rm max}(t)$ (Webb et al. 1984). For the determination of the normalization factor we followed M96 (after an original suggestion by Drury 1992) and set $Q_{\rm e,0}(t)\propto R(t)^2u_{\rm sh}(t)^3$ where $R(t)$ is the radius of the supernova and ${u_{\rm sh}}(t)$ is the velocity of the shock. Furthermore, the maximum energy electrons can achieve at a time t depends on whether synchrotron losses become dominant or not and it is given by the minimum of (Lagage & Cessarsky 1983, Webb et al. 1984, M96 and Reynolds 1996) $${E_{\rm acc}}(t)\simeq 5.10^{-3}~A({r_{\rm c}})f^{-1}u_{\rm sh}(t)^2Bt_{\rm yr}~{\rm erg}
\label{eacc}$$ and $${E_{\rm loss}}(t)\simeq 2.10^{-4} f^{-1/2}A({r_{\rm c}})^{1/2}{u_{\rm sh}}(t) B^{-1/2}~{\rm erg},
\label{elos}$$ where $u_{\rm sh}$ is the shock velocity in units of km/sec, B is the magnetic field strength in Gauss, $t_{\rm yr}$ is the supernova remnant age in years, and $A({r_{\rm c}})=({r_{\rm c}}-1)/{r_{\rm c}}({r_{\rm c}}+1)$ with ${r_{\rm c}}$ being the compression ratio of the shock connected with the spectral index $s$ through the relation $s=({r_{\rm c}}+2)/({r_{\rm c}}-1)$. Also $f$ is the gyrofactor, i.e. the ratio of the particle’s mean free path to its gyroradius. The case $f=1$ corresponds to a simple Bohm diffusion.
The relevant energy losses which were included in the kinetic equation were adiabatic due to the expansion of the remnant, synchrotron and inverse Compton. The only free parameter here is the magnetic field as the photon fields on which the electrons lose energy by inverse Compton scattering are rather well determined (see section 4 below).
Adopting standard supernova parameters, i.e. a total explosion energy of $W_{\rm SN}=
5.10^{50}W_{5,50}$ erg, an initial shock velocity of ${u_{\rm sh,in}}=7.10^3u_{7,3}$ km/sec and an external matter density of $\rho=0.4\rho_{.4}$ H-atom/cm$^3$ (Willingale et al. 1996) we solved numerically the electron kinetic equation which includes a source term and loss terms as these were described above (for more details see M96). The obtained electron distribution function was folded with the synchrotron emissivity to obtain the radiated spectrum as this should be observed at a time $t_{\rm now}\simeq 1,000$ years. This way we have made numerical fits to the radio/X-ray data by treating as free parameters the strength of the magnetic field downstream, the gyrofactor $f$ and the shock compression ratio ${r_{\rm c}}$.
Fig.1 shows the best fit to the radio and X-ray spectra (shown here as full lines) which was obtained for $B=3.5f^{2/3}~\mu$G and ${r_{\rm c}}=3.73$ (corresponding to $s=2.1$). This fit holds for $f{\,\raisebox{-0.4ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle\sim}$}\,}30$. As $f$ increases above this value the spectrum starts to break due to synchrotron losses and no satisfactory fit could be found. Therefore X-ray data alone might not be able to constrain $f$ significantly. More constraints on $f$ can be placed from future TeV observations as we will show in the next section.
We proceed now by giving a simple qualitative picture which will help in the understanding of our results: According to the standard picture of cosmic ray acceleration in supernova remnants (see, for example, Dorfi 1991) both $Q_{\rm {e,0}}$ and ${E_{\rm acc}}$ peak close to the transition of the supernova remnant from its free expansion to its Sedov phase which occurs at ${t_{\rm Sd}}\simeq 410 W_{5,50}^{1/3}\rho_{0.4}^{-1/3}
u_{7,3}^{-5/3}~~{\rm yr}$. For example, ${E_{\rm acc}}\propto t$ for $t<{t_{\rm Sd}}$ and ${E_{\rm acc}}\propto t^{-1/5}$ for $t>{t_{\rm Sd}}$. Similarly, $Q_{\rm {e,0}}\propto t^2$ for $t< {t_{\rm Sd}}$ and $Q_{\rm {e,0}}\propto t^{-1}$ for $t> {t_{\rm Sd}}$. Therefore the radiation observed now should be dominated by the particles accelerated at $t{\,\raisebox{-0.4ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\scriptstyle\sim}$}\,}{t_{\rm Sd}}$. Using Eqn. (4) we get that the maximum particle energy at $t\simeq{t_{\rm Sd}}$ is given by $${E_{\rm acc,Sd}}\simeq 1.5~10^7 Bf^{-1}g^{-1}W_{5,50}^{1/3}
\rho_{0.4}^{-1/3}u_{7,3}^{1/3}~{\rm erg}.
\label{esedov}$$ $g$ is a factor (of order unity) that reflects the fact that at $t={t_{\rm Sd}}$ the velocity is not any more ${u_{\rm sh,in}}$ but somewhat smaller since deceleration of the shock should have started before that time. This in turn implies that the energy ${E_{\rm acc}}$ as given by Eqn. (\[esedov\]) is, strictly speaking, an upper limit of the maximum energy the electrons can attain during acceleration. Equation (\[esedov\]) is the maximum energy electrons can attain as long as this is smaller than ${E_{\rm loss}}$ (equation \[\[elos\]\]). A comparison of the two expressions for $t={t_{\rm Sd}}$ yields that this is indeed the case as long as $B{\,\raisebox{-0.4ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\scriptstyle\sim}$}\,}10^{-5}f^{1/3}g^{1/3}W_{5,50}^{2/9}\rho_{0.4}^{-2/9}
u_{3,7}^{4/9}$ G. If this relation is satisfied then synchrotron losses do not become important at [*any*]{} epoch, since for $t>{t_{\rm Sd}}$, ${E_{\rm acc}}\propto t^{-1/5}$ while ${E_{\rm loss}}\propto t^{-3/5}$.
>From the above discussion it becomes evident that if radiation losses do not become important then the synchrotron spectrum that the current model predicts can be fairly well represented by the synchrotron spectrum which is derived from a simple electron distribution function (power law times exponential cutoff) of the form $$\label{best}
\frac{dN}{dE}\simeq 1.5\times 10^3 (\frac{B}{B_*})^{-1.56}E^{-2.12}
\exp{\left[-\frac{E}{E_b}
(\frac{B}{B_*})^{1/2}\right]}
4\pi d^2,$$ with units in total number of electrons per erg while $E$ is in ergs. The best-fit value for the magnetic field is given by $B_*=3.5f^{2/3}g^{2/3}W_{5,50}^{-2/9}\rho_{0.4}^{-2/9}u_{7,3}^{2/3}$ $\mu$G while $E_b={E_{\rm acc,Sd}}$. The area factor $4\pi d^2$ allows us to calculate photon spectra in terms of the flux at Earth if $(dN/dE)/4\pi d^2$ is used. Using the best fit value for $B_*$ the total energy content in relativistic electrons is $\simeq 10^{49}~f^{-1.04}g^{-1.04}W_{5,50}^{0.35}\rho_{0.4}^{-0.35}u_{7,3}^
{0.35}$ erg. This in turn gives us an efficiency of cosmic ray electron production of $$\eta_{\rm el}\simeq 0.02f^{-1.04}g^{-1.04}W_{5,50}^{-0.65}\rho_{0.4}^{-0.35}
u_{7,3}^{0.35}$$ in rough agreement with the hypothesis that about a few percent of the supernova energy available for acceleration goes to electrons.
=8.5 cm
The expected $\gamma$-ray spectrum of SN 1006
=============================================
Several soft photon fields may contribute to the inverse Compton (IC) scattering of relativistic electrons into the $\gamma$-ray region. De Jager (1996) discussed the production of $\gamma$-ray spectral features introduced by the scattering of several thermal photon spectra by the electron cutoff (with maximum electron energy $\gamma_bmc^2$) in SNR W44, which may explain the EGRET detection (2EG J1857+0118, Thompson et al. 1996) of this remnant. The cutoff in the spectrum derived in Section 3 will similarly produce $\gamma$-ray bumps on a $\epsilon F_{\epsilon}$ plot (as in Fig. 1) at $\gamma$-ray energies $\sim 3kT_i\gamma_b^2$ (in the Thomson limit) or $\sim \gamma_b mc^2$ (in the Klein-Nishina limit), with $T_1=2.76$K representing the CMBR, $T_2\sim 25$K the galactic dust contribution, $T_3=3,000-4,000$K representing the Population II stars, and $T_4\sim 7,500$K representing the contribution from Population I stars, with densities given by Skibo (1993). Arendt (1989) also did not detect any significant FIR emission associated with swept up dust in SN 1006, so that there would be no contribution to soft photons from sources inside or near SN 1006, in contrast with W44 where the emission from swept-up dust dominates all soft photon fields.
We include all soft photon fields, using the full cross section for isotropic IC as reviewed by Blumenthal & Gould (1970) in the calculation of the $\gamma$-ray spectrum. The IC spectra calculated from the best-fit electron spectrum (Eqn. \[\[best\]\]) for different $f$-values are also shown in Fig. 1, and it is clear that the $\gamma$-ray energy flux peaks at a few TeV (nearly independent of the value of $f$), the dominant source of this bump being the CMBR photons scattered in the Thomson limit. The integral flux above 1 TeV is given by $$\label{ftev}
F(>1{\rm TeV})=4.1\times 10^{-11}f^{-1.35}\;\;{\rm cm^{-2}s^{-1}},$$ with $f$ constrained to values below $\sim 20$. The Crab spectrum in the range 0.5 to 10 TeV (Djannati-Ataï 1995) is also shown for comparison in Fig. 1, and it is clear that we may expect SN 1006 to be a stronger source than the Crab at 1 TeV if $f<3$. It is also clear that the EGRET upper limit of SN 1006 shown in Fig. 1 does not constrain $f$ significantly, but TeV observations will provide valuable limits.
Finally we would like to note that the TeV flux as given above is about an order of magnitude higher than the expected flux from the nuclear component of cosmic rays assumed to be accelerated also at the supernova shock (Drury et al. 1994).
Summary-Discussion
==================
The recent X-ray observations of SN 1006 (Koyama et al. 1995) make a strong case for particle acceleration in supernova remnants. A necessary consequence of this is that SN 1006 can be a source of TeV radiation as the accelerated electrons will scatter off the ambient soft photons to very high energies. In the present paper we calculated the expected TeV flux by following the basic principles of first order Fermi shock acceleration to fit the radio/X-ray observations and consequently we used the derived electron distribution function to calculate the TeV emissivity. In this case we found that the TeV flux depends sensitively on the gyrofactor $f$ of the accelerated electrons and consequently one can use any future TeV observations of SN 1006 to put limits on this.
We find that the EGRET upper limit (derived from Thompson et al. 1996) does not constrain $f$ significantly, but imaging TeV observations have no difficulties observing sources nearly 10 times weaker than the Crab. We may therefore be able to detect SN 1006 at TeV energies if $f$ is not too large. The NE and SW limbs may be detectable by the Atmospheric Imaging Cherenkov Technique (see e.g. Weekes et al. 1989) if a search for the NE and SW rims are made. However, the flux for each rim would be $\sim 38\%$ of the flux given in Eqn. (\[ftev\]) for the total TeV emission from SN 1006, but by superimposing the pixels from the TeV image corresponding to the NE and SW rims, the total flux should be about 75% of the flux given in Eqn. (\[ftev\]).
AM would like to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for support under Sonderforschungsbereich 328 and the staff and members of the Space Research Unit of the Potchefstroom University for their hospitality.
Ammosov, A.E., et al., 1994, Astr.Lett. 20, 191
Arendt, R.G., 1989, ApJS 70, 181
Ball, L.T. & Kirk, J.G., 1992, ApJLett 396, L39
Becker, R.H., et al., 1980, ApJ 240, L33
Blumenthal, G.R. & Gould, R.J.: 1970, Rev. Mod. Physics 42(2), 237
Bogdan, T.J., Völk, H.J., 1983, A&A 122, 129
De Jager, O.C., et al., 1995, 24th ICRC 1, 528
De Jager, O.C., 1996, in [*Cold dust morphology in galaxies*]{}, ed. D. Block, Kluwer Academic Publ. (Dordrecht, Holland), in press
Djannati-Ataï A., et al., 1995, in: Proc. 24th ICRC (Rome), Vol. 2, p.315
Dorfi E.A., 1991, A&A 251, 597
Drury, L.O’C., 1992, in [Particle Acceleration in Astrophysics]{}, eds. G.P. Zank, T.K. Gaisser, AIP, New York, 189
Drury L.O’C., Aharonian A.F., Völk H.J., 1994, A&A 287, 959
Green, D.A. 1988, Astrophysics & Space Science 148, 3
Jones, L.R., & Pye, J.P., 1989, MNRAS 238, 567
Koyama K., Tsunemi, H., Becker, R.H., & Hughes, J.P. 1987, PASJ 39, 437
Koyama K., et al. 1995, Nature 378, 255
Lagage P.O., Cesarsky C.J., 1983, A&A 125, 249
Mastichiadis, A. 1996, A& A 305, L53–M96
Moffett, D.A., Goss, W.M., & Reynolds, S.P. 1993, AJ 106, 1566
Ozaki, M., Koyama, K., Ueno, S., & Yamauchi, S., 1994, PASJ 46, 367
Pohl, M., 1996, A&A 307, 57
Reynolds, S.P., Chevalier R.A., 1981, ApJ 245, 912
Reynolds, S.P., & Gilmore, D.M., 1993, AJ 106, 272
Reynolds, S.P., 1996, ApJ 459, L13
Skibo J.G., 1993, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Maryland
Thompson, D.J., et al. 1996, ApJS, in press
Webb G.M., Drury L.O’C., Biermann P., 1984, A&A 137, 185
Weekes, T.C., et al., 1989, ApJ 342, 379
Willingale, R., West, R.G., Pye, J.P., & Stewart, G.C. 1996, MNRAS 278, 749.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have calculated the low-temperature series for the second moment of the correlation function in $d=3$ Ising model to order $u^{26}$ and for the free energy of Absolute Value Solid-on-Solid (ASOS) model to order $u^{23}$, using the finite-lattice method.'
address:
- ' Osaka Prefectural College of Technology, Saiwai-cho, Neyagawa, Osaka 572, Japan '
- ' Osaka Institute of Technology, Junior College, Ohmiya, Asahi-ku, Osaka 535, Japan '
author:
- 'H. Arisue and K. Tabata'
title: ' Low-Temperature Series for Ising Model by Finite-Lattice Method '
---
INTRODUCTION
=============
Recently the low-temperature series of $d=3$ Ising model or equivalently strong-coupling series of $d=3$ $Z_2$ lattice gauge theory have been extended to higher orders using finite-lattice method. The finite-lattice method to obtain series expansion was originally developed by Neef and Enting [@Enting]. In this method the expansion series of the free energy density in the infinite volume limit to an order in the expansion-parameter is given by the appropriate linear combination of the free energies on finite-size lattices. The coefficients of the linear combination are given by Möbius inversion [@Domb]. This procedure avoids the problem involved in the graphical method, in which it is rather difficult to give the algorithm for listing all the diagrams completely that contribute to the relevant order of the series. The finite-lattice method is more effective in lower dimensions [@GuttmannPRL] and it was applied intensively to two-dimensional systems [@Entingfour].
The Möbius inversion was introduced to the field of lattice gauge theory by Mack [@Mack] and was used to make a partial resummation of the strong-coupling expansion of the theory [@Mack; @Muenster]. Fujiwara and one of the author ( H. A.) developed the finite-lattice method of strong-coupling expansion and its full resummation in lattice gauge theory using the Möbius inversion [@Arisueone; @Arisuetwo]. The full-resummation method was applied to the calculation of the free energy and string tension for $SU(2)$ [@Arisueone] and $Z_2$ [@Arisuetwo] lattice gauge theory in three dimensions, and of the free energy for $Z_2$ [@Hirata] and $SU(2)$ [@Narayanan] lattice gauge theory in four dimensions. The method was also applied to obtain the strong-coupling expansion series of the free energy to order $u^{20}$, string tension to order $u^{13}$ [@Arisuenine] and the mass gap to order $u^{11}$ [@Arisuethree] in $d=3$ $Z_2$ lattice gauge theory, and of the free energy in $d=4$ $Z_2$ lattice gauge theory to order $u^{11}$ [@Arisueeight], where $u=\tanh^2{\beta_{gauge}}$ and $\beta_{gauge}$ is the inverse gauge coupling constant. The $d=3$ $Z_2$ lattice gauge theory is dual to the $d=3$ Ising model and the strong-coupling series of the free energy, string tension and mass gap in the former is exactly the same as the low-temperature series of the free energy, surface tension and true inverse correlation-length in the latter, respectively, if the expansion-parameter $u=\tanh^2{\beta_{gauge}}$ in the former is read as $u=\exp{(-4\beta)}$ and $\beta=J/kT$ in the latter. Thus the finite-lattice method of strong-coupling expansion in $d=3$ lattice gauge theory is exactly the same as that of low-temperature expansion in $d=3$ Ising model.
Recently the low-temperature series of $d=3$ Ising model were extended to higher orders by the finite-lattice method using transfer matrix formalism for calculating the partition function based on building up finite-size lattices one site at a time, which was originally invented by Enting [@Entingtwo]. The calculated quantities are the free energy to order $u^{25}$ [@Bhanot], the free energy, magnetization and susceptibility to order $u^{26}$ [@Guttmann], the surface tension to order $u^{17}$ [@Arisuefour] and the true inverse correlation-length to order $u^{15}$ [@Arisuefive].
We should mention that Vohwinkel [@Vohwinkel] obtained low-temperature Ising series for free energy, magnetization and susceptibility, which are longer than those of the reference [@Bhanot] or [@Guttmann] using a modification of the shadow-lattice technique. His method appears to be so powerful even in three dimensions, although it is more efficient for higher dimensional systems. We think, however, that the finite-lattice method can still be the method of choice for a range of problems in three dimensions [@GuttmannPRL].
We report here the application of the finite-lattice method to calculate the low-temperature series for the second moment of the correlation function in $d=3$ Ising model to order $u^{26}$ [@Arisueten] and for the free energy of Absolute Value Solid-on-Solid (ASOS) model to order $u^{23}$ [@Arisueeleven].
SECOND MOMENT OF THE CORRELATION FUNCTION IN D=3 ISING MODEL
=============================================================
The point in the algorithm of the low-temperature expansion for the second moment $\mu_2$ is the following. We consider the partition function $$Z(\beta,h,\eta,\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3)
= \sum_{ \{ s_i \} } \exp{( - {\cal H} )}, \label{eqn:Z}$$ with the Hamiltonian $${\cal H } = \beta \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} s_i s_j
+ \sum_i ( h + \gamma_1 x_i + \gamma_2 y_i + \gamma_3 z_i
+ \eta \mbox{\boldmath$r$}_i^2 ) s_i,$$ for the three-dimensional lattice with a volume $ V $. The second moment is given by the second derivative of the free energy density in the infinite-volume limit as $$\mu_2 =
\lim_{V \rightarrow \infty} \frac{2}{V}
\left( \frac{\partial^2}{\partial h \partial \eta }
- \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \gamma_1^2 }
- \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \gamma_2^2 }
- \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \gamma_3^2 } \right)$$ $$ \times \ln{ Z(\beta,h,\eta,\gamma_1,\gamma_2,\gamma_3) }
|_{h=\eta=\gamma_1=\gamma_2=\gamma_3=0}.
$$ Then the finite-lattice method can be applied to the low-temperature expansion of the free energy density, which should be calculated to the order of $u^N h \eta$ or $u^N \gamma_i^2 (i=1,2,3)$ to obtain the second-moment series to $u^N$.
We have obtained the series for the second moment to order $u^{26}$, extending the previous result of order $u^{15}$ calculated by Tarko and Fisher [@Tarko] using the standard graphical method and of order $u^{19}$ calculated by Vohwinkel and Weisz [@Vohwinkeltwo] using the shadow-lattice technique. Vohwinkel and Weisz also gave an estimate of the series to order $u^{29}$. Our exact series to order $u^{19}$ coincides with their exact result and our exact coefficients from order $u^{20}$ to $u^{26}$ are consistent with their estimate within an accuracy of 1 per cent for each of the orders. It gives the low-temperature series for the second-moment correlation length squared $\Lambda_2={\xi_1}^2$ to order $u^{23}$, when combined with the known low-temperature series of the susceptibility [@Guttmann; @Vohwinkel]. This is longer by six terms than the low-temperature series for the true correlation length squared $\Lambda_2^{\prime}$ that was derived from the true inverse correlation-length given in Ref. [@Arisuefive]. An analysis of the obtained series by inhomogeneous differential approximants gives critical exponents $ 2\nu^{\prime} + \gamma^{\prime} = 2.509(38)$ for the second moment and $ 2\nu^{\prime} = 1.247(19) $ for the correlation length squared. These are consistent with the results from high-temperature series, $\epsilon$-expansion and Monte Carlo analysis and we can conclude that the scaling relation between the high- and low-temperature exponents as $\nu=\nu^{\prime}$ and $\gamma=\gamma^{\prime}$ is satisfied within an accuracy of about 2 per cent. The details can be seen in the reference [@Arisueten].
FREE ENERGY OF ASOS MODEL
==========================
In the low-temperature expansion of the surface tension to order $u^{17}$ [@Arisuefour] we found that the series coefficients change their sign at the order of $u^{13}$. The surface tension in three-dimensional Ising model or the string tension in three- or higher-dimensional lattice gauge theory suffers from the roughening transition [@Weekstwo; @Hasenfratz; @Itzykson] and it is expected to exhibit Kosterlitz-Thouless type singularity like $$f(u)=A(u) \exp{[-c(u_r-u)^{-1/2}]} + B(u)
\label{KT}.$$ It has the essential singularity at the roughening transition point $u_r$. As was pointed out by Hasenbusch and Pinn [@Hasenbusch], the sign-change is just the signal of the K-T type singularity in equation (\[KT\]). In fact if we expand the function (\[KT\]) in terms of $u$ we would obtain a series with a sign-change. The order of the sign-change depends on $c$ and $u_r$.
Absolute Value Solid-on-Solid (ASOS) model is an approximation of the interface of $d=3$ Ising model. It neglects overhangs and disconnected parts and is also expected to exhibit K-T type phase transition. The free energy of ASOS model just corresponds to the surface tension of $d=3$ Ising model and is expected to behave like (\[KT\]). Hasenbusch and Pinn [@Hasenbuschtwo] calculated the low-temperature series for the free energy of ASOS model to order $u^{12}$ using the finite-lattice method, extending the previous work by Weeks et al [@Weeks] and found the expected sign-change at the order of $u^{11}$.
We have extended the low-temperature series for the free energy to $u^{23}$ using the finite-lattice method [@Arisueeleven], which is longer by 11 terms than that by Hasenbusch and Pinn. In the longer series the sign-change is seen only at the order of $u^{11}$ found by Hasenbusch and Pinn. We have fitted the obtained series to the Taylor expansion of the fuction (\[KT\]) with $A(u)=constant$ and $B(u)=0$. A good fitting is obtained if we take $u_r=0.214$ and $ c = 0.527 $. This fitted value of $u_r$ should be compared with $u_r=0.207(9)$ from the series analysis of the surface width and $u_r=0.1994(1)$ from the Monte Carlo Renormalization group analysis [@Hasenbuschthree]. These results confirm that the roughening phase-transition of ASOS model is of K-T type.
[9]{} T. de Neef and I. G. Enting, J. Phys. A10 (1977) 801;\
I. G. Enting, J. Phys. A11 (1978) 563; Aust. J. Phys. 31 (1978) 515. C. Domb, Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena vol.3 ed. C. Domb and M. S. Green (Academic, New York 1974). A. J. Guttmann and I. G. Enting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 698. I. G. Enting and F. Y. Wu, J. Stat. Phys. 28 (1982) 351;\
J. Adler and I. G. Enting, J. Phys. A17 (1984) 2233. G. Mack, Gauge Theories of the Eighties (Lecture Notes in Physics vol. 181) ed. R. Raitio and J. Lindfors, (Springer, Heidelberg, 1983). G. Münster, Nucl. Phys. B180\[FS2\] (1981) 23. H. Arisue and T. Fujiwara, Prog. Theor. Phys. 72 (1984) 1176. H. Arisue and T. Fujiwara, Preprint RIFP-588 (1985 unpublished). Y. Hirata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 82 (1989) 34. R. Narayanan and P. Vranas, Nucl. Phys. B330 (1990) 608. H. Arisue and T. Fujiwara, reported in the anual meeting of the physical society of Japan (1986 unpubished). H. Arisue and T. Fujiwara, Nucl. Phys. B285\[FS19\] (1987) 253. H. Arisue and T. Fujiwara, unpubished and cited in [@Hirata] I. G. Enting, J. Phys. A13 (1980) 3713;\
G. Bhanot, J. Stat. Phys. 60 (1990) 55. G. Bhanot, M. Creutz, J. Lacki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 1841. A. J. Guttmann and I. G. Enting, J. Phys. A26 (1993) 807. H. Arisue, Phys. Letters B313 (1993) 187. H. Arisue and K. Tabata, Phys. Letters B322 (1994) 224. C. Vohwinkel, Phys. Letters B301 (1993) 208. H. Arisue and K. Tabata, preprint OPCT94-1(hep-lat/9407023) to appear in Nulc. Phys. B. H. Arisue, in preparation. H. B. Tarko and M. E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B11 (1975) 1217. C. Vohwinkel and P. Weitz (1991 unpublished). J. D. Weeks, G. H. Gilmer and H. J. Leamy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31 (1973) 549. A. Hasenfratz, E. Hasenfratz and P. Hasenfratz, Nucl. Phys. B180\[FS2\] (1981) 353. C. Itzykson, M. E. Peskin and J. B. Zuber, Phys. Letters B95 (1980) 259. M. Hasenbusch and K. Pinn, Physica A203 (1994) 189. J. D. Weeks, G. H. Gilmer and H. J. Leamy (unpublished, cited in Shaw and Fisher). M. Hasenbusch, M. Marcu and K. Pinn, Physica A208 (1994) 124.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We explain in a consistent manner the set of seemingly conflicting experiments on the finite temperature Mott critical point, and demonstrate that the Mott transition is in the Ising universality class. We show that, even though the thermodynamic behavior of the system near such critical point is described by an Ising order parameter, the global conductivity can depend on other singular observables and, in particular, on the energy density. Finally, we show that in the presence of weak disorder the dimensionality of the system has crucial effects on the size of the critical region that is probed experimentally.'
author:
- Stefanos Papanikolaou
- Rafael Monteiro Fernandes
- Eduardo Fradkin
- 'Philip W. Phillips'
- Joerg Schmalian
- Rastko Sknepnek
title: 'Universality of liquid-gas Mott transitions at finite temperatures'
---
Although band theory predicts that a system of electrons in a solid with one electron per site (unit cell) should be metallic, such a system ultimately insulates [@mott49; @brinkman70] once the local electron repulsive interactions exceeds a critical value. The onset of the insulating state, the Mott transition, arises from the relative energy cost of the on-site Coulomb repulsion $U$ between two electrons on the same lattice site, and the kinetic energy, represented by the band width $W$. Then, the transition is governed solely by the ratio of $U/W$. At $T=0$, it is often the case that symmetries of the microscopic system, associated with charge, orbital or spin order, may be broken in the Mott insulating state. However, at sufficiently high temperatures $T$, or in strongly frustrated systems, no symmetry is broken at the finite-$T$ Mott transition. Then, the transition is characterized by paramagnetic insulating and metallic phases, whose coexistence terminates at a second-order critical point, depicted in Fig. \[sketchypd\]. In this paper, we are concerned with the universal properties of this *classical critical point* [@comment], as revealed by a series of apparently conflicting experiments on $(\mathrm{Cr}_{1-x}\mathrm{V}_{x})_{2}\mathrm{O}_{3}$ [@limelette03] and organic salts of the $\kappa -\mathrm{ET}$ family [@kagawa05].
Since no symmetry is broken at the finite-$T$ Mott transition, in a strict sense there is no order parameter. Nonetheless, experimental [@kagawa05; @limelette03], as well as theoretical evidence [@castellani79; @kotliar00] suggest that the transition is in the Ising universality class, similar to the liquid-vapor transition. For example, Castellani *et al.* [@castellani79] constructed an effective Hamiltonian for this problem, and proposed that double occupancy should play the role of an order parameter for the Mott transition. On the insulating side, doubly occupied sites are effectively localized, but in the metal, they proliferate. A Landau-Ginzburg analysis [@kotliar00] provided further evidence for a non-analyticity in the double occupancy at a critical value of $U/W$ that defines a Mott transition. Ising universality follows immediately because double occupancy, $\langle n_{i\uparrow }n_{i\downarrow }\rangle $, is a scalar local density field.
Experimentally, the universality of the Mott critical point is typically probed by some external parameter, such as pressure, which can tune the ratio $W/U$. Measurements of the conductivity, $\Sigma $, on $(\mathrm{Cr}_{1-x}\mathrm{V}_{x})_{2}\mathrm{O}_{3}$ [@limelette03] found that away from the critical point, the exponents defined through $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \Sigma \left( t,h=0\right) &=&\Sigma (t,h=0)-\Sigma _{c}\propto
|t|^{\beta _{\sigma }} , \notag \\
\Delta \Sigma \left( t=0,h\right) &\propto &|h|^{1/\delta _{\sigma }} ,
\notag \\
\partial \Sigma (t,h)/\partial h|_{h=0} &\propto &|t|^{-\gamma _{\sigma }} ,\end{aligned}$$ have mean-field Ising values, $\beta _{\sigma }\simeq 1/2$, $\gamma _{\sigma}\simeq 1$ and $\delta _{\sigma }\simeq 3$. Here, $t=(T-T_{c})/T_{c} $ and $h=(P-P_{c})/P_{c}$, with $(\Sigma _{c},T_{c},P_{c})$ denoting the corresponding values at the critical endpoint. Close to the critical region, Limelette *et al.* [@limelette03] observed a drift to the critical exponents of the 3D Ising universality class. Mean field behavior is also seen in NiS$_{2}$ [@takeshita07].
However, similar pressure measurements [@kagawa05] on the quasi-2D organic salts of the $\kappa $-ET family appear to challenge the view that the Mott transition is in the Ising universality class. In this material, Kagawa *et al.* [@kagawa05] found that their data is described by the exponents $\beta _{\sigma }\simeq 1$, $\gamma _{\sigma }\simeq 1$, and $\delta _{\sigma }\simeq 2$, which do not seem to be consistent with the known exponents of the 2D Ising model whose exponents are [@barrybook] $\beta =\frac{1}{8}$, $\gamma =\frac{7}{4}$ and $\delta =15$. Since the exponents obey the scaling law $\gamma _{\sigma }=\beta _{\sigma }\left(
\delta _{\sigma }-1\right) $, it was proposed that the Mott transition is in a new, as yet unknown universality class. The situation is further complicated by thermal expansion measurements [@souza06] that claim to measure the heat capacity exponent $\alpha $ and find $0.8<\alpha <0.95$. This result is not only in sharp contrast to the expectation for an Ising transition (where $\alpha =0$ for $d=2$), it also strongly violates the scaling law $\alpha +2\beta _{\sigma }+\gamma _{\sigma }=2$, if one uses the exponents of Ref. [@kagawa05].
In this paper, we present a unified phenomenological description of all of these experimental facts within an Ising-type model, and resolve the issue of the universality class of the Mott transition. A complete description of these experiments requires to take into account that the conductivity depends on all possible singular observables of the associated critical system, and not just on the thermodynamic order parameter associated with the phase transition. Similar considerations were made in magnetic systems near the Curie temperature [@hohenberg77; @fisher68; @mannari68], to explain the critical exponent of the conductivity along the coexistence curve. In that case, a symmetry of the microscopic definition of the conductance prevented any coupling of the global conductivity to odd moments of the order parameter, along the coexistence line. Even though similar in spirit, the situation here is much different. Starting from an effective microscopic model near an Ising critical point, we show that: 1) the conductivity typically depends on all possible singular thermodynamic observables of the system, namely the order parameter and energy density of the Ising model; 2) when the coupling to the energy density dominates, there exists a large regime around the critical point, where the critical exponents for the conductivity are $(\beta _{\sigma },\gamma _{\sigma
},\delta _{\sigma })=(1,\frac{7}{8},\frac{15}{8})$, that agree (within the error bars) with the findings of Kagawa *et al.* [@kagawa05], and the corresponding mean-field exponents are $(\beta _{\sigma }^{MF},\gamma
_{\sigma }^{MF},\delta _{\sigma }^{MF})=(1,\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2})$; 3) a crossover to Ising exponents is obtained in the order parameter dominated regime as seen in Refs. [@limelette03; @takeshita07]; 4) in the presence of disorder the Mott critical point ultimately belongs to the random-field Ising model universality class, and therefore the dimensionality of the system under study is even more important for specifying its critical properties.
In order to resolve the discrepancies raised by these experiments, we consider the behavior of the conductivity of the system near the Mott critical point, assuming that it belongs to the 2D Ising universality class. Rather than starting from a microscopic picture, *e.g.* a Hubbard model, we consider a coarse-grained model with the correct symmetries in which the physics of the relevant transport degrees of freedom is captured. In this picture, one defines coarse-grained regions, of linear size of the order of the dephasing length $l_{\phi }$ of the system, which are either insulating or conducting. Along these lines, we consider an Ising model on a 2D lattice (cf. Fig. \[lattice\]). Near the critical point, where the correlation length for density fluctuations $\xi $ diverges, it is expected that the relevant degrees of freedom behave classically. The Ising variables $S_{i}$ on each lattice site represent the fluctuating density of mobile carriers on microscopic “grains” of linear size of the order of the dephasing length $\mathit{l}_{\phi }$, which are conducting ($S_{i}=+1$), or insulating ($S_{i}=-1 $). The Hamiltonian is $$\beta H=-\frac{1}{T}\sum_{\langle ij\rangle }S_{i}S_{j}+\frac{h}{T}
\sum_{i}S_{i} \;,$$ where $T$ is the temperature, $P$ and $P_c$ are the pressure and the critical pressure, respectively, and $h\propto P-P_{c}$ plays the role of the Ising magnetic field. This model is expected to describe the physics near the critical point, where $\xi \gg l_\phi$. In this limit, all other interactions beyond nearest-neighbor are irrelevant. Near the critical point, the most singular effect of the pressure is described by a coupling to the order parameter.
To relate the order parameter fluctuations to the transport properties we will define an associated resistor network for this model, an approach that has been successfully used in other strongly correlated systems [@carlson-2006; @burgy-2001]. Let $\sigma_C$ and $\sigma_I$ be the local conductivities of the conducting and insulating regions, respectively. We define the bond conductance of the network model simply by adding these two conductivities in series. The bond conductance has three possible values, depending on the state of each grain, which can both be conducting, both insulating, one conducting and the other insulating. Thus, the conductance of the bond $(i,j)$ has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{ij}=\sigma_0\left(1+g_m(S_i+S_j)+g_\epsilon S_iS_j\right)\; .
\label{couplings}\end{aligned}$$ Even in this toy model, the microscopic conductivity, $\sigma_{ij}$, couples both to the order parameter, $S_i$, and to the energy density, $S_iS_j$, of the Ising model with naturally large couplings, $g_m$ and $g_\epsilon$, defined in Eq.. More specifically, we find that $\sigma_0=\frac{1}{4} (\sigma_C+\sigma_I)+\frac{\sigma_C\sigma_I}{\sigma_C+\sigma_I}$, $g_m=\frac{ \sigma_C-\sigma_I}{4\sigma_0}$, and $g_\epsilon=\frac{
(\sigma_C-\sigma_I)^2}{4\sigma_0(\sigma_C+\sigma_I)}$. At high contrast, $\sigma_C\gg\sigma_I$, we get $g_m\simeq g_\epsilon\simeq1$, whereas, at low contrast, $|\sigma_I - \sigma_C| \ll \sigma_C$, we get $g_\epsilon < g_m \to
0$.
The conductivity of the 2D Ising model we described is a non-trivial quantity to compute. As it was shown in the simpler case of the random resistor network (RRN) [@staufferaharonybook], networks of bonds with conductance $\sigma_C$ $(\sigma_I)$ chosen *randomly* with probability $p$ and $1 - p$, the global conductivity becomes non-zero as soon as an infinite percolating and conducting cluster emerges in the system. When $\sigma_I=0$, the critical exponent $\beta_\sigma$ of the conductivity is non-trivially related to the fractal properties of the incipient infinite conducting cluster. This exponent is larger than unity for random uncorrelated networks and larger than the exponent of the order parameter, because dangling bonds of the infinite cluster do not contribute to the conductivity. On the other hand, it becomes much less than unity for correlated networks, and typically very close to the exponent of the order parameter, since the infinite cluster is efficiently connected with few dangling bonds.
On the other hand, when $\sigma_I>0$, a conducting cluster is less distinguishable from that of an insulating one, and the complex effects coming from the fractal cluster boundaries are smeared out. In the context of RRN, the percolation transition is not seen in the behavior of the conductivity, which seems to show just a crossover. If the contrast is low, $\sigma_I\simeq\sigma_C$, the actual conductivity of a single bond between sites $i,j$, $\Sigma$, should depend only on local observables, and we can formally expand it in powers of $g_m$ and $g_\epsilon$ [@blackman76], $$\Sigma =\sigma_0+g_m\langle (S_i+S_j)\rangle +g_\epsilon\langle S_iS_j
\rangle+\ldots\; , \label{sigmaexp}$$ where the ellipsis represents more complex products of local spin operators (weighed by rapidly decaying functions) [@blackman76]. Near the Ising critical point, the most singular contribution of the expectation values of multi-spin operators in Eq. \[sigmaexp\] is given by the expectation value of the most singular, “primary”, operators of the Ising critical point, the order parameter $m$ and the energy density $\epsilon$. Thus, the most singular term of multi-spin operators with odd (even) number of spins is proportional to the order parameter (energy density). Therefore, within the range of convergence of this expansion, $$\Sigma =\Sigma_{0}(g_{m},g_{\epsilon })+f_{m}(g_{m},g_{\epsilon })\langle
m\rangle +f_{\epsilon }(g_{m},g_{\epsilon })\langle \epsilon \rangle\; ,
\label{Sigmagen}$$ where $\Sigma_{0},f_{m},f_{\epsilon }$ are non-universal regular polynomials in $g_{m}$ and $g_{\epsilon }$. Provided that the critical behavior is still controlled by the fixed point theory of the Ising model, the total conductivity should have the structure of Eq. . Thus, at finite contrast, Eq. predicts that the actual conductivity is the sum of even and odd components, under the Ising symmetry transformation, $\Sigma=\Sigma_0+\Sigma^{\mathrm{even}}+\Sigma^{\mathrm{odd}}$, and it should exhibit a *crossover* from an [*energy density dominated*]{} behavior at short distances to an [*order parameter dominated*]{} behavior at long distances. The crossover scale is controlled by the relative size of the functions $f_m$ and $f_\epsilon$ (cf. Fig. \[expdf\]). This behavior breaks down at high contrast where there is multi-fractal behavior (cf. Inset in Fig.\[expdf\] and Ref. [@bastiaansen97]).
![Crossover behavior of the conductivity at finite contrast: the energy density (order parameter) dominates at short (long) length scales. Inset: Fractal scaling at large contrast.[]{data-label="expdf"}](crossovers_fig2.eps){width="38.50000%"}
![Monte Carlo data which verify the expected behavior of the conductivity when $g_m, g_\protect\epsilon\ll1$. $\Sigma^{\mathrm{even}}$ scales as the energy density (see text). Inset: $\Sigma^{\mathrm{odd}}$ scales as the order parameter.[]{data-label="magn_en"}](magn_energy_fig3.eps){width="40.00000%"}
We can understand the experiments of Refs. [@kagawa05; @limelette03; @takeshita07], if we assume that Eq. applies. The results of Refs. [@limelette03; @takeshita07] follow by assuming that $f_m(g_{m},g_{\epsilon })>f_\epsilon(g_{m},g_{\epsilon })$, and the conductivity scales as the order parameter. Conversely, the results of Ref. [@kagawa05] follow if $f_{\epsilon}(g_{m},g_{\epsilon })\gg
f_{m}(g_{m},g_{\epsilon })$, and the conductivity, for an extended regime near the critical point, scales as the energy density of the Ising model. In this case holds $\Delta \Sigma \propto \left\vert m\right\vert ^{\theta }$, where $\theta =\left( 1-\alpha \right) /\beta $. Then, it follows that $\beta _{\sigma }=\theta \beta $, $\delta _{\sigma }=\delta /\theta $ and $\gamma _{\sigma }=\gamma +\beta \left( 1-\theta \right) $. The resulting critical exponents are $(\beta _{\sigma },\gamma _{\sigma },\delta _{\sigma
})=(1,\frac{7}{8},\frac{15}{8})$, very close to the experimental values. These exponents obey $$\gamma _{\sigma }=\beta _{\sigma }\left( \delta _{\sigma }-1\right) \; ,$$ if $\gamma =\beta \left( \delta -1\right) $, *i.e.*, the conductivity exponents obey a scaling relation identical to the Ising exponents, in agreement with the experimental verification of this scaling relation in Ref. [@kagawa05]. In addition, the scaling function obtained by Kagawa *et al.* [@kagawa05] only depends on $\beta \delta =\beta
_{\sigma }\delta _{\sigma }$, as in our theory.
In order to verify the theoretical picture presented above, we performed Monte Carlo simulations of the 2D Ising model on square and triangular lattices, using the Wolff cluster algorithm [@wolff89]. For the calculation of the conductivity, for each Ising configuration we used the Franck - Lobb algorithm [@franck88], or explicitly solved Kirchhoff equations. As expected, we found that at the Ising critical point, for $g_{m},g_{\epsilon }\ll 1$, the even component of the conductivity $\Sigma ^{\mathrm{even}}$ scales as the energy density, while the odd component $\Sigma ^{\mathrm{odd}}$ scales as the order parameter (cf. Fig. \[magn\_en\]). As $g_{m},g_{\epsilon }$ approach unity, a slow crossover exists to a fractal regime of the Ising clusters, which is crucial for specifying the critical exponent of the conductivity, consistent with the results of Ref. [@bastiaansen97] (cf. Inset in Fig.\[expdf\].)
Refs. [@limelette03; @takeshita07] report 3D mean-field Ising behavior and a small critical region in $(\mathrm{Cr}_{1-x}\mathrm{V}_{x})_{2}\mathrm{O}_{3}$ and $\mathrm{NiS_{2}}$ under pressure respectively, in contrast to the extended critical region with 2D Ising exponents of Ref. [@kagawa05]. We can understand these experiments by considering the effects of quenched disorder on an Ising critical point. The difference between a quasi-2D and a 3D material is a strongly anisotropic Ising interaction along the direction perpendicular to the planes. Disorder that locally favors the localized over the delocalized state or vice versa, corresponds to a *random magnetic field*, and couples to the order parameter of the Ising transition. This induces density fluctuations. The relevant model for this discussion is the anisotropic 3D random-field Ising model (RFIM), $$H=-J_{xy}\sum_{\{ij\}_{xy}}S_{i}S_{j}-J_{z}\sum_{\{kl\}_{z}}S_{k}S_{l} +
\sum_{i}h_{i}S_{i}\; ,$$ where $h_{i}$ is a random field with variance $\Delta $. For $d=3$, there is a continuous phase transition in the $3D$ random-field Ising model (3DRFIM) universality class [@nattermann-1998] for any anisotropy $J_{xy}/J_{z}$, an irrelevant operator at the 3D RFIM fixed point. However, for large anisotropy and weak disorder, relevant to the quasi-2D organics, there is a large dimensional crossover regime from 2D RFIM behavior, with an exponentially long correlation length, to the narrower 3D RFIM criticality [@zachar03]. What changes between the 3D isotropic materials and the quasi-2D organics is not the universality class, but where the planar correlations become critical. For weak disorder $\Delta \ll J_{xy} $ and strong anisotropy $J_{z}/J_{xy}\ll 1$, the planes are essentially decoupled and 2D-RFIM behavior holds with $\xi _{xy}\gg 1$ in a large region away from the transition point. When $J_{z}\simeq J_{xy}$, the critical region is narrow, and controlled by the 3D RFIM fixed point.
With regards to the thermal expansion measurements that claim to measure the heat capacity exponent $\alpha$, we argue that the authors of Ref. [@souza06] misinterpret their results. The volume change is proportional to the Ising order parameter of the Mott transition, *i.e.* $\Delta
l\propto m$, yielding $l^{-1}dl/dT\propto t^{\beta -1}$. The thermal expansion diverges with exponent $1 - \beta = \allowbreak 0.875$, consistent with Ref. [@souza06] who find it in the range $0.8-0.95$.
Some major predictions can be drawn from our picture. Firstly, all thermodynamic observables near the Mott critical point should have Ising critical exponents. Secondly, regarding the critical behavior in quasi-2D organic salts [@kagawa05], in the clean system, the conductivity along the coexistence line should have the same critical exponent ($\beta _{\sigma
}=1$) in both mean-field and true-critical regimes. This means that the conductivity jump $\Delta \Sigma _{J}\equiv \Sigma (T,h=0^{+})-\Sigma
(T,h=0^{-})$ along the coexistence line, which should be proportional to the order parameter, should have distinct mean-field and critical regimes, where $\beta _{\Delta \Sigma _{J}}=1/2$ and $\beta _{\Delta \Sigma _{J}}=1/8$ respectively. Also, the first-order Mott transition is expected to be broadened by disorder [@imry-wortis-1979; @aizenman-wehr-1989]. Thus, instead of a sharp jump in the conductance one should see a continuous change which would become more abrupt for clean systems. The net effect is to make the system spatially inhomogeneous, as in charge ordered phases, stripes and electron nematics [@kivelson-1998] and in the manganites [@dagotto-2001], which tend to round their phase transitions and replace the first-order transition by an inhomogeneous phase. Thus, hysteretic glassy-like aging effects [@sethna-2004], a problem that has been studied only recently in strongly correlated systems [@schmalian-wolynes-2000; @carlson-2006], are also expected at this Mott transition.
In conclusion, we have explained under a consistent phenomenological framework the series of experiments that were performed during the last few years on Mott criticality. We showed that the conductivity of a system near a critical point depends on all possible local singular observables of the system, which in the case of interest, are the order parameter and the energy density of the effective Ising model. This description holds when the contrast between conducting and insulating regions is small. Should this not hold, fractal behavior of the incipient infinite clusters at the critical point is crucial for specifying the critical exponents of the conductivity. Finally, disorder affects the effective dimensionality of the system. In particular, we showed that for quasi-2D materials, such as the organic salts in the $\kappa $-ET family, critical fluctuations are expected to be much larger than in a 3D material in an extended regime in the $(P,T)$ plane around the Mott critical point.
#### Acknowledgements
We thank K. Kanoda for discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation grants DMR 0442537 (EF) and DMR 0605769 (PP) at UIUC, by the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Materials Sciences under Award DE-FG02-07ER46453 (EF), through the Frederick Seitz Materials Research Laboratory at UIUC, and the Ames Laboratory, operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11358 (JS), and by CAPES and CNPq (Brazil) (RF).
[28]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, (),
, ** (, , ).
, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, in **, edited by (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , in **, edited by (, , ).
, ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Several authors have proposed out of equilibrium thermal engines models, allowing optimization processes involving a trade off between the power output of the engine and its dissipation. These operating regimes are achieved by using objective functions such as the ecological function ($EF$). In order to measure the quality of the balance between these characteristic functions, it was proposed a relationship where power output and dissipation are evaluated in the above mentioned $EF$–regime and they are compared with respect to its values at the regime of maximum power output. We called this relationship Compromise Function and only depends of a parameter that measures the quality of the compromise. Thereafter this function was used to select a value of the mentioned parameter to obtain the generalization of some different objective functions (generalizations of ecological function, omega function and efficient power), by demanding that these generalization parameters maximize the above mentioned functions. In this work we demonstrate that this function can be used directly as an objective function: the “$P\Phi$–Compromise Function” ($C_{P\Phi}$), also that the operation modes corresponding to the maximum Generalized Ecological Function, maximum Generalized Omega Function and maximum Efficient power output, are special cases of the operation mode of maximum $C_{P\Phi}$, having the same optimum high reduced temperature, then the characteristic functions will be the same in any of the above three working regimes, independent of the algebraic complexity of each generalized function. These results are presented for two different models of an irreversible energy converter: a non–endoreversible and a totally irreversible, both with heat leakage.'
author:
- |
S. Levario–Medina^a^ and L. A. Arias–Hernandez^b^\
Departamento de Física, Escuela Superior de Física y Matemáticas, Instituto\
Politécnico Nacional, U. P. Zacatenco, edif. \#9, 2o Piso, Ciudad de México,\
07738, México, [email protected]; http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4347-5068^a^ and\
[email protected]; http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4054-5446; corresponding author^b^
title: 'The $P\Phi$–Compromise Function as a criterion of merit to optimize irreversible thermal engines'
---
Introduction
============
In the last paragraph of the book Reflections on the motive power of heat and on machines fitted to develop that power S. Carnot writes[@carnot]:
> <<We should not expect ever to utilize in practice all the motive power of combustibles. The attempts made to attain this result would be far more hurtful than useful if they caused other important considerations to be neglected. The economy of the combustible is only one of the conditions to be fulfilled in heat–engines. In many cases it is only secondary. It should often give up to safety, to strength, to the durability of the engine, to the small space which it must occupy, to small cost of installation, etc. To know how to appreciate in each case, at their true value, the considerations of convenience and economy which may present themselves; to know how to discern the more important of those which are only accessories; to balance them properly against each other, in order to attain the best results by the simplest means; such should be the leading characteristics of the man called to direct, to co-ordinate among themselves the labors of his comrades, to make them cooperate towards one useful end, of whatsoever sort it may be.>>
In modern language these words give rise to the process known as Thermodynamic Optimization. Since 1975, when Curzon and Ahlborn proposed the power output of their model for thermal engines [@Curzon-Ahlborn], as an objective function to find a specific operating regime, a large number of articles have been published with several objective functions which are associated with modes of operation or specific designs [@reviews; @chen04]. Thus, the studies of the behavior of engines have focused on finding “optimal” operating regimes, by means of economic, ecological or other reasons. To obtain a model that allows to know the conditions with which it is possible to reach such working regimes, given particular operational objectives, in the framework of the Finite Time Thermodynamics (FTT) have emerged objective functions, such as “Ecological function”, “Omega function”, “Efficient Power” among others [@FEcologica; @FunOmg; @stucki80; @yilmaz06; @arias09; @calvo00], that allow to find modes of operation that satisfy some compromise between the characteristic functions of the engine.
The ecological functions is defined as [@FEcologica], $$E=P-\Phi,\label{eq:FunEco}$$ where $P$ is the power output and $\Phi$ the dissipation of the engine. This function was proposed by Angulo-Brown towards 1992. However, the necessity to find the best objective function that made a good trade off between the mentioned process variables, led to the generalization of the ecological function in 1997 [@FEcoGen], $$E_{G}=P-\epsilon\Phi,\label{eq:FunEcoGen}$$ being $\epsilon$ a parameter that generate a family of ecological functions ($E_{G}$). To choice the ecological function that gives the best trade off between $P$ and $\Phi$, the “Compromise Function” $C$ [@FEcoGen; @FunCom2; @FunCom3] was proposed as follows: $$C=\frac{P^{MX}}{P^{MP}}-\frac{\varPhi^{MX}}{\varPhi^{MP}},\label{eq:DefFunCompromiso}$$ where the super index $MX$ indicates that the power output and dissipation must be evaluated in the regime of maximum $E_{G}$ ($ME_{G}$) and $MP$ super index of power output and dissipation means that this characteritic functions must be evaluated at the maximum power output ($MPO$) regime. Under this consideration, the ecological function provides $75\%$ of the power output and $25\%$ of the dissipation with respect to the $MPO$–regime for an endoreversible model ($75-25$ corollary [@FEcoGen]). In 2001, Calvo et al [@FunOmg] defined an optimiztion criterion, called the Omega criterion, consisting in the maximization of the function $$\Omega=E_{u,eff}-E_{u,l},\label{omega}$$ where $E_{u,eff}\equiv E_{u}-z_{min}E_{i}$ is the effective useful energy and $E_{u,l}\equiv z_{max}E_{i}-E_{u}$ is the lost useful energy. This functions were defined in terms of: $E_{u}$the useful energy, $E_{i}$ the input energy and $z=E_{u}/E_{i}$ the mesure of the engine’s performance. In 2006 Partido and Arias-Hernández found that the generalization of Omega function [@OmegaGen]: $$\Omega_{G}=E_{u,eff}-\lambda E_{u,l},\label{eq:DefFunOmg}$$ could be equivalent to the best of the generalized ecological ones. This happens when the $\lambda$ parameter is selected through the Compromise Function. In 2016 Levario-Medina and Arias-Hernandez found the same equivalence by picking the parameter $k$ of the $k$–Efficient Power [@kPotEfi; @levario19]: $$P\eta_{k}=P\eta^{k},\label{eq:DefkPotEfi}$$ with the same procedure by using the Compromise Function. In reference [@kPotEfi] was showed that the above procedure to select the generalization parameter, allow us to make equivalent the optimal regimes derived from the three mentioned objective functions ($E_{G}$, $\Omega_{G}$ and $P\eta_{k}$), in spite of they involve different process variables and have different algebraic structure.
In this paper we show that the Compromise Function $C_{P\Phi}$ defined as: $$C_{P\varPhi}\left(a_{h}\right)=\frac{P\left(a_{h}\right)}{P^{MP}}-\frac{\Phi\left(a_{h}\right)}{\varPhi^{MP}}.\label{eq:DefFunCPPhiFundeCom}$$ can be taken directly as an objective function without the use of the generalized functions. This objective function that from now on we will call $P\Phi$–Compromise Function, allow us to reach the best trade–off between $P$ and $\Phi$ of the thermal engine ($75-25$ corollary) [@arias09; @FEcoGen; @FunCom2].
The present study is based on an akin model to the one proposed by Curzon and Ahlborn in 1975 (CA–engine). A CA–engine Fig. \[fig:MotorTipoCAN\] has two reservoirs at absolute temperatures $T_{1}$ and $T_{2}$ such that $T_{1}>T_{2}$; two irreversible components (thermal conductances $\alpha$ and $\beta$) and a working substance that operates in reversible cycles between two working temperatures $T_{1w}$ and $T_{2w}$ ($T_{1w}$ > $T_{2w}$) [@Curzon-Ahlborn]. However, this model still needs certain elements that have been added later by other authors, elements which consider internal irreversibilities ($\sigma_{i}$) [@Tollman; @Gordon2; @ParaRNendo; @Arias2013] or the heat leaks that occur through the materials with which the thermal engines are built. To emulate the heat leaks, a direct heat flux is considered between the reservoirs ($Q_{hl}$). Additionally, we have two heat fluxes $Q_{1}$ and $Q_{2}$ (quantities per cycle period), which allow us to build the other processes variables of the engine:
- The power output, $$P=Q_{I}-Q_{O}.\label{pot}$$
- The efficiency, $$\eta=1-\frac{Q_{O}}{Q_{I}}.\label{ef}$$
- The entropy production, $$\sigma_{T}=\left(\frac{Q_{O}}{T_{2}}-\frac{Q_{I}}{T_{1}}\right)+\left(\frac{Q_{1}}{T_{1w}}-\frac{Q_{2}}{T_{2w}}+\sigma_{i}\right)\geq0.\label{ep}$$ being the first parenthesis the entropy production of the surroundings ($\sigma_{e}$), the second one can be related with the entropy production of the internal cycle ($\sigma_{ws}$), due to the working substance operates in cycles $\sigma_{ws}$ always is zero, that is, $\sigma_{ws}=0$; $\sigma_{i}$ is the entropy production which arise in the working substance, due to different processes such as turbulence and viscosity among others secondary processes which can help to complete the cycle. On the other hand, $Q_{I}$ is the total input heat flux to the system, and $Q_{O}$ its the total output heat flux. In general, these heat fluxes are: $$Q_{I}=Q_{1}+Q_{hl}\label{eq:Qi}$$ and $$Q_{O}=Q_{2}+Q_{hl}.\label{eq:Qc}$$ In this work, we consider a linear heat transfer law (Newtonian heat law) for all heat fluxes involved (see Fig. \[fig:MotorTipoCAN\]),
![\[fig:MotorTipoCAN\] Heat engine akin Curzon–Ahlborn thermal engine.](fig1levarioarias){width="14cm" height="7cm"}
that is, $$Q_{1}=\alpha\left(T_{1}-T_{1w}\right),\label{eq:Q1}$$ $$Q_{2}=\beta\left(T_{2w}-T_{2}\right)\label{eq:Q2}$$ and $$Q_{hl}=\delta\left(T_{1}-T_{2}\right).\label{eq:Qhl}$$ For the models here used, we also build a characteristic function called the dissipation function, defined as [@FEcologica], $$\Phi=T_{2}\sigma_{T}.\label{eq:dis}$$
The equations (\[eq:Q1\]), (\[eq:Q2\]) and (\[eq:Qhl\]), can be rewritten as: $$Q_{1}\left(\alpha,T_{1},a_{h}\right)=\alpha T_{1}\left(1-a_{h}\right),\label{eq:Q1FdP}$$
$$Q_{2}\left(\alpha,\gamma,T_{1},a_{c}\right)=\alpha T_{1}\frac{\tau}{\gamma}\left(\frac{1}{a_{c}}-1\right)\label{eq:Q2FdP}$$
and $$Q_{hl}\left(\delta,\tau,T_{1}\right)=\delta T_{1}\left(1-\tau\right),\label{eq:QhlFdP}$$ where $\tau=T_{2}/T_{1}$ and $\gamma=\alpha/\beta$, while $a_{h}=T_{1w}/T_{1}$ and $a_{c}=T_{2}/T_{2w}$ are the high reduced temperature and the low reduced temperature respectively. These last variables will be important, because they help us to characterize several modes of operation. Since the thermal engine operates in cycles, we could find a relation between these reduced temperatures, depending of the model which will be used.
Hereinafter there are certain considerations must be made to obtain each of the models used in this work, for each of them we will show that the $P\Phi$–Compromise Function is an objective function, that allow us characterizing an optimal mode of operation whose properties were attributed to the generalized ecological function and others objective functions. We made this analysis for two irreversible models. In section 2, a non–endoreversible model with heat leak (NEHL) is addressed. In this model the irreversibilities of the internal cycle are quantified by the non-endoreversibility parameter $R$ [@ParaRNendo] and a heat leak is added between the two heat reservoirs through a thermal conductance, this last with the purpose of obtaining a loop shaped characteristic curve of the power output versus efficiency, reported by Gordon in the eighties for real thermal engines[@Gordon2; @Gordon1; @Gordon3]. In section 3, the “uncompensated heat” of Clausius [@CalNcomClas] is used as a measure of the irreversibilities that are generated in the working substance, likewise a heat leak is incorporated with the purpose of obtaining an Irreversible model with Heat Leak (IHL), in which the most important sources of irreversibilities that occur in a real energy converter are included. In addition, in each of these sections we show how, under the appropriate considerations, the results corresponding to an endoreversible model can be obtained. Finally, an appendix is added to show how the compromise function is used to select the parameter of generalization of any of the objective functions above mentioned, to obtain the same optimal operation regime.
Non–endorreversible model with heat leak [\[]{}$\sigma_{i}=(1-R)$; $\delta\protect\neq0$[\]]{}
==============================================================================================
In the CA model, Curzon and Ahlborn supposed that the work substance operates in such way, that its internal entropy production ($\sigma_{i}$) was zero, what is a great supposition, because in nature, these akin of processes are not common, if not nonexistent. Due to this, some authors have proposed to add a phenomenological parameter ($R$) [@ParaRNendo], which allow us to quantify the grade of irreversibility that is generated within the work substance. So that, the $R$ parameter converts the Clausius’s inequality [@Zemansky] to an equality. It permits to obtain a better approximation to a real thermal engines behavior. Under this consideration the entropy production of the working substance $\left(\sigma_{i}\right)$ can be written as: $$\sigma_{i}=\left(1-R\right)\frac{Q_{2}}{T_{2w}},\label{eq:EntroCicloR}$$ with $0<R\leq1$, (when $R=1$, the endoreversible mode ($\sigma_{i}=0$) is recuperated). Replacing the equation (\[eq:EntroCicloR\]) in the second parentheses of the equation (\[ep\]), $\sigma_{ws}$ can be rewritten as: $$\frac{Q_{1}}{T_{1w}}-R\frac{Q_{2}}{T_{2w}}=0,\label{eq:HNendoR}$$ this one is know as the non-endoreversibility hypothesis. From this relationship and considering the heat flows $Q_{1}$ and $Q_{2}$ given by the equations (\[eq:Q1\]) and (\[eq:Q2\]) respectively, it is possible to establish the above mentioned relation between the high reduced temperature and the low reduced temperature: $$a_{c}\left(\gamma,R,a_{h}\right)=1+\frac{\left(a_{h}-1\right)\gamma}{a_{h}R}.\label{eq:acNendoR}$$ This allows to written the heat flux $Q_{2}$ like: $$Q_{2}\left(\alpha,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=\frac{\left(1-a_{h}\right)T_{1}\alpha\tau}{a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)-\gamma}\label{eq:QcNendoR}$$ and $Q_{1}$is given by the equation (\[eq:Q1FdP\]).
Then the heat fluxes which are get in ($Q_{I}=Q_{1}+Q_{hl}$) and get out ($Q_{O}=Q_{2}+Q_{hl}$) of the system are: $$Q_{I}\left(\alpha,\delta,\tau,T_{1},a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\left[\alpha\left(1-a_{h}\right)+\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\label{eq:QEnEndoCCR}$$ and $$Q_{O}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,T_{1},a_{h}\right)=\frac{T_{1}\left\{ a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)\delta+\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\tau-a_{h}\left[\alpha+\left(R+\gamma\right)\delta\right]\tau\right\} }{a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)-\gamma}.\label{eq:QSnEndoCCR}$$ Thus, the power output and the dissipation of the system will be: $$P\left(\alpha,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\alpha\left(a_{h}-1\right)\left[\frac{\tau}{a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)-\gamma}-1\right]\label{eq:PotNendoCCR}$$ and $$\Phi\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=\frac{1}{a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)-\gamma}\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\alpha\tau+a_{h}^{2}\alpha\left(R+\gamma\right)\tau-\gamma\left[\delta\left(\tau-1\right)^{2}-\alpha\tau\right]\\
+a_{h}\left\{ \left(R+\gamma\right)\delta-\left[\alpha\left(1+R+2\gamma\right)+2\left(R+\gamma\right)\delta\right]\tau+\left(R+\gamma\right)\delta\tau^{2}\right\}
\end{array}\right\},\label{eq:DisMNoEndoRCC}$$ The power output is a convex function, with its maximum in: $$a_{h}^{MP}\left(\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\frac{\gamma+\sqrt{R\tau}}{R+\tau}.\label{eq:ahMPnEndoR}$$
Whereupon, and substituting the definitions (\[eq:PotNendoCCR\]), (\[eq:DisMNoEndoRCC\]) and (\[eq:ahMPnEndoR\]) in (\[eq:DefFunCPPhiFundeCom\]), the function $C_{P\Phi}$ will be: $$C_{P\Phi}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=\frac{R\kappa\tau\left(\tau-1\right)\left\{ a_{h}^{2}\kappa\left[\kappa\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\left(\tau-\sqrt{R\tau}\right)\right]+a_{h}C_{n1}+C_{n0}\right\} }{\left(a_{h}\kappa-1\right)\left(\sqrt{R\tau}-\tau\right)\left\{ \sqrt{R\tau}\left[\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)^{2}-\alpha\tau\right]+R\left[\delta\sqrt{R\tau}\left(\tau-1\right)^{2}+\alpha\tau\left(1+\tau-\sqrt{R\tau}\right)\right]\right\} },\label{eq:CpPhiNendoRCC}$$ with $$C_{n1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=.\left[\alpha\sqrt{R\tau}-2\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left(\gamma+\sqrt{R\tau}\right)\right]+2\gamma\left[-\delta\sqrt{R\tau}\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\left(\sqrt{R\tau}-\tau\right)\right]-2\gamma^{2}\delta\left(\tau-1\right)-\alpha\tau\sqrt{R\tau}\label{eq:Cn1NendoRCC}$$ and $$C_{n0}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=\gamma^{2}\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\tau\left[R\delta\tau+\alpha\sqrt{R\tau}-R\left(\alpha+\delta\right)\right]+\gamma\left[2\delta\sqrt{R\tau}\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\left(\tau-\sqrt{R\tau}\right)\right]\label{eq:Cn0NendoRCC}$$
 $P\Phi$–Compromise function under a non–endoreversible model as a function of the high reduced temperature, (b) Comparison of the power output and dissipation at maximum $P\Phi$ Compromise Function with respect to the same process variables at maximum power output regime and (c) Efficiency at maximum efficiency regime ( $\eta^{M\eta}$), efficiency at maximum power output ($\eta^{MP}$) and efficiency at maximum $P\Phi$ Compromise Function (Dashed line, $\eta^{MC_{P\Phi}}$). Here we consider: $\alpha=1\,MW/K$, $\gamma=3$,$\tau=0.5$, $T_{1}=500K$, $\delta=0.001MW/K$ and $R=0.9$.](fig2levarioarias){width="15cm" height="6cm"}
In this function, as can be observed in Fig \[fig:FunComNendoRCC\] (a), the high reduced temperature that allows us to reach its maximum is: $$a_{h}^{MC_{P\Phi}}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=\frac{\gamma}{\left(R+\gamma\right)}-\frac{r_{Cp}}{\left(R+\gamma\right)\left[\alpha\left(\tau-\sqrt{R\tau}\right)-\kappa\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]},\label{eq:ahMCpPhiNEndoRCC}$$ where $$r_{Cp}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=\sqrt{R\tau\left[\alpha\sqrt{R\tau}-\gamma\delta\left(1-\tau\right)-R\left(\alpha+\delta\left[1-\tau\right]\right)\right]\left[\alpha\left(\tau-\sqrt{R\tau}\right)-\kappa\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]}.\label{eq:rCpNendoRCC}$$
This high reduced temperature characterize a particular energetic performance in the engine’s behavior. Its process variables can be obtained substituting the equations (\[eq:QEnEndoCCR\]) and (\[eq:QSnEndoCCR\]), with the $a_{h}$ given by equation (\[eq:ahMCpPhiNEndoRCC\]), as is indicated in equations (\[pot\]), (\[ef\]) and (\[eq:dis\]). This allows the engine to reach a 75% of the power output and around 25% to 60% of the dissipation of the MPO–regime (as is showed in Fig. \[fig:FunComNendoRCC\] (b)). In Chapter 3 section 3.2.3 of reference [@kPotEfi] (also see appendix A) is showed how to obtain the high reduced temperature that characterize the $ME_{G}$–regime, using the Compromise Function like is defined by the equation (\[eq:DefFunCompromiso\]). By substituting equation (\[eq:EpsMaxFunCompPotDisNendoRCC\]) in (\[eq:ahMaxEfiMNoEndoRCC\]) (see the appendix A) it is possible to observe that the $a_{h}$ which characterize the maximum generalized ecological function regime, is the same that is given by equation (\[eq:ahMCpPhiNEndoRCC\]). So that, the energetic performance of a thermal engine working in any of these regimes are going to be equal. Under the appropriate limit conditions ($\delta\rightarrow0$ y $R\rightarrow1$), this result can be reduced to the case of an endorreversible model, as is showed in Table \[tab:RrNEHLtoE\].
[|c|>m[10cm]{}|c|]{} $C_{P\Phi}$ & $-\frac{\left[a_{h}-1\right]\left[1+\gamma\right]\left[a_{h}+\left(a_{h}-1\right)\gamma-\sqrt{\tau}\right]\left[1+\sqrt{\tau}\right]}{\left[a_{h}+\left(a_{h}-1\right)\gamma\right]\left[-1+\sqrt{\tau}\right]^{2}}$ & Sketch of the compromise function $a_{h}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$ & $\frac{\gamma+\tau^{\nicefrac{1}{4}}}{1+\gamma}$ & & &
Irreversible model with heat leak ($\sigma_{i}\protect\geq0$; $\delta\protect\neq0$)
====================================================================================
As is mentioned in the previous section, the non-endorreversibility parameter is an option to measure possible irreversibilities which could arise in the working substance of the internal cycle. However, the parameter $\sigma_{i}$ in the second parenthesis of the equation (\[ep\]) can be associated directly to the Uncompensated Heat of Clausius (UHC). This concept was proposed by Clausius [@CalNcomClas; @FWtC], to offset the heat which is lost in a irreversible process. Under this consideration, the second parenthesis of the equation (\[ep\]) allows to establish the relationship between the high reduced and the low reduced temperatures which is: $$a_{c}\left(\alpha,\gamma,r,a_{h}\right)=1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)-\frac{\gamma}{a_{h}},\label{eq:acfahCnCC}$$ where $r=\nicefrac{\sigma_{i}}{\alpha}$. So, the heat flux $Q_{2}$ can be rewritten as: $$Q_{2}\left(\alpha,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,r,a_{h}\right)=\frac{\alpha T_{1}\tau\gamma\left[a_{h}\left(a_{h}-r\right)-1\right]}{\gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]}\label{eq:Q2TI}$$ and $Q_{1}$ is given by the equation (\[eq:Q1FdP\]).
Even though, the characteristic loop of thermal engines out of equilibrium between the efficiency and the power output could be generated by using only the UHC, which implies that this is a good way to measure the irreversibilities of the internal cycle, to incorporate the most common sources of irreversibility, in this model, a heat leak is added. This element will operate like in the previous section, with a newtonian law given by the equation (\[eq:Qhl\]). So, the heat fluxes which are get into and get out of the system are given by the equations (\[eq:Qi\]) and (\[eq:Qc\]): $$Q_{IC}\left(\alpha,\delta,T_{1},\tau,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\left[\alpha\left(1-a_{h}\right)+\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\label{eq:QE4C}$$ and $$Q_{OC}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,r,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\frac{\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\tau+a_{h}\left\{ \delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]+\alpha\tau\left(r-1\right)\right\} }{a_{h}\left[1-\gamma\left(r-1\right)\right]-\gamma},\label{eq:QS4C}$$ with these equations, it is possible to establish the power output and the dissipation of this model as: $$P\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,r,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\alpha\left\{ 1-a_{h}+\frac{\tau\left[1+a_{h}\left(r-1\right)\right]}{\gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]}\right\} \label{eq:Pot4C}$$ and $$\Phi\left(\alpha,\delta,\tau,T_{1},r,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\frac{a_{h}^{2}\alpha\tau\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]-\alpha\tau+\gamma\left[\delta\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}-\alpha\tau\right]+a_{h}\left\{ \delta\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]-\alpha\tau\left(1+\gamma\right)\left(r-2\right)\right\} }{\gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]}.\label{eq:Dis4C}$$ Here, power output has a high reduced temperature that allow its maximization. This $a_{h}$is: $$a_{h}^{MP}\left(\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\frac{\gamma+\sqrt{\tau}}{1-\gamma\left(r-1\right)}.\label{eq:ahMaxPot4C}$$ As was mentioned in previous section, when equations (\[eq:Pot4C\]), (\[eq:Dis4C\]) and (\[eq:ahmCpPhi4C\]) are substituted in (\[eq:DefFunCPPhiFundeCom\]), the objective function $C_{P\Phi}$ is given by: $$C_{P\Phi}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,a_{h}\right)=\nicefrac{\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\left(\tau-1\right)\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]\\
\times\left\{ \gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]+\sqrt{\tau}\right\} n_{C1}
\end{array}\right\} }{\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\left\{ \gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]\right\} \left[r\left(\gamma+\tau\right)-\left(\sqrt{\tau}-1\right)^{2}\right]\\
\times\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\delta\left(\tau-1\right)^{2}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]\\
-\sqrt{\tau}\alpha\left\{ 1+\left[r\left(1+\gamma\right)-2\right]+\tau\right\}
\end{array}\right\}
\end{array}\right\} },\label{eq:CpPhi4C}$$ with $$n_{C1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,a_{h}\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\left[\alpha\sqrt{\tau}+\delta\tau-\left(\alpha+\delta\right)\right]\sqrt{\tau}\\
+a_{h}\left\{ \delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]+\alpha\sqrt{\tau}+\alpha\tau\left(r-1\right)\right\}
\end{array}\right\} .\label{eq:nc14C}$$
Here, the high reduced temperature that maximizes $C_{p\Phi}$ is (see Fig. 3(a)):
 $P\Phi$ Compromise Function for an irreversible model with heat leak. (b) Comparison of the power output and dissipation at maximum compromise function with respect to the same process variables at maximum power output regime. (c) Efficiency at maximum efficiency regime ($\eta^{M\eta}$), efficiency at maximum power output regime ($\eta^{MP}$) and efficiency at *MCF*–regime (dashed line, $\eta^{MC_{P\Phi}}$). (d) Parametric curves of power output vs efficiency at different values of $\tau$. Here we use: $\alpha=1\,MW/K$, $\gamma=3$, $\tau=0.5$, $T_{1}=500K$, $\delta=0.001MW/K$ and $r=0.001$.](fig3levarioarias){width="15cm" height="10cm"}
$$a_{h}^{MC_{P\Phi}}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\left[\frac{1}{1-\gamma\left(r-1\right)}\right]\left\{ \gamma+\sqrt{\frac{\tau\left\{ \delta\left[\tau-1\right]\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]-\alpha\left[r\gamma+\sqrt{\tau}-1\right]\right\} }{\delta\left[\tau-1\right]\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]+\alpha\left[\sqrt{\tau}+\tau\left(r-1\right)\right]}}\right\} .\label{eq:ahmCpPhi4C}$$
In Fig. \[fig:FunComCnCC\] (b) we can observe the comparative of the power output and the dissipation at Maximum $P\Phi$–Compromise Function ($MCF$–regime) with respect to the $MPO$–regime characteristic functions. There, the quotient of the power output at $MCF$–regime and power output at $MPO$–regime is around 75% until it is near to: $$\tau_{l}\left(\gamma,r\right)=\frac{\left[1-\sqrt{r\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]}\right]^{2}}{\left[1-r\right]^{2}},$$ while dissipation increases considerably until 1, as $\tau$ approaches to $\tau_{l}$. It implies that the energetic will be the same of the MPO–regime. It has sense because $\tau$ is $T_{2}/T_{1}$ and it is relate with the engine’s thermal gradient. When $\tau$ is near to zero ($T_{2}\ll T_{1}$), there are more configurations that allow the thermal engine access to several modes of operation. This fact can be observed in Fig. \[fig:FunComCnCC\] (d), where the parametric loop power output vs efficiency decreases as $\tau$ increases. If the reservoirs were bodies with finite heat capacities, they can transfer more energy before reaching the thermal equilibrium when $\tau\ll1$, in the other hand (if $\tau\approx1$) the quantity of energy transferred is small before the thermal equilibrium can be reached.
As in the above section, for this model there are conditions which get it equivalent with the endoreversible model, they are $r=0$ and $\delta=0$. With these conditions we obtain the same results showed in Table \[tab:RrNEHLtoE\]. However, no conditions exist which allow the equivalence to this model with the NEHL model.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper has been shown how by means of a linear heat transfer law and two different thermal engine models (in which some important features of the real thermal engines have been incorporated), the $P\Phi$–Compromise Function is capable to lead a thermal engine to reach a particular optimal operation mode, even in the endoreversible limit ($R\rightarrow1$ or $r\rightarrow0$ and $\delta\rightarrow0$). Such mode had been associated with the maximum ecological generalized function regime, providing a 75% of the power output and a 25% of the dissipation, compared to the same characteristic functions of the MPO–regime. Despite of the fact that the generalized ecological function was the first objective function which allows to characterize the above mentioned optimal operation mode, through a second process of optimization in which the Compromise Function is used to select a very particular value of its generalization parameter, in resent years, there are at least two more generalizations (generalization of the Omega function and $k$–Efficient Power) in which the Compromise Function has been used to select each one of their generalization parameters (as it is showed in the appendices), just like was done in the case of the generalized ecological function. With this procedure we obtained three different objective functions which lead the thermal engine at the same trade off operation mode. Then these objective functions can be considered as particular cases of the Compromise Function, with the advantage that we do not need a second optimization process to reach the trade off optimal mode, consequently an algebraic simplification is obtained.
NEHL Model
==========
In section 2, we refer to certain calculus which were done in [@kPotEfi]. They are related with the way to select each of the generalization parameters by using the compromise function as is defined in equation (\[eq:DefFunCompromiso\]). When we use the generalizations of the Ecological Function (equation \[eq:FunEcoGen\]), the Omega Function (equation \[eq:DefFunOmg\]) or the $k$–Efficient Power (equation \[eq:DefkPotEfi\]), we get a family of each of these functions associated to a generalization parameter respectively, to pick up one of these parameters we use $C_{P\Phi}$. The functional form of each one of these generalizations, can be obtained by considering the equations (\[eq:PotNendoCCR\]), (\[eq:DisMNoEndoRCC\]) and the efficiency, which is given by: $$\eta\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=\frac{\alpha\left(a_{h}-1\right)\left[a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)-\left(\gamma+\tau\right)\right]}{\left[a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)-\gamma\right]\left[\alpha\left(a_{h}-1\right)+\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\right]}.\label{eq:EfiMNoendoRCC}$$ In this model, the power output is not the only characteristic function which has a $a_{h}^{MP}$, the efficiency has a high reduced temperature that maximize it and is: $$a_{h}^{M\eta}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\frac{\kappa\left[\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\tau\right]-\sqrt{R\kappa\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\tau\left\{ \gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\tau-R\left[\alpha+\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\right\} }}{\kappa\left[\kappa\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\tau\right]}.\label{eq:ahMaxEfiMNoEndoRCC}$$ This allow us to know the functional form to the generalizations of the objective functions which were mentioned through this paper. In this model, the generalization of the ecological function is: $$E_{G}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,\epsilon,R,ah\right)=\frac{T_{1}\left(d_{2EG}a_{h}^{2}-d_{1EG}a_{h}+d_{0EG}\right)}{\gamma-a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)},\label{eq:EcoGenEpsNendoRCC}$$ where $$d_{2EG}\left(\alpha,\epsilon,\gamma,R\right)=\alpha\left(R+\gamma\right)\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right),\label{eq:d2EGEcoGenNendoRCC}$$ $$d_{1EG}\left(\alpha,\delta,\epsilon,\gamma,R\right)=R\left[\alpha\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right)-\delta\epsilon\left(\tau-1\right)^{2}\right]+\alpha\left[2\gamma\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right)+\tau\left(1+\epsilon\right)\right]-\gamma\delta\epsilon\left(\tau-1\right)^{2},\label{eq:d1EGEcoGenNendoRCC}$$ $$d_{0EG}\left(\alpha,\delta,\epsilon,\gamma,R\right)=-\gamma\delta\epsilon\left(\tau-1\right)^{2}+\alpha\left[\gamma\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right)+\tau\left(1+\epsilon\right)\right].\label{eq:d0EGEcoGenNendoRCC}$$ As is possible to observe in Fig. \[fig:GOFNEHL\] (a), this function has a $a_{h}$which maximize it, and is given by: $$a_{h}^{ME_{G}}\left(\gamma,\tau,\epsilon,R\right)=\frac{\gamma\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right)+\sqrt{R\tau\left(1+\epsilon\right)\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right)}}{\left(R+\gamma\right)\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right)}.\label{eq:ahMaxFunEcoGenEpsNendoRCC}$$ On the other hand, to know the functional form to the generalization of the omega function, we need to use the equations: (\[eq:QEnEndoCCR\]), (\[eq:PotNendoCCR\]), (\[eq:EfiMNoendoRCC\]) and (\[eq:ahMaxEfiMNoEndoRCC\]), because the $E_{u,eff}=E_{u}-z_{min}E_{i}$ and $E_{u,l}=z_{max}E_{i}-E_{u}$, where $E_{u}$is the useful energy (in this case the Power Output), $E_{i}$fucntion is the energy which is get in to the system ($Q_{i}$), $z_{min}$ is the minimum of the efficiency, that in the case of the heat engines is zero, and $z_{max}$is the efficiency (equation (\[eq:EfiMNoendoRCC\]) ) evaluated in the $a_{h}^{M\eta}$ (equation (\[eq:ahMaxEfiMNoEndoRCC\])) [@FunOmg]. Then $E_{u,eff}$ and $E_{u,l}$ are: $$E_{u,eff}\left(\alpha,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=\frac{T_{1}\alpha\left(a_{h}-1\right)\left[\left(\gamma+\tau\right)-a_{h}\kappa\right]}{a_{h}\kappa-\gamma},\label{eq:EneUtilNendoRCC}$$
$$E_{u,l}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\alpha\left[\left(a_{h}-1\right)\left(1-\frac{\tau}{\kappa a_{h}-\gamma}\right)-\frac{n_{e,p}}{d_{e,p}}\right],\label{eq:EneUtilPerNendoRCC}$$
whit $\kappa=R+\gamma$ and : $$r_{u,p}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\sqrt{R\kappa\delta\tau\left(\tau-1\right)\left[\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\tau-R\left(\alpha+\delta-\delta\tau\right)\right]},\label{eq:DefrEneUtilPerdidaNendoRCC}$$
$$n_{e,p}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\left[\left(a_{h}-1\right)\alpha+\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\right]\\
\times\left[R\delta\kappa\left(\tau-1\right)+r_{u,p}\right]\\
\times\left\{ \tau\left[\tau\left(\delta\kappa+\alpha\right)-R\left(\alpha+\delta\right)-\delta\gamma\right]+r_{u,p}\right\}
\end{array}\right\} ,\label{eq:NumEneUtilPerdidaNendoRCC}$$
$$d_{e,u}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\left(r_{u,p}-R\alpha\tau\right)\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
R\delta\left[\alpha\left(\gamma-\tau\right)-2\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\right]\left(\tau-1\right)\\
-\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left[\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\tau\right]\\
+R^{2}\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left(\alpha+\delta-\delta\tau\right)+r_{u,p}
\end{array}\right\} .\label{eq:DenEneUtilPerdidaNendoRCC}$$
Substituting equations (\[eq:EneUtilNendoRCC\]) and (\[eq:EneUtilPerNendoRCC\]) in the equation (\[eq:DefFunOmg\]), it is possible to know the functional form of the omega function. In Figure \[fig:GOFNEHL\] (a), we can appreciate that this function has a high reduced temperature which maximize it given by: $$a_{h}^{M\Omega_{G}}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\frac{\gamma\kappa d_{\Omega G}+r_{\Omega G}}{\kappa^{2}d_{\Omega G2}},\label{eq:ahMaxFunOmgGendNendoRCC}$$ where : $$d_{\Omega G}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
R^{2}A_{22}\left(\alpha+\delta-\delta\tau\right)+\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left[\gamma\delta\left(1+\lambda\right)\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\lambda\tau\right]\\
+2\alpha\lambda r_{up}+R\left[A_{12}+\alpha^{2}\tau\lambda-\alpha\delta\gamma\left(\tau-1\right)\left(1+\lambda\right)\right]
\end{array}\right\} ,\label{eq:d2OmgGenNendoRCC}$$
$$r_{\Omega G}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\sqrt{R\kappa^{2}\tau\left(1+\lambda\right)\left[\gamma\delta+R\left(\alpha+\delta\right)-\kappa\delta\tau\right]^{2}d_{\Omega G2}},\label{eq:r1OmgGenNendoRCC}$$
$$A_{22}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\alpha-\delta\left(1+\lambda\right)\left(\tau-1\right),\label{eq:A22OmgGNendoRCC}$$
$$A_{12}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R\right)=\alpha^{2}\tau+\delta^{2}\left[\tau-1\right]^{2}\left[2\gamma\left(2+\lambda\right)+\tau\right]+\alpha\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left(2\lambda\tau-3\gamma\right)\label{eq:A12OmgGNendoRCC}$$
and $r_{u,p}$ is given by the equation (\[eq:DefrEneUtilPerdidaNendoRCC\]).
The $k$–Efficient Power, can be obtained by substituting the equations (\[eq:PotNendoCCR\]) and (\[eq:EfiMNoendoRCC\]) in (\[eq:DefkPotEfi\]), and we get: $$P\eta_{k}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,R,k,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\left[\alpha\left(1-a_{h}\right)+\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\left\{ \frac{\alpha\left(a_{h}-1\right)\left[a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)-\left(\gamma+\tau\right)\right]}{\left[a_{h}\left(R+\gamma\right)-\gamma\right]\left[\delta\left(\tau-1\right)+\alpha\left(a_{h}-1\right)\right]}\right\} ^{1+k}.\label{eq:KPotEfiNEHL}$$ As in the above generalizations, this function also has a $a_{h}$ that maximizes it (see Fig. \[fig:GOFNEHL\] (a)), it is given by: $$a_{h}^{MP\eta_{k}}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,k\right)=\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{b_{2}^{2}-3d_{1}}\cos\left(\xi_{k}\right)-\frac{d_{2}}{3},\label{eq:ahmaxkpeNEHL}$$ where $\xi_{k}$ is: $$\xi_{k}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,k\right)=\frac{1}{3}\left\{ \pi+\arccos\left[\frac{6d_{2}^{3}-27\left(d_{2}d_{1}\right)+81d_{0}}{6\left(d_{2}^{2}-3d_{1}\right)^{3/2}}\right]\right\} ,$$ and the coefficients $d_{2}$, $d_{1}$ and $d_{0}$ are: $$d_{2}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,k\right)=\frac{\alpha\left(k\tau-3\gamma\right)+R\delta\tau\left(1+k\right)+\gamma\delta\left(1+k\right)\left(\tau-1\right)-R\left[\alpha+\delta\left(1+k\right)\right]}{\alpha\left(R+\gamma\right)},\label{eq:Coefd2ParaAhMaxkPotEfiNendoRCC}$$
$$d_{1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,k\right)=\frac{\alpha\gamma\left(2R+3\gamma\right)+2\gamma\delta\kappa\left(1+k\right)-\text{\ensuremath{\tau\left[\alpha\left(R+2k\kappa\right)+2\gamma\delta\kappa\left(1+k\right)\right]}}}{\alpha\left(R+\gamma\right)^{\text{2}}}\label{eq:Coefd1ParaAhMaxjPotEfiNendoRCC}$$
and $$d_{o}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,k\right)=\frac{\alpha\tau\left(R+k\kappa\right)+\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left(\gamma^{2}-R\tau\right)-\alpha\gamma^{2}}{\alpha\left(R+\gamma\right)^{\text{2}}}.\label{eq:Coefd0ParaAhMaxkPotEfiNendoRCC}$$
In Fig. \[fig:GOFNEHL\] (a),
 Generalization of the objective functions at the same value of their generalization parameters ($\epsilon=\lambda=k=2)$. (b) Compromise function as a function of the generalization parameters of the different generalization of the objective functions and (c) Generalization of the compromise functions evaluated in the specific values that maximize the compromise function ($\epsilon_{NEHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$, $\lambda_{NEHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$ and $k_{NEHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$). Here we use: $\alpha=1\,MW/K$, $\gamma=3$,$\tau=0.5$, $T_{1}=500\,K$, $\delta=0.001\,MW/K$ and $R=0.9$](fig4levarioarias){width="15cm" height="6cm"}
each of the generalization is sketched to the same value of their generalization parameters, however, no one of them have their maximums in the same place, so, their optimal modes of operations are not the same. To chose a value of each of the generalized parameters, in 2001 [@FunCom2], 2006 [@OmegaGen] and 2016 [@kPotEfi] the compromise function (equation (\[eq:DefFunCompromiso\])) was used. This was possible when replacing the values of $a_{h}$ which maximize each of the generalizations as was done for the $ME_{G}$–regime. It is possible to appreciate in Fig. \[fig:GOFNEHL\] (b), that are values of $\epsilon$, $\lambda$ and $k$ which maximize the compromise function in each case, and they are: $$\epsilon_{NEHL}^{MC}=\frac{\alpha\left(R+\tau-2\sqrt{R\tau}\right)}{\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)^{\text{2}}-\alpha\left[\tau+\sqrt{R\tau}\left(\tau-1\right)\right]+R\left[\delta\left(\tau-1\right)^{2}-\alpha\tau\right]},\label{eq:EpsMaxFunCompPotDisNendoRCC}$$
$$\lambda_{NEHL}^{MC}=\frac{\left[2\sqrt{R\tau}-\left(R+\tau\right)\right]\left\{ \gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)-R\left[\alpha-\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\right]^{2}\right\} }{\left\{ 2\left[r_{up}+R\alpha\tau\right]\left[R\left(\alpha+\delta\right)+\delta\left(\gamma-\kappa\tau\right)\right]\right\} d_{\lambda c}\sqrt{R\tau}},\label{eq:LambdaMaxComPotDIsNendoRCC}$$
and $$k_{NEHL}^{MC}=\frac{\left\{ \delta\left[R^{2}-\gamma\right]\left[1-\tau\right]\left[2\sqrt{R\tau}-\tau\right]+\alpha\tau\left[3\sqrt{R\tau}-\tau\right]+R\left[\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\left(\gamma+\tau-2\sqrt{R\tau}\right)+\alpha\left(\sqrt{R\tau}-3\tau\right)\right]\right\} n_{k1}}{\left\{ \alpha\left[\tau-\sqrt{R\tau}\right]-\kappa\delta\left[1-\tau\right]\right\} \left\{ \sqrt{R\tau}\left[\alpha\tau-\gamma\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\left[\alpha\tau-2\gamma\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]+d_{k1}-d_{k2}\right\} }\label{eq:kmaxComPotDisNendoRCC}$$ with $r_{Cp}$ given by the equation (\[eq:rCpNendoRCC\]) and : $$d_{\lambda c}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,k\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
2\alpha r_{up}+\gamma\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left[2\gamma\text{\ensuremath{\delta\left(\tau-1\right)}+\ensuremath{\alpha\tau}}\right]\\
+R\left[\alpha^{2}\tau+4\gamma\delta^{2}\left(\tau-1\right)^{2}-\alpha\delta\left(3\gamma-\tau\right)\left(\tau-1\right)\right]+R^{2}\left[\alpha-2\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\right]
\end{array}\right\} ,\label{eq:dLamCNedoRCC}$$
$$n_{k1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,k\right)=\alpha r_{Cp}+\left[\alpha\left(\sqrt{R\tau}-\tau\right)-\gamma\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\left[\delta\kappa\left(1-\tau\right)+\alpha\left(\sqrt{R\tau}-\tau\right)\right],\label{eq:nk1NEHL}$$
$$d_{k1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,k\right)=R^{2}\left[\alpha+2\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\left[\alpha\tau+\delta\sqrt{R\tau}\left(1-\tau\right)\right]+2r_{Cp}\left[\alpha\left(\tau-\sqrt{R\tau}\right)-\gamma\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\label{eq:dk1NEHL}$$
and $$d_{k2}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,R,k\right)=R\left[2r_{Cp}\delta\left(1-\tau\right)-4\gamma\delta^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}\sqrt{R\tau}+\alpha^{2}\tau\left(\tau+\sqrt{R\tau}\right)+\alpha\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\left(3\tau\sqrt{R\tau}-\gamma\left[2\tau+\sqrt{R\tau}\right]\right)\right].\label{eq:dk2NEHL}$$ When these values are substituted in their corresponding $a_{h}$, the high reduced temperature which arise is the same: $$a_{h}^{NEHL}=\frac{\gamma}{R+\gamma}-\frac{r_{Cp}-\sqrt{R\tau\left\{ \alpha\sqrt{R\tau}-\gamma\delta\left(1-\tau\right)-R\left[\alpha+\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\right\} \left[\alpha\left(\tau-\sqrt{R\tau}\right)-\kappa\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]}}{\left[R+\gamma\right]\left[\alpha\left(\tau-\sqrt{R\tau}\right)-\kappa\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]}.\label{eq:ahMFoGNEHL}$$ This can be seen in the Fig. \[fig:GOFNEHL\] (c) where the three objective functions are evaluated in their corresponding values $\epsilon_{NEHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$, $\lambda_{NEHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$ and $k_{NEHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$ which maximize the compromise function.
IHL Model
=========
As in the above section, we will show how, using the compromise function, as is defined in equation (\[eq:DefFunCompromiso\]) with the k–Efficient Power, the generalization of the ecological function and the generalization of the Omega Function, we can get the same high reduced temperature given by equation (\[eq:ahmCpPhi4C\]) obtained in section 3, where the compromise function is used directly as an objective function.
In this model, the functional form of efficiency is: $$\eta\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,a_{h}\right)=\frac{\alpha\left(1-a_{h}\right)\left\{ \gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]\right\} -\alpha\tau\left[1+a_{h}\left(r-1\right)\right]}{\left\{ \gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]\right\} \left[\alpha\left(1-a_{h}\right)+\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]}.\label{eq:EfiMIrevCC}$$ This efficiency has an $a_{h}$which maximize it, this is: $$a_{h}^{M\eta}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\frac{\alpha\tau+\gamma\left\{ \alpha\tau\left(1-r\right)+\delta\left(1-\text{\ensuremath{\tau}}\right)\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]\right\} -r_{\eta}}{\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]\left\{ \delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]+\alpha\tau\left(r-1\right)\right\} },\label{eq:ahMaxEnfiIrevCC}$$ where $r_{\eta}$ es: $$r_{\eta}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\sqrt{\tau\left[1-\gamma\left(r-1\right)\right]\left\{ r\tau\alpha^{2}+\delta^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]-\alpha\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\left[\tau-1+r\left(\gamma-\tau\right)\right]\right\} }.\label{eq:rmetaIrevCC}$$ This allow us to know the function form of the k–Efficient Power, whicbh is: $$P\eta_{k}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,r,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\alpha^{k+1}\left\{ 1-a_{h}+\frac{\tau\left[1+a_{h}\left(r-1\right)\right]}{\gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]}\right\} \left\{ \frac{\left(1-a_{h}\right)\left\{ \gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]\right\} -\tau\left[1+a_{h}\left(r-1\right)\right]}{\left\{ \gamma+a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]\right\} \left[\alpha\left(1-a_{h}\right)+\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]}\right\} ^{k}.\label{eq:kEfiPowIHL}$$ In Fig. \[fig:GOFIHL\] (a) this function is sketched to an arbitrary value of $k$, and it is possible to appreciate that this function has a high reduced temperature which maximize it, which is given by: $$a_{h}^{MP\eta_{k}}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\frac{2}{3}\sqrt{d_{2}^{2}-3d_{1}}\cos\left(\xi_{k}\right)-\frac{d_{2}}{3},\label{eq:ahmKPotEfiIHL}$$ where $\xi_{k}$ is: $$\xi_{k,}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\frac{1}{3}\left\{ \pi+\arccos\left[\frac{6d_{2}^{3}-27\left(d_{2}d_{1}\right)+81d_{0}}{6\left(d_{2}^{2}-3d_{1}\right)^{3/2}}\right]\right\} ,\label{eq:anglemaxkPotEffiIHL}$$ and the coefficients$d_{2}$, $d_{1}$ and $d_{0}$ are : $$d_{2}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=-\frac{\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\left(1+k\right)\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]+\alpha\left[1+\gamma\left(3-r\right)-k\tau\left(1-r\right)\right]}{\alpha\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]},\label{eq:Coefd2ParaAhMaxkPotEfiICNC}$$
$$d_{1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\frac{\alpha\gamma\left[2+\gamma\left(3-2r\right)\right]+2\gamma\delta\left(1+k\right)\left(1-\tau\right)\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]-\alpha\tau\left\{ 1+2k\gamma\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]\right\} }{\alpha\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]^{2}},\label{eq:Coefd1ParaAhMaxjPotEfiICNC}$$
and $$d_{o}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\frac{\alpha\left[\tau k\left(1+\gamma\right)+\tau-\gamma^{2}\right]-\delta\left(1+k\right)\left(\gamma^{2}-\tau\right)\left(1-\tau\right)}{\alpha\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]^{2}}.\label{eq:Coefd0ParaAhMaxkPotEfiICNC}$$
For the generalization of the ecological function, it is necessary to replace the equations (\[eq:Pot4C\]) and (\[eq:Dis4C\]) in (\[eq:FunEcoGen\]), having so, to this model $E_{G}$ is: $$E_{G}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,\epsilon\right)=T_{1}\frac{a_{h}^{2}\alpha\left[1+\epsilon\tau\right]\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]-a_{h}n_{EG1}-\gamma\delta\left[1-\tau\right]^{2}+\alpha\left[\gamma\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right)+\tau\left(1+\epsilon\right)\right]}{\gamma-a_{h}\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]},\label{eq:GenFunEcoIHL}$$ with: $$n_{EG1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,\epsilon\right)=\alpha\left[1+\gamma\left(2-r\right)+\tau-\tau\left(r-\epsilon\left[1+\gamma\right]\left[2-r\right]\right)\right]-\delta\epsilon\left[1-\tau\right]^{2}\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]$$ In Fig. \[fig:GOFIHL\] (a), it is possible to appreciate that to an arbitrary value of $\epsilon$, this function has a $a_{h}$which maximize it, that is: $$a_{h}^{ME_{G}}\left(\gamma,\tau,r,\epsilon\right)=\frac{\gamma\left(1-\epsilon\tau\right)+\sqrt{\tau\left(1+\epsilon\right)\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right)}}{\left(1+\epsilon\tau\right)\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]}.\label{eq:ahMaxGenEcoIHL}$$ On the other hand, by taking the definitions of $E_{u,eff}$, $E_{u,l}$ and z [@FunOmg] for this model, we get: $$E_{u,eff}\left(\alpha,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,r,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\alpha\left\{ 1-a_{h}+\frac{\tau\left[1-a_{h}\left(1-r\right)\right]}{\gamma-a_{h}\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]}\right\} \label{eq:EneUtilIrrevCC}$$ and $$E_{u,l}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,T_{1},\tau,r,a_{h}\right)=T_{1}\alpha\left\{ a_{h}-1+\frac{\tau\left[a_{h}\left(1-r\right)-1\right]}{\gamma-a_{h}\left[\gamma\left(1-r\right)+1\right]}+\frac{\left[\alpha\left(1-a_{h}\right)+\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\right]\left(r_{\eta}^{2}-r_{\eta}n_{1ep}-n_{2ep}\right)}{\left(r_{\eta}-\alpha\tau\right)\left\{ r_{\eta}\alpha-\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)+1\right]d_{1ep}\right\} }\right\} ,\label{eq:EneUtilPerIrrevCC}$$ where $r_{\eta}$ is given by the equation (\[eq:rmetaIrevCC\]) and $$n_{1ep}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\alpha\tau\left\{ 1+r\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]-\tau\left(1-r\right)^{2}\right\} -\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\left[\gamma\left(1-r\right)+1\right]\left[r\gamma-\tau\left(1-r\right)-1\right],\label{eq:Num1EneUtilPerdidaIrrevCC}$$
$$n_{2ep}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\tau\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)+1\right]\left\{ \delta^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]+r\alpha^{2}\tau-\alpha\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\left[r\left(\gamma-\tau\right)-1+\tau\right]\right\} ,\label{eq:Num2EneUtilPerdidaIrrevCC}$$
with $$d_{1ep}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=r\alpha^{2}\tau-\alpha\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\left[r\gamma+\tau\left(1-r\right)-1\right]+\delta^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right].\label{eq:Den2EneUtilPerdidaIrrevCC}$$ In Fig. \[fig:GOFIHL\] (a) can be appreciated that the generalization of the Omega Function has a maximum, which is given by: $$a_{h}^{M\Omega_{G}}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,\lambda\right)=\frac{\Omega_{2}-\sqrt{\Omega_{2}+4\Omega_{1}\Omega_{3}}}{2\Omega_{1}},\label{eq:ahmaxOmgGenIHL}$$ with: $$\Omega_{1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,\lambda\right)=-d_{\Omega g1}^{2}\left\{ r_{\eta}^{2}\alpha+\alpha\tau d_{\Omega g1}\left\{ \delta^{2}d_{\Omega g1}+r\tau\alpha^{2}+\left(1-\tau\right)\left[1-r\gamma-\tau\left(1-r\right)\right]\right\} +r_{\eta}n_{\Omega g1}\right\} ,\label{eq:CofOmgG1}$$
$$\Omega_{2}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,\lambda\right)=-\frac{2\gamma}{d_{\Omega g1}}\Omega_{1},\label{eq:CoefOmg2IHL}$$
$$\Omega_{3}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,\lambda\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
r_{\eta}^{2}\alpha\left[\tau\left(1+\lambda\right)-\gamma^{2}\right]-r_{\eta}d_{\Omega g2}\\
-\alpha\tau d_{\Omega g1}\left[\gamma^{2}-\tau\left(1+\lambda\right)\right]\left\{ \delta^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}d_{\Omega g1}+r\alpha^{2}\tau-\alpha\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\left[\tau-1+r\left(\gamma+\tau\right)\right]\right\}
\end{array}\right\} ,\label{eq:CofOmgG3}$$
and $$d_{\Omega g1}\left(\gamma,r\right)=1+\gamma\left(1-r\right),\label{eq:dOmgG1}$$
$$d_{\Omega g2}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,\lambda\right)=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
-\delta^{2}d_{\Omega g1}^{2}\left(\gamma^{2}-\tau\right)\left(1+\lambda\right)+\alpha\delta\left(1-\tau\right)d_{\Omega g1}n_{\Omega g2}\\
+\alpha^{2}\tau\left\{ -\gamma^{2}\left[1+r+r\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]+\tau+\tau d_{\Omega g1}\left\{ r+\lambda\left[1+r-\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]\right\} \right\}
\end{array}
\right\} .\label{eq:dOmgG2}$$
$$n_{\Omega g1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r,\lambda\right)=-\delta^{2}d_{\Omega g1}^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}-\alpha^{2}\tau\left[1+rd_{\Omega g1}+\lambda\tau\left(1-r\right)^{2}\right]+\alpha d_{\Omega g1}\left(1-\tau\right)\left[r\gamma-1+\tau\left(1-r\right)\left(1+2\lambda\right)\right]$$ and $$n_{\Omega g2}\left(\gamma,\tau,r,\lambda\right)=r\gamma^{3}-r\gamma\tau\left(1+\lambda\right)+\tau\left(1+\lambda\right)\left[1-\tau\left(1-r\right)\right]-\gamma^{2}\left[1-\tau\left(1+2\lambda\right)\left(1-r\right)\right].$$ When this high reduced temperatures ((\[eq:ahmKPotEfiIHL\]), (\[eq:ahMaxGenEcoIHL\]) and (\[eq:ahmaxOmgGenIHL\])) are substituted in equation (\[eq:DefFunCompromiso\]), the compromise function in each one has a value of $k$, $\lambda$ and $\epsilon$ which maximize it, just like is showed in Fig. \[fig:GOFIHL\](b), if the compromise function is maximized respect to each generalization parameter. The corresponding values are: $$\epsilon_{IHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}=\frac{\alpha\left[\left(1-\sqrt{\tau}\right)^{2}-r\left(\gamma+\tau\right)\right]}{\delta\left[1+\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}+\alpha\tau^{1/2}\left[1+\tau^{1/2}\left(r+r\gamma-2\right)+\tau\right]}.\label{eq:EpsMaxFunCom4C}$$
$$\lambda_{IHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}=\frac{\left[\left(1-\sqrt{\tau}\right)^{2}-r\left(\gamma+\tau\right)\right]\left\{ 2\alpha\tau d_{\Omega g1}n_{c1}-r_{\eta}\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\delta^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}d_{\Omega g1}+\alpha^{2}\tau\left[1+r+r\gamma\left(1-r\right)\right]\\
+\alpha\delta d_{\Omega g1}\left(1-\tau\right)\left[1-r\left(\gamma-\tau\right)+\tau\right]
\end{array}\right\} \right\} }{r_{\eta}\sqrt{\tau}d_{c1}-2\tau d_{\Omega g1}n_{c1}\left[\delta\left(1-\tau\right)d_{\Omega g1}+\alpha\sqrt{\tau}-\alpha\tau\left(1-r\right)\right]}\label{eq:LamMaxCPPhiIHL}$$
and $$k_{IHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}=\frac{\left[\left(1-\sqrt{\tau}\right)^{2}-r\left(\gamma+\tau\right)\right]\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
\delta^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}d_{\Omega g1}^{2}+\alpha^{2}\left(1-r\gamma\right)\left[1-\sqrt{\tau}\left(1-r\right)\right]\\
+\alpha\delta d_{\Omega g1}\left[r\left(\gamma-\tau\right)-1-\sqrt{\tau}\left(1-\sqrt{\tau}\right)\right]
\end{array}\right\} -\alpha r_{kC}}{\left\{ \delta d_{\Omega g1}\left(1-\tau\right)+\alpha\left[\sqrt{\tau}-\tau\left(1-r\right)\right]\right\} \left\{ \sqrt{\tau}\left\{ \delta d_{\Omega g1}\left(1-\tau\right)-\alpha\left[\tau-1+r\left(\gamma-\tau\right)\right]\right\} -2r_{kC}\right\} }\label{eq:kMaxCpPhiIHL}$$ with $$n_{c1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=-\delta^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}d_{\Omega g1}-r\tau\alpha^{2}-\alpha\delta\left(1-\tau\right)\left[1-r\gamma-\tau\left(1-r\right)\right],\label{eq:nc1IHL}$$
$$d_{c1}\left(\alpha,\delta,\gamma,\tau,r\right)=\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
-2\delta^{2}\left(1-\tau\right)^{2}d_{\Omega g1}^{2}-\alpha\delta d_{\Omega g1}\left[1+2\sqrt{\tau}+3r\tau-\left(r\gamma+3\tau\right)\right]\\
-\alpha^{2}\tau\left[1+r\left(1+\gamma\right)-r^{2}\gamma-2\sqrt{\tau}\left(1-r\right)+\tau\left(1-r\right)^{2}\right]
\end{array}\right\} \label{eq:dc1IHL}$$
and $$r_{kC}=\sqrt{\tau\left[\alpha\left(1-r\gamma+\sqrt{\tau}\right)+\delta\left(1-\tau d_{\Omega g1}\right)\right]\left[\delta\left(1-\tau d_{\Omega g1}\right)+\alpha\sqrt{\tau}-\alpha\tau\left(1-r\right)\right]}.\label{eq:rkcIHL}$$
When these values of the generalization parameters are substituted in the corresponding high reduced temperature that maximize the generalized functions, it is possible to appreciate in Fig. \[fig:GOFIHL\](c), that the three generalized functions have their maxima in the same $a_{h}$, then the three $a_{h}$ reduces them self to: $$a_{h}^{IHL}=\left[\frac{1}{1-\gamma\left(r-1\right)}\right]\left(\gamma+\sqrt{\frac{\tau\left\{ \delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]-\alpha\left(r\gamma+\sqrt{\tau}-1\right)\right\} }{\delta\left(\tau-1\right)\left[\gamma\left(r-1\right)-1\right]+\alpha\left[\sqrt{\tau}+\tau\left(r-1\right)\right]}}\right).\label{eq:ahMaxCpPhiOldIhL}$$ Which is just the same high reduced temperature that is get when the compromise function is used directly like $P\Phi$–Compromise Function (equation (\[eq:ahmCpPhi4C\])), then they become equivalent in their energetics at the optimal operation regimes.
 Generalization of the objective functions at the same value of their generalization parameters ($\epsilon=\lambda=k=2)$. (b) Compromise function as function of the generalization parameters of the different generalization of the objective functions and (c) Generalization of the compromise functions evaluated in the specific value that maximize the compromise function ($\epsilon_{IHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$, $\lambda_{IHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$ and $k_{IHL}^{MC_{P\Phi}}$). Here we use:: $\alpha=1MW/K$, $\gamma=3$,$\tau=0.5$, $T_{1}=500K$, $\delta=0.001MW/K$ and $r=0.001$](fig5levarioarias){width="15cm" height="6cm"}
[10]{} S. Carnot, *Reflexiones sobre la potencia motriz del fuego y sobre las maquinas aptas para desarrollar potencia*, 1976, IPN, México.
F.L.Curzon and B.Ahlborn, “Efficiency of a Carnot Engine at Maximum Power Output”, Am. J. Phys. **43**, 22 (1975).
K. H. Hoffmann, J. M. Burzler, A. Fischer and S. Schullert,, “Optimal Process Path for Endoreversible Systems”,*J. Non-Equilib. Thermodyn.*, **28**, 233 (2003).
L. Chen and F. Sun (Editors), *Advances in Finite Time Thermodynamics: Analysis and Optimization*, 1st edn, 2004, New York, Nova Science Publishers, Inc.fucntion.
F. Angulo-Brown, “An ecological optimization criterion for finite-time heat engines”, J. Appl. Phys., **69**, 7465 (1991).
A. Calvo-Hernández, A, Medina, J.M.M. Roco, J.A. White and S. Velasco. “Unified optimization criterion for energy convertes”. Phys. Rev. E., **63**, 037102-1 (2001).
J. W. Stucki, “The Optimal Efficiency and the Economic Degrees of Coupling of Oxidative Phosphorylation”,Eur. J. Biochem., **109**, 269 (1980).
T. Yilmaz, “A new performance criterion for heat engines efficient power”, *Journal of the Energy Institute,* **79**, 38 (2006).
L. A. Arias–Hernandez, M. A. Barranco–Jimenez and F. Angulo–Brown, *Journal of the Energy Institute,* **82**, 223 (2009).
S. Velasco et all, “Optimization of heat engines including the saving of natural resources and the reduction of thermal pollution”, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., **33**, 355 (2000).
L. A. Arias–Hernández and F. Angulo–Brown, “A general property of endoreversible thermal engienes”, J. Appl. Phys. **81**, 2973 (1997).
L. A. Arias-Hernández and F. Angulo Brown, Reply to “Comment on “A general property of endorreversible thermal engienes””, J. Appl. Phys. **89**,1520 (2001).
F. Angulo-Brown, G. Ares de Parga and L.A. Arias-Hernández, “A variational approach to ecological-type optimization criteria for finite-time thermal engine models”, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., **35**, 1089 (2002)
L. Partido-Tornez, “Aplicación de los criterios omega y ecológico generalizados a diferentes convertidores de energía”, Tesis de Maestría, ESFM-IPN, México (2006).
S. Levario-Medina , “Estudio del desempeño egergético de un motor térmico operando a potencia eficiente generalizada”, Tesis de Maestría, ESFM-IPN, México (2016).
S. Levario-Medina, G. Valencia-Ortega, L.A. Arias-Hernández, “Thermal optimization of Curzon-Ahlborn heat engines operating under some generalized eficient power regimes”, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134: 348 (2019).
R. C. Tolman and P. C. Fine, Rev. Mod. Phys., **51**, 20 (1948).
J. M. Gordon, “Generalized power versus efficiency characteristics of heat engines: The thermoelectric generator as an instructive illustration”, Am. J. Phys., **59** , 551 (1991).
S. Özkaynak, S. Göktun and H. Yavuz, “Finite-time thermodynamic analysis of a radiative heat engine with internal irreversibility”, J. Phy. D: Appl. Phys., **27** , 1139 (1994).
J. J. Silva–Martinez, L. A. Arias–Hernandez, “Energetic performance of a series arrangement of irreversible power cycles”,Rev. Mex. Fis. S **59** (1), 192 (2013).
J. M. Gordon and M. Huleihil, “General Performance characteristics of real heat engines”, J. Appl. Phys., **72**, 829 (1992).
J. M. Gordon and M. Huleihil, “On optimizing maximum-power heat engines”, J. Appl. Phys., **69**, 1 (1991).
R. Clausius, “The mechanical theory of heat”, (Bibliobar, 2009).
M. W. Zemansky y R.H Dittman, “ Heat and thermodynamics ”;(7ª edición, McGraw-Hill, 1997).
D. S. L. Cardwell, “From Watt to Clausius the rise of thermodynamics in the early industrial age”; (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, 1970).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Seyed Armin Vakil Ghahani$^\ddagger{}$ Sara Mahdizadeh Shahri$^\ddagger{}$ Mohammad Bakhshalipour$^\ddagger{}$$^\S{}$ Pejman Lotfi-Kamran$^\S{}$ Hamid Sarbazi-Azad$^\ddagger{}$$^\S{}$'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'Making Belady-Inspired Replacement Policies More Effective Using Expected Hit Count'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The cloud radio access network (C-RAN) provides high spectral and energy efficiency performances, low expenditures and intelligent centralized system structures to operators, which has attracted intense interests in both academia and industry. In this paper, a hybrid coordinated multi-point transmission (H-CoMP) scheme is designed for the downlink transmission in C-RANs, which fulfills the flexible tradeoff between cooperation gain and fronthaul consumption. The queue-aware power and rate allocation with constraints of average fronthaul consumption for the delay-sensitive traffic are formulated as an infinite horizon constrained partially observed Markov decision process (POMDP), which takes both the urgent queue state information (QSI) and the imperfect channel state information at transmitters (CSIT) into account. To deal with the *curse of dimensionality* involved with the equivalent Bellman equation, the linear approximation of post-decision value functions is utilized. A stochastic gradient algorithm is presented to allocate the queue-aware power and transmission rate with H-CoMP, which is robust against unpredicted traffic arrivals and uncertainties caused by the imperfect CSIT. Furthermore, to substantially reduce the computing complexity, an online learning algorithm is proposed to estimate the per-queue post-decision value functions and update the Lagrange multipliers. The simulation results demonstrate performance gains of the proposed stochastic gradient algorithms, and confirm the asymptotical convergence of the proposed online learning algorithm.'
author:
- 'Jian Li, Mugen Peng, , Aolin Cheng, Yuling Yu, Chonggang Wang, [^1] [^2] [^3]'
title: 'Resource Allocation Optimization for Delay-Sensitive Traffic in Fronthaul Constrained Cloud Radio Access Networks'
---
Queue-aware resource allocation, hybrid coordinated multi-point transmission, fronthaul limitation, cloud radio access networks.
Introduction
============
is estimated that the demand for high-speed mobile data traffic, such as high-quality wireless video streaming, social networking and machine-to-machine communication, will get 1000 times increase by 2020[[@bib:tdscdma]]{}, which requires a revolutionary approach involving new wireless network architectures as well as advanced signal processing and networking technologies. As key components of heterogeneous networks (HetNets), low power nodes (LPNs) are deployed within the coverage of macro base stations (MBSs) and share the same frequency band to increase the capacity of cellular networks in dense areas with high traffic demands. Unfortunately, the aggressive reuse of limited radio spectrum will result in severe inter-cell interference and unacceptable degradation of system performances. Therefore, it is critical to control interference through advanced signal processing techniques to fully unleash the potential gains of HetNets. As an integral part of the LTE-Advanced (LTE-A) standards, the coordinated multi-point transmission (CoMP) technique targets the suppression of the inter-cell interference and quality of service (QoS) improvement for the cell-edge UEs. However, CoMP is faced with some disadvantages and challenges in real HetNets. The performance gain of CoMP highly depends on the perfect knowledge of channel state information (CSI) and the tight synchronization, both of which pose strict restrictions on the backhaul of LPNs. To manipulate the high density of LPNs with lowest capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) effectively, the cloud radio access network (C-RAN) was proposed in[[@cran]]{} to enhance spectral efficiency and energy efficiency performances and has recently attracted intense interest in both academia and industry.
![C-RAN architecture[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig_cran.eps)
As depicted in Fig. \[fig1\], the remote radio heads (RRHs) are only configured with the front radio frequency (RF) and simple symbol processing functionalities, while the other baseband physical processing and procedures of the upper layers are executed jointly in the baseband unit (BBU) pool for UEs associating with RRHs. The LPNs are simplified as RRHs through connecting to a “signal processing cloud" with high-speed fronthaul links. To coordinate the cross-tier interference between RRHs and MBSs effectively, the BBU pool is interfaced to MBSs. Such a distributed deployment and centralized processing architecture facilitates the implementation of CoMP[[@crancluster]]{} amongst RRHs of C-RANs as well as provides ubiquitous networks coverage with MBSs. Since all the RRHs in C-RANs are connected to the BBU pool, the CoMP can be realized through virtual beamforming and the beamformers can be calculated in BBU pool. Specifically, the CoMP in downlink C-RANs can be characterized into two classes[[@comp]]{}: joint processing (JP) and coordinated beamforming (CB). For JP, the traffic payload is shared and transmitted jointly by all RRHs within the CoMP cluster[[@JP]]{}, which means multiple delivery of the same traffic payload from the centralized BBU pool to each cooperative RRH through capacity-limited fronthaul links. As for the CB, the traffic payload is only transmitted by the serving RRH, but the corresponding beamformer is jointly calculated at the centralized BBU pool to coordinate the interference to all other UEs within the CoMP cluster[[@CS]]{}. Obviously, JP achieves higher average spectrum efficiency than CB does at the expense of more fronthaul consumption, while CB requires more antennas equipped with each RRH to achieve the full intra-cluster interference coordination. However, the practical non-ideal fronthaul with limited capacity restricts the overall performances of CoMP in C-RANs.
Related Works
-------------
There exists lots of literatures aiming to alleviate the fronthaul requirement of JP without the loss of interference exploitation. The authors of[[@dynamicclustering]]{} proposed a dynamic clustered multi-cell cooperation scheme to substantially reduce the backhaul consumption by imposing restriction on the cluster size. A heuristic algorithm was proposed in[[@directional]]{} to dynamically select the directional cooperation links under a finite-capacity backhaul subject to the evaluation of benefits and costs, which cannot completely eliminate the undesired interference as in the full cooperation case. Both reweighed $l$-1 norm minimization method and heuristic iterative link removal algorithm were proposed in[[@tonyquek]]{} to reduce the user data transfer via the capacity-limited backhaul effectively by dealing with the formulated cooperative clustering and beamforming problems, which, however, are suboptimal and still suffer from a significant performance loss. A backhaul cost metric considering the number of active directional cooperation links was adopted in[[@asymmetricJP]]{}, where the design problem is minimizing this backhaul cost metric and jointly optimizing the beamforming vectors among the cooperative BSs subject to signal-to-interference-and-noise-ratio (SINR) constraints at UEs. To make a flexible tradeoff between the cooperation gain and the backhaul consumption, a rate splitting approach under the limited backhaul rate constraints was proposed in[[@streamsplitting]]{}, where some fraction of the backhaul capacity originally consumed by JP could be privately used to get more performance gains. Borrowing the idea in[[@streamsplitting]]{}, the authors of[[@r1]]{} proposed a soft switching strategy between the JP-CoMP and CB-CoMP modes under capacity-limited backhaul. Considering the high complexity and the large signaling overhead, a distributed hard switching strategy was also proposed in[[@r1]]{}. To achieve a tradeoff between diversity and multiplexing gains of multiple antennas and high spectral efficiency, the authors of[[@r2]]{} studied both the dynamic partial JP-COMP and its corresponding resource allocation in a clustered CoMP cellular networks. Generally, for the C-RANs, the potential high spectral efficiency gain of CoMP largely depends on the quality of obtained channel state information at transmitters (CSIT) as well as the fronthaul consumption. In[[@r3]]{}, channel prediction usefulness was analyzed and compared with channel estimation in downlink CoMP systems with backhaul latency in time-varying channels, considering both the centralized and decentralized JP-CoMP as well as the CB-CoMP.
However, the aforementioned works only focus on physical layer performance of spectral efficiency or energy efficiency and ignore the bursty traffic arrival as well as the delay requirement of delay-sensitive traffic. Therefore, the resulting control policy is adaptive to the channel state information (CSI) only and cannot guarantee good delay performance for delay-sensitive applications. In general, since the CSI could provide information regarding the channel opportunity while the queue state information (QSI) could indicate the urgency of the traffic flows, the queue-aware resource allocation should be adaptive to both the CSI and QSI. Furthermore, as the CSIT cannot be perfect in real systems, and systematic packet errors occur when the allocated data rate exceeds the instantaneous mutual information. Therefore, the issue of robustness against the uncertainty incurred by imperfect CSIT should also be considered in the resource allocation optimization.
There already have some research efforts on the queue-aware dynamic resource allocation in stochastic wireless networks. In paper[[@queuecluster]]{}, the authors proposed a mixed timescale delay-optimal dynamic clustering and power allocation design with downlink JP in traditional multi-cell networks. The queue-aware discontinuous transmission (DTX) and user scheduling design with downlink CB in energy-harvesting multi-cell networks was proposed in[[@dtx]]{}. A queue-weighted dynamic optimization algorithm using Lyapunov optimization approach was proposed in[[@lyapunov]]{} for the joint allocation of subframes, resource blocks, and power in the relay-based HetNets. However, all these works focus on queue-aware resource allocations in homogeneous networks or HetNets without the consideration of the imperfect CSIT. Therefore, the solutions cannot work in the C-RANs with the practical challenges of imperfect CSIT and non-ideal capacity-limited fronthaul links.
Main Contributions
------------------
To the best of our knowledge, there are lack of effective signal processing techniques and dynamic radio resource management solutions for delay-sensitive traffic in C-RANs to optimize the SE, EE and delay performances, which still remains challenging and requires more investigations. Based on the aforementioned advantages and challenges of C-RANs, the efficient CoMP scheme with tradeoff between cooperation gain and fronthaul consumption will be elaborated in this paper. Furthermore, under the average power and fronthaul consumption constraints, the dynamic radio resource management with feature of queue-awareness to maintain good delay performance for delay-sensitive traffic in stochastic C-RANs will also get studied in this paper. The major contributions of this paper are as follows.
- To allow a flexible tradeoff between cooperation gain and average fronthaul consumption, the H-CoMP scheme is proposed for the delay-sensitive traffic in C-RANs by splitting the traffic payload into shared streams and private streams. By reconstructing the shared streams and private streams and optimizing the precoders and decorrelators, the shared streams and private streams can be simultaneously transmitted to obtain the maximum achievable degree of freedom (DoF) under limited fronthaul consumption.
- Motivated by[[@survey]]{}, to minimize the transmission delay of the delay-sensitive traffic under the average power and fronthaul consumption constraints in C-RANs, the queue-aware rate and power allocation problem is formulated as an infinite horizon average cost constrained partially observed Markov process decision (POMDP). The queue-aware resource allocation policy is adaptive to both QSI and CSIT in the downlink C-RANs and can be obtained by solving a per-stage optimization for the observed system state at each scheduling frame.
- Since the optimal solution requires centralized implementation and perfect knowledge of CSIT statistics and has exponential complexity w.r.t. the number of UEs, the linear approximation of post-decision value functions involving POMDP is presented, based on which a stochastic gradient algorithm is proposed to allocate power and transmission rate dynamically with low computing complexity and high robustness against the variations and uncertainties caused by unpredictable random traffic arrivals and imperfect CSIT. Furthermore, the online learning algorithm is proposed to estimate the post-decision value functions effectively.
- The delay performances of the proposed H-CoMP and queue-aware resource allocation solution are numerically evaluated. Simulation results show that a significant delay performance gain can be achieved in the fronthaul constrained C-RANs with H-CoMP, and the queue-aware resource allocation solution is validated and effective due to the adaptiveness to both QSI and imperfect CSIT. Further, the stochastic gradient algorithms can improve the delay performances drastically, and the online learning algorithm is asymptotically converged.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the system model and section III gives the design of H-CoMP scheme for the downlink C-RANs. The queue-aware resource allocation problem is formulated as POMDP in section IV and a low complexity approach is proposed in section V. The performance evaluation is conducted in section VI and section VII summarizes this paper.
$(.)^T$ and $(.)^H$ stand for the transpose and conjugate transpose, respectively. $(.)^\dagger $ stands for the pseudo-inverse. Besides, $diag(\textbf{p})$ denotes a diagonal matrix formed by the vector $\textbf{p}$.
System Models
=============
To optimize performances of downlink C-RANs, the transmission model, traffic queue dynamic model in the medium access control (MAC) layer, and the imperfect CSIT assumption in the physical layer are considered in this section.
Transmission Model
------------------
The transmission of $M$ delay-sensitive traffic payloads in downlink C-RANs with $M$ RRHs is considered. Denote $\mathcal {M} =
\{1,2,...,M\}$ as the UE set and $\mathcal {N} = \{1,2,...,M\}$ as the RRH set within the CoMP cluster. An example of C-RAN with $M =
2$ is illustrated in Fig. 2. The inter-tier interferences amongst the RRHs and MBSs are controlled by setting the maximum allowable power consumption of each RRH indicated by the MBSs through the X2 interfaces, while the intra-tier interferences in C-RANs can be eliminated by implementing the CoMP. Each RRH and UE are equipped with $N_t$ and $N_r$ antennas respectively, where $M{N_r} \geq N_t >
(M - 1){N_r}$. Within the coverage of each RRH, a served UE exists and it can also be cooperatively served by the other RRHs according to the following proposed H-CoMP scheme. In this paper, the scheduling is carried out in every frame indexed by $t$ and the frame duration is $\tau$ second.
Traffic Queue Dynamic Model
---------------------------
Let ${\bf{Q}}(t) = \{ {Q_1}(t), \ldots ,{Q_M}(t)\}$ denote the global QSI (number of bits) for $M$ queues maintained at BBU pool at the beginning of scheduling frame $t$. There will be random packet arrival ${A_i}(t)$ after ${G_i}(t)$ bits are successfully received by UE $i$ at the end of frame $t$. The random arrival process $A_i(t)$ is supposed to be independent identically distributed (i.i.d) over scheduling frame according to a general distribution with mean $\mathbb{E}\{ {A_i}(t)\} = {\lambda _i}$ and independent w.r.t $i$. Furthermore, the statistics of ${A_i}(t)$ is supposed to be unknown to the BBU. The queue dynamic of UE $i$ is then given by $${Q_i}(t + 1) = min\{ {[{Q_i}(t) - {G_i}(t)]^ + } + {A_i}(t),{N_Q}\},$$ where $[x]^+ = max\{x, 0\}$ and $N_Q$ is the maximum buffer size.
Imperfect CSIT Assumption
-------------------------
Let ${{\bf{H}}_{ji}}(t) \in {\mathbb{C}^{{N_r} \times {N_t}}}$ denote the complex channel fading coefficient between RRH $i$ and UE $j$ at frame $t$ and let $\textbf{H}(t) = \{{{\bf{H}}_{ji}}(t): j\in
\mathcal {M}, i \in \mathcal {N}\}$ denote the global CSI. Especially, every element of ${{\bf{H}}_{ji}}(t)$ is supposed to remain constant within a scheduling frame but be i.i.d over scheduling frame. The perfect knowledge of CSI is assumed to be only obtained by the UE while the imperfect CSIT ${\bf{\hat H}} =
\{{{\bf{\hat H}}_{ji}}(t) \in {\mathbb{C}^{{N_r} \times {N_t}}}:
j\in \mathcal {M}, i \in \mathcal {N}\}$ is obtained by the BBU pool. The rank of both ${\bf{\hat H}}_{ji}$ and ${\bf{H}}_{ji}$ is assumed to be $min\{N_r,N_t\}$. Furthermore, the imperfect CSIT error kernel model is given by[[@imperfectCSIT]]{}
$$\Pr [{{\bf{\hat H}}_{ji}}|{{\bf{H}}_{ji}}] = \frac{1}{{\pi {\sigma
_{ji}}}}\exp ( - \frac{{|{{{\bf{\hat H}}}_{ji}} -
{{\bf{H}}_{ji}}{|^2}}}{{{\sigma _{ji}}}}),$$
which is caused by duplexing delay in time division duplex (TDD) systems or quantization errors and feedback latency in frequency division duplex (FDD) systems. The above ${\sigma _{ji}} \in [0,1]$ indicates the CSIT quality. When ${\sigma _{ji}} = 0$, we have ${{\bf{\hat H}}_{ji}}={{\bf{H}}_{ji}}$, which corresponds to the perfect CSIT case. When ${\sigma _{ji}} = 1$, we have ${{\bf{\hat
H}}_{ji}}{{\bf{H}}_{ji}^{\dag }}$ = [**0**]{}, which corresponds to the no CSIT case.
Hybrid CoMP scheme
==================
With the limited fronthaul capacity, the maximum achievable DoF can be obtained by separating the traffic payload for UE $i$ into ${L_{(i,s)}}$ shared streams ${{\bf{s}}_{(i,s)}}$ and ${L_{(i,p)}}$ private streams ${{\bf{s}}_{(i,p)}}$ and simultaneously transmitting them with optimal precoders and decorrelators, that is the hybrid CoMP (H-CoMP) scheme. More specifically, the H-CoMP allows shared streams to be shared across the RRHs with the CoMP cluster by multiple delivery through capacity-limited fronthaul links. Meanwhile, the H-CoMP makes private streams remain private to certain RRH and the precoders are jointly calculated at the BBU pool to eliminate the intra-cluster interference. Therefore, the cooperative transmission of shared streams requires significantly more fronthaul consumption than the coordinated transmission of private streams does. In the following subsections, the traffic streams splitting model, precoder calculation and decorrelator calculation with the perfect CSIT will be thoroughly elaborated.
Traffic Streams Splitting Model
-------------------------------
To make a flexible tradeoff between the cooperation gain and average fronthaul consumption, the number of shared streams and private streams should be determined with the traffic streams splitting model. With the perfect CSIT, the zero-forcing (ZF) precoder and decorrelator designs are adopted for both shared streams and private streams. In this situation, at most ${L_{M,{N_t},{N_r}}} = {{N_t} -
(M - 1){N_r} }$ private streams can be zero-forced at RRH $i$ to eliminate interference to UE ${\rm{j}} \ne i$, i.e. $$L_{(i,p)} \leq {L_{M,{N_t},{N_r}}}.$$ Furthermore, to fully recover the ${L_{(i,p)}}$ private streams and ${L_{(i,s)}}$ shared streams at UE $i$, the constraint $$L_{(i,p)}+L_{(i,s)} \le N_r$$ should be satisfied. With the traffic streams splitting, the proposed H-CoMP allows a flexible tradeoff between the cooperation gain and the fronthaul consumption. The achievable DoFs of different schemes are compared in table I.
[|m[1.5cm]{}<|m[5cm]{}<|]{} **Scheme** & **Achievable DoF**\
CB-CoMP & $(M
-1){L_{M,{N_t},{N_r}}} + {N_r}$\
JP-CoMP & $M{N_r}$\
H-CoMP & $\{ (M - 1){L_{M,{N_t},{N_r}}} + {N_r},...,M{N_r}\}$\
Specifically, when $L_{(i,p)}+L_{(i,s)} = N_r$, the maximum DoF of $MN_rM$ can be achieved by the H-CoMP scheme, and when ${L_{(i,p)}}
= {L_{M,{N_t},{N_r}}}$, the fronthaul consumption is minimized.
Although the shared streams and private streams are superimposed in the downlink transmission of C-RANs, it is possible to eliminate the interference at RRHs and recover both of them at UEs by constructing the private streams and shared streams and designing optimal precoders and decorrelators.
Let ${{\bf{s}}_{(i,s)}} \in {\mathbb{C}^{L_{(i,s)} \times 1}}$ and ${{\bf{s}}_{(i,p)}} \in {\mathbb{C}^{L_{(i,p)} \times 1}}$ denote the shared streams and private streams respectively, where $L_{(i,s)}$ and $L_{(i,p)}$ are the number of shared streams and private streams. To facilitate the implementation of H-CoMP, the shared streams and private streams are reconstructed by inserting zero vectors as follows respectively $${{\bf{\tilde s}}_{(i,s)}} = {\{ {\bf{s}}_{(i,s)}^T,{{\textbf{0}}_{1
\times {L_{(i,p)}}}}\} ^T},$$ $${{\bf{\tilde s}}_{(i,p)}} = {\{ {\textbf{0}_{1 \times
{L_{(i,s)}}}},{\bf{s}}_{(i,p)}^T\} ^T}.$$
Let ${{\bf{\tilde W}}_{(i,s)}} \in {\mathbb{C}^{M{N_t} \times
{(L_{(i,s)} + L_{(i,p)})}}}$ and ${\tilde{\bf{ W}}_{(i,p)}} \in
{\mathbb{C}^{{N_t} \times {(L_{(i,p)} + L_{(i,s)})}}}$ denote the precoders for the reconstructed shared streams and reconstructed private streams of UE $i$ respectively. Define ${{\bf{\Lambda
}}_{(i,s)}} = diag(\sqrt {P_{(i,s)}^1} , \ldots ,\sqrt
{P_{(i,s)}^{{L_{(i,s)}}}}, {\textbf{0}_{1 \times {L_{(i,p)}}}})$ and ${{\bf{\Lambda }}_{(i,p)}} = diag({\textbf{0}_{1 \times
{L_{(i,s)}}}}, \sqrt {P_{(i,p)}^1} , \ldots ,\sqrt
{P_{(i,p)}^{{L_{(i,p)}}}} )$, where $P_{(i,s)}$ and $P_{(i,p)}$ denote the transmission power of each shared stream and private stream for UE $i$ respectively. Then the received signal vector ${{\bf{r}}_i} \in {\mathbb{C}^{{N_r} \times 1}}$ at UE $i$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&{{\bf{r}}_i} = \underbrace {{{\bf{H}}_i}{{\tilde{\bf{
W}}}_{(i,s)}}{{\bf{\Lambda }}_{(i,s)}}{{\tilde{\bf{s}}}_{(i,s)}} +
{{\bf{H}}_{ii}}{{\tilde{\bf{ W}}}_{(i,p)}}{{\bf{\Lambda
}}_{(i,p)}}{{\tilde{\bf{
s}}}_{(i,p)}}}_{{\rm{the~desired~signals~for~UE~i }}} \\\nonumber &&
+ \underbrace {\sum\limits_{j \ne i} {{{\bf{H}}_i}{{\tilde{\bf{
W}}}_{(j,s)}}{{\bf{\Lambda }}_{(j,s)}}{{\tilde{\bf{s}}}_{(j,s)}}}
}_{{\rm{the~interference~from~shared~ streams}}}\\\nonumber && +
\underbrace {\sum\limits_{j \ne i} {{{\bf{H}}_{ij}}{{\tilde{\bf{
W}}}_{(j,p)}}{{\bf{\Lambda }}_{(j,p)}}{{\tilde{\bf{s}}}_{(j,p)}}}
}_{{\rm{the~interference~from~ private~streams}}} + {{\bf{n}}_i},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\textbf{H}_i} = [\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{{\textbf{H}_{i1}}}& \cdots &{{\textbf{H}_{iM}}}
\end{array}] \in {\mathbb{C}^{{N_r} \times M{N_t}}}$ is the aggregate complex channel fading coefficient vector from the $M$ cooperative RRHs to UE $i$, and ${{\bf{n}}_i}$ is the zero-mean unit variance complex Gaussian channel noise at UE $i$.
Precoder and Decorrelator Calculation for Shared Streams
---------------------------------------------------------
The optimal cooperative precoder at the $M$ RRHs and the decorrelator at UE $i$ should be designed to maximize the mutual information of shared streams and to eliminate the interference imposed on all the other UEs (UE $j \ne i$) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&&\{ {\bf{\tilde W}}_{_{(i,s)}}^ * ,{\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,s)}}^ * \}
= \arg \mathop {\max }\limits_{{{{\bf{\tilde W}}}_{(i,s)}},
{{{\bf{\tilde U}}}_{(i,s)}}} {\log _2}\det [\textbf{I} + \nonumber \\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {{{\bf{\tilde
U}}}_{(i,s)}}{{\bf{{\bf{H}}}}_i} {{{\bf{\tilde
W}}}_{(i,s)}}{\bf{\tilde W}}_{_{(i,s)}}^H{\bf{H}}_{_i}^H{\bf{\tilde
U}}_{_{(i,s)}}^H] \nonumber\\
&&s.t.~~~~~~ {{\bf{H}}_j}{{\bf{\tilde W}}_{(i,s)}} = \textbf{0}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the precoder have the form of
$${{\bf{\tilde W}}_{(i,s)}^*} = {{\bf{F}}_{(i,s)}}{{{\bf{\tilde
V}}}_{(i,s)}},$$
where ${{\bf{F}}_{(i,s)}} \in {\mathbb{C}^{M{N_t} \times (M{N_t} -
(M - 1){N_r})}}$ is given by the orthonormal basis of ${\rm{nullspace([}}{\bf{H}}_1^T, \cdots ,{\bf{H}}_{i - 1}^T,
{\bf{H}}_{i + 1}^T{\rm{,}} \cdots {\rm{,}}$ ${\bf{H}}_M^T{{\rm{]}}^T})$. Let ${{\bf{H}}_i}{{\bf{F}}_{(i,s)}} =
{{\bf{U}}_{(i,s)}}{{\bf{\Sigma }}_{(i,s)}}{\bf{V}}_{(i,s)}^H$ be the singular value decomposition (SVD) of equivalent channel matrix ${{\bf{H}}_i}{{\bf{F}}_{(i,s)}}$, where the singular values in ${{\bf{\Sigma }}_{(i,s)}}$ are sorted in a decreasing order along the diagonal, ${{\bf{\tilde V}}_{(i,s)}} \in {\mathbb{C}^{(M{N_t} -
(M - 1){N_r}) \times {(L_{(i,s)}+L_{(i,p)})}}}$ is then given by the first ${L_{(i,s)}}$ columns of ${{\bf{V}}_{(i,s)}}$ as ${{\bf{\tilde
V}}_{(i,s)}} = \{ {\bf{v}}_{(i,s)}^1, \cdots
,{\bf{v}}_{(i,s)}^{{L_{(i,s)}}},{\textbf{0}}_{(M{N_t} - (M -
1){N_r}) \times L_{(i,p)}}\}$. Furthermore, the decorrelator ${\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,s)}}^ *$ is given by the first ${L_{(i,s)}}$ columns of ${{\bf{U}}_{(i,s)}}$ as follows
$${\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,s)}}^ * = \{ {\bf{u}}_{(i,s)}^1, \cdots
,{\bf{u}}_{(i,s)}^{{L_{(i,s)}}},{\textbf{0}}_{{N_r} \times
L_{(i,p)}}\}^H.$$
Then the recovered $L_{(i,s)}$ shared streams are given by the first $L_{(i,s)}$ rows of ${\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,s)}}^ *{{\bf{r}}_i}$.
Precoder and Decorrelator Calculation for Private Streams
----------------------------------------------------------
The optimal coordinated precoder at RRH $i$ for the private streams of UE $i$ and the decorrelator at UE $i$ should be designed to maximize the mutual information of private streams and to eliminate the interference imposed on all the other UEs (UE $j \ne i$) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
&&\{ {\bf{\tilde W}}_{_{(i,p)}}^ * ,{\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,p)}}^ * \}
= \arg \mathop {\max }\limits_{{{{\bf{\tilde W}}}_{(i,p)}},
{{{\bf{\tilde U}}}_{(i,p)}}} {\log _2}\det [\textbf{I} + \nonumber\\
&&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{{{\bf{\tilde U}}}_{(i,p)}}{{\bf{{\bf{H}}}}_{ii}}
{{{\bf{\tilde W}}}_{(i,p)}}{\bf{\tilde W}}_{_{(i,p)}}^H{\bf{H}}_{ii}^H{\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,p)}}^H] \nonumber\\
&&s.t.~~~~~~~ {{\bf{H}}_{ji}}{{\bf{\tilde W}}_{(i,p)}} = \textbf{0}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore the precoder has the similar form of $${{\bf{\tilde W}}_{(i,p)}^*} = {{\bf{\tilde F}}_{(i,p)}}{{{\bf{\tilde
V}}}_{(i,p)}},$$ where ${\bf{\tilde F}}_{(i,p)} = [{\textbf{0}}_{N_t \times (N_r -
L_{M,N_t,N_r})}, {\bf{F}}_{(i,p)}]$ and ${\bf{F}}_{(i,p)} \in
{\mathbb{C}^{{N_t} \times L_{M,N_t,N_r}}}$ is given by the orthonormal basis of ${\rm{nullspace([}}{\bf{H}}_{1i}^T, \cdots
,{\bf{H}}_{i-1 i}^T, {\bf{H}}_{i + 1 i}^T{\rm{,}} \cdots
{\rm{,}}{\bf{H}}_{Mi}^T{{\rm{]}}^T})$. Let ${{\bf{H}}_{ii}}{{\bf{\tilde F}}_{(i,p)}} =
{{\bf{U}}_{(i,p)}}{{\bf{\Sigma }}_{(i,p)}}{\bf{V}}_{(i,p)}^H$ be the SVD of equivalent channel matrix ${{\bf{H}}_{ii}}{{\bf{\tilde
F}}_{(i,p)}}$, where the singular values in ${{\bf{\Sigma
}}_{(i,p)}}$ are sorted in an increasing order along the diagonal, ${{\bf{\tilde V}}_{(i,p)}} \in {\mathbb{C}^{{N_r} \times
{(L_{(i,s)}+L_{(i,p)})}}}$ is then given by the last ${L_{(i,p)}}$ columns of ${{\bf{V}}_{(i,p)}}$ as ${{\bf{\tilde V}}_{(i,p)}} =
\{{\textbf{0}}_{{N_r} \times L_{(i,s)}},{\bf{v}}_{(i,p)}^{N_r -
L_{(i,p)} + 1}, \cdots ,{\bf{v}}_{(i,p)}^{{N_r}}\}$. Furthermore, the decorrelator ${\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,p)}}^ *$ is given by the last ${L_{(i,p)}}$ columns of ${{\bf{U}}_{(i,p)}}$ as follows $${\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,p)}}^ * = \{{\textbf{0}}_{{N_r} \times
L_{(i,s)}}, {\bf{u}}_{(i,p)}^{N_r - L_{(i,p)} + 1}, \cdots
,{\bf{u}}_{(i,p)}^{N_r}\}^H.$$ Then the recovered $L_{(i,p)}$ private streams are given by the last $L_{(i,p)}$ rows of ${\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,p)}}^
*{{\bf{r}}_i}$.
[(*The Interference Nulling Between Shared Streams and Private Streams*)]{} Although the interference nulling constraints are not explicitly imposed, the interference between shared streams and private streams of UE $i$ can be still eliminated due to the fact that ${\bf{\tilde U}}_{_{(i,s)}}^
* {{\tilde{\bf{ W}}}_{(i,p)}}{{\bf{\Lambda
}}_{(i,p)}}{{\tilde{\bf{s}}}_{(i,p)}} = \textbf{0}$ and ${\bf{\tilde
U}}_{_{(i,p)}}^
* {{\tilde{\bf{ W}}}_{(i,s)}}{{\bf{\Lambda
}}_{(i,s)}}{{\tilde{\bf{s}}}_{(i,s)}} = \textbf{0}$.
The Power Consumption and Transmission Rate
-------------------------------------------
To support the cooperative transmission of $a$-th shared stream from $M$ RRHs to UE $j$, the power contributed by RRH $i$ is given by $P_{(j,s)}^a\rho _{(j,i)}^a$, where $P_{(j,s)}^a$ denote the total power to transmit the $a$-th shared stream to UE $i$ and $\rho
_{(j,i)}^a = \sum\nolimits_{x = 1}^{{N_t}} {|{{[{{\bf{\tilde
W}}^{*}_{(j,s)}}]}_{((i - 1){N_t} + x,a)}}{|^2}}$ denote the contribution by RRH $i$. To support the coordinated transmission of $a$-th private stream from RRH $i$ to UE $i$, the power of $P_{(i,s)}^a$ is needed. Therefore, with the proposed H-CoMP scheme, the total transmit power consumption at RRH $i$ is given by $$P_i = \sum\nolimits_{a = 1}^{{L_{(i,p)}}} {P_{(i,p)}^a} +
\sum\nolimits_{j = 1}^M {\sum\nolimits_{a = 1}^{{L_{(j,s)}}}
{P_{(j,s)}^a\rho _{(j,i)}^a} }\label{power}.$$
In practice, both the precoders and decorrelators are calculated at the BBU pool with the imperfect CSIT, which will cause uncertain residual interference to the recovered streams. By treating the uncertain interference as noise, the mutual information of $a$-th shared stream at ${\bf{s}}_{(i,s)}^a$ UE $i$ is given by $$C_{(i,s)}^a = {\log _2}(1 + {{\varphi}_{(i,s)}^a}P_{(i,s)}^a/(1 +
I_{(i,s)}^a)),$$ where $\varphi _{(i,s)}^a = |{\bf{\tilde
U}}_{(i,s)}^a{{\bf{H}}_i}{\bf{\tilde W}}_{(i,s)}^a{|^2} $, ${\bf{\tilde U}}_{(i,s)}^a$ and ${\bf{\tilde W}}_{(i,s)}^a$ is the $a$-th row of ${\bf{\tilde U}}_{(i,s)}^*$ and $a$-th column of ${\bf{\tilde W}}_{(i,s)}^*$ respectively, $I_{(i,s)}^a$ is the residual interference incurred by the imperfect CSIT. The mutual information of $a$-th private stream ${\bf{s}}_{(i,p)}^a$ of UE $i$ is given in a similar way. Due to the uncertainties of mutual information, the data rate successfully transmitted to UE $i$ is given by $${G_i} = ({R_{(i,s)}}\textbf{1}({R_{(i,s)}} \le {C_{(i,s)}}) +
{R_{(i,p)}}\textbf{1}({R_{(i,p)}} \le {C_{(i,p)}}))\tau,$$ where ${C_{(i,s)}} = \sum\nolimits_{a = 1}^{{L_{(i,s)}}}
{C_{(i,s)}^a} $ and ${C_{(i,p)}} = \sum\nolimits_{a =
1}^{{L_{(i,p)}}} {C_{(i,p)}^a}$ are the mutual information for shared streams and private streams respectively. ${R_{(i,s)}} $ and ${R_{(i,p)}}$ are the allocated data rate for shared streams and private streams of UE $i$ respectively.
Formulation of Queue-aware Control Problem
==========================================
To meet the urgency of the delay-sensitive traffic payloads and reduce the occurrence of packet transmission failure in the downlink C-RANs, the queue-aware resource allocation problem based on the observed system states (QSI and CSIT) will be formulated in this section.
Feasible Stationary Control Policy
----------------------------------
Considering the inter-tier interference imposed by RRHs and the energy efficient transmission of delay-sensitive traffic, the feasible resource allocation policy should satisfy the following average power consumption constraints $${P_i}{\rm{(}}\Omega {\rm{) = }}\mathop {lim}\limits_{T \to \infty }
{sup} \frac{1}{T}\sum\limits_{t = 1}^T {{{\mathbb{E}}^\Omega
}[{P_i}(t)]} \le P_i^{\max },$$ where ${\mathbb{E}^\Omega }$ indicates that the expectation is taken w.r.t the measure induced by policy $\Omega$, ${P_i}(t)$ is the total power consumption of RRH $i$ to support the H-CoMP transmission, and $P_i^{\max }$ is the maximum average power consumption indicated by MBSs. Furthermore, by varying the maximum average power consumption of each RRH, cross-tier interference could be well controlled to maintain desirable average QoS requirement for macro UEs.
It is worth noting that compared with the fronthaul consumption for traffic payload sharing, that for signaling delivery is negligible. Due to the capacity-limited fronthaul links of C-RANs, the feasible resource allocation policy also should satisfy the following average fronthaul consumption constraints $$R_i^{f}(\Omega )\!=\!\mathop {lim} \limits_{T \to \infty }\!{sup}
\frac{1}{T}\sum\limits_{t = 1}^T \!{{{\mathbb{E}}^\Omega
}[{R_{(i,p)}}(t)\! +\! \sum\limits_j\! {{R_{(j,s)}}(t)} ]} \! \le\!
R_i^{\max },$$ where ${R_{(i,p)}}(t) + \sum\nolimits_{j \in \mathcal {M}}
{{R_{(j,s)}}(t)}$ is the total data rate to be delivered to RRH $i$ through the fronthaul link connecting RRH $i$ to BBU pool, and $R_i^{\max }$ is the maximum average fronthaul consumption.
With the aforementioned resource constraints, the feasible stationary resource allocation policy for C-RANs is defined as follows.
[(*Stationary Resource Allocation Policy*)]{} A feasible stationary resource allocation policy $\Omega ({\bf{\hat
S}}) = \{ {\Omega _R}({\bf{\hat S}}),{\Omega _P}({\bf{\hat S}})\}$ is a mapping from the global observed system states ${\bf{\hat S}} =
\{ {\bf{Q}},{\bf{\hat H}}\}$ instead of the global system states ${\bf{S}} = \{ {\bf{Q}},{\bf{H}},{\bf{\hat H}}\}$ to the resource allocation actions, where ${\Omega _P}({\bf{\hat S}}) = \{
{{{P}}^a_{(i,p)}},{{{P}}^b_{(i,s)}}: 1 \leq a \leq L_{(i,p)}, 1 \leq
b \leq L_{(i,s)}, i \in M\}$ and ${\Omega _R}({\bf{\hat S}}) = \{
{{{R}}_{(i,p)}},{{{R}}_{(i,s)}}:i \in M\}$ are the power allocation policy and rate allocation policy subject to average power consumption constraints and average fronthaul consumption constraints.
Given the feasible stationary resource allocation policy $\Omega
({\bf{\hat S}})$, the induced random process ${\bf{S}} = \{
{\bf{Q}},{\bf{H}},{\bf{\hat H}}\}$ is a controlled Markov chain with the transition probability as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\!\{ {\bf{S}}(t\! +\! 1)|{\bf{S}}(t),\Omega ({\bf{\hat
S}}(t))\}\! = \Pr\{ {\bf{\hat H}}(t \!+ \!1),{\bf{H}}(t \!+\! 1)\}
\nonumber\\ \Pr\{ {\bf{Q}}(t\! + \!1)|{\bf{S}}(t),\Omega ({\bf{\hat
S}}(t))\} .\label{tansprob}\end{aligned}$$
Apparently, the queue dynamics of the $M$ UEs served by C-RAN are coupled with each other via $\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}}(t))$.
Problem Formulation
-------------------
With the positive weighting factors $\{{\beta}_i\}$ ,which indicates the relative importance of delay requirement among the $M$ users, the queue-aware resource allocation problem with average power consumption constraints and average fronthaul consumption constraints can be formulated as the following problem.
[(*Queue-aware Resource Allocation Problem*)]{} $$\begin{aligned}
&&{\min _\Omega }D({\bf{\beta }},\Omega ) = \mathop {lim} \limits_{T \to \infty } {sup}\frac{1}{T}\sum\limits_{t = 1}^T {{{\mathbb{E}}^\Omega }[\sum\limits_{i \in M} {{\beta _i}\frac{{{Q_i}}}{{{\lambda _i}}}} ]} \\
&& s.t. \rm{~~the~constraints~(17)~and~(18)~for~each~RRH} \nonumber,\end{aligned}$$ where the $\frac{{{Q_i}}}{{{\lambda _i}}}$ in objective function is the average traffic delay cost for UE $i$ by Little’s Law.
With the average power consumption constraints and average fronthaul consumption constraints in Problem 1, the occurrence of extreme instantaneous power and fronthaul consumption tends to be impossible. Furthermore, the feasible stationary resource allocation policy is defined on the observed system states ${\bf{\hat S}} = \{
{\bf{Q}},{\bf{\hat H}}\}$. Therefore, problem 1 is a constrained partially observed MDP (POMDP)[[@bertsekas]]{}, which will be solved by the following general approach.
General Approach with MDP
-------------------------
Using the Lagrange duality theory, the Lagrange dual function of problem 1 is defined as
$$J(\gamma )\! = \!\mathop {\min }\limits_\Omega L(\beta ,\gamma
,\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}}) ) \!=\! \mathop {lim}\limits_{T \to \infty
}{sup} \frac{1}{T}\!\sum\limits_{t = 1}^T {{{\mathbb{E}}^\Omega
}[g({\bf{\beta }},{\bf{\gamma }},\Omega ({\bf{\hat
S}}))]}\label{lag},$$
where $g({\bf{\beta }},{\bf{\gamma }},\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}})) =
\sum\limits_i {({\beta _i}\frac{{{Q_i}}}{{{\lambda _i}}}) + }
{\gamma _{(i,P)}}({{\rm{P}}_i} - P_i^{\max }) + {\gamma
_{(i,R)}}(R_i^{f} - R_i^{\max })$ is the per-stage system cost and ${\gamma _{(i,P)}}$ and ${\gamma _{(i,R)}}$ are the non-negative Lagrange multipliers (LMs) w.r.t the power consumption constraints and fronthaul consumption constraints. Then the dual problem of problem 1 is given by $$\mathop {\max }\nolimits_\gamma J(\gamma ).$$
Although (\[lag\]) is an unconstrained POMDP, the solution is generally nontrivial. To substantially reduce the global observed system states space, the partitioned actions are defined as follows with the i.i.d. property of the CSIT.
[(*Partitioned Actions*)]{} Given the stationary resource allocation policy $\Omega$, $\Omega
({\bf{Q}}) = \{ \Omega ({\bf{\hat S}}):\forall {\bf{\hat H}}\}$ is defined as the collections of power and rate allocation actions for all possible CSIT ${\bf{\hat H}}$ on a given QSI $\textbf{Q}$, therefore $\Omega$ is equal to the union of all partitioned actions. i.e. $\Omega = {\cup}_{\textbf{Q}}{{\Omega}(\textbf{Q})} $.
As the distribution of the traffic arrival process is unknown to the BBU, the post-decision state potential function instead of potential function will be introduced in the following theorem to derive the queue-aware resource allocation policy of eq. (\[lag\]).
[(*Equivalent Bellman Equation*)]{}\
(a)Given the LMs, the unconstrained POMDP problem can be solved by the equivalent Bellman equation as follows $$\begin{aligned}
U({\bf{\tilde Q}}) + \theta = \sum\nolimits_{\bf{A}} {\Pr
({\bf{A}})} \mathop {min}\limits_{\Omega(\textbf{Q})}g(\bf{\beta },
{\bf{\gamma }}, \textbf{Q},{\Omega(\textbf{Q})}) \nonumber\\ +
\sum\nolimits_{{\bf{\tilde Q}}'} {\Pr \{ {\bf{\tilde
Q}}'|\textbf{Q},{\Omega(\textbf{Q})}\} U({\bf{\tilde Q}}')}
\label{bellman},\end{aligned}$$ where $g(\bf{\beta }, {\bf{\gamma }},{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{Q}})) =
\mathbb{E}[g({\bf{\beta }},{\bf{\gamma }},\Omega ({\bf{\hat
S}}))|{\bf{Q}}] $ is the conditional per-stage cost and $\Pr \{
{\bf{\tilde Q}}'|{\bf{Q}},{\Omega(\textbf{Q})}\} = \mathbb{E}[\Pr
[{\bf{Q}}'|{\bf{H}},{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}})]|{\bf{Q}}]$ is the conditional average transition kernel, $U({\bf{\tilde Q}})$ is the post-decision value function. ${\bf{\tilde Q}}$ is the post-decision state and ${\bf{\tilde Q}}' = {({\bf{Q}} - {\bf{G}})^
+ }$ is the next post-decision state, where ${\bf{Q}} = \min \{
{\bf{\tilde Q}} + {\bf{A}},{N_Q}\}$ and ${\bf{G}} = \{G_i : i \in
\mathcal {M}\}$.
(b)If there exists unique $(\theta ,\{ U({\bf{\tilde Q}})\} )$ that satisfies (\[bellman\]), then $\theta = \mathop
{min}\limits_{\Omega(\textbf{Q})} {\mathbb{E}}[g(\bf{\beta },
{\bf{\gamma }},{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{Q}}))$ is the optimal average per-stage cost for the unconstrained POMDP and the optimal resource allocation policy $\Omega $ is obtained by minimizing R.H.S of (\[bellman\]).
Please refer to Appendix A
[(*The Zero Duality Gap*)]{} Although the objective function of problem 1 is not convex w.r.t the stationary resource control policy, the duality gap between the dual problem and primal problem is zero when the condition Theorem 1 (b) is established, which implies that the primal optimal resource control policy can be obtained by solving the equivalent Bellman equation of the dual optimal problem.
[(*The Computational Complexity*)]{} Solving the equivalent Bellman equation involves ${N_Q}^M + 1$ unknowns $(\theta ,\{ U({\bf{\tilde Q}})\} )$ and ${N_Q}^M$ nonlinear fixed point equations, which means exponential state space, enormous computational complexity and full knowledge of system states transition probability in (\[tansprob\]). Therefore, a low complexity solution based on linear approximation and online learning of post-decision value functions will be further studied.
Low Complexity Approach
=======================
In this section, to substantially reduce the enormous computing complexity in centralized BBU pool, the linear approximation of post-decision value functions is utilized, upon which a stochastic gradient algorithm is proposed to obtain the QAH-CoMP policy and an online learning algorithm is proposed to estimate the post-decision value functions.
Linear Approximation of Post-decision Value Functions
-----------------------------------------------------
The linear approximation of post-decision value functions is defined by the sum of the per-queue value functions as follows[[@linearapprox]]{}
$$U({\bf{\tilde Q}}) \approx \sum\nolimits_{i \in \mathcal {M}}
{{U_i}({{\tilde Q}_i})},$$
where ${U_i}({\tilde Q_i})$ is the per-queue post-decision value functions which satisfies the following per-queue fixed point Bellman equation $$\begin{aligned}
{U_i}({{{\rm{\tilde Q}}}_i})\! + \!{\theta _i}\!&& =
\!\sum\nolimits_{{A_i}} {\Pr ({A_i})} \mathop
{min}\limits_{{\Omega}_{i}(Q_i)}[{g_i}({\beta _i},{{\bf{\gamma }}_i}
,{Q_i},{{\Omega}_{i}})\nonumber\\&& + \sum\nolimits_{{{\tilde
Q}_i}'} {\Pr \{ \tilde Q{'_i}|{Q_i},{{\Omega}_{i}}\} U(\tilde
Q{'_i})}] \label{perqueuebellman},\end{aligned}$$ where ${g_i}({\beta _i},{{\bf{\gamma }}_i} ,{Q_i},{{\Omega}_{i}}) =
\mathbb{E}[ {\beta _i}\frac{{{Q_i}}}{{{\lambda _i}}} + {\gamma
_{(i,P)}}(\sum\limits_{a = 1}^{{L_{(i,s)}}} {P_{(i,s)}^a\rho
_{(i,i)}^a} + \sum\limits_{a = 1}^{{L_{(i,p)}}} {P_{(i,p)}^a} -
P_i^{\max }) + \sum\limits_{j \in \mathcal {M}, j \ne i} {{\gamma
_{(j,P)}}}$ $ \sum\limits_{a = 1}^{{L_{(i,s)}}} {P_{(i,s)}^a\beta
_{(i,j)}^a} + {\gamma _{(i,R)}}({R_{(i,p)}}(t) + \sum\limits_{j \in
\mathcal {M}} {{R_{(j,s)}}(t)} - R_i^{\max })|Q_i]$ is the per-queue per-stage cost function. ${Q_i} = \min \{ {\tilde Q_i} +
{A_i},{N_Q}\}$ is the pre-decision state and $\tilde Q{'_i} =
{({Q_i} - {G_i})^\dag }$ is the next post-decision state. The optimality of linear approximation is established in the following lemma.
[(*The Optimality of Linear Approximation*)]{} The linear approximation is optimal only when the CSIT is perfect, which means the interference is completely eliminated with H-CoMP scheme, therefore, the queue dynamics of $M$ UEs are decoupled.
Please refer to Appendix B.
Generally, the error variance ${\sigma}_{ji}$ of the imperfect CSIT can not be large, therefore the linear approximation is asymptotically accurate with sufficiently small error variance of CSIT.
[(*The Computing Complexity*)]{} With the linear approximation, the calculation of the post-decision value functions in BBU pool is alleviated from exponential complexity $ \mathcal {O}((N_Q + 1)^M)$ to polynomial complexity $\mathcal {O}((N_Q + 1)M)$.
Low Complexity QAH-CoMP Policy
------------------------------
With the combination of the linear approximation and equivalent Bellman equation (\[bellman\]), the QAH-CoMP policy can be obtained by solving the following per-stage optimization for every observed system state, which is summarized as the following corollary.
With the observation of current system states, the per-stage optimization is given by $${\Omega ^*}({\bf{\hat S}}) \!=\! \{ \Omega _P^*({\bf{\hat
S}}),\Omega _R^*({\bf{\hat S}})\} \! =\! {\rm{arg}}\!\!\!\mathop
{min}\limits_{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega _R({\bf{\hat
S}})}\!\!\! B({\bf{\hat S}},\!{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega
_R({\bf{\hat S}})}),$$ where $B({\bf{\hat S}},{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega _R({\bf{\hat
S}})}) = \sum\limits_{i \in \mathcal {M}} {\{{\gamma _{(i,P)}}P_i
{\gamma _{(i,R)}}({R_{(i,p)}}(t) }$ ${+ \sum\limits_j
{{R_{(j,s)}}(t)} ) +
{\mathbb{E}}[{{\bf{1}}_{(i,s)}}{{\bf{1}}_{(i,p)}}]({U_i}({Q_k} -
{\tau R_{(i,s)}}}{ - \tau {R_{(i,p)}})}$ ${ - {U_i}({Q_k} - \tau
{R_{(i,p)}}) - {U_i}({Q_k} - \tau {R_{(i,s)}}) + {U_i}({Q_k}))} +
{\mathbb{E}}[{{\bf{1}}_{(i,s)}}]({U_i}({Q_k} - \tau {R_{(i,s)}}) -
{U_i}({Q_k})) + {\mathbb{E}}[{{\bf{1}}_{(i,p)}}]({U_i}({Q_k} - \tau
{R_{(i,p)}}) - {U_i}({Q_k}))\}$ is the per-stage objective, ${{\bf{1}}_{(i,p)}} = {\bf{1}}({R_{(i,p)}} \le {C_{(i,p)}})$ and ${{\bf{1}}_{(i,p)}} = {\bf{1}}({R_{(i,s)}} \le {C_{(i,s)}})$ are the indicator functions.
The per-stage optimization above is intractable due to that the expectation $\mathbb{E}$ required the explicit knowledge of CSIT errors in BBU pool. To deal with this challenge, the per-stage optimization problem can be solved by the following stochastic gradient algorithm[[@stochastic]]{}.
[(*Stochastic Gradient Algorithm*)]{}
At each frame $t > 1$, the queue-aware power and rate allocations for each UE can be obtained as the following iteration $$e_i^{t}({{\bf{\hat S}}_i}) = {[e_i^{t-1}({{\bf{\hat S}}_i}) -
{\gamma _e}(t-1)d(e_i^{t-1}({{\bf{\hat S}}_i}))]^ + },$$ where ${\gamma _e}(t)$ is the step size satisfying ${\gamma _e}(t)
> 0,\sum\nolimits_t {{\gamma _e}(t)} = \infty ,\sum\nolimits_t
{{{({\gamma _e}(t))}^2}} < \infty$ and $d(e_i^t({{\bf{\hat S}}_i}))$ is the stochastic gradient w.r.t power and rate allocation, which is summarized as follows $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \frac{{\partial B({\bf{\hat S}},{\Omega
_P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega _R({\bf{\hat S}})})}}{{\partial
P_{(i,p)}^a}} = {\gamma _{(i,P)}} + \frac{{\partial {h_i}({\bf{\hat
S}},{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega
_R({\bf{\hat S}})})}}{{\partial P_{(i,p)}^a}}\\
\frac{{\partial B({\bf{\hat S}},{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega
_R({\bf{\hat S}})})}}{{\partial P_{(i,s)}^a}} = {\gamma
_{(i,P)}}\rho _{(i,i)}^a + \frac{{\partial {h_i}({\bf{\hat
S}},{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega
_R({\bf{\hat S}})})}}{{\partial P_{(i,s)}^a}} \\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + \sum\limits_{j \ne i,j \in \mathcal {M}} {{\gamma _{(j,P)}}\rho _{(i,j)}^a} \\
\frac{{\partial B({\bf{\hat S}},{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega
_R({\bf{\hat S}})})}}{{\partial {R_{(i,p)}}}} = {\gamma _{(i,R)}} +
\frac{{\partial {h_i}({\bf{\hat S}},{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega
_R({\bf{\hat S}})})}}{{\partial {R_{(i,p)}}}}\\
\frac{{\partial B({\bf{\hat S}},{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega
_R({\bf{\hat S}})})}}{{\partial {R_{(i,p)}}}} = {\gamma _{(i,R)}} +
\frac{{\partial {h_i}({\bf{\hat S}},{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega
_R({\bf{\hat S}})})}}{{\partial {R_{(i,p)}}}} \\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~+ \sum\limits_{j \ne i,j \in \mathcal {M}} {{\gamma _{(j,R)}}}
\end{array} \right.\label{stoch},$$ where ${h_i}({\bf{\hat S}},{\Omega _P({\bf{\hat S}}),\Omega
_R({\bf{\hat S}})}) = {{\bf{1}}_{(i,s)}}({U_i}({Q_k} - \tau
{R_{(i,s)}}) - {U_i}({Q_k})) + {{\bf{1}}_{(i,p)}}({U_i}({Q_k} - \tau
{R_{(i,p)}}) - {U_i}({Q_k})) + {{\bf{1}}_{(i,s)}}{{\bf{1}}_{(i,p)}}(
{U_i}({Q_k} - \tau {R_{(i,s)}} - \tau {R_{(i,p)}}) - {U_i}({Q_k} -
\tau {R_{(i,s)}}) - {U_i}({Q_k} - \tau {R_{(i,p)}}) +
{U_i}({Q_k}))$.
When ${\bf{\hat H}} = {\bf{ H}}$, there is no interference under the H-CoMP with perfect CSIT, and $d(e_i^t({{\bf{\hat S}}_i}))$ is deterministic instead of stochastic. Using the standard gradient update argument, the gradient search converges to a local optimum as $t \to \infty$. Therefore, the Algorithm 1 gives the asymptotically local optimal solution at small CSIT errors, which means that the explicit knowledge of imperfect CSIT is unnecessary and it is robust against the uncertainties caused by imperfect CSIT.
[(*Feedback-Assisted Realization of Algorithm 1*)]{} The calculation of stochastic gradient (\[stoch\]) in BBU pool requires some items regarding the indicator functions ${\bf{1}}_{(i,s)}$ and ${\bf{1}}_{(i,p)}$ and the differential of post-decision value functions $ U_i^{'}({\tilde Q_i})$. At each frame $t$, the indicator functions are unknown by BBU pool and have to be fed back from UEs, which is feasible due to that there are existing built-in mechanisms in wireless networks for these ACK/NACK feedback from UEs. In addition, since there is no closed-form expression of post-decision value function $U_i^{'}({\tilde Q_i})$, its differential can be estimated as follows $$U_i^{'}({\tilde Q_i}) = U_i({\tilde Q_i}) - U_i({\tilde Q_i} - 1),$$ where the online learning of $U_i({\tilde Q_i})$ will be elaborated in next subsection.
Online Learning of Per-queue Post-decision Value Functions
----------------------------------------------------------
The post-decision value functions are critical to the derivation of queue-aware resource allocation policy for C-RANs, which can be obtained by solving $N_Q$ fixed point nonlinear Bellman equations with $N_Q + 1$ variables. The offline calculation requires the explicit knowledge of conditional average transition kernel, which is infeasible. In this section, with the realtime observation of QSI and CSIT, the online learning of per-queue post-decision value functions is proposed based on the equation (\[perqueuebellman\]). Meanwhile, with the realtime resource control actions, the LMs are updated to make sure the average power consumption constraints and average fronthaul consumption constraints are satisfied[[@xrcao]]{}. The online learning of per-queue value functions and the update of LMs at centralized BBU pool are described as follows.
[(*Online Learning of Per-Queue Value Functions and Update of LMs*)]{}
Set $t = 0$, the per-queue post-decision value functions $\{U_i^{0}({{\tilde Q}_i})\}$ and LMs $\{\gamma _{(i,P)}^{0}, \gamma
_{(i,R)}^{0} \} > 0$ are initialized at the centralized BBU pool.
At the beginning of the $t$-th frame, given fixed $\{ {\eta
_j}(n)\}$, the queue-aware power and rate allocation for downlink H-CoMP transmission are determined at the BBU pool using the stochastic gradient algorithm in (\[stoch\]).
With the observation of post-decision QSI $\{{{\tilde Q}_i} \}$ and pre-decision QSI $\{{Q_i}\}$, the per-queue post-decision value function $U_i({{\tilde Q}_i})$ is online learned at BBU pool (\[valueupdate\]) for each traffic queue as follows $$\begin{aligned}
U_i^{t + 1}({{\tilde Q}_i})&& = U_i^t({{\tilde Q}_i}) + {\zeta
_u}(t)[{g_i}(\gamma _i^t,{{{\bf{\hat S}}}_i},{P_i},{R_i} +
U_i^t({Q_i} - {U_i})\nonumber\\&& - U_i^t(\tilde Q_i^0) -
U_i^t({{\tilde Q}_i})]\label{valueupdate}.\end{aligned}$$
With the observation of power and rate allocation, the $\{\gamma _{(i,P)}^{t + 1}\}$ and $\{ \gamma _{(i,R)}^{t + 1} \}$ are updated according to eq.(\[lmpower\]) and eq.(\[lmrate\]) at the BBU pool for the power consumption constraints and fronthaul consumption constraints respectively, $$\gamma _{(i,P)}^{t + 1} \!= \!{[\gamma _{(i,P)}^t + {\zeta _\gamma
}\!(t)({P_i} - P_i^{\max })]^ + }\label{lmpower},$$ $$\gamma _{(i,R)}^{t + 1}\! = \!{[\gamma _{(i,R)}^t\! + \!{\zeta
_\gamma }\!(t)({R_{(i,p)}}(t)\! + \!\sum\nolimits_{j \in \mathcal
{M}} {{R_{(j,s)}}\!(t)} \! -\! R_i^{\max })]^ + }\label{lmrate}.$$
Set $t = t + 1$ and continue to step 2 until certain termination condition is satisfied.
The ${\zeta _u}(t)$ and ${\zeta _\gamma }(t)$ in step 3 and step 4 is the iterative step size of post-decision value functions and LMs respectively. To make sure the convergence of iteration, they should satisfy the conditions as follows[[@convergence]]{}:
$${\zeta _u}(t) > 0,\sum\nolimits_t {{\zeta _u}(t)} = \infty,$$
$${\zeta _\gamma }(t) > 0,\sum\nolimits_t {{\zeta _\gamma }(t)} =
\infty,$$
$$\sum\nolimits_t{({{({\zeta _u}(t))}^2} + } {({\zeta _\gamma }(t))^2}) <
\infty,$$
$$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{t \to \infty } \frac{{{\zeta _\gamma
}(t)}}{{{\zeta _u}(t)}} = 0\label{stepsize}.$$
The condition (\[stepsize\]) implies that the LMs are relatively static during the iteration of per-queue value functions. Therefore the iteration of post-decision value functions and the iteration of LMs are done simultaneously but over two different time scales[[@onlinelearning]]{}.
It is a remarkable fact that the size of per-queue states(in bits) is still large. To accelerate the estimation of each post-state value function, the per-queue QSI space ${{\mathcal {Q}}_i}$ is partitioned into $N$ regions as (\[region\])
$${{\mathcal {Q}}_i} = \bigcup\nolimits_{n = 1}^N {{{\mathcal
{R}}_n}}\label{region}.$$
Therefore, the average value function w.r.t each region is online learned instead, then the post-decision value function of each state within the region can be estimated by interpolation method after each iteration.
Performances Evaluation
=======================
In this section, simulations are conducted to compare the performances of the proposed QAH-CoMP with various baselines in C-RANs. The delay-sensitive traffic packet arrival follows a Poisson distribution and the corresponding packet size follows an exponential distribution, which is a widely adopted traffic model[[@survey]]{}. The mean size of traffic packet is 4Mbits and the maximum buffer size is 32Mbits. The CSI ${{\bf{H}}_{ij}}$ is uniformly distributed over a state space ${\mathcal {H}}^{N_r \times
N_t}$ and the error variance of the imperfect CSIT is ${\varepsilon
_e} = 0.05$. The configuration of multi-antennas is given by $\{
{N_t} = 5,{N_r} = 2\}$ and the cluster size is $M$ = 3. Therefore, with the stream splitting of the H-CoMP scheme, there are one shared stream and one private stream to be transmitted for each UE. The total bandwidth of simulated C-RAN is 20MHz and the scheduling frame duration is 10ms. The noise power is -15dBm.
Three baselines are considered in the simulations: CB-CoMP, JP-CoMP, and channel-aware resource allocation with H-CoMP (CAH-CoMP). All these three baselines carry out rate and power allocation to maximize the average system throughput with the same fronthaul capacity and average power consumption constraint as the proposed QAH-CoMP. For the CB-CoMP baseline, the BBU pool calculates the coordinated beamformer for each RRH to eliminate the dominating intra-cluster interference. For the CAH-CoMP baseline, the proposed H-CoMP transmission is adopted, while the power allocation and rate allocation are only adaptive to CSIT.
Fig. 3 compares the delay performance of the four schemes with different packet arrival rate. The average packet delay of all the schemes increases as the average packet arrival rate increases. Compared with CB, the delay outperformance of JP weakens as the packet arrival rate increases, which is due to the fact that the fronthaul capacity becomes relatively limited with the increasing packet arrival rate. Apparently, the performance gain of QAH-CoMP compared with CAH-CoMP is contributed by power and rate allocation with the consideration of both urgent traffic flows and imperfect CSIT.
![Average packet delay vs. packet arrival rate, the maximum fronthaul consumption is $R_i^{max}$ = 20Mbits/s, the maximum transmit power is $P_i^{max}$ = 10dBm.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig_arrival.eps)
Fig. 4 compares the delay performance of the four schemes with different maximum transmit power. The figure depicts the medium fronthaul consumption regime, in which JP-CoMP outperforms CS-CoMP due to the higher spectrum efficiency. CAH-CoMP outperforms both CS-CoMP and JP-CoMP while the outperformance of CAH-CoMP is not so obvious with relative enough fronthaul capacity. It can be observed that there is significant performance gain of the proposed QAH-CoMP compared with all the baselines across a wide range of the maximum power consumption.
![Average packet delay vs. maximum transmit power, the packet arrival rate is ${\lambda}_i$ = 2.5 packets/s, the maximum fronthaul consumption is $R_i^{max}$ = 30Mbits/s.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig_power.eps)
Fig. 5 compares the delay performance of the four schemes with different maximum fronthaul consumption. The figure depicts the small fronthaul consumption regime, in which CAH-CoMP clearly outperforms both CS-CoMP and JP-CoMP, which is contributed by the flexible adjustment of cooperation level when the fronthaul capacity is limited. Note that the JP-CoMP has worse delay performance than CS-CoMP due to limited fronthaul capacity at first but it eventually gets performance improvement with increasing fronthaul capacity. Similarly, due to the queue-aware power and rate allocation, QAH-CoMP substantially outperforms the three baselines.
![Average packet delay vs. maximum fronthaul consumption,the packet arrival rate is ${\lambda}_i$ = 2.5 packets/s, the maximum transmit power is $P_i^{max}$ = 10dBm.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig_fronthaul.eps)
Fig. 6 shows the convergence property of the online per-queue post-decision value functions(w.r.t ${{\mathcal {R}}_n}$, size of which is equal to mean packet size ${\bar N_i}$) learning algorithm. For viewing convenience, the post-decision value functions of the traffic queue maintained for UE 1 is plotted with the increasing of iteration step. It is significant that the learning converges extremely close to the final result after 1000 iterations.
![Per-queue Post-decision Value Functions[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig_value.eps)
Summary
=======
In this paper, an H-CoMP scheme with corresponding precoders and decorrelators are designed for the downlink fronthaul constrained C-RANs. Based on the proposed H-CoMP, a low complexity queue-aware power and rate allocation solution for the delay-sensitive traffic is then proposed using MDP and stochastic gradient algorithms. Simulation results show that the C-RANs with H-CoMP achieve more significant delay performance gains than that with CB-CoMP and JP-CoMP under the same average power and fronthaul consumption constraints, where the performance gains largely depend on the cooperation level of the proposed H-CoMP under limited fronthaul capacity. Furthermore, compared with the CAH-CoMP, the remarkable delay performance gain of QAH-CoMP is also validated by the simulation results, which is contributed by the MDP based dynamic resource allocation with the consideration of both QSI and imperfect CSIT. In the future, the theoretical analysis on the delay performance of the QAH-CoMP still remains to be an open issue, and the real experiments would be desirable to further demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability of the QAH-CoMP in fronthaul constrained C-RANs.
Proof of theorem 1
==================
According to the Proposition 4.6.1 of[[@bertsekas]]{}, the sufficient condition for optimality of problem 1 is that there exists unique $(\theta ,\{ U({\bf{S}})\} )$ that satisfies the following Bellman equation and $U({\bf{S}})$ satisfies the transversality condition $\mathop {\lim }\limits_{T \to \infty }
\frac{1}{T}{{\mathbb{E}}^\Omega }[U({\bf{S}}(T))|{\bf{S}}(0)] = 0$ for all admissible control policy $\Omega$ and initial state ${\bf{S}}(0)$. $$\begin{array}{l}
\theta + U({\bf{S}}) = \mathop {\min }\limits_{\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}})} [g({\bf{\beta }},{\bf{\gamma }},{\bf{S}},\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}})) + \sum\limits_{{\bf{S}}'} {\Pr [{\bf{S}}|{\bf{S}},\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}})]} U({\bf{S}}')] \\
= \mathop {\min }\limits_{\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}})} [g({\bf{\beta }},{\bf{\gamma }},{\bf{S}},\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}})) + \sum\limits_{{\bf{Q}}'} {\sum\limits_{{\bf{\hat H}}'} {\sum\limits_{{\bf{H}}'} {\Pr [{\bf{Q}}'|{\bf{Q}},{\bf{\hat H}},{\bf{H}},\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}})]}}} \\{{\Pr [{\bf{\hat H}}',{\bf{H}}']U({\bf{S}}')]} } \\
\end{array}$$
Then taking expectation w.r.t. ${\bf{\hat H}}',{\bf{H}}'$ on both side of the above equation, we have
$$\theta \! + \!U({\bf{Q}})\! =\! \mathop {\min }\limits_{\Omega
({\bf{Q}})} [g({\bf{\beta }},{\bf{\gamma }},{\bf{Q}},\Omega
({\bf{Q}})) + \sum\limits_{{\bf{Q}}'} {\Pr
[{\bf{Q}}'|{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{Q}})]U({\bf{Q}}')} ]$$
where $U({\bf{Q}}) = {\mathbb{E}}[U({\bf{S}})|{\bf{Q}}] =
\sum\limits_{{\bf{\hat H}}} {\sum\limits_{\bf{H}} {\Pr [{\bf{\hat
H}},{\bf{H}}]U({\bf{S}})} }$ and $\Pr [{\bf{Q}}'|{\bf{Q}},\Omega
({\bf{\hat S}})] = {\mathbb{E}}[\Pr [{\bf{Q}}'|{\bf{Q}},{\bf{\hat
H}},{\bf{H}},\Omega ({\bf{\hat S}})]|{\bf{Q}}]$. Since here we defined the post-decision State ${\bf{\tilde Q}}$, where ${\bf{Q}} =
\min \{ {\bf{\tilde Q}} + {\bf{A}},{N_Q}\}$, the equivalent Bellman equation can be transformed as the equivalent Bellman equation (\[bellman\]) in theorem 1.
Proof of lemma 1
================
With the perfect CSIT, there is no interference with the H-CoMP scheme for C-RAN, which means that the queue dynamics for every UE are completely decoupled. Detailedly speaking, ${\tilde Q_i} = {Q_i}
- {G_i}({\bf{\hat H}},{\Omega _i}({\bf{\hat S}}))$ is independent of ${Q_j}$ and ${\Omega _j}({\bf{\hat S}})$ for all $j \ne i$ due to the nonexistence of interference, therefore we have $\Pr
[{\bf{\tilde Q}}'|{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{Q}})] = \prod\nolimits_{i
\in \mathcal {M}} {\Pr [{{\tilde Q}_i}'|{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{Q}})]}
$ and $\Pr [{\tilde Q_i}'|{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{Q}})] = \Pr [{\tilde
Q_i}'|{Q_i},{\Omega _i}({\bf{Q}})] = \Pr [{\tilde
Q_i}'|{Q_i},{\Omega _i}({Q_i})]$. Suppose $U({\bf{\tilde Q}}) =
\sum\nolimits_{i \in \mathcal {M}} {{U_i}({{\tilde Q}_i})}$, by the relationship between the joint distribution and the marginal distribution, we have $$\begin{array}{l}
{~~~}\sum\nolimits_{{\bf{\tilde Q}}'} {\Pr [{\bf{\tilde Q}}'|{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{Q}})]U({\bf{\tilde Q}}')} \\
= \sum\nolimits_{{\bf{\tilde Q}}'} {\Pr [{\bf{\tilde Q}}'|{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{Q}})]\sum\nolimits_{i \in M} {{U_i}({{\tilde Q}_i}')} } \\
= \sum\nolimits_{i \in \mathcal {M}} {\sum\nolimits_{{{\tilde Q}_i}'} {\Pr [{{\tilde Q}_i}'|{\bf{Q}},\Omega ({\bf{Q}})]} } {U_i}({{\tilde Q}_i}') \\
= \sum\nolimits_{i \in \mathcal {M}} {\sum\nolimits_{{{\tilde Q}_i}'}}
{{\Pr [{{\tilde Q}_i}'|{Q_i},{\Omega _i}({Q_i})]{U_i}({{\tilde Q}_i}')} } \\
\end{array}$$
It is obvious that $g({\bf{\beta }},{\bf{\gamma }},{\bf{Q}},\Omega
(\Theta )) = \sum\nolimits_{i \in M} {{g_i}({\beta _i},{{\bf{\gamma
}}_i},{Q_i},{\Omega _i}({Q_i}))}$. Suppose $\theta =
\sum\nolimits_{i \in \mathcal {M}} {{\theta _i}}$, then the equivalent Bellman equation in (\[bellman\]) can be transformed as
$$\begin{array}{l}
{~~~~}\sum\nolimits_{i \in \mathcal {M}} {{\theta _i}} + \sum\nolimits_{i \in \mathcal {M}} {{U_i}({{\tilde Q}_i})} \\
= \sum\nolimits_{\bf{A}} {\Pr ({\bf{A}})} \mathop {\min }\limits_{\Omega (Q)} \sum\nolimits_{i \in M} {[{g_i}({\beta _i},{{\bf{\gamma }}_i},{Q_i},{\Omega _i}({Q_i}))}\\~~~{ + \sum\nolimits_{{{\tilde Q}_i}'} {\Pr [{{\tilde Q}_i}'|{Q_i},{\Omega _i}({Q_i})]{U_i}({{\tilde Q}_i}')]} } \\
\mathop = \limits^{(a)} \sum\nolimits_{i \in \mathcal {M}} {\sum\nolimits_{{A_i}} {\Pr ({A_i})} } \mathop {\min }\limits_{{\Omega _i}({Q_i})} [{g_i}({\beta _i},{{\bf{\gamma }}_i},{Q_i},{\Omega _i}({Q_i})) \\~~~+ \sum\nolimits_{{{\tilde Q}_i}'} {\Pr [{{\tilde Q}_i}'|{Q_i},{\Omega _i}({Q_i})]{U_i}({{\tilde Q}_i}')]} \\
\end{array}$$
where (a) is due to the independent assumption of the new arrival process $A_i(t)$ w.r.t $i$. Therefore, we can have the per-queue fixed point Bellman equation in (\[perqueuebellman\]) for each UE from the above equation.
[99]{}
M. Peng, Y. Li, J. Jiang, J. Li, and C. Wang, Heterogeneous Cloud Radio Access Networks: A New Perspective for Enhancing Spectral and Energy Efficiencies, *IEEE Wireless Commun.*, Dec. 2014
M. Peng, S. Yan, and H. V. Poor, Ergodic capacity analysis of remote radio head associations in cloud radio access networks, *IEEE Wireless Commun. Let.*, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 365–368, Aug. 2014.
D. Matsuo, *et al.*, Shared remote radio head architecture to realize semi-dynamic clustering in CoMP cellular networks, in *Proc. IEEE Global Commun. Conf.*, Anaheim, USA, Dec. 2012, pp. 1145-1149.
M. Peng, Y. Liu, D. Wei, W. Wang, and H. Chen, Hierarchical cooperative relay based heterogeneous networks, in *IEEE Wireless Commun.*, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 48–56, Jun. 2011.
D. Gesbert, *et al.*, Multicell MIMO cooperative networks: a new look at interference, *IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.*, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1380-1408, Dec. 2010.
T. Zhou, M. Peng, W. Wang, and H. Chen, Low-complexity coordinated beamforming for downlink multi-cell SDMA/OFDM system, *IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech.*, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 247–255, Jan. 2013.
A. Papadogiannis, D. Gesbert, and E. Hardouin, A dynamic clustering approach in wireless networks with multi-cell cooperative processing, in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.*, Beijing, China, May 2008, pp. 4033-4037.
A. Chowdhery, W. Yu, and J. M. Cioffi,“Cooperative wireless multicell OFDMA network with backhaul capacity constraints," in *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.*, Kyoto, Japan, Jun. 2011, pp. 1-6.
J. Zhao, T.Q.S. Quek, Z. Lei, Coordinated multipoint transmission with limited backhaul data transfer, *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 2762-2775, Jun. 2013.
F. Zhuang and V. K. N. Lau, “Backhaul limited asymmetric cooperation for MIMO cellular networks via semidefinite relaxation,”*IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 684-693, Feb. 2014.
R. Zakhour, and D. Gesbert, Optimized data sharing in multicell MIMO with finite backhaul capacity, *IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 6102-6111, Dec. 2011.
Q. Zhang, C. Yang, A.F. Molisch, Downlink base station cooperative transmission under limited-capacity backhaul, *IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 3746-3759, Aug. 2013.
L. Su, C. Yang, S. Han, The value of channel prediction in CoMP systems with large backhaul latency, *IEEE Trans. Commun.*, vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 4577-4590, Nov. 2013.
J. Yu, Q. Zhang, P. Chen, B. Cao and Y. Zhang, Dynamic joint transmission for downlink scheduling scheme in clustered CoMP cellular, in *Proc. IEEE/CIC Int. Conf. Commun. China*, Xi’an, China, Aug. 2013, pp. 645-650.
Y. Cui, Q. Huang, and V. K. N. Lau, Queue-aware dynamic clustering and power allocation for networkMIMO systems via distributed stochastic learning, *IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1229-1238, Mar. 2011.
Y. Cui, K. N. Lau, and Y. Wu, Delay-aware BS discontinuous transmission control and user scheduling for energy harvesting downlink coordinated MIMO systems, *IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 3786-3795, Jul. 2012.
H. Ju, B. Liang, J. Li and X. Yang, “Dynamic joint resource optimization for LTE-Advanced relay networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 5668-5678, Nov. 2013.
Y. Cui, V. K. N. Lau, R. Wang, H. Huang, and S. Zhang,A survey on delay-aware resource control for wireless systems - large deviation theory, stochastic Lyapunov drift, and distributed stochastic learning, *IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory*, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 1677-1701, Mar. 2012.
P. Kyritsi, R. Valenzuela, and D. Cox, Channel and capacity estimation errors, *IEEE Comm. Letters*, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 517-519, Dec. 2002.
D. P. Bertsekas, *Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, vol II*, Massachusetts: Athena Scientific, 2007.
W. B. Powell, *Approximate Dynamic Programming: Solving the Curses of Dimensionality*, London, U.K.:Wiley-Interscience, 2007.
S. Boyd and A. Mutapcic, *Stochastic Subgradient Methods*, Notes for EE364b, Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ., 2008.
X. Cao, *Stochastic Learning and Optimimization: A Sensitivity-Based Approach*, New York: Springer Press, 2008.
V. S. Borkar, and S. P. Meyn, The ode method for convergence of stochastic approximation and reinforcement learning algorithms, *SIAM J. on Control and Optimization*, vol. 11, no. 38, pp. 447-469, 2000.
V. S. Borkar, *Stochastic Approximation: A Dynamical Systems Viewpoint*, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008.
[Jian Li]{} received his B.E. degree from Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Nanjing, China, in 2010. He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. degree at the key laboratory of universal wireless communication (Ministry of Education) in Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT), Beijing, China. His current research interests include delay-aware cross-layer radio resource optimization for heterogeneous networks and heterogeneous cloud radio access networks.
[Mugen Peng]{} (M’05–SM’11) received the B.E. degree in Electronics Engineering from Nanjing University of Posts & Telecommunications, China in 2000 and a PhD degree in Communication and Information System from the Beijing University of Posts & Telecommunications (BUPT), China in 2005. After the PhD graduation, he joined in BUPT, and has become a full professor with the school of information and communication engineering in BUPT since Oct. 2012. During 2014, he is also an academic visiting fellow in Princeton University, USA. He is leading a research group focusing on wireless transmission and networking technologies in the Key Laboratory of Universal Wireless Communications (Ministry of Education) at BUPT, China. His main research areas include wireless communication theory, radio signal processing and convex optimizations, with particular interests in cooperative communication, radio network coding, self-organization networking, heterogeneous networking, and cloud communication. He has authored/coauthored over 40 refereed IEEE journal papers and over 200 conference proceeding papers.
Dr. Peng is currently on the Editorial/Associate Editorial Board of IEEE Communications Magazine, IEEE Access, International Journal of Antennas and Propagation (IJAP), China Communication, and International Journal of Communication Systems (IJCS). He has been the guest leading editor for the special issues in IEEE Wireless Communications, IJAP and the International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks (IJDSN). He is serving as the track co-chair or workshop co-chair for GameNets 2014, So-HetNets in IEEE WCNC 2014, SON-HetNet 2013 in IEEE PIMRC 2013, WCSP 2013, etc. Dr. Peng was honored with the Best Paper Award in CIT 2014, ICCTA 2011, IC-BNMT 2010, and IET CCWMC 2009. He was awarded the First Grade Award of Technological Invention Award in Ministry of Education of China for his excellent research work on the hierarchical cooperative communication theory and technologies, and the Second Grade Award of Scientific & Technical Progress from China Institute of Communications for his excellent research work on the co-existence of multi-radio access networks and the 3G spectrum management in China.
[Aolin Cheng]{} received his B.E. degree in Electronic Information Science and Technology from Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China, in 2012. He is currently pursuing his M.E. degree at the laboratory of universal wireless communication (Ministry of Education) in Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT), Beijing, China. His current research interests include delay-aware cross-layer radio resource optimization for heterogeneous networks (HetNets), as well as stochastic approximation and Markov decision process.
[Yuling Yu]{} received the B.E. degree in Communication Engineering from Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China, in 2013. She is currently pursuing her M.E. degree at the key laboratory of universal wireless communication (Ministry of Education) in Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT), Beijing, China. Her research focuses on delay-aware cross-layer resource optimization for heterogeneous cloud radio access networks (H-CRANs), as well as Lyapunov optimization.
[Chonggang Wang]{} (SM’09) received the Ph.D. degree from Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT) in 2002. He is currently a Member of Technical Staff with InterDigital Communications. His R&D focuses on: Internet of Things (IoT), Machine-to-Machine (M2M) communications, Heterogeneous Networks, and Future Internet, including technology development and standardization. He (co-)authored more than 100 journal/conference articles and book chapters. He is on the editorial board for several journals including IEEE Communications Magazine, IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine and IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management. He is the founding Editor-in-Chief of IEEE Internet of Things Journal. He is serving and served in the organization committee for conferences/workshops including IEEE WCNC 2013, IEEE INFOCOM 2012, IEEE Globecom 2010-2012, IEEE CCNC 2012, and IEEE SmartGridComm 2012. He has also served as a TPC member for numerous conferences such as IEEE ICNP (2010-2011), IEEE INFOCOM (2008-2014), IEEE GLOBECOM (2006-2014), IEEE ICC (2007-2013), IEEE WCNC (2008-2012) and IEEE PIMRC (2012-2013). He is a co-recipient of National Award for Science and Technology Achievement in Telecommunications in 2004 on IP QoS from China Institute of Communications. He received Outstanding Leadership Award from IEEE GLOBECOM 2010 and InterDigital’s 2012 and 2013 Innovation Award. He served as an NSF panelist in wireless networks in 2012. He is a senior member of the IEEE and the vice-chair of IEEE ComSoc Multimedia Technical Committee (MMTC) (2012-2014).
[^1]: Manuscript received June 18, 2014; revised September 12, 2014; accepted October 15, 2014. The editor coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for publication was Prof. Vincenzo Piuri.
[^2]: Jian Li (e-mail: [[email protected]]{}), Mugen Peng (e-mail: [[email protected]]{}), Aolin Cheng (e-mail: [[email protected]]{}), Yuling Yu (e-mail: [[email protected]]{}) are with the Key Laboratory of Universal Wireless Communications for Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, China. Chonggang Wang (e-mail: [[email protected]]{}) is with the InterDigital Communications, King of Prussia, PA, USA.
[^3]: This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61222103, No.61361166005), the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2014AA01A701), the State Major Science and Technology Special Projects (Grant No. 2013ZX03001001), and the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 4131003).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present *Hubble Space Telescope* observations and photometric measurements of the Type Ia supernova (SN Ia) SN 2013aa 1500 days after explosion. At this epoch, the luminosity is primarily dictated by the amounts of radioactive ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$, while at earlier epochs, the luminosity depends on the amount of radioactive ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$. The ratio of odd-numbered to even-numbered isotopes depends significantly on the density of the progenitor white dwarf during the SN explosion, which, in turn, depends on the details of the progenitor system at the time of ignition. From a comprehensive analysis of the entire light curve of SN 2013aa, we measure a $M({}^{57}\textrm{Co})/M({}^{56}\textrm{Co})$ ratio of $0.02^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$, which indicates a relatively low central density for the progenitor white dwarf at the time of explosion, consistent with double-degenerate progenitor channels. We estimate $M({}^{56}\textrm{Ni}) = 0.732 \pm 0.151\:\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$, and place an upper limit on the abundance of ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$. A recent study reported a possible correlation between $M({}^{57}\textrm{Co})/M({}^{56}\textrm{Co})$ and stretch for four SNe Ia. SN2013aa, however, does not fit this trend, indicating either SN2013aa is an extreme outlier or the correlation does not hold up with a larger sample. The $M({}^{57}\textrm{Co})/M({}^{56}\textrm{Co})$ measured for the expanded sample of SNe Ia with photometry at extremely late times has a much larger range than that of explosion models, perhaps limiting conclusions about SN Ia progenitors drawn from extremely late-time photometry.'
author:
- 'Wynn V. Jacobson-Galán'
- Georgios Dimitriadis
- 'Ryan J. Foley'
- 'Charles D. Kilpatrick'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Constraining Type Ia Supernova Progenitor Scenarios with Extremely Late-time Photometry of Supernova SN2013'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Type Ia Supernova (SNe Ia) are the result of a thermonuclear explosion of a carbon-oxygen white dwarf (WD) in a binary system [@Hoyle60; @Colgate69; @Woosley86]. While the applications of SNe Ia as standardizable candles are far reaching in the realm of cosmology [e.g., @reiss98; @perlmutter99], the exact nature of the explosion and the progenitor system, and in particular the binary companion, are still an open question [see e.g., @maoz14].
There are several ways to potentially produce a SN Ia [@woosley-taam86]. In these models, the (primary) WD is usually either very close to the Chandrasekhar mass, having undergone a simmering stage [@piro308; @piro08] and having a high central density, or below the Chandrasekhar mass with a lower central density [@iben84; @woosley04]. The details of the explosive nuclear burning depends critically on the central density. In particular, explosions with higher central densities will produce more Fe-group elements with an odd number of nucleons [@iwamoto99; @seitenzahl13a]. While other aspects of the explosion have a larger effect on the amount of odd-numbered, radioactive isotopes produced (e.g., metallicity or M($^{56}$Ni)), measuring the mass of these isotopes can distinguish explosion models.
In addition to different explosions, there are fundamentally different progenitor channels for SNe Ia. The single-degenerate (SD) and double-degenerate (DD) channels, which have non-degenerate and WD companion stars, respectively. The DD channel will naturally have a sub-Chandrasekhar mass primary and a relatively low central density [@pakmor10; @pakmor11]. While some SD systems might result in a sub-Chandrasekhar mass explosion, the classical model involves a Chandrasekhar-mass WD and a high central density [@khokhlov00; @han04].
The single-degenerate (SD) model argues that the explosion is triggered by a high central density, delayed detonation of a near-Chandrasekhar-mass WD as it accretes material and energy from main-sequence or larger star (@whelan73, @khokhlov91). Alternatively, the double-degenerate (DD) model consists of a low central density, violent merger of two, sub-Chandrasekhar-mass WD stars (@webbink84, @pakmor12). While both are accepted theoretical predictions, the direct detection of the progenitor system is difficult, with most DD models leaving no post-explosion indication of the system responsible. There have, however, been recent constraints placed on the direct detection of progenitor systems following SD models (@chomiuk16, @maguire16). Fortunately, other methods of progenitor system constraint come from the unique modeling of these explosions by @ropke12 and @seitenzahl13, all of which are verifiable via the study of radioactive decay in late-time bolometric light curves of SNe Ia.
By Arnett’s Law, the bolometric luminosity produced at peak magnitude is proportional to the rate of energy deposition by the radioactive decay chain $\ce{{}^56Ni ->[ t_{1/2}=6.08 \textrm{d} ] {}^56Co ->[ t_{1/2}=77.2 \textrm{d} ] {}^56Fe }$ [@arnett82]. While Arnett’s Law is an approximation, the decay of ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ remains the most prominent source of heating in SNe Ia and produces primarily $\gamma$-rays and positrons, whose energies are deposited and thermalized in the expanding ejecta [@Seitenzahl17arXiv]. Not only can the total mass of ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ be determined from the peak luminosity, the isotopic yields generated in decay chains ${}^{57}\textrm{Co} \rightarrow {}^{57}\textrm{Fe}$ and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe} \rightarrow {}^{55}\textrm{Mn}$ can be indirectly detected from the light curve evolution of SNe Ia at epochs $>300$ days after explosion [@seitenzahl2009]. Model analysis has shown that the mass ratios of these nucleosyntheic yields differ between single and double degenerate explosion models, thus making them extremely useful in identifying the pre-explosion SNe Ia progenitor systems [@ropke12].
Testing each model requires precise photometric data from continuous observations of nearby SNe Ia $>400$ days after peak luminosity. This is a challenging effort due to the variability of SNe Ia explosions coupled with the ability to perform accurate photometric measurements at late enough epochs to detect the radioactive decay of isotopes other than ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$. Nonetheless, a few significant studies have been recently performed on SNe Ia in close proximately to us and with multiple broad band photometric detections produced at late epochs.
SN2011fe remains to be one of the most highly studied late-time SNe Ia, with numerous examinations of radioactive decay channels since its nearby discovery [@kasen13]. @shappee17 were able to detect abundances of ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ and ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ as well as place an upper limit on the mass of ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$, while indicating that the fits to the data preferred a DD explosion model. A similar study by @dimitriadis17 examined the near infrared contribution to the bolometric luminosity of SN2011fe, but found a contradicting alignment to the single-degenerate explosion model of a high central density white dwarf star.
Further examinations of extremely late-time supernovae also make predictions of the pre-explosion progenitor system. @Graur16 finds a distinct detection of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ in the light curve of SN2012cg and predicts a single-degenerate explosion mechanism. The analysis of SN2014J makes similar conclusions in their determination of mass ratios that prefer a high central density explosion model [@yang17]. Alternatively, the mass ratio found in SN2015F by @graur17 shows evidence for a double degenerate merger of two white dwarfs. @graur17 also examines the relationship between the calculated light curve stretch and ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$/${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ in all four late-time SNe Ia, the implications of which we will discuss as it relates to SN2013aa.
The detection of SN2013aa at a phase of $\sim1500$ days presents a unique opportunity to examine the nucleosynthetic yields of late-time decay. SN2013aa is the fifth SNe Ia to be observed at an epoch $>1000$ days, with a photometric detection at the second latest phase next to SN2011fe. The measured late-time bolometric luminosity, combined with early-time data, allows for a fitted calculation of radionuclide abundances powering the light curve. The mass ratios of ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$, ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$, and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ found in SN2013aa can then compared with explosion models as an indicator of the progenitor system. With only four recorded late-time SNe Ia prior to SN2013aa, this analysis will contribute to the understanding of late-time trends in the light curves of SNe Ia.
In Section \[sec:observations\] we present observations and data reduction of SN2013aa. In Section \[sec:Analysis\] we discuss the calculation of radioactive isotope abundances. In Section \[sec:Discussion\] we examine the implications of measured mass ratios in the context of explosion models and other late-time studies.
Observations {#sec:observations}
============
In this section, we briefly introduce SN2013aa, presenting the published photometric and spectroscopic data and basic parameters from early-time data. We also present late-time *HST* photometry.
Early-time data (up to 400 days) {#subsec:early_data}
--------------------------------
SN2013aa was discovered by the Backyard Observatory Supernova Survey (BOSS) on 2013 February 13 [@parker13] and confirmed to be a SN Ia on 2013 February 16 [@parrent13]. SN2013aa is located in the barred spiral galaxy NGC5643, 74West and 180South from the galactic center [@Graham17arXiv]. Another SN Ia, SN2017cbv, is in the same galaxy, providing an independent distance estimate to SN2013aa (Shappee et al., in preparation). Applying the SALT2 algorithm [@Guy07] to the SN2017cbv data, we determine that the distance to NGC 5643 is $13.95 \pm 0.35$ Mpc, corresponding to a distance modulus of $\mu = 30.72 \pm 0.05$ mag. Primary parameters of SN2013aa and its host galaxy, NGC5643, are reported in Table \[tbl:params\].
0.1in
------------------------------ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -----------------------------------------------------
Host Galaxy NGC 5643
Galaxy Type SAB(rs)c
Redshift $0.003999 \pm 0.000007$
Distance $13.95 \pm 0.3$ Mpc
Distance Modulus, $\mu$ $30.72 \pm 0.05$ mag
$\textrm{RA}_{\textrm{SN}}$ $14^{\textrm{h}}32^{\textrm{m}}33.919^{\textrm{s}}$
$\textrm{Dec}_{\textrm{SN}}$ $-44^{\circ}13'28.763^{\prime \prime}$
Stretch 1.072 $\pm$ 0.014
$m_{B}^{\mathrm{peak}}$ $11.11 \pm 0.05$ mag
$M_{B}^{\mathrm{peak}}$ $-19.49 \pm 0.07$ mag
------------------------------ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -----------------------------------------------------
: Main Parameters of SN2013aa and Host Galaxy \[tbl:params\]
\[table:Observations\]
SN2013aa was initially followed by the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope (LCOGT) Supernova Key Project [@Brown13], with the $B\!V\!gri$ light curves first published by @Graham17arXiv. As mentioned in @Graham17arXiv, most of the near-peak photometry was saturated, thus we complement the early-time light curve with optical ($U\!B\!V$) data from the [*Swift*]{} Optical/Ultraviolet Supernova Archive [SOUSA; @Brown14]. This data provides adequate coverage of the SN from $-10$ to $\sim$200 days after peak. Additionally, @Graham17arXiv present $gri$ photometry from the Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph [GMOS; @Davies97], at $\sim$400 days. In Fig. \[fig:sn2013aa\_early\_lightcurve\], we present the early-time ($-15$ to 50 days from peak) light curves of SN2013aa.
We fit the light curves with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sifto</span> [@Conley08], with which we recover a time of maximum light of $\mathrm{MJD_{max}} =
56342.69 \pm 0.18$, peak brightnss of $m_{B}^{\mathrm{peak}} = 11.11
\pm 0.05$ mag, peak color of $(B-V)_{0} = -0.03 \pm 0.05$ mag and a stretch of $s = 1.072 \pm 0.014$. Restricting our fit to only the [*Swift*]{} photometry, which covers the peak of the light curve, we calculate $s = 1.067 \pm
0.023$, consistent with what was found using all available data.
Adopting the distance modulus from SN2017cbv, $\mu = 30.72 \pm
0.05$ mag, SN2013aa had a $B$-band absolute magnitude at peak of $M_{B}^{\mathrm{peak}} = -19.49 \pm 0.07$ mag. The relatively high peak absolute magnitude is consistent with its slightly broad light curves.
A collection of SN2013aa spectra is presented in Fig. \[fig:sn2013aa\_spectra\], spanning from 32 to 398 days after peak. These spectra have been published by @Childress15 and @Graham17arXiv. All the spectra were retrieved through the WISeREP archive[^1] [@Yaron12].
We used the Supernova Identification package [SNID; @Blondin07] and Superfit [@Howell05] at the earliest spectrum (32.3 days after peak) to sub-classify the SN. Both packages reported SN 1991T-like objects as having the best-matching spectra in accordance with the early-time light-curve evolution. However, SN 1991T-like objects are difficult to distinguish from lower-luminosity SNe Ia a month after peak, and the sub-classification is somewhat uncertain. With this in mind, throughout this paper, we will consider SN2013aa as a normal-to-overluminous SNe Ia.\
\
![LCOGT and Swift light curves of SN2013aa around peak. LCOGT photometry in shown as B (blue), V (purple), g (green), r (red) and i (orange). Swift photometry shown as U (brown), B (cyan) and V (magenta). The photometry has been corrected for MW extinction. Solid and dashed lines are the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sifto</span> fits on the LCOGT and Swift photometry respectively.[]{data-label="fig:sn2013aa_early_lightcurve"}](LC_early.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
![Spectra of SN2013aa. Raw spectra are shown in gray, smoothed spectra with black lines. []{data-label="fig:sn2013aa_spectra"}](spectra.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
HST Data
--------
{width="90.00000%"}
\[subsec:very\_late\_data\] Due to its distance and significant offset from its host galaxy, SN2013aa is an excellent target for late-time observations. Under *HST* program DD–14925 [@hstproposal], we imaged SN2013aa ($\alpha = 14^{\textrm{h}}32^{\textrm{m}}33.919^{\textrm{s}}, \delta =
-44^{\circ}13'28.763^{\prime \prime}$) on 2017 March 22, 24, 26 & 30 with the *HST* Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3). These observations were obtained in parallel with STIS observations of SN2017cbv. The source was observed with wide-band filters *F350LP*, *F555W*, and *F814W* at varying exposures times. Photometric measurements are reported in Table \[tab:late\_time\_hst\_photometry\].
We received *HST* WFC3 image files in the FLC format, all of which have been corrected for dark current, flat fielding, and charge transfer efficiency through the *HST* calibration pipeline. We used the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">IRAF</span> package *StarFind* to located reference stars for initial frame alignment. We performed fine alignment of all images to one-another using calibration algorithm <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">TweakReg</span>. With all frames aligned, we ran the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">AstroDrizzle</span> reduction package [@astrodrizzle] for cosmic ray removal and generation of median and drizzled science images for each *HST* filter used. We constructed a drizzled template image of all *HST* filters by overlaying each frame, which was then used as reference during photometric calculations.
To determine the position of SN2013aa in the WFC images, we determined a geometric transformation between the [*HST*]{} images and Gemini images taken when the SN was brighter. Using 21 stars common to each image and the Gaia stellar catalog, we calculated a WCS solution for both [*HST*]{} and Gemini images. We aligned the WCS of the *HST* image to that of *Gemini* based on 72 common, unsaturated stars. We then determine the position of SN2013aa in the *HST* images.
We determined the positional systematic uncertainty related to our geometric transformation by performing the transformation many times using a bootstrap re-sampling (with replacement). The final positional uncertainty is a combination of the systematic uncertainty, the statistical uncertainty of the geometric transformation, and the statistical uncertainty from centroiding the SN.
Our best estimate of the position of SN2013aa is $\alpha = 14^{\textrm{h}}32^{\textrm{m}}33.919^{\textrm{s}} \
\pm 0.003^{\textrm{s}} , \ \delta = -44^{\circ}13'28.76^{\prime\prime}
\ \pm 0.03^{\prime\prime}$. Images of SN2013aa with reference stars are displayed in Figure \[fig:images\_sn2013aa\]. We detected a point source in our *HST* image that was $+0.01^{\prime\prime}$ East and $+0.01^{\prime\prime}$ North of the supernova position found in the Gemini explosion image. This translates to a $0.31 \sigma$ offset in Right Ascension and a $0.33 \sigma$ offset in Declination. The position of the sources in both *HST* and Gemini images agree with one another, which suggests that they are in fact the same source.
We performed Point Spread Function (PSF) photometry with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOLPHOT</span> [@dolphot] on the *F350LP*, *F555W*, and *F814W* images. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOLPHOT</span> ran simultaneously on all frames while using the combined template *HST* frame for reference. We used default WFC3 DOLPHOT parameters in the input file, keeping the sigPSF value (minimum signal-to-noise for a PSF calculation) at 10. Using 52 PSF stars in the photometric solution, we detected a point source in all three filter frames that was within the uncertainties of the astrometric solution, confirming that this was indeed SN2013aa. The source is shown most clearly in the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:images\_sn2013aa\].
In this <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOLPHOT</span> detection, we measure the apparent magnitudes of SN2013aa to be $27.969 \pm 0.082$ in *F350LP*, $27.971 \pm 0.280$ in *F555W*, and $27.465 \pm 0.177$ in *F814W*, corresponding to signal-to-noise ratios of 13.3, 3.9, and 6.1, respectively. The brightness of this source is similar to that expected for a SN2013aa at this epoch. We calibrated our apparent magnitudes from <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOLPHOT</span> to AB magnitudes using the WFC3/UVIS2 photometry zeropoint tables given by the Space Telescope Science Institute (STSci)[^2]. As a result of the default aperture correction performed by <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DOLPHOT</span> during the photometry calculation process, we applied the infinite aperture zeropoint values to our generated absolute magnitudes.
[ccCccc]{}\[t!\] 57834 - 57842 & 350LP & 507 - 537 & 27.969 (0.082) & *HST*/WFC3\
57834 - 57842 & 555W & 507-537 & 27.971 (0.280) & *HST*/WFC3\
57834 - 57842 & 814W & 1014-1074 & 27.465 (0.177) & *HST*/WFC3\
To determine the chance coincidence between SN2013aa and our identified source, we look at other detected objects within a $5^{\prime \prime}$ radius of SN2013aa. We limit the sample of reasonable objects to have ${\rm S/N} \ge 5$, be classified as a star by Dolphot (type 1 or 2), have a roundness of $<$0.5 (as determined by Dolphot), have a sharpness between $-0.3$ and 0.3, and have a Dolphot photometric quality flag of 0 or 1. We find 10 reasonable objects with a $5^{\prime \prime}$ radius, resulting in a chance coincidence of only 0.2%.
Analysis {#sec:Analysis}
========
In this section we briefly detail how we generated a pseudo-bolometric light curve from the photometric data described in Section \[sec:observations\]. We then discuss our analysis of different elemental decay chains responsible for light curve shape and the process of determining each radioactive isotope mass based on the fit to our bolometric luminosity data.
Constructing a pseudo-bolometric light curve {#subsec:constr_bol_lc}
--------------------------------------------
In order to construct the pseudo-bolometric light curve of SN2013aa, we employ similar techniques as performed for other late-time SN Ia studies, that includes the modification of the SN spectra to match a series of photometric observations and, subsequently, integration of these modified spectra over the optical wavelengths [e.g., @Graur16; @dimitriadis17; @graur17; @Kerzendorf17; @shappee17]. We correct all photometric data, both ground- and space based, for Milky Way Extinction according to [@cardelli89] with $R_v=3.1$, and find no host-galaxy extinction to correct for in the data.
For photometric epochs with phases of $\sim$100 to 200 days, we mangle [@Hsiao07] the closest-in-time spectrum to the LCOGT photometric data. For the $\sim$400-day epoch, we perform the same operation with the GMOS photometry and spectrum. For the 1500-day photometric epoch, there is no spectrum of SN2013aa or any other SN Ia; instead, we use a 1000-day spectrum of SN2011fe [@Taubenberger15]. The bolometric flux is computed by integrating each modified synthetic spectrum from 4000 to 9000 Å, obtaining errors by Monte Carlo re-sampling of the observed photometry. Finally, we calculate the optical bolometric luminosity by scaling the integrated flux with the distance to the SN, estimated in Section \[subsec:early\_data\].
The choice of wavelength range for generating the pseudo-bolometric light curve was set by the wavelength coverage of the available spectra, and in particular the GMOS spectrum (see Fig. \[fig:sn2013aa\_spectra\]). While this wavelength range is narrower than pseudo-bolometric light curves generated for other SNe Ia (usually $\sim$3500–10000 Å), the dominant spectral lines of SNe Ia at these phases, mainly from iron peak elements and , are included in our wavelength range. We can estimate the fraction of flux lost bluewards (3500–4000 Å) and redwards (9000–10000 Å) of our pseudo-bolometric wavelength range by using spectra of the well-observed SN2011fe: we calculate a fraction of 5% and 9% at 348d, reducing to 4% and 7% at 1034d. Our closest spectrum to the GMOS spectrum at 398d is the WiFeS spectrum at 344d, which spans from 3500–9280Å, for which we estimate a fraction of flux lost bluewards (i.e. the integrated flux from 3500–4000 over the integrated flux from 3500–9280Å) and redwards (i.e. the integrated flux from 9000–9280 over the integrated flux from 3500–9280Å) of our pseudo-bolometric wavelength range to be 1.2% and 1.5% respectively. By using spectra of the well-observed SN2011fe, which cover a wider wavelength range (3000–10000Å), the equivalent blueward-redward flux losses are 5% and 9% at 348, reducing to 4% and 7% at 1034d.
The bolometric light curve model {#subsec:bol_lc_model}
--------------------------------
The light curve of a SN Ia is powered by the thermalization of the expanding ejecta due to the deposition of energy from the radioactive decay of several decay chains. At early times, the dominant contribution comes from ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$, the most abundant synthesized element, and its daughter isotope, ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$, with its decay channel $\ce{{}^56Co ->[ t_{1/2}=77.2 \textrm{d} ] {}^56Fe }$ being the most important for epochs up to 2 yrs after explosion. At later times, and as the column density of the expanding ejecta decreases, additional energy is deposited by the radioactive decays of $\ce{{}^57Co ->[ t_{1/2}=271.2 \textrm{d} ] {}^57Fe }$ and . All of these decay chains produce $\gamma$-rays, X-rays and charged leptons (positrons, Auger electrons, and internal conversion electrons). In our analysis we employ the same decay energies and constants as presented in Table 2 of [@seitenzahl14]. In this framework, the luminosity produced can be approximated by the Bateman equation: $$\label{eq:eq4}
\begin{split}
&L_A(t) = 2.221 \frac{\lambda_A}{A} \frac{M(A)}{M_{\odot}} \frac{q^x_A + q^l_Af^{l}_A(t) + q^{\gamma}_Af^{\gamma}_A(t)}{\mathrm{keV}}\\
& \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \textrm{exp}(-\lambda_{A}t) \ \times \ \ 10^{43} \ \textrm{erg} \ \textrm{s}^{-1}
\end{split}$$
where $t$ is time since explosion, $\lambda_A$ is the decay constant, $A$ is the atomic number, and $q^l$, $q^\gamma$, and $q^x$ are the average energies of charged leptons, $\gamma$-rays, and X-rays, respectively, per decay. In this equation, $f^{\gamma}_A(t)$ and $f^{l}_A(t)$ describe the trapping of the deposited energy of the $\gamma$-rays and charged leptons respectively, and, assuming homologous expansion, are given by
$$\label{eq:eq5}
f^{\gamma,l}_{A} = 1- \textrm{exp}\Big[-\Big(\frac{t^{\gamma,l}_{A}}{t}\Big)^2 \Big]$$
In previous late-time studies, such as @Graur16, @shappee17 and @graur17, with late-time data $>500$ days, the authors consider only the charged leptons deposited energy, for which they assume complete trapping in the decay of ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ (i.e., $f^{l}_{A} = 1$), and no positron trapping in the decays of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ (i.e., $f^{l}_{A} = 0$). For the ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ $\gamma$-rays, a timescale of $t^{\gamma}_{56}
\approx 35$ days was found to fit the late-time light curves of several SNe Ia [@sollerman04; @Stritzinger07; @leloundas09; @zhang16] While these SNe Ia do have lower predicted mass of ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ than SN 2013aa, the application of $t^{\gamma}_{56}
\approx 35$ days is still an adequate assumption and has no effect on the analysis.
While Equation \[eq:eq4\] describes the *bolometric* luminosity (that is, the complete energetic output across the electromagnetic spectrum), the photometric data presented here and in (most of) the aforementioned studies are primarily optical data, with some cases including near-infrared observations. A common approach is to assume that the *optical* luminosity scales with the complete bolometric one as $L_{\rm opt}(t) = B(t) \times L_{\rm
bol}(t)$, where $B(t)$ is the fraction of the bolometric luminosity in the optical and is often assumed to be a constant in time. In this sense, 1/$B(t)$ resembles a “bolometric correction”, i.e. a function that transforms the optical flux to a bolometric one. We can estimate $B(t)$ by calculating the ratio between the ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ mass found by fitting the late-time data with Equation \[eq:eq4\] over the total ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ mass as determined from data around peak (where ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ dominates), for which the non-optical contribution at this phase is $\leq$15% [e.g. see @Pereira13 for SN2011fe]. Values of $B(t)$ calculated by @graur17 for a sample of SNe Ia with late-time data range from 20-40%. However, @dimitriadis17 showed that, for SN2011fe, a non-constant $B$ can explain the increase of the late-time non-optical contribution, approximating the optical contribution with a sigmoid function:
$$\label{eq:eq6}
B(t) = 1-\frac{P_{0}}{1-e^{P_{1} \times (t-P_{2})}}$$
In that work, this non-optical contribution, consisting of the $J\!H\!K$ near-infrared bands, increases from $\sim$5 to 35%, from 200 to 600 days after the $B$-band maximum brightness. This effect can be seen as a faster decline of the (optical bolometric) light curve at these epochs, compared to the expected radioactive decay slope, predicted by known radioactive decay chains. The physical origin of this faster decline remains elusive: positron escape models, a re-distribution of optical flux to the mid/far-infrared @Fransson15 or time-dependent effects, such as freeze-out could provide an explanation.
Results from Light-Curve Model Fitting {#subsec:results}
--------------------------------------
[cccccccc]{}
Fit 1 & $0.589^{+0.014}_{-0.014}$ & $0.00002^{+0.0001}_{-0.00002}$ & $0.006^{+0.001}_{-0.006}$ & $35^{a}$ & - & 298.4 & 23\
Fit 2 & $0.631^{+0.015}_{-0.015}$ & $0.006^{+0.001}_{-0.006}$ & $0.0002^{+0.0007}_{-0.0002}$ & $35^{a}$ & $281.02^{+16.44}_{-15.29}$ & 20.4 & 22\
Fit 3 & $0.732^{a}$ & $0.015^{+0.0075}_{-0.015}$ & $0.0000007^{+0.000007}_{-0.0000007}$ & $35^{a}$ & - & 21.3 & 20\
Fit 4 & $0.59^{+0.01}_{-0.01}$ & $0.006^{+0.001}_{-0.001}$ & $0^{a}$ & $35^{a}$ & - & 299.7 & 24\
In this work, we will explore four models for the late-time light curve of SN2013aa: (1) Complete positron trapping (i.e., $f^{l}_{A} =
1$ & negligible $t^{l}_{55, 56, 57}$) and free-streaming $\gamma$-rays at late-times (i.e., $f^{\gamma}_{55,57} =
0$ & negligible $t^{\gamma}_{55, 57}$) , (2) the same as 1, but with possible positron escape, for which we will assume a same form of $f^{l}_{A}$ as the trapping function of the $\gamma$-rays (i.e., as in Equation \[eq:eq5\]), (3) the same as 1, but with a time-dependent non-optical contribution (Equation \[eq:eq6\]), and (4) the same as 1, but with no ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$, as was assumed by @graur17. For all of our fits, we assume $t^{\gamma}_{56} = 35$ days, and, by applying a Markov-Chain Monte-Carlo fitting algorithm, determine the amount of ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$, ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$, and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$. In our analysis, we use , a Python-based application of an affine invariant MCMC with an ensemble sampler [@foreman-mackey13]. Working with an MCMC allows for the detection of degeneracy amongst free variables that could not be properly identified with a standard $\chi^{2}$ fitting algorithm. Unfortunately, SN2013aa has no data between 400 and 1500 days. As a result, it is difficult to separate the contributions of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ to the late-time light curve. However, the current data are still constraining for explosion models.
An important step in consistently comparing our late-time mass estimates of the different scenarios considered, is an accurate determination of the total ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ mass, synthesized in the explosion. At early times, the luminosity is dominated by the ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ decay and almost all of the light is emitted in the optical [e.g., @Pereira13]. In the sample study of @graur17, the authors estimate the ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ mass by fitting a straight line to the $M_{56}$ values of @Childress15 over their <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sifto</span> stretch values. A similar calculation for SN2013aa yields $M_{56} = 0.732 \pm 0.151$ M$_{\odot}$. As a consistency check, we additionally estimate the ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ mass from the bolometric luminosity at peak, following the widely-used Arnett law @arnett82. Using our early-time photometry (Section \[subsec:early\_data\]) and a template SN Ia spectrum from @Hsiao07 at peak, we integrate the spectrum and estimate $L_{peak} = 1.56 \pm \: 0.05 \times 10^{43} \: \mathrm{erg\:s^{-1}}$. Assuming a rise time of 17 days, we estimate $M_{56} = 0.73 \pm 0.03
\: \mathrm{M_{\odot}}$. In the following sections, we will follow the @graur17 approach and adopt $M_{56} = 0.732 \pm 0.151 \:
\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$.
In Fit 1, we considered complete positron trapping and a fixed $t^{\gamma}_{56} = 35$ days in fitting for the masses of ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$, ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$, and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$. We find a ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ mass of $0.589^{+0.0140}_{-0.0140} \ \textrm{M}_{\odot}$, which is 20% less than the total mass of ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$ calculated from the near-peak data. Additionally, we find estimates of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ masses of $M({}^{57}\textrm{Co}) = {2 \times 10^{-5}}^{+{1 \times 10^{-4}}}_{-{2 \times 10^{-5}}}$ M$_{\odot}$, and $M({}^{55}\textrm{Fe})=0.006^{+0.001}_{-0.006} \ \textrm{M}_{\odot}$. This fit yields a $\chi^2/{\rm dof} = 298.4/23$, and we calculate a mass ratio of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}/{}^{56}\textrm{Co} = {3 \times 10^{-5}}^{+{2 \times 10^{-4}}}_{-{3 \times 10^{-5}}}$. For this scenario, the best-fitting values have significantly more ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ than ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$, although the range of allowed values include having the mass hierarchy inverted.
Unlike the other fits displayed in Figure \[fig:bol\_plot\], Fit 1 is significantly more luminous at 400 days than the data, suggesting that – under the assumption of a constant bolometric correction – incomplete positron trapping occurs at 400 days, and is therefore likely to also occur at later times.
In Fit 2, we fit for all three radioactive isotope masses in addition to $t^{l}_{56}$, which allows for positron leakage (see Equation \[eq:eq5\]). This varies from Fit 1 in that we now consider only partial positron trapping as well as a fixed $t^{\gamma}_{56} = 35$ days. The ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$, ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$, and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ masses are estimated to be $0.631^{+0.0150}_{-0.0150} \ \textrm{M}_{\odot}$, $0.006^{+0.001}_{-0.006} \ \textrm{M}_{\odot}$, and $0.0002^{+0.0007}_{-0.0002} \ \textrm{M}_{\odot}$, respectively.
We find that the best-fitting value of ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ is 14% less than the near-peak estimate of ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$, and we calculate a mass ratio ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}/{}^{56}\textrm{Co} =
0.01^{+0.002}_{-0.01}$. This model has a $\chi^{2}/{\rm dof} = 20.4/22$. Fit 2 is much better at matching the data near 400 days than Fit 1. We find that fitting for partial rather than complete positron trapping yields a timescale of $t^{l}_{56}=281.02^{+16.440}_{-15.290}$ days for lepton escape.
In Fit 3, we fit for ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$, ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$, and each free parameter of the sigmoid function in Equation \[eq:eq6\], while fixing $M_{56}$ to the value determined from the early-time data, $M_{56} = 0.732 \pm 0.151 \:
\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$. Similar to Fit 1, this model includes complete positron trapping, but with an increasing non-optical contribution to the total luminostiy of the light curve. We measure the ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ mass to be $0.015^{+0.0075}_{-0.015} \: \textrm{M}_{\odot}$, and a mass ratio ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}/{}^{56}\textrm{Co} =
0.02^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$. The best-fitting value for the mass of ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ is only ${7 \times 10^{-7}}^{+{7 \times 10^{-6}}}_{-{7 \times 10^{-7}}}$ M$_{\odot}$, significantly smaller than the best-fitting values of the other fits, but consistent with their range for the ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ mass. This fit has a $\chi^{2}/{\rm dof} = 21.3/20$ and, like Fit 2, matches the data at 400 days \[fig:bol\_plot\].
Finally for Fit 4, we set the ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ mass to be zero. This is done to be consistent with the @graur17 analysis. We find ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ and ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ masses of $0.59^{+0.010}_{-0.010} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}$ and $0.006^{+0.001}_{-0.001} \ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}$, respectively. The best-fitting value of ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ is $20\%$ less than the total the near-peak estimate of ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$, and we calculate a mass ratio ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}/{}^{56}\textrm{Co} =
0.01^{+0.002}_{-0.002}$. This fit has a $\chi^{2}/{\rm dof} = 299.7/24$ and, like Fit 1, is over-luminous, relative to the data, around 400 days after peak brightness. Although Fit 4 is not a particularly good representation of the data, we use the mass ratios measured here when comparing to other SNe Ia examined by @graur17 in Section \[subsec:comparison\].
Best-fitting parameters for each model are reported in Table \[tab:models\], with each respective fit plotted in Figure \[fig:bol\_plot\].
[lccccccc]{}
**Single Degenerate** & & & & & & &\
W7 & Deflagration & $2 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.38$ & $0.59$ & 0.041 & 0.90 & @iwamoto99\
ddt$\_$n100 & Delayed Detonation & $2.9 \times 10^{9}$ & 1.40 & 0.60 & 0.031 & 0.83 & @seitenzahl13\
det$\_$1.06 & Detonation & $4.2 \times 10^{7}$ & $1.06$ & $0.56$ & 0.006 & 0.75 & @Sim10ApJ\
doubledt$\_$CSDD-S & Double Detonation & $8.5 \times 10^{6}$ & $0.79$ & $0.21$ & 0.044 & 0.89 & @Sim12MNRAS\
def$\_$N100def & Pure Deflagration & $2.9 \times 10^{9}$ & $1.40$ & $0.36$ & 0.038 & 0.84 & @Fink14MNRAS\
det$\_$ONe15e7 & O-Ne WD Detonation & $1.5 \times 10^{8}$ & $1.23$ & $0.96$ & 0.009 & 0.79 & @Marquardt15AA\
gcd$\_$GCD200 & Detonation & $1.0 \times 10^{6}$ & $1.40$ & $0.74$ & 0.025 & 0.92 & @Seitenzahl16AA\
**Double Degenerate** & & & & & & &\
merger$\_$11+09 & Violent Merger & $2.0 \times 10^{6}$ & $1.10+0.90$ & $0.10$ & 0.024 & 1.03 & @pakmor12\
merger$\_$09+09 & Violent Merger & $3.8 \times 10^{6}$ & $0.90+0.90$ & $0.10$ & 0.003 & 0.80 & @pakmor10\
merger$\_$09+076$\_$Z1 & Violent Merger & $2.0 \times 10^{6}$ & $0.90+0.76$ & $0.18$ & 0.009 & 0.89 & @Kromer13ApJ\
merger$\_$09+076$\_$Z0.01 & Violent Merger & $2.0 \times 10^{6}$ & $0.90+0.76$ & $0.18$ & 0.003 & 0.99 & @Kromer16MNRAS\
Discussion {#sec:Discussion}
==========
Comparison to Explosion Models
------------------------------
The mass ratios between given radioactive isotopes are indicators of the explosion mechanism in SNe Ia. We compare our values for ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$/${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ with the two explosion models presented in @ropke12, both of which probe the two extremes of the density at the location of the explosion: The ddt$\_$n100 [@seitenzahl13], a Delayed Detonation, near-Chandrasekhar mass explosion model, with $\rho\sim$$3 \times 10^{9} \ \textrm{g cm}^{-3}$, and the merger$\_$11+09 [@pakmor12], a Violent Merger model of 1.1 and 0.9 $\textrm{M}_{\odot}$ WDs, with $\rho\sim$$2 \times 10^{6} \ \textrm{g cm}^{-3}$. Figure \[fig:bol\_plot\] illustrates that the Violent Merger model has a 1500-day luminosity that is more similar to that of SN2013aa than the Delayed Detonation model. However, both models predict a significantly more luminous event than SN2013aa. Our preferred description of the data (Fit 3) has ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$/${}^{56}\textrm{Co} = 0.02^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$, which is more than 0.4$\sigma$ below that of the Violent Merger model (${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$/${}^{56}\textrm{Co} = 0.0242$) and 1.1$\sigma$ below that of the Delayed Detonation model (${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$/${}^{56}\textrm{Co} = 0.0311$). The other scenarios described in Section \[subsec:results\] have even smaller ratios of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$/${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$.
Despite the best-fitting values being consistent with zero, the parameter space of our model fits provides estimates for the abundances of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ at this late-time epoch. Due to the difficulty in detecting ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$, other late-time studies have constrained this isotopic abundance based on the ratio of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}/{}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ predicted in SD and DD explosion models such as @ropke12, @ohlmann14 and @iwamoto99. We, however, find it inconsistent to enforce a ratio of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}/{}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$, but not that of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}/{}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ in fitting for the abundance of all radioactive isotopes. In our three fits we choose not to constrain the mass of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ nor that of ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$, and thus explore the parameter space of each fit without the confinement of an explosion model mass ratio. Nonetheless, the degeneracy between the masses of ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ cannot be broken by our limited late-time data, and ultimately requires future observation of SN2013aa in epochs where the presence of ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ becomes more prominent in the bolometric light curve.
Comparison to Other Supernova Observed at Late-Time Epochs {#subsec:comparison}
----------------------------------------------------------
SN2013aa is the fifth SN Ia used to constrain explosion models via mass ratios of late-time decay elements. Using the four SNe Ia with previous extremely late-time photometry, @graur17 found a linear trend between light-curve shape (specifically, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">sifto</span>-calculated stretch values) and M(${}^{57}$Co)/M(${}^{56}$Co). They also found a linear trend between the change in pseudo-bolometric luminosity between 600 and 900 days ($\Delta\textrm{L}_{900} =
\log_{10}(\textrm{L}_{600}/\textrm{L}_{900})$ and the time at which freeze-out effects are most prevalent in the light curve, $\textrm{t}_{\textrm{freeze}}$. We reproduce these trends in Figure \[fig:stretch\] by fitting a line to the four original data points. In Figure \[fig:stretch\], we also include the values for SN2013aa found in Fit 4, in which we fit the light curve only for $M({}^{56}\textrm{Co})$ and $M({}^{57}\textrm{Co})$, with $M({}^{55}\textrm{Fe})=0$. This fit has the same assumptions as the @graur17 analysis (i.e. complete positron trapping). From the figure, we see that SN2013aa is a large outlier to the @graur17 trend.
Using the @graur17 relation, we estimate a theoretical mass ratio of M(${}^{57}$Co)/M(${}^{56}$Co) corresponding to the stretch value we find for SN2013aa. We plot that model with respect to bolometric luminosity data as the blue line in Figure \[fig:bol\_plot\]. The @graur17 relation predicts a luminosity that is more than an order of magnitude above that of SN2013aa. We conclude that either SN2013aa is extremely abnormal or the @graur17 relation does not hold for a larger sample.
We also use Figure \[fig:stretch\] to explore the implication of various explosion models abundances. Apart from the already discussed ddt$\_$n100, merger$\_$11+09 and W7, we include models from the Heidelberg Supernova Model Archive (HESMA)[^3] that include various binary configurations and explosion mechanisms. We estimate the stretch of each explosion model by using the equations in @Guy07 and published $\Delta\textrm{m}_{15}$ values. A brief description of these models and some of their basic physical parameters is presented in Table \[tab:explosion\_models\], and more information for each model can be found in the relevant references. This calculation reveals a discrepancy in the fitted relation of Figure \[fig:stretch\] because, in plotting the predicted mass ratios of each explosion model with respect to specific stretch values, there is no discernible adherence to the trend of other late-time SNe Ia.
While some late-time SNe are visibly closer in stretch and M(${}^{57}$Co)/M(${}^{56}$Co) values to those of explosion models, i.e. SN2013aa to the 1.1-0.9 Violent Merger or SN2015F to the 0.9-0.76 Violent Merger, there is ultimately no concrete correlation between these specific models and the observed late-time SNe in terms of measured mass ratios and stretch.
To further understand the late-time luminosity evolution of SNe Ia, we plot the pseudo-bolometric luminosities of all five SNe Ia with extremely late-time data in the right panel of Figure \[fig:stretch\]. Notably, the light curves are very similar through $\sim$700 days. After this time, SNe2012cg and 2014J have higher luminosities than that of SNe 2011fe, 2013aa, and 2015F. In fact, the latter three SNe have nearly identical light curves (up to where their data overlap in time) through 1600 days after explosion. Unsurprisingly, these three SNe have similar isotopic mass ratios, yet there is a noticeable difference between the mass ratio of SN2013aa and SN2011fe, despite their similar light curve trend. We conclude that the larger mass ratio found in SN2011fe is a result of available data in the 500-1000 day phase range in which the relation is presented. The lack of data for SN2013aa from 500-1000 days after max light, may be the cause of this lower mass ratio.
SNe2012cg and 2014J, on the other hand, have larger M(${}^{57}$Co)/M(${}^{56}$Co), which has been interpreted as being the result of having near-Chandrasekhar-mass progenitor stars [@Graur16; @yang17]. However, the measured mass ratios are significantly larger than that predicted by the SD models. Moreover, the difference in mass ratios for SNe2012cg and 2014J is larger than the differences between the different theoretical models. This indicates either systematic effects in the luminosity determination for these SNe, missing physics in the models, or the model parameter space not spanning the physical parameter space.
Non-Optical Contribution to the Bolometric Luminosity {#subsec:non-optical}
-----------------------------------------------------
Since the luminosities calculated for SN2013aa are confined to the optical band ($4000 - 9000$Å), we investigate a non-optical contribution in late-time epochs (particularly at $\sim$10000 – 20000 Å). For the case of Fit 1 and 2, the non-optical contribution can be estimated by the ratio of the calculated ${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ to the total ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$, for which we find $\sim$20% and $\sim$14%, respectively. These values represent the non-optical $B(t)$ term shown in Section \[subsec:bol\_lc\_model\], and the bolometric correction is found by $1/B(t)$. For the case of Fit 3, in which we fit for this non-optical contribution, we examine the sigmoid function with free parameters generated by the MCMC. We find a gradually increasing non-optical contribution from $\sim$10% at 100d to $\sim$60% after 500d from maximum. These values are broadly consistent with the theoretical prediction of $\sim20\%$ by @Fransson15. Moreover, they are consistent with the non-optical contribution estimations of SN2012cg and SN2014J based on the @graur17 fits. Based on the infrared analysis of SN 2011fe by [@shappee17] and [@dimitriadis17], it is predicted that the non-optical contribution will remain constant after this phase. However, this prediction is based on only one late-time study, and much still remains to be understood about NIR and Mid/Far-Infrared contributions to SN luminosity.
Companion Contamination?
------------------------
While we see no visible evidence of companion contamination from the photometric analysis or in the *HST* images, we still consider the potential for a surviving binary companion, which could contribute to the luminosity at late-time epochs. We fit the psuedo-bolometric light curve for the decay of ${}^{56}$Co plus a constant companion luminosity. We calculate a companion contribution to the luminosity of $5.26\pm1.04\times10^{2} \ \textrm{L}_{\odot}$ with a $\chi^2/\textrm{dof} = 297.29/24$. Using the mass-luminosity relation [@kuiper38], this luminosity translates to a main sequence or red giant star with a mass of $\sim 5\:\textrm{M}_{\odot}$. In similar studies such as @dimitriadis17 and @shappee17, an existing companion star was also ruled out based on the lack of pre- and post-explosion detection. We conclude that this scenario is unlikely in the case of SN2013aa.
Light Echoes?
-------------
@graur17 used the late-time SN color evolution to successfully rule out light echo contamination for SN2015F, by comparing B-V and V-R with the colors of the well-studied SN2011fe, which shows no signs of light echo, having exploded in a relatively clean environment. While we cannot repeat the same procedure for SN2013aa, as we do not have this temporal color information at these phase ranges, we can rule out the presence of a light echo by comparing the SED derived from the *HST* $\sim$1500d photometry with SN2007af and SN2011fe: SN2007af is an otherwise normal SN Ia that showed clear signs of a light echo when observed at $\sim$1080d at the same *HST* photometric bands with SN2013aa, while for SN2011fe, we construct a synthetic SED of the *HST* filters, using the @Taubenberger15 $\sim$1035d spectrum.
It is straightforward to rule out light echo contamination, as SN2013aa is more similar to SN2011fe: The SED of SN2007af shows the characteristic blue shape of a light echo spectrum, originating from scattered early-time spectra, which is different for both SN2013aa and SN2011fe. The calculated *F555W*-*F814W* (similar to V-i) colors are 0.79$\pm$0.33, 0.45$\pm$0.02 and -0.49$\pm$0.13 for SN2013aa, SN2011fe and SN2007af, respectively.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
In this paper we have presented *HST* WFC3 imaging of SN2013aa 1500 days after explosion. Upon detecting the supernova in three optical filters, we determined the respective AB magnitudes to be 27.969 (*F350LP*), 27.971 (*F555W*), and 27.465 (*F814W*). Based on our astrometric solution, we calculate the chance of coincidence for this detection to be $0.2\%$. Calculated magnitudes at this epoch, combined with photometric data from Swift, LCOGT, and Gemini, allowed for the generation of a pseudo-bolometric light curve.
In our analysis, we applied the Bateman equation in order to fit the radioactive decays of ${}^{56}\textrm{Ni}$, ${}^{57}\textrm{Ni}$, and ${}^{55}\textrm{Co}$ to the bolometric luminosities of SN2013aa. We fit the pseudo-bolometric light curve data with three primary, independent model fits: complete positron trapping (Fit 1), partial positron trapping (Fit 2), and a time-dependent non-optical contribution represented by the sigmoid function (Fit 3). For each model, we estimate the ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$ and ${}^{55}\textrm{Fe}$ masses and determine the ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$/${}^{56}\textrm{Co}$ ratio.
For our preferred model (Fit 3), we estimate ${}^{57}\textrm{Co}$/${}^{56}\textrm{Co}=0.02^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$. This value is more consistent with a low-central density, double-degenerate explosion of two sub-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarf stars than a high-central density Chandrasekhar-mass single-degenerate WD system.
Compared to other SNe Ia observed at late-time epochs, we find that SN2013aa does not match the @graur17 M(${}^{57}$Co)/M(${}^{56}$Co) vs. stretch trend. However, the relation presented is for a specific phase range of 500-1000 days, during which SN2013aa has no photometric data. Nonetheless, the data at $\sim400$ and $\sim1500$ days is quite constraining in this phase range, and any substantial decrease in luminosity at the 400-500 day or 1000-1500 day phase range is unlikely due to SN2013aa’s light curve similarity to other late-time SNe Ia. We explore the possibility that the discrepancy in mass ratios may be the result of a major shift in resulting in a substantial non-optical contribution at late-times [@Fransson15; @sollerman04; @leloundas09]. However, if this were the case and SN2013aa conformed to the predicted mass ratio by [@graur17], only $\sim 10\%$ of the light at late-times would come from the optical based on our calculated ratio of M(${}^{57}$Co)/M(${}^{56}$Co). While SN2013aa may be an outlier to the trend of [@graur17], we cannot sub-classify the target as any different than a normal SN Ia (e.g. 1991T-like) as a result of ambiguity in fitting spectral features.
We note that SN2013aa’s light-curve evolution and its isotopic mass ratio, are similar to that of SNe2011fe. From this similarity in late-time luminosity, we conclude that the slight discrepancy in the masses of SN2013aa and SN2011fe is the result of missing data between 500-1000 days. Furthermore, we find no direct correlation between the values of stretch and M(${}^{57}$Co)/M(${}^{56}$Co) measured in observed late-time SNe Ia to those of single-degenerate and double-degenerate explosion models. While the mass ratio and stretch of some late-time SNe Ia are comparable to that of particular explosion models e.g., SN 2013aa to a 1.1+0.9 $\textrm{M}_{\odot}$ Violent Merger, or SN 2015F to a 0.9+0.76 $\textrm{M}_{\odot}$ Violent Merger, there still exists no visible trend between data and models. The significant spread between the predicted mass ratios of explosion models and those of observed late-time SNe indicates a need for either a more comprehensive model analysis of the physics behind supernova explosions, or the reduction of systematic errors in determining the luminosities of late-time SNe Ia. Additional observations of SN2013aa should improve both mass estimates and mitigate potential systematic effects.
We would like to thank David Sand, Dave Coulter, Adam Riess, Dan Scolnic, and Saurabh Jha for helpful comments on this paper.
Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{}, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI), which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contract NAS 5–26555. These observations are associated with Program DD–14925. Support for DD–14925 was provided by NASA through a grant from STscI. This manuscript is based upon work supported by NASA under Contract No.NNG16PJ34C issued through the [*WFIRST*]{} Science Investigation Teams Program.
The UCSC group is supported in part by NSF grant AST-1518052, the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, and by fellowships from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to R.J.F. and from the UCSC Koret Scholars program to W.V.J.-G.
[^1]: <http://wiserep.weizmann.ac.il/>
[^2]: <http://www.stsci.edu/hst/wfc3/analysis/uvis_zpts/uvis2_infinite/>
[^3]: <https://hesma.h-its.org/doku.php?id=start>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Brent R. Doran'
title: 'Hurwitz Spaces and Moduli Spaces as Ball Quotients via Pull-back'
---
Introduction {#sec:Intro}
============
A number of classical moduli spaces $\mathcal{M}$ admit the structure of a locally symmetric space $\Gamma \backslash G/K$, where $K$ is a maximal compact subgroup and $\Gamma$ is a discrete subgroup of $G$. The identification is given by a $\Gamma$-invariant map $\Phi: G/K \rightarrow \mathcal{M}$ that descends to an isomorphism from $\Gamma \backslash G/K$ to $\mathcal{M}$.
In the language of the 19th century, $(G/K, \Phi)$ is a [*uniformization*]{} of $\mathcal{M}$. If $\Gamma$ does not act freely, it is an [*orbifold uniformization*]{}. For example, when $G =
PU(1, n)$ then $G/K$ is the complex $n$-ball $\mathbb{B}^n$, or complex hyperbolic $n$-space, and so the uniformization endows $\mathcal{M}$ with a complex hyperbolic metric (possibly with orbifold singularities). We call $\mathcal{M} \cong \Gamma
\backslash \mathbb{B}^n$ a “ball quotient".
In their seminal work on hypergeometric functions, Deligne and Mostow [@DM; @Mos1; @DM2] proved that certain geometric invariant theory (GIT) moduli spaces ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$ of $n$ points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ are ball quotients. Here the uniformizing group $\Gamma$ is a monodromy representation of the spherical braid group on $n$ strings, the ball is $\mathbb{B}^{n-3}$, and the uniformizing map $\Phi$ is the single-valued inverse to a map $HG_{\mu}$ built from multi-valued generalized hypergeometric functions on ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$.
In this paper, we make use of an overlooked, essentially topological, property of hypergeometric functions defined via local systems. This yields a method for producing subball quotients of ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$ that have natural geometric interpretations in terms of moduli.
Intersection homology has several convenient attributes [@Borel; @GM1; @GM2; @MacP]. One is that it comes with an intersection pairing whose signature can be computed using explicit cycles. Here, this pairing defines a Hermitian form, $\Psi$, which only depends on a list $\mu$ of $n$ fractions (associated with the $n$ points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$). Consequently, varying the coordinates of the points, i.e., moving through the moduli space, preserves the form. In particular, the monodromy group $\Gamma$ preserves $\Psi$: so the data $\mu$ determine a [*lattice*]{} $\Lambda$ over a ring of integers $R$, together with $\Gamma$ acting as automorphisms of $\Lambda$. Thus $\mu$ in fact defines a Hermitian locally symmetric space. This procedure parallels the main approach, using ordinary and compactly supported cohomologies, of Deligne and Mostow.
Also, intersection homology is a bivariant functor that it is insensitive to points of trivial local monodromy. Consequently, given $\pi: {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$, and a rank $1$ local system $l_T \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus T$, the intersection homology of the pull-back rank 1 local system $\pi^*(l_T) \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus \pi^{-1}(T)$ only “sees” the interesting points $S
\subset \pi^{-1}(T)$ that contribute to monodromy. This is the feature that allows us to relate certain Hurwitz spaces to subball quotients.
Finally, intersection homology here admits a Hodge decomposition into orthogonal subspaces corresponding to holomorphic and anti-holomorphic forms. This decomposition encodes the only actual analysis to enter into what is otherwise a topological construction. We define the multi-valued map $HG_{\mu}$ to be the coordinate expression of the holomophic section of a flat Grassmannian bundle (over the moduli space of $n$ distinct points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$) given by the linear subspace of holomorphic 1-forms. For the Deligne-Mostow examples, the flat Grassmanian bundle is actually a flat projective space bundle and $\Psi$ is of Lorentzian signature, so that $HG_{\mu}$ is valued in a complex ball in projective space, as desired.
Section \[sec:HGfunctions\] develops the theory of hypergeometric functions of Deligne-Mostow type from the perspective of intersection homology valued in a local system. We take a hands-on approach to understanding the cycles, the form $\Psi$, and the monodromy group $\Gamma$. No claim is made as to original results, although some proofs may be new. The reader is referred to the original paper of Deligne and Mostow [@DM] for some technical details that carry over to intersection homology [*mutatis mutandis*]{}, and for a complete discussion of the theory of holomorphic and anti-holomorphic forms valued in a rank 1 local system on an $n$-punctured ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$. The section concludes by recalling the fundamental uniformization results of Deligne and Mostow [@DM; @Mos1], via conditions $INT$ and $\Sigma INT$.
Section \[Sec:Ancestral\] serves two purposes, both related to the $\Psi$-lattices that underlie the Deligne-Mostow uniformizations. First it establishes that two important examples, which we call the Eisenstein and Gaussian ancestral examples, have a rich supply of subball quotients. This is key for the results of Section \[sec:Pullback\]. Second, the section makes concrete a fact which is implicit in Deligne and Mostow’s analysis, but is often overlooked. Namely, GIT-stable collisions of points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ in a Deligne-Mostow uniformization correspond to orbifold subball quotients (basically, the mirrors of complex reflections associated to the monodromy group $\Gamma$). This gives an easy way to organize much of the Deligne-Mostow list of uniformizations; for instance, when $n \geq 7$ every example but one is a collision “descendant” of an ancestral example. In particular, it is immediate that Mostow’s original list [@Mos1] is missing a number of examples. (Thurston corrected that list by computer in [@Thur], and to the best of our knowledge his list is complete, although a proof is not provided.) We show in [@Dor1] (and it is also seen by somewhat different means in [@DKvG]) that one of these “missing” examples is a cover of the ball quotient structure on the moduli space of cubic surfaces from [@ACT].
Section \[sec:Pullback\] discusses the pull-back procedure. Given a map $\pi: {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ and a collection of points $T$, let $\nu$ denote the data of the non-trivial local monodromy of a rank $1$ local system $l_T \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus T$. Thus $\nu$ may be written as a list of $|T|$ fractions. The pull-back local system $\pi^*l_T \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus \pi^{-1}(T)$ is specified by its local monodromy list of fractions $\mu$. Given $\nu$, the data $\mu$ is determined entirely by the ramification of $\pi$ over $T$. Consequently, varying $\pi$ while preserving the ramification over $T$ (describing a Hurwitz space of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ covers of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$), results in a constrained variation of the points of $\pi^{-1}(T)$. The variation of the subset $S \subset \pi^{-1}(T)$ of non-trivial local monodromy points thus determines a subvariety ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ of a Deligne-Mostow moduli space ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$. If this moduli space is a ball quotient, then one may ask if ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ is a subball quotient via restriction of hypergeometric functions. We give a sufficiency criterion. Detailed classification in very special cases with $|T|
= 3$ produces a list of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ that at once are codimension 1 subball quotients and admit natural finite covers by moduli spaces of inhomogeneous binary forms. The codimension 1 subball quotient of the Eisenstein ancestral example may be interpreted as the moduli space of rational elliptic surfaces, via the Weierstrass fibration description of Miranda [@Mir], thus recovering the ball quotient structure on that space described in [@HL].
Throughout we assume the number of points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ is $n \geq
3$.
Hypergeometric Functions after Deligne and Mostow {#sec:HGfunctions}
=================================================
Background on local systems and subsystems {#subsec:LocalSys}
------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a connected manifold. The following are equivalent characterizations of a complex local system $L \rightarrow X$ up to isomorphism:
1. complex vector bundle with flat connection
2. locally constant sheaf of complex vector spaces
3. $\pi_1(X,0)$ representation on a complex vector space, known as the [*monodromy*]{} representation, where $0$ is some chosen base point in $X$
To pass from the first description to the second, identify the flat vector bundle with its sheaf of locally constant sections. Fix a base point $0 \in X$. Then the functor “fiber at $0$" produces a complex vector space endowed with an action of $\pi_1(X,0)$, hence deriving the third description from the second. Note that the choice of base point does not affect the isomorphism class, since a different base point yields the same monodromy representation up to conjugacy in the general linear group of the vector space.
In the case of rank $1$ local systems, the monodromy representation is one-dimensional hence abelian. Since $H_1(X)$ is naturally isomorphic to $\pi_1(X)^{ab}$, the local system is determined by a homomorphism $H_1(X) \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^*$.
The simplest case is also the basic object of study for this paper, namely, rank $1$ local systems on the projective line punctured at $n$ points $s_j, j \in \{1, \ldots, n \}$. Observe $H_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1 \setminus S}})$ is an abelian group. Take positively oriented circles centered at the $s_j$ to be representative cycles of the group generators. The only relation is that the product of the generators is the identity. It is easy to show that:
\[Prop:rk1localmonod\] Given a set of points $S = \{ s_1, \ldots, s_n \}$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ and a set of complex numbers ${\mu} = \{ \mu_1, \ldots, \mu_n \}$, there is, up to isomorphism, a unique rank $1$ local system on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1 \setminus S}}$ with $(S, e^{2 \pi i {\mu}})$ as the local monodromy data. However, the local system is [*not*]{} determined up to [*unique*]{} isomorphism; the fibers may be uniformly rescaled by any element of $\mathbb{C}^*$.
If the $\mu_j$ are real then $\alpha_j = e^{2 \pi i \mu_j}$ is on the unit circle in $\mathbb{C}^*$. In particular the local monodromy may be of finite order. For the purposes of the Deligne-Mostow theory of hypergeometric functions, one takes $\mu_j \in \mathbb{Q}, \forall j$. Ultimately this condition will follow from the constraints $INT$ or $\Sigma INT$ on $\mu$ that guarantee uniformization, so it is a matter of convenience to demand it in advance.
\[Def:DM-Lsystem\] A [*Deligne-Mostow local system*]{} is a rank $1$ local system $L
\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1 \setminus S}}$, where $S$ is a finite collection of points, such that for all $j, \mu_j$ (encoding the local monodromy data $\alpha_j = e^{2 \pi i \mu_j}$ at $s_j$) is a rational number. Clearly the $\mu_j$ may be adjusted to lie between $0$ and $1$ without changing $L$.
By a [*local subsystem*]{} of a local system $L$ we mean a locally constant subsheaf. Note that the monodromy data of a DM local system is defined over the ring of integers $R =
\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_d]$, where $\zeta_d$ is a $d^{th}$ root of unity, and $d$ is the least common denominator of the $\mu_j$. We call the corresponding local subsystem with fiber $R$ the [*Deligne-Mostow local subsystem*]{}, denoted $L(R)$.
The [*dual local system*]{} ${L^\vee}$ will be needed for the homology theory of the next section. It has a straightforward explicit description.
\[Prop:Ldual\] If $L$ is the DM local system determined by the data $(S,
{\alpha})$, equivalently by $(S, {\mu})$, then ${L^\vee}$ is the DM local system determined by $(S, \overline{{\alpha}})$, equivalently by $(S, 1-{\mu})$. In other words, ${L^\vee}=
\overline{L}$. Furthermore ${L^\vee}(R) = \overline{L}(R)$, where $R$ is the ring of integers defining the Deligne-Mostow local subsystem of $L$.
By Proposition \[Prop:rk1localmonod\], both $L$ and ${L^\vee}$ are characterized by local monodromy data. Thus, if the data $(S, \{
\alpha_j \})$ determine $L$, then ${L^\vee}$ is characterized by $(S, \{\alpha_j^{-1} \})$. Furthermore, if $L$ is a Deligne-Mostow local system then $\alpha_j^{-1} = \overline{\alpha}_j$, because $\alpha_j$ lies on the unit circle in $\mathbb{C}$. So ${L^\vee}$ is determined by $\overline{\alpha}_j$, and hence by $-\mu_j$, or equivalently, by $1-\mu_j$ (normalizing to lie between $0$ and $1$). It is immediate from the explicit local monodromy data that all of the corresponding DM local subsystems are defined over the same ring of integers $R$.
Intersection homology valued in Deligne-Mostow local systems
------------------------------------------------------------
### Background on intersection homology
What follows is an informal discussion. The goal is to impart intuition and to highlight the results needed in the sequel. Details for the trivial local system case can be found in [@Borel; @GM1; @GM2], and the arguments are easily adapted for general local systems (see also [@MacP]).
Intersection homology can be defined for any Whitney stratified pseudo-manifold. Any quasi-projective variety $X$ admits a Whitney stratification, where the unique open stratum, $X^{nonsing}$ is the “nonsingular part" of $X$. Intersection homology is a topological invariant, independent of the choice of stratification. The simplest definition is the original formulation, due to Goresky and MacPherson, in terms of geometric chains. Many models for the chains are acceptable, but for our purposes piecewise linear chains are perfectly satisfactory.
Intersection homology theory is similar to ordinary homology theory on $X$. The boundary operator is the same but the intersection chain complex, $IC_{\cdot}(X)$ is a subcomplex of the ordinary chain complex. Those ordinary chains whose intersection with the singular locus $X^{sing}$ are too “perverse", i.e., too non-generic, are disallowed. A choice $\overline{p}$ of [*perversity*]{} is then a choice of which chains are admissible. The default choice of perversity for algebraic varieties is “middle perversity." Middle perversity intersection homology of $X$, denoted $IH_*(X)$, has many nice properties — the so-called [*Kähler package*]{}. The most important property here is Poincaré-Verdier duality:
\[Prop:P-V-duality\] (Poincaré-Verdier duality) Let $d$ be the real dimension of $X$. There is a non-degenerate bilinear pairing $$IH_k(X) \otimes IH_{d-k}(X) \stackrel{\cap}{\longrightarrow}
\mathbb{C}$$
Let us now be more precise. Let $X^{sing}$ be stratified by $\{S_{\beta}\}$, where $\beta$ is the codimension of $S_{\beta}$ in $X$.
\[Def:perversity\]
- A (classical) [*perversity*]{} $\overline{p}$ is a positive integer-valued non-decreasing function on the natural numbers $\{2, \ldots, dim_{\mathbb{R}}(X) \}$, satisfying $\overline{p}(2)
= 0$ and $\overline{p}(\beta + 1) \leq \overline{p}(\beta) + 1$.
- An $i$-chain $\xi$ in $X$ is an [*intersection $i$-chain*]{} if it satisfies the [*admissibility*]{} conditions:
1. $dim_{\mathbb{R}}( \xi \cap S_{\beta}) \leq
dim_{\mathbb{R}}(S_{\beta}) + dim_{\mathbb{R}}(\xi) - n +
\overline{p}(\beta)$
2. $dim_{\mathbb{R}}( \partial \xi \cap S_{\beta}) \leq
dim_{\mathbb{R}}(S_{\beta}) + dim_{\mathbb{R}}(\partial \xi) - n +
\overline{p}(\beta)$
The perversity starts with codimension $2$ because the singular locus of a pseudo-manifold is real codimension at least $2$. The second admissibility condition ensures the intersection chains form a complex.
Just as with homology, intersection homology can be valued in sheaves other than the constant sheaf. In particular one considers intersection homology valued in a complex local system $L
\rightarrow X \setminus S$. The standard notation (using middle perversity) is $IH_*(X, L)$. Here $X^{sing}$ is $S$. The support of an $L$-valued intersection chain is, as before, a geometric chain in $X$ that satisfies admissibility conditions based on choice of perversity. The only difference is that, in the nonsingular locus $X^{nonsing}$, the “value" attached to the chain is a section of $L$ over the chain. In other words, an $L$-valued intersection chain is an ordinary chain in $X^{nonsing}$, valued in $L$, for which the closure of its support satisfies the admissibility criteria to be an intersection chain in $X$.
When $L = {\mathbb{C}}$, the trivial rank $1$ local system on $X$, one of course recovers the usual intersection homology with complex coefficients.
### Vector space structure with basis
Now let $L \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1 \setminus S}}$ be a DM local system.
\[Lem:badboundary\] The geometric support of $IC_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$ and of $IC_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus S$. Let $K \subset S$ be the subset of points of nontrivial monodromy. Then the geometric support of $IC_2({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus K$.
All choices of (classical) perversity are equivalent for a one-dimensional complex variety, because $\overline{p}(2) = 0$. So the middle perversity is the zero perversity $\overline{p} \equiv
0$. Consequently, the first admissibility criterion disallows both points $s_j \in S$ and any $1$-chains that intersect an $s_j$, but imposes no constraint on the $2$-chains. The second admissibility criterion does not restrict the $0$- and $1$-chains further.
The application of the second admissibility criterion to $2$-chains is more subtle, because the chains are valued in a local system. There are two types of intersection with $S$: the $2$-chain either contains an $s_j$ with non-trivial monodromy ($\alpha_j \neq 1$) or it only contains $s_j$ with trivial monodromy. In the latter case, the boundary of the $2$-chain is a $1$-cycle that encloses but does not intersect $s_j$, and so is admissible. In the former case, observe that any such $L$-valued 2-chain has as boundary a $1$-cycle that intersects $s_j$ and so is [*not*]{} admissible.
[**Example:**]{} Let $C$ denote a small circle oriented counter-clockwise and centered at $s_k$, and let $\theta$ denote the line segment from $s_k$ to $p$ on $C$. Denote the choice of section of $L$ at $p$ by $\hat{p}$, and its horizontal extension over $C$ and $\theta$ by $\hat{C}$ and $\hat{\theta}$, respectively. This determines a unique horizontal section over the disk $D$, denoted $\hat{D}$, with discontinuities (when $\alpha_k \neq 1$) along $\theta$.
(320,50)
(60,25) (57,22)[$\times$]{}
(39,43)[$C$]{} (56,17)[$s_k$]{}
(60,25)[(1,0)[20]{}]{} (68,28)[$\theta$]{}
(82,22)[$p$]{} (95,20)[$\Rightarrow$]{}
(130,25)[(1,0)[50]{}]{} (127,22)[$\times$]{} (182,22)[$\hat{p}$]{} (135,32)[$(\alpha_k - 1)
\hat{\theta}$]{}
(220,20)[$\sim$]{}
(280,25) (258,43)[$\hat{C}$]{} (277,22)[$\times$]{} (302,22)[$\hat{p}$]{}
It is easy to see that $\partial \hat{D} = \hat{C} -
(\alpha_k -1) \hat{\theta}$. In particular, the support of the boundary intersects $s_k$, violating the second admissibility criterion.
Intersection homology is insensitive to points $s_j$ of trivial local monodromy. More precisely, any intersection $1$-cycle enclosing such a point $s_j$ is homologous to an intersection $1$-cycle that does not enclose it. This homology is realized by an intersection $2$-chain that contains $s_j$ and takes values in the trivial local system (extended over $s_j$). Formalizing this argument yields the following Lemma.
\[Lem:IH-insensitive-trivialmonod\] Let $L \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1 \setminus S}}$ be a rank $1$ complex local system. Let $K$ be the subset of points $\{ s_{m_1}, \ldots, s_{m_k} \}
\subset S$ with nontrivial local monodromy, that is, those points $s_j$ with $\alpha_j \neq 1$. Let $\hat{L}$ denote the local system on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus K$ defined by the local monodromies $\alpha_{m_j}$. Then there is a natural isomorphism $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
L) \cong IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L})$.
Thus the study of intersection homology valued in Deligne-Mostow local systems reduces to considering those local systems defined by $\alpha_j \neq 1, \forall j$. In that case, it is elementary to prove that the first homology groups in all the usual homology theories are isomorphic.
\[Lemma:allhomologiesequal\] Let $K$ and $\hat{L}$ be as above. Then there are natural isomorphisms $$IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L}) \cong H_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus K, \hat{L}) \cong
H_1^{lf}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus K, \hat{L}),$$ where $H_1^{lf}$ denotes locally finite homology.
\[Prop:IHbetti\] Let $K = \{s_{m_1}, \ldots, s_{m_k}\}$ be the subset of points $s_j$ in $S$ with $\alpha_j \neq 1$, and define $\hat{L}
\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus K$ as before. Assume $K \neq
\emptyset$. Then $$dim_{\mathbb{C}}(IH_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L})) = 0 \, , \
dim_{\mathbb{C}}(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L})) = k-2 \, , \
dim_{\mathbb{C}}(IH_2({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L})) = 0 \ .$$
Use the isomorphisms of Lemma \[Lem:IH-insensitive-trivialmonod\] and Lemma \[Lemma:allhomologiesequal\] to identify $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$ with $H_1^{lf}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus K, \hat{L})$. A good choice of $k$ generators for $H_1^{lf}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus K, \hat{L})$ is the set of $1$-cycles $\gamma_j$ with endpoints $s_{m_j}, s_{m_{j+1}}$ (where the final one, $\gamma_k$, connects endpoints $s_{m_k},
s_1$ in that order). Without loss of generality, let the $s_{m_j}$ be aligned along the equator, so that the $\gamma_j$ themselves form the equator.
(320,50)
(170,25)
(170,25)
(147,22)[$\times$]{} (187,22)[$\times$]{} (167,17.5)[$\times$]{}
(157,27)[$\times$]{} (177,27)[$\times$]{} (160,35)[$s_5$]{} (174,35)[$s_4$]{}
(139,22)[$s_1$]{} (168,10)[$s_2$]{} (195,22)[$s_3$]{}
(156,14)[$\gamma_1$]{} (177,14)[$\gamma_2$]{}
Relations among the homology generators are precisely those linear combinations of $\gamma_j$ which are the boundary of some locally finite $2$-chain $\hat{D}$. It is clear that the support of $\hat{D}$ must be either the upper or lower hemisphere. Pick a point $p$ in the upper hemisphere (the choice of hemisphere is not important) and a section $\hat{p}$ of $\hat{L}$ over $p$. The section has a unique horizontal extension over the hemisphere containing $p$, so that $\partial \hat{D} = \sum_j \gamma_j$, so in homology $$\sum_j \gamma_j = 0.$$ This is the first linear relation among the generators. Picking a different lift than $\hat{p}$ simply rescales the section, and hence the boundary relation, by a complex number; so this choice doesn’t alter the linear relation. The horizontal section extends to the lower hemisphere, but now a choice must be made: the natural extension is to a [*multi-section*]{} on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus
K$. The choice therefore lies in selecting a $\gamma_j$ over which to [*continuously*]{} extend the horizontal section into the lower hemisphere, to get a single-valued section; but it is not continuous along the remaining $\gamma_i, i \neq j$. By crossing at $\gamma_j$, the resulting $\hat{D}$ (with $D$ now the lower hemisphere) has a boundary that can be explicitly written in terms of local monodromies, yielding the second linear relation on the homology generators: $$\alpha_2^{-1} \alpha_3^{-1} \cdots \alpha_j^{-1} \gamma_1 + \ldots
\alpha_j^{-1} \gamma_{j-1} + \gamma_j + \alpha_{j+1} \gamma_{j+1}
+ \ldots \alpha_{j+1} \cdots \alpha_k \gamma_k = 0.$$ Observe that a different choice of $\gamma_j$ simply rescales the linear combination by a complex number, so there is no change to the relation. Thus there are precisely two relations on the $k$ generators, so $dim_{\mathbb{C}}(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L})) = k-2$.
The other intersection homologies are easy to compute. $IH_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L}) = 0$ because for any point $p \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus K$ and section $\hat{p}$, the boundary of a 1-cycle whose support passes through $p$ that loops around precisely one $s_{m_j}$ is just $(\alpha_{m_j} - 1)\hat{p}$, and so $\hat{p}$ is a boundary of an intersection $1$-cycle. $IH_2({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L}) =
0$ because any $2$-chain has non-trivial boundary so there are no $2$-cycles.
\[Cor:IH-grouping-into-two-sets\] Given any two points $s_i, s_j \in K$, the intersection $1$-chain $I_{i,j} \equiv \frac{1}{\alpha_i - 1}\hat{C}_i + \hat{\gamma} +
\frac{1}{1-\alpha_j}\hat{C}_j$ is in fact a $1$-cycle not homologous to zero. Moreover, given any partition of a subset of $K$ into two disjoint collections $\{s_i \}_{i \in I}$ and $\{s_j
\}_{j \in J}$ $(I, J$ index sets such that $I \cap J = \emptyset)$ where $\prod_{i \in I} \alpha_i \neq 1$ and $\prod_{j \in J}
\alpha_j \neq 1$ (or equivalently, $\sum_{i \in I} \mu_i$ and $\sum_{j \in J} \mu_j \not\in \mathbb{Z}$), the analogous $1$-chain $I_{I,J}$ that encircles the two collections and connects them by a segment $\gamma$ is in fact a $1$-cycle.
The locally finite $1$-cycle with support a line segment $\gamma_{i,j}$ from $s_i$ to $s_j$ and section determined by extending $\hat{p}$ at $p$ is in the same locally finite homology class as the intersection $1$-cycle $I_{i,j} \equiv
\frac{1}{\alpha_i - 1}\hat{C}_i + \hat{\gamma} +
\frac{1}{1-\alpha_j}\hat{C}_j$. In particular, it is non-zero in locally finite homology. Because $IC_2({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L}) \subset
C_2^{lf}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus K, \hat{L})$, it is clear $I_{i,j}$ cannot be the boundary of any intersection $2$-chain, and so is non-zero in intersection homology.
(320,50)
(16,21)[$ \times $]{} (16,16)[$s_j$]{}
(20,25)[(1,0)[70]{}]{}
(50,28)[$\gamma_j$]{}
(86,21)[$\times $]{} (86,16)[$s_{j+1}$]{}
(140,20)[$\sim$]{}
(210,25) (206,21)[$\times$]{} (206,15)[$s_j$]{}
(290,25) (286,21)[$\times$]{} (285,15)[$s_{j+1}$]{}
(228,25)[(1,0)[44]{}]{}
(229,13)[$p$]{} (267,13)[$q$]{}
(248,28)[$\hat{\gamma}$]{}
(186,45)[$\hat{C}_j$]{} (259,45)[$\hat{C}_{j+1}$]{}
The statement for collections of points $\{ s_i \}_{i \in I}$ and $\{ s_j \}_{j \in J}$ is immediate. Denote the closed curve that encircles the first collection (and no other $s_l$) by $C_1$, mark a point $p \in C_1$ and a choice of section at $p$ by $\hat{p}$ that extends to a section $\hat{C}_1$. Likewise about the second collection construct $C_2$ and $q$, and connect $p$ and $q$ with the line segment $\gamma$. Extend the horizontal section from $\hat{p}$ to $\hat{\gamma}$ and $\hat{C}_2$.
(320,80)
(80,40)
(87,48)[$\times$]{} (71,40)[$\times$]{} (82,35)[$\times$]{} (74,52)[$\times$]{} (65,32)[$s_{i \in I}$]{}
(100,40)[(1,0)[100]{}]{} (130,33)[$\times$]{} (170,45)[$\times$]{}
(210,40)
(200,35)[$s_{j \in J}$]{} (205,46)[$\times$]{} (209,40)[$\times$]{}
The boundary of the intersection $1$-chain $$I_{I,J} =
\frac{1}{\prod_{i \in I} \alpha_i - 1}\hat{C}_1 + \hat{\gamma} +
\frac{1}{1-\prod_{j \in J} \alpha_j}\hat{C}_2$$ is zero, hence it is a $1$-cycle.
We therefore get an intersection homology basis taken from the set $\{I_{i,i+1} \}_{i \in \{1, \ldots, k-1\}} \cup \{ I_{k,1} \}$.
\[Cor:IHbasis\] Partition $S$ into two subsets $S_1$ and $S_2$, whose elements are indexed by $i$ and $j$ respectively. The cycles $\{I_{i,i+1}
\equiv \frac{1}{\alpha_i - 1}\hat{C}_i + \hat{\gamma} +
\frac{1}{1-\alpha_{i+1}}\hat{C}_{i+1} \}_{i \in \{1, \ldots,
|S_1|-1 \}}$ taken together with the cycles $\{ I_{j,j+1} \}_{j
\in \{|S_1|+1, \ldots, |S_2|-1 \}}$ form a basis for $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
L)$ if and only if $\sum_{i \in S_1} \mu_i \not\in \mathbb{Z}$ (or equivalently $\sum_{j \in S_2} \mu_j \not\in \mathbb{Z}$).
In fact, more is true. Given any partition of $S$ into $S_1$ and $S_2$ (satisfying the above condition on the $\mu_i$ and $\mu_j$), [*any*]{} tree connecting the points of $S_1$ taken together with any tree connecting the points of $S_2$ defines a basis in locally finite homology. This translates into a basis for intersection homology in the fashion indicated above. For a proof of the locally finite homology fact, see [@DM Section 2.5]
### Intersection pairing: skew-Hermitian form on $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},L)$ {#subsec:Psi}
\[Prop:(S,mu)-determine-Psi\] The data $(S, \mu)$ determine, up to a real scalar, the intersection pairing on intersection homology. The pairing puts a skew-Hermitian form on $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$, so multiplication by the complex number $\imath = \sqrt{-1}$ yields an Hermitian form $\Psi$, unique up to a real scalar.
Poincaré-Verdier duality gives a nondegenerate bilinear pairing between $IH_k(X,L)$ and $IH_{d-k}(X, {L^\vee})$, where $d$ is the real dimension of $X$ and ${L^\vee}$ is the dual local system. By Proposition \[Prop:Ldual\], for a Deligne-Mostow local system ${L^\vee}= \overline{L}$. Because $IH_*(\overline{L})
= \overline{IH_*(L)}$, the duality pairing is $$IH_k(X, L) \otimes IH_{d-k}(X, {L^\vee}) = IH_k(X, L) \otimes
\overline{IH_{d-k}(X,L)} \stackrel{\cap}{\longrightarrow} L
\otimes {L^\vee}\cong {\mathbb{C}}$$ Thus there is a skew-Hermitian intersection form on $IH_1(X,L)$. From this, a Hermitian form $\Psi$ is obtained by multiplication by $\imath$. By Proposition \[Prop:rk1localmonod\], given $\{\mu_j\}$, $L$ is determined up to a $\mathbb{C}^*$ factor, so the intersection pairing and Hermitian form $\Psi$ are determined up to a real scalar.
The intersection pairing on intersection $1$-cycles, expressed in the basis of Corollary \[Cor:IHbasis\], is a skew-Hermitian matrix $Int$. Let $Int(i,j)$ denote the $(i,j)$ entry of $Int$. If $|i-j| > 1$ then $Int(i,j) = 0$, because the support of $I_{i,i+1}$ doesn’t intersect that of $I_{j,j+1}$. It remains to compute the self-intersection of $I_{i, i+1}$ and the intersection number for adjacent basis cycles (when $|i-j| = 1$).
\[Prop:IntMatrix\] The skew-Hermitian intersection form, with respect to the basis $I_{i,i+1}, i \in \{1, \ldots, k-2 \}$, is the matrix $Int$ with entries: $$Int(i,j) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccl}
\frac{1}{1- \alpha_i} - 1 +
\frac{1}{1- \alpha_{i+1}} & , & j = i \\
-\frac{1}{1-\alpha_i} & , & j = i+1 \\
\frac{1}{1-\overline{\alpha}_i} & , & j=i-1 \\
0 & , & |j - i| > 1
\end{array} \right.$$
The computation is immediate from the following picture. The positive orientation is taken to be counterclockwise.
(320,50)
(80,25) (240,25)
(76,22)[$\times$]{} (236,22)[$\times$]{}
(100,25)[(1,0)[120]{}]{}
(102,18)[$p$]{} (214,18)[$q$]{}
(85,25)(120,60)(160,25)
(160,25)(200,-10)(235,25)
(80,25) (240,25)
(76,14)[$s_j$]{} (234,14)[$s_{j+1}$]{}
Note that the deformation chosen to compute the intersection number is particularly convenient given the choice of section (with discontinuities at $p$ and $q$). A different choice would, of course, yield the same number, albeit presented as a sum of different terms.
The Hermitian form $\Psi$ is simply $\imath$ times the intersection pairing, so in matrix form, $\Psi(j,k) = \imath
Int(j,k)$.
[**Example:**]{} When $n = 4$, $$\Psi = \imath \left[ \begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{1- \alpha_1} - 1 +
\frac{1}{\alpha_2} &
-\frac{1}{1-\alpha_2} \\
\frac{1}{1-\overline{\alpha}_2} &
\frac{1}{1- \alpha_2} - 1 +
\frac{1}{\alpha_3}
\end{array}
\right]$$ In particular, if $\mu_i = \frac{1}{2}, \forall i$, then $$\Psi = \left[
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -\frac{\imath}{2} \\
\frac{\imath}{2} & 0
\end{array}
\right]$$
One application is that the signature of the form can be computed purely in terms of $\sum_i \mu_i$. There are a number of ways to show this. We give a constructive argument, which produces an explicit basis for a maximal positive definite subspace and its orthogonal negative definite subspace in $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \hat{L})$.
Let $I_{I,J}$ be the intersection $1$-cycle described above, enclosing $s_i, i \in I$ with $C_1$ and $s_j, j \in J$ with $C_2$. Recall that the $\mu_i \in (0,1)$. The monodromy along $C_1$ is given by $\prod_{i \in I} \alpha_i$, and so is determined by the fractional part of $\sum_{i \in I} \mu_i$. The analogous statement holds for the monodromy along $C_2$.
\[Lem:Psi-Signature-prelims\] Let $Frac(x)$ denote the fractional part of the non-negative real number $x$, i.e., $x-\lfloor x \rfloor$. If the sum $Frac(\sum_{i
\in I} \mu_i) + Frac(\sum_{j \in J} \mu_j) < 1$ then the length of $I_{I,J}$ is negative, that is, $\Psi(I_{I,J}, I_{I,J}) < 0$. If $Frac(\sum_{i \in I} \mu_i) + Frac(\sum_{j \in J} \mu_j) = 1$ then $\Psi(I_{I,J}, I_{I,J}) = 0$. If $Frac(\sum_{i \in I} \mu_i) +
Frac(\sum_{j \in J} \mu_j) > 1$ then $\Psi(I_{I,J}, I_{I,J}) > 0$.
This is just clever work with the self-intersection number computed above: $$-\frac{1}{\prod_{i \in I} \alpha_i - 1} -1 + \frac{1}{1 - \prod_{j \in
J}\alpha_j}$$
\[Prop:signature\] The signature of $\Psi$ is $(\sum \mu_i -1, \sum (1 - \mu_i) -1)$ where the first term is the dimension of a maximal positive definite subspace and the second is the dimension of a maximal negative definite subspace.
The strategy is to build a succession of $I_{I,J}$ which are mutually orthogonal. Since the sign of the $\Psi$-length of $I_{I,J}$ is known by Lemma \[Lem:Psi-Signature-prelims\], we get explicit maximal positive definite and negative definite subspaces. We inductively construct $I_{I,\{j\}}$ as shown in the following picture.
(320,60)
(40,30)(80,0)[4]{}
(53,30)[(1,0)[54]{}]{}
(36 ,28)(80,0)[4]{}[$\times$]{}
(80,30)
(140,30)[(1,0)[47]{}]{}
(115,30)
(220,30)[(1,0)[47]{}]{}
In particular, assuming none of these is zero length, for each positive integer less than $\sum_i \mu_i$ we produce a new positive length vector in the positive definite subspace, linearly independent from the preceding $I_{I,J}$. All of the remaining basis vectors generated by this procedure are in the orthogonal negative definite subspace. Because the total dimension is $n-2$, we get the stated result.
Now assume that some $I_{I,\{j\}}$ so constructed has zero length. Select $a$ and $b$ so that $aI_{I,\{j\}} + bI_{\{j\},\{j+1\}}$ has positive length. Then $\overline{a}I_{I,\{j\}} + \overline{b}
I_{\{j,j+1\}}$ is orthogonal and has negative length. Furthermore these are orthogonal to all previously constructed vectors in the sequence. In particular the number of positive and negative definite vectors produced remains unchanged. Continue the inductive procedure as before.
(320,60)
(40,30)(80,0)[4]{}
(53,30)[(1,0)[54]{}]{}
(36 ,28)(80,0)[4]{}[$\times$]{}
(140,30)[(1,0)[47]{}]{}
(200,30)
(153,35)[$aI_{I,\{j\}}$]{} (225,35)[$b I_{j,j+1}$]{}
(197,10)[$s_j$]{} (273,10)[$s_{j+1}$]{}
(208,30)[(1,0)[59]{}]{}
(80,30)
### Lattice structure over ring of integers
We now recall the notion of a lattice from the theory of modules. The ring $R$ will always denote a ring of algebraic integers. We will study the structure in greater depth in Section \[Sec:Ancestral\].
\[Def:Lattice\] A module-theoretic [*lattice*]{} $\Lambda$ is a finite rank module over a ring $R$, endowed with an Hermitian form $\Psi$ taking values in $R$. A lattice is [*unimodular*]{} if the determinant of $\Psi$ (the [*discriminant*]{} of $\Lambda$) is $\pm 1$. A [*sublattice*]{} $M$ of $\Lambda$ is a submodule together with the restriction of $\Psi$. A sublattice $M$ is [*primitive*]{} if there is no other sublattice $M^{\prime}$ such that $M = r
M^{\prime}$ for $r$ not a unit in $R$. The group $Aut(\Lambda)$ of [*unitary transformations*]{} (equivalently, lattice automorphisms) of $\Lambda$ is the group of module automorphisms of $\Lambda$ that preserve $\Psi$.
The intersection homology valued in a DM local system has the structure of a lattice.
\[Lem:ringofint\] Let $R$ be the ring of integers in $\mathbb{Q}[\zeta_d]$, where $d$ is the lowest common denominator of the $\mu_i$, and $\zeta_d$ is a primitive $d^{th}$ root of unity. Then $\Psi$ is defined over $R$.
It is immediate from our matrix descriptions of $\Psi$ that it is defined over $R$. More formally, this follows by considering the local subsystem $L(R)$ with fiber the subring $R \subset
\mathbb{C}$. The pairing of $L(R)$ with $L^{-1}(R) =
\overline{L(R)}$ induces an $R$-valued skew-Hermitian pairing on $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L(R))$. This pairing may be identified with the pairing from Section \[subsec:Psi\], since it was there only determined up to a real scalar by the data $\mu$.
Configuration space of $n$ points on $\mathbb{P}^1$
---------------------------------------------------
Now let the positions of the $n$ points $\{ s_j \}$ vary on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$, while fixing the $\{ \mu_j \}$. We start with some basic definitions.
\[Def:Config-Braid\]
- Let $\mathcal{P}_n$ denote the [*configuration space*]{} of $n$ distinct ordered points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$. That is, $\mathcal{P}_n =
({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}})^n \setminus \{z_i = z_j, i \neq j \}$.
- Let $\mathcal{P}^{\Sigma}_n := \mathcal{P}_n/\Sigma_n$, where $\Sigma_n$ is the symmetric group on $n$ letters which acts by permuting the $s_j$. This is the configuration space of $n$ unordered points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$. It is an open subset of $\mathbb{P}^n$.
- We refer to $\pi_1(\mathcal{P}_n)$ as the [*braid group*]{} on $n$ colored strings on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$.
Similarly, $\pi_1(\mathcal{P}_n/\Sigma_n)$ is the braid group on $n$ colorless strings on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$.
The automorphism group of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ is $PGL_2(\mathbb{C})$. An automorphism is completely determined by its action on any three distinct points of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$. The diagonal action on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}})^n$ restricts to a free action on $\mathcal{P}_n$.
\[Def:moduli\] Let $\mathcal{M}_n$ denote the [*moduli space*]{} of $n$ distinct ordered points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$. It is the quotient of $\mathcal{P}_n$ under the free diagonal action of $PGL_2(\mathbb{C})$. That is, $\mathcal{M}_n \equiv \mathcal{P}_n/PGL_2(\mathbb{C}) \cong ({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus \{0,1,\infty\})^{n-3} \setminus \{z_i = 0,1,\infty, z_j,
i \neq j \}$. Similarly, the moduli space of $n$ distinct unordered points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ is the $\Sigma_n$ quotient of $\mathcal{M}_n$, which we denote by $\mathcal{M}^{\Sigma}_n$.
Observe that $\mathcal{P}_n \cong \mathcal{M}_n \times
PGL_2(\mathbb{C})$. Consequently, ignoring the choice of base point because the spaces in question are all connected, we have
\[Lem:relate-Mn-and-Pn\] $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_1(\mathcal{P}_n) = \pi_1(\mathcal{M}_n) \times
\pi_1(PGL_2(\mathbb{C})) = \pi_1(\mathcal{M}_n) \times
\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \\ \pi_1(\mathcal{P}^{\Sigma}_n) =
\pi_1(\mathcal{M}^{\Sigma}_n) \times \pi_1(PGL_2(\mathbb{C})) =
\pi_1(\mathcal{M}^{\Sigma}_n) \times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\end{aligned}$$
As discussed in Section \[subsec:LocalSys\], local systems on $\mathcal{P}_n$ are characterized up to isomorphism by representations of $\pi_1(\mathcal{P}_n, x_0)$ (the choice of $x_0$ is irrelevant up to isomorphism). The braid group acts naturally on the intersection homology of $L \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1 \setminus S}}$, and thus defines a local system $\mathcal{L}$ of rank $k-2$ on $\mathcal{P}_n$. (See Section \[Subsec:Monodromy\] for a detailed discussion of the braid representation.)
A point $p \in \mathcal{P}_n$ specifies a subset $S(p) \subset
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ of $n$ distinct points. Let $L_p \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus S(p)$ denote the DM local system defined by the data $(S(p), \mu)$. It turns out that what one would hope for is in fact true: namely, the vector spaces $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_p)$ arrange themselves over $\mathcal{P}_n$ into the local system $\mathcal{L}
\rightarrow \mathcal{P}_n$. There is some ambiguity because $L_p$ is not determined up to unique isomorphism by $\mu$ (Proposition \[Prop:rk1localmonod\]). More precisely, one finds (adapting the arguments from cohomology to intersection cohomology is immediate when $\alpha_i \neq 1, \forall i$) [@DM pp. 22, 26-27]:
\[Cor:Lexists-almostunique\] Given $\mu$ there is a local system $\mathcal{L} \rightarrow
\mathcal{P}_n$ with fiber at $p$ given by $H^1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus
S(p), L_p)$, where $L_p$ is the DM local system with monodromy data $\mu$. This local system is unique up to tensor product with a rank one local system $\mathcal{O} \rightarrow \mathcal{P}_n$.
The ambiguity is removed by projectivizing the fibers. One may think of the resulting [*canonical*]{} flat projective bundle $P\mathcal{L}$ as one of a number of canonical Grassmanian bundles, constructed in the analogous way, on $\mathcal{M}_n$. More precisely, let $dim_{\mathbb{C}}(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_p)) = k-2$. For each $l, 1 < l < k-2$, there is a canonical flat Grassmannian bundle $Gr(l, \mathcal{L})$, with fiber $Gr(l,k-2)$ over each $m
\in \mathcal{M}_n$.
Such bundles are characterized by their monodromy representation.
Denote the monodromy group of $\mathcal{L}$ by $\Gamma$, and the (canonical given $\mu$) monodromy group associated to $P\mathcal{L}$ by $P\Gamma$.
Furthermore, because the $PGL_2(\mathbb{C})$ action is trivial on the projective fibers, this flat bundle of projective spaces descends to $\mathcal{M}_n$. Alternatively, the projective representation of $\pi_1(\mathcal{P}_n)$ encoded in the projectivization of the local system $\mathcal{L}$ is simultaneously a projective representation for $\pi_1(\mathcal{M}_n)$ by Lemma \[Lem:relate-Mn-and-Pn\], and so canonically describes a flat projective space bundle on $\mathcal{M}_n$. To be more precise, let $\Theta$ denote the projective monodromy group of $P\mathcal{L} \rightarrow
\mathcal{M}_n$. We verify that $P\Gamma = \Theta$.
\[Prop:PGamma\] The projective monodromy group $\Theta$ of the flat bundle of projective spaces $P\mathcal{L} \rightarrow \mathcal{M}_n$ is isomorphic to the projective monodromy group $P\Gamma$ of $P\mathcal{L} \rightarrow \mathcal{P}_n$.
The flat bundle of projective spaces $P\mathcal{L} \rightarrow
\mathcal{M}_n$ is isomorphic to a flat subbundle of the bundle of projective spaces $\mathbb{P}(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_p)) \rightarrow
\mathcal{P}_n$: simply restrict the bundle via the inclusion $i:
\mathcal{M}_n \subset \mathcal{P}_n, m = (m_0, \ldots, m_{n-3})
\mapsto (0,1,\infty, m_0, \ldots, m_3)$. Thus the projective monodromy representation $\Theta(i_*\pi_1(\mathcal{M}_n))$ of $P\mathcal{L}$ is automatically a subgroup of $P\Gamma =
\Theta(\pi_1(\mathcal{P}_n))$. By Lemma \[Lem:relate-Mn-and-Pn\], $\pi_1(\mathcal{P}_n) =
\pi_1(\mathcal{M}_n) \times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ so $\Theta(\pi_1(\mathcal{P}_n))$ is isomorphic to $\Theta(i_*(\pi_1(\mathcal{M}_n)))$ twisted by a character of $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. In particular, they define equivalent projective representations.
This justifies using $P\Gamma$ in either context, so henceforth we will not refer to $\Theta$, only to $P\Gamma$. We freely use whichever interpretation is convenient, without further comment, throughout.
Definition of hypergeometric functions
--------------------------------------
In the preceding sections, all of the results were topological. Analysis enters via the definition of hypergeometric functions.
\[Prop:IH-Hodge\] Let $L \rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1 \setminus S}}$ be a DM local system. There is an orthogonal “Hodge decomposition" $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L) \cong
IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L) \oplus IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$. The Hermitian form $\Psi$ on $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$ is positive definite on the subspace $IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$ and negative definite on $IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
L)$.
In general the decomposition follows from work of Saito [@Saito1; @Saito2] when $L$ is a local system of geometric origin in the sense of Grothendieck-Deligne (i.e., is a polarized variation of Hodge structure). It can be seen more directly by interpreting $IH_{1,0}$ as the space of holomorphic $L$-valued 1-forms and $IH_{0,1}$ as the space of holomorphic $\overline{L}$-valued 1-forms (i.e., anti-holomorphic $L$-valued 1-forms). See [@DM Section 2] for details: the isomorphism of homology theories when $\alpha_s \neq 1$, from Lemma \[Lemma:allhomologiesequal\], together with the non-degeneracy of $\Psi$, carry over their argument unchanged.
$$\begin{aligned}
dim_{\mathbb{C}}(IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},L)) = (\sum_i \mu_i) - 1 \\
dim_{\mathbb{C}}(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},L)) = (\sum_i 1 - \mu_i) -1\end{aligned}$$
If $\sum_i \mu_i = 2$ then $\Psi$ is signature $(1,n-3)$.
Fix $\mu$ such that $\sum_i \mu_i = 2$. Pick coordinates on the fiber of $P\mathcal{L} \rightarrow \mathcal{M}_n$ at some point $m_0$ and extend by flatness. We use the fact that $IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$ is a distinguished 1-dimensional subspace, spanned by some $\omega_{\mu}$ to define:
The multi-valued holomorphic map $HG_{\mu}: \mathcal{M}_n
\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{k-2}$ is the coordinate expression of $\omega_{\mu}$. We call it the [*$\mu$-hypergeometric function of Deligne-Mostow type*]{}.
By construction, $HG_{\mu}(m)$ is an orbit of the projective monodromy group of $P\mathcal{L} \rightarrow \mathcal{M}_n$. $HG_{\mu}$ is completely determined up to automorphisms of $\mathbb{P}^{k-2}$.
Let $\Sigma$ denote the symmetries of the list $\mu = (\mu_0,
\ldots, \mu_{n-1})$. Then $\Sigma$ acts on $\mathcal{M}_n$ as permutations of the associated coordinates $s_i$. It is clear from the definition that $HG_{\mu}$ descends to a map from $\mathcal{M}^{\Sigma}_n$. We denote this map by $HG_{\mu}$ as well. The domain will always be clear from context.
This definition of hypergeometric functions may be generalized to arbitrary $\mu$ by using the coordinate expression for $IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},L)$ in the corresponding flat Grassmannian bundle. I am not aware of an analog of this definition in the literature.
When $\sum_i \mu_i = 2$ as above, there is in fact a unique holomorphic 1-form up to scaling. It may be written as: $$\omega_{\mu} = \prod_i (z-s_i)^{-\mu_i} e \cdot dz,$$ where $e$ is a horizontal multi-section of $L$ (to cancel the monodromy of the function so that $\omega_{\mu}$ is a well-defined section). This is the famous hypergeometric 1-form.
Uniformization by a complex ball
--------------------------------
### Complex ball and discrete subgroups of $PU(1,n)$
Let $\Psi$ be an Hermitian form of signature $(1,n)$ on $\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$.
\[Def:Ball\] The [*complex ball*]{} $\mathbb{B}^n \subset \mathbb{P}^n$ is defined to be the subset of points that lift to vectors in $\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$ of strictly positive $\Psi$-length. In particular, $\Psi$ defines a [*complex hyperbolic*]{} metric on $\mathbb{B}^n$.
An Hermitian form over $\mathbb{C}$ is determined up to equivalence (change of coordinates) by its signature. Consequently, $\mathbb{B}^n$ is independent of $\Psi$. In particular, $\mathbb{B}^n$ is a “ball" because, in an appropriate coordinate system $z = (z_0, \ldots, z_n)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi(z, z) = |z_0|^2 - |z_1|^2 - \cdots |z_n|^2 > 0 \\
\Rightarrow 1 > |\frac{z_1}{z_0}|^2 + |\frac{z_2}{z_0}|^2 + \cdots
|\frac{z_n}{z_0}|^2\end{aligned}$$
Let $PU(1,n)$ denote the group of projective linear transformations that lift to linear transformations on $\mathbb{C}^{n+1}$ which preserve $\Psi$.
$$\begin{array}{cccl}
U(1,n) & \hookrightarrow & GL_{n+1}(\mathbb{C}) & =
Aut(\mathbb{C}^{n+1}) \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow & \\
PU(1,n) & \hookrightarrow & PGL_{n+1}(\mathbb{C}) & =
Aut(\mathbb{P}^n)
\end{array}$$
The complex ball has an interpretation as an Hermitian symmetric domain of type $I$.
\[Prop:BallAsSymmSp\] The complex ball is a symmetric space. $$\mathbb{B}^{n} \cong PU(1,n)/P(U(1) \times U(n-1))$$ Furthermore $Aut(\mathbb{B}^n) \cong PU(1,n)$.
See [@KN], Volume II, Example 10.7, pages 282–285.
\[Prop:PU(1,n)\] When $\sum \mu_i = 2$, the projective monodromy group $P\Gamma$ of $P\mathcal{L}$ is a subgroup of $PU(1,n-3)$ and so acts as automorphisms of the complex ball $\mathbb{B}^{n-3}$.
The braid group acts via compactly supported isotopies on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$. These isotopies induce automorphisms of the local system $L_{p_0}
\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus S(p_0)$. Any such automorphism is multiplication in the fibers by $\mathbb{C}^*$ (by Proposition \[Prop:rk1localmonod\]). This in turn induces a constant $\mathbb{C}^*$ rescaling of $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_{p_0})$, and so a real rescaling of the skew-Hermitian intersection pairing. Hence up to scaling the braid group action preserves $\Psi$. When $\sum
\mu_i = 2$, the signature of $\Psi$ is $(1,n-3)$ by Proposition \[Prop:signature\]. It follows that $P\Gamma \subset PU(1,n-3)$. And so the braid group acts through $P\Gamma$ as automorphisms of the complex ball $\mathbb{B}^{n-3}$.
\[Cor:HG-valuedin-Ball\] Assume $\sum_i \mu_i = 2$ and let $|S| = n$. Then the multi-valued map $HG_{\mu}: \mathcal{M}_n \rightarrow
\mathbb{B}^{n-3} \subset \mathbb{P}^{n-3}$.
Because $\sum_i \mu_i = 2$, by Proposition \[Prop:signature\] together with Proposition \[Prop:IH-Hodge\] one sees that $dim_{\mathbb{C}}(IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_m)) = 1$. Because $IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_m)$ is positive definite, it follows that the point $\mathbb{P}(IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_m))$ is an element of the ball $\mathbb{B}^{n-3} \subset \mathbb{P}(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_m)) =
\mathbb{P}^{n-3}$. Recall $HG_{\mu}(m)$ is defined to be the $P\Gamma$ orbit of this point $\mathbb{P}(IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_m))
\in \mathbb{P}^{n-3}$. By the Proposition, $P\Gamma$ acts as automorphisms of the ball, so $HG_{\mu}(m) \subset
\mathbb{B}^{n-3}$.
\[Def:discrete&lattice\] A [*discrete subgroup*]{} of a Lie group is an infinite subgroup for which the subspace topology is the discrete topology. A (group-theoretic) [*lattice*]{} is a co-finite volume discrete subgroup of a Lie group. We may sometimes informally refer to “discrete group" when we really mean a discrete subgroup.
[**Example:**]{} Discrete subgroups like $SL(2, \mathbb{Z})$ and its congruence mod $2$ subgroup $\Gamma(2)$ are lattices. One can check $\Gamma(2)$ arises as the monodromy group for the $4$-point case, where $\mu_i =
\frac{1}{2}, \forall i$.
### Monodromy: Braid Action on $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
L)$ {#Subsec:Monodromy}
The monodromy group $\Gamma$ of $\mathcal{L} \rightarrow
\mathcal{P}_n$ is the representation of the spherical $n$-strand braid group, $\pi_1(\mathcal{P}_n)$, on $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$. As a general reference for standard results on the braid group that we use, see [@HL Section 5] and the references contained therein.
Let $R_{i,i+1}$ denote the braid group “transposition" element that braids $s_{i+1}$ about $s_i$ and is the identity on $s_k, k
\neq i+1$. It can be realized by a compactly supported isotopy of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ that moves $s_{i+1}$ along a counter-clockwise circle that encloses $s_i$ and is the identity in neighborhoods of $s_k, k
\neq i+1$. A well-known result is:
\[Lem:BraidGen\] The spherical braid group on $n$ strands is generated by the “transpositions" $R_{i, i+1}$ and $R_{n,1}$.
Once a basis for $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$ is chosen, then the action of these generators can be written in terms of explicit matrices. For simplicity we [*assume*]{} that all of the local monodromies are non-trivial, that is, $\mu_i \not\in \mathbb{Z}, \, \forall i$. In Corollary \[Cor:IHbasis\] we constructed a basis for $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$, taken from $\{I_{i,i+1} \equiv \frac{1}{\alpha_i
- 1}\hat{C}_i + \hat{\gamma} +
\frac{1}{1-\alpha_{i+1}}\hat{C}_{i+1} \}_{i \in \{1, \ldots, n-1
\}} \cup \{I_{n,1} \}$. Roughly speaking, any $n-2$ cycles from this set form a basis. There are two possibilities: either (a) a point $s_j$ is “isolated" or (b) some cycle $I_{i,i+1}$ (or $I_{n,1}$) is “isolated".
(380,50)
(0,45)[(a)]{}
(17,22)(60,0)[6]{}[$\times$]{}
(17,16)[$s_1$]{} (77,16)[$s_2$]{} (137,16)[$s_3$]{} (197,16)[$s_4$]{} (257,16)[$s_5$]{} (317,16)[$s_6$]{}
(20,25)(60,0)[5]{}
(35,25)(60,0)[4]{}[(1,0)[30]{}]{}
(380,50)
(0,45)[(b)]{}
(17,22)(60,0)[6]{}[$\times$]{}
(17,16)[$s_1$]{} (77,16)[$s_2$]{} (137,16)[$s_3$]{} (197,16)[$s_4$]{} (257,16)[$s_5$]{} (317,16)[$s_6$]{}
(20,25)(60,0)[6]{}
(35,25)(60,0)[3]{}[(1,0)[30]{}]{}
(275,25)[(1,0)[30]{}]{}
Because all of the points are assumed to have non-trivial monodromy, the only way to violate the condition of Corollary \[Cor:IHbasis\] is with an “isolated" cycle $I_{i,i+1}$ for which $\mu_i + \mu_{i+1} \in \mathbb{Z}$. This will always be a counter-example to Corollary \[Cor:IHbasis\].
[**Counter-Example:**]{} Choose a partition $(S_1,S_2)$ which does not satisfy the assumption of Corollary \[Cor:IHbasis\], so that $\sum_{i \in S_1} \mu_i \in \mathbb{Z}$ Then there exists a local system $L_{S_1}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus
S_1$ defined by assigning $\mu_i$ to $s_i \in S$. Then the cycles $I_{i,i+1}$ cannot be linearly independent, because $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
L_{S_1})$ is $(|S_1|-2)$-dimensional and there $(|S_1| - 1)$ cycles. A simple example is $|S| = 4$, $\mu_i = \frac{1}{2},
\forall s_i \in S$, with $S_1 = \{s_1, s_2 \}$ and $S_2 = \{s_3,
s_4 \}$.
We will give partitions that do not exhibit this pathology a suggestive name.
A partition of $S$ into subsets $S_1$ and $S_2$ where $\sum_{i \in
S_1} \mu_i \not\in \mathbb{Z}$ (or equivalently with $S_2$) [*stable partitions*]{}.
To study $R_{i,i+1}$ it is convenient to take advantage of the above flexibility in the choice of basis so as to “isolate" $s_i$ and $s_{i+1}$, like in the above picture (b) of a “good basis."
\[Lem:ComplexReflection\] Assume $S_1 = \{s_i, s_{i+1} \}, S_2 = S \setminus S_1$ defines a stable partition of $S$. In the good basis above, $R_{i, i+1}$ acts as the identity on the space spanned by the $n-3$ remaining basis vectors. Furthermore, it acts as an order $k$ complex rotation, for $k$ the denominator of the fraction (in lowest terms) $\mu_i + \mu_{i+1}$, on the remaining basis vector $I_{i,
i+1}$. More specifically, it acts on $I_{i,i+1}$ as multiplication by $e^{2 \pi \imath (\mu_i + \mu_{i+1})}$.
Because $(S_1,S_2)$ is a stable partition, these cycles form a basis. It is immediate that $R_{i, i+1}$ acts as the identity on the $n-3$ intersection homology generators associated to $S_2$, because the isotopy corresponding to the braid action is the identity away from a small compact set that contains $s_i$ and $s_{i+1}$ but no other $s_k$.
The action on $I_{i, i+1}$ is more involved. A formal argument can be adapted almost [*mutatis mutandis*]{} from [@DM Proposition 9.2, pp.46-47]. Informally it is easy to see using a “relative position" argument. A counter-clockwise motion of $s_{i+1}$ relative to a fixed $s_i$ may be thought of as a counter-clockwise motion of $s_i$ relative to a fixed $s_{i+1}$, with one full loop corresponding to one full loop. The section therefore is scaled by the local monodromy of each, namely $\alpha_1 \cdot \alpha_2 = e^{2 \pi \imath(\mu_i + \mu_{i+1})}$.
A finite order complex linear transformation $T$ with a hyperplane as its fixed point locus is called a [*complex reflection*]{}. The [*mirror*]{} of the reflection is the fixed hyperplane. If $T$ preserves a hyperbolic Hermitian form $\Psi$, then we say $T$ is a [*complex hyperbolic reflection*]{}.
\[Prop:CplxHyperbolicRefl\] Assume the partition $S_1 = \{s_i,s_{i+1} \}, S_2 = S \setminus
S_1$ is a stable partition of $S$. Then $R_{i,i+1}$ is a complex hyperbolic reflection of order $k$. The mirror of $R_{i,i+1}$ is the $\Psi$-orthogonal complement of the basis vector $I_{i, i+1}$.
By Lemma \[Lem:ComplexReflection\], $R_{i,i+1}$ is an order $k$ complex reflection. By Proposition \[Prop:PU(1,n)\], $\Gamma$ preserves the hyperbolic Hermitian form $\Psi$ on $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
L)$. By Lemma \[Lem:BraidGen\] $R_{i,i+1}$ acts on $IH({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
L)$ as a generator of $\Gamma$, and so it must preserve the hyperbolic structure.
The intersection pairing of $I_{i,i+1}$ with any of the remaining $n-3$ basis vectors is trivial because their geometric supports do not intersect. These vectors associated to $S_2$ therefore span the $\Psi$-orthogonal complement of $I_{i,i+1}$. By Lemma \[Lem:ComplexReflection\], $R_{i,i+1}$ acts trivially on the $S_2$ basis vectors, and non-trivially on $I_{i,i+1}$. Hence the $\Psi$-orthogonal complement is the mirror of $R_{i,i+1}$.
If $S_1 = \{s_i,s_{i+1} \}$ does [*not*]{} define a stable partition, then observe that by Lemma \[Lem:Psi-Signature-prelims\], $I_{i,i+1}$ has $\Psi$-length zero, i.e., is isotropic.
For explicit computations it is useful to have the action of $R_{i,i+1}$ for all $i$ with respect to a single fixed basis. This also makes the ring of integers $R = \mathbb{Z}(\zeta_d)$ over which $\Gamma$ is defined transparent. Of course, $R$ is the same as the base ring of the module-theoretic lattice $(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L),
\Psi)$, since $\Gamma$ acts as a monodromy group.
\[Prop:GammaReflMatrix\] In the standard basis $I_{j,j+1}, j \in \{1, \ldots, n-2 \}$, the reflection $R_{i,i+1}$ is a matrix with entries $R_{i,i+1}(a,b)$: $$R_{i,i+1}(a,b) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
1, & a = b \neq i \text{ and } |a-b| > 1 \\
\alpha_{i} \cdot \alpha_{i+1}, & a = b = i
\\
1-\alpha_{i+1}, & a = i \text{ and } b =
i-1 \\
\alpha_{i+1} (1-\alpha_i), & a = i \text{
and } b = i+1 \\
0, & \text{ elsewhere. }
\end{array} \right.$$
### Uniformization: $INT$ and $\Sigma INT$
To date we have considered the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_n$ of $n$ [*distinct*]{} points on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$. Choosing $\mu$ is equivalent to choosing a line bundle on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}})^n$, and in fact uniquely determines a $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-linearization of the diagonal $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$ action. This means there is a well-defined compact GIT quotient, $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{n, \mu}$. Let us denote the quasi-projective stable locus by ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$. The key insight that drives [@DM] is that $HG_{\mu}$ extends uniquely over ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$.
The main result of the paper of Deligne and Mostow [@DM] is that, for a finite list of $\mu, HG_{\mu}$ has a single-valued inverse $\Phi_{\mu}$, and so the bottom map in the following diagram is an isomorphism of complex analytic spaces.
In fact they show more. For such $\mu$, the uniformization extends, as an isomorphism of varieties, to the GIT compactification $\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{n,\mu}$ (including the semi-stable points) on the one hand and the Baily-Borel compactification $\overline{P\Gamma \backslash
\mathbb{B}^{n-3}}^{BB}$ on the other. In short, “GIT $=$ Baily-Borel".
Their original sufficiency criterion for $\mu$ is simple to check.
[**Condition $INT$:**]{} Assume that the numbers $\mu_j$ defined by $\alpha_j = e^{2\pi i \mu_j}, 0< \mu_j < 1$ satisfy $\sum \mu_i = 2$. For all $ s \neq t$ in $S$ such that $\mu_s +
\mu_t < 1$, require that $(1-\mu_s-\mu_t)^{-1} \in \mathbb{Z}$.
\[Thm:INT\] If Condition $INT$ holds, then $\Gamma$ is a lattice in the projective unitary group $PU(1, n-3)$. Moreover, ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}\cong
P\Gamma \backslash \mathbb{B}^{n-3}$, and indeed the isomorphism extends to their GIT and Baily-Borel compactifications as an isomorphism of varieties.
The list of solutions is quite small, and in fact there is only one solution for $n=7$ and none for $n >7$. Furthermore, it would be nice to have a necessary and sufficient condition for $\Gamma_{\mu}$ to be discrete. In [@Mos1], Mostow develops a generalization of $INT$ that largely fulfills that purpose.
[**Condition $\Sigma INT$:**]{} Assume that the numbers $\mu_j$ defined by $\alpha_j = e^{2\pi i \mu_j}, 0< \mu_j < 1$ satisfy $\sum \mu_i = 2$. Let $S_1$ be a subset of $S$ with $\mu_s = \mu_t \, \forall s,t \in S_1$. For all $s \neq t \in S$ such that $\mu_s + \mu_t < 1$, require that $$1 - \mu_s - \mu_t \in \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
\frac{1}{2} \mathbb{Z} & if \ s,t \in
S_1 \\
\mathbb{Z} & otherwise
\end{array} \right.$$
\[Thm:SigmaINT\] If Condition $\Sigma INT$ holds then $\Gamma$ is a lattice in $PU(1, n-3)$. Let $\Sigma$ denote the symmetric group of order $|S_1|$. Then $\mathcal{M}^{\Sigma}_n \cong P\Gamma_{\Sigma}
\backslash \mathcal{B}^{n-3}$ for a group extension $\Gamma_{\Sigma}$ of $\Gamma$ by $\Sigma$, and furthermore this isomorphism extends to their GIT and Baily-Borel compactifications as an isomorphism of varieties.
The “$\Sigma$" in $\Sigma INT$ is meant to suggest the symmetric group. In essence, the idea behind $\Sigma INT$ is to exploit repeated values in the list $\{ \mu_j \}$ by constructing a uniformization for ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}/\Sigma$. So the arguments in the proof largely reduce to the same arguments used for condition $INT$.
Whenever an example satisfies $\Sigma INT$, unless otherwise noted, we by default work with the quotient $\mathcal{M}^{\Sigma}_n$.
Eisenstein and Gaussian Ancestral Examples {#Sec:Ancestral}
==========================================
Automorphisms of lattices
-------------------------
Let $(L, \Psi)$ be a lattice over $R$, $M$ a sublattice, and $N$ the $\Psi$-orthogonal complement of $M$ in $L$. Any automorphism of $L$ restricts to an automorphism $u_M$ of $M$ and an automorphism $u_N$ of $N$. Conversely, when do the automorphisms of $M$ extend to automorphisms of $L$?
To address the question we recall some basic ideas from the theory of lattices. We assume throughout that $\Psi$ is non-degenerate, which is automatically true for $\Psi$ as defined in Section \[sec:HGfunctions\].
Let $L^*$ denote the dual lattice $\text{Hom}_R(L, R)$. The form $\Psi$ induces a map $a_L: L \rightarrow L^*$, given by $x \mapsto
\Psi( \ , x)$. Since $\Psi$ is nondegenerate, $a_L$ embeds $L$ as a sublattice of $L^*$ of finite index. (Drawing $L^*$ as the usual “square" Cartesian lattice, one sees the sublattice $a_L(L)$ is the standard “pictorial" representation of the lattice $L$.) Many of the differences with the theory of vector spaces, where $V^*
\cong V$, are captured by the discrepancy between $L^*$ and $a_L(L)$.
Let $C(L) := L^*/a_L(L)$, and observe that it is a finite $R$-module. Furthermore, $\Psi$ determines the Hermitian form $\Psi^*$ on $L^*$, but now this form is valued in the field of fractions of $R$, denoted $F(R)$. This in turn induces a Hermitian form $\Psi^*_{C(L)}$ on the finite $R$-module $C(L)$. Note that $C(L)$ is not a “lattice" [*per se*]{}, because the form is valued in the group-theoretic quotient $F(R)/R$. Nonetheless, it is clear that any unitary transformation of $L$ induces an automorphism of $C(L)$ that preserves $\Psi^*_{C(L)}$.
Assume now that $(\Lambda, \Psi)$ is a [*unimodular*]{} $R$-lattice. To address the question above, consider a [*primitive*]{} sublattice $M$ and its $\Psi$-orthogonal complement $N$. It turns out that there is a natural isomorphism $\alpha:
C(M) \rightarrow C(N)$ that changes the sign of the forms $\Psi^*_{C(M)}$ and $\Psi^*_{C(N)}$ but otherwise preserves them. One can then see:
\[Prop:AutLatticeExtend\] [@HL Appendix, pp.43-44] Let $M$ be a primitive sublattice of a unimodular lattice $L$. A pair of unitary transformations $u_M$ of $M$ and $u_N$ of $N$, defining a unitary transformation $(u_M,u_N)$ of $M \perp N$, is an automorphism of $L$ if and only if the following diagram commutes:
There are two rings that principally concern us: the Gaussian and Eisenstein rings of integers.
\[Def:GaussEisenRings\] The ring $\mathcal{G}$ of [*Gaussian*]{} integers is $\mathbb{Z}[\imath]$, where $\imath = \sqrt{-1}$. The ring $\mathcal{E}$ of [*Eisenstein*]{} integers is $\mathbb{Z}[\omega]$, where $\omega$ is a primitive third root of unity.
Remarkably, for $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ we don’t need an explicit description of $\alpha$. The results follow from the properties that $\alpha$ is an isomorphism and (up to sign) preserves the form.
\[Cor:AutLatticeExtendGaussEisen\] Let $(\Lambda, \Psi)$ be a lattice over the ring $R = \mathcal{G}$ or $\mathcal{E}$. Let $z \in \Lambda$ be a primitive vector (i.e., $z$ generates a primitive sublattice $Rz$ in $M$) not of unit length. Let $\Lambda_0 \subset \Lambda$ be the sublattice that is $\Psi$-orthogonal to $z$. Then the map from the $Aut(\Lambda)$-stabilizer of $\Lambda_0$ to $Aut(\Lambda_0)$ is an isomorphism. In particular, any automorphism of $\Lambda_0$ extends uniquely to an automorphism of $\Lambda$. If $z$ is of unit length then the ambiguity in the extension is just the automorphism group of $Rz$, namely $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$ for $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ respectively.
The proofs in the Gaussian and Eisenstein cases are analogous. In each case the essential point is that $C(Rz)$ is isomorphic to $R/(r)$ for some $r \in R$. The unitary automorphisms (those preserving $\Psi^*_{C(Rz)}$) of $R/(r)$ are easily seen to be one of these: trivial (if $r$ is a unit), $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$ if $R$ is Eisenstein and $r$ not a unit, or $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ if $R$ is Gaussian and $r$ not a unit. Consider a unitary transformation $u_M$ of $\Lambda_0$. This induces a unitary transformation of $C(\Lambda_0)$, which, because it is isomorphic via $\alpha$ to $C(Rz)$, must be an element of the trivial group, $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$, or $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ according to the cases above. Now, $\alpha$ itself acts (accounting for the sign change) as a unitary automorphism, so it satisfies the same trichotomy. In particular, one can always find an automorphism of $C(Rz)$ to “undo" $\alpha$ and so make the diagram from the Proposition commute. The only potential obstruction is that the requisite automorphism of $C(Rz)$ may not come from an automorphism $u_N$ of $Rz$. But the unitary transformations of $Rz$ are $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$ for $R$ Eisenstein or $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ for $R$ Gaussian, so in fact one can always find such a $u_N$, and in particular, as long as $r$ is not a unit, that $u_N$ is determined uniquely by $u_M$. In other words, any automorphism of $\Lambda_0$ extends uniquely to an automorphism of $\Lambda$. If $r$ is a unit, then the ambiguity is precisely the group of units in $\mathcal{G}$ or $\mathcal{E}$.
In general, given a locally symmetric space (here, a ball quotient), it can be quite difficult to identify locally symmetric subspaces (here, subball quotients).
\[Def:subballquot\] Let $P\Gamma$ be a discrete subgroup of $PU(1,n)$. Let $\mathbb{B}^k$ be a subball of $\mathbb{B}^n$. In particular, $\mathbb{B}^k$ is cut out by a (projective) linear constraint on the ambient $\mathbb{P}^n$. Let $P\Gamma_{Stab}$ denote the subgroup of $P\Gamma$ that preserves $\mathbb{B}^k$. Consider the image of $\mathbb{B}^k$ in the ball quotient $P\Gamma \backslash
\mathbb{B}^n$. We say that this image is a subball quotient if the map factors through an inclusion of $P\Gamma_{Stab} \backslash
\mathbb{B}^k$ in $P\Gamma \backslash \mathbb{B}^n$.
The above Corollary tells us that, for a unimodular lattice over the Gaussian or Eisenstein integers, “arithmetically-defined" hyperballs $\mathbb{B}^{n-1}$ correspond to codimension 1 subball quotients. Induction yields:
\[Cor:GaussEisenSubballQuot\] For $\Lambda$ a unimodular lattice of hyperbolic signature over $R
= \mathcal{G}$ or $\mathcal{E}$, any primitive hyperbolic sublattice $\Lambda_0$ defines a subball quotient: $$PAut(\Lambda_0) \backslash \mathbb{B}^{n-1} \subset PAut(\Lambda)
\backslash \mathbb{B}^n$$
When $\Lambda_0$ is the $\Psi$-orthogonal complement of a primitive vector in $\Lambda$ and is of hyperbolic signature this is a restatement of the previous Corollary. It is clear that the intersection of subball quotients is again a subball quotient. So, because $\Lambda_0$ is the $\Psi$-orthogonal complement of some primitive lattice, the statement follows by induction.
Organizing principle: Descendants by collision
----------------------------------------------
All the $\Gamma$ discussed in this section are assumed to satisfy $\Sigma INT$ (and so in particular are group-theoretic lattices, i.e., discrete subgroups of $PU(1,n-3)$, defined over some ring of integers), thus ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}\cong P\Gamma \backslash \mathbb{B}^{n-3}$. A collision between two points $s_i$ and $s_j$ is identified with the complement of a lattice vector, yielding a codimension 1 subball quotient in $P\Gamma \backslash \mathbb{B}^{n-3}$. This is implicit in Deligne and Mostow’s main theorems, as it is a part of the extension of the uniformization over the stable boundary of [$DM(n,\mu)$]{}. To be explicit, using the notation introduced in Section \[Subsec:Monodromy\]:
\[Lem:CollisionMirror\] Assume $\{s_i,s_j\} \cup S \setminus \{s_i,s_j\}$ is a stable partition. Let $S_{i,j}$ denote the sublocus consisting of all configurations of points for which $s_i$ and $s_j$ share a coordinate (i.e., have “collided"). The image of the principal branch of $HG_{\mu}$ restricted to $S_{i,j}$ is the mirror of $R_{i,j}$. Equivalently it is the $\Psi$-orthogonal complement of the vector in $\mathbb{B}^{n-3}$ assigned to $I_{i,j}$.
Because it is a stable collision, $S_{i,j}$ is a nonempty subset of ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$. By Theorems \[Thm:INT\] and \[Thm:SigmaINT\], $HG_{\mu}$ is well-defined on $S_{i,j}$. For convenience, relabel the points to be $s_i$ and $s_{i+1}$. $HG_{\mu}(m)$ is valued in $\mathbb{P}(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_m))$. Consider the good basis that “isolates" $I_{i,i+1}$, which exists by Corollary \[Cor:IHbasis\] because this is a stable partition of $S$. $HG_{\mu}(m)$ is (the projective image of) a linear combination of these basis vectors, or equivalently by Proposition \[Prop:CplxHyperbolicRefl\], of $I_{i,i+1}$ and the basis vectors in its $\Psi$-orthogonal complement. When $s_i(m) =
s_{i+1}(m)$ via a path $0$ to $m$ that does not cross a branch, a good basis for $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_m)$ is precisely (the flat translate of) the basis for the $\Psi$-orthogonal complement of $I_{i,
i+1}$, denoted $I_{i,i+1}^{\perp}$; that is, $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L_m)$ is the mirror of the complex reflection $R_{i,i+1}$.
In particular, for such $m, IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},L) \subset
I_{i,i+1}^{\perp}$, or equivalently, $HG_{\mu}(m) \in
\mathbb{P}(I_{i,i+1}^{\perp}) \cap \mathbb{B}^{n-3}$. Because $HG_{\mu}$ is by assumption a uniformization, the image of $S_{i,i+1}$ is an open subset of the hyperball $\mathbb{I_{i,i+1}^{\perp}} \subset \mathbb{B}^{n-3}$. But the sublocus is also a closed subset, so again because $HG_{\mu}$ is an isomorphism with $P\Gamma \backslash \mathbb{B}^{n-3}$, it must map to a closed set and hence the image is both open and closed in the hyperball, and so is the full hyperball.
(400,150)
(17,122)(60,0)[6]{}[$\times$]{}
(17,116)[$s_1$]{} (77,116)[$s_2$]{} (137,116)[$s_3$]{} (197,116)[$s_4$]{} (257,116)[$s_5$]{} (317,116)[$s_6$]{}
(257,131)[$\alpha_5$]{} (317,131)[$\alpha_6$]{}
(20,125)(60,0)[6]{}
(35,125)(60,0)[3]{}[(1,0)[30]{}]{}
(275,125)[(1,0)[30]{}]{}
(175,100)[(0,-1)[35]{}]{}
(180,80)[Collision: $s_5 \leftrightarrow s_6$]{}
(17,22)(60,0)[5]{}[$\times$]{}
(17,16)[$s_1$]{} (77,16)[$s_2$]{} (137,16)[$s_3$]{} (197,16)[$s_4$]{} (244,14)[$s_5 = s_6$]{}
(245,31)[$\alpha_5 \cdot \alpha_6$]{}
(20,25)(60,0)[4]{}
(35,25)(60,0)[3]{}[(1,0)[30]{}]{}
By induction, a general collision sublocus is just the intersection of mirrors, and so the orthogonal complement of a collection of vectors.
There are precisely four Deligne-Mostow lattices that are generated by $\mu$ with all the $\mu_i$ equal-valued. These are the equally weighted $n=4, 5,6,8,$ and $12$ point examples. For $n=6$ and $12$, $R$ is the Eisenstein ring $\mathbb{Z}[\omega]$ (here $\omega$ is a primitive sixth root of unity), whereas for $n=4$ and $8$, $R$ is the Gaussian ring $\mathbb{Z}[\imath]$.
One special feature of these lattices is that $\Gamma_{\Sigma}$ is the [*full*]{} automorphism group of the associated module-theoretic lattice, rather than just a subgroup. In these two cases results can be found, from a different perspective and in different language, in the recent literature.
\[Thm:GaussianAncestral\] The uniformizing group $\Gamma_G$ for the Gaussian ancestral example, that is, the Deligne-Mostow example for $8$ equally weighted $(\mu_i =
\frac{1}{4})$ points, equals the full automorphism group of the corresponding lattice. That is, $\Gamma_G =
Aut(\mathbb{Z}[\imath], \Psi_G)$.
\[Thm:EisensteinAncestral\] The uniformizing group $\Gamma_E$ for the Eisenstein ancestral example, that is, for $12$ equally weighted $(\mu_i =
\frac{1}{6})$ points, equals the full automorphism group of the corresponding lattice. That is, $\Gamma_E =
Aut(\mathbb{Z}[\omega], \Psi_E)$.
\[Def:Ancestral\] We call these the [*ancestral*]{} Deligne-Mostow lattices. The $8$ point case we call the [*Gaussian ancestral lattice*]{} and similarly the $12$ point case we call the [*Eisenstein ancestral lattice*]{}. By a [*descendant*]{} lattice, we mean the subgroup of an ancestral lattice which is the stabilizer subgroup for a subconfiguration space (collision sublocus).
\[Thm:DescendantAutofLattices\] Descendants of the ancestral lattices are themselves automorphism groups of the (module-theoretic) sub-lattices. The collision loci in $DM(1^8)$ and $DM(1^{12})$ are orbifold subball quotients.
It suffices to check for codimension $1$, the rest follow by induction. By Lemma \[Lem:CollisionMirror\] the image under (a branch of) $HG_{\mu}$ of a stable collision of a pair of points is the $\Psi$-orthogonal complement of a vector $I_{i,j}$. The vector lies on the lattice $\Lambda$ in $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L)$, so the complement defines a sublattice $\Lambda_0$. By Lemma \[Lem:Psi-Signature-prelims\], $I_{i,j}$ has negative length, so its $\Psi$-orthogonal complement is hyperbolic. By Corollary \[Cor:AutLatticeExtendGaussEisen\], any automorphism of $\Lambda_0$ therefore extends to an automorphism of $\Lambda$. So the stabilizer subgroups are in fact themselves automorphism groups of sub-lattices. The non-uniqueness of the extension is the order of $R_{i,j}$ as a complex reflection, which is non-trivial by Lemma \[Lem:ComplexReflection\], so these are orbifold loci.
Making use of the three common meanings of “lattice" in mathematics — poset, group theoretic, and module theoretic — this Theorem tells us we have described, amusingly, a “lattice of lattices which are automorphisms of lattices".
It is straightforward to observe that the equally weighted $n=6$ case, defined by $\mu = (\frac{1}{3}, \ldots, \frac{1}{3})$, is a descendant of the Eisenstein example, where the $12$ points have all collided in pairs. Since the $n=5$ case is two complex dimensional, it has no descendants of Deligne-Mostow type (and precisely one descendant of dimension $1$).
\[Cor:TwoAncestral\] The only equally weighted examples with proper Deligne-Mostow descendants are the Gaussian and Eisenstein ancestral examples.
\[Cor:DescendantListObserve\] For $n > 7$, all the Deligne-Mostow lattices are (finite index sublattices of) descendants of the Eisenstein and Gaussian ancestral lattices. Similarly, all but one of the $n = 7$ examples is a descendant, and a number of the remaining ones ($n = 5, 6$) are as well (see Chart). Furthermore, the original list due to Mostow is in error, for it misses a number of descendant solutions.
This follows by direct observation and comparison with Mostow’s chart [@Mos1].
\[Rmk:Thurston\] Thurston, working on the problem of enumerating flat metrics with cone singularities on $S^2$, corrected Mostow’s computations by a computer check, and his list should be complete [@Thur].
We show in [@Dor1] that the moduli space of cubic surfaces inherits a ball quotient structure, agreeing with that discovered in [@DKvG], from the Eisenstein descendant $DM(2^5,1^2)$, which is one of the examples missed by Mostow’s tables.
Pull-back Construction {#sec:Pullback}
======================
Intersection homology under pull-back {#SubSec:PullbackIH}
-------------------------------------
Fix a finite subset $T \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ and define a rank $1$ Deligne-Mostow local system $l_T$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus T$ with monodromy $\nu$ and ring of definition $R$. Consider a map $\pi:
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$. Denote the inverse image sheaf, known henceforth as the [*pull-back local system*]{}, on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus \pi^{-1}(T)$ by $\pi^*l_T$. Because it is rank $1$, $\pi^*l_T$ is determined by local monodromies at the elements of $\pi^{-1}(T)$ (by Proposition \[Prop:rk1localmonod\]), which in turn can be expressed in terms of $\nu$ and the ramification indices of $\pi$. More precisely:
\[Lem:PullbackDM-Lsyst\] Let $p_{i,j}$ denote the points of the set $\pi^{-1}(t_j)$ and let $r_{i,j}$ denote the ramification index of $\pi$ at $p_{i,j}$. Then $\pi^*l_T$ is the Deligne-Mostow local system on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus \pi^{-1}(T)$ defined by the local monodromy data $r_{i,j} \cdot \nu_j$ at $p_{i,j}$. It contains the pull-back local subsystem $\pi^*l_T(R)$ with fiber $R$.
We now study how $\pi$ induces maps on intersection homology. One approach is, using the formalism due to Deligne developed in [@GM2], to define $\pi_*$ and its adjoint map $\pi^*$ at the level of the intersection chain complexes for the cover $X$ and the base $Y$. To avoid introducing new notation, it is more direct to follow [@GMLef], and use the following definition.
\[Def:PlacidMap\] A subanalytic map $f: X \rightarrow Y$ between two subanalytic pseudo-manifolds is called [*placid*]{} if there exists a subanalytic stratification of $Y$ such that for each stratum $S$ in $Y$ we have $$codim_X f^{-1}(S) \geq codim_Y (S)$$
Any branched covering is placid, so in particular $\pi$ is placid, where the strata for $Y$ are given by $(T, {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus T)$ and those for $X$ by $(\pi^{-1}(T), {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus \pi^{-1}(T))$.
Intersection homology is a bivariant functor for placid maps, where the contravariant induced map may shift degrees. Although the following Proposition is proven in [@GMLef Proposition 4.1] for intersection homology valued in the trivial rank $1$ rational local system (i.e., the constant sheaf with stalk $\mathbb{Q}$), its proof immediately generalizes to intersection homology valued in a rank $1$ local system $L \rightarrow Y$ and in the pull-back local system $f^*L \rightarrow X$. (Alternatively, one can prove this formally, for the topological definition of placid maps, using Deligne’s construction of intersection homology.)
\[Prop:Placid-Pi-IH\] Suppose $f: X \rightarrow Y$ is a placid map. Let $L \rightarrow
Y$ be a rank $1$ local system, and let $f^*L$ denote the pull-back local system on $X$. Then pushforward of chains and pull-back of generic chains induces homomorphisms on intersection homology, $$\begin{aligned}
f_*: & IH_i(X, f^*L) & \rightarrow IH_i(Y,L) \\
f^*: & IH_i(Y, L) & \rightarrow IH_{i + dim(X) - dim(Y)}(X, f^*L)
\ .\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $\pi: {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ induces a map $\pi^*: IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T) \rightarrow IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \pi^*l_T)$. This map respects the intersection pairing.
\[Rmk:Placid-Pi-IH-Ring\] Indeed, one does not need the fiber to be a field; as is remarked in [@GMLef] after the proof of the Proposition, the same argument carries over for any coefficient ring $R$. The same result thus holds for any local subsystems $L(R)$, with $R$ a subring of $\mathbb{C}$. In that event, $\pi^*$ is a map of $R$-modules.
Furthermore, (using the differential form model for intersection cohomology) pulling back a (anti-)holomorphic form via an algebraic map yields a (anti-)holomorphic form, so the orthogonal decomposition into $IH^{1,0} \oplus IH^{0,1}$ is respected. The isomorphism with intersection homology via the intersection pairing, $IH^1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L) \rightarrow IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, L), z \mapsto (
\ , z)$, tautologically respects the orthogonal decomposition. Thus the map $\pi^*$ on intersection homology also respects the Hodge decomposition.
\[Prop:Pi-IH-Hodge\] The map $\pi^*: IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T) \rightarrow IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
\pi^*l_T)$ preserves the intersection pairing and hence the Hermitian form $\Psi$, in the sense $\Psi(\alpha, \beta) =
\Psi(\pi^*(\alpha), \pi^*(\beta))$. In addition $\pi^*$ respects the orthogonal direct sum (Hodge) decomposition, so that the subspace $\pi^*(IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T)) \subset IH_{1,0}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
\pi^*l_T)$ and $\pi^*(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T)) \subset
IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \pi^*l_T)$.
This follows more formally from work of Saito on mixed Hodge modules. See [@Saito1]. Furthermore, as a consequence, one can amplify Remark \[Rmk:Placid-Pi-IH-Ring\]. If one works with local subsystems whose fibers are the ring $R \subset
\mathbb{C}^*$, then $\pi^*$ is a map of Hermitian lattices over $R$.
Hurwitz spaces and [$\mathcal{S}_{\pi}$]{}
------------------------------------------
Now we vary $\pi$ while preserving the ramification behavior over the fixed branch locus $T$. For any $\pi$ in this family, the pull-back local system $\pi^*l_T$ will have the same monodromy data $\mu$. As $\pi$ varies, the coordinates of the points of $\pi^{-1}(T)$ vary.
\[Def:S-subset-PiInverse(T)\] Let $S \subset \pi^{-1}(T)$ denote the subset of points with nontrivial local monodromy in $\pi^*l_T$.
In particular $S$ varies with $\pi$; we write this dependence as $S(\pi)$. Let us be more precise:
\[Def:T-ramification\] By the [*$T$-ramification class*]{} of $\pi$, denoted $\mathcal{H}_{\pi}$, we mean the subset of all maps $\pi^{\prime}:
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ satisfying three conditions.
1. $\pi^{\prime}$ has the same degree as $\pi$.
2. The ramification indices $r_{i,j}$ over points $t_j \in T$ are the same for $\pi^{\prime}$ and $\pi$.
3. $\pi^{\prime}$ is in the same connected component as $\pi$ (with respect to the subspace topology of the standard topology on the space of maps between compact sets).
The notation is meant to emphasize the link with Hurwitz spaces, i.e., spaces of curve covers up to equivalence, since these self-maps of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ are curve covers with constrained ramification. Equivalence of curve covers is given by the $PGL_2(\mathbb{C})$ action on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}= \mathbb{P}(V)$, which lifts to an $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$ action on $V$. Of course, $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$ also acts on the sets $\pi^{-1}(T)$ and $S$ via $Sym^{|\pi^{-1}(T)|}(V)$ and $Sym^{|S|}(V)$ respectively. We denote the induced $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-equivariant algebraic maps by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{H}_{\pi} \stackrel{i_{T}}{\longrightarrow}
\mathbb{P}^{|\pi^{-1}(T)|} \stackrel{p_S}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{P}^{|S|} \\
\pi^{\prime} \mapsto {\pi^{\prime}}^{-1}(T) \mapsto
S(\pi^{\prime}).\end{aligned}$$
We are interested in the space of all configurations $S(\pi^{\prime}) \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ where $\pi^{\prime} \in
\mathcal{H}_{\pi}$.
Let $\mathcal{S}_{\pi}$ denote the $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-quotient of the image subvariety $p_s \circ \imath_T(\mathcal{H}_{\pi})
\subset \mathbb{P}^{|S|}$.
A curve cover $\pi \in \mathcal{H}_{\pi}$ is simply a rational function on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$. Let $V \cong \mathbb{C}^2$ with coordinates $(u,v)$. The set of all degree $d$ maps $\pi: {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\rightarrow
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ is given by: $$\big\{ \frac{N(u,v)}{D(u,v)} \big\vert N,D \in Sym^d(V) \big\} =
\mathbb{P}(Sym^d(V) \oplus Sym^d(V)) \ .$$ In particular $\mathcal{H}_{\pi}$ is an $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-invariant subvariety of $\mathbb{P}(Sym^d(V)
\oplus Sym^d(V))$.
$\imath_T$ is injective
Observe that the numerator $N(u,v)$ determines $\pi^{-1}(0)$ and the denominator $D(u,v)$ determines $\pi^{-1}(\infty)$. Conversely these two sets of points determine $\pi$ up to scaling.
Since $|T| \geq 3$, use an automorphism of $\mathbb{P}^1$ to assign $t_0 = 0$, $t_1 = 1$, and $t_2 = \infty$. Then $\pi^{-1}(t_0)$ and $\pi^{-1}(t_2)$ determine $\pi$ up to scaling. But if $\pi^{\prime} = \lambda \pi$, then $\pi^{\prime}(\pi^{-1}(t_1)) = \lambda$, so in fact $\pi^{-1}(t_1)$ determines the scaling factor.
The dimension of $\mathcal{H}_{\pi}$ is easy to compute, as it is essentially an application of Riemann-Hurwitz.
\[Prop:T-ram-dimcount\] When it exists, the $T$-ramification class $\mathcal{H}_{\pi}$, where $\pi$ is degree $d$, is a $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-invariant subvariety of $\mathbb{P}(Sym^d(V) \oplus Sym^d(V))$, with codimension equal to $\sum_{i,j} (r_{i,j} - 1)$.
The Riemann-Hurwitz formula here states $2(d-1) = \sum_k (r_k-1)$ where the sum is over [*all*]{} ramification points. Up to $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-equivalence, generically the set of covers is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of coordinates of the ramification points. The requirement that a ramification point with index $r_{i,j}$ map to a specific $t_j \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$ is therefore a codimension $r_{i,j}-1$ condition, and all of these are independent.
Equivalently, the dimension, accounting for $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-equivalence, is the number of “free” or “excess” simple (order 2) ramification points (i.e., those not in $\pi^{-1}(T)$) allowed by Riemann-Hurwitz.
Restricting hypergeometric functions: ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ and subball quotients
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $n = |S|$, and let the monodromy data for $S$ be $\mu$. If $(S, \mu)$ can be realized via pullback by $\pi$, then ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}\subset {\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$. We consider the multi-valued hypergeometric function $HG_{\mu}$, defined on ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$, restricted to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$. The restricted hypergeometric function satisfies a linear constraint. More precisely:
\[Cor:Spi-HGLinearConstraint\] $\omega_{\mu}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}})$ is $\Psi$-orthogonal to the well-defined marked subspace $\pi^*(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T))$. In particular, a branch of $HG_{\mu}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}})$ lies in a subball $\mathbb{B}^k \subset
\mathbb{P}((\pi^*(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T)))^{\perp})$.
Let $R$ be the ring of integers in $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_d)$. The restriction of $\mathcal{L}_{\mu} \rightarrow \mathcal{M}_{|S|}$ to ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ is a local system with a marked local subsystem $\pi^*(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T(R)))$. The fibers are of the subsystem are: $$\pi^*(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T(R))) \subset IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},\pi^*l_T(R)) \cap
IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, \pi^*l_T).$$ The marked subspace $\pi^*(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T))$ is independent of choice of $\pi$ in ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$, because ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ is connected and because $\pi^*(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}},
l_T(R)))$ is a sublattice and so is invariant under continuous deformations of $\pi$. Then, for any $\pi \in {\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$, $\omega_{\mu}(S(\pi)) \in (\pi^*(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T)))^{\perp}$ by Proposition \[Prop:Pi-IH-Hodge\]. Choosing consistent coordinates by not extending over branch loci, the rest follows immediately from the definition of $HG_{\mu}$.
So a branch of the restricted hypergeometric function always lies in a subball. We use this fact, applied to Deligne-Mostow uniformizations of Eisenstein or Gaussian type, to produce ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ that give subball quotients. Let $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}}$ denote the closure of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ in ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$.
\[Thm:MyMain\] Let $\mu$ be of Eisenstein or Gaussian type satisfying $\Sigma
INT$. If $dim_{\mathbb{C}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}) =
dim_{\mathbb{C}}(\pi^*(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T(R))))$, then $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}} \subset {\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$ is the Baily-Borel compactification of the subball quotient $\Gamma_{Stab} \backslash
\mathbb{B}((\pi^*(IH_{0,1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T)))^{\perp})$.
We know $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}}$ is an algebraic subvariety of $\mathcal{M}_{n,\mu}$. Furthermore, the subball quotient $\overline{P\Gamma_{Stab} \backslash \mathbb{B}^k}^{BB}$ is an irreducible algebraic subvariety of $\overline{P\Gamma \backslash
\mathbb{B}^{n-3}}$. Because $\Phi$ is an isomorphism, and $\Phi({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}) \subset P\Gamma_{Stab} \backslash
\mathbb{B}((\pi^*(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T)))^{\perp})$, we see ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ and its closure inject as subvarieties. Since the only equal-dimensional closed subvariety of an irreducible variety is the irreducible variety itself, as long as the dimensions are equal one concludes $\Phi$ restricts to give an isomorphism of these two varieties.
It is therefore important to compute the dimension of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$. We know it equals the dimension of $\mathcal{H}_{\pi}$ precisely when the map $p_S$ restricted to $\mathcal{H}_{\pi}$ is generically finite-to-one. One interesting class of examples is when all the non-trivial monodromy lies over a single point of $T$.
\[Lem:dimHpiSpi\] Assume $S = \pi^{-1}(t_j)$ for some $t_j \in T$. If, for some $k$, $t_k$ has local monodromy $\nu_k = \frac{n_k}{d_k}$ such that $d_k > 2$, then $dim_{\mathbb{C}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}) =
dim_{\mathbb{C}}(\mathcal{H}_{\pi})$.
Using the $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-action one may equivalently assume $S
= \pi^{-1}(\infty)$, that $t_k = 0$, and that some $t_i = 1$. We claim there are only finitely many $\pi^{\prime}$ in $p_S^{-1}(S)$. For ${\pi^{\prime}}^{-1}(0)$ to consist of points with trivial local monodromy, each point must be ramified to order a multiple of at least 3 which is a codimension at least $\frac{d}{3}(3-1)$ condition. Similarly and independently, over $1$ every point is ramified to order a multiple of at least 2, which is codimension at least $\frac{d}{2}(2-1)$. Each fiber of $p_S$ must therefore be less than $d$ dimensional. But the denominator of $\pi$ is determined up to scaling by $S$, which is a $d$-dimensional condition. So the generic fiber of $p_S$ is finite-to-one.
Key examples: $|T| = 3$ and moduli spaces of inhomogeneous binary forms
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We now explicitly work out the simplest examples. Assume $|T|=3$, $\Sigma \mu_i = 2$, $\Sigma \nu_i = 1$, $\mu$ satisfies $\Sigma
INT$, and $\mu$ is Eisenstein or Gaussian. Specializing our previous results, we obtain:
\[Cor:Codim1IsBallQuot\] $\overline{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}} \subset {\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$ is a subball quotient if and only if $\pi^*$ is non-trivial and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ is codimension $1$.
Here $IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus T, l_T)$ is one-dimensional and purely anti-holomorphic. The image under pull-back is either trivial or one-dimensional, and purely anti-holomorphic.
It is worthwhile to completely classify the solutions in a special case. By Corollary \[Cor:Codim1IsBallQuot\], we need to compute $dim_{\mathbb{C}}({\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}})$. Lemma \[Lem:dimHpiSpi\] suggest we consider $S = \pi^{-1}(t_i)$. Restrict further to the case where all points over a given $t_j \in T$ have the same ramification index. We think of this as a weak form of a “Galois" condition on $\pi$, and so define:
\[Def:PropertyG\] The pair $(\pi, T)$ possesses [*property $G$*]{} if, for $t_j \in
T$, all the points in $\pi^{-1}(t_j)$ have the same ramification index $r_{t_j}$.
Up to automorphisms of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$, we may take $T = \{ 0, 1, \infty
\}$.
\[Prop:Pi-PropertyG\] Let $T = \{ 0, 1, \infty \}$ and assume $\pi$ is degree $d$. Then $\pi$ has property $G$, with $r_0 = a$, and $r_1 = b$ if and only if $$\pi = \frac{A^a(u,v)}{A^a(u,v)+B^b(u,v)}, \ deg(A) = \frac{d}{a},
\ deg(B)= \frac{d}{b} \ ,$$ where neither $A(u,v)$ nor $B(u,v)$ have repeated roots, and where $A^a(u,v) + B^b(u,v)$ either has no repeated roots or is of the form $C(u,v)^c$ for $c | d$ where $C(u,v)$ has no repeated roots.
The points in $\pi^{-1}(x)$ are the solutions to $\pi(u,v) = x$. The ramification index of a point is its multiplicity as a solution. Write $\pi = N(u,v)/D(u,v)$. The numerator $N(u,v)$ and the denominator $D(u,v)$ are both degree $d$ homogeneous polynomials.
Let $\pi$ satisfy the assumptions. The points of $\pi^{-1}(0)$ are simply the roots of $N(u,v)$. Property $G$ says they all must have the same multiplicity, and so there are $k_1 = \frac{d}{a}$ distinct roots each with multiplicity $a$. Therefore $N(u,v) =
A^a(u,v)$. Similarly, $\pi^{-1}(1)$ consists of the roots of $N(u,v)-D(u,v)$. By the assumptions on $\pi$ this must have $k_2 =
\frac{d}{b}$ distinct roots each of multiplicity $b$ and so equals $B^b(u,v)$, implying $D(u,v) = A^a(u,v) + B^b(u,v)$. Finally, the roots of $D(u,v)$ are the points of $\pi^{-1}(\infty)$ and so by property $G$ must have equal multiplicities; hence $D(u,v) =
C^c(u,v)$ for some $c | d$.
Conversely, given the explicit form for $\pi$, successively set $\pi$ equal to $0, 1,$ and $\infty$, and solve. By assumption $A(u,v)$ and $B(u,v)$ have no repeated roots. Therefore $\pi^{-1}(0)$ is a set of $k_1 = \frac{d}{a}$ points of ramification index $a$, and $\pi^{-1}(1)$ is a set of $k_2 =
\frac{d}{b}$ points of ramification index $b$. Likewise, the assumption that $D(u,v) = A^a(u,v) + B^b(u,v) = C^c(u,v)$ guarantees that the points of $\pi^{-1}(\infty)$ all have ramification index $c$ (possibly equal to $1$). Therefore by definition $\pi$ has property $G$.
We want to enumerate all $\nu$ such that $(\nu, \mu, \pi)$ satisfy all of our operating assumptions.
[**Summary of Assumptions:**]{}
1. $T = \{ 0, 1, \infty \}$ (arranged by automorphisms of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$)
2. $\nu$, the monodromy data defining the DM local system $l_T
\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}\setminus T$, satisfies $\sum \nu_j = 1$
3. $\pi$ satisfies property $G$
4. $\mu$ is the monodromy data for the pull-back local system $\pi^*l_T$, such that:
1. $S = \pi^{-1}(\infty)$, that is, $\mu_i \not\in
\mathbb{Z}$ precisely for $s_i \in \pi^{-1}(\infty)$
2. the sum of the non-integral $\mu_i$ equals $2$
3. Let $m$ be the lowest common denominator of the $\mu_i$. The ring of integers $R$ in $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_m)$ is either $\mathcal{G}$ or $\mathcal{E}$.
4. $\mu$ satisfies $INT$ or $\Sigma INT$
\[Cor:FiveSolutions-G\] There are five triples $(a,b,d)$, corresponding to $\nu =
(\frac{1}{a}, \frac{1}{b}, \frac{2}{d})$, which satisfy these assumptions: $$(3,2,12), (4,2,8), (6,2,6), (3,3,6), (4,4,4)$$
Because of property $G$, every point in the $\pi^{-1}(t_j)$ has the same ramification index. By the Proposition, they are integer multiples of $a, b,$ and $1$ respectively. The assumptions require $\mu_{0,i} = r_0\cdot \nu_0$ and $\mu_{1,i} = r_1 \cdot
\nu_1$ to all be integral, and furthermore $\sum_i \mu_{\infty, i}
= \frac{d}{r_{\infty}} \nu_{\infty} = 2$. In order for the ring $R$ to be $\mathcal{G}$ or $\mathcal{E}$, the lowest common denominator of the $\nu_i$ must be one of $2,3,4,6$. Finally, using the fact $\sum_j \nu_j = 1$, one enumerates the solutions, which yields the above list of five. It is useful to note these are precisely the solutions of $$\frac{1}{a} + \frac{1}{b} + \frac{2}{d} = 1.$$\[eq:classify\]
Because the non-integral $\mu_i$ are attached to $S =
\pi^{-1}(\infty)$, one sees the $\mu_i$ are all equal weight and hence certainly satisfy $\Sigma INT$, and indeed correspond to one of the ancestral examples or its equal weight descendants.
Now we want to classify, under above the assumptions, when the subspace ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ is actually a subball quotient. By Theorem \[Thm:MyMain\], given any valid $\nu$, this amounts to a dimension count. The fact that $|T| = 3$ makes this easy to check.
\[Cor:Five-are-Spi-as-BallQuot\] The triples $(a,b,d)$ from Corollary \[Cor:FiveSolutions-G\] all define ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ that are codimension $1$ subball quotients of $DM(d,\mu)$, where $\mu_i = \frac{2}{d}, \forall i$.
Because $|T| = 3, dim_{\mathbb{C}}(IH_1({\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}, l_T)) = 1$. It is easy to check that the image of $\pi^*$ is non-trivial: simply pull-back the generator $I_{1,\infty}$ and observe the resulting linear combination of basis elements in the lift is never the identity. Thus the image of $\pi^*$ is one-dimensional.
By Theorem \[Thm:MyMain\], the ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ are subball quotients when the dimension count agrees. Here $im(\pi^*)^{\perp}$ is codimension $1$. Note that $|S| = d$. Then by Proposition \[Prop:T-ram-dimcount\] the codimension of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ is determined by the number of ramification conditions imposed by the $T$-ramification class of $\pi$: precisely, $(d-3) - (2d-2 -
\frac{d}{a}(a-1) - \frac{d}{b}(b-1)) = (d-3) + 2 - d(\frac{1}{a} +
\frac{1}{b}) = d(1 - \frac{1}{a} - \frac{1}{b}) +2 - 3$, which, using relation \[eq:classify\] above, is simply $d(\frac{2}{d})
- 1 = 1$, as desired. Note that one could also do a direct dimension count from the explicit form of $\pi$ in this case.
\[Rmk:ModuliRES\] The case (3,2,12) corresponds to the moduli space of rational elliptic surfaces. See Corollary \[Cor:RationalEllipticSurfaces\].
### Some moduli spaces of inhomogeneous forms and ball quotients
Throughout let $A(u,v)$ and $B(u,v)$ be polynomials of degree $d_1$ and $d_2$, respectively, with $d_1 < d_2$. The definitions can be extended to any number of polynomials, but we will use only two.
\[Def:PseudoDisc\] Given the data $(A,B)$ as above, let $a, b$ and $N$ be positive integers such that $d_1a = N = d_2 b$. The choice of $a$ and $b$ determines a morphism $\Delta: \mathbb{W}\mathbb{P}^n(d_1,d_2)
\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^N$, given by $[A,B] \mapsto [A^a + B^b]$. We call such a map a [*pseudo-discriminant*]{}.
Note the map is well-defined. Indeed, it is clear that the map $(A,B) \mapsto A^a + B^b$ is $\mathbb{C}^*$-equivariant, where $\mathbb{C}^*$ acts as multiplication by $(\lambda^{d_1},
\lambda^{d_2})$ and $\lambda^N$ respectively.
One can interpret this map in the language of the GKZ theory of resultants and discriminants for toric varieties [@GKZ]. There it appears as an “$A$-discriminant”, with $A$ an appropriately chosen set of homogeneous polynomials, before quotienting out by an associated group of toric automorphisms.
The question we ask is essentially the following elementary (but in many instances surprisingly rich) one.
[**Question:**]{} Given a degree $N$ polynomial in two variables, when, and in how many ways, can it be written as the sum of an $a^{th}$ power of a degree $d_1$ polynomial and a $b^{th}$ power of a degree $d_2$ polynomial?
The “when" is the image of $\Delta$ and the “in how many ways" is the degree of $\Delta$. To be more precise, we are interested in the number of solutions for a generic point in the image of $\Delta$, not a complete analysis of the number of solutions for any given degree $N$ polynomial.
Let $\zeta_m$ represent a primitive $m^{th}$ root of unity. It is clear that $\Delta([\zeta_a^j A, \zeta_b^k B]) = [A^a + B^b] =
\Delta([A,B])$. This is an obvious obstruction to the generic injectivity of $\Delta$.
\[Prop:Delta-atleast-gcd\] For a given $a$ and $b$, $\Delta$ is generically at least $gcd(a,b)$-to-one. In particular, for $\Delta$ to be generically injective, it is necessary that $gcd(a,b) = 1$.
Because $\Delta$ is a map from weighted projective space $\mathbb{W}\mathbb{P}^n(d_1,d_2)$ to projective space $\mathbb{P}^N$, one must check which pairs $(\zeta_a^j A,
\zeta_b^k B)$ are equivalent under the weighted $\mathbb{C}^*$ action.
Clearly it suffices to check when there exists a complex number $\lambda$ such that simultaneously $\lambda^{d_1} = \zeta_a^j$ and $\lambda^{d_2} = \zeta_b^k$. In particular, $\lambda$ must be an $N^{th}$ root of unity. The two conditions are equivalent to asking for solutions to the following system of congruences: $$\begin{aligned}
d_1 x \equiv d_1 j \pmod{N} & \longleftrightarrow & x \equiv j \pmod{a} \\
d_2 x \equiv d_2 k \pmod{N} & \longleftrightarrow & x \equiv k
\pmod{b}\end{aligned}$$ The Chinese Remainder Theorem implies there is a solution for all $j$ and $k$ precisely when $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime. More generally, it implies that for any given $j$ there are $N/gcd(a,b)$ values of $k$ which lie in the same $\mathbb{C}^*$-orbit, so there are at least $N/(N/(gcd(a,b))) =
gcd(a,b)$ distinct points mapped to the same point by $\Delta$.
What follows is a sufficient condition for the degree of the pseudo-discriminant to be precisely $gcd(a,b)$. Under this circumstance, the sole obstruction to injectivity is the one above, i.e., whether rescaling $(A,B)$ by relevant roots of unity produces points in the same weighted $\mathbb{C}^*$-orbit.
\[Prop:Delta-is-gcd\] Assume $d_2 > d_1 + 1$ and $b=2$. Then $\Delta(A_1, B_1) =
\Delta(A_2, B_2)$ implies $A_1^a = A_2^a$ (equivalently, $B_1^b =
B_2^b$), that is, $A_1 = \zeta_a^j A_2$ and $B_1 = \zeta_b^k B_2$. Furthermore, the degree of $\Delta$ is $gcd(a,b)$.
The argument we give is inspired by [@Vakil p. 17]. Consider the space of polynomial quadruples $(A_1, B_1, A_2, B_2)$ subject to the constraint that $A_1^a + B_1^b = A_2^a + B_2^b$. Remove the subset $A_1^a = A_2^a$ (equivalently, $B_1^b = B_2^b$). What remains are the solutions to $\Delta(A_1,B_1) = \Delta(A_2,B_2)$ other than $A_1 = \zeta_a^j A_2$ and $B_1 = \zeta_b^k B_2$. Call this set $Q_{\Delta}$. We claim $Q_{\Delta}$ is empty.
We argue by contradiction. Assume it is not empty. Then it has a dimension. The dimension cannot be any less than the dimension of the space of polynomials $(A_1, B_1)$, which is $(d_1 +1)+ (d_2 +
1) = d_1 + d_2 +2$. So $dim_{\mathbb{C}}(Q_{\Delta}) \geq d_1 +
d_2 + 2$.
But there is another way to count the dimension of $Q_{\Delta}$. Rewrite the defining constraint as $A_1^a - A_2^a = B_2^b -
B_1^b$. Because $b = 2$, the right hand side of the equation factors as $(B_2-B_1)(B_2+B_1)$. Specifying the pair $(A_1, A_2)$ determines $(B_2-B_1)(B_2+B_1)$. Because $A_1^a \neq A_2^a$, $A_1^a - A_2^a$ has $N$ roots (counting multiplicity). By assigning these roots to each of $(B_2 - B_1)$ and $(B_2 + B_1)$, these factors are completely determined up to relative scaling and the finite ambiguity in assigning the roots. Thus the dimension of the set of solutions $Q_{\Delta}$ is the dimension of $(A_1, A_2)$ plus one to account for the relative scaling. That is, $dim_{\mathbb{C}}(Q_{\Delta}) = 2(d_1+1) + 1 = 2d_1 + 3$.
One concludes $2d_1 + 3 \geq d_1 + d_2 + 2$, hence $d_1 + 1 \geq
d_2$, or equivalently $d_1 + 1 > d_2$. But this contradicts the assumption of our theorem that $d_2 > d_1 + 1$. Thus $Q_{\Delta}$ must be empty.
Although the $b=2$ condition can be relaxed, the $d_2 > d_1 + 1$ is necessary. As an example, when $d_1 = 2, d_2 = 3, N = 6$, $\Delta$ is generically a $40$-to-$1$ map [@Elk].
The pseudo-discriminant $\Delta$ is $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-equivariant. It descends to a map of GIT quotients.
The $SL_2(\mathbb{C})$-equivariance is immediate, because it acts through the standard representation on $V \cong \mathbb{C}^2$ in each case: the domain is $\mathbb{W}\mathbb{P}^n(Sym^{d_1}(V)
\oplus Sym^{d_2}(V))$ and the range is $\mathbb{P}(Sym^N(V))$.
One should think of the image of this map as lying inside the moduli space of $N$ unordered points. The domain and range both offer potentially different compactifications for the open set. In particular, for $N = 12$ or $N=8$ the compactification of the image is a Baily-Borel compactification for the Eisenstein or Gaussian ancestral examples respectively. Thus there is an alternate compactification to the GIT compactification for certain weighted projective space quotients.
Observe this gives alternate description of the ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$.
\[Thm:PseudoDisc-Hypersurface\] The classification of ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{S}_{\pi}}}$ satisfying property $G$ in Corollary \[Cor:Five-are-Spi-as-BallQuot\] is identical to the classification of pseudo-discriminants with image a hypersurface of codimension $1$.
This is simply a dimension count. The condition that the image of $\Delta$ be a hypersurface is the statement that $(d_1 + 1) +
(d_2+1) = N$, where $N = ad_1 = bd_2$. Divide by $N$ to get $\frac{1}{a} + \frac{1}{b} + \frac{2}{N} = 1$, which is the same constraint as the one we discovered in the classification of $\pi$ with property $G$.
\[Cor:PairedBinaryForms\] The moduli spaces of inhomogeneous binary forms of bidegree $(a,b)$, for $(a,b)$ taken from the list in the above theorem, are branched covers of subball quotients of the corresponding ${\ensuremath{DM(n,\mu)}}$. For one of the cases, $(3,2,12)$, $\Delta$ is an embedding on a suitable open subset, and for two others, $(6,2,6)$ and $(4,2,8)$, it is generically $2$-to-$1$.
This result parallels the statement that the ancestral examples, thought of as moduli spaces of binary forms of degree $8$ and $12$, are ball quotients.
\[Cor:RationalEllipticSurfaces\] The moduli space of rational elliptic surfaces is a ball quotient, in particular it is a hyperball quotient of the Eisenstein ancestral example.
The example $(3,2,12)$ is the GIT moduli space of rational elliptic surfaces presented as rational Weierstrass fibrations. This GIT description of the moduli space was first discovered by Miranda [@Mir], following Mumford.
[99]{}
Allcock, D. “The Leech lattice and complex hyperbolic reflections". Invent. Math. 140 (2000), no. 2, 283–301.
Allcock, D., Carlson, J., and Toledo, D. “The complex hyperbolic geometry of the moduli space of cubic surfaces". J.Algebraic Geom. 11 (2002), no. 4, 659–724.
Borel, A., ed. Intersection cohomology. Notes on the seminar held at the University of Bern, Bern, 1983. Progress in Mathematics, 50. Swiss Seminars. Birkh "[a]{}user Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1984.
Deligne, P. and Mostow, G. “Monodromy of Hypergeometric Functions and Non-Lattice Integral Monodromy". IHES Publ. Math., No. 63, 1986, 5–90.
Deligne, P. and Mostow, G. “Commensurabilities Among Lattices in PU(1,n)". Annals of Mathematics Studies, 132. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1993.
Dolgachev, I., Kondō, S., and van Geeman, B. “A complex ball uniformization of the moduli space of cubic surfaces via periods of K3 surfaces". math.AG/0310342
Dolgachev, I. Introduction to geometric invariant theory. Lecture Notes Series, 25. Seoul National University, Research Institute of Mathematics, Global Analysis Research Center, Seoul, 1994.
Doran, B. “Intersection homology, hypergeometric functions, and moduli spaces as ball quotients”, Ph.D. Thesis, June 2003.
Doran, B. “Moduli space of cubic surfaces as ball quotient via hypergeometric functions”, math.AG/0404062.
Doran, C. Algebraic and geometric isomonodromic deformations. J. Differential Geom. 59 (2001), no. 1, 33–85.
Elkies, N. “The identification of three moduli spaces", math.AG/9905195.
Gelfand, I.M., Kapranov, M.M., and Zelevinsky, A.V. Discriminants, resultants and multidimensional determinants. Mathematics: Theory & Applications. Birkhäuser, Boston, 1994.
Goresky, M. and MacPherson R. “Intersection homology theory". Topology 19 (1980), no. 2, 135–162.
Goresky, M. and MacPherson R. “Intersection homology. II". Invent. Math. 72 (1983), no. 1, 77–129.
Goresky, M. and MacPherson R. “Lefschetz fixed point theorem for intersection homology". Comment. Math. Helvetici 60 (1985), 366–391.
Heckman, G. and Looijenga, E. “The moduli space of rational elliptic surfaces". Algebraic geometry 2000, Azumino (Hotaka), 185–248, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 36, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2002.
Kobayashi, S. and Nomizu, K. “Foundations of differential geometry". Vols I and II. Interscience Publishers, a division of John Wiley & Sons, New York-London 1963.
Looijenga, E. “Compactifications defined by arrangements I. The ball quotient case". Duke Math. J. 118 (2003), no. 1, 151–187.
Looijenga, E. “Compactifications defined by arrangements II: Locally symmetric varieties of type IV". Duke Math. J. 119 (2003), no. 3, 527–588.
MacPherson, R. “Intersection homology and perverse sheaves". Unpublished report. December 1990.
Matsumoto, K. and Yoshida, M. “Configuration space of $8$ points on the projective line and a $5$-dimensional Picard modular group". Compositio Math. 86 (1993), no. 3, 265–280.
Miranda, R. “The moduli of Weierstrass fibrations over ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}^1}}$". Math. Ann. 255 (1981), no.3, 379–394.
Mostow, G. “Generalized Picard Lattices Arising From Half-Integral Conditions". IHES Publ. Math., No. 63, 1986, 91–106.
Mostow, G. “On discontinuous action of monodromy groups on the complex $n$-ball". J. Amer. Math. Soc. 1 (1988), no. 3, 555–586.
Saito, M. “Mixed Hodge modules". Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 62 (1986), no. 9, 360–363.
Saito, M. “Mixed Hodge modules". Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 26 (1990), no. 2, 221–333.
Thurston, W. “Shapes of polyhedra and triangulations of the sphere". The Epstein birthday schrift, 511–549 (electronic), Geom. Topol. Monogr., 1, Geom. Topol. Publ., Coventry, 1998.
Vakil, R. “Twelve points on the projective line, branched covers, and rational elliptic fibrations". Math. Ann. 320 (2001), no. 1, 33–54.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Hiroyuki Kawamura[^1]\
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX, United Kingdom\
E-mail:
- |
[^2]\
Department of Physics, Juntendo University, Inba, Chiba 270-1695, Japan\
E-mail:
title: 'OPE for B-meson distribution amplitude and dimension-5 HQET operators'
---
For the exclusive $B$-meson decays, such as $B \to \pi \pi$, $\rho \gamma, \ldots$, systematic methods have been developed using QCD factorization based on the heavy-quark limit [@Beneke:2000ry; @Bauer:2001cu; @Bell08]. In the corresponding factorization formula of the decay amplitude, essential roles are played by the light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs) for the participating mesons, which include nonperturbative long-distance contributions. In particular, in addition to the LCDAs for the light mesons $\pi, \rho$, etc., produced in the final state, the LCDA $\tilde{\phi}_+$ for the $B$ meson, defined as the vacuum-to-meson matrix element [@Grozin:1997pq], $$\tilde{\phi}_+(t, \mu)
=
\frac{1}{iF(\mu)}
\langle 0|
\bar{q}(tn)
{\rm P}e^{ig\int_0^td\lambda n\cdot A(\lambda n)}
{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$n$}}}
\gamma_5h_v(0)
|\bar{B}(v)\rangle
=\int d\omega e^{-i\omega t}
\phi_+(\omega, \mu)\ ,
\label{eq1}$$ also participates in processes where large momentum is transferred to the soft spectator quark via hard gluon exchange [@Beneke:2000ry; @Bauer:2001cu; @Bell08]. Here, the bilocal operator is built of the $b$-quark and light-antiquark fields, $h_v(0)$ and $\bar{q}(tn)$, linked by the Wilson line at a light-like separation $tn$, with $n_\mu$ as the light-like vector ($n^2 =0$, $n\cdot v=1$), and $v_\mu$ representing the 4-velocity of the $B$ meson; a difference between (\[eq1\]) and the familiar pion-LCDA is that $h_v(0)$ is an effective field in the heavy-quark effective theory (HQET). $\mu$ denotes the scale where the operator is renormalized, and $F(\mu)$ is the decay constant in HQET, $F(\mu)=-i\langle 0|
\bar{q}
{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$n$}}}
\gamma_5h_v
|\bar{B}(v)\rangle$. The RHS in (\[eq1\]) defines the momentum representation, with $\omega v^+$ denoting the LC component of the momentum of the light antiquark.
The “IR structure” of (\[eq1\]), studied using constraints from the equations of motion (EOM) and heavy-quark symmetry [@KKQT], as well as the “UV structure”, calculated in the 1-loop renormalization of the bilocal operator in (\[eq1\]) [@Lange:2003ff], is notoriously peculiar compared with the pion LCDA. For a full description of (\[eq1\]) which would involve a complicated mixture of the IR and UV structures, we first calculate the radiative corrections, taking into account hard and soft/collinear loops. The one-particle-irreducible 1-loop diagrams (1LDs) for the 2-point function $\langle \bar{q}(tn){{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$n$}}}\gamma_5h_v(0) \rangle$ of (\[eq1\]) yield [@KT09] ($\langle \cdots \rangle \equiv \langle 0| \cdots|\bar{B}(v) \rangle$, the Wilson line is suppressed, and $C_F = (N_c^2-1)/(2N_c)$) $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\!\!\!\!\!\!
{\rm 1LDs}=
\frac{\alpha_s C_F }{2\pi }
\int_0^1 {d\xi } \left[ \left\{ - \left( \frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{UV}^2}
+ \frac{L}{\varepsilon_{UV}} + L^2+ \frac{5\pi^2 }{24} \right)
\delta (1 - \xi )
\right. \right.
+
\left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{UV}} - \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{IR}} \right)
\left( \frac{\xi}{1 - \xi} \right)_+
\nonumber\\
&&
\!\!\!- \left.
\left( \frac{1}{2\varepsilon_{IR} }
+ L \right)\! \right\}\!
\langle
\bar{q}(\xi tn) {{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$n$}}}
\gamma_5 h_v (0)
\rangle
-
\left.
t\left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon_{IR}} + 2 L- 1 - \xi \right)\!
\langle
\bar{q}(\xi tn)v \cdot \overleftarrow{D} {{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$n$}}}
\gamma_5 h_v (0)
\rangle
\right] \!\!+\! \cdots,
\label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ in $D=4-2\varepsilon$ dimensions and Feynman gauge, where $L\equiv \ln\left[i(t-i0) \mu e^{\gamma_E}\right]$ with the ${\overline{\rm MS}}$ scale $\mu$ and the Euler constant $\gamma_E$. The “vertex-type” correction that connects the light-like Wilson line and $\bar{q}(tn)$ in (\[eq1\]) is associated with only the massless degrees of freedom and yields the scaleless loop-integral that gives the term with the “canceling” UV and IR poles, $1/\varepsilon_{UV}-1/\varepsilon_{IR}$, and with the “plus”-distribution $(\xi/(1-\xi) )_+$ as the splitting function; this term is identical to the corresponding correction for the case of the pion LCDA. The other terms in (\[eq2\]) have “non-canceling” UV and IR poles: another vertex-type correction around a “cusp” between the two Wilson lines, the light-like Wilson line of (\[eq1\]) and the time-like Wilson line from $h_v(0)={\rm P}\exp [ig\int_{-\infty}^0d\lambda v\cdot A(\lambda v)]h_v(-\infty v)$, gives the terms proportional to $\delta (1-\xi)$, which contain the double as well as single UV pole, corresponding to the cusp singularity [@Lange:2003ff]. The “ladder-type” correction, connecting the two quark fields in (\[eq1\]), gives all the remaining terms in (\[eq2\]), which contain the IR poles and are associated with not only the bilocal operator in (\[eq1\]), but also the higher dimensional operators; the ellipses in (\[eq2\]) are expressed by the operators involving two or more additional covariant derivatives.
The renormalized LCDA is obtained by subtracting the UV poles from (\[eq2\]) with the trivial quark self-energy corrections complemented. Here, the term with the plus-distribution $(\xi/(1-\xi) )_+$ is analytic (Taylor expandable) at $t=0$, similar to the pion LCDA, but the other terms are not analytic due to the presence of logarithms $L$, $L^2$ [@Lange:2003ff; @Braun:2003wx]. In particular, the nontrivial dependence of the latter terms on $t\mu$ through $L$ implies that the scale $\sim 1/t$ separates the UV and IR regions. Thus, we have to use the operator product expansion (OPE) to treat the different UV and IR behaviors simultaneously: the coefficient functions absorb all the singular logarithms, while, for the local operators to absorb the IR poles, we have to take into account many higher dimensional operators. Such OPE with local operators is useful when the separation $t$ is less than the typical distance scale of quantum fluctuation, i.e., when $t\lesssim 1/\mu$. We note that an OPE for the $B$-meson LCDA (\[eq1\]) was discussed in [@Lee:2005gza], taking into account the local operators of dimension $d \le$ 4 and the NLO ($O(\alpha_s)$) corrections to the corresponding Wilson coefficients in a “cutoff scheme”, where an additional momentum cutoff $\Lambda_{UV}$ ($\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$) was introduced, and the OPE, in powers of $1/\Lambda_{UV}$, was derived for the regularized moments, $M_j = \int_0^{\Lambda_{UV}} d\omega \omega^j
\phi_+ (\omega, \mu)$, in particular, for the first two moments with $j=0, 1$; note, $M_j \rightarrow \infty$ as $\Lambda_{UV} \rightarrow \infty$ [@Grozin:1997pq]. Here, we derive the OPE for (\[eq1\]), taking into account the local operators of dimension $d \le$ 5 and calculating the corresponding Wilson coefficients at NLO accuracy. Following the discussion above, we carry out the calculation for $t\lesssim 1/\mu$ in the coordinate space and in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, so that there is no need to introduce any additional cutoff.
The most complicated task is the reorganization of contributions from (many) Feynman diagrams in terms of the matrix element of gauge-invariant operators including higher dimensional operators, in particular, the three-body operators of dimension 5, such as $\bar{q}G_{\alpha\beta}{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$n$}}} \gamma_5 h_v$ with the field strength tensor $G_{\alpha\beta}$ [@Grozin:1997pq; @KKQT]. To derive the NLO Wilson coefficients associated with such operators, we have to compute the 1-loop diagrams for the 3-point function, as well as those for the 2-point function as in (\[eq2\]), where the former diagrams are obtained by attaching the external gluon line to the latter diagrams in all possible ways. We employ the background field method [@Abbott:1980hw], where the background fields represent the nonperturbative long-distance degrees of freedom and satisfy the exact classical EOM. We use the Fock-Schwinger gauge, $x^\mu A_\mu^{(c)} (x)=0$, for the background gluon field $A_\mu^{(c)}$. This gauge condition is solved to give $A_\mu^{(c)}(x) = \int_0^1 {du} u x^\beta G_{\beta \mu}^{(c)} (ux)$ [@Abbott:1980hw], which allows us to reexpress each Feynman diagram in terms of the matrix element of the operators associated with the field strength tensor. Also, this ensures that the Wilson line in (\[eq1\]), as well as the heavy-quark propagator, does not couple directly to the background gluons while a massless quark or gluon propagator couples to them. With the matching in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, we obtain [@KT09] the OPE, $$\bar{q}(tn)
{\rm P}e^{ig\int_0^td\lambda n\cdot A(\lambda n)}
{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$n$}}}\gamma_5h_v(0)
=C_1^{(3)}(t,\mu) {\cal O}_1^{(3)}(\mu) +\sum_{k=1}^2 C_k^{(4)}(t,\mu) {\cal O}_k^{(4)}(\mu)
+\sum_{k=1}^7 C_k^{(5)}(t,\mu) {\cal O}_k^{(5)}(\mu)\ ,
\label{eq3}$$ where the summation is over a basis of local operators of dimension-$d$, ${\cal O}^{(d)}_k$ ($k=1,2,\ldots$), defined as ${\cal O}^{(3)}_1\equiv \bar{q}n\hspace{-0.45em}/\gamma_5h_v$, $\{ {\cal O}^{(4)}_k \}\equiv\{ \bar{q}(i n\cdot \overleftarrow{D})
n\hspace{-0.45em}/\gamma_5h_v$, $\bar{q}(iv\cdot \overleftarrow{D})
n\hspace{-0.45em}/\gamma_5h_v\}$, and $\{ {\cal O}^{(5)}_k \}\equiv\{
\bar{q}(in\cdot \overleftarrow{D})^2
n\hspace{-0.45em}/ \gamma_5 h_v$, $\bar{q}(iv\cdot \overleftarrow{D})
(in\cdot \overleftarrow{D})n\hspace{-0.45em}
/\gamma_5 h_v$, $\bar{q}(iv\cdot \overleftarrow{D})^2
n\hspace{-0.45em}/\gamma_5 h_v$, $\bar{q}igG_{\alpha\beta}v^\alpha n^\beta n\hspace{-0.45em}/
\gamma_5h_v$, $\bar{q}igG_{\alpha\beta}\gamma^{\alpha}n^{\beta}
\bar{n}\hspace{-0.45em}/\gamma_5h_v$, $\bar{q}igG_{\alpha\beta}\gamma^\alpha v^\beta
\bar{n}\hspace{-0.45em}/
\gamma_5h_v$, $\bar{q}gG_{\alpha\beta}\sigma^{\alpha\beta}
n\hspace{-0.45em}/\gamma_5h_v\}$, with another light-like vector, $\bar{n}^2=0$, as $v_\mu=(n_\mu+\bar{n}_\mu)/2$. The NLO Wilson coefficients are obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
C_1^{(3)}(t,\mu)&& \!\!=
1- \frac{\alpha_sC_F}{4\pi}
\left(2L^2+2L+ \frac{5\pi^2}{12}\right)\ , \;\;\;
C_1^{(4)}(t,\mu)= -it
\left[
1- \frac{\alpha_sC_F}{4\pi}
\left(2L^2+L+\frac{5\pi^2}{12}\right)
\right]\ ,
\nonumber\\
C_2^{(4)}(t,\mu)&& \!\!=
\frac{it\alpha_sC_F}{4\pi}\left(4L-3\right)\ , \;\;\;
C_1^{(5)}(t,\mu)= -\frac{t^2}{2}
\left[1- \frac{\alpha_sC_F}{4\pi}
\left(
2L^2+\frac{2}{3}L+\frac{5 \pi^2}{12}
\right)\right]\ ,
\label{wc}\end{aligned}$$ and, for the explicit form of $C_{2}^{(5)}(t,\mu), C_{3}^{(5)}(t,\mu), \ldots, C_{7}^{(5)}(t,\mu)$, we refer the readers to [@KT09]. Here and below, $\mu$ is the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scale, and $\alpha_s \equiv \alpha_s(\mu)$. The double logarithm $L^2$ in the coefficient functions originates from the cusp singularity (see (\[eq2\])). The 1-loop corrections for the 2-point function induce all of the above ten operators using the EOM, while those for the 3-point function induce only ${\cal O}^{(5)}_{4,5,6,7}$ associated with the field-strength tensor; as a result, the coefficients $C_{4,5,6,7}^{(5)}(t,\mu)$ involve the terms proportional to the color factor $C_G=N_c$ as well as to $C_F$ [@KT09].
Taking the matrix element $\langle \cdots \rangle \equiv \langle 0| \cdots|\bar{B}(v) \rangle$ of (\[eq3\]), we can derive the OPE form of the $B$-meson LCDA (\[eq1\]). The matrix elements of the local operators in (\[eq3\]) are known to be related to a few nonperturbative parameters in the HQET, using the EOM and heavy-quark symmetry as demonstrated in [@Grozin:1997pq; @KKQT]: $\langle {\cal O}^{(4)}_1
\rangle= 4iF(\mu) \bar{\Lambda}/3$, $\langle {\cal O}^{(4)}_2
\rangle
= iF(\mu) \bar{\Lambda}$, with $F$ of (\[eq1\]) and $\bar{\Lambda}=m_B -m_b$, representing the mass difference between the $B$-meson and $b$-quark, and all seven matrix elements $\langle {\cal O}^{(5)}_k \rangle$ for the dimension-5 operators can be expressed by $F$, $\bar{\Lambda}$ and two additional HQET parameters $\lambda_E$ and $\lambda_H$, which are associated with the chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields inside the $B$ meson as $\langle \bar{q}g\bm{E}\cdot \bm{\alpha}
\gamma_5 h_v \rangle
=F(\mu)\lambda_E^2(\mu)$ and $\langle \bar{q}g\bm{H}\cdot \bm{\sigma}
\gamma_5h_v \rangle
=i F(\mu)
\lambda_H^2(\mu)$, respectively, in the rest frame where $v=(1,{\bf 0})$. As a result, we obtain [@KT09] the OPE form for the LCDA (\[eq1\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!
\tilde{\phi}_+(t,\mu)
=
1- \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}
\left(2L^2+2L+\frac{5 \pi^2}{12}\right)
-it\frac{4\bar{\Lambda}}{3}
\left[1- \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}
\left(2L^2+4L-\frac{9}{4}+\frac{5\pi^2}{12} \right)
\right]
\nonumber\\
&&\!\!\!\!
-t^2 \bar{\Lambda}^2 \!\! \left[
1\! - \! \frac{\alpha_sC_F}{4\pi}\!\!
\left(2L^2+\frac{16}{3}L-\frac{35}{9}
+\frac{5\pi^2}{12} \right)\!
\right]
\!\!- \! \frac{t^2\lambda_E^2(\mu)}{3}\!
\left[1\! - \! \frac{\alpha_sC_F}{4\pi}\!
\left( \! 2L^2+2L-\frac{2}{3}
+\frac{5\pi^2}{12} \! \right)
\right.
\nonumber\\
&&\;\;
\left.
+
\frac{\alpha_sC_G}{4\pi}
\left(\frac{3}{4}L-\frac{1}{2}\right)
\right]
-\frac{t^2\lambda_H^2(\mu)}{6}
\left[1- \frac{\alpha_sC_F}{4\pi}
\left(2L^2+\frac{2}{3}
+\frac{5\pi^2}{12} \right)
-\frac{\alpha_s C_G}{8\pi}
\left(L-1\right)
\right]\ ,
\label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$ which takes into account the Wilson coefficients to $O(\alpha_s)$ and a complete set of the local operators of dimension $d \le$ 5. Fourier transforming to the momentum representation and taking the first two ($j=0,1$) regularized-moments, $M_j=\int_0^{\Lambda_{UV}} d\omega \omega^j \phi_+ (\omega, \mu)$, the contributions from the first line in (\[eq4\]), associated with matrix elements of the dimension-3 and -4 operators, coincide completely with the result obtained in [@Lee:2005gza]. The second and third lines in (\[eq4\]) are generated from the dimension-5 operators. Our OPE result (\[eq4\]) “merges” the UV [@Lange:2003ff] and IR structures [@KKQT] peculiar to the $B$-meson LCDA, so that it embodies novel behaviors that are completely different from those of the pion LCDA: $\mu$ and $t$ are strongly correlated due to the logarithmic contributions, $L= \ln\left[i(t-i0) \mu e^{\gamma_E}\right]$, from radiative corrections, so that the DA is not Taylor expandable about $t=0$, which in turn implies the UV divergence in the moments [@Grozin:1997pq; @Braun:2003wx; @Lee:2005gza], $M_j \rightarrow \infty$ as $\Lambda_{UV} \rightarrow \infty$. The DA receives the contributions from (many) higher dimensional operators, in particular, from those associated with the long-distance gluon fields inside the $B$-meson. It is instructive to draw a comparison with the previous results, concerning UV or IR structure: one can prove [@KT09] that (\[eq4\]) satisfies the renormalization group equation for (\[eq1\]), which is governed by the evolution kernel [@Lange:2003ff] determined by the (single) UV poles in (\[eq2\]). On the other hand, (\[eq4\]) reveals that the solution of the EOM constraints for (\[eq1\]), which was obtained in [@KKQT], is subject to additional effects from radiative corrections, see [@KT09] for the detail (see also [@Braun:2003wx]). Such corrections to the EOM constraints at order $\alpha_s$ in perturbation theory is peculiar to the heavy-meson LCDAs in the HQET and does not arise for the case of the (higher twist) LCDAs for the light mesons, $\pi, \rho$, etc. [@Braun:1990iv].
Our OPE form (\[eq4\]) allows us to parameterize all nonperturbative contributions in the $B$-meson LCDA (\[eq1\]) by three HQET parameters, $\bar{\Lambda}$, $\lambda_E$ and $\lambda_H$, and gives a model-independent description of the $B$-meson LCDA when $t \lesssim 1/\mu$ ($\leq 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$), taking into account the UV and IR structures simultaneously. Here, we evaluate (\[eq4\]) at the scale $\mu =1$ GeV: $\bar{\Lambda}=m_B - m_b$ in (\[eq4\]) is defined by the $b$-quark pole mass $m_b$. Following [@Lee:2005gza], we eliminate $\bar{\Lambda}$ in favor of a short-distance parameter, $\bar{\Lambda}_{DA}$, free from IR renormalon ambiguities and written as $\bar{\Lambda}
= \bar{\Lambda}_{DA}(\mu)
\left[ 1 + (7/16\pi) C_F\alpha_s
\right]
-( 9/8\pi)\mu C_F\alpha_s$, to one-loop accuracy; $\bar{\Lambda}_{DA}(\mu)$ can be related to another short-distance mass parameter whose value is extracted from analysis of the spectra in inclusive decays $B\to X_s\gamma$ and $B\to X_u l\,\nu$, leading to $\bar{\Lambda}_{DA}(\mu =1~{\rm GeV})\simeq 0.52$ GeV [@Lee:2005gza]. For the novel parameters associated with the dimension-5 operators, we use the central values of $\lambda_E^2 (\mu) = 0.11 \pm 0.06~{\rm GeV}^2$, $\lambda_H^2 (\mu) = 0.18 \pm 0.07~{\rm GeV}^2$, at $\mu =1$ GeV, which were obtained by QCD sum rules [@Grozin:1997pq]; no other estimate exists for $\lambda_{E}$ or $\lambda_{H}$. We calculate (\[eq4\]) for imaginary LC separation, performing the Wick rotation $t\rightarrow -i\tau$ [@Grozin:1997pq; @Braun:2003wx].
{width="51.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
The results for $\tilde{\phi}_{+}(-i\tau, \mu=1~{\rm GeV})$ using (\[eq4\]) are shown as a function of $\tau$ in the LHS of Fig. 1 [@KT09]: the wide-solid curve shows the whole contributions of (\[eq4\]), while the narrow-solid curve shows the result for $\alpha_s \rightarrow 0$; the NLO perturbative corrections are at the 10-30% level for moderate $\tau$ of order 1 GeV$^{-1} \sim 1/\mu$, while they are very large for $\tau \rightarrow 0$ because of singular logarithms $L^2$ and $L$. The dashed and dot-dashed curves show the contributions of the first two terms and the first line in (\[eq4\]), respectively, associated with the operators of dimension $d =3$ and $d \le 4$, while the dotted curve gives the results of (\[eq4\]) when $\lambda_E=\lambda_H = 0$. For moderate $\tau$, the contributions from the dimension-4 operators suppress the DA by 30-40%, but the dimension-5 operators, in contrast, lead to enhancement by 10-20% with significant effects from $\lambda_E$ and $\lambda_H$. Our $B$-meson LCDA (\[eq4\]) indeed works up to moderate LC distances $\tau$, where the hierarchy among the dashed, dot-dashed, and wide-solid curves demonstrates convergence of the OPE (\[eq3\]).
The two-dot-dashed curve in the LHS of Fig. 1 shows the behavior of the two-component ansatz by Lee and Neubert [@Lee:2005gza], which is given in momentum space as $$\phi_+^{\rm LN}(\omega,\mu)
= N\,\frac{\omega}{\omega_0^2}\,
e^{-\omega/\omega_0} + \theta(\omega-\omega_t)\,
\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{\pi\omega}
\left[ \left( \frac12 - \ln\frac{\omega}{\mu} \right)
+ \frac{4\bar\Lambda_{DA}}{3\omega}
\left( 2 - \ln\frac{\omega}{\mu} \right) \right]\ ,
\label{LNmodel}$$ where the second term reproduces the correct asymptotic behavior of the DA (\[eq1\]) for $\omega \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and the first term represents the nonperturbative component modeled by an exponential form [@Grozin:1997pq], with $\omega_t = 2.33$ GeV, $N=0.963$, and $\omega_0 = 0.438$ GeV at $\mu=1$ GeV; these parameters are fixed by matching the first two ($j=0,1$) cut-moments $\int_0^{\Lambda_{UV}} d\omega \omega^j
\phi_+^{\rm LN} (\omega, \mu)$ with the OPE for the corresponding cut-moments $M_{0,1}$ derived in [@Lee:2005gza], where the operators of dimension $d \le$ 4 and the corresponding Wilson coefficients at NLO are taken into account. For $\tau \lesssim 1$ GeV$^{-1}$, the Lee-Neubert ansatz (\[LNmodel\]) shows behavior similar to (\[eq4\]) with $\lambda_E=\lambda_H = 0$ substituted; note that the first term of (\[LNmodel\]) produces particular contributions associated with the operators of dimension-5 and higher.
For $\tau \gg 1$ GeV$^{-1}$, the contributions associated with higher-dimensional operators become important, and the OPE diverges (see (\[eq4\]) and Fig. 1); thus, one has to rely on a certain model for the large $\tau$ behavior and connect the model-independent descriptions at small and moderate $\tau$ to that model. The results in Fig. 1 suggest the possibility of connecting the behavior for $\tau \le \tau_c$ ($\tau_c \sim 1$ GeV$^{-1}$) given by our OPE form (\[eq4\]) to that for $\tau \ge \tau_c$, given by the coordinate-space representation of the first term of (\[LNmodel\]), $\int_0^\infty d\omega e^{- \omega\tau}\left( N\omega/\omega_0^2\right)
e^{-\omega/\omega_0}=
N/\left( \tau \omega_0 +1\right)^2$. Here, $N$ and $\omega_0$ can be determined such that both the resulting total DA $\tilde{\phi}_+(-i\tau,\mu)$ and its derivative $\partial \tilde{\phi}_+(-i\tau,\mu)/\partial \tau$ are continuous at $\tau=\tau_c$. In the LHS of Table 1, we show [@KT09] the values of $N$ and $\omega_0$ obtained by solving the corresponding conditions of the continuity for $\mu=1$ GeV. (The RHS of Table 1 shows the results that would be obtained by solving the similar continuity conditions with $\lambda_E=\lambda_H=0$.)
----------- ------- ------------- -------------------------------- ------- ------------- -------------------------------
$\tau_c$ $N$ $\omega_0$ $\lambda_B^{-1}$ $N$ $\omega_0$ $\lambda_B^{-1}$
0.4 0.816 0.257 $ 3.11\, \ ( 0.23 + 2.88 )$ 0.832 0.301 $ 2.69\, \ ( 0.23 + 2.46 )$
0.6 0.850 0.306 $ 2.70\, \ ( 0.35 + 2.35 )$ 0.899 0.394 $ 2.19\, \ ( 0.35 + 1.84 )$
0.8 0.852 0.308 $ 2.69\, \ ( 0.47 + 2.22 )$ 0.966 0.461 $ 1.99\, \ ( 0.46 + 1.53 )$
1.0 0.858 0.313 $ 2.66\, \ ( 0.58 + 2.08 )$ 1.11 0.572 $ 1.79\, \ ( 0.56 + 1.23 )$
1.2 0.910 0.349 $ 2.51\, \ ( 0.67 + 1.84 )$ 1.55 0.839 $ 1.56\, \ ( 0.64 + 0.92 )$
1.4 1.09 0.456 $ 2.22\, \ ( 0.76 + 1.46 )$ 4.43 1.95 $ 1.32\, \ ( 0.71 + 0.61 )$
1.6 1.81 0.777 $ 1.87\, \ ( 0.83 + 1.04 )$ 9.82 $-4.55$ $1.11\, \ ( 0.77 + 0.34 )$
----------- ------- ------------- -------------------------------- ------- ------------- -------------------------------
: Parameters of the model function $N/\left( \tau \omega_0 +1\right)^2$ for $\tau \ge \tau_c$ with different values of $\tau_c$, and the results of the inverse moment $\lambda_B^{-1}(\mu)$ at $\mu=1$ GeV, with the first and second numbers in the parentheses denoting the contributions from the first and the second terms in the RHS of (7).
In the RHS of Fig. 1, the wide-solid and two-dot-dashed curves are same as those in the LHS, and the dotted, solid-gray, and dashed curves show the behavior of the above model function $N/\left( \tau \omega_0 +1\right)^2$ for $\tau \ge \tau_c$ with $\tau_c=0.6$, $1.0$, and $1.4$ GeV$^{-1}$, respectively, using the corresponding values of $N$ and $\omega_0$ in the LHS of Table 1; these three curves behave as $\sim N/(\omega_0^2 \tau^2)$ at large $\tau$, with larger $N/\omega_0^2$ than those of (\[LNmodel\]) and the RHS of Table 1. Indeed, we can show that $N/\omega_0^2=(9/4 \bar{\Lambda}_{DA}^2)\left\{1+\tau_c \bar{\Lambda}_{DA}
\left[ \lambda_E^2/ \bar{\Lambda}_{DA}^2+\lambda_H^2/ (2\bar{\Lambda}_{DA}^2)
-1\right]\right\} +\cdots$, using the continuity of $\tilde{\phi}_+(-i\tau,\mu)$, $\partial \tilde{\phi}_+(-i\tau,\mu)/\partial \tau$ at $\tau=\tau_c$, and thus the contributions of $\lambda_E$ and $\lambda_H$ enhance $N/\omega_0^2$.
Using these results, we calculate the first inverse moment of the LCDA, $$\lambda_B^{-1}(\mu) = \int_0^\infty d\omega
\frac{\phi_+(\omega,\mu)}{\omega} = \int_0^{\tau_c} d\tau
\tilde{\phi}_{+}(-i\tau, \mu)+ \int_{\tau_c}^\infty d\tau
\tilde{\phi}_{+}(-i\tau, \mu)\ ,
\label{lambdaB}$$ which is of particular interest for the QCD description of exclusive $B$-meson decays. We substitute (\[eq4\]) and the model function, $N/\left( \tau \omega_0 +1\right)^2$, into the first and the second terms in the RHS, respectively, and the results are shown in Table 1 for each value of $\tau_c$ [@KT09]. The “stable” behavior observed for $0.6~{\rm GeV}^{-1} \lesssim \tau_c \lesssim 1~{\rm GeV}^{-1}$ in the LHS of Table 1 and in the RHS of Fig. 1 suggests that $\lambda_B^{-1}(\mu=1~{\rm GeV})\simeq 2.7$ GeV$^{-1}$, i.e., $\lambda_B(\mu=1~{\rm GeV})\simeq 0.37$ GeV. This value of $\lambda_B$ is somewhat smaller than the previous estimates that include nonperturbative and/or perturbative QCD corrections [@Braun:2003wx; @Lee:2005gza; @Khodjamirian:2005ea] (e.g., (\[LNmodel\]) gives $\lambda_B(\mu=1~{\rm GeV}) \simeq 0.48$ GeV). A value of $\lambda_B$ that is as small as our value was adopted in [@Beneke:2000ry]. Note that in the RHS of Table 1 with $\lambda_{E,H} = 0$, the stable behavior is not seen as clearly as in the LHS, and $\lambda_B$ assumes larger values than in the latter. These results demonstrate that the novel HQET parameters, $\lambda_E$ and $\lambda_H$, associated with the dimension-5 quark-antiquark-gluon operators, could lead to smaller value of $\lambda_B$. In particular, using the values $\lambda_E^2 = 0.17~{\rm GeV}^2$, $\lambda_H^2 = 0.25~{\rm GeV}^2$, which correspond to their upper bound from the QCD sum rule estimate at $\mu=1$ GeV [@Grozin:1997pq], we find that the wide-solid curve in Fig. 1 becomes further enhanced in the moderate $\tau$ region, so that (\[lambdaB\]) gives $\lambda_B(\mu=1~{\rm GeV})
\sim 0.2$ GeV or smaller.
To summarize, we have derived the OPE that embodies both the notorious UV and IR behaviors of the $B$-meson LCDA, including all contributions from the local operators of dimension $d\leq 5$ and the corresponding Wilson coefficients at NLO accuracy. This OPE provides us with the most accurate description of the $B$-meson LCDA for distances less than $\sim 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. We have also used the model-independent behaviors from our OPE to constrain the long-distance behavior of the LCDA and estimate the first inverse moment $\lambda_B^{-1}$. The results demonstrated the impact of the novel HQET parameters, associated with the dimension-5 quark-antiquark-gluon operators.
[99]{}
M. Beneke et al., Nucl. Phys. [**B591**]{} (2000) 313; [**B606**]{} (2001) 245; M. Beneke and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. [**B675**]{} (2003) 333; M. Beneke and S. Jager, Nucl. Phys. [**B751**]{} (2006) 160; [**B768**]{} (2007) 51.
C. W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 201806; Phys. Rev. [**D67**]{} (2003) 071502; H. n. Li and H. L. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{} (1995) 4388; Phys. Rev. [**D53**]{} (1996) 2480.
C. W. Bauer et al., Phys. Rev. [**D70**]{} (2004) 054015; N. Kivel, JHEP [**0705**]{} (2007) 019; V. Pilipp, Nucl. Phys. [**B794**]{} (2008) 154; G. Bell, Nucl. Phys. [**B795**]{} (2008) 1; arXiv:0902.1915 \[hep-ph\].
A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. [**D55**]{} (1997) 272; M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. [**B592**]{} (2001) 3; A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Rev. [**D75**]{} (2007) 054013.
H. Kawamura, J. Kodaira, C.F. Qiao and K. Tanaka, Phys. Lett. [**B523**]{} (2001) 111; Erratum-ibid. [**B536**]{} (2002) 344; Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A18**]{} (2003) 799; Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**116**]{} (2003) 269.
B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} (2003) 102001; S. Descotes-Genon and N. Offen, arXiv:0903.0790 \[hep-ph\]; arXiv:0904.4687 \[hep-ph\].
H. Kawamura and K. Tanaka, Phys. Lett. [**B673**]{} (2009) 201.
V. M. Braun, D. Y. Ivanov and G. P. Korchemsky, Phys. Rev. [**D69**]{} (2004) 034014; G. Bell and T. Feldmann, JHEP [**0804**]{} (2008) 061.
S. J. Lee and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. [**D72**]{} (2005) 094028.
J. S. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. [**82**]{} (1951) 664; E. V. Shuryak and A. I. Vainshtein, Nucl. Phys. [**B199**]{} (1982) 451; [**B201**]{} (1982) 141; I. I. Balitsky and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. [**B311**]{} (1989) 541.
V. M. Braun and I. E. Filyanov, Z. Phys. [**C48**]{} (1990) 239; P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Y. Koike and K. Tanaka, Nucl. Phys. [**B529**]{} (1998) 323; P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. [**B543**]{} (1999) 201.
P. Ball and E. Kou, JHEP [**0304**]{} (2003) 029; A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Lett. [**B620**]{} (2005) 52.
[^1]: Supported in part by the UK Science & Technology Facilities Council under grant number PP/E007414/1.
[^2]: Supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. B-19340063.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that, under appropriate conditions, the waiting time in a queuing system converges to a stationary distribution as time tends to infinity, even in the case where inter-arrival times are dependent random variables. A convergence rate is given and a law of large numbers is established for functionals of the waiting time. These results provide tools for the statistical analysis of such systems, transcending the standard case where inter-arrival times are assumed independent.'
author:
- Attila Lovas
- Miklós Rásonyi
title: 'Ergodic theorems for queuing systems with dependent inter-arrival times [^1]'
---
**Keywords:** Queuing; Dependent random variables; Inter-arrival times; Ergodic theorem
Introduction
============
Let ${\mathbb{R}}_{+}:=\{x\in{\mathbb{R}}:\, x\geq 0\}$. We consider a strongly stationary sequence $(S_{n},Z_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2}$. A single-server queuing model will be considered where customers are numbered by $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. The time between the arrival of customers $n+1$ and $n$ is described by the random variable $Z_{n+1}$, for each $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$. The service time for customer $n$ is given by the random variable $S_n$, for $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$.
The waiting time $W_n$ of customer $n$ satisfies the Lindley recursion $$\label{eq:Lindley}
W_{n+1}=(W_n+S_{n}-Z_{n+1})_+,\ n\in{\mathbb{N}},$$ where, for simplicity, we assume $W_0:=0$ (we start with an empty queue).
The ergodic theory of general state space Markov chains (see e.g. [@mt]) allows to treat the case where $(S_n,Z_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ are i.i.d. The independence assumption, however, seems too strong for applications and we wish to provide theoretical foundations for the statistical analysis of queuing systems also in cases where one of the two sequences is merely stationary.
The mathematics for such a setting is an order of magnitude more difficult as $(W_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ fails to be a Markovian process. We will rely on the recent advances made by [@attila] in the theory of Markov chains in random environments. The case where *both* sequences are only stationary cannot be treated within this framework and requires further study. More complex (e.g. multiserver) queuing systems could be analysed along similar lines but we do not pursue such ramifications here.
As far as we know, ergodicity results in the general, stationary setting can only be found in [@bborovkov] (in Russian), see also Example 14.1 on page 189 of [@borovkov]. Actually, ${\text{Law}(W_n)}$ is known to converge to a limiting distribution under rather mild conditions. However, no convergence rate or law of large numbers is provided. Also, the approach of [@bborovkov] works only for unbounded $Z_{0}$ while we are able to treat the bounded case as well.
Throughout this paper we will be working on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$. For a Polish space $\mathcal{X}$, we denote by ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{X}})$ its Borel sigma-algebra. We denote by ${\mathbb{E}}[Z]$ the expectation of a real-valued random variable $Z$. For a $\mathcal{X}$-valued random variable $X$ we will denote by $\mathcal{L}(X)$ its law on on ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{X}})$. The set of probability measures on ${\mathcal{B}}(\mathcal{X})$ is denoted by ${\mathcal{M}}_1(\mathcal{X})$. The total variation metric on ${\mathcal{M}}_1(\mathcal{X})$ is defined by $${d_{\text{TV}}}(\mu_1,\mu_2)=|\mu_1-\mu_2|({\mathcal{X}}),\quad \mu_1,\mu_2\in{\mathcal{M}}_1(\mathcal{X}),$$ where $|\mu_1-\mu_2|$ denotes the total variation of the signed measure $\mu_1-\mu_2$. We do not indicate the dependence of the metric ${d_{\text{TV}}}$ on $\mathcal{X}$ since the latter will always be clear from the context.
We now present our standing assumptions. In a stable system service times should be shorter on average than inter-arrival times. In our approach we also need that the service time sequence is independent of inter-arrival times. So we formulate the following hypothesis.
\[basic\] We stipulate that ${\mathbb{E}}[S_0]<{\mathbb{E}}[Z_{0}]$ (where the latter may be infinity). The sequences $(S_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ and $(Z_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ are independent.
We say that a sequence $(Y_n)_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ of real-valued random variables satisfies a *Gärtner-Ellis type condition* if there is $\eta>0$ such that the limit $$\label{labbbe}
\Gamma(\alpha):=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\ln {\mathbb{E}}\left[e^{\alpha(Y_1+\ldots+Y_n)}\right]$$ exists for all $\alpha\in (-\eta,\eta)$ and $\Gamma$ is differentiable on $(-\eta,\eta)$.
The notion above is inspired by the Gärtner-Ellis theorem, see [@dembo-zeitouni], and it holds in a large class of models, well beyond the i.i.d. case. For instance, let $Y_n=\phi(H_n)$ for a measurable $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}^m\to{\mathbb{R}}$ satisfying a suitable growth condition and let $(H_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be an ${\mathbb{R}}^m$-valued sufficiently regular Markov chain started from its invariant distribution. Then holds true for all $\eta>0$, see Theorem 3.1 of [@KM2] for a precise formulation.
We mention another example: let $Y_n=\sum_{i=-\infty}^{\infty} a_i\zeta_i$, where $\zeta_i$, $i\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ are independent and identically distributed ${\mathbb{R}}$-valued random variables with finite exponential moments of all orders and $\sum_{i=-\infty}^{\infty} |a_i|<\infty$. Then is satisfied for this process by Theorem 2.1 of [@dehling].
We now present a result on the ergodic behaviour of queuing systems with dependent service time which was obtained in Section 3 of [@attila].
\[thm:queue\] Let $(Z_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be an i.i.d. sequence and let $(S_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be uniformly bounded and ergodic, satisfying a Gärtner-Ellis type condition. Let us assume that $P(Z_{0}>z)>0$ for all $z>0$. Then there exists a probability $\mu_{*}$ on $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}_{+})$ such that $${d_{\text{TV}}}(\mathcal{L}(W_n),\mu_{*})\leq c_1\exp\left(-c_2n^{1/3}\right),$$ for some $c_1,c_2>0$. Furthermore, for an arbitrary measurable and bounded $\Phi:{\mathbb{R}}_{+}\to{\mathbb{R}}$, $$\label{torta}
\frac{\Phi(W_1)+\ldots+\Phi(W_{n})}{n}\to \int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}} \Phi(z)\mu_{*}({\mathrm{d}}z),$$ in probability.$\Box$
In the present article we concentrate on the (arguably) more interesting case where service times are independent but inter-arrival times may well be dependent.
\[thm:queue1\] Let $(S_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be an i.i.d. sequence and let $(Z_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be bounded and ergodic, satisfying a Gärtner-Ellis type condition. Let us assume that ${\mathbb{E}}[e^{\beta_{0} S_{0}}]<\infty$ for some $\beta_{0}>0$ and $\mathcal{L}(S_{0})$ has a density $s\to f(s)$ (w.r.t. the Lebesgue measure) which is bounded away from $0$ on compact subsets of $\mathbb{R}_{+}$. Then the conclusions of Theorem \[thm:queue\] hold.
\[bom\] [The mathematical setting of Theorem \[thm:queue1\] is significantly more involved that that of Theorem \[thm:queue\]. In Theorem \[thm:queue\], one may profit from the fact that, freezing the values of the process $(S_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, the waiting time becomes an inhomogeneous Markov chain with a particular state (the point $0$) which is a reachable atom. In the proof of Theorem \[thm:queue1\] one needs to guarantee ergodicity using a deeper coupling construction.]{}
We can somewhat relax the boundedness condition on $Z_{0}$ in Theorem \[thm:queue1\] above at the price of more stringent assumptions on $S_{0}$. Namely, we assume an exponential-like tail for $S_{0}$ and for $Z_{0}$ a very light tail, like that of the Gumbel distribution at $-\infty$. It will become clear from the proof that requiring a thinner tail for $S_{0}$ (e.g. Gaussian) would necessitate even more stringent tail assumptions for $Z_{0}$, hence we do not strive for further generality here.
\[thm:queue2\] Let $(S_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be an i.i.d. sequence and let $(Z_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ be ergodic, satisfying a Gärtner-Ellis type condition and $P(Z_{0}\geq z)\leq C_{1}\exp\left(-C_{2}e^{C_{3}z}\right)$ with some $C_{1},C_{2},C_{3}>0$. Let us assume that ${\mathbb{E}}[e^{\beta_{0} S_{0}}]<\infty$ for some $\beta_{0}>0$ and the law of $S_{0}$ has a nonincreasing density $s\to f(s)$ such that $f(s)\geq C_{4}e^{-C_{5}s}$, $s\geq 0$ for some $C_{4},C_{5}>0$. Then there exists a probability $\mu_{*}$ on $\mathcal{B}({\mathbb{R}}_{+})$ such that $${d_{\text{TV}}}(\mathcal{L}(W_n),\mu_{*})\leq c_1\exp\left(-c_2 n^{c_{3}}\right),$$ holds for some $c_1,c_2,c_{3}>0$. Furthermore, for an arbitrary measurable and bounded $\Phi:{\mathbb{R}}_{+}\to{\mathbb{R}}$, holds in probability.
Theorems \[thm:queue1\] and \[thm:queue2\] open the door for the statistical analysis of such queuing systems. For example, choosing $\Phi(w):=1_{\{w\geq w_{0}\}}$, $w\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$ for some $w_{0}>0$, the above results guarantee that we can consistently estimate the probability of the waiting time exceeding $w_{0}$ in the stationary state by $(\Phi(W_1)+\ldots+\Phi(W_{n}))/{n}$ for large $n$.
In Section \[recall\] we recall the notion of Markov chains in random environments and certain results of [@attila]. Sections \[p1\] and \[p2\] contain the proofs of our two new theorems.
[Our results are also closely related to those of [@gp]. If $S_n$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ is a bounded sequence of i.i.d. random variables and $Z_n$, $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ is bounded with a certain strong mixing property (see (10) and (11) in [@gp]) then Theorem 2 of [@gp] shows that $W_n$, $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ satisfies a mixing property implying, in particular, a law of large numbers for averages of $\Phi(W_{n})$, for Lipschitz functionals $\Phi$. Our results thus complement those of [@gp]: we establish the existence of a limiting law and even allow certain cases where the $Z_{n}$ are unbounded.]{}
Markov chains in random environments {#recall}
====================================
Let ${\mathcal{Y}}$, ${\mathcal{X}}$ be two Polish spaces and $Y:{\mathbb{Z}}\times\Omega\to{\mathcal{Y}}$ a strongly stationary ${\mathcal{Y}}$-valued stochastic process. Let $Q:{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{X}}\times{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{X}})\to [0,1]$ be a mapping such that for all $B\in{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{X}})$ the function $(y,x)\mapsto Q(y,x,B)$ is ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{Y}})\otimes{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{X}})$-measurable and for all $(y,x)\in{\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{X}}$, $B\mapsto Q(y,x,B)$ is a probability measure on ${\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{X}})$.
We will consider ${\mathcal{X}}$-valued process $X_t$, $t\in{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $X_0=x_0\in{\mathcal{X}}$ is fixed and $$\label{eq:Xdef}
{\mathbb{P}}(X_{t+1}\in B\mid\sigma (X_s,\, 0\le s\le t;\, Y_s,\, s\in\mathbb{Z}))=Q(Y_t,X_t,B)\quad{\mathbb{P}}-{\text{a.s.}},\,t\in{\mathbb{N}}.$$ We interpret the process $X$ as a Markov chain in a random environment described by the process $Y$.
\[def:act\] Let $R:{\mathcal{X}}\times{\mathcal{B}}({\mathcal{X}})\to [0,1]$ be a probabilistic kernel. For a measurable function $\phi:{\mathcal{X}}\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$, we define $$[R\phi](x)=\int_{\mathcal{X}}\phi(z) R(x,{\mathrm{d}}z),\,x\in{\mathcal{X}}.$$
Consistently with Definition \[def:act\], for $y\in{\mathcal{Y}}$, $Q(y)\phi$ will refer to the action of the kernel $Q(y,\cdot,\cdot)$ on $\phi$. First, a Foster-Lyapunov type drift condition is formulated.
\[as:drift\] Let $V:{\mathcal{X}}\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ be a measurable function. We consider measurable functions $K,\gamma:\mathcal{Y}\to \mathbb{R}_{+}$ with $K(\cdot)\geq 1$. We assume that, for all $x\in{\mathcal{X}}$ and $y\in{\mathcal{Y}}$, $$[Q(y)V](x)\le {\gamma}(y)V(x)+K(y).$$
Here ${\gamma}(y)\geq 1$ may well occur, but in the next assumption we require that the system dynamics, on long-time average, is contracting.
\[as:LT\] We assume that $$\bar{{\gamma}}:=\limsup_{n\to\infty}{\mathbb{E}}^{1/n}\left(K(Y_0)\prod_{k=1}^{n}{\gamma}(Y_k)\right) < 1.$$
We stipulate the existence of suitable “small sets”, which are familiar notions in Markov chain theory, see [@mt].
\[as:minor\] Let ${\gamma}(\cdot)$, $K(\cdot)$ be as in Assumption \[as:drift\]. We assume that for some $0<{\varepsilon}<1/\bar{{\gamma}}^{1/2}-1$, there is a measurable function $\alpha:{\mathcal{Y}}\to (0,1)$ and a probability kernel ${\kappa}: {\mathcal{Y}}\times{\mathcal{B}}\to [0,1]$ such that, for all $y\in{\mathcal{Y}}$ and $A\in{\mathcal{B}}$, $$\label{maudit}
\inf_{x\in V^{-1}([0,R(y)])} Q(y,x,A)\ge (1-\alpha (y))
{\kappa}(y,A), \text{ where } R(y)=\frac{2K(y)}{{\varepsilon}{\gamma}(y)}$$ and $V^{-1}([0,R(y)])\neq\emptyset$.
We also need to control the probability of $\alpha(Y_{0})$ approaching $1$. For the purposes of the present paper it is enough to require a simplification of Assumption 2.2 of [@attila].
\[as:myas\] $$\lim_{n\to\infty} {\mathbb{E}}^{1/n^{\theta}}\left[\alpha (Y_0)^n\right] = 0$$ holds for some $0<\theta<1$.
We now recall results of [@attila]: with the above presented assumptions, the law of $X_n$ converges to a limiting law as $n\to\infty$, moreover, bounded functionals of the process $X$ show ergodic behavior provided that $Y$ is ergodic.
\[thm:TV\] Under Assumptions \[as:drift\], \[as:LT\], \[as:minor\] and \[as:myas\], there exists a probability law $\mu_{\ast}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{d_{\text{TV}}}(\mathcal{L}(X_{n}),\mu_{\ast}) \le C_{0}\left(e^{-\nu_{1}n^{2/3}}+\sum_{k=n}^{\infty}
{\mathbb{E}}^{\frac{\nu_{2}}{k^{\kappa\theta}}}[\alpha^{k^{\kappa}-1}(Y_0)]
\right)\label{zoroaster}
\end{aligned}$$ holds for all $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, with some $C_{0},\nu_{1},\nu_{2}>0$, where $\kappa:=\frac{1}{3(1-\theta)}$. If $Y$ is *ergodic*, then for any bounded and measurable $\Phi:{\mathcal{X}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ $$\label{torta}
\frac{\Phi (X_1)+\ldots + \Phi (X_n)}{n} \to \int_{\mathcal{X}}\Phi (z)\,\mu_{\ast}({\mathrm{d}}z), \,n\to\infty$$ holds in probability.
This follows from Theorems 2.8, 2.10 and Lemma 5.4 of [@attila].
Proof in the unbounded case {#p1}
===========================
Throughout this section the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:queue2\] are in force. We will use results of the previous section in the setting $\mathcal{X}=\mathcal{Y}=\mathbb{R}_{+}$; $Y_{n}:=Z_{n}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$. We can easily extend the process $Y$ on the negative time axis in such a way that $Y_{n}$, $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ is stationary and ergodic. Define the parametrized kernel $Q$ as follows: $$Q(z,w,A):={\mathbb{P}}\left[\left(w+S_{0}-z\right)_+\in A\right],\,
z\in\mathcal{Y},\ w\in\mathcal{X},\,A\in{\mathcal{B}}\left(\mathcal{X}\right).$$
We now turn to the verification of Assumptions \[as:drift\] and \[as:LT\].
\[lem:queuing:DriftAndLT\] For some $\bar{\beta}>0$ define $$\begin{aligned}
V(w) &:= e^{\bar{\beta}w}-1,\, w\ge 0,\
K(z) := {\gamma}(z) :=e^{-\bar{\beta}z}{\mathbb{E}}\left[e^{\bar{\beta}S_{0}}\right],\,z\ge 0.
\end{aligned}$$ We have $$\label{driff}
[Q(z)V](w)\le {\gamma}(z)V(w)+K(z)$$ for all $z\in\mathcal{Y}$, $w\in\mathcal{X}$. Furthermore, choosing $\bar{\beta}$ small enough, $$\label{control}
\bar{{\gamma}}:=\limsup_{n\to\infty}{\mathbb{E}}^{1/n}\left(K(Z_{0})\prod_{k=1}^{n}{\gamma}(Z_k)\right) < 1.$$
Let us estimate $$\begin{aligned}
[Q(z)V](w) &=& {\mathbb{E}}[e^{\bar{\beta}(w+S_{0}-z)_{+}}]-1
\le
{\mathbb{E}}[e^{\bar{\beta}(w+S_{0}-z)}]+1-1\\
&=& {\gamma}(z)e^{\bar{\beta}w}
= {\gamma}(z)V(w)+ {\gamma}(z),
\end{aligned}$$ so holds. Define ${\lambda}(\beta):=\Gamma(-\beta)+\ln({\mathbb{E}}[e^{\beta S_{0}}])$, $\beta\in (-\bar{\eta},\bar{\eta})$ where $\bar{\eta}:=\min\{\eta,\beta_{0}/2\}$. Note that $Z_{0}$ has finite exponential moments of all orders. Hence the functions $${\lambda}_n(\beta):=\frac{1}{n}\ln {\mathbb{E}}\left[e^{\beta\sum_{j=1}^n(S_{j}-Z_j)}\right],\ \beta\in (-\bar{\eta},
\bar{\eta}),\
n\geq 1$$ are finite. They are also clearly convex. Define $$\psi_n(\beta):= {\mathbb{E}}\left[\frac{e^{\beta\sum_{j=1}^n(S_{j}-Z_j)}-1}{\beta}\right],\ \beta\in (0,\bar{\eta}),\ n
\geq 1.$$ By the Lagrange mean value theorem and measurable selection, there exists a random variable $\xi_n(\beta)\in [0,\beta]$ such that $$\psi_n(\beta)= {\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(\sum_{j=1}^n(S_{j}-Z_j)\right){}
e^{\xi_n(\beta)\sum_{j=1}^n(S_{j}-Z_j)}\right].$$ Here $$\left(\sum_{j=1}^n (S_{j}-Z_j)\right)e^{\xi_n(\beta)\sum_{j=1}^n(S_{j}-Z_j)}\leq \left(
\sum_{j=1}^n S_{j}\right) e^{\bar{\eta} \sum_{j=1}^n S_{j}},$$ which is integrable. Hence reverse Fatou’s lemma shows that $$\limsup_{\beta\to 0+}\psi_n(\beta)\leq {\mathbb{E}}\left[\sum_{j=1}^n (S_{j}-Z_j)\right]=n
{\mathbb{E}}\left[S_0-Z_0\right].$$ This implies that, for all $n\geq 1$, ${\lambda}_n'(0)=\frac{1}{n}\lim_{\beta\to 0+}\psi_n(\beta)\leq{{\mathbb{E}}\left[S_0-Z_0\right]}<0$.
Since ${\lambda}_n(\beta)\to{\lambda}(\beta)$ for $\beta\in (-\bar{\eta},\bar{\eta})$ by the Gärtner-Ellis-type property of $(Z_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$. It follows from Theorem 25.7 of [@rockafellar] that also ${\lambda}_n'(0)\to{\lambda}'(0)$ hence ${\lambda}'(0)<0$. By Corollary 25.5.1 of [@rockafellar], differentiability of ${\lambda}$ implies its *continuous* differentiability, too. Hence from ${\lambda}(0)=0$ and ${\lambda}'(0)<0$ we obtain that there exists $\bar\beta>0$ satisfying $$\label{matra}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\ln {\mathbb{E}}e^{\bar{\beta}(S_1+\ldots+S_{n})-\bar{\beta}(Z_1+\ldots+Z_n)}<0.$$ By , the long-time contractvity condition holds: $$\label{juj}
\limsup_{n\to\infty} {\mathbb{E}}^{1/n}[K(Z_{0}){\gamma}(Z_1)\ldots{\gamma}(Z_n)]<1$$ since $K(z)\leq {\mathbb{E}}[e^{\beta_{0}S_{0}}]$ for all $z\in\mathcal{Y}$.
Choose $\varepsilon:=(1/\bar{{\gamma}}^{1/2}-1)/2$. Notice that $R:=R(z):=2K(z)/(\varepsilon\gamma(z))=2/\varepsilon$ does not depend on $z$. Now let us turn to the verification of the minorization condition. Let $$h:=\ln\left(\frac{2}{\varepsilon}+1\right)/\bar{\beta}.$$
\[lem:queuing:minor\] For $z\in\mathcal{Y}$, $A\in{\mathcal{B}}\left(\mathcal{X}\right)$ define $\kappa(A):=\kappa(z,A):=\mathrm{Leb}(A\cap [h,h+1])$, where $\mathrm{Leb}$ denotes the Lebesgue measure. Then $$\inf_{w\in V^{-1}([0,R])} Q(z,w,A)\ge (1-\alpha(z)) \kappa(A),\,$$ holds for $$\alpha(z):=\frac{\sqrt{e}}{2}e^{-\frac{f(z+h+1)}{2}}.$$
Notice that $V^{-1}([0,R])=[0,h]$. For each $z\in\mathcal{Y}$, $A\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{X})$ and $w\in [0,h]$, $$\begin{aligned}
Q(z,w,A) &=& {\mathbb{P}}\left(\left[w+S_{0}-z\right]_+\in A \right)
\ge {\mathbb{P}}\left(w+S_{0}-z\in A\cap [h,h+1] \right)\\
&\geq& {\mathbb{P}}\left(S_{0}\in (A+z-w)\cap [h+z-w,h+1+z-w]\right)\\
&\geq& f(z+h+1)\kappa(A+z-w)=f(z+h+1)\kappa(A)\\
&\geq& \frac{f(z+h+1)}{2}\kappa(A)
\geq \frac{\sqrt{e}}{2}e^{-\frac{f(z+h+1)}{2}}\kappa(A),
\end{aligned}$$ by translation invariance of the Lebesgue measure and by the elementary inequallity $$1-x\geq{}
\frac{\sqrt{e}}{2}e^{-x},\ x\in [0,1/2],$$ noting also that $f(z+h+1)\leq 1$. We may conclude.
Let $\mu_{0}$ denote the law of $Z_{0}$. Let $H>0$ be a constant to be chosen later. From Lemma \[lem:queuing:minor\], $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
& & E[\alpha^{n}(Z_{0})]\\
\nonumber &\leq &\int_{0}^{\infty} e^{-\frac{nC_{4}}{2}e^{-C_{5}z}}\mu_{0}(dz)\\
\nonumber &\leq& \int_{0}^{H\ln(n)} e^{-\frac{nC_{4}}{2}e^{-C_{5}z}}\mu_{0}(dz) + P(Z_{0}\geq H\ln(n))\\
\nonumber &\leq& H\ln(n) e^{-\frac{nC_{4}}{2}e^{-C_{5}H\ln(n)}}+C_{1}\exp\left(-C_{2}e^{C_{3}H\ln(n)}\right)\\
\label{astra} &\leq& H\ln(n)\exp\left\{-\frac{C_{4}}{2}n^{1-C_{5}H}\right\}+C_{1}\exp\{-C_{2}n^{C_{3}H}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Choosing $H$ so small that $HC_{5}<1$ we get that Assumption \[as:myas\] holds for $\theta$ small enough. The claimed convergence rate also follows from and .
Proof in the bounded case {#p2}
=========================
Let the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:queue1\] be in force. Notice that Lemma \[lem:queuing:DriftAndLT\] applies verbatim in this case, too.
\[lem:queuing:minor1\] For $z\in\mathcal{Y}$, $A\in{\mathcal{B}}\left(\mathcal{X}\right)$ define $\kappa(A):=\kappa(z,A):=\mathrm{Leb}(A\cap [h,h+1])$. Then $$\inf_{w\in V^{-1}([0,R])} Q(z,w,A)\ge (1-\alpha) \kappa(A),\,$$ holds for a constant $\alpha>0$.
Let $M>0$ be such that $|Z_{0}|\leq M$ almost surely. As in Lemma \[lem:queuing:DriftAndLT\], $$\begin{aligned}
Q(z,w,A) &\geq& {\mathbb{P}}\left(S_{0}\in (A+z-w)\cap [h+z-w,h+1+z-w]\right)\\
&\geq& f(z+h+1)\kappa(A+z-w)\geq [\inf_{v\in [0,M+h+1]}f(v)]\kappa(A),{}
\end{aligned}$$ which proves the statement since $f$ is bounded away from $0$ on compacts.
Assumption \[as:minor\] holds by Lemma \[lem:queuing:minor1\] and Assumption \[as:myas\] holds trivially. Lemma \[lem:queuing:DriftAndLT\] implies Assumptions \[as:drift\] and \[as:LT\]. We can conclude from Theorem \[thm:TV\] with the choice $\theta=1/2$, noting that, in the present case, ${\mathbb{E}}^{\frac{\nu_{2}}{k^{1/3}}}[\alpha^{k^{2/3}-1}(Y_0)]]\leq
\frac{1}{\alpha^{\nu_{2}}}\alpha^{\nu_{2}k^{1/3}}$ and $\sum_{k=n}^{\infty}\alpha^{\nu_{2}k^{1/3}}\leq C_{\sharp}\alpha^{\nu_{\sharp}k^{1/3}}$ for some $C_{\sharp},\nu_{\sharp}>0$.
[9]{}
A. A. Borovkov. *Egodicity and stability of stochastic processes.* Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998.
A. A. Borovkov. . Nauka, Moscow, 1980. In Russian.
R. Burton and H. Dehling. Large deviations for some weakly dependent random processes. , 9:397–401, 1990.
A. Dembo and O. Zeitouni. *Large deviations techniques and applications*, Springer, 1998.
L. Gerencsér and C. Prosdocimi. Input-output properties of the Hinkley detector. *Systems and Control Letters*, 60:486–491, 2011.
I. Kontoyiannis and S. Meyn. Large deviations asymptotics and the spectral theory of multiplicative regular processes. *Electronic J. Probab.*, 10:61–123, 2005.
A. Lovas and M. Rásonyi. Markov chains in random environment with applications in queuing theory and machine learning. *Preprint*, 2019. arXiv:1911.04377
S. P. Meyn and R. L. Tweedie. *Markov chains and stochastic stability.* Springer-Verlag, 1993.
R. T. Rockafellar. *Convex analysis.* Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1972.
[^1]: Both authors thank for the support of the “Lendület” grant LP 2015-6 of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The possible masses and kinetic mixings of hidden $U(1)$s in the LARGE volume scenario are discussed, including the generalisation of the compact manifold to a $K3$ fibration.'
author:
- |
[*Mark Goodsell*]{}\
DESY, Notketra[ß]{}e 85, 22607 Hamburg, Germany
title: |
\
Light Hidden $U(1)$s from String Theory
---
Introduction
============
Many of the talks at PATRAS 2009 (for example that of A. Linder) described laboratory experiments capable of detecting light hidden $U(1)$s; others (e.g. J. Redondo) discussed astrophysical and cosmological searches. As reviewed by J. Conlon, string compactifications generically give additional hidden gauge sectors, in particular hidden U(1)s. This contribution aims to review how hidden U(1)s arise in LARGE volume string compactifications [@LARGEVolumes] and their likely masses and interactions with the visible sector particles [@Goodsell:2009xc].
The LARGE volume scenario involves IIB string theory compactified on a Calabi-Yau manifold having volume ${\mathcal{V}}$ of the form $${\mathcal{V}} = \tau_b^{3/2} - h(\tau_i) \qquad \mathrm{or} \qquad {\mathcal{V}} = \tau_{b'}^{1/2} \tau_{b} - h(\tau_i),$$ where $h$ is a function of $\tau_i$, the Kähler moduli of “small” cycles; and $\tau_b$ is the modulus corresponding to a large cycle. The first case corresponds to a “swiss cheese” manifold; the second is the generalisation to a K3 fibration where now $\tau_{b'}$ represents the $K3$ fibre modulus.
One small cycle contributes a non-perturbative superpotential and this leads to the stabilisation of the Kähler moduli at a non-supersymmetric minimum, provided that the complex structure moduli have first been stabilised by three-form fluxes and that there are more complex structure moduli than Kähler moduli. The volume is stabilised at a large value; as high as $5 \times 10^{27}$ (in units of the string length) for TeV scale strings, $5 \times 10^{13}$ for an intermediate string scale $M_s \sim 10^{10}$ GeV, or $\sim 50$ for GUT scale strings. The standard model is realised upon $D7$-branes wrapping some of the small cycles.
In this scenario there are three classes of candidates for light $U(1)$s. One such class are from (closed) Ramond-Ramond strings [@RRs], counted by the number of complex structure moduli. These may kinetically mix [@Earlykm] with the hypercharge, but they have no matter charged under them, and since the LARGE volume scenario involves compactification on a Kähler manifold they do not have any axionic couplings and are therefore massless. Therefore they can only be detected by production of their gauginos [@Ibarra:2008kn].
We shall instead focus upon the open string $U(1)$s supported on branes, which may have masses and charged matter. For these $U(1)$s wrapping a cycle $\tau_i$ the gauge coupling is given by $g^{-2}_i = \frac{\tau_i}{2\pi g_s} .$ For branes wrapping small cycles these give gauge couplings of the same order as the hypercharge, but if the brane wraps the large cycle $\tau_b$, then the gauge coupling will be hyperweak with $g_b^{-2} \sim \frac{{\mathcal{V}}^{2/3}}{2\pi g_s}$. In the case of a $K3$ fibration this can be even smaller; if $\tau_{b'} \ll \tau_b$ then we can in principle approach $g_b^{-2} \sim \frac{{\mathcal{V}}}{2\pi g_s}$ (although we require $\tau_{b'} \gg \tau_i$).
Kinetic Mixing
==============
If we assume that the additional $U(1)$s are hidden (in contrast to the $Z'$ scenario, see e.g. [@Langacker:2009su]), in that there is no light matter charged under both the visible and hidden sector fields, then we can only detect them via kinetic mixing with the hypercharge [@Earlykm]. The holomorphic kinetic mixing $\chi_{ab}^h$ between two gauge groups $a, b$ with holomorphic gauge couplings $g_a^h, g_b^h$, appears in the Lagrangian density $$\mathcal{L} \supset \int d^2 \theta \left\{
\frac{1}{4 (g_a^h)^2} W_a W_a + \frac{1}{4(g_b^h)^2} W_b W_b
- \frac{1}{2}\chi_{ab}^h W_a W_b \right\},$$ and in type $IIB$ compactifications must have the form $$\chi_{ab}^h = \chi_{ab}^{\mathrm{1-loop}} (z^k, y_i) + \chi_{ab}^{\mathrm{non-perturbative}} (z^k, e^{-\tau_j}, y_i) ,$$ where $z^k, y_i$ are the complex structure and brane position moduli respectively; the perturbative contributions cannot depend upon the Kähler moduli, and thus cannot be volume suppressed. After rescaling to the physical basis via the Kaplunovsky-Louis type relation [@Kaplunovsky:1994fg; @Goodsell:2009xc] $$\frac{\chi_{ab}}{g_a g_b} = \mathrm{Re}(\chi_{ab}^h) + \frac{1}{8\pi^2} \mathrm{tr}\bigg( Q_a Q_b \log Z \bigg) -\frac{1}{16\pi^2} \sum_r n_r Q_a Q_b (r)\kappa^2 K,$$ (where $K$ is the Kähler potential and $Z= \partial_{\alpha} \partial_{\ov{\beta}}K$ is the Kähler metric of matter fields) we find, since we are assuming no light matter charged under both hidden and visible sectors $$\chi_{ab} \sim \frac{g_a g_b}{16\pi^2} \ .$$ This estimate is plotted in figure \[Fig:chivsms\] for the case of branes on a collapsed (small, MSSM-like) cycle and on a LARGE cycle, taking into account the range of possibilities in the general K3 fibration scenario and allowing for an order of magnitude variation in the above estimate.
There is also the possibility, should the kinetic mixing be cancelled, that it is generated by supersymmetry breaking effects; but in the LARGE volume scenario the values obtained are typically very small [@Goodsell:2009xc].
![ Kinetic mixing between the visible U(1) and a U(1) sitting on a collapsed cycle (upper, blue) or a hyperweak U(1) on a LARGE cycle (lower, red) as a function of the string scale.[]{data-label="Fig:chivsms"}](fibremix.eps){width="10cm"}
$U(1)$ Masses
=============
Masses for $U(1)$s supported upon branes can be generated either via the Stückelberg mechanism or by explicit breaking with a charged field obtaining a vacuum expectation value. The latter could be due to a hidden Higgs mechanism or fermion condensate. We shall not discuss fermion condensates, as they would require some strong gauge dynamics in the hidden sector and the scale generated depends very sensitively upon the amount of hidden matter in the theory, so there is no generic prediction.
In the LARGE volume scenario anomalous $U(1)$s automatically obtain masses at the string scale, via the Stückelberg mechanism where the $U(1)$ is eaten by an axion. However, many non-anomalous $U(1)$s still obtain masses, but these generically contain some suppression by volume factors. There are two classes of axions that contribute; those counted by $h_-^{2,2}$ and those counted by $h_+^{1,1}$, respectively Hodge numbers odd and even under the orientifold. If we consider a simplified $2\times 2$ mass matrix of $U(1)$s where the first element corresponds to $U(1)$s on small (or collapsed) cycles and the second to one wrapping the LARGE cycle, then for the two types of contribution we have $$m^2_{{\rm St}\,(1)}
= \frac{g_s}{2} M_s^2 \left( \begin{array}{ll} \sim \mathcal{V}^{1/3} & \sim1 \\
\sim1 & \sim\mathcal{V}^{-1/3} \end{array} \right) , \qquad m^2_{{\rm St}\,(2)}
= \frac{g_s}{2} M_s^2 \left( \begin{array}{ll}
\sim \mathcal{V}^{-1/3} & \sim \mathcal{V}^{-2/3} \\
\sim \mathcal{V}^{-2/3} & \sim \mathcal{V}^{-1} \end{array} \right) .$$ Thus if the a brane wraps a cycle that is anti-invariant under the orientifold projection then the first term will dominate. However, in early constructions of the LARGE volume scenario $h_-^{2,2}=0$. The second contribution arises only if the brane supports two-form fluxes. Thus a hyperweak gauge boson can acquire a mass $m_{\gamma'}$ as low as $\sim \mathrm{meV}$ if the string scale is $\sim \mathrm{TeV}$, for intermediate scale strings $m_{\gamma'} \sim \mathrm{TeV}$ but for a higher string scale the Stückelberg masses are beyond the reach of current experiments.
Finally turning to a hidden Higgs mechanism with hidden Higgs pairs $H_1, H_2$, the minimal potential is $$V = m_1^2 |H_1|^2 + m_2^2 |H_2|^2 + m_3^2 (H_1 H_2 + c.c) + \frac{1}{2} (\xi_{\rm h} + g_{\rm h}|H_1|^2 - g_{\rm h}|H_2|^2)^2,$$ where $m_1,m_2, m_3$ are soft masses and $\xi_{\rm h}=g_Y \chi_{ab} \frac{1}{8} v^2 \cos 2\beta$ is a Fayet-Iliopolous term generated by kinetic mixing with the hypercharge $D$-term, arising from the MSSM Higgs vev $v\simeq 246 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $\beta$ the angle parametrising the relationship between up and down Higgs vevs. If we take the hidden sector gauge coupling to be of the same order as the hypercharge and the soft masses to be generated by “little gauge mediation” from the visible sector, then the Fayet-Iliopoulos term generates a hidden gauge boson mass of $\sim \mathrm{GeV}$ [@DarkForces]. However, if we take the hidden gauge group to be hyperweak, then due to the very small kinetic mixing, we can generate in principle small masses since $m_{\gamma'}^2 = 2g_{\rm h}^2 (|H_1|^2 + |H_2|^2)$.
If the symmetry breaking is dominated by the Fayet-Iliopoulos term, then $m_{\gamma'} = 2 g_h \xi$ and the $m_i$ must necessarily be smaller than $g_{\rm h} \xi$, so that the Higgs mass is $\sim g_{\rm h} \xi \sim m_{\gamma'}$. Moreover, the above simple scenario leaves one Higgs field massless. This is a problem since the Higgs behaves like a minicharged particle, for which there are strict bounds if its mass is less than $\sim \mathrm{MeV}$. This problem persists if we set $m_i > \xi$ so that the hidden $U(1)$ is broken by an MSSM-type Higgs effect, since there $\bra H_1 \ket \sim \bra H_2 \ket \sim m_i/g_{\rm h} \rightarrow m_{\gamma'} \sim m_i$.
To obtain hidden photon masses smaller than $\sim \mathrm{MeV}$, there is a natural mechanism involving an additional hidden $U(1)''$ symmetry with coupling $\tilde{g}_{\rm h} \sim g_Y$ that obtains a mass $m_{\gamma''}$ via the Stückelberg mechanism. In this case, neglecting the Fayet-Ilioupoulos term, the potential is modified to $$\tilde{V} = m_1^2 |H_1|^2 + m_2^2 |H_2|^2 + m_3^2 (H_1 H_2 + c.c) + \frac{1}{2} \bigg[g^2_{\rm h} + \tilde{g}^2_{\rm h} \left(\frac{ m_x^2}{ m_x^2 + m_{\gamma''}^2}\right)\bigg] (|H_1|^2 - |H_2|^2)^2$$ where $m_x$ is the mass of the modulus corresponding to the axion eaten by the $U(1)''$. We then obtain the relation $$m_{\gamma'} \gtrsim \frac{1}{|W_0|} \ m_i \rightarrow m_{\gamma'} \gtrsim \frac{1}{|W_0|} \ \mathrm{MeV},$$ where $W_0$ is a constant parametrising the vacuum expectation value of the superpotential of the underlying supergravity theory. By taking this to be large we can obtain a hierarchy between the hidden gauge boson and Higgs masses, but at the expense of some fine-tuning.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I would like to thank my collaborators on this subject: Karim Benakli, Joerg Jaeckel, Javier Redondo and Andreas Ringwald; and for useful conversations Michele Cicoli, Joe Conlon, Nick Halmagyi, Amir Kashani-Poor, Sameer Murthy and Waldemar Schulgin.
[99]{}
V. Balasubramanian, P. Berglund, J. P. Conlon and F. Quevedo, JHEP [**0503**]{} (2005) 007; C. P. Burgess, J. P. Conlon, L. Y. Hung, C. H. Kom, A. Maharana and F. Quevedo, JHEP [**0807**]{} (2008) 073; M. Cicoli, J. P. Conlon and F. Quevedo, JHEP [**0810**]{} (2008) 105; M. Cicoli, C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, JCAP [**0903**]{} (2009) 013; J. P. Conlon, A. Maharana and F. Quevedo, JHEP [**0905**]{} (2009) 109. M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald, JHEP [**0911**]{} (2009) 027
H. Jockers and J. Louis, Nucl. Phys. B [**705**]{} (2005) 167; T. W. Grimm and A. Klemm, JHEP [**0810**]{} (2008) 077; T. W. Grimm, T. W. Ha, A. Klemm and D. Klevers, Nucl. Phys. B [**816**]{} (2009) 139; A. Arvanitaki, N. Craig, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky and J. March-Russell, arXiv:0909.5440.
J. Polchinski and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D [**26**]{} (1982) 3661; B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B [**166**]{} (1986) 196; L. B. Okun, Sov. Phys. JETP [**56**]{} (1982) 502 \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**83**]{} (1982) 892\]; F. del Aguila, G. D. Coughlan and M. Quiros, Nucl. Phys. B [**307**]{} (1988) 633 \[Erratum-ibid. B [**312**]{} (1989) 751\]; K. R. Dienes, C. F. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Nucl. Phys. B [**492**]{} (1997) 104 ; S. A. Abel and B. W. Schofield, Nucl. Phys. B [**685**]{} (2004) 150 ; S. A. Abel, J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze and A. Ringwald, Phys. Lett. B [**666**]{} (2008) 66 ; S. A. Abel, M. D. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze and A. Ringwald, JHEP [**0807**]{} (2008) 124 . A. Ibarra, A. Ringwald and C. Weniger, JCAP [**0901**]{} (2009) 003. P. Langacker, arXiv:0911.4294 \[Unknown\]. V. Kaplunovsky and J. Louis, Nucl. Phys. B [**422**]{} (1994) 57; K. Benakli and M. D. Goodsell, arXiv:0909.0017.
N. Arkani-Hamed and N. Weiner, JHEP [**0812**]{} (2008) 104; E. J. Chun and J. C. Park, JCAP [**0902**]{} (2009) 026; C. Cheung, J. T. Ruderman, L. T. Wang and I. Yavin, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{} (2009) 035008; D. E. Morrissey, D. Poland and K. M. Zurek, JHEP [**0907**]{} (2009) 050; Y. Cui, D. E. Morrissey, D. Poland and L. Randall, JHEP [**0905**]{} (2009) 076;
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'D.A. Noreña, J. C. Muñoz-Cuartas, L.F. Quiroga, , and N. Libeskind'
title: 'Substructures in Minor Mergers’ Tidal Streams'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The galactic halo has plenty of astrophysical systems evolving under the interaction of the different galactic components. These substructures have diverse nature, dynamics and origins and together constitute the building blocks of the ongoing galaxy formation process. Among others, there are many stellar subsystems as the open and globular clusters [@Binney2008], pure gaseous ones as high velocity clouds (HVC) [@Wakker1997] and combined gaseous and stellar systems such as tidal streams and satellite galaxies [@Ibata2001].
Open and globular clusters are segregated by several characteristics. Open clusters are considered as more young, metal rich than their globular counterparts, in addition, open clusters are associated spatially with the galactic disc while globular are mostly distributed spherically all around the halo. This segregation suggest that their formation processes are diverse. In one hand, the formation of open clusters is considered well understood as the collapse and fragmentation of molecular clouds in the galactic disk [@Elmegreen1997]. The case of globular clusters exhibits a greater degree of complexity because actually there are two subpopulations of them. There is a metal poor globular cluster population (MPGC) extended across the halo, and the young, metal rich population (MRGC) [@Carroll2006]. In addition, there are several cases that do not fit very well in the two previous subpopulations as it is the case of the globular cluster $\omega$-Centauri (henceforth $\omega$-Cen) mainly due to its unusual size and metallicity dispersion [@Harris1999]. This variety suggests that even only for the globular clusters there are diverse formation mechanisms.\
Different models have been proposed to explain possible formation mechanisms for the two subpopulations of globular clusters in The Galaxy. For the old MPGC subpopulation the widely accepted hypothesis is that they come from primordial density fluctuations in the density field at very high redshift, when the universe expanded and cooled to a temperature of about 4000K and the baryonic density was approximately $10^4$ atoms cm${}^{-3}$ [@Reina-Campos2019]. Under this conditions, the only density fluctuations that can grow with time has wavelength in excess of the critical Jeans length of about 5 pc [@Peebles1968].\
For the young MRGC subpopulation, several models have been proposed but it appears that there is not a single mechanism that can form all existing MRGC in a given galaxy [@Ashman1992; @Bekki2003; @Shapiro2010]. One of the main models suggests that a significant fraction of the metal-rich subpopulation may have originated in interacting galaxies, both minor and major mergers [@Ashman1992]. Major mergers cause several starburst episodes in the gaseous component of each galaxy, and globular clusters can be formed in regions with high gas density [@Li2004]. Minor mergers may also contribute to the young population with clusters formed within the small satellite galaxy from the interaction with the larger galaxy [@Zepf1993]. Also, the globular cluster system of the minor galaxy would eventually be accreted by the largest galaxy, also contributing to the MPGCs subpopulation [@Forbes2010]. The minor merger scenario can be seen in the Magellanic Clouds, where there is observational evidence of ongoing cluster formation and an ancient cluster system bound to the clouds [@Harris1998; @Georgiev2010]. It was further suggested that the very central region of a satellite galaxy could form a globular cluster as the bound structure surviving the effects of the tidal stripping induced by its host galaxy [@Bekki2002].\
Moreover, recently observational evidence that suggests that several (if not all) GCs contain various stellar populations has come to light. For example, many GC stars have the same amount of Fe (and other heavy elements) inside a specific radius, but a wide variation in light elemental abundance (Li-Ai) on a star-to-star basis [@Conroy2011]. @Norris2011 is a crucial study in this problem; they showed that some ultra-compact dwarf galaxies have color magnitude diagrams indistinguishable from those of GCs and the nuclei of dwarf galaxies. @Bekki2003 found that the multiple stellar populations of $\omega$-Cen can be explained in terms of a nucleated dwarf galaxy scenario: the tidal field of the host galaxy induces gas inflow towards the center of the cluster progenitor, triggering multiple star bursts that lead to chemical enrichment. Other GC candidates that are thought to have formed in ostensibly dark matter potential wells deep enough to retain self-enriched Fe produced by supernovae Ia explosions include M22, NGC 1851 and Andromeda’s G1. The evidence showing chemical complexity of the cluster stellar populations suggest that the classical picture of all GC’s belonging to a single monolithic population should be reevaluated.\
Similarly, HVCs appear to be the result of two possible mechanisms: One is the return to the disc of gas and dust expelled via supernovae events and the other is the infall of gas and dust from a stripped subsystem, such as globular clusters or satellite galaxies [@Wakker1997].\
A combination of both processes is necessary to explain the current distribution of high and intermediate velocity clouds. For example, from hydrodynamical simulations it is concluded that most massive HVC such as the well known Complex C were originated from ejection of material from the Milky Way’s disc [@Fraternali2015]; but the velocity dispersion, the metallicity, sizes and masses of the smallest clouds are consistent with an extragalactic origin [@Blitz1999; @Binney2009].\
{width="90.00000%"}
As a result of the tidal disruption of the Galaxy subsystems, the so-called tidal streams are originated. They are composed in most cases by stars and gas [@Belokurov2006], like the Magellanic Stream, where recent observations have confirmed the presence of a young open star cluster most likely formed in the stream [@Price-Whelan2018]. Remarkably, all the streams observed in the Milky Way galaxy are clearly nohomogeneous and exhibit overdensities [@Kupper2012]. These overdensities evolve in the galactic potential as well, undergoing different processes that could eventually transform them into self gravitating systems like clusters. The main purpose of this work is to determine through $N-$body simulations of galaxy minor mergers if the overdensities in the tidal streams could really meet the conditions to be considered self-gravitating substructures. In a future work, we will investigate under what conditions the evolution of such substructures could lead to the formation of real astrophysical systems such as globular clusters and high velocity clouds.\
This paper is organised as follows: In Section 2 we describe the whole setup of the $N-$body simulations, from the determination of the satellite galaxy initial position to the structure of the host galaxy passing through the astrophysical characteristics of the satellite. In Section 3 we describe the analysis performed to the simulations outputs in order to search and characterise the overdensities. In Section 4 we present our results to finally discuss them and present the conclusions in Section 5.
Numerical Procedures {#sec:Procedures}
====================
The numerical setup of the $N-$ body simulations used in this work comprises two stages. In the first instance the galaxies were generated in isolation, in this case, we generate a host disc galaxy and a spheroidal satellite galaxy, both with and without gas. We used these galaxy models to explore different merger configurations. In the following sections we describe in detail each part of the procedure.
{width="90.00000%"}
We used the code Gadget2 to run all our simulations (details of the code can be found in @Springel2005). Gadget2 is a general purpose code to study the evolution of collisionless gravitational systems. Collisionless particles representing stars and dark matter evolve only under gravity using a tree method. To follow the evolution of gas an entropy based smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) scheme [@Springel2002] is used with adaptive smoothing lengths, allowing conservation of energy and entropy in adiabatic regions. A synchronization scheme within the integration scheme is used, this is a quasi-symplectic KDK leap-frog with adaptive individual time-steps. The code uses a parallelization algorithm based on a space-filling curve getting high flexibility with high accuracy in tree force estimation.
Initial conditions
------------------
### Isolated Galaxies
The host galaxy in this work consists of a disk galaxy composed of a stellar disk and a dark matter halo. Neither gas in the disk nor a central spheroid is included in the model. The satellite galaxy is modelled as a spherical galaxy with a collisionless spheroid hosting a gaseous sphere in hidrostatic equilibrium.
Initial conditions were computed using moments of the collisionless Boltzmann equation [@Hernquist1993; @Springel2004]. The dark matter halo of both galaxies follow a Hernquist density profile with scale length parameter adjusted to fit the shape of the NFW density profile as done in @Springel2005.
Masses for the galaxies are taken from the CLUES simulations [@Gottloeber2010; @Forero2011]. The mass of the dark matter halo hosting the disk galaxy is $7.9\times 10^{11}$[$h^{-1}\rm{M_{\odot}}$]{}with a concentration parameter of $c=4.15$. The satellite galaxy has a total mass of $3.2\times 10^{10}$[$h^{-1}\rm{M_{\odot}}$]{}, and $c=4.26$. Since it is not reasonable to simulate the formation of globular clusters observed today using properties of current host galaxies, the masses and properties of these two progenitor galaxies are related to the properties of the Milky Way galaxy and one of its satellites at $z=2$ as observed from the constrained simulations made by CLUES. Galaxy disk structure (disk scale length, etc.) is modelled using the prescription of @Mo1998 from which the scale parameters of the disk are $r_d=1.53$ kpc and $z_0=0.31$ kpc.\
{width="90.00000%"}
The host galaxy has a stellar disk with a mass of $3.3\times
10^9$[$h^{-1}\rm{M_{\odot}}$]{}where we have used @Moster2010 to estimate the total stellar mass for the given dark matter halo at $z=2$ and assumed that all the stellar mass is deposited in the disk. Since we are not interested in the evolution of the gas in the disk of the host galaxy and we assume it does not have a dominant effect on the dynamics of the merger, we do not include a gaseous component into this galaxy.
The satellite galaxy is composed of collisionless particles representing dark matter or stars, and has also a gaseous component. Initially, the gas follows a density profile similar to the profile of the dark matter halo in hydrostatic equilibrium. Hydrostatic equilibrium is guaranteed through gas temperature which is computed as @Mastropietro2005
$$T(r)=\frac{m_p}{k_B\rho_g(r)}\int_r^{\infty}\rho(r)\frac{GM(r)}{r^2}\mathrm{d}r,$$
where $m_p$ is the proton mass, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant and $\rho_g(r)$ is the gas mass density. In order to provide a favorable scenario for the formation of clusters from the material deposited in the stream, the total gas mass in the satellite has been chosen to be $\sim 16\%$ of its total mass, providing the scenario for a gas rich merger. Although arbitrary, the gas fraction is in no way larger than the cosmological baryon fraction in a dark matter halo [@Lin2008]. We could have included a disk of cold gas in to the satellite, however this would have implied a new degree of freedom in our simulations (see next section). Since the direction of the disk may affect the formation of a stream and formation of potential candidates to GCs in our simulations, we decided to go for a simpler spherical distribution looking for a point that is general enough to study the formation of potential GCs in our simulations. We claim that if any structure is formed with this setup, for sure, they can be formed in more favorable conditions where a disk provides cold gas to the stream.\
\[fig:orbitalscheme\]
All galaxies are simulated in isolation after the generation of initial conditions in order to allow for numerical relaxation of the initial conditions. Figure \[fig:NumRelax\] shows, for the dark matter halos, the convergence of the profiles from the initial conditions to the final relaxed density profile. Note that the mass distribution only changes in the very inner region and after the first 1 Gyr the profile is relaxed. Also, the satellite galaxy reaches relaxation basically very close from the beginning. This check is relevant since it is important to make sure that there is no numerical artificial evolution on the density distribution of the galaxies, since in this way we can ensure that any change in the mass distribution of the system during the merger is due to the dynamics of the merger and is not spurious numerical noise or any instability originated from the initial conditions.
### Merger configuration
The mergers we plan to study in this work are somehow artificial in the sense that they do not correspond to the simulation of any realistic system. However these simulations must reproduce the reality of our universe. In that sense, there is an infinite set of possible merger simulations we could run, each with a different orbit. To avoid running many orbits, and at the same time trying to reproduce the expected results from our understanding of the universe, we will use the results shown in @Wetzel2011 to choose the orbits to be studied in this work. In their work @Wetzel2011 study the probability distribution of orbital parameters of infalling satellite galaxies. From them, we use the mean orbital parameters as those of a representative merger that is in agreement with the current cosmological paradigm.
Then, to configure the merger we need to obtain realistic values of the initial position $\mathbf{r}_0$ and velocity $\mathbf{v}_0$ of the satellite galaxy. For that, from @Wetzel2011, we use the circularity $\eta$ and the pericenter $r_p$ distance that depend on the host halo mass $M_{\mathrm{host}}$ and redshift $z$ and that for our host halo mass are distributed at the moment of their passage through the host’s virial radius according to the distribution functions shown in figures \[fig:circularity\] and \[fig:pericentre\]. In both figures, the mean values of the circularity and the pericentre at $z=2$ are highlighted with a small vertical green line.
Orbit circularity has a nearly constant small rate of decrease with redshift while pericenter distance exhibits a decrease in its average values with $z$. In particular, at $z = 2$ we obtain an average pericentric distance of $0.27R_{\mathrm{vir}}$, with $R_{\mathrm{vir}}$ the virial radius of the host halo. For this halo $R_{\mathrm{vir}}\approx r_{200} = 63.29$ kpc. The average circularity at $z = 2$ is 0.54. With this two values we calculate the eccentricity $e$ and apocentric distance $r_a$ using the two body approximation as
$$e = \sqrt{1-\eta^2}, \\$$
$$r_a = \left(\frac{1+e}{1-e}\right)r_p.$$
For our system, the numerical values were found to be $e = 0.84$ and $r_a = 198.34$ kpc. Finally, making use of the *vis-viva* equation, the velocity at apogalacticon is simply
$$v_a = \sqrt{2\frac{GM}{r_a}(1-e)},$$
{width="100.00000%"}
which turns to be 34.9 km/s for our infalling satellite.\
In all simulations the host galaxy disk was always in the $x-y$ plane with its angular momentum aligned with the z-axis. Based on the orbital parameters given in the previous paragraph, the merger was disposed in five different configurations. The only difference between each configuration is their location relative to the disc plane and its orbital motion direction relative to the disc rotation. The configuration parameters are shown in table \[tab:orbitalconfiguration\] and a schematic illustration of all of them is represented in figure \[fig:orbitalscheme\].
Simulations {#sec:sims}
-----------
Some of our simulations include star formation modeled as shown in @Springel2003. In this model a cold gas particle is able to convert part of its mass in stars when several criteria are met. Its temperature should be lower than $10^4$ K and its density should be larger than a predefined threshold density ($\rho_{\mathrm{th}}$). Additionally, the cooling time should be shorter than the collapse time of the cloud $t_{cooling}<\frac{1}{\sqrt{G\rho}}$ and the local gas flow must be negative ($\nabla \cdot \vec{v}<0$). These conditions guarantee that gas-rich regions, where the star formation process must happen, are colder, denser and undergoing collapse. Once a gas particle meets criteria to form stars, they are formed stochastically with a sampling determined by the local star formation rate. We refer the reader to @Springel2003 for further details on the model and implementation of the star formation. Our goal is to study the posibility of formation of globular cluster-like structures in this kind of mergers. We are not interested in to study the process of star formation in these candidate structures since it will be very much dependent on the model and implementation of the different feedback mechanisms and star formation. Our interest introducing star formation and feedback in our simulations is to provide the gas with some sort of realistc conditions that can be meet for candidate structures to form.
------------------------- -------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
Name Nomenclature $\mathbf{r}_0$ (kpc) $\mathbf{v}_0$(km/s)
\[0.1cm\] Perpendicular *p* (0,0,198.34) (0,34.9,0)
Planar Corrotating *pcr* (0,198.34,0) (-34.9,0,0)
Planar Contrarotating *pct* (0,198.34,0) (34.9,0,0)
Inclined Corrotating *icr* (99.6,99.6,140.25) (-24.67,24.67,0)
Inclined Contrarotating *ict* (99.6,99.6,140.25) (24.67,-24.67,0)
------------------------- -------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
As it is well known, SPH suffers from fragmentation instabilities that lead small gas clumps to cluster forming a set of non-physical structures [@Bate1997; @Torrey2013]. Since what we are looking for in our simulations is exactly fluctuations in the mass distribution we need to make sure that we find candidates that are not just spurious numerical fragments formed due to the SPH instability. In order to avoid this, we ran the same set of initial conditions for several different particle resolutions and we found that the substructures present in the lower resolution simulation were recognizable in the higher resolution simulations, maybe with a little spatial displacement due to changes in the global dynamics of the system as it can be seen in figure \[fig:candidates-simulations\] (See section \[sec:identification\] to see how these substructures were identified). Increasing the resolution of the simulations allow us to verify that what we find as substructure candidates are true candidates and not numerical artifacts. Section \[sec:Resolution\] describes in better detail the results of our convergence study.
We design two sets of experiments to explore the formation of substructures in the tidal streams of the satellite galaxy. The first consists in pure collisionless systems, or in other words, gas-free simulations. The main purpose of these first experiment was to verify if the collisionless matter alone could cluster and form bound systems without the influence of gas. This set of simulations was named DMO (Dark Matter Only), specifically DMO1 and DMO2 whose only difference is the number of particles in the satellite as it is shown in Table \[tab:tab2\] where we show the masses, number of particles and mass per particle of each galactic component in our models.\
The second set of simulations included gas in the satellite and were designated with the nomenclature GAS. The difference among them is the increased resolution, being GAS3 the one with the highest resolution. Table \[tab:tab2\] summarizes the resolution specifications of the GAS experiment.\
As it can be seen in table \[tab:tab2\] the SPH particle mass is of the order of $5\times10^{3}$ [$h^{-1}\rm{M_{\odot}}$]{} for GAS3. If we assume that typical masses for globular cluster candidates are of the order of $10^{5}$ to $10^{7}$ [$h^{-1}\rm{M_{\odot}}$]{}in this simulation we could resolve globular cluster like structures with between 20 to 2000 gas particles. Again, we are not interested in to study star formation in those objects (which will imply the necessity of larger resolution simulations in order to sample properly star formation inside the clusters) but study the collapse of gas in the candidate structures, therefore these numbers are good enough for the purposes of our work. Finally, we have ran our simulations during a time interval of the order of 7 Gyr, long enough to study the evolution of the satellite remnants as it would be observed in present time.
[c|c|c|c|c]{}\
Name & Component & Mass ($\textrm{M}_{\odot}$) & $N_p$ & $m_p$ ($\textrm{M}_{\odot}$)\
DMO1 & Satellite & $3.2\times10^{10}$ & $1.0\times10^{5}$ & $3.2\times10^{5}$\
& Disk & $3.3\times10^{9}$ & $5.6\times10^{4}$ & $6.4\times10^{4}$\
& Halo & $7.9\times10^{11}$ & $7.3\times10^{5}$ & $1.1\times10^{6}$\
DMO2 & Satellite & $3.2\times10^{10}$ & $2.0\times10^{5}$ & $1.6\times10^{5}$\
& Disk & $3.3\times10^{9}$ & $5.6\times10^{4}$ & $6.4\times10^{4}$\
& Halo & $7.9\times10^{11}$ & $7.3\times10^{5}$ & $1.1\times10^{6}$\
\
Name & Component & Mass ($\textrm{M}_{\odot}$) & $N_p$ & $m_p$ ($\textrm{M}_{\odot}$)\
GAS1 & Satellite & $2.5\times10^{10}$ & $4.0\times10^{5}$ & $6.2\times10^{4}$\
& Gas & $5.0\times10^{9}$ & $2.0\times10^{5}$ & $2.5\times10^{4}$\
& Disk & $3.3\times10^{9}$ & $5.6\times10^{4}$ & $6.0\times10^{4}$\
& Halo & $7.9\times10^{11}$ & $7.3\times10^{5}$ & $1.1\times10^{6}$\
GAS2 & Satellite & $2.5\times10^{10}$ & $8.0\times10^{5}$ & $3.1\times10^{4}$\
& Gas & $5.0\times10^{9}$ & $4.0\times10^{5}$ & $1.2\times10^{3}$\
& Disk & $3.3\times10^{9}$ & $5.6\times10^{4}$ & $6.4\times10^{4}$\
& Halo & $7.9\times10^{11}$ & $7.3\times10^{5}$ & $1.1\times10^{6}$\
GAS3 & Satellite & $2.5\times10^{10}$ & $3.0\times10^{6}$ & $8.3\times10^{3}$\
& Gas & $5.0\times10^{9}$ & $1.0\times10^{6}$ & $5.0\times10^{3}$\
& Disk & $3.3\times10^{9}$ & $5.6\times10^{4}$ & $6.4\times10^{4}$\
& Halo & $7.9\times10^{11}$ & $1.0\times10^{7}$ & $7.9\times10^{4}$\
Analysis
========
Density Estimation
------------------
Overdensities are, by definition, regions with a spatial mass density that is larger than its surroundings. Hence, the best way to identify them is by estimating the mass density in the body of the tidal streams. High density regions will be the best candidates to form autogravitating substructures. We used the EnBiD (Entropy Based Binary Decomposition) algorithm to calculate the density distribution in real and phase spaces [@Sharma2006].\
The EnBiD algorithm is sensitive to the spatial anisotropies of the mass distribution by the implementation of the anisotropic smoothing tensor. In this way, any density underestimation is prevented due to the ability of the method to use particles along a preferred direction and not only spherically symmetric around the point of interest, as the isotropic kernels do. Figure \[fig:gas\_density\_threshold\] shows the estimated density for the total number of particles in one of the GAS simulations at $t=3.75$ Gyr. In the figure we show the density of gas, halo dark matter, disk and satellite particles. New stars formed from gas particles are also included. Note that this figure only shows the densities of particles ranked by ID (and type) but allows to see the high density peaks. As we know, these density peaks are associated to gravitational instabilities and should be related to anisotropies in the density distribution of each galactic component, therefore, an adequate density threshold can be selected to extract the prominent overdensities in the particle distribution.
As it can be seen in the figure, the overal density of the halo, disk and a fraction of particles of the satellite have a lower density value than that for a fraction of particles of gas and stream material (which in this case corresponds to the last bump composed of satellite particles and new born stars). The peaks in the values of the estimated density can be used to fix a density threshold $\rho_{th}$ that can be used to identify global overdensities, as it is shown by the horizontal line in figure \[fig:gas\_density\_threshold\]. Notice that only a fraction of gas, satellite and new star particles are above this threshold, and one expects that since those overdensities are induced by gravitational instability, they are spatially correlated, as it can be seen in figure \[fig:candidates-simulations\]. This density threshold is an important part of the process of identification of high density peaks corresponding to the seed of the identification of potential cluster candidates.
Identification of Substructure Candidates {#sec:identification}
-----------------------------------------
Once the densities of the particles have been calculated, we aimed to identify the overdensities in the field of the stream in order to label them as possible candidates. We start by estimating density maps as described in the previous section. These maps highlight the overdensities above the underlying distribution of particles as it is shown in figures \[fig:satellite\_WO\_gas\] and \[fig:satellite\_with\_gas\]. Then, the identification is carried out by the following series of steps:
{width="86.00000%"}
- First the candidates are identified by performing a selection of particles through a phase space density threshold $\rho_{\mathrm{th}}$. Particles with phase-space densities below the density threshold are ruled out as potential center of some candidate clump. The value of $\rho_{\mathrm{th}}$ was chosen examining the values of the density of the simulation using, for instance, a plot like the one shown in figure \[fig:gas\_density\_threshold\] in which we clearly distinguish between particles of high and low density. The density threshold could be different from one simulation to another.
- Once the particles with $\rho<\rho_{\mathrm{th}}$ are ruled out, we elaborate a three dimensional spatial plot of the particles that are left. In this plot, it is identified, *by eye* a centre of each overdensity. The coordinates of the centre at that particular snapshot are then estimated to be $\mathbf{r}_c=(x_c,
y_c, z_c)$. We chose a random snapshot to do this procedure, but it is preferable that the system has had an important evolution, maybe after the satellite has passed several times through the disk. The fact that at this point we choose by hand the position of the candidate has no effect on the results. Using for example a method like spherical overdensity would work equally well since we are just finding a guess for the position of the overdensity.
- Based on the three dimensional plot built before, it can be roughly estimated the size of the overdensity. We assign a spherical radius $R_0$, measured from the centre $\mathbf{r}_c$, trying to encompass the largest number of overdensity particles. Then, particles with position $\mathbf{r}_p=(x_p,y_p,z_p)$, which meet the condition $|\textbf{r}_p-\textbf{r}_c|<R_0$ are said to be in the first guess of the candidate list. After inspection, we have found that using a value of $R_0 \sim 2.0$ Kpc was enough to encompass all initial particles in each substructure that will be used later to track the actual set of bound particles.
{width="90.00000%"}
{width="115.00000%"}
{width="100.00000%"}
{width="90.00000%"}
- With the ID number of each particle in the candidate list, we track the position and velocities of such particles in all the snapshots in the simulations. At this point, we compute the center of mass of the particles in the candidate (for each snapshot) and look for particles of any kind that lie within a sphere of radius $R_{th}=0.7$Kpc, including dark matter particles from the host and the satellite halos, gas, disk particles and new stars born during the interaction. Notice that across the snapshots particles can come in and out of the sphere of $R_{th}=0.7$Kpc in a way that the list of particles that actually belong to the candidate has to be updated dynamically.
- Then, for every snapshot, we compute the properties of the clump in order to inspect the evolution of the visually identified clouds with an astrophysical observed system. Such properties are center of mass, energy binding, total mass, the mass by type of particle, central and mean densities, tidal and core radii and the tidal heating.
Resolution Study Against Artificial Fragmentation {#sec:Resolution}
-------------------------------------------------
The numerical scheme used to simulate the hydrodynamics of the gas could impact the formation of clumps within the molecular clouds in an artificial way. The resolution of a SPH simulation involving gravity is therefore a critical quantity in order to obtain realistic results from physical process rather than artificially induced mechanisms by numerical fluctuations.\
As it is widely known, in SPH the properties of gas particles are obtained by summing the properties of all the particles that lie within a sphere with a radius known as the smoothing length $h$. The smoothing lengths are constrained to contain approximately a number of particles, called number of neighbours $N_{\mathrm{ngb}}$, in the sphere of radius $h$. Since the gravitational softening is set equal to $h$, the mass contained in the sphere can not be roughly equal to the local Jeans mass, otherwise the collapse is inhibited by the softening of the gravitational forces.\
{width="90.00000%"}
Thus, the called *minimum resolvable mass*, $M_{\mathrm{res}}$ must always be less than the local Jeans mass $M_J$ given by
$$M_J=\left(\frac{3}{4\pi \rho} \right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{5k_B T}{\mu
m_H G} \right)^{3/2},
\label{eq_jeans_mass}$$
where $\rho$ is the density of the gas at temperature $T$, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $m_H$ is the mass of the hydrogen atom and $\mu$ is the gas mean molecular weight [@Draine2011]. Taking $M_{\mathrm{res}}$ as the mass of $2N_{\mathrm{ngb}}$ particles, it can be estimated as @Bate1997
$$M_{\mathrm{res}} =
M_{\mathrm{gas}}\left(\frac{2N_{\mathrm{ngb}}}{N_{\mathrm{gas}}}
\right),
\label{eq:resolution_mass}$$
where $M_{\mathrm{gas}}$ and $N_{\mathrm{gas}}$ are the total mass and particle number of the gas. The previous expression explicitly shows that for a larger number of particles, the minimum resolvable mass decreases and the collapse and fragmentation will be less affected for the numerical implementation.\
The condition (\[eq:resolution\_mass\]) with $N_{\mathrm{ngb}}=128$ is tested for the clumps in the satellite galaxy gas that we selected as substructure candidates with the previous recipe. The strategy adopted for the identification of the progenitors and the results obtained of such strategy are depicted in the next sections.
Figure \[fig:candidates-minimummass\] shows the time evolution of the minimum resolvable mass for each cluster according to \[eq:resolution\_mass\], which remains much smaller than the local Jeans mass.
{width="90.00000%"}
Results
=======
In figure \[fig:Mstripping\] we show the mass stripped out from the satellite galaxy as a function of simulation time. Each line in figure \[fig:Mstripping\] represents the evolution of the mass stripped out from the satellite for each of the five orbital configurations presented in table \[tab:orbitalconfiguration\]. As it can be seen in the figure, the rate of mass loss is quite similar for every orbital configuration of the merger. For this reason, since in our experiments we found no reason to prefer an orbit from any other, on the basis of the amount of mass stripped out of the satellite, we decided, without loss of generality, to run our high resolution simulations only for the configuration of the orbit perpendicular to the plane of the galaxy.
{width="110.00000%"}
As it can be seen in the figure, there are breaks in the mass curve located at $2,\sim 3.8$ and 5 Gyr. These breaks are associated with the periastron passages during the merger. Clearly it is the first passage the one stripping the largest amount of mass out from the satellite. Most of the mass ejected during the first passage is gas that is heated up during the collision and should remain bounded to the host galaxy potentially forming overdensities that we are interested in our study.
Figure \[fig:satellite\_WO\_gas\] shows the projected particle distribution of the DMO2 simulation at two different time snapshots, $t=6$ Gyr and $t=7$ Gyr. The figure shows (at the top) in color coded the density the streams where it can be seen the umbrella effects associated to the distribution of the merger remnant of a satellite interacting with a massive host galaxy. At the bottom, each figure shows the pseudo phase space diagrams, where it can be seen the disturbances in phase space associated to the structures of the streams and merger remnants. As it can be seen at the two different time snaps, there is a diffuse structure that appears at the time 6Gyr (in real space and phase-space) but that after 1Gyr is already washed out. This happens to all structures observed in the simulations with only collisionless matter.
Figure \[fig:satellite\_with\_gas\] shows the same projected particle distribution coded with density colour as the figure \[fig:satellite\_WO\_gas\] but for the GAS2 simulation. Unlike the case exposed in the previous paragraph, as it is clear from the projected density and phase-space density, there are more overdensities and they survived for several orbital periods keeping their structure for a significant lifetime fraction. Figure \[fig:zoom-gas\_density\_map\] shows a zoom of the inner region of figure \[fig:satellite\_with\_gas\] near the galactic disc. From this result, constrained by the resolution of our DMO simulations, we conclude that to form long lasting structures we need cold gas that helps to keep particles bounded gravitationally.
GAS simulations are thus the ones with better results in the formation of stream substructures. Consequently, we targeted them to apply the algorithm for identification of substructure candidates whose results are shown in figure \[fig:candidates-simulations\] where the galactic disc of the host galaxy is also shown as a reference. The plots show the candidates identified in the simulations GAS1, GAS2 and GAS3 for the same simulation time of 3 Gyr for comparison purposes. It is clearly evident that the higher resolution simulation has the greater number of substructures, which in turn, have the highest number of particles among all the simulations of this work. For this reason we only study the properties of the substructures of GAS3.
For each substructure identified in the simulation we investigated several properties. In GAS3 were identified 10 overdensities associated to the 10 most densest peaks that we label with numbers from 0 to 9 and for each one of them we start by determining their orbital evolution. Figure \[fig:candidates-orbits\] (b) shows the $y-z$ projection of the orbit of the center of mass followed by each candidate. Figure \[fig:candidates-orbits\] (a) shows the distance between each candidate to the center of the disk of the host galaxy as a function of time. The more notable aspect of this plot relies in the fact that the candidates persist among a significant amount of time, with life times that are of the order of 1Gyr or longer.
Figure \[fig:candidates-masses\] shows the evolution of the mass content of each candidate in GAS3. For all the candidates, the principal constituent is gas. The high peaks of host dark matter content present in the candidates are circumstantial particles that are counted by the algorithm when the candidate traverses the central region of the dark halo where the density is sufficiently high to cause the miscounting of host dark particles as candidate particles. The masses found in each candidate correspond to the masses measured for globular clusters and high-velocity clouds, both ranging from 10${}^{3} \mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ to a maximum of 10${}^{6}
\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ in average, although there are several cases of clusters with masses above of the 10${}^{6}\mathrm{M}_{\odot}$ value [@Harris1999; @Wakker1997].
Dark Matter in Cluster Candidates
---------------------------------
The candidate labeled as Candidate 0 was the only formed by gas and particles of another species. Figure \[fig:candidates-masses\] (a) clearly shows that the predominant mass component is the dark matter of the satellite from where it comes. This dark matter component is not circumstantial, and is an important part of this candidate during its lifetime. The rest of the candidates are basically cores of gas, without dark matter or disc stars. This suggest that through this formation mechanism one could expect to find dark matter in globular cluster.
Summary and discussion
======================
In this work we used $N$-body simulations of satellite galaxies undergoing minor merger with a larger host galaxy. Our goal is to find if there is formation of globular cluster-like systems in the tidal stream formed by the tidally stripped material from the satellite. The work was divided in two main parts: The first part was performed to explore the possibility of formation of structures from pure collisionless simulations, the second part was dedicated to simulate the formation of cluster-like structures from mergers that included gas.
Then we performed several estimations in the simulations to identify the stream and the possible autogravitating substructures inside it. The approach adopted to identify substructures was the estimation of the phase-space density which reveal the presence of substructures as density peaks.
The density estimation clearly identifies overdensity regions in which a cluster-like structure could be formed. As a first conclusion we argue that without gas, the substructures that could be formed (if at all) have a sort life as none of the overdensities show a definite morphology or stability over time. When the gas was included, several clumps appear.
Running with gas physics results are remarkably different. The candidates identified in the simulation proved real physical structures that lived for a considerable amount of time and whose orbital evolution leads them to be objects in the surroundings of the galactic disk. The total absence of stars formed within the clumps is mainly due to the thermodynamic setup of the gas as an initially isothermal sphere, the temperature of the gas is high enough that inhibits instantaneous star formation in the candidates. Another factor at play is the implementation/parameters of the feedback we used in the simulations that made the effect of feedback to be a bit to strong in the satellite galaxy. [@Oppenheimer2006] discusse that the original implementation of [@springel2003] does not work equally well for all halo masses and the model and the parameters should be somehow mass dependent. As it was already mentioned, due to all the physics involved in the problem of star formation in this kind of complex scenarios, it is out of the scope of this work to study star formation in these candidate structures.
The main conclusion of this work is that substructures (globular clusters and high velocity clouds) could be formed in tidal streams of gas rich satellites. The validity and scope of this main conclusion should be tested by running simulations with higher resolutions and taking in to account different feedback and star formation models. This is the road map for future work that contributes to improving and supplementing the results presented here.
Certainly our experiments are limited. First of all, we could study all other orbital configurations to complement the study. However, having found that one of the merger configurations already produced the formation of candidate clusters, the goals of our work where already meet. Studying under which conditions (merger orbits) it is more easy to form this kind of structures is an interesting idea, but indeed it would require a larger amount of computing time in order to run a suite of simulations to develop the idea.
We could have included gas in to the disk of the host galaxy, we could also have included a hot gas halo in to the main galaxy (we did not do it because it made the simulations much more expensive). Both aspects are important because these gaseous components could affect the dynamics of the merger and the dynamics of the gas in the stream through ram pressure stripping and shock heating. Both processes could work stripping more gaseous material from the satellite, making larger the amount of gas in the stream, so, we expect it will contribute to increase the fraction of gas that could end up falling in to cluster candidates. However the limited design of our experiment shows to suffice to answer the question on the formation of candidate globular cluster structures in this kind of processes and we expect that including those other gaseous components are not going to change the main conclusions of the work.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Research work was supported by COLCIENCIAS (doctorados nacionales, convocatoria 617 de 2013) and the project 111571250082 (convocatoria 715-2015). N.I.L acknowledges financial support of the Project IDEXLYON at the University of Lyon under the Investments for the Future Program (ANR- 16-IDEX-0005). Adiotionally, simualtions performed in this work were run in the computer facilities of GFIF in the Instituto de Física, Universidad de Antioquia, Hipercubo in the Instituto de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento (IP&D-Univap), Leibniz-Institut Für Astrophysik Potsdam. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Gauss Centre for Supercomputing e.V. (www.gauss-centre.eu) for funding this project by providing computing time through the John von Neumann Institute for Computing (NIC) on the GCS Supercomputer JURECA at Jülich Supercomputing Centre (JSC). Finally, L.F.Q. & D.A.N. thank Mario Sucerquia for his meaningful comments in the preparation of the paper.
Ashman, K., & Zepf, S. 1992, , 384, 50 Bate, M. R., & Burkert, A. 1997, , 288, 1060 Bekki, K., & Chiba, M. 2002, , 556, 245 Bekki, K., & Freeman, K. 2003, , 346, L11 Belokurov V., et al., 2006, , 642, L137 Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. Galactic Dynamics, 2008, Princeton University Press Binney, J., Nipoti, C. & Fraternali F. 2009, , 397, 1804 Blitz L., et al. 1999, , 514, 818 Carroll, B. W., & Ostlie, D. A, An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, 2008, Addison-Wesley Conroy C., et al. 2011, , 741 Draine, B. T. Physics of the Interstellar and Intergalactic Medium, 2011, Princeton University Press Elmegreen, B. G., & Efremov, Y. N. 1997, , 480, 235 Forbes, D. & Bridges, T. 2010, , 404, 1203 Forero-Romero, J. E., et al. 2010, , 417, 1434 Fraternali F., et al., 2015, , 447, L70 Georgiev I. Y., Puzia T. H., Goudfrooij P., Hilker M., 2010, MNRAS, 406, 1967 Gottloeber, S., Hoffman, Y., & Yepes, G. 2010, arXiv:1005.2687 Harris, W. E. Globular Clusters Systems, 1998, Springer Harris, W. E. 1999, 10th Canary Islands Winter School of Astrophysics: Globular Clusters, 325 Hernquist L. 1993, , 86, 389 Ibata R., et al., 2001, , 551, 294 Kúpper, A. H. W., Lane, R. R.,& Heggie, D. C. 2012, , 420, 2700 Li, Y., Law, M., & Klessen, R. 2004, , 614, L29 Lin L., et al., 2008, ApJ, 681, 232 Mastropietro, et al. 2005, , 363, 509 Mo, H. J., Mao, S., White, S. D. M. 1998, , 295, 319 Monaghan J. 1992, Annual Review of Astronomy and Antrophysics, 30, 543 Moster et al. 2001, , 710, 903 Norris, M.A. & Kannapan S.J. 2011, , 414, 739 Oppenheimer B. D., Dav[é]{} R., 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1265 Peebles, P.J.E, & Dicke R.H. 1968, , 154, 891 Price-Whelan A., et al 2018, Submitted to Reina-Campos M., et al 2019, , 486, 5838-5852 Shapiro K. L., Genzel R., F[ö]{}rster Schreiber N. M., 2010, MNRAS, 403, L36 Sharma S. & Steinmetz, M. 2006, , 373, 1293 Springel V. 2005, , 364, 1105 Springel V., White, S. D. M. & Hernquist L. 2004, International Astronomical Union Symposium, 421 Springel, V., & Hernquist, L. 2003, , 339, 289 Springel V. & Hernquist, L. 2002, , 333, 649 Torrey, P., et al. 2013, ASP Conference Proceedings, 477, 237 Wakker, B. P., & van Woerden, H. 1997, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 217 Wetzel, A. R. 2011, , 412, 49 Zepf, S. & Ashman, K. 1993, , 264, 611
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We analyze the optical counterpart to the ultra-compact high velocity cloud AGC 226067, utilizing imaging taken with the Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) on the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{}. The color magnitude diagram of the main body of AGC 226067 reveals an exclusively young stellar population, with an age of $\sim$7–50 Myr, and is consistent with a metallicity of \[Fe/H\]$\sim$$-$0.3 as previous work has measured via HII region spectroscopy. Additionally, the color magnitude diagram is consistent with a distance of $D$$\approx$17 Mpc, suggesting an association with the Virgo cluster. A secondary stellar system located $\sim$1.6’ ($\sim$8 kpc) away in projection has a similar stellar population. The lack of an old red giant branch ($\gtrsim$5 Gyr) is contrasted with a serendipitously discovered Virgo dwarf in the ACS field of view (Dw J122147+132853), and the total diffuse light from AGC 226067 is consistent with the luminosity function of the resolved $\sim$7–50 Myr stellar population. The main body of AGC 226067 has a $M_{V}$=$-$11.3$\pm$0.3, or $M_{stars}$=5.4$\pm$1.3$\times$10$^4$ $M_{\odot}$ given the stellar population. We searched 20 deg$^2$ of imaging data adjacent to AGC 226067 in the Virgo Cluster, and found two similar stellar systems dominated by a blue stellar population, far from any massive galaxy counterpart – if this population has similar star formation properties as AGC 226067, it implies $\sim$0.1 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ in Virgo intracluster star formation. Given its unusual stellar population, AGC 226067 is likely a stripped remnant and is plausibly the result of compressed gas from the ram pressure stripped M86 subgroup ($\sim$350 kpc away in projection) as it falls into the Virgo Cluster.'
author:
- 'D. J. Sand,$\!$ A. C. Seth,$\!$ D. Crnojević,$\!$ K. Spekkens,$\!$ J. Strader,$\!$ E. A. K. Adams,$\!$ N. Caldwell,$\!$ P. Guhathakurta, J. Kenney, S. Randall, J. D. Simon, E. Toloba, B. Willman$\!$'
title: '[*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} Imaging of the Ultra-Compact High Velocity Cloud AGC 226067: A stripped remnant in the Virgo Cluster'
---
Introduction
============
Searching for faint, isolated dwarf galaxies in large area HI surveys has a long history [see @HIreview for a review]. Most recently, so-called Ultra-Compact High Velocity Clouds (UCHVCs) of neutral hydrogen have been identified by the Galactic Arecibo $L$-Band Feed Array HI (GALFA-HI) and Arecibo Legacy Fast Arecibo $L$-Band Feed Array (ALFALFA) surveys [@Saul12; @Adams13 respectively] as potential sites of gas-bearing dark matter halos. Because the spatial distribution and physical properties of these UCHVCs are consistent with some being faint dwarf galaxies in the Local Volume [e.g. @Giovanelli10; @Adams13], several searches have been undertaken to characterize their optical properties [@Bellazzini15; @Tollerud15; @Sand15; @Janesh15]. These searches have yielded only a handful of plausible dwarf galaxy counterparts to the UCHVCs, while followup HI observations of others suggest that some may be ‘Dark’ systems [e.g. @Adams16]. Most, however, are likely Galactic HI clouds.
The subject of this paper is [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} ([*HST*]{}) imaging of AGC 226067 ($v_{\odot}$=$-$140 km s$^{-1}$; also referred to as SECCO1), a UCHVC with an intriguing optical counterpart. First identified by @Bellazzini15, it was confirmed spectroscopically to be associated with the coincident HI cloud [@Bellazzini15UCHVC; @Sand15]. Follow-up high-resolution HI observations with the Very Large Array (VLA) showed that AGC 226067 broke up into two distinct HI clouds [@Adams15] – the primary HI source is coincident with the optical/UV counterpart, while the secondary HI component also has an optical/UV counterpart offset by 0.5’. Data from the Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) at the VLT revealed 38 separate HII regions scattered throughout the main and secondary stellar body of AGC 226067, with a nearly uniform metallicity of $\langle$12 + log(O/H)$\rangle$ = 8.37 (for the main body), more metal-rich than expected if AGC 226067 was a gas-rich dwarf galaxy [@Beccari16b]. AGC 226067 is projected onto the ‘Low Velocity Cloud’ region of the Virgo Cluster [at $D$$\approx$17Mpc, which we use throughout this work; @Boselli14], which has a velocity distribution centered at $v_{LSR}$$\sim$0 km s$^{-1}$ with a range of $\pm$400 km s$^{-1}$. For simplicity, we refer to the entire system (consisting of the main and secondary stellar bodies, along with the two HI clouds) as AGC 226067 throughout this work, and will refer to particular regions of the system (e.g. its ‘main’ and ‘secondary’ body) when getting into specifics. In addition to a presentation of the [*HST*]{} data (Section \[sec:datareduce\]) and an analysis of the stellar population of AGC 226067 (Section \[sec:props\]), we perform an initial optical/UV archival search for similar stellar systems (Section \[sec:search\]) in deep Virgo cluster data. We discuss possible origins for AGC 226067 in Section \[sec:discuss\], and then conclude (Section \[sec:conclude\]).
[*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} Observations & Data Reduction {#sec:datareduce}
==========================================================
HST observations of AGC 226067 (GO 13735; PI Sand) were taken with ACS [@ACS] in the F606W (2196 s) and F814W (2336 s) filters on 2015 April 26, as well as the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) in the F275W filter (2470 s) on 2015 July 7. The WFC3 F275W data contained only a handful of low S/N sources, and we will not consider it further. For the $F606W$ and $F814W$ data, multiple exposures were taken in each filter to remove cosmic rays, but we did not dither to fill in the chip gaps, as this was not necessary to fully image AGC 226067.
Point spread function photometry was performed using the software package [Dolphot]{} [@Dolphin00] on the individual charge transfer efficiency corrected ACS images (the [flc]{} files), with input parameters similar to @Williams14. Sources with (sharp$_{F606W}$ + sharp$_{F814W}$)$^2$$>$0.1 and (crowd$_{F606W}$ + crowd$_{F814W}$)$^2$$>$1.0 were culled, and only those remaining sources with a signal to noise ratio (SNR) greater than 4 in both the F606W and F814W bands were kept for further analysis. Artificial star tests were also run to quantify our photometric uncertainties and completeness; the 50% completeness limits are shown in Figure \[fig:cmds\]. The final photometric catalog was corrected for Galactic extinction [@Schlafly11] corresponding to the position of the main body of AGC 226067, with an adopted value of $E(B-V)=0.057$. All magnitudes presented in this work have this correction applied. All results are presented in the [vegamag]{} system.
To create mosaics of the F606W and F814W ACS images, we used Drizzlepac v2.0 and the [Astrodrizzle]{} routine. In Figure \[fig:image\], we present a false color RGB image of AGC 226067 and its surroundings (using the average of the F606W and F814W images as our ‘green’ image), with zoomed in cutouts highlighting several points of interest. The main stellar body of AGC 226067 consists primarily of blue stars in several distinct clumps. A second clump of blue stars $\sim$1.6 arcmin to the Northwest of the main body of AGC 226067 is seen, as has been noted in previous work [@Sand15; @Adams15; @Beccari16; @Beccari16b]. In contrast, an uncatalogued Virgo cluster dwarf galaxy serendipitously in our ACS field of view (which we dub Dw J122147+132853) consists almost entirely of red giant branch (RGB) stars, which we discuss below.
Properties of AGC 226067 {#sec:props}
========================
Stellar Population {#sec:stellarpops}
------------------
The color magnitude diagram (CMD) of AGC 226067 reveals a complex and exclusively young stellar population. In the top panel of Figure \[fig:cmds\], we show the CMD of AGC 226067 centered on its main body, along with several background CMDs drawn from equal area outlying regions. AGC 226067’s main body has a population of faint, blue stars ($F606W_0$$-$$F814W_0$$<$0.0 and $F814W_0$$\gtrsim$26 mag) that are likely young main sequence stars, along with a sequence of stars from 0.8$<$$F606W_0$$-$$F814W_0$$<$1.3 and 22$<$$F814W_0$$<$26 mag which are consistent with being red helium burning (RHeB) stars. There are only a handful of possible old, RGB stars (at $F606W_0$$-$$F814W_0$$>$0.4 and $F814W_0$$\gtrsim$27). The morphology of AGC226067 is broken up into several clumps with an approximate spatial extent of $\sim$20" ($\sim$1.6 kpc; Figure \[fig:image\]).
Also shown in Figure \[fig:cmds\], we overplot the CMDs of the secondary body (to be discussed in Section \[sec:secondary\]) and the new Virgo dwarf Dw J122147+132853, along with a 13.5 Gyr, \[Fe/H\]=$-$2 isochrone [@Bressan12]. There is no apparent overdensity of RGB stars associated with AGC 226067, signaling that any old stellar population must be small. This absence of RGB stars becomes more striking when compared with the CMD of Dw J122147+132853, which shows a large population of such stars (compatible with our adopted $D$=17 Mpc). A simple large-aperture analysis [see @Sand14 with masking of the nearby background spiral galaxy] indicates that Dw J122147+132853 has an absolute magnitude of $M_{F606W}$=$-$11.3$\pm$0.2 and $M_{F814W}$=$-$11.7$\pm$0.2; this is $M_{V}$=$-$11.4$\pm$0.2 using the transformations of @Sirianni05. The brightness of RHeB stars in optical CMDs is directly dependent on the age of the star [@McQuinn11], which we will use to constrain the stellar population in AGC 226067. In the bottom panel of Figure \[fig:cmds\], we show the results of simulating a constant star formation history 1$\times$10$^6$ $M_{\odot}$ stellar population with ages between $\sim$7–50 Myr and a \[Fe/H\]=$-$0.3 [corresponding to the gas-phase metallicity found by @Beccari16b assuming the solar abundance of @Grevesse07] at a distance of 17 Mpc (we assumed a Kroupa initial mass function; @Kroupa01). We have convolved the simulated data set with our measured photometric uncertainties. When compared with the CMD of AGC 226067’s main body, the dimmest RHeB stars correspond to an age of $\sim$50 Myr, while the two bright stars at the top of the sequence ($F814W_0$$\approx$22-22.5) correspond to RHeB stars of $\sim$7-8 Myr – we infer an approximate stellar population with age range of $\sim$7-50 Myr for AGC 226067. Star formation could have continued to the present day at a similar rate, but our CMDs can’t constrain this due to low number statistics. The simulated stellar population is not a perfect match to the colors of the observed CMD, but this is likely due to known limitations of stellar evolution models at these young ages [i.e. uncertainties associated with internal mixing, stellar rotation and mass loss; @DP02; @McQuinn11]. The age of the youngest population of stars is consistent with the observation that AGC 226067 has HII regions.
We estimate the stellar mass of the main body of AGC 226067 by directly comparing the relative number of RHeB stars to that of our simulated 1$\times$10$^6$ $M_{\odot}$ stellar population, subtracting a background derived from outlying regions of the ACS field of view. We find $M_{stars}$= 5.4$\pm$1.3$\times$10$^4$ $M_{\odot}$ (where the error bar includes the effects of Poisson statistics and background subtraction, but not variations in stellar models or star formation histories), which is consistent with our finding from direct aperture photometry on the main body (Section \[sec:pop\]). Note that the photometric completeness at the faint end of the RHeB sequence is $>$95%, and so cannot effect our results. This and other properties of AGC 226067 are shown in Table \[table:properties\].
We can use this stellar mass to obtain an estimate of the star formation rate (SFR) of the main body; assuming uniform star formation over the past 50 Myr, we obtain a SFR of 1.1$\times$10$^{-3}$ M$_\odot$/yr. This is in general agreement with revised values of the SFR based off the MUSE spectra [@Beccari17_error].
We can also look at the nature of star formation in this object by examining where it falls on a Kennicutt-Schmidt relation of SFR density ($\Sigma_{SFR}$) vs. gas density. Assuming our SFR estimate for the main body and a radius of 1.1 kpc (Table \[table:properties\]), we get a $\Sigma_{SFR}$$=$2.9$\times$10$^{-4}$ M$_\odot$/yr/kpc$^2$. The main body has an estimated HI mass of 1.5$\times$10$^{7}$ M$_\odot$ in a deconvolved area of 3.08$\times$10$^7$ pc$^2$ [@Adams15], giving a gas surface density of 0.49 M$_\odot$/pc$^2$. These values suggest the star formation in AGC 226067 is occurring at the low end of gas surface densities in comparison to nearby galaxy disks [@Bigiel08], and is slightly more efficient than that typically seen in the outer regions of nearby spirals and dwarfs [@Bigiel10].
The Secondary Body {#sec:secondary}
------------------
Several previous works have also pointed out a secondary clump of blue stars (Figure \[fig:image\]), located $\sim$1.6’ ($\sim$8 kpc) to the Northeast of the main body of AGC 226067 [@Sand15; @Adams15; @Beccari16; @Beccari16b]. A CMD of this region is shown in the middle-left panel at the top of Figure \[fig:cmds\]. The stars in this secondary knot are consistent with the stellar population of the main body of AGC 226067. Although it is not sufficiently populated to confirm the presence of stars with age $<$10 Myr, it is likely the case given the secondary clump has several HII regions [@Beccari16b]. Again, there are few old RGB stars, in stark contrast to the nearby Virgo dwarf. We estimate the stellar mass in the secondary body identically to the technique employed on the main body and find $M_{stars}$=5.5$\pm$4.2$\times$10$^3$ $M_{\odot}$ (see Table 1).
Other possible stellar extensions of AGC 226067
-----------------------------------------------
Two other regions around AGC 226067 have been discussed in the literature as possible physically-associated extensions, and we examine our [*HST*]{} photometry at these positions in more detail here.
The first is an additional clump of HI gas, discovered and dubbed AGC 229490 by @Adams15, which is physically separated from the main body of AGC 226067, but has a consistent HI-derived velocity (v$_{\odot}$=$-$123 and $-$142 km s$^{-1}$, respectively). We have constructed a CMD of AGC 229490 corresponding to the position of the gas cloud, and its rough dimensions [RA: 12:21:53.8, DEC: +13:29:08, with size 45“$\times$45”; @Adams15]. The CMD is largely consistent with several equal area background CMDs, possibly with an overdensity of $\sim$5 or fewer stars. Thus the secondary HI cloud, AGC 229490, is largely star-free.
More recently, a deep ground based image of the AGC 226067 field suggested the presence of an additional blue stellar over density located $\sim$1 arcmin to the Northeast of the main body [@Beccari16]. A CMD of the region again suggests that this field consists of primarily foreground stars, although there are a handful of stars that are consistent with a $\sim$7-50 Myr stellar population.
Constraints on an Old Stellar Population {#sec:pop}
----------------------------------------
The lack of RGB stars in the CMD of AGC 226067 is striking when compared with the serendipitous Virgo dwarf galaxy in our ACS field of view, which has an absolute magnitude of $M_V$$\approx$$-$11.4. We take two approaches for constraining an old stellar population in AGC 226067’s main body.
First, we use the number of stars in the region of the CMD where we find RGB stars in Dw J122147+132853 to constrain the old stellar mass of AGC 226067. We defined a CMD box surrounding the stars within Dw J122147+132853 (with $F606W_0$$-$$F814W_0$ between 0.30 and 1.66 and $F814W_0$ between 26.20 and 27.67); after background subtraction we find 43$\pm$7 in Dw J122147+132853. However for the main body of AGC 226067, we find only 4$\pm$4 stars. Using the absolute magnitude of Dw J122147+132853 ($M_V=-11.4$), this translates to a limiting absolute magnitude for the old population of AGC 226067 of $M_{V}$$>$$-$8.8 mag, or $M_{stars}$$<$6$\times$10$^5$ $M_{\odot}$ [assuming a $M/L_V$=2 $M_{\odot}$/$L_{\odot}$ for an old stellar population; @Strader11; @Baumgardt17]. This limit on the old stellar population in AGC 226067 hinges on it being at the same distance as Dw J122147+132853; if it were at a greater relative distance, the old stellar populations limits would be weaker. Similarly, if any putative old stellar population in AGC 226067 were significantly more metal rich than in Dw J122147+132853 its RGB stars would be pushed to relatively redder colors, outside of our CMD selection box. This relative difference in metallicity would again cause us to underestimate the old stellar population in AGC 226067. Finally, if a population of older stars is associated with AGC 226067, but spread out over a larger area than the young stellar population, then our limits on an old stellar population would be proportionately brighter (assuming a constant stellar surface density).
We measure the integrated magnitude for the main body within an 11” radius around AGC 226067 (after masking background galaxies) of $M_{F606W,0}$=$-$11.3$\pm$0.3 and $M_{F814W,0}$=$-$11.2$\pm$0.3, translating to $M_{V}$=$-$11.3$\pm$0.3. For the age range of 7-50 Myr, the @BC03 models suggest $M/L_V$=0.013–0.06 $M_{\odot}$/$L_{\odot}$; this suggests a stellar mass of $M_{stars}$=4-17$\times$10$^4$ $M_{\odot}$, consistent with our measurement of $M_{stars}$= 5.4$\pm$1.3$\times$10$^4$ $M_{\odot}$ in Section \[sec:stellarpops\]. This measured absolute magnitude is fully consistent with previous ground-based data [e.g. @Adams15], but is $\sim$2-$\sigma$ brighter than @Beccari16b.
We also subtracted the point sources in our [Dolphot]{} catalog from the F606W and F814W ACS mosaic images, and have analyzed the remaining diffuse light to constrain an old stellar population. Using this image and the same 11” annulus, we measure a diffuse, star-subtracted magnitude of $M_{F606W,0}$=$-$9.8$\pm$0.4 and $M_{F814W,0}$=$-$10.0$\pm$0.5, which corresponds to $M_{V}$=$-$9.8 $\pm$0.5 mag. The errors on these measurements include the range of values obtained using direct galaxy removal and background annulus subtraction.
We can compare the amount of diffuse light to that expected from the faint unresolved stars of the $\sim$7-50 Myr stellar population revealed in the CMD, but below the detection limit of the ACS data. To estimate this, we first calculated the total magnitude of resolved stars consistent with this population in the main body of AGC 226067 and used it as an anchor for integrating the luminosity function below our ACS detection limit, assuming a 7–50 Myr stellar population with \[Fe/H\]=$-$0.3 and the associated Padova luminosity function [@Bressan12] and a Chabrier initial mass function. Depending on the choice of age of the stellar population, and the filter, our resolved stellar sources should make up $\sim$45-70% of the total luminosity of AGC 226067, implying a diffuse stellar component from the young stellar population with $M_{V}$=$-$10.4$\pm$0.2 mag (where the error bars encapsulate the allowed range when varying the age of the stellar population). Thus, the observed diffuse component of AGC 226067 (directly measured as $M_{V}$=$-$9.8 $\pm$0.5 mag) is fully consistent with a stellar population belonging solely to the apparent young stellar population, with no need to invoke any associated older population. Given the apparent lack of an old stellar population, AGC 226067 cannot be considered a typical dwarf irregular-like galaxy as these systems all have an old RGB population at [*HST*]{} depths [e.g. @McQuinn14]. This strongly suggests that AGC 226067 is analogous to so-called ‘tidal dwarfs’ [see @Duc12 for a recent review] even if its origin is not from direct tidal interactions (see Section 5 for a discussion). Unlike previous examples of tidal dwarfs, AGC 226067 is extremely isolated, $\sim$350 kpc projected distance from the nearest large galaxies.
Similar stellar systems in the Virgo Cluster {#sec:search}
============================================
The optical appearance of AGC 226067 in three-color RGB images, combined with its strong detection in [*GALEX*]{} imaging, is striking [see @Sand15]. Motivated to understand the uniqueness of AGC 226067 we undertook a search of a 20 deg$^2$ region in the Next Generation Virgo cluster Survey (NGVS) footprint to identify similar systems. The NGVS is a $\sim$100 deg$^2$ optical imaging survey conducted with the MegaCam imager on the Canada France Hawaii Telescope (CFHT); details are described in @NGVS. The typical point source depth was $g$$\approx$25.9 mag (10$\sigma$). We downloaded fields from the CFHT archive, utilizing the MegaPipe data products [@Gwyn08], in the rectangular region demarcated by fields \[1,1\] to \[-2,-3\], using the nomenclature presented in Figure 4 of @NGVS. Color RGB images were made with the $u$, $g$ and $i$ band data, and searched by two of us (DJS and DC). We purposely avoided areas directly adjacent to prominent Virgo cluster galaxies, which often have blue, knotty extensions indicative of extended star formation [e.g. @Thilker07] and have a similar appearance as our more isolated examples. [*GALEX*]{} [@GALEX] imaging was used to support our candidate detections.
Two candidates visually similar to AGC 226067 were identified, and are shown in Figure \[fig:newobjects\]. Each is characterized by an over-density of compact blue sources with strong GALEX UV emission. The objects also lack a diffuse reddish galaxy component, exhibited by dwarf galaxies throughout the NGVS imaging. Aperture photometry [@Sand14] is reported for each object in Table \[table:properties\]; the objects are of similar brightness as AGC 226067 in the $NUV,g$ bands to within the uncertainties [@Sand15]. We searched for HI counterparts to our newly identified blue stellar systems using the 40% ALFALFA catalog [@Haynes11]. No catalogued HI counterparts were found to either source within $\sim$10’, and a visual inspection of the ALFALFA data did not turn up any marginal detections. Assuming that these objects are similar to AGC 226067, with D=17 Mpc and velocity width $\sim$50 km s$^{-1}$, we estimate an HI limiting mass of $\sim$2$\times$10$^7$ $M_{\odot}$ for each. AGC 226067 itself has an $M_{HI}$$\approx$5$\times$10$^7$ $M_{\odot}$ in the ALFALFA catalog, so a similar HI cloud with a slightly higher distance and/or velocity width would not be detectable with the ALFALFA data. We also note that ALFALFA is blind to emission that spectrally overlaps with the Galactic HI layer at $-$100 $\lesssim$ $v_{lsr}$ (km s$^{-1})$ $\lesssim$ 100 along the line of sight, a velocity range in which they could plausibly be located given that Virgo’s Low Velocity cloud has $v_{lsr}$$\approx$0 km s$^{-1}$.
In a future contribution, we will present a full search of the NGVS dataset for similar blue, diffuse objects as well as followup optical/HI observations. The environment of these diffuse sources will also be investigated, although we note that NGVS-1+2 J122624+142327 is $\sim$28’ ($\sim$130 kpc) from NGC 4377 while NGVS-1+3 J122631+151026 is $\sim$10’ ($\sim$50 kpc) from NGC 4419, suggesting their possible association. Assuming a uniform distribution and given the relative ratio of the entire NGVS and our current search, we can expect to find a sample of $\sim$10-15 systems in total, including AGC 226067 and the newly identified objects. Taking our inferred star formation rate of the main body of AGC 226067 (1.1$\times$10$^{-3}$ $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$) as representative of the population as a whole, it implies an intracluster star formation rate of $\sim$0.01 $M_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ in the Virgo cluster. The metallicity of the newly forming stars are comparable to the younger component of intracluster stars [@Williams07] and the inferred rate is consistent with the loose upper limit on the intracluster star formation rate found in cluster supernova searches [@Graham12]. The detected population may be the tip of the iceberg, as we likely missed less luminous examples, and older stellar populations are more difficult to find because their UV/blue flux fades. In the past, infalling gas-rich systems were likely more abundant than they are today, thus this process could contribute substantially to the observed population of intracluster stars.
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
The properties of AGC 226067 and its immediate environs are intriguing. In this work, we have shown that the main body has an exclusively young stellar population, with age $\sim$7-50 Myr and \[Fe/H\]$\approx$$-$0.3, with a $M_{V}$$\approx$$-$11.3 and $M_{star}$$\approx$5$\times$10$^4$ $M_{\odot}$. There is a secondary group of stars located $\sim$1.5’ ($\sim$7.5 kpc) to the Northeast, which is sparse but has a stellar population consistent with the main body of AGC 226067. The entire stellar system hosts a complex of HII regions that have a nearly uniform metallicity, $\langle$12 + log(O/H)$\rangle$ = 8.37 (for the main body), higher than expected given the stellar luminosity if AGC 226067 were a dwarf galaxy [@Beccari16b]. The HII region velocities of the main and secondary bodies agree with the HI clouds and the overall system displays a weak velocity gradient that spans both bodies [@Adams15; @Beccari16b]. Perhaps most intriguingly, there is no old stellar population associated with AGC 226067, as the entire diffuse light budget can be accounted for by the expected faint-end luminosity function of the visible $\sim$7-50 Myr stellar population. Given the metallicity and lack of old stellar population, AGC 226067 is a strong tidal dwarf candidate, and its extreme isolation makes it a unique example of this class of objects.
In understanding the origin of AGC 226067 we must also keep in mind that there seem to be other stellar systems of similar appearance in the NGVS dataset (Section \[sec:search\]), and perhaps a yet larger population of older, undetectable systems, as well as Virgo HI cloud complexes that have no stellar counterpart at all [e.g. @Kent10; @Taylor12] – there is plausibly a continuum of objects that are HI-rich and star-poor [see also the ‘Almost Dark’ objects; @Cannon15]. Recent theoretical effort has sought to understand the physics [e.g. @Burkhart16] and possible origins of these clouds [e.g. @Taylor16]; here we suggest that AGC 226067 is a stripped remnant of the numerous interactions in the Virgo cluster environment, most plausibly associated with the M86 subgroup.
A remnant of M86 subgroup interactions
--------------------------------------
The removal of gas from cluster galaxies due to the hot intracluster medium (ICM) via ram pressure stripping [@Gunn72] is one plausible mechanism that could explain the origin of AGC 226067. Recent simulations of ram pressure stripping have shown that small amounts of star formation in the stripped tail of ablated gas can be seen up to hundreds of kiloparsecs from the galaxy of origin [@Kapferer09; @Tonnesen12]. This star formation is not from stripped molecular clouds of gas from the parent galaxy, but is low density stripped gas that cools and condenses in the turbulent wake of the stripping, a process that takes $\sim$300–750 Myr at the pressure of the Virgo ICM. Individual star forming knots contain up to $M_{stars}$$\sim$10$^{5-6}$$M_{\odot}$, similar to AGC 226067, and is not expected to contribute significantly to the total intracluster light budget [@Kapferer09; @Tonnesen12]. There are examples of intracluster star formation (or implied star formation from H$\alpha$ emission) due to ram pressure stripping in nearby galaxy clusters [e.g. @Kenney99; @Cortese07; @Yoshida08; @Sun10; @Yagi10; @Kenney14 among others], but to our knowledge none have been uncovered at such large projected distances ($D$$\sim$350 kpc) from their point of origin as AGC 226067; systems such as this and those uncovered in this work can provide an important test of ram pressure models.
In Figure \[fig:environ\], we show AGC 226067 in relation to the M86 subgroup of the Virgo cluster, a major component of the ‘Low Velocity Cloud’ of Virgo galaxies with similar low heliocentric velocities as AGC 226067. AGC 226067 is $\sim$350 kpc in projection from M86. Overplotted are the Chandra surface brightness contours [@Randall08] and H$\alpha$ contours [@Kenney08] surrounding both M86 and NGC 4438 which show evidence for a previous interaction with each other [e.g. @Kenney08], and are likely undergoing a ram pressure stripping event as they fall into the larger Virgo cluster together [@Randall08; @Ehlert13 among others]. The stream of X-ray emitting gas and H$\alpha$ emission point in the general direction of AGC 226067, but the extent of the available datasets is not large enough to probe out to the necessary distances, as marked in Figure \[fig:environ\]. Given the suggestive stream pointing in the direction of AGC 226067, this interpretation of its origin is our preference, although future X-ray and H$\alpha$ mapping will be necessary to confirm this scenario.
@Beccari16b suggested that the interacting galaxy pair NGC 4299 ($v_{\odot}$$\approx$+230 km s$^{-1}$) and NGC 4294 ($v_{\odot}$$\approx$+350 km s$^{-1}$) were a plausible origin for AGC 226067 if it were a tidal remnant. We find this scenario less likely than an M86 subgroup origin, because of the greater projected distance to NGC 4299+NGC 4294 ($\sim$600 kpc), the larger velocity discrepancy between this pair and AGC 226067, and because the HI tidal tail morphology of that pair is pointed to the Southwest, nearly in the opposite direction of AGC 226067 [@Chung09], which is almost due North.
[lcccccccccc]{}\
AGC 226067 Main Body\
RA (h:m:s) & 12:21:54.04\
DEC (d:m:s) & +13:27:35.7\
Radial Size (arcsec) & 13.7\
Radial Size (kpc) &1.1\
$M_{V}$ & $-$11.3$\pm$0.3\
$M_{stars}$ (10$^4$ $M_{\odot}$) & 5.4$\pm$1.3\
$M_{HI}$ (10$^7$ $M_{\odot}$) & 1.5\
$M_{HI}$/$M_{stars}$ & $\approx$280\
AGC 226067 Secondary Body\
RA (h:m:s) & 12:21:55.97\
DEC (d:m:s) & +13:28:53.6\
Radial Size (arcsec) & 13.0\
Radial Size (kpc) & 1.1\
$M_{stars}$ (10$^3$ $M_{\odot}$) & 5.5$\pm$4.2\
Dw J122147+132853\
RA (h:m:s) & 12:21:47.87\
DEC (d:m:s) & +13:28:54.7\
Radial Size (arcsec) & 10.0\
Radial Size (kpc) & 0.8\
$M_{V}$ & $-$11.4$\pm$0.2\
NGVS-1+2 J122624+142327\
RA (h:m:s) & 12:21:24\
DEC (d:m:s) & +14:23:27\
$g$ & 20.1$\pm$0.6\
$NUV$ & 19.5$\pm$0.3\
NGVS-1+3 J122631+151026\
RA (h:m:s) & 12:26:31\
DEC (d:m:s) & +15:10:26\
$g$ & 20.7$\pm$0.5\
$NUV$ & 20.8$\pm$0.7
Conclusions {#sec:conclude}
===========
We have presented [*HST*]{} imaging of the UCHVC AGC 226067, an enigmatic gas-rich stellar system in the Virgo cluster. The [*HST*]{} data reveal an exclusively young stellar population of $\sim$7–50 Myr and a \[Fe/H\]$\sim$$-$0.3, in contrast to normal dwarf galaxy systems which always show some old stellar population ($\gtrsim$5 Gyr) upon close inspection. Based on these [*HST*]{} results and other results in the literature on this object (see discussion in Section \[sec:discuss\]), there is circumstantial evidence that AGC 226067 is a distant star-forming remnant of the ram pressure stripping event in the M86 subgroup, as recent simulations have predicted [@Kapferer09; @Tonnesen12].
Our initial search for objects with similar optical/UV properties in the NGVS turned up two objects in 20 deg$^2$, but it is likely that we are only sensitive to the youngest and most luminous examples of this emerging class of stellar objects. Followup HI, X-ray and H$\alpha$ observations of AGC 226067 and its potential brethren will help elucidate their physical nature.
D.J.S. is supported by NSF grants AST-1412504 and AST-1517649. K.S. acknowledges support from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. E.A.K.A. is supported by TOP1EW.14.105, which is financed by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). E.T. and P.G acknowledge the NSF grants AST-1010038 and AST-1412504. J.S. acknowledges support from the Packard Foundation. We thank the Aspen Center for Physics (NSF Grant \#1066293) for their hospitality during the writing of this paper and the 2016 WoA committee for its support. Support for program \#13735 was provided by NASA through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, E. A. K., [Giovanelli]{}, R., & [Haynes]{}, M. P. 2013, , 768, 77
, E. A. K., [Oosterloo]{}, T. A., [Cannon]{}, J. M., [Giovanelli]{}, R., & [Haynes]{}, M. P. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1609.05377
, E. A. K., [Faerman]{}, Y., [Janesh]{}, W. F., [et al.]{} 2015, , 573, L3
, H. 2017, , 464, 2174
, G., [Bellazzini]{}, M., [Battaglia]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2016, , 591, A56
, G., [Bellazzini]{}, M., [Magrini]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2017, , 465, 2189
—. 2017, , 468, 4254
, M., [Magrini]{}, L., [Mucciarelli]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2015, , 800, L15
, M., [Beccari]{}, G., [Battaglia]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2015, , 575, A126
, F., [Leroy]{}, A., [Walter]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2008, , 136, 2846
, F., [Leroy]{}, A., [Walter]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2010, , 140, 1194
, A., [Voyer]{}, E., [Boissier]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2014, , 570, A69
, A., [Marigo]{}, P., [Girardi]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2012, , 427, 127
, G., & [Charlot]{}, S. 2003, , 344, 1000
, B., & [Loeb]{}, A. 2016, , 824, L7
, J. M., [Martinkus]{}, C. P., [Leisman]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2015, , 149, 72
, A., [van Gorkom]{}, J. H., [Kenney]{}, J. D. P., [Crowl]{}, H., & [Vollmer]{}, B. 2009, , 138, 1741
, L., [Marcillac]{}, D., [Richard]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2007, , 376, 157
, R. C., & [Skillman]{}, E. D. 2002, , 123, 1433
, A. E. 2000, , 112, 1383
, P. A. 2012, AASP, 28, 305
, S., [Werner]{}, N., [Simionescu]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2013, , 430, 2401
, L., [C[ô]{}t[é]{}]{}, P., [Cuillandre]{}, J.-C., [et al.]{} 2012, , 200, 4
, H. C., [Bartko]{}, F., [Bely]{}, P. Y., [et al.]{} 1998, in , Vol. 3356, Space Telescopes and Instruments V, ed. P. Y. [Bely]{} & J. B. [Breckinridge]{}, 234–248
, R., & [Haynes]{}, M. P. 2016, , 24, 1
, R., [Haynes]{}, M. P., [Kent]{}, B. R., & [Adams]{}, E. A. K. 2010, , 708, L22
, M. L., [Sand]{}, D. J., [Bildfell]{}, C. J., [et al.]{} 2012, , 753, 68
, N., [Asplund]{}, M., [Sauval]{}, A. J., 2007, , 130, 105
, J. E., & [Gott]{}, III, J. R. 1972, , 176, 1
, S. D. J. 2008, , 120, 212
, M. P., [Giovanelli]{}, R., [Martin]{}, A. M., [et al.]{} 2011, , 142, 170
, W., [Rhode]{}, K. L., [Salzer]{}, J. J., [et al.]{} 2015, , 811, 35
, W., [Sluka]{}, C., [Schindler]{}, S., [Ferrari]{}, C., & [Ziegler]{}, B. 2009, , 499, 87
, J. D. P., & [Koopmann]{}, R. A. 1999, , 117, 181
, J. D. P., [Geha]{}, M., [J[á]{}chym]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2014, , 780, 119
, J. D. P., [Tal]{}, T., [Crowl]{}, H. H., [Feldmeier]{}, J., & [Jacoby]{}, G. H. 2008, , 687, L69
, R. C. 1998, , 498, 541
, B. R. 2010, , 725, 2333
, P. 2001, , 322, 231
, D. C., [Fanson]{}, J., [Schiminovich]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2005, , 619, L1
, K. B. W., [Skillman]{}, E. D., [Dalcanton]{}, J. J., [et al.]{} 2011, , 740, 48
, K. B. W., [Cannon]{}, J. M., [Dolphin]{}, A. E., [et al.]{} 2014, , 785, 3
, S., [Nulsen]{}, P., [Forman]{}, W. R., [et al.]{} 2008, , 688, 208
, D. J., [Crnojevi[ć]{}]{}, D., [Strader]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2014, , 793, L7
, D. J., [Crnojevi[ć]{}]{}, D., [Bennet]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2015, , 806, 95
, D. R., [Peek]{}, J. E. G., [Grcevich]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2012, , 758, 44
, E. F., & [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P. 2011, , 737, 103
, M., [Jee]{}, M. J., [Ben[í]{}tez]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2005, , 117, 1049
, J., [Caldwell]{}, N., & [Seth]{}, A. C. 2011, , 142, 8
, M., [Donahue]{}, M., [Roediger]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2010, , 708, 946
, R., [Davies]{}, J. I., [Auld]{}, R., & [Minchin]{}, R. F. 2012, , 423, 787
, R., [Davies]{}, J. I., [J[á]{}chym]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2016, , 461, 3001
, D. A., [Bianchi]{}, L., [Meurer]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2007, , 173, 538
, E. J., [Geha]{}, M. C., [Grcevich]{}, J., [Putman]{}, M. E., & [Stern]{}, D. 2015, , 798, L21
, S., & [Bryan]{}, G. L. 2012, , 422, 1609
, B. F., [Ciardullo]{}, R., [Durrell]{}, P. R., [et al.]{} 2007, , 656, 756
, B. F., [Lang]{}, D., [Dalcanton]{}, J. J., [et al.]{} 2014, , 215, 9
, M., [Yoshida]{}, M., [Komiyama]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2010, , 140, 1814
, M., [Yagi]{}, M., [Komiyama]{}, Y., [et al.]{} 2008, , 688, 918
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In 1966, Shanks and Schmid investigated the asymptotic behavior of the number of positive integers less than or equal to $x$ which are represented by the quadratic form $X^2+nY^2$. Based on some numerical computations, they observed that the constant occurring in the main term appears to be the largest for $n=2$. In this paper, we prove that in fact this constant is unbounded as $n$ runs through positive integers with a fixed number of prime divisors.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematical Sciences, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland'
- 'Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik, Vivatsgasse 7, D-53111 Bonn, Germany'
author:
- 'David Brink, Pieter Moree and Robert Osburn'
title: Principal forms $X^2+nY^2$ representing many integers
---
Introduction
============
It is a classical result of Landau [@L] from 1908 that the number $B(x)$ of integers less than or equal to $x$ which are representable as the sum of two squares $X^2+Y^2$ satisfies the asymptotic formula $$\label{lan}
\displaystyle B(x) \sim C \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}\ \ \textrm{as}\ x \to \infty$$ with the constant $$\displaystyle C=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \prod_{p\equiv 3\ (\textrm{mod}\ 4)} \Biggl({1 \over {1 - 1/p^2}} \Biggr)^{1/2}=0.764223654,$$ where $p$ denotes a prime. Independently, Ramanujan in his first letter to Hardy in 1913 stated essentially that $$\displaystyle B(x)\sim C \int_{2}^{x} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{\log t}}\ \ \textrm{as}\ x \to \infty.$$ Later claims by Hardy [@Hardy] that Ramanujan’s integral did not give a better estimate of $B(x)$ than Landau’s simpler formula were shown to be false by Shanks [@shanks]. The constant $C$ is now called the *Landau-Ramanujan constant*.
Consider a primitive quadratic form $f(X,Y)=aX^2 + bXY + cY^2$ over $\mathbb{Z}$ with non-square discriminant $D=b^2-4ac$, and suppose $f$ is positive in case it is definite. Let $B_{f}(x)$ be the number of positive integers less than or equal to $x$ which are representable by $f$. Paul Bernays, a doctoral student of Landau’s at G[ö]{}ttingen, proved the following generalization of (\[lan\]) in his 1912 thesis [@B pages 59 and 115–116]: $$\label{paulc}
\displaystyle B_{f}(x) \sim C(D) \frac{x}{\sqrt{\log x}}\ \ \textrm{as}\ x \to \infty$$ with a non-zero constant $C(D)$ depending only on $D$. Thus $C(-4)$ is the Landau-Ramanujan constant. Bernays did not explicitly give $C(D)$ for any other value of $D$. The problem of computing these constants has subsequently attracted considerable attention.
The original method of Landau can be used to compute $C(D)$ when the class number $h(D)$ is 1 or, with some additional complications, not too big. In 1966, Shanks and Schmid [@ss] studied the forms $f(X, Y)=X^2 + nY^2$ and determined the corresponding constants $C(-4n)$ ($b_n$ in their notation) in this way for 30 values of $n$ in the range $-34\leq n\leq 256$ with class numbers $h(-4n)=1$, 2, 3, 4, and 8. In particular they find $$C(-8)=0.872887558.$$ They then state (page 561) “We note, in passing, that of all binary forms $u^2 + nv^2$, $u^2 + 2v^2$ is the most populous, since $b_{2}$ is the largest of these constants.” It is not completely clear as to whether they meant that $C(-8)$ is the largest amongst the values computed or that the maximum value of $C(-4n)$ as $n$ ranges over all integers is assumed for $n=2$. In any case, this quote motivates the following question: Is $C(-8)$ the maximum value? The purpose of the present paper is to answer this question. Specifically we prove:\
**Theorem 1.1** *If $\Delta$ is a fixed negative fundamental discriminant, then $C(\Delta q)$ is unbounded as $q$ runs through the primes congruent to 1 modulo 4. If $\Delta$ is a fixed positive fundamental discriminant or $1$, then $C(-\Delta q)$ is unbounded as $q$ runs through the primes congruent to 3 modulo 4.*\
It follows for example that $C(-4q)$ is unbounded as $q$ runs through the primes congruent to 1 modulo 4. However, it is not easy finding a concrete such $q$ with $C(-4q)>C(-8)$. We have been able to find only one such example, namely $$\label{q}
C(-4\cdot 13779962790518414129 )= 0.875986.$$
In Section \[twee\] we present a formula for $C(D)$ in the case $D$ is a fundamental discriminant and sketch how it is derived. In Section \[drie\] we discuss computational aspects of this formula. In Section \[vier\] we prove Theorem 1.1 by making some adjustments in a proof of Joshi [@Joshi]. In the final section we formulate some further problems and questions related to $C(D)$.
Making $C(D)$ explicit {#twee}
======================
Using results of Kaplan and Williams [@kw] and Sun and Williams [@sw], an explicit formula for Bernays’ constant $C(D)$ for discriminants $D<0$ was given in [@mo] (see (2.5), (2.8), and (2.11)). When $D$ is a fundamental discriminant, i.e., equal to the discriminant of a quadratic number field, this formula reduces to $$\label{bern}
\displaystyle C(D)=\frac{1}{2^{\omega(D)-1}} \Biggl [ \frac{|D|}{\varphi(|D|)} \frac{L(1, \chi_D)}{\pi} E(D) \Biggr ]^{1/2}.$$ Here $\omega(D)$ is the number of prime divisors in $D$, $\varphi$ is Euler’s phi function, $L(\ \cdot\ ,\chi_D)$ is the Dirichlet L-series corresponding to the Kronecker symbol $\chi_D=(D/\ \cdot\ )$, and $E(D)$ is the Euler product $$E(D)=\prod_{(D/p)=-1}{1\over 1-1/p^2}.$$ Note that $$1< E(D)<\prod_{p}\frac{1}{1-1/p^2}=\frac{\pi^2}{6}$$ and thus the contribution of $E(D)$ to $C(D)$ is limited.
We will now sketch some arguments that go into the derivation of (\[bern\]). Recall that a primitive positive definite quadratic form $aX^2+bXY+cY^2$, $[a,b,c]$ for short, is said to be [*reduced*]{} if $|b|\le a\le c$, and $b\ge 0$ if either $|b|=a$ or $a=c$. Every primitive positive definite form is properly equivalent to a unique reduced form [@cox Theorem 2.8]. This reduced form represents precisely the same integers as the original one. Thus we might assume from the outset that our form is reduced. We say that two forms are in the same [*class*]{} if they are properly equivalent. It is easy to see that the number $h(D)$ of classes of primitive positive definite forms of discriminant $D$ is finite, and furthermore $h(D)$ is equal to the number of reduced forms of discriminant $D$ [@cox Theorem 2.13]. In the case $D$ is a fundamental discriminant, $h(D)$ also equals the class number of the quadratic number field $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{D})$, and we have $$\label{h}
{L(1,\chi_D)\over \pi}=u(D)\cdot {h(D)\over \sqrt{-D}}$$ where $u(-3)=1/3$, $u(-4)=1/2$, and $u(D)=1$ for $D<-4$.\
We say that two primitive positive definite forms of discriminant $D$ are in the same [*genus*]{} if they represent the same values in $(\mathbb Z/D\mathbb Z)^*$. The number of genera is known to be a power of two and so can be written as $2^{t(D)}$ for some $t(D)\ge 0$. The number $t(D)$ depends only on $\omega(D)$ and the the congruence class of $D$ modulo 32 (see (2.7) in [@mo]). Furthermore, given a negative integer $D \equiv 0$, $1 {\pmod 4}$, the [*principal form*]{} is defined by $\bigl[1, 0, -\frac{D}{4} \bigr]$ if $D \equiv 0 \pmod 4$ and $\bigl[1, 1, \frac{1-D}{4} \bigr]$ if $D \equiv 1 \pmod 4$. The principal form has discriminant $D$ and is reduced. If $D=-4n$, then $[1, 0, n]$ is the principal form. Finally, we say that an integer $m$ is represented by the genus $G$ if it is represented by at least one class in $G$. For example, if $n=14$ (and thus $D=-56$ and $h(D)=4$), then we have two genera $G_1$ and $G_2$ where, say, (the class of) $[1, 0, 14]$ and $[2, 0, 7]$ belong to $G_1$ while $[3, -2, 5]$ and $[3, 2, 5]$ belong to $G_2$.
Let us first consider the simpler problem of deriving an analogue of (\[paulc\]) with $B_f'(x)$ instead of $B_f(x)$, where $B_f'(x)$ counts the number of integers $m\le x$ represented by $f$ with $(m,D)=1$. Note that without loss of generality we may assume that $f$ is reduced. Let $f$ belong to the genus $G$. The counting strategy is as follows:\
1. Compute $B_D'(x)$; the number of integers $m\le x$ coprime to $D$ that are represented by [*any*]{} reduced form of discriminant $D$.\
2. Compute $B_G'(x)$; the number of integers $m\le x$ coprime to $D$ that are represented by $G$.\
3. Compute $B_f'(x)$,
where the result of each step provides input for the next. We now proceed through these steps.
\(1) An integer $m\le x$ is counted if and only if its prime divisors that occur to an odd power satisfy $(D/p)=1$. The associated L-series $L_D(s)=\sum m^{-s}$ thus has, for Re$(s)>1$, the following Euler product: $$L_D(s)=\prod_{(D/p)=1}(1-p^{-s})^{-1}\prod_{(D/p)=-1}(1-p^{-2s})^{-1}.$$ Using the Euler product formula for $\zeta(s)$ and $L(s,\chi_D)$ one finds, for Re$(s)>1$, that $$L_D(s)^2=\zeta(s)L(s,\chi_D)\prod_{p|D}(1-p^{-s})\prod_{(D/p)=-1}(1-p^{-2s})^{-1}=\zeta(s)g(s),$$ say. Then using the Selberg-Delange method (see, e.g., [@FMS Proposition 5]), one finds that $$B_D'(x)\sim \sqrt{g(1)\over \pi}{x\over \sqrt{\log x}},$$ where $$\sqrt{g(1)\over \pi}=\Biggl [ \frac{\varphi(|D|)}{|D|} \frac{L(1, \chi_D)}{\pi} E(D) \Biggr ]^{1/2} =: J(D),$$ the James constant, who first established this result [@James] (from a modern perspective this result is completely standard). For different proofs see [@mo; @williams]. The $\sqrt{\log x}$ is due to the fact that asymptotically half of the primes are represented by a reduced binary quadratic form. If we have many small primes $p$ with $(D/p)=1$, then $L(1,\chi_D)$ is large on the one hand, and on the other many integers $m$ are counted by $B_D'(x)$. Thus it is natural to expect that $J(D)$ scales as an increasing function of $L(1,\chi_D)$.\
(2) Any integer coprime to $D$ is represented by at most one genus. Bernays showed that, as $x$ tends to infinty, the integers $m\le x$ become equidistributed over the genera, that is, we have $$B_G'(x)\sim {B_D(x)\over 2^{t(D)}}\sim {J(D)\over 2^{t(D)}}{x\over \sqrt{\log x}}.$$ (3) We let $E$ be the set of integers that are represented by $G$, but not by $f$, and $E(x)$ the associated counting function (for example, in the above example $2$ and $7$ are represented by $G_1$, but not by $[1,0,14]$). Bernays showed that $E(x)=o(x\log^{-1/2}x)$ (this result was later sharpened by Fomenko [@Fomenko] to $E(x)\ll x\log^{-2/3}x$). We finally conclude that $$B_f'(x)\sim B_G'(x)\sim {J(D)\over 2^{t(D)}}{x\over \sqrt{\log x}}.$$ This solves the asymptotic counting problem for $B_f'(x)$. However, we are interested in $B_f(x)$. A complication that arises here is that more than one genus might represent an integer not coprime to $D$. Bernays took this complication into account and arrived at the following formula $$\label{bernabas}
C(D)={J(D)\over 2^{t(D)}}\sum_{m|D^{\infty}}{g(m,D)\over m},$$ where $g(m,D)$ denotes the number of genera of discriminant $D$ representing $m$ and $m|D^{\infty}$ means that $m$ divides some arbitrary power of $D$. The latter sum is a rational number and its explicit evaluation was only made possible by the recent papers [@kw; @sw] mentioned in the beginning of this section. In the case $D$ is a fundamental discriminant the latter sum equals $|D|/\varphi(|D|)$, $t(D)=\omega(D)-1$ and we obtain (\[bern\]). For the general formula we refer to [@mo].\
[Remark 1]{}. In retrospect one sees why the classical Landau case readily follows. There one has $B_{-4}'(x)=B_G'(x)=B_f'(x)$. Let $Od(x)$ denote the number of odd integers $\le x$ that can be written as a sum of two squares. Thus $B_{-4}'(x)=Od(x)$. Note that $J(-4)=C/2$ and $B(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}Od(x2^{-j})$. We infer that $B(x)\sim 2Od(x)\sim Cx \log^{-1/2} x$. Observe that $h(-4)=1$. Indeed, the three cases coincide if and only if $h(D)=1$. The second and third case coincide (that is every genus consists of one class) if and only if $n\ge 1$ is a convenient number (“numerus idoneus"). This happens for at least 65 and at most 66 integers [@cox pp. 61-62].
Computation of $C(D)$ {#drie}
=====================
The class numbers $h(D)$ can be computed for about $|D|<10^{20}$ by GP/PARI. In order to compute $C(D)$ accurately, the problem thus lies in computing the Euler product $E(D)$. Taking the product over, say, the first 100,000 primes gives a precision of about 6 decimals. A much better precision is obtained by the rapidly converging infinite product (see [@shanks eq. (16)] or [@mo eq. (3.3)]) $$\label{EP}
E(D)=\prod_{k=1}^\infty\left({\zeta(2^k)\over L(2^k,\chi_D)}\prod_{p|D}\left(1-p^{-2^k}\right)\right)^{1/2^k}.$$ However, the values $L(2^k,\chi_D)$ can be computed only for about $|D|<10^6$ by GP/PARI .
Using the above formulas, we compute $C(D)$ for some small fundamental discriminants $D<0$ ordered according as to whether $\omega(D)$ is 1, 2, 3, or 4: $$\begin{array}[t]{r|l}
D & \ \ \ \ C(D)\\
\hline
-3 & 0.638909405 \\
-4 & 0.764223654 \\
-7 & 0.724719521 \\
-8 & 0.872887558 \\
-11 & 0.677388018 \\
-19 & 0.606300131 \\
-23 & 0.841512352 \\
-31 & 0.801014576 \\
-43 & 0.500610055 \\
-47 & 0.891550880 \\
-59 & 0.735485997 \\
-67 & 0.448813095 \\
-71 & 0.938541302 \\
-79 & 0.812629337 \\
-83 & 0.684502354 \\
\end{array}
\ \
\begin{array}[t]{r|l}
D & \ \ \ \ C(D)\\
\hline
-15 & 0.501918636 \\
-20 & 0.535179999 \\
-24 & 0.558357114 \\
-35 & 0.407379938 \\
-39 & 0.518747305 \\
-40 & 0.473558100 \\
-51 & 0.390646647 \\
-52 & 0.420720518 \\
-55 & 0.458949554 \\
-56 & 0.563486772 \\
-68 & 0.520288297 \\
-87 & 0.512573818 \\
-88 & 0.375792661 \\
-91 & 0.317487516 \\
-95 & 0.528624390 \\
\end{array}
\ \
\begin{array}[t]{r|l}
D & \ \ \ \ C(D)\\
\hline
-84 & 0.310647641 \\
-120 & 0.296417662 \\
-132 & 0.274765289 \\
-168 & 0.267006498 \\
-195 & 0.220993565 \\
-228 & 0.237562625 \\
-231 & 0.309699577 \\
-255 & 0.307681243 \\
-260 & 0.293752522 \\
-264 & 0.319941656 \\
-276 & 0.309309571 \\
-280 & 0.223644570 \\
-308 & 0.277034255 \\
-312 & 0.223049066 \\
-340 & 0.204812008 \\
\end{array}
\ \
\begin{array}[t]{r|l}
D & \ \ \ \ C(D)\\
\hline
-420 & 0.164080141 \\
-660 & 0.143806822 \\
-840 & 0.139069358 \\
-1092 & 0.123274604 \\
-1140 & 0.171607125 \\
-1155 & 0.109195133 \\
-1320 & 0.121504603 \\
-1380 & 0.117420083 \\
-1428 & 0.114424422 \\
-1540 & 0.108139197 \\
-1560 & 0.161366493 \\
-1716 & 0.148895032 \\
-1848 & 0.109066658 \\
-1860 & 0.151207258 \\
-1995 & 0.093833104 \\
\end{array}$$ It appears that $2^{1-\omega(D)}$ tends to dominate the other factors in (\[bern\]). We have $\omega(D)=1$ when $D$ is of the form $-q$ for a prime $q\equiv 3\ (\textrm{mod}\ 4)$. It is straightforward to find such primes with $C(-q)>C(-8)$, for example $q=47$, $71$, $167$, $191$ or $239$. The largest value of $C(-q)$ with $q<10^9$, which is also the largest value of $C(D)$ that we know, is $$C(-984452999) = 1.527855.$$ But already for $\omega(D)=2$ it becomes much more difficult to find a $D$ with $C(D)>C(-8)$, and the only example we know is (\[q\]). The difficulty in finding such examples is explained by the fact that $$\max_{0<-D<x}L(1,\chi_D)$$ grows very slowly with $x$. For example, Bateman, Erd[ö]{}s, and Chowla [@BCE] proved $$L(1, \chi_D) < \frac{10}{3} \frac{\varphi(|D|)}{|D|} \log |D| + 1.$$ Moreover, assuming a suitable generalized Riemann hypothesis, Littlewood [@little] showed $$\label{Litt}
e^\gamma\leq \limsup_{D\to-\infty} \frac{L(1,\chi_D)}{\log\log |D|}\leq 2e^\gamma$$ with $D$ running through negative fundamental discriminants. The left-hand inequality in (\[Litt\]) was shown unconditionally by Chowla [@Chowla] (see also the discussion in [@BCE]). Recent work by Granville and Soundararajan [@Granville] gives strong evidence via a probabilistic model that $e^\gamma$ is in fact the true limit superior of $L(1,\chi_D)/\log\log |D|$.
Regarding small values of $C(D)$, we mention that it was shown in [@mo] that $C(D)\cdot\sqrt{-D}$ is minimal for $D=-3$ as $D$ ranges over all negative discriminants, and that accordingly of all the two-dimensional lattices of covolume $1$, the hexagonal lattice has asymptotically the fewest distances.
Proof of Theorem 1.1 {#vier}
====================
In order to prove Theorem 1.1, we need to show that $L(1, \chi_D)$ is unbounded when $D$ runs through a certain subset of discriminants. In this direction, it is proved in [@BCE] that $$\label{ok}
\limsup_{D\to-\infty} \frac{L(1,\chi_D)}{\log\log |D|}\geq \frac{e^\gamma}{18}$$ where $D$ runs through fundamental discriminants of the form $D=-q$ with $q\equiv 3\ (\textrm{mod}\ 4)$ prime. This implies that $C(D)$ is unbounded, but says nothing about discriminants of the form $D=-4n$. Our main interest is in a result of Joshi [@Joshi] in which she improved (\[ok\]) by removing the factor 18 (for a quantitative version of this result, see [@cook]). It turns out that one can make suitable adjustments to Joshi’s proof in order to prove the following:\
**Theorem 3.1.** *Let $\Delta$ be a fundamental discriminant or 1, let $c$ and $d$ be coprime integers with $d$ divisible by $\Delta$ and 8, let $q$ run through the primes congruent to $c\ (\textrm{mod}\ d)$, and let $\chi$ be the Kronecker character $(\Delta q^*/\ \cdot\ )$ with $q^*=\lambda q$, $\lambda=(-1)^{(c-1)/2}$. Then $$\limsup_{\substack{q\to\infty\\q\equiv c\ (\textrm{mod}\ d)}}\frac{L(1,\chi)}{\log\log q}
\geq e^\gamma\cdot\prod_{p|d}
\frac{1-\frac{1}{p}}
{1-\left(\frac{\Delta c^*}{p}\right)\frac{1}{p}},$$ where $c^*=\lambda c$ and $\gamma$ is Euler’s constant.*\
Note that this is close to being best possible, cf. (\[Litt\]).\
*Proof of Theorem 3.1.* The theorem is a generalization of [@Joshi Theorem 2] which corresponds to the case $\Delta=1$. As the proof is a modification of Joshi’s argument, we give the necessary changes.
Fix some (small) $\epsilon>0$. It suffices to show that for every (large) $x$ there exists a prime $q\leq x$, $q\equiv c\ (\textrm{mod}\ d)$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{start}
\nonumber
\log L(1,\chi)&\geq& \log\log\log x+\gamma+\sum_{p|d}\log\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)\\
&&-\sum_{p|d}\log\left(1-\left(\frac{\Delta c^*}{p}\right)\frac{1}{p}\right)+\log(1-2\epsilon)+o(1).\end{aligned}$$
We prove (\[start\]) by constructing a set $\Sigma=\Sigma(x)$ of primes $q\leq x$, $q\equiv c\ (\textrm{mod}\ d)$, with $S=|\Sigma|$ and showing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{key}
\nonumber
\sum_{q\in\Sigma} \log L(1,\chi)&\geq &
S\left(\log\log\log x+\gamma+\sum_{p|d}\log\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)\right.\\
&&\left.-\sum_{p|d}\log\left(1-\left(\frac{\Delta c^*}{p}\right)\frac{1}{p}\right)
+\log(1-2\epsilon)\right)+o(S).\end{aligned}$$
Put $$y=(\log x)^{1-2\epsilon}$$ and let $p_1,\dots,p_m$ be the primes not greater than $y$ and not dividing $d$. Define $r$ as in [@Joshi p. 64], and let $k=dp_1\cdots p_{r-1}p_{r+1}\cdots p_m$. For each $i\neq r$, let $g_i$ (respectively $h_i$) be a quadratic residue (respectively non-residue) modulo $p_i$. Let $l\leq k$ be the unique positive integer satisfying $l \equiv c\ (\textrm{mod\ } d)$ and $$l \equiv \begin{cases}
g_i\ (\textrm{mod\ }p_i)& \text{for $\bigl({\lambda \Delta \over p_i}\bigr)=1$, $i\neq r$} \\
h_i\ (\textrm{mod\ }p_i)& \text{for $\bigl({\lambda \Delta \over p_i}\bigr)=-1$, $i\neq r$}.
\end{cases}$$ Define $$\Sigma=\{q\ \textrm{prime}\ |\ \sqrt{x}\leq q\leq x,\ q\equiv l\ (\textrm{mod\ }k)\}.$$ Then every $q\in\Sigma$ satisfies $q\equiv c\ (\textrm{mod\ }d)$ and $\chi(p_i)=1$ for $i\neq r$ since $$\chi(p_i)=
\left(\dfrac{\Delta q^*}{p_i}\right)=
\left(\dfrac{\lambda\Delta}{p_i}\right)
\left(\dfrac{q}{p_i}\right)=
\left(\dfrac{\lambda\Delta}{p_i}\right)
\left(\dfrac{l}{p_i}\right)=1.$$
So far, the only difference compared with Joshi’s proof is the definition of $l$ and $\chi$ (in [@Joshi], $\chi$ is the character $\bigl({\cdot \over q}\bigr)=\bigl({q^* \over \cdot}\bigr)$ corresponding to $\Delta=1$). The different definition of $l$ plays no role other than guaranteeing that we still have $\chi(p_i)=1$, cf. [@Joshi p. 65]. Hence, as in [@Joshi (24)], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\sum_{q\in\Sigma} \log L(1,\chi)&\geq &
S\left(\log\log\log x+\gamma+\sum_{p|d}\log\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)\right.\\
\label{2}
&&\left.-\sum_{p|d}\log\left(1-\left(\frac{\Delta c^*}{p}\right)\frac{1}{p}\right)
+\log(1-2\epsilon)\right)+R+o(S)\end{aligned}$$ where $$R=\sum_{q\in\Sigma}\sum_{p>y}\frac{\chi(p)}{p}.$$ We now show $R=o(S)$ and hence (\[key\]) by splitting the summation over $p$ into five intervals $I_1,\dots,I_5$ and thus writing $R=R_1+\dots+R_5$ with $$R_i=\sum_{q\in\Sigma}\sum_{p\in I_i}\frac{\chi(p)}{p}.$$
The estimation of $R_1$ and $R_2$ is practically the same as in Joshi’s paper, only one has to replace $\bigl({\lambda \over p}\bigr)$ by $\bigl({\lambda \Delta \over p}\bigr)$ in [@Joshi (27)] and the equation below that, which makes no difference since the sign of that factor plays no role anyway. The estimation of $R_3$ is exactly the same since it relies on the majorization $$\left|\sum_{p\in I_3}\frac{\chi(p)}{p}\right|\leq \sum_{p\in I_3}\frac{1}{p}.$$
The estimation of $R_4$ requires some more care since it relies on the large sieve as stated in [@Joshi Lemma 1] which works only for prime moduli. Put $\beta=2+\epsilon^{-1}$ and subdivide $I_4$ into intervals $J_t$ each containing $Z_t$ primes as in [@Joshi p. 70]. Then [@Joshi (30)] remains valid, i.e. $$\label{O}
\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in J_t}\frac{\chi(p)}{p}
-\frac{1}{t}\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in J_t}\chi(p)
=O\left(\frac{S}{(\log x)^{2\beta}}\right).$$ Let $J_t^+$ and $J_t^-$ denote the sets of primes in $J_t$ with $\bigl({\Delta \over p}\bigr)=1$ and $\bigl({\Delta \over p}\bigr)=-1$, respectively. Then $Z_t=Z_t^+ + Z_t^-$ where $Z_t^+$ and $Z_t^-$ are defined analogously. Also, let $Z_t(a,q)$ be the number of $p$ in $J_t$ which are congruent to $a$ modulo $q$, and similarly write $Z_t(a,q)=Z_t^+(a,q)+Z_t^-(a,q)$. Then a computation using the large sieve, cf. [@Joshi p. 71], shows $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left|\frac{1}{t}\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in J_t^+}
\left(\dfrac{p}{q}\right)
\right|^2
&=&
\frac{1}{t^2}\left|\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{j=1}^{q-1}
\left(\dfrac{j}{q}\right)
\left(Z_t^+(j,q)-\frac{Z_t^+}{q}\right)\right|^2\\
&\leq&
\frac{S^2}{(\log x)^{4\beta}},\end{aligned}$$ and similarly with the summation over $p\in J_t^-$. Since $\chi(p)=\bigl({\Delta \over p}\bigr)\bigl({p \over q}\bigr)$, we now get $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\left|\frac{1}{t}\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in J_t}\chi(p)\right|
&\leq&
\left|\frac{1}{t}\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in J_t^+}\chi(p)\right|+
\left|\frac{1}{t}\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in J_t^-}\chi(p)\right|\\
\nonumber
&=&
\left|\frac{1}{t}\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in J_t^+}\left(\dfrac{p}{q}\right)\right|+
\left|\frac{1}{t}\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in J_t^-}\left(\dfrac{p}{q}\right)\right|\\
\nonumber
&\leq&
2\cdot \frac{S}{(\log x)^{2\beta}}\\
\label{OO}
&=&
O\left(\frac{S}{(\log x)^{2\beta}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ From and follows $$\left|\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in J_t}\frac{\chi(p)}{p}\right|
=O\left(\frac{S}{(\log x)^{2\beta}}\right),$$ and thus $$R_4=\sum_{q\in \Sigma}\sum_{p\in I_4}\frac{\chi(p)}{p}=o(S).$$ Finally, the estimation of $R_5$ can be carried out as in [@Joshi p. 72] by writing $$\sum_{v<p\leq w}\frac{\chi(p)}{p}=
\sum_{j=1}^{|\Delta q|} \chi(j)
\sum_{\substack{v<p\leq w\\p\equiv j\ (\textrm{mod\ } |\Delta q|)}}\frac{1}{p}$$ and using [@Joshi Lemma 3].\
[*Proof of Theorem 1.1.*]{} If $\Delta$ is a negative fundamental discriminant, then let $c=1$ and $d$ be divisible by $\Delta$ and $8$. Hence Theorem 3.1 implies that for $\chi=\chi_{D}$, $D=\Delta q$, we have $$\sup_{\substack{q\to\infty\\ q\equiv c\ (\textrm{mod\ }d)}} L(1, \chi)=\infty.$$ Applying this to (\[bern\]) yields the first statement. If $\Delta$ is a positive fundamental discriminant or $1$, let $c=-1$ and $d$ be divisible by $\Delta$ and $8$. Applying Theorem 3.1 with $D=-\Delta q$ to (\[bern\]) implies the second statement.
Outlook
=======
We focused on large values of $C(\Delta q)$. Likewise, one might ask about small values. Is it true for example that $\lim \inf C(\Delta q)=0$ as $q$ runs over the primes congruent to 1 modulo 4? Is $C(\Delta q)$ constant on average? Likewise one can consider our table and wonder whether the values in a column are constant on average. If so, will this constant be zero or not? Perhaps variations of the techniques in [@Granville] can be used to study this. A further open problem is to determine whether $B_f(x)$ is asymptotically better approximated by $C(D)\int_2^x{dt\log^{-1/2}t}$ or $C(D)x\log^{-1/2}x$. Finally, it might be of interest to recover $C(D)$ for any discriminant $D<0$ using sieve methods. For example, the Landau-Ramanujan constant $C$ was verified (see [@iwaniec]) using the half-dimensional sieve.
Acknowlegements {#acknowlegements .unnumbered}
===============
The first author was supported by grant 272-08-0323 from the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation while the third author was partially supported by Science Foundation Ireland 08/RFP MTH1081. The third author would like to thank the Institut des Hautes [É]{}tudes Scientifiques for their hospitality and support during the preparation of this paper and Greg Martin and Olivier Ramaré for their comments.
[999]{}
P. Bateman, S. Chowla and P. Erd[ö]{}s, Remarks on the size of $L(1,\chi)$, [*Publ. Math. Debrecen*]{} [**1**]{} (1950), 165–182.
P. Bernays, Über die Darstellung von positiven, ganzen Zahlen durch die primitiven, binären quadratischen Formen einer nicht-quadratischen Diskriminante, Dissertation, Göttingen, 1912, available at <http://www.math.uni-bielefeld.de/~rehmann/DML/>
S. Chowla, On the class-number of the corpus $P(\sqrt{-k})$, *Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. India* **13** (1947), 197–200.
R. Cook, A note on character sums, [*J. Number Theory*]{} [**11**]{} (1979), 505–515.
D. Cox, [*Primes of the Form $x^2+ny^2$*]{}, John Wiley $\&$ Sons, Inc, New York, 1989.
S. Finch, G. Martin and P. Sebah, Roots of unity and nullity modulo $n$, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**138**]{} (2010), 2729–2743.
O. Fomenko, Distribution of values of Fourier coefficients of modular forms of weight $1$, [*J. Math. Sci. (New York)*]{} [**89**]{} (1998), 1050–1071.
A. Granville and K. Soundararajan, The distribution of values of $L(1, \chi_d)$, *Geom. Funct. Anal.* **13** (2003), 992–1028.
G. Hardy, [*Ramanujan*]{}, Chelsea, New York, 1959.
H. Iwaniec, The half dimensional sieve, [*Acta Arith.*]{} [**29**]{} (1976), no. 1, 69–95.
R. James, The distribution of integers represented by quadratic forms, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} [**60**]{} (1938), 737–744.
P. Joshi, The size of $L(1,\,\chi )$ for real nonprincipal residue characters $\chi $ with prime modulus, [*J. Number Theory*]{} [**2**]{} (1970), 58–73.
P. Kaplan and K. Williams, The genera representing a positive integer, [*Acta Arith.*]{} [**102**]{} (2002), 353–361.
E. Landau, Über die Einteilung der positiven ganzen Zahlen in vier Klassen nach der Mindestzahl der zu ihrer additiven Zusammensetzung erforderlichen Quadrate, [*Arch. der Math. und Phys. (3)*]{} [**13**]{} (1908), 305–312.
J. Littlewood, On the class-number of the corpus $P(\sqrt{-k})$, [*Proc. London Math. Soc. (2)*]{} [**27**]{} (1928), 358–372.
P. Moree and R. Osburn, Two-dimensional lattices with few distances, [*Enseignement Math.*]{} [**52**]{} (2006), 361–380.
D. Shanks, The second order term in the asymptotic expansion of $B(x)$, [*Math. Comp.*]{} [**18**]{} (1964), 75–86.
D. Shanks and L. Schmid, Variations on a theorem of Landau. I, [*Math. Comp.*]{} [**20**]{} (1966), 551–569.
Z. Sun and K. Williams, On the number of representations of $n$ by $ax^2 + bxy + cy^2$, [*Acta Arith.*]{} [**122**]{} (2006), 101–171.
K. Williams, Note on integers representable by binary quadratic forms, [*Canad. Math. Bull.*]{} [**18**]{} (1975), 123–125.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present multi-frequency radio observations from the afterglow of beginning 7.2 hours after the gamma-ray burst and ending 63 days later. The fast decline in the optical and X-ray light curves for this burst has been interpreted either as afterglow emission originating from a collimated outflow – a jet – or the result of a blast wave propagating into a medium whose density is shaped by the wind of an evolved massive star. These two models predict divergent behavior for the radio afterglow, and therefore, radio observations are capable, in principle, of discriminating between the two. We show that a wind model describes the subsequent evolution of the radio afterglow rather well. However, we see strong modulation of the light curve, which we interpret as diffractive scintillation. These variations prevent us from decisively rejecting the jet model.'
author:
- 'D. A. Frail, S. R. Kulkarni, R. Sari , G. B. Taylor, D. S. Shepherd, J. S. Bloom, C. H. Young, L. Nicastro, N. Masetti'
nocite:
- '[@dfk+99]'
- '[@sph99]'
- '[@cl99]'
- '[@jha+98]'
- '[@dgk+98]'
- '[@naa+99]'
- '[@hkpb99]'
- '[@sfkm98]'
- '[@goo97]'
- '[@fkn+97]'
- '[@tc93]'
- '[@jha+98]'
title: '**The Radio Afterglow From GRB: A Test of the Jet and Circumstellar Models**'
---
Introduction
============
Both geometry and environment can affect the evolution of gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows ([@mrw98b], [@pmr98]), giving us insight into such important issues as the total energetics, the burst event rate and the nature of GRB progenitors. The light curves and spectra from some of the earliest afterglows showed good agreement with fireball models of spherical blastwaves expanding into a homogeneous medium (e.g. [@wrm97], [@wax97b]). However, over the past year, we have come to recognize a class of GRBs whose afterglows exhibited steeper than normal power-law decays (i.e. $f_\nu\propto{t}^{-2}$). Explanations for this behavior include invoking a large value for the energy spectral index ($p \sim 4$) of the radiation electrons ([@ggv+98b]), a jet-like geometry for the relativistic shock ([@rho97b], [@rho99], [@sph99]), and a class of inhomogeneous circumburst medium models, specifically those shaped by the winds (mass loss) of progenitor stars ([@vie97], [@cl99], [@lc99]).
Empirical evidence connecting GRBs to the collapse of massive stars is accumulating from studies of GRB 980425 ([@gvv+98], [@kfw+98]), GRB 980326 ([@bkd+99]) and GRB 970228 ([@rei99], [@gtv+99]). Further evidence comes from the studies of GRB environments, and includes the small measured GRB/host galaxy offsets ([@bod+99], [@bsp99]) and the growing number of optically obscured afterglows such as GRB ([@tfk+98]) and GRB (Djorgovski [*et al.*]{} 1999).
The two models – the jet and the wind-shaped circumburst medium (WCM) – are well motivated by sound physical and empirical considerations. Jets have been invoked in part due to their universality, but also specifically to account for the large inferred isotropic energy release in some GRBs (e.g. GRB 990123; Kulkarni et al. 1999). The broad-band steepening of the optical and radio light curves seen in GRB 990510 is explained very well by the jet model ([@sgk+99a], [@hbf+99]). Likewise, if GRBs are the end points of massive stars then it is inevitable that the circumburst medium will be inhomogeneous and reflect the mass loss history of the progenitor star.
occupies a central position in the debate of jets versus WCM models. It is the second brightest GRB in the BeppoSAX sample, and its X-ray and optical afterglow showed rapid fading, $f\propto t^{-2}$ (see [@hkpb99]). Based on the optical and X-ray data Sari, Piran & Halpern (1999) advocated a jet model whereas Chevalier and Li (1999) advocate a WCM model. We discuss here the radio data in view of these two very different models.
Observations {#sec:results}
============
was detected on 1998 May 19.51 UT with the Wide Field Camera (WFC) on board the BeppoSAX satellite ([@mhb+98]). A follow up observation with the Narrow Field Instruments (NFI) some 10 hrs after the burst detected a rapidly fading X-ray source ([@nac+98]) with a power-law decay slope of $-$1.83$\pm$0.3 ([@naa+99]). Within the WFC error circle, and coincident with the subsequent NFI location, Jaunsen et al. (1998) noted a fading optical counterpart. Djorgovski et al. (1998) showed that the optical transient (OT) exhibited a power-law decline with $\alpha\sim
-2$; here $f(t)\propto t^{\alpha}$. A summary of the X-ray and optical afterglow light curves can be found in Nicastro et al. (1999) and Halpern et al. (1999), respectively.
We began observations of GRB 980519 with the Very Large Array (VLA) some 7.2 hours after the initial $\gamma$-ray burst. The source was clearly detected on May 22; hereafter, we will refer to the radio afterglow as . A log of the VLA observations and a summary of the results can be found in Table \[tab:Table-VLA\]. Except on the first day, when the bandwidth was halved in order to image the full WFC error circle, a 100 MHz bandwidth was used and all four Stokes parameters were measured. As these observations were begun when the VLA was in its most extended configuration and during the stormy summer season, considerable care was taken to accurately track the atmospheric phase variations across the array. Each scan on the source lasted three to five minutes and was bracketed on either side with a nearby phase calibrator (J0017+815). As a check on the integrity of the phase solutions a second phase calibrator (J2344+824) was observed frequently. The flux scale was tied to one of the sources J0137+331, J0542+498, or J1331+305.
In addition to the VLA observations, we observed the OT with the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) six-element array on the evening of 1998 May 21. was observed for 6.5 hr at a central frequency of 100 GHz with a 2 GHz bandwidth. The synthesized beam was 5$\times$[4]{}; see Shepherd et al. (1998) for the procedure used to analyze the data. The resulting map had an rms noise level of 0.9 mJy beam$^{-1}$ and the flux at the position of the OT was $-$1.2 mJy beam$^{-1}$. Thus we place an upper limit (mean plus 3-$\sigma$) of 1.5 mJy beam$^{-1}$.
The light curve of can be found in Figure \[fig:rlight\]. The best fit position of , determined by a Gaussian fit of the combined 8.46 GHz data from May 22, May 24, June 2 and June 5 is (epoch J2000) $\alpha$ = $23^h22^m21.50^s$ ($\pm{0.02^s}$), $\delta$ = $+77^\circ15^\prime43.25^{\prime\prime}$ ($\pm{0.06}^{\prime\prime}$). The radio source coincides with the OT within the errors of the optical astrometry ([@jha+98]).
The Light Curve: Interstellar Scattering and Scintillation {#sec:lcurve}
==========================================================
The light curve of , with a gradual rise to a plateau followed by a decline below detectability around day 60, is qualitatively similar to that of many previously studied afterglows. Even though the data are sparse it is clear that there are some large amplitude variations (e.g. around about June 7), especially at 4.86 GHz. One could attribute the variations to residual uncorrected phases caused by poor weather. Fortunately, there exists a field source J232137.6+7715.0, some 2.5 from . As can been seen from the two lower panels in Fig. \[fig:rlight\], the flux of this source is stable and does not show any suppression on those days when the afterglow was not detected. Phase incoherence is a multiplicative error and the stability of J232137.6+7715.0 is an empirical confirmation of the robustness of our calibration procedure. Parenthetically we note that the field source is beyond the delay beam and is thus expected to suffer more photometric errors than a source close to the phase center.
We believe that the large variations seen in the light curve of are real, and following Goodman (1997) and Frail et al. (1997) we attribute these variations to interstellar scattering and scintillation (ISS). In particular, diffractive scintillation can induce extreme intensity variations (see below) and thereby account for the nulls in the light curve (Fig. \[fig:rlight\]). For example, in the relatively short time window of 12 to 19 days, we have four measurements with a mean of 103 $\mu$Jy and standard deviation of 103 $\mu$Jy at 8.46 GHz, i.e. $100\%$ modulations. At 4.86 GHz we have mean of 80 $\mu$Jy and standard deviation of 142 $\mu$Jy, i.e. $180\%$ modulations. The statistical fluctuations from thermal noise can explain about $30\%$ and $40\%$ of the flux modulations at 8.46 GHz and 4.86 GHz, respectively. For comparison, the field source had mean of 570 $\mu$Jy and standard deviation of 52 $\mu$Jy, while the statistical fluctuations are 85 $\mu$Jy. Therefore, the modulations in our data are likely dominated by scintillation rather than by statistical noise. We now proceed with the ISS hypothesis and use the observed variability to infer the angular size of the source.
The strength of the scattering is reflected in the parameter SM, the so-called scattering measure. In the direction towards the GRB $(l,b)=(117.96^\circ,15.26^\circ$), using the formulation of Taylor & Cordes (1993) we estimate ${\rm SM}=5.8\times
10^{-4}\,{\rm m}^{-20/3}\,{\rm kpc}$; for reference, we note that this is a factor of two larger than towards GRB 970508 ([@fkn+97]). We have assumed that the typical pathlength to the scattering medium in this direction is d$_{\rm scr}$=1.9 kpc. Using this SM and Goodman’s equations we expect to see strong scattering for frequencies below $\nu_0=15$ GHz. The corresponding Fresnel angle and Fresnel size at $\nu_0$ are, $\theta_{F_0}=1.5\,\mu$arcsec and $R_{F_0}=4.2\times
10^{10}$ cm.
For $\nu>\nu_0$, the scattering is weak and the modulations scale as $(\nu/\nu_0)^{-17/12}<1$. The fact that we observe order of unity fluctuations at both 4.86 GHz and 8.46 GHz implies that $\nu_0\ge 8.5$ GHz, compatible with the estimate from the SM. For $\nu<\nu_0$ we will see strong diffractive scintillation only if the size of the source, $\theta_S<\theta_D=\theta_{F_0}(\nu/\nu_0)^{6/5}$. The other ISS parameters of interest are the decorrelation timescale (time for significant changes in the detected flux), $t_{\rm
RISS}=3.9{\rm\,hr}(\nu/\nu_0)^{6/5}(R_{F_0}/4.2\times
10^{10}{\rm\,cm}) /(v_{\perp}/30\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}})$ and the bandwidth over which the diffractive ISS is decorrelated, $\Delta\nu = \nu_0
(\nu/\nu_0)^{22/5}$. For $\nu_0\simeq{15}$ GHz the resulting ($\theta_D,t_{\rm diff}$, $\Delta\nu$) are (0.7$\,\mu$arcsec, 1.8 hr, 900 MHz) at 8.46 GHz, and (0.4$\,\mu$arcsec, 0.9 hr, 80 MHz) at 4.86 GHz. In calculating $t_{\rm RISS}$ we have assumed a transverse speed of 30 km s$^{-1}$ for the scintillation pattern across the line-of-sight. These estimates are rough in the sense that the estimate of SM (and hence $\nu_0$), for a given pathlength, can typically fluctuate by a factor of a few. Decreasing $\nu_0$ has the effect of increasing $\theta_D$, $t_{\rm diff}$ and $\Delta\nu$.
These strong diffractive fluctuations can be suppressed under two circumstances: (1) When the duration ($\Delta t$) and/or the bandwidth ($B$) of the observations exceed $t_{\rm RISS}$ and $\Delta\nu$, respectively. The relevant figures of merit are given by $n_1=\sqrt{B/\Delta\nu}$ and $n_2=\sqrt{\Delta{t}/t_{\rm RISS}}$. (2) If the source size, $\theta_S$, exceeds $\theta_D$. The figure of merit here is $n_3=\theta_S/\theta_D$. If either $n_1$ or $n_2>1$ then the observation will encompass more than one “scintel” (an island of constructive interference), thereby suppressing the variations. A large source will lower the modulation index to $n_3^{-1}$ and increase the ISS timescale by the factor $n_3$ ([@nar93]). The fluctuations $\delta F$ of the observed flux $F$ in the regime of diffractive scintillation will therefore be given by $$\frac {\delta F} F = \min(1,n_1^{-1})\min(1,n_2^{-1})\min(1,n_3^{-1}).$$
Our detection of strong diffractive scintillation at these frequencies suggests that all three figures $n_1,n_2,n_3 \le 1$; otherwise the fluctuations would be suppressed. From Table \[tab:Table-VLA\] and the estimate of the ISS parameters above we find $n_1(4.86\, {\rm
GHz}) \sim 1$, $n_1(8.46\,{\rm GHz})\sim 0.1$ and $n_2(4.86\, {\rm
GHz}) \sim 2$, $n_2(8.46\,{\rm GHz})\sim 1$. These estimates are compatible with the constraint discussed above. Interestingly, if $\nu_0$were any larger than 15 GHz, the fluctuations would have been suppressed since both $n_1$ and $n_2$ would have become larger than unity at 4.86 GHz. Our observations, therefore, limit $\nu_0$ to a narrow range of values (${8-15}$ GHz) and likewise the estimates of $\theta_D,t_{\rm diff}$, $\Delta\nu$.
Thus, given the uncertainties involved, the strong modulations seen at both frequencies are quite reasonable. Furthermore, the strong modulations require that $n_3$ be close to unity i.e. the source must be less than $\theta_D$. Thus if our explanation that the strong variation seen in the light curve is due to diffractive ISS is correct, then the radio source must be less than $0.4\,\mu$arcsec – a very small size indeed. Theoretical models predict a somewhat larger size. We will discuss this discrepancy in §\[sec:discuss\].
The strong modulations caused by scintillation do not allow us to accurately estimate the spectral slope in the radio band. However, averaging over all observations from day 12 on we find $\beta \cong
-0.45 \pm 0.6$ (where $f_\nu\propto\nu^\beta$). This large range is compatible with both the early spectral index of $1/3$ expected at low frequencies and with the late spectral index of $\sim -1$. It is inconsistent with the self-absorption spectral index of $2$. The source was never detected at 1.43 GHz (see Table \[tab:Table-VLA\]). We conclude that is an extremely compact ($<1\,\mu$arcsec) source with a self absorption frequency $\nu_{ab}$ between 1.43 GHz and 4.86 GHz.
Discussion {#sec:discuss}
==========
The intense interest in GRB 980519 primarily stems from the fact that it was one of the first GRBs to be recognized to have a rapidly fading afterglow ([@hkpb99]). Two entirely different models were proposed to account for the rapid fading: a jet expanding into a homogeneous medium ([@sph99]) and a spherical explosion into a wind-shaped circumburst medium (WCM; [@cl99]). Both Sari et al. and Chevalier & Li used the same optical and X-ray data but ended up favoring two radically different models.
The currently accepted view is that the afterglow emission arises in the forward shock of relativistically moving material ejected from a compact source (e.g. [@mr97a], [@wax97a]). It is assumed that in this shock the electrons are accelerated to a power-law distribution of energies (index $p$) above some minimum energy, $\gamma_{m}m_ec^2$. Furthermore, it is assumed that there is a suitably strong magnetic field in the post-shock region. The energy density of the electrons and the magnetic field is assumed to scale linearly with the energy density of the protons. Gyration of the electrons in the magnetic field then results in a broad-band spectrum characterized by three frequencies, $\nu_{ab}$, $\nu_m$ and $\nu_c$ and the flux at frequency $\nu_m$, $f_m$ ([@spn98]). The slope above $\nu_m$ is given by $f_\nu\propto\nu^{-(p-1)/2}$, and this steepens by one half at $\nu_c$ due to radiative cooling. Below $\nu_m$ the spectral slope is the classical $f_\nu\propto\nu^{1/3}$, until it turns over below $\nu_{ab}$ due to synchrotron self-absorption, for which $f_\nu\propto\nu^2$. The dynamics of the expansion, the density distribution of the circumstellar matter and the details of the energy injection govern the the temporal evolution of these four parameters. However, the basic shape of the above spectrum does not change. Thus the key to distinguishing between competing models is through following the temporal evolution of the spectrum.
Characterizing the broad-band spectrum by $f(\nu,t)\propto t^\alpha
\nu^\beta$, we note from Halpern et al. (1999) in the first 1 – 2 days after the burst the following: $\alpha_{\rm opt}=-2.05\pm$0.04, $\beta_{\rm opt}=-1.20\pm 0.25$, $\alpha_{\rm X}=-1.83\pm 0.30$ and $\beta_{\rm opt-X}=-1.05\pm 0.10$. Within errors the X-ray afterglow declines as rapidly as the better measured optical afterglow. Likewise, within errors, the optical spectral index, $\beta_{\rm opt}$ is the same as the better measured optical-X-ray spectral index, $\beta_{\rm opt-X}$. Hereafter we will refer to $\alpha_{\rm opt}$ and $\beta_{\rm opt-X}$ by $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
Each model has a specific closure relation between $\alpha$ and $\beta$. We now consider each model in turn. (1) A spherical explosion in a constant density medium would require $H=0$ or $H=1/2$ depending on whether the range of observing frequencies is below or above $\nu_c$; here $S(\alpha,\beta)\equiv \alpha-3/2\beta$. The measured $H=-0.48\pm 0.16$ rules out this model (Halpern et al. 1999, Sari, Piran, & Halpern 1999). (2) A jet model would need $J(\alpha,\beta) \equiv \alpha -2\beta =-1,\, 0$ depending on whether the range of observing frequencies is below or above $\nu_c$. We find $J=0.05\pm 0.21$ which is seemingly more consistent with a jet expanding into a constant density medium with both the optical and X-ray frequencies below $\nu_c$. Sari et al. (1999) and Halpern et al. (1999) favor a jet model but with $\nu_c$ between the optical and X-ray bands, in order to explain $\beta$ with a standard value of $p
\sim 2.4$. The apparent inconsistency with the value of $J$ is attributed, in this interpretation, to the theoretically very long transition ([@pmr98], [@rho99], [@sph99]) to the jet asymptotic power-law. The observed value of $\alpha$ may therefore be less than the theoretical one, if measured on a finite time interval. (3) An impulsive explosion in wind-shaped circumstellar model would need $W(\alpha,\beta) =2\alpha-3\beta=-1,\, 1$ depending on whether the range of observing frequencies is below or above $\nu_c$. We find $W=-0.95\pm 0.3$ which is consistent with this model provided that both the optical and X-ray frequencies are below $\nu_c$. Chevalier & Li (1999) justify the WCM model on this basis. However, they do note that their estimated $\nu_c$ on day 1 (when $\alpha$ and $\beta$ were measured) is between the optical and X-ray bands and argue that given the scanty measurements and rough theory the inconsistency is not particularly worrisome.
Thus both the jet model and the WCM model can account for the observed optical and X-ray afterglow observations including the rapid decay. In the WCM model, the rapid decline is due to the gas density in the wind falling off as the inverse square of the distance between the shock boundary and the burst location, together with a larger value of the electron powerlaw index $p \sim 3$. In the jet model, the decrease is due to geometry. Due to relativistic “beaming”, only a small portion of the shocked gas is visible to the observer, a solid angle $\Gamma^{-2}$ where $\Gamma$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the shocked gas. When $\Gamma$ falls below $\theta_J^{-1}$, the inverse of the opening angle of the jet, the observer will notice the finite edge of the emitting surface, thereby leading to a deficit of emission and thus a steeper than normal decline. Moreover, at about the same time, the jet will begin to expand sidewise, further enhancing the decline.
We now discuss how radio observations can help resolve the ambiguity of the choice of models. For the sake of completeness, we also include a discussion of the simplest afterglow model (spherical explosion in a homogeneous medium).
[**Spherical, homogeneous model.**]{} In this model, $\nu_{ab}\propto{t}^0$, $\nu_m\propto{t}^{-3/2}$ and $f_m=t^0$. As discussed in §\[sec:lcurve\], $\nu_{ab}<$8.46 GHz$<\nu_m$; this is certainly a secure statement two days after the burst. In this frequency range, we expect $f(t)\propto t^{1/2}$ until $\nu_m$ reaches 8.46 GHz; we estimate (in the framework of this model) this will happen around 140 d. This estimate relies on a knowledge of the basic spectral shape of the afterglow ([@spn98]) and the near simultaneous optical and radio data on 1998 May 28.59 UT to derive $\nu_m$ and $f_m$ at this time and evolve it forward until $\nu_m$=8.46 GHz. Thereafter the radio flux will decay in a manner similar to the optical and X-ray flux. As can be seen from Figure \[fig:model\] the predictions are clearly inconsistent with the observations. Even the strong modulations produced by the ISS are unable to resolve this discrepancy (see below). Thus we can reject the spherical model in an entirely independent way from the closure method.
[**Jet Model.**]{} We begin by noting that the steep optical decline had already started at the time of the first afterglow observation ($t_1$) – the I-band observation by Jaunsen et al. (1998) about 7.5 hr after the burst. Thus the epoch at which the jet-like geometry of the emitting surface becomes apparent to the observer, $t_J$, is less than $t_1$. The epoch of the I-band observations is close to our first radio observation (see Table \[tab:Table-VLA\]). In this “jet-dominated” regime the radio afterglow emission is $f(\nu_{ab}<\nu<\nu_m) \propto t^{-1/3}$ and $f(\nu<\nu_{ab}) \propto t^0$ (Sari et al. 1999). However, in §\[sec:results\] we argued that is an absorbed source with $\nu_{ab}$ between 1.43 and 4.86 GHz. The self-absorption frequency evolves slowly with time, $\nu_{ab}\propto t^{-1/5}$. Thus we expect 8.46 GHz to be in the optically thin regime and therefore the flux at this frequency should decrease as $\propto t^{-1/3}$. A $t^{-1/3}$ fit to the data, does not give a reasonable $\chi^2$. However, the errors in the flux density (as quoted in Table \[tab:Table-VLA\]) may be underestimating the real uncertainties for a strongly scintillating source. If we fit the data, allowing for strong diffractive scintillation in the measurement uncertainties (i.e. $\sigma=\bar{S}$) then a reasonable solution can be found S=210$t_d^{-1/3}$ $\mu$Jy ($\chi^2$=6 with 13 dof), where $t_d$ is time in days. The sharp break in the light curve at $t_m=26$ days corresponds to $\nu_m$=8.46 GHz and was derived by evolving the spectrum forward from $t=1.08$ days (with $\beta$=1/3 for $\nu<\nu_m$ and $\beta=\beta_{\rm opt-X}$ for $\nu>\nu_m$), when high quality optical and radio data existed.
[**Wind-shaped Circumstellar Medium Model.**]{} Using the contemporaneous X-ray, optical and radio data taken up to three days after the burst, Chevalier & Li (1999) fit the circumstellar model to derive the fireball parameters (total energy, energy power law index, fraction of energy in electrons and magnetic fields) and the wind properties, for an assumed redshift of $z$=1. In their derivation, the 8.46 GHz emission initially originates below $\nu_{ab}$ and $\nu_{m}$ but the subsequent evolution moves them into this band as $\nu_{ab}\propto{t}^{-3/5}$, $\nu_m\propto{t}^{-3/2}$ and $f_m\propto{t}^{-1/2}$. Thus in the circumstellar model one predicts an initial rise of the radio flux as the source opacity decreases, followed by a plateau when $\nu_{ab}<$8.46 GHz$<\nu_m$ and then a steep decay when $\nu_m<$8.46 GHz. We have plotted the model fit of Chevalier & Li (1999) (labeled “Wind”) in Fig. \[fig:model\]. We stress that the model was derived on the first three days of afterglow data, spanning 8 orders of magnitude in frequency, and yet without any further adjustments their model fits the next 60 days of VLA measurements remarkably well.
As we have noted in the previous section, the angular size of the afterglow is less than $1\,\mu$arcsec even after about 15 days. In the three models, spherical, wind and jet, the afterglow angular size at that time is given by $$\theta_{Sphere}=
2.8\,\mu{\rm arcsec} \left( \frac {1+z} 2 \right)^{-5/8} D_{A,28}^{-1}
E_{52}^{1/8} n_i^{-1/8} (t/15\,{\rm days})^{5/8}$$ $$\theta_{Wind}=
2.2\,\mu{\rm arcsec} \left( \frac {1+z} 2 \right)^{-3/4} D_{A,28}^{-1}
E_{52}^{1/4} A_\star^{-1/4} (t/15\,{\rm days})^{3/4}$$ $$\theta_{J}=
1.7\,\mu{\rm arcsec} \left( \frac {1+z} 2 \right)^{-5/8} D_{A,28}^{-1}
E_{52}^{1/8} n_i^{-1/8} (t_{J}/8\,{\rm hr})^{1/8} (t/15\,{\rm days})^{1/2}.$$ Here, $D_{A,28}$ is the distance in units of 10$^{28}$ cm, $E_{52}$ is the inferred “isotropic” energy released in the explosion in units of $10^{52}$ergs, $n_i$ is the surrounding density in the constant density case. $A_\star$ characterizes the wind density as $\rho(R)=5\times 10^{11} A_\star R_{\rm cm}^{-2}$ g cm$^{-3}$, with as a $R_{\rm cm}$ the wind radius in cm. These sizes are quite similar to each other. This stems from the very low dependence of the size as a function of density and from the fact that the density in front of the shock, at a time of 15 days, in a wind model with typical parameters is not very different from regular ISM densities. It can be seen that the small inferred size from the scintillation is challenging for all these models. It requires either a dense wind, or a jet with very small opening angle, that begins to spread at a very early time. It is hard to reduce the size below $1\,\mu$arcsec for any reasonable choice of the parameters in the spherical constant density model. The agreement with scintillation theory would improve if either SM or the effective distance of the scattering screen $d_{\rm scr}$ were lower by a factor of two. Along specific lines of sight the uncertainty in either of these quantities could vary by this amount due to the non-uniform nature of the ionized medium. In such a case the inferred size of $0.4\,\mu$arcsec would increase by a factor of 2.5, enabling both jet and wind models to fit the data.
Conclusions
===========
The observed steep decline in the optical and X-ray light curves of the afterglow from lends itself to two equally compelling hypotheses, the first being that the afterglow emission originates from a collimated outflow (or jet), and the second, that the emission is the result of a blast wave propagating into a medium whose density is shaped by the wind of an evolved massive star. These competing models predict divergent behavior for the evolution of the radio emission. In the jet model the radio flux is expected to decrease continuously after the jet edge becomes visible. In contrast, the circumstellar model, specifically the Wolf-Rayet wind model of Chevalier & Li (1999), predicts a linear rise, followed by a broad plateau and a late decay in the radio light curve.
In this case, scintillation, low-signal-to-noise and sparse data at early times, has limited us from decisively choosing either model. The influence of ISS could be reduced, in future afterglow observations, if one has more measurements at early times (the first two days is where the models differ the most). Such observations, separated by a few hours (a time which is larger than $t_{ISS}$), could be averaged to produce a more solid estimate of the emitted flux, free of large modulations. Nevertheless, this result illustrates the unique diagnostics provided by radio observations and its potential for unraveling the origin of GRBs. Previous examples include the demonstration of jets in GRB 990510 ([@hbf+99]) and the discovery of a reverse shock in GRB 990123 ([@sp99b], [@kfs+99]).
DAF thanks Roger Chevalier and Zhi-Yun Li for providing their model light curves. SRK thanks Jim Cordes for discussions related to ISS. The Very Large Array (VLA) is operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. SRK’s research is supported by grants from NSF and NASA. RS is supported by the Sherman Fairchild Foundation.
, J. S. [*et al.*]{} 1999a, ApJ, 518, L1.
, J. S. [*et al.*]{} 1999b, Nature, 401, 453.
, J. S., [Sigurdsson]{}, S., and [Pols]{}, O. R. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 763.
, R. A. and [Li]{}, Z.-Y. 1999, , 520, L29.
, S. G., [*et al.*]{} 1999, in preparation.
Djorgovski, S. G., Gal, R. R., Kulkarni, S. R., Bloom, J. S., and Kelly, A. 1998, GCN notice 79.
, D. A., [Kulkarni]{}, S. R., [Nicastro]{}, S. R., [Feroci]{}, M., and [Taylor]{}, G. B. 1997, , 389, 261.
, T. J. [*et al.*]{} 1998, Nature, 395, 670.
Galama, T. J. [*et al.*]{} 1999, ApJ. submitted, astro-ph/9907264.
Goodman, J. 1997, New Astr., 2(5), 449.
, P. J. [*et al.*]{} 1998, , 502, L123.
, J. P., [Kemp]{}, J., [Piran]{}, T., and [Bershady]{}, M. A. 1999, , 517, L105.
, F. A. [*et al.*]{} 1999, ApJ, 523, L121.
Jaunsen, A. O., Hjorth, J., Andersen, M. I., Kjernsmo, K., Pedersen, H., and Palazzi, E. 1998, GCN notice 78.
, S. R. [*et al.*]{} 1999, , 522, L97.
Kulkarni, S. R. [*et al.*]{} 1998, Nature, 395, 663.
Li, Z.-Y. and Chevalier, R. A. 1999, In Press, ApJ, astro-ph/9903483.
Mészáros, P. and Rees, M. J. 1997, ApJ, 476, 232.
, P., [Rees]{}, M. J., and [Wijers]{}, R. A. M. J. 1998, ApJ, 499, 301.
, J. M., [Heise]{}, J., [Butler]{}, C., [Frontera]{}, F., [Di Ciolo]{}, L., [Gandolfi]{}, G., [Coletta]{}, A., and [Soffitta]{}, P. 1998, , 6910.
Narayan, R. 1993, in [ Pulsars as Physics Laboratories]{}, ed. A. G. Lyne R. D. Blandford, A. Hewish and L. Mestel, Oxford University Press, 151.
Nicastro, L. [*et al.*]{} 1999, in press A&AS , astro-ph/9904169.
, L., [Antonelli]{}, L. A., [Celidonio]{}, G., [Daniele]{}, M. R., [De Libero]{}, C., [Spoliti]{}, G., [Piro]{}, L., and [Pian]{}, E. 1998, , 6912.
, A., [Meszaros]{}, P., and [Rees]{}, M. J. 1998, ApJ, 503, 314.
, D. E. 1999, ApJ, 521, L111.
Rhoads, J. E. 1997, ApJ, 487, L1.
Rhoads, J. E. 1999, Submitted to ApJ; astro-ph/9903399.
, R. and [Piran]{}, T. 1999, , 517, L109.
, R., [Piran]{}, T., and [Halpern]{}, J. P. 1999, ApJ, 519, L17.
, R., [Piran]{}, T., and [Narayan]{}, R. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17.
Shepherd, D. S., Frail, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., and Metzger, M. R. 1998, ApJ, 497, 859.
, K. Z., [Garnavich]{}, P. M., [Kaluzny]{}, J., [Pych]{}, W., and [Thompson]{}, I. 1999, ApJ, 522, L39.
Taylor, G. B. [*et al.*]{} 1998, ApJ, 502, L115.
, J. H. and [Cordes]{}, J. M. 1993, ApJ, 411, 674.
Vietri, M. 1997, ApJ, 488, 105.
Waxman, E. 1997a, ApJ, 491, L19.
Waxman, E. 1997b, ApJ, 489, L33.
Wijers, R. A. M. J., Rees, M. J., and Mészáros, P. 1997, MNRAS, 288, L51.
[lrcrrrr]{}
1998 May 19.81 & 0.30 & 99 & 49$\pm$28 & & & 1998 May 20.59 & 1.08 & 54 & 64$\pm$27 & & & 1998 May 22.35 & 2.84 & 112 & 103$\pm$19 & & & 1998 May 24.96 & 5.45 & 112 & 127$\pm$20 & & & 1998 May 31.54 & 12.03 & 132 & 40$\pm$25 & 25$\pm$27 & 591$\pm$80 & 1998 Jun. 02.56 & 14.05 & 125 & 142$\pm$29 & 292$\pm$41 & 607$\pm$100 & 1998 Jun. 05.14 & 16.63 & 106 & 230$\pm$31 & 16$\pm$33 & 596$\pm$80 & 1998 Jun. 07.43 & 18.92 & 183 & 1.2$\pm$32 & $-$13$\pm$37 & 493$\pm$82 & $-$4.5$\pm$34 1998 Jun. 11.94 & 23.43 & 69 & 82$\pm$40 & 215$\pm$44 & 537$\pm$90 & 1998 Jun. 18.58 & 30.07 & 78 & 66$\pm$23 & 5$\pm$31 & 676$\pm$70 & 1998 Jul. 07.26 & 48.75 & 100 & 78$\pm$27 & 133$\pm$42 & 480$\pm$71 & 1998 Jul. 20.23 & 61.72 & 124 & 0.9$\pm$30 & 190$\pm$40 & 356$\pm$73 & 15$\pm$42 1998 Jul. 21.25 & 62.74 & 94 & 42$\pm$32 & 57$\pm$45 & 480$\pm$79 & $-$35$\pm$58
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we study the impact of news media and public surveys on the electoral campaigns for political competitions. We present an agent-based model that addresses the effective influence of surveys in orienting the opinions of voters before elections. The dynamics of electoral consensus is studied as a function of time by investigating different possible scenarios and the effect of periodic surveys, on the opinions of a small community of voters represented as a network of agents connected by realistic social relationships. Our simulations show the possibility to manage opinion consensus in electoral competitions.
**Keywords:** Opinion Dynamics, Agent-based models, Elections, Surveys.
author:
- 'A. E. Biondo[^1]$\:$, A. Pluchino[^2]$\:$, A. Rapisarda[^3]'
date:
title: '**Modelling Surveys Effects in Political Competitions**'
---
Introduction
============
The relation between the news media and the electoral competition has attracted growing attention in literature quite recently, as shown in [@gerber2009does]. The way in which the information is provided to the public may reflect a position with regard to parties or politicians. Thus, for example, [@groseclose2005measure] propose a measure of political orientation by locating different media outlets on the political spectrum on the basis of the similarity of the experts used by the media outlet and those cited by members of Congress. There exist a relevant number of studies reporting correlations between media usage and reported behavior as, among others, [@clarke1978newspapers; @miller1979type; @bybee1981mass; @garramone1986mass; @lieske1989political; @brians1996campaign; @dalton1998partisan; @hibbing1998media].
A more recent paper by [@kull2003misperceptions], compared the perception of the Iraq war of people who viewed Fox News with those who did not, in order to show that the habit to follow some informative channel can affect the perceptions of reported news. This raises a point, for people have the tendency to seek out information that agrees with their pre-existing views. Such a conslusion has been firstly documented long time ago, in [@brock1965commitment] and then in [@sweeney1984selective]. However, more recently, some theoretical work on the hypothesis that individuals adapt their choices about media sources according to the similitude with their political perspective have been conduced by [@mullainathan2005market; @gentzkow2006media]. Cited evidence shows that a sort of perverse reinforcing mechanism operates without helping any improvement of knowledge and, instead, increasing the political discussion, as shown by [@mondak1995media; @mondak1995newspapers].
Such a phenomenon has lead the recent literature on social communication to investigate new methodologies, based on the concept of echo-chambers, in which a spontaneous clustering emerges among people, as the result of a self-reinforcing preferential attachment dynamics. This process has been validly replicated on the internet, where both the chances of contacts among people and the information sharing are increasingly relevant. Following the idea of “public sphere” provided by [@dahlgren2005internet], i.e. the communicative environment in which it is possible to circulate ideas and information, some authors argue that the internet usage has boosted a passive people’s exposure to the political debate, as shown for example, in [@wojcieszak2009online] and in [@brundidge2010encountering]. Some other authors suggest, instead, that a selective mechanism operates for people surfing the web in a selective manner, according to their *a priori* political views. In this case, then, an active choice would operate in seeking the most appreciated information, as held for example, by [@bimber2003campaigning; @kushin2009getting; @stroud2010polarization]. This debate is not being put forward here: what matters, for our purposes, is the evidence that news media affect electoral participation of citizens, as shown by [@stromberg2004mass; @oberholzer2009media; @snyder2010press; @gentzkow2011effect; @schulhofer2013newspapers; @drago2014meet], among others. For example, as explained in [@colleoni2014echo], social networks may help in recognizing the political orientation on the basis of the shared contents.
The strict relationship between informative campaigns, surveys and news management on one side and the political orientation of the public on the other, operates thus similarly to advertising for consumption activities. There emerges the chance to finely tune it, by means of a series of stimuli induced to manage consensus. For example, it can be strategic to know to which extent news media can affect the chances of incumbent politicians to be elected again, or whether specific information provided can create competitive advantage for a type of politicians. The debate on both points is still open. Empirical evidence does not support unambiguously a direct or inverse causation effects, as shown in contributions by [@prat2011political], [@ansolabehere2006television; @gentzkow2011effect; @snyder2010press; @drago2014meet]. However, an increase in provided information (in terms of number of news media) is shown to reduce the advantage of incumbents and, thus, to increase both the turnover and the quality of politicians, as in [@besley2006handcuffs]. This should also reduce the chance to cover corruption, even if [@gentzkow2006television] and in [@george2008national] show also the evidence that an increase in the supply of news media may lead to a negative effect on electoral participation due to a crowding-out effect on the existing type of news media.
A more delicate point is shown by several authors: provided information is often far from being objective, e.g., [@goldberg2014bias; @alterman2003liberal; @bagdikian2004new; @davies2008flat]. More explicitly, [@posner2005bad] specifies that media lie about the news, by choosing what to say and what to hide (see [@anderson2012media]), by selecting the timing of the news diffusion (see [@larcinese2011partisan]), by creating the context in which the information can implicitly suggest the desired reaction, apparently spontaneous (see [@gentzkow2010drives]). In [@sobbrio2011citizen; @sobbrio2011indirect] it is addressed directly the existence of a media bias, which descends from the way journalists gather information from their sources. Such a dramatic result may derive from choices made by journalists themselves or their media owners, as explained respectively in [@baron2005competing] and in [@anderson2012media], but also from eternal pressures exerted on the media by politicians, as argued in [@besley2006handcuffs], lobbies, as in [@baron2005competing; @sobbrio2011citizen; @sobbrio2011indirect; @petrova2012mass], or advertisers, as in [@ellman2009papers; @blasco2011paying; @germano2013concentration].
The main motivation of this paper is to show, by means of agent-based simulations, whether and to which extent, the informative signals can effectively play a role in political competitions among participating parties or coalitions. During these last years, agent-based models have been extensively adopted in order to investigate emergent behavior and describe the implications of complexity in several socio-economic phenomena as in [@biondoorder; @biondo2012return; @biondo2013beneficial; @biondo2013random; @biondo2013reducing; @biondo2014micro; @biondo2015modeling; @biondo2016multi; @biondo2016order; @biondo2016perfect; @biondo2017informative; @biondo2017multilayer; @pluchino2010peter; @pluchino2011accidental; @pluchino2011efficient] among many others.
Several scenarios will be presented to capture the influence of surveys - i.e. those statistical investigations, based more or less explicitly on interviews, which reports the stated preference a sample of voters during an electoral campaign. We propose a model which can rely on the complexity of interactions among members of a small community, in order to refer to the relevance of the effect of the media bias. These aspects have been only partially investigated. In particular they were empirically studied in the paper of [@dellavigna2007fox], who analyzed the consequences of the diffusion of Fox News in several US towns between $1996$ and $2000$ to show that between $3\%$ and $\%8$ of Fox News’ viewers where induced to vote Republican. Other examples of such a relevant branch of literature are, among others: [@chiang2011media] on the effects of US newspapers endorsement of presidential candidates on voter behavior; [@enikolopov2011media] on the variation in the reception of the sole Russian TV independent channel “NTV” to study the impact on the vote share of government and opposition parties; [@dellavigna2011unintended] on the evidence showing that the reception of nationalistic Serbian radios signal increases the vote share of extremist nationalistic parties in the neighboring Croatian region; [@durante2012partisan] on the effects on public television news programs in Italy after the electoral victory of the coalition lead by Berlusconi in 2001.
The possibility to find some statistical regularities in the dynamics of the electoral campaigns descending from a suitable management of news media is appealing for parties, but not only. The political orientation of voters must be free and self-determined. The possibility that external stimuli may play a hidden role is dangerous and should be carefully studied and eventually regulated for a conscious and responsible use of the democratic mechanisms. The paper is organized as follows: in section two, the model is presented; section three contains simulation results and discussion; section four presents conclusive remarks.
The model
=========
The goal of the present study is to show the effects of repeated and periodic public surveys on the voting orientation of a relatively small community of people during a time interval of several months before a political election. In this respect, we adopt a “canonical ensemble” perspective, i.e. the test community we consider is [*only exposed*]{} to the surveys’ results, which report - through different media channels - the voting intentions of a much larger population, and can be only influenced by, but cannot influence, them. In this respect you can think, for example, to the residents of a small village, or to a small Facebook community, which are periodically informed by media about the general national political orientation.\
\
*Network description*\
The community we have in mind can be modeled as an undirected small-world network with $N$ nodes, where each node is an individual (agent), $A_i$ ($i=1,...,N$), able to share information with, on average, four neighbors, some of them linked with long range edges (see Fig.\[fig1\]). Such a network topology, obtained from a regular $2D$ lattice, by means of a rewiring procedure with probability $p_r=0.02$, ensures that the information flows quickly propagate through weak ties through the system and reaches also agents far away from each other in terms of degree of separations. At the same time, the existence of strong ties preserves necessary clustering properties that characterize real social networks.\
\
\
*Agents description*\
Each node (i.e. each agent) of the network has a color indicating the political preference of that agent for one of two parties, the Red party (red nodes) and the Blue party (blue nodes). Further, a Yellow color characterizes an undecided agent whose preference is not oriented towards any of the two parties and, therefore, corresponds to the non-voting intention at the elections (actually, the Yellow color may indicate all the different positions - indifference, scarce interest, confusion - which cannot be translated into a vote intention). Capital letters $R$, $B$ and $Y$ indicate the three possible choices, corresponding to the described preferences and thus we define a status variable $O_i$ ($i=1,...,N$) assuming one of these values, for each agent. We also indicate with $N_R$, $N_B$ and $N_Y$ the size (number of agents) of the three resulting groups, so that $N_R+N_B+N_Y=N$.
![ An example of community represented by a small-world $2D$ lattice with $N=298$ nodes. In the simulations we considered greater values for $N$. The different colors of the nodes (red, blue, yellow) indicate the different opinions of the agents and correspond, respectively, to individuals either voting Red party or voting Blue party or non-voting at all (undecided). []{data-label="fig1"}](Fig01.jpg){width="2.8in"}
In our model each agent is characterized by two real variables, $IR_i$ and $IB_i$ ($i=1,...,N$), which represent his/her own intensity of believing into, respectively, Red party or Blue party. At the beginning of a simulation ($t=0$), for agents who belong to one of the two parties, one of these variables assumes a value selected, with uniform probability, in the interval $[I_{min},I_{max}]$ (with $I_{min}, I_{max} \in [0,1]$ and $I_{min} < I_{max}$), while the other variable is set to zero. Of course, an agent $A_k$ belonging to Red party ($O_k=R$) will have $IR_k>0$ and $IB_k=0$; vice-versa, an agent belonging to Blue party ($O_k=B$) will have $IB_k>0$ and $IR_k=0$. In both these cases, depending on the value of $IB_k$ or $IR_k$, the same agent could be also defined a strong believer (for values close to 1) or a weak believer (for values close to 0) in the corresponding party. On the other hand, a given undecided agents $A_k$ (with $O_k=Y$) will start with both $IR_k$ and $IB_k$ randomly chosen in the interval $[I_{min},I_{max}]$.\
During the simulation ($t>0$), we assume that any agent $A_k$ belonging to one of the two parties can exert a different influence (social pressure) on his/her neighbors in order to induce them to change opinion or, in case of indecision, to assume an opinion. We reasonably define such a pressure as $P_k = int [IR_k * 10]$ or $P_k = int [IB_k * 10]$, depending on the status of the agent: it is therefore represented by an integer number included in the interval $[0,10]$. This means that strong believers of a party will have a greater influence on their neighbors, whereas weak believers will have only a little chance of convincing other people to change political preference or to assume a new one.\
\
*Opinion dynamics rules*\
The dynamics of opinions (voting intentions) is very simple: we assume that, at each discrete time step $t$, an agent $A_k$ - with a given status $O_k$ - changes his/her preference or assumes a new one depending on both the opinion and influence at time $t-1$ of his/her neighbors $\{N_k\}$ who belong to a party and on his/her intensity of believing $IR_k$ or $IB_k$. More precisely, we define a vector $V_k(t-1)$ which contains the preferences $O_j(t-1)$ (i.e. the variables $R$ and $B$) of the neighbors $A_j \in \{N_k\}$ at time $t-1$ weighted by their influence. In other words, each preference $O_j$ will occur in the vector as many times as specified by the influence $I_j$ of the corresponding agent. Then, we randomly select one element $v$ of this vector and we change the values of $IR_k$ or $IB_k$ by distinguishing the following cases:
- If $O_k=R$ and $v=R$, we increase the value of the variable $IR_k$ of a given quantity $\delta I$; if $O_k=R$ and $v=B$, we decrease the value of the variable $IR_k$ of the same quantity $\delta I$; if, after this operation, $IR_k>1$ or $IR_k<0$, we set, respectively, $IR_k=1$ or $IR_k=0$; if $IR_k=0$ we change the status of the agent $A_k$ from $O_k=R$ into the state $O_k=B$, then we assign to the variable $IB_k$ a new random value in the interval $[I_{min},I_{max}]$ and we put $IR_k=0$;
- If $O_k=B$ and $v=B$, we increase the value of the variable $IB_k$ of a given quantity $\delta I$; if $O_k=B$ and $v=R$, we decrease the value of the variable $IB_k$ of the same quantity $\delta I$; if, after this operation, $IB_k>1$ or $IB_k<0$, we set, respectively, $IB_k=1$ or $IB_k=0$; if $IB_k=0$ we change the status of the agent $A_k$ from $O_k=B$ into the state $O_k=R$, then we assign to the variable $IR_k$ a new random value in the interval $[I_{min},I_{max}]$ and we put $IB_k=0$;
- If $O_k=Y$ and $v=R$, we increase the value of the variable $IR_k$ of a given quantity $\delta I / 10$; if, after this operation, $IR_k \geq 1$, we change the status of the agent $A_k$ into the new state $O_k=R$, then we assign to the variable $IR_k$ a new random value in the interval $[I_{min},I_{max}]$ and we put $IB_k=0$;
- If $O_k=Y$ and $v=B$, we increase the value of the variable $IB_k$ of the same quantity $\delta I / 10$; if, after this operation, $IB_k \geq 1$, we change the status of the agent $A_k$ into the new state $O_k=B$, then we assign to the variable $IB_k$ a new random value in the interval $[I_{min},I_{max}]$ and we put $IR_k=0$; s
Notice that the opinions updating process is a parallel one: at each time step $t$ all the agents update simultaneously their opinion depending on the opinions of all his/her neighbors at $t-1$ (therefore each agent can change his/her status only once during a given time step). Notice also that undecided agents, not belonging to any party, cannot influence other agents but can be induced by their neighbors to assume a position. This implies that their number will decrease in time while the election day is approaching.\
At the beginning of each simulation run, once fixed the number $N$ of agents, one has to choose the initial conditions for the status distribution. One choice could be assigning the status (color) at random, with a uniform distribution, therefore obtaining more or less the same size ($\sim N/3$) for the three groups (the two parties, red and blue, and the undecided component, yellow). Another choice is to assign again the colors at random among the agents, but fixing independently the initial sizes $N_R$ and $N_B$ of the two parties through the sliders, then obtaining the following size for the undecided component: $N_Y = N - (N_R + N_B)$. In order to better control the initial advantage of a given party over the other one, we will usually prefer to adopt this second option.\
\
*Surveys description*\
As already explained, our goal is to simulate how, starting from a given (biased) initial condition for the two parties, the opinion dynamics is affected by the results of a certain number $n_S$ of subsequent (biased) surveys $S_k$ ($k=1,2,3...,n_S$), which are [*external*]{} to the community (“canonical ensemble” situation) and whose behavior follows different scenarios. Once fixed a given party, say Blue party, and two thresholds, $\%min$ and $\%max$, the scenarios we consider are the following:
Scenario 1: Blue always prevailing in the surveys (with a percentage of preferences fluctuating between $\%min$ and $\%max$);
Scenario 2: Blue initially increasing (from $\%min$ to $\%max$), then decreasing (from $\%max$ to $\%min$), in both cases with small random fluctuations;
Scenario 3: Blue always increasing, with small random fluctuations (from $\%min$ to $\%max$).
Of course, in correspondence of a given percentage $\%$ of preferences for Blue party, the score for Red party will be $100-\%$.\
The surveys occur with a certain periodicity during the time interval $[0,T_E]$, being $T_E$ the total simulation time, coincident with the final “election day”. Typically, we will fix $T_E=4000$ time steps, each one corresponding to one hour of real time: the global duration of the electoral campaign is therefore $4000h$, i.e. $166$ days, i.e. five and half months, approximately. The time interval among subsequent surveys is randomly chosen in the range $T_S - 24h, T_s + 24h$, centered around the value $T_S$ so that, on average, $n_S = T_E / T_S$.\
After a survey $S_k$, the scores of the selected scenario will be stored in two variables $n_R(S_k)$ and $n_B(S_k)$. Furthermore, the “trend” evolution of these two preferences components are shown, i.e. the two differences:\
$$\label{trend-differences}
\begin{split}
& d_R(S_k) = n_R(S_k) - n_R(S_{k-1}) \\
& d_B(S_k) = n_B(S_k) - n_B(S_{k-1})
\end{split}$$
The sign of each difference in eq.(\[trend-differences\]) will indicate whether the trend for the corresponding component is positive or negative (and their value will indicate its strength). An initial survey at $t=0$ ($S_0$) is performed in order to show resulting trends since the first survey $S_1$ after the first $T_S$ time steps.\
The model allows to focus a fundamental point, which is the reaction of people to the survey’s results (we assume that results are immediately advertised by mass media). It is worth to notice that we assume that mass media, normally stress only information about scores and trends of the two parties, while the score of the undecided people, which in our model is surely decreasing in time, should be considered actually without any effect.\
We also assume that the supporters of a given party will reinforce their opinion after a favorable survey, while the supporters of the survey-loosing party could either increase or decrease their convincement depending on their personal characterization (i.e. if they are either strong or weak believers). On the other hand, also the undecided agents could increase their propensity to become believers depending on the score of the two parties. Thus, the reaction to a survey is modeled as it follows.\
After knowing the result of a survey $S_k$:\
- all the agents belonging to the party with the best score (the red party if $n_R(S_k) > n_B(S_k)$, the blue one in the opposite case) will increase their $IR_i$ or $IB_i$ of the quantity $\delta S$, i.e. they will reinforce their believing; tipically, $\delta S$ is greater than $\delta I$ and linearly increases with the difference between the scores of the two parties, i.e. $\delta S=\delta S_{min} + \beta_S \vert n_R(S_k) - n_B(S_k) \vert$;\
- at the same time, all the agents belonging to the loosing party, will increase their corresponding intensity ($IR_i$ or $IB_i$) of the same quantity $\delta S$ with probability $IR_i$ or $IB_i$, or will decrease their corresponding intensity with probability $1-IR_i$ or $1-IB_i$;\
- finally, all the undecided agents, will increase of the quantity $\delta S$ the intensity ($IR_i$ or $IB_i$) corresponding to the party with the best score.\
An analogous procedure is then repeated, for all the agents and at the same time step, by comparing the trends $d_R(S_k)$ and $d_B(S_k)$ of the two parties:\
- if $d_R(S_k)>0$ and $d_B(S_k)<0$, the red agents and the undecided agents will increase their $IR_i$ of the quantity $\delta S_{min}$ (i.e. in this case the increment does not depend on the difference between the scores of the two parties), while the blue agents either will increase their $IB_i$ of the quantity $\delta S_{min}$ with probability $IB_i$ or will decrease it with probability $1-IB_i$;\
- if $d_B(S_k)>0$ and $d_R(S_k)<0$, the blue agents and the undecided agents will increase their $IB_i$ of the quantity $\delta S_{min}$, while the blue agents either will increase their $IR_i$ of the quantity $\delta S_{min}$ with probability $IR_i$ or will decrease it with probability $1-IR_i$;\
In such a way, in response of each survey, the values of $IR_i$ or $IB_i$ of all the agents will slightly change and this could induce, at the next time step, a rearrangement of their status $O_i$.\
At the end of each simulation (i.e. at $t=T_E$), all the agents are called to participate at final elections. Of course, undecided agents will not vote. But also the supporters of the two parties do not participate with certainty at the elections: actually, they will go to the polling station only with a probability, which is directly proportional to their conviction (i.e. to their influence, which is equal to $IR_i$ or $IB_i$). Therefore, in general, the final election scores for the two parties will be lower than the corresponding voting preferences at $t=T_E$, i.e. there will be always a given number of non voting people (abstainers) higher than the final number of undecided people.
Results of the simulations
==========================
In this section we present the results of the simulations for one single typical event. We show the expected time behavior of opinion dynamics for a test community with a biased voting orientation, either in presence or in absence of surveys (biased in the opposite way), and, in the latter case, its dependence on the adopted surveys scenario. Immediately after, we present the results of multi-event simulations, in order to extract some statistical evidence about the influence of surveys on the elections result.
![ Top panel: initial configuration (at $t=0$) of our test community with $N=900$ agents. The different colors of the agents (red, blue or yellow) indicates, respectively, if a given individual, at the beginning of the simulation, is a believer of the Red party or of the Blue party or if the voter is still undecided. In this simulation setup the Red party always starts with a slight advantage ($40\%$) over the Bue party ($35\%$). Bottom panels: final configuration (at $t=T_E$) of the same community at the end of four simulations with different surveys scenarios: (a) No-surveys Scenario: Red party prevails; (b) Scenario 1: Blue party prevails; (c) Scenario 2: Red party prevails; (d) Scenario 3: Red party prevails. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig02.jpg){width="1.7in"}
![ Top panel: initial configuration (at $t=0$) of our test community with $N=900$ agents. The different colors of the agents (red, blue or yellow) indicates, respectively, if a given individual, at the beginning of the simulation, is a believer of the Red party or of the Blue party or if the voter is still undecided. In this simulation setup the Red party always starts with a slight advantage ($40\%$) over the Bue party ($35\%$). Bottom panels: final configuration (at $t=T_E$) of the same community at the end of four simulations with different surveys scenarios: (a) No-surveys Scenario: Red party prevails; (b) Scenario 1: Blue party prevails; (c) Scenario 2: Red party prevails; (d) Scenario 3: Red party prevails. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig02a.jpg "fig:"){width="1.51in"} ![ Top panel: initial configuration (at $t=0$) of our test community with $N=900$ agents. The different colors of the agents (red, blue or yellow) indicates, respectively, if a given individual, at the beginning of the simulation, is a believer of the Red party or of the Blue party or if the voter is still undecided. In this simulation setup the Red party always starts with a slight advantage ($40\%$) over the Bue party ($35\%$). Bottom panels: final configuration (at $t=T_E$) of the same community at the end of four simulations with different surveys scenarios: (a) No-surveys Scenario: Red party prevails; (b) Scenario 1: Blue party prevails; (c) Scenario 2: Red party prevails; (d) Scenario 3: Red party prevails. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig02b.jpg "fig:"){width="1.51in"} ![ Top panel: initial configuration (at $t=0$) of our test community with $N=900$ agents. The different colors of the agents (red, blue or yellow) indicates, respectively, if a given individual, at the beginning of the simulation, is a believer of the Red party or of the Blue party or if the voter is still undecided. In this simulation setup the Red party always starts with a slight advantage ($40\%$) over the Bue party ($35\%$). Bottom panels: final configuration (at $t=T_E$) of the same community at the end of four simulations with different surveys scenarios: (a) No-surveys Scenario: Red party prevails; (b) Scenario 1: Blue party prevails; (c) Scenario 2: Red party prevails; (d) Scenario 3: Red party prevails. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig02c.jpg "fig:"){width="1.5in"} ![ Top panel: initial configuration (at $t=0$) of our test community with $N=900$ agents. The different colors of the agents (red, blue or yellow) indicates, respectively, if a given individual, at the beginning of the simulation, is a believer of the Red party or of the Blue party or if the voter is still undecided. In this simulation setup the Red party always starts with a slight advantage ($40\%$) over the Bue party ($35\%$). Bottom panels: final configuration (at $t=T_E$) of the same community at the end of four simulations with different surveys scenarios: (a) No-surveys Scenario: Red party prevails; (b) Scenario 1: Blue party prevails; (c) Scenario 2: Red party prevails; (d) Scenario 3: Red party prevails. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig02d.jpg "fig:"){width="1.51in"}
Single-event simulations
------------------------
We adopted the following setup for the control parameters for a typical simulation of one event:
- Number of agents: $N=900$;
- Fixed size, Red biased, initial conditions: $N_R=360$ ($40\%$), $N_B=315$ ($35\%$) and $N_Y=225$;
- Extreme values for the initial believing distribution: $I_{min}=0.10$ and $I_{max}=0.50$;
- Variation parameter for believing: $\delta I=0.002$;
- Minimum variation parameter for the reactions to the surveys: $\delta S_{min}=0.01$;
- Linear coefficient for the reactions to the surveys: $\beta_S=0.001$;
- Total simulation time, coincident with the “election day”: $T_E=4000$ hours;
- Average time interval among subsequent surveys: $T_S=168$ hours (1 week);
In order to test the typical effects of the three surveys’ scenarios on the election results, it is useful to compare several single-event simulations realized by using [*exactly the same topology*]{} for the small-world community, reported in the top panel of Fig.\[fig2\], and starting from [*exactly the same initial conditions*]{} (at $t=0$), with a slight advantage of the Red party over the Blue party.\
Before giving the details of each simulation, if we consider the bottom panels of Fig.\[fig2\] and compare panel (a) - no-surveys scenario - with panels (b),(c) and (d), we immediately notice that the presence of surveys has three macroscopic effects on the final opinion distribution: (i) the reinforcement of the echo chambers, i.e. the accentuation of the spontaneous clustering of (red or blue) voting intentions which emerges among people due to the opinion dynamics; (ii) the consequent decrease of non-voting (yellow) people, who are normally located along the edges of opinion clusters; (iii) the ability to subvert, sometimes, the elections result (of course limited to the test community), as in the case of scenario 1 where, at variance with the no-surveys scenario, Blue party prevails.
![[*Single-event No-surveys Scenario.*]{} Top panel: initial distribution (at $t=0$) of the believing intensities for the two parties. Middle panel: final distribution of believing intensities (at $t=T_E$). Bottom panel: time behavior of both the number of individuals voting for the two parties (red and blue) and the number of undecided (yellow). []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig03.jpg){width="3.5in"}
\
*No-surveys Scenario*\
Let us start with the presentation of the time evolution of both believing and voting intentions in the no-surveys scenario.
In the top and the middle panels of Fig.\[fig3\] we first show, respectively, the initial and final distributions of the believing in the two parties for the $900$ agents of the test community: starting at $t=0$ from their initial uniform values between $[0.1,0.5]$, the believing intensities for both the Red and the Blue parties evolve in time until, at the end of the simulation (i.e. at $t=T_E$) they reach a power-law like shape, with a pronounced peak in correspondence of their maximum allowed unitary value. In the bottom panel of Fig.\[fig3\] it is shown the corresponding time behavior of the voting preferences for the three social components of the community: it clearly appears that, in absence of surveys, the initial slight numerical advantage of the Red party becomes stronger and stronger, in particular during the last two months when the undecided people, feeling the pressure of the incoming elections, start to assume a voting preference. Finally, at $t=T_E$ (elections day), the Red party component has reached $N_R(T_E)=53\%$, against a $N_B(T_E)=32\%$ of the Blue party one and a $N_Y(T_E)=15\%$ of undecided. Then, following the rules of the model, the final distributions of believing translate into probabilities of going to the polling station for the Red and Blue components while, of course, the undecided component do not vote at all. Therefore, the elections result are the following: total percentage of voters $80.3\%$, score of the Red party $62.4\%$, score of the Blue party $37.6\%$. Comparing these values with the final composition of the voting preferences, we observe that the percentage of abstainers ($19.7\%$) is higher than that of the undecided component ($15\%$): this means that some of the weak believers of the two parties did not go to the polling station. However, Red party still maintain its advantage and prevails at the elections.
![ [*Single-event Surveys Scenarios.*]{} Top panels: the time behavior of both the number of individuals voting for the two parties (red and blue) and the number of undecided (yellow) is shown for the three Surveys Scenarios considered. Bottom panels: the scores of the two parties for each one of the $n_S=24$ Surveys (one per week, in average) is reported for the three Scenarios considered. []{data-label="fig4"}](Fig04.jpg){width="6.7in"}
\
*Surveys Scenarios*\
Let us consider, now, the three scenarios with surveys.\
In the top panels of Fig.\[fig4\], the time evolution of the voting preferences for the three components of the test community is reported for each one of the three surveys scenarios. In the bottom panels of the same figure, the corresponding scores of the two parties within each surveys scenario is reported for comparison. It clearly appears that only in Scenario 1, due to effect of the biased surveys score of the Blue party which is always over that one of the Red party (fluctuating between $54\%$ and $58\%$), the Blue party is able to recover its initial disadvantage and to prevails at the elections: in this case, the percentage of voting people is $90.9\%$ - $48.9\%$ for Red party, $51.1\%$ for Blue party - and that of abstainers is $9.1\%$. In the other two scenarios, the effects of the biased surveys are not relevant and the Red party remains always prevailing, like in the no-surveys case: in Scenario 2 (where the surveys score of the Blue party starts at $30\%$, initially goes up until $70\%$, then goes down again towards $40\%$) the percentage of voting people is $93.1\%$ - $56.8\%$ for Red party, $43.2\%$ for Blue party -, while in Scenario 3 (where the surveys score of the Blue party starts at $40\%$, overtakes that of the Red party at the surpass time $t_S$ and slowly goes up until $70\%$) the percentage of voting people is $88.9\%$ - $55.4\%$ for Red party, $44.6\%$ for Blue party.
In conclusion, as already observed, even if sometimes it is not enough to overturn the initial bias (of $5\%$) in favor of the Red party, the introduction of surveys has always the effect of reducing the percentage of abstainers (by increasing the average believing of people) and of reinforcing the clustering of preferences into separated echo-chambers. On the other hand, it seems that a constant advantage in the surveys score (like in Scenario 1, where an average advantage of $56-44=12\%$ has been considered) is strictly necessary to the Blue party for having a chance to prevail at the elections in a community initially biased in favor of the Red party. But, how the magnitude of such an advantage does affect the elections results? And how these results are also affected by the range of variation of the surveys scores for the Blue party in Scenarios 2 and 3? In order to answer to these questions, and to obtain results more significant from a statistical point of view, in the next section we will perform a parametric analysis of the model by means of systematic multi-event simulations.
![[*Multi-event Surveys Scenario 1*]{}. In the diagram on the left are reported $5000$ points, each one corresponding to a single-event simulation, colored in blue or in red depending on the party prevailing at the elections, as function of both the initial biased advantage $A_R$ of the Red party in the percentage of believers (x-axis) and the biased average advantage $A_B$ of the Blue party in the surveys score (y-axis). In the four panels on the right, the number of wins for the Blue party (upper panels) and the Red party (bottom panels) are also reported as function of $A_R$ (left column) and $A_B$ (right column). []{data-label="fig5"}](Fig05a.jpg "fig:"){width="3in"} ![[*Multi-event Surveys Scenario 1*]{}. In the diagram on the left are reported $5000$ points, each one corresponding to a single-event simulation, colored in blue or in red depending on the party prevailing at the elections, as function of both the initial biased advantage $A_R$ of the Red party in the percentage of believers (x-axis) and the biased average advantage $A_B$ of the Blue party in the surveys score (y-axis). In the four panels on the right, the number of wins for the Blue party (upper panels) and the Red party (bottom panels) are also reported as function of $A_R$ (left column) and $A_B$ (right column). []{data-label="fig5"}](Fig05b.jpg "fig:"){width="2.6in"}
Multi-event simulations
-----------------------
Let us start by exploring how the probability for the Blue party of overturning the initial disadvantage in terms of preferences with respect to the Red party in the context of Scenario 1 does depend on both the initial biased advantage in the percentage of believers of the Red party ($A_R$) and on the biased average advantage of the Blue party in the surveys score ($A_B$).
In the left diagram of Fig.\[fig5\], the results of $5000$ different single-event simulations (with the same setup of the control parameters described in the previous section) are reported as colored points uniformly distributed as function of these two quantities ($A_R$ in the x-axis and $A_B$ in the y-axis): the color of each point indicates the party that won the elections in the corresponding event. In the four panels on the right, the number of wins for the Blue party and the Red party are reported separately, as function of $A_R$ (left column) and $A_B$ (right column) respectively. It is evident that, as one could expects, increasing the initial believing advantage $A_R$ of Red party (from $1\%$ to $15\%$) makes more difficult for the Blue party to overtake it and to prevail at the elections, while increasing its average advantage $A_B$ in the survey score (from $6\%$ to $20\%$) makes the victory of Blue party easier (in any case, if $A_R<2\%$ the Blue party always prevails at the elections, no matter its survey advantage). The inclined white line reported in the diagram helps the eye to appreciate this effect: to the left of this line the chance of prevailing of the Blue party is greater than that of the Red party, to the right the opposite holds. Notice that the single-event result where the Blue party won the elections in the survey Scenario 1 with $A_R=5\%$ and $A_B=12\%$, discussed in the previous section and shown in Fig.\[fig3\], is consistent with this picture (the point $A_R=5\%$ and $A_B=12\%$ is indicated with a yellow diamond in the left diagram of Fig.\[fig4\]).
![ [*Multi-event Surveys Scenario 1*]{}. In this 3D diagram the same $5000$ single-event points of the previous figure are plotted as function of $A_R$, $A_B$ and $D_{BR}$. The latter, reported in the z-axis, is the difference between the number of votes taken by the Blue party at the elections and those taken by the Red party, and it is here used as a proxy of the probability of prevailing of the Blue party. The shades of color from Red to Blue helps to better appreciate the position of the points along the z-axis. []{data-label="fig6"}](Fig06.jpg){width="5in"}
In order to visualize in a different way the variation in the chance of prevailing of the Blue party as function of $A_R$ and $A_B$, in Fig.\[fig6\] we add a third z-axis to the diagram of Fig.\[fig5\]: in this axis the difference $D_{BR}$ between the number of votes taken by the Blue party at the elections and those taken by the Red party is reported as a proxy of the probability of prevailing of the Blue party. A color scale for the z variable, going from Red (for $D_{BR}<0$) to Blue (for $D_{BR}>0$), applied to the single-event points, helps the eye to appreciate both the decrease of that probability along the $A_R$ axis and the increase along the $A_B$ axis.
Let us now to go to the multi-event analysis of the other two surveys scenarios, starting with Scenario 2.
As already shown in Fig.\[fig4\], Scenario 2 provides that the surveys score of the Blue party starts at $30\%$, initially goes up until $70\%$, then goes down again. In this scenario, the surveys give the Blue party as leading party only in the central part of the single-event simulation, while the Red party results to be in advantage at the beginning and at the end of the time period considered. Once fixed this range of variation for the surveys score, and adopting again the same setup of parameters of the previous section, we perform a multi-event simulation with $2000$ events, each one with a different value for the initial advantage $A_R$ of the Red party but leaving it to be also negative ($-10<A_R<10$): this means that now the initial bias in the composition of believing of the test community can also be in favor of the Blue party (when $A_R<0$).
![[*Multi-event Surveys Scenario 2*]{}. In the diagram are reported $2000$ points, each one corresponding to a single-event simulation, colored in blue or in red depending on the party prevailing at the elections, as function of both the initial biased advantage $A_R$ of the Red party in the percentage of believers (x-axis) and the difference $D_{BR}$ between the number of votes taken by the Blue party at the elections and those taken by the Red party (y-axis). In the insets, the number of wins for the Blue party (upper panel) and the Red party (bottom panel) are also reported as function of $A_R$.[]{data-label="fig7"}](Fig07.jpg){width="4.5in"}
In the diagram shown in Fig.\[fig7\], we report the points corresponding to the $2000$ single-event simulations of Scenario 2 as function of the $A_R$ value (x-axis) and also of the difference $D_{BR}$ between the number of votes taken by the Blue party and those taken by the Red party at the elections (y-axis). As usual, the points are colored in blue or in red depending on the party prevailing at the elections. Of course, in this case all the points above the x-axis (i.e. with $D_{BR}>0$) will be blue while those below the x-axis will be red. The distribution of the points in the diagram clearly indicates that the elections winner strictly depends on the initial advantage in the number of believers: by increasing $A_R$, such an advantage will be more and more consolidated by the opinion dynamics during the simulations and the initially favored party shall prevail at the elections with higher probability.
![[*Multi-event Surveys Scenario 3*]{}. In the diagram are reported $2000$ points, each one corresponding to a single-event simulation, colored in blue or in red depending on the party prevailing at the elections, as function of both the initial biased advantage $A_R$ of the Red party in the percentage of believers (x-axis) and the difference $D_{BR}$ between the number of votes taken by the Blue party at the elections and those taken by the Red party (y-axis). In the insets, the number of wins for the Blue party (upper panel) and the Red party (bottom panel) are also reported as function of $A_R$.[]{data-label="fig8"}](Fig08.jpg){width="4.5in"}
Anyway, the effects of the surveys is slightly asymmetric for the two parties: actually, from the details of the histograms shown in the two insets, where the number of wins as function of $A_R$ is reported for the two parties, it results that the $23.5\%$ of the Blue party wins (over a total of $1090$) occur when it starts from disadvantageous initial conditions, i.e. when $A_R>0$, against $11.3\%$ of the Red party wins (over a total of $910$) for $A_R<0$. This means that it seems more convenient for a party to be favored by the surveys scores (with an increasing trend) in the first half of the election campaign rather than in the second part, provided that the duration of its central leading time period is quite wide. Notice also that, for a given value of $A_R$, the spreading of $D_{BR}$ along the y-axis is quite large, i.e. the gap of votes between the winning and the losing party can assume many different values, just linked to the duration of the central leading time period.
An analogous effect appears also in the case of the Scenario 3 (again with the same setup of the previous section), where the surveys score of the Blue party starts at $40\%$, but immediately increases and, after overtaking the Red party at a given time $t_S$, slowly goes up until $70\%$ (see Fig.\[fig4\]). In fact, the results of the multi-event analysis reported in Fig.\[fig8\], consisting again of $2000$ events, show that the $21.2\%$ of the Blue party wins (over a total of $1197$, more than those of Scenario 2) occur when it starts from disadvantageous initial conditions ($A_R>0$), against only $5.5\%$ of the Red party wins (over a total of $803$) for $A_R<0$: this implies that when the Blue party starts with adverse surveys but then surpasses the Red party showing a constant positive survey trend, its total number of wins increases with respect to the Scenario 2, in particular (of course) when $A_R<0$ (the number of wins when $A_R>0$ remains more or less the same as in the Scenario 2). Furthermore, the spreading of $D_{BR}$ along the y-axis for each value of $A_R$ is reduced with respect to the previous scenario.
In this scenario it is also interesting to see how the surpass time $t_S$ influences the election result. In Fig.\[fig9\], where the surpass time is plotted as function of the usual difference $D_{BR}$ between the number of votes taken by the Blue party and those taken by the Red party, we may notice that the value of the average surpass time $<t_S>$ is lower when the Blue party prevails at the elections ($51.6$ against $61.2$): this means that the probability for the Blue party of overturning the initial disadvantage and winning the electoral competition within is higher when the surpass in the surveys happens quite soon. In particular, the gap $D_{BR}>0$ between the votes of Blue party and those of the Red party is maximum when $t_S < 30 $ $days$, i.e. when the surpass falls within the first month (simmetrically, when $t_S$ falls near the election day $T_E$, the gap is also quite high but in favor of the Red party - i.e. $D_{BR}<0$).
![[*Multi-event Surveys Scenario 3*]{}. Behavior of the surpass time $t_S$ as function of the election results difference $D_{BR}$ for both the Red ($D_{BR}<0$) and Blue ($D_{BR}>0$) parties. []{data-label="fig9"}](Fig09.jpg){width="6.2in"}
Conclusions
===========
We have presented an agent-based model on a small-world realistic topology that should be able to capture the effective influence of surveys in orienting the opinions of voters before elections. The dynamics of electoral consensus was investigated by considering different scenarios with two coalitions/parties and a third group of undecided voters (but, of course, the model could be be easily extended to more than two parties). We have shown that the effect of periodic public surveys on the opinions of a relatively small community of agents, if compared with an identical situation but without surveys, is twofold: on one hand, surveys do reinforce the so called ’echo chambers’, i.e. accentuate the spontaneous clustering of voting intentions emerging among people due to the opinion dynamics; on the other hand, they can change the final electoral result (of course limited to the considered community) and let the party, that otherwise would lose, to win the electoral competition at the end of the examined period. Of course, the proposed theoretical model would need to be supported with real data in order to calibrate the internal parameters and become possibly a reliable predictive model after the experimental validation of the initial assumptions. In this respect, the surveys’ scenarios considered in this paper are just examples to show the effectiveness of this methodology. In fact, we think that this kind of analysis could suggest possible strategies in order to manage and investigate in detail the formation of electoral consensus in political competitions. In practice, by knowing the voting intentions of a community at the beginning of the trial period and the external survey scenario during a large portion of the same period, our model can possibly infer (with a certain probability) the final distribution of votes in the community.
0.5 cm
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This study was partially supported by the FIR Research Project 2014 N.ABDD94 of the University of Catania, ITALY.
0.5 cm
[10]{}
E. Alterman. What liberal media? the truth about bias and the news. , 108(11):10–10, 2003.
S. P. Anderson and J. McLaren. Media mergers and media bias with rational consumers. , 10(4):831–859, 2012.
S. Ansolabehere, E. C. Snowberg, and J. M. Snyder. Television and the incumbency advantage in us elections. , 31(4):469–490, 2006.
B. H. Bagdikian. . Beacon Press, 2004.
D. P. Baron. Competing for the public through the news media. , 14(2):339–376, 2005.
T. Besley and A. Prat. Handcuffs for the grabbing hand? media capture and government accountability. , 96(3):720–736, 2006.
B. Bimber and R. Davis. . Oxford University Press, 2003.
A. Biondo. Order book microstructure and policies for financial stability. , forthcoming.
A. E. Biondo, A. Giarlotta, A. Pluchino, and A. Rapisarda. Perfect information vs random investigation: Safety guidelines for a consumer in the jungle of product differentiation. , 11(1):e0146389, 2016.
A. E. Biondo, A. Pluchino, and A. Rapisarda. The beneficial role of random strategies in social and financial systems. , 151(3-4):607–622, 2013.
A. E. Biondo, A. Pluchino, and A. Rapisarda. Micro and macro benefits of random investments in financial markets. , 55(4):318–334, 2014.
A. E. Biondo, A. Pluchino, and A. Rapisarda. Modeling financial markets by self-organized criticality. , 92(4):042814, 2015.
A. E. Biondo, A. Pluchino, and A. Rapisarda. A multi-layer model of order book dynamics. In [*57th Annual Conference Bocconi University*]{}, 2016.
A. E. Biondo, A. Pluchino, and A. Rapisarda. Order book, financial markets, and self-organized criticality. , 88:196–208, 2016.
A. E. Biondo, A. Pluchino, and A. Rapisarda. Informative contagion dynamics in a multilayer network model of financial markets. , pages 1–24, 2017.
A. E. Biondo, A. Pluchino, and A. Rapisarda. A multilayer approach for price dynamics in financial markets. , 226(3):477–488, 2017.
A. E. Biondo, A. Pluchino, A. Rapisarda, and D. Helbing. Are random trading strategies more successful than technical ones? , 8(7):e68344, 2013.
A. E. Biondo, A. Pluchino, A. Rapisarda, and D. Helbing. Reducing financial avalanches by random investments. , 88(6):062814, 2013.
A. E. Biondo, A. Rapisarda, and A. Pluchino. Return migration after brain drain: An agent based simulation approach. , 16, 2012.
A. Blasco, P. Pin, and F. Sobbrio. Paying positive to go negative: Advertisers’ competition and media reports. Technical report, Quaderni-Working Paper DSE, 2011.
C. L. Brians and M. P. Wattenberg. Campaign issue knowledge and salience: Comparing reception from tv commercials, tv news and newspapers. , pages 172–193, 1996.
T. C. Brock. Commitment to exposure as a determinant of information receptivity. , 2(1):10, 1965.
J. Brundidge. Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: The contribution of the internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. , 60(4):680–700, 2010.
C. R. Bybee, J. M. McLeod, W. D. Luetscher, and G. Garramone. Mass communication and voter volatility. , 45(1):69–90, 1981.
C.-F. Chiang and B. Knight. Media bias and influence: Evidence from newspaper endorsements. , 78(3):795–820, 2011.
P. Clarke and E. Fredin. Newspapers, television and political reasoning. , 42(2):143–160, 1978.
E. Colleoni, A. Rozza, and A. Arvidsson. Echo chamber or public sphere? predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. , 64(2):317–332, 2014.
P. Dahlgren. The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. , 22(2):147–162, 2005.
R. J. Dalton, P. A. Beck, and R. Huckfeldt. Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 presidential election. , 92(1):111–126, 1998.
N. DAVIES. Flat earth news london. , 2008.
S. DellaVigna, R. Enikolopov, V. Mironova, M. Petrova, and E. Zhuravskaya. . National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011.
S. DellaVigna and E. Kaplan. The fox news effect: Media bias and voting. , 122(3):1187–1234, 2007.
F. Drago, T. Nannicini, and F. Sobbrio. Meet the press: How voters and politicians respond to newspaper entry and exit. , 6(3):159–188, 2014.
R. Durante and B. Knight. Partisan control, media bias, and viewer responses: Evidence from berlusconi’s italy. , 10(3):451–481, 2012.
M. Ellman and F. Germano. What do the papers sell? a model of advertising and media bias. , 119(537):680–704, 2009.
R. Enikolopov, M. Petrova, and E. Zhuravskaya. Media and political persuasion: Evidence from russia. , 101(7):3253–3285, 2011.
G. M. Garramone and C. K. Atkin. Mass communication and political socialization: Specifying the effects. , 50(1):76–86, 1986.
M. Gentzkow. Television and voter turnout. , 121(3):931–972, 2006.
M. Gentzkow and J. M. Shapiro. Media bias and reputation. , 114(2):280–316, 2006.
M. Gentzkow and J. M. Shapiro. What drives media slant? evidence from us daily newspapers. , 78(1):35–71, 2010.
M. Gentzkow, J. M. Shapiro, and M. Sinkinson. The effect of newspaper entry and exit on electoral politics. , 101(7):2980–3018, 2011.
L. M. George and J. Waldfogel. National media and local political participation: The case of the new york times. , pages 33–48, 2008.
A. S. Gerber, D. Karlan, and D. Bergan. Does the media matter? a field experiment measuring the effect of newspapers on voting behavior and political opinions. , 1(2):35–52, 2009.
F. Germano and M. Meier. Concentration and self-censorship in commercial media. , 97:117–130, 2013.
B. Goldberg. . Regnery Publishing, 2014.
T. Groseclose and J. Milyo. A measure of media bias. , 120(4):1191–1237, 2005.
J. R. Hibbing and E. Theiss-Morse. The media’s role in public negativity toward congress: Distinguishing emotional reactions and cognitive evaluations. , pages 475–498, 1998.
S. Kull, C. Ramsay, and E. Lewis. Misperceptions, the media, and the iraq war. , 118(4):569–598, 2003.
M. J. Kushin and K. Kitchener. Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on facebook. , 14(11), 2009.
V. Larcinese, R. Puglisi, and J. M. Snyder. Partisan bias in economic news: Evidence on the agenda-setting behavior of us newspapers. , 95(9):1178–1189, 2011.
J. Lieske. The political dynamics of urban voting behavior. , pages 150–174, 1989.
A. H. Miller, E. N. Goldenberg, and L. Erbring. Type-set politics: Impact of newspapers on public confidence. , 73(1):67–84, 1979.
J. J. Mondak. Media exposure and political discussion in us elections. , 57(1):62–85, 1995.
J. J. Mondak. Newspapers and political awareness. , pages 513–527, 1995.
S. Mullainathan and A. Shleifer. The market for news. , 95(4):1031–1053, 2005.
F. Oberholzer-Gee and J. Waldfogel. Media markets and localism: Does local news en espanol boost hispanic voter turnout? , 99(5):2120–2128, 2009.
M. Petrova. Mass media and special interest groups. , 84(1):17–38, 2012.
A. Pluchino, C. Garofalo, A. Rapisarda, S. Spagano, and M. Caserta. Accidental politicians: How randomly selected legislators can improve parliament efficiency. , 390(21):3944–3954, 2011.
A. Pluchino, A. Rapisarda, and C. Garofalo. The peter principle revisited: A computational study. , 389(3):467–472, 2010.
A. Pluchino, A. Rapisarda, and C. Garofalo. Efficient promotion strategies in hierarchical organizations. , 390(20):3496–3511, 2011.
R. A. Posner. Bad news. , 31:1–11, 2005.
A. Prat and D. Str[ö]{}mberg. The political economy of mass media. 2011.
S. Schulhofer-Wohl and M. Garrido. Do newspapers matter? short-run and long-run evidence from the closure of the cincinnati post. , 26(2):60–81, 2013.
J. M. Snyder Jr and D. Str[ö]{}mberg. Press coverage and political accountability. , 118(2):355–408, 2010.
F. Sobbrio. A citizen-editors model of news media. 2011.
F. Sobbrio. Indirect lobbying and media bias. 2011.
D. Str[ö]{}mberg. Mass media competition, political competition, and public policy. , 71(1):265–284, 2004.
N. J. Stroud. Polarization and partisan selective exposure. , 60(3):556–576, 2010.
P. D. Sweeney and K. L. Gruber. Selective exposure: Voter information preferences and the watergate affair. , 46(6):1208, 1984.
M. E. Wojcieszak and D. C. Mutz. Online groups and political discourse: Do online discussion spaces facilitate exposure to political disagreement? , 59(1):40–56, 2009.
[^1]: Department of Economics and Business, University of Catania, Italy; [email protected]
[^2]: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Catania and INFN Sezione di Catania, Italy; [email protected]
[^3]: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Catania and INFN Sezione di Catania, Italy; Ccomplexity Science Hub Vienna; [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We determine new upper bounds for the clique numbers of strongly regular graphs in terms of their parameters. These bounds improve on the Delsarte bound for infinitely many feasible parameter tuples for strongly regular graphs, including infinitely many parameter tuples that correspond to Paley graphs.'
address:
- 'Research Center for Pure and Applied Mathematics, Graduate School of Information Sciences, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8579, Japan'
- 'School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK'
author:
- 'Gary R. W. Greaves'
- 'Leonard H. Soicher'
bibliography:
- 'sbib.bib'
title: |
On the clique number of a\
strongly regular graph
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
The **clique number** $\omega(\Gamma)$ of a graph $\Gamma$ is defined to be the cardinality of a clique of maximum size in $\Gamma$. For a $k$-regular strongly regular graph with smallest eigenvalue $s < 0$, Delsarte [@Del:73 Section 3.3.2] proved that $\omega(\Gamma) \leqslant \lfloor 1 -k/s \rfloor$; we refer to this bound as the **Delsarte bound**. Therefore, since one can write $s$ in terms of the parameters of $\Gamma$, one can determine the Delsarte bound knowing only the parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ of $\Gamma$. In this paper we determine new upper bounds for the clique numbers of strongly regular graphs in terms of their parameters. Our bounds improve on the Delsarte bound infinitely often.
Let $q = p^k$ be a power of a prime $p$ congruent to $1$ mod $4$. A **Paley graph** has vertex set equal to the finite field $\mathbb F_q$, and two vertices $a$ and $b$ are adjacent if and only if $a-b$ is a nonzero square. For a Paley graph $\Gamma$ on $q$ vertices with $k$ even, Blokhuis [@Blok84] showed that $\omega(\Gamma) = \sqrt{q}$; this corresponds to equality in the Delsarte bound. Bachoc et al. [@Bach:Paley13] recently considered the case when $\Gamma$ is a Paley graph on $q$ vertices with $k$ odd and, for certain such $q$, showed that $\omega(\Gamma) \leqslant \lfloor \sqrt{q} - 1 \rfloor$. This corresponds to an improvement to the Delsarte bound for these Paley graphs.
Here, working much more generally, given a strongly regular graph $\Gamma$ with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$, we provide inequalities in terms of the parameters of $\Gamma$ that, when satisfied, guarantee that the clique number of $\Gamma$ is strictly less than the Delsarte bound. We show that these inequalities are satisfied by infinitely many feasible parameters tuples for strongly regular graphs and, in particular, are satisfied by infinitely many parameter tuples that correspond to Paley graphs. Our inequalities are obtained using what we call the “clique adjacency bound” (see Section \[sec:evaluating\_the\_clique\_adjacency\_polynomial\]), a bound defined by the second author [@Soi:CAB15]. We also show that the clique adjacency bound is always at most the Delsarte bound when applied to strongly regular graphs.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section \[sec:mainresults\] we state our main results and in Section \[sec:parameters\_of\_strongly\_regular\_graphs\] we state some standard identities that we will use in our proofs. Section \[sec:evaluating\_the\_clique\_adjacency\_polynomial\] contains the proofs of our main results. In Section \[sec:a\_limitation\_of\_the\_bound\] we examine the strength of the clique adjacency bound and in Section \[sec:HoffmanDelsarteCAB\] we provide an illustrative example comparing certain bounds for the clique number of an edge-regular graph that is not necessarily strongly regular. Finally, we give an appendix in which we describe our symbolic computations.
Definitions and main results {#sec:mainresults}
============================
A non-empty $k$-regular graph on $v$ vertices is called **edge-regular** if there exists a constant $\lambda$ such that every pair of adjacent vertices has precisely $\lambda$ common neighbours. The triple $(v,k,\lambda)$ is called the **parameter tuple** of such a graph. A **strongly regular graph** $\Gamma$ with **parameter tuple** $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ is defined to be a non-complete edge-regular graph with parameter tuple $(v,k,\lambda)$ such that every pair of non-adjacent vertices has precisely $\mu$ common neighbours. We refer to the elements of the parameter tuple as the **parameters** of $\Gamma$. We call the parameter tuple of a strongly regular graph **feasible** if its elements satisfy certain nonnegativity and divisibility constraints given by Brouwer [@CRCHAndbook2007 VII.11.5]). Let $\Gamma$ be a strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$. It is well-known that $\Gamma$ has at most three distinct eigenvalues, and moreover, the eigenvalues can be written in terms of the parameters of $\Gamma$ (see [@God01 Section 10.2]). In what follows we denote the eigenvalues of $\Gamma$ as $k > r \geqslant s$.
Strongly regular graphs whose parameters satisfy $k = (v-1)/2$, $\lambda = (v-5)/4$, and $\mu = (v-1)/4$ are called **type I** or **conference graphs**. Strongly regular graphs all of whose eigenvalues are integers are called **type II**. Every strongly regular graph is either type I, type II, or both type I and type II (see Cameron and Van Lint [@CvL Chapter 2]).
The **fractional part** of a real number $a \in \R$ is defined as ${\operatorname{frac} \left ( a \right )} := a - \lfloor a \rfloor$. We are now ready to state our main results.
\[thm:beatDelsarteConf\] Let $\Gamma$ be a type-I strongly regular graph with $v$ vertices. Suppose that $$0 < {\operatorname{frac} \left ( \sqrt{v}/2 \right )} < 1/4 + ( \sqrt{v}-\sqrt{v+5/4} )/2.$$ Then $\omega(\Gamma) \leqslant \lfloor \sqrt{v} - 1 \rfloor$.
Follows from Theorem \[thm:CliqueAdjPol\] together with Corollary \[cor:beatDelsarte\] below.
For a prime $p$ satisfying $0 < {\operatorname{frac} \left ( \sqrt{p}/2 \right )} < 1/4 + ( \sqrt{p}-\sqrt{p+5/4} )/2$, we have that $\lfloor \sqrt{p} \rfloor = 2\lfloor \sqrt{p}/2 \rfloor$ is even. Furthermore, for $n := \lfloor \sqrt{p} \rfloor$, since $\lfloor \sqrt{p} \rfloor > \sqrt{p+5/4} - 1/2$, we have $n^2 + n - 1 > p$. Hence, if $\Gamma$ is a Paley graph on $p$ vertices then $\omega(\Gamma) \leqslant \lfloor \sqrt{p} - 1 \rfloor$ by Bachoc et al. [@Bach:Paley13 Theorem 2.1 (i)] (see [@Bach:Paley13 Remark 2.5]). Therefore, for type-I strongly regular graphs with $p$ (a prime) vertices, satisfying $0 < {\operatorname{frac} \left ( \sqrt{p}/2 \right )} < 1/4 + ( \sqrt{p}-\sqrt{p+5/4} )/2$, Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteConf\] is a generalisation of Bachoc et al. [@Bach:Paley13 Theorem 2.1 (i)].
Let $g$ be a positive integer. Then $(1+4g,2g,g-1,g)$ is a feasible parameter tuple for a type-I strongly regular graph on $v = 1+4g$ vertices. Observe that $( \sqrt{v}-\sqrt{v+5/4} )/2$ tends to $0$ as $v$ tends to infinity. Using Fejér’s theorem (see Kuipers and Niederreiter [@Kuip:1974uniform page 13]), it is straightforward to show that the sequence $(\sqrt{1+4g}/2)_{g \in \mathbb{N}}$ is uniformly distributed modulo $1$. Therefore we can apply Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteConf\] to about a quarter of all feasible parameter tuples for type-I strongly regular graphs.
Let $\mathcal P$ denote the set of all primes $p$ of the form $p = 1+4g$ for some $g \in \mathbb N$. Then the sequence $(\sqrt{p}/2)_{p \in \mathcal{P}}$ is uniformly distributed modulo $1$ (see Balog [@Balog:85 Theorem 1]). Therefore, since Paley graphs on $p$ vertices exist for all $p \in \mathcal P$, Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteConf\] is applicable to infinitely many strongly regular graphs.
Note that the example in [@Soi:CAB15] with parameters $(65,32,15,16)$ is an example of a (potential) graph satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteConf\].
A graph is called **co-connected** if its complement is connected. We have the following:
\[thm:beatDelsarteNonConf\] Let $\Gamma$ be a co-connected type-II strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r \geqslant s$. Suppose that $$0 < {\operatorname{frac} \left ( -k/s \right )} < 1 - (r^2 + r)/(v - 2k + \lambda).$$ Then $\omega(\Gamma) \leqslant \lfloor -k/s \rfloor$.
Follows from Theorem \[thm:CliqueAdjPol\] together with Corollary \[cor:beatDel01\] below.
Currently Brouwer [@Brouwer:URL] lists the feasible parameter tuples for connected and co-connected strongly regular graphs on up to $1300$ vertices. Of these, about $1/8$ of the parameter tuples of type-II strongly regular graphs satisfy the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteNonConf\]. By the remark following Corollary \[cor:beatDel01\], it follows that Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteNonConf\] can be applied to about $1/4$ of the complementary pairs of type-II strongly regular graphs on Brouwer’s list.
Note that the example in [@Soi:CAB15] of a strongly regular graph with parameter tuple $(144,39,6,12)$ is an example of a graph satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteNonConf\]; in fact, in this case, the conclusion of Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteNonConf\] is satisfied with equality. The parameter tuple $(88,27,6,9)$ is the first parameter tuple in Brouwer’s list to which we can apply Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteNonConf\] and whose corresponding graphs are not yet known to exist (or not exist).
Parameters of strongly regular graphs {#sec:parameters_of_strongly_regular_graphs}
=====================================
Here we state some well-known properties of strongly regular graphs and their parameters. The first two propositions are standard (see Brouwer and Haemers [@brou:spec11 Chapter 9] or Cameron and Van Lint [@CvL Chapter 2]).
\[pro:SRG\] Let $\Gamma$ be a strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r \geqslant s$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
(v-k-1)\mu &= k(k-\lambda-1); \\
\lambda-\mu &= r+s; \\
\mu - k &= rs.
\end{aligned}$$
\[pro:SRGtI\] Let $\Gamma$ be a type-I strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r > s$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
k = (v-1)/2; \quad \lambda = (v-&5)/4; \quad \mu = (v-1)/4; \\
r = (\sqrt{v}-1)/2; \quad\quad\quad & \quad\quad s = -(\sqrt{v}+1)/2.
\end{aligned}$$
The next proposition is a key observation.
\[pro:fracPart\] Let $\Gamma$ be a strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r \geqslant s$.
(i) If $\Gamma$ is type I then $k/s - 2{\operatorname{frac} \left ( \mu/s \right )}$ is an integer.
(ii) If $\Gamma$ is type II then $k/s-{\operatorname{frac} \left ( \mu/s \right )}$ is an integer.
If $\Gamma$ is type I then, by Proposition \[pro:SRGtI\], we have $k-2\mu = 0$. If $\Gamma$ is type II then, by Proposition \[pro:SRG\], we have $k/s-\mu/s = -r$ and $r$ is an integer.
Next, the complement $\overline \Gamma$ of a strongly regular graph $\Gamma$ is also a strongly regular graph. This is again a standard result (see Cameron and Van Lint [@CvL Chapter 2]).
\[pro:comp\] Let $\Gamma$ be a connected and co-connected strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r > s$. Then $\overline \Gamma$ is strongly regular with parameters $(v,v-k-1,v-2k+\mu-2,v-2k+\lambda)$ and eigenvalues $v-k-1 > -s-1 > -r-1$.
Finally we state some straightforward bounds for the parameters of strongly regular graphs.
\[pro:SRGbound\] Let $\Gamma$ be a strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$. Then
(i) $v - 2k + \lambda \geqslant 0$ with equality if and only if $\Gamma$ is complete multipartite;
(ii) $k - \lambda - 1 \geqslant 0$ with equality if and only if $\overline \Gamma$ is complete multipartite.
The clique adjacency polynomial {#sec:evaluating_the_clique_adjacency_polynomial}
===============================
Now we define our main tool, the clique adjacency polynomial. Given an edge-regular graph $\Gamma$ with parameters $(v,k,\lambda)$, define the **clique adjacency polynomial** $C_\Gamma(x,y)$ as $$C_\Gamma(x,y) := x(x+1)(v-y) - 2xy(k-y+1) + y(y-1)(\lambda-y+2).$$
The utility of the clique adjacency polynomial follows from [@Soi:10 Theorem 1.1] (see also [@Soi:CAB15 Theorem 3.1]), giving:
\[thm:CliqueAdjPol\] Let $\Gamma$ be an edge-regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda)$. Suppose that $\Gamma$ has a clique of size $c \geqslant 2$. Then $C_\Gamma(b,c) \geqslant 0$ for all integers $b$.
As discussed in [@Soi:10] and [@Soi:CAB15], Theorem \[thm:CliqueAdjPol\] provides a way of bounding the clique number of an edge-regular graph using only its parameters. Indeed, by Theorem \[thm:CliqueAdjPol\], for an edge-regular graph $\Gamma$ and some integer $c \geqslant 2$, if there exists an integer $b$ such that $C_\Gamma(b,c) < 0$ then $\omega(\Gamma) \leqslant c-1$. Hence we define the **clique adjacency bound** (CAB) to be the least integer $c \geqslant 2$ such that $C_\Gamma(b,c+1) < 0$ for some $b \in \mathbb Z$; note that such a $c$ always exists. We will show that, for a $k$-regular strongly regular graph $\Gamma$, the clique adjacency bound gives $\omega(\Gamma) \leqslant \lfloor 1 -k/s \rfloor$. That is, the clique adjacency bound is always at least as good as the Delsarte bound when applied to strongly regular graphs. This follows from Theorem \[thm:CliqueAdjPol\] together with Theorem \[thm:CAB-Del\] below. More interestingly, we will also show that the clique adjacency bound does better than the Delsarte bound for infinitely many feasible parameter tuples for strongly regular graphs. In this section we consider the univariate polynomial $C_\Gamma(f(t), g(t))$ in the variable $t$, where $f(t)$ and $g(t)$ are linear polynomials in $t$. The main idea is to choose the linear polynomials $f$ and $g$ such that there exists $t \in \R$ such that $C_\Gamma(f(t), g(t)) < 0$, $f(t) \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, and $g(t)$ is an integer at least $2$. We begin by stating one of the main results of this paper.
\[thm:CAB-Del\] Let $\Gamma$ be a strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r \geqslant s$. Then, $$C_\Gamma \left ( \left \lfloor -\mu/s \right \rfloor, \left \lfloor 2-k/s \right \rfloor \right ) < 0.$$
Follows from Corollary \[cor:meetDelsarte\] and Corollary \[cor:meetDelsarte1\] below.
Observe that, together with Theorem \[thm:CliqueAdjPol\], Theorem \[thm:CAB-Del\] shows that the clique adjacency bound always does as well as the Delsarte bound for strongly regular graphs.
Now we can state our first polynomial identity, which shows that the clique adjacency polynomial is negative at a certain point.
\[lem:CAP0\] Let $\Gamma$ be a connected strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r > s$. Then $$C_\Gamma(-\mu/s, 2-k/s) = {(2s-r)(r+1)} < 0.$$
The equality follows from direct calculation (see Appendix \[sec:comp\]), using the equalities in Proposition \[pro:SRG\]. The right-hand side is negative since $s < 0$ and $r \geqslant 0$.
Let $\Gamma$ be a strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ such that both $\mu/s$ and $k/s$ are integers. Then by Lemma \[lem:CAP0\], together with Theorem \[thm:CliqueAdjPol\], we recover the Delsarte bound, i.e., $\omega(\Gamma) \leqslant \left \lfloor 1-k/s \right \rfloor$. It remains for us to deal with the situation when $k/s$ and $\mu/s$ are not integers. In the remainder of this section, motivated by Lemma \[lem:CAP0\], we consider integral points $(x,y) \in {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ close to $(-\mu/s, 2-k/s)$ such that $C_\Gamma(x,y)$ is negative. We deal with the type I and type II cases separately.
Type-I strongly regular graphs {#sub:conference_graphs}
------------------------------
Let $\Gamma$ be a type-I strongly regular graph (or conference graph) with $v$ vertices. By Proposition \[pro:SRGtI\] we have $-\mu/s = r$ and $-k/s = 2r$. Therefore, we consider integral points $(x,y)$ close to $(r,2+2r)$ at which to evaluate the clique adjacency polynomial. In view of Proposition \[pro:fracPart\], we evaluate $C_\Gamma(x,y)$ at points of the form $(r-t,a+2r-2t)$ for some $a \in \mathbb N$, thinking of $t$ as the fractional part of $r$.
\[lem:CAP2.0\] Let $\Gamma$ be a type-I strongly regular graph with $v$ vertices and eigenvalues $k > r > s$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
C_\Gamma(r - t, 3 + 2r - 2t) &= 2(t-1)(t+s-2)(t+2s); \label{eqn:confPol3} \\
C_\Gamma(r - t, 2 + 2r - 2t) &= (t+s)(2t^2+(4s-1)t-3s-1). \label{eqn:confPol2}
\end{aligned}$$
The equalities follow from direct calculation (see Appendix \[sec:comp\]), applying Proposition \[pro:SRG\] and the definition of a type-I strongly regular graph.
The right-hand side of Equation is a cubic polynomial in the indeterminate $t$ with positive leading coefficient. Furthermore, since for a type-I strongly regular graph we have $s = -(\sqrt{v}+1)/2$, we observe that the smallest zero of the right-hand side of Equation is equal to $3/4 + ( \sqrt{v}-\sqrt{v+5/4} )/2$. Hence $C_\Gamma(r - t, 2 + 2r - 2t)$ is negative for $t < 3/4 + ( \sqrt{v}-\sqrt{v+5/4} )/2$. We use this observation in the next result, which can be used with Theorem \[thm:CliqueAdjPol\] to obtain the Delsarte bound for conference graphs.
\[cor:meetDelsarte\] Let $\Gamma$ be a type-I strongly regular graph with $v$ vertices. Then $$C_\Gamma \left ( \left \lfloor (\sqrt{v}-1)/2 \right \rfloor, \left \lfloor \sqrt{v} + 1 \right \rfloor \right ) < 0.$$
Let $t = {\operatorname{frac} \left ( r \right )}$. If $t > 1/2$ then $$C_\Gamma \left ( \left \lfloor (\sqrt{v}-1)/2 \right \rfloor, \left \lfloor \sqrt{v} + 1 \right \rfloor \right ) = C_\Gamma(r - t, 3 + 2r - 2t)$$ and the right-hand side of Equation is negative for $t < 1$. Otherwise, if $t < 1/2$ then $$C_\Gamma \left ( \left \lfloor (\sqrt{v}-1)/2 \right \rfloor, \left \lfloor \sqrt{v} + 1 \right \rfloor \right ) = C_\Gamma(r - t, 2 + 2r - 2t),$$ which is negative since $t < 1/2 < 3/4 + ( \sqrt{v}-\sqrt{v+5/4} )/2$. Note that $t$ cannot be equal to $1/2$ since $r$ is an algebraic integer.
The next corollary follows in a similar fashion.
\[cor:beatDelsarte\] Let $\Gamma$ be a type-I strongly regular graph with $v$ vertices. Suppose that $$0 < {\operatorname{frac} \left ( \sqrt{v}/2 \right )} < 1/4 + ( \sqrt{v}-\sqrt{v+5/4} )/2.$$ Then $C_\Gamma \left ( \left \lfloor (\sqrt{v}-1)/2 \right \rfloor, \left \lfloor \sqrt{v} \right \rfloor \right) < 0$.
Let $t = {\operatorname{frac} \left ( r \right )} = {\operatorname{frac} \left ( (\sqrt{v}-1)/2 \right )}$. Then by our hypothesis $1/2 < t < 3/4 + ( \sqrt{v}-\sqrt{v+5/4} )/2$. Therefore we have $$C_\Gamma \left ( \left \lfloor (\sqrt{v}-1)/2 \right \rfloor, \left \lfloor \sqrt{v} \right \rfloor \right ) = C_\Gamma(r - t, 2 + 2r - 2t),$$ which is negative since $t < 3/4 + ( \sqrt{v}-\sqrt{v+5/4} )/2$.
Type-II strongly regular graphs {#sub:non_conference_strongly_regular_graph}
-------------------------------
Let $\Gamma$ be a type-II strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$. Again, in view of Proposition \[pro:fracPart\], we evaluate $C_\Gamma(x,y)$ at points of the form $(-\mu/s - t,a -k/s - t)$ for some $a \in \mathbb Z$, thinking of $t$ as the fractional part of $-\mu/s$.
\[lem:CAP1\] Let $\Gamma$ be a strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r \geqslant s$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
C_\Gamma(-\mu/s - t, 2-k/s - t) &= (t-1)((v - 2k + \lambda)t - (2s-r)(r+1)); \label{eqn:SRG-Pol} \\
C_\Gamma(-\mu/s - t, 1-k/s - t) &= t( (v - 2k + \lambda)(t-1) + r(r+1)). \label{eqn:SRGPol}
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, if $\Gamma$ is co-connected then these polynomials have positive leading coefficients.
The equalities follow from direct calculation (see Appendix \[sec:comp\]), using the equalities in Proposition \[pro:SRG\]. By Proposition \[pro:SRGbound\] if $\Gamma$ is co-connected then the polynomials have positive leading coefficients.
Note that Lemma \[lem:CAP0\] is a special case of Lemma \[lem:CAP1\], for $t=0$.
\[cor:meetDelsarte1\] Let $\Gamma$ be a type-II strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r \geqslant s$. Then $$C_\Gamma(\lfloor -\mu/s \rfloor, \lfloor 2-k/s \rfloor) < 0.$$
If $\Gamma$ is disconnected then we have $\mu = 0$ and $2-k/s = \lambda + 3$. Whence $C_\Gamma(\lfloor -\mu/s \rfloor, \lfloor 2-k/s \rfloor) = C_\Gamma(0, \lambda+3) = -(\lambda + 3)(\lambda + 2) < 0$, as required. Hence we can assume that $\Gamma$ is connected.
Let $t = {\operatorname{frac} \left ( -\mu/s \right )}$. Then, using Proposition \[pro:fracPart\] and Equation , we have $$C_\Gamma(\lfloor -\mu/s \rfloor, \lfloor 2-k/s \rfloor) = (t-1)((v - 2k + \lambda)t - (2s-r)(r+1)).$$ Suppose first that $\Gamma$ is co-connected. The right-hand side of Equation is negative on the open interval $(\eta,1)$, where $\eta = (2s-r)(r+1)/(v - 2k + \lambda)$ is negative. Hence the corollary holds for $\Gamma$. On the other hand, for complete multipartite graphs we have $t = 0$, in which case the right-hand side of Equation is negative.
The next corollary follows similarly, using the fact that the right-hand side of Equation is negative on the open interval $(0,\eta)$, where $\eta = 1-(r^2 + r)/(v - 2k + \lambda)$.
\[cor:beatDel01\] Let $\Gamma$ be a co-connected type-II strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r \geqslant s$. Suppose that $$0< {\operatorname{frac} \left ( -k/s \right )} < 1-(r^2 + r)/(v - 2k + \lambda).$$ Then $C_\Gamma(\lfloor -\mu/s \rfloor, \lfloor 1-k/s \rfloor) < 0$.
\[rem:4.10\] We remark that if a type-II strongly regular graph satisfies the hypothesis of Corollary \[cor:beatDel01\] then its complement cannot also satisfy the hypothesis. Indeed, suppose that $\Gamma$ satisfies the hypothesis of Corollary \[cor:beatDel01\]. Since ${\operatorname{frac} \left ( -k/s \right )} > 0$ we have that $s \ne -1$ and hence $\Gamma$ is connected. Then, using Proposition \[pro:comp\], we see that the complement of $\Gamma$ also satisfies the hypothesis of Corollary \[cor:beatDel01\] if $$0 < {\operatorname{frac} \left ( (v-k-1)/(r+1) \right )} < 1-(s^2 +s)/\mu.$$ In particular, for the corollary to hold for both $\Gamma$ and its complement, we must have both $(r^2 + r)/(v - 2k + \lambda) < 1$ and $(s^2 + s)/\mu < 1$. But we find that $(r^2 + r)/(v - 2k + \lambda) < 1$ if and only if $(s^2 + s)/\mu > 1$. One can see this by using the equalities in Proposition \[pro:SRG\] (see Appendix \[sec:comp\]) to obtain the equality $$\mu(v-2k+\lambda) = (r^2+r)(s^2+s).$$
How sharp is the clique adjacency bound? {#sec:a_limitation_of_the_bound}
========================================
In this section we show that the clique adjacency bound is sharp for strongly regular graphs in certain instances. We also comment on the sharpness of the clique adjacency bound for general strongly regular graphs.
\[thm:limitation\] Let $\Gamma$ be a strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r \geqslant s$. Suppose that $\lambda + 1 \leqslant -k/s$. Then the clique adjacency bound is equal to $\lambda + 2$.
As the second author observed in [@Soi:CAB15], for an edge-regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda)$ we have $C_\Gamma(0, y) = -y(y - 1)(y-(\lambda + 2))$, so for all $y > \lambda+2$, we have $C_\Gamma(0,y)<0$. Hence the clique adjacency bound is always at most the trivial bound of $\lambda+2$. Therefore, to prove Theorem \[thm:limitation\], it suffices to show that, for strongly regular graph parameters satisfying $\lambda + 1 \leqslant -k/s$, the clique adjacency bound is at least $\lambda+2$.
\[lem:lam1le\] Let $\Gamma$ be a connected type-II strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $k > r > s$. Suppose that $\lambda + 1 \leqslant -k/s$. Then $C_\Gamma(1, \lambda+2) \geqslant 0$ with equality if and only if $\lambda = -k/s - 1$.
First suppose $\lambda + 1 = -k/s$. Equivalently, since $\lambda + 1 = k + (r+1)(s+1)$ and $\mu = k + rs$, we have $-\mu/s = 1$. In this case, $C_\Gamma(1, \lambda+2) = C_\Gamma(-\mu/s, 1-k/s)$, which is zero by Equation .
It remains to assume $\lambda+1 < -k/s$. Using Proposition \[pro:SRG\] (see Appendix \[sec:comp\]) we can write $$\frac{\mu}{2} C_\Gamma(1,\lambda+2) = k(k-(\mu+1)(\lambda+1))+\mu(\lambda+1)^2.$$ To show this quantity is nonnegative, it suffices to show that $k-(\mu+1)(\lambda+1)$ is nonnegative. Using the inequality $\lambda+1 < -k/s$, we have $k-(\mu+1)(\lambda+1) > k(1+(\mu+1)/s)$. It therefore suffices to show that $1+(\mu+1)/s \geqslant 0$.
Since $\lambda = k + r + s + rs$, the inequality $\lambda+1 < -k/s$ becomes $$k + (r+1)(s+1) < -k/s.$$ Since $s < -1$, it follows that $r+1 > -k/s$. Multiplying this inequality by $-s$ gives $-s(r+1) > k$. Since both $s$ and $r$ are integers, we have $-s(r+1) \geqslant k + 1$ Now by rearranging and substituting $\mu = k+rs$, we obtain the inequality $1+(\mu+1)/s \geqslant 0$ as required.
\[lem:NoOtherZeros\] Let $\Gamma$ be an edge-regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda)$ such that $C_\Gamma(b,\lambda + 2)\geqslant 0$ for all integers $b$. Then $C_\Gamma(b,c)\geqslant 0$ for all $c\in \{2,\ldots,\lambda+2\}$ and all integers $b$.
Let $c\in \{2,\ldots,\lambda+2\}$ and let $b$ be an integer. If $b\leqslant 0$, then from the definition of the clique adjacency polynomial $C_\Gamma(x,y)$, we see that $C_\Gamma(b,c)\geqslant 0$, so we now assume that $b$ is positive.
A calculation (see Appendix \[sec:comp\]) shows that $$C_\Gamma(b,c)-C_\Gamma(b,\lambda+2) = (\lambda+2-c)(b-c)(b-c+1) + 2b(\lambda+2-c)(k-\lambda-1).$$ This quantity is nonnegative since $b$ and $\lambda+2-c$ are nonnegative integers, the product of two consecutive integers is nonnegative, and $k-\lambda-1$ is also nonnegative by Proposition \[pro:SRGbound\]. Hence $$C_\Gamma(b,c)\geqslant C_\Gamma(b,\lambda+2)\geqslant 0,$$ as required.
Now we prove Theorem \[thm:limitation\].
Firstly, if $\Gamma$ is disconnected then $\Gamma$ is the disjoint union of complete graphs and hence contains cliques of size $\lambda + 2$. Therefore the clique adjacency bound is at least $\lambda + 2$. Now we assume that $\Gamma$ is connected.
By Lemma \[lem:NoOtherZeros\], the clique adjacency bound is less than $\lambda+2$ only if there exists some integer $b$ such that $C_\Gamma(b,\lambda + 2)$ is less than zero. To ease notation set $f(x) := C_\Gamma(x,\lambda + 2)$. Hence $$f(x) = x \left ( (v-\lambda-2)x + v + (2\lambda-2k+1)(\lambda+2) \right ).$$ It suffices to show that there does not exist any integer $b$ such that $f(b) < 0$.
Observe that the polynomial $f(x)$ is a quadratic polynomial in the variable $x$. Furthermore, the leading coefficient of $f(x)$ is $v-\lambda-2 \geqslant 0$, and $f(0) = 0$. Let $\xi$ be the other zero of $f(x)$. Now, $f(x)$ is negative if and only if $x$ is between $0$ and $\xi$. Hence, if $f(-1)$ and $f(1)$ are both nonnegative then there are no integers $b$ such that $f(b) < 0$. As in the proof of the previous result $f(-1)$ is nonnegative. Therefore Lemma \[lem:lam1le\] completes the proof for type-II strongly regular graphs.
The inequality $\lambda+1 \leqslant -k/s$ only holds for type-I strongly regular graphs on $5$ vertices or $9$ vertices (where we have equality). One can explicitly compute the clique adjacency bound for these two cases: the unique $(5,2,0,1)$-strongly regular graph and the unique $(9,4,1,2)$-strongly regular graph. For each of these graphs the clique adjacency bound is equal to $\lambda+2$.
Now we give a couple of remarks about Theorem \[thm:limitation\].
For strongly regular graphs with $\lambda \leqslant 1$, it is easy to see that the clique number is $\lambda + 2$. By Theorem \[thm:limitation\], the clique adjacency bound is equal to the clique number for such graphs. Let $\Gamma$ be a strongly regular graph with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$. By Proposition \[pro:SRG\], we see that $k = -s(r+1)- r +\lambda$. Therefore, for strongly regular graphs with $\lambda=2$ and $r \geqslant 2$, we have $\lambda+1 = 3 \leqslant -k/s$, and so Theorem \[thm:limitation\] applies to such graphs.
We conjecture that if the clique adjacency bound is less than $-k/s$ then $\lambda+1 \leqslant -k/s$. We have verified this conjecture for all feasible parameter tuples for strongly regular graphs on up to $1300$ vertices, making use of Brouwer’s website [@Brouwer:URL].
In Table \[tab:bd\], we list all the feasible parameter tuples for strongly regular graphs on at most $150$ vertices to which we can apply either Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteConf\] or Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteNonConf\]. In other words, Table \[tab:bd\] displays the feasible parameters for strongly regular graphs on at most $150$ vertices for which the clique adjacency bound is strictly less than the Delsarte bound. In the column labelled ‘Exists’, if there exists a strongly regular graph with the appropriate parameters then we put ‘+’, or ‘!’ if the graph is known to be unique; otherwise, if the existence is unknown, we put ‘?’. In the final column of Table \[tab:bd\], we put ‘Y’ (resp. ‘N’) if there exists (resp. does not exist) a strongly regular graph with the corresponding parameters that has clique number equal to the clique adjacency bound, otherwise we put a ‘?’ if such existence is unknown. We refer to Brouwer’s website [@Brouwer:URL] for details on the existence of strongly regular graphs with given parameters.
For the parameter tuples in Table \[tab:bd\], the Delsarte bound is equal to the clique adjacency bound plus $1$. As an example of a parameter tuple for which the clique adjacency bound differs from the Delsarte bound by $2$, we have $(378,52,1,8)$ for which there exists a corresponding graph [@Penttila05]. For this graph the Delsarte bound is $5$, but the clique adjacency bound is $3$.
Parameters Type CAB Exists Sharp
--------------------- ------ ------ -------- -------
$(17, 8, 3, 4)$ I $3$ ! Y
$(37, 18, 8, 9)$ I $5$ + Y
$(50, 7, 0, 1)$ II $2$ ! Y
$(56, 10, 0, 2)$ II $2$ ! Y
$(65, 32, 15, 16)$ I $7$ ? ?
$(77, 16, 0, 4)$ II $2$ ! Y
$(88, 27, 6, 9)$ II $4$ ? ?
$(99, 14, 1, 2)$ II $3$ ? Y
$(100, 22, 0, 6)$ II $2$ ! Y
$(101, 50, 24, 25)$ I $9$ + ?
$(105, 32, 4, 12)$ II $3$ ! Y
$(111, 30, 5, 9)$ II $4$ ? ?
$(115, 18, 1, 3)$ II $3$ ? Y
$(120, 42, 8, 18)$ II $3$ ! Y
$(121, 36, 7, 12)$ II $4$ ? ?
$(133, 32, 6, 8)$ II $5$ ? ?
$(144, 39, 6, 12)$ II $4$ + Y
$(144, 52, 16, 20)$ II $6$ ? ?
$(145, 72, 35, 36)$ I $11$ ? ?
$(149, 74, 36, 37)$ I $11$ + ?
: Feasible parameter tuples for strongly regular graphs on at most $150$ vertices to which we can apply either Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteConf\] or Theorem \[thm:beatDelsarteNonConf\].[]{data-label="tab:bd"}
Feasible parameters for which there does not exist a corresponding strongly regular graph whose clique number is equal to the clique adjacency bound include $(16,10,6,6)$ and $(27, 16, 10, 8)$. However, we ask the following question. Do there exist strongly regular graphs with parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$, with $k < v/2$, such that every strongly regular graph having those parameters has clique number less than the clique adjacency bound?
Hoffman bound vs Delsarte bound vs clique adjacency bound {#sec:HoffmanDelsarteCAB}
=========================================================
Let $\Gamma$ be a connected non-complete regular graph with $v$ vertices, valency $k$, and second largest eigenvalue $r<k$. Then the complement $\overline\Gamma$ of $\Gamma$ is a regular graph with valency $\overline k=v-k-1$ and least eigenvalue $\overline s=-r-1<0$. We may obtain a bound for the clique number of $\Gamma$ by applying the Hoffman bound (also called the ratio bound) [@GM16 Theorem 2.4.1] on the size of a largest independent set (coclique) of $\overline\Gamma$. This gives $$\omega(\Gamma)\leqslant \left \lfloor \frac{v}{1-\overline{k}/\overline{s}} \right \rfloor.$$ If $\Gamma$ is strongly regular, then it is known (and follows from the relations of Proposition \[pro:SRG\]) that the Delsarte bound for $\omega(\Gamma)$ is the same as that given by the Hoffman bound above.
Now the Delsarte bound applies not only to strongly regular graphs, but also to the graphs $\{\Gamma_1,\ldots,\Gamma_d\}$ of the relations (other than equality) of any $d$-class symmetric association scheme (see [@GM16 Corollary 3.7.2]). Thus, if $\Gamma$ is such a graph, having valency $k$ and least eigenvalue $s$, then $\omega(\Gamma)\leqslant \lfloor 1-k/s\rfloor$.
Here is an interesting illustrative example. Let $\Delta$ be the edge graph (or line graph) of the incidence graph of the projective plane of order $2$. Then $\Delta$ is the unique distance-regular graph with intersection array $\{4,2,2;1,1,2\}$. Now let $\Delta_3$ be the graph on the vertices of $\Delta$, with two vertices joined by an edge if and only if they have distance $3$ in $\Delta$. Then $\Delta_3$ is the graph of a relation in the usual symmetric association scheme associated with a distance-regular graph, where two vertices are in relation $i$ precisely when they are at distance $i$ in the distance-regular graph. The graph $\Delta_3$ has diameter $2$ and is edge-regular (but not strongly regular) with parameters $(v,k,\lambda)=(21,8,3)$. The clique adjacency bound for $\Delta_3$ is $4$. The least eigenvalue of $\Delta_3$ is $-\sqrt{8}$, and the Delsarte bound gives $3$, and indeed, $\omega(\Delta_3)=3$. However, the complement of $\Delta_3$ has least eigenvalue $-1-\sqrt{8}$, and the Hoffman bound for independent sets in the complement of $\Delta_3$ gives $5$. Thus, for $\Delta_3$, the Delsarte bound is better than the clique adjacency bound which is better than that obtained from the Hoffman bound. However, the three bounds are for different classes of graphs. For example, there may well be an edge-regular graph with parameters $(21,8,3)$ and clique number $4$. It would be interesting to find one.
We conjecture that if $\Gamma$ is any connected non-complete edge-regular graph, then the clique adjacency bound for $\omega(\Gamma)$ is at most that obtained from the Hoffman bound for $\overline \Gamma$.
Algebraic computational verification of identities {#sec:comp}
==================================================
In this appendix we present the algebraic computations in Maple [@maple] that were used to verify certain identities employed in this paper. These identities were also checked independently using Magma [@Magma].
We start up Maple (version 18) and assign to $C$ the clique adjacency polynomial.
> C:=x*(x+1)*(v-y)-2*x*y*(k-y+1)+y*(y-1)*(lambda-y+2):
We then make a set of relators, obtained from Proposition \[pro:SRG\], which evaluate to $0$ on the parameters $(v,k,\lambda,\mu)$ and eigenvalues $r,s$ (with $k>r \geqslant s$) of a strongly regular graph.
> srg_rels:={(v-k-1)*mu-k*(k-lambda-1),(lambda-mu)-(r+s),(mu-k)-r*s}:
We make a further set of relators which evaluate to $0$ on the parameters and eigenvalues of a type-I strongly regular graph.
> type1_rels:=srg_rels union {2*k-(v-1),4*lambda-(v-5),4*mu-(v-1)}:
Let $R=\mathbb{Q}[t,v,k,\lambda,\mu,r,s]$ be the ring of polynomials over $\mathbb{Q}$ in the indeterminates $t,v,k,\lambda,\mu,r,s$, let $S$ be the ideal of $R$ generated by `srg_rels` given above, and let $T$ be the ideal of $R$ generated by `type1_rels`. We use the Maple package `Groebner` to caclulate and employ Gröbner bases [@Co99] to work in the factor rings $R/S$ and $R/T$.
We set the monomial ordering for the Gröbner basis calculations to be the Maple `tdeg` ordering, more commonly called the grevlex ordering, with the indeterminates ordered as $t>v>k>\lambda>\mu>r>s$.
> ordering:=tdeg(t,v,k,lambda,mu,r,s):
Then we compute a Gröbner basis $G$ for $S$.
> G:=Groebner[Basis](srg_rels,ordering):
For the record, $G=
[\lambda-\mu-r-s,rs+k-\mu,{k}^{2}-kr-ks-\mu\,v-k+\mu]$. Similarly, we compute a Gröbner basis $H$ for $T$.
> H:=Groebner[Basis](type1_rels,ordering):
Here, we obtain $H=
[r+1+s,\lambda+1-\mu,k-2\,\mu,v-1-4\,\mu,{s}^{2}-\mu+s]$.
We now verify that the identity of Lemma \[lem:CAP0\] holds, by checking that $s^3(C(-\mu/s,2-k/s)-(2s-r)(r+1))=0$ in $R/S$.
> Groebner[NormalForm](expand(s^3*(eval(C,[x=-mu/s,y=2-k/s])
> - (2*s-r)*(r+1))),G,ordering);
0
Similarly, we verify that the identities of Lemma \[lem:CAP2.0\] hold for type-I strongly regular graphs, by working in $R/T$.
> Groebner[NormalForm](eval(C,[x=r-t,y=3+2*r-2*t])
> - 2*(t-1)*(t+s-2)*(t+2*s),H,ordering);
0
> Groebner[NormalForm](eval(C,[x=r-t,y=2+2*r-2*t])
> - (t+s)*(2*t^2+(4*s-1)*t-3*s-1),H,ordering);
0
Next are the verifications of the identities of Lemma \[lem:CAP1\].
> Groebner[NormalForm](expand(s^3*(eval(C,[x=-mu/s-t,y=2-k/s-t])
> - (t-1)*((v-2*k+lambda)*t-(2*s-r)*(r+1)))),G,ordering);
0
> Groebner[NormalForm](expand(s^3*(eval(C,[x=-mu/s-t,y=1-k/s-t])
> - t*((v-2*k+lambda)*(t-1)+r*(r+1)))),G,ordering);
0
Here is confirmation of the identity used in Remark \[rem:4.10\].
> Groebner[NormalForm](mu*(v-2*k+lambda)-(r^2+r)*(s^2+s),G,ordering);
0
Next is verification of the identity used in the proof of Lemma \[lem:lam1le\].
Groebner[NormalForm](mu*eval(C,[x=1,y=lambda+2])/2
- (k*(k-(mu+1)*(lambda+1))+mu*(lambda+1)^2),G,ordering);
0
Finally, here is a confirmation of the polynomial equality used in the proof of Lemma \[lem:NoOtherZeros\].
> expand((eval(C,[x=b,y=c])-eval(C,[x=b,y=lambda+2]))
> - ((lambda+2-c)*(b-c)*(b-c+1)+2*b*(lambda+2-c)*(k-lambda-1)));
0
We remark that the total CPU time for all these computations on a desktop Linux PC was only about 0.16 seconds, and the total store used by Maple was 2.4MB.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Anton Betten for organising the Combinatorics and Computer Algebra 2015 conference, whose problem sessions brought us together to begin this work.
[^1]: The first author was supported by JSPS KAKENHI; grant number: 26$\cdot$03903
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
---
=1
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the role of conflicts in pedestrian traffic, i.e.situations where two or more people try to enter the same space. Therefore a recently introduced cellular automaton model for pedestrian dynamics is extended by a friction parameter $\mu$. This parameter controls the probability that the movement of [*all*]{} particles involved in a conflict is denied at one time step. It is shown that these conflicts are not an undesirable artefact of the parallel update scheme, but are important for a correct description of the dynamics. The friction parameter $\mu$ can be interpreted as a kind of internal local pressure between the pedestrians which becomes important in regions of high density, ocurring e.g. in panic situations. We present simulations of the evacuation of a large room with one door. It is found that friction has not only quantitative effects, but can also lead to qualitative changes, e.g. of the dependence of the evacuation time on the system parameters. We also observe similarities to the flow of granular materials, e.g. arching effects.'
author:
- Ansgar Kirchner
- Katsuhiro Nishinari
- Andreas Schadschneider
title: Friction effects and clogging in a cellular automaton model for pedestrian dynamics
---
[^1]
Introduction {#intro}
============
Methods of physics and modern computer science have been used successfully for the investigation of vehicular traffic problems for a long time [@chowd; @dhrev; @nagatani]. Also pedestrian dynamics has attracted some attention in recent years [@PedeEvak] and many interesting collective effects and self-organisation phenomena have been observed (for an overview see [@dhrev; @nagatani; @PedeEvak; @HePED]).
One topic which has not been studied intensively up to now (see, however, [@panic]) is the relevance of local conflicts in pedestrian traffic. A conflict indicates a situation in which two or more people try to enter the same space in one timestep. Obviously this is a real two-dimensional effect which has no counterpart in (directed) one-dimensional vehicular traffic. These conflicts are local phenomena which can have a strong influence on global quantities like evacuation times and flows in the presence of bottlenecks. Typical examples where conflicts become important are situations with clogging and stucking encountered in crowds of panicing pedestrians, e.g. near intersections and bottlenecks. In real life this often leads to very dangerous situations and injuries or even fatalities during evacuations. From a physics point of view these phenomena are related to flow properties of granular materials [@granul0; @gran_1; @gran_2; @gran_3; @granul1; @granul2; @granul3].
Depending on the choice of parameters, the cellular automaton (CA) model introduced in [@ourpaper; @PED01a; @PED01b] is able to reproduce many of the observed collective effects of pedestrian dynamics, i.e. panicing and herding behaviour [@aki0]. In this paper the model is extended by a friction parameter $\mu$, which allows an improved description of clogging and stucking phenomena of pedestrians. It will be shown that conflicts and friction are responsible for several interesting effects which become especially relevant in high density situations, e.g. during evacuation processes, and that they are important for a correct reproduction of the dynamics. We start with a short summary of the model’s basic concepts and its update rules.
Basic principles of the model
=============================
The model considered here is a CA where the space is discretized into small cells which can either be empty or occupied by exactly one pedestrian. Each of these pedestrians can move to one of its unoccupied neighbour cells (see fig. \[trans\]) at each discrete time step $t\to t+1$ according to certain transition probabilities.
![Definition of the transition probabilities $p_{ij}$.[]{data-label="trans"}](\DIR/fig1.eps){width="0.65\columnwidth"}
The probabilities are given by the interaction with two discrete [*floor fields*]{}, $D$ and $S$ [@ourpaper; @PED01a; @PED01b; @aki0]. The field strengths $D_{ij}$ and $S_{ij}$ at site $(i,j)$ are interpreted as number of $D$- and $S$-particles, respectively, present at that site. The two fields determine the transition probability in such a way that a particle movement in the direction of higher fields becomes more likely.
The dynamic floor field $D$ represents a virtual trace left by [*moving*]{} pedestrians. Similar to the process of chemotaxis [@chemo; @ants] used by some insects for communication, this trace has its own dynamics, namely diffusion and decay. Two parameters, $\alpha$ $\in[0,1]$ and $\delta$ $\in[0,1]$, control the broadening and dilution of the trace. Every moving pedestrian creates a $D$-particle at its origin cell. Since there is no restriction of the maximal number of $D$-particles at a site, $D$ can be regarded as a [*bosonic field*]{}.
The static floor field $S$, on the other hand, does not change in time. It reflects the surrounding geometry and e.g. specifying attractive space regions. In the case of the evacuation processes considered here, the static floor field describes the shortest distance to an exit door. $S$ is calculated for each lattice site using some distance metric. The field value increases in the direction of the exit such that it is largest for door cells. An explicit construction of $S$ can be found in [@aki0; @aki].
The floor fields are used to translate a long-ranged spatial interaction into a local interaction, but with memory, similar to the phenomenon of chemotaxis in biology. The only other model which so far reproduces all observed collective effects of pedestrian flow, the social-force model [@social], uses exponentially decaying repulsive forces between pedestrians. In contrast, in our approach the interaction is local and attractive. However, pedestrians do not interact with the density, but with the velocity density created by the other particles.
Update rules {#update}
------------
The update rules of the full model, including the interaction with the two floor fields, have the following structure:
1. The dynamic floor field $D$ is modified according to its diffusion and decay rules [@ourpaper], controlled by the parameters $\alpha$ and $\delta$. In each time step of the simulation each single boson of the whole dynamic field $D$ decays with the probability $\delta$ and diffuses with the probability $\alpha$ to one of its neighbouring cells.
2. For each pedestrian, the transition probabilities $p_{ij}$ for a move to an unoccupied neighbour cell $(i,j)$ (fig. \[trans\]) are determined by the local dynamics and the two floor fields. The values of the fields $D$ and $S$ are weighted with two sensitivity parameters $k_S\in [0,\infty[$ and $k_D\in [0,\infty[$. This yields $$\label{formula}
p_{ij} = N\exp{\left(k_D D_{ij}\right)}
\exp{\left(k_S S_{ij}\right)}(1-n_{ij})\xi_{ij}\,,$$ with the occupation number $n_{ij} = 0,1$, the obstacle number $$\xi_{ij} = \begin{cases}
0 & \quad \mbox{for forbidden cells (e.g.\ walls)}\\
1 & \quad \mbox{else} \\
\end{cases}$$ and the normalization $$N = \left[\sum_{(i,j)}
e^{k_D D_{ij}} e^{k_S S_{ij}}(1-n_{ij})\xi_{ij}\right]^{-1}\,.$$
3. Each pedestrian chooses randomly a target cell based on the transition probabilities $p_{ij}$ determined by (\[formula\]).
4. Conflicts arising by any two or more pedestrians attempting to move to the same target cell are resolved by a probabilistic method. The pedestrians which are allowed to move execute their step. The explicit procedure of conflict resolution will be described in detail in section \[conflicts\].
5. $D$ at the origin cell $(i,j)$ of each [*moving*]{} particle is increased by one: $D_{ij}\to D_{ij}+1$.
The above rules are applied to all pedestrians at the same time (parallel update). This introduces a timescale of about $0.3~$sec/timestep [@ourpaper].
Resolution of Conflicts {#conflicts}
=======================
Due to the use of parallel dynamics it is possible that two or more particles choose the same destination cell in Step 3 of the update procedure. Such situations will be called [*conflicts*]{}. At first it appears that conflicts are undesirable effects which reduce the efficiency of simulations and should therefore be avoided by choosing a different update scheme. We will show in the following that this is not the case and that conflicts are important for a correct description of the physics of crowd dynamics.
Conflicts without friction {#confnofric}
--------------------------
In [@ourpaper; @aki0] conflicts between pedestrians were solved in the following way: whenever $m>1$ particles share the same target cell, one ($l\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$) is chosen to move while its rivals for the same target keep their position. There are two main ways to decide which particle $l$ is allowed to move:
1. According to the relative probabilities with which each particle chooses its target cell, i.e. the probability for particle $l$ to move is ${p_{ij}^{(l)}}/{\sum_{s=1}^{m}p_{ij}^{(s)}}$.
2. All particles move with the same probability $\frac{1}{m}$.
The observed behaviour has been shown to be quite robust and does not depend on the details of the conflict resolution [@ourpaper].
Introduction of the friction parameter $\mu$
--------------------------------------------
We now extend the basic model by a new friction parameter $\mu \in [0,1]$, in order to describe clogging and stucking effects between the pedestrians. Whenever two or more pedestrians try to attempt to move to the same target cell, the movement of [*all*]{} involved particles is denied with the probability $\mu$, i.e. all pedestrians remain at their site (see fig. \[plot\_0\]). This means that with probability $1-\mu$ one of the individuals moves to the desired cell. Which particle actually moves is then determined by the rules for the resolution of conflicts as described in Sec. \[confnofric\]. Note that for vanishing friction $\mu=0$ we recover the dynamics studied in [@ourpaper; @PED01a; @PED01b; @aki0].
![Refused movement (for $m=4$) due to the friction parameter $\mu$. []{data-label="plot_0"}](\DIR/fig2.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
The friction parameter might be interpreted as the effect of a moment of hesitation: Pedestrians in conflict situations slow down or hesitate for a short moment when trying to resolve the conflict. This reduces on average the velocities of all involved particles.
With the above definition of $\mu$ and the extended update rule it is easy to see that $\mu$ works as some kind of local pressure between the pedestrians. If $\mu$ is high, the pedestrians handicap each other trying to reach their desired target sites. As we will see, this local effect can have enormous influence on macroscopic quantities like flow and evacuation time. We like to point out that friction as introduced here does not reduce the velocity of a freely moving particle. Its effects only show up in local [*interactions*]{}.
As one can see it is necessary for such kind of investigations to use a parallel update in the model. Any other form of random or ordered sequential update will disguise the real number of arising conflicts between the pedestrians in the system.
Simulations and results
=======================
In the following we describe results of simulations for a typical situation, i.e. the evacuation of a large room (e.g. in case of fire). In [@aki0] it is shown that by variation of the sensitivity parameters $k_S$ and $k_D$ (see Sec. \[update\]) three main regimes for the behaviour of the particles can be distinguished. For strong coupling $k_S$ and very small coupling $k_D$ we find an [*ordered regime*]{} where particles only react to the static floor field. The behaviour then is in some sense deterministic. The [*disordered regime*]{} characterized by strong coupling $k_D$ and weak coupling $k_S$ leads to a maximal value of the evacuation time $T$. Here the behaviour is typical for panic situations. Between these two regimes an [*cooperative regime*]{} [^2] exists where the combination of interactions with the static and the dynamic floor fields minimizes the evacuation time. Fig. \[phases\] shows a schematical phase diagram in the space of the couplings $k_S$ and $k_D$.
![Schematic phase diagram.[]{data-label="phases"}](\DIR/fig3.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Here we want to focus on the influence of the friction parameter $\mu$ on the evacuation times in the three main regimes. As we will see the influence of $\mu$ is strongest in the ordered regime. This will lead to a new interpretation of this regime.
We consider a grid of size $63\times 63$ sites with a small exit of one cell in the middle of one wall. The particles are initially distributed randomly and try to leave the room. The only information they get is through the floor fields. The strength of the static floor field at a site $(i,j)$ is inversely proportional to the distance of $(i,j)$ from the exit measured using the metric described in [@aki0]. Fig. \[snap\] shows a typical stage of the dynamics for an initial particle density of $\rho=0.3$, i.e. 1116 particles. A typical half-circle jamming configuration in front of the door develops.
![Typical middle stage of the dynamics of an evacuation.[]{data-label="snap"}](\DIR/fig4.ps){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
Influence of $\mu$ and $\rho$
-----------------------------
First we look at the averaged evacuation times $T$ in the three main regimes, in dependence of the particle density $\rho$ and the friction parameter $\mu$. All evacuation times are averaged over $500$ samples and measured in update steps. Figs. \[plot\_1\] and \[plot\_1b\] show the influence of a varying $\mu$ parameter on the three regimes for the low density $\rho=0.03$ and the high density $\rho=0.3$.
![Average evacuation times $T$ for a large room in dependence of the friction parameter $\mu$ for the low density $\rho=0.03$.[]{data-label="plot_1"}](\DIR/fig5.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Same as fig. \[plot\_1\], but for a higher density of $\rho=0.3$.[]{data-label="plot_1b"}](\DIR/fig6.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In the low density regime, $\rho=0.03$ (fig. \[plot\_1\]), increasing $\mu$ has only a very weak effect on the evacuation times of the disordered and the cooperative regime. Here the pedestrians move almost independently of each other so that conflict situations, even close to the door, are rare since almost no jamming occurs. The behaviour is different in the ordered regime. All particles find the shortest way to the exit. Even for low densities they will form a jam in front of the door after a short time. But since these jams are small, the evacuation time increases only for large friction parameters $\mu>\frac{1}{2}$.
The behaviour is different in the high density regime $\rho=0.3$ (fig. \[plot\_1b\]). One finds a weak increase of the evacuation time in the disordered and cooperative regime for high $\mu$ values ($\mu > 0.6$). Even if the particles are not packed close together in front of the door, they form a cue and hinder each other. Increasing $\mu$ leads to a sharp increase of the evacuation time in the ordered regime which first becomes larger than that in the cooperative regime and finally exceeds even that in the disordered regime. In fact it diverges for $\mu\longrightarrow 1$. This behaviour can be understood from the microscopic configurations occuring. A short time after the start of the evacuation nearly all particles of the system are forming a big jam in front of the door. In this large density region many conflicts occur and for large values of $\mu$ the outflow is strongly surpressed. Here the pressure between the pedestrians becomes so strong that any motion is almost impossible. Such a behaviour has been observed in panic situations and also in simulations using the social-force model [@panic]. It will be discussed in more detail in Sec. \[sec\_reinter\].
These results are supported by figs. \[plot\_3\] and \[plot\_3b\] which show the influence of an increased density $\rho$ for fixed values of $\mu$ on the evacuation times.
![Density-dependence of the evacuation time in the ordered and disordered regime for $\mu=0.9$.[]{data-label="plot_3"}](\DIR/fig7.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Relative time difference of the evacuation times for $\mu=0$ and $\mu=0.9$ in the three regimes.[]{data-label="plot_3b"}](\DIR/fig8.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In the disordered regime even the influence of the large value $\mu =0.9$ is only visible for higher densities ($\rho>0.1$). The cooperative regime shows a similar behaviour. In contrast, in the ordered regime even for very small densities $\rho$ the influence of the high value $\mu=0.9$ is very strong (fig. \[plot\_3\]). This is supported by fig. \[plot\_3b\], where the relative time differences for the two values $\mu=0$ and $\mu=0.9$ for all three regimes are shown. Here the very strong increase of the relative time difference in the ordered regime after a very small density of $\rho=0.003$ is remarkable. After this increase the relative time difference remains almost constant.
Reinterpretation of the ordered phase {#sec_reinter}
-------------------------------------
The introduction of the friction parameter $\mu$ allows an improved interpretation of the ordered regime, i.e. the case of strong coupling ($k_S>3$) to the static field $S$ and weak coupling to dynamic field $D$. This regime is almost deterministic, with pedestrians moving straight towards the exit on the shortest path. Now an increased $\mu$ value introduces a negative interaction between the particles into the system, i.e. the pedestrians hinder each other due to strong competition for the unoccupied target sites near the exit. So a strong coupling to $S$ together with a high $\mu$ value, which works as an internal local pressure between the particles, describes a typical panic situation, where an ordered outflow is inhibited due to local conflicts near bottlenecks or doors, resulting in strongly increased evacuation times (such situations are well known from emergency evacuations due to fire or other reasons in sports arenas or passenger vessels).
![Evacuation time as function of the sensitivity parameter $k_S$ for different $\mu$ values ($k_D=0$, $\rho=0.3$).[]{data-label="plot_4"}](\DIR/fig9.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
This can be seen in fig. \[plot\_4\], where the influence of an increased coupling strength to $S$ for fixed $\mu$ is shown. For $k_S\longrightarrow 0$ the particles perform a pure random walk and the evacuation times are very large and almost independent of $\mu$. In this situation conflicts between the particles are not very important for the dynamics. In contrast, for $k_S\longrightarrow\infty$ they choose the shortest way to the exit. Since for $\mu =0$ there is no internal pressure between the particles the evacuation time is minimal. However, for $\mu\longrightarrow 1$ the number of unsolved conflicts increases with $k_S$ due to the strong jamming at the exit. This results in stucking and clogging phenomena and highly increased evacuation times. For very high $\mu$ values ($\mu=0.9$ in fig. \[plot\_4\]) one finds a [*minimal*]{} evacuation time for an intermediate coupling ($k_S\approx 1$). This means that a larger $k_S$, which implies a larger average velocity of freely moving pedestrians, leads to larger evacuation times. This collective phenomenon is very similar to the faster-is-slower effect [@HePED; @panic]. Note that a similar minimum is characteristic for the cooperative regime. However, there local minima have been observed as a function of the coupling $k_D$ to the dynamic floor instead of $k_S$ [@aki0].
Time evolution of an evacuation {#timevolv}
-------------------------------
In the following we look at the time evolution of an evacuation, i.e. the number of people who left the room at a certain time stage. Figs. \[plot\_5\] and \[plot\_5b\] show the time dependence of the number of evacuated persons for all three regimes and different $\mu$ values for a high density $\rho=0.3$. The curves show a nearly linear increase since the very high initial density leads to strong clustering at the door already at the beginning of the evacuation. The evacuation times are strongly increased due to the large value $\mu=0.9$. This effect is again strongest in the ordered phase. For $\mu=0$ the corresponding evacuation time is the smallest whereas for $\mu=0.9$ it becomes the largest one of all regimes. At the end of the evacuations, when most of the particles have left the room, the gradient of the curves becomes rather small.
![Evacuated persons $N$ in dependence of time $t$ for all three regimes; $\rho=0.3$ and $\mu=0$.[]{data-label="plot_5"}](\DIR/fig10.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Evacuated persons in dependence of time for all three regimes; $\rho=0.3$ and $\mu=0.9$.[]{data-label="plot_5b"}](\DIR/fig11.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Because of the averaging over many samples the curves are very smooth. To have an impression of the evolution of one single evacuation and of the variance of evacuation times, fig. \[plot\_6\] shows the averaged curves envelloped by the curves with the minimal and the maximal evacuation time of the whole sample for the ordered phase and three $\mu$ values.
![Evacuated persons as function of time for the ordered regime for density $\rho=0.3$. Shown are the averaged, longest and shortest evacuation process for three $\mu$ values.[]{data-label="plot_6"}](\DIR/fig12.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
For $\mu=0$ the evacuation process is nearly deterministic in the ordered regime and the fluctuations (due to the random initial conditions and the dynamics) are very small. With increasing $\mu$ values the internal pressure is increased and the envelloping curves differ clearly from the averaged curves.
In figs. \[plot\_7\] and \[plot\_7b\] again the averaged curves together with the extremals are shown for the two densities $\rho=0.03$ (fig. \[plot\_7\]) and $\rho=0.003$ (fig. \[plot\_7b\]) and the two friction parameters $\mu=0$ and $\mu=0.9$. Here the same effects as for $\rho=0.3$ can be seen, but much clearer.
![Evacuated persons in dependence of time for the ordered regime; averaged, longest and shortest evacuation process for two $\mu$ values ($\mu=0$ and $\mu=0.9$) and density $\rho=0.03$.[]{data-label="plot_7"}](\DIR/fig13.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Evacuated persons in dependence of time for the ordered regime; averaged, longest and shortest evacuation process for two $\mu$ values ($\mu=0$, $\mu=0.9$) and density $\rho=0.003$.[]{data-label="plot_7b"}](\DIR/fig14.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The time evolution of one single sample exhibits an interesting dynamics. In figs. \[plot\_6\]–\[plot\_7b\] small plateaus can be observed where over short time periods no persons leave the room. This irregular behaviour is well-known from granular flow and is typical for clogging situations [@granul0; @gran_1; @gran_2; @gran_3; @granul1; @granul2; @granul3]. The plateaus are formed stochastically and can therefore not be observed after averaging over various samples (figs. \[plot\_5\], \[plot\_5b\]).
Note that also the variance of the evacuation time increases strongly with $\mu$. Fig. \[plot\_7\] shows that the average evacuation time $T$ is not always a meaningful quantity for safety estimates since the variance can become quite large. For the very small density $\rho=0.003$ the gradient of the curve is rather flat at the beginning of the evacuation (fig. \[plot\_7b\]). Here there are only few particles in the system and no cue is formed near the exit.
Mean-field approximation for the ordered regime
-----------------------------------------------
As we have seen in Sec. \[timevolv\] the curve of the number of evacuated persons $N(t)$ grows almost linearly in the ordered regime, especially for high densities $\rho$. For this regime we now calculate approximatively the $\mu$-dependence of this curve, i.e. $N=N(t,\mu)$.
As explained earlier, in the ordered regime after a short time a big jam forms at the door due to the strong coupling to the static field $S$. Fig. \[plot\_8\] shows a typical local configuration in front of the exit.
![Typical configuration in front of the door in the ordered regime.[]{data-label="plot_8"}](\DIR/fig15.eps){width="0.4\columnwidth"}
Generically, 3-particle conflicts over the unoccupied lattice site in front of the door occur. At time $t$, with probability $1-\mu$ one of these particles is able to move. In the next time step $t+1$ this particle will escape through the door with probability $1$. Neglecting conflicts elsewhere in the system, because of the big jam in front of the door the configuration shown in fig. \[plot\_8\] will be restored at time $t+2$. Therefore, repeating the above sequence a typical representation of the time evolution of $N(t)$ is shown in fig. \[plot\_9\].
![An example for the time evolution of the number of evacuated persons.[]{data-label="plot_9"}](\DIR/fig16.eps){width=".95\columnwidth"}
Using simple combinatorics, the expectation value of $N(t)$ can be written as $$\langle N(t) \rangle=\frac{1}{C}\sum_{n=0}^{[t/2]}n \left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n \\
n
\end{array}\right)
(1-\mu)^n \mu^{t-2n},
\label{mean}$$ where $C$ is the normalization factor defined by $$\begin{aligned}
C(t)&=&\sum_{n=0}^{[t/2]} \left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n \\
n
\end{array}\right)
(1-\mu)^n \mu^{t-2n}
\nonumber\\
&=&\mu^t \sum_{n=0}^{[t/2]} \left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n \\
n
\end{array}\right)
\left(\frac{1-\mu}{\mu^2}\right)^{n}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1-(\mu-1)^{t+1}}{2-\mu}.\label{equat5}\end{aligned}$$ In the last step we have used the identity (\[for\]) which is derived in Appendix \[proof\]. Due to (\[mean\]) and (\[equat5\]), $\langle N(t)\rangle$ is related to $C$ by the equation $$\frac{d}{d\mu}C=\frac{t}{\mu}~C+\frac{\mu-2}{\mu(1-\mu)}~\langle
N(t)\rangle~C$$ or $$\langle N(t)\rangle=\frac{\mu(1-\mu)}{\mu-2}\left(
\frac{d}{d\mu}\log C -\frac{t}{\mu}\right).$$ Finally an analytical expression for $\langle N(t)\rangle$ is obtained as $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle N(t)\rangle=\frac{\mu-1}{(\mu-2)^2}\cdot\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \left(\mu(1+t)-2t-\frac{(\mu-2)(\mu-1)^t\mu(1+t)}{(\mu-1)^{t+1}-1}
\right).
\label{exactN}\end{aligned}$$ Asymptotically, (\[exactN\]) implies for large times $$\langle N(t)\rangle\sim \frac{1-\mu}{2-\mu}\cdot t
\,\,\,\quad{\rm as}\,\,\,t\to\infty\;,
\label{grad}$$ i.e. a linear behaviour as observed in simulations for the ordered regime. This expression is also consistent with the fact that $T\to\infty$ for $\mu\to 1$.
![Evacuated persons in dependence of time for the ordered regime; comparison of the numerical results with the analytical approximation (\[grad\]) for the density $\rho=0.3$.[]{data-label="plot_10"}](\DIR/fig17.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![Time-dependence of the number of evacuated persons for the ordered regime; comparison of the numerical results with the analytical approximation (\[grad\]) for the density $\rho=0.003$.[]{data-label="plot_10b"}](\DIR/fig18.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
From fig. \[plot\_10\] we see that the analytical approximation (\[grad\]) for $\langle N(t)\rangle$ is very good for high densities ($\rho=0.3$) and friction parameter values $\mu\leq 0.6$. However, for very high parameter values ($\mu\geq 0.8$) the agreement is not satsifactory. Here the assumption that a typical local configuration looks like that in fig. \[plot\_8\] no longer holds. The observed flow is underestimated since the large friction parameter $\mu$ is responsible for a flow reduction through conflicts occuring away from the door. Therefore particles are not so dense-packed at the exit (compared to the situation at smaller $\mu$-values) which leads to an effective reduction of conflicts.
In the low density regime $\rho=0.03$ (not shown in the figure) the approximation again gives satisfactory agreement for $\mu\leq 0.6$. Only in the region of very low densities (e.g. $\rho=0.003$, see fig. \[plot\_10b\]) strong deviations can be observed for all $\mu$ values. In this case there are only very few particles in the system, not hindering each other. In most cases they reach the exit independently and the evacuation time essentially depends on the diameter of the room (or the average walking length) rather than on the number of particles in the system.
Number of conflicts during evacuation {#sec_number}
-------------------------------------
![Number of conflicts in dependence of time $t$ for all three regimes ($\rho=0.3$ and $\mu=0$).[]{data-label="plot_11"}](\DIR/fig19.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![Number of conflicts in dependence of time for all three regimes ($\rho=0.3$, $\mu=0.9$).[]{data-label="plot_11b"}](\DIR/fig20.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Next we investigate the time evolution of the number of conflicts arising during an evacuation process. Figs. \[plot\_11\] and \[plot\_11b\] show the number of conflicts in dependence of time for all three regimes in the high density case $\rho=0.3$. The maximal number of conflicts occurs for all regimes and $\mu$ values shortly after the beginning of the evacuation. The number of conflicts is always largest in the disordered regime. As argued earlier here the motion resembles a random walk. Since there are many particles in the system most of them will compete for empty sites with other particles crossing their path anywhere in the room. In the ordered regime all pedestrians gather around the exit quickly with most of them standing in the cue without competing [^3]. Even though the number of conflicts is smallest in the ordered regime, the influence of the friction parameter on the evacuation time is strongest. The reason behind this is that nearly all conflicts take place in front of the door. Therefore they have a direct effect on the outflow which is reduced considerably. Conflicts arising away from the exit do not have a direct influence on the evacuation time. In fact they can even lead to an increased outflow because they might surpress clogging at the door (see Sec. \[sub\_column\]).
![Conflict density in dependence of time $t$ for all three regimes ($\rho=0.3$ and $\mu=0$).[]{data-label="plot_12"}](\DIR/fig21.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![Same as fig. \[plot\_12\], but with $\rho=0.3$ and $\mu=0.9$.[]{data-label="plot_12b"}](\DIR/fig22.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
In figs. \[plot\_12\] and \[plot\_12b\] the corresponding conflict densities, i.e. the number of conflicts divided by the number of particles inside the room, are shown. In fig. \[plot\_12\] one can see a very strong increase of the conflict density in the ordered regime at the end of the evacuation for $\mu=0$. During most of the time of the evacuation the majority of particles are forming a big jam and do not contribute to the conflict density. At the end of the evacuation the jam nearly is dissolved and only few particles are left in the room near the exit conflicting about the unoccupied sites.
![Number of conflicts in dependence of the time for all three regimes; $\rho=0.03$ and $\mu=0$.[]{data-label="plot_13"}](\DIR/fig23.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![Same as fig. \[plot\_12\], but for $\rho=0.03$ and $\mu=0.9$.[]{data-label="plot_14"}](\DIR/fig24.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Figs. \[plot\_13\] and \[plot\_14\] show the number of conflicts and the conflict density during an evacuation for the density $\rho=0.03$ and $\mu=0.9$. Since there are now less particles in the system, they will not meet each other that often in the disordered and cooperative regime. For times smaller than the evacuation time of the ordered regime the number of conflicts and the conflict density are largest in the ordered regime, where all particles are packed in a small region near the exit.
Column in front of the exit {#sub_column}
---------------------------
As an example for safety estimations in architectural planning we investigate how evacuation times change if a column (i.e. a non-traversable obstacle) is placed in front of the exit. The authors of [@HePED; @panic], who studied the same situation and found surprising results, called for complementary data from experiments or other models to confirm their findings. We therefore study the scenarios of [@HePED; @panic] in the following.
Fig. \[plot\_15\] shows a mid time stage of evacuations for a column placed central in front of the exit. The size of the column is $3\times 3$ cells. It is placed within a distance of one cell from the door.
![Mid time configuration of an evacuation of a room with one door at the middle of the top wall with an additional column of size $3\times 3$ cells placed in front of it. The width of the door is one cell.[]{data-label="plot_15"}](\DIR/fig25.ps){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
We compare with situations where this column has been shifted (to the left or right) parallel to the exit by one or two lattice sites. Our focus is on the ordered regime where friction effects are strongest. The static floor fields $S$ used in the simulations have been calculated using a Manhattan metric (for details see [@aki]). Fig. \[plot\_16\] shows the averaged evacuation times as a function of the friction parameter $\mu$ for a room with different configurations of the column.
![Evacuation time as function of the friction parameter $\mu$ for four room geometries: no column, central column and column shifted by one and two lattice sites. The initial density is $\rho=0.3$ and the coupling strengths are $k_S=10$, $k_D=0$ corresponding to the ordered regime.[]{data-label="plot_16"}](\DIR/fig26.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
The placing of the column does not influence the evacuation times for $\mu=0$. Here the movement is nearly deterministic and the particles do not hinder each other. For higher values of $\mu$ the column becomes more and more relevant. It causes a subdivision of the crowd and decreases the local pressure between the particles. Therefore the evacuation times become smaller. They are minimized for a column placed in a slightly asymmetric configuration in front of the exit (with a shift of one lattice site, fig. \[plot\_16\]).
How can this surprising result be understood? On one hand, the column has a certain screening effect that forces some pedestrians to take a detour and therefore potentially increases the evacuation time. On the other hand, the column subdivides the pedestrian flow and so can lead to a reduction of conflict situations, especially close to the exit. The competition between these two effects is then responsible for the nontrivial dependence of the evacuation times on the position of the column.
![Number of conflicts for a room with one door compared to various positions of an additional column close to the exit. The friction parameter is $\mu=0.9$. All other parameters are the same as in fig. \[plot\_16\].[]{data-label="fig_27"}](\DIR/fig27.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Fig. \[fig\_27\] shows the number of conflicts for three different positions of the column in comparision to a room without column. The evacuation time $T$ is minimal with the column shifted one site (curve 3). In this case, the total number of conflicts during evacuation, which is the integral of the curve, is also minimal. However, in the early stage of the evacuation, the number of conflicts is bigger than for all other cases. This is a result of the subdivision of people in the early stage of the dynamics which occurs most pronounced in case 3. This subdivision enables pedestrians to escape from the room faster than in the other cases since a smoother flow is formed which reduces the evacuation time at the expense of an increasing number of conflicts in the early stage. Furthermore the number of dangerous conflicts close to the door — which have a direct influence on $T$ (see the discussion in Sec. \[sec\_number\]) — is reduced.
Comparing the cases 2 and 3, the existence of the column reduces the evacuation time in both cases due to the above reason. However, for case 2 of a central column evacuation times are larger than for the shifted one of case 3. In case 2, [*all*]{} the people in the room have to avoid the column and take a detour, while for a slightly shifted column some still can reach the exit directly. Thus a central column has a stronger screening effect which leads to the increase of the evacuation time compared to the slightly shifted case. In case 4, the column does not contribute so much to the subdivision of the flow, but acts more like an obstacle. For larger shifts the results will approach those of case 1.
Conclusions
===========
We have extended a recently introduced stochastic cellular automaton for pedestrian dynamics by incorporating friction effects. These are closely related to the occurance of conflicts, i.e. situations where several people try to occupy the same space. Such conflicts are only resolved with probability $1-\mu$, where $\mu$ is called friction parameter. This implies that friction as introduced here does not influence the motion of a single pedestrian (e.g. by reducing her average speed), but appears only through interactions. Friction effects become important in situations where locally high density regions occur. It therefore can have a strong impact on global quantities like evacuation times although it acts only locally.
To elucidate friction effects and the role of conflicts we have investigated a simple evacuation scenario, especially the evacuation time and the time evolution of the process. Without friction three different regimes with different behaviour can be distinguished, as shown in [@aki0]. Introducing $\mu >0$ affects these regimes in a different way.
In general, the ordered regime, characterized by strong coupling to the static field and weak coupling to the dynamic field, is affected most. This is not surprising since for sufficiently large initial densities large queues are formed at exits and clogging becomes relevant. The introduction of friction leads to a strong increase of the evacuation time (fig. \[plot\_1b\]) due to a strong increase of conflicts (figs. \[plot\_11\], \[plot\_11b\]). Here it is important that the conflicts occur mainly very close to the exit and thus have an immediate influence on the outflow. In contrast, in the other regimes conflicts typically occur everywhere in the system and have therefore a weaker influence on the outflow properties.
Apart form evacuation times we have also investigated the time evolution of an evacuation process. After the introduction of friction the outflow is irregular with periods of stucking. This leads to plateaus in the number $\langle N(t)\rangle$ of evacuated persons after time $t$ very similar to the behaviour observed in granular flow [@granul0; @gran_1; @gran_2; @gran_3; @granul1; @granul2; @granul3]. Here the formation and breaking of arches is responsible for the irregular flow. Similar in our case friction is responsible for the formation of arch-like structures that block the flow close to the door. The plateaus occur randomly and can therefore not be seen after averaging over different samples. The averaged $N(t)$-curves typically show a linear behaviour. Using simple combinatorial arguments we found $N(t) \sim \frac{1-\mu}{2-\mu}\cdot
t$ for the $\mu$-dependence of the asymptotic behaviour of the number of evacutated persons. This expression agrees quite well with the numerical data for densities not too small up to intermediate values of $\mu$.
Finally we have shown in Sec. \[sub\_column\] that the introduction of friction is essential to reproduce the surprising effects observed in [@panic] when placing an additional column in front of the exit. As in [@panic] this column does not necessarily act as an obstacle, but can — under certain conditions, e.g. a slightly asymmetric position — improve evacuation times considerably. The fact that the model used here differs in many respects from the social-force model [@social] (e.g. sign and type of interactions) used in [@panic] implies a certain robustness of this phenomenon.
We like to thank H. Klüpfel, F. Zielen, A. Kemper and D. Helbing for useful discussions.
{#proof}
Defining the function $$a(t)=\sum_{n=0}^{[t/2]} \left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n \\
n
\end{array}\right)z^n,$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&a(t)=
1+\sum_{n=1}^{[t/2]} \left[
\left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n-1 \\
n
\end{array}\right)+
\left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n-1 \\
n-1
\end{array}\right)\right]
z^n\nonumber\\
&&= \sum_{n=0}^{[t/2]}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n-1 \\
n
\end{array}\right)z^n
+\sum_{n=1}^{[t/2]}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n-1 \\
n-1
\end{array}\right)
z^n.
\label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ The first term of the r.h.s in (\[eq1\]) can be rewritten as $$\sum_{n=0}^{[(t-1)/2]}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n-1 \\
n
\end{array}\right)
z^n=a(t-1).$$ For odd $t$ this is obvious since then $[(t-1)/2]=[t/2]$. For even $t$ we have $[(t-1)/2]=[t/2]-1$, but the additional term in the sum vanishes.
The second term of the r.h.s in (\[eq1\]) becomes $$z\sum_{n=0}^{[(t-2)/2]}
\left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n-2 \\
n
\end{array}\right)
z^n=za(t-2).$$ Thus we obtain the recursive relation $$a(t)=a(t-1)+za(t-2).$$ The solution of this recursion for $a(0)=a(1)=1$ is given by $$a(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+4z}}\left[x_+^{t+1}-x_-^{t+1}\right]$$ where $x_\pm$ are the roots of the quadratic equation $x^2-x-z=0$, i.e. $$x_\pm=\frac{1\pm \sqrt{1+4z}}{2}.$$ Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{n=0}^{[t/2]} \left(\begin{array}{c}
t-n \\ n \end{array}\right)z^n=\nonumber\\
&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+4z}} \left[\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1+4z}}{2}\right)^{t+1}
-\left(\frac{1-\sqrt{1+4z}}{2}\right)^{t+1}\right].\nonumber\\
\label{for}\end{aligned}$$
[99]{}
D. Chowdhury, L. Santen, and A. Schadschneider: Phys. Rep. [**329**]{}, 199 (2000)
D. Helbing: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 1067 (2001)
T. Nagatani: Rep. Prog. Phys. [**65**]{}, 1331 (2002)
M. Schreckenberg and S.D. Sharma (Ed.): [*Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics*]{} (Springer 2001)
D. Helbing, I. Farkas, P. Molnar, and T. Vicsek: in [@PedeEvak], p. 21
D. Helbing, I. Farkas and T. Vicsek: Nature [**407**]{}, 487 (2000)
D.E. Wolf, P. Grassberger, (Ed.): [*Friction, Arching, Contact Dynamics*]{}, World Scientific 1997
M. Nicodemi: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 1340 (1998)
O. Moriyama, N. Kuroiwa, M. Matsushita, and H. Hayakawa: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2833 (1998)
S. McNamara and W.R. Young: Phys. Fluids A[**4**]{}, 496 (1992)
G.H. Ristow and H.J. Herrmann: Phys. Rev. [**E50**]{}, R5 (1994)
S. Horlück and P. Dimon: Phys. Rev. [**E60**]{}, 671 (1999)
S.S. Manna and H.J. Herrmann: Eur. Phys. J. [**E1**]{}, 341 (2000)
C. Burstedde, K. Klauck, A. Schadschneider, and J. Zittartz: Physica [**A295**]{}, 507 (2001)
A. Schadschneider: in [@PedeEvak], p. 75
C. Burstedde, A. Kirchner, K. Klauck, A. Schadschneider, and J. Zittartz: in [@PedeEvak], p. 87
A. Kirchner and A. Schadschneider: Physica [**A312**]{}, 260 (2002)
E. Ben-Jacob: Contemp. Phys. [**38**]{}, 205 (1997)
D. Chowdhury, V. Guttal, K. Nishinari, and A. Schadschneider: J. Phys. [**A**]{} (in press)
A. Kirchner: [*Modellierung und statistische Physik biologischer und sozialer Systeme*]{}, Dissertation, Universität zu Köln (2002); available for download at [http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/$\sim$aki]{}
D. Helbing and P. Molnar: Phys. Rev. [**E51**]{}, 4282 (1995)
[^1]: Permanent address: Department of Applied Mathematics and Informatics, Ryukoku University, Shiga, Japan (email: [[email protected]]{})
[^2]: This regime has been denoted as ‘optimal regime’ in [@aki0].
[^3]: In reality, pushing and shoving will occur. Since no motion is possible in the jammed states of our model, this is neglected here. It can, however, be incorporated in a more sophisticated version of the model which e.g. allows to determine the pressure exerted by the pedestrians.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using first-principles calculations, we study the magnetism of $5d$ transition-metal atomic junctions including structural relaxations and spin-orbit coupling. Upon stretching monatomic chains of W, Ir, and Pt suspended between two leads, we find the development of strong magnetism and large values of the magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy (MAE) of up to 30 meV per chain atom. We predict that switches of the easy magnetization axis of the nanocontacts upon elongation should be observable by ballistic anisotropic magnetoresistance measurements. Due to the different local symmetry, the contributions to the MAE of the central chain atoms and chain atoms in the vicinity of the leads can have opposite signs which reduces the total MAE. We demonstrate that this effect occurs independent of the chain length or geometry of the electrodes.'
author:
- 'Alexander Thiess$^{1}$'
- 'Yuriy Mokrousov$^{1}$'
- 'Stefan Heinze$^{2}$'
title: 'Competing magnetic anisotropies in atomic-scale junctions'
---
Introduction
============
Fascinating insights into the formation of atomic chains consisting only of a few atoms suspended between two electrodes have been obtained by transmission electron microscopy and mechanically controllable break junction techniques.[@Sokolov; @Smit:01.1; @Kizuka] These experiments triggered the imagination of scientists to use such atomic-scale junctions as future electronic devices by exploiting their unique properties, e.g. ballistic electronic transport.[@Sokolov; @Velev:05.1; @Smogunov:08.1] Due to their reduced dimensions, atomic chains have also been predicted to develop magnetic moments even for elements nonmagnetic in bulk such as Ir, Pt, or Pd.[@Delin:03.1; @Delin:04.1] Recently, an indirect proof has been given that transition-metal chains in break junctions are in general magnetic.[@m-supp] Mastering the intriguing magnetic properties of suspended chains would enable spintronic applications based on the unique possibility to probe, control and switch the magnetic states by spin-polarized currents.[@Lucignano; @Calvo]
The orientation of the magnetic moments is stabilized against thermal fluctuations by the magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy (MAE) arising from spin-orbit coupling. Theoretical studies of this key quantity performed for idealized systems such as free-standing infinite monowires (MWs) and small clusters suggest giant values for $4d$- and $5d$-transition-metals and switching of the easy axis upon stretching the wires. [@Mokrousov:06.3; @MacDonald1; @Ferrer:07.1] Even the size of the magnetic moment itself can crucially depend on the magnetization direction, an effect coined as colossal magnetic anisotropy.[@Smogunov:08.1] The ballistic conductance in such wires varies with the orientation of the magnetization direction with respect to the chain axis giving rise to ballistic anisotropic magnetoresistance (BAMR).[@Velev:05.1; @Sokolov] While the predicted effects probably occur in real atomic-scale junctions, the theoretical studies have either focused on idealized systems or neglected varying interatomic distances in the chains.[@Smogunov:08.2; @Smelova:08.1; @Czerner:08.1] However, for small suspended chains variations in the interatomic distance due to stretching the electrodes are unavoidable and can provide a unique way to control the properties of the system, not available in higher dimensions.[@Thiess:08.1; @Smogunov:08.1; @Delin:03.1; @Mokrousov:06.3]
Here, we go beyond such theoretical studies by explicitly taking the contacts into account and by investigating the development of magnetism in atomic-scale junctions upon increasing the distance between the electrodes. We perform first-principles calculations for W, Ir and Pt junctions including spin-orbit coupling and structural relaxations and focus on atomic chains of three atoms suspended between two bulk-like bcc-(001) electrodes as shown in Fig. \[fig1\]. These transition-metals are common tip materials in scanning tunneling microscopy, and Ir and Pt have been shown to form long atomic chains in break junction experiments.[@Smit:01.1] In particular we concentrate on the influence of varying tip-to-tip separation on the magnetic properties of the junctions. We observe that relaxations of the chain atoms upon stretching are in accordance to observed expermentally trends of chain formation for these elements.[@Thiess:08.1] We also find that large spin moments develop in the suspended trimers upon stretching and on the central atom they reach similar values as in infinite monowires.[@Delin:03.1; @Delin:04.1; @m-supp] Interestingly, the W trimer behaves as a single spin impurity as only the central atom develops a sizable magnetic moment.
By including spin-orbit coupling (SOC), we obtain the MAE of the suspended chains and observe large values of 10$-$30 meV per atom. Surprisingly, we find that the contribution to the MAE from central chain atoms and atoms in contact with the electrodes can have opposite signs and are of similar giant magnitude of a few tens meV per atom. The magnitude of this effect, unknown in bulk or on surfaces may lead to a strong tendency towards non-collinear magnetic order in atomic-scale junctions even when the exchange interactions are small or profoundly collinear.[@Lichten] We prove the generality of this phenomenon by showing that it occurs for chains of different length with different geometry of the contacts. Further, the MAE may exhibit changes of sign upon stretching, i.e. the easy magnetization direction switches from along the chain to perpendicular to it. We demonstrate that switching may be observable experimentally by measuring the ballistic conductance of the junctions.
Method and Structure
====================
![\[fig1\] (color online) Upper panel: three-atoms chain suspended between two bcc(001)-contacts. $L$ denotes the length of the unit cell consisting of 17 atoms, while $d_a$ and $d_c$ give the distance between the first plane of the contact to the apex atom and from the apex atom to the central atom of the trimer, respectively. Lower panel: relaxation of the $d_c$ and $d_a$ bonds in suspended trimers of W, Ir, and Pt upon increasing $L$. For comparison, the bond length for ideal stretching with fixed apex atom positions is given (dashed line).](fig1.eps "fig:")\
![\[fig1\] (color online) Upper panel: three-atoms chain suspended between two bcc(001)-contacts. $L$ denotes the length of the unit cell consisting of 17 atoms, while $d_a$ and $d_c$ give the distance between the first plane of the contact to the apex atom and from the apex atom to the central atom of the trimer, respectively. Lower panel: relaxation of the $d_c$ and $d_a$ bonds in suspended trimers of W, Ir, and Pt upon increasing $L$. For comparison, the bond length for ideal stretching with fixed apex atom positions is given (dashed line).](fig2.ps "fig:")
We have performed first-principles calculations within the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) to the density functional theory (DFT). We employed the full-potential linearized augmented plane-wave method for one-dimensional (1D) systems (1D-FLAPW),[@Mokrousov:05.1] as implemented in the `FLEUR` code.[@fleur] Basis functions were expanded up to $k_{\rm max} = 4.0$ a.u.$^{-1}$ and we have used 8 $k$-points in one half of the 1D Brillouin zone. Considering more $k$-points does not change the values of the spin moments and magnetic anisotropy energies significantly. The contact structure has first been relaxed separately in all three dimensions and then kept fixed for all contact separations $L$ (Fig. 1). The apex atoms of the trimer have been relaxed along the chain direction ($z$) upon varying $L$, while the central atom is fixed by symmetry (Fig. \[fig1\]). Calculations have been performed for junctions stretched from the equilibrium up to $\Delta L$ = 3 a.u. For Pt and Ir trimers we considered the ferromagnetic ground state, while W trimer always converges to the antiferromagnetic solution.
Spin-orbit coupling SOC was included into the calculations in a non-perturbative way.[@Freeman] We define the magnetic anisotropy energy (MAE) as the total energy difference between configurations with a magnetization along the chain axis ($z$-direction), and perpendicular to it ($r$-direction). The MAE was calculated employing the force theorem, and for several electrode stretchings, $\Delta L$, we checked the force theorem results for the trimer’s MAE against self-consistent calculations, finding good qualitative agreement. Taking into account the magnitude of the obtained MAE we can safely neglect the magnetic dipole-dipole contribution.
In order to check the applicability of our 1D geometry for the electrodes, which allows us to efficiently perform the demanding calculations with structural relaxations and including SOC, we have also considered a geometry with electrodes represented by surfaces, c.f. Fig. 2(a). Due to the immense computational cost, we have restricted our test to the most critical case of a Pt trimer and chose an elongation of $\Delta L=2.4$ a.u. For these calculations we used the film version of the `FLEUR` code. We performed a single super-cell calculation in which the trimer was suspended between two electrodes consisting of a four Pt atom square base deposited onto three layers of fcc Pt(001). This configuration will be referred to as “2D” in the following, Fig. 2. The ideal bulk values of Pt with an in-plane lattice constant of 5.23 a.u. were taken for the four contact atoms and the bulk-like leads. The positions of the trimer’s atoms were set to their relaxed values at $\Delta L=2.4$ a.u. obtained within the wire geometry of Fig. 1. The in-plane separation between the neighboring trimers was set to 15.7 a.u. We used a basis functions cut-off of $k_{\rm max}=3.7$ a.u.$^{-1}$ and 15 $k$-points in the irreducible part of the 2D Brillouin zone, while 144 $k$-points in the whole Brillouin zone were used in order to determine the MAE with the force theorem. Along the trimer’s axis only the $\Gamma$-point was used.
![\[fig22\] (color online) 2D configuration, and B1 and B2 cases of the Pt trimer considered for the separation of Pt electrodes of $\Delta L=2.4$ and 1.8 a.u., respectively. In 2D configuration the trimer is suspended between two electrodes consisting of a four Pt atom square base deposited onto three layers of fcc Pt(001). Green color in B1 and B2 marks the Pt atoms of the contacts in which the spin moment was artificially quenched. In accordance to Fig. 1, red color marks the central atom and the blue color marks the apex atoms of suspended trimer. For more details see text.](fig3.eps)
Relaxations and Magnetism
=========================
Under the condition of reduced coordination of transition metal atoms in a monoatomic chain suspended between thicker leads, a situation realized e.g. in a break junction experiment, the distance $d$ between the chain atoms becomes of utter importance. Upon pulling apart the leads during the chain elongation process[@Kizuka; @Thiess:08.1] $d$ is constantly changing which has dramatic consequences for the magnetic properties of suspended chains, in particular for heavy $4d$ and $5d$ transition-metals.[@Smogunov:08.1; @Delin:03.1; @Delin:04.1; @Mokrousov:06.3] By increasing the separation $\Delta L$ between the leads and accounting at the same time for the changes in the chain’s interatomic distances $-$ which was neglected in most of the previous [*ab initio*]{} studies of magnetism in suspended chains $-$ we aim at mimicking a real break junction experiment.
The relaxations of the trimers along the chain’s symmetry $z$-axis are shown in Fig. \[fig1\], where the bond lengths $d_c$ and $d_a$ are presented as a function of contact separation $L$. For W with an almost half-filled $5d$-shell and large bulk cohesive energy almost the entire increase in contact separation enters the $d_c$ bond length, while the $d_a$ bond between the apex atom and the contact is nearly unaffected. In contrast, for Ir and Pt, some of the stretching transfers into an increased bond length at the contact. The apex atom of the Ir trimer has a stronger bond to the contact than to the central atom, which is reflected in the linear regime of $d_c(L)$ for $\Delta L > 1.5$ a.u. For Pt, the $d_c$ bond is significantly stronger resulting in a remarkable stretching of the $d_a$ bond even at large electrode separations, which in a realistic break junction will eventually result in chain elongation.[@Thiess:08.1] Overall, our predicted trend is in accordance with experimental observations of increased probability for chain formation when going from W to Pt.[@Smit:01.1; @Untiedt:07.1]
![\[fig2\] (color online) Local spin moments of the central ($\mu_S^c$) and apex ($\mu_S^a$) atoms (denoted as “c-atom” and “a-atom”, respectively) of the suspended (a) W, (b) Ir and (c) Pt trimers as a function of the stretching of the contacts (without SOC). For comparison the values for an infinite free monowire (MW) are given by dashed lines. The interatomic distance in the infinite MW corresponds to the distance $d_c$ for a given $\Delta L$. For Pt triangles down and triangles up stand for the values of the apex (filled) and central (open) spin moments in B2 and 2D cases, respectively. For details see text.](fig4.eps)
The magnetic properties of suspended $5d$ TM atoms are very sensitive to the local environment. In most previous studies it was common to model the contacts by semi-infinite surface electrodes.[@Smelova:08.1; @Czerner:08.1; @Smogunov:08.2] This restriction on the geometry of the contacts is quite strong in particular for $5d$ TM break junctions, as the surface geometry leads to suppressed spin moments of the atoms in suspended wire and contact atoms closest to it.[@Smogunov:08.2] However, it is well-established that the shape of the contacts in a break junction is rather a thinning wire-like geometry, with the reduced coordination number of the contact atoms adjacent to the chain which greatly enhances their tendency towards magnetism.[@Rego:03.1; @Cheng:06.1] In this respect our contact geometry is probably closer to the real situation, although it might overestimate the tendency of the contacts to magnetism. In order to investigate this point quantitatively, we have performed calculations in the setup shown in Fig. 2, which are discussed further below.
The calculated spin moments $\mu_S$ inside the atomic spheres of the suspended trimers upon increasing the distance between the contacts $\Delta L$ are shown in Fig. \[fig2\]. For W, the central atom reveals a sizable magnetic moment of 1.7$\mu_B$ already at $\Delta L =0$ which further increases upon stretching, while the moments of all other atoms are negligible. In this respect the W trimer presents a unique system of a single spin impurity between nonmagnetic leads. At small stretching, the spin moments of the Ir trimer are rather small with significantly larger moments of the central atom. Upon further stretching the apex and central moments rise rapidly, reaching large values of 1.4$\mu_B$ and 2$\mu_B$, respectively. Both, the $\mu_S^c$ spin moments of the central W and Ir chain atom follow the behavior in an infinite monowire very closely as seen in Fig. \[fig2\](a) and (b).
The Pt trimer shows a trend similar to Ir upon stretching, only with smaller moments $-$ this is in contrast to an infinite Pt MW, where the spin moment is zero for a large interval of interatomic distances without SOC. It is resurrected upon including SOC, but only when the magnetization points along the $z$-axis, an effect coined as colossal magnetic anisotropy.[@Smogunov:08.1] In contrast, for the suspended Pt trimer, the moments of the trimer atoms are non-zero already without SOC for a wide range of $d_c$. Upon including SOC the spin moments do not change dramatically and the moments are non-zero for both magnetization directions in the whole range of $\Delta L$, which manifests the subtle magnetism of Pt chains and its sensitivity to local environment.
In the critical case of Pt, we analyze in more detail the influence of the contact geometry on the spin moments of the trimer. At the stretching of $\Delta L=1.8$ a.u. we performed a calculation in which we artificially quenched the spin moments in the contacts by applying a small magnetic field inside the muffin-tin spheres of the Pt atoms, situation referred to as “B2” in the following (see Fig. 2). We observe that $\mu_S^a$ drops significantly from 0.55$\mu_B$ to 0.18$\mu_B$, while $\mu_S^c$ drops from 0.89$\mu_B$ to 0.54$\mu_B$ (Fig. 3(c)) $-$ a value, very close to that reported in Ref. \[\], where contacts were modelled by infinite bulk electrodes. However, quenching the spin moment in the deeper parts of the contacts only (“B1”-case, Fig. 2) $-$ the situation which is probably closer to that in real experiments $-$ almost does not affect the values of $\mu_S^c$ and $\mu_S^a$.
Finally, we compare the results obtained within our 1D geometry of the electrodes with the situation of surface-like electrodes, as shown in Fig. 2(a). For a separation of $\Delta L=2.4$ a.u. $\mu_S^c$ is reduced in the 2D geometry by only 25% from 1.03$\mu_B$ in the wire geometry to 0.79$\mu_B$, while the moment of the apex atom is affected stronger, dropping from 0.64$\mu_B$ to 0.26$\mu_B$ (Fig. 3(c)). In a more realistic situation the coordination of the contact atoms next to the apex atoms is more reduced and the moments of the trimer’s atoms will increase approaching the values obtained in our wire geometry. However, we have to conclude that magnetism in suspended short Pt chains with their small moments is extremely sensitive to slightest changes in the contact geometry. Therefore, observing this magnetism experimentally will be a hard task, even considering the cluster’s large magnetic anisotropy energies.
![\[fig3\] (color online) Magnetic anisotropy energies of suspended trimers of (a) W, (b) Ir and (c) Pt as a function of the stretching of the contacts $\Delta L$. The total trimer’s anisotropy $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ (black half-filled circles) is decomposed into the contribution from the central $\Delta E^{c}$ (red open circles) and apex atoms $\Delta E^{a}$ (blue filled circles) (for definitions of the quantities see text). Black dashed line stands for the MAE of the infinite MWs (per atom). For Pt squares stand for the $\Delta E^{a}$ (filled) and $\Delta E^{c}$ (open) tetramer values, while triangles up and triangles down stand for the corresponding values in B2 and 2D cases. For details see text.](fig5.eps)
Magnetic Anisotropy Energies
============================
Recent theoretical studies,[@Thiess:08.1; @Silva] which are in accordance with experiments,[@Kizuka; @Legolas] clearly state that the interatomic distance $d_c$ in suspended chains of $5d$ elements consisting of several atoms can reach large values of 5.0$-$5.5 a.u. upon stretching, which corresponds to $\Delta L\approx 2-3$ a.u., c.f. Fig. \[fig1\]. Therefore, in a real Pt, Ir, or W break junction experiment the central atom will reveal strong fingerprints of spin-polarization at sufficiently small temperatures. In order to study the thermal stability of magnetism in the suspended trimers, next we concentrate on their magnetic anisotropy energies.
In a transport break junction experiment, the data is obtained by averaging over thousands of measurements, which differ from each other by the thinning history of the wire and the contact geometry. Therefore, in order to analyze this data with respect to the magnetism of the suspended chain, it is necessary to disentangle the contributions of intrinsic trimer’s magnetic anisotropy energy $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ from that originating from the contacts. In our calculations, we do this by switching SOC off in the contact’s atomic spheres. Moreover, we individually switch SOC on and off in the apex and central atoms, to determine their separate contributions, $\Delta E^a$ and $\Delta E^c$, respectively, to the total MAE of the trimer, $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$. For W with essentially one magnetic atom in the trimer we define $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ as $\Delta E^{c}+2\Delta E^{a}$, while for Ir and Pt we define the total MAE of the trimer per atom as $\Delta E^{\rm tri}=(\Delta E^{c} +2\Delta E^{a})/3$. [@footnote_mae]
The absolute value of trimer’s MAE, shown in Fig. 4 with a black solid line for W, Ir and Pt, reach large absolute values of 10 to 30 meV per atom at most electrode separations. These values, which are one to two orders of magnitude larger than those in most of transition-metal nanostructures, give us confidence that the magnetism of suspended trimers can be tackled experimentally. For all three elements the calculated values of anisotropy energies $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ are of the order of magnitude of those predicted for infinite monowires (dashed line in Fig. 4 and Refs. \[\]). Interestingly, the trimer’s MAE displays a non-trivial dependence on $\Delta L$ quite different from that in ideal chains for Ir and W, while for Pt both anisotropy energies are close in their trend.
For W, Fig. 4(a), the only contribution to $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ stems from the strongly spin-polarized central atom. Starting at about 35 meV and a magnetization along the chain, there is a switch to a perpendicular direction upon stretching by $\Delta L = 0.6$ a.u. Upon further increasing the contact separation, the perpendicular magnetization is stabilized by a sizable MAE of 10$-$20 meV. A switch of the magnetization direction can be also observed for Ir at significant stretching of around $\Delta L = 3.0$ a.u., Fig. 4(b). In general, for Ir, the behavior of $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ upon stretching is quite smooth, and the $z$-direction of the magnetization is favored by considerable 15$-$30 meV over a wide interval of contact separations.
Detecting traces of magnetism in Pt break junctions at small stretching will present a significant challenge as can be seen from Fig. 4(c). In the regime of $\Delta L < 1.3$ a.u. the value of $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ is on the order of a few meVs, posing the question of whether the sensitive magnetization will survive temperature fluctuations. Moreover, in this regime, as pointed out above, the spin moments of the apex and central atoms depend strongly on contact geometry and details of the thinning process. This will influence the contribution of these atoms to $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$, causing frequent measurement-to-measurement oscillations in its sign and magnitude. Beyond a distance of $\Delta L=1.5$ a.u. the well-developed magnetization of the trimer is pointing rigidly along the chain axis with a MAE of about 15 meV $-$ a value somewhat smaller than that of an infinite MW of corresponding interatomic distance, c.f. Fig. 4(c).
As a general trend, we observe in Fig. 4 competing contributions to the MAE from central and apex atoms for Ir and Pt atomic junctions. At most separations a positive value from the apex atom, $\Delta E^{a}>0$, favors a perpendicular magnetization direction, while negative contribution from the central atom, $\Delta E^{c}<0$, forces the magnetization along the trimer’s axis. Due to this competition the trimer’s MAE behaves qualitatively differently from that in the infinite MW as a function of the interatomic distance for Ir. It significantly quenches the central atom’s MAE, so that the resulting total anisotropy is on average smaller than anticipated from the infinite MW both for Ir and Pt.
The origin of this competition is the different local symmetry of apex and central atoms and it exists also in longer chains or chains made of other elements. To demonstrate this point we additionally calculated the MAE of a suspended four-atom chain of Pt atoms with the contacts as in Fig. 1. The $\Delta E^a$ and $\Delta E^c$ anisotropy energies for the two apex and two central atoms, respectively, are displayed by squares in Fig. 4(c) (per atom) and reveal the same effect: $\Delta E^a$ and $\Delta E^c$ are close in their values but opposite in sign. Due to its large magnitude, this effect may even compete with exchange interactions in suspended small chains and lead to a non-collinear magnetic order. With increasing chain length the anisotropy energies of the atoms in the center of the chain will eventually approach that of an atom in the infinite monowire (this can be already seen in Fig. 4(c) for Pt when going from a trimer to a tetramer), and the whole cluster will behave as a superparamagnet. For smaller suspended clusters, however, which are much more probable to occur in an experiment, the effect of competition between central and apex atoms will be dramatic.
![\[fig4\] (color online) Spin-decomposed local density of states (LDOS) for a Pt trimer including SOC for a separation between the electrodes of $\Delta L=1.8$ a.u. (a) and (b): $\Delta_3$ ($d_{xz}$,$d_{yz}$) and $\Delta_4$ ($d_{x^2-y^2}$,$d_{xy}$) $3d$-LDOS of the central (“c-atom”) and apex (“a-atom”) atoms for the magnetization along the $z$-axis. (c) LDOS of the central atom for two different magnetization directions ($z$ and $r$).](fig6.eps)
We demonstrate that the effect of the competition between the apex and central atoms for the MAE value is also stable with respect to the geometry of the contacts. For this purpose we calculate the MAE of the Pt trimer in 2D-configuration, as well as in B1 and B2 cases, and present the calculated values in Fig. 4(c). As far as the 2D-case is concerned, we observe that despite significant changes in the spin moments, c.f. Fig. 3(c), the values of $\Delta E^a$ and $\Delta E^c$ are very close to those calculated within the wire geometry, moreover, they are also opposite in sign. Their competition results in rather close values for the total $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ of 7 and 18 meV for the 2D and wire-like geometry of the contacts, respectively, both favoring the $z$-direction of the trimer’s magnetization. Notably, both values are very close to that of 12 meV reported by Smogunov [*et al.*]{} in Ref. \[\] for the suspended between semi-infinite electrodes Pt trimer, although one has to keep in mind the difference between the geometries of all three cases.
In the B1-situation, in which we do not quench the spin moments of the contact atoms of the electrode, the MAE is almost not affected compared to the wire setup of Fig. 1. On the other hand, in the B2-case, in which we quench the spin moments inside the entire electrode, the spin moments of the trimer atoms are strongly reduced, c.f. Fig. 3(c), and so is the MAE: $\Delta E^c$ and $\Delta E^a$ drop to almost half their value. However, the latter two contributions to the total MAE $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ are still of opposite sign, proving the generality of the phenomenon of competing anisotropies for this type of atomic junctions. The latter effect is responsible for the value of the total MAE $\Delta E^{\rm tri}$ of 9 meV, smaller than the value of 20 meV obtained within the wire-geometry.
To understand the effect, we analyze the local density of states (LDOS) and choose the Pt trimer as an example. In an infinite MW, the position of the localized $d$-states with respect to the Fermi energy ($E_F$) is responsible for the formation of the orbital moment and the direction of the magnetization.[@Mokrousov:06.3; @vdLaan:98.1; @Thiess:09.1] According to the symmetry these $d$-states can be subdivided into $\Delta_3$ ($d_{xz}$,$d_{yz}$) and $\Delta_4$ ($d_{x^2-y^2}$,$d_{xy}$) groups, not taking into account $\Delta_1$ $sd$-hybrid.[@Mokrousov:06.3] In a Pt (Ir) infinite MW, the position of the X-edge ($\Gamma$-edge) of the $\Delta_4$ degenerate $d_{xy}$ and $d_{x^2-y^2}$ bands at $E_F$ is responsible for the easy magnetization direction along the chain.[@vdLaan:98.1; @Thiess:09.1] In a trimer at larger stretching, the $5d$-LDOS of a central atom qualitatively follows that of an atom in an infinite monowire (not shown), which explains the same sign of the MAE (Fig. \[fig3\]). A small splitting between the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{xy}$ states due to the presence of the leads can be already seen for the central atom (Fig. 5(a)), however, for the apex atom the effect is dramatic and has crucial consequences for the apex MAE. Interaction with the contacts locally breaks the $C_{1\infty}$ symmetry of an infinite chain which results in large splitting between the $d_{xy}$- and $d_{x^2-y^2}$-orbitals in the $\Delta_4$-band and their shift towards the lower energies (Fig. 5(b)). On the other hand, the degeneracy between the $d_{xz}$ and $d_{yz}$-states ($\Delta_3$-band) is locked by symmetry. This leads to the rearrangement of the states around $E_F$ and as a result the in-plane direction of the apex spin moment becomes favorable (Fig. 4).
In general, it should be possible to deduce the predicted switches in the magnetization direction of the suspended chains from transport measurements in these systems. As an example, in Fig. 5(c) we present the LDOS of the central atom in a Pt trimer at $\Delta L=1.8$ a.u. Upon changing the magnetization direction significant changes in the LDOS around the Fermi energy $E_F$ can be observed (shaded area in Fig. 5(c)), which will inevitably result in large changes of the experimentally measured conductance. As far as the $5d$ TMs are concerned, giant values of the ballistic anisotropic magnetoresistance should be achievable due to strong spin-orbit coupling in these metals, which is able to modify the electronic structure significantly in response to the changes of the magnetization direction in real space.
Conclusions
===========
By performing [*ab initio*]{} calculations of suspended trimers of W, Ir and Pt including structural relaxations as a function of the separation between the leads, we demonstrate that the chain atoms develop significant spin moments upon stretching. We investigate the stability of these spin moments via evaluating the magnetic anisotropy energy of the trimers. Our calculations reveal large MAE of the whole trimers of the order of 10 to 30 meV per atom. Interestingly, we observe that the total MAE presents a competition between large contributions from the apex and central atoms. We argue that this effect is general and can occur in suspended chains of different elements and different length, leading to non-trivial real space textures of magnetic anisotropy energy which might even lead to complex magnetic ordering in atomic-scale junctions.
Under the condition of large predicted values of MAE huge magnetic fields would be required to change the magnetization of the chains, therefore, new ways to achieve this goal have to be established. One of the possibilities lies in using the ability to control the magnetization direction in the junction by changing the distance between the leads. We show that such switches of the magnetization can happen and will result in strong features in the measured conductance. Distinguishing these features from the changes in conductance due to chain elongation or atomic rearrangements presents a considerable challenge.
Financial support of the the Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank Phivos Mavropoulos for discussions.
[39]{} A. Sokolov, C. Zhang, E.Y. Tsymbal and J. Redepenning, Nat. Nanotech. **2**, 171 (2007) R.H.M. Smit, C. Untied, A.I. Yanson and J.M. van Ruitenbeek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **87**, 266102 (2001) T. Kizuka, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 155401 (2008). A. Smogunov, A. Dal Corso and E. Tosatti, Nat. Nanotech. **3**, 22 (2008) J. Velev, R.F. Sabirianov, S.S. Jaswal and E.Y. Tsymbal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 127203 (2005). A. Delin and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. B **68**, 144434 (2003) A. Delin, E. Tosatti and R. Weht, Phys. Rev. Lett. **92**, 057201 (2004) A. Thiess, Y. Mokrousov, S. Heinze and S. Blügel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 217201 (2009). P. Lucignano, R. Mazzarello, A. Smogunov, M. Fabrizio and E. Tosatti, Nat. Materials [**8**]{}, 563 (2009). M.R. Calvo, J. Fernández-Rossier, J.J. Palacios, D. Jacob, D. Natelson and C. Untied, Nature [**458**]{}, 1150 (2009). Y. Mokrousov, G. Bihlmayer, S. Heinze and S. Blügel, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 147201 (2006) T.O. Strandberg, C.M. Canali and A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 174416 (2008). L. Fernándes-Seivane and J. Ferrer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 183401 (2007). A. Smogunov, A. Dal Corso and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 014423 (2008). K.M. Smelova, D.I. Bazhanov, V.S. Stepanyuk, W. Hegert, A.M. Saletsky and P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 033408 (2008). M. Czerner, B.Yu. Yavorskiy and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 104411 (2008). A. Thiess, Y. Mokrousov, S. Blügel and S. Heinze, Nano Letters [**8**]{}, 2144 (2008). S. Mankovsky, S. Bornemann, J. Minár, S. Polesya, H. Ebert, J.B. Staunton and A.I. Lichtenstein, arxiv:0902.3336v1 (2009). Y. Mokrousov, G. Bihlmayer and S. Blügel, Phys. Rev. B **72**, 045402 (2005) . C. Li, A.J. Freeman, H.J.F. Jansen and C.L. Fu, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 5433 (1990) C. Untiedt, M.J. Caturla, M.R. Calvo, J.J. Palacios, R.C. Segers and J.M. van Ruitenbeek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 206801 (2007). L.G. Rego, A.R. Rocha, V. Rodrigues and D. Ugarte, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 045412 (2003). D. Cheng, W.Y. Kim, S.K. Min, T. Nautiyal and K.S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 096104 (2006). E. Z. da Silva, A. J. R. da Silva, A. Fazzio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 256102 (2001) S. B. Legolas, D. S. Galvão, V. Rodrigues, D. Ugarte, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 076105 (2002) In reality the value of the apex MAE is obtained by substracting the MAE of the central atom from the MAE of the whole trimer. G. van der Laan, J. Phys. Condens. Matter **10**, 3239 (1998) A. Thiess, Y. Mokrousov and S. Heinze (in preparation).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Robert G. Izzard$^{1,2}$ and Arend Jan T. Poelarends$^1$'
bibliography:
- 'izzard-granada2006.bib'
title: Synthetic Super AGB Stars
---
Introduction
============
Stars are traditionally divided into those which explode and those which do not. Stars which explode as supernovae by a core-collapse mechanism are the massive stars, while their lower-mass cousins enter a thermally pulsing asymptotic giant branch (TPAGB) phase where rapid mass-loss ends their evolution. It is difficult to specify the exact mass boundary between these populations, with estimates ranging from $7\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ up to more than $11\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ [@1999ApJ...515..381R], depending on metallicity and convective overshooting.
The problem relates to the fate of the star after carbon ignition, which depends on the degeneracy of the core. In high-mass stars the non-degenerate core burns carbon, then neon, oxygen and silicon. A core-collapse supernova soon follows, leaving a neutron star or black hole. A lower-mass, but massive enough to ignite carbon, (partially) degenerate core burns carbon in a series of flashes (e.g. ) and then moves to a *super* thermally pulsing AGB (SAGB) stage, with double-shell burning above a degenerate oxygen-neon core, where mass-loss terminates the evolution, leaving a white dwarf (Siess, this volume). In a small number of stars the oxygen-neon core may grow beyond $1.368\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ during the pulsing phase, which leads to a collapse of the core due to electron capture on $^{24}\textrm{Mg}$ (Poelarends, this volume). Detailed models of these stars have been constructed by @1994ApJ...434..306G [@1996ApJ...460..489R; @1997ApJ...485..765G; @1997ApJ...489..772I] and more recently by @2004MmSAI..75..694E who consider SAGB stars as observable supernova progenitors (see also Poelarends, this volume).
Once carbon ignition and second dredge-up have finished, SAGB stars pulse in much the same way as normal TPAGB stars, albeit with a shorter interpulse period. By virtue of their high mass, one expects high temperatures at the base of the convective envelope and associated hot-bottom burning (HBB; e.g. [@1995ApJ...442L..21B]). Their envelopes should be processed by the hydrogen-burning CNO, NeNa and MgAl cycles. For studies of Galactic chemical evolution, these stars may be an important source of nitrogen, sodium and aluminium and they may play a part in the globular cluster $\textrm{Na}-\textrm{O}$ anticorrelation mystery (D’Antona, this volume; [@2005ApJ...635L.149V]). It is unclear whether third dredge-up occurs in SAGB stars – current models suggest either it does (Doherty, this volume), does not (our models and Siess, this volume), or is inefficient [@1996ApJ...460..489R]. There are no detailed studies of chemical yields from SAGB stars, probably because detailed stellar models take a long time and are difficult to construct, and suffer from the usual uncertainty due to mass-loss and convective overshooting. A synthetic modelling technique speeds up modelling and enables us to explore the uncertain parameter space.
In this paper we calculate the chemical yields of SAGB stars using a synthetic model based on the AGB model of @Izzard_et_al_2003b_AGBs [I04]. We approximate stellar structural variables with formulae and interpolation tables, and use a simple model for HBB to follow the CNO, NeNa and MgAl cycles and surface abundances of C, N, O, Ne, Na, Mg, Al and Si. The synthetic model is then used to extrapolate evolution beyond the detailed models to the end of the SAGB phase. This is possible because the structure of AGB stars is such that after a number of pulses, the evolution reaches a limit cycle [@1996ApJ...460..489R]. We calculate supernova rates and chemical yields, and also change the input physics (especially the mass-loss rate) to determine the effect of uncertainties. Such a parameter space exploration is currently impossible with a normal stellar evolution code, because the CPU time required is simply too large.
Models, full and synthetic
==========================
Our full evolution models were constructed with the STERN code [@2000ApJ...528..368H]. We constructed models of mass $8.5$, $9.0$, $10.0$ and $11.5\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ which undergo $12$,$26$,$10$,$16$ pulses respectively, with metallicity $Z=0.02$, no convective overshooting, no mass loss and no rotation. Further description of these models can be found in Poelarends et al. (this volume).
Our synthetic models are based on those of I04 with some updates and changes for the SAGB phase (a detailed description will be found in a later paper; Izzard and Poelarends, in preparation). The luminosity formula was altered to fit our detailed models, and the radius follows from $\log R\sim\log L$. The initial and post-second-dredge-up abundances, core mass at the end of core helium burning and core mass at the first thermal pulse, are interpolated from tables based on the detailed models. Stars with a helium core mass above $1.6\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ during the early AGB ignite carbon, while stars with a degenerate oxygen-neon core with mass greater than $1.38\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ collapse to neutron stars. We assume there is no third dredge up.
The synthetic HBB model was described in I04 but we use the latest version which includes the NeNa and MgAl cycles as well as CNO. It approximates the burn-mix-burn-mix… cycle in a real convective envelope (which has a thin HBB shell at the base) as a single burn-mix event during each interpulse period, with a large fraction of the envelope burned for a given time. The temperature and density at the base of the envelope are fitted to simple formulae of the form $1-\exp\left(-N_{\textrm{TP}}\right)$ which approaches a constant as $N_{\textrm{TP}}$, the number of thermal pulses, increases. The fraction and the burn time are calibrated as a function of stellar mass, as in I04.
We apply one of the following mass-loss prescriptions during the SAGB phase: none, original @1993ApJ...413..641V [VW93], VW93 but @Parameterising_3DUP_Karakas_Lattanzio_Pols [K02] variant, Reimers with $\eta=1$ or $\eta=5$ [@1975psae.book..229R] or with $\eta=0.1$. Prior to the SAGB, we either apply no mass loss, or the compilation of @2002MNRAS_329_897H [H02]. In the cases where mass loss does not expose the core before it grows to $1.368\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$, the core is quietly converted into a neutron star while the envelope is ejected to space (this is the subject of some debate e.g. [@1987ApJ...322..206N], ).
Results
=======
We are confident that our extrapolation of the stellar structure (luminosity, radius, mass and core mass evolution) is reasonable, within the uncertainty that is mass loss, because a very similar model works well for lower-mass AGB stars (I04). The mass-loss rate for SAGB stars is unknown, so we consider all the possibilities. Figure \[cap:NTP\] shows the number of thermal pulses during the SAGB phase which ranges from $30$ (Blöcker, with SAGB lifetimes of $4,000$ to $5\times10^{4}$ years) to $4,000$ (Reimers $\eta=1$, with lifetimes of $10^{5}$ to $10^{6}$ years), or $8,000$ with no mass loss.
![\[cap:NTP\]Number of thermal pulses as a function of initial stellar mass for different mass-loss prescriptions: no wind at all or pre-SAGB wind of @2002MNRAS_329_897H with Reimers ($\eta=1$ or $5$), VW93 or Blöcker mass-loss during the SAGB. ](izzard-figure1)
Mass loss during core helium burning, prior to the SAGB, is included in the H02 prescription and is not negligible for stars above $8\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ – they lose around $0.5\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ during this phase, which affects the subsequent evolution and HBB.
One way of constraining the value of mass-loss rate is through supernova counts. If there is little mass loss during the SAGB, many stars’ cores should reach the electron capture limit of $1.368\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ before their envelope is lost. In the limit of no mass loss during the SAGB, we find the ratio of the electron-capture to type-II supernova rates is about one[^1]. With the VW93 (K02 variant) mass-loss the ratio drops to $7\%$. If electron capture supernovae are distinguishable from normal core-collapse types (and accretion induced collapses in binaries; [@2004ApJ...612.1044P]) then we can constrain the mass-loss rate[^2].
In figure \[cap:Extapolation\] we show the results of our HBB calibration and extrapolation for a $10\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ star. The detailed models truncate their abundance output to the nearest $10^{-3}$ in the log, which causes the stepping behaviour, while the stepping in the synthetic model is because HBB is done at the end of each pulse. Ten pulses is just enough to calibrate the isotopes which change rapidly, $^{13}\textrm{C}$, $^{17}\textrm{O}$ and $^{21}\textrm{Ne}$ are also useful in this regard, while other isotopes such as $^{16}\textrm{O}$ are not. We have to assume the other species ($^{20,22}\textrm{Ne}$, $^{23}\textrm{Na}$, $\textrm{Mg}$ and $\textrm{Al}$) follow from this calibration. The situation is little better in the $9\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ star: it has $26$ pulses, but its lower temperature slows the burning.
-------------------------- --------------------------
 
 
-------------------------- --------------------------
Finally, we consider the magnesium isotopes. Figure \[cap:magnesium\] shows the surface abundance of $^{24}\textrm{Mg}$ and $^{25}\textrm{Mg}$ as a function of time for $9\leq M/\mathrm{M_{\odot}}\leq12$ with H02 mass loss prior to the SAGB, and VW93 (K02 variant) mass loss during the SAGB. Only the $11$ and $12\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ models show significant burning of $^{24}\textrm{Mg}$ to $^{25}\textrm{Mg}$, with up to a factor of two increase. For $M\leq10\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ the HBB is simply not hot enough to enable the MgAl cycle. At all masses, rapid mass loss turns off the MgAl cycle after about $2\times10^{4}\,\textrm{years}$[^3].
-------------------------- --------------------------
 
-------------------------- --------------------------
Discussion
==========
This was our first attempt to model these stars synthetically and, at least for the structure variables such as luminosity, radius, core mass (and growth), we have confidence in our model. However our HBB model is not as solid, given that we have extrapolated forward by a factor of ten or more in time compared to our detailed models. It is clear that we must extend our detailed models to at least cover, say, half the evolution (which may still be many thousand pulses), and see if the synthetic model predictions match the detailed model[^4].
Even when we have extended the detailed models, we will still suffer from the mass-loss uncertainty. It seems, from figure \[cap:NTP\], we can get as many pulses as we like. New observations are providing insight into the mass-loss rates in oxygen-rich AGB stars and we integrate these new rates into our next calculations . We have also neglected the problem of convective overshooting, which reduces the mass for formation of SAGB stars by about $2\mathrm{\, M_{\odot}}$ (Siess, this volume). The initial mass function is a steep power law in mass, so a lower mass limit means more SAGB stars, and their lifetimes will be longer (lower mass means smaller luminosity, radius and $\dot{M}$).
Our preliminary results suggest that SAGB stars are not very important either for Galactic or globular cluster chemical evolution. The bulk of element production comes from either lower-mass AGB stars or higher-mass stars and type II supernovae. This conclusion may change if SAGB stars suffer either third dredge-up, or dredge-out, a phenomenon where the carbon flash causes helium-burned material to be mixed to the surface . Also, we only consider envelope ejection for a collapsing oxygen-neon core. In reality, some of the core may be ejected too, particularly if some carbon remains after the core flashes .
Conclusions
===========
In the context of galactic chemical evolution, chemical yields from hot-bottom burning SAGB stars are not important, at least for most isotopes. If mass-loss rates are much lower than those expected from extrapolation of normal AGB rates, if there is dredge-up or dredge-out, or if our simple extrapolations fail, this conclusion may be premature. We are working to extend our detailed model set to remove the extrapolation problem.
The ratio of electron-capture to type-II supernovae in single stars is about $7\%$ if we assume a @1993ApJ...413..641V wind for the SAGB phase – this should be detectable, if it is possible to distinguish electron-capture from core collapse supernovae.
Acknowledgements {#sec:Acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
RGI and AJP are supported by the NWO.
[^1]: We do not include an upper mass limit for SNe, so ratios quoted are lower limits.
[^2]: We only model single stars here, binary interactions will alter the result.
[^3]: As in I04 we modulate the temperature with a factor $\left(M_{\textrm{env}}/M_{\textrm{env,1TP}}\right)^{0.02}$ to turn off HBB as mass is lost.
[^4]: The numerical problems seen in figure \[cap:Extapolation\] will become irrelevant in that case.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $X$ be a Calabi–Yau threefold fibred over ${{\mathbb P}}^1$ by non-constant semi-stable K3 surfaces and reaching the Arakelov–Yau bound. In \[STZ\], X. Sun, Sh.-L. Tan, and K. Zuo proved that $X$ is modular in a certain sense. In particular, the base curve is a modular curve. In their result they distinguish the rigid and the non-rigid cases. In \[SY\] and \[Y\] rigid examples were constructed. In this paper we construct explicit examples in non-rigid cases. Moreover, we prove for our threefolds that the “interesting” part of their $L$-series is attached to an automorphic form, and hence that they are modular in yet another sense.'
address:
- 'Institute of Mathematics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Givat-Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Queen’s University, Kingston. Ontario Canada K7L 3N6'
author:
- Ron Livné
- Noriko Yui
date: 'Version of June 16, 2005'
title: 'The modularity of certain non-rigid Calabi–Yau threefolds'
---
\[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\] \[section\]
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
Let $X$ be an algebraic threefold and let $f:X\to
{{\mathbb P}}^1$ be a non-isotrivial morphism whose fibers are semi-stable K3 surfaces. Let $S\subset {{\mathbb P}}^1$ be the finite set of points above which $f$ is non-smooth, and assume that the monodromy at each point of $S$ is non-trivial. Jost and Zuo \[JZ\] proved the Arakelov–Yau type inequality: $$\mbox{deg} f_* \omega_{X/{{\mathbb P}}^1}\leq \mbox{deg}\,
\Omega_{{{\mathbb P}}^1}^1 (\mbox{log} S).$$
Let $\Delta\subset X$ be the pull-back of $S$. Let $\omega_{X/{{{\mathbb P}}}^1}$ be the canonical sheaf. The Kodaira–Spencer maps $\theta^{2,0}$ and $\theta^{1,1}$ are maps of sheaves fitting into the following diagram: $$f_*\Omega^2_{X/{{{\mathbb P}}}^1}(\mbox{log}\,\Delta)
\overset{\theta^{2,0}}\to
R^1f_*\Omega^1_{X/{{{\mathbb P}}}^1}(\mbox{log}\,\Delta)
\otimes \Omega^1_{{{{\mathbb P}}}^1}(\mbox{log}\,S)
\overset{\theta^{1,1}}\to R^2\,
f_*{{\mathcal O}}_{X/{{{\mathbb P}}}^1}\otimes\Omega^1_{{{{\mathbb P}}}^1}
(\mbox{log}\,S)^{{\otimes}2}.$$ The iterated Kodaira–Spencer map of $f$ is defined to be the map $\theta^{1,1}\theta^{2,0}$.
It is known (see \[STZ\]) that when the (iterated) Kodaira–Spencer map is $0$, one actually has the stronger inequality $$\mbox{deg} f_* \omega_{X/{{\mathbb P}}^1}\leq
\frac{1}{2}\mbox{deg}\,
\Omega_{{{\mathbb P}}^1}^1 (\mbox{log} S).$$
Assume from now on that $X$ is a Calabi–Yau threefold. Then the triviality of the canonical bundle implies that $\mbox{deg}\, f_*
\omega_{X/{{\mathbb P}}^1}=2$ (see (\[deg\]) below).
Recently X. Sun, S-L. Tan and K. Zuo \[STZ\] considered Calabi–Yau threefolds for which the Arakelov–Yau inequality becomes equality. Thus $S$ consists of $6$ points when the Kodaira–Spencer map is $0$ and of $4$ points otherwise.
As a consequence of the main theorem of \[STZ\], the following results were obtained.
[**Theorem 1**]{} (Corollary 0.4 in \[STZ\]):
*(i) If the iterated Kodaira–Spencer map $\theta^{1,1}\theta^{2,0}$ of $f$ is non-zero, then $X$ is rigid (i.e., $h^{2,1}=0$) and birational to the Nikulin–Kummer construction of a symmetric square of a family of elliptic curves $f: E\to {{\mathbb P}}^1$. After passing to a double cover $E^{\prime}\to E$ (if necessary), the family $g^{\prime}: E^{\prime}\to
{{\mathbb P}}^1$ is one of the six modular families of elliptic curves on the Beauville’s list (\[B\]).*
\(ii) If the iterated Kodaira–Spencer map $\theta^{1,1}\theta^{2,0}$ of $f$ is zero, then $X$ is a non-rigid Calabi–Yau threefold (i.e., $h^{2,1}\neq 0$), the general fibers have Picard number at least $18$, and ${{\mathbb P}}^1\setminus
S\simeq \mathfrak H/\Gamma$ where $\Gamma$ is a congruence subgroup of $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ of index $24$.
[**Remark**]{}: The base curve ${{\mathbb P}}^1\setminus S$ is a modular variety of genus zero, i.e., $\mathfrak H/\Gamma$ where $\Gamma$ is a torsion-free genus zero congruence subgroup of $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ of index $12$ in case (i), and of index $24$ in case (ii). In the paper of Sun, Tan and Zuo \[STZ\], the word “modularity” refers to this fact.
The third cohomology of each of the six rigid Calabi–Yau threefolds in Theorem 1 (i) arises from a weight $4$ modular form. In the articles of Saito and Yui \[SY\] and of Verrill in Yui \[Y\], these forms were explicitly determined. Saito and Yui use geometric structures; while Verrill uses point counting method, to obtain the results.
More precisely, the following was proved for the natural models over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ of these six rigid threefolds:
[**Theorem 2**]{} (Saito and Yui \[SY\] and Verrill in Yui \[Y\]): [*For each of the six rigid Calabi–Yau threefold over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, the L-series of the third cohomology coincides with the L-series arising from the cusp form of weight $4$ of one variable on the modular group in the Beauville’s list. Beauville’s list and the corresponding cusp forms are given in Table 1.*]{} $$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
\mbox{Group} & \mbox{Number of components} &
\mbox{Cusp forms} \\
\Gamma & \mbox{of singular fibers} &
\mbox{of weight $4$} \\ \hline
\Gamma(3) & 3,3,3,3 &
\eta(q^3)^8 \\ \hline
\Gamma_1(4)\cap \Gamma(2) & 4,4,2,2 &
\eta(q^2)^4\eta(q^4)^4 \\ \hline
\Gamma_1(5) & 5,5,1,1 &
\eta(q)^4\eta(q^5)^4 \\ \hline
\Gamma_1(6) & 6,3,2,1 &
\eta(q)^2\eta(q^2)^2\eta(q^3)^2\eta(q^6)^2 \\
\hline
\Gamma_0(8)\cap\Gamma_1(4) & 8,2,1,1&
\eta(q^4)^{16}\eta(q^2)^{-4}\eta(q^8)^{-4} \\
\hline
\Gamma_0(9)\cap\Gamma_1(3) & 9,1,1,1 &
\eta(q^3)^8 \\ \hline \hline
\end{array}$$
Table 1: Rigid Calabi–Yau threefolds and cusp forms
Here $\eta(q)$ denotes the Dedekind eta-function: $\eta(q)=q^{1/24}\prod_{n\geq 1}(1-q^n)$ with $q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$.
It might be helpful to recall the six rigid Calabi–Yau threefolds in Theorem 2. These six rigid Calabi–Yau threefolds are obtained (by Schoen \[S\]; see also Beauville \[B\]) as the self-fiber products of stable families of elliptic curves admitting exactly four singular fibers. The base curve is a rational modular curve and correspond to the torsion-free genus zero congruence subgroups $\Gamma$ of $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ in Table 1. Note that the $4$-tuples of natural numbers appearing in the second column add up to $12$, which is the index of the modular group $\Gamma$ in $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$.
In \[STZ\] the authors indicate one example for the non-rigid extremal case. It is related to $\Gamma(4)$, which is a torsion-free congruence subgroup of genus $0$ and index $24$ in $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$. The list of torsion-free congruence subgroups of genus $0$ and index 24 in $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ is known (see Sebbar \[Se\], and Table 2 below). In this paper we will show that most of them give rise to a similar collection of examples. In each of these cases we will compute the interesting part of the $L$-series of the third cohomology of an appropriate natural model over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ in terms of automorphic forms.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we use work of Sebbar \[Se\] to determine the groups $\Gamma$ corresponding to case (ii) of Theorem 2. These are subgroups of $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$, and associated to each $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$-conjugacy class there is a natural elliptic fibration over the base curve, defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$. The total spaces of these fibrations are elliptic modular surfaces in the sense of Shioda \[Sh1\]. Moreover each is an extremal K3 surface (namely their Picard number is 20, the maximum possible). We explain the relation between the motive of their transcendental cycles, and specific CM forms of weight $3$ using a result of Livné on orthogonal rank 2 motives in \[L2\].
Section 3 contains our main results: we construct our examples, verify the required properties, and analyze the interesting part of their cohomology. (See the final Remarks 8 (2) for the other parts.) Then in Section 4 we give explicit formulas for the weight $3$ cusp forms and defining equations for the elliptic fibrations of Section 2.
The paper is supplemented by the article of Hulek and Verrill \[HV\] where they treat Kummar varieties, one of which is the case associated to the modular group $\Gamma_1(7)$. This case differs from the examples considered in our paper with the main difference being the fact that the $2$-torsion points do not decompose into four sections, leading to non-semi-stable fibrations. But it still gives rise to a Calabi–Yau threefold (Theorem 2.2 of Hulek and Verrill \[HV\]), and the modularity question can still be considered, and this is exactly what Hulek and Verrill deals with in the supplement \[HV\] to this article.
Extremal congruence K3 surfaces
===============================
The torsion-free genus zero congruence subgroups of $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ of index $24$ were classified in Sebbar \[Se\]. There are precisely nine conjugacy classes of such congruence subgroups.
The second column in the following Table 2 gives the complete list of the torsion-free congruence subgroups of $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ of index $24$ up to conjugacy. Each has precisely 6 cusps. The third column in the table gives the widths of these cusps.
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|} \hline\hline
\#& \mbox{The group $\Gamma$} &
\mbox{Widths of the cusps} \\
\hline
1& \Gamma(4) & 4,4,4,4,4,4 \\ \hline
2& \Gamma_0(3)\cap \Gamma(2) & 6,6,6,2,2,2 \\
\hline
3& \Gamma_1(7) & 7,7,7,1,1,1 \\ \hline
4& \Gamma_1(8) & 8,8,4,2,1,1 \\ \hline
5& \Gamma_0(8)\cap \Gamma(2) & 8,8,2,2,2,2 \\
\hline
6& \Gamma_1(8;4,1,2) & 8,4,4,4,2,2 \\ \hline
7& \Gamma_0(12) & 12,4,3,3,1,1 \\ \hline
8& \Gamma_0(16) & 16,4,1,1,1,1 \\ \hline
9& \Gamma_1(16;16,2,2) & 16,2,2,2,1,1 \\
\hline \hline
\end{array}$$
Table 2: Torsion-free congruence subgroups of index 24.
Here $$\Gamma_1(8;4,1,2):=\{\pm
\begin{pmatrix} 1+4a & 2b \\ 4c & 1+4d
\end{pmatrix},\, a\equiv c\pmod 2\}$$ and $$\Gamma_1(16;16,2,2):=\{\pm \begin{pmatrix}
1+4a & b \\
8c & 1+4d \end{pmatrix}, \, a\equiv c\pmod 2\}.$$ : [*If we are interested in conjugacy as Fuchsian groups (in $PSL(2,{{\mathbb R}})$), Examples \#1,\#5, and \#8 are conjugate (use the matrix $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0
\\ 0 & 2
\end{pmatrix})$, Examples \#2 and \#7 are conjugate (use the same matrix), and Examples \#4, \#6, and \#9 are conjugate (use the same matrix as well as $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix})$.*]{}
[**Proposition 4**]{}:
*Let $\Gamma$ be one of the congruence subgroups in Table 2. Then $\Gamma$ has an explicit congruence lift $\tilde{\Gamma}$ to $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ with the following properties:*
\(1) $\tilde{\Gamma}$ has no elliptic elements. In particular $-{\rm Id}$ is not in $\tilde{\Gamma}$.
\(2) $\tilde{\Gamma}$ contains no element of trace $-2$.
[**Proof**]{}: We let $\tilde{\Gamma}$ be the subgroup of $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ consisting of the elements above $\Gamma$. Indeed, the lifts $\tilde{\Gamma}$ are sometimes the same as the groups $\Gamma$ themselves. In fact, for the cases \#1,\#2,\#3, \#4 and \#5, the lifts are the same and respectively given by: $\Gamma(4)$, $\Gamma_0(3)\cap\Gamma(2)$,$\Gamma_1(7)$,$\Gamma_1(8)$ and $\Gamma_0(8)\cap\Gamma(2)$. In the cases \#6,\#7,\#8 and \#9, the lifts are not unique, and we choose respectively the following lifts: $\Gamma_1^{\prime}(8;4,1,2)$, $\Gamma_0(12)\cap\Gamma_1(3)$, $\Gamma_0(16)\cap\Gamma_1(4)$ and $\Gamma_1^{\prime}(16;16,2,2)$. Here $\Gamma_1^{\prime}(8;4,1,2)$ and $\Gamma_1^{\prime}(16;16,2,2)$ are defined in the same way as $\Gamma_1(8;4,1,2)$ and $\Gamma_1(16;16,2,2)$ but without the $\pm$. Note that the widths of the cusps are not affected by taking a lift as $-{\rm Id}$ is the only difference.
(We should remark that the lifts are not unique; for instacne, in the case \#7, there are four lifts, but only one has no elements of trace $-2$, which is the one given above.)
In fact, Proposition 4 has also been obtained by A. Sebbar in his unpublished note.
Proposition 4 will pave a way to the definition of elliptic modular surfaces, which we will discuss next.
[**Elliptic Modular Surfaces**]{}: In \[Sh1\] Shioda has shown how to associate to any subgroup $G$ of $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ of finite index and not containing $-$Id an elliptic fibration $E(G)$, called the elliptic modular surface associated to $G$, over the modular curve $X(G)=\overline{G\backslash{\frak{H}}}$.
(Shioda’s construction requires that modular groups ought to be a subgroup of $SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$ (rather than a subgroup of $PSL(2,{{\mathbb Z}})$) that contains no element of order $2$. This is a reason we consider a lift $\tilde{\Gamma}$ of $\Gamma$ in our discussion.)
[**Remark 5 **]{}: [*It follows from Kodaira’s theory that when $G$ contains no elliptic elements and no elements of trace $-$2, all the singular fibers are above the cusps and are of type $I_n$, where $n$ is the width of the cusp. On the other hand, elements of trace $-2$ give rise to $I_n^*$-fibers above the cusps.*]{}
For the $\tilde{\Gamma}$’s of Proposition 4 the modular curve $X(\tilde{\Gamma})$ has genus $0$, and, since the sum of the widths of the cusps in Table 2 is always 24, each $E(\tilde{\Gamma})$ is an extremal K3 surface. The space $S_3(\tilde{\Gamma})$ of cusp forms of weight 3 for $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is therefore one-dimensional. Up to a square, the discriminant of the intersection form on the rank 2 motive of the transcendental cycles $T: =
T(E(\tilde{\Gamma})) =
H^2(E(\tilde{\Gamma}),{{\mathbb Q}})/{\rm NS}
(E(\tilde{\Gamma}))$ is given by
$$\label{delta}
\delta = \delta_k = -1,-3,-7,-2,-1,-2,-3,-1,-2$$
in cases $k = 1,\dots,9$ respectively. To see this one computes the discriminant of the (known) lattice $NS(E(\tilde{\Gamma}))$ and passes to the orthogonal complement in $H^2(E(\tilde{\Gamma}),{{\mathbb Q}})$. For details, see e. g. Besser-Livné \[BS\]. By \[L2\] it follows that the normalized newform $g_{3,\Gamma}$ generating $S_3(\tilde{\Gamma})$ has CM by ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{\delta}\,)$.
To each of our 9 examples there is a naturally associated moduli problem of classifying (generalized) elliptic curves with a given level structure (Katz and Mazur \[KM\]). Each of these moduli problems refines the respective moduli problem $Y_1(M)$, of classifying elliptic curves with a point of order $M$, where $M$ is as above. Since $M\geq 4$, these moduli problems are all represented by universal families $E(\tilde{\Gamma})/X(\tilde{\Gamma})/{{\mathbb Z}}[1/M]$ (see Katz–Mazur \[KM\]). The geometric fibers are geometrically connected in all these examples, and their compactified fibers over ${{\mathbb C}}$ are the corresponding elliptic modular surfaces above.
We shall now compute the $L$-series $L(T,s)$ of the transcendental cycles. By the Eichler–Shimura Isomorphism, this is the parabolic cohomology $$\tilde{H}: =
\tilde{H}{\vphantom{H}}^1(
X(\tilde{\Gamma})\times_{{{\mathbb Z}}[1/M]}\overline{{{\mathbb Q}}},
R^1(E(\tilde{\Gamma})\rightarrow
X(\tilde{\Gamma}))).$$ Moreover, Deligne proved (\[D\]) the Eichler–Shimura congruence relation $$\text{Frob}_p + \text{Frob}'_p = T_p
\qquad\text{for any $p\not|M$},$$ where $T_p$ is the $p$-th Hecke operator on $S_3(\tilde{\Gamma})$. This is the same as the $p$-th Fourier coefficient of the normalized newform $g_{3,\Gamma}$. Summarizing, we proved $$L(T(X(\tilde{\Gamma}),s) = L(g_{3,\Gamma},s).$$
Explicit Weierstrass equations for the elliptic fibrations $E(\tilde{\Gamma})/X(\tilde{\Gamma})/{{\mathbb Z}}[1/M]$ will be given in Section 4 below.
[**Remarks**]{}:
*The list in Table 2 exhausts all of the families of semi-stable elliptic $K3$ surfaces with exactly six singular fibers, which correspond to torsion-free genus zero [*congruence*]{} subgroups of $PSL_2({{\mathbb Z}})$ of index $24$. The $6$-tuples of natural numbers appearing in the third column add up to $24$. Therefore, the number of such $6$-tuples is a priori finite. That this list is complete was proved by Sebbar \[Se\].*
\(2) Miranda and Persson \[MP\] studied all possible configurations of $I_n$ fibers on elliptic $K3$ surfaces. In the case of exactly six singular fibers, they obtained $112$ possible configurations including the above nine cases. All these $K3$ surfaces have the maximal possible Picard number $20$. It should be emphasized that the exactly nine configurations correspond to genus zero congruence subgroups of $PSL_2({{\mathbb Z}})$ of index $24$.
\(3) The theory of Miranda and Persson had been extended to prove the uniqueness (over ${{\mathbb C}}$) of K3 surfaces having each of these types of singular fibers by Artal-Bartolo, Tokunaga and Zhang \[BHZ\]. Confer also the article of Shimada and Zhang \[SZ\] for a useful table of extremal elliptic $K3$ surfaces.
The non-rigid examples
======================
Let $Y=E(\tilde{\Gamma})$ be one of the K3 surfaces of the previous Section, and let $g_Y =
g_{3,\Gamma}$ denote the corresponding cusp form of level $3$. If $\tilde{\Gamma}$ contains $\Gamma_1(M)$ (in Table 2 this happens in cases \#3, \#4, \#7, \#8, and \#9), and $M = M_Y$ is the maximal possible, then $M$ is the [*level*]{} of $g_Y$, and the [*newtype*]{} of $g_Y$ is the Dirichlet character $$\label{new}
\epsilon = \epsilon_Y,$$ of conductor $M$, so that $g_Y$ is in $S_3(\Gamma_0(M), \epsilon_Y)$. Notice that $\epsilon$ is odd (namely $\epsilon(-1) = -1$). Moreover, since the coefficients of $g_Y$ are integers, $\epsilon$ must be quadratic. (We will determine $\epsilon$ for our examples in Proposition 10 below.)
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve. We view the product $Y\times E$ as a family of abelian surfaces over $X(\tilde{\Gamma})$. The fiber $A_t
= A_{\Gamma,t}$ over each point $t\in
X(\tilde{\Gamma})$ is the product of the fiber $E_{\Gamma,t}$ of $E(\tilde{\Gamma})$ with $E$. Then we have the following
[**Theorem 6**]{}:
*(1) The product $Y\times E$ has the Hodge numbers $$h^{0,3}(Y\times E)=1,\, h^{1,0}(Y\times E) =
1\,\,\mbox{and}\,\, B_3(Y\times E)=44$$ (so that $Y\times E$ is not a Calabi–Yau threefold).*
\(2) The motive $T(Y\times E)=T(Y)\times H^1(E)$ is a submotive of $H^3(Y\times E)$. If $E$ and $Y$ are defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, this submotive is modular, in the sense that its $L$-series is associated to a cusp form $g_Y$ on $GL(2,{{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{\delta}\,))$. Let $g_E$ be the cusp form of weight $2$ associated to $E$ by Wiles et. al. (\[W\]). Let $A(p)$ (respectively $B(p)$) be the $p$th Fourier coefficient of $g_E$ (respectively of $g_Y$), and let $\epsilon_Y$ be the newtype character of $g_Y$ (see Section 3). Then for any good prime $p$, the local Euler factor $L_p(s)$ of the $L$-series $L(T(Y\times E),s) = L(g_E\otimes g_Y,s)$ is $$1 - A(p)B(p)p^{-s} + (B(p)^2+\epsilon_Y(p)pA(p)^2-2p^2
\epsilon_Y(p))p^{1-2s}
- A(p)B(p)\epsilon_Y(p)p^{3-3s} + p^{6-4s}.$$
[**Proof**]{}: The statements about the Hodge and Betti numbers follow from the Künneth formula. Since $T(Y)$ is a factor of $H^2(Y)$, it follows again from the Künneth formula that $T(Y)\times H^1(E)$ is a factor of $H^3(Y\times E)$.
For the second part, we know that $g_Y$ is a CM form. Hence it is induced from an algebraic Hecke character $\chi = \chi_Y$ of the imaginary quadratic field $F = K_i$. Let $\chi_G$ be the compatible system of $1$-dimensional $\ell$-adic representations of $G_F =
\text{Gal}(\overline{{\mathbb Q}}/F)$ corresponding to $\chi$. Then the $2$-dimensional Galois representation associated to $T(Y)$ is ind$_{G_F}^{G_{{\mathbb Q}}}\chi_G$. Hence we obtain the $4$-dimensional Galois representation $$\rho_E \otimes \text{ind}_{G_F}^{G_{{\mathbb Q}}} \chi_G
\simeq \text{ind}_{G_F}^{G_{{\mathbb Q}}}(\chi_G \otimes
\text{Res}^{G_{{\mathbb Q}}}_{G_F}\rho_E),$$ where $\rho_E$ is the Galois representation associated to $H^1(E)$. The operation of restricting $\rho_E$ to $G_F$ and of twisting by characters have automorphic analogs. Let $\pi_E$ be the automorphic representation associated to $E$. Then $\pi' = \chi\otimes$ Res$^{{\mathbb Q}}_F\pi_E$ makes sense as an automorphic cuspidal irreducible representation of $GL(2,F)$, and we have the characterizing relationship $$L(\pi',s) = L(\text{ind}_F^{{\mathbb Q}}\pi',s) =
L(\pi_E \otimes \text{ind}_F^{{\mathbb Q}}\chi,s) =
L(g_E\otimes g_Y,s).$$
For the last part, write the $p$th Euler factors of $g_E$ and $g_Y$ respectively as $$(1-\alpha_p p^{-s})(1-\alpha'_p p^{-s}) =
1-A(p) p^{-s} + p^{1-2s} \qquad\text{and}$$ $$(1-\beta_p p^{-s})(1-\beta'_p p^{-s}) =
1 - B(p) p^{-s} +\epsilon_Y(p) p^{2-2s}.$$ Then the Euler factor $L_p$ is defined as $$L_p(s) =(1-\alpha_p\beta_p p^{-s})
(1-\alpha'_p\beta_p p^{-s})
(1-\alpha_p\beta_p' p^{-s})
(1-\alpha_p'\beta_p' p^{-s}),$$ and the claim follows by a direct calculation.
[**Remark**]{}: [*If a K3 surface has the Picard number $19$ or $18$, the modularity question for the product $Y\times E$ is still open. However, if the Picard number is 19, one knows at least that the rank $3$ motive $T(Y)$ of the transcendental cycles is self dual orthogonal via the cup product. (For explicit examples of K3 surfaces with Picard number 19, see e. g. Besser and Livné \[BL\].) Thus one can use a result of Tate to lift each $\ell$-adic representation to the associated spin cover, which is the multiplicative group of some quaternion algebra over ${{\mathbb Q}}$. If the spin representation is modular (which should always be the case), then it is associated to a cusp form $h$ of weight $2$ on $GL(2)$, so that Symm$^2 h$ realizes $T(Y)$. Let $g_E$ be again the weight $2$ cusp form associated with $E$. It follows, by work of Gelbart and Jacquet, that $T(Y)$ is realized by an automorphic representation on $GL(3,{{\mathbb Q}})$. Hence, by the work of Kim and Shahidi (\[KS\]), $T(Y)\times E$ is realized by an automorphic form on $GL(6,{{\mathbb Q}})$. In particular, $L(\text{Symm}^2h \otimes g_E,s)$ has the expected analytic properties.*]{}
To construct our promised examples, let $X=
X_\Gamma{\rightarrow}X(\tilde{\Gamma})$ be the associated Kummer family, in which we divide each fiber $A_t$ of $Y(\tilde{\Gamma})\times E$ by $\pm 1$ and then blow up the locus of points of order $2$. We now have the following
[**Theorem 7 **]{}: [*In the Examples \#1, \#2, \#5, and \#6 of Table 2 the resulting $X$ is a smooth Calabi–Yau threefold. It is non-rigid, and the given fibration $f:X{\rightarrow}X(\tilde{\Gamma})$ is semi-stable, with vanishing (iterated) Kodaira–Spencer mapping. We have $$\deg{f_*\omega_{X/{{\mathbb P}}^1}} = 2 =
\frac{1}{2}\,\mbox{deg}\,\Omega^1_{{{\mathbb P}}^1}
(\mbox{log}\,S),$$ In other words, $X$ reaches the (stronger) Arakelov–Yau bound.* ]{}
[**Remark**]{}: [*For the first case in Table 2 ($\tilde{\Gamma} = \Gamma(4)$) this example is indicated in \[STZ\].*]{}
[**Proof**]{}: The Examples we chose are those in which $\tilde{\Gamma}$ is a subgroup of $\Gamma(2)$. (This is because otherwise, the points of order $2$ of $X(\Gamma)$ coincide (over the cusps).) Thus the $2$-torsion points (of $E_t$ and hence of $A_t$) are distinct for [*all*]{} $t\in
X(\tilde{\Gamma})$. It follows that the locus $A[2]$ of $2$-torsion points is smooth, and hence so is the blow-up $X$. We have $H^i(X) =
H^i(Y(\tilde{\Gamma})\times E)^{<\pm 1>}$. But $\pm 1$ acts as $\pm 1$ on both the non-trivial holomorphic $1$-form $\omega_1$ of $E$ and on the non-trivial holomorphic $2$-form $\omega_2$ of $Y(\tilde{\Gamma})$. Hence $\omega_1\wedge
\omega_2$ descends to a holomorphic $3$-form $\omega_3$ on $X$. Its divisor can only be supported on the proper transform ${\mathcal{F}}$ of $A[2]$; however $\mathcal{F}$ intersects each fiber $f^{-1}(t)$ in sixteen $(-2)$-curves, which do not contribute to the canonical class, so that $\omega_3$ is indeed nowhere-vanishing. The Künneth formula gives that $$H^1(X) = H^1(Y)^{<\pm 1>} =
H^1(E)^{<\pm 1> } = 0, \qquad\text{and}$$ $$H^{2,0}(X) = H^{2,0}(Y \times E)^{<\pm 1>} =
H^2(Y)^{<\pm 1>} = 0.$$ Thus $X$ is indeed a smooth Calabi–Yau threefold. It is non-rigid, because $T(Y\times
E)$ descends to $X$ and each of its Hodge pieces $H^{p,q}(T(Y\times E))$ is $1$-dimensional.
To compute the monodromy around each singular fiber, we notice that for a generic fiber $X_t =
f^{-1}(t)$ the Kummer structure gives a canonical decomposition $$H^2(X_t,{{\mathbb Q}}) =
(H^2(A_t,{{\mathbb Q}}) \oplus {{\mathbb Q}}A_t[2])^{<\pm 1>}.$$ Our examples were chosen so that the action of $\pm 1$ on $A_t[2]= E_{\Gamma,t}[2] \times
E_t[2]$ is trivial. Moreover, in the Künneth decomposition $$H^2(A_t) = H^2(E) \oplus (H^1(E)\otimes
H^1(E_{\Gamma,t})) \oplus H^2(E_{\Gamma,t})$$ the $\pm 1$ action is trivial on the first and last factors, is trivial on $H^1(E)$ and is unipotent on $H^1(E_\Gamma,t)$ around each singular fiber of $f$ (namely the cusps of $\Gamma$). Thus the monodromy of the fibration $f$ is unipotent as well.
To compute the Kodaira–Spencer map $\Theta(f)$ for our $f$ we embed it into the Kodaira–Spencer map for $Y\times E \rightarrow
X(\tilde{\Gamma})$. This map is the cup product with the Kodaira–Spencer class $\Theta$ which itself is $\Theta_{Y/X(\tilde{\Gamma})} \otimes
\Theta_{X(\tilde{\Gamma}) \times
E/X(\tilde{\Gamma})}$. Since the Kodaira–Spencer class of a trivial fibration vanishes, it follows that $\Theta(f) = 0$.
Our examples all have $6$ singular fibers. Hence $$\frac{1}{2}\deg \Omega^1_{{{\mathbb P}}^1}(\log S) =
\frac{1}{2} \deg{{\mathcal O}}_{{{\mathbb P}}^1}(-2+6) = 2.$$
On the other hand, since $X$ is a Calabi–Yau variety we have $$\omega_{X/{{\mathbb P}}^1} = \omega_X\otimes
(f^*\omega_{{{\mathbb P}}^1})^{-1} =
(f^*\omega_{{{\mathbb P}}^1})^{-1}.$$ Hence $$\label{deg}
f_*\omega_{X/{{\mathbb P}}^1} =
f_*f^*(\omega_{{{\mathbb P}}^1})^{-1}=
(f_*f^*\omega_{{{\mathbb P}}^1})^{-1}=
\omega_{{{\mathbb P}}^1}^{-1},$$ whose degree is $2$ as well, concluding the proof of Theorem 7.
[**Remarks 8**]{}:
*(1) In the other cases in Table 2 the monodromy on the points of order $2$ of $A_t[2]$ is non-trivial, and the calculation gives that the monodromy of $f$ around the cusps is not unipotent. We know by Remark 3, the groups \#1, \#5 and \#8 are in the same $PSL(2,{{\mathbb R}})$-conjugacy class. However, this group theoretic property does not guarantee isomorphisms of the corresponding Calabi–Yau threefolds, since the fiber structures are not preserved. Similarly, the groups \#4, \#6 and \#9 are $PSL(2,{{\mathbb R}})$-conjugate, but geometric structures are different (as the fibers over the cusps are different). The same applies to Examples \#2 and \#7. Therefore, Examples \#4, \#7, \#8 and \#9 are not covered by our examples. Also we do not know how to construct examples corresponding to Example \#3 in Table 2, for which $\tilde{\Gamma} = \Gamma_1(7)$. We also do not know whether our examples are the only ones.*
\(2) It is an interesting exercise to compute the full $L$-series of our examples. The results are as follows: Let $N_+$ (respectively $N_-$) be the motive of algebraic cycles on $Y$ invariant (respectively anti-invariant) by $\pm
1$ acting on the elliptic fibrations of $Y$. Let $n_{\pm}$ be the rank of $N_\pm$. Then $n_+ + n_-
= 20$, and if we let $\chi_{\delta^{\prime}}$ denote the quadratic character cut by ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{\delta^{\prime}}\,)$ (not necessarily the same quadratic field pre-determined by the modular group corresponding to the surface), then $N_+= {{\mathbb Z}}(1)^{n^{\prime}_+}\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}(\chi_{\delta^{\prime}}(1))^{n^{\prime\prime}_+}$ and $N_- = {{\mathbb Z}}(1)^{n^{\prime}_-}\oplus {{\mathbb Z}}(\chi_\delta^{\prime}(1))^{n^{\prime\prime}_-}$. Here $n^{\prime}_{+}$ (resp. $n^{\prime\prime}_+$) denotes the number of cycles defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ (resp. ${{\mathbb Q}}(\delta^{\prime})$) and similarly for $n^{\prime}_-$ (resp. $n^{\prime\prime}_-$). We have $n_{\pm}=
(n^{\prime}+n^{\prime\prime})_{\pm}$. Then we have
$$\begin{aligned}
L(H^0,s) & = & L({{\mathbb Z}},s) = \zeta(s) \\
L(H^1,s) & = & 1 \\
L(H^2,s) &= & L(H^2({{{\mathbb P}}}^1\times{{{\mathbb P}}}^1),s)L({{\mathbb Z}}(1),s)L(N_+,s)\\
&=& \zeta(s-1)^{16}\zeta(s-1)^{1+n_+^{\prime}}
L({{\mathbb Q}}\otimes\chi_{\delta^{\prime}},s-1)^{n_+^{\prime\prime}}\\
L(H^3,s) & = & L(T(Y)\otimes H^1(E),s)L(N_-\times H^1(E),s) \\
\quad & = & L(g_3\otimes g_2,s)L(E, s-1)^{n_-^{\prime}}
\prod_{\delta^{\prime}}L(E\otimes\chi_{{\delta}^{\prime}},s-1)^{n_-^{\prime\prime}}\end{aligned}$$
(The higher cohomologies are determined by Poincaré duality.)
[**Lemma 9 **]{}: In cases \#1, \#2, \#5, and \#6 in Table 2, we have $n_+=14$ and $n_-=6$ (so $n_+-n_-=2+6=8$). Furthermore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(n_+^{\prime},n_+^{\prime\prime})=\begin{cases}
(12,2)\quad &\mbox{for \#1} \\
(14,0)\quad &\mbox{for \#2} \\
(13,1)\quad &\mbox{for \#5,\, \#6}\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
(n_-^{\prime},n_-^{\prime\prime})=\begin{cases}
(3,3)\quad &\mbox{for \#1} \\
(6,0)\quad &\mbox{for \#2} \\
(5,1)\quad &\mbox{for \#5,\,\#6}\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ In case \#3, $n_+= 11$ and $n_-=9$. (For the last case, confer the article of Hulek and Verrill \[HV\] for more detailed discussion.)
For the computations of $n_+$ and $n_-$, confer Proposition 2.4 of Hulek and Verrill \[HV\]. The Proof of Lemma 9 will be given at the end of Section 4.
Explicit Formulas
=================
We shall now give explicit formulas for the weight $3$ forms $g_Y = g_{3,\Gamma}$ for the examples in Table 2. We will denote the weight $3$ form in the $i$th case by $h_i$. By Remark 3 it suffices to compute $h_i$ for $i=8,7,3,4$, and then $h_8(\tau) = h_5(\tau/2) = h_1(\tau/4)
$, $h_7(\tau) = h_2(\tau/2)$, and $h_6(\tau) =
h_9(\tau/2) = h_4(\tau/2 -1/2)$. Two kinds of formulas suggest themselves for the $h_i$’s: as a product of $\eta$-functions or as inverse Mellin transforms of the Dirichlet series attached to Hecke characters. The second method is always possible since the $g_Y$’s are CM forms. In \[M\] Martin determined which modular forms on $\Gamma_1(N)$ can be expressed as a product of $\eta$-functions. This applies to cases \#8, \#7, \#3, and \#4 in Table 2. Hence the same is also true for the \#6 and \#9 cases. For cases \#3, \#7, and \#8 the corresponding spaces of cusp forms of weight $3$ are $1$-dimensional, hence the conditions in \[M\] are satisfied and Martin gives the corresponding forms as $h_3=
\eta(q)^3\eta(q^7)^3$ and $h_7=
\eta(q^2)^3\eta(q^6)^3$. The modular form in case \#1 is classically known to be $h_1=
\eta(q)^6$, which implies $h_8= \eta(q^4)^6$. Lastly $h_2= \eta(q)^3\eta(q^3)^3$, and $h_5=
\eta(q^2)^6$. For \#4, we have $h_4(q)=\eta(q)^2\eta(q^2)\eta(q^4)\eta(q^8)^2$. We will prove the following
[**Proposition 10**]{}:
*Let $\chi_i$ be the Hecke character for which $L(h_i,s) =
L(\chi_i,s)$ (so that the inverse Mellin transform of $L(\chi_i,s)$ is $h_i$). Let $a_p(h_i)$ be the $p$th Fourier coefficient of $h_i$, and let $K_i = {{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{\delta_i})$. Then we have the following:*
\(1) The infinite component of $\chi_i:{{\mathbb A}}_{K_i}^\times \rightarrow {{\mathbb C}}$ is given by $\chi_{i,\infty}(z) = z^{-2}$. Moreover $\chi_i$ is the unique such Hecke character of conductor $c_i{{\mathcal O}}_{K_i}$, where $c_i = 2,2,1,1
\in {{\mathcal O}}_{K_i}$ for $i = 8,7,3,4$ respectively.
\(2) For each rational prime $p$ which is prime to the level of the corresponding $\Gamma$, we have $a_p(h_i) = 0$ if $p$ is inert in $K_i$. Otherwise, there are $a$, $b$, which are integers in case \#8 and half integers in the three other cases, so that $p = a^2+d_i b^2$, where $d_i = 4,
3, 7, 2$ for $i = 8,7,3,4$ respectively. Then $a$ and $b$ are unique up to signs, and $a_p(h_i) =
(a^2-d_ib^2)/2$.
\(3) The newtype of $h_i$ (see (\[new\])) is the character defining $K_i$, namely $p\mapsto
\left(\frac{\delta_i}{p}\right)$.
[**Proof: **]{} See e.g. \[L2\] for the generalities (in particular regarding the $\infty$-component of $\chi_i$), as well as the following formula: the conductors of $\chi_i$ and of $h_i$ are related by $$\text{cond}(h_i) = \text{Nm}^{K_i}_{{{\mathbb Q}}}
\text{cond}(\chi_i) \text{Disc}(K_i).$$ Since the level of $h_i$ is respectively $M=16$, $12$, $7$, and $8$ in cases \#8, \#7, \#3, and \#4 of Table 2, we get the asserted value of the $c_i$’s, and since all the fields $K_i$ involved have class number $1$ we have $$\label{dec}
{{\mathbb A}}_{K_i}^\times = (K_i^\times \times U_i \times
{{\mathbb C}}^\times)/\mu(K_i)$$ where $U_i$ is the maximal compact subgroup $\hat{{{\mathcal O}}}\vphantom{{{\mathcal O}}}_{K_i}^\times$ of the finite idèles of $K_i$, and $\mu(K_i)$ is the group of roots of unity of $K_i$, acting diagonally (we view ${{\mathbb C}}$ as the infinite completion of $K_i$). The existence and the uniqueness of $\chi_i$ are then verified in each case by a straightforward calculation (compare \[L1\]).
For the second part, the vanishing of $a_p(h_i)$ for $p$ inert in $K_i$ is a general property of CM forms. For a split $p$ (prime to $\text{cond}(h_i)$), write $p = a^2 + d_i b^2 =
\text{Nm}^{K_i}_{{{\mathbb Q}}} \pi$. Here $\pi$ is a prime element of ${{\mathcal O}}_{K_i}$, so $a$ and $b$ are half integers. We verify that, up to multiplying $\pi$ by a unit, we can guarantee that $a$ and $b$ are integers for $i=8$. In all cases, the $a$’s and the $b$’s are unique up to signs. Next one verifies that $\pi\equiv \pm 1
\pmod{c_i{{\mathcal O}}_{K_i}}$. Let $\wp$ be the ideal generated by $\pi$ (notice that changing the sign of $b$ replaces $\wp$ by its conjugate). Let ${\operatorname{tr}}$ denote the trace from $K_i$ to ${{\mathbb Q}}$. By the general theory, we have that $$a_p(h_i) = {\operatorname{tr}}\chi_\wp(\pi) =
{\operatorname{tr}}\chi_\infty(\pi)^{-1} = {\operatorname{tr}}\pi^2 =
2(a^2-d_ib^2),$$ where the second equality holds since the finite components of $\chi$ other than $\pi$ are now $1$.
For the third part we notice that the restriction of $\chi_i$ to $U_i$ in the decomposition (\[dec\]) above gives a Dirichlet character $\epsilon'_i$ on ${{\mathcal O}}_{K_i}$ of conductor $c_i{{\mathcal O}}_{K_i}$. The newtype Dirichlet character $\epsilon_i$ (on ${{\mathbb Z}}$) is then the product $\chi_{K_i}$ by the restriction of $\epsilon'_i$ to ${{\mathbb Z}}$. However, the conductors $c_i{{\mathcal O}}_{K_i}$ of $\chi_i$ are all $1$ or $2$, and the only character of ${{\mathbb Z}}$ of conductor $1$ or $2$ is trivial. Hence the newtype character of $h_i$ is $K_i$, concluding the proof of Proposition 10.
[**Defining equations for extremal K3 surfaces**]{}: We now discuss how to determine defining equations for the extremal K3 surfaces in Theorem 7. This problem has been getting a considerable attention lately, for instance, Shioda \[Sh3\] and (independently and by a different method by Y. Iron \[I\]) have determined a defining equation for the semi-stable elliptic K3 surface with singular fibers of type $I_1,I_1,I_1,I_1,I_1,I_{19}$ whose existence was established in Miranda and Persson \[MP\] (this is given as $\#1$ in their list). As we shall see, our examples can be determined by a more classical method.
There are several cases where defining equations can be found in the literature, i.e., Example \#1 in Table 2 is the classical Jacobi quartic corresponding to $\Gamma(4)$, $$\label{sig}
y^2=(1-\sigma^2x^2)(1-x^2\sigma^{-2})$$ where $\sigma$ is a parameter for $X(4)$. A Legendre form is given by $$\label{leg}
Y^2=X(X-1)(X-\lambda)\quad\text{with
$\lambda=\frac{1}{4}(\sigma+\sigma^{-1})^2$}$$ (see e.g. Shioda \[Sh2\]). One checks that the singular fibers, all of type $I_4$, occur at the cusps $\sigma = 0,\infty,\pm 1,\pm\sqrt{-1}$. Moreover the $j$-invariant is given by $$j = 2^4\frac{(1+14 \sigma^2 + \sigma^4)^3}
{\sigma^4(\sigma^4-1)^4}.$$
For the remaining cases, we can find defining equations using a method due to Tate. Since we could not find Tate’s method in the literature, we sketch it here. (Actually, we found out after completing the paper that there are several papers dealing with this exact issue, e.g., Kubert \[K\] and his arguments were reproduced in Howe–Leprévost–Poonen \[HLP\]. Also, the paper of Billing and Mahler \[BM\] dealt with the same problem.)
[**A method of Tate to calculate $E_1(N)$** ]{}: Let $Y_1(N)$ be the modular curve, and let $E_1^0(N)\to Y_1(N)$, with $N\geq 4$, be the universal family of elliptic curves having a point (or section) $P=P_N$ of order $N$. Tate’s method gives a defining equation for this family over ${{\mathbb Z}}[1/N]$. We start with the general Weierstrass equation: $$E:\quad y^2+a_1xy+a_3y=x^3+a_1x^2+a_4x+a_6.$$ Let $P=(x,y)\in E$ be a rational point and assume that $P, 2P, 3P\neq 0$. Changing coordinates, we may put $P$ at $(x,y)=(0,0)$. So we may assume $a_6=0$. Since $P$ does not have order $2$, the tangent line at $(0,0)$ cannot be the $y$-axis (i.e., $x=0$), which implies that $a_3$ cannot vanish. We can therefore change coordinates again to obtain $a_4=0$ and the equation takes the form: $y^2+a_1xy+a_3y=x^3+a_2x^2$. By making a dilation, we furthermore get $a_2=a_3$. Therefore, $E$ has a Weierstrass equation of the form: $$(*)\quad y^2+axy+by=x^3+bx^2\quad
\text{with $b\neq 0$}.$$ To get a defining equation for $E_1^0(N)$, we need to find the relations on $a$ and $b$ that arise if $P$ has order $N$. The coordinates of $P, -P, 2P, -2P$ are easily checked to be $$P=(0,0),\, -P=(-0,-b),\, 2P=(-b, (a-1)b),\,
-2P=(-b,0).$$ We will also determine the coordinates of $3P$ and of $4P$. At $-2P$ the tangent line is: $$y=\frac{b}{1-a}(x+b).$$ Substituting this to the equation (\*) to get $$4P=\left(\frac{b}{1-a}+\frac{b^2}{(1-a)^2},\quad
\frac{b^2}{1-a} (1+\frac{b}{(1-a)^2} +
\frac{1}{1-a})\right).$$ Likewise, the line $x+y+b=0$ intersects $E$ at $-P$, $-2P$ and $3P$, giving $3P=(1-a,a-1-b)$. We will give Weierstrass equations for $E_1(N)$ when $N=4$, $6$, $8$, or $7$:
$\boxed{E_1(4)\,\,}$ Here we get $a=1$, giving the equation $$y^2+xy+ty = x^3 + tx^2$$ (we replaced $b$ by $t$). Here $X_1(4)$ is the $t$-line. By a direct calculation or from Shioda’s result (see also Remark 5), we see that the singular fibers are over the three cusps, of types, $I_1^*$, $I_1$, and $I_4$.
$\boxed{E_1(6)\,\,}$ The equation $x(4P)=x(-2P)$ readily gives $b= -(a-1)(a-2)$, giving us the equation for $E_1(6)$: $$E_1(6):\quad y^2+axy-(a-1)(a-2)y =
x^3-(a-1)(a-2)x^2.$$ Here $a$ is a parameter (Hauptmodul) on $X_1(6)$. There are four cusps, and as before one gets from Remark 5 or by a direct computation that the types are $I_1$, $I_2$, $I_3$, and $I_6$, matching the widths of the cusps given in the third column of Table 2.
$\boxed{E_1(8)\,\,}$ The equation $y(4P)=y(-4P)$ is equivalent to $ax(4P)+b =
-2y(4P)$. Expanding, cancelling $b$, and clearing denominators gives $$ab(1-a) + (1-a)^2 =
-2b\left((1-a)(2-a)+b\right).$$ Substituting $b=k(a-1)$ gives $$(a,b) = \left(\frac{-2k^2+4k-1}{k},
\quad -2k^2+3k-1\right),$$ Thus $k$ is a parameter on $X_1(8)$ and $E_1(8)$ (Example \#4) is given by $$\label{E18}
y^2+\frac{-2k^2+4k-1}{k}xy +(-2k^2+3k-1)y =
x^3+(-2k^2+3k-1)x^2.$$ The fibers above the cusps are found as before to have types $I_1$, $I_1$, $I_2$, $I_4$, $I_8$, and $I_8$.
$\boxed{E_1(7)\,\,}$ In a similar way one gets the equation for $E_1(7)$ (Example \#3); the result is (see for instance, Silverman \[S\] Example 13.4) $$y^2+(1+t-t^2)xy+(t^2-t^3)y=x^3+(t^2-t^3)x^2.$$ Three singular fibers have type $I_1$, and three have type $I_7$.
$\boxed{E(6,2)\,\,}$ Returning to our cases, we now handle Example \#2 in Table 2, corresponding to $\tilde{\Gamma} = \Gamma_0(3)\cap\Gamma(2)$, whose associated modular curve is $$X(6,2) = X_1(6) \times_{X_1(2)} X(2)$$ by pulling $E_1(6)$ back to $X(6,2)$. To do this we cannot use Tate’s method directly, since the moduli problems associated to $Y(2)$ and to $Y_1(2)$ are not representable. However $X(2)$ is the Legendre $\lambda$-line, and any elliptic curve with $\Gamma(2)$-level structure can always be written in Legendre form $$y^2 = x(x-1)(x-\lambda) =
x(x^2+(-1-\lambda)x+\lambda).$$ Likewise, given an elliptic curve $E$ with a point $P$ of order $2$ (over ${{\mathbb Z}}[\frac{1}{2}]$), write $E$ in Weierstrass form $y^2= x(x^2+cx+d)$ where $P=(0,0)$. This form is unique up to homothety, and hence $c^2/d$ is a parameter on $X_0(2)$. The natural map $X(2)
\rightarrow X_0(2)$ is therefore given by $u =
\frac{(1+\lambda)^2}{\lambda}$. Hence the fibred product for $E(6,2)$ above is given by equating $$\frac{(1+\lambda)^2}{\lambda} =
\frac{(4-3a^2)^2}{16(a-1)^3}.$$ A computation gives that $$\xi = \frac{32(a-1)^3}{(4-3a^2)(a-2)^2}\left(
\lambda + 1-\frac{(4-3a^2)^2}{32(a-1)^3}\right)$$ is a parameter on $X(6,2)$ such that the map to $X_1(6)$ is given by $$a=\frac{2\xi^2-10}{\xi^2-9}.$$ Under a base change of ramification index $b$ an $I_a$ fiber pulls back to an $I_{ab}$ fiber (and an $I_a^*$ fiber pulls back to an $I_{ab}^*$ fiber if $a\geq 1$, and $b$ is odd). From this or again by Remark 5 the fiber types are as expected from Table 2. — three $I_6$ and three $I_2$ fibers.
[**Remark**]{}: [*Even though we do not need the following example here, we mention that a parameter for $X_0(12)$ can be computed in the same way via the natural map $X_0(12)\rightarrow X_0(6) = X_1(6)$. By pull-back this will give a family of elliptic curves over $X_0(12)$, which will turn out to be $\Gamma_0(12)$ case (Example \#7) in Table 2. For this we let $t$ be the parameter for $X_0(4) = X_1(4)$ as before, and let $a$ be the parameter from before on $X_0(6)$. Then $X_0(12)$ is the fibred product $$X_1(4)\times_{X_1(2)} X_1(6).$$ To compute the natural “forgetting” maps of $X_1(4)$ and of $X_1(6)$ to $X_1(2)$ we again bring both $E_1(4)$ and $E_1(6)$ to the form $y^2=x(x^2+ax+b)$: $$E_1(4): w^2 = v(v^2+(\frac{1}{4}-2b)v+ b^2)$$ (here we completed the square and set $w=y+(x+b)/2$ and $v=x+b$). $$E_1(6): w^2 = v(v^2+\frac{4-3a^2}
{4}v+(a-1)^3).$$ By the above, the fibred product is given by equating $$\frac{(\frac{1}{4}-2b)^2}{b^2} =
\frac{(4-3a^2)^2}{16(a-1)^3}.$$ Thus $a-1$ is a square, say $a=u^2+1$, where $u$ is a parameter on $X_0(12)$ and the pulled-back family is given by $$y^2+(u^2+1)xy-u^2(u^2-1)y =
x^3-u^2(u^2-1)x^2.$$*]{} One again routinely verifies that the bad fibers are as expected. (Notice, however, that the pull-back of the universal family from $X_1(4)$ has $I_a^*$ fibers!)
$\boxed{E(8,2)\,\,}$ Next we handle Example \#5 in Table 2, whose associated modular curve is $X(8,2)$. As was explained in Remark 3, we can take as a parameter the same $\sigma$ as for $X(4)$ above. However to get the right family, we will divide the universal elliptic curve by a section $s$ of order 2. This changes the type of the singular fibers $E(4)_c$ at a cusp $c$ from $I_4$ to $I_8$ if $s$ meets $E(4)_c$ at the same component as the identity section, and to type $I_2$ otherwise. The singular fibers obtained in this way are as expected from Table 2.
To get the new family, recall that if an elliptic curve is given in Weierstrass form $$y^2 = x(x^2+ax+b),$$ then the quotient by the two-torsion point $(0,0)$ is given by the similar equation $$\label{two}
y^2 = x(x^2-2ax+a^2-4b).$$ In particular, for a curve given in Legendre form $y^2=x(x-1)(x-\lambda)$ the resulting quotient is $y^2 = x(x^2+2(1+\lambda)x+(1-\lambda)^2)$. Applying this to the Legendre form (\[leg\]) of the Jacobi quartic gives the quotient family in the form $$y^2 = x(x^2+ (2+\frac{1}{2}(
\sigma+\sigma^{-1})^2)x +
\frac{1}{16}(\sigma-\sigma^{-1})^4).$$ As before one sees that the singular fibers have types $I_8$, $I_8$, $I_4$, $I_4$, $I_4$, and $I_2$.
$\boxed{E(8;4,1,2)\,\,}$ To handle Example \#6 in Table 2 we proceed in the same way, dividing the family $E_1(8)$ by its section of order $2$. The cusps of $\Gamma_1(8)$ are $N\backslash G/N$, where $N$ is the upper unipotent subgroup of G=$SL(2,{{\mathbb Z}}/8{{\mathbb Z}})/<\pm{\operatorname{Id}}>$. Explicitly the cusps are $\begin{bmatrix} 0\\1 \end{bmatrix} $, $\begin{bmatrix} 0\\3 \end{bmatrix} $, $\begin{bmatrix} 1\\2 \end{bmatrix} $, $\begin{bmatrix} 1\\4 \end{bmatrix} $, $\begin{bmatrix} 1\\0 \end{bmatrix} $, and $\begin{bmatrix} 3\\0 \end{bmatrix} $. The corresponding widths are 1,1,2,4,8, and 8 respectively. We identify the torsion sections of the universal family $E_1(8){\rightarrow}X_1(8)$ with the subgroup $\begin{pmatrix} *\\0 \end{pmatrix}\in
({{\mathbb Z}}/8{{\mathbb Z}})^2$. Let $s = \begin{pmatrix} 4\\0
\end{pmatrix} $ be the section of order $2$ of this elliptic fibration. Then $s$ belongs to the connected component of the $0$-section at a cusp $\begin{bmatrix} a\\b \end{bmatrix} $, if and only if it is in the subgroup generated by $\begin{pmatrix} a\\b \end{pmatrix} $. This happens at the first four cusps above but not at the last two.
The Kodaira type of the fibers of the quotient family $E_1(8)/(s){\rightarrow}X_1(8)$ (which is our $E(\Gamma)$ of Example \#6) are accordingly multiplied by $2$ at the first four cusps, and divided by $2$ at the last two cusps. This results in fiber types $I_8$, $I_4$, $I_4$, $I_4$, $I_2$, and $I_2$, in agreement with Table 2.
Starting with our equation (\[E18\]) for $E_1(8)$ we set $$Y = 8k^3\, y
\left(y+ \frac{-2k^2+4k-1}{2k}x +
\frac{-2k^2+3k-1}{2} \right)
\qquad\text{and}\qquad X=4k^2(x-k+k^2).$$ A straightforward computation then gives for $E_1(8)$ the form $$Y^2 = X(X^2 +(8k^4-16k^3+16k^2-8k+1)X +
(2k(k-1))^4).$$ By formula (\[two\]), the quotient family $E_1(8)/(s)$ is given by $$y^2 = x(x^2 -2(8k^4-16k^3+16k^2-8k+1)x +
(8k^2-8k+1)(2k-1)^4).$$
[**Proof of Lemma 9**]{}: We will use the arguments due to Klaus Hulek and Matthias Schütt for the calculation of $n_+$ and $n_-$. The Galois action on $NS(Y)$ is computed as follows. Tensoring with ${{\mathbb Q}}$, $NS(Y)\otimes{{\mathbb Q}}$ has for basis the (classes of the) general fiber, the $0$-section and those components of the singular fibers which do not meet the identity component (the section). The Galois action clearly preserves the fiber class and the $0$-section. The action of $\pm 1$ on each fiber of type $I_n$ is given as follows. A fiber $I_n$ contributes $n-1$ to the cohomology. If we enumerate the components $e_1, e_2,\cdots, e_{n-1}$ cyclically, then $e_j$ will be sent to $e_{-j}$. If $n$ is even, $n/2$ cycles, $e_{n/2},\, e_j+e_{-j}\, (1\leq j< n/2)$ are fixed contributing to $n_{+}$; while $e_j-e_{-j}\,(1\leq j< n/2)$ contributing to $n_{-}$. If $n$ is odd, $(n-1)/2$ cycles are fixed contributing to $n_+$, and equally $(n-1)/2$ cycles to $n_-$. Further, the fields of definition of the components $e_j$ will determine $n_{\pm}^{\prime}$ and $n_{\pm}^{\prime\prime}$.
In Example \#1, the cusps (singularities) are $t=0, \pm 1,\,\infty$ and $\pm\sqrt{-1}$. Put $i=\sqrt{-1}$. Then $N_+$ is spanned by the zero-section, the fiber and the following divisors: $e_{t,2},\, e_{t,1}+e_{t,3}$ where $t=0, \pm 1, \pm i,\infty$. When $t\in{{\mathbb Q}}$ or $t=\infty$, these divisors are defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, giving $10$ divisors out of $14$. Over $t=\pm i$, we see that $e_{i,2}+e_{-i,2}$ and $(e_{i,1}+e_{i,3})+(e_{-i,1}+e_{-i,3})$ are fixed by complex conjugation, so that these are defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ contributing to $n^{\prime}_+$. Hence, as Galois representations, we get $$N_+={{\mathbb Z}}(1)^{12}\oplus {{\mathbb Z}}(\chi_{i}(1))^2$$ so that $n^{\prime}_+=12$, and $n^{\prime\prime}_+=2$.
On the other hand, the space $N_-$ is simply spanned by $e_{t,1}-e_{t,3}$ for the six cusps $t$. Over $t=\pm 1$, both are defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, contributing to $n^{\prime}_-$. Over $t=0,\infty$, $e_{t,1}$ and $e_{t,3}$ are conjugate, so the difference is not fixed under complex conjugation, so it contributes to $n^{\prime\prime}_-$. Over $t=\pm i$, we have two divisors $(e_{i,1}-e_{i,3})\pm (e_{-i,1}-e_{-i,3})$. One of these is fixed by complex conjugation, while the other is not. Thus, as Galois representation, $$N_-={{\mathbb Z}}(1)^3\oplus {{\mathbb Z}}(\chi_{i}(1))^3$$ and reading off the ranks, we get $n^{\prime}_-=3$ and $n^{\prime\prime}_-=3$.
In Example \#2, the cusps are all defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, the torsion sections meet all the components of the fibers (this can be seen either from the moduli viewpoint or from the equations in the previous section). Then $N_+$ is spanned by the zero-section, the fiber and the divisors $e_{t,1}+e_{t,5},\, e_{t,2}+e_{t,4}$ and $e_{t,3}$ for $I_6$ type singular fibers and $e_{t,1}$ for $I_2$ type singular fibers. Thus we compute that $n_+=3+3+3+1+1+1+1+1=14$. For the space $N_-$ is spanned by $e_{t,1}-e_{t,5},\, e_{t,2}-e_{t,4}$ for $I_6$ type singular fibers. Thus we have $n_-=2+2+2+0+0+0=6.$ Since all divisors are defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, all these algebraic cycles are also defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, and we have $$N_+={{\mathbb Z}}(1)^{14}\quad\mbox{and}\quad N_-={{\mathbb Z}}(1)^6.$$ (In particular, this implies that $n_{\pm}^{\prime\prime}=0$ in this case.)
For the other two cases, \#5 and \#6, we use the above argument to compute $n_{\pm}$. In fact, for Example \#5 (resp. \#6), $$n_+=4+4+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=14 \quad(\mbox{resp.}\,4+2+2+2+1+1+1+1=14),$$ and $$n_-=3+3=6\quad\mbox{for both cases.}$$ Thus $n_+ = 14$ and $n_-=6$. However, for these examples, not all algebraic cycles are defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$. In fact, we use the fact that each of these $K3$ surfaces is realized as a quadratic base change of a rational modular elliptic surface (see Top and Yui \[TY\] for detailed argument).
In the case of Example \#5, this surface is obtained as a pull-back of a rational elliptic modular surface with $4$ singular fibers of type $I_4$ over $\\infty$, $I_4$ over $0$, $I_2$ over $1$ and $I_2$ over $-1$. All cusps of the pull-back over $\infty,\, 0$ and $1$ are defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$. However, the two cusps of the pull-back above $-1$ are defined only over ${{\mathbb Q}}(\sqrt{-1})$. Put $\sqrt{-1}=i$. Then the divisor $e_{i,1}+e_{-i,1}$ is invariant under complex conjugation, while the divisor $e_{i,1}-e_{-i,1}$ is not. Thus, we get $$N_+={{\mathbb Z}}(1)^{13}\oplus{{\mathbb Z}}(\chi_i(1))$$ so that $(n_+^{\prime}, n_+^{\prime\prime})=(13,1).$ On the other hand, all algebraic cycles spanning $N_-$ are defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$ so that $N_-={{\mathbb Z}}(1)^6$ and $n_-=n_-^{\prime}=6$.
For Example \#6, the cusps are $t=0,\, \infty,\, \pm 1$ and $\pm\sqrt{2}$. But the pull-back of the components $e_{0,1}$ and $e_{0,3}$ are conjugate over ${{\mathbb Q}}(i)$. This gives $$N_+={{\mathbb Z}}(1)^{13}\oplus {{\mathbb Z}}(\chi_{2}(1))$$ so that $n_+^{\prime}=13$ and $n_+^{\prime\prime}=1$. While $$N_-={{\mathbb Z}}(1)^5\oplus {{\mathbb Z}}(\chi_i(1))$$ so that $n_-^{\prime}=5$ and $n_-{\prime\prime}=1$.
[**Remark.**]{} [*For \#3, the singular fibers are of type $I_7$ and $I_1$ ($3$ copies each). Hulek and Verrill \[HV\] compute that $n_+=11$ and $n_-=9$, and show that all cycles are defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$. This example does not admit semi-stable fibrations, but still gives rise to a non-rigid Calabi–Yau threefold defined over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, and one can still look into the modularity question for the $L$-series associated to the third cohomology group. This is exactly what is done in the article of Hulek and Verrill \[HV\] supplementing this paper.*]{}
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} We thank the Fields Institute at Toronto, Canada, for its hospitality. Most of the work described above was done while the authors were members and participants in the Automorphic Forms Thematic Program there during the spring term of 2003. The second author thanks B. van Geemen, I. Nakamura, A. Sebbar, W. Stein and K. Ueno for helpful conversations and correspondences. After the article was posted on arXiv on April 29, 2003, we have received feedbacks from several colleagues, F. Beukers, J. Stientra and J. Top. We thank them for their interest and comments. Finally, the authors are indebted to Matthias Schütt and Klaus Hulek for their numerous correspondences to clarify the discussions in Remarks 8 and proof of Lemma 9, in particular, the calculation of $n_+$ and $n_-$ for our examples.
1 \[BTZ\] Bartolo, E.A., Tokunaga, H., and Zhang, D.-Q., [*Miranda–Persson’s problem on extremal elliptic K3 surfaces*]{}, Pacific J.Math. [**202**]{} (2002), 37–72.
1 \[B\] Beauville, A., [*Les familles stables de courbes elliptiques sur ${{\mathbb P}}^1$ admettant quatre fibres singulières*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, [**294**]{} (1982), 657–660.
1 \[BL\] Besser, A., and Livné, R., [*Universal Kummer families over Shimura curves*]{}, in preparation.
1 \[BM\] Billing, G., and Mahler, K., [*On exceptional points on cubic curves*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. [**15**]{} (1940), 32–43.
1 \[D\] Deligne, P., [*Formes modulaires et représentations $\ell$–adiques*]{}, Sém. Bourbaki, fév 1969, exp. [**355**]{}, 1–33, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, springer (1977).
1 \[HLP\] Howe,E.W., Leoprévost, F., and Poonen, B., [*Large torsion subgroups of split Jacobians of curves of genus two or three*]{}, Forum Math. [**12**]{} (2000), no. 3, 315–364.
1 \[HV\] Hulek, K. and Verrill, H., [*On the motive of Kummer varieties associated to $\Gamma_1(7)$ – Supplement to the paper : [*The modularity of certain non-rigid Calabi–Yau threefolds*]{} by R. Livné and N. Yui).*]{}
1 \[I\] Iron, Y., [*An explicit presentation of a K3 surface that realizes $[1,1,1,1,1,19]$*]{}, MSc thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2003.
1 \[JZ\] Jost, J. and Zuo, K., [*Arakelov type inequalities for Hodge bundles over algebraic varieties*]{}, J. Algebraic Geometry [**11**]{} (2002), 535–546.
1 \[KM\] Katz, N., and Mazur, B., [*Arithmetic Moduli of Elliptic Curves*]{}, Annals of Math. Studies, [**108**]{}, Princeton University Press, 1985.
1 \[KS\] Kim, Henry H., and Shahidi, F., [*Functorial products of $GL_2\times GL_3$ and the symmetric cube for $GL_2$*]{}. With an appendix by C. Bushnell and G. Henniart, Ann. of Math. (2) [**155**]{} (2002), no.3, 837–893.
1 \[K\] Kubert, D., [*Universal bounds on the torsion of elliptic curves*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) [**33**]{} (1976), no. 2, 193–237.
1 \[L1\] Livné, R., [*On the conductor of mod $\ell$ Galois representations coming from modular forms*]{}, J. Number Theory [/bf 31]{} (1989), no. 2, 133–141.
1 \[L2\] Livné, R., [*Motivic orthogonal two-dimensional representations of $\mbox{Gal}(\bar{{{\mathbb Q}}}/{{\mathbb Q}})$*]{}, Israel J. Math. [**92**]{} (1995), no. 1-3, 149–156.
1 \[M\] Martin, Y., [*Multiplicative $\eta$-quotients*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. (1996), 4825–4856.
1 \[MP\] Miranda, R., and Persson, U., [*Configurations of $I_n$ fibers on elliptic $K3$ surfaces*]{}, Math. Z. [**201**]{} (1989), 339–361.
1 \[S\] Schoen, C., [*On fiber products of rational elliptic surfaces with section*]{}, Math. Z. [**197**]{} (1988), 177–199.
1 \[Se\] Sebbar, A., [*Classification of torsion-free genus zero congruence groups*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**129**]{}, No. 9 (2001), 2517–2527.
1 \[SY\] Saito, M-H, and Yui, N., [*The modularity conjecture for rigid Calabi–Yau threefolds over ${{\mathbb Q}}$*]{}, Kyoto J. Math. [**41**]{}, no. 2 (2001), 403–419.
1 \[SZ\] Shimada, I., and Zhang, De-Qi, [*Classification of extremal elliptic $K3$ surfaces and fundamental groups of open $K3$ surfaces*]{}, Nagoya Math. J. [**161**]{} (2001), 23–54.
1 \[Sh1\] Shioda, T., [*Elliptic modular surfaces*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan [**24**]{}, no. 1 (1972), 20–59.
1 \[Sh2\] Shioda, T., [*On rational points of the generic elliptic curve with level $N$ structure over the field of modular functions of level $N$*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan [**25**]{} (1973), 144–157.
1 \[Sh3\] Shioda, T., [*Discrete moduli and integral points*]{}, in preparation.
1 \[S\] Silverman, J., [*The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves*]{}, Graduate Text in Mathematics [**106**]{}, Springer–Verlag, New York 1986.
1 \[STZ\] Sun, X., Tan, S.-L. and Zuo, K., [*Families of $K3$ surfaces over curves satisfying the equality of Arakelov–Yau’s type and modularity*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. [**10**]{} (2003), no.2-3, 323–342.
1 \[TY\] Top, J., and Yui, N., [*Explicit equations of some elliptic modular surfaces*]{}, Rocky Mountain J. of Math. (to appear).
1 \[W\] Wiles, A., [*Modular elliptic curves and Fermat’s last theorem*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**141**]{} (1995), 443–551. Taylor, R., and Wiles, A., [*Ring-theoretic properties of certain Hecke algebras*]{}, Ann. of Math. [**141**]{} (1995), 553–572.
1 \[Y\] Yui, N., [*Update on the modularity of Calabi–Yau varieties*]{}, with appendix by Verrill, H., [*The $L$-series of rigid Calabi–Yau threefolds from fiber products of elliptic curves*]{}, in [*Calabi–Yau Varieties and Mirror Symmetry*]{}, Fields Inst. Commun. [**38**]{} (2001), 307–362, Amer. Math. Soc.
[^1]: Ron Livné was partially supported by a Israel-USA BSF Research Grant.
[^2]: Noriko Yui was partially supported by a Discovery Grant from NSERC, Canada.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By combining the generalized exterior algebra of forms over a noncommutative algebra with the gauging of discrete directions and the associated Higgs fields, we consider the construction of the bosonic sector of left-right symmetric models of the form $SU(2)_{L}\otimes SU(2)_{R}\otimes U(1)$. We see that within this formalism maximal use can be made of the gauge connection associated with the non-commutative graded algebra.'
author:
- 'B. E. Hanlon and G. C. Joshi'
---
-with-secnums
=
A Non-Commutative Geometric Approach to\
Left-Right Symmetric Weak Interactions
Research Centre for High Energy Physics\
School of Physics\
University of Melbourne\
Parkville, Victoria 3052\
Australia
Introduction
============
A promising mechanism for the introduction of Higgs fields into Yang-Mills theory is provided by formally extending space-time to include additional space-like dimensions. Compactification of these additional dimensions and the imposition of particular symmetry properties implied by the internal manifold, such as with the Coset Space Dimensional Reduction Scheme \[1\], result in gauge fields which originally carried space indices corresponding to the additional dimensions being realised as scalar fields in four dimensions. The resulting Higgs potential is in a symmetry breaking form. While this procedure has an aesthetic appeal, problems associated with the symmetry breaking scale (i.e. the symmetry breaking is presumed to occur at the Planck scale) made this mechanism phenomenologically difficult to reconcile.
Recently, however, an alternate approach has been investigated by Balakrishna, Gürsey and Wali \[2\]. In this framework the extension of space-time is by finite matrices. By defining an exterior algebra of forms over the noncommutative direct product algebra of smooth functions on space-time and hermitian $n\times n$ matrices $\cal A$, a Lagrangian can be constructed from consideration of the generalized 2-forms. The form of the Higgs fields is determined by the choice of the exterior derivative. Furthermore, a symmetry breaking Higgs potential arises naturally.
The consideration of such an approach was inspired, in part at least, by new ideas generated by the field of noncommutative geometry \[3\] where there are more than one identical copies of space-time characterized by a discrete index $p=0,1,2,...$ \[4,5\]. The simplest example of this is provided when $p=0,1$, so we have a discrete set of two identical space-times and the natural appearence of a $Z_{2}$ symmetry. An $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ model has been constructed via this approach \[5\] which, however, does not make full use of of the inherent symmetries associated with the gauge connection.
In this paper we seek to combine these new ideas. By considering the case of two identical universes with the set of forms described on each by the generalized algebra $\cal{A}$ we have a way of geometrically introducing a set of Higgs fields which mimic a set required to break $SU(2)_{L}\otimes SU(2)_{R}\otimes U(1)$ along the lines of the standard model. Furthermore, this approach allows for the simultaneous consideration of a discrete set of extended space-times. We find that we can make maximal use of the generalized gauge connection and that the form of the electroweak symmetry breaking Higgs field is intuitively consistent with its role as a connection between discrete space-times. We begin by reviewing briefly both procedures and then consider a particular model exhibiting $SU(2)_{L}\otimes SU(2)_{R}\otimes U(1)$ symmetry which utilizes this approach. We then discuss how the model can be adjusted so as to incorporate a more realistic symmetry breaking scheme.
Extended Gauge Theories
=======================
Treating Yang-Mills and Higgs fields at an equal level is an attempt to understand the symmetry breaking mechanism arising in the standard model and to constrain some of the parameters associated with it. Recent work in this field has been done using the ideas of noncommutative geometry \[3\]. Within this approach Higgs fields arise from the gauging of discrete directions. In the case of a $Z_{2}$ symmetry the connection one-form can be written as a $2\times 2$ matrix \[5\] $$w =
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\; A \;\;\;\; \phi \;\; \\
\; {\overline{\phi}} \;\;\;\; B \;\;
\end{array}
\right )\;\; .
\label{connect}$$
In order to construct field strength tensors and, ultimately, Lagrangians, a differential operator on the $2\times 2$ matrix connection (\[connect\]) must be defined. For a matrix with differential form coefficients the odd and even parts are resolved $$\begin{aligned}
X =
\left (
\begin{array}{ll}
\; A \;\;\;\; C \;\; \\
\; E \;\;\;\; B \;\;
\end{array}
\right ) \;\;
\rightarrow
X_{even} =
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\; A \;\;\;\; 0 \;\; \\
\; 0 \;\;\;\; B \;\;
\end{array}
\right ) \;\; , \;\;
X_{odd} =
\left (
\begin{array}{rr}
\; 0 \;\;\;\; C \;\; \\
\; E \;\;\;\; 0 \;\;
\end{array}
\right )\end{aligned}$$ allowing the generalized differential form operator to be defined as $$dX = i[ \eta_{\gamma} , X_{even}] + i \{ \eta_{\gamma} , X_{odd} \}
+ \left (
\begin{array}{rr}
\;\; dA \;\; -dC \;\; \\
\; -dE \;\;\; dB \;\;
\end{array}
\right ) \;\; .$$ This operator, acting on matrices with arbitrary entries, defines a $Z_{2}$ grading with $\partial X_{odd}=1$ and $\partial X_{even}=0$. The matrix, $\eta_{\gamma}$, is the most general odd matrix satisfying $\eta_{\gamma}^{2} = {\bf{1}}$ acting on the space of $2\times 2$ matrices, which therefore has the form $ \eta_{\gamma} = cos(\gamma) \tau_{1} + sin(\gamma) \tau_{2} ,
$ where $\tau_{1}, \tau_{2}$ and $\tau_{3}$ are the Pauli matrices. The operator, $d$, now acts as a derivation: $ d(X\odot Y) = dX\odot Y + (-1)^{\partial X} X\odot dY , $ where $\partial X$ is the sum of the $Z_{2}$ gradings of $X$ as a matrix and as a form. The product $\odot$ is defined by $$(a\otimes A)\odot (a'\otimes A') = (-1)^{\partial A\partial a'}
(a\cdot a')\otimes (A\wedge A') \;\; ,
\label{product}$$ for forms of fixed $Z_{2}$ grading $\partial A$, $\partial A'$ and matrices of fixed $Z_{2}$ grading $\partial a$ and $\partial a'$. Linearity allows general products of arbitrary elements to be constructed. The generalized curvature two-form can now be defined as ${\cal{F}} = dw + w\odot w,$ from which a Lagrangian can be constructed from the norm square via the scalar product on the algebra of differential forms and the trace on the space of $2\times 2$ matrices $${\cal{L}} = ||{\cal{F}} ||^{2} = Tr <{\overline{\cal{F}}}, {\cal{F}} >
\;\; .$$ The result is a Lagrangian consisting of field strength tensors corresponding to the fields $A$ and $B$ and a Higgs potential in a symmetry breaking form. This procedure follows also in the case that $A$ and $B$ are Lie algebra valued, in which case the $2\times 2$ matrix connection is made of $n\times n$ blocks, in general.
An alternate approach, recently investigated by Balakrishna, Gürsey and Wali \[2\], which is closer to the original Kaluza-Klein idea, is to extend space-time by finite matrices. The extension on the algebra of smooth functions of space-time, $C$, is an associative but noncommutative algebra ${\cal{A}} = C\otimes M_{n}$, where $M_{n}$ is the algebra of $n\times n$ matrices, with the generalized Gell-Mann matrices $\lambda_{a} , a = 1,2,....,n^{2}-1$ as a hermitian basis. In analogy to $dx^{\mu}$’s which constitute a basis set on the space of one-forms on space-time, anticommuting and anti-hermitian objects, $\Theta_{a}$’s $a=1,2,....,n^{2}-1$, are introduced. An exterior algebra can then be defined $$M_{n}^{*} = M_{n}^{0}\oplus M_{n}^{1}\oplus ......M_{n}^{n^{2}-1} \;\;
,$$ where $M_{n}^{p}$ consists of objects of the form $$F_{a_{1}....a_{p}}\Theta_{a_{1}} ....\Theta_{a_{p}} =
(f_{a_{1}....a_{p} 0}\lambda_{0} + f_{a_{1}....a_{p}
a}\lambda_{a})\Theta_{a_{1}}.... \Theta_{a_{p}} \;\; ,$$ with $f_{a_{1}....a_{p}}$ scalar functions on space-time. Writing the exterior algebra of forms on space-time as $C^{*}$, the exterior algebra associated with $\cal{A}$ follows from the tensor product $ {\cal{A}}^{*} = C^{*}\otimes M_{n}^{*} \;\; , $ with the space of generalized $p$ forms appearing as $${\cal{A}}^{p} = \sum_{k=0}^{p} C^{k}\otimes M_{n}^{p-k} \;\; ,$$ where $C^{k}$ and $M_{n}^{l}$ vanish for $k >4$ and $l>n^{2}-1$ respectively. Higgs fields now appear as space-time scalar coefficients of the $\Theta_{a}$’s and gauge fields as coefficients of $dx^{\mu}$’s, as usual, thus introducing Higgs fields at the level of gauge fields.
A differential operator associated with $M_{n}^{*}$ can be derived from a consideration of an automorphism on $M_{n}$. A BRST like operator, $Q$, can then be constructed whose particular form is dependant on the choice of automorphism. The generalized differential operator, then, has the form $D = d + Q ,$ with the connection one-form written as $w = A + \Phi ,$ $A$ being the gauge one form and $\Phi$ the Higgs field, which has the form $\Phi = g\Phi_{a} \Theta_{a},$ where $g$ is the coupling constant. The generalized curvature two-form then appears as $F = Dw + w^{2},$ from which a Lagrangian can be constructed by considering the scalar product on mixed forms $${\cal{L}} = {1\over {2g^{2}}}Tr(F_{ij}F^{ij}) \;\; .$$ summed over the full range. These components are rescaled so as to adjust the kinetic terms. The result is a Yang-Mills Lagrangian with a Higgs potential in a symmetry breaking form. The choice of automorphism on $M_{n}$ can allow for greater subtlety in the symmetry breaking pattern.
The Model
=========
In order to describe an $SU(2)_{L}\otimes SU(2)_{R}\otimes U(1)$ model we will describe the generalized connection by a $2\times 2$ matrix consisting of $2\times 2$ matrix elements, $$w =
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\;\;{\bf{A}}_{L} \;\;\;\;\;\; ig\mu^{-1}\phi \\
ig\mu^{-1}{\overline{\phi}} \;\;\;\; {\bf{A}}_{R} \;\;
\end{array}
\right )
\label{matrix}
\;\; ,$$ where ${\bf{A}}_{L}$ and ${\bf{A}}_{R}$ are anti-hermitian, ${\bf{A}}_{LR} = A_{LR} + \Phi_{LR}$ and $\mu$ is a mass parameter. So that we will obtain the algebra $Lie[S(U(2)\otimes U(2)\otimes U(1))]$ we impose $Str (w)=0= tr{\bf{A}}_{L} -tr\bf{A}_{R}$. In that case the matrix, obtained by charge conjugating the right hand part, $$\begin{aligned}
\left (
\begin{array}{ll}
\;\; {\bf{A}}_{L} \;\;\;\;\;\; 0 \;\; \\
\;\;\; 0 \;\;\;\; -{\bf{A}}_{R} \;\;
\end{array}
\right )
\in Lie[S(U(2)\otimes U(2)\otimes U(1))] \;\; \nonumber \\
\subset Lie[SU(4)] \;\; . \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\end{aligned}$$ We can therefore decompose the traceless anti-hermitian $4\times 4$ matrix (3.2) with respect to this $SU(4)$ embedding. Consequently, the generalized connection (\[matrix\]) can be rewritten as: $$w= g
\left (
\begin{array}{ll}
1/2(-iC_{L}+\Phi_{L}-iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}})
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; i\mu^{-1}\phi \;\; \\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\; i\mu^{-1}\overline{\phi} \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
1/2(iC_{R}-\Phi_{R}-iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}}) \;\;
\end{array}
\right )$$ where $-iC_{L}+\Phi_{L}-iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}}$, say, describes the extended connection on one copy of extended space-time, with the normalization of the $SU(4)$ algebra given as $Tr(\Lambda^{\alpha} \Lambda^{\beta})
= 2\delta^{\alpha\beta}$ for $SU(4)$ matrices $\Lambda^{\alpha}$. In particular $$\begin{aligned}
A_{L,R}= -igA_{\mu L,R} dx^{\mu} &=& -ig{1\over
2}(B_{\mu}(x)\tau_{0}/{\sqrt{2}} +
C_{\mu L,R a}\tau_{a}) dx^{\mu} \;\; ,
\nonumber \\
\Phi_{L,R} = g\Phi_{L,R a}\Theta_{a} &=& g{1\over
2}(\Phi_{0 a}(x)\tau_{0}/{\sqrt{2}} + \Phi_{L,R a b}
\tau_{b})\Theta_{a} \;\; ,
\label{diffstruc}\end{aligned}$$ where we have the natural choice of automorphism: $$\begin{aligned}
e^{i\alpha_{b}\tau_{b}} \tau_{a} e^{-i\alpha_{c}\tau_{c}}
&=& \tau_{a} + i [\alpha_{b}\tau_{b} , \tau_{a}] + ......
\nonumber \\
&=& \tau_{a} + d\tau_{a} \,\, ;\end{aligned}$$ i.e. the inner automorphism. This leads to a derivation $E_{a}$ that acts on elements of $M_{2}$ \[2\], $$E_{a}(F) = {m\over 2} [ \tau_{a} , F] \;\; ,$$ where $F\in M_{2}$ and $m$ is a mass scale. Note that a unique coupling constant has been used, which is consistent with the construction of a single, generalized, connection. The symmetry breaking scales will then be separated by the mass scales associated with each Higgs sector. In order to proceed we must construct an exterior derivative consistent with our generalized structure. On each copy of extended space-time we have the exterior derivative $D = d + Q$ where $Q$ is the BRST like operator given by $$Q = \Theta_{a} E_{a} - {im\over
2}\epsilon_{abc}\Theta_{a}\Theta_{b} {\partial \big/
\partial\Theta_{c}} \;\; ,$$ with $Q^{2}=0$ and $d$ is the normal exterior derivative on space-time. Note that $dx^{\mu}$’s and $\Theta$’s anticommute ensuring that $D^{2}=0$. The exterior derivative corresponding to the connection (\[matrix\]), $\cal{D}$, will be an operator on $2\times 2$ matrices with generalized differential form coefficients. For an arbitrary matrix we have $${\cal {D}}
\left (
\begin{array}{ll}
\;\; A \;\;\; C \;\; \\
\;\; E \;\;\; B \;\;
\end{array}
\right )
= i[\eta_{\gamma},
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\;\; A \;\;\; 0 \;\; \\
\;\; 0 \;\;\; B \;\;
\end{array}
\right )
] + i\{ \eta_{\gamma},
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\;\; 0 \;\;\; C \;\; \\
\;\; E \;\;\; 0 \;\;
\end{array}
\right )
\} +
\left (
\begin{array}{rr}
\; DA \;\; -DC \; \\
-DE \;\;\; DB \;
\end{array}
\right )
\;\; ,$$ which is a direct generalization of the result of Coquereaux, Esposito-Farese and Vaillant \[5\], eqn (2.3). The curvature 2-form is then defined as ${\cal {F}} = {\cal {D}} w + w\odot w ,$ where the product $\odot$ follows from (\[product\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\left (
\begin{array}{ll}
\;\; A \;\;\; C \;\; \\
\;\; D \;\;\; B \;\;
\end{array}
\right )
\odot
\left (
\begin{array}{rr}
\;\; A' \;\;\; C' \;\; \\
\;\; D' \;\;\; B' \;\;
\end{array}
\right ) \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
=
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\;\; A\wedge A' - C\wedge D' \;\;\;\; C\wedge B' - A\wedge C' \;\; \\
\;\; D\wedge A' - B\wedge D' \;\;\;\; B\wedge B' - D\wedge C'
\end{array}
\right ) \;\; ,\end{aligned}$$ for generalized forms of $Z_{2}$ parity 1. We get $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D} w = g
\left (
\begin{array}{ll}
\;\; D({1\over 2}\{ -iC_{L}-iB/{\sqrt{2}}
+\Phi_{L} + \Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}}\} ) -\mu^{-1}(e^{-i\gamma}
{\overline{\phi}} + \phi e^{i\gamma})
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \\
\;\; -d(i\mu^{-1}{\overline{\phi}}) +
{1\over 2} (e^{i\gamma}(C_{L}+i\Phi_{L})
+ (C_{R}+i\Phi_{R})e^{i\gamma})
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\end{array}
\right .
\nonumber \\
\left .
\begin{array}{rr}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
-d(i\mu^{-1}{\phi}
) +{1\over 2}
((-C_{L} -i\Phi_{L})e^{-i\gamma}+ e^{-i\gamma}(-C_{R} -i\Phi_{R}))
\;\; \\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
D({1 \over 2}\{iC_{R}-iB/{\sqrt{2}}-\Phi_{R} +\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}}\} ) -
\mu^{-1}(e^{i\gamma}\phi +
{\overline{\phi}}e^{-i\gamma}) \;\;
\end{array}
\right ) \nonumber \;\;\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
w\odot w = g^{2}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\nonumber \\
\left (
\begin{array}{ll}
\;\;{1\over 4}
(-iC_{L}+\Phi_{L}-iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}})\wedge
(-iC_{L}+\Phi_{L}-iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}})-
\mu^{-2} \phi{\overline{\phi}}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \\
\;\; {i\mu^{-1}\over 2}
({\overline{\phi}} [-iC_{L}+\Phi_{L}-iB/{\sqrt{2}}
+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}}] -
[iC_{R}-\Phi_{R} -iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}}]{\overline{\phi}})
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\end{array}
\right .
\nonumber \\
\left .
\begin{array}{rr}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
{i\mu^{-1}\over 2}
(\phi [iC_{R}-\Phi_{R} -iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}}] -
[-iC_{L}+\Phi_{L}-iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}}]\phi) \;\; \\
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
{1\over 4}(iC_{R}-\Phi_{R} -iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}})
\wedge (iC_{R}-\Phi_{R} -iB/{\sqrt{2}}+\Phi_{0}/{\sqrt{2}})
-\mu^{-2}{\overline{\phi}}\phi \;\;
\end{array}
\right ) \nonumber \;\;\end{aligned}$$ where $e^{i\gamma}$ belongs to $SU(2)_{L}$ and $SU(2)_{R}$. This defines the components of the matrix field strength tensor $${\cal F} =
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\;\; {\cal F}_{11} \;\;\;\; {\cal F}_{12} \;\; \\
\;\; {\cal F}_{21} \;\;\;\; {\cal F}_{22} \;\;
\end{array}
\right ) \;\; .$$
We can now construct the Lagrangian by using the scalar product on the algebra of differential forms and the trace on the space of $2 \times
2$ matrices. This scalar product is on the extended differential structure described by (\[diffstruc\]), which is taken to be zero between forms of different, generalized, order, including zero forms. Furthermore, the mass parameter $\mu$ is inserted in the relevant places in order to keep the dimensions correct \[5\]. We use $\mu$, rather than $m$, since $1/\mu$ describes the constant distance separating our two parallel universes, resulting in a $Z_{2}$, left$\leftrightarrow$right, symmetry. Note that use has been made of the abelian nature of $B$ and $\Phi_{0}$ and the shift \[2\] $ \Phi_{LR} \rightarrow \Phi_{LR} -(m/2)\tau_{a}\Theta_{a} $, has been performed in order to remove the nonhomogenous part of the gauge transformation on each copy of space-time. The Lagrangian takes the form $${\cal{L}} = {1\over 2g^{2}}|| {\cal{F}} ||^{2} =
{1\over 2g^{2}}( || {\cal{F}}_{11} ||^{2} + || {\cal{F}}_{12} ||^{2} +
|| {\cal{F}}_{21} ||^{2} + || {\cal{F}}_{22} ||^{2}) \;\; ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{1\over 2g^{2}}|| {\cal{F}}_{11} ||^{2}
=-{1\over 8} Tr(F_{\mu\nu L}F^{\mu\nu}_{L}) +
Tr(D_{\mu}(\Phi_{La})D^{\mu}(\Phi_{La}))-V_{L} \nonumber \\
+{1\over 2}Tr(\mu(e^{i\gamma}\phi + {\overline{\phi}} e^{-i\gamma})
+ g\phi
{\overline{\phi}})^{2}, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\
{1\over 2g^{2}}|| {\cal{F}}_{12} ||^{2}
={1\over 2}Tr \{ ({\overline{\nabla_{\mu} \phi}}
-{\mu\over 2}(e^{i\gamma}\Phi_{La} + \Phi_{Ra}e^{i\gamma}) -
{g\over 2}({\overline{\phi}}\Phi_{La} +
\Phi_{Ra}{\overline{\phi}})) \;\; , \nonumber \\
( {\nabla_{\mu} \phi}
+{\mu\over 2}
(\Phi_{La}e^{-i\gamma} + e^{-i\gamma}\Phi_{Ra}) + {g\over 2}
(\Phi_{La}\phi +
\phi\Phi_{Ra})) \} \nonumber \\
{1\over 2g^{2}}|| {\cal{F}}_{21} ||^{2}
= {1\over 2}Tr \{ ({\overline{\nabla_{\mu} \phi}}
-{\mu\over 2}(e^{i\gamma}\Phi_{La} + \Phi_{Ra}e^{i\gamma}) -
{g\over 2}({\overline{\phi}}\Phi_{La} +
\Phi_{Ra}{\overline{\phi}})) \;\; , \nonumber \\
( {\nabla_{\mu} \phi}
+{\mu\over 2}
(\Phi_{La}e^{-i\gamma} + e^{-i\gamma}\Phi_{Ra}) + {g\over 2}
(\Phi_{La}\phi +
\phi\Phi_{Ra})) \} \nonumber \\
{1\over 2g^{2}}|| {\cal{F}}_{22} ||^{2}
=-{1\over 8} Tr(F_{\mu\nu R}F^{\mu\nu}_{R}) +
Tr(D_{\mu}(\Phi_{Ra})D^{\mu}(\Phi_{Ra}))-V_{R} \nonumber \\
+{1\over 2}Tr(\mu(e^{i\gamma}\phi + {\overline{\phi}} e^{-i\gamma}) + g
\phi
{\overline{\phi}})^{2}, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\mu}\phi = \partial_{\mu}\phi -
{i\mu\over 2}C_{\mu L} e^{-i\gamma}
-{i\mu\over 2}
e^{-i\gamma} C_{\mu R} -{gi\over 2}
C_{\mu L}\phi -{gi\over 2}\phi C_{\mu R} \;\; ,
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\
\nabla_{\mu} {\overline{\phi}} = {\overline{\nabla_{\mu}\phi}} \;\; ,
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\
-igF_{\mu\nu L} =-ig[
(\partial_{\mu} C_{\nu L} -\partial_{\nu} C_{\mu L} -ig
[ C_{\mu L}, C_{\nu L} ]) +
{1/{\sqrt{2}}}(\partial_{\mu} B_{\nu}
+ \partial_{\nu} B_{\mu})] ,
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\
-igF_{\mu\nu R} =-ig[
(\partial_{\nu} C_{\mu R} -\partial_{\mu} C_{\nu R} -ig
[ C_{\mu R}, C_{\nu R} ]) +
{1/{\sqrt{2}}}(\partial_{\mu} B_{\nu}
+ \partial_{\nu} B_{\mu})] ,
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\
gD_{\mu} \Phi_{L a} = g(\partial_{\mu} {\Phi_{a} /{\sqrt{2}}} +
\partial_{\mu}\Phi_{L a} -ig [ C_{\mu L},
\Phi_{L a} ]) \;\; , \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\
V_{L} = 1/8 Tr \{ ( m\epsilon_{abc}(\Phi_{0c}/{\sqrt{2}} + \Phi_{Lc})
+ig[\Phi_{L a}, \Phi_{L
b}])(m\epsilon_{abd}(\Phi_{0d}/{\sqrt{2}} + \Phi_{Ld})
+ ig[\Phi_{L a}, \Phi_{L b} ]) \}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{R}$ and $D_{\mu} \Phi_{R}$ can be obtained by substituting $-\Phi_{R}$ for $\Phi_{L}$. We can avoid cancellation of phases in the Lagrangian by writing $C_{\mu R} e^{-i\gamma}$ and $\Phi_{Ra} e^{-i\gamma}$. The generalized connections on each copy of space-time, ${\bf{A}}_{LR}$, can be rescaled by introducing a factor of $i$ so that this structure, represented in (\[matrix\]), will be hermitian. Furthermore, we could rescale the field strength components, as done by Balakrishna et al. \[2\], so as to adjust the kinetic terms.
Unlike in the $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ model considered by Coquereaux et al.\[5\] , we are not compelled to have a line and row of zeros in our $2\times 2$ matrix connection (\[matrix\]). This arises in their model from their choice of form for the Higgs field, $\phi$, connected with the embedding $ Lie[S(U(2)\otimes U(1))] \subset Lie[SU(3)] $. In this regard, our embedding in $SU(4)$ and consideration of a left$\leftrightarrow$right symmetry has made more efficient use of this approach. This then implies that the Higgs field $\phi$ will take the form $$\phi =
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\;\phi_{1}^{0} \;\;\;\; \phi_{1}^{+} \\
\; \phi_{2}^{-} \;\;\;\; \phi_{2}^{0}
\end{array}
\right ) \;\; ,$$ so filling the whole matrix connection. Such a bidoublet field transforms under left and right gauge transformations as $ \phi \rightarrow U_{L}^{\dagger}\phi U_{R} ,$ i.e. it is connected to both sectors, an observation which is consistent with our geometrical approach and the role of the field $\phi$ in connecting the two space-times. Being in the form of a generalized standard model Higgs field, this field will be associated with electroweak symmetry breaking, leaving strong breaking of the left and/or right sector to $\Phi_{L}$ and/or $\Phi_{R}$. For our particular choice of automorphism on the algebra $M_{2}$, $\Phi_{L}$ and $\Phi_{R}$ transform as $SU(2)$ triplets with zero $U(1)$ charge. Consequently, no mixing occurs at the first stage of symmetry breaking. We note that the mass correction can be written as $$\mu \rightarrow M =
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\; \mu \;\;\;\; 0 \; \\
\; 0 \;\;\;\; \mu \;
\end{array}
\right ) \;\; ,$$ which is a more natural form than that which appears in the $SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ approach \[5\], where it takes the form $$M =
\left (
\begin{array}{cc}
\;\; \mu \;\;\;\; 0 \; \\
\;\; 0 \;\;\;\; 0 \;
\end{array}
\right )$$ which, again, is connected with the choice of form of the Higgs field $\phi$.
Symmetry breaking patterns for models of the form $SU(2)_{L}\otimes SU(2)_{R}\otimes U(1)$ have been thoughourly investigated in the literature \[6\]. We note in our model that a more subtle symmetry breaking scheme can be imposed at the beginning via the choice of automorphism on $M_{2}$. It is found, in models incorporating the approach of Balakrishna et.al. \[2\] , that those generators which survive symmetry breaking satisfy $D(\lambda_{a})=0 \;\; $. Thus, to ensure mixing between $SU(2)_{R}$ and $U(1)$, say, upon symmetry breaking, we could follow this approach and assume the existence of an exterior derivative which satisfies $D(\tau_{0} + \tau_{3}) = 0 \;\;$. This then requires a more involved automorphism structure on $M_{2}$, making use of an inner automorphism on $M_{3}$ \[2\]. In the basis of $U$ and $V$ spins this automorphism takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
e^{i\alpha_{b} U_{b}} \tau_{a} e^{-i\alpha_{c} U_{c}}
&=& \tau_{a} +i[\alpha_{b} U_{b}, \tau_{a} ] + .......
\nonumber \\
&=& \tau_{a} + d\tau_{a}\end{aligned}$$ where the $\tau_{a}$’s are identified with the $I$ spin matrices. We can embed this into the $Z_{2}$ graded algebra by making use of the decomposition $$Lie[SU(6)] \supset Lie[S(U(3)\otimes U(3) \otimes U(1))] \;\; ,$$ noting that the model is concerned with the algebra $M_{2}$ and not $M_{3}$ on each copy of space-time. In this respect the approach to the embedding is different to the previous example, the $U$ and $V$ basis is chosen for convenience only. We identify $\tau_{0}$ with ${1/\sqrt{3}}(\lambda_{8} +
2\Lambda_{0, (6\times 6)})$ ($-\lambda_{8}$ for the right sector), where $\Lambda_{0, (6\times 6)}$ appears in the decomposition of $Lie[SU(6)]$ as $${1/{\sqrt{3}}}\; diag (1,1,1,-1,-1,-1)
\;\; .$$ It is a nice feature that the normalization factors on the diagonal generators are consistent. The elements of the generalized gauge connection on each copy of space-time take the form \[2\] $$\begin{aligned}
A_{LR} = -ig{1/2} ( B_{\mu} \tau_{0} + C_{\mu LR a} \tau_{a} ) dx^{\mu}
\;\; , \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \nonumber \\
H_{LR} = H_{+ LR} V_{+} + H_{0 LR} U_{+} \;\; , \;\; \Delta = {1/2}
(\Delta_{0} \tau_{0} + \Delta_{a LR} \tau_{a} ) \;\; ,\end{aligned}$$ where $H$, $\Delta_{0}$ and $\Delta_{a}$ constitute the Higgs fields transforming as a doublet, with $U(1)$ charge 1, and a singlet and triplet, with $U(1)$ charge zero, under $SU(2)$ respectively. These quantum numbers follow from the decomposition of the adjoint of $SU(3)$ under $SU(3) \supset
SU(2)\otimes U(1)$, $${\underline{8}} = {\underline{1}}(0) + {\underline{2}}(1) +
{\underline{2}}(-1)+ {\underline{3}}(0) \;\; ,$$ where the eigenvalues of the $U(1)$ generator are suitably normalized. We note that doublet Higgs fields with unit $U(1)$ charge constitute a candidate set for symmetry breaking in left$\leftrightarrow$right symmetric models \[6,7\]. The triplet Higgs provides for an additional large mass scale to be introduced. Elements associated with $\tau_{0}$ do not carry $L,R$ indices so as to maintain $Str(w)=0$.
It appears now that we will no longer fill the matrix connection by use of a bidoublet Higgs field taking values in the algebra $M_{2}$ . However, this is an artefact of the choice of automorphism. That this approach does make maximal use of the gauge connection is more transparent in the previous example. We see from the expressions (3.13) that the bidoublet Higgs field carries zero $U(1)$ charge, just as we require.
We can predict a value for the Weinberg angle by noting that we employ only one coupling constant. The form of the mass eigenstate corresponding to the photon can be parameterized in terms of $\theta_{W}$ as $$P = \sin{\theta_{W}} (C^{3}_{L} + C^{3}_{R}) +
B(\cos{2\theta_{W}})^{1/2}
\;\; .$$ Ignoring mixing between the left and right sectors, the first stage of symmetry breaking will result in a $45^{o}$ mixing angle. Making use of the above parameterization, this implies the result $${\sin}^{2} {\theta_{W}} = 1/3 \;\; .$$ It is interesting that this falls between the classical predictions given by Coquereaux et al., $1/4$, \[5\] and Balakrishna et al., $1/2$ \[2\]. If we choose the mass scale defined by the triplet Higgs to correspond to the gauge coupling unification scale we can modify this result by considering the evolution of the coupling constants to the electroweak scale. We note that in left$\leftrightarrow$right symmetric G.U.T. models a scale of $10^{12}$ Gev provides a lower limit to avoid the domain wall problem. Evolving from this scale, taking an intermediate left$\leftrightarrow$right symmetric breaking scale of $10^{6}$ Gev, corresponding to a light $M_{W_{R}}$ model, we get ${\sin}^{2} {\theta_{W}} = 0.23$. We find that evolving from the Planck scale will not produce a reasonable result. This is not unexpected as an intermediate mass scale would be expected before the G.U.T. scale in a true grand unified left$\leftrightarrow$right symmetric model.
Extending the model of Balakrishna et al. \[2\] to include fermions via supersymmetry drastically changes the results in the bosonic sector \[8\]. In particular, those fields responsible for the Higgs potential are excluded from the Lagrangian. The addition of fermions in the model of Coquereaux et al. \[5\] presents less of a challenge. It seems then that an interesting extension to our model would be an investigation on the fermionic sector and if it allows for this extension in a natural way.
An interesting point which is raised by this approach is the homogeneity of forms appearing in the generalized connection (\[connect\]) \[2\]. It has been pointed out that such matrices define the supergroup $U(n/n)$, for $A$ and $B$ $n\times n$ matrices \[9\]. This allows the differential of two points to be treated as the differential in a Grassmannian direction. Taking points of the form $(x_{\mu}, \theta)$ one then writes $A(x,\delta \theta) = \phi d\theta . $ This opens the possibility that all Higgs fields in our model can be associated with anticommuting Grassman coordinates, which are not necessarily identified. In this way the homogeneity of forms in the connection (\[connect\]) could be preserved.
CONCLUSION
==========
We have shown that by allowing the gauge field elements in the $2\times 2$ matrix connection to be described by the noncommutative algebra of forms, that the bosonic sector of $SU(2)\otimes SU(2)\otimes U(1)$ models can be reproduced which incorporates an extended Higgs sector necessary to produce parity violating minima. Furthermore, the symmetry breaking scheme can be adjusted within this geometrical approach so as to fine tune the model. Without the additional Higgs fields provided by the extended algebra of forms on each copy of space-time, such a left$\leftrightarrow$right symmetric model could not be considered. By including such fields, full use can be made of the $2\times 2$ matrix connection allowing the $Z_{2}$ graded symmetry provided by such a model to be utilized. The form of the Higgs potential is such that many gauge invariant terms do not appear, thus reducing the complexity of the most general models. That Higgs fields may be intimately connected with Grassmannian coordinates provides a possible avenue for further investigation into such unified geometrical approaches.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
================
The authors would like to thank J. Choi for helpful discussions. Also, B.E.H would like to acknowledge the support of the Australian Postgraduate Research Program.
Forgacs P. and Manton N. S. [*Comm. Math. Phys.* ]{} [**72**]{}, 15 (1980); Chapline G. and Slansky R. [ *Nuc. Phys. B*]{} [**209**]{}, 461 (1982); Manton N. S. [*Nuc. Phys. B*]{} [**193**]{}, 502 (1981); Chapline G. and Manton N. S. [*Nuc. Phys. B*]{} [**184**]{}, 591 (1981). Balakrishna B. S., Gürsey F. and Wali K. C., , 3313 (1991); ibid, [ *Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**254**]{}, 430 (1991). See also Dubois-Violette M., Kerner R. and Madore J., [*Class. and Quant. Grav.* ]{} [**6**]{}, 1709 (1989); ibid, [*J. Math. Phys.* ]{} [**31**]{}, 323 (1990). Connes A. in [*The Interface of Mathematics and Particle Physics*]{}, Edited by D. Quillen, G. Segal and S. Tsou (Oxford University Press, 1990). Connes A. and Lott J., [*Nuc. Phys. B (proc. suppl.)*]{} [**18**]{}, 29 (1990). Coquereaux R., Esposito-Farese G. and Vaillant G. [*Nuc. Phys. B*]{} [**353**]{}, 689 (1991). See for example Pati J. and Salam A., [ *Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**10**]{}, 275 (1974); Mohapatra R. and Pati J., [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**11**]{}, 566 (1975); Senjanovic G. and Mohapatra R., [ *Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**12**]{}, 1502 (1975); Mohapatra R. and Sidhu D., [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.* ]{} [**38**]{}, 667 (1977); Mohapatra R. and Senjanovic G., , 912 (1980) and Gunion J. F., Grifols J., Mendez A., Kayser B. and Olness F. [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**40**]{}, 1546 (1989). Choi J. and Volkas R. R., [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**45**]{}, 4261 (1992). Balakrishna B. S., Gürsey F., Nguyen Ai Viet and Wali K. C., Syracuse University preprint SU-4240-501 (1992). Hussain F. and Thompson G., [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**260**]{}, 359 (1991).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The manipulation of many-body systems often involves time-dependent forces that cause unwanted heating. One strategy to suppress heating is to use time-periodic (Floquet) forces at large frequencies. In particular, for quantum spin systems with bounded spectra, it was shown rigorously that the heating rate is exponentially small in the driving frequency. Recently, the exponential suppression of heating has also been observed in an experiment with ultracold atoms, realizing a periodically driven Bose-Hubbard model. This model has an unbounded spectrum and, hence, is beyond the reach of previous theoretical approaches. Here, we develop a semiclassical description of Floquet prethermal states and link the suppressed heating rate to the low probability of finding many particles on a single site. We derive an analytic expression for the exponential suppression of heating valid at strong interactions and large temperatures, which matches the exact numerical solution of the model. Our approach demonstrates the relevance of statistical arguments to Floquet perthermalization of interacting many-body quantum systems.'
author:
- 'Emanuele G. Dalla Torre'
title: 'Statistical Floquet prethermalization of the Bose-Hubbard model'
---
The study of periodically driven systems has a long history, tracing back to the work of Floquet in 1883 [@floquet1883equations]. In the Floquet theory, the system is described by a time-independent unitary matrix, $U_F$, which captures the evolution over one period $\tau$. Floquet theory can be used to solve classical systems only if they are governed by linear equations of motion. Remarkably, because the time evolution of quantum systems is determined by a linear equation (namely, the Schröedinger equation), this theory can be used to study any quantum system, even in the presence of interactions. The practical applicability of Floquet theory is hindered by the fact that finding $U_F$, and diagonalizing it, is generically very difficult. This difficulty is especially acute for many-body quantum systems, where the size of $U_F$ grows exponentially with the number of degrees of freedom. At large driving frequencies, $U_F$ can be derived using a controlled analytical approximation, the Magnus expansion [@magnus1954exponential]. The first term of this expansion is $U_F\approx e^{-i H_{\rm av} \tau}$, where $H_{\rm av}$ is the time-averaged Hamiltonian. The other terms are integrals of commutation relations of the Hamiltonian at different times [^1].
Using the Magnus expansion, Refs. [@abanin2015exponentially; @mori2016rigorous; @abanin2017rigorous; @abanin2017effective; @mori2017thermalization] were able to obtain [*rigorous*]{} constraints on the time evolution of periodically driven quantum many-body systems. These rigorous theorems apply to quantum spin systems that satisfy a local norm bound: their Hamiltonians consist of sums of local operators whose matrix elements are smaller than a given energy scale $J$. For these systems, the heating rate $\Phi$ was shown to be exponential suppressed at large driving frequencies $\Omega=2\pi/\tau$, according to $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi < \frac{A J}{\hbar} \exp\left( - \frac{ \hbar\Omega}{B J}\right),\label{eq:rigorous}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hbar$ is the Plank’s constant, $A$ and $B$ are unitless constant. This exponential suppression was observed theoretically in a wide range of theoretical models [@weidinger2017floquet; @else2017prethermal; @machado2019exponentially; @mallayya2019heating] and in an experiment with dipolar spin chains [@peng2019observation].
The rigorous bound of Eq. (\[eq:rigorous\]) can be understood using a perturbative argument [@abanin2015exponentially]: Due to the local norm bound, a single application of the driving field can change the energy of the system by $J$, at most. On the other hand, the absorption of a quantum of energy from the pump injects energy $\hbar \Omega$. Hence, the absorption of energy from the pump requires the product of $n=\hbar \Omega/J$ operators and is governed by the $n$th order perturbation theory. Refs. [@mori2016rigorous; @abanin2017rigorous; @abanin2017effective; @mori2017thermalization] used the Magnus expansion to extend this argument and demonstrate that Eq. (\[eq:rigorous\]) is a rigorous bound, valid to all orders. Interestingly, in the limit of $\hbar\to0$, this bound applies to classical systems with a bounded spectrum .
Many physical systems escape the regime of validity of the aforementioned rigorous bounds. For example, a massive particle with momentum $p$ has a kinetic energy $p^2/2m$ that is unbounded from above. Ref. [@rajak2018stability] demonstrated that systems of interacting particles can, nevertheless, show an exponential suppression of heating. They considered a canonical model of coupled kicked rotors [@kaneko89diffusion; @konishi90diffusion; @chirikov97arnold; @mulansky11strong] and showed that, for appropriate initial conditions, the system shows an exponentially long-lived prethermal plateau with vanishing energy absorption. This effect was explain in Ref. [@rajak2019characterizations] using the following statistical argument: At large driving frequencies, the heating rate is small and the time-averaged energy of the system is (quasi) conserved. In this case, the system can be approximated by the Boltzmann distribution function $$\begin{aligned}
P = Z \exp\left(-\frac{H_{\rm av}}{k_B T}\right),\label{eq:Boltzmann}\end{aligned}$$ where $Z$ is the partition function, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $T$ is the instantaneous temperature of the prethermal state, measured with respect to the average Hamiltonian $H_{\rm av}$. In the presence of other conserved quantities, such as the total momentum (or the total number of particles), the appropriate Lagrange multipliers need to be taken into account. The heating rate can, then, be estimated by the probability to incur into a many-body resonance [@chirikov79universal]. Under physical assumptions, this probability is exponentially small, leading to a [*statistical*]{} Floquet prethermalization [@rajak2019characterizations].
Having introduced the concepts of rigorous and statistical Floquet prethermalization, we now move to the focus of this manuscript, namely the periodically driven Bose-Hubbard model, described by $$\begin{aligned}
H(t) = \frac{U}2 \sum_i n_i^2 - J(t) \sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}\left(b^\dagger_i b_{j} + H.c\right), \label{eq:BHM}\end{aligned}$$ with $J(t)=J_0 + \delta J \cos(\Omega t)$. Here, $b_i$ and $b^\dagger_i$ are canonical bosonic operators, $n_i=b_i^\dagger b_i$ is the number of particles on site $i$ and $\langle i,j\rangle$ are nearest neighbors. The $U$ term describes onsite repulsion and the $J$ term hopping. Importantly, the $U$ term is unbounded from above, making the rigorous bounds of Ref. [@abanin2015exponentially; @mori2016rigorous; @abanin2017rigorous; @abanin2017effective; @mori2017thermalization] unapplicable. The Hamiltonian of Eq. (\[eq:BHM\]) conserves the total number of particles in the system, $N=\sum_i n_i$. This model was recently realized in an experiment with ultracold atoms, where the time-dependent drive was induced by modulations of the laser fields that generate the optical lattice [@rubio2020floquet] [^2].
Floquet prethermalization in the Bose-Hubbard model had been studied theoretically in Ref. [@bukov2015prethermal] using a self-consistent quadratic approximation. This work employed the concept of many-body parametric resonance [@citro2015dynamical] to predict the existence of a frequency threshold above which the system does not absorb energy. However, in practice, terms that are neglected in the quadratic approximation lead to finite heating rates at all frequencies. Ref. [@abanin2015exponentially] predicted that at large driving frequency, the heating rate should be rigorously bounded by a stretched exponential [^3]. In the limit of an infinite number of paritcles per site, the model can be mapped to a system of classical rotors, where the heating rate is exponential suppressed [@rajak2019characterizations].
Recently, the heating rate of the Bose-Hubbard model with one particle per site was studied by Ref. [@rubio2020floquet] using three methods: (i) the numerical calculation of the linear response of the model; (ii) the experimental measurement of single-site excitations (doublons or holes); (iii) the experimental measurement of the system’s temperature. The experiments were performed in both one and two dimensions and were limited to relatively short times. Their findings demonstrated that the heating rate is exponentially suppressed as a function of $\Omega$ in all dimensions. As explained, this finding cannot be accounted by the available theoretical methods.
In this manuscript, we work in the framework of statistical Floquet prethermalization and develop a semiclassical model that captures the exponential suppression of heating at strong interactions ($U\gg J$) and large temperatures ($T\gg J$). Following Ref. [@rajak2019characterizations], we need to, first, identify the many-body resonances of the model. In the regime of large interactions, $U\gg J$, we can describe the system in terms of semiclassical particles hopping on a lattice. The periodic drive moves one particle from one site to a neighboring one. This process changes the value of the on-site interaction by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E & = \frac{U}2\left[(n_i \pm 1)^2+(n_{j} \mp 1)^2\right] - \frac{U}2\left[(n_i)^2+(n_{j})^2\right]\nonumber\\
& = U[\pm (n_i-n_{j}) + 1],\label{eq:deltaE}\end{aligned}$$ where the upper (or lower) sign refers to a particle hopping from site $j$ to site $i$ (or [*vice versa*]{}). A resonance occurs when Eq. (\[eq:deltaE\]) equals to an integer multiple of the frequency of the drive (in units of Schrödinger’s equation constant $\hbar$), or $\Delta E = m \hbar \Omega$, where $m$ is an integer. For high-frequency drives, the heating rate is dominated by the lowest-order available resonance, which here corresponds to $m=\pm 1$. In what follows, we focus on the case where $n_{\Omega} = \hbar{\Omega}/{U}$ is integer and the resonance condition can be exactly matched. Furthermore, without loss of generality, we assume that $n_i>n_j$, such that when a particles moves from $j$ to $i$ (or [*vice versa*]{}) the interaction energy increase (decreases). The resonance condition $\Delta E = \pm \hbar \Omega$ becomes $\pm(n_i-n_j)+1 = \pm n_\Omega$, or equivalently $$\begin{aligned}
n_j = n_i - n_\Omega \pm 1\label{eq:resonance}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the upper (or lower) sign refers to the absorption (or emission) of energy. Intuitively, at large driving frequencies ($n_\Omega \gg 1$), the resonance condition of Eq. (\[eq:resonance\]) can be satisfied only by sites with a large number of particles ($n_i\ge n_\Omega\gg 1$). Because the probability to find these sites is exponentially small, so is the probability to absorb a photon from the cavity, leading to suppressed heating rates. The goal of this manuscript is to put this intuitive argument on solid mathematical ground.
The probability to satisfy the resonance condition of Eq. (\[eq:resonance\]) is determined by $P_{i,j}(n_i,n_j)$, the joint distribution function to find $n_i$ and $n_j$ particles in sites $i$ and $j$, according to $$\begin{aligned}
P_\pm (\Omega)& = \sum_{n} P_{i,j}\left(n,~n - n_\Omega \pm 1\right).
\label{eq:Ppm}\end{aligned}$$ This expression needs to be multiplied by a factor of 2 to take into account the case of $n_i<n_j$. In a $d$ dimensional lattice, we need to further multiply the result by the coordination number $d$ [^4]
Evaluating the distribution function $P_{i,j}(n_i,n_j)$ in a (pre)thermal state described by Eq. (\[eq:Boltzmann\]) is a formidable task in many-body quantum physics. In the present manuscript we are interested in large temperatures $T\gg J$, where we can neglect quantum fluctuations and describe the prethermal state by $$\begin{aligned}
P_{i,j}(n_i,n_j)=P_i(n_i)P_{j}(n_j),\label{eq:Pii1}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
P_i(n) = P_j(n) = Z_0 \exp\left(-\frac{U}{2 k_B T}n^2 - \frac{\mu}{k_B T} n\right).
\label{eq:PiZ}\end{aligned}$$ Here, in addition to the quasi-conservation of the energy in the prethermal state, we took into consideration the conservation of the total number of particles, through the chemical potential $\mu$. The values of $Z_0$ and $\mu$ are determined by the constraints $ \sum_n Z_i (n) = 1$ and $\sum_n n Z_i(n) = \bar{n}$, where $\bar{n}$ is the average number of particles per site (often referred to as filling).
These constraints, along with the numerical solution of Eqs. (\[eq:Ppm\])-(\[eq:PiZ\]) enable us to compute the semiclassical heating rate of the Bose-Hubbard model, $\Phi$. The total heating rate is given by the probability to incur into a resonance ($P_+-P_-$), times the heating rate of an individual resonance. According to the linear response theory, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(\Omega) = (\delta J)^2(P_+ - P_-) \delta(\Omega-\Delta E) ,\label{eq:Phi}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the delta function $\delta(\Omega-\Delta E)$ imposes the relevant resonance condition. For finite $J/U$, this function is broadened by the single-particle bandwidth and can be approximated by a square function of width $4J$, namely $\delta(\omega) =[\Theta(\omega>-2J)-\Theta(\omega>2J)]/(4J)$, where $\Theta$ is the Heaviside function. The heating rates resulting from the numerical solution of our semiclassical approach, Eq. (\[eq:Ppm\])-(\[eq:Phi\]), are shown in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:main\], for different values of the temperature. For clarity, we plotted the function $\Phi$ for integer values of $U/\hbar$ only [^5]. We find that the heating rate is exponentially suppressed for all temperatures and, at large temperatures, inversely proportional to the temperature.
To gain physical insight into this result, we now develop an analytical high-temperature expansion. In the limit of $T\to\infty$, the distribution function is solely determined by the conservation laws and $$\begin{aligned}
P_i(n) = Z_0 \exp\left(-\frac{\mu n}{k_B T}\right) \equiv Z_0 z^n\label{eq:Zi}\end{aligned}$$ with $Z_0 =1-z$ and $z ={\bar{n}}/({1+\bar{n}})$ [^6]. By combining Eqs. (\[eq:Ppm\]) and (\[eq:Zi\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P_+ & = (1-z)^2 \sum_{n=n_\Omega}^\infty z^{2n - n_\Omega + 1} = \frac{1-z}{1+z} z^{\hbar\Omega/U + 1} \label{Pp}\\
P_- & = (1-z)^2 \sum_{n=n_\Omega+1}^\infty z^{2n - n_\Omega - 1} = \frac{1-z}{1+z} z^{\hbar\Omega/U+1}.\label{Pm}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the two sums have different lower limits because $P_+$ can occur only if $n_{j}\ge 1$, while $P_-$ requires only $n_{j}\ge 0$. Because $P_+=P_-$ the net energy absorption is zero, $\Phi=0$. This result is not surprising: infinite temperature ensembles do not absorb energy!
![[**Heating rate of the Bose-Hubbard model at filling $\mathbf{\bar{n}=1}$ for $J/U=0_05$.**]{} Dotted curves: semiclassical approximation based on Eqs. (\[eq:Ppm\]) - (\[eq:PiZ\]) and its high-temperature expansion, Eq. (\[eq:main\]. Continuous curves: exact diagonalization of the Bose-Hubbard model at $J/U=0.02$. At temperatures $T \gtrsim U$, the results of the two approaches coincide.[]{data-label="fig:main"}](ED3_JoU0_05_N9_PBCFalse.pdf)
We can use this result as the starting point of a perturbative analysis. By approximating Eq. (\[eq:PiZ\]) as $ P \approx Z_0 \left(1 - Un^2/(2k_B T)\right) e^{-\mu n}$ [^7] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
P_\pm & = Z_0^2 \sum_{n_i - n_{j} = n_\Omega \pm 1} \left[1-\frac{U}{2k_B T}(n_i^2 + n_{j}^2)\right]z^{n_i} z^{n_{j}},\end{aligned}$$ leading to (see symbolic script in appendix B) $$\begin{aligned}
P_+-P_- = \frac{\hbar\Omega}{k_B T} \frac{1-z}{1+z} z^{\Omega/(\hbar U)+1}.
\label{Ppm_inf}\end{aligned}$$ In particular, at unit filling $\bar{n}=1$ ($z=1/2$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\Phi = \frac{(\delta J)^2\hbar\Omega}{12 J k_B T} \exp\left(-\log(2)\frac{\hbar\Omega}U\right)}\label{eq:main}.\end{aligned}$$ This equation synthesizes our two main results: at large temperatures, the heating rate of the Bose-Hubbard model is an exponential function of the ratio between the driving frequency and the onsite interaction and is inversely proportional to the temperature.
We now compare the results of our semiclassical approximation with the exact diagonalization of the Bose-Hubbard model. At finite temperatures, linear response gives [@rubio2020floquet] $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi =\frac{\delta J^2}{2 L} \sum_{m,n}&\left|\langle\psi_n|V |\psi_m\rangle\right|^2\delta(E_n-E_m-\hbar \Omega)\nonumber\\&\times\frac1Z\left(e^{-E_m/k_B T}-e^{-E_n/k_B T}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Here $|\psi_n\rangle$ and $E_n$ are, respectively, the eigenstates and eigenvalues of the average Hamiltonian $H_{\rm av}$ at filling $\bar{n}=1$ and $V = \sum b^\dagger_i b_{j} + H.c.$ is the time-dependent perturbation. We evaluate this quantity numerically for $N=9$ particles on an open chain with $L=9$ sites, using the QuSpin package [@weinberg2017quspin; @weinberg2019quspin], see appendix C [^8]. In our numerical calculations, we used the above-mentioned square function to broaden the resonances and mitigate the finite dimension of the lattice. Because the maximal number of particles per site is always smaller or equal to the total number of particles $N$, we need to restrict ourselves to frequencies $\Omega$, such that $n_\Omega < N$, or $\hbar\Omega<N U$ [^9]. As shown in the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:main\], for all temperatures $T>U$ the resulting curves precisely match the semiclassical approximation.
At low temperatures, $T<U$, the heating rate is affected by additional [*quantum*]{} resonances. In particular, at driving frequencies $3 U/\hbar$ and $6 U/\hbar$ the heating rate is significantly higher than the one predicted by the semiclassical approximation. These resonances are due to processes that involve the hopping of more than one particles, such as the creation of triplons and quadruplons [@rubio2020floquet]. These processes are classically forbidden because the perturbation $V$ hops a single particle, but can acquire a finite probabilty due to the quantum coherence between states with different occupation numbers. The corresponding heating rate is proportional to high powers of $J/U$ and are, hence, subdominant with respect to the semiclassical processes described by Eq. (\[eq:main\]).
To summarize, in this manuscript we discussed the differences between rigorous [@abanin2015exponentially; @mori2016rigorous; @abanin2017rigorous; @abanin2017effective; @mori2017thermalization] and statistical [@rajak2019characterizations] Floquet prethermalization. The former approach relies on the boundedness of quantum operators and applies to spin models only. See also Ref. [@huveneers2020pre], where it was shown that the rigorous approach applied to systems of interacting particles with an unbounded spectrum does not lead to exponential bounds on diffusion rates. The latter approach relies on the statistical description of the prethermal state and applies to a wider range of models. A key difference between these two approaches is that, while the rigorous approach is independent on the initial state, the statistical approach depends on the initial state, through its (quasi)conserved quantities, such as energy and particles’ number.
Here, we applied the statistical argument to the periodically driven Bose-Hubbard model, which was recently realized experimentally [@rubio2020floquet]. We developed a semiclassical approximation, valid in the regime of strong interactions and large temperatures ($U>k_B T \gg J$), and used it to derive an analytical expression for the heating rate $\Phi$. This expression is found to match the results of the exact diagonalization with no fitting parameter. Importantly, we demonstrated that in this regime, the exponential suppression of the heating does not depend on dimensionality and persists at all temperatures. In this latter aspect, the Bose-Hubbard model differs from the coupled rotors model of Refs. [@kaneko89diffusion; @konishi90diffusion; @chirikov97arnold; @mulansky11strong; @rajak2018stability; @rajak2019characterizations], where the exponential suppression of heating disappears at large temperatures, eventually leading to a runaway from the prethermal regime. This fundamental difference stems from the nature of the conserved quantities of the two models: In the rotor model, the conserved quantity, namely the momentum of the rotors $p_i$, is a continuous variable and can acquire both positive and negative values. At large temperatures, the fluctuations of $p_i$ diverge making the exponential suppression of heating ineffective. In contrast, in the Bose-Hubbard model, the conserved quantity, namely the particles’ number $n_i$, is non-negative. If the expectation value of $n_i$ is kept fixed, the fluctuations of this quantity remain finite and the heating rate is suppressed at all temperatures. The prediction of the two models coincide when the average number of particles per site is taken to infinity.
We thank Jonathan Ruhman, François Huveneers, and the authors of Ref. [@rubio2020floquet] for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Israel Science Foundation, Grants No. 151/19 and 154/19.
[10]{}
G. Floquet. *Sur les [é]{}quations diff[é]{}rentielles lin[é]{}aires [à]{} coefficients p[é]{}riodiques*. In *Annales scientifiques de l’[É]{}cole normale sup[é]{}rieure*, volume 12, pages 47–88 (1883).
W. Magnus. *On the exponential solution of differential equations for a linear operator*. Communications on pure and applied mathematics 7 (4), 649 (1954).
See, for example, Ref. [@bukov2015universal] for an introduction.
D. A. Abanin, W. De Roeck, F. Huveneers. *Exponentially slow heating in periodically driven many-body systems*. Physical Review Letters 115 (25), 256803 (2015).
T. Mori, T. Kuwahara, K. Saito. *Rigorous bound on energy absorption and generic relaxation in periodically driven quantum systems*. Physical Review Letters 116 (12), 120401 (2016).
D. Abanin, W. De Roeck, W. W. Ho, F. Huveneers. *A rigorous theory of many-body prethermalization for periodically driven and closed quantum systems*. Communications in Mathematical Physics 354 (3), 809 (2017).
D. A. Abanin, W. De Roeck, W. W. Ho, F. Huveneers. *Effective [Hamilton]{}ians, prethermalization, and slow energy absorption in periodically driven many-body systems*. Physical Review B 95 (1), 014112 (2017).
T. Mori, T. N. Ikeda, E. Kaminishi, M. Ueda. *Thermalization and prethermalization in isolated quantum systems: a theoretical overview*. Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51 (11), 112001 (2018).
S. A. Weidinger, M. Knap. *Floquet prethermalization and regimes of heating in a periodically driven, interacting quantum system*. Scientific reports 7 (1), 1 (2017).
D. V. Else, B. Bauer, C. Nayak. *Prethermal phases of matter protected by time-translation symmetry*. Physical Review X 7 (1), 011026 (2017).
F. Machado, G. D. Kahanamoku-Meyer, D. V. Else, C. Nayak, N. Y. Yao. *Exponentially slow heating in short and long-range interacting floquet systems*. Physical Review Research 1 (3), 033202 (2019).
K. Mallayya, M. Rigol. *Heating rates in periodically driven strongly interacting quantum many-body systems*. Physical Review Letters 123 (24), 240603 (2019).
P. Peng, C. Yin, X. Huang, C. Ramanathan, P. Cappellaro. *Observation of floquet prethermalization in dipolar spin chains*. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.05799 (2019).
O. Howell, P. Weinberg, D. Sels, A. Polkovnikov, M. Bukov. *Asymptotic prethermalization in periodically driven classical spin chains*. Physical Review Letters 122 (1), 010602 (2019).
T. Mori. *Floquet prethermalization in periodically driven classical spin systems*. Physical Review B 98 (10), 104303 (2018).
A. Rajak, R. Citro, E. G. Dalla Torre. *Stability and pre-thermalization in chains of classical kicked rotors*. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51 (46), 465001 (2018).
K. Kaneko, T. Konishi. *Diffusion in [Hamilton]{}ian dynamical systems with many degrees of freedom*. Physical Review A 40 (10), 6130 (1989).
T. Konishi, K. Kaneko. *Diffusion in [Hamilton]{}ian chaos and its size dependence*. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 23 (15), L715 (1990).
B. Chirikov, V. Vecheslavov. *Arnol’d diffusion in large systems*. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 85 (3), 616 (1997).
M. Mulansky, K. Ahnert, A. Pikovsky, D. L. Shepelyansky. *Strong and weak chaos in weakly nonintegrable many-body [Hamilton]{}ian systems*. Journal of Statistical Physics 145 (5), 1256 (2011).
A. Rajak, I. Dana, E. G. Dalla Torre. *Characterizations of prethermal states in periodically driven many-body systems with unbounded chaotic diffusion*. Physical Review B 100 (10), 100302 (2019).
B. V. Chirikov. *A universal instability of many-dimensional oscillator systems*. Physics Reports 52 (5), 263 (1979).
A. Rubio-Abadal, M. Ippoliti, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, J. Rui, S. Sondhi, V. Khemani, C. Gross, I. Bloch. *Floquet prethermalization in a bose-hubbard system*. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08226 (2020).
Note that this modulation makes $U$ time dependent as well and, for small $\delta J/J_0$, the relative oscillations of $U$ and $J$ are comparable.
M. Bukov, S. Gopalakrishnan, M. Knap, E. Demler. *Prethermal [Floquet]{} steady states and instabilities in the periodically driven, weakly interacting bose-hubbard model*. Physical review letters 115 (20), 205301 (2015).
R. Citro, E. [[Dalla Torre]{}]{}, L. D’Alessio, A. Polkovnikov, M. Babadi, T. Oka, E. Demler. *Dynamical stability of a many-body [Kapitza]{} pendulum*. Annals of Physics 360, 694 (2015).
To the best of our knowledge, the proof of this claim is not publicly available.
According to our approach, the dimensionality does not affect the exponential suppression of the heating rate, in agreement with the experimental observations of Ref. [@rubio2020floquet]. This is in contrast to their theoretical expectation, where the rigorous approach is used to derive a stretched exponential with exponent of the form $\protect \qopname \relax
o{exp}(\Omega ^\alpha )$ with $\alpha =(1+d)/2d$.
The script used to generate this figure is given in Appendix A.
Eq. (\[eq:Zi\]) can be formally derived by considering Eq. (\[eq:PiZ\]) in the limit $T\to \infty $, at a fixed $\mu /T$, such that $U\ll T$ can be neglected.
Here we are neglecting the corrections due to the renormalization of the partition function, $Z_0$. These corrections are identical in $P_+$ and $P_-$ and cancel out.
P. Weinberg, M. Bukov. *Quspin: a python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems part i: spin chains*. SciPost Phys 2 (003) (2017).
P. Weinberg, M. Bukov. *Quspin: a python package for dynamics and exact diagonalisation of quantum many body systems. part ii: bosons, fermions and higher spins*. SciPost Phys. 7 (arXiv: 1804.06782), 020 (2019).
The exact diagonalization was performed using QuSpin version 0.3.3 for Python2.7 on a personal computer with an Intel core i7 (8th generation) CPU and 24 GB RAM. The script used to generate Fig. \[fig:main\] is given in appendix C and required approximately 2 seconds, 30 seconds, 15 minutes, 6 hours for $N=L=6,7,8,9$, respectively.
Finite size effects are further studied in Appendix D, where we show the results of the calculation for $N=7$ and $N=8$ particles.
F. Huveneers, J. Lukkarinen. *Pre-thermalization in a classical phonon field: slow relaxation of the number of phonons*. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10868 (2020).
M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, A. Polkovnikov. *Universal high-frequency behavior of periodically driven systems: from dynamical stabilization to [[Floquet]{}]{} engineering*. Advances in Physics 64 (2), 139 (2015).
Appendix
========
A. Matlab script used to plot the semiclassical approximation in Fig. \[fig:main\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Matlab symbolic script used to derive Eqs. (\[Pp\]), (\[Pm\]), and (\[Ppm\_inf\])
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Python script used to plot the exact diagonalization in Fig. \[fig:main\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Finite size effects
----------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$L=2,~N=2$ $L=3,~N=3$
![Same as the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:main\] for $N$ particles on $L$ sites. No fitting parameter is used. The semiclassical approximation matches the exact results for frequencies $\hbar\Omega<N/U$ and temperatures $k_B T>U$.](ED3_JoU0_05_N2_PBCFalse.pdf "fig:") ![Same as the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:main\] for $N$ particles on $L$ sites. No fitting parameter is used. The semiclassical approximation matches the exact results for frequencies $\hbar\Omega<N/U$ and temperatures $k_B T>U$.](ED3_JoU0_05_N3_PBCFalse.pdf "fig:")
$L=4,~N=4$ $L=5,~N=5$
![Same as the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:main\] for $N$ particles on $L$ sites. No fitting parameter is used. The semiclassical approximation matches the exact results for frequencies $\hbar\Omega<N/U$ and temperatures $k_B T>U$.](ED3_JoU0_05_N4_PBCFalse.pdf "fig:") ![Same as the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:main\] for $N$ particles on $L$ sites. No fitting parameter is used. The semiclassical approximation matches the exact results for frequencies $\hbar\Omega<N/U$ and temperatures $k_B T>U$.](ED3_JoU0_05_N5_PBCFalse.pdf "fig:")
$L=6,~N=6$ $L=7,~N=7$
![Same as the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:main\] for $N$ particles on $L$ sites. No fitting parameter is used. The semiclassical approximation matches the exact results for frequencies $\hbar\Omega<N/U$ and temperatures $k_B T>U$.](ED3_JoU0_05_N6_PBCFalse.pdf "fig:") ![Same as the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:main\] for $N$ particles on $L$ sites. No fitting parameter is used. The semiclassical approximation matches the exact results for frequencies $\hbar\Omega<N/U$ and temperatures $k_B T>U$.](ED3_JoU0_05_N7_PBCFalse.pdf "fig:")
$L=8,~N=8$ $L=9,~N=9$
![Same as the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:main\] for $N$ particles on $L$ sites. No fitting parameter is used. The semiclassical approximation matches the exact results for frequencies $\hbar\Omega<N/U$ and temperatures $k_B T>U$.](ED3_JoU0_05_N8_PBCFalse.pdf "fig:") ![Same as the lower panel of Fig. \[fig:main\] for $N$ particles on $L$ sites. No fitting parameter is used. The semiclassical approximation matches the exact results for frequencies $\hbar\Omega<N/U$ and temperatures $k_B T>U$.](ED3_JoU0_05_N9_PBCFalse.pdf "fig:")
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[^1]: See, for example, Ref. [@bukov2015universal] for an introduction
[^2]: Note that this modulation makes $U$ time dependent as well and, for small $\delta J/J_0$, the relative oscillations of $U$ and $J$ are comparable.
[^3]: To the best of our knowledge, the proof of this claim is not publicly available.
[^4]: According to our approach, the dimensionality does not affect the exponential suppression of the heating rate, in agreement with the experimental observations of Ref. [@rubio2020floquet]. This is in contrast to their theoretical expectation, where the rigorous approach is used to derive a stretched exponential with exponent of the form $\exp(\Omega^\alpha)$ with $\alpha=(1+d)/2d$.
[^5]: The script used to generate this figure is given in Appendix A.
[^6]: Eq. (\[eq:Zi\]) can be formally derived by considering Eq. (\[eq:PiZ\]) in the limit $T\to\infty$, at a fixed $\mu/T$, such that $U\ll T$ can be neglected.
[^7]: Here we are neglecting the corrections due to the renormalization of the partition function, $Z_0$. These corrections are identical in $P_+$ and $P_-$ and cancel out.
[^8]: The exact diagonalization was performed using QuSpin version 0.3.3 for Python2.7 on a personal computer with an Intel core i7 (8th generation) CPU and 24 GB RAM. The script used to generate Fig. \[fig:main\] is given in appendix C and required approximately 2 seconds, 30 seconds, 15 minutes, 6 hours for $N=L=6,7,8,9$, respectively
[^9]: Finite size effects are further studied in Appendix D, where we show the results of the calculation for $N=7$ and $N=8$ particles
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Dissipationless collapses in Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) are studied by using a new particle-mesh N-body code based on our numerical MOND potential solver. We found that low surface-density end-products have shallower inner density profile, flatter radial velocity-dispersion profile, and more radially anisotropic orbital distribution than high surface-density end-products. The projected density profiles of the final virialized systems are well described by Sersic profiles with index $m \lsim 4$, down to $m\sim 2$ for a deep-MOND collapse. Consistently with observations of elliptical galaxies, the MOND end-products, if interpreted in the context of Newtonian gravity, would appear to have little or no dark matter within the effective radius. However, we found impossible (under the assumption of constant mass-to-light ratio) to simultaneously place the resulting systems on the observed Kormendy, Faber-Jackson and Fundamental Plane relations of elliptical galaxies. Finally, the simulations provide strong evidence that phase mixing is less effective in MOND than in Newtonian gravity.'
author:
- Carlo Nipoti
- Pasquale Londrillo
- Luca Ciotti
title: Dissipationless collapses in MOND
---
Introduction
============
In Bekenstein & Milgrom’s (1984, hereafter BM) Lagrangian formulation of Milgrom’s (1983) Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), the Poisson equation $$\nabla^2{\phi_{\rm N}}=4\pi G\rho
\label{eqPoisson}$$ for the Newtonian gravitational potential ${\phi_{\rm N}}$ is replaced by the field equation $$\nabla\cdot\left[\mu\left({\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert\over{a_0}}\right)
\nabla\phi\right] = 4\pi G \rho,
\label{eqMOND}$$ where ${a_0}\simeq 1.2 \times 10^{-10} {\rm m\, s^{-2}}$ is a characteristic acceleration, $\Vert ...\Vert$ is the standard Euclidean norm, $\phi$ is the MOND gravitational potential produced by the density distribution $\rho$, and in finite mass systems $\nabla\phi\to 0$ for $\Vert{{\bf x}}\Vert\to\infty$. The MOND gravitational field ${{\bf g}}$ experienced by a test particle is $${{\bf g}}=-\nabla\phi,
\label{eqgv}$$ and the function $\mu$ is such that $$\mu(y)\sim\cases{y&for $y\ll 1$,\cr 1&for $y\gg 1$;}
\label{eqmulim}$$ throughout this paper we use $$\mu (y)={y\over\sqrt{1+y^2}}.
\label{eqmu}$$ In the so-called ‘deep MOND regime’ (hereafter dMOND), describing low-acceleration systems ($\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert \ll{a_0}$), $\mu(y)=y$ and so equation (\[eqMOND\]) simplifies to $$\nabla\cdot\left({\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}\nabla\phi\right) = 4\pi G {a_0}\rho.
\label{eqdMOND}$$ The source term in equation (\[eqMOND\]) can be eliminated by using equation (\[eqPoisson\]), giving $$\mu\left(\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert\over{a_0}\right)\nabla\phi=\nabla{\phi_{\rm N}}+{{\bf S}},
\label{eqcurl}$$ where ${{\bf S}}={\rm curl\,}{{\bf h}}$ is a solenoidal field dependent on $\rho$ and in general different from zero. When ${{\bf S}}=0$ equation (\[eqcurl\]) reduces to Milgrom’s (1983) formulation and can be solved explicitly. Such reduction is possible for configurations with spherical, cylindrical or planar symmetry, which are special cases of a more general family of stratifications (BM; Brada & Milgrom 1995). Though the solenoidal field ${{\bf S}}$ has been shown to be small for some configurations (Brada & Milgrom 1995; Ciotti, Londrillo & Nipoti 2006, hereafter CLN), neglecting it when simulating time-dependent dynamical processes has dramatic effects such as non-conservation of total linear momentum (e.g. Felten 1984; see also Section \[secic\]).
Nowadays several astronomical observational data appear consistent with the MOND hypothesis (see, e.g., Milgrom 2002; Sanders & McGaugh 2002). In addition, Bekenstein (2004) recently proposed a relativistic version of MOND (Tensor-Vector-Scalar theory, TeVeS), making it an interesting alternative to the cold dark matter paradigm. However, dynamical processes in MOND have been investigated very little so far, mainly due to difficulties posed by the non-linearity of equation (\[eqMOND\]). Here we recall the spherically symmetric simulations (in which ${{\bf S}}=0$) of gaseous collapse in MOND by Stachniewicz & Kutschera (2005) and Nusser & Pointecouteau (2006). The only genuine three-dimensional MOND N-body simulations (in which equation \[\[eqMOND\]\] is solved exactly) are those by Brada & Milgrom (1999, 2000), who studied the stability of disk galaxies and the external field effect, and those of Tiret & Combes (2007). Other attempts to study MOND dynamical processes have been conducted using three-dimensional N-body codes by arbitrarily setting ${{\bf S}}=0$: Christodoulou (1991) investigated disk stability, while Nusser (2002) and Knebe & Gibson (2004) explored cosmological structure formation[^1].
In this paper we present results of N-body simulations of dissipationless collapse in MOND. The simulations were performed with an original three-dimensional particle-mesh N-body code, based on the numerical MOND potential solver presented in CLN, which solves equation (\[eqMOND\]) exactly. These numerical experiments are interesting both from a purely dynamical point of view, allowing for the first time to explore the relaxation processes in MOND, and in the context of elliptical galaxy formation. In fact, the ability of dissipationless collapse at producing systems strikingly similar to real ellipticals is a remarkable success of Newtonian dynamics (e.g., van Albada 1982; Aguilar & Merritt 1990; Londrillo, Messina & Stiavelli 1991; Udry 1993; Trenti, Bertin & van Albada 2005; Nipoti, Londrillo, & Ciotti 2006, hereafter NLC06), while there have been no indications so far that MOND can work as well in this respect. Here we study the structural and kinematical properties of the end-products of MOND simulations, and we compare them with the observed scaling relations of elliptical galaxies: the Faber–Jackson (FJ) relation (Faber & Jackson 1976), the Kormendy (1977) relation, and the Fundamental Plane (FP) relation (Djorgovski & Davis 1987, Dressler et al. 1987).
The paper is organized as follows. The main features of the new N-body code are presented in Section \[seccod\], while Section \[secsim\] describes the set-up and the analysis of the numerical simulations. The results are presented in Section \[secres\] and discussed in Section \[secdis\].
The N-body code {#seccod}
===============
While most N-body codes for simulations in Newtonian gravity are based on the gridless multipole expansion treecode scheme (Barnes & Hut 1986; see also Dehnen 2002), the non-linearity of the MOND field equation (\[eqMOND\]) forces one to resort to other methods, such as the particle-mesh technique (see Hockney & Eastwood 1988). In this approach, particles are moved under the action of a gravitational field which is computed on a grid, with particle-mesh interpolation providing the link between the two representations. In our MOND particle-mesh N-body code, we adopt a spherical grid of coordinates ($r$, $\vartheta$, $\varphi$), made of $\Nr\times\Nth\times\Nph$ points, on which the MOND field equation is solved as in CLN. Particle-mesh interpolations are obtained with a quadratic spline in each coordinate, while time stepping is given by a classical leap-frog scheme (Hockney & Eastwood 1988). The time-step $\Dt$ is the same for all particles and is allowed to vary adaptively in time. In particular, according to the stability criterion for the leap-frog time integration, we adopt $\Dt=\eta/\sqrt{\max{|\nabla^2
\phi|}}$, where $\eta\lsim0.3$ is a dimensionless parameter. We found that $\eta=0.1$ assures good conservation of the total energy in the Newtonian cases (see Section \[secic\]). In the present version of the code, all the computations on the particles and the particle-mesh interpolations can be split among different processors, while the computations relative to the potential solver are not performed in parallel. The solution of equation (\[eqMOND\]) over the grid is then the bottleneck of the simulations: however, the iterative procedure on which the potential solver is based (see CLN) allows to adopt as seed solution at each time step the potential previously determined.
The MOND potential solver can also solve the Poisson equation (obtained by imposing $\mu=1$ in equation \[eqMOND\]), so Newtonian simulations can be run with the same code. We exploited this property to test the code by running several Newtonian simulations of both equilibrium distributions and collapses, comparing the results with those of simulations (starting from the same initial conditions) performed with the FVFPS treecode (Londrillo, Nipoti & Ciotti 2003; Nipoti, Londrillo & Ciotti 2003). One of these tests is described in Section \[seckin\].
We also verified that the code reproduces the Newtonian and MOND conservation laws (see Section \[secic\]): note that the conservation laws in MOND present some peculiarities with respect to the Newtonian case, so we give here a brief discussion of the subject. As already stressed by BM, equation (\[eqMOND\]) is obtained from a variational principle applied to a Lagrangian with all the required symmetries, so energy, linear and angular momentum are conserved. Unfortunately, as also shown by BM, the total energy diverges even for finite mass systems, thus posing a computational challenge to code validation. We solved this problem by checking the volume-limited energy balance equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqbaltext}
{d \over d t}\int_{V_0}\left[k+\rho\phi+{{a_0}^2\over 8 \pi
G}\mathcal{F}\left({||\nabla\phi||\over
{a_0}}\right)\right]\dxcube=\nonumber\\{1\over 4\pi G}\int_{\partial
V_0}\mu{\partial \phi \over \partial t} <\nabla \phi,\hat{\bf n}> d a,\end{aligned}$$ which is derived in Appendix \[appetot\]. In equation (\[eqbaltext\]) $V_0$ is an arbitrary (but fixed) volume enclosing all the system mass, $k$ is the kinetic energy per unit volume, and $$\mathcal{F}(y)\equiv2\int_{y_0}^{y} \mu(\xi) \xi d \xi,
\label{eqeffe}$$ where $y_0$ is an arbitrary constant; note that only finite quantities are involved. Another important relation between global quantities for a system at equilibrium (in MOND as in Newtonian gravity) is the virial theorem $$\label{eqvirtheo}
2 K + W=0,$$ where $K$ is the total kinetic energy and $W=\Tr W_{ij}$ is the trace of the Chandrasekhar potential energy tensor $$\label{eqwij}
W_{ij}\equiv-\int \rho({{\bf x}}) x_i {\partial \phi({{\bf x}}) \over \partial x_j} \dxcube$$ (e.g., Binney & Tremaine 1987). Note that in MOND $K+W$ is [*not*]{} the total energy, and is not conserved. However, [*$W$ is conserved in the limit of dMOND*]{}, being $W=-(2/3)\sqrt{G{a_0}M_*^3}$ for [*all*]{} systems of finite total mass ${{M_*}}$ (see Appendix \[appw\] for the proof). As a consequence, in dMOND the virial theorem writes simply $\sgv^4=4G{{M_*}}{a_0}/9$, where $\sgv \equiv \sqrt{2 K / {{M_*}}}$ is the system virial velocity dispersion (this relation was proved for dMOND spherical systems by Gerhard & Spergel 1992; see also Milgrom 1984). In our simulations we also tested that equation (\[eqvirtheo\]) is satisfied at equilibrium, and that $W$ is conserved in the dMOND case (see Sections \[secic\] and \[secres\]).
Numerical simulations {#secsim}
=====================
----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
${t_{\rm *n}}={r_*}^{3/2} (G {{M_*}})^{-1/2}$ ${t_{\rm *d}}={r_*}(G {{M_*}}{a_0})^{-1/4}$
${v_{\rm *n}}=(G {{M_*}})^{1/2}{r_*}^{-1/2}$ ${v_{\rm *d}}=(G {{M_*}}{a_0})^{1/4}$
${E_{\rm *n}}=G {{M_*}}^2{r_*}^{-1}$ ${E_{\rm *d}}=(G{a_0})^{1/2}{{M_*}}^{3/2}$
----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------
: Time, velocity, and energy units for Newtonian and MOND (subscript n), and dMOND (subscript d) N-body simulations.
The choice of appropriate scaling physical units is an important aspect of N-body simulations. This is especially true in the present case, in which we want to compare MOND and Newtonian simulations having the same initial conditions. As well known, due to the scale-free nature of Newtonian gravity, a Newtonian $N$-body simulation starting from a given initial condition describes in practice $\infty^2$ systems of arbitrary mass and size. Each of them is obtained by assigning specific values to the length and mass units, ${r_*}$ and ${{M_*}}$, in which the initial conditions are expressed. Also dMOND gravity is scale free, because ${a_0}$ appears only as a multiplicative factor in equation (\[eqdMOND\]), and so a simulation in dMOND gravity represents systems with arbitrary mass and size (though in principle the results apply only to systems with accelerations much smaller than ${a_0}$). MOND simulations can also be rescaled, but, due to the presence of the characteristic acceleration ${a_0}$ in the non-linear function $\mu$, each simulation describes only $\infty^1$ systems, because ${r_*}$ and ${{M_*}}$ cannot be chosen independently of each other.
On the basis of the above discussion, we fix the physical units as follows (see Appendix \[appscal\] for a detailed description of the scaling procedure). Let the initial density distribution be characterized by a total mass ${{M_*}}$ and a characteristic radius ${r_*}$. We rescale the field equations so that the dimensionless source term is the same in Newtonian, MOND and dMOND simulations. We also require that the Second Law of Dynamics, when cast in dimensionless form, is independent of the specific force law considered, and this leads to fix the time unit. As a result, Newtonian and MOND simulations have the same time unit ${t_{\rm *n}}={r_*}^{3/2} (G {{M_*}})^{-1/2}$, while the natural time unit in dMOND simulations is ${t_{\rm *d}}={r_*}(G {{M_*}}{a_0})^{-1/4}$. Note that MOND simulations are characterized by the dimensionless parameter $\kappa=G {{M_*}}/{r_*}^2{a_0}$, and scaling of a specific simulation is allowed provided the value of $\kappa$ is maintained constant. So, simulations with lower $\kappa$ values describe lower surface-density, weaker acceleration systems; dMOND simulations represent the limit case $\kappa \ll 1$, while Newtonian ones describe the regime with $\kappa \gg 1$. With the time units fixed, the corresponding velocity and energy units are ${v_{\rm *n}}\equiv{r_*}/{t_{\rm *n}}$, ${v_{\rm *d}}\equiv{r_*}/{t_{\rm *d}}$, ${E_{\rm *n}}={{M_*}}{v_{\rm *n}}^2$, and ${E_{\rm *d}}={{M_*}}{v_{\rm *d}}^2$ (see Table 1 for a summary).
Initial conditions and analysis of the simulations {#secic}
--------------------------------------------------
We performed a set of five dissipationless-collapse N-body simulations, starting from the same phase-space configuration: the initial particle distribution follows the Plummer (1911) spherically symmetric density distribution $$\label{eqplum}
\rho(r)={{3 {{M_*}}{r_*}^2 }\over 4 {\pi (r^2 +{r_*}^2)^{5/2}}},$$ where ${{M_*}}$ is the total mass and ${r_*}$ a characteristic radius. The choice of a Plummer sphere as initial condition is quite artificial, and not necessarily the most realistic to reproduce initial conditions in the cosmological context (e.g., Gunn & Gott 1972). We adopt such a distribution to adhere to other papers dealing with collisionless collapse (e.g., Londrillo et al. 1991; NLC06; see also Section \[secdis\], in which we present the results of a set of simulations starting from different initial conditions). The particles are at rest, so the initial virial ratio $2K/|W|=0$. What is different in each simulation is the adopted gravitational potential, which is Newtonian in simulation N, dMOND in simulation D, and MOND with acceleration ratio $\kappa$ in simulations M$\kappa$ ($\kappa$=1, 2, 4). For each simulation we define the dynamical time ${t_{\rm dyn}}$ as the time at which the virial ratio $2K/|W|$ reaches its maximum value. In particular, we find ${t_{\rm dyn}}\sim2{t_{\rm *d}}$ in simulation D, and ${t_{\rm dyn}}\sim2{t_{\rm *n}}$ in simulations N, M1, M2 and M4. We note that ${t_{\rm dyn}}\sim{G {{M_*}}^{5/2}(2|K+W|)^{-3/2}}$ in simulation N.
Following NLC06, the particles are spatially distributed according to equation (\[eqplum\]) and then randomly shifted in position (up to ${r_*}/5$ in modulus). This artificial, small-scale “noise” is introduced to enhance the phase mixing at the beginning of the collapse, because the numerical noise is small, and the velocity dispersion is zero (see also Section 4.2). As such, these fluctuations are not intended to reproduce any physical clumpiness.
All the simulations (realized with $N=10^6$ particles, and a grid with $\Nr=64$, $\Nth=16$ and $\Nph=32$) are evolved up $t=150{t_{\rm dyn}}$. In all cases the modulus of the center of mass position oscillates around zero with r.m.s $\lsim 0.1{r_*}$; similarly, the modulus of the total angular momentum oscillates around zero[^2] with r.m.s. $\lsim0.02$, in units of ${r_*}{{M_*}}{v_{\rm *n}}$ (simulations M$\kappa$ and N) and of ${r_*}{{M_*}}{v_{\rm *d}}$ (simulation D). $K+W$ in the Newtonian simulation and $W$ in the dMOND simulation are conserved to within $2\%$ and $0.6\%$, respectively. The volume-limited energy balance equation (\[eqbaltext\]) is conserved with an accuracy of $1\%$ in MOND simulations, independently of the adopted $V_0$. To estimate possible numerical effects, we reran one of the MOND collapse simulations (M1) using $N=2\times 10^6$, $\Nr=80$, $\Nth=24$, and $\Nph=48$: we found that the end-products of these two simulations do not differ significantly, as far as the properties relevant to the present work are concerned.
The intrinsic and projected properties of the collapse end-products are determined as in NLC06. In particular, the position of the center of the system is determined using the iterative technique described by Power et al. (2003). Following Nipoti et al. (2002), we measure the axis ratios $c/a$ and $b/a$ of the inertia ellipsoid (where $a$, $b$ and $c$ are the major, intermediate and minor axis) of the final density distributions, their angle-averaged profile and half-mass radius $\rhalf$. We fitted the final angle-averaged density profiles with the $\gamma$-model (Dehnen 1993; Tremaine et al. 1994) $$\label{eqgamma}
\rho (r)= {\rho_0 \rc^4 \over r^{\gamma} (\rc +r)^{4-\gamma}},$$ where the inner slope $\gamma$ and the break radius $\rc$ are free parameters, and the reference density $\rho_0$ is fixed by the total mass ${{M_*}}$. The fitting radial range is $0.06\,\lsim\,
r/\rhalf\,\lsim\, 10$. In order to estimate the importance of projection effects, for each end-product we consider three orthogonal projections along the principal axes of the inertia tensor, measuring the ellipticity $\epsilon=1-\sbe/\sae$, the circularized projected density profile and the circularized effective radius [$\Re\equiv\sqrt{\sae\sbe}$]{} (where [$\sae$]{} and [$\sbe$]{} are the major and minor semi-axis of the effective isodensity ellipse). We fit (over the radial range $0.1 \, \lsim \, R/\Re \, \lsim \, 10$) the circularized projected density profiles of the end-products with the $R^{1/m}$ Sersic (1968) law: $$\label{eqser}
I(R)=\Ie \,
\exp\left\{-b(m)\left[ \left( \frac{R}{\Re} \right)^{1/m} -1 \right]\right\},$$ where $\Ie\equiv I(\Re)$ and $b(m)\simeq 2m-1/3+4/405m$ (Ciotti & Bertin 1999). In the fitting procedure $m$ is the only free parameter, because $\Re$ and $\Ie$ are determined by their measured values obtained by particle count. In addition, we measure the central velocity dispersion $\sgz$, obtained by averaging the projected velocity dispersion over the circularized surface density profile within an aperture of $\Re/8$. Some of these structural parameters are reported in Table 2 for the five simulations described above, as well as for three additional simulations, which start from different initial conditions (see Section \[secdis\]).
Results {#secres}
=======
In Newtonian gravity, collisionless systems reach virialization through violent relaxation in few dynamical times, as predicted by the theory (Lynden-Bell 1967) and confirmed by numerical simulations (e.g. van Albada 1982). On the other hand, due to the non linearity of the theory and the lack of numerical simulations, the details of relaxation processes and virialization in MOND are much less known. Thus, before discussing the specific properties of the collapse end-products we present a general overview of the time evolution of the virial quantities in our simulations, postponing to Section \[secphsp\] a more detailed description of the phase-space evolution. In particular, in Fig. \[figtime\] we show the time evolution of $2 K/|W|$, $K$, $W$, and $K+W$ for simulations D, M1, and N. In the diagrams time is normalized to ${t_{\rm dyn}}$, so plots referring to different simulations are directly comparable (the values of ${t_{\rm dyn}}$ in time units for the five simulations are given in Section \[secic\]). In simulation N (right column) we find the well known behavior of Newtonian dissipationless collapses: $2 K/|W|$ has a peak, then oscillates, and eventually converges to the equilibrium value $2 K/|W|=1$; the total energy $K+W$ is nicely conserved during the collapse, though it presents a secular drift, a well known feature of time integration in N-body codes. The time evolution of the same quantities is significantly different in a dMOND simulation (left column). In particular, the virial ratio $2 K/|W|$ quickly becomes close to one, but is still oscillating at very late times because of the oscillations of $K$, while $W$ is constant as expected. As we show in Section \[secphsp\], these oscillations are related to a peculiar behavior of the system in phase space. Finally, simulation M1 (central column) represents an intermediate case between models N and D: the system starts as dMOND, but soon its core becomes concentrated enough to enter the Newtonian regime. After the initial phases of the collapse, Newtonian gravity acts effectively in damping the oscillations of the virial ratio. Overall, it is apparent how the system is in a “mixed” state, neither Newtonian ($K+W$ is not conserved) nor dMOND ($W$ is not constant).
Properties of the collapse end-products
---------------------------------------
### Spatial and projected density profiles
We found that all the simulated systems, once virialized, are not spherically symmetric. However, while the dMOND collapse end-product is triaxial ($c/a\sim0.2$, $b/a\sim0.4$), MOND and Newtonian end-products are oblate ($c/a \sim c/b \sim 0.5$). The ellipticity $\epsilon$ of the projected density distributions (measured for each of the principal projections) is found in the range $0.5-0.8$ in D, and $0 - 0.5$ in M1, M2, M4 and N. These values are consistent with those observed in real ellipticals, with the exception of $\epsilon_b$ in model D (see Table 2), which would correspond - if taken at face value - to an E8 galaxy. These result could be just due to the procedure adopted to measure the ellipticity (see Section \[secic\]), however we find interesting that dMOND gravity could be able to produce some system that would be unstable in Newtonian gravity. We remark that a similar result, in the different context of disk stability in MOND, has been obtained by Brada & Milgrom (1999).
In order to describe the radial mass distribution of the final virialized systems, we fitted their angle-averaged density profiles with the $\gamma$-model (\[eqgamma\]) over the radial range $0.06\,\lsim\, r/\rhalf\,\lsim\, 10$. The best-fit $\gamma$ and $\rc$ for the final distribution of each simulation are reported in Table 2 together with their $1\sigma$ uncertainties (calculated from $\Delta
\chi^2=2.30$ contours in the space $\gamma-\rc$). As also apparent from Fig. \[fig3d\] (bottom), the Newtonian collapse produced the system with the steepest inner profile ($\gamma\sim1.7$), the dMOND end-product has inner logarithmic slope close to zero, while MOND collapses led to intermediate cases, with $\gamma$ ranging from $\sim
1.2$ ($\kappa=1$) to $\sim1.5$ ($\kappa=4$). We also note that the ratio $\rc/\rhalf$ (indicating the position of the knee in the density profile) increases systematically from dMOND to Newtonian simulations.
The circularized projected density profiles of the end-products are analyzed as described in Section \[secic\]. The best-fit Sersic indices $m_a$, $m_b$ and $m_c$ (for projections along the axes $a$, $b$, and $c$, respectively) are reported in Table 2, together with the $1\sigma$ uncertainties corresponding to $\Delta \chi^2=1$; the relative uncertainties on the best-fit Sersic indices are in all cases smaller than 5 per cent and the average residuals between the data and the fits are typically $0.05 \lsim\langle\Delta{SB}\rangle \lsim 0.2$, where $SB\equiv-2.5 \log [I(R)/\Ie]$. The fitting radial range $0.1\,\lsim\, R/\Re\,\lsim\, 10$ is comparable with or larger than the typical ranges spanned by observations (e.g., see Bertin, Ciotti & Del Principe 2002). In agreement with previous investigations, we found that the Newtonian collapse produced a system well fitted by the de Vaucouleurs (1948) law. MOND collapses led to systems with Sersic index $m<4$, down to $m\sim2$ in the case of the dMOND collapse. Figure \[fig2d\] (bottom) shows the circularized (major-axis) projected density profiles for the end-products of simulations D, M1 and N together with their best-fit Sersic laws ($m=2.87$, $m=3.20$, and $m=4.21$, respectively), and the corresponding residuals. Curiously, NLC06 found that low-$m$ systems can be also obtained in Newtonian dissipationless collapses in the presence of a pre-existing dark-matter halo, with Sersic index value decreasing for increasing dark-to-luminous mass ratio.
### Kinematics {#seckin}
We quantify the internal kinematics of the collapse end-products by measuring the angle-averaged radial and tangential components ($\sigma_r$ and $\sigma_{\rm t}$) of their velocity-dispersion tensor, and the anisotropy parameter $\beta(r) \equiv 1 -0.5\sigma^2_{\rm
t}/\sigma^2_r$. These quantities are shown in Fig. \[fig3d\] for simulations D, M1, and N. We note that the $\sigma_r$ profile decreases more steeply in the Newtonian than in the MOND end-products, while it presents a hole in the inner regions of the dMOND system. In addition, the dMOND galaxy is radially anisotropic ($\beta\sim0.4$) even in the central regions, where models N and M1 are approximately isotropic ($\beta \sim 0.1$). All systems are strongly radially anisotropic for $r\gsim\rhalf$. For each model projection we computed the line-of-sight velocity dispersion $\sglos$, considering particles in a strip of width $\Re/4$ centered on the semi-major axis of the isophotal ellipse. The line-of-sight velocity-dispersion profiles (for the major-axis projection) are plotted in the top panels of Fig. \[fig2d\]. The Newtonian profile is very steep within $\Re$, while MOND and dMOND profiles are significantly flatter there. As well as $\sigma_r$, $\sglos$ decreases for decreasing radius in the inner region of model D. The kinematical properties of M2 and M4 are intermediate between those of M1 and of N: overall we find only weak dynamical non-homology among MOND end-products. The empty symbols in Fig. \[fig3d\] (right column) refer to a test Newtonian simulation run with the FVFPS treecode (with $4\times10^5$ particles). The structural and kinematical properties of the end-product of this simulation are clearly in good agreement with those of the end-product of simulation N (solid lines), which started from the same initial conditions.
Phase-space properties of MOND collapses {#secphsp}
----------------------------------------
To explore the phase-space evolution of the systems during the collapse and the following relaxation we consider time snapshots of the particles radial velocity ($\vr$) vs. radius as in Londrillo et al. (1991). In Fig. \[figphsp\] we plot five of these diagrams for simulations D, M1 and N: each plot shows the phase-space coordinates of 32000 particles randomly extracted from the corresponding simulation, and, as in Fig. \[figtime\], times are normalized to the dynamical time ${t_{\rm dyn}}$ (see Section \[secic\]). At time $t=0.5{t_{\rm dyn}}$ all particles are still collapsing in simulation N, while in MOND simulations a minority of particles have already crossed the center of mass, as revealed by the vertical distribution of points at $r\sim0$ in panels D and M1. At $t={t_{\rm dyn}}$ (time of the peak of $2
K/|W|$ in the three models), sharp shells in phase space are present, indicating that particles are moving in and out collectively and phase mixing has not taken place yet. At $t=4{t_{\rm dyn}}$ is already apparent that phase mixing is operating more efficiently in simulation N than in simulation M1, while there is very little phase mixing in the dMOND collapse. At significantly late times ($t=44{t_{\rm dyn}}$), when the three systems are almost virialized ($2 K/|W|\sim 1$; see Fig. \[figtime\]), phase mixing is complete in simulation N, but phase-space shells still survive in models M1 and D. Finally, the bottom panels show the phase-space diagrams at equilibrium ($t=150{t_{\rm dyn}}$), when phase mixing is completed also in the MOND and dMOND galaxies: note that the populated region in the ($r$,$\vr$) space is significantly different in MOND and in Newtonian gravity, consistently with the sharper decline of radial velocity dispersion in the Newtonian system.
Thus, our results indicate that phase mixing is more effective in Newtonian gravity than in MOND[^3]. It is then interesting to estimate in physical units the phase-mixing timescales of MOND systems. From Table 1 it follows that ${t_{\rm *n}}\simeq4.7\,({r_*}/\kpc)^{3/2}({{M_*}}/10^{10}
\Msun)^{-1/2}\Myr=29.8\kappa^{-3/4}({{M_*}}/10^{10} \Msun)^{1/4}\Myr$ for ${a_0}=1.2\times 10^{-10} {\rm m}\,{\rm s}^{-2}$. For example, in the case of model M1, adopting ${{M_*}}=10^{12} \Msun$ (and ${r_*}=\sqrt{G{{M_*}}/{a_0}}\simeq34\kpc$), shells in phase space are still apparent after $\sim8.3\Gyr$ ($\simeq44{t_{\rm dyn}}$). Simulation M1 might also be interpreted as representing a dwarf elliptical galaxy of, say, ${{M_*}}= 10^9 \Msun$ (and ${r_*}=\sqrt{G{{M_*}}/{a_0}}\simeq
1.1\kpc$). In this case $44{t_{\rm dyn}}\sim 1.5 \Gyr$. We conclude that in some MOND systems substructures in phase space can survive for significantly long times.
In addition to the ($r$,$\vr$) diagram, another useful diagnostic to investigate phase-space properties of gravitational systems is the energy distribution $N(E)$ (i.e. the number of particles with energy per unit mass between $E$ and $E+dE$; e.g., Binney & Tremaine 1987; Trenti & Bertin 2005). Independently of the force law, the energy per unit mass of a particle orbiting at ${{\bf x}}$ with speed $v$ in a gravitational potential $\phi({{\bf x}})$ is $E=v^2/2+\phi({{\bf x}})$, and $E$ is constant if $\phi$ is time-independent. In Newtonian gravity $\phi$ is usually set to zero at infinity for finite-mass systems, so $E<0$ for bound particles; in MOND all particles are bound, independently of their velocity, because $\phi$ is confining, and all energies are admissible. This difference is reflected in Fig. \[fignde\], which plots the initial (top) and final (bottom) differential energy distributions for simulations D, M1, and N. Given that the particles are at rest at $t=0$, the initial $N(E)$ depends only on the structure of the gravitational potential, and is significantly different in the Newtonian and MOND cases. We also note that $N(E)$ is basically the same in models D and M1 at $t=0$, because model M1 is initially in dMOND regime. In accordance with previous studies, in the Newtonian case the final differential $N(E)$ is well represented by an exponential function over most of the populated energy range (Binney 1982; van Albada 1982; Ciotti 1991; Londrillo et al. 1991; NLC06). In contrast, in model D the final $N(E)$ decreases for increasing energy, qualitatively preserving its initial shape. In the case of simulation M1 it is apparent a dichotomy between a Newtonian part at lower energies (more bound particles), where $N(E)$ is exponential, and a dMOND part at higher energies, where the final $N(E)$ resembles the initial one. We interpret this result as another manifestation of a less effective phase-space reorganization in MOND than in Newtonian collapses.
Comparison with the observed scaling relations of elliptical galaxies {#secsca}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not surprising that galaxy scaling relations represent an even stronger test for MOND than for Newtonian gravity, due to the absence of dark matter and the existence of the critical acceleration ${a_0}$ with a universal value in the former theory (e.g., see Milgrom 1984; Sanders 2000). For example, when interpreting the FP tilt in Newtonian gravity one can invoke a systematic and fine-tuned increase of the galaxy dark-to-luminous mass ratio with luminosity (e.g., Bender, Burstein & Faber 1992; Renzini & Ciotti 1993; Ciotti, Lanzoni & Renzini 1996), while in MOND the tilt should be related to the characteristic acceleration ${a_0}$. Note, however, that in MOND as well as in Newtonian gravity other important physical properties may help to explain the FP tilt, such as a systematic increase of radial orbital anisotropy with mass or a systematic structural weak homology (Bertin et al. 2002). Due to the relevance of the subject, we attempt here to derive some preliminary hints. In particular, for the first time, we can compare with the scaling relations of elliptical galaxies MOND models produced by a formation mechanism, yet as simple as the dissipationless collapse.
In this Section we consider the end-products of simulations M1, M2, and M4. As already discussed in Section \[secsim\], each of the three systems corresponds to a family with constant ${{M_*}}/{r_*}^2$. This degeneracy is represented by the straight dotted lines in Fig. \[figfp\]a: all galaxies on the same dotted line have the same $\kappa$ value. This behavior is very different from the Newtonian case, in which the result of a N-body simulation can be placed anywhere in the space $\Re-{{M_*}}$, by arbitrarily choosing ${{M_*}}$ and ${r_*}$. For comparison with observations, the specific scaling laws represented in Fig. \[figfp\] (thick solid lines) are the near-infrared $z^*$-band Kormendy relation $\Re \propto
{{M_*}}^{0.63}$ and FJ relation ${{M_*}}\propto\sigma_0^{3.92}$ (Bernardi et al. 2003a), and the edge-on FP relation in the same band $\log \Re = A \log \sigma_0 + B \log ({{M_*}}/ \Re^2) +const$ (with $A=1.49$, $B=- 0.75$; Bernardi et al. 2003b), under the assumption of luminosity-independent mass-to-light ratio.
The physical properties of each model are determined as follows. First, for each model (identified by a value of $\kappa= G
{{M_*}}/{r_*}^2{a_0}$) we measure the ratio $\Re/{r_*}$ (see Section \[secic\]), and so we obtain $\Re=\Re(\kappa,{{M_*}})$. This function, for fixed $\kappa$ and variable ${{M_*}}$, is a dotted line in Fig. \[figfp\]a. As apparent, only one pair $(\Re,{{M_*}})$ satisfies the Kormendy relation for each $\kappa$: in particular, we obtain that models M1, M2, and M4 have stellar masses $1.6\times
10^{12}$, $1.4\times 10^{11}$, and $10^{10}\Msun$, respectively (so lower $\kappa$ models correspond to higher mass systems). We are now in the position to obtain ${r_*}=\sqrt{G{{M_*}}/{a_0}\kappa}$ and ${v_{\rm *n}}=(\kappa{a_0}G{{M_*}})^{1/4}$, so we know the physical value of the projected central velocity dispersion, and we can place our models also in the FJ and FP planes. It is apparent that these two relations are not reproduced, in particular by massive galaxies. We note that this discrepancy cannot be fixed even when considering the mass interval allowed by the scatter in the Kormendy relation (thin solid lines in panel a), as revealed by the dotted lines in Fig. \[figfp\]bc, which are just the projections of the dotted lines in Fig. \[figfp\]a onto the planes of the edge-on FP[^4] and the FJ. Finally, Fig. \[figfp\]d plots the best-fit Sersic index $m$ of the models as a function of ${{M_*}}$. Observations show that elliptical galaxies are characterized by $m$ values increasing with size: $m\gsim 4$ for galaxies with $\Re\gsim3\kpc$ and $m\lsim 4$ for those with $\Re\lsim3\kpc$ (e.g. Caon, Capaccioli & d’Onofrio 1993). Our models behave in the opposite way, as $m$ decreases for increasing size (mass) of the system. So, while model M4 ($\Re\sim 1\kpc$, $m\sim3.4$) is consistent with observations, models M1 and M2 have significantly lower $m$ than real ellipticals of comparable size. However, this finding is not a peculiarity of MOND gravity: also in Newtonian gravity dissipationless collapse end-products with $m>4$ are obtained only for specific initial conditions (NLC06), while equal mass Newtonian mergings are able to produce high-$m$ systems (Nipoti et al. 2003).
So far we have compared the results of our simulations with the scaling relations of high-surface brightness galaxies. However, it is well known that low surface-brightness hot stellar systems, such as dwarf ellipticals and dwarf spheroidals, have larger effective radii than predicted by the Kormendy relation (e.g., Bender et al. 1992; Capaccioli, Caon & d’Onofrio 1992; Graham & Guzmán 2003). In particular, dwarf ellipticals are characterized by effective surface densities comparable to those of the most luminous ellipticals, while their surface brightness profiles are characterized by Sersic indices smaller than $4$ (e.g. Caon et al. 1993; Trujillo, Graham, & Caon 2001). Dwarf spheroidals are the lowest surface-density stellar systems known, and typically have exponential ($m\sim1$) luminosity profiles (e.g. Mateo 1998). So, simulations M1 and D can be interpreted as modeling a dwarf elliptical and a dwarf spheroidal, respectively, and their end-products qualitatively reproduce the surface brightness profiles of the observed systems. As pointed out in Section \[seckin\], the velocity-dispersion profile of model D is rather flat, with a hole in the central regions: interestingly observations of dwarf spheroidals indicate that their velocity-dispersion profiles are also flat (e.g. Walker et al. 2006 and references therein).
Discussion and conclusions {#secdis}
==========================
In this paper we studied the dissipationless collapse in MOND by using a new three-dimensional particle-mesh N-body code, which solves the MOND field equation (\[eqMOND\]) exactly. For obvious computational reasons, we did not attempt a complete exploration of the parameter space, and we just presented results of a small set of numerical simulations, ranging from Newtonian to dMOND systems. The main results of the present study can be summarized as follows:
- The intrinsic structural and kinematical properties of the MOND collapse end-products depend weakly on their characteristic surface density: lower surface-density systems have shallower inner density profile, flatter velocity-dispersion profile, and more radially anisotropic orbital distribution than higher surface-density systems.
- The projected density profiles of the MOND collapse end-products are characterized by Sersic index $m$ lower than $4$, and decreasing for decreasing mean surface density. In particular, the end-product of the dMOND collapse, modeling a very low surface density system, is characterized by a Sersic index $m\sim 2$ and by a central hole in the projected velocity-dispersion profile.
- We found impossible to satisfy simultaneously the observed Kormendy, Faber-Jackson and Fundamental Plane relations of elliptical galaxies with the MOND collapse end-products, under the assumption of a luminosity independent mass-to-light ratio. In other words, this point and the two points above show that, in the framework of dissipationless collapse, the presence of a characteristic acceleration is not sufficient to reproduce important observed properties of spheroids of different mass and surface density, such as their scaling relations and weak structural homology.
- From a dynamical point of view we found that phase mixing is less effective (and stellar systems take longer to relax) in MOND than in Newtonian gravity.
A natural question to ask is how the end-products of our simulations would be interpreted in the context of Newtonian gravity. Clearly, models D and N would represent dark-matter dominated and baryon dominated stellar systems, respectively. More interestingly, models M1, M2, and M4, once at equilibrium, would be characterized by a [*dividing radius*]{}, separating a baryon-dominated inner region (with accelerations higher than ${a_0}$) from a dark-matter dominated outer region (with accelerations lower than ${a_0}$). This radius is $\sim
1.1 \rhalf$ for M1, $\sim1.8 \rhalf$ for M2, and $\sim 2.7 \rhalf$ for M4. So, all these models would show little or no dark matter in their central regions. Remarkably, observational data indicate that there is at most as much dark matter as baryonic matter within the effective radius of ellipticals (e.g. Bertin et al. 1994; Cappellari et al. 2006 and references therein).
The conclusions above have been drawn by considering only simulations starting from an inhomogeneous Plummer density distribution. To explore the dependence of these results on this specific choice, we ran also three simulations starting from a cold ($2K/|W|=0$), inhomogeneous and truncated density distribution $\rho(r)=C{{M_*}}/({r_*}^3 +r^3)$, where $C^{-1}\equiv
4\pi\ln(1+{r_{\rm t}}^3/{r_*}^3)/3$, ${{M_*}}$ is the total mass, and ${r_{\rm t}}=20{r_*}$ is the truncation radius. Inhomogeneities are introduced as described in Section \[secic\]. Note that in the external parts the new initial conditions are significantly flatter than a Plummer sphere. The three simulations are labeled $\Dprime$ (dMOND), $\Mprime$ (MOND with acceleration ratio[^5] $\kappa=20$) and $\Nprime$ (Newtonian). As in the case of Plummer initial conditions, also in these cases the final intrinsic and projected density distributions are well represented by $\gamma$-models and Sersic models, respectively. In analogy with model N, the Newtonian collapse $\Nprime$ produced the system with the steepest central density distribution (see Table 2). In addition, model $\Mprime$, when compared with the scaling laws of ellipticals (stars in Fig. \[figfp\]), follows the same trend as models M1, M2 and M4. The analysis of the time-evolution in phase-space of models $\Dprime$, $\Mprime$ and $\Nprime$ confirmed that mixing and relaxation processes are less effective in MOND than in Newtonian gravity.
How do the presented results depend on the specific choice (equation \[eqmu\]) of the MOND interpolating function $\mu$? Recently, a few other interpolating functions have been proposed to better fit galactic rotation curves (Famaey & Binney 2005), and in the context of TeVeS (Bekenstein 2004; Zaho & Famaey 2006). It is reasonable to expect that the exact form of $\mu$ is not critical in a violent dynamical process such as dissipationless collapse. We verified that this is actually the case, by running an additional MOND simulation with the same initial conditions and parameter $\kappa$ as simulation M1, but adopting $\mu(y)=y/(1+y)$, as proposed by Famaey & Binney (2005). In fact, neither in the time-evolution nor in the structural and kinematical properties of the end-products we found significant differences between the two simulations. This result suggests that, in the context of structure formation in MOND, the crucial feature is the presence of a characteristic acceleration separating the two gravity regimes, while the details of the transition region are unimportant.
Though the dissipationless collapse is a very simplistic model for galaxy formation, it is expected to describe reasonably well the last phase of “monolithic-like” galaxy formation, in which star formation is almost completed during the initial phases of the collapse. The importance of gas dissipation in the formation of elliptical galaxies is very well known, going back to the seminal works of Rees & Ostriker (1977) and White & Rees (1978; see also Ciotti, Lanzoni & Volonteri 2006, and references therein, for a discussion of the expected impact of gas dissipation on the scaling laws followed by elliptical galaxies). This aspect has been completely neglected in our exploration, and we are working on an hybrid (stars plus gas) version of the MOND code to explore quantitatively this issue. We also stress that the dissipationless collapse process catches the essence of violent relaxation, which is certainly relevant to the formation of spheroids even in more complicated scenarios, such as merging. For example, it is well known that in Newtonian dynamics systems with de Vaucouleurs profiles are produced by dissipationless merging of spheroids (e.g. White 1978) or disk galaxies (e.g. Barnes 1992) as well as by dissipationless collapses (van Albada 1982). Merging simulations in MOND have not been performed so far, and a relevant and still open question is how efficient merging is in MOND, in which the important effect of dark matter halos is missing, and galaxies are expected to collide at higher speed than in Newtonian gravity (Binney 2004; Sellwood 2004). Our results, indicating that relaxation takes longer in MOND than in Newtonian gravity, go in the direction of making merging time scales even longer in MOND; on the other hand, analytical estimates seem to indicate shorter dynamical friction time-scales in MOND than in Newtonian gravity (Ciotti & Binney 2004). So, the next application of our code will be the study of galaxy merging in MOND.
We are grateful to James Binney and Scott Tremaine for helpful discussions and to the anonymous referee for useful comments. This work was partially supported by the MIUR grant CoFin2004.
The volume-limited energy-balance equation in MOND {#appetot}
==================================================
In this Appendix we derive a useful volume-limited integral relation representing energy conservation in MOND, well suited to test numerical simulations. The total (ordered and random) kinetic energy per unit volume of a continuous distribution with density $\rho$ and velocity field ${{\bf u}}$ is $$k={\rho\over 2}(||{{\bf u}}||^2+\Tr{\sigma^2_{ij}}),$$ where $\sigma^2_{ij}$ is the velocity-dispersion tensor. In the present case the energy balance equation is (e.g. Ciotti 2000) $${d \over d t}\int_{V(t)}k\dxcube=-\int_{V(t)}\rho {{\bf u}}\cdot\nabla\phi\dxcube,
\label{eqbalone}$$ where the integral in the r.h.s. is the work per unit time done by mechanical forces. By application of the Reynolds transport theorem and using the mass continuity equation we obtain $${\partial \over \partial t}(k+\rho\phi)+{\nabla\cdot}[(k+\rho\phi){{\bf u}}]=\rho{\partial \phi \over \partial t}.
\label{eqbala}$$ When $\phi$ is the MOND gravitational potential, $\rho$ can be eliminated using equation (\[eqMOND\]), so $$4 \pi G \rho{\partial \phi \over \partial t}={\nabla\cdot}(\mu
\nabla\phi){\partial \phi \over \partial t}={\nabla\cdot}\left(\mu
\nabla\phi {\partial \phi \over \partial t}\right)-{{a_0}^2\over
2}{\partial \over \partial t}
\left[\mathcal{F}\left({||\nabla\phi||\over {a_0}}\right)\right],$$ where $\mathcal{F}$ is defined in equation (\[eqeffe\]). Thus, equation (\[eqbala\]) can be written as $${\partial \over \partial t}\left[k+\rho\phi+{{a_0}^2\over 8 \pi
G}\mathcal{F}\left({||\nabla\phi||\over
{a_0}}\right)\right]+{\nabla\cdot}\left[(k+\rho\phi){{\bf u}}-{\mu\nabla\phi\over 4\pi G}{\partial \phi \over \partial t}\right]=0.
\label{eqbalafin}$$ By integration over a fixed control volume $V_0$ enclosing all the system mass one obtains equation (\[eqbaltext\]).
The virial trace $W$ in deep-MOND systems of finite mass {#appw}
========================================================
Here we prove that $W=-(2/3)\sqrt{G{a_0}M_*^3}$ for any dMOND system of finite mass ${{M_*}}$. Eliminating $\rho$ from equation (\[eqwij\]) by using equation (\[eqdMOND\]), and considering the trace of the resulting expression one finds $$W=-{1 \over 4\pi G {a_0}}\int \Dcal[\phi] \nabla\cdot\left({\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}\nabla\phi\right)\dxcube,
\label{eqwdiv}$$ where we define the operator $\Dcal\equiv<{{\bf x}},\nabla>$. The remarkable fact behind the proof is that the integrand above can be written as the divergence of a vector field, so only contributions from $r \to \infty$ are important. We will then use the spherically symmetric asymptotic behavior of dMOND solutions for $r \to \infty$ (BM) $${{\bf g}}=-\nabla \phi \sim-{\sqrt{G {{M_*}}{a_0}}\over r} \hat{\bf e}_r
\label{eqasym}$$ and Gauss theorem to evaluate $W$.
[**Theorem**]{}. For a generic potential the following identity holds: $$\Dcal[\phi]\nabla \cdot({\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}\nabla\phi)=\nabla
\cdot \left( \Dcal[\phi]{\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}\nabla \phi -
{{{\bf x}}{\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}^3 \over 3}\right).
\label{eqtheo}$$
[*Proof*]{}. From standard vector analysis (e.g. Jackson 1999) it follows that $$\Dcal[\phi]
\nabla\cdot\left({\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}\nabla\phi\right)=
\nabla\cdot\left(\Dcal[\phi]{\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}\nabla\phi\right)-
{\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}<\nabla\phi,\nabla\Dcal[\phi]>,
\label{eqxnabla}$$ and $${\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}<\nabla\phi,\nabla\Dcal[\phi]>={{\nabla\cdot}\left(
{{\bf x}}{\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}^3\right)\over 3}.
\label{eqdivthird}$$ Identity (\[eqdivthird\]) follows from the expansion $\nabla \Dcal[\phi]=\nabla \phi+\Dcal[\nabla \phi]$ as $${\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}^3+{\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}<\nabla\phi,\Dcal[\nabla\phi]>={\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}^3+{
\Dcal\left[{\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}^3\right]\over 3}={{\nabla\cdot}\left({{\bf x}}{\Vert\nabla\phi\Vert}^3\right)\over 3}.$$ Combining equations (\[eqxnabla\]) and (\[eqdivthird\]) completes the proof of equation (\[eqtheo\]).
We now transform the volume integral (\[eqwdiv\]) in a surface integral over a sphere of radius $r$, and we consider the limit for $r
\to \infty$ together with the asymptotic relation (\[eqasym\]), obtaining $$W=-{1 \over 4\pi G {a_0}} \lim_{r\to\infty} \int_{4\pi} {2 \over 3} r^3 g^2 d\Omega
=-{2 \over 3}\sqrt{G{a_0}M_*^3}.$$
Scaling of the equations {#appscal}
========================
Given a generic density distribution $\rho$, and the mass and length units ${{M_*}}$ and ${r_*}$, we define the dimensionless quantities $\txv\equiv {{\bf x}}/{r_*}$, and $\trho\equiv\rho{r_*}^3/{{M_*}}$. From equation (\[eqgv\]) the equation of motion for a test particle can be written in dimensionless form as $$\label{eqmotion}
{d^2 \txv \over d \tilde{t}^2}=-{{\phi_*}{t_*}^2 \over {r_*}^2}\tnabla \tphi,$$ where ${\phi_*}$ and ${t_*}$ are for the moment two unspecified scaling constants, $\tphi=\phi/{\phi_*}$ and $\tilde{t}=t/{t_*}$, and the dimensionless gradient operator is $\tnabla = {r_*}\nabla $. In all of our simulations we define ${t_*}\equiv{r_*}/\sqrt{{\phi_*}}$, so that the scaling factor in equation (\[eqmotion\]) is unity, while ${\phi_*}$ is specified case-by-case from the field equation as follows.
In Newtonian gravity the Poisson equation (\[eqPoisson\]) can be written as $$\tnabla^2\tphi=4 \pi{G {{M_*}}\over {r_*}{\phi_*}} \trho:$$ we fix ${\phi_*}= G {{M_*}}/{r_*}$, so ${t_*}=\sqrt{{r_*}^3/G
{{M_*}}}\equiv{t_{\rm *n}}$. The dMOND field equation (\[eqdMOND\]) in dimensionless form writes $$\tnabla\cdot( ||\tnabla\tphi||\tnabla\tphi)=4 \pi {G {{M_*}}{a_0}\over {\phi_*}^2} \trho,$$ so the natural choice is ${\phi_*}=\sqrt{G {{M_*}}{a_0}}$, and ${t_*}={r_*}(G{{M_*}}{a_0})^{-1/4}\equiv {t_{\rm *d}}$. Finally, the MOND field equation (\[eqMOND\]) in dimensionless form is $$\tnabla\cdot\left[\mu(\kappa ||\tnabla\tphi||) \tnabla\tphi\right]=4
\pi {G {{M_*}}\over {r_*}{\phi_*}} \trho ,$$ where $\kappa\equiv {\phi_*}/{r_*}{a_0}$. In this case, as in the Newtonian case, ${\phi_*}=G {{M_*}}/{r_*}$, so ${t_*}={t_{\rm *n}}$ and $\kappa= G {{M_*}}/{r_*}^2{a_0}$.
Aguilar, L.A., & Merritt, D. 1990, ApJ, 354, 33 Barnes, J. 1992, ApJ, 393, 484 Barnes, J.E., & Hut, P. 1986, Nature, 324, 446 Bekenstein, J. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 083509 Bekenstein, J., & Milgrom, M. 1984, , 286, 7 (BM) Bender, R., Burstein, D., & Faber, S.M. 1992, ApJ, 399, 462 Bernardi M., et al. 2003a, AJ, 125, 1849 Bernardi M., et al. 2003b, AJ, 125, 1866 Bertin, G., Ciotti, L., & Del Principe, M. 2002, A&A, 386, 1491 Bertin, G., et al. 1994, A&A, 292, 381 Binney, J. 1982, MNRAS, 200, 951 Binney, J. 2004, in Ryder, S.D., Pisano, D.J., Walker, M.A., Freeman, K.C., eds, IAU Symp. 220, Dark Matter in Galaxies. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Francisco, p. 3 Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton: Princeton University Press) Brada, R., & Milgrom, M. 1995, , 276, 453 Brada, R., & Milgrom, M. 1999, , 519, 590 Brada, R., & Milgrom, M. 2000, , 541, 556 Caon, N., Capaccioli, M., & D’Onofrio, M. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 1013 Capaccioli, M., Caon N., & D’Onofrio, M. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 323 Cappellari M., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1126 Christodoulou, D.M. 1991, ApJ, 372, 471 Ciotti, L. 1991, A&A, 249, 99 Ciotti, L. 2000, Lecture Notes on Stellar Dynamics (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore editor) Ciotti, L., & Bertin, G. 1999, A&A, 352, 447 Ciotti, L., & Binney, J. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 285 Ciotti, L., Lanzoni, B., & Renzini, A. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1 Ciotti, L., Lanzoni, B., & Volonteri, M. 2006, , in press (astro-ph/0611328) Ciotti, L., Londrillo, P., & Nipoti, C. 2006, , 640, 741 (CLN) Ciotti, L., Nipoti, C., & Londrillo, P. 2007, in proceedings of the International Workshop “Collective phenomena in macroscopic systems” (Como, Italy, December 4-6, 2006) de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Ann. d’Astroph., 11, 247 Dehnen, W. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 250 Dehnen, W. 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 179, 27 Djorgovski, S., & Davis, M. 1987, ApJ, 313, 59 Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., Burstein, D., Davies, R.L., Faber, S.M., Terlevich, R., & Wegner, G. 1987, ApJ, 313, 42 Faber, S.M., & Jackson, R.E. 1976, ApJ, 204, 668 Famaey, B., & Binney, J. 2005, , 363, 603 Felten, J.E. 1984, , 286, 3 Gerhard, O.E., & Spergel, D.N. 1992, , 397, 38 Graham, A.W., & Guzmán, R. 2003, AJ, 125, 2936 Gunn, J.E., & Gott, J.R. 1972, ApJ, 176, 1 Hockney, R., & Eastwood, J. 1988, Computer Simulation Using Particles (Bristol: Hilger) Jackson, J.D. 1999, Classical Electrodynamics (New York: New John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) Knebe, A., & Gibson, B.K. 2004, , 347, 1055 Kormendy J., 1977, ApJ, 295, 73 Londrillo, P., Messina, A., & Stiavelli, M. 1991, MNRAS, 250, 54 Londrillo, P., Nipoti, C., & Ciotti, L. 2003, In “Computational astrophysics in Italy: methods and tools”, Roberto Capuzzo-Dolcetta ed., Mem. S.A.It. Supplement, vol. 1, p. 18 Lynden-Bell, D. 1967, , 136, 101 Mateo, M.L. 1998, , 36, 435 Milgrom, M. 1983, , 270, 365 Milgrom, M. 1984, , 287, 571 Milgrom, M. 2002, New. Astron. Rev., 46, 741 Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., & Ciotti, L. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 901 Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., & Ciotti, L. 2003, MNRAS, 342, 501 Nipoti, C., Londrillo, P., & Ciotti, L. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 681 (NLC06) Nusser, A. 2002, MNRAS, 331, 909 Nusser, A., & Pointecouteau, E. 2006, MNRAS, 366, 96 Plummer, H.C. 1911, MNRAS, 71, 460 Power, C., Navarro, J.F., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C.S., White, S.D.M., Springel, V., Stadel, J., & Quinn, T. 2003, MNRAS, 338, 14 Rees, M.J., & Ostriker, J.P. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 541 Renzini A., Ciotti L., 1993 ApJ, 416, L49 Sanders, R.H. 2000, , 313, 767 Sanders, R.H., & McGaugh, S.S. 2002, , 40, 263 Sellwood, J. 2004, in Ryder, S.D., Pisano, D.J., Walker, M.A., Freeman, K.C., eds, IAU Symp. 220, Dark Matter in Galaxies. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Francisco, p. 27 Sersic, J.L. 1968, Atlas de galaxias australes. Observatorio Astronomico, Cordoba Shen, S., Mo, H.J., White, S.D.M., Blanton, M.R., Kauffmann, G., Voges, W., Brinkmann, J., & Csabai, I. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978 Stachniewicz, S., & Kutschera, M. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 89 Tiret, O., & Combes, F. 2007, preprint (astro-ph/0701011) Tremaine, S., Richstone, D.O., Yong-Ik, B., Dressler, A., Faber, S.M., Grillmair, C., Kormendy, J., & Laurer, T.R. 1994, AJ, 107, 634 Trenti, M., & Bertin, G. 2005, A&A, 429, 161 Trenti, M., Bertin, G., & van Albada, T.S. 2005, A&A, 433, 57 Trujillo, I., Graham, A.W., & Caon, N. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 869 Udry, S. 1993, A&A, 268, 35 van Albada, T.S. 1982, MNRAS, 201, 939 Walker, M.G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.W., Pal, J.K., Sen, B., & Woodroofe, M. 2006, , 642, L41 White, S.D.M 1978 MNRAS, 184, 185 White, S.D.M, & Rees, M.J., 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341 Zaho, H., & Famaey, B. 2006, ApJ, 638, L9
[^1]: Cosmological N-body simulations in the context of a relativistic MOND theory such as TeVeS have not been performed so far.
[^2]: As an experiment we also ran a simulation, with the same initial conditions and parameter $\kappa$ as M1, in which the force was calculated from equation (\[eqcurl\]) imposing ${{\bf S}}=0$. In this simulation the linear and angular momentum are strongly not conserved: for instance, the center of mass is already displaced by $\sim7{r_*}$ after $\sim30{t_{\rm dyn}}$.
[^3]: Ciotti, Nipoti & Londrillo (2007) found similar results in “ad hoc” numerical simulations in which the angular force components were frozen to zero, so that the evolution was driven by radial forces only. In fact, while phase mixing is less effective both in MOND and in Newtonian simulations with respect to the simulations here reported, the phase mixing time scale in MOND is still considerably longer than in Newtonian gravity.
[^4]: In Fig. \[figfp\]b the dotted lines are nearly coincident because 1) the models are almost homologous, and 2) the variable in abscissa is independent of $\kappa$, being the FP coefficients $A\sim-2B$ in this case.
[^5]: This value of $\kappa$ is not directly comparable with those in simulations M1, M2 and M4, because of the different role of ${r_*}$ in the corresponding initial distributions.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We will show a conjecture which reduces Mazur-Tate-Teitelbaum conjecture to the known cases. In order to explain its background we will develop an archimedian analog of Iwasawa theory. Moreover consequences of the conjecture which are related to Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture will be discussed. AMS classification 2000: 11F11, 11F67, 11F85, 11G05, 11G40'
author:
- 'Ken-ichi Sugiyama,'
title: An archimedian analog of Iwasawa theory
---
Introduction
============
In this report we will describe a conjecture which reduces Mazur-Tate-Teitelbaum conjecture (see [**Conjecture 3.1**]{}) to the known cases. We fix a prime $p$ greater than or equal to $5$. Let $E$ and $E^{\prime}$ be elliptic curves defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. We say that they have ordinary reduction [of the same type]{} at $p$ if one of the following conditions holds:
1. they have good ordinary reduction at $p$ and the cardinality of ${\mathbb F}_p$-rational points of their reductions are equal,
2. they have split multiplicative reduction at $p$,
3. they have non-split multiplicative reduction at $p$.
In particular if $E$ has ordinary reduction at $p$ and if their reduction $\tilde{E}_p$ and $\tilde{E}^{\prime}_p$ are isomorphic over ${\mathbb F}_p$ they have the same type.
Let $E$ and $E^{\prime}$ be elliptic curves defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. Suppose that they have ordinary reduction of the same type at $p$. Then $${\rm ord}_{s=1}L(E,s)-{\rm ord}_{s=0}{\mathcal L}_{E,p}(s)={\rm ord}_{s=1}L(E^{\prime}, s)-{\rm ord}_{s=0}{\mathcal L}_{E^{\prime},p}(s).$$
It is clear that Mazur-Tate-Teitelbaum conjecture implies [**Conjecture 1.1**]{}. Conversely we will show that [**Conjecture 1.1**]{} indues theirs. Here is a brief outline of an argument (see \$3.1 for details). It is known that Mazur-Tate-Teitelbaum conjecture is true for an elliptic curve $E$ defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ whose L-function does not vanish at $s=1$. More precisely if $E$ has a good ordinary or a non-split multiplicative reduction at $p$ it is obviously true by the definition (see [**Fact 2.1**]{}). If $E$ has a split multiplicative reduction it is a theorem due to Greenberg-Stevens [@Greenberg-Stevens] (see also [@Kobayashi2006]). Suppose that our conjecture were true. It is sufficient to find an elliptic curve $E^{\prime}$ defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ which has an ordinary reduction of the same type at $p$ as $E$ and that $L(E^{\prime},1)\neq 0$. Using results of Ono and Skinner [@Ono-Skinner1998] we will construct such a curve by a quadratic twist of $E$.\
Let us briefly explain a motivation of the conjecture. Let $\Gamma_{\infty}$ be the set of $p$-adic integers congruent one modulo $p$. For an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ which has ordinary reduction at $p$, Mazur, Tate and Teitelbaum constructed an element $\mu_{E,p}\in {\mathbb Z}_{p}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]$ which interpolates special values of twisted L-function of $E$ at $s=1$ (see [**Fact 2.1**]{}). The $p$-adic L-function of $E$ is intuitively $${\mathcal L}_{E,p}=\chi_{s}(\mu_{E,p}),$$ where $\chi_{s}$ is a character of $\Gamma_{\infty}$ defined by $\chi_{s}(x)=x^{-s}$. Let $E$ and $E^{\prime}$ be elliptic curves defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ which have ordinary reduction of the same type at $p$ and $\chi$ a character of $\Gamma_{\infty}$ of finite order. Then $$\sigma(\chi(\phi(\mu_{E,p})))\frac{L(E^{\prime},\chi^{1-p},1)}{\Omega_{E^{\prime}}}=\sigma(\chi(\phi(\mu_{E^{\prime},p})))\frac{L(E,\chi^{1-p},1)}{\Omega_{E}},$$ where $\phi$ is a homomorphism of ${\mathbb Z}_{p}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]$ induced by an automorphism $x \mapsto x^{p-1} \,(x \in \Gamma_{\infty})$ and $\sigma$ is an isomorphism from ${\mathbb C}_{p}$ to ${\mathbb C}$. Suppose we were able to constructed a ${\mathbb C}$-valued measure $\xi_{\infty,E}$ and $\xi_{\infty,E^{\prime}}$ on $\Gamma_{\infty}$ satisfying
1. $\chi(\xi_{\infty,E})=L(E,\chi^{1-p},1)$ for a finite character of $\Gamma_{\infty}$,
2. $\chi_{s}(\xi_{\infty,E})=L(E, 1+(1-p)s)$,
and so does $\xi_{\infty,E^{\prime}}$. If we brutely replace $\chi$ in the above equation by $\chi_{s}$ we will obtain $$\sigma({\mathcal L}_{E,p}((p-1)s))\frac{L(E^{\prime},1+(1-p)s)}{\Omega_{E^{\prime}}}=
\sigma({\mathcal L}_{E^{\prime},p}((p-1)s))\frac{L(E,1+(1-p)s)}{\Omega_{E}},$$ which implies [**Conjecture 1.1**]{}. In order to realize this idea we will develop a ${\mathbb C}$-valued measure theory on $\Gamma_{\infty}$ for an elliptic curve in \$2.2 and \$2.3, which is an arichmedian analog of Iwasawa theory. The motivation will be explained in \$2.4. (Note that the naively conjectured this equation is seemed to be too strong. In fact if $E$ and $E^{\prime}$ has a split multiplicative reduction at $p$ and if their L-functions does not vanish at $s=1$ it says that their L-invariants should be equal. But this fact is true if $E^{\prime}$ is a quadratic twist of $E$, which we may impose to derive consequences from [**Conjecture 1.1**]{}.) In \$3.1 we will discuss a relation between [**Conjecture 1.1**]{} and the conjecture of Mazur-Tate-Teitelbaum. The remaining sections will be devoted to an application to Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture.\
Throughout the paper we will use the following notation. $p$ will be a prime greater than or equal to $5$. Let $G$ be a group and $K$ be a commutative field. We denote the group ring of $G$ whose coefficients are in $K$ by $K[G]$. Fixing an embedding we will consider $\bar{\mathbb Q}$ as a subfield of ${\mathbb C}$ and ${\mathbb C}_p$.
A motivation of the conjecture
==============================
Review of the theory of $p$-adic measures
-----------------------------------------
In this section we will review the theory of $p$-adic integrals and $p$-adic L-functions. Details will be found in [@Hida], [@MS] and [@MTT]. For a positive integer $r$ let $\Gamma_{r}$ be the kernel of the mod $p$ reduction map, $$({\mathbb Z}/(p^{r+1}))^{\times} \to ({\mathbb Z}/(p))^{\times}.$$ It is isomorphic to an additive group ${\mathbb Z}/(p^{r})$ and taking the inverse limit we have $$\Gamma_{\infty}:=\lim_{\leftarrow}\Gamma_{r}\stackrel{\log}\simeq {\mathbb Z}_{p}.$$ Explicitly $\Gamma_{\infty}$ is the set of $p$-adic integers congruent to $1$ modulo $p$ and $$\log x=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n}(x-1)^{n},\quad x\in \Gamma_{\infty}.$$ The isomorphism between $\Gamma_{r}$ and ${\mathbb Z}/(p^{r})$ is still denoted by $\log$. There is an isomorphism $${\mathbb Z}_{p}[\Gamma_{r}] \simeq {\mathbb Z}_{p}[t]/((1+t)^{p^r}-1),$$ defined by $$\varphi=\sum_{x\in\Gamma_{r}}\varphi(x)x\mapsto \sum_{x\in\Gamma_{r}}\varphi(x)(1+t)^{\log x}.$$ Let $\gamma\in \Gamma_{\infty}$ be a topological generator so that $\log\gamma=1$. Taking the inverse limit of (1) we have $${\mathbb Z}_{p}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]:=\lim_{\leftarrow}{\mathbb Z}_{p}[\Gamma_{r}] \stackrel{\varpi_{p}}\simeq {\mathbb Z}_{p}[[t]], \quad \varpi_{p}(\gamma)=1+t.$$ Via $\varpi_{p}$ we sometimes identfy $t$ with $\gamma-1$. Putting $$t=e^{-s}-1=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-s)^{n}}{n!},$$ $\varpi_{p}$ yields an injective homomorphism of ${\mathbb C}_{p}$-algebras: $$\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}:={\mathbb Z}_{p}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]\otimes _{{\mathbb Z}_{p}}{\mathbb C}_{p}\stackrel{\tau_{p}}\hookrightarrow {\mathbb C}_{p}[[s]], \quad \tau_{p}(\gamma)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-s)^{n}}{n!}.$$ More explicitly using $p$-adic integral $$\tau_{p}(\mu)(s)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-s)^{n}}{n!}\int_{\Gamma_{\infty}}(\log x)^{n}d\mu(x), \quad \mu\in \Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}.$$ Let $a$ ($\neq 1$) be a $p$-adic integer that is congruent $1$ modulo $p$. We define [*a Dirac measure*]{} $\delta_{a}$ supported at $a$ to be $$\delta_{a}:=\lim_{\leftarrow}(\delta_{a})_{r}\in {\mathbb Z}_{p}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]], \quad (\delta_{a})_{r}=\sum_{x\in\Gamma_{r}}(\delta_{a})_{r}(x)x \in {\mathbb Z}_{p}[\Gamma_{r}],$$ where $(\delta_{a})_{r}([a])=1$ and $(\delta_{a})_{r}(x)=0$ if $x\neq [a]$. Here $[a]$ is the image of $a$ by the natural projection $\Gamma_{\infty}\to \Gamma_{r}$. A simple computation shows the following lemma.
$$\tau_{p}(\delta_{a})(s)=a^{-s}.$$ where $$a^{-s}:=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-s\log a)^{n}}{n!}\in {\mathbb C}_{p}[[s]].$$
For an example let us take $a=\gamma$. Then (1) is a consequentce of (2). Let ${\mathbb C}_{p}[\delta_{a}]$ be a subalgebra of $\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}$ generated by $\delta_{a}$, which is easily seen to be isomorphic to a ring of polynomials of one variable whose coefficients are in ${\mathbb C}_{p}$. In fact let us consider a sub-semigroup $a^{{\mathbb N}}:=\{a^{m}\,|\,m\in {\mathbb Z},\,m\geq 0\}$ of $\Gamma_{\infty}$ which is isomorphic to ${\mathbb N}:=\{x \in {\mathbb Z}|\,x \geq 0\}$. Then $${\mathbb C}_{p}[\delta_{a}]= {\mathbb C}_{p}[a^{{\mathbb N}}]\subset \Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}.$$ We put $X_{a}=\delta_{a}-1$ and define $$\frak{M}_p:=\tau_{p}^{-1}((s)), \quad \frak{N}:=\frak{M}_p \cap {\mathbb C}_{p}[X_{a}].$$ Then $\frak{M}_p$ and $\frak{N}$ are generated by $t$ and $X_{a}$, respectively. Let ${\mathbb C}_{p}[[X_{a}]]$ (resp. $\hat{\Lambda}_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}$) be a $\frak{N}$-adic (resp. $\frak{M}_p$-adic) completion of ${\mathbb C}_{p}[X_{a}]$ (resp. $\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}$). Note that $${\mathbb C}_{p}[X_{a}]/(X_{a}^{r})=\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}/\frak{M}_p^{r}\stackrel{\tau_{p}}\simeq {\mathbb C}_{p}[s]/(s^{r}),$$ for every positive integer $r$. Passing to the inverse limit we see that $${\mathbb C}_{p}[[X_{a}]]=\hat{\Lambda}_{{\mathbb C}_{p}},$$ and that $\tau_{p}$ is completed to an isomorphism: $${\mathbb C}_{p}[[X_{a}]]=\hat{\Lambda}_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}\stackrel{\hat{\tau}_{p}}\simeq {\mathbb C}_{p}[[s]].$$ Summarizing we have proved the following.
Let $a$ be an integer greater than $1$ that is congruent to $1$ modulo $p$.
1. $$\hat{\Lambda}_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}={\mathbb C}_{p}[[X_{a}]], \quad X_{a}=\delta_{a}-1.$$
2. There is an injective homomorphism $\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}\stackrel{\tau_{p}}\hookrightarrow {\mathbb C}_{p}[[s]]$ and it is completed to an isomorphism $${\mathbb C}_{p}[[X_{a}]]=\hat{\Lambda}_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}\stackrel{\hat{\tau}_{p}}\simeq {\mathbb C}_{p}[[s]], \quad \hat{\tau}_{p}(X_{a})=a^{-s}-1.$$ In particular the natural map $$\nu : \Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}\to \hat{\Lambda}_{{\mathbb C}_{p}},$$ is injective.
Let ${\mathbb C}_p[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]$ be the inverse limit of a projective system $\{{\mathbb C}_p[\Gamma_{r}]\}_{r}$, which contains $\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}$ as a subalgebra. Let $\alpha_{\Gamma_{r}}:{\mathbb C}_p[\Gamma_{r}]\to {\mathbb C}_p$ be the argumentation and $$\alpha_{\Gamma_{\infty}} : {\mathbb C}_p[[\Gamma_{\infty}]] \to {\mathbb C}_p,$$ be its inverse limit. Let $e_{0}: {\mathbb C}_p[[s]] \to {\mathbb C}_p$ be the evaluation at the origin: $e_{0}(f)=f(0)$. The following is derived from (3).
$$e_{0}(\tau_{p}(\mu))=\alpha_{\Gamma_{\infty}}(\mu),\quad \mu\in \Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}.$$
This shows that $\frak{M}_p$ is equal to the intersection of $\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_p}$ with the argumentation ideal of ${\mathbb C}_{p}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]$. We take a system of primitive $p^{n}$-th roots of the unit $\{\zeta_{p^n}\}_{n}$ satisfying $\zeta_{p^{n+1}}^{p}=\zeta_{p^n}$. According to a decomposition of Galois group: $${\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}(\zeta_{p^{n+1}})/{\mathbb Q})\simeq ({\mathbb Z}/(p))^{\times}\times \Gamma_{n},$$ let ${\mathbb Q}_{n}$ be the abelian extension of ${\mathbb Q}$ contained in ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_{p^{n+1}})$ such that ${\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{n}/{\mathbb Q})\simeq \Gamma_{n}$ and ${\mathbb Q}_{\infty}$ their union: ${\mathbb Q}_{\infty}:=\cup_{n}{\mathbb Q}_{n}$. Then ${\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty}/{\mathbb Q})$ is isomorphic to $\Gamma_{\infty}$ and we will identify them. Then As we have explained before, the projective limit ${\mathbb Z}_{p}[[{\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty}/{\mathbb Q})]]$ of $\{{\mathbb Z}_{p}[{\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{n}/{\mathbb Q})]\}_{n}$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb Z}_{p}[[t]]$.\
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ which has either good reduction or multiplicative reduction at $p$. Take a prime $l$ different from $p$ and let $\alpha_{E}\in {\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}$ and $\beta_{E}=p/{\alpha}_{E}\in p{\mathbb Z}_{p}$ be the eigenvalues of the $l$-adic representation of $p$-th power Frobenius on the Tate module $T_{l}(E)$ if $E$ has good ordinary reduction and $(\alpha_{E},\beta_{E})=(1,p)$ (resp. $(-1,-p)$) if $E$ has split (resp. non-split) multiplicative reduction at $p$. For a finite character $\chi$ of ${\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty}/{\mathbb Q})$ whose conductor $p^{n}$ let $W(\chi)$ be the Gauss sum: $$W(\chi)=\sum_{\gamma\in {\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}(\zeta_{p^{n}})/{\mathbb Q})}\chi(\gamma)\zeta_{p^{n}}^{\gamma}.$$ We fix an isomorphism $\sigma: {\mathbb C}_p \simeq {\mathbb C}$ such that $$\sigma(z)=z,\quad z\in \bar{\mathbb Q}.$$
([@MTT]) There is the unique element $\mu_{E,p}$ of ${\mathbb Z}_{p}[[{\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty}/{\mathbb Q})]]\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}_{p}}{\mathbb Q}_{p}$ satisfying the following properties:
1. If $E$ has good ordinary reduction at $p$, $$\sigma({\mathbf 1}(\mu_{E,p}))=(1-\alpha_{E}^{-1})^{2}\frac{L(E,1)}{\Omega_{E}}.$$
2. If $E$ has multiplicative reduction at $p$, $$\sigma({\mathbf 1}(\mu_{E,p}))=(1-\alpha_{E}^{-1})\frac{L(E,1)}{\Omega_{E}}.$$
3. Let $\chi$ be a character of ${\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty}/{\mathbb Q})$ of finite order whose conductor $p^{n}>1$. Then $$\sigma(\chi(\mu_{E,p}))=\frac{W(\chi)}{\alpha_{E}^{n}}\frac{L(E,\chi^{-1},1)}{\Omega_{E}}.$$
Here ${\mathbf 1}$ is the trivial character and $\Omega_{E}$ is the fundamental real period of $E$. The $p$-adic L-function ${\mathcal L}_{E,p}$ of $E$ is defined to be $${\mathcal L}_{E,p}:=\tau_{p}(\mu_{E,p})\in {\mathbb C}_{p}[[s]].$$ Let $\phi$ and $\iota$ be automorphisms of $\Gamma_{\infty}$ defined to be $$\phi(x)=x^{p-1},\quad \iota(x)=x^{-1},\quad x\in \Gamma_{\infty},$$ and the induced automorphisms on $\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_p}$ are still denoted by the same character.
Let $\mu\in\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_p}$.
1. $$\chi(\phi(\mu))=\chi^{p-1}(\mu), \quad \chi(\iota(\mu))=\chi^{-1}(\mu).$$
2. $$\tau_{p}(\phi(\mu))(s)=\tau_{p}(\mu)((p-1)s),\quad \tau_{p}(\iota(\mu))(s)=\tau_{p}(\mu)(-s).$$
The following follows from [**Fact 2.1**]{} and [**Lemma 2.3**]{}
1. If $E$ has good ordinary reduction at $p$, $$\sigma({\mathbf 1}(\iota\phi(\mu_{E,p})))=(1-\alpha_{E}^{-1})^{2}\frac{L(E,1)}{\Omega_{E}}.$$
2. If $E$ has multiplicative reduction at $p$, $$\sigma({\mathbf 1}(\iota\phi(\mu_{E,p})))=(1-\alpha_{E}^{-1})\frac{L(E,1)}{\Omega_{E}}.$$
3. Let $\chi$ be a character of ${\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty}/{\mathbb Q})$ of finite order whose conductor $p^{n}>1$. Then $$\sigma(\chi(\iota\phi(\mu_{E,p})))=\frac{W(\chi^{1-p})}{\alpha_{E}^{n}}\frac{L(E,\chi^{p-1},1)}{\Omega_{E}}.$$
4. $$\tau_{p}(\iota\phi(\mu_{E,p}))(s)={\mathcal L}_{E,p}((1-p)s).$$
An archimedian analog of the $p$-adic measure
---------------------------------------------
We want to develop an analog of the $p$-adic measure theory over ${\mathbb C}$ for a certain Dirichlet series. For $\rho\in{\mathbb R}$ let $H_{\rho}$ be a right half plane defined by $$H_{\rho}:=\{z\in{\mathbb C}\,:\, {\rm Re}\,z > \rho \}.$$
A Dirichlet series $$A(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_{n}n^{-z},\quad a_{n}\in{\mathbb C},$$ will be called [regular]{} if it satisfies the following conditions:
1. $a_{n}=0$ if $p$ divides $n$.
2. There is a positive real number $\rho$ (which may depend on $A(z)$) such that $A(z)$ absolutely converges on $H_{\rho}$ and is analytically continued to the whole plane as an entire function.
3. For every positive integer $r$ and $a$ such that $1\leq a \leq p^{r}$ $$A_{r,a}(z):=\sum_{k=1, k\equiv a(p^{r})}^{\infty}a_{k}k^{-z}$$ is also continued to the whole plane as an entire function.
We will denote the set of regular Dirichlet series by ${\mathcal R}$. By definition it is contained in the commutative algebra ${\mathcal O}_{\mathbb C}$ of holomorphic functions on ${\mathbb C}$. In fact it is a subalgebra. We only check that it is closed by a multiplication. Let $A(z)=\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}a_{l}l^{-z}$ and $B(z)=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty}b_{m}m^{-z}$ be regular Dirichlet series and $C(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}c_{n}n^{-z}$ their product. It is obvious that $C(z)$ satisfies (1) and (2). For $1\leq c \leq p^{r}$ a simple computation shows $$C_{r,c}(z)=\sum_{ab\equiv c (p^r), 1\leq a,b \leq p^r}A_{r,a}(z)B_{r,b}(z),$$ and this implies (3). For $A(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_{n}n^{-z} \in{\mathcal R}$, we define $$\mu_{{\mathcal O},r}(A):=\sum_{a=1}^{p^{r}}A_{r,a}(z)[a]_{r} \in {\mathcal O}_{\mathbb C}[({\mathbb Z}/(p^{r}))^{\times}],$$ where $[\cdot]_{r}$ represents the residue class. Then $\{\mu_{{\mathcal O},r}(A)\}_{r}$ forms a projective system and we set $$\mu_{{\mathcal O}}(A):=\lim_{\leftarrow}\mu_{{\mathcal O},r}(A) \in {\mathcal O}_{\mathbb C}[[{\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}]].$$ Thus we have a map $$\mu_{{\mathcal O}} : {\mathcal R} \to {\mathcal O}_{\mathbb C}[[{\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}]],$$ which is a homomorphism of algebras by (5). Let $\tilde{\Lambda}_{{\mathcal O}}$ be its image. Note that a regular Dirichlet series $A$ is recovered from $\mu_{{\mathcal O}}(A)$. In fact we associate a function $\sum_{a=1}^{p^{r}}A_{r,a}(z)a^{-s}$ to $\mu_{{\mathcal O},r}(A)$, that is $\sum_{a=1}^{p^{r}}\sum_{k=1,k\equiv a(p^{r})}a_{k}k^{-z}a^{-s}$ on $H_{\rho}\times H_{\rho}$ ($\rho$ is sufficiently large). Therefore $$\lim_{r\to \infty}\sum_{a=1}^{p^{r}}\sum_{k=1,k\equiv a(p^{r})}a_{k}k^{-z}a^{-s}=\sum_{n=1,(n,p)=1}^{\infty}a_{n}n^{-(s+z)}=A(s+z),$$ on $H_{\rho}\times H_{\rho}$ and by analytic continuation we have a map $$\tilde{\tau}_{\mathcal O} : \tilde{\Lambda}_{{\mathcal O}} \to {\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb C}\times{\mathbb C}},\quad \tilde{\tau}_{\mathcal O}(\mu_{{\mathcal O}}(A))=A(s+z),$$ where ${\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb C}\times{\mathbb C}}$ is the set of holomorphic functions on ${\mathbb C}\times{\mathbb C}$. Thus $$\tilde{\tau}_{\mathcal O}\mu_{\mathcal O}=p^{*},$$ where $$p : {\mathbb C}\times{\mathbb C} \to {\mathbb C}, \quad p(s,z)=s+z,$$ and since $p^{*}$ is an injective homomorphism, ${\mathcal R}\stackrel{\mu_{\mathcal O}}\to \tilde{\Lambda}_{{\mathcal O}}$ is an isomorphism and $\tilde{\tau}_{\mathcal O}$ is injective. Let $$e : {\mathcal O}_{\mathbb C}[[{\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}]] \to {\mathbb C}[[{\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}]],$$ be a homomorphism induced by $${\mathcal O}_{\mathbb C} \to {\mathbb C}, \quad f\mapsto f(1),$$ and set $\tilde{\tau}_{\mathbb C}:=\tilde{\tau}_{\mathcal O}\otimes_{{\mathcal O},e}{\mathbb C}$. Let $\mu_{\mathbb C}$ be the composition of $${\mathcal R}\stackrel{\mu_{{\mathcal O}}}\simeq \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathcal O} \stackrel{e}\to \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}.$$ Then by (6) $$\tilde{\tau}_{\mathbb C}\circ \mu_{\mathbb C}(A)(s)=A(1+s),\quad A\in {\mathcal R},$$ and we have proved the following proposition.
$$\mu_{\mathbb C} : {\mathcal R} \to \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C},$$ and $$\tilde{\tau}_{\mathbb C} : \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C} \to {\mathcal O}_{\mathbb C},$$ are an isomorphism and an injective homomorphism, respectively. Moreover $$\tilde{\tau}_{\mathbb C}\mu_{\mathbb C}(A)=A(1+s),\quad A\in{\mathcal R}.$$
Here is an example. Let $b (\neq 1)$ be a positive integer prime to $p$ and set $D_{b}:=b^{1-z}$, which is a regular Dirichlet series. Then $$\mu_{\mathbb C}(D_{b})=\delta_{b},\quad \tilde{\tau}_{\mathbb C}(D_{b})=b^{-s}.$$ Let $\tilde{\tau}_{\infty} : \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C} \to {\mathbb C}[[s]]$ be the composition of $\tilde{\tau}_{\mathbb C}$ with the Taylor expansion at the origin: $${\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb C}} \to {\mathbb C}[[s]],\quad f \mapsto \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}(f)s^{n},$$ which is injective by [**Proposition 2.3**]{}. It is easy to check that $$\tilde{\tau}_{\infty}(A)(0)=\alpha_{\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}}(A),\quad A\in \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C},$$ where $\alpha_{\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}}$ is the restriction of the argumentation of ${\mathbb C}[[{\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}]]$. In particular we see that the kernel $\frak{M}_{\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}}$ of $\alpha_{\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}}$ is equal to $\tilde{\tau}_{\infty}^{-1}(s)$. Take a positive integer $b$ as above and set $Y_{b}:=\delta_{b}-1$. Then as we have seen in the previous section ${\mathbb C}[Y_{b}]$ is a subalgebra of $\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}$ which is isomorphic to the polynomial ring of one variable and it is esy to see that $$(Y_{b})={\mathbb C}[Y_{b}]\cap \frak{M}_{\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}}.$$ Thus we have shown that the each arrow of $${\mathbb C}[Y_{b}]/ (Y_{b}^{r}) \to \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}/\frak{M}_{\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}}^{r} \stackrel{\tilde{\tau}_{\infty}} \to {\mathbb C}[[s]]/(s^{r})$$ is injective. Since the dimension of both side are equal they are isomorphic. The following is an archimedian analog of [**Proposition 2.1**]{}.
1. $${\mathbb C}[[Y_{b}]]=\hat{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C}\stackrel{\hat{\tilde{\tau}}_{\infty}}\simeq {\mathbb C}[[s]].$$
2. The natural map $\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C} \to \hat{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C}$ is injective.
[**Proof.**]{} Take the limit of (8) we obtain (1). $$\begin{CD}
{\mathcal R}@>\text{$\tilde{\tau}_{\infty}\circ \mu_{\mathbb C}$}>> {\mathbb C}[[s]]\\
@V\text{$\mu_{\mathbb C}$}VV @V\text{$\hat{\tilde{\tau}}_{\infty}^{-1}$}VV\\
\hat{{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C}@>>> \hat{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C},
\end{CD}$$ Notice that $\tilde{\tau}_{\infty}\circ \mu_{\mathbb C} : {\mathcal R} \to {\mathbb C}[[s]]$ is the Taylor expansion at $s=1$ and it is injective. Since vertical arrows are isomorphisms we obtain (2).
$\Box$
But there is a slight difference. Namely ${\Lambda}_{{\mathbb C}_{p}}$ is a subalgebra of ${\mathbb C}_{p}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]$ but ${\tilde{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C}$ is contained in ${\mathbb C}[[{\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}]]$. Let $$\phi : {\mathbb C}[[{\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}]] \to {\mathbb C}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]],$$ be a homomorphism induced by $$\phi : {\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times} \to \Gamma_{\infty}\quad \phi(x)=x^{p-1},$$ and we define $$\Lambda_{\mathbb C}:=\phi(\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}).$$ Let $\alpha_{\Lambda_{\mathbb C}}$ be the restriction of the argumentation of ${\mathbb C}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]$ to $\Lambda_{\mathbb C}$ and $\frak{M}_{\infty}$ its kernel. Set $a:=b^{p-1}$ and $X_{a}:=\delta_{a}-1$. Then ${\mathbb C}[X_{a}]$ is a subalgebra of $\Lambda_{\mathbb C}$ isomorphic to a polynomial ring of one variable and $\phi$ yields a isomorphism: $$\phi : {\mathbb C}[Y_{b}] \to {\mathbb C}[X_{a}], \quad \phi(Y_{b})=X_{a}.$$ Since $$(X_{a})={\mathbb C}[X_{a}]\cap \frak{M}_{\infty}, \quad \phi^{-1}(\frak{M}_{\infty})=\frak{M}_{\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}},$$ we obtain the following diagram. $$\begin{CD}
{\mathbb C}[Y_{b}]/ (Y_{b}^{r})@>\text{$\tilde{i}$}>> \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}/\frak{M}_{\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}}^{r} @> \text{$\tilde{\tau}_{\infty}$}>> {\mathbb C}[[s]]/(s^{r})\\
@V\text{$\phi$}VV @V\text{$\phi$}VV\\
{\mathbb C}[X_{a}]/ (X_{a}^{r}) @>\text{$i$}>> {\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}/\frak{M}_{\infty}^{r}
\end{CD}$$ By (8) upper horizontal arrows are isomorphisms. Since the both $\phi$ are isomorphic so is $i$. (The reason that the right $\phi$ is isomorphic is $\phi : \tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C} \to {\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}$ is surjective and $\phi^{-1}(\frak{M}_{\infty})=\frak{M}_{\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}}$.) Define $\hat{\tau}_{\infty}$ and $\phi$ to be $$\hat{\tau}_{\infty} : {\mathbb C}[[X_{a}]] \to {\mathbb C}[[s]], \quad \hat{\tau}_{\infty}(X_{a})=a^{-s}-1,$$ and $$\phi : {\mathbb C}[[s]] \to {\mathbb C}[[s]], \quad \phi(f)(s)=f((p-1)s).$$ Take the limit of (9) and we have $$\begin{CD}
{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C}@>\text{$\tilde{\nu}$}>> {\mathbb C}[[Y_{b}]]=\hat{\tilde{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C}@>\text{$\hat{\tilde{\tau}}_{\infty}$}>> {\mathbb C}[[s]]\\
@V\text{$\phi$}VV @V\text{$\phi$}VV @V\text{$\phi$}VV\\
{{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C} @>\text{$\nu$}>> {\mathbb C}[[X_{a}]]=\hat{{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C}@>\text{$\hat{{\tau}}_{\infty}$}>> {\mathbb C}[[s]],
\end{CD}$$ where $\tilde{\nu}$ and $\nu$ are natural homomorphisms and every arrow in the right rectangle is an isomorphism. As we have shown in [**Proposition 2.4**]{} $\tilde{\nu}$ is injective and by definition the most left $\phi$ is surjective. A diagram chasing shows that $\nu$ is injective and that the most left $\phi$ is also an isomorphism. Let us denote ${\tau}_{\infty}=\hat{{\tau}}_{\infty}\circ \nu$. Here is an archimedian analog of [**Proposition 2.2**]{}.
1. $${\mathbb C}[[X_{a}]]=\hat{{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C} \stackrel{\hat{{\tau}}_{\infty}} \simeq {\mathbb C}[[s]], \quad \hat{\tau}_{\infty}(X_{a})=a^{-s}-1.$$
2. The natural map $\nu : {{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C} \to \hat{{\Lambda}}_{\mathbb C}$ is injective.
3. For $A\in{\mathcal R}$ ${\tau}_{\infty}(\phi\circ \mu_{\mathbb C}(A))$ is the Taylor expansion of $A(1+(p-1)s)$ at the origin and $$\alpha_{\Lambda_{\mathbb C}}(\phi\circ \mu_{\mathbb C}(A))=A(1).$$
An archimedian measure of a cusp form
-------------------------------------
Let $f=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n(f)q^n$ be a cusp form of weight 2 and level $N$. Let us fix a positive integer $m$ and for an integer $0\leq a\leq m-1$ we put $$\phi_m^a=f(z+\frac{a}{m}), \quad f_m^a=\sum_{n=1, n\equiv a(m)}^{\infty}a_n(f)q^n.$$
$\{\phi_m^0,\cdots, \phi_m^{m-1}\}$ and $\{f_m^0,\cdots, f_m^{m-1}\}$ span the same vector space over ${\mathbb Q}(\zeta_m)$.
[**Proof.**]{} Putting $\zeta_m=\exp(2\pi i/m)$ a simple computation shows $$\phi_m^a=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n(f)q^{n}\zeta_{m}^{an}=\sum_{k=0}^{m-1}\zeta_m^{ak}f_m^k.$$ Therefore $$\left(\begin{array}{c}\phi_m^{0} \\ \vdots \\ \phi_{m}^{m-1}\end{array}\right)=A\left(\begin{array}{c}f_m^{0} \\ \vdots \\ f_{m}^{m-1}\end{array}\right)$$ where $$A=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1 & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\1 & \zeta_m & \cdots & \zeta_m^{m-1} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\1 & \zeta_m^{m-1} & \cdots & \zeta_m^{(m-1)^2}\end{array}\right).$$ Since $A$ is regular, we obtain the claim. $\Box$\
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ and $N_{E}$ its conductor. Since it is modular [@BCDT] there is a cusp form $f_{E}$ of weight $2$ and level $N_{E}$ associated to $E$ and let $$f_{E}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_{n}(E)q^{n}, \quad q=\exp(2\pi iz)$$ be the Fourier expansion at $i\infty$. Removing the Euler factor $L_{p}(E,z)$ at $p$ we define [*the modified $L$-function*]{} of $E$ to be $$L^{\dagger}(E,z)=\sum_{n=1, (n,p)=1}^{\infty}a_{n}(E)n^{-z}.$$ Since its partial Dirichlet series $$(L^{\dagger}(E,z))_{r,a}:=\sum_{k=1,k\equiv a (p^{r})}^{\infty}a_{k}(E)k^{-z}$$ is a Mellin transform of $(f_{E})_{p^{r}}^{a}$ [**Lemma 2.4**]{} and the cuspidality of $f_{E}$ imply that $L^{\dagger}(E,z)$ is a regular Dirichlet series. Now we set $$\mu_{E,\infty}:=\mu_{\mathbb C}(L^{\dagger}(E,z))\in\tilde{\Lambda}_{\mathbb C}.$$ Let $\chi$ be a character of ${\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}$ of finite order whose conductor is $p^{r}$. It defines a homomorphism $$\chi : {\mathbb C}[({\mathbb Z}/(p^{r}))^{\times}] \to {\mathbb C},$$ and the composition it with the projection ${\mathbb C}[[{\mathbb Z}_{p}^{\times}]] \to {\mathbb C}[({\mathbb Z}/(p^{r}))^{\times}]$ is still denoted by $\chi$. Then $$\chi(\mu_{E,\infty})=L(E,\chi,1),$$ for a non-trivial $\chi$ and $${\bf 1}(\mu_{E,\infty})=\alpha_{\Lambda_{\mathbb C}}(\mu_{E,\infty})=L^{\dagger}(E,1).$$ Thus we see $$\chi(\phi(\mu_{E,\infty}))=L(E,\chi^{p-1},1),$$ by [**Lemma 2.3**]{}. [**Proposition 2.5**]{} implies the following theorem, which should be compared to [**Fact 2.1**]{}.
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. Then $\phi(\mu_{E,\infty})\in \Lambda_{\mathbb C}$ satisfies the following properties.
1. $$\chi(\phi(\mu_{E,\infty}))=L(E,\chi^{p-1},1),$$ for a non-trivial character $\chi$ of $\Gamma_{\infty}$ of finite order.
2. $${\bf 1}(\phi(\mu_{E,\infty}))=L^{\dagger}(E,1)=\frac{L(E,1)}{L_{p}(E,1)}.$$
3. $$\tau_{\infty}(\phi(\mu_{E,\infty}))(s)=L^{\dagger}(E,1+(p-1)s).$$
Our measure is related to Kato’s system which will be recalled below. Let $T_p(E)$ and $V_p(E)$ be the Tate module of $E$: $$T_{p}(E)=\lim_{\leftarrow}E[p^n], \quad V_{p}(E)=T_{p}(E)\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}_p}{\mathbb Q}_p.$$ ${\mathbb Q}_{n,p}$ denotes the completion of ${\mathbb Q}_{n}$ by the unique prime on $p$. Let $H^{1}_{S}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, V_{p}(E))\subset H^{1}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, V_{p}(E))$ be the image of $E({\mathbb Q}_{n,p})\otimes {\mathbb Q}_p$ by the Kummer map and $H^{1}_{S}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, T_{p}(E))$ its intersection of with $H^{1}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, T_{p}(E))$. For $M=T_{p}(E)$ or $V_{p}(E)$ we define $$H^{1}_{\slash{S}}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, M)=H^{1}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, M)\slash H^{1}_{S}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, M).$$ Let $\omega_E$ be the canonical invariant differential associated to the minimal Weierstrauss model of $E$. Then there is an isomorphism called [*dual exponential map*]{}: $$\exp^{*} : H^{1}_{\slash{S}}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, V_{p}(E)) \tilde{\to} {\mathbb Q}_{n,p}\omega_E.$$ Restrict the composition of $\exp^{*}$ with $${\mathbb Q}_{n,p}\omega_E \tilde{\to} {\mathbb Q}_{n,p},\quad a \omega_{E} \mapsto a$$ to $H^{1}_{\slash{S}}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, T_{p}(E))$ and we obtain a map $$\exp^{*}_{\omega_E} : H^{1}_{\slash{S}}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, T_{p}(E)) \to {\mathbb Q}_{n,p}.$$
([@Kato], [@Rubin1998] [**Corollary 7.2**]{}) For every $n$ there is $c_n\in H^1({\mathbb Q}_n, T_{p}(E))$ satisfying following properties.
1. $${\rm Cor}_{n,n+1}(c_{n+1})=c_n.$$ where ${\rm Cor}_{n,n+1} : H^1({\mathbb Q}_{n+1}, T_{p}(E)) \to H^1({\mathbb Q}_n, T_{p}(E))$ is a corestriction map.
2. Let ${\rm loc}_{p}^{ram}$ be the composition of $$H^1({\mathbb Q}_n, T_{p}(E)) \stackrel{{\rm loc}_{p}}\to H^1({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, T_{p}(E)) \to H^{1}_{\slash{S}}({\mathbb Q}_{n,p}, T_{p}(E)),$$ where the first arrow is the localization and the second is the natural projection. Then $$\sigma(\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma_n}\chi(\gamma)\exp^{*}_{\omega_E} ({\rm loc}_{p}^{ram}(c_n^{\gamma})))=\frac{r_E}{\Omega_E}L_{(pN_E)}(E,\chi,1),$$ for any character $\chi$ of $\Gamma_n$. Here $r_E$ is a positive integer which depends only on $E$ and $\Omega_E$ is the fundamental real period. $ L_{(pN_E)}(E,\chi,s)$ is a function obtained from $L(E,\chi,s)$ removing Euler factors at primes which divide $pN_E$.
Let $$\kappa_n=\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma_n}\exp^{*}_{\omega_E} ({\rm loc}_{p}^{ram}(c_n^{\gamma}))\gamma \in {\mathbb C}_{p}[\Gamma_n].$$ Then $\{\kappa_n\}_n$ forms a projective system by [**Fact 2.2**]{} and $$\chi(\sigma(\phi(\kappa_{\infty})))=\frac{r_E}{\Omega_E}L_{(pN_E)}(E,\chi^{p-1},1),\quad \kappa_{\infty}=\lim_{\leftarrow}\kappa_{n},$$ for any finite character $\chi$ of $\Gamma_{\infty}$ by [**Lemma 2.3**]{}. Since $$L_{(pN_E)}(E,\chi,1)=\prod_{q|pN_E}P_q(q^{-1}\chi({\rm Fr}_q))L(E,\chi,1),$$ where $$P_q(t)=
\begin{cases}
1-t, & \text{if $E$ has a split multiplicative reduction at $q$:}\\
1+t, & \text{if $E$ has a non-split multiplicative reduction at $q$:}\\
1, & \text{if $E$ has an additive reduction at $q$,}
\end{cases}$$ [**Theorem 2.1**]{} implies the following result.
$$\sigma(\phi(\kappa_{\infty}))=\frac{r_E}{\Omega_E}\prod_{q|N_E, q\neq p}\phi(P_q(q^{-1}{\rm Fr}_q)\cdot \mu_{E,\infty}).$$
A motivation of the conjecture
------------------------------
Now we are ready to explain a motivation of [**Conjecture 1.1**]{}. We will fix a positive integer $b$ greater than 1 which is prime to $p$ and set $a=b^{p-1}$. In order to make a distinction between $p$-adic and archimedian logarithm of $a$ we denote them by $l_{p}(a)\in {\mathbb C}_p$ and $l_{\infty}(a)\in {\mathbb C}$, respectively. We refer an isomorphism $\sigma : {\mathbb C}_p \to
{\mathbb C}$ is [*normalized*]{} if it satisfies
1. $$\sigma(z)=z,\quad z\in \bar{\mathbb Q}.$$
2. $$\sigma(l_{p}(a))=l_{\infty}(a).$$
Let us extends $\sigma$ to ${\mathbb C}_p[[s]]$ and ${\mathbb C}_p[[X_{a}]]$ by $$\sigma(\sum_{n}c_{n}s^{n})=\sum_{n}(c_n)s^{n},$$ and $$\sigma(\sum_{n}d_{n}X_{a}^{n})=\sum_{n}\sigma(d_n)X_{a}^{n}.$$ Then (2) implies $$\sigma(a^{-s})=a^{-s},$$ as a power series of $s$ and in particular $$\sigma\circ \hat{\tau}_{p}=\hat{\tau}_{\infty}\circ \sigma.$$ Finally we define $$\sigma : {\mathbb C}_p[[\Gamma_{\infty}]] \to {\mathbb C}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]$$ to be the inverse limit of $$\sigma : {\mathbb C}_p[\Gamma_{r}] \to {\mathbb C}[\Gamma_{r}],\quad
\sigma(\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma_{r}}c_{\gamma}\gamma)=\sum _{\gamma\in \Gamma_{r}}\sigma(c_{\gamma})\gamma.$$ Since $\sigma$ is normalized, $$\sigma(\chi(c))=\chi(\sigma(c)),\quad c\in {\mathbb C}_p[[\Gamma_{\infty}]],$$ for a finite character $\chi$ of $\Gamma_{\infty}$. Let $\Lambda$ be a ${\mathbb C}$-subalgebra of ${\mathbb C}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]$ generated by $\sigma(\Lambda_{{\mathbb C}_p})$ and $\Lambda_{\mathbb C}$ and $\frak{M}_{\Lambda}$ the intersection of it and the argumentation ideal of ${\mathbb C}[[\Gamma_{\infty}]]$. Then $\Lambda$ contains ${\mathbb C}[X_{a}]$ and $$\Lambda/\frak{M}_{\Lambda}^{r}={\mathbb C}[X_{a}]/(X_{a})^{r} \stackrel {\hat{\tau}_{\infty}} \simeq {\mathbb C}[[s]]/(s^{r}),\quad \forall r$$ by [**Proposition 2.1**]{} and [**Proposition 2.4**]{}. Therefore we see that, for $\lambda\in\Lambda$, $${\rm Min}\{k\,|\, \lambda\in \frak{M}_{\Lambda}^{k}\}={\rm ord}_{s=0}\hat{\tau}_{\infty}(\lambda).$$ Let $E$ and $E^{\prime}$ be elliptic curves satisfying the assumption of [**Conjecture 1.1**]{}. By [**Proposition 2.2**]{} and [**Theorem 2.1**]{} we see that $$\frac{\phi(\mu_{E^{\prime},\infty})}{\Omega_{E^{\prime}}}\cdot \sigma(\iota\phi(\mu_{E,p}))=\frac{\phi(\mu_{E,\infty})}{\Omega_{E}}\cdot \sigma(\iota\phi(\mu_{E^{\prime},p}))\in \Lambda.$$ Now [**Conjecutre 1.1**]{} will be derived by (10), (12), [**Proposition 2.2**]{} and [**Theorem 2.1**]{}.\
Unfortunately there seems to be a mistake in the above argument. In fact suppose that both $E$ and $E^{\prime}$ have a split multiplicative reduction at $p$ and that their L-function does not vanish at $s=1$. Take the image of (13) by $\hat{\tau}_{\infty}$ and the formula of the first derivative of $p$-adic L-function ([@Greenberg-Stevens], [@Kobayashi2006]) will tell us that their L-invariants should be equal! Since we cannot solve this puzzle the above argument should be considered as only an explanation and not a proof. But suppose that $E^{\prime}$ is a quadratic twist of $E$ (as we will see in the next section, in order to derive consequences from [**Conjecture 1.1**]{}, we may impose this). Because they are isomorphic over $\overline{\mathbb Q}$ their $j$-invariants are equal and so are L-invariants since the Tate period is determined by the $j$-invariant ([@MTT] [**Chapter II**]{} \$1 (2)).
Let $E$ and $E^{\prime}$ be elliptic curves defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. Suppose that $E^{\prime}$ is a quadratic twist of $E$ and that they have ordinary reduction of the same type at $p$. Then $$\Omega_{E^{\prime}}L(E,1-s)\sigma({\mathcal L}_{E^{\prime},p}(s))=\Omega_{E}L(E^{\prime}, 1-s)\sigma({\mathcal L}_{E,p}(s)).$$
Although our argument may be incomplete it will explain why an extra zero appears. We will follow the notation of [@Rubin1998] [**Appendix**]{}. Suppose that $E$ has a split multiplicative reduction at $p$. For simplicity we will omit to write the isomorphism $\sigma : {\mathbb C}_p \to {\mathbb C}$ and will make no distinction between $\hat{\tau}_{p}$ and $\hat{\tau}_{\infty}$, which will be denoted by $\hat{\tau}$. Let us put $$x_{n}={\rm Tr}_{{\mathbb Q}(\zeta_{p^{n+1}})/{\mathbb Q}_{n,p}}(\sum_{k=0}^{n}\frac{\zeta_{p^{n+1-k}}-1}{p^k}+\frac{p}{p-1})\in {\mathbb Q}_{n,p}$$ and $$w_{n}=\sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma_{n}}x_{n}^{\gamma}\gamma \in {\mathbb Q}_{n,p}[\Gamma_{n}].$$ One may check that $\{x_{n}\}_{n}$ is compatible with the corestrictions and that $\{w_{n}\}_{n}$ forms a projective system. According to Coleman define $${\rm Col}_{n}(\kappa_{n}):=w_{n}\iota(\kappa_{n})=\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma_{n}}({\rm Tr}_{{\mathbb Q}_{n,p}/{\mathbb Q}_{p}}x_{n}^{\gamma})\exp^{*}_{\omega_E} ({\rm loc}_{p}^{ram}(c_n))\gamma^{-1}.$$ It is known that it is contained in ${\mathbb Z}_{p}[\Gamma_{n}]$ and that ([@Rubin1998] [**Corollary 7.2**]{}) $$r_{E}\prod_{q|N_E, q\neq p}P_q(q^{s-1}){\mathcal L}_{E,p}(s)=\hat{\tau}({\rm Col}_{\infty}(\kappa_{\infty})), \quad {\rm Col}_{\infty}(\kappa_{\infty})=\lim_{\leftarrow}{\rm Col}_{n}(\kappa_{n}).$$ Therefore $$r_{E}\prod_{q|N_E, q\neq p}P_q(q^{(p-1)s-1}){\mathcal L}_{E,p}((p-1)s)=\hat{\tau}\phi({\rm Col}_{\infty}(\kappa_{\infty})).$$ Since ${\rm Col}_{\infty}(\kappa_{\infty})=w_{\infty} \iota(\kappa_{\infty})$ we formally obtain $$r_{E}\prod_{q|N_E, q\neq p}P_q(q^{(p-1)s-1}){\mathcal L}_{E,p}((p-1)s)=\hat{\tau}(\phi(w_{\infty}))\cdot \hat{\tau}(\iota\phi(\kappa_{\infty})).$$ By [**Theorem 2.1**]{} and [**Proposition 2.6**]{} the second term is $$\hat{\tau}(\iota\phi(\kappa_{\infty}))=\frac{r_E}{\Omega_E}\prod_{q|N_E, q\neq p}P_q(q^{(p-1)s-1})L^{\dagger}(E,1-(p-1)s).$$ and therefore $${\mathcal L}_{E,p}((p-1)s)=\hat{\tau}(\phi(w_{\infty}))\frac{L^{\dagger}(E,1-(p-1)s)}{\Omega_E}.$$ But what $\hat{\tau}(\phi(w_{\infty}))$ should be? By [@Rubin1998] [**Lemma A.1 (2)**]{} we know that $$\chi(w_{\infty})=
\begin{cases}
W(\chi), & \text{if $\chi$ is nontrivial}\\
0, & \text{if $\chi$ is trivial.}
\end{cases}$$ Now remember that $ W(\chi)$ appears in the functional equation of Dirichlet series: $$L(0,\chi)=\frac{1}{\pi i}W(\chi)L(1,\chi^{-1}).$$ If we were able to replace $\chi$ by $\chi_{s}$ as the introduction it would be $$\zeta_{(p)}(s)=\frac{1}{\pi i}\hat{\tau}(\sigma(w_{\infty})) \zeta_{(p)}(1-s),$$ where $\zeta_{(p)}(s)=(1-p^{-s})\zeta(s)$. In particular $$\hat{\tau}(\phi(w_{\infty}))=\frac{\pi i \zeta_{(p)}((p-1)s)}{\zeta_{(p)}(1-(p-1)s)},$$ and since the zeta function has a simple pole at $s=1$ the order of $\hat{\tau}_{\infty}(\phi(w_{\infty}))$ at $s=0$ is one.
Consequences of the conjecture
==============================
An application to Mazur-Tate-Teitelbaum conjecture
--------------------------------------------------
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. The following conjecture is due to Mazur, Tate and Teitelbaum.
1. Suppose that $E$ has an good ordinary or a non-split multiplicative reduction at $p$. Then $${\rm ord}_{s=0}{\mathcal L}_{E,p}(s)={\rm ord}_{s=1}L(E,s).$$
2. Suppose that $E$ has split multiplicative reduction at $p$. Then $${\rm ord}_{s=0}{\mathcal L}_{E,p}(s)=1+{\rm ord}_{s=1}L(E,s).$$
Suppose that $L(E,1)\neq 0$. If $E$ has a good ordinary or a non-split multiplicative reduction at $p$ the conjecture is trivially true by [**Fact 2.1**]{}. If $E$ has a split multiplicative reduction it has been proved by Greenberg and Stevens [@Greenberg-Stevens]. Later Kobayashi gives an elementary proof of their statements using Kato’s result [@Kobayashi2006]. Obviously our conjecture follows from [**Conjecture 3.1**]{}. Conversely, using a theorem due to Ono and Skinner [@Ono-Skinner1998], we will show that [**Conjecture 1.1**]{} implies [**Conjecture 3.1**]{}.\
Let $\Pi=\{p_1,\cdots, p_t\}$ be a set of mutually distinct primes and take $\epsilon=(\epsilon_1,\cdots \epsilon_t)$ where $\epsilon_{i}\in \{\pm 1\}$. Then we define $P(\Pi,\epsilon)$ to be a set of square free fundamental discriminants $D$ which satisfy $$(\frac{D}{p_{i}})=\epsilon_{i}, \quad \forall i,$$ where $(\frac{\cdot}{\cdot})$ denotes Legendre symbol. For a square free fundamental discriminant $D$ let $E_D$ be the twist of $E$ over ${\mathbb Q}(\sqrt{D})$. Namely if $$E\,:\, y^2=x^3-ax+b,\quad a,b\in {\mathbb Q},$$ is a Weierstrauss form of $E$, $E_{D}$ is defined to be $$E_D\,:\, Dy^2=x^3-ax+b.$$
([@Ono-Skinner1998] [**Corollary 3**]{}) For a positive number $X$ $$\sharp\{D\in P(\Pi,\epsilon)\,:\, |D|<X,\, L(E_{D},1)\neq 0\} >> \frac{X}{\log X}.$$ .
[**Proof of [**Conjecture 1.1**]{} $\Rightarrow$ [**Conjecture 3.1**]{}.**]{} By [**Fact 3.1**]{} we know that there is a square free fundamental discriminant $D$ satisfying $(\frac{D}{p})=1$ and $L(E_{D},1)\neq 0$. The first condition guarantees that $E$ and $E_{D}$ have ordinary reduction of the same type at $p$. As we have mentioned before the conjecture is true for $E_{D}$ and [**Conjecture 3.1**]{} is derived from [**Conjecture 1.1**]{}.
A review of Iwasawa theory for an elliptic curve
------------------------------------------------
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ with good ordinary reduction at a prime $p\geq 5$. We denote the Selmer group of $E$ over ${\mathbb Q}_{n}$ by ${\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q}_{n},E[p^{\infty}])$ and define $${\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},E[p^{\infty}]):=\lim_{\rightarrow}{\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q}_{n},E[p^{\infty}]),$$ where limits with respect to restrictions. In general let $M$ be a profinite ${\mathbb Z}_{p}$-module. Its $p$-adic and rational $p$-adic Pontryagin dual is define to be $${\mathbb D}(M):={\rm Hom}_{conti}(M, {\mathbb Q}_{p}/{\mathbb Z}_{p}),$$ and $${\mathbb D}^{0}(M):={\mathbb D}(M)\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}_p}{{\mathbb Q}_p},$$ respectively. The subscript [*conti*]{} means the set of continuous homomorphisms. By ${\mathbb Z}_{p}[[{\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty}/{\mathbb Q})]]\simeq {\mathbb Z}_{p}[[t]]$, we regard $X_{\infty}:={\mathbb D}({\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},E[p^{\infty}]))$ as a ${\mathbb Z}_{p}[[t]]$-module. It is known that $X_{\infty}$ is a torsion ${\mathbb Z}_{p}[[t]]$-module and therefore ${\mathbb D}^{0}({\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},E[p^{\infty}]))$ is a torsion $\Lambda_{{\mathbb Q}_{p}}$-module. Here we put $\Lambda_{{\mathbb Q}_{p}}:={\mathbb Z}_{p}[[t]]\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}_p}{{\mathbb Q}_p}$, which is a discrete valuation ring whose valuation ideal is generated by $t$. Let ${\rm Char}(X_{\infty})\subset \Lambda_{{\mathbb Q}_{p}}$ be the characteristic ideal of ${\mathbb D}^{0}({\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},E[p^{\infty}]))$ and the order of its generator with respect to $t$ is denoted by ${\rm ord}_{t}{\rm Char}(X_{\infty})$.
$${\mathbb D}^{0}({\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty},E[p^{\infty}]))^{{\rm Gal}({\mathbb Q}_{\infty}/{\mathbb Q})}\simeq {\mathbb D}^{0}({\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q},E[p^{\infty}])).$$
[**Proof.**]{} Immediate from [@Perrin-Riou1990] [**Lemme 6.6**]{}.$\Box$\
Let $\sf(E/{\mathbb Q})$ be the Shafarevich-Tate group. Taking rational $p$-adic Pontryagin dual of $$0 \to E({\mathbb Q})\otimes {\mathbb Q}_{p}/{\mathbb Z}_{p} \to {\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q},E[p^{\infty}]) \to \sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[p^{\infty}] \to 0,$$ we have $$0 \to {\mathbb D}^{0}(\sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[p^{\infty}]) \to {\mathbb D}^{0}({\rm Sel}({\mathbb Q},E[p^{\infty}])) \to {\rm Hom}_{{\mathbb Z}}(E({\mathbb Q}),{\mathbb Z})\otimes{\mathbb Q}_p \to 0.$$ [**Propositon 3.1**]{} implies the following theorem.
$${\rm ord}_{t}{\rm Char}(X_{\infty}) \geq {\rm rank}E({\mathbb Q}).$$ Moreover if $\sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[p^{\infty}]$ is finite the equality holds.
Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for a semistable elliptic curve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ and $L$ be a quadratic extension of ${\mathbb Q}$. Then for any odd prime $p$ and a positive integer $r$ the restriction gives an isomorphism, $$\sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[p^r]\simeq \sf(E/L)[p^r].$$
[**Proof.**]{} Since $p$ is odd and since the order of ${\rm Gal}(L/{\mathbb Q})$ is two, $H^{1}({\rm Gal}(L/{\mathbb Q}), E(L))[p^r]=H^{2}({\rm Gal}(L/{\mathbb Q}), E(L))[p^r]=0$. Therefore the inflation-restriction sequence implies $$H^{1}({\mathbb Q},E)[p^r]\simeq H^{1}(L,E)[p^r].$$ Let $v$ be a place (including $\infty$) of ${\mathbb Q}$. Suppose that $v$ ramifies or inerts in $L$ and let $w$ be the place of $L$ over $v$. The same argument as above shows $$H^{1}({\mathbb Q}_{v},E)[p^r]\simeq H^{1}(L_{w},E)[p^r].$$ Suppose $v$ splits in $L$ and let $w$ and $w^{\prime}$ be places of $L$ over $v$. Then both $L_{w}$ and $L_{w^{\prime}}$ are isomorphic to ${\mathbb Q}_{v}$ and $$H^{1}({\mathbb Q}_{v},E)[p^r]\stackrel{{\rm Res}}\to H^{1}(L_{w},E)[p^r]\times H^{1}(L_{w^{\prime}},E)[p^r],$$ is the diagonal imbedding, $$H^{1}({\mathbb Q}_{v},E)[p^r]\stackrel{{\Delta}}\to H^{1}({\mathbb Q}_{v},E)[p^r] \times H^{1}({\mathbb Q}_{v},E)[p^r].$$ Thus we find that $g$ (reps. $h$) of $$\begin{CD}
0 @>>> \sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[p^r] @>>> H^{1}({\mathbb Q},E)[p^r] @>>> \prod_{v}H^{1}({\mathbb Q}_{v},E)[p^r]\\
@VVV @V\text{$f$}VV @V\text{$g$}VV @V\text{$h$}VV\\
0 @>>> \sf(E/L)[p^r] @>>> H^{1}(L,E)[p^r] @>>> \prod_{w}H^{1}(L_{w},E)[p^r],
\end{CD}$$ is isomorphic (resp. injective). A simple diagram chasing shows that $f$ is an isomorphism. $\Box$\
Let $E$ be an semi-stable elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. Then there is a pair $(D,p)$ such that
1. $D$ is a square free fundamental discriminant so that $$L(E_{D},1)\neq 0.$$
2. $p$ is a good ordinary prime of $E$ which satisfies $$(\frac{D}{p})=1,\quad \sf(E_{D}/{\mathbb Q})[p]=0,\quad p\geq 11.$$
[**Proof.**]{} By [**Fact 3.1**]{} there is a fundamental discriminant satisfying (1). Let us fix one of them. Then by [@Kato] we know that $\sf(E_{D}/{\mathbb Q})$ is a finite abelian group. Since $E$ is semistable it does not have complex multiplication and, due to Serre, the density of supersingular primes of $E$ is $0$. Therefore there is a prime satisfying (2). $\Box$\
The following theorem is a direct consequence of [@Skinner-Urban] [**Corollary 3.6.10**]{}.
Let $E$ be a semistable elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. Let $p\geq 11$ be a prime where $E$ has good ordinary reduction. Then $${\rm ord}_{t}{\rm Char}(X_{\infty})={\rm ord}_{s=0}{\mathcal L}_{E,p}(s).$$
Let $E$ be a semistable elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. Then we have the following consequences.
1. The rank of $E({\mathbb Q})$ is equal to ${\rm ord}_{s=1}L(E,s)$.
2. For an odd prime $q$ the $q$-primary part $\sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[q^{\infty}]$ of the Shafarevich-Tate group of $E$ over ${\mathbb Q}$ is finite. Moreover it is trivial except finitely many primes.
[**Proof.**]{} Let $(D,p)$ be a pair of [**Proposition 3.2**]{}. Since $p$ is a good ordinary prime of $E$ and since $(\frac{D}{p})=1$, $E$ and $E_{D}$ have a good ordinary reduction of the same type at $p$. By $L(E_{D},1)\neq 0$, [**Fact 2.1**]{} shows that the order of $p$-adic L-function of $E_{D}$ at the origin is zero. Then by [**Conjecture 1.1**]{} and [**Theorem 3.2**]{}, $${\rm ord}_{s=1}L(E,s)={\rm ord}_{t}{\rm Char}(X_{\infty}).$$ On the other hand since $E$ and $E_{D}$ are isomorphic over ${\mathbb Q}(\sqrt{D})$, by [**Lemma 3.1**]{}, $$\sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[q^r]\simeq \sf(E/{\mathbb Q}(\sqrt{D}))[q^r] \simeq \sf(E_{D}/{\mathbb Q})[q^r],$$ for any odd prime $q$ and a positive integer $r$. In particular since $\sf(E_{D}/{\mathbb Q})[p]=0$ we see $\sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[p]=0$. Now [**Theorem 3.1**]{} and (14) implies $${\rm ord}_{s=1}L(E,s)={\rm rank}E({\mathbb Q}).$$ Kato has shown that $L(E_{D},1)\neq 0$ implies finiteness of $ \sf(E_{D}/{\mathbb Q})$([@Kato]). Thus (15) shows that $\sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[q^{\infty}]$ is finite for an odd prime $q$ and moreover vanishes except finitely many primes. $\Box$
Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for an elliptic curve defined with a complex multiplication
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ whose endomorphism ring is isomorphic to the integer ring ${\mathcal O}_{K}$ of a quadratic imaginary field $K$. Then the following is a direct consequence of [@Rubin1991][**Theorem 12.3**]{}.
Let $p\geq 5$ be a prime where $E$ has good ordinary reduction. Then $${\rm ord}_{t}{\rm Char}(X_{\infty})={\rm ord}_{s=0}{\mathcal L}_{E,p}(s).$$
Let $E$ be an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$ whose endomorphism ring is isomorphic to ${\mathcal O}_{K}$. Then we have the following consequences.
1. The rank of $E({\mathbb Q})$ is equal to ${\rm ord}_{s=1}L(E,s)$.
2. For an odd prime $q$ the $q$-primary part $\sf(E/{\mathbb Q})[q^{\infty}]$ of the Shafarevich-Tate group of $E$ over ${\mathbb Q}$ is finite. Moreover it is trivial except finitely many primes.
[**Proof.**]{} Let $d_K$ be the discriminant of $K$ and $d_K=q_{1}^{e_1}\cdots q_{t}^{e_t}$ be its factorization by primes. We choose an odd prime $l$ such that $(\frac{d_{K}}{l})=1$. By [**Fact 3.1**]{} there is a square free fundamental discriminant $D$ satisfying $$(\frac{D}{q_{1}})=\cdots (\frac{D}{q_{t}})=(\frac{D}{l})=1,$$ and $L(E_{D},1)\neq 0$. Note that the condition of $\{q_{i}\}_{i}$ implies that $d_K$ and $D$ are coprime. Let $R$ be a multiplicative closed set consisting of $\{-1,0,1\}\subset {\mathbb Z}$ and consider a multiplicative map: $${\mathbb Z}/(d_{K}) \times {\mathbb Z}/(D) \stackrel{\chi}\to R\times R, \quad \chi(x,y)=((\frac{d_{K}}{x}),(\frac{D}{y})),$$ which may be regarded as a map from ${\mathbb Z}/(d_{K}D)$. Since $\chi(l)=(1,1)$ there are infinitely many primes $q$ satisfying $\chi(q)=(1,1)$ ( In fact it is sufficient that $q\equiv l$ (mod $d_{K}D$)). On the other hand since $L(E_{D},1)\neq 0$, $\sf(E_{D}/{\mathbb Q})$ is a finite group [@Rubin1991]. Therefore there is an odd prime $p$ which does not divide the discriminant of $E$ and satisfies $$\sf(E_{D}/{\mathbb Q})[p]=0, \quad (\frac{d_{K}}{p})=(\frac{D}{p})=1.$$ The last condition gurantees that $E$ has good ordinary reduction at $p$ and that $E$ and $E_{D}$ are of same type at $p$. Now the remaining of a proof is the same as one of [**Theorem 3.3**]{} (One uses [**Theorem 3.4**]{} in stead of [**Theorem 3.2**]{}). $\Box$
[10]{}
C. Breuil, B. Conrad, F. Diamond and R. Taylor. On the modularity of elliptic curves over ${\mathbb Q}$ : Wild $3$-adic exercises. , 14, 4:843–939, 2001.
R. Greenberg and G. Stevens. $p$-adic $L$-functions and $p$-adic periods of modular forms. , 111, 2:407–447, 1993.
H. Hida. Elementary theory of $L$-functions and [E]{}isenstein series. 26, 1993.
K. Kato. $p$-adic [H]{}odge theory and values of zeta functions of modular forms. , 295:117-290, 2004.
S. Kobayashi. An elementary proof of [M]{}azur-[T]{}ate-[T]{}eitelbaum conjecture for elliptic curves. , Extra Volume Coates:567–576, 2006.
B. Mazur and P. Swinnerton-Dyer. Arithmetic of Weil curves. , 25:1–61, 1974.
B. Mazur, J. Tate and J. Teitelbaum. On $p$-adic analogues of the conjectures of [B]{}irch and [S]{}winnerton-[D]{}yer. , 84:1–48, 1986.
K. Ono and C. Skinner. Non-vanishing of quadratic twists of modular [L]{}-functions. , 134:651–660, 1998.
B. Perrin-Riou. Théorie d’Iwasawa $p$-adique locale et globale. , 99:247–292, 1990.
K. Rubin. The “main conjectures” of [I]{}wasawa theory for imaginary quadratic fields. , 103: 25-68, 1991.
K. Rubin. Euler [S]{}ystems and modular elliptic curves. in [*Galois Representations in Arithmetic Algebraic Geometry,*]{} , 254, 1998.
K. Rubin. Euler [S]{}ystems. , 147, 2000.
J. H. Silverman. The [A]{}rithmetic of [E]{}lliptic [C]{}urves. , 106, 1986.
C. Skinner and E. Urban. The [I]{}wasawa main conjectures for $GL_{2}$. .
L. C. Washington. Introduction to [C]{}yclotomic [F]{}ields. , 83, 1997.
A. Wiles. Modular elliptic curves and [F]{}ermat’s [L]{}ast [T]{}heorem. , 141:443–551, 1995.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Kimichika Fukushima [^1]\
Advanced Reactor System Engineering Department,\
Toshiba Nuclear Engineering Service Corporation,\
8, Shinsugita-cho, Isogo-ku, Yokohama 235-8523, Japan
date:
title: ' Proof that the real part of all non-trivial zeros of Riemann zeta function is 1/2 '
---
This article proves the Riemann hypothesis, which states that all non-trivial zeros of the zeta function have a real part equal to 1/2. We inspect in detail the integral form of the (symmetrized) completed zeta function, which is a product between the zeta and gamma functions. It is known that two integral lines, expressing the completed zeta function, rotated from the real axis in the opposite directions, can be shifted without affecting the completed zeta function owing to the residue theorem. The completed zeta function is regular in the region of the complex plane under consideration. For convenience in the subsequent singularity analysis of the above integral, we first deform and shift the integral contours. We then investigate the singularities of the composite elements (caused by polynomial integrals in opposite directions), which appear only in the case for which the distance between the contours and the origin of the coordinates approaches zero. The real part of the zeros of the zeta function is determined to be 1/2 along a symmetry line from the singularity removal condition. (In the other points, the singularities are adequately cancelled as a whole to lead to a finite value.)
` `
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
By connecting complex analysis with number theory, Riemann observed [@Riemann; @1859] that (denoting a set of real numbers by $\mathbb{R}$ and letting $x \in \mathbb{R}$) the function $\pi(x)$, which denotes the number of prime numbers below a given number $x$, contains the summation over non-trivial zeros (points at which the function vanishes) of the zeta function. Riemann expected (denoting a set of complex numbers by $\mathbb{C}$ and letting $z \in \mathbb{C}$) the real part of the non-trivial zeros of the zeta function ${\zeta}(z)$ to be 1/2, which is known as the Riemann hypothesis. Furthermore, von Koch showed [@von; @Koch; @1901] that $\pi(x)$ is well approximated by the offset logarithmic integral function ${\rm Li}(x)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(x)={\rm Li}(x)+O(x^{\frac{1}{2}}\log x),\end{aligned}$$ which is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis. We denote a set of natural numbers by $\mathbb{N}$ and let $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and $z \in \mathbb{C}$, then the zeta function $\zeta(z)$ is defined as a function, which is analytically continuated in the complex plane from the expression defined below \[3-5\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:0a}
\zeta(z)
:=
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^z},\end{aligned}$$ for $z$ that satisfies ${\rm Re}(z)>1$ (we denote the real and imaginary parts of $z$ as ${\rm Re}(z)$ and ${\rm Im}(z)$, respectively.) The zeta function is also obtained with the help of the gamma function $\Gamma(z)$, and, letting $t^{\prime}$ $ \in \mathbb{R}$, then the gamma function is defined as a function that is also analytically continuated into all points in the complex plane from \[3,6-9\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:gamd}
\Gamma(z)
:=
\int_{0}^{\infty} dt^{\prime} (t^{\prime})^{z-1} \exp(-t^{\prime}),\end{aligned}$$ for ${\rm Re } (z)>0$.
Concerning the zeros of the zeta function, which states $\zeta(z)=0$, there exist trivial zeros, such as negative integers $-2, -4, \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$ [@Moriguchi; @et; @al.; @195619571960]. In contrast, Hardy showed that numerous non-trivial zeros of the zeta function exist along the line with the real part equal to 1/2 [@Hardy; @1914]; however, not all the real parts of the non-trivial zeros are known. The work on such as imaginary parts of the zeros is reported in literature [@Reyna; @2011]. The computational approach [@Gourdon; @2004] strongly suggests that the real part of zeros of the zeta function is 1/2.
On the other hand, letting $z, w \in \mathbb{C}$, for the completed zeta function defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:zeta0}
\hat{\zeta}(z)
:=
\pi^{-\frac{z}{2}}\Gamma(\frac{z}{2}) \zeta(z),\end{aligned}$$ [*integral form of the (completed) zeta function*]{} is expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:zeta01}
\nonumber
\pi^{-\frac{1-z}{2}}\Gamma(\frac{1-z}{2}) \zeta(1-z)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
=\pi^{-\frac{1-z}{2}} \Gamma(\frac{1-z}{2}) \int_{0 \searrow 1} dw
\frac{w^{z-1}\exp(-\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi i w) - \exp(-\pi i w) }\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
+\pi^{-\frac{z}{2}} \Gamma(\frac{z}{2}) \int_{0 \swarrow 1} dw
\frac{w^{-z}\exp(\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi i w) - \exp(-\pi i w) }.\end{aligned}$$\
The above integral is performed along the integral lines $0 \searrow 1$ and $0 \swarrow 1$ with the slopes $-1$ and $+1$, respectively, which pass through an arbitrary point in the region between 0 and 1 of the real axis. Since the residue theorem exhibits the above equation, the integral form is independent of the shift of this intersection point between 0 and 1. Furthermore, in the original form [@Siegel; @1932] of the above equation, the function $\Gamma(z/2)$ in the second term on the right-hand side is proportional to the regular function for ${\rm Re}(z)<1$. The function $\Gamma((1-z)/2)$ on the left-hand side is regular in the region ${\rm Re}(z)<1$, while the right-hand side is also regular because of the existence of the derivative [@Yoshida; @1965; @Mizuno; @1966], and the function $\zeta(1-z)$ is analytically continuated uniquely [@Yoshida; @1965] into the region $0<{\rm Re}(z)<1$ (the real part of zeros of $\zeta(z)$ exists only in this region). This paper takes into account the form mentioned above.
Since the gamma function is regular, the non-trivial zeros of the completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$, which is the product between the gamma function $\Gamma(z)$ and zeta function ${\zeta}(z)$, coincide with those of the zeta function ${\zeta}(z)$ in the region being considered with the real part between 0 and 1. As is described in this paper, each of the two line integrals expressing the completed zeta function has a singularity when the integral lines approach the axis origin. However, the completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ does not depend on a specific point of the intersection point (shifted between 0 and 1 along the real axis) between the above integral line and the real axis due to the residue theorem, and $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ is regular in the considering region. Then, these singularities must exactly cancel each other for $\hat{\zeta}(z)=0$, which is expected to lead to the determination of the real part of the zeros of the zeta function ${\zeta}(z)$.
Considering the status mentioned above, this paper is aimed at proving the Riemann hypothesis. We first deform and shift the contours of the integral (as in Figs. \[fig:fig1\] and \[fig:fig2\] for the integral form of the completed zeta function) along the integral line rotated from the real axis, for convenience in the subsequent analysis of the singularity of the integral in a complex plane. By this deformation and shift of the contours for the integral, the singularity analysis can be concentrated on the components of the integral around the origin of coordinates.
This research then addresses the singularities that appear in the two integral lines of the integral form of the completed zeta function. The singularities of the integrands for the composite elements near the origin of the real axis are caused by polynomials, only in the case when the contour-origin distance approaches zero. These singularities adequately cancel each other yielding a finite value independent of the integral contour as a whole. In contrast, from the equation $\hat{\zeta}(z)=0$ for completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$, the real part of the zeros of $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ is determined by requiring these singularities to be an identical order power of the integral variable in the integrands leading to the exact singularity cancellation (given by Theorem \[thm:ReH\]). This requirement results in a value of 1/2 for the real part of zeros of the completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ (and the original zeta function ${\zeta}(z)$) due to the symmetry with respect to the 1/2 real part, which is the originality of the present study and proves the Riemann hypothesis. The Riemann hypothesis is one of the most important unproved problems in mathematics, and has its equivalent and advanced (extended) conjectures in other related fields. The positive proof of the Riemann hypothesis advances mathematics in other related fields [@Sato; @2007; @Kurokawa; @2009].
The contents of this paper are as follows. Section \[sec:2\] describes the deformation and shift of the contours for the integral in the integral form of the completed zeta function for convenience in the subsequent singularity analysis of the integral. Section \[sec:3\] presents the proof that the real part of all non-trivial zeros of the zeta function is equal to 1/2, as was conjectured by Riemann, followed by the conclusion.
Deformation and shift of the contours for the integral form of the completed zeta function for the singularity analysis in a complex plane {#sec:2}
============================================================================================================================================
This section presents the deformation and shift of the contours for the integral (in the integral form of the completed zeta function) along the line rotated from the real axis for convenience in the subsequent analysis (in Section 3) of the singularity of the integral in a complex plane. In this section, we first convert the integral form of the completed zeta function expressed by Eq. (\[eqn:zeta01\]) to the usual form and thus obtain Theorem \[thm:czta\]. Moreover, we define the radii centered at the (coordinate) origin, the main points and the contours (in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\] with Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]) in the complex plane. Then, the contours denoted by $0 \searrow 1$ and $0 \swarrow 1$ in the integral form of the (completed) zeta function in Eq. (\[eqn:zeta01\]) are deformed around the origin of coordinates to the arcs in Figs. \[fig:fig1\] and \[fig:fig2\], respectively (in Lemma \[lem:Defm\]). Subsequently, the remaining straight-line parts of the contours are shifted to point to the (coordinate) origin. Finally, we separate the finite integrals (in Lemmas \[lem:IntLM\], \[lem:IntMm\]) along the shifted contours, which have sufficient distance to the (coordinate) origin, from the integrals around the origin containing the singularities, which appear only when the contours approach the origin. Notations used in this paper are as follows. Let $z, v \in \mathbb{C}$ and $x, y \in \mathbb{R}$, and let $i$ be the imaginary unit, then $$\begin{aligned}
(x,y)
:=
z=x+iy.\end{aligned}$$ We denote the real and imaginary components as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:re}
z_{\rm R}
:=
{\rm Re } (z)=x,
\hspace{2ex}
z_{\rm I}
:=
{\rm Im} (z)=y,
\hspace{2ex}
v_{\rm R}:={\rm Re } (v),
\hspace{2ex}
v_{\rm I}:={\rm Im} (v)
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ with }
\hspace{2ex}
v=-z, z-1.\end{aligned}$$
The usual integral form of the completed zeta function is as follows.
\[thm:czta\] (the (third) integral form of the (completed) zeta function) Let $z, w \in \mathbb{C}$. Let $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ be the completed zeta function defined by Eq. (\[eqn:zeta0\]). Let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:zetl}
\hat{\zeta}_{\rm l}(z)
:=
\pi^{-\frac{z}{2}} \Gamma(\frac{z}{2}) \int_{0 \searrow 1} dw
\frac{w^{-z}\exp(-\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi i w) - \exp(-\pi i w) },\end{aligned}$$ and let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:zetr}
\hat{\zeta}_{\rm r}(z)
:=
\pi^{-\frac{1-z}{2}} \Gamma(\frac{1-z}{2}) \int_{0 \swarrow 1} dw
\frac{w^{z-1}\exp(\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi i w) - \exp(-\pi i w) },\end{aligned}$$ in terms of the gamma function $\Gamma(z)$. Then $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ is expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:zet0}
\hat{\zeta}(z)=\hat{\zeta}_{\rm l}(z)
+\hat{\zeta}_{\rm r}(z),\end{aligned}$$ which is called the (third) integral form of the (completed) zeta function.
From Eq. (\[eqn:zeta01\]), the above completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ is obtained by the exchange $z \leftrightarrow 1-z$, where the region $0<{\rm Re}(z)<1$ is kept under this exchange. The above region $0<{\rm Re}(z)<1$ is consistent with the region $0<{\rm Re}(z)<1$ we are considering in this paper.
In addition, the completed zeta function satisfies the following known symmetry relation [@Riemann; @1859; @Kurokawa; @2009; @Sato; @2007] for the exchange $z \leftrightarrow 1-z$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:zets}
\hat{\zeta}(z)=\hat{\zeta}(1-z).\end{aligned}$$
(80,115)(-40,-80) ( -40, 0 )[(1,0)[80]{}]{} ( 0, -37)[(0,1)[77]{}]{} (-7, 7)[(-1, 1)[28]{}]{} ( 7,-7)[( 1,-1)[28]{}]{} (-7,7)( 0,14)(7, 7) ( 7,7)(14, 0)(7,-7) ( -3., -3.)[${\rm O}$]{} ( 35., 1.)[${\rm Re}$]{} ( -5., 35.)[${\rm Im}$]{} (-35, 30)[$\searrow$]{} ( -6, 6)[$\nearrow$]{} (2.0,2.0)[$\searrow$]{} ( 5, -5)[$\swarrow$]{} ( 9,-14)[$\searrow$]{} (-31.5, 25)[$w_{\rm l1}$]{} (-21.5, 15)[$w_{\rm l2}$]{} (-11.5, 4.5)[$w_{\rm l3}$]{} ( 3.5, 4.0)[$w_{\rm l4}$]{} ( 2.5,-9.5)[$w_{\rm l5}$]{} ( 13.5, -20)[$w_{\rm l6}$]{} ( 23.5, -30)[$w_{\rm l7}$]{} (-22, 35)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{l}}$]{} (-31, 32)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}}$]{} (-21, 22)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{l2}}$]{} (-11, 12)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{lp}}$]{} ( 7, 8)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}}$]{} ( 13,-12)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{ln}}$]{} ( 23,-22)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{l3}}$]{} (31.5,-31)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{l4}}$]{} (-39, -42)[$w_{\rm l1}$: $(-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm M},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm M})$]{} ( 1, -42)[$w_{\rm l2}$: $(-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm m},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm m})$]{} (-39, -48)[$w_{\rm l3}$: $(-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1})$]{} ( 1, -48)[$w_{\rm l4}$: $( \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1})$]{} (-39, -54)[$w_{\rm l5}$: $(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1},-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1})$]{} (-39, -60)[$w_{\rm l6}$: $(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm m},-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm m})$]{} ( 1, -60)[$w_{\rm l7}$: $(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm M},-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm M})$]{} (-39,-65)[${\rm \tilde{C}_l}$: contour composed of contours from ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}}$ to ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l4}}$]{} (-39,-70)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}}$-${\rm \tilde{C}_{l4}}$: contours defined below]{}
(80,115)(-40,-80) ( -40, 0 )[(1,0)[80]{}]{} ( 0, -36)[(0,1)[76]{}]{} ( 7, 7)[( 1, 1)[28]{}]{} (-7,-7)[(-1,-1)[28]{}]{} ( 7, 7)(14, 0)( 7,-7) ( 7,-7)( 0,-14)(-7,-7) ( -3., -3.)[${\rm O}$]{} ( 35., 1.)[${\rm Re}$]{} ( -5., 35.)[${\rm Im}$]{} ( 31, 30)[$\swarrow$]{} (5.5, 2.0)[$\searrow$]{} (4.5,-6.5)[$\swarrow$]{} (-4.5,-8.0)[$\nwarrow$]{} ( -13,-14)[$\swarrow$]{} ( 27.5, 25) [$w_{\rm r1}$]{} ( 17.5, 15) [$w_{\rm r2}$]{} ( 8.5, 5.75) [$w_{\rm r3}$]{} ( 7.5,-9.5) [$w_{\rm r4}$]{} ( -8.5,-11.25)[$w_{\rm r5}$]{} (-17.5, -20) [$w_{\rm r6}$]{} (-27.5, -30) [$w_{\rm r7}$]{} ( 17, 35)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{r}}$]{} ( 26, 32)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}}$]{} ( 16, 22)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{r2}}$]{} ( 6, 12)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{rp}}$]{} (1.5,-4.0)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}$]{} (-18,-12)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{rn}}$]{} (-28,-22)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{r3}}$]{} (-36.5,-31)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{r4}}$]{} (-39, -41)[$w_{\rm r1}$: $(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm M},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm M})$]{} ( 1, -41)[$w_{\rm r2}$: $(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm m},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm m})$]{} (-39, -47)[$w_{\rm r3}$: $(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1})$]{} ( 1, -47)[$w_{\rm r4}$: $( \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1},-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1})$]{} (-39, -53)[$w_{\rm r5}$: $(-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1},-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm 1})$]{} (-39, -59)[$w_{\rm r6}$: $(-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm m},-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm m})$]{} ( 1, -59)[$w_{\rm r7}$: $(-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm M},-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}r_{\rm M})$]{} (-39,-65)[${\rm \tilde{C}_r}$: contour composed of contours from ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}}$ to ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r4}}$]{} (-39,-70)[${\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}}$-${\rm \tilde{C}_{r4}}$: contours defined below]{}
To evaluate the integrals of the completed zeta function (in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\])), we further define the detailed integrands, the main points (in the complex plane) and the deformed and shifted contours of the integrals for use in the subsequent processes.
\[dfi:intr\] Let $w \in \mathbb{C}$, and let $r_{1{\rm l}}, r_{1{\rm r}}, r_{1}, r_{\rm m} \in \mathbb{R}$ with $0<r_{1{\rm l}}, r_{1{\rm r}}, r_{1} << r_{\rm m}<1/2$. Then, the specific radii $r_{1{\rm l}}, r_{1{\rm r}}, r_{1}$ and $r_{\rm m}$ of $w$, centered at the origin of the complex $w$-plane, are defined to be small enough so that the follwoing denominator, denoted as $I^{({\rm De})}$, and parts of the numerators, denoted as $I^{({\rm Nu})-}$ and $I^{({\rm Nu})+}$, in the integrands in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]), are approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\{
I^{({\rm De})}=\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw) \approx 2\pi i w
\},
\hspace{2ex}
\{
I^{({\rm Nu})-}=\exp(-\pi iw^2) \approx 1
\}
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{ and }\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\{
I^{({\rm Nu})+}=\exp(+\pi iw^2) \approx 1
\}
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ for } |w| \leq r_{1{\rm l}}, r_{1{\rm r}} r_{1}
\mbox{ and } |w| \leq r_{\rm m}.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, let $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$, with $\theta=\frac{\pm 1}{4}\pi, \frac{ \pm 3}{4}\pi$, be the angle (argument) of $w$ measured counterclockwise from the real axis in the complex plane. Let $r_{\rm M} \in \mathbb{R}$ be the specific radius of $w$, centered at the (coordinate) origin, and defiend to be large enough so that the following denominator, denoted as $I^{(De)}$, in the integrands in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) is approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ConRM}
I^{(\rm {\rm De})}=
\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw) \approx
\exp(\pi iw) \hspace{2ex}\mbox{ or }\hspace{2ex} -\exp(-\pi iw).\end{aligned}$$ (The condition on the radius $r_{\rm M}$ is described in detail later around Eqs. (\[eqn:DeLM\])-(\[eqn:DeA3\]) ).
Here, we define the complex numbers in the complex $w$-plane shown in Figs. \[fig:fig1\] and \[fig:fig2\].
\[dfi:intw\] Let $w \in \mathbb{C}$, and let $w_{\rm l1}, w_{\rm l2}, w_{\rm l3}, w_{\rm l4}, w_{\rm l5}, w_{\rm l6}, w_{\rm l7} \in \mathbb{C}$. Using the specific radii $r_1$ and $r_{\rm 1l}$ (of $w$) and setting $r_1=r_{\rm 1l}$ in Definition \[dfi:intr\], we define the above complex numbers, whose locations in the complex $w$-plane are shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\], by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:wl1}
\nonumber
w_{\rm l1}:=r_{\rm M} \exp(\frac{3}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm M}\cos(\frac{3}{4}\pi),r_{\rm M}\sin(\frac{3}{4}\pi)),
\hspace{4ex}
w_{\rm l2}:=r_{\rm m} \exp(\frac{3}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm m}\cos(\frac{3}{4}\pi),r_{\rm m}\sin(\frac{3}{4}\pi)),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
w_{\rm l3}:=r_{\rm 1l} \exp(\frac{3}{4}\pi i)
=r_{\rm 1} \exp(\frac{3}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm 1}\cos(\frac{3}{4}\pi),r_{\rm 1}\sin(\frac{3}{4}\pi)),
\hspace{4ex}
w_{{\rm l}4}:=(r_{\rm 1}\cos(\frac{1}{4}\pi),r_{\rm 1}\sin(\frac{1}{4}\pi)),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
w_{\rm l5}:=r_{\rm 1} \exp(\frac{-1}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm 1}\cos(\frac{-1}{4}\pi),r_{\rm 1}\sin(\frac{-1}{4}\pi)),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
w_{\rm l6}:=r_{\rm m}\exp(\frac{-1}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm m}\cos(\frac{-1}{4}\pi),r_{\rm m}\sin(\frac{-1}{4}\pi)),
\hspace{4ex}
w_{\rm l7}:=r_{\rm M}\exp(\frac{-1}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm M}\cos(\frac{-1}{4}\pi),r_{\rm M}\sin(\frac{-1}{4}\pi)).\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, let $w_{\rm r1}, w_{\rm r2}, w_{\rm r3}, w_{\rm r4}, w_{\rm r5}, w_{\rm r6}, w_{\rm r7} \in \mathbb{C}$. Using the specific radii (of $w$) $r_1, r_{\rm 1r}$ and setting $r_1=r_{\rm 1r}$ in Definition \[dfi:intr\], we define the above complex numbers, whose locations in the complex $w$-plane are shown in Fig. \[fig:fig2\], by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:wr1}
\nonumber
w_{\rm r1}:=r_{\rm M} \exp(\frac{1}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm M}\cos(\frac{1}{4}\pi),r_{\rm M}\sin(\frac{1}{4}\pi)),
\hspace{4ex}
w_{\rm r2}:=r_{\rm m} \exp(\frac{1}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm m}\cos(\frac{1}{4}\pi),r_{\rm m}\sin(\frac{1}{4}\pi)),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
w_{\rm r3}:=r_{\rm 1r} \exp(\frac{1}{4}\pi i)
=r_{\rm 1} \exp(\frac{1}{4}\pi i)
=(r_1\cos(\frac{1}{4}\pi),r_1\sin(\frac{1}{4}\pi)),
\hspace{4ex}
w_{\rm r4}:=(r_{\rm 1}\cos(\frac{-1}{4}\pi),r_{\rm 1}\sin(\frac{-1}{4}\pi)),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
w_{\rm r5}:=r_{\rm 1} \exp(\frac{-3}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm 1} \cos(\frac{-3}{4}\pi),r_{\rm 1} \sin(\frac{-3}{4}\pi)),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
w_{\rm r6}:=r_{\rm m} \exp(\frac{-3}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm m}\cos(\frac{-3}{4}\pi),r_{\rm m}\sin(\frac{-3}{4}\pi)),
\hspace{4ex}
w_{\rm l7}:=r_{\rm M}\exp(\frac{-3}{4}\pi i)
=(r_{\rm M}\cos(\frac{-3}{4}\pi),r_{\rm M}\sin(\frac{-3}{4}\pi)).\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\end{aligned}$$
We now define the deformed and shifted contours of the integrals in the completed zeta function.
\[dfi:Conlr\] Using the complex numbers $w_{\rm l1}$-$w_{\rm l7}$ in Definition \[dfi:intw\] (points in the complex $w$-plane), the contours in Fig. \[fig:fig1\] are defined as follows:
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l}}$: contour composed of the contours from ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}}$ to ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l4}}$ (${\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{l2}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{lp}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{ln}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{l3}}$, ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l4}}$),
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}}$: straight-line contour from $[\exp(\frac{3}{4} \pi i)]\infty$ to $w_{\rm l1}$ (with radius $r_{\rm M}$) in the direction of the arrow,
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l2}}$: straight-line contour from $w_{\rm l1}$ (with radius $r_{\rm M}$) to $w_{\rm l2}$ (with radius $r_{\rm m}$),
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{lp}}$: straight-line contour from $w_{\rm l2}$ (with radius $r_{\rm m}$) to $w_{\rm l3}$ (with radius $r_{1}$),
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}}$: arc (of circle) contour from $w_{\rm l3}$ to $w_{\rm l5}$ via $w_{\rm l4}$ (in the direction of the arrow) centered at the (coordinate) origin $(0,0)$ with the radius $r_{1}$,
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{ln}}$: straight-line contour from $w_{\rm l5}$ (with radius $r_{\rm 1}$) to $w_{\rm l6}$ (with radius $r_{\rm m}$) in the direction of the arrow,
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l3}}$: straight-line contour from $w_{\rm l6}$ (with radius $r_{\rm m}$) to $w_{\rm l7}$ (with radius $r_{\rm M}$),
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l4}}$ straight-line contour from $w_{\rm l7}$ (with radius $r_{\rm M}$) to $[\exp(\frac{-1}{4} \pi i)]\infty$.
Similarly, using the complex numbers $w_{\rm r1}$-$w_{\rm r7}$ in Definition \[dfi:intw\] (points in the complex $w$-plane), contours in Fig. \[fig:fig2\] are defined as follows:
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r}}$: contour composed of the contours from ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}}$ to ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r4}}$ (${\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{r2}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{rp}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{rn}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{r3}}$, ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r4}}$),
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}}$: straight-line contour from $[\exp(\frac{1}{4} \pi i)]\infty$ to $w_{{\rm r}1}$ (with radius $r_{\rm M}$) in the direction of the arrow,
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r2}}$: straight-line contour from $w_{\rm r1}$ (with radius $r_{\rm M}$) to $w_{\rm r2}$ (with radius $r_{\rm m}$),
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rp}}$: straight-line contour from $w_{\rm r2}$ (with radius $r_{\rm m}$) to $w_{\rm r3}$ (with radius $r_{1}$),
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}$: arc (of circle) contour from $w_{\rm r3}$ to $w_{\rm r5}$ via $w_{\rm r4}$ (in each direction of the arrow) centered at the (coordinate) origin $(0,0)$ with the radius $r_{1}$,
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rn}}$: straight-line contour from $w_{\rm r5}$ (with radius $r_{1}$) to $w_{\rm r6}$ (with radius $r_{\rm m}$) in the direction of the arrow,
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r3}}$: straight-line contour from $w_{\rm r6}$ (with radius $r_{\rm m}$) to $w_{\rm r7}$ (with radius $r_{\rm M}$),
- ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r4}}$ straight-line contour from $w_{\rm r7}$ (with radius $r_{\rm m}$) to $[\exp(\frac{-1}{4} \pi i)]\infty$.
Here, we show that it is possible to deform and shift the contours in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) to the contours in Figs. \[fig:fig1\] and \[fig:fig2\].
\[lem:Defm\] Let $a_{\rm 0 l}, a_{\rm 0 r}, a_0 \in \mathbb{R}$ be positive finite numbers between 0 and 1. Let $0 \searrow 1$ be the contour (with the slope -1), which was used in Eqs. (\[eqn:zeta01\]), (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) and intersects the real axis (in the complex plane) at $(a_0,0)$, with $a_0=a_{\rm 0l}$, whereas let $0 \swarrow1$ be the contour (with the slope +1) which intersects the real axis at $(a_0,0)$ with $a_0=a_{\rm 0r}$. The contour $0 \searrow 1$ can be deformed and shifted to the contour $\tilde{C_{\rm l}}$ in Definition \[dfi:Conlr\] with Fig. \[fig:fig1\], whereas the contour $0 \swarrow 1$ can be deformed and shifted to the contour $\tilde{C_{\rm r}}$ in Definition \[dfi:Conlr\] with Fig. \[fig:fig2\].
Since the integral form of the completed zeta function in Eqs. (\[eqn:zeta01\]) and (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) is derived from the residue theorem, the contour $0 \searrow 1$ can be deformed and shifted to the contour $\tilde{C_{\rm l}}$, while the contour $0 \swarrow 1$ can be deformed and shifted to the contour $\tilde{C_{\rm r}}$.
Using Definitions \[dfi:intr\]-\[dfi:Conlr\] and Lemma \[lem:Defm\], we prove the following lemma, which shows that the integrals in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) along the contours for the regions with large distance to the (coordinate) origin are finite.
\[lem:IntLM\] Let $w,v, z\in \mathbb{C}$ (with $v=-z, z-1$), and let $z_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(z)$ with $0<z_{\rm R}<1$. Let $r_{\rm M} \in \mathbb{R}$ be the large (lower bound of) radius (in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\]) of $w$ along the shifted straight-line contours. Let ${\rm \tilde{C}_{lh}}$ be the contour, which is either of the contours denoted by ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}} and {\rm \tilde{C}_{l4}}$ (in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]), while let ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rh}}$ be either of the contours ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}} and {\rm \tilde{C}_{r4}}$ (in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]). Then, the following integrals of the integrands in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Shrl}
\nonumber
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lh}}
=\int_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lh}} dw
\frac{w^{-z}\exp(-\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)},
\hspace{4ex}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rh}}
=\int_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rh}} dw
\frac{w^{z-1}\exp(+\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{20ex}
\mbox{ along the
contours }
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lh}=\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm l1}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm l4}
\mbox{ (in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}) and }
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rh}=\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm r1}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm r4}
\mbox{ (in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2})},\end{aligned}$$ are finite (negligible compared with those with singularities around the origin of coordinates).
Letting $v=-z, z-1$, the polynomial $I^{(\rm Po)}_{v}$ in the numerators of the integrands in (above) Eq. (\[eqn:Shrl\]) denoted by $$\begin{aligned}
I^{(\rm Po)}_v=w^{v} \hspace{2ex}\mbox{ (with } v=-z, z-1\mbox{)},\end{aligned}$$ is rewritten (with $v_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(v), v_{\rm R}={\rm Im}(v)$) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Poh}
\nonumber
I^{(\rm Po)}_{v}=w^{v_{\rm R}}w^{iv_{\rm I}}
=w^{v_{\rm R}}\exp\{\ln[w^{iv_{\rm I}}]\}
=w^{v_{\rm R}}\exp[iv_{\rm I}\ln(w)]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:nwzl}
=w^{v_{\rm R}} \exp\{iv_{\rm I}[\ln(|w|)+i\arg(w)]\}
=w^{v_{\rm R}} \exp\{iv_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)-v_{\rm I}\arg(w)]\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\arg(w)$ is argument (angle of $w$ measured counterclockwise from the real axis in the complex $w$-plane), which is restricted to the principal value between $-\pi$ and $+\pi$. Letting $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$ be the angle of $w$ (that is, $\theta=\arg(w)$) along the straight-line contour, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Angt1}
\theta= \frac{3}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}}$},
\hspace{4ex}
\theta=\frac{-1}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l4}}$},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Angt2}
\theta= \frac{1}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}}$},
\hspace{4ex}
\theta=\frac{-3}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r4}}$}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the above angle, the variable $w$ is expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:wthe}
w=|w|\exp(i\theta)
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{ with }\theta=\arg(w),\end{aligned}$$ where $|w|$ is the radius (modulus) and $\theta$ is the angle (argument). Then, from Eqs. (\[eqn:Poh\])-(\[eqn:wthe\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Ivn}
\nonumber
I^{(\rm Po)}_v
=|w|^{v_{\rm R}}\exp(iv_{\rm R}\theta)
\exp[iv_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]\exp[-v_{\rm I}\arg(w)]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=|w|^{v_{\rm R}}\exp(iv_{\rm R}\theta)
\exp[iv_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]\exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta).\end{aligned}$$ The absolute value of $I^{(\rm Po)}_v$ in (above) Eq. (\[eqn:Ivn\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:PwAb}
|I^{(\rm Po)}_v|=|w|^{v_{\rm R}} \exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta).\end{aligned}$$
Moreover, let $I^{({\rm Nu})-}$ and $I^{({\rm Nu})+}$ be the parts of the numerators in the integrands in Eq. (\[eqn:Shrl\]) written by $$\begin{aligned}
I^{({\rm Nu})-}=\exp(-\pi i w^2),
\hspace{4ex}
I^{({\rm Nu})+}=\exp(+\pi i w^2).\end{aligned}$$ Using Eqs. (\[eqn:Angt1\])-(\[eqn:wthe\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
I^{{(\rm Nu})-}
=\exp [-\pi i|w|^2 (\cos 2\theta +i\sin 2\theta) ]
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ with } \theta=\frac{3}{4}\pi,\frac{-1}{4}\pi,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
I^{{(\rm Nu})+}
=\exp [\pi i|w|^2 (\cos 2\theta +i\sin 2\theta) ]
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ with } \theta=\frac{1}{4}\pi,\frac{-3\pi}{4}\pi.\end{aligned}$$ We then have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mMMin}
|I^{({\rm Nu})-}| =\exp (\pi |w|^2\sin 2\theta)
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ for }
\theta=\frac{3}{4}\pi,\frac{-1}{4}\pi,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:mMPla}
|I^{({\rm Nu})+}| =\exp (-\pi |w|^2\sin 2\theta)
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ for }
\theta=\frac{1}{4}\pi,\frac{-3}{4}\pi.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, (above) Eqs. (\[eqn:mMMin\])-(\[eqn:mMPla\]) are reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:NuAB}
|I^{{\rm Nu})\mp}|
=\exp (-\pi |w|^2|\sin 2\theta| )
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ with }
\theta=\frac{\pm 1}{4}\pi,\frac{\pm 3}{4}\pi.\end{aligned}$$
In contrast, by using Eqs. (\[eqn:Angt1\])-(\[eqn:wthe\]) for the following denominator $I^{\rm (De)}$ in Eq. (\[eqn:Shrl\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DeLM}
I^{\rm (De)}=\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw),\end{aligned}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DeA1}
\nonumber
I^{\rm (De)}=
\exp [ \pi i|w|(\cos \theta +i\sin \theta )]
-\exp [-\pi i|w|(\cos \theta +i\sin \theta )]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=\exp ( \pi i|w|\cos \theta)
\exp (-\pi |w|\sin \theta)
-\exp (-\pi i|w|\cos \theta)
\exp ( \pi |w|\sin \theta).\end{aligned}$$ By the definition of $r_{\rm M}$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:ConRM\]) for Definition \[dfi:intr\]), the denominator $I^{({\rm De})}$ in (above) Eq. (\[eqn:DeA1\]) for large $|w|$ is approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DeA21}
I^{({\rm De})} \approx
-\exp (-\pi i|w|\cos \theta)
\exp ( \pi |w|\sin \theta)
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ for large }|w| \mbox{ with } (|w| \geq r_{\rm M})
\mbox{ and } \sin \theta >0
\hspace{2ex}
(\theta=\frac{3}{4}\pi,\frac{1}{4}\pi),\end{aligned}$$ whereas $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DeA22}
I^{\rm (De)} \approx
\exp ( \pi i|w|\cos \theta)
\exp (-\pi |w|\sin \theta)
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ for large }|w| \mbox{ with } (|w| \geq r_{\rm M})
\mbox{ and } \sin \theta <0
\hspace{2ex}
(\theta=\frac{-1}{4}\pi,\frac{-3}{4}\pi).\end{aligned}$$ Then, (above) Eqs. (\[eqn:DeA21\])-(\[eqn:DeA22\]) are reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DeA3}
|I^{\rm (De)}| \approx
\exp (\pi |w||\sin \theta|)
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ for large }|w| \mbox{ with } (|w| \geq r_{\rm M})
\mbox{ and }
\theta=\frac{\pm 1}{4}\pi,\frac{\pm 3}{4}\pi.\end{aligned}$$
Accordingly, combining Eqs. (\[eqn:Ivn\]), (\[eqn:NuAB\]) and (\[eqn:DeA3\]), the absolute value of the integrands in Eq. (\[eqn:Shrl\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Ivh}
I_{\rm h}:=
\frac{|I^{(\rm P)}|
|I^{(\rm {Nu})\pm}|}{|I^{({\rm De})}|}
= |w|^{v_{\rm R}} \exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta)
\exp (-\pi |w|^2|\sin 2\theta|)
\exp (-\pi |w||\sin\theta|).\end{aligned}$$ Then, (above) Eq. (\[eqn:Ivh\]), for large $|w|$, is approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DIv}
\nonumber
I_{\rm h}
\leq
|w|^{v_{\rm R}}
\exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta)
\exp (-\pi r_{\rm M}^2|\sin 2\theta|)
\exp (-\pi |w||\sin\theta|)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\leq
|w|^{v_{\rm R}}
\exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta)
\exp (-\pi |w||\sin \theta |)\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\approx
|w|^{v_{\rm R}}
\exp (-\pi |w||\sin \theta |)
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{ for large } |w| \geq r_{\rm M},\end{aligned}$$ where, in the (above) last equation, the constant $\exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta)$ were disregarded. Using Eq. (\[eqn:wthe\]) for the straight-line contour, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:thet1}
dw=d|w|\exp(i\theta)
\hspace{4ex}\mbox{ with } |\exp(i\theta)|=1.\end{aligned}$$ Additionally, we denote the sign factor $\sigma \in \mathbb{N}$ due to the direction of integration by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:sigm1}
\sigma:=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-1 \mbox{ with } |\sigma|=1 &
\mbox{for contours such as }
({\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}})
\mbox{ oriented to the (coordinate) origin}\\
\mbox{ } & \mbox{ } \\
+1 &
\mbox{for contours such as }
({\rm \tilde{C}_{l7}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{r7}})
\mbox{ oriented in the} \exp( \frac{-1}{4}\pi i)\infty, \exp( \frac{ -3}{4}\pi i)\infty
\mbox{ direction}
\end{array}\right. \hspace{-1ex}.\end{aligned}$$
Using Eqs. (\[eqn:Ivh\])-(\[eqn:sigm1\]) (taking into account that $-1<v_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(v)=-z_{\rm R}, z_{\rm R}-1<0$ for $v=-z, z-1$), the integrals of $I_{\rm h}$ (in Eq. \[eqn:DIv\]) over the region $|w| \geq r_{\rm M}$ lead to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:SCh}
\nonumber
|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lh}}|
\mbox{ and }
|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rh}}|
\leq
|\sigma| | \int_{r_{\rm M}}^{\infty} dw
I_{\rm h} |
\leq
|\sigma| | \exp(i\theta)| \int_{r_{\rm M}}^{\infty} d|w|
I_{\rm h}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:IntLp0}
\nonumber
\leq
\int_{r_{\rm M}}^{\infty} d|w|
[ r_{\rm M}^{v_{\rm R}}
\exp (-\pi |w| |\sin \theta |) ]
<
r_{\rm M}^{v_{\rm R}}
\int_{0}^{\infty} d|w|
[\exp (-\pi |w| |\sin \theta| ) ]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=
r_{\rm M}^{v_{\rm R}}
\frac{1}{(\pi |\sin \theta|)}
\hspace{4ex}
\mbox{ with }
v_{\rm R}=-z_{\rm R}, z_{\rm R}-1
\mbox{ and }
\theta=\frac{\pm 1}{4}\pi,\frac{\pm 3}{4}\pi.\end{aligned}$$ In the last integral, we used the Laplace transform [@Moriguchi; @et; @al.; @195619571960]. Thus, the integral in (above) Eq. (\[eqn:IntLp0\]) is finite. Namely, using Eqs. (\[eqn:Shrl\]), (\[eqn:Angt1\])-(\[eqn:Angt2\]) and (\[eqn:IntLp0\]), we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:SMl}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lh}}
=\mbox{ finite value (integral along either of contours }{\rm \tilde{C}_{l1}},{\rm \tilde{C}_{l4}}),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:SMr}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rh}}
=\mbox{ finite value (integral along either of contours }{\rm \tilde{C}_{r1}},{\rm \tilde{C}_{r4}}).\end{aligned}$$ This implies that the above integrals are independent of the arc radius $r_1$ (in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\]) and negligible compared with those with singularities (in Lemmas \[lem:Intmr\], \[lem:singc\]) around the (coordinate) origin in the limit $r_{1} \rightarrow \infty$.
We now prove a lemma which shows that when the contours (in Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]) are in the region with intermediate distance to the origin, the integrals in the completed zeta function are finite as well.
\[lem:IntMm\] Similarly with Lemma \[lem:IntLM\], let $w,v, z\in \mathbb{C}$ (with $v=-z, z-1$), and let $z_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(z)$ with $0<z_{\rm R}<1$. Let $r_{\rm m}$ and $r_{\rm M} \in \mathbb{R}$ (with $r_{\rm m} < r_{\rm M}$) be the small and large radii (bounds of contours as in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\]) of $w$ along the (shifted straight-line) contours ${\rm \tilde{C}_{lm}}$ and ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rm}}$, where ${\rm \tilde{C}_{lm}}$ is either of the contours denoted by ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l2}} and {\rm \tilde{C}_{l3}}$ (in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]), while ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rm}}$ is either of the contours denoted by ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r2}} and {\rm \tilde{C}_{r3}}$ (in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]). Then, the following integrals of the integrands in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:SMmm}
\nonumber
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lm}}
=\int_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lm}} dw
\frac{w^{-z}\exp(-\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)},
\hspace{4ex}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rm}}
=\int_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rm}} dw
\frac{w^{z-1}\exp(+\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{20ex}
\mbox{ along the
contours }
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lm}=\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm l2}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm l3}
\mbox{ (in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}) and }
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rm}=\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm r2}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm r3}
\mbox{ (in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2})},\end{aligned}$$ are finite (negligible compared with those with singularities around the origin of coordinates).
The denominator $I^{({\rm De})}$ of the integrands in Eq. (\[eqn:SMmm\]) is rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DENen}
I^{({\rm De})}=\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)
=\exp(\pi iw)[1-\exp(-2\pi iw)].\end{aligned}$$ We further denote the parts of the above denominator (in Eq. (\[eqn:DENen\])) by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:InpD1}
I^{({\rm De})a}=\exp(\pi iw),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:InpD2}
I^{({\rm De})b}=1-\exp(-2\pi iw).\end{aligned}$$ Here, let $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$ be the angle (argument measured counterclockwise from the real axis in the complex $w$-plane), then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Angm1}
\theta= \frac{3}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l2}}$},
\hspace{4ex}
\theta=\frac{-1}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l3}}$},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Angm2}
\theta= \frac{1}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r2}}$},
\hspace{4ex}
\theta=\frac{-3}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r3}}$}.\end{aligned}$$ Using $w=|w|(\cos\theta+i\sin\theta)$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:wthe\])) and Eq. (\[eqn:InpD1\]), it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
I^{({\rm De})a}=\exp[\pi i|w|(\cos\theta+i\sin\theta)]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=\exp (\pi i|w|\cos\theta) \exp(-\pi|w|\sin\theta),\end{aligned}$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
|I^{({\rm De})a}|=\exp(-\pi|w|\sin\theta).\end{aligned}$$
Meanwhile, from Eq. (\[eqn:InpD2\]) (with Eq. (\[eqn:wthe\])), we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DENb2}
I^{({\rm De})b}=1-\exp (-2\pi i|w|\cos\theta)\exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta).\end{aligned}$$ For $\sin\theta>0$ and $r_{\rm m} \leq |w| \leq r_{\rm M}$ ($r_{\rm m}$ and $r_{\rm M}$ are the radii defined in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\] with Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\] for the contours in Eq. (\[eqn:SMmm\])), the following quantity in the second term on the right-hand side of above Eq. (\[eqn:DENb2\]) is larger than unity (one), that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DENb22}
\exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta) \geq \exp(2\pi r_{\rm m}\sin\theta)>1
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ for } \sin\theta>0. \end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eqn:DENb2\]) is a complex number with radius (modulus) denoted as $\exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta)$ and angle (argument) $-2\pi |w|\cos\theta$, whose distance to the point 1=(1,0) is equal to $|I^{({\rm De})b}|$. This distance $|I^{({\rm De})b}|$ is larger than the difference between the above radius $\exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta)$ and the radius of the unit circle (centered at the orogin of coordinates), namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Demin0}
|I^{({\rm De})b}|=|1-\exp (-2\pi i|w|\cos\theta)\exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta)|
\geq \exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta)-1>0
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ for } \sin\theta>0. \end{aligned}$$ Combining Eqs. (\[eqn:DENb22\]) and (\[eqn:Demin0\]), we have (taking into account that $r_{\rm m} \leq |w| \leq r_{\rm M}$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Demin}
|I^{({\rm De})b}| \geq \exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta)-1
\geq \exp(2\pi r_{\rm m}\sin\theta)-1> 0
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{ for } \sin\theta > 0.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, for $\sin\theta<0$ and $r_{\rm m} \leq |w| \leq r_{\rm M}$, we obtain the following relation, corresponding to Eq. (\[eqn:DENb22\]), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:DENb3}
1>\exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta) \geq \exp(2\pi r_{\rm m}\sin\theta)>0
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ for } \sin\theta<0. \end{aligned}$$ The distance $|I^{({\rm De})b}|$ between the second term on the right in Eq. (\[eqn:DENb2\]) and the point 1=(1,0) in this case is larger than the difference between the aforementioned radius (modulus) $\exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta)$ and the radius of the unit circle (centered at the origin of coordinates). We then have (considering $r_{\rm m} \leq |w| \leq r_{\rm M}$) that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Demot}
|I^{({\rm De})b}| \geq 1-\exp(2\pi|w|\sin\theta)
\geq 1-\exp(2\pi r_{\rm m}\sin\theta)> 0
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{ for } \sin\theta <0.\end{aligned}$$
In contrast, using the notation $v=-z, z-1$, the parts of the numerators of the integrands in Eq. (\[eqn:SMmm\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Pom}
I^{(\rm Po)}_v=w^v
\mbox{ with } v=-z, z-1,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Num}
I^{({\rm Nu})\mp}=\exp(\mp\pi i w^2).\end{aligned}$$ By denoting $w=|w|(\cos\theta+i\sin\theta)$, we obtain the same results as those in Eqs. (\[eqn:PwAb\]) and (\[eqn:NuAB\]) (in Lemma \[lem:IntMm\]). Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:PoABm}
|I^{(\rm Po)}_v|=|w|^{v_{\rm R}} \exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:NuABm}
|I^{{\rm Nu})\mp}|
=\exp (-\pi |w|^2|\sin 2\theta| )
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ with }
\theta=\frac{\pm 1}{4}\pi,\frac{\pm 3}{4}\pi.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, combining Eq. (\[eqn:Demin\]) (or Eq. (\[eqn:Demot\])) and Eqs. (\[eqn:PoABm\])-(\[eqn:NuABm\]), we obtain that the absolute value of the integrands is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Ivm}
I_{\rm m}:=
\frac{|I^{(\rm P)}||I^{(\rm {Nu})\mp}|}{|I^{({\rm De})}|}.\end{aligned}$$
Using Eqs. (\[eqn:Demin\]) (or Eq. (\[eqn:Demot\])) and Eqs. (\[eqn:PoABm\])-(\[eqn:Ivm\]) (with consideration that $-1<v_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(v)=-z_{\rm R}, z_{\rm R}-1<0$ for $v=-z, z-1$, as well as $|\sigma \exp(i\theta)|=1 $ in Eqs. (\[eqn:thet1\])-(\[eqn:SCh\])), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Intm1}
\nonumber
|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lm}}|
\mbox{ and }
|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rm}}|
\leq
|\int_{r_{\rm m}}^{r_{\rm M}} d|w| I_{\rm m}|\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\leq
(r_{\rm M}-r_{\rm m})
\frac{
r_{\rm m}^{v_{\rm R}} \exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta)
\exp (-\pi r_{\rm m}^2|\sin 2\theta|)
}
{|\exp(2\pi r_{\rm m}\sin\theta)-1|}
\hspace{2ex}
\mbox{ with } \theta=\frac{\pm 1}{4}\pi, \theta=\frac{\pm 3}{4}\pi.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the above straight-line integrals (in Eq. (\[eqn:Intm1\]) of $I_{\rm m}$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:Ivm\])) with respect to $|w|$ in the region $r_{\rm m} \leq |w| \leq w_{\rm M}$ are smaller than the terms proportional to $r_{\rm m}^{v_{\rm R}}$ (disregarding the multiplied constants) with $-1<v_{\rm R}<0$, and take finite values. This finiteness is due to the large value of the radius $r_{\rm m}$, which is independent of the radius $r_{1}$ of the arc contours (in Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]) around the (coordinate) origin with $r_{\rm m} >> r_{1}$ (as in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\]). Therefore, singularities do not occur here unlike the case of integrals (in Lemmas \[lem:Intmr\], \[lem:singc\]) around the (coordinate) origin in the limit of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$. Namely, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Sml}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lm}}
=\mbox{ finite value (integral along either of contours }{\rm \tilde{C}_{l2}},{\rm \tilde{C}_{l3}}\mbox{ in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1})},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Smr}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rm}}
=\mbox{ finite value (integral along either of contours }{\rm \tilde{C}_{r2}},{\rm \tilde{C}_{r3}} \mbox{ in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2})}.\end{aligned}$$ This implies that the above integrals are negligible compared with those with singularities around the (coordinate) origin.
In this section, we deformed and shifted the contours denoted by $0 \searrow 1$ and $0 \swarrow 1$ in the integral form of the (completed) zeta function given by Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) to those shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1\] and Fig. \[fig:fig2\], respectively (in Theorem \[lem:Defm\]). Then, we separated the finite integrals (in Lemmas \[lem:IntLM\], \[lem:IntMm\]) along the shifted straight-line contours from the integral around the (coordinate) origin containing the singularities, which appear only when the contours approach the origin.
Proof of the Riemann’s conjecture that the real part of all non-trivial zeros of the zeta function is 1/2 {#sec:3}
===========================================================================================================
In previous Section \[sec:2\] (with Lemmas \[lem:IntLM\], \[lem:IntMm\]), it was shown that integrals of the integrands in $\zeta_{\rm l}$ and $\zeta_{\rm r}$ (in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zetr\])) for the integral form of the completed zeta function in Eq. (\[eqn:zet0\])), along the shifted straight-line contours (in Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]), which are away from the (coordinate) origin (in the complex plane), are always finite and do not have singularities. (Note: Using Theorem \[thm:czta\] and Eq. (\[eqn:zets\]), the complex numbers $z$ and $1-z$ for $\zeta_{\rm l}$ and $\zeta_{\rm r}$ in the completed zeta function in Eq. (\[eqn:zeta0\]) were exchanged as shown in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\])). In this section, we show that the integrals along the contours near the (coordinate) origin (in Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]) have singularities (in Lemmas \[lem:Intmr\], \[lem:singc\]) when the radius of the arc contours approaches zero. Then, in Theorem \[thm:ReH\], we prove that the real part of all non-trivial zeros of the zeta function must be 1/2. As it is known that all non-trivial zeros of the zeta function exist in the region $0< {\rm Re } (z) <1$ in literature [@Poussin; @1896; @Hadamard; @1896], we concentrate on this region. Furthermore, it is also known that the number of zeros (of the zeta function) with a real part of 1/2 is infinite [@Hardy; @1914]. To derive the real part of non-trivial zeros of the zeta function, the present approach uses (in addition to the above symmetry given by Eq. (\[eqn:zets\])) the property (with merits) that a quantity in one term in a highly (attainable) symmetrized integral form generates a corresponding (paired) quantity in another term.
Similarly with Lemmas \[lem:IntLM\], \[lem:IntMm\], we here evaluate the integrals of the form in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]), and separate singularities.
\[lem:Intmr\] Let $w,v, z\in \mathbb{C}$ (with $v=-z, z-1$), and let $z_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(z)$ with $0<z_{\rm R}<1$. Let $r_1$ and $r_{\rm m} \in \mathbb{R}$ with $r_1 << r_{\rm m}$ be the small radii (bounds of contours as in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\]) of $w$ along the (shifted straight-line) contours ${\rm \tilde{C}_{ls}}$ and ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rs}}$, where ${\rm \tilde{C}_{ls}}$ is either of the contours denoted by ${\rm \tilde{C}_{lp}},{\rm \tilde{C}_{ln}}$ (in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]), while ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rs}}$ is either of the contours denoted by ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rp}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{rn}}$ (in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]). Then, the following integrals of the integrands in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Smrs}
\nonumber
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}}
=\int_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}} dw
\frac{w^{-z}\exp(-\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)},
\hspace{4ex}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}}
=\int_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}} dw
\frac{w^{z-1}\exp(+\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{20ex}
\mbox{ along the
contours }
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}=\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lp}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ln}
\mbox{ (in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}) and }
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}=\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rp}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rn}
\mbox{ (in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2})},\end{aligned}$$ have singularities in the limit of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$. The power of singularities of these integrals is $r_1^{-z_{\rm R}}$ on the left in above Eq. (\[eqn:Smrs\]) (for the contours $\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}$ $=\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lp}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ln}$), while the corresponding power is $r_1^{z_{\rm R}-1}$ on the right in above Eq. (\[eqn:Smrs\]) (for the contours $\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs} =\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rp}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rn}$).
For $0< r_1 < |w| < r_{\rm m}$ and $r_1 << r_{\rm m}$ with $r_1$ and $r_{\rm m}$ being the small radii (bounds of contours as in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\]) along the straight-line contours ${\rm \tilde{C}_{l2}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{l3}}$, ${\rm \tilde{C}_{r2}}, {\rm \tilde{C}_{r3}}$ (in Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]), the denominator $I^{({\rm De})}$ and parts of the numerators, $I^{({\rm Nu})-}$ and $I^{({\rm Nu})+}$ in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrs\]) are approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Desa}
I^{({\rm De})}=\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)
\approx 2\pi i w,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:NusNP}
I^{({\rm Nu})-}=\exp(-\pi i w^2) \approx 1,
\hspace{4ex}
I^{({\rm Nu})+}=\exp(+\pi i w^2) \approx 1.\end{aligned}$$ The polynomials in above Eq. (\[eqn:Smrs\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Pos}
I^{(\rm Po)}=w^v
\mbox{ with } v=-z, z-1.\end{aligned}$$ Then, using Eqs. (\[eqn:Poh\]) and Eq. (\[eqn:wthe\]) with $\theta$ (angle along the straight-line contours measured counterclockwise from the real axis in the complex $w$-plane), above $I^{(\rm Po)}$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:Pos\])) can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Pose}
\nonumber
I^{(\rm Po)}=w^{v_{\rm R}-1}w^{iv_{\rm I}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
=w^{v_{\rm R}-1}
\exp[iv_{\rm I} \ln(|w|)]\exp[-v_{\rm I}\arg(w)]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=|w|^{v_{\rm R}-1}\exp[{i(v_{\rm R}-1})\theta]
\exp[iv_{\rm I} \ln(|w|)]\exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta),\end{aligned}$$ (with $v_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(v)$, $v_{\rm I}={\rm Im}(v)$). The angle $\theta$ in this case is denoted by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Angmr}
\theta= \frac{3}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{lp}}$},
\hspace{4ex}
\theta=\frac{-1}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{ln}}$},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Angtr2}
\theta= \frac{1}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rp}}$},
\hspace{4ex}
\theta=\frac{-3}{4}\pi \hspace{2ex}\mbox{for contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rn}}$}.\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[eqn:Desa\])-(\[eqn:NusNP\]) and (\[eqn:Pose\]), we obtain (disregarding $2\pi i$ in Eq. (\[eqn:Desa\]) as well as the constants $\exp[i(v_{\rm R}-1)\theta]$ and $\exp(-v_{\rm I}\theta)$ in Eq. (\[eqn:Pose\])) that $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\rm s}:=\frac{I^{(\rm Po)} I^{({\rm Nu}) \mp} }{ I^{(\rm De)} }
= |w|^{v_{\rm R}-1} \exp[iv_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)].\end{aligned}$$ Further disregarding $\exp(i\theta)$ in Eq. (\[eqn:thet1\]) and the sign $\sigma$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:sigm1\])) due to the direction of integration, we have, for the integrals in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrs\]), that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\label{eqn:InLI00}
\hspace{-50ex}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}} \approx
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}}
=\int_{r_{1}}^{r_{\rm m}} d|w| |w|^{v_{\rm R}-1} \exp[iv_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{10ex}
\mbox{ along the contours } \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}=
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lp}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ln}
\mbox{ and }
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}=
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rp}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rn}
\mbox{ in the regions } r_{\rm 1} \leq |w| \leq r_{\rm m}
\mbox{ in Figs. \ref{fig:fig1} and \ref{fig:fig2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Using the small (bounds of) radii $r_1$ and $r_{\rm m}$ of $w$ (with $0< r_1 <|w|< r_{\rm m}$ and $r_1 << r_{\rm m}$ in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\] and Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]), we introduce the parameter variables $\tilde{t}$, $\tilde{t}_1$ and $\tilde{t}_{\rm m}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:InL03}
\tilde{t}:=\ln(|w|),
\hspace{4ex}
\tilde{t}_1:=\ln(r_1),
\hspace{4ex}
\tilde{t}_{\rm m}:=\ln(r_{\rm m}).\end{aligned}$$ Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:InL04}
|w|=\exp(\tilde{t}),
\hspace{4ex}
r_1=\exp(\tilde{t}_1),
\hspace{4ex}
r_{\rm m}=\exp(\tilde{t}_{\rm m}),\end{aligned}$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:InLI05}
d|w|=d{\tilde{t}}[\exp(\tilde{t})].\end{aligned}$$
By using Eqs. (\[eqn:InLI00\])-(\[eqn:InLI05\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:InLI07}
\nonumber
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}}
\approx
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}}=
\int_{\tilde{t}_1}^{\tilde{t}_{\rm m}} d{\tilde{t}} [\exp(\tilde{t})]
\{ \exp[(v_{\rm R}-1)\tilde{t}] \}[\exp(iv_{\rm I}\tilde{t})]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
=\int_{\tilde{t}_1}^{\tilde{t}_{\rm m}} d{\tilde{t}}
\exp[(1+v_{\rm R}-1+iv_{\rm I})\tilde{t}]
=\int_{\tilde{t}_1}^{\tilde{t}_{\rm m}} d{\tilde{t}}
\exp[(v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I})\tilde{t}]\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
=\frac{ \exp[(v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I})\tilde{t}_{\rm m}]
-\exp[(v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I})\tilde{t}_1] }
{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=\frac{ r_{\rm m}^{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}}
-r_1 ^{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}} }
{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, (above) Eq. (\[eqn:InLI07\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}} \approx
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}}=
\frac{-r_1^{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}} }
{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}}
\hspace{4ex}\mbox{ for }
0<r_1 << r_{\rm m}
\mbox{ in the limit of }
r_1 \rightarrow 0,\end{aligned}$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:lrpn}
\nonumber
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}} \approx
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}}
= \frac{
- r_1^{ v_{\rm R}}
r_1^{iv_{\rm I}} }
{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}}
= \frac{
- r_1^{ v_{\rm R}}
\exp[\ln(r_1^{iv_{\rm I}})] }
{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}}
= \frac{
- r_1^{ v_{\rm R}}
\exp\{iv_{\rm I}[\ln(|r_1|)+i\arg(r_1)]\} }
{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
= \frac{
- r_1^{v_{\rm R}}
\exp[iv_{\rm I}\ln(|r_1|)- v_{\rm I}\arg(r_1)]
}
{v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}}.\end{aligned}$$ By dropping the constant containing $v_{\rm I}\arg(r_1)$, the absolute value of (above) Eq. (\[eqn:lrpn\]) is reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Imr}
|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}}|
\approx
|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}}|=
\frac{ r_1 ^{v_{\rm R}}
}
{|v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}|}.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, disregarding the constant $|v_{\rm R}+iv_{\rm I}|$ in (above) Eq. (\[eqn:Imr\]), we derive, in the limit of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$ (with $v=-z, z-1, v_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(v), 0<z_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(z) <1$), that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Sml}
|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}}|
\approx
r_1^{-z_{\rm R}}
\mbox{ (along the contours } \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ls}=
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lp}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm ln}
\mbox{ in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}) },\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Smr}
|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}}|
\approx
r_1^{z_{\rm R}-1}
\mbox{ (along the contours } \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rs}=
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rp}, \tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rn}
\mbox{ in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2})},\end{aligned}$$ implying that the power of singularities of these integrals is $r_1^{-z_{\rm R}}$ on the left-hand side in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrs\]), whereas the corresponding power is $r_1^{z_{\rm R}-1}$ on the right-hand side in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrs\]).
We now evaluate the circular integrals along the arc contours around the (coordinate) origin in Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]. These integrals have singularities when the radius of the arc approaches zero.
\[lem:singc\] Let $w,v, z\in \mathbb{C}$ (with $v=-z, z-1$), and let $z_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(z)$ with $0<z_{\rm R}<1$. Let ${\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}}$ and ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}$ be the deformed-arc contours around the (coordinate) origin in Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]. Let $r_1 \in \mathbb{R}$ be the small radius (in Definitions \[dfi:intr\], \[dfi:intw\]) of the above contours ${\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}}$ and ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}$. Then, the following circular integrals of the integrands in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Smrc}
\nonumber
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lc}}
=\int_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lc}} dw
\frac{w^{-z}\exp(-\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)},
\hspace{4ex}
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rc}}
=\int_{\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rc}} dw
\frac{w^{z-1}\exp(+\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{30ex}
\mbox{ along either of arc contours }
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lc}
\mbox{ (in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1}) and }
\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rc}
\mbox{ (in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2})},\end{aligned}$$ have singularities in the limit of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$. The powers of these singularities are $|r_1|^{-z_{\rm R}}$ and $|r_1|^{z_{\rm R}-1}$ for the contours $\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm lc}$ and $\tilde{\rm C}_{\rm rc}$ (on the left and right in Eq.(\[eqn:Smrc\])), respectively.
For the small radius $r_1$ (in Definition \[dfi:intr\]) of the deformed-arc contours (${\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}}$ and ${\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}$ in Figs. \[fig:fig1\], \[fig:fig2\]), the denominator $I^{({\rm De})}$ and parts of the numerators, $I^{({\rm Nu})-}$ and $I^{({\rm Nu})+}$ in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrc\]) are approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Deca}
I^{({\rm De})}=\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)
\approx 2\pi i w,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:NucNP}
I^{({\rm Nu})-}=\exp(-\pi i w^2) \approx 1,
\hspace{4ex}
I^{({\rm Nu})+}=\exp(+\pi i w^2) \approx 1.\end{aligned}$$ The polynomials in above Eq. (\[eqn:Smrc\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Poce}
I^{(\rm Po)}=w^v
\mbox{ with } v=-z, z-1.\end{aligned}$$ From Eqs. (\[eqn:Deca\])-(\[eqn:Poce\]), we obtain (disregarding $2\pi i$ in Eq. (\[eqn:Deca\])) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Icv}
I_{{\rm c},v}:=\frac{I^{(\rm Po)} I^{({\rm Nu}) \mp} }{ I^{(\rm De)} }
= w^{v-1}
\mbox{ with } v=-z, z-1.\end{aligned}$$
Using (above) Eq. (\[eqn:Icv\]), the integral along the arc contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm lc}}$ (in Fig.\[fig:fig1\]) on the left-hand side in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrc\]) can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Ivl}
I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm lc}}
=\int_{\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}} dw
I_{{\rm c},v=-z}
\int_{\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}} dw (w^{-z-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\phi_{\rm c}$ be the angle (argument) along the arc measured counterclockwise from the real axis in the complex plane. Using (above) Eq. (\[eqn:Ivl\]), with consideration of $|w|=r_{1}$ on the contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm lc}}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:r1phi}
w=|w|\exp(i\phi_{\rm c})=r_1\exp(i\phi_{\rm c}),\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dw}{d\phi_{\rm c}}=ir_1\exp(i\phi_{\rm c})=iw,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain (the integral along the arc contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm lc}}$ in Fig.\[fig:fig1\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Si1c}
I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm lc}}
=\int_{\frac{3}{4}\pi}^{\frac{-1}{4}\pi}
d\phi_{\rm c} \frac{d w}{d \phi_{\rm c}} w^{-z-1}
=\int_
{\frac{3}{4}\pi}^{\frac{-1}{4}\pi}
d\phi_{\rm c} (i)w^{-z}.\end{aligned}$$ As in Eq. (\[eqn:Poh\]), the integrand of (above) Eq. (\[eqn:Si1c\]) (with $z_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(z)$ and $z_{\rm I}={\rm Im}(z)$) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:idlc}
\nonumber
iw^{-z}=iw^{-z_{\rm R}-iz_{\rm I}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=iw^{-z_{\rm R}}\exp[-iz_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]\exp[z_{\rm I}\arg(w)].\end{aligned}$$
Then, using Eqs. (\[eqn:r1phi\]) and (\[eqn:idlc\]) with $\phi_{\rm c}=\arg(w)$ (for $|w|=r_1>0$ on the contour ${\rm C_{lc}}$), the integral in Eq. (\[eqn:Si1c\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Il1c}
\nonumber
I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{C}_{\rm lc}}
=\int_{\frac{3}{4}\pi}^{\frac{-1}{4}\pi} d\phi_{\rm c} (i)w^{-z_{\rm R}}\exp[-iz_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]\exp(z_{\rm I}\phi_{\rm c})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
=\int_{\frac{3}{4}\pi}^{\frac{-1}{4}\pi} d\phi_{\rm c} (i)
|w|^{-z_{\rm R}}\exp[-iz_{\rm R}\phi_{\rm c}]
\exp[-iz_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]\exp(z_{\rm I}\phi_{\rm c})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
=i|w|^{-z_{\rm R}}\exp[-iz_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]
\frac{
\exp[(-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I})(\frac{-1}{4}\pi)]
-\exp[(-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I})(\frac{3}{4}\pi)]
}
{-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=i|w|^{-z_{\rm R}}\exp[-iz_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]
\frac{
\exp[(-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I})(\frac{-1}{4}\pi)]
\{1-\exp[(-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I})\pi] \}
}
{-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the absolute value of $I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{C}_{\rm lc}}$ in (above) Eq. (\[eqn:Il1c\]) (with $|w|=r_1$) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:lSc}
|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{C}_{\rm lc}}|
=|w|^{-z_{\rm R}}
\frac{|
\exp[(z_{\rm I})(\frac{-1}{4}\pi)]
\{1-\exp[(-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I})\pi] \}
|}
{|-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I}|}
\approx
r_1^{-z_{\rm R}},\end{aligned}$$ which implies that, disregarding the constants $\exp[(z_{\rm I})(-\pi/4)]$, $1-\exp[(-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I})\pi]$ and $-iz_{\rm R}+z_{\rm I}$ (see also Note below Eq. (\[eqn:srSc\])), the integral $|I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{C}_{\rm lc}}|$ in (above) Eq. (\[eqn:lSc\]) has the form $|w|^{-z_{\rm R}}=r_1^{-z_{\rm R}}$ with the singularity caused by the order power $-z_{\rm R}$ of $|w|$ for $0<z_{\rm R}<1$ in the limit of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$.
Meanwhile, the circular integral $I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm rc}}$ along the arc contour ${\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm rc}}$ (in Fig. \[fig:fig2\]) on the right in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrc\]) with small $|w|=r_1$ near the origin in the complex $w$-plane is calculated by the replacement $z \rightarrow 1-z$ in Eq. (\[eqn:Il1c\]), that is, $$\begin{aligned}
z_{\rm R} \rightarrow 1-z_{\rm R},
\hspace{2ex}
-z_{\rm R} \rightarrow z_{\rm R}-1,
\hspace{2ex}
z_{\rm I} \rightarrow -z_{\rm I},
\hspace{2ex}
\int_{\frac{3}{4}\pi}^{\frac{-1}{4}\pi} d\phi_{\rm c}
\rightarrow
\int_{\frac{1}{4}\pi}^{-\frac{3}{4}\pi} d\phi_{\rm c},\end{aligned}$$ yielding (with the use of Eq. (\[eqn:Icv\]) and $|w|=r_1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:Ir1c}
\nonumber
I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm rc}}
=\int_{\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}
I_{{\rm c},v=z-1}
=\int_{\frac{1}{4}\pi}^{-\frac{3}{4}\pi} d\phi_{\rm c} (i) w^{z_{\rm R}-1}\exp[iz_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]\exp(-z_{\rm I}\phi_{\rm c})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
=\int_{\frac{1}{4}\pi}^{\frac{-3}{4}\pi} d\phi_{\rm c} (i)
|w|^{z_{\rm R}-1}\exp[i(z_{\rm R}-1)\phi_{\rm c}]
\exp[iz_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]\exp(-z_{\rm I}\phi_{\rm c})\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
=i|w|^{z_{\rm R}-1}\exp[iz_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]
\frac{
\exp \{ [i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}](\frac{-3}{4}\pi) \}
-\exp \{ [i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}](\frac{1}{4}\pi) \}
}
{i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=i|w|^{z_{\rm R}-1}\exp[iz_{\rm I}\ln(|w|)]
\frac{
\exp \{ [i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}](\frac{-3}{4}\pi) \}
\{1-\exp \{ [i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}]\pi \}
}
{i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, the absolute value of $I^{\rm S}_{\tilde{C}_{\rm rc}}$ in (above) Eq. (\[eqn:Ir1c\]) (with $|w|=r_1$) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:rSc}
|I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm rc}}|
=|w|^{z_{\rm R}-1}
\frac{
|
\exp [(-z_{\rm I})(\frac{-3}{4}\pi) ]
\{
1-\exp \{[i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}]\pi \}
\}
|
}
{|i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}|}
\approx |r_1|^{z_{\rm R}-1},\end{aligned}$$ which implies that, disregarding the constants expressed by $ \exp [(-z_{\rm I})(-3\pi/4) ]$ and $
1-\exp \{[i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}]\pi \}
$ as well as $
i(z_{\rm R}-1)-z_{\rm I}
$ (see also Note below Eq. (\[eqn:srSc\])), the integral $|I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm rc}}|$ in (above) Eq. (\[eqn:rSc\]) has the form $|w|^{z_{\rm R}-1}=r_1^{z_{\rm R}-1}$ with the singularity caused by the order power $z_{\rm R}-1$ of $|w|$ for $0<z_{\rm R}<1$ in the limit of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$.
We then prove the following theorem, which completes the proof of the Riemann hypothesis.
\[thm:ReH\] Let $z \in \mathbb{C}$ and let $z_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(z)$. Let $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ be the completed zeta function given in Theorem \[thm:czta\]. To satisfy $\hat{\zeta}(z)=0$, the real component (real part) $z_{\rm R}$ of the non-trivial zeros of the (completed) zeta function must take the following value $$\begin{aligned}
z_{\rm R}=\frac{1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ which is a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.
Both the gamma function $\Gamma(z)$ and zeta function $\zeta(z)$ in the region $0< {\rm Re } (z) <1$ under consideration are regular without a singularity as described below Eq. (\[eqn:zeta01\]). The completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ defined by Eq. (\[eqn:zeta0\]), which is a product between $\Gamma(z)$ and $\zeta(z)$, is also regular in the region $0< {\rm Re } (z) <1$, as described below Eq. (\[eqn:zeta01\]). As mentioned above in Section \[sec:1\] (Introduction), the function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ does not depend on a specific value of the parameter $a_{0}$ (between 0 and 1 as in Lemma \[lem:Defm\]), which specifies the intersection point of the integral line and the real axis, owing to the residue theorem. However, the integrands of the elements $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm l}(z)$ in Eq. (\[eqn:zetl\]) and $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm r}(z)$ in Eq. (\[eqn:zetr\]) composing $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ in Eq. (\[eqn:zet0\]) ($z$ and $1-z$ can be exchanged) contain the singularity (mentioned below) near $w=0$, only in the case of $a_{0} \rightarrow 0$.
We note that the completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ does not depend on a specific value of $a_{0}$ between 0 and 1 due to the residue theorem, as was described below Eq. (\[eqn:zeta01\]), whereas the singularity of each element $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm l}(z) $ and $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm r}(z)$ of $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ depends on $a_{0}$. However, these singularities and the dependence of the elements $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm l}(z)$ and $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm r}(z)$ on $a_{0}$ adequately (incompletely) cancel each other by remaining a finite value for $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm}(z) \neq 0$, because the integral directions projected to the line parallel to the real axis for $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm l}(z)$ and for $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm r}(z)$ are opposite, and result in the finite completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ without the dependence on $a_{0}$.
In contrast, for $\hat{\zeta}(z)=0$, the singularities must exactly cancel each other. By Lemmas \[lem:IntLM\] and \[lem:IntMm\], we can drop the negligible finite integrals along the contours, which are away from the (coordinate) origin. Let $z_{\rm R}$ and $z_{\rm I}$ be the real and imaginary components of $z$, respectively. Lemma \[lem:Intmr\] states that, from Eq. (\[eqn:Sml\]) (refer also Note below Eq. (\[eqn:srSc\])), the integrals $I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm lp}}$ and $I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm ln}}$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrs\])) of the integrand (in Eq. (\[eqn:zetl\])) for the completed zeta function $\hat\zeta(z)$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:zet0\])) have the following power, which lead to the singularity near $w=0$ (on the arc radius $r_{1}$) in the case of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:slp1}
|I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm lp}}|=
| \int_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm lp}} dw
\frac{w^{-z}\exp(-\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)} |
\approx |r_1|^{-z_{\rm R}}
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{
%(integral along contour
(along
${\rm \tilde{C}_{lp}}$
in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1})},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:sln1}
|I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{ln}}|=
| \int_{\rm \tilde{C}_{ln}} dw
\frac{w^{-z}\exp(-\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)}|
\approx |r_1|^{-z_{\rm R}}
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{
(along
${\rm \tilde{C}_{ln}}$ in Fig. \ref{fig:fig1})},\end{aligned}$$ while, from Eq. (\[eqn:Smr\]), the integrals $I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm rp}}$ and $I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm rn}}$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrs\])) of the integrand (in Eq. (\[eqn:zetr\])) for $\hat\zeta(z)$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:zet0\])) have the following power (near $w=0$ in the case of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:srp1}
|I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm rp}}|=
\int_{\rm \tilde{C}_{\rm rp}} dw
\frac{w^{z-1}\exp(+\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)}|
\approx |r_1|^{z_{\rm R}-1}
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{
(along
${\rm \tilde{C}_{rp}}$
in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2})},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:srn1}
|I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{rn}}|=
| \int_{\rm \tilde{C}_{rn}} dw
\frac{w^{z-1}\exp(+\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)}
\approx |r_1|^{z_{\rm R-1}}
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{
(along
${\rm \tilde{C}_{rn}}$ in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2})}.\end{aligned}$$ (We disregarded the constant factors in Eqs. (\[eqn:Imr\])-(\[eqn:Smr\])).
Meanwhile, Lemma \[lem:singc\] states that, from Eq. (\[eqn:lSc\]), the integral $I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}}$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrc\])) of the integrand (in Eq. (\[eqn:zetl\])) has the following power (with $z_{\rm R}={\rm Re}(z)$) near $w=0$ in the case of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:slSc}
|I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}}|=
| \int_{\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}} dw
\frac{w^{-z}\exp(-\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)}|
\approx |r_1|^{-z_{\rm R}}
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{
(along
${\rm \tilde{C}_{lc}}$
in Fig. \ref{fig:fig2}}),\end{aligned}$$ while, from Eq. (\[eqn:rSc\]), the integral $I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:Smrc\])) of the integrand (in Eq. (\[eqn:zetr\])) has the following power (near $w=0$ in the case of $r_1 \rightarrow 0$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:srSc}
|I^{\rm S}_{\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}|=
| \int_{\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}} dw
\frac{w^{z-1}\exp(+\pi i w^2)}{\exp(\pi iw)-\exp(-\pi iw)}|
\approx |r_1|^{z_{\rm R}-1}
\hspace{2ex}\mbox{
(along
${\rm \tilde{C}_{rc}}$
in Fig.
\ref{fig:fig2}}).\end{aligned}$$ (We also disregarded the constant factors in Eqs. (\[eqn:lSc\]), (\[eqn:rSc\])).
To satisfy $\hat{\zeta}(z)=0$, these singularities in Eqs. (\[eqn:slp1\])-(\[eqn:srSc\]) should have an identical order power of $r_1$ and exactly cancel each other. (Note: Letting $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, w \in \mathbb{C}$ and $\beta_1, \beta_2 \in \mathbb{R}$ with $0<\beta_1<\beta_2$, if $|w|<(|\alpha_2|/|\alpha_1)|w|^{-\beta_2})^{\beta_1}$ for small $|w|$, then we obtain $|\alpha_1||w|^{-\beta_1}<|\alpha_2||w|^{-\beta_2}$, which implies that these two terms with different order powers cannot cancel each other for sufficiently small $|w|$, as used below. Furthermore, constants including $z_{\rm I}$ will be used for the $z_{\rm I}$ determination, which is beyond the scope of this paper.) We then derive the main concluding relation, from Eqs. (\[eqn:slp1\])-(\[eqn:srSc\]), that $$\begin{aligned}
-z_{\rm R}=z_{\rm R}-1,\end{aligned}$$ and this relation finally results in the expected requirement $$\begin{aligned}
z_{\rm R}=\frac{1}{2},\end{aligned}$$ stating that all non-trivial zeros of the (completed) zeta function have real component (part) of 1/2, which is the proof of the Riemann hypothesis.
Namely, considering that $a_{0}$ (in Lemma \[lem:Defm\]) specifies the contour, $(\forall \epsilon >0)(\exists \delta >0)(\forall a_{0} \in \mathbb{R}$ with $0<a_{0}<1)(a_{0}< \delta \Rightarrow |z_{\rm R}-\frac{1}{2}|<\epsilon)$. Furthermore, the completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ is a product between the gamma function $\Gamma(z)$ and zeta function $\zeta(z)$ as in Eq. (\[eqn:zeta0\]), and the functions $\hat{\zeta}(z)$, $\Gamma(z)$ and $\zeta(z)$ are regular in the region $0< {\rm Re } (z)<1$. Then, the solution of $\hat{\zeta}(z)=0$ (which is independent of the contour specified by $a_{0}$ unlike $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm l}(z)$ and $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm r}(z)$ composing $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\])) satisfies $\zeta (z)=0$ and vice versa. Thus, we have completed the proof of the Riemann hypothesis.
[We here show the implication of the above process and derived solution. In the integrands of the elements $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm l}(z)$ and $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm r}(z)$ composing (in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\]), (\[eqn:zetr\])) the completed zeta function $\hat{\zeta}(z)$ (in Eq. (\[eqn:zet0\])), the singularities appear in the oppositely directed integrals of polynomials. Furthermore, the completed zeta function is symmetrized with respect to ${\rm Re } (z)=1/2$. The functions $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm l}(z)$ and $\hat{\zeta}_{\rm r}(z)$ adequately (by incompletely remaining a finite value) cancel each other for ${\rm Re } (z) \neq 1/2$, while this cancellation is complete only for ${\rm Re } (z)=1/2$, leading to $\hat{\zeta}(z)=0$. ]{}
In conclusion, we have inspected in detail the singularities of the integral form of the completed zeta function (in Eqs. (\[eqn:zetl\])-(\[eqn:zet0\]))). For $\hat{\zeta}(z)=0$ (that is, $\zeta(z)=0$), the singularities of the integral along the two rotated integral contours (lines) are required to exactly cancel each other, when the intersection points between the integral lines and the real axis approach the (coordinate) origin. This approach of the intersection points to the origin is possible because of the arbitrariness of the intersection points owing to the residue theorem. Thus, we have shown that the real part of all non-trivial zeros of the zeta function is 1/2, which is the proof of the Riemann hypothesis.
[99]{}
B. Riemann, Ueber die anzahl der primzahlen unter gegebenen gr[ö]{}sse, Monatsberichte der Koniglichen Preussischen Academie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 671-680 (1859). H. von Koch, Sur la distribution des nombres premier, Acta Math. [**24**]{}, 159-182 (1901). S. Moriguchi, K. Utagawa and S. Hitotsumatsu, [*Sugaku Koshiki (Mathematical Formulas; in Japanese)*]{}\
Vol. I, II, III (Iwanami Shoten; Publisher, Tokyo, 1956, 1957, 1960). Y. Motohashi, [*Spectral Theory of the Riemann Zeta-function*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997). H. M. Edwards, [*Riemann’s Zeta Function*]{} (Academic Press, New York, 1974). K. Terasawa, [*Sugaku Gairon (Introduction to Mathematics; in Japanese)*]{} (Iwanami Shoten; Publisher, Tokyo, 1960). M. Abramowitz, and I. A. Stegun (Eds.), [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables*]{} (Dover Publications, New York, 1972). E. T. Whittaker and G. N. Watson, [*A Course of Modern Analysis*]{}, Cambridge Mathematical Library, 4th edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996). G. E. Andrews, R. Askey and R. Roy, [*Special Functions*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999). G. H. Hardy, Sur les zeros de la fonction $\zeta(s)$ de Riemann, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris [**158**]{}, 1012-1014 (1914).\
http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k3111d J. Arias de Reyna, Math. Comp. [**80**]{}, 995-1009 (2011). X. Gourdon, The 1013 first zeros of the Riemann Zeta function, and zeros computation at very large height (2004).\
http://numbers.computation.free.fr/Constants/Miscellaneous/zetazeros1e13-1e24.pdf C. L. Siegel, [Ü]{}ber Riemanns nachlas zur analytischen zahlentheorie, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Mathematik, Astronomie und Physik [**2**]{}, 45-80 (1932). Y. Yoshida, [*Kansuron (Function Theory; in Japanese)*]{} (Iwanami Shoten; Publisher, Tokyo, 1965). K. Mizuno (Ed.), [*Kaisekigaku (Mathematical Analysis; in Japanese)*]{} (Gakujyutsu Tosho Shuppan-sha; Publisher, Tokyo, 1966). M. Sato, [ *Sosu kara mita sugaku no hatten (Development of mathematics from a prime number point of view; in Japanese)*]{} in: T. Kimura (Ed.), [*Sato Mikio no Sugaku (Mathematics of Mikio Sato; in Japanese)*]{} (Nippon Hyoron Sha; Publisher, Tokyo, 2007) pp. 73-87. N. Kurokawa, [*Riemann Yoso no 150 Nen (150 Years of the Riemann Hypothesis; in Japanese)*]{} (Iwanami Shoten; Publisher, Tokyo 2009). C. J. de la Vall[é]{}e Poussin, Recherches analytiques sur la th[é]{}orie des nombres premiers, Ann. Soc. Sci. Bruxelles [**20**]{}, 183-256 (1896). J. Hadamard, Sur la distribution des zeros de la fonction $\zeta(s)$ et ses consequences arithmetiques, Bull. Soc. Math. France [**24**]{}, 199-220 (1896).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Phone: +81-90-4602-0490 Phone/Fax: +81-45-831-8881
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we address the graph matching problem. Following the recent works of [@zaslavskiy2009path; @Vestner2017] we analyze and generalize the idea of concave relaxations. We introduce the concepts of *conditionally concave* and *probably conditionally concave* energies on polytopes and show that they encapsulate many instances of the graph matching problem, including matching Euclidean graphs and graphs on surfaces. We further prove that local minima of probably conditionally concave energies on general matching polytopes ([[*e.g.*]{}]{}, doubly stochastic) are with high probability extreme points of the matching polytope ([[*e.g.*]{}]{}, permutations).'
author:
- |
Haggai Maron\
Weizmann Institute of Science\
Rehovot, Israel\
`[email protected]`\
Yaron Lipman\
Weizmann Institute of Science\
Rehovot, Israel\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: '(Probably) Concave Graph Matching '
---
Introduction
============
Graph matching is a generic and popular modeling tool for problems in computational sciences such as computer vision [@berg2005shape; @zhou2012factorized; @rodola2013elastic; @bernard2017tighter], computer graphics [@funkhouser2006partial; @kezurer2015tight], medical imaging [@guo2013robust], and machine learning [@umeyama1988eigendecomposition; @huet1999graph; @cour2007balanced]. In general, graph matching refers to several different optimization problems of the form: $$\label{e:gm}
\min_X ~ E(X)\quad \mathrm{s.t.} \quad X \in {\mathcal{F}}$$
where ${\mathcal{F}}\subset {\mathbb R}^{n\times n_0}$ is a collection of *matchings* between vertices of two graphs $G_A$ and $G_B$, and $E(X)=[X]^T M [X] + a^T [X]$ is usually a quadratic function in $X\in{\mathbb R}^{n\times n_0}$ ($[X]\in{\mathbb R}^{nn_0\times 1}$ is its column stack). Often, $M$ quantifies the discrepancy between edge affinities exerted by the matching $X$. Edge affinities are represented by symmetric matrices $A\in{\mathbb R}^{n\times n}$, $B\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_0\times n_0}$. Maybe the most common instantiation of is $$\label{e:E1}
E_1(X)={\left\VertAX-XB\right\Vert}^2_F$$ and ${\mathcal{F}}=\Pi_n$, the matrix group of $n\times n$ permutations. The permutations $X\in \Pi_n$ represent bijections between the set of ($n$) vertices of $G_A$ and the set of ($n$) vertices of $G_B$. We denote this problem as ${\mathrm{GM}}$. From a computational point of view, this problem is equivalent to the quadratic assignment problem, and as such is an NP-hard problem [@burkard1998quadratic]. A popular way of obtaining approximate solutions is by relaxing its combinatorial constraints [@loiola2007survey].
A standard relaxation of this formulation ([[*e.g.*]{}]{} [@almohamad1993linear; @Aflalo2015; @fiori2015spectral]) is achieved by replacing $\Pi_n$ with its convex hull, namely the set of doubly-stochastic matrices ${\mathrm{DS}}= {\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})} = {\left\{X\in{\mathbb R}^{n\times n} \ \vert \ X{\mathbf{1}}={\mathbf{1}}, X^T{\mathbf{1}}={\mathbf{1}}, X\geq 0\right\}}$. The main advantage of this formulation is the convexity of the energy $E_1$; the main drawback is that often the minimizer is not a permutation and simply projecting the solution onto $\Pi_n$ doesn’t take the energy into account resulting in a suboptimal solution. The prominent Path Following algorithm [@zaslavskiy2009path] suggests a better solution of continuously changing $E_1$ to a concave energy $E'$ that coincide (up to an additive constant) with $E_1$ over the permutations. The concave energy $E'$ is called *concave relaxation* and enjoys three key properties: (i) Its solution set is the same as the ${\mathrm{GM}}$ problem. (ii) Its set of local optima are all permutations. This means no projection of the local optima onto the permutations is required. (iii) For every descent direction, a maximal step is always guaranteed to reduce the energy most.
[@dym2017ds++; @bernard2017tighter] suggest a similar strategy but starting with a tighter convex relaxation. Another set of works [@vogelstein2015fast; @Lyzinski2016; @Vestner2017; @boyarski2017efficient] have considered the energy $$\label{e:E2}
E_2(X)=-{\mathrm{tr}}(BX^TAX)$$ over the doubly-stochastic matrices, ${\mathrm{DS}}$, as well. Note that both energies $E_1$, $E_2$ are identical (up to an additive constant) over the permutations and hence both are considered relaxations. However, in contrast to $E_1$, $E_2$ is in general indefinite, resulting in a non-convex relaxation. [@vogelstein2015fast; @Lyzinski2016] suggest to locally optimize this relaxation with the Frank-Wolfe algorithm and motivate it by proving that for the class of $\rho$-correlated Bernoulli adjacency matrices $A,B$, the optimal solution of the relaxation almost always coincides with the (unique in this case) ${\mathrm{GM}}$ optimal solution. [@Vestner2017; @boyarski2017efficient] were the first to make the useful observation that $E_2$ is *itself a concave relaxation* for some important cases of affinities such as heat kernels and Gaussians. This leads to an efficient local optimization using the Frank-Wolfe algorithm and specialized linear assignment solvers ([[*e.g.*]{}]{}, [@bernard2016fast]). In this paper, we analyze and generalize the above works and introduce the concepts of *conditionally concave* and *probably conditionally concave* energies $E(X)$. Conditionally concave energy $E(X)$ means that the restriction of the Hessian $M$ of the energy $E$ to the linear space $${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})} = {\left\{X\in {\mathbb R}^{n\times n} \ \vert \ X{\mathbf{1}}=0, X^T {\mathbf{1}}=0\right\}}$$ is negative definite. Note that ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$ is the linear part of the affine-hull of the doubly-stochastic matrices, denoted ${\mathrm{aff}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$. We will use the notation $M\vert_{{\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}}$ to refer to this restriction of $M$, and consequently $M\vert_{{\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}}\prec 0$ means $v^T M v <0$, for all $0\ne v\in {\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$. Our first result is proving there is a large class of affinity matrices resulting in conditionally concave $E_2$. In particular, affinity matrices constructed using *positive or negative definite functions*[^1] will be conditionally concave.
[thm:cond\_conc]{} Let $\Phi:{\mathbb R}^d{\rightarrow}{\mathbb R}$, $\Psi:{\mathbb R}^s{\rightarrow}{\mathbb R}$ be both conditionally positive (or negative) definite functions of order $1$. For any pair of graphs with affinity matrices $A,B\in{\mathbb R}^{n\times n}$ so that $$A_{ij}=\Phi(x_i-x_j), \quad B_{ij}=\Psi(y_i-y_j)$$ for some arbitrary ${\left\{x_i\right\}}_{i\in [n]}\subset{\mathbb R}^d$, ${\left\{y_i\right\}}_{i\in [n]} \subset {\mathbb R}^s$, the energy $E_2(X)$ is conditionally concave, [[*i.e.*]{}]{}, its Hessian $M\vert_{{\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}}\prec 0$.
One useful application of this theorem is in matching graphs with Euclidean affinities, since Euclidean distances are conditionally negative definite of order $1$ [@wendland2004scattered]. That is, the affinities are Euclidean distances of points in Euclidean spaces of arbitrary dimensions, $$A_{ij}={\left\Vertx_i-x_j\right\Vert}_2, \quad B_{ij}={\left\Verty_i-y_j\right\Vert}_2,$$ where ${\left\{x_i\right\}}_{i\in[n]}\subset {\mathbb R}^d$, ${\left\{y_i\right\}}_{i\in[n]}\subset {\mathbb R}^s$. This class contains, besides Euclidean graphs, also affinities made out of distances that can be isometrically embedded in Euclidean spaces such as diffusion distances [@coifman2006diffusion], distances induced by deep learning embeddings ([[*e.g.*]{}]{} [@schroff2015facenet]) and Mahalanobis distances. Furthermore, as shown in [@bogomolny2007distance] the spherical distance, $A_{ij}=d_{S^d}(x_i,x_j)$, is also conditionally negative definite over the sphere and therefore can be used in the context of the theorem as-well.
Second, we generalize the notion of conditionally concave energies to *probably conditionally concave* energies. Intuitively, the energy $E$ is called *probably conditionally concave* if it is rare to find a linear subspace $D$ of ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$ so that the restriction of $E$ to it is convex, that is $M\vert_D \succeq 0$. The primary motivation in considering probably conditionally concave energies is that they enjoy (with high probability) the same properties as the conditionally concave energies, [[*i.e.*]{}]{}, (i)-(iii). Therefore, locally minimizing probably conditionally concave energies over ${\mathcal{F}}$ can be done also with the Frank-Wolfe algorithm, with guarantees (in probability) on the feasibility of both the optimization result and the solution set of this energy.
A surprising fact we show is that probably conditionally concave energies are pretty common and include Hessian matrices $M$ with almost the same ratio of positive to negative eigenvalues. The following theorem bounds the probability of finding uniformly at random a linear subspace $D$ such that the restriction of $M\in{\mathbb R}^{m\times m}$ to $D$ is convex, [[*i.e.*]{}]{}, $M\vert_D\succ 0$. The set of $d$-dimensional linear subspaces of ${\mathbb R}^{m}$ is called the Grassmannian $G_r(d,m)$ and it has a compact differential manifold structure and a uniform measure $P_r$.
[thm:matrix\_prob\_concave]{} Let $M\in {\mathbb R}^{m\times m}$ be a symmetric matrix with eigenvalues $\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_m$. Then, for all $t\in(0,\frac{1}{2\lambda_{\max}})$: $$\label{e:bound}
P_r( M\vert_D \succeq 0) \leq {{\prod_{i=1}^{m}(1-2t\lambda_i)^{-\frac{d}{2}}}},\vspace{-5pt}$$ where $M\vert_D$ is the restriction of $M$ to the $d$-dimensional linear subspace defined by $D\in G_r(d,m)$ and the probability is taken with respect to the Haar probability measure on $G_r(d,m)$.
[[ For the case $d=1$ the probability of $M\vert_D\succeq 0$ can be interpreted via distributions of quadratic forms. Previous works aimed at calculating and bounding similar probabilities [@imhof1961computing; @rudelson2013hanson] but in different (more general) settings providing less explicit bounds. As we will see, the case $d>1$ quantifies the chances of local minima residing at high dimensional faces of ${\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$.]{}]{}
[[ As a simple use-case of theorem \[thm:matrix\_prob\_concave\],]{}]{} consider a matrix where $51\%$ of the eigenvalues are $-1$ and $49\%$ are $+1$; the probability of finding a convex direction of this matrix, when the direction is uniformly distributed, is exponentially low in the dimension of the matrix. As we (empirically) show, one class of problems that in practice presents probably conditionally concave $E_2$ are when the affinities $A,B$ describe geodesic distances on surfaces.
Probable concavity can be further used to prove theorems regarding the likelihood of finding a local minimum outside the matching set ${\mathcal{F}}$ when minimizing $E$ over a relaxed matching polytope ${\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$. We will show the existence of a rather general probability space (in fact, a family) $(\Omega_{m},P_r)$ of Hessians $M\in {\mathbb R}^{m\times m}\in \Omega_{m}$ with a natural probability measure, $P_r$, so that the probability of local minima of $E(X)$ to be outside ${\mathcal{F}}$ is very small. This result is stated and proved in theorem \[thm:local\_minima\]. An immediate conclusion of this result provides a proof of a probabilistic version of properties (i) and (ii) stated above for energies drawn from this distribution. In particular, the global minima of $E(X)$ over ${\mathrm{DS}}$ coincide with those over $\Pi_n$ with high probability. The following theorem provides a general result in the flavor of [@Lyzinski2016] for a large class of quadratic energies. @title[Theorem \[\#theorem\]]{}
Let $E$ be a quadratic energy with Hessian drawn from the probability space $(\Omega_{m},P_r)$. The chance that a local minimum of $\min_{X\in{\mathrm{DS}}}E(X)$ is outside $\Pi_n$ is extremely small, bounded by $exp(-c_1 n^2)$, for some constant $c_1 > 0$.
Third, when the energy of interest $E(X)$ is not probably conditionally concave over ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$ there is no guarantee that the local optimum of $E$ over ${\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$ is in ${\mathcal{F}}$. We devise a simple variant of the Frank-Wolfe algorithm, replacing the standard line search with a *concave search*. Concave search means subtracting from the energy $E$ convex parts that are constant on ${\mathcal{F}}$ ([[*i.e.*]{}]{}, relaxations) until an energy reducing step is found.
Conditionally concave energies
==============================
\[s:conditionally\_concave\_energies\] We are interested in the application of the Frank-Wolfe algorithm [@frank1956algorithm] for locally optimizing $E_2$ (potentially with a linear term) from over the doubly-stochastic matrices:
\[e:cgm\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{X} & \quad E(X)\\
\mathrm{s.t.} & \quad X \in {\mathrm{DS}}\end{aligned}$$
where $E(X)=-[X]^T (B\otimes A) [X] + a^T [X]$. For completeness, we include a simple pseudo-code:
We say that $E(X)$ is *conditionally concave* if it is concave when restricted to the linear space ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$, the linear part of the affine-hull ${\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$.
If $E(X)$ is conditionally concave we have that properties (i)-(iii) of concave relaxations detailed above hold. In particular Algorithm \[alg:fw\] would always accept $t_0=1$ as the optimal step, and therefore it will produce a series of feasible matchings $X_0\in \Pi_n$ and will converge after a finite number of steps to a permutation local minimum $X_*\in \Pi_n$ of . Our first result in this paper provides sufficient condition for $W=-B\otimes A$ to be concave. It provides a connection between *conditionally positive (or negative) definite* functions [@wendland2004scattered], and negative definiteness of $-B\otimes A$:
A function $\Phi:{\mathbb R}^d{\rightarrow}{\mathbb R}$ is called *conditionally positive definite of order $m$* if for all pairwise distinct points ${\left\{x_i\right\}}_{i\in [n]}\subset {\mathbb R}^d$ and all $0\ne \eta\in{\mathbb R}^{n}$ satisfying $\sum_{i\in [n]} \eta_i p(x_i)=0$ for all $d$-variate polynomials $p$ of degree less than $m$, we have $\sum_{ij=1}^n {\eta}_i \bar{\eta}_j \Phi(x_i-x_j) >0$.
Specifically, $\Phi$ is conditionally positive definite of order 1 if for all pairwise distinct points ${\left\{x_i\right\}}_{i\in [n]}\subset {\mathbb R}^d$ and zero-sum vectors $0\ne\eta\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$ we have $\sum_{ij=1}^n {\eta}_i \bar{\eta}_j \Phi(x_i-x_j) >0$. Conditionally negative definiteness is defined analogously. Some well-known functions satisfy the above conditions, for example: $-\|x \|_2,~-(c^2+\| x\|_2^2)^\beta$ for $\beta\in(0,1]$ are conditionally positive definite of order $1$, while the functions $\exp(-\tau^2\|x\|_2^{2})$ for all $\tau$, and $c_{30}=(1-\|x\|_2^2)_+$ are conditionally positive definite of order 0 (also called just positive definite functions). Note that if $\Phi$ is conditionally positive definite of order $m$, it is also conditionally positive definite of any order $m'>m$. Lastly, as shown in [@bogomolny2007distance], spherical distances $-d(x,x')^\gamma$ are conditionally positive semidefinite for $\gamma\in(0,1]$, and $\exp(-\tau^2 d(x,x')^\gamma)$ are positive definite for $\gamma\in(0,1]$ and all $\tau$. We now prove:
\[thm:cond\_conc\] Let $\Phi:{\mathbb R}^d{\rightarrow}{\mathbb R}$, $\Psi:{\mathbb R}^s{\rightarrow}{\mathbb R}$ be both conditionally positive (or negative) definite functions of order $1$. For any pair of graphs with affinity matrices $A,B\in{\mathbb R}^{n\times n}$ so that $$A_{ij}=\Phi(x_i-x_j), \quad B_{ij}=\Psi(y_i-y_j)$$ for some arbitrary ${\left\{x_i\right\}}_{i\in [n]}\subset{\mathbb R}^d$, ${\left\{y_i\right\}}_{i\in [n]} \subset {\mathbb R}^s$, the energy $E_2(X)$ is conditionally concave, [[*i.e.*]{}]{}, its Hessian $M\vert_{{\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}}\prec 0$.
\[lem:basis\] If the columns of $F\in{\mathbb R}^{n\times (n-1)}$ constitute an orthonormal basis for the linear space ${\mathbf{1}}^\perp={\left\{x\in{\mathbb R}^n \ \vert \ x^T{\mathbf{1}}=0\right\}}$ then the columns of $F \otimes F$ are an orthonormal basis for ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$.
First, $(F\otimes F)^T (F\otimes F) = (F^T\otimes F^T)(F\otimes F) = (F^T F)\otimes (F^T F) = I_{n-1} \otimes I_{n-1} = I_{(n-1)^2}$. Therefore $F\otimes F$ is full rank with $(n-1)^2$ orthonormal columns. Any column of $F\otimes F$ is of the form $F_i \otimes F_j$, where $F_i,F_j$ are the $i^{\text{th}}$ and $j^{\text{th}}$ columns of $F$, respectively. Now, reshaping $F_i\otimes F_j$ back into an $n\times n$ matrix using the inverse of the bracket operation we get $X=]F_i\otimes F_j[=F_j F_i^T$ which are clearly in ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$. Lastly, since the dimension of ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$ is $(n-1)^2$ the lemma is proved.
(of Theorem \[thm:cond\_conc\] ) Let $A,B\in{\mathbb R}^{n\times n}$ be as in the theorem statement. Checking that $E(X)$ is conditionally concave amounts to restricting the quadratic form $-[X]^T (B\otimes A) [X]$ to ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$: $-(F\otimes F)^T (B\otimes A) (F \otimes F) = -(F^T B F)\otimes (F^T A F) \prec 0$, where we used Lemma \[lem:basis\] and the fact that $\Phi,\Psi$ are conditionally positive definite of order $1$.
Let $A,B$ be Euclidean distance matrices then the solution set of Problem and ${\mathrm{GM}}$ coincide.
Probably conditionally concave energies
=======================================
Although Theorem \[thm:cond\_conc\] covers a rather wide spectrum of instantiations of Problem it definitely does not cover all interesting scenarios. In this section we would like to consider a more general energy $E(X)=[X]^T M [X] + a^T[X]$, $X\in{\mathbb R}^{n\times n}$, $M\in{\mathbb R}^{n^2\times n^2}$ and the optimization problem:
\[e:gm\_M\] $$\begin{aligned}
\min_{X} & \quad E(X)\\
\mathrm{s.t.} & \quad X \in {\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}
\end{aligned}$$
We assume that ${\mathcal{F}}={\mathrm{ext}({{\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}})}$, namely, the matchings are extreme points of their convex hull (as happens [[*e.g.*]{}]{}, for permutations $F=\Pi_n$). When the restricted Hessians $M\vert_{{\mathrm{lin}({{\mathcal{F}}})}}$ are $\epsilon-$*negative definite* (to be defined soon) we will call $E(X)$ *probably conditionally concave*.
Probably conditionally concave energies $E(X)$ will possess properties (i)-(iii) of conditionally concave energies with high probability. Hence they allow using Frank-Wolfe algorithms, such as Algorithm \[alg:fw\], with no line search ($t_0=1$) and achieve local minima in ${\mathcal{F}}$ (no post-processing is required). In addition, we prove that certain classes of probably conditionally concave relaxations have no local minima that are outside ${\mathcal{F}}$, with high probability. In the experiment section we will also demonstrate that in practice this algorithm works well for different choices of probably conditionally concave energies. [[ Popular energies that fall into this category are, for example, with $A,B$ geodesic distance matrices or certain functions thereof]{}]{}.
We first make some preparations. Recall the definition of the *Grassmannian* $G_r(d,m)$: It is the set of $d$-dimensional linear subspaces in ${\mathbb R}^m$; it is a compact differential manifold defined by the quotient $O(m)/O(d)\times O(m-d)$, where $O(s)$ is the orthogonal group in ${\mathbb R}^s$. The orthogonal group $O(m)$ acts transitively on $G_r(d,m)$ by taking an orthogonal basis of any $d$-dimensional linear subspace to an orthogonal basis of a possibly different $d$-dimensional subspace. On $O(m)$ there exists Haar probability measure, that is a probability measure invariant to actions of $O(m)$. The Haar probability measure on $O(m)$ induces an $O(m)$-invariant (which we will also call Haar) probability measure on $G(k,m)$. We now introduce the notion of $\epsilon$-negative definite matrices:
\[def:eps\_negdef\] A symmetric matrix $M\in{\mathbb R}^{m\times m}$ is called $\epsilon$-*negative definite* if the probability of finding a $d$-dimensional linear subspace $D\in G(d,m)$ so that $A$ is convex over $D$ is smaller than $\epsilon^d$. That is, $P_r({\left\{M\vert_D \succeq 0\right\}})\leq \epsilon^d$ where the probability is taken with respect to a Haar $O(m)$-invariant measure on the Grassmannian $G_r(d,m)$.
One way to interpret $M\vert_D$, the restriction of the matrix $M$ to the linear subspace $D$, is to consider a matrix $F\in{\mathbb R}^{m\times d}$ where the columns of $F$ form a basis to $D$ and consider $M\vert_D = F^T M F$. Clearly, negative definite matrices are $\epsilon$-negative definite for all $\epsilon>0$. The following theorem helps to see what else this definition encapsulates:
\[thm:matrix\_prob\_concave\] Let $M\in {\mathbb R}^{m\times m}$ be a symmetric matrix with eigenvalues $\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_m$. Then, for all $t\in(0,\frac{1}{2\lambda_{\max}})$: $$\label{e:bound}
P_r( M\vert_D \succeq 0) \leq {{\prod_{i=1}^{m}(1-2t\lambda_i)^{-\frac{d}{2}}}},\vspace{-0pt}$$ where $M\vert_D$ is the restriction of $M$ to the $d$-dimensional linear subspace defined by $D\in G_r(d,m)$ and the probability is taken with respect to the Haar probability measure on $G_r(d,m)$.
Let $F$ be an $m\times d$ matrix of i.i.d. standard normal random variables ${\mathcal{N}}(0,1)$. Let $F_j$, $j\in [d]$, denote the $j^{\text{th}}$ column of $F$. The multivariate distribution of $F$ is $O(m)$-invariant in the sense that for a subset ${\mathcal{A}}\subset {\mathbb R}^{m\times d}$, $P_r(R{\mathcal{A}})=P_r({\mathcal{A}})$ for all $R\in O(m)$. Therefore, $P_r(M\vert_D\succeq 0)=P_r(F^T M F \succeq 0)$. Next, $P_r(F^T M F \succeq 0) \leq P_r( \cap_{j=1}^d {\left\{F_j^T M F_j \geq 0\right\}} )=\prod_{j=1}^d P_r(F_j^T M F_j\geq 0)$, where the inequality is due to the fact that a positive semidefinite matrix necessarily has non-negative diagonal, and the equality is due to the independence of the random variables $F_j^T M F_j$, $j\in[d]$. We now calculate the probability $P_r(F_1^T M F_1)$ which is the same for all columns $j\in [d]$. For brevity let $X=(X_1,X_2,\ldots,X_m)^T=F_1$. Let $M=U\Lambda U^T$, where $U\in O(m)$ and $\Lambda = {\textrm{diag}}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_m)$ be the spectral decomposition of $M$. Since $UX$ has the same distribution as $X$ we have that $P_r(X^T M X\geq 0) = P_r(X^T \Lambda X\geq 0) = P_r(\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i X_{i}^2\geq 0)$. Since $X_i^2 \sim \chi^2(1)$ we have transformed the problem into a non-negativity test of a linear combination of chi-squared random variables. Using the Chernoff bound we have for all $t>0$: $$P_r{\left (\sum_{i=1}^{m}\lambda_iX_i^2\geq 0\right )} \leq {\mathbb{E}}{\left (e^{t\sum_{i=1}^{m}\lambda_iX_i^2}\right )} = \prod_{i=1}^{m}{\mathbb{E}}\left[e^{t\lambda_i X_i^2}, \right]$$ where the last equality follows from the independence of $X_1,...,X_m$. To finish the proof we note that $ {\mathbb{E}}\left[e^{t\lambda_i X_i^2} \right]$ is the moment generating function of the random variable $X_i^2$ sampled at $t\lambda_i$ which is known to be $(1-2t \lambda_i)^{-1/2} $ for $t\lambda_i<\frac{1}{2}$ which means that we can take $t<\frac{1}{2\lambda_i}$ when $\lambda_i\ne 0$ and disregard all $\lambda_i=0$.
Theorem \[thm:matrix\_prob\_concave\] shows that there is a *concentration of measure* phenomenon when the dimension $m$ of the matrix $M$ increases. For example consider $$\label{e:Lambda}
\Lambda_{m,p}=\big ( \overbrace{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots}^{(1-p)m},\overbrace{\mu_1,\mu_2,\ldots}^{pm} \big ),$$ where $\lambda_i\leq -b$, $b>0$ are the negative eigenvalues; $0 \leq \mu_i\leq a$, $a>0$ are the positive eigenvalues and the ratio of positive to negative eigenvalues is a constant $p\in (0,1/2)$. We can bound the r.h.s. of with $(1+2bt)^{-\frac{(1-p)m}{2}}(1-2at)^{-\frac{pm}{2}}$. Elementary calculus shows that the minimum of this function over $t\in (0,1/2a)$ gives: $$\label{e:Pr_example}
P_r(v^t M v \geq 0) \leq {\left (\frac{a^{1-p}b^p}{\frac{a+b}{2}} \frac{1}{2}(1-p)^{p-1}p^{-p} \right )}^{\frac{m}{2}},$$
[r]{}[0.20]{} {width="18.00000%"}
where $v$ is uniformly distributed on the unit sphere in ${\mathbb R}^m$. The function $\frac{1}{2}(1-p)^{p-1}p^{-p}$ is shown in the inset and for $p<1/2$ it is strictly smaller than $1$. The term $\frac{a^{1-p}b^p}{(a+b)/2}$ is the ratio of the weighted geometric mean and the arithmetic mean. Using the weighted arithmetic-geometric inequality it can be shown that these terms is at-most $1$ if $a\leq b$. To summarize, if $a\leq b$ and $p<1/2$ the probability to find a convex (positive) direction in $M$ is exponentially decreasing in $m$, the dimension of the matrix. One simple example is taking $a=b=1$, $p=0.49$ which shows that considering the matrices $$U\big ( \overbrace{-1,-1,\ldots,-1}^{0.51m},\overbrace{1,1,\ldots,1}^{0.49m} \big ) U^T\vspace{-0pt}$$ it will be extremely hard to get in random a convex direction in dimension $m\approx 300^2$, [[*i.e.*]{}]{}, the probability will be $\approx 4\cdot 10^{-5}$ (this is a low dimension for a matching problem where $m=(n-1)^2$).
Another consequence that comes out of this theorem (in fact, its proof) is that the probability of finding a linear subspace $D\in G_r(d,m)$ for which the matrix $M$ is positive semidefinite is bounded by the probability of finding a one-dimensional subspace $D_1\in G_r(1,m)$ to the power of $d$. Therefore the $d$ exponent in Definition \[def:eps\_negdef\] makes sense. Namely, to show a symmetric matrix $M$ is $\epsilon$-negative definite it is enough to check one-dimensional linear subspaces. An important implication of this fact and one of the motivations for Definition \[def:eps\_negdef\] is that finding local minima at high dimensional faces of the polytope ${\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$ is much less likely than at low dimensional faces.
Next, we would like to prove Theorem \[thm:local\_minima\] that shows that for natural probability space of Hessians ${\left\{M\right\}}$ the local minima of are with high probability in ${\mathcal{F}}$, [[*e.g.*]{}]{}, permutations in case that $F=\Pi_n$. We therefore need to devise a natural probability space of Hessians. We opt to consider Hessians of the form discussed above, namely [[ $$\label{e:Omega_m}
\Omega_m = {\left\{U\Lambda_{m,p}U^T \ \vert \ U\in O(m)\right\}},$$ ]{}]{} where $\Lambda_{m,p}$ is defined in . The probability measure over $\Omega_m$ is defined using the Haar probability measure on $O(m)$, that is for a subset ${\mathcal{A}}\subset \Omega_m$ we define $Pr({\mathcal{A}})=Pr({\left\{U\in O(m) \ \vert \ U\Lambda_{m,p} U^T \in {\mathcal{A}}\right\}})$, where the probability measure on the r.h.s. is the probability Haar measure on $O(m)$. [[ Note that is plausible since the input graphs $G_A, G_B$ are usually provided with an arbitrary ordering of the vertices. Writing the quadratic energy $E$ resulted from a different ordering $P,Q\in\Pi_n$ of the vertices of $G_A,G_B$ (resp.) yields the Hessian $H'=(Q\otimes P)(B\otimes A) (Q\otimes P)^T$, where $Q\otimes P\in\Pi_{m}\subset O(m)$. This motivates defining a Hessian probability space that is invariant to $O(m)$. ]{}]{} We prove:
\[thm:local\_minima\] If the number of extreme points of the polytope ${\mathrm{hull}({F})}$ is bounded by $\exp(m^{1-\epsilon})$, for some fixed arbitrary $\epsilon>0$, and the Hessian of $E$ is drawn from the probability space $(\Omega_{m},P_r)$, the chance that a local minimum of $\min_{X\in{\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}}E(X)$ is outside ${\mathcal{F}}$ is extremely small, bounded by $exp(-c_1 m)$, for some constant $c_1 > 0$.
Denote all the edges ([[*i.e.*]{}]{}, one-dimensional faces) of the polytope ${\mathcal{P}}={\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$ by indices $\alpha$. Even if every two extreme points of ${\mathcal{P}}$ are connected by an edge there could be at most $\exp(2m^{1-\epsilon})$ edges. A local minimum $X_*\in {\mathcal{P}}$ to that is not in ${\mathcal{F}}$ necessarily lies in the (relative) interior of some face $f$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ of dimension at-least one. The restriction of the Hessian $M$ of $E(X)$ to ${\mathrm{lin}({f})}$ is therefore necessarily positive semidefinite. This implies there is a direction $v_\alpha\in {\mathbb R}^{m}$, parallel to an edge $\alpha$ of ${\mathcal{P}}$ so that $v_\alpha^T M v_\alpha \geq 0$.
Let us denote by $X_\alpha$ the indicator random variable that equals one if $v_\alpha^T M v_\alpha \geq 0$ and zero otherwise. If $X_\alpha = 1$ we say that the edge $\alpha$ is a *critical edge* for $M$. Let us denote $X = \sum_\alpha X_\alpha$ the random variable counting critical edges. The expected number of critical edges is ${\mathbb{E}}(X)=\sum_\alpha P_r(v_\alpha^T M v_\alpha \geq 0)$. We use Theorem \[thm:matrix\_prob\_concave\], in particular , to bound the summands.
Since $P_r(v_\alpha^T M v_\alpha \geq 0) = P_r(v_\alpha^T U \Lambda_{m,p} U^T v_\alpha \geq 0)$ and $U^T v_\alpha$ is distributed uniformly on the unit sphere in ${\mathbb R}^{m}$, we can use to infer that $P_r(v_\alpha^T M v_\alpha \geq 0) \leq \eta^{m/2}$ for some $\eta\in[0,1)$ and therefore ${\mathbb{E}}(X)\leq \exp(m\log \eta/2)\sum_\alpha 1$ (note that $\log \eta < 0$). Incorporating the bound on edge number in ${\mathcal{P}}$ discussed above we get ${\mathbb{E}}(X)\leq \exp(\frac{\log \eta}{2} m + 2m^{1-\epsilon})\leq \exp(-c_1 m)$ for some constant $c_1>0$. Lastly, as explained above, the event of a local minimum not in ${\mathcal{F}}$ is contained in $X\geq 1$ and by Markov’s inequality we finally get $P_r(X\geq 1)\leq {\mathbb{E}}(X) \leq \exp(-c_1 m).$
Let us use this theorem to show that the local optimal solutions to Problem with permutations as matchings, ${\mathcal{F}}=\Pi_n$, are with high probability permutations:
\[thm:permutations\_in\_prob\] Let $E$ be a quadratic energy with Hessian drawn from the probability space $(\Omega_{m},P_r)$. The chance that a local minimum of $\min_{X\in{\mathrm{DS}}}E(X)$ is outside $\Pi_n$ is extremely small, bounded by $exp(-c_1 n^2)$, for some constant $c_1 > 0$.
In this case the polytope ${\mathrm{DS}}={\mathrm{hull}({\Pi_n})}$ is in the $(n-1)^2$ dimensional linear subspace ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$ of ${\mathbb R}^{n\times n}$. It therefore makes sense to consider the Hessians’ probability space restricted to ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}$, that is considering $M\vert_{{\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}}$ and the orthogonal subgroup acting on it, $O((n-1)^2)$. In this case $m=(n-1)^2$. The number of vertices of ${\mathrm{DS}}$ is the number of permutations which by Stirling’s bound we have $n!\leq \exp( 1-n+ \log n (n + 1/2) ) \leq \exp( (n-1) ^{1.1})$. Hence the number of edges is bounded by $\exp(2(n-1)^{1.1})$, as required.
Lastly, Theorems \[thm:local\_minima\] and \[thm:permutations\_in\_prob\], can be generalized by considering $d$-dimensional faces of the polytope:
If the number of extreme points of the polytope ${\mathrm{hull}({F})}$ is bounded by $\exp(m^{1-\epsilon})$, for some fixed arbitrary $\epsilon>0$, and the Hessian of $E$ is drawn from the probability space $(\Omega_{m},P_r)$, the chance that a local minimum of $\min_{X\in{\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}}E(X)$ is in the relative interior of a $d$-dimensional face of ${\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$ is extremely small, bounded by $exp(-c_1 d m)$, for some constant $c_1 > 0$.
This theorem is proved similarly to Theorem \[thm:local\_minima\] by considering indicator variables $X_\alpha$ for positive semidefinite $M\vert_{{\mathrm{lin}({\alpha})}}$ where $\alpha$ stands for a $d$-dimensional face in ${\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$. This generalized theorem has a practical implication: local minima are likely to be found on lower dimensional faces.
Graph matching with one sided permutations
==========================================
In this section we examine an interesting and popular graph matching instance, where the matchings are the one-sided permutations, namely ${\mathcal{F}}={\left\{X\in {\left\{0,1\right\}}^{\scriptscriptstyle n\times n_0} \ \vert \ X{\mathbf{1}}= {\mathbf{1}}\right\}}$. That is ${\mathcal{F}}$ are well-defined maps from graph $G_A$ with $n$ vertices to $G_B$ with $n_0$ vertices. This modeling is used in the template and partial matching cases. Unfortunately, in this case, standard graph matching energies $E(X)$ are not probably conditionally concave over ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$. Note that ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathrm{DS}}})}\subsetneqq {\mathrm{lin}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$.
We devise a variation of the Frank-Wolfe algorithm using a *concave search* procedure. That is, in each iteration, instead of standard line search we subtract a convex energy from $E(X)$ that is constant on ${\mathcal{F}}$ until we find a descent step. This subtraction is a relaxation of the original problem in the sense it does not alter (up to a global constant) the energy values at ${\mathcal{F}}$.
The algorithm is summarized in Algorithm \[alg:fwonesided\] and is guaranteed to output a feasible solution in ${\mathcal{F}}$. The linear program in each iteration over ${\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$ has a simple closed form solution. Also, note that in the inner loop only $n$ different $\lambda$ values should be checked. Details can be found in appendix \[appendix\].
Experiments
===========
#### Bound evaluation:
Table \[tab:probConcavityEval\] evaluates the probability bound for Hessians $M\in{\mathbb R}^{100^2\times 100^2}$ of $E_2(X)$ using affinities $A,B$ defined by functions of geodesic distances on surfaces. Functions that are conditionally negative definite or semi-definite in the Euclidean case: geodesic distances $d(x,y)$, its square $d(x,y)^2$, and multi-quadratic functions $(1+d(x,y)^2)^{\frac{1}{10}}$. Functions that are positive definite in the Euclidean case: $c_{30}({\left\Vertx\right\Vert}_2)=(1-{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}_2)_+$, $c_{31}({\left\Vertx\right\Vert}_2)=(1-{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}_2)^4_+(4{\left\Vertx\right\Vert}_2+1)$ and $\exp(-\tau^2\|x\|_2^{2})$ (note that the last function was used in [@Vestner2017]). We also provide the *empirical* chance of sampling a convex direction. The results in the table are the mean over all the shape pairs (218) in the SHREC07 [@giorgi2007shape] shape matching benchmark with $n=100$. The empirical test was conducted using $10^6$ random directions sampled from an i.i.d. Gaussian distribution. Note that $0$ in the table means numerical zero (below machine precision).
\[tab:probConcavityEval\]
#### Initialization:
Motivated by @fischler1987random [@kim2011blended] and due to the fast running time of the algorithms ([[*e.g.*]{}]{}, $~150{msec}$ for $n=200$ with Algorithm \[alg:fw\], and $~16{sec}$ with Algorithm \[alg:fwonesided\], both on a single CPU) we sampled multiple initializations based on randomized $l$-pairs of vertices of graphs $G_A,G_B$ and choose the result corresponding to the best energy. In Algorithm \[alg:fw\] we used the Auction algorithm [@bernard2016fast], as in [@Vestner2017].
\[tab:DSPPPATHcomp\]
#### Comparison with convex-to-concave methods:
Table \[tab:DSPPPATHcomp\] compares our method to [@zaslavskiy2009path; @dym2017ds++] (PATH, DSPP accordingly). As mentioned in the introduction, these methods solve convex relaxations and then project its minimizer while deforming the energy towards concavity. Our method compares favorably in the task of matching point-clouds from the ModelNet10 dataset [@wu20153d] with Euclidean distances as affinities, and the SHREC07 dataset [@giorgi2007shape] with geodesic distances. We used ${\mathcal{F}}=\Pi_n$, and energy . The table shows average and standard deviation of energy differences of the listed algorithms and ours; the average is taken over 50 random pairs of shapes. Note that positive averages mean our algorithm achieves lower energy on average; the difference to random energy values is given for scale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![(a) SHREC07 benchmark: Cumulative distribution functions of all errors (left) and mean error per shape (right). (b) Anatomical dataset embedding [[ in the plane]{}]{}. Squares and triangles represent different bone types, lines represent temporal trajectories. []{data-label="f:shrec"}](shrec_eval_fig2.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![(a) SHREC07 benchmark: Cumulative distribution functions of all errors (left) and mean error per shape (right). (b) Anatomical dataset embedding [[ in the plane]{}]{}. Squares and triangles represent different bone types, lines represent temporal trajectories. []{data-label="f:shrec"}](bones.pdf "fig:"){width="55.00000%"}
(a) (b)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Automatic shape matching:** We use our Algorithm \[alg:fw\] for automatic shape matching ([[*i.e.*]{}]{}, with no user input or input shape features) on a the SHREC07 [@giorgi2007shape] dataset according to the protocol of [@kim2011blended]. This benchmark consists of matching 218 pairs of (often extremely) non-isometric shapes in 11 different classes such as humans, animals, planes, ants etc. On each shape, we sampled $k=8$ points using farthest point sampling and randomized $s=2000$ initializations of subsets of $l=3$ points. In this stage, we use $n=300$ points. We then up-sampled to $n=1500$ using the exact algorithm with initialization using our $n=300$ best result. The process takes about $16min$ per pair running on a single CPU. Figure \[f:shrec\] (a) shows the cumulative distribution function of the geodesic matching errors (left - all errors, right - mean error per pair) of Algorithm \[alg:fw\] with geodesic distances and their functions $c_{30},c_{31}$. We used and ${\mathcal{F}}=\Pi$. We also show the result of Algorithm \[alg:fwonesided\] with geodesic distances, see details in appendix \[appendix\]. We compare with Blended Intrinsic Maps (BIM) [@kim2011blended] and the energies suggested by [@boyarski2017efficient] (heat kernel) and [@Vestner2017] (Gaussian of geodesics). For the latter two, we used the same procedure as described above and just replaced the energies with the ones suggested in these works. Note that the Gaussian of geodesics energy of [@Vestner2017] falls into the probably concave framework.\
**Anatomical shape space analysis:** We match a dataset of 67 mice bone surfaces acquired using micro-CT. The dataset consists of eight time series. Each time series captures the development of one type of bone over time. We use Algorithm \[alg:fw\] to match all pairs in the dataset
[r]{}[0.25]{} {width="23.00000%"}
using Euclidean distance affinity matrices $A,B$, energy , and ${\mathcal{F}}=\Pi_n$. After optimization, we calculated a $67\times 67$ dissimilarity matrix. Dissimilarities are equivalent to our energy over the permutations (up to additive constant) and defined by $\sum_{ijkl} X_{ij}X_{kl} (d_{ik}-d_{jl})^2$. A color-coded matching example can be seen in the inset. In Figure \[f:shrec\] (b) we used Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) [@kruskal1978multidimensional] to assign a $2D$ coordinate to each surface using the dissimilarity matrix. Each bone is shown as a trajectory. Note how the embedding separated the two types of bones and all bones of the same type are mapped to similar time trajectories. This kind of visualization can help biologists analyze their data and possibly find interesting time periods in which bone growth is changing. Lastly, note that the Tibia bones (on the right) exhibit an interesting change in the midst of its growth. This particular time was also predicted by other means by the biologists.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we analyze and generalize the idea of concave relaxations for graph matching problems. We concentrate on *conditionally concave* and *probably conditionally concave* energies and demonstrate that they provide useful relaxations in practice. We prove that all local minima of such relaxations are with high probability in the original feasible set; this allows removing the standard post-process projection step in relaxation-based algorithms. Another conclusion is that the set of optimal solutions of such relaxations coincides with the set of optimal solutions of the original graph matching problem.
There are popular edge affinity matrices, such as ${\left\{0,1\right\}}$ adjacency matrices, that in general do not lead to conditionally concave relaxations. This raises the general question of characterizing more general classes of affinity matrices that furnish (probably) conditionally-concave relaxations. Another interesting future work could try to obtain information on the quality of local minima for more specific classes of graphs.
Acknowledgments
===============
[[ The authors would like to thank Boaz Nadler, Omri Sarig, Vova Kim and Uri Bader for their helpful remarks and suggestions. This research was supported in part by the European Research Council (ERC Consolidator Grant, “LiftMatch” 771136) and the Israel Science Foundation (Grant No. 1830/17). The authors would also like to thank Tomer Stern and Eli Zelzer for the bone scans. ]{}]{}
Frank-Wolfe with concave search {#appendix}
===============================
An orthogonal basis to ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$ is computed similarly to Lemma 1 in the paper:
\[orthonormal basis for one-sided permutations\]\[onesidedbasis\] If the columns of $F\in{\mathbb R}^{n_0\times (n_0-1)}$ form an orthonormal basis for ${\mathbf{1}}^\perp$ in ${\mathbb R}^{n_0}$ then the columns of $F \otimes I_n$ are an orthonormal basis for ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$.
The energy $E_2(X)$ in this case does not model the matching problem well since it gives rise to trivial solutions. Instead, we chose to optimize a similar energy [@solomon2016entropic]: $E(X)=\sum_{ijkl}X_{ij}X_{kl}(A_{ik}-B_{jl})^2$. This energy can also be written in matrix form: $[X]^TM[X]$ where $M=-2B{\otimes}A+11^T{\otimes}A.^2+B.^2{\otimes}11^T $ (where $C.^2$ implies entry-wise operation) and after restricting it to ${\mathrm{lin}({{\mathcal{F}}})}$ its Hessian is of the form $-2FBF{\otimes}A+ FB.^2F{\otimes}11^T$. Assuming $A,B$ are Euclidean distance matrices, the right summand is negative semidefinite, but the left summand is not. This is because that $A$ is not conjugated by $F$: it has a large positive eigenvalue as a result of the Perron-Frobenius Theorem.
The linear program solved in each iteration of the algorithm takes a surprisingly simple form: it amounts to solving $\min_{X\in {\mathrm{hull}({{\mathcal{F}}})}} {\mathrm{tr}}(\nabla E(X_0)^T X)$ which can be solved simply by assigning the value 1 to the index of the minimal value in each row of $\nabla E(X_0)$. This procedure always outputs solutions in ${\mathcal{F}}$.
The convex energies we subtract from the objective during the concave search should be constant on ${\mathcal{F}}$ so a reduction in the subtracted energy is the same as in the original energy $E(X)$. We use the quadratic form defined by $\lambda*\Lambda$ where $\Lambda$ is a $nn_0\times nn_0$ diagonal matrix defined by $D_{ijij} = \max_j {\left\{\sum_{kl} |M_{ijkl}|\right\}}$. $D$ is a positive definite matrix and for $\lambda=1$ , $W-D$ is guaranteed to be negative semidefinite. The values of $\lambda$ need not be discretized since there are only $n$ different critical values - the ones that change the minimum calculation mentioned in the previous paragraph.
[^1]: In a nutshell, positive (negative) definite functions are functions that when applied to differences of vectors produce positive (negative) definite matrices when restricted to certain linear subspaces; this notion will be formally introduced and defined in Section \[s:conditionally\_concave\_energies\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the operation of torus surgery on tori embedded in $S^4$. Key questions include which 4–manifolds can be obtained in this way, and the uniqueness of such descriptions. As an application we construct embeddings of 3–manifolds into 4–manifolds by viewing Dehn surgery as a cross section of a surgery on a surface. In particular, we give new embeddings of homology spheres into $S^4$.'
author:
- Kyle Larson
bibliography:
- 'torussurgery.bib'
title: 'Surgery on tori in the 4–sphere'
---
[introduction]{}
Given an embedded torus $\mathcal{T}$ with trivial normal bundle in a 4–manifold $X$, torus surgery on $\mathcal{T}$ (also called a *logarithmic transform*) is the process of removing a neighborhood $\nu \mathcal{T}$ and re-gluing $T^2 \times D^2$ by some diffeomorphism $\phi$ of the boundary to form $X_\mathcal{T} = X \setminus \nu \mathcal{T} \cup_\phi T^2 \times D^2$. Torus surgery is the operation underlying almost all examples of exotic 4–manifolds (see [@FS] for a nice overview). While torus surgery is a well-studied operation, most of the work has focused on tori embedded in elliptic surfaces (or at least in neighborhoods that admit a special elliptic fibration). Here we restrict to the case where the tori are embedded in $S^4$.
There are two natural 4-dimensional analogues to Dehn surgery on knots in $S^3$. The first is the Gluck twist operation [@gluck] on 2–knots, and the other is torus surgery (it is known that surgery on higher genus surfaces is a trivial operation since the gluing map will always extend over the tubular neighborhood of the surface). Now the possible 4–manifolds obtained by a Gluck twist in $S^4$ are quite limited; by an application of Freedman’s theorem [@F] the result will always be homeomorphic to $S^4$. Furthermore, by a theorem of Iwase [@Iw1], the result of a Gluck twist can also be obtained by a certain related torus surgery, and so for these reasons torus surgery seems to be the appropriate 4-dimensional generalization of Dehn surgery.
However, there is an immediate impediment to proving an analogue of the powerful Lickorish-Wallace theorem for Dehn surgery (which states that every closed, connected, oriented 3–manifold can be obtained by Dehn surgery on a link in $S^3$): torus surgery always preserves the Euler characteristic and signature of the 4–manifold. Therefore, the relevant question is:
\[decomp\] Which 4–manifolds with Euler characteristic 2 and signature 0 can be obtained by surgery on a link of tori in $S^4$?
As a preliminary result in this direction we can show that a large class of groups can be obtained as fundamental groups of such 4–manifolds: we prove that any finitely presented group with non-negative deficiency appears as the fundamental group of a 4–manifold obtained by surgery on a link of tori in $S^4$. While we will see that it is also possible to obtain examples of groups with arbitrarily large negative deficiency, it is known that not all groups can be obtained in this way. Now at present a full answer to Question \[decomp\] remains out of reach. However, a theorem by Baykur and Sunukjian [@BS] is relevant here. A consequence of their theorem is that any 4–manifold with Euler characteristic 2 and signature 0 can be obtained by a *sequence* of torus surgeries starting in $S^4$ (in particular it may be necessary to have intermediate 4–manifolds). Question \[decomp\] asks when is it possible to replace such a sequence with a single *simultaneous* set of torus surgeries.
We will consider various spinning constructions to provide nice examples. We will produce an infinite family of distinct tori that admit non-trivial surgeries to $S^4$ (i.e. for each member of this family there exists a gluing map that does not extend to a diffeomorphism of $T^2\times D^2$, such that performing surgery with this gluing map results in a 4–manifold diffeomorphic to $S^4$), suggesting the possibility that manifolds obtained by a single torus surgery in $S^4$ never have a unique such description (i.e there always exist distinct tori that admit surgeries to the same manifold). We will also see that cyclic branched covers of spun knots can always be obtained by torus surgery in $S^4$, and that two spun knots are always related by torus surgery in their exteriors.
Much work has been done investigating which 3–manifolds embed in $S^4$ (for a few examples, see [@BB], [@Crisp-Hillman], [@Don], [@Gil-Liv]). We construct embeddings of 3–manifolds into $S^4$ by considering cross sections of Gluck twists. The statement of our result is simplest if we start with a *ribbon link* $L$ in $S^3$. If $M_L$ is the 3–manifold obtained by surgery on $L$ with all the surgery coefficients belonging to the set $\{1/n\}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}$, then we have that $M_L$ smoothly embeds in $S^4$. The resulting 3–manifold is an integral homology sphere, and so we see that this theorem allows us to construct embeddings for a large family of integral homology spheres into $S^4$. We also examine surgery on the unknotted torus, and use this to show that the 3–manifolds obtained by $p/q$ Dehn surgery on a knot in $S^3$ always embed in either $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$ or $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2$. If we puncture the 3–manifold then we can eliminate the $S^1 \times S^3$ connected summand.
[Organization]{} In Section \[basics\] we give definitions and consider the basic algebraic invariants related to torus surgery. A discussion of several spinning constructions and their connection to torus surgery takes place in Section \[spinexamples\]. Our results regarding fundamental groups appear in Section \[round\] in the context of interpreting torus surgeries as round cobordisms. Lastly, Section \[unknot\] contains our results about surgery on the unknotted torus and embeddings of 3–manifolds.
Acknowledgments
---------------
The author would like to thank his advisor Robert Gompf for helpful comments and conversations. The author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS-1148490.
[the basics]{}\[basics\]
We will assume that all manifolds and maps are smooth, and that homology is calculated with integer coefficients unless otherwise noted.
[Torus exteriors]{}
A *surface knot* $K$ is an embedded submanifold in $S^4$ that is diffeomorphic to some closed surface. When $K$ is diffeomorphic to $S^2$ it is called a 2–knot. This paper is concerned with the case that $K$ is diffeomorphic to the torus $T^2$, and we will simply say that $K$ is a torus in $S^4$ (henceforth we switch to the notation $\mathcal{T}$ for a torus in $S^4$). Let $E_{\mathcal{T}} = \overline{S^4 \setminus \nu \mathcal{T}}$ denote the *exterior* of $\mathcal{T}$. We can compute the homology of $E_\mathcal{T}$ by the long exact sequence of the pair $(S^4, E_\mathcal{T})$, using the isomorphism $H_n(S^4, X_\mathcal{T}) \cong H_n(\nu\mathcal{T}, \partial \nu \mathcal{T})$ from excision. The result is that $H_n(E_\mathcal{T})$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$ for $n=0,1$, to $\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}$ for $n=2$, and to the trivial group otherwise. The calculation shows that $H_1(E_\mathcal{T})$ is generated by the homology class of a meridian of $\mathcal{T}$ and generators of $H_2(E_\mathcal{T})$ are given by the *rim tori* $S^1 \times \{pt\} \times \partial D^2$ and $\{pt\} \times S^1 \times \partial D^2$ in $\partial E_\mathcal{T} = \partial \nu \mathcal{T}$ under the identification $\nu \mathcal{T} = S^1 \times S^1 \times D^2$ (and these tori have algebraic intersection number 0 in $E_\mathcal{T}$).
The fundamental groups of torus exteriors in $S^4$ (and for surface knots in general) have been widely studied. The collection of such groups includes all 2–knot groups, and hence all classical knot groups (for an overview see [@CKS]). Among other things, it is known that this collection contains groups of arbitrarily large negative deficiency [@Levine]. (The *deficiency* of a finite group presentation is the number of generators minus the number of relations. The deficiency of a group is the maximum deficiency of all presentations for the group.)
[Torus surgery]{}\[definitions\]
Let $\mathcal{T}$ be an embedded torus in $S^4$. We want to think of $\mathcal{T}$ as a particular embedding of $S^1 \times S^1$ into $S^4$, so that we have fixed curves $\alpha = S^1 \times \{pt\}$ and $\beta = \{pt\} \times S^1$ in $\mathcal{T} \subset S^4$ (whose homology classes provide a preferred basis for $H_1(\mathcal{T})$). Note that it is possible for there to be infinitely many distinct isotopy classes of embeddings $S^1 \times S^1 \hookrightarrow S^4$ with the *same* submanifold as their image [@Hirose]. A framing for $\mathcal{T}$ is a particular identification of a tubular neighborhood $\nu\mathcal{T}$ with $T^2 \times D^2$. Given our fixed embedding, there is a canonical framing for $\mathcal{T}$, specified by requiring that the pushoffs $\alpha \times \{pt\}$ and $\beta \times \{pt\}$ in $T^2 \times \partial D^2$ are nullhomologous in the exterior $E_{\mathcal{T}}$ of $\mathcal{T}$. (Framings are identified with $H^1(T^2) \cong \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}$, and since the first homology of the exterior is generated by a meridian we can twist the $D^2$ factor along $\alpha$ and $\beta$ so that the pushoffs are nullhomologous.)
We now define the operation of interest in this paper. *Torus surgery on $\mathcal{T}$* is the process of removing $\nu \mathcal{T}$ from $S^4$ and re-gluing $T^2 \times D^2$ by a diffeomorphism $\phi \co T^2 \times \partial D^2 \rightarrow T^2 \times \partial D^2$, using our canonical framing to identify $\partial \nu \mathcal{T}$ with $T^2 \times \partial D^2$. We will momentarily denote the resulting closed 4–manifold by $S^4_\mathcal{T}(\phi)$. Since $T^2 \times D^2$ admits a handle decomposition relative to its boundary with one 2-handle, two 3-handles, and a 4-handle, we can construct $S^4_\mathcal{T}(\phi)$ from $E_\mathcal{T}$ by adding one 2-handle, two 3-handles, and a 4-handle. There is a unique way to attach 3- and 4-handles for a closed 4-manifold ([@LP], [@Mont]), and so $S^4_\mathcal{T}(\phi)$ is determined up to diffeomorphism by the attaching circle of the 2-handle (the framing must be the product framing). The attaching circle will be the image of the meridian $\{pt\} \times \partial D^2$ under $\phi$, and this is determined up to isotopy by its homology class $[\phi(\{pt\} \times \partial D^2)] = p[m] + a[\alpha] + b[\beta]$, where $m$ is the meridian of $\mathcal{T}$. Therefore, given our fixed embedding of $\mathcal{T}$ and the resulting canonical framing, $S^4_\mathcal{T}(\phi)$ is determined up to diffeomorphism by the integers $p$, $a$, and $b$. Hence we will denote a torus surgery on $\mathcal{T}$ by $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$. It turns out that the integer $p$ is particularly important, and it is called the *multiplicity* of the surgery. If we think of $T^2 \times \partial D^2$ as $\mathbb{R}^3 / \mathbb{Z}^3$, then we can represent our gluing map $\phi$ by a matrix in $GL(3, \mathbb{Z})$. Since the resulting diffeomorphism type only depends on the image of $\{pt\} \times \partial D^2$, we can choose the gluing map to be any integral matrix (with determinant $\pm 1$) of the form: $$\phi = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
* & * & a \\
* & * & b \\
* & * & p \end{array} \right)$$
Now there is another common notation to specify a particular torus surgery. The homology class $a[\alpha] + b[\beta] \in H_1(T^2)$ equals $q\gamma$ for some primitive element $\gamma \in H_1(T^2)$. We call $q$ the *auxiliary multiplicity* and $\gamma$ the *direction* of the surgery. Then specifying the multiplicity, auxiliary multiplicity, and direction determines the resulting diffeomorphism type of the surgery. If $q=1$ we will say the surgery is *integral*.
The trivial surgery is $S^4_\mathcal{T}(1,0,0)$, which returns $(S^4, \mathcal{T})$. Note that if we choose a different embedding of $\mathcal{T}$ (thought of as a submanifold), we will get the same set of possible torus surgeries but the surgery data could be different. We will also consider surgery on links of tori (a collection of multiple disjoint embeddings of tori into $S^4$), and the resulting manifold will be determined by the surgery data for each individual torus surgery.
[Algebraic topology]{}
Next we examine the basic algebraic topology of $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$. Since we have already computed the homology of $E_\mathcal{T}$, we can compute the homology of $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$ using the long exact sequence of the pair $(S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b), E_\mathcal{T})$. For this calculation it is useful to change our identification $\nu \mathcal{T} = T^2 \times D^2$ by a self-diffeomorphism of $T^2 \times D^2$ that is the identity on the second factor but on the $T^2$ factor sends the direction $\gamma$ to $[\{pt\} \times S^1]$. Then we can choose our gluing map $\phi \co T^2 \times \partial D^2 \rightarrow T^2 \times \partial D^2$ to be: $$\phi = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c & q \\
0 & d & p \end{array} \right)$$ for some $c$ and $d$ satisfying $cp-dq = 1$. Following the calculation we see that for $p \neq 0$, $H_n(S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b))$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_p$ for $n=1,2$, and vanishes for $n=3$. Furthermore, $H_1(S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b))$ is generated by the original meridian $m$ in $E_\mathcal{T}$ and $H_2(S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b))$ is generated by the glued-in torus $T^2 \times \{0\}$. In particular, we observe that multiplicity 1 surgery produces a homology 4–sphere.
Similar computations show multiplicity 0 surgery results in a 4–manifold with the homology of $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$.
There is a simple relationship between the fundamental group of $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$ and the fundamental group of the torus exterior $E_\mathcal{T}$. We start with a presentation of $\pi_1(E_\mathcal{T})$ and add a single relation corresponding to the attaching circle of the 2-handle.
[Spin structures]{}
Recall that a 4–manifold $X$ is spin if and only if its second Stiefel-Whitney class $w_2(X) \in H^2(X; \mathbb{Z}_2)$ vanishes. If $X$ is spin, the set of distinct spin structures can be identified with $H^1(X; \mathbb{Z}_2)$. For *odd* multiplicity $p$, we can calculate from the integral homology of $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$ that $ H^2(S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b); \mathbb{Z}_2) \cong H^1(S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b); \mathbb{Z}_2) \cong 0$. Hence $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$ has a unique spin structure for odd $p$, regardless of the particular choice for $a$ or $b$. For even $p$ the situation is more subtle. Here we follow Iwase [@Iw1]. Suppose we take a curve on $\mathcal{T}$ and push off using our canonical framing to obtain a curve $c$ in $\partial E_\mathcal{T}$ such that $[c] = 0$ in $H_1(E_\mathcal{T}; \mathbb{Z}_2)$. Let $c'$ be a pushoff of $c$ in $\partial E_\mathcal{T}$ using the product framing of the boundary. Now let $D$ and $D'$ be 2–chains in $E_\mathcal{T}$ such that $[\partial D] = [c]$ and $[\partial D'] = [c']$ (mod 2), and $D$ and $D'$ intersect transversely. Then $q([c]) = D \cdot D'$ (mod 2) is a well-defined function. In fact, $q$ is the Rokhlin quadratic form [@R] for $\mathcal{T}$ and so it satisfies $q([c_1] + [c_2]) = q([c_1]) + q([c_2]) + [c_1] \cdot [c_2]$ (mod 2). Furthermore, if the kernel of the inclusion map $H_1(\partial E_\mathcal{T}; \mathbb{Z}_2) \rightarrow H_1(E_\mathcal{T}; \mathbb{Z}_2)$ is $\{0, e_1, e_2, e_3\}$, then Iwase shows that $q(e_i) = 1$ for exactly one $e_i$ (in other words the Arf invariant is 0 for tori in $S^4$; see also [@R]). This motivates the following definition.
A particular embedding $S^1 \times S^1 \hookrightarrow S^4$ will be called a *spin embedding* if $q([\{pt\} \times S^1]) = q([S^1 \times \{pt\}]) = 0$. We will say the resulting torus $\mathcal{T}$ in $S^4$ is *spin embedded*.
Note that we can always change our embedding of a torus so that it is spin embedded. Now we can determine when the result of an even multiplicity surgery is spin. Iwase [@Iw1] worked this out for a special class of tori obtained by spinning torus knots in $S^3$, and in fact his proof works in this more general context.
\[spinprop\] $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$ is spin if $p$ is odd. If $p$ is even, assume that $\mathcal{T}$ is spin embedded. Then $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$ is spin if and only if $ab = 0$ (mod 2).
We saw above that $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$ is spin if $p$ is odd, so assume $p$ is even. The Mayer-Vietoris sequence with $\mathbb{Z}_2$ coefficients (we use these coefficients for the rest of the argument) gives us: $$H_2(T^2 \times D^2) \oplus H_2(E_\mathcal{T}) \xrightarrow{\Psi} H_2(S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)) \xrightarrow{\partial} H_1(\partial(T^2 \times D^2)) \xrightarrow{\Phi} H_1(T^2 \times D^2) \oplus H_1(E_\mathcal{T}) \nonumber$$ Now the kernel of $\Phi = \{0, [m] \}$ for a meridian $m$ of $\mathcal{T}$. Hence we have an induced split exact sequence and isomorphism $H_2(S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)) = im \Psi \oplus \langle [D_m + D_\sigma] \rangle$ for $D_m$ the class of the meridinal disk in $T^2 \times D^2$ and $D_\sigma$ a 2–chain in $E_\mathcal{T}$ bounded by the surgery curve $\sigma = \phi (\{pt\} \times \partial D^2)$ (whose homology class $p[\mu] + a[\alpha] + b[\beta]$ is 0 since $p$ is even). Now the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ intersection form is trivial on $ im \Psi$ and on $\langle [D_m + D_\sigma] \rangle$ we have $[D_m + D_\sigma]^2 = q([\sigma]) = a^2q(\alpha) + b^2q(\beta) + ab$ (mod 2). If $\mathcal{T}$ is spin embedded then this equals $ab$ (mod 2) and so by the Wu formula we get that $w_2(S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)) = 0$ (and hence $S^4_\mathcal{T}(p,a,b)$ is spin) if and only if $a b = 0$ (mod 2).
[Special neighborhoods]{}
The fishtail neighborhood $F$ and cusp neighborhood $C$ are compact 4-manifolds that admit elliptic fibrations over the disk with a single fishtail or cusp singular fiber, respectively. We can describe handle decompositions for these manifolds as follows (see Figure \[cuspandfishtail\]). We start with a handle decomposition for $T^2 \times D^2$, and to form $F$ we add another 2-handle attached along a pushoff of an $S^1$ factor of $T^2 \times \{0\}$, where the framing of the 2-handle will be obtained from the product framing of the boundary by adding a single left-handed twist. To form $C$ we add one more 2-handle along a pushoff of the other $S^1$ factor of $T^2 \times \{0\}$, where again the framing will be given by taking the product framing and adding a single left-handed twist. The attaching circles for these extra 2–handles are called *vanishing cycles*.
![Here are Kirby diagrams for the fishtail neighborhood $F$ (left) and the cusp neighborhood $C$ (right).[]{data-label="cuspandfishtail"}](cuspandfishtail.png)
Performing torus surgery on regular fibers of fishtail and cusp neighborhoods has been an important operation in the theory of 4–manifolds. In this context we have a fixed framing for the torus fiber coming from the fibration map, and so we have well-defined notions of the multiplicity, auxiliary multiplicity, and direction of the surgery as before. Here we state two theorems that demonstrate nice properties satisfied by torus surgeries in these neighborhoods. For proofs we refer the reader to [@GS] for the first theorem and to [@Gom1] for the second.
The result of performing torus surgery on a regular fiber of a cusp neighborhood $C$ depends only on the multiplicity $p$ of the surgery, up to diffeomorphism relative to the boundary.
This theorem says that the result of torus surgery in $C$ is independent of the auxiliary multiplicity or direction of the surgery. We observe that $C$ does not admit an embedding into $S^4$. For example, by Proposition \[spinprop\] we see that whether the result of performing an even multiplicity surgery on a torus in $S^4$ is spin depends on the auxiliary multiplicity and the direction. If such a torus was a regular fiber of a cusp neighborhood there could be no such dependence. However, there do exist embeddings of fishtail neighborhoods into $S^4$, and we will apply the following result in Section \[spinexamples\].
\[fishtail\] The result of performing a multiplicity 1 surgery on a fiber of a fishtail neighborhood $F$, with direction given by the vanishing cycle, is diffeomorphic to $F$ relative to the boundary.
[Spinning constructions]{}\[spinexamples\]
First we introduce a nice family of tori in $S^4$. Let $K$ be a knot in $S^3$. Remove from $S^3$ a 3–ball disjoint from $K$, and consider the resulting pair $(B^3, K)$. Then we get a torus $\mathcal{T}_K$ in $S^4$ by taking $K \times S^1 \subset B^3 \times S^1$ in the decomposition $B^3 \times S^1 \cup_{\text{id}}S^2 \times D^2$ of the 4–sphere (see Figure \[spinning\]). Note that we get a different torus, denoted $\mathcal{T}_K'$, if we glue $S^2 \times D^2$ to $B^3 \times S^1$ by the Gluck twist map $\rho \co S^2 \times S^1 \rightarrow S^2 \times S^1$. (Recall $\rho$ is defined by sending $(x, \theta)$ to $(rot_\theta(x), \theta)$, where $rot_\theta$ is rotation of $S^2$ about a fixed axis through angle $\theta$.) We will call $\mathcal{T}_K$ the *spun torus* of $K$ and $\mathcal{T}_K'$ the *twisted spun torus* of $K$ (Boyle calls $\mathcal{T}_K'$ a *turned torus* [@Boyle]). We will choose our embedding $S^1 \times S^1 \hookrightarrow \mathcal{T}_K$ (resp. $\mathcal{T}_K'$) so that $\alpha$ is identified with $K \times \{pt\}$ and $\beta$ is identified with $\{pt\} \times S^1$ in $K \times S^1$.
For a nontrivial knot $K \subset S^3$, the exteriors of $\mathcal{T}_K$ and $\mathcal{T}_K'$ will have the same fundamental group (the knot group for $K$), but they are neither isotopic [@Liv] nor have diffeomorphic exteriors [@Boyle]. We remark that the special case of spinning torus knots in $S^3$ (and surgery on the resulting tori) was extensively studied by Iwase in [@Iw1] and [@Iw2].
Given a knot $K \subset S^3$, the twisted spun torus $\mathcal{T}_K'$ lies in a fishtail neighborhood in $S^4$ with the vanishing cycle given by a push off of $\beta$.
Isotope $K$ in $B^3$ so that a point $x \in K$ lies near the boundary $\partial B^3$. In particular, arrange so that $x \times \partial D^2 \subset \partial \nu K$ is tangent to $\partial B^3$ at a point $x_0 \in \partial B^3$. Now we obtain $\mathcal{T}_K'$ in $S^4$ by crossing $(B^3, K)$ with $S^1$ and gluing in $S^2 \times D^2$ by the map $\rho$. In terms of handles, we glue in $S^2 \times D^2$ by first attaching a 2-handle $h_2$ along $\{pt\} \times S^1$ on the boundary $S^2 \times S^1$ with framing given by adding a left-handed twist to the product framing (if we glue by the identity map instead of $\rho$ we would take the product framing), and then capping with a 4-handle. We can choose the attaching circle of $h_2$ to be $x_0 \times S^1$, and then it follows directly from the definition that $(\nu K \times S^1) \cup h_2 = \nu \mathcal{T}_K' \cup h_2$ is a fishtail neighborhood. We have attached $h_2$ along a push off of $\beta$, and this attaching circle is the vanishing cycle.
In contrast to the case of knots admitting non-trivial $S^3$ surgeries (only the unknot admits such a surgery [@GL]), we can construct infinitely many tori in $S^4$ that admit non-trivial $S^4$ surgeries (by a non-trivial surgery we mean one such that the gluing map does not extend to a diffeomorphism of $T^2\times D^2$). In particular, as a corollary of the preceding proposition we see that each twisted spun torus $\mathcal{T}_K'$ admits infinitely many non-trivial surgeries to $S^4$.
\[S4surgeries\] $S^4_{\mathcal{T}_K'}(1,0, b)$ is diffeomorphic to $S^4$.
This follows directly from Theorem \[fishtail\].
The author first observed the existence of these surgeries follows from a more general result appearing in unpublished work by Gompf [@Gom2]. Since $S^4$ does not admit a unique surgery description, it is natural to ask how widespread is this phenomenon.
If $X$ is a 4–manifold obtained by surgery on a torus $\mathcal{T}$ in $S^4$, can $X$ be obtained by surgery on an infinite family of distinct tori $\{\mathcal{T}_i\}$ in $S^4$?
The above examples also suggest another question. In contrast with the classical dimension [@GL], it is known that there exist inequivalent 2–knots with the same complement [@Go]. However, by [@gluck] there can be at most two $2$–knots with the same complement. The case for tori in $S^4$ is unknown.
Do there exist (perhaps infinitely many) distinct tori in $S^4$ with the same complement?
Torus surgery appears to be the right perspective to answer this question positively. The goal would be to find non-trivial tori that admit surgeries to $S^4$ such that the surgery gluing map does not extend over the exterior or the neighborhood of the torus (this rules out the examples from Corollary \[S4surgeries\]).
Next we define the spin of a manifold.
Let $M$ be a closed $n$–manifold, and let $M^\circ$ denote $M$ with an open ball removed. Then the *spin* of $M$ is the closed $(n+1)$–manifold defined by $spin(M) = \partial (M^\circ \times D^2)$. This is equivalent to taking $M^\circ \times S^1 \cup S^2 \times D^2$.
The following is an easy observation.
\[spinning manifolds\] Let $M$ be a closed, orientable 3–manifold. Then $spin(M)$ can be obtained by surgery on a link of tori in $S^4$.
The Lickorish-Wallace theorem states that $M$ can be obtained by Dehn surgery on a link $L$ in $S^3$. Remove a 3–ball away from $L$ in $S^3$, so that we now think of $L$ as sitting in $B^3$. We obtain a link of tori $T_L$ in $S^4$ by taking $L \times S^1 \subset B^3 \times S^1$ inside $spin(S^3) = B^3 \times S^1 \cup S^2 \times D^2 = S^4$. We can now perform surgery on $T_L$ where we take the gluing maps to be $S^1$ times the Dehn surgery gluing maps on $L$ that give $M$. Hence we transform $B^3 \times S^1 \cup S^2 \times D^2$ to $M^\circ \times S^1 \cup S^2 \times D^2 = spin(M)$.
![Spinning the knot $K \subset B^3$ on the left will result in a torus $\mathcal{T}_K$ in $S^4$. Spinning the knotted arc $\hat{K} \subset B^3$ on the right will result in the 2–knot $spin(K)$ in $S^4$.[]{data-label="spinning"}](spinning.png)
Here we recall the process of spinning knots, a construction due to Artin (see Figure \[spinning\]).
Let $K$ be a knot in $S^3$. If we remove an open ball around a point of $K$, we get a knotted arc $\hat{K} \subset B^3$. The *spin* of $K$ (denoted $spin(K)$) is the 2–knot obtained by taking the annulus $\hat{K} \times S^1 \subset B^3 \times S^1$ and capping off with two disks in $S^2 \times D^2$ inside the decomposition $S^4 =B^3 \times S^1 \cup_{\text{id}}S^2 \times D^2$.
This is a well-studied operation that generalizes to higher-dimensional knots. The following is a corollary to Proposition \[spinning manifolds\].
Let $K$ be a knot in $S^3$. The $d$-fold cyclic cover of $S^4$ branched over $spin(K)$ can be obtained by surgery on a link of tori in $S^4$.
Let $M_d(K)$ denote the $d$-fold cyclic cover of $S^3$ branched over $K$. If $\widetilde{K}$ is the lift of $K$ in $M_d(K)$, let $B$ denote a fibered neighborhood of a point $x \in \widetilde{K}$. Now if $M_d(K)^\circ = \overline{M_d(K) \setminus B}$, then $spin(M_d(K)) = M_d(K)^\circ \times S^1 \cup S^2 \times D^2$. Observe that the $d$-fold branched covering $S^2 \rightarrow S^2$ (with branch points the two poles) times the identity on the $D^2$ factor fits together with the induced branched covering on $M_d(K)^\circ \times S^1$ to form a branched covering on $spin(M_d(K))$ with branch locus $spin(K)$. Hence $spin(M_d(K))$ is the $d$-fold cyclic cover of $S^4$ branched over $spin(K)$, and the result then follows from Proposition \[spinning manifolds\].
Next we prove a generalization of a theorem appearing in [@LM], where the authors considered the case of spinning *fibered* knots and gave a proof relying on interpreting monodromy changes as surgeries.
Let $K_1$ and $K_2$ be two knots in $S^3$. Then $(S^4, spin(K_2))$ can be obtained from $(S^4, spin(K_1))$ by surgery on a link of tori in the complement of $spin(K_1)$.
Consider knots $K_1$ and $K_2$ in $S^3$. We can obtain $K_2$ from $K_1$ by surgery on a link $L$ in the exterior of $K_1$, where each component is unknotted and the framing is $\pm1$, since such surgeries allow one to change overcrossings to undercrossings and vice versa. If we remove a small ball around a point of $K_1$ we see $L$ and $\hat{K_1}$ inside $B^3$. Then upon spinning we get $spin(K_1)$ and a link $\mathcal{T}_L$ of tori in $S^4$. By construction, performing multiplicity $\pm1$ surgeries on $\mathcal{T}_L$ (using the Dehn surgery maps times the identity map in the $S^1$ direction) in the exterior of $spin(K_1)$ will return $spin(K_2)$.
[Round cobordisms]{}\[round\]
A useful way to study torus surgeries is by round handles (for a full development of this perspective see [@BS]). Recall that an $n$-dimensional round $k$-handle is a copy of $S^1 \times D^k \times D^{n-1-k}$ attached along $S^1 \times \partial D^k \times D^{n-1-k}$. It is a basic fact that an $n$-dimensional round $k$-handle can be decomposed into an $n$ dimensional $k$-handle and an $n$ dimensional $(k+1)$-handle. Consider in particular the case of a 5-dimensional round 2-handle $S^1 \times D^2 \times D^2$ attached along $S^1 \times \partial D^2 \times D^2$ to $X \times I$ for some 4–manifold $X$. This defines a *round cobordism* between $X$ and $X'$, where $X'$ can be obtained from $X$ by removing the attaching region $S^1 \times \partial D^2 \times D^2$ and gluing $S^1 \times D^2 \times \partial D^2$ by the identification of their boundary. Observe that this is simply an integral torus surgery on the torus $\mathcal{T} = S^1 \times \partial D^2 \times \{0\}$. Furthermore, the converse is also true: any integral torus surgery corresponds to a cobordism given by a 5-dimensional round 2-handle (see [@BS] Lemma 2). The torus, multiplicity, and direction of the surgery determine how the attaching region $S^1 \times \partial D^2 \times D^{2}$ of the round 2-handle is embedded.
For our purposes the most important tool will be the Fundamental Lemma of Round Handles, due to Asimov [@Asimov]. The Lemma states that if we attach a $k$-handle $h_k$ and a $k+1$-handle $h_{k+1}$ to a manifold *independently*, then we can combine $h_k$ and $h_{k+1}$ to form a single round $k$-handle. This means that if we form a 5-dimensional cobordism $W$ from $X$ to $X'$ by independently adding a 5-dimensional 2-handle and a 5-dimensional 3-handle to $X \times I$ (so that the attaching sphere of the 3-handle is disjoint from the belt sphere of the 2-handle), then $W$ can be decomposed as $X \times I$ plus a 5-dimensional round 2-handle. By our remarks above, we see that $X'$ can be obtained from $X$ by an integral torus surgery.
We can use this method to construct 4–manifolds that can be obtained by surgery on a link of tori in $S^4$. The following theorem is proved using a technique similar to that found in [@Ker], where Kervaire gives a characterization of the fundamental groups of homology spheres of dimension greater than 4.
\[group\] Any finitely presented group with non-negative deficiency appears as the fundamental group of a 4–manifold obtained by integral surgery on a link of tori in $S^4$.
The important observation is that if we form a 5-dimensional cobordism by first attaching a 3-handle $h_3$ and then a 2-handle $h_2$, the 2- and 3-handles will be attached independently (by transversality we can isotope the attaching sphere of the 2-handle off the belt sphere of the 3-handle and then off the 3-handle completely). Then by the Fundamental Lemma of Round Handles $h_3$ and $h_2$ can be isotoped to form a single 5-dimensional round 2-handle.
Now let $G = \langle g_1, g_2, \ldots, g_m | r_1, r_2, \ldots, r_n \rangle$ be a finitely presented group with deficiency $m-n \geq 0$. We construct a 4–manifold with fundamental group $G$ as follows. First attach $m$ 5-dimensional 3-handles to $S^4 \times I$ along attaching 2–spheres that form the $m$-component unlink in $S^4 \times \{1\}$. This gives a cobordism from $S^4$ to $\#_m S^1 \times S^3$. Note that $\pi_1 (\#_m S^1 \times S^3) \cong F_m$, the free group on $m$ letters. We can represent each relation $r_i$ of $G$ by an embedded curve $\rho_i$ in $\#_m S^1 \times S^3$, and we can assume these curves are disjoint. Then we attach $n$ 5-dimensional 2-handles along the $\rho_i$. This has the affect of surgering out a neighborhood of each $\rho_i$, which is a copy of $S^1 \times D^3$, and gluing in a copy of $D^2 \times S^2$. We see that in the resulting 4–manifold each $\rho_i$ will be nullhomotopic, and so the new fundamental group will be exactly $G$. Lastly we attach $m-n$ more 2-handles along disjoint nullhomotopic curves in the boundary. This will leave the fundamental group unchanged, but now we have a cobordism $W$ between $S^4$ and a 4–manifold $X$ formed by first attaching $m$ 3-handles, and then attaching $m$ 2-handles. By our comments above, we see that these handles must be attached independently, and so $W$ is formed by attaching $m$ round 2-handles to $S^4 \times I$ (whose attaching regions are disjoint). Therefore $X$ is obtained by integral surgery on a link of tori in $S^4$, and $\pi_1 (X) \cong G$.
For groups of negative deficiency we have the following result.
One can produce 4–manifolds with fundamental groups of arbitrarily large negative deficiency by surgery on tori in $S^4$.
Start with the family $\mathcal{K}_m$ of 2–knots constructed in [@Levine]. Levine showed that the knot group of $\mathcal{K}_m$ has deficiency $1-m$. Then we can produce a family of tori $\mathcal{T}_m$ by adding a trivial tube to each $\mathcal{K}_m$ in a small 4–ball neighborhood of a point in $\mathcal{K}_m$ (see Figure \[tube\]). This doesn’t change the fundamental group of the exterior, and the $T^3$ boundary of $E_{\mathcal{T}_m}$ will have two $S^1$ factors that are nullhomotopic in the exterior (the third $S^1$ factor is the meridinal direction). We can then perform a multiplicity 0 torus surgery on $\mathcal{T}_m$ with surgery direction either of the nullhomotopic $S^1$ factors of the boundary. The result of this surgery will have the same fundamental group as the exterior since the attaching curve of the 2-handle is already nullhomotopic in the exterior, and so we get groups with arbitrarily large negative deficiency.
![Adding a trivial tube to a 2–knot. Here we see a a slice $B^3 \times \{1/2\}$ of a 4–ball neighborhood $B^3 \times I$ of a point on a 2–knot. The disk bounded by the equator is a small patch of the 2–knot, and we add a small tube to increase the genus of the surface. Notice that each of the $S^1$ factors bounds a disk in the exterior.[]{data-label="tube"}](tube.png)
However, it is not possible to achieve all finitely presented groups. Hausmann and Weinberger [@HW] constructed a finitely presented group that cannot be realized as the fundamental group of a 4–manifold with Euler characteristic 2. Therefore it seems difficult to give a complete characterization of the possible fundamental groups of 4–manifolds obtained by torus surgery in $S^4$.
We can use round handles to give another description of 4–manifolds obtained by torus surgery in $S^4$. Here *spherical surgery* means replacing an embedded copy of $S^2 \times D^2$ with $S^1 \times D^3$.
Let $X$ be a 4–manifold obtained by integral surgery on a single torus in $S^4$. Then $X$ can also be obtained by a spherical surgery on an embedded $S^2$ in $S^2 \times S^2$ or $S^2 \mathbin{\widetilde{\times}} S^2$.
Recall that $S^2 \mathbin{\widetilde{\times}} S^2$ is the twisted $S^2$ bundle over $S^2$, and is diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{CP}^2 \# \overline{\mathbb{CP}^2}$.
We saw above that $X$ can be obtained by attaching a 5-dimensional round 2-handle $R$ to $S^4 \times I$. Furthermore, $R$ can be decomposed into a 2-handle $h_2$ and 3-handle $h_3$. A 5-dimensional 2-handle is a copy of $D^2 \times D^3$ attached along $\partial D^2 \times D^3$. Up to isotopy there is a unique circle in $S^4$, and there are two surgeries on this circle corresponding to a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ choice of framing. The resulting 4–manifolds are $S^2 \times S^2$ and $S^2 \mathbin{\widetilde{\times}} S^2$. Hence $h_2$ gives a cobordism from $S^4$ to $M$, where $M$ is one of the $S^2$ bundles over $S^2$. We complete our cobordism to $X$ by attaching the 3-handle $h_3$ to $M$. A 5-dimensional 3-handle is a copy of $D^3 \times D^2$ attached along $\partial D^3 \times D^2$. Observing how the boundary changes, we see that $X$ is obtained by spherical surgery on $\partial D^3 \times \{0\}$ in $M$, and so the result follows.
Using similar techniques it is not hard to show that if $X$ is the result of surgery on a *link* of tori, then $X$ can be obtained by a set of spherical surgeries in $\#_k S^2 \times S^2$ or $\#_k S^2 \mathbin{\widetilde{\times}} S^2$ for some $k$. For non-integral surgeries we use the fact pointed out in [@BS] that the result of a non-integral surgery can be obtained as a set of integral surgeries.
[The unknotted torus and embedding 3–manifolds]{}\[unknot\]
The unknotted torus is the unique torus in $S^4$ that bounds a solid torus $S^1 \times D^2$. In [@Mont1], Montesinos analyzed which gluing diffeomorphisms extend over the exterior of the unknotted torus (this exterior is the so-called *standard twin*). He used this to prove the following theorem; here instead we give a short proof using Cerf’s theorem, which states that any self-diffeomorphism of $S^3$ can be extended to a self-diffeomorphism of $B^4$.
\[mult1\][@Mont1] Let $\mathcal{T}$ be the unknotted torus in $S^4$. Then the result of any multiplicity 1 surgery on $\mathcal{T}$ is diffeomorphic to $S^4$.
Fix a particular multiplicity 1 surgery on $\mathcal{T}$, and let $q$ and $\gamma$ be the corresponding auxiliary multiplicity and direction of the surgery. Since $\mathcal{T}$ is unknotted, we can isotope it so it lies embedded in the standard $S^3$ equator of $S^4$. Then a neighborhood of $\mathcal{T}$ in $S^4$ is $\mathcal{T} \times I_0 \times I_1$, where $\mathcal{T} \times I_0$ is a neighborhood of $\mathcal{T}$ in $S^3$ and $I_1 = [0,1]$ is the interval induced from a collar neighborhood of $S^3$ in $S^4$. We perform the surgery as follows. We can remove $\mathcal{T} \times I_0 \times I_1$ and re-glue by any diffeomorphism of the boundary with multiplicity 1, auxiliary multiplicity $q$, and direction $\gamma$. Therefore we can choose the gluing map to be the identity map on $\mathcal{T} \times \partial I_0 \times I_1 \cup \mathcal{T} \times I_0 \times \{1\}$ and on $\mathcal{T} \times I_0 \times \{0\}$ to be the map that twists $\mathcal{T}$ in the $\gamma$ direction $q$ times. Finally, we observe that this surgery is equivalent to cutting $S^4$ along $S^3 \times \{0\}$ and re-gluing by the diffeomorphism of $S^3$ given by twisting $\mathcal{T}$ in the $\gamma$ direction $q$ times. By Cerf’s theorem this diffeomorphism extends over $B^4$ and so we get back $S^4$.
Now we will use Montesinos’ work to show that the result of multiplicity 0 surgery on the unknotted torus is also quite restrictive, although as we saw in Proposition \[spinprop\] we should obtain both spin and non-spin manifolds. This proposition was proved by Pao [@Pao] (at least in the topological category) in the context of torus actions on 4–manifolds. Iwase also gives a proof in [@Iw3]; in fact, Iwase gives a similar classification for surgery on the unknotted torus for any multiplicity.
\[mult0\] The result of multiplicity 0 surgery on the unknotted torus $\mathcal{T}$ is either $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$ or $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \mathbin{\widetilde{\times}} S^2$. Indeed, $S^4_\mathcal{T}(0,a,b)$ is diffeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$ if $ab$ is even, and $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \mathbin{\widetilde{\times}} S^2$ if $ab$ is odd.
Here we choose our embedding of $\mathcal{T}$ by realizing the unknotted torus as the spin of the unknot $U \subset S^3$, so that the first $S^1$ factor $\alpha$ is identified with a longitude of $U$ and the other $S^1$ factor $\beta$ is identified with the $S^1$ direction of the spin.
Montesinos [@Mont1] showed that gluing maps of the form $$\psi = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
c & d & * \\
e & f & * \\
0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right)$$ (where $c+d+e+f$ is an even number) extend over the exterior of the unknotted torus and hence don’t affect the resulting diffeomorphism type. We will show that any choice of $a$ and $b$ (necessarily relatively prime) can be obtained by starting with a gluing map that has direction $\gamma = [\alpha]$ or $\gamma = [\alpha] + [\beta]$ and then post-composing with a gluing map of the form $\psi$ above. Then by Montesinos’ result we see that $\psi$ extends over the exterior and so the two possible resulting diffeomorphism types are $S^4_\mathcal{T}(0,1,0)$ and $S^4_\mathcal{T}(0,1,1)$. In the following lemma we will show that these manifolds are diffeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$ and $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \mathbin{\widetilde{\times}} S^2$, respectively.
Suppose the direction of the surgery is $\gamma = a[\alpha] + b[\beta] \in H_2(\mathcal{T})$. Then we can choose the gluing map to be $$\phi = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0 & m & a \\
0 & n & b \\
1 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)$$ for some integers $m$ and $n$ satisfying $mb-na = 1$. Post-composing with a map $\psi$ as above has the effect of changing the direction $\begin{pmatrix}
a \\
b
\end{pmatrix}$ by multiplying by the even matrix $\begin{pmatrix}
c & d \\
e & f
\end{pmatrix}$ (we will say a matrix is *even* if the sum of its entries is even). In light of this it is sufficient to show that for any relatively prime pair $\begin{pmatrix}
a \\
b
\end{pmatrix}$ there is an even matrix $A$ such that if $ab$ is an odd number then we have $\begin{pmatrix}
a \\
b
\end{pmatrix} = A \begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
1
\end{pmatrix}$ and if $ab$ is an even number then $\begin{pmatrix}
a \\
b
\end{pmatrix} = A \begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0
\end{pmatrix}$. First assume that $ab$ an odd number. Then $a + b$ is an even number. There exists some matrix in $GL(2, \mathbb{Z})$ such that $\begin{pmatrix}
a \\
b
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
c & d \\
e & f
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
1
\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
c+d \\
e+f
\end{pmatrix}$. Since $a+b = (c+d) + (e+f)$ is even, we see that this matrix is even.
Now assume that $ab$ is an even number. Then $a+b$ is an odd number. Now we can write $\begin{pmatrix}
a \\
b
\end{pmatrix} =
\begin{pmatrix}
a & -d \\
b &c
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \\
0
\end{pmatrix}$ for some integers $c$ and $d$ that are solutions to the equation $ax + by = 1$. Given one such pair of solutions $(c, d)$, it is known that all other solutions are of the form $(c + kb, d-ka)$ for some integer $k$. In particular, this implies that it is always possible to choose a pair of solutions with opposite parity (since $a$ and $b$ necessarily have opposite parity), and so we can choose the above matrix to be even.
To complete the proof we need to show that $S^4_\mathcal{T}(0,1,0)$ is diffeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$ and $S^4_\mathcal{T}(0,1,1)$ is diffeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2$. We will do in the following lemma.
![Multiplicity 0 surgery on the unknotted torus.[]{data-label="surgery"}](surgery.png)
For the unknotted torus $\mathcal{T} \subset S^4$, we have $S^4_\mathcal{T}(0,1,0)$ is diffeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$ and $S^4_\mathcal{T}(0,1,1)$ is diffeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2$.
We prove this using a Kirby calculus description of torus surgery (see [@GS] Chapter 8 for a thorough explanation of this perspective). On the left hand of Figure \[surgery\] we see the unknotted torus embedded in $S^4$. The Borromean rings consisting of two 1-handles in dotted circle notation and one 0 framed 2-handle give a handle decomposition of $\nu \mathcal{T}$ (here we clearly see the boundary is $T^3$), and the rest of the handles give the embedding into $S^4$. The top row of Figure \[surgery\] corresponds to doing multiplicity 0 surgery with direction $[\alpha]$. We cut out $\nu \mathcal{T}$, and re-glue by the diffeomorphism of $T^3$ that cyclically permutes the three $S^1$ factors, giving the middle top picture. A handle cancellation results in $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$, proving the first part of the lemma.
The bottom row of Figure \[surgery\] corresponds to multiplicity 0 surgery with direction $[\alpha] + [\beta]$. Here we cut out $\nu \mathcal{T}$ and re-glue by the diffeomorphism of $T^3$ that first cyclically permutes the three $S^1$ factors and then applies $\phi$, where $\phi$ is the map that cuts along $T^2 \times \{pt\} \subset T^2 \times \partial D^2$ and re-glues by a map that puts a full rotation in the direction of the first $S^1$ factor and is the identity on the second factor (this is analogous to a Dehn twist). Observe that $\phi$ sends any curve intersecting $T^2 \times \{pt\}$ to a curve that also wraps around the first $S^1$ factor, and adds a twist to the framing. The result is the bottom middle picture, and handle slides and a cancellation show that this is diffeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2$.
[Embeddings]{}
We can now use Theorem \[mult0\] to prove a theorem about embedding 3–manifolds obtained by surgery on a knot in $S^3$.
Let $K$ be a knot in $S^3$ and let $S^3_{p/q}(K)$ denote $p/q$ Dehn surgery on $K$. Then $S^3_{p/q}(K)$ smoothly embeds in $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$ if $pq$ is even, and embeds in $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2$ if $pq$ is odd.
Consider $K$ as sitting in the standard $S^3$ equator of $S^4$. Then $\partial \nu K \subset S^3$ gives an unknotted torus $\mathcal{T}$ when we include $S^3 \hookrightarrow S^4$. We do multiplicity 0 surgery on $\mathcal{T}$ as follows. We will choose our embedding of $\mathcal{T}$ so that the first $S^1$ factor is the meridian of $K$ and the second $S^1$ factor is the longitude of $K$. The collar neighborhood of $\partial \nu K$ in $ S^3$ and the collar neighborhood of $S^3$ in $S^4$ provide a framing for $\mathcal{T}$. We will choose our surgery direction $\gamma$ to be the homology class of $p$ times the meridian and $q$ times the longitude. We claim that $S^3_{p/q}(K)$ embeds in $S^4_\mathcal{T}(0,p,q)$, which by Theorem \[mult0\] is diffeomorphic to $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \times S^2$ if $pq$ is even, and $S^1 \times S^3 \# S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2$ if $pq$ is odd.
Our goal is to see the Dehn surgery concurrently with the torus surgery. To obtain $S^4_\mathcal{T}(0,p,q)$ we remove our chosen neighborhood of $\mathcal{T}$ and glue back $S^1 \times S^1 \times D^2$ by a gluing map of the form $$\phi = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
0 & m & p \\
0 & n & q \\
1 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)$$ (for suitable $m$ and $n$). Hence we are gluing in a solid torus $\{pt\} \times S^1 \times D^2$ to each $S^1 \times S^1 \times \{pt\} \subset S^1 \times S^1 \times \partial D^2$, where the boundary of the meridinal disk gets mapped to $p$ times the first factor and $q$ times the second factor. Since $\partial E_K \subset \partial E_{T}$ is exactly one of these tori, the result follows.
Observe that the meridian of $\mathcal{T}$ intersects $E_K \subset S^4$ in a single point. Hence this curve intersects $S^3_{p/q}(K)$ in a single point after the torus surgery, and this curve generates the fundamental group of the resulting 4–manifold. It follows that surgery on this curve (replacing $S^1 \times D^3$ with $D^2 \times S^2$) will kill the $S^1 \times S^3$ connected summand of the resulting 4–manifold. This surgery will puncture $S^3_{p/q}(K)$, and so we get the following corollary.
If $S^3_{p/q}(K)^\circ$ denotes the 3–manifold obtained by puncturing $S^3_{p/q}(K)$, then $S^3_{p/q}(K)^\circ$ smoothly embeds in $S^2 \times S^2$ if $pq$ is even, and embeds in $ S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2$ if $pq$ is odd.
See [@EL] for a similar statement when $K$ is the unknot (and so the 3–manifolds are lens spaces). Note that any 3–manifold obtained by *integral* surgery on a knot always embeds in $S^2 \times S^2$ or $ S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^2$ (just double the 4–dimensional 2-handlebody). An interesting thing about the above construction is that it does not distinguish between integral and non-integral Dehn surgery.
Next we look at embeddings of 3–manifolds into $S^4$. While many such constructions depend on handlebody techniques and branched covers of doubly slice knots (for example, see [@Don], [@Gil-Liv], [@Meier]), here we take an alternative approach using surgery.
Let $L$ be a ribbon link in $S^3$. If $M_L$ is the 3–manifold obtained by surgery on $L$ with all the surgery coefficients belonging to the set $\{1/n\}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}$, then $M_L$ smoothly embeds in $S^4$. If $L$ is only *slice*, then we get an embedding into a *homotopy* 4–sphere. However, if we restrict the surgery coefficients to the set $\{1/(2n)\}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}}$, then again we get an embedding into the standard $S^4$.
Budney and Burton [@BB] observed that if $L$ is slice and the coefficients are $\pm 1$, then $M_L$ embeds in a homotopy 4–sphere by blowing down the resulting 2–spheres in the 2-handlebody formed by attaching 2-handles to $L$ with the corresponding framings. We obtain this generalization by proceeding in a different direction; we consider cross sections of Gluck twists on the 2–knots obtained by doubling the ribbon or slice disks.
First we consider the case where $K$ is a slice knot in $S^3$. Let $\mathcal{D}_K$ be the slice disk in $B^4$, and let $\mathcal{S}_K$ be the 2–knot in $S^4$ obtained by doubling the pair $(B^4, \mathcal{D}_K)$. We will do surgery on $\mathcal{S}_K$ and see Dehn surgery on $K$ as a cross section. Identify a neighborhood of $\mathcal{S}_K$ with $S^2 \times D^2$ such that $equator \times D^2$ is identified with a tubular neighborhood of $K$ in $S^3 \subset S^4$ (and the induced framing is the zero framing). We will cut out $S^2 \times D^2$ and re-glue by the map $\rho \co S^2 \times \partial D^2 \rightarrow S^2 \times \partial D^2$ defined by sending $(x, \theta)$ to $(rot_\theta(x), \theta)$, where $rot_\theta$ is the map that rotates $S^2$ through an angle $\theta$ about a fixed axis (we choose this to send the equator to itself). Now the result of this surgery is by definition the Gluck twist on $\mathcal{S}_K$ in $S^4$, and hence returns a homotopy 4–sphere. In fact this is true for all odd powers of $\rho$. However, if we instead re-glue by an even power $\rho^{2n}$ of $\rho$, then since $\rho^2$ is isotopic to the identity map [@gluck] the result of the surgery will be the *standard* $S^4$. Furthermore, if $D_K$ is a *ribbon* disk, then $\mathcal{S}_K$ is a ribbon 2–knot and re-gluing by any power $\rho^{n}$ will return the standard $S^4$ (see, for example, [@GS]).
Now we examine what happens to a neighborhood of $K$. For a point $x$ in $K$ (thinking of $K$ as the equator of $\mathcal{S}_K$), consider the effect of $\rho^n$ on the boundary of the meridinal disk $x \times D^2$. As $\theta$ varies the curve $(x, \theta)$ on the boundary will map to a curve that wraps once around the meridinal direction and $n$ times around the longitudinal direction of $K \times \partial D^2$. This is exactly Dehn surgery on $K$ with surgery coefficient $1/n$, and so we get an embedding into the 4–manifold obtained by the corresponding surgery on $\mathcal{S}_K$. We can extend this to surgery on a slice link by performing surgery on each of the 2–knots obtained by doubling the multiple slice disks. Finally, we finish by applying the comments in the previous paragraph about the result of the various 2–knot surgeries.
As mentioned in the introduction, we note that the above theorem provides many embeddings of integral homology 3–spheres into $S^4$. Indeed, it is not hard to show that any 3–manifold that is obtained by surgery on a slice link with all the surgery coefficients belonging to the set $\{1/n\}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$ is an integral homology 3–sphere.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present results of a large area CCD survey for low surface brightness galaxies (LSBs) that reaches central surface brightnesses of $25\surfb$ in $V$. We have analyzed $17.5\,\degree^2$ of transit scan data, and identified a statistical subset of 7 pure disk LSB’s with central surface brightnesses fainter than $\mu_0=23\,V\surfb$ and with angular exponential scale lengths larger than $\alpha=2.5\arcsec$. The LSB detection is entirely automated, and the selection efficiency of the survey is well-quantified. After correcting for the selection efficiency, we find a surface density of $4.1^{+2.6}_{-2.1}\, {\rm galaxies / degree^2}$ for LSBs in the considered range of $\mu_0$ and $\alpha$ (90% confidence levels), with the largest correction being due to the area lost behind bright stars, and the difficulty in detecting LSBs with small angular sizes.
We have measured redshifts to the final sample of LSBs, and find them to be at distances comparable to those probed by large galaxy catalogs, and to have intrinsic scale lengths of $1.7-3.6\,{\rm
h}_{50}^{-1}\kpc$, also comparable to normal galaxies. We use the redshifts and the selection efficiency to calculate the number density in LSBs with $23<\mu_0<25\,V\surfb$ and find ${\cal N} =
0.01^{+0.006}_{-0.005} \, {\rm galaxies \,h_{50}^3 Mpc^{-3}}$, with 90% confidence. The measurement of the absolute number density of LSBs probably represents a lower limit, due to very strong biases against LSBs with bulges or edge-on LSBs in our sample. Comparing the LSB number density to the number density of normal galaxies with either similar scale lengths or similar luminosities, we find that the number density of LSBs with $23<\mu_0<25\,V\surfb$ is comparable to or greater than the number density of normal galaxies. The luminosity density in LSBs is comparable to the luminosity density of normal galaxies with similar luminosities, but is a factor of 3-10 smaller than the luminosity density of normal galaxies with similar scale lengths. The relative LSB number density and luminosity density agree well with the theoretical predictions of Dalcanton et al. (1997). The redshift-space distribution of the LSBs suggests that the trend for low surface brightness galaxies to have weak small-scale correlations may continue to the fainter surface brightnesses covered in this survey.
author:
- 'Julianne J. Dalcanton'
- 'David N. Spergel, James E. Gunn'
- Maarten Schmidt
- 'Donald P. Schneider'
title: |
The Number Density of Low Surface Brightness Galaxies\
with $23<\mu_0<25\,V\surfb$
---
=cmcsc10 å[[*Astr. Ap.*]{}, ]{} \#1[to 0pt[\#1]{}]{}
Introduction
============
During the past twenty years, there has been a developing appreciation of the strong biases against finding galaxies of low surface brightness. These biases arise because the night sky is not particularly dark. Airglow, zodiacal light, and undetected stars and galaxies combine to create a optical background whose surface brightness is as bright as the extrapolated central surface brightnesses of large spiral galaxy disks. With such a bright background, the ability to detect a galaxy depends not only upon the integrated luminosity of the galaxy, but also upon the contrast with which the galaxy stands out above the Poisson fluctuations in the background. A compact, high-surface brightness galaxy might be quite easy to detect, while another galaxy with the same total luminosity but with a much more extended, low-surface brightness structure would be difficult to find.
While astronomers routinely consider the limiting magnitude of their galaxy catalogs, only recently have they begun to consider the ways in which surface brightness selection effects shape existing galaxy catalogs. As an example, Freeman (1970) had initially showed that spiral galaxies share the same central surface brightness, with very little dispersion: $\mu_0 = 21.7 \pm 0.3\,B\surfb$. Disney (1976), however, convincingly argued that because of the limiting surface brightness of the sample, one would not expect to have detected galaxies with lower surface brightnesses, and thus that there was no particularly compelling reason to believe that the Freeman law reflected the intrinsic properties of spiral galaxies. While Allen & Shu (1979) later showed that the cutoff at bright surface brightnesses does indeed reflect an actual fall-off in the number of galaxies with increasing surface brightness, they concurred with Disney’s appraisal of the possible role of selection biases in shaping the faint end of Freeman’s surface brightness distribution. Thus, Disney demonstrated that what was thought to be a general property of disk galaxies could in large part be explained by selection biases against finding low surface brightness galaxies (LSBs).
Disney’s paper was the genesis of the modern efforts both toward understanding the role that surface brightness selection effects play in shaping existing galaxy catalogs and toward overcoming those biases in newer surveys. Although Disney’s work strongly suggested that selection biases could reproduce the Freeman law, it presupposes that there exists a population of low surface brightness galaxies to be biased against. It may have been that there really were almost no galaxies with central surface brightnesses fainter than $22\surfb$. Over the following years and extending through the present, however, there has been an enormous body of observational work that has conclusively demonstrated the existence of low surface brightness galaxies. Indeed, every time a new survey has been extend to fainter surface brightnesses, new LSBs have been discovered.
Previous surveys which have been sensitive to LSBs have fallen into two basic types: large area photographic surveys and deep, small area CCD surveys. Of the first type, the older, diameter-limited Upsalla General Catalog of Galaxies (UGC) (Nilson 1973) had been the workhorse through most of the 70’s and 80’s. It has been recently supplemented by a catalog of LSBs selected visually from the Second Palomar Sky Survey using the same selection criteria as the UGC catalog but with deeper plates (Schombert et al. 1992, Schombert & Bothun 1988, herein referred to as the “POSS-II” catalog), and now by the APM LSB survey which selected LSBs automatically and by eye using scanned plates from the APM galaxy survey (Impey et al. 1996). Other deep photographic work has been used to search for LSBs in clusters (Impey et al. 1988, Davies et al. 1988, Irwin et al. 1990, Ferguson & Sandage 1988, Sandage & Binggeli 1984). With the exception of the deeper cluster surveys, the photographic work finds very few galaxies whose peak surface brightness is fainter than $\mu=24\surfb$ in $B$ (corresponding to $\approx23.5\surfb$ in $V$, using mean colors from de Blok 1995, McGaugh 1994), unless they also have high surface brightness bulges.
The second type of LSB survey, the CCD surveys, have concentrated primarily on identifying LSBs within clusters of galaxies (Turner et al. 1993). Due to their small area, these surveys are restricted to finding galaxies of small angular size, which leads to a large degree of confusion between intrinsically low surface brightness galaxies and either high-redshift normal galaxies which appear to have low surface brightness because of $(1+z)^{-4}$ cosmological dimming, or pairs of barely resolved galaxies. A similar field survey by Schwartzenberg et al (1995) also suffers from the same problems, although to a slightly lesser extent due to a larger angular size cutoff. However, the difficulties in untangling the true surface brightness and angular size distributions are compounded by effects of poor seeing and the large pixel size of these surveys. There has also been a promising recent foray into using CCDs to survey for faint field LSBs through cross-correlating an image with a model galaxy profile (Davies et al.1994). However, the areas surveyed so far are still too small to do more than to verify the promise of this method.
In spite of the limitations, existing surveys have begun to advance our understanding of the density of the LSB population. They have both proven the existence of LSBs, and provided a rich data set for studying the properties of individual LSBs. They have also begun to yield quantitative results about the size of the LSB population. First, several existing photographic and CCD cluster surveys have be used to estimate the relative number density as a function of surface brightness. McGaugh (1996) has used the selection criteria of the Davies (1990) sample to estimate the relative survey volume as a function of central surface brightness, and shown that the distribution of disk surface brightnesses is very broad. The derived distribution of surface brightnesses cuts off sharply brighter than the Freeman surface brightness value, but falls only slowly with decreasing central surface brightness; by $\mu_0(B)=23\surfb$, the number density drops by only a factor of 2-4, but is statistically consistent with a flat distribution in surface brightness. However, this analysis assumes that the distribution of intrinsic disk scale lengths is independent of surface brightness, which does not seem to be true (i.e. the increase in the maximum scale length with decreasing surface brightness – see de Jong & van der Kruit 1994, for example). Thus, there may be systematic offsets in the accessible survey volume as a function of surface brightness, leading to substantial uncertainties in the relative number density as a function of surface brightness.
More recently, the large APM LSB survey has reconstructed the luminosity function of LSBs with central surface brightnesses of $22\surfb<\mu_0(B)\lta24\surfb$, using a detailed quantification of the automated detection algorithm (Sprayberry 1997). The survey has 332 galaxies with redshifts, and has $\sim20$% completeness in redshift identification for galaxies with $\mu_0(B) > 23\surfb$. They find that, when compared to the CfA survey luminosity function (Marzke et al 1994) which covers a nearly disjoint surface brightness range, the LSBs in their survey add rougly a third to the known luminosity density in galaxies with $M_B < -13$, and more than double the known luminosity density contributed by known galaxies with Irr/Im morphologies.
In the survey described in this paper, we attempt to combining the best features of previous surveys, and to push observations to lower surface brightnesses than have been previously surveyed in the field. We use CCDs to observe a large area of the sky, obtain extremely accurate flat-fielding through the use of drift scanning, use completely automated detection to allow for a complete and detailed understanding of the selection biases in the survey, and search for galaxies with large angular sizes to reduce the background confusion and to identify LSBs which are most comparable to well-cataloged normal galaxies in large local surveys. In the following section, §\[strategy\], we outline the basic strategy of our survey, and discuss how it is optimized for reaching the above goals. In §\[datareduction\] we describe the data we have used, and the data processing and selection criteria in detail. In §\[properties\] we discuss the properties of the entire sample of objects detected in the survey, and in §\[lsbsamp\] we focus our attention on the properties of the subset of LSB galaxies. Finally, in §\[numberden\] we use the LSB subsample to measure the surface density, number density, and luminosity density of LSB galaxies, and compare to the population to normal galaxies. We discuss our estimation of errors in Appendix A. In Appendix B is a general discussion of reconstructing the number and luminosity density of angular diameter limited samples from the observed surface density. We use $H_0=50\kms/\Mpc$ throughout.
Strategy
========
There are two essential elements to the survey which we have carried out, namely the use of time-delay-and-integrate (TDI) observations to achieve extremely accurate flat-fielding over large areas and the use of optimal smoothing filters to enhance the detection of large LSBs. In a TDI scan (also known as “strip”,“drift”, or “transit” scanning), the telescope is held fixed, while the sky drifts across the field of view of the CCD camera, while lines of charge are stepped from row to row of the CCD to keep track with the sky. Drift scanning averages out the flat-fielding variations along the columns of the chip, and means that each line of the resulting strip of data has the same flat-fielding (or “flat-lining”) characteristics, up to the temporal stability of the chip response. Millions of lines of the data can be combined to create an extremely accurate one-dimensional sky flat for the entire data set, much in the same manner that shift-and-stare techniques can be used to make two-dimensional sky flats. Drift-scanning therefore provides an extremely efficient way of using CCDs to observe large areas of the sky while providing excellent flat fielding.
With the advantage of extremely accurate large scale flat fielding, we can smooth the data over large scales to reveal low surface brightness galaxies which are typically at the limits of detectability, due to Poisson pixel-to-pixel fluctuations in the sky level. To increase sensitivity to galaxies whose surface brightnesses are comparable to the sky brightness, the pixel-to-pixel noise can also be reduced by averaging together many pixels, increasing the effective area of the pixels. While this decrease in noise may be achieved by observing with large CCD pixels or by binning down the charge on the chip, it may also be reached by smoothing high resolution data.
There are several advantages to using smoothing to reduce the pixel-to-pixel noise. First, the smoothing may be done with a filter that is matched to the shape and size of the galaxy for which one is looking; this produces the maximum gain in signal-to-noise for the targeted galaxies. Second, because the original, high-resolution data still exists after smoothing, no information is really lost; the original data can provide additional information about the sources of any low-surface brightness features detected after smoothing. If the smoothing were to have been done by binning the CCD during readout, and not during post-processing, the increase in signal-to-noise would have been optimized for square galaxies, not realistic ones, and most importantly, there would be much more confusion about the source of any fluctuations. Finally, because smoothing allows any filter to be used, one data set may potentially be used to independently survey for galaxies of many different shapes and angular sizes. To avoid contributions from bright foreground objects, we have cleaned images of bright foreground objects, such that subsequent smoothing truly recovers large scale fluctuations in the optical background.
Because the known population of LSBs seems to be well fit by exponential disks (de Jong 1996, de Blok et al 1995, McGaugh & Bothun 1994, Knezek 1993), we have chosen to use an exponential profile as the filter kernel. We have smoothed with an exponential filter of scale length $5\arcsec$, which drops the level of fluctuations by over a factor of ten, a gain that would only have been achieved with over a hundred-fold increase in exposure time. By choosing such a large scale length, we eliminate any confusion between low surface brightness galaxies and distant, cosmologically-dimmed high surface brightness galaxies. For example, galaxies with an apparent scale length of $\approx5\arcsec$ are likely to be within $200\mpc$ ($z=0.03$, assuming an intrinsic scale length of $5\,h_{50}\kpc$) and are near enough that $(1+z)^4$ surface brightness dimming is negligible. This choice of scale length also identifies LSBs within a volume comparable to that which is occupied by NGC and UGC galaxies; a normal galaxy with a $5\arcsec$ exponential scale length has an angular diameter of close to $1\arcmin$ (assuming $\mu_0=21.5\surfb$ and $\mu_{lim}=26.5$), similar to the angular diameter limit of large photographic surveys.
To identify candidate LSBs, we identify all large regions of connected pixels in the smoothed image which are significantly above the level of the remaining fluctuations in the sky. The entire process – cleaning, smoothing, and searching – is entirely automated, and is repeated with artificial galaxies added to the data to allow a thorough investigation of the selection biases of the survey. We then visually inspect all candidates to identify the subset which are LSBs. We perform additional artificial galaxy tests to test the limits of our ability to classify LSBs. We use these limits to further restrict the LSB subset to the region where our detection and classification efficiencies are well-determined. Finally, we measure redshifts for the final LSB subset, allowing us to measure the absolute number density of the LSBs.
Data Processing {#datareduction}
===============
Imaging Data {#data}
------------
The survey utilizes existing imaging data, originally taken for the Palomar Transit Grism Survey (Schneider, Schmidt, & Gunn 1994; hereafter SSG) for high redshift quasars. We will give a brief summary of the initial data processing of this data set; see SSG for a detailed description of the survey. The data were taken with the 4-Shooter camera (Gunn et al. 1987) at the Cassegrain focus of the Palomar 200-inch telescope. The 4-Shooter detector consists of 4 800x800 Texas Instrument CCDs, arranged in a 2x2 grid, with a pixel scale of $0.335 \arcsec / \pixel$. The telescope was operated in transit mode, holding the telescope fixed and allowing the sky to drift across the CCDs while the CCD was clocked to keep pace with the passage of the sky. The drift scan produces four very long images at a fixed declination covering a wide range in right ascension, each strip corresponding to one of the four chips. The strip is cut into 400x1600 images with 120 rows of overlap between adjacent images. Because of difficulties with the high data flow rate, the CCDs were double-clocked and the columns rebinned by a factor of 2, to increase the effect of pixel scale to $0.67 \arcsec / \pixel $. The seeing was $1.5-3 \arcsec$. The two leading CCDs used the $F555W$ “wide $V$” filter, while the two trailing CCDs used $F785LP$ (Griffiths 1990). Following Postman et al. (1996), we will use the shorthand notation of $V_4$ and $I_4$ for the combination of the HST filters and the 4-shooter response function. Only the $V_4$ strips were used, because of the greater susceptibility of the $I_4$ band to fringing and to low level fluctuations in the sky brightness.
We specifically use the QR and MN strips from the SSG survey, observed in April 1987 and 1988, respectively. (The two-letter notation reflects the fact that each strip is actually composed of two separate strips, corresponding to the two halves of the 4-shooter’s CCD array. We analyze each of the four substrips (M, N, Q, & R) independently.) The QR strip is at a declination of $
\delta = +47^\circ \, 34 \arcmin \, 47 \arcsec $, and extends from $8
\hour - 17 \hour$ in right ascension. The MN strip is at a declination of $ \delta = +46^\circ \, 22 \arcmin \, 40 \arcsec $, and extends from $9\hour - 17 \hour$ in right ascension.
As described in more detail in SSG, a single bias level, measured in the overscan region, was subtracted from each image. Following this, the lines of all of the images were combined to create a sky-flat for the CCD. The flat did not change significantly over the course of three years. After each image was flattened, a cubic polynomial was fit to the median sky level along the scanning direction and then subtracted to remove any large temporal fluctuations in the image. Further corrections of the temporal variations are described in §\[flattening\]. Finally, the two substrips were calibrated against each other by requiring the same mean sky level in each pair of adjacent images. Each image was further overscan corrected by using a five piece cubic spline fit to the overscan region. Following this, the images were trimmed to remove the bias strip, leaving 372x1598 images.
The imaging data were not taken in perfectly photometric conditions, and were initially not photometrically calibrated. However, strip scans allow one to easily detect the presence of cirrus. First, because the strip is a scan both in time and in right ascension, any temporal variations due to the presence of cirrus is easily recognized as structured banding within an individual image, due to the fluctuating brightness of the sky produced by the changing degree of reflection of the light from San Diego. Second, the passage of cirrus dramatically drops the number of objects seen in a given image. Based upon the number counts of Postman et al. (1996) using the identical observational system, if the depth were to change by 1 magnitude, the number of detected objects would change by a factor 3. In contrast, in the data which we used, the number of objects never varies by more than 25% (either RMS or systematically), suggesting that the depth never varies by more than 0.3 magnitudes. In fact, the variation in the depth is certainly even smaller, given that half of the fluctuation amplitude is due to simple Poisson counting, and that there are additional fluctuations in the area lost to bright foreground stars. Using the constancy of the sky brightness and of the number of objects per field as a measure of atmospheric clarity, we have restricted the data to the portions of the night which are most likely to be photometric. When reduced to the most photometric portions of the night, the QR substrips consist of 179 400x1600 images in each band between $8 \hour - 13 \hour$. The MN substrips consist of 283 400x1600 images in each band. Twenty-eight of the MN images near $11
\hour $ are unusable due to the passage of clouds. A total of 868 images were used in the survey. The total area covered by the 4 individual strips is $17.5\degree^2$.
As a test of our judgement, and as a means to calibrate the zero point of the Palomar data, we have taken calibration images of many fields within the strip, under photometric conditions, and find no significant variation in the zero point of the strip scan data in the portions of the night to which we have restricted the data. We have calculated the zero points for the MN and QR strips using calibration data taken in Johnson $V$ with the Kitt Peak 0.9m telescope in March of 1994. The Johnson $V$ zero point of the Kitt Peak data was calibrated and airmass corrected using 6 independent observations of 8 different standard stars in two separate Landolt (1992) fields, with an 0.015 magnitude rms in the airmass corrected zero point. For the MN strip, we have Johnson $V$ images of 7 different fields throughout the strip, 3 of which were observed more than once. These images were used to calculate $V$ band magnitudes for objects which fell in the MN strip. Comparing to the count rate for objects in the SSG data to their $V$ magnitudes in the KPNO data, we calculate a Johnson $V$ zero point for the MN strip of $29.36\pm0.04\,$magnitudes per data number, with no systematic difference between the zero points of the two halves of the strip. We will quote Johnson $V$ magnitudes for the remainder of the paper, for ease of comparison to other LSB samples; although the data was taken in $V_4$, the color term to correct from $V_4$ to Johnson $V$ is small, $V-V_4\approx0.04-0.06$, for $V_4-I_4\approx0.5-1$ (Postman et al. 1996). The RMS scatter among the 10 calculated zero points of the SSG data agreed with the expected uncertainty in the mean, based upon the uncertainties in the zero points calculated for the individual fields, which were in turn based upon the RMS scatter in the airmass corrected zero point of the KPNO data and in the zero points calculated for the stars in the KPNO transfer standards. The stability of the zero point throughout the MN strip suggests that the atmosphere was uniformly transparent for the portion of the night which met our criteria for being most photometric. The zero point for the MN strip is also consistent with the conversion used for the Palomar Distant Cluster Survey (Postman et al. 1996), which uses the same instrumental configuration.
For the QR strip, we have only one calibrated field, giving a zero point of $29.17\pm0.04$ magnitudes per data number in Johnson $V$ for the QR strip. However, rather than use a single measurement to calibrate the entire QR strip, we will use the zero point of the MN strip for the QR data as well, and recognize the possibility of an 0.2 magnitude offset between the two data sets. We note that the surface brightnesses probed in this paper are up to $7\surfb$ fainter than normal galaxies, and thus an error in the photometric calibration of less than half of a magnitude will do little to change the conclusions. Furthermore, given that the number of detected objects per frame and the sky brightness both vary as smoothly in the QR strip as in the MN strip, we do not anticipate finding field-to-field variations in the QR strip zero point which are significantly greater than those seen in the MN strip.
Removal of Foreground Objects {#cleaning}
-----------------------------
Producing a map of the background sky requires the removal of all of the high-surface brightness stars and galaxies which are obstructing the view of the background. To identify the intervening objects, FOCAS was used to identify all regions of connected pixels greater than 4 sigma above the mean sky, with a detected area of greater than six pixels after smoothing with FOCAS’s built-in filter (Jarvis & Tyson 1981, Valdes 1982). The number of objects found per unit magnitudes began to deviate from a power law at $V=22$, suggesting that the FOCAS selection is incomplete beyond this point.
In preparation for cleaning, the region that FOCAS had associated with each object was extended by an amount derived from the object’s detected area and magnitude. This ensured that any low-surface brightness halo, due to either seeing or to a slowly falling galaxy profile, was included with the central bright regions. The pixels within the object were replaced with values drawn from the local sky histogram, created by sampling within a buffer around the extended region and clipping at 4 sigma above the local mean. This cleaning procedure preserves the large scale distribution of surface brightness. Objects which have large areas for their magnitude (or low magnitudes for their size) are excluded from cleaning to avoid cleaning any brighter LSBs which FOCAS may have been able to detect without additional processing.
While replacing objects with the local sky histogram proved to be effective for objects fainter than roughly 19th magnitude, cleaning brighter, larger objects, would have invested tremendous amounts of computational time in a region guaranteed to be useless for detecting background objects. Instead, large regions around bright objects were removed from the survey by creating masks for each image, which were used throughout processing. Occasionally, the area of the masked region was sometimes too small to completely block out the halo of the masked object. This problem was most commonly manifested in objects on the edges of images, and very occasionally in highly elongated non-boundary objects such as edge-on galaxies and meteor trails. Cases where the masking was insufficient were easily identified in the final catalog and removed from consideration. The two columns on the left and right edges, and fifteen and thirty rows on bottom and top edges respectively were masked as well, to eliminate the most common regions of incomplete FOCAS identification from consideration. Roughly 39% of the survey area is lost to the masked regions.
In the final cleaned image, the masked regions were set to the median sky level of the unmasked regions. The mask and the cleaned image were then rebinned by a factor of two to save space.
Removing Large Scale Variations {#flattening}
-------------------------------
In drift scans, there are low amplitude row-to-row fluctuations due to temporal variations in the sky brightness ($28.7-28.0\surfb$ (2-4 ADU) peak-to-peak, when smoothed on scales of $10\arcsec$). These fluctuations are constant across a given row, and vary smoothly from row to row, creating very low level bright and dark “bands” across the strip scan. The efficiency of the survey is compromised by the fluctuations; significant low-surface brightness objects that lie in low points are more likely to be missed, while fainter objects that lie on the high points will be detected more frequently. (Although Monte Carlo simulations can measure the variation in efficiency, they cannot compensate for the lost survey area.) We flatten the overall sky background in each image by: (1) setting the masked regions to zero, (2) taking the mean of each row of the masked image and of the mask itself, (3) smoothing each 1-dimensional profile with a boxcar filter $\approx 2\arcmin$ wide (roughly 13 seconds, temporally), (4) dividing the smoothed image profile with the smoothed masked profile, and (5) subtracting the resulting 1-d profile from each column of the original image. This produces a significantly flatter image with a roughly zero sky level.
Correcting for large scale variations reduces the survey’s sensitivity to objects of similar scales. We have not lost much sensitivity in the case of this survey however, as the geometry of the strip makes it unlikely that many objects with scales of $2\arcmin$ or larger could be detected in the first place. Because of the difficulty in treating boundaries in any smoothing problem, the flattening tends to become inaccurate at the beginning and ending of the image, and adjacent to regions where the entire width of the image has been masked out. These regions were obvious in the final smoothed image, and were eliminated from consideration to avoid false detections. Occasionally there is residual row-to-row structure left in the image after flattening, on scales smaller than the flattening scale. These are also due to temporal variations on scales smaller than 13s, and are typically fainter than $28.5\surfb$.
After removing temporal variations, occasionally there are diagonal structures which cannot be due to temporal variations, at the $28\surfb$ level. The most likely sources of this excess structure are halos of stars off the field of view and emission from galactic cirrus. Our current data are not adequate for addressing these questions, but repeated, multi-color transit scan observations of a single region, with small random offsets in declination between scans and a larger FOV, would help to constrain the origin of any residual structure.
Smoothing and Detection {#smoothing}
-----------------------
The cleaned, rebinned, and flattened images produced by the previous steps are remarkably featureless. Any residual flattening inaccuracies are invisible, buried well below the pixel-to-pixel variations in the image. Smoothing the cleaned image reduces the pixel-to-pixel noise dramatically, uncovering low surface brightness features. After replacing the masked regions with the image median, we smooth the image with a radially symmetric exponential profile ($\propto e^{-r/\alpha}$) with $\alpha=5\arcsec$, which optimizes the signal-to-noise ratio increase for objects with exponential profiles identical in size and shape to the smoothing filter. Smoothing with the $5\arcsec$ filter reduces the pixel-to-pixel noise[^1] by roughly a factor of twelve (to $\approx 0.7-0.9$ ADU). Smoothing with a larger smoothing length of $10\arcsec$ reduced the level of fluctuations by an additional factor of only 1.6, indicating that on the scale of the smoothing kernel ($8\alpha$) the fluctuations in the images are not random, due to the very low level fluctuations discussed in §[flattening]{}. The histogram of pixel values for the $10\arcsec$ smoothed images also show deviations from the expected Poisson distribution. Because of this indication of residual structure on $40\arcsec$ scales, we chose to use only the single scale length to smooth our data; with a larger field of view and reduced temporal fluctuations and scattering, a larger range of smoothing lengths would be more useful than with this particular data set.
A modified version of FOCAS was used to detect all regions in the smoothed image greater than $\pm3.5\sigma$ above the image median over an area of 25 pixels, corresponding to 11.2 arcsec$^2$. The resulting FOCAS catalog was restricted to eliminate any object touching a boundary (the only negative “dark” objects found were also boundary objects) or whose center was within $1.5r_{2} + 10\arcsec$ (where $r_2$ is the intensity weighted second moment radius) of the left or right edges, or within $37\arcsec$ of bottom edge or $125\arcsec$ of the top edge. The buffer on the upper edges is larger to avoid detecting objects in the overlap region in more than one image. With these selection criteria, 868 objects were detected, giving an average of 1 candidate per each frame. We expect the total catalog to include only one or fewer spurious detections due solely to Poisson fluctuations; this is based upon the number of independent detection areas in the survey, after correcting the survey area for the masked areas and the buffered regions along the edges of the images, and upon the peak height of an exponential profile which is $3.5\sigma$ above the mean at a radius of $2\arcsec$. The absence of “dark” features and the low Poisson probability of false positives suggests that effectively all of the detected features are due to true enhancements in the the mean sky level (although those may in some cases be due to other than astronomical sources, as discussed below).
Properties and Classification of Detected Objects {#properties}
=================================================
A single image was created for each candidate object, consisting of three adjacent panels (see Figure \[lsbfig\] for an example). The first panel is taken from the original uncleaned, unprocessed image. The second panel is taken from the cleaned image, and has been expanded by a factor of two to match the angular scale of the first panel. The third panel is taken from the smoothed image in which the object was detected, also adjusted to the same angular size as the other two panels. All three panels are centered on the object. These composite images allow easy browsing of the catalog (with much less stringent disk space requirements than saving all the processed data), and were used to assign a classification to the objects, if possible. Classifications were based entirely upon visual inspection of the images.
The classification was given as combinations of the categories below, based upon the associated criteria. The percentages in the brackets are the percentage of objects that have the category as a possible classification and the percentage of objects that have the category as their only possible classification.
\(l) Low surface brightness galaxy – Exhibits smooth, extended emission in the original image. \[4.1%,2.4%\]
\(c) Cluster – Shows evidence that the low surface brightness emission is associated with several compact clumps, either clearly visible or just below the threshold for detection (see Dalcanton 1996). The classification typically reflects one of three cases, corresponding to clusters at different distances: 1) the light is the low-surface brightness component of a nearby cluster that can be clearly identified by large numbers of galaxies in the field; 2) the emission is centered on a single galaxy with several, barely visible companions, probably corresponding to a CD galaxy of a more distant cluster; 3) the emission is centered on a clump of several faint knots of emission, which are probably the centers of distant cluster galaxies just below the threshold of detection. Objects classified as clusters tend to be near other clumps in the smoothed sky maps. In the case of the low redshift clusters, the correlation is due to detecting pockets of dwarf galaxies and tidal debris throughout the cluster region. In more distant clusters, the correlation is most likely due to the presence of subclustering, or to the high amplitude of the cluster-cluster correlation function. This clustering behavior was clearly seen in the recovery of the $z=0.8$ cluster MS1054 in Dalcanton (1996), where two or three strong peaks were seen in the smoothed sky background, centered on regions of truly high galaxy concentration. \[24.3%,19.9%\]
\(t) Tidal features – Shows evidence that the low surface brightness emission might be due to interactions between galaxies. Used if the emission lies between two close galaxies or is adjacent to a single galaxy that shows signs of being disturbed, especially if there is no other evidence that the light might come from galaxies below the detection limit. The boundary between this class and the cluster class is not always distinct. \[2.0%,1.1%\]
\(g) Groups of Galaxies – Tight groups of foreground galaxies without extended low surface brightness emission. These probably entered the catalog through contamination of the sky histogram of one galaxy with the bright pixels of an adjacent galaxy. However, they form a potentially interesting subclass, and may actually contain true members of the cluster and tidal classes, and thus are not classified as errors. \[5.4%,2.8%\]
(?) Uncertainty – Represents uncertainty in the classification.
( ) Unclassified – No evidence for making a classification. Typically has no strong associated foreground emission, or no compelling reason to group the object with one class over another. \[52.3%,52.3%\]
(\*) Errors – Cases where the object’s inclusion in the catalog was more a product of the processing than the object’s internal properties. These cases include incompletely cleaned or incompletely masked objects, or objects which have only been included because they were superimposed on either a halo from an object off the field of view or on regions of inaccurate flattening in the upper and lower edges of the image. \[16.2%,16.2%\]
Many of the detected objects have more than one possible classification. This is an unavoidable consequence of the detection procedure. While smoothing the cleaned images increases the signal-to-noise to the point where faint features can be detected, the signal-to-noise of the original image, which is used for classification, remains unchanged. Thus, in many cases there is no unambiguous classification, in spite of a significant detection of an EBL fluctuation. For example, there are cases where the feature in the smoothed image does not correspond to any obvious emission in the foreground image. There are other cases where, although the detected region corresponds to one or more high surface brightness features in the original image, the low-surface brightness component responsible for the detection is too faint for any morphology to be visible which might provide a clue as to the proper classification. Note that because classification requires more signal-to-noise than detection, classified objects are even less likely to be spurious.
There are many cases where, in spite of reasonable signal-to-noise, the classification is ambiguous. An LSB galaxy with a faint bulge or with several HII regions is possibly similar in appearance to a distant cluster with a faint CD galaxy, or even to a tidally disturbed normal galaxy. Because of this confusion, when we create a final catalog of objects which have LSB as their only possible classification, we are underestimating the true contribution of LSBs. Because of their ambiguous classification, we systematically exclude LSBs with high-surface brightness features (i.e. bulges, resolved stars, HII regions) from our catalog of definite LSBs, leaving us with a “pure disk” subsample of the larger LSB population (e.g. see profiles in Figure \[profilefig\]). This is in contrast to visually selected, angular-diameter limited catalogs of LSBs, such as the POSSII and UGC catalogs; a substantial fraction of the LSBs in these catalogs have strong central bulges (for example, see the profiles in McGaugh & Bothun 1994).
The LSB Subsample {#lsbsamp}
=================
For the remainder of the paper, we will concentrate on the 21 objects which were classified as candidate LSBs based upon their optical morphology. Of these, 14 were classified as definite LSBs, and an additional 7 were classified as probable LSBs.
In order to determine the central surface brightness and scale length of the LSB candidates, we fit the 21 LSB candidates interactively with IRAF’s “ellipse” surface brightness photometry package. We then further restricted the LSB subsample to include only the 14 LSB candidates whose extrapolated central surface brightnesses were fainter than $23\surfb$ in $V$ (corresponding to roughly $23.5\surfb$ in $B$, using the median LSB color of $B-V\approx0.5$ from McGaugh & Bothun (1994) and de Blok et al. (1995)); because we did not use any photometric information in the initial classification, galaxies classified as potential LSBs were sometimes not dramatically fainter than the Freeman value, and within the range of surface brightnesses that can be better constrained with the much larger APM survey (Impey et al. 1996, Sprayberry et al. 1997). The remaining sample spans a range in central surface brightness of $23\surfb < \mu_0 < 25\surfb$ in $V$ and scale lengths of $2\arcsec<\alpha<7\arcsec$. While the profiles are noisy (particularly at large radii) due to the very low signal-to-noise in the unsmoothed image, they are consistently better fit by exponential surface brightness profiles than by deVaucouleur’s profiles.
We estimated the uncertainty in the measured central surface brightness and exponential scale length by performing the identical ellipse fitting and profile fitting on artificial galaxies with the measured properties of each of the LSBs. For galaxies with $\alpha<5\arcsec$, $\mu_0-\mu_0(true)=-0.03\pm0.06$, and for galaxies with $\alpha>5\arcsec$, $\mu_0-\mu_0(true) = 0.06\pm0.06$. For galaxies with $\mu_0<23.8\surfb$, $[\alpha- \alpha(true)]/\alpha =
-0.006\pm0.09$, and for $\mu_0>23.8\surfb$, $[\alpha-
\alpha(true)]/\alpha = -0.1\pm0.12$.
Classification Efficiency {#classification}
-------------------------
To measure the number density of LSBs, we must determine the efficiency with which we can both detect and identify LSBs as a function of surface brightness and size. As discussed above (§\[properties\]), because our classification procedure effectively eliminates LSBs with bulges from the final sample, we need only to test the recovery of pure disk exponential profile galaxies in order to measure our efficiency. While doing so means that we will not be measuring the efficiency of detecting all LSBs (i.e. LSBs with and without bulges and/or bright HII regions, which are seen to exist in brighter LSB samples), we know [*a priori*]{} that our classification procedure reduces the efficiency of finding such galaxies in our final sample to zero, given that the surface brightness profiles and images demonstrate that none of these galaxies with more complicated morphologies have made it into the final sample. Thus, the population of LSB disks with associated bulges and bright HII regions is entirely unconstrained by this paper, and the measured number density will be an underestimate of the true LSB population. Furthermore, because the galaxies in our sample are all smooth exponential disks with low ellipticities (with the possible exception of Q-42-1), measuring the efficiency of the survey requires only that we test the recovery of similarly smooth, face-on, exponential disks.
To first measure our ability to classify LSBs, we added 100 artificial LSBs to various positions throughout the original imaging data and then clipped out the region containing the LSB, creating an image identical in size to the images which were used for classification in the actual survey. The pure exponential face-on disks used as test LSBs were morphologically indistinguishable from the LSBs in the sample, which also have pure exponential profiles and low ellipticity. As a result, the images of the artificial LSBs appeared remarkably similar to the true LSB images (see Figure \[lsbfig\]). We inspected and classified the artificial LSBs, in the same manner as the actual survey data. Figure \[classfig\](a) shows the resulting classifications as a function of exponential scale length and surface brightness; the triangles were classified as LSBs and the diagonal lines are lines of constant signal to noise (i.e.$\mu_0=\mu_{zp}+2.5\log{\alpha}$, with varying $\mu_{zp}$, and $\alpha$ measured in arcseconds). Figure \[classfig\](b) shows the resulting classification efficiency as a function of signal-to-noise (characterized by $\mu_{zp}$), for $\alpha>2.5\arcsec$ (for scale lengths smaller than $2.5\arcsec$, the classification ability drops dramatically, due to confusion between single, low redshift LSBs and pairs of faint, distant normal galaxies). Our classification efficiency is essentially 100% for $\mu_{zp}<22.2\surfb$, and zero for $\mu_{zp}>22.95\surfb$. We approximate the efficiency in Figure \[classfig\](b) analytically as
$$\label{classeqn}
\epsilon_{class}=\cases {
1 &if $\mu_{zp}\le 22.2$ \cr
\frac{22.95-\mu_{zp}}{22.95-22.2} &if $22.2 < \mu_{zp}< 22.95$\cr
0 &if $22.95 \le \mu_{zp}$,}$$
which has a residual rms of 0.094 for $21.8<\mu_{zp}\le22.95$.
Based upon equation \[classeqn\], we make the final restriction on the subset of LSBs, retaining only those galaxies for which $\alpha>2.5\arcsec$ and $\mu_{zp}\equiv\mu_0-2.5\log{\alpha}\le22.95$. This leaves a final LSB catalog of 7 galaxies which have securely measured classification efficiencies. The classification images of these LSBs are shown in Figure \[lsbfig\] (including also the cleaned and smoothed images, as described in §\[properties\]). Their radial profiles are shown in Figure \[profilefig\], and their structural properties are listed in Table 1.
Detection Efficiency {#detection}
--------------------
In addition to our efficiency in classifying LSBs, we must also quantify our ability to detect LSB candidates in the first place. To do so, we used monte carlo simulations to measure the efficiency with which our automatic detection software identified the smoothed fluctuations produced by artificial galaxies, as a function of central surface brightness and exponential scale length.
First, a single artificial, face-on galaxy with an exponential profile was added to an image from the survey. The artificial galaxies were drawn from a uniform distribution in $\log{\alpha}$ and central surface brightness, between $1\arcsec<\alpha<125\arcsec$ and $23<\mu_0<28.25\surfb$, above a fixed signal-to-noise ($\mu_0<2.5\log{\alpha}+26.5\surfb$). The altered image was processed in an identical manner to the original survey data. The resulting catalog of low surface brightness objects was searched for any detection that coincided with the artificial galaxy. This process was repeated five times for each image in the survey.
The small surface density of true objects ($\approx1.0$ per frame) implies that confusion and overlapping of low surface brightness objects is not a source of selection biases in the survey. Thus, the Monte Carlo simulations were designed to test the recovery of isolated galaxies, by requiring that there was at least a $40\arcsec$ buffer between an artificial galaxy and the nearest candidate LSB. However, the detection efficiencies are modulated by any residual large scale variations in the background sky level, with more objects being detected in areas where the local sky is higher than average. Therefore, if too large a buffer is required between the artificial galaxies and the real objects, then the artificial galaxies will be systematically biased away from these regions of increased detection efficiency. The largest fluctuations occur on scales of $\approx2\arcmin$, so by limiting the buffer to $40\arcsec$ (substantially smaller than the width of the strip) we have allowed the artificial galaxies to sample the same sky levels as the real detections.
Figure \[detectionfig\](a) shows the resulting detection efficiency for our survey, as a function of surface brightness and disk scale length. Superimposed on the contours of constant efficiency are all the LSBs with $\mu_0\!>\!23\surfb$, as well as the regions of 100% and $>\,0$% classification efficiency. Within the region where LSBs can be reliably classified, the detection efficiency is well behaved, as can be seen in Figure \[detectionfig\](b), where we have plotted the detection efficiency as a function of scale length, for different central surface brightnesses. The distribution is reasonably well fit by a Gaussian, leading us to use
$$\label{detectioneqn}
\epsilon_{det} = 0.37 \exp{\left[-\log^2{(\alpha/6.3\arcsec)}/0.15\right]}$$
as a reasonable approximation of the detection efficiency for the final LSB subsample. The residual rms of this approximation is 0.056. The maximum detection efficiency is roughly 35%, which results largely from the loss in area behind masks, behind other stars and galaxies, and around the edges of the images. The detection efficiency peaks close to the scale length of the $5\arcsec$ exponential smoothing filter used in processing. The contours of constant detection efficiency suggest that LSBs with $\mu_0 = 26\,V\surfb$ may be in the full catalog, but be currently unclassified or misclassified as clusters.
We have not to attempted to model edge-on LSBs. Including edge-on LSBs could have easily introduced more uncertainty than it would have removed; we know very little about the vertical scale heights and opacities of LSB disks, particularly at the extreme surface brightnesses explored by this survey. Furthermore, none of our detected LSBs is substantially elongated, and thus the detection efficiency for edge-on LSBs is not an essential ingredient for recovering the LSB number density of the smooth face-on LSBs in our sample. However, since we are strongly biased against finding edge-on LSBs, due to our choice of a circularly symmetric smoothing filter, we may well be underestimating the number density of LSBs by effectively restricting our sample to include mostly face-on galaxies.
Distances
---------
Follow-up spectroscopy of the final LSB subsample was carried out in May of 1996 using the CryoCam on the Mayall 4m at Kitt Peak National Observatories. The 650 grism (400 line/mm) was used in first order with a $3.2\arcsec$ slit, giving $\sim\!13$Å resolution (FWHM) between 3500Å and 7000Å, with an average of 3Å per pixel. The slit was oriented along the major axis of the LSB, using the Richley prisms to correct for the differential refraction of the atmosphere. Exposure times ranged from 2700s to 12,000s giving a signal-to-noise of 10-40 per resolution element longwards of the the 4000Å break, with a mean signal-to-noise of 15-20.
The spectra of the LSBs were overscan corrected, dark subtracted, flat-fielded using domeflats, illumination corrected with twilight flats, and then extracted, sky subtracted, and wavelength calibrated using He+Ne+Ar spectra taken adjacent to, or sandwiched between, each of the LSB spectra. The focus of the spectrograph was a strong function of wavelength, and degrades by nearly a factor of two by 3600Å.
The resulting LSB spectra were initially cross-correlated with a template spiral galaxy spectrum using IRAF’s “rvsao” package, and searched for emission lines. The cross-correlation was limited to between 3700Å and 5000Å to isolate the 4000Å break, the Balmer lines, and the strong G-band. Since all galaxies were at very low redshift, the correlation included nearly the same region of the rest-frame spectra for all galaxies. Using the resulting redshifts, the spectra were doppler corrected back to zero redshift. Then, to refine the redshift measurement, we created an improved correlation template for each galaxy, by coadding all the other LSB spectra, excluding the one galaxy spectra to be cross-correlated and the spectra for R-26-1, which has low signal-to-noise and thus no convincing redshift. The new templates were then cross-correlated with the correct galaxy spectra and a new redshift derived. The process was repeated a second time using templates derived from the refined redshifts. On the final cross-correlation, no redshift changed by more than $450\kms$, and all correlation coefficients had $4.4<R<7.6$, with the exception of M-232-1, which had $R=3.7$, and R-26-1, for which we have no convincing redshift. The emission line redshifts for R-27-1 and Q-129-2 were within $400\kms$ of the cross correlation absorption line redshifts. We take this velocity difference to be representative of the $1\sigma$ uncertainty in the individual redshifts, although the formal error from the cross-correlation is smaller ($\lta200\kms$). Similar changes in the velocity were produced by changing the wavelength range and filter parameters used for the cross-correlation, again suggesting that the redshifts given in Table 1 are accurate only to several $100\kms$. In all cases, however, the cross-correlation functions do not have additional peaks which could be considered as alternative plausible redshifts. The redshift for M-232-1 is more uncertain, due to the lower signal-to-noise and as can be seen from the lower correlation coefficient. By eye, we find a limit of $\pm1000\kms$ on the error in the redshift. The final redshifts are listed in Table 1, and the spectra are shown in Figure \[spectrafig\], along with the template spectra used for cross-correlation, all shifted into the rest frame; because of the low redshifts, the shift was only $\sim100$Å. For the purposes of analysis, we assign a redshift to R-26-1 by assuming it has the mean physical scale length of galaxies in the sample ($h=2.9\kpc$), giving an assumed recessional velocity of $11600\kms$. If R-26-1 were to have the smallest or largest physical scale length of the sample, it would have recessional velocities of $6800\kms$ or $14600\kms$ respectively.
The LSBs have recessional velocities of 4000-9000$\kms$, and disk scale lengths of $1.7-3.6\,{\rm h}_{50}^{-1}\kpc$ (Table 1, excluding R-26-1, due to its uncertain redshift), comparable to the disk scale lengths seen in angular diameter limited field surveys of brighter LSBs (McGaugh & Bothun 1994, de Blok et al 1995, de Jong 1996) and of normal galaxies. The LSBs in the final subsample are also at comparable distances to normal galaxies catalogued in large local surveys. The similarity can be seen most readily in Figure \[piefig\], where we have plotted a “pie” redshift-position diagram for the final LSB sample (solid triangles) and for the galaxies in the ZCAT catalog of galaxies (open circles). The LSBs also have scale lengths which are similar to normal galaxies. Both the LSB and normal galaxy samples will be biased towards finding physically large galaxies, which have the largest probability of being identified in angular diameter limited surveys (see Appendix B).
Figure \[piefig\] shows that there is no strong tendency for the LSBs in our sample to be physically associated with normal galaxies. Between $3000\kms$ and $10000\kms$, 11 out of 23 ZCAT galaxies are in close associations, whereas 2 in 6 of the LSBs has a near neighbor. Because of the small numbers of LSBs and the non-uniform selection criteria for the ZCAT galaxies, our sample does not provide definitive evidence for the low correlation between LSBs and normal galaxies. However, it is suggestive of the general trend seen in brighter LSB samples for the small-scale correlation of LSBs to be weak compared to normal galaxies (Bothun et al. 1993, Mo et al. 1995).
The follow-up, spectroscopic observations also provide validation for our classification procedure. All of the candidate LSBs in the final sample which we observed spectroscopically have characteristic galaxy spectra, smooth light profiles perpendicular to the dispersion direction, and low redshifts, proving that the final sample includes only the nearby LSBs which the survey was designed to find. While our classification procedure may have missed LSBs (i.e. false negatives), our strict selection criteria (§\[detection\] & \[classification\]) successfully insured that we did not include any non-LSBs in our final candidate list (i.e. false positives).
The Number Density of LSBs {#numberden}
==========================
Using the classification and detection efficiencies from equations \[classeqn\] & \[detectioneqn\] we can correct for the area that was effectively lost from the survey and calculate the surface density of LSBs with $23<\mu_0<25\,V\surfb$. The total efficiency $\epsilon(\mu_0,\alpha)=\epsilon_{class}(\mu_0,\alpha) \times
\epsilon_{det}(\mu_0,\alpha)$ is a measure of the fraction of the total $17.48\,{\rm degree^2}$ survey area which was actually accessible for detecting an LSB with central surface brightness $\mu_0$ and exponential disk scale length $\alpha$. Using the formalism developed in Appendix A, the surface density of LSBs in our survey with $23<\mu_0<25\surfb$ and $\alpha>2.5\arcsec$ is:
$$\label{surfdeneqn}
\Sigma(23<\mu_0<25\surfb,\alpha>2.5\arcsec)
= 4.1^{+2.6}_{-2.1}\, {\rm galaxies / degree^2},$$
where the errors enclose 90% confidence. The uncertainty is dominated by the Poisson probability for 7 galaxies and a detailed calculation of the confidence interval is provided in Appendix A. While a naive calculation of the surface density (7 galaxies in 17.5 square degrees) gives a smller surface density, inspection of Figure \[detectionfig\](A) for $\alpha>2.5\arcsec$ shows that the detection and classification efficiencies are small over much of region, leading to a large correction. As shown in Appendix B, the surface density of galaxies on the sky increases as $\alpha^{-4}$ towards small angular sizes, and thus most of the correction applied to the measured surface density is a correction for the lost classification efficiency of small galaxies with $\mu_0>24\surfb$. Furthermore, because of the steep increase in the number of galaxies with small apparent scale lengths, the surface density is a strong function of the exact lower limit on $\alpha$, and thus LSB surveys with different angular selection criteria will derive very different surface densities.
Although the surface density may at first seem small, it is in fact significant, given that the large scale lengths to which the sample was restricted effectively confines the survey to a small, nearby volume. The low surface density also explains why there is a consistent impression that LSBs are rare. First, one would have to observe a square degree of the sky to be reasonable certain of finding one large LSB. Second, the LSB would appear much smaller than a normal galaxy of comparable scale length, because it would only be visible out to roughly one scale length before its surface brightness drops below the pixel-to-pixel variations in the sky; normal galaxies are visible out to several scale lengths and thus are more noticible (Disney & Phillips 1983).
Using the distances for the final LSB subsample, the efficiency for detection and classification and the selection criteria for the final sample, we can calculate the effective volume in which each LSB could be detected. An LSB at a distance $D_i$, with angular scale length $\alpha_i$ and central surface brightness $\mu_i$ could have been detected out to a distance of
$$\label{Dmax}
D_{max_i}=D_i \times \cases {
\frac{\alpha_i}{2.5\arcsec} &if $\mu_i < 22.95+2.5\log{2.5\arcsec}$ \cr
\frac{\alpha_i}{10^{0.4(\mu_i-22.95)}}
&if $\mu_i \ge 22.95+2.5\log{2.5\arcsec}$}.$$
The effective volume of the survey is different for each galaxy, because the detection efficiencies are a strong function of the angular scale length and central surface brightness of the individual galaxies.
Using $D_{max}$, the volume that the $i$th galaxy could be detected within is
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{V}
V_i &=& \frac{A}{\rm radians}\,
\int_0^{{D_{max}}_i}
\epsilon(\mu_i,\alpha_i\left[\frac{D_i}{D^\prime}\right])\,
{D^\prime}^2\,{\rm d}D^\prime \\
&=& \frac{A}{\rm radians}\,
\left[\alpha_i D_i\right]^3
\int_{\frac{\alpha_i D_i}{D_{max_i}}}^\infty
\frac{\epsilon(\mu_i,\alpha^\prime)}{{\alpha^\prime}^4}\,
{\rm d}\alpha^\prime,\end{aligned}$$
including the change in detection efficiency with the apparent angular size; because the efficiency changes with distance, the survey volume associated with a given galaxy is not a simple conical section, but tapers off as $D$ approaches $D_{max}$. There is no minimum distance at which an LSB can be detected, because we imposed no upper limit on the angular size of galaxies within our survey. There is an implicit upper limit set by the width of the survey fields, but the limit is so much larger than the angular scales of the galaxies in the survey that the effective minimum distance is zero.
With equations \[Dmax\] and \[V\], the total number density of LSBs with $23<\mu_0<25\surfb$ and intrinsic scale lengths $h$ between $1.7\,h_{50}^{-1}\kpc$ and $3.6\,h_{50}^{-1}\kpc$ is
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{numden}
{\cal N}(23<\mu_0<25\surfb,1.7<h<3.6h_{50}^{-1}\kpc)
&=& \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{V_i} \cr
&=& 0.01^{+0.006}_{-0.005} \, {\rm galaxies / h_{50}^3 Mpc^3},\end{aligned}$$
with 90% confidence, assuming the probability distributions derived in Appendix A. As with the measurement of the surface density, the uncertainty is entirely dominated by the uncertainty due to the small number of galaxies in the final LSB subsample. The value of ${\cal N}$ changes negligibly other reasonable redshifts for R-26-1 are used.
In order to compare the relative contribution of LSBs and normal galaxies, Figure \[numdenfig\] shows the integrated number density of LSBs with central surface brightness fainter than $23\surfb$ in $V$, as a function of limiting surface brightness. Superimposed on the integrated LSB number density are comparable measurements of the integrated number densities of normal galaxies, for several different determinations of the local luminosity function. To make “comparable” integrated number densities of normal galaxies we have restricted the integration to either (1) the range of absolute magnitude covered by the LSBs in our sample ($-16.1>M_V+5\log{h_{50}}>-18.6$) or (2) the range of intrinsic exponential disk scale lengths of our sample ($1.7-3.6\,h_{50}^{-1}\kpc$) (assuming that a normal galaxy’s scale length can be determined from its luminosity, if it has a Freeman central surface brightness of $21.7\surfb$ in $B$ and $\langle
B-V\rangle\sim0.5$). The corresponding number densities are labelled in Figure \[numdenfig\] as “same M” and “same $\alpha$”, respectively.
As Figure \[numdenfig\] shows, the integrated number density of LSBs with central surface brightness fainter than $23\surfb$ in $V$ is [*greater*]{} than the number density of normal galaxies with either similar luminosities or similar scale lengths. We consider this result to be extremely robust. The errors are dominated by the well-understood Poisson statistics of the small number of LSBs, and thus, only an egregious, systematic error in the measured distances or in the integrated efficiencies (eqn \[V\]) could produce a large enough effect to change our conclusions. In spite of the small numbers of LSBs in the final sample, the large number density of LSBs would persist even if significant fractions of the sample were to be removed. For example, even between $23\surfb$ and $24\surfb$, the number density of LSBs remains comparable or greater than normal galaxies. Our conclusions hold as well if the confidence intervals are increased to 99%.
We have also considered the degree to which photometric errors could effect our measurement of ${\cal N}$, by examining $1/V_i$ as a function of central surface brightness $\mu_0$. Brighter than $\mu_0=24\surfb$, the effect of photometric errors is very small, such that an error of 1 magnitude in the zero point changes the derived number density by less than a factor of two, due to variations in the integral over the efficiency. The effect is stronger for fainter central surface brightnesses, where the overall efficiency is lower and more sensitive to $\mu_0$. Even so, the required zero point error would need to be larger than the observations admit. For example, to reduce the number density for $\mu_0>24\surfb$ by a factor of 10 (which would still leave ${\cal N}$ comparable to the normal galaxy number density), the zero point would have to be systematically 0.9 magnitudes too faint in the fields containing the faintest LSBs. From our photometric calibration, we believe that our mean zero point is good to at least 0.1 magnitudes, so there would have to be a temporary fluctuation in the zero point of the strip scan while the LSBs were passing overhead. Such a shift would have produced nearly a factor of 3 drop in the mean number of objects per field, based upon the number counts of Postman et al. (1996) and would probably have been accompanied by a brightening of the sky level. Neither of these signatures is seen, given that the data was originally restricted to the parts of the strip scan which were stable in both sky brightness and number of detected objects. The number of objects never varies by more than 25% in either the RMS or the mean, suggesting that the zero point does not fluctuate by more than 0.25 magnitudes, based upon the number counts. This is a strong upper limit, given that simple Poisson statistics contributes 10% to the RMS component and that the lost detection area due to bright stars probably makes a similar contribution. The maximum zero point uncertainty suggests that, for $\mu_0>24\surfb$, the most we could have possibly overestimated an individual galaxy’s contribution to the number density is a factor of 2, which is still contained within the 90% confidence interval. Thus, the total measurement of ${\cal N}$ could be high by at most a factor of 2, and only in the unlikely event that every LSB in the sample had the largest possible zero point error, in exactly the same direction.
We have reasons to believe that, if anything, our measurement of ${\cal N}$ is an underestimate. First, our choice of a circularly symmetric smoothing filter greatly reduces our sensitivity to edge-on LSBs, and thus we are only sensitive to the fraction of galaxies which are seen relatively close to face-on. This limitation is evident in the fairly circular morphologies of all of the galaxies found in the survey. Second, we have been extremely conservative in our decision to classify detections as possible LSBs. We have consciously excluded possible LSBs which we feel cannot be adequately distinguished from clusters or tidal extensions off bright galaxies. Thus LSBs with small HII regions or central bulges are not included in our sample, and we are restricted to finding only LSBs which have classical Im morphologies. There is a tendency for higher luminosity, large scale length LSBs to be earlier Hubble types (McGaugh, private communication), and thus we are less sensitive to the most luminous LSBs. This bias will lead us to underestimate the luminosity density even more severely than we are underestimating the number density. Note also that the galaxies which we have identified have very regular, smooth morphologies, allowing us to accurately simulate their detection and classification efficiencies.
In Figure \[numdenfig\], the overdensity of LSBs is smaller when compared to the AutoFib survey luminosity function (Ellis et al.1996), than when compared to the Stromlo-APM (Loveday et al. 1992) or DARS (Peterson et al. 1986) surveys, which both have limiting magnitudes of $b_j\approx17$. However, the AutoFib survey combines the shallower DARS survey with much deeper pencil beam surveys which reach limiting isophotal magnitudes of $b_j\approx24$. As discussed by McGaugh (1994), this implies that the AutoFib survey has a fainter surface brightness limit than the shallower Stromlo-APM or DARS surveys. Thus, the AutoFib survey is likely to have cataloged far more intrinsically low surface brightness galaxies than the shallow nearby surveys, increasing the integrated number density implied by the AutoFib luminosity function over what is measured in shallower surveys; this is clear from the integrated number densities plotted in Figure \[numdenfig\]. (Note also that the AutoFib luminosity function has the steepest faint-end slope of the three surveys.) The different surface brightness ranges of the surveys, therefore, changes the apparent relative importance of the LSB and normal galaxy population.
The integrated luminosity density of LSB galaxies is presented in Figure \[lumdenfig\], along with the integrated luminosity density in normal galaxies. When restricted to the same range in absolute magnitude, normal galaxies and LSB with $\mu_0>23\surfb$ and $1.7-3.6\,h_{50}^{-1}\kpc$ make a comparable contribution to the total luminosity density of the universe. However, when restricted to the same range in scale length, the higher luminosity, high surface brightness disks dominate the luminosity density by factors of 2-6 over the LSB component, as might be expected by the drastic difference in intrinsic luminosity. There is also is very little evidence for a major contribution to the luminosity density from galaxies whose disks are fainter than $\mu_0=24\surfb$ in $V$; even if there is possible evidence for a rise in number density with decreasing surface brightness in Figure \[numdenfig\], it is not enough to compensate for the increasing faintness of the disk. We should note however, that these results apply only for a limited range of galaxy properties, and should not be applied more generally. Because of our bias against LSBs with bulges, we may be systematically excluding the most luminous galaxies from our sample, and thus our conclusions only hold for the range of disk scale lengths and absolute magnitudes covered by our sample. Our calculated contribution of LSBs with $\mu_0>23\surfb$ to the luminosity denisity is comparable to that calculated in the brighter APM LSB survey (Sprayberry et al. 1997).
We may compare the measured relative number densities and luminosity densities for LSBs and normal galaxies to those which are predicted by the formalism presented in Dalcanton et al. (1997). We do so by integrating the predicted galaxy number density for central surface brightnesses between $23.5\surfb$ and $25.5\surfb$ in $B$ (assuming $\langle B-V \rangle \sim 0.5$ for the LSBs in our sample), and intrinsic disk scale lengths between $1.7-3.6\,h_{50}^{-1}\kpc$, and comparing it to the integrated predicted number density for comparable normal galaxies, with “comparable” defined as in Figure \[numdenfig\], and assuming $20<\mu_0<22.5\surfb$ for the galaxies which are typically used to determine the local luminosity function; this limit is most appropriate for the DARS and Stromlo-APM surveys. We make a similar calculation of the luminosity density. For the theoretical models, we have assumed the values of the values of $\Upsilon=3\msun/\lsun$ for the mass-to-light ratio of baryons, $F=0.05$ for the baryonic mass fraction, and $M_*=10^{12}\msun$, and $\alpha_{lum}=-1.5$ for the Schechter function describing the distribution of galaxy masses.
We find that the predicted ratio of the number density in LSBs to the number density in normal galaxies with similar scale lengths is 2; this ratio varies somewhat with variations in the limiting surface brightness for normal galaxy surveys between $22.0\surfb$ and $23\surfb$. The predicted ratio is therefore in agreement with what is measured in Figure \[numdenfig\]. Restricting the normal galaxy sample to have similar absolute magnitudes to the LSB sample, the predicted ratio becomes 0.3. The agreement between the measured and predicted relative number density is not as good in this case, with there being even more LSBs measured than predicted. However, comparing the same range of absolute magnitude is much more sensitive to the faint-end slope of the luminosity function at very faint magnitudes. Because of the rapid rise in number density with decreasing luminosity, the integrated number density depends strongly on the number density of the faintest galaxies ($M_V+5\log{h_{50}}\sim-16$ in this case); unfortunately, this limiting absolute magnitude is where the local luminosity function is most poorly determined, and may be extremely incomplete (Driver & Phillipps 1996). The discrepancy may also result from the parameters of the theoretical model. We have assumed that the theoretical mass function of galaxies has a steep faint-end slope of $-1.5$, which greatly inflates the number of low-mass galaxies relative to high-mass galaxies; this accounts for the large difference seen in the predicted ratio of number densities when the normal galaxies are restricted to similar absolute magnitudes rather than similar scale lengths. We have also assumed that a galaxy’s mass is uncorrelated with its angular momentum, whereas in the BBKS formalism (Bardeen et al.1996), there should be a correlation wherein low mass galaxies tend have higher angular momenta (Catelan & Theuns 1996). This correlation would increase the expected ratio of LBSs to normal galaxies in a fixed magnitude range.
We see a similar level of agreement between the predicted and measured relative luminosity densities. The predicted ratio of luminosity densities of normal galaxies to LSBs with the same range of scale lengths is $\sim\,6$, which also agrees reasonably well with the observations (Figure \[lumdenfig\]. When restricted to the same range of absolute magnitude the predicted ratio of normal galaxy luminosity density to LSB luminosity density is 4, whereas they are observed to be comparable. This suggests that there is more luminosity density in LSBs than predicted. Again, uncertainty in the measured faint-end of the local luminosity function, or a correlation between mass and angular momentum could bring these into agreement.
Conclusions
===========
The importance of the low surface brightness galaxy population has been an outstanding question in astronomy. Claims have ranged from LSBs being a negligible component of the local universe (Roukema & Peterson 1994) to outnumbering $L>0.1L_*$ galaxies by orders of magnitude (${\cal N}=1\Mpc^{-3}$ for scale lengths greater than $0.8\kpc$; Schwartzenberg et al. 1995). To address this recent debate, we have presented the first well-quantified measurement of the absolute number density and luminosity density of low surface brightness galaxies, using a large area CCD survey with well understood selection criteria, quantifiable detection efficiencies and follow-up spectroscopy of all LSB candidates. Our survey has selected LSBs which are comparable to the galaxies in the NGC catalog, in both size and distance, allowing a direct, meaningful comparison with local field galaxy surveys.
We find that the number density of LSB galaxies with $23 < \mu_0 <
25\,V\surfb$ is indeed greater than the number density of normal galaxies, when the normal galaxies are restricted to the same range in either absolute magnitude ($-16.1>M_V+5\log{h_{50}}>-18.6$) or in exponential disk scale length ($1.7-3.6\,h_{50}^{-1}\kpc$). The exact ratio depends upon which local luminosity function is used for comparison, but LSBs typically outnumber comparable normal galaxies by factors of 2 or more. The measured ratios are formally consistent with theoretical expectations based on assuming that high angular momentum and/or low mass protogalaxies collapse to form low surface brightness galaxies (Dalcanton et al. 1997).
However, we also find that LSBs with central surface brightnesses fainter than $23 \,V\surfb$ and with scale lengths between $1.4-3.6\,h_{50}^{-1}\kpc$ make a less significant contribution to the luminosity density of the universe. In our survey, galaxies fainter than $24\,V\surfb$ make almost no contribution to the luminosity density, and galaxies fainter than $23 \,V\surfb$ contribute 15-50% of the luminosity density contributed by comparable normal galaxies. Thus, a significant (but not overwhelming) fraction of the stars, and perhaps the mass, of the universe is in LSBs.
The inferred number densities and luminosities are likely lower limits as the survey may have excluded significant number of LSBs due to selection effects. By design, our survey does not include galaxies which are intermediate in surface brightness between $23 \,V\surfb$ and the characteristic Freeman surface brightness; these galaxies are intrinsically more luminous, and thus could make a much larger contribution to the luminosity density. Furthermore, we have restricted our selection to Sm/Im morphologies, whereas the brightest, largest scale length LSBs tend to have both bulges and spiral arms (McGaugh; private communication). This bias against earlier type morphologies may well have lead us to underestimate the LSB luminosity density, and, less severely, the LSB number density. Our survey also includes a strong bias against edge-on LSBs (due to using a circularly symmetric filter in the detection algorithm), which may again lead us to underestimate the LSB density.
Acknowledgements
Tony Tyson and Ian Smail are warmly thanked for advice on the photometric calibration, as is Lori Lubin for her assistance with data acquisition at the KPNO 0.9m and Jim DeVeny for his help with the CryoCam at the KPNO 4m. Tony also generously donated huge quantities of disk space, without which this project could not possibly have been done. The referee is also thanked for very helpful commentary and suggestions. JJD gratefully acknowledges useful discussions with Rebecca Bernstein and Dan Rosenthal. Support for JJD was provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant \#2-6649 awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA under contract NAS 5-26555. Partial support for DPS provided by National Science Foundation grant AST-95-09919. MS was supported by NSF grants AST91-08834 and AST94-15574.
**Appendix A**
Probability Distributions for $\Sigma$ and ${\cal N}$ for Small Numbers of Galaxies
Suppose we have a sample of $n$ galaxies, the $i$th which has angular scale length $\alpha_i$ and central surface brightness $\mu_i$. Assume that there is a unique overall detection efficiency $\epsilon(\alpha,\mu)$ associated with each scale length and surface brightness, and that there is a fixed rms uncertainty in $\epsilon$ of $\sigma_\epsilon$.
Assuming that the underlying galaxy distribution in surface brightness and apparent scale length is $f(\mu)f(\alpha)$, the total number $\overline{N}$ of galaxies expected in a survey of area $A$ with central surface brightnesses between $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ and apparent angular scale lengths greater than $\alpha_1$ is:
$$\label{nbarappendix}
\overline{N} = \int^{\mu_2}_{\mu_1} \int^\infty_{\alpha_1}
f(\mu)f(\alpha) \, \epsilon(\alpha,\mu)\,d\mu\,d\alpha.$$
If the survey had perfect efficiency, $\epsilon \equiv 1$, the survey would recover
$$\overline{N}_0 = \int^{\mu_2}_{\mu_1} \int^\infty_{\alpha_1}
f(\mu)f(\alpha) \,d\mu\,d\alpha$$
galaxies. Thus, the total survey efficiency is $\overline{N} /
\overline{N}_0$. Suppose then, that an individual survey measures $n$ galaxies over the survey area. The surface density becomes
$$\label{sigappendix}
\Sigma = n \, \frac{\overline{N}}{\overline{N}_0} \, \frac{1}{A}.$$
As shown in Appendix B, for local volumes where cosmological curvature in negligible, $f(\alpha)=\alpha^{-4}$ for any distribution of intrinsic galaxy scale lengths. We have assumed that $\mu$ and $\alpha$ are independent variables, and have the freedom to choose any distribution of $f(\mu)$. We take $f(\mu)$ to be constant to first order, as is consistent with the data presented in Figure \[numdenfig\].
To calculate the probability distribution of the surface density $\Sigma$, we first consider the effect of having a small number of galaxies in the sample. We calculate this Poisson uncertainty by adopting Bayes Theorem. We assume that, given a single trial which measured $n$ events, the probability that infinite number of similar trials would measure a mean of $\overline{n}$ events is $p_n(\overline{n} | n) \propto p(n | \overline{n})
p(\overline{n})$. Because we have no prior reason to prefer any value of $\overline{n}$, we assume that the prior probability $p(\overline{n})$ is uniform, and thus that $p_n(\overline{n} | n)
\propto p(n | \overline{n})$, which is simply the Poisson probability of observing $n$ events for a system which would give a mean of $\overline{n}$ events.
There is also a contribution to the uncertainty in $\Sigma$ from the uncertainty in the efficiency $\epsilon$. However, the integral in equation \[sigappendix\] averages out much of the uncertainty in the efficiency $\epsilon$. For the particular example of our survey, while the pointwise estimation of $\epsilon_{class}$ and $\epsilon_{detect}$ has an rms uncertainty of roughly $0.1$, the integral over the efficiency in equation \[nbarappendix\] is much more tightly constrained. The uncertainty contributed to the integral by $\epsilon_{class}$ is negligible ($\sim1$%), and the uncertainty contributed by $\epsilon_{detect}$ is likewise small ($<\!10$%) for central surface brightnesses fainter than $23.5\surfb$. At brighter surface brightnesses, our approximation for $\epsilon_{detect}$ overestimates the integral volume by $\sim50$%. However, we only have one galaxy in this surface brightness interval, and the direction of the error is to underestimate the number density, thus we expect this to contribute very little uncertainty to the total number density. Given that the Poisson uncertainty is of the order of $40\%$ for our sample, we will neglect the contribution of $p_{\epsilon_i}(\epsilon)$ to the uncertainty in $\Sigma$. Thus, the final probability distribution for the surface density $\Sigma$ is
$$p(\Sigma) = p_n(\overline{n} | n=A\Sigma\frac{\overline{N_0}}{\overline{N}})
\, A\frac{\overline{N_0}}{\overline{N}}.$$
We may also solve for the effective number density of the survey, given the distance $D_i$ of each galaxy, and the maximum distance at which each galaxy could be detected, $D_{max_i}$ (eqn. \[Dmax\]). The effective volume associated with each galaxy, $V_i$, is an integral over distance, accounting for the changing efficiency with changing angular size:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Vappendix}
V_i &=& \frac{A}{\rm radians}\,
\int_0^{{D_{max}}_i}
\epsilon(\mu_i,\alpha_i\left[\frac{D_i}{D^\prime}\right])\,
{D^\prime}^2\,{\rm d}D^\prime \\
&=& \frac{A}{\rm radians}\,
\left[\alpha_i D_i\right]^3
\int_{\frac{\alpha_i D_i}{D_{max_i}}}^\infty
\frac{\epsilon(\mu_i,\alpha^\prime)}{{\alpha^\prime}^4}\,
{\rm d}\alpha^\prime,\end{aligned}$$
assuming that the galaxies are close enough that $(1+z)^4$ cosmological dimming of $\mu$ can be neglected. With the exception of the integral over surface brightness, this integral is identical to the one equation \[nbarappendix\].
The uncertainties in each volume term $V_i$ are dominated by the Poisson uncertainties which also dominate the calculation of $\Sigma$ (here, $n=1$). The other possible contributions are from the uncertainty in the measurement of $\alpha_i$, which is $\sim10$%, and in $D_i$, which is less than $5\%$. These are also negligible compared to the Poisson uncertainties; in the limit of Gaussian statistics, including a 10% uncertainty from the detection efficiency and a 10% efficiency from the measurement of $\alpha_i$ would increase a 40% Poisson uncertainty to only 42%.
The number density, ${\cal N}$, measured for the sample of $n$ galaxies is
$${\cal N} = \sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{V_i}.$$
With our assumption that Poisson statistics dominate uncertainties in $V_i$, the probability for the individual terms ${\cal N}_i=1/V_i$ is $p_{{\cal N}_i}=p_n({\cal N}_i V_i | 1) V_i$. The final probability distribution of ${\cal N}$ is then
$$\label{pNappendix}
p_{\cal N}({\cal N}) = A\,
\int^\infty_0 p_{{\cal N}_1}({\cal N}^\prime_1)
\int^\infty_0 p_{{\cal N}_2}({\cal N}^\prime_2)
\int^\infty_0 \cdots
\int^\infty_0 p_{{\cal N}_{n-1}}({\cal N}^\prime_{n-1})
p_{{\cal N}_n}({\cal N} - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} {\cal N}_i)
d{\cal N}^\prime_1d{\cal N}^\prime_2 \cdots
d{\cal N}^\prime_{n-1},$$
which can be solved with Monte Carlo integration by repeatedly drawing samples of galaxies from each of the $p_{{\cal N}_i}({\cal N}_i)$.
**Appendix B**
Recovering the Number Density and Scale Length Distribution of LSBs\
from the Observed Surface Density
In this Appendix we investigate the relationship between the intrinsic number density of objects at redshift $z$ with surface brightness $\mu_0$ and physical scale length $R$, $N(\mu_0,R,z)$, and the observed surface density of objects with apparent surface brightness $\mu$ and angular scale length $\alpha$, $\Sigma(\mu,\alpha)$. We also calculate the underlying distribution of LSB scale lengths from existing catalogs.
First, consider a volume element $dV(z)$ at an angular diameter distance $D_a(z)$, subtending one steradian of the sky. The number density of objects in the shell that appear with angular scale length $\alpha$ is
$$N(\mu_0,\alpha,z) = N(\mu_0,{R=\alpha D_a(z)},z) \, \frac{R}{\alpha},$$
where $\alpha$ is measured in radians. If we allow objects to be at large enough distances that surface brightness diminution plays a role, then the observed surface brightness scales as $(1+z)^{-4}$ and the number density becomes
$$N(\mu,\alpha,z) = N({\mu_0={\mu-10\log{(1+z)}}},\alpha,z)$$
The number of objects per steradian per $\surfb$ is
$$\label{surfden}
\Sigma(\mu,\alpha) = \int^\infty_0 N(\mu,\alpha,z) dV(z).$$
If a sample is close enough that all distances can be treated as Euclidean, the volume element is $D_a^2dD_a=\alpha^{-3}R^2dR$, the surface brightness of a galaxy does not change with distance, and evolution in $N(\mu_0,\alpha,z)$ may be safely ignored. Therefore, for a uniform distribution of galaxies, Equation \[surfden\] becomes
$$\label{surfdenlocal}
\Sigma(\mu,\alpha) = \frac{1}{\alpha^4} \,
\int^\infty_0 N({\mu_0=\mu},R)\,R^3\,dR.$$
Note that $\Sigma(\mu,\alpha)$ will always be proportional to $\alpha^{-4}$, independent of the distribution of intrinsic scale lengths. Any size galaxy can be seen to a larger distance if it is observed at a smaller limiting angular size; smaller values of $\alpha$ always probe larger volumes of the universe and always lead to larger surface densities.
If we make the further assumption that $N(\mu_0,R)$ is separable, and can be expressed as $N(\mu_0)f(R)$, then
$$\label{surfdenlocalsep}
\Sigma(\mu,\alpha) = \frac{N({\mu_0=\mu})}{\alpha^4} \,
\int^\infty_0 f(R)\,R^3\,dR.$$
For an assumed form of $f(R)$, the fraction of objects with physical scale length $R$, Equation \[surfdenlocalsep\] may be inverted to recover $N(\mu_0)$ from the observed distribution of surface densities and angular scale lengths. However, if $N(\mu_0,R)$ is not separable, than the integral in equation \[surfdenlocalsep\] is not independent of $\mu_0$ and the relative proportion of galaxies in terms of surface density $\Sigma(\mu,\alpha)$ does not reflect the relative proportion of galaxies in real space.
The integral over $R$ diverges unless $f(R)$ falls off more quickly than $R^{-3}$ for large $R$; this seems to be the case, as there are no known galaxies to date which have scale lengths larger than $100\kpc$. We may uncover some confirmation for the cutoff at large $R$ from the POSS-II survey for LSBs, a diameter-limited sample of LSBs (Schombert et al. 1992) which includes several extremely large galaxies similar to the giant LSB Malin-I (Bothun et al. 1987). HI observations of the “V” subsample of LSBs ($30\arcsec<\theta<1\arcmin$) have a 70% detection rate, and imply a $V/V_{max}$ statistic compatible with a uniform redshift distribution. If $\Sigma({\cal R})d{\cal R}$ is the number of galaxies in a diameter limited sample with physical radii at the isophotal diameter between ${\cal R}$ and ${\cal R}+d{\cal R}$, then the number density of galaxies with physical radii between ${\cal R}$ and ${\cal R}+d{\cal
R}$ is
$$\label{POSSIInumden}
N({\cal R})\,d{\cal R} = 3\alpha_0^3 \, \frac{\Sigma({\cal R})}{{\cal R}^3}$$
where $\alpha_0\equiv[\alpha_{min}^{-3}-\alpha_{max}^{-3}]^{-1/3}$ and $\alpha_{min}$ and $\alpha_{max}$ are the diameter limits of the survey. The luminosity density is
$$\label{POSSIIlumden}
{\cal L}({\cal R})\,d{\cal R} = 3{\bar \Sigma}\alpha_0^3 \, \frac{\Sigma({\cal R})}{R},$$
assuming ${\bar \Sigma}$ is the mean surface brightness within ${\cal R}$. These distributions are plotted in Figure \[schombertVfig\]. Although the completeness and selection biases of the Schombert et al. catalog are poorly understood, the strong drop-off in luminosity density around ${\cal R}_{max}=10\kpc$ seems quite robust; including the galaxies that were not detected in HI could push the flat luminosity density out to ${\cal R}_{max}=20\kpc$, but no further. While there are some galaxies with rather large sizes, the evidence suggests that they are neither an important contributor to the number density or to the luminosity density. McGaugh & Bothun (1994) have done follow up observations of roughly a dozen of the galaxies from the POSS-II survey which suggest that the exponential scale length is typically one-quarter to one-half of the isophotal radius. This allows us to estimate the exponential scale length $R$ given the isophotal radius ${\cal R}$.
The Schombert catalog data plotted in Figure \[schombertVfig\](b) suggests that $f(R)$ is best described by a power law
$$\label{f_R}
f(R) = f_0 \, R^{-2}$$
between $R_{min}=0.2\kpc$ and $R_{max}=5\kpc$, where here $R$ is the radius of the galaxy at the limiting isophote of the POSS-II survey.
References
==========
[llrrccclcl]{}
PG 0849+4748 & R-27-1 & 8 49 28.4 & +47 48 37 & 23.1 & 4.3 & 3.6 & -18.3 & 8809 & H$\beta$,O\[III\],H$\alpha$PG 0847+4747 & R-26-1 & 8 47 44.9 & +47 47 48 & 23.2 & 2.6 & - & - & - & PG 1521+4632 & M-232-1 & 15 21 32.4 & +46 32 58 & 23.6 & 3.2 & 1.7 & -16.1 & 5600: & break?PG 1136+4750 & Q-129-2 & 11 36 46.1 & +47 50 41 & 23.7 & 4.5 & 1.9 & -16.2 & 4270 & H$\beta$,O\[III\],H$\alpha$PG 0914+4744 & Q-42-1 & 9 14 24.5 & +47 44 48 & 23.9 & 6.1 & 3.0 & -17.1 & 5400 & break,H$\beta$?PG 1133+4755 & R-127-1 & 11 33 35.4 & +47 55 26 & 24.7 & 6.9 & 3.6 & -16.7 & 5250 & breakPG 1327+4637 & M-161-1 & 13 27 46.2 & +46 37 47 & 24.8 & 6.2 & 3.5 & -16.5 & 5600 & break
[Figure 1\[a\]]{}
[Figure 1\[b\]]{}
[Figure 2]{}
[Figure 2 (continued)]{}
[Figure 3]{}
[Figure 4\[a\]]{}
[Figure 4\[b\]]{}
[Figure 6]{}
[Figure 7]{}
[Figure 8]{}
[Figure 9]{}
[^1]: The “noise” of an image was measured throughout this survey as 1.4826 times the width of the second quartile of the pixel histogram. This reduces to the standard deviation for a Gaussian distribution. Because objects contribute light to the sky rather than take it away, using the second quartile reduces the impact of foreground objects on the measurement of the width of the pixel histogram.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a detailed study of V899 Mon (a new member in the FUors/EXors family of young low-mass stars undergoing outburst), based on our long-term monitoring of the source starting from November 2009 to April 2015. Our optical and near-infrared photometric and spectroscopic monitoring recorded the source transitioning from its first outburst to a short duration quiescence phase ($<$ 1 year), and then returning to a second outburst. We report here the evolution of the outflows from inner region of the disk as the accretion rate evolved in various epochs. Our high resolution (R$\sim$37000) optical spectrum could resolve interesting clumpy structures in the outflow traced by various lines. Change in far-infrared flux was also detected between two outburst epochs. Based on our observations we constrained various stellar and envelope parameters of V899 Mon, as well as the kinematics of its accretion and outflow. The photometric and spectroscopic properties of this source fall between classical FUors and EXors. Our investigation of V899 Mon hints instability associated with magnetospheric accretion to be the physical cause of sudden short duration pause of outburst in 2011. It is also a good candidate to explain similar short duration pauses in outburst of some other FUors/EXors sources.'
author:
- 'J. P. Ninan, D. K. Ojha, T. Baug'
- 'B. C. Bhatt'
- 'V. Mohan'
- 'S. K. Ghosh'
- 'A. Men’shchikov'
- 'G. C. Anupama'
- 'M. Tamura'
- 'Th. Henning'
bibliography:
- 'V899MonPaper2015.bib'
title: 'V899 Mon: An Outbursting Protostar With Peculiar Light Curve And Its Transition Phases'
---
Introduction
============
Over the past few decades it is becoming increasingly evident that the process by which low-mass stars accrete gas from disk is an episodic process. Short duration increase in accretion rate capable enough to deliver a substantial fraction of the final stellar mass, has been observed in young sources over a wide spectrum of age from Class 0 to Class III [@safron15]. Traditionally, on the basis of light curve and spectrum, these accretion outbursts are classified as FUors (showing decades long outbursts with 4-5 mag change in optical and an absorption line spectrum) and EXors (showing few months-years long outbursts with 2-3 mag change in optical and an emission line spectrum) [@herbig77; @hartmann96; @hartmann98]. These episodic outbursts can possibly solve some of the open issues in star formation like Luminosity Problem[@kenyon90; @evans09] and the origin of knots in the outflows/jets from young stellar objects (YSOs) [@ioannidis12]. Recent discovery of these outbursts resulting in silicate crystallization in EX Lup shows the importance of this phenomenon in planet and comet formation [@abraham09]. Episodic accretion can also significantly change the pre-main sequence isochrones used extensively for initial mass function studies and age/mass estimation of YSOs [@baraffe12]. From the number statistics it is estimated that every low-mass star undergo $\sim$ 50 such short duration outbursts during its formation stage [@scholz13]. But the short duration of outbursts (months/years) with respect to million year timescale of formation, makes these events extremely rare to detect in star-forming regions. Various models based on instabilities have been proposed to explain this episodic nature of accretion, but so far every newly discovered FUors/EXors pose a new challenge for the models to explain the observed light curves.
We report here our long-term monitoring of a very peculiar outburst source , which gives significant insight into the mechanism of triggering and quenching of this class of outbursts. A possible FUor type eruption of (a.k.a. ) located near the Monoceros R2 region (d$\sim$905 pc; @lombardi11) was first discovered by Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey (CRTS) and reported by @wils09. They announced the source as a FUor candidate based on the constant brightening it has been undergoing since 2005. The spectrum published by @wils09 showed strong H$\alpha$ and Ca II IR triplet lines which identify the outbursting source as a YSO.
We started our long-term multi-wavelength observations of this source in 2009 and could track the source undergoing transition from the first outburst phase to quiescent phase, and finally returning to a second outburst within a year of quiescence. Our multi-wavelength data provides a consistent picture on the physical processes which might have led to these sudden transitions in the accretion rate of V899 Mon.
In this paper, we present the results of our long-term observations of V899 Mon. In Section \[Observations\] we describe observational details and data reduction procedures of photometric and spectroscopic data. In Section \[results\] we present our results and deduction procedures. In Section \[discuss\] we discuss possible physical reasons for the short duration of quiescence phase between the first and second outbursts. We conclude in Section \[conclusion\] with major results we have obtained on V899 Mon, as well as its implications in understanding the general FUors/EXors outburst phenomenon.
Observations {#Observations}
============
Optical Photometry {#OpticPhoto}
------------------
Our long-term optical monitoring of V899 Mon started on 2009 November 30. The observations were carried out using the 2-m Himalayan *Chandra* Telescope (HCT) at Indian Astronomical Observatory, Hanle (Ladakh), belonging to Indian Institute of Astrophysics (IIA), India and the 2-m telescope at IUCAA (Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics) Girawali Observatory (IGO), Girawali (Pune), India. For optical photometry, the central 2K $\times$ 2K CCD section of Himalaya Faint Object Spectrograph & Camera (HFOSC) with a pixel scale of 0.296 was used on the HCT and the 2K $\times$ 2K CCD of IUCAA Faint Object Spectrograph & Camera (IFOSC) with a similar pixel scale of 0.3 was used on the IGO. This gave us a field of view (FoV) of $\sim 10 \times 10$ arcmin$^{2}$ on both HCT and IGO. A detailed description of the instruments and telescopes are available at IAO[^1] and IGO[^2] websites. The **V899 Mon’s** field $((\alpha,\delta)_{2000} = 06^h09^m19^s.28, -06^{\circ}41\arcmin\,55\arcsec\,.4)$ was observed in standard $UBVRI$ Bessel filters. We carried out observations for 69 nights, out of which 41 nights were observed through HCT and the remaining ones from IGO. The photometric observation log is given in Table \[table:Obs\_Log\]. Only a portion of the table is provided here. The complete table is available in machine-readable form in the online journal.
The standard photometric data reduction steps like bias-subtraction, median flat-fielding and finally aperture photometry of V899 Mon were done using our publicly released[^3] pipeline for these instruments. Since V899 Mon source is quite bright and is not affected by any bright nebulosity, we used 4 $\times$ full width half maximum (FWHM) aperture for optical photometry. The background sky was estimated from a ring outside the aperture radius with a width of 4.5. Magnitude calibration was done by solving color transformation equations for each night using Landolt’s standard star field SA 98 [@landolt92] and the five field stars (see Figure \[img:opticalfield\]) that we identified to have a stable magnitude over the period of our observations.
{width="90.00000%"}
NIR Photometry {#NirPhoto}
--------------
Near-infrared (NIR) photometric monitoring of the source in *J, H* and *K / K$_S$* bands were carried out using HCT NIR camera (NIRCAM), TIFR Near Infrared Spectrometer and Imager (TIRSPEC) mounted on HCT, and TIFR Near Infrared Imaging Camera-II (TIRCAM2) mounted on IGO telescope. NIRCAM has a $512 \times 512$ Mercury Cadmium Telluride (HgCdTe) array, with a pixel size of 18 $\mu m$, which gives a FoV of $\sim$ $3.6 \times 3.6$ arcmin$^{2}$ on HCT. Filters used for observations were $J$ ($\lambda_{center}$= 1.28 $\mu m$, $\Delta\lambda$= 0.28 $\mu m$), $H$ ($\lambda_{center}$= 1.66 $\mu m$, $\Delta\lambda$= 0.33 $\mu m$) and $K$ ($\lambda_{center}$= 2.22 $\mu m$, $\Delta\lambda$= 0.38 $\mu m$). Further details of the instrument are available at <http://www.iiap.res.in/iao/nir.html>. TIRSPEC has a $1024 \times 1024$ Hawaii-1 PACE[^4] (HgCdTe) array, with a pixel size of 18 $\mu m$, which gives a FoV of $\sim$ $5 \times 5$ arcmin$^{2}$ on HCT. Filters used for observations were $J$ ($\lambda_{center}$= 1.25 $\mu m$, $\Delta\lambda$= 0.16 $\mu m$), $H$ ($\lambda_{center}$= 1.635 $\mu m$, $\Delta\lambda$= 0.29 $\mu m$) and $K_S$ ($\lambda_{center}$= 2.145 $\mu m$, $\Delta\lambda$= 0.31 $\mu m$) (Mauna Kea Observatories Near-Infrared filter system). Further details of TIRSPEC are available in @ninan14 [@ojha12]. TIRCAM2 has a $512 \times 512$ Indium Antimonide (InSb) array with a pixel size of 27 $\mu m$. Filters used for observations were $J$ ($\lambda_{center}$= 1.20 $\mu m$, $\Delta\lambda$= 0.36 $\mu m$), $H$ ($\lambda_{center}$= 1.66 $\mu m$, $\Delta\lambda$= 0.30 $\mu m$) and $K$ ($\lambda_{center}$= 2.19 $\mu m$, $\Delta\lambda$= 0.40 $\mu m$). More details of TIRCAM2 are available in @naik12. The log of NIR observations is listed in Table \[table:Obs\_Log\]. We have photometric observations for a total of 25 nights in the NIR. Our first *JHK* observation was carried out during the peak of the first outburst on 2010 February 20, and the remaining observations were carried out during the current ongoing second outburst.
NIR observations were carried out by the standard telescope dithering procedure. Five dither positions were observed. All the dithered object frames were median combined to generate master sky frames for NIRCAM and TIRCAM2. We combined twilight flats and all non-extended source frames observed during the same night to create accurate flats for each night. For NIRCAM and TIRCAM2, data reduction and final photometry were performed using the standard tasks in IRAF, while the TIRSPEC data were reduced using our TIRSPEC photometry pipeline [@ninan14]. For aperture photometry we used an aperture of 3$\times$FWHM and the background sky was estimated from an annular ring outside the aperture radius with a width of 4.5. Magnitude calibration was done by solving color transformation equations for each night using Hunt’s standard star fields AS 13 and AS 9 [@hunt98], and the five field stars (labeled in Figure \[img:nirfield\]) that we identified to have a stable magnitude and are consistent with 2MASS[^5] over the period of our observations.
{width="90.00000%"}
Medium Resolution Optical Spectroscopy {#OpticSpec}
--------------------------------------
Our medium resolution ($R \sim 1000$) optical spectroscopic monitoring of V899 Mon also started on 2009 November 30. The spectroscopic observations were carried out using both HCT and IGO. The full 2K $\times$ 4K section of HFOSC CCD spectrograph was used for HCT observations, and 2K $\times$ 2K IFOSC CCD spectrograph was used for IGO observations. These observations were done in the effective wavelength range of $3700 - 9000$ $\mathring{A}$, using grism 7 (center wavelength 5300 $\mathring{A}$) and grism 8 (center wavelength 7200 $\mathring{A}$). The spectral resolution obtained for grism 7 and grism 8 with 150 $\mu m$ slit at IGO and 167 $\mu m$ slit at HCT was $\sim 7$ $\mathring{A}$. The log of spectroscopic observations is listed in Table \[table:Obs\_Log\]. We have 8 spectra from the first outburst phase, 4 from the short quiescent phase and 30 from the ongoing second outburst phase.
For wavelength calibration, we have used FeNe, FeAr and HeCu lamps. Standard IRAF tasks like *APALL* and *APSUM* were used for spectral reduction using our publicly released PyRAF[^6] based pipeline developed for both the HFOSC and IFOSC instruments.
High Resolution Optical Spectroscopy {#HRSSpec}
------------------------------------
We acquired a high resolution ($R \sim 37000$) spectrum of V899 Mon during its second outburst phase on 2014 December 22 using the Southern African Large Telescope High Resolution Spectrograph (SALT HRS) [@bramall10]. Both red arm ($5490 - 8810$ $\mathring{A}$) as well as blue arm ($3674 - 5490$ $\mathring{A}$) of the HRS instrument were used, to take a single exposure of 3170 seconds. For this medium resolution instrument mode of HRS, it uses a 2.23 fiber to collect light from the target source and another fiber of the same diameter is used to sample a nearby patch of the sky. Apart from target frames, ThAr arc lamp spectrum was also taken through the sky fiber for wavelength calibration.
All the SALT HRS data reduction was done by writing a reduction tool in Python, making use of *scikit-image* [@vanderWalt14], *scipy* [@jones01], *numpy* [@vanderWalt11] and *astropy* [@astropy13]. The additive factor to translate observed velocities in spectrum to heliocentric velocities was found to be $+$0.92 km/s using *rvcorrect* task in IRAF.
NIR Spectroscopy {#NirSpec}
----------------
NIR (1.02 $\mu m$ to 2.35 $\mu m$) spectroscopic monitoring of V899 Mon started on 2013 September 25 using TIRSPEC mounted on HCT. Depending on the seeing conditions, slits with 1.48$\arcsec$ or 1.97$\arcsec$ widths were used. Spectra were taken in at least two dithered positions inside the slit. Spectra of Argon lamp for wavelength calibration and Tungsten lamp for continuum flat were also taken immediately after each observation without moving any of the filter wheels. For telluric line correction, bright NIR spectroscopic standard stars within a few degrees and similar airmasses were observed immediately after observing the source. Typical spectral resolution obtained in our spectra is R $\sim$ 1200. The log of spectroscopic observations is listed in Table \[table:Obs\_Log\]. It may be noted that all the 12 NIR spectral observations are taken during the current ongoing second outburst phase.
NIR spectral data was reduced using TIRSPEC pipeline [@ninan14]. After wavelength calibration, the spectrum of V899 Mon was divided with a standard star spectrum to remove telluric lines and detector fringes seen in $H$ and $K$ orders’ spectra. This continuum-corrected spectrum was scaled using the flux estimated from photometry to obtain the flux-calibrated spectrum. Since we do not have $Y$-band photometry, we interpolated $I$-band and $J$-band $\lambda f_\lambda$ flux to $Y$-band and used the interpolated flux to scale $Y$-band spectrum flux.
GMRT Radio Continuum Imaging {#GmrtImag}
----------------------------
Continuum interferometric observation of V899 Mon at 1280 MHz with 33.3 MHz bandwidth was carried out on 2014 October 17 using Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT), Pune, India. GMRT consists of 30 dish antennas (45 m diameter each) in hybrid “Y” configuration [@swarup91]. Out of these, 25 antennas were online during our observation. The standard flux calibrator 3C147 was observed for 15 minutes at the beginning and end of the observations. For phase calibration, nearby Very Large Array calibrator 0607-085 was observed for 10 minutes after every 20 minutes of integration on V899 Mon. The total integration on V899 Mon source was 4.5 hours.
*CASAPY* software was used for the data reduction. After careful iterative bad data flagging and gain calibration, we imaged large FoV of 28’$\times$28’ field by dividing the field into 128 w-projection planes using the *CLEAN* algorithm.
*Herschel* Far-infrared Photometry {#HerschelPhoto}
----------------------------------
We obtained imaging observations of V899 Mon region in *SPIRE*[^7] 250, 350 and 500 $\mu m$, and *PACS*[^8] 70 and 160 $\mu m$ from *Herschel* data archive[^9]. SPIRE data was available for two epochs, one on 2010 September 4 (Proposal ID: KPGT\_fmotte\_1) and another on 2013 March 16 (Proposal ID: OT1\_rgutermu\_1). PACS data of V899 Mon was only available in the later epoch. Data from both the epochs were reduced using the standard *Herschel’s HIPE* pipeline with the latest calibration file. For point source aperture photometry of V899 Mon we first tried [*sourceExtractorSussextractor*]{} routine in HIPE on level 2 SPIRE data, and [*multiplePointSourceAperturePhotometry*]{} routine on PACS data. We also tried point spread function (PSF) photometry using *daophot* tool in IRAF. Since all these algorithms use an annular ring for background estimation and the background is highly non-uniform, the results were found to be very sensitive to aperture and background estimates. We finally estimated fluxes using *getsources* [@menshchikov12] which uses a linearly interpolated background estimate. These estimates were found to be consistent with the differential flux between two epochs (differential flux could be estimated more accurately since the subtracted image has a uniform background). The HIPE pipeline assumes a spectral energy distribution (SED) color, $\alpha=-1$ (where $F_{\nu} = \nu^{\alpha}$). The actual color $\alpha$ of V899 Mon was obtained from our flux estimates, and the corresponding color correction factor was multiplied to the flux values for obtaining color corrected flux estimates.
WISE Photometry {#WISEPhoto}
---------------
We obtained imaging observations of V899 Mon region in W1 (3.4 $\mu m$), W2 (4.6 $\mu m$), W3 (12 $\mu m$) and W4 (22 $\mu m$) bands from *Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE)* data archive [@wright10]. Photometric magnitude estimates were also available in *WISE All sky catalog*. W1 and W2 bands were observed at two epochs in 2010 March 17 and 2010 September 24; whereas W3 and W4 were observed only on 2010 March 17. Since W1 and W2 intensity maps looked severely saturated, we have used only W3 and W4 WISE catalog magnitudes for our study.
In this paper, we have also compiled all other publicly available archival data of this region at different epochs. Data were obtained from the following surveys and instruments: CRTS DR2[^10], POSS survey[^11], USNO-B catalog[^12], IRAS survey[^13], DENIS survey[^14], 2MASS survey[^15], AKARI[^16], IRAC[^17] and MIPS[^18].
Results and Analysis {#results}
====================
Photometric Results: Light Curves & Color Variations {#Photresults}
----------------------------------------------------
An extended fan-shaped optical reflection nebula is typically seen around FUors. In case of V899 Mon we detect only a small faint fan-shaped reflection nebula towards north (see Figure \[img:opticalfield\]). *U, B, V, R, I, J, H* and *K$_S$* magnitudes of V899 Mon from our long-term continuous monitoring are listed in Table \[table:PhotMags\]. Typical magnitude errors are less than 0.03 mag. Only a portion of the table is provided here. The complete table is available in machine-readable form in the online journal.
*R*-band magnitude light curve is shown in Figure \[LightCurve\]. Effective R-band magnitudes[^19] from CRTS survey are over-plotted in the same graph for displaying the complete picture of the initial rise of the first outburst. Images of V899 Mon field observed on 1953 December 29, 1983 December 29, 1989 January 9 and 2000 February 8 are available from digitized POSS-1 and POSS-2 archives. Magnitudes at the two epochs (1953 and 1989) which used $R$-band filter are also shown in Figure \[LightCurve\]. It should be noted that even though these magnitudes available in USNO-B1.0 catalog are corrected for non-standard bandpass filter used in POSS-I survey, their variation seen between 1953 and 1989 might still be due to systematics in calibration.
{width="\textwidth"}
Few other outburst sources like V1647 Ori, V582 Aur and V2492 Cyg have also shown such a sudden brief transition to quiescent phase after reaching peak of first outburst [@ninan13; @semkov13; @kospal13]. V582 Aur and V2492 Cyg’s light curves were very unstable, but V1647 Ori’s light curve was very similar to V899 Mon in terms of the stability during the phase transitions.
One possible scenario which could explain the sudden dimming of the source in 2011 is occultation by a dust clump. By taking the dust size parameter R$_V$ and change in extinction A$_V$ as free parameters, we tried to fit the observed change in magnitudes of *V, R, I, J, H* and *K$_S$* bands[^20] between first outburst and quiescent phases (i.e., 2.86, 2.90, 3.06, 2.96, 2.75 and 2.36 $\Delta$ mags respectively in each band). Coefficients in Table 2 of @cardelli89 were used for calculation, and no positive value of R$_V$ could fit the observed changes in magnitudes. Hence we can safely conclude that the quiescent phase in 2011 was due to actual break in outburst and is not due to dust occultation. Even though we have not considered scattered excess blue light (like in UX Ori systems) in above analysis, almost similar magnitude drop ($\sim$ 2.8) in optical and NIR magnitudes to pre-outburst phase makes it unlikely to be a case of dust obscuration. A stronger argument against dust obscuration scenario comes from the observed variation in spectral line fluxes during this transition (see section \[specresults\]). The relative flux changes observed in various spectral lines cannot be explained by a simple change in extinction.
Figure \[NIRCCdiag\] shows the NIR *J-H/H-K* color-color (CC) diagram. Position of V899 Mon in it shows no significant extinction to the source, and it falls on Classical T Tauri (CTT) locus. The positions in CC diagram during first and second outbursts are also different from each other. But, since we have only one NIR observation from the rapidly varying ending phase of first outburst, it might not be a good representation of the NIR color of first outburst.
The green squares measured during the 2013 - 2015 period of second outburst show small movements along the reddening vector. Such short period, small amplitude fluctuations during the outburst phase are also seen in other FUor/EXor objects [@audard14; @semkov13; @ninan13]. Unlike the quiescence in 2011, these short variations in second outburst could be due to small dust clump occultations or minor fluctuations in the accretion. NIR *J/J-K* color-magnitude diagram (CMD) (see Figure \[NIRCMagdiag\]) also indicates the general trend of V899 Mon getting redder (bluer) when it dims (brightens).
![Positions of V899 Mon in the $J$-$H$/$H$-$K$ CC diagram during the quiescent phase (black circle), first outburst (red circle) and the second outburst phase (green squares and blue triangles). The solid curve shows the locus of field dwarfs, and the dash-dotted curve shows the locus of giants [@bessell88]. The dotted line represents the locus of classical T-Tauri (CTT) stars [@meyer97]. The diagonal straight dashed lines show the reddening vectors [@rieke85], with crosses denoting an A$_V$ difference of 5 mag. Typical error bars of each data point are shown in the bottom right corner.[]{data-label="NIRCCdiag"}](JHK_CC.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![NIR $J$/$J$-$K$ color magnitude diagram showing the movement of V899 Mon during its quiescent (black circle), first outburst phase (red circle) and second outburst phase (green squares and blue triangles). The arrow shows the reddening vector [@rieke85], which corresponds to an A$_V$ of 3 mag. Typical error bars of each data point are shown in the top right corner. []{data-label="NIRCMagdiag"}](JK_J_plot.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
### Outburst - quiescent transition phase
In contrast to existing FUor/EXor observations in literature, we could carry out several observations of V899 Mon during its transition from outburst phase to quiescent phase and back. Figure \[MagColorTransition\] shows the $V$-band magnitude light curve of the source, color coded with *V-R* color in the outer ring and *V-I* color at the center. These colors indicate that the object was reddest during the transition stages rather than during the outburst or quiescent phases. It could imply the temperature of the extra flux component of the outburst was cooler at the beginning and it became hotter as the outburst reached its peak. Since the transition phase flux was cooler than the quiescent phase, outburst flux could not have initially originated on the surface of the hot central star, rather, might have originated in the disk. This is the first direct observational evidence to support triggering of outburst in the disk of FUors/EXors. The color change seen in this plot could be a combined effect of both change in extinction and temperature. Figure \[MagCxyz\] shows the *V, R* and *I* band light curves color-coded with an extinction invariant quantity. The y-intercept along the reddening vector in any CC diagrams, for example, C$_{VRI}$ = $(V-R)-(R-I)*E(V-R)/E(R-I)$ [@mcgehee04], is a weighted difference of two colors, which is invariant to change in extinction A$_V$. While it is not possible to completely separate out the degenerate SED slope change due to temperature and extinction change, any change in this extinction invariant color implies real change in the intrinsic SED slope (temperature). V899 Mon shows significant change in C$_{VRI}$ between the end of first outburst phase, quiescent phase, transition stage and ongoing second outburst phase. Significant variation is also seen during the peak of first outburst, implying the temperature of the source during those epochs were different than the ongoing second outburst. However, since C$_{VRI}$ is a weighted difference between two colors and could not tell unambiguously whether the intrinsic slope of SED became red or blue, Figure \[MagCxyz\] only indicates change in the intrinsic slope of SED (temperature). It does not clarify whether reddening of flux during transition stage was due to temperature change alone or was due to the combined effect of a short term increase in extinction and change in temperature.
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Stellar Properties
------------------
V899 Mon was observed in WISE 12 $\mu m$ and 22 $\mu m$ bands on 2010 March 17, within one month after our NIR observations in $J, H$ and $K$ bands from HCT on 2010 February 20 (first outburst peak). We utilized them to estimate the conventional infrared logarithmic slope of the spectrum $\alpha$ (where $\lambda F_\lambda = \lambda^{\alpha}$) used for age classification of YSOs. During the peak outburst phase (2010 March) we obtained a slope $\alpha = -0.27$ between 2.16 $\mu m$ and 11.56 $\mu m$ and $\alpha = -0.51$ between 11.56 $\mu m$ and 22 $\mu m$. These values classify V899 Mon as a flat-spectrum or an early Class II YSO [@greene94] during its peak outburst phase.
$U$-$B$, $B$-$V$, $V$-$R$ and $R$-$I$ colors of @siess00 isochrones can be used to constrain photometrically the mass, age and extinction of the source. This is done by finding a region in mass, age and extinction parameter space in which colors predicted by @siess00 model is consistent with all the observed optical colors of V899 Mon. For this analysis we sampled @siess00 isochrones in its valid age range 0.01 Myr to 100 Myr, and mass range 0.1 to 7 M$_\odot$ in log space. Non-uniform rectangular mass versus age grids were generated for each of the $U$-$B$, $B$-$V$, $V$-$R$ and $R$-$I$ colors by interpolating (using 2D Bi-spline) colors predicted by @siess00 isochrones. $U$-$B$ and $B$-$V$ colors of V899 Mon during second outburst, and $V$-$R$ and $R$-$I$ quiescent phase colors were used for fixing the position of V899 Mon in this four dimensional color space. The errors of the color estimates were taken to be 0.1 mag, which correspond to a symmetric 4D Gaussian in color space. Radial Basis Function (RBF) was used to calculate the distance to the source for each point in the mass-age grid. A contour was plotted for regions within 1$\sigma$ distance from V899 Mon’s position. These contours were repeatedly estimated for various values of A$_V$ ranging from 0.5 to 8 mag (see Figure \[MassAgeContour\]). As seen in the figure, A$_V < 2.2$ mag and A$_V > 4.0$ mag will make all @siess00 isochrone colors incompatible with V899 Mon, and hence can be ruled out. Due to the correlation between age and mass, we obtain tight constrains only for A$_V$ from this analysis. Even though the analysis was done for all possible age ranges, since V899 Mon is a heavy disk accreting source, we expect its position inside contours to be only around the region where age is $\sim$ 1 - 5 Myr.
![Contours showing 1$\sigma$ constrain on mass and age of V899 Mon assuming @siess00 isochrones to be a valid model for V899 Mon in four dimensional $U$-$B$, $B$-$V$, $V$-$R$ and $R$-$I$ color-color space. Contours corresponding to a range of admissible reddening value A$_V$ are shown in different colors and corresponding A$_V$ is labeled on the contours.[]{data-label="MassAgeContour"}](MassAgeV899Mon_UBVVRI_Siess.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Another independent way to estimate interstellar extinction is from photometry of field stars. The region around Monoceros R2 was studied in detail using 2MASS data by @lombardi11 (Figure 4 in their paper), and the extinction to V899 Mon location is A$_V$ = 2.6 mag. This value is consistent with our previous color space analysis.
Figure \[OpticalCMagdiag\] shows the position of V899 Mon in the $V$/$V$-$I$ optical CMD during various epochs. @siess00 isochrones after correcting for extinction of A$_V$=2.6 mag are also over-plotted. Since the major component of the outburst phase flux is non-stellar in origin, the closest representation of the true position of V899 Mon might be its position during quiescent phase. The scatter forbids the estimation of age, but we get a rough estimate of the mass of the V899 Mon as 2 M$_\odot$. However, it should be noted that this estimate is sensitive to the estimated interstellar extinction value of A$_V$ = 2.6 mag.
![Optical $V$/$V$-$I$ color magnitude diagram of V899 Mon during its first outburst (1$^{st}$ O), second outburst (2$^{nd}$ O) and quiescence (Qu) phases. Solid lines are @siess00 isochrones corresponding to 0.05 Myr, 0.2 Myr, 0.5 Myr, 1 Myr, 2 Myr, 5 Myr and 10 Myr. Dashed lines are evolutionary tracks of masses 0.5 M$_\odot$, 1 M$_\odot$, 1.5 M$_\odot$, 2 M$_\odot$, 2.5 M$_\odot$, 3 M$_\odot$, 4 M$_\odot$, 5 M$_\odot$ and 6 M$_\odot$. Extinction correction for an A$_V$ = 2.6 mag, and magnitude correction for distance of 905 pc are applied to all isochrones.[]{data-label="OpticalCMagdiag"}](IRAS_CMdia_V_V-I_Siess.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Spectral Energy Distribution {#sed}
----------------------------
Flux estimates available of the V899 Mon over a wide wavelength range from optical to sub-mm were measured at random epochs. Since we had to use multi-wavelength data of nearby epochs for the construction of the SED, we chose the epoch near peak of the first outburst (February-March 2010), during which maximum observations were available. For fitting YSO SED models, we used the online SED Fitter tool by @robitaille07. Flux estimates from both IRAS and PACS show the flux of V899 Mon starts rising in 90 $\mu m$ to 200 $\mu m$ range after a gradual drop of SED in mid-infrared region (see Figure \[SED1stOutpeak2010Qphase\]). No SED models in @robitaille07 could fit this double peaked SED. Possible scenarios of such an SED are discussed in Section \[dip70um\]. To avoid the second far-infrared peak while fitting SED of V899 Mon, we used all the flux estimates above 90 $\mu m$ as upper limits. For constraining the SED better we also used 70 $\mu m$ flux measured during second outburst in 2013, but to account for the change in 70 $\mu m$ flux between two outbursts we used 1 Jy error bar (which is consistent to the flux change we have seen in 250 $\mu m$ SPIRE data from two epochs). Figure \[SED1stOutpeak2010Qphase\] (a) shows the SED fit obtained using *V, R, I, J, H, K$_S$, W1, W2, W3, W4* fluxes from 2010 and PACS 70 $\mu m$ flux from 2013 observations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![SED fit of V899 Mon (a) during its peak of the first outburst using *V, R, I, J, H, K$_S$, W1, W2, W3, W4* fluxes from 2010 and PACS 70 $\mu m$ flux from 2013, (b) during its quiescent phase using *V, R, I,* 2MASS *J, H, K$_S$,* and *IRAS 12* fluxes. MIPS1, PACS and SPIRE fluxes were used only as upper limits. The filled circles represent the data points used for the fit and filled triangles are upper limits. The solid black line is the best fitted model and the gray lines show subsequent good fits. The dashed gray line shows the stellar photosphere of V899 Mon in the best fitted model (in the absence of circumstellar dust, but including interstellar extinction).[]{data-label="SED1stOutpeak2010Qphase"}](V899Mon_SED_Robit_1stOutburstPeak.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\(a) First outburst
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![SED fit of V899 Mon (a) during its peak of the first outburst using *V, R, I, J, H, K$_S$, W1, W2, W3, W4* fluxes from 2010 and PACS 70 $\mu m$ flux from 2013, (b) during its quiescent phase using *V, R, I,* 2MASS *J, H, K$_S$,* and *IRAS 12* fluxes. MIPS1, PACS and SPIRE fluxes were used only as upper limits. The filled circles represent the data points used for the fit and filled triangles are upper limits. The solid black line is the best fitted model and the gray lines show subsequent good fits. The dashed gray line shows the stellar photosphere of V899 Mon in the best fitted model (in the absence of circumstellar dust, but including interstellar extinction).[]{data-label="SED1stOutpeak2010Qphase"}](V899Mon_SED_Robit_Qphase.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\(b) Quiescent phase
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For fitting the SED of V899 Mon’s quiescent phase, we used flux estimates from different quiescent phase epochs. Figure \[SED1stOutpeak2010Qphase\] (b) shows the SED fit using *V, R, I, 2MASS J, H, K$_S$ and IRAS 12 $\mu m$* fluxes. MIPS 1 (24 $\mu m$), PACS (70 $\mu m$, 160 $\mu m$) and SPIRE (250 $\mu m$, 350 $\mu m$, 500 $\mu m$) fluxes were used only as upper limits.
Treating far-infrared PACS and SPIRE fluxes of 2013 to be a separate independent clump, we also fitted the SED by taking these fluxes alone (see Figure \[robetFIRsedFit\] and section \[FIRclumb\]).
![SED fit of V899 Mon during its second outburst phase using only *Herschel* PACS 70 and 160 $\mu m$, and SPIRE 250, 350 and 500 $\mu m$ fluxes. The filled circles represent the data points used for the fit. The solid black line is the best fitted model and the gray lines show subsequent good fits. The dashed gray line shows the stellar photosphere of V899 Mon in the best fitted model (in the absence of circumstellar dust, but including interstellar extinction).[]{data-label="robetFIRsedFit"}](V899Mon_SED_Robit_Herschel.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Stellar, disk and envelope parameters obtained from all the three SED fittings are tabulated together in Table \[table:SEDfitResults\].
### 70 $\mu m$ dip in SED {#dip70um}
SED of V899 Mon shows a dip around 70 - 90 $\mu m$ in both IRAS as well as in PACS data taken at two different epochs. This shape of SED is very unusual and not seen in any other FUors/EXors. Objects with extended circumstellar envelopes typically show a smooth flat SED. We also do not see heavy extinction in optical bands as expected from a source surrounded by a large extended envelope. One possible scenario is that this object, instead of having a steady state infall density distribution of envelope, has a huge spherical cavity around it to a certain radius in envelope. Significant optical light that we detect can be explained if our line of sight is along the opening created by the outflow.
Another possible geometric scenario is an envelope/clump with most of its mass behind V899 Mon. In SPIRE 500 $\mu m$ image (see Figure \[spireimage\]), we see the bright blob marked with an ellipse at the position of V899 Mon is at the edge of a cloud, possibly being pushed back by the ionizing source of Monoceros R2.
We plan to carry out a detailed 3D radiative transfer modeling of such geometric structures to see whether this seemingly two-component SED can be explained.
![SPIRE 500 $\mu m$ image of V899 Mon field taken on 2013 March 16. Location of V899 Mon is marked with an ellipse to show the major and minor FWHM sizes determined for V899 Mon by the source extraction algorithm *getsources* [@menshchikov12]. The brighter source IRAS 06068-0643, south-west of V899 Mon, is also a more embedded outburst source. The bright blob in the north-west corner of the image is the ionizing source in Monoceros R2.[]{data-label="spireimage"}](SPIRE500um_V899MonImageElps.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
### Far-infrared component properties {#FIRclumb}
Considering far-infrared component part of the SED as a separate clump, we analyzed PACS-SPIRE data alone to obtain the characteristics of the clump. L$_{bol}$ of the clump obtained by fitting @robitaille07 SED model for the far-infrared flux ($>$ 70 $\mu m$) is $\sim$ 8.6 L$_\odot$ (Table \[table:SEDfitResults\]).
We have SPIRE 250, 350 and 500 $\mu m$ observations at two epochs; during the peak of first outburst on 2010 September 4 and later during the second outburst in 2013 March 6. PACS 70 and 160 $\mu m$ observations were available only during the second epoch. Photometric flux values estimated for V899 Mon from PACS and SPIRE data are given in Table \[table:herschelfluxs\].
During the peak of first outburst, fluxes were brighter than the second outburst by 2.8 Jy, 1.5 Jy and 0.3 Jy in 250, 350 and 500 $\mu m$, respectively. V899 Mon was also optically brighter during the peak of first outburst than second outburst epoch by 0.75 magnitude (factor of 2) in $R$-band. This implies the far-infrared clump is heated by V899 Mon and is not spatially far from V899 Mon. We fitted gray body model to SPIRE data from the two epochs (Figure \[GraybodyFitHer\]) and estimated the mass to be 20 M$_\odot$ and temperature of the far-infrared clump to be 10.6 K and 10.0 K at each epoch. This mass estimate is consistent with the envelope mass obtained from @robitaille07 SED fitting (see Table \[table:SEDfitResults\]). Gray body was fitted using the following formulation: $$\begin{aligned}
S_\nu(\nu) = \frac{M (0.01 ({\frac{\nu}{1000 GHz}})^\beta) B(T,\nu)}{D^2}\end{aligned}$$ where S$_\nu(\nu)$ is the observed flux density, $M$ is the mass of the clump, $B(T,\nu)$ is the Planck’s black body function for temperature $T$ & frequency $\nu$, $D$ is the distance (taken to be 905 pc) and the dust opacity factor ($\kappa_\nu$) was taken to be $0.01 ({\frac{\nu}{1000 GHz}})^\beta$ $m^2 kg^{-1}$, where $\beta$ was fixed to be 2 [@andre10].
![Gray body fit of V899 Mon’s far-infrared SPIRE wavelength fluxes at two epochs. Filled squares are from 2010 epoch during the peak of the first outburst and filled circles are from 2013 during the second outburst. The dashed line is the gray body fit to the SPIRE data points of the first outburst in 2010, and dashed-dotted line is the fit to the SPIRE data points observed in 2013 during the second outburst. PACS data points of second epoch are also shown, but were not used for the gray body fit.[]{data-label="GraybodyFitHer"}](SPIREGreyBodyFit.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
To obtain a lower limit of A$_V$, we assumed the entire mass $M$ is in a uniform density sphere of diameter $2R$ = 50 (FWHM of the source in SPIRE 500 $\mu m$ image), then the mass column density to the center of the sphere should be $3M/(4\pi R^2)$. Since most of the gas is molecular, we can equate this column density to N($H_2$)$ \mu_{H_2} m_H$, where N($H_2$) is the $H_2$ column number density, $\mu_{H_2}$ is the mean molecular weight (taken to be 2.8) and $m_H$ is the mass of Hydrogen. Our mass estimate of 20 M$_\odot$ then corresponds to N($H_2$) = $4.6 \times 10^{21}$ molecules cm$^{-2}$. Using the relation $\langle N(H_2)/A_V \rangle = 0.94 \times 10^{21}$ molecules cm$^{-2}$ mag$^{-1}$ [@ciardi98], we obtain A$_V$ to the center of the clump to be 19.7 mag.
If we use PACS 160 $\mu m$ flux also in the gray body fitting then we obtain mass to be 12 M$_\odot$ and temperature of the far-infrared clumps at the two epochs to be 11.9 K and 12.2 K. This mass corresponds to an A$_V$ = 10.7 mag to the center of the uniform spherical clump. Both of these estimates are substantially higher than the actual A$_V$ estimated from optical and NIR data. This implies that the heating source V899 Mon is not embedded at the center of this clump; it might be partially located to the front section of it (or any other geometry as discussed in Section \[dip70um\]). Even though the mass estimate has some systematic uncertainties from the distance, dust opacity factor and gray body model assumption, they are unlikely to cause a difference of 8 - 15 mag in A$_V$ value.
Spectroscopic Results {#specresults}
---------------------
V899 Mon has a rich spectrum of emission as well as absorption lines in optical and NIR. Figure \[opticalnirSpectrum\] shows the flux-calibrated optical and NIR spectra taken during the second outburst phase of the source. Our spectroscopic observations in optical cover first outburst, transition, quiescent phases, as well as the second outburst. The fluxes and equivalent widths of the detected lines at various epochs are tabulated in Table \[table:linefluxeqw\]. The strong Ca II IR triplet emission lines in spectrum confirm V899 Mon source to be a YSO, and the detection of CO (2-0) and (3-1) band heads absorption starting at 2.29 $\mu m$ confirm this source to be an outburst family of FUors/EXors. These overtone band head lines are seen only in giants and FUors/EXors. In FUors/EXors they are believed to be forming in the accretion heated inner regions of the disk, where temperature is in the range 2000 K $<$ T $<$ 5000 K and density n$_H$ $>$ 10$^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ [@kospal11]. One notable line not detected in V899 Mon spectrum is $Br\gamma$ at 2.16 $\mu m$. While $Br\gamma$ is typically found in strong accreting T-Tauri stars, it is not detected in many FUors.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
{width="100.00000%"}
\(a) optical
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
-------------------------------------------------------------
{width="1\linewidth"}
\(b) NIR
-------------------------------------------------------------
### Extinction estimates
To obtain de-reddened line fluxes, we need to know the extinction to the source. In Section \[Photresults\] our NIR CC diagram does not show any significant extinction to the source. We also have an estimate of the interstellar extinction to the source to be A$_V$ = 2.6 mag from Figure 4 in @lombardi11. H$\alpha$ (6563 $\mathring{A}$) and H$\beta$ (4861 $\mathring{A}$) lines show an emission component in their P-Cygni profile. If we assume an optically thin case B emission, the Balmer decrement ratio of H$\alpha$/H$\beta$ emission component should be in the range 2.8 - 3 [@osterbrock06]. Comparing this ratio with the ratios measured from our spectra, we obtained various estimates of A$_V$ during outburst phase, to be ranging from 5.9 to 9.2 mag. Our H$\beta$ profiles show stronger absorption component than emission component; this might significantly cause an underestimation of the H$\beta$ flux which was estimated by fitting a two-component Gaussian model to the line profile. This implies that A$_V$ estimate from Balmer decrement is an over-estimate. On the other hand, it is quite likely that the emission is not optically thin since it is believed to be originating in magnetospheric accretion column, which will make our estimate of A$_V$ an underestimate. To be consistent with our other extinction estimates from CC diagram and SED fitting in previous sections, we take A$_V$ during the outburst phase to be 2.6 mag for the remaining spectral line calculations.
### Accretion rate
Many of the spectral line fluxes originating near the magnetosphere have been found to correlate with the accretion luminosity. The correlation is empirically calibrated in the simple form : $log(L_{acc}/L_\odot) = a$ $log(L_{line}/L_\odot) + b$. For estimating accretion luminosity from Hydrogen Balmer series, He I, O I, Ca II IR triplet, Pa$\beta$ and Pa$\delta$ lines, we used the coefficients $a$ and $b$ from @alcala14. Distance to V899 Mon was taken to be 905 pc and the observed fluxes were corrected for an extinction of A$_V$ = 2.6 mag. To estimate the accretion rate from the accretion luminosity, we assumed the mass and age of V899 Mon to be 2.5 M$_\odot$ and 1 Myr, respectively (consistent with the CMD). Stellar radius was then estimated to be 4 R$_\odot$ based on the isochrone for these values of mass and age [@siess00]. Finally, using the formula $\dot{M}_{disk} = (L_{acc}R_*/GM) (1-R_*/R_i)^{-1}$ (where disk inner radius $R_i \sim 5 \times R_*$ [@gullbring98]), we obtained accretion rates from various lines along the spectrum. No veiling correction was done for lines which are in absorption, hence these accretion rate estimates can be slight underestimates. Figure \[AccRatePlot\] shows all the estimates of accretion rates from various lines as a function of their wavelengths. Figure \[JDvsNormAccRatePlot\] shows the normalized accretion rates obtained from different lines at various epochs. A clear reduction in relative accretion, by at least a factor of 2 during quiescent phase with respect to the second outburst phase, is seen in all the accretion rates obtained from different lines.
![Accretion rates estimated from various lines from the V899 Mon’s optical and NIR spectra. Triangle symbols show the first outburst phase, square symbols show the quiescent phase, star symbols show the transition phase, and circle symbols show the second outburst phase. There is a significant difference in accretion rates estimated using different lines.[]{data-label="AccRatePlot"}](V899Mon_MassAccVsAllLinesnir.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![Relative change in accretion rates estimated from various lines during the transition from the first outburst phase to the quiescent phase and back to the second outburst.[]{data-label="JDvsNormAccRatePlot"}](V899Mon_Relative_Accretion.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
### Mass loss
Ratio of the mass loss to mass accretion in YSOs is a key parameter predicted by various jet launch mechanism models. FUors/EXors family of objects give us a direct observational constrain on this ratio. Based on the SED fit in Section \[sed\], we obtained the L$_{bol}$ of V899 Mon as $\sim$ 150 $L_\odot$ during the outburst phase. Using the relation between mass loss and L$_{bol}$ in young HeBe and T-Tauri stars, viz. $log(\dot{M})= -8.6 + 0.7 \times log(L_{bol})$ by @nisini95, we get an estimate of the mass outflow in V899 Mon to be 1$\times$10$^{-7}$ M$_\odot$/yr. This rate is larger than typical T-Tauri stars (10$^{-8}$ M$_\odot$/yr) but less than classical FUors (10$^{-5}$ M$_\odot$/yr) [@hartmann96].
We could also directly measure the mass loss rate from \[OI\] $\lambda$6300 flux using the relation *A8* of @hartigan95. Mass outflow is directly proportional to the optically thin forbidden line emission fluxes originating in outflow. The mass loss estimate from \[OI\] $\lambda$6300 flux through 2 slit aperture, by assuming a distance of 905 pc and a typical sky plane component of the outflow velocity to be 150 km/s is 2.6$\times$10$^{-7}$ M$_\odot$/yr.
We could not detect any significant change in these forbidden line fluxes during quiescence. Our 2 slit aperture at 905 pc distance corresponds to 2.7$\times$10$^{11}$ km wide region. Even if we assume the sky plane velocity to be as large as 700 km/s (seen in P-Cygni outflow), the gap in outflow due to one year of quiescence will be only 2.2$\times$10$^{10}$ km, which is just one-tenth of the total aperture. Hence, our non-detection does not conclude whether the large scale low density outflow traced by forbidden lines was interrupted or remained uninterrupted during the quiescence phase.
### Outflow Temperature and Density
Flux ratios of the optically thin forbidden emission lines provide a direct estimate of the density and temperature of the outflow region. For better signal to noise ratio, we estimated the average flux of the forbidden lines by combining all the second outburst phase spectra of V899 Mon. Flux ratio \[S II\] $\lambda$6716/$\lambda$6731 is a good tracer of density and is insensitive to temperature. Flux of \[S II\] $\lambda$6731 line is 2.4$\times$10$^{-14}$ $erg/cm^2/s$, whereas \[S II\] $\lambda$6716 line is not detected in our spectrum, so we have an estimate of upper limit to be $<$ 1$\times$10$^{-14}$ $erg/cm^2/s$. The ratio \[S II\] $\lambda$6716/$\lambda$6731 $<$ 0.45, implies the electron density n$_e$ to be $>$ 10$^4/cm^3$ (Figure 5.8 in @osterbrock06). Ratio of \[O I\] $\lambda$5577/$\lambda$6300 in V899 Mon is $\sim$ 0.09. For a range of temperature from 9000 K to 20000 K, this ratio is consistent with n$_e$ ranging from 2$\times$10$^5 /cm^3$ to 4$\times$10$^6 /cm^3$ (Figure 6 in @hamann94).
Once we have a density constraint, we can now use other line ratios to estimate the temperature. For instance, using the formula 5.5 in @osterbrock06, for a density of n$_e$ = 2$\times$ 10$^5 /cm^3$, ratio \[O I\] ($\lambda$6300+$\lambda$6364)/$\lambda$5577 $\sim 15$ gives an estimate on the temperature to be $\sim$ 8500 K. Density insensitive line ratio \[Ca II\] $\lambda$7291 / \[OI\] $\lambda$6300 $\sim 0.1$ in V899 Mon, implies a temperature $<$ 9000 K (Figure 5 in @hamann94). But the line ratio \[S II\] $\lambda$6731 / \[O I\] $\lambda$6300 $\sim$ 0.08 implies a temperature $>$ 9000 K (Figure 5 in @hamann94). To be consistent with all these independent estimates, we shall take the temperature of the outflow to be $\sim$ 9000 K.
### Line profiles and variability
#### H$\alpha$ $\lambda6563$
Almost all prominent lines in the spectrum showed variability during our period of observations. The line which showed the most dramatic changes in line profile is H$\alpha$, which has a strong P-Cygni absorption component and is believed to be formed in magnetospheric accretion funnel.
![Selected sample of H$\alpha$ emission line profiles from different phases of V899 Mon. a) First outburst phase, b) Heavy outflow during the end of first outburst phase, c) Quiescent phase, d) Transition phase from quiescence phase to second outburst phase, e) Second outburst phase. \*) shows a particular profile on 2014 September 25, when the P-Cygni became very weak for a very short duration. Spectrum taken immediately after one month shown on top right panel had strong P-Cygni profile.[]{data-label="HalphaProfiles1D"}](Halpha_ProfileEvolution_Sample.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[HalphaProfiles1D\] shows the evolution of H$\alpha$ P-Cygni profile during its first outburst, quiescent and the current ongoing second outburst phases. It is a selected representative sample of line profile plots from each epoch. The first spectrum published by @wils09 shows no P-Cygni profile in H$\alpha$. Our initial spectrum observed 13 days later during the peak of first outburst shows a CI Tau profile typically seen in many T-Tauri stars [@stahler05]. In subsequent spectra, the absorption component grows considerably, transforming H$\alpha$ line’s profile into a strong P-Cygni profile (Figure \[HalphaProfiles1D\]). We also see complex structures in the absorption component of P-Cygni in the spectrum taken on 2010 January 17. All these evolution indicate the outflow wind increased dramatically towards the end of first outburst. By the onset of quiescent phase, the absorption component in P-Cygni completely disappears and the H$\alpha$ shows a near symmetric emission line. We also do not see any P-Cygni profile when the source was undergoing transition from the quiescent phase to the second outburst phase. P-Cygni profiles, much fainter in strength compared to the peak of the first outburst, only starts appearing after the full onset of the second outburst. Even though during the second outburst, outflow P-Cygni profile is more stable than during the last phase of the first outburst, spectrum taken on 2014 September 25 shows only a very weak P-Cygni in H$\alpha$. These delays and short pauses indicate a non-steady nature in the outflows from FUors/EXors. Table \[table:linefluxeqw\] shows the fluxes and equivalent widths obtained by fitting a two-component Gaussian to the line profiles. Our high resolution spectrum ($R \sim 37000$) taken using SALT-HRS on 2014 December 22 resolves the H$\alpha$ line and its multi-component profile. Figure \[SALTHRSHalphaEmiAbs\] (a) shows the emission component of the H$\alpha$ line profile and Figure \[SALTHRSHalphaEmiAbs\] (b) shows the absorption component in the spectrum taken using SALT-HRS. The red-shifted part of the profile peaks at +18 km/s and has smooth wings with an extra broad component reaching up to velocity of +420 km/s (Figure \[SALTHRSHalphaEmiAbs\] (a)). On the other-hand blue part of the profile shows complicated multi-component velocity structures (Figure \[SALTHRSHalphaEmiAbs\] (b)). The outflow absorption component extends up to -722 km/s. We could see structures in absorption at -648 km/s, -568 km/s, -460 km/s, -274 km/s, -153 km/s, -100 km/s and -26 km/s.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![H$\alpha$ (a) emission, (b) P-Cygni absorption line profiles of V899 Mon observed on 2014 December 22 using SALT-HRS.[]{data-label="SALTHRSHalphaEmiAbs"}](V899Mon_HalphaProfile2_SALTHRS.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\(a) Emission component
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![H$\alpha$ (a) emission, (b) P-Cygni absorption line profiles of V899 Mon observed on 2014 December 22 using SALT-HRS.[]{data-label="SALTHRSHalphaEmiAbs"}](V899Mon_HalphaProfile1_SALTHRS.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\(b) P-Cygni absorption component
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are typically associated with bulk motion within the outflowing gas [@stahler05]. To understand how the outflow components evolve, it will be interesting to study the evolution of these components in velocity time space by carrying out multi-epoch high resolution spectroscopic observations.
#### Forbidden lines \[OI\] $\lambda$6300, $\lambda$6363, \[Fe II\] $\lambda$7155
Another important tracer of outflow is the forbidden line \[OI\] at 6300.304 $\mathring{A}$. Our medium resolution time evolution study does not show significant variation in this line, possibly due to the fact that they originate in low density jets/outflows. The SALT-HRS high resolution spectrum shows a very interesting plateau profile for \[OI\] $\lambda$6300.3 line (see Figure \[SALTHRSOI6300\] for the resolved profile). Since we have not corrected our spectrum for telluric absorption, we shall not interpret the narrow absorption dips seen on the plateau structure. The profile has a strong red-shifted emission at +25 km/s with an FWHM of 21 km/s. The emission in blue-shifted part extends up to $\sim$ -450 km/s. Figure \[SALTHRSAllFBL\] shows other two weaker forbidden lines \[OI\] $\lambda$6363 and \[Fe II\] $\lambda$7155 plotted over \[OI\] $\lambda$6300 profile. We see almost similar structure in \[OI\] $\lambda$6363.8, with a blue-shifted emission extending up to -450 km/s and a narrow peak emission at +20 km/s. \[Fe II\] $\lambda$7155 line also shows very similar structure with a blue part extending up to $\sim$ -500 km/s and a peak emission at $\sim$ +22 km/s. Since the forbidden line emissions are optically thin, their flux is directly proportional to the column density of emitting species. The plateau profile implies almost equal column density in the blue-shifted outflow with a velocity gradient in the jet. Since we are detecting only the velocity component of the jets along line of sight, the gradient can be either due to actual change in the outflow velocity or due to geometrical projection effect of the outflow. A cone shaped outflow in the direction of the observer can give rise to different projected velocities from different radial regions of the cone. Time evolution study of these profiles will give insight into the structure of the outflow. The red-shifted emission peak is more difficult to explain. This might be originating from the envelop to disk infall shock regions on the surface of the disk, or from the tail part of a bipolar outflow which is moving away from us and emerging out of the region occulted by the disk in our line of sight.
{width="80.00000%"}
{width="80.00000%"}
#### Ca II IR triplet $\lambda$8498, $\lambda$8542, $\lambda$8662
Ca II IR triplet lines (8498.02 $\mathring{A}$, 8542.09 $\mathring{A}$, 8662.14 $\mathring{A}$) are believed to be originating inside and very near to the accretion column resulting in their tight correlation with accretion rate [@muzerolle98]. Our continuous spectral monitoring shows that the P-Cygni profile in Ca II IR triplet lines evolved similar to H$\alpha$. Outflow component got stronger towards the end of the first outburst and then it completely disappeared during the quiescent phase, and finally reappeared after the full onset of the second outburst. As seen in typical T-Tauri stars and FUors/EXors, the line ratios of Ca II IR triplet lines in V899 Mon spectrum are found to be 1:1.01:0.77, representing an optically thick gas dominated by collisional decay. Unlike the emission components, the ratio of P-Cygni absorption components of $\lambda$8542 and $\lambda$8662 measured from high resolution spectrum is 0.83:0.53 (= 1.57:1), which is more consistent with atomic transition strengths (1.8:1). This implies the absorption components in outflow are optically thin. These values are surprisingly similar to the P-Cygni profiles of Ca II IR triplet lines detected in the episodic winds of V1647 Ori [@ninan14]. Following the same arguments as in @ninan14, we could estimate the Ca II column density in the outflow to be 3.4 $\times$ 10$^{12}$ cm$^{-2}$ and the Hydrogen column density N$_H$ $\sim$ 3.8 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$.
Figure \[SALTHRSCaII123Emi\] shows the resolved profiles of Ca II IR triple lines. All the three triplet lines ($\lambda$8498.02, $\lambda$8542.09, $\lambda$8662.14) show an asymmetric triangular profile with a steeper slope on the red side and a shallower slope on the blue side. The peaks of these lines are red shifted by +18.7 km/s, +21.4 km/s and +23.2 km/s, respectively. This increase in the red-shift is also seen in line center estimated by fitting a Gaussian profile to the lines. The $\sigma$ of the fitted Gaussian for each line is 1.177 $\mathring{A}$, 1.229 $\mathring{A}$ and 1.186 $\mathring{A}$, respectively. The ratio of line widths of $\lambda$8498 and $\lambda$8542 is 0.96, which implies $\lambda$8498 is $\sim$4% thinner than $\lambda$8542, as seen in many other T-Tauri stars [@Hamann92], though there is no statistically significant evidence for the peak of the former line to be larger than the later one. @Hamann92 attributed these ratios to substantial opacity broadening of $\lambda$8542 or to lower dispersion velocity in the deeper part of the region from where Ca II IR triple lines originate. The velocities of the smooth broadened emission profiles extend upto $\pm$ 150 km/s. Figure \[SALTHRSCaII23Abs\] shows the P-Cygni absorption component in Ca II $\lambda$8542 and $\lambda$8662 lines. The absorption components are quite broad and extend up to $\sim$ -470 km/s in both the lines. The absorption component in $\lambda$8662 shows a prominent structure which extends only up to $\sim$ -250 km/s.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Ca II IR triplet emission line profiles of V899 Mon observed on 2014 December 22 using SALT-HRS.[]{data-label="SALTHRSCaII123Emi"}](V899Mon_CaIIirTrip1Profile_SALTHRS.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\(a) $\lambda$8498
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Ca II IR triplet emission line profiles of V899 Mon observed on 2014 December 22 using SALT-HRS.[]{data-label="SALTHRSCaII123Emi"}](V899Mon_CaIIirTrip2Profile2_SALTHRS.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\(b) $\lambda$8542
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Ca II IR triplet emission line profiles of V899 Mon observed on 2014 December 22 using SALT-HRS.[]{data-label="SALTHRSCaII123Emi"}](V899Mon_CaIIirTrip3Profile2_SALTHRS.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\(c) $\lambda$8662
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Ca II IR triplet P-Cygni absorption line profile of V899 Mon observed on 2014 December 22 using SALT-HRS.[]{data-label="SALTHRSCaII23Abs"}](V899Mon_CaIIirTrip2Profile_SALTHRS.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\(a) $\lambda$8542
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Ca II IR triplet P-Cygni absorption line profile of V899 Mon observed on 2014 December 22 using SALT-HRS.[]{data-label="SALTHRSCaII23Abs"}](V899Mon_CaIIirTrip3Profile_SALTHRS.pdf "fig:"){width="\linewidth"}
\(b) $\lambda$8662
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### O I $\lambda$7773, $\lambda$8446
The absorption component of O I triplet lines at 7773 $\mathring{A}$ (Figure \[SALTHRSOI7773\]), which is not seen in the photosphere of cool stars, is believed to be formed in T-Tauri stars due to warm gas in the envelope or hot photosphere above the disk, and is an indicator of the turbulence [@Hamann92]. The equivalent widths of this line in V899 Mon spectra show a very strong increase and then sudden decrease in strength just before the source went into the quiescent phase (see Figure \[OI7773eqw\]). Due to turbulence or disk rotational broadening of the O I triplet lines at 7771.94 $\mathring{A}$, 7774.17 $\mathring{A}$ and 7775.39 $\mathring{A}$, our high resolution spectrum (see Figure \[SALTHRSOI7773\]) shows a blended Gaussian absorption profile with $\sigma = 2.43$ $\mathring{A}$ (FWHM = 220 km/s). The velocities originating from turbulence or disk rotation extend up to $\sim$ $\pm$200 km/s.
![Blended OI 7773 triplet absorption line profile of V899 Mon observed on 2014 December 22 using SALT-HRS. The vertical dashed lines mark the central positions of its triplet components at 7771.94 $\mathring{A}$, 7774.17 $\mathring{A}$ and 7775.39 $\mathring{A}$ []{data-label="SALTHRSOI7773"}](V899Mon_OI7773Profile_SALTHRS.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
![Evolution of equivalent width of O I $\lambda$7773 triplet, which traces the strength of turbulence in the disk of V899 Mon.[]{data-label="OI7773eqw"}](EvolutionofEQWofOI7773.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Another O I triplet at $\lambda$8446 (containing 8446.25 $\mathring{A}$, 8446.36 $\mathring{A}$, 8446.76 $\mathring{A}$ triplet lines) is also seen in absorption in our SALT-HRS spectrum. These lines are also blended and have a combined FWHM = 174 km/s. The central position of the absorption line does not show any significant red-shift and if present can be constrained to be $<$ 5 km/s. This implies the $\sim$ +20 km/s (heliocentric velocity) red-shift component seen in emission line profiles like Ca II IR triplet and forbidden lines are not due to any uncorrected peculiar velocity of V899 Mon with respect to our sun.
#### Fe I $\lambda$8514, $\lambda$8387, $\lambda$8689, $\lambda$8675
Many Fe I emission lines were detected in our medium resolution optical spectrum. All these lines were also resolved in SALT-HRS spectrum. Fe I $\lambda$8514 is a blend of two lines at 8514.07 $\mathring{A}$ and 8515.11 $\mathring{A}$; their blended profile has an FWHM of 76 km/s. Fe I 8387.777 $\mathring{A}$ has a +26.5 km/s red-shifted profile with an FWHM of 62.8 km/s, Fe I 8688.625 $\mathring{A}$ has a +26.74 km/s red-shifted profile with an FWHM of 63.3 km/s, whereas a weaker Fe I 8674.746 $\mathring{A}$ line has a +40 km/s red shifted profile with an FWHM of 59.2 km/s. The red-shifts in these lines are consistent with the red-shifts we have measured in other resolved lines (for example, in Ca II IR triplets lines and forbidden lines).
Constrains from 1280 MHz Observation {#RadioResults}
------------------------------------
V899 Mon was not detected in 1280 MHz GMRT radio continuum map observed during its second outburst. The local background noise $\sigma$ in the map after cleaning was $\sim$ 0.1 mJy. We could detect 8 other point sources in the 28 $\times$ 28 FoV map centered at V899 Mon’s position. For this study, we take a 5$\sigma$ $\sim$ 0.5 mJy to be a strict upper limit on V899 Mon’s 1280 MHz flux.
The ionizing flux from the magnetospheric accretion can create an H II region around the central source. Even though Hydrogen Balmer lines detected in our optical spectra originate in the ionized region, since they are not optically thin, we cannot use them to constrain the extent of the H II region.
If we consider the H II region to be formed by a smooth, isothermal and isotropic stellar outflow, from our mass outflow rate and velocity estimates, we can obtain the expected flux using the following formula [@moran83]. where $S(\nu)$ is the expected flux density, $T_e$ is the electron temperature of the outflowing ionized wind, $\dot M$ is the mass outflow rate, $v$ is the terminal velocity of outflow, $D$ is distance to V899 Mon, and $\nu$ is the frequency of observation. From our spectroscopic estimates of these quantities, we can substitute $\dot M$ = 0.26 $\times$ 10$^{-6}$ M$_\odot$/yr, outflow velocity $v$ = 1.5 $\times$ 10$^2$ km/s , T$_e$ = 0.9 $\times$ 10$^4$ K, D = 0.905 kpc, and $\nu$ = 1.28 GHz. We obtain $S$(1.28 GHz) = 0.17 mJy, which is consistent with our observed upper limit of 0.5 mJy. Since the outflows we detected in optical spectrum are unlikely to be an isotropic outflow, our predicted estimate of 0.17 mJy is also an upper limit.
Instead of considering a radial density profile due to outflow, since we have an estimate of density from forbidden optical lines, we can calculate an upper limit on the maximum size of homogeneous, isotropic, spherical H II region around V899 Mon. For an H II region of radius $R_s$, using a spherical volume emission measure, we have the expression [@moran83]. $$\begin{aligned}
S(\nu) &=& 3.444 \times 10^{-83} \left(\frac{10^4 K}{T_e}\right)^{0.35} \left(\frac{1 GHz}{\nu}\right)^{0.1} \\
&&\left(\frac{1 kpc}{D}\right)^2 \frac{4\pi R_s^3}{3} n_e^2 \end{aligned}$$ where, the radius of H II region $R_s$ is in cm, and electron density $n_e$ is per cm$^3$. Taking 0.5 mJy as an upper limit on $S(\nu)$, and $n_e \sim 1 \times 10^6$/cm$^3$, we obtain $R_s < 20$ AU. Since the flux of ionizing Lyman continuum inside an H II region is equal to the volume emission measure times the recombination rate, we have obtained the following relation for $N_{Lyc}$, $$\begin{aligned}
N_{Lyc} &=& 7.5487 \times 10^{43} \times \left(\frac{S(\nu)}{mJy}\right) \left(\frac{T_e}{10^4 K}\right)^{-0.45} \\
&&\left(\frac{\nu}{1 GHz}\right)^{0.1} \left(\frac{D}{1 kpc}\right)^2 \end{aligned}$$ Using our upper limit of $S(\nu)$, we obtain an upper limit on the Lyman continuum flux from V899 Mon to be $N_{Lyc} < 5 \times 10^{43}$ photons/sec.
Discussion {#discuss}
==========
Cause of break in the first outburst {#ReasonForBreak}
------------------------------------
According to standard instability models of FUors/EXors, a critical disk surface density is required to sustain the instability. Disk transition occurs from outburst phase to quiescent phase when its surface density drops below that critical value [@bell94; @zhu09]. Since the effective viscosity of disk is lower during the quiescent phase than the outburst phase, the surface density increases slowly during the quiescence than the rate at which it drained during the last outburst phase. Particularly in case of V899 Mon when the first outburst stopped, if the disk density had drained below the critical density, then it has to spend more time in the subsequent quiescent phase to replenish the disk before undergoing a second outburst. Such a scenario is also seen in the light curve of another famous and a very similar FUor candidate, V1647 Ori [@ninan13]. V582 Aur (FUor source) also showed multiple very brief quiescences during ongoing outburst [@semkov13]. In order to explain these short duration breaks in outbursts, we need to look for mechanisms during an outburst which can pause the accretion for a short duration before the disk gets critically drained. In such scenarios, the outburst can re-initiate as soon as the mechanism which was pausing the accretion disappears.
The average rate of change in V899 Mon’s magnitude during the onset of first outburst was 0.038 mag/month; on the other hand during the onset of second outburst it was larger than 0.15 mag/month. This difference implies the timescales of the mechanisms which triggered the first and the second outbursts are different.
Before V899 Mon transitioned to the quiescent phase, its spectroscopic observations showed an increase in the outflow activity (Section \[specresults\]). Later the strong P-Cygni profiles of outflow suddenly vanished as the object entered the quiescent phase. Since outflows are believed to be driven by magnetic fields, it is possible that some magnetic field related mechanism is responsible for abruptly pausing the accretion during the active outburst phase. Spectral line fluxes which are proportional to accretion, as well as the continuum flux of V899 Mon increased suddenly during this short duration before the quiescence. In the final optical spectrum taken before the source transitioned from its first outburst phase to quiescent phase, we detect a sudden increase in equivalent width of OI $\lambda$7773 absorption line (an indicator of turbulence). They are indicative of a highly turbulent activity around the V899 Mon source just before it transitioned to quiescent phase.
Accretion in low-mass YSOs is generally accepted to be via magnetospheric accretion funnels from disk to star. Large rate of accretion can provide a negative feedback in many ways. There are various semi-analytic and numerical simulation studies in literature on instabilities which can break and restart magnetospheric accretion [@kulkarni08; @orlando11; @blinova15]. For instance, the accretion can stop if the inner truncation radius of the disk moves outside the co-rotation radius [@dangelo10]. In another scenario, the differential rotation between the inner accretion disk and the star can lead to inflation of the funnel resulting in field lines opening and reconnecting, reducing accretion flow while enhancing outflow [@bouvier03]. These kinds of breaking mechanisms have the extra advantage that they can easily explain how a second outburst can re-start without having to replenish the depleted disk within the short quiescence phase. Some other FUor sources like FU Ori, V1515 Cyg and V2493 Cyg also show a short duration dip in their light curves after they attained the initial peak of their outburst. All of them seem to indicate a complex negative feedback loop in magnetospheric accretion.
It is interesting to note that, both V899 Mon and V1647 Ori (discussed in @ninan13) spent shorter duration in the first outburst compared to their ongoing second outbursts. The reason for the second outburst being more stable than the first outburst could be because of the change in the inner disk’s physical parameters by the heating or the draining of the disk during the first outburst (such as the extent of the interaction region between magnetosphere and inner disk, their coupling, inner radius of the disk, etc.). In case of V1647 Ori, from the stability in the phase of X-ray accretion spot, @hamaguchi12 had shown that the location of the spot of accretion column shock on the star did not change significantly between the first and second outbursts. Hence, if the quiescent phase of V1647 Ori was due to disruption in magnetic funnel accretion, at least the base of the magnetic funnel on the star surface was not completely disrupted.
To summarize, even though we do not have direct observational evidence to support increased magnetic activity, the outflow and turbulence signatures in the spectrum and continuum flux are consistent with instability in magnetic accretion funnel, and the timescales are strongly inconsistent with any other instability models which depend on critical disk surface densities to switch on and off the outburst.
V899 Mon: FUor or EXor {#FUorEXorClassification}
----------------------
The empirical classification between FUors and EXors is based on the similarity in observed properties with classical FUors (FU Ori, V1515 Cyg, etc.) and EXors (EX Lup, V1118 Ori, etc.). @audard14 provide a detailed comparison of these objects from the literature. The $\sim$3 magnitude change in the brightness of V899 Mon during its outburst is typical of EXors family of outbursts. On the other hand, the duration of outbursts in V899 Mon, $\sim$4 years for first outburst and greater than 3.5 years for ongoing second outburst, is significantly more than the typical duration EXors spend in outburst (less than 1 - 3 years). Unlike V899 Mon, EXors also remain in quiescence for more duration than the time they spend in outburst phase. However, V899 Mon’s outburst timescales are still much less than classical FUors.
Spectroscopically, classical FUors have all optical and NIR Hydrogen lines in absorption, while EXors have those lines in emission. In case of V899 Mon, H$\alpha$ and a small component of H$\beta$ are in emission, while all the other Hydrogen lines in optical and NIR are in absorption. CO band heads starting at 2.29 $\mu m$ are also in absorption. Hence, spectroscopically also V899 Mon lies between classical FUors and EXors. The L$_{bol}$ estimates of V899 Mon from SED are greater than that of typical EXors, and they are less than that of classical FUors. The mass accretion rate during outburst phase is typical of EXors, and is an order less than that of classical FUors.
Many of the recently discovered outbursts like V1647 Ori, OO Ser, etc. also show such intermediate properties between the classical bimodal classification of FUors and EXors. Discovery of more such intermediate type outburst sources like V899 Mon indicates that this family of episodic accretion outbursts probably have a continuum distribution and not bimodal.
Conclusions {#conclusion}
===========
We have carried out a long-term monitoring of V899 Mon from September 2009 to April 2015. During this period, V899 Mon underwent transition from the first outburst phase to the quiescent phase and then back to the second outburst phase. Following are the main results from our study.
1. Optical and NIR spectroscopy of V899 Mon confirms it to be a member of the FUors/EXors family of outbursts. Photometrically and spectroscopically V899 Mon’s properties lie between EXors and classical FUors. But it is probably more similar to EXors than classical FUors.
2. At the end of 2010, V899 Mon abruptly ceased its first outburst phase and transitioned to the quiescent phase for a duration of little less than a year, immediately after which it returned to the second outburst.
3. Just before the break in the first outburst phase of V899 Mon, its spectra showed heavy outflow activity (indicated by a strong P-Cygni) and increased turbulence.
4. The excess flux of outburst initially had a cooler temperature than V899 Mon’s photosphere and slowly became hotter as V899 Mon transitioned from the quiescent phase to the second outburst phase. This was seen in the change of $V$-$R$ and $V$-$I$ color of V899 Mon, which had reddest values during the intermediate transition period.
5. The outflows indicated by P-Cygni profiles completely disappeared during the quiescent phase of V899 Mon, and reappeared gradually only after V899 Mon reached its peak of the second outburst.
6. High resolution spectrum of the forbidden emission line profiles originating in outflows/jets show blue-shifted velocity components extending up to -500 km/s, while the outflows traced by H$\alpha$ P-Cygni absorption profiles originating near the central star show complex multiple absorption components with velocities up to -722 km/s.
7. As expected from accretion outbursts, accretion rates estimated of V899 Mon from spectral lines show significant variation between first outburst, quiescent and second outburst phases.
8. Since the A$_V$ estimate from far-infrared is inconsistent with optical observations, V899 Mon is not embedded inside the far-infrared clump detected at its location. It is possible that our line of sight is through a cavity cleared out in envelope. The clump is thermally influenced by the irradiation from V899 Mon since it showed variation in far-infrared flux between the first and the second outburst phases.
9. Since the disk replenishes slowly in the quiescent phase, all instability models which depend on the disk surface density to cross a certain threshold to trigger/stop an outburst are incompatible with V899 Mon’s light curve. The case is similar to V1647 Ori.
10. The heavy outflow activity we detected just before V899 Mon transitioned to the quiescent phase is consistent with various magnetic instabilities which can arise in magnetospheric accretion. Such instability driven breaks in accretion can restart outburst immediately once the magnetic accretion funnel stabilizes.
We thank the anonymous referee for giving us invaluable comments and suggestions that improved the content and structure of the paper. It is a pleasure to thank all the members of the Infrared Astronomy Group of TIFR for their support during the TIRCAM2 and TIRSPEC observations. The authors thank the staff of CREST at Bangalore and HCT at Hanle (Ladakh), operated by the Indian Institute of Astrophysics, Bangalore; IGO at Girawali, operated by Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune; and GMRT operated by the National Center for Radio Astrophysics of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) for their assistance and support during observations. High resolution spectrum reported in this paper was obtained with the Southern African Large Telescope (SALT), and we would like to thank Dr. Brent Miszalski, and the entire SALT team for conducting SALT observations. This publication makes use of data products from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE), which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The CSS survey is funded by the NASA under Grant No. NNG05GF22G issued through the Science Mission Directorate Near-Earth Objects Observations Program. The CRTS survey is supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grants AST-0909182. All the plots are generated using the 2D graphics environment *Matplotlib* [@hunter07].
[*Facilities:*]{} , , , , .
[lccll]{}
2009 Nov 30 & 2455166 & 1.9 & V,R,gr8 & HFOSC\
2009 Dec 04 & 2455170 & 3.1 & V,R,I & HFOSC\
2009 Dec 16 & 2455182 & 1.8 & V,R,I & HFOSC\
2009 Dec 17 & 2455183 & & gr7,gr8 & HFOSC\
[lcccccccc]{}
2455166 & & & 14.57 & 13.40 & & & &\
2455170 & & & 14.22 & 13.10 & 12.08 & & &\
2455182 & & & 13.61 & 12.65 & 11.57 & & &\
2455186 & & & 13.51 & 12.37 & 11.37 & & &\
[lccc]{}
A$_V$ (mag) & 4.5 $\pm$1.1 & 4.2 $\pm$0.34 &\
distance (pc) & 870 $\pm$80 & 794 $\pm$30 & 891 $\pm$55\
Age$_*$ (Myr) & 4.84 $\pm$2.1 & 1.93 $\pm$1.8 & 0.0073 $\pm$.002\
Mass$_*$ (M$_\odot$) & 3.7 $\pm$0.3 & 5.1 $\pm$0.5 & 0.57 $\pm$0.04\
$\dot{M}_{envelope}$ (M$_\odot$) & 0 $\pm$5.7e-09 & 0 $\pm$7.9e-08 & 24.7e-05 $\pm$2.4e-05\
Mass$_{Disk}$ (M$_\odot$) & 1.2e-05 $\pm$0.0179 & 1.4e-03 $\pm$2.07e-03 & 0.048 $\pm$0.008\
$\dot{M}_{disk}$ (M$_\odot$/yr) & 1.54e-10 $\pm$4.9e-07 & 4.82e-09 $\pm$7.6e-08 & 5.48e-07 $\pm$2.7e-07\
L$_{total}$ (L$_\odot$) & 162 $\pm$79 & 419 $\pm$168 & 8.55 $\pm$1.54\
Mass$_{env}$ (M$_\odot$) & 8.13e-08 $\pm$0.027 & 1.52e-05 $\pm$0.07 & 23.43 $\pm$2.0\
[lccc]{}
PACS 70 $\mu m$ & & 2.01 Jy &\
PACS 160 $\mu m$ & & 7.02 Jy &\
SPIRE 250 $\mu m$ & 9.02 Jy & 6.86 Jy & 2.86 Jy\
SPIRE 350 $\mu m$ & 6.82 Jy & 5.68 Jy & 1.48 Jy\
SPIRE 500 $\mu m$ & 4.65 Jy & 4.06 Jy & 0.33 Jy\
[lccccccc]{}
2009-11-30 & 2455166.33 & -17.5 & 1.9e-13 & & & -10.1 & 1.52e-13\
2009-12-17 & 2455183.21 & -6.88 & 1.38e-13 & 4.27 & -254 & -3.7 & 1.21e-13\
2009-12-21 & 2455187.27 & -7.77 & 1.83e-13 & 7.17 & -199 & -4.78 & 1.74e-13\
2009-12-29 & 2455195.22 & -6.82 & 1.69e-13 & 2.48 & -263 & -4.7 & 1.89e-13\
[^1]: <http://www.iiap.res.in/iao/hfosc.html>
[^2]: <http://www.iucaa.ernet.in/~itp/igoweb/igo_tele_and_inst.htm>
[^3]: <https://indiajoe.github.io/OpticalPhotoSpecPipeline/>
[^4]: HgCdTe Astronomy Wide Area Infrared Imager -1, Pro ducible Alternative to CdTe for Epitaxy
[^5]: Two Micron All Sky Survey
[^6]: PyRAF is a product of the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA for NASA
[^7]: Spectral and Photometric Imaging Receiver
[^8]: Photoconductor Array Camera and Spectrometer
[^9]: *Herschel* is an ESA space observatory with science instruments provided by European-led Principal Investigator consortia and with important participation from NASA.
[^10]: Catalina Real-Time Transient Survey Data Release 2
[^11]: Palomar Observatory Sky Survey
[^12]: U.S. Naval Observatory B1.0 Catalog
[^13]: Infrared Astronomical Satellite, Survey
[^14]: Deep Near Infrared Survey of the Southern Sky
[^15]: Two Micron All-Sky Survey
[^16]: Akari All-Sky Survey Point Source Catalog
[^17]: Infrared Array Camera on Spitzer
[^18]: Multi-Band Imaging Photometer on Spitzer
[^19]: CRTS DR2 $V_{CSS}$ magnitudes of V899 Mon, were converted to effective $R$ magnitude using color correction equation $V = V_{CSS} + 0.91*(V-R)^2 + 0.04$ and $V-R = 1.11$. <http://nesssi.cacr.caltech.edu/DataRelease/FAQ2.html#improve>
[^20]: Even though we do not have NIR photometric measurements during quiescent phase in 2011, our quiescent phase *I*-band magnitude matches with DENIS *I* magnitude observed on 1999 January 25, and DENIS *J* and *K* magnitudes of this epoch matches with 2MASS *J* and *K$_S$* magnitudes observed in 1998. Hence in this study, we have taken 2MASS magnitudes as the quiescent phase *J, H* and *K$_S$* magnitudes of the V899 Mon source.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we prove threshold saturation for spatially coupled turbo codes (SC-TCs) and braided convolutional codes (BCCs) over the binary erasure channel. We introduce a compact graph representation for the ensembles of SC-TC and BCC codes which simplifies their description and the analysis of the message passing decoding. We demonstrate that by few assumptions in the ensembles of these codes, it is possible to rewrite their vector recursions in a form which places these ensembles under the category of scalar admissible systems. This allows us to define *potential functions* and prove threshold saturation using the proof technique introduced by Yedla [*et al.*]{}.'
author:
- |
\
[^1]
title: 'Threshold Saturation for Spatially Coupled Turbo-like Codes over the Binary Erasure Channel'
---
Introduction
============
Low-density parity-check (LDPC) convolutional codes [@JimenezLDPCCC], also known as spatially coupled LDPC (SC-LDPC) codes [@Kudekar_ThresholdSaturation] have received a great deal of attention in the recent years as a result of their excellent performance under iterative decoding. In particular, it has been shown that the threshold of a belief propagation (BP) decoder improves to the threshold of an optimal maximum a-posteriori (MAP) decoder. This remarkable phenomenon is called threshold saturation.
Spatial coupling is not limited to LDPC codes. Braided convolutional codes (BCCs) are a class of spatially coupled (SC) codes introduced in [@ZhangBCC]. Recently, the authors introduced spatially coupled turbo codes (SC-TCs) [@MoloudiISTC14], as the SC counterparts of parallel [@BerrouTC] and serially [@Benedetto98Serial] concatenated convolutional codes. In [@MoloudiISTC14; @MoloudiISIT14; @Moloudi_SPCOM14; @Moloudi_ISTW14], we investigated threshold saturation for SC parallel concatenated codes (SC-PCCs), SC serially concatenated codes (SC-SCCs) and BCCs over the binary erasure channel (BEC). We derived closed-form density evolution (DE) equations for SC-TCs and BCCs and investigated their decoding thresholds. Our numerical results suggest that threshold saturation occurs for SC-PCCs, SC-SCCs and BCCs.
In this paper, we formally prove threshold saturation for SC-TCs and BCCs over the BEC. Our proof relies on the proof technique based on potential functions, recently proposed by Yedla *et al.* [@Yedla2012; @Yedla2012Vector]. We introduce a compact graph representation to describe PCC, SCC and BCC ensembles. Similar to a protograph [@Loeliger], the compact graph makes it easier to illustrate the analysis of the message passing decoding. We then demonstrate that by few assumptions, the DE recursions of SC-TCs [@MoloudiISTC14; @Moloudi_SPCOM14] and BCCs [@MoloudiISIT14; @Moloudi_SPCOM14], can be rewritten in a form that corresponds to the recursion of a scalar admissible system as in [@Yedla2012]. This makes it possible to derive suitable potential functions for TCs and uncoupled BCCs. Finally, we prove threshold saturation for SC-TCs and BCCs following the same lines as the proof in [@Yedla2012] for SC-LDPC codes.
Compact Graph Representation {#CGR}
============================
It is possible to analyze message passing decoding algorithms in an efficient way by the use of factor graphs [@Loeliger]. However the conventional factor graph of codes with convolutional component codes, such as PCCs, SCCs and BCCs, gets very large as the length of the component codes increases. In this section we introduce a more compact graph representation, in which each trellis is represented by a single factor node and each collection of variables of the same type is represented by a single variable node. We use this compact graph representation to obtain DE equations and describe the spatially coupled ensembles.
Fig. \[Fig1\]$(a)$ shows the conventional factor graph representation of a rate $R = 1/3$ PCC. This code is built from two rate-$1/2$ recursive systematic encoders, referred to as upper and lower encoders; we call the corresponding trellises upper and lower trellises and denote them by $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$, respectively. The information sequence at time slot $t$ is denoted by $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and is a vector of $N$ bits $\boldsymbol{u}_t=(u_1,u_2,\dots,u_{N})$. The information sequence $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and its reordered copy are encoded by the upper and lower encoder to produce parity sequences $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{U}}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{L}}$, respectively.
Fig. \[Fig1\]$(b)$ shows the compact graph representation of this code. Each of the sequences $\boldsymbol{u}_t$, $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{U}}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{L}}$ are represented by a single black circle (variable node). Thus, each variable node in the compact graph corresponds to a number of code symbols. The trellises are replaced by squares (factor nodes) which are labeled by their length[^2]. The permutation is represented by a line that crosses the edge which connects $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ to $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ in order to emphasize that a reordered copy of $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ is used in $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$. The transmitted code sequence is $\boldsymbol{v}=(\boldsymbol{u}_t,\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{U}},\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{L}})$.
![(a) Conventional factor graph of a PCC, compact graph of a (b) PCC, (c) SCC, (d) BCC.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](FactorCG.jpg){width="0.78\linewidth"}
Fig. \[Fig1\]$(c)$ depicts the compact graph representation of a rate $R=1/4$ SCC built from two rate-$1/2$ recursive systematic convolutional encoders, referred to as inner and outer encoders. We call the corresponding trellises inner and outer trellises and denote them by $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$, respectively. At time $t$, the information sequence $\boldsymbol{u}_t$, of length $N$, is encoded by the outer encoder to produce the parity sequence $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{O}}$. Then, $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{O}}$ are multiplexed and reordered to create a sequence $\tilde{\boldsymbol{v}}_t^{\text{O}}$ whose length is $2N$. The sequence $\tilde{\boldsymbol{v}}_t^{\text{O}}$ is encoded by the inner encoder to produce the parity sequence $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{I}}$. The transmitted code sequence is $\boldsymbol{v}=(\boldsymbol{u}_t,\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{O}},\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{I}})$.
BCCs consist of two rate-2/3 component convolutional encoders. As for PCCs, we call the component encoders upper and lower and the corresponding trellises as upper and lower trellises and denote them by $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$, respectively. BCCs are inherently SC but we can define uncoupled BCCs by tailbiting a chain of a coupled code with coupling length $L=1$. Fig. \[Fig1\]$(d)$ shows the compact graph of uncoupled BCCs. At time $t$, the parity sequences of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ are denoted by $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{U}}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{L}}$, respectively. The information sequence $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and a reordered copy of $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{L}}$ are used in $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ to produce $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{U}}$. Likewise, some reordered copies of $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{U}}$ are used in $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ to produce $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{L}}$. The transmitted code sequence is $\boldsymbol{v}=(\boldsymbol{u}_t,\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{U}},\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{L}})$.
Density Evolution and Scalar Admissible System {#Sec1}
==============================================
In this section, we first define a scalar admissible system. Then we show that by few assumptions in the ensembles of TCs and BCCs, it is possible to rewrite their DE recursions in a form which corresponds to the recursion of a scalar admissible system.
\[def1\] A scalar admissible system $(f,g)$, is defined by the recursion $$\label{recursion}
x^{(i)}=f\Big( g(x^{(i-1)});\varepsilon\Big),$$ where $f : [0,1] \times [0,1] \rightarrow [0,1]$ and $g : [0,1] \rightarrow [0,1]$ satisfy the following conditions.
- $f$ is increasing in both arguments $x,\varepsilon \in (0,1]$;
- $g$ is increasing in $x \in (0,1]$;
- $f(0;\varepsilon)=f(x;0)=g(0)=0$;
- $f$ and $g$ have continuous second derivatives.
Parallel Concatenated Codes {#PCCs}
---------------------------
Consider the PCC in Fig. \[Fig1\]$(b)$. To formulate the DE equations as we obtained in [@MoloudiISTC14], let $p_{\text{U},\text{s}}^{(i)}$ and $p_{\text{L},\text{s}}^{(i)}$ denote the extrinsic erasure probabilities to $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ from $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$, respectively. Consider transmission over the BEC with erasure probability $\varepsilon$. The erasure probabilities to $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ from $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{U}}$, in the $i$th iteration, are $\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},\text{s}}^{(i-1)}$ and $\varepsilon$, respectively. Thus the DE update for $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DEPCC1}
p_{\text{U},\text{s}}^{(i)}={\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{U},\mathrm{s}}}}\left(
q_{\text{L}}^{(i-1)},\varepsilon\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{DEPCC2}
q_{\text{L}}^{(i-1)}=\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},\text{s}}^{(i-1)}$$ and ${\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{U},\mathrm{s}}}}$ denotes the transfer function of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ for the information bits. Similarly, the DE update for $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DEPCC3}
p_{\text{L},\text{s}}^{(i)}={\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{s}}}}\left(
q_{\text{U}}^{(i-1)},\varepsilon\right)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{DEPCC4}
q_{\text{U}}^{(i-1)}=\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{U},\text{s}}^{(i-1)}.$$ The DE equations for PCCs in - involve different edges and hence form a vector recursion. However, considering identical $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ nodes (i.e., identical component encoders), it follows that $f_{\text{U},\text{s}}=f_{\text{L},\text{s}}\triangleq f_{\text{s}}$. Therefore, $p_{\text{U},\text{s}}^{(i)}=p_{\text{L},\text{s}}^{(i)}\triangleq x^{(i)}$. Now, using this and by substituting (\[DEPCC2\]) into (\[DEPCC1\]) and (\[DEPCC3\]) into (\[DEPCC4\]), the DE can be written as a scalar recursion, $$\label{DEPCC3}
x^{(i)}=f_{\text{s}}(\varepsilon x^{(i-1)},\varepsilon ),$$ where the initial condition is $x^{(0)} = 1$. Consider $f(x;\varepsilon)=f_{\text{s}}(\varepsilon\cdot x, \varepsilon)$ and $g(x)=x$. We show in the following that these two functions meet the conditions in Definition \[def1\]. Therefore, the recursion is a recursion of a scalar admissible system. The function $g(x)=x$ is a simple function and it is easy to show that it satisfies all conditions in Definition \[def1\]. $f(x;\varepsilon)$ is a transfer function of a BCJR decoder with a-priori information $x$ and channel erasure probability $\varepsilon$. In the following lemma we show that it satisfies the conditions in Definition \[def1\].
\[remark1\] Consider a terminated convolutional code where all distinct input sequences have distinct coded sequences. For such a system, the transfer function $f(x;\varepsilon)$ of a BCJR decoder with a-priori probability $x$ and channel erasure probability $\varepsilon$, or any convex combination of such transfer functions, satisfies all conditions in Definition \[def1\].
The BCJR decoder is an optimal APP decoder. Consider two BECs with erasure probabilities $\varepsilon_1$ and $\varepsilon_2$, with $\varepsilon_1<\varepsilon_2$. The BEC with erasure rate $\varepsilon_2$, can be seen as the concatenation of two BECs with erasure rates $\varepsilon_1$ and $\varepsilon'$, where $\varepsilon'=1-\frac{1-\varepsilon_2}{1-\varepsilon_1}$. The data processing inequality implies that $f(x;\varepsilon_1)<f(x;\varepsilon_2)$. This means that the erasure probability at the output of the BCJR decoder is monotone and increases with $\varepsilon$. When $\varepsilon=0$, the input sequence can be recovered perfectly from the received sequence, as there is a one-to-one mapping of input sequences to coded sequences. This means $f(x;0)=0$. It is also possible to proof that $f(x_1;\varepsilon)<f(x_2;\varepsilon)$ for $x_1<x_2$ (not shown due to lack of space).
Finally, $f(x;\varepsilon)$ is a rational function and its poles are outside the interval $x,\varepsilon \in [0,1]$ (otherwise we may get infinite output erasure probability for a finite input erasure probability), so it has continuous first and second derivatives in the interval $x,\varepsilon \in [0,1]$.
Serially Concatenated Codes
----------------------------
Consider the SCC in Fig. \[Fig1\]$(c)$. We define by ${\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{s}}}}^{(i)} $ the extrinsic erasure probability from $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ to $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{O}}$. Likewise, let ${\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{s}}}}^{(i)}$ and ${\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{p}}}}^{(i)}$ denote the extrinsic erasure probabilities from $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$ to $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{O}}$ in the $i$th iteration, respectively. Consider the transmission over the BEC with erasure probability $\varepsilon$. The erasure probabilities from $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{O}}$ to $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$ in the $i$th iteration both are equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DESCC1}
q_{\text{I}}^{(i-1)}=\varepsilon \cdot {\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{s}}}}^{(i-1)}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the DE equations for $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:OuterUpdates}
{\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{s}}}}^{(i)}&={\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{s}}}}\left(q_{\text{I}}^{(i-1)},q_{\text{I}}^{(i-1)}\right)\\
\label{eq:OuterUpdatep}
{\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{p}}}}^{(i)}&={\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{p}}}}\left(q_{\text{I}}^{(i-1)},q_{\text{I}}^{(i-1)}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{s}}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{p}}}}$ denote the transfer functions of $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$ for the input and parity bits, respectively.
The input sequence of the inner encoder consists of $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{O}}$, so that the erasure probability $q_{\text{O}}^{(i)}$ that comes to $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$ through the set of these two variable nodes is the average of the extrinsic erasure probabilities from $\boldsymbol{u}_t$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_t^{\text{O}}$, i.e., $$\label{eq:InnerUpdate3}
q_{\text{O}}^{(i)}=\varepsilon \cdot\frac{{\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{s}}}}^{(i)}+{\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{p}}}}^{(i)}}{2} .$$ Let ${\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{s}}}}$ denote the transfer function of $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ for the input bits. The DE equations for $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LowerUpdates}
{\ensuremath{p_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{s}}}}^{(i+1)}={\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{s}}}}\left(
q_{\text{O}}^{(i)},\varepsilon\right).
$$ Equations (\[DESCC1\]) to (\[eq:LowerUpdates\]) show that the DE for SCCs in Fig. \[Fig1\] (c) is a vector recursion. However, for identical $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$, it follows ${\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{s}}}}={\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{s}}}}\triangleq f_{\text{s}}$ and ${\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{I},\mathrm{p}}}}={\ensuremath{f_{\mathrm{O},\mathrm{p}}}}\triangleq f_{\text{p}}$. Using this and and $q_{\text{I}}^{(i-1)}\triangleq x^{(i)}$, by substituting - into , the DE recursion can be written as $$\label{eq:SCCrec}
x^{(i+1)}=\varepsilon \cdot f_{\text{s}}\Big(\varepsilon g(x^{(i)}),\varepsilon\Big),$$ where $$\label{eq:gSCC}
g(x^{(i)})=\frac{f_{\text{s}}\Big(x^{(i)},x^{(i)}\Big)+f_{\text{p}}\Big(x^{(i)},x^{(i)}\Big)}{2},$$ and the initial condition is $x^{(0)}=1$.
Consider $f(x;\varepsilon)=\varepsilon \cdot f_{\text{s}}(x, \varepsilon)$ and $$g(x)=\frac{f_{\text{s}}(x,x)+f_{\text{p}}(x,x)}{2}.$$ According to Lemma \[remark1\], these two functions meet the conditions in Definition \[def1\] and we can conclude that the DE recursion of SCCs in (\[eq:SCCrec\]) is a recursion of a scalar admissible system.
Braided Convolutional Codes {#BCC}
----------------------------
Consider the BCC in Fig. \[Fig1\]$(d)$. Let $p_{\text{U},k}^{(i)}$ and $p_{\text{U},k}^{(i)}$, $k=1,2,3$, denote the extrinsic erasure probabilities from $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ in the $i$th iteration, through their $k$th connected edge, respectively. The exact DE equations can be written as [@MoloudiISIT14] $$\begin{aligned}
p_{\text{U},1}^{(i)}=&f_{\text{U},1}\left(\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},1}^{(i-1)} ,\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},3}^{(i-1)},\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},2}^{(i-1)}\right) \label{eqDE1}\\
p_{\text{U},2}^{(i)}=&f_{\text{U},2}\left(\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},1}^{(i-1)} ,\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},3}^{(i-1)},\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},2}^{(i-1)}\right)\\
p_{\text{U},3}^{(i)}=&f_{\text{U},3}\left(\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},1}^{(i-1)} ,\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},3}^{(i-1)},\varepsilon \cdot p_{\text{L},2}^{(i-1)}\right) \ , \end{aligned}$$ where $f_{\text{U},k}$ denotes the transfer function of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ for the $k$th connected edge. Likewise, the DE equations for $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ can be written by swapping $p_{\text{U},k}^{(i)}$ and $p_{\text{L},k}^{(i)}$ for $k=1,2,3$.
Similarly to PCCs and SCCs, the DE equations of a BCC form a vector recursion. In order to modify this recursion to scalar form, in the first step consider identical upper and lower factor nodes. It follows $f_{\text{U},k}=f_{\text{L},k}\triangleq f_k$ and $p_{\text{U},k}^{(i)}=p_{\text{U},k}^{(i)}\triangleq x_k$ for $k=1,2,3$. Then we can rewrite the DE equations of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BCC1}
x_1^{(i+1)}&=f_1\Big(\varepsilon \cdot x_1^{(i)},\varepsilon \cdot x_3^{(i)},\varepsilon\cdot x_2^{(i)}\Big)\\
\label{BCC2}
x_2^{(i+1)}&=f_2\Big(\varepsilon \cdot x_1^{(i)},\varepsilon \cdot x_3^{(i)},\varepsilon \cdot x_2^{(i)}\Big)\\
\label{BCC3}
x_3^{(i+1)}&=f_3\Big(\varepsilon \cdot x_1^{(i)},\varepsilon \cdot x_3^{(i)},\varepsilon \cdot x_2^{(i)}\Big).\end{aligned}$$ According to the above equations, the DE recursion is still in vector form. To rewrite it in scalar form, one alternative is to consider identical component encoders with a time-varying trellis, such that all three transfer functions are equal. For example, by periodically changing the order of symbols along trellis branches, this function becomes the average of the transfer functions $f_1,f_2,f_3$, $f_{\text{ave}}=\frac{f_1+f_2+f_3}{3}$. By the above assumption, $x_1=x_2=x_3\triangleq x$. Using this in - we can simplify the DE recursion as $$\label{eq:BCCScalar}
x^{(i+1)}=f_{\text{ave}}(\varepsilon \cdot x^{(i)},\varepsilon \cdot x^{(i)},\varepsilon \cdot x^{(i)}).$$ Considering $f(x;\varepsilon)=f_{\text{ave}}(\varepsilon \cdot x,\varepsilon \cdot x,\varepsilon \cdot x)$, $g(x)=x$ and Lemma \[remark1\], is the recursion of a scalar admissible system.
Single System Potential {#Sec2}
=======================
Since the DE recursion of TCs and BCCs can be written as the recursion of a scalar admissible system, we can derive the corresponding potential functions [@Yedla2012].
\[def2\] For a scalar admissible system, the potential function $U(x;\varepsilon)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Potential}
U(x;\varepsilon)&=\int_{0}^{x}\big{(}z-f(g(x);\varepsilon)\big{)}g'(z)dz \nonumber\\
&=xg(x)-G(x)-F(g(x);\varepsilon),\end{aligned}$$ where $F(x;\varepsilon)=\int_{0}^{x}f(z;\varepsilon) dz$ and $G(x)=\int_{0}^{x}g(z) dz$.
The potential function has the following characteristics.
- $U(x;\varepsilon)$ is strictly decreasing in $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$.
- An $x\in [0,1]$ is a fixed point of the recursion (\[recursion\]) iff it is a stationary point of the potential function.
\[defBP\] If the DE recursion is the recursion of a BP decoder, the BP threshold is [@Yedla2012] $$\varepsilon^{\text{BP}}=\sup\Big\{\varepsilon
\in[0,1]|U'(x;\varepsilon)>0,\; \forall x\in (0,1]\Big\}.$$
According to Definition \[defBP\], for $\varepsilon < \varepsilon^{\text{BP}}$, the potential function has no stationary point and its derivative is always larger than zero for $x\in (0,1]$.
\[defMAP\] For $\varepsilon >\varepsilon^{\text{BP}} $, the minimum unstable fixed point is $u(\varepsilon)=\sup\big\{\tilde{x} \in [0,1]| f(g(x);\varepsilon)<x, x\in (0,\tilde{x})\big\}$. Then, the potential threshold is [@Yedla2012] $$\begin{aligned}
\varepsilon^*=\sup \Big\{\varepsilon \in [0,1]| u(x)>0, \min_{x \in [u(x),1]} U(x;\varepsilon)> 0 \Big\}.\end{aligned}$$
The potential threshold depends on functions $g(x)$ and $f(x;\varepsilon)$. Since at least one of these functions depends on the component encoders, $\varepsilon^*$ also depends on the component encoders.
Consider a rate-1/3 PCC in Fig. \[Fig1\](a) with identical component encoders with generator matrix ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{G}}}=(1,5/7)$ in octal notation. Its potential function is $$U(x;\epsilon)=x^2-G(x)-F_{\text{s}}(x;\epsilon)=\frac{x^2}{2}-F_{\text{s}}(x;\epsilon),$$ where $F_{\text{s}}(x;\varepsilon)=\int_{0}^{x}f_{\text{s}}(\varepsilon\cdot z,\varepsilon) dz$ and $G(x)=\int_{0}^{x}g(z)dz=\frac{x^2}{2}$.
The potential function of this code is shown in Fig. \[PotPCC\]. As it is illustrated in the figure, $\varepsilon=0.6428$ is the maximum channel erasure probability for which the derivative of the potential function is greater than zero and the potential function has no stationary point for $x\in (0,1]$. Thus, $\varepsilon=0.6428$ is the BP threshold of this code (see Definition \[defBP\]). The potential threshold is $\varepsilon^*=0.6554$ (see the black line in Fig. \[PotPCC\]). These results match with our numerical results in [@MoloudiISTC14].
![The potential function of PCC with generator matrix ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{G}}}=(1,5/7)$ in octal notation[]{data-label="PotPCC"}](PotentialPCC57.jpg){width="0.8\linewidth"}
Coupled system and Threshold Saturation {#Sec3}
=======================================
\[Thm:SC\] Consider a spatially coupled system defined by the following recursion at time $t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{SC}
x_t^{(i+1)}=\frac{1}{1+m}\sum_{k=0}^{m}f\Big(\frac{1}{1+m}\sum_{j=0}^{m}g(x_{t+j-k}^{(i)});\varepsilon\Big).\end{aligned}$$ For a large enough coupling memory and $\varepsilon < \varepsilon^*$, the only fixed point of the recursion is $x=0$.
The proof follows from [@Yedla2012].
In the following we demonstrate that the recursion of SC-PCCs, SC-SCCs and BCCs correspond to the recursion in (\[SC\]).
Spatially Coupled Parallel Concatenated Codes
---------------------------------------------
Fig. \[SCsystems\](a) shows the compact graph of SC-PCCs at time $t$ for coupling memory $m$. The sequence corresponding to the input variable node at this time, $\boldsymbol{u}_{t}$, is divided into $m+1$ sequences, $\boldsymbol{u}_{t,j}$, $j=0,\dots ,m$. At time $t$, the sequences ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}_{t-j,j}$, $j=0,\dots ,m$ are multiplexed and reordered. The resulting sequence is used as the input to $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ at time $t$. Likewise, a reordered copy of the sequence corresponding to the input variable node at the current time slot, $\boldsymbol{u}'_{t}$, is divided into $m+1$ sequences $\boldsymbol{u}'_{t,j'}$, $j'=0,\dots ,m$. At time $t$, the sequences $\boldsymbol{u}_{t-j',j'}$, $j'=0,\dots ,m$ are multiplexed and reordered. The resulting sequence is used as the input to $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ at time $t$. In other words, $\boldsymbol{u}_{t}$ is connected to the set of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$s and the set of $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$s at time slots $t$ to $t+m$. Consider identical $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$s and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$s. Due to the symmetric coupling structure, both erasure probabilities that come to $\boldsymbol{u}_{t}$ at time $t$ are equal and denoted by $x^{(i)}_{t}$. Following the compact graph of SC-PCCs, the erasure probability to $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ through its first edge is the average of the erasure probabilities from $\boldsymbol{u}_{t'}$, $t'=t-m, \dots, t$. Therefore, the update of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ at time $t$ is $$f_{\text{s},t}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon}{m+1}\cdot\sum_{j=0}^{m}x_{t-j}^{(i)},\varepsilon\Big),$$ where $f_{\text{s},t}$ is the transfer function of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ at time $t$ for the information bits. The erasure probability that comes to $\boldsymbol{u}_{t}$ at time slot $t$ through each of the incoming edges is the average of the erasure probabilities that come from the set of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$s or $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$s at time slots $t$ to $t+m$. The recursion equation at time slot $t$ can then be written as $$\label{eq:SCPCC}
x_t^{(i+1)}=\frac{1}{1+m}\sum_{k=0}^{m}f_{\text{s},t+k}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon}{m+1}\cdot\sum_{j=0}^{m}x_{t-j+k}^{(i)},\varepsilon\Big).$$ The recursion (\[eq:SCPCC\]) is identical to the recursion in (\[SC\]). Thus, according to Theorem \[Thm:SC\], for channels with erasure probability $\varepsilon<\varepsilon^*$, the only fixed point of recursion is zero.
![Compact graph of (a) SC-PCCs, (b) SC-SCCs, (c) BCCs[]{data-label="SCsystems"}](SCsystems.jpg){width="0.75\linewidth"}
Spatially Coupled Serially Concatenated Codes
---------------------------------------------
Fig. \[SCsystems\](b) shows the compact graph of SC-SCCs at time $t$ for coupling memory $m$. Similarly to uncoupled SCCs, at time $t$, $\boldsymbol{u}_{t}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_{t}^{\text{O}}$ are multiplexed and reordered to produce the sequence $\tilde{\boldsymbol{v}}_{t}^{\text{O}}$. $\tilde{\boldsymbol{v}}_{t}^{\text{O}}$ is randomly divided into $m+1$ sequences $\tilde{\boldsymbol{v}}_{t,j}^{\text{O}}$, $j=0,\dots,m$. $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ at time $t$ receives a sequence which is built from sequences $\tilde{\boldsymbol{v}}_{t-j,j}^{\text{O}}$, $j=0,\dots,m$, and reordered.
Consider identical $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ and denote the erasure probability from $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ to the set of $\boldsymbol{u}_{t}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_{t}^{\text{O}}$ by $x^{i}_{t}$ at time $t$ and iteration $i$. Then, the message from this set to the set of $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$s is $g(x^{(i)}_{t})$, where $g(x)$ is obtained in (\[eq:gSCC\]). Following the edges which are connected to $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ at time $t$, the erasure probability that $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ receives through its first edge is $$\frac{\varepsilon}{m+1}\cdot\sum_{j=0}^{m}g(x_{t-j}^{(i)}).$$ The update of $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ can be written as $$f_{\text{s},t}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon}{m+1}\cdot\sum_{j=0}^{m}g(x_{t-j}^{(i)}),\varepsilon\Big),$$ where $f_{\text{s},t}$ is the transfer function of $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{O}}$ at time $t$ for their input bits.
Both $\boldsymbol{u}_{t}$ and $\boldsymbol{v}_{t}^{\text{O}}$ receive equal erasure probabilities from the set of $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$s. This erasure probability is the average of the erasure probabilities from $\text{T}_{\text{I}}$ at time slots $t$ to $t+m$. The DE recursion can then be written as $$\label{eq:SCSCC}
x_t^{(i+1)}=\frac{1}{1+m}\sum_{k=0}^{m}\varepsilon \cdot f_{\text{s},t+k}\Big(\frac{\varepsilon}{m+1}\cdot\sum_{j=0}^{m}g(x_{t-j+k}^{(i)}),\varepsilon\Big),$$ where function $g$ is given in (\[eq:gSCC\]). This recursion is identical to the recursion in (\[SC\]). Therefore, we can conclude that for $\varepsilon<\varepsilon^*$ the only fixed point of the recursion of SC-SCCs is zero and threshold saturation occurs.
Braided Convolutional Codes {#braided-convolutional-codes}
---------------------------
Fig. \[SCsystems\](c) shows the compact graph of BCCs at time $t$ for coupling memory $m$. This ensemble of BCCs is slightly different from the ensembles we introduced in [@Moloudi_SPCOM14]. To couple the code with memory $m$, each of the sequences corresponding to ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}_t$, a reordered copy of the information sequence, $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_t$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{v}}}_{t}^{\text{U}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{v}}}_{t}^{\text{L}}$ is divided into $m+1$ sequences and denoted by ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}_{t,j}$, $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_{t,j}$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{v}}}_{t,j}^{\text{U}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{v}}}_{t,j}^{\text{L}}$ for $j=0, \dots, m$, respectively. At time $t$, sequences ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}_{t-j,j}$ for, $j=0, \dots, m$, are multiplexed and reordered. The resulting sequence is used as the first input to $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$. Likewise, the sequences ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{v}}}_{t-j,j}^{\text{L}}$ for $j=0, \dots, m$, are multiplexed and reordered. The resulting sequence is used as the second input of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$. The sequences $\tilde{{\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}}_{t,j}$ for $j=0, \dots, m$, are multiplexed and reordered and used as the first input of $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$. Likewise, the sequences ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{v}}}_{t-j,j}^{\text{U}}$ for $j=0, \dots, m$, are multiplexed and reordered and the resulting sequence is used as second input of $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$.
Consider identical component encoders at time $t$. The erasure probabilities to ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}_t$, ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{v}}}_{t}^{\text{U}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{v}}}_{t}^{\text{L}}$ are equal due to the symmetric coupling structure and denoted by $x^{(i)}_{t}$. Following the compact graph, the erasure probabilities to $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ through all its incoming edges are equal and are given by the average of the erasure probabilities from ${\ensuremath{\boldsymbol{u}}}_{t'}$s, $t'= t-m,\dots,t$, $
q_t=\frac{\varepsilon}{1+m}\sum_{i=0}^{m}x_{t-j}^{(i)}$. Thus, the erasure probabilities from each of the factor nodes to their outgoing edges are equal to $f_{\text{ave},t}(q_t,q_t,q_t),$ where $f_{\text{ave},t}$ is the transfer function of $\text{T}_{\text{U}}$ and $\text{T}_{\text{L}}$ at time $t$ for all edges. Finally the recursion at time slot $t$ is $$\label{eq:SCBCC}
x_t^{(i+1)}=\frac{1}{1+m}\sum_{k=0}^{m}f_{\text{ave},t+k}(q_{t+k},q_{t+k},q_{t+k}).$$
As (\[eq:SCBCC\]) is identical to (\[SC\]), according to Theorem \[Thm:SC\], for channels with erasure probability $\varepsilon<\varepsilon^*$, the only fixed point of (\[eq:SCBCC\]) is equal to zero.
Conclusions
===========
We considered three families of spatially-coupled turbo-like codes with identical component encoders whose density evolution recursions can be analyzed using the coupled scalar recursion framework of [@Yedla2012]. Then, based on this framework, we proved threshold saturation for these code ensembles over the BEC. For a more general case (different component encoders), the analysis is significantly more complicated and requires the coupled vector recursion framework of [@Yedla2012Vector].
[^1]: This work was supported in part by the Swedish Research Council (VR) under grant \#621-2013-5477.
[^2]: The length of a trellis is equal to the length of each of the sequences which are connected to that trellis.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Accurate knowledge of interaction potentials among the alkali atoms and alkaline earth ions is very useful in the studies of cold atom physics. Here we carry out theoretical studies of the long-range interactions among the Li, Na, K, and Rb alkali atoms with the Ca$^+$, Ba$^+$, Sr$^+$, and Ra$^+$ alkaline earth ions systematically which are largely motivated by their importance in a number of applications. These interactions are expressed as a power series in the inverse of the internuclear separation $R$. Both the dispersion and induction components of these interactions are determined accurately from the algebraic coefficients corresponding to each power combination in the series. Ultimately, these coefficients are expressed in terms of the electric multipole polarizabilities of the above mentioned systems which are calculated using the matrix elements obtained from a relativistic coupled-cluster method and core contributions to these quantities from the random phase approximation. We also compare our estimated polarizabilities with the other available theoretical and experimental results to verify accuracies in our calculations. In addition, we also evaluate the lifetimes of the first two low-lying states of the ions using the above matrix elements. Graphical representation of the interaction potentials versus $R$ are given among all the considered atoms and ions.'
author:
- 'Jasmeet Kaur$^a$, D. K. Nandy$^{b,c}$, Bindiya Arora$^a$ [^1] and B. K. Sahoo $^{b,c}$[^2]'
date: 'Received date; Accepted date'
title: 'Long-range interactions between the alkali-metal atoms and alkaline earth ions'
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Advancements in the simultaneous trapping and cooling of both ions and atoms in a hybrid trap [@Grier; @Calarco] has in resulted significant upsurge in the precise description of the atom-ion interactions. This new development of using hybrid traps in which neutral atoms and ions are confined together lead to search for many exotic phenomenon in the quantum information science and condensed matter related fields [@arne]. Interaction between these systems can be described as the special case of the van der Waal long range forces caused due to the fluctuating dipole moments of the systems [@dipole]. These interactions can enable many chemical reactions like charge-exchange and molecule formations at the single particle level, hence better understanding of these interactions is very useful in a number of studies such as explaining the underlying reasons for various quantum phase transitions [@saffman], improvising quantum computing techniques [@Joachim], establishing sustained atom-ion sympathetic cooling mechanism [@ravi; @hall], designing ultracold superchemistry [@heinzen], studying the physics of impurities in the Bose gases [@goold; @jogger], interpreting cold atom collision processes [@hall] etc.
Co-trapping of atoms and ions have several applications. Observations of the scattering between the atoms and the ions at low energy scale have been reported by a number of groups [@Rakshit; @Ratschbacher; @Willitsch]. Early studies on the properties of the mixed atom-ion systems were reported by C$\hat{\rm{o}}$t$\acute{\rm{e}}$ and his coworkers in order to investigate the ultracold atom-ion collision dynamics, charge transportation processes, and to realize possible formation of the combined stable system [@cote1]. Recently, H$\ddot{\rm{a}}$rter *et.al.* observed that the elastic scattering cross section of an atom-ion system depends on the collisional energy in the semi classical regime and favors scattering at small angles [@arne]. Furthermore, the results of an atom-ion scattering event has been utilized to develop a novel and effective method to compensate excessive ion micro-motion in a trap [@Huy]. Although there have been attempts to study the atom-ion interactions in the past, but the reported results were not very accurate. Due to the experimental advancements in the atom-ion trapping experiments, it is now the time to provide more accurate description of these potentials to infer important signatures of new physics. Owing to the simplified and well understood structures of the alkali atoms and alkaline-earth ions, they seem to be the natural choices and of immense interest for the experimental investigations [@sias] for which we intend to carry out accurate theoretical studies of the long-range atom-ion interactions among these systems. In this work, we particularly undertake the Li, Na, K and Rb alkali atoms and the Ca$^+$, Sr$^+$, Ba$^+$ and Ra$^+$ alkaline earth ions to estimate their long range interactions.
Determination of the van der Waal coefficients of the atom-ion interactions require evaluation of the dynamic dipole and quadrupole polarizabilities at imaginary frequencies [@data]. We evaluate these polarizabilities by using dominant contributing matrix elements and experimental energies in a sum-over-states approach. These transition matrix elements are extracted either from the measurements of the lifetimes and the static dipole polarizabilities of the atomic states or using a relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) method. Other contributions such as from the core and core-valence correlations, which cannot be estimated using the sum-over-states approach, are estimated using other suitable many-body methods. Unless stated otherwise, we use atomic unit (au) throughout this paper.
-------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------- -----------------------
Ca$^+$ Sr$^+$
$4p_{1/2}$ $4p_{3/2}$ $5p_{1/2}$ $5p_{3/2}$
$A$($4p_{1/2} \rightarrow 4s_{1/2}$) 137.24 $A$($4p_{3/2} \rightarrow 4s_{1/2}$) 141.12 $A$($5p_{1/2} \rightarrow 5s_{1/2}$) 130.1 $A$($5p_{3/2} \rightarrow 5s_{1/2}$) 144.12
$A$($4p_{1/2} \rightarrow 3d_{3/2}$) 10.81 $A$($4p_{3/2} \rightarrow 3d_{3/2}$) 1.14 $A$($5p_{1/2} \rightarrow 4d_{3/2}$) 9.22 $A$($5p_{3/2} \rightarrow 4d_{3/2}$) 1.17
$\Sigma$ $A$ 148.05 $A$($4p_{3/2} \rightarrow 3d_{5/2}$) 10.17 $\Sigma$ $A$ 139.32 $A$($4p_{3/2} \rightarrow 3d_{5/2}$) 9.89
$\Sigma$ $A$ 152.37 $\Sigma$ $A$ 155.18
$\tau(4p_{1/2})$ $\tau(4p_{3/2})$ $\tau(5p_{1/2})$ $\tau(5p_{3/2})$
Present 6.75 6.55 Present 7.16 6.44
Others 6.88 [@safro] 6.69 [@safro] others 7.376 [@jiang] 6.653 [@jiang]
Expt. 6.96(35) [@Ansbacher] 6.71(25) [@Ansbacher] Expt. 7.35(30) [@Gallagher] 6.53(20) [@Gallagher]
Expt. 7.39(7) [@Pinnington] 6.63(7) [@Pinnington]
Ba$^+$ Ra$^+$
$6p_{1/2}$ $6p_{3/2}$ $7p_{1/2}$ $7p_{3/2}$
$A$($6p_{1/2} \rightarrow 6s_{1/2}$) 95.13 $A$($6p_{3/2} \rightarrow 6s_{1/2}$) 119.88 $A$($7p_{1/2} \rightarrow 7s_{1/2}$) 106.08 $A$($7p_{3/2} \rightarrow 7s_{1/2}$) 187.95
$A$($6p_{1/2} \rightarrow 5d_{3/2}$) 35.70 $A$($6p_{3/2} \rightarrow 5d_{3/2}$) 4.53 $A$($7p_{1/2} \rightarrow 6d_{3/2}$) 10.56 $A$($7p_{3/2} \rightarrow 6d_{3/2}$) 3.38
$\Sigma$ $A$ 130.83 $A$($6p_{3/2}\rightarrow 5d_{5/2}$) 35.30 $\Sigma$ $A$ 116.64 $A$($7p_{3/2} \rightarrow 6d_{5/2}$) 22.89
$\Sigma$ $A$ 159.72 $\Sigma$ $A$ 214.23
$\tau(6p_{1/2})$ $\tau(6p_{3/2})$ $\tau(7p_{1/2})$ $\tau(7p_{3/2})$
Present 7.64 6.26 Present 8.57 4.66
Others 7.83 [@Tchoukova] 6.27 [@Tchoukova] Others 8.72 [@palR] 4.73 [@palR]
Expt. 7.74(40) [@Gallagher] 6.27(25) [@Gallagher]
-------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------------- -----------------------
Atom-ion interaction potentials {#sec2}
===============================
The long range potential $V(R)$ between an electrically charged ion and a neutral atom in their ground states, with $R$ as the internuclear distance, is divided in terms of the induced and dispersed interactions among the multipole moments as [@ca-mitroy; @sandipan] $$V(R)= V_{ind}(R) + V_{dis}(R),
\label{VR}$$ where $V_{ind}(R)$ and $V_{dis}(R)$ are known as the induced and dispersion potentials, respectively. It can be noted that a small contribution coming from the exchange potential [@sandipan] has been neglected in the above expression. The induced part of this potential occurs due to polarization from the attractive interaction of the permanent multipole of the ion with the induced multipole of the atom due to the ion and is expressed in terms of the induction coefficients ($C_{2n}$) as [@sandipan; @ca-mitroy] $$V_{ind}(R)= -Q^2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} C_{2n}/R^{2n},\\
\label{c2n}\\$$ where $Q$ is the charge of the ion and negative sign indicates that the force is attractive in nature. In the present article, we have truncated the series at powers of $R^{-6}$ and contributions from the higher order coefficients associated with $R^{-8}$ and $R^{-10}$ terms are suppressed here. In the above equation, the term $R^{-2}$ which corresponds to the charge-dipole interaction vanishes for the interaction of an ion with a neutral atom. The second term inside the summation, corresponding to $n=2$, is a spherically symmetric term arising due to the ion-induced dipole potential and is given as $C_4/{R^4}$ with $C_4=\alpha_1/2$ for the static dipole polarizability $\alpha_1$ of the atom. This term originates due to the electric field created by the ion which induces an electric dipole moment in the neutral atom. This part of the potential is independent of the electronic state of the ion, but varies with the electronic state of the atom due to the dependencies on their $\alpha_{1}$s. Once the $C_4$ coefficients are known, one can also calculate the characteristic length scale ($R^*$), the effective range of the polarization potential, by equating the potential to the kinetic energy as ${R^*} $=$\sqrt{2\mu{C_4}}$ [@arne; @doerk]. The characteristic energy scale is further expressed in terms of $R^*$ as $E^*$=1/$2\mu {R^*}^2$. Here $\mu$=($m_{ion}$)($m_{at}$)/($m_{ion}$+$m_{at}$) is the reduced mass of the system for the mass of the ion $m_{ion}$ and mass of the atom $m_{at}$. The next term with powers of $R^{-6}$ in the general expression (Eq.(\[c2n\])) appears due to the instantaneous fluctuating dipole moments between the atoms and can be expressed as $\frac{C_6}{R^6}$ with $C_6$ =$\alpha_2$/2 for the quadrupole polarizability $\alpha_2$ of the atom.
For the atom and ion being in their respective ground states, the expression for the dispersion interaction potential is given by [@cote1; @makarov] $$V_{dis}(R)=-\frac{c_6}{R^6} - \frac{c_8}{R^8} -\frac{c_{10}}{R^{10}}\cdots
\label{eqdis}\\$$ The coefficients $c_6$, $c_8$, $c_{10}$, $\cdots$ etc. emerge from the instantaneous dipole-dipole, dipole-quadrupole, dipole-octupole, quadrupole-quadrupole, etc. interactions and are known as the dispersion coefficients. In the long-ranged potential, first term dominates over the other terms and the higher order terms are sufficiently weak to be neglected. In Eq. (\[eqdis\]), the dispersion coefficient $c_6^{AB}$ between an atom $A$ and an ion $B$ can be estimated using the expression given as [@Koutseiosa] $$c_6^{AB} =\frac{3}{\pi}\int_0^{\infty}d\omega \alpha_1^{A}(\iota\omega)\alpha_1^{B}(\iota\omega).
\label{eqc6}\\$$ Here $\alpha_1^{A}(\iota\omega)$ and $\alpha_1^{B}(\iota\omega)$ are the atomic and ionic polarizabilities respectively. Since it is cumbersome to determine these dynamic polarizabilities for a sufficiently large number of frequencies, therefore instead of using the exact [*ab initio*]{} methods alternative approaches have been adopted to calculate the $c_6^{AB}$ coefficients in the literature. Among these the Slater-Kirkwood formula [@sk] is one of the popular methods [@Koutselos2] in which the dispersion coefficients for atom-ion system are approximated by $$c_{6}^{AB}={\frac{3}{2}}{\frac{\alpha_1^{A}\alpha_1^{B}}{(\alpha_1^{A}/N^{A})^{1/2}+(\alpha_1^{B}/N^{B})^{1/2}}},\label{slater}$$ where $N^{A}$ and $N^{B}$ are the effective number of electrons and determined using the following empirical formula which assumes that the dominant contributions arise from the loosely bound electrons present in the outer shell of the systems $$\label{number}\\
(N^{A})^{1/2}=\frac{4}{3}{c_6^{AA}}/{(\alpha_1^{A})^{3/2}},$$ with the van der Waals coefficient $c_6^{AA}$ of the homo-nuclear dimer and static polarizability $\alpha_1^A$ of the atom $A$. This approximation may work reasonably if the dynamic polarizabilities are very large for lower frequencies, falling swiftly towards the asymptotic region of the frequencies and when the trends of the dynamic polarizabilities are almost same in both the coupled atomic systems. Substituting the above relation, we get $$\label{modified}
c_{6}^{AB} =\frac{2c_6^{AA}c_6^{BB}}{\alpha_1^{B}\alpha_1^{A}c_6^{AA}+\alpha_1^{A}\alpha_1^{B}c_6^{BB}}.$$ Another approximation to calculate the dispersion coefficients among the hetero-nuclear alkali dimers has been considered by Derevianko *et. al.* [@babb] as $$c_6^{AB}=\frac{1}{2}{\sqrt{c_6^{AA}c_6^{BB}}}\frac{\Delta{E^{A}}+\Delta{E^{B}}}{\sqrt{\Delta{E^{A}}.\Delta{E^{B}}}}.
\label{aa}$$ In this approach, it is assumed that the most contribution to $c_{6}$ coefficient comes from a principal transition in each system whose transition energies are denoted by $\Delta{E^{A}}$ and $\Delta{E^{B}}$. Nevertheless, both the above approximations are only valid for the qualitative description of the atom-ion interaction potentials, but it is imperative to use more accurate values of the dynamic the multipole polarizabilities for the precise description of the atom-ion interaction potentials. In our earlier works, we had determined dynamic dipole polarizabilities of the alkali atoms for a sufficiently large number of imaginary frequencies very precisely [@arora; @bk]. In the present work, we determine further these quantities for the alkaline earth ions and quadrupole polarizabilities of the alkali atoms in order to determine the above discussed van der Waals coefficients accurately. We compare these coefficients with the values obtained using the Slater-Kirkwood formula [@sk] given by Eq. (\[eqc6\]) and with the approximation used by Derevianko and coworkers [@babb] in the previous studies. Moreover, we also determine the lifetimes of the first excited $np$ states of the alkaline earth ions and compare them with the available experimental and other precise calculations in order to test the accuracies of the dipole matrix elements of the transitions that are predominantly contributing in the determination of the dipole polarizabilities of the considered ions.
Polarizabilities Li Na K Rb
------------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -------------------------- --------------------------
$\alpha^{vm}_1$ 162.5 161.9 284.3 309.1
$\alpha^{c}_1$ 0.2 0.9 5.5 9.1
$\alpha^{vc}_1$ 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3
$\alpha^{vt}_1$ 1.2 0.08 0.06 0.11
$\alpha^{total}_1$ (Present) 164.1(6) 162.4(2) 289.8(6) 318.3(6)
$\alpha^{total}_1$ (Other) 164.112(1) [@Tang] 162.9(6) [@Thakkar] 289.3 [@safronova] 315.7 [@mitroyrb]
$\alpha^{total}_1$ (Expt.) 164.2(1.1) [@miffre] 162.1(8) [@ek] 290.58(1.42) [@holmgren] 318.79(1.42) [@holmgren]
$C_4$ coefficient 82.1 81.2 144.8 159.9
$\alpha^{vm}_2$ 1345 1780 4839 6244
$\alpha^{c}_2$ $\sim 0$ 2 16 35
$\alpha^{vc}_2$ 0 0 0 0
$\alpha^{tail}_2$ 81 113 94 211
$\alpha^{total}_2$(Present) 1426 1895 4947 6491
$\alpha^{total}_2$(Other) 1424 [@qporsev] 1879 [@spelsberg], 1902 [@makarov] 5000 [@Marinescu] 6459 [@Marinescu]
$C_6$ coefficients 713 947 2474 3245
Evaluation of multipolar polarizabilities {#sec3}
=========================================
The dynamic dipole (E1) and quadrupole (E2) polarizabilities of the atomic systems with an imaginary frequency $\iota \omega$ are given by $$\alpha_k(\iota \omega) =- \sum_{I \ne n} \frac{ (E_n - E_I) |\langle \Psi_v | O_k | \Psi_I \rangle |^2}{(E_n - E_I)^2 + \omega^2},
\label{poleq}$$ where $n$ is the principal quantum number of the ground state of the respective system, $I$ represents all possible allowed intermediate states, $k=1$ and $O_1 \equiv D=|e|r$ for the dipole polarizability ($\alpha_1$) and $k=2$ and $O_2 \equiv Q=\frac{|e|}{2}(3z^2-r^2)$ for the quadrupole polarizability ($\alpha_2$). For the [*ab initio*]{} evaluation of these quantities, one can express them as $$\alpha_k(\iota \omega) = \langle \Psi_n | O_k | \Psi_n^{-} \rangle + \langle \Psi_n^{+} | O_k | \Psi_n \rangle$$ with $| \Psi_n^{\pm} \rangle = \sum_{I \ne n} | \Psi_I \rangle \frac{ \langle \Psi_I | O_k | \Psi_n \rangle }{(E_I - E_n) \pm i\omega}$ which can be treated analogous to the first order wave function with respect to the ground state wave function $| \Psi_n \rangle$ due to the operator $D$. However, it is complicated to obtain these wave functions using sophisticated many-body methods like RCC owing to the presence of the imaginary factor in the denominator. Alternatively, we try to determine the ground and singly excited state wave functions of these systems using the following procedure. Indeed these states can be treated as a closed-shell configuration with a respective valence electron in the outermost orbital. We, therefore, calculate the Dirac-Fock (DF) wave function ($|\Phi_0\rangle$) for the closed-shell configuration first and then define the DF wave function of the ground or singly excited states of the considered systems by appending the valence orbital ($v$) to the DF wave function of the closed-shell as $\vert \Phi_v \rangle = a_v^{\dagger}|\Phi_0\rangle$. The exact atomic wave functions of these states can now be evaluated by considering the correlations among the electrons within $|\Phi_0\rangle$ which is referred as core correlation, correlations seen by the valence and core electrons of $|\Phi_v\rangle$ termed as valence correlation and the correlations between the core electrons with the valence electron $v$ named as the core-valence contributions. Using the wave operator formalism, we can write these wave functions accounting the above correlations independently as $$\begin{aligned}
|\Psi_v \rangle &=& a_v^{\dagger} \Omega_c |\Phi_0 \rangle + \Omega_{cv} |\Phi_v \rangle + \Omega_v |\Phi_v \rangle,
\label{eqn21}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_c$, $\Omega_{cv}$ and $\Omega_v$ are known as the wave operators for the core, core-valence and valence correlations, respectively.
$R^*$(in au) $E^* \times 10^{11}$(au) $R^*$(in au) $E^* \times 10^{11}$(au)
----------- -------------------------- -------------------------- ----------- -------------------------- --------------------------
Li-Ca$^+$ 1336 0.09 K-Ca$^+$ 3231 1.88
Li-Sr$^+$ 1393 0.11 K-Sr$^+$ 3779 3.52
Li-Ba$^+$ 1412 0.12 K-Ba$^+$ 3999 4.41
Li-Ra$^+$ 1423 0.13 K-Ra$^+$ 4193 5.33
Na-Ca$^+$ 2079 0.57 Rb-Ca$^+$ 3991 3.95
2081 [@idiaszek; @doerk] - 3989 [@idiaszek; @doerk] -
Na-Sr$^+$ 2324 0.89 Rb-Sr$^+$ 5042 10.03
Na-Ba$^+$ 2412 1.04 Rb-Ba$^+$ 5545 14.6
Na-Ra$^+$ 2486 1.17 5544 [@idiaszek; @doerk] -
Rb-Ra$^+$ 6042 20.57
With the above prescription, the square of the matrix element of $O_k$ from Eq. (\[poleq\]) can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\left<\Psi_v|O_k|\Psi_I\right>^2 &=& \left<\Psi_v|O_k|\Psi_I\right>\left<\Psi_I|O_k|\Psi_v\right> \nonumber \\
&=& \left<\Phi_0| \Omega_c^{\dagger} O_k [\Omega_I \Omega_I^{\dagger} + \Omega_{cI}
\Omega_{cI}^{\dagger}] O_k \Omega_c |\Phi_0\right> \nonumber \\
&+& \left<\Phi_v| \Omega_v^{\dagger} O_k [\Omega_{cI} \Omega_{cI}^{\dagger} + \Omega_I \Omega_I^{\dagger}] O_k \Omega_v |\Phi_v\right> \nonumber \\
&+& \left<\Phi_v| \Omega_v^{\dagger} O_k \Omega_c \Omega_c^{\dagger} O_k \Omega_v |\Phi_v\right> \nonumber \\
&+& \left<\Phi_I| \Omega_{cI}^{\dagger} O_k \Omega_c \Omega_c^{\dagger} O_k \Omega_{cv} |\Phi_v\right>,
\label{mateq}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the generalized Wick’s theorem to assemble different terms and assumed all the operators are in normal ordered form so that only the connected terms survive. For the brevity, we categorize the first term as core ($c$), the next two terms as valence ($v$) and the last term as core-valence ($cv$) contributions, for which we can now write the total polarizability as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_k &=& \alpha_k^c + \alpha_k^v + \alpha_k^{cv},
\label{eq26}\end{aligned}$$ for the notations $\alpha_k^c$, $\alpha_k^v$ and $\alpha_k^{cv}$ corresponding to the above mentioned three correlation contributions, respectively.
It is possible to evaluate dominant contributions to $\alpha_k^v$ by calculating many low-lying singly excited states $|\Psi_I \rangle$ of the considered systems by expressing them as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_k^{v} (\iota\omega) &=& \frac{2}{(2k+1)(2J_n+1)} \nonumber \\ && \times \sum_{I \ne n}^{(')} \frac{ (E_n-E_I) |\langle \Psi_n || O_k || \Psi_I\rangle |^2}
{(E_n - E_I)^2 + \omega^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle \Psi_n || O_k || \Psi_I\rangle$ is the reduced matrix element of $O_k$ and the symbol $(')$ in the summation implies that only the excited states are included in the sum. In order to determine the E1 and E2 matrix elements between the ground state wave function $|\Psi_n\rangle$ and the excited state wave function $|\Psi_I\rangle$, we express them in a general form as $|\Psi_v \rangle$ with a common core and for a valence orbital $v$ representing either $n$ or $I$, which in the Fock-space RCC formalism is defined as $$|\Psi_v \rangle = e^T\{1+S_v\} |\Phi_v\rangle.$$ Here the operator $T$ and $S_v$ excite core electrons and the valence electron along with the core electrons due to the electron correlations. We consider all possible single and double excitations with the important valence triple excitations in our calculations (referred as CCSD(T) method in the literature) within a sufficiently large configuration space. From the practical limitation, we calculate as many as $|\Psi_I \rangle$ states possible for the estimation of their contributions to $\alpha_k^v$ and refer as main contribution ($\alpha^{vm}$). Contributions from the higher excited states, which are relatively small, are estimated using the following equation at the DF approximation $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_k^{vt} (\iota\omega)= \langle \Psi_n| O_k | \Psi_n^{(1)} \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where the $ | \Psi_n^{(1)} \rangle$ is obtained by solving the following inhomogeneous equation for the effective Hamiltonian $H_{eff}=(H-E_n)O_k$ as $$\begin{aligned}
[(H-E_n)^2+\omega^2]| \Psi_n^{(1)} \rangle = - H_{eff} | \Psi_n \rangle
\label{fsoeq}\end{aligned}$$ and given as tail contribution ($\alpha_k^{vt}$).
We also obtain the $\alpha_k^{cv}$ contributions using the same procedure as has been described by the above equation. Nonetheless, the $\alpha_k^c$ contributions may not be smaller to be estimated using the DF method for which we employ the random phase approximation (RPA) to solve for the core configuration (denoted by subscript 0) with the similar logic as Eq. (\[fsoeq\]) by defining $$\begin{aligned}
| \Psi_0^{(1)} \rangle &=& \sum_{\beta}^{\infty} \sum_{p,a} \Omega_{a \rightarrow p}^{(\beta, 1)} |\Phi_0\rangle \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{\beta=1}^{\infty} \sum_{pq,ab} { \{} \frac{[\langle pb | \frac{1}{r_{12}} | aq \rangle
- \langle pb | \frac{1}{r_{12}} | qa \rangle] \Omega_{b \rightarrow q}^{(\beta-1,1)} } {(\epsilon_p - \epsilon_a)^2+\omega^2} \nonumber \\
&& + \frac{ \Omega_{b \rightarrow q}^{{(\beta-1,1)}^{\dagger}}[\langle pq | \frac{1}{r_{12}} | ab \rangle - \langle pq | \frac{1}{r_{12}} | ba \rangle]
}{(\epsilon_p-\epsilon_a)^2+\omega^2} { \}} \nonumber \\
&& \times (\epsilon_p -\epsilon_a) |\Phi_0\rangle,
\label{eqrpa}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega_{a \rightarrow p}^{(\beta, 1)}$ is the wave operator that excites an occupied orbital $a$ of $|\Phi_0 \rangle$ to a virtual orbital $p$ which alternatively refers to a singly excited state with respect to $|\Phi_0 \rangle$ with $\Omega_{a \rightarrow p}^{(0,1)} = \frac{ \langle p | (\epsilon_p-\epsilon_a)O_k | a \rangle}
{(\epsilon_p - \epsilon_a)^2+\omega^2}$ for the single particle orbitals energies $\epsilon$s and the superscripts $\beta$ and 1 representing the number of the Coulomb ($\frac{1}{r_{12}}$) and $O_k$ operators, respectively.
Results and Discussion {#sec4}
======================
Calculation of lifetimes of the $np$ states {#life}
-------------------------------------------
As a test of accuracy of our calculated principal matrix elements which are going to contribute predominantly to the $\alpha_1$ results of the alkaline earth ions, we estimate the lifetimes ($\tau$s) of the $np$ states using these matrix elements with $n$ being the principal quantum number of the ground states of the respective ions and compare them with the experimental and other high precision calculations. These values are given in Table \[lifetime\] and are estimated considering only the dominant E1 transition probabilities ($A$), which are evaluated (in $s^{-1}$) using the formula $$A^{E1}_{ij} = \frac{2.02613 \times 10^{15}}{\lambda^{3}͉͉} \frac{|\langle{i}\|D\|{j}\rangle|^2}{2j_{i}+1},$$ where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the transition in and ${|\langle{i}\|D\|{j}\rangle|^2}$ is the reduced E1 matrix elements in au. Since our aim is to know the accuracies of the E1 matrix elements alone, we use the experimental $\lambda$ values in these calculations. As can be seen from the table, the experimental results have large error bars however our calculated values are compared with another high precision calculations [@safro] in Ca$^+$. The lifetimes of the $5p_{1/2,3/2}$ states of Sr$^+$ and the $6p_{1/2,3/2}$ states of Ba$^+$ are observed by Gallagher [@Gallagher] using the Hanle-effect method with the optical excitations from the ground states. These values are 7.35(0.3) $ns$ and 6.53(0.2) $ns$ for the $5p_{1/2}$ and $5p_{3/2}$ states of Sr$^+$, respectively, which are later improved by Pinnington *et. al.* [@Pinnington]. Our results are close to these values and the used E1 matrix elements can be used further to estimate $\alpha_1$ of Sr$^+$ within a reasonably accuracy. Similarly, the experimental lifetimes of the $6p_{1/2,3/2}$ states of Ba$^+$ are reported as $\tau(6p_{1/2}) = 7.74(0.4) ns$ and $\tau(6p_{3/2}) = 6.27(0.25) ns$ [@Gallagher] and other theoretical values are given as $\tau(6p_{1/2}) = 7.83 ns$ and $\tau(6p_{3/2}) = 6.27 ns$ [@Tchoukova] which are in good agreement with our results suggesting that when the corresponding E1 matrix elements are used, we will be able to achieve high accuracy $\alpha_1$ value in Ba$^+$. There are no experimental results available for the lifetimes of the $7p_{1/2,3/2}$ states of Ra$^+$, however our results are close agreement with another calculations by Pal *et.al.* [@palR]. Therefore, the resulting $\alpha_1$ values in all the above discussed ions will be reliable and hence we expect to attain accurate values of the dispersion coefficients when $\alpha_1$ values are used from our calculations.
Contributions $E1$ amplitude $\alpha_1$ Contributions $E1$ amplitude $\alpha_1$
------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------- ---------------- ----------------------
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 4p_{1/2}$ 2.91 24.64 $5s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 5p_{1/2}$ 3.12 29.82
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 5p_{1/2}$ 0.07 0.05 $5s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 6p_{1/2}$ 0.02 0.01
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 6p_{1/2}$ 0.08 0.05 $5s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 7p_{1/2}$ 0.06 0.004
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 7p_{1/2}$ 0.06 0.004 $5s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 8p_{1/2}$ 0.05 0.003
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 8p_{1/2}$ 0.05 0.002 $5s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 5p_{3/2}$ 4.39 57.61
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 9p_{1/2}$ 0.04 0.001 $5s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 6p_{3/2}$ 0.04 0.002
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 4p_{3/2}$ 4.12 48.86 $5s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 7p_{3/2}$ 0.05 0.003
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 5p_{3/2}$ 0.08 0.01 $5s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 8p_{3/2}$ 0.05 0.002
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 6p_{3/2}$ 0.10 0.012
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 7p_{3/2}$ 0.08 0.01
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 8p_{3/2}$ 0.07 0.004
$4s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 9p_{3/2}$ 0.06 0.003
$\alpha_{c}$ 3.25 $\alpha_{c}$ 4.98
$\alpha_{tail}$ 5.51$\times 10^{-2}$ $\alpha_{tail}$ 1.96$\times 10^{-2}$
$\alpha_{vc}$ -8.85$\times 10^{-2}$ $\alpha_{vc}$ -0.19
$\alpha_{total}$(Present) 76.89 $\alpha_{total}$(Present) 92.25
$\alpha_{total}$(Other) 75.88 [@Ivan] $\alpha_{total}$(Other) 91.10 [@Ivan]
$\alpha_{total}$(Other) 75.49 [@ca-mitroy] $\alpha_{total}$(Other) 91.3(9) [@jiang]
$\alpha_{total}$(Expt.) 75.3(4) [@edward] $\alpha_{total}$(Expt.) 93.3(9) [@Bromley]
$6s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 6p_{1/2}$ 3.36 40.76 $7s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 7p_{1/2}$ 3.28 36.86
$6s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 7p_{1/2}$ 0.10 0.02 $7s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 8p_{1/2}$ 0.04 0.002
$6s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 8p_{1/2}$ 0.11 0.016 $7s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 9p_{1/2}$ 0.09 0.01
$6s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 6p_{3/2}$ 4.73 74.55 $7s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 7p_{3/2}$ 4.54 57.53
$6s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 7p_{3/2}$ 0.17 0.04 $7s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 8p_{3/2}$ 0.49 0.03
$6s_{1/2} \longrightarrow 8p_{3/2}$ 0.11 0.02 $7s_{1/2}\longrightarrow 9p_{3/2}$ 0.30 0.10
$\alpha_{c}$ 9.35 $\alpha_{c}$ 11.66
$\alpha_{tail}$ 1.66$\times 10^{-2}$ $\alpha_{tail}$ 0.15
$\alpha_{vc}$ -0.38 $\alpha_{vc}$ -0.74
$\alpha_{total}$(Present) 124.40 $\alpha_{total}$(Present) 105.91
$\alpha_{total}$(Other) 123.07 [@Ivan] $\alpha_{total}$(Other) 105.37 [@Ivan]
$\alpha_{total}$(Other) 126.2 [@Miadokova] $\alpha_{total}$(Other) 106.5 [@safronova]
$\alpha_{total}$(Expt.) 123.88(5) [@Snow]
Calculation of $C_4$ coefficients {#C4}
----------------------------------
In Table \[pol11\], we present the static dipole polarizabilities of the alkali atoms that were reported by us in Ref. [@sahoobindiya] and compare with the earlier theoretical and experimental results. The details of the calculations are presented in Ref. [@sahoobindiya] and we do not repeat them here again. The reported values of $\alpha_1$ are slightly different than Ref. [@sahoobindiya], since the core contributions from the DF method are replaced by the RPA values here. From the comparison between the measured and calculated results, as shown in the table, it is clear that our static polarizabilities are in close agreement with the experimental and theoretical values which gives us confidence in using these values for the calculation of the $C_4$ coefficients as $82.1$, $81.2$, $144.9$ and $156.0$ au in the Li, Na, K. and Rb atoms respectively. Using these $C_4$ values, we further obtain range of potential $R^*$ and compare them with the values obtained by Idziaszek [@idiaszek] and Deork [@doerk], as shown in Table \[range\]. Idziaszek and Deork have applied the multichannel quantum defect theory to describe the range of the atom-ion systems. On comparison, we observe that our calculated values of range are close to the values tabulated in these references. From the table, we note that the effective length scale of the atom-ion potential is much more long ranged than the interaction between two neutral atoms. In the same table we also present the characteristic energies for their direct applications in the future experimental studies.
$c_{6}$(Present) $c_{6}$ [@babb] $N_{eff}$(Present) $N_{eff}$ [@Koutselos2] $c_{6}$(Present) $N_{eff}$(Present)
------- ------------------ ----------------- -------------------- ------------------------- --------------- ------------------ --------------------
Li-Li 1390 1389 0.77 0.773 Ca$^+$-Ca$^+$ 562 1.24
Na-Na 1549 1556 0.99 - Sr$^+$-Sr$^+$ 831 1.52
K-K 3895 3897 1.10 1.13 Ba$^+$-Ba$^+$ 1436 1.89
Rb-Rb 4663 4691 1.19 1.20 Ra$^+$-Ra$^+$ 1341 2.64
![(Color online) Comparison of the dynamic polarizabilities ($\alpha(i\omega)$) among the (a) alkali atoms and (b) alkaline earth ions against the frequency ($\omega$) values.[]{data-label="pol"}](pol-ion.eps){width="8.5cm" height="8cm"}
![(Color online) Percentage deviations in the $c_6^{AB}$ values obtained from this work with the results obtained using the Slater-Kirkwood formula (shown in the red bars) and those obtained using the approximate approach used in Ref. [@babb] (shown in the green bars).](hist22.eps){width="9.5cm" height="10.5cm"}
. \[all\]
![(Color online) Net interaction potentials ($V_{total}$) between different combinations of the alkali atoms and alkaline ions with respect to the internuclear distance ($R$). []{data-label="Vtotal"}](VR22.eps){width="9.0cm" height="9.0cm"}
Calculation of $C_6$ coefficients {#C6}
----------------------------------
In order to obtain the $C_6$ coefficients, we first carry out systematic calculations of the quadrupole polarizabilities of the Li, Na, K, and Rb atoms. As given in Table \[pol11\], terms $\alpha^{c}_2$ ,$\alpha^{v}_2$ and $\alpha^{vc}_2$ summarizes the contributions to the quadrupole polarizbailities from the core, valence and valance-core correlation terms. Here the matrix elements of the first five $ns-n'd_{5/2}$ transitions in each alkali atoms are included into the main term $\alpha_2^{vm}$ calculations, where $n$ is the principal quantum number of the ground state of the respective atom. For example in the Na atom, $3s$ to (3-7)$d_{5/2}$ transition E2 matrix elements are included in the main polarizability calculations. Moreover, for the Li atom calculation, we have included two more transitions $2s-8d_{5/2}$ and $2s-9d_{5/2}$ in the main polarizability calculations. In the above table, we compare our results with the predictions by other studies. For the Li atom, accurate value of the quadrupole polarizability is obtained as 1424 au by Porsev *et.al.* [@qporsev] using the relativistic many-body calculations. Our result $1426$ au is in very good agreement with this value. Theoretical values of the quadrupole polarizability of the Na atom were given by the group of Spelsberg [@spelsberg] and Makarov [@makarov] as $1879$ and $1902$ au respectively and are also in close agreement with our value $1895$ au. Group of Makarov had calculated the quadrupole polarizability of Na by using the M$\ddot{\rm{o}}$ller Plesset second-order perturbation theory with an extended Gaussian basis. From the earlier studies, the results available to compare the polarizability values of the K and Rb atoms are $5000$ and $6459$ au [@Marinescu] by using a model potential method showing only small variations from our results $4947$ and $6491$ au respectively. The comparisons, as given in Table \[pol11\], reflects that our polarizabilities are reliable enough for the accurate determination of the $C_6$ results of the alkali atoms. Our numerical calculations for the $C_6$ coefficients give the values as $713$, $947$, $2474$ and $3245$ in au for the Li, Na, K, and Rb atoms respectively.
[lccccccc]{} & &\
\
& $\left|\alpha_v\right|^2$ & [$\left|\alpha_c\right|^2$]{} & [$\left|\alpha_{vc}\right|^2$]{} & [$\alpha_{\rm{c.t.}}$]{} & Total & (S.Kirkwood) & [$c_6$]{}(Ref.[@babb]$^a$)\
& &\
Li-Ca$^+$ & 768.4 & 1.0 & 0.0 & 67.35 & 836.7 & 844.0 & 914.9\
Li-Sr$^+$ & 898.1 & 1.5 & 0.0 & 108.4 & 1008.1 & 1025.6 & 1106.3\
Li-Ba$^+$ & 1127.1 & 2.6 & 0.0 & 184.8 & 1314.5 & 1355.3 & 1434.7\
Li-Ra$^+$ & 974.3 & 3.2 & 0.0 & 228.9 & 1206.4 & 1256.2 & 1402.9\
Na-Ca$^+$ & 826.4 & 4.6 & 2.2$\times 10^{-3}$ & 69.7 & 900.8 & 906.5 & 951.7\
Na-Sr$^+$ & 964.6 & 7.4 & 4.3$\times 10^{-3}$ & 113.6 & 1085.7 & 1101.7 & 1152.4\
Na-Ba$^+$ & 1205.7 & 12.4 & 7.4$\times 10^{-3}$ & 195.6 & 1413.5 & 1454.4 & 1500.7\
Na-Ra$^+$ & 1046.5 & 15.1 & 1.3$\times 10^{-2}$ & 244.3 & 1305.8 & 1357.8 & 1462.0\
K-Ca$^+$ & 1231.4 & 19.6 & 1.0$\times 10^{-2}$ & 141.0 & 1392.0 & 1388.9 & 1561.9\
K-Sr$^+$ & 1441.5 & 31.6 & 2.0$\times 10^{-2}$ & 207.1 & 1680.3 & 1687.4 & 1885.7\
K-Ba$^+$ & 1816.2 & 53.0 & 3.6$\times 10^{-2}$ & 328.3 & 2197.5 & 2231.7 & 2435.2\
K-Ra$^+$ & 1563.4 & 66.1 & 6.5$\times 10^{-2}$ & 389.9 & 2019.4 & 2056.8 & 2390.4\
Rb-Ca$^+$ & 1312.9 & 29.6 & 1.8$\times 10^{-2}$ & 184.8 & 1527.9 & 1517.5 & 1715.9\
Rb-Sr$^+$ & 1537.3 & 48.4 & 3.8$\times 10^{-2}$ & 259.5 & 1845.2 & 1843.5 & 2071.0\
Rb-Ba$^+$ & 1938.1 & 81.5 & 6.7$\times 10^{-2}$ & 394.5 & 2414.2 & 2438.4 & 2672.4\
Rb-Ra$^+$ & 1667.2 & 101.6 & 0.1 & 455.5 & 2224.5 & 2246.4 & 2625.0\
$^a$Note: These values do not appear explicitly in the reference, but were deduced using Eq. (\[aa\]) quoted therein.
Calculations of dispersion coefficients $c_6^{AB}$ {#c_6}
--------------------------------------------------
Table \[c6\] gives the compiled values of contributions to the total dispersion coefficients $c_6^{AB}$ between the alkali atoms interacting with the alkaline ions. For the determination of the dispersion coefficients, we perform the RCC calculations to obtain the dipole matrix elements for the evaluation of the required dipole polarizabilities of the Ca$^+$, Sr$^+$, Ba$^+$, and Ra$^+$ ions. There are several calculations of the ground-state polarizabilities of the alkaline earth ions available using different methods. Similarly, a number of precise measurements of these quantities are also reported in the literature. We have compared these results with the present work in Table \[t1\]. As can be seen from the table, Lim *et.al.* [@Ivan] listed the static dipole polarizabilities of the considered alkaline earth ions which are in very close agreement with our values. Their values are predicted using the RCC calculations in the finite field gradient technique together with the optimized Gaussian-type basis set. However, use of a sum over states approach allowed us to use experimental data wherever available, which we believe that can minimize the uncertainties in the results and hence, they are more accurate in our case. Experimental spectral analysis of the dipole polarizability value of the Ca$^+$ ion is observed by Edward [@edward] and is in very good agreement with our calculated value. As seen from the given table, the calculated values of these quantities by Mitroy *et.al.*[ [@ca-mitroy]]{}, which are evaluated by diagonalizing the semi-empirical Hamiltonian in a large dimension single electron basis, are also in agreement with our values. However, we would like to emphasize that our results are more accurate since in our method core correlations are accounted through the all order RPA. The estimate of 93.3 au [@SR] for the ground state polarizability of Sr$^+$ ion, derived by combining the experimental data given by the group of Barklem [@Bromley] with the oscillator strength sums, has a considerable discrepancy with our present results. In contrast, our values match very well with the calculations of Jiang *et.al.*[ [@jiang]]{} who have used the relativistic all-order method to calculate the polarizabilities of the Sr$^+$ ion. It would be interesting to see the validity of these results when the new measurement of the ground state polarizability for this ion becomes available. The polarizability value of the Ba$^+$ ion was calculated by Miadokova *et.al.*[ [@Miadokova]]{} using the relativistic basis set in the Douglas-Kroll no-pair approximation and has a 2% discrepancy from the high precision measurements performed by Snow and Lundeen [@Snow]. This high precision measurement was achieved by a novel technique based on the resonant excitation Stark ionization spectroscopy microwave technique. We also find that our results are in better agreement with the experimental value. There is no experimental result available for the dipole polarizability of Ra$^+$ to compare with our result. However, Safronova [@safronova] have evaluated this result using the relativistic all order method and is in agreement with our result. Having compared all our polarizability results, we are now in the state to justify that since our static polarizability values are very accurate, we anticipate similar accuracies for the calculated dynamic polarizabilities using our method and can be used reliably for the evaluation of the dispersion coefficients.
In Fig.[\[pol\]]{}, we plot our dynamic polarizabilities obtained for various atoms and ions along the imaginary axis as the functions of the frequencies. Next, we use the dynamic polarizabilities to calculate the dispersion coefficients and effective number of the electrons in case of the alkali atoms and alkaline earth ions, which are presented in Table \[neff\]. The purpose of calculating and presenting these values is to verify the validity of the results reported using the Slater-Kirkwood formula as given in Eq.(\[slater\]) and using the approach that was followed by Dereviako *et.al.* [@babb].
In practice, a number of methods have been employed for the calculations of the dispersion $c_6^{\rm{AB}}$ coefficients for the hetero-nuclear dimers. Dalgarno *et.al.* [@dalgarno] had followed a procedure to reduce the two central molecular problem to one central atomic problem at the larger separation distances. Bishop and coworkers [@Bishop] computed the $c_6^{\rm{AB}}$ coefficients by approximating the integral given by Eq. (\[eqc6\]) using the Gaussian quadrature technique. In this work, we evaluate the dispersion coefficients $c_6^{AB}$ using three different methods: (i) the exact formula of Eq. (\[eqc6\]), (ii) Slater-Kirkwood formula given by Eq. (\[slater\]), and (iii) using an approximated approach as has been used in Ref.[[@babb]]{} (see Eq. (\[aa\])) to make a comparative analysis among the results obtained from all these approaches. In the case of the exact method, we use the Gaussian quadrature method to integrate over the dynamic polarizabilities using the exponential grids. We justify the use of the exponential grids from the fact that maximum contributions to the integrand given in Eq. (\[eqc6\]) come from the polarizability values in the vicinity of zero frequency (as shown in Fig. \[pol\]) and gradually their contributions falls down. In Table \[c6\], we present details of the calculated values of the dispersion coefficients for the interactions between the alkali atoms and the alkaline ions along with their breakdown from the individual contributions. From the table, it can be inferred that the contribution to the total potential increases as the alkali atoms get bigger in size (i.e. from the Li to Rb sequence), since the polarizability values also increase in the same order. However, we notice that a steady increase in $c_6$ values do not occur with respect to the atomic sizes for the ions (i.e. from Ca$^+$ to Ra$^+$). This might seem to be counterintuitive but it is owing to the fact that the polarizability of Ba$^+$ is larger than that for Ra$^+$, as given in Table \[t1\]. So it follows a different trend in the $c_6^{AB}$ coefficients; decreases in magnitude for the interactions of the alkali atoms with Ra$^+$ and increases with Ba$^+$. The dispersion coefficients for the atom-ion systems obtained using the Slater-Kirkwood formula are listed in column VI of Table \[c6\]. In an alternative approach, we also carried out the calculations using the approximated formula given in Eq. (\[aa\]) and the obtained values are listed in column VII of the same table. Comparison of deviations in percentage from both the approaches are shown in Fig. (\[all\]) for all combinations of the alkali atoms-alkaline ions in the form of the histograms. It is apparent from this plot that the Slater-Kirkwood formula shows better agreement with our results as compared to the approximated approach of Derevianko *et. al.*.
In Fig. \[Vtotal\], comparison between the total interaction potential ($V_{total}$) for the undertaken different combinations of Li, Na, K and Rb atoms with Ca$^+$, Sr$^+$, Ba$^+$ and Ra$^+$ ions is shown as function of internuclear distance $R$ by adding both the induction and dispersion parts. Interactions of each alkaline ion (Ca$^+$, Sr$^+$, Ba$^+$, Ra$^+$) is represented in solid red line for the Li, long dashed green line for the Na, short dashed blue line for the K and dotted pink line for the Rb atoms, respectively. It should be noted that our results for these potentials will be valid in the approximation only when the structures of the colliding atom and ion do not undergo internal changes.
Conclusion
==========
In this work, we have deduced the behavior of the potential curves with respect to the internuclear distances for the alkali atoms correlating with the alkaline-earth ions. The accurate values of the dipole polarizabilities for the alkali atoms and the alkaline earth ions and the quadrupole polarizabilities for the alkali atoms have been investigated using the relativistic coupled-cluster method. Thereafter, evaluation of the dispersion coefficients have been done by integrating the atom-ion dynamic electric polarizabilities product at the imaginary frequencies. The calculated values of the induction coefficients in the form of range of potentials are expected to be very useful to set the actual positions of the bound states and magnetic fields of the Feshbach resonances for these atom-ion correlated systems. The presented data will also be of immense interest for designing better atomic clocks, quantum information processing and quantifying molecular potentials for the ultracold collision studies.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The work is supported by CSIR grant no. 03(1268)/13/EMR-II, India and UGC-BSR grant no. F.7-273/2009/BSR. Computations were carried out using 3TFLOPHPC Cluster at Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad. The authors would like to thank R.$\rm{C}\hat{o}\rm{t}\acute{e}$ and S. Banerjee for fruitful discussions.
[55]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, **, 978-3-527-40755-2 (, , ).
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
(, ).
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
(, ).
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
[^1]: Email: [email protected]
[^2]: Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In view of the LHC upgrade phases towards HL-LHC the ATLAS experiment plans to upgrade the Inner Detector with an all silicon system. The n-in-p silicon technology is a promising candidate for the pixel upgrade thanks to its radiation hardness and cost effectiveness, that allow for enlarging the area instrumented with pixel detectors.\
We present the characterization and performance of novel n-in-p planar pixel sensors produced by CiS (Germany) connected by bump bonding to the ATLAS readout chip FE-I3. These results are obtained before and after irradiation up to a fluence of $10^{16}$1-MeVn$_{\mathrm{eq}}$cm$^{-2}$, and prove the operability of this kind of sensors in the harsh radiation environment foreseen for the pixel system at HL-LHC. We also present an overview of the new pixel production, which is on-going at CiS for sensors compatible with the new ATLAS readout chip FE-I4.\
address:
- 'Section de Physique (DPNC), Université de Genève, 24 quai Ernest Ansermet, Genève 4, CH-1211, Switzerland'
- 'CERN, Geneva 23, CH-1211, Switzerland'
- 'Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut) Föhringer Ring 6, D-80805 München, Germany'
- 'Max-Planck-Institut Halbleiterlabor, Otto Hahn Ring 6, D-81739 München, Germany'
author:
- 'A. La Rosa'
- 'C. Gallrapp'
- 'A. Macchiolo'
- 'R. Nisius'
- 'H. Pernegger'
- 'R.H. Richter'
- 'P. Weigell'
title: 'Novel Silicon n-in-p Pixel Sensors for the future ATLAS Upgrades'
---
[00]{}
I. Peric et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A565 (2006) 178.
ATLAS Collaboration, JINST3, P07007 (2008).
Ch. Gallrapp et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A679 (2012) 29.
S. Altenheiner et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A678 (2011) 25.
M. Garcia-Sciveres et al., Nucl. Instr. and Meth A636 (2010) S155.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $K$ be a square Cantor set, i.e. the Cartesian product $K=E\times E$ of two linear Cantor sets. Let $\delta_n$ denote the proportion of the intervals removed in the $n$th stage of the construction of $E$. It is shown that if $\delta_n=o(\frac1{\log\log n})$ then the corona theorem holds on the domain $\Omega=\mathbb C^\ast\setminus K$.'
author:
- |
Jon Handy\
University of California, Los Angeles
title: The Corona Theorem on the Complement of Certain Square Cantor Sets
---
\[section\] \[thm\][Claim]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{}
\[thm\][Definition]{} \[thm\][Exercise]{} \[thm\][Problem]{}
Introduction
============
Denote by $H^\infty(\Omega)$ the collection of bounded analytic functions on a plane domain $\Omega$. Let us denote by $\mathcal M=\mathcal M(H^\infty(\Omega))$ the set of multiplicative linear functionals on $H^\infty(\Omega)$, i.e. $\mathcal M$ is the maximal ideal space of $H^\infty(\Omega)$. When $H^\infty(\Omega)$ separates the points of $\Omega$, there is a natural identification of $\Omega$ with a subset of $\Omega$ through the functionals defined by pointwise evaluations. The corona problem for $H^\infty(\Omega)$ is to determine whether $\mathcal M$ is the closure of $\Omega$ in the Gelfand topology.
The problem can be stated more concretely as follows. Given $\{f_j\}_1^n\in H^\infty(\Omega)$ and $\delta>0$ such that $1\ge\max_j|f_j(z)|>\delta$ for all $z\in\Omega$, do there exist $\{g_j\}_1^n\in H^\infty(\Omega)$ such that $$\sum_{j=1}^nf_jg_j=1?$$ We call the functions $\{f_j\}$ corona data, and the functions $\{g_j\}$ corona solutions. It has been conjectured that this can be answered in the affirmative for any planar domain. In the case of Riemann surfaces, a counterexample was first found by Brian Cole (see [@cole]), other examples being found later by D. E. Barrett and J. Diller [@barrett-diller], however, this is due to a structure that in some sense makes the surface seem higher dimensional, so one might hope that the restriction to the Riemann sphere might prevent this obstacle.
This problem was first posed in the case of the unit disc $\mathbb D$ by S. Kakutani in 1941, which case was solved by L. Carleson [@car-disc] in 1962. It is from this origin that the problem gets its name, as there would have been a set of maximal ideals suggestive of the sun’s corona has the theorem failed in this case. The proof was subsequently simplified by L. Hörmander [@hormander] by use of a $\bar\partial$-problem, and then later in an acclaimed proof by T. Wolff (see [@gamelin2] or [@garnett-baf]). A quite different proof of this result using techniques from several complex variables was later developed by B. Berndtsson and T. J. Ransford [@Berndtsson-Ransford] and Z. Slodkowski [@slod1]. Besides the intrinsic interest of this result in classical function theory, the proof of this result introduced a number of tools and ideas which have proven to be of great importance in analysis.
Following the appearance of this result, it was swiftly generalized to the case of finitely connected domains, and by now a number of proofs exist for this case, e.g. [@alling1], [@alling2], [@earle-marden], [@forelli], [@slod2], [@stout1], [@stout2], [@stout3]. Although any planar domain can be exhausted by a sequence of finitely connected domains, to solve the problem on the larger domain one must control the norms of the corona solutions, $\Vert g_j\Vert_\infty$, in the approximating domains in order to take normal limits, control which is unfortunately not provided by any of the proofs just cited.
The corona problem was first solved for a class of infinitely connected domains by M. Behrens [@behrens1], [@behrens2]. These are “roadrunner” domains $\mathbb D\setminus\bigcup B_j$, where $B_j=B(c_j,r_j)$ is a disc centered at $c_j$ and radius $r_j$ such that $$\sum_{j=1}^\infty\frac{r_j}{|c_j|}<\infty\qquad\text{and}\qquad\left|\frac{c_{j+1}}{c_j}\right|<\lambda<1\text{ for all j}.$$ This summability restriction was improved somewhat in [@deeb], [@deeb-wilken]. Behrens [@behrens2] also proved that if the corona theorem fails for a plane domain then it fails for a domain of the form $\mathbb D\setminus\bigcup B_j$, where $\{B_j\}$ is a sequence of discs clustering only at the origin. In this direction there is also a result of Gamelin [@gamelin] that the corona problem is local in that it depends only on the behavior of the domain locally about each boundary point.
The next significant progress for infinitely connected domains was again achieved by Carleson [@car-fatsets], who solved the corona problem for domains having boundary $E\subset\mathbb R$ satisfying, for some $\epsilon>0$, $$\Lambda_1(B(x,r)\cap E)\ge\epsilon r$$ for every $x\in E$ and $r>0$, where $\Lambda_1$ denotes one-dimensional Hausdorff measure. This proof followed an idea introduced in [@forelli], constructing an explicit projection from $H^\infty(\mathbb D)$ onto $H^\infty(\Omega)$. Following in the same vein, P. Jones and D. Marshall [@jones-marshall] used such projections to show that if the corona problem can be solved at the critical points of Green’s function for the domain, then it can be solved for the domain, and they provided a number of sufficient conditions for this criterion.
Later J. Garnett and P. Jones [@garnettjones] extended the result of Carleson [@car-fatsets], showing that the corona theorem holds for any domain having boundary contained in $\mathbb R$. This was later extended by C. Moore [@moore] to the case of domains with boundary contained in the graph of a $C^{1+\epsilon}$ function.
Due to the results in [@jones-marshall], the corona problem for a domain can be solved if the critical points of Green’s function (for a fixed base point) form an interpolating sequence for $H^\infty(\Omega)$. However, it was shown by M. Gonzalez [@gonzalez] that for a large class of domains, conditions necessary for the critical points to be an interpolating sequence might fail. Peter Jones (unpublished) has given an explicit example of a class of domains where the critical point of greens function fail to form an interpolating sequence, namely the complements of certain square Cantor sets (which we describe more explicitly below).
Throughout the remainder of this work, $\Omega$ will denote the complement of a square Cantor set $K$. To fix notation, we define $K$ explicitly as $K=\bigcap_{n}K^n$, where the $K^n$ are defined inductively as follows. Fix $\{\lambda_n\}_\mathbb N\in(\frac14,\frac12)$, which we assume satisfies $\lambda_n\le\lambda_{n+1}$ for simplicity. (These conditions also ensure that $H^\infty(\Omega)$ is nontrivial.) Put $K^0=[0,1]^2$. At stage $n$, we set $K^n=\bigcup_{|J|=n}Q^n_J$ where $Q^n_J$ are squares with sides parallel to the axes and side length $\sigma_n=\prod^n_{k=1}\lambda_k$, and $J$ is a multi-index of length $|J|=n$ on letters $\{1,2,3,4\}$. At stage $n+1$, we construct squares $Q^{n+1}_{J,j}\subset Q^n_J$, $j\in\{1,2,3,4\}$, of side length $\sigma_{n+1}$ with sides parallel to the axes such that each $Q^{n+1}_{J,j}$, $1\le j\le4$, contains a corner of $Q^n_J$. We define $K^{n+1}=\bigcup_{|J|=n}\bigcup_{j=1}^4Q^{n+1}_{J,j}$.
Some auxiliary definitions are also useful in this setting. The first of these is the quantity $\delta_n=1-2\lambda_n$, which represents the normalized gap width between squares of the $n$th generation having common parent. It is useful also to introduce the thickened squares $V^n_J:=(1+\frac{\delta_n}{2\lambda_n})Q^n_J$, and from these the “square annuli” $A^n_J$ given by $A^n_J=\overline{V^n_J\setminus\bigcup_{j=1}^4V^{n+1}_{J,j}}$. We note that our constants were chosen so that $\bigcup_1^4V^{n+1}_{J,j}$ is a single square concentric with and containing $Q^n_J$. That $A^n_J\neq\emptyset$ follows from the assumption that $\lambda_n\le\lambda_{n+1}$. Let us denote by $z^n_J$ the center of the square $Q^n_J$. (See Figure \[fig1\].)
For the harmonic measures below, we will generally make the abbreviations $\omega(\cdot):=\omega(\infty,\cdot,\Omega)$ and $\omega(\cdot,z):=\omega(z,\cdot,\Omega)$ or $\omega_z(\cdot):=\omega(z,\cdot,\Omega)$ when there is no risk of confusion.
We briefly sketch the proof of the result of Jones. Let us denote by $\{z_j\}$ the critical points of Green’s function $g(z)=g(z,\infty)$ for the domain $\Omega$. For $\{z_j\}$ to be an interpolating sequence, it is necessary that the sum $\sum g(z_j)$ be finite. Roughly speaking, each square annulus $A^n_J$ contains one critical point, and $g(z)$ is of the same size as $\omega(Q^n_J)$ (up to a constant factor) for $z\in A^n_J$ when there are $0<a<b<\frac12$ such that $a\le\lambda_n\le b$ for every $n$. Thus by Harnack’s inequality the convergence of $\sum g(z_j)$ is equivalent to the convergence of $\sum_{n,J}\omega(Q^n_J)$. But $\sum_{n,J}\omega(Q^n_J)=\sum_n \omega(K)=\infty$, so $\{z_j\}$ cannot be an interpolating sequence.
If one takes slightly more care in comparing harmonic measure to Green’s function, this can be extended to show that $\{z^n_J\}_{n,J}$ is not an interpolating sequence when $\delta_n\le\frac{c_0}{\log n}$ for large $n$, where $c_0$ is some absolute constant.
In the other direction, it has been shown by Jones (unpublished) that the critical points of Green’s function form an interpolating sequence in the case that $K$ has positive area. (This occurs iff $\sum\delta_n<\infty$.) This can be done via the techniques of [@jones-marshall] using harmonic measure estimates (see Theorems 4.1 and 4.5 of that paper), or, alternatively, by solving a $\bar\partial$-problem.
In the present work, we prove the following result.
\[corthmdim2\] If $K=K(\{\lambda_n\})$ is a square Cantor set with $\delta_n=o\left(\frac1{\log\log n}\right)$ and $\{f_\mu\}^M_{\mu=1}\in H^\infty(\Omega)$ satisfy $$0<\eta\le\max_{1\le\mu\le M}|f_\mu(z)|\le1,$$ then there are $\{g_\mu\}_{\mu=1}^M\in H^\infty(\Omega)$ such that $$\sum_{\mu=1}^Mf_\mu(z)g_\mu(z)=1,\qquad z\in\Omega.$$\
This extends the result past the regime where the critical points of Green’s function form an interpolating sequence.
The basic outline of the proof is as follows. We first break the domain into a number of simply connected domains $T^n_J$ which, roughly speaking, are the cross-shaped domains $Q^n_J\setminus\bigcup_{j=1}^4Q^{n+1}_{J,j}$. The fundamental idea is that found in [@garnettjones], namely to apply Carleson’s original theorem for simply connected domains and then constructively solve a $\bar\partial$-problem to obtain corona solutions for the whole domain.
To obtain the necessary cancellations, however, we require that the corona solutions on our simply connected subdomains have a certain amount of agreement on the overlaps of those domains. To achieve this, we build these special solutions inductively, the solutions at stage $n$ obtained first by choosing solutions according to Carleson’s corona theorem for simply connected domains and then solving a $\bar\partial$-problem to alter the solutions to match the neighboring solutions already constructed. The method for solving the $\bar\partial$-problem is much like in [@garnettjones], employing an interpolating sequence in the simply connected domains $T^n_J$ to build our solutions. For our solution to have the desired special properties, however, we must choose our interpolating functions to have certain special properties, and it is here that we need the condition that $\delta_n=o(\frac1{\log\log n})$. Section 3 is devoted to constructing these interpolating functions and solving the associated $\bar\partial$-problem in our simply connected subdomains.
Once these solutions have been constructed we paste these solutions together by solving another $\bar\partial$-problem. In this case, the $\bar\partial$-problem is solved using the ideas of rational approximation theory (see [@vitushkin] or Chapter XII of[@gamelin-ua]). Essentially, one solves the $\bar\partial$-problem on the intersection of two subdomains by the usual Cauchy integral representation, but in order to be able to sum these various pieces, we must add additional cancellation to each piece. This is done by subtracting a bounded analytic function on $\Omega$ which has singular support on a portion of the Cantor set nearby and which matches derivatives of the integral at infinity. Schwarz lemma bounds, in conjunction with the cancellations from our special corona solutions in the subdomains, then allow us to sum the terms and obtain the solution to the $\bar\partial$-problem. This part of the proof implicitly makes use of the fact that for any $\zeta\in K$ there is $c_0>0$ such that $$\gamma(B(\zeta,r)\cap K)\ge c_0r$$ for $r\in(0,{{\rm{diam}}}(K)]$, where $$\gamma(E):=\sup\{|f'(\infty)|:f\in H^\infty(\mathbb C^\ast\setminus E),\Vert f\Vert\le1\}$$ denotes the analytic capacity of the set $E$ (see [@tmv]). This parallels the thickness condition for the boundary employed in [@car-fatsets]. Thus the functions introduced to obtain cancellations are polynomials in the extremal function for this problem, the Ahlfor’s function, for a piece of the boundary. Alternatively, one can take the function to be powers of the Cauchy integral of the uniform measure on an appropriate subsquare $K^n_J:=K\cap Q^n_J$ of the Cantor set (see [@garnett-ac]).
The present work is part of the author’s Ph.D. dissertation. The author is naturally greatly indebted to his advisor, John Garnett, for many helpful conversations and suggestions over the years, and would like to take this opportunity to express his gratitude. The author would also like to thank Peter Jones for helpful conversations.
Proof of the Theorem
====================
To begin the proof, let us first define simply connected, cross-shaped regions $T^n_J$ by $T^n_J:=Q^n_J\setminus\bigcup_1^4Q^{n+1}_{J,j}$. For these regions we distinguish the four boundary segments, denoted $\{\ell^n_{J,j}\}_{j=1}^4$, which do not lie on a side of a square $Q^{n+1}_{J,j}$, $1\le j\le4$. Let us then define lozenges $$\label{lozenges}
L^n_{J,j}=\left\{z:\left|\arg\frac{z-x_2}{x_2-x_1}\right|\vee\left|\arg\frac{z-x_1}{x_2-x_1}\right|<\alpha\right\},$$ where $(x_1,x_2)=\ell^n_{J,j}$ and $\alpha$ is some angle less than $\frac\pi4$ to be determined by the constructions below. We now define regions $$\hat T^n_J=T^n_J\cup\bigcup\{L^m_{I,i}:\ell^m_{I,i}\subset\partial T^n_J\}.$$ (See Figure \[fig2\].) We note that these regions remain simply connected, so that Carleson’s corona theorem for the unit disc $\mathbb D$ provides corona solutions $\{g^{(n,J)}_\mu\}_{\mu=1}^M$ corresponding to $\{f_\mu\}_1^M$ in $\hat T^n_J$. We note that $\sum\chi_{\hat T^n_J}\le2$. The most important result for the present construction is embodied in the following proposition.
\[basicconstruction\] Given corona data $\{f_\mu\}_1^M$ in $\Omega$ as above, if the angle $\alpha$ defining the lozenges $L^n_{J,j}$ is sufficiently small then there are corona solutions $\{g^{(n,J)}_\mu\}_1^M$ in each $\hat T^n_J$ such that $\Vert g^{(n,J)}_\mu\Vert_\infty\le C(M,\delta,K)$ and if $(n,J)$ and $(m,I)$ are indices with $\hat T^n_J\cap \hat T^m_I=L^n_{J,j}$ then for $1\le\mu\le M$, $$|g^{(n,J)}_\mu(z)-g_\mu^{(m,I)}(z)|\lesssim\frac1{n^3}\frac{d(z,K)}{\sigma_n\delta_n},\qquad z\in L^n_{J,j}.$$\
Assuming this proposition, let us prove the theorem. Let $\{\phi_{(n,J)}\}$ to be a partition of unity on $\Omega$ subordinate to $\hat T^n_J$ satisfying $|\nabla\phi_{(n,J)}(z)|\lesssim d(z,K)^{-1}$ and define $$\label{dbar1}
\tilde g_\mu=\sum_{(n,J)}\phi_{(n,J)}g^{(n,J)}_\mu.$$ We note that the functions $\tilde g_\mu$, while not analytic, have the desired property that $\sum f_\mu\tilde g_\mu\equiv1$ on $\Omega$. An observation due to Hörmander [@Hormander], now reduces us to solving the $\bar\partial$-problem $$\bar\partial a_{\mu\nu}=\tilde g_\mu\bar\partial\tilde g_\nu,\qquad a_{\mu\nu}\in L^\infty(\Omega).$$ Indeed, given such functions $a_{\mu\nu}$, if we define $$G_\mu=\tilde g_\mu+\sum_{\nu=1}^M(a_{\mu\nu}-a_{\nu\mu})f_\nu$$ the antisymmetry of the matrix $A=[a_{\mu\nu}]$ gives us $\sum f_\mu G_\mu\equiv1$ on $\Omega$, while (\[dbar1\]) provides $\bar\partial G_\mu\equiv0$ on $\Omega$ for each $1\le\mu\le M$, so that $G_\mu\in H^\infty(\Omega)$. Thus the functions $\{G_\mu\}_1^M$ provide the corona solutions sought by the theorem.
Let us therefore turn our attention to solving (\[dbar1\]). The immediate thought is to consider $$a_{\mu\nu}(z)=\frac1{2\pi i}\iint_\Omega\frac{\tilde g_\mu(\zeta)\bar\partial\tilde g_\nu(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\,d\zeta\,d\bar\zeta,$$ but it is not clear that the integral is convergent à priori, so instead we begin by viewing this formally as $$\frac1{2\pi i}\iint_\Omega\frac{\tilde g_\mu(\zeta)\bar\partial\tilde g_\nu(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\,d\zeta\,d\bar\zeta
=\sum\frac1{2\pi i}\iint_{L^n_{J,j}}\frac{\tilde g_\mu(\zeta)\bar\partial\tilde g_\nu(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\,d\zeta\,d\bar\zeta,$$ and attempt to introduce additional cancellations in each term. We begin by estimating individual terms. For ease of notation, we define $$I^n_{J,j}(z) = \frac1{2\pi i}\iint_{L^n_{J,j}}\frac{\tilde g_\mu(\zeta)\bar\partial\tilde g_\nu(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\,d\zeta\,d\bar\zeta.$$ Let us suppose that $(m,I)$ is such that $L^n_{J,j}=\hat T^n_J\cap\hat T^m_I$. We first note that, for $z\in\overline{L^n_{J,j}}\setminus\{x_1,x_2\}$, $$\begin{aligned}
|I^n_{J,j}(z)|
&\lesssim& \iint_{L^n_{J,j}}\frac{|g_\nu^{(n,J)}\bar\partial\phi_{(n,J)}+g_\nu^{(m,I)}\bar\partial\phi_{(m,I)}|}{|\zeta-z|}\,dx\,dy \\
&\lesssim& \iint_{L^n_{J,j}}\frac{|g_\nu^{(n,J)}-g_\mu^{(m,I)}||\bar\partial\phi_{(n,J)}|}{|\zeta-z|}\,dx\,dy \\
&\lesssim& \frac1{\sigma_n\delta_nn^3}\iint_{L^n_{J,j}}\frac{dx\,dy}{|\zeta-z|} \\
|I^n_{J,j}(z)| &\lesssim& \frac1{n^3},
\end{aligned}$$ where we have exploited the fact that $\sum\chi_{\hat T^n_J}\le2$ in the second line and the proposition in the third. Proceeding in a similar manner, we can achieve estimates $$\left|\iint_{L^n_{J,j}}\tilde g_\mu\bar\partial g_\nu\,d\zeta\,d\bar\zeta\right|\lesssim\frac{\sigma_n\delta_n}{n^3}.$$
To generate further cancellations, we employ the “derivative matching trick” from rational approximation theory (see [@vitushkin] or Chapter XII of [@gamelin-ua]). To this end, we introduce functions $k^n_{J,j}$ defined as follows. Let $\tilde K^n_{J,j}$ be a “square” $K^{m'}_{I'}=K\cap Q^{m'}_{I'}$ with $\tilde K^n_{J,j}\cap L^n_{J,j}\neq\emptyset$ and side length comparable to $\sigma_n\delta_n$. The analytic capacity $\gamma(\tilde K^n_{J,j})$ is comparable to $\sigma_n\delta_n$, so if $f^n_{J,j}$ is the Ahlfors function for $\tilde K^n_{J,j}$ then, choosing (uniformly bounded) constants $c_{J,j}^n$ appropriately, and setting $$k^n_{J,j}(z)=\frac{c^n_{J,j}}{n^3}f^n_{J,j}(z)$$ then $\Vert k^n_{J,j}\Vert_\infty\lesssim\frac1{n^3}$ and $$(k^n_{J,j})'(\infty)=\frac1{2\pi i}\int_{L^n_{J,j}}\tilde g_\mu\bar\partial\tilde g_\nu\,d\zeta\,d\bar\zeta.$$ For the estimates that follow, we will employ the following form of Schwarz’s lemma.
If $E$ is a compact set and $f\in H^\infty(\mathbb C^\ast\setminus E)$ has a double zero at infinity then $$|f(z)|\lesssim\frac{\Vert f\Vert_\infty{{\rm{diam}}}(E)^2}{d(z,E)^2}.$$\
Let us define $$h^n_{J,j}(z):=I^n_J(z)-k^n_{J,j}(z).$$ Applied in the current context, the lemma yields $$\label{Schwarzest}
|h^n_{J,j}(z)|\lesssim\frac1{n^3}\left(1\wedge\frac{(\sigma_n\delta_n)^2}{d(z,\tilde K^n_{J,j}\cup L^n_{J,j})^2}\right).$$ Since $\bar\partial k^n_{J,j}=0$ in $\Omega$, formally we have $$\bar\partial\sum_{(n,J,j)}h^n_{J,j}=\tilde g_\mu\bar\partial\tilde g_\nu,$$ so it suffices to check the boundedness of the sum.
Fix $z\in\Omega$. For each $n\in\mathbb N$ there are at most boundedly many terms for which the minimum is one in the inequality (\[Schwarzest\]), and the summability of $\frac1{n^3}$ shows that these terms, summed over $n$, give a contribution which is controlled by the sum $\sum\frac1{n^3}$.
For remaining terms, we distinguish between the cases $\sigma_n\gtrsim d(z,K)$ and $\sigma_n\lesssim d(z,K)$. Let $n_0\in\mathbb N$ be such that $d(z,K)\asymp \sigma_{n_0}$ (the maximum principle prevails over any $z$ with $d(z,K)\gg1$). For $m\ge n_0$, all remaining terms are at (roughly) distance $\sigma_{n_0}$ or more away. Inductively one can show that there are at most $4^{m-n_0+k}$ terms having singularities a distance $\sigma_{n_0-k}$ away from $z$, and so Schwarz lemma bounds the sum of these terms by a constant multiple of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac1{m^3}\sum_{k=0}^{n_0}\frac{\sigma_m^2\delta_m^2 4^{m-n_0+k}}{\sigma_{n_0-k}^2}
&\le& \frac1{m^3}\sum_{k=0}^{n_0}\frac{4^m\sigma_m^2}{4^{n_0-k}\sigma_{n_0-k}^2}\le\frac1{m^3}\sum^{n_0}_{k=0}1 \\
&\le& \frac{n_0}{m^3}\le\frac1{m^2}
\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, if $m<n_0$, there are $4^{k-m}$ terms at roughly distance $\sigma_{m-k}$, and so for these terms the sum is controlled by $m^{-3}\sum_0^m\frac{\sigma_m^24^{k-m}}{\sigma_{m-k}^2}\lesssim m^{-2}$. Summing these bounds over $m$, we obtain $\Vert\sum_{n,J,j}h^n_{J,j}\Vert_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\lesssim1$ as desired. This proves the theorem.\
Proof of Proposition \[basicconstruction\]
==========================================
Let us now turn to the proof of Proposition \[basicconstruction\]. By normal families, it suffices to perform the construction in the domains $\{\hat T^n_J:|J|=n,n\le N\}$, provided we obtain constants independent of $N$.
Rather than working directly with the sets $\hat T^n_J$, we will consider slightly enlarged domains $\tilde T^n_J$, defined as follows. We first define $\tilde T^N_J=\hat T^N_J$. Now let $\phi^N_J$ be a conformal mapping from $\tilde T^N_J$ to $\mathbb D$ preserving the symmetries of the domain $\tilde T^N_J$. Let $E_j=E_j(N,J)$ be the arc of $\partial\mathbb D$ defined by $E_j:=\phi^N_J(\partial L^N_{J,j}\cap\partial\hat T^N_J)$, and let $E_j^\ast=3E_j$. Defining $\theta_N=\pi(1-\frac{c_1}{\log N})$, the constant $c_1$ to be determined later, let $\gamma_j^\ast$ be the circular arc in $\mathbb D$ with endpoints coincident with those of $E_j^\ast$ and intersecting at an angle of $\theta_N$. Easy length-area/extremal length estimates in $T^N_J$ yield $\omega(z^N_J,\ell^N_{J,j},T^N_J)\lesssim e^{-\frac{c_0}{\delta_N}}$ for some constant $c_0$ not depending on $N$. Employing the maximum principle and following the mapping to the disc, we find that the length of the arcs $\gamma_j^\ast$ is $o(\frac1{\log N})$ by our assumptions on the sequence $\{\delta_n\}$. Now by elementary geometry, the disc determined by $\gamma_j^\ast$ has radius $r$ bounded by $$r\lesssim\frac{c_1}{\log N}e^{-\frac{c_0}{\delta_N}},$$ so that $r=o(1)$. The arcs $\gamma_j^\ast$, $1\le j\le 4$, are therefore (uniformly) hyperbolically separated, at least for $N$ greater than some $n_0$. Let us now define $D^N_{J,j}$ to be the simply connected domain which is the pre-image under $\phi^N_J$ of the domain bounded by $E_j^\ast\cup\gamma_j^\ast$. We then define domains $$\tilde T^{N-1}_I:=\hat T^{N-1}_I\cup\bigcup\{D^N_{J,j}:L^N_{J,j}\subset\hat T^{N-1}_I\}$$ for each multi-index $I$ of length $N-1$.
Proceeding inductively, let us suppose that the domains $\tilde T^n_J$ have already been constructed for $n>m\ge n_0$, and, fixing $(m+1,J)$, let $\phi^{m+1}_J$ be a conformal mapping from $\tilde T^{m+1}_J$ preserving the symmetries of the domain. Let $E_j=E_j(m+1,J)(\partial L^{m+1}_{J,j}\cap\partial\hat T^{m+1}_J)$, let $E_j^\ast=3E_j$, and let $\gamma_j^\ast$ be the circular arc in $\mathbb D$ with endpoints coincident with those of $E_j^\ast$ and intersecting at an angle of $\theta_{m+1}=\pi(1-\frac{c_1}{\log(m+1)})$. As above, length-area estimates in $T^{m+1}_J$ yield $\omega(z^{m+1}_J,\ell^{m+1}_{J,j},T^{m+1}_J)\lesssim e^{-\frac{c_0}{\delta_{m+1}}}$, and thus the length of the arcs $\gamma_j^\ast$ is $o(\frac1{\log(m+1)})$ by our assumptions on the sequence $\{\delta_n\}$. Moreover, the disc determined by $\gamma_j$ has radius $r=r_m$ bounded by $$\label{radiusest}r\lesssim\frac{c_1}{\log(m+1)}e^{-\frac{c_0}{\delta_{m+1}}},$$ so that $r_m=o(1)$. The arcs $\gamma_j^\ast$, $1\le j\le 4$, are therefore hyperbolically separated since we have taken $m\ge n_0$. Let us now define $D^{m+1}_{J,j}$ to be the pre-image under $\phi^{m+1}_J$ of the domain bounded by $E_j^\ast\cup\gamma_j^\ast$. We then define domains $$\tilde T^m_I:=\hat T^m_I\cup\bigcup\{D^n_{J,j}:n>m,L^n_{J,j}\subset\hat T^m_I\}$$ for each multi-index $I$ of length $m$. (See Figure \[fig3\].) We note that for $n\ge n_0$ the estimate (\[radiusest\]) yields that these domains are simply connected and also that $\tilde T^n_J\cap\tilde T^n_I=\emptyset$ when $I\neq J$.
For $n<n_0$ we will take $$\tilde T^n_J=\hat T^n_J\cup\bigcup\{D^m_{I,j}:n\ge n_0,L^m_{I,j}\subset\hat T^n_J\}.$$
Proceeding from these definitions, we will construct our solutions from the top down, exploiting the natural generations structure of the Cantor set. At each stage we will obtain corona solutions $\{g^{(n,J)}_\mu\}\in H^\infty(\tilde T^n_J)$, and the corona solutions specified by the proposition will simply be the restrictions of these solutions to $\hat T^n_J$. For $n\le n_0$, we construct our corona solutions by applying the corona theorem for finitely connected domains to the domain $\Omega_{n_0}=\mathbb C^\ast\setminus[0,1]^2\cup\bigcup_{n\le n_0}\bigcup_{|J|=n}\tilde T^n_{J,j}$. Given $n\ge n_0$, let us suppose we have already obtained the desired corona solutions $\{g^{(m,I)}_\mu\}$ in the regions $\tilde T^m_I$ for which $m<n$. As the domains $\{\tilde T^n_J\}_{|J|=n}$ are disjoint, we may construct our corona solutions in each of those domains separately.
Fix $\tilde T^n_J$. We note that $\tilde T^n_J\cap\left(\bigcup_{m<n}\bigcup_{|I|=m}\tilde T^m_I\right)=\bigcup_1^4D^n_{J,j}$, and so in each region $D^n_{J,j}$ there are corona solutions constructed from previous generations, which we shall denote $\{g^j_\mu\}_\mu$. (Since $\sum_{n,J}\chi_{\tilde T^n_J}\le2$, these solutions are uniquely determined among those previously constructed.) We now push the situation forward to the unit disc according to the map $\phi^n_J$. Let $D_j$ denote the push-forward of the domain $D^n_{J,j}$, $F_\mu$ the push-forward of a corona datum $f_\mu$, and $G_\mu^j$ the push-forward of $g^j_\mu$. We note that $D_j$ is a lens-shaped domain by construction.
In order to construct our corona solutions, we will, as above, reduce the problem to an appropriate $\bar\partial$-problem. Obtaining the desired bounds in this manner will require the use of interpolating sequences, so before continuing with the main line of argument we make a detour to obtain the special interpolating functions that we require.
\[outerfunction\] There is a function $G\in H^\infty(\mathbb D)$ of norm one with the following properties.
1. There is a constant $c_2$, not depending on $n$, such that $|G(z)|\ge c_2$ for $z\in\gamma_j^\ast$.
2. If $\tilde\alpha<\frac\pi2$ and $L_j$ is the lens domain in $\mathbb D$ bounded by $E_j$ and the circular arc $\gamma_j$ meeting the endpoints $\zeta_1(j),\zeta_2(j)$ of $E_j$ in angle $\tilde\alpha$ then $$|G(z)|\le\frac1{n^3}\frac{d(z,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_j)}.$$
[**Proof:** ]{} We will obtain $G$ by multiplying a number of outer functions. For the first factor, we define $$H_0(z)=\exp\left\{-\int_{\partial\mathbb D}\frac{e^{i\theta}+z}{e^{i\theta}-z}6\log n\,
\chi_{\bigcup E_j^\ast}(\theta)\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}\right\},$$ noting that $$\begin{aligned}
|H_0(z)| &=& \exp\left\{-\int_{\partial\mathbb D}P_z(\theta)6\log n\,\chi_{\bigcup E_j^\ast}(\theta)\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}\right\} \\
&=& \exp\left\{-6\log n\,\omega\bigg(z,\bigcup E_j^\ast,\mathbb D\bigg)\right\},
\end{aligned}$$ where $P_z$ is the Poisson kernel. Due to our choice of angle $\theta_n$, we have $$\omega\bigg(z,\bigcup E_j^\ast,\mathbb D\bigg)\le4\omega(z,E_k,\mathbb D)\le\frac{4c_1}{\log n},\qquad z\in\gamma_k^\ast,$$ so that $|H_0(z)|\ge e^{-24c_1}$ on each $\gamma_j^\ast$. Also, on $L_j$ we can easily compute that $\omega(z,E_j^\ast,\mathbb D)\ge\frac12$, whereby $|H_0(z)|\le\frac1{n^3}$ on $L_j$.
For the remaining factors we first note that on the imaginary axis the functions $$u_\pm(z) := \int_{-\frac\pi2}^\frac\pi2\log^-|e^{\pm i\frac\pi6}-e^{i\theta}|P_{iy}(\theta)\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}$$ are bounded below by $-\log2$, and so after precomposing these functions by appropriate Möbius transformations and exponentiating, we obtain functions $\tilde H_{j,1}$, $\tilde H_{j,2}$ of norm one such that $|\tilde H_{j,1}(z)|,|\tilde H_{j,2}(z)|\ge\frac12$ on each $\gamma_k$, $1\le k\le 4$, and such that $$\begin{aligned}
|\tilde H_{j,1}(z)| &\le& \frac{|z-\zeta_1(j)|}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_j)}, \\
|\tilde H_{j,2}(z)| &\le& \frac{|z-\zeta_2(j)|}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_j)},
\end{aligned}$$ for $z\in L_j$. Setting $H_j=\tilde H_{j,1}\tilde H_{j,2}$, and then $G=\prod_0^4H_j$ thus provides the desired function.\
Fixing $\beta>0$, if $\{z_k\}\in\gamma_j$ are points satisfying $$\label{sepbeta}|z_k-z_\ell|\ge\beta(1-|z_k|),\qquad k\neq\ell,$$ then $\sum_k(1-|z_k|)\delta_{z_k}$, where $\delta_{z_k}$ in this case denotes the unit point mass at $z_k$, is a Carleson measure with norm depending only on $\beta$, and so $\{z_k\}$ is an interpolating sequence with constant of interpolation depending only on $\beta$ by Carleson’s interpolation theorem for $H^\infty(\mathbb D)$ [@Carint]. Due to the hyperbolic separation of the arcs $\gamma_j$ in $\mathbb D$, this remains true for a sequence $S=\bigcup_1^4 S_j$ with each $S_j$ a sequence in $\gamma_j$ satisfying this condition. Then if $G(z)$ is the function provided by Lemma \[outerfunction\], given $\{w_j\}\in\ell^\infty$ we can find an interpolating function $f\in H^\infty(\mathbb D)$ with $f(z_j)=\frac{w_j}{G(z_j)}$. The function $g=fG\in H^\infty(\mathbb D)$ then satisfies $$g(z_j)=w_j,$$ $$\Vert g\Vert_{L^\infty(\mathbb D)}\le A'c_0,$$ $$|g(z)|\le\frac{A'd(z,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{n^3{{\rm{diam}}}(L_j)},\qquad z\in L_j,$$ for $L_j$ and $\zeta_1(j),\zeta_2(j)$ defined as in the lemma, where $A'$ bounds the largest constant of interpolation for a maximal sequence on $\bigcup_1^4\gamma_j$ satisfying (\[sepbeta\]). Fixing $\beta$ for the remainder of the proof, let $A=c_0A'$.
\[lem2\] Let $S=\{z_n\}$ be a maximal sequence on $\bigcup_1^4\gamma_j$ satisfying $$|z_k-z_\ell|\ge\frac{1-|z_j|}{8A^2},\qquad k\neq\ell.$$ Then there are functions $h_j\in H^\infty(\mathbb D)$ such that $$h_j(z_j)=1,$$ $$\Vert h_j\Vert_{L^\infty(\mathbb D)}\le A^2,$$ $$\sum_j|h_j(z)|\le\frac{\log8A^2}{\log\beta^{-1}}A^2,$$ and such that $$\sum_j|h_j(z)|\le\frac{\log8A^2}{\log\beta^{-1}}\frac{A^2}{n^6}\left(\frac{d(z,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_j)}\right)^2,\qquad z\in L_j,$$ where $L_j$ and $\zeta_1(j),\zeta_2(j)$ are defined as in the Lemma \[outerfunction\].
[**Proof:** ]{} This is a mild refinement of an argument of Varopoulos [@Var]. We note that the sequence $S$ can be split into $\frac{\log8A^2}{\log\beta^{-1}}$ disjoint sequences $S_m$ such that (\[sepbeta\]) holds. Restricting our attention to a subsequence $S_m$, it suffices to consider the case that $S_m$ is finite, $S_m=\{z_1,\ldots,z_{n_0}\}$, as one may then employ normal families to the construction below. Set $\omega=e^\frac{2\pi i}{n_0}$. Employing the remarks above, by Lemma \[outerfunction\] we may choose $f_j\in H^\infty(\mathbb D)$ such that $f_j(z_k)=\omega^{jk}$, $\Vert f_j\Vert_{L^\infty(\mathbb D)}\le A$, and $|f_j(z)|\le \frac{A}{n^3}\frac{d(z,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_\ell)}$ when $z\in L_\ell$ for each $1\le\ell\le4$. If we now define $$h_j(z)=\left(\frac1{n_0}\sum_{k=1}^{n_0}\omega^{-jk}f_k(z)\right)^2,$$ then $$h_j(z_i)=\left(\frac1{n_0}\sum^{n_0}_{k=1}\omega^{(i-j)k}\right)^2
=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}1\qquad&\mbox{if }i=j,\\0& \mbox{else,}\end{array}\right.$$ $$\Vert h_j\Vert_{L^\infty(\mathbb D)}\le A^2,$$ and $$|h_j(z)|\le \frac{A^2}{n^6}\left(\frac{d(z,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_\ell)}\right)^2$$ for $z\in L_\ell$. Also, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^{n_0}_{j=1}|h_j(z)| &=& \frac1{n_0^2}\sum^{n_0}_{k=1}\sum_{j,\ell}\omega^{-jk}\omega^{j\ell}f_j(z)\bar f_\ell(z) \\
&=& \frac1{n_0^2}\sum^{n_0}_{j=1}n_0|f_j(z)|^2,
\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\sum_{j=1}^{n_0}|h_j(z)|\le A^2$$ throughout the unit disc, and $$\sum^{n_0}_{j=1}|h_j(z)|\le \frac{A^2}{n^6}\left(\frac{d(z,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_\ell)}\right)^2,$$ for $z\in L_\ell$ as desired.\
With these lemmas in hand we turn now to constructing our special corona solutions. By Carleson’s original corona theorem [@car-disc], there are corona solutions $\{g_\mu\}$ in $\mathbb D$ with $\Vert g_\mu\Vert\le c(M,\eta)$. To generate corona solutions close to $G_\mu^j$ on $D_j$ our first instinct is to take a partition of unity and paste these together. In doing this we first add to the domains $D_j$ to generate overlap. Specifically, let us define $$\tilde D_0 = \bigg(\mathbb D\setminus\bigcup_1^4D_j\bigg)\cup\bigcup_{z_j\in S}B\left(z_j,\frac{1-|z_j|}{4A^2}\right)$$ and $$\tilde D_j = D_j\cup\bigcup_{z_k\in S\cap\gamma_j}B\left(z_j,\frac{1-|z_j|}{4A^2}\right)$$ for $1\le j\le4$. For ease of notation in what follows, we will denote the region of overlap, $\bigcup_1^4(\tilde D_j\cap\tilde D_0)$, by $U$. Let $\psi_0,\ldots,\psi_4$ be a partition of unity subordinate to $\tilde D_0,\ldots,\tilde D_4$ satisfying $|\nabla\psi_j(z)|\lesssim (1-|z|)^{-1}$. Our initial pasting is then $$\tilde g_\mu:=\psi_0g_\mu+\sum_{j=1}^4\psi_jG_\mu^j.$$
To obtain a bounded analytic solution from this we now take an approach much like that above. In particular, we wish to find functions $a_{\mu\nu}\in L^\infty(\mathbb D)$ such that $$\bar\partial a_{\mu\nu}=\tilde g_\mu\bar\partial\tilde g_\nu$$ and $$|a_{\mu\nu}(z)|\lesssim n^{-6}\left(\frac{d(z,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_j)}\right)^2,$$ for $z\in L_j$, where $L_j$ is the lens domain bounded by $E_j$ and the circular arc meeting the endpoints $\zeta_1(j),\zeta_2(j)$ of $E_j$ in angle $\tilde\alpha<\frac\pi2$.
\[lem3\] If $B\in L^\infty(U)$ and $b(z)=\frac{B(z)}{1-|z|}\chi_U$ then there is $F\in L^\infty(\mathbb D)$ such that $$\bar\partial F=b$$ in the sense of distributions on $\mathbb D$, $$\Vert F\Vert_\infty\lesssim\Vert B\Vert_\infty,$$ and $$|F(z)|\lesssim n^{-6}\left(\frac{d(z,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_j)}\right)^2,\qquad z\in L_j,$$ where $L_j$ is the lens domain bounded by $E_j$ and the circular arc meeting the endpoints $\zeta_1(j),\zeta_2(j)$ of $E_j$ in angle $\tilde\alpha<\frac\pi2$.
[**Proof:** ]{} We follow an argument due to Peter Jones [@garnettjones]. Let $\{h_m\}$ be the functions provided by Lemma \[lem2\], and let us write $U$ as the disjoint union of sets $U_m\subset B(z_m,\frac{1-|z_m|}{4A^2})$, and let us define $$F(\zeta) = \sum_m\frac1\pi\iint_{U_m}\frac{h_m(\zeta)}{h_m(z)}\frac{b(z)}{\zeta-z}\,dx\,dy.$$ Formally, $\bar\partial F(\zeta)=b(\zeta)$, so it suffices to check the convergence of the sum. Noting that $|h_m(\zeta)|\ge\frac12$ in $U_m$ by Schwarz’s lemma, termwise estimates give $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\frac1\pi\iint_{U_m}\frac{h_m(\zeta)}{h_m(z)}\frac{b(z)}{\zeta-z}\,dx\,dy\right|
&\le& \frac2\pi|h_m(\zeta)|\iint_{U_m}\frac{|b(z)|}{|\zeta-z|}\,dx\,dy \\
&\le& \frac1\pi\Vert B\Vert_\infty|h_m(\zeta)|\frac{(1-|z_m|)^{-1}}{1-(4A^2)^{-1}}
\iint_{B\left(z_m,\frac{1-|z_m|}{4A^2}\right)}\frac{dx\,dy}{|\zeta-z|} \\
\left|\frac1\pi\iint_{U_m}\frac{h_m(\zeta)}{h_m(z)}\frac{b(z)}{\zeta-z}\,dx\,dy\right|
&\le& \frac4{3A^2}|h_m(\zeta)|\Vert B\Vert_\infty.
\end{aligned}$$ Summing, we find that $$\Vert F\Vert_\infty \le \frac{16}3\frac{\log4A^2}{\log\beta^{-1}}\Vert B\Vert_\infty$$ and $$|F(\zeta)|\le\frac{16}3\frac{\log4A^2}{\log\beta^{-1}}n^{-6}\Vert B\Vert_\infty
\left(\frac{d(\zeta,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_j)}\right)^2,$$ for $\zeta\in L_j$ due to the special properties of the functions $h_m$.\
Given this, the functions $$G_\mu(z)=\tilde g_\mu(z)+\sum_{\nu=1}^M(a_{\mu\nu}(z)-a_{\nu\mu}(z))f_\nu(z),$$ are corona solutions in $\mathbb D$ satisfying $$|G_\mu(z)-G_\mu^j(z)| \le \sum_{\nu=1}^M|f_\nu(z)||a_{\mu\nu}(z)-a_{\nu\mu}(z)|\lesssim M n^{-6}
\left(\frac{d(z,\{\zeta_1,\zeta_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L_j)}\right)^2$$ on $L_j$. For fixed $\tilde\alpha$, if the angle $\alpha$ defining the lozenges $L^n_{J,j}$ in (\[lozenges\]) is sufficiently small then $\phi^n_J(L^n_{J,j})\subset L_j$ (reindexing as appropriate). Mapping back to the domains $\tilde T^n_J$, since $(\phi^n_J)^{-1}$ behaves as $(z-\zeta_i(j))^{\frac{1+\alpha}2}$ about $\zeta_i(j)$, and so we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
|g^{(n,J)}_\mu(z)-g^j_\mu(z)| &\lesssim& n^{-6}\left(\frac{d(z,\{x_1,x_2\})}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L^n_{J,j})}\right)^{1+\alpha} \\
&\lesssim& n^{-6}\frac{d(z,K)}{{{\rm{diam}}}(L^n_{J,j})},
\end{aligned}$$ on $L^n_{J,j}$, where $\{x_1,x_2\}=K\cap\overline{L^n_{J,j}}$, and $\Vert g^{(n,J)}_\mu\Vert_\infty\le C(M,\eta)$, with constants uniform in $(n,J)$.
This completes the proof of the proposition.\
[99]{}
Alling, N. L., A proof of the corona conjecture for finite open Riemann surfaces, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.* **70** (1964), 110-112. Alling, N. L., Extensions of meromorphic function rings over non-compact Riemann surfaces, I, *Math. Z.* **89** (1965, 273-299. Barrett, D. E. and Diller, J., A new construction of Riemann surfaces with corona, *J. Geom. Anal.* **8** (1998), 341-347. Behrens, M., On the corona problem for a class of infinitely connected domains, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.* **76** (1970), 387-391. Behrens, M., The maximal ideal space of algebras of bounded anlytic functions on infinitely connected domains, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **161** (1971), 358-380. Berndtsson, B. and Ransford, T. J., Analytic multifunctions, the $\bar\partial$-equation, and a proof of the corona theorem, *Pac. J. Math.* **124** (1986), 57-72. Carleson, L., An interpolation theorem or bounded analytic functions, *Amer. J. Math.* **80** (1958), 921-930. Carleson, L., Interpolation by bounded analytic functions and the corona problem, *Ann. of Math.* **76** (1962), 547-559. Carleson, L., On $H^\infty$ in multiply connected domains. *Conference on Harmonic Analysis in Honor of Antoni Zygmund*, Vol. 2, Wadsworth Inc., 1983, pp. 349-372. Deeb, W. M., A class of infinitely connected domain and the corona, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **231** (1977), 101-106. Deeb, W. M. and Wilken, D. R., $\mathcal D$ domains and the corona, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* *231* (1977), 107-115. Earle, C. J. and Marden, A., Projections to automorphic functions, *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **19** (1968), 274-278. Forelli, F., Bounded holormorphic functions and projections, *Illinois J. Math.* **10** (1966), 367-380. Gamelin, T. W., Localization of the corona problem, *Pac. J. Math.* **34** (1970), 73-81. Gamelin, T. W., *Uniform Algebras*, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1969. Gamelin, T. W., *Uniform Algebras and Jensen Measures*, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes 32, Cambridge University Press, 1978. Gamelin, T. W., Wolff’s proof of the corona theorem, *Israel J. Math.* *37* (1980), 113-119. Garnett, J. B., *Analytic Capacity and Measure*, Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 297, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972. Garnett, J. B., *Bounded Analytic Functions*, revised first edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 236, Springer, NY, 2007. Garnett, J. B. and Jones, P. W., The Corona theorem for Denjoy domains, *Acta. Math.* **155** (1985), 27-40. Gonzalez, Maria Jose, Uniformly Perfect Sets, Green’s function, and fundamental domains. *Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana* **8** (1992), no. 2, 239-269. Hörmander, L., Generators for some rings of analytic functions, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.* **73** (1967), 943-949. Jones, P. W. and Marshall, D. E., Critical points of Green’s function, harmonic measure, and the corona problem, *Ark. för Mat.* **23** (1985), no. 2, 281-314. Mateu, J., Tolsa, X., and Verdera, J., The planar Cantor sets of zero analytic capacity and the local $T(b)$-Theorem, *J. Amer. Math. Soc.* **16** (2003), 19-28. Moore, Charles N., The corona theorem for domains whose boundary lies in a smooth curve. *Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.* **100** (1987), no. 2, 266–270 Stout, E. L., Two thoerems concerning functions holomorphic on multiply connected domains, *Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.* **69** (1963), 527-530. Slodkowski, Z., An analytic set-valued selection and its applications to the corona theorem, to polynomial hulls and joint spectra, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **294** (1986), 367-377. Slodkowski, Z., On bounded analytic functions in finitely connected domains, *Tran. Amer. Math. Soc.* **300** (1987), 721-736. Stout, E. L., Bounded holormorphic functions on finite Riemann surfaces, *Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **120** (1965), 255-285. Stout, E. L., On some algebras of analytic functions on finite open Riemann surfaces, *Math. Z.* **92** (1966), 366-379. Corrections to: On some algebras of analytic functions on finite open Riemann surfaces, *Math. Z.* **95** (1967), 403-404. Varopoulos, N. Th., Ensembles pics et ensembles d’interpolation d’une algebra uniforme, *C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. A.* **272** (1971), 866-867. Vitushkin, A. G., Analytic capacity of sets in problems of approximation theory, *Uspehi Mat. Nauk.* (Russian) **22** 1967 (138), 141-199. Translation in *Russian Math. Surveys* **22** (1967) 139-200.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'RGB-Infrared (IR) person re-identification is an important and challenging task due to large cross-modality variations between RGB and IR images. Most conventional approaches aim to bridge the cross-modality gap with feature alignment by feature representation learning. Different from existing methods, in this paper, we propose a novel and end-to-end Alignment Generative Adversarial Network (AlignGAN) for the RGB-IR RE-ID task. The proposed model enjoys several merits. First, it can exploit pixel alignment and feature alignment jointly. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to model the two alignment strategies jointly for the RGB-IR RE-ID problem. Second, the proposed model consists of a pixel generator, a feature generator and a joint discriminator. By playing a min-max game among the three components, our model is able to not only alleviate the cross-modality and intra-modality variations, but also learn identity-consistent features. Extensive experimental results on two standard benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed model performs favorably against state-of-the-art methods. Especially, on SYSU-MM01 dataset, our model can achieve an absolute gain of $15.4\%$ and $12.9\%$ in terms of Rank-1 and mAP. Code is released on *https://github.com/wangguanan/AlignGAN*.'
author:
- |
Guan’an Wang$^{1,2}$ Tianzhu Zhang$^4$ Jian Cheng$^{1,2,3}$ Si Liu$^5$ Yang Yang$^{1}$ Zengguang Hou$^{1,2,3}$\
$^1$Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China\
$^2$University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China\
$^3$Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology, Beijing, China\
$^4$University of Science and Technology of China, Beijing, China $^5$Beihang University, Beijing, China\
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: |
RGB-Infrared Cross-Modality Person Re-Identification\
via Joint Pixel and Feature Alignment
---
Introduction
============
Person re-identification (Re-ID) is an important task in video surveillance, which aims to match pedestrian images of a person across disjoint camera views [@gong2014person]. Its key challenges lie in large intra-class and small inter-class variations caused by different poses, illuminations, views, and occlusions. To handle these issues, a large number of models for Re-ID problem have been proposed including hand-crafted descriptors [@ma2014covariance; @yang2014salient; @liao2015person], metric learning models [@zheng2013reidentification; @koestinger2012large; @liao2015efficient] and deep learning algorithms [@zheng2016person; @hermans2017defense; @sun2018beyond]. Most of existing methods are focusing on visible cameras and formulate the Re-ID task as a single-modality matching problem (RGB-RGB), *i.e.*, given a query image/video and match it against a set of gallery images/videos.
![ Most existing methods solve the RGB-IR Re-ID task via feature alignment by feature representation learning. Different from existing methods, our goal is to generate fake IR images based on real RGB images via a pixel alignment module, and then match the generated fake IR images and real IR images via a feature alignment module. For more details, please refer to the text. (Please view in color.) []{data-label="fig:simple_framework"}](materials/simple_framework_v1.jpg)
However, the visible cameras may not be able to capture valid appearance information under poor illumination environments (e.g., at night), which limits the applicability in practical surveillance applications [@wu2017rgb]. In such case, imaging devices without relying on visible light should be applied. In many applications, the surveillance cameras could be heterogeneous, such as near-infrared (IR), thermal and depth cameras. Especially, most surveillance cameras can automatically switch from RGB to IR mode, which facilitates such cameras to work at night. Thus, it is necessary to study the RGB-IR cross-modality matching problem in real-world scenarios. However, very few works have paid attention to the Re-ID between RGB cameras and infrared cameras due to the great differences between the two modalities. As shown in Figure \[fig:simple\_framework\], RGB and IR images are intrinsically distinct and heterogeneous, and have different wavelength ranges. Here, RGB images have three channels containing colour information of visible light, while IR images have one channel containing information of invisible light. As a result, even human can hardly recognize the persons well by using colour information.
To deal with the above issues, existing cross-modality re-id methods [@wu2017rgb; @ye2018hierarchical; @ye2018visible; @dai2018cross; @hao2019hsme] mainly focus on bridging the gap between the RGB and IR images via feature alignment as shown in Figure \[fig:simple\_framework\]. The basic idea is to match real RGB and IR images via feature representation learning. Due to the large cross-modality variation between two modalities, it is difficult to match RGB and IR images directly in a shared feature space. As shown in Table \[table:single\_vs\_cross\], we report the Rank-1, mAP scores and intra-class cosine similarity (ICCS) of the cmGAN [@dai2018cross] (one state-of-the-art RGB-IR Re-ID model) under single-modality and cross-modality settings on the SYSU-MM01 dataset. Note that larger ICCS value means higher similarity. The results show the cmGAN performs much worse under the cross-modality setting and cannot overcome the cross-modality variation well.
----------------- --------- ------- -------- --------
Settings
(query2gallery) rgb2rgb ir2ir ir2rgb rgb2ir
Rank-1 90.0 68.3 27.9 31.9
mAP 76.6 49.6 24.5 25.5
ICCS 0.892 0.879 0.701 0.701
----------------- --------- ------- -------- --------
: The results of cmGAN [@dai2018cross] under different settings on SYSU-MM01 dataset in terms of Rank-1, mAP, and intra-class cosine similarity (ICCS).
\[table:single\_vs\_cross\]
Different from the existing approaches by matching RGB and IR images straightly, a heuristic method is to generate fake IR images based on real RGB images via a pixel alignment module, and then match the generated fake IR images and real IR images via a feature alignment module as shown in Figure \[fig:simple\_framework\]. The generated fake IR images are adopted to bridge the gap between the RGB and IR images. This basic idea can be achieved by using the model in Figure \[fig:compared\_gans\](b). Here, the model consists of a pixel generator $G_p$ and a feature generator $G_f$ to align two modalities in the pixel and feature spaces, respectively. Correspondingly, the two generators are separately trained with two discriminators $D_p$ and $D_f$. Thanks to the $G_p$ and $D_p$, fake IR images can be generated to alleviate the cross-modality variation in the pixel space. Although the generated fake IR images look similar to real IR images, there are still large intra-class discrepancies due to viewpoint changes, pose variations and occlusions. To overcome this issue, the $G_f$ and $D_f$ are adopted. Therefore, this model is designed for the RGB-IR cross-modality Re-ID by using pixel alignment and feature alignment, which is different from the model in Figure \[fig:compared\_gans\](a) only using feature alignment. However, the two alignment strategies are adopted separately, and they may be not able to complement and enhance each other well to obtain identity-consistent features. This is because in Re-ID task labels of training and test set are unshared. Aligned features cannot maintain identity-consistency by fitting labels in training set. For example, person A may be aligned to person B.
![Comparison of different alignment strategies. (a) Feature alignment. (b) Pixel and feature alignments with two discriminators. (c) Pixel and feature alignments with a joint discriminator.[]{data-label="fig:compared_gans"}](materials/compared_framework.jpg)
Inspired by the above discussions, in this paper, we propose a novel Alignment Generative Adversarial Network (AlignGAN) to simultaneously alleviate the cross-modality variation in the pixel space, the intra-modality variation in the feature space, and maintain the identity-consistent features for the RGB-IR cross-modality Re-ID task. As shown in Figure \[fig:compared\_gans\](c), to reduce the cross-modality variation, we adopt a pixel generator $G_p$ to generate identity-maintained fake IR images based on RGB images. Then, to alleviate the intra-modality variation, we use a feature generator $G_f$ to encode fake and real IR images to a shared feature space by utilizing the identity-based classification and triplet losses. Finally, to learn identity-consistent features, we propose a joint discriminator $D_j$ by making $G_p$ and $G_f$ learn from each other. Here, $D_j$ takes image-feature pairs as inputs and classifies real IR image-feature pairs with the same identity as real, and the others as fake. Correspondingly, $G_{p}$ and $G_{f}$ are optimized to fool $D_j$. Thus, negative pairs from different identities can be penalized and the aligned features are explicitly forced to maintain identity with corresponding images. By playing a min-max game between $D_j$ and $G_p+G_f$, both cross-modality and intra-modality variation can be reduced, meanwhile the identity-consistent features can be learned.
The major contributions of this work can be summarized as follows. (1) We propose a novel Alignment Generative Adversarial Network for the RGB-IR RE-ID task by exploiting pixel alignment and feature alignment jointly. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to model the two alignment strategies jointly for the RGB-IR RE-ID problem. (2) The proposed model consists of a pixel generator, a feature generator and a joint discriminator. By playing a min-max game among the three components, our model is able to not only reduce the cross-modality and intra-modality variations, but also learn identity-consistent features. (3) Extensive experimental results on two standard benchmarks demonstrate that the proposed model performs favorably against state-of-the-art methods. Especially, on SYSU-MM01 dataset, our model achieves a significant improvement of $15.4\%$ Rank-1 and $12.9\%$ mAP, respectively.
Related Works
=============
**RGB-RGB Person Re-Identification.** RGB-RGB person re-identification addresses the problem of matching pedestrian RGB images across disjoint visible cameras [@gong2014person], which is widely used in video surveillance, public security and smart city, can also be used to improve tracking [@zhang2019robust; @zhang2018correlation; @zhang2019learning]. The key challenges lie in the large intra-class variation caused by different views, poses, illuminations, and occlusions. Existing methods can be grouped into hand-crafted descriptors [@ma2014covariance; @yang2014salient; @liao2015person; @yang2016large], metric learning methods [@zheng2013reidentification; @koestinger2012large; @liao2015efficient] and deep learning algorithms [@zheng2016person; @hermans2017defense; @sun2018beyond; @luo2019bag; @zheng2019joint; @guan2019color; @wu2019clustering; @yang2017unsupervised; @yang2019cn; @li2018harmonious; @li2017person; @chen2017person; @wang2018transferable]. The goal of hand-crafted descriptors is to design robust features. For example, Yang *et al.* [@yang2014salient] explore color information by using salient color names. Metric learning methods are designed to make a pair of true matches have a relatively smaller distance than that of a wrong match pair in a discriminant manner. Zheng *et al.* [@zheng2013reidentification] formulate person RE-ID as a relative distance comparison learning problem in order to learn the optimal similarity measure between a pair of person images. Deep learning algorithms adopt deep neural networks to straightly learn robust and discriminative features in an end-to-end manner. For example, [@zheng2016person; @hermans2017defense] learn identity-discriminative features by fine-tuning a pre-trained CNN to minimize a classification loss or a triplet loss. Most of exiting methods focus on the RGB-RGB Re-ID task, and cannot perform well for the RGB-IR Re-ID task, which limits the applicability in practical surveillance scenarios.
**RGB-IR Person Re-Identification.** RGB-IR Person re-identification attempts to match RGB and IR images of a person under disjoint cameras. Besides the difficulties of RGB-RGB Re-ID, RGB-IR Re-ID faces a new challenge due to cross-modality variation between RGB and IR images. In [@wu2017rgb], Wu *et al.* collect a cross-modality RGB-IR dataset named SYSU RGB-IR Re-ID. The proposed method explores three different network structures and uses deep zero-padding for training one-stream network towards automatically evolving domain-specific nodes in the network for cross-modality matching. Ye *et al.* [@ye2018hierarchical; @ye2018visible] propose modality-specific and modality-shared metric losses and a new bi-directional dual-constrained top-ranking loss to learn discriminative feature representations for RGB-IR Re-ID. In [@dai2018cross], Dai *et al.* introduce a cross-modality generative adversarial network (cmGAN) to reduce the distribution divergence of RGB and IR features. Very recently, Hao *et al.* [@hao2019hsme] achieve visible thermal person re- identification via a hyper-sphere manifold embedding model. Most of the above methods mainly focus on bridging the gap between RGB and IR images via feature alignment, which ignores the large cross-modality variation in the pixel space. Different from these methods, our proposed model performs pixel alignment and feature alignment jointly, which is able to not only reduce the cross-modality and intra-modality variations, but also learn identity-consistent features.
**Generative Adversarial Networks.** Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) [@goodfellow2014generative] learns data distribution in a self-supervised way via the adversarial training, which has been widely used in image translation [@isola2017image; @zhu2017unpaired; @choi2018stargan] and domain adaptation [@ganin2016domain; @hoffman2018cycada; @dou2018unsupervised; @shao2018feature]. Pix2Pix [@isola2017image], CycleGAN [@zhu2017unpaired] and StarGAN [@choi2018stargan] learn image translations between two or multi domains. However, those works only focus on image translation, which cannot be used for RGB-IR Re-ID, a cross-modality matching task. Recently, some GAN based domain adaptation methods are proposed. DANN [@ganin2016domain] and Seg-CT-UDA [@dou2018unsupervised] minimizes adversarial discriminator accuracy to reduce the distribution divergence between source and target features. However, they only focus on aligning features between two domains, while fails to deal with variations of images. CyCADA [@hoffman2018cycada] uses two GAN models to generate images and features for segmentation, HADDA [@shao2018feature] use reconstructed images to constrain features. However, both assume that training and test data should have the same class labels, which is not hold for person re-id. Furthermore, our pixel and feature alignment modules are jointly learned in an unified GAN framework, and identity-consistent features can be obtained by making the two modules learn from each other.
Alignment Generative Adversarial Network
========================================
In this section, we introduce the details of the proposed Alignment Generative Adversarial Network (AlignGAN) for the RGB-IR Re-ID. As shown in Figure \[fig:framework\], our AlignGAN consists of a pixel alignment module ($\mathcal{P}$), a feature alignment module ($\mathcal{F}$) and a joint discriminator module ($\mathcal{D}$). The $\mathcal{P}$ reduces the cross-modality variation by translating RGB images to identity-maintained fake IR images. The $\mathcal{F}$ alleviates the intra-modality variation by encoding fake and real IR images to a shared feature space by minimizing the identity-based classification and triplet losses. The $\mathcal{D}$ enforce the identity-consistent features by making the $\mathcal{P}$ and $\mathcal{F}$ learn from each other and penalizing negative pairs which are not real or belong to different identities. By playing a min-max game between the $\mathcal{D}$ and the $\mathcal{D}+\mathcal{F}$, both cross-modality and intra-modality variations can be reduced, meanwhile identity-consistent features can be learned.
Pixel Alignment Module\[section:image\]
---------------------------------------
As shown in Figure \[fig:simple\_framework\], there is a large cross-modality variation between RGB and IR images, which significantly increases the difficulties of the RGB-IR Re-ID task. To reduce the cross-modality variation, we propose to translate real RGB images $X_{rgb}$ to fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}$, which have the IR style and maintain their original identities. The generated fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}$ can be used to bridge the gap between RGB and IR images. To this end, we introduce a pixel generator $G_{p}$ which learns a mapping from RGB images $X_{rgb}$ to IR images $X_{ir}$, and train it to produce fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}=G_{p}(X_{rgb})$ that fool a discriminator. Conversely, the discriminator attempts to distinguish real IR images $X_{ir}$ from fake ones $X^{'}_{ir}$. By playing the min-max game as in [@goodfellow2014generative], the proposed model can make the fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}$ as realistic as possible. We mark the loss as $\mathcal{L}_{gan}^{pix}$ and define it in Eq.(\[loss:gan\_image\]).
Although $\mathcal{L}_{gan}^{pix}$ ensures fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}$ will resemble data drawn from real IR images $X_{ir}$, there is no way to guarantee that $X^{'}_{ir}$ preserves the structure or content of their original RGB images $X_{rgb}$. To handle this issue, as in [@zhu2017unpaired], we introduce a cycle-consistency loss. Specifically, a mapping from IR images to RGB ones $G_{p^{'}}$ is trained with a GAN model as in [@zhu2017unpaired]. For simplification, we don’t show its definition in the loss. Then, we require that mapping a RGB(IR) image to a IR(RGB) one and back to a RGB(IR) one reproduces the original one. The cycle-consistency loss $\mathcal{L}_{cyc}$ can be formulated as below: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{cyc} & = ||G_{p^{'}}(G_{p}(X_{rgb})) - X_{rgb}||_{1} \\
& + ||G_{p}(G_{p^{'}}(X_{ir})) - X_{ir}||_{1}
\end{aligned}$$
Additionally, we make fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}$ maintain identities of corresponding RGB images $X_{rgb}$ from two aspects. On one hand, $X^{'}_{ir}$ should be classified to the identities of the corresponding $X_{rgb}$. On the other hand, $X^{'}_{ir}$ should satisfy a triplet constraint supervised by the identities of corresponding $X_{rgb}$. We mark the two losses as $\mathcal{L}^{pix}_{cls}$ and $\mathcal{L}^{pix}_{tri}$ and formulate them in Eq.(\[loss:image\_identi\_consistency\]), respectively. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}^{pix}_{cls} & = \mathcal{L}_{cls}(X^{'}_{ir}) = E_{x \in X^{'}_{ir}}[-log \ p(x)]\\
\mathcal{L}^{pix}_{tri} & = \frac{1}{2} [\mathcal{L}_{tri}(X^{'}_{ir}, X_{ir}, X_{ir}) + \mathcal{L}_{tri}(X_{ir}, X^{'}_{ir}, X^{'}_{ir})]
\end{aligned}
\label{loss:image_identi_consistency}$$ Here, $p(\cdot)$ is the predicted probability of the input belonging the ground-truth identity. The ground-truth identities of fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}$ are the same with ones of corresponding original RGB images $X_{rgb}$. $\mathcal{L}_{tri}$ is defined in Eq.(\[loss:triplet\_loss\]), where $x_a$ and $x_p$ are a positive pair belonging to the same identity, $x_a$ and $x_n$ are a negative pair belonging to different identities, $D_{x_1, x_2}$ is the cosine distances between $x_1$ and $x_2$ in the embedding space of the embedder, $m$ is a margin parameter and empirically set $1.0$, and $[x]+=max(0,x)$. $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathcal{L}_{tri}(X_1, X_2, X_3) =E\{ [m - D_{x_a, x_p} + D_{x_a, x_n}]_+\} \\
& s.t. \ x_a \in X_1, x_p \in X_2, x_n \in X_3.
\end{aligned}
\label{loss:triplet_loss}$$
In summary, the overall loss of our pixel alignment module is shown in Eq.(\[loss:image\_alignment\_module\]), where $\lambda_{cyc}$ and $\lambda^{pix}_{id}$ are weights of the corresponding terms, $\lambda_{cyc}$ is set 10 as in [@zhu2017unpaired] and $\lambda^{pix}_{id}$ is set 1.0 via cross-validation. $$\mathop{min}\limits_{\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{L}^{pix} = \mathcal{L}^{pix}_{gan} + \lambda_{cyc}\mathcal{L}_{cyc} + \lambda^{pix}_{id}(\mathcal{L}^{pix}_{cls}+\mathcal{L}^{pix}_{tri})
\label{loss:image_alignment_module}$$
Feature Alignment Module\[section:feature\]
-------------------------------------------
Although the pixel alignment module reduces the cross-modality variation, there is still a large intra-modality variation caused by different poses, views, illuminations and so on. To overcome it, we propose a feature alignment module $\mathcal{F}$, where a feature generator $G_f$ encodes fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}$ and real IR images $X_{ir}$ to a shared space by minimizing identity-based classification [@zheng2016person] and triplet losses [@hermans2017defense]. Specifically, we adopt a CNN as the feature generator $G_f$ to learn feature maps $M$ and then averagely pool them to feature vectors $V$. $G_f$ takes $X_{ir}$ and $X^{'}_{ir}$ as inputs and is optimized with the classification loss $\mathcal{L}^{feat}_{cls}$ of a classifier and the triplet loss $\mathcal{L}^{feat}_{tri}$ of an embedder as below: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}^{feat}_{cls}& = \mathcal{L}_{cls}(X_{ir}\cup X^{'}_{ir}) = E_{x \in X_{ir} \cup X^{'}_{ir}}[-log \ p(x)] \\
\mathcal{L}^{feat}_{tri} & = \mathcal{L}_{tri}(X_{ir}, X^{'}_{ir}, X^{'}_{ir}) + \mathcal{L}_{tri}(X^{'}_{ir}, X_{ir} X_{ir})
\end{aligned}
\label{loss:feature_identi_loss}
\vspace{\VSpaceValueEqBottom}$$ where $\cup$ means set union, $p(\cdot)$ is the predicted probability of the input belonging the ground-truth identity. The ground-truth identities of $X^{'}_{ir}$ are the same with ones of corresponding $X_{rgb}$, $\mathcal{L}_{tri}$ is defined in Eq.(\[loss:triplet\_loss\]).
Although the classification and triplet losses in Eq.(\[loss:feature\_identi\_loss\]) can learn identity-aware features, they cannot deal with the modality-variation in the feature space well, which limits the accuracy of the RGB-IR RE-ID. To solve it, we further adopt a GAN loss in the feature space to remit the cross-modality variation by reducing the distribution divergence. Specifically, we use a discriminator to distinguish feature maps of real IR images $M_{ir}$ from ones of fake IR images $M^{'}_{ir}$. Contrarily, the feature generator $G_{f}$ is optimized to fool the discriminator. By playing the min-max game as in [@goodfellow2014generative], the distribution divergence between $M^{'}_{ir}$ and $M_{ir}$ can be reduced. The detailed formulation of the GAN loss $\mathcal{L}_{gan}^{feat}$ is described in Eq.(\[loss:gan\_feature\]).
Thus, the overall loss of our feature alignment module can be formulated as in Eq.(\[loss:feature\_alignment\_module\]), where $\lambda_{gan}^{feat}$ is the weight of the GAN loss and set via 0.1 cross-validation. $$\mathop{min}\limits_{\mathcal{F}}\mathcal{L}^{feat} = \mathcal{L}^{feat}_{cls} + \mathcal{L}^{feat}_{tri} + \lambda_{gan}^{feat} \mathcal{L}_{gan}^{feat}
\label{loss:feature_alignment_module}$$
Joint Discriminator Module \[section:discriminator\]
----------------------------------------------------
Our joint discriminator module consists of a joint discriminator ($D_j$), which takes an image-feature pair $(X,M)$ as a input and outputs one logit, where 1 means real and 0 fake. Only the pairs of real IR images $X_{ir}$ and real IR features $M_{ir}$ with the same identity are classified to real, and the others fake. Thus, when optimizing the pixel alignment module ($\mathcal{P}$) and the feature alignment module ($\mathcal{F}$) to fool the joint discriminator module ($\mathcal{D}$), there are two advantages. Firstly, by playing the min-max game, fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}$ will be realistic and fake IR features $M^{'}_{ir}$ will have similar distribution of real IR features $M_{ir}$.
Secondly, $M^{'}_{ir}$ can maintain the identity-consistency with the corresponding image $X^{'}_{ir}$. This is because our AlignGAN plays like a conditional GAN (cGAN) [@mirza2014conditional]. In the cGAN, the classes of generated data will depend on the input conditions. Here, the input images of $\mathcal{F}$ act as the condition, and the classes of learned features will be related to those images. To this end, the objective function of the $\mathcal{D}$ can be formulated as in Eq.(\[loss:joint\_discriminator\_module\]): $$\mathop{min}\limits_{\mathcal{D}}\mathcal{L}^{D} = \mathcal{L}^{D}_{real} + \mathcal{L}^{D}_{fake}
\label{loss:joint_discriminator_module}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}^{D}_{real} & = E_{(x,m)\in(X_{ir},M_{ir})}[log \ D_j(x,m)] \\
\mathcal{L}^{D}_{fake} & = E_{(x,m) \in (\widetilde{X}_{ir}, \widetilde{M}_{ir}) + (\overline{X}_{ir}, \overline{M}_{ir})}[log \ 1-D_j(x,m)]
\end{aligned}$$ where $x$ and $m$ of $(X_{ir}, M_{ir})$ are both real and belong to the same identity, $x$ and $m$ of $(\widetilde{X}_{ir}, \widetilde{M}_{ir})$ belong to the same identity and at least one of them is fake, $x$ and $m$ of $(\overline{X}_{ir}, \overline{X}_{ir})$ are both real but belong to different identities.
Correspondingly, to fool the joint discriminator module , the GAN losses of the pixel and feature alignment modules can be formulated in Eq.(\[loss:gan\_image\]) and Eq.(\[loss:gan\_feature\]), respectively. $$\mathcal{L}_{gan}^{pix} = E_{(x,m)\in(X^{'}_{ir}, M_{ir}) \cup (X^{'}_{ir}, M^{'}_{ir})}[log D_j(x,m)]
\label{loss:gan_image}$$ $$\mathcal{L}_{gan}^{feat} = E_{(x,m)\in(X_{ir},M^{'}_{ir}) \cup (X^{'}_{ir}, M^{'}_{ir})}[log D_j(x,m)]
\label{loss:gan_feature}$$ where $x$ and $m$ of $(X^{'}_{ir}, M_{ir})$ belong to the same identity, $x$ is fake and $m$ is real. $x$ and $m$ of $(X_{ir},M^{'}_{ir})$ belong to the same identity, $x$ is real and $m$ is fake. Similarly, $x$ and $m$ of $(X^{'}_{ir},M^{'}_{ir})$ belong to the same identity and are both fake.
-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
R1 R10 R20 mAP R1 R10 R20 mAP R1 R10 R20 mAP R1 R10 R20 mAP
HOG 2.76 18.3 32.0 4.24 3.82 22.8 37.7 2.16 3.22 24.7 44.6 7.25 4.75 29.1 49.4 3.51
LOMO 3.64 23.2 37.3 4.53 4.70 28.3 43.1 2.28 5.75 34.4 54.9 10.2 7.36 40.4 60.4 5.64
Two-Stream 11.7 48.0 65.5 12.9 16.4 58.4 74.5 8.03 15.6 61.2 81.1 21.5 22.5 72.3 88.7 14.0
One-Stream 12.1 49.7 66.8 13.7 16.3 58.2 75.1 8.59 17.0 63.6 82.1 23.0 22.7 71.8 87.9 15.1
Zero-Padding 14.8 52.2 71.4 16.0 19.2 61.4 78.5 10.9 20.6 68.4 85.8 27.0 24.5 75.9 91.4 18.7
BCTR 16.2 54.9 71.5 19.2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
BDTR 17.1 55.5 72.0 19.7 - - - - - - - - - - - -
D-HSME 20.7 62.8 78.0 23.2 - - - - - - - - - - - -
cmGAN 27.0 67.5 80.6 27.8 31.5 72.7 85.0 22.3 31.7 77.2 89.2 42.2 37.0 80.9 92.3 32.8
[*Ours*]{} **42.4** **85.0** **93.7** **40.7** **51.5** **89.4** **95.7** **33.9** **45.9** **87.6** **94.4** **54.3** **57.1** **92.7** **97.4** **45.3**
-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
\[table:state-of-the-art\]
Train and Test
--------------
During the training stage, our AlignGAN can be trained by alternatively optimizing corresponding loss of each module in Eq.(\[loss:image\_alignment\_module\]), Eq.(\[loss:feature\_alignment\_module\]) and Eq.(\[loss:joint\_discriminator\_module\]), respectively. During the test stage, only the pixel alignment module $\mathcal{P}$ and the feature alignment module $\mathcal{F}$ are used. For IR images $X_{ir}$, we straightly use the $\mathcal{F}$ to learn feature vectors $V_{ir}$. For RGB images $X_{rgb}$, we first use the $\mathcal{P}$ translate to them to fake IR images $X^{'}_{ir}$, and then extract their feature vectors $V^{'}_{ir}$ using the $\mathcal{F}$. Finally, matching is conducted by computing cosine similarities of feature vectors between the probe images and gallery ones.
Experiments
===========
Dataset and Evaluation Protocol \[section:dataset\]
---------------------------------------------------
**Dataset**. We evaluate our model on two standard benchmarks including SYSU-MM01 and RegDB. (1) SYSU-MM01 [@wu2017rgb] is a popular RGB-IR Re-ID dataset, which includes 491 identities from 4 RGB cameras and 2 IR ones. The training set contains 19,659 RGB images and 12,792 IR images of 395 persons and the test set contains 96 persons. Following [@wu2017rgb], there are two test modes, *i.e.* *all-search* mode and *indoor-search* mode. For the *all-search* mode, all images are used. For the *indoor-search* mode, only indoor images from $1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th$ cameras are used. For both modes, the *single-shot* and *multi-shot* settings are adopted, where 1 or 10 images of a person are randomly selected to form the gallery set. Both modes use IR images as probe set and RGB images as gallery set. (2) RegDB [@nguyen2017person] contains 412 persons, where each person has 10 images from a visible camera and 10 images from a thermal camera.
**Evaluation Protocols**. The Cumulative Matching Characteristic (CMC) and mean average precision (mAP) are used as evaluation metrics. Following [@wu2017rgb], the results of SYSU-MM01 are evaluated with offical code based on the average of 10 times repeated random split of gallery and probe set. Following [@ye2018hierarchical; @ye2018visible], the results of RegDB are based the average of 10 times repeated random split of training and testing sets. Detailed settings can be found in github of corresponding author.
Implementation Details \[section:details\]
------------------------------------------
Following [@dai2018cross], we adopt the ResNet-50 [@he2016deep] pre-trained on ImageNet [@russakovsky2015imagenet] as our CNN backbone, use its Pool5 layer as our feature map $M$ and averagely pool $M$ to obtain feature vector $V$. For the classification loss, the classifier takes the feature vector $V$ as the input, includes a 256-dim fully-connected (FC) layer followed by batch normalization [@ioffe2015batch], dropout [@russakovsky2015imagenet] and ReLU [@russakovsky2015imagenet] as the middle layer, and an FC layer with identity number logits as the output layer. The dropout rate is set 0.5 empirically. For the triplet loss, the embedder is an FC layer which maps a feature vector $V$ to a 256-dim embedding vector.
We implement our model with Pytorch. The training images are augmented with the horizontal flip. The batch size is set to 144 (18 persons, 4 RGB images and 4 IR images for a person). For learning rates, we set the classifier and the embedder as 0.2 and the imagenet pre-trained CNN part as 0.02 and optimize them via SGD. We set the learning rates of the pixel alignment and joint discriminator modules as 0.0002 and optimize them via the Adam [@radford2016unsupervised]. The learning rates are decayed by 0.1 after 5,000 iterations, and the model is trained for 10,000 iterations in total.
Results on SYSU-MM01 Dataset \[section:results1\]
-------------------------------------------------
We compare our model with 9 methods including hand-crafted features (HOG [@dalal2005histograms], LOMO [@liao2015person]), feature learning with the classification loss (One-Stream, Two-Stream, Zero-Padding) [@wu2017rgb], feature learning with both classification and ranking losses (BCTR, BDTR) [@ye2018hierarchical], metric learning (D-HSME [@hao2019hsme]), and reducing distribution divergence of features (cmGAN [@dai2018cross]). The experimental results are shown in Table \[table:state-of-the-art\].
From the view of the evaluation protocol, *i.e.* *all-search/indoor-search* and *single-shot/multi-shot*, two phenomenons can be observed. Firstly, for the same method, *indoor-search* performs better than *all-search*. This is because images of indoor have less background-variation, which makes matching easier. Secondly, we find that Rank scores of *multi-shot* are higher than ones of *single-shot*, but mAP scores of *multi-shot* are lower than ones of *single-shot*. This is because there are 10 images of a person in gallery set under the *multi-shot* mode, but only one under the *single-shot* mode. As a consequence, under the *multi-shot* mode, it’s much easier to hit an image but difficult to hit all images. This situation is inverse under the *single-shot* mode. If not specified, we analyze each method under the *single-shot&all-search* mode below.
From the view of methodology, several phenomenons can be observed. Firstly, LOMO only achieves 3.64% and 4.53% in terms of Rank-1 and mAP scores, respectively, which shows that hand-crafted features cannot be generalized to the RGB-IR Re-ID task. Secondly, One-Stream, Two-Stream and Zero-Padding significantly outperform hand-crafted features by at least 8% and 8.3% in terms of Rank-1 and mAP scores, respectively. This verifies that the classification loss contributes to learning identity-discriminative features. Thirdly, BCTR and BDTR further improve Zero-Padding by 1.4% in terms of Rank-1 and by 3.2% in terms of mAP scores. This shows that the ranking and classification losses are complementary. Additionally, D-HSME outperforms BDTR by 3.6% Rank-1 and 3.5% mAP scores, which demonstrates the effectiveness of metric learning. In addition, cmGAN outperforms D-HSME by 6.3% Rank1 and 4.6% mAP scores, implying the effectiveness of adversarial training. Finally, Our proposed AlignGAN significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art method by 15.4% and 12.9% in terms of Rank-1 and mAP scores, which demonstrates the effectiveness of our model for the RGB-IR Re-ID task.
-------------- -------- ------ -------- ------
Rank-1 mAP Rank-1 mAP
Zero-Padding 16.7 17.9 17.8 31.9
TONE 21.7 22.3 24.4 20.1
BCTR - - 32.7 31.0
BDTR 32.8 31.2 33.5 31.9
D-HSME 50.2 46.2 50.9 47.0
$Basel.$ 32.7 34.9 33.1 35.5
*Ours* 56.3 53.4 57.9 53.6
-------------- -------- ------ -------- ------
: Comparison with state-of-the-arts on RegDB dataset under different query settings. Refer to the text for more details.
\[table:sota\_regdb\]
Methods Rank-1 Rank-10 Rank-20 mAP
-------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
$Basel.$ 29.6 74.9 86.1 33.0
$PixAlign$ 40.6 81.6 90.6 38.7
$FeatAlign$ 34.1 79.6 89.1 36.2
$AlignGAN^-$ 36.2 80.1 90.2 34.2
$AlignGAN$ **42.4** **85.0** **93.7** **40.7**
: Comparison with different variants of our AlignGAN on SYSU-MM01 dataset under the *single-shot&all-search* mode.
\[table:ablation\_study\]
Results on RegDB Dataset \[section:results2\]
---------------------------------------------
We evaluate our model on RegDB dataset and compare it with Zero-Padding [@wu2017rgb], TONE [@ye2018visible], BCTR [@ye2018hierarchical], BDTR [@ye2018visible] and $Basel.$. $Basel.$ is defined in Section \[section:analysis\], which learn thermal and visible images with classification and triplet losses. We adopt visible2thermal and thermal2visible modes. Here, the visible2thermal means that visible images are query set and thermal images are gallery set, and so on. As shown in Table \[table:sota\_regdb\], our model can significantly outperform the state-of-the-arts by 23.5% and 24.4% in terms of Rank-1 scores with thermal2visible and visible2thermal modes, respectively. Compared with HSME, our model outperforms it by $6.1\%/7.0\%$ Rank-1 scores in terms of thermal2visible/visible2thermal modes on RegDB, and obtains an absolute gain of $21.72\%/17.58\%$ Rank-1 score on SYSU-MM01 Dataset. Overall, the results verify the effectiveness of our model.
Model Analysis \[section:analysis\]
-----------------------------------
![ The results of parameter analysis for $\lambda^{pix}_{id}$ and $\lambda_{gan}^{feat}$. []{data-label="fig:paramemter_analysis"}](materials/hyper_parameters.png)
**Ablation Study**. To evaluate each component of our $AlignGAN$ model, we conduct four variants with different settings. Firstly, we straightly use real RGB and IR images to train the feature generator (*i.e.* the CNN model) with the classification and triplet losses. Secondly, to evaluate the pixel alignment module, we set $\lambda_{gan}^{feat}=0$ in Eq.(\[loss:feature\_alignment\_module\]). Thirdly, to evaluate the feature alignment module, we discard the pixel alignment module, thus the feature alignment module takes RGB and IR images as inputs. Fourthly, to evaluate our joint discriminator module, we separately adopt the pixel and feature alignment modules with two discriminators as in Figure \[fig:compared\_gans\](b). We denote them as $Basel.$, $PixAlign$, $FeatAlign$ and $AlignGAN^-$ throughout the paper, respectively.
The experimental results are shown in Table \[table:ablation\_study\]. Firstly, we can see that $PixAlign$ outperforms $Basel.$ by 11.0% by Rank-1. In addition, $FeatAlign$ outperforms $Basel.$ by 4.5% Rank-1 score. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of our pixel and feature alignment modules. We also find that $PixAlign$ outperforms $FeatAlign$ by 6.5% by Rank-1 score, which shows that the pixel alignment module plays a more important role than the feature alignment module. Furthermore, $AlignGAN^{-}$ is comparable with $FeatAlign$ but worse than $PixAlign$, which implies that the simple stack of the two modules makes no contribution to better performance. This may be because the cross-modality variation has been significantly reduced by the pixel alignment module. Also, the labels of training and test set are unshared. In the cases, enforcing align features by only fitting labels of training set cannot boost the performance too much, even import more noise and lead to identity-consistency. Finally, the proposed model $AlignGAN$ performs much better than both $PixAlign$ and $FeatAlign$. This implies that our joint discriminator module can complement and enhance the pixel and feature alignment modules jointly. More results will be discussed in Section \[section:visualization\].
**Parameters Analysis**. Here, we evaluate the effect of the weights, *i.e.* $\lambda^{pix}_{id}$ and $\lambda_{gan}^{feat}$. As shown in Figure \[fig:paramemter\_analysis\], we report the experimental results of our $AlignGAN$ with different $\lambda^{pix}_{id}$ and $\lambda_{gan}^{feat}$ on SYSU-MM01 dataset under the *single-shot&all-search* mode. The $Basel.$ is defined in Section \[section:analysis\]. It is clear that, when using different $\lambda^{pix}_{id}$ and $\lambda_{gan}^{feat}$, our $AlignGAN$ model stably outperforms $Basel.$. The experimental results show that our $AlignGAN$ model is robust to different weights.
**Effect of Different CNN Backbones**. To evaluate the effect of different CNN backbones, we evaluate $Basel.$ (defined in Section \[section:analysis\]) and AlignGAN with AlexNet [@krizhevsky2012imagenet], VGG-16 [@simonyan2014very] and ResNet-50 [@he2016deep], respectively. The $Basel.$ is defined as in Section \[section:analysis\], which straightly uses RGB and IR images to train a CNN model with the classification and triplet losses. The experimental results on SYSU-MM01 under the *all-search&single-shot* setting are shown in Table \[table:cnn\_backbones\]. We can see that $Basel.$ performs the worst with AlexNet, followed by VGG-16. This suggests that CNN Backbones also have a large effect on the RGB-IR Re-ID task. Even so, when using the same CNN backbone, our AlignGAN stably and significantly outperforms $Basel.$. This demonstrates that our AlignGAN model can work well with different CNN backbones.
----------- -------- ------ -------- ------
Rank-1 mAP Rank-1 mAP
ALexNet 16.6 19.0 26.6 26.7
VGG-16 28.9 31.5 36.3 35.4
ResNet-50 29.6 33.0 42.4 40.7
----------- -------- ------ -------- ------
: Effect of different CNN backbones.
\[table:cnn\_backbones\]
Visualization of Learned Images and Features \[section:visualization\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To better understand the pixel and feature alignment modules, on SYSU-MM01 dataset, we display the fake IR images and the T-SNE [@maaten2008visualizing] distribution of the learned feature vectors in Figure [\[fig:fake\_ir\_images\]]{} and Figure [\[fig:tsne\]]{}, respectively. As shown in Figure \[fig:fake\_ir\_images\], we can see that the fake IR images have similar contents (such as views, poses) and maintain identities of the corresponding real RGB images, meanwhile have the IR style. Thus, the generated fake IR images can bridge the gap between RGB and IR images, and the cross-modality variation in the pixel space can be reduced.
In Figure \[fig:tsne\], each color represents a modality, each shape represents an identity. The training data of $Basel.$ means feature vectors of training data learned with $Basel.$, and so on. Note that $Basel.$ and $AlignGAN^-$ is defined in Section \[section:analysis\]. We have the following observations. Firstly, when comparing Figure \[fig:tsne\](a) with Figure \[fig:tsne\](b), we can find $Basel.$ perfectly aligns two modalities of training data, while fails to do that for test data. As we can see in Figure \[fig:tsne\](b), the two modalities of test data can be easily separated by the red dotted line. This shows that it is difficult to reduce the cross-modality variation with a single feature alignment module. Secondly, in Figure \[fig:tsne\](c), we can find that $AlignGAN^-$ performs much better modality-alignment than $Basel.$. Even so, we can find the learned features fail to maintain the identity-consistency, *i.e.* some points are aligned to wrong identities. For example, the red circle in Figure \[fig:tsne\](c) marks this case. Finally, we can find our proposed model $AlignGAN$ as shown in Figure \[fig:tsne\](d) is able to not only reduce the cross-modality variation, but also maintain the identity-consistency of features. In summary, experimental results and analysis above demonstrate the effectiveness of $AlignGAN$.
![ Fake IR images generated by our AlignGAN (please view in color). The fake IR images can maintain identities and contents (such as views, poses) with original real RGB ones, and have the IR style. []{data-label="fig:fake_ir_images"}](materials/fake_ir_images.png)
![ Visualization of learned features (please view in color). Here, each color represents a modality, and each shape represents an identity. Features learned by AlignGAN can better maintain identity-consistency. Please refer to the text for more details. []{data-label="fig:tsne"}](materials/tsne_v2.jpg)
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we propose a novel Alignment Generative Adversarial Network by exploiting pixel alignment and feature alignment jointly for the RGB-IR RE-ID task. The proposed model is able to not only alleviate the cross-modality and intra-modality variations, but also learn identity-consistent features. Extensive experimental results on two standard benchmarks demonstrate that our model performs favorably against state-of-the-art methods.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported in part by the National Key Research and Development Program 2018YFB0804204, National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 61720106012, 61533016, 61806203, 61572498, 61751211 and 61728210, the Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Science under Grant XDBS01000000 and XDB32050200, the Beijing Natural Science Foundation under Grant L172050 and 4172062, and Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS2018166.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we present Super-OT, a novel approach to computational lineage tracing that combines a supervised learning framework with optimal transport based on Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). Unlike previous approaches to lineage tracing, Super-OT has the flexibility to integrate paired data. We benchmark Super-OT based on single-cell RNA-seq data against Waddington-OT, a popular approach for lineage tracing that also employs optimal transport. We show that Super-OT achieves gains over Waddington-OT in predicting the class outcome of cells during differentiation, since it allows the integration of additional information during'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
---
Introduction
============
A major goal of developmental biology is understanding the gene programs that drive the differentation of progenitor cells into mature cells. Although single-cell RNA sequencing technologies enable collecting large quantities of single-cell gene expression data, these experiments tend to be destructive to samples: most experiments only take a snapshot of a single cell lineage at one time point. This makes it challenging to trace the lineage of individual cells and necessitates the development of novel computational and experimental strategies to follow individual cell trajectories backwards and forwards in time.
In recent years, various computational methods have been developed to trace pseudo-lineages of cells given single-cell gene expression data [@monacle; @monacle2; @slice; @waterfall; @tscan; @scuba; @wanderlust; @wishbone; @paga; @weinreb2018fundamental; @schiebinger2017reconstruction]. All these methods are unsupervised and depend heavily on the assumption that cells close in gene expression space are more likely to belong to the same lineage, which is often not sufficient for accurately predicting cell fate decisions. For example, @Weinreb467886 recently developed an experimental assay to track families of cells (i.e., cell clones) during hematopoiesis. Their work revealed a considerable gap between the pseudo-lineages that are reconstructed computationally and real cell trajectories. In light of recent experimental methods for providing partial information about single-cell lineages, there is a need for computational methods to integrate these types of data with existing unsupervised lineage tracing frameworks.
In this work, we develop to our knowledge the first model for computational lineage tracing that can integrate additional information such as the clonal data of @Weinreb467886. Since their data does not provide full information about single cell lineages (e.g., due to multiple cells from the same clone that cannot be disambiguated), our work combines a supervised learning framework with the principles of optimal transport to predict individual cell lineages. Optimal transport has emerged as a powerful method for learning couplings between cells and has many advantages in computational lineage tracing compared to other methods [@schiebinger2017reconstruction]. The best-known computational approach for lineage tracing based on optimal transport, Waddington-OT, uses an iterative scaling algorithm and cannot be adapted easily to integrate additional labeled data [@schiebinger2017reconstruction]. Recent approaches for performing optimal transport based on GANs have also emerged [@yang2018scalable], but these have not been rigorously compared against Waddington-OT and were also not adapted to integrate additional labeled data.
**Contribution.** We propose a new framework for computational lineage tracing, which we name *Super-OT*, that combines a *super*vised learning framework with optimal transport (*OT*) based on GANs. We apply this framework to perform lineage tracing on the dataset of @Weinreb467886. While Waddington-OT marginally outperforms GAN-based optimal transport in the completely unsupervised setting, we find that Super-OT outperforms Waddington-OT in predicting the class outcome of cells during differentiation by integrating additional information during training. We conclude that GAN-based optimal transport is a practical approach for integrating novel types of experimental data in lineage tracing with a principled computational approach.
Method
======
Problem Formulation.
--------------------
Let $P_t$ and $P_{t+1}$ denote cell distributions over the gene expression space $\mathbb{R}^d$ at times $t$ and $t+1$, respectively. We formulate computational lineage tracing as the problem of learning a transport map $T: \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^d$ that pushes $P_t$ to $P_{t+1}$, i.e., if $X_t \sim P_t$ and $X_{t+1} \sim P_{t+1}$, then $T(X_t) \sim P_{t+1}$. We assume that we are given samples from $P_t$, $P_{t+1}$ and their joint distribution $P_{t, t+1}$. We denote the observed empirical distributions by $\hat{P}_t$, $\hat{P}_{t+1}$ and $\hat{P}_{t, t+1}$.
Optimal Transport using GANs.
-----------------------------
There are many possible maps satisfying $T(X_t) \sim P_{t+1}$. One way to constrain the solution space is to solve the Monge optimal transport problem: find the map that minimizes some transportation cost $c: \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^+$, i.e., $$\label{eq:Monge}
\min_T\quad \mathbb{E}_{X_t \sim P_t} c(X_{t+1}, T(X_t))$$ subject to $T(X_t) \sim P_{t+1}$. In the context of lineage tracing, $c$ is often chosen to be the Euclidean distance $c(x, y) = ||x-y||_2$, which encourages the map to match cells that are closer together in the gene expression space. The intuition is that cells closer in gene expression space should be more likely to belong to the same lineage. Alternatively, the cost can also be computed in a feature space learned by an autoencoder, as proposed by @Yang455469.
In practice, Equation (\[eq:Monge\]) is challenging to optimize due to the constraint $T(X_t) \sim P_{t+1}$. We follow @yang2018scalable and relax the hard constraint using a divergence that can be optimized using an adversarial approach. Specifically, we instead consider solving $$\label{eq:GAN-OT}
\min_T \quad \lambda_{1} \mathcal{L}_{TRANS} + \mathcal{L}_{GAN},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{TRANS} &= \mathbb{E}_{X_t \sim P_t} c(X_{t+1}, T(X_t)), \quad\textrm{and}\\
\mathcal{L}_{GAN} &= \max_{D: ~\mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow (0, 1)}~ \mathbb{E}_{X_{t+1} \sim P_{t+1}}[\log D(X_{t+1})] \\
&\quad + \mathbb{E}_{X_t \sim P_t}[\log(1 - D(T(X_t)))],\end{aligned}$$ and $\lambda_{1} > 0$ is a hyperparameter. In practice, we can parameterize $T, D$ using neural networks and minimize the loss with respect to the observed empirical distributions.
Super-OT
--------
Existing methods for lineage tracing based on optimal transport do not leverage labeled information. Our approach extends the GAN-based optimal transport framework to pair cells between two distinct time points that belong to the same clonal family. We consider an additional loss $$\mathcal{L}_{SUPER} = \mathbb{E}_{(X_t, X_{t+1}) \sim \hat{P}_{t, t+1}} ||X_t-X_{t+1}||^2_2,$$ which ensures that points belonging to the same clonal family are mapped to each other. The final objective then becomes $$\label{eq:objective}
\min_T \quad \lambda_{1} \mathcal{L}_{TRANS} + \mathcal{L}_{GAN} + \lambda_2 \mathcal{L}_{SUPER},$$ where $\lambda_1, \lambda_2 > 0$ are hyperparameters.
Experiments
===========
Dataset
-------
We use the single-cell gene expression dataset of mouse bone marrow cells from @Weinreb467886. The dataset contains 130,887 samples across 25,289 genes, sampled from three separate time points (days 2, 4, and 6). We let $P_{t}$ corresponds to undifferentiated day 2 cells, while we let $P_{t + 1}$ correspond to differentiated days 4/6 cells. For our experiments, we consider a subset of the data containing neutrophils, monocytes, and their progenitors. This simplified the dataset to contain 1,527 day 2 cells and 39,401 day 4/6 neutrophils and monocytes. Cell family information is provided in the form of a binary matrix in which rows represent cells and columns represent clones, where an entry of $1$ indicates that a cell belongs to a particular clone. For the supervised labeling of the data, we consider a day 2 cell to be paired with a day 4/6 cell if they belong to the same cell family and the day 4/6 cell is in the majority class (neutrophil versus monocyte) for that family.
Model and Training.
-------------------
We implemented our model in PyTorch [@NEURIPS2019_9015]. The transport $T$ uses four linear layers with hidden dimension of 1000 with ReLU activations. The discriminator $D$ also consists of four linear layers with batch normalization and ReLU activations. The dataset reports the number of transcripts (UMIs) for each gene in each cell, after total counts normalization (i.e., L1 normalization on cells). We add an additional layer of preprocessing by scaling each feature (gene) between the range $\left[0, 1\right]$ with L2 normalization. We also apply PCA [@scikit-learn] to reduce the dimensionality of the gene expression vectors to 100. Note that this reduced dimensionality justifies using Euclidean distance for $\mathcal{L}_{TRANS}$. The networks are trained jointly using the loss in Equation \[eq:objective\] with different numbers of paired samples. For the transport cost, we used $\lambda_{1}=0.6$, because we found that $\lambda_{1} > 0.6$ would cause the model to not converge. Similar to other GANs [@gulrajani2017improved], we also include a gradient penalty on the discriminator to improve training stability. Parameters are optimized using Adam [@kingma2014adam] with learning rates set to 0.0001 for each model. We run the model for a maximum of 100,000 epochs, or until the loss has sufficiently converged. We train each setting with 80% of the cells, and leave the remaining 20% for evaluation.
We evaluate the performance of Super-OT with different numbers of labeled pairs of data: 300, 600, and 900.
Benchmarks
----------
We compare Super-OT against the following benchmarks:
- Waddington-OT [@schiebinger2017reconstruction], which we denote by WOT in Table \[table:accuracy\], a lineage tracing method that solves the optimal transport problem using an iterative scaling algorithm.
- Conditional GAN [@mirza2014conditional]: A model that generates the day 4/6 cells from day 2 conditioned on class (monocyte/neutrophil).
- GAN-based Optimal Transport: Conditional GAN combined with transport cost.
- Supervised: A regression model that maps each day 2 cell to a corresponding day 4/6 cell in its clonal family. This method uses all paired information available and should be considered an upper bound on performance.
Evaluation Criteria. {#Evaluation}
--------------------
We evaluate each model on its class prediction accuracy in transporting day 2 cells to day 4/6 monocytes versus neutrophils. Specifically, from the dataset clonal information, we determine whether each day 2 cell is more likely to become a neutrophil or a monocyte and assign this label to the cell. We train a logistic regression model [@scikit-learn] to classify between real day 4/6 monocytes and neutrophils, and obtain the predicted class for each transported day 2 cell. We then compare these predicted results with the assigned labels. The accuracy reflects the ability of the models to correctly predict the direction of the trajectory of the day 2 test cells towards their differentiated class.
Waddington-OT differs from the other models in that it produces a probabilistic coupling between cells: each day 2 cell is assigned to a distribution over the day 4/6 cells [@schiebinger2017reconstruction]. To obtain a class prediction for each day 2 cell, we assign a label depending on whether the majority of the distribution is assigned to day 4/6 monocytes or neutrophils. For fairer comparison with the other models, we alternatively assign a label depending on whether the majority of the distribution is assigned to predicted monocytes or neutrophils using a logistic regression model. This check ensures that differences in performance are not due to the logistic classifier.
0.15in
-------------------------------------------------
**Setting** **Accuracy**
----------------------- ---------------------- --
WOT: Predicted Labels 0.6535
WOT: Real Labels 0.6531
Conditional GAN 0.5982
GAN-Based OT 0.6219
Super-OT: 300 0.6731
Super-OT: 600 0.6856
Super-OT: 900 **[0.7188]{}\
Supervised & 0.7534\
**
-------------------------------------------------
: Comparison of prediction accuracy of different models. Higher is better. For each deep learning model, we perform three separate runs over different train/test splits and report the average of the best results on the held-out data.[]{data-label="table:accuracy"}
-0.1in
Results
-------
We report the class prediction accuracy of the different models in Table \[table:accuracy\]. For Super-OT, we report results with different numbers of paired training points (e.g., 300, 600, 900.) Out of the unsupervised baseline methods, Waddington-OT outperforms the conditional GAN and GAN-based optimal transport. This is expected because Waddington-OT is based on an iterative scaling algorithm with convergence guarantees, while deep models solve non-convex optimization problems and do not have such guarantees. However, GAN-based optimal transport is flexible and can be adapted to handle additional losses, such as our paired data supervised loss. Super-OT, which is our extension of GAN-based optimal transport with some labeled data, outperforms all the baselines including Waddington-OT. Performance increases as more labeled data is added and is upper bounded by the fully supervised model.
**Ablations.** Since Super-OT integrates supervised training with optimal transport, we investigate the importance of each component of the loss function.
- Supervised Loss ($\mathcal{L}_{SUPER}$): As shown in Table \[table:accuracy\], decreasing the number of labeled points decreases the accuracy of the method.
- Transport cost ($\mathcal{L}_{TRANS}$): As shown in Table \[transport-cost\], removing the transport cost decreases the accuracy of the method for any given number of labeled points.
0.15in
**Setting** **Transport Cost** **No Transport Cost**
--------------- -------------------- -----------------------
Super-OT: 300 0.6731 0.6663
Super-OT: 600 0.6856 0.6810
Super-OT: 900 0.7188 0.6997
: Comparison of prediction accuracy for Super-OT: 300, Super-OT: 600, Super-OT: 900 with and without the transport cost.[]{data-label="transport-cost"}
-0.1in
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
**Visualization.** We visualize the day 2, day 4/6 and transported test cells for our Super-OT model using t-SNE [@scikit-learn] in Figure \[fig:transport-tSNE\]. We see that the model is separating the Neutrophil/Monocyte distributions correctly, and that there is overlap between the transported cell distribution and the ground truth. However, the transported cell clusters are closer to each other than compared to the real cell clusters. One explanation is that differentiation is not yet deterministic on day 2: despite overlapping in gene expression space, some day 2 cells become monocytes and others become neutrophils. Therefore the model transports cells to a weighted average between the two clusters. In future work, incorporating stochasticity into the transport map may improve separation of the transported clusters.
Differential Gene Analysis
--------------------------
To determine how faithful Super-OT is for modeling the molecular programs that drive differentiation to monocytes or neutrophils, we performed a differential gene expression analysis to determine which genes are predicted to be the most [differentially expressed]{} between the neutrophil and monocyte distributions. We then compared these gene programs to the actual genes that are differentially expressed between the distributions. Specifically, we used the networks corresponding to the best accuracy values in Table \[table:accuracy\]. Note that after preprocessing, all of these cells have dimension 100, and so we used the inverse PCA transform to revert cells to their original 25289-dimensional gene space. From here, we iterated through each of the genes and performed a t-test to determine the differentially-expressed genes, setting our p-value threshold at $10^{-6}$.
from scipy’s stats package between each of day4\_6\_neutrophils\[i\] and day4\_6\_monocytes\[i\], transported\_neutrophils\[i\] and transported\_monocytes\[i\], where $i$ denotes the $i$th gene $ \forall i \in [0, 25,288]$ (since we have a total of 25, 289 genes).
To ensure that we found the genes that were the most differentially expressed, we used a $p$-value of $10^{-6}$. Finally, we selected the genes that were common among all three runs for our analysis. Table \[differentialgenes\] lists the precision and recalls for the different settings. We found that there was considerable overlap between the predicted and actual differentially expressed genes. The precision / recall values were robust to different $p$-values. Importantly, the differentially expressed genes found by Super-OT were much more stable than those found using GAN-based OT.
0.15in
**Setting** **\# of Genes** **Precision** **Recall**
--------------- ----------------- --------------- ------------
GAN-Based OT 12 1.0 0.006726
Super-OT: 300 3084 0.4212 0.6969
Super-OT: 600 5041 0.3210 0.8662
Super-OT: 900 3021 0.3923 0.6096
: Differential Gene Expression Analysis: Comparison between the precision / recall values for GAN-Based OT, Super-OT: 300, Super-OT: 600, and Super-OT: 900
\[differentialgenes\]
-0.1in
Discussion
==========
In this work, we proposed Super-OT, a new computational lineage tracing method that combines a supervised learning framework with GAN-based optimal transport. Our framework can easily be extended to map cells between multiple time points, in which we use the timepoint as extra conditioning information. Super-OT achieves gains over Waddington-OT in predicting the class outcome of cells during differentiation by integrating additional information during training. In future work, it would be interesting to analyze how our framework performs when a scaling factor is incorporated to model growth (replication) or shrinkage (death) of cells as proposed by @yang2018scalable. In addition, it would be interesting to investigate how one could incorporate stochasticity into Super-OT, instead of using a deterministic map, to achieve better cluster separation.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Karren D. Yang was supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship and ONR (N00014-18-1-2765 and N00014-18-1-2765). Caroline Uhler was partially supported by NSF (DMS-1651995), ONR (N00014-17-1-2147 and N00014-18-1-2765), IBM, MIT J-WAFS and J-Clinic, as well as a Simons Investigator Award.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a notion of elliptic fake degrees for unipotent elliptic representations of a semisimple $p$-adic group. We conjecture, and verify in some cases, that the relation between the formal degrees of unipotent discrete series representations of a semisimple $p$-adic group and the elliptic fake degrees is given by the exotic Fourier transform matrix introduced by Lusztig in the study of representations of finite groups of Lie type.'
address:
- |
Mathematical Institute\
University of Oxford\
Andrew Wiles Building\
Radcliffe Observatory Quarter\
Woodstock Road\
Oxford\
OX2 6GG\
UK
- |
Korteweg-de Vries Institute for Mathematics\
Universiteit van Amsterdam\
Science Park 904\
1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
author:
- Dan Ciubotaru
- 'Eric M. Opdam'
title: Formal degrees of unipotent discrete series representations and the exotic Fourier transform
---
[^1]
Introduction {#s:1}
============
In this paper, we introduce a notion of elliptic fake degrees for unipotent elliptic representations of a semisimple $p$-adic group. We conjecture (Conjecture \[conj-main\] and (\[conj-equiv\])), and verify in some cases, that the relation between formal degrees of unipotent discrete series representations of a semisimple $p$-adic group and the elliptic fake degrees is given by the exotic Fourier transform matrix introduced by Lusztig [@L1] in the study of representations of finite groups of Lie type. In other words, we expect that the picture is analogous to that for finite Lie groups, where the degrees of the unipotent representations are related via the exotic Fourier transform to their fake degrees.
The formal degrees of discrete series representations of semisimple $p$-adic groups admit a conjectural description in terms of adjoint gamma factors [@HII; @GR]. For unipotent discrete series representations of a semisimple $p$-adic group of adjoint type, this conjecture has been verified in [@O3; @O4]. (For exceptional split groups, the formula for formal degrees had been known already by [@Re3].) We hope that the present paper will offer a new perspective on formal degrees from the “arithmetic side”.
As we explain in section \[sec:ell\], see in particular Corollary \[fake-ell-spin\], the elliptic fake degrees admit an interpretation in terms of characters for the pin double cover of the finite Weyl group, in the approach of [@C; @CH; @CT]. In this interpretation, the elliptic fake degrees are related to the spin fake degree polynomials of [@BW]. They are also related to certain specializations of the invariants considered in [@GNS] and [@Som].
It would be interesting to investigate how the elliptic fake degrees fit into the new theory of unipotent almost characters of semisimple $p$-adic groups initiated in [@KmL; @L4; @L5] and [@BKO].
We give a brief outline of the paper. In section \[sec:ell\], we define the elliptic fake degrees for elliptic representations of the finite and (extended) affine Weyl group, and we compute them explicitly for every irreducible Weyl group. The results for exceptional groups are tabulated in Appendix \[sec:exc\]. In section \[s:2\], we recall basic constructions and definitions for unipotent representations and Deligne-Lusztig characters of finite groups of Lie type, in particular, the definition (Definition \[d:exotic-Fourier\]) and properties of the exotic Fourier transform. In section \[sec:unip-padic\], we present our main conjecture \[conj-main\], as well as certain implications of it, in particular formulas (\[conj-equiv\]) and (\[e:conj-second\]). We also give there examples in support of the conjecture. Finally, in section \[sec:Iwahori\], we rephrase the conjecture (Conjecture \[conj-ell-a\]) in the case of representations with Iwahori fixed vectors via the homological algebra interpretation of formal degrees from [@OS1].
Elliptic fake degrees {#sec:ell}
=====================
Let $E$ be the $l$-dimensional (real) reflection representation of the finite Weyl group $W$. Let $\langle~,~\rangle_W$ denote the character pairing on the Grothendieck group $R(W)$. Denote $${\wedge}_{s} E=\sum_{i\ge 0} s^i {\wedge}^i E,$$ an $s$-graded $W$-representation whose $W$-character is $w\mapsto{\det}_E(1+sw)$, and $$S_tE=\sum_{i\ge 0} t^i S^iE,$$ a $t$-graded $W$-representation whose $W$-character is $w\mapsto \frac 1{{\det}_E(1-tw)}.$
The elliptic pairing of $W$ is $\langle~,~\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_W: R(W)\times R(W)\to {{\mathbb Z}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\sigma,\sigma'\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_W=\langle \sigma,\sigma'\otimes
\wedge_{-1} E\rangle_W=\frac 1{|W|}\sum_{w\in
W}\sigma(w)\sigma'(w){\det}(1-w).
\end{aligned}$$
The radical of the form $\langle~,~\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_W$ equals the lattice $R_{{\operatorname{ind}}}(W)$ of parabolically induced $W$-characters, [@R section 2.1]. Let $\overline R(W)=R(W)/\text{rad}\langle~,~\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_W$ be the space of virtual elliptic representations of $W$.
An element $w\in W$ is called elliptic if $\det(1-w)\neq 0.$ It is clear that the subset of elliptic elements of $W$ is closed under conjugation. A conjugacy class in $W$ is called elliptic if it consists of elliptic elements.
\[p:ind-ell\] Suppose that $W$ is irreducible of classical type. The set of rational functions $\left\{\frac 1{\det(1-qw)}\right\}\subset {{\mathbb Q}}(q)$, where $w$ varies over a set of representatives of elliptic conjugacy classes in $W$, is ${{\mathbb Z}}$-linear independent.
We verify the claim case by case as part of subsections \[sec:A-ell\]-\[sec:ell-D\].
The claim in Proposition \[p:ind-ell\] is not necessarily true for exceptional Weyl groups. In $F_4$, there are $9$ elliptic conjugacy classes, see [@Ca2 Table 8]. The two classes labelled $D_4$ and $C_3\times A_1$ have the same characteristic polynomial $\det(1-qw)=(q^3+1)(q+1)$.
\[c:ind-ell\] When $W$ is classical, the map $\langle~,\frac 1{\det(1-q\cdot~)}\rangle_W^{\mathsf{ell}}: \overline
R(W)\to {{\mathbb Q}}(q)$ is injective.
This is immediate from Proposition \[p:ind-ell\], since the form $\langle~,~\rangle_W^{\mathsf{ell}}$ is nondegenerate on $\overline R(W).$
We define elliptic fake degrees for representations of the finite Weyl group.
\[d:ell-fake-finite\] For every class $[\pi]\in \overline R(W)$, we define the elliptic fake degree of $[\pi]$ to be $$F_{[\pi]}=(q-1)^l\langle\pi, S_q
E\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_W=\frac{(q-1)^l}{|W|}\sum_{w\in W} \pi(w)
\frac{\det(1-w)}{\det(1-qw)}\in {{\mathbb Q}}(q).$$ When we wish to emphasize the group $W$, we write $F_{[\pi]}^W.$
Since $\wedge_{-1}E\otimes{\mathsf{sgn}}=(-1)^l\wedge_{-1}E,$ we have $\langle\sigma\otimes{\mathsf{sgn}},\sigma'\rangle_W^{\mathsf{ell}}=(-1)^l\langle\sigma,\sigma'\rangle_W^{\mathsf{ell}}.$
The elliptic fake degree of $[{\mathsf{sgn}}]$ is given by the formula $$F_{[{\mathsf{sgn}}]}=(1-q)^l\prod_{i=1}^l\frac{1-q^{m_i}}{1-q^{m_i+1}},$$ where $m_i$ are the exponents of $W$, see [@Bou Chapter 5.5, Ex. 3].
Consider the Clifford algebra $C(E)$ generated by $E$ with respect to the $W$-invariant product on $E.$ The defining relation for $C(E)$ is $$\xi\cdot\xi'+\xi'\cdot\xi=-2(\xi,\xi'),\ \xi,\xi'\in E.$$ Let $C(E)=C(E)_{\mathsf{even}}+C(E)_{\mathsf{odd}}$ be the natural ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-grading of $C(E)$. Let $^t$ be the transpose anti-automorphism of $C(E)$ defined by $\xi^t=-\xi,$ $\xi\in E$, and ${{\epsilon}}:C(E)\to C(E)$ the automorphism which is $+1$ on $C(E)_{\mathsf{even}}$ and $-1$ on $C(E)_{\mathsf{odd}}.$ The pin group is $${\mathsf{Pin}}(E)=\{a\in C(E)^\times: {{\epsilon}}(a)\cdot E\cdot a^{-1}\subset E,\ a^t=a^{-1}\}.$$ Then $p:{\mathsf{Pin}}(E)\to O(E)$, $p(a)(\xi)={{\epsilon}}(a)\cdot\xi\cdot a^{-1}$ is a two-fold cover of $O(E).$ Define the pin cover of $W$: $${{\widetilde {W}}}=p^{-1}(W)\subset {\mathsf{Pin}}(E).$$ Set $${{\widetilde {W}}}'=\begin{cases}{{\widetilde {W}}}, &\dim E \text{ odd}\\{{\widetilde {W}}}\cap
C(E)_{\mathsf{even}}, &\dim E\text{ even.}\end{cases}$$ Let $S^\pm$ denote the two ${{\widetilde {W}}}$-modules obtained from the restriction of the basic simple spin modules of $C(E).$ Let $R({{\widetilde {W}}}')_{\mathsf{gen}}$ denote the ${{\mathbb Z}}$-span of irreducible genuine ${{\widetilde {W}}}'$-representations.
The linear map $\iota: \overline R(W)\to R({{\widetilde {W}}}')_{\mathsf{gen}}$, $\iota(\sigma)=\sigma\otimes (S^+-S^-)$ is an injective linear map such that $$2\langle\sigma,\sigma'\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_W=\langle\iota(\sigma),\iota(\sigma')\rangle_{{{\widetilde {W}}}'}.$$ For every $[\pi]\in \overline R(W)$, there exist unique associate orthogonal ${{\widetilde {W}}}'$-representations ${{\widetilde {\sigma}}}^\pm_\pi$ such that $$\iota([\pi])={{\widetilde {\sigma}}}^+_\pi-{{\widetilde {\sigma}}}^-_\pi.$$ Moreover, if $[\pi]$ has norm $1$ in $\overline R(W),$ then ${{\widetilde {\sigma}}}^\pm_\pi$ are irreducible.
This result allows us to rewrite the elliptic fake degree in the following form.
\[fake-ell-spin\] The elliptic fake degree equals $$\label{e:efd-spin}
F_{[\pi]}=\frac 12 (q-1)^l\langle
{{\widetilde {\sigma}}}_\pi^+-{{\widetilde {\sigma}}}_\pi^-,S_qE\otimes (S^+-S^-)\rangle_{{{\widetilde {W}}}'}.$$
The irreducible $S_n$-characters are parameterized by partitions $\lambda$ of $n$. We write $\sigma_\lambda$ for the irreducible $S_n$-representation. In this notation, $\sigma_{(n)}={\mathsf{triv}}$ and $\sigma_{(1,1,\dots,1)}={\mathsf{sgn}}.$ When $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_k)$ is viewed as a left justified decreasing Young diagram, and $(i,j)$ a box in $\lambda$, denote $$|\lambda|=k,\ n(\lambda)=\sum_{i\ge 1} (i-1)\lambda_i,\ c(i,j)=j-i,$$ and $h(i,j)$ the hook length of $(i,j).$
The conjugacy classes of $S_n$ are parameterized via the cycle decomposition by partitions ${{\alpha}}$ of $n$. Denote by $C^{S_n}_{{\alpha}}$ the conjugacy class.
We will need the following combinatorial formula.
Let $E_n={{\mathbb C}}^n$ be the permutation representation of $S_n$. The multiplicity of $\sigma_\lambda$ in $S_tE_n\otimes\wedge_s E_n$ equals $$\label{KP-comb}
g_\lambda(t,s)=\langle \sigma_\lambda,S_tE_n\otimes\wedge_s E_n\rangle_{S_n}=\frac{t^{n(\lambda)} \prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda} (1+s t^{c(i,j)})}{\prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}(1-t^{h(i,j)})}.$$
{#sec:A-ell}
Suppose $W$ is of type $A_{n-1}$. The quotient $\overline R(S_n)$ has rank $1$ and it is spanned by $[{\mathsf{sgn}}].$ The only elliptic conjugacy class in $S_n$ is the $n$-cycles, which has size $(n-1)!$. In particular, Proposition \[p:ind-ell\] is obvious in this case. We have: $$\begin{aligned}
F_{[{\mathsf{sgn}}]}&=\frac{(q-1)^{n-1}}{n!} {\mathsf{sgn}}((1,2,\dots,n))
\frac{\det(1-(1,2,\dots,n))}{\det(1-q(1,2,\dots,n))} (n-1)!
=\frac{(1-q)^n}{1-q^n},
\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $\det(1-q(1,2,\dots,n))=1+q+q^2+\dots+q^{n-1}.$
{#section-6}
Suppose $W$ is of type $B_n$. The elliptic conjugacy classes $C_{{\alpha}}$ are indexed by partitions $\alpha=({{\alpha}}_1,\dots,{{\alpha}}_k)$ of $n$. Regard $W(B_{{{\alpha}}_1})\times\dots\times W(B_{{{\alpha}}_k})$ naturally as a subgroup of $W(B_n).$ Then a representative for the conjugacy class $C^{B_n}_{{\alpha}}$ is $w_{{\alpha}}=\prod w_{{{\alpha}}_i}$, where $w_{{{\alpha}}_i}$ is a Coxeter element for $W(B_{{{\alpha}}_i}).$
The irreducible $W(B_n)$-representations are parameterized by pairs of partitions $(\lambda,\gamma)$ of total size $n$. Let $\lambda\times\gamma$ denote the irreducible representation. Then $n\times\emptyset$ is the trivial representation and $(\lambda\times\gamma)\otimes{\mathsf{sgn}}=\gamma^t\times\lambda^t.$
\[l:Bn-on\] An orthonormal basis for $\overline R(W(B_n))$ is given by $\{[\lambda\times\emptyset]:\lambda\vdash n\}$. More precisely, the map $\sigma_\lambda\mapsto [\lambda\times\emptyset]$ induces an isomorphism between the lattices $(R(S_n),\langle~,~\rangle_{S_n})$ and $(\overline R(W(B_n)),\langle~,~\rangle_{W(B_n)}^{\mathsf{ell}}).$
We compute: $$\label{e:Bn-ell}
\begin{aligned}
\langle\lambda\otimes\emptyset,\lambda'\otimes\emptyset\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_W&=\frac
1{|W|}\sum_{{{\alpha}}\vdash n} (\lambda\times\emptyset)(C^{B_n}_{{\alpha}}) \det(1-C^{B_n}_{{\alpha}})
|C^{B_n}_{{\alpha}}|\\
&=\frac 1{n! 2^n}\sum_{{{\alpha}}\vdash n}\sigma_\lambda({{\alpha}}) 2^{|{{\alpha}}|}
2^{n-|{{\alpha}}|} |C^{S_n}_{{\alpha}}|\\
&=\langle\sigma_\lambda,\sigma_{\lambda'}\rangle_{S_n}.
\end{aligned}$$ This proves the claim.
\[p:Bn-fake\] The elliptic fake degree of $[\lambda\times \emptyset]\in \overline
R(W(B_n))$ is $$F_{[\lambda\times\emptyset]}^{B_n}=\displaystyle{(q-1)^n
q^{2n(\lambda)}\prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}
\frac{1-q^{2c(i,j)+1}}{1-q^{2h(i,j)}}.}$$
Calculating as in (\[e:Bn-ell\]), we find $$F_{[\lambda\times\emptyset]}^{B_n}=(q-1)^n\langle\sigma_\lambda,c^{B_n}_q\rangle_{S_n},\text{
where } c^{B_n}_q(C^{S_n}_{{\alpha}})=\frac 1{\det_{B_n}(1-q C^{B_n}_{{\alpha}})}=\frac
1{\prod_{i=1}^{|{{\alpha}}|} (1+q^{{{\alpha}}_i})}.$$ Notice that $c^{B_n}_q(C^{S_n}_{{\alpha}})=\frac {\prod_i
(q^{{{\alpha}}_i}-1)}{\prod_i (q^{2{{\alpha}}_i}-1)}.$ Since $\det_{E_n}(1-q
C^{S_n}_{{\alpha}})=\prod_i(q^{{{\alpha}}_i}-1)$, it follows that $c^{B_n}_q$ is just the $S_n$-character of $S_{q^2}E_n\otimes \wedge_{-q}E_n.$ Thus the formula follows by applying (\[KP-comb\]) with $s=-q$ and $t=q^2.$
Let $u\in G$ be a unipotent element and denote by $Z_G(u)$ the centralizer of $u$ in $G$ with identity component $Z_G(u)^0.$ The A-group is the finite group $A(u)=Z_G(u)/Z_G(u)^0Z(G)$ of components of $Z_G(u)$ modulo the center $Z(G)$ of $G$. Let ${{\mathcal B}}_u$ denote the variety of Borel subgroups containing $u$ and denote by $d_u$ its complex dimension. As shown by Springer [@Sp], the cohomology groups (with complex coefficients) $H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)$ admit an action of $A(u)\times W$. Let $\widehat{A(u)}$ denote the set of (isomorphism classes of) irreducible representations of $A(u)$ and set $$\label{e:Springer-type}
\widehat{A(u)}_0=\{\phi\in\widehat{A(u)}:~H^{2d_u}({{\mathcal B}}_u)^\phi\neq 0\}.$$ In the formulation of Conjecture \[conj-main\], an essential role is played by the elliptic fake degrees of the $W$-modules given by the Springer representations on $H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^\phi$, see (\[nonzero-fake\]). Here $u$ is a quasi-distinguished unipotent element (in the sense of [@R (3.2.2)]) in the complex group $G^\vee=Sp(2n,{{\mathbb C}})$ or $Spin(2n+1,{{\mathbb C}})$, and $\phi\in \widehat{A(u)}_0.$ By [@CH Theorem 1.3 and Proposition A.6], there exists a unique partition $\lambda$ of $n$ such that $$(\sum_{i=0}^{d_u} (-1)^{d_u-i} H^{2i}({{\mathcal B}}_u)^\phi)\otimes
(S^++S^-)=(\lambda\times\emptyset)\otimes (S^++S^-).$$ For the explicit combinatorial procedure (based on algorithms of Slooten [@Sl]) for attaching $\lambda$ to $(e,\phi)$, see [@C section 3.7]. Applying the identity to $ww_0$, where $w$ is an elliptic element of $W$ and $w_0$ is the long Weyl group element and using [@CH Theorem 1.2], we find that $$H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^\phi(w)={{\epsilon}}(u,\phi)\cdot (\lambda\times\emptyset)(w),$$ where ${{\epsilon}}(u,\phi)\in\{\pm 1\}$ is the sign of the scalar by which $w_0$ acts on the irreducible Springer representation $H^{2d_u}({{\mathcal B}}_u)^\phi$. In general, for affine Hecke algebras with arbitrary real parameters, the role of such signs in the relation between elliptic theory and Dirac induction is investigated as part of [@CO].
We now verify Proposition \[p:ind-ell\]. We need to show that the functions $$f_{{\alpha}}(q)=\frac 1{\prod_{i=1}^{|{{\alpha}}|} (1+q^{{{\alpha}}_i})},
\quad{{\alpha}}=({{\alpha}}_1,{{\alpha}}_2,\dots)\text{ (decreasing) partition of }n,$$ are ${{\mathbb Z}}$-linear independent. Suppose by induction that the claim holds for all $m<n$. For $n$, divide the set of functions into subsets indexed by $k=1,\dots,n$, $${{\mathcal F}}_k=\{f_{{\alpha}}(q):\ {{\alpha}}\vdash n,\ {{\alpha}}_1=k\}.$$ By induction, each subset ${{\mathcal F}}_k$ is ${{\mathbb Z}}$-linear independent (using the induction hypothesis for $m=n-k$). Moreover, it is easily seen that, for $a^k_{{\alpha}}\in{{\mathbb Z}}$, $$\sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{f_{{\alpha}}(q){{\mathcal F}}_k} a^k_{{\alpha}}f_{{\alpha}}(q)=0\text{ implies }
\sum_{f_{{\alpha}}(q){{\mathcal F}}_k} a^k_{{\alpha}}f_{{\alpha}}(q)=0,\text{ for every }k.$$ For example, one first multiplies by $1+q^n$ and specializes $q$ to a primitive $2n$-th root of $1$, then multiply by $1+q^{n-1}$, etc.
{#sec:ell-D}
Suppose $W$ is of type $D_n$. The group $W(D_n)$ is a natural subgroup of $W(B_n).$ The elliptic element $w_{{\alpha}}$ in $W(B_n)$ lives in $W(D_n)$ if and only if ${{\alpha}}$ is a partition with an even number of parts. The set $\{w_{{\alpha}}:{{\alpha}}\vdash n, |{{\alpha}}| \text{ is
even}\}$ is a complete set of representatives for the elliptic conjugacy classes in $W(D_n)$.
The irreducible $W(D_n)$ representations are obtained by restriction from $W(B_n)$ as follows. If ${{\alpha}}\times\beta$ is an irreducible $W(B_n)$-representation with ${{\alpha}}\neq \beta$, then the restrictions $({{\alpha}}\times\beta)|_{D_n}\cong (\beta\times{{\alpha}})|_{D_n}$ are irreducible $W(D_n)$-representations. If ${{\alpha}}=\beta,$ then ${{\alpha}}\times{{\alpha}}$ restricted to $W(D_n)$ decomposes into two inequivalent equidimensional representations, $({{\alpha}}\times{{\alpha}})^I$ and $({{\alpha}}\times{{\alpha}})^{II}.$
Notice that the defining representation $E$ for $D_n$ is the same as the one for $B_n$, therefore we may use Frobenius reciprocity to see that $$\label{e:Frob}
\langle \sigma,{\mathsf{Res}}^{B_n}_{D_n}\sigma'\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W(D_n)}=\langle{\operatorname{Ind}}_{D_n}^{B_n}\sigma,\sigma'\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W(B_n)}.$$
\[l:Dn-on\] Let $\overline P(n)$ denote the set classes of partitions of $n$ under the relation $\lambda\cong\lambda^t.$
1. Suppose $n$ is odd. The set $\{[\lambda\times\emptyset]:\lambda\in\overline P(n),
\lambda\neq \lambda^t\}$ is an orthonormal basis for $\overline
R(W(D_n)).$
2. Suppose $n$ is even. The set $\{[\lambda\times\emptyset]:\lambda\in\overline P(n)\}$ is an orthogonal basis for $\overline R(W(D_n))$. Moreover, $$\langle \lambda\times\emptyset,\lambda\times\emptyset\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W(D_n)}=\begin{cases}1,&\lambda\neq\lambda^t,\\2,&\lambda=\lambda^t.\end{cases}$$
Suppose $\lambda,\lambda'\in \overline P(n).$ By (\[e:Frob\]), we have $\langle
\lambda\times\emptyset,\lambda'\times\emptyset\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W(D_n)}=\langle
\lambda\times\emptyset+\emptyset\times\lambda,\lambda'\times\emptyset\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W(B_n)}=\langle
\lambda\times\emptyset,\lambda'\times\emptyset\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W(B_n)}+(-1)^n\langle
\lambda^t\times\emptyset,\lambda'\times\emptyset\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W(B_n)}.$ The claims now follow easily from Lemma \[l:Bn-on\].
\[p:Dn-fake\] The elliptic fake degree of $[\lambda\times \emptyset]\in \overline
R(W(D_n))$ is $$\begin{aligned}
F_{[\lambda\times\emptyset]}^{D_n}=\displaystyle{\frac{(q-1)^n}{\displaystyle{\prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}}(1-q^{2h(i,j)})}\left(
q^{2n(\lambda)}{\prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}}
(1-q^{2c(i,j)+1})+ (-1)^nq^{2n(\lambda^t)}\prod_{(i',j')\in\lambda^t}
(1-q^{2c(i',j')+1})\right).}
\end{aligned}$$
As in the proof of Lemma \[l:Dn-on\], we see that $$F_{[\lambda\times\emptyset]}^{D_n}=F_{[\lambda\times\emptyset]}^{B_n}+(-1)^n
F_{[\lambda^t\times\emptyset]}^{B_n},$$ and the formula follows from Proposition \[p:Bn-fake\].
Since the functions $1/\det(1-qw)$, $w$ elliptic, in type $D_n$ are a subset of the ones for type $B_n$, they are also ${{\mathbb Z}}$-linear independent.
{#sec:affine-ell}
Let ${{\mathcal R}}=(X,R,X^\vee, R^\vee,F)$ be a based root datum. In particular, $X,X^\vee$ are lattices in perfect duality $\langle~,~\rangle:X\times X^\vee\to{{\mathbb Z}}$, $R\subset X\setminus\{0\}$ and $R^\vee\subset X^\vee\setminus\{0\}$ are the (finite) sets of roots and coroots respectively, and $F\subset R$ is a basis of simple roots. Let $W$ be the finite Weyl group with set of generators $S=\{s_{{\alpha}}:{{\alpha}}\in F\}.$ Set $W^e=W\ltimes
X$, the extended affine Weyl group, and $W^a=W\ltimes Q$, the affine Weyl group, where $Q$ is the root lattice of $R$. Then $W^a$ is normal in $W^e$ and $\Omega:=W^e/W^a\cong X/Q$ is an abelian group. We assume that ${{\mathcal R}}$ is semisimple, i.e., $\Omega$ is a finite group.
The set $R^a=R^\vee\times {{\mathbb Z}}\subset X^\vee\times{{\mathbb Z}}$ is the set of affine roots. A basis of simple affine roots is given by $F^a=(F^\vee\times\{0\})\cup\{(\gamma^\vee,1): \gamma^\vee\in R^\vee
\text{ minimal}\}.$ For every affine root $\mathbf a=({{\alpha}}^\vee,n)$, let $s_{\mathbf a}:X\to X$ denote the reflection $s_{\mathbf a}(x)=x-((x,{{\alpha}}^\vee)+n){{\alpha}}.$ The affine Weyl group $W^a$ has a set of generators $S^a=\{s_{\mathbf a}: \mathbf a\in F^a\}$. Let $l:W^e\to{{\mathbb Z}}$ be the length function.
Set $E=X\otimes_{{\mathbb R}}{{\mathbb R}}$, so the discussion regarding elliptic theory of $W$ and $E$ from the previous sections applies. We denote a typical element of $W^e$ by $w t_x$, where $w\in W$ and $x\in X.$ The extended affine Weyl group $W^e$ acts on $E$ via $(w t_x)\cdot v=w\cdot v+ x,$ $v\in E.$
An element $w t_x\in W^e$ is called elliptic if $w\in W$ is elliptic (with respect to the action on $E$), or equivalently, if $wt_x$ has an isolated fixed point in $E$. For basic facts about elliptic theory for $W^e$, see [@OS1 sections 3.1, 3.2]. There are finitely many elliptic conjugacy classes in $W^e$ (and in $W^a$).
Let $W^e$-mod be the category of finite dimensional $W^e$-modules. Define the Euler-Poincaré pairing on $W^e$-mod as follows: $$\langle U,V\rangle^{\mathsf{EP}}_{W^e}=\sum_{i\ge 0}(-1)^i\dim {\operatorname{Ext}}^i_{W^e}(U,V),\quad U,V\in W^e\text{-mod}.$$ Let $R(W^e)$ be the Grothendieck group of $W^e$-mod, and set $$\overline R(W^e)=R(W^e)/\text{rad}\langle~,~\rangle^{\mathsf{EP}}_{W^e}.$$ By [@OS1 Theorem 3.3], the Euler-Poincaré pairing for $W^e$ can also be expressed as an elliptic integral. More precisely, define the conjugation-invariant elliptic measure $\mu_{\mathsf{ell}}$ on $W^e$ by setting $\mu_{\mathsf{ell}}=0$ on nonelliptic conjugacy classes, and for an elliptic conjugacy class $C$ such that $v\in E$ is an isolated fixed point for some element of $C$, set $$\mu_{\mathsf{ell}}(C)=\frac{|Z_{W^e}(v)\cap C|}{|Z_{W^e}(v)|};$$ here $Z_{W^e}(v)$ is the isotropy group of $v$ in $W^e.$ Then $$\label{affine-ell-pair}
\langle U, V\rangle^{\mathsf{EP}}_{W^e}=\langle \chi_U,\chi_V\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^e}:=\int_{W^e}\chi_U\chi_V~d\mu_{\mathsf{ell}},\ U,V\in W^e\text{-mod},$$ where $\chi_U,\chi_V$ are the characters of $U$ and $V$.
Set $T^\vee={\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\mathbb Z}}(X,{{\mathbb C}}^\times)$. (The superscript $\vee$ is so that the notation is consistent in a later section.) Then $W$ acts on $T^\vee$. For every $s\in T^\vee,$ set $$W_s=\{w\in W: w\cdot s=s\},$$ and one considers the elliptic theory of the finite group $W_s$ acting on the cotangent space of $T^\vee$ at $s$. By Clifford theory, consider the induction map $${\operatorname{Ind}}_s: W_s\text{-mod}\to W^e\text{-mod},\quad {\operatorname{Ind}}_s(U):={\operatorname{Ind}}_{W_s\ltimes X}^{W^e}(U\otimes s),$$ which maps irreducible modules to irreducible modules.
By [@OS1 Theorem 3.2], the map $$\label{ind-iso}
\bigoplus_{s\in T^\vee/W}{\operatorname{Ind}}_s: \bigoplus_{s\in T^\vee/W}\overline R(W_s)_{{\mathbb C}}\to \overline R(W^e)_{{\mathbb C}}$$ is an isomorphism of metric spaces, in particular, $$\label{ind-pair}
\langle {\operatorname{Ind}}_s U,{\operatorname{Ind}}_s V\rangle^{\mathsf{EP}}_{W^e}=\langle U,V\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W_s},\ U,V\in W_s\text{-mod}.$$ It is clear that the only nonzero contributions in the left hand side of (\[ind-iso\]) comes from “isolated” elements of $T^\vee$, more precisely $$T^\vee_{\mathsf{iso}}=\{s\in T^\vee: w\cdot s=s\text{ for some elliptic }w\in W\}.$$ Conversely, suppose $\chi\in \overline R(W^e)_{{\mathbb C}}$ is given. For every $s\in T^\vee_{\mathsf{iso}}/W$, one may project $\chi$ onto ${\operatorname{Ind}}_s\overline R(W_s)_{{\mathbb C}}$. Call the projection ${\operatorname{pr}}_s\chi\in {\operatorname{Ind}}_s\overline R(W_s)_{{\mathbb C}}.$ (Of course, this projection makes sense even for non-elliptic modules.) By the injectivity of (\[ind-iso\]), there exists a unique element, which we denote $\overline{\operatorname{pr}}_s \chi\in \overline R(W_s)_{{\mathbb C}}$ such that $${\operatorname{pr}}_s\chi={\operatorname{Ind}}_s\overline{\operatorname{pr}}_s\chi.$$ With this notation, the inverse map is $$\bigoplus_{s\in T^\vee_{\mathsf{iso}}/W}\overline {\operatorname{pr}}_s: \overline R(W^e)_{{\mathbb C}}\to \bigoplus_{s\in T^\vee_{\mathsf{iso}}/W}\overline R(W_s)_{{\mathbb C}}.$$ This allows us to define elliptic fake degrees for elliptic $W^e$-modules.
\[d:ell-fake-affine\] For every class $[\pi]\in \overline R(W^e)$, define the elliptic fake degree of $[\pi]$ to be $$F_{[\pi]}^{e}= F_{[\overline{\operatorname{pr}}_1\pi]},$$ where $F_{[\overline{\operatorname{pr}}_1\pi]}$ is the elliptic fake degree in the finite reflection group $W=W_s$, as in Definition \[d:ell-fake-finite\].
The discussion above also applies if we consider just $W^a$ instead of $W^e$, and in that case we denote the elliptic fake degree by $F_{[\pi]}^a.$
Unipotent representations of finite groups of Lie type {#s:2}
======================================================
{#section-7}
Let $p,\ell$ be primes, $\ell\neq p$, and $q$ be a power of $p$. Let $k$ be an algebraic closure of ${{\mathbb F}}_p$. Let $G$ be a connected algebraic reductive $k$-group defined over ${{\mathbb F}}_q$, and let $F:G\to G$ be the associated Frobenius homomorphism. Let $L:G\to G$, $L(g)=g^{-1}F(g)$, be Lang’s map. Let ${{\mathcal C}}_{\mathsf{class}}(G^F)$ be the $\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_\ell$-vector space of class functions $G^F\to
\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_\ell$ with the character pairing $\langle~,~\rangle.$ Let ${\mathsf{Irr}}G^F$ denote the set of irreducible $\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_\ell$-characters of $G^F.$
The Deligne-Lusztig generalized character $R_{T,\theta}\in {{\mathcal C}}_{\mathsf{class}}(G^F)$ is defined for an $F$-stable maximal torus $T$, and a character $\theta: T^F\to \overline{{\mathbb Q}}_\ell^*$ as follows. Let $B=TU$ be a Borel subgroup of $G$, and set ${{\widetilde {X}}}=L^{-1}(U).$ Then ${{\widetilde {X}}}$ carries a left $G^F$-action and a right $T^F$ action. Set $$R_{T,\theta}(g)=\sum_{i\ge 0} (-1)^i {\operatorname{tr}}(g, H_c^i({{\widetilde {X}}},\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_\ell)_\theta),\quad g\in G^F;$$ here $H^i_c({{\widetilde {X}}},\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_\ell)$ denotes the $i$-th $\ell$-adic cohomology group with compact support, and the subscript $\theta$ indicates the $\theta$-isotypic component. By [@DL Theorem 4.2], $R_{T,\theta}$ is independent of the choice of $B$.
If $\rho\in {\mathsf{Irr}}G^F$, there exists $(T,\theta)$ such that $\langle
\rho,R_{T,\theta}\rangle\neq 0.$
A character $\rho\in{\mathsf{Irr}}G^F$ is called unipotent if $\langle\rho, R_{T,1}\rangle\neq 0$ for a maximal $F$-stable torus $T$. One calls $\rho$ cuspidal if $\langle\rho,R_{T,\theta}\rangle=0$ for any $F$-stable maximal torus $T$ contained in some proper $F$-stable parabolic subgroup of $G$ and any character $\theta$ of $T^F.$ Denote by ${\mathsf{Irr}}_{{\mathsf{un}}} G^F$ the set of irreducible unipotent characters of $G^F.$
{#section-8}
Fix $B_0$ an $F$-stable Borel subgroup of $G$, $B_0=T_0U_0$, and $T_0$ is a $F$-stable maximal torus. Let $W$ be the Weyl group of $T_0$. For every $w\in W$, choose an $F$-stable representative $\dot w$ in $G$ and $x\in G$ such that $x^{-1}F(x)=\dot
w.$ Denote $T_w=xT_0x^{-1}$, an $F$-stable maximal torus, and set $$R_w=R_{T_w,1},\ w\in W.$$ The character $R_w$ admits the following alternative description: $$R_w(g)=\sum_{i\ge 0} (-1)^i {\operatorname{tr}}(g, H_c^i(X_w,\overline{{\mathbb Q}}_\ell)),\
g\in G^F,$$ where $X_w=\{g B_0\in G/B_0: g^{-1} F(g)\in B_0\dot w B_0\}.$ In particular, $$\label{pair-Rw}
\langle R_w,R_{w'}\rangle=\#\{w_1\in W: w_1 w'=w F(w_1)\}.$$ and $$R_w(1)=\sum_{i\ge 0} {\operatorname{tr}}(F\circ w, \overline S^i) q^i,$$ where $S$ is algebra of ${{\mathbb Q}}$-polynomial function of ${{\mathbb Q}}\otimes
{\operatorname{Hom}}(k^*,T_0)$, and $\overline S$ is the graded algebra of $W$-coinvariants.
{#section-9}
From now on, we assume for simplicity that $G^F$ is split. For every ${{\mathcal E}}\in \widehat W$, define the unipotent almost-character $$R_{{{\mathcal E}}}=\frac 1{|W|}\sum_{w\in W}{\operatorname{tr}}(w,{{{\mathcal E}}}) R_w.$$ The general definition of the unipotent almost-character is in [@L1 (3.7.1)]. In the split case,$$R_{{{\mathcal E}}}(1)=\sum_{i\ge 0}\dim({{{\mathcal E}}}\otimes \overline S^i)^W q^i,$$ which means that $R_{{{\mathcal E}}}(1)$ equals the fake degree of ${{{\mathcal E}}}$: $$f_{{{\mathcal E}}}(q)=\sum_{i\ge 0} \dim ({{{\mathcal E}}}\otimes \overline S^i)^W q^i=(1-q)^r P(q)\frac
1{|W|}\sum_{w\in W} \frac{{\operatorname{tr}}(w, {{{\mathcal E}}})}{\det_{\overline S^1}(1-q w)},$$ where $r$ is the rank of $G^F$ and $P(q)$ is the Poincaré polynomial of $W$.
The set $\{R_{{{\mathcal E}}}: {{{\mathcal E}}}\in \widehat W\}$ is orthonormal. This follows from (\[pair-Rw\]). Also from (\[pair-Rw\]), it is easy to deduce that if $g\in G^F$ is regular semisimple and $w_g\in W$ is the unique Weyl group element such that $g\in T_{w_g}$, then $$R_{{{\mathcal E}}}(g)={\operatorname{tr}}(w_g,{{{\mathcal E}}}).$$
{#section-10}
For every ${{{\mathcal E}}}\in \widehat W$, there exists a corresponding irreducible unipotent $G^F$-representation $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}}$, as follows. The algebra ${\operatorname{End}}_{G^F}({\operatorname{Ind}}_{B_0^F}^{G^F}({\mathsf{triv}}))$ is isomorphic to the finite Hecke algebra ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}(W,q)$ of $W$. Recall that ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}(W,q)$ is the $\overline Q_\ell$-algebra (or ${{\mathbb C}}$-algebra) spanned by $\{t_w: w\in W\}$ subject by the relations: $$\begin{aligned}
& t_s^2=(q-1) t_s+q t_1,\quad s \text{ simple reflection}.\\
&t_w\cdot t_{w'}=t_{ww'},\quad \text{ if }\ell(ww')=\ell(w)+\ell(w');\\
\end{aligned}$$ here $\ell(w)$ denotes the length function of $W$. By Tits’ deformation argument, ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}(W,q)$ is isomorphic to the group algebra of $W$, and to every ${{{\mathcal E}}}$, there corresponds a simple module of ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}(W,q)$, and thus an irreducible unipotent $G^F$-representation $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}}$ which occurs in ${\operatorname{Ind}}_{B_0^F}^{G^F}({\mathsf{triv}}).$
{#sec:fourier}
If $\Gamma$ is a finite group, consider the set of pairs ${{\widetilde {M}}}(\Gamma)=\{(x,\sigma): x\in\Gamma,\ \sigma\in{\mathsf{Irr}}C_\Gamma(x)\}.$ The group $\Gamma$ acts on ${{\widetilde {M}}}(\Gamma)$ by $\gamma\cdot(x,\sigma)=(\gamma x \gamma^{-1},\sigma^\gamma),$ where $\sigma^\gamma$ is the twist of $\sigma$ by $\gamma.$ Let $M(\Gamma)$ denote the set of orbits.
\[d:exotic-Fourier\] The exotic Fourier transform matrix associated to $\Gamma$ is the square matrix of size $\# M(\Gamma)$ with entries $$\{(x,\sigma),(y,\tau)\}=\frac 1{|C_\Gamma(x)| |C_\Gamma(y)|}\sum_{\substack{g\in
\Gamma\\x gyg^{-1}=gyg^{-1}x}}\sigma(gyg^{-1})\overline{\tau(g^{-1}x g)}.$$
In [@L1 chapter 4], Lusztig partitioned the set of irreducible $W$-characters into families ${{\mathcal F}}$, and attached to each family a finite group $\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}}$ together with an injective map ${{\mathcal F}}\hookrightarrow M(\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}})$. Denote the image of this map by $M(\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}})'$. Define the parameterizing set [@L1 (4.21.1)] $$X(W)=\displaystyle{\bigsqcup_{{{\mathcal F}}\subset {\mathsf{Irr}}W} M(\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}})},$$ and the pairing [@L1 (4.21.2)] $$\label{pair-X}
\{~,~\}: X(W)\times X(W)\to {{\mathbb Q}},$$ as follows: for $(x,\sigma)\in M(\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}})$ and $(y,\tau)\in M(\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}'})$, $\{(x,\sigma),(y,\tau)\}$ is as in Definition \[d:exotic-Fourier\] if ${{\mathcal F}}={{\mathcal F}}'$, and otherwise it is zero.
Let $$\label{Delta}
\Delta: M(\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}})\to \{\pm 1\}$$ be the function defined in [@L1 §4.14 and §4.21]. Recall that if $W$ is an irreducible Weyl group, then $\Delta$ is the constant function $1$, except for the families ${{\mathcal F}}$ that contain the representation $512_a'$ in $E_7$, or $4096_z$ or $4096_x'$ in $E_8.$
As in [@L1 §4.22], we assume that $G$ has connected center. We recall next the main theorem of the classification of ${\mathsf{Irr}}_{\mathsf{un}}G^F$ from [@L1] together with a character formula that we will need later in the paper.
There exists a bijection $$X(W)\longleftrightarrow {\mathsf{Irr}}_{\mathsf{un}}G^F,\quad (x,\sigma)\to \rho_{(x,\sigma)}$$ such that for every $(x,\sigma)\in X(W)$ and ${{{\mathcal E}}}\in
\widehat W,$ we have $$\langle\rho_{(x,\sigma)},R_{{{\mathcal E}}}\rangle=\Delta(x,\sigma) \{(x,\rho),(y,\tau)\},$$ where $(y,\tau)$ is such that $\rho_{(y,\tau)}=\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}}.$ Moreover, if $g\in G^F$ is semisimple, then $$\label{char-semi}
{\operatorname{tr}}(g,\rho_{(x,\sigma)})=\sum_{(y,\tau)\in M(\Gamma)'} \Delta(x,\sigma)
\{(x,\sigma),(y,\tau)\} ~R_{(y,\tau)}(g);$$ here we write $R_{(y,\tau)}$ in place of $R_{{{\mathcal E}}}$ when $\rho_{(y,\tau)}=\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}}.$
Suppose $(x,\sigma)\in M(\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}})\subset X(W)$ is given. The two extreme cases of (\[char-semi\]) are:
1. if $g\in G^F$ is regular semisimple, then $${\operatorname{tr}}(g,\rho_{(x,\sigma)})=\sum_{(y,\tau)\in M(\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}})'} \Delta(x,\sigma)
\{(x,\sigma),(y,\tau)\} {\operatorname{tr}}(w_g,{{{\mathcal E}}});$$
2. if $g=1$, then the formal degree of an irreducible unipotent representation is $$\label{formal-finite}
\mu_{\rho_{(x,\sigma)}}:=\rho_{(x,\sigma)}(1)=\sum_{(y,\tau)\in M(\Gamma_{{{\mathcal F}}})'} \Delta(x,\sigma)
\{(x,\sigma),(y,\tau)\} f_{{{\mathcal E}}}(q);$$
here ${{{\mathcal E}}}$ is such that $\rho_{{{\mathcal E}}}=\rho_{(y,\tau)}.$
Unipotent representations of reductive $p$-adic groups {#sec:unip-padic}
======================================================
{#section-11}
Let $K$ be a nonarchimedian local field, with ring of integers ${{\mathcal O}}$, prime ideal ${{{\mathfrak p}}}$, and finite residue field ${{\mathbb F}}_q={{{{\mathcal O}}}}/{{{\mathfrak p}}}.$ Let $G$ be a connected reductive algebraic group defined over $K$, and $G(K)$ its $K$-points. If $P$ is a parahoric subgroup of $G(K),$ let $U_P$ be its pro-unipotent radical, and $\overline
P=P/U_P$ be the reductive quotient, a reductive group over ${{\mathbb F}}_q.$
An irreducible smooth representation $(\pi,V)$ of $G(K)$ is called unipotent if there exists a parahoric subgroup $P$ of $G(K)$ and a cuspidal unipotent representation $\rho$ of $\overline P$ such that ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{\overline P}[\rho,V^{U_P}]\neq 0.$
Fix a Haar measure $\mu$ on $G(K).$ Suppose $(\rho,{{\mathcal W}})$ is a cuspidal unipotent representation of $\overline P.$ Let ${{\widetilde {\rho}}}$ be the pullback to $P$ of $\rho.$ Define ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)$ to be the $\mu$-convolution algebra of compactly supported, smooth functions $${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)=\{f: G(K)\to {\operatorname{End}}({{\mathcal W}}): f(p_1xp_2)={{\widetilde {\rho}}}(p_1)
f(x){{\widetilde {\rho}}}(p_2),\ p_1,p_2\in P, x\in G(K)\},$$ with unit $1_\rho=\frac 1{\mu(P)} {{\widetilde {\rho}}} \chi_P,$ where $\chi_P$ is the characteristic function of $P$.
Denote by ${{\mathcal R}}(G(K),\rho)$ the category of complex smooth representations $V$ of $G(K)$ such that the ${{\widetilde {\rho}}}$-isotypical component $V^\rho\subset V|_P$ of the restriction of $V$ to $P$ generates $V$, i.e. $H(G(K))V^\rho=V$. The Hecke algebra ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)$ acts naturally on $V_\rho:={\operatorname{Hom}}_{P}[{{\widetilde {\rho}}},V]={\operatorname{Hom}}_{\overline{P}}[\rho,V^{U_P}]$, giving rise to a functor $$\label{functor-rho}
m_\rho: {{\mathcal R}}(G(K),\rho)\to {{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)\text{-mod},\ V\mapsto V_\rho.$$ In this case, it is known from [@Mo] and [@MP] that $m_\rho$ is an equivalence of categories. This is a generalization of Borel’s classical result [@B] in the case of Iwahori subgroups.
{#section-12}
The algebra ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)$ has a structure of a normalized ${{\mathbb C}}$-algebra with respect to the $*$-operation: $$f^*(x)=f(x^{-1})^*,$$ where the second $*$ means the conjugate transpose operation on ${{\mathcal W}}$, and inner product $$[f_1,f_2]=\frac{\mu(P)}{\rho(1)} {\operatorname{tr}}((f_1^*\star f_2)(1)).$$ Since all simple ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)$-modules are finite dimensional, ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)$ admits an abstract Plancherel formula. Let $C^*_r({{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho))$ denote the reduced $C^*$-algebra completion of ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)$, see for example [@BHK §3.1 and §4.1].
There exists a unique positive Borel measure $\hat\mu_\rho$ (depending on $\mu$) such that $$[f,1_\rho]=\int_{\widehat{C^*_r({{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho))}}
{\operatorname{tr}}\pi(f)~d\hat\mu_\rho(\pi),\quad f\in {{{{\mathcal H}}}}(G(K),\rho).$$
The transfer of Plancherel measures under the functor $m_\rho$ behaves very well. More precisely, if we let $\widehat{C^*_r(G(K),\rho)}$ denote the support of the Plancherel measure of $G(K)$ in the subcategory ${{\mathcal R}}(G(K),\rho)$, then the following result holds.
The functor $m_\rho$ induces a homeomorphism $$\hat m_\rho: \widehat{C^*_r(G(K),\rho)}\to \widehat{C^*_r({{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho))},$$ such that for every Borel set $S$ of $\widehat{C^*_r(G(K),\rho)}$, one has $$\hat\mu(S)=\frac{\rho(1)}{\mu(P)}~\hat\mu_\rho(\hat m_\rho(S)).$$
\[ex:Iwahori\] Suppose $P=I$ is an Iwahori subgroup, and $\rho=1_{\overline I}$ is the trivial representation of $\overline I.$ Then ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),1_{\overline I})$ is the Iwahori-Hecke algebra of $I$-biinvariant functions on $G(K).$ Normalize the Haar measure $\mu$ such that $\mu(I)=1.$ Then for every irreducible discrete series representation $V$ of $G(K)$ such that $V^I\neq 0,$ the formal degree is $$\hat\mu(V)=\hat\mu_{1_{\overline I}}(V^I).$$
In this way, the computation of formal degrees of discrete series representations in ${{\mathcal R}}(G(K),\rho)$ can be reduced to the similar problem for ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)$-modules.
{#section-13}
All the algebras ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),\rho)$ in the previous subsection are specializations of affine Hecke algebras that we define next.
Let ${{\mathcal R}}=(X,R,X^\vee, R^\vee,F)$ be a based root datum. We retain the notation from section \[sec:affine-ell\].
Let $\mathbf q=\{\mathbf q(s): s\in S^a\}$ be a set of invertible, commuting indeterminates such that $\mathbf q(s)=\mathbf q(s')$ whenever $s,s'$ are $W^a$-conjugate. Let $\Lambda={{\mathbb C}}[\mathbf q(s),\mathbf q(s)^{-1}: s\in S^a]$.
\[d:Hecke-generic\] The generic affine Hecke algebra ${{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},\mathbf q)$ associated to the root datum ${{\mathcal R}}$ and the indeterminates $\mathbf q$ is the unique associative, unital $\Lambda$-algebra with basis $\{N_w: w\in W^e\}$ and relations
1. $N_w N_{w'}=N_{ww'},$ for all $w,w'\in W$ such that $l(ww')=l(w)+l(w')$;
2. $(N_s-\mathbf q(s))(N_s+\mathbf q(s)^{-1})=0$ for all $s\in S^a.$
Fix an indeterminate $\mathbf q.$ Given a $W^a$-invariant function $m:S^a\to {{\mathbb R}}$, we may define a homomorphism $\lambda_{m}:\Lambda\to {{\mathbb C}}[\mathbf q]$, $\mathbf
q(s)=\mathbf q^{m(s)}$. Consider the specialized affine Hecke algebra $${{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}}, m)={{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},\mathbf q)\otimes_\Lambda {{\mathbb C}}_{\lambda_{m}}.$$
{#section-14}
We return now to the setting of unipotent representations of the $p$-adic group $G(K)$. Suppose that $G$ is simple of adjoint type and $G(K)$ is split. Let $\widehat{G(K)}^{\mathsf{un}}$ denote the set of (equivalence classes of) irreducible unipotent representations of $G(K)$, and $\widehat{G(K)}^{\mathsf{un}}_{\mathsf{DS}}$ the subset of irreducible unipotent discrete series representations.
Let $G^\vee$ denote the complex dual group. An element $x\in G^\vee$ is called elliptic if the centralizer $Z_{G^\vee}(x)$ does not contain any nontrivial torus, or equivalently, the conjugacy class of $x$ does not meet any proper Levi subgroup of $G^\vee.$ For every $x\in G^\vee,$ define the A-group $$A(x)=Z_{G^\vee}(x)/Z_{G^\vee}(x)^0 Z(G^\vee).$$ Let $\widehat{A(x)}$ be the set of isomorphism classes of irreducible representations of $A(x)$.
The Deligne-Langlands-Lusztig classification for $\widehat{G(K)}^{\mathsf{un}}$ takes the following form. In the case of representations with Iwahori fixed vectors, it was proved in [@KL Theorem 7.12 and Theorem 8.3].
\[t:DLL\] There exists a natural one-to-one correspondence $$\widehat{G(K)}^{\mathsf{un}}\longleftrightarrow G^\vee\backslash\{(x,\phi):\ x\in G^\vee,\ \phi\in\widehat{A(x)}\},$$ such that $$\widehat{G(K)}^{\mathsf{un}}_{\mathsf{DS}}\longleftrightarrow G^\vee\backslash\{(x,\phi):\ x\in G^\vee \text{ elliptic},\ \phi\in\widehat{A(x)}\}.$$
The parameterization of $\widehat{G(K)}^{\mathsf{un}}_{\mathsf{DS}}$ was also obtained independently in the case when $G$ is split exceptional in [@Re3], and when $G=SO(2n+1)$ in [@Wa]. It also follows from [@O4 Theorem 3.4, Proposition 3.11], in view of results of Slooten [@Sl], [@OS2], and [@CK] (see the discussion in [@O4 paragraph 3.3.2]).
If $x\in G^\vee,$ write the Jordan decomposition $x=su$, where $s$ is semisimple and $u$ is unipotent. Notice that $x$ is elliptic if and only if the centralizer $Z_{G^\vee}(s)$ is semisimple and $u\in Z_{G^\vee}(s)$ is a distinguished unipotent element in the sense of Bala-Carter [@Ca]. Let $\Phi_u: SL(2,{{\mathbb C}})\to Z_{G^\vee}(s)$ be a Lie homomorphism, mapping $\left(\begin{matrix} 1&1\\0&1\end{matrix}\right)\mapsto u$, and set $$\label{e:modified-s}
s'=s\Phi_u(\left(\begin{matrix} q^{1/2}&0\\0&q^{-1/2}\end{matrix}\right)).$$ Then $\operatorname{Ad}(s')u=u^{q}.$ Fix a maximal torus $T^\vee\subset G^\vee$. Without loss of generality, we may arrange that $s,s'\in T^\vee.$ For every root ${{\alpha}}$ of $(G^\vee,T^\vee)$, let $e_{{\alpha}}$ denote the corresponding character of $T^\vee.$ We fix a Haar measure $\mu$ on $G(K)$ such that $\mu(I)=1$ for an Iwahori subgroup $I$ of $G(K)$. The formal degree of $\pi\in \widehat{G(K)}^{\mathsf{un}}_{\mathsf{DS}}$ is known to be given as in the following theorem. This result is a special case of the conjecture formulated in [@HII]. The $q$-part in the formula was conjectured in [@HO1], and proved in [@HO2] in the case of unipotent discrete series representations with Whittaker vectors. The explicit form of the constants that multiply the $q$-parts was conjectured in [@Re3], where the formula was also verified for exceptional split groups and all unipotent discrete series. Recently, this expression of formal degrees for all unipotent discrete series of unramified simple $p$-adic groups was verified in [@O3; @O4]; the method also relies on corresponding results for discrete series of affine Hecke algebras from [@OS2], [@CKK], and [@CO].
\[t:formal-degree\] Suppose $\pi_{x,\phi}\in \widehat{G(K)}^{\mathsf{un}}_{\mathsf{DS}}$ is parameterized by the pair $(x,\phi)$, for an elliptic element $x=su\in G^\vee$. Let $s'$ be as in (\[e:modified-s\]). The formal degree of $\pi$ equals $$\hat\mu(\pi_{x,\phi})=\frac{\phi(1)}{|A(x)||Z(G^\vee)|} m_x(q),\quad \text{where } m_x(q)=q^\nu\displaystyle{\frac{\prod'_{{{\alpha}}}(e_{{\alpha}}(s')-1)}{\prod'_{{\alpha}}(q e_{{\alpha}}(s')-1)}},$$ where $\prod'$ means that the zero factors are ignored, the products vary over all roots ${{\alpha}}$ of $(G^\vee,T^\vee)$, and $\nu$ is the number of positive roots.
{#sec:4.5}
To state our conjecture, fix $u$ a representative of a unipotent conjugacy class in $G^\vee$ such that $u$ is the unipotent part of an elliptic element in $G^\vee.$ Set $$\Gamma_u=Z_{G^\vee}(u)/Z_{G^\vee}(u)^0Z(G),$$ a finite group. Let $M(\Gamma_u)$, $M(\Gamma_u)'$, and $\{~.~\}$ be as in section \[sec:fourier\]. Recall that the elements of $M(\Gamma_u)$ are $\Gamma_u$-orbits of pairs $(y,\rho)$, where $y$ is an element of $\Gamma_u$ and $\rho$ is an irreducible representation of $C_{\Gamma_u}(y).$
Let $\Sigma_u$ be the set of $Z_{G^\vee}(u)$-orbits on $$\{(s,\phi):\ s\in
Z_{G^\vee}(u)\text{ semisimple},\ \phi\in\widehat{A(su)}\}.$$ If $s$ is such that $x=su$ is elliptic, then according to Theorem \[t:DLL\], the pair $(s,\phi)$ parameterizes an element of $\widehat{G(K)}^{\mathsf{un}}_{\mathsf{DS}}.$
Suppose $(s,\phi)\in\Sigma_u$ is given. Conjugating by $Z_{G^\vee}(u)^0$ if necessary, we may assume that $s\in T^\vee$. The natural inclusion $Z_{G^\vee}(su)\to Z_{G^\vee}(u)$ induces a map $A(su)\to A(u)$. This map is well defined because we have assumed $G^\vee$ to be simply-connected, thus $Z_{G^\vee}(s)$ is connected, and therefore $Z_{G^\vee}(su)^0=Z_{G^\vee}(s)\cap Z_{G^\vee}(u)^0$. If we denote by $\bar s$ the image of $s$ in $A(u)$, it is clear that the image of the map lands in $C_{A(u)}(\bar s).$ Therefore we have a well-defined map $$\label{e:components}
A(su)\longrightarrow C_{\Gamma_u}(\bar s).$$
When $u$ is distinguished, the map (\[e:components\]) is an isomorphism, but not in general. For example, suppose $s$ is a semisimple element in $E_7$ whose centralizer $Z_{G^\vee}(s)$ is of type $A_3+A_3+A_1$, and $u$ is a regular unipotent in $Z_{G^\vee}(s)$. The conjugacy class of $u$ in $E_7$ is labelled $A_4+A_1$ in Bala-Carter notation. Then $A(u)={{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ and $A(su)={{\mathbb Z}}/4{{\mathbb Z}}$, see [@Re3 page 71].
Suppose from now on that $u$ is distinguished. Then $\Sigma_u$ can be identified with $M(\Gamma_u)$ via the map $(s,\phi)\to (y,\rho),$ where $y=\bar s$ is the coset of $s$ in $\Gamma_u$, and $\rho$ is the irreducible representation of $C_{\Gamma_u}(y)$ corresponding to $\phi$ under the isomorphism (\[e:components\]). Therefore, the unique irreducible discrete series $\pi_{s,u,\phi}$ parameterized by $(s,u,\phi)\in \Sigma_u$ can be redenoted as $$\pi_{u,y,\rho},\text{ where }(y,\rho)\in M(\Gamma_u).$$ Now suppose the discrete series representation $(\pi_{x,\phi},V_{x,\phi})$ has nonzero vectors under the action of the Iwahori subgroup $I$. The space of Iwahori fixed vectors $V_{x,\phi}^I$ is a discrete series module for the Iwahori-Hecke algebra ${{\mathcal H}}(G(K),1_{\overline I})$. This algebra is obtained from the generic algebra ${{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},m)$ in Definition \[d:Hecke-generic\] with $m(s)\equiv 1$, by specializing $\mathbf q$ to $q$, the cardinality of the residue field of $K$. The module $V_{s,\phi}^I$ itself is the specialization $\mathbf q=q$ of an ${{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},m)$-module $Y_{x,\phi}(\mathbf q)$: $$V_{x,\phi}^I=Y_{x,\phi}(\mathbf q)|_{\mathbf q=q}.$$ Specializing instead to $\mathbf q=1$, one gets $$\lim V_{x,\phi}^I:= Y_{x,\phi}(\mathbf q)|_{\mathbf q=1},\text{ a module for } W^e.$$ Geometrically, this $W^e$-module is realized in the cohomology of the Springer fiber ${{\mathcal B}}_x=\{B^\vee\text{ Borel subgroup of }G^\vee: x\in B^\vee\}$, i.e., $$\lim V_{x,\phi}^I=H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_x)^\phi\otimes{\mathsf{sgn}}, \text { as }W^e\text{-modules},$$ see [@Re3 Corollary 8.1] which relies on results of [@Ka] and [@L6]. When the discrete series representation is denoted by $\pi_{u,y,\rho}$, let $\lim \pi_{u,y,\rho}^I$ denote the resulting $W^e$-module. With this notation, we may now state our main conjecture. It should be compared with Lusztig’s formula (\[formal-finite\]) for finite Lie groups.
\[conj-main\] The formal degree of the unipotent discrete series $G(K)$-representation $\pi_{u,y,\rho}$, for a distinguished unipotent element $u$, is given by $$\label{e:conj-main}
\hat\mu(\pi_{u,y,\rho})=\frac{1}{|Z(G^\vee)|}\sum_{(y',\rho')\in M(\Gamma_u)'}\{(y,\rho),(y',\rho')\}~ F^e_{[\lim\pi_{u,y',\rho'}^I]},$$ where $F^e_{[\lim\pi_{u,y',\rho'}^I]}$ is the elliptic fake degree from Definition \[d:ell-fake-affine\].
To extend Conjecture \[conj-main\] beyond the case when $u$ is distinguished, it appears that one needs to use for $\Gamma_u$ a larger group then $A(u)$. A likely candidate is given by the group (and the extension of the exotic Fourier transform) proposed recently by Lusztig in [@L5]. In section \[sec:sp4\], we present an example of non-distinguished $u$ where $A(u)$ is still sufficient for formal degrees.
Conjecture \[conj-main\] predicts another concrete interpretation of the $q$-part $m_x(q)$ of the formal degree from Theorem \[t:formal-degree\]. Write the elliptic element $x=su$ with $s\in T^\vee_{\mathsf{iso}}.$ By [@Ka], see [@Re3 Proposition 8.1], we know that $$\label{ind-coh}
H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_x)={\operatorname{Ind}}_s(H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}^{Z_{G^\vee}(s)}_u)),\text{ as }W^e\text{-modules},$$ where ${{\mathcal B}}^{Z_{G^\vee(s)}}_u$ is the Springer fiber of $u$ in the flag variety for $Z_{G^\vee}(s)$, and thus $H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}^{Z_{G^\vee}(s)}_u)$ is a $W_s$-representation. By Definition \[d:ell-fake-affine\], this implies that $$\label{nonzero-fake}
F^e_{[\lim\pi_{s,u,\phi}^I]},=\begin{cases}F^{W}_{[H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^\phi\otimes{\mathsf{sgn}}]},&\text{if } s=1,~\phi\in\widehat{A(u)}_0,\\
0,&\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ where $F^W_{[~]}$ is the elliptic fake degree for the finite group $W$ as in Definition \[d:ell-fake-finite\] and $\widehat{A(u)}_0$ is defined in (\[e:Springer-type\]).
This implies that the only entries of the exotic Fourier transform matrix that contribute are of the form: $$\{(y,\rho),(1,\rho')\}=\frac {\rho(1)}{|C_{\Gamma_u}(y)|}\rho'(y).$$ Changing to the notation $(s,u,\phi)\in\Sigma_u$ for the unipotent discrete series parameters, Conjecture \[conj-main\] is equivalent with: $$\label{conj-equiv}
\begin{aligned}
\hat\mu(\pi_{s,u,\phi})&=\frac{\phi(1)}{|C_{\Gamma_u}(s)||Z(G^\vee)|}\sum_{\phi'\in\widehat{A(u)}_0}\phi'(s) F^{W}_{[H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^{\phi'}\otimes{\mathsf{sgn}}]}\\
&=\frac{(1-q)^l\phi(1)}{|A(su)||Z(G^\vee)|}\left\langle\sum_{\phi'\in\widehat{A(u)}_0}\phi'(s)H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^{\phi'},\frac{1}{\det(1-q\cdot~)}\right\rangle_W^{\mathsf{ell}}\\
&=\frac{(1-q)^l\phi(1)}{|A(su)||Z(G^\vee)|}\left\langle H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^s,\frac{1}{\det(1-q\cdot~)}\right\rangle_W^{\mathsf{ell}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Here, we think of $s$ as an element of $A(u)$. Comparing this formula against Theorem \[t:formal-degree\], we can make following remark.
Conjecture \[conj-main\] predicts that if $x=su$, the $q$-part $m_x(q)$ of the formal degree for the unipotent discrete series $\pi_{x,\phi}$ is $$\label{e:conj-second}
m_q(x)=(1-q)^l~\left\langle H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^s,\frac
{1}{\det(1-q\cdot~)}\right\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W}.$$
{#section-15}
The expectation in (\[e:conj-second\]) has an interesting implication. Suppose $G^\vee$ is a classical group and $x=su$ and $x'=s'u'$ are representatives of distinct elliptic conjugacy classes in $G^\vee$ such that $u$ and $u'$ are distinguished. We claim that (\[e:conj-second\]) implies that $$\label{dist-packets}
m_x(q)=m_{x'}(q)\text{ if and only if } u=u'\text{ and }
\phi(s)=\phi(s')\text{ for all }\phi\in \widehat{A(u)}_0.$$ Indeed, by Corollary \[c:ind-ell\] and (\[e:conj-second\]), $$m_x(q)=m_{x'}(q)\text{ if and only if } H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^s=H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_{u'})^{s'}\text{ in }\overline R(W).$$ By [@R] or, equivalently, by the homological results from [@OS1] recalled in the next section, the set $\{H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^\phi\}$, where $u$ varies over representatives of the the distinguished unipotent classes and $\phi\in\widehat{A(u)}_0$, is orthonormal in $\overline R(W).$ Then (\[dist-packets\]) follows at once.
Let $G^\vee$ be simple. Suppose the unipotent element $u$ is distinguished and $s,s'\in\Gamma_u$. If $\phi(s)=\phi(s')$ for all $\phi\in\widehat{A(u)}_0$, then $s'$ is conjugate to $sz$, for some $z\in Z(G^\vee).$
Clearly the statement is equivalent with: if $s,s'\in A(u)$ such that $\phi(s)=\phi(s')$ for all $\phi\in\widehat{A(u)}_0,$ then $s'$ is conjugate to $s$ in $A(u).$
The nontrivial group $A(u)$ is one of $({{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})^k$, $S_3,$ $S_4,$ $S_5$. Suppose $A(u)=S_k$, $k=3,4,5$. The only $A(u)$-representation which is not in $\widehat{A(u)}_0$ is ${\mathsf{sgn}}$. It is easy to check that the other irreducible $A(u)$-representations separate the conjugacy classes.
Now assume $A(u)=({{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})^k.$ If $G$ is exceptional, $k=0,1$ and $\widehat{A(u)}=\widehat{A(u)}_0$, so the conclusion follows.
Suppose $G$ is classical. In type $A$, we only have the regular unipotent element $u$ for which $A(u)=\{1\}.$
If $G^\vee=Sp(2n)$, the distinguished unipotent element $u$ is parameterized by partitions $(2a_1,2a_2,\dots,2a_m)$ of $2n$, with $a_1<a_2<\dots<a_m$, $\Gamma_u=({{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})^m$ and $A(u)=\Gamma_u/({{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})_\triangle\cong({{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})^{m-1}.$ By allowing $a_1$ to be $0$, we may assume that $m=2t+1$ is odd. The irreducible representations of $\Gamma_u$ (or equivalently $A(u)$) of Springer type are in one-to-one correspondence with certain combinatorial objects, called symbols, introduced in [@L7 §11-13], simplifying and generalizing earlier work of Shoji [@Sh]. In our particular case, these symbols are of the form $$\label{S-symbol}
\left(\begin{matrix} b_1 & &b_2 && b_3 &&\dots &&b_{t+1}\\
&b_{t+2} &&b_{t+3}&&\dots &&b_{2t+1}\\
\end{matrix}\right),$$ where $b_1<b_2<\dots<b_{t+1}$, $b_{t+2}<b_{t+3}<\dots<b_{2t+1}$, and $$\{b_1,b_2,\dots,b_{2t+1}\}=\{a_j+(j-1): j=1,\dots,2t\}.$$ The symbol $$\label{triv-A}
\left(\begin{matrix} a_1 & &a_3+2 && a_5+4 &&\dots &&a_{2t+1}+2t\\
&a_{2}+1 &&a_{4}+3&&\dots &&a_{2t}+2t-1\\
\end{matrix}\right)$$ corresponds to the trivial $\Gamma_u$-representation. Now given a symbol (\[S-symbol\]), the corresponding $\Gamma_u$-representation has the trivial ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$-representation in the $j$-th position if the element $a_j+(j-1)$ occurs in the same row as in (\[triv-A\]), otherwise it has the ${\mathsf{sgn}}$ in the $j$-th position. Notice that in particular all the $\Gamma_u$-representations of the form $$\label{A-separate}
{\mathsf{triv}}\boxtimes\dots\boxtimes{\mathsf{triv}}\boxtimes{\mathsf{sgn}}\boxtimes{\mathsf{sgn}}\boxtimes{\mathsf{triv}}\boxtimes\dots\boxtimes{\mathsf{triv}}$$ appear, just by flipping two consecutive entries in the opposite rows of (\[triv-A\]). But these representations separate $A(u).$
When $G^\vee$ is an odd orthogonal group, the discussion is completely analogous with the $Sp(2n)$ case, and we skip the details.
Suppose $G^\vee$ is an even orthogonal group. The distinguished unipotent classes are parameterized by $(2a_1+1,2a_2+1,\dots,2a_{2t}+1)$, where $0\le a_1<a_2<\dots<a_{2t}$, for which $A(u)=({{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})^{2t-2}.$
The S-symbol corresponding to the trivial $A(u)$-representation is $$\label{triv-A-typeD}
\left(\begin{matrix} a_1 & a_3+2 & a_5+4 &\dots &a_{2t-1}+2t-2\\
a_{2}+1 &a_{4}+3&a_6+5&\dots &a_{2t}+2t-1\\
\end{matrix}\right),$$ and all other symbols are obtained by flipping entries between the rows (as in type $C$). There is one difference: two symbols which only differ by flipping the (full) rows are identified. To fix this, we require that $a_1$ is always in the top row. Then the discussion is as in type $C$, and the same representations (\[A-separate\]) separate $A(u)$.
In conclusion, we have the following remark.
Conjecture (\[e:conj-second\]) implies that, when $G$ is a classical group, the $q$-part of the formal degree determines uniquely (up to $Z(G^\vee)$) the L-packet of unipotent discrete series of $G(K)$, at least when the unipotent element $u$ is distinguished. This statement is known to hold for exceptional groups by [@Re3].
{#section-16}
Suppose $G$ is of type $G_2$ and $u$ is a representative of the subregular distinguished unipotent class, labelled $G_2(a_1)$. Then $\Gamma_u=A(u)=S_3.$ The sets $M(S_3)$ and $M(S_3)'$ have cardinalities $8$ and $4$, respectively.
There are $3$ semisimple elements in $T^\vee_{\mathsf{iso}}$, which we denote by $s_0=1$, $s_1$, and $s_2.$ The corresponding centralizers in $G^\vee=G_2$ have types $G_2$, $A_1\times {{\widetilde {A}}}_1,$ and $A_2$, respectively.
There are $8$ unipotent discrete series parameterized by $u$. They are divided into three L-packets as in Table \[t:G2-packets\].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$Z_{G^\vee}(s)$ $A(s,u)$ $ \phi\in\widehat{A(s,u)}$ $(y,\rho)\in Notes
M(\Gamma_u)$
---------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------ -----------------------------------------------------
$G_2$ $S_3$ $1$ $(1,1)$ Iwahori, generic real c.c.
${\mathsf{refl}}$ $(1,r)$ Iwahori, nongeneric real c.c.
${\mathsf{sgn}}$ $(1,\epsilon)$ supercuspidal $G_2[1]$
$A_1+{{\widetilde {A}}}_1$ ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ $1$ $(g_2,1)$ Iwahori, endoscopic $A_1\times{{\widetilde {A}}}_1$
${\mathsf{sgn}}$ $(g_2,\epsilon)$ supercuspidal $G_2[-1]$
$A_2$ ${{\mathbb Z}}/3{{\mathbb Z}}$ $1$ $(g_3,1)$ Iwahori, endoscopic $A_2$
$\zeta$ $(g_3,\theta)$ supercuspidal $G_2[\zeta]$
$\zeta^2$ $(g_3,\theta^2)$ supercuspidal $G_2[\zeta^2]$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Unipotent parameters for $u=G_2(a_1)$, $\Gamma_u=S_3$, in $G_2$\[t:G2-packets\]
Only the discrete series corresponding to the first two lines have nonzero elliptic fake degrees and these are given by the entries in Table \[t:G2\]. The entries of the Fourier matrix $\{~,~\}$ are, for example, in [@Ca page 457]. Multiplying the relevant $8\times 2$ of the matrix with the $2\times 1$ vector of nonzero elliptic fake degrees, we obtain the vector of $8$ formal degrees from Table \[t:G2-formal\], compare with [@Re-Iw section 7].
$Z_{G^\vee}(s)$ $ \phi\in\widehat{A(s,u)}$ Formal degree
---------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------
$G_2$ $1$ $\frac 16 \frac{q(1-q)^2}{\Phi_2^2\Phi_3}$
${\mathsf{refl}}$ $\frac 13 \frac{q(1-q)^2}{\Phi_2^2\Phi_3}$
${\mathsf{sgn}}$ $\frac 16 \frac{q(1-q)^2}{\Phi_2^2\Phi_3}$
$A_1+{{\widetilde {A}}}_1$ $1$ $\frac 12 \frac{q(1-q)^2}{\Phi_2\Phi_6}$
${\mathsf{sgn}}$ $\frac 12 \frac{q(1-q)^2}{\Phi_2\Phi_6}$
$A_2$ $1$ $\frac 13 \frac{q(1-q)^2}{\Phi_3\Phi_6}$
$\zeta$ $\frac 13 \frac{q(1-q)^2}{\Phi_3\Phi_6}$
$\zeta^2$ $\frac 13 \frac{q(1-q)^2}{\Phi_3\Phi_6}$
: Formal degrees, $u=G_2(a_1)$, $\Gamma_u=S_3$, in $G_2$\[t:G2-formal\]
In the same way, using the explicit tables of elliptic fake degrees from section \[sec:ell\], we verified Conjecture \[conj-main\] for all exceptional simple $p$-adic groups, when the unipotent element $u$ is distinguished, via a comparison with the known expressions for formal degrees from [@Re3].
{#sec:sp4}
We offer another interesting example. Suppose $G^\vee=Sp(4,{{\mathbb C}})$. Let $s\in G^\vee$ be a semisimple element such that $Z_{G^\vee}(s)=SL(2,{{\mathbb C}})\times SL(2,{{\mathbb C}})$, and $u$ be a regular unipotent element in $Z_{G^\vee}(s).$ Then $Z_{G^\vee}(u)\cong
O(2,{{\mathbb C}})$ and $\Gamma_u={{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}.$ The sets $M({{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})$ and $M({{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})'$ have cardinalities $4$ and $2$, respectively. If we denote by $\tau$ the nontrivial element in $\Gamma_u$, the Fourier transform matrix is: $$\label{FT:Z2}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$&$(1,1)$ &$(1,\epsilon)$ &$(\tau,1)$ &$(\tau,\epsilon)$\\
\hline
$(1,1)$ &$1/2$ &$1/2$ &$1/2$ &$1/2$\\
\hline
$(1,\epsilon)$ &$1/2$ &$1/2$ &$-1/2$ &$-1/2$\\
\hline
$(\tau,1)$ &$1/2$ &$-1/2$ &$1/2$ &$-1/2$\\
\hline
$(\tau,\epsilon)$ &$1/2$ &$-1/2$ &$-1/2$ &$1/2$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}$$ There are four elliptic unipotent representations attached to $u$, as listed in Table \[t:C2-packets\]. There are two discrete series representations, one of which is supercuspidal, attached to $(\tau,1),(\tau,\epsilon)\in M({{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}})$ in the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$Z_{G^\vee}(s)$ $A(s,u)$ $ \phi\in\widehat{A(s,u)}$ $(y,\rho)\in Notes
M(\Gamma_u)$
----------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------- -----------------------------------------
$Sp(4,{{\mathbb C}})$ ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ $1$ $(1,1)$ Iwahori, generic real c.c.
${\mathsf{sgn}}$ $(1,\epsilon)$ Iwahori, nongeneric real c.c.
$SL(2)\times SL(2)$ ${{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$ $1$ $(\tau,1)$ Iwahori, endoscopic $SL(2)\times SL(2)$
${\mathsf{sgn}}$ $(\tau,\epsilon)$ supercuspidal
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Unipotent elliptic parameters for $u=(2,2)$, $\Gamma_u={{\mathbb Z}}/2{{\mathbb Z}}$, in $Sp(4,{{\mathbb C}})$\[t:C2-packets\]
The two nonzero elliptic fake degrees are $$F^e_{[\lim \pi^I_{u,1,1}]}=\frac {q(1-q)^2}{(1+q^2)(1+q)^2} \text{ and } F^e_{[\lim \pi^I_{u,1,\epsilon}]}=- \frac {q(1-q)^2}{(1+q^2)(1+q)^2}.$$ Then (\[e:conj-main\]) gives $$\hat\mu(\pi_{u,1,1}) =\hat\mu(\pi_{u,1,\epsilon})=0 \text{ and }
\hat\mu(\pi_{u,\tau,1})= \hat\mu(\pi_{u,\tau,\epsilon})=\frac 12 \frac{q(1-q)^2}{(1+q^2)(1+q)^2}.$$ This is consistent: $\mu(\pi_{u,1,1})$ and $\mu(\pi_{u,\tau,1})$ are not discrete series representations, so the Plancherel measure should be zero, while the results for formal degrees for the two remaining discrete series can be checked against [@Re-Iw Proposition 7.3].
Formal degrees in the Iwahori case {#sec:Iwahori}
==================================
In this section, we devise an approach towards verifying Conjecture \[conj-main\] directly, i.e., without refering to Theorem \[t:formal-degree\], at least for the discrete series with Iwahori fixed vectors, since in that case there is no difference between the formal degrees for the discrete series of the group and the ones for the Iwahori-Hecke algebra, see Example \[ex:Iwahori\].
{#section-17}
Recall the generic affine Hecke algebra from Definition \[d:Hecke-generic\], and its specialization ${{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},m).$ Now specialize further $\mathbf q$ to $q>1.$ The algebra ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}={{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},m)$ has a structure of normalized Hilbert algebra studied in [@O]. Let $*:{{{{\mathcal H}}}}\to{{{{\mathcal H}}}}$ be the conjugate linear anti-involution defined on the basis by $$N_w^*=N_{w^{-1}},$$ and let $\tau:{{{{\mathcal H}}}}\to{{\mathbb C}}$ be the trace $$\tau(N_w)=\delta_{w,1}.$$ The pairing $(x,y)=\tau(x^*y)$ is a positive definite hermitian form on ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}$ such that the basis $\{N_w:w\in W^e\}$ is orthonormal with respect to it. Let $C^*_r({{\mathcal H}})$ be the reduced $C^*$-algebra completion of ${{\mathcal H}}.$ By [@O Theorem 2.25], the abstract Plancherel formula holds, i.e., there exists a unique positive Borel measure $\hat\mu$ (the Plancherel measure of ${{\mathcal H}}$) on $\widehat{C^*_r({{{{\mathcal H}}}})}$ such that $$\label{e:Plancherel}
\tau(x)=\int_{\widehat{C^*_r({{{{\mathcal H}}}})}} {\operatorname{tr}}\pi(x) d\hat\mu(\pi),\quad x\in{{{{\mathcal H}}}}.$$
A simple ${{\mathcal H}}$-module $\pi$ is called a tempered module if $\pi$ can be extended to a $C^*_r({{\mathcal H}})$-module, i.e., if $\pi$ occurs in the support of the Plancherel measure $\hat\mu$ (\[e:Plancherel\]).
It is called a discrete series module if $\hat\mu(\{\pi\})>0.$ The scalar $\hat\mu_\pi:=\hat\mu(\{\pi\})$ is called the formal degree of the discrete series $\pi.$
{#section-18}
We present from [@OS1] the homological formula for computing $\hat\mu_\pi$. Assume from now on that the root datum ${{\mathcal R}}$ is semisimple, i.e., that $\Omega$ is finite, or else there are no discrete series representations.
Let $E=X\otimes_{{\mathbb Z}}{{\mathbb R}}$, and let $A_\emptyset$ be the fundamental alcove for the action of $W^e$ on $E$. The action of $\Omega$ preserves $A_\emptyset$. The facets of $A_\emptyset$ are in one-to-one correspondence with subsets $J\subset F^a$: $$A_J:=\{v\in E: \langle v, \mathbf a\rangle=0,\forall\mathbf a\in J,\
\langle v,\mathbf a'\rangle>0,\forall \mathbf a'\in F^a\setminus J\}.$$ Let $\Omega_J$ denote the stabilizer in $\Omega$ of $A_J$ and $W_J$ be the subgroup of $W^a$ generated by $\{s_{\mathbf a}:\mathbf a\in J\}.$ Define $${{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},J,m)={{\mathcal H}}(W_J,m)\rtimes\Omega_J.$$ Here, ${{\mathcal H}}(W_J,m)$ is the finite Hecke algebra generated by $W_J$ and with parameters obtained from the restriction of $m$ to $J.$ By [@OS1 Lemma 1.4], the algebra ${{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},J,m)$ is semisimple for all $J$. For every irreducible ${{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},J,m)$-module $\sigma$, let $e_\sigma\in {{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},J,m)$ denote the corresponding primitive central idempotent, and let $\dim\sigma$ be the dimension of $\sigma.$ Let $\overline S^a$ denote a set of representatives for the orbits of $\Omega$ on $S^a.$ Finally, let ${{\epsilon}}_J$ denote the orientation character of $\Omega_J$, i.e., the determinant of the linear action of $\Omega_J$ on $E/\text{span}(A_J).$
The Euler-Poincaré function $f_{\mathsf{EP}}^\pi$ associated to an irreducible ${{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},m)$-module $(\pi,V)$ is $$f_{\mathsf{EP}}^\pi=\sum_{J\in \overline S^a}
(-1)^{|J|}\sum_{\sigma\in{\mathsf{Irr}}{{{{\mathcal H}}}}({{{{\mathcal R}}}},J,m)}\frac {[\pi\otimes{{\epsilon}}_J:\sigma]}{\dim\sigma} e_\sigma,$$ where $[\pi\otimes{{\epsilon}}_J:\sigma]$ denotes the multiplicity of $\sigma$ in $\pi|_{{{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},J,m)}\otimes{{\epsilon}}_J.$
The functions $f_{\mathsf{EP}}^\pi$ play an essential role in the elliptic representation theory of ${{\mathcal H}}$ as we recall next.
{#section-19}
Let ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}$-mod denote the category of finite dimensional ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}$-modules, $\widehat{{{{\mathcal H}}}}$ the simple objects in ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}$-mod, $\widehat{{{{\mathcal H}}}}_{\mathsf{DS}}$ the set of simple discrete series modules. Let ${{\mathcal R}}({{\mathcal H}})$ denote the Grothendieck group of finite dimensional ${{\mathcal H}}$-modules. The Euler-Poincar' e pairing on ${{\mathcal R}}({{\mathcal H}})$ is $$\label{e:EP}
\langle~,~\rangle^{\mathsf{EP}}_{{{{\mathcal H}}}}: {{\mathcal R}}({{{{\mathcal H}}}})\times {{\mathcal R}}({{{{\mathcal H}}}}),\ \langle\pi,\pi'\rangle^{\mathsf{EP}}_{{{{\mathcal H}}}}=\sum_{i\ge 0}(-1)^i\dim{\operatorname{Ext}}_{{{{\mathcal H}}}}^i(\pi,\pi'),\ \pi,\pi'\in{{\mathcal H}}\text{-mod}.$$ This is well-defined, since ${{\mathcal H}}$-mod has finite cohomological dimension [@OS1 Proposition 2.4].
\[t:EP\]
1. If $\pi,\pi'\in{{{{\mathcal H}}}}$-mod, then $\langle\pi,\pi'\rangle^{\mathsf{EP}}_{{{{\mathcal H}}}}={\operatorname{tr}}\pi(f_{\mathsf{EP}}^{\pi'}).$
2. Suppose $\pi'$ is a simple tempered ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}$-module and $\pi\in\widehat{{{{\mathcal H}}}}_{\mathsf{DS}}.$ Then $${\operatorname{Ext}}_{{{{\mathcal H}}}}^i(\pi,\pi')=\begin{cases}{{\mathbb C}},&\text{if }\pi\cong\pi'\text{ and }i=0,\\ 0,&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}$$
Using Theorem \[t:EP\] and plugging in $f^\pi_{\mathsf{EP}}$ in (\[e:Plancherel\]), one immediately obtains an explicit formula for the formal degree of $\pi\in\widehat{{{{\mathcal H}}}}_{\mathsf{DS}}$, cf. [@OS2 Theorem 4.3]. To state it, let $\hat\mu^f_\sigma$ be the formal degree of the simple module $\sigma$ for the finite (semisimple) algebra $ {{{{\mathcal H}}}}({{{{\mathcal R}}}},J,m)$. Then: $$\label{formal-homological}
\hat\mu_\pi=\tau(f^\pi_{\mathsf{EP}})=\sum_{J\in \overline S^a}
(-1)^{|J|}\sum_{\sigma\in{\mathsf{Irr}}{{{{\mathcal H}}}}({{{{\mathcal R}}}},J,m)}{[\pi\otimes{{\epsilon}}_J:\sigma]}\frac{\hat\mu^f_\sigma}{P_J(q,m)},$$ where $P_J(q,m)$ is the Poincaré polynomial of ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}({{{{\mathcal R}}}},J,m).$
{#section-20}
From now on, assume we are in the setting of an Iwahori-Hecke algebra of a split group. For simplicity, we also assume that $W^e=W^a,$ i.e., the $p$-adic group is simply connected. In our notation, this is ${{\mathcal H}}={{\mathcal H}}({{\mathcal R}},1).$ As it is well-known, the simple modules of the finite Hecke algebras ${{{{\mathcal H}}}}({{{{\mathcal R}}}},J,1)$ are in one-to-one correspondence with irreducible representations of the finite Weyl group $W_J.$ If $\delta\in \widehat W_J$, write $d_\delta(q)$ for the generic degree of $\delta$ (this corresponds to $\hat\mu^f_\sigma$ in (\[formal-homological\]).
As in section \[sec:4.5\], write $\lim\pi\in R(W^a)$ for the “limit” $\mathbf q\to 1$ of the ${{\mathcal H}}$-module $\pi.$
We may then rewrite (\[formal-homological\]) as: $$\label{formal-homological-2}
\hat\mu_\pi=\sum_{J\subset S^a}
(-1)^{|J|}\sum_{\delta\in\widehat W_J}{[\lim\pi:\delta]}\frac{d_\delta(q)}{P_J(q)}.$$
We need a lemma first.
\[l:elliptic-affine\] Suppose $C$ is an elliptic conjugacy class in $W^a$. Then there exists one and only one maximal $J\subsetneq S^a$ such that $C\cap W_J\neq\emptyset,$ and in this case $C\cap W_J$ forms a single elliptic $W_J$-conjugacy class.
Let $t_xw\in W^a$ be an element of an elliptic class $C$. Suppose $e\in E$ is a fixed point for $t_x w$, i.e., $(t_x w)(e)=e$, which is equivalent with $x=(1-w)e$. Since $w\in W$ is necessarily elliptic, $1-w$ is invertible, and therefore $e=(1-w)^{-1}x$ is a unique fixed point. Conjugating $t_xw$ if necessary, we may assume that $e$ is in the closure of the fundamental alcove, and therefore $t_wx\in Z_{W^a}(e)$, a parahoric subgroup. Since $w\in W$ is elliptic, it is necessary that $Z_{W^a}(e)=W_J$, for $J$ maximal, in other words, that $e$ is a vertex of the fundamental alcove. The fact that $C\cap W_J$ is a unique $W_J$-conjugacy class follows from the uniqueness of the fixed point: if $(t_xw)e=e$ and $g(t_x w)g^{-1} e=e$ for some $g\in W^a$, then $g^{-1}e$ is also a fixed point of $t_x w$, and therefore $g^{-1}e=e,$ so $g\in W_J.$
In light of Lemma \[l:elliptic-affine\], if $C_J$ is an elliptic conjugacy class of $W_J$, where $J\subsetneq S^a$ is maximal, then we may denote the unique elliptic conjugacy class in $W^a$ that meets $C_J$ by $C_J^a.$
Define the class function $\nu: W^a\to
{{\mathbb Q}}(q),$ by $$\nu(C)=\begin{cases}0,&\text{if }C\text{ is not elliptic},\\
(-1)^l\displaystyle{\sum_{\delta\in\widehat W_J}\delta(C\cap
W_J)\frac{d_\delta(q)}{P_J(q)}},&\text{if }C=C_J^a \text{ is elliptic}.
\end{cases}$$
\[p:new-formal\] For every discrete series $\pi\in\widehat{{{\mathcal H}}}_{\mathsf{DS}}$, the formal degree equals $$\hat\mu_\pi=\langle\lim\pi,\nu\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a},$$ where $\langle~,~\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a}$ is the affine elliptic pairing from (\[affine-ell-pair\]).
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\lim\pi,\nu\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a}&=\sum_{C\text{ elliptic in }W^a}
\lim\pi(C)\nu(C)\mu_{\mathsf{ell}}(C)\ \text{(by the definition of the elliptic
pairing)}\\
&=\sum_{\substack{J\subsetneq S^a\\ \text{ maximal}}}\sum_{\substack{C_J\subset
W_J\\ \text{elliptic}}}\lim\pi(C_J^a)\nu(C_J^a)\frac{|C_J|}{|W_J|}\ \text{(by Lemma
\ref{l:elliptic-affine} and definition of $\mu_{\mathsf{ell}}$)}\\
&=(-1)^l\sum_{\substack{J\subsetneq S^a\\ \text{ maximal}}}\sum_{\substack{C_J\subset
W_J\text{ elliptic}\\ \delta\in\widehat
W_J}}\lim\pi(C_J)\delta(C_J)\frac{|C_J|}{|W_J|}\frac
{d_\delta(q)}{P_J(q)}\\
&=\sum_{\substack{J\subsetneq S^a}}(-1)^{|J|}\sum_{\substack{C_J\subset
W_J\\ \delta\in\widehat
W_J}}\lim\pi(C_J)\delta(C_J)\frac{|C_J|}{|W_J|}\frac
{d_\delta(q)}{P_J(q)}=\hat\mu_\pi \text{ (by
(\ref{formal-homological-2})). }
\end{aligned}$$ The second to last step is justified as follows. Firstly, the set $\{\lim\pi': \pi'\in R_{{\operatorname{ind}}}({{{{\mathcal H}}}})\}$ separates all conjugacy classes in all $W_J$’s with $J\subsetneq S^a$ not maximal. Secondly, $\lim\pi'(C)=0$ for all $\pi'\in R_{{\operatorname{ind}}}({{{{\mathcal H}}}})$ and all $C\subset W^a$ elliptic. Therefore, we can choose a virtual properly induced module $\pi'$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{J\subsetneq S^a}}\sum_{\substack{C_J\subset
W_J\\ \delta\in\widehat
W_J}}\lim\pi'(C_J)\delta(C_J)\frac{|C_J|}{|W_J|}\frac
{d_\delta(q)}{P_J(q)}=&-\sum_{\substack{J\subsetneq S^a}}\sum_{\substack{C_J\subset
W_J\\ \delta\in\widehat
W_J}}\lim\pi(C_J)\delta(C_J)\frac{|C_J|}{|W_J|}\frac
{d_\delta(q)}{P_J(q)}\\
&+\sum_{C\text{ elliptic in }W^a}
\lim\pi(C)\nu(C)\mu_{\mathsf{ell}}(C).\end{aligned}$$ Notice that the left hand side of the above equality is exactly $\hat\mu_{\pi'}$, and this equals $0$, since $\pi'\in R_{{\operatorname{ind}}}({{{{\mathcal H}}}}).$
{#section-21}
We use the relation between formal degrees and fake degrees for representations of finite Weyl groups from section \[sec:fourier\].
Let ${{\mathcal W}}$ be a finite Weyl group. Using the exotic Fourier transform, we define a pairing $$\label{exotic-pair-Groth}
\{~,~\}: R({{\mathcal W}})_{{\mathbb C}}\times R({{\mathcal W}})_{{\mathbb C}}\to {{\mathbb C}},$$ as follows. If $\delta,\delta'\in\widehat {{{\mathcal W}}}$ are given, set $\{\delta,\delta'\}=0$ if they are not in the same family. Otherwise, let $\{\delta,\delta'\}$ be the entry in the exotic Fourier transform $\{~,~\}$ for the pair of elements in $M(\Gamma)'$ that parameterize $\delta$ and $\delta'$. Extend $\{~,~\}$ bilinearly to a pairing on $R({{\mathcal W}})_{{\mathbb C}}$.
In particular, this definition applies to ${{\mathcal W}}= W_J$, $J\subsetneq S^a$, in which case we denote the pairing by $\{~,~\}^J$ to emphasize the dependence on $J$.
By (\[formal-finite\]), we have $$\label{delta/P}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{d_\delta(q)}{P_J(q)}&=\sum_{\delta'\in\widehat
W_J}\{\delta,\delta'\}^J
\frac{f_{\delta'}(q)}{P_J(q)}=(1-q)^l\sum_{\delta'\in\widehat W_J}
\{\delta,\delta'\}^J~\left\langle\delta',\frac
1{\det(1-q\cdot~)}\right\rangle_{W_J}\\
&=(1-q)^l\sum_{C_J'\subset W_J}\sum_{\delta'\in\widehat W_J}
\{\delta,\delta'\}^J~ \delta'(C_J')~\frac
1{\det(1-qC_J')}\frac{|C_J'|}{|W_J|};
\end{aligned}$$ here $C_J'$ ranges over the conjugacy classes in $W_J.$
{#section-22}
Now suppose again that ${{\mathcal W}}$ is an arbitrary finite Weyl group. Define the linear map $${\mathsf{EF}}: R({{\mathcal W}})_{{\mathbb C}}\to R({{\mathcal W}})_{{\mathbb C}},\quad {\mathsf{EF}}(\chi)=\sum_{\delta'\in \widehat{{{\mathcal W}}}} \{\chi,\delta'\}\delta'.$$
We expect that ${\mathsf{EF}}$ takes induced characters to induced characters, i.e., $$\label{ell-ind}
{\mathsf{EF}}(R_{{\operatorname{ind}}}({{\mathcal W}}))\subset R_{{\operatorname{ind}}}({{\mathcal W}}).$$ A stronger conjecture is that the Fourier transform commutes with parabolic induction ${\operatorname{ind}}_L$, where ${{\mathcal W}}_L$ is a proper parabolic subgroup of ${{\mathcal W}}$, i.e., $$\label{Fourier-ind}
{\operatorname{ind}}_L({\mathsf{EF}}^L(\delta))={\mathsf{EF}}({\operatorname{ind}}_L(\delta)),\ \delta\in R({{\mathcal W}}_L).$$ For example, if $\delta$ is a left cell representation of ${{\mathcal W}}_L$, then by [@L1 Theorem 12.2], ${\mathsf{EF}}^L(\delta)=\delta$. Moreover, by [@BV Proposition 3.15], ${\operatorname{ind}}_L(\delta)$ is a sum of left cell representations, and so (\[Fourier-ind\]) holds in this case. In particular, if ${{\mathcal W}}_L$ is a product of symmetric groups (such as in $G_2$), (\[Fourier-ind\]) is true.
Equation (\[Fourier-ind\]) can be reformulated in terms of unipotent representations of finite groups of Lie type as follows. Retain the notation from section \[sec:fourier\]. In particular, the unipotent almost-characters $R_{{{\mathcal E}}}$ are defined for each ${{\mathcal E}}\in \widehat {{{\mathcal W}}}.$ One can extend the definition by linearity so that $R_{{{\mathcal E}}}$ makes sense for every ${{\mathcal E}}\in R({{\mathcal W}}).$ We need to distinguish between almost-characters for the group $G^F$ and almost characters for a Levi subgroup $L^F$ of a parabolic subgroup $P^F$, so write $R^{G^F}_{{{\mathcal E}}}$, ${{\mathcal E}}\in R({{\mathcal W}})$ for the former, and $R^{L^F}_{\phi}$, $\phi\in R({{\mathcal W}}_L)$ for the latter. Then (\[Fourier-ind\]) is equivalent with $$R^{G^F}_{{\operatorname{Ind}}_{{{\mathcal W}}_L}^{{{\mathcal W}}}(\phi)}={\operatorname{Ind}}_{P^F}^{G^F}(R^{L^F}_\phi),\quad
\phi\in\widehat {{{\mathcal W}}}_L.$$
{#section-23}
Let ${\mathsf{EF}}^J: R(W_J)_{{\mathbb C}}\to R(W_J)_{{\mathbb C}}$ be the linear map defined in the previous subsection, specialized to the case ${{\mathcal W}}=W_J$, $J\subsetneq S^a.$ Assuming that (\[ell-ind\]) is true, $${\mathsf{EF}}^J_{\mathsf{ell}}={\mathsf{EF}}^J|_{{\mathsf{Ell}}(W_J)}: {\mathsf{Ell}}(W_J)\to {\mathsf{Ell}}(W_J).$$
We rewrite the formula in Proposition \[p:new-formal\] along the lines of (\[delta/P\]). For simplicity of notation, suppose $v\in \overline R(W^a)$ is given; this vector will be later specialized to $\lim\pi.$ Denote the delta function at a conjugacy class $C$ by ${1\!\!1}_{C}.$ Define $$F^a_{\mathsf{ell}}=\sum_{J \text{ max}} \sum_{C_J\subset W_J\text{ ell}}\frac
1{\det(1-qC_J)} {1\!\!1}_{C_J}.$$ We have: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\mu_v&=\langle v,\nu\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a}\\
&=(q-1)^l\sum_{\substack{J\subsetneq S^a\\ \text{ max}}}\sum_{\substack{C_J\subset
W_J\\ \text{ell}}} v(C_J)\frac{|C_J|}{|W_J|}\sum_{\delta\in\widehat
W_J}\delta(C_J)\sum_{\substack{C_J'\subset W_J\\ \delta'\in\widehat
W_J}}[\delta,\delta']^J \delta'(C_J')\frac
1{\det(1-qC_J')}\frac{|C_J'|}{|W_J|}\\
&=(q-1)^l \sum_{\substack{C_J\subset
W_J\\ \text{ell}}}\sum_{C_J'\subset W_J} \langle
v,{1\!\!1}_{C_J}\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a} \left( \sum_{\delta,\delta'\in\widehat
W_J} \delta(C_J)[\delta,\delta']^J\delta'(C_J')\right) \langle
{1\!\!1}_{C_J'}, F^a_{\mathsf{ell}}\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a}\\
&= (q-1)^l \sum_{\substack{C_J,C_J'\subset
W_J\\ \text{ell}}}\langle
v,{1\!\!1}_{C_J}\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a} ~\langle{1\!\!1}_{C_J}|{\mathsf{EF}}^J_{\mathsf{ell}}|{1\!\!1}_{C_J'}\rangle~\langle
{1\!\!1}_{C_J'}, F^a_{\mathsf{ell}}\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a},\\
\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle{1\!\!1}_{C_J}|{\mathsf{EF}}^J_{\mathsf{ell}}|{1\!\!1}_{C_J'}\rangle$ is the appropriate entry in the matrix of ${\mathsf{EF}}^J_\ell$ in the basis given by the ${1\!\!1}_C$, where $C$ ranges over the elliptic classes in $W_J.$
Motivated by this formula, it makes sense to define the linear isomorphism $${\mathsf{EF}}^a_{\mathsf{ell}}=\bigoplus_{J\subset S^a\text{ max}}\ {\mathsf{EF}}^J_{\mathsf{ell}}:
{\mathsf{Ell}}(W^a)\to {\mathsf{Ell}}(W^a).$$ If we fix an orthogonal basis $\{v'\}$ of ${\mathsf{Ell}}(W^a)$ we may write $$\langle
{1\!\!1}_{C_J'}, F^a_{\mathsf{ell}}\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a}=\sum_{v'}\langle
{1\!\!1}_{C_J'},v'\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a} F^a_{v',{\mathsf{ell}}}, \text{ where }
F^a_{v',{\mathsf{ell}}}=\frac 1{\langle v',v'\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a}}\langle v', F^a_{\mathsf{ell}}\rangle^{\mathsf{ell}}_{W^a}.$$
Then our calculation can be expressed as follows.
Assume that (\[Fourier-ind\]) holds for every $J\subsetneq S^a$. The formal degree of $v=\lim\pi$ is given by $$\hat\mu_v=\sum_{v'}\langle v|{\mathsf{EF}}^a_{\mathsf{ell}}|v'\rangle F^a_{v',{\mathsf{ell}}},$$ where $v'$ ranges over an orthogonal basis $B_{\mathsf{ell}}(W^a)$ of $\overline R(W^a)$ (such bases exists, see [@COT Section 5]).
When the root datum is both simply-connected and adjoint, we expect the following
\[conj-ell-a\] The matrix of ${\mathsf{EF}}^a_{\mathsf{ell}}$ in the basis $B_{\mathsf{ell}}(W^a)$ equals the submatrix of the exotic Fourier transform with rows/columns corresponding to the elements of $B_{\mathsf{ell}}(W^a).$
{#section-24}
We illustrate the previous calculations in the case of $G_2.$ Let ${{\alpha}}$ be the short simple root and $\beta$ the long simple root. Let $\theta$ be the short highest root. The affine Dynkin diagram is $$G_2: \quad a_0-a_1\equiv a_2,$$ where $a_0=1-\theta^\vee$, $a_1={{\alpha}}^\vee$, and $a_2=\beta^\vee.$ The elliptic conjugacy classes in $W^a$, i.e., the “arithmetic” side, are as follows:
1. $J_0=\{a_1,a_2\}$ gives $C_1^a=C(s_1s_2)$, $C_2^a=C((s_1s_2)^2)$, and $C_3^a=C((s_1s_2)^3)$;
2. $J_1=\{a_0,a_2\}$ gives $C_4^a=C(s_0s_2)$;
3. $J_2=\{a_0,a_1\}$ gives $C_5^a=C(s_0s_1)$.
On the dual, “spectral” side, there are three isolated points $t_i$ in $T^\vee={\operatorname{Hom}}(X,C^\times)$ with endoscopic groups and representatives of elliptic tempered representations (in fact discrete series representations) as follows:
1. $t_0=1$, $W_{t_0}=W(G_2)$: $v_1=V_{\mathsf{St}}^{t_0}$, with $v_1|_W=\phi_{(1,6)} $, $v_2=V_{\mathsf{refl}}^{t_0}$, with $v_2|_W=\phi_{(1,6)}+\phi_{(2,1)}$, and $v_3=V_{{(1,3)''}}^{t_0}$, with $v_3|_W=\phi_{(1,3)}''$;
2. $t_1=\exp(\frac 13\theta^\vee)$, $W_{t_1}=W(A_2)$, with $v_4=V_{A_2}^{t_1}={\operatorname{Ind}}_{W_{t_1}\ltimes X}^{W^a}(\mathsf{St}\otimes t_1)$;
3. $t_2=\exp(\frac 12\psi^\vee)$, $W_{t_2}=W(A_1\times A_1)$, with $v_5=V_{A_1\times A_1}^{t_2}={\operatorname{Ind}}_{W_{t_2}\ltimes
X}^{W^a}(\mathsf{St}\otimes t_2).$
Here $\mathsf{St}$ means the Steinberg module, and the notation for $W(G_2)$-representations is as in [@Ca]. The basis $\{v_1,\dots,v_5\}$ in $\overline R(W^a)$ is orthonormal (as it is formed of characters of discrete series modules). We record in Table \[t:G2-char-ell\] the characters of $v_i$ on the conjugacy classes $C_j^a$.
$C_1^a$ $C_2^a$ $C_3^a$ $C_4^a$ $C_5^a$
---------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
$\mu_{\mathsf{ell}}$ $1/6$ $1/6$ $1/12$ $1/4$ $1/3$
$v_1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$
$v_2$ $2$ $0$ $-1$ $-1$ $0$
$v_3$ $-1$ $1$ $-1$ $-1$ $1$
$v_4$ $0$ $2$ $0$ $0$ $-1$
$v_5$ $0$ $0$ $3$ $-1$ $0$
: Elliptic character table of affine Weyl group of type $G_2$\[t:G2-char-ell\]
A direct calculation gives $${\mathsf{EF}}^{J_0}_{\mathsf{ell}}=\left(\begin{matrix}1/6 &1/2 &1/3\\
1/2 &1/2 &0\\ 2/3 &0 &1/3\end{matrix}\right),$$ in the basis $\{{1\!\!1}_{C_1^a},{1\!\!1}_{C_2^a},{1\!\!1}_{C_3^a}\}.$ Moreover, ${\mathsf{EF}}^{J_1}_{\mathsf{ell}}=1$ and ${\mathsf{EF}}^{J_2}_{\mathsf{ell}}=1.$ Conjugating ${\mathsf{EF}}^a_{\mathsf{ell}}$ in the basis of ${1\!\!1}_{C^a_j}$’s by the character table \[t:G2-char-ell\], we find $${\mathsf{EF}}^a_{\mathsf{ell}}=\left(\begin{matrix}1 &&&&\\ &1/6 &1/3 &1/3 &1/2\\ &1/3
&2/3 &1/3 &0\\ &1/3 &-1/3 &2/3 &0\\ &1/2 &0 &0 &1/2\end{matrix}\right),$$ in the basis $\{v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,v_5\}.$ This confirms Conjecture \[conj-ell-a\] in the case of $G_2$.
Elliptic fake degrees for exceptional Weyl groups {#sec:exc}
=================================================
For a finite Weyl group $W$ of exceptional type, we give explicit formulas for elliptic fake degrees in the following tables. For simplicity, denote by $X(u,\phi)=H^\bullet({{\mathcal B}}_u)^\phi$ the Springer representations of $W$ considered before. By [@COT], an orthogonal basis of $\overline R(W)$ in all of these cases is given by the set of $X(u,\phi)$ for:
1. representatives $u$ of the distinguished unipotent classes and $\phi\in\widehat{A(u)}_0$;
2. representatives $u$ of the quasi-distinguished non-distinguished unipotent classes and $\phi=1$.
All the vectors in these bases have elliptic norm $1$, with one exception in $E_7$ and the quasi-distinguished nilpotent orbit $A_4+A_1$ when the elliptic norm is $\sqrt 2.$
To simplify the entries in the table, we write: $$F_{[\pi]}=(q-1)^l\frac {N_{[\pi]}}{{\mathsf{cyc}}(W)},$$ where ${\mathsf{cyc}}(W)$ is the product of cyclotomic polynomials which appears as the denominator of the simplified form of $F_{[{\mathsf{sgn}}]}$. The explicit list is in Table \[t:cyc\].
$W$ ${\mathsf{cyc}}(W)$
------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$G_2$ $\Phi_2^2\Phi_3\Phi_6$
$F_4$ $\Phi_2^4\Phi_3^2\Phi_4^2\Phi_6^2\Phi_8\Phi_{12}$
$E_6$ $\Phi_2^2\Phi_3^3\Phi_6^2\Phi_9\Phi_{12}$
$E_7$ $\Phi_2^7\Phi_3^2\Phi_4^2\Phi_6^3\Phi_8\Phi_{10}\Phi_{12}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{18}$
$E_8$ $\Phi_2^8\Phi_3^4\Phi_4^4\Phi_5^2\Phi_6^4\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{12}^2\Phi_{14}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{18}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{24}\Phi_{30}$
: ${\mathsf{cyc}}(W)$\[t:cyc\]
$e\in {{\mathcal N}}$ $A(e)$ $ \widehat{A(e)}_0$ ${{\widetilde {\sigma}}}(e,\psi)\in \widehat{{{\widetilde {W}}}}_{\mathsf{gen}}$ $N_{[X(u,\phi)]}$
----------------------- -------- --------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------
$G_2$ $1$ $1$ $2_s$ ${\Phi_5}$
$G_2(a_1)$ $S_3$ $(3)$ $2_{sss}$ ${q\Phi_3}$
$(21)$ $2_{ss}$ ${-q^2}$
: $G_2$\[t:G2\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$e\in {{\mathcal N}}$ $A(e)$ $\widehat{A(e)}_0$ $\widehat{{{\widetilde {W}}}}_{\mathsf{gen}}$ $N_{[X(u,\phi)]}$
----------------------- -------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --
$F_4$ $1$ $1$ $4_s$ ${\Phi_5\Phi_7\Phi_{11}}$
$F_4(a_1)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $12_s$ ${q\Phi_5\Phi_7\cdot p(F_4(a_1),(2))
} $
$(11)$ $8_{sss}$ ${-q^3\Phi_5\Phi_7\Phi_8} $
$F_4(a_2)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $24_s$ ${q^2\Phi_5\Phi_8\cdot p(F_4(a_2),(2))
}$
$(11)$ $8_{ssss}$ ${-q^3\Phi_5\Phi_7\Phi_8}$
$F_4(a_3)$ $S_4$ $(4)$ $8_{ss}$ ${q^4\Phi_3^2\Phi_5\Phi_8}$
$(31)$ $12_{ss}$ $ {-q^5\cdot p(F_4(a_3),(31))}$
$(22)$ $8_{s}$ ${-q^5\Phi_8\cdot p(F_4(a_3),(22))}$
$(211)$ $4_{ss}$ ${q^6\Phi_5^2}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: $F_4$\[t:F4\]
$\mathbf F_4$:
$p(F_4(a_1),(2))=1+q+q^2+q^4+q^6+q^7+q^8$
$p(F_4(a_2),(2))=1+q+2q^2+q^3+q^4+q^5+2q^6+q^7+q^8$
$p(F_4(a_3),(31)=1+q+2q^2+3q^3+5q^4+5q^5+5q^6+3q^7+2q^8+q^9+q^{10}$
$p(F_4(a_3),(22))=1+2q+4q^2+5q^3+4q^4+2q^5+q^6$
$e\in {{\mathcal N}}$ $A(e)$ $\psi\in \widehat{A(e)}_0$ ${{\widetilde {\sigma}}}(e,\psi)\in \widehat{{{\widetilde {W}}}}_{\mathsf{gen}}$ $N_{[X(u,\phi)]}$
----------------------- -------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
$E_6$ $1$ $1$ $8_s$ $\Phi_7\Phi_{11}$
$E_6(a_1)$ $1$ $1$ $40_s$ $q\Phi_5\Phi_7\Phi_{12}$
$E_6(a_3)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $120_s$ $q^3\Phi_5\Phi_9$
$(11)$ $72_s$ $-q^4\Phi_2^2\Phi_9$
$D_4(a_1)$ $S_3$ $(3)$ $40_{ss}$ $q^7\Phi_2^2$
: $E_6$\[t:E6\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$e\in {{\mathcal N}}$ $A(e)$ $\widehat{A(e)}_0$ $\widehat{{{\widetilde {W}}}}_{\mathsf{gen}}$ $N_{[X(u,\phi)]}$
----------------------- -------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
$E_7$ $1$ $1$ $8_s*$ $\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{17}$
$E_7(a_1)$ $1$ $1$ $48_s*$ $q\Phi_5\Phi_8\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{18}$
$E_7(a_2)$ $1$ $1$ $168_s*$ $q^2\Phi_7^2\Phi_{11}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{18}$
$E_7(a_3)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $280_s*$ $q^3\Phi_5\Phi_7\Phi_{10}\Phi_{14}\cdot
p(E_7(a_3),(2))$
$(11)$ $112_s*$ $-q^5\Phi_5\Phi_7\Phi_8\Phi_{14}\cdot p(E_7(a_3),(11))$
$E_7(a_4)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $720_s*$ $q^5\Phi_5\Phi_8\Phi_{10}\Phi_{18}\cdot p(E_7(a_4),(2))$
$(11)$ $120_s*$ $-q^6\Phi_5\Phi_{10}\Phi_{18}\cdot p(E_7(a_4),(11))$
$E_7(a_5)$ $S_3$ $(3)$ $448_{s}*$ $q^7\Phi_3^3\Phi_4^2\Phi_8\Phi_{12}\Phi_{14}$
$(21)$ $560_s*$ $-q^8\Phi_5\Phi_8\Phi_{10}\Phi_{14}\cdot
p(E_7(a_5),(21))$
$(111)$ $112_{ss}*$ $q^9\Phi_3^2\Phi_7\Phi_8\Phi_{14}$
$E_6(a_1)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $512_s*$ $q^4\Phi_3^2\Phi_4^3\Phi_8^2\Phi_{12}\Phi_{16}$
$A_4+A_1$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $64_s*$ $2q^{11}\Phi_3^2\Phi_4^2\Phi_8\Phi_{12}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: $E_7$\[t:E7\]
$\mathbf E_7$:
$p(E_7(a_3),(2))=1+2q+2q^2+q^3+q^4+q^5+q^6+q^7+q^8+q^9+2q^{10}+2q^{11}+q^{12}$
$p(E_7(a_3),(11))=1+q+q^2-q^4+q^6+q^7+q^8$
$p(E_7(a_4),(2))=1+q+2q^2+2q^3+2q^4+q^5+2q^6+2q^7+2q^8+q^9+q^{10}$
$p(E_7(a_4),(11))=1+2q+2q^2+2q^3+3q^4+3q^5+3q^6+3q^7+3q^8+2q^9+2q^{10}+2q^{11}+q^{12}$
$p(E_7(a_5),(21))=2+4q+5q^2+4q^3+2q^4$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$e\in {{\mathcal N}}$ $A(e)$ $\widehat{A(e)}_0$ $\widehat{{{\widetilde {W}}}}_{\mathsf{gen}}$ $N_{[X(u,\phi)]}$
----------------------- -------- -------------------- ----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$E_8$ $1$ $1$ $16_s$ $\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{17}\Phi_{19}\Phi_{23}\Phi_{29}$
$E_8(a_1)$ $1$ $1$ $112_s$ $q\Phi_7\Phi_9\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{17}\Phi_{19}\Phi_{23}\Phi_{30}$
$E_8(a_2)$ $1$ $1$ $448_{ss}$ $q^2\Phi_7\Phi_8^2\Phi_{11}^2\Phi_{13}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{17}\Phi_{19}\Phi_{24}\Phi_{30}$
$E_8(a_3)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $1344_{ss}$ $q^3\Phi_7\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{17}\Phi_{18}\Phi_{24}\cdot
p(E_8(a_3),(2))$
$(11)$ $320_s$ $q^7
\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{17}\Phi_{24}\cdot p(E_8(a_3),(11))$
$E_8(a_4)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $2016_s$ $q^4\Phi_7\Phi_9^2\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{18}\cdot p(E_8(a_4)(2))$
$(11)$ $1680_s$ $q^6\Phi_{7}\Phi_9^2\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{18}\cdot p(E_8(a_4),(11))$
$E_8(a_5)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $5600_{sss}$ $q^6\Phi_5^3\Phi_7\Phi_9\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{11}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{30}\cdot
p(E8(a_5),(2))$
$(11)$ $2800_s$ $-q^7\Phi_5^3\Phi_7\Phi_9\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{11}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{30}\cdot
p(E_8(a_5),(11))$
$E_8(a_6)$ $S_3$ $(3)$ $6480_s$ $q^8\Phi_9^2\Phi_{18}\cdot p(E_8(a_6),(3))$
$(21)$ $9072_s$ $-q^9\Phi_7\Phi_9^2\Phi_{14}\Phi_{18}\Phi_{20}\cdot p(E_8(a_6),(21))$
$(111)$ $2592_s$ $q^{12}\Phi_9^2\Phi_{11}\Phi_{18}\cdot p(E_8(a_6),(111))$
$E_8(a_7)$ $S_5$ $(5)$ $896_{s}$ $q^{16}\Phi_3^4\Phi_5^2\Phi_7\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{14}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{24}\cdot
p(E_8(a_7),(5))$
$(41)$ $2016_{sss}$ $-q^{17}\Phi_9\Phi_{14}\Phi_{18}\cdot p(E_8(a_7),(41))$
$(32)$ $2016_{ss}$ $-q^{17}\Phi_7\Phi_9\Phi_{14}\Phi_{18}\cdot p(E_8(a_7),(32))$
$(311)$ $1344_s$ $q^{18}\Phi_7\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{14}\Phi_{18}\Phi_{24}\cdot p(E_8(a_7),(311))$
$(221)$ $1120_s$ $q^{18}\Phi_9\Phi_{14}\cdot p(E_8(a_7),(221))$
$(2111)$ $224_s$ $-q^{19}\Phi_7^2\Phi_9\Phi_{14}\cdot p(E_8(a_7),(2111))$
$E_8(b_4)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $5600_{ss}$ $q^5\Phi_5^3\Phi_7\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{30}\cdot
p(E_8(b_4),(2))$
$(11)$ $800_s$ $q^7\Phi_5^3\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{30}\cdot
p(E_8(b_4),(11))$
$E_8(b_5)$ $S_3$ $(3)$ $6720_s$ $q^7\Phi_7\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{11}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{18}\Phi_{24}\cdot p(E_8(b_5),(3))$
$(21)$ $7168_s$ $-q^8\Phi_4^4\Phi_7\Phi_8^2\Phi_{11}\Phi_{12}^2\Phi_{14}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{24}\cdot p(E_8(b_5),(21))$
$(111)$ $448_s$ $q^{13}\Phi_7\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{11}\Phi_{13}\Phi_{14}\Phi_{24}\cdot p(E_8(b_5),(111))$
$E_8(b_6)$ $S_3$ $(3)$ $8400_s$ $q^{10}\Phi_5^3\Phi_7\Phi_9\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{14}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{18}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{30}\cdot p(E_8(b_6),(3))$
$(21)$ $2800_{ss}$ $-q^{11}\Phi_5^3\Phi_7\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{14}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{30}\cdot p(E_8(b_6),(21))$
$(111)$ $5600_{s}$ $-q^{12}\Phi_5^3\Phi_7\Phi_9\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{14}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{30}\cdot p(E_8(b_6),(111))$
$D_5+A_2$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $4800_s$ $q^{13}\Phi_3^2\Phi_5^4\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{15}\Phi_{18}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{24}\Phi_{30}$
$D_7(a_1)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $11200_s$ $q^9\Phi_3^2\Phi_5^3\Phi_7^2\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{10}^2\Phi_{14}\Phi_{15}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{24}\Phi_{30}$
$D_7(a_2)$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $7168_{ss}$ $q^{12}\Phi_3^4\Phi_4^4\Phi_5^2\Phi_8^2\Phi_9\Phi_{12}^2\Phi_{15}\Phi_{16}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{24}$
$E_6(a_1)+A_1$ $S_2$ $(2)$ $8192_s$ $q^{11}\Phi_3^4\Phi_4^5\Phi_5^2\Phi_8^3\Phi_9\Phi_{12}^2\Phi_{15}\Phi_{16}\Phi_{20}\Phi_{24}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: $E_8$\[t:E8\]
$\mathbf E_8$:
$p(E_8(a_3),(2))=1+2
q+3 q^2+4 q^3+4 q^4+3 q^5+2
q^6+q^7+q^8+q^9+q^{10}+q^{11}+q^{12}+q^{13}+q^{14}+q^{15}+2 q^{16}+3
q^{17}+4 q^{18}+4 q^{19}+3 q^{20}+2 q^{21}+q^{22}$
$p(E_8(a_3),(11))=1+2 q+3 q^2+3 q^3+3
q^4+2 q^5+2 q^6+2 q^7+3 q^8+4 q^9+6 q^{10}+7 q^{11}+8 q^{12}+7 q^{13}+5 q^{14}+2 q^{15}+q^{16}+2 q^{17}+5 q^{18}+7
q^{19}+8 q^{20}+7 q^{21}+6 q^{22}+4 q^{23}+3 q^{24}+2 q^{25}+2 q^{26}+2 q^{27}+3 q^{28}+3 q^{29}+3 q^{30}+2 q^{31}+q^{32}$
$p(E_8(a_4),(2))=1+4 q+9 q^2+14 q^3+18 q^4+20 q^5+21 q^6+20 q^7+18 q^8+16 q^9+17 q^{10}+20 q^{11}+25 q^{12}+31 q^{13}+38 q^{14}+43 q^{15}+46 q^{16}+46 q^{17}+45 q^{18}+43 q^{19}+42 q^{20}+41 q^{21}+42 q^{22}+42 q^{23}+42 q^{24}+41 q^{25}+42 q^{26}+43 q^{27}+45 q^{28}+46 q^{29}+46 q^{30}+43 q^{31}+38 q^{32}+31 q^{33}+25 q^{34}+20 q^{35}+17 q^{36}+16 q^{37}+18 q^{38}+20 q^{39}+21 q^{40}+20 q^{41}+18 q^{42}+14 q^{43}+9 q^{44}+4 q^{45}+q^{46}$
$p(E_8(a_4),(11))=1+3 q+6 q^2+9 q^3+12 q^4+14 q^5+16 q^6+17 q^7+17 q^8+15 q^9+13 q^{10}+12 q^{11}+14 q^{12}+18 q^{13}+23 q^{14}+27 q^{15}+30 q^{16}+30 q^{17}+29 q^{18}+27 q^{19}+26 q^{20}+25 q^{21}+26 q^{22}+27 q^{23}+29 q^{24}+30 q^{25}+30 q^{26}+27 q^{27}+23 q^{28}+18 q^{29}+14 q^{30}+12 q^{31}+13 q^{32}+15 q^{33}+17 q^{34}+17 q^{35}+16 q^{36}+14 q^{37}+12 q^{38}+9 q^{39}+6 q^{40}+3 q^{41}+q^{42}$
$p(E_8(a_5),(2))=1+3 q+6 q^2+8 q^3+8 q^4+6 q^5+5 q^6+5 q^7+6 q^8+7 q^9+8 q^{10}+8 q^{11}+8 q^{12}+7 q^{13}+6 q^{14}+5 q^{15}+5 q^{16}+6 q^{17}+8 q^{18}+8 q^{19}+6 q^{20}+3 q^{21}+q^{22}$
$p(E_8(a_5),(11))=1+3 q+5 q^2+6 q^3+7 q^4+8 q^5+9 q^6+8 q^7+5 q^8+2 q^9+q^{10}+2 q^{11}+5 q^{12}+8 q^{13}+9 q^{14}+8 q^{15}+7 q^{16}+6 q^{17}+5 q^{18}+3 q^{19}+q^{20}$
$p(E_8(a_6),(3))=1+6 q+21 q^2+53 q^3+111 q^4+203 q^5+339 q^6+524 q^7+765 q^8+1064 q^9+1431 q^{10}+1867 q^{11}+2379 q^{12}+2962 q^{13}+3624 q^{14}+4354 q^{15}+5152 q^{16}+5996 q^{17}+6888 q^{18}+7807 q^{19}+8760 q^{20}+9726 q^{21}+10720 q^{22}+11718 q^{23}+12727 q^{24}+13709 q^{25}+14673 q^{26}+15581 q^{27}+16444 q^{28}+17224 q^{29}+17943 q^{30}+18568 q^{31}+19121 q^{32}+19560 q^{33}+19903 q^{34}+20105 q^{35}+20185 q^{36}+20105 q^{37}+19903 q^{38}+19560 q^{39}+19121 q^{40}+18568 q^{41}+17943 q^{42}+17224 q^{43}+16444 q^{44}+15581 q^{45}+14673 q^{46}+13709 q^{47}+12727 q^{48}+11718 q^{49}+10720 q^{50}+9726 q^{51}+8760 q^{52}+7807 q^{53}+6888 q^{54}+5996 q^{55}+5152 q^{56}+4354 q^{57}+3624 q^{58}+2962 q^{59}+2379 q^{60}+1867 q^{61}+1431 q^{62}+1064 q^{63}+765 q^{64}+524 q^{65}+339 q^{66}+203 q^{67}+111 q^{68}+53 q^{69}+21 q^{70}+6 q^{71}+q^{72}$
$p(E_8(a_6),(21))=1+5 q+17 q^2+42 q^3+86 q^4+150 q^5+237 q^6+345 q^7+476 q^8+625 q^9+792 q^{10}+969 q^{11}+1154 q^{12}+1335 q^{13}+1508 q^{14}+1662 q^{15}+1797 q^{16}+1904 q^{17}+1987 q^{18}+2042 q^{19}+2080 q^{20}+2102 q^{21}+2121 q^{22}+2133 q^{23}+2145 q^{24}+2147 q^{25}+2145 q^{26}+2133 q^{27}+2121 q^{28}+2102 q^{29}+2080 q^{30}+2042 q^{31}+1987 q^{32}+1904 q^{33}+1797 q^{34}+1662 q^{35}+1508 q^{36}+1335 q^{37}+1154 q^{38}+969 q^{39}+792 q^{40}+625 q^{41}+476 q^{42}+345 q^{43}+237 q^{44}+150 q^{45}+86 q^{46}+42 q^{47}+17 q^{48}+5 q^{49}+q^{50}$
$p(E_8(a_6),(111))=1+3 q+8 q^2+17 q^3+34 q^4+57 q^5+87 q^6+118 q^7+151 q^8+180 q^9+211 q^{10}+242 q^{11}+283 q^{12}+328 q^{13}+383 q^{14}+438 q^{15}+498 q^{16}+547 q^{17}+589 q^{18}+612 q^{19}+631 q^{20}+642 q^{21}+665 q^{22}+690 q^{23}+727 q^{24}+755 q^{25}+780 q^{26}+784 q^{27}+780 q^{28}+755 q^{29}+727 q^{30}+690 q^{31}+665 q^{32}+642 q^{33}+631 q^{34}+612 q^{35}+589 q^{36}+547 q^{37}+498 q^{38}+438 q^{39}+383 q^{40}+328 q^{41}+283 q^{42}+242 q^{43}+211 q^{44}+180 q^{45}+151 q^{46}+118 q^{47}+87 q^{48}+57 q^{49}+34 q^{50}+17 q^{51}+8 q^{52}+3 q^{53}+q^{54}$
$p(E_8(a_7),(5))=1+q+q^4+q^6+q^7+q^9+q^{10}+q^{12}+q^{15}+q^{16}$
$p(E_8(a_7),(41))=1+5 q+17 q^2+46 q^3+106 q^4+215 q^5+396 q^6+673 q^7+1068 q^8+1597 q^9+2273 q^{10}+3104 q^{11}+4092 q^{12}+5225 q^{13}+6479 q^{14}+7818 q^{15}+9200 q^{16}+10576 q^{17}+11900 q^{18}+13129 q^{19}+14230 q^{20}+15178 q^{21}+15963 q^{22}+16584 q^{23}+17051 q^{24}+17374 q^{25}+17564 q^{26}+17626 q^{27}+17564 q^{28}+17374 q^{29}+17051 q^{30}+16584 q^{31}+15963 q^{32}+15178 q^{33}+14230 q^{34}+13129 q^{35}+11900 q^{36}+10576 q^{37}+9200 q^{38}+7818 q^{39}+6479 q^{40}+5225 q^{41}+4092 q^{42}+3104 q^{43}+2273 q^{44}+1597 q^{45}+1068 q^{46}+673 q^{47}+396 q^{48}+215 q^{49}+106 q^{50}+46 q^{51}+17 q^{52}+5 q^{53}+q^{54}$
$p(E_8(a_7),(32))=1+4 q+12 q^2+28 q^3+53 q^4+84 q^5+118 q^6+150 q^7+175 q^8+189 q^9+192 q^{10}+182 q^{11}+158 q^{12}+118 q^{13}+65 q^{14}+3 q^{15}-62 q^{16}-128 q^{17}-190 q^{18}-246 q^{19}-292 q^{20}-326 q^{21}-345 q^{22}-354 q^{23}-356 q^{24}-354 q^{25}-345 q^{26}-326 q^{27}-292 q^{28}-246 q^{29}-190 q^{30}-128 q^{31}-62 q^{32}+3 q^{33}+65 q^{34}+118 q^{35}+158 q^{36}+182 q^{37}+192 q^{38}+189 q^{39}+175 q^{40}+150 q^{41}+118 q^{42}+84 q^{43}+53 q^{44}+28 q^{45}+12 q^{46}+4 q^{47}+q^{48}$
$p(E_8(a_7),(311))=2+9 q+25 q^{2}+54 q^{3}+97 q^{4}+150 q^{5}+208 q^{6}+267 q^{7}+326 q^{8}+386 q^{9}+449 q^{10}+514 q^{11}+577 q^{12}+631 q^{13}+668 q^{14}+681 q^{15}+668 q^{16}+631 q^{17}+577 q^{18}+514 q^{19}+449 q^{20}+386 q^{21}+326 q^{22}+267 q^{23}+208 q^{24}+150 q^{25}+97 q^{26}+54 q^{27}+25 q^{28}+9 q^{29}+2 q^{30}$
$p(E_8(a_7),(221))=1+4 q+10 q^{2}+21 q^{3}+42 q^{4}+76 q^{5}+121 q^{6}+169 q^{7}+213 q^{8}+248 q^{9}+271 q^{10}+275 q^{11}+255 q^{12}+205 q^{13}+118 q^{14}-17 q^{15}-201 q^{16}-426 q^{17}-674 q^{18}-933 q^{19}-1194 q^{20}-1453 q^{21}-1700 q^{22}-1931 q^{23}-2141 q^{24}-2330 q^{25}-2493 q^{26}-2626 q^{27}-2714 q^{28}-2746 q^{29}-2714 q^{30}-2626 q^{31}-2493 q^{32}-2330 q^{33}-2141 q^{34}-1931 q^{35}-1700 q^{36}-1453 q^{37}-1194 q^{38}-933 q^{39}-674 q^{40}-426 q^{41}-201 q^{42}-17 q^{43}+118 q^{44}+205 q^{45}+255 q^{46}+275 q^{47}+271 q^{48}+248 q^{49}+213 q^{50}+169 q^{51}+121 q^{52}+76 q^{53}+42 q^{54}+21 q^{55}+10 q^{56}+4 q^{57}+q^{58}$
$p(E_8(a_7),(2111))=1+3 q+6 q^{2}+10 q^{3}+16 q^{4}+23 q^{5}+30 q^{6}+37 q^{7}+45 q^{8}+54 q^{9}+63 q^{10}+71 q^{11}+80 q^{12}+89 q^{13}+96 q^{14}+99 q^{15}+100 q^{16}+100 q^{17}+100 q^{18}+100 q^{19}+100 q^{20}+99 q^{21}+96 q^{22}+89 q^{23}+80 q^{24}+71 q^{25}+63 q^{26}+54 q^{27}+45 q^{28}+37 q^{29}+30 q^{30}+23 q^{31}+16 q^{32}+10 q^{33}+6 q^{34}+3 q^{35}+q^{36}$
$p(E_8(b_4),(2))=1+2 q+3 q^{2}+3 q^{3}+3 q^{4}+2 q^{5}+q^{6}+q^{7}+2 q^{8}+2 q^{9}+2 q^{10}+q^{11}+q^{12}+2 q^{13}+3 q^{14}+3 q^{15}+3 q^{16}+2 q^{17}+q^{18}$
$p(E_8(b_4),(11))=1+2 q+3 q^{2}+4 q^{3}+5 q^{4}+6 q^{5}+7 q^{6}+8 q^{7}+9 q^{8}+9 q^{9}+9 q^{10}+8 q^{11}+8 q^{12}+8 q^{13}+8 q^{14}+8 q^{15}+9 q^{16}+9 q^{17}+9 q^{18}+8 q^{19}+7 q^{20}+6 q^{21}+5 q^{22}+4 q^{23}+3 q^{24}+2 q^{25}+q^{26}$
$p(E_8(b_5),(3))=1+4 q+10 q^{2}+19 q^{3}+31 q^{4}+44 q^{5}+57 q^{6}+69 q^{7}+81 q^{8}+93 q^{9}+107 q^{10}+122 q^{11}+138 q^{12}+152 q^{13}+163 q^{14}+170 q^{15}+175 q^{16}+177 q^{17}+178 q^{18}+177 q^{19}+176 q^{20}+175 q^{21}+176 q^{22}+177 q^{23}+178 q^{24}+177 q^{25}+175 q^{26}+170 q^{27}+163 q^{28}+152 q^{29}+138 q^{30}+122 q^{31}+107 q^{32}+93 q^{33}+81 q^{34}+69 q^{35}+57 q^{36}+44 q^{37}+31 q^{38}+19 q^{39}+10 q^{40}+4 q^{41}+q^{42}$
$p(E_8(b_5),(21))=1+3 q+6 q^{2}+10 q^{3}+14 q^{4}+17 q^{5}+20 q^{6}+23 q^{7}+26 q^{8}+28 q^{9}+28 q^{10}+26 q^{11}+24 q^{12}+22 q^{13}+21 q^{14}+22 q^{15}+24 q^{16}+26 q^{17}+28 q^{18}+28 q^{19}+26 q^{20}+23 q^{21}+20 q^{22}+17 q^{23}+14 q^{24}+10 q^{25}+6 q^{26}+3 q^{27}+q^{28}$
$p(E_8(b_5),(111))=1+3 q+5 q^{2}+6 q^{3}+6 q^{4}+4 q^{5}+q^{6}-2 q^{7}-3 q^{8}+7 q^{10}+14 q^{11}+17 q^{12}+14 q^{13}+7 q^{14}-3 q^{16}-2 q^{17}+q^{18}+4 q^{19}+6 q^{20}+6 q^{21}+5 q^{22}+3 q^{23}+q^{24}$
$p(E_8(b_6),(3))=1+4 q+10 q^{2}+19 q^{3}+31 q^{4}+43 q^{5}+54 q^{6}+63 q^{7}+69 q^{8}+71 q^{9}+69 q^{10}+63 q^{11}+54 q^{12}+43 q^{13}+31 q^{14}+19 q^{15}+10 q^{16}+4 q^{17}+q^{18}$
$p(E_8(b_6),(21))=1+4 q+9 q^{2}+15 q^{3}+22 q^{4}+30 q^{5}+39 q^{6}+49 q^{7}+60 q^{8}+70 q^{9}+78 q^{10}+83 q^{11}+86 q^{12}+88 q^{13}+89 q^{14}+88 q^{15}+86 q^{16}+83 q^{17}+78 q^{18}+70 q^{19}+60 q^{20}+49 q^{21}+39 q^{22}+30 q^{23}+22 q^{24}+15 q^{25}+9 q^{26}+4 q^{27}+q^{28}$
$p(E_8(b_6),(111))=1+2 q+2 q^{2}-q^{3}-7 q^{4}-16 q^{5}-24 q^{6}-28 q^{7}-26 q^{8}-21 q^{9}-18 q^{10}-21 q^{11}-26 q^{12}-28 q^{13}-24 q^{14}-16 q^{15}-7 q^{16}-q^{17}+2 q^{18}+2 q^{19}+q^{20}$
[9999]{}
D. Barbasch, D.A. Vogan, Jr., *Primitive ideals and orbital integrals in complex exceptional groups*, J. Algebra [**80**]{} (1983), 350–382.
A. Borel, *Admissible representations of a semisimple p-adic group over a local field with vectors fixed under an Iwahori subgroup*, Invent. Math. [**35**]{} (1976), 233–259.
R. Bezrukavnikov, D. Kazhdan, Y. Varshavsky, *On the stable center conjecture*, preprint, `arXiv:1307.4669`.
N. Bourbaki, *Groupes et algèbres de Lie*, Ch. 4–6, 1981.
C.J. Bushnell, G. Henniart, P.C. Kutzko, *Types and explicit Plancherel formulae for reductive p-adic groups*, Clay Math. Inst. Proc. [**13**]{} (2011), 55–80.
C. Baltera, W. Wang, *Coinvariant algebras and fake degrees for spin Weyl groups of classical type*, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. [**156**]{} (2014), no. 1, 43–79.
R.W. Carter, *Finite groups of Lie type*, Pure and Applied Math. (New York), Wiley-Interscience, NY (1985), xii+544pp.
R.W. Carter, *Conjugacy classes in the Weyl group*, Compositio Math. [**25**]{} (1972), no. 1, 1–59.
D. Ciubotaru, *Spin representation of Weyl groups and the Springer correspondence*, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**671**]{} (2012), 199–222.
D. Ciubotaru, X. He, *Green polynomials of Weyl groups, elliptic pairings, and the extended Dirac index*, preprint, `arXiv:1303.6806`.
D. Ciubotaru, S. Kato, *Tempered modules in the exotic Deligne-Langlands correspondence*, Adv. Math. [**226**]{} (2011), no. 2, 1538–1590.
D. Ciubotaru, M. Kato, S. Kato, *On characters and formal degrees of discrete series of classical affine Hecke algebras*, Invent. Math. [**187**]{} (2012), 589–635.
D. Ciubotaru, E.M. Opdam, *A uniform classification of the discrete spectrum of affine Hecke algebras*, in preparation.
D. Ciubotaru, E.M. Opdam, P. Trapa, *Algebraic and analytic Dirac induction for graded affine Hecke algebras*, J. Inst. Math. Jussieu [**13**]{} (2014), no. 3, 447–486.
D. Ciubotaru, P. Trapa, *Characters of Springer representations on elliptic conjugacy classes*, Duke Math. J. [**162**]{} (2013), no. 2, 201–223.
P. Deligne, G. Lusztig, *Representations of reductive groups over finite fields*, Ann. Math. [**103**]{} (1976), 103–161.
P. Delorme, E. Opdam, *Schwartz algebra of an affine Hecke algebra*, J. Reine Angew. Math. [**625**]{} (2008), 59-–114.
J. Dixmier, *$C^*$-algebras*, North-Holland Math. Library, vol. [**14**]{} (1977).
B. Gross, M. Reeder, *Arithmetic invariants of discrete Langlands parameters*, Duke Math. J. [**154**]{} (2010), 431–508.
A. Gyoja, K. Nishiyama, H. Shimura, *Invariants for representations of Weyl groups and two-sided cells*, J. Math. Soc. Japan [**51**]{} (1999), no. 1, 34 pp.
G.J. Heckman, E.M. Opdam, *Harmonic analysis for affine Hecke algebras*, Current Developments in Mathematics (S.-T. Yau, editor), Intern. Press, Boston, 1996.
G.J. Heckman, E.M. Opdam, *Yang’s system of particles and Hecke algebras*, Ann. Math. [ **45**]{} (1997), 139–173.
K. Hiraga, A. Ichino, T. Ikeda, *Formal degrees and adjoint gamma factors*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**21**]{} (2008), no. 1, 283–304.
S.-I. Kato, *A realization of irreducible representations of affine Weyl groups*, Indag. Math. [**45**]{} (1983), 193–201.
D. Kazhdan, G. Lusztig, *Proof of Deligne-Langlands conjecture for Hecke algebras*, Invent. Math. [**87**]{} (1987), 153–215.
J.-L. Kim, G. Lusztig, *On the characters of unipotent representations of s semisimple $p$-adic group*, Represent. Theory [**17**]{} (2013), 426–441.
G. Lusztig, *Characters of reductive groups over a finite field*, Ann. Math. Studies [**107**]{}, Princeton Univ. Press 1984.
G. Lusztig, *Classification of unipotent representations of simple $p$-adic groups*, Internat. Math. Res. Notices [**11**]{} (1995), 517–589.
G. Lusztig, *Classification of unipotent representations of simple $p$-adic groups II*, Represent. Theory [**6**]{} (2002), 243–289.
G. Lusztig, *Unipotent almost characters of simple $p$-adic groups*, preprint, `arXiv:1212.6540`.
G. Lusztig, *Unipotent almost characters of simple $p$-adic groups II*, Transform. Groups [**19**]{} (2014), no. 2, 527–547.
G. Lusztig, *Cells in affine Weyl groups IV*, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. [**36**]{} (1989), no. 2, 297–328.
G. Lusztig, *Intersection cohomology complexes on a reductive group*, Invent. Math. [**75**]{} (1984), 205–272.
I.G. Macdonald, *Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials*, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
L. Morris, *Level zero $G$-types*, Compositio Math. [**118**]{} (1999), no. 2, 135–157.
A. Moy, G. Prasad, *Jacquet functors and unrefined minimal $K$-types*, Comm. Math. Helv. [**71**]{} (1996), 98–121.
E.M. Opdam, *On the spectral decomposition of affine Hecke algebras*, J. Math. Jussieu [**3**]{} (2004), no. 4, 531–648.
E.M. Opdam, *The central support of the Plancherel measure of an affine Hecke algebra*, Mosc. Math. J. [**7**]{} (2007), 723–741, 767–768.
E.M. Opdam, *Spectral correspondences for affine Hecke algebras*, preprint, `arXiv:1310.7193`.
E.M. Opdam, *Spectral transfer morphisms for unipotent affine Hecke algebras*, preprint, `arXiv:1310.7790`.
E. Opdam, M. Solleveld, *Homological algebra for affine Hecke algebras*, Adv. Math. [ **220**]{} (2009), no. 5, 1549–1601.
E. Opdam, M. Solleveld, *Discrete series characters for affine Hecke algebras and their formal degrees,* Acta Math. [**205**]{} (2010), 105–187.
M. Reeder, *Euler-Poincaré pairings and elliptic representations of Weyl groups and p-adic groups*, Compositio Math. [**129**]{} (2001), no. 2, 149–181.
M. Reeder, *On the Iwahori-spherical discrete series for $p$-adic Chevalley groups; formal degrees and $L$-packets*, Ann. Sci. É.N.S. [ **27**]{} (1994), 463–491.
M. Reeder, *Formal degrees and $L$-packets of unipotent discrete series representations of exceptional $p$-adic groups*, J. Reine. Angew. Math. [**520**]{} (2000), 37–93.
T. Shoji, *On the Springer representations of the Weyl groups of classical algebraic groups*, Comm. Alg. [**7**]{} (1979), 1713–1745, 2027–2033.
K. Slooten, *Generalized Springer correspondence and Green functions for type B/C graded Hecke algebras*, Adv. Math. [**203**]{} (2006), no. 1, 34–108.
M. Solleveld, *On the classification of irreducible representations of affine Hecke algebras with unequal parameters*, Represent. Theory [**16**]{} (2012), 1–87.
E. Sommers, *Exterior powers of the reflection representation in Springer theory*, Transformation Groups [**16**]{} (2011), no. 3, 889–911.
T.A. Springer, *A construction of representations of Weyl groups*, Invent. Math. [**44**]{} (1978), no. 3, 279–293.
J.-L. Waldspurger, *Représentations de réduction unipotente pour $SO(2n+1)$: quelques conséquences d’un article de Lusztig*, Contributions to automorphic forms, geometry, and number theory, 803–910, Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD, 2004.
[^1]: This research was supported in part by NSF-DMS 1302122, NSA-AMS 111016, and ERC-advanced grant no. 268105. We thank Roman Bezrukavnikov, George Lusztig, Eric Sommers, and David Vogan for helpful discussions. We also thank the referee for the careful and detailed review of the paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we present a cooperative medium access control (MAC) protocol that is designed for a physical layer that can decode interfering transmissions in distributed wireless networks. The proposed protocol pro-actively enforces two independent packet transmissions to interfere in a controlled and cooperative manner. The protocol ensures that when a node desires to transmit a unicast packet, regardless of the destination, it coordinates with minimal overhead with relay nodes in order to concurrently transmit over the wireless channel with a third node. The relay is responsible for allowing packets from the two selected nodes to interfere only when the desired packets can be decoded at the appropriate destinations and increase the sum-rate of the cooperative transmission. In case this is not feasible, classic cooperative or direct transmission is adopted. To enable distributed, uncoordinated, and adaptive operation of the protocol, a relay selection mechanism is introduced so that the optimal relay is selected dynamically and depending on the channel conditions. The most important advantage of the protocol is that interfering transmissions can originate from completely independent unicast transmissions from two senders. We present simulation results that validate the efficacy of our proposed scheme in terms of throughput and delay.'
author:
- 'Antonios Argyriou, [^1][^2][^3]'
title: Coordinating Interfering Transmissions in Cooperative Wireless LANs
---
Wireless networks, analog network coding, physical layer network coding, interference, cooperative communications, medium access control.
Introduction
============
of the most undesired side-effects of wireless communications systems is interference. In wireless networks, where several nodes share the medium, interference is avoided with mechanisms that orthogonalize transmissions. The classic examples of such mechanisms include frequency division multiple access (FDMA), time division multiple access (TDMA), code division multiple access (CDMA), and finally random access protocols like carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) [@bertsekas:data-networks]. However, besides channel orthogonilization, there have been several additional techniques throughout the years that attempt to combat this effect [@book:fundamental-wireless]. In more recent years, there is a trend to exploit interference in order to increase the network capacity [@dankberg97; @larsson05; @popovski06b; @zhang:physical-layer-nc; @katabi07a]. This technique is usually referred to as analog network coding (ANC) and we can first identify it in [@dankberg97], although not with this term. With ANC network capacity is increased since concurrent interfering transmissions are allowed. Nodes listen to transmissions and then forward the unprocessed analog signals to destination nodes where various algorithms for interference cancelation can be applied in order to retrieve the signal of interest [@katabi07a; @argyriou:twc-ancol]. The removal of an interfering signal is possible with ANC when this signal is known at the receiver. A scenario where this might be the case is in multihop networks when the receiver had transmitted in the past the required signal in the form of a complete packet. By removing the previous assumption, we investigated the potential improvement of ANC in the sum-rate of a simple relay network with two completely independent senders/receivers and one relay in [@argyriou:twc-ancol]. One of the main results was that if two packets, that originate from different senders and are directed towards different receivers, interfere partially or entirely in the time domain, the subsequent forwarding of the mixed packets can work in favor of both unicast transmissions by increasing the total sum-rate. In this paper we take this result and we attempt to utilize it in more practical networks where several nodes contend for the medium. We consider an extended and more realistic wireless ad hoc network where issues like channel estimation, medium access, and relay selection must be addressed.
In this paper we focus on the development of basic elements of a distributed cooperative random access MAC protocol that operates with an underlying physical layer (PHY) that employs ANC. It is important to stress at this point that we adopt the random access MAC principle due to its simplicity, ease of implementation in a distributed setting, and the widespread adoption in practical systems. Based on the previous choice and with the assumption that packet transmissions are allowed to interfere with a mechanism like ANC, we seek to identify the necessary algorithmic components that should be embedded a classic random access MAC protocol. Four specific algorithms of varying complexity are presented in this work. First, there is a need for a new channel access scheme that supports cooperative transmissions, next an algorithm for channel information exchange and estimation, rate estimation of the potential cooperative transmissions, and finally there is a need for an algorithm that disentangles and decodes the interfered signals. With these algorithms, the proposed cooperative MAC protocol fulfills first and foremost one basic task, that is it identifies when (and if) packets/signals can interfere. This task is performed by the relays in the wireless network that can act as “coding nodes” that subsequently forward the coded/interfered packets. Therefore, the relays in our protocol implement the bulk of the required intelligence in the sense that they make the decision whether a cooperative transmission with ANC is effective before it is allowed. The signal recovery algorithm needs only to be executed at the destinations as a final step in the overall transmission process.
Related Works {#sec:related-works}
-------------
The topic of concurrent wireless signal transmission jointly employed with network coding is a relatively new research area, while the role of relay has also recently started to be identified as being very critical for the performance of such schemes. For example in [@sagduyu08a] the authors enable ANC at a relay but not for independent users. In [@rimensberger09a] the authors compare different schemes based on ANC with different ML detection techniques. The rate performance of ANC for two-way relaying is analyzed in [@xue07a]. In [@larsson05] the authors introduce a relay topology where the relay encodes the data packets after reception which is similar to digital network coding. In the work presented by Wang and Giannakis in [@giannakis:complex-network-coding] the authors assume that signals from two users are pre-coded before transmitted to a single relay and a single destination. Works that consider the idea of ANC with packets that have been transmitted in the past by a network node were presented in [@popovski06b] with the term bidirectional amplification of throughput (BAT) and in [@katabi07a] with the name ANC. A form of superposition coding in an X topology similar with the topology we have highlighted in Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\] was presented in [@katabi07a]. However, in that work the proposed system attempts to decode independently the overheard and relayed signals leading to higher number of packet failures while the baseline 802.11 MAC is used. Although in all these works the authors study more deeply relaying and ANC, they do not address problems like relay selection in this new context.
When we think about MAC issues in scenarios where ANC is employed, even fewer works exist. One of the most interesting works is the one by Boppana and Shea that proposed the overlapped CSMA protocol [@boppana:overlapped-csma]. The main task of that protocol is to estimate the level of secondary interfering transmissions that another primary transmission can sustain given its perfect knowledge of the signal that intends to cause the interference. This protocol requires significant signaling overhead in order to propagate RTS/CTS messages at least two hops and notify the secondary sender whether it is allowed to proceed or not. Nevertheless, primary and secondary transmissions do not interfere with each other. Also the work by Zhang *et al.* [@Zhang09a] proposed a similar idea. Very recently the work by Khabbazian *et al.* presented in [@canc-csail], proposed the design of a probabilistic MAC based on ANC but only on a theoretical level.
Paper Organization
------------------
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The system model that is used in this paper is presented in Section \[sec:preliminaries\]. Subsequently, the distributed channel estimation and information exchange algorithm of our system is analyzed in Section \[sec:channel-estimation\]. The mathematical tools for rate estimation under the three possible transmission modes are described in Section \[sec:rate-estimation\]. The proposed distributed cooperative MAC protocol and the associated relay selection mechanism are presented in Section \[sec:coopmac\]. The signal recovery algorithm is an essential part of our complete system architecture and is described in Section \[sec:collision-recovery\], while Section \[sec:complexity\] provides a discussion regarding complexity and implementation issues. In Section \[sec:performance-evaluation\] we present comprehensive simulation results for different network traffic patterns. Finally, Section \[sec:conclusions\] presents our conclusions and ideas for future work.
System Model and Overview {#sec:preliminaries}
=========================
In this paper, we study wireless ad hoc local areas networks where all nodes can be potential relays. Since the proposed protocol optimizes the cooperative transmission for a single hop, this relaxation with respect to the network structure, is possible. Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\] presents a small network that is used throughout this paper for explaining several aspects of the presented algorithms. In this paper we assume that the core of the MAC functionality corresponds to the IEEE 802.11 MAC protocol that operates under the distributed coordination function (DCF) [@IEEE-80211]. Nodes contend for the channel and when the backoff timer expires they use the request-to-send (RTS) and clear-to-send (CTS) floor acquisition mechanism for contacting the intended destination node. This very popular way of randomizing channel access with CSMA/CA ensures that there is only one node that completes successfully the RTS/CTS message exchange and obtains access to the channel. The RTS message is received by relay candidates that indicate their ability to act as relays for the impending transmission with a special message that we describe in later sections. Note that a node may be mobile which means that it might not be able to complete the necessary signalling and thus cannot participate in a cooperative transmission. From previous message exchanges, the relays also collect information about channel estimates in their neighborhood, while they subsequently estimate whether another node can transmit concurrently with the node that just exchanged the RTS/CTS. The aforementioned tasks are accomplished with the *cooperative channel information exchange algorithm* and the *rate estimation algorithm* that are processes that are executed continuously and in parallel with the normal protocol operation. In Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\] for example $N_3$ estimates, according to the latest channel statistics, that $N_4$ can also transmit at the same time with $N_1$, while $N_6,N_7$ might have similar estimates. If interfering transmissions cannot be allowed by any relay, node $N_1$ proceeds with its transmission either cooperatively with the help of $N_3$ (named COOP transmission mode) or directly. Assume now that $N_3$ allows the two transmissions from $N_1$ and $N_4$ to take place concurrently. This task is accomplished with the *cooperative ANC MAC*. Because of the broadcast nature of the channel the two packets/signals will interfere in several physical locations: nodes $N_2$, $N_3$, $N_5$, $N_6$, and $N_7$. In this way, both $N_2$ and $N_5$ have a locally interfered version of the signals that they simply cannot decode. The relay that has been selected with the previous algorithms, forwards its own version of the locally interfered signals to the two destinations. The destinations use then the two versions of the same interfered signals for recovering their respective packet with an *ANC signal decoding algorithm*. The algorithm decodes symbol-by-symbol the interfered packets. This transmission mode is named ANC with overlapped transmissions (ANC-OL). Therefore, our complete system comprises of four algorithms that we describe in the rest of this paper.
Cooperative Channel Information Exchange {#sec:channel-estimation}
========================================
It is clear from the introductory description that estimating the channel is necessary both for the decoding algorithm executed at the destinations, but also for the rate estimation. In this paper, channel estimates are obtained after averaging a number of measurements done for each symbol in the preambles and postambles of each control or data packet exchanged at the MAC layer [@argyriou:twc-ancol]. Since the estimation of the channel from preamble/pilot-based schemes is a well known technique [@book:fundamental-wireless], we do not delve into this topic further. However, for testing if a potential ANC-OL transmission is indeed the optimal choice for transmitting a packet, all the involved channels must be estimated. For example in Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\] all the channel transfer functions shown with the letter $h$ must be estimated in order to be able to test if the specific ANC-OL transmission is efficient (a subset of them in case of COOP). Therefore, a significant number of messages should normally be exchanged even in the simple network of Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\]. In this paper all the necessary channels are estimated by leveraging the transmission of existing control messages in order to avoid additional traffic. The precise algorithm that ensures minimum overhead is shown in Fig. \[fig:distributed-channel-estimation\], while it is described below in detail.
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------
Src 1 Dst 1 Src 2 Dst 2 Relay $S\rightarrow D$ $S\rightarrow R$,$R\rightarrow D$ $\widetilde{R}^D$ $\widetilde{R}^{COOP}$ $\widetilde{R}^{ANCOL}$
$N_1$ $N_2$ - - - $\tilde{h}_1$ - X - -
$N_1$ $N_2$ - - $N_3$ $\tilde{h}_1$ $\tilde{h}_2$,$\tilde{h}_4$ - X -
$N_1$ $N_2$ - - $N_6$ $\tilde{h}_1$ X - X -
$N_1$ $N_2$ $N_4$ $N_5$ $N_3$ $\tilde{h}_1$,$\tilde{h}_6$,$\tilde{h}_3$,$\tilde{h}_8$ $\tilde{h}_2$,$\tilde{h}_4$,$\tilde{h}_5$,$\tilde{h}_7$ - - X
$N_1$ $N_2$ $N_4$ $N_5$ $N_6$ $\tilde{h}_1$,... $\tilde{h}_2$,... - - X
...
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- --------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------
Every time a node associates with a specific wireless local-area network (WLAN) this algorithm is initiated while when it diss-associates (also because of mobility) the algorithm stops and the related data structures are cleared. This pseudo-code demonstrates what happens if a control frame/packet is overheard by a node $i$ and how from specific packets we extract information that is useful for channel estimation. The main characteristic of the algorithm is that it leverages the existing RTS/CTS mechanism as many cooperative protocols do [@coopmac; @laneman04] and in addition the *clear-to-cooperate* (CTC) message that is introduced in this paper. The precise rules for overhearing and channel estimation are as follows: (1) The first requirement is that all nodes should overhear RTS messages regardless of whether the transmission is intended for them or not and estimate the channel between the transmitting node and themselves (line 3 in the algorithm). (2) All nodes should overhear the CTC message transmissions of their neighbors. Each node should maintain a data structure that it should contain the nodes and the associated relay that were involved in an overheard COOP or ANC-OL transmission. This data structure is named $\mathbf{anfl}$ in the algorithm and its organization can be seen in Table \[tab1\]. Furthermore, this data structure should be updated continuously with more recent information that is extracted from overheard CTC messages (lines 23-30 in the algorithm), and its size should reflect the node resources. This information will be used for identifying the specific channels/nodes that can be part of a COOP or ANC-OL transmission. To understand how this works consider the example in Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\]. In this figure $N_2$ overhears cooperative transmissions (the CTC message) between $N_4$ and $N_5$ with $N_3$ being the relay. In a symmetrical fashion, $N_5$ overhears the cooperative transmission from $N_1$ to $N_2$ with the help of $N_3$. (3) A node should piggyback in its outgoing CTS message the results of the channel estimation only for channels that are formed between another node and themselves, but only if both have used the same relay in the past. This check is performed in lines 6-9 of the algorithm with information that is extracted from the $\mathbf{anfl}$ data structure that contains monitored data from several past relayed transmissions. To continue our previous example when $N_2$ sends a CTS for responding to an RTS from $N_1$, it includes in the CTS response not only the estimate $\tilde{h}_1$, but also the estimate that it has for $\tilde{h}_8$ which was obtained from previous transmissions of RTS messages from $N_4$ (Recall a few lines above that $N_4$ and $N_3$ were included in the $\mathbf{anfl}$ data structure of $N_2$). One way to summarize this functionality is that in this way a relay can obtain the information for channels that it cannot directly estimate ($\tilde{h}_8$ and $\tilde{h}_3$ here).
This adaptive flow monitoring technique with the $\mathbf{anfl}$ data structure, increases the channel information at the relay only when it could be needed. Also it is important to note that from an implementation perspective, when a tagged node experiences at the MAC layer a diss-association from another node, then the channel estimates that involve the disconnected node, are removed from the local memory and also the entries in the $\mathbf{anfl}$ data structure that involve this node.
Rate Estimation of Cooperative and Interfering Transmissions {#sec:rate-estimation}
============================================================
The next question is as follows: How does the system select which secondary/interfering transmission is optimal? Naturally, a secondary transmission should be selected to interfere *iff* the ANC-OL mode will increase the sum-rate not only when compared to the direct transmission, but also when compared to a COOP transmission that employs amplify-and-forward (AF) [@laneman04; @coopmac]. To do so it must be evaluated analytically, and more importantly during run-time, which type of cooperation is the most efficient. The only issue is that this decision can only be made by the relay since it is the only node in the network configuration that can obtain all the necessary information for doing so as we described in Section \[sec:channel-estimation\].
In the general case of cooperative systems, the transmitter may select to use cooperative transmission when a desired rate is not met with a direct transmission. However, without loosing generality we assume that with the proposed protocol the optimal mode is always selected whether it is ANC-OL, COOP, or Direct. Now consider that the channel bandwidth is $W$, the transmitter power $P$, additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with zero mean and variance $\sigma^2$, and $\gamma_i=|h_i|^2$. If we assume Rayleigh block fading channels where the attenuation is considered constant throughout the transmission of a single frame then the SNR between two nodes in our system is given by $SNR=\frac{P\gamma}{\sigma^2}$. The estimated rate of the Direct transmission mode is then: $$\label{ineq:1}
\widetilde{R}_{DIR}=W\cdot log_2(1+\frac{P\tilde{\gamma}_1}{\sigma^2}).$$ On the other hand, the estimated rate of the cooperative transmission COOP that occurs in two orthogonal time slots for the example in Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\] will be [@laneman04]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:2}
\widetilde{R}_{COOP}&=&\frac{W}{2} \cdot min\big\{log_2(1+\frac{P\tilde{\gamma}_2}{\sigma^2}),\\
&&log_2(1+\frac{P\tilde{\gamma}_1}{\sigma^2}\frac{P\tilde{\gamma}_2\tilde{\gamma}_4g^2}{\sigma^2(1+\tilde{\gamma}_4g^2)})\big\}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ If we consider the overhead of the complete protocol we design in the next section, the cooperative scheme will be more efficient when it is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:3}
&&\frac{L}{\widetilde{R}_{COOP}}+T_{OVHD,COOP}<\frac{L}{\widetilde{R}_{DIR}}.\end{aligned}$$ The aforementioned condition can also be interpreted as follows: The COOP transmission mode is more efficient when the time duration of the cooperative transmission is shorter from the direct transmission based on the estimated rate, plus the associated protocol overhead ($T_{OVHD}$) that is incurred by the cooperative protocol. Similar conditions are used by other cooperative protocols [@coopmac]. This condition can also determine the optimal packet length $L^*$ for which direct or cooperative transmission is optimal.
Now we present the estimated sum-rate of the ANC-OL transmission from the present relay and for the unicast transmissions depicted in Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\], i.e. $N_1 \rightarrow N_2$ and $N_4 \rightarrow N_5$. This sum-rate expression for two interfering transmissions incorporates the overheard information that is used for decoding the respective signals/packets at each receiver. This will be equal to [@argyriou:twc-ancol]: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{R}_{ANCOL}&=& W \cdot\log_2 \Big (1+\frac{P\gamma_1}{\sigma^2}+\frac{P\gamma_8}{\sigma^2}+\frac{P\gamma_2\gamma_4g^2}{\sigma^2(1+\gamma_4g^2)}\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{P\gamma_4\gamma_7g^2}{\sigma^2(1+\gamma_4g^2)}+\frac{P^2\gamma_1\gamma_4\gamma_7g^2}{\sigma^4(1+\gamma_4g^2)}\\
& +&\frac{P^2\gamma_2\gamma_4\gamma_8g^2}{\sigma^4(1+\gamma_4g^2)}\nonumber-\frac{P^2\gamma_4 Re(h_1h_2^*h_7h_8^{*})g^2}{\sigma^4(1+\gamma_4g^2)} \Big ). \label{ria}\end{aligned}$$ The above formula is not a pre-requisite for the operation of the proposed rate estimation algorithm and of course the entire protocol. Similar transmission modes like ANC-OL could be utilized in conjunction with a suitable analytical rate expression (E.g. [@katabi07a]). Also for the ANC-OL mode to be more efficient than COOP in addition to inequality , the following condition must be true: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq:4}
\frac{L}{\widetilde{R}_{ANCOL}}+T_{OVHD,ANCOL}<\frac{L}{\widetilde{R}_{COOP}}+T_{OVHD,COOP}.\end{aligned}$$ Relays use the previous rate estimation expressions for estimating the possible rate between for all the available channel estimates that they have stored for their neighbors. These results populate a data structure like the one depicted in Table \[tab1\], and in this case we name it $\mathbf{rate\_estimates}$. As we will see in the next section, a relay decides if it will notify another node regarding its ability to cooperate with the use of busy tones. A busy tone is a narrowband signal transmitted at the maximum allowed power of the wireless standard. This is accomplished on-demand, i.e. when another node desires to transmit.
Cooperative ANC MAC (CANC-MAC) {#sec:coopmac}
==============================
The two previous algorithms for cooperative channel information exchange and rate estimation are essential for the operation of our system but they do not affect directly the channel access mechanism. Now we describe the third central component of the complete system that is the cooperative analog network coding MAC (CANC-MAC) protocol. The proposed protocol does not affect the contention and channel access mechanism but only the cooperative packet transmission procedure. It is important to be clear that the adoption of the well-known and understood binary exponential backoff algorithm allows one node to obtain access to the channel at a specific time instant and transmit an RTS/CTS. Therefore, it is impossible for two nodes to successfully complete the RTS/CTS exchange. Since the two nodes that are about to be involved in a communication are identified with the method above, the problem that remains to be addressed is to identify which node can be the optimal relay and if there are any additional nodes that can transmit concurrently.
Basic Protocol and Busy Tones
-----------------------------
The $tx\_data()$ subroutine in the pseudo-algorithm of Fig. \[fig:canc-mac\] depicts the actions executed at a sender when it desires to transmit a data packet. Let us assume that an RTS/CTS message exchange has finished (line 5 in the previous subroutine) and several relays have updated the $\mathbf{rate\_estimates}$ as we explained in the previous section. Then the potential relays indicate their ability to relay a transmission by using busy tones that are transmitted after a time duration equal to $T_{SIFS}$ after the end of the CTS transmission[^4]. Note that busy tones are also transmitted in the same channel while there is no separate control channel. The conditions for transmitting busy tones are the following: A busy tone is transmitted from a relay candidate in the first slot after $T_{SIFS}$, if the relay desires to indicate that the ANC-OL mode is efficient for improving the rate of the system by combining the indicated transmission with another transmission. This is indicated in line 5 of the $relay\_overhear()$ subroutine in Fig. \[fig:canc-mac\]. When no busy tone is transmitted after $T_{SIFS}$ plus $T_s$, this means that this transmission cannot use the ANC-OL mode jointly with another transmission based on the latest estimate by the relay(s). On the other hand, the first slot after CTS plus $T_{SIFS}$ remains idle, and a busy tone is transmitted by a relay in the second slot, when the rate can be improved by enabling the COOP mode (again depicted in the $relay\_overhear()$ subroutine in Fig. \[fig:canc-mac\]). Similarly with before, several potential relays can transmit a busy tone. The optimal one has again to be selected in a similar way as in the case of ANC-OL.
Finally, if no busy tone is transmitted in any of the first two slots after $T_{SIFS}$, the Direct transmission mode is selected instead. In this last case, the node that obtained the channel and sent the first RTS will send directly the data packet waiting at most $T_{SIFS}$ plus $2T_s$ after the CTS reception. This minor delay of two time slots is very short when compared to the overall performance benefits of the proposed scheme. Note that busy tones are used since other relay candidates might also transmit a busy tone in the same slot (e.g. nodes $N_6,N_7$), which means that at least one node can be used for ANC-OL.
Relay Prioritization
--------------------
The next question is the following: How does the system treat multiple relay candidates? From all the potential relay nodes, the one with the highest possible increase in the transmission rate should obtain the channel and be used as a relay. To solve this problem a separate round is introduced during which relays are allowed to contend for this role. Fig. \[fig:relay-prioritization\] presents how two relays contend for the relaying opportunity. We named this process *the relay contention round* and it works as follows. After the relay nodes transmit their respective busy tones, they set the value of a special backoff counter. The contention slot counter at a relay is set in terms of slots as $T_{RBKF}=(2\cdot N - \lfloor \widetilde{R} \cdot N \rfloor ) \cdot T_s$, where $N$ is the maximum value for the contention slots. The value of $N$ depends on the maximum allowed delay and it should be configured for the complete network during the initialization phase. What this formula does is that it allocates a smaller number of slots for nodes that can achieve the higher rate with any transmission mode[^5]. In this way the relay with the highest possible rate obtains the channel by minimizing the number of slots it has to wait before it transmits a CTC message. Other potential relays that overhear a transmitted CTC, can infer safely that another more optimal node will relay the impending transmission, and they simply stop the $T_{RBKF}$ timer. Now, the overhead in time slots that the proposed protocol introduces can now be easily derived from Fig. \[fig:relay-prioritization\] as follows: $$T_{OVHD}=T_{RTS}+2T_{CTS}+3T_{SIFS}+2T_{s}+T_{RBKF}.$$ After the $T_{RBKF}$ timer expires, the relay transmits a CTC message towards both nodes that should transmit concurrently (line 9 in the $relay\_overhear()$ subroutine of Fig. \[fig:canc-mac\]). CTC is essentially a CTS message that contains two destination addresses and indicates to the senders that the concurrent transmission can take place after $T_{SIFS}$ allowing thus a synchronized collision. From the perspective of the initial sender of the RTS, the process that checks the existence of CTC and the transmition the actual data packet is handled in lines 15-20 of the $tx\_data()$ subroutine in Fig. \[fig:canc-mac\]. The main advantage of the proposed protocol is that the receivers do not need to explicitly identify the ANC-OL transmission since they know that signals that are received after the CTC will interfere. The only need by the receiving nodes is to check the CTC header and make sure that they are one of the intended destinations of the impending ANC-OL. This means that they can employ the signal recovery algorithm that we describe in the next section directly after the reception of the interfered packets.
Recovery of Interfered Packets {#sec:collision-recovery}
==============================
At this stage we have reached the point in the overall system functionality where an ANC-OL transmission has been completed. Now the two interfered signals will need to be jointly decoded. For simplifying the notation and the explanation of the algorithm here, we use again the example in Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\] to demonstrate this process. Let us denote the transmitted packets/signals as $x_A$ and $x_B$. The transmitted signals in this example originate from $N_1$ and $N_4$ and are received by the intended receivers $N_2$ and $N_5$ respectively, and also by the relay $N_3$. With the ANC-OL mode the relay $N_3$ will broadcast the locally interfered version of the two signals. For recovering the two independent packets, we apply joint decoding of the locally interfered and forwarded versions of the interfered packets. Before this process takes place, the receiver identifies the packet preamble that is contained in each version of the two aforementioned signals and then it aligns them at the symbol-level [@argyriou:twc-ancol; @argyriou2010coml]. Subsequently, a maximum-likelihood (ML) detector is applied for the symbols that belong to the two different packets.
For expressing mathematically our algorithm let us denote with $\mathcal{X_A},\mathcal{X_B}$ the fixed symbol dictionaries that depend on the modulation scheme that the two senders use. Let also $P$ denote the power allocated at each sending node, while $g$ is the power allocation factor at the relay. Finally let also $n$ denote the noise at the corresponding receiver that is a circularly complex Gaussian random variable, i.e. $\mathcal{CN}(0,1)$. From Fig. \[fig:topology-mac-cc2\] we can see that the direct signal that will be received at the destination $N_2$ is $$\label{ML_detection_joint}
y_{N_2}=\sqrt{P}h_1x_A+\sqrt{P}h_8x_B+n_{N_2},$$ while the forwarded signal from the relay is $$\label{ML_detection_joint}
y_{N_3,N_2}=\sqrt{P}h_2h_4gx_A+\sqrt{P}h_7h_4gx_B+h_4gn_{N_3}+n_{N_2}.$$ If node $N_2$ combines the direct and relayed signals with a single ML demodulation step, the estimation will take the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ML_detection_joint}
&& (\tilde{x}_A,\tilde{x}_B)_{N_2} = \arg \min_{x_A \in \mathcal{X_A},x_B
\in \mathcal{X_B}} \Big \{ \| y_{N_2}-\sqrt{P}h_1x_A\nonumber\\ %
&-&\sqrt{P}h_8x_B\| + \| y_{N_3,N_2}-\sqrt{P}h_2h_4gx_A\nonumber\\
&-&\sqrt{P}h_4h_7gx_B \| \Big \}.%\end{aligned}$$ At the second receiver, a similar signal recovery formula can be written. The parameters $\sqrt{P} h_4h_7g$, and $\sqrt{P}h_2h_4g$ are obtained by using the training symbols that are inserted in the preambles of RTS, CTS, and CTC packets as we explained in detail earlier in this paper. The performance of the algorithm that we just described and is summarized in , was studied in [@argyriou:twc-ancol] where as we said in the Introduction we also developed a thorough sum-rate analysis for the case of two independent senders.
Complexity and Implementation Issues {#sec:complexity}
====================================
As we pointed out in the Introduction, the proposed system consists of different algorithms of varying complexity. Therefore, we think it is necessary to provide a brief discussion regarding the complexity and implementation issues that might arise.
A general characteristic of our system is that relaying decisions are only made for a single hop since the algorithms operate at the link layer. A node that decodes with the proposed algorithm two interfered packets successfully, it will transmit this packet to its next hop by following the same process. Therefore, in the case that the network has multiple hops, the additional nodes perform the same tasks again but only for their own neighborhood, limiting thus the number of nodes that have to be considered in our algorithms.
Another issue is that several of the algorithms are executed at the relays which might introduce significant overhead. However, we do not expect that this is the case for the following reasons. First, the channel estimation is usually a process applied in existing WLANs while the relay only has to overhear RTS/CTS messages for performing this task. Second, in existing WLAN devices rate selection algorithms are also applied and are primarily vendor-specific. Third, the rate estimation algorithm described in Section \[sec:rate-estimation\] requires only a few numerical calculations. Therefore, current hardware is capable of supporting these algorithms. Finally, we should also note that in our network every node is a potential relay since we assume this a collaborative network and nodes are willing to share their resources for maximizing the total throughput. Of course if the local resources are not sufficient, then a node can refrain from being used as a relay.
Regarding the complexity of the proposed decoding scheme is essentially a V-BLAST [@foschini96] decoder that is generally characterized by exponential computational complexity in both the number of transmitters and the size of the symbol constellation. But since in this case the number of transmitters is two, the decoding complexity is similar to a 2x2 MIMO system [@book:fundamental-wireless]. There are other suboptimal lower complexity detection methods for V-BLAST such as zero-forcing (ZF) detection or minimum mean squared error (MMSE) detection. However, these methods result in significant performance degradation when compared to ML detection. We expect that this is the only algorithm that needs new hardware processing functionality since it requires different signal processing algorithm at the PHY.
Performance Evaluation {#sec:performance-evaluation}
======================
The performance of the proposed system is evaluated through computer simulation. We assume that nodes are randomly placed in a single cell and that pairs of backlogged nodes communicate to each other. We implemented CANC-MAC and we evaluated the performance in terms of MAC layer throughput (including the overheads) and packet transmission delay under different channel conditions. All nodes are assumed to be backlogged with traffic while results are obtained for 10,000 packet transmissions. The channel access timing parameters are similar with 802.11 ($T_{SIFS}$=16$\mu sec$, $T_{DIFS}$=34$\mu sec$). Regarding the lower layer parameters we assume a channel bandwidth of $W=20$ MHz, while the same Rayleigh fading path loss model was used for all the channels. Our assumptions in this case include a frequency-flat fading wireless link that remains invariant per transmitted PHY frame, but may vary between simulated frames. The channel quality is captured by the average received SNR $\gamma$ of the wireless link. Since the channel varies from frame to frame, the Nakagami-$\eta$ fading model is adopted for describing $\gamma$ [@book:fundamental-wireless]. This means that the received SNR per frame is a random variable, where we assume $\eta=1$ for Rayleigh fading. The noise over the wireless spectrum is additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with the variance of the noise to be $10^{-9}$ at every node/link. Regarding specifics of CANC-MAC, the number of *different* ANC-OL and COOP transmissions that are monitored and kept in the data structure was 20 while the maximum number of backoff slots in the relay contention round was set to $N=10$. For comparing our protocol, we also implemented a typical relaying scheme named COOP-MAC, that employs orthogonal cooperative transmissions without interfering signals [@laneman04].
Finally, we investigated the impact of traffic pattern changes. For the ANC-OL mode, a change in the next hop of one of the unicast transmissions will affect the performance of the channel estimation and ML detection algorithms since they have to be executed for a different next hop destination. To this aim we devised *Scenario 1* where a source-destination pair is constant throughout the simulation, and *Scenario 2* where nodes were alternating their next-hop destination node after the transmission of 500 consecutive packets. This last scenario is one way to simulate the behavior of nodes that act as routers in multi-hop or mobile communication scenarios.
Throughput vs. Number of Nodes
------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:anc-throughput1\] we present the aggregate MAC layer throughput results in the complete network for different number of nodes and for different SNR of the wireless channel. The last parameter is important to be evaluated since it affects the performance of the ML detector that is executed at the receivers. The results are very representative of the performance of complete system we propose since they show that for a higher number of nodes the aggregate MAC layer throughput can remain very high. Therefore, the impact of having a high rate of enforced interfering transmissions when the number of nodes is increased, is mitigated by the proposed cooperative protocol and the associated signal recovery algorithm. It is also interesting to note that for the traffic *Scenario 2* (Sc2) the performance of the proposed scheme is barely impacted by the more frequent changes in the traffic flow. The number of nodes seems to have only minor impact in the performance of the CANC-MAC in *Scenario 2* when compared to *Scenario 1*. The reason for this performance difference is that as the number of nodes that contend for the channel is increased, the time period between two successive packet transmissions takes longer. This fact increases the time duration until the channel information exchange and estimation algorithm updates the available information of a node.
It is important to understand that with the proposed CANC-MAC the performance is always lower-bounded by the baseline COOP-MAC which means that it cannot become worse both theoretically but also practically. One way to explain this intuitively is to think that for low SNR the performance of ML detection is naturally not very good which in practice means that ANC is not used frequently. However, even with the baseline 802.11 or COOP-MAC, the performance is also poor because of the higher bit error rate (BER) of every link. Therefore, CANC-MAC works well and in pace with the performance that we would expect from IEEE 802.11 and COOP-MAC.
Throughput vs. Payload Size
---------------------------
Next we evaluate the performance of CANC-MAC for different payload sizes. Results for packet sizes of nearly 2000 and 3000 bits can be seen in Fig. \[fig:anc-throughput2\]. The results are consistent with our previous results for a packet size of 4000 bits, although the aggregate throughput is lower because of the smaller packet size. It is important to note that for higher payload size, the performance increase of CANC-MAC over COOP-MAC is becoming more important. The reason is that the efficiency of the ANC-OL mode is translated to two successful packet transmissions which means higher performance gain from a single interfered transmission. Furthermore, the reduced number of contention rounds that a node has to go through results in an additional improvement of the information rate besides the fact that two packets are transmitted in one slot. Also it is important to see in this figure that in the lower SNR regime the performance of all the protocols is improved as the packet size becomes smaller. However, for a larger packet size the SNR regime under which any protocol improves its performance needs to become substantially higher. For example for a packet size of 3000 bits or higher, a channel SNR of 15dB is needed in order to start observing a meaningful network throughput.
The same observation also holds for *Scenario 2*. We see that in general the impact of packet size variations, or the number of nodes in the previous subsection, have no impact and minor impact on the performance respectively. The performance reduction is purely from the overhead of having to stop the ANC-OL mode to the next hop, and then complete two successful unicast packet transmissions in order to identify new candidates for ANC-OL. However, we believe that even *Scenario 2* is unlikely to happen in reality since the frequent changes in traffic pattern will only probably happen in scenarios of high mobility.
Packet Transmission Delay vs. Number of Nodes
---------------------------------------------
Results for the packet transmission delay versus the number of nodes can be seen in Fig. \[fig:anc-delay-vs-nodes\]. Regarding the performance of the COOP-MAC protocol it reduces the delay when compared to IEEE 802.11 but only because it reduces the number of re-transmissions. The lower BER corresponds to lower packet error rate (PER) and eventually to a reduced number of retransmissions. On the contrary CANC-MAC combines the benefit that diversity provides in combination with the use of cooperative decoding, and also the benefit of transmitting two units of information in a single time slot. In our results in Fig. \[fig:anc-delay-vs-nodes\] the additional benefit of CANC-MAC over COOP-MAC is obvious but the delay is not exactly reduced by half as we would expect. Also note that as the number of nodes is increased with CANC-MAC, the rate at which the delay is increased has similar trend with the other two protocols. The explanation for these results is provided below. With the ANC-OL mode a single packet is experiencing a higher transmission delay since it takes slightly longer to access the channel because of the altered protocol procedure. This is because the proposed protocol introduces an overhead even for the transmission of a single packet. However, if the average service time for each packet is considered, then the total delay for each packet is lower with CANC-MAC since it is serviced faster from the transmission queue. When a node sends an RTS before the data packet, our protocol is indirectly “fishing” for another suitable packet that could be transmitted from the HOL position in the queue of another node. Therefore, the average transmission time of packets in the complete network is theoretically reduced by half for fully backlogged nodes and without any protocol overhead. Of course in the case that nodes do not have packets to transmit, we expect that performance gains will be reduced.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper we presented a cooperative MAC protocol that pro-actively enforces packets to interfere in distributed wireless local area networks. The protocol ensures that when two nodes desire to transmit packets to independent destinations, they coordinate with minimal overhead with a third relay node for concurrently transmitting over the wireless channel. The relay is responsible for ensuring that the desired packets can be decoded and recovered at the respective destinations by using analytical rate expressions. To enable distributed uncoordinated operation of the protocol, we introduce a relay selection mechanism so that the optimal relay can be selected in terms of its ability to increase the achieved transmission rate. Performance results showed the efficacy of our proposed scheme in terms of both throughput and delay. In our future work we plan first to investigate in more detail the necessary protocol enhancements in multi-hop scenarios where more than two transmissions may interfere.
[10]{} \[1\][\#1]{} url@samestyle \[2\][\#2]{} \[2\][[l@\#1=l@\#1\#2]{}]{}
D. P. Bertsekas and R. G. Gallager, *Data Networks*.1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emPrentice-Hall, 1987.
D. Tse and P. Viswanath, *Fundamentals of Wireless Communication*. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4emCambridge University Press, 2005.
M. Dankberg, M. Miller, and M. Mulligan, “Self-interference cancellation for two-party relayed communication,” United States Patent 5596439, January 1997.
P. Larsson, N. Johansson, and K.-E. Sunell, “Coded bi–directional relaying,” in *5th Scandinavian WS on Ad Hoc Networks*, May 2005.
P. Popovski and H. Yomo, “Bi-directional amplification of throughput in a wireless multi-hop network,” in *IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference - Spring*, May 2006.
S. Zhang, S. C. Liew, and P. P. Lam, “Hot topic: Physical-layer network coding,” in *MobiCom*, 2006.
S. Katti, S. Gollakota, and D. Katabi, “[Embracing Wireless Interference: Analog Network Coding]{},” in *SIGCOMM*, 2007.
A. Argyriou and A. Pandharipande, “Cooperative protocol for analog network coding in distributed wireless networks,” *IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications*, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 2014–2023, October 2010.
Y. E. Sagduyu, D. Guo, and R. Berry, “On the delay and throughput of digital and analog network coding for wireless broadcast,” in *Conference on Information Sciences and Systems*, March 2008.
M. Rimensberger, Y. E. Sagduyu, M. L. Honig, and W. Utschick, “Comparison of analog and digital relay methods with network coding for wireless multicast,” in *IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC)*, June 2009.
F. Xue, C.-H. Liu, and S. Sandhu, “[MAC]{}-layer and [PHY]{}-layer network coding for two-way relaying: Achievable rate regions and opportunistic scheduling,” in *Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing*, 2007.
T. Wang and G. Giannakis, “Complex field network coding for multi-user cooperative communications,” *IEEE JSAC*, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 561–571, April 2008.
S. Boppana and J. M. Shea, “Overlapped carier-sense multiple access [(OCSMA)]{} in wireless ad hoc networks,” in *IEEE MILCOM*, October 2007.
Z. Zhang, Y. Yang, and M. Zhao, “Enhancing downlink performance in wireless networks by simultaneous multiple packet transmission,” *IEEE Transactions on Computers*, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 706–718, May 2009.
M. Khabbazian, F. Kuhn, N. Lynch, M. Medard, and A. P. Gheibi, “[MAC]{} design for analog network coding,” MIT CSAIL Technical Report, Tech. Rep., 2010.
“Part 11: Wireless [LAN]{} medium access control and physical layer [(PHY)]{} specifications,” IEEE 802.11-1999 Standard, August 1999.
P. Liu, Z. Tao, S. Narayanan, T. Korakis, and S. Panwar, “[CoopMAC]{}: A cooperative [MAC]{} for wireless [LANs]{},” *IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Special Issue on Cooperative Communications and Networking*, vol. 25, no. 2, February 2007.
J. N. Laneman, D. Tse, and G. Wornell, “Cooperative diversity in wireless networks: Efficient protocols and outage behavior,” *IEEE Transactions on Information Theory*, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3062–3080, December 2004.
A. Argyriou and A. Pandharipande, “Collision recovery in distributed wireless networks with opportunistic cooperation,” *IEEE Communications Letters*, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 300–302, April 2010.
G. J. Foschini, “Layered space-time architecture for wireless communication in a fading environment when using multi-element antennas,” *Bell Labs Technical Journal*, vol. 1, p. 4159, 1996.
[Antonios Argyriou]{} received the Diploma in electrical and computer engineering from Democritus University of Thrace, Greece, in 2001, and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical and computer engineering as a Fulbright scholar from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA, in 2003 and 2005, respectively.
Currently, he is a tenure-track faculty member at the Department of Computer and Communications Engineering, University of Thessaly, Greece. From 2007 until 2010 he was a Senior Research Scientist at Philips Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. From 2004 until 2005, he was a Senior Engineer at Soft.Networks, Atlanta, GA. Dr. Argyriou currently serves in the editorial board of the *Journal of Communications*. He has also served as guest editor for the *IEEE Transactions on Multimedia* Special Issue on Quality-Driven Cross-Layer Design, and he was also a lead guest editor for the *Journal of Communications*, Special Issue on Network Coding and Applications. Dr. Argyriou serves in the TPC of several international conferences and workshops in the area of communications, networking, and signal processing. His current research interests are in the areas of communication systems and computer networks. He is a member of IEEE.
[^1]: Manuscript received November 21, 2010; revised April 1, 2011; June 16, 2011; accepted August 21, 2011. The associate editor coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for publication was Xianbin Wang.
[^2]: A. Argyriou would like to acknowledge the support from the European Commission through the Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship WINIE-273041 and the STREP project CONECT (FP7ICT257616).
[^3]: A. Argyriou is with the Department of Computer and Communication Engineering, University of Thessaly, Greece (Email: [email protected]).
[^4]: For being compatible with the basic RTS/CTS message exchange of existing devices the transmission of the busy tone should be delayed for the duration of one more slot. This will allow a legacy node to start transmitting a data frame before any relay indicates its intention with busy tones (see Fig. \[fig:relay-prioritization\]).
[^5]: Note that $\widetilde{R}$ is the normalized estimated rate gain from any transmission mode and takes values between 1 and 2, with 2 denoting the maximum gain, i.e. two packets/slot.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove a stability theorem for families of holomorphically-parallelizable manifolds in the category of Hermitian manifolds.'
address:
- |
Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica\
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica\
Università di Parma\
Parco Area delle Scienze 53/A, 43124\
Parma, Italy
- |
Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica\
Università di Parma\
Parco Area delle Scienze 53/A, 43124\
Parma, Italy
author:
- Daniele Angella
- Adriano Tomassini
title: 'Stability of holomorphically-parallelizable manifolds'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
By a classical theorem by K. Kodaira and D. C. Spencer, [@kodaira-spencer-3 Theorem 15], small deformations of compact complex manifolds admitting a Kähler metric still admit Kähler metrics. This is a consequence of the harmonicity property of Kähler metrics and of Hodge theory on compact Kähler manifolds. On the other side, H. Hironaka provided in [@hironaka] an example of a complex-analytic family of compact complex manifolds being Kähler except as for the central fibre, which is only Moǐšhezon. In other words, Kählerness is not a closed property under deformations. It is expected that limits of projective manifolds are Moǐšhezon, and limits of Kähler manifolds are in class $\mathcal{C}$ of Fujiki, see [@demailly-paun; @popovici-invent]. Note that $\partial\overline\partial$-Lemma is an invariant property under images of holomorphic birational maps, [@deligne-griffiths-morgan-sullivan Theorem 5.22]. In particular, compact complex manifolds being Moǐšhezon or belonging to class $\mathcal{C}$ of Fujiki satisfy the $\partial\overline\partial$-Lemma, [@deligne-griffiths-morgan-sullivan Corollary 5.23]. Hence, in view of the above conjectures, in [@angella-kasuya-2; @angella-tomassini-3], the behaviour of the $\partial\overline\partial$-Lemma property under deformation is investigated. In particular, [@angella-tomassini-3 Corollary 2.7] provides another argument for proving the stability of $\partial\overline\partial$-Lemma under small deformations; see the references therein for different proofs. While, in [@angella-kasuya-2 §4, Corollary 6.1], it is provided an example showing that $\partial\overline\partial$-Lemma is not stable under limits. Note in fact that the structures on the holomorphically-parallelizable Nakamura manifold studied in [@angella-kasuya-2 §4] are not in class $\mathcal{C}$ of Fujiki. In any case, nilmanifolds and solvmanifolds (that is, compact quotients of connected simply-connected nilpotent, respectively solvable, Lie groups by co-compact discrete subgroups,) provide a possibly useful class of examples for investigating the above questions. In fact, Kählerness for nilmanifolds is characterized by $\partial\overline\partial$-Lemma, see [@hasegawa Theorem 1, Corollary], which is in turn characterized in terms of Bott-Chern cohomology, [@angella-tomassini-3 Theorem B]. On the other hand, several results concerning computation of Bott-Chern cohomology for nilmanifolds and solvmanifolds are known, see, e.g., [@angella-kasuya-1; @angella-1] and the references therein. When restricting to the class of nilmanifolds, Kählerness is a closed properties under deformations. This follows by a theorem by A. Andreotti, H. Grauert, and W. Stoll in [@andreotti-stoll]. More precisely, they proved a stability result for complex-analytic families of complex tori.
In this short note, we prove a similar result than A. Andreotti, H. Grauert, and W. Stoll for the class of holomorphically-parallelizable manifolds, in the category of compact Hermitian manifolds. As pointed out by the Referee, it remains an open question whether the result may be stated in the category of compact complex manifolds.
[*Acknowledgments.*]{} The authors would like to thank Paul Gauduchon and the anonymous Referees for their valuable suggestions.
Main results
============
A compact complex manifold is called [*holomorphically-parallelizable*]{} if its holomorphic tangent bundle is holomorphically-trivial, see [@wang page 771]. A structure theorem for holomorphically-parallelizable manifolds was proven by H.-C. Wang. More precisely, holomorphically-parallelizable manifolds have a complex Lie group as universal covering.
Let $X$ be a holomorphically-parallelizable manifold. Then $X$ is (biholomorphic to) a quotient $\left. G \middle\slash D \right.$ where $G$ is a connected simply-connected complex Lie group and $D$ is a discrete subgroup.
Holomorphically-parallelizable manifolds having a complex solvable Lie group as universal covering were studied by I. Nakamura in [@nakamura]. He initiated a classification of holomorphically-parallelizable solvmanifolds up to complex dimension $5$ in [@nakamura §6], then completed by D. Guan in [@guan]. Moreover, by explicitly constructing the Kuranishi family of deformations of some holomorphically-parallelizable solvmanifolds of complex dimension $3$, in [@nakamura §3], it was proved that being holomorphically-parallelizable is not a stable property under small deformations of the complex structure, [@nakamura page 86]. A detailed study of holomorphically-parallelizable nilmanifolds, and of their Kuranishi space and stability was done by S. Rollenske in [@rollenske-jems].
The structure theorem by H.-C. Wang allows to generalize and simplify a stability result by A. Andreotti, H. Grauert, and W. Stoll, [@andreotti-stoll Theorem 8]. In the proof below, the classical and well-known Montel theorem, (also called generalized Vitali theorem,) is used.
Let $\mathcal{F}=\{f\}$ be a family of holomorphic functions on an open set $\Omega\subseteq{\mathbb{C}}^n$ such that, for any compact set $K\subseteq\Omega$, there exists a positive constant $M_K$ such that, for any $z\in K$, for any $f\in\mathcal{F}$, it holds $|f(z)|<M_K$. Then any sequence $\{f_n\}_n\subseteq\mathcal{F}$ contains a subsequence which converges uniformly on compact subsets of $\Omega$.
We can now state and prove the main result of this note.
\[thm:main\] Let $\left\{ \left( X_t , g_t \right) \right\}_{t \in (-\varepsilon,1)}$ be a smooth family of compact Hermitian manifolds, with $\varepsilon>0$ small enough. Suppose that $X_t$ is holomorphically-parallelizable for any $t\in(0,1)$, with a pointwise $g_t$-orthonormal co-frame $\left\{ \varphi^j(t) \right\}_j$ of holomorphic $1$-forms. Then $X_0$ is holomorphically-parallelizable.
First of all, by the Ehresmann theorem, for any $t\in(-\varepsilon, 1)$, we see $X_t=(X,J_t)$ where $\{J_t\}_{t\in(-\varepsilon,1)}$ is a family of complex structures on the differentiable manifold $X$ varying smoothly in $t$.
By definition, the holomorphic tangent bundle $T^{1,0}X_t$ of $X_t$ is holomorphically-trivial for any $t\in (0,1)$. Equivalently, the holomorphic co-tangent bundle $\left(T^{1,0}X_t\right)^*$ of $X_t$ is holomorphically-trivial for any $t\in (0,1)$. Hence, by the assumptions, we choose $\left\{\varphi^1(t),\ldots, \varphi^n(t)\right\}$ global pointwise $g_t$-orthonormal co-frame of holomorphic $1$-forms on $X_t$ depending smoothly on $t$, where $n$ denotes the complex dimension of $X_t$.
Denote by $\left({\cdot}, {\cdot\cdot}\right)_t$ the induced $\mathrm{L}^2$-Hermitian product on $1$-forms, defined as $\left( \varphi, \psi \right)_t:=\int_X \varphi\wedge*_{g_t}\bar\psi$, where $*_{g_t}$ denotes the Hodge-$*$-operator associated to $g_t$.
For any fixed $z_0 \in X_0$, consider a local holomorphic coordinate chart $$\left( U \times (-\delta,\delta), \, \left( z^1=x^1+\operatorname{i}x^2, \ldots, z^n=x^{2n-1}+\operatorname{i}x^{2n}, t \right) \right)$$ centered at $(z_0,0)$ on $\left\{X_t\right\}_{t\in(-\varepsilon,1)}$. Locally on $U \times (0,\delta)$, for $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, $$\varphi^{j}(z,t) \;\stackrel{\text{loc}}{=}\; \sum_{\alpha=1}^{n} \varphi^j_{\alpha}(z^1,\ldots,z^n,t)\, \operatorname{d}z^\alpha \qquad \text{ in } U \times (0,\delta) \;,$$ where $\left\{ \varphi^j_{\alpha}(z^1,\ldots, z^n,t) \right\}_{\alpha}$ are smooth in $(z^1,\ldots, z^n,t)$ and holomorphic in $(z^1,\ldots,z^n)$.
We claim that, for any $\alpha \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$, the set $\left\{ \varphi^j_{\alpha}(z^1,\ldots, z^n,t) \right\}_{t\in\left(0,\frac{\delta}{2}\right]}$ is a uniformly-bounded family of holomorphic functions on compact subsets. More precisely, this follows from the following two observations. Fix an open relatively compact $V$ in $U$ and consider $t$ varying in $\left(0,\frac{\delta}{2}\right]$. First, there exists a positive constant $C$ such that, for every $(z,t)\in \overline{V} \times \left(0,\frac{\delta}{2}\right]$, it holds $$\sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^{n} g_t^{\alpha,\bar\beta}(z) u_\alpha \bar u_\beta \;\geq\; C\, \sum_{\gamma=1}^{n} \left|u_\gamma\right|^2 \qquad \text{ and } \qquad \sqrt{\det\left(g_{t,\; \alpha,\beta}(z)\right)_{\alpha,\beta}} \;\geq\; C$$ where $\left(u_\alpha\right)_{\alpha\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}$ is a vector in ${\mathbb{C}}^n$. Second, for any $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, the $1$-form $\varphi^{j}(t)$ has uniformly-bounded norm with respect to the $\mathrm{L}^2$-Hermitian product induced by $g_t$. Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \max_{t\in\left[0,\frac{\delta}{2}\right]} \mathrm{Vol}(X,g_t) } \\[5pt]
&\geq& \left( \varphi^j(t) , \varphi^j(t) \right)_t \\[5pt]
&=& \int_{X} \sum_{\alpha,\beta} g_t^{\alpha\bar\beta}(z) \varphi^j_{\alpha}(z,t) \bar\varphi^j_{\beta}(z,t) \, \sqrt{\det\left(g_{t,\; \alpha,\beta}(z)\right)_{\alpha,\beta}} \, \operatorname{d}x^1 \wedge\cdots\wedge \operatorname{d}x^{2n} \\[5pt]
&\geq& \tilde C^2 \, \int_{V} \sum_{\gamma=1}^{n} \left| \varphi^j_{\gamma}(z,t) \right|^2 \, \operatorname{d}x^1 \wedge\cdots\wedge \operatorname{d}x^{2n}
\end{aligned}$$ from which we get $$C^{-2} \;\geq\; \int_V \left| \varphi^j_{\gamma}(z,t) \right|^2 \, \operatorname{d}x^1 \wedge\cdots\wedge \operatorname{d}x^{2n} \;.$$
Classical estimates now imply that, given a compact subset $K$ in $V$, there exists a constant $A_K>0$ such that $\left|\varphi^j_\gamma(z,t)\right|\leq A_k$ for any $(z,t)\in K\times \left(0,\frac{\delta}{2}\right]$. Then we apply the Montel theorem. In fact, for fixed $j$ and $\gamma$, the family $\left\{\varphi^j_{\gamma}(z^1,\ldots,z^n,t)\right\}_{t\in\left(0, \frac{\delta}{2}\right]}$ is a family of holomorphic functions on $V$ uniformly bounded on compact subsets $K$ in $V$. Then, up to pick-out a subsequence, $\varphi^j_\alpha(z^1,\ldots,z^n,t)$ converges uniformly on compact subsets, as $t\to 0$, to a holomorphic function $\varphi^j_\alpha(z^1,\ldots,z^n,0)$ on $V$.
Now, we take another local holomorphic coordinate chart intersecting the first one. Then we extract another subsequence in such a way that the convergence holds for both charts. By continuing in this way, we can construct a set $\left\{ \varphi^{1}(0),\ldots,\varphi^{n}(0) \right\}$ of holomorphic $1$-forms on $X_0$.
We claim that this set is orthogonal with respect to the $\mathrm{L}^2$-Hermitian product associated to $g_0$. Indeed, consider a smooth partition of unity $\{\rho_\ell\}_{\ell}$ associated to a covering $\{U_\ell\}_{\ell}$ with coordinate holomorphic charts as in notations above. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left( \varphi^j(0), \varphi^k(0) \right)_{0}} \\[5pt]
&=& \sum_\ell \int_{U_\ell} \rho_\ell\, \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^n g^{\alpha\bar\beta}_{\ell,\,0}(z) \varphi^j_{\ell,\, \alpha}(z,0)\overline{\varphi^k_{\ell,\, \beta}(z,0)} \, \sqrt{\det\left(g_{t,\; \alpha,\beta}(z)\right)_{\alpha,\beta}} \, \operatorname{d}x^1 \wedge\cdots\wedge \operatorname{d}x^{2n} \\[5pt]
&=& \sum_\ell \int_{U_\ell} \rho_\ell\, \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^n \lim_{t\to 0} g^{\alpha\bar\beta}_{\ell,\,t} (z) \varphi^j_{\ell,\,\alpha}(z,t)\overline{\varphi^k_{\ell\,\beta}(z,t)} \, \sqrt{\det\left(g_{t,\; \alpha,\beta}(z)\right)_{\alpha,\beta}} \, \operatorname{d}x^1 \wedge\cdots\wedge \operatorname{d}x^{2n} \\[5pt]
&=& \lim_{t\to 0} \sum_\ell \int_{U_\ell} \rho_\ell\, \sum_{\alpha,\beta=1}^n g^{\alpha\bar\beta}_{\ell,\,t} (z) \varphi^j_{\ell,\,\alpha}(z,t)\overline{\varphi^k_{\ell\,\beta}(z,t)} \, \sqrt{\det\left(g_{t,\; \alpha,\beta}(z)\right)_{\alpha,\beta}} \, \operatorname{d}x^1 \wedge\cdots\wedge \operatorname{d}x^{2n} \\[5pt]
&=& \lim_{t\to 0} \left( \varphi^j(t), \varphi^k(t) \right)_t \;=\; \lim_{t\to0} \delta^{jk} \;=\; \delta^{jk} \;.
\end{aligned}$$
Now, we claim that $\left\{\varphi^j(0)\right\}_{j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}$ are in fact linearly independent at every point. Indeed, consider a coordinate holomorphic chart as in notations above. Then $$\varphi^{1}(z,t)\wedge\cdots\wedge\varphi^{n}(z,t) = \det\left(\varphi^{j}_{\alpha}(z,t)\right)_{j,\alpha} \, \operatorname{d}z^1 \wedge\cdots\wedge\operatorname{d}z^n\,.$$ The holomorphic functions $\det\left(\varphi^{j}_{\alpha}(z,t)\right)_{j,\alpha}$ converge to $\det\left(\varphi^{j}_{\alpha}(z,0)\right)_{j,\alpha}$ for $t\to0$ uniformly on compact subsets. We show that $\det\left(\varphi^{j}_{\alpha}(z,0)\right)_{j,\alpha}$ is not identically zero. Indeed, $\{\varphi^1\lfloor_p(t),\ldots,\varphi^n\lfloor_p(t)\}$ being orthonormal with respect to $g_t\lfloor_p$ at any point $p\in X$, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \int_X \left| \det\left(\varphi^{j}_{\alpha}(0)\right)_{j,\alpha}\right|^2 \operatorname{d}z^1\wedge\cdots \operatorname{d}z^n\wedge\operatorname{d}\bar z^1\wedge\cdots\operatorname{d}\bar z^n } \\[5pt]
&=& \lim_{t\to0} \int_X \left| \det\left(\varphi^{j}_{\alpha}(t)\right)_{j,\alpha}\right|^2 \operatorname{d}z^1\wedge\cdots \operatorname{d}z^n\wedge\operatorname{d}\bar z^1\wedge\cdots\operatorname{d}\bar z^n\\[5pt]
&=& \lim_{t\to0} c(n)\cdot \mathrm{Vol}(X,g_t) \\[5pt]
&=& c(n) \cdot \mathrm{Vol}(X,g_0) \;>\; 0 \;,
\end{aligned}$$ where $c(n)$ is a constant depending just on the complex dimension. It follows that $\left| \det\left(\varphi^{j}_{\alpha}(z,0)\right)_{j,\alpha}\right|^2$ is not identically zero. Therefore, up to pick-out a subsequence, by the Bochner theorem, [@bochner-martin Theorem VIII.8], we obtain that $\det\left(\varphi^{j}_{\alpha}(z,0)\right)_{j,\alpha}$ is nowhere vanishing, proving the claim.
Therefore $\left\{\varphi^j(0)\right\}_{j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}}$ provides a global co-frame of holomorphic $1$-forms for $X_0$, and hence $X_0$ is holomorphically-parallelizable.
Note that if $\operatorname{d}\varphi^j(t)=0$, then also $\operatorname{d}\varphi^j(0)=0$, for any $j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$. In particular, by [@wang Theorem 1], one recovers the stability result for differentiable families of complex tori by A. Andreotti, H. Grauert, and W. Stoll.
Let $\left\{ X_t \right\}_{t \in (-\varepsilon,1)}$ be a differentiable family of compact complex manifolds, with $\varepsilon>0$ small enough. Suppose that $X_t$ is a complex torus for any $t\in(0,1)$. Then $X_0$ is a complex torus.
We take a co-frame $\{\varphi^j(t)\}_j$ of holomorphic $1$-forms on $X_t=\left.\Gamma_t\middle\backslash {\mathbb{C}}^n \right.=(X,J_t)$ varying smoothly in $t$. We set $g_t:=\sum_j \varphi^j(t)\odot\bar\varphi^j(t)$. We claim that $g_0:=\lim_{t\to 0}g_t$ is a Hermitian metric on $X_0$. Indeed, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{ \int_X \varphi^1(0)\wedge\cdots\varphi^n(0)\wedge\bar\varphi^1(0)\wedge\cdots\bar\varphi^n(0) } \\[5pt]
&=& \lim_{t\to0} \int_X \varphi^1(t)\wedge\cdots\varphi^n(t)\wedge\bar\varphi^1(t)\wedge\cdots\bar\varphi^n(t) \\[5pt]
&=& \lim_{t\to0} \det \left(\begin{array}{c}\Omega(t) \\ \bar\Omega(t) \end{array}\right) \\[5pt]
&=& \det \left(\begin{array}{c}\Omega(0) \\ \bar\Omega(0) \end{array}\right) \neq 0
\end{aligned}$$ by [@andreotti-stoll page 341], where $\Omega(t)$ is the period matrix of $X_t$.
Finally, we claim that a compact complex holomorphically-parallelizable manifold $X = \left. G \middle\slash D \right.$ of complex dimension $n$ is a torus if and only if the first Betti number is $b_1 = 2n$.
Indeed, note that $b_1 = \dim_{\mathbb{R}}\left. G \middle\slash \left[G,G\right] \right.$ by the Sakane theorem, [@sakane Theorem 1], see also [@wang Corollary 1]. The statement follows, since $t \mapsto b_1(X_t)$ is locally constant at $0$ by the Ehresmann theorem.
In particular, one gets the following.
In the class of holomorphically-parallelizable manifolds, respectively nilmanifolds, the property of being Kähler is stable for both small and large deformations.
By [@wang Corollary 2], holomorphically-parallelizable manifolds admit Kähler metrics if and only if they are complex tori. Respectively, by [@benson-gordon Theorem A], nilmanifolds admit Kähler structures if and only if they are tori. By [@andreotti-stoll Theorem 8], the statement follows.
Complex solvable Lie groups up to complex dimension $5$ are classified by I. Nakamura in [@nakamura §6]. For example, the family in class (IV.5) is characterized by the structure equations $$\operatorname{d}\varphi^1 \;=\; 0 \;, \quad \operatorname{d}\varphi^2 \;=\; \varphi^1\wedge\varphi^2 \;, \quad \operatorname{d}\varphi^3 \;=\; \alpha\,\varphi^1\wedge\varphi^3 \;, \qquad \operatorname{d}\varphi^4 \;=\; -(1+\alpha)\, \varphi^1\wedge\varphi^4 \;,$$ where $\alpha\in{\mathbb{C}}$ is such that $\alpha(1+\alpha)\neq0$. Note that, for $\alpha\to 0$, the above family degenerates to the class (IV.4), which is characterized by the structure equations $$\operatorname{d}\varphi^1 \;=\; 0 \;, \quad \operatorname{d}\varphi^2 \;=\; 0 \;, \quad \operatorname{d}\varphi^3 \;=\; \varphi^2\wedge\varphi^3 \;, \qquad \operatorname{d}\varphi^4 \;=\; \varphi^2\wedge\varphi^4 \;.$$
Holomorphically-parallelizable solvmanifolds up to complex dimension $5$ are classified by D. Guan in [@guan Classification Theorem, Theorem 2, Theorem 3]. In this case, we cannot find an example showing that the property of being holomorphically-parallelizable with a fixed universal covering is not preserved at the limit. We wonder whether such an example can be found.
As pointed out by the Referee, we ask whether the result in Theorem \[thm:main\] may be stated in the category of compact complex manifolds.
[10]{}
A. Andreotti, W. Stoll, Extension of holomorphic maps, [*Ann. of Math. (2)*]{} **72** (1960), no. 2, 312–349.
D. Angella, The cohomologies of the Iwasawa manifold and of its small deformations, [*J. Geom. Anal.*]{} **23** (2013), no. 3, 1355-1378.
D. Angella, H. Kasuya, Bott-Chern cohomology of solvmanifolds, `arXiv:1212.5708v3 [math.DG]`.
D. Angella, H. Kasuya, Cohomologies of deformations of solvmanifolds and closedness of some properties, to appear in [*Mathematica Universalis*]{}, `arXiv:1305.6709v2 [math.CV]`.
D. Angella, A. Tomassini, On the $\partial\overline\partial$-Lemma and Bott-Chern cohomology, [*Invent. Math.*]{} **192** (2013), no. 1, 71–81.
Ch. Benson, C. S. Gordon, Kähler and symplectic structures on nilmanifolds, [*Topology*]{} **27** (1988), no. 4, 513–518.
S. Bochner, W. T. Martin, [*Several Complex Variables*]{}, Princeton Mathematical Series, vol. **10**, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J., 1948.
P. Deligne, Ph. Griffiths, J. Morgan, D. P. Sullivan, Real homotopy theory of Kähler manifolds, [*Invent. Math.*]{} **29** (1975), no. 3, 245–274.
J.-P. Demailly, M. Păun, Numerical characterization of the Kähler cone of a compact Kähler manifold, [*Ann. of Math. (2)*]{} **159** (2004), no. 3, 1247–1274.
D. Guan, On classification of compact complex solvmanifolds, [*J. Algebra*]{} **347** (2011), no. 1, 69–82.
K. Hasegawa, Minimal models of nilmanifolds, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} **106** (1989), no. 1, 65–71.
H. Hironaka, An example of a non-Kählerian complex-analytic deformation of Kählerian complex structures, [*Ann. of Math. (2)*]{} **75** (1962), no. 1, 190–208.
K. Kodaira, D. C. Spencer, On deformations of complex analytic structures. III. Stability theorems for complex structures, [*Annals of Math. (2)*]{} **71** (1960), no. 1, 43–76.
I. Nakamura, Complex parallelisable manifolds and their small deformations, [*J. Differ. Geom.*]{} **10** (1975), no. 1, 85–112.
R. Narasimhan, [*Several complex variables*]{}, Reprint of the 1971 original, Chicago Lectures in Mathematics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1995.
D. Popovici, Deformation limits of projective manifolds: Hodge numbers and strongly Gauduchon metrics, [*Invent. Math.*]{} **194** (2013), no. 3, 515–534.
S. Rollenske, The Kuranishi space of complex parallelisable nilmanifolds, [*J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS)*]{} **13** (2011), no. 3, 513–531.
Y. Sakane, On compact complex parallelisable solvmanifolds, [*Osaka J. Math.*]{} **13** (1976), no. 1, 187–212.
H.-C. Wang, Complex parallisable manifolds, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} **5** (1954), no. 5, 771–776.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Investigating the direct integral decomposition of von Neumann algebras of bounded module operators on self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules an equivalence principle is obtained which connects the theory of direct disintegration of von Neumann algebras on separable Hilbert spaces and the theory of von Neumann representations on self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-modules with countably generated [**A**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module over commutative separable W\*-algebras [**A**]{}. Examples show posibilities and bounds to find more general relations between these two theories, (cf. R. Schaflitzel’s results). As an application we prove a Weyl–Berg–Murphy type theorem: For each given commutative W\*-algebra [**A**]{} with a special approximation property (\*) every normal bounded [**A**]{}-linear operator on a self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module with countably generated [**A**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module is decomposable into the sum of a diagonalizable normal and of a ”compact” bounded [**A**]{}-linear operator on that module.'
author:
- Michael Frank
title: |
Connections between Hilbert W\*-modules\
and direct integrals
---
\[section\] \[theorem\][[Corollary]{}]{} \[theorem\][[Example]{}]{} \[theorem\][[Definition]{}]{} \[theorem\][[Proposition]{}]{} \[theorem\][[Remark]{}]{}
The idea to investigate the subject treated in the present paper arose in discussions with K. Schmüdgen and J. Friedrich at the University of Leipzig. They suggested to the author that self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules over commutative W\*-algebras might be closely connected with direct integrals of measurable fields of Hilbert spaces or, respectively, with some topologically related objects. Moreover, von Neumann algebras of bounded module operators on these self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules should be decomposable into direct integrals of measurable fields of von Neumann algebras in a very easy way.
Following this line appropriate facts have been proved. One gets a new view on the nowadays well-known theory of direct integral decomposition of von Neumann algebras [**M**]{} on separable Hilbert spaces. This theory is shown to be equivalent to the theory of von Neumann representations of W\*-algebras [**M**]{} on self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules $\cal H$ over W\*-subalgebras [**B**]{} of the center of [**M**]{}, where [**B**]{} has to be separable and the Hilbert [**B**]{}-modules have to possess countably generated [**B**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**B**]{}-modules. The most interesting point is that the basic structures, Hilbert W\*-modules and direct integrals of Hilbert spaces, are quite different. However, this equivalence will not be preserved turning to direct integrals of von Neumann algebras on non-separable Hilbert spaces, in general. It would be interesting to make further considerations in this direction taking in account recent results of R. Schaflitzel [@Schaflitzel:90/1; @Schaflitzel:90/2], P. Richter [@Richter:91] and other authors [@Kehlet:78; @Marechal:69; @Vesterstrom/Wils:70; @Wils:70]. Applicating this equivalence principle, a new result is found generalizing theorems of H. Weyl, I. D. Berg and G. J. Murphy.
Last but not least one realizes that the forthcomming theory is closely related to the describtion of self-dual Hilbert AW\*-modules over commutative AW\*-algebras in terms of Boolean valued analysis and logic created by M. Ozawa and G. Takeuti [@Ozawa:83; @Ozawa:85; @Takeuti:78; @Takeuti:83/1; @Takeuti:83/2] ([@Nishimura:91]) during 1979-85. There are also relations to the work of H. Takemoto [@Takemoto:73; @Takemoto:75; @Takemoto:76] who has described similar phenomena in terms of continuous fields of Hilbert spaces. In the present more special case the mathematical terminology describing the situation is taken from measure theory.
The present paper is organized as follows: The first section is a short summary of facts from the theory of direct integrals of measurable fields of Hilbert spaces and of von Neumann algebras, at one side, and from the theory of Hilbert W\*-modules over commutative Hilbert W\*-algebras, at the other. We slightly modify the traditional denotations for our purposes and recall some necessary facts from the literature. The second section deals with the interrelation between self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules over commutative W\*-algebras [**A**]{} possessing a countably generated [**A**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module and special sets of mappings into measurable fields of Hilbert spaces, giving rise to isomorphisms. Considering von Neumann algebras of bounded module operators on those Hilbert W\*-modules we obtain their direct integral decomposition. As an application for commutative W\*-algebras [**A**]{} with a special property (\*) we prove that on self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-modules which possess a countably generated [**A**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module every normal bounded module operator $T$ is decomposable into the sum of a normal, diagonalizable bounded module operator $D$ and a ”compact” bounded module operator $K$.
The author thanks J. Friedrich, A. Kasparek, P. Richter, R. Schaflitzel and K. Schmüdgen for helpful discussions and suggestions during the time of preparation of the paper.
Preliminaries
=============
We start with some necessary informations about Hilbert W\*-modules. Throughout the present paper the symbol [**A**]{} is denoting a C\*-algebra. We make the convention that all modules over [**A**]{} are left modules by definition. Following W. L. Paschke [@Paschke:73] and other authors [@Dupre/Gillette:83; @Kasparov:80; @Ozawa:83; @Ozawa:85; @Widom:56] we define a [*pre–Hilbert [**A**]{}-module*]{} over a certain C\*-algebra [**A**]{} as an [**A**]{}-module $\cal H$ equipped with a mapping $\langle .,. \rangle :
{\cal H} \, {\rm x} \, {\cal H} \longrightarrow {\bf A}$ satisfying:
[()]{}
$\lambda (a x) = (\lambda a) x = a (\lambda x) $ for every $\lambda \in {\bf C}$, $a \in {\bf A}$, $x \in \cal H$.
$\langle x,x \rangle \geq 0$ for every $x \in \cal H$.
$\langle x,x \rangle =0$ if and only if $x=0$.
$\langle x,y \rangle = \langle y,x \rangle$\* for every $x,y \in
\cal H$.
$\langle a x + b y,z \rangle = a \langle x,z \rangle + b \langle
y,z \rangle$ for every $a,b \in {\bf A}$, every $x,y,z \in \cal H$.
The mapping $\langle .,. \rangle $ is the so called [**A**]{}[*-valued inner product on*]{} $\cal H$. A pre–Hilbert [**A**]{}-module is called to be [*Hilbert*]{} if it is complete with respect to the norm $\| x \| =
\| \langle x,x \rangle \|_A^{1/2}$. Two Hilbert [**A**]{}-modules $\{ {\cal H}_1 , \langle .,. \rangle_1 \}$, $\{ {\cal H}_2 , \langle .,. \rangle_2 \}$ over a certain C\*-algebra [**A**]{} are isomorphic if there exists a bijective, [**A**]{}-linear, bounded mapping $T: {\cal H}_1 \longrightarrow {\cal H}_2$ such that $\langle .,. \rangle_1
\equiv \langle T(.),T(.) \rangle_2$ on ${\cal H}_1 {\rm x} {\cal H}_1$. A Hilbert [**A**]{}-module $\cal H$ is [*finitely generated*]{} if it is finitely generated as an [**A**]{}-module. It is [*countably generated*]{} if there exists a countable set of generators inside $\cal H$ such that the set of all finite [**A**]{}-linear combinations of generators is norm-dense in $\cal H$. A Hilbert [**A**]{}-module $\{ {\cal H} , \langle .,. \rangle \}$ over a C\*-algebra [**A**]{} is [*faithful*]{} if the norm-closed [**A**]{}-linear hull of the range of the inner product, $\langle \cal H, \cal H \rangle$, is identical with [**A**]{}.
A central notion in the theory of Hilbert C\*-modules is the notion of self-duality since self-dual Hilbert C\*-modules form a proper subcategory of the category of Banach C\*-modules with advantageous properties, cf. [@Frank:89; @Frank:91]. Denote by $\cal H'$ the set of all bounded module maps $f: {\cal H} \longrightarrow {\bf A}$. Following W. L. Paschke [@Paschke:73] a Hilbert C\*-module $\{ {\cal H}, \langle .,. \rangle \}$ is called to be [*self-dual*]{} if every map $r \in \cal H'$ is of the form $\langle ., a_r \rangle$ for a certain element $a_r \in \cal H$. Let us remark, that a Hilbert AW\*-module over a commutative AW\*-algebra is self-dual if and only if it is Kaplansky-Hilbert.
In the following we direct our attention to Hilbert W\*-modules over commutative W\*-algebras. In that case the [**A**]{}-valued inner product on $\{ {\cal H}, \langle .,. \rangle \}$ lifts to an [**A**]{}-valued inner product $\langle .,. \rangle_D$ on the Banach [**A**]{}-module $\cal H'$ turning $\{ {\cal H'}, \langle .,. \rangle_D \}$ into a self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module. The equalities $$\langle \langle .,x \rangle, \langle .,y \rangle \rangle_D =
\langle x,y \rangle \, {\rm for} \, {\rm every} \, x,y \in \cal H,$$ $$\langle \langle .,x \rangle r(.) \rangle_D = r(x) \, {\rm for} \,
{\rm every} \, x \in {\cal H}, \, {\rm every} \, r \in \cal H'$$ are satisfied, cf. [@Paschke:73 Th. 3.2]. Moreover, the following criterion for self-duality can be formulated:
\[cf. [[@Paschke:73 Th. 3.2, Th. 3.12]]{}\] Let [**A**]{} be a commutative W\*-algebra and let $\{ {\cal H}, \langle .,. \rangle \}$ be a Hilbert [**A**]{}-module. Then the following two conditions are equivalent:
[()]{}
$\cal H$ is self-dual.
There exist an index set $I$ and a collection of (not necessarily distinct) projections $\{ p_\alpha : \alpha \in I \}$ of [**A**]{} indexed by $I$ such that $\cal H$ is isomorphic to the set of all $I$-tuples $$\tau - \Sigma \{ {\bf A}p_\alpha : \alpha \in I \} =
\{ \{ x_\alpha \} : x_\alpha \in {\bf A}p_\alpha, \alpha \in I,
\| \sum x_\alpha x_\alpha^* \|_A < + \infty \}$$ equipped with the [**A**]{}-valued inner product $$\langle x,x \rangle = w^*-\lim_{S \in \cal F} \sum_{\alpha \in S}
x_\alpha x_\alpha^* ,
x = \{ x_\alpha : \alpha \in I \},$$ where $\cal F$ is the net of all finite subsets of $I$ being partially ordered by inclusion.
Let [**A**]{} be a commutative W\*-algebra, $\cal H$ be a self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module being representable as $\tau - \Sigma \{ {\bf A}p_\alpha :
\alpha \in I \}$ for a countable set $I$. Then there exists a countably generated Hilbert [**A**]{}-module $\cal K$ such that the [**A**]{}-dual Banach [**A**]{}-module of $\cal K$ is $\cal H$.
Beside the Hilbert [**A**]{}-modules we would like to consider [**A**]{}-linear bounded operators $T$ on them. If the underlying Hilbert C\*-module $\cal H$ is self-dual they always possess an adjoint operator $T^*$ being bounded and [**A**]{}-linear. The set of all such operators , ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$, forms a C\*-algebra in that situation. Moreover, ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ becomes a W\*-algebra over self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules, cf. [@Paschke:73]. An important subset of ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ is the set of [*”compact”*]{} operators ${\bf K}_A(\cal H)$ being defined as the norm-closed linear hull of the set $$\{ \theta_{a,b} \in {\bf End}_A({\cal H}) :\theta_{a,b}(c) = \langle c,a
\rangle b
\: {\rm for} \: {\rm every} \: a,b,c \in \cal H \}.$$ It is a C\*-subalgebra and a two-sided ideal of ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$.
Our standard reference sources for direct disintegration theory are the monographs [@Maurin:67; @Riesz:56; @Takesaki:79] and the papers [@Effros:66; @Segal:51/1; @Segal:51/2]. For recent developements in this area see [@Kehlet:78; @Marechal:69; @Vesterstrom/Wils:70; @Wils:70], [@Schaflitzel:90/1; @Schaflitzel:90/2].
The following definition we would like to take as a basis ([@Takesaki:79 Def. 8.9], [@Maurin:67 p. 206-207]): Let $X$ be a locally compact Hausdorff measure space with Borel measure $\mu$. A set $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$ of Hilbert spaces indexed by $X$ is called to be a $\mu$[*-measurable field of Hilbert spaces*]{} if there exists a subspace $\cal E$ of the product space $\prod \{ H_x : x \in X \}$ with the properties:
[()]{}
For every $z \in \cal E$ the function $\| z(x) \|$ is an element of $L^{\infty}(X, \mu )$.
If for a certain $y \in \prod \{ H_x : x \in X \}$ the function $\langle y(x), z(x) \rangle$ belongs to $L^{\infty}(X, \mu )$ for every $z \in \cal E$ then $y \in \cal E$.
There exists a countable subset $\{ z_i : i \in {\bf N} \}$ of elements of $\cal E$ such that for every $x \in X$ the set $\{ z_i(x) : i \in {\bf N} \}$ is a basis of the Hilbert space $H_x$.
Elements $\{ h_x : x \in X \}$ of $\cal E$ are called to be $\mu$[ *-measurable.*]{} We will specify the set $\cal E$ in further considerations since the structure of $\cal E$ is sometimes important for our purposes. Let us remark that (iii) implies the separability of the Hilbert spaces $H_x$, $x \in X$, of the $\mu$-measurable field $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$. Moreover, the map $x \in X \longrightarrow dim(H_x) \in {\bf R} $ is $\mu$-measurable.
Denote by $L^{\infty}(X, \mu , \{ H_x : x \in X \})$ the set of all rest classes of essentially bounded, $\mu$-measurable mappings of X into the $\mu$-measurable field of Hilbert spaces $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$, ($x \longrightarrow H_x$), where the elements of one rest class differ only on subsets of $\mu$-measure zero. Analogously, define $L^1(X, \mu , \{ H_x : x \in X \})$ as the set of all rest classes of mappings $f: x \in X \longrightarrow H_x \in \{ H_x : x \in X \}$ possessing a finite integral $\int_X \| f(x) \|_{H_x} \, d \mu (x)$ , where the elements of one rest class differ only on subsets of $X$ of $\mu$-measure zero. Defining suitable operations, norms and other structural elements on $L^{\infty}(X, \mu , \{ H_x : x \in X \} )$ and $L^1(X, \mu , \{ H_x : x \in X \} )$ they become a faithful self-dual Hilbert $L^{\infty}(X, \mu )$-module with countably generated $L^{\infty}(X, \mu )$-pre-dual Hilbert $L^{\infty}(X, \mu )$-module and a Banach $L^{\infty}(X, \mu )$-module, respectively. The third structure needed in the following is the classical direct integral of the $\mu$-measurable field of Hilbert spaces $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$, $\int_X H_x \, d \mu (X)$.
Recall, that an operator $T$ on $\int_X H_x \, d \mu (x)$ is called to be $\mu$-[*measurable*]{} if the operator $T(x)$ acts on $H_x$ as a bounded linear operator for almost every $x \in X$ and $T ({\cal E})
\subseteq
{\cal E}$. Now, following [@Takesaki:79 Def. 7.7, Cor. 7.8, Def. 7.9] denote by $\int_X {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \mu (x)$ the set of [*decomposable operators*]{} on $\int_X H_x \, d \mu (x)$ , i.e. the set of all rest classes of essentially bounded, $\mu$-measurable fields of operators $\{ B_x : B_x \in {\bf End}_C (H_x ); x \in X \}$, where the elements of one rest class differ only on subsets of X of $\mu$-measure zero. Note, that the commutant with respect to ${\bf End}_C(\int_X H_x \, d \mu
(x))$ of the set $\{ a \cdot id_{L^2} : a \in L^{\infty}(X, \mu ) \}$ of all diagonal operators on $\int_X H_x \, d \mu (x))$ equals to $\int_X {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \mu (x)$ at least if the Hilbert spaces $H_x$ are $\mu$-almost everywhere separable. This property is lost in certain cases when the Hilbert spaces $H_x$ are taken to be non-separable, (cf. [@Schaflitzel:90/1; @Schaflitzel:90/2]). With suitable chosen operations it is a normed $*$-algebra. Moreover, in the classical situation when $\mu$-almost all Hilbert spaces $H_x$ are separable it is a W\*-algebra of type I.
Now we are prepared for further considerations.
An equivalence principle
========================
Let ${\bf A}= L^{\infty}(X,\mu)$ be a commutative W\*-algebra, $X$ be a suitable chosen locally compact, Hausdorff measure space with Borel measure $\mu$. The purpose of the considerations below is , first, to show that each self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module $\cal H$ possessing a countably generated [**A**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module is isomorphic to a certain Hilbert $L^{\infty}(X,\mu)$-module of type $L^{\infty}(X, \mu , \{H_x : x \in X \})$ for a suitable chosen $\mu$-measurable field of separable Hilbert spaces $\{H_x : x \in X\}$ on $(X, \mu )$, and secondly, to derive the direct integral decomposition of the operator algebra ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$. Moreover, we will look for possibilities and bounds of generalization of these equivalence relations we get. Formulating the theorems below we enclose two results of I. E. Segal [@Segal:51/1; @Segal:51/2] for completeness.
[(existence of isomorphisms)]{}
Let [**A**]{} be a commutative W\*-algebra and $\cal H$ be a self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module being the [**A**]{}-dual Banach [**A**]{}-module of a countably generated Hilbert [**A**]{}-module. Then there exists a locally compact, Hausdorff measure space X with a Borel measure $\mu$ and a $\mu$-measurable field of Hilbert spaces $\{H_x : x \in X \}$ such that:
[()]{}
[**A**]{} is (isometricly) $*$-isomorphic to $L^{\infty}(X, \mu )$.
$\cal H$ is isometricly isomorphic to $L^{\infty}(X, \mu ,\{H_x : x \in X \})$ as a Hilbert [**A**]{}-module.
${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ is (isometricly) $*$-isomorphic to the W\*-algebra $\int_X {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \mu (x)$ on the Hilbert space $\int_X H_x \, d \mu (x)$.
The pre-dual of $\cal H$ is isometricly isomorphic to $L^1(X, \mu , \{H_x : x \in X \})$.
The pre-dual of ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ is isometricly isomorphic to $L^1(X, \mu , \{ [ {\bf End}_C(H_x) ]_* : x \in X \})$.
[(uniqueness of isomorphisms)]{}
If under the assumptions of the previous theorem the W\*-algebra [**A**]{} is faithfully and normally representable on a separable Hilbert space then one has:
[()]{}
If there exist two locally compact, second countable, Hausdorff measure spaces $X_1,X_2$ equipped with the $\sigma$-finite Borel measures $\mu_1, \mu_2$ , respectively, such that [**A**]{} is $*$-isomorphic to both $L^{\infty}(X_1, \mu_1)$ and $L^{\infty}(X_2, \mu_2)$ then there exist two null sets $N_1 \subset X_1$, $N_2 \subset X_2$, a Borel isomorphism $\phi : X_2 \backslash N_2 \longrightarrow X_1 \backslash
N_1$ and a $*$-isomorphism $\pi : L^{\infty}(X_1, \mu_1) \longrightarrow
L^{\infty}(X_2, \mu_2)$ such that $\mu_1$ and $\phi (\mu_2)$ are equivalent in the sense of absolute continuity on $X_1 \backslash N_1$, and the equality $\pi (a)(x) = a(\phi (x))$ holds for every $a \in L^{\infty}(X_1, \mu_1 )$ and for every $x \in X_2 \backslash
N_2$.
If there are, additional, two different $\mu_{1,2}$-measurable fields of Hilbert spaces $\{ H_x^{(1)} : x \in X \}$, $\{ H_x^{(2)} :
x \in X \}$ satisfying condition (ii) of the previous theorem then there exist two null sets $Y_1 \subset X_1$, $Y_2 \subset X_2$ , a Borel isomorphism $\psi :X_2 \backslash Y_2 \longrightarrow X_1 \backslash Y_1$ and a $\mu_1$-$\mu_2$-measurable field of unitary operators $\{ U_x : H_x^{(1)} \longrightarrow H_{\psi^{-1} (x)}^{(2)} : x \in
X_1 \backslash Y_1 \}$ such that $\mu_1$ and $\psi (\mu_2)$ are equivalent in the sense of absolute continuity on $X_1 \backslash Y_1$, and that $U_x {\bf End}_C
(H_x^{(1)}) U_x^*=
{\bf End}_C(H_{\psi^{-1} (x)}^{(2)})$ for every $x \in X_1
\backslash Y_1$.
[*Proofs of the theorems*]{}: The assertion (i) of the first theorem was proved by I.E.Segal ([@Segal:51/1; @Segal:51/2]) in the early fiftees and can be found at [@Riesz:56 Th. 3.4.4], whereas item (i) of the second theorem can be derived from [@Takesaki:79 Lemma 8.22, Th. 8.23] as a special case. Therefore, one can identify [**A**]{} with $L^{\infty}(X_K, \mu_K )$ for a special locally compact, Hausdorff measure space $X_K$ with Borel measure $\mu_K$ being constructed from the compact Hausdorff space $K$ realizing the $*$-isomorphy ${\bf A}=C(K)$ along the line of [@Takesaki:79 p.110]; i.e., taking $X_K$ as the union of the support sets $\Gamma_\alpha \subseteq
K$ of a maximal family of positive normal measures $\mu_\alpha$ on $K$ with disjoint supports, and defining $\mu_K$ on $X_K$ by the formula $\mu_K(f) =
\sum_\alpha \mu_\alpha (f)$ for each continuous function $f$ on $X_K$ with compact support. Finally, one has a bijection between continuous functions on $K$ and rest classes of $\mu_K$-measurable, essentially bounded functions of $L^{\infty}(X_K, \mu_K)$. Now, according to the isometric isomorphy of the Hilbert [**A**]{}-modules ${\cal H} = \tau - \Sigma \{ {\bf A}p_i : i \in
{\bf N} \}$ one gets assertion (ii) of the first theorem identifying [**A**]{} with $C(K)$ and considering the Hilbert spaces $H_x = \tau-\Sigma \{ f(x) \cdot p_i(x) :
f \in C(K), i \in {\bf N} \}$ for each $x \in X_K \subseteq K$. They form a $\mu_K$-measurable field of separable Hilbert spaces on $X_K$, where $\cal E$ is the subset of all square-integrable elements of $L^\infty(X_K, \mu_K, \{ H_x : x \in X_K \} )$. Note, that $\cal E$ is norm-dense in $\int_{X_K} H_x \; d\mu_K(x)$ by definition and $\tau_1$-dense in $L^\infty(X_K, \mu_K, \{ H_x : x \in X_K \} )$. Turning to ${\bf A}= L^{\infty}(X_K, \mu_K)$ and recalling the definition of $\tau - \Sigma$ type Hilbert C\*-modules one finishes.
Now consider the set ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ of all bounded, [**A**]{}-linear operators on $\cal H$. The boundedness and the [**A**]{}-linearity of these operators guarantee the invariance of the Hilbert spaces $H_x$ under the action of them. Moreover, ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ acts on each Hilbert space $H_x$, ($x \in X_K$), like ${\bf End}_C(H_x)$ and, globally, preserves $\cal E$ and the $\mu_K$-measurability of the field $\{ H_x : x \in X_K \}$. That is, ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ is embeddable into $\int_X {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \mu (x)$ in the sense of the coincidence of these operators on $\cal E$. Vice versa, every essentially bounded, $\mu_K$-measurable map from $X_K$ onto $\{ {\bf End}_C
(H_x) : x \in X_K \})$ induces a bounded, [**A**]{}-linear operator on $\cal E$ and, hence, on $\cal H$. So one has shown the (isometric) $*$-isomorphy of these W\*-algebras, i.e. assertion (iii) of the first theorem.
Item (ii) of the second theorem can be derived from the isometric Hilbert [**A**]{}-module isomorphism of $L^{\infty}(X_1, \mu_1, \{ H_x^{(1)} :
x \in X_1 \})$ and $L^{\infty}(X_2, \mu_2, \{ H_x^{(2)} : x \in X_2 \})$, from the commutativity of [**A**]{} and from (i) of both the theorems, whereas the facts (iv) and (v) of the first theorem follow from the self-duality of Hilbert spaces and from [@Riesz:56 p.70, Prop.] or from [@Takesaki:79 Prop. 8.38] , respectively. $\bullet$
For a fixed W\*-algebra [**A**]{} use the denotations $$l_2({\bf A}) = \left\{ \{a_i\}_{i \in {\bf N}} : a_i \in {\bf A},
{\sum}_i a_ia_i^* \, {\rm converges} \, {\rm in} \,
\|.\|_A \right\}$$ $$l_2({\bf A}){\rm '} = \left\{ \{a_i\}_{i \in {\bf N}} : a_i \in {\bf A},
\left\| {\sum}_i a_ia_i^* \right\|_A \, {\rm converges} \,
\right\}$$ for the standard countably generated Hilbert [**A**]{}-module and its [**A**]{}-dual Banach [**A**]{}-module.
[)]{}
Let ${\bf A}= l^{\infty}$ and ${\cal H} = (l^2(l^{\infty}))'$. The W\*-algebra $l^{\infty}$ is faithfully representable as the von Neumann algebra of all bounded, diagonal operators on the separable Hilbert space $l^2$. According to the theorems above one has $${\cal H} = (l^2(l^{\infty}))' = L^{\infty}({\bf N}, \nu,
\{ l^2_{(i)} : i \in {\bf N} \}),$$ $${\bf End}_A({\cal H}) = \int_{\bf N} {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \nu
(x),$$ where $\nu$ denotes a discrete measure on the set of natural numbers [**N**]{}.
For ${\bf A} = L^{\infty}([0,1] , \lambda)$ and ${\cal H}=(l^2(L^{\infty}([0,1] , \lambda)))'$ one has $${\cal H} = L^{\infty}([0,1] , \lambda, \{ l^2_{(i)} : i \in [0,1] \})$$ $${\bf End}_A({\cal H}) = \int_{[0,1]} {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \lambda
(x),$$ where $\lambda$ denotes the Lebesgue measure on the unit interval.
For ${\bf A} = L^{\infty}(X, \mu )$, ${\cal H}= (l^2({\bf A}))'$ one has ${\bf End}_A({\cal H})
= {\bf End}_C(l^2)
\overline{\otimes} {\bf A}$, where $\overline{\otimes}$ denotes the w\*-tensor product.
If the locally compact measure space $X$ is not second countable and the Borel measure $\mu$ on $X$ is not $\sigma$-finite then the statement of Theorem 2.2 is not longer true, in general. If one omits the separability condition to the Hilbert spaces $H_x$ then Theorem 2.1 fails to be true, in general.
For example, consider the W\*-algebra ${\bf A}=L^{\infty}([0,1], \lambda
)$, where $\lambda$ denotes the Lebesgue measure, and the Hilbert [**A**]{}-module ${\cal H}=\tau - \Sigma \{ {\bf A}_{(\alpha)} : \alpha \in \{ [0,1],
\nu \} \}$, with $\nu$ a discrete measure on $[0,1]$. Following the idea of Theorem 2.1,(ii) one should like to compare $\cal H$ with $L^{\infty}([0,1], \lambda ,
\{ l^2_{(\alpha)}([0,1]) : \alpha \in \{ [0,1], \nu \} \})$. (For the more complicated general definition of a $\mu$-measurable field of non-separable Hilbert spaces see R. Schaflitzel [@Schaflitzel:90/1; @Schaflitzel:90/2] e.g..) However, the special mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\{ [0,1], \lambda \} & \longrightarrow & l^2([0,1]) \\
x & \longrightarrow & \{ \delta_{x,t}(t) : t \in \{ [0,1], \nu \} \}
\end{aligned}$$ belongs to $L^{\infty}([0,1], \lambda , \{ l^2_{(\alpha)}([0,1]) :
\alpha \in \{ [0,1], \mu \} \} )$ as a non-zero element, whereas its reflection inside ${\cal H}=
\tau - \Sigma \{ {\bf A}_{(\alpha)} : \alpha \in \{ [0,1], \nu \} \}$ gives the zero element.
Beside this, from a result of R. Schaflitzel [@Schaflitzel:90/1], [@Schaflitzel:90/2 Lemma 6] there follows that under the assumption of the continuum-hypothesis it may happen that the algebra of decomposable operators is not the commutant of the algebra of diagonalizable operators on direct integrals of certain $\mu$-measurable fields of Hilbert spaces $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$ on $X$ with dim$(H_x) \geq {\bf c}$, $card(X) \geq {\bf c}$ and an almost pointwise orthogonal generating set $\Gamma_o$ of the corresponding direct integral of the Hilbert spaces $H_x$ with card$(\Gamma_o) > {\bf c}$. As a concrete example he considered $X = [0,1]$, $\lambda $ - the Lebesgue measure and $H_x = l^2([0,1])$, i.e. the same situation as above.
Now we are interested in a direct integral decomposition of von Neumann algebras [**M**]{} of operators on self-dual Hilbert W\*-modules $\cal H$ over commutative W\*-algebras [**A**]{}. Conversely, we ask for which W\*-subalgebras [**B**]{} of the centre of a given W\*-algebra [**M**]{} there exists a self-dual Hilbert [**B**]{}-module $\cal H$ such that [**M**]{} is faithfully $*$-representable as a von Neumann subalgebra of ${\bf End}_B(\cal H)$. The answer can be derived from the direct disintegration theory, especially from [@Takesaki:79 Th. 8.22, Th. 8.23].
Let [**A**]{} be a commutative W\*-algebra and $\cal H$ be a self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module possessing a countably generated [**A**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module. Let ${\bf M} \in {\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ be a von Neumann subalgebra.
If ${\bf A}=L^{\infty}(X, \mu)$, ${\cal H}=L^{\infty}(X, \mu ,
\{ H_x : x \in X \})$ in the sense of Theorem 2.1,(i),(ii) then there exists a $\mu$-measurable field of von Neumann algebras $\{ {\bf M}_x : x \in X \}$ on the $\mu$-measurable field of Hilbert spaces $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$ such that [**M**]{} is (isometricly) $*$-isomorphic to $\int_X {\bf M}_x \, d \mu (x)$.
Let [**M**]{} be a W\*-algebra possessing a normal, faithful representation on a separable Hilbert space. Let [**B**]{} be a W\*-subalgebra of the centre of [**M**]{} and let [**B**]{} be $*$-isomorphic to $L^{\infty}(X,
\mu )$ for a certain locally compact, Hausdorff, second countable measure space $X$ with $\sigma$-finite Borel measure $\mu$. Then for $\mu$-almost every $x \in X$ there exist a Hilbert subspace $H_x \subseteq H$ and a von Neumann algebra ${\bf M}_x \subseteq {\bf End}_C(H_x)$ such that:
[()]{}
The set of Hilbert spaces $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$ is a $\mu$-measurable field of Hilbert spaces, and $\int_X H_x \, d \mu (x) = H$.
The set of von Neumann algebras $\{ {\bf M}_x : x \in X \}$ is a $\mu$-measurable field and [**M**]{} is $*$-isomorphic to $\int_X {\bf M}_x \, d \mu (x)$.
[**M**]{} is faithfully representable as a von Neumann algebra of bounded module operators on the self-dual Hilbert [**B**]{}-module ${\cal H}=L^{\infty}(X, \mu , \{ H_x : x \in X \})$ being the [**B**]{}-dual Banach [**B**]{}-module of a countably generated Hilbert [**B**]{}-module.
Analysing these statements one concludes that the theory of direct integral decomposition of W\*-algebras possessing a normal, faithful representation on a separable Hilbert space is one-to-one translatable to the theory of von Neumann subalgebras of the W\*-algebras of bounded module operators on self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-modules with countably generated [**A**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module over separable commutative W\*-algebras [**A**]{}.
An application
==============
In the present section we like to generalize the following theorem of H. Weyl and I.D. Berg ([@Weyl:09] 1909 and [@Berg:71] 1971):
\[[Berg’s and Weyl’s theorem]{}\] Every linear bounded normal operator $T$ on a separable Hilbert space is decomposable into the sum of a normal,diagonalizable and a compact operator, $D$ and $K$. If $T$ is self-adjoint then for every given $\varepsilon
> 0$ one can even choose self-adjoint $D$ and $K$ such that $\|K\| < \varepsilon$.
In 1970 P. R. Halmos has shown by some examples that Weyl’s theorem can not be generalized for self-adjoint operators on non-separable Hilbert spaces, ([@Halmos:70]). Nevertheless, the two theorems of the previous paragraph and a result of G. J. Murphy [@Murphy:88 Th. 9] suggest to us another way of generalization weakening the notion of compactness.
Let [**A**]{} be a commutative W\*-algebra and $\cal H$ be a self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module with countably generated [**A**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module. Let us call an operator $T \in {\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ to be [*diagonalizable*]{} if and only if there exist a sequence of pairwise orthogonal projections $\{ P_i : i \in {\bf N} \}$ of ${\bf K}_A(\cal H)$ and a sequence of elements $\{ a_i : i \in {\bf N} \}$ of [**A**]{} such that $T = \sum_{i \in N} a_i P_i$ in the sense of w\*-convergence. Furthermore, we say that the commutative W\*-algebra [**A**]{} has [*property (\*)*]{} if and only if the set of all normal states $f$ on [**A**]{} with range projection $p_f$, for which the norm completion of the pre–Hilbert space $\{ {\bf A}p_f, f(\langle .,. \rangle_A) \}$ is separable, separates the elements of [**A**]{}. Finally, we call a locally compact Hausdorff measure space $X$ to be [*locally second countable*]{} if for every $x \in X$ there exists a clopen subset $Y \subseteq X$ containing $x$ and being second countable with respect to the measure $\mu$. We get the following result using assertions of R. V. Kadison [@Kadison:83; @Kadison:84] and of K. Grove, G. K. Pedersen [@Grove/Pedersen:84] in the proof:
Let [**A**]{} be a commutative W\*-algebra with property (\*). Let $\cal H$ be a self-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module possessing a countably generated [**A**]{}-pre-dual Hilbert [**A**]{}-module. Let $T$ be an [**A**]{}-linear bounded normal operator on $\cal H$.
Then $T$ is decomposable into the sum of a [**A**]{}-linear bounded normal diagonalizable operator D on $\cal H$ and a [**A**]{}-linear bounded ”compact” operator K on $\cal H$. If $T$ is self-adjoint then for every $\varepsilon > 0$ the operators $D$ and $K$ can be chosen to be self-adjoint and such that $\|K\| < \varepsilon$.
Let $X$ be a locally compact, locally second countable Hausdorff measure space with Borel measure $\mu$. Let $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$ be a $\mu$-measurable field of Hilbert spaces on $X$. Then each normal decomposable bounded linear operator $T$ on the (non-separable, in general) Hilbert space $H=L^2(x, \mu , \{ H_x : x \in X \})$ can be decomposed into the sum of a normal diagonalizable decomposable bounded linear operator $D$ on $H$ and a decomposable bounded linear operator $K$ on $H$, $K$ being compact on every subspace $L^2(Y, \mu , \{ H_x : x \in Y \})
\subseteq H$ with $Y \subseteq X$ being clopen and second countable.
[*Proof:*]{} Choose a representation of the commutative W\*-algebra [**A**]{} as $L^{\infty}(X, \mu )$ for a certain locally compact Hausdorff measure space $X$ with Borel measure $\mu$. By the assumptions $X$ is locally second countable. Since $X$ is the union of a family of second countable clopen subsets $Y_\alpha$ with pairwise empty intersection one can suppose without loss of generality that $X$ is second countable and, consequently, $\mu$ is $\sigma$-finite.
By the first theorem of the previous section there exists a $\mu$-measurable field of Hilbert spaces $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$ such that $\cal H$ is isometricly isomorphic to $L^{\infty}(X, \mu , \{ H_x : x \in X \})$ and that ${\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ is $*$-isomorphic to $\int_X {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \mu (x)$. The latter can be interpreted as a C\*-subalgebra of the set of all bounded linear operators [${\bf End}_C(H)$]{} on the separable Hilbert space $H=\int_X H_x \, d \mu (x)$ by (iii) of that theorem. Consequently, one can apply Murphy’s theorem ([@Murphy:88 Theorem 9]) to $T \in
{\bf End}_A({\cal H}) \equiv \int_X {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \mu (x)$ under that point of view, and one gets a diagonalizable normal operator $D \in \int_X {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d
\mu (x)
\equiv {\bf End}_A(\cal H)$ and a compact on $H$ operator $K \in
\int_X {\bf K}_C (H_x ) \, d \mu (x) \equiv {\bf K}_A(\cal H)$ such that $T=D+K$. Pay attention, that the diagonalizability of $D \in \int_X {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \mu (x)$ on $H$ means that there exist a countably number of complex eigen-values $\{ \lambda_n : n \in {\bf N} \}$ and a countably number of projections $\{ P_n \} \in \int_X {\bf End}_C (H_x ) \, d \mu (x)
\equiv
{\bf End}_A({\cal H})$ such that $D = \sum_n \lambda_n P_n$ on $H$ and on $\cal H$ simultaneously, i.e. $D$ is diagonalizable on $\cal H$, too. The nature of the eigen-vectors does not matter. Moreover, if $T$ is self-adjoint then for every $\varepsilon > 0$ one can choose $D$ and $K$ in such a way that they are self-adjoint and $\|K\| < \varepsilon$.
Remark, that if for certain projections $p \in {\bf A}$ the Hilbert $p{\bf A}$-module $p \cal H$ is finitely generated (or, equivalently, $p {\bf End}_A(\cal H)$$=p{\bf K}_A(\cal H))$ then $pK=0$ and $pT$ is diagonalizable by the results of R. V. Kadison and K. Grove, G. K. Pedersen cited above. $\bullet$
The corollary can be derived from the theorem using item (iii) of Theorem 2.1 and Murphy’s theorem.
Unfortunately, we are not able to say anything about the possibly validity of the theorem without assuming [**A**]{} to have property (\*).
Beside this, a generalization to the case of [**A**]{} being a commutative AW\*-algebra with a similar property like property (\*) in the W\*-case seems to be possible using e. g. a transfer principle developed by G. Takeuti and M. Ozawa [@Ozawa:83; @Ozawa:85; @Takeuti:78; @Takeuti:83/1; @Takeuti:83/2], between the theory of self-dual Hilbert AW\*-modules over commutative AW\*-algebras and its description in terms of Boolean valued analysis and logic. However, in the light of results of K. Grove and G. K. Pedersen [@Grove/Pedersen:84] much more general commutative C\*-algebras than arbitrary AW\*-algebras can not appear. A result of R. V. Kadison [@Kadison:83; @Kadison:84] who proved that each normal element of the W\*-algebra ${\bf M}_n({\bf A}) = {\bf End}_A({\bf A}^n)$ with [**A**]{} being a W\*-algebra is diagonalizable for every natural number $n$ encourages to check the non-commutative case. But all that remains for further research.
After this paper has circulated as a preprint the author had fruitful discussions with R. Schaflitzel about possibilities of application of the obtained equivalence principle to get an alternative definition of generalized direct integrals (i.e., the non-separable case). Let $I$ be an index set of non-countable cardinality card($I$). The self-dual Hilbert $L^{\infty}(X,\mu )$-module ${\cal M}_{{\rm card(}I{\rm )}} = \tau - \Sigma \{ L^{\infty}(X, \mu
)_{(\alpha)} :
\alpha \in I \}$ is card($I$)-homogenous for each cardinality card($I$). Moreover, the cardinality card($I$) of the generating set $I$ of ${\cal M}_{{\rm card(}I{\rm )}}$ is uniquely defined up to isomorphy of Hilbert C\*-modules, (cf. [@Kaplansky §10, Th. 4]). Now, the principal idea is to use the existing isomorphy ${\cal M}_{{\rm card(}I{\rm )}} \cong L^{\infty}(X, \mu , \{ H_x : x
\in X \})$ (where $\{ H_x : x \in X \}$ is a certain $\mu$-measurable field of Hilbert spaces $H_x$ of dimension card($I$)) to define a standard direct integral of non-separable Hilbert spaces. Simply, take the subset of all square-integrable elements of $L^{\infty}(X, \mu , \{ H_x : x \in X \})$ and close it up with respect to the direct integral norm. What turns out? One gets the smallest (non-separable, by construction) Hilbert space $H$ satisfying a generalized definition for direct integrals (cf. §1) and containing the constant mappings $x \in X \rightarrow h=const. \in H_x$. That is , $H$ equals to the direct integral norm closure of the set of such elements $h \in \prod_{x \in X} H_x$ satisfying two properties:
$\;$ (i) The mapping $x \in X \rightarrow \| h(x) \|^2$ is integrable.
$\;$ (ii) There is a subset $N \subseteq X$ of $\mu$-measure zero such that the set $\{h(x) : x \in X \}$ $\;$ generates a separable subspace of $H_x$.
Of course, since $H$ is the smallest direct integral in a certain sense $H$ is unique up to isomorphy.
Consequently, one could not expect to get much more information about generalized direct integrals in the non-separable case using only the described equivalence.
[99]{} I. D. Berg, An extension of Weyl–von Neumann theorem to normal operators. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**160**]{}(1971), 365-371. M. J. Dupré, R. M. Gillette, Banach bundles, Banach modules and automorphisms of C\*-algebras. Boston–London–Melbourne: Pitman, Pitman Adv. Publ. Program 1983. E. G. Effros, Global structure in von Neumann algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**121**]{}(1966), 434-454.
M. Frank, Self-duality and C\*-reflexivity of Hilbert C\*-modules. Zeitschr. Anal. Anw. [**9**]{}(1990), 165-176. M. Frank, Hilbert C\*-modules over monotone complete C\*-algebras and a Weyl–Berg type theorem. NTZ-preprint 3/91, Universität Leipzig, FRG, 1991. K. Grove, G. K. Pedersen, Diagonalizing matrices over C(X). J. Funct. Anal. [**59**]{}(1984), 64-89.
P. R. Halmos, Ten problems in Hilbert spaces. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**76**]{}(1970), 887-933.
R. W. Henrichs, Maximale Integralzerlegungen invarianter positiv definiter Funktionen auf diskreten Gruppen. Math. Ann. [**208**]{}(1974), 15-31. R. W. Henrichs, On decomposition theory for unitary representations of locally compact groups. J. Funct. Anal. [**31**]{}(1979), 101-114. R. W. Henrichs, Decomposition of invariant states and nonseparable C\*-algebras. Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. [**18**]{}(1982), 159-181.
R. V. Kadison, Diagonalizing matrices over operator algebras. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. [**8**]{}(1983), 84-86. R. V. Kadison, Diagonalizing matrices. Amer. J. Math. [**106**]{}(1984), 1451-1468. I. Kaplansky, Algebras of type I. Ann. Math. [**56**]{}(1952), 460-472.
G. G. Kasparov, Hilbert C\*-modules: Theorems of Stinespring and Voiculescu. J. Oper. Theory [**4**]{}(1980), 133-150. E. T. Kehlet, Disintegration theory on a constant field of non-separable Hilbert spaces. Math. Scand. [**43**]{}(1978), 353-362. O. Maréchal, Champs mesurables d’espaces hilbertiens. Bull. Sc. Math. [**93**]{}(1969), 113-143.
K. Maurin, Methods in Hilbert space. Warszawa, Polish Scientific Publishers, 1967. G. J. Murphy, Diagonality in C\*-algebras. Math. Zeitschr. [**199**]{}(1988), 279-284. H. Nishimura, Some connections between Boolean valued analysis and topological reduction theory for C\*-algebras. Zeitschr. Math. Logik Grundlagen Math. [**36**]{}(1990), 471-479.
M. Ozawa, Boolean valued interpretation of Hilbert space theory. J. Math. Soc. Japan [**35**]{}(1983), 609-627. M. Ozawa, Boolean valued interpretation of Banach space theory and module structures of von Neumann algebras. Nagoya Math. J. [**117**]{}(1990), 1-36. W. L. Paschke, Inner product modules over B\*-algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. [**182**]{}(1973), 443-468.
P. Richter, On the separability of Hilbert spaces. Wiss. Z. Univ. Leipzig, Math.–Nat.wiss. Reihe [**39**]{}(1990), 666-669.
F. Riesz, B. Sz.–Nagy, Vorlesungen über Funktionalanalysis. Berlin: Verlag der Wissenschaften 1956. R. Schaflitzel, Direct integrals of not necessarily separable Hilbert spaces , in: Abstracts, Short communications, ICM Kyoto, Japan, August 21-29, 1990, p. 133. R. Schaflitzel, The algebra of decomposable operators in direct integrals of not necessarily separable Hilbert spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. [**100**]{}(1990), 983-987.
I. E. Segal, Equivalence of measure spaces. Amer. J. Math. [**73**]{}(1951), 275-313. I. E. Segal, Decomposition of operator algebras. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. [**9**]{}(1951), no. 1, 1-67, no.2, 1-66. H. Takemoto, On a characterization of AW\*-modules and a representation of Gelfand type of noncommutative operator algebras, Michigan Math. J. [**20**]{}(1973), 115-127. H. Takemoto, Decomposable operators in continuous fields of Hilbert spaces. T[ô]{}hoku Math. J. [**27**]{}(1975), 413-435. H. Takemoto, On the weakly continuous constant field of Hilbert space and its application to the reduction theory of von Neumann algebra, T[ô]{}hoku Math. J. [**28**]{}(1976), 479-496.
M. Takesaki, Theory of operator algebras,I. New York–Heidelberg–Berlin: Springer–Verlag 1979. G. Takeuti, Two applications of logic to mathematics. Tokyo–Princeton: Iwanami and Princeton University Press 1978. G. Takeuti, C\*-algebras and Boolean valued analysis. Jap. J. Math. [**9**]{}(1983), 207-246.
G. Takeuti, Von Neumann algebras and Boolean valued analysis. J. Math. Soc. Japan [**35**]{}(1983), 1-21. A. Valette, Extensions of C\*-algebras: A survey of the Brown–Douglas–Fillmore theory. Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde(3) [**30**]{}(1982), 41-69. J. Vesterstrom, W. Wils, Direct integrals of Hilbert spaces II. Math. Scand. [**26**]{}(1970), 89-102.
H. Weyl, Über beschränkte quadratische Formen, deren Differenz vollstetig ist. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo [**27**]{}(1909), 373-392. H. Widom, Embedding in algebras of type I. Duke Math. J. [**23**]{}(1956), 309-324. W. Wils, Direct integrals of Hilbert spaces I., Math. Scand. [**26**]{}(1970), 73-88.
Universität Leipzig
FB Mathematik/Informatik
Mathematisches Institut
Augustusplatz 10
D–04109 Leipzig
Fed. Rep. Germany.
[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we define $\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$, the quaternion rings over ${\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}$, and investigate their structure. It is proved that these rings are isomorphic to $\left(\frac{-1,-1}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$ if $ a \equiv b\equiv -1 \pmod{4}$ or to $\left(\frac{1,1}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$ otherwise. We also prove that the ring $\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})$ if and only if $n$ is odd and that all quaternion algebras defined over ${\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}$ are isomorphic if and only if $n \not \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$.'
address:
- |
Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Oviedo\
Avda. Calvo Sotelo s/n, 33007 Oviedo, Spain
- 'Instituto de Telecomunicaoes, Polo de Covilha'
- |
Centro Universitario de la Defensa de Zaragoza\
Ctra. Huesca s/n, 50090 Zaragoza, Spain
author:
- José María Grau
- Celino Miguel
- 'Antonio M. Oller-Marcén'
title: 'On the structure of quaternion rings over $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$'
---
[AMS Mathematics Subject Classification ]{}[11R52,16-99]{}
Introduction
============
The origin of quaternions dates back to 1843, when Hamilton considered a $4-$dimensional vector space over $\mathbb{R}$ with basis $\{1,i,j,k\}$ and defined an associative product given by the now classical rules $i^2=j^2=-1$ and $ij=-ji=k$. These “Hamilton quaternions” turned out to be the only division algebra over $\mathbb{R}$ with dimension greater than 2.
This idea was later extended to define quaternion algebras over arbitrary fields. Thus, a quaternion algebra over an arbitrary field $F$ is just a $4-$dimensional central simple algebra over $F$. This definition leads to different presentations according to the characteristic of the field $F$. If $F$ is a field of characteristic not $2$ a quaternion algebra over $F$ is a $4-$dimensional algebra over $F$ with a basis $\{1,i,j,k\}$ such that $i^2=a$, $j^2 = b$ and $ij = -ji=k$ for some $a,b\in F\setminus\{0\}$. On the other hand, if $F$ is a field of characteristic 2, a quaternion algebra over $F$ is a $4-$dimensional algebra over $F$ with a basis $\{1,i,j,k\}$ such that $i^2 + i = a$, $j^2 = b$, and $ ji = (i + 1)j=k$ for some $a\in F$ and $b\in F\setminus\{0\}$. The structure of quaternion algebras over fields is well-known. Indeed, such an algebra is either a division ring or isomorphic to the matrix ring $\mathbb{M}_2(F)$.
Generalizations of the notion of quaternion algebra to other commutative base rings $R$ have been considered by Hahn [@ha], Kanzaki [@ka], Knus [@max], Gross and Lucianovic [@GLU] and most recently by John Voight [@jv; @jv3].
On the other hand, quaternions over finite rings have attracted significant attention since they have applications in coding theory [@oz2; @oz1; @codes].
En este trabajo consideramos una generalización de los quaternion algebras over a commutative ring with identity $R$ en una dirección diferente, en la linea de la original (o genuina lo que te parezca) de Hamilton sin más restricciones que $i^2$ and $j^2$ sean unidades del anillo $R$; Esto se distancia de las definiciones modernas de quaternion algebras pues en el caso de característica 2 el algebra resultante es conmutativa y más generalmente en característica potencia de dos, aunque no es conmutativa, no es central; i.e. su centro contiene estrictamente a $R$.
In particular, we will define quaternion rings over commutative, associative, unital rings as follows.
\[def\] Let $R$ be a commutative and associative ring with identity and let $H(R)$ denote the free $R$-module of rank $4$ with basis $\{1, i, j, k\}$. That is, $$H(R)=\{x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k\;:\;x_0, x_1, x_2, x_3\in R\}.$$ Now, let $a,b\in R$ be units and define an associative multiplication in $H(R)$ according to the following rules: $$\begin{aligned}
i^2&=a,\\ j^2&=b,\\ ij&=-ji=k\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we obtain an associative, unital ring which is denoted by $\left(\frac{a,b}{R}\right)$ to which we will refer as a quaternion ring over $R$.
If $a=b=-1$, the corresponding quaternion ring in called the ring of Hamilton quaternions over $R$ and it is denoted by $\mathbb{H}(R)$.
The following concepts extend the classical ones to this general setting.
\[trn\] Let $z=x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k\in\left(\frac{a,b}{R}\right)$.
- The conjugate of $z$ is: $\bar{z}=x_0-x_1i-x_2j-x_3k$.
- The norm of $z$ is $\textrm{n}(z)=z\bar{z}=x_0^2-ax_1^2-bx_2^2-abx_3^2\in R$.
- The trace of $z$ is $\textrm{tr}(z)=z+\bar{z}=2x_0\in R$.
It is easy to see that the known characterization for quaternion rings over fields is no longer true in this general setting, even in characteristic different from two. For instance, consider the ring of Hamilton quaternions over $\mathbb Z$. Clearly, the corresponding quaternion ring $\mathbb{H}(\mathbb Z)$ is not a division ring. On the other hand, we see that this ring is not isomorphic to the matrix ring $\mathbb{M}_2(\mathbb Z)$. To do so, let us consider $z\in\mathbb{H}(\mathbb Z)$ such that $z^2=0$. Then $n(z)=0$ and it follows that $z=0$. Since this property ($z^2=0\rightarrow z=0$) does not hold in $\mathbb{M}_2(\mathbb Z)$ both rings are not isomorphic, as claimed.
The question naturally arises as to whether a quaternion ring over an associative and commutative ring with identity $R$ is isomorphic to the matrix ring $\mathbb{M}_2(R)$. In this paper we consider the case $R=\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$. In particular we prove that, given $n \in \mathbb{N}$, there exist at most two quaternion rings over $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ up to isomorphism: $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})$ and $\left (\frac{1,1}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$. Moreover, we will see that $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})\cong \left (\frac{1,1}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}}\right)\cong \mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})$ if and only if $n$ is odd.
Note that if $n=p_1^{r_1}\ldots p_k^{r_k}$ is the prime factorization of $n$, then by the Chinese Remainder Theorem we have that $$\label{l3}\mathbb Z/ n \mathbb{Z}\cong\mathbb Z/{p_1^{r_1}\mathbb{Z}}\times\ldots\oplus\mathbb Z/{p_k^{r_k}\mathbb{Z}}.$$ Decomposition (\[l3\]) induces a natural isomorphism $$\label{F1}\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}} \right) \cong \left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/p_1^{r_1}\mathbb{Z}}} \right) \oplus\ldots\oplus \left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/p_k^{r_k}\mathbb{Z}}} \right) .$$ Consequently, it suffices to study the case when $n$ is a prime-power.
This fact strongly determines the structure of the paper. In section \[SEC:POWT\] we focus on the case when $n$ is a power of two, while Section \[SEC:ODD\] is devoted to the odd prime-power case. Before them, Section \[SEC:NUM\] presents some auxiliary results from Elementary Number Theory that are useful in the sequel and in Section \[SEC:HAM\] we study Hamilton quaternions over ${\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}$ and $\left(\frac{ 1, 1}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$ due to the main role that these particular cases will play in our classification.
Some number-theoretical auxiliary results {#SEC:NUM}
=========================================
In this section we collect some results that will be useful in forthcoming sections. They are mainly related to finding solutions to quadratic polynomial congruences in two variables modulo a prime-power.
When we deal with polynomial congruences in one variable, Hensel’s lemma plays a key role. The simplest form of Hensel’s lemma [@ROS p.170] states that, under certain regularity conditions, a solution of a polynomial with integer coefficients modulo a prime number $p$ can be lifted to a solution modulo $p^j$ for $j>1$. The following lemma generalizes this result to polynomials in two variables.
\[l1\] Let $f(x_1, x_2)$ be a polynomial in two variables with integer coefficients. let $p$ be a prime number, and let $A=(a_1, a_2)
\in\mathbb Z^2$ be such that $$f(a_1, a_2)=0\;\;\;\;\;mod\;p^j,$$ with at least one of the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}$ is nonzero at $(a_1, a_2)$ modulo $p$. Then, there exist integers $t_1, t_2$ such that $$f(a_1+t_1p^j, a_2+t_2p^j)=0\;\;\;\;\;mod\;p^{j+1}.$$
Let $n$ be the degree of the polynomial $f$. Then, using Taylor’s theorem for functions of two independent variables we get $$\begin{aligned}
f(a_1+t_1p^j, a_2+t_2p^j)=f(a_1, a_2)+t_1p^j\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}(a_1,a_2)+t_2p^j\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}(a_1,a_2)+ \\
+\frac{1}{2!}\left(t_1^2p^{2j}\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_1^2}(a_1,a_2)+
2t_1t_2p^{2j}\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_2 x_1}(a_1,a_2)+
t_2^2p^{2j}\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial x_2^2}(a_1,a_2)\right) +\ldots \\
+ \frac{1}{n!}\left(t_1^np^{nj}\frac{\partial^n f}{\partial x_1^n}(a_1,a_2)+\binom {n} {1}t_1^{n-1}p^{(n-1)j}t_2p^{j}\frac{\partial^{n} f}{\partial x_2 x_1^{n-1}}(a_1,a_2)+\ldots
t_2^{n}p^{nj}\frac{\partial^n f}{\partial x_2^n}(a_1,a_2)\right).\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check that each derivative $\frac{\partial^s f}{\partial x_2^{s-r}x_1^r}$ is divisible by $r!(s-r)!$. That is, $\frac{\partial^s f}{\partial x_2^{s-r}x_1^r}=r!(s-r)!g(x,y)$ for some polynomial $g$. Therefore, $$\binom {s} {r}\frac{\partial^s f}{\partial x_2^{s-r}x_1^r}=\binom {s} {r}r!(s-r)!g(x,y)=s!g(x,y).$$ It follows that modulo $p^{j+1}$ the Taylor expansion reduces to $$\label{l2}f(a_1+t_1p^j, a_2+t_2p^j)=f(a_1, a_2)+t_1p^j\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}(a_1,a_2)+t_2p^j\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}(a_1,a_2).$$ Finally, we observe that the assumption that at least one of the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}$ is nonzero at $(a_1, a_2)$ modulo $p$ imply that we can choose $t_1$ and $t_2$ satisfying $t_1p^j\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}(a_1,a_2)+t_2p^j\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_1}(a_1,a_2)=-
f(a_1, a_2)$. This completes the proof.
Hence, to find solutions modulo $p^j$ it is enough to find solutions modulo $p$. The following Lemma [@OME p. 157] deals with the existence of solutions when $p$ is odd.
\[l2\] Let $p$ be an odd prime and let $a,b$ be integers such that $\gcd(p,a)=\gcd(p,b)=1$. Then, the equation $$ax^2+by^2\equiv \alpha \pmod{p}$$ has solutions for every $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}$.
We can combine the previous results in the following proposition.
\[solp\] Let $p$ be an odd prime number and let $a,b,c\in\mathbb{Z}$ be coprime to $p$. Then, the congruence $$ax^2+by^2\equiv c\pmod{p^s}$$ has a solution for every $s\geq 1$.
Lemma \[l2\] determines that there exists $(a_1,a_2)$ a solution to the congruences for $s=1$. Moreover, since $p\nmid c$ either $a_1$ or $a_2$ is coprime to $p$. Hence, Lemma \[l1\] applies.
Unfortunately, when $p=2$ we can never apply Lemma \[l1\]. Consequently we can no longer provide a unified approach. The following results deal with some congruences that we will need to solve (in fact we will just need to know that they have a solution) in the sequel.
\[lem4\] Let $a,b\in\mathbb{Z}$ be odd integers with $a \equiv b \pmod{8}$. Then the congruence $$ax^2 \equiv b \pmod {2^s}$$ has a solution for every $s\geq 1$.
If $1\leq s\leq 2$ the result follows by direct inspection. Now, let us assume that $s\geq 3$. Since $a$ is odd, let $\alpha$ be the inverse of $a$ modulo $2^s$. We have that $a\alpha\equiv 1\pmod{8}$ and hence $b\alpha\equiv 1\pmod{8}$. This means that $b\alpha=8k+1$ and congruence $ax^2\equiv b\pmod{2^s}$ becomes $x^2\equiv 8k+1\pmod{2^s}$. The result follows because $8k+1$ is a quadratic residue modulo $2^s$ if $s\geq 3$.
\[lem10\] The congruence $$5x^2+5y^2\equiv 1\pmod{2^s}$$ has a solution for every $s\geq 1$.
Given $s\geq 1$ let us denote by $\alpha_s$ the inverse of $5$ modulo $2^s$. The original congruence is equivalent to $x^2+y^2\equiv\alpha_s\pmod{2^s}$.
It can easily be seen that $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=1$, $\alpha_3=5$ and that, for every $k\geq 1$: $$\alpha_{4k}=\alpha_{4k+1}=\alpha_{4k+3}=\frac{2^{4k+2}+1}{5},$$ $$\alpha_{4k+3}=\alpha_{4k+2}+2^{4k+2}.$$
Now, we claim that every prime divisor of $2^{4k+2}+1$ is of the form $4h+1$: let $p$ be a prime divisor of $2^{4k+2}+1$. Then $2^{4k+2}\equiv -1\pmod{p}$ and the order of $2$ in ${\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}}$ must be a divisor of $8k+4$ not dividing $4k+2$. This means that the order of $2$ in ${\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}}$ must be of the form $4h$ with $h\mid 2k+1$. Hence, $4h\mid p-1$ and $p=4h+1$ as claimed.
This implies that $\alpha_{4k},\alpha_{4k+1}$ and $\alpha_{4k+2}$ are the sum of two squares so *a fortiori* the congruence $x^2+y^2\equiv\alpha_s\pmod{2^s}$ has a solution if $s=4k,4k+1,4k+2$.
We know that there exist $A,B\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $A^2+B^2=\alpha_{4k+2}$ and we can assume, without loss of generality, that $A$ is odd. Let $a$ be the inverse of $A$ modulo $2^{4k+3}$. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
(A+2^{4k+1}a)^2+B^2&=A^2+B^2+2^{8k+2}a^2+2^{4k+2}\equiv\\ &\equiv A^2+B^2+2^{4k+2}=\alpha_{4k+2}+2^{4k+2}=\\ &=\alpha_{4k+3}\pmod{2^{4k+3}}.\end{aligned}$$
Consequently, the congruence $x^2+y^2\equiv\alpha_s\pmod{2^s}$ has a solution if $s=4k+2$ and the result follows.
Hamilton quaternions over $ \mathbb{Z}_n$ and $\left(\frac{ 1, 1}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$ {#SEC:HAM}
===================================================================================================
It is well-known that Hamilton quaternions over the real numbers form an $\mathbb{R}-$algebra isomorphic to a subalgebra of the matrix algebra $\mathbb{M}_2(\mathbb{C})$, where the isomorphism is given by: $$\mathbb{H}(\mathbb{R}):=\left(\frac{-1,-1}{\mathbb{R}}\right) \cong \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} z & w \\ -\overline{w} & \overline{z} \\ \end{pmatrix} : z,w \in \mathbb{C} \right\}.$$
In the same way, it is easy to observe that $\left(\frac{ 1, 1}{\mathbb{R}}\right)$ is also isomorphic to a subalgebra of complex matrices. Namely: $$\mathbb{L}(\mathbb{R}):=\left(\frac{1,1}{\mathbb{R}}\right) \cong \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} z & w \\ \overline{w} & \overline{z} \\ \end{pmatrix} : z,w \in \mathbb{C} \right\}.$$
These isomorphisms are also valid if we consider the quaternion rings over an arbitrary commutative, associative, unital ring. We just have to replace $\mathbb{C}$ by the quotient ring $R[i]/\langle i^2+1\rangle$. In particular: $$\mathbb{H}(R):=\left(\frac{-1,-1}{R}\right) \cong \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} \alpha-\beta i & -\gamma +\delta i \\ \gamma +\delta i & \alpha+\beta i \\ \end{pmatrix} : \alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta \in R\right\},$$ $$\mathbb{L}(R):=\left(\frac{1,1}{R}\right) \cong \left\{ \begin{pmatrix} \alpha-\beta i & \gamma +\delta i \\ \gamma -\delta i & \alpha+\beta i \\ \end{pmatrix} : \alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta \in R\right\}.$$
These isomorphisms turn out to be a very useful tool from the computational point of view when we deal with quaternions over ${\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}$. Now, we will have a close look at the rings $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})$ and $\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})$. Recall that the natural isomorphism (\[F1\]) allows us to focus on the prime-power case.
The odd prime power case
------------------------
Hamilton quaternions over the field ${\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}}$ have been studied in [@CEL]. Indeed, in [@CEL] it is constructed an isomorphism between the Hamilton quaternions $\mathbb H({\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}})$ and the matrix ring $\mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}})$, for a given odd prime $p$. Here we generalize this result to Hamilton quaternions over ${\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}}$ with $p$ an odd prime and $s\geq 1$.
Let $p$ be a odd prime number. Then, $$\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}})\cong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}})\cong \mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}})$$ for every $s\geq 1$.
Due to Proposition \[solp\] the congruence $x^2+y^2\equiv -1\pmod{p^s}$ has a solution for every $s\geq 1$. Let $a, b\in{\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $a^2+b^2=-1$ and define an algebra homomorphism $\phi: \mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}})\longrightarrow \mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}})$ by: $$\phi(i)=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ -1&0\end{pmatrix},\quad \phi(j)=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\b& -a\end{pmatrix}.$$
The system of linear equations associated to $$\phi(x_0+x_1i+x_2j+x_3k)=\begin{pmatrix}X&Y\\Z&T\end{pmatrix}.$$ has always a solution, namely: $$\begin{aligned}
x_0&=(X+T)/2,\\ x_1&=(Y - Z)/2,\\ x_2&=(a T - a X - b Y - b Z)/2,\\ x_3&=(b T - b X + a Y + a Z)/2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\phi$ is an isomorphism.
The case $\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}})$ is completely analogous considering $a, b\in{\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $a^2+b^2=1$. In this case the isomorphism is given by: $$\phi(i)=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\ 1&0\end{pmatrix},\qquad \phi(j)=\begin{pmatrix}a&b\\b& -a\end{pmatrix}.$$
Let $n$ be a odd integer. Then, $$\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})\cong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})\cong \mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}).$$
The power of two case
---------------------
It is clear that $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}})\cong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}})$. Now we will se that if $s>1$, then $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})\not\cong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$. To do so we first focus on the case $s=2$.
\[cuat\] $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}})\not\cong\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}})$.
It can be explicitly computed that $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}})$ has 32 involutions while $\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}})$ has 64.
If $s\geq 3$ then $\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})\not\cong\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$.
Assume, on the contrary, that $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}) \cong \mathbb{L}(\mathbb{Z}/{2^s}\mathbb{Z})$ whit $s>1$. This isomorphism naturally induces an isomorphism $$\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})/4\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}) \cong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})/4\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}).$$ Now, $4\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$ and $4\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$ are, respectively, the kernels of the surjective homomorphisms $$\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}) \xrightarrow{\textrm{mod}\; 4}\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}}),$$ $$\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}) \xrightarrow{\textrm{mod}\; 4}\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}}).$$ Hence, it follows that $\mathbb H({\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}}) \cong \mathbb L({\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}})$ contradicting Lemma \[cuat\].
To end this section we will see that both $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$ and $\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$ are local fields, so that they cannot be isomorphic to $\mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$. Recall that a unital ring $R$ is local if and only if $1\neq 0$ and for every $r\in R$ either $r$ or $1-r$ is a unit.
If $s\geq 1$ then $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$ and $\mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$ are local fields.
We will only focus on $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$, the other case being completely analogous. Obviously $1\neq 0$, now assume that $z\in \mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$ is not a unit. This means that $\textrm{n}(z)$ is not a unit in ${\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}$; i.e., that $\textrm{n}(z)$ is even. Now, $\textrm{n}(1-z)=(1-z)\overline{(1-z)}=(1-z)(1-\bar{z})=1+\textrm{n}(z)-\textrm{tr}(z)$. Since $\textrm{tr}(z)$ is even (recall Definition \[trn\]) it follows that $\textrm{n}(1-z)$ is odd; i.e., it is a unit in ${\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}$ and, consequently $1-z$ is a unit.
The general case
----------------
We can summarize the previous work in the following Theorem.
Let $n$ be an integer. Then:
- $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}) \cong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}) \cong \mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})$, if $n$ is odd.
- $\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}) \cong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}) \not\cong \mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})$, if $n\equiv 2\pmod{4}$.
- $\mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})\not\cong \mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}) \ncong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}) \ncong \mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})$, if $n\equiv 0\pmod{4}$.
Quaternions rings over $\mathbb{Z}_n$ whit $n$ odd {#SEC:ODD}
==================================================
It is well-known that every quaternion algebra over a finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$ of characteristic not two splits; i.e., it is isomorphic to the matrix ring of $\mathbb{M}_2(\mathbb{F}_q)$. This is a consequence of two classical theorems by Wedderburn: the Structure theorem on finite dimensional simple algebras over a field and Wedderburn’s little theorem. The following theorem generalizes this result to quaternion algebras over the ring of integers modulo an odd integer $n$. Again, the natural isomorphism (\[F1\]) allows us to consider only the prime-power case.
Let $p$ be an odd prime number and let $s\geq 1$. Then, all quaternion algebras defined over the ring of residual classes ${\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}}$ are isomorphic. Moreover, all quaternion algebras defined over ${\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}}$ split; i.e., they are isomorphic to the matrix ring $\mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/p^r\mathbb{Z}})$.
Let $a,b$ be units in ${\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}}$. Due to Proposition \[solp\] we can find $u,v \in {\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $b \equiv u^2 - a v^2 \pmod{p^s}$.
Now, let us consider the matrices $$I=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \\\end{pmatrix},\quad A=\begin{pmatrix}0 & a \\ 1 & 0 \\\end{pmatrix}, \quad B=\begin{pmatrix} u & -a v \\v& -u \\ \end{pmatrix}.$$ Clearly we have that $A^2=aI$, $B^2=bI$ and $AB=-BA$.
Moreover, if $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta\in{\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}}$ and we solve the linear system of equation associated to $$x_0 I+ x_1 A + x_2 B + x_3 AB= \begin{pmatrix}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \\ \end{pmatrix}$$ we get that the unique solution is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
x_0&=\frac{\alpha+\delta}{2},\\x_1&=\frac{\beta+ a\gamma}{2 a},\\ x_2&= \frac{ \alpha\ u - \delta u + \beta v - a \gamma v }{2b},\\ x_3&= \frac{ -\beta u + a \gamma u - a \alpha v + a \delta v }{-2 a b}.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the set $\{I,A,B,AB\}$ is a basis of $\mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/p^s\mathbb{Z}})$ and the result follows.
Quaternions rings over ${\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}$ with $n$ a power of two {#SEC:POWT}
=========================================================================
The first result of this section shows that, in order to study the structure of $\left(\frac{a,b}{\mathbb{Z}_{2^s}}\right)$, we can restrict ourselves to the cases when $\{a,b\} \subset \{-1,1,3,5\}$.
\[red\] Let $a,b,a',b'$ be odd integers such that $a \equiv a' \pmod{8}$ and $b \equiv b' \pmod{8}$. Then, $$\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \left(\frac{a',b'}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$$
Let $\alpha$ be a solution to the congruence $a'x^2\equiv a \pmod{2^s}$ and let $\beta$ be a solution to the congruence $b'y^2\equiv b\pmod{2^s}$ (they exist due to Lemma \[lem4\]). denote by $\alpha^{-1}$ and $\beta^{-1}$ their inverses modulo $2^s$. Now, considering $i'=\alpha^{-1}i$ and $j'=\beta^{-1}j$ we have that $i'^2=a'$, $j'^2=b'$ and $i'j'=-j'i'$. Since the set $\{1,i',j',i'j'\}$ is obviously a basis of $\left(\frac{a',b'}{\mathbb{Z}_{2^s}}\right)$, the result follows.
Let $a,b$ be odd integers. Then:
- $\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \left(\frac{-1,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \left(\frac{-1,a}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$, if $ab \equiv 1 \pmod{8}$.
- $\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \left(\frac{1,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \left(\frac{1,a}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$, if $ab \equiv -1 \pmod{8}$.
It is enough to apply the previuos lemma together with the well-known fact that $$\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \left(\frac{ -ab,a}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \left(\frac{ -ab,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right).$$
This result leads to the following isomorphisms.
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{ 5,5}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) &\cong \left(\frac{ -1,5}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right),\\ \left(\frac{3,3}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) &\cong \left(\frac{-1,3}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right),\\ \left(\frac{3,5}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) &\cong \left(\frac{ 1,3}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \left(\frac{ 1,5}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
The following series of propositions describe more isomorphisms.
Let $\beta\in\{-1,1,3,5\}$. Then, $$\left(\frac{1,\beta}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}).$$
Given $\beta\in\{-1,1,3,5\}$, there exist integer $\eta,\theta$ such that $-\eta^2 + \theta^2 = \beta$. Let us consider matrices $$I=\begin{pmatrix}1 & 0 \\0 & 1 \end{pmatrix},\quad A=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & i \\-i & 0 \end{pmatrix},\quad B=\begin{pmatrix}\eta i & \theta \\\theta & -\eta i \end{pmatrix}.$$ Clearly we have that $A^2= I$, $B^2=\beta I$ and $AB=-BA$.
Moreover, the linear system of equations associated to $$\begin{pmatrix}\alpha-\beta i & \gamma +\delta i \\\gamma -\delta i & \alpha+\beta i\end{pmatrix}= x I + y A + z B + t AB$$ has the following unique solution: $$\begin{aligned}
x&=\alpha,\\ y&=\delta,\\ z&= \frac{ \beta\,\eta + \gamma\,\theta}{\eta^2 + \theta^2},\\ t&= \frac{ \gamma\,\eta - \beta\,\theta}{\eta^2 + \theta^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the set $\{I,A,B,AB\}$ is a basis of $ \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}})$ and the result follows.
$$\left(\frac{-1,5}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)\cong \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}).$$
Let $\{1,i,j,k\}$ and $\{1',i',j',k'\}$ be the canonical basis of $\left(\frac{ -1,1}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$ and $\left(\frac{ -1,5}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$, respectively. Given $(\eta,\theta)$ a solution to $5x^2 + 5y^2\equiv 1\pmod{2^s}$ (it exists due to Lemma \[lem10\]), we can define a linear transformation $\phi:\left(\frac{ -1,5}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)\longrightarrow \left(\frac{ -1,1}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$ by: $$\phi(1')=1,\quad \phi(i')=i,\quad \phi(j')=\eta j+\theta k,\quad \phi(k')= \eta k-\theta j.$$
It is easily seen that $\phi$ is in fact a well-defined algebra homomorphism, and since the set $\{1,i,\eta j+\theta k,\eta k-\theta j\}$ is linearly independent, the proof is complete.
$$\left(\frac{-1,3}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}).$$
Note that, due to Lemma \[red\] $\left(\frac{-1,3}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)\cong \left(\frac{-1,-5}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right)$. Hence we can proceed in a similar way as in the previous proposition.
All the previous results can be summarized in the following theorem.
$$\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \begin{cases}\mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}), & \textrm{if $a \equiv b\equiv -1 \pmod{4}$ }; \\ \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}), & \textrm{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$
Conclusions
===========
In this short final section we present the main result of the paper, which collects all our previous work. It describes the structure of quaternion rings over ${\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}$.
Sea $n$ be an integer and let $a,b$ be such that $\gcd(a,n)=\gcd(b,n)=1$. The following hold:
- If $n$ is odd, then $$\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}} \right) \cong \mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}).$$
- If $n=2^sm$ with $s>0$ and $m$ odd, then $$\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}}\right) \cong \begin{cases}\mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}}) \times (\frac{-1,-1}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}), & \textrm{if $s=1$ or $a \equiv b\equiv -1 \pmod{4}$}; \\ \mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}}) \times (\frac{1,1}{{\mathbb{Z}/2^s\mathbb{Z}}}), & \textrm{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$
We can restate the result in the following terms.
$$\left(\frac{a,b}{{\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}} \right) \cong \begin{cases} \mathbb{H}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}), & \textrm{if $a \equiv b\equiv -1 \pmod{4}$ }; \\ \mathbb{L}({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}), & \textrm{otherwise}.\end{cases}$$
In conclusion, quaternion algebras over the ring $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z} $ split; i.e., are isomorphic to the matrix ring $\mathbb{M}_2({\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}})$ if and only if $n$ is odd. Moreover, for a given $n$, there are at most two isomorphism classes of quaternion algebras over ${\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}}$ and there is only one isomorphism class if and only if $n \not \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Alberto Elduque for useful comments and remarks.
[10]{}
Benedict H. Gross and Mark W. Lucianovic. On cubic rings and quaternion rings. , 129(6):1468–1478, 2009.
Alexander J. Hahn. . Universitext. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.
Teruo Kanzaki. On non-commutative quadratic extensions of a commutative ring. , 10:597–605, 1973.
Max-Albert Knus. , volume 294 of [ *Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\]*]{}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991. With a foreword by I. Bertuccioni.
C. J. Miguel and R. Ser[ô]{}dio. On the structure of quaternion rings over [$\Bbb Z\sb p$]{}. , 5(25-28):1313–1325, 2011.
O. Timothy O’Meara. . Classics in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000. Reprint of the 1973 edition.
M. [Ö]{}zdemir. The roots of a split quaternion. , 22(2):258–263, 2009.
Mehmet [Ö]{}zen and Murat G[ü]{}zeltepe. Cyclic codes over some finite quaternion integer rings. , 348(7):1312–1317, 2011.
Richard S. Pierce. , volume 88 of [*Graduate Texts in Mathematics*]{}. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982. Studies in the History of Modern Science, 9.
Kenneth H. Rosen. . Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, fourth edition, 2000.
Tariq Shah and Summera Said Rasool. On codes over quaternion integers. , 24(6):477–496, 2013.
John Voight. Characterizing quaternion rings over an arbitrary base. , 657:113–134, 2011.
John Voight. Identifying the matrix ring: Algorithms for quaternion algebras and quadratic forms. In Krishnaswami Alladi, Manjul Bhargava, David Savitt, and Pham Huu Tiep, editors, [*Quadratic and Higher Degree Forms*]{}, volume 31 of [ *Developments in Mathematics*]{}, pages 255–298. Springer New York, 2013.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The possibility that the Galactic spheroid was assembled from numerous, chemically-distinct proto-Galactic fragments is investigated using a Monte-Carlo technique designed to simulate the chemical evolution of the Galaxy in hierarchical formation scenarios which involve no gas dissipation. By comparing the observed and simulated metallicity distributions of Galactic globular clusters and halo field stars, we estimate the level of fragmentation in the collapsing proto-Galaxy. Although the formation process is highly stochastic, the simulations frequently show good agreement with the observed metallicity distributions, provided the luminosity function of proto-Galactic fragments had the form $dN \propto L^{{\alpha}}dL$ where $\alpha \sim -2$. While this steep slope is strongly at odds with the presently observed luminosity function of the Local Group, it is in close agreement with the predictions of semi-analytic and numerical models of hierarchical galaxy formation. We discuss a number of possible explanations for this discrepancy. These simulations suggest that the Galactic halo and its globular cluster system were assembled via the accretion and disruption of $\sim$ $10^3$ metal-poor, proto-Galactic fragments by the dominant building block: a proto-bulge whose own metal-rich globular clusters system has been preferentially eroded by dynamical processes. This formation scenario may provide a simple explanation for the different shapes of the Galactic globular cluster and halo star metallicity distributions. Based on the similar properties of globular clusters belonging to spiral and giant elliptical galaxies, we argue that the same process ($e.g.$, hierarchical growth involving little gas dissipation) is responsible for the formation of both giant elliptical galaxies and the bulge-halo components of spiral galaxies.'
author:
- Patrick Côté
- 'Ronald O. Marzke'
- 'Michael J. West'
- Dante Minniti
title: Evidence for the Hierarchical Formation of the Galactic Spheroid
---
Introduction
============
It is generally believed that galaxy formation begins with the collapse of gravitationally unstable, primordial density fluctuations ($e.g.$, Gunn & Gott 1972; Press & Schechter 1974). In hierarchical formation models, such as those involving cold dark matter, large galaxies then grow at the expense of their smaller counterparts ($e.g.$, White & Rees 1978; Blumenthal et al. 1984; Kauffmann, White & Guiderdoni 1993; Cole et al. 1994). Despite the impressive successes of these models, particularly in describing the clustering properties of massive galaxies (Baugh et al. 1998), they have difficulty reproducing the luminosity distribution of nearby galaxies. For instance, a generic prediction of such hierarchical models is the existence of a large population of low-mass, dark halos in the local universe (Kauffmann, White & Guiderdoni 1993; Klypin et al. 1999). In the specific case of the Local Group, the expected number of dark halos having circular velocities $v_c \lae 30$ km s$^{-1}$ exceeds the observed number of faint galaxies by an order of magnitude or more (Klypin et al 1999; Moore et al. 1999).
From an empirical perspective, hierarchical models were anticipated by Searle & Zinn (1978) who suggested that the Galactic halo formed via the protracted infall of “transient proto-Galactic fragments". As supporting evidence, they cited the lack of an abundance gradient among the outer halo globular clusters and the possible spread in age suggested by the diversity of their horizontal branch morphologies. The extent to which this scenario differs from that of Eggen, Lynden-Bell & Sandage (1962), who had argued for the rapid collapse of a homogeneous proto-Galactic gas cloud, is primarily a matter of the formation timescale and the properties of the “transient proto-Galactic fragments" (particularly their masses and total numbers) since gravitational and thermal instabilities in the collapsing gas cloud must invariably lead to fragmentation into isolated star-forming regions (Fall & Rees 1985; Sandage 1990). Clearly, the key to distinguishing between these different scenarios lies in the duration of the formation process and level of fragmentation in the collapsing proto-Galaxy.
In recent years, support has grown for the notion that the halo was, at least in part, assembled from small, protogalactic fragments as suggested by Searle & Zinn (1978). Such evidence includes the discovery of the tidally-disturbed Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Ibata, Gilmore & Irwin 1994), numerous reports of kinematic substructure among halo field stars (Preston, Beers & Schectman 1994; Majewski, Munn & Hawley 1996; Kinman et al. 1996; Chen 1998), improved evidence for age spreads among the halo field and cluster populations (Laird & Sneden 1996; Sarajedini, Chaboyer & Demarque 1997; Hesser et al. 1998) and chemical evidence for accreted substructure among halo field stars (Carney 1996; King 1997). Mateo (1996) explored the possibility that the [*entire*]{} Galactic halo was formed through the accretion and disruption of faint dSph galaxies, assumed to represent the remains of surviving “Searle-Zinn fragments". Based on a comparison of the stellar populations, dark matter, variable stars, and globular clusters of the Galactic halo with those of its present retinue of dSph galaxies, Mateo (1996) concluded that such a scenario is indeed plausible, provided that the bulk of the accretion occured at early times (see also Unavane, Wyse & Gilmore 1996). By contrast, van den Bergh (1996) has reviewed the evidence for a rapid, and early, collapse of a single proto-Galactic cloud in the inner regions of the Milky Way.
An associated, but as yet unanswered, question is how the formation of the Milky Way and other spiral galaxies is related to that of giant elliptical galaxies. Although it is often assumed that variations in the star formation rate and gas cooling efficiency can produce end-products which have markedly different morphologies ($e.g.$, Steinmetz & Müller 1995; Haehnelt, Steinmetz & Rauch 1998), there are some intriguing similarities between the Galactic globular clusters system and those of giant elliptical galaxies which suggest a closely related formation history. Most notably, many giant elliptical galaxies contain, as does the Milky Way, chemically-distinct globular clusters systems ($e.g.$, Whitmore et al. 1995; Geisler, Lee & Kim 1996; Forbes, Brodie & Grillmair 1997; Morgan 1959; Kinman 1959; Zinn 1985). Côté, Marzke & West (1998) showed that such multi-modal globular clusters metallicity distributions may be a signature of the formation of giant elliptical galaxies through the accretion of numerous faint dwarf galaxies and/or proto-galactic fragments. This scenario is reminiscent of the Searle & Zinn (1978) model for the formation of the Galactic halo, and the suggestion by Harris & Pudritz (1994) that supergiant molecular clouds having masses similar to dwarf galaxies were the sites of globular cluster formation in the early universe.
In this paper, we review and compare the properties of the globular clusters associated with giant elliptical and spiral galaxies, paying particularly close attention to the globular cluster system of the Milky Way. We then describe a technique to test the possibility that the Galactic halo formed via the accretion and disruption of numerous proto-Galactic fragments.
A Comparision of Globular Cluster Systems in Elliptical and Spiral Galaxies
===========================================================================
Renzini (1999) argued that there exists a fundamental connection between elliptical galaxies and the bulge-halo components of spiral galaxies, suggesting that the former can be thought of as spiral bulge-halo systems which “for some reason missed the opportunity to acquire or maintain a prominent disk". Much evidence now supports this view, at least for ellipticals of intermediate-luminosity: $e.g$, both classes obey the same Mg$_2$-$\sigma$ relationship (Jablonka, Martin & Arimoto 1996), structural parameter relations (Kormendy 1985; Bender, Burstein & Faber 1992) and $L \propto \sigma^n$ relation (Kormendy & Illingworth 1983).
In this section, we review briefly the properties of globular clusters systems in spiral and elliptical galaxies, paying particular attention to their specific frequencies, metallicity distributions and spatial distribution. In agreement with the conclusions of the above studies, we find evidence for a close connection between elliptical galaxies and the bulge-halo components of spiral galaxies. [*In what follows, we refer to the combined halo-bulge components of spiral galaxies as their spheroids*]{}.
Specific Frequencies
--------------------
Harris & van den Bergh (1981) defined the total number of globular clusters per unit host galaxy luminosity as the globular cluster specific frequency, $$S_n = N_{\rm gc}10^{0.4(M_V + 15)}. \eqno{(1)}$$ According to Harris (1991), $S_n \simeq 4-6$ for dwarf and giant ellipticals in rich clusters, whereas such galaxies in loose groups have $S_n \simeq 2-3$. By contrast, $S_n \simeq 1$ for spiral galaxies. This difference forms the basis of the familiar argument that giant elliptical galaxies cannot form via spiral-spiral mergers (van den Bergh 1982; cf. Ashman & Zepf 1992).
The above value of $S_n \simeq 1$ for spiral galaxies is based on their total ($i.e.$ spheroid and disk) luminosities. Since we are interested in the relative number of globular clusters per unit spheroid lumniosity, the contribution of the disk to the overall luminosity of the spiral should be removed, as originally suggested by Harris (1981). From the catalog of Harris (1996a), we have selected all giant elliptical and spiral galaxies having measured specific frequencies. Two spirals studied recently by Kissler-Patig et al. (1999) have also been included. Only spirals having Hubble types between Sa and Sc have been considered, since the difficulties involved in deriving spheroid luminosities for later Hubble types become severe.
For each spiral, we calculate the specific frequency by combining the total number of globular clusters taken directly from Harris (1996a) or Kissler-Patig et al. (1999). The spheroid luminosities have been calculated using the “bulge-to-disk" ratios given in the literature. For those galaxies lacking published bulge-disk decompositions, the mean ratio for the appropriate Hubble type given in Simien & de Vaucouleurs (1985) was used instead. For the 11 spirals, which span the range Sa to Sc, we find a mean specific frequency of ${\overline{S_n}} = 3.8\pm2.9$ measured with respect to their spheroids.
The mean specific frequency of giant elliptical galaxies in the Harris (1996a) catalog is ${\overline{S_n}} = 5.2\pm3.2$. This value is indistinguishable from that given above for spiral spheroids, although is probably an overestimate since it includes a small number of “high-$S_n$” galaxies located in the cores of the Virgo and Fornax clusters. The spirals, by contrast, are almost invariably located in loose groups. In order to gauge the possible importance of local environment, we have calculated for each object the local galaxy density, $\rho_0$, using the number of galaxies brighter than $M_B = -16$ contained within a shell of radius 0.5 Mpc using the Nearby Galaxy Catalog of Tully (1988). The 29 giant elliptical galaxies have $0.1 \lae \rho_0 \lae 9.2$ Mpc$^{-3}$, whereas the 11 spiral galaxies span the range $0.0 \lae \rho_0 \lae 3.7$ Mpc$^{-3}$. A total of 17 giant elliptical galaxies have $\rho_0 \lae 3.7$, and are thus located in environments of comparable density. The mean specific frequency of these galaxies is ${\overline{S_n}} = 3.9\pm2.5$, which is indistinguishable from that found for the spiral spheroids.
Metallicity Distributions
-------------------------
The dramatic recent increase in the number of galaxies having accurately measured globular cluster metallicity distributions is due primarily to the use of metallicity-sensitive color indices ($e.g.$, Ostrov, Geisler & Forte 1993) and the excellent imaging capabilities of the Hubble Space Telescope ($e.g.$, Neilsen & Tsvatanov 1999; Gebhardt & Kissler-Patig 1999; Kundu 1999). These studies have demonstrated that the majority of giant elliptical galaxies show evidence for the presence of multiple, chemically-distinct globular cluster populations.
This multi-modality is not unique to giant elliptical galaxies: the Galactic globular cluster system has long been known to show a bimodal distribution in metallicity, showing distinct peaks at \[Fe/H\] $\simeq -1.6$ and $-0.6$. (Morgan 1959; Kinman 1959; Zinn 1985). Analysis of the globular cluster system associated with M31 suggests that it too appears significantly multi-modal (Ashman & Bird 1993; Barmby et al. 1999). Unfortunately, the sample of spiral galaxies having accurate globular cluster metallicity distributions is limited to just these two objects, although recent work has demonstrated that bimodal globular cluster metallicity distributions are observed in S0 galaxies as well (Kissler-Patig et al. 1997b; Kundu & Whitmore 1998). At present, the only galaxies which show no evidence of multi-modal globular cluster metallicity distributions are dE/dSph galaxies of low and intermediate luminosity ($i.e.$, $M_V \gae -17$). Such objects contain only metal-poor clusters (see Figure 1 of Côté et al. 1998).
Spatial Distributions
---------------------
All globular cluster systems studied to date have radial profiles which are similar to, or shallower than, that of the underlying galaxy light (Harris 1986; Kissler-Patig 1997; Durrell et al. 1996). As Harris (1991) points out, no case has been found in which the globular clusters system is more centrally concentrated than the galaxy itself.
The well-studied Virgo giant elliptical galaxies M49 and M87 are known to contain two chemically-distinct globular cluster populations; in both cases, the metal-rich clusters appear to be more centrally concentrated than their metal-poor counterparts (Geisler et al. 1996; Neilsen, Tsvatanov & Ford 1998; Lee, Kim & Geisler 1998). In the case of M49, Lee et al. (1997) report a 6-$\sigma$ difference in the measured density profile slopes for the metal-rich and metal-poor globular clusters (although see McLaughlin 1999 for a dissenting view). In addition, Lee et al. (1998) note that the metal-rich clusters trace the underlying galaxy light in both radial profile and ellipticity, whereas the metal-poor clusters comprise a more extended and spherically distributed population.
At the present time, the only spiral galaxy which has been studied in sufficient detail that it is possible to investigate reliably the separate distributions of metal-rich and metal-poor clusters is the Milky Way. The Galactic globular cluster system as a whole is known to obey a three-dimensional distribution of the form ${\rho}_h \sim R_G^{-m_h}$ where $m_h \simeq 3.5$ (Harris 1976). This is in close agreement with the values of $m_h \simeq 3.0 - 3.5$ derived from halo RR Lyrae and blue horizontal branch stars (Saha 1985; Preston, Schectman & Beers 1991). Harris (1976) noted, however, that no metal-rich clusters are found beyond $R_G \sim 7$ kpc, and suggested that most of these clusters are associated with the central bulge of the Galaxy, consistent with the findings of several recent studies (Minniti 1995; Barbuy, Bica & Ortolani; Côté 1999; cf. Zinn 1985). For comparison, the density profile of the Galactic bulge is roughly ${\rho}_b \sim R_G^{-m_b}$ where $3.65 \lae m \lae 4.2$ (Terndrup 1988, Blanco & Terndrup 1989). Moreover, the mean Galactocentric radius of the metal-rich cluster sample discussed by Côté (1999) is ${\overline{R_G}} = 3.2\pm2.0$ kpc, which is similar to the effective radius of the Galactic bulge ($R_{e} = 2.7$ kpc; Gilmore, King & van der Kruit 1990).
In summary, the Galactic globular cluster system, like those of all giant elliptical galaxies studied to date, has a spatial distributions which is comparable to, or slightly more extended, than that of the underlying spheroid light. Moreover, the metal-rich globular clusters are more centrally concentrated than their metal-poor counterparts.
A Hierarchical Model for the Formation of the Galactic Spheroid
===============================================================
Given these similarities, it is natural to ask if a single model can explain the observed properties of globular clusters in both giant elliptical and spiral galaxies. For instance, models which seek to explain the formation of giant elliptical galaxies and their associated systems of metal-rich globular clusters in spiral-spiral mergers ($e.g.$, Schwiezer 1986; Ashman & Zepf 1992) suffer from the obvious difficulty that the spirals themselves appear to show multi-modal globular clusters metallicity distributions.
In the hierarchical picture of Côté et al (1998), the metal-rich globular clusters in giant elliptical galaxies represent the clusters initially associated with the most massive proto-galactic fragment. By contrast, the metal-poor globular clusters now associated with the giant elliptical galaxy are identified as those which have been acquired during the accretion and disruption of numerous dwarf galaxies and proto-galactic fragments ($i.e.$, faint systems which are known to contain only metal-poor clusters). The relative number of metal-rich and metal-poor globular clusters in the giant elliptical galaxy is then assumed to reflect the luminosities (or, alternatively, masses) of the dominant proto-galactic building block and the accreted population of smaller proto-galactic fragments. It is important to note that this procedure neglects possible differences in the destruction rates of metal-rich and metal-poor clusters (see §3.6). Note that both the total number of clusters, and the globular cluster specific frequency, are conserved during the mergers ($i.e.$, we assume that no new clusters are formed in the merger process).
Thus, given three ingredients, it is possible to simulate the evolution of the globular cluster metallicity distribution of a specific galaxy: (1) the luminosity (or mass) function of galaxies and proto-galactic fragments; (2) the number of globular clusters per unit fragment luminosity (or mass) and; (3) the dependence of mean globular clusters metallicity on fragment luminosity (or mass). In the present case, we have an additional constraint on the formation of the Galactic spheroid: the metallicity distribution of individual halo field stars. Specifically, any acceptable simulation of the formation of the Galactic spheroid must reproduce not only the observed metallicity distribution of globular clusters (particularly, the two distinct peaks) but also that of the halo field stars. This latter distribution peaks at roughly the same metallicity as the metal-poor globular clusters, and yet includes extended metal-poor and metal-rich tails which are not evident in the cluster distribution (Laird et al. 1988).
The various model inputs are discussed in detail below, where we concentrate on the specific case of the hierarchical formation of the Galactic spheroid.
Stellar Metallicity-Luminosity Relation for Proto-Galactic Fragments
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Following Larson (1988), Zinn (1993) and Mateo (1996), we begin by assuming that the dwarf galaxy population of the Local Group can be thought of as the surviving building blocks of their parent galaxies. Since it has been known for some time that the mean stellar metallicity of galaxies depends rather sensitively on their total luminosity ($e.g.$, Davies et al. 1987; Brodie & Huchra 1991), we expect that the stellar metallicity-luminosity relation defined by these galaxies is a reasonable first approximation of that which would be expected for the proto-Galactic fragments [*at the present time*]{}. In other words, these fragments are assumed to have faded passively with time in the same manner as the presently observed dwarfs. It is, however, important to bear in mind that many Local Group dSph and dE galaxies have clearly managed to form stars at intermediate epochs; this would not be the case for any proto-Galactic fragments which were disrupted and depleted of gas at very early times.
In the upper panel of Figure 1, the filled circles show the dependence of mean stellar metallicity on galaxy luminosity for 28 nearby dSph, dE and “dSph/dIrr transition" galaxies (Durrell et al. 1996ab; Mateo 1998; Caldwell et al. 1998; Côté, Oke & Cohen 1999). The best-fit linear relation is given by $${\overline{{\rm{[Fe/H]}}}_*} = -3.43(\pm0.14) - 0.157(\pm0.012)M_V \eqno{(2)}$$ which implies $L \propto Z^{2.54\pm0.19}$. For comparison, the dotted line indicates the scaling relation, $L \propto Z^{2.7}$, which is expected for dwarf galaxies which form in standard cold-dark-matter scenarios (Dekel & Silk 1986). Note the arbitrary metallicity zeropoint of the latter relation. We conclude that equation (2) is a reasonable representation of the stellar luminosity-metallicity relation of surviving proto-Galactic fragments. Although it has not been included in the fit, the filled triangle in this figure indicates the location of the Galactic bulge (McWilliam & Rich 1994). [*Note that its location is consistent with the extrapolation of the fitted relation for dwarf galaxies*]{}.
Although the mean stellar metallicity in dSph and dE galaxies depends rather sensitively on total luminosity (and, presumably, total mass), there is now unmistakable evidence for sizeable abundance spreads within individual objects. The standard deviations in \[Fe/H\], assuming a Gaussian distribution of abundances, for these galaxies are shown in the lower panel of Figure 1. The data are taken mainly from the catalog of Mateo (1998), and have been supplemented with a few recent results on the M31 dSph system. The mean value of ${\sigma}({\rm{[Fe/H]}_*}) = 0.36\pm0.11$ dex is indicated by the upper dashed line. Unlike the mean metallicity, the dispersion in metallicity depends weakly, or not at all, on total luminosity (Côté, Oke & Cohen 1999). The possible implications of this result are discussed in the following section.
Globular Cluster Metallicity-Luminosity Relation for Proto-Galactic Fragments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The open circles in the upper panel of Figure 1 show the mean metallicity of globular clusters as a function of total galaxy luminosity for dSph and dE galaxies in the Local Group, M81 and Virgo (see, $e.g.$, Côté et al. 1998 and references therein). The best-fit linear relation is given by $${\overline{{\rm{[Fe/H]}}}_{\rm GC}} = -3.79(\pm0.53) - 0.141(\pm0.033)M_V. \eqno{(3)}$$ The corresponding relation, $L \propto Z^{2.83\pm0.66}$, is, like the stellar metallicity-luminosity relation, in excellent agreement with the predictions of Dekel & Silk (1986). It is also indistinguishable from that implied by equation (2) with the notable exception of a ${\Delta}$\[Fe/H\] $\sim$ 0.6 dex offset between the clusters and stars (in the sense that the clusters are a factor of $\sim$ 4 more metal poor). For comparison, the open triangle indicates the mean metallicity of the metal-rich Galactic globular clusters (which has not been included in the fit). The difference in metallicity between the bulge stars and metal-rich globular clusters is roughly ${\Delta}$\[Fe/H\] = 0.35$\pm$0.25 dex: $i.e.$, smaller than, but consistent with, the metallicity offset seen in the dwarf galaxies.
The lower panel of Figure 1 shows the intrinsic dispersions in metallicity for globular clusters in these galaxies, plotted against absolute visual magnitude of the host galaxy. The mean value, ${\sigma}({\rm [Fe/H]}_{\rm GC}) = 0.30\pm0.11$ dex, is indicated by the lower dashed line. To within the errors, this dispersion is the same as that of the stars and, similarly, shows no obvious trend with luminosity.
The theoretical metallicity-luminosity relation of Dekel & Silk (1986) is based on the key assumptions that these objects originated as gaseous protogalaxies embedded in dominant dark-matter halos whose chemical enrichment was dictated by enrichment from massive stars and gas loss via supernovae-driven winds. In such a scenario, the chemical evolution is approximated by the so-called “Simple Model" of chemical evolution (Searle & Sargent 1972; Pagel & Patchett 1975; Hartwick 1976). The success of this model in reproducing the observed metallicity-luminosity relations shown in Figure 1 suggests that it may also provide a convenient representation of the metallicity distribution internal to each proto-Galactic fragment. This success is all the more remarkable in view of the fact that many of the galaxies shown in Figure 1 exhibit incontrovertible evidence for multi star-formation bursts, whereas the Dekel and Silk (1986) model was framed within the context of a single star-fromation event.
For a homogeneous proto-Galactic gas cloud having zero initial metallicity and a yield, $y$, the metallicity distribution at the end of gas exhaustion takes the form: $$df/dz \propto y^{-1}\exp{(-z/y)}. \eqno{(4)}$$ This distribution follows from the usual assumptions of the Simple Model: $i.e.$, the initial mass function is constant in time, and the protogalactic cloud experiences recycling of heavy elements from massive stars whose lifetimes are short compared to the free-fall timescale of the gas cloud. In an attempt to explain the lower metallicities of halo globular clusters compared to the Galactic disk, Hartwick (1976) defined an effective yield, $y_e$, given by the relation $y_e = y/(1+c)$ where $c$ is a parameter related to the rate at which gas is lost from the system (via, for example, supernovae-driven winds). Thus, in this picture, the effective yield of each fragment or gas cloud is determined by its overall mass (see, $e.g.$, Binney & Merrifield 1998).
The upper panel of Figure 2 shows the stellar metallicity distribution predicted by equation (4) for a galaxy having $M_V = -15$, where we have assumed that the effective yield is equal to the mean stellar metallicity predicted by equation (2). The lower panel shows the expected distribution for globular clusters assuming that the effective yield is given by equation (3). These distributions have, of course, identical shapes and full-widths at half-maxima ($\Gamma \simeq 1.0$ dex, corresponding to $\sigma \sim 0.44$ dex), but they are offset by ${\Delta}$\[Fe/H\] $\simeq$ 0.6 dex. Based on the success of the Dekel & Silk (1986) metallicity-luminosity relation, and the roughly constant spread in metallicity exhibited by both stars and clusters in these galaxies, we suggest that equation (4) is a reasonable first approximation of the stellar and globular cluster metallicity distributions of dwarf galaxies and proto-Galactic fragments. Refinements to the Simple Model, such as the inclusion of possible gas inflow and outflow, tend to produce narrower metallicity distributions ($e.g.$, Gilmore, King & van der Kruit 1990).
The Luminosity and Mass Functions of Proto-Galactic Fragments
-------------------------------------------------------------
As in Côté et al (1998), the initial galaxian luminosity function ($i.e.$, the luminosity distribution of proto-galactic fragments) is approximated by a Schechter function $$dN \propto (L/L^*)^{\alpha} \exp{(-L/L^*)}dL \eqno{(5)}$$ where $L^*$ is a characteristic luminosity and $\alpha$ is an exponent which governs the relative number of faint and bright systems (Schechter 1976). For early-type systems in low-density environments such as the Local Group, $L^*_B \simeq 8.2\times10^9L_{B,{\odot}}$ assuming $H_0$ = 75 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ (Marzke et al. 1998). Since our goal is to model the growth of the Galactic spheroid (which has $L_B \sim 3.9\times10^9L_{B,{\odot}}$; see §3.4), the above representation is effectively a power-law distribution in luminosity: $$dN \propto L^{\alpha} dL. \eqno{(6)}$$ This distribution is similar to the mass spectrum expected in some hierarchical cosmologies. For instance, in cold-dark-matter models, the index of the initial power spectrum is $-3 < n < -2$ on the scales of dwarf galaxies, which leads to mass function of the form $N(M) \propto M^{-2}$ ($e.g.$, Blanchard et al. 1992; Ferguson & Bingelli 1994). Unfortunately, the transformation to a luminosity spectrum remains highly uncertain since it involves several poorly understood processes such as gas cooling, star formation and feedback from massive stars. If the cosmological models are correct, then the fact that the galaxy luminosity function today is shallower than the primordial mass spectrum suggests that there is not a one-to-one correspondence between galaxy mass and luminosity, and/or that the luminosity function has been modified over time, perhaps by mergers (see §5).
The maximum fragment luminosity is dictated by the requirement that the total spheroid luminosity must not exceed the observed value. The faint-end cutoff is taken to be $L_V = 2.7\times10^5L_{V,{\odot}}$, the luminosity of the faintest galaxy ($i.e.$, Draco) used to define the metallicity-luminosity relation of proto-Galactic fragments (§3.1). Fragments having luminosities below that of the Fornax dSph galaxy ($i.e.,$ $L_V \le 1.6\times10^7L_{V,{\odot}}$) are assumed to contribute no globular clusters, since this is the faintest galaxy known to contain its own globular cluster system.
Number of Globular Clusters Per Proto-Galactic Fragment
-------------------------------------------------------
An alternative representation of equation (1) is $$N_{gc} = {\eta}L_V \eqno{(7)}$$ where $\eta = (1.2\times10^{-8})S_n$ clusters $L_{V,{\odot}}^{-1}$. There is some recent evidence that specific frequency may not be a linear function of luminosity. For instance, as discussed in §2.1, most early-type giant galaxies and spiral spheroids have globular cluster specific frequencies of $S_n \sim 4$, whereas the dSph and dE galaxies shown in Figure 1 have a marginally higher mean specific frequency of $S_n = 8\pm3$. From [*HST*]{} imaging of dE galaxies in the Virgo cluster, Miller et al. (1999) find $S_n = 3.1\pm0.5$, with little or no luminosity dependence. On the other hand, they find $S_n = 6.5\pm1.2$ for nucleated Virgo dE galaxies, and see clear evidence of a trend for $S_n$ to increase with decreasing luminosity ($i.e.$, rising from $S_n \sim 3$ at $M_V \sim -17$ to $S_n \sim 20$ at $M_V \sim -13.5$) Based on their results, and on the $N_{gc}$-$L_V$ relations for early-type dwarf and giant galaxies given in Kissler-Patig et al. (1997a) and McLaughlin (1999), we express the initial number of globular clusters, $N_{gc}$, associated with each proto-Galactic fragment as $$N_{gc} = {\eta}L_V^{\beta} \eqno{(8)}$$ where $L_V$ is in solar units. For $L_V \le 2\times10^9L_{V,{\odot}}$, we take $\beta = 0.8$ and $\eta \simeq 5\times10^{-6}$. Above this luminosity, we assume $\beta = 1.1$ and $\eta \simeq 6\times10^{-9}$.
Adopted Luminosities for the Galactic Bulge and Halo
----------------------------------------------------
By definition, the luminosity of the Galactic spheroid, $L_V^s$, is given by the combined luminosities of the Galactic halo, $L_V^h$, and bulge, $L_V^b$. de Vaucouleurs & Pence (1978) give $L_V^s = 4.7\times10^9L_{V,{\odot}}$ for the combined $R^{1/4}$ component of the Milky Way. This is considerably smaller than the value of $L_V^s = 1.1\times10^{10}L_{V,{\odot}}$ found by Blanco & Terndrup (1989). In what follows, we shall adopt $L_V^s = 7.7\times10^9L_{V,{\odot}}$, which represents the mean of these two determinations.
Unfortunately, estimates of the [*separate*]{} luminosities of the Galactic bulge and halo are uncertain due to the overlapping distributions of disk, halo and bulge stars in the inner Galaxy (see, $e.g.$, Morrison 1996), the possible presence of a metallicity gradient in the bulge (Minniti et al. 1995), and the unknown shape of the halo density profile in the inner few kiloparsecs. In what follows, we adopt a bulge luminosity of $L_V^b = 5\times10^9L_{V,{\odot}}$ (Dwek et al. 1995; Holtzmann et al. 1998) which, when combined with the above value of $L_V^s$, gives $L_V^h = 2.7\times10^9L_{V,{\odot}}$. This estimate is consistent with that of Suntzeff, Kraft & Kinman (1991) who used the relative space densities of globular clusters and field RR Lyrae stars to derive a total halo luminosity of $5.8\times10^8 L_{V,{\odot}}$ over the range $4 \le R_G \le 25$ kpc: $i.e.$, our halo luminosity is equivalent to theirs for inner and outer limits on the halo population of $R_G \simeq$ 0.5 and 125 kpc, respectively.
Dynamical Evolution and Globular Cluster Destruction
----------------------------------------------------
In their study of the globular cluster systems of giant elliptical galaxies, Côté et al. (1998) made the first-order assumption that the metal-rich and metal-poor clusters have suffered equal rates of destruction through dynamical processes. However, given the evidence for different spatial distributions among the metal-rich and metal-poor sub-systems, this assumption may be not valid since more rapid erosion is expected in the denser environments. As it seems inescapable that the Galactic globular clusters system has been depleted by dynamical processes (Ostriker, Spitzer & Chevalier 1972; Tremaine 1974; Fall & Rees 1985; Aguilar, Hut & Ostriker 1988; Gnedin & Ostriker 1997; Murali & Weinberg 1997) and that the likelihood of disruption for a given globular cluster depends sensitively on its orbit, erosive effects are expected to be more severe for the centrally-concentrated, metal-rich globular cluster system.
We have attempted to incorporate the effects of dynamical evolution on the simulated globular cluster metallicity distributions by adopting the results of the Fokker-Planck calculations of Murali & Weinberg (1997). These calculations include the combined effects of relaxation, tidal heating and binary heating. The upper panel of Figure 3 shows the initial and final cumulative radial distributions for Milky Way spheroid globular clusters taken directly from Murali & Weinberg (1997). In the lower panel, we have plotted the ratio of the derivatives of these two curves, which we take as a rough estimate of the “survival probability", $P_S$, for a typical globular clusters orbiting in the Galactic potential for a Hubble Time. For $R_G >$ 30 kpc, the upper limit on Galactocentric radius considered by Murali & Weinberg (1997), we take the $P_S(R_G) \equiv 1$. The minimum Galactocentric radius used in the simulations is $R_G = 0.8$ kpc.
The presently observed density profiles of the (collisionless) bulge and halo field star populations are then used to assign randomly an initial Galactocentric radius to each globular cluster. In other words, following Harris (1976), Minniti (1995), Barbuy, Bica & Ortolani (1998) and Côté (1999), we associate the bulk of the metal-rich cluster population with the Galactic bulge, and not the thick-disk (Zinn 1985; Armandroff & Zinn 1989). The Murali & Weinberg (1997) survival probabilities are then used to decide, on a cluster-by-cluster basis, which objects should be kept in the sample and which should discarded as likely candidates for disruption. The adopted density profile for the halo is $\rho_h (R_G) \propto R_G^{-3.5}$, (Saha 1985; Preston, Schectman & Beers 1991) while the bulge density profile is taken to be $\rho_b (R_G) \propto R_G^{-4.0}$ (Terndrup 1988; Blanco & Terndrup 1990; Frogel et al. 1990).
Since the calculations of Murali & Weinberg (1997) assume a fixed Galactic potential, they may not be strictly appropriate for a model in which the Galactic spheroid is assembled from a collection of distinct proto-Galactic fragments. Nevertheless, they should at least provide a qualitative description of the dynamical evolution of the separate globular cluster systems since, in this scheme, dynamical erosion alters the overall number of metal-rich and metal-poor clusters but does not change the shape of their metallicity distributions.
Comparison of the Observed and Simulated Metallicity Distributions
==================================================================
Methodology
-----------
The algorithm used to generate the simulated metallicity distributions is based on that described in Côté et al. (1998). The reader is referred to that paper for a detailed disccusion of the model assumptions. Here, we give only a brief description of the model as it is applied to the specific case of the Milky Way.
The first step in the simulations is to generate a metal-rich system of bulge field stars and metal-rich globular clusters by combining the adopted bulge luminosity with metallicity-luminosity relations given by equations (2) and (3), and by assuming that the internal metallicity distribution of the bulge, like those all other proto-Galactic fragments, is accurately represented by equation (4). This procedure is then repeated for additional proto-Galactic fragments, each drawn at random from the luminosity distribution given by equation (5), until the combined luminosity is equal to observed luminosity of the Galactic spheroid. The number of globular clusters belonging initially to each fragment is calculated using equation (8), while the relative number of stars contributed by the various fragments are given simply by their luminosities. For globular cluster system, we approximate dynamical evolution on a cluster-by-cluster basis using the Monte-Carlo approach discussed in §3.6. The simulations are performed for a wide range in the adopted power-law exponent of the proto-Galactic luminosity function. A comparison of the observed and simulated metallicity distributions for both the globular clusters and halo field stars is then used to decide which luminosity functions produce acceptable agreement. As in Côté et al. (1998), we assume that the proto-Galactic fragments have equal merger probabilities; the reader is referred to that paper for a discussion of the possible effects of dynamical friction on the simulations.
Globular Cluster Metallicity Distributions
------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most noteworthy feature of the simulations presented here is the diversity of the end-products: the simulated globular cluster metallicity distributions show a wide range in appearance, ranging from unimodal distributions to more complex ones having multiple distinct peaks. This diversity is not unexpected in a stochastic process such as galaxy formation, and differs from the predominantly bimodal globular cluster metallicity distributions found previously for giant elliptical galaxies (Côté et al. 1998) for two simple reasons. First, by virtue of the globular cluster metallicity-luminosity relation and the modest luminosity of the Galactic bulge, the mean metallicity of the metal-rich clusters is not as widely separated from that of the metal-poor component. Second, the high luminosities of giant elliptical galaxies permit the accretion of correspondingly more luminous proto-galactic fragments or galaxies, meaning that the exponential cutoff in the luminosity distribution given by equation (5) imposes a sharp cutoff on the metal-rich side of the distribution of globular clusters arising in proto-galactic fragments. Such a cutoff, which serves to dilineate the globular clusters of the dominant proto-galactic fragment from those of the other fragments, does not apply in the case of the Galactic spheroid since $L_V^s \lae L_V^*$, as discussed in §3.3 and 3.5.
The principal conclusions drawn from these simulations can be summarized as follows: (1) the bulge, as the dominant proto-Galactic building block, is observed to have the most metal-rich globular clusters system by virtue of the globular cluster metallicity-luminosity relation; (2) the bulge contributes roughly [*twice*]{} the number of globular clusters initially as do the combined halo progenitors; (3) the more centrally concentrated metal-rich globular cluster system has been preferentially eroded by dynamical effects; (4) the metal-poor cluster system exhibits a much wider range in its observed properties although the simulations reveal that $\alpha \sim -2$ produces the closest match to the observed distribution, particularly the peak at \[Fe/H\] $\sim -1.6$; and (5) the metal-poor clusters, being more spatially extended than their metal-rich counterparts, have undergone less severe dynamical erosion.
The upper panel of Figure 4 shows a single simulation of globular cluster metallicity distribution, [*specifically chosen to match roughly the basic properties of the Galactic globular cluster system.*]{} The actual distribution, based on a sample of 133 clusters having measured metallicities (Harris 1996b), is indicated by the open circles. The two dotted curves show the initial distributions of bulge and halo globular clusters, while the dashed curves indicate the same distributions after including the effects dynamical erosion. The spheroid in this simulation has $L_V^s = 7.4\times10^9L_{V,{\odot}}$ and contains 149 surviving globular clusters, descended from an original population of 429. In this particular simulation, the halo was assembled from a total of 1309 proto-Galactic fragments having a combined luminosity of $L_V^h = 2.7\times10^9L_{V,{\odot}}$. The final specific frequency of the Galactic spheroid is $S_n = 1.6$, which is identical to the observed value.
Halo Star Metallicity Distributions
-----------------------------------
The solid curve in the lower panel of Figure 4 shows the halo star metallicity distribution for the simulation described above. Open circles indicate the actual metallicity distribution of 372 kinematically selected halo field stars according to Ryan & Norris (1991). Both the simulated and observed distributions show maxima in the range $-1.7 \lae$ \[Fe/H\] $\lae -1.5$ and broad wings extending to lower and higher metallicities. These extended tails are more pronouced in the field star distribution than in the cluster metallicity distribution. The significance of these differences has always remained somewhat questionable due to the finite size of the Galactic cluster system ($i.e.$, the discrepancy at the metal-poor and metal-rich ends can removed by adding only four and six clusters, respectively; Laird et al. 1988).
Nevertheless, such differences are often seen in the simulations described here and their origin can be understood as follows. The extended metal-poor tail in the field star distribution is populated exclusively by stars formed in the faintest and most metal-deficient proto-Galactic fragments: $i.e.$, having mean metallicities of \[Fe/H\] $\sim -2.1$ (see Figure 5). Such a tail is slightly less evident in the globular cluster distribution since only proto-Galactic fragments having $L_V \gae 1.6\times10^7L_{V,{\odot}}$ contribute clusters to the spheroid, limiting the mean metallicity of these clusters to \[Fe/H\] $\sim -1.9$. More significantly, the comparatively large number of faint proto-Galactic fragments incorporated into the halo ensures that the metal-poor tail of simulated halo metallicity distribution is well populated, in constrast to that of the globular cluster distribution (which, unlike the field star distribution, is further depleted by dynamical effects). At the metal-rich end, the small number of luminous proto-Galactic fragments incorporated into the spheroid contribute significant numbers of both globular clusters and field stars; as discussed in §3.2, these stars will be systematically $\sim$ 0.6 dex more metal-rich than the associated clusters and, consequently, will produce a metal-rich tail which will not be seen in the globular cluster metallicity distribution.
For comparison, the dotted curve in the lower panel of Figure 4 shows the prediction of the Simple Model for an effective yield of ${\log_{10}{y_e}} = -1.6$, an [*arbitrary*]{} value chosen by Ryan & Norris (1991) to give the closest match to the observed distribution. As noted by both Laird et al. (1988) and Ryan & Norris (1991), at high metallicities the Simple Model shows poor agreement with the actual distrubution. While the significance of this discrepancy is unclear due to possible contamination by metal-rich disk stars, we note that the simulations show significant numbers of stars having \[Fe/H\] $> -1$ whose origin can be traced to the largest proto-Galactic fragments incorporated in the spheroid. The fraction of such stars in the simulations, however, is somewhat larger than that seen in the distribution of Ryan & Norris (1991).
A consistency check on the radial distribution of the simulated globular cluster systems is shown in Figure 6. The upper and lower panels indicate histograms of Galactocentric radii for the actual and simulated globular clusters systems. In the latter case, we plot the radial profiles before and after dynamical effects. Initially, the simulated globular clusters follow a profile given by the adopted halo and bulge density laws, shown as the solid and dashed lines in the upper panel. Afterwards, the surviving globular clusters have a radial distribution similar to that of the observed globular clusters, including the same flattening of the profile in the central $R_G \sim$ 3-5 kpc. For the distant metal-poor globular clusters, the initial distribution is relatively unaltered.
How Fragmented was the Proto-Galactic Spheroid?
-----------------------------------------------
Figure 7 illustrates some properties of the proto-Galactic fragments from which the Galactic spheroid was assembled. In the upper panel, we show the luminosity distribution of proto-Galactic fragments found in the above simulation. The location of the proto-bulge is indicated by the vertical arrow, while the dashed line indicates a power-law luminosity function having slope $\alpha = -2$. The dotted line in the lower panel shows the cumulative luminosity distribution of these same proto-Galactic fragments. Given the steep luminosity function, the vast majority of the proto-Galactic fragments are, as expected, low-luminosity systems. Unfortunately, the conversion from luminosity to mass for these fragments is highly uncertain due their unknown mass-to-light ratios. For illustrative purposes, two different mass distributions are shown in the lower panel of Figure 7. In the first case, we have assumed $M/L_V = 2$ in solar units. This would be expected for an old stellar population whose dark matter content can be understood purely in terms of normal stellar remnants, as is the case for globular clusters (Gunn & Griffin 1979; Pryor & Meylan 1993). In the second case, we have assumed $M/L_V = 2$ and a universal dark halo mass of $M \simeq 2.0\times10^7M_{\odot}$, as suggested by studies of the internal kinematics Local Group dwarf galaxies (Mateo 1993).
These simulations suggest that proto-Galactic spheroid was highly fragmented into numerous distinct, chemically-isolated fragments. For $\alpha = -2$, the total number of fragments is $N_{PGF} \sim$ 1-2$\times10^3$, which follows directly from the assumed power-law index for the luminosity function, the total luminosity of the Galactic spheroid and the adopted faint-end cutoff of the proto-Galactic luminosity function. The majority of these proto-Galactic fragments are low-luminosity systems, with roughly 95% of the fragments having $L_V \lae 1.6\times10^7L_{V,{\odot}}$ ($i.e.$, the present day luminosity of the Fornax dSph galaxy). As a whole, these faint fragments contribute nearly half of the total halo luminosity but, by virtue of their low luminosity, none of its globular clusters. This is evident in the upper panel of Figure 5 which shows, for one simulation, the metallicities of halo stars and globular clusters plotted against the luminosity of the proto-Galactic fragment in which they originated. Although the globular clusters and field stars have similar mean metallicities, the field star distribution extends to both higher and lower metallicities, as evident in the lower panel of Figure 5.
Given the large number of proto-Galactic fragments required by hierarchical formation models to match the observed metallicity distributions, it is interesting to consider the possible implications for the mass budget of the Galaxy. If it is assumed that each fragment consists of a luminous component having $M/L_V = 2$ which is embedded in a constant mass dark matter halo as described above, then for the adopted cutoff of $L_V = 2.7\times10^5L_{V,{\odot}}$, the total mass is $M \simeq 3\times10^{10}M_{\odot}$. This is much lower than the total Galactic mass of $M \sim$ 3-9$\times10^{11}M_{\odot}$ (Zaritsky 1989; Kochanek 1996), suggesting that the proto-Galactic fragments alone cannot account for the dark matter content of the Milky Way.
A Second Example: The M31 Spheroid
----------------------------------
M31 has traditionally presented a challenge to models of halo formation since it is difficult to understand why its halo stars are, on average, four times more metal-rich than its globular clusters (Mould & Kristian 1986; Brodie & Huchra 1991). This difference is all the more puzzling in light of the fact that these components in the Milky Way — the other large Local Group spiral — have nearly identical mean metallicities.
A possible explanation of this difference is shown in Figure 8. In the upper panel, we compare the observed and simulated globular cluster metallicity distribution for M31; the botton panel shows the observed and simulated metallicity distributions for M31 halo stars. The data are taken from Barmby et al. (1999) and Holland et al. (1996), respectively. No attempt has been made to include dynamical effects for the globular clusters since there are no published calculations of the dynamical evolution of the M31 globular cluster system. While dynamical effects will influence the relative numbers of globular clusters in the metal-rich and metal-poor populations, the mean metallicities of the two components will be not be affected. Following Walterbos & Kenicutt (1988), we adopt $L_V^s = 9.8\times10^9L_{V,{\odot}}$ for M31 and assume an identical bulge-to-halo ratio as for the Milky Way. Experiments indicate that $\alpha \sim -1.8$ most frequently produces the best match to the observed halo star distribution, particularly the peak at \[Fe/H\] $\simeq -0.7$. The observed and simulated cluster distributions, meanwhile, have their maxima at \[Fe/H\] $\simeq -1.3$ due to the fact that the assumed luminosity function of the proto-galactic fragments is slightly more skewed toward higher luminosity fragments than was the case for the Milky Way. On the other hand, the prominent metal-poor tail seen in the halo star distribution is less pronounced in the simulations. As Holland et al. (1996) point out, the significance of this tail is unclear since confusion between metal-poor red giant branch stars and metal-rich asympototic giant branch stars becomes important at this level.
Figure 9 shows the dependence of halo star and globular cluster metallicity on proto-galactic fragment luminosity. A comparison with Figure 7 reveals the clear differences between the simulated metallicity distribution for the Galaxy and M31. In the case of M31, the proto-galactic fragments have a slightly flatter luminosity function which results in a field star distribution whose mean metallicity is several times higher than that of the associated globular clusters.
Discussion and Implications
===========================
The simulations presented here demonstrate that hierarchical models are able to provide an excellent match to the metallicity distributions of Galactic globular clusters and halo field stars, [*provided the luminosity function of proto-Galactic fragments had the form $dN \propto L^{\alpha}dL$ with $\alpha \sim -2$*]{}. Such a steep slope is in agreement with the predictions of semi-analytic/numerical models of hierarchical galaxy formation and the standard assumptions regarding gas cooling in dark halos ($e.g.$, White & Rees 1978; Blumenthal et al. 1984; Kauffmann, White & Guiderdoni 1993; Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999). It is, however, strongly inconsistent the presently observed luminosity function of the Local Group and of the field galaxy population in general. While it is undoubtedly true that the current census of Local Groups galaxies is incomplete at the faint end, it is highly unlikely that the number of Local Group dwarf galaxies has been underestimated by more than an order of magnitude. For instance, Pritchet & van den Bergh (1999) have shown that the Local Group luminosity function closely resembles a Schechter function having $\alpha \simeq -1.1$ and that, based on the current census of Local Group galaxies, the probability of $\alpha < -1.3$ for a single Schechter function is less than one percent.
Is it possible to reconcile these results? It is worth pointing out that this discrepancy is not unique to the simulations presented here, but is rather a longstanding problem for semi-analytic and numerical hierarchical models. For instance, Klypin et al. (1999) noted, on the basis of high-resolution cosmological simulations of the Local Group, that the number of low-mass, dark halos predicted by the models exceeds the observed number of faint galaxies by nearly an order of magnitude. The magnitude of the discrepancy is slightly less than the one found here, since Klypin et al. (1999) predicted $\sim$ 300 halos within 1.5 Mpc of the Local Group (compared to the observed number of $\sim$ 40 satellites), although the larger number of proto-Galactic fragments found in the present case may be a consequence of the different mass/luminosity cutoffs. That is to say, the simulations of Klypin et al. (1999) become incomplete below $v_c \sim 20$ km s$^{-1}$ whereas such low-mass systems are explicitly included in our Monte-Carlo approach: $i.e.$, $v_c \sim 10$ km s$^{-1}$ at the faint end of the proto-Galactic luminosity function (Mateo 1998).
We suggest that the proto-galactic fragments discussed here are plausible candidates for the low-mass, dark halos seen in the semi-analytic and numerical models. The issue, however, is complicated by the fact that, in the present case, the spheroid is identified with the disrupted stellar components of these fragments, whereas $N$-body simulations suggest that low-mass halos are relatively immune to the destructive effects of the Galactic tidal field. If this association is correct, then some physical mechanism is required to erase the dark matter substructure observed in the numerical models, such as tidal heating of halos on predominately radial orbits (Moore et al. 1996; van den Bosch 1999) or impulsive heating during rapid, halo-halo encounters (Moore et al. 1996).
Two possible explanations for the discrepancy between the predicted and observed luminosity functions were discussed by Klypin et al. (1999): high-velocity clouds (HVCs) and dark satellites. In the first case, the numerous HVCs which populate the Local Group are assumed to represent the observable counterparts of the lowest-mass dark halos (Blitz et al. 1999). Several properties of the HVCs, such as their large numbers (about 2500 in the Local Group; Stark et al. 1992), their low masses (typically $3\times10^7M_{\odot}$ of neutral gas and roughly ten times this amount of dark matter; Blitz et al 1999) their presumed extragalactic nature, and their inferred high rate of accretion onto the Galaxy at early times (Blitz et al. 1999), make them attractive candidates for the proto-Galactic fragments described here. Evidence for spatial and kinematic connections between HVCs and at least some Local Group dwarf galaxies has recently been presented by Blitz & Robishaw (1999) and Côté et al. (2000). However, the dSph and dE galaxies which we have identified as the surviving proto-Galactic fragments have clearly managed to convert much of their initial gas reservoir into stars, something which is not true for the majority of the HVCs.
Klypin et al. (1999) also examined the possibilty that many low-mass dark halos rapidly lost their gas due to supernovae-driven winds or an intergalactic photo-ionizing background. Although these processes may be important for explaining the excess in the predicted number of dark halos over the number observed, they cannot resolve the discrepancy found here. If the hierarchical models are correct, then the very existence of the Galactic spheroid demonstrates that its constituent proto-Galactic fragments managed to form significant numbers of stars.
A related possibility is that the luminosity function of proto-Galactic fragments depends sensitively on local environment. The steep slopes required by hierarchical formation models in the immediate vicinity of the proto-Galaxy might then be a consequence of pressure confinement in high-density regions (Babul & Rees 1992), biased dwarf formation (West 1993; Ferguson & Binggeli 1994) or some other mechanism which enhances the efficiency of gas cooling in low-mass halos. Indeed, the remarkable diversity in the star formation histories of Local Group dwarfs ($e.g.$, Grebel 1999) provides [*prima facie*]{} evidence for the complexity of gas accretion, cooling and ejection in these objects.
Finally, the simulations presented here provide no direct constraints on the timescale of spheroid assembly, but it is nevertheless possible to draw some general conclusions on the duration of spheroid assembly. While the existence of the disrupting Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Ibata, Gilmore & Irwin 1995) suggests that the accretion process has continued up to the present day, other arguments indicate that the majority of proto-Galactic fragments must have been incorporated into the spheroid at very early times. First, the thinness of the Galactic disk, whose oldest stars are believed to be 10$^{+3}_{-1}$ Gyr old (Wood & Oswalt 1998; Knox, Hawkins & Hambly 1999), may indicate that the number of massive satellites accreted over its lifetime has been small (Toth & Ostriker 1992; Moore et al. 1999). Second, a majority of the Local Group dSph/dE galaxies contain young- and intermediate-age stellar populations, whereas the fraction of such stars in the halo is known to be small ($i.e., \lae$ 10%; Unavane et al. 1998). However, it is important to bear in mind that the proto-Galactic fragments, if accreted and disrupted at early times, would not have had the opportunity to form stars over periods of time, as did the Local Group dwarfs. In summary, the available evidence seems to favor an early, and relatively rapid, timescale for the assembly of the Galactic spheroid.
Summary
=======
We have described a semi-empirical technique for simulating the chemical evolution of the Galactic spheroid in hierarchical formation scenarios. The simulations include no gas dissipation, but assume instead that the bulk of star and cluster formation occured within distinct, chemically-isolated proto-Galactic fragments which were subsequently assembled into the Galactic spheroid. The chemical enrichment of each proto-Galactic fragment is assumed to proceed in the manner predicted by the Simple Model (Searle & Sargent 1972; Pagel & Patchett 1975; Hartwick 1976). The effective yield of each fragment is determined empirically using the presently observed metallicity-luminosity relations for stars and globular clusters belonging to nearby dSph and dE galaxies.
In this picture, the bulge is identified as the dominant proto-Galactic building block, and the metal-rich Galactic globular clusters as its associated cluster system. This identification is supported by the observation that the metallicities of bulge field stars and the metal-rich Galactic globular clusters are consistent with the extrapolated metallicity-luminosity relations of dwarf galaxies ($e.g.$ the smaller proto-Galactic fragments). By contrast, the Galactic halo is identified as the disrupted remains of numerous, much smaller, proto-Galactic fragments. A comparison between the observed and simulated metallicity distributions of Galactic globular clusters and halo field stars shows good agreement, [*provided the luminosity function of proto-Galactic fragments has the form $dN \propto L^{{\alpha}}dL$ where $\alpha \sim -2$.*]{} When combined with the observed luminosity of the Galactic halo, this steep slope implies that the proto-Galactic spheroid was fragmented into $N_{PGF} \sim 10^3$ distinct star-forming regions; the metal-poor Galactic globular clusters formed in the $\sim$ one dozen most massive fragments, whereas the bulk of the halo field star population and, in particular, the most metal-deficient objects, originated in numerous smaller fragments.
While these simulations provide independent support for semi-analytic and numerical models of hierarchical galaxy formation, they exacerbate the longstanding discrepancy between the observed and predicted number of nearby faint galaxies.
We thank Pauline Barmby, Sean Ryan and Steve Holland for providing the cluster and stellar metallicities shown in Figures 4 and 9. Thank also to the referee, Mario Mateo, for his many helpful suggestions. P.C. acknowledges support provided by the Sherman M. Fairchild Foundation. Additional support for this work was provided to R.O.M. by NASA through grant No. HF-0.096.01-97A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. M.J.W. acknowledges financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. DM is supported by the Chilean Fondecyt Project No. 01990440, and by the U. S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Aguilar, L., Hut, P., & Ostriker, J.P. 1988, , 335, 720 Ashman, K.A., & Bird, C.M. 1993, , 106, 2281 Ashman, K.A., & Zepf, S.E. 1992, , 384, 50 Babul, A., & Rees, M.J. 1992, , 255, 346 Barbuy, B., Bica, E., & Ortolani, S. 1998, , 333, 117 Barmby, P., Huchra, J.P., Brodies, J.P., Forbes, D.A., Schroder, L.L., & Grillmair, C.J. 1999, AJ, in press (astro-ph/9911152) Baugh, C.M., Cole, S., Frenk, C.S., & Lacey, C.G. 1998, , 498, 504 Bender, R. Burstein, D. & Faber, S.M. 1992, , 399, 462 Binney, J., & Merrifield, M. 1998, Galactic Astronomy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press), p 311 Blanchard, A., Valls-Gabaud, D., & Mamon, G.A. 1992, , 264, 365 Blanco, V.M., & Terndrup, D.M. 1989, , 98, 843 Blitz, L., Spergel, D.N., Teuben, P.J., Hartmann, D., & Butler, B.W. 1999, , 514, 818 Blitz, L., & Robishaw, T. 1999, preprint Blumenthal, G.R., Faber, S.M., Primack, J.R., & Rees, M.J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517 Brodie, J.P., & Huchra, J.P. 1991, , 379, 157 Caldwell, N., Armandroff, T.E., Seitzer, P., & Da Costa, G.S. 1992, , 103, 840 Carney, B.W., Laird, J.B., Latham, D.W., & Aguilar, L.A. 1996, , 112, 668 Chen, B. 1998, , 495, L1 Cole, S., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Frenk, C.S., Navarro, J.F., Zepf, S.E. 1994, , 271, 781 Côté, P. 1999, , 118, 406 Côté, P., Marzke, R.O., & West, M.J. 1998, , 501, 554 Côté, P., Oke, J.B., & Cohen, J.G. 1999, , 118, 1645 Côté, P., Sargent, W.L.W., Mateo, M., & Olszewski, E.W. 2000, in preparation Davies, R., Burstein, D., Dressler, A., Faber, S., Lynden-Bell, D., Terlevich, R., & Wegner, G. 1987, , 64, 581 Dekel, A., & Silk, J. 1986, , 393, 39 de Vaucouleurs, G., & Pence, W.D. 1978, , 83, 1163 Durrell, P.R., Harris, W.E., Geisler, D., & Pudritz, R.E. 1996, , 112, 972 Dwek, E, et al. 1995, , 445, 716 Eggen, O.J., Lynden-Bell, D., & Sandage, A.R. 1962, , 136, 748 Ferguson, & Binggeli 1994, A&ARv, 6, 67 Frogel, J.A., Terndrup, D.M., Blanco, V.M., & Whitford, A.E. 1990, , 353, 494 Gebhardt, K., & Kissler-Patig, M. 1999, , 118, 1526 Geisler, D. Lee, M.G., & Kim, E. 1996, , 111, 1529 Gilmore, G., King, I.R., & van der Kruit, P.C. 1990, The Milky Way as a Galaxy (University Science Books, Mill Valley). Gendin, O.Y., & Ostriker, J.P. 1997, , 474, 223 Grebel, E.K. 1999, in The Stellar Content of Local Group Galaxies, IAU Symposium 192, eds P. Whitelock & R. Cannon, (San Francisco, ASP), p. 17 Gunn, J.E., & Gott, J.R. 1972, , 176, 1 Gunn, J.E., & Griffin, R.F. 1979, , 84, 752 Haehnelt, M.G., Steinmetz, M., & Rauch, M. 1998, , 495, 647 Hartwick, F.D.A. 1976, , 209, 418 Harris, W.E. 1976, , 81, 1095 Harris, W.E., & van den Bergh, S. 1981, , 86, 1627 Harris, W.E. 1981, , 251, 497 Harris, W.E. 1991, , 29, 543 Harris, W.E., & Pudritz, R.E. 1994, , 429, 177 Harris, W.E. 1996a, http://www.physics.mcmaster.ca/GC/sn.dat Harris, W.E. 1996b, , 112, 1487 Hesser, J.E., et al. 1998, in The Stellar Content of Local Group Galaxies, IAU Symposium 192, edited by P. Whitelock and R. Cannon (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 4 Holland, S., Richer, H.B., & Fahlman, G.G. 1996, , 112, 1035 Holtzman et al. 1998, 115, 1946 Huchra, J.P., Brodie, J.P., & Kent, S.M. 1991, , 370, 495 Huang, S., & Carlberg, R.G. 1997, , 480, 503 Ibata, R., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. 1994, Nature, 370, 194 Ibata, R., Gilmore, G., & Irwin, M. 1995, , 277, 781 Jablonka, P., Marintin, P., & Arimoto, N. 1996, , 112, 1415 Kauffmann, G., White, S.D.M., & Guiderdoni, B. 1993, , 264, 201 King, J.R. 1997, , 113, 2302 Kinman, T.D. 1959, , 119, 559 Kinman, T.D., Pier, J.R., Suntzeff, N.B., Harmer, D.L., Valdes, F., Hanson, R.B., Klemola, A.R., & Kraft, R.P. 1996, , 111, 1164 Kissler-Patig, M. 1997, , 319, 83 Kissler-Patig, M., Kohle, S., Hilker, M., Richtler, T., Infante, L., & Quintana, H. 1997b, , 319, 47 Kissler-Patig, M., Richtler, T., Storm, J., & Della Valle, M. 1997b, , 327, 503 Kissler-Patig, M., Ashman, K., Zepf, S.E., & Freeman, K.C. 1999, , 118, 197 Klypin, A.A., Kravtsov, A.V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82 Knox, R.A., Hawkins, M.R.S., & Hambly, N.C. 1999, , 306, 736 Kochanek, C.S. 1996, , 457, 228 Kormendy, J. 1985, , 295, 73 Kormendy, J., & Illingworth, G. 1983, , 265, 632 Kundu, A., & Whitmore, B.C. 1998, , 116, 2841 Kundu, A. 1999, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Maryland Laird, J.B., Carney, B.W., Rupen, M.P., & Latham, D.W. 1988, , 96, 1908 Laird, J.B., & Sneden, C. 1996, in Formation of the Galactic Halo... Inside and Out, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 92, edited by H. Morrison and A. Sarajedini (San Francisco: ASP), 192 Larson, R.B. 1988, in Globular Cluster Systems in Galaxies, IAU Symposium 126, edited by G. Grindlay and A. Philip (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 311 Majewski, S.R., Munn, J.A., & Hawley, S.L. 1996, , 459, 73 Marzke, R.O., Da Costa, L.N., Pellegrini, P.S., Willmer, C.N.A., & Geller, M.J. 1998, , 503, 617 Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.W., Pryor, C., Welch, D.L., & Fischer, P. 1993, , 105, 510 Mateo, M. 1996, in Formation of the Galactic Halo... Inside and Out, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 92, edited by H. Morrison and A. Sarajedini (San Francisco: ASP), 434 Mateo, M. 1998, , 36, 435 McLaughlin, D.E. 1999, , 117, 2398 McWilliam, A., & Rich, R.M. 1994, , 91, 749 Miller, B.W., Lotz, J.M., Ferguson, H.C., Stiavelli, M., & Whitmore, B.C. 1999, , 508, L133 Minniti, D. 1995, , 109, 1663 Minniti, D., Olszewski, E.W., Liebert, J., White, S.D.M., Hill, J.M., Irwin, M.J. 1995, , 277, 1293 Moore, B., Ghinga, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Tozzi, P. 1999, , 524, 19 Moore, B., Katz, N., & Lake, G. 1996, , 457, 455 Morgan, W.W. 1959, , 64, 432 Mould, J.R., & Kristan, J. 1986, , 305, 591 Murali, C., & Weinberg, M.D. 1997, , 291, 717 Neilsen, E.H., & Tsvetanov, Z.I. 1999, , 515, L13 Neilsen, E.H., Tsvetanov, Z.I., & Ford, H.C. 1998, in Proc. Rinberg Workshop on M87, editted by H.J. Röser & K. Meisenheimer (Berlin: Springer), in press Ostriker, J.P., Spitzer, L., & Chevalier, R. 1972, , 196, L51 Ostrov, Geisler & Forte 1993, , 105, 1762 Pagel, B.E.J., & Patchett, B.E. 1975, , 172, 13 Press, W.H. & Schechter, P. 1974, , 187, 425 Preston, G.W., Schectman, S., & Beers, T.C. 1991, , 375, 121 Preston, G.W., Beers, T.C., & Schectman, S. 1994, , 108, 538 Pritchet, C.J., & van den Bergh, S. 1999, , 118, 883 Pryor, C., & Meylan, G. 1993, in The Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters, edited by S.G. Djorgovski and G. Meylan (ASP, San Francisco), p. 357 Renzini, A. 1999, in When and How do Bulges Form and Evolve?, edited by C.M. Carollo, H.C. Ferguson & R.F.G. Wyse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), in press Saha, A. 1985, , 289, 310 Sarajedini, A., Chaboyer, B., & Demarque, P. 1997, , 109, 1321 Schechter, P. 1976, , 203, 297 Schweizer, F. 1986, in Nearly Normal Galaxies, edited by S. Faber (New York: Springer), 18 Searle, L. & Sargent, W.L.W. 1972, , 173, 25 Searle, L., & Zinn, R. 1978, , 225, 357 Sellwood, J.A., Nelson, R.W., & Tremaine, S. 1998, , 506, 590 Simien, F., & de Vaucouleurs, G. 1986, , 302, 564 Stark, A.A., Gammie, C.F., Wilson, R.W., bally, J., Linke, R.A., Heiles, C., & Hurwitz, M. 1992, , 79, 77 Steinmetz, M., & Müller, E. 1995, , 276, 549 Suntzeff, N.B., Kinman, T.D., & Kraft, R.P. 1991, , 367, 528 Terndrup, D.M. 1988, , 96, 884 Toth, G., & Ostriker, J.P. 1992, , 389, 5 Tully, R.B. 1988, Nearby Galaxies Catalog, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge Unavane, M., Wyse, R.F.G., & Gilmore, G. 1996, , 278, 727 van den Bergh, S. 1982, , 94, 459 van den Bergh, S. 1996, , 108, 986 van den Bosch, F.C., Lewis, G.F., Lake, G., & Stadel, J. 1999, , 515, 50 Walterbos, R.A.M., & Kenicutt, R.C. 1988, , 198, 61 West, M.J. 1993, , 265, 755 White, S.D.M., & Rees, M.J. 1978, , 183, 341 Whitmore, B.C., Sparks, W.B., Lucas, R.A., Macchetto, F.D., & Biretta, J.A. 1995, , 454, L73 Wood, M.A., & Oswalt, T.D. 1998, , 497, 870 Zaritsky, D., Olszewski, E.W., Schommer, R.A., Peterson, R.C., & Aaronson, M. 1989, , 345, 759 Zinn, R. 1985, , 293, 424 Zinn, R. 1993, in The Globular Cluster-Galaxy Connection, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 48, edited by G. Smith and J. Brodie (San Francisco: ASP), 603
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Through an adaption of [the]{} convex integration scheme in [the]{} two dimensional case, the non-uniqueness of $C^0_t L^2_x$ weak solutions is presented for [the two-dimensional]{} hypoviscous incompressible Navier-Stokes equations.'
address:
- 'Yau Mathematical Sciences Center, Tsinghua University, China.'
- ' School of Mathematical Sciences & Shanghai Key Laboratory for Contemporary Applied Mathematics, Fudan University, China'
author:
- Tianwen Luo
- Peng Qu
title: ' Non-Uniqueness of Weak Solutions to 2D Hypoviscous Navier-Stokes Equations '
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
In this paper, we consider the 2D incompressible Navier–Stokes equations with fractional viscosity $$\label{1.1_NS}
\left\{ \begin{aligned}
& {\partial_t}v + {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}(v \otimes v ) + \nabla p + \nu (-\Delta)^{\theta} v = 0, \\
& {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}v = 0,
\end{aligned} \right.$$ where $\theta \in [0,1)$ is a given constant, the velocity field $v=v(t,x)$ is defined on $(t,x) \in [0,+\infty) \times {\mathbb{T}}^2$ with zero spatial means $$\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2}^{} v(t,x) {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x = 0,$$ and we denote ${\mathbb{T}}^2 = {\mathbb{R}}^2 /( 2\pi {\mathbb{Z}}^2)$. Here, for $u \in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{T}^3)$ the fractional Laplacian is defined via the Fourier transform as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F}((- \Delta)^{\theta} u)(\xi) = |\xi|^{2\theta}\mathcal{F}(u)(\xi), \quad \xi \in \mathbb{Z}^2.\end{aligned}$$
When $\theta = 1$, System is the 2D Navier-Stokes equations, for which the existence and uniqueness of weak solutions to the Cauchy problem are well-established (see, for example, [@Temam-NSbook]). These weak solutions also satisfy the energy equality. In contrast, recently Buckmaster and Vicol showed the nonuniqueness of weak solutions to 3D Navier–Stokes equations in [@Buckmuster_Vicol]. The 3D Navier Stokes equations with fractional viscosity was first considered by J.-L. Lions in [@Lions59] and the existence and uniqueness of weak solutions to the Cauchy problem for $\theta \in [5/4,\infty)$ was showed in [@Lions69]. Moreover, an analogue of the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg [@CKN] result was established in [@KatzPavlovic], showing that the Hausdorff dimension of the singular set, in space and time, is bounded by $5 - 4\theta$ for $\theta \in (1,5/4)$. The existence, uniqueness, regularity and stability of solutions to the 3D Navier–Stokes with fractional viscosity have been studied in [@OlsonTiti05; @JiuWang14; @Wu03; @Tao09; @Colombo_DeLellis_Massaccesi; @Tang_Yu] and references therein. On the other hand, for $\theta \in [1,5/4)$, the non-uniqueness of weak solutions to the 3D Navier Stokes equations with fractional viscosity was showed in [@Luo_Titi], extending the results in [@Buckmuster_Vicol]; while for $\theta \in (0,1/5)$, the non-uniqueness of Leray weak solutions was showed in [@CdLdR18].
The framework of convex integration, applicable to fluid dynamics, was introduced by De Lellis and Sz[é]{}kelyhidi in [@dLSz1; @DeLellis_Szekelyhidi_InvMath] for the Euler equations. Since then, it was developed in the series of work in [@Isett12; @Buckmaster2013transporting; @Buckmaster2014; @Isett16; @BDSV17], over the resolution of the flexible part of Onsager’s conjecture for the 3D Euler equations; see also [@CET94] for the rigidity part. Recently, the method was extended to Navier–Stokes equations in [@Buckmuster_Vicol], by developing a framework of convex integration with intermittence. The ideas in [@Buckmuster_Vicol] are further developed to treat transport equations, Boussinesq, and stationary Naiver-Stokes equations in [@Modena_Szekelyhidi; @Buckmaster_Colombo_Vicol; @LuoX; @Cheskidov_Luo; @LTZ].
The purpose of this note is to show that, for the 2D hypoviscous Navier-Stokes equations with $\theta \in [0,1)$, the $C^0_t L^2_x$ weak solutions are not unique. As in [@Luo_Titi], we would like to show a result of $h$-principle type to this system.
\[thm:1\] For any given $\theta \in [0,1)$ and $T \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, if one has a smooth divergence-free vector field $u = u(t,x)$ with zero spatial mean on $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{T}}^2$, then for any given $\varepsilon_*>0$, there exists a weak solution $v=v(t,x) \in C^0_t L_x^2$ to equations , with zero spatial mean, satisfying $$\begin{gathered}
{ \| v-u \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^1}} \leq \varepsilon_*, \label{1.3} \\
{\mathrm{supp}}_t v \subseteq N_{\varepsilon_*} ({\mathrm{supp}}_t u). \label{1.4}
\end{gathered}$$
Here for weak solutions, we mean solutions in the sense of distribution, and see for $N_\varepsilon(\cdot)$. Moreover, by choosing $u$ with a compact temporal support, and $\varepsilon_* > 0$ small enough, we have
\[cor:1\] System admits nontrivial $C^0_t L_x^2$ weak solutions with compact temporal supports. Thus, generally, $C^0_t L_x^2$ weak solutions to the Cauchy problem of are not unique.
We now make some comments on the analysis in this paper. We shall adapt the 2D stationary flow introduced in [@Choffrut_DeLellis_Szekelyhidi] to an intermittent form, inspired by the the intermittent Beltrami flow introduced in [@Buckmuster_Vicol] as the basic building block in the intermittent convex integration scheme for 3D Navier–Stokes equations. Meanwhile, in the two-dimensional case, it seems that the method of intermittent jets introduced in [@Buckmaster_Colombo_Vicol] or viscous eddies introduced in [@Cheskidov_Luo] can not be applied, due to the 3D nature of its Mikado flow structure. Furthermore, we shall use different scaling for the parameters due to the $L^p$ estimates for the 2D Dirichlet kernels. At last, we would like to compare the result of this note with the one of [@LTZ]. In [@LTZ], the authors present the 2D intermittent convex integration scheme to show the finite energy weak solutions for 2D Boussinesq equations with diffusive temperature. By taking constant temperature in the solution, [@LTZ] can also provide the non-uniqueness result to . The new points got in this note may be given as follows. First, Theorem \[thm:1\] provides a result of the h-principle type. Secondly, with Theorem \[thm:1\], one can construct solutions with compact temporal supports.
Iteration Lemma {#sec:2}
===============
In order to prove the above result in the framework of convex integration, one needs an iteration process on the corresponding Navier–Stokes–Reynolds system $$\label{2.1_NSR}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
& {\partial_t}v + {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}(v \otimes v) + \nabla p + \nu (-\Delta)^\theta v = {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{\mathring{R}}, \\
& {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}v = 0,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where the Reynolds tensor ${\mathring{R}}$ is a symmetric trace-free $2 \times 2$ matrix. [Also]{} we would apply the scheme of intermittent convex integration to add waves with high frequency and strong concentration to cancel the Reynolds tensor ${\mathring{R}}$ gradually.
In order to illustrate our analysis in a clearer manner, we would use several parameters to denote the different scales in the convex integration process. First, for $\theta \in [0,1)$ given in the system , we denote $$\label{3.58+3}
\theta_* = \left\{\begin{alignedat}{2}
& 2\theta-1, \quad & & \frac{1}{2} < \theta < 1, \\
& 0, \quad & & 0 \leq \theta \leq \frac{1}{2},
\end{alignedat}\right.$$ for which, we can easily check that $\theta_* \in [0,1)$. Then we shall choose the index parameter $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Q}}_+$ accordingly satisfying $$\label{7.16+_alpha}
\alpha \leq \frac{1-\theta_*}{8} \in \big( 0, \min\{ \frac{1-\theta}{4}, \frac{1}{8} \} \big].$$ Now for each $q \in {\mathbb{N}}$, we set $$\label{2.2_lambda_q}
\lambda_q = A^{(B^q)}$$ to denote the principle frequency for the perturbation waves in the convex integration scheme, and set $$\label{2.4_varepsilon}
\varepsilon_q = \lambda_q^{-2\beta}$$ to denote the amplitude. Here $B \in {\mathbb{N}}$ would be chosen large enough based on $\alpha$ to satisfy $$\label{++.1}
B > \frac{320}{\alpha},$$ and $\beta \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$ would be chosen small enough accordingly to satisfy $$\label{++.2}
0 < \beta < \frac{1}{100 B^2}. $$ The parameter $A \in 5 {\mathbb{N}}$ would be chosen at last to be large enough to absorb the absolute constants in the inequalities and to satisfy $$\label{++.3}
A^\alpha \in 5 {\mathbb{N}}.$$ We note that under these choices, we have $$\label{++.4}
\lambda_q \in 5 {\mathbb{N}}, \quad \lambda^\alpha_q \in 5 {\mathbb{N}}, \quad \forall\, q \in {\mathbb{N}}.$$ and $$\label{++.5}
\varepsilon_{q+1}^{-1} \ll \varepsilon_{q+2}^{-1} = \lambda_q^{2 \beta B^2} \leq \lambda_q^{\frac{1}{50}}.$$
In the main parts of this note, we would try to prove this iteration lemma
\[Lem:2.1\] For any given $\theta \in [0,1)$ and $T \in {\mathbb{R}}_+$, if $(v_q, p_q, {\mathring{R}}_q)$ is a smooth solution to on $[0,T] \times {\mathbb{T}}^2$ with $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|v_q\right\|_{C_{t,x}^1}} \leq {\lambda_q}^4, \label{2.2_a_vqC1_asmp} \\
{ \Big\| {\mathring{R}}_q \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^1}} \leq A \varepsilon_{q+1}, \label{2.2_b_Rq_l1_asmp}\\
{\left\|{\mathring{R}}_q\right\|_{C_{t,x}^1}} \leq {\lambda_q}^{10} \label{2.2_c_RC1_asmp}
\end{gathered}$$ and $\aint_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} v_q {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x = 0$, then there exists a smooth solution $(v_{q+1}, p_{q+1}, {\mathring{R}}_{q+1})$ to with $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|v_{q+1}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^1}} \leq {\lambda_{q+1}}^4, \label{2.3_a_vqC1_est} \\
{ \Big\| {\mathring{R}}_{q+1} \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^1}} \leq A \varepsilon_{q+2}, \label{2.3_b_Rq_l1_est}\\
{\left\|{\mathring{R}}_{q+1}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^1}} \leq {\lambda_{q+1}}^{10} \label{2.3_c_RC1_est}
\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathrm{supp}}_t v_{q+1} \cup {\mathrm{supp}}_t {\mathring{R}}_{q+1} \subset N_{\varepsilon_{q+1}} ({\mathrm{supp}}_t v_q \cup {\mathrm{supp}}_t {\mathring{R}}_q), \label{2.4_suppv} \\
{ \| v_{q+1} - v_q \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}} \leq A \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac{1}{2}}, \label{2.5_L2Increase} \\
{ \| v_{q+1} - v_q \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^1}} \leq \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac{1}{2}}, \label{2.6_WIncrease} \\
\aint_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} v_{q+1} {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x =0, \label{2.6+}
\end{gathered}$$ where for $S \subseteq [0,T]$ we denote $$\label{2.9}
N_\varepsilon (S) := \big\{ t \in [0,T] \mid \exists s \in S, \ \text{s.t.} \, |s-t| \leq \varepsilon \big\}.$$
With this iteration lemma we can prove Theorem \[thm:1\] as follows
Take $v_0 = u$ and we shall define $p_0, {\mathring{R}}_0$ for the Navier–Stokes–Reynolds system as $${\mathring{R}}_0 = {\mathcal{R}}\big( {\partial_t}v_0 + \nu (-\Delta)^\theta v_0 \big) + v_0 {\mathring{\otimes}}v_0$$ and $$p_0 = - \frac{1}{2} |v_0|^2,$$ where ${\mathcal{R}}$ would be defined in details in later, ${\mathring{\otimes}}$ denotes the trace-free part of the tensor product as $$f {\mathring{\otimes}}g = \begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{2} f_1 g_1 - \frac{1}{2} f_2 g_2 & f_1 g_2 \\
f_2 g_1 & \frac{1}{2} f_2 g_2 - \frac{1}{2} f_1 g_1
\end{pmatrix}, \quad \forall\, f,g \in {\mathbb{R}}^2.$$ Then for $A$ large enough one can use Lemma \[Lem:2.1\] to get the sequence $\{v_q\}$ with estimates –. Therefore, by , one has $$\sum_{q=0}^{\infty} { \| v_{q+1}- v_q \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}} < +\infty,$$ which shows the strong convergence of $\{v_q\}$ in $L_t^\infty L_x^2$ to some $v(t,x)$. And by , this $v(t,x)$ is a weak solution to . Meanwhile, by and , one can get –.
Moreover, using and , we have that for each $q_* \in {\mathbb{N}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{q=q_*}^{\infty} \| v_{q+1} - v_q \|_{C^0_t H^{\beta'}_x} {\lesssim}& \sum_{q=q_*}^{\infty} { \| v_{q+1} - v_q \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}}^{1-\beta'} \big({\|v_{q+1}\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}}^{\beta'} + {\|v_{q}\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}}^{\beta'} \big) \\
{\lesssim}& \sum_{q=q_*}^\infty A^{1-\beta'} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac{1-\beta'}{2}} {\lambda_{q+1}}^{4\beta'} \\
{\lesssim}& \sum_{q=q_*}^\infty A^{1-\beta'} {\lambda_{q+1}}^{4 \beta' - \beta(1-\beta')}.
\end{aligned}$$ For $\beta' < \beta / (4+\beta)$, this shows that $\{ v_q \}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $C_t^0 H_x^{\beta'}$ and thus converges strongly and $v(t,x)$ is a $C_t^0 L_x^2$ function. Here we use $a {\lesssim}b$ to denote $a \leq Cb$ for some absolute constant $C$ independent of the choice of our parameters $B ,\beta$ and $A$, and would be absorbed by $A$ if needed.
For the rest of the paper, we would try to prove Lemma \[Lem:2.1\].
Mollification
=============
In order to deal with the possible loss of derivatives in the analysis, we first mollify the approximate solutions. Denote $$\varphi_\ell(x) = \frac{1}{\ell^2} \varphi_1(\frac{x}{\ell}), \quad \tilde \varphi_\ell(t) = \frac{1}{\ell} \tilde\varphi_1(\frac{t}{\ell})$$ as the standard 2D and 1D Friedrichs mollifier sequences respectively, with $${\mathrm{supp}}\varphi_1 \subseteq B_1(0), \quad {\mathrm{supp}}\tilde\varphi_1 \subseteq (-1,1).$$ Then for $$\label{+.2_ell}
\ell = \lambda_q^{-20},$$ we can mollify $v_q$ and $R_q$ given in Lemma \[Lem:2.1\] as $$\begin{aligned}
v_\ell = & (v_q *_x \varphi_\ell) *_t \tilde\varphi_\ell, \label{2.3_vl}\\
{\mathring{R}}_\ell = & ({\mathring{R}}_q *_x \varphi_\ell) *_t \tilde\varphi_\ell. \label{2.4_Rl}\end{aligned}$$ Since $(v_q,p_q,{\mathring{R}}_q)$ solves , we know that $(v_\ell,p_\ell,{\mathring{R}}_\ell)$ solves $$\label{+.5_NSR_vl}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
& {\partial_t}v_\ell + {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}(v_\ell \otimes v_\ell) + \nabla p_\ell + \nu (-\Delta)^\theta v_\ell = {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}({\mathring{R}}_\ell+{{\mathring{R}}_{\mathrm{commutator}}}), \\
& {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}v_\ell = 0,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where we can choose $$\begin{aligned}
p_\ell = & (p_q *_x \varphi_\ell) *_t \tilde\varphi_\ell +|v_\ell|^2 - \big(|v_q|^2*_x\varphi_\ell \big) *_t \tilde\varphi_\ell, \\
{{\mathring{R}}_{\mathrm{commutator}}}= & (v_\ell {\mathring{\otimes}}v_\ell) - \big( (v_q {\mathring{\otimes}}v_q) *_x \varphi_\ell \big) *_t \tilde\varphi_\ell.\end{aligned}$$ Using the inductive assumptions –, we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\left\|v_\ell\right\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} {\lesssim}{\lambda_q}^4 \ell^{-N+1} {\lesssim}\ell^{-N}, \quad \forall\, {N =1,2,3}, \label{+.8_vl_CN} \\
{\left\|{\mathring{R}}_\ell\right\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} {\lesssim}{\lambda_q}^{10} \ell^{-N+1} {\lesssim}\ell^{-N}, \quad \forall\, {N =1,2,3}, \label{+.9_Rl_CN} \\
{ \Big\| {\mathring{R}}_\ell \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^1}} \leq { \Big\| {\mathring{R}}_q \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^1}} \leq A \varepsilon_{q+1}, \label{+.12_Rl_l1} \\
{ \| v_\ell - v_q \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}} + { \| v_\ell - v_q \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^1}} {\lesssim}\| v_\ell - v_q \|_{L^\infty_t L^\infty_x } {\lesssim}\ell {\left\|v_q\right\|_{C_{t,x}^1}} {\lesssim}{\lambda_q}^{-16}{.} \label{+.11}
$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
{ \Big\| {{\mathring{R}}_{\mathrm{commutator}}}\Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^\infty}} {\lesssim}& \ell {\left\|v_\ell{\mathring{\otimes}}v_\ell\right\|_{C_{t,x}^1}} {\lesssim}\ell {\lambda_q}^8,\\
{\left\|{{\mathring{R}}_{\mathrm{commutator}}}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} {\lesssim}& \ell^{-N+1} {\left\|v_\ell{\mathring{\otimes}}v_\ell\right\|_{C_{t,x}^1}} {\lesssim}\ell^{-N+1} {\lambda_q}^8.\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for $${{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}\overset{\mathrm{def.}}{=} {\mathring{R}}_\ell + {{\mathring{R}}_{\mathrm{commutator}}},$$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
{ \Big\| {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}\Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^1}} \leq A \varepsilon_{q+1} + \ell {\lambda_q}^8 \leq 2 A \varepsilon_{q+1}, \label{+.16_Rl_l1} \\
{\left\|{{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} {\lesssim}\ell^{-N} + \ell^{-N+1} {\lambda_q}^8 {\lesssim}\ell^{-N}, \quad \forall\, {N =1,2,3}. \label{+.17_Rl_CN}\end{gathered}$$ Here we use the fact that by our choice of the parameters and , it holds $$\ell \lambda_q^8 \leq \varepsilon_{q+1}{.}$$
2D Intermittent Stationary Flow
===============================
In this section, we shall choose the sequence of waves with high frequency and strong concentration to perturb the system and construct $v_{q+1}$. As presented in [@Buckmuster_Vicol], the intermittent Beltrami flow is the basic building block in the intermittent convex integration scheme to prove the nonuniqueness of weak solutions to 3D Navier–Stokes equations. Meanwhile, in the two-dimensional case, it seems that the method of intermittent jets introduced in [[@Buckmaster_Colombo_Vicol] or viscous eddies introduced in [@Cheskidov_Luo]]{} can not be applied, due to the 3D nature of its Mikado flow structure. Now we shall adapt the 2D stationary flow introduced in [@Choffrut_DeLellis_Szekelyhidi] to an intermittent form.
First, we specifically choose $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^+ & = \{ \frac{1}{5} (3e_1 \pm 4 e_2), \frac15 (4e_1\pm 3e_2) \}, \\\Lambda^- & = \{ \frac{1}{5} (-3e_1 \mp 4 e_2), \frac15 (-4e_1\mp 3e_2) \}, $$ [and denote]{} $$\Lambda = \Lambda^+ \cup \Lambda^-{.} \label{3.10_Lam}$$ [Then]{} $$\Lambda \subset {\mathbb{S}}^1 \cap {\mathbb{Q}}^2, \quad 5 \Lambda \subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$$ and $$\min_{\substack{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda \\ {\xi}\neq -{\xi}'}} |{\xi}+{\xi}'| \geq \frac{\sqrt{2}}{5}.$$
Now for each ${\xi}\in \Lambda$ and any frequency parameter $\lambda \in {\mathbb{Z}}^+ \cap 5{\mathbb{Z}}$, we may denote the 2D stationary flow $b_{\xi}$ and its potential $\psi_{\xi}$ as $$\label{3.1_def_bpsi}
b_{\xi}(x) = b_{{\xi},\lambda}(x) := i {\xi}^\perp {{\mathrm{e}}}^{i\lambda {\xi}\cdot x} \quad \text{and} \quad \psi_{\xi}(x) = \psi_{{\xi},\lambda}(x) := \frac{1}{\lambda} {{\mathrm{e}}}^{i\lambda {\xi}\cdot x}.$$ It is easy to check that $$\label{3.2_prop_bpsi}
b_{{\xi},\lambda}(x) = \nabla^\perp \psi_{{\xi},\lambda}(x), \quad {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}b_{\xi}(x) = 0, \quad {\nabla^\perp\!\!\cdot}b_{{\xi},\lambda}(x) = \Delta \psi_{{\xi},\lambda}(x) = - \lambda^2 \psi_{{\xi},\lambda}(x),$$ $$\label{3.2+_conj_bpsi}
\overline{b_{{\xi},\lambda} (x)} = b_{-{\xi},\lambda}(x), \quad \overline{\psi_{{\xi},\lambda} (x)} = \psi_{-{\xi},\lambda}(x),$$ and $$\label{3.3+_est_bpsi}
\|{b_{{\xi},\lambda}}\|_{C^N} \leq \lambda^N, \quad \|{\psi_{{\xi},\lambda}}\|_{C^N} \leq \lambda^{N-1}, \quad \forall\, N \in {\mathbb{N}}{,}$$ where $$ {\xi}^\perp = \begin{pmatrix}
-k_2 \\ k_1
\end{pmatrix}, \quad \nabla^\perp = \begin{pmatrix}
-\partial_{x_2} \\ \partial_{x_1}
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Moreover, we have
\[Lem:3.2\] Denote ${\mathcal{M}}$ as the linear space of $2 \times 2$ symmetric trace-free matrices. There exists a set of positive smooth functions $\{ \gamma_{\xi}\in C^\infty( {\mathcal{M}}) \mid {\xi}\in \Lambda\} $, such that for each ${\mathring{R}}\in {\mathcal{M}}$, $$\begin{gathered}
\gamma_{-{\xi}}({\mathring{R}}) = \gamma_{\xi}({\mathring{R}}), \label{3.13} \\
{\mathring{R}}= \sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda} (\gamma_{\xi}({\mathring{R}}))^2 ({\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}), \label{3.14} \\
\intertext{and}
\gamma_{\xi}({\mathring{R}}) {\lesssim}(1 + |{\mathring{R}}|)^{\frac{1}{2}}. \label{3.14+}
\end{gathered}$$
The proof of this lemma is direct, one may check Appendix A for the details.
Now as in [@Buckmuster_Vicol], in order to define the intermittent flow we first present the 2D Dirichlet kernel $$\label{3.15_Dr}
D_r(x) = \frac{1}{2r+1} \sum_{k \in \Omega_r} {{\mathrm{e}}}^{i k \cdot x} \ \in C^\infty({\mathbb{T}}^2)$$ with $r \in {\mathbb{Z}}^+$ and $$\Omega_r = \{ k=(k_1, k_2)^T \mid k_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}, -r \leq k_i \leq r \}.$$ By a direct calculation, it holds that for $1 < p \leq \infty$, $$\label{3.16_DrEst}
\| D_r \|_{L^p} \lesssim r^{1-\frac{2}{p}}, \quad \| D_r \|_{L^2} = 2\pi.$$ We shall note that these $L^p$ estimates are different from the ones in 3D case as in [@Buckmuster_Vicol][,]{} and this dimensional dependence is partially the reason for which we shall use different scaling for our parameters to be chosen later. Now we can define the [directed-rescaled]{} Dirichlet kernel with a temporal shift as $$\label{3.17_eata_def}
\eta_{\xi}(t,x) = \eta_{{\xi},\lambda,\sigma,r,\mu}(t,x) :=
\left\{ \begin{alignedat}{2}
& D_r (\lambda \sigma ({\xi}\cdot x + \mu t), \lambda \sigma {\xi}^\perp \cdot x), & \quad {\xi}& \in \Lambda^+, \\
& \eta_{-{\xi},\lambda,\sigma,r,\mu} (t,x), & \quad {\xi}& \in \Lambda^-
\end{alignedat} \right.$$ with $$\label{3.18_eta_est}
\frac{1}{\mu} {\partial_t}\eta_{\xi}(t,x) = \pm ({\xi}\cdot \nabla) \eta_{\xi}(t,x), \quad \forall\, {\xi}\in \Lambda^\pm$$ and $$\label{3.19_eta_norm}
\aint_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} \eta_{\xi}^2 (t,x) {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x = 1, \quad { \| \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim r^{1-\frac2p}, \quad \text{for } 1 < p \leq \infty.$$ Here we use parameters $r, \mu, \sigma^{-1}, \lambda \in {\mathbb{N}}$ with $$\label{3.19+_parameters}
1 \ll r \ll \mu \ll \sigma^{-1} \ll \lambda$$ and $$ \lambda \sigma \in 5 {\mathbb{N}},$$ one may check to see the specific choice of these parameters. We shall note that the choice of these parameters, especially that of $\mu$, are dimensionally dependent and thus are different from that of [@Buckmuster_Vicol].
Finally, we could define the intermittent 2D stationary flow as $$\label{3.20_W_def}
{\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}(t,x) = {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi},\lambda,\sigma,r,\mu} (t,x) := \eta_{{\xi},\lambda,\sigma,r,\mu} (t,x) b_{{\xi},\lambda}(x).$$ Similar as the 3D intermittent Beltrami flow presented in [@Buckmuster_Vicol], this intermittent flow possesses several important properties. First, for the frequency projector ${\mathbb{P}}_{[\lambda_1,\lambda_2]}$: $${\mathbb{P}}_{[\lambda_1,\lambda_2]} f(x) = \mathcal{F}^{-1} (1_{ \{ \lambda_1 \leq {\xi}\leq \lambda_2\} } \mathcal{F}(f) )(x),$$ where $\mathcal{F}$ is the Fourier transform on ${\mathbb{T}}^2$, and for $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}_{\geq \lambda} f & = {\mathbb{P}}_{[\lambda,\infty)} f, \\
{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} f & = f - \aint f {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x,\end{aligned}$$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}_{[{\lambda}/{2}, 2 \lambda]} {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi},\lambda}(t,x) & = {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi},\lambda}, \label{3.21}\\
{\mathbb{P}}_{[ \lambda/5, 4 \lambda ]} \big( {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi},\lambda} {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}',\lambda} \big) & = {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi},\lambda} {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}',\lambda}, \quad \forall\, {\xi}+ {\xi}' \neq 0, \label{3.21+} \\
{\mathbb{P}}_{\geq (\lambda\sigma)/2} \big({\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi},\lambda} {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}',\lambda} \big) & = {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big({\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi},\lambda} {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}',\lambda} \big), \quad \forall\, {\xi},{\xi}' \in \Lambda. \label{3.26+}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $$\label{3.20+_eta_FrePro}
{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \eta_{\xi}= {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {(\lambda\sigma)}/{2}} \eta_{\xi}.$$ Next, one can get
\[Lem:3.3\] For any $\{ a_{\xi}\mid {\xi}\in \Lambda \} \subset {\mathbb{C}}$ with $a_{-{\xi}} = \overline{a_{\xi}}$, the function $$\label{3.22_Wdef}
W(t,x) = \sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda} a_{\xi}{\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}(t,x)$$ is real valued, and for each ${\mathring{R}}\in {\mathcal{M}}$, one has $$\label{3.23}
\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda} (\gamma_{\xi}({\mathring{R}}))^2 \aint_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{-{\xi}} {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x= - {\mathring{R}}.$$
This result can be checked directly as follows. By and , $$\overline{W(t,x)} = \sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda} \overline{a_{\xi}} \overline{{\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}(t,x)}
= \sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda} a_{-{\xi}} \overline{\eta_{{\xi}}(t,x)} \overline{b_{\xi}(t,x)}
= \sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda} a_{-{\xi}} {\eta_{-{\xi}}(t,x)} {b_{-{\xi}}(t,x)}
= W(t,x),$$ and $${\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{-{\xi}} = \eta_{\xi}^2(t,x) \big( b_{\xi}(x) {\mathring{\otimes}}b_{-{\xi}}(x) \big)
= \eta_{\xi}^2 (t,x) \big( {\xi}^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}^\perp \big)
= \eta_{\xi}^2 (t,x) ( - {\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}).$$ Then by and , one can get .
Moreover, after a direct calculation, one can get
\[Lem:3.4\] If one chooses the parameters as in , then for any $1 < p \leq \infty,$ and $K, {N =1,2,3}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
{ \| {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| \nabla^N {\partial_t}^K {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim &\lambda^N \big( \lambda \sigma r \mu \big)^K \ r^{1 - \frac2p}, \label{3.24_mbw_est} \\
{ \| \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| \nabla^N {\partial_t}^K \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim &\big(\lambda \sigma r \big)^N \big( \lambda \sigma r \mu \big)^K \ r^{1 - \frac2p}. \label{3.25_eta_est}
\end{aligned}$$
Perturbation
============
To present our perturbation terms, we first define the temporal cutoff as in [@Luo_Titi]. Let $\Phi_q(t)$ be a smooth cut-off function with $$\begin{gathered}
0 \leq \Phi_q \leq 1, \\
\Phi_q(t) = 1 \quad \text{on} \ {\mathrm{supp}}_t {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}, \\
{\mathrm{supp}}\Phi_q(t) \subseteq N_{\ell} ({\mathrm{supp}}_t {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}), \\
\| \Phi_q \|_{C^N_t} {\lesssim}\ell^{-N}, \quad \forall\, {N =1,2,3}.\end{gathered}$$ Then we can set the smooth coefficients $$\label{3.28+_ak_def}
a_{\xi}(t,x) = A^{\frac{1}{2}} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac{1}{2}} \gamma_{\xi}(A^{-1} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{-1} {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}(t,x)) \Phi_q(t),$$ for ${\xi}\in \Lambda$. Obviously, $$\label{3.27}
{\mathrm{supp}}_t a_{\xi}\subseteq N_{\ell} ({\mathrm{supp}}_t {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}),$$ and by , it is easy to see that $$\label{3.34}
{\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}^2 \aint {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{-{\xi}} {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x = - {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*},$$ namely, noting , $$\label{3.42+}
- {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}= {\sum_{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'} {\mathbb{P}}_{=0} \big( {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} \big).$$
Now we can define the perturbation $$\label{3.29_wq_def}
w_{q+1} = v_{q+1} - v_\ell := {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}+ {w^{(\mathrm{t})}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}(t,x) = & {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}(t,x) {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi},{\lambda_{q+1}}}(t,x) = {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}(t,x) \eta_{{\xi},{\lambda_{q+1}},\sigma,r,\mu}(t,x) b_{{\xi},{\lambda_{q+1}}}(x), \label{3.30_wqp_def}\\
{w^{(\mathrm{c})}}(t,x) = & {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}\nabla^\perp \big( a_{\xi}(t,x) \eta_{{\xi},{\lambda_{q+1}},\sigma,r,\mu}(t,x) \big) \psi_{{\xi},{\lambda_{q+1}}}(x), \label{3.31_wqc_def} \\
{w^{(\mathrm{t})}}(t,x) = & \frac{1}{\mu} \Big( \sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda^+} - \sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda^-} \Big) {\mathbb{P}}_H {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big( a_{\xi}^2(t,x) {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0}\eta_{{\xi},{\lambda_{q+1}},\sigma,r,\mu}^2(t,x) {\xi}\big) . \label{3.32_wqt_def}\end{aligned}$$ [Here]{} ${\mathbb{P}}_H$ is the Helmholtz–Leray projector $${\mathbb{P}}_H f = f - \nabla \big( \Delta^{-1} {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}f \big).$$ Moreover, it is direct to check that $$\begin{gathered}
{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}= \nabla^\perp \Big( {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}\eta_{\xi}\psi_{\xi}\Big), \label{3.33}\\
{\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}({w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}) = 0, \quad {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{w^{(\mathrm{t})}}= 0, \label{3.33+} \\
{\mathrm{supp}}_t w_{q+1} \subseteq \bigcup_{{\xi}\in \Lambda} {\mathrm{supp}}_t a_{\xi}\subseteq N_{\ell} ({\mathrm{supp}}_t {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}). \label{3.39+}\end{gathered}$$
A Priori Estimates for the Perturbations
========================================
In this section, we derive a priori estimates for the perturbations given above.
\[Lem:3.5\] For $a_{\xi}$ defined in , one has $$\begin{aligned}
{ \| a_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}} {\lesssim}& A^{\frac12} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac12}, \label{3.38_ak_est} \\
{\|a_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} {\lesssim}& \ell^{-2N}, \quad \forall\, {N =1,2,3}. \label{3.39}
\end{aligned}$$
By Lemma \[Lem:3.2\] and –, we have $${ \| a_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}}^2 {\lesssim}\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} A \varepsilon_{q+1} \cdot \Big( 1 + \frac{|{{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}(t,x)|}{A \varepsilon_{q+1}} \Big) {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x {\lesssim}A \varepsilon_{q+1} + { \Big\| {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}\Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^1}} {\lesssim}A \varepsilon_{q+1}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\|a_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} {\lesssim}& A^{\frac{1}{2}} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac{1}{2}} \| \Phi_q \|_{C^N_t} + A^{\frac{1}{2}} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac{1}{2}} {\|\gamma_{\xi}(A^{-1} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{-1} {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*})\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} \\
{\lesssim}& A^{\frac{1}{2}} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac{1}{2}} \ell^{-N} + A^{\frac{1}{2}} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac{1}{2}} \cdot (A^{-1} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{-1} )^{N} \ell^{-N}\\
{\lesssim}& \ell^{-2N},
\end{aligned}$$ which leads to –.
Now we present an important tool introduced in [@Buckmuster_Vicol], see also [@Modena_Szekelyhidi].
\[Lem:3.6\] If $f, g \in C^\infty({\mathbb{T}}^2)$, and $g$ is $({\mathbb{T}}/ \kappa)^2$ periodic for some $\kappa \in {\mathbb{Z}}^+$, then $$\label{3.40}
\| fg \|_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2)} \leq \| f \|_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2)} \| g \|_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2)} + C \kappa^{-\frac{1}{2}} \| f \|_{C^1({\mathbb{T}}^2)} \| g \|_{L^2({\mathbb{T}}^2)}.$$
See Lemma 2.1 of [@Modena_Szekelyhidi], and also Lemma 3.6 of [@Buckmuster_Vicol].
Then we can derive the estimates on the perturbations as follows.
If one chooses the parameters as in , then for $1 < p \leq \infty$ and ${N =1,2,3}$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
{ \| {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}} \lesssim A^{\frac{1}{2}} \varepsilon_{q+1}^{\frac12} + \ell^{-2} ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)^{-\frac12}, \label{3.42_wqp_inf2} \\
{ \| {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \ell^{-4} \big( \sigma + \mu^{-1} \big) r^{2-\frac{2}{p}}, \label{3.44_wqcwqt_infp} \\
{ \| {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| w_{q+1} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \ell^{-4} r^{1-\frac{2}{p}}, \label{3.43_w_infp} \\
{ \| {\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| {\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \ell^{-4} {\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma \mu r^{2-\frac{2}{p}}, \label{3.45_pt_w} \\
{ \| \nabla^N {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| \nabla^N {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| \nabla^N {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \ell^{-4N} r^{1-\frac{2}{p}} {\lambda_{q+1}}^N. \label{3.46_w_cN}
\end{gathered}$$
Due to and , ${\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}(t,\cdot)$ is $\big({\mathbb{T}}/ (\lambda \sigma)\big)^2$-periodic. Thus noting the definition of ${w^{(\mathrm{p})}}$, and applying Lemma \[Lem:3.6\], one can get $${ \| {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}} \lesssim { \| a_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}} { \| {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}} + ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)^{-\frac12} \| a_{\xi}\|_{C^1_{t,x}} { \| {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^2}},$$ which, by , –, leads to . Meanwhile, by , $${ \| {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \| a_{\xi}\|_{C^0_{t,x}} { \| {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \ell^{-2} r^{1-\frac{2}{p}}.$$ Noting furthermore the definitions – of ${w^{(\mathrm{c})}}$ and ${w^{(\mathrm{t})}}$, and using , , $$\begin{aligned}
{ \| {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & \| \psi_{\xi}\|_{L^\infty_x} \| {a_{\xi}} \|_{C^1_{t,x}} \big( { \| \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| \nabla \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \big) \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-2} \big( \sigma r + {\lambda_{q+1}}^{-1} \big) r^{1-\frac{2}{p}} \lesssim \ell^{-2} \sigma r^{2-\frac{2}{p}},\\
{ \| {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & \frac{1}{\mu} \| a_{\xi}\|_{C^0_{t,x}}^2 {\| \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}}^2 } \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-4} \frac{1}{\mu} r^{2-\frac{2}{p}},
\end{aligned}$$ which yields –.
Similarly, by – of Lemma \[Lem:3.4\], $$\begin{aligned}
{ \| {\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & {\|a_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}} \big( { \| {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| {\partial_t}{\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \big) \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-2} {\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma r \mu \, r^{1-\frac{2}{p}} \\
{ \| {\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & \| \psi_{\xi}\|_{L^\infty_{t,x}} {\|a_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} \big( { \| \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| {\partial_t}\nabla \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \big) \\
\lesssim & \frac{1}{\lambda} \ell^{-4} {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 \sigma^2 r^2 \mu \, r^{1-\frac{2}{p}},
\end{aligned}$$ which leads to .
At last, $$\begin{aligned}
{ \| \nabla^N {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & {\|a_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} \big( { \| {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| \nabla^N {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \big) \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-2N} {\lambda_{q+1}}^N r^{1-\frac{2}{p}}, \\
{ \| \nabla^N {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & {\|a_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{N+1}}} \big( {\|\psi_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} ({ \| \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} + { \| \nabla \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}}) + {\|\psi_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{0}}} { \| \nabla^{N+1} \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \big) \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-2N-2} {\lambda_{q+1}}^N r^{1-\frac{2}{p}}, \\
{ \| \nabla^N {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & \frac{1}{\mu} {\|a_{\xi}^2\|_{C_{t,x}^N}} \big( {\| \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } {\| \nabla^N \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } \big) \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-4N} \frac{1}{\mu} \big({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma r\big)^N r^{2-\frac{2}{p}} \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-4N} {\lambda_{q+1}}^N r^{1-\frac{2}{p}},
\end{aligned}$$ which yields .
Anti-divergence Operator and Estimates on the Reynolds Stress Tensor
====================================================================
As in [@DeLellis_Szekelyhidi_InvMath] and [@Choffrut_DeLellis_Szekelyhidi], we shall define the anti-divergence operator ${\mathcal{R}}$ as
For $f \in C^0({\mathbb{T}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$, set $$\label{3.47_opR}
{\mathcal{R}}f = \nabla g + (\nabla g)^T - ({\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}g) {I\!d},$$ where $g$ satisfies $$\Delta g = f - \aint_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} f {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x \quad \text{and} \quad \aint_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} g = 0.$$
\[Lem:3.9\] For any $f \in \allowbreak C^0({\mathbb{T}}^2, \allowbreak {\mathbb{R}}^2)$ with $\aint_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} f {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x =0$, one has $$({\mathcal{R}}f(x))^T = {\mathcal{R}}f(x), \quad {\mathrm{tr}}({\mathcal{R}}f(x)) = 0, \quad \forall\, x \in {\mathbb{T}}^2$$ and $${\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{\mathcal{R}}f = f, \quad \aint_{{\mathbb{T}}^2} {\mathcal{R}}f(x) {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}x = 0.$$
Moreover, with standard Calderon–Zygmund estimates and Schauder estimates, one can get
\[Lem:3.10\] For $1 < p < \infty$, $$\begin{gathered}
\| {\mathcal{R}}\|_{L^p \to W^{1,p}} \lesssim 1, \quad \| {\mathcal{R}}\|_{C^0 \to C^0} \lesssim 1, \label{3.49} \\
\| {\mathcal{R}}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} v \|_{L^p} \lesssim \big\| |\nabla|^{-1} {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} v \big\|_{L^p}. \label{3.50}
\end{gathered}$$
[And]{} we could use the following lemma to gain a $\lambda^{-1}$ weight when we apply ${\mathcal{R}}$ on certain terms.
\[Lem:3.11\] For any given $1 < p < \infty$, $\lambda \in {\mathbb{Z}}^+$, $a \in C^2({\mathbb{T}}^2,{\mathbb{R}})$ and $f \in L^p({\mathbb{T}}^2,{\mathbb{R}}^2)$, one has $$\big\| |\nabla|^{-1} {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} (a {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq \lambda} f ) \big\|_{L^p} \lesssim \lambda^{-1} \|a\|_{C^2} \|f\|_{L^p}.$$
See Lemma B.1 of [@Buckmuster_Vicol]. In fact, $$\begin{aligned}
\big\| |\nabla|^{-1} {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} (a {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq \lambda} f) \big\|_{L^p} \leq &
\big\| |\nabla|^{-1} {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {\lambda}/{3}} \big( ({\mathbb{P}}_{\leq {\lambda}/{2}} a) ({\mathbb{P}}_{\geq \lambda} f) \big) \big\|_{L^p}
+ \big\| |\nabla|^{-1} {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big( ({\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {\lambda}/{2}} a) ({\mathbb{P}}_{\geq \lambda} f) \big) \big\|_{L^p} \\
\lesssim & \lambda^{-1} \| ({\mathbb{P}}_{\leq {\lambda}/{2}} a) ({\mathbb{P}}_{\geq \lambda} f)\|_{L^p} + \| ({\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {\lambda}/{2}} a) ({\mathbb{P}}_{\geq \lambda} f) \|_{L^p} \\
\lesssim & \lambda^{-1} \| a \|_{L^\infty} \| {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {\lambda}} f \|_{L^p} + \| {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {\lambda}/{2}} a \|_{L^\infty} \| {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {\lambda}} f \|_{L^p} \\
\lesssim & \lambda^{-1} \big( \|a\|_{L^\infty} + \lambda \| {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {\lambda}/{2}} a \|_{W^{1,2+}} \big) \| {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq \lambda} f \|_{L^p} \\
\lesssim & \lambda^{-1} \big( \|a\|_{L^\infty} + \| \nabla {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {\lambda}/{2}} a \|_{W^{1,2+}} \big) \| {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq \lambda} f \|_{L^p} \\
\lesssim & \lambda^{-1} \big( \| a \|_{L^\infty} + \| \nabla^2 a \|_{L^\infty} \big) \| f\|_{L^p}. \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
Now we shall settle an expression formula for ${\mathring{R}}_{q+1}$. In fact, noting that both $(v_\ell, p_\ell, {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*})$ and $(v_{q+1}, p_{q+1}, {\mathring{R}}_{q+1})$ solve , and using the definitions –, one can get $$\begin{aligned}
{\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{\mathring{R}}_{q+1} = & {\partial_t}v_{q+1} + {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}(v_{q+1} {\mathring{\otimes}}v_{q+1}) + \nabla p_{q+1} + \nu (-\Delta)^\theta v_{q+1} \\
= & \big( {\partial_t}v_\ell + {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}(v_\ell {\mathring{\otimes}}v_\ell) + \nabla p_\ell + \nu (-\Delta)^\theta v_\ell - {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}\big) \\
& + {\partial_t}\big( {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}+ {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}\big) + {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\big( v_\ell {\mathring{\otimes}}w_{q+1} + w_{q+1} {\mathring{\otimes}}v_\ell \big)\\
& + {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\big( {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}{\mathring{\otimes}}{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ ({w^{(\mathrm{c})}}+ {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}) {\mathring{\otimes}}w_{q+1} + {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}{\mathring{\otimes}}({w^{(\mathrm{c})}}+ {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}) \big) \\
& + \nabla (p_{q+1} - p_\ell) + \nu (-\Delta)^\theta w_{q+1} + {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, as in [@Buckmuster_Vicol], if we denote $$\begin{aligned}
{R_{\mathrm{linear}}}= & {\mathcal{R}}\Big( {\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ {\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{c})}}+ \nu (-\Delta)^\theta w_{q+1} \Big) + v_\ell {\mathring{\otimes}}w_{q+1} + w_{q+1} {\mathring{\otimes}}v_\ell, \label{3.51_Rl} \\
{R_{\mathrm{corrector}}}= & \Big( ({w^{(\mathrm{c})}}+{w^{(\mathrm{t})}}) {\mathring{\otimes}}w_{q+1} + {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}{\mathring{\otimes}}({w^{(\mathrm{c})}}+ {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}) \Big), \label{3.52_Rc} \\
{R_{\mathrm{oscillation}}}= & {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}{\mathring{\otimes}}{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}+ {\partial_t}{\mathcal{R}}{w^{(\mathrm{t})}},\end{aligned}$$ we can choose $$\label{3.54_R}
{\mathring{R}}_{q+1} = {\mathcal{R}}{\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\big( {R_{\mathrm{linear}}}+ {R_{\mathrm{corrector}}}+ ({R_{\mathrm{oscillation}}}- p^* {I\!d}) + (p_{q+1} - p_\ell + p^*) {I\!d}\big)$$ for $p^*$ to be chosen later. Then obviously, if we properly choose $p_{q+1}$, we have $$\label{3.58+1}
{\mathrm{supp}}_t {\mathring{R}}_{q+1} \subseteq {\mathrm{supp}}_t w_{q+1} \cup {\mathrm{supp}}_t {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}\subseteq N_{2\ell} ({\mathrm{supp}}_t R_q).$$
For ${R_{\mathrm{corrector}}}$, by – and , we have $$\begin{aligned}
{ \| {\mathcal{R}}{\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{R_{\mathrm{corrector}}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}}
\lesssim & { \| {R_{\mathrm{corrector}}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \notag \\
\lesssim & \big( {\| {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } + {\| {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } \big) \cdot ({\| w_{q+1} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } + {\| {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } )\notag \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-8} \big( \sigma r + \mu^{-1} r \big) r^{2-\frac{2}{p}} \label{3.58+2}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& {\left\|{\mathcal{R}}{\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{R_{\mathrm{corrector}}}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}} \notag \\
{\lesssim}& ({\|{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} + {\|{w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} + {\|{w^{(\mathrm{t})}}\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}}) \cdot ({ \| {w^{(\mathrm{p})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^\infty}} + { \| {w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^\infty}} + { \| {w^{(\mathrm{t})}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^\infty}}) \notag \\
{\lesssim}& \ell^{-8} r {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 \cdot \ell^{-4} r {\lesssim}\ell^{-12} r^2 {\lambda_{q+1}}^2. \label{7.9+}\end{aligned}$$
Meanwhile, for ${R_{\mathrm{linear}}}$ by and , , , it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
{ \| {\mathcal{R}}({\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ {\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{c})}}) \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} = & { \Big\| {\mathcal{R}}{\partial_t}\nabla^\perp \big( {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}\eta_{\xi}\psi_{\xi}\big) \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \\
\lesssim & { \Big\| {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}{\partial_t}(a_{\xi}\eta_{\xi}) \psi_{\xi}\Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-2} \sigma \mu r^{2-\frac{2}{p}}.\end{aligned}$$ By , and , $$\begin{gathered}
{ \| {\mathcal{R}}(-\Delta)^\theta w_{q+1} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} {\lesssim}{ \| w_{q+1} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}}^{1-\theta_*} { \| \nabla w_{q+1} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}}^{\theta_*} \lesssim \ell^{-4} {\lambda_{q+1}}^{\theta_*} r^{1-\frac{2}{p}}, \\
{ \| v_\ell {\mathring{\otimes}}w_{q+1} + w_{q+1} {\mathring{\otimes}}v_\ell \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim {\|v_\ell\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}} { \| w_{q+1} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \ell^{-1} r^{1-\frac{2}{p}},\end{gathered}$$ where $\theta_*$ is defined by . Thus, $$\label{3.56_Rl_Est}
{ \| {R_{\mathrm{linear}}}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \ell^{-2} \sigma \mu r^{2-\frac{2}{p}} + \ell^{-4} {\lambda_{q+1}}^{\theta_*} r^{1-\frac{2}{p}}.$$ [Also]{} by and , one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\|{R_{\mathrm{linear}}}\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}} {\lesssim}& {\|{\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ {\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{c})}}\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}} + {\|w_{q+1}\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} + {\|v_\ell\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}} {\|w_{q+1}\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}} \notag\\
{\lesssim}& \ell^{-8} r {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 + \ell^{-5} r {\lambda_{q+1}}\notag \\
{\lesssim}& \ell^{-8} r {\lambda_{q+1}}^2. \label{7.11+}\end{aligned}$$
At last, we shall get the estimates for ${R_{\mathrm{oscillation}}}$, which is the main part in the convex integration scheme. By the definition of ${w^{(\mathrm{p})}}$, and noting , , [one has]{} $$\begin{aligned}
{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}{\mathring{\otimes}}{w^{(\mathrm{p})}}+ {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}= & {\sum_{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}(t,x) a_{{\xi}'}(t,x) {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}(t,x) {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'}(t,x) + {{\mathring{R}}_\ell^*}\\
= & {\sum_{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'} {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big({\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} \big) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\big( {\sum_{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'} {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} ({\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'}) \big) \\
= & {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\big( {\sum_{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda}}a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'} {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/{2}} ({\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'}) \big) \\
= & \frac{1}{2} {\sum_{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda}}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \Big( \nabla(a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'}) \cdot {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/{2}} ({\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} + {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}} )\Big) \\
& + \frac{1}{2} {\sum_{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda}}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \Big( a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'} {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/{2}} ({\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} + {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}} )\Big) \\
:= & \frac{1}{2} {\sum_{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda}}\big( {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',1}} + {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2}} \big),\end{aligned}$$ Among these terms, by Lemma \[Lem:3.11\], and noting , $$\begin{aligned}
{ \| {\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',1}} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & { \Big\| |\nabla|^{-1} {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',1}} \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \notag \\
\lesssim & ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)^{-1} {\|a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'}\|_{C_{t,x}^{3}}} { \Big\| {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \notag \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-8} ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)^{-1} {\| {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } {\| {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } \lesssim \frac{\ell^{-8}}{{\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma} r^{2-\frac{2}{p}}. \label{3.57_E1_Est}\end{aligned}$$
Since we use stationary 2D flow instead of the Beltrami flow in 3D, we shall use a process slightly different from the one in [@Buckmuster_Vicol] and [@Luo_Titi] to estimate ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2}}$, see also Lemma 4 of [@Choffrut_DeLellis_Szekelyhidi]. Noting the definition of $b_{\xi}$ and $\psi_{\xi}$, , and that ${\xi},{\xi}' \in \Lambda \subset {\mathbb{S}}^1$, it is direct to check that $$\begin{aligned}
& \big( {\xi}^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}'^\perp +{\xi}'^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}^\perp \big) ({\xi}+{\xi}') \\
= & ({\xi}\cdot {\xi}' -1 ) ({\xi}+{\xi}') \\
= & ({\xi}^\perp \cdot {\xi}'^\perp -1) ({\xi}+{\xi}').\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
& {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\big( b_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}b_{{\xi}'} + b_{{\xi}'} {\mathring{\otimes}}b_{\xi}\big) \\
= & {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\big( b_{\xi}\otimes b_{{\xi}'} + b_{{\xi}'} \otimes b_{\xi}- b_{\xi}\cdot b_{{\xi}'} {I\!d}\big) \\
= & - i {\lambda_{q+1}}\big( {\xi}^\perp \otimes {\xi}'^\perp +{\xi}'^\perp \otimes {\xi}^\perp - {\xi}^\perp \cdot {\xi}'^\perp {I\!d}\big) ({\xi}+{\xi}') {{\mathrm{e}}}^{i {\lambda_{q+1}}({\xi}+{\xi}')\cdot x} \\
= & i {\lambda_{q+1}}({\xi}+{\xi}') {{\mathrm{e}}}^{i {\lambda_{q+1}}({\xi}+{\xi}')\cdot x} \\
= & \nabla \big( {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 \psi_{\xi}\psi_{{\xi}'} \big),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
& {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\big( {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} + {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}} \big) \\
= & \big( b_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}b_{{\xi}'} + b_{{\xi}'} {\mathring{\otimes}}b_{\xi}\big) \nabla (\eta_{\xi}\eta_{{\xi}'}) - \eta_{\xi}\eta_{{\xi}'} \nabla \big( {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 \psi_{\xi}\psi_{{\xi}'} \big).\end{aligned}$$
Then for ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2}}$, if ${\xi}+{\xi}' \neq 0$, due to , $$\begin{aligned}
& a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'} {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/{2}} {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\Big( {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} + {\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}'} {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{{\xi}} \Big) \\
= & a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'} {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/{2}} \big( (b_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}b_{{\xi}'} + b_{{\xi}'} {\mathring{\otimes}}b_{\xi}) \nabla(\eta_{\xi}\eta_{{\xi}'}) \big) \\
& - \nabla \Big((a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'}) {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/{2}} \big(\eta_{\xi}\eta_{{\xi}'} \big( {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 \psi_{\xi}\psi_{{\xi}'} \big) \big)\Big) \\
& + \nabla(a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'}) \cdot {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/{2}} \big(\eta_{\xi}\eta_{{\xi}'} \big( {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 \psi_{\xi}\psi_{{\xi}'} \big) \big)\\
& + a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'} {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/{2}} \big( \nabla(\eta_{\xi}\eta_{{\xi}'}) \big( {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 \psi_{\xi}\psi_{{\xi}'} \big) \big)\\
:= & {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,1}} + {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,2}} + {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,3}} + {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,4}}.\end{aligned}$$ Among these terms, ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,2}}$ can be added to the $p^* {I\!d}$ term, ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,3}}$ can be estimated as ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',1}}$. Moreover, as , by the definitions and , for the case ${\xi}+{\xi}'\neq 0$, we can change the projector ${\mathbb{P}}_{\geq (\lambda \sigma)/{2}}$ in ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,1}}$ and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,4}}$ into ${\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {{\lambda_{q+1}}}/{10}}$. Then using Lemma \[Lem:3.11\] and noting , $$\begin{aligned}
& { \| {\mathcal{R}}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,1}} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \\
\lesssim & { \Big\| |\nabla|^{-1} {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \Big( a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'} {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq {\lambda_{q+1}}/10} \big( b_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}b_{{\xi}'} + b_{{\xi}'} {\mathring{\otimes}}b_{\xi}\big) \nabla(\eta_{\xi}\eta_{{\xi}'}) \Big) \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \\
\lesssim & {\lambda_{q+1}}^{-1} {\|a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'}\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} \| b_{\xi}\|_{L^\infty_{t,x}}\| b_{{\xi}'} \|_{L^\infty_{t,x}} \big( {\| \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } {\| \nabla \eta_{{\xi}'} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } + {\| \nabla \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } {\| \eta_{{\xi}'} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}} } \big) \\
\lesssim & \ell^{-6} \sigma r^{3-\frac{2}{p}}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $${ \Big\| {\mathcal{R}}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,4}} \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \ell^{-6} \sigma r^{3-\frac{2}{p}}.$$ Thus, for ${\xi}+{\xi}'\neq 0$, $$\label{3.58_E2_Est}
{ \Big\| {\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2}} \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \Big( \frac{\ell^{-8}}{{\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma} + \ell^{-6} \sigma r \Big) r^{2-\frac{2}{p}}.$$
Next, for the case ${\xi}+{\xi}'=0$ namely, for ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},-{\xi},2}}$ with ${\xi}\in \Lambda$, we have $$\nabla \big( {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 \psi_{\xi}\psi_{{\xi}'} \big) = 0,$$ and by $$\begin{aligned}
& {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}\big( {\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{-{\xi}} + {\mathbb{W}}_{-{\xi}} {\mathring{\otimes}}{\mathbb{W}}_{\xi}\big) \\
= & \big( b_{\xi}{\mathring{\otimes}}b_{-{\xi}} + b_{-{\xi}} {\mathring{\otimes}}b_{\xi}\big) \nabla (\eta_{\xi}\eta_{-{\xi}}) \\
= & 2 ({\xi}^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}^\perp) \nabla \eta_{\xi}^2 = \big( {I\!d}- 2 {\xi}\otimes {\xi}\big) \nabla \eta_{\xi}^2 \\
= & \Big( \nabla \eta_{\xi}^2 - 2 \big( ({\xi}\cdot \nabla) \eta_{\xi}^2 \big) {\xi}\Big) \\
= & \Big( \nabla\eta_{\xi}^2 \mp 2 \frac{1}{\mu} {\xi}{\partial_t}\eta_{\xi}^2 \Big) \quad \text{for}\ {\xi}\in \Lambda^\pm.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, for ${\xi}\in \Lambda^\pm$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},-{\xi},2}} = & {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \Big( a_{\xi}^2 {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \big( \nabla \eta_{\xi}^2 \mp 2 \frac{1}{\mu} {\xi}{\partial_t}\eta_{\xi}^2 \big) \Big) \\
= & \nabla \big( a_{\xi}^2 {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2 \big) - {\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \Big( (\nabla a_{\xi}^2) {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2 \Big) \\
& \mp 2 \mu^{-1} {\xi}{\partial_t}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big( a_{\xi}^2 {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2 \big) \pm 2 \mu^{-1} {\xi}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big( ({\partial_t}a_{\xi}^2) {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2 \big){.}\end{aligned}$$ Noting the definition of ${w^{(\mathrm{t})}}$, , , and that $${I\!d}- {\mathbb{P}}_H = \nabla \Delta^{-1} \nabla\cdot,$$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{2} {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},-{\xi},2}} + {\partial_t}{w^{(\mathrm{t})}}\\
= & \Big(- {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}\mu^{-1} {\xi}\nabla \Delta^{-1} {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{\partial_t}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big( a_{\xi}^2 {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2 \big)
+ \frac{1}{2}\nabla \big(a_{\xi}^2 {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2\big) \Big) \\
& + \Big( - \frac{1}{2} {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big( \nabla a_{\xi}^2 {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2 \big)
\pm {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}\mu^{-1} {\xi}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big( {\partial_t}a_{\xi}^2 {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2 \big) \Big) \\
:= & {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},-{\xi},2,1}} + {\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},-{\xi},2,2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},-{\xi},2,1}}$ can be added to the pressure term, and ${\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},-{\xi},2,2}}$ can be estimated with Lemma \[Lem:3.11\] as $$\begin{aligned}
{ \Big\| {\mathcal{R}}{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},-{\xi},2,2}} \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & \frac{\ell^{-8}}{{\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma} {\| \eta_{\xi}\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^{2p}}^2 } \notag \\
\lesssim & \frac{\ell^{-8}}{{\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma} r^{2-\frac{2}{p}}. \label{3.66+}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, combining , and yields, $$\label{3.63}
{ \Big\| {\mathcal{R}}{\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}( {R_{\mathrm{oscillation}}}-p^* {I\!d}) \Big\|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim \big( \frac{\ell^{-8}}{{\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma} + \ell^{-6} \sigma r \big) r^{2-\frac{2}{p}},$$ for $$\begin{aligned}
p^* = & - \sum_{ \substack{{\xi},{\xi}' \in \Lambda\\ {\xi}+ {\xi}' \neq 0}} (a_{\xi}a_{{\xi}'}) {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/{2}} \big(\eta_{\xi}\eta_{{\xi}'} \big( {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 \psi_{\xi}\psi_{{\xi}'} \big) \big) \\
& - {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}\mu^{-1} {\xi}\Delta^{-1} {\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}{\partial_t}{\mathbb{P}}_{\neq 0} \big( a_{\xi}^2 {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2 \big)
+ \frac{1}{2} \big(a_{\xi}^2 {\mathbb{P}}_{\geq ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)/2} \eta_{\xi}^2\big).\end{aligned}$$ [Also]{} by , , $$\begin{aligned}
& {\left\|{\mathcal{R}}{\nabla\!\!\cdot\!}( {R_{\mathrm{oscillation}}}-p^* {I\!d}) \right\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}} \notag \\
{\lesssim}& {\sum_{{\xi},{\xi}'\in \Lambda}}{\left\|{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',1}}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} + \sum_{ \substack{{\xi},{\xi}' \in \Lambda\\ {\xi}+ {\xi}' \neq 0}} \big(
{\left\|{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,1}}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} + {\left\|{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,3}}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} + {\left\|{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},{\xi}',2,4}}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} \big) \notag \\
& \quad + {\sum_{{\xi}\in \Lambda}}{\left\|{\mathcal{E}_{{\xi},-{\xi},2,2}}\right\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} \notag \\
{\lesssim}& {\|a_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{3}}} {\|a_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{0}}} ({\|\nabla^3 \eta_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{0}}} + {\|\nabla^2 {\partial_t}\eta_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{0}}}) {\|\eta_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{0}}} \notag \\
& \qquad \cdot \big( {\|b_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} {\|b_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{0}}} + {\lambda_{q+1}}^3 {\|\psi_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{2}}} {\|\psi_{\xi}\|_{C_{t,x}^{0}}} \big) \notag \\
{\lesssim}& \ell^{-8} {\lambda_{q+1}}^5 \sigma^3 r^4 \mu. \label{7.15+}\end{aligned}$$
Summing up –, – and –, we can get $$\begin{aligned}
{ \| {\mathring{R}}_{q+1} \|_{L_t^\infty L_x^p}} \lesssim & \ell^{-8} \Big( \sigma \mu + \sigma r + \mu^{-1} r + ({\lambda_{q+1}}\sigma)^{-1} \Big) r^{2-\frac{2}{p}} + \ell^{-4} {\lambda_{q+1}}^{\theta_*} r^{1-\frac{2}{p}}, \label{7.16} \\
{\left\|{\mathring{R}}_{q+1} \right\|_{C_{t,x}^{1}}} {\lesssim}& \ell^{-12} r^2 {\lambda_{q+1}}^2 + \ell^{-8} {\lambda_{q+1}}^5 \sigma^3 r^4 \mu. \label{7.17}\end{aligned}$$
At last, we choose the parameters specifically as $$\label{3.64_parameter_choice}
r = {\lambda_{q+1}}^{1 - 6 \alpha}, \quad \mu = {\lambda_{q+1}}^{1 - 4\alpha}, \quad \sigma = {\lambda_{q+1}}^{-(1-2\alpha)},$$ with $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Q}}^+$ defined in , and choose $1 < p < 2$ such that $$(1-6\alpha) (2-\frac{2}{p}) = \alpha,$$ namely, $$p = \frac{2-12\alpha}{2-13\alpha} \in (1,2) \quad \text{and} \quad r^{2-\frac{2}{p}} = {\lambda_{q+1}}^\alpha.$$ Then we can check that $r, \sigma, \mu$ satisfy the requirements in . By choosing $A \in 5 {\mathbb{N}}$ large enough, one can get and . And yields . Meanwhile, by and , we can get ; by –, we can get ; and by and , we can get , which completes the proof of Lemma \[Lem:2.1\].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank Professor Zhouping Xin for his encouragement and supports.
Geometric Lemma
===============
In this part, we shall give an elementary proof to Lemma \[Lem:3.2\]. In fact, if we set $$\Gamma(s) = \left\{\begin{aligned}
s+1, & \quad s > 0, \\
1, & \quad s \leq 0,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ and $$\Gamma_* (s) = \Gamma * \tilde\varphi (s)$$ with an even function $\tilde \varphi$ satisfying $$\tilde{\varphi} \geq 0, \quad \tilde{\varphi} \in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}), \quad {\mathrm{supp}}\tilde{\varphi} \subseteq (-1,1).$$ Then we have $$\begin{gathered}
\Gamma^* \in C^\infty({\mathbb{R}}), \\
1 \leq \Gamma_* \leq s+2, \quad \forall\, s \in {\mathbb{R}}.\end{gathered}$$ And since $$\Gamma(s) \cdot 1 + \Gamma(-s) \cdot (-1) = s, \quad \forall\, s \in {\mathbb{R}},$$ we have $$\Gamma_*(s) \cdot 1 + \Gamma_*(-s) \cdot (-1) = s, \quad \forall\, s \in {\mathbb{R}}.$$ Thus, for each $${\mathring{R}}= \begin{pmatrix}
{\mathring{R}}_{11} & {\mathring{R}}_{12} \\
{\mathring{R}}_{12} & -{\mathring{R}}_{11}
\end{pmatrix}$$ it is direct to check $$\begin{aligned}
-{\mathring{R}}= & \big( \frac{25}{14} \Gamma_*(-{\mathring{R}}_{11}) + \frac{25}{48} \Gamma_*({\mathring{R}}_{12}) \big) \big( {\xi}_1^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}_1^\perp + {\xi}_{-1}^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}_{-1}^\perp \big) \\
& + \big( \frac{25}{14} \Gamma_*(-{\mathring{R}}_{11}) + \frac{25}{48} \Gamma_*(-{\mathring{R}}_{12}) \big) \big( {\xi}_2^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}_2^\perp + {\xi}_{-2}^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}_{-2}^\perp \big) \\
& + \big( \frac{25}{14} \Gamma_*({\mathring{R}}_{11}) + \frac{25}{48} \Gamma_*({\mathring{R}}_{12}) \big) \big( {\xi}_3^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}_3^\perp + {\xi}_{-3}^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}_{-3}^\perp \big) \\
& + \big( \frac{25}{14} \Gamma_*({\mathring{R}}_{11}) + \frac{25}{48} \Gamma_*(-{\mathring{R}}_{12}) \big) \big( {\xi}_4^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}_4^\perp + {\xi}_{-4}^\perp {\mathring{\otimes}}{\xi}_{-4}^\perp \big),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
{\xi}_1 = \frac{1}{5}(3e_1 + 4e_2), \; {\xi}_2 = \frac{1}{5}(3e_1 - 4e_2), \; {\xi}_3 = \frac{1}{5}(4e_1 + 3e_2), \; {\xi}_4 = \frac{1}{5}(4e_1 - 3e_2) \in \Lambda^+, \\
{\xi}_{-1} = \frac{1}{5}(-3e_1 - 4e_2), \; {\xi}_{-2} = \frac{1}{5}(-3e_1 + 4e_2), \; {\xi}_{-3} = \frac{1}{5}(-4e_1 - 3e_2), \; {\xi}_{-4} = \frac{1}{5}(-4e_1 + 3e_2) \in \Lambda^-. \end{gathered}$$ And we can choose our smooth functions as follows $$\begin{aligned}
& \gamma_{{\xi}_1}({\mathring{R}}) = \gamma_{{\xi}_{-1}}({\mathring{R}}) = \sqrt{\frac{25}{14} \Gamma_*(-{\mathring{R}}_{11}) + \frac{25}{48} \Gamma_*({\mathring{R}}_{12})}, \\
& \gamma_{{\xi}_2}({\mathring{R}}) = \gamma_{{\xi}_{-2}}({\mathring{R}}) = \sqrt{\frac{25}{14} \Gamma_*(-{\mathring{R}}_{11}) + \frac{25}{48} \Gamma_*(-{\mathring{R}}_{12})}, \\
& \gamma_{{\xi}_3}({\mathring{R}}) = \gamma_{{\xi}_{-3}}({\mathring{R}}) = \sqrt{\frac{25}{14} \Gamma_*({\mathring{R}}_{11}) + \frac{25}{48} \Gamma_*({\mathring{R}}_{12})}, \\
& \gamma_{{\xi}_4}({\mathring{R}}) = \gamma_{{\xi}_{-4}}({\mathring{R}}) = \sqrt{\frac{25}{14} \Gamma_*({\mathring{R}}_{11}) + \frac{25}{48} \Gamma_*(-{\mathring{R}}_{12})}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by the bounds of $\Gamma_*$, it is obvious that holds.
[99]{}
T. Buckmaster, M. Colombo & V. Vicol, [*Wild solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations whose singular sets in time have Hausdorff dimension strictly less than 1*]{}, arXiv:1809.00600.
T. Buckmaster, C. De Lellis, P. Isett & L. Székelyhidi, Jr., *Anomalous dissipation for $1/5$-Hölder Euler flows*, Ann. of Math. [182:1]{} (2015), 127–172.
T. Buckmaster, C. De Lellis, L. Székelyhidi & V. Vicol, *Onsager’s conjecture for admissible weak solutions*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 72:2 (2019), 229–274.
T. Buckmaster, C. De Lellis & L. Székelyhidi, *Dissipative Euler flows with Onsager-critical spatial regularity*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [69:9]{} (2016), 1613–1670.
T. Buckmaster & V. Vicol, [*Nonuniqueness of weak solutions to the Navier–Stokes equation*]{}, Ann. of Math. 189:1 (2019), 101–144.
A. Cheskidov & X. Luo, [*Stationary and discontinuous weak solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations*]{}, arXiv:1901.07485.
A. Choffrut, C. De Lellis & L. Sz[é]{}kelyhidi Jr., [*Dissipative continuous Euler flows in two and three dimensions*]{}, arXiv:1205.1226.
M. Colombo, C. De Lellis & L. De Rosa, *Ill-Posedness of Leray solutions for the hypodissipative Navier–Stokes equations*, Comm. Math. Phys. 362:2 (2018), 659–688.
M. Colombo, C. De Lellis & A. Massaccesi, *The generalized Caffarelli–Kohn–Nirenberg theorem for the hyperdissipative Navier–Stokes system*, arXiv:1712.07015.
P. Constantin, W. E & E. S. Titi; [*Onsager’s conjecture on the energy conservation for solutions of Euler’s equation*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. [165:1]{} (1994), 207–209.
L. Caffarelli, R. Kohn & L. Nirenberg, *Partial regularity of suitable weak solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [35]{} (1982), 771–831.
C. De Lellis & L. Székelyhidi, Jr., *The [E]{}uler equations as a differential inclusion*. **170:3** (2009), 1417–1436.
C. De Lellis & L. Sz[é]{}kelyhidi Jr., Dissipative continuous Euler flows, [*Invent. Math.*]{} 193(2), 2013, 377–407.
P. Isett, *Hölder continuous [E]{}uler flows with compact support in time*, Doctoral thesis, Princeton University, 2013.
P. Isett, *A Proof of Onsager’s Conjecture*, Ann. of Math. [188:3]{} (2018), 1–93.
Q. Jiu, Y. Wang, *On possible time singular points and eventual regularity of weak solutions to the fractional Navier-Stokes equations*, Dyn. Partial Differ. Equ. [11:4]{} (2014), 321–343.
N. H. Katz, N. A. Pavlović, *A cheap Caffarelli–Kohn–Nirenberg inequality for the Navier–Stokes equation with hyper-dissipation*, Geom. Funct. Anal. [12:2]{} (2002), 355–379.
J. L. Lions, *Quelques résultats d’existence dans des équations aux dérivées partielles non linéaires*. Bull. Soc. Math. France [87]{} (1959), 245–273.
J. L. Lions, *Quelques Méthodes de Resolution des Problémes aux Limites Non linéaires*, Vol 1. Dunod, Paris, 1969.
T. Luo, T. Tao & L. Zhang, [*Finite energy weak solutions of 2d Boussinesq Equations with diffusive temperature*]{}, arXiv:1901.09179.
T. Luo & E. S. Titi; [*Non-uniqueness of weak solutions to hyperviscous Navier–Stokes equations – on sharpness of J.-L. Lions exponent*]{}, arXiv:1808.07595.
Xiaoyutao Luo, [*Stationary solution and nonuniquenes of weak solution for the Navier-Stokes euation on high dimensions*]{}, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 233:2 (2019), 701–747.
S. Modena & L. Sz[é]{}kelyhidi Jr.; [*Non-uniqueness for the transport equation with Sobolev vector fields*]{}, Ann. PDE 4:2 (2018), Art. 18, 38 pp.
E. Olson, E. S. Titi, *Viscosity versus vorticity stretching: Global well-posedness for a family of Navier–Stokes-alpha-like models*, Nonlinear Anal. [66:11]{} (2007), 2427–2458.
R. Temam, *Navier–Stokes equations. Theory and numerical analysis*, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1977.
J. Wu, *Generalized [MHD]{} equations*, J. Differential Equations [195]{} (2003), 284–312.
T. Tao, *Global regularity for a logarithmically supercritical hyperdissipative Navier-Stokes equation*, Anal. PDE, [3]{} (2009), 361-–366.
L. Tang & Y. Yu. *Partial regularity of suitable weak solutions to the fractional Navier-Stokes equations.* Comm. Math. Phys., 334(3):1455–1482, 2015.
[^1]: The work of T.L. is supported in part by NSFC Grants 11601258.
[^2]: The work of P.Q. is supported in part by NSFC Grants 11831011 and 11501121.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
-
title: 'Accretion in Strong Field Gravity with *eXTP*'
---
[2]{}
Introduction {#sect:section1}
============
One of the major challenges of modern astrophysics is the study of matter close to the event horizon of black holes (BH). The motion of accreting plasma near super-massive black holes (SMBHs) hosted in Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) and stellar-mass black holes in X-ray binaries (XRBs), provides a powerful diagnostic to study the very deep potential well generated by the central object. In the widely accepted scenario, the infalling matter forms an accretion disk that may extend down to the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO), in the vicinity of which the bulk of the X-ray radiation is emitted. X-ray timing, spectroscopic and polarimetric techniques for probing matter flows into the strong gravity regime have been developed and, the first two, applied to real data.
X-ray measurements in the strong field gravity regime can be used to infer the two most fundamental black hole parameters: mass and spin. The black hole spin plays a major role in modern astrophysics; for instance it may provide an important source of energy, sustain winds and jets in AGN and stellar mass black holes, power the inner engine of gamma ray bursts and help to explain the apparent radio-loud/radio-quiet ‘dichotomy’ in AGN. Understanding the distribution of spins is crucial for understanding black hole formation and growth, giving an insight into the earlier universe (for SMBH) or (for stellar mass black holes) the physics of super- or hyper-novae [@volonterietal2005]. Furthermore, since the spacetime is dominated by a single black hole which is accreting a negligible proportion of its mass, observations of matter close to the black hole can be used to verify some of the key predictions of General Relativity (GR) in a very different - and complementary - setting to that probed using gravitational wave measurements of black hole mergers. Gravitational wave detectors [@sathyaprakashetal2009] detect compact-object inspiral and merger events, where spacetime is being shaken by closely orbiting masses and hence is dynamic. X-ray observations of accreting black holes will probe instead the stationary spacetime metrics.
Strong field gravity effects in neutron stars are an important topic of study also, but in this White Paper, we focus on the strong-field gravity regions around black holes for two reasons. Firstly, these objects offer a more pristine environment to study the behaviour of the accreting gas, free from the effects of a strong magnetic field or solid surface. Secondly, astrophysical black holes cover, uniquely, 8-9 orders of magnitude in object mass, allowing a unique test of the scale invariance of gravitational effects and a link between the behaviour of accretion flows in stellar mass systems, the state changes of which can be studied in only days or weeks, versus those around supermassive black holes where we see only a snapshot of the current accretion state, which likely only changes on time-scales much longer than a human lifetime. Equivalently, the study of AGN can inform us about the most rapid individual variations around accreting black holes in much greater detail than can be probed in XRBs, where we detect far fewer photons per light-crossing time (gaining sensitivity in XRBs only because we can average over many more cycles of variability). However, before continuing our focus on black holes, we stress that many of the techniques which we apply to BH XRBs here, will be equally applicable to studying accreting neutron stars.
Strong field gravity diagnostics
--------------------------------
To date, the two most important direct diagnostics of matter behaviour in the strong-field gravity regime in XRBs and AGN are (1) relativistically broadened Fe lines [@fabianetal1989; @ref2; @ref17] and (2) relativistic time-scale variability, in particular, quasi-periodic oscillations, QPOs [@stellaetal1999; @ref4; @ref5; @ref6; @ref7; @ref8; @ref9].
The Fe K$\alpha$ emission line, along with the so-called ‘reflection continuum’ (a broad bump starting at a few keV and peaking around 30 keV), is produced when the disk is externally illuminated, e.g. by the hot Comptonizing gas (often referred to as the ‘corona’) which is responsible for the power-law X-ray emission component of AGN and Galactic black hole systems. An intrinsically narrow line emitted locally in the inner disk is hugely broadened and distorted by a combination of special relativistic (Doppler effect and relativistic aberration) and GR (gravitational redshift, light bending) effects. By comparing the data to the line profile that is obtained by integrating over the line emitting disk region, it is possible to measure the accretion disk parameters like the innermost radius and the inclination angle [@ref10; @ref11]. If the inner disk radius corresponds to the ISCO, then since the ISCO radius depends on the black hole spin (see \[fig:radius\_spin\]), the latter can be inferred. Very broad and asymmetric Fe K profiles around $\sim$ 5-7 keV have been observed in the X-ray spectra of bright AGN and XRBs [@ref12; @ref13; @ref14; @ref15; @ref16].
As a further check, the spin can also be determined in black hole XRBs by measuring the disk inner radius using model fitting of the thermal emission coming from the accretion disk itself [@ref28; @ref18], which is visible in the X-ray band for the high-temperature disks in these stellar mass systems.
X-ray QPOs are routinely observed [@vanderKlis2006] in stellar mass black holes (and neutron stars) at low (0.1–10 Hz) and high (few hundred Hz) frequencies, within 10-20% of the relativistic precession, orbital and epicyclic frequencies in the inner disk, i.e., the fundamental frequencies of orbital motion in strong-field GR [@ref62; @stellaetal1999]. The low and high-frequency QPOs have sometimes been seen together, in combinations of frequencies consistent with those expected from the multiple relativistic signals associated with a given radius in the accretion flow [@Mottaetal2014a; @Mottaetal2014b]. Thus, QPOs may correspond to oscillations excited in narrow ranges of radii and are potentially very strong probes of relativistic dynamics which also provide measurements of black hole spin, one of the main parameters which determines the frequencies.
A complex astrophysical environment {#ssect:complexenv}
-----------------------------------
In practice these spectral and timing signals of strong-field gravity are embedded in a more complex astrophysical environment, in some cases consisting of a hot, variable, geometrically thick and possibly optically thin inner accretion flow which is likely to occur close to the compact object and may correspond to the X-ray power-law emitting ‘corona’ [@Doneetal2007]. The central region is certainly more complex than a ‘standard’ thin accretion disk, and possibly partly masked by accretion-powered outflows and (in the case of AGN), a complex gaseous environment. The additional astrophysical effects pose challenges for application of standard spectroscopic and timing methods to study strong-field gravity effects.
Firstly, the spectral estimators of black hole spin described above rely on the assumption that the disk inner radius is located at the ISCO, but this situation is unlikely to apply in all observed cases. Most notably, many BH XRBs are transients, showing strong outburst behaviour and strong spectral and timing evolution through different ‘states’ during their outbursts (see [@ref48; @Doneetal2007] and \[fig:xrbstates\]), which suggests evolution of the inner accretion flow which produces most of the emission, and possibly corresponding changes in inner disk radius, as power is transferred between the disk and the corona. As indicated in \[fig:xrbstates\], low-frequency QPOs are strongest in the intermediate states where the emission is not clearly dominated by either disk or corona. High-frequency QPOs are seen in an even more restricted range of luminous intermediate states [@ref49; @Motta2016], but with current data it is not clear whether this restriction is a real physical effect or simply an observational bias due to them being stronger and also easier to detect in these very bright states. Our interpretation of the QPOs is strongly limited unless we can understand whether and how they arise in distinct spectral states and what the actual changes in emission geometry are that correspond to the changes in state.
Furthermore, when modelling relativistically broadened Fe emission, it is imperative to have a good estimate of the underlying broad continuum shape [@ref17], but AGN in particular often show spectra which are significantly modified by intervening absorption or distant reflection components. For example, reflection in AGN may also arise from neutral/ionised Compton-thick gas, like the pc-scale torus envisaged by unification models [@antonucci93]. Absorption may be due to accretion disk winds, discovered and studied in AGN and XRBs for more than a decade [@ref17; @ref79; @ref90; @ref91]. These may take the form of AGN Ultra-Fast Outflows (UFOs) with velocities $\sim0.1c$ [@ref81], observable at locations of sub-parsec scales from the central super-massive black hole, suggesting an identification with a disk wind or the base of a possible weak/broad jet. These components could provide a significant contribution to the observed AGN feedback between the central supermassive black hole and its host galaxy [@dimatteoetal05].
Also, in AGN we may see both neutral absorption from intervening cold matter (due to e.g. the Broad Line Regions, the absorbing torus or host galaxy dust lanes) and ionised absorption from intervening warm matter with different velocities. These latter absorbers are often outflowing with velocities of hundreds/thousands km s$^{-1}$ (the standard ‘warm absorber’).
X-ray polarization signatures are also expected from the regions close to the black hole from several physical components, but to date these signatures have been unexplored due to the lack of sensitive polarimetric capability on previous and current X-ray observatories. Firstly, electron-scattering in the accretion disk should produce polarized disk thermal emission with a polarization fraction of up to a few per cent in the disk-dominated soft states of black hole XRBs. Furthermore during the propagation of X-ray photons in the strong gravitational field the effects of relativistic beaming, gravitational lensing and frame dragging can lead to the rotation of the integrated polarization vector . Another potential polarized signal from close to accreting black holes is the central corona (possibly corresponding to the ‘inner hot flow’ of matter in the innermost disk). The geometry and emission mechanisms of the corona are still mysterious and X-ray polarization observations can provide a fundamental probe of the coronal geometry, which is helpful for understanding its physical origin. For example, it is trivial to determine whether a corona is oriented in a plane above the disk or has a more central spherical geometry [@ref74]. Nevertheless, we expect polarized signals from the disk and corona to be combined and this will make it difficult for stand-alone polarimeters to distinguish between the different components and make the kind of breakthroughs that are opened up with this important new capability.
The breakthrough capabilities of [*eXTP*]{}
-------------------------------------------
To tackle these challenges and fully unlock the potential of X-ray observations of black holes to study the behaviour of matter in strong field gravity, the [*enhanced X-ray Timing and Polarimetry*]{} mission ([*eXTP*]{}) has been proposed by a consortium led by the Institute of High-Energy Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and envisaged for a launch in the mid 2020s. It carries 4 instrument packages for the 0.5-–50 keV bandpass, with the primary purpose to study conditions of extreme density [@wattsetal18], gravity (this paper) and magnetism [@fengetal18] in and around compact objects in the universe. It will also be a powerful observatory for a wider range of astrophysical phenomena since it combines high throughput, good spectral and timing resolution, polarimetric capability and wide sky coverage [@intzandetal18].
The scientific payload of [*eXTP*]{} consists of: the Spectroscopic Focusing Array (SFA), the Polarimetry Focusing Array (PFA), the Large Area Detector (LAD) and the Wide Field Monitor (WFM). The [*eXTP*]{} instrumentation is discussed in detail in [@zhangetal18], but here we give a brief overview along with the breakthroughs that will be provided by [*eXTP*]{}’s unique combination of instrument capabilities.
[*eXTP*]{}’s large-area and fast-timing and spectroscopy capability is provided across a broad X-ray energy range by the combination of the SFA, an array of nine identical X-ray mirror and silicon drift detector combinations, covering the 0.5–-10 keV energy range with a spectral resolution of better than 180 eV (full width at half maximum, FWHM) at 6 keV, and the LAD, a set of large-area collimated silicon drift detectors which cover the 2–50 keV range and have 260 eV resolution at 6 keV. The LAD and SFA together reach a total effective area of $\sim$ 4 m$^2$ at 6 keV and since both use silicon drift detectors, they are capable of sampling extremely high count rates at high time resolution (10 $\mu$s) with minimal deadtime. The broad X-ray energy coverage and CCD-quality spectral resolution allows spectral fits to disentangle complex spectra, such as additional absorption and broad reflection continuum features in AGN and the combination of disk blackbody, coronal continuum and reflection in XRBs, thus enabling much better measurements of relativistic reflection features in AGN and XRBs (Sect. \[ssect:reflection\]) and the disk thermal emission in XRBs (Sect. \[ssect:continuum\_fitting\]). Measurements of the larger-scale absorber and reprocessor properties will themselves provide valuable information on the outflows of AGN and XRBs and the surrounding environment of AGN (Sect. \[sect:astro\]).
The large collecting area and fast timing capability also enable differential spectroscopy and spectral-timing techniques to be applied. Thanks to these techniques we can cleanly separate the spectral components from the innermost strong-gravity region, variable on short time-scales, from those at larger scales which will vary much more slowly. For example, quasi-periodic variations can occur due to a precessing inner flow or orbiting inhomogeneities in the disk, and can be analyzed using Doppler tomography techniques, where red- and blueshifts are used to reconstruct the illumination pattern or loci of the inhomogeneities (Sect. \[ssect:QPOtomo\] and \[ssect:AGNtomo\]). Black hole masses of AGN can also be inferred from variability in the Fe K-line (Sect. \[ssect:AGNtomo\]). Reverberation (radiation ‘echoing’) of the variability of an incident hard continuum from the corona off the disk leads to light travel time lags between the different components, which manifest as distinct features in plots of lag vs. energy. These lags constrain the geometry on an absolute length scale (km), and in particular, diagnose the absolute size of the inner radius of the reflecting disk (Sect. \[ssect:reverberation\]), allowing us to constrain black hole masses, as well as changes in the inner geometry associated with different accretion states.
Furthermore, the high count rates obtained by the SFA and LAD allow detection and tracking of BH XRB high-frequency QPOs down to low rms amplitudes, allowing us to determine their origin and use them as an independent diagnostic of the black hole spin and a potential test of the dynamics of matter close to the black hole (Sect. \[ssect:qpo\]). Increased sensitivity to weaker HF QPOs may also open up their detection in much greater numbers and in a wider range of accretion states than sampled previously.
Another independent diagnostic of strong field gravity is offered by X-ray polarimetric measurements carried out by the PFA, which consists of four identical X-ray telescopes that are sensitive between 2 and 10 keV, have an angular resolution better than 30” and a total effective area of $\sim$ 500 cm$^2$ at 3 keV (including the detector effciency). The PFA features Gas Pixel Detectors (GPDs) to measure X-ray polarisation, reaching a minimum detectable polarization (MDP) of 5% in 100 ks for a source with mCrab-level flux 3$\times$10$^{-11}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$. The spectral resolution is 1.8 keV at 6 keV. While it offers stand-alone capability to make X-ray polarimetric measurements with greater sensitivity than any previous instrument, the true strength of the PFA for studying strong field gravity lies in its capability to measure polarization signals simultaneously with other independent diagnostics of strong field gravity (Sect. \[ssect:continuum\_fitting\]), as well as combine the polarization signal with the flux-variability signal from the large-area detectors. This combination opens up the possibility of ‘spectral-timing-polarimetry’, to analyze the rapid variations with three orthogonal constraints on the flow and its geometry, namely, (i) spectroscopy yielding velocities and redshifts, (ii) timing of orbiting patterns revealing orbital periods and GR precession in the accretion flow and (iii) polarimetry providing clues to the geometry and additional GR effects, yielding unprecedented insight into the inner flow. In fact [*eXTP*]{} can use the combination of polarization signal and energy-resolved flux-variability signal from the large-area detectors to separate the different polarized components according to how they correlate differently with the X-ray spectral and flux variability produced in the innermost regions, allowing the data to be used in entirely new ways (Sect. \[ssect:QPOpol\], \[ssect:xrb coronae\]).
The science payload is completed by the WFM, consisting of 6 coded-mask cameras covering 3.7 sr of the sky at a sensitivity of 4 mCrab for an exposure time of 1 d in the 2 to 50 keV energy range, and for a typical sensitivity of 0.2 mCrab combining 1 yr of observations outside the Galactic plane. The instrument will feature an angular resolution of a few arcminutes and will be endowed with an energy resolution of about 300 eV. The baseline for the observatory response time to targets of opportunity within the 50% part of the sky accessible to [*eXTP*]{} at any one time is 4–-8 hours. Dependent on the outcome of mission studies, this may improve to 1–-3 hours. The monitoring capability of the WFM will be essential to identify and follow up outbursts of new and known transient XRBs, as well as target specific states of transient and persistent XRBs and AGN for detailed follow-up with the pointed instruments, enabling the wide range of strong field gravity studies described in this White Paper.
In the remaining Sections we will present [*eXTP*]{}’s capability to explore physical phenomena in the regions close to black holes. We will discuss the three independent diagnostics provided by [*eXTP*]{} data, in order to infer either the behaviour of matter in the strong-field gravity regime (Sect. \[sect:SFG\]) and the accretion physics and geometry in the inner region around black holes (Sect. \[sect:inner\_region\]). Moreover, [*eXTP*]{} will provide new important information in the wider context of the astrophysics of accreting black holes (Sect. \[sect:astro\]) and, in particular, of the new gravitational wave astrophysics (Sect. \[sect:sect\_GW\]).
Matter in the strong-field gravity regime {#sect:SFG}
=========================================
This section describes how [*eXTP*]{} will revolutionise the measurement of the core diagnostics of the behaviour of matter in strong-field gravity, using spectroscopic, polarimetric and timing measurements to provide independent estimates of black hole spin and the effects of strong field gravity. The techniques employed are relatively ‘standard’, either using time-averaged measurements of spectral and polarization signals, or measurements of QPO signals with Fourier power-spectral techniques applied to a broad continuum bandpass. Nevertheless all these techniques benefit from the large collecting area and/or new instrumental capabilities of [*eXTP*]{} and provide a powerful suite of separate diagnostics that is unique to the mission. In Sect. \[sect:inner\_region\] we will further show how we can combine these different types of measurement using state-of-the-art differential spectroscopy, spectral-timing and spectral-timing-polarimetry techniques, to gain even more insight into the central regions and the effects of strong field gravity.
Relativistically broadened reflection {#ssect:reflection}
-------------------------------------
The very broad Fe K$\alpha$ profiles at 6.4 keV often observed in accreting black holes (both AGN and XRBs) and neutron stars are successfully modeled by X-ray reprocessing of a hard irradiating continuum by the accretion disk plasma in tight relativistic orbits around the compact object. In the case of black holes, the inner disk reflection models of increasing sophistication now include full Kerr-metric GR calculations of flow dynamics as well as photon trajectories and Doppler and gravitational redshifts, and an advanced treatment of the radiation processes [@ref22]. Models reproduce the broad Fe K line, the fluorescent emission features at lower energies and the Compton hump at energies above 10 keV. They allow us to study reflection of radiation described by different spectral slopes and radial distributions, from matter over a large range of ionizations, densities and chemical abundances, as a function of disk inclination and black hole spin [@Garcia2014; @Garcia2016]. In order to understand the emergent reflection spectrum, it is necessary also to understand the illumination pattern of the accretion disk, that is its emissivity profile, the reflected power per unit area as a function of location on the disk [@ref23; @ref24]. By comparing observed emissivity profiles to those computed theoretically for different locations and geometries of the source, it is possible to constrain the location and extent of the primary X-ray source (i.e. the emitting corona). The Fe line profiles in X-ray spectra of the black hole systems thus provide a sensitive probe of the matter in the strong field region and estimates of black hole spin. Some current stellar as well as super-massive black hole spin estimates based on measuring time-averaged line profiles suggest near-maximal spins [@ref25], but, as specificed above, there are complications related to spectral complexity [@milleretal09] and pile-up effects (in XRBs) [@donediaz10], so that significant discrepancies occur with respect to other techniques, e.g. disk continuum fitting (Sect. \[ssect:continuum\_fitting\]) The enormous S/N and good energy resolution available with [*eXTP*]{}, will allow us to measure average Fe line profiles with exceptional precision in both XRBs and AGN (as well as in neutron stars, as widely discussed in [@wattsetal18]), using state of the art reflection models to measure black hole spins. In \[fig:BH\_spin\] left panels, we show the [*eXTP*]{} spectrum as obtained by a 100 ks integration of a bright 2 mCrab, spin a=0.7 AGN where the photoionized, relativistically broadened reflection component has been contaminated by contributions from three ionised absorber components as well as cold reflection and associated narrow Fe line K$\alpha$, Fe K$\beta$ and Ni K$\alpha$, as expected in typical type 1 AGN (see Sect. \[ssect:complexenv\] and \[ssect:astro\_agn\]). Our simulations show that for AGN, the energy resolution of [*eXTP*]{} together with the large effective area and broadband energy coverage provided by the SFA and LAD combination, allow us to disentangle the spectral complexities in the Fe K region and measure the reflection continuum shape, to successfully extract the relativistic reflection parameters and recover the black hole spin with a precision of $\sim$10 per cent (\[fig:BH\_spin\] lower-left panel), despite the presence of the contaminating components. In order to measur the black hole spin with high precision, we require a minimun S/N of 400 in the 2–10 keV band, this limit will allow [*eXTP*]{} to carry out such detailed broad Fe line modeling on a large sample of AGN (more than 400 sources at different redshifts) with flux above $\sim$ 10$^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$.
In the case of stellar mass black holes [*eXTP*]{}, mainly thanks to the virtually pile-up free LAD data, will allow us to measure changes in the accretion flow structure close to black holes on unprecedentedly short time-scales. In XRBs the disk inclination angle is usually obtained from optical/IR observations so that the high S/N broadband data will allow to measure the disk emissivity profile thus putting strong constraints on the corona geometry. In the simulation reported in \[fig:BH\_spin\], right panels, we show the case of a 0.5 Crab object with maximal spin (such as the microquasar GRO J1655$-$40 [@ref26; @ref27]). An [*eXTP*]{} observation of Fe K emission in such a system will measure the inner radius of the disk and the index of the radial emissivity profile with a precision of (respectively) about 2 and 5 per cent in only 100 s. This result is obtained using the best current models including complex absorption (see \[fig:BH\_spin\] upper-right panel). The unprecedentedly short timescale of such a measurement will allow us for the first time to observe the variability of the structure of the innermost region on a time-scale comparable to that of the fastest known changes in outflow components such as winds and jets, to open a completely new domain for the study of the inner regions around black holes and how the ejection properties are linked to the inner accretion flow (see also Sect. \[ssect:astro\_xrb\]).
The disk thermal emission in XRBs {#ssect:continuum_fitting}
---------------------------------
Besides producing the reflection features already discussed, the accretion disk also emits blackbody radiation produced by internal heating as well as external heating by the illuminating corona. In AGN the disk thermal emission peaks in the UV band. However, in stellar mass black holes accreting at the moderate to high rates seen in outbursting or persistent sources, the disk emission peaks in the X-ray band and provides an additional probe of the accretion flow close to the black hole. In particular, in the disk-dominated soft state of black hole XRBs the disk is expected to reach the ISCO and hence a measurement of the disk inner radius could provide a direct measure of the black hole spin. Since the disk emission is a superposition of blackbodies, the normalisation of the disk spectrum yields the emitting area and hence the radius: this is the so-called [*continuum-fitting method*]{} for estimating black hole spin [@ref28; @ref29].
The fundamental assumptions underpinning the continuum-fitting method are already well-supported by observations and theory [@ref30; @ref31]. To use the method to estimate the disk inner radius in gravitational units (and hence spin), it is essential to have good estimates of the source distance, the disk inclination and the black hole mass. These system parameters are usually determined beforehand from optical/IR observations. Currently, most distances are estimated from optical study of the companion star, which can be subject to significant uncertainties for sources in the galactic plane where extinction is large. Measurements of Galactic structure and dynamics obtained from the [*Gaia*]{} mission should significantly reduce these uncertainties. Also, in a recent breakthrough, much more accurate (to better than $\sim 10$ per cent uncertainty) distances to XRBs have been obtained via Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) parallax measurements of their radio emission (e.g. [@ref35]). By the mid-2020s, such measurements will be routine and made even more powerful by incorporating data from the Square Kilometre Array (SKA), so that errors on distance estimates should be reduced to $\sim 3$ per cent (James Miller-Jones, private communication), leading to similar systematic uncertainties on the disk inner radius (and hence spin) from continuum fitting.
\[fig:bhspins\] summarises the current state-of-the-art of BH XRB spin measurements using the continuum fitting method, in comparison with spin estimates from other techniques where available. A wide range of spins have been measured, but in many cases errors are large and significant discrepancies arise with estimates of spin from iron line fitting, which may be a result of the systematic errors in both techniques. However, in the mid-2020s [*eXTP*]{} will allow a big step forward in the accuracy of the use of disk thermal emission to map the innermost regions and measure black hole spin by combining spectral and polarimetric diagnostics.
The Wide Field Monitor (WFM) will first enable precise targeting of the soft states best suited for spin measurements, with minimal contamination by power-law emission. The broad energy bandpass of the SFA and LAD will then allow an accurate determination of the disk spectral shape, with absorption features in the soft state accurately modelled (see Sect. \[ssect:astro\_xrb\]) and the hard response of the LAD enabling a precise constraint on the hard power-law tail which can otherwise bias fits to the disk spectrum.
Due to the planar structure of the disk, its thermal emission is expected to be polarized due to Thomson scattering in the disk atmosphere. Assuming a standard thin disk emission with a Thomson scattering in the disk atmosphere as the origin of polarization, the black hole spin can then be obtained independently of disk continuum fitting, by measuring the rotation with energy of the polarization angle of the disk emission. In fact, due to GR effects, the polarization plane of the disk radiation rotates while travelling along a geodesic. As a result, for a distant observer the plane of polarization is no longer parallel or perpendicular to the disk, as it would be in the Newtonian case. The rotation angle depends on the location of the emitting point in the disk, and it is larger the closer to the black hole the emitting point is. Since the temperature decreases with the disk radius, higher energy photons suffer a larger rotation. When the emission is integrated over the disk, a rotation of the polarization plane (together with variations in polarization degree) with energy is expected . The effect increases with the spin of the black hole, following the decrease with the spin of the ISCO radius; the spin can therefore be estimated via this effect (e.g. [@dovciaketal08]), as shown in Figure \[fig:pol\_disk\].
QPOs in X-ray binaries {#ssect:qpo}
----------------------
High frequency QPOs (HFQPOs) are one of the most important discoveries made by the [*Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer*]{} ([*RXTE*]{}) (see ref. [@vanderKlis2006]). They are normally found at several hundreds of Hz in black hole XRBs and appear stable in frequency at values that, as predicted for relativistic frequencies, scale inversely with black-hole mass [@ref48]. The black hole HFQPOs are particularly intriguing, but weak and transient, so it has been impossible to determine if their frequencies are really fixed, or only appear to be so because we are only just detecting them when they are strongest. Their amplitude distribution is severely cut-off by current instrumental limitations [@ref49], but this will be remedied by [*eXTP*]{}.
\[fig:mottaqposim\] shows the sensitivity (in fractional rms) of the [*eXTP*]{} instruments (LAD, SFA and the combination of the two) for detection against the Poisson noise level of a QPO of arbitrary frequency and with a FWHM of 10 Hz. The left panel shows the case of a fixed exposure time of 10 ks for a variable source flux (between 1 mCrab and 1 Crab, the flux range where most XRBs are found during their active phases). The right panel shows the case for a source at 1 Crab flux, for a variable exposure time (100 s to 10 ks). [*eXTP*]{} will bring a significant improvement in HFQPO sensitivity compared to the [*RXTE*]{} Proportional Counter Array (PCA), the only instrument to detect HFQPOs to date. This improvement will allow the detection in short intervals of transient HFQPO signals, enabling us to study the duty cycles of the HFQPO signal and its links to changes in inner accretion structure which will be measured simultaneously by the suite of other techniques (e.g. reflection spectroscopy, reverberation) described in this paper.
This leap forward in HFQPO detection capability will enable a further leap in our understanding of the physical origin of the HFQPO signal, potentially allowing detection of weak signals associated with the epicyclic motion expected in strong-field gravity, along with accurate measurement of the key parameters of the Kerr metric: black hole mass and spin. Given their rarity and the detection limits in [*RXTE*]{} data, it is likely that the relatively few HFQPOs observed to date are the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of a population of weaker signals which may occur simultaneously at multiple frequencies, as predicted by the best current models for the QPOs as being linked to orbital motion in strong-field gravity. For example, besides the expected strong signal linked to the orbital motion and Lense-Thirring precession, which produce respectively the main high and low-frequency QPO peaks, the relativistic precession model (RPM, [@stellaetal1999]) explains additional weaker high-frequency signals as being due to GR effects, notably radial epicyclic motion (for which QPO candidates have not been detected to date) and associated periastron precession (which in the RPM can explain the lower-frequency signals in pairs of HFQPOs). These signals have been poorly-studied to date, due to limitations in data-quality, but could be detected in as little as 100 s by [*eXTP*]{} and are expected to evolve significantly with changes in the inner accretion flow, e.g. linked to changing flux, in a way which can be detected within just a few ks using a [*dynamical power spectrum*]{} of the photon count rate (see \[fig:barretdynpow\], left panel).
In the Kerr metric, the radial epicyclic and periastron precession frequencies are uniquely related (via the orbital frequency) to the black hole mass, radius and spin, such that if the inner disk radius changes (as envisaged by the RPM model), the comparison of all three frequencies will provide a powerful test of the model. If the RPM model is confirmed, measurements of multiple, changing frequencies for any pair of these high-frequency signals may be then be used as a powerful spin and mass estimator. For example, splitting the [*eXTP*]{} simulated RPM signal into 100 s segments to accurately measure both radial epicyclic and periastron precession QPO frequencies, we show the comparison in \[fig:barretdynpow\] (right panel), where a strong distinction is seen between the ‘observed’ $M_{\rm BH} = 7.1$ M$_{\odot}$, $a=0.6$ curve and a curve for the same mass but spin $a=0.7$. Such measurements could also be made using the low-frequency QPO, which in the RPM model corresponds to nodal (Lense-Thirring) precession (see below). However, since other, accretion-related effects may influence these lower-frequency signals [@ref52], the HFQPO measurements should be seen as the strongest test. It is important to note that a HFQPO measure of spin would be completely independent of the other spin-measurement techniques described in this paper, yielding a further powerful test on these measurements, should the RPM model turn out to be the correct model for HFQPOs. If the HFQPOs are better explained by other models, different frequency behaviour will be highlighted in the data. For example, the epicyclic resonance model [@ref50] predicts HFQPOs at a constant resonant frequency, regardless of changes in inner disk radius, with combinations of additional frequencies which yield their own checks on the spacetime metric.
Low frequency QPOs (LFQPOs, with frequencies below $\sim50$ Hz in black hole systems) have been known for many years and are divided into different types according to their phenomenological properties [@Wijnandsetal1999; @remillardetal2002; @ref51]. The variations in the characteristic frequencies of the Type-C QPOs are associated with the hard states and are likely related to variations of the inner disk truncation radius (see [@ref52; @ref53]), offering the possibility to directly track the changes in the geometry of the accretion flow. On the other hand, the abrupt appearance/disappearance of the so-called type-B QPO might be the X-ray signature of the occurrence of fast relativistic ejections along the jet [@ref55; @ref56].
Several models have been proposed for these QPOs in terms of strong-field orbital and epicyclic motion in the disk flow, most notably the ‘Lense-Thirring’ precession [@ref62] of the inner hot, geometrically thick accretion flow caused by GR frame-dragging of orbiting plasma due to the misalignment of the black hole spin and the angular momentum of the accreting material in the disk. Interpretations along these lines have received support from large-scale MHD simulations [@ref63; @ref57; @Liskaetal2017]. Precession models have also gained significant observational support in recent years from the observed dependence of key type-C QPO properties (rms amplitude and energy-dependent phase lag) on the inclination of the X-ray binary system orbit, with higher-inclination systems showing systematically higher rms amplitudes and soft lags as opposed to the low rms amplitudes and hard lags seen in lower-inclination systems [@ref56; @ref58]. Such behaviour is easy to explain when these QPO characteristics are linked to a changing emission geometry as seen by the observer (as expected from precession of the inner flow), as opposed to an intrinsic variation in accretion rate.
LFQPOs, thanks to their intrinsically high amplitudes, are normally detected with high significance even by instruments with limited sensitivity. With [*eXTP*]{} observations, LFQPOs will become a much more effective tool for the study of strong-field gravity. Firstly, the greatly increased sensitivity to high-frequency signals will enable the LFQPOs to be detected simultaneously with higher-frequency signals. These new measurements will allow dynamical frequencies and the slower, possibly precession frequencies to be combined, to give strong constraints on black hole mass and spin [@Mottaetal2014a; @Mottaetal2014b]. Secondly, the high count rates obtained by [*eXTP*]{} will routinely allow the detailed study of the QPO waveform and/or the dependence on the QPO phase of the spectral shape of XRBs (tomography). These techniques will enable a new form of mapping of the inner accretion flow and the changing geometry associated with the QPO, which will be discussed in Sect. \[ssect:QPOtomo\] and \[ssect:QPOpol\].
Mapping the inner regions {#sect:inner_region}
=========================
The methods described in the previous Section make use of either ‘time-averaged’ (spectral fitting and polarimetric modelling) or ‘energy-averaged’ (power-spectral) methods to obtain some key diagnostics of matter behaviour in strong field gravity. Such methods will always suffer to some extent from systematics made by the implicit time or spectral averaging that is done on what are complex, variable, multi-time-scale and multi-component processes, leading to potential model degeneracies. However, the large collecting area, good spectral capability and high time-resolution and count rate capability of [*eXTP*]{} allows a new approach, currently applied in a few cases and still being developed, of combining spectral, timing and (in the future) polarimetric information. These spectral-timing(-polarimetry) methods enable us to disentangle different spectral and polarization components according to their variability and causal relationships, either in phase (for quasi-periodic variations) or time-delay with respect to one another (for aperiodic broadband noise variability). Thereby we can significantly reduce the *systematic* error inherent from the degeneracy involved with time- or energy-averaged modelling. In the following, we report on detailed simulations based on spectral-timing and spectral-timing-polarimetric techniques, applied to *eXTP* data from both XRBs and AGN. These studies are necessarily preliminary, as the techniques and models to describe what is a new kind of data are still under development. But it is already clear that these methods combined with [*eXTP*]{} data will provide an innovative and powerful way to map the accretion flows and emitting regions in the strong field gravity regime of accreting black holes.
Accretion flow tomography with LFQPOs {#ssect:QPOtomo}
-------------------------------------
The high throughput and spectroscopic and polarimetric capabilities of [*eXTP*]{} make it uniquely suited to probing the physical origin of LFQPOs and using the QPO signal itself as a probe of the inner flow structure and the effects of strong-field gravity. For example, in the case of the strongly-favoured precession models for the QPO, as the inner hot flow precesses it should illuminate different azimuths of the accretion disk, leading to a variation in the appearance of relativistic reflection signatures (\[fig:qpogeom\]). The rapid orbital motion of the disk material means that an inclined observer will see a blue-shifted line when the approaching material is illuminated and a red-shifted line when the receding material is illuminated [@IngramDone2012FeK]. Thus, phase-resolved spectroscopy of a QPO from a precessing hot inner flow in an XRB enables [*tomography*]{} of the disk emission. The predicted quasi-periodic modulation of the iron line centroid energy was recently detected ($3.7 \sigma$ significance) for the first time using [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*NuSTAR*]{} data from the black hole XRB H 1743-322 [@ref61], and tomographic mapping was subsequently carried out [@Ingrametal2017]. This provided an excellent proof of principle demonstration of the technique, but required a very long exposure of a comparatively dim source so as to avoid problems of photon pile-up in the [*XMM-Newton*]{} detectors.
The large-area detectors of [*eXTP*]{} enable phase-resolved spectroscopy of any of the LFQPOs observed to date in black hole XRBs, by applying state-of-the-art techniques to recover the QPO phase from the Fourier information on short time-scales and bin the spectral data accordingly [@ref61; @ref64]. \[fig:fedance\] shows LAD data from a simulated [*eXTP*]{} observation of GRS 1915+105 in an intermediate state. The assumed spectrum is modelled to agree with an *RXTE* observation of the source from 6$^{\rm th}$ March 2002, when it exhibited a strong QPO at $0.46$ Hz and prominent iron line. The very high count rate detected by the LAD means that the change in shape of the iron line as a function of QPO phase resulting from Lense-Thirring precession of the inner flow can be clearly detected. It is not only possible to detect that the iron line has a higher centroid energy during the approaching phase, but it is also clear that the shape of the red wing ($\sim 6$ keV) and the smeared iron K edge ($\sim 9$ keV) changes significantly between QPO phases. The inset shows the same simulation for the PCA instrument on board *RXTE*. For the real *RXTE* observation that this simulation is based on, Ingram & van der Klis [@ref64] did find tentative evidence of a line centroid energy modulation, but only with a significance of $1.9\sigma$.
Other current observatories can potentially improve upon the current state-of-the-art, but without the large step-change in performance expected for [*eXTP*]{}. For example, the *XMM-Newton* EPIC-pn instrument and *NuSTAR* mission all provide the required spectral resolution, but have lower effective area at the iron line than *RXTE* (while *XMM-Newton* cannot observe such bright sources due to pile-up and telemetry issues and *NuSTAR* has its count rate limited by instrumental deadtime). *ASTROSAT*’s LAXPC instrument [@Antiaetal2017] has a comparable area and energy resolution at Fe K energies to *RXTE*. The recently launched *Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer* (*NICER*, [@Gendreauetal2016]) has CCD spectral resolution and high count-rate capability, but also has a soft spectral response, covering 0.2-10 keV and peaking at 1.5 keV, which is not so well-matched to the hard shape of the QPO spectrum, so is not optimal for studies of reflection modulation.
The LAD allows a vast improvement on all of these alternatives, with the required spectral resolution and far larger effective area at Fe K energies ($\sim6$ times greater than *ASTROSAT* LAXPC and $>40$ times greater than instruments such as [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC-pn and [*NICER*]{} which have comparable CCD-like spectral resolution to the LAD), as demonstrated by \[fig:fedance\]. How the iron line changes shape with QPO phase depends on how the disk illumination profile evolves with precession phase, which ultimately depends on the geometry and emission mechanism of the inner flow. The phase-resolved iron line profile also depends strongly on the disk inner radius, which sets the rotational velocity of the reflecting material, and the inclination, which sets the line-of-sight velocities. These parameters can be measured accurately with high quality data from the LAD. Fitting a precession model [@Ingrametal2017] to the synthetic LAD data shown in \[fig:fedance\] gives an inclination angle of $i=66.7^{+2.3}_{-2}$ degrees and a disk truncation radius of $27.2^{+1.5}_{-1.5}~r_g$. We can achieve even greater precision by considering all 20 QPO phases rather than just two, and also including the data from the SFA. Observing how the spectrum evolves with QPO phase provides many more independent data points than the time-averaged spectrum, with each phase preferentially sampling the reflection spectrum from different azimuths on the disk, which (as seen by the observer) experience different relativistic effects. E.g. emission from the sides moving perpendicular to our line of sight is mostly affected by gravitational and special-relativistic time-dilation, while emission from the approaching side also undergoes substantial Doppler boosting. This differential sampling of relativistic effects allows model parameter degeneracies to be more easily broken.
Accretion flow geometry with QPO timing-polarimetry {#ssect:QPOpol}
---------------------------------------------------
{width="80.00000%"}
In addition to measuring changes in the iron line profile with QPO phase, [*eXTP*]{} will be able to measure changes in polarization degree and angle with QPO phase, giving an additional powerful and independent probe of the variations in coronal geometry associated with the QPO modulation (see also discussion in Sect. \[ssect:xrb coronae\]). We simulate this variation in polarization properties for the same synthetic GRS 1915+105 observation described above. According to the calculations of [@ref65], Lense-Thirring precession of a flattened hot inner flow will also produce a QPO in the polarization degree with an absolute rms amplitude (at the fundamental frequency) of $\sim 1.4\%$ and a QPO in the polarization angle with absolute rms amplitude (again, at the fundamental frequency) of $\sim 4^\circ$.
We simulate a 1 Hz QPO in the flux and polarization properties, taking into account the quasi-periodicity of the oscillation and also the coincident broadband noise observed in the flux, which is intrinsic to the source rather than instrumental. The QPO phase drifts on a random walk away from that of a strictly periodic sine wave, as is observed for QPOs in GRS 1915+105 [@ref66]. The flux, polarization degree and polarization angle vary sinusoidally with this varying QPO phase, following the results of [@ref65]. Data corresponding to these variations are then simulated accounting for the detector characteristics of the SFA and LAD. Here we have used the high count rate ($\sim 70000$ count s$^{-1}$) LAD synthetic light curve to assign instantaneous QPO phase values through a filtering method [@vandenEijnden2016]. Using the phase values assigned from the synthetic LAD light curve, we bin the Stokes parameters measured by the SFA into 16 phase bins and used them to calculate the polarization degree and angle for each bin. \[fig:qporesults\] (black points) shows the simulated phase-folded polarization degree (left) and angle (right) plotted as a function of QPO phase. The points are clearly not consistent with constant polarization properties. The red line on each plot shows the input variation, which the simulation recovers well.
[*eXTP*]{}’s combination of high throughput and polarimetric capabilities will enable the search for HFQPOs in the polarization properties of black hole and neutron star XRBs. High frequency variations in the polarization degree and angle are expected for most HFQPO models, for example the orbiting hot spot model [@Schnittman2005; @Beheshtipouretal2016]. Detection of such variations will provide a completely new way to diagnose the true HFQPO mechanism, and will also enable the HFQPO polarization signature to be used as a tool to map the inner accretion flow.
We simulate a 50 ks observation of the upper HFQPO in the black hole XRB GRO J1655$-$40 studied by [@Mottaetal2014a] (i.e. a frequency of $441$ Hz, an rms of $4.5\%$ and a FWHM of $30$ Hz). We input sinusoidal variations of the polarization degree and angle as a function of HFQPO phase. For the polarization degree, we input a mean and standard deviation of $4\%$ and $1\%$ respectively and for the polarization angle, we assume a mean of $0^\circ$ and a variability amplitude of $10^\circ$, as expected from orbiting hotspot models (see Figure 15 of [@Beheshtipouretal2016] for comparison). Since detection of these high frequency features is more challenging, we use the Fourier method of [@IngramMaccarone2017], which is more sensitive than the phase-folding method, making use of the cross-spectral combination of the polarisation signal from the SFA with the high-count rate light curve from the LAD, which is used as a reference signal to isolate the HFQPO polarisation signal.
Figure \[fig:hfqpopol\] shows the resulting sinusoidal modulation of fractional rms at the HFQPO frequency as a function of detector modulation angle (red line), and the null-hypothesis of constant polarization properties (grey line). The data points show the recovered modulation from the simulated [*eXTP*]{} data. Such a detection of HFQPO polarisation would not be possible with currently planned single-instrument X-ray polarimeters such as on board the [*Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer*]{} ([*IXPE*]{}). The larger area of the [*eXTP*]{} PFA is an advantage here, but the most pivotal factor is the photon collecting capability of the LAD. The high count rates collected by the LAD enable polarimetric-timing to be conducted for high frequencies ($>100$ Hz), commensurate with the azimuthal epicyclic frequencies of GR in the vicinity of the compact object and allowing the strong light-bending effects on the polarized signal in these regions to be studied.
![Fractional rms of a simulated HFQPO as a function of modulation angle (which defines the direction of the electron track caused by a photon hitting the detector). The red line shows the sinusoidal pattern caused by quasi-periodic variability of the polarisation degree and angle at the frequency of the HFQPO (441 Hz in this case), and the grey line represents the null hypothesis in which only the flux varies with QPO phase, whereas the polarisation properties remain constant. The data points show the results from a simulated $50$ ks observation with [*eXTP*]{}, showing that the expected modulation is easily detected using the SFA/LAD combination.[]{data-label="fig:hfqpopol"}](HFamp.ps)
Individually, the QPO phase dependence of both the iron line profile and the polarization properties, provide powerful diagnostics of the accretion flow geometry. When analysed jointly, as will be uniquely possible with [*eXTP*]{}, it will be possible to piece together the detailed geometry of the emitting region closest to the black hole.
AGN Doppler tomography of orbiting hot spot patterns {#ssect:AGNtomo}
----------------------------------------------------
In AGN the characteristic time scales of variability are much longer with respect to BH XRBs (see Sect. \[sect:section1\]) allowing us to collect a larger number of photons per cycle. Despite the fact that this characteristic represents a great opportunity to investigate the physical origin of QPOs, we have only one convincing detection of AGN QPO in the Narrow Line Seyfert (NLSy1) RE J1034+396 ([@ref9]).
As the inhomogeneities associated with QPOs inevitably lead to variations in patterns of emissivity and illumination of the disk (see Sect. \[ssect:QPOtomo\]), the variations in emissivity patterns can also occur due to orbiting inhomogeneities in the disk due to ‘hot spots’ [@dovciaketal04]. These inhomogeneities can be generated if the disk illumination is provided by a localized flare just above the disk, rather than a central illuminator or an extended corona. Orbiting hot spot patterns in the accretion disk should undergo alternating Doppler redshifts and blueshifts, which lead to quasi-periodic distortions of the spectrum, including the broad Fe line profile. The hotspot orbiting luminous blob in the accretion disk will cause a feature to move back and forth through the line profile as the blob transits the red- and blue-shifted regions. This signal can be used to reconstruct the geometry with the technique of Doppler tomography, as well as probing the orbital dynamics of the flow.
Narrow and (apparently) transient features in the $\sim$ 4–6 keV energy range were observed in the AGN NGC 3516 [@ref67; @ref68] and in a larger XMM sample [@ref69]; they were characterized by relatively short-time-scale variability, of the order of tens of ks, but were not confirmed in subsequent observations, being at the limits of current X-ray telescope sensitivity. More recently the double-peak structure in X-ray flares observed in Sgr A$^\star$ has been reproduced with a simple orbiting hotspot model [@karssenetal17]. It has been argued that a hotspot can be stable long enough to create a flare. [*eXTP*]{} has the capability to confirm whether these intriguing features are real and if so, to use them as a powerful probe of the dynamics of matter in strong field gravity.
In AGN, where the orbital time-scale around the ISCO is of the order of a few ks (for 10$^7$M$_{\odot}$), [*eXTP*]{} will be able to follow the distortion of the Fe line profile due to orbiting hotspots in the time domain. As an example of the power of [*eXTP*]{} in applying this technique, we report in \[fig:AGN\_tomo\] (left panel) the Fe line profile ratios to line average resulting from two 10-ks orbits of a coronal hot spot around a 10$^{7}$ M$_{\odot}$, spin $a$=0.5 black hole at 10 $r_g$ and contributing 10 per cent of the Fe line flux in a bright 2.5 mCrab AGN observed for a total of 20 ks (about 3000 s per profile plotted). Only the fluorescent spectral component is plotted [@ref21]. As these measurements rely on variability in the residuals, any narrow lines in the profile (arising by necessity at larger radii and hence varying much slower than the 10 ks inner disk orbital period, see Sect. \[ssect:astro\_agn\]) drop out automatically.
In the right panel we show the error contours (1, 2, and 3 $\sigma$ in black, red, and green, respectively) of disk inclination *versus* hotspot orbital radius resulting from a fit to the line profiles in the three different phases. The hot spot orbital radius in $r_{g}$ can be measured to a precision of 1-2 per cent and combined with the spin measurement from the average line profile (see Sect. \[ssect:reflection\]) allows measurement of the black hole mass to $<$30 per cent. Conversely, if the black hole mass is independently measured (e.g. via optical reverberation mapping [@ref70]), spin can be determined to a precision comparable to that of the mass determination. Such a constraint would apply to any hotspot radius and hence is independent of whether or not the disk is assumed to extend to the ISCO, as is the case for spin constraints from spectral fitting. Thanks to its unprecedented throughput, [*eXTP*]{} will be able to perform such measurements for any AGN with flux above 1 mCrab.
Measuring light-travel times to the inner disk {#ssect:reverberation}
----------------------------------------------
The X-ray power-law emission shows rapid aperiodic variability, on time-scales down to milliseconds for stellar mass black holes, and minutes for the supermassive black holes in AGN. The fastest time-scales of the variability show that the bulk of the power-law emission originates in a central compact corona, which may be less than 10 $r_g$ in radius. The corona illuminates the accretion disk and is reprocessed to produce the observed relativistically broadened reflection signatures (see Sect. \[ssect:reflection\]) and (due to heating by the absorbed part of the incident flux) extra blackbody emission, which is hot enough to be emitted in the X-ray band in stellar mass black holes and also in high accretion-rate, low black hole mass AGN. However, the reprocessed emission does not respond instantly to coronal variations: it is delayed with respect to the observed power-law variations by the extra light-travel time from the corona to the disk and then to the observer (see Figure \[fig:revcartoon\]). This effect is known as [*reverberation*]{} and, due to the compactness of the emitting region and the fact that the delay is simply related to a light-travel time, it can be used to [*reverberation map*]{} the innermost regions of accreting black holes on scales down to the event horizon [@ref71].
![Conceptual schematic of X-ray reverberation showing how the coronal emission is reflected by the disk resulting in a light-travel time delay of the reflected emission which constrains the light-travel time. Note that in strong gravitational fields, strongly curved light-travel paths are expected (i.e. light-bending leading to the so-called ‘Shapiro delay’) the effects of which can be constrained with accurate reverberation measurements.[]{data-label="fig:revcartoon"}](revcartoon_new.eps)
Unlike conventional spectral-fitting, which reveals only velocity shifts and strong-field gravity effects (i.e. Fe line redshifts), from which radii are inferred in relative units of the gravitational radius (which assumes relativistic motions in a known metric), reverberation mapping also reveals distances of emission in absolute units (i.e. km) given by the light travel time. Thus it provides an [*independent and complementary check*]{} on the emission geometry inferred from spectral-fitting techniques. In combination with the dynamics obtained by spectral-fitting measurements, reverberation can determine the mass of the central object [@ref20]. In other words, the optical reverberation methods currently routinely used to measure AGN black hole masses using optical line emission from thousands of $r_g$ [@ref70] can be applied on much smaller size-scales of a few $r_g$ (and to stellar mass black holes). In cases where a black hole mass is already known (e.g. from optical reverberation in AGN, or binary orbital dynamics in X-ray binary systems), it can be compared with the estimate based on X-ray reverberation of the innermost regions, to provide a powerful consistency test of black hole mass estimated from dynamics in the weaker field at thousands of $r_g$, to the strong-field at a few $r_g$.
To date, reflection reverberation signatures have been discovered in the short-time-scale variability of a number of AGN (e.g. see [@Fabianetal2009; @Zoghbietal2012; @Karaetal2016]), however the plots of lag vs. energy (‘lag-energy spectra’) used to detect reverberation via, e.g. local peaks in the lag at Fe K energies, must be heavily binned in energy and hence have poor spectral resolution (see ref. [@ref71] for a detailed review). Furthermore, the limits on making spectral-timing measurements of short-term variations in stellar mass systems mean that disk thermal reverberation has only been seen in a handful of X-ray binary systems [@Uttleyetal2011; @DeMarcoetal2015] and Fe K reverberation is difficult to observe without very high count rates. Thus we know that the X-ray reverberation phenomenon exists and that the observed lags are consistent with our basic physical picture, but we cannot yet confront them with detailed models for the innermost emitting regions, which can predict the energy-dependent time-delays and thus map those regions. To make the step-change from phenomenology to mapping for both AGN and XRBs, we need much better signal-to-noise measurements at good (CCD-quality) spectral-resolution and across a broad energy range, so that we can study all the reverberation components simultaneously. This is what [*eXTP*]{} will provide.
 
The signal-to-noise for spectral-timing measurements scales with the square-root of count rate for AGN but linearly with count rate for XRBs (see details in [@ref71]), so [*eXTP*]{} will enable the biggest improvements in reverberation measurements on the stellar-mass systems. An example plot of lag vs. energy from a 100 ks [*eXTP*]{} observation of a black hole X-ray binary in a bright (1 Crab) hard state is shown in \[fig:hardbhlags\] (left panel). In the absence of a detailed understanding of coronal geometry, we assume a central point-like corona such that lags only include (for the different parts of the disk) the combination of radial light-travel distance to the corona plus the disk-to-observer distance. Thus the simulations are not intended to be accurate predictions but rather illustrative of the strength of the lag signals due to different components and the relative lags between different energies, as well as the precision of the lag measurements. Some of the remarkable features are:
- The broad band-pass of the SFA/LAD combination from 0.5 to 50 keV enables the reverberation lags of the disk blackbody, Fe K and Compton reflection humps to be measured simultaneously, so that each provides a separate measure of the disk inner radius (but all can be modelled simultaneously, for much higher accuracy as well as providing a powerful consistency-check).
- The CCD-quality energy resolution allows differences in line-shape to be easily measured in the light-travel lags, so that line redshift [*and*]{} location can be simultaneously combined to test the effects of GR at small radii, constrain the accretion disk dynamics [*and*]{} measure black hole mass.
- [*[*eXTP*]{}*]{} can measure lags in response to much shorter-time-scale variability than previously accessible (in our simulated XRB examples, 50–150 Hz or $\sim10$ ms). This capability prevents contamination of the lags by non-light-travel-time effects, such as viscous propagation of accretion fluctuations through the disk and corona [@Uttleyetal2011].
- For a given coronal geometry, differences in disk inner radius of less than 5 per cent can be easily measured. Since the coronal geometry can itself be modelled using the lags and many other diagnostics provided by [*eXTP*]{}, this will allow an accurate and [*independent*]{} determination of the black hole spin (in addition to that obtained from standard spectral fitting or QPO timing), if the disk extends to the ISCO, which is likely as the source approaches the soft state. If the disk is truncated to larger radii, the measurements provide an accurate probe of the accretion geometry to understand how the accretion flow changes as the source evolves through different accretion states with different outflow type and power.
- In BH XRB soft states the power-law is weak and the variability amplitude is small, making reverberation measurements difficult even with [*eXTP*]{}. However, in the soft-intermediate states just prior to the transition to the soft state, [*eXTP*]{} will be sensitive enough to measure thermal reverberation of the disk in response to variability of the stronger power-law emission (see \[fig:hardbhlags\], right panel). The capability of [*eXTP*]{} to measure the the time-delays of photons of different energies (corresponding to emission regions of different temperatures) will enable us to not only measure the disk inner radius but also compare the radial temperature profile with our physical expectation for standard accretion disks. Thus, reverberation mapping of this state, which is just ‘on the edge’ of the soft state, will provide an independent check on the assumptions used to obtain disk inner radius (and hence spin) using the disk continuum fitting method. Furthermore, reverberation mapping of the disk thermal emission will allow us to trace the variations in the disk structure from the hard states, where it is likely to be truncated, through to the soft state where the continuum fitting approach may be applied.
![Simulated lag-energy spectrum for a 100 ks observation of a 2 mCrab AGN with a $4\times 10^{6}$ M$_{\odot}$ SMBH, assuming a disk inclination of 30$^{\circ}$. The lags are obtained by integrating the cross-spectrum of each energy (with respect to a broad 2–20 keV reference band) over the 0.3–3 mHz range. Different radii can be easily distinguished and the broad SFA/LAD bandpass allows the lags of soft photoionized reflection to be accurately measured, as well as the broad iron line and Compton hump.[]{data-label="fig:agnlags"}](combinedagnlags.eps)
Although the improvements in AGN reverberation mapping with [*eXTP*]{} will not be as dramatic as for the XRBs, they will still be impressive compared to the current state-of-the-art, especially for bright AGN where the full [*eXTP*]{} bandpass (combining that SFA soft response with the LAD hard response) can be brought into use. \[fig:agnlags\] shows the results expected for a 100 ks [*eXTP*]{} observation of a 2 mCrab AGN containing a $4\times 10^{6}$ M$_{\odot}$ black hole, showing [*eXTP*]{}’s capability to simultaneously measure the lags associated with the soft ionised reflection, Fe line and hard reflection hump produced by reverberation close to the black hole. Different inner radii can be easily distinguished, so that in combination with spectral-fitting the lags will provide a powerful tool to constrain black hole mass and spin and study differences in inner region structure between different classes of bright AGN.
Constraining the geometry of the innermost flow and outflow in XRBs and AGN {#ssect:xrb coronae}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*eXTP*]{} provides an entirely novel way to track the causal connection between inflow of mass on to the black hole, and subsequent outflow through a jet. X-rays are expected to be produced both from inflowing material close to the black hole, and also from outflowing material at the base of a jet. Since the spectrum from these two regions is likely to be similar, with both regions producing broad continuum spectra, it is difficult to disentangle their emission spectrally (e.g. [@ref76]). The causal connection between accretion flow and jet can be probed using variability analysis, since fluctuations originating in the flow can propagate up the jet after some delay time. For example, in BH XRBs a time lag can be detected between X-rays, emitted mainly in the inflow or ‘corona’ but also partially from the jet base, and infrared emission, thought to be emitted either through cyclo-synchotron processes in the jet [@ref77] or - at least in some cases - by synchrotron emission from the hot flow . This is not currently possible for the case of the jet base however, since both inflowing and outflowing components radiate in X-rays.
{width="47.00000%"} {width="47.00000%"}
However, the two emission components could be disentangled using X-ray polarization measurements. The coronal X-ray emission is expected to be only weakly polarized, whereas photons produced by Compton scattering or synchrotron emission from the non-thermal electrons in a magnetized jet are expected to be strongly polarized. With [*eXTP*]{}, even if the corona and jet emit identical spectra, with the same polarization angle, we will still be able to detect a time lag resulting from the propagation time between corona and jet. To demonstrate this, we simulate broadband variability originating from the corona, assuming a zero-centered Lorentzian power spectrum with a width of $1$ Hz and a total rms variability amplitude of $20 \%$. We generate the jet light curve by applying a lag of $\tau=0.1$ s to the corona light curve. We assume that the spectra emitted from the jet and corona are identical in shape and also that the polarization angle is the same ($\psi_0=0$) for both regions. We assume that $80\%$ of the total X-ray flux comes from the corona, with the remaining $20\%$ from the jet. The jet has a high polarization degree of $70\%$, whereas the corona has a polarization degree of only $10\%$. We simulate [*eXTP*]{} observing such a system for $50$ ks, assuming a flux and spectrum typical of GRS 1915+105. \[fig:bbnresults\] (left) shows the total counts detected by the SFA as a function of modulation angle (i.e. the direction of the electron track caused by each photon as it hits the GPD detector). We clearly see the sinusoidal pattern expected for a polarized signal, peaking at $\psi_0=0$ degrees. We split this plot up into ‘high polarization’ regions close to the peaks (red) and ‘low polarization’ regions elsewhere (blue). Since the jet emission is much more polarized than the corona emission, the high polarization regions here contain a greater fraction of jet photons than the low polarization regions. Since the jet lags the corona, a light curve of ‘high polarization’ photons should therefore lag a light curve of ‘low polarization’ photons. The lag of $0.1$ s will be reduced by dilution however, since the high polarization region does not contain exclusively jet photons.
We create high and low polarization light curves by selecting photons only from these red and blue regions. We could calculate the cross-spectrum between these two light curves in order to measure a lag. However, since the effective area of the LAD instrument is much larger than that of the PFA, we can significantly increase signal to noise (by a factor $>7$) by correlating both polarization light curves with the LAD light curve, which contains far more counts. We therefore calculate the cross-spectrum between the high polarization light curve and the LAD data, and also the cross-spectrum between the low polarization light curve and the LAD data and plot the two resulting lag-frequency spectra in \[fig:bbnresults\]. The high polarization light curve does indeed lag the LAD light curve, which contains all jet and corona photons, and the low polarization light curve *leads* the LAD light curve, as expected. The difference in lag can then be weighted by the polarization degree (which gives the approximate fraction of jet photons) to yield the intrinsic lag of the jet emission relative to the coronal emission. Using the SFA alone, the errors on the lags would be much larger and thus the lags would not be detectable. Therefore, this simulation demonstrates that [*eXTP*]{}’s combination of polarimetry and high-throughput timing-capability can probe the causal connection between corona and jet, even if the two have identical spectral shape.
In radio quiet AGN, where the jet is probably absent, the coronal emission is expected to be polarized, with the polarization percentage depending mainly on the geometry and optical depth of the corona [@ref74]. A slab-like and a sphere-like disk-corona geometry produce quite similar spectral shapes in the X-ray band, while the polarization is always higher in the slab-like scenario. Time-averaged polarimetric measurements will break the spectral degeneracy for a sizeable sample of bright unobscured AGN. In practice, with 200 ks exposure we will be able to reach a Minimum Detectable Polarization (MDP) of about 2 per cent in a mCrab AGN, which is sufficient to break the geometry’s degeneracy.
Black hole astrophysics {#sect:astro}
=======================
It is now recognized that the radiative, as well as the kinetic, output of accreting black holes can influence their surroundings. The close feedback between the formation and evolution of galaxies and of their central supermassive black hole [@dimatteoetal05] involves a variety of physical phenomena. A currently highly debated example is the plausible key role played by the uncollimated winds from AGN in setting the rate at which galaxies evolve [@ref78]. In order to build a self-consistent and comprehensive picture we need a deep understanding of black hole accretion througth the interplay between accretion and ouflowing components in both AGN and XRBs.
As widely discussed above, the X-ray spectra of black holes are rich in emitting/absorbing features which vary on a wide range of time-scales. In addition to answering fundamental questions related to matter flows under strong field gravity conditions (see Sect. \[sect:SFG\]), *eXTP* will also play a significant role in answering important astrophysical questions related to black holes. [*eXTP*]{} will tackle the many open questions from multiple, complementary directions. In particular we describe below the main advantages that *eXTP* will offer by studying the surrounding emitting and absorbing gas of accreting black holes in AGN and XRBs.
The rich environment of supermassive black-holes in AGN {#ssect:astro_agn}
-------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Sect. \[sect:section1\], the X-ray behaviour of radio-quiet AGN is quite complex and rich with emitting and absorption spectral features that must all be taken into account when modelling the broadband energy spectrum. Often, multiple absorbing components are present, associated with disk winds (in the form of an outflowing gas) and other circumnuclear regions. While the geometry and composition of the outflows can be revealed thanks to their polarimetric signatures the evolution of the accretion flow associated with changes in the outflow can be probed with great precision in spectroscopy, timing and polarization.
In the environment of AGN there is now strong evidence for at least three absorption components on very different scales: on scales of hundreds of parsecs, on the parsec scale, and within the dust sublimation radius, on sub-parsec scale [@ref84; @ref85]. The most effective way to estimate the distance of the different absorbers is by means of the analysis of the variability of their column density along the line of sight ($N_{\rm H}$). In particular, rapid (from a few hours to a few days) variability of the absorbing column, in the form of X-ray eclipses, has been observed in most bright AGN in the local Universe [@ref86], suggesting that obscuration in X-rays is due, at least in part, to BLR clouds. Moreover, during the successive covering and uncovering of the inner part of the accretion flow by X-ray eclipsing, a variation of the polarization degree by a few percent and significant variation (above 10$^\circ$) of the polarization angle are expected [@ref87]. Thanks to the PFA MDP of a few per cent above 1 mCrab, such measurements will be performed in a dedicated sample of bright AGN known to show eclipses [@ref88].
However, most of the astrophysical diagnostics available with *eXTP* will be applicable to the weakest AGN with typical X-ray flux of 10$^{-.12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. To demonstrate the power of [*eXTP*]{} for disentangling different components in the spectra of AGN with only moderate flux, we show in \[fig:astro\_AGN\] the broadband model (left panel) and spectra (right panel) of 100 ks [*eXTP*]{} observations of typical radio-quiet AGN with 2–10 keV flux $\sim 2.5 \times$10$^{-12}$ erg cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ (relativistic signatures are not included in these simulations, see Sect. \[fig:BH\_spin\]). The spectra include, in addition to the primary hot Comptonization continuum (produced in the hot corona), a warm ionized absorbing gas component (black points: $\log N_{\rm H}$=22, red points: $\log N_{\rm H}$=21.5) an ultra-fast ionized outflow (black points $v/c$=0.1 and red points: $v/c$=0.15) and a cold distant reflecting medium. From the [*eXTP*]{} spectra we will recover key parameters of the primary continuum and the reprocessed/absorbed components with outstanding statistical precision. We remark that more than 400 AGN with this flux level or larger are expected from the well-known $\log N$–$\log S$ distributions [@ref89], thus [*eXTP*]{} will allow us to build large samples with different selection criteria and X-ray spectra at CCD-quality resolution with extremely good S/N.
The large effective area available with [*eXTP*]{} will also allow for a complementary approach using variability. In addition to using spectra with long integrated exposures, multiple shorter exposures of the same object will allow for variability studies of key parameters of the primary and reprocessed components on relevant time-scales (from tens of ks to years). For example, we show in \[fig:astro\_AGN2\] the precision we will have for short (10 ks) exposures of the same AGN simulated in \[fig:astro\_AGN\]. The possibility to follow the temporal behaviour of all these parameters for a large number of objects will open new avenues in the investigation of the properties of the circumnuclear matter in AGN. Time resolved spectroscopy will allow us to address the systematic error due to models degeneracy when time average tecniques are used.
Another aspect of timing technique is rapresented by the variability studies on long time scale (e.g. with multiple observations on the same target or monitoring programs), which will provide important contraints on the so-called Unified model for AGN [@antonucci93]. These models invoke the presence of a large-scale molecular “torus" (i.e. an axisymmetric, circumnuclear absorber), but although there is substantial evidence for such circumnuclear gas, its physical and geometrical structure is quite complex and largely unknown. X-ray spectral polarimetric measurements are crucial in order to investigate this issue, since the geometry and composition of the torus will directly impact the amount of polarized flux. The degree and position angle of polarization are expected to vary on different timescales compared to the inner regions, leading to different variability profiles for repeated [*eXTP*]{} observations [@marinetal16]. The 2– 10 keV polarization is thus expected to range from a few per cent for unobscured sources (i.e. for type 1 objects seen almost face-on, as envisaged by the unification model) up to several tens of per cent for obscured objects (i.e. the type 2 AGN seen edge-on by the observer) . With $\sim 100$ ks exposure [*eXTP*]{} will be able to perform such polarization measurements for the brightest obscured AGN (flux above 10$^{-11}$ erg cm $^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) with an MDP of 4 per cent.
Disk winds in X-ray binaries {#ssect:astro_xrb}
----------------------------
Accretion disk winds have received a great deal of attention in the last few years, thanks to a number of results, both in stellar-mass and in supermassive black holes [@ref79; @ref90; @ref91]. Nevertheless, there are still many unknowns, which need to be studied and resolved, including: the launching mechanism(s) and region, the wind power and structure, the outflowing mass rate, the relation with their collimated “cousins” (the jets) and the trigger of their appearance during the source evolution. Such winds can be extremely variable. When studying stellar-mass black holes, the relevant physical quantities can vary on very short time scales, sometimes even of the order of a few seconds. Thus, time-resolved spectroscopy is the crucial way forward to tackle the above unknowns.
Such winds are usually identified via their typical marker: a strong (equivalent width of $\sim$35–40 eV) Fe <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">xxvi</span> absorption line. For a typical source flux of 0.2 Crab, [*eXTP*]{} will detect such strong lines at $3\sigma$ confidence in a little over 7 seconds, a few hundred times faster than Chandra. For brighter sources, around 1 Crab (for example in the case of a nearby binary, or in the very luminous states observed in some sources), a similar detection will be achieved in as little as 1–2 seconds, with a huge improvement on variability studies. These outstanding performances will allow a new type of study: the measure of the turbulence in the wind structure via the absorption line variability, when compared with the observed X-ray luminosity. Simulations show that, for typical wind parameters ($N_{\rm H}=5\times10^{22}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}$ and logarithm of ionisation parameter, $\log\xi=4.25$) the effects of an X-ray luminosity variation by as little as 10% on the ionisation parameter could be detected at well above 3$\sigma$ (reducing to a $\sim 97\%$ confidence for a 6% luminosity variation), allowing any further (anomalous or even uncorrelated) ionisation variability to be used to map the wind density structure, by disentangling the effects of photo-ionisation from the clumpiness of the wind. Once again, the combination of focussing X-ray telescopes and LAD detectors will allow these lines to be tracked during the launching and quenching of the winds down to source at low luminosities. Namely, [*eXTP*]{} will detect weaker lines (7.5 eV equivalent width) at 3$\sigma$ confidence in less than 200 seconds for a 0.2 Crab source and in 1 ks for 0.03–0.04 Crab. Even for a source as faint as 10 mCrab, [*eXTP*]{} will need less than an hour to detect such a weak line (see Figure \[fig:xrb\]). Finally, the good spectral resolution of the SFA will allow detection of line velocities as low as 300 km s$^{-1}$, at 5$\sigma$ significance, in as little as 100 seconds. All in all, [*eXTP*]{} will enable a leap forward in the study of accretion disk winds in stellar-mass black holes, allowing monitoring of the evolution of such winds over a large range of accretion rates, and pinpointing the epochs of their appearance/disappearance.
[*eXTP*]{} science in the gravitational wave astronomy era {#sect:sect_GW}
==========================================================
The detections by the LIGO-Virgo experiment [@ref92; @abbottetal17c] of gravitational radiation from merging black holes and neutron stars mark the dawn of the era of gravitational wave astronomy. Gravitational wave detectors are a new, powerful tool to study the strong-field regime of gravity and to probe physics beyond the standard model. In this context, [*eXTP*]{} can be extremely useful to better understand the strong-gravity environment of black holes and neutron stars, and it is complementary to gravitational wave detectors to test gravity and fundamental physics under extreme conditions. Gravitational wave interferometers target the inspiral, merger, and ringdown of compact objects, where spacetime is being shaken by closely orbiting masses and hence is dynamic [@sathyaprakashetal2009]. In contrast, [*eXTP*]{} probes the stationary spacetime metric of compact objects through the X-ray emitting plasma of the accretion disk, essentially a luminous test fluid orbiting the black hole with negligible self-gravity. *eXTP* uniquely covers not only supermassive but also stellar-mass black holes, and does so in completely analogous settings, performing comparative studies of black holes spanning a factor 10$^{8}$ in mass via well-established diagnostics, using observables already clearly identified in current observations. Spacetime curvatures are small near SMBH event horizons but scale as 1/BH mass$^{2}$, and hence are a factor 10$^{16}$ higher near stellar-mass black holes. X-ray observations uniquely provide access to these very-high curvature stationary metrics. GR predicts orbital dynamics are not affected by curvature, and accretion flows across the black-hole mass scale probe this prediction over 16 orders of magnitude.
The X-ray diagnostics discussed in this paper provide a unique test to confirm GR theory into the strong field regime, by confirming that no systematic departures are found from GR predictions of the motion of light and matter across 8 orders of magnitude of black hole mass. Conversely, if modification of dynamics is required over and above all of the effects that might alter purely geodetic motion (due to the complex astrophysical environment close to black holes, see Sect. \[sect:astro\]), this would violate the no-hair theorem and new theories will need to be explored.
In this section we report the most compelling examples of the information that [*eXTP*]{} will provide in the context of the gravitational waves astrophysics. In particular, we outline below the [*eXTP*]{} key role in the multi-messanger astrophysical domain, the fundamental physics study and the standard model for particles physics.
Detecting electromagnetic counterparts of gravitational wave events
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*eXTP* has unique capabilities for the detection and study of electromagnetic signals as the counterparts associated with many sources of gravitational waves. The WFM, with its large field of view and sensitivity down to the soft energies, offers the potential to locate mergers of compact binary systems in the sky through the detection of an electromagnetic counterpart, as recently observed in the landmark multimessenger observation of the binary neutron star coalescence GW170817 [@abbottetal17c] producing a kilonova, the short-and GRB 170817A [@abbottetal17b]. Sky localization improves our understanding of the gravitational wave data, because the parameters of the merging system can be determined much more accurately if the location of the source is known. Almost all short GRBs are accompanied by an X-ray afterglow, and the recent observations indicate that in a large fraction of events a long-lived neutron star may be formed rather than a black hole. LAD re-pointing in response to gravitational wave triggers will allow the X-ray features of the afterglow to be sytudied and characterized with great precision. Unambiguous electromagnetic signatures of the post merger event will allow us to address the open questions concerning the nature of short GRB central engines and put important constraints on models .
Moreover, a knowledge of the redshift of the source can be used to measure the Hubble constant [@ref93; @abbottetal17a] or to compare the propagation properties of electromagnetic and gravitational waves, thus constraining (say) Lorentz-violating theories, that predict a different speed for electromagnetic and gravitational waves [@ref94; @abbottetal17b].
Testing general relativity and the nature of black holes
--------------------------------------------------------
General relativity has passed weak-field, binary-pulsar [@kramer16], and even the most recent strong-field tests provided by the observation of black hole mergers with flying colors [@ref95; @ref94; @ref96]. Nevertheless, relativistic theories that modify general relativity only at the scales of compact objects are still compatible with observations [@ref96]. For instance, quadratic gravity theories (such as Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet and Chern-Simons gravity) differ from general relativity only in large-curvature regions, such as near the horizon of stellar-mass black holes [@ref94]. Current and future observations will be instrumental to test general relativity in the strong-field regime, and to rule out or detect exotic compact objects which can compete with or coexist with black holes and neutron stars [@ref97].
One of the most subtle consequences of general relativity is the so-called “no-hair” theorem, stating that stationary black holes can be fully characterized by their mass, spin and charge [@ref99]. If general relativity is modified in the strong-field regime, or if black holes are replaced by more exotic compact objects, the no-hair theorem is generally violated. As discussed in Sect. \[sect:SFG\], the two common approaches to test the no-hair theorem from the X-ray emission of accreting black holes are the profile of the iron $K\alpha$ line [@fabianetal1989] and the intensity of the thermal component of the black hole disk [@ref100]. These approaches allow the measurement of the location of the ISCO, from which it may be possible to extract not only the mass and spin of the black hole, but also its quadrupole moment (which depend only on the black hole spin and mass because of the *no-hair* theorem, see e.g. ref. [@ref101; @ref102]), providing constraints on the departure of space-time from the Kerr metric.
Nevertheless, as widely discussed in the previous sections, the central regions of compact objects consist of multiple variable emission structures and the spectrum may further be subject to complex large scale emission and absorption. These astrophysical effects should be correctly modeled when looking for tiny effects possible due to departures from modified GR. eXTP is designed to be a very sensitive probe of these emitting regions by using multiple, independent approaches to determine the geometry and dynamics of the central regions and disentangle the effects of the wider environment. By accounting for the astrophysical effects, eXTP is therefore one of the most promising experimental tools to constrain violations of the no-hair theorem in the near future, by measuring the mass, spin and quadrupole of black holes and enabling the detection of possible weak departures from the non GR metric.
Another promising diagnostic is the measurement of QPOs in the X-ray emission from accreting black holes (see Sect. \[ssect:qpo\] and ref. [@ref103]). For instance, the detection of two QPO triplets (a pair of high frequency QPOs and a low frequency QPO) by an X-ray instrument with the large effective area provided by the LAD would give stringent constraints on modified gravity theories such as Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, as long as the black hole spin is $a\gtrsim0.5$ [@ref104].
Black-hole spin measurements and searches for fundamental fields beyond the standard model
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years it was realized that astrophysical black-hole observations have surprising implications for dark matter searches, allowing us to constrain or reveal new physics beyond the Standard Model. In particular, stellar and massive black holes are unique laboratories to search for ultralight bosonic fields such as QCD axions, dark photons, or those emerging in fuzzy dark-matter models (for two recent reviews in the context of astrophysics and cosmology see [@ref105] and [@marsh16]). The reason is that ultralight bosonic fields around spinning black holes can trigger superradiant instabilities, forming a long-lived condensate outside the horizon [@ref106].
Superradiant instabilities spin black holes down and they can dramatically affect the dynamics of astrophysical black holes, providing a portal for astrophysical tests of bosonic dark matter in the poorly explored range below $10^{-10}\,{\rm eV}$ [@ref107]. The most striking consequence of this scenario is that observations of fast-spinning black holes would be disfavored if ultralight bosons in a certain mass range exist in nature. Thus, black-hole mass and spin measurements can be translated into bounds on (or indirect evidence for) ultralight fields. Given the wide range of boson masses still unconstrained to date, it is crucial to gather a statistically significant number of mass and spin measurements, both for stellar and for supermassive black holes (and possibly also for intermediate-mass black-hole candidates).
In this context, [*eXTP*]{} will allow for measurements of the spin of accreting black holes with great precision (which is comparable or better than current gravitational-wave detectors at design sensitivity) and accuracy \[cf. \[fig:BH\_spin\]\], thus allowing to constrain the masses of ultralight bosons.
Similar synergies between astrophysical observations and fundamental physics have recently been explored in the context of gravitational-wave astronomy [@ref108], but their connection to future X-ray observations deserves further study. Constraints become more stringent as the number of observations increases, and therefore the large set of black-hole mass and spin measurements provided by future gravitational-wave and X-ray detectors will allow us to constrain the properties of dark matter in a wide range of masses between $10^{-19}\,{\rm eV}$ and $10^{-11}\,{\rm eV}$.
Summary
=======
We have described in this paper the unprecedented progress that *eXTP* will make in the study of matter accreting in the strong field gravity regime in the near-environment of black holes. Thanks to the combination of the instruments on board, *eXTP* will measure the same physical quantity using different diagnostics. In particular, the large [*eXTP*]{} area will allow us to greatly improve the statistical photon counting errors, and simultaneously to address the systematic error generated from the degeneracy involved with time-averaged spectral modelling. Observing how the spectrum evolves with time or with QPO phase (for XRBs) provides many more independent data points than the time-averaged spectrum, with different time bin or phase preferentially sampling the relativistic distortions of different parts of the accretion disk.
We summarize below the three independent diagnostics provided by [*eXTP*]{} data, in order to investigate the behaviour of matter in the strong-field gravity regime and the geometry and accretion physics in the innermost region around accreting black holes.
- *Relativistically broadened disk reflection.* The disk reflection components (namely the iron line and the Compton bump) will be measured with great precision by [*eXTP*]{} in spectra of XRBs and AGN (see Sect. \[ssect:reflection\]) using the state-of-the-art models to measure black hole spin. In XRBs the virtually pile-up free LAD data, will allow us to measure changes in the accretion flow around the black hole on unprecedentedly short time-scales. In AGN Doppler tomography measurements (see Sect. \[ssect:AGNtomo\]) will break model degeneracies due to possible complex absorption components (alternative to the relativistic models). In fact, since these measurements are based on variability in the residuals in the iron region, any contribution from a narrow line in the profile (arising by necessity at larger radii and hence varying much slower than the 10 ks inner disk orbital period) will drop out automatically.
- *Continuum fitting.* By combining spectral and polarimetric diagnostics, the use of disk thermal emission to map the innermost regions and measure black hole spin will greatly improve in accuracy (see sect. \[ssect:continuum\_fitting\]). The WFM will select the soft states (dominated by the disk thermal component with minimal contamination by power-law emission) best suited for spin measurements. The disk parameters will be determined thanks to the SFA and LAD broad energy coverage, with absorption features in the soft state accurately modelled (see Sect. \[ssect:astro\_xrb\]). Measurement of the rotation with energy of the polarization angle of the thermal emission in XRBs will provide a futher independent method to measure the black hole spin. As a third consistency check, the estimated spin can be compared with that obtained from fitting the relativistically broadened disk reflection, which should be significantly more accurate than current measures (see Sect. \[ssect:reflection\]).
- *QPOs.* Another independent measurement of black hole mass and spin will be provided by modelling the low and high-frequency QPOs observed in the intermediate states prior to or following the soft state in XRBs (see Sect. \[ssect:qpo\]). Low-frequency QPOs seen in the hard and hard-intermediate states may be produced by Lense-Thirring precession of the inner hot flow [@ref62]. In this case, modelling the geometry of the precessing flow using tomography and timing-polarimetry (see Sect. \[ssect:QPOtomo\] and \[ssect:xrb coronae\]), will give a direct measure of the offset between the black hole spin and disk angular momentum, allowing us to test the effects of such an offset on the disk inner radius measured in the soft state, when it extends to the ISCO.
We have also shown that [*eXTP*]{} will address many fundamental issues in the wider context related to astrophysics of accreting black holes: the structure of the innermost regions as they evolve through different accretion states, the associated production of jets and winds and their link with AGN feedback and hence galaxy evolution:
- *The innermost regions around accreting black holes.* Reverberation lags for the broad Fe K emission and reflection hump in XRBs and AGN (see Sect. \[ssect:reverberation\]), allow a further independent measure of the geometry of the innermost part of the accretion flow (in particular the disc-corona regions) down to few r$_g$ scale. [*eXTP*]{} will track the causal connection between inflow of mass on to the black hole, and subsequent outflow through a jet (see Sect. \[ssect:xrb coronae\]). The spectrum from these two regions is likely similar, but the causal connection between accretion flow and jet can be probed using variability analysis, since fluctuations originating in the flow can propagate up the jet after some delay time. The corona is expected to be only weakly polarized, whereas the jet is expected to be strongly polarized. Even if the corona and jet emit identical spectra, with the same polarization angle, we will still be able to detect a time lag resulting from the propagation time between corona and jet.
- *The complex environment of AGN.* Time resolved spectral study of AGN (see Sect. \[ssect:astro\_agn\]) will allow us to measure the variability of the key parameters of the primary and reprocessed components (ionized and cold absorbers, distant reflection, fast outflows) on relevant time-scales (from tens of ks to years). The possibility to follow the temporal behaviour of all spectral parameters for a large number of objects will open new avenues in the investigation of the physical properties and geometry of the circumnuclear matter in AGN. Moreover, time average polarimetric measurements avilable with *eXTP* will be crucial in order to investigate the geometry of the molecular ‘torus’ and the corona invoked in AGN unification models.
- *Disk winds in XRBs.* The combination of SFA and LAD detectors will allow us to track the rapidly-varying absorbtion lines in XRBs (see Sect. \[ssect:astro\_xrb\]) during the launching and quenching of the winds, down to the low luminosities. This capability will open up a new type of study: the measurement of the turbulence and density structure in the wind via absorption line variability, when compared with the observed X-ray luminosity.
Within the context of the new gravitational wave astrophysics, and in a fully complementary view with respect to gravitational wave interferometers, *eXTP* will address the stationary spacetime metrics of compact objects (see Sect. \[sect:sect\_GW\]), probed by a luminous test fluid orbiting the black hole with completely negligible self-gravity. *eXTP* uniquely will perform comparative studies of black holes spanning a factor 10$^{8}$ in mass (thus 10$^{16}$ in curvature) via well-established diagnostics. Accretion flows across the black-hole mass scale will allow us to probe the GR predictions over 16 orders of magnitude.
[**[Author Contributions]{}**]{} This paper is an initiative of eXTP’s Science Working Groups 2 on Strong Field Gravity and 5 on synergy with Gravitational Waves, whose members are representatives of the astronomical community at large with a scientific interest in pursuing the successful implementation of *eXTP*. The paper was primarily written by Alessandra De Rosa, Phil Uttley, Lijun Gou, Yuan Liu, with major contributions by Cosimo Bambi, Emanuele Berti, Marco Feroci, Valeria Ferrari, Leonardo Gualtieri, Paolo Pani (Gravitational Waves); Didier Barret, Tomaso Belloni, Adam Ingram, Sara Motta (QPOs and QPO phase resolved spectral polarimetry) Giorgio Matt, Vladimir Karas, Ilaria Caiazzo, Jeremy Heyl (X-ray polarimetry); Stefano Bianchi, Piergiorgio Casella, Bin Luo, Joseph Neilsen, Xinwen Shu, Junfeng Wang, Jian-Min Wang, Yongquan Xue, Weimin Yuan, Yefei Yuan (AGN and XRB astrophysics). Contributions were edited by Alessandra De Rosa and Phil Uttley. Other co-authors provided input to refine the paper.
[99]{} \[references\]
M.Volonteri, P. Madau, E. Quataert, M.J. Rees, Astrophys. J. **620**, 69 (2005)
Sathyaprakash B.S., Schutz B.F., 2009, Living Reviews in Relativity 12 (2009)
A. C. Fabian, M. Rees, L. Stella, N.E. White, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **238**, 729 (1989).
Y. Tanaka, K. Nandra, A.C. Fabian, et al., Nature **375**, 659 (1995)
J.M. Miller., Annual Rev. Astron. Astrophys. **45**, 441 (2007)
L. Stella, M. Vietri, S.M. Morsink, Astrophys. J. **524**, L63 (1999)
M. van der Klis, F. Jansen, J. van Paradijs, et al., Nature **316**, 225 (1985)
S. Miyamoto, K. Kimura, S. Kitamoto ,T. Dotani, K. Ebisawa, Astrophys. J. **383**, 784 (1991)
T.E. Strohmayer, W. Zhang, J.H. Swank, et al., Astrophys. J. **469**, L9 (1996)
M. van der Klis, J.H. Swank, W. Zhang, et al., Astrophys. J. **469**, L1 (1996)
R.A. Remillard, J.E. McClintock, G.J. Sobczak, et al., Astrophys. J. **517**, L127 (1999)
M. Gierliński, M. Middleton, M. Ward, C. Done, Nature **455**, 369 (2008)
G. Matt, A.C. Fabian, R.R Ross, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc.**262**, 179 (1993)
A. Martocchia, V. Karas, G. Matt, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **312**, 817 (2000)
K. Nandra, P.M. O’Neill, I.M. George, J.N. Reeves J.N., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **382**, 194 (2007)
I. de La Calle P[é]{}rez, A.L. Longinotti, M. Guainazzi, et al., Astron. Astrophys. **524**, A50 (2010)
G. Risaliti, F.A. Harrison, K.K. Madsen, et al., Nature **494**, 449 (2013)
A. Marinucci, G. Matt, E. Kara, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **440**, 2347 (2014)
J.A. Tomsick, M.A. Nowak, M.Parker, et al., Astrophys. J. **780**, 78 (2014)
S.N. Zhang, W. Cui,W. Chen, Astrophys. J. **482**, L155 (1997)
J.E. McClintock, R. Narayan, S.W. Davis, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity **28**, 114009 (2011)
M. van der Klis, Compact stellar X-ray sources. Cambridge Astrophysics Series, **39**, 39-112 (2006)
L. Stella, M. Vietri, Astrophys. J. **492**, L59 (1998)
S. Motta, T.M. Belloni, L. Stella, T. Muñoz-Darias, R. Fender, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **437**, 2554 (2014)
S. Motta, T. Muñoz-Darias, Sanna, A., R. Fender, T.M. Belloni, L. Stella, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **439**, L65 (2014)
C. Done, M. Gierliński, A. Kubota, Astron. Astrophys. R. **15**, 1 (2007)
R. Remillard, J. McClintock, Annual Rev. Astron. Astrophys. **44**, 49 (2006)
T.M. Belloni, A. Sanna, M. M[é]{}ndez, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **426**, 1701 (2012)
S.E. Motta, Astronomische Nachrichten, **337**, 398 (2016)
Antonucci, R., Annual Rev. Astron. Astrophys., **31**, p. 473, (1993)
J. Neilsen, J.C. Lee, Nature **458**, 481 (2009)
G. Ponti, R.P. Fender, M.C. Begelman, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **422**, 11 (2012)
F. Tombesi, M. Cappi, J.N. Reeves, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **430**, 1102 (2013)
F. Tombesi, M. Cappi, J.N. Reeves, et al., Astron. Astrophys. **521**, A57 (2010)
T. Di Matteo, V. Springel, L. Hernquist, Nature **433**, 604 (2005)
P.A. Connors, R. F. Stark, Nature, **269**, 128 (1977)
P. A.Connors, R. F. Stark, T. Piran, Astrophys. J. **235**, 224 (1980)
M. Dov[č]{}iak, F. Muleri, R. W. Goosmann, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **391**, 32 (2008)
G. Matt, A. C. Fabian, R. R., Ross., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **262**, 179
J.D. Schnittman, J.H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. **701**, 1175 (2009)
J.D. Schnittman, J.H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. **712**, 908 (2010)
A.L. Watts, Yu W., J. Poutanen, Zhang S., et al, 2018, Science China, this issue (eXTP White Paper on Dense Matter)
Feng H., A. Santangelo, S. Zane, et al., 2018, Science China, this issue (eXTP White Paper on Strong Magnetism)
J. in ’t Zand, E. Bozzo, Qu J., et al., 2018, Science China, this issue (eXTP White Paper on Observatory Science)
Zhang S.N., A. Santangelo, M. Feroci, et al., 2018, Science China, this issue (eXTP White Paper on Instrumentation)
T. Dauser, J. Garcia, J. Wilms, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **430**, 1694 (2013)
J. García J., T. Dauser, A. Lohfink, T.R. Kallman et al., Astrophys. J. **782**, 76 (2014)
J. García, A.C. Fabian, T.R. Kallman, T. Dauser, M.L. Parker, J.E. McClintock, J.F. Steiner, J. Wilms, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **462**, 751 (2016)
D.R. Wilkins, A.C. Fabian, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **430**, 247 (2013)
T. Dauser, J. Garcia, M.L. Parker, A.C. Fabian, J. Wilms, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **444**, L100 (2014)
C.S. Reynolds, Classical and Quantum Gravity **30**, 244004 (2013)
Miller, L.; Turner, T. J.; Reeves, J. N., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **399**, L69 (2009)
Done, C.; Diaz Trigo, M., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **407**, 2287 (2010)
R.C. Reis, A.C. Fabian, R.R. Ross, J.M. Miller, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **395**, 1257 (2009)
M. D[í]{}az Trigo, A.N. Parmar, J. Miller, E. [Kuulkers]{}, M.D. Caballero-Garc[í]{}a, Astron. Astrophys. **462**, 657 (2007)
J.E. McClintock, R. Narayan, J.F. Steiner, Space Sci. Rev.**183**, 295 (2014)
J.F. Steiner, J.E. McClintock, R.A. Remillard, L. Gou, S. Yamada, R. Narayan, Astrophys. J. **718**, L117 (2010)
Y. Zhu, S.W. Davis, R. Narayan, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **424**, 2504 (2012)
M.J. Reid, J.E. McClintock, J.F. Steiner, et al., Astrophys. J. **796**, 2 (2014)
L. Gou, J.E. McClintock, R.A. Remillard, et al., Astrophys. J. **790**, 29 (2014) Z. Chen, L. Gou, J.E. McClintock, J.F. Steiner, J. Wu, W. Xu, J. Orosz, Y. Xiang, Astrophys. J., **825**, 45 (2016) L. Gou, J.E. McClintock, J. Liu, et al., Astrophys. J. **701**,1076 (2009) R. Shafee, J.E. McClintock, R. Narayan, et al., Astrophys. J.,**636**, L113 (2006) J.F. Steiner, R.C. Reis, J.E. McClintock, R. Narayan, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **416**, 941 (2011) J.F. Steiner, J.E. McClintock, J.A. Orosz, et al., Astrophys. J. **793**, L29 (2014) L. Gou, J.E. McClintock, J.F. Steiner, et al., Astrophys. J. **718**, L122 (2010) J.F. Steiner, J.E. McClintock, M.J. Reid, Astrophys. J. **745**, L7 (2012a) A.C. Fabian, D.R. Wilkins, J.M. Miller, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **424**, 217 (2012) J.M. Miller, M.L. Parker, F. Fuerst,et al., Astrophys. J. **775**, L45 (2013) J.F. Steiner, R.C. Reis, A.C. Fabian, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **427**, 2552 (2012) J.M. Miller, C.S. Reynolds, A.C. Fabian, G. Miniutti, L.C. Gallo, Astrophys. J. **697**, 900 (2009)
D. Barret,S. Vaughan, Astrophys. J. **746**,131 (2012)
M.A. Abramowicz, W. [Kluz[ń]{}iak]{} , Astron. Astrophys. **374**, L19 (2001)
Wijnands R., Homan J., van der Klis M., 1999, Astrophys. J. **526**, L33 (1999)
R.A. Remillard, G.J. Sobczak, M.P. Muno, J.E. McClintock, Astrophys. J. **564**, 962 (2002)
P. Casella, T. Belloni, L. Stella, Astrophys. J. **629**, 403 (2005)
A. Ingram, C. Done, P.C. Fragile, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **397**, L101 (2009)
A. Ingram, C. Done, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **415**, 2323 (2012)
R.P. Fender, J. Homan, T.M. Belloni, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **396**, 1370 (2009)
S.E. Motta, P. Casella, M. Henze, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **447**, 2059 (2015)
P.C. Fragile, O.M. Blaes, P. Anninos, J.D. Salmonson, Astrophys. J., **668**, 417 (2007)
P.C. Fragile, O.M. Blaes, Astrophys. J. **687**, 757 (2008)
M. Liska, C. Hesp, A. Tchekhovskoy, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. in press (arXiv:1707.06619)
J. van den Eijnden, A. Ingram, P. Uttley, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **464**, 2643 (2017)
A. Ingram, C. Done, Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc. **427**, 934 (2012)
A. Ingram, M. van der Klis, M. Middleton, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.,**461**, 1967 (2016)
A. Ingram, M. van der Klis, M. Middleton, D. Altamirano, P. Uttley, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **464**, 2979 (2017)
A. Ingram, M. van der Klis, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **446**, 3516 (2015)
H.M. Antia, J.S. Yadav, P.C. Agrawal, J. Verdhan Chauhan, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. **231**, 10 (2017)
K.C. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, P.W. Adkins, C.L. Albert, et al., SPIE **9905**, 99051H (2016)
A. Ingram, T.J. Maccarone, J. Poutanen, H. Krawczynski, Astrophys. J., **807**, 53 (2015)
E.H. Morgan, R.A. Remillard, J. Greiner, Astrophys. J. **482**, 993 (1997)
J. van den Eijnden, A. Ingram, P. Uttley, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **458**, 3655 (2016)
J.D. Schnittman, Astrophys. J. **621**, 940 (2005)
B. Beheshtipour, J.K. Hoormann, H. Krawczynski, Astrophys. J. **826**, 203 (2016)
A.R. Ingram, T.J. Maccarone, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **471**, 4206 (2017)
Dov[č]{}iak M., Bianchi S., Guainazzi M., et al., 2004, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. 350, 745
T. J. Turner, R. F. Mushotzky, T. Yaqoob, et al., Astrophys. J. **574**, L123 (2002)
K. Iwasawa, G. Miniutti, A.C. Fabian, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **355**, 1073 (2004)
B. de Marco, K. Iwasawa, M. Cappi, et al., Astron. Astrophys. **507**, 159 (2009)
G. D. Karssen, M. Bursa, A. Eckart, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **472**, 4422 (2017)
M. Dov[č]{}iak, S. Bianchi, M. Guainazzi, V. Karas, G. Matt, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **350**, 745 (2004)
B.M. Peterson, M.C. Bentz, New Astron. **50**, 796 (2006)
P. Uttley, E.M. Cackett, A.C. Fabian, E. Kara, D.R. Wilkins, Astron. Astrophys. R. **22**, 72 (2014)
L. Stella, Nature **344**, 747 (1990)
A.C. Fabian, A. Zoghbi, R.R. Ross, et al. Nature **459**, 540 (2009)
A. Zoghbi, A.C. Fabian, C.S. Reynolds, E.M. Cackett, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **422**, 129 (2012)
E. Kara, W.N. Alston, A.C. Fabian, E.M. Cackett, P. Uttley, C.S. Reynolds, A. Zoghbi, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **462**, 511 (2016)
P. Uttley, T. Wilkinson, P. Cassatella, J. Wilms, K. Pottschmidt, M. Hanke, M. Böck, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **414**, L60 (2011)
B. De Marco, G. Ponti, T. Muñoz-Darias, K. Nandra, Astrophys. J. **814**, 50 (2015)
M.A. Nowak, M. Hanke, S.N. Trowbridge, et al., Astrophys. J. **728**,13 (2011)
P. Casella, T.J. Maccarone, K. O’Brien, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **404**, L21 (2010)
J. Poutanen, A. Veledina, Space Sci. Rev. **183**, 61 (2014)
A. Veledina, J. Poutanen, I. Vurum, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **430**, 3196 (2013)
A.C. Fabian, Annual Rev. Astron. Astrophys. **50**, 455 (2012)
R.W. Goosmann, G. Matt, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **415**, 3119 (2011)
S. Bianchi, R. Maiolino, G. Risaliti, Advances in Astronomy 2012, 782030 (2012)
A. De Rosa, F. Panessa, L. Bassani, et al., Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **420**, 2087 (2012)
G. Torricelli-Ciamponi, P. Pietrini, G. Risaliti, M. Salvati, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **442**, 2116 (2014)
F. Marin, V. Karas, D. Kunneriath, F. Muleri, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **441**, 3170 (2014)
A.G. Markowitz, M. Krumpe, R. Nikutta, Mon.Not.R.Astron. Soc. **439**, 1403 (2014)
F. La Franca, F. Fiore, A. Comastri, Astrophys. J. **635**, 864 (2005)
F. Marin, R.W. Goosmann, P.O. Petrucci, Astron. Astrophys. **591**, A23 (2016)
M. D\
’iaz Trigo, S. Migliari, J.C.A. Miller-Jones, M. Guainazzi, Astron. Astrophys. **571**, A76 (2014)
B.P. Abbott (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) Phys. Rev. Lett. **116**, 131103 (2016)
B. P. Abbott, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **119**, 161101 (2017c)
B. P. Abbott, et al., Astrophys. J. **848**, L13 (2017b)
D. Siegel & R. Ciolfi R., Astrophys. J., **819**, 14 (2016a)
D. Siegel & R. Ciolfi R., Astrophys. J., **819**, 15 (2016b)
B.F. Schutz, Nature **323**, 310 (1986)
B.P. Abbott, et al., Nature, **551**, 85 (2017a)
E. Berti, et al., Class. Quant. Grav. **32**, 243001 (2015)
M. Kramer, International Journal of Modern Physics D **25**, 1630029, (2016)
C.M. Will, Living Reviews in Relativity 17 (2014)
N. Yunes, K. Yagi, F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. **D94**, 084002 (2016)
Cardoso V., Pani P., 2017, Nat. Astron. **1**, 586 (2017)
V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, Class. Quant. Grav. **33**, 174001 (2016)
L.X. Li, E.R. Zimmerman, R. Narayan, J.E. McClintock, Astrophys. J. Suppl. **157**, 335 (2005)
C. Bambi, Rev. Mod. Phys. **89**, 025001 (2017)
T. Johannsen, Class. Quant. Grav. **33**, 124001 (2016)
T.M. Belloni, L. Stella, Space Sci. Rev. **183**, 43 (2014)
A. Maselli, P. Pani, R. Cotesta, L. Gualtieri, V. Ferrari, L. Stella, Astrophys. J. **843**, 25 (2017)
L. Hui, J.P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, E. Witten, Phys. Rev. **D95**, 043541 (2017)
Marsh, David J. E., Physics Reports, **643**, 1-79, (2016).
R. Brito, V. Cardoso, P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. **906**, pp.1 (2015)
A. Arvanitaki , S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. **D83**, 044026 (2011)
R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. **119**, 131101 (2017)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
harvmac
[**E. Raiten**]{}[^1] [e-mail: Raiten@FNAL]{}
Theory Group, MS106
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510
.3in We consider solutions of the field equations for the large $N$ dilaton gravity model in $1+1$ dimensions of Callan, Giddings, Harvey, and Strominger (CGHS). We find time dependant solutions in the weak coupling region with finite mass and vanishing flux, as well as solutions with lie entirely in the Liouville region.
\#1[[*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**\#1B**]{}]{} \#1[[*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Phys. Rev.*]{}[**D\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Mod. Phys. Lett.*]{}[**A\#1**]{}]{} \#1[[*Astrophys. Journal*]{}[**\#1**]{}]{} ł PS.
In the years following the discovery of Hawking radiation and the associated evaporation of black holes , there have been many efforts to either prove or refute the resulting implication that an initially pure state can collapse into a black hole and evaporate into a mixed state. The fact that such efforts have not proven successful is due to a combination of complications, including principally those of the backreaction of the Hawking radiation on the metric, and of the regions of large curvature (and hence strongly coupled quantum gravity effects) which are expected in gravitational collapse.
Recently, Callan et. al. (CGHS) proposed a model which seemed to avoid some of these difficulties . It consistts of gravity coupled to a dilaton and conformal matter in $1+1$ dimensions. For a single matter field it was found the backscatter (i.e., the Hawking radiation) occured in a region of strong coupling. By proliferating the number N of matter fields, it was believed that the essential physics was occur in a region of small coupling and hence be amenable to a systematic $1/N$ semiclassical expansion.
These initial hopes were dashed by the observation that the dilaton develops a singlurity at a finite value, dependent on $N$, precisely in the region where quantum fluctuations begin to become large. As a result, a number of groups have recently tried to explore, both numerically and analytically, the solutions of the large $N$ field equations. In particular, one is interested in the final endpoint“ of the Hawking radiation. Therefore, in the fields were assumed to depend only on a spatial” coordinate (of which there are a few natural choices). For example, in , a series of solutions with finite ADM mass and vanishing incoming and outgoing flux were found. Starting at weak coupling at spatial infinity, they were found to bounce" back to weak coupling in the region of the singularity mentioned above.
The static approximation used to derive these results is a significant simplification, but makes it difficult to consider the approach to the endpoint of the Hawking process. In the following, we will consider time-dependent (approximate) solutions to the CGHS equations. We will find solutions which still have finite ADM mass and vanishing flux, as well as regions with a time-dependent singular event horizon. In a later section, we will also discuss a series of perturbative, time dependant solutions which lie entirely in the Liouville region, followed by some concluding remarks.
The CGHS model of dilaton gravity coupled to $N$ conformal matter fields in $1+1$ dimensions with coordinates $\s$ and $\t$ is defined by the action where $g$,$\p$, and $f_i$ represent the metric, dilaton, and matter fields, respectively, and $\lambda^2$ is the cosmological constant. Integrating out the matter fields and going to conformal gauge, where ($x_{\pm}=\t \pm \s$), the resulting action is The equations of motion for $\r$ and $\p$ are Since the gauge has been fixed as in , there are two constraint conditions, namely, where the functions $t_{\pm}$ are fixed by boundary conditions.
The simplest and most important nontrivial solution of and is the linear dilaton vacuum This vacuum has a singulrity at as seen by calculating the sign of the kinetic operator in . As in previous papers, we will call the region of $\p < \p_{cr}$ the dilaton region, and $\p > \p_{cr}$ the Liouville, or strong coupling region.
Solutions to and with finite ADM mass were first found in by assuming that both $\p$ and $\r$ are time independant. In that case, and become where the primes denote $d/d\s$. Linearizing about the linear dilaton vacuum solution , for vanishing incoming and outgoing flux $t_{\pm}$, asymptotically the resulting equations can be expressed as The asymptotic form of the solutions of these equations is where the parameter $M$ is the ADM mass, given by evaluating at spatial infinity.
Before going beyond the static case, it should be noted that one can expand $\d\p$ and $\d\l$ in powers of $\epsilon =\ems$, with $a_1=b_1=-\ml$. Substituing into the full linearized equations, one finds the relations from which one easily finds For large $n$, this suggests that we must have $\na\leq 1$ for the series to converge. For example, for $\na =1$, the resulting series for $\d\p$ is roughly thus implying that our linearizing approximation is breaking down for small $\s$. It is perhaps of interest that the requirement $\na\leq 1$ implies that $\p_{cr}>0$ so that the effective critical coupling constant $e^{2\p_{cr}} >1$.
Let us now proceed beyond the static limit, but continue to require a finite ADM mass. Including time derivatives, in the $\s$, $\t$ coordinate system the linearized equations read From , we see that finite ADM mass requires both $\delta \r$ and $\delta\p$ vary asymptotically as $\ems$, as in and . If we express the perturbations about the linear dilaton vacuum as then to leading order and become, respectively, It is a simple matter now to assume that $x$ and $y$ both vary as $e^{\omega \t}$ and solve for $\omega$ and the relative amplitudes. Of course, one solution is just as in (where $a=0$). The other solution is easily seen to be Substituting into , we seen that the time dependancy of $\delta \p$ and of $\delta \r$ cancel, and the ADM mass is constant, even thought the metric and the dilaton are certainly not. Presumably, we should set the coefficient $b$ in $\solb$ to zero, so that the solution is well behaved as $\t\rightarrow\infty$, as should the coefficient of the linear term in the $\omega =0$ solution.
The behavior of these solutions can be understood in much the same manner as in the static case . Let us concentrate on the $M=0$ solution, as it has been suggested that it represents the true quantum vacuum of the theory . In any case, for $\t$ sufficiently negative, the time dependant terms dominate over the static terms. As one integrates the equation of motion in from spatial infinity, the solution may approach the singularity at $\p_{cr}$ (in the static case, this approach was guaranteed). In this region, we can essentially set $\r =0$, and $\p =\p_{cr}+\sp$. The resulting equation of motion is If we continue to assume that $\dot\sp=-2\l\sp$, then can be integrated, yielding where $A$ is an integration constant. As long as $A\neq 0$, this is the equation for a particle in a potential with an infinite barrier at the origin, so $\sp$ will bounce back to the weak coupling regime.
We can also discuss the behavior of the solutions for any region where $\r\rightarrow -\infty$, in particular as $\s\rightarrow
-\infty$, assuming that $ae^{-2\l\t}<\ml$, as was discussed in the static case in , by dropping terms proportional to $\er$ which become irrelevant for $\r\rightarrow -\infty$. For in that case we have where $a_{\pm}$ and $b$ are constants, and $f$ and $g$ are arbitrary functions of their arguments (in the static case , one has $f+g=-a\s +c$), the only priviso being that $f$ must be smooth (i.e., $f(\s_-)$ is the integral of a completely arbitrary function). Concentrating on a region where $f+g\rightarrow\infty$, we have Using the formula for the curvature, we have (where we have redefined the constants $a_{\pm}$ and $b$). Taking, for example, $g(\s_+)\sim (\s_+ -\s_+^0)^{-\alpha}, \alpha >0$, we see that $\s_+^0$ is a singular event horizon. Since $\s_+=\t+\s$, the location of the horizon is not constant in time $\t$. Furthermore, the fact that $\d\r$ grows more rapidly than $\d\p$, as seen in , suggests that such regions might be of greater importance in understanding the full evolution of the system, particularly for the $M=0$ solution, which has been proposed to be the true vacuum of the theory. In fact, in the original, unperturbed field equation , we see that if $\p '=\dot\p =-2\l\p$, then $\r$ is forced to approach $-\infty$, unless $e^{2\p}\sim 24/N$. Of course, at this point, depending on $N$, we may no longer be in the weak coupling regime which we have been discussing, but rather in the strong coupling, or Liouville region, which we consider below.
Of course, for large $\t$, the time dependant terms are small, and the solution behaves as in the static case, where $\p$ penetrates closer and closer to $\p_{cr}$ before bouncing back to weak coupling . But for $\t$ sufficiently large and negative, we are effectively dealing with the $M=0$ solution, in which $\r$ will tend to grow faster than $\p$ and singular event horizons should appear. It is questionable whether or not this is a reasonable condition for the true vacuum of the theory. Actually, it seems more reasonable that the final state of the system, in response to some incoming matter, would have a potentially complicated causal structure. Of course, our solutions are nonsingular at $\p_{cr}$ whereas the incoming matter is singular there, so the interpretation of these solutions remains unclear.
To complement these solutions, we should in prinicple search for time dependant solutions with regular horizons, as was done in , , and , generally by using the spatial" variable $s=x_+x_-$ and then imposing continuity conditions at the horizon at $s=0$. Including time dependant terms, of course, will affect the location of the horizon in general, and we have not yet made a determined effort to analyze the range of possibilities. Work on this problem is in progress.
As argued in , , solutions which lie entirely in the Liouville region contain important information concerning the behavior of extremal four-dimensional dilaton black holes. Secondly, it might be possible that a configuration in the Liouville region might evolve into the weak coupling region, even if the reverse is impossible.
To analyze this region, we introduce the new dependant variable in terms of which the action is just The resulting field equations (which can just as easily be derived from the original field equations upon substituting ) are The simplest solution to these equations is the trivial solution If we now perturb these equations about , we see that every term in is quadratic except the last term, so we just have where $f_{\pm}$ are arbitraty functions. Similarly, the linearization of yields simply the Klein Gordon equation for a particle with $m^2=\l^2/4$.
Another solution of is which is an example of anti-deSitter space, as the curvature turns out to be $R=-4\l^2$. Linearizing again, we find and Adding the equations, we have which is just the equation for a particle in a $1/r^2$ potential. For example, going to the static limit, we have with solutions where the $a_i$ are constants and the $\beta_i$ are the solutions of the quadratic equation $x^2-x+2=0$. Since the $\beta_i$ are therefore complex, whereas $\ps$ should be real, it would seem that this is an inappropriate background for such a perturbative analysis.
Spurred on in part by recent advances in string theory , we have witnessed a great increase in the number of toy models, particularly in low dimensions, made available for the study of phenomena such as Hawking radiation and the final state of black holes which involve fundamental issues surrounding quantum gravity. The CGHS model is an especially simple yet sufficiently rich example of such a model. Unfortunately, there remain significant barriers which interfere with our greater understanding of quantum gravity. Of the various groups who have studied the CGHS system, there are adherents of a variety of scenarios, including naked singularities , macroscopic objects , the bounce" scenario , and so on.
In this letter, we have tried to begin the program of going beyond the static limit applied earlier . We know that the classical no-hair theorems, which essentially say that a black hole is characterized by the quantum numbers of long range fields, such as mass, charge, angular momentum, cannot contain quantum mechanical information. What we have found is that specifying the mass of the black hole does not fully specify the metric or dilaton, even to leading order asymptotically. There is active research underway on a variety of quantum-mechanical effects on black holes, see for example for a thorough discussion of quantum hair and Aharonov-Bohm type interactions of black holes.
In the present case, in the original CGHS model (i.e., $N=1$), the picture of the black hole was of an asymptotically flat plane connected via a throat-like horizon to a semi-infinite cylinder-like region. When matter impinges on this system, one might imagine, for example, that while the asymptotically flat region would eventually see a constant mass, the matter might be hurtling down the cylinder behind the event horizon in a complicated and possibly singular fashion. Even the horizon itself need not be fixed, though of course that would be measureable to an asymptotic observer.
Another important factor which we have come across is the problem of the crossover between weak coupling and Liouville regions. In spite of the initial hopes, it appears that the important physics is occuring precisely in this region, where we cannot ignore futher quantum corrections. This region is small (of order $\l^{-1}$) in the large $N$ limit, so the model may yet be viable for questions regarding longer range phenomena. Furthermore, because of this great uncertainty, we cannot say for certain that propagation through the apparant singularity is in fact forbidden. Perhaps a further exploration of the appropriate boundary conditions or additional terms in the $1/N$ expansion will suggest a way out of our present dilemnas.
[[**Acknowledgements**]{}: The author would like to thank J. Lykken, S. Chaudhuri, H. Dykstra and J.D. Cohn for useful discussions.]{}
[^1]: $^\dagger$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Crowd counting aims to count the number of instantaneous people in a crowded space, and many promising solutions have been proposed for single image crowd counting. With the ubiquitous video capture devices in public safety field, how to effectively apply the crowd counting technique to video content has become an urgent problem. In this paper, we introduce a novel framework based on temporal aware modeling of the relationship between video frames. The proposed network contains a few dilated residual blocks, and each of them consists of the layers that compute the temporal convolutions of features from the adjacent frames to improve the prediction. To alleviate the expensive computation and satisfy the demand of fast video crowd counting, we also introduce a lightweight network to balance the computational cost with representation ability. We conduct experiments on the crowd counting benchmarks and demonstrate its superiority in terms of effectiveness and efficiency over previous video-based approaches.'
author:
- 'Xingjiao Wu, Baohan Xu, Yingbin Zheng, Hao Ye, Jing Yang, Liang He [^1] [^2] [^3] [^4]'
bibliography:
- 'total.bib'
title: |
Fast Video Crowd Counting\
with a Temporal Aware Network
---
Crowd counting, video analysis, dynamic temporal modeling, spatiotemporal information.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The rapid development of surveillance devices has led to an explosive growth of images and videos, which creates a great demand for analyzing visual content. In addition to object recognition, crowd counting, which focuses on estimating the number of people from the visual contents, has received increasing interests in recent years. Many researchers have explored crowd counting task on still images, while limited efforts have been focused on videos. Nevertheless, crowd counting in videos has many real-world applications, such as video surveillance, traffic monitoring, and emergency management.
Counting crowd robustly and efficiently under different pedestrian distribution, illumination, occlusion, and camera distortion is nevertheless challenging. Although recent progresses such as multi-branch network are introduced to learn more contextual information and achieve excellent performance, most of existing methods still ignore the temporal relations between nearby frame since crowd counting data often collected by surveillance videos. Temporal relation is an important factor in video tasks comparing with still images. There is a certain overlap between video frames, so that there is a certain law between continuous data. Exploring and using temporal relations can correct some errors caused by noise. From the results, our experiments show that considering temporal relations performs significantly better than most current methods which ignore the relationships. Furthermore, the predicted density maps, which may be the most common intermediate element in a modern crowd counting system, is also with a strong correlation with the neighboring maps in the video sequence.
{width=".9\linewidth"}
To cope with these difficulties, we employ a novel framework to take advantage of temporal information extracted by continuously video frames. The Temporal Aware Network (TAN) is proposed to dynamically simulate the temporal characteristics of continuous frames for crowd counting and the architecture is shown in Fig. \[fig:framework\]. The TAN consists of two main parts, an lightweight convolutional neural network (LCN) unit capable of processing counting tasks quickly, and a multiple block architecture for temporal modeling. The LCN unit can guarantee the network response speed while keeping a certain accuracy. Then we focus on modeling the relationship in time dimension and construct a group of dilated residual blocks between the adjacent features. Within each dilated residual block, we employ an expanded set of temporal convolutions to update the frame-level prediction with the help of its neighboring frames. Different from the existing works, we also introduce the density map as another branch of our architecture. Our observation is, while the adjacent video frames may have different visual content due to the background and occlusion, the neighboring density maps still demonstrate more similar content with each other. The density map reports the distribution of people, which can be regarded as attention map. The contextual information between consequent frames and density maps would benefit the current counting state. Comprehensive experiments on the public datasets show the improvement with the help of temporal and contextual information.
The main contributions of this work are summarized as follows.
- The proposed Temporal Aware Network dynamically model the temporal features from continuously video frames for crowd counting. Utilizing information from density maps helps to overcome the changing backgrounds and occlusion and boosts the performance.
- We also design a lightweight convolutional network to achieve a comparable result while keeping the compactness of the model.
- Extensive evaluations on the benchmarks demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed method. Notably, we achieve the state-of-the-art results on the video datasets comparing with the existing video-based methods. Furthermore, our network achieves 25 FPS crowd counting speed on a moderate commercial CPU.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:related\] introduces background of crowd counting in images and videos. Section \[sec:app\] discusses the model design, network architecture and training process in detail. In Section \[sec:exp\], we demonstrate the qualitative and quantitative study of the proposed framework. We conclude our work in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Related Work {#sec:related}
============
Crowd Counting in Still Images
------------------------------
Over the past few years, researchers have attempted to solve crowd counting in images using a variety of approaches. Early works focused on detection methods to recognize specific body parts or full body using hand-crafted features [@dalal2005histograms; @li2008estimating]. While detection based methods are difficult to deal with dense crowds because of occlusion, some studies investigated to learn a mapping function between features to the number of peoples [@chan2008privacy]. Furthermore, Lempitsky [*et al.*]{} [@lempitsky2010learning] proposed local features for the density map to exploit spatial information. However, the hand-crafted features are not good enough when facing the clutter and low resolution of images.
Recently, the convolutional neural network has shown great success in computer vision fields. Inspired by the promising performance of the neural network, many researchers have explored CNN-based methods in crowd counting ([*e.g.*]{}, [@Idrees2013Multi; @Zhang_2016_CVPR; @onoro2016; @Sam_2017_CVPR; @Sindagi2017Generating; @Li2018CSRNet; @Shi_2018_CVPR; @liu2018leveraging; @babu2018top; @ranjan2018iterative; @idrees2018composition; @zou2019attend; @gao2019scar; @cheng2019learning; @xu2019learn; @liu2019crowd; @wu2019adaptive; @ma2019atrous; @wang2019removing; @zhang2019multi; @wang2019learning; @gao2019pcc; @wang2020detecting]). Zhang [*et al.*]{} [@Zhang_2016_CVPR] proposed a multi-column CNN with different sizes of filters to deal with the variations of density differences. Sam [*et al.*]{} [@Sam_2017_CVPR] and Sindagi [*et al.*]{} [@Sindagi2017Generating] have achieved remarkable results in a multi-subnet structure. To address the problem of limited training data, Liu [*et al.*]{} [@liu2018leveraging] investigated enhance data such as collect scene datasets from Google using keyword searches and query-by-example image retrieval and then applying a learning-to-rank method. Shi [*et al.*]{} [@Shi_2018_CVPR] considered that the adaptation of the previous method to the crowd relying on a single image is still in its infancy. Sam [*et al.*]{} [@babu2018top] proposed the TDF-CNN with top-down feedback to correct the initial prediction of the CNN that is very limited for detecting the space background of people. These methods are all designed for image crowd counting, thus treating videos as image sequences would ignore the important temporal information in videos. Wang [*et al.*]{} [@wang2019learning] proposed a crowd counting method via domain adaptation. The data collector and labeler can generate the synthetic crowd scenes and simultaneously annotate them without any manpower. Gao [*et al.*]{} [@gao2019pcc] proposed the perspective crowd counting network to overcome the deficiency of traditional methods that only focus on the local appearance features. Recently, a novel structural context descriptor was designed to characterize the structural characteristics of individuals in crowd scenes and make better use of context information [@wang2020detecting].
Crowd Counting in Videos
------------------------
There are fewer researchers studied on video crowd counting compared with still images. Brostow [*et al.*]{} [@brostow2006unsupervised] and Chan [*et al.*]{} [@chan2012counting] proposed to use the Bayesian function to detect individuals using motion information. Rodriguez [*et al.*]{} [@rodriguez2011density] further proposed optimization of energy function combining crowd density estimation and individual tracking. Chen [*et al.*]{} [@chen2015person] proposed an error-driven iteration framework aiming to cope with the noisy input videos.
Although these methods based on motion or hand-crafted features showed satisfactory performance on the pedestrian or football datasets, they are still lack of the generalization ability when applying them to extremely dense crowds. More recently, Xiong [*et al.*]{} [@xiong2017spatiotemporal] proposed the convLSTM framework to capture both spatial and temporal dependencies. The CNN-based method demonstrated the effectiveness of benchmark crowd counting datasets, such as UCF\_CC\_50 [@Idrees2013Multi] and UCSD [@chan2008privacy]. However, due to the limited training data of videos and various scenes, it is usually difficult to train the complex and deeper networks for effective crowd counting. In this paper, we propose a novel framework considering temporal information and density maps as well. Even though using a lightweight network architecture, our method can achieve promising results on multiple datasets, with the help of the auxiliary information extracted from temporal dependencies and density maps.
Framework {#sec:app}
=========
In this section, we will introduce the temporal aware modeling with the convolutional network for the crowd counting task in the video. We describe architecture of temporal modeling in Section \[sec:DTM\] and the basic unit of the temporal aware network in Section \[sec:LCNN\]. The implementation details will be described in Section \[sec:ID\].
Temporal Aware Network {#sec:DTM}
----------------------
The selection of a temporal modeling approach is important to the success of the video crowd counting system. Ideally, we want a comprehensive collection of both long-term and short-term frame correlations so that we can have accurate counting under any scene settings. However, video processing is time-consuming and the training video dataset for crowd counting is also limited. With these in mind, we design the Temporal Aware Network (TAN) with the dilated convolution to fully utilize the context and content information of the video. The architecture of TAN is shown in Fig. \[fig:framework\]. Different from the existing works, we mainly focus on investigating the relations between combination density maps rather than only considering the temporal information of original frames.
Vectors from several neighboring video frames are concatenated as the inputs of the first dilated block. Particularly, for the $t$-th video frame, we suppose $k$ frames before and after the frame are considered and the input feature for the $t$-th frame is ${\mathbf{v}}_0(t) = [{v_{t - k}^T}, \cdots,v_t^T \cdots,{v_{t + k}^T}]^T$.
![The architecture of dilated residual layer.[]{data-label="fig:unit"}](f2_sblock.jpg){width="0.7\linewidth"}
The first part of TAN is a set of LCN unit for extracting each frame density maps, which will be described in Section \[sec:LCNN\]. Formally, let $X=(x_1,...,x_T)$ be a video with $T$ frames. Each frame $x_i$ go through the LCN unit to produce the corresponding density map $f(x_i)$. In order to match the data dimension from the density map to the timing block group, we set the Reshape & Concatenation unit. This unit transforms the density map $f(x_i)$ with size of ($M$,$N$) to into a one-dimensional vector $v_i$ with size of ($1$,$MN$).
The feature vectors are sent to a series of dilated residual blocks. The group of dilated residual block use the previous stage initial the next stage and use the next stage refines the previous stage. We define the frame orientation characteristics of the input video of the first stage as follows: $$\begin{array}{l}
{Y_0} = {x_{1:T}}\\
{Y_s} = \mathcal F({Y_{s - 1}}),
\end{array}
\label{equ:fi}$$ where ${Y_s} $ is the output at $s$ stage and $\mathcal F$ is a dilated residual block. Each dilated residual block contains multiple dilated residual layers and the architecture of dilated residual layer is shown in Fig. \[fig:unit\]. The first is a dilated convolution with a receptive field, which helps in preventing the model from overfitting. Let $\mathbf{w}_{1,i}$ and ${b}_{1,i}$ be the filter weights and bias associated with the $i$-th dilated residual layer and $\mathbf{v}_i$ be the input, the output for location $l$ after the 1$D$ dilation is defined as $$\mathbf{\hat{v}}_i[l]=\sum_{\Delta l\in \mathcal{R}_d}\mathbf{w}_{1,i}[\Delta l]\cdot\mathbf{v}_i[l+\Delta l]+ {b}_{1,i},$$ where $\mathcal{R}_d=\{-d,0,d\}$ construct the 1D filters with kernel size of 3 and $d=2^{i-1}$.
Then ReLU and $1 \times 1$ convolution are used to superimpose the weights and offset the output. The output of the whole dilated residual layer is $${\mathbf{{v}}_{i+1}} = {\mathbf{{v}}_{i}} + \mathbf{w}_{2,i}\cdot{\mathop{\rm ReLU}}{(\mathbf{\hat{v}}_i)} + {b}_{2,i},
\label{equ:Unit}$$ where ${\mathbf{{v}}_{i+1}}$ is the output of layer $i$, $\mathbf{w}_{2,i}$ and ${b}_{2,i}$ are the weights and bias of the dilated convolution filters. The receptive field at the $i$-th dilated residual layer is $2^{i + 1} - 1$. A dilated residual block consists of three dilated residual layer, and we use this architecture to help provide more context to predict the result at each frame.
There are a few alternative choices to model the context with dilated convolution, such as dilated temporal convolution [@lea2016temporal], dilation with densely connection [@xu2018dense], and dilated residual unit [@farha2019ms]. In this paper, our design is based on the dilated residual unit for its computation efficiency. Our model aims to capture dependencies between current frame and the other video sequences, which helps smooth the prediction errors in the same video sequences.
To utilize the context information gain more effectively, we normalize the output of the last block and obtain a set of weight vectors. For the $t$-th video frame, the output of the last block is ${\mathbf{v}}(t) = [{v_{t - k}'^T}, \cdots ,v_t'^T \cdots ,{v_{t + k}'^T}]^T$ and the vector $v_i'$ represents the feature of $i$-th frame. We extract the weight from the normalization of the continuous frame features, [*i.e.*]{}, $$w_{\Delta t} =\frac{||v_{t+\Delta t}'||_1}{\sum\limits_{\Delta t=-k}^k||v_{t+\Delta t}'||_1}
\label{equ:Wj}$$ We consider the original density map $f(x_t)$ again and the final density map $f'(x_t)$ is done by $$f'(x_t) =\sum\limits_{\Delta t=-k}^k w_{\Delta t} f(x_{t+\Delta t})$$ The final counting result for frame $t$ is computed by simply accumulating the density map $f'(x_t)$.
**Loss function.** Learning of the parameters in each block is with two terms in the loss function, [*i.e.*]{}, $${\mathcal L}_{block} = {{\mathcal L}_{mse}} + \lambda {{\mathcal L}_{SL1}},
\label{equ:Lme}$$ where ${\lambda}$ is a model hyper-parameter to determine the contribution of the different terms.
The MSE loss is defined as $${{\mathcal L}_{mse}} = \frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {{(C_{p} - C_{gt})^2}},
\label{equ:Lmse}$$ where $N$ is the total amount of video frames, $C_p$ is the predicted counting value, and $C_{gt}$ is ground-truth.
While the MSE loss already performs well, we observe that the predictions for some of the videos contain a few over-segmentation errors. To further improve the quality of the predictions, we use an additional smoothing loss to reduce such over-segmentation issue. Here a Smooth-$L_1$ loss is employed: $${\mathcal L}_{SL1}(x,y) = \frac{1}{N}\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{\frac{1}{2}{{\left( {{x_i} - {y_i}} \right)}^2}}&{\mathrm{if}{\rm{ }}\left| {{x_i} - {y_i}} \right|{\rm{ < 1}}}\\
{\left| {{x_i} - {y_i}} \right| - \frac{1}{2}}&{\mathrm{otherwise}}
\end{array}} \right.
\label{equ:SL1}$$
Several blocks will be applied in the TAN framework, and the loss function is the sum of ${\mathcal L}_{block}$ in each block.
The LCN Unit {#sec:LCNN}
------------
The basic network in our framework is a convolutional neural network for crowd counting of a still image or a single video frame. In previous works, networks with multiple subnets and single branch are usually employed. Since we focus on video crowd counting problem in this paper, the inference speed is an important issue in real-world application and our goal is to use a small enough architecture to achieve a comparable result. Therefore, the single branch network with few parameters is preferred. We design a lightweight convolutional neural network (LCN) with 9 convolutional layers and 3 max pooling operations. The overall structure of LCN is illustrated in Table \[table:LCN\]. In our preliminarily experiments, we find that using more convolutional layers with small kernels is more efficient than using fewer layers with larger kernels for crowd counting, which is consistent with the observations from recent research on image recognition [@Simonyan15]. Max pooling is applied for each $2\times2$ region, and Rectified linear unit (ReLU) is adopted as the activation function for its good performance. The network only consists of convolutional blocks with $3\times3$ kernel and max-pooling layers instead of more sophisticated architecture, which aims to accelerate computational speed. We also limit the number of filters on each layer to reduce the computational complexity. Finally, we adopt filters with a size of 1 ${\times}$ 1 to generate the features vector. The end-to-end architecture makes the training procedure easier. The loss function of LCN is defined as $${\mathcal L}_{LCN} = \frac{1}{{2N}}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {||f({x_i}) - {F({x_i})}||_2^2},
\label{equ:loss}$$ where $N$ is the number of training images, and $F({x_i})$ is the ground truth density map of image $x_i$, and ${f({x_i})}$ is the estimated density map for $x_i$. The overall network parameter size of LCN is less than $5 \times 10^4$, and the network can obtain real-time speed under a CPU environment. As will be shown in the experiments, within a small size of parameters, our model can still achieve a competitive result compared with previous approaches.
Layer Kernel size Channel Dilation rate Output
----------- ------------- --------- --------------- --------
conv1 $3\times3$ 8 1 1
max-pool1 $2\times2$ - - 1/2
conv2 $3\times3$ 16 1 1/2
conv3 $3\times3$ 16 1 1/2
max-pool2 $2\times2$ - - 1/4
conv4 $3\times3$ 32 1 1/4
conv5 $3\times3$ 32 1 1/4
conv6 $3\times3$ 32 1 1/4
max-pool3 $2\times2$ - - 1/8
conv7 $3\times3$ 16 1 1/8
conv8 $3\times3$ 8 1 1/8
conv9 $1\times1$ 1 1 1/8
: Configuration of LCN.[]{data-label="table:LCN"}
Implementation Details {#sec:ID}
----------------------
![Ground-truth density map for different datasets.[]{data-label="fig:DM"}](f3_dm.jpg){width=".8\linewidth"}
**Ground truth generation.** There is significate diversity among different crowd counting datasets and thus we use the geometry-adaptive kernels to generate density maps from the ground truth. The geometry-adaptive kernels are defined as $$F(x) = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_t} {\delta (x - {o_i})} \times {G_{\sigma_i}}(x).
\label{equ:F}$$ Given object $o_i$ in the target set $\{o_1,o_2,...,o_{N_t}\}$, we calculate $k$ nearest neighbors to determine $d_i$. For the pixel position $i$ in the image, we use a Gaussian kernel with a parameter of ${\sigma _i} = \beta {\bar d_i}$ to generate the density map $F(x)$.
In our experiments, we create density maps with the fixed kernel of 17 for UCSD dataset and 15 for others. We also follow the previous work [@Zhang2015Cross] to create density maps using Region of Interest (ROI) and the perspective map to deal with the WorldExpo’10 dataset.
**Data augmentation.** We consider data augmentation based on the original information of the data. For the training of LCN, the insufficient number of training samples is one important issue. Thus, we follow the data enhancement method in [@Li2018CSRNet] to deal with image data. Nine color patches are cut from each image in different positions and the size is $\frac{1}{4}$ of the original image. The first four tiles contain three-quarters of the images without overlapping, while the other five tiles are randomly cropped from the input image. After that, we mirrored the patches to double the training set. We do not apply any data enhancement for the video dataset, as we would like to consider more context information of the video frames by using our model.
**Training details.** Our temporal model is implemented using PyTorch. To train the LCN, we first initialize the layers of the network using a Gaussian distribution from standard deviation of 0.01. We then set the learning rate of $10^{-5}$ for all the datasets as initial, and use Adam [@kingma2014adam] for training. For the training of TAN, we use Adam optimizer with the learning rate of 0.0005.
Experiments {#sec:exp}
===========
We evaluate the Temporal Aware Network on three video crowd counting benchmarks, [*i.e.*]{}, Mall [@chen2012feature], UCSD [@chan2008privacy], and WorldExpo’10 [@Zhang2015Cross]. Fig. \[fig:DM\] illustrates their typical scenes. To examine the efficiency of the basic network LCN, we also conduct the image-level analysis on ShanghaiTech [@Zhang_2016_CVPR] and UCF\_CC\_50 [@Idrees2013Multi] datasets, since there are no time-related information. Basic statistics of the datasets are summarized in Table \[table:Dataset\].
Following existing state-of-the-art methods, we use the mean absolute error (MAE) and mean squared error (MSE) to evaluate the performance, which are defined as $$MAE = \frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {\left| {{C_i} - C_i^{GT}} \right|},
\label{equ:mae}$$ $$MSE = \sqrt {\frac{1}{N}\sum\limits_{i = 1}^N {{{\left| {{C_i} - C_i^{GT}} \right|}^2}}}.
\label{equ:mse}$$ Here $N$ is the number of testing images, $C_i$ and $C_i^{GT}$ are the estimated people count and ground truth people count in the $i$-th image respectively.
There are a few hyper-parameters in TAN, such as the number of video frames for temporal modeling and dilated residual blocks. In this section, we use 5 video frames for the temporal modeling and 3 blocks as the default setting. The effect of these settings will be evaluated thoroughly in the ablation study. We also report the number of neural networks parameters (Params) for comparison.
{height="1.2in" width=".473\linewidth"} {height="1.2in" width=".473\linewidth"}\
\
{height="1.2in" width=".475\linewidth"} {height="1.2in" width=".475\linewidth"}\
Mall Dataset
------------
We first report the results on the Mall dataset summarized in Table \[table: MALL\]-Left. The experiments follow the same setting as [@chen2012feature], in which the first 800 frames are used for training and the remaining 1,200 frames are used for testing. we compare the TAN with the methods of using spatialtemporal information as well, including the regression-based methods [@chan2008privacy; @chen2012feature; @chen2013cumulative] and the temporal-based methods [@xiong2017spatiotemporal; @miao2019st]. As shown in the table, using the proposed TAN leads to the MAE of 2.03 and MSE of 2.6, which are significantly higher than the baseline approaches. We demonstrate some predicted density maps as well as their corresponding counting results with TAN in Fig. \[fig:video\](a).
UCSD Dataset
------------
Following the convention of the existing works [@chan2008privacy], we use frames 601-1400 of the UCSD dataset as the training data and the remaining 1200 frames as the test data. As the region of interest (ROI) and perspective map are provided, the intensities of pixels out of ROI is set to zero, and we also use ROI to supervise the last convolution layer. Results on the UCSD dataset are presented in Table \[table: MALL\]-Right. Same as the experiments on the Mall dataset, TAN shows better results than the LSTM-based crowd counting approaches. Some counting results with TAN on sample snippets are shown in Fig. \[fig:video\](b).
WorldExpo’10 Dataset
--------------------
The WorldExpo’10 dataset consists of 3,980 annotated frames from 1,132 video sequences captured by 108 different surveillance cameras during the 2010 Shanghai World Expo. The training set includes of 3,380 annotated frames from 103 scenes, while the testing images are extracted from other five different scenes with 120 frames per scene. Following the settings of [@Zhang2015Cross], MAE is used as the evaluation metric. Table \[table:maeWD\] lists the per-scene performance of TAN and previous approaches. Among these approaches, the first group is the state-of-the-art methods with pre-trained models [@babu2018divide; @Shi_2018_CVPR; @Li2018CSRNet] or more complex network designs [@Shen_2018_CVPR]. Our results are comparable with these approaches for four scenes (except in Scene 2), while the parameter size of the TAN is order-of-magnitude smaller than all of these methods. And the results of TAN is also better than that of the temporal-based methods [@xiong2017spatiotemporal; @miao2019st]. The qualitative results on one of the testing scenes are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:video\](c).
![Density maps and predicted counting by the basic network.[]{data-label="fig:still"}](f5_sta.jpg "fig:"){width="3in"}\
\
![Density maps and predicted counting by the basic network.[]{data-label="fig:still"}](f5_stb.jpg "fig:"){width="3in"}\
\
![Density maps and predicted counting by the basic network.[]{data-label="fig:still"}](f5_ucf.jpg "fig:"){width="3in"}\
Ablation Study
--------------
In this section, we evaluate some parameters and alternative implementations of the proposed framework.
**LCN.** We first evaluate the performance of LCN and compare it with several approaches. As most of the previous approaches report results on ShanghaiTech and UCF\_CC\_50, here we also conduct the comparison on these datasets and Table \[table:maeABUCF\] reports the metrics. Among these approaches, the first group are also the state-of-the-art methods with more complex networks [@babu2018divide; @Shi_2018_CVPR; @Li2018CSRNet; @Shen_2018_CVPR]. Our results are comparable with these approaches, while our model size is much more compact. The second group contains several networks with compact structure, including MCNN [@Zhang_2016_CVPR], BSAD [@Huang2017Body], and TDF-CNN [@babu2018top]. From the table it is clear that LCN outperforms all these approaches. Fig. \[fig:still\] illustrates some examples using LCN on both datasets, including crowd images, predicted density maps, and the counting results.
**Number of video frames for temporal modeling.** As shown in Table \[table:ablationstudy1\], we compare the performance of our framework with a varying number of video frames for the temporal modeling. We observe performance gains when the number of considered video frames increases from three to five. Using more frames does not improve performance since the number of crowds varies along the time pass. Another intuitive way to add the temporal information is to smooth the density maps or counting numbers of neighboring frames. However, as shown in the table, this strategy improves the performance of the single frame model, but is not as good as the proposed TAN approach.
**Number of dilated residual blocks.** We also evaluate the effect of dilated residual block numbers in the TAN model. As shown in Table \[table:ablationstudy2\], the best trade-off is obtained by using three dilated residual blocks. Compared to using a single block, more blocks can boost performance. However, when the number gets larger, in some case the performances are decreased. This is probably because complex neural networks lead to underfitting when the scale of training data is limited.
**Temporal modeling.** We compare our temporal aware network with previous LSTM based approaches by incorporating LCN with them. As shown in Table \[table:temporal\], the results of TAN are better than LCN with LSTM or Bi-directional LSTM. This also proves that our temporal modeling can capture temporal relations better than LSTM.
**Timing.** Recall that our goal is to build a compact model for fast crowd counting in the videos based on the proposed lightweight network. The parameter size of LCN and TAN are 0.032M and 0.047M respectively. For a video with the resolution of $320\times240$ pixels, the TAN model achieves 120 FPS detection speed on an Nvidia TITAN X GPU and during inference it only consumes less than 500MB GPU memory. Our approach can provide real-time (25FPS) crowd counting speed with a moderate Intel Core i5-8400 desktop CPU.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
We proposed the Temporal Aware Network with the LCN unit toward fast video crowd counting. The novel lightweight architecture is able to produce good performance with the compact network. We showed that by leveraging contexture information of the video contents, promising results are achieved for video crowd counting benchmark. We also achieved the real-time inference on a moderate commercial CPU by 25 FPS.
[^1]: Xingjiao Wu and Baohan Xu contributed equally to this work. Corresponding author: Jing Yang (e-mail: [email protected]).
[^2]: X. Wu, J. Yang, and L. He are with East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China.
[^3]: B. Xu is with Jilian Technology Group (Video++), Shanghai 200023, China.
[^4]: Y. Zheng and H. Ye are with Videt Tech Ltd., Shanghai 201203, China.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Topological phases of matter are one of the hallmarks of quantum condensed matter physics. One of their striking features is a bulk-boundary correspondence wherein the topological nature of the bulk manifests itself on boundaries via exotic massless phases. In classical wave phenomena analogous effects may arise; however, these cannot be viewed as equilibrium phases of matter. Here we identify a set of rules under which robust equilibrium classical topological phenomena exist. We write down simple and analytically tractable classical lattice models of spins and rotors in two and three dimensions which, at suitable parameter ranges, are paramagnetic in the bulk but nonetheless exhibit some unusual long-range or critical order on their boundaries. We point out the role of simplicial cohomology as a means of classifying, writing-down, and analyzing such models. This opens a new experimental route for studying strongly interacting topological phases of spins.'
author:
- 'R. Bondesan'
- 'Z. Ringel'
bibliography:
- 'CTP.bib'
title: Classical topological paramagnetism
---
Introduction
============
Symmetry protected topological phases are exotic quantum states of matter that are featureless in the bulk but still support unusual low energy phenomena on their boundaries. Their distinguishing properties remain sharp and robust as long as the appropriate symmetries are maintained. An important example is the quantum spin Hall insulator [@Hasan2010], protected by time reversal symmetry, whose edge physics may be used in spintronics [@Ilan2014; @Wu2011; @Ojeda2012] and in the creation of topologically protected qubits in the form of Majorana fermions [@FuKane2008]. Partially motivated by the search for other exotic boundary phenomena, the field has developed rapidly: The classification table of weakly interacting topological phases of electrons given various symmetries has been established [@TenFold2010] in what can be seen as a modern revival of band structure theory. Furthermore, various topological electronic phases have been realized [@Hasan2010; @Qi2011]. Turning to bosons, a difficulty arises since without interactions their ground state is always a superfluid regardless of the band structure. Nonetheless such phases do exist at strong interactions and are known as bosonic SPTs [@Chen2011; @Chen2011a; @Schuch2011]. Unfortunately, experimental realizations of bosonic SPTs are scarce and, to the best of our knowledge, limited to one dimensional spin chains [@Buyers1986].
Recently there has been both theoretical [@Gennady2013; @Kane2014; @PhysRevLett.116.135503] and experimental [@Huber2015; @PhotonicsExp1; @PhotonicsExp2; @PhotonicsExp3; @Paulose23062015; @Chen09092014] interest in the notion of classical topological phases mimicking the phenomenology of their quantum counterparts. A typical strategy there is to consider systems of springs and masses or optical devices which have an underlying topological band structure. Their edges can be seen as robust waveguides which have potential engineering applications, such as delay lines for light and sound [@Hafezi2011]. Notwithstanding, it is difficult to view such phenomena as a distinct phase of matter, since the topological nature of the band structure does not induce any sharp measurable features in equilibrium. Further, at present the effect of non-linearities on these systems is unclear. (See however [@Chen09092014].) Both these issues can be seen as a classical reflection of the aforementioned difficulty of finding topological equilibrium phases of non-interacting bosons. As in the quantum case, an alternative route may thus be to consider strongly interacting systems.
One approach to obtain such models is to start from known quantum SPT models and attempt to write their discretized Euclidean time partition function in a sign-problem free and local manner. When possible, the resulting partition function can then be viewed as a classical statistical mechanical system. Nonetheless, the models thus obtained have several drawbacks. First, the notion of symmetry protection does not generally carry through to the classical problem, in the following sense: We define classical symmetries as those one-to-one maps on configuration space which leave the Boltzmann weight invariant. For instance, in a spin-1 antiferromagnetic chain which supports a 1D SPT known as the Haldane phase [@AKLT1988], the associated classical configuration space is one discrete variable ($m_z=-1,0,1$) per site. When viewed as an SPT phase protected by $SO(3)$ or its $Z_2 \times Z_2$ subgroup of $\pi$-rotations [@Pollmann2012], the action of the symmetry involves superpositions and cannot be considered classical. A related issue is that the microscopic mechanism stabilizing topological phases, based on matrix product states and projective symmetries [@Schuch2011], becomes obfuscated in the classical setting. Lastly, the Boltzmann weights resulting from the prescription outlined above, are complicated and anisotropic, making these models less experimentally relevant.
Interestingly, for some models based on coupled superfluids, the lattice Euclidean time partition function, following a series of transformations, can be written in a sign free manner [@Geraedts2013]. The advantage here is that the resulting models are isotropic. However in the process of making the action local, additional degrees of freedom are introduced and, from a classical perspective, it is thus unclear what are the essential ingredients which render this a well defined classical phase of matter rather than a particular model. Furthermore it will be useful to generalize this approach to the discrete symmetry case which is more experimentally relevant. In this work we address the question of what restrictions, analogous to symmetry protection, should be imposed on a classical system under which it supports robust classical topological phases (CTPs). The first requirement is to consider systems invariant under a group $G$ and a local constraint whose defects carry elements of another group $G'$. (More details about defects can be found in Appendix \[App:Constraint\].) One example would be a gauge theory with gauge group $G'$ and defects being monopoles. The second requirement is that these phases must be short range correlated in the bulk and in particular must not break the symmetry spontaneously. The third is that they must confine defects of the constraints into neutral pairs (see Appendix \[App:Constraint\] for a precise definition). We refer to phases which obey the above restrictions as “admissible phases”.
Interestingly, we find that given a dimension $d$, and the groups $G$, and $G'$ as above, there are many inequivalent admissible phases. As standard, two phases are deemed equivalent if a continuous deformation from one to another is possible without crossing a critical point. By continuous we mean that one deforms the energy functional gradually and maintains the local constraint. We establish the existence of inequivalent phases by providing concrete examples of models between which any continuous deformation must involve a phase transition. Notably, given that such distinct phases exist, by definition their distinction does not involve a local order parameter or confinement-deconfinement transitions. Their difference is of topological origin. This is manifested on interfaces between distinct phases, where either long range correlated or quasi long range correlated phases emerge.
In the next sections we will explore these ideas for the choice $G=G'=Z_N$, considering models in both $2D$ and $3D$ where we find many distinct topological phases with the accompanying exotic boundary phenomena. The latter include a “forbidden" [@VanHove1950] symmetry breaking order along $1D$ boundary and an unusual $2D$ critical phase corresponding to a theory of a compact boson in which the basic $\pm 2\pi$ vortices are linearly confined. Just as group cohomology was shown to be the basis for quantum SPTs phases, we will show that tools from cellular cohomology [@Cohomology1991] give a powerful mathematical framework for writing down models of CTPs and analyzing them. The models thus produced are compact, isotropic and, to a large extent, analytically tractable, thereby increasing both their theoretical and experimental relevance. The $G=G'={\mathbb{Z}}_2$ models in $2D$ and $3D$ are further shown to be in the same universality class as the imaginary time partition function of certain $1D$ and $2D$ models (the group cohomology models [@Chen2011]) of bosonic SPTs. From a numerical perspective our models thus provide an efficient way for performing Monte-Carlo simulations of bosonic SPTs with discrete symmetries (see also Ref. for the continuous case). They also open a new and more promising experimental route for studying these fascinating strongly interacting phases of matter.
Two dimensions
==============
As a first illustrative example of a $2D$ CTP with $G={\mathbb{Z}}_2$ we consider the following model on the square lattice: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Z_sigma_A}
Z &= \sum_{\sigma,U}e^{-\beta\mathscr{H} }
\prod_{p}\delta(U_{ij}U_{jk}U_{kl}U_{li} - 1)\, ,\\
\label{eq:model}
-\beta\mathscr{H} &=
\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}
\left\{
K_1 \sigma_i U_{ij}\sigma_j + K_2 U_{ij}\right\}\, .\end{aligned}$$ Here $\sigma_i=\pm 1$ and $U_{ij}=\pm 1$ are site and link variables, and the product is over plaquettes $p$, having the sites $i,j,k,l$ on their boundary. The model has a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry $\sigma_i\to -\sigma_i$, and it has a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ constraint forcing zero flux for the $U$ field through each plaquette.
Conveniently, a non-local transformation ($U_{ij}=\mu_i\mu_j$) maps this model to two decoupled Ising models, and has thus ${\mathbb{Z}}_2\times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Zsmu}
Z
&=
\sum_{\sigma,\mu}
\exp
\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}
\left\{
K_1 \rho_i\rho_j +
K_2 \mu_i\mu_j\right\}\, ,
&
\rho_i &= \sigma_i \mu_i
\, .\end{aligned}$$ Denoting $K_c = -\frac{1}{2}\log\tanh K_c$ the critical coupling of the Ising model on a square lattice, there are two regimes which are of interest to us: The trivial phase ($K_2>K_c>K_1\ge 0$) where $\langle \mu_i\rangle\neq 0$, and the non-trivial phase ($K_1>K_c>K_2\ge 0$) where $\langle \rho_i\rangle\neq 0$. The other variables, $\rho$ and $\sigma$ for the trivial case and $\mu$ and $\sigma$ for the non-trivial, are disordered. Notably, in both cases $U_{ij}$’s are uncorrelated, namely $\left\langle (U_{ij}-\langle U_{ij} \rangle) (U_{kl}-\langle U_{kl}
\rangle) \right\rangle$ is exponentially decaying. [^1] We remark that the partition function of Eq. (\[eq:model\]) with constraint violations at two plaquettes equals that of Eq. where the sign of both couplings $K_1,K_2$ is reversed along a path connecting the two plaquettes [@Savit]. Thus for both regimes, the presence of order parameters with long range order implies linear confinement of the defects.
In terms of $\rho$ and $\mu$, the model is simply two decouple ferromagnets that exhibit symmetry broken phases. However, in the original degrees of freedom, $U,\sigma$, the physical properties of the two phases change. Considering bulk physics, long range order in $\rho$ implies the following non local (string) order parameter in the non-trivial phase: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sAs}
\left< \rho_i \rho_j \right> &=\left< \sigma_i\prod_{\ell \in \Gamma_{ij}}U_{\ell} \sigma_j\right>
\to \text{const}\, \end{aligned}$$ as $\text{dist}(i,j)\to\infty$ and $\Gamma_{ij}$ is a path from $i$ to $j$. Alternatively stated, performing the non-local transformation $\sigma_i \rightarrow \rho_i=\prod_{\ell\in\Gamma_{0i}}U_\ell
\sigma_i$, with $0$ a reference site, unveils a hidden ferromagnetic phase for the non-trivial order, whereas for the trivial phase, this results in a simple paramagnet.
As we now argue the hidden ferromagnetic order is a distinguishing property of the topological phase and therefore one cannot continuously deform the models onto one another. This implies that there are at least two distinct admissible phases in our classification for $d=2,G=G'=Z_2$. Notably local and symmetric perturbations in the original $U$ and $\sigma$ variables would be transformed into local and symmetric perturbations in $\mu$ and $\sigma$. As this transformation has no effect on the free energy, one finds that hidden order is thermodynamically equivalent to conventional order. This means that hidden order not just a feature of the model but rather a robust property which can only vanish through a phase transition or by leaving the space of admissible phases.
Perhaps the most interesting distinction between these two phases comes about when considering a $1D$ interface between them. In general, near an interface between a ferromagnet and a paramagnet, the order parameter leaks into the paramagnetic phase up to some penetration length. Similarly, close to an interface between the above two phases both order parameters ($\rho$ and $\mu$) will be ordered and as a result $\sigma = \rho\cdot \mu$ would also be ordered, despite being disordered in the bulk on both sides. For instance, setting $K_1=0,K_2\to \infty$ on the trivial side is equivalent to placing the non-trivial phase in an open geometry with boundary conditions $U_{ij}=1$ or equivalently $\mu_i=\mu_j$, implying long range order for $\sigma$.
More physically, one can view the configurations of $U$ in as polygons on the dual lattice by assigning a line of the polygon to links across which $U=-1$. The $K_1$ coupling then encourages domain walls of the spins to attach to these polygons. Kinks of $\sigma$ along the interface are necessarily ends of domain walls in the bulk. However these domain walls cannot have an accompanying polygon as the latter is confined from entering the trivial phase (vacuum in the picture). Consequently the bulk, despite being locally disordered, linearly confines kinks of $\sigma$ at the boundary into neutral pairs (see Fig. \[fig:2D\_conf\]).
Relation with the AKLT Hamiltonian {#sec:AKLT}
----------------------------------
We now establish a precise connection between the $2D$ CTP presented and the AKLT model, the paradigmatic example of a quantum SPT phase of spins in $1+1D$ [@AKLT1988]. (See also [@chen2014symmetry] for a picture of AKLT that is close to our construction.) We consider the transfer matrix of the $2D$ CTP in the limit of anisotropic coupling $K^x_i=\epsilon \lambda_i\, , e^{-2K_i^y}=\epsilon \lambda_i'$, $i=1,2$, along the horizontal ($x$) or vertical direction ($y$). It is then a standard exercise (see e.g. [@Kogut]) to derive the quantum Hamiltonian in the limit $\epsilon\to 0$ starting from Eq. in the main paper, and to pass from the $\mu$ variables to their duals $\tau$. This results in the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2\times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetric Hamiltonian $H=H_0+\sum \lambda_2\tau_{i+1/2}^x + \lambda_1'\sigma_i^x$, where $$\begin{aligned}
H_0
=
\sum
\lambda_1
\sigma_i^z\tau_{i+1/2}^x\sigma_{i+1}^z
+
\lambda_2'\tau_{i-1/2}^z\sigma_i^x\tau_{i+1/2}^z \, ,\end{aligned}$$ and which coincides with the AKLT Hamiltonian in the form considered in [@Ringel2015] for $\lambda_1=\lambda_2'$. Having equivalent phenomenology and a very similar algebraic structure strongly suggests that these two models describe the same phase. Interestingly, when expressing our model in terms of the dual variables $\tau$, the Boltzmann weights are not positive anymore. The ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ constraint thus appears as a natural way to reflect the additional ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry while maintaining positive Boltzmann weights and locality.
Generalizations to $G=G'=Z_N$ {#sec:gen_2d}
-----------------------------
Let us generalize the above model to the case $G=G'=Z_N$. Accordingly, we consider a directed square lattice and take $\sigma_i \in {\rm Z}_N$ and $U_{ij} = U_{ji}^{-1} \in {\rm Z}_N$ for the orientation being from vertex $i$ to $j$. We represent elements in ${\rm Z}_N$ by $e^{2\pi i \alpha/N}$, $\alpha= 0,1,\dots,N-1$. For a given $p=0,1,\dots,N-1$, let us define the minimal coupling: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{H}_{p}
&=
\sum_{i}\sum_{j\sim i}
\sigma^p_i U_{ij} \sigma^{-p}_j\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $j\sim i$ means $j$ a neighbour of $i$, so that each edge is counted twice, once with its positive and once with its negative orientation ensuring a real energy. Given non-zero $p\neq p'$ the generalized model is defined by with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:model_ZN}
-\beta\mathscr{H}_{p,p'} &=
K_1 \mathscr{H}_{p}
+
K_2 \mathscr{H}_{p'}
\, .\end{aligned}$$ As we will show, for large $K_1$ ($K_2$) p ($p'$) controls the topological index. Let us note that $\sigma^p$ is a ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$ variable only when $p$ and $N$ are co-prime. Otherwise, it has a reduced order, given by $N/p$. In order to keep the physical message of this section clear and concise, we do not delve here in these number theoretic considerations, and assume $N$ to be prime.
To analyze the model we first expose the hidden order. To this end we resolve the constraint using $$\begin{aligned}
U_{ij} &= \mu_i \mu^{-1}_j\end{aligned}$$ yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{H}_{p}
&=
\sum_{i}\sum_{j\sim i}
\sigma^p_i \mu_i \mu^{-1}_j \sigma^{-p}_j\, ,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Z &= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{\sigma,\mu}e^{-\beta\mathscr{H}}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the factor of $\frac{1}{N}$ comes from the $1$ to $N$ mapping between $U_{ij}$ which respect the constraint and $\mu_i$.
Next we wish to go to the composite variables $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\sigma}_{i;p} = \mu_i \sigma^p_i\, ,\quad
\tilde{\mu}_{i;p'} = \mu_i \sigma_i^{p'} \, .\end{aligned}$$ The assumption of $N$ prime guarantees that they are in ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$, and the assumption of $p\neq p'$ and a non-zero $p$ guarantees the mapping to be invertible. The indices $p,p'$ make explicit the dependence on $p$ and $p'$ in the definition of $\tilde{\sigma}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$.
We thus find two decoupled $Z_N$ clock models, $$\begin{aligned}
-\beta\mathscr{H}_{p,p'} &=
\sum_i\sum_{j\sim i}
\left(K_1 \tilde{\sigma}_{i;p} \tilde{\sigma}_{j;p}^{-1}
+
K_2 \tilde{\mu}_{i;p'}\tilde{\mu}_{j;p'}^{-1}\right)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ one in the composite variable $\tilde{\sigma}_p$ and the other in the composite variable $\tilde{\mu}_{p'}$. Now we suppose that the couplings are such that one of the two variables, say $\tilde{\sigma}_p$, is ordered (recall that if $N$ is prime, ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$ models can have only a single symmetry broken phase), and that $\mu$ is disordered. Notably, since $\tilde{\mu}_{p'} = \mu \sigma^{p'}$ this also implies that $\tilde{\mu}_{p'}$ is disordered for all $p' \neq p$. We then claim that under these conditions the model is in a “topological phase of type $p$”. Three questions need to be answered to justify this statement: (i) why is this a phase (ii) why do different $p$’s correspond to distinct phases and (iii) why are they topological.
Considering the first point note that the hidden order of the $\sigma$ variables manifested by order in $\tilde{\sigma}_p$ is a robust property. Indeed as argued in the previous case of an Ising symmetry, any local symmetric and defect-free perturbation in original model would map to a local term in the $\tilde{\sigma}_p$ and $\tilde{\mu}_{p'}$ degrees of freedom. Thus robustness of the topological phase is implied by the usual robustness of broken symmetry states. Turning to the second point, and the role of $p$, we can simply note that two different values of $p$ correspond to two different order parameters and thus two different phases. Indeed if $\tilde{\sigma}_{i;p}$ is long range ordered then $\tilde{\sigma}_{i;p'}$ must be disordered as it is equal to a power of $\tilde{\sigma}_{i;p}$ times a non-trivial power of the disordered variable $\mu_i$. Lastly, we justify the nomenclature topological. By this we mean that an interface between two distinct admissible phases would contain some form of long range or quasi long range order. Consider such an interface between a $p$ topological phase and a $p'$ topological phase. This scenario can be engineered by setting $K_2=0$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_p$ ordered on one side of the interface, and $K_1=0$ and $\tilde{\mu}_{p'}$ ordered on the other. On the interface these two order parameters will leak and so $(\mu_i \sigma^p_i)(\mu_i \sigma^{p'}_i)^{-1} = \sigma^{p-p'}_i$ would be ordered. Notably the latter, and only the latter, is a local order parameter and thus we have shown the existence of 1D long range order on such interfaces
Three dimensions
================
Next we wish to generalize the above construction to $3D$. In $2D$ we attached closed polygons to domain walls of the spins. Turning to $3D$, polygons on the dual lattice appear naturally in ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ gauge theories, where they correspond to discrete flux lines. However domains walls become $2D$ objects, and we instead look for a property of the spins that can also be described in terms of polygons.
Such a spin quantity has been studied recently in and can be thought of as an algebraic generalization of the usual continuum notion of vorticity. Consider a cubic lattice and orient links and plaquettes. Next place a spin variable $\sigma=\pm 1$ at each vertex. The discrete vorticity $\omega_p$ on a plaquette $p$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:omegap}
\omega_p =
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{(ij)\in \partial p}\epsilon_{ij}^p\frac{1-\sigma_i\sigma_j}{2}
\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over links on the boundary of $p$ and $\epsilon_{ij}^p=1$ if the link is oriented as the plaquette, and $-1$ otherwise. We remark that $\omega_p=0,\pm 1$ and the choice of plaquette orientation has no effect on the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ quantity $(-1)^{\omega_p}$ that we consider below. For definiteness we choose orientations as in figure \[fig:conf\_omega0\].
An intuitive view on discrete vorticity comes form thinking of the spins $\sigma_i =+1,-1$ as the elements $0,1$ in $\mathbb{Z}_2$. Then $\omega_p$ appears as the discrete integral (i.e. a sum) around a plaquette over the discrete derivatives $\frac{1}{2}(1-\sigma_i\sigma_j) \in\mathbb{Z}_2$. Here it is important to interpret the discrete derivative as a variable in $\mathbb{Z}$ rather than in $\mathbb{Z}_2$, and hence this sum can be non-zero multiple of $|\mathbb{Z}_2|=2$. This is analogous to what one does when calculating vorticity of a U$(1)$ variable ($\phi$) where derivatives ($i \phi^{-1} \partial_l \phi$) are taken in U$(1)$ but then integrated over as elements in $\mathbb{R}$ whose sum can now be a non-zero multiple of $2\pi$.
In analogy with usual vorticity, the discrete vorticity obeys a discrete version of the zero divergence constraint: Given any box on the square lattice, $\sum_{p\in\text{box}}\omega_p = 0\mod 2$. This can be shown by noting that for each box we can choose a clockwise orientation (when looking from inside the box) on each plaquette. Consequently, each link on the box would appear exactly twice with opposite values of $\epsilon_{ij}^p$. Therefore discrete vorticity lines form polygons on the dual lattice which obey the exact same branching rules as fluxes in a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ gauge theory.
Tools from lattice gauge theory, specifically cellular and simplicial cohomology, shed further light on this quantity. A thorough discussion of these aspects are relegated below in section \[sec:cohom\] where they will be used to define discrete vorticity for other abelian groups. Armed with the notion of discrete vorticity and its properties, we can now introduce the $3D$ model. Consider spins $\sigma_i$ on the vertices of a cubic lattice and ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ gauge variables $A_{ij}$ on the links, and choose the following energy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:E_3D}
-\beta\mathscr{H}
= J_1 \sum_{p} (AAAA)_p + J_2 \sum_{p} (-)^{\omega_p} (AAAA)_p\, ,\end{aligned}$$ with $(AAAA)_p$ being the product of the four $A_{ij}$ surrounding the plaquette $p$.
In analogy with our $2D$ analysis we would now want to perform some non-local transformation to decouple the gauge variables from the spins. Even though both flux and vorticity lines form closed polygons, the number of distinct flux configurations, which spans all such polygons, is bigger than that of vorticity configurations which only span a subset. Therefore, for any vorticity there exists a matching flux although the converse is not true. It follows that there exists $A_{\sigma}$ such that $(A_{\sigma}A_{\sigma}A_{\sigma}A_{\sigma})_p =
(-)^{\omega_p}$. Defining $\tilde{A} = A A_{\sigma}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Atilde}
-\beta\mathscr{H}
&= J_1 \sum_{p} (-)^{\omega_p} (\tilde{A}\tilde{A}\tilde{A}\tilde{A})_p + J_2 \sum_{p} (\tilde{A}\tilde{A}\tilde{A}\tilde{A})_p \, .\end{aligned}$$
There are two points in phase space where the gauge and spin degrees of freedom decouple. The trivial case is $J_2 = 0$ which implies free $\sigma$’s and a standard ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ gauge theory for the $A$’s. For $J_1>J_c$, where $J_c=0.762(2)$ is the critical temperature of the dual Ising model on the cubic lattice, the gauge theory has a perimeter law for Wilson loops and linearly confines monopoles (open flux lines), but deconfines static charges of the gauge field [@Savit]. The non-trivial case is $J_2 > J_c$ and $J_1=0$ and has the same confining bulk physics only in the composite gauge variable $\tilde{A}$. Notably the transformation $\tilde{A} = A A_{\sigma}$ can be viewed as acting on the flux degrees of freedom by multiplying them with vorticity lines. Since vorticity lines consist of closed polygons, this transformation leaves the monopole configuration unchanged. Consequently the non-trivial phase also confines monopoles. See figure \[fig:conf\] for a representation of the non-trivial phase.
The above CTP is a robust phase of matter. As in the $2D$ model, the non-local transformation $\tilde{A}=A A_{\sigma}$ maps local symmetric and gauge symmetry respecting operators, into local ones, and leaves the free energy invariant. Respecting these symmetries, both the monopole confining phases of $\tilde{A}$ and $A$ are well defined phases [@Fradkin1979]. In addition, we found that breaking the gauge symmetry on an interface or boundary does not destroy the surface physics (see below) suggesting that gauge symmetry is not crucial here.
Surface theory
--------------
To establish the distinction between trivial and non–trivial phases and to support this nomenclature, we now discuss an interface. For concreteness we take coordinates $(x,y,z)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^3$ for the vertices of the lattice and identify the interface as the $x=0$ plane. We also denote $P_L$ ($P_R$) the plaquettes in the region $x\le 0$ ($x>0$). In the limit $J_2,J_1\to\infty$, $(AAAA)_{\tilde{p}}=1$ for $\tilde{p} \in P_R$. By conservation of flux, we find that for all boundary plaquettes $p \in \partial P$, $(AAAA)_{p}=1$. Consequently since $J_2$ forces $(-)^{\omega_p}(AAAA)_p=1$, $\omega_p=0$ on the $2D$ boundary. The surface partition function in this limit is thus given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Z_surf}
Z_{\text{surf},0} &=
\sum_{\sigma} \prod_{p\in \partial P}\delta({\omega_p}) = \sum_{\sigma,\tau} \prod_{p\in \partial P}(\tau)^{\omega_p}\, .\end{aligned}$$
The possible domain wall configurations for $\sigma$’s in $2D$ are depicted in Fig. \[fig:conf\_omega0\] where a second mapping to arrow configurations of the eight-vertex model is also discussed. The constraint $\omega_p=0$ implies a two-in two-out ice rule, supporting the vorticity interpretation and mapping the surface theory to the critical six vertex model with an anisotropy parameter $\Delta = \frac{1}{2}$ [@Baxter].
The latter model model is critical and described by a compact free boson $\phi$. This fact can be established with the Coulomb gas method [@Nienhuis1984], which we now briefly recall. Denoted by $S_{\ell}=\pm 1$ the arrow at link $\ell$, note that $S$ is conserved around a vertex, and one can introduce a height field $h(i)$ on the same sites where $\sigma$ lives, such that $h$ increases by $\pi$ in crossing an arrow pointing up from the right. This discrete height renormalizes at long distances to a Gaussian free field, a conformal field theory with central charge $c=1$, and via this mapping one can compute dimensions of operators. Noting that $ \sigma_i\sigma_j = \prod_{\ell\in \Gamma_{ij}} -ie^{i\pi S_\ell /2 }
\propto e^{i h(i)/2 }e^{-i h(j)/2 } $, $\sigma$ is found to have scaling dimension $3/8$. Similarly, noting that the two point function of $\tau$ in eq. corresponds to inserting two vortices where the height field has discontinuity of $\pm 4\pi$, $\tau$ has dimension $2/3$. Identifying $\phi\equiv h/2$, one has the effective theory $$\begin{aligned}
\mathscr{L}
&= \frac{g}{4\pi} (\nabla \phi)^2 \, , \quad g=\frac{4}{3}\, .\end{aligned}$$ The appearance of half integer electric charges follows also naturally by considering the torus partition function. Indeed on $4L\times 4L'$ lattices, periodic boundary conditions for the $\sigma$’s select only even frustrations for the height field as it winds around a cycle, resulting in half integer electric charges and even magnetic charges. Microscopically, $\sigma$ is a Hermitian linear combination of $e^{\pm i\phi}$ and $\tau$ of $e^{\pm i\theta}$, $\theta$ being the dual field. Therefore, the symmetry is realized as anticipated in the main text: $\phi \rightarrow \phi + \pi$ and $\theta \rightarrow \theta + \pi$, as it does in quantum SPTs [@YuanMing2012; @Nayak2014]. We also note that even though the local weight has no such symmetry, the global weight still has it, due to the global constraint $\prod_p (-1)^{\omega_p}=1$ for a closed manifold. From this analysis it follows that the lattice ${\mathbb{Z}}_2\times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry is realized in the field theory in an anomalous chiral way: $\phi \rightarrow \phi + \pi$ and $\theta \rightarrow \theta + \pi$, where $\theta$ is the dual field.
Let us consider perturbations to this surface model. Adding a $\sigma\sigma$ term to the boundary action corresponds to the six vertex model in an external field. Denoted by $H/2$ and $V/2$ the horizontal and vertical couplings, the theory remains critical within the region $(e^{2|H|}-1)(e^{2|V|}-1)\le 1$ [@Reshetikhin], the only effect of $H,V\neq 0$ being renormalizing the stiffness of $\phi$ [@Kim]. A ferromagnetic coupling between the $\tau$’s would generically induce the RG-irrelevant term $\cos(2\theta)$. Interestingly, the relevant $\cos(\theta)$ term is forbidden without requiring any fine tuning of the couplings. Formally, it is because of the emergent ${\mathbb{Z}}_2 \times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry. Physically, it is because $\pm 2\pi$ vortices are linearly confined by the bulk (see Fig. \[fig:conf\]). Further, a gauge symmetry breaking term ($K\sum_{\ell\in\partial E}A_{\ell}$) can also be studied using duality [@Balian] and has no effect on the $\sigma$’s in the limit $J_2,J_1\to\infty$.
The SPT perspective {#sec:SPTpersp}
-------------------
As discussed in section \[sec:AKLT\] the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2\times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ two-dimensional classical topological paramagnet can be related to the imaginary time partition function of a $1+1D$ quantum SPT phase. In this section we provide support for the analogous statement in $3D$, proving that all of the above models are in the same universality class as the Euclidean time partition function of certain $2+1D$ quantum SPTs. We will show this by analyzing the responses to gauge fluxes, or equivalently, the statistical phases obtained by braiding flux excitations.
As starting point we perform a gauge-to-Ising duality transformation on the bulk [@Balian] trading $A$’s for spins $\tau$’s on the vertices of the dual lattice, resulting in an equivalent bulk theory with weights: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Atau}
\prod_{p\in P_L}(\tanh J_2)^{\frac{1-\tau_k\tau_l}{2}}
\prod_{p\in P_R}(\tanh J_1)^{\frac{1-\tau_k\tau_l}{2}}(\tau_k\tau_l)^{\omega_p}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $kl$ is the link dual to $p$. The term $\prod_{p \in P_R}(\tau_{k}\tau_{l})^{\omega_p}$ is in fact topological. It is always one in a geometry without interfaces, since then vorticity lines where $\omega_p=\pm1$ form polygons, and in the product of $\tau_{k} \tau_{l}$ along each such polygon, each $\tau$ appears an even number of times, and hence the product is always one. Focusing on the analytically tractable case of $J_1=0$ leaves us with the partition function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:ModelTau}
Z = \sum_{\tau,\sigma}
\prod_p
e^{\tilde{J_2} \tau_{k} \tau_{l}}
(\tau_{k} \tau_{l})^{\omega_p}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{J_2} = \frac{1}{2}\log(\tanh(J_2))$, and here and below $(kl)$ is the link dual to the plaquette $p$. Since this model now has a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2 \times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry, it is natural to seek a quantum counterpart which utilizes such a symmetry, and these are known as type $ii$ SPT phases [@Chen2011; @Juven2015; @ModularData]. These SPTs are characterized by a quantized bulk response to static gauge fluxes. For a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2 \times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry a $\pi$ Ising flux for one symmetry would attract a fractional symmetry charge of the other symmetry. This is the discrete analogue of flux attachment in the integer quantum Hall effect, where a $\pi$ flux would attract half an electron charge [@Laughlin1981]. If our model belongs to the same phase as that described by the imaginary time partition function of one of such $2+1D$ SPTs, it should exhibit the same flux responses.
We therefore introduce two additional static gauge fields ($B^{\sigma},B^{\tau}$) which are coupled to matter in the usual manner: we trade each $\tau_{k} \tau_{l}$ with $\tau_{k} B^{\tau}_{kl} \tau_{l}$ and each $\sigma_{i} \sigma_{j}$ with $\sigma_{i} B^{\sigma}_{i j} \sigma_{j}$. The adjective static refers to the fact that they are not summed over in the partition function, which is then: $$\begin{aligned}
Z(\{B^\tau\},\{B^{\sigma} \})
&=
\frac{1}{Z}
\sum_{\tau,\sigma}
\prod_{p}
e^{\tilde{J_2} \tau_{k}B^\tau_{kl} \tau_{l} }
(\tau_{k}B_{kl}^\tau \tau_{l})^{\omega_p(B^\sigma)}
\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $Z\equiv Z(\{1\},\{1\})$ as above. If we require that both fluxes are zero everywhere, namely $\prod_{(ij)\in\partial p} B_{ij}^\sigma=\prod_{(kl)\in\partial p^*} B_{ij}^\tau=1$, where $p^*$ is a dual plaquette, we can rewrite $B_{ij}^\sigma=\tilde{\sigma_i}\tilde{\sigma}_j$, $B_{kl}^\tau=\tilde{\tau_k}\tilde{\tau}_l$, and reabsorb the $B$’s in the definition of $\sigma,\tau$. Thus introducing gauge fields with zero flux is equivalent to set them to $1$. When coupling to gauge fields, from formula (5) of the main paper the vorticity becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:omegap_B}
(-)^{\omega_p(B^\sigma)}
=
\prod_{(ij)\in\partial p}
\exp\left(i\pi\frac{1-\sigma_iB_{ij}^\sigma \sigma_j}{4} \epsilon^p_{ij}\right)
\, .\end{aligned}$$ If we now violate the zero flux constraint, then $(-)^{\omega_{p}(B^\sigma)}$ can assume the additional values $\pm i$ on top of $\pm 1$ which it had before. A related issue to be discussed is the definition of plaquette orientations which enter the sign $\epsilon_{ij}^p$. Changing plaquette orientations corresponds to change the exponent of by an overall sign. For zero $B^{\sigma}$ flux, this choice is immaterial; however in the case of $\pi$ flux it does matter. For definiteness we choose to orient both links and their dual as the positive direction of the axis of three dimensional space they are parallel to, and adopt a left-hand rule for defining clock-wise/anti-close-wise plaquette orientations.
The topological quantity we wish to calculate concerns the flux responses in type $ii$ SPT phases with a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2 \times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry and we now recall its definition. Consider then a quantum SPT model with ${\mathbb{Z}}_2 \times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry on a two dimensional lattice, and denote by $\sigma^{x,z},\tau^{x,z}$ the elementary spin operators, and by $|\text{gs}\rangle$ its ground state. It can be shown [@Juven2015] that the insertion of a $\pi-$flux associated with one of the symmetries draws in a fractional symmetry charge associated with the other symmetry. To probe this we introduce two $B^{\tau}$ $\pi$ fluxes into the system by creating them and taking them apart at positions $a,b$. Note that these excitations are string like and a string will be attached to these two fluxes. Their worldlines draw a surface $S_1$ in space time whose interior is swiped by the string. The system is then let to evolve until it reaches its new ground state, and we denote the operator that performs this operation by $\pi_{ab}$. Further, we denote by $S_2$ the set of vertices on a region surrounding only one of the fluxes and choose this region to be larger than the correlation length.
The operator $\rho_{S_2}=\prod_{i \in S_2} \sigma_{i}^x$ can be interpreted in two ways. First as creating, evolving and annihilating two $B^\sigma$ $\pi$ fluxes along the boundary of $S_2$. Second as a measurement of the local Ising charge around just one flux. In a non-trivial type $ii$ SPT with a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2 \times {\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry, the ratio $\langle \text{gs} | \pi^{\dagger}_{ab}\rho_{S_2} \pi_{ab} |\text{gs}
\rangle/\langle \text{gs} | \rho_{S_2} \pi^{\dagger}_{ab} \pi_{ab} |\text{gs}
\rangle$ should be equal to $\pm i$ [@Juven2015], the sign depending on which of the two $B^\tau$ fluxes is encircled by $S_2$. According to the previous discussion one can view this as the phase associated with braiding the two flux excitations (in similar spirit to Ref. ) or alternatively as a generalization of Laughlin’s pumping argument to discrete symmetry as the $\pi$-flux draws in half an Ising symmetry charge (recall that in this multiplicative notation, an Ising charge is $-1$ and so half a charge is $\pm i$).
Upon switching to imaginary time, the quantum mechanical overlaps making up this ratio can be reformulated as partition functions. The factor $\langle \text{gs} | \pi^{\dagger}_{ab} \rho_{S_2} \pi_{ab} |\text{gs}
\rangle$ is illustrated in Fig. (\[Fig:Braiding\](a)), where across the $S_1$ surface (blue) the interaction between the $\tau$’s is reversed and across the $S_2$ surface (green) the interaction between the $\sigma$’s is reversed. As in the main text, links where the interaction is reversed are referred to as frustrated. The factor $\langle \text{gs} | \rho_{S_2} \sigma_{i}^x \pi^{\dagger}_{ab}
\pi_{ab} |\text{gs} \rangle$ illustrated in Fig. (\[Fig:Braiding\](b)) contains the same two elements, however now these are separated in imaginary time. More specifically, let us denote by $G$ and $G^*$ the lattice and its dual, where $\sigma$ and $\tau$ respectively live. As defined, $S_1$ and $S_2$ will be a connected region of $G$ and $G^*$ (note the order of $G$ and $G^*$) across which the $\tau$ and $\sigma$ couplings respectively are reversed. By a region here we mean a set of neighbouring plaquettes and links around them on both the interior and the boundary of the region. Since it will be clear from the context, we we will write $(kl) \in S_2$ for links in the region $S_2$. Further, $\partial S_i$ will denote the set of links on the boundary of $S_i$. We remark that frustrated links intersecting $S_1$ ($S_2$) correspond to introducing a $B^\tau$ ($B^\sigma$) $\pi$ flux on the plaquettes intersecting $\partial S_1$ $(\partial S_2)$, consistently with the above discussion.
Before delving into the details of calculating the relevant ratio, let us give a physical picture supporting why it would come out purely imaginary. In the presence of non-trivial fluxes, the relation $\sum_{p\in\text{box}}\omega_p(B^\sigma)=0\mod 2$ does not hold in general. Instead one has an altered $Z_4$ zero–divergence relation given by $2(\sum_{p\in\text{box}}\omega_p(B^\sigma)O^{box}_p)=0\mod 4$, where $O^{box}_p=1$ ($-1$) if the plaquette’s orientation appears as clock-wise (anti-clock-wise) when viewed from within the box. Using this new relation one may show that the vorticity line configuration in the presence of the $B^{\sigma}$ flux loop contains a single fractional vorticity line encircling $S_2$ as well as other fluctuating integer vorticity lines. Given the form of the topological term, the integer vorticity lines cannot contribute imaginary factors and so we may put them aside for now. Considering the fractional vorticity line, if it does not cross $S_1$ (case (b)), the term $\Pi_{(kl) \in \partial S_1} (\tau_k \tau_l)$ is equal to $1$. Consequently the topological term, which involves a fractional power of this product, cannot give an imaginary contribution. On the other hand, if this fractional vorticity line crosses $S_1$ (case (a)), this product would be $-1$, and the topological term would be purely imaginary.
We now substantiate the above argument with some simple and exact computations. First, notice that there are four cases to consider for the weight $w(kl)$ per dual link $(kl)$, in case frustrations for both $\tau$ and $\sigma$ are present: $$\begin{aligned}
w(kl)
=
\begin{cases}
e^{\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(\tau_k\tau_l)^{\tilde{\omega}_p} & 1):
kl \in S_2, \not\cap S_1\\
e^{-\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(-\tau_k\tau_l)^{\tilde{\omega}_p} & 2):
kl \in S_2, \cap S_1\\
e^{-\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(-\tau_k\tau_l)^{\omega_p} & 3):
kl \not\in S_2, \cap S_1\\
e^{\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(\tau_k\tau_l)^{\omega_p} & 4):
kl \not\in S_2, \not\cap S_1
\end{cases}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\omega}_P$ corresponds to $\omega_p(B^\sigma)$ with frustrated links where $B^\sigma=-1$. Defined the set of couplings $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{B}^\tau_\ell &=
\begin{cases}
-1 & \ell \cap S_{1}\\
1 & \ell \not\cap S_{1}
\end{cases}\, ,\quad
\hat{B}^\sigma_\ell &=
\begin{cases}
-1 & \ell \cap S_{2}\\
1 & \ell \not\cap S_{2}
\end{cases}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ the observable of interest is $$\begin{aligned}
&Z(\{\hat{B}^\tau\},\{\hat{B}^\sigma\}) = \frac{1}{Z}
\sum \prod_{kl \in S_2, \not\cap S_1}
e^{\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(\tau_k\tau_l)^{\tilde{\omega}_p}\\
&\quad\prod_{kl \in S_2, \cap S_1}
e^{-\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(-\tau_k\tau_l)^{\tilde{\omega}_p} \\
&\quad\prod_{kl \not\in S_2, \cap S_1}e^{-\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(-\tau_k\tau_l)^{\omega_p} \\
& \quad\prod_{kl \not\in S_2, \not\cap S_1}
e^{\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(\tau_k\tau_l)^{\omega_p} \\
&=
\frac{1}{Z}
\sum \prod_{kl \cap S_1}
e^{-\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(-\tau_k\tau_l)^{\omega_p}\\
&\quad\prod_{kl \not\cap S_1}
e^{\tilde{J}_2\tau_k\tau_l}(\tau_k\tau_l)^{\omega_p}
\prod_{kl \in S_2}
(\tau_k\tau_l)^{\tilde{\omega}_p-\omega_p}\\
&\quad \prod_{kl \in S_2,\cap S_1}
(-1)^{\tilde{\omega}_p-\omega_p}\, .\end{aligned}$$ At this point we use the following identity: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:canceltau}
\prod_{kl\in S_{2}} (\tau_k\tau_l)^{\tilde{\omega}_p-\omega_p}
=1 \, .\end{aligned}$$ To prove it, first notice that given the choice of orientation described in the text above, ${\tilde{\omega}_p-\omega_p}$ gives a factor $\epsilon_{ij}^p \sigma_i\sigma_j/2$ per frustrated link $ij$. Then group together all $\tau$’s having a given exponent $\sigma\sigma'/2$. $\tau$’s appears in pairs for any choice of bond $\sigma\sigma'$, and cancel either because $\tau^2=1$ or because $\tau\tau^{-1}=1$.
We now rewrite the partition function in terms of the original $A$ gauge degrees of freedom to take advantage of the change of variables $A\to \tilde{A}$ as in eq. , which decouples gauge and spin degrees of freedom. Reversing the couplings along $S_{1}$ for the $\tau$’s corresponds in the $A$ language to computing the Wilson loop along the perimeter of $S_{1}$ (see e. g. [@Kogut]), so that one has: $$\begin{aligned}
&Z(\{\hat{B}^\tau\},\{\hat{B}^\sigma\}) =
Z^{-1}\sum
\prod_{p\in S_1}
(AAAA)_p\\
&\prod_p e^{J_2 (AAAA)_p (-)^{\omega_p}}
\prod_{p \in S_1,\cap S_2}(-1)^{\tilde{\omega}_p-\omega_p}\\
&=
\left< \prod_{\ell\in\partial S_1}
\tilde{A}_\ell \right>_{\tilde{A}}
\left< \prod_{p\in S_1} e^{i\pi\omega_p}
\prod_{p \in S_1,\cap S_2}e^{i\pi(\tilde{\omega}_p-\omega_p)}\right>_{\sigma}\, \end{aligned}$$ where the average $\langle ... \rangle_{\tilde{A}}$ is taken with the partition function of $\tilde{A}$’s alone, and the average $\langle ... \rangle_{\sigma}$ is taken with the trivial partition function for the $\sigma$’s that gives a weight of $1$ to each $\sigma$ configuration. The last term in the $\sigma$ expectation values involves the links illustrated in figure \[fig:S1capS2\].
Due to cancellations on the internal edges, now we have the following identities – recall also the discussion around , and use the notation of sites along the frustrations as in fig. \[fig:S1capS2\]: $$\begin{aligned}
&\prod_{p\in S_1} e^{i\pi\omega_p}
=
\prod_{(ij)\in \partial S_1} i^{\epsilon(ij)^p \frac{1-\sigma_i\sigma_j}{2}}\, ,\\
&\prod_{p \in S_1,\cap S_2}e^{i\pi(\tilde{\omega}_p-\omega_p)}
= 1 \text{ if (b) : } S_1 \cap S_2=\emptyset\\
&\prod_{p \in S_1,\cap S_2}e^{i\pi(\tilde{\omega}_p-\omega_p)}
=\\
& e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}
(-\sigma_1\sigma_1'+\sigma_1\sigma_1'-\sigma_2\sigma_2'+\sigma_3\sigma_3'
-\sigma_3\sigma_3'+\sigma_4\sigma_4')}\\
&=e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}\sigma_4\sigma_4'}
\text{ if (a) : } S_1 \cap S_2\not=\emptyset
\, .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, in both (a),(b) cases the $\sigma$ expectation value reduces to a one dimensional classical spin chain along $\partial S_{1}$ which can be easily solved via transfer matrix. The presence of frustration in case (a) corresponds to introducing a twist by the matrix $ e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}\sigma\sigma'}$. Under the assumption of a rectangular perimeter $\partial S_1$ of length $2N$, with the branching structure as in fig. \[fig:S1capS2\], the $\sigma$ expectation value in the (a) case is (setting $\sigma_{2N+1}\equiv \sigma_{1}$): $$\begin{aligned}
&\left< \prod_{p\in S_1} e^{i\pi\omega_p}
\prod_{p \in S_1,\cap S_2}e^{i\pi(\tilde{\omega}_p-\omega_p)}\right>_{\sigma}=\\
&= 2^{-|\partial S_1|}
\operatorname{Tr}\left[
\begin{pmatrix}
i&-i\\
-i&i
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
1&i\\
i&1
\end{pmatrix}^N
\begin{pmatrix}
1&-i\\
-i&1
\end{pmatrix}^N \right]\\
&=
i 2^{1-N}\, ,\end{aligned}$$ Let us remark that the problem has a chirality given by the branching structure. If $S_2$ crossed $S_1$ on the left boundary instead of on the right, the twist matrix would have been $e^{-i\frac{\pi}{2}\sigma\sigma'}$, and it would have produced an extra minus sign. If the flux arrangement is as in Fig. \[Fig:Braiding\] (b), the only difference in the result is the absence of the twist matrix appearing first in the above trace. The sole net effect of this is to remove the $i$ factor and therefore the desired ratio is $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{\text{(a)}}/Z^{\text{(b)}} = \pm i\, ,\end{aligned}$$ depending if $S_2$ crosses $S_1$ on its right ($+$) or left ($-$). We have thus shown that our model has the same response to $\pi$ fluxes as the related quantum SPT phase.
Generalizations
---------------
As done in section \[sec:gen\_2d\] for the $2D$ case, we now sketch generalisations of the $3$D model beyond the case of a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ symmetry.
### Discrete vorticity and cellular cohomology {#sec:cohom}
We first address the mathematical description of the discrete vorticity in terms of cellular cohomology which allow for its generalization. We will then outline a classification of CTPs within this framework and analyze some specific models.
Simplicial and cellular cohomology are toolboxes used lattice gauge theories (See e.g. [@Cohomology1991].). The first requires us to work strictly with simplexes while the second permits more general types of cells, in particular the cubic lattice. Let us quickly describe the necessary mathematical details. A reader interested only the generalized definition of the discrete vorticity for $G=Z_N$ may skip directly to Eq. \[Eq:DiscreteVorticityZN\].
We denote the sets of sites, edges, plaquettes and boxes of the cubic lattice by $V,E,P,B$ respectively, and call their elements alternatively $0$-,$1$-,$2$- and $3$-cells. In the obvious manner each of these sets describes the boundary of the latter one. The relations between cells and their boundaries can be captured in several ways: One is using incidence numbers, where $[a:b]$, with $a$ a $d$-cell and $b$ a $d+1$ cell. These take three possible integer values, $-1,0,1$, which satisfy sum rules, such as $\sum_{e\in E} [v:e][e:p] = 0, \sum_{p\in P}[e:p][p:b]=0$. Alternatively, one can simply orient the edges and plaquettes and then $[v:e]$ will be $0,1$ or $-1$ is $v$ is not a boundary of $e$, $v$ is at the end of $e$ or $v$ is at the beginning of $e$. Similarly $[e:p]$ is $0$ if $e$ is not an edge of $p$, $1$ if $e$ is aligned along the orientation of $p$ or $-1$ if it is opposite. One can easily verify that these definitions satisfy the sum rules.
Below we use $i,j,k,..$ for vertex indices, $\epsilon_{ij}= 1$ ($-1$) if the edge $ij$ is oriented from $i$ to $j$ ($j$ to $i$) and $\epsilon^p_{ij}= 1$ ($-1$) if the edge $ij$ is oriented along the orientation of the plaquette (against it).
To define a cellular cohomology structure (or physically a gauge theory coupled to matter) the following steps are needed: First we pick an abelian group (the gauge group) $G$ and call an assignment $g : V \to G$ a $0$-cochain (matter field), $A : E \to G$ a $1$-cochain (gauge field), and $F : E \to G$ a $2$-cochain (curvature/flux field). We denote the set of $d$-cochains by $C^d$. The coboundary operator $\delta$ (see Ref. ) maps $C^d$ to $C^{d+1}$, and is nilpotent, $\delta^2=0$. In particular, $(\delta g)_{ ij \in E} = g_i g^{-1}_j$, where the order of $ij$ is chosen according to the orientation of the edge, is the trivial 1-cocycle. (If $G$ is a generic abelian group we will use the notation $(\delta g)_{ij} = g_i - g_j$, and if $G=\mathbb{Z}_2$, $g_i = (1-\sigma_i)/2$, where $\sigma_i=\pm 1$ is the variable used in the main text.). In general, given $\alpha\in C^d$, $\beta=\delta\alpha$ is a trivial $d+1$-cochain, and if $\beta=0$, then $\alpha$ is called a $d$-cocycle. Next, one can define an equivalence relation where two $d$-cocycles are equivalent if their differ by a trivial $d$-cochain: $\alpha_1-\alpha_2=\delta\gamma$, with $\gamma\in C^{d-1}$. The equivalence classes of $d$-cocycles then obey a group structure known as the $d$ cohomology group $H^d(G)$.
We consider now an exact sequence of abelian groups of the type $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:exact_seq}
0 \rightarrow G \overset{f}{\rightarrow} \tilde{G} \overset{h}{\rightarrow} G \rightarrow 0\, ,\end{aligned}$$ and construct the map $B=f^{-1} \delta h^{-1}$, which is applied to a trivial $1$-cocycle $\delta g$ to produce a $2$-cocycle. The map $B$ is called a Bockstein homomorphism [@Hatcher2002; @Kapustin2014] and is well-defined given $h^{-1},f^{-1}$. Further, it maps $d$-cocycles to $d+1$-cocycles and introduces a homomorphism between $H^d(G)$ and $H^{d+1}(G)$. In physical terms, it maps a matter configuration to gauge flux configurations with no monopoles.
In general, there is a variety of exact sequences one can consider and hence a variety of Bockstein homomorphisms. These can be classified by classifying the exact sequences upon which their are based. Short exact sequences of the form involving abelian groups are equivalent to central extension of $G$ by $G$ (s.t. $G=\tilde{G}/G$). The trivial extension is defined by $\tilde{G}=G\times G,f(a) = (a, 0)$ and $h((a, b)) = b$. Non-trivial extensions are classified by the second group cohomology $H^2(G,G)$. For $G = Z_N$ with $N$ prime, one finds that $H^2(Z_N,Z_N) = Z_N$ and so $N$ distinct choices of discrete vorticity exist.
If we specify to $G=\mathbb{Z}_2, \tilde{G}=\mathbb{Z}_4$, and $f(a)=2 a, h(a)=a\mod 2$, the Bockstein homomorphism $B$ produces precisely $\omega_p \mod 2$ and the 2-cocycle condition implies zero divergence. Moreover, since $B$ is a homomorphism and $\delta g$ is a trivial $1$-cocycle, the 2-cocycle must be trivial as well and hence there exists a $1$-cochain (a gauge field, $A$) such that $\delta A = \omega_p$.
We can now use $B$ to define discrete vorticities for other abelian groups. Consider for instance the case $G=\mathbb{Z}_N$, $N$ prime, $\tilde{G}=Z_{N^2}$, and: $$\begin{aligned}
f(a) &= N a \, ,& h_\ell(a) &= \ell a \mod N\, , &
\ell &= 0,1,\dots,N-1\, .\end{aligned}$$ Each choice of $\ell$ realizes one of the $N$ nonequivalent central extensions of ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$ by ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$, and leads to a different Bockstein homomorphism with $\ell=0$ being the trivial case. Setting $B_\ell = f^{-1} \delta h^{-1}_\ell$ yields a discrete vorticity generalising eq. : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:DiscreteVorticityZN}
\omega_p^{(\ell)} =
\frac{1}{N}
\sum_{(ij)\in \partial p}\epsilon_{ij}^p\ell \left( g_i-g_j\right)\mod N^2
\, .\end{aligned}$$ where $i$ and $j$ in the above are chosen such that $i$ ($j$) is at the start (end) of the edge $(\vec{ij})$ and $\epsilon_{ij}^p= 1$ ($-1$) if the edge is oriented with (against) the plaquette $p$. (Equivalently $\epsilon^p_{ij}$ is the incidence number $[(\vec{ij}):p]$ in the notation of Ref. .) Explicitly, referring to figure \[fig:conf\_omega0\], it reads: $$\begin{split}
\omega_p^{(\ell)} =
&\frac{1}{N}
\Big(
\ell
\big(
-(g_1-g_2)
-(g_2-g_3)\\
&+(g_4-g_3)
+(g_1-g_4)
\big)
\mod N^2\Big)
\, .
\end{split}$$ The non-triviality of this expression is due to the fact that the terms $(g_i-g_j)$ are understood in ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$.
Lastly we comment on the connection between the above cellular-cohomology approach and the group-cohomology approach to SPTs [@Chen2011]. Quantum SPTs at $d+1$ spatial dimensions with a symmetry $Q$ are classified by the group-cohomology group $H^{d+1}(Q,U(1))$. In our classical context $d+1$ is actually the overall dimension, and so one may expect that our phase is contained in $H^3(Q,U(1))$. If our matter fields posses a $Z_N$ symmetry and the gauge symmetry is $Z_N$, the relevant symmetry group in our context is $Q=Z_N \times Z_N$. (This is shown explicitly in the next section for $N=2$.) Considering $Q=Z_N \times Z_N$, the Kunneth formula [@chen2014symmetry] tells us that $H^3(Z_N \times Z_N,U(1))={\mathbb{Z}}_N^3$ contains $H^2(Z_N,H^1(Z_N,U(1))) = H^2(Z_N,Z_N)$ which is also the quantity which classifies central extensions, as discussed above. It would be interesting to find the exact correspondence between $H^3(G\times G',U(1))$ and possible CTPs. In particular find out whether every element in $H^3(G \times G',U(1))$ corresponds to a classical (or local sign free) partition function.
### Discrete vorticity models of 3D CTPs with $G=G'={\mathbb{Z}}_N$
Using the above definition of a discrete vorticity for $G=Z_N$ one can readily define more general models of 3D CTPs. To this end we consider a cubic lattice with vertices indexed by $i$, oriented edges pointing from $i$ to $j$ by $(ij)$ and oriented plaquettes indexed by $p$. The model has $\sigma_i \in {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ degrees of freedom on vertices and $A_{ij} \in {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ degrees of freedom on edges of the lattice. As in the two-dimensional case ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$ degrees of freedom take values in the roots of unity ($e^{2\pi i \alpha /N}$). (However we still represent $\omega^{(\ell)}_p$ as a number between $0,\dots,N-1$). In this notation the generalized model is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:E_3D_ZN}
-\beta\mathscr{H}
&= \sum_p J_{\ell'} e^{\frac{2\pi i \omega^{(\ell')}_p}{N}} (AAAA)_p + c.c. \\ \nonumber
&+ \sum_p J_{\ell} e^{\frac{2\pi i \omega^{(\ell)}_p}{N}} (AAAA)_p + c.c. \, ,\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega^{(\ell)}_p$ being the discrete vorticity from Eq. (\[Eq:DiscreteVorticityZN\]), which depends on $g_i$ defined by $\sigma_i = e^{2\pi i g_i /N}$ and $(AAAA)_p \in {\mathbb{Z}}_N$ is the product of $A^{\epsilon^p_{ij}}_{ij}$’s along the plaquette $p$.
First let us analyze the case when only $J_{\ell}$ is non-zero. The previous discussion on $\omega^{(\ell)}_p$ shows that for every $\sigma$ configuration there is a $A_{\sigma}$ configuration such that $(A_{\sigma}A_{\sigma}A_{\sigma}A_{\sigma})_p = \omega^{(\ell)}_p$. Thus going to the composite gauge variable $\tilde{A} = A A_{\sigma}$ one obtains $-\beta\mathscr{H} = J_{\ell} (\tilde{A} \tilde{A} \tilde{A} \tilde{A})_p$— a pure ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$ lattice gauge theory.
Performing a generalized Kramers–Wannier duality [@Balian] a ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$ lattice gauge theory becomes a $3D$ clock model with rotor variables taking values in ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$. For prime $N$, so that ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$ doesn’t have any subgroups, the model will exhibit two distinct thermodynamic phases: A disordered phase where the rotors are disordered and an ordered phase of the rotors separated by a second order phase transition at $J_c$. In gauge theory terms, these correspond respectively to a phase with short flux loops ($J_{\ell}>J_{c}$) and one with large flux loops ($J_{\ell}<J_{c}$). Following the exact same reasoning as done for the $Z_2$ case, we find that the former phase confines defects of the constraint and since $\sigma$ can fluctuate freely, it clearly doesn’t break any symmetry. Consequently it is an admissible phase in our classification.
We argue that the phase obtained for $J_{\ell}>J_{c}$ is a classical topological phase of type $\ell$. As discussed previously, it is a phase since local symmetry and gauge respecting perturbation in the $\sigma,A$ degrees of freedom map to local symmetry and gauge respecting perturbation in the $\sigma,\tilde{A}$ notation and vice-versa. Knowing that the latter is a well defined thermodynamic phase then implies that the former one is well defined as well. To see why different $\ell$ correspond to distinct phases let us consider an interface between a phase with large $J_{\ell} \rightarrow \infty,J_{\ell'}=0$ on the left and $J_{\ell'} \rightarrow \infty, J_{\ell} = 0$ on the right. At the interface, $\omega^{(\ell)}_p=\omega^{(\ell')}_p$. Now, since $\omega^{(\ell)}_p=\ell \omega_p^{(1)} \mod N$ and $N$ is prime, consistency implies either $\ell=\ell'$ or $\omega_p^{(1)}=0$. Supposing $\ell\neq \ell'$, this shows that just as in the $Z_2$ case, the boundary is described by a $2D$ statistical mechanical model where a zero vorticity constraint is imposed on every square. Taking $J_{\ell} > J_c$ but finite on the left and $J_{\ell'} > J_c$ on the right, will result in a physically similar scenario where flux lines crossing the interface are confined to neutral pairs by the bulks. We will argue momentarily that the model with zero vorticity is gapless. This, together with the relations to the group cohomology classification of the previous section, strongly suggests that different $\ell$ correspond to different phases. One way of proving this would be to generalize the arguments of section \[sec:SPTpersp\] to ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$, and is left for future work.
Let us analyze the resulting theory on the two dimensional interface. We first count the number of zero vorticity constraints at a plaquette. We change variables from site to links variables $s_{ij}=g_i-g_j$, where as before $\sigma_i=e^{2\pi i g_i/N}$. The four link variables around a plaquette can assume only $N^3$ since a global shift of $g_i$ leaves the link variables unchanged. (In the following we will ignore the multiplicative factor $N$ in the weight produced by this change of variables.) For the purpose of counting the zero vorticity configurations, we can ignore this constraint and consider the link variables independent since the missing $N$ configurations have non-zero vorticity. We are thus left with a vertex model, where each link has $N$ states and zero vorticity becomes an interaction at vertices of dual lattice. Further, the zero vorticity constraint is the same for any $\ell$ in and w.r.t. the labelings of vertices and orientations as in figure \[fig:conf\_omega0\], it reads: $$\begin{aligned}
-s_{12} - s_{23} + s_{43} + s_{14} = 0\, .\end{aligned}$$ If the $N$ states are labeled $-S,\dots,S$, with $S=\frac{N-1}{2}$, this coincides with U$(1)$ invariant configurations of spin-$S$ vertex models, and the resulting number of non-zero configurations is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{N}{3} (2 N^2 + 1) =
6, 19, 44, 85, \dots\end{aligned}$$ Apart from the already discussed $N=2$ case, other values of $N$ may not correspond to integrable weights for the vertex model, as we will discuss now for the case $N=3$, where the number of vertices is $19$. In such case, there are two classes of integrable $19$ vertex models, both of which can be related to a loop model, see e.g. [@YUNG1995]. In particular, our model gives uniform weight one to each vertex and cannot be related to a loop model, at least not in the standard fashion where states of labels $\pm 1$ are associated to oriented strands of loops and states of labels $0$ to vacancies. Nonetheless, this model belongs to a class of models studied numerically in relation with Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless transition in [@Honda1997], suggesting that the model is critical and with $c=1$.
Conclusion
==========
In this work we have introduced a topological classification scheme of classical statistical mechanical systems. This involved defining the objects of the classification (admissible phases), the equivalence relations between them (continuous deformation without phase transitions) and lastly showing that the classification is not trivial by giving concrete examples of admissible phases which are inequivalent. We have found $N$ distinct models for CTPs in $2D$ and $3D$ for systems with a ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$ symmetry and defects carrying a ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$ charge. An important question concerning the ability to identify the topological index or equivalence class given the bulk behavior of a particular model is left for future work.
The CTPs introduced in this work, together with the ones discussed in , describe, to the best of our knowledge, novel types of topological classical phases of matter. The models given here are, arguably, the simplest and most minimal ones having just a spin degree of freedom per site and per link. Another salient feature is that they can be simulated using classical Monte-Carlo. They may thus serve as a test-bed for studying various open questions concerning both classical topological paramagnets and their quantum counterparts [@Chen2011]. These concern the nature of phase transition between trivial and non-trivial phases [@You2016], the effect of disorder on the surfaces and on phase transitions, and the precise implications of the bulk-boundary correspondence [@Scaffidi2016].
It would be highly desirable to find possible experimental realizations of such CTPs. In the field of quantum bosonic SPTs [@Chen2011], experimental realizations are so far limited to $1+1D$ [@Buyers1986]. Being free from the stringent requirement of quantum coherence, and based on simple microscopic ingredients, the classical counterparts introduced here may prove easier to realize. Indeed similar classical systems, such as artificial spin-ice systems, have been successfully realized [@Wang2006; @Cumings2008; @Roderich2013] using ferromagnetic wires as well as tiling molecules [@Blunt]. The $2D$ model we discussed could potentially be realized from the same microscopic ingredients.
Finally, it would be interesting to further explore the classification question we propose in this work. For instance by considering other types of symmetries and constraints. Certainly there should be some relation with the group cohomology classification of bosonic SPTs with a trivial bulk [@Chen2011] however it may not be one to one. Indeed some SPTs may suffer from sign problems in Monte-Carlo while others do not. Conversely, it may be that enforcing hard constraints or gauge symmetries allows for new types of quantum phases. Indeed hard constraints in classical systems may result in a genus dependent ergodicity breaking [@Moessner2001; @PhysRevB.93.205112] whereas genus dependent ground state degeneracy is not part of the cohomology classification of Ref. ().
We are grateful to P. Fendley, T. Scaffidi and S.H. Simon for stimulating discussions. Z.R. was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 657111. R.B. was supported by the EPSRC Grants EP/I031014/1 and EP/N01930X/1. Both authors contributed equally to this work.
**Supplemental material of “Classical topological paramagnetism”**
General definition of a local constraint, confinement, and deconfinement {#App:Constraint}
========================================================================
Here we address the issue of how one generally defines a lattice constraint as well as confined and deconfined phases. A local constraint on a lattice can be abstracted as followed: First one requires a local mapping from the degrees of freedom to group elements in $G'$. For the sake of simplicity we take $G'$ abelian. This mapping should be local such that the value $g_x$ obtained at point $x$ involves degrees of freedom near $x$. Furthermore, it must be neutral such the product of $g_x$ over a closed manifold yields the identity. The constraint is then the requirement that $g_x = I$ ($I$ being the identity) at all positions $x$. A defect $f_x$ is a local violation of this rule in which $g_x = f_x \neq I$. In the familiar context of $3D$ lattice gauge theories on a cubic lattice, this mapping would be a mapping between boxes and magnetic charges within them. A local defect would thus be a particular box where the magnetic charge is $f$ instead of the identity.
Confined and deconfined phases are defined, as usual, by the free energy cost $\Delta F_l$ of taking two static opposite defects ($f,f^{-1}$) apart. Confinement is defined by a free energy cost which increases as a positive power of the distance ($l$) and a deconfined phase is define by a saturating free energy cost. Just like in the case of broken symmetries, these define two distinct phases of matter which can only be connected through a phase transition. The simplest way to show this is to remove the constraint and instead introduce Lagrange multipliers at every point where the constraint is imposed as: $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{f,I} = \frac{1}{|G'|}\sum_{\lambda}\chi_{\lambda}(f)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda$ goes through $|G'|$ values labeling the irreducible one-dimensional representations of $G'$ and $\chi_\lambda(f)$ is the character. If $G'={\mathbb{Z}}_N$, we simply have $\chi_{\lambda}(f=a^k)=e^{2\pi i \lambda k/N}$, where $a$ is the generator of ${\mathbb{Z}}_N$. By the neutrality condition, the resulting partition function obeys a global symmetry $G'$ shifting all the $\{\lambda_x\}$ by the same amount. Finally, $\Delta F_l$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\Delta F_l} &= \langle \chi_{\lambda_0}(f)
\chi_{\lambda_{l}}(f^{-1})\rangle\, ,\end{aligned}$$ and the confined phase translates into the phase with exponentially decaying $\lambda_x$ correlations (i.e. no spontaneous symmetry breaking) and the deconfined phase becomes the spontaneous broken symmetry phase.
[^1]: We remark that one can consider more general couplings, such as those of the Ashkin–Teller model [@Baxter], as long as the set of order parameters in a phase is unchanged. Our choice of two decoupled Ising models is made for pedagogical purposes.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a non-associative generalization of supersymmetry based on three-point associators like $\left[ Q_x, Q_y, Q_z \right]$ for $Q_{a, \dot a}$ supersymmetric generators. Such associators are connected with the products of $Q_{a, \dot a}$ and $x_{b \dot b}$. We: (a) calculate Jacobiators and show that the Jacobiators can be zero with some choice of corresponding coefficients in associators; (b) perform dimensional analysis for the coefficients in associators; (d) calculate some commutators involving coordinates and momentums; (e) estimate the weakness of non-associativity.'
author:
- Vladimir Dzhunushaliev
title: ' Three-point non-associative supersymmetry generalization '
---
Introduction
============
Whether non-associativity could play a fundamental role in the formulation of physics is a question that has been raised from time to time. In Ref. [@Mylonas:2012pg; @Mylonas:2014aga; @Mylonas:2013jha] the authors develop and investigate the quantization techniques for describing the nonassociative geometry probed by closed strings. In Ref. [@Gunaydin:2013nqa] non-associative structures have appeared in the study of D-branes in curved backgrounds are investigated.
In Ref.[@Dzhunushaliev:2013by] we have discussed a possible generalization of supersymmetry with associator having four factors. Here we want to discuss a possible generalization of supersymmetry with associators having three factors (three-point associator). We will assume that such associators are connected with coordinates.
Associative supersymmetric preliminaries
========================================
In this section we would like to remember basic properties of the simplest supersymmetry algebra (see, for example, textbook [@Aitchison]). The most important for us is the anticommutator for $Q_a, Q_{\dot a}$ supersymmetry generators $$\left\{
Q_a , Q_{\dot a}
\right\} = Q_a Q_{\dot a} + Q_{\dot a} Q_a =
2 \sigma^\mu_{a \dot a} P_\mu,
\label{2-10}$$ and all other commutators and anticommutators are zero $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
Q_a , Q_b
\right\} &=& \left\{
Q_{\dot a} , Q_{\dot b}
\right\} = 0,
\label{2-20} \\
\left[ Q_a , P_\mu \right] &=& \left[ Q_{\dot a} , P_\mu \right] = 0,
\label{2-30}\\
\left[ P_\mu , P_\nu \right] &=& 0,
\label{2-40}\end{aligned}$$ here $P_\mu = -i \partial_\mu$ is the momentum operator; $\mu = 0,1,2,3$; $a=1,2$; $\dot a = \dot 1, \dot 2$. Pauli matrices $\sigma^\mu_{a \dot a}, \sigma_\mu^{a \dot a}$ are defined in the standard way $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma^\mu_{a \dot a} &=& \left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & -i \\
i & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right\}
\label{2-50}\\
\sigma_\mu^{a \dot a} &=& \left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & i \\
-i & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & -1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\right\}
\label{2-60}\end{aligned}$$ with orthogonality relations for Pauli matrixes $$\label{2-70}
\sigma_\mu^{a \dot a} \sigma^\nu_{a \dot a} = 2 \delta_\mu^\nu, \quad
\sigma_\mu^{a \dot a} \sigma^\mu_{b \dot b} =
2 \delta_b^a \delta_{\dot b}^{\dot a}.$$ Following the idea of Ref. [@Dzhunushaliev:2013by], we want to show that one can generalize supersymmetry in such a way that the supergenerators $Q_a, Q_{\dot a}$ will become non-associative ones.
Three-point non-associative generalization of the supersymmetry algebra
=======================================================================
In Ref. [@Dzhunushaliev:2013by] we have shown that it is possible to extend supersymmetry in such way that the generators $Q_a, \bar Q_{\dot a}$ become non-associative ones. It was done by introducing a four-point associator in the following way $$\label{3-10}
\left[ Q_a, Q_{\dot a}, \left( Q_b Q_{\dot b} \right) \right] =
2 \zeta_0 \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2}
\sigma^\mu_{a \dot a} \sigma^\nu_{b \dot b} M_{\mu \nu} +
a_1 \epsilon_{ab} \epsilon_{\dot a \dot b} \mathbb I +
\sigma^\mu_{a \dot a} \sigma^\nu_{b \dot b} a_2 P_\mu P_\nu +
a_3 \eta_{\mu \nu} \sigma^\mu_{a \dot a} \sigma^\nu_{b \dot b} \mathbb I +
a_4 \sigma^{\mu \nu}_{a b} \sigma^{\rho \tau}_{\dot a \dot b}
M_{\mu \nu} M_{\rho \tau} + \cdots
,$$ where $\zeta_0 = \pm i, \pm 1$, $\ell_0$ is some characteristic length; $a_{2,3,4}$ are complex numbers; $
\sigma^{\mu \nu}_{a b} = \left[
\sigma^\mu , \sigma^\nu
\right]_{ab}
$, $
\sigma^{\mu \nu}_{\dot a \dot b} = \left[
\sigma^\mu , \sigma^\nu
\right]_{\dot a \dot b}
$, and $\epsilon_{ab}, \epsilon_{\dot a \dot b}$ are the antisymmetric symbols; the coefficient $\hbar/\ell_0^2$ has been chosen so that the right- and left-hand sides of have the same dimensions [@Dzhunushaliev:2015eva].
Let us remember the definition of associator $$\label{3-20}
\left[ A, B, C \right] = \left( A B \right) C - A \left( B C \right).$$ Now we want to demonstrate that it is possible to introduce the generalization of supersymmetry other than based on a three-point associator. Let us define the following three-point associators: $$\begin{aligned}
\left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_b
\right] &=& \zeta_1 x_{a \dot a} Q_b +
\zeta_2 x_{b \dot a} Q_a +
\zeta_3 Q_a x_{b \dot a},
\label{3-48}\\
\left[
Q_a, Q_{\dot a}, Q_b
\right] &=& \zeta_4 x_{a \dot a} Q_b +
\zeta_5 Q_a x_{b \dot a} ,
\label{3-40}\\
\left[
Q_a, Q_b, Q_{\dot a}
\right] &=& \zeta_6 Q_a x_{b \dot a} +
\zeta_7 Q_b x_{a \dot a} +
\zeta_8 x_{a \dot a} Q_b,
\label{3-30}\\
\left[
Q_a, Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}
\right] &=& \xi_1 x_{a \dot a} Q_{\dot b} +
\xi_2 x_{a \dot b} Q_{\dot a} +
\xi_3 Q_{\dot a} x_{a \dot b} ,
\label{3-42}\\
\left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_{\dot b}
\right] &=& \xi_4 x_{a \dot a} Q_{\dot b} +
\xi_5 Q_{\dot a} x_{a \dot b} ,
\label{3-32}\\
\left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}, Q_a
\right] &=& \xi_6 Q_{\dot a} x_{a \dot b} +
\xi_7 x_{a \dot a} Q_{\dot b} +
\xi_8 Q_{\dot b} x_{a \dot a},
\label{3-45}\\
\left[
Q_a, Q_b, Q_c
\right] &=& \left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}, Q_{\dot c}
\right] = 0
\label{3-50}\end{aligned}$$ where $a \neq b$; $\dot a \neq \dot b$; operators $x_{a \dot a}, x^\mu$ are connected with the relation $$\label{3-55}
x_{a \dot a} = \sigma_{\mu a \dot a} x^\mu .$$ We think that $$\label{3-56}
\left| \zeta_i \right| = \begin{cases}
\text{ either } & 0, \text{ for some } i \\
\text{ or } & \zeta, \text{ for other values } i .
\end{cases}$$
Dimensional analysis
--------------------
The simple dimensional analysis of equations , – shows that the dimensions of $\zeta_i$ and $\xi_i$ are $$\label{3-60}
\left[ \zeta_i \right] = \left[ \xi_i \right] =
\frac{\text{g}}{\text{s}} ,
i=1, 2, \ldots , 8 .$$ Again, as in Ref. [@Dzhunushaliev:2015eva], we think that the relations – should be quantum ones and consequently have to contain the Planck constant: $$\label{3-70}
\zeta_i , \xi_i \propto \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2},$$ where $\ell_0$ is some characteristic length, for example it can be done as $\ell_0^{-2} = \Lambda$ where $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant.
Jacobiators
-----------
In this subsection we would like to calculate Jacobiator $$\label{4-1-10}
J(x, y, z) = \left[
\left[
x, y
\right] , z
\right] +
\left[
\left[
y, z
\right] , x
\right] +
\left[
\left[
z, x
\right] , y
\right] = \left[ x, y, z \right] + \left[ y, z, x \right] +
\left[ z, x, y \right] -
\left[ x, z, y \right] - \left[ y, x, z \right] -
\left[ z, y, x \right]$$ where $x,y,z$ are $Q_{a, \dot a}$. Let us calculate Jacobiators $$\begin{aligned}
- J(Q_a, Q_{\dot a}, Q_b) &=& J(Q_a, Q_b, Q_{\dot a}) =
J(Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_b) =
\nonumber \\
&&
\left(
\zeta_1 + \zeta_8 - \zeta_2 - \zeta_4
\right) \left(
x_{a \dot a} Q_b - x_{b \dot a} Q_a
\right) + \left(
\zeta_3 + \zeta_6 - \zeta_5 - \zeta_7
\right) \left(
Q_a x_{b \dot a} - Q_b x_{a \dot a}
\right) ,
\label{4-1-20}\\
- J(Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_{\dot b}) &=& J(Q_a, Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}) =
J(Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}, Q_a) =
\nonumber \\
&&
\left(
\xi_6 + \xi_3 - \xi_5 - \xi_8
\right) \left(
Q_{\dot a} x_{a \dot b} - Q_{\dot b} x_{a \dot a}
\right) + \left(
\xi_4 + \xi_2 - \xi_1 - \xi_7
\right) \left(
x_{a \dot b} Q_{\dot a} - x_{a \dot a} Q_{\dot b}
\right).
\label{4-1-30}\end{aligned}$$ We see that the Jacobiators are zero either by $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_1 + \zeta_8 - \zeta_2 - \zeta_4 &=& 0,
\label{4-1-40}\\
\zeta_3 + \zeta_6 - \zeta_5 - \zeta_7 &=& 0,
\label{4-1-50}\\
\xi_6 + \xi_3 - \xi_5 - \xi_8 &=& 0,
\label{4-1-60}\\
\xi_4 + \xi_2 - \xi_1 - \xi_7 &=& 0
\label{4-1-70}\end{aligned}$$ or by $$\begin{aligned}
x_{a \dot a} Q_b - x_{b \dot a} Q_a &=& 0,
\label{4-1-80}\\
Q_a x_{b \dot a} - Q_b x_{a \dot a} &=& 0,
\label{4-1-90}\\
Q_{\dot a} x_{a \dot b} - Q_{\dot b} x_{a \dot a} &=& 0,
\label{4-1-100}\\
x_{a \dot b} Q_{\dot a} - x_{a \dot a} Q_{\dot b} &=& 0.
\label{4-1-110}\end{aligned}$$ Probably the simplest case is $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_2 &=& \zeta_3 = \zeta_7 = \zeta_8 = 0,
\label{4-1-120}\\
\xi_2 &=& \xi_3 = \xi_7 = \xi_8 = 0,
\label{4-1-130}\\
\left| \zeta_1 \right| &=& \left| \zeta_4 \right| =
\left| \zeta_5 \right| = \left| \zeta_6 \right| =
\left| \xi_1 \right| = \left| \xi_4 \right| =
\left| \xi_5 \right| = \left| \xi_6 \right| =
\frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2} .
\label{4-1-140}\end{aligned}$$ It means that $$\label{4-1-150}
\zeta_i = \xi_i = \zeta_0 \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2}$$ here $i = 1, 4, 5, 6$ and $\zeta_0 = \pm 1, \pm i$. In this case the associators – are $$\begin{aligned}
\left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_b
\right] &=& \zeta_0 \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2} x_{a \dot a} Q_b ,
\label{4-1-160}\\
\left[
Q_a, Q_{\dot a}, Q_b
\right] &=& \zeta_0 \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2} \left(
x_{a \dot a} Q_b + Q_a x_{b \dot a} ,
\right)
\label{4-1-170}\\
\left[
Q_a, Q_b, Q_{\dot a}
\right] &=& \zeta_0 \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2} Q_a x_{b \dot a} ,
\label{4-1-180}\\
\left[
Q_a, Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}
\right] &=& \zeta_0 \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2} x_{a \dot a} Q_{\dot b} ,
\label{4-1-190}\\
\left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_{\dot b}
\right] &=& \zeta_0 \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2} \left(
x_{a \dot a} Q_{\dot b} + \xi_5 Q_{\dot a} x_{a \dot b}
\right),
\label{4-1-200}\\
\left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}, Q_a
\right] &=& \zeta_0 \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2} Q_{\dot a} x_{a \dot b} ,
\label{4-1-210}\\
\left[
Q_a, Q_b, Q_c
\right] &=& \left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}, Q_{\dot c}
\right] = 0
\label{4-1-220}\end{aligned}$$
Commutator $\left[ x_\nu, p_\mu \right]$ in a non-associative form {#commutativity}
------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us do the following transformations with 3-points associators , , and $$\label{4-2-10}
\left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_b
\right] Q_{\dot b} +
\left[
Q_a, Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}
\right] Q_b -
Q_{\dot b} \left[
Q_b, Q_a, Q_{\dot a}
\right] -
Q_b \left[
Q_{\dot b}, Q_{\dot a}, Q_a
\right] = \zeta_0 \frac{\hbar}{\ell_0^2}
\sigma^\mu_{b \dot b} \sigma^\nu_{a \dot a}
\left[ x_\nu, p_\mu \right] .$$ We can use this expression for the estimation of weakness of non-associativity. Let us introduce dimensionless quantities $$\label{4-2-20}
\tilde Q_{a, \dot a} = \frac{Q_{a, \dot a}}{Q_0},
\tilde x^\mu = \frac{x^\mu}{l_{Pl}},
\tilde p^\mu = \frac{p^\mu}{Q_0}$$ where $Q_0 = \sqrt{\hbar c^3/G}$. Then has the form $$\label{4-2-30}
\left[
\tilde Q_{\dot a}, \tilde Q_a, \tilde Q_b
\right] \tilde Q_{\dot b} +
\left[
\tilde Q_a, \tilde Q_{\dot a}, \tilde Q_{\dot b}
\right] \tilde Q_b -
\tilde Q_{\dot b} \left[
\tilde Q_b, \tilde Q_a, \tilde Q_{\dot a}
\right] -
\tilde Q_b \left[
\tilde Q_{\dot b}, \tilde Q_{\dot a}, \tilde Q_a
\right] = \zeta_0 \frac{l^2_{Pl}}{\ell_0^2}
\sigma^\mu_{b \dot b} \sigma^\nu_{a \dot a}
\left[ \tilde x_\nu, \tilde p_\mu \right]$$ where $l_{Pl} = \sqrt{\hbar G/c^3}$ is the Planck length. If we us choose $\ell_0^{-2} = \Lambda$ ($\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant) then the coefficient $l^2_{Pl}/\ell_0^2$ on the RHS of is $\approx 10^{-120}$. If $\left[ \tilde x_\nu, \tilde p_\mu \right] \sim 1$ then shows that the non-associative expression on the LHS of is extremely small $\approx 10^{-120}$.
The relation can be inverted $$\label{4-2-40}
\left[ x_\nu, p_\mu \right] = \frac{1}{4 \zeta_0} \frac{\ell_0^2}{\hbar}
\sigma_\mu^{b \dot b} \sigma_\nu^{a \dot a} \left\{
\left[
Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_b
\right] Q_{\dot b} +
\left[
Q_a, Q_{\dot a}, Q_{\dot b}
\right] Q_b -
Q_{\dot b} \left[
Q_b, Q_a, Q_{\dot a}
\right] -
Q_b \left[
Q_{\dot b}, Q_{\dot a}, Q_a
\right]
\right\}$$
A weak version of coordinates non-commutativity
-----------------------------------------------
In this subsection we calculate the anticommutator $$\label{4-10}
\left\{
\left[ Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_c \right],
\left[ Q_{\dot b}, Q_b, Q_d \right]
\right\} =
\zeta_0^2 \frac{\hbar^2}{\ell_0^4} \left[
\left( x_{a \dot a} Q_c \right)
\left( x_{b \dot b} Q_d \right) +
\left( x_{b \dot b} Q_d \right)
\left( x_{a \dot a} Q_c \right)
\right].$$ Let us assume that the operators $x_{a \dot a}$ are in an associative subalgebra of an non-associative algebra of $Q_{a, \dot a}$. Then we can omit the brackets on the RHS of . Introducing the commutator $$\label{4-20}
\left[ Q_b, x_{a \dot a}, \right] = \alpha_{b, a \dot a},$$ we obtain $$\label{4-30}
\frac{\ell_0^4}{\zeta_0^2 \hbar^2}
\left\{
\left[ Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_c \right],
\left[ Q_{\dot b}, Q_b, Q_d \right]
\right\} =
x_{a \dot a} x_{b \dot b} Q_c Q_d +
x_{b \dot b} x_{a \dot a} Q_d Q_c +
x_{a \dot a} \alpha_{c, b \dot b} Q_d +
x_{b \dot b} \alpha_{d, a \dot a} Q_c .$$ Using the anticommutator , we will have $$\label{4-40}
\left[
x_{a \dot a}, x_{b \dot b}
\right] Q_c Q_d =
\frac{\ell_0^4}{\zeta_0^2 \hbar^2}
\left\{
\left[ Q_{\dot a}, Q_a, Q_c \right],
\left[ Q_{\dot b}, Q_b, Q_d \right]
\right\} - x_{a \dot a} \alpha_{c, b \dot b} Q_d -
x_{b \dot b} \alpha_{d, a \dot a} Q_c .$$ Using the definition and the inverse relations , we will obtain a weak version of non-commutativity for coordinates $$\label{4-50}
\left[
x^\mu , x^\nu
\right] Q_c Q_d = i \theta^{\mu \nu}_{c d},$$ where the matrix $\theta^{\mu \nu}_{c d}$ is defined as $$\label{4-55}
i \theta^{\mu \nu}_{c d} =
\frac{1}{4} \sigma^{\mu a \dot a} \sigma^{\nu b \dot b} \left( \frac{\ell_0^4}{\zeta_0^2 \hbar^2}
\left\{
\left[ Q_y, Q_a, Q_{\dot a} \right],
\left[ Q_z, Q_b, Q_{\dot b} \right]
\right\} - x_{a \dot a} \alpha_{c, b \dot b} Q_d -
x_{b \dot b} \alpha_{d, a \dot a} Q_c
\right).$$ The relation have to be compared with the standard definition of non-commutativity of spacetime that can be encoded in the commutator of operators corresponding to spacetime coordinates [@Snyder:1946qz; @Connes:2000ti]: $$\label{4-60}
\left[
x^\mu , x^\nu
\right] = i \theta^{\mu \nu},$$ where $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ is an antisymmetric matrix. We see that the relation looks like a weak version of commutator for non-commutative coordinates in the consequence of the prefactor $Q_c Q_d$ in front of the commutator $\left[ x^\mu , x^\nu \right]$.
One can rewrite in dimensionless form $$\label{4-70}
\left\{
\left[ \tilde Q_{\dot a}, \tilde Q_a, \tilde Q_c \right],
\left[ \tilde Q_{\dot b}, \tilde Q_b, \tilde Q_d \right]
\right\} =
\zeta_0^2 \frac{l^4_{Pl}}{\ell_0^4} \left[
\left( \tilde x_{a \dot a} \tilde Q_c \right)
\left( \tilde x_{b \dot b} \tilde Q_d \right) +
\left( \tilde x_{b \dot b} \tilde Q_d \right)
\left( \tilde x_{a \dot a} \tilde Q_c \right)
\right].$$ Similarly to the previous subsection \[commutativity\] we see that the RHS of is extremely small $\approx 10^{-240}$.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
Thus, here we have suggested a non-associative generalization of supersymmetry with three-point associators. We have shown that it is possible to choice the associators in such way that non-associative generators will satisfy to Jacobi identity. We have calculated the commutators $\left [x_\mu, p_\nu \right]$ and $\left[ x^\mu, x^\nu \right]$. One question in this approach: is the operator $x^\mu$ from relations and the same or similar to quantized spacetime coordinates à la Snyder [@Snyder:1946qz] and non-commutative geometry [@Connes:2000ti] ? If yes, then such non-associative generalization of supersymmetry in some weak sense leads to an interesting connection with non-commutativity of coordinates. The dimensional analysis of parameter $\ell_0$ is done. The analysis gives rise to the conclusion that $\ell_0$ have to be connected with some characteristic length. For example, it can be the cosmological constant $\Lambda^{-1}$. In this case the manifestation of non-associativity is extremely small $l_{Pl}^2/\ell_0^2 = l_{Pl}^2 \Lambda \approx 10^{-120}$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the Volkswagen Stiftung and by a grant No. 0263/PCF-14 in fundamental research in natural sciences by the Ministry of Education and Science of Kazakhstan. I am very grateful to V. Folomeev and A. Deriglazov for fruitful discussions and comments.
[99]{}
D. Mylonas, P. Schupp and R. J. Szabo, JHEP [**1209**]{}, 012 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.0926 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Mylonas, P. Schupp and R. J. Szabo, PoS ICMP [**2013**]{} (2013) 007 \[arXiv:1402.7306 \[hep-th\]\].
D. Mylonas, P. Schupp and R. J. Szabo, J. Math. Phys. [**55**]{}, 122301 (2014) \[arXiv:1312.1621 \[hep-th\]\].
M. Günaydin and D. Minic, Fortsch. Phys. [**61**]{} (2013) 873 \[arXiv:1304.0410 \[hep-th\]\].
V. Dzhunushaliev, “Nonassociatuve generalization of supersymmetry,” arXiv:1302.0346 \[math-ph\].
Ian Aitchison, “Supersymmetry in Particle Physics: An Elementary Introduction”, Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN=9781139467056.
V. Dzhunushaliev, “Cosmological constant, supersymmetry, nonassociativity, and Big Numbers,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{}, no. 2, 86 (2015) \[arXiv:1501.00663 \[gr-qc\]\].
H. S. Snyder, Phys. Rev. [**71**]{}, 38 (1947).
A. Connes, “Noncommutative geometry: Year 2000,” math/0011193 \[math-qa\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We define a relative version of the Loday construction for a sequence of commutative $S$-algebras $A \ra B \ra C$ and a pointed simplicial subset $Y \subset X$. We use this to construct several spectral sequences for the calculation of higher topological Hochschild homology and apply those for calculations in some examples that could not be treated before.'
address:
- 'School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sheffield, Hicks Building, Hounsfield Road, S3 7RH Sheffield, UK'
- 'Institut Galilée, Université Paris 13, 99, avenue Jean-Baptiste Clément, 93430 Villetaneuse, France'
- 'Mathematics Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA'
- 'Fachbereich Mathematik der Universität Hamburg, Bundesstra[ß]{}e 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany'
- ' Department of Mathematics, The University of Chicago, 5734 S University Ave, Chicago, IL 60637, USA'
author:
- Gemma Halliwell
- Eva Höning
- Ayelet Lindenstrauss
- Birgit Richter
- Inna Zakharevich
title: 'Relative Loday constructions and applications to higher $\THH$-calculations'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Considering relative versions of (co)homology theories is crucial for obtaining calculational and structural results. We work in the setting of commutative $S$-algebras (see [@EKMM]) and these can be tensored with simplicial sets or topological spaces. Important invariants of a commutative $S$-algebra $A$ are the homotopy groups of $A \otimes X$ for suitable spaces or simplicial sets $X$. We call this the Loday construction of $A$ with respect to $X$ and denote it by ${\mathcal{L}}_X(A)$.
Important special cases are the higher order topological Hochschild homology of $A$, $$\THH^{[n]}_*(A) = \pi_*(A \otimes S^n),$$ where $S^n$ is the $n$-sphere. For $n=1$ this reduces to ordinary topological Hochschild homology of $A$, $\THH(A)$, which receives a trace map from the algebraic K-theory of $A$, $K(A)$, and can be used via the construction of topological cyclic homology to obtain an approximation of $K(A)$. Torus homology of $A$, $\pi_*(A\otimes T^n)$ for the $n$-torus $T^n$, receives an $n$-fold iterated trace map from the iterated algebraic K-theory of $A$. Ongoing work by Ausoni and Dundas uses torus homology in order to make progress on the so-called red-shift conjecture [@ausoni-rognes].
One strength of the construction of $A \otimes X$ is that it is functorial in both $X$ and $A$, which allows us to study the homotopy type of $A \otimes X$ by iteratively constructing $X$ out of smaller spaces. This iterative method is for instance heavily used in Veen’s work [@V] and in [@DLR], [@BLPRZ]. As spheres are the building blocks of CW complexes, the calculation of $\THH^{[n]}_*(A)$ is crucial for understanding $\pi_*( {\mathcal{L}}_X(A))$ for CW-complexes $X$. The aim of this paper is to develop new tools for the calculation of higher order topological Hochschild homology by using the extra flexibility that is gained by a relative approach.
For a sequence of morphisms in the category of commutative $S$-algebras $A \ra B \ra C$ and for a pair of pointed simplicial sets $(X, Y)$ we consider a relative version of the Loday construction, ${\mathcal{L}}_{(X,Y)}(A, B; C)$: This relative version places $C$ over the basepoint, $B$ over all points of $Y$ that are not the basepoint and $A$ over the complement of $Y$ in $X$.
We define this relative Loday construction and show some of its properties in Section \[sec:relloday\]. Section \[sec:spsq\] exploits this relative structure and other geometric observations to establish several weak equivalences (juggling formulae) that compare higher $\THH$ groups with respect to the sphere spectrum as the ground ring and those with respect to other commutative $S$-algebra spectra as ground rings, and compare higher $\THH$-groups $\THH^{[m]}$ for $m = n$ and $n-1$. We use these juggling formulae to construct several spectral sequences for the calculation of higher topological Hochschild homology and apply these spectral sequences to obtain calculations for (higher) topological Hochschild homology that were not known before. In Section \[sec:ex\] we determine for instance higher order relative $\THH$ of certain Thom spectra and the higher order Shukla homology of ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ with respect to pointed commutative ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-monoid algebras. We gain additive results about $\THH^E(H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ and $\THH^{[2]}(E; H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ for $E = ko, ku, \mathit{tmf}$ at $p=2$ and $E=\ell$ the Adams summand for $p$ an odd prime. Furthermore, we show a splitting result for higher $\THH$ of the form $\THH^{[n], Hk}(HA)$, where $k$ is any commutative ring and $A$ is any commutative $k$-algebra.
In the following we work in the setting of [@EKMM] and we use the model structure on commutative $S$-algebras from [@EKMM chapter VII]. Let $A$ be a commutative $S$-algebra. As the category of commutative $A$-algebras is equivalent to the category of commutative $S$-algebras under $A$, we obtain a model category structure on the category of commutative $A$-algebras. In particular, a commutative $A$-algebra $B$ is cofibrant if its unit map $A \ra B$ is a cofibration of commutative $S$-algebras.
The relative Loday construction {#sec:relloday}
===============================
Higher topological Hochschild homology of a commutative ring spectrum $A$ is a special case of the Loday construction, or the internal tensor product, which sends $A$ and a simplicial set $X$ to a commutative simplicial ring spectrum $\call_X(A) = X \otimes A$, which is a commutative augmented $A$-algebra. This is a ring spectrum version of the Loday construction defined by Pirashvili in [@P] for commutative rings, which sends a commutative ring $R$ and a simplicial set $X$ to the commutative augmented simplicial $R$-algebra $X \otimes R$.
For a cofibrant commutative $S$-algebra $A$ this construction is homotopy invariant as a functor of $X$, that is: if one works with homotopy equivalent simplicial sets, we get homotopy equivalent augmented simplicial commutative $A$-algebras; in particular, this is true if one works with two simplicial models for the same space.
Let $X$ be a pointed simplicial set. Since all boundary maps in a pointed simplicial set send the basepoint to the basepoint, given an $A$-module $C$ (and in particular, a commutative $A$-algebra $C$) we can also study Loday constructions with coefficients $\call_X(A; C)$ which replaces the copy of $A$ over the base point by a copy of $C$. We now define a relative version of this.
\[def:loday\] Let $A$ be a commutative $S$-algebra, $B$ a commutative $A$-algebra, and $C$ a commutative $B$-algebra, with maps $A\xrightarrow{f} B \xrightarrow{g} C$. Let $X$ be a pointed simplicial set and $Y$ be a pointed simplicial subset. Then we can define $$(\call_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C))_n := \left(\bigwedge_{X_n\setminus Y_n} A
\right) \wedge \left( \bigwedge_{Y_n \setminus \ast} B \right) \wedge
C.$$ We call this the *$n$th simplicial degree of the relative Loday construction of $A$ and $B$ with coefficients in $C$ on $(X,Y)$*.
The smash product here is usually taken over the sphere spectrum, but can be done over any commutative ring spectrum, $k$. In this case, we will add a superscript to the notation, $$\call^k_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C).$$ If $B=C$ then the simplicial subset $Y$ of $X$ does not have to be pointed.
The structure maps of this construction use the fact that the smash product is the coproduct in the category of commutative $S$-algebras and they are given as follows: Let $\varphi \in \Delta([m], [n])$ and let $\varphi^*$ denote the induced map on $X$ and $Y$: $$\varphi^* \colon Y_n \ra Y_m, \quad \varphi^* \colon X_n \ra X_m.$$ Note that $X_n \setminus Y_n$ is not a subcomplex of $X_n$, so $\varphi^*$ might send elements in here to $Y_m$. We get an induced map $$\varphi^* \colon \left(\bigwedge_{X_n\setminus Y_n} A
\right) \wedge \left( \bigwedge_{Y_n \setminus \ast} B \right) \wedge
C \ra \left(\bigwedge_{X_m\setminus Y_m} A
\right) \wedge \left( \bigwedge_{Y_m \setminus \ast} B \right) \wedge
C$$ by first defining a map from $$\label{eq:smash}
\left(\bigwedge_{X_n\setminus Y_n} A
\right) \wedge \left( \bigwedge_{Y_n \setminus \ast} B \right) \wedge
C$$ to a smash product over $X_n$ where some of the smash factors $A, B$ in are sent to $B$ or $C$:
- - If for $x \in X_n\setminus Y_n$ the image $\varphi^*(x)$ is in $Y_m \setminus *$, then we apply the map $f$ on the corresponding smash factor $A$.
- If $x \in X_n\setminus Y_n$ is sent to the basepoint in $Y_m$ under $\varphi^*$, then we use the composite $g \circ f$ on the corresponding factor $A$.
- If for $x \in X_n\setminus Y_n$, the element $\varphi^*(x)$ is in $X_m\setminus Y_m$, then we don’t do anything, , we apply the identity map on the corresponding factor $A$.
- Similarly, if a $y \in Y_n \setminus *$ is sent to the basepoint, then we apply $g$ to the corresponding $B$-factor.
- If $y \in Y_n \setminus *$ is sent to $Y_m \setminus *$, then we apply the identity map to the corresponding $B$-factor.
- By assumption, the basepoint is sent to the basepoint, so the $C$-factors are not involved in this process.
We now use the map $\varphi$ to obtain a map to $\left(\bigwedge_{X_m\setminus Y_m} A
\right) \wedge \left( \bigwedge_{Y_m \setminus \ast} B \right) \wedge
C$:
- - If an $x \in X_m \setminus Y_m$ has multiple preimages under $\varphi^*$, then we use the multiplication on $A$ on the corresponding smash factors.
- If a $y \in Y_m \setminus *$ has multiple preimages under $\varphi^*$, then we use the multiplication on $B$ on the corresponding smash factors.
- If the basepoint in $Y_m$ has multiple preimages, then we apply the multiplication in $C$ on the corresponding factors.
- If some $x \in X_m \setminus Y_m$ is not in the image of $\varphi^*$, then we insert the unit map of $A$ in the corresponding spots; similarly if $y \in Y_m \setminus *$ has an empty preimage we use the unit map of $B$. The basepoint always has a non-empty preimage.
As the multiplication maps on $A$, $B$ and $C$ are associative and commutative and as the maps $f$ and $g$ are morphisms of commutative $S$-algebras, this gives the relative Loday construction the structure of a simplicial spectrum.
The relative Loday construction, $\call_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C)_\bullet$, is a simplicial augmented commutative $C$-algebra spectrum.
The multiplication $$\call_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C)_n \wedge_C \call_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C)_n \ra
\call_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C)_n$$ is defined coordinatewise and is therefore compatible with the simplicial structure. Hence we obtain a simplicial commutative augmented $C$-algebra structure on $\call_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C))_\bullet$.
One can also define a version of the relative Loday construction if $C$ is a $B$-module, rather than a commutative $B$-algebra. Then of course we cannot use the coproduct property of the smash product anymore, but we spelt out the structure maps explicitly, so that this generalization is not hard.
In this case $\call_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C))_\bullet$ is a simplicial $A$-module spectrum and for the simplicial structure maps one has to use the $B$-module structure of $C$. Note that the commutative $S$-algebra $A$ acts on $C$ as well via the map $f \colon A \ra B$.
As an explicit example of a pointed simplicial subcomplex we consider $\partial \Delta_2 \subset \Delta_2$ whose basepoint $* \in \Delta([n],
[2])$ is the constant map with value $0$. Note that the number of elements in $\Delta([n], [m])$ is $\binom{n+m+1}{n+1}$.
We describe the effect of the maps $\varphi\colon [1] \ra [2]$, $\varphi(0)=0$, $\varphi(1) = 2$ and $\psi \colon [2] \ra [1]$, $\psi(1)=\psi(0)=0$ and $\psi(2) = 1$.
(13,2)(2,2)
(-2,0)[$\varphi$]{} (0,0)[(1,0)[2]{}]{} (0,1)[(2,1)[2]{}]{} (-0.5,-0.2)[$0$]{} (-0.5,0.8)[$1$]{} (2.5,-0.2)[$0$,]{} (2.5,0.8)[$1$]{} (2.5,1.8)[$2$]{} (6,0)[$\psi$]{} (8,0)[(1,0)[2]{}]{} (8,1)[(2,-1)[2]{}]{} (8,2)[(2,-1)[2]{}]{} (7.5,-0.2)[$0$]{} (7.5,0.8)[$1$]{} (10.5,-0.2)[$0$]{} (10.5,0.8)[$1$]{} (7.5,1.8)[$2$]{}
In ${\mathcal{L}}_{(\Delta_2, \partial \Delta_2)}(A, B; C)_2$ there is only one copy of $A$ because $$\Delta_2[2] \setminus \partial
\Delta_2([2]) = \Delta([2], [2]) \setminus \partial
\Delta_2([2]) = \{\id_{[2]}\}.$$ Thus $${\mathcal{L}}_{(\Delta_2, \partial \Delta_2)}(A, B; C)_2 = A \wedge \left(
\bigwedge_{\partial
\Delta_2([2]) \setminus \{\id_{[2]},*\}} B \right) \wedge C.$$ As $\partial \Delta_2[1] = \Delta_2[1]$ we get $${\mathcal{L}}_{(\Delta_2, \partial \Delta_2)}(A, B; C)_1 = \left(\bigwedge_{\partial
\Delta_2([1]) \setminus *} B\right) \wedge C.$$ The map $\psi^* \colon \Delta_2([1]) \ra \Delta_2([2])$ sends the six elements of $\Delta_2([1])$ injectively to six elements in $\Delta_2([2])$, so on the Loday construction we only use the unit maps of $A$ and $B$ to fill in the gaps. In particular, the identity of $[2]$ is not in the image of $\psi$ and we get as $\psi^*$ on the Loday construction $$\xymatrix{{\left(\bigwedge_{\partial
\Delta_2([1]) \setminus *} B\right) \wedge C} \ar[r]^(0.3)\cong & S
\smash \wedge
\left(\bigwedge_{\Delta_2([2]) \setminus (\{\id_{[2]}\} \cup
\text{im}(\psi^*))} S\right) \wedge \left(\bigwedge_{\text{im}(\psi^*)\setminus *}
B\right) \wedge C \ar[d]_{\eta_A \wedge
\left(\bigwedge _{\Delta_2([2]) \setminus (\{\id_{[2]}\} \cup
\text{im}(\psi^*))} \eta_B\right) \wedge
\left(\bigwedge_{\text{im}(\psi^*)\setminus *} \id_B \right) \wedge \id_C} \\
& A \wedge \left(\bigwedge_{\partial
\Delta_2([2]) \setminus \{\id_{[2]},*\}} B\right) \wedge C.}$$
In contrast to this, the map $\varphi^* \colon \Delta_2([2]) \ra
\Delta_2([1])$ is surjective. The preimage of the basepoint under $\varphi^*$ is just the basepoint, so we get the identity on the $C$-factor in $A \wedge \left(\bigwedge_{\partial
\Delta_2([2]) \setminus \{\id_{[2]},*\}} B\right) \wedge C$, but we have to use the map $f\colon A \ra B$ and several instances of the multiplication on $B$ to get to $\left(\bigwedge_{\partial
\Delta_2([1]) \setminus *} B\right) \wedge C$ because there is a fiber of cardinality three and a fiber of cardinality two.
If in Definition \[def:loday\] we take $A=B$, then ${\mathcal{L}}_{(X,Y)}(A,A;C) _\bullet = {\mathcal{L}}_X(A;C)_\bullet$. If in addition $A=C$ then we obtain ${\mathcal{L}}_{(X,Y)}(A,A;A) _\bullet= {\mathcal{L}}_X(A)_\bullet$.
If we work relative to $A$, , if we consider ${\mathcal{L}}^A_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C)_\bullet$, then the $A$-factors disappear because we smash over $A$ and we get $${\mathcal{L}}^A_{(X,Y)}(A,B;C)_\bullet \cong {\mathcal{L}}^A_{Y}(B;C)_\bullet.$$
We define *higher topological Hochschild homology of order $n$ of $A$ with coefficients in $C$* by $\THH^{[n],k}(A;C):= \call_{S^n}^k(A;C)_\bullet$. Here, $S^n$ is a pointed simplicial model of the $n$-sphere.
As above, if $k$ is the sphere spectrum it is omitted from the notation. Similarly, if $n=1$ this may be omitted also and written as $\THH^k(A;C)$. If $C=A$, we may write $\THH^{[n],k}(A)$.
\[prop:2.7\]
1. 2. For $A, B$, and as in Definition \[def:loday\], $C$ a commutative $B$-algebra, $X$ a pointed simplicial set and $Y$ a pointed simplicial subset, we get an isomorphism of augmented simplicial commutative $C$-algebras $$\label{eqn:1}
\call_{(X,Y)}^k(A,B;C) _\bullet \cong \call_X^k(A;C) _\bullet
\wedge_{\call_Y^k(A;C)_\bullet }
\call_Y^k(B;C)_\bullet.$$
3. For $X_0$ a common pointed simplicial subset of $X_1$ and $X_2$ and $Y_0$ a common pointed simplicial subset of $Y_1$ and $Y_2$ so that $Y_i
\subseteq X_i$ for $i=1,2$ and $Y_0=X_0\cap Y_1\cap Y_2$, we have an isomorphism of augmented simplicial $C$-algebras $$\label{eqn:2}
\call_{(X_1 \cup_{X_0} X_2, Y_1 \cup_{Y_0} Y_2)}^k(A,B;C) _\bullet\cong
\call_{(X_1,Y_1)}^k(A,B;C)_\bullet \wedge_{\call_{(X_0,Y_0)}^k(A,B;C)_\bullet}
\call_{(X_2,Y_2)}^k(A,B;C)_\bullet.$$
If $C=B$, then in both statements we can work in the unpointed setting.
For the claim in we have a levelwise isomorphism of simplicial spectra $$(\call_{X}^k(A;C))_n \wedge_{(\call_Y^k(A;C))_n}
(\call_Y^k(B;C))_n \cong (\call_{(X,Y)}^k(A,B;C))_n$$ given by the identification of coequalizers $$\left(\bigwedge_{X_n \setminus Y_n} A \right) \wedge \left(
\bigwedge_{Y_n \setminus \ast} A \right) \wedge C
\bigwedge_{\left( \left(\bigwedge_{Y_n \setminus \ast} A \right)
\wedge C \right)} \left( \bigwedge_{Y_n \setminus \ast} B
\right) \wedge C
\cong \left(\bigwedge_{X_n \setminus Y_n} A \right) \wedge \left(
\bigwedge_{Y_n \setminus \ast} B\right) \wedge C. $$
Similarly, for we have a levelwise isomorphism of simplicial spectra $$(\call_{(X_1,Y_1)}^k(A,B;C))_n
\wedge_{(\call_{(X_0,Y_0)}^k(A,B;C))_n} (\call_{(X_2,Y_2)}^k(A,B;C))_n
\cong (\call_{(X_1 \cup_{X_0} X_2, Y_1 \cup_{Y_0} Y_2)}^k(A,B;C))_n.$$ Here we use that tensoring a commutative $S$-algebra with a pointed simplicial set is compatible with pushouts of simplicial sets, hence we get $$\begin{gathered}
\left(\bigwedge_{(X_1)_n\setminus (Y_1)_n} A \wedge
\bigwedge_{(Y_1)_n \setminus \ast} B \wedge C \right)
\bigwedge_{\left( \bigwedge_{(X_0)_n\setminus (Y_0)_n} A \wedge
\bigwedge_{(Y_0) _n \setminus \ast} B \wedge C \right)} \left(
\bigwedge_{(X_2)_n \setminus (Y_2)_n} A \wedge \bigwedge_{(Y_2)_n
\setminus \ast} B \wedge C \right) \\ \cong
\bigwedge_{(X_1 \cup_{X_0} X_2)_n \setminus (Y_1 \cup_{Y_0} Y_2)_n} A
\wedge \bigwedge_{y\in (Y_1 \cup_{Y_0} Y_2)_n \setminus \ast} B \wedge C.\end{gathered}$$
Let $A$ be an augmented commutative $C$-algebra, , in addition to the map $g \circ f \colon A \ra C$ we have a map $\eta \colon C \ra A$, such that $g \circ f \circ \eta = \id_C$. In that case, we can identify the relative Loday construction ${\mathcal{L}}^C_{(X,Y)}(A, C; C)_\bullet$ with the Loday construction of the quotient:
\[prop:relative-quotient\] Let $A$ be an augmented commutative $C$-algebra. Then there is an isomorphism of simplicial augmented commutative $C$-algebras $$\label{eq:quotient}
{\mathcal{L}}^C_{(X,Y)}(A, C; C)_\bullet \cong {\mathcal{L}}^C_{X/Y}(A;C)_\bullet$$ where $X/Y$ has the equivalence class of $Y$ as a basepoint.
We use Proposition \[prop:2.7\] above and obtain that $${\mathcal{L}}^C_{(X,Y)}(A, C; C)_\bullet \cong {\mathcal{L}}^C_{X}(A; C)_\bullet
\wedge_{{\mathcal{L}}^C_{Y}(A; C)_\bullet} {\mathcal{L}}^C_{Y}(C; C)_\bullet$$ but ${\mathcal{L}}^C_{Y}(C; C)_\bullet$ is isomorphic to the constant simplicial object $C_\bullet$ with $C$ in every simplicial degree. Thus $${\mathcal{L}}^C_{(X,Y)}(A, C; C)_\bullet \cong {\mathcal{L}}^C_{X}(A; C)_\bullet
\wedge_{{\mathcal{L}}^C_{Y}(A; C)_\bullet} C_\bullet \cong {\mathcal{L}}^C_{X/Y}(A;
C)_\bullet \wedge_C C \cong {\mathcal{L}}^C_{X/Y}(A;
C)_\bullet$$ as claimed.
Proposition \[prop:relative-quotient\] immediately gives rise to the following spectral sequence.
If $C$ is a cofibrant commutative $S$-algebra and $A$ is a cofibrant commutative augmented $C$-algebra and if $Y$ is a pointed simplicial subset of $X$, then there is a spectral sequence $$E^2_{s,t} = \Tor_{s,t}^{\pi_*({\mathcal{L}}^C_Y(A; C)_\bullet)}(\pi_*({\mathcal{L}}^C_X(A; C)_\bullet),
\pi_*C) \Rightarrow \pi_*({\mathcal{L}}^C_{X/Y}(A; C)_\bullet).$$
The isomorphism from Proposition \[prop:relative-quotient\] $${\mathcal{L}}^C_X(A; C)_\bullet \wedge_{{\mathcal{L}}^C_Y(A; C)_\bullet} C \cong {\mathcal{L}}^C_{X/Y}(A; C)_\bullet$$ induces a weak equivalence $${\mathcal{L}}^C_X(A; C)_\bullet \wedge^L_{{\mathcal{L}}^C_Y(A; C)_\bullet} C \sim {\mathcal{L}}^C_{X/Y}(A; C)_\bullet$$ and we get the associated Künneth spectral sequence.
Spectral sequences with the relative Loday construction {#sec:spsq}
=======================================================
In this section we set up some spectral sequences. Let $S$ be the sphere spectrum and let $R$ be a commutative $S$-algebra. Unadorned smash products will be over $S$. We first recall some properties of the category of commutative $R$-algebras: The category of commutative $R$-algebras is a topological model category ([@EKMM VII.4.10]). This implies that it is tensored over the category of unbased spaces and that for every sequence of cofibrations $R \to A \to B$ of commutative $S$-algebras and every relative CW-complex $(L,K)$ the map $$(A \otimes L) \wedge_{(A \otimes K)} (B \otimes K) \to B \otimes L$$ is a cofibration. For a simplicial finite set $X$ and and commutative $R$-algebra $A$ there is a natural isomorphism (see [@EKMM VII.3.2]): $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{L}^R_{X}(A)_\bullet| \cong A \otimes |X|.\end{aligned}$$ We define the Loday construction $\mathcal{L}^R_{|X|}(A)$ as $A \otimes |X|$. We get a similar definition in the pointed setting and we can define the relative Loday construction for a pair of pointed CW complexes $Y \subset X$ and a sequence of maps of commutative $S$-algebras $R \ra A \ra B \ra C$ using Proposition \[prop:2.7\] (a) as $$\label{eq:defLodayspaces}
{\mathcal{L}}^R_{(X, Y)}(A, B; C) := {\mathcal{L}}^R_X(A; C) \wedge^L_{{\mathcal{L}}^R_Y(A; C)} {\mathcal{L}}^R_Y(B; C).$$
Let $A$ be a cofibrant commutative $S$-algebra, and let $B$ be a cofibrant commutative $A$-algebra. There is an equivalence of augmented commutative $B$-algebras $$\call_{(D^n, S^{n-1})}(A,B) \simeq \THH^{[n-1],A}(B)$$ for all $n$.
We proceed by induction on $n$. For $n=1$, $\call_{(D^1, S^{0})}(A,B)$ is the two-sided bar construction $B(B, A, B)$ which is a model for $B
\wedge^L_A B$. As we assumed $B$ to be a cofibrant commutative $A$-algebra $B \wedge^L_A B$ is weakly equivalent to $B \wedge_A B$ which is $\THH^{[0],A}(B)$. For the inductive step, we assume that $\call_{(D^n,S^{n-1})}(A,B) \simeq \THH^{[n-1],A}(B)$. By [@V], we know that $\THH^{[n],A}(B)$ is weakly equivalent to the bar construction $B^A(B,\THH^{[n-1],A}(B), B)$ by decomposing the $n$-sphere into two hemispheres glued along an $(n-1)$-sphere.
We also know that $\call_{(D^{n+1}, S^n)}(A,B)$ can be built from two half-disks of dimension $n+1$, part of whose boundary (the outside edge) has $B$’s over it, and the other part (the $n$-disk we glue along) has $A$’s over it. So by ,
$$\begin{split}
\call_{(D^{n+1}, S^n)}(A,B) &= \call_{(D^{n+1} \bigcup_{D^n} D^{n+1},
D^n \bigcup_{S^{n-1}} D^n)}(A,B) \\
& \cong \call_{(D^{n+1},D^n)}(A,B) \wedge_{\call_{(D^n,
S^{n-1})}(A,B)} \call_{(D^{n+1}, D^n)}(A,B).
\end{split}$$
For example, when $n=1$ we have
$$\call_{(D^{2}, S^1)}(A,B) \simeq \call_{\left(
\begin{adjustbox}{valign=c, scale=0.5}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw (0,1) arc (90:270:0.5);
\fill[opacity=0.4] (0,0) -- (0,1) arc (90:270:0.5);
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,0){};
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,1){};
\end{tikzpicture} \textbf{,} \,
\end{adjustbox}
\begin{adjustbox}{valign=c,scale=0.5}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,1) arc (90:270:0.5);
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,0){};
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,1){};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{adjustbox}
\right)}(A,B) \wedge_{\call_{\left(
\begin{adjustbox}{valign=c,scale=0.5}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
\end{tikzpicture} \textbf{,} \,
\end{adjustbox}
\begin{adjustbox}{valign=c,scale=0.5}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,0){};
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,1){};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{adjustbox}
\right)}(A,B)} \call_{\left(
\begin{adjustbox}{valign=c,scale=0.5}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw (0,1) arc (90:-90:0.5);
\fill[opacity=0.4] (0,0) -- (0,1) arc (90:-90:0.5);
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,0){};
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,1){};
\end{tikzpicture} \textbf{,} \,
\end{adjustbox}
\begin{adjustbox}{valign=c,scale=0.5}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,1) arc (90:-90:0.5);
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,0){};
\node[circle, minimum width=3pt, fill, inner sep=0pt,draw] at (0,1){};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{adjustbox}
\right)}(A,B)$$
So we have $$\begin{aligned}
\call_{(D^{n+1},S^n)}(A,B)
& \cong \call_{(D^{n+1}, D^n)}(A,B) \wedge_{\call_{(D^n,
S^{n-1})}(A,B)} \call_{(D^{n+1},D^n)}(A,B) & \\
& \simeq \call_{(\ast,\ast)}(A,B) \wedge^L_{\call_{(D^n,
S^{n-1})}(A,B)} \call_{(\ast,\ast)}(A,B) &
\text{(by homotopy invariance)}\\
& \simeq B \wedge^L_{\call_{(D^n, S^{n-1})}(A,B)} B & \\
& \simeq B^A(B,\call_{(D^n, S^{n-1})}(A,B), B) & \\
& \simeq B^A(B, \THH^{[n-1],A}(B),B) &
\text{(by assumption)}\\
& \simeq \THH^{[n],A}(B). & \text{(by \cite{V})}\end{aligned}$$
Let $C$ be a commutative $R$-algebra. Let $\mathcal{C}_{R/C}$ and $\mathcal{C}_{C/C}$ denote the categories of commutative $R$-algebras over $C$ and of commutative $C$-algebras over $C$. Let $\mathcal{T}$ denote the category of based spaces. We then have a functor $${\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C \colon \mathcal{C}_{R/C} \times \mathcal{T} \to
\mathcal{C}_{C/C}$$ defined by $(A,X) \mapsto A {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C X:= (A \otimes X) \wedge_A
C$. Here, the map $A \to A \otimes X$ is given by the composition of the isomorphism $A \cong A \otimes {*}$ with the map induced by the inclusion of the basepoint. The augmentation $A {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C X \to C$ is given by $$(A \otimes X) \wedge_A C \to (A \otimes {*}) \otimes_A C \cong C.$$ We have a natural homeomorphism $$\mathcal{C}_{C/C}(A {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C X, B) \cong \mathcal{T}(X,
\mathcal{C}_{R/C}(A, B)).$$ Let $D \to E$ be a map in $\mathcal{C}_{R/C}$ such that the underlying map of commutative $R$-algebras is a cofibration. Let $K
\to L$ be an inclusion of based spaces such that $(L,K)$ is a relative $CW$-complex. Then the natural map $$(D {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C L) \wedge_{(D {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C K)} (E {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C K) \to E
{\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C L$$ is a cofibration of commutative $R$-algebras. For $A \in
\mathcal{C}_{R/C}$ and a simplicial finite pointed set $X$, we have a natural isomorphism of $C$-algebras over $C$: $$|\mathcal{L}^R_{(X,*)}(A; C)_\bullet| \cong A {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C |X|.$$
\[thm:red-over\] Let $S \to A \to B \to C$ be a sequence of cofibrations of commutative $S$-algebras. Then
1. $\THH^{[n], A}(B) \cong A \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A)}
\THH^{[n]}(B)$ and
2. $\THH^{[n], A}(B; C ) \cong C \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A; C)}
\THH^{[n]}(B;C)$.
In both cases, the smash product represents the derived smash product.
In order to show (a) we first prove that $$A \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A)} \THH^{[n]}(B)$$ represents the derived smash product of $A$ and $\THH^{[n]}(B)$ over $\THH^{[n]}(A)$. For this we first show that $\THH^{[n]}(A)$ is a cofibrant commutative $S$-algebra: Since $A$ is a cofibrant commutative $S$-algebra, it suffices to show that the unit $A \to \THH^{[n]}(A)$ or equivalently that the map $A \otimes * \to A \otimes S^n$ is a cofibration of commutatative $S$-algebras. By the properties listed above the map $$(S \otimes S^n) \wedge_{(S \otimes *)} (A \otimes *) \to (A \otimes S^n)$$ is a cofibration. The map $ S \otimes * \to S \otimes S^n$ is an isomorphism because both sides can be identified with $S$. We get that $$(A \otimes *) \cong (S \otimes S^n) \wedge_{(S \otimes *)} (A
\otimes *).$$ Thus, $\THH^{[n]}(A)$ is cofibrant. We now show that $\THH^{[n]}(A) \to \THH^{[n]}(B)$ is a cofibration of commutative $S$-algebras. For this it suffices to show that $A
\otimes S^n \to B \otimes S^n$ is a cofibration. Since $A \to B$ is a cofibration, the map $$(A \otimes S^n) \otimes_{(A \otimes *)} (B \otimes *) \to (B \otimes S^n)$$ is a cofibration. The map $A \otimes * \to B \otimes *$ is a cofibration because it can be identified with the map $A \to
B$. Because cofibrations are stable under cobase change the map $$(A \otimes S^n) \to (A \otimes S^n) \otimes_{(A \otimes *)} (B
\otimes *)$$ is a cofibration. Thus $A \otimes S^n \to B \otimes S^n$ is a cofibration. Because $\THH^{[n]}(A) \to \THH^{[n]}(B)$ is a cofibration between cofibrant commutative $S$-algebras, we get by [@EKMM VII.7.4] that the functor $$- \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A)} \THH^{[n]}(B)$$ preserves weak equivalences between cofibrant commutative $S$-algebras. We factor the map $\THH^{[n]}(A) \to A$ as a cofibration followed by an acyclic fibration $$\THH^{[n]}(A) \rightarrowtail \tilde{A} \stackrel{\sim}{\twoheadrightarrow} A$$ and obtain a weak equivalence $$\tilde{A} \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A)} \THH^{[n]}(B) \stackrel{\sim}{\to}
A \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A)} \THH^{[n]}(B).$$ By [@EKMM VII.6.7] the $S$-algebra $$\tilde{A} \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A)} \THH^{[n]}(B)$$ represents the derived smash product of $A$ and $\THH^{[n]}(B)$ over $\THH^{[n]}(A)$.
We now show that there is an isomorphism of commutative $S$-algebras $$\THH^{[n], A}(B) \cong A \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A)} \THH^{[n]}(B).$$ We start with the isomorphism of commutative $S$-algebras $$\begin{aligned}
A \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A)} \THH^{[n]}(B) &\cong &
|\mathcal{L}_{*}(A)_{\bullet}|
\wedge_{|\mathcal{L}_{S^n}(A)_{\bullet}|}
|\mathcal{L}_{S^n}(B)_{\bullet}| \\
& \cong & |\mathcal{L}_{*}(A)_{\bullet}
\wedge_{\mathcal{L}_{S^n}(A)_{\bullet}}
\mathcal{L}_{S^n}(B)_{\bullet}|.
\end{aligned}$$ By a comparison of coequalizer diagrams we have, for all $n$, isomorphisms of commutative $S$-algebras: $$A \wedge_{A^{\wedge n}} (B^{\wedge n}) \cong \underbrace{B \wedge_A \ldots
\wedge_A B}_{n}$$ and these induce an isomorphism of simplicial commutative $S$-algebras $$\mathcal{L}_{*}(A)_{\bullet}
\wedge_{\mathcal{L}_{S^n}(A)_{\bullet}}
\mathcal{L}_{S^n}(B)_{\bullet} \cong
\mathcal{L}^A_{S^n}(B)_{\bullet}.$$ This proves part (a) of the theorem.
We now prove part (b). We again first show that $$C \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A; C)} \THH^{[n]}(B;C)$$ represents the derived smash product of $C$ and $\THH^{[n]}(B;C)$ over $\THH^{[n]}(A; C)$. For this it suffices to show that $\THH^{[n]}(A; C)$ is a cofibrant commutative $S$-algebra and that the map $\THH^{[n]}(A; C) \to
\THH^{[n]}(B; C)$ is a cofibration of commutative $S$-algebras. The morphism $C \to \THH^{[n]}(A;C)$ is a cofibration because $$C \to A {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C S^n = (A \otimes S^n) \wedge_A C$$ is a cofibration. Thus $\THH^{[n]}(A;C)$ is cofibrant. The map $\THH^{[n]}(A;C) \to \THH^{[n]}(B;C)$ is a cofibration because $A {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C S^n \to B {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C S^n$ can be written as $$A {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C S^n \to (A {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C S^n) \wedge_{(A {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C *)} (B
{\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C *) \rightarrowtail B {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C S^n.$$ The first map of the composition is an isomorphism, because the map $A
{\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C * \to B {\mathbin{\bar{\otimes}}}_C *$ identifies with the identity of $C$.
It remains to prove that there is an isomorphism of commutative $S$-algebras $$\THH^{[n], A}(B; C) \cong C \wedge_{\THH^{[n]}(A; C)} \THH^{[n]}(B;C).$$ This follows as above by using that we have an isomorphism of commutative $S$-algebras $$C \wedge_{(A^{\wedge n} \wedge C)} (B^{\wedge n} \wedge C ) \cong
B^{\wedge_A n} C$$ for all $n \geq 0$.
The proof shows that Theorem \[thm:red-over\] also holds for general finite pointed simplicial sets $X$ and a sequence of cofibrations of commutative $S$-algebras $S \to A \to B \to C$, giving us isomorphisms
1. ${\mathcal{L}}^A_{|X|}(B) \cong A \wedge_{{\mathcal{L}}_{|X|}(A)} {\mathcal{L}}_{|X|}(B)$ and
2. ${\mathcal{L}}^A_{|X|}(B; C) \cong C \wedge_{{\mathcal{L}}_{|X|}(A; C)} {\mathcal{L}}_{|X|}(B; C)$.
It is known that for topological Hochschild homology, there is a difference between Galois descent and étale descent: John Rognes [@Rognes] developed the notion of Galois extensions for commutative $S$-algebras and showed that for a Galois extension $A \ra B$ with finite Galois group $G$ the canonical map $B \ra \THH^A(B)$ is a weak equivalence [@Rognes Lemma 9.2.6]. Akhil Mathew [@Mathew] provided an example of such a Galois extension that does *not* satisfy étale descent, , the pushout map $$B \wedge_A \THH(A) \ra \THH(B)$$ is not a weak equivalence. Theorem \[thm:red-over\] doesn’t contradict this. We take a finite Galois extension $A \ra B$. Then we obtain a weak equivalences $$B \ra \THH^A(B) \cong A \wedge_{\THH(A)} \THH(B).$$ But if we then smash this equivalence with $\THH(A)$ over $A$ the resulting equivalence $$\label{eq:chain}
B \wedge_A \THH(A) \simeq (A \wedge_{\THH(A)} \THH(B)) \wedge_A
\THH(A)$$ cannot be reduced to the statement that $B \wedge_A \THH(A)$ is equivalent to $\THH(B)$: On the right hand side of we cannot reduce the $\THH(A)$-term because in the smash product we use the augmentation map $\THH(A) \ra A$ and its composite with the unit is not equivalent to the identity map.
Let $R$ be a commutative $S$-algebra, and $\mathcal{C}_R$ the category of commutative $R$-algebras. Let $D$ be the category $\{b \longleftarrow a
\longrightarrow c\}$. Then the category ${}^D\mathcal{C}_R$ of functors from $D$ to $\mathcal{C}_R$ admits a model category structure, where the weak equivalences (resp. fibrations) are the maps that are objectwise weak equivalences (resp. fibrations). We have a cofibrant replacement functor ${}^D\mathcal{C}_R \to
{}^D\mathcal{C}_R$. The homotopy pushout $B {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A C$ of a diagram $B
\longleftarrow A \longrightarrow C$ in $\mathcal{C}_R$ is constructed by taking the chosen cofibrant replacement $B'
\longleftarrow A' \longrightarrow C'$ of the diagram and then taking the usual pushout $B' \wedge_{A'} C'$. One gets a functor $$(-) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(-)}(-)\colon {}^D\mathcal{C}_R \to \mathcal{C}_R.$$ This functor sends weak equivalences to weak equivalences. There is natural map $$B {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A C \to B \wedge_A C$$ which is a weak equivalence when $A$ is cofibrant and $A \to B$ and $A \to C$ are cofibrations. If $A$ is cofibrant, then $ B {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A C$ is equivalent to the derived smash product $B \wedge^L_A C$ of $B$ and $C$ over $A$. One can show:
\[hp\] For a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
E & D \ar[r] \ar[l] & F \\
B \ar[d] \ar[u] & A \ar[r] \ar[l] \ar[d] \ar[u] & C \ar[d] \ar[u] \\
H & G \ar[r] \ar[l] & I
}$$ in $\mathcal{C}_R$ there is a zig-zag of weak equivalences $$(E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_D F) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(B {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A C)}
(H {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_G I) \sim (E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_B H)
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(D {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A G)} (F {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_CI)$$ over $(E \wedge_B H) \wedge_{(D \wedge_A G)} (F \wedge_C I)$ where $$(E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_D F) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(B {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A C)}
(H {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_G I) \to (E \wedge_B H) \wedge_{(D \wedge_A
G)} (F \wedge_C I)$$ is given by the composition of the morphism $$(E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_D F) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(B {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A C)}
(H {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_G I) \to (E \wedge_D F) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(B
\wedge_A C)} (H \wedge_G I)
\to (E \wedge_D F) \wedge_{(B \wedge_A C)} (H \wedge_G I)$$ with the standard isomorphism $$(E \wedge_D F) {\wedge}_{(B \wedge_A C)} (H \wedge_G I)
\cong (E \wedge_B H) \wedge_{(D \wedge_A G)} (F \wedge_C I)$$ and $$(E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_B H) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(D {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A G)}
(F {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_CI) \to (E \wedge_B H) \wedge_{(D \wedge_A G)}
(F \wedge_C I)$$ is given by $$(E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_B H) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(D {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A G)}
(F {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C I) \to (E \wedge_B H) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(D
\wedge_A G)} (F \wedge_C I)
\to (E \wedge_B H) \wedge_{(D \wedge_A G)} (F \wedge_C I).$$
\[thm:eva2nd\] Let $S \to A \to B \to C$ be a sequence of cofibrations of commutative $S$-algebras. Then $$\THH^{[n]}(B; C) \sim \THH^{[n]}(A;C) \wedge^{L}_{\THH^{[n-1],
A}(C)} \THH^{[n-1],B}(C).$$
We work in the model category of commutative $S$-algebras. For a map of commutative $S$-algebras $D \to E$ we define commutative $S$-algebras $T^{[n],D}(E)$ augmented over $E$ inductively as follows: Let $T^{[0],D}(E)$ be $E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_D E$ and let $T^{[0],D}(E) \to E$ be defined by $$E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_D E \to E \wedge_D E\to E.$$ Set $T^{[n+1],D}(E) := E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n],D}(E)} E $ and define $T^{[n+1],D}(E) \to E$ by $$E {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n],D}(E)} E \to E \wedge_{T^{[n],D}(E)} E \to E.$$ The $T^{[n],(-)}(E)$ are then endofunctors on the category of commutative $S$-algebras over $E$. Using the decomposition $S^n = D^n \cup_{S^{n-1}} D^n$, one can show that there are zig-zags of weak equivalences over $C$ (compare [@V]) $$\begin{aligned}
\THH^{[n],A}(C) & \sim & C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{\THH^{[n-1],A}(C)} C \\
\THH^{[n]}(A;C) & \sim & C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{\THH^{[n-1]}(A;C)} C. \\\end{aligned}$$ With that it follows that there are equivalences over $C$ $$\begin{aligned}
\THH^{[n],A}(C) & \sim & T^{[n],A}(C) \\
\THH^{[n]}(A;C) & \sim & T^{[n-1],C \wedge_S A}(C). \\\end{aligned}$$ The same is true for $B$ instead of $A$.
It thus suffices to show: $$T ^{[n], C \wedge_S B}(C) \sim T^{[n], C \wedge_S A}(C)
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n], A}(C)} T^{[n],B}(C).$$ We prove by induction on $n$ that these $S$-algebras are equivalent via a zig-zag of weak equivalences over $C$ where the augmentation of the right-hand side is given by $$T^{[n], C \wedge_S A}(C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n], A}(C)} T^{[n],B}(C)
\to T^{[n], C \wedge_S A}(C) {\wedge}_{T^{[n], A}(C)}
T^{[n],B}(C) \to C.$$ We have an isomorphism $T^{[0], C \wedge_S B}(C) \cong T^{[0], (C
\wedge_S A) \wedge_A B}(C)$ over $C$. Because of the cofibrancy assumptions the map $$(C \wedge_S A) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A B \xrightarrow{} (C \wedge_S A) \wedge_A B$$ is a weak equivalence. It induces a weak equivalence $$( C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{((C \wedge_S A) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A B)} (C
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) \xrightarrow{\sim}
C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{((C \wedge_S A) \wedge_A B)} C = T^{[0], (C \wedge_S A) \wedge_A B}(C).$$ This is a map over $C$ if we endow the left-hand side with the augmentation $$( C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{((C \wedge_S A) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A B)} (C
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) \to ( C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) \wedge_{((C \wedge_S A) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A
B)} (C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) \to C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C \to C.$$ By Lemma \[hp\], we have an equivalence $$( C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{((C \wedge_S A) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A B)} (C
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) \sim (C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(C \wedge_S A)} C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(C
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_A C)} (C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_B C)$$ and the right-hand side is equal to $T^{[0], C \wedge_S A}(C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[0],A}(C)} T^{[0],
B}(C)$. The compatibility of the equivalence with the isomorphism $$( C {\wedge}_C C) {\wedge}_{((C \wedge_S A) {\wedge}_A B)}
(C {\wedge}_C C) \cong (C {\wedge}_{(C \wedge_S A)} C)
{\wedge}_{(C {\wedge}_A C)} (C {\wedge}_B C)$$ implies that it is an equivalence over $C$.
We now assume that the claim is true for $n$. Set $T' = T^{[n], C
\wedge_S A}(C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n], A}(C)} T^{[n],B}(C)$. By induction hypothesis we have $$T^{[n+1], C \wedge_S B}(C) = C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n],C \wedge_S
B}(C)} C \sim C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T'} C.$$ via a zig-zag of weak equivalences over $C$. We have a weak equivalence $$(C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T'} (C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) \xrightarrow{\sim}
C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T'} C.$$ It is a map over $C$ if we endow the right-hand side with the augmentation $$(C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T'} (C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) \to (C
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) {\wedge}_{T'} (C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) \to C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C
C \to C.$$ By Lemma \[hp\] we have an equivalence $$(C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T'} (C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_C C) \sim (C
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n], C \wedge_S A}(C)} C) {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{(C
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n],A}(C)} C)} (C {\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n],B}(C)} C)$$ and the right-hand side is equal to $T^{[n+1], C \wedge_S A}(C)
{\mathbin{\tilde{\wedge}}}_{T^{[n+1],A}(C)} T^{[n+1], B}(C)$. Because of the compatibility with the isomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
& & (C \wedge_C C) {\wedge}_{(T^{[n], C\wedge_S A}(C)
\wedge_{T^{[n], A}(C)} T^{[n],B}(C))} (C {\wedge}_C C) \\
& \cong & (C {\wedge}_{T^{[n], C \wedge_S A}(C)} C) {\wedge}_{(C
{\wedge}_{T^{[n],A}(C)} C)} (C {\wedge}_{T^{[n],B}(C)} C)
\end{aligned}$$ it is an equivalence over $C$. This shows the induction step.
Applications {#sec:ex}
============
Thom spectra
------------
Christian Schlichtkrull [@schlichtkrull] gives a general formula for the Loday construction on Thom spectra ${\mathcal{L}}_X(T(f); M)$ where $f\colon A \rightarrow BF_{h\mathcal{I}}$ is an $E_\infty$-map, $A$ is a grouplike $E_\infty$-space, and $BF_{h\mathcal{I}}$ is a model for $BF=BGL_1(S)$, the classifying space for stable spherical fibrations. The commutative $S$-algebra $T(f)$ is the associated Thom spectrum for $f$ and $M$ is any $T(f)$-module.
If we set $B=C$ in Theorem \[thm:red-over\], then we obtain $$\label{eq:juggling} \THH^A(B) \simeq B
\wedge^L_{\THH^{[n]}(A; B)} \THH^{[n]}(B)$$ so if there is a factorization as follows $$\xymatrix{
A \ar[r]^f \ar[d]_h & BF_{h\mathcal{I}} \\
B \ar[ru]_g
}$$ such that $h$ is a map of grouplike $E_\infty$-spaces, then we get an induced map of commutative $S$-algebras $T(f) \ra T(g)$.
For $X$ a sphere and $M = T(g)$, we obtain [@schlichtkrull Theorem 1] $$\THH^{[n]}(T(f); T(g)) \simeq T(g) \wedge \Omega^\infty(S^n
\wedge \mathbb{A})_+$$ where $\mathbb{A}$ denotes the spectrum associated to $A$ such that the map from $A$ to the underlying infinite loop space of $\mathbb{A}$, $\Omega^\infty \mathbb{A}$, is a weak equivalence.
Our juggling formula gives a formula for higher $\THH$ of $T(g)$ as a commutative $T(f)$-algebra: $$\begin{aligned}
\THH^{[n], T(f)}(T(g)) & \simeq T(g) \wedge^L_{\THH^{[n]}(T(f);
T(g))} \THH^{[n]}(T(g)) \\
& \simeq T(g) \wedge^L_{T(g) \wedge
\Omega^\infty(S^n
\wedge \mathbb{A})_+} T(g) \wedge \Omega^\infty(S^n
\wedge \mathbb{B})_+.\end{aligned}$$ Important examples of such factorizations are listed for instance in [@Beardsley section 3]. For example we can consider $BSU \ra BU$, $BU \ra BSO$ or $B\text{String} \ra B\text{Spin}$ to get $\THH^{[n], MSU}(MU)$, $\THH^{[n], MU}(MSO)$ or $\THH^{[n],
M\text{String}}(M\text{Spin})$. As these examples give rise to Hopf-Galois extensions of ring spectra (see [@Rognes]) but not Galois extensions, the above relative $\THH$-terms will be non-trivial.
$\THH^{[n], HA}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ for commutative pointed ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-monoid algebras $A$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hesselholt and Madsen [@HM Theorem 7.1] showed a splitting result for topological Hochschild homology of pointed monoid rings. There is a straightforward generalization of this splitting result to higher order topological Hochschild homology in the commutative case. Let $\Pi$ be a discrete pointed commutative monoid, , a commutative monoid in the category of based spaces with smash product. Assume moreover that $\Pi$ is augmented, that is: admits a map of pointed monoids to the pointed monoid $\{1, *\}$, where $1$ is the unit and $*$ the base point. As long as $1\neq *$ in $\Pi$, there always is such a map: we can send all invertible elements in the monoid to $1$ and all the rest to $*$. In general, however, such an augmentation is not unique, so it needs to be part of the data. We consider the monoid algebra where the ground ring is the field ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ and all unadorned tensor products are understood to be over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. Hesselholt-Madsen define ${\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]$ as the ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ vector space with basis $\Pi$ modulo the subspace generated by the basepoint.
The analogue of [@HM Theorem 7.1] is a splitting of augmented commutative $H{\mathbb{F}}_p$-algebras: $$\label{eq:splitting}
\THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]) \cong \THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \wedge_{H{\mathbb{F}}_p}
\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]).$$ Note that $\pi_*(\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi])) \cong
\HH_*^{{\mathbb{F}}_p, [n]}({\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi])$.
\[thm:Shuklamonoidalgs\] For any ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-algebra $\mathbb{F}_p[\Pi]$ on an augmented commutative pointed monoid $\Pi$ with $* \neq 1$ there is a weak equivalence $$\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \simeq H{\mathbb{F}}_p \wedge^L_{\THH^{[n],
H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi])} H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]$$ of commutative augmented $H{\mathbb{F}}_p$-algebras.
Theorem \[thm:red-over\] applied to a model of the augmentation map $H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi] \ra H{\mathbb{F}}_p$ that is a cofibration yields that $$\label{eq:thhhh}
\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \simeq \THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p)
\wedge^L_{\THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi])} H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi].$$ We use the two-sided bar construction as model for the above derived smash product and use the splittings in and to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
& B(\THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p), \THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]), H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]) \\
\simeq & B(\THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p), \THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \wedge_{H{\mathbb{F}}_p}
\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]), H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]) \\
\simeq & B(\THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p), \THH^{[n]}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p), H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \wedge_{H{\mathbb{F}}_p}
B(H{\mathbb{F}}_p, \THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]), H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]) \\
\simeq & H{\mathbb{F}}_p \wedge_{H{\mathbb{F}}_p} B(H{\mathbb{F}}_p, \THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]), H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]) \end{aligned}$$ which is a model of $H{\mathbb{F}}_p \wedge^L_{\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi])} H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]$.
We apply the above result to special cases of pointed commutative monoids, where we can identify the necessary ingredients for the above result.
1. 2. Consider the polynomial algebra ${\mathbb{F}}_p[x]$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ (with $|x|= 0$, augmented by sending $x\mapsto 0$), and let $B_1'(x) = {\mathbb{F}}_p[x]$ and $B_{n+1}'(x) =
\Tor_{*,*}^{B_{n}'(x)}({\mathbb{F}}_p, {\mathbb{F}}_p)$ with total grading. Then $$\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p[x]}_*(H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \cong B_{n+2}'(x).$$
3. Let $m$ be a natural number such that $p$ divides $m$, and let $B_{1}''(m) = \Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\varepsilon x) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\varphi^0 x)$ with $|\varepsilon x| = 1$ and $|\varphi^0
x| = 2$ and $B_{n+1}''(m)= \Tor^{B_n''(m)}({\mathbb{F}}_p, {\mathbb{F}}_p)$. Then $$\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p[x]/x^m}_*(H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \cong B_{n+1}''(m).$$
4. Let $G$ be a finitely generated abelian group, so, $G = \Z^m \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^N \Z/q_i^{\ell_i}$ for some primes $q_i$. Then $\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p[G]}_*(H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ can be expressed in terms of a tensor product of factors that are isomorphic to $\THH^{[n],
H{\mathbb{F}}_p[x]}_*(H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ or $\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p[x]/(x^{p^\ell})}_*(H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ for some $\ell$.
We can rewrite $H{\mathbb{F}}_p \wedge^L_{\THH^{[n], H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi])} H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]$ as $$H{\mathbb{F}}_p \wedge_{H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]} H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]\wedge^L_{\THH^{[n],
H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi])} H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]$$ which is equivalent to $$H{\mathbb{F}}_p \wedge_{H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]} \THH^{[n+1], H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]).$$ In [@BLPRZ] $\pi_*(\THH^{[n+1], H{\mathbb{F}}_p}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi])) \cong
\HH_*^{[n+1], {\mathbb{F}}_p}({\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi])$ is calculated in the cases of the Proposition:
For (a) we consider the pointed monoid $\Pi=\{0,1,x, x^2, \ldots\}$ whose associated pointed monoid ring ${\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]$ is the ring of polynomials over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$. In [@BLPRZ Theorem 8.6], we show inductively that $$\HH^{[n], {\mathbb{F}}_p}_*({\mathbb{F}}_p[x]) \cong {\mathbb{F}}_p[x] \otimes B_{n+1}'(x).$$ We also get inductively that the augmentation on $
\HH^{[n]}_*({\mathbb{F}}_p[x]) $ is the identity on the $ {\mathbb{F}}_p[x]$ factor and for degree reasons the obvious augmentation on $
B_{n+1}'(x)$. Therefore the claim follows.
Higher Hochschild homology of truncated polynomial algebras of the form ${\mathbb{F}}_p[x]/x^m$ for $m$ divisible by $p$ was calculated in [@BLPRZ] (the case $m=p^\ell$) and [@BHLPRZ] (the general case). The result in those cases is $$\HH^{[n]}_*(H{\mathbb{F}}_p[x]/x^m) \cong {\mathbb{F}}_p[x]/x^m \otimes B_n''(m)$$ where $B_1''(m) = \Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\varepsilon x) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\varphi^0 x)$ with $|\varepsilon x| = 1$ and $|\varphi^0
x| = 2$ and where $B_{n+1}''(m)= \Tor^{B_n''(m)}({\mathbb{F}}_p, {\mathbb{F}}_p)$. This implies (b).
For a finitely generated abelian group as in (c) the group ring splits as $${\mathbb{F}}_p[\Z]^{\otimes m} \otimes \bigotimes_{i=1}^N
{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Z/q_i^{\ell_i}].$$ The torsion groups with torsion prime to $p$ do not contribute to higher (topological) Hochschild homology because they are étale over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ (see [@BLPRZ Theorem 9.1] and [@Horel Theorem 7.9]). For the free factors we use the fact that ${\mathbb{F}}_p[\Z]= {\mathbb{F}}_p[x^{\pm 1}]$ is étale over ${\mathbb{F}}_p[x]$; for the factors with torsion that is a power of $p$, we use the fact that ${\mathbb{F}}_p[\Z/p^\ell] \cong {\mathbb{F}}_p[y]/(y^{p^\ell} -1) \cong
{\mathbb{F}}_p[x]/(x^{p^\ell})$ by taking $x=y-1$.
Let $k$ be a commutative ring and let $A$ be a commutative $k$-algebra. In [@BHLPRZ] we define higher order Shukla homology of $A$ over $k$ as $$\Shukla^{[n], k}_*(A) := \THH_*^{[n], Hk}(HA).$$ Thus the calculations above determine higher order Shukla homology for commutative pointed monoid algebras over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, $\Shukla^{[n],
{\mathbb{F}}_p[\Pi]}_*({\mathbb{F}}_p)$.
The examples $ko$, $ku$, $\ell$ and $\mathit{tmf}$
--------------------------------------------------
Angeltveit and Rognes calculate in [@AR 5.13, 6.2] $H_*(\THH(ko); {\mathbb{F}}_2)$, $H_*(\THH(\mathit{tmf}); {\mathbb{F}}_2)$, $H_*(\THH(ku); {\mathbb{F}}_2)$ and for any odd prime $p$ they determine $H_*(\THH(\ell); {\mathbb{F}}_p)$ where $\ell \ra
ku_{(p)}$ is the Adams summand of $p$-local connective topological complex K-theory.
The following lemma collects some immediate consequences of their work, which were already noticed in [@G]. These will be the basis of the calculations in the results that follow the lemma. The index of a generator denotes its degree.
\[lem:thhwithcoeffs\]
1. 2. $$\THH_*(ko; {\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Lambda(x_5, x_7) \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_8].$$
3. $$\THH_*(\mathit{tmf}; {\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Lambda(x_9, x_{13}, x_{15})
\otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_{16}].$$
4. $$\THH_*(ku; {\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Lambda(x_3, x_7) \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_8].$$
5. At any odd prime: $$\THH_*(\ell; {\mathbb{F}}_p) \cong \Lambda(x_{2p-1}, x_{2p^2-1}) \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_p[y_{2p^2}].$$
In all four cases Angeltveit and Rognes show that $H_*(\THH(E); {\mathbb{F}}_p)$ is of the form $H_*(E; {\mathbb{F}}_p) \otimes A_E$ for $A_E$ as described in below, where $p=2$ for $E=ko, \mathit{tmf}, ku$ and $p$ is odd for $E = \ell$. We rewrite $\pi_*(\THH(E; H{\mathbb{F}}_p))$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_*(\THH(E; H{\mathbb{F}}_p)) & \cong \pi_*(\THH(E) \wedge^L_E H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \\
& \cong \pi_*((\THH(E) \wedge H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \wedge^L_{E
\wedge H{\mathbb{F}}_p} H{\mathbb{F}}_p)\end{aligned}$$ and thus we get a spectral sequence $$E^2_{s,t} = \Tor_{s,t}^{H_*(E; {\mathbb{F}}_p)}(H_*(\THH(E); {\mathbb{F}}_p), {\mathbb{F}}_p)$$ converging to the homotopy groups of $\THH(E; H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$. As $H_*(\THH(E); {\mathbb{F}}_p) \cong H_*(E; {\mathbb{F}}_p) \otimes A_E$ in all four cases, the $E^2$-term above is concentrated in the $s=0$ column with $$E^2_{0,*} \cong A_E,$$ where $$\label{AE}
A_E = \begin{cases}
\Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\sigma\bar{\xi}_1^4, \sigma\bar{\xi}_2^2) \otimes
{\mathbb{F}}_2[\sigma\bar{\xi}_3], & E = ko, \\[1ex]
\Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\sigma\bar{\xi}_1^8, \sigma\bar{\xi}_2^4,
\sigma\bar{\xi}_3^2) \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\sigma\bar{\xi}_4], &
E=\mathit{tmf}, \\[1ex]
\Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\sigma\bar{\xi}_1^2, \sigma\bar{\xi}_2^2) \otimes
{\mathbb{F}}_2[\sigma\bar{\xi}_3], & E = ku, \text{ and }\\[1ex]
\Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\sigma\bar{\xi}_1, \sigma\bar{\xi}_2) \otimes
{\mathbb{F}}_p[\sigma \bar{\tau}_2], & E = \ell.
\end{cases}$$ The degrees are the usual degrees in the dual of the Steenrod algebra, hence at $2$ we have $|\xi_i|=2^i-1$ and at odd primes $|\xi_i|=2p^i-2$ and $|\tau_i|=2p^i-1$. We also have $|\sigma y| = |y|+1$. The $\bar{(.)}$ denotes conjugation in the dual of the Steenrod algebra. Counting degrees gives the claim.
We can use the equivalence $\THH^A(B) \simeq B \wedge^L_{\THH(A; B)}
\THH(B)$ from Theorem \[thm:red-over\] to deduce the following result.
\[thm:thh\^E(hfp)\] There are additive isomorphisms
1. 2. $\THH^{ko}(H{\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_5) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_7) \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_2]/\mu_2^4$,
3. $\THH^{\mathit{tmf}}(H{\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_9) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_{13}) \otimes \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_{15})
\otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_2]/\mu_2^8$,
4. $\THH^{ku}(H{\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_3) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_7) \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_2]/\mu_2^4$,
5. and for odd primes $p$ we get an additive isomorphism $$\THH^{\ell}(H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \cong \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\rho^0x_{2p-1}) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\rho^0x_{2p^2-1}) \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_p[\mu_2]/\mu_2^{p^2}.$$
Here $\rho^0$ raises degree by one.
We use Theorem \[thm:red-over\] in the case where $B=H{\mathbb{F}}_p$. In [@B], Bökstedt shows that $\THH_*(H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \cong
{\mathbb{F}}_p[\mu_2]$ for all primes $p$. We give the details for the case $ko$; the arguments for the other examples are completely analogous.
The $E^2$-term of the spectral sequence is $$\Tor_*^{\Lambda(x_5,x_7)\otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_8]}({\mathbb{F}}_2,{\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_2]) \Longrightarrow
\THH_*^{ko}(H{\mathbb{F}}_2).$$ Since both $x_5$ and $x_7$ have odd degrees, they cannot act on $\mu_2$ other than trivially. Thus we can rewrite the left-hand side as $$\Tor_*^{\Lambda(x_5,x_7)}({\mathbb{F}}_2,{\mathbb{F}}_2) \otimes
\Tor_*^{{\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_8]}({\mathbb{F}}_2,{\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_2]).$$
The explicit description of the generators in [@AR Theorem 6.2] implies that the map ${\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_8] \to {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_2]$ takes $\mu_8$ to $\mu_2^4$, because $\mu_8$ corresponds to $\sigma\bar{\xi}_3$ and Angeltveit and Rognes show [@AR proof of 5.12] that the $\sigma\bar{\xi}_k$ satisfy $$(\sigma\bar{\xi}_k)^2 = \sigma\bar{\xi}_{k+1}$$ for $p=2$ and $\mu_2$ in Bökstedt’s calculation corresponds to $\sigma\bar{\xi}_1$.
Therefore the right-hand $\Tor$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_2]/\mu_2^4$. Hence the $E^2$-term is isomorphic to $$\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_5)\otimes \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_7)
\otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_2]/\mu_2^4.$$
Since all the nonzero classes in this $E^2$-term have even total degree, the spectral sequence must collapse at $E^2$.
In the case of the Adams summand, $\ell$, we work at odd primes and here in [@AR proof of 5.12] the relation $$(\sigma\bar{\tau}_k)^p = \sigma\bar{\tau}_{k+1}$$ is shown. Hence $\sigma\bar{\tau}_2$ in $\THH_*(\ell; H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ corresponds to $(\sigma\bar{\tau}_0)^{p^2}$ and $\sigma\bar{\tau}_0$ is the element that represents $\mu_2$ at odd primes.
In order to determine for instance $\THH^{ko}(H{\mathbb{F}}_2)$ multiplicatively we would also need to control possible multiplicative extensions. We can show by degree considerations that $(\rho^kx_7)^2=0$, but not whether $(\rho^kx_5)^2$ must vanish.
As a general warning we discuss the case of the bar spectral sequence in the case $\THH_*(ku; H{\mathbb{F}}_2)$. Here, we know the answer from Lemma \[lem:thhwithcoeffs\]: $$\THH_*(ku; H{\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Lambda(x_3, x_7) \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_8].$$ However, if we use the bar spectral sequence we get as the $E^2$-term $$\Tor^{\THH^{[0]}_*(ku; H{\mathbb{F}}_2)}_{*,*}({\mathbb{F}}_2, {\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong
\Tor^{{\mathbb{F}}_2[\bar{\xi}_1^2,
\bar{\xi}_2^2, \bar{\xi}_k, k \geq 3]}_{*,*}({\mathbb{F}}_2, {\mathbb{F}}_2)$$ because $$\THH^{[0]}_*(ku; H{\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong H_*(ku; {\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong {\mathbb{F}}_2[\bar{\xi}_1^2,
\bar{\xi}_2^2, \bar{\xi}_k, k \geq 3]$$ (see for instance [@AR 6.1]). Hence the spectral sequence collapses because $$E^2_{*,*} \cong \Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\sigma\bar{\xi}_1^2,
\sigma\bar{\xi}_2^2, \sigma\bar{\xi}_k, k \geq 3)$$ and all generators are concentrated on the $1$-line. But we know that the exterior generators in $\Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\sigma\bar{\xi}_k, k
\geq 3)$ extend to form ${\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_8]$, so there are highly non-trivial multiplicative extensions in this spectral sequence.
Veen established a Hopf-structure on the bar spectral sequence [@V §7] for higher order $\THH$ of $H{\mathbb{F}}_p$. His argument generalizes: The pinch maps $\mathbb{S}^n \ra \mathbb{S}^n \vee \mathbb{S}^n$ give rise to a comultiplication $$\THH^{[n]}(A; C) \ra \THH^{[n]}(A; C) \wedge_C \THH^{[n]}(A; C)$$ and as the multiplication on $\THH^{[n]}(A; C)$ is induced by the fold map, both structures are compatible. For $\THH(A)$ this structure is heavily used in [@AR].
If $A$ is connective, then we can consider $A \ra H(\pi_0A)$. For $C=
H{\mathbb{F}}_p$ this multiplication and comultiplication turns $\THH_*^{[n]}(A; H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ into an ${\mathbb{F}}_p$-Hopf algebra. Veen’s arguments also transfer to yield that the bar spectral sequence $$\Tor_{*,*}^{\THH_*^{[n]}(A; H{\mathbb{F}}_p)}({\mathbb{F}}_p, {\mathbb{F}}_p) \Rightarrow
\THH_*^{[n+1]}(A; H{\mathbb{F}}_p)$$ is a spectral sequence of Hopf-algebras; in particular, the differentials satisfy a Leibniz and a co-Leibniz rule and these facts let us determine the differentials in certain cases.
Additively, $$\THH^{[2]}(ko; H{\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_5)\otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_7)
\otimes \Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\varepsilon\mu_8).$$ Here, the degrees are $|\rho^0x_5|=6$, $|\rho^0x_7|=8$ and $|\varepsilon\mu_8|=9$.
Using the $\Tor$ spectral sequence we get $$\Tor_{*,*}^{\Lambda(x_5)\otimes \Lambda(x_7) \otimes {\mathbb{F}}_2[\mu_8]}({\mathbb{F}}_2,{\mathbb{F}}_2)
\Longrightarrow \THH_*^{[2]}(ko, H{\mathbb{F}}_2).$$ The $E^2$ page of the spectral sequence is of the form $\Gamma(\rho^0x_5)
\otimes \Gamma(\rho^0 x_7) \otimes \Lambda( \epsilon\mu_8)$. This, in turn, is isomorphic to $$\bigotimes_{k=0}^{\infty}
\underbrace{{\mathbb{F}}_2(\rho^kx_5)/(\rho^kx_5)^2}_{\Lambda(\rho^kx_5)}
\otimes
\bigotimes_{\ell=0}^\infty
\underbrace{{\mathbb{F}}_2(\rho^kx_7)/(\rho^kx_7)^2}_{_{\Lambda(\rho^kx_7)}} \otimes
\Lambda (\epsilon \mu_8),$$ with bidegrees $||\epsilon\mu_8|| =
(1,8)$, and $||\rho^kx_i|| =
(2^k,2^ki)$. The claim is that the spectral sequence collapses at $E^2$.
As the spectral sequence above is a spectral sequence of Hopf algebras, the smallest nonzero differential must go from an indecomposable element to a primitive element. As the only primitive element in $\Gamma(\rho^0x_i)$ is $\rho^0x_i$ we just need to check that no differentials hit $\rho^0x_i$, $i=5, 7$, or $\epsilon \mu_8$. These have bidegrees $(1,i)$ and $(1,8)$, respectively, and thus if they are hit by $d^r$ of an indecomposable $d^r(\rho^k x_j)$, which would have bidegree $(2^k-r, 2^k j +r-1)$, we must have $2^k-r=1$ and $2^kj+r-1=5$, $7$, or $8$. Substituting $r=2^k -1$ into the second expression, it becomes $2^k(j+1)-2$, where clearly $k\geq 1$ and $j=5$ or $7$, making $2^k(j+1)-2 \geq10$. So the spectral sequence collapses at $E^2$.
So far, we cannot rule out non-trivial multiplicative extensions. These could be nontrivial only if there is a multiplicative generator $\rho^kx_i$ or $\epsilon\mu_8$ with whose square is not zero in $\THH^{[2]}_*(ko, H{\mathbb{F}}_2)$ (although it is zero in the $E^\infty$ term). This is possible only if $(\rho^kx_i)^2$ has filtration degree less than $2^{k+1}$, or $(\epsilon\mu_8)^2$ has filtration degree less than $2$. The latter is clearly impossible, since there is nothing in total degree $18$ in filtration degrees $0$ or $1$. If $i=7$, by similar arguments we cannot have anything in total degree $2^{k+1}\cdot 8$ in filtration degree less than $2^{k+1}$: it would have to be constructed out of elements in bidegrees $(a, 5a)$, $(b, 7b)$ and possibly also one occurrence of the element of bidegree $(1, 8)$, but then the first coordinates would have to add up to at least $2^{k+1}$ to have the total degree equal to $2^{k+1}\cdot 8$. However, for the cases $(\rho^kx_5)^2$ one cannot rule out extensions just for degree reasons.
In a similar manner as above, we can exclude non-trivial differentials in the other three cases:
There are additive isomorphisms
1. 2. $\THH_*^{[2]}(ku; H{\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_3) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_7) \otimes \Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\varepsilon \mu_8)$,
3. $\THH_*^{[2]}(\mathit{tmf}; H{\mathbb{F}}_2) \cong \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_9) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_{13}) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\rho^0x_{15})\otimes \Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_2}(\varepsilon \mu_{16})$,
4. and for any odd prime $p$ we get an additive isomorphism $$\THH_*^{[2]}(\ell; H{\mathbb{F}}_p) \cong \Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\rho^0x_{2p-1}) \otimes
\Gamma_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\rho^0x_{2p^2-1}) \otimes \Lambda_{{\mathbb{F}}_p}(\varepsilon
\mu_{2p^2}).$$
<!-- -->
1. 2. In the case of $ku$ at the even prime we get a degree constraint for a differential $d^r(\rho^kx_i)$ of the form $$(2^k-r, 2^ki + r -1) = (1, j)$$ where $j$ is $3, 7$ or $8$. Since $r\geq 2$ and $2^k-r=1$, we get $k\geq 2$, but that would make the internal degree at least $4(i+1)-2$ and this is bigger or equal to $14$, hence doesn’t occur.
3. For $\mathit{tmf}$ the degree constraint is $$(2^k-r, 2^ki + r -1) = (1, j)$$ where $j$ is $9, 13, 15$ or $16$. Again $r\geq 2$ and $2^k-r=1$ imply that $k\geq 2$, which makes the internal degree at least $38$.
4. For the Adams summand $\ell$ the degree condition is $$(p^k-r, p^ki + r -1) = (1, j)$$ where $j=2p-1, 2p^2-1$ or $2p^2$. As before, we get that $k \geq 2$ and therefore we get an internal degree of at least $2p^3-2$ which is too big to be the degree of a primitive element.
In all cases the differentials $d^r$, $r\geq 2$, all have to be trivial and we get the result.
A splitting for $\THH^{[n], Hk}(HA)$ for commutative $k$-algebras $A$
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We apply Theorem \[thm:eva2nd\] for a sequence of cofibrations of commutative $S$-algebras of the form $S \ra A \ra B = C$ and as $\THH^{[n-1],B}(B) \simeq B$ we obtain a weak equivalence $$\label{eq:splitting2}
\THH^{[n]}(B) \simeq \THH^{[n]}(A; B) \wedge^L_{\THH^{[n-1], A}(B)}
B.$$ In the special case of a sequence $S \ra Hk \ra HA = HA$ where $A$ is a commutative $k$-algebra the formula in specializes to the following result.
For all commutative rings $k$ and all commutative $k$-algebras $A$ the higher topological Hochschild homology of $HA$ splits as $$\THH^{[n]}(HA) \simeq \THH^{[n]}(Hk; HA) \wedge^L_{\Shukla^{[n-1],
k}(A)} HA.$$ If $A$ is flat as a $k$-module, then higher Shukla homology reduces to higher Hochschild homology and we obtain $$\THH^{[n]}(HA) \simeq \THH^{[n]}(Hk; HA) \wedge^L_{\HH^{[n-1],
k}(A)} HA.$$
In particular, this gives splitting results for number rings: For $k=\Z$ and $A=\mathcal{O}_K$ a ring of integers in a number field we get $$\THH^{[n]}(H\mathcal{O}_K) \simeq \THH^{[n]}(H\Z; H\mathcal{O}_K)
\wedge^L_{\HH^{[n-1],
\Z}(\mathcal{O}_K)} H\mathcal{O}_K.$$ The (topological) Hochschild homology of $\mathcal{O}_K$ is known (see [@LL; @LM]). However, the additive and multiplicative structure of these is complicated enough that we cannot use the iteration methods of [@BLPRZ; @DLR] and so we do not know the higher order topological Hochschild homology of $\mathcal{O}_K$ with unreduced coefficients so far, nor its higher Shukla homology.
Beware that the splitting $$\begin{aligned}
\THH^{[n]}(HA) & \simeq \THH^{[n]}(Hk; HA) \wedge^L_{\Shukla^{[n-1],
k}(A)} HA \\
& \simeq
(\THH^{[n]}(Hk) \wedge_{Hk} HA) \wedge^L_{\Shukla^{[n-1], k}(A)} HA \end{aligned}$$ cannot be rearranged to $$\THH^{[n]}(Hk) \wedge_{Hk} (HA \wedge^L_{\Shukla^{[n-1],
k}(A)} HA) = \THH^{[n]}(Hk) \wedge_{Hk} \Shukla^{[n],
k}(A)$$ because the $\Shukla^{[n-1],k}(A)$-action on $ \THH^{[n]}(Hk; HA) $ does not usually factor through an action on the coefficients $HA$. If we could rearrange it that way, it would imply that $\Shukla^{[n],k}(A)$ splits off $\THH^{[n]}(HA)$, which is not true even for $n=1$: for example, if we take $k=\Z$ and $A=\Z[i]$, since $ \THH(H\Z)$ as the topological Hochschild homology of a ring is equivalent to a product of Eilenberg Mac Lane spectra, which Bökstedt [@B] identified to be $$\THH(H\Z)\simeq H\Z \times\prod_{a=2}^\infty \Sigma ^{2a-1}H(\Z/a\Z),$$ then we get the formula $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_*( & \THH(H\Z) \wedge_{H\Z} \Shukla(\Z[i])) \\
&\cong \pi_*(\Shukla(\Z[i])) \oplus\bigoplus_{a=2}^\infty \pi_*(\Sigma ^{2a-1}H(\Z/a\Z) \wedge_{H\Z} \Shukla(\Z[i] ) ) \\
&\cong
\HH_*(\Z[i]) \oplus\bigoplus_{a=2}^\infty \Bigl( \HH_{*-2a+1}(\Z[i]) \otimes \Z/a\Z \oplus \Tor (\HH_{*-2a}(\Z[i]) ,\Z/a\Z )\Bigr)\end{aligned}$$ where $ \HH_*(\Z[i]) =0$ when $*<0$. We also know that $\HH_0(\Z[i])\cong \Z[i]$, $\HH_{2a-1}(\Z[i])\cong \Z[i]/2\Z[i]$, and the positive even groups vanish. Thus the number of copies of $\Z/2\Z$’s in $\pi_n( \THH(H\Z) \wedge_{H\Z} \Shukla(\Z[i]))$ grows linearly with $n$. On the other hand, by [@L], $\THH_0(\Z[i])\cong\Z[i]$, $\THH_{2a-1}(\Z[i])\cong\Z[i]/2a\Z[i]$, and the positive even groups vanish.
Such a splitting of $ \Shukla^{[n],k}(A)$ off $\THH^{[n]}(HA)$ *does* hold under additional assumptions, for instance in the case of commutative pointed monoid rings (see above).
[99999999]{} Vigleik Angeltveit, John Rognes, Hopf algebra structure on topological Hochschild homology. Algebr. Geom. Topol. 5 (2005), 1223–1290.
Christian Ausoni, John Rognes, The chromatic red-shift in algebraic K-theory, in Guido’s Book of Conjectures, Monographie de L’Enseignement Mathématique 40 (2008) 13–15.
Jonathan Beardsley, Coalgebras, Thom Spectra and Hopf-Galois Extensions, arXiv:1601.04123.
Irina Bobkova, Ayelet Lindenstrauss, Kate Poirier, Birgit Richter, Inna Zakharevich, *On the higher topological Hochschild homology of $\mathbb{F}_p$ and commutative $\mathbb{F}_p$-group algebras*, Women in Topology: Collaborations in Homotopy Theory. Contemporary Mathematics 641, AMS, (2015), 97–122.
Irina Bobkova, Eva Höning, Ayelet Lindenstrauss, Kate Poirier, Birgit Richter, Inna Zakharevich, *Higher $\THH$ and higher Shukla homology of $\Z/p^m\Z$ and of truncated polynomial algebras over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$*, in preparation.
Marcel Bökstedt, The topological Hochschild homology of $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$, preprint
Morten Brun, Gunnar Carlsson, Bj[ø]{}rn Ian Dundas, Covering homology, Adv. Math. 225 no. 6 (2010), 3166–3213.
Bj[ø]{}rn Ian Dundas, Ayelet Lindenstrauss, Birgit Richter, *On higher topological Hochschild homology of rings of integers*, arXiv:1502.02504.
Anthony D. Elmendorf, Igor Kriz, Michael Mandell, J. Peter May, Rings, modules, and algebras in stable homotopy theory. With an appendix by M. Cole. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 47. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (1997), xii+249 pp.
John. P. C. Greenlees, Ausoni-Bökstedt duality for topological Hochschild homology. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 220 (2016), no. 4, 1382–1402.
Lars Hesselholt, Ib Madsen, On the K-theory of finite algebras over Witt vectors of perfect fields, Topology 36 (1997), no. 1, 29–101.
Geoffroy Horel, Higher Hochschild cohomology of the Lubin-Tate ring spectrum. Algebr. Geom. Topol. 15 (2015), no. 6, 3215–3252.
Michael Larsen, Ayelet Lindenstrauss, Cyclic homology of Dedekind domains. K-Theory 6 (1992), no. 4, 301–334.
Ayelet Lindenstrauss, The topological Hochschild homology of the Gaussian integers. Amer. J. Math. 118 (1996), no. 5, 1011–1036.
Ayelet Lindenstrauss, Ib Madsen, Topological Hochschild homology of number rings. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352 (2000), no. 5, 2179–2204.
Akhil Mathew, On $THH$ and étale base change, arxiv:1501.06612.
Teimuraz Pirashvili, Hodge decomposition for higher order Hochschild homology, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 33 (2000), no. 2, 151–179.
John Rognes, Galois extensions of structured ring spectra. Stably dualizable groups. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 192 (2008), no. 898, viii+137 pp.
Christian Schlichtkrull, Higher topological Hochschild homology of Thom spectra. J. Topol. 4 (2011), no. 1, 161–189.
Torleif Veen, *Detecting Periodic Elements in Higher Topological Hochschild Homology*, PhD thesis 2013, University of Bergen, available as arXiv:1312.5699
[^1]: We thank the Banff International Research Station for their support and hospitality. Our warm thanks go the organizers of the BIRS workshop *WIT II: Women in Topology 2016*, Maria Basterra, Kristine Bauer, Kathryn Hess and Brenda Johnson.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The decoherent histories formalism, developed by Griffiths, Gell-Mann, and Hartle [@Hartle:1992as; @GellMann:2006uj; @GellMann:2011dt; @Griffiths2003] is a general framework in which to formulate a timeless, ‘generalised’ quantum theory and extract predictions from it. Recent advances in spin foam models allow for loop gravity to be cast in this framework. In this paper, I propose a decoherence functional for loop gravity and interpret existing results [@Bianchi:2010zs; @Bianchi:2011ym] as showing that coarse grained histories follow quasiclassical trajectories in the appropriate limit.[^1]'
author:
- 'David P.B. Schroeren'
title: Decoherent histories of spin networks
---
It has recently been shown that the space of boundary spin networks of spin foams is given by the kinematical Hilbert space of canonical loop gravity, in the context of the so-called EPRL-model [@Engle:2007wy], and independently via operator spin foams [@Kaminski:2009fm]. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that spin foams reproduce dynamics of canonical loop gravity, although at present there is no proof of this. Nonetheless, these developments allow for a tentative novel perspective on the problem of decoherence in quantum gravity.
In this paper, I focus on Hartle’s definition of the class operator via path integrals [@Hartle:1992as]. Other proposals, most notably by J. Halliwell *et al.* [@Halliwell2009; @Halliwell2009a; @Halliwell2010] involving a complex potential, as well as possible implications of the Zeno-effect for the class operators presented here will be the subject of an upcoming paper [@Schroeren2013].
The implications of the decoherent histories framework for the foundations of physics have been widely discussed, for instance with respect to quantum measurement problem [@Wallace2010; @Hartle2010; @Halliwell2010a; @Griffiths1995; @Griffiths1984], the arrival time problem [@Halliwell1998; @Yearsley2011; @Wallden2008], as well as the problem of time in quantum gravity [@Anderson2012; @Wallden2008; @Gambini2005]. While the results of this paper are mostly formal, their foundational implications should be the subject of future work.
This paper is organised as follows: First, I give a brief review of the kinematics, dynamics, and the coheren states formalism of loop gravity. In section \[properties\], I review the decoherent histories formalism in its general form, before applying it to loop gravity in section \[spinnetworks\]. In section \[coarsegraining\] I discuss two types of coarse graining in loop gravity and go on to show that, under certain approximations, coarse grained histories follow quasi-classical trajectories in section \[qchistories\].
The theory
==========
Here, I define the relevant aspects of loop quantum gravity (LQG). For comprehensive derivations of these expressions, see, for instance, [@Rovelli:2011eq; @Dona:2010hm; @thiemann2007modern] and references therein.
Kinematical state space
-----------------------
The diffeomorphism-invariant kinematical Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{kin}$ of LQG is defined by $$\mathcal{H}_{kin} = \oplus_{\Gamma} \mathcal{H}_{\Gamma}
\label{eq:diffvhilb}$$ where the sum runs over abstract graphs $\Gamma$ composed of a set of $L$ links $l$ and a set of $N$ nodes $n$, and the gauge-invariant Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{\Gamma}$ is defined by $$\mathcal{H}_{\Gamma} = L_2[SU(2)^L/SU(2)^N].
\label{eq:ginvhilb}$$ which is the space of square-integrable functions on $SU(2)^L$ that are invariant under the transformations $$\psi(h_l) \rightarrow \psi(g_{s(l)}h_lg_{t(l)}^{-1}),
\label{eq:gaugetransform}$$ where $s(l)$ and $t(l)$ denote the *source* and *target* of $l$, respectively, $g_{n} \in SU(2)^N$ and $h_l$ is the *colouring* of the link $l$.
The *spin network basis* is a basis of the space $\mathcal{H}_{kin}$, elements of which are labelled by a graph $\Gamma$ and colourings $\sigma$ of links $l$ by $SU(2)$-irreps $j_l$ and nodes $n$ by intertwiners $\text{v}_n$;[^2] explicitly, $$\psi_{\Gamma, j_l, \text{v}_n}(h_l) = \left ( \otimes_l d_{j_l} D^{j_l}(h_l) \right ) \cdotp \left ( \otimes_n \text{v}_n \right ),
\label{eq:snstates}$$
The diffeomorphism-invariant Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{kin}$ is the *quantum configuration space* of loop gravity. The states $\psi_{\Gamma, j_l, \text{v}_n}(h_l) \in H_{kin}$ are the quantum states of a three-geometry or *boundary states* of a four-region. Thus, $\mathcal{H}_{kin}$ corresponds to $\mathcal{H}^*_{\text{f}} \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\text{i}}$ of the initial and final states in nonrelativistic quantum theory. The $(\Gamma, j_l, \text{v}_n)$ are the ‘quantum numbers’ of spin network states.
Dynamics
--------
The spin foam programme is an attempt to obtain dynamics for spin networks via a path integral type formalism. Here I briefly recount the basic aspects of the construction, following [@Rovelli:2011eq] [@Perez2009].
A *two-complex* $\mathcal{C}$ is a combinatorial object composed of faces, edges and vertices. The boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$ is a (possibly disconnected) graph $\Gamma$, whose links are edges of $\mathcal{C}$ bounding a single face and whose nodes are vertices of $\mathcal{C}$ bounding a single internal edge.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ denote two-complex with $\Gamma = \partial \mathcal{C}$. For a group $G$, a *spin foam* is a pairing $(\mathcal{C}, \sigma)$ of the two-complex $\mathcal{C}$ with a colouring $\sigma$, i.e. a labelling of each face $f$ with an irreducible representation $\rho_f$ of $G$ and a labelling of each edge $e \notin \Gamma$ with an intertwiner $\iota_e$.
The transition amplitude associated to a boundary spin network state $\psi$ with quantum numbers $(\Gamma, j_l$, $\text{v}_n)$ for 4d Lorentzian LQG where $G = SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle W | \psi \rangle &=& W(\Gamma, j_l, \text{v}_n) = \lim_{\mathcal{C} \rightarrow \infty, \partial \mathcal{C}= \Gamma} W_{\mathcal{C}}(j_l, \text{v}_n) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{\mathcal{C}, \partial \mathcal{C}= \Gamma} W_{\mathcal{C}}(j_l, \text{v}_n),\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\label{eq:fullphysicalampl}\end{aligned}$$ where the last equality follows from the fact that, due to diffeomorphism invariance, summing is refining if cylindrical consistency holds (cf. Smerlak and Rovelli in [@Rovelli:2010qx]). The transition amplitude truncated to a two-complex $\mathcal{C}$ with boundary $\partial \mathcal{C}$ in expression (\[eq:fullphysicalampl\]) are given by $$\begin{aligned}
W_{\mathcal{C}}(j_l, \text{v}_n) = \sum_{j_f,\text{v}_e} \prod_f (2j_f + 1) \prod_v A_v(j_f, \text{v}_n),
\label{eq:transitionampl} \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{C}$ is a two-complex bounded by the graph $\partial \mathcal{C}$, with faces $f$, edges $e$ and vertices $v$. The vertex amplitude $A_v(j_{f}, \text{v}_e)$ is given by $$A_v(j_{f}, \text{v}_e) = tr[\otimes_{e\in v}(f_{\gamma} \text{v}_n)],
\label{eq:vertexampl}$$ where $f_{\gamma}$ is defined in [@Rovelli:2011eq].
The quantities $\langle W | \psi \rangle$ are complex numbers that will generally depend on properties of the boundary spin network $\psi$, for instance its graph and colouring. Equation (\[eq:fullphysicalampl\]) can be understood as *projecting onto the physical states* among the kinematical states, or alternatively as *projecting out the remaining gauge symmetry*, the resulting states of which are the physical states (which have yet to be shown to lie in the kernel of the Hamiltonian constraint - this is hoped for but as yet unproven).
It will be instructive to consider the case where the boundary spin network is disconnected into two connected components on graphs $\Gamma, \Gamma'$, respectively, which I denote by $|\Gamma, j_l, \text{v}_n \rangle$ and $| \Gamma', j'_l, \text{v}'_n \rangle$. Then, the transition amplitude for this process can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
W(\Gamma \cup \Gamma', j_l, j'_l, \text{v}_n, \text{v}'_n) = \langle \Gamma, j_l, \text{v}_n | \Gamma', j'_l, \text{v}'_n \rangle_{phys}
\label{eq:fghistspinnet}\end{aligned}$$ where $W(\Gamma \cup \Gamma', j_l, j'_l, \text{v}_n, \text{v}'_n)$ denotes the spin foam sum over all two-complices that have $\Gamma \cup \Gamma'$ as their boundary, and $\langle \cdot | \cdot \rangle_{phys}$ denotes the physical inner product. One can think of the primed state as the ‘final’ state and of the unprimed state as the ‘initial state’. However, in the fundamental theory there is no relation such as ‘earlier than’ and ‘later than’, and in general, the boundary state may be disconnected in more than two connected components, or not disconnected at all. Hence, this terminology should be taken with caution.
Physical picture
----------------
Let me illustrate the above using a language similar to transition amplitudes in ordinary quantum theory, following [@rovelli2004quantum pp. 320] and [@Oriti:2001qu].
Suppose that a system’s dynamical variable is denoted by $x$. The transition between two states $(q_f,T)$ and $(q_i,0)$ is given by the so-called Feynman path integral $$\label{eq:feynmanpathintegral}
\langle q_\text{f}, T | q_i, 0 \rangle = \int_{q_\text{f}, q_i} \delta q e^{i S[q(\tau)]},$$ a sum over paths $q(\tau)$ that start at $q_i$ and end at $q_f$. $S[q(\tau)]$ is the action of this path. This can be defined in the Hamiltonian (canonical) theory by expressing the time evolution operator $e^{-iHt}$ as a product of operators for $N$ small time intervals, before taking the limit $dt = T/N \rightarrow 0$ or $N\rightarrow 0$. $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{q_\text{f}, q_\text{i}} \delta q e^{i S[q(\tau)]} = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \int dq_1...dq_{N-1} \nonumber \\
\langle q_\text{f} | e^{-iH \frac{T}{N}}|q_{N-1} \rangle \langle q_{N-1} | e^{-iH \frac{T}{N}} | q_{N-2} \rangle \nonumber \\ ... \langle q_1 | e^{-iH \frac{T}{N}} | q_\text{i} \rangle
\label{eq:pathintegraldecompose}\end{aligned}$$
The formal analogy of this equation in LQG is (\[eq:fullphysicalampl\]). This can be motivated as follows: Suppose that the Hamiltonian constraint operator $H = \int dx H(x)$ (where $x$ is a label for configuration space variables) has a non-negative spectrum, and consider the transition between two spin network states $\psi, \psi'$. The “evolution operator” is given by $$P = \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} e^{-i\int dx H(x) t}.
\label{eq:evop}$$ Thus, the full physical transition (\[eq:fullphysicalampl\]) between $\psi, \psi'$ can be written as $$\langle \psi | \psi' \rangle_{phys} = \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \langle \psi | e^{-i\int dx H(x) t} | \psi' \rangle_{kin}
\label{eq:evopampl}$$ Since $H$ diff-invariantly generates 4d-propagation, we can drop the infinite limit:(cf. [@rovelli2004quantum p.324]) $$\langle \psi | \psi' \rangle_{phys} = \langle \psi | e^{-i\int_0^1 dt\int dx H(x) t} | \psi' \rangle_{kin}
\label{eq:evopampl2}$$ Expanding this, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi | \psi' \rangle_{phys} = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{\phi_1...\phi_{N-1}} \langle \psi | e^{-i\int dx H(x) dt} | \phi_{N-1} \rangle \nonumber \\
... \langle \phi_1 | e^{-\int dx H(x) dt}| \psi' \rangle, \qquad \qquad \qquad
\label{eq:evopampl3}\end{aligned}$$ wherein all $\langle \cdot |\cdot \rangle$ denote kinematical inner products. Now, expanding the exponential around small $dt$ for fixed $N$ yields terms equivalent to histories with lower $N$. Hence, in loop gravity, the infinite limit of a sum over spin network histories becomes simply a discrete sum over spin network histories *with arbitrary length*. The contribution of each “step” along the history is given by a vertex amplitude (\[eq:vertexampl\]), that is $$A_{v}(\phi_{N+1},\phi_{N}) \sim \langle \phi_{N+1} | e^{-i\int dx H(x) dt} | \phi_{N} \rangle.
\label{eq:vertexamplevop}$$
Hence, spin foams are sums over discrete spin network histories $(\phi_N,...,\phi_1)$ for all possible configurations and two-complices. The histories are generated by individual, discrete steps, since the Hamiltonian operator acts only on the nodes of a spin network (roughly, by creating an arc in its vicinity, cf. [@thiemann2007modern] for details). The amplitude of each step is given by (\[eq:vertexamplevop\]), the matrix element of $H$; multiples of such vertex contributions (up to weight factors and face amplitudes) make up the spin foam amplitude (\[eq:fullphysicalampl\]).
Coherent states
---------------
Generic states of a given geometry are given by linear superpositions of spin network states. Coherent states are introduced as a means to ‘dequantise’ a quantum theory; that is, to construct states which are peaked around values of the conjugate variables of the corresponding classical system. The precise definition of coherent states for LQG can be found in [@thiemann2007modern]; here, it shall suffice to note that LQG coherent states are of the form $$\psi_{H_l}(h_l) = \langle h_l | \psi_{H_l} \rangle,
\label{eq:holcoh}$$ as shown in [@Bianchi:2009ky]. The $\psi_{H_l}(h_l)$ are holomorphic functions of $H_l \in SL(2,\mathbb{C})$. These are Thiemann’s complexifier coherent states in the case where the complexifier is the $SU(2)$ Laplacian $\Delta_{SU(2)}$ with eigenvalues of the form $j(j+1)$. Explicitly, $$\psi_{H_l}(h_l) = \int_{SU(2)}{dg_n \otimes_{l \in \Gamma} K_t(g_{s(l)}H_l g^{-1} h_l^{-1}}),
\label{eq:coherent}$$ are coherent spin-network states, where $K_t$ denotes the analytic continuation to $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ of the $SU(2)$ heat kernel, given by $$K_t(g) = \sum_j (2j+1) e^{-j(j+1)t} Tr[D^j(g)],
\label{eq:heatkernel}$$ where the parameter $t$ is the *heat kernel time*. The states (\[eq:holcoh\]) have the usual peakedness properties and have a small spread around extrinsic and intrinsic curvature.
The truncated spin foam with a boundary coherent state $\psi_{H_l}$ given by $$W_{\mathcal{C}}(H_l) = \sum_{H'_l} \prod_f (2j_f + 1) \prod_v A_v(H'_l),
\label{eq:cohampl}$$ where (see [@Rovelli:2011eq p. 18]) $$A_v(H_l) = \int_{SL(2,\mathbb{C})^N} d\tilde{g}_n \prod_l P(H_l, g_{s(l)}g_{t(l)}^{-1}),
\label{eq:vertexampl1}$$ and, for $Y_{\gamma}$ as defined in [@Rovelli:2011eq p. 12], $$\begin{aligned}
P(H,g) = \sum_j (2j+1) e^{- j(j+1)t} \nonumber \\
\times \text{ tr}[D^j(H) Y_{\gamma}^{\dagger} D^{(\gamma j, j)}(g) Y_{\gamma}], \label{eq:projector1}\end{aligned}$$ where In the above, $D^j(H)$ denotes the analytic continuation to $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ of the $SU(2)$ Wigner matrix.
Explicitly, we can decompose any $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$-label in equation (\[eq:coherent\]) as follows: (cf. [@Rovelli:2011eq p. 17]) $$H_l = e^{2itL_l}h_l,
\label{eq:sl2clabel}$$ where $h_l\in SU(2)$ is the holonomy along an edge encoding the intrinsic curvature and $L_l \in \mathfrak{su}(2)$ encodes the extrinsic curvature. The operators $\hat{h}_l$ and $\hat{L}_l$ have expectation values given by $$\frac{\langle \psi_{H_l}|\hat{h}_l | \psi_{H_l} \rangle}{\langle \psi_{H_l}| \psi_{H_l} \rangle} = h_l, \text{ } \frac{\langle \psi_{H_l}|\hat{L}_l | \psi_{H_l} \rangle}{\langle \psi_{H_l}| \psi_{H_l} \rangle} = L_l,
\label{eq:expval}$$ and the spread of the $|\psi_{H_l}\rangle $ around these values goes to zero with $\hbar$; that is, the $|\psi_{H_l}\rangle $ are coherent states peaked on values of $h_l, L_l$.
The full physical transition amplitude for the coherent state $| \psi_{H_l}\rangle = | \Gamma, H_l \rangle $ labelled by $H_l \in SL(2,\mathcal{C})$ on the boundary graph $\Gamma$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle W | \psi_{H_l} \rangle = W(\Gamma, H_l)& =& \lim_{\mathcal{C} \rightarrow \infty, \partial \mathcal{C}= \Gamma} W_{\mathcal{C}}(H_l) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{\mathcal{C}, \partial \mathcal{C}= \Gamma} W_{\mathcal{C}}(H_l).
\label{eq:fullphysicalamplcoh}\end{aligned}$$
Generalised quantum mechanics {#properties}
=============================
The decoherent (or consistent) histories formalism has been developed as a means of clarifying how quantum mechanics assigns probabilities to macroscopic, mutually incompatible events, e.g. measurement outcomes. More precisely, according to the decoherent histories formalism, the predictions of quantum theory are *in fact* assignments of probabilities to alternative coarse grained histories of a closed system, for an exhaustive set of such histories. Consistency with probability calculus is ensured by assigning probabilities only to *decoherent* or *consistent* sets of histories, i.e. sets for whose members interference can be neglected.
The aim of this programme, then, is twofold: first, to reformulate quantum theory so as to be applicable to closed systems such as the universe, eliminating an unphysical distinction between the ‘observer’ and the ‘observed’ of Copenhagen quantum theory; secondly, to address the ‘problem of time’ in quantum gravity.
In this section, I introduce what Hartle and Gell-Mann refer to as *generalised quantum mechanics*, essentially following their [@GellMann:2011dt] and Hartle’s [@Hartle:1992as]. One way to present this is to describe the set of alternatives at any given moment of time by a set of orthogonal Heisenberg projectors $\{ P^k_{\alpha_k}(t_k)\}$ which, for a sequence of times $(t_1,...,t_n)$ define a set of alternative histories for the system, specified by chains of alternatives $(\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n)$. However, the notion of a ‘sequence’ of times is not well defined in a quantum theory of gravity as there is no covariant notion of an alternative at any instance of time, so I move directly to the Feynman path integral version of the formalism, anticipating its adaptation to loop gravity in the final section.
Decoherent histories framework
------------------------------
Let $\mathcal{H}$ denote a Hilbert space describing a quantum system. The set $\mathfrak{f}$ of *fine grained histories* $f$ is specified by giving a maximally detailed description of the system in terms of its state space $\mathcal{H}$ and its dynamics. In standard quantum theory, this is given by the unitary evolution of rays in a Hilbert space according to the Schrödinger equation; in a quantum field theory, by histories of field configurations.
Let $\mathcal{H}$, $\mathfrak{f}$ be as before. A *coarse graining* on the fine grained history space $\mathfrak{f}$ is defined as any partition of $\mathfrak{f}$ into an exhaustive set $\{ c_{\alpha} \} $ of exclusive classes $c_{\alpha}$ which obey $$\cup_{\alpha}c_{\alpha} = \mathfrak{f}
\label{eq:coarsegr}$$ Each class $c_{\alpha}$ is a *coarse grained history*, and the set of classes $\{ c_{\alpha} \} $ is a set of coarse grained histories, which I will also refer to simply as $\{\alpha \}$. Further partitioning can be imposed on the set of coarse grained histories; a process which terminates with a set that contains only a single member (the trivial coarse graining). A *fine graining* is defined analogously.
The operations of coarse graining and fine graining define a partial ordering on the set of all sets of histories.
Associated with a coarse graining is the transition amplitudes of coarse grained histories, defined as follows:
The *class operator* $C_{\alpha}$ corresponding to a coarse grained history $c_{\alpha}$ is defined as $$\langle \psi_{\text{f}} | C_{\alpha} | \psi_{\text{i}} \rangle := \int_{\psi_{\text{f}}, \alpha, \psi_{\text{i}}} \mathcal{D}\phi e^{i\mathcal{S}(\phi)},
\label{eq:classop}$$ where $\mathcal{S}$ is the action, $\phi$ ranges over configuration space, $\psi_{\text{i}}, \psi_{\text{f}} \in \mathcal{H}$ are *initial* and *final* states, and $\mathcal{D}\phi$ denotes the functional integration measure. The state obtained by the action of the class operator on generic initial states $|\psi \rangle$ is called the *branch state vector* $|\psi_{\alpha} \rangle := C_{\alpha} |\psi \rangle$.
It is important to note that the space of fine grained histories is deterministic and therefore *trivially decoherent*. However, this is generally not true of coarse grained histories.
Probabilities are assigned only to *decoherent* histories - that is, to histories whose interference is negligible. Interference is measured by the decoherence functional, which is defined as follows.\
Let $\{\alpha \}$ denote a set of histories (possibly coarse grained) and let $\alpha, \alpha' \in \{\alpha \}$. Further, denote by $|\psi_{\alpha} \rangle = C_{\alpha} |\psi \rangle$ the *branch state vector* of $\alpha$. The *decoherence functional* $D(\alpha, \alpha'):= \langle \psi_{\alpha} | \psi_{\alpha'} \rangle$ is a complex-valued functional $D: \{\alpha \} \times \{\alpha \} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ which obeys
1. *Hermiticity.* $D(\alpha', \alpha) = D^*(\alpha, \alpha')$
2. *Positivity.* $D(\alpha', \alpha) \geq 0$
3. *Normalisation.* $\sum_{\alpha, \alpha'} D(\alpha', \alpha) = 1$
4. *Superposition principle.* $D(\bar{\alpha}', \bar{\alpha}) = \sum_{\alpha' \in \bar{\alpha}'} \sum_{\alpha \in \bar{\alpha}} D(\alpha', \alpha)$,
for any history space $\{\bar{\alpha} \}$ which is a coarse graining of $\{\alpha \}$ and $\bar{\alpha}', \bar{\alpha} \in \{\bar{ \alpha} \}$.
Importantly, condition (4) of the above entails that, given the decoherence functional for a fine grained history space, one can obtain the decoherence functional for any coarse graining via the superposition principle (cf. [@Hartle:1992as p. 52]).
*(Medium decoherence condition)*\
The subset of the set of all sets of alternative coarse grained histories to which probabilities are assigned is picked out by the *medium decoherence condition* $$D(\alpha, \alpha') \approx 0, \text{ }\forall \alpha \neq \alpha' \in \{ \alpha \}
\label{eq:medium}$$ These histories are referred to as *decoherent*.
Accurately speaking, histories that obey equation (\[eq:medium\]) decohere *approximately*, and thus the medium decoherence condition ensures that such histories conform to probability calculus only aproximately. However, as Hartle remarks, “when we speak of approximate decoherence and approximate probabilities we mean decoherence achieved and probability sum rules satisfied beyond any standard that might be conceivably contemplated for the accuracy of prediction and the comparison of theory with experiment.” ([@Hartle:1992as p. 20].)
For a set of decoherent histories $\{ \alpha \}$, the probability for a particular history is given by the ‘diagonal’ elements of the decoherence functional $$p(\alpha) = D(\alpha, \alpha)
\label{eq:prob}$$
In addition, we can observe the following
Let $\{ \alpha \}$, $\{ \bar{\alpha} \}$ as above. Probabilities defined by equation (\[eq:prob\]) must be additive on disjoint sets of the sample space, that is $$p(\bar{\alpha}) = \sum_{\alpha \in \bar{\alpha}} p(\alpha).
\label{eq:disjadd}$$ Furthermore, the probabilities given by equation (\[eq:prob\]) obey probability calculus.
Application to general relativity
---------------------------------
I follow section VIII.4 of [@Hartle:1992as] and consider the case without matter. In the Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity, the Einstein Hilbert action is written in a $3+1$ form in terms of lapse $N$, shift $N^i$, induced three-metric $q_{ij}$ - the configuration variable - and the conjugate momentum $\pi_{ij}$ determined by the extrinsic curvature of foliating three-surfaces (see chapter 1 of [@thiemann2007modern] for details).
In this framework, fine grained histories are configurations of three-metrics between initial and final metrics $q_{ij}, q_{ij}'$ on the boundaries $S_f$ and $S_i$, respectively. For some coarse graining $\{c_{\alpha} \}$, Hartle defines the class operator as $$\langle q_{ij}' | C_{\alpha} | q_{ij} \rangle = \int_{\alpha} \delta q \delta \pi \delta N e^{iS[N^{\beta}, \pi_{ij}, q_{ij}]},
\label{eq:grclassop}$$ where suitable measure factors have been supressed, $N^{\beta} = (N, N^i)$ and $S$ is the ADM action.
For a pure initial state $\psi$, the decoherence functional for sets $\{\psi_i \}, \{\phi_j\}$ of final and initial states, respectively, is then given as $$D(\alpha, \alpha') = \mathcal{N} \sum_{ij} p_i' p_j \langle \psi_j | C_{\alpha'} | \phi_i \rangle \langle \phi_i | C_{\alpha}^{\dagger} | \psi_j \rangle,
\label{eq:grdecfunc}$$ where $p_i' p_j$ are the coefficients of the respective density matrices for initial and final states and $\mathcal{N}$ is a suitable normalization (cf. [@Hartle:1992as p. 143]).
As such, these expressions are purely formal, as the notion of a quantum state of a three-geometry is left unspecified, and the inner product between wave functionals $\phi := \phi(q_{ij})$ on superspace is not well-defined.
These issues are resolved in loop gravity, where both the state of a three geometry as well as the inner product are well defined.
Decoherent histories of spin networks {#spinnetworks}
=====================================
Given the formal presentation of the theory in section I, I now turn to the formulation of loop gravity as a generalised quantum mechanics described above. Most of this is a straightforward result of the covariant loop gravity dynamics of spin foams.
Fine grained histories
----------------------
In loop gravity, fine-grained histories are given as histories of specific quantum states of three-geometries, rigorously defined by spin-network states.
*(Fine grained histories.)*\
Let $(\Gamma = \partial \mathcal{C}, j_l, \text{v}_n)$ be the quantum numbers specifying a spin network $\psi$, and denote the colouring of $\Gamma$ by $\sigma_{B} := (j_l, \text{v}_n)$. Its fine grained history is given by a spin foam $(\mathcal{C}, \sigma)$ given by a two complex $\mathcal{C}$ with boundary $\Gamma$, $N$ vertices $v$ and a colouring $\sigma$ of its faces, edges and vertices such that the colouring of the boundary graph is $\sigma_{B}$. The amplitude of the fine grained history $\psi$ is given by an $N$-product of vertex amplitudes $A_{v}$ as $$W_{\mathcal{C}}(\sigma_{B}, \sigma)= \prod_f (2j_f + 1) \prod_v^N A_v(j_f, \text{v}_n).
\label{eq:finegrained}$$ Fine grained histories of spin networks can be thought of as ‘sweeping out’ curves in the quantum configuration space $\mathcal{H}_{kin}$.
Equation (\[eq:finegrained\]) is identical to the truncated transition amplitude (\[eq:transitionampl\]) on a two-complex $\mathcal{C}$, but without the sum over all possible configurations (i.e. colourings) of the two complex. That is, $$\langle W | \psi(\sigma_{B}) \rangle = \sum_{\mathcal{C}} \sum_{\sigma}W_{\mathcal{C}}(\sigma_{B}, \sigma)
\label{eq:sumoverfgh}$$ again gives the full physical transition amplitude for the boundary state $\psi(\sigma)$.
Coarse grained histories
------------------------
As Hartle points out, a coarse graining for the history space of a quantum theory of spacetime geometry fundamentally consists in specifying a set of assertions which partition the history space into classes of histories where the assertions are true and where they are false. That is, ‘every assertion about the universe \[...\] is the assertion that the history of the universe lies in a coarse-grained class in which the assertion is true and not in which it is false.’ ([@Hartle:1992as p. 133]) Allowed coarse grainings thus amount to partitions of fine grained history space into an ‘exhaustive set of exclusive, *diffeomorphism-invariant* classes.’ (ibid.) In the case of covariant loop gravity, the following definition of coarse graining is natural:
*(Coarse graining.)*\
Let $\mathfrak{f}$ denote the set of fine grained histories $f$ specified by physical transition amplitudes $W_{\mathcal{C}} ( \Gamma, j_l, \text{v}_n)$ for boundary spin networks $|\Gamma, j_l, \text{v}_n \rangle$ with $\partial \mathcal{C} \equiv \Gamma$. A *coarse graining* of $\mathfrak{f}$ consists in specifying a list $\alpha$ of $n$ diff-invariant properties $\alpha := (\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n)$ such that the history space $\mathfrak{f}$ partitions into classes $c_{\alpha}$ for which every $f \in c_{\alpha}$ satisfies the properties encoded in $\alpha$.
The above definition of coarse graining for loop gravity ensures that (1) the partition into classes $c_{\alpha}$ is diff-invariant by virtue of the properties being defined as diff-invariant and (2) that the classes $c_{\alpha}$ are exclusive, since the properties can be chosen such that there is no $f \in \mathfrak{f}$ such that $f$ possess the properties encoded in $\alpha$ and $f \notin c_{\alpha}$.
A general coarse graining may, for instance, be imposed by considering all fine grained histories which ‘pass through’ a region in the quantum configuration space $\mathcal{H}_{kin}$ at least once; that is, for which at least one spin network along its history lies in the region of the kinematical Hilbert space selected by the coarse graining.
To motivate the following proposition of a class operator for LQG, consider the Hilbert space of a single particle $\mathcal{H} = L_2[\mathbb{R}]$ moving in one dimension. As discussed above, the full transition amplitude between two points $q_i, q_f$ is given by a sum over the contributions of all possible histories of the system $$\langle q_\text{f}, T | q_\text{i}, 0 \rangle = \int_{q_\text{f}, q_\text{i}} \delta q e^{i S[q(\tau)]},
\label{eq:oneparticleampl}$$ where the states $| q,t \rangle$ are Heisenberg states and the functional integration ranges over all paths which connect the two points. Suppose that we coarse grain by partitioning the set of fine grained histories into those that pass through an interval $ \Delta \in \mathbb{R}$ of the real line at a fixed time $t$ and those that do not, the class operator is given by the path integral over all those paths which, at the time $t$, pass through the interval $\Delta$ $$\langle q_\text{f}, T | C_{\alpha} | q_\text{i}, 0 \rangle = \int_{q_\text{f}, \alpha, q_\text{i}} \delta q e^{iS[q]},
\label{eq:oneparticleclassop}$$ which can be written as the product of the Feynman path integrals from $q_i$ to $q'$ and from $q'$ to $q_f$, summed over all $q' \in \Delta$: $$\langle q_\text{f}, T | C_{\alpha} | q_\text{i}, 0 \rangle = \int_{\Delta} dq' \int_{q_\text{f}, q'} \delta q e^{iS[q]}\int_{q', q_\text{i}} \delta q e^{iS[q]}
\label{eq:oneparticleclassop2}$$ That is, we sum over all those histories which satisfy a certain condition, e.g. of passing through an interval of the real line at a fixed time. This idea can be applied to loop gravity, noting that (1) the fine grained history of a spin network is given by a coloured two-complex with boundary, its amplitude by (\[eq:finegrained\]), and due to diff-invariance, there is no time ordering on the properties encoded in $\alpha$[^3]; (2) due to diff-invariance, the notion of *intermediate state* of a history does not make sense - rather, I will speak of *bulk configurations* on which the conditions are imposed. Bulk configurations are specified by two-complices and face/edge colourings.
*(Class operator.)*\
Let $f \in \mathfrak{f}$ be as before, and suppose that the kinematical Hilbert space has the structure $\mathcal{H}_{kin} = \mathcal{H}_{\text{\emph{f}}}^* \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\text{\emph{i}}}$. Further suppose that $\psi_\text{\emph{f}} \otimes \psi_\text{\emph{i}} \in \mathcal{H}_{kin}$ denote the boundary state of a spin foam with transition amplitude $W(\psi_\text{\emph{f}}, \psi_\text{\emph{i}}) = \langle \psi_\text{\emph{f}} | \psi_\text{\emph{i}} \rangle_{phys}$.
Let $\alpha = (\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n)$ denote a list of diff-invariant properties and $\{c_{\alpha}\}$ the associated exhaustive diff-invariant set of exclusive classes $c_{\alpha}$ of histories. The *class operator* for this coarse graining is by matrix elements $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \psi_\text{\emph{f}} |C_{\alpha} | \psi_{\emph{i}} \rangle & = &\sum_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha},\sigma_\alpha}W(\sigma_B, \sigma) \qquad \qquad \nonumber \\
& = &\sum_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha},\sigma_\alpha} \prod_f (2j_f + 1) \prod_v A_v(\sigma)
\label{eq:coarsegraining}\end{aligned}$$ where sum runs over all bulk configurations for which the properties $\alpha$ are satisfied.
The restricted path integral in equation (\[eq:coarsegraining\]) is the sum over all those paths which satisfy the conditions encoded in $\alpha$; equivalently, the sum over all those fine grained histories which ‘pass through’ a region of $\mathcal{H}_{kin}$ which is selected by $\alpha$.
Equation (\[eq:coarsegraining\]) is a sum over histories rectricted by the diff-invariant partition $\{c_{\alpha}\}$. Summing over all $\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha} \langle \psi_\text{f} |C_{\alpha} | \psi_\text{i} \rangle &=& \sum_{\alpha} \sum_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha},\sigma_{\alpha}} \prod_f (2j_f + 1) \prod_v A_v(\sigma) \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{\mathcal{C},\sigma} \prod_f (2j_f + 1) \prod_v A_v(\sigma) \nonumber \\
& = & \langle \psi_\text{f} | \psi_\text{i} \rangle_{phys} \qquad \qquad \qquad
\label{eq:proof1}\end{aligned}$$ gives the full physical transition amplitude between the initial state $\psi_\text{i}$ and the final state $\psi_\text{f}$. $\blacksquare$
Decoherence functional
----------------------
A decoherence functional is readily constructed from the class operator above by multiplying the restricted amplitudes (\[eq:coarsegraining\]) and summing over all possible boundary states $\psi = \psi_\text{f} \otimes \psi_\text{i}$.
*(Decoherence functional.)* Let $f \in \mathfrak{f}$ denote the fine grained history space, and suppose that the kinematical Hilbert space has the structure $\mathcal{H}_{kin} = \mathcal{H}_{\text{\emph{f}}}^* \otimes \mathcal{H}_{\text{\emph{i}}}$. Further suppose that $\psi_\text{\emph{f}} \otimes \psi_\text{\emph{i}} \in \mathcal{H}_{kin}$ denote the boundary states of a spin foam with transition amplitude $W(\psi_\text{\emph{f}}, \psi_\text{\emph{i}}) = \langle \psi_\text{\emph{f}} | \psi_\text{\emph{i}} \rangle_{phys}$. Let $\{c_{\alpha}\}$ denote an exhaustive diff-invariant set of exclusive classes $c_{\alpha}$ of histories $f \in \mathfrak{f}$ specified by lists $ \alpha = (\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n)$ of diff-invariant properties. Then, the decoherence functional for coarse grained histories of spin networks is given by $$\begin{aligned}
D(\alpha, \alpha') = \mathcal{N} \sum_{\psi_\text{\emph{f}} \otimes \psi_\text{\emph{i}}} \langle \psi_\text{\emph{f}} |C_{\alpha} | \psi_\text{\emph{i}} \rangle \langle \psi_\text{\emph{i}} |C_{\alpha'} | \psi_\text{\emph{f}} \rangle,
\label{eq:generaldecfunc}\end{aligned}$$ for a suitable normalization $\mathcal{N}$.
The expression (\[eq:generaldecfunc\]) is manifestly hermitian; positivity follows from the positivity of the physical inner product $\langle \cdot | \cdot \rangle_{phys}$.
To show that the superposition condition holds, suppose that (as before), $\mathfrak{f}$ denotes the space of fine grained spin network histories and $f, f'\in \mathfrak{f}$. For any $\alpha \in \{c_{\alpha}\}$, there will generally be a multitude of fine grained histories $f$ compatible with $\alpha$ such that $f \in \alpha$. Furthermore, as noted above, coherent spin network states are generally superpositions of spin network basis states. Thus, it follows that $$D(\alpha, \alpha') = \sum_{f \in \alpha} \sum_{f' \in \alpha'} D(f, f').
\label{eq:superpositionfc}$$ Finally, if the RHS of the expression $$D(\alpha, \alpha) = \sum_{f \in \alpha} \sum_{f'\in \alpha} D(f, f')$$ vanishes, then this denotes the probability of the coarse grained history $\alpha$. $\blacksquare$
Given the decoherence functional in its general form (\[eq:generaldecfunc\]), the physically interesting question is for which choice of coarse graining it vanishes. This will involve computing sums of truncated transitions over large numbers of two-complices, which is not presently well-understood; instead, current focus is on the computation these amplitudes under certain approximations (see section \[qchistories\]).
Coarse grainings of spin network histories {#coarsegraining}
==========================================
Cosmological coarse graining
----------------------------
Assertions about certain values for extrinsic and intrinsic curvature clearly are an example of such a coarse graining. This is a natural choice, since intrinsic and extrinsic curvature are the variables of the classical phase space of general relativity. In order to implement this coarse graining on loop gravity, let me stress the following:
1. As generic states of a given geometry are given by superpositions of spin network states, one needs to specify what it means to talk about states having particular values for extrinsic and intrinsic geometry. This is accomplished by coherent states as introduced in section I.
2. The kinematical Hilbert space of LQG is spanned by coherent states of the form (\[eq:coherent\]). This is due to the overcompleteness property of coherent states. Hence without loss of generality we can use the overcomplete basis of coherent states to give boundary states of fine grained histories.
3. The set of states which satisfy the peakedness property but not the annihilation operator, overcompleteness and minimal uncertainty properties is generally larger than the set of coherent states. However, following the literature I work with coherent states as these are precursors to semiclassical states.
Using the machinery of coherent states described above, one can partition the kinematical diff-invariant Hilbert space of loop gravity into classes for which states are peaked around certain values of intrinsic and extrinsic curvature.
*(Cosmological coarse graining.)*\
The diffeomorphism-invariant partition of the set of fine grained histories of spin networks in the kinematical Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{kin}$ of loop gravity given by the specification of intrinsic and extrinsic curvature of a three-geometry is implemented by considering coherent spin network states peaked on $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$ values $H_l = e^{2itL_l}h_l$. Call this the *cosmological coarse graining*.
Consider the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{kin}:= \mathcal{H}_\text{f}^* \otimes \mathcal{H}_\text{i} $, and suppose that $\psi_\text{f} \otimes \psi_\text{i} , \psi_\text{f} '\otimes \psi_\text{i} ' \in \mathcal{H}_{kin}$. Fine grained histories of these spin network states are specified by spin foam transitions on two-complices $\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{C}'$, respectively. Suppose that we implement the cosmological coarse graining on the space of fine grained histories $\mathfrak{f}$. The diff-invariant properties are encoded in the coherent states $ \psi_{H_l}, \psi_{H'_l}$ coherent states peaked on values $h_l, h'_l \in SU(2)$ and $L_l, L'_l \in \mathfrak{su}(2)$, respectively.
Explicitly, suppose that we coarse grain by asking for the amplitude of a state to be peaked on the values $(h_l, L_l)$ at least once along its history. This is given by the expression $$\langle \psi_\text{f} |C_{\alpha} | \psi_\text{i} \rangle = \sum_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha},j_f, H_l} \prod_f (2j_f + 1) \prod_v A_v(H_l),
\label{eq:cosmclassop}$$ where the sum stretches over all those bulk configurations such that there is *at least one* vertex amplitude $A_v(H_l)$ in the product for which $H_l = e^{2itL_l}h_l$. Two such histories $\alpha, \alpha'$ for which the coherent state values are $(h_l, L_l), (h'_l, L'_l)$, respectively, decoherence is measured by the function $$\begin{aligned}
D(\alpha, \alpha') = \mathcal{N} \sum_{\psi_\text{f} \otimes \psi_\text{i} } \langle \psi_\text{f} |C_{\alpha} | \psi_\text{i} \rangle \langle \psi_\text{i} |C_{\alpha'} | \psi_\text{f} \rangle \nonumber \\
= \mathcal{N} \sum_{\psi_f \otimes \psi_i} \sum_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha},j_f, H_l} \prod_f (2j_f + 1) \prod_v A_v(H_l) \nonumber \\ \times \sum_{\mathcal{C}_{\alpha'},j'_f, H'_l} \prod_f (2j'_f + 1) \prod_v A_v(H'_l)
\label{eq:cohstatedf}\end{aligned}$$ for any $\alpha, \alpha' \in \{c_\alpha \}$ and a suitable normalization $\mathcal{N}$. It is not immediately obvious whether coarse grained histories of coherent spin networks peaked on specific intrinsic and extrinsic geometries decohere. However, we know independently that coherent states peaked on different such values are kinematically orthogonal (or approximately so). Hence, cosmologically coarse grained histories decohere if the respective values of intrinsic and extrinsic curvature around which they are peaked are sufficiently far apart.
Volume coarse graining
----------------------
Here, I briefly mention another possibility. A coarse graining of histories by particular values of volume have been considered in [@Hartle:1992as; @Craig2011]. Explicitly, consider the coarse graining which consists in a partition of the history space into the following classes:\
$\tilde{c}$: The class of metrics for which all spacelike three-surfaces have volumes less than a fiducial volume $V_0$.\
$\tilde{c}'$: The class of metrics for each of which there is at least one three-surface with a volume larger than $v_0$.
In loop gravity, spin network states diagonalise the volume operator, the spectrum of which is discrete. Thus, we can straightforwardly translate the above proposal to loop gravity via the following partition of the spin network state space:\
*(Volume coarse graining.)*\
The diffeomorphism-invariant partition of the set of fine grained histories of spin networks in the kinematical Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{kin}$ of loop gravity given by the specificiation of a fiducial volume $V_0$ defines a *volume coarse graining* of spin network histories into the following classes:\
$c$: The class of fine grained spin network histories, all of which consist of spin networks with volume eigenvalues less than a fiducial volume $V_0$;\
$c'$: The class of fine grained spin network histories in which there is at least one spin network with eigenvalue larger than $V_0$.
This gives another example of a well-defined coarse graining in loop gravity that has physical meaning. The details of this prescription will depend on the specifics of the spectrum of the volume operator.
Quasiclassical trajectories {#qchistories}
===========================
Specifying a fine and coarse grained state space as well as a suitable decoherence functional completes the definition of a generalised quantum mechanics, and in particular a coarse grained dynamics. Coarse graining, viz. the partitioning of the history space into diff-invariant classes, amounts to the specification of certain macroproperties for that system. For the theory to have the right coarse grained behaviour, its coarse grained dynamics should thus follow quasi-classical dynamics in the appropriate limit. In the following, I show that there is good evidence for this in case of cosmological coarse graining of spin network histories.
As mentioned above, we presently do not have a good understanding of the infinite sum over bulk configurations needed in calculating the full physical transition amplitude of a boundary spin network. However, it is possible to compute the transition amplitude approximately by implementing what is referred to as the *vertex expansion*. As detailed in [@Oriti:2001qu pp. 14], there is another interpretation of the amplitude (\[eq:fullphysicalampl\]) $$\langle W | \psi \rangle = \sum_{\mathcal{C}}\sum_{j_f,\text{v}_e} \prod_f (2j_f + 1) \prod_v A_v(j_f, \text{v}_n)$$ This can be viewed as an *expansion* of the full physical transition amplitude in orders of vertex amplitudes, similar to the expansion in Feynman graphs. The result is a sum over contributions with increasing numbers of vertex amplitudes. As in the case of standard QED, one takes the leading order as the dominant contributions (for details, see [@Rovelli:2011eq; @Perini2009]).
In their [@Bianchi:2010zs], Bianchi *et al.* consider the spin foam[^4] on a two-complex $\mathcal{C}$ with disconnected boundary of two ‘dipole graphs’ $\Delta_2^*$. These graphs consist of two four-valent nodes $ \{n_1, n_2\} $ and connected by four links $ \{ l_1, l_2, l_3, l_4 \} $. Consider the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{ \Delta_2^*}$ of coherent spin network states on the dipole graphs, labelled by $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$-elements $H_l = e^{i L_l} h_l$, for $h_l \in SU(2)$ and $L_l \in \mathfrak{su}(2)$. There are three steps taken along the way before the classical limit is imposed to obtain quasiclassical trajectories: (A) homogeneity and isotropy, (B) the vertex expansion and (C) the volume expansion.
Homogeneity and Isotropy
------------------------
First, note that there is an alternative decomposition of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$-labels according to $$H_l = n_{s(l)} e^{-i(\xi_l + i \eta_l) \frac{\sigma_3}{2}} n_{t(l)}^{-1},
\label{eq:sl2decomp2}$$ where $\vec{\sigma} = \{ \sigma_i \}, i = 1,2,3$ are the Pauli matrices and $n_l \in SU(2)$. The geometric interpretation of the quadruple $(n_s, n_t, \xi, \eta)$ is explained by Freidel and Speziale in [@Freidel:2010aq]: Given appropriate four-valent states with intrinsic and extrinsic curvature, the $n_s, n_t$ are 3d-normals to the triangles of the tetrahedra bounded by the triangle; $\eta$ is the area of the triangle divided by $8 \pi \gamma G \hbar$; and $\xi$ is the sum of the extrinsic curvature at the triangle and the 3d rotation due to the spin connection at the triangle.
The authors impose homogeneity and isotropy on the boundary states by computing $(h_l, L_l)$ to be $$U_l = n_l e^{i\alpha c \frac{\sigma_3}{2}}n^{-1}_l, \text{ } E_l = -i n_l \frac{2 \pi G \gamma}{t}\beta p \frac{\sigma_3}{2}n^{-1}_l,
\label{eq:homogiso}$$ where $n_l$ are $SU(2)$ group elements such that $$n_l \sigma_3 n^{-1}_l = \vec{n}_l \cdot \vec{\sigma},
\label{eq:00}$$and $\alpha, \beta$ are constants. This entails that $n_{s(l)} = n_{t(l)} = n_l$ and $$\xi_l = \xi = \alpha c, \text{ } \eta_l = \eta = \beta p,
\label{eq:gfhj}$$ such that $$H_l (\xi, \eta) = n_l e^{-i (\xi + i\eta) \frac{\sigma_3}{2}} n_l^{-1}
\label{eq:0}$$ The fact that neither $\xi$ nor $\eta$ depend on $l$ can be seen as the effect of isotropy and the equality (\[eq:00\]) as the result of homogeneity. Homogenous and isotropic coherent states, then, are labelled by $c = \xi / p$ and $p = \eta / \beta$.
We want to obtain the amplitude for initial and final states labelled by $(\xi_\text{i} , \eta_\text{i} )$ and $(\xi_\text{f} , \eta_\text{f} )$, respectively, $$W(\xi_\text{i}, \eta_\text{i} ; \xi_\text{f}, \eta_\text{f}) = W(H_l (\xi_\text{i}, \eta_\text{i}), H_l (\xi_\text{f}, \eta_\text{f}))
\label{eq:1}$$ which is holomorphic function of $z_\text{i}, z_\text{f} $ where $$z = \xi + i \eta
\label{eq:2}$$ Thus, rewrite the above as $$W(z_\text{i}, z_\text{f}) = W(\xi_\text{i}, \eta_\text{i}; \xi_\text{f} , \eta_\text{f} )
\label{eq:3}$$ Further modifying the notation, denote $$\psi_z(h_l) := \psi_{H_l(z(c,p))}(h_l) := \langle h_l | z \rangle
\label{eq:4}$$ using which we obtain the expression $$W(z_\text{i}, z_\text{f} ) = \langle \bar{z}_\text{f} | z_\text{i} \rangle_{physical},
\label{eq:5}$$ where, as before, the bracket $\langle \cdot | \cdot \rangle_{physical}$ has the interpretation of the physical inner product.
Vertex expansion
----------------
The amplitude (\[eq:3\]) is computed to *first order* in the vertex expansion; that is, the amplitude is given by a spin foam formed by a single vertex connected to the four boundary nodes by internal lines (see figure \[fig:vertexexp\]).
![Transition amplitude between two ‘dipole’ graphs in the one-vertex expansion. Internal lines are drawn thicker. (Figure taken from [@Vidotto:2011qa]).[]{data-label="fig:vertexexp"}](dipolegraph.png)
The amplitude in this approximation for a single vertex $v$ is given by $$W(z_\text{i}, z_\text{f}) = W_{v} (H_l(z_\text{i}), H_l(z_\text{f}))
\label{eq:6}$$
Large volume expansion
----------------------
This amplitude can be computed in the limit where the universe is large. This is given by taking large $p$ in equation (\[eq:0\]). After some details which can be viewed on p. 5 in [@Bianchi:2010zs p. 03], this yields $$W(z_\text{i}, z_\text{f}) = N^2 z_\text{i} z_\text{f} e^{- \frac{1}{2t\hbar } (z_\text{i}^2 + z_\text{f}^2)}
\label{eq:7}$$ wherein $N$ effectively denotes the norm squared of the Livine-Speziale coherent regular tetrahedron. (\[eq:7\]) is the transition amplitude between two cosmological homogenous isotropic coherent states.
Classical limit
---------------
The transition amplitude lies in the kernel of the quantum operator $$\hat{H}:= \lambda \left ( z^2 -t^2 {\hbar}^2 \frac{d^2}{dz^2} - 3 t \hbar \right )^2,
\label{eq:8}$$ where $\lambda$ is a constant. This can be rewritten, using the identification $$\hat{z} = z, \text{ } \hat{\bar{z}} = t \hbar \frac{d}{dz}
\label{eq:9}$$ as the following: $$\hat{H} = \lambda (\hat{z}^2 - \hat{\bar{z}}^2 - 2)^2
\label{eq:10}$$ In the classical limit, we replace operators by classical variables and then take the above equation for large p. This yields (after substituting via equation \[eq:2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
H &= &-\frac{3}{8\pi G \gamma ^2} \sqrt{p}c^2 = 0\\
&= & - \frac{3}{8\pi G} \dot{a}^2a = 0
\label{eq:11}\end{aligned}$$ where $c=\gamma \dot{a}$ and $p = a^2$. This is the equation for the standard Friedmann cosmology for an empty universe that is either flat or has no volume. This has been generalised to include the cosmological constant (cf. [@Bianchi:2011ym]).
The following has happened in this section: First, the degrees of freedom of the theory were truncated to a finite graph (the dipole); secondly, the fine grained state space of spin networks on this graph was coarse grained by considering coherent states peaked on specific values of extrinsic and intrinsic curvature. Thirdly, homogeneity and isotropy were imposed on the state space. Lastly, the one-vertex and large volume expansion were made, before taking the classical limit.
Hence, for a coarse graining of the fine grained history space into classes corresponding to different values of extrinsic and intrinsic curvature, the coarse grained dynamics are quasiclassical, provided appropriate expansions are made and the appropriate limit is taken.
Discussion and Outlook
======================
In this paper, I have proposed a decoherent histories formulation for loop gravity in the spin foam formalism. A cosmological and volume coarse graining were examined, and it was shown that histories coarse grained according to the former follow quasi-classical trajectories given by Friedman cosmology (resp. de-Sitter cosmology for a non-vanishing cosmological constant).
The central point of this paper is that covariant (spin foam) loop gravity provides a natural framework in which to give precise meaning to previously ill-understood formal expressions regarding decoherent histories in quantum general relativity.
In a series of recent papers, Jonathan Halliwell and James Yearsley point out that the standard definition of class operators as a string of projectors is prone to the Quantum Zeno effect and may need to be modified by the introduction of a complex potential [@Halliwell2009; @Halliwell2009a; @Halliwell2010]. Relatedly, in their [@Halliwell2012] the authors remark that a straightforward definition of the class operator via path integrals as used in the present paper may be unphysical as it would also be subject to the Quantum Zeno effect. These issues will be addressed in an upcoming paper [@Schroeren2013] on Halliwell-style class operators and the quantum Zeno effect in loop gravity.
The results of this article are tentative to the extent that spin foams form part of an actively evolving research programme for which many more or less substantial amendments and revisions are to be expected. Nonetheless, it should the subject of future work to investigate the conceptual implications of these results for foundational problems in quantum theory.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I am indebted to my supervisor Carlo Rovelli, without whom this work would not have been possible. In addition, I would like to thank James Yearsley, Jonathan Halliwell, Edward Anderson, Petros Wallden, Kinjalk Lochan, Ed Wilson-Ewing, Simone Speziale, Aldo Riello, Wolfgang Wieland, as well as Leonard Cottrell for helpful comments and discussions. I am supported by the German National Academic Foundation (*Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes*).
[99]{}
Anderson, E. (2012). Problem of time in quantum gravity. [Ann. Phys. (Berlin)524,No.12,757-786](http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.201200147).
Bianchi, E., Krajewski, T., Rovelli, C., and Vidotto, F. (2011). Cosmological constant in spinfoam cosmology. [[*Phys.Rev.*]{}, D83:104015](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.084035).
Bianchi, E., Magliaro, E., and Perini, C. (2010a). Coherent spin-networks. [[*Phys.Rev.*]{}, D82:024012](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.024012).
Bianchi, E., Rovelli, C., and Vidotto, F. (2010b). Towards spinfoam cosmology. [[*Phys.Rev.*]{}, D82:084035](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.084035).
Craig, D. and Singh, P. (2011). Consistent histories in quantum cosmology. [[*Foundations of Physics*]{}, 41:371–379](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-010-9422-6).
Dona, P. and Speziale, S. (2010). Introductory lectures to loop quantum gravity. [arXiv:1007.0402v2 \[gr-qc\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0402).
Engle, J., Livine, E., Pereira, R., and Rovelli, C. (2008). Lqg vertex with finite immirzi parameter. [[*Nucl.Phys.*]{}, B799:136–149](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2008.02.018).
Freidel, L. and Speziale, S. (2010). Twisted geometries: A geometric parametrisation of su(2) phase space. [[*Phys.Rev.*]{}, D82:084040](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.82.084040).
Gambini, R., Porto, R., and Pullin, J. (2005). Fundamental decoherence in quantum gravity. [[*Braz.J.Phys.*]{}, 35:266–270](http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-97332005000200010).
Gell-Mann, M. and Hartle, J. (2007). Quasiclassical coarse graining and thermodynamic entropy. [[*Phys.Rev.*]{}, A76:022104](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.76.022104).
Gell-Mann, M. and Hartle, J. B. (2011). Decoherent histories quantum mechanics with one ’real’ fine-grained history. [arXiv:1106.0767v3 \[quant-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0767).
Griffiths, R. (2003). . Cambridge University Press.
Griffiths, R. B. (1984). Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. [[*J.Stat.Phys.*]{}, 36(1-2):219–272](http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/BF01015734).
Griffiths, R. B. (1995). Bohmian mechanics and consistent histories. [[*Phys.Lett.*]{}, A261(5-6):10](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(99)00542-3).
Halliwell, J. (2009). Probabilities in quantum cosmological models: A decoherent histories analysis using a complex potential. [[*Phys.Rev.*]{}, D80(12):124032](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.124032).
Halliwell, J. (2010). Macroscopic superpositions, decoherence, and the emergence of hydrodynamic behaviour. In Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., and Wallace, D., editors, [*Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality*]{}, chapter 3, pages 99–120. Oxford University Press.
Halliwell, J. and Yearsley, J. (2009). Arrival times, complex potentials, and decoherent histories. [[*Phys. Rev.*]{}, A79(6):062101](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.79.062101).
Halliwell, J. and Yearsley, J. (2010). On the relationship between complex potentials and strings of projection operators. [[*J.Phys.A Math.Gen.*]{}, 43:5303](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/43/44/445303).
Halliwell, J. and Yearsley, J. (2012). Pitfalls of path integrals: Amplitudes for spacetime regions and the quantum zeno effect. [Phys. Rev. D 86, 024016](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.86.024016).
Halliwell, J. and Zafiris, E. (1998). Decoherent histories approach to the arrival time problem. [[*Phys.Rev.*]{}, D57:3351–3364](http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.3351).
Hartle, J. (2010). Quasiclassical realms. In Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., and Wallace, D., editors, [*Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality*]{}, chapter 2, pages 73–98. Oxford University Press.
Hartle, J.B. (1992). Space-time quantum mechanics and the quantum mechanics of space-time. Lectures given at the 1992 Les Houches École d’été, Gravitation et Quantifications. [arXiv:9304006v2](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9304006)
Kaminski, W., Kisielowski, M., and Lewandowski, J. (2010). Spin-foams for all loop quantum gravity. [[*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{}, 27:095006](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/27/9/095006).
Oriti, D. (2001). Space-time geometry from algebra: Spin foam models for nonperturbative quantum gravity. [[*Rept.Prog.Phys.*]{}, 64:1703–1756](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/64/12/203).
Perez, A. (2009). The spin foam representation of loop quantum gravity. In Oriti, D., editor, [*Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Toward a New Understanding of Space, Time and Matter*]{}, chapter 15, pages 272–289. Cambridge University Press.
Perini, C., Rovelli, C., and Speziale, S. (2009). Self-energy and vertex radiative corrections in lqg. [[*Phys.Lett.*]{}, B682:78–84](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.10.076).
Rovelli, C. (2004). . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press.
Rovelli, C. (2011). Zakopane lectures on loop gravity. [arXiv:1102.3660v5 \[gr-qc\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.3660).
Rovelli, C. and Smerlak, M. (2012). In quantum gravity, summing is refining. [[*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{}, 29:055004](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/29/5/055004).
Savvidou, N. (2005). General relativity histories theory. [[*Braz.J.Phys.*]{}, 35:307–315](http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-97332005000200016).
Schroeren, D. P. B. (2013) Decoherent Histories of Spin Networks. [[*Found. Phys.*]{}, Springer US, 1-19](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10701-013-9698-4)
Schroeren, D. P. B. (2013). On the quantum zeno effect in loop gravity. .
Thiemann, T. (2007). . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press.
Vidotto, F. (2011). Many-nodes/many-links spinfoam: the homogeneous and isotropic case. [[*Class.Quant.Grav.*]{}, 28:245005](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/28/24/245005).
Wallace, D. (2010). Decoherence and ontology. In Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., and Wallace, D., editors, [*Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, & Reality*]{}, chapter 1, pages 53–72. Oxford University Press.
Wallden, P. (2008). Spacetime coarse grainings and the problem of time in the decoherent histories approach to quantum theory. [[*Int. J. Theor. Phys.*]{}, 47:1512–1532](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10773-007-9592-y).
Yearsley, J. (2011). . PhD thesis, Imperial College London. [arXiv:1110.5790v1 \[quant-ph\]](http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.5790).
[^1]: This paper was published in *Foundations of Physics*; the final publication is available at [http://link.springer.com/](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-013-9698-4). Please cite the published version only.
[^2]: See [@Rovelli:2011eq] for a description of this formalism.
[^3]: Notwithstanding Savvidou [@Savvidou:2004vg].
[^4]: In the following, I only consider the case where the cosmological constant is zero. The non-vanishing case is largely similar; details can be found in [@Bianchi:2011ym].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider an odd-sized “jury”, which votes sequentially between two states of Nature (say $A$ and $B$, or Innocent and Guilty) with the majority opinion determining the verdict. Jurors have private information in the form of a signal in $[-1,+1]$, with higher signals indicating $A$ more likely. Each juror has an ability in $[ 0,1]$, which is proportional to the probability of $A$ given a positive signal, an analog of Condorcet’s $p$ for binary signals. We assume that jurors vote *honestly* for the alternative they view more likely, given their signal and prior voting, because they are experts who want to enhance their reputation (after their vote and actual state of Nature is revealed). For a fixed set of jury abilities, the reliability of the verdict depends on the voting order. For a jury of size three, the optimal ordering is always as follows: middle ability first, then highest ability, then lowest. For sufficiently heterogeneous juries, sequential voting is more reliable than simultaneous voting and is in fact optimal (allowing for non-honest voting). When average ability is fixed, verdict reliability is increasing in heterogeneity.
For medium-sized juries, we find through simulation that the median ability juror should still vote first and the remaining ones should have increasing and then decreasing abilities.
**Keywords:** voting, Condorcet, verdict reliability
author:
- |
Steve Alpern Bo Chen[^1]\
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick\
Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom
date: 'February 26, 2018'
title: |
Optimizing Voting Order on Sequential Juries:\
A Median Voter Theorem
---
Introduction
============
This paper extends the Condorcet Jury Theory to juries that vote sequentially (knowing earlier votes) rather than simultaneously. Since we consider jurors who are heterogenous with respect to their *ability* to determine the true state of Nature (equiprobable $A$ or $B$, Innocent or Guilty) it turns out that the order in which they vote affects the *reliability* of the majority verdict. By reliability we simply mean the probability that the majority verdict agrees with the actual state of Nature. We prove that for a jury of size three with any fixed abilities, the voting order with greatest reliability is median ability first, then highest ability, then lowest. Using simulation, we suggest that, for medium-sized juries, the median ability juror should still vote first. Then the abilities should increase, and after the highest ability juror votes, the rest should vote in decreasing order.
In a model where jurors have private information in the form of a binary signal ($A$ or $B$), Condorcet showed that for jurors of fixed ability $p>1/2$ (probability of a correct signal), or of varying abilities all at least $p$, the reliability approaches $1$ as the jury size increases.
Our model is a little more sophisticated than that of Condorcet in two ways: signals and abilities. Condorcet’s voters get a binary signal, for $A$ or for $B$. Our jurors get a signal $s$ in the interval $[-1,+1]$, with higher signals giving a higher probability of $A$. The signal $s=0$ is neutral and useless, as $A$ and $B$ remain equally likely after such a signal. In analogy with Condorcet’s probability $p$ (that the binary signal is correct) our jurors have an ability in the interval $[0,1]$, which is proportional to the probability of $A$ given a positive signal $s$, $0<s\leq1$. An ability of $0$ makes that probability $1/2$, the same as the *a priori* probability and hence useless (no ability at all). Jurors of higher ability have, in general, more useful private information. When a juror of given ability comes to vote, he will vote for the alternative, $A$ or $B$, that he views as more likely, given prior voting and his private signal $s$. This type of voting, called *honest voting*, models the jurors as experts who have known abilities by reputation. They wish to vote for the alternative that turns out to be true, assuming Nature is eventually revealed. This would be true if they are making short term predictions (say weather or the economy). This type of voting by experts was introduced by @OtSo01. Overall, the model of signals and abilities used here is the same linear signal model introduced in @AlCh17b in a simpler voting model and is similar in spirit to the discrete signal model of @AlCh17a. The way in which a juror’s signal and ability affect his judgement of the probability of $A$ is described fully in Section \[sec:preliminaries\].
Given the above model, we are able to address four questions about the comparative reliability of different voting schemes or voting orders. The main question addressed in this article is the optimal voting order for jurors of different abilities. Putting higher ability jurors first is more likely to have them vote before a majority verdict is established, but also may create negative herding effects. We also consider when sequential honest voting, where jurors can take into account previous voting, is better or worse than simultaneous voting (or secret ballot)as in the Condorcet model. We also answer the question of whether, for fixed average ability, a more heterogeneous or homogeneous jury has higher reliability when voting in the optimal sequential order. Finally, we ask when sequential honest voting is optimal, or strategic, in that it maximizes the reliability of the verdict. If not, the jurors might be incentivized to jointly modify their voting thresholds to produce a better verdict, which could mean possibly voting for the alternative that a juror views as less likely. This might be accomplished by giving all jurors a reward later, if majority verdict turns out to be correct, or perhaps by giving them stock in the company making the decision. Since we are dealing with majority verdicts and, for a single member jury, all the above distinctions are meaningless, we consider a jury of three experts, where we find sharp answers to all of our above questions. For medium-sized juries, say five to eleven, we propose in Section \[sec:large-juries\] an analog of the optimal rank ordering of abilities for three-member juries.
We note that while electorates in preference voting are typically large, juries in information voting are typically small, and often of size three, such as refereeing team in tennis or boxing, appellate levels in legal decisions, doctors giving second or third opinions on the necessity of an operation. For juries of size three we are able to answer all of our above questions regarding comparative reliability, as follows.
1. **Optimal voting order** (Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\]). For juries of distinct abilities, the unique voting order that maximizes the reliability of the verdict for honest sequential voting is given as follows: the median ability expert should vote first, then the expert of highest ability, and finally the expert of least ability. (This order was suggested by numerical work in @AlCh17a.) This is our main result and by far the hardest to prove. See also the introduction of the more general Ascending-Descending Order (ADO) ordering in Section \[sec:large-juries\]: The median ability juror votes first, then the voting is in increasing order up to the highest ability. After the highest votes, the remaining jurors vote in decreasing order of ability.
2. **Seniority vs. anti-seniority voting orders** (Theorem \[thm:seniority-sequence\]). The seniority voting order (decreasing order of ability) has a strictly higher reliability of the verdict than the anti-seniority order (increasing order of ability), unless all jurors have the same ability.
3. **Sequential vs. simultaneous voting** (Theorem \[thm:simultaneous-vs-sequential\]). When the abilities of the jurors are sufficiently homogeneous, simultaneous voting has higher reliability than sequential voting. But when the abilities are sufficiently heterogeneous, honest sequential voting (in the optimal order) has higher reliability. (We provide suitable indices of homogeneity and heterogeneity.)
4. **Effect of diversity on reliability** (Theorem \[thm:monotonicity\]). For a jury of fixed average ability, reliability is an increasing function of the heterogeneity index.
5. **When is honest sequential voting strategic, that is, (perfectly) optimal?** (Theorem \[thm:honest-vs-strategic\]). When the abilities of the jurors are sufficiently heterogeneous, honest sequential voting in the optimal order is strategic in that it maximizes reliability with respect to any (not just honest) strategy thresholds.
To see how these results aid an organization, which has to make a binary decision, consider that the organization has hired three experts of distinct abilities and wishes to determine the optimal voting mechanism. First, suppose it has no additional funds to incentivize strategic voting, so voting is honest. If the abilities of the fixed set of expert are sufficiently homogeneous, it should keep the voting silent (or simultaneous) by not allowing later voters to know the results of earlier voting (Theorem \[thm:simultaneous-vs-sequential\]). (This is done for preference voting in US elections, but for different reasons.) If the ability set is sufficiently heterogeneous, then later voters should be told the outcome of earlier votes (Theorem \[thm:simultaneous-vs-sequential\]) and they should vote in the order given by Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\]. We note that other variations are possible, for example, later voters could be told the votes of only some of the earlier voters. If the jury is not fixed, then Theorem \[thm:monotonicity\] suggests that, assuming the cost of an expert juror is increasing in ability, heterogeneous juries might be preferable. Finally, we consider whether it might be advantageous to pay a bonus to each expert for a correct jury (majority) decision, assuming the correctness of the verdict becomes common knowledge in the near future, as with weather predictions. In general, this will be a cost-benefit problem, but Theorem \[thm:honest-vs-strategic\] shows that such payments are wasteful if the ability set is sufficiently heterogeneous.
For larger juries of odd size $n=2m+1$, we propose the Ascending-Descending Order (ADO), where the most able $m+1$ jurors vote first in increasing ability order and then the least able $m$ jurors vote in descending ability order. We already know from Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\] that ADO is optimal for $n=3$. Using simulation techniques, we establish that the ADO is an excellent heuristic (and possibly optimal) for $n=5$ and $n=7$.
To conclude the section, we remark that our problem can be viewed as a simple optimization problem faced by a decision maker, who has an unordered set of people to form a jury to help him make a binary decision. He wants to arrange their voting order so as to make the majority decision of the jury as reliable as possible. On the other hand, we can also view our problem more game theoretically as a Stackelberg game or principal agent problem. First, we are given an unordered set of jurors. The Principal, who moves first, selects an order in which they must vote. He wins the game (payoff $1$; otherwise payoff $0$) if the *majority verdict* is the true state of Nature. Then the jurors vote openly in the order selected by the Principal. In this sub-game, a juror wins (payoff $1$; otherwise payoff $0$) if his *vote* is the same as the true state of Nature. That is, the Principal cares only about the correctness of the verdict, while the jurors care only about the correctness of their own votes. In the sub-game, honest voting is exactly the unique Nash equilibrium. In fact, no juror can improve his expected payoff (probability he votes correctly) by changing from honesty, if the prior voters stick to honest voting. Thus it is stronger than the usual definition of Nash equilibrium.
Literature {#sec:literature}
==========
The celebrated Condorcet Jury Theorem [@Condorcet1785] is concerned with a model with an odd number $n$ of jurors who receive independent binary signals for one of two states of Nature. Each juror receives the correct signal with the same probability $p$. Condorcet’s Jury Theorem (CJT) states that if each juror votes his signal, the probability that the majority vote is correct goes to $1$ as $n$ approaches to infinity if $p>1/2$. There is a large body of literature on extensions and discussions of this result. In this paper we are interested in extensions to *sequential voting* of heterogeneous ability jurors, where the jurors vote in order, with knowledge of all previous votes. In particularly we are interested in work related to voting order.
In @OtSo01 jurors have heterogeneous abilities (as in this paper), who care only about being right (they are “experts”, with reputations to uphold), rather than about obtaining a correct verdict. We call them *honest* voters. The main difference between their model and ours in this paper is that they retain the Condorcet assumption about binary signals. They talk about the problem of groupthink, herding and conformism, the last also is discussed in terms of committee decisions regarding the “secretary problem” in @AlBa16.
@DePi00 mainly consider the equilibria of simultaneous versus sequential voting, but they do make an important comment on voting order of heterogeneous jurors" in their Conclusions (p. 48):
> “…if voters are endowed ex ante with differential information (some voters can be better informed that others( knowing which voters voted in favor and which against can affect the choice of a later voter. It can be shown that, in a common-value and two signal environment (as in Sec. IIIC above), if the player’s signals are completely ordered (in the sense of Blackwell), then it is optimal to have the better informed vote earlier. This provides an interesting contrast to the findings of Ottaviani and Sorensen (2001). They obtain the opposite optimal order in an environment in which information providers care not about the outcome but about appearing to be well informed. It is not difficult, however, to construct examples in which having the best-informed voter vote first is not optimal. Hence it seems unlikely that general insights into this question can be obtained."
The point of this paper is that we are indeed able to obtain general insights into this question.
@AGKP08 discuss the optimal voting order of experts and cite examples in which courts of judges follow either anti-seniority (increasing order of ability, in our terminology) or seniority (decreasing order) orders, respectively, in the ancient Sanhedrin court and in the contemporary American Supreme Court. Voting order in selection committees is analyzed in @AlGaSo10, but there voting is by veto.
A sequential voting model, with discrete but non binary signals, was introduced by @AlCh17a. Ability levels were also discrete, so propositions about which ability orderings are best could be obtained by exhaustive search among the finite number of possibilities. Most of that paper is about *strategic* voting where voters wish to obtain the correct majority verdict, even if this means voting for an alternative which a juror believes to be less likely. For the question of the optimal ability ordering of three jurors with abilities $a<b<c$, that paper shows by exhaustive search that $b,a,c$ and $b,c,a$ are the optimal orderings (the order of the last two voters in strategic voting does not matter). For honest voting, it is shown for the finite number of cases considered, that the ordering $b,c,a$ is optimal. This is the observation that led us to attempt the general algebraic proof, where $a,b$ and $c$ are real numbers, that is given here. The first algebraic proof of this kind was obtained recently by @AlCh17b for a simpler voting model, where first two jurors vote simultaneously and then the remaining (third) juror casts the deciding vote if there is a tie. This is a much simpler model algebraically as their are only two voting thresholds to consider (for the casting voter), depending on whether the the more able juror voted $A$ or $B$. @AlCh17a also consider larger juries, up to size 13. It uses simulation to compare randomly generated juries, which vote honestly in increasing, decreasing or random ability order. For all these sizes, decreasing order has higher reliability than random, and random has higher reliability than increasing order.
For a simpler voting model with n-1 jurors voting simultaneously, followed by a tie breaking vote (if necessary) of the remaining voter, @AlCh17b showed that for $n=3$ the voter of median ability should have the casting vote, with honest voting.
A related literature compares the efficacy of sequential versus simultaneous voting. A potential problem with the former is the possibility of herding and information cascades, especially when more able voters are at the beginning of the sequence. Here, voters ignore their own private information to vote instead based on a consensus achieved by earlier voters. On the other hand, with sequential voting each juror has more information to go on. @BiHiWe92 explore the probability of informational cascades and also the probability that they converge on an incorrect outcome. They explain many recognized phenomena based on this convergence. In this respect, Ottaviani and Sorensen find that “increasing the quality of some experts on the committee can exacerbate herd behavior and hence decrease the amount of information collected by the decision maker”. A more recent approach to this problem, by computer scientists exploring sequential voting in the context of what are known as social recommendation systems (such as Amazon product valuations, written with knowledge of previous customer’s evaluations) is given by @CeKrKo16. They analyze student-reported learning and find that “sequential voting systems can surface better content than systems that elicit independent votes”. A related paper, which deals with sequential evaluations, is @BeSc16 and considers the possibility of only revealing the mean of prior evaluations. This brings the suggestion of varying our model so that jurors know the prior unascribed vote (such as three votes for $A$ and one for $B$) without revealing how each prior juror individually voted. This model will be for our future work.
@BGKN12 consider two problems related to our work. First they consider the use of prior voting records of jurors to evaluate what we call ability. Also, they consider decision rules other than majority verdict and present one that work well in a certain context.
Simple results on sequential juries
===================================
As a warm-up, this section serves the purpose of giving some simple and intuitive results for optimally reliable voting orders on heterogeneous sequential juries, without resort to the full model that we provided in the preceding section. We first consider *Condorcet jurors*, who are defined as receiving binary signals (for $A$ or for $B)$ and then we consider what we call *sophisticated jurors*, who receive real number signals in the interval $[-1, +1]$.
Condorcet jurors
----------------
We begin with a simple model with three jurors, who we call jurors $J_1$, $J_2$ and $J_3$ in terms of voting order and get *correct* binary signals $s\in\{A, B\}$ with probabilities $p_1$, $p_2$ and $p_3$, respectively. We also write $\{ p_1,p_2, p_3\} =\{p,q,r\}$ where $p\leq q\leq r$, and also call the jurors P, Q and R in terms of ability. So if the juror of highest ability votes first, then we have $J_1$ = R. We similarly label the signals received by the jurors as $\{s_{1},s_{2},s_{3}\}$ or $\{s_{p},s_{q},s_{r}\}$. For example, signal $s_{1}$ is correct with probability $p_1$. Given the three signals $\{s_{p},s_{q},s_{r}\}$, it is easy to calculate the most likely state of Nature, which we call the *Full Information Solution* (FIS). Clearly, such a state is either $s_{r}$ (dictator verdict) or $s_{p}=s_{q} \neq s_r$ (majority verdict). If $s_{r}=A$ and $s_{p}=s_{q}=B$, the posterior probability of $A$ is given by $$\frac{r( 1-p) ( 1-q) }{r( 1-p) (1-q) +( 1-r) pq}.$$ A simple calculation shows that the signal $A$ of juror R is more likely to be the state of Nature, $$\frac{r( 1-p) ( 1-q) }{r( 1-p) (1-q) +( 1-r) pq} \geq \frac{1}{2},$$ if and only if $$r \geq \bar{p}\equiv\frac{pq}{1-p-q+2pq}.$$
The FIS can be obtained from honest sequential majority voting for all ability triples if and only if the highest ability juror votes second.
If the highest ability juror R votes first (R = $J_1$), then $J_2$ and then $J_3$ will copy his vote in a cascade. This will fail to choose the FIS if $r<\bar{p}$ and $J_2$ and $J_3$ both have the opposite signal to R, since in this case the FIS is $s_{2}=s_{3}$, while the verdict is $s_{1}$. If R votes last (R = $J_3$) and $r>\bar{p}$, then R’s signal $s_{r}$ is the FIS. However, the first two jurors $J_1$ and $J_2$ will vote their signals, creating a majority verdict for their signals, which might not be $s_{r}$. Hence a jury where R votes first or last does not always give the FIS.
On the other hand, suppose that R votes second (R = $J_2$). Then $J_1$ and $J_3$ are P and Q, in some order. So $J_1$ and $J_2$ = R vote their signals. If they are the same, that is the verdict and the FIS. Otherwise, the last juror $J_3$ votes with full information (about the signals) and can choose the verdict, so he chooses the FIS.
Thus with binary signals, the FIS can be obtained for all ability triples if we always have the highest ability juror vote second. If he does not vote second, then for some abilities the FIS will not be obtained. The voting positions of the lower ability jurors do not matter. We shall see that for sophisticate jurors, the first observation holds (best for highest ability juror to vote second); however, the second observation no longer holds — it is best for the weakest ability juror to vote last. For sophisticated jurors, who receive continuous signals, signals are not revealed through voting. So it is unreasonable to expect that the FIS can be obtained.
Sophisticated jurors
--------------------
We now consider jurors who receive not binary signals, but signals in the interval $\left[ -1,+1\right] $. For each juror, higher signals give a higher posteriori probability that Nature is in state $A$, with a signal of $0$ leaving $A$ and $B$ equiprobable. A juror’s signal distribution depends on the state of Nature and on his *ability* $a$, a number between $0$ and $1$, in such a way that the probability $p_{a}$ that his signal is correct (positive when Nature is $A$) is given by the equation $$\label{eqn:Condorcet_juror}p_{a}=1/2~+a/4.$$ Thus our notion of ability is a proxy for the Condorcet $p$ number in that it is positive linearly related. The signal and ability model will be formally defined in the next section, but this is all the reader needs now to follow our informal argument for Proposition \[pro:main\_special\]. We assume that the jurors vote sequentially and that each juror votes for the state of Nature he views as more likely, given prior voting and his private signal. We call this *honest voting*. When a jury votes in a fixed order of abilities, there is a probability, called the reliability (of the verdict), that the majority vote is for the actual state of Nature. In general, this reliability depends on which of the six possible voting orders are used. Our main result, Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\], will establish that there is an optimal order (one maximizing reliability) which is independent of the actual abilities and just depends on their rank, namely: median, high, low. We now prove a much easier result, which states that *if* there is an optimal rank order of this type, it much be the stated one. The proof of Proposition \[pro:main\_special\] can be understood without all the details of the ability-signal model of Section \[sec:preliminaries\], but the reader may wish to reread the proof again after that section.
\[pro:main\_special\] Suppose we label the abilities of the three jurors as $a,b,c$, with $0\leq
a<b<c\leq1$. If there is a unique voting order which maximizes reliability that is independent of the actual values of $a,b,c$, then it must be $b$ first, then $c$, then $a$.
First suppose $c$ is close to $1$ and $a$ and $b$ are both close to $0$, what we call “two yokels and a boffin”, where the boffin has ability $c$ and the dumber an smarter yokel have respective abilities $a$ and $b$. We establish in this case the the stated order maximizes reliability, so if some order is optimal for all juries, it must be this one.
With our assumption of honest voting, either yokel voting after the boffin will have probability about $3/4 \approx p_{c}$ that the boffin’s vote is correct (even after seeing their own pretty useless signals), and hence will copy the vote of the boffin. So if the boffin does not vote last, the reliability of the jury will be $p_{c}$, which is close to $3/4$. On the other hand, if the boffin votes last, the verdict may already be decided before he comes to vote, if the two yokels vote alike, in which case the verdict will be right with probability $1/2$, as the yokels have no useful information. The yokels will vote alike with some probability $q$, which is at least $1/2$, since they vote alike when they get signals of the same sign, which occurs with probability close to $1/2$. Hence the reliability when the boffin votes last is approximates $$q\left( \frac{1}{2}\right) +\left( 1-q\right) p_{c}<\left( \frac{1}{2}\right) \left( \frac{1}{2}\right) +\left( \frac{1}{2}\right)
p_{c}<p_{c},$$ as $p_{c} \approx 3/4$. Hence the boffin cannot vote last in an optimal voting order.
If the boffin votes first, the reliability is exactly the probability $p_{c}$ that he gets it right. But suppose the boffin’s signal is very very close to $0$, so he still views $A$ and $B$ as equiprobable. In this case he would prefer to vote second so that he could follow the vote of the first voter, of ability $x\in\left\{ a,b\right\} $, and make the correct vote with probability $p_{x}>1/2$ rather than with probability $1/2$. So it is better for the boffin to vote second than to vote first. However now it is better for the smarter boffin to vote first, so that $p_{x}$ in the previous argument is in fact $p_{b}$ rather than $p_{a}$. So with two yokels and a boffin, the optimal ordering is smarter yokel, then boffin, then dumber yokel, or $\left(
b,a,c\right)$.
We note that this is a very special case of our main result, Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\], which says that the ordering $\left( b,a,c\right) $ is always optimal. Neither that result or any other result requires Proposition \[pro:main\_special\], which is why we are content with the above fairly informal proof of Proposition \[pro:main\_special\].
Signals, abilities and voting thresholds {#sec:preliminaries}
========================================
In both the Condorcet model and in our model, there are two equiprobable states of Nature, called $A$ and $B$. In the Condorcet model, private information of jurors is in the form of a binary signal $\{A, B\}$. The ability of a juror to guess the true state is given as a probability, called $p$, that the signal received corresponds to the actual state of Nature. This probability $p$ ranges between $1/2$ (useless information) and $1$ (definite information). In our model, private information of a juror comes in the form of a continuous signal $s$, which ranges between $-1$ and $+1$, with signal $0$ neutral, negative signals indicating $B$ is more likely and positive signals indicating that $A$ is more likely. Our analog of Condorcet’s probability $p$ is a number, called the *ability* $a$, which ranges from $0$ to $1$. The number $a$ is linearly related to the conditional probability $p$ of $A$, given a positive signal $s$. In particular, the conditional probability of $A$, given that a juror of ability $a$ receives a signal $s$ above a threshold $\tau$, $\tau\in[-1,+1]$, is given by $$\label{eqn:p-tau}
p_{\tau}=\Pr\left( A\mid s\geq\tau\right) =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1+\tau}{4}\,a.$$ This generalizes equation . For a juror of ability $a=0$, this means that $p$, or more generally $p_{\tau}$, is $1/2$, the same as the *a priori* probability of $A$. Thus a juror of ability $0$ essentially has no ability, his signal (his private information) is useless. On the other hand, if a juror has maximum ability $a=1$ and receives a signal above a threshold $\tau$ that is very close to $+1$, his conditional probability of $A$ approaches certainty ($p_{t} \approx 1$). The fact that the signal is above the threshold $\tau=-1$ says nothing about the signal (they are always at least $-1$) and indeed $p_{-1}=1/2$, the same as the *a priori* probability of $A$. Thus in our model, the ability level $a$ is a proxy for Condorcet’s probability $p$, but in a more general context of continuous rather than binary signals. We now describe the signal distribution which gives these outcomes and . This continuous signal-ability model has been used before in the literature [e.g., @AlCh17b].
Signal distributions {#sec:signal-distributions}
--------------------
We assume two states of Nature $A$ and $B$, considered as negation of $A$, with *a priori* probability of $A$ given by $\Pr\left(A\right) =\theta_{0}$. To simplify the analysis we will assume the equiprobable case $\theta_{0}=1/2$, although our results are robust for $\theta_{0}$ values around $1/2$. Individuals have private information about the state of Nature modeled as a signal $s$ in the *signal interval* $[-1,+1]$. Positive signals are indications of $A$; negative signals $B$. The signal $s=0$ is neutral. Higher positive signals indicate $A$ more strongly; similarly for negative signals and $B$. Thus a stronger signal is one with a higher absolute value.
Individual jurors have an ability $a$ in the *ability interval* $[0,1]$, where individuals of higher ability are generally (but not always) able to make better guesses about the state of Nature. We will define our ability-signal model in such a way that the conditional probability of state $A$ given a positive signal $s>0$ is proportional to the juror’s ability $a$. In this way our definition of ability is analogous to Condorcet’s definition of $p$ as the probability that the binary signal $A$ corresponds to Nature being in state $A$. When Nature is in state $A$ (resp. $B$), jurors receive independent signals $s\in [-1,1]$ with probability density given by $f_{a}(s)$ (resp. $g_a(s)$) if they have ability $a$. We make the simplest nontrivial assumption on $f_{a}(s)$ and $g_a(s)$, namely that they are linear in $s$. The slope of the density functions $f_{a}(s)$ and $g_a(s)$ for a juror of ability $a$ is proportional to $a$. Given that $f_{a}$ and $g_a(s)$ are density functions on $[-1,+1]$, they take the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{a}(s) & =(1+as)/2,\ -1\leq s\leq+1,\text{ when Nature is }A;\\
g_{a}(s) & =(1-as)/2,\ -1\leq s\leq+1,\text{ when Nature is }B.\end{aligned}$$ It is easily checked that $f_a(\cdot)$ and $g_a(\cdot)$ defined above are indeed density functions for any $a\in [0,1]$. The probability of a correct signal, that is positive when Nature is $A$, is the area under the $A$ line (and above the $s$ axis) to the right of $s=0$. When $a=1/2$, this area is $1/2$, showing that a juror with ability $a=0$ is just guessing (by flipping a fair coin to determine the state of Nature).
The corresponding cumulative distributions of the signal $s$ when Nature is $A$ or $B$ are given by $$\label{eqn:F&G}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
F_{a}(s)=(s+1)(as-a+2)/4,\ -1\leq s\leq+1, & \hbox{when Nature is $A$;} \\
G_{a}(s)=(s+1)(a-as+2)/4,\ -1\leq s\leq+1, & \hbox{when Nature is $B$.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Given prior probability $\theta_{0}$ of $A$ and only his signal $s$, a juror of ability $a$ has a posterior probability $\theta^{\prime}$ of $A$, as given by Bayes’ Law: $$\label{eqn:posteriori}
\theta^{\prime} =\Pr\left( A\mid s \right) =\frac{\theta_{0} f_{a}(s)}
{\theta_{0}f_a(s)+(1-\theta_{0})g_{a}(s)}
=\frac{\theta_{0}+as\theta_{0}}{2as\theta_{0}-as+1}
=\frac{as+1}{2}\text{ (if }\theta_{0}=1/2).$$ Note that for a juror of ability $0$, we have $\theta^{\prime}=\theta_0$ for any received signal $s$, reinforcing our notion that ability $0$ is no ability at all. A juror of ability $0$ can do no more than guess. If we wish to view our juror of ability $a$ as a Condorcet juror, we would say that his probability of a correct signal (positive when Nature is $A$ or negative when Nature is $B$) is given by $$\int_{0}^{1}f_{a}(s)~ds=1-F_{a}\left( 0\right) =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{4}\,a,$$ due to the equiprobability (and hence symmetry) of $A$ and $B$, which establishes . The more general result , for signals $s\geq\tau$, arbitrary thresholds $\tau$ and $\theta=1/2$, is established by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pr\left(A| s\geq\tau\right) & =\frac{\left( 1/2\right) \left(
1-F_{a}\left( \tau\right) \right) }{\left( 1/2\right) \left(
1-F_{a}\left( \tau\right) \right) +\left( 1/2\right) \left(
1-G_{a}\left( \tau\right) \right) }\\
& =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1+\tau}{4}\,a.\end{aligned}$$
Strategy and jury reliability
-----------------------------
A strategy for a juror is a threshold $\tau$, depending on previous voting, if any, such that the juror votes $A$ with signal $s\geq\tau$ and $B$ with signal $s<\tau$. A strategy profile is a list of strategies for each juror.
A strategy profile is said *honest* (or *naive*) if the thresholds are such that every juror votes for the alternative that he believes is more likely, given the *a priori* probability of $A$, his private signal, and any prior voting. In taking into consideration prior voting, each voter assumes previous voters are honest. (NB: the definition of honest voting is recursive.) Honest voting is the unique Nash equilibrium in the voting game.
We define the *reliability* of a voting scheme as the probability that the majority verdict is correct under this voting scheme, where a juror wins if his own vote is correct and loses otherwise. With equiprobable alternatives, a simple symmetry argument shows this is the same as the probability of majority verdict $A$ when Nature is in state $A$. We ask the simple question: Given a set of $n$ abilities, which sequential voting order of these abilities will maximize the reliability?
Thresholds and reliability functions
====================================
In this section we determine the thresholds (on his private signal) that an honest voter adopts, based on previous voting. Using these results, we determine the reliability (of the verdict) for a jury of honest voters of given abilities who vote in a given order. In this and the next section we signpost the main steps of the algebraic calculations, with details left in the appendix.
Threshold determination {#sec:threshold}
-----------------------
Consider the problem faced by the voter of ability $a$, given *a priori* probability $\theta$ of $A$ before he looks at his signal $s$. What is his honest threshold? His posteriori probability of $A$ is given by $\theta^{\prime}$ as given by equation with $\theta_0$ replaced by $\theta$. Hence $$\theta^{\prime}=\frac{\theta + a s\theta}{2a s\theta - a s+1}.$$ The honest threshold $\tau$ is the value of $s$ for which $\theta^{\prime}=1/2$, or $$\frac{1}{2}=\frac{\theta+as\theta}{2as\theta-as+1}.$$ Solving for $s$ and making this value the honest threshold $\tau$ gives $\tau =(1-2\theta)/a$. Of course, if $(1-2\theta)/{a}> 1$, this means always vote $B$ (same as threshold $\tau=1$), and if $(1-2\theta)/{a} < -1$ this means always vote $A$ (same as threshold $\tau=-1$). Such phenomenon is known as *herding* behavior, where agents ignore their own private information and follow prior agents. We can take the limit as $a\rightarrow 0+$ to make the same arguments if $a=0$. Therefore, the threshold of a voter of ability $a$ with *a priori* probability $\theta$ of $A$ is given as follows: $$\label{eqn:honest_threshold}
\tau_a(\theta) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0, & \hbox{if } \theta = 1/2; \\
-1, & \hbox{if $a < 2\theta -1$ and $\theta > 1/2$;} \\
+1, & \hbox{if $a < 1-2\theta$ and $\theta < 1/2$;}\\
(1-2\theta)/a, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Note that $\tau_a(\theta)$ is well defined for any $\theta\in[0,1]$ and $a\in[0,1]$.
Thresholds for a duo under unanimity rule {#sec:thresholds-duo}
-----------------------------------------
Consider a jury of two jurors. They vote sequentially under unanimity rule: unless both votes go for $B$, the other state $A$ will be the verdict. Let the two voters have abilities of $b$ and $c$ in the voting order. Before the two voters start to vote, the *a priori* probability of $A$ is $\theta$.
It is evidence from Section \[sec:threshold\] that the threshold of the first voter is $\bar{y} = \tau_b(\theta)$, as given in . If he votes for $A$, then the jury verdict is $A$ and there is no need for the second voter to vote. Otherwise, given the first vote is for $B$ (which implies that $\bar{y} > -1$), according to Bayes’ Law, the second voter has an updated *a priori* probability of $A$ as follows: $$ \bar{\theta} = \frac{\theta F_b(\bar{y})}{\theta F_b(\bar{y})+(1-\theta)G_b(\bar{y})}.$$Consequently, the threshold of the last voter is $\bar{z}=\tau_c(\bar{\theta})$.
Thresholds for a triple under majority rule
-------------------------------------------
We are particularly interested in a jury of three members under majority rule. We determine their honest voting thresholds. Let us fix their voting order at $(a,b,c)$. It is immediate from Equation that the threshold of the first voter is $x=0$ with his *a priori* probability $\theta=1/2$.
Let us determine the posterior probability $\theta(A)$, given the prior voting of ability $a$ and threshold $x=0$ is $A$. Then Bayes’ Law implies $$\label{eqn:theta(A)}
\theta(A) = \frac{1-F_a(0)}{(1-F_a(0))+(1-G_a(0))} = \frac{2+a}{4}.$$ Similarly, if the prior voting is $B$, then the *posteriori* probability is $$\label{eqn:theta(B)}
\theta(B) = \frac{2-a}{4}.$$ According to , the honest threshold $y_A$ for the second voter with prior voting of $A$ is $$\label{eqn:y_A}
y_A = y_A(a,b)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-1, & \hbox{if } b\leq {a}/{2},\\
-{a}/(2 b), & \hbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ Symmetrically, we have $$\label{eqn:y_B}
y_B=y_B(a,b)= - y_A(a,b).$$
\[rmk:herding1\] From and we see that if the ability of the second voter is so small that $b\le a/2$, then he will ignore his own signal and vote the same way as the first voter. This phenomenon is the so-called *herding*. For this reason, we denote $$\label{eqn:herding1}
H_2=\{(a,b)\in [0,1]^2: b\le a/2\}$$ as the set of voting sequences with which the second voter herds. If this happens, then there is no need for the last voter to vote.
Now let us calculate the voting thresholds for the third voter, assuming he does vote, which implies that $(a,b)\not\in H_2$. Bayes update for the probability of $A$ after two votes, first $A$ and then $B$, is given as follows: $$\label{eqn:theta(AB)}
\theta(AB) = \frac{\theta(A)F_b(y_A)}{\theta(A)F_b(y_A)+(1-\theta(A))G_b(y_A)},$$ where $\theta(A)$, $\theta(B)$ and $y_A$ are given in , and , respectively. Therefore, a straightforward calculation gives the threshold $z_{AB}$ of the third voter as follows: $$\label{eqn:z_AB}
z_{AB} = z_{AB}(a,b,c)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \hbox{if } c\leq \rho(a,b),\\
\rho(a,b)/c, & \hbox{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$\label{eqn:rho}
\rho(a,b)=\frac{2(2b-a)}{8-a^2-2ab},$$ which is clearly positive. Symmetrically we have $$\label{eqn:z_BA}
z_{BA}(a,b,c)=-z_{AB}(a,b,c).$$
\[rmk:herding2\] As in Remark \[rmk:herding1\], from and we see that if the ability of the third voter is so small that $c\leq \rho(a,b)$, then he will ignore his own signal and follow the vote of the previous juror. For this reason, we denote $$\label{eqn:herding2}
H_3=\{(a,b,c)\in [0,1]^3: (a,b)\not\in H_2 \mbox{ and } c\leq \rho(a,b)\}$$ as the set of voting sequences with which the third voter votes and herds.
An illustrative example
-----------------------
Let us illustrate how our model works and how the verdict of a jury of fixed abilities and fixed signals can depend on the voting order. We take an example with a boffin and two (unequal) yokels, as described in the proof of Proposition \[pro:main\_special\].
Assume we have a juror of ability $a=0.05$ who has signal $s_{a}=-0.5$, a juror of ability $b=0.1$ with signal $s_b=+0.5$ and a juror of ability $c=0.9$ with signal $s_{c}=-0.01$. Suppose $A$ and $B$ are equiprobable. Suppose the voting is in ability order $(c,b,a)$ or $(c,a,b)$. The boffin of ability $c$ begins the voting and he votes $B$ because his honest threshold is $0$ according to and his signal is negative. After seeing this vote, the posterior probability of $A$ is given by as $$\theta^{\prime}=\theta(B)=\frac{2-c}{4}=\frac{2-0.9}{4}=0.275.$$ For the next voter, of ability $x\in \{a,b\}$, we have $x<1-2\theta^{\prime}=1-2(0.275)=0.45$, so according to the third line of his threshold is $+1$ and hence he votes $B$ (herding). The same reasoning holds for the last juror (though his vote does not affect the verdict). Thus the voting is $(B,B,B)$, with majority verdict $B$, for voting orders $(c,b,a)$ and $(c,a,b)$.
Now assume the voting order is $(b,c,a)$, which we later show has optimal reliability. The first juror votes $A$, since he has a positive signal and his honest threshold is $0$ according to . After his vote we have by that the posterior probability of $A$ is given by $$\theta^{\prime}=\theta(A)=\frac{2+0.1}{4}=0.525.$$ Since the ability of the boffin, $c=0.9$, is larger than $2\theta^{\prime}-1=2(0.525)-1=0.05$, his honest threshold is given by the last line of as $(1-2\theta^{\prime})/0.9=(1-2(0.525))/0.9 < -0.05$ and his signal is $-0.01$, so he votes $A$. This already determines the majority verdict as $A$. In fact the last voter herds and hence the voting is $(A,A,A)$. This example shows how it may help the boffin of ability $0.9$ to go after a low ability voter, in the case that his own signal is close to $0$.
Explicit reliability functions
------------------------------
We will study juries of both general sizes and three in particular. For a jury of general size, we look closely at the situation where the last two jurors of the jury need to vote.
### Duo under unanimity rule {#sec:reliability-duo}
Let us calculate the reliability under the same setting as in Section \[sec:thresholds-duo\] for a two-member jury under unanimity rule (for $B$). Let $\bar{q}_A(\theta; b, c)$ (resp. $\bar{q}_B(\theta; b, c)$) denote the probability of verdict $A$ (resp. $B$) when Nature is $A$ (resp. $B$) and let $\bar{Q}(\theta; b, c)$ denote the overall reliability of the jury verdict, both with voting order of $(b,c)$. Then it is clear that $$\label{eqn:reliability-duo}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{q}_A(\theta; b, c) = (1-F_b(\bar{y})) + F_b(\bar{y})(1-F_c(\bar{z})), &\\
\bar{q}_B(\theta; b, c) = G_b(\bar{y})G_c(\bar{z}), & \\
\bar{Q}(\theta; b, c) = \theta \bar{q}_A(\theta; b, c) + (1-\theta)\bar{q}_B(\theta; b, c), &
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\bar{y}$ and $\bar{z}$ are calculated as in Section \[sec:thresholds-duo\]. Explicit expression of the reliability function $\bar{Q}(\theta; b, c)$ is provided in Appendix \[sec:reliability-duo-function\].
### Triple under majority rule
We now evaluate reliability $Q(a,b,c)$, the probability of a correct verdict, where the jurors have abilities $a,b$ and $c$ (in voting order) and the first voter has honest thresholds $x=0$. Let $q_{A}$ (resp. $q_{B}$) denote the probability of majority verdict $A$ (resp. $B$) when Nature is $A$ (resp. $B$). Then for an arbitrary *a priori* probability $\theta_{0}$ of $A$ we have that the reliability $Q(a,b,c)$ is given by $$Q(a,b,c) =\theta_{0}\, q_{A}(a,b,c)+(1-\theta_{0})\,q_{B}(a,b,c).$$ Hence with neutral alternatives $\theta_{0}=1/2$, we have $$Q(a,b,c) =\frac{1}{2}(q_{A}(a,b,c)+q_{B}(a,b,c)),$$ and symmetry gives the simpler formula $$\label{eqn:just-A-or-B}
Q(a,b,c)=q_{A}(a,b,c)=q_B(a,b,c).$$
The formula for $q_{A}(a,b,c)$ is given by summing up the probabilities of voting patterns $AA$, $ABA$ and $BAA$ when Nature is $A$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
q_{A}(a,b,c) & =(1-F_a(0))(1-F_b(y_A))+(1-F_a(0))F_b(y_A)(1-F_c(z_{AB}))) \nonumber\\
& \quad+F_a(0)(1-F_b(y_B))(1-F_c(z_{BA}))), \label{eqn:q-A}\end{aligned}$$ with a similar formula for $q_{B}$. Again with some straightforward calculations and recalling our definitions and , we can get $$\label{eqn:reliability}
Q(a,b,c)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(2+a)/4, & \hbox{if } (a,b)\in H_2; \\
q_0(a,b), & \hbox{if } (a,b,c)\in H_3; \\
q(a,b,c), & \hbox{if } (a,b,c)\in S;
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $S=[0,1]^3\setminus (H_2\cup H_3)$, and $$q_0(a,b) = \frac{a^2+4 b (b+2)}{16 b},$$ and $$q(a,b,c) = \frac{4 (2 b-a)^3 + 4 (8 - a^2 - 2 a b)(16 b + (a + 2 b)^2) c
+ (2 b-a) (8 - a^2 - 2 a b)^2 c^2}{128 b (8 - a^2 - 2 a b) c}.$$
The ability sequence cube $[0,1]^3$ is partitioned into $H_2$, $H_3$ and $S$ and herding takes place if and only if the ability sequence falls into the former two subsets. It is easy to check that, if each juror has an ability more than $1/2$ (i.e., $a,b,c> 1/2$), then $(a,b,c)\in S$ and hence there is no herding.
Unanimity rule for verdict
==========================
Although we are mainly concerned with the reliability of majority verdicts under sequential voting, the related question of unanimous verdicts will be useful to partly resolve here, as it has an impact on the analysis of majority verdict theory. So, we consider sequential voting of $n$ jurors, where the “default” verdict is $A$ in the sense that $B$ is the verdict only if it gets all the votes and a single vote for $A$ results in verdict $A$. Such unanimity rule has been considered in the organizational studies literature, e.g., @Romme04. In some courts of law a unanimous vote is required to convict. Such a requirement has been suggested for capital cases to reduce the number of false convictions. However, @FePe98 have shown that, for strategic voting (to be discussed in more detail in Section \[sec:comparison-with-other-schemes\]) there is no such reduction when unanimity is required for conviction. @BeDa16 show how to allocate heterogeneous ability experts (with binary signals) to disjoint juries which adopt the unanimity rule. Most of the study of unanimous voting is done in a simultaneous rather than sequential manner discussed here.
Here is an example where sequential unanimous “voting” takes place. Suppose a patient considers having a major operation. It is important enough to get a second opinion. The patient will have the operation carried out only if both doctors recommend it. The second doctor to give an opinion will know the recommendation of the first doctor and will know his reputation as well. In what order should the patient query the two doctors (in terms of their abilities) to have the most reliable verdict?
Optimal voting order for a duo
------------------------------
The following lemma says that the aforementioned patient should go to the more able doctor first.
\[lem:unanimous-voting\] Given any *a priori* probability $\theta$ of alternative $A$ and a jury of $n=2$ jurors of abilities $b,c\in [0,1]$ with $b<c$, under unanimity voting rule (for $B$), the jury reliability $\bar{Q}(\theta; c,b)$ of voting order $(c,b)$ is at least as high as that of voting order $(b,c)$.
See Appendix \[sec:proof-last-two\].
Application to any jury of general size
---------------------------------------
Let us apply Lemma \[lem:unanimous-voting\] to a jury of any size, whether under the unanimity rule or majority rule. Consider the situation where a verdict has not been reached before the last two jurors have the chance to vote. We have the following theorem.
\[thm:last-two\] Consider a jury of odd size $n$ with fixed abilities and honest voting for a majority verdict. We allow any *a priori* probability $\theta$ of state $A$. Given any ability order of the first $n-2$ jurors, maximum reliability of the majority verdict is achieved if the ability of the last to vote is not higher than that of the penultimate voter.
First note that if a majority verdict is reached before the last two jurors vote, their voting order does not affect the verdict. There is a positive probability that the verdict will not be reached by then, in which case one alternative, say $A$, has one more vote than $B$. In this case, the remaining voting (of the last two jurors) requires unanimity to reach verdict $B$. By Lemma \[lem:unanimous-voting\], the decreasing ability order maximizes the reliability of the unanimous vote of the last two, and hence also of the majority vote of all $n$ jurors.
We note that the above result of optimal order also holds for the relative abilities of the last two jurors in unanimous voting of $n$ jurors, for any $n\geq2$, without assuming that $n$ is odd. Similar arguments, but with different conclusions, were given in @AlCh17a for strategic voting.
Comparisons of voting orders
============================
In this section we first consider how reliability changes when two jurors switch their voting positions (Theorem \[thm:last-two\], Propositions \[pro:1st-vs-2nd\] and \[pro:1st-vs-3rd\]) and we then combine these results to determine the optimal voting order of three jurors (Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\]).
Order of the first two voters
-----------------------------
The following proposition states that, fixing any last voter, starting with a lower-ability voter always has a higher reliability.
\[pro:1st-vs-2nd\] Under sequential-majority scheme suppose that $A$ and $B$ are equiprobable and we have three honest jurors of abilities $a,b,c\in [0,1]$. If $a < b$, then $Q(a,b,c) > Q(b,a,c)$.
According to , the first case there does not apply to $Q(a,b,c)$. We consider $c\le\rho(a,b)$ here and leave the other case of $c >\rho(a,b)$ to Part 2 of Appendix \[sec:1st-vs-2nd\], as the proof is very similar. Let $\Delta_1(a,b,c)\equiv Q(a,b,c)- Q(b,a,c)$. If $(b,a)\in H_2$, then $$\Delta_1(a,b,c) = q_0(a,b)-\frac{b+2}{4}=\frac{a^2}{16 b} > 0.$$ If $(b,a,c)\in H_3$, then $$\Delta_1(a,b,c) = q_0(a,b)-q_0(b,a)=\frac{(b-a)(3 ab -a^2 -b^2)}{16 ab} > 0,$$ since $3ab-a^{2}-b^{2}$ is clearly increasing in $a$ and hence it is more than the value when $a$ is replaced by $b/2$. If $(b,a,c)\in S$, then $$\Delta_1(a,b,c) =q_0(a,b)-q(b,a,c) = \frac{f_1(a,b,c)}{128 a b c (8-b^2-2 a b)},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(a,b,c) =\; & -4 (2 a - b)^3 b + 4 (8 - 2 a b - b^2) (2 a^3 - 4 a^2 b \\
& + 4 a b^2 - b^3) c - b (2 a - b) (8 - 2 a b - b^2)^2 c^2.\end{aligned}$$ In Part 1 of Appendix \[sec:1st-vs-2nd\] we prove $f_1(a,b,c)>0$ subject to $(b,a,c)\in S$, $(a,b,c)\in H_3$ and $a<b$ (i.e., $\rho(b,a)<c
\leq \rho(a,b)$, $b/2 <a <b$ and $a,b,c\in [0,1]$).
Order of the two end-voters
---------------------------
Our next proposition establishes that there is a better voting order applicable to all possible pairs of abilities of the two end-voters in any three-member jury, regardless of what ability the middle voter is.
\[pro:1st-vs-3rd\] Under sequential-majority scheme suppose that $A$ and $B$ are equiprobable and we have three honest jurors of abilities $a,b,c\in [0,1]$. If $a < b$, then $Q(b,c,a) > Q(a,c,b)$ for any $c$.
See Appendix \[sec:1st-vs-3rd\].
Optimal voting order
--------------------
Combining the three pairwise comparisons of Theorem \[thm:last-two\], Propositions \[pro:1st-vs-2nd\] and \[pro:1st-vs-3rd\], we obtain the following main result.
\[thm:optimal-sequence\] For juries of distinct abilities $0<a<b<c \le 1$, the unique voting order that maximizes the reliability of the verdict for honest sequential majority voting is given by $(b,c,a)$.
Do abler juries give better verdicts?
-------------------------------------
Suppose we increase the abilities of jurors, keeping the same voting order. Does this increase the reliability of their verdict? Not necessarily. The jury $(1/4,1/8,1/2)$ is abler than the jury $(0,1/8,1/2)$, but its reliability $Q(1/4,1/8,1/2)\approx 0.56$ is lower than $Q(0,1/8,1/2)\approx 0.58$. This is because in the latter jury the second voter is more likely to copy the vote of the first voter, with the consequence that the vote of the most able final voter might not count at all. Fixing the abilities of the second and third voters at $1/8$ and $1/2$, the reliability of a jury with the first voter having ability $x$ is given by $$Q\left(x,\frac18,\frac12\right) = q\left(x,\frac18,\frac12\right)=
\frac{9488-2568 x+3745 x^2-380 x^3-528 x^4-64 x^5}{512 \left(32-x -4 x^2\right)},$$ which is plotted in Figure \[fig:Monotonicity\] as a function of $x\in [0,1]$.
However, the following monotonicity holds.
\[thm:reliability-vs-ability\] The reliability $Q(a,b,c)$ of the majority verdict for honest sequential voting in ability sequence $(a,b,c)$ is non-decreasing in both $b,c\in[0,1]$ and in $a\in [c/2,1]$.
We present a complete proof in Appendix \[sec:proof-of-monotonicity\]. However, for monotonicity in $c$, the ability of the last juror, we would like to present an additional proof here for obtaining more intuition, which is applicable for *any* sized jury. If the verdict has already been decided, or if he herds and votes without looking at his signal, the reliability will not depend on his ability. But with a positive probability, neither of these conditions applies. In this case he is essentially a jury of one, for some a priori probability $\theta$ of state $c$.
When the third voter comes to vote (after first two have split), it is the same as if he is a jury of one, for some *a priori* $\theta$, which we may assume without loss of generality is at least $1/2$. In this case his honest threshold is given by : $$\tau_c(\theta) =\frac{1-2\theta}{c},\text{ \thinspace where
}2\theta-1 < c.$$
The last juror is correct if $s\geq\tau$ and nature is $A$ or $s\leq\tau$ and nature is $B$. So the reliability of the single juror (and hence of the verdict) is given by $$\theta(1-F_c(\tau_c(\theta))) +(1-\theta)G_c(\tau_c(\theta))
=\frac{1}{4c}( c^{2}+2c+4\theta^{2}-4\theta+1).$$ To see that this expression is increasing in $c$, note that its derivative with respect to $c$ is $$\frac{c^{2}-4\theta^{2}+4\theta-1}{4c^{2}}=\frac{(c-2\theta+1)
(c+2\theta-1)}{4c^{2}},$$ which is positive for $c > 2\theta-1$ (the case we are assuming, where he does not heard).
We note that if the jury is in the optimal order established above in Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\], then we have $a\ge c$ and hence $a\ge c/2$, so we have the following.
Given any three-member jury, the reliability of honest majority verdict is non-decreasing in the ability of each juror under optimal voting sequence given in Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\].
We conclude by giving two more examples of abler juries with worse reliability. To show that this can happen with $b>c$ (closer to our optimal order), note that $Q(0,24/25,15/16 \approx 0.76791)$, while $Q(1/100,24/25,15/16) \approx 0.76786$. To show that the loss in reliability can be large, note that $Q(0,1/20,9/10) \approx 0.62$, while $Q(1/10,1/20,9/10) =0.53$, approximately a 15% loss of reliability. This is a more extreme version of our first example, where increasing the ability of the first voter increases the chances that the able last voter will vote after the verdict has been decided.
Seniority vs. anti-seniority voting orders {#sec:SO-vs-AO}
==========================================
While little attention has been paid (until recently) on determining the optimal voting order, there has been much discussion on the relative performance (reliability) of seniority order (SO), in decreasing order of seniority or ability, with respect to anti-seniority order (AO), where voting is in increasing order. @OtSo01 give an extensive survey of the practice and theory of SO vs. AO. They point out that the AO practiced in the ancient Sanhedrin and until recently for voting in the United States Supreme Court. In tennis and badminton, the referee, usually a more senior figure, votes after the lines-persons. It can be argued that Hawkeye, the computer arbiter of close calls, who is the final arbiter, is the most able. Sometimes, both SO and AO are used. @HaBr92 note that in courts where opinions are assigned at the discretion of the Chief Justice, conference discussion is SO and voting is AO. Appellate decisions in courts usually have more senior (equals more able?) judges in the higher courts, thus AO. Qualitatively, it would seem that AO is less susceptible to herding. On the other hand, since the most able jurors vote late, the majority decision may have already been confirmed before they are reached. So while conventional opinion may be on the side of AO, we find (at least for three-member juries) that it is dominated by SO.
To see this property of three-member juries, we look back at an earlier result. If the jury consists of three jurors of abilities $a_1<a_2<a_3$, then seniority order $(a_3,a_2,a_1)$ can be obtained from anti-seniority order $(a_1,a_2,a_3)$ by simply transposing the first and last juror. We considered the effect of such a transposition in Proposition \[pro:1st-vs-3rd\], where we showed that $Q(b,c,a)>Q(a,c,b)$ for any $c$ if $a<b$. By taking $a_3=b$, $a_1=a$ and $a_2=c$, we obtain the following dominance of seniority sequence over anti-seniority sequence.
\[thm:seniority-sequence\] In honest sequential majority voting of three jurors of distinct abilities, the seniority sequence has a strictly higher reliability of the verdict than the anti-seniority sequence.
For larger juries of odd size $n>3$, we ask the following question: When a random jury is chosen, and assigned signals according to abilities, what is the probability that the seniority order is correct when the two orders (SO and AO) give different verdicts? Our results are given below.
For each odd-size jury $n=5,7,9,11,13$, we generate one million random juries with abilities taken uniformly and independently from the interval $[0,1]$. To each, we assign random signal vectors, generated according to the abilities and assuming state of Nature $A$. We calculate the majority verdicts $X$ and $Y$ by each, where $X$ is based on AO and $Y$ is based on SO. Thus $A$ is the correct verdict. We record in Table \[tab:SO-vs-AO\] the number of verdict pairs $(X,Y)$ (which we denote by $\#(X,Y)$), where neither ordering is correct $(B,B)$, both are correct $(A,A)$, only AO is correct $(A,B)$ and only SO is correct $(B,A)$. The final column $\rho$ gives the fraction of the cases where SO is correct when exactly one of the two is correct: $$R = \frac{\#(B,A)}{\#(B,A)+\#(A,B)}.$$
$$\begin{array}[c]{crrrrc}\toprule
\mbox{Jury size $n$} & \#(B,B) & \#(A,A) & \#(A,B) & \#(B,A) & R\,(\%) \\ \midrule
5 & 118912 & 565227 & 133707 & 182154 & 58 \\
7 & 92854 & 586934 & 131373 & 188839 & 59 \\
9 & 75829 & 603487 & 128540 & 192144 & 60 \\
11 & 64262 & 619118 & 124470 & 192150 & 61 \\ \bottomrule
\end{array}$$
As we can see from Table \[tab:SO-vs-AO\], When the verdicts under the two orderings differ, SO is correct about 58% of the time for juries of size 5, increasing to about 61% of the time for juries of size 11. This analysis refines earlier simulation work of @AlCh17a.
Comparison with other voting schemes {#sec:comparison-with-other-schemes}
====================================
Now let us consider some ideal situation for achieving maximum possible reliability, where the jurors jointly choose thresholds to maximize verdict reliability. We say such voting is *strategic*. Although strategic voting apparently cannot be realized easily in practice, we use the reliability under strategic voting as a benchmark. Another well-known voting scheme is *simultaneous* voting (or secret ballot), in which all voters vote independently.
Strategic voting {#sec:strategic}
----------------
Given *a priori* probability $\theta$ of $A$, under sequential majority voting, let the thresholds of the three voters of abilities $a,b,c$ in their voting order be respectively $x$, $\{y_1,y_2\}$ and $\{z_1,z_2\}$, where $y_1$ and $y_2$ are the thresholds of the second voter after vote of $A$ and $B$, respectively, by the first voter; $z_1$ and $z_2$ are the thresholds of the third voter after vote of $AB$ and $BA$, respectively, by the first two voters. Note that we do not need to consider prior votes of $AA$ and $BB$. Then the reliability $Q_{\textrm{str}}(\theta, a,b,c, x, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2)$ of the jury majority verdict under strategic voting is: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\textrm{str}}(\theta, a,b,c, \, & x, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2) = \theta ((1-F(a,x)) F(b,y_1) (1-F(c,z_1)) \\
& +F(a,x) (1-F(b,y_2)) (1-F(c,z_2))+(1-F(a,x)) (1-F(b,y_1))) \\
& +(1-\theta ) ((1-G(a,x)) G(b,y_1) G(c,z_1) \\
& +G(a,x) (1-G(b,y_2)) G(c,z_2)+G(a,x) G(b,y_2)).\end{aligned}$$ With strategic voting, the three voters jointly choose $x, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2\in [-1,+1]$ to maximize $Q_{\textrm{str}}(\theta, a,b,c, x, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2)$. Direct calculation for $\theta=1/2$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:R-t}
Q_{\textrm{str}}({\textstyle\frac12}, \, & a,b,c, x, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2) =
{\textstyle\frac{1}{64}} (a (x^2-1) (b c (y_1^2 (z_1^2-1)+y_2^2 (z_2^2-1) \\
& -z_1^2-z_2^2+2)+4 (y_1 (z_1+1)+y_2 (z_2-1)+z_1-z_2-2)) \nonumber\\
& +4 (b ((x-1) y_1^2 (z_1+1)+(x+1) y_2^2 (z_2-1)-x z_1-x z_2+z_1-z_2+2) \nonumber\\
& +c ((x-1) y_1 (z_1^2-1)+(x+1) y_2 (z_2^2-1)+x z_1^2-x z_2^2-z_1^2-z_2^2+2)+8)). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is straightforward to check that $$Q_{\textrm{str}}({\textstyle\frac12}, a,b,c,x,y_1,y_2,z_1,z_2)=Q_{\textrm{str}}({\textstyle\frac12},a,b,c,-x,-y_2,-y_1,-z_2,-z_1).$$ This indicates that, as a quadratic function of $x$, the following $$\max\left\{Q_{\textrm{str}}({\textstyle\frac12}, a,b,c,x,y_1,y_2,z_1,z_2): -1\le y_1,y_2,z_1,z_1\le 1\right\}$$ is symmetric with respect to the axis $x=0$. Therefore, we conclude from the continuity of function $Q_{\textrm{str}}$ and compactness of its variable domain that reliability of strategic sequential voting $$\label{eqn:profile-symmetry}
Q_{\textrm{str}}({\textstyle\frac12},a,b,c) =
\max_{-1\le y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2\le 1} Q_{\textrm{str}}({\textstyle\frac12},a,b,c,0,y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2).$$ In fact, the above mathematics can be easily explained as follows: given two equally likely states of Nature, $A$ and $B$, due to symmetry between $A$ and $B$, optimal strategic threshold profiles of a three-member jury are *symmetric* in the sense that if a profile $\tau = (x, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2)$ is optimal for deciding $(A,B)$, then $\tilde{\tau}=(-x, -y_2, -y_1, -z_2, -z_1) $ is optimal for deciding $(B,A)$. We also note that strategic voting is a Nash equilibrium of the sequential voting game where the utility of each juror is 1 if the majority verdict is correct, 0 otherwise.
Simultaneous voting {#sec:simultaneous}
-------------------
When voting is simultaneous, each voter has a unique threshold since his vote is not dependent on any prior voting. Given *a priori* probability $\theta$ of $A$ and a three-member jury of abilities $\{a, b, c\}$ with respective thresholds $\{x,y,z\}$, the reliability $Q_{\textrm{sim}}(\theta,a,b,c,x,y,z)$ of simultaneous voting is given as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\textrm{sim}}(\theta,a,b,c,x,y,z)=\,& \theta((1-F_a(x))(1-F_b(y))+(1-F_a(x))F_b(y)(1-F_c(z))\\
& +F_a(x)(1-F_b(y))(1-F_c(z)))+(1-\theta)(G_a(x)G_b(y) \\
& +G_a(x)(1-G_b(y))G_c(z)+(1-G_a(x))G_b(y)G_c(z)).\end{aligned}$$ Hence the reliability of simultaneous honest voting is achieved by setting the thresholds at $\{\tau_a(\theta),\tau_b(\theta),
\tau_c(\theta)\}$: $$Q_{\textrm{sim}}(\theta, a,b,c)= Q_{\textrm{sim}}(\theta, a,b,c,\tau_a(\theta),\tau_b(\theta),\tau_c(\theta)).$$
Homogeneity and heterogeneity
-----------------------------
Let us start with a definition concerning homogeneity and heterogeneity of the abilities of the jurors.
Given any ability set $\{a,b,c\}$ with $0\le a\le b\le c\le 1$, let $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(a,b,c) &=& \min\left\{\{a/b:\,\mbox{if $b>0$}\},\ \{b/c:\,\mbox{if $c>0$}\}\right\};\\
\mu(a,b,c) &=& \min\left\{\{b/a:\,\mbox{if $a>0$}\},\ \{c/b:\,\mbox{if $b>0$}\}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Specifically, we define $\lambda(0,0,0) = \mu(0,0,0) =1$ and $\mu(0,0,c) =+\infty$ if $c>0$. We say that ability set $\{a,b,c\}$ with $0\le a\le b\le c\le 1$ has a *homogeneity index* $\lambda(a,b,c)$ and a *heterogeneity index* $\mu(a,b,c)$.
Note that we always have $0\le\lambda(a,b,c)\le 1\le \mu(a,b,c)$. Apparently, the higher its homogeneity index, the more homogeneous the ability set is, with perfect homogeneity achieved when the index is $1$ (i.e., $a=b=c$). Similarly, the higher its heterogeneity index, the more heterogeneous the ability set is.
Sequential voting vs. simultaneous voting
-----------------------------------------
As opposed to the simultaneous voting scheme analyzed by Condorcet, sequential voting has advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that later voters have more information. One disadvantage is the possibility of herding, where the information of later voters is not used.
\[thm:simultaneous-vs-sequential\] For any three-member jury on two equally likely states of Nature, if its ability set has a homogeneity index at least $6/7$, then simultaneous honest voting has a higher reliability than sequential honest voting. On the other hand, if its ability set has a heterogeneity index at least $4/3$, then sequential voting in the optimal order has a higher reliability than simultaneous voting.
See Appendix \[sec:proof-of-Thm-sim-vs-seq\].
The results in Theorem \[thm:simultaneous-vs-sequential\] can be illustrated in Figure \[fig:sim-vs-seq\], in which we set the middle ability $b=1/2$ and consider the square $(a,c)\in[0,1/2]\times[1/2,1]$. The curved line divides this square into two regions, where sequential (top-left) and simultaneous (bottom-right) voting are optimal. Within these two regions are the respective rectangles where Theorem \[thm:simultaneous-vs-sequential\] guarantees simultaneous voting is better ($\lambda \ge 6/7$) and where sequential voting is better ($\mu \ge 4/3$). Note that when $b=1/2$, the condition $\lambda \ge 6/7$ corresponds to rectangle $\{(a,c): a\ge 3/7, c\le 7/12\}$, while condition $\mu\ge 4/3$ corresponds to rectangle $\{(a,c): a\le 3/8, c\ge 2/3\}$.
Theorem \[thm:simultaneous-vs-sequential\] shows that, when a jury is highly homogeneous, simultaneous voting helps diversify the homogeneity. On the other hand, when a jury is highly heterogeneous, sequential voting helps unify the heterogeneity. Interestingly, our above theorem seems consistent with the result for simultaneous voting obtained by @BeNi17 in that high reliability of simultaneous voting needs homogeneity, while diversity calls for sequential voting. @BeNi17 show that when adding voters to a jury to increase its reliability, homogeneity is useful.
Diversity for reliability
-------------------------
We can now answer the question of whether homogeneous or heterogenous juries have higher reliability under sequential honest majority voting.
\[thm:monotonicity\] Under honest majority voting on two equally likely states of Nature, fixing the average ability of any three-member jury, reliability is a strictly increasing function of the heterogeneity index. In other words, heterogeneity of jurors’ abilities helps increase reliability.
See Appendix \[sec:monotonicity\].
Optimality of honest voting
---------------------------
According to Theorem \[thm:simultaneous-vs-sequential\], simultaneous voting can have higher reliability than sequential under honest voting. This cannot occur under strategic voting, since the jurors could ignore prior voting and thus achieve the reliability of simultaneous voting. The next theorem provides a sufficient condition for achieving strategic optimality (see Section \[sec:strategic\]).
\[thm:honest-vs-strategic\] Given equally likely states of Nature, sequential honest voting (in optimal order) achieves strategic optimality if heterogeneity of the jurors’ abilities is at least $7/4$, while simultaneous honest voting achieves strategic optimality if the jurors all have the same ability.
See Appendix \[sec:proof-of-Thm-hon-vs-str\].
Larger juries {#sec:large-juries}
=============
Up to now we have considered the optimal voting order problem only for juries of size three, where we have the definitive result Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\]. For larger juries we only know the optimal ordering for the last two jurors (decreasing ability, see Theorem \[thm:last-two\]) and we have some numerical results comparing the seniority order (SO) with the anti-seniority order (AO) in Section \[sec:SO-vs-AO\], namely, the former is more likely to be correct when the verdicts differ. For larger juries the “curse of dimensionality” prevents us from using the earlier technique of deriving a formula for the reliability of a jury with a given order of abilities because the number of thresholds increases exponentially in the jury size. So in this section we will use simulation to estimate this reliability, by generating many random signal vectors for a given ability order jury, assuming one of the alternatives (say $A$) holds. For each, we compute the verdict. Finally, we estimate reliability as the fraction of verdicts which are correct (in this case, $A$).
In general, we cannot consider all possible orderings (permutations) of a set of abilities. In addition to SO and AO, we propose a new ordering which we call the Ascending-Descending Order (ADO). For a jury of odd size $n=2m+1$, this ordering begins with the most able $m+1$ jurors voting in increasing (anti-seniority) order and then has the $m$ least able jurors voting in descending (seniority) order. In particular, the median ability juror votes first, the highest ability juror votes in the median position and the least able juror votes last.
Given a set of $n=2m+1$ distinct abilities indexed in increasing order $0 \le a_{1}<a_{2}<\dots<a_{n}\le 1$, the Ascending-Descending Order (ADO) is given by $$\left( a_{m+1},a_{m+2},\dots,a_{n},a_{m},a_{m-1},\dots,a_{2},a_{1}\right).$$
Note that for $n=3$ our main result, Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\], says that the ADO is the unique optimal ordering. Furthermore, ADO has its last two jurors voting in decreasing order, which is a requirement of any optimal ordering according to Theorem \[thm:last-two\]. Our simulation, admittedly limited in number, have not yet produced any counter-examples to the following.
\[conj:ADO-optimality\] For any fixed set of an odd number of distinct abilities for a jury, the ordering that produces the highest reliability is the ADO.
Of course we have already proved the conjecture for juries of size three in Theorem \[thm:optimal-sequence\]. Even if the ADO turns out to not always be optimal, our simulation results seem to show that it a good heuristic, producing high reliabilities.
Our first simulation is concerned with a jury of size five, which we take as the ability set $\{0.1,0.3,0.5,0.7,0.9\}$, which is in some sense uniformly distributed. For simplicity, we denote them by $\{1,3,5,7,9\}$ for the rest of this section. If two abilities are very close, then transposing the voting order of the two corresponding jurors would not greatly affect the reliability, and the difference might be less than the error in the simulation. There are $5!=\allowbreak120$ orderings of such a jury, but only $60$ for which the last two abilities are in decreasing order. We calculated 100,000 random signal vectors (generated from alternative $A$) for each such ordering and counted the number of (correct) verdicts for $A$, this number divided by 100,000 is an estimate of reliability. Of these 60, exactly 9 had an estimated reliability $\hat{\rho}$ above 76%. We then calculated 1,000,000 trials for these, listing the results in Table \[tab:simulation1\] below. The estimates have error less than 0.1% with a confidence of 90%. Note that ADO has the highest estimated reliability, at 77%.
$$\begin{array}[c]{ccc}\toprule
\mbox{Voting Order} & \mbox{No.~of $A$ Verdicts} & \mbox{Est.~Reliability $\hat{\rho}$}\\ \midrule
(5,7,9,3,1) & 770,199 & 77.0\%\\
(7,5,9,3,1) & 766,450 & 76.6\%\\
(1,7,9,5,3) & 762,953 & 76.3\%\\
(7,3,9,5,1) & 762,488 & 76.2\%\\
(7,9,1,5,3) & 762,437 & 76.2\%\\
(5,9,7,3,1) & 762,326 & 76.2\%\\
(7,9,5,3,1) & 762,186 & 76.2\%\\
(7,9,3,5,1) & 761,472 & 76.1\%\\
(7,1,9,5,3) & 761,321 & 76.1\% \\ \bottomrule
\end{array}$$
The increasing order $(1,3,5,7,9)$ (AO) had $\hat{\rho}=71.5\%$; the decreasing order $(9,7,5,3,1)$ (SO) had $\hat{\rho}=75.5\%$; the ordering with the lowest estimated reliability was $(5,3,1,9,7)$ with $\hat{\rho}=64.2\%$. It is worth noting that there is more than a 10% difference in reliability between ADO and the worst ordering.
To look at seven-member juries, it is no longer feasible to check the reliability of all $7!/2=\allowbreak2520$ orderings even of a particular set of abilities. Instead, we generated 500 random juries $\vec{a}$ (independently picking each juror with an ability uniformly in $[0,1]$). For each, we calculated the estimated reliability $\hat{\rho}(\vec{a})$ and $\hat{\rho}^{\ast}(\vec{a}^{\ast})$, where $\vec{a}^{\ast}$ is the reordering of $\vec{a}$ to ADO. For example, if $\vec{a}=(0.3,0.6,0.4,0.1,0.8,0.5,0.7)$ then $\vec{a}^{\ast}=
(0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.4,0.3,0.1)$. We used 10,000 trials for each randomly generated jury $\vec{a}$, and calculated the difference $\hat{\Delta}(\vec{a}) =
\hat{\rho}^{\ast}(\vec{a})-\hat{\rho}(\vec{a})$ between reliability in ADO order and in the originally generated order. The mean value of $\hat{\Delta}$ was $0.036969$ (roughly a $4\%$ improvement in the reliability of the verdict), the maximum was $0.1609$ (a $16\%$ improvement in reliability) and the minimum was $-0.0064$. The frequency distribution is given in Table \[tab:simulation2\] (no data at boundary points).
$$\begin{array}[c]{lcccccccccc}\toprule
\mbox{Range} & (-.02,0) & (0,.02) & (.02,.04) & (.04,.06) & (.06,.08) \\ \midrule
\mbox{Frequency} & 10 & 139 & 171 & 94 & 45 \\ \bottomrule\toprule
\mbox{Range} & (.08,.10) & (.10,.12) & (.12,.14) & (.14,.16) & (.16,.18) \\ \midrule
\mbox{Frequency} & 20 & 14 & 6 & 0 & 1 \\ \bottomrule
\end{array}$$
So from the heuristic point of view, it certainly seems a good idea to rearrange a jury (of size 7), which arrives in random order, into one in ADO order, if this is allowed. It nearly always gives an improvement in reliability. From the theoretical point of view, it at first may appear that we have found ten counter-examples to our Conjecture \[conj:ADO-optimality\] regarding the optimality of ADO, in that the original order of the jurors that produced a negative $\hat{\Delta}$ is more reliable than ADO. However, the negative values were very close to zero. There were 11 juries $\vec{a}$ where $\hat{\Delta}(\vec{a})<0.001$ and we recalculated $\hat{\Delta}$ for all of them with one million trials. All came out with a positive value of $\hat{\Delta}$. There was one additional jury $\vec{a}$ for which $\hat{\Delta}(\vec{a})$ was not negative but was less than $0.001$. We also recalculated this for one million trials and checked that it still came out positive.
Another way of evaluating the ADO is to compare it to SO (Seniority, or Descending Order), in the same way we compared SO to AO in Section \[sec:SO-vs-AO\]. For odd values of $n=5, 7, 9, 11$ , we generate one million random juries with associated random signals generated, assuming Nature is $A$. We record in Table \[tab:SO-vs-ADO\] (with the same notation as in Table \[tab:SO-vs-AO\]) the number of verdict pairs for ADO and SO, respectively, and determine the probability that ADO is the correct verdict (that is, $A$) when the two verdicts differ.
$$\begin{array}[c]{crrrrc}\toprule
\mbox{Jury size $n$} & \#(B,B) & \#(A,A) & \#(A,B) & \#(B,A) & R\,(\%) \\ \midrule
5 & 150631 & 656425 & 101988 & 90956 & 53 \\
7 & 117189 & 682142 & 107038 & 93631 & 53 \\
9 & 94630 & 702166 & 109739 & 93465 & 54 \\
11 & 78453 & 719629 & 110279 & 91639 & 55 \\ \bottomrule
\end{array}$$
From Table \[tab:SO-vs-ADO\], we see that when ADO and SO give different verdicts, ADO is the correct one about 53% of the time for juries of size five, rising to about 55% of the time for juries of size 11.
Concluding remarks
==================
When jurors of differing abilities vote sequentially, the reliability of the majority verdict depends on the voting order. We have shown that, regardless of the set of abilities on a three-member jury, if the two states are equally likely, then the optimal voting order is always median ability first, then highest ability, then lowest ability. The optimality of the ordering is robust for the *a priori* probability $\theta$ around $1/2$.
Our earlier paper, @AlCh17a showed that this was true for many ability sets, but this is the first paper to establish this result rigorously for all ability sets. Analogous results for larger juries appear to be beyond current methods, but presumably special cases could be studied, for example, when only one juror has a different ability than the others.
Since the optimal ordering is established, we can fix this ordering and then make various reliability comparisons. To do this, we have defined indices that measure homogeneity and heterogeneity of the set of jurors. We find that for sufficiently homogeneous juries, simultaneous voting is more reliable than sequential voting. On the other hand, when juries are sufficiently heterogeneous, sequential voting is more reliable. In a similar vein, we find that the reliability of a jury of fixed average ability is increasing in its heterogeneity. For sufficiently heterogeneous juries, the thresholds given by honest voting are in fact the optimal joint thresholds, so that honest voting optimizes the reliability of the majority verdict. That is, honest voting is also strategic.
For larger juries, we have introduced the Ascending-Descending Order of voting and shown that it is at least an excellent heuristic for obtaining high reliability, if not actually optimal. Further work in this direction for large juries would be useful, including asymptotic results analogous to those of Condorcet.
An area of future research is the analysis of sequential voting under rules other than majority.
[99]{}
Ali, S., Goeree, J., Kartik, N. and Palfrey, T.R. (2008). Information amalgamation by voting. *American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings* 98(2), 181–186.
Alpern, S. and Baston, V. (2016). The secretary problem with a selection committee: Do conformist committees hire better secretaries? *Management Science* 63(4), 1184–1197.
Alpern, S. and Chen, B. (2017a). The importance of voting order for jury decisions made by sequential majority votes. *European Journal of Operational Research* 258(3), 1072–1081.
Alpern, S. and Chen, B. (2017b). Who should cast the casting vote? Using sequential voting to amalgamate information. *Theory and Decision* 83(2), 259–282.
Alpern, S., Gal, S. and Solan, E. (2010). A sequential selection game with vetoes. *Games and Economic Behavior* 68(1), 1–14.
Baharad, E., Goldberger, J., Koppel, M. and Nitzan, S. (2012). Beyond Condorcet: optimal aggregation rules using voting records. *Theory and Decision* 72(1), 113–130.
Ben-Yashar, R. and Danziger, L. (2016). The unanimity rule and extremely asymmetric committees. *Journal of Mathematical Economics* 64, 107–112,
Ben-Yashar, R. and Nitzan, S. (2017). Is diversity in capabilities desirable when adding decision makers? *Theory and Decision* 82, 395–402.
Besbes, O. and Scarsini, M. (2016). On information distortions in online ratings. Forthcoming in: *Operations Research*.
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D. and Welch, I.(1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. *Journal of Political Economy*, 992–1026.
Celis, L.E., Krafft, P.M. and Kobe, N. (2016). Sequential voting promotes collective discovery in social recommendation systems. In: *ICWSM*, 42–51.
Condorcet, M.J.A.N.C. (1785). *Essai sur l’Application de l’Analyse à la Prababilité des Decisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix* (Impr. Royale, Paris); reprinted (1972) (Chelsea, New York).
Dekel, E. and Piccione, M. (2000). Sequential voting procedures in symmetric binary elections. *Journal of Political Economy* 108(1), 34–55.
Feddersen, T.J. and Pesendorfer, W. (1998). Convicting the innocent: The inferiority of unanimous jury verdicts under strategic voting. *American Political Science Review* 92 (1), 23–35.
Hall, M.G. and Brace, P. (1992). Toward an integrated model of judicial voting behavior. *American Politics Quarterly* 20, 147–168.
Ottaviani, M. and S[ø]{}rensen, P. (2001). Information aggregation in debate: who should speak first? *Journal of Public Economics* 81(3), 393–421.
Romme, A.G.L. (2004). Unanimity rule and organizational decision making: A simulation model. *Organization Science* 15, 704–718.
Wolfram Research, Inc. (2017). FullSimplify\[*expr*,*assum*\]; FindInstance\[*expr*,*vars*\]. *Mathematica* 11.1.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Explicit reliability function in Section \[sec:reliability-duo\] {#sec:reliability-duo-function}
----------------------------------------------------------------
Explicit expression of the reliability function in is as follows: $$\bar{Q}\left(\frac12;b,c\right)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{c+4}{8}, & \text{if $b=0$;} \\
\frac{b+2}{4}, & \text{if $(b,c)\in H_2$;} \\
\frac{(b+2 c)^2+16 c}{32 c}, & \text{otherwise.} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ For all $0 < b, c < 1$ and $1/2 <\theta < 1$: $$\bar{Q}\left(\theta;b,c\right)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\theta, & \text{if $b+1<2 \theta$;} \\
\frac{b(b+2)+(1-2\theta)^2}{4b}, & \text{if $b+1\leq 2\theta$ or $2c\,\theta(b+2\theta-2)>(b+1)(c-1)+2\theta$}; \\
h(\theta; b,c), & \text{otherwise;} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
h(\theta; b,c) = & \frac1{16 b c (b (2 \theta -1)+4 (\theta -1) \theta -1)} \\
& (-4 \theta ^2 \left((b+1) ((b-4) b-2) c^2+2 b (5-3 b) c+3 b-8 c+3\right) \\
& +2 (b+1) \theta \left((b+1) (2 b-3) c^2+2 (b-3) b c+3 b+3\right) \\
& +16 c\,\theta ^4 ((b-5) c+2)-8 \theta ^3 (c (b ((b+4) c-6)-6 c+8)-1) \\
& -(b+1)^3 (c+1)^2+32 c^2 \theta ^5).\end{aligned}$$ For all $0 < b, c < 1$ and $0 <\theta < 1/2$: $$\bar{Q}\left(\theta;b,c\right)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1-\theta, & \text{if $b+2 \theta <1$ and $c+2 \theta <1$;} \\
\frac{b (b+2)+(1-2 \theta )^2}{4 b}, & \text{if $b+2\theta\geq 1$ and $2c\,\theta(b+2\theta-2)>(b+1)(c-1)+2\theta$}; \\
\frac{c (c+2)+(1-2 \theta )^2}{4 c}, & \text{if $b+2 \theta <1$ and $c+2 \theta \geq 1$}; \\
h(\theta; b,c), & \text{otherwise.} \\
\end{array}
\right.$$
Proof of Lemma \[lem:unanimous-voting\] {#sec:proof-last-two}
---------------------------------------
Using the last equation in with the explicit expression in Appendix \[sec:reliability-duo-function\] above, we compute $\bar{Q}(\theta; b,c)$ for any $\theta\in[0,1]$ and any $b,c\in[0,1]$. We then prove that $\bar{Q}(\theta; c,b) - \bar{Q}(\theta; b,c)\ge 0$ when $c \ge b$. To this end, we use *Wolfram Mathematica*, a mathematical symbolic computation program, with its command `FullSimplify`\[*expr*,*assum*\], where *expr* is replaced by expression $\bar{Q}(\theta; c,b) - \bar{Q}(\theta; b,c)\ge 0$ and *assum* is replaced by constraints $c > b$ and $\theta,b,c\in [0,1]$. The command outputs `True` in a couple of seconds. Alternatively, we also use command `FindInstance`\[*expr*,*vars*\], where *expr* is replaced by the system of inequalities $\bar{Q}(\theta; c,b) - \bar{Q}(\theta; b,c)< 0$, $c > b$ and $\theta, b,c\in [0,1]$, while *vars* is replaced by the specification of variables $\{\theta,b,c\}$. The command outputs the empty set $\emptyset$ (i.e., there is no solution to the system) in a couple of seconds. In the remainder of the Appendix, wherever we can prove, in the aforementioned ways, an inequality subject to some (inequality) constraints, we will simply use citation of @Wolfram17 with a specification of the inequality and the constraints.
Remaining proof of Proposition \[pro:1st-vs-2nd\] {#sec:1st-vs-2nd}
-------------------------------------------------
### Part 1 {#part-1 .unnumbered}
As explained in Appendix \[sec:proof-last-two\] above, we cite @Wolfram17 with target inequality of $f_1(a,b,c)>0$ and constraints $a,b,c\in [0,1]$, $\rho(b,a)<c\leq \rho(a,b)$ and $b/2 <a <b$.
### Part 2 {#part-2 .unnumbered}
Now consider $c > \rho(a,b)$. If $(b,a)\in H_2$, then $$\Delta_1(a,b,c) =q(a,b,c)-\frac{b+2}{4} = \frac{f_2(a,b,c)}{128 b c (8-a^2-2 a b)},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_2(a,b,c) = & -4 (a - 2 b)^3 + 4 (8 - a^2 - 2 a b) (a^2 + 4 a b - 4 b^2) c \\
& \; + (2 b-a) (8 - a^2 - 2 a b)^2 c^2.\end{aligned}$$ As a convex quadratic function of $c$, $f_1(a,b,c)$ is minimized at $$c_1=\frac{2 (4 b^2-a^2-4 a b)}{(2 b-a) (8-a^2-2 a b)}$$ to $$f_2(a,b,c_1)=\frac{64 a^2 b (b-a)}{2b-a} > 0.$$
If $(b,a)\not\in H_2$, then it is easy to check that $\rho(a,b)>\rho(b,a)$ and hence $c > \rho(a,b)>\rho(b,a)$. We obtain $$\Delta_1(a,b,c) = q(a,b,c)-q(b,a,c)=\frac{(b-a) f_3(a,b,c)}{128 a b c (8-a^2-2 a b) (8-2 a b-b^2)},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_3(a,b,c)=\; & c^2(a+b)(8-a^2-2 a b)(8-a^2-b^2)(8-2 a b-b^2)\\
& -4 c(8-a^2-2 a b)(a^2+a b+b^2)(8-2 a b-b^2) \\
& -4(a+b)(10 a^3 b-7 a^2 b^2-8 a^2+10 a b^3-16 a b-8 b^2),\end{aligned}$$ which is positive under constraints $c> \rho(a,b)$ and $b/2 < a < b$ with $a,b,c\in [0,1]$ [@Wolfram17].
Remaining proof of Proposition \[pro:1st-vs-3rd\] {#sec:1st-vs-3rd}
-------------------------------------------------
According to , if $c\le a/2$, then $c<b/2$, we have $\Delta_2(a,b,c) \equiv Q(b,c,a) -
Q(a,c,b)=(b-a)/4 >0$. If $a/2 <c\le b/2$, then according to , $b>\rho(a,c)$, which leads to $$\Delta_2(a,b,c) = \frac{2+b}4 - q(a,c,b),$$ which is positive under constraints $a/2 <c\le b/2$ and $a,b\in[0,1]$ [@Wolfram17]. Therefore, we only need to consider $c > b/2$. If $a \le \rho(b,c)$ and $b \le \rho(a,c)$, then $$\Delta_2(a,b,c) = q_0(b,c)-q_0(a,c)=\frac{b^2-a^2}{16 c}>0.$$ If $a \le \rho(b,c)$ and $b > \rho(a,c)$, then $$\Delta_2(a,b,c) =q_0(b,c)-q(a,c,b)=\frac{f_4(a,b,c)}{128 b c (8-a^2-2 a c)},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_4(a,b,c) = \; & a^5 b^2+2 a^4 b^2 c+4 a^4 b-4 a^3 b^2 c^2-16 a^3 b^2+24 a^3 b c +4 a^3 -8 a^2 b^3 \\
& -8 a^2 b^2 c^3 +16 a^2 b c^2-32 a^2 b-24 a^2 c-16 a b^3 c +64 a b^2 c^2 +64 a b^2 \\
& -32 a b c^3-128 a b c+48 a c^2+64 b^3-128 b^2 c+128 b c^2-32 c^3,\end{aligned}$$ which is positive when $a\leq \rho(b,c)$, $b>\rho(a,c)$ and ${b}/{2}<c\leq 1$ with $0\le a<b\leq 1$ [@Wolfram17].
If $a > \rho(b,c)$, then $b > a$ and $c>b/2$ imply that $b > \rho(a,c)$. Therefore, we have $$\Delta_2(a,b,c) = q(b,c,a)-q(a,c,b))= \frac{(b-a) f_5(a,b,c)}{128 a b c (8-a^2-2 a c) (8-b^2-2 b c)},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_5(a,b,c) = \; & a^5 b^4+2 a^5 b^3 c-8 a^5 b^2+a^4 b^5+4 a^4 b^4 c+4 a^4 b^3 c^2-4 a^4 b^3 -8 a^4 b^2 c \\
& -32 a^4 b+2 a^3 b^5 c+4 a^3 b^4 c^2-4 a^3 b^4-16 a^3 b^3 c +16 a^3 b^2 c^2 +36 a^3 b^2 \\
& -56 a^3 b c-32 a^3-8 a^2 b^5-8 a^2 b^4 c+16 a^2 b^3 c^2 +36 a^2 b^3-144 a^2 b^2 c \\
& -48 a^2 b c^2+224 a^2 b+192 a^2 c-32 a b^4-56 a b^3 c -48 a b^2 c^2 +224 a b^2 \\
& +128 a b c^3+192 a b c-384 a c^2-32 b^3+192 b^2 c-384 b c^2+256 c^3,\end{aligned}$$ which is proved when $a>\rho (b,c)$, $b>\rho (a,c)$ and ${b}/{2}<c\leq 1$ with $ 0\leq a<b\leq 1$ [@Wolfram17].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:reliability-vs-ability\] {#sec:proof-of-monotonicity}
-----------------------------------------------
To prove the stated monotonicity of $Q(a,b,c)$ in $a,b,c$ respectively, we only need to do so for each of the three pieces of $Q(a,b,c)$ in thanks to the continuity of $Q(a,b,c)$ over $a,b,c\in[0,1]$. The stated monotonicity of $Q(a,b,c)\equiv (2+a)/4$ is evident over domain $H_2$. We show that $q_0(a,b)$ and $q(b,c,a)$ have the stated monotonicity over $H_3$ and $S$, respectively. We accomplish this by verifying [@Wolfram17] that each of the following two partial derivatives $$\frac{\partial q_0(a,b)}{\partial a}, \ \frac{\partial q_0(a,b)}{\partial b}$$ is positive over $H_3$; and each of the following three partial derivatives $$\frac{\partial q(a,b,c)}{\partial a}, \ \frac{\partial q(a,b,c)}{\partial b}, \ \frac{\partial q(a,b,c)}{\partial c}$$ is positive over $S$ together with constraint $a\ge c/2$, $S$ and $S$, respectively.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:simultaneous-vs-sequential\] {#sec:proof-of-Thm-sim-vs-seq}
---------------------------------------------------
Let $(a,b,c)\in H_o(6/7)$. Then with formulae derived in the previous sections, we have $$Q_{\textrm{sim}}\left({\textstyle\frac12},a,b,c\right) - Q(b,c,a) = \frac{h_1(a,b,c)}{128 a c \left(8-2 b c-b^2\right)},$$ where $$h_1(a,b,c)=a^2 b \left(8-b^2\right)\left(8-2 b c-b^2\right)-4 a b^2 \left(8-2 b c-b^2\right)-4 (2 c-b)^3,$$ which is positive when $(a,b,c)\in H_o(\textstyle{\frac67})$ [@Wolfram17]. On the other hand, if $(a,b,c)\in H_e(\textstyle{\frac43})$, then we have $$Q(b,c,a)-Q_{\textrm{sim}}\left(\textstyle{\frac12},a,b,c\right) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle \frac{h_2(a,b,c)}{32c}}, & \mbox{if } a \left(b^2+2 b c-8\right)+4 c\geq 2 b; \\
{\displaystyle \frac{-h_1(a,b,c)}{128 a c \left(8-2 b c-b^2\right)}}, & \mbox{otherwise}; \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$h_2(a,b,c) = b c (a c-4)+4 c (c-a)+2 b^2.$$ In both cases, $h_2(a,b,c)$ and $-h_1(a,b,c)$ are positive when $(a,b,c)\in H_e(4/3)$ [@Wolfram17].
Proof of Theorem \[thm:monotonicity\] {#sec:monotonicity}
-------------------------------------
Let the average ability of the jury be $m$. Then the three abilities can be expressed as functions of $m$ and the heterogeneity index $\mu$ as follows: $$\bar{a}(m,\mu)=\frac{3 m}{\mu ^2+\mu +1}, \quad \bar{b}(m,\mu)=\frac{3 m\mu}{\mu ^2+\mu +1},
\quad \bar{c}(m,\mu)=\frac{3 m\mu^2}{\mu ^2+\mu +1}.$$ Then the following function $\bar{Q}(m,\mu)(m,\mu)$ ($0\le m\le 1$ and $\mu \ge 1$) is the reliability of honest majority voting by the jury with optimal voting sequence: $$\bar{Q}(m,\mu)=Q\left(\bar{b}(m,\mu),\bar{c}(m,\mu),\bar{a}(m,\mu)\right).$$ An explicit expression of the function $\bar{Q}(m,\mu)$ is as follows: $$\bar{Q}(m,\mu)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{Q}_1(m,\mu)\equiv {\displaystyle \frac{3 \left(4 \mu ^2+1\right) m}{16 \left(\mu ^2+\mu +1\right)}+\frac{1}{2}},
& w(m,\mu)\geq 0; \\
\bar{Q}_2(m,\mu)\equiv {\displaystyle \frac{u(m,\mu)}{v(m,\mu)}}, & \text{otherwise}; \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
w(m,\mu) & = & 2 \left(\mu ^2+\mu +1\right)^2 \left(2 \mu ^2-\mu -4\right) +9 (2 \mu +1) \mu ^2 m^2, \\
u(m,\mu) & = & 512 \mu \left(\mu ^2+\mu +1\right)^5+243 \mu ^4 (2 \mu -1) (2 \mu +1)^2 m^5 \\
& & -108 \mu ^2 \left(\mu ^2+\mu +1\right)^2 (2 \mu +1) \left(4 \mu ^3+4 \mu ^2+9 \mu -4\right) m^3 \\
& & -576 \mu ^3 (2 \mu +1) \left(\mu ^2+\mu +1\right)^3 m^2 \\
& & +12 \left(\mu ^2+\mu +1\right)^4 \left(8 \mu ^5-12 \mu ^4+38 \mu ^3+31 \mu ^2+40 \mu -16\right) m, \\
v(m,\mu) & = & 1024 \mu \left(\mu ^2+\mu +1\right)^5 -1152 \mu ^3 (2 \mu +1) \left(\mu ^2+\mu +1\right)^3 m^2.\end{aligned}$$ For any fixed $m \in (0,1)$, function $w(m,\mu)$ in domain $\{\mu: w(m,\mu)\ge 0\}$ and functions $\bar{Q}_1(m,\mu)$ and $\bar{Q}_2(m,\mu)$ in domain $\{\mu: \mu\ge 1\}$ are all strictly increasing, which can be shown by verifying that the relevant partial derivatives are positive under corresponding constraints [@Wolfram17]. Similarly, we can shown that, if $1\le\mu_1< \mu_2$ and $w(m,\mu_1)<0\leq w(m,\mu_2)$, then $$\bar{Q}(m,\mu_2)=\bar{Q}_1(m,\mu_2)>\bar{Q}_2(m,\mu_1)=\bar{Q}(m,\mu_1).$$ Combination of these facts implies that $Q(m,\mu)$ is strictly increasing in $\mu\ge 1$ for any fixed $m \in (0,1)$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:honest-vs-strategic\] {#sec:proof-of-Thm-hon-vs-str}
--------------------------------------------
Let $(a,b,c)\in H_e(\frac74)$. Then reliability of sequential honest voting is $Q(b,c,a)=q_0(b,c)$ according to , while $Q_{\textrm{str}}$ is clearly non-decreasing in $a$. Therefore, with $a\le\frac47 b$, the difference of the two reliabilities is at least $$q_0(b,c)-Q_{\textrm{str}}({\textstyle\frac12},b,c,\textstyle\frac47b,0,y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2)
={\textstyle\frac1{112c}}\,\Omega(b,c,c,y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega(b,c,\,& d, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2)= 7 c^2 (y_1^2 (1+z_1)+y_2^2 (1-z_2)+2 -z_1+z_2) \\
&+b\,c (y_1 (4 z_1^2+7 z_1+3)+y_2 (-4 z_2^2+7 z_2-3)+4 z_1^2+7 z_1+4 z_2^2-7 z_2-22)\\
&+b^2 (7+d^2 ((1-y_1^2) (1-z_1^2)+(1-y_2^2)(1- z_2^2)).\end{aligned}$$ We show that $\Omega$ is non-negative when $d=c$, from which and the first part of the theorem follows. Note that the coefficient of $d^2$ in the $\Omega$ function is non-negative. Therefore, $\Omega$ is lower bounded by its value at $d=0$: $$\Omega(b,c,0, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2)=b^2\,\Omega(1,\mu, 0, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2),$$ where $\mu\equiv c/b\ge 7/4$. We can show that $\Omega(b,c,0, y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2)\ge 0$ subject to $\mu\ge 7/4$ and $y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2\in [-1,1]$ [@Wolfram17].
The second part of the theorem follows from and the fact that [@Wolfram17]: $$Q_{\textrm{sim}}({\textstyle\frac12}, a,a,a)\ge Q_{\textrm{str}}({\textstyle\frac12},a,a,a,0,y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2)$$ for any $a\in[0,1]$ and $y_1, y_2, z_1, z_2\in[-1,1]$.
[^1]: Corresponding author: [email protected];+44 24 76524755
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Sep 2009
SNUTP09-014
Notes on Matter in Horava-Lifshitz Gravity
Takao Suyama [^1]
*Center for Theoretical Physics,*
Seoul National University,
Seoul 151-747 Korea
[**Abstract**]{}
We investigate the dynamics of a scalar field governed by the Lifshitz-type action which should appear naturally in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. The wave of the scalar field may propagate with any speed without an upper bound. To preserve the causality, the action cannot have a generic form. Due to the superluminal propagation, a formation of a singularity may cause the breakdown of the predictability of the theory. To check whether such a catastrophe could occur in Horava-Lifshitz gravity, we investigate the dynamics of a dust. It turns out that the dust does not collapse completely to form a singularity in a generic situation, but expands again after it attains a maximum energy density.
Introduction
============
The construction of a quantum theory of gravity is one of the long-standing problems in theoretical physics. The main difficulty is the non-renormalizability which can be easily seen from the fact that the Newton constant has a negative mass dimension. Recent investigations (see [@Bern] and references therein) on the perturbative amplitudes in supergravity theories seem to indicate that there would exist an unknown mechanism of cancellation among diagrams which might make some supergravity theories renormalizable. There is another proposal, called Horava-Lifshitz gravity [@Horava:2008ih][@Horava:2009uw], which has attracted much attention recently. The basic idea of the approach is to modify the UV behavior of general relativity so that the perturbative renormalizability can be realized. The price to pay for this achievement is the abandonment of the Lorentz symmetry in the high energy regime: in this context, the Lorentz symmetry is regarded as an approximate symmetry observed only at low energy. See also [@Orlando:2009en][@Orlando:2009az][@Kluson:2009sm][@Kluson:2009hr][@Kluson:2009rk][@Calcagni:2009qw].
Since the Lorentz symmetry does not exist in the high energy regime, the notion of causality should be largely modified. For example, since the dispersion relation of the propagating modes is modified, they can propagate with any speed. This seems to raise a puzzle if this superluminal propagation is realized in the presence of a singularity. It would be natural to expect that a singularity would produce particles with an arbitrarily high energy. If they are produced, they can propagate with arbitrarily high speed, and therefore, there would always exist a particle which can reach an observer at infinity. Since such a particle would carry information of the singularity, the possibility of this phenomenon shows that the predictability of the theory breaks down. In general relativity, it is believed that any singularity should be hidden behind the event horizon, and it cannot affect any physical phenomena outside the event horizon. However, it does not seem to be the case in Horava-Lifshitz gravity since the light cone structure is not relevant, and therefore the “event horizon” defined as in general relativity cannot hide the singularity. The black hole solutions in Horava-Lifshitz gravity were investigated in [@Lu:2009em][@Nastase:2009nk][@Cai:2009pe][@Cai:2009ar][@Colgain:2009fe][@Myung:2009dc][@Kehagias:2009is][@Cai:2009qs][@Ghodsi:2009rv][@Myung:2009va][@Chen:2009gs][@Park:2009zra][@Ghodsi:2009zi][@Castillo:2009ci][@Peng:2009uh][@Lee:2009rm][@Myung:2009us][@Konoplya:2009ig][@Kim:2009dq]. The other subtle issues in Horava-Lifshitz gravity were pointed out in [@Li:2009bg][@Charmousis:2009tc][@Blas:2009yd][@Bogdanos:2009uj]. The dynamics of an anisotropic classical mechanical system was discussed recently [@Romero:2009qs].
In this paper, we investigate the propagation of a scalar field whose action is of the Lifshitz-type. We employ the WKB approximation, and study the trajectory of the ray of the wave of the scalar field. As is expected, it turns out that the wave can propagate with an arbitrary speed. Because of this, the light cone structure cannot have a physical relevance. Therefore, in Horava-Lifshitz gravity coupled to matter, there might occur the breakdown of the predictability, as pointed out above. To check this, we investigate a gravitational collapse in Horava-Lifshitz gravity, and check whether a singularity would be formed. We choose the simplest situation: the collapse of a dust preserving the homogeneity and the isotropy. Naively, this would be the most probable situation for a singularity to form[^2]. Interestingly enough, it turns out that the dust does not collapse completely in a generic situation. Instead, at a maximum energy density, the dust ceases to collapse, and then starts expanding. The repulsive force necessary for this behavior is induced by the higher derivative terms in Horava-Lifshitz gravity which are necessary to modify the UV behavior. Note that the analysis may be closely related to [@Brandenberger:2009yt][@Carloni:2009jc][@Wang:2009az][@Wang:2009yz][@Calcagni:2009ar][@Saridakis:2009bv][@Cai:2009in][@Leon:2009rc] some of which discussed a bounce cosmology in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. It should be noted that the analysis in this paper cannot be a proof of the absence of singularities in Horava-Lifshitz theory. The investigation on situations more general than the dust collapse is beyond the scope of this paper.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 1, we investigate the propagation of a scalar field governed by a Lifshitz-type action, using the WKB approximation. Section 2 argues the issues related to causality. A gravitational collapse in Horava-Lifshitz gravity is discussed in section 3. Section 4 is devoted to discussion.
Geometric optics for Horava-Lifshitz scalar
===========================================
We consider a complex scalar field whose dynamics is governed by the action $$S = \int d^3xdt\sqrt{g}N\left[ \frac1{N^2}|D_t\phi|^2-f(\phi,\phi^\dag,\nabla,g) \right],
\label{HLscalar}$$ where $$D_t\phi := \partial_t\phi-N^i\partial_i\phi.$$ and $i$ runs from 1 to 3. The fields $N,N^i,g_{ij}$ are combined to form a four-dimensional metric $$ds^2 = -N^2dt^2+g_{ij}(dx^i+N^idt)(dx^j+N^jdt).
\label{4dim}$$ The expression $f(\phi,\phi^\dag,\nabla,g)$ is a scalar with respect to the three-dimensional diffeomorphisms. More explicitly, $f(\phi,\phi^\dag,\nabla,g)$ is assumed to have the form $$f(\phi,\phi^\dag,\nabla,g) = \sum_{n=0}^MG^{i_1\cdots i_nj_1\cdots j_n}\nabla_{i_1}\cdots\nabla_{i_n}\phi^\dag\nabla_{j_1}\cdots
\nabla_{j_n}\phi,$$ where $G^{i_1\cdots i_nj_1\cdots j_{n}}$ is a three-dimensional tensor constructed from $g^{ij}$, and $\nabla_i$ is the covariant derivative with respect to $g_{ij}$. In the following, $N$ is assumed to be independent of the spatial coordinates $x^i$.
The equation of motion of $\phi$ is $$-\frac1{\sqrt{g}N}\partial_t\left[ \sqrt{g}N\frac1{N^2}D_t\phi \right]+\frac1{N^2}\nabla_i(N^iD_t\phi)
-\sum_{n=0}^M (-1)^nG^{i_1\cdots i_nj_1\cdots j_{n}}\nabla_{i_n}\cdots\nabla_{i_1}\nabla_{j_1}\cdots\nabla_{j_{n}}\phi = 0.$$ It may be possible to analyze the propagation of $\phi$ directly. However, the analysis will be easier if we restrict ourselves to deal with “geometric optics”, that is, a particle mechanical description of the ray of $\phi$. We use WKB approximation to obtain such a classical mechanical system. Assuming $\phi=e^{iS}$ with $S$ real, and neglecting sub-leading terms, we obtain $$\frac1{N^2}(D_tS)^2-\sum_{n=0}^M G^{i_1\cdots i_nj_1\cdots j_n}(\partial_{i_1}S)\cdots(\partial_{i_n}S)(\partial_{j_1}S)\cdots
(\partial_{j_n}S) = 0.$$ The left-hand side can be regarded as a Hamiltonian $H$ by replacing $\partial_\mu S$ with $p_\mu$. Then the equations of motion can be obtained as the Hamilton’s equations. For example, if we started with the relativistic action, then the resulting Hamiltonian would be $$H_{\rm rel} = -g^{\mu\nu}p_\mu p_\nu-m^2,
\label{rel}$$ and the Hamilton’s equations with this Hamiltonian $$\frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau} = -2g^{\mu\nu}p_\nu, \hspace{1cm} \frac{dp_\mu}{d\tau} = \partial_\mu g^{\rho\sigma}p_\rho p_\sigma,$$ are equivalent to the geodesic equation with respect to the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. Note that the geodesic equation can also be derived from the conservation law of the energy-momentum tensor.
For the general case, the Hamiltonian is $$H = \frac1{N^2}(p_t-N^ip_i)^2-h(p^2),
\label{nonrel}$$ where $p^2=g^{ij}p_ip_j$ and $h(x)$ is a polynomial defined as $$h(p^2) = f(1,1,p,g).$$ For the small momentum region, we expect that the system is approximately relativistic. This implies $$h(p^2) = m^2+p^2+O(p^4).$$ We require that the (Euclidean) path-integral for this system should be well-defined. This implies $$\lim_{p^2\to\infty}h(p^2) = +\infty.$$
The Hamilton’s equations are $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dx^i}{d\tau} &=& -\frac2{N^2}(p_t-N^jp_j)N^i-2h'(p^2)g^{ij}p_j, \\
\frac{dt}{d\tau} &=& \frac2{N^2}(p_t-N^ip_i), \\
\frac{dp_i}{d\tau} &=& \frac2{N^2}(p_t-N^jp_j)p_k\partial_iN^k+h'(p^2)\partial_ig^{kl}p_kp_l, \\
\frac{dp_t}{d\tau} &=& \frac2{N^2}(p_t-N^jp_j)p_k\partial_tN^k+\frac2{N^3}\partial_tN(p_t-N^ip_i)^2
+h'(p^2)\partial_tg^{kl}p_kp_l. \end{aligned}$$ This shows that a ray of $\phi$ does not follow any geodesic defined by the metric (\[4dim\]).
In general, it is very difficult to eliminate the momenta using the velocities in the above equations. Let us consider a simple case in which the $h(x)$ is a monomial, that is, $$H_n = \frac1{N^2}(p_t-N^ip_i)^2-\frac{c}{2n}(p^2)^n$$ with a positive $c$. In this case, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
v^t &=& \frac2{N^2}(p_t-N^ip_i), \\
v^i+N^iv^t &=& -c(p^2)^{n-1}g^{ij}p_j. \end{aligned}$$ The momenta are given explicitly in terms of the velocities, and we obtain the Lagrangian $$\begin{aligned}
L &=& v^tp_t+v^ip_i-H \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{N^2}4(v^t)^2-c'(V^2)^{\frac n{2n-1}},
\label{Lagrangian}\end{aligned}$$ where $$c' = \left( 1-\frac1{2n} \right)c^{-\frac1{2n-1}},$$ and $$V^2 = g_{ij}V^iV^j, \hspace{5mm} V^i = v^i+N^iv^t.$$
Causality
=========
Since the Hamiltonian (\[nonrel\]) is different from the relativistic one (\[rel\]), the equations of motion are different from the geodesic equation for the metric (\[4dim\]). Therefore, the issue on the causality would be very different from the familiar relativistic one.
In our setup, the existence of the absolute time is assumed. This implies that the presence of closed time-like trajectories is forbidden. In this case, a typical causality-violating trajectory is the one which at first moves forward in time but at a later time moves backward in time. In other words, there could be a closed trajectory. Such a trajectory is possible only if $\frac{dt}{d\tau}=0$ is realizable. This implies that $p_t-N^ip_i=0$, and therefore $h(p^2)=0$ must be realized at some value of $\tau$. As a result, such a causality violation never occurs if $h(p^2)$ is always positive. (This is of course the case for the relativistic system.) On the other hand, if $h(p^2)$ allows to have a zero, then, in general, there would exist a trajectory which “turns around” at some value of $t$ since $\frac{d^2t}{d\tau^2}$ is non-zero in general at the time when the trajectory turns around.
Let us examine the simple case in which $N=1$ and $N^i=0$. In this case, a trajectory turns around when $p_t=0$, and at this moment $$\frac{d^2t}{d\tau^2} = 2\frac{dp_t}{d\tau} = 2h'(p^2)\partial_tg^{kl}p_kp_l.$$ The value of the right-hand side depends on the background metric, and is generically non-zero unless the background is static.
There is another possibility of a strange behavior which never happens in the relativistic system. One notices that the expressions in the right-hand side of the Hamilton’s equations are simplified when $h'(p^2)=0$ is realized. At this point in the phase space, the correspondence between the momenta and the velocities is lost. For example, consider again the case $N=1$ and $N^i=0$. Then, the $\tau$-derivatives of $x^i$, $p_i$ and $p_t$ all vanish when $h'(p^2)=0$, and $\frac{dt}{d\tau}=2p_t$. In addition, one can show that $$\frac{d}{d\tau}p^2 = 2p_t\partial_tg^{kl}p_kp_l.$$ Therefore, if the background is static, then $p^2$ and also $p_t$ are constant, due to the conservation of the Hamiltonian, and $$\begin{aligned}
p_\mu = \mbox{const.} \hspace{5mm} x^i = \mbox{const.} \hspace{5mm} t = 2p_t\tau+t_0\end{aligned}$$ is a solution. It looks very strange since non-zero $p_i$ correspond to the trajectory at rest as long as $h'(p^2)=0$. Note that in a generic background, since $\frac{d}{d\tau}p^2$ would not be zero when $h'(p^2)=0$, and therefore, such a strange solution is not allowed.
In the following, let us assume that $h(x)$ is a monotonically increasing function with $h'(x)>0$ in order to avoid the strange behaviors of the trajectory mentioned above. In this case, the causality is kept in the sense that there is no trajectory which moves backward in time, and therefore, no closed trajectory. However, the notion of the causality is still quite different from the one in general relativity. In particular, as is easily anticipated from the action (\[HLscalar\]) with which we started, there is no physical relevance of the light cone. In fact, one can calculate the relativistic norm of the velocity as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
g_{\mu\nu}v^\mu v^\nu
&=& -N^2(v^t)^2+g_{ij}(v^i+N^iv^t)(v^j+N^jv^t) \nonumber \\
&=& 4[ -h(p^2)+p^2(h'(p^2))^2 ]. \end{aligned}$$ This norm is constant only when the action (\[HLscalar\]) is relativistic. This becomes indefinitely large and positive when the spatial momenta $p_i$ become large. This implies that a trajectory which was time-like at first may becomes space-like, and therefore, the trajectory can escape from the light cone defined by the metric (\[4dim\]) in the usual manner. Note that this property of the trajectories is inevitable as long as the degree of $h(x)$ is larger than 1, that is, as long as the UV behavior is modified. In contrast, the presence of a closed trajectory, for example, can be avoided by choosing a suitable functional form of $h(x)$.
The irrelevance of the light cone poses the following question: is the formation of a black hole in Horava-Lifshitz gravity allowed? Suppose that black holes are defined in the same manner as in general relativity. In Horava-Lifshitz gravity, the event horizon cannot hide the singularity inside, since there exist trajectories which can escape from the inside of the event horizon. Therefore, it seems that the predictability of the theory would break down whenever a singularity is formed. In the next section, we will investigate the collapse of a dust in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. We choose this situation since, due to the absence of the pressure, the formation of a singularity by the collapse of the dust seems to be easily realized. Interestingly enough, it will be shown that the higher derivative terms prevent the dust from collapsing completely, and the dust will finally form a compact object with a finite size.
Dynamics of dust in Horava-Lifshitz gravity
===========================================
Let us first recall the analysis of the dust collapse in general relativity [@Weinberg]. Since Horava-Lifshitz gravity typically includes a cosmological constant, we include it to the analysis in [@Weinberg] so that the effects of the higher derivative terms may be highlighted.
We consider the following action $$S = \int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\left[ \frac2{\kappa^2}R+\sigma+L_m \right],$$ where $\kappa^2=32\pi G$. For simplicity, we consider the collapse which preserves the homogeneity and the isotropy. Then the metric is of the Robertson-Walker form $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 &=& -dt^2+a(t)^2h_{ij}(x)dx^idx^j, \nonumber \\
h_{ij}(x)dx^idx^j &=& \frac{dr^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\phi^2). \end{aligned}$$ Let $\rho(t)$ be the energy density of the dust. The conservation law determines $\rho=\rho_0a^{-3}$. The Einstein equation reduces to $$\left( \frac{da}{dt} \right)^2 = \frac{\kappa^2}{12}\left[ \frac{\rho_0}a-\sigma a^2 \right]-k,
\label{relF}$$ where we rescaled the radial coordinate $r$ so that $a(0)=1$ is satisfied. We assume that the collapse starts at $t=0$, that is, we choose the initial condition $\dot{a}(0)=0$, which fixes $$k = \frac{\kappa^2}2(\rho_0-\sigma).$$ In the case $\sigma=0$, there is an exact solution of (\[relF\]). The solution is a cycloid whose parametric expression is $$\begin{aligned}
a(\psi) &=& \frac12(1+\cos\psi), \\
t(\psi) &=& \frac1{2\sqrt{k}}(\psi+\sin\psi). \end{aligned}$$ The collapse $a=0$, at which $\rho$ diverges, occurs at a finite time $t=T$ where $$T = \frac{\pi}\kappa\sqrt{\frac3{\rho(0)}}.$$ The behavior of $a$ near $a=0$ is similar to the above exact solution even for a nonzero $\sigma$ since its contribution is negligible when $a$ is small.
Next, we consider the same situation in the context of Horava-Lifshitz gravity. Following [@Kiritsis:2009sh], we consider a rather general action $$\begin{aligned}
S &=& \int d^3xdt\sqrt{g}N\Bigl[ \alpha(K_{ij}K^{ij}-\lambda K^2)+\beta C_{ij}C^{ij}+\gamma{\cal E}^{ijk}R_{il}\nabla_jR^l{}_l
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace*{2.5cm}+\zeta R_{ij}R^{ij}+\eta R^2+\xi R+\sigma +L_m \Bigr],
\label{HLgravity}\end{aligned}$$ where $L_m$ is the matter Lagrangian. Various quantities are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
K_{ij} &=& \frac1{2N}(\dot{g}_{ij}-\nabla_iN_j-\nabla_jN_i), \\
K &=& K_{ij}g^{ij}, \\
C^{ij} &=& \frac{\epsilon^{ikl}}{\sqrt{g}}\nabla_k\left( R^j{}_l-\frac14R\delta^j{}_l \right), \end{aligned}$$ and $R_{ij}$, $R$ are the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature with respect to $g_{ij}$.
As in the relativistic case, let us consider a dynamics of the dust which preserves the homogeneity and the isotropy. We choose the Robertson-Walker metric $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2 &=& -N(t)^2dt^2+a(t)^2h_{ij}(x)dx^idx^j.
\label{ansatz HL}\end{aligned}$$ Here we consider the so-called projectable theory. The spatial metric $g_{ij}=a^2h_{ij}$ satisfies $$R_{ij} = 2ka^{-2}g_{ij}.$$ Therefore, the covariant derivative $\nabla_i$ of the Ricci tensor vanishes. In addition, since $h_{ij}$ is conformally flat, the Cotton tensor $C^{ij}$ for $h_{ij}$ vanishes. Inserting the metric ansatz into the action, we obtain the following reduced action: $$S_R = V\int dt\sqrt{g}N\left[ \frac{\alpha}{N^2}(3-9\lambda)\left(\frac{\dot{a}}a \right)^2+\frac{12k^2(\zeta+3\eta)}{a^4}
+\frac{6k\xi}{a^2}+\sigma+L_m \right].$$ We assume that the matter consists of a dust. The coupling of the dust to the metric is determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_g\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}L_m
&=& \frac12\int d^4x\sqrt{-g}\delta g_{\mu\nu}T^{\mu\nu} \nonumber \\
&=& \frac12\int d^3xdt\sqrt{g}N\Bigl[ \delta N(-2NT^{00})+\delta N^i(2g_{ij}N^jT^{00}+2g_{ij}T^{j0}) \nonumber \\
& &+\delta g_{ij}(N^iN^jT^{00}+N^jT^{i0}+N^iT^{j0}+T^{ij}) \Bigr], \end{aligned}$$ where $$T^{00} = \rho(t), \hspace{5mm} T^{i0} = 0 = T^{ij}.$$
The equation of motion of $N$ is $$3\alpha(1-3\lambda)\left( \frac{\dot{a}}a \right)^2 = \frac{12k^2(\zeta+3\eta)}{a^4}+\frac{6k\xi}{a^2}+\sigma-\rho.
\label{Friedmann}$$ Here we chose $N=1$.
A remark on the derivation of (\[Friedmann\]) is in order. Since we assumed that $N$ depends only on $t$, the equation of motion of $N$ does not provide a local equation in general. Instead, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
0
&=& \int d^3x\sqrt{g}\Bigl[ -\alpha(K_{ij}K^{ij}-\lambda K^2)+\beta C_{ij}C^{ij}+\gamma{\cal E}^{ijk}R_{il}\nabla_jR^l{}_l
\nonumber \\
& & \hspace*{1.5cm} +\zeta R_{ij}R^{ij}+\eta R^2+\xi R+\sigma +L_m \Bigr]. \end{aligned}$$ In the present case, however, the spatial dependence of the integrand disappears due to the ansatz (\[ansatz HL\]), and therefore, the integral provides just a trivial volume factor. In this way, one can obtain an equation which looks local, enabling one to obtain the above Friedmann-like equation (\[Friedmann\]).
The matter density $\rho$ is given in terms of $a$ through the conservation law. The invariance under the time reparametrization provides $$\partial_t[a^3\rho] = 0.
\label{conserve}$$ Note that, as in the case for the equation of motion of $N$, the conservation law for the time reparametrization is not a local equation in general, since Horava-Lifshitz gravity preserves only a restricted part of the diffeomorphisms. In the case here, the ansatz of the homogeneity and the isotropy enables one to obtain (\[conserve\]). The equation (\[conserve\]) implies $$\rho(t) = \frac{\rho_0}{a(t)^{3}},$$ As in the relativistic case, we rescale the radial coordinate $r$ so that $a(0)=1$.
Now the equation (\[Friedmann\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\left( \frac{da}{dt} \right)^2 &=& -V(a),
\label{F2} \\
V(a) &=& -\frac{c_{-2}}{a^2}-\frac{c_{-1}}{a}-c_0-c_2a^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
c_{-2} &=& \frac{4k^2(\zeta+3\eta)}{\alpha(1-3\lambda)}, \\
c_{-1} &=& -\frac{\rho_0}{3\alpha(1-3\lambda)}, \\
c_0 &=& \frac{2k\xi}{\alpha(1-3\lambda)}, \\
c_2 &=& \frac{\sigma}{3\alpha(1-3\lambda)}. \end{aligned}$$ We consider a generic case where $\zeta+3\eta\ne0$. This is the case when the theory satisfies the detailed balance condition, and a small deviation from the detailed balance may not change the sign of $\zeta+3\eta$.
We choose the initial condition $\dot{a}(0)=0$, $a(0)=1$ as in the relativistic case. This implies $$c_{-2}+c_{-1}+c_0+c_2 = 0,
\label{initial}$$ which determines $k$. This equation is second order in $k$, while $k$ is assumed to be real. A real $k$ is allowed iff $$4(\zeta+3\eta)(\rho_0-\sigma)+3\xi^2 \ge 0.
\label{existence}$$
In general, there is a singular situation[^3]. If $\rho_0=\sigma$ is satisfied, then $k=0$ is a solution of (\[initial\]). In this case, $c_{-2}$ and $c_0$ in $V(a)$ vanish. As long as $\lambda>\frac13$, the resulting equation is the same as (\[relF\]) up to a rescaling of $t$, implying that the dust collapses completely and a singularity is formed. Note that the formation of the singularity in this case should be exceptional due to the highly symmetric setup we assumed. The solution with $k=0$ has the spatial hypersurface which is flat, and the higher derivative terms do not contribute to the dynamics of $a$. This is due to the cancellation between the positive energy $\rho_0$ and the negative energy $-\sigma$. In general, a small deviation from the flat spatial hypersurface would induce a small but non-zero $c_{-2}$, at least effectively, and therefore, the behavior of the solution would be similar to the one with $k\ne0$ which will be investigated below.
Let us consider the case in which the detailed balance condition is satisfied. In this case, the coefficients in the action (\[HLgravity\]) are parametrized as follows [@Kiritsis:2009sh]: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha &=& \frac2{\kappa^2}, \\
\zeta &=& -\frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}8, \\
\eta &=& \frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}{8(1-3\lambda)}\frac{1-4\lambda}4, \\
\xi &=& \frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}{8(1-3\lambda)}\Lambda, \\
\sigma &=& \frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}{8(1-3\lambda)}(-3\Lambda^2).\end{aligned}$$ They give, for example, $c_{-2}=-\frac{k^2\kappa^2\mu^2}{16(3\lambda-1)^2}$. Using those parametrization and after a suitable rescaling of $t$, the equation (\[F2\]) becomes $$\left( \frac{da}{dt} \right)^2 = -\left( \frac{\tilde{k}}{a}-a \right)^2
+\frac83\frac{(3\lambda-1)\rho_0}{\kappa^2\mu^2\Lambda^2}\frac1a,
\label{F3}$$ where $\tilde{k}=\frac k{|\Lambda|}$. The condition (\[existence\]) for the existence of a solution reduces to $\lambda>\frac13$, and the solutions of (\[existence\]) are $$\tilde{k} = 1\pm\sqrt{\frac{8(3\lambda-1)}{3\kappa^2\mu^2\Lambda^2}\rho_0}.$$ In the following, we concentrate on the case $\lambda>\frac13$. Typical shape of $V(a)$ is depicted in Fig. \[V(a)\].
=2.2in
![The plot of $v(a)=\frac{16(3\lambda-1)^2}{\kappa^4\mu^2\Lambda^2}V(a)$ with $\tilde{k}=\frac12$. []{data-label="V(a)"}](V.eps)
It turns out that $V(a)$ is a concave function of $a$, and the equation $V(a)=0$ has two real solutions. We expect that the dust would contract at first, and this is compatible with (\[F3\]) only if $V'(1)>0$. The value of $V'(1)$ is $$V'(1) = \frac{\kappa^4\mu^2\Lambda^2}{16(1-3\lambda)^2}(\tilde{k}+3)(1-\tilde{k}),$$ and this quantity can be positive iff $-3<\tilde{k}<1$, implying $$\rho_0 < \rho_{\rm max} = \frac{6\kappa^2\mu^2\Lambda^2}{3\lambda-1}.$$ This condition shows that there exists a maximum possible energy density determined by the parameters of the theory. If the initial density is above the maximum, the dust would start [*expanding*]{} rather than contracting.
The qualitative behavior of the solution of (\[F2\]) can be easily understood through the analogy with the corresponding classical mechanical system in which $a$ is a coordinate variable: $$\left( \frac{da}{dt} \right)^2+V(a) = 0.
\label{mechanical}$$ Suppose that $\rho_0<\rho_{\rm max}$ is satisfied. The value of $a$ starts decreasing at first, due to the gravitational interaction, and the energy density becomes large. However, the term $\frac{\tilde{k}^2}{a^2}$ in (\[F3\]), which is absent in the relativistic case (\[relF\]), acts as a [*repulsive*]{} force, and it prevents the dust from collapsing completely. Instead, the system will attain a minimum value of $a$ at some finite time, and then expand again. The expansion will also stop in a finite time, and the system will oscillate with a finite period. A numerical solution for $\tilde{k}=\frac12$ is shown in Fig.\[a(t)\].
=2.2in
![The time evolution of the scale factor $a(t)$ for $\tilde{k}=\frac12$. []{data-label="a(t)"}](collapse.eps)
Note that the appearance of this periodic behavior would be due to the fact that we have considered a highly symmetric situation. If there would be a small asymmetry, then the oscillation of the dust would probably emit the gravitational wave, and the system would settle down to a static configuration; a compact ball of the dust with a finite size. The energy density would be also finite during the process.
It is fairly obvious that the qualitative behavior of the dust discussed above is preserved by a small perturbation of the theory away from the detailed balance, as long as $c_{-2}$ is kept negative. For example, the addition of a term proportional to $R$ simply shifts the “energy” of the mechanical system (\[mechanical\]), which will not change the behavior of the solution as long as the condition $V(a)=0$ has two real solutions for $a$. Another simple deviation from the detail balance case can be achieved by parametrizing $\sigma$ as $$\sigma = \frac{\kappa^2\mu^2}{8(1-3\lambda)}(-3\lambda^2)(1-{\tilde{\sigma}}),$$ with another parameter $\tilde{\sigma}$. The equation (\[F3\]) becomes $$\left( \frac{da}{dt} \right)^2 = -\left( \frac{\tilde{k}}{a}-a \right)^2
+\frac83\frac{(3\lambda-1)\rho_0}{\kappa^2\mu^2\Lambda^2}\frac1a+{\tilde{\sigma}} a^2.
\label{F4}$$ It turns out that the behavior of the solution is qualitatively the same as the one for $\tilde{\sigma}=0$, as long as $\tilde{\sigma}<1$ is satisfied. Let us consider the case $\tilde{\sigma}=1$ in which the cosmological constant $\sigma$ vanishes. The initial condition for $a$ determines $\tilde{k}$ as $$\tilde{k} = 1- \sqrt{1+\frac83\frac{(3\lambda-1)\rho_0}{\kappa^2\mu^2\Lambda^2}},$$ which is compatible with the condition $V'(1)>1$, or equivalently, $-2<\tilde{k}<0$. The shape of $V(a)$ with $\tilde{k}=-1$ is depicted in Fig. \[beta=1\]. It is concluded that even in the case $\tilde{\sigma}=1$, there is a solution for the dust which is oscillating. Notice that there is a crucial difference from the result in general relativity, in addition to the absence of the singularity formation. The value of $k$ is always positive in general relativity without cosmological constant, but in Horava-Lifshitz gravity $k$ is always [*negative*]{} if the cosmological constant vanishes. This difference may affect the space-time geometry outside the dust through the continuity of the metric at the surface of the dust. Therefore, the difference between general relativity and Horava-Lifshitz gravity might be observed by an observer at infinity. If $\tilde{\sigma}$ is sufficiently large, there is no solution in which the dust starts contracting at first. This is because of the expansion due to the large positive cosmological constant.
=2.2in
![The plot of $v(a)$ with $\tilde{\sigma}=1$ and $\tilde{k}=\frac12$. []{data-label="beta=1"}](beta=1.eps)
We have considered the dynamics of the dust satisfying the initial condition $a(0)=1,\dot{a}(0)=0$. It is very easy to generalize the above analysis to the case in which $\dot{a}(0)=0$ is still assumed but $a(0)$ can be arbitrary. This generalization is necessary if one would like to consider a realistic situation where the higher-derivative terms are small at the beginning of the collapse.
Let us define the normalized scale factor $\bar{a}$, $$\bar{a}(t) := \frac{a(t)}{a(0)}.$$ In terms of $\bar{a}$, the equation (\[F4\]) becomes $$\left( \frac{d\bar{a}}{dt} \right)^2 = -\left( \frac{\tilde{k}/a(0)^2}{\bar{a}}-\bar{a} \right)^2
+\frac83\frac{(3\lambda-1)}{\kappa^2\mu^2\Lambda^2}\frac{\rho_0/a(0)^3}{\bar{a}}+\tilde{\sigma} \bar{a}^2.$$ The effect of the generic initial value of $a(t)$ appears as a simple rescaling of $\tilde{k}$ and $\rho_0$. It is easy to see that the qualitative behavior of the dust does not change by varying the value of $a(0)$. If $a(0)$ would be taken to be large, then $\tilde{k}/a(0)^2$ would be negligible at first, and the behavior of the dust is well approximated by the collapse in Einstein gravity with a negative cosmological constant reviewed at the beginning of this section. When $\bar{a}$ becomes small enough so that the effect of $\tilde{k}$ becomes relevant, the dynamics of the dust deviates from the complete collapse in Einstein gravity, and turns into expansion.
Discussion
==========
We have discussed the dynamics of a matter in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. It would be natural to expect that the modification of the UV behavior of the gravity part should be accompanied by a similar modification for the matter part. We investigated the propagation of a scalar field governed by such a modified action in the WKB approximation. The consistency of the scalar propagation with the causality restricts the form of the action. For the consistent scalar field, there is no relevance of the light cone. Therefore, in contrast to general relativity, a formation of a singularity would directly imply the breakdown of the predictability. We also investigated the dust collapse in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. We found that any singularity would not be formed during the dust collapse preserving the homogeneity and the isotropy which is quite different from the situation in general relativity. It is tempting to speculate that the formation of any singularity is forbidden in Horava-Lifshitz theory, but the investigation on this issue is left for further research. The breakdown of the predictability due to a singularity formation would not be realized in Horava-Lifshitz gravity if the formation of the singularity would be forbidden.
The repulsive interaction which prevents the dust collapse is induced by the higher derivative terms. However, it is clear that every higher derivative terms do not necessarily provide such a repulsive interaction. In fact, one can choose the action so that $c_{-2}$ in (\[F2\]) is positive. The negative sign of $c_{-2}$ should be related to the fact that the “potential term” of Horava-Lifshitz gravity is positive definite in the detailed balance case. Due to this structure, a high-curvature configuration costs much energy than a low-curvature one, and therefore the former is not favored. It seems that the choice of $c_{-2}$ might be restricted since $c_{-2}$ could be related to the high energy behavior of the graviton propagator. It is interesting to investigate this point further.
One interesting issue to be studied next would be the outer solution for the dust collapse. In this paper, we only considered the solution which describes the inside of the dust. If the dust is a ball with a finite radius, then the metric describing the outside of the ball would be spherically symmetric but is not homogeneous. In general relativity, one can find the solution describing the outside of the dust, thanks to Birkhoff theorem. It is very interesting to study whether there is such a theorem in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. Since the available diffeomorphisms in Horava-Lifshitz gravity are less than those in general relativity, such a theorem, if exists, must be a much weaker one.
Another interesting issue would be the gravitational radiation in Horava-Lifshitz gravity. As we mentioned at the end of the previous section, the construction of a more realistic model of the dust collapse might require the understanding of the emission of the gravitational wave from the oscillating matter. From the physical ground, the spherically symmetric wave should be forbidden also in Horava-Lifshitz gravity as long as it is assumed to approach general relativity in low energy. Since otherwise the emitted gravitational wave at a high energy region near the center may propagate toward the outer low energy region where such a wave cannot exist as in general relativity. If a spherically symmetric wave does not exist, then the variety of the spherically symmetric solutions would be rather limited, and a weaker version of Birkhoff theorem could be expected. It is interesting to clarify this issue.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
We would like to thank Soo-Jong Rey and Satoshi Yamaguchi for valuable discussions and comments. This work was supported by the BK21 program of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, National Science Foundation of Korea Grants R01-2008-000-10656-0, 2005-084-C00003, 2009-008-0372 and EU-FP Marie Curie Research & Training Network HPRN-CT-2006-035863 (2009-06318).
[99]{}
Z.Bern, “Harmony of Scattering Amplitudes: From Gauge Theory to N=8 Supergravity”, review talk at Strings 2009.
P. Horava, “Membranes at Quantum Criticality,” JHEP [**0903**]{}, 020 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.4287 \[hep-th\]\]. P. Horava, “Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point,” Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 084008 (2009) \[arXiv:0901.3775 \[hep-th\]\]. H. Lu, J. Mei and C. N. Pope, “Solutions to Horava Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 091301 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.1595 \[hep-th\]\]. H. Nastase, “On IR solutions in Horava gravity theories,” arXiv:0904.3604 \[hep-th\]. R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao and N. Ohta, “Topological Black Holes in Horava-Lifshitz Gravity,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 024003 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.3670 \[hep-th\]\]. R. G. Cai, Y. Liu and Y. W. Sun, “On the z=4 Horava-Lifshitz Gravity,” JHEP [**0906**]{}, 010 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.4104 \[hep-th\]\]. E. O. Colgain and H. Yavartanoo, “Dyonic solution of Horava-Lifshitz Gravity,” JHEP [**0908**]{}, 021 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.4357 \[hep-th\]\]. Y. S. Myung and Y. W. Kim, “Thermodynamics of Hořava-Lifshitz black holes,” arXiv:0905.0179 \[hep-th\]. A. Kehagias and K. Sfetsos, “The black hole and FRW geometries of non-relativistic gravity,” Phys. Lett. B [**678**]{}, 123 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.0477 \[hep-th\]\]. R. G. Cai, L. M. Cao and N. Ohta, “Thermodynamics of Black Holes in Horava-Lifshitz Gravity,” arXiv:0905.0751 \[hep-th\]. A. Ghodsi, “Toroidal solutions in Horava Gravity,” arXiv:0905.0836 \[hep-th\]. Y. S. Myung, “Thermodynamics of black holes in the deformed Hořava-Lifshitz Phys. Lett. B [**678**]{}, 127 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.0957 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Chen and J. Jing, “Quasinormal modes of a black hole in the deformed Hǒrava-Lifshitz arXiv:0905.1409 \[gr-qc\]. M. i. Park, “The Black Hole and Cosmological Solutions in IR modified Horava Gravity,” arXiv:0905.4480 \[hep-th\]. A. Ghodsi and E. Hatefi, “Extremal rotating solutions in Horava Gravity,” arXiv:0906.1237 \[hep-th\]. A. Castillo and A. Larranaga, “Entropy for Black Holes in the Deformed Horava-Lifshitz Gravity,” arXiv:0906.4380 \[gr-qc\]. J. J. Peng and S. Q. Wu, “Hawking Radiation of Black Holes in Infrared Modified Hořava-Lifshitz arXiv:0906.5121 \[hep-th\]. H. W. Lee, Y. W. Kim and Y. S. Myung, “Extremal black holes in the Hořava-Lifshitz gravity,” arXiv:0907.3568 \[hep-th\]. Y. S. Myung, “Entropy of black holes in the deformed Hořava-Lifshitz gravity,” arXiv:0908.4132 \[hep-th\]. R. Brandenberger, “Matter Bounce in Horava-Lifshitz Cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 043516 (2009) \[arXiv:0904.2835 \[hep-th\]\]. S. Carloni, E. Elizalde and P. J. Silva, “An analysis of the phase space of Horava-Lifshitz cosmologies,” arXiv:0909.2219 \[hep-th\]. S. Weinberg, “Gravitation and Cosmology,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
E. Kiritsis and G. Kofinas, “Horava-Lifshitz Cosmology,” arXiv:0904.1334 \[hep-th\]. A. Wang, D. Wands and R. Maartens, “Scalar field perturbations in Horava-Lifshitz cosmology,” arXiv:0909.5167 \[hep-th\]. A. Wang and R. Maartens, “Linear perturbations of cosmological models in the Horava-Lifshitz theory of gravity without detailed balance,” arXiv:0907.1748 \[hep-th\]. G. Calcagni, “Cosmology of the Lifshitz universe,” arXiv:0904.0829 \[hep-th\]. E. N. Saridakis, “Horava-Lifshitz Dark Energy,” arXiv:0905.3532 \[hep-th\]. Y. F. Cai and E. N. Saridakis, “Non-singular cosmology in a model of non-relativistic gravity,” arXiv:0906.1789 \[hep-th\]. G. Leon and E. N. Saridakis, “Phase-space analysis of Horava-Lifshitz cosmology,” arXiv:0909.3571 \[hep-th\]. M. Li and Y. Pang, “A Trouble with Hořava-Lifshitz Gravity,” arXiv:0905.2751 \[hep-th\]. C. Charmousis, G. Niz, A. Padilla and P. M. Saffin, “Strong coupling in Horava gravity,” JHEP [**0908**]{}, 070 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.2579 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Blas, O. Pujolas and S. Sibiryakov, “On the Extra Mode and Inconsistency of Horava Gravity,” arXiv:0906.3046 \[hep-th\]. C. Bogdanos and E. N. Saridakis, “Perturbative instabilities in Horava gravity,” arXiv:0907.1636 \[hep-th\]. R. A. Konoplya, “Towards constraining of the Horava-Lifshitz gravities,” Phys. Lett. B [**679**]{}, 499 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.1523 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Orlando and S. Reffert, “On the Renormalizability of Horava-Lifshitz-type Gravities,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**26**]{}, 155021 (2009) \[arXiv:0905.0301 \[hep-th\]\]. D. Orlando and S. Reffert, “On the Perturbative Expansion around a Lifshitz Point,” arXiv:0908.4429 \[hep-th\]. J. Kluson, “Branes at Quantum Criticality,” arXiv:0904.1343 \[hep-th\]. J. Kluson, “Stable and Unstable D-Branes at Criticality,” arXiv:0905.1483 \[hep-th\]. J. Kluson, “Horava-Lifshitz f(R) Gravity,” arXiv:0907.3566 \[hep-th\]. G. Calcagni, “Detailed balance in Horava-Lifshitz gravity,” arXiv:0905.3740 \[hep-th\]. S. S. Kim, T. Kim and Y. Kim, “Surplus Solid Angle: Toward Astrophysical Test of Horava-Lifshitz Gravity,” arXiv:0907.3093 \[hep-th\]. S. K. Rama, “Particle Motion with Hořava – Lifshitz type Dispersion Relations,” arXiv:0910.0411 \[hep-th\]. J. M. Romero, V. Cuesta, J. A. Garcia and J. D. Vergara, “Conformal Anisotropic Mechanics,” arXiv:0909.3540 \[hep-th\].
[^1]: e-mail address : [email protected]
[^2]: In this analysis, we assume, just for simplicity, that the equation of state is always the same. It may be expected [@Rama:2009xc] that the equation of state may change with the energy scale, but the inclusion of this property to the analysis will not be compatible with the homogeneity and the isotropy, and therefore, the analysis will become complicated. It will be very interesting to study this issue further.
[^3]: We would like to thank Soo-Jong Rey for pointing out this singular situation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
\
Department of ECE, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA\
Google Research, Mountain View, CA, USA\
Department of ECE, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA\
Department of ECE, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
bibliography:
- 'acml17.bib'
title: ': Predict and Deploy Energy-Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks'
---
Power, Runtime, Energy, Polynomial Regression, Convolutional Neural Networks.
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Background and Related Work {#sec:background}
===========================
Methodology: Power and Runtime Modeling {#sec:models}
=======================================
Experimental Results {#sec:results}
====================
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Liquid-liquid phase separation is an important mechanism for compartmentalizing the cell’s cytoplasm, allowing the dynamic organization of the components necessary for survival. However, it is not clear how phase separation is affected by the complex viscoelastic environment inside the cell. Here, we study theoretically how stiffness gradients influence droplet growth and arrangement. We show that stiffness gradients imply concentration gradients in the dilute phase, which transport droplet material from stiff to soft regions. Consequently, droplets dissolve in the stiff region, creating a dissolution front. Using a mean-field theory, we predict that the front emerges where the curvature of the elasticity profile is large and that it propagates diffusively. This elastic ripening can occur at much faster rates than classical Ostwald ripening, thus driving the dynamics. Our work shows how gradients in elastic properties control the size and arrangement of droplets, which has potential applications in soft matter physics and plays a role inside biological cells.'
author:
- 'Estefania Vidal-Henriquez$^1$ and David Zwicker$^1$'
bibliography:
- 'rsc.bib'
date: ' $^1$ Max-Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization, Am Faßberg 17, 37077 Göttingen, Germany. '
title: Theory of droplet ripening in stiffness gradients
---
Introduction
============
Phase separation has recently been established as a crucial mechanism for organizing membrane-less organelles in biological cells.[@brangwynne2009germline; @Berry2018; @Boeynaems2018a; @Alberti2019a] However, these membrane-less organelles often posses properties of liquid-like droplets, like internal rearrangement, spherical shapes, and monomer exchange with their surrounding. These droplets exist in complex environments that cannot be described as simple liquids. For example, the cytoskeleton in the cytosol [@Pegoraro2017; @Gardel2008] as well as the chromatin in the nucleoplasm [@erdel2015viscoelastic] have solid-like properties, which could affect droplets. Indeed, recent experiments showed that droplets typically form in chromatin-poor regions in the nucleus. [@shin2018liquid] This suggests that the elastic properties of chromatin suppress droplet formation. However, it is difficult to disentangle the effect of the elastic surrounding from other potential processes that could affect droplet formation in the complex case of a living cell.
Physical experiments with synthetic materials can help to understand how an elastic environment affects droplet growth. For instance, oil droplets growing in a homogeneous PDMS gel form mono-disperse emulsions and the stiffness of the gel controls droplet size. [@style2018liquid] There are several advantages of these experiments: First, the system is not driven, implying it relaxes toward equilibrium after preparation. Second, the gel is strongly cross-linked, so it does not spontaneously rearrange on the time scale of the experiments. Viscous relaxation is thus negligible. Third, droplets are large compared to the mesh size, implying that the gel can be described by a continuum theory. Taken together, these properties allow to isolate the effects of an elastic environment on droplets.
The aim of the present paper is to understand how spatially varying stiffnesses affect droplet dynamics. This is motivated by recent experiments showing that stiffness gradients lead to *elastic ripening*, where droplets dissolve in stiffer regions. [@rosowski2019elastic] Moreover, these experiments revealed a dissolution front invading stiffer regions, while the material of the dissolving droplets accumulated in softer regions. We developed a theoretical description of the situation, which is based on the assumption that the gel exerts a pressure onto droplets that is proportional to the local stiffness. [@rosowski2019elastic] Numerical simulations of this theory showed excellent agreement with the measured data. Here, we analyze this model in detail and derive a simplified, coarse-grained version that allows us to predict where and when the dissolution front starts and how it evolves in time.
Elasticity gradients produce dissolution fronts
===============================================
We aim at understanding the dynamics of an emulsion embedded in a gel with spatially varying stiffness. Motivated by elastic ripening experiments [@rosowski2019elastic], we focus on the case where the gel is strongly cross-linked and behaves as an elastic material. Moreover, the droplets are well separated and deform the gel only locally, so they only interact by exchanging material via the dilute phase. This exchange is driven by the difference between the concentration in the dilute phase and the concentration right outside a droplet’s surface. We determine the latter by considering a single droplet in an homogeneous elastic environment.
Thermodynamics of isolated droplets
-----------------------------------
Motivated by recent experimental results [@rosowski2019elastic], we describe a three-component system of two liquids and a gel. When the temperature is lowered, one liquid forms droplets by segregating from the other two components. Therefore, this phase separation can effectively be described as a binary system; droplets with a high volume fraction $\phi_\mathrm{in}$ of the segregating liquid coexist with a dilute phase of lower volume fraction $\phi$. In the case of thermodynamically large phases, these equilibrium volume fractions can be determined by minimizing the total free energy of the system using the Maxwell construction [@weber2019physics]; see SI. In particular, the equilibrium conditions imply that the pressures and chemical potentials are identical in both phases.
In the case of a single spherical droplet of radius $R$ embedded in an isotropic elastic matrix, the droplet exhibits an additional pressure $P$ due to both surface tension and elastic effects. In the simple case of a dense droplet phase and an ideal dilute phase, the resulting equilibrium volume fraction in the dilute phase can be approximated as $$\phi_\mathrm{eq} \approx \phi_0 \exp\left(\frac{P}{c_\mathrm{in} \, k_\mathrm{B} T}\right)
\;;
\label{Eq_ApproxPhiEq}$$ see SI. Here, $c_\mathrm{in}$ is the concentration of the segregating fluid inside the droplet, $k_\mathrm{B}$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $T$ is absolute temperature, and $\phi_0$ denotes the equilibrium volume fraction of the dilute phase in a thermodynamically large system for $P=0$. Consequently, Eq. implies that the additional pressure $P$ increases the equilibrium volume fraction in the dilute phase.
The pressure $P$ on a single spherical droplet of radius $R$ embedded in an elastic gel is $$P = \frac{2\gamma}{R} + P_E(R)
\label{eqn:droplet_pressure}
\;,$$ where $\gamma$ is the surface tension and $P_E$ is the pressure exerted by the isotropic elastic gel, which is related to its stress-strain curve. We here consider droplets that are much larger than the gel’s mesh size, implying that the gel experienced large strains during droplet growth. Such situations typically arise when the gel has a maximal stress $P_\mathrm{C}$ that it can sustain. For example, when growing droplets fracture the gel, $P_\mathrm{C}$ is the critical stress that is required for fracturing. In the simplest case, $P_\mathrm{C}$ is proportional to the Young’s modulus $E$ of the gel, $P_\mathrm{C} = \zeta \, E$. The proportionality constant $\zeta$ can be determined experimentally or from theory. For example, Neo-Hookean theory[@rivlin1948hydrodynamics; @rivlin1951large] predicts $\zeta=5/6$, while the silicon gels used in the elastic ripening experiments[@kim2018extreme] exhibit $\zeta\approx0.5$. Taken together, we here focus on the case where the pressure exerted by the gel is a simple function of the stiffness, $P_E=\zeta E$.
To see whether surface tension $\gamma$ is important in the ripening experiments, we next estimate the relevant pressure gradients. The pressure gradient created by surface tension is roughly $\gamma/(R\ell)$, where $\gamma/R$ is an estimate for the pressure difference between droplets and $\ell$ is their typical separation. Conversely, the pressure difference created by the external gel can be estimated as $E/w$, where $E$ is a typical stiffness and $w$ is the length scale over which it varies. In the ripening experiments, we find $\gamma/(R\ell) \ll E/w$, implying that surface tension is negligible.[@rosowski2019elastic] Taken together, the equilibrium volume fraction ${\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$ can thus be approximated by $$\phi_\mathrm{eq}(E) \approx \phi_0 \exp\left(
\frac{ E}{\hat{E}}
\right)
\;,
\label{eqn:phi_eq}$$ where $\hat{E}=c_\mathrm{in} \, k_\mathrm{B} T/\zeta$ is the relevant stiffness scale. This expression allows us to determine the volume fraction $\phi_\mathrm{eq}$ outside a droplet embedded in a gel described by a local stiffness $E$.
Dynamical equations of emulsions
--------------------------------
We now consider an emulsion of droplets embedded in a gel with spatially varying stiffness $E(\vec{x})$. We describe the system by the droplet radii $R_i$ and their positions $\vec{x_i}$, as well as the volume fraction $\phi(\vec{x})$ in the dilute phase. The thermodynamics discussed in the previous section imply that the equilibrium volume fraction $\phi_\mathrm{eq}$ right outside each droplet depends on its position. The difference between $\phi_\mathrm{eq}$ and $\phi$ drives a diffusive flux between the droplet and the dilute phase. Since we are only interested in dynamics on length scales larger than the droplet radii, we evaluate all involved quantities at the droplet position $\vec{x_i}$. Consequently, the material efflux $J_i$ integrated over the droplet surface can be expressed as $J_i=4\pi D R_i [\phi_\mathrm{eq}(\vec{x_i}) - \phi(\vec{x_i})]$, where $D$ is the molecular diffusivity.[@weber2019physics] This flux drives changes in droplet radius, $$\dfrac{\mathrm{d}R_i}{\mathrm{d}t} = \dfrac{D}{R_i\phi_\mathrm{in}}\left[
\phi(\vec{x_i})-\phi_\text{eq}(\vec{x_i})
\right]
\;,
\label{eqn:full_model_R}$$ where we used that the volume fraction $\phi_\mathrm{in}$ inside the droplet is much larger than the fraction $\phi_\mathrm{eq}$ outside. This equation describes how a droplet grows by taking up material from its immediate surrounding. On large length scales, material diffuses in the dilute phase, implying $$\partial_t \phi = D \nabla^2 \phi - \phi_\mathrm{in}\sum_i \dfrac{\mathrm{d}V_i}{\mathrm{d}t} \delta(\vec{x_i} - \vec{x})
\;,
\label{eqn:full_model_phi}$$ where $V_i=(4\pi/3) R_i^3$ are the individual droplet volumes. Here, the last term accounts for the material exchange with droplets. For simplicity, we consider immobilized droplets whose positions $\vec{x}_i$ are constant. Consequently, Eqs. \[eqn:full\_model\_R\]–\[eqn:full\_model\_phi\] fully describe how an emulsion of droplets evolves over time.
The dynamics of the system is governed by two diffusive fluxes that act on different length scales. Locally, material is exchanged between the droplets and the dilute phase by the flux $J_i$. Conversely, transport on longer length scales only happens in the dilute phase by the redistribution flux $-D\nabla \phi$.
Numerical simulations show dissolution fronts
---------------------------------------------
![Numerical simulation showing a dissolution front invading the stiff region defined by a sigmoidal elasticity profile (upper panel). Subsequent images show simulation snapshots (obtained by solving Eqs. \[eqn:full\_model\_R\]–\[eqn:full\_model\_phi\]) of the droplets (symbols) and the volume fraction $\phi$ in the dilute phase (density plot with color bar at the bottom) at the indicated times. Model parameters are $\phi_0=0.033$, $\phi_\mathrm{in}=1$, $\psi_\mathrm{stiff}=0.09\phi_0$, $E_\mathrm{stiff}=0.15\,\hat{E}$, $E_\mathrm{soft}=10^{-4}\,\hat{E}$, and $w = 1.45 \, \ell$. Here, $\ell=(V_\mathrm{sys}/N_\mathrm{drop})^{1/3}$ is a typical droplet separation with associated diffusive time $t_\mathrm{D} = \ell^2/D$, where $V_\mathrm{sys}$ is the system’s volume and $N_\mathrm{drop}$ is the total number of droplets. []{data-label="Figure_background"}](Figure_Background.pdf){width="0.7\linewidth"}
We simulated Eqs. \[eqn:full\_model\_R\]–\[eqn:full\_model\_phi\] to understand the effects of an elasticity gradient on the emulsion dynamics. Motivated by elastic ripening experiments [@rosowski2019elastic], we consider a system consisting of two regions of different stiffness $E_\mathrm{soft}$ and $E_\mathrm{stiff}$. When the two regions are put side-by-side, a transition region emerges. To capture this, we model the stiffness profile in the entire system by $$E(x)=
\frac{E_\text{stiff} + E_\text{soft}}{2} +
\dfrac{E_{\text{stiff}}-E_{\text{soft}}}{2}
\tanh\left(\frac{x}{w}\right)
\;,
\label{eqn:stiffness_profile}$$ where $x$ denotes the coordinate perpendicular to the interface and $w$ is the width of the transition region. Generally, we chose parameter values motivated by experiments [@rosowski2019elastic]. For instance, we initialized the simulations with tiny droplets distributed uniformly in the whole system and we imposed a uniform volume fraction field $\phi(\vec x)$ in the dilute phase. Fig. \[Figure\_background\] shows the time course of a typical simulation. Starting from the homogeneous initial condition, the system quickly forms two separate regions aligned with the stiffness profile (upper panel). Here, the stiff side exhibits smaller droplets and larger volume fractions in the dilute phase compared to the soft side. Droplets then start dissolving in the transition region and a dissolution front moves into the stiff side. Simultaneously, droplets grow on the soft side of the transition region while droplets far into the soft side remain unchanged. These dynamics can be understood qualitatively by considering the diffusive fluxes in the system.
In the initial stage, the system is supersaturated everywhere, $\phi > \phi_\mathrm{eq}$. Consequently, material is transferred from the dilute phase to the droplets until a local equilibrium is reached, $\phi = \phi_\mathrm{eq}$. Eq. implies that $\phi_\mathrm{eq}$ is smaller for softer regions, so more material is absorbed by the droplets. We thus observe larger droplets in softer regions (see Fig. \[Figure\_background\]), consistent with experimental observations [@style2018liquid].
After the initial, local equilibration, material redistribution on longer length scales sets in. Since the stiffer side exhibits larger volume fractions $\phi$ in the dilute phase, material is transported to the soft side. Consequently, on the stiff side, $\phi$ drops below the local equilibrium volume fraction $\phi_\mathrm{eq}$, droplets shrink, and eventually dissolve. This process starts close to the transition region, since the redistribution flux is driven by gradients in $\phi$, which do not exist further away. Once droplets start disappearing in the transition region, droplets further away begin to be affected and a dissolution front forms that invades the stiff side. All the material redistributed from the stiff side is absorbed by the droplets on the soft side close to the transition region, which effectively shield all the other droplets on the soft side.
A coarse-grained model explains the dissolution dynamics
========================================================
To understand the front’s dynamics quantitatively, we next consider a simplified version of our model. Here, we do not describe the dynamics of individual droplets, but rather focus on the fractions of material in droplets and in the dilute phase. We thus introduce the coarse-grained volume fraction $\psi$ of material contained in droplets, $$\psi(\vec{x}, t) = \phi_\text{in}\dfrac{\iiint \sum_i V_i \delta(\vec{x_i}-\vec{y}) \, \mathrm{d}^3y}{\iiint \mathrm{d}^3y}
\;,$$ where the integrals are performed over a small discretization volume centered at $\vec{x}$. Note that the discretization volume needs to be large enough to contain multiple droplets, but also small compared to the characteristic length scales of the elasticity gradient. Introducing the local mean droplet volume $V(\vec{x}, t)$, we can express $\psi$ as $\psi=\phi_\mathrm{in} n V$, where $n$ is the local droplet number density. Motivated by the elastic ripening experiments and our numerical simulations, we consider the case where the volume of individual droplets does not deviate substantially from the local mean volume $V$. In this case, the volume fractions $\phi$ and $\psi$, characterizing the amount of material in the dilute phase and droplets, respectively, are sufficient to describe the system’s state.
The dynamics of the coarse-grained system follow from Eqs. \[eqn:full\_model\_R\]–\[eqn:full\_model\_phi\]. We show in the SI that the dynamical equations are
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\psi&=
D\left(\phi-\phi_\text{eq}\right)\left(\dfrac{48\pi^2n^2}{\phi_\text{in}}\psi\right)^{1/3}
\\
\partial_t\phi&=D\nabla^2\phi-\partial_t\psi
\label{eqn:reduced_model_dilute}
\;.
\end{aligned}$$
\[Eq\_Reduced\_Model\]
The first equation describes the local exchange of material between droplets and their surrounding, while the second equation accounts for the redistribution of material over long length-scales.
Fig. \[Figure\_reduced\_Comparison\] shows that the results of the numerical simulation of the coarse-grained model are virtually indistinguishable from that of the detailed model. Therefore, the coarse-grained model captures the essential features of the elastic ripening process. In particular, the dynamics of the dissolution front are governed by the material distribution, while individual droplets are irrelevant.
![ The coarse-grained model (black lines, Eq. \[Eq\_Reduced\_Model\]) captures the detailed dynamics of the full model (red lines, Eqs. \[eqn:full\_model\_R\]–\[eqn:full\_model\_phi\]). Shown are the profiles of the volume fractions $\phi$ in the dilute phase (upper panels) and the fraction $\psi$ contained in droplets (lower panels) for three different time points $t$. Model parameters are identical to Fig. \[Figure\_background\]. []{data-label="Figure_reduced_Comparison"}](Figure_Comparison_composed-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
Dissolution starts at high curvatures of the elasticity profile
---------------------------------------------------------------
We now use the coarse-grained model to understand where and when the dissolution front appears, i.e., when droplets first disappear. In the numerical simulations, we observe that $\phi$ quickly approaches ${\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$ by local equilibration between the droplets and the dilute phase. Assuming that the system is initialized with $\phi=\phi_\mathrm{init}$ and $\psi=\psi_\mathrm{init}$, the volume fractions approach $\phi\approx{\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$ and $\psi = \psi_0$ with $\psi_0 \approx \psi_\mathrm{init} + \phi_\mathrm{init} - {\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$ after this initial stage. Consequently, the volume fraction $\phi$ in the dilute phase is controlled by the stiffness profile $E(\vec x)$, while the remaining material is absorbed in the droplets.
After the initial equilibration stage, the inhomogeneities in $E$, and thus in $\phi$, drive diffusive fluxes toward the soft side. However, we observe that these fluxes mostly affect $\psi$ and hardly change $\phi$ before the first droplets disappear. To understand the dynamics in this stage, we approximate Eq. by $\partial_t \psi \approx D\nabla^2 {\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$. Consequently, $\psi$ evolves as $$\psi(\vec x, t) \approx \psi_0(\vec x) + t D \nabla^2{\phi_\mathrm{eq}}\label{eqn:linear_droplet_dynamics}
\;.$$ Consequently, the curvature of the equilibrium field ${\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$, set by the elasticity profile, controls droplet dynamics. In particular, droplets grow in convex regions ($\nabla^2{\phi_\mathrm{eq}}> 0$), while they shrink in concave ones. Note that Eq. only holds when $\psi > 0$, since otherwise droplets would be absent and the flux in the dilute phase changes $\phi$; see Eq. .
We can use Eq. to estimate the time and position of the start of the dissolution front. In particular, droplets dissolve after a time $\tau_*(\vec x) \approx -\psi_0(\vec x)/(D\nabla^2{\phi_\mathrm{eq}})$, when all material is removed from the droplet phase. The dissolution front starts at the earliest of these time points, $\tau_\mathrm{start}=\min_{\vec x}(\tau_*|\tau_* \ge 0)$, which is given by $$\label{Eq_Time_approx}
\tau_\mathrm{start} = \frac1D\min_{\vec{x}}\left(
-\dfrac{\psi_0(\vec x)}{\nabla^2{\phi_\mathrm{eq}}}
\right)$$ where the minimum is constrained to regions where $\tau_* \ge 0$, i.e., where droplets shrink ($\nabla^2{\phi_\mathrm{eq}}< 0$). The location corresponding to the minimum denotes the starting position of the front. Eq. highlights that the front appears where droplets are small and sparse (small $\psi_0$) as well as dissolve quickly (strongly negative curvature $\nabla^2{\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$).
The starting time $\tau_\mathrm{start}$ can be estimated for the simple stiffness profile given by Eq. . In particular, the droplet volume fraction $\psi_0$ will be close to the value $\psi_\mathrm{stiff}$ deep into the stiff side; the curvature is approximately $\nabla^2{\phi_\mathrm{eq}}\sim\Delta\phi /w^2$, where $\Delta\phi={\phi_\mathrm{eq}}(E_\mathrm{stiff}) - {\phi_\mathrm{eq}}(E_\mathrm{soft})$ denotes the difference in the equilibrium volume fractions between the two sides and $w$ is the width of the transition region. Using these estimates, Eq. suggests a time scale $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\tau &= \frac{w^2\psi_\mathrm{stiff}}{D \Delta\phi}
\label{eqn:starting_time_scale}
\;,\end{aligned}$$ which should govern the starting time of the front. In contrast, the starting position $s_\mathrm{start}$ is dominated by the location of the largest negative curvature of ${\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$. For the simple stiffness profile given in Eq. , this position should scale with the width $w$ of the transition region.
![ The starting time $\tau_\mathrm{start}$ and position $s_\mathrm{start}$ of the front scale with the predicted time and length scales, respectively. Results from numerical simulations of the full model (dots) for various parameters are compared to the theoretical predictions from the coarse-grained model (gray line). The time point $\tau_\mathrm{start}$ of the first dissolving droplet is shown in panel a) as a function of the predicted associated time scale $\hat\tau$ given in Eq. . The theoretical prediction given by Eq. is shown for $\psi=0.09\,\phi_0$ and $w=1.45\,\ell$. Panel b) shows the associated starting position $s_\mathrm{start}$ together with the equivalent prediction following from Eq. , which is shown for $\psi=0.09\,\phi_0$ and $E_\mathrm{stiff}=0.15\,\hat E$. The remaining parameters are $E_\mathrm{soft}=10^{-4}\hat E$ and $\phi_\mathrm{in}=1$. []{data-label="Figure_starting_time"}](Figure_time_and_position_collapsed-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
We test the prediction of Eq. and the scaling discussed above by comparing to numerical simulations of the full model; see Fig. \[Figure\_starting\_time\]. The collapse of the starting times shown in the left panel indicates that $\hat\tau$ is the relevant time scale for this process. Moreover, the actual prediction $\tau_\mathrm{start}$ given in Eq. is within a factor of two of the measured data. This analysis shows that the front appears earlier for larger stiffness differences (larger $\Delta\phi$) between the two sides, for narrower transitions regions (smaller $w$), as well as when there is less material in the droplet phase (small $\psi_\mathrm{stiff}$). Fig. \[Figure\_starting\_time\]b shows the corresponding starting positions, which clearly are determined by the width $w$ of the transition region. The data collapse indicates that neither the absolute stiffnesses nor the droplet size affects where the front appears.
Two fronts move in opposite direction initially
-----------------------------------------------
Shortly after the first droplets dissolved, the surrounding droplets continue to shrink and disappear. Consequently, the region devoid of droplets expands in all directions. The material of the shrinking droplets is transported toward the soft side by diffusive fluxes. Initially, the material will accumulate where the equilibrium field ${\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$ has the largest positive curvature (maximal $\nabla^2{\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$); see Eq. . The accumulating material is absorbed by the droplets in this region, which thus grow; see Fig. \[Figure\_background\]. The fact that droplets grow on the soft side implies that the front moving from $s_\mathrm{start}$ toward this side slows down. Conversely, the front moving in the opposite direction can continue invading the stiff side.
Dissolution front moves diffusively at late times
-------------------------------------------------
We next analyze the late time dynamics of the front invading the stiff side. Specifically, we consider the case where the width $L$ of the region devoid of droplets is large compared to the width $w$ of the transition region ($L \gg w$). At this stage, the front moving toward the soft side is virtually stationary. We can thus understand the dynamics of the front invading the stiff side by analyzing the width $L$ of the region devoid of droplets (where $\psi=0$). The dynamics in this region are governed by a simple diffusion equation of the volume fraction $\phi$ in the dilute phase; see Eq. . At the stiff side of this region, the dissolving droplets impose the equilibrium fraction ${\phi_\mathrm{eq}}(E_\mathrm{stiff})$ as a boundary condition for the diffusion equation. The corresponding boundary condition at the soft side can be approximated by ${\phi_\mathrm{eq}}(E_\mathrm{soft})$. For simplicity, we focus on slow fronts where the diffusion equation is in a stationary state, so the fraction $\phi$ in the region devoid of droplets is governed by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(x) &={\phi_\mathrm{eq}}(E_\mathrm{soft}) + \Delta\phi\frac xL
& \text{for} &&
0 &\le x \le L
\;,
\label{eqn:stationary_diffusion}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\phi={\phi_\mathrm{eq}}(E_\mathrm{stiff})-{\phi_\mathrm{eq}}(E_\mathrm{soft})$ and $x$ denotes the distance from the boundary on the soft side. The dynamics of $L$ can be obtained by considering the change of the total amount of material on the stiff side ($x\ge0$). Because of material conservation, this change is equal to diffusive flux at $x=0$, which can be determined from Eq. . We show in the SI, that this implies $\partial_t L = \alpha/(2L)$ with $$\alpha = 4D\left(1 + \frac{2\psi_\mathrm{stiff}}{\Delta\phi}\right)^{-1}
\label{eqn:front_diffusivity}
\;,$$ where $\psi_\mathrm{stiff}$ is the droplet volume fraction deep into the stiff side. Consequently, the region devoid of droplets expands as $$L(t) = \sqrt{\alpha(t-t_0)}
\label{eqn:diffusive_front}
\;,$$ where $t_0$ is such that $L(t_0) = 0$. This equation implies a diffusive motion of the front with diffusivity $\alpha$.
![ Dissolution fronts move diffusively. a) Position and time points of dissolving droplets in a simulation of the full model (dots) are compared to a fit (red line) of the theoretical prediction given in Eq. . Model parameters are $E_\mathrm{stiff} = 0.09\, \hat E$ and $\psi=0.09\,\phi_0$. Remaining parameters are given in Fig. 1. b) The front diffusivity $\alpha$ (dots) determined from fitting to numerical simulations is compared to the prediction (line) given by Eq. . Simulations were done for $\psi_\mathrm{stiff}/\phi_0=0.03, 0.09, 0.30$ for various $E_\mathrm{stiff}$, while the remaining parameters are the same as in panel a). []{data-label="Figure_velocities"}](Figure_velocities_collapsed_v2-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
We test the theoretical prediction given in Eq. by comparing to numerical simulations of the full model. Fig. \[Figure\_velocities\] shows the recorded times and positions when droplets dissolved (gray symbols), thus marking the dissolution fronts. The fronts start in the transition region on the stiff side and then move in opposite directions. The front moving toward the soft side slows down and comes to a halt on the soft side of the transition region, as predicted in the previous section. Conversely, the front invading the stiff side is quicker and does not stop. We measure its speed by fitting Eq. to the front positions deep into the stiff side to extract $\alpha$ and $t_0$; see Fig. \[Figure\_velocities\]a. Since the model explains the measured data at late times, we conclude that the front moves diffusively.
The fitted front diffusivity $\alpha$ is presented in Fig. \[Figure\_velocities\]b as a function of the relevant non-dimensional parameter $\Delta\phi/\psi_\mathrm{stiff}$. This parameter compares the strength $\Delta\phi$ of the elastic ripening to the fraction $\psi_\mathrm{stiff}$ of material that needs to be removed from the droplets. Consequently, the front is faster for larger $\Delta\phi/\psi_\mathrm{stiff}$. The theoretical prediction for $\alpha$, given in Eq. , matches the data well for $\alpha < 2D$. The fact that the front diffusivity $\alpha$ needs to be smaller than or comparable to the molecular diffusivity $D$ is not surprising since we assumed that the front is slow enough for the region devoid of droplets to be in a stationary state; see Eq. . Consequently, our theory predicts a maximal front diffusivity of $4D$ while the simulations indicate that faster fronts are possible.
Elasticity profiles spatially control droplets
==============================================
{width="0.9\linewidth"}
So far, we considered elasticity profiles that only vary in one direction. However, our full model (Eqs. \[eqn:full\_model\_R\]–\[eqn:full\_model\_phi\]) and the coarse-grained model (Eqs. \[Eq\_Reduced\_Model\]) are more general. In particular, Eq. implies that droplets first disappear in regions of strongly negative curvature $\nabla^2 {\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$. Then, a front of dissolving droplets moves in all directions. The material of the dissolving droplets accumulates in regions of large positive curvature $\nabla^2 {\phi_\mathrm{eq}}$, where droplets grow and remain for a long time. Consequently, where droplets grow or shrink is governed by ${\phi_\mathrm{eq}}(\vec{x})$ and thus the elasticity profile $E(\vec{x})$.
Fig. \[Figure\_eggcarton\] shows a numerical simulation of the full model for a two-dimensional elasticity profile (left panel). A detailed simulation of a similar pattern has already identified that droplets accumulate in the soft valleys [@shin2018liquid] and the time course shown in the right panels of Fig. \[Figure\_eggcarton\] confirms that droplets follow the dynamics described above. A movie of this simulation, as well as one for a more complex elasticity profile, can be found in the SI. Taken together, this shows that we can engineer elasticity profiles to locate droplets in precise arrangements.
Conclusions
===========
We presented a theoretical description of elastic ripening, which agrees quantitatively with experimental data. [@rosowski2019elastic] Therefore, our theory identifies the driving mechanism of elastic ripening: The elastic matrix exerts a pressure onto droplets that raises the equilibrium concentration in their surrounding; Gradients in this concentration then lead to diffusive material transport in the system. Surprisingly, the droplets do not start to dissolve in regions where the stiffness is maximal nor where its gradient is largest. In fact, our coarse-grained model reveals that droplets initially shrink faster where the curvature of stiffness is larger. However, at late times droplets only remain in the softest regions. Taken together, we find complex dissolution dynamics, where for instance two fronts move in opposite directions, as in the experiments [@rosowski2019elastic].
The elastic ripening in stiffness gradients is similar to other droplet coarsening dynamics in gradient systems. For instance, concentration gradients, e.g., of regulating species that compete for mRNA binding [@Saha2016], have been shown to bias droplet locations in experimental [@brangwynne2009germline] and theoretical studies [@Lee2013; @weber2017droplet; @Kruger2018]. Similarly, other external fields, like temperature gradients created by local heating [@antonova2017local; @choi2020probing] or even gravity [@Feric2013] could be used to control droplet arrangements. Such systems can be analyzed using approaches that are similar to the ones presented here.
We showed that elastic ripening allows to control droplet arrangements, which could for instance be used in technical applications for micropatterning or for creating structural color. Moreover, our theory can help to understand the localization of biomolecular condensates in biological cells. For instance, elastic ripening explains experiments where droplets have been induced in the stiff regions of heterochromatin, but moved into softer regions immediately [@shin2018liquid]. We expect that similar processes happen in the cytosol, where biomolecular condensates should be less likely where the cytoskeleton is dense. Interestingly, there are counterexamples, like centrosomes that localize to regions of high microtubule density [@zwicker2014centrosomes; @Redemann2017; @Zwicker2018b] or ZO-1 clusters that concentrate in the acto-myosin cortex [@Schwayer2019; @Beutel2019]. This seems to contradict elastic ripening, but in both examples the condensates interact with the elastic matrix: centrosomes bind the tubulin of microtubules [@Baumgart2019] and the ZO-1 protein interacts with the F-actin of the cortex [@Fanning2002]. Consequently, there are two competing gradients in this situation: droplets are repelled by the stiffness of the surrounding matrix but are attracted by its molecular components. Indeed, when the actin-binding domain of ZO-1 is removed, the clusters do not accumulate in the cortex anymore, but are more broadly distributed[@Schwayer2019], as predicted by elastic ripening.
Our theoretical description of elastic ripening can be naturally extended to include other effects. In fact, the dynamics described by Eqs. – already include surface tension effects when the pressure given by Eq. is used. Although we did not analyze the impact of surface tension since it is negligible in the experiments, it will become important on longer timescales or when surface tensions are large. Moreover, the elastic properties of the matrix might be more complex then considered here. For instance, the cytoskeleton can shown strain-stiffening, which might arrest droplet growth, as well as visco-elastic effects, which allow relax elastic stresses. [@Gardel2008] The latter effect can be captured by the theory of viscoelastic phase separation, which affects the coarsening behavior. [@Tanaka2000; @Tanaka2005] Finally, the droplets themselves can possess elastic properties. [@Jawerth2018] They sometimes even form solid-like aggregates [@Patel2015] that potentially cause diseases [@Alberti2019a]. All these effects might crucial for understanding the behavior of biomolecular condensates in cells.
Conflicts of interest {#conflicts-of-interest .unnumbered}
=====================
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Tal Cohen, Eric Dufresne, Frank Jülicher, Peter Olmsted, Kathryn A. Rosowski, and Pierre Ronceray for helpful discussions.
Supplementary Material {#supplementary-material .unnumbered}
======================
Equilibrium concentrations in the presence of external pressure {#equilibrium-concentrations-in-the-presence-of-external-pressure .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------------------------------
To understand the system presented in the main manuscript we describe a two-phase system and aim to obtain the change in the equilibrium concentrations when an external pressure is added to the droplet. For a demixed system to be stable, the dilute and the droplet phase need to reach an equilibrium in both chemical potential and osmotic pressure. Assuming an infinite system and given the free energy density of the system $f(V,P,\phi)$, the equilibrium volume fractions in the droplet and dilute phase, $\phi_\mathrm{in}^0$ and $\phi_\mathrm{out}^0$, respectively, fulfil the relations [@weber2019physics],
\[S\_Eq\_Equilibrium\_0\_both\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{S_Eq_Equilibrium_0_parta}
0=&f'(\phi_\text{out}^0)-f'(\phi_\text{in}^0) \hspace{25 pt} \text{and}\\
0=&f(\phi_\text{in}^0)-f(\phi_\text{out}^0)+(\phi_\text{out}^0-\phi_\text{in}^0)f'(\phi_\text{out}^0),
\label{S_Eq_Equilibrium_0_partb}
\end{aligned}$$
where the free energy density is differentiated with respect to the volume fraction. Note that for clarity we used here a slightly different notation than in the main manuscript. The expressions $\phi_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{eq}$, $\phi_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{0}$, and $\phi_\mathrm{in}^\mathrm{eq}$ here used, correspond to $\phi_\mathrm{eq}$, $\phi_0$, and $\phi_\mathrm{in}$ in the main manuscript, respectively. These equations can be solved using a Maxwell construction as shown in Figure \[S\_Figure\_Double\_Maxwell\_construction\] (purple dotted line). Analogously, when there is a pressure jump $P$ at the interface between phases the new equilibrium concentrations $\phi_\text{in}^\text{eq}$ and $\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq}$ reach a pressure balance, $$0=f(\phi_\text{in}^\text{eq})-f(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq})+(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq}-\phi_\text{in}^\text{eq})f'(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq})+P.
\label{S_Eq_Equilibrium_with_P}$$
![Maxwell construction showing the equilibrium volume fraction of the droplet phase, $\phi_\text{in}^\text{0}$, and dilute phase, $\phi_\text{out}^\text{0}$, in the absence of external pressure, Eq. (purple dotted line) and how these equilibrium values shift to $\phi_\text{in}^\text{eq}$ and $\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq}$ in the presence of a pressure difference $P$, Eq (red continuous lines).[]{data-label="S_Figure_Double_Maxwell_construction"}](Figure_Double_Maxwell_construction_v2-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
The change in equilibrium concentration due to $P$ can be seen in the corresponding Maxwell construction of this system, shown in Figure \[S\_Figure\_Double\_Maxwell\_construction\] (red continuous lines). If the dense phase is tightly packed the molecules can not compress further and thus $f(\phi_\text{in}^\text{eq})\approx f(\phi_\text{in}^{0})$. Using this approximation, Eqs. and can be combined as follows $$\begin{gathered}
0=f(\phi_\text{out}^\text{0})-f(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq})-(\phi_\text{out}^\text{0}-\phi_\text{in}^\text{0})f'(\phi_\text{out}^\text{0})
+(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq}-\phi_\text{in}^\text{eq})f'(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq})+P.
\label{S_Eq_IntermediateEq}\end{gathered}$$
Assuming that the pressure increase produces a small change in concentration we can approximate the free energy at the new volume fraction up to first order, $$f(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq})\approx f(\phi_\text{out}^\text{0}) +f'(\phi_\text{out}^\text{0})(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq}-\phi_\text{out}^\text{0}) \; .$$
With this approximation and using $\phi_\mathrm{in}^\mathrm{eq}\approx \phi_\mathrm{in}^\mathrm{0}$, Eq. reduces to $$0=(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq}-\phi_\text{in}^\text{eq})\left[f'(\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq})-f'(\phi_\text{out}^\text{0})\right]+P \; .$$
Assuming strong phase separation $\phi_\text{in}^\text{eq}\gg\phi_\text{out}^\text{eq}$ and using the definition of chemical potential $\mu=\nu f'(\phi)$, where $\nu$ is the molecular volume of the phase separating material; we obtain an expression for the change of the chemical potential in the dilute phase, due to a change in pressure, $$P=c_\mathrm{in}^\mathrm{eq}\left[\mu_\text{out}^\text{eq}-\mu_\text{out}^\text{0}\right]$$ where $c_\mathrm{in}=\nu\phi_\mathrm{in}$ is the material concentration inside the droplets. Finally, assuming an ideal dilute phase we can approximate $\mu(\phi_\mathrm{out})\approx k_\mathrm{B}T\log{\phi_\mathrm{out}}$, with $k_\mathrm{B}$ the Boltzmann constant and $T$ the absolute temperature, and obtain [@rosowski2019elastic] $$\phi_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{eq}\approx \phi_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{0}\exp{\left(\dfrac{P}{c_\mathrm{in}k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)}.
\label{S_eqn:Phi_eq}$$ Using the notation of the main manuscript: $\phi_\mathrm{out}^0=\phi_0$ and $\phi_\mathrm{out}^\mathrm{eq}=\phi_\mathrm{eq}$, Eq. is equivalent to Eq. 1 of the main text.
Derivation of the coarse-grained model {#derivation-of-the-coarse-grained-model .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------
![Comparison of the three models used in this work (at a late time point): Full Model Equation (Eqs. 4-5), Reduced Model Equation (Eqs. 8), and Piecewise Model Equation \[Eq\_Piecewise\_model\][]{data-label="Figure_triple_comparison"}](Figure_triple_comparison-eps-converted-to.pdf){width="0.75\linewidth"}
In this section we average over individual droplets and deduce an equation for the volume fraction $\psi$ of the material present in the droplet phase, it is defined as $$\label{S_Eq_Psi_definition}
\psi(\vec{x})=\phi_\text{in}\dfrac{\iiint \sum V_i \delta(\vec{x_i}-\vec{x})dV}{\iiint dV} \, ,$$ where the integrals are performed over a small volume V used for coarse graining the system. Assuming monodispersity inside such a volume, the average radius $\langle R \rangle$ of the droplets can be approximated by $$\label{S_Eq_Mean_R}
\langle R \rangle^3\approx \dfrac{3\psi}{4\pi\phi_\text{in} n}$$ where $n(\vec{x})$ is the droplet number density, defined as the number of droplets present in each discretization volume divided by $V$. If the droplets have similar enough size, then they change volume at similar rates and $n$ does not change over time. From the dynamical equation for the radius of the full model (Eq. (4) in the main manuscript) we obtain the growth rate of a droplet of volume $V_i$ $$\dfrac{dV_i}{dt}=-\dfrac{J_i}{\phi_\mathrm{in}}=\dfrac{4\pi D R_i}{\phi_\text{in}}\left(\phi-\phi^\text{eq}\right) \; .$$ Coarse-graining this equation, we get
$$\partial_t\psi=\dfrac{4\pi D \left(\phi-\phi^\text{eq}\right)}{V}\iiint\sum_i R_i\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x_i})dV,$$
where the integral is again performed over $V$. It can be approximated by the average radius multiplied by
$$\iiint\sum_i R_i\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{x_i})dV\approx \langle R\rangle V n(\vec{x})\, ,$$
which in turn can be approximated using Eq. ,
$$\partial_t\psi=4\pi n D \left(\phi-\phi^\text{eq}\right)\left(\dfrac{3\psi}{4\pi\phi_\text{in} n}\right)^{1/3} \; .$$
The equation for $\phi(\vec{x},t)$ comes directly from applying the definition of $\psi(\vec{x},t)$ to the dynamical equation for $\phi$ of the full model (Eq. (5) of the main manuscript), thus yielding the reduced model
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\psi&=
D\left(\phi-\phi^\text{eq}\right)\left(\dfrac{48\pi^2n^2\psi}{\phi_\text{in}}\right)^{1/3} \, ,\\
\partial_t\phi&=D\nabla^2\phi-\partial_t\psi \, ,
\label{S_Eq_Reduced_Model_partb}
\end{aligned}$$
which we use in the main text.
Derivation of the dissolution front dynamics {#derivation-of-the-dissolution-front-dynamics .unnumbered}
============================================
Following the arguments given in the main manuscript, we now calculate the front dynamics at late times, where the front invading the stiff side has travelled a distance $L$ which is much bigger than the transition length, $L\gg w$.\
In the area devoid of droplets the dynamics reduce to a simple diffusion equation whose boundary conditions are given by $\phi_\mathrm{eq}$ on the soft and stiff sides. If the front moves slow enough we can do a steady state approximation and assume that the area devoid of droplets reaches equilibrium quickly compared to the front speed. For a simple domain we can solve the diffusion equation. In particular, if the elasticity gradient is always in the same direction, we obtain a piecewise approximation dividing the system in three parts along the elasticity gradient direction as follows,
\[Eq\_Piecewise\_model\] $$\begin{aligned}
\psi&=\psi_{\text{soft}},&\phi&=\phi_{\text{soft}},&x<0\\
\psi&=0,&\phi&=\phi_\text{soft} + \frac{x}{L}\Delta\phi,&0<x<L\\
\psi&=\psi_{\text{stiff}},&\phi&=\phi_{\text{stiff}}, &x>L,
\end{aligned}$$
where $L$ is the front position, $\Delta\phi=\phi_\mathrm{stiff}-\phi_\mathrm{soft}$ with $\phi_\mathrm{stiff/soft}=\phi_\mathrm{eq}(E_\mathrm{stiff/soft})$, $x=0$ is chosen to match the position where droplets start to grow instead of shrink, and $\psi_\text{soft/stiff}$ are the droplet volume fractions after initial growth. A comparison of the volume fractions $\phi$ and $\psi$ between simulations and the piecewise approximation are shown in Figure \[Figure\_triple\_comparison\]. Integrating Eq. over the length of the stiff side yields an equation for the flux at $x=0$, $$\partial_t\int_0^L\phi dx+\partial_t\int_L^\infty(\phi+\psi)dx=-D\partial_x(\phi+\psi)|_{x=0}\;.$$ Using the piecewise approximation, Eqs. , the integrals can be easily evaluated, so
$$\partial_t L \dfrac{\phi_\text{soft}+\phi_\text{stiff}}{2} -\partial_t L (\phi_\text{stiff}+\psi_\text{stiff})=-D\dfrac{\phi_\text{stiff}-\phi_\text{soft}}{L}\;.$$
This equation can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t L=\dfrac{\alpha}{2L} && \text{with} && \alpha=4D\left(1+\dfrac{2\psi_\mathrm{stiff}}{\Delta\phi}\right)^{-1}
\;.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, solving for $L$, we find a diffusive motion for the front, $$\label{Eq_Predicted_alpha}
L=\sqrt{\alpha(t-t_0)},$$ where $t_0$ is such that $L(t_0)=0$. This expression shows that the front moves diffusively, with a speed that increases with the elasticity difference and decreases with higher volume fractions of droplet material $\psi$. A comparison between this approximation and the measured front speed is presented in the main manuscript.
Supplementary videos {#supplementary-videos .unnumbered}
--------------------
**Supplementary video 1**: Example of a typical simulation with a one dimensional elasticity gradient. Model parameters are $\phi_0=0.033$, $\phi_\mathrm{in}=1$, $\psi_\mathrm{stiff}=0.09\phi_0$, $E_\mathrm{stiff}=0.15\hat{E}$, $E_\mathrm{soft}=10^{-4}\hat{E}$, and $w=1.4\ell$.\
**Supplementary video 2**: Different visualization of the elastic ripening process. Video showing the radii and position of droplets along with the one dimensional average of the dilute phase over time. Same simulation as in Fig. 1 and Supplementary video 1.\
**Supplementary video 3**: Simulation with a two dimensional sinusoidal elasticity profile. Same parameters as in Fig. 5.\
**Supplementary video 4**: Simulation with a two dimensional elasticity profile in the shape of the Max Planck Society’s logo.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A polymer model given in terms of beads, interacting through Hookean springs and hydrodynamic forces, is studied. Brownian dynamics description of this bead-spring polymer model is extended to multiple resolutions. Using this multiscale approach, a modeller can efficiently look at different regions of the polymer in different spatial and temporal resolutions with scalings given for the number of beads, statistical segment length and bead radius in order to maintain macro-scale properties of the polymer filament. The Boltzmann distribution of a Gaussian chain for differing statistical segment lengths gives a Langevin equation for the multi-resolution model with a mobility tensor for different bead sizes. Using the pre-averaging approximation, the translational diffusion coefficient is obtained as a function of the inverse of a matrix and then in closed form in the long-chain limit. This is then confirmed with numerical experiments.'
author:
- Edward Rolls
- Radek Erban
title: 'Multi-resolution polymer Brownian dynamics with hydrodynamic interactions'
---
Introduction
============
There have been many studies which use a Brownian dynamics (BD) model for polymers with hydrodynamic interactions as a method to coarse grain complex interactions at the atomic level to study macromolecules in biology and materials science, for example stepping kinetics of kinesin [@zhang2012dissecting], dynamics for $\lambda$-phage DNA [@jendrejack2002stochastic; @schroeder2004effect; @quake1997dynamics] and for polystyrene [@amelar1991dynamic; @hair1989intrinsic]. BD models describe polymers as beads connected by Hookean springs [@Doi1986theory]. In this work, we extend the BD modelling framework to allow a polymer molecule to be considered on multiple resolutions, so that the statistical segment length and bead size vary along the polymer as well as the timestep used for simulating BD, i.e. we consider multiple resolutions of both spatial and temporal scales.
The use of a multi-resolution model allows us to look at areas of interest on the polymer in additional detail, while modelling less important areas in less detail and maintaining global properties of the polymer. The main benefit of this form of hybrid modelling is in computational savings compared to modelling the entire domain in high resolution, and has become an increasingly popular technique in recent years as a method to look at complex models on larger spatial scales with more biologically relevant timescales [@erban2014molecular; @erban2016atom; @korolev2016review; @zavadlav2015]. This is useful, for example, in modelling the interaction between a DNA-binding protein and a DNA filament, where only the area near the protein needs to be modelled in high resolution and other areas can be modelled in a lower resolution. A similar approach to the one taken in this paper has been considered in our previous work in the case where hydrodynamic interactions can be neglected [@rolls2016varying].
This work acts as an extension to analytic results for properties of the single-scale polymer dynamical simulations with hydrodynamic interactions. Much of the initial analysis of the single-scale model was done by Kirkwood and Riseman [@kirkwood1948intrinsic], who introduced elements of the BD model and gave an approximation to the translational diffusion coefficient which uses equilibrium averages for internal configurations. Following this, Zimm [@Zimm1959Model] found an approximation to the translational diffusion coefficient by pre-averaging the inter-particle distances in the hydrodynamic interaction tensor. [Ö]{}ttinger [@ottinger1987translational] found a more accurate approximation equivalent to the previous work of Fixman [@fixman1981inclusion] by considering the centre of hydrodynamic resistance and manipulating the Langevin equation, which is the work we will build on to obtain equations for the diffusion coefficient, partly because its formulation has a natural extension to multi-resolution modelling.
In this paper, we start by formulating the model using a statistical physics description and using the Boltzmann distribution to form a mechanical model, similar to how the single-scale model is built by Doi and Edwards [@Doi1986theory]. We also define the mobility matrix, which comes from extending the Rotne-Prager-Yamakawa tensor [@Rotne1969tensor; @Yamakawa1970transport] to allow for different bead sizes by considering fluid dynamics properties [@zuk2014rotne]. This provides a Langevin equation for the new model, as well as formulations for the distribution of inter-bead distances, including the root mean squared (rms) end-to-end distance. From this Langevin description, we form two approximations for the translational diffusion coefficient: one as a solution to a matrix inversion problem and another in closed form in the long chain limit. This form of the diffusion is used to give us scaling laws for the statistical segment length, bead radius and the number of beads in each region of the polymer. These scaling laws maintain the global properties of the rms end-to-end distance and diffusion.
A number of algorithms have been proposed for efficient BD simulations with hydrodynamic interactions for the single-scale polymer model in the literature [@miao2017iterative; @fixman1986construction; @ando2012krylov; @geyer2009n]. In Section \[secsimulmeth\], we adapt the Ermak-McCammon algorithm [@Ermak1978Brownian] by varying the timestep along the polymer in order for BD simulations of the Langevin equation to take place. We conclude with illustrative computational results confirming the presented theory in Section \[seccomresults\].
Multi-resolution bead-spring model
==================================
As a model for a polymer, we use an extension to the bead-spring model which has existed for over 60 years [@Doi1986theory]. This method of modelling has $N$ beads connected with $(N-1)$ Hookean springs, neither of which seek to have physical significance as such, but represent a coarse-grained description of the direction the polymer is coiled. Our multi-resolution extension allows different beads to have different sizes and the statistical segment length between adjacent beads to vary.
To form the multi-resolution model, we start with a static description of the chain as an extension of the Gaussian chain model, where much of the analysis follows from the treatment given by Doi and Edwards [@Doi1986theory], but with varying bond lengths. We use this to derive a potential for spring constants using the Boltzmann distribution which in turn is used to form the dynamic model with hydrodynamic interactions given from a multi-resolution extension of the Rotne-Prager-Yamakawa tensor [@Rotne1969tensor; @Yamakawa1970transport; @zuk2014rotne].
Static Description
------------------
We consider a bead-spring polymer model with $N$ beads, where the positions of the beads of the chain are given by $\mathbf{r}_n$, so that $\mathbf{R}_n = \mathbf{r}_{n+1} - \mathbf{r}_n$, for $n=1,2, \dots N-1$, are the corresponding bond vectors. In multi-resolution bead-spring model, the distribution $\psi_n$ for the $n^{\text{th}}$ bond vector $\mathbf{R}_n$, $n=1,2,\dots,N-1$, can vary along the chain: $$\psi_n(\mathbf{R}_n)
=
\left(\frac{3}{2 \pi b_n^2}\right)^{3/2} \exp \left(-\frac{3 \mathbf{R}_n^2}{2 b_n^2}\right),
\label{distbondvectors}$$ where the statistical segment lengths $\langle \mathbf{R}_n^2 \rangle = b_n^2$ are allowed to vary along the filament. In the special case $b=b_n$ for all $n=1,2,\dots,N-1$, equation (\[distbondvectors\]) reduces to the standard Gaussian chain model [@Doi1986theory]. Using (\[distbondvectors\]), the distribution of $\mathbf{r}_{mn} = \mathbf{r}_n- \mathbf{r}_m$, for $n \ne m$, is given by $$\Phi(\mathbf{r}_{mn}) = \left(\frac{3}{2 \pi \mu_{mn}^2 }\right)^{3/2}
\exp \left(-\frac{3 (\mathbf{r}_n-\mathbf{r}_m)^2}{2 \mu_{mn}^2}\right),
\label{distrnm}$$ where we define $$\mu_{mn}^2 = \sum_{k=\min\{m,n\}}^{\max\{m,n\}-1} b_k^2.$$ If we define the rms end-to-end distance $\mu = \langle \mathbf{R}^2 \rangle^{1/2}$, where $\mathbf{R}$ is the vector from the first to the last bead, then we find $$\label{end2endDist}
\mu
=
\sqrt{
\langle (\mathbf{r}_N-\mathbf{r}_1)^2 \rangle
}
=
\mu_{1N}
=
\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}b_k^2}.$$ Using (\[distbondvectors\]), the conformational distribution function of the chain is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{confDist}
\Psi(\{\mathbf{r}_n\}) &= \prod_{n=1}^{N-1} \psi_n(\mathbf{R}_n)
\\
&= \left( \frac{3}{2 \pi \prod_{n=1}^{N-1} b_n^2}\right)^{3/2}
\exp\left(- \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{3 \mathbf{R}_n^2}{2 b_n^2}\right).
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Considering a polymer chain at equilibrium, a mechanical model with potential $$\label{potential}
U\left(\{\mathbf{r}_n\}\right)
=
\frac{3 k_B T}{2} \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} \frac{(\mathbf{r}_{n+1}-\mathbf{r}_n)^2}{b_n^2},$$ has an identical Boltzmann distribution to equation (\[confDist\]).
Dynamic Model Description
-------------------------
Using potential (\[potential\]), we form a Langevin equation for the dynamic model [@ottinger2012stochastic] for $n^{\text{th}}$ bead at time $t$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{d} \mathbf{r}_n
=
&
\left(\sum_{m=1}^N
\mathbf{H}_{nm} \, \frac{\partial U}{\partial \mathbf{r}_m}
+
\nabla_m \cdot \mathbf{H}_{nm} \right) \mbox{d}t
\nonumber
\\
&
+ \sum_{m=1}^N
\mathbf{B}_{nm} \, \mbox{d}\mathbf{W}_m,
\label{langeq}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{H}_{mn} \in {\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}$ is a positive-definite symmetric mobility matrix, $\mbox{d}\mathbf{W}_m \in {\mathbb R}^{3}$ is a Wiener process and we define $\mathbf{B}_{mn} \in {\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}$ so that $$\mathbf{H}_{mn} =
\frac{1}{2 k_B T}
\sum_{k=1}^N
\mathbf{B}_{mk} \, \mathbf{B}_{nk}^{\mathrm{T}},
\label{Bmndef}$$ where $T$ is the absolute temperature, superscript $\mathrm{T}$ (roman font) denotes the transpose of a matrix and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. The matrix $\mathbf{B}_{mk}$ exists due to the positive-definiteness of $\mathbf{H}_{mn}$, and can be found by performing a decomposition (e.g. the Cholesky decomposition). In choosing the mobility matrix, we would like to vary the bead sizes along the filament, which can be used to ensure that macroscopic properties of the polymer remain constant. Therefore, the bead size $\sigma_n$ becomes a parameter of $n^{\text{th}}$ bead.
Rolls et al.[@rolls2016varying] use the diagonal mobility tensor which works as an extension of the Rouse model: $$\mathbf{H}_{mn} =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{6 \pi \eta \sigma_n} \mathbf{I},
& \quad\mbox{if } m=n;
\\
\mathbf{0}, & \quad\mbox{if } m \neq n;
\end{cases}
\label{rollstensor}$$ where $\eta$ is the dynamic viscosity and $\mathbf{I} \in {\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}$ is the identity matrix. One of the purposes of this paper is to extend model (\[rollstensor\]) to include hydrodynamic interactions. Many models which include hydrodynamic interactions where beads are of equal sizes use the Rotne-Prager-Yamakawa[@Rotne1969tensor; @Yamakawa1970transport] tensor. This has been extended by Zuk et al. [@zuk2014rotne] to allow for beads of different sizes. To formulate it, we denote for beads $m$ and $n$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{mn} = &|\sigma_n - \sigma_m|, \\
r_{mn} = & |\mathbf{r}_{n} - \mathbf{r}_{m}|, \end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_m$ (resp. $\sigma_n$) is the radius of of bead $m$ (resp. $n$) and $r_{mn}$ is the distance between beads. We also denote by $\mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn}$ the unit vector between beads, i.e. $$\mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn} = \displaystyle
\frac{\mathbf{r}_{n} - \mathbf{r}_{m}}{r_{mn}}.$$ Then the Rotne-Prager-Yamakawa-type mobility tensor is given by [@zuk2014rotne]
$$\label{fullMobility}
\mathbf{H}_{mn} =
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{6 \pi \eta \sigma_n} \,\mathbf{I},
& \quad\mbox{if } m=n;
\\
\rule{0pt}{5.1mm}
\frac{1}{8 \pi \eta r_{mn}}
\left[ \left( 1 + \frac{\sigma_n^2 +\sigma_m^2}{3 r_{mn}^2}\right)
\mathbf{I}
+
\left( 1 - \frac{\sigma_n^2 +\sigma_m^2}{ r_{mn}^2}\right)
\mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn}\otimes \mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn} \right],
&
\quad\mbox{if } \sigma_n + \sigma_m < r_{mn};
\\
\rule{0pt}{5.1mm}
\frac{1}{6 \pi \eta \sigma_n \sigma_m}
\left[ \frac{16 r_{mn}^{3}(\sigma_n + \sigma_m)
- (\sigma_{mn}^2 + 3 r_{mn}^2)^2}{32 r_{mn}^{3}}
\,\mathbf{I}
+
\frac{3(\sigma_{mn}^2 - r_{mn}^2)^2}{32 r_{mn}^{3}}
\mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn}
\otimes \mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn}
\right],
\qquad
& \quad\mbox{if } \sigma_{mn} < r_{mn} \leq \sigma_n + \sigma_m;
\\
\rule{0pt}{5.1mm}
\frac{1}{6 \pi \eta \max\{\sigma_n,\sigma_m\}} \,\mathbf{I},
& \quad\mbox{if } r_{mn} \leq \sigma_{mn};
\end{cases}$$
which is positive-definite, symmetric and continuous for sufficiently small $\sigma_n$ for all $n$. It is also incompressible, so that $\nabla_m \cdot \mathbf{H}_{nm} = 0$, which simplifies the Langevin equation (\[langeq\]) to $$\label{langevin}
\mbox{d} \mathbf{r}_n
=
\left(\sum_{m=1}^N
\mathbf{H}_{nm} \, \mathbf{F}_m
\right) \mbox{d}t
+ \sum_{m=1}^N
\mathbf{B}_{nm} \, \mbox{d}\mathbf{W}_m,$$ where $\mathbf{B}_{mn} \in {\mathbb R}^{3\times 3}$ are given by (\[Bmndef\]) which exists by the positive-definite symmetric property of $\mathbf{H}_{mn}$ and inter-bead force $\mathbf{F}_m$ is found by differentiating the potential (\[potential\]) to get $$\label{force}
\mathbf{F}_m
=
\frac{3 k_B T}{b^2_{m-1}}
\left(\mathbf{r}_{m-1}-\mathbf{r}_{m} \right)
+
\frac{3 k_B T}{b^2_{m}}
\left(\mathbf{r}_{m+1}-\mathbf{r}_{m}\right).$$
Approximation of the Diffusion Coefficient and Ideal Parameterisation
=====================================================================
We take a similar approach to Öttinger [@ottinger1987translational] to find an approximation for the diffusion of the multi-resolution model. This is then used in conjunction with knowledge of the distribution of the rms end-to-end vector to inform the scaling for a multiscale simulation, so that properties of interest match up to the ‘ground truth’ high-resolution model.
Diffusion Approximation
-----------------------
To find an approximation to the diffusion for the mobility tensor with hydrodynamic terms included, we use the pre-averaging approximation [@Doi1986theory], introduced by Zimm [@Zimm1959Model]. Considering near-equilibrium dynamics, we replace the mobility tensor $\mathbf{H}_{mn}$ with its equilibrium average $\langle \mathbf{H}_{mn} \rangle_{\text{eq}}$, using $\Psi$ from equation (\[confDist\]): $$\mathbf{H}_{mn}
\rightarrow
\langle \mathbf{H}_{mn} \rangle_{\text{eq}}
= \int \mathbf{H}_{mn} \Psi(\{\mathbf{r}_{n}\}) \,
\mbox{d} \{\mathbf{r}_{n}\}.$$ If we assume that $\sigma_n + \sigma_{n+1} < b_n$ for all $n \leq N-1$, then our equilibrium distribution $\langle \mathbf{H}_{mn} \rangle_{\text{eq}}$ for off-diagonal entries $m \neq n$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \mathbf{H}_{mn} \rangle_{\text{eq}}
&
=
\frac{1}{8 \pi \eta}
\left[ \left\langle \frac{1}{r_{mn}} \right\rangle_{\!\!\text{eq}}
\left\langle \mathbf{I} + \mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn}
\otimes \mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn} \right\rangle_{\text{eq}}
\right. \nonumber \\
& + \left. (\sigma_n^2 +\sigma_m^2)
\left\langle \frac{1}{r^3_{mn}} \right\rangle_{\!\!\text{eq}}
\left\langle \frac{\mathbf{I}}{3}
- \mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn}\otimes \mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn}
\right\rangle_{\!\!\text{eq}} \right],\end{aligned}$$ where we have used that the distribution of $\mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn}$ is independent of $r_{mn}$. Using $\langle \mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn}
\otimes
\mathbf{\widehat{r}}_{mn} \rangle_{\text{eq}} = \mathbf{I}/3$, the second term cancels and we obtain $\langle \mathbf{H}_{mn} \rangle_{\text{eq}} =
\widehat{H}_{mn} \mathbf{I}$, where $$\widehat{H}_{mn}
=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{6 \pi \eta \sigma_n},
& \qquad
\mbox{for } m=n;
\\
\rule{0pt}{6mm}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{6 \pi \eta} \left\langle \frac{1}{r_{mn}}
\right\rangle_{\!\!\text{eq}},
& \qquad
\mbox{for } m \neq n.
\end{cases}$$ Using (\[distrnm\]), we obtain $$\label{mobilityMatrix}
\widehat{H}_{mn} =
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\frac{1}{6 \pi \eta \sigma_n},
& \qquad
\mbox{for } m=n;
\\
\rule{0pt}{6mm}
\displaystyle
\frac{1}{\mu_{mn} \, \eta \, \pi \sqrt{6 \pi}},
& \qquad
\mbox{for } m \neq n.
\end{cases}$$ In the single-scale model where $b_n=b$ and $\sigma_n=\sigma$ for all $n$, equation (\[mobilityMatrix\]) generalises to the equation for the pre-averaged tensor in Doi and Edwards [@Doi1986theory; @Zimm1959Model]. Consequently, by pre-averaging equation (\[langevin\]), we find $$\label{langevinApprox}
\mbox{d} \mathbf{r}_n
=
\left(\sum_{m=1}^N
\widehat{H}_{nm} \, \mathbf{F}_m
\right) \mbox{d}t
+ \sum_{m=1}^N
\widehat{B}_{nm} \, \mbox{d}\mathbf{W}_m,$$ where $$\widehat{H}_{mn}
=
\frac{1}{2 k_B T}
\sum_{k=1}^N \widehat{B}_{mk} \widehat{B}_{nk}.
\label{HmnBmnrelation}$$ Following Öttinger [@ottinger2012stochastic], we define the hydrodynamic center of resistance $\mathbf{r}_h$ by $$\mathbf{r}_h = \sum_{n=1}^{N} l_n \mathbf{r}_n,
\qquad
\mbox{where}
\qquad
l_n
=
\frac{\sum_{m=1}^N \widehat{H}^{-1}_{nm}}{
\sum_{m,k=1}^N \widehat{H}^{-1}_{km}}.$$ Multiplying equation (\[langevinApprox\]) through by $l_n$ and summing over all $n$, we get $$\mbox{d} \mathbf{r}_h
\!=\!
\left(\sum_{m,n=1}^N
l_n \widehat{H}_{nm} \, \mathbf{F}_m
\!\right) \mbox{d}t
+ \sum_{m=1}^N
\left(
\sum_{n=1}^N
l_n
\widehat{B}_{nm}
\!\right)
\mbox{d}\mathbf{W}_m.$$ Using (\[force\]), the first term on the right hand side is zero and the second term is a linear combination of Wiener processes, which is itself a Wiener process with translational diffusion coefficient $$D_h =
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{m=1}^N
\left(
\sum_{n=1}^N
l_n \widehat{B}_{nm}
\right)^2.$$ Using (\[HmnBmnrelation\]) and the definition of $l_n$, we obtain $$D_h =
k_B T \left(\sum_{m,n=1}^N \widehat{H}^{-1}_{mn} \right)^{\!\!-1}.
\label{diffusionApprox}$$ This forms a matrix equation to provide the pre-averaged approximation for the translational diffusion coefficient.
Behaviour in the Long Chain Limit
---------------------------------
Our analysis in the previous section has used a general multi-resolution model consisting of $N$ beads with sizes $\sigma_n$, $n=1,2,\dots,N$, connected by $N-1$ springs with statistical segment lengths $b_n$, $n=1,2,\dots,N-1$. In applications to multiscale computations, we are mostly interested in chains which are split into $M$ regions (where $M \ll N$) of constant statistical segment length. In what follows, we will use lower case greek subscripts $\alpha$ (resp. $\beta$ and $\gamma$) to denote regions, while $n$ (resp. $m$ and $k$) are indices refering to numbers of individual beads and springs along the polymer chain. We assume that the $\alpha$-th region contains $N_\alpha$ springs, with statistical segment length $b_\alpha$, $\alpha=1,2,\dots,M$. Summing over all regions, we have $$\sum_{\alpha=1}^{M}N_\alpha = N-1.$$ In this section, we simplify equation (\[diffusionApprox\]) in the long chain limit, $N \rightarrow \infty$, which is taken in such a way that the fraction of springs in each region, $N_\alpha/(N-1)$, remains a constant, i.e. if $(N-1)$ doubles in size then each individual region also doubles in size.
Equation (\[mobilityMatrix\]) defines a function of two integer variables $m$ and $n$. We will map the discrete function $\widehat{H}_{mn}$ into a continuous function $H(x,y)$ by generalizing the approach of Öttinger [@ottinger2012stochastic] and Fixman [@fixman1981inclusion]. Assuming that bead $m$ lies in region $\alpha$, its continuous approximation in interval $[-1,1]$ will be defined by $$\frac{2b_\alpha^2}{\mu^2} \, m - 1
+
\frac{2}{\mu^2} \sum_{\gamma=1}^{\alpha-1}N_\gamma (b_\gamma^2-b_\alpha^2)
\;
\longrightarrow
\;
x,
\label{xtransf}$$ where $
\mu^2
=
\sum_{\gamma=1}^{M} N_\gamma b_\gamma^2.
$ The continuous analogue of a summation of arbitrary function $f_n$ over all beads will then be a weighted integral $$\label{intMapping}
\sum_{n=1}^{N}f_n
\;
\longrightarrow
\;
\int_{-1}^{1} f(x) \, b(x) \,\mbox{d}x,$$ where we define $b(x)$ as a piecewise constant function given by $b(x) = \mu^2 b_\alpha^{-2} /2$ in interval $$x \in \left( \frac{2}{\mu^2}
\sum_{\gamma=1}^{\alpha-1} N_\gamma b_\gamma^2 - 1,
\frac{2}{\mu^2} \sum_{\gamma=1}^{\alpha} N_\gamma b_\gamma^2
- 1 \right].$$ In addition to (\[xtransf\]), we also write for bead $n$ in region $\beta$ $$\frac{2b_\beta^2}{\mu^2} \, n - 1 + \frac{2}{\mu^2} \sum_{\gamma=1}^{\beta-1}N_\gamma(b_\gamma^2-b_\beta^2)
\;
\longrightarrow
\;
y.$$ This leeds to a transformation $(m,n) \rightarrow (x,y)$, which gives the continuous approximation of $\widehat{H}_{mn}$ in $[-1,1] \times [-1,1]$ as $$H(x,y) = \sqrt{\frac{2}{\mu^2}} \frac{1}{\eta \pi \sqrt{6 \pi |x-y|}}.
\label{Hxy}$$ The definition of the inverse of the matrix $\widehat{H}_{mn}$ (given as $\sum_{k=1}^{N} \widehat{H}_{mk} \widehat{H}_{kn}^{-1} = \delta_{mn}$), is rewritten in continous variables as $$\int_{-1}^{1}
H(x,z) \, H^{-1}(z,y) \, b(z)\, \mbox{d}z = \frac{\delta(x-y)}{b(x)}.$$ Multiplying both sides by $b(y)$, integrating over $y$ and using (\[Hxy\]), we obtain $$\int_{-1}^{1} \frac{\phi(z)}{\sqrt{|x-z|}} \, \mbox{d}z
=
\eta \, \mu \, \pi \, \sqrt{3 \pi},
\label{integralEqn}$$ where $$\phi(z) = \int_{-1}^{1} b(y) \, b(z) \, H^{-1}(z,y) \, \mbox{d}y.$$ Using the the method of Auer and Gardner [@auer1955note; @fixman1981inclusion], we solve equation (\[integralEqn\]) for $\phi(z)$ to obtain $$\phi(z) = \frac{\eta \, \mu \, \sqrt{3 \pi}}{\sqrt{2} \, (1-z^2)^{1/4}}.$$ To return to the quantity of interest, $\sum \sum \widehat{H}_{nm}^{-1}$, we apply the mapping from equation (\[intMapping\]) to give $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n=1}^{N} \sum_{m=1}^{N} \widehat{H}_{nm}^{-1}
&= \int_{-1}^{1} \int_{-1}^{1} b(x)b(y)H^{-1}(x,y)\, \mbox{d}y \, \mbox{d}x \\
&= \int_{-1}^{1} \phi(x) \, \mbox{d}x
= \frac{\eta \, \mu \, 4 \pi^2 \sqrt{3}}{\Gamma^2(1/4)},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the gamma function. Substituting in (\[diffusionApprox\]), we obtain diffusion constant in the long chain limit $$\label{longChainDiffusion}
D_h =
\frac{\Gamma^2(1/4)}{4 \pi^2 \sqrt{3}} \,
\frac{k_B T}{\eta \, \mu}
\;
\approx
\;
0.1922 \, \frac{k_BT}{\eta \, \mu}.$$
Scaling of Parameters {#paramScaling}
---------------------
As the use of a bead-spring model is to give a coarse-grained representation of a filament, statistical segment length and bead radius are not physical qualities so we allow these parameters of the model to vary in order to achieve desired statistics of interest for the polymer. In our previous work [@rolls2016varying], the whole-system statistics of interest have been the rms end-to-end distance $\mu$ and translational diffusion coefficient $D_h$ of a polymer chain. In this paper, we will consider three quantities which multi-resolutions simulations should preserve: the rms end-to-end distance $\mu$, diffusion coefficient $D_h$ and the strength of hydrodynamic interactions [@larson2005rheology], defined in terms of the parameter $h^*$ by $$h^* = \sqrt{\frac{3}{\pi}} \frac{\sigma}{b},$$ where $b$ is the statistical segment length and $\sigma$ is the bead radius. From a theoretical standpoint, a value for $h^* \approx 0.25$ minimises the effect of chain length [@ottinger1987generalized]. Similar values can also match experimental results for viscoelastic properties, for example the Flory-Fox parameter can match experimental values [@larson2005rheology] for $h^* \approx 0.267$. In the multi-resolution model, in order to maintain a consistent value for the strength of hydrodynamic interactions, we therefore scale parameters in order to keep $h^*$ constant throughout simulations.
The multi-resolution polymer simulations will be compared to the ‘ground-truth’ model, which will be the single-scale model of the polymer in the maximum detail required. In single-scale models, we can modify the whole-system statistics by varying the statistical segment length $b$, the bead radius $\sigma$ and the total number of beads $N$. In single-scale models, we need to select a level of detail for the entire chain as an additional constraint, but by modelling on multiple scales, we instead get to select the resolution of different regions of the polymer, so that only regions of particular interest need to be in the highest level of detail. To parameterize the ‘ground-truth’ model, we select $b$ to give the desired value for the rms end-to-end distance $\mu$, from equation (\[end2endDist\]), i.e. $b = \mu (N-1)^{-1/2}.$ Selecting a value for $\sigma$ is a bit more subtle than for models without hydrodynamic interactions[@rolls2016varying], as the inclusion of the hydrodynamic interactions mean the leading order long chain diffusion approximation in equation (\[longChainDiffusion\]) is independent of $\sigma$, i.e. we cannot use $D_h$. We use the strength of hydrodynamic interaction $h^*$ to select an appropriate value of $\sigma$. For all simulations in this paper, we use $\sigma=b/4$.
Once we have defined the ‘ground-truth’ model, with statistical segment length $b$, bead radius $\sigma$ and total beads $N$, we can seek to define the scalings for the multi-resolution model, where different regions coarse-grain the original model to differing extents. We divide the polymer into $M$ regions and assume that the ‘ground-truth’ chain contains $\widetilde{N}_\alpha$ consecutive springs in the $\alpha^{\mathrm{th}}$ region, for $\alpha=1,2,\dots,M$. Each region of the multi-resolution model has an associated (integer-valued) resolution $s_\alpha$ such that $s_\alpha^2 | \widetilde{N}_\alpha$. Larger values of $s_\alpha$ represent coarser regions, and $s_\alpha=1$ gives the ‘ground-truth’ model. In the $\alpha^{\text{th}}$ region of the multi-resolution model, we have $N_\alpha$ springs with statistical segment length $b_\alpha$ given by $$\label{scalings}
N_\alpha = \frac{\widetilde{N}_\alpha}{s_\alpha^2}, \qquad
b_\alpha = s_\alpha b, \qquad
\sigma_\alpha = s_\alpha \sigma,$$ where the definition of the bead radius, $\sigma_\alpha$, is slightly modified for the boundary beads; scalings (\[scalings\]) apply to beads where both adjacent springs have the same statistical segment length $b_\alpha$. On the boundaries between regions $\alpha$ and $\alpha+1$, for $\alpha=1,2,\dots,M-1$, we take the bead radius to be $((\sigma_\alpha^2 + \sigma_{\alpha+1}^2)/2)^{1/2}$, and for end beads at the start and end of the polymer we take $\sigma_1/\sqrt{2}$ and $\sigma_M/\sqrt{2}$, respectively. By applying scalings (\[scalings\]), equation (\[end2endDist\]) gives the expected rms end-to-end distance for the filament at equilibrium to be $\mu = b (N-1)^{1/2}$, i.e. it is equal to the ‘ground-truth’ model. The translational diffusion coefficient for the polymer in the long chain limit, equation (\[longChainDiffusion\]), is also invariant to the number of regions, as well as the size and resolution of each region, and the strength of hydrodynamic interactions is constant along the filament.
Simulation Method {#secsimulmeth}
=================
We solve the Langevin equation for the polymer in equation (\[langevin\]) by using a modified version of the Ermak-McCammon algorithm [@Ermak1978Brownian], for which different regions have different timestep sizes. The key idea for the modified algorithm is to keep track of the behavior of beads modelled with a higher resolution (and with smaller timesteps) to give an average of the hydrodynamic forces exerted on the coarsely modelled beads between the larger timesteps on which they are modelled.
If the ‘ground-truth’ model uses timestep $\Delta t$, then with the notation of Section \[paramScaling\] we define the timestep associated with the $\alpha^\mathrm{th}$ region as $$\Delta t_\alpha = s_\alpha^3 \Delta t,$$ where $s_\alpha$ is the (integer-valued) resolution of the $\alpha^\mathrm{th}$ region, $\alpha=1,2,\dots,M$. A requirement for the resolution value is that for any two regions $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ that either $s_{\alpha_1}^3 | s_{\alpha_2}^3$ or $s_{\alpha_2}^3 | s_{\alpha_1}^3$, to ensure the timesteps of the coarser regions match up to those for the finer regions. We choose this scaling to ensure numerical stability of simulations so that the size of the tension term for a bead is much smaller than the statistical segment length with adjacent beads. In the case of a bead lying between two regions, we take the timestep to be the minimum value of the timesteps given by each region.
The ‘ground-truth’ model updates time at integer multiples of $\Delta t$, i.e. we compute the polymer state at times $t=i \Delta t$, where $i=0,1,2,3,\dots.$ Considering the multi-resolution model, we can formally write the update rule (from time $i \Delta t$ to time $(i+1) \Delta t$) for the $n^{\text{th}}$ bead, for $n=1,2,\dots,N$, in region $\alpha_n$ as $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbf{r}_n((i+1) \Delta t)
=
\;\mathbf{r}_n(i \Delta t)
+ Q(s_{\alpha_n}^3,i+1)
\bigg(
\bm{\widetilde{\rho}}_n(i \Delta t)
\nonumber
\\
&
\qquad\qquad
+
\sum_{m=1}^N Q(s_{\alpha_m}^3,i+1)
\,
\mathbf{H}_{nm}
\mathbf{\widetilde{F}}_{mn}(i \Delta t)
\bigg),
\label{updaterule}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{H}_{nm}$ is the mobility tensor given in equation (\[fullMobility\]), $\mathbf{\widetilde{F}}_{mn}$ and $\bm{\widetilde{\rho}}_n$ are discretized force and noise terms given below, and the function $Q$ is defined for integers $i$ and $j$ by $$Q(j,i) =
\begin{cases}
1, & \quad\text{if } \;j\,|\,i, \\
0, & \quad\text{if } \;j\nmid i. \\
\end{cases}$$ To define discretized force and noise terms, we denote by $\alpha_n$ (resp. $\beta_n$) the resolution region for the $n^{\text{th}}$ bead (resp. spring). Note that for beads with both adjacent springs in the same region we will see $\alpha_n=\beta_n$, however between regions a bead takes the smaller timestep of the adjacent regions, so we may see $\alpha_n \neq \beta_n$. In the update rule (\[updaterule\]), the timestep is incorporated in the force term. We define the force multiplied by the time step for the $m$-th bead by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\overline{F}}_m(i \Delta t)
&=
\frac{3 k_B T}{b^2_{m-1}}
\left(\mathbf{r}_{m-1}(i \Delta t)-\mathbf{r}_{m}(i \Delta t)
\right)
\Delta t_{\beta_{m-1}}
\\
&+ \frac{3 k_B T}{b^2_{m}}
\left(\mathbf{r}_{m+1}(i \Delta t)-\mathbf{r}_{m}(i \Delta t)\right)
\Delta t_{\beta_{m}}.\end{aligned}$$ This force term is used as a part of a tension term which includes a memory component for larger timesteps, as explained in Table \[tableone\]: $$\mathbf{\widetilde{F}}_{mn}(i \Delta t) =
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{\overline{F}}_m(i \Delta t), & \text{if } s_{\alpha_n}<s_{\alpha_m},
\\
\displaystyle
\sum_{p=0}^{(s_{\alpha_n}/s_{\alpha_m})^3-1}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\mathbf{\overline{F}}_m((i-p)\Delta t), & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
[m[0.7cm]{} m[0.7cm]{} m[0.7cm]{} m[0.7cm]{} m[0.7cm]{} m[0.7cm]{} m[0.7cm]{} m[0.7cm]{} m[0.7cm]{} m[0.7cm]{}]{} & 0 & $\Delta t_1$ & $2\Delta t_1$ & $3\Delta t_1$ & $4\Delta t_1$ & $5\Delta t_1$ & $6\Delta t_1$ & $7\Delta t_1$ & $8\Delta t_1$\
$s_1$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$ & $\bullet$\
$s_2$ & $\circ$ & & & & & & & & $\circ$\
The random displacement term $\bm{\widetilde{\rho}}_n$ has a multivariate Gaussian distribution defined by the moments $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \bm{\widetilde{\rho}}_n \rangle &= 0 \\
\langle \bm{\widetilde{\rho}}_m
\otimes \bm{\widetilde{\rho}}_n \rangle &=
2 k_B T \, \mathbf{H}_{mn} \max (\Delta t_{\alpha_m},
\Delta t_{\alpha_n}),\end{aligned}$$ where we use the maximum as this term is only expressed on the larger of the two timesteps associated with the beads, as laid out below. To calculate the $\bm{\widetilde{\rho}}_n$ terms, we use an adapted version of the Ermak-McCammon algorithm [@Ermak1978Brownian], so that when we flatten the tensor $\mathbf{H}_{mn}$ into a matrix $\mathbf{H}$, we do so by re-ordering the beads so that beads with smaller timesteps have a smaller index than beads with larger timesteps. Having made this adjustment, we can reduce the computational load of the Cholesky decomposition done by the Ermak-McCammon algorithm (an $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ calculation [@saadat2014computationally]), by only calculating the submatrix made up of the rows and columns of the matrix corresponding to beads which are being calculated on that particular timestep. Therefore, if there are $N_0$ beads which move on a given timestep, then this gives a $3N_0 \times 3N_0$ submatrix.
We use the Cholesky decomposition outlined by Ermak and McCammon [@Ermak1978Brownian] to get the lower triagonal matrix $\bm{B}$, such that $\mathbf{H} = \mathbf{B B^T}$ with elements given by, for $n=1,2,\cdots,3N_0,$ $$\begin{aligned}
B_{nn} &= \left( H_{nn} - \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} B_{nk}^2 \right) ^{1/2}, \\
B_{mn} &= \frac{\left( H_{mn} - \sum_{k=1}^{n} B_{mk}B_{nk} \right)}{B_{mm}},\end{aligned}$$ to give noise terms $\bm{\widetilde{\rho}}_n$ with the calculation $$\widetilde{\rho}_n (i \Delta t)
= \sum_{m=1}^{n} \nu_{nm} \widetilde{X}_{mn}(i \Delta t),$$ which are then reordered and formatted to give $\bm{\widetilde{\rho}}_n$ in a $N_0\times3$ matrix. The random terms $\tilde{X}_{mn}$ now include a ‘memory’ similar to the tension terms so that $$\widetilde{X}_{mn}(i \Delta t) =
\begin{cases}
X_{m}(i \Delta t),
& \!\!\! \text{if } s_{\alpha_n}<s_{\alpha_m},
\\
\displaystyle
\sum_{p=0}^{(s_{\alpha_n}/s_{\alpha_m})^3-1}
\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
X_m((t-p)\Delta t), & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}$$ for the terms $X_m(t)$ drawn from a Gaussian normal distribution such that $\langle X_m(t) \rangle = 0$ and $\langle X_m(t_1) X_n(t_2) \rangle
= 2 k_B T \delta_{mn} \Delta t_{\alpha_n} \delta(t_1 - t_2).$
Simulations {#seccomresults}
===========
We compare the full BD modelling with the dynamics using the pre-averaged tensor $\langle \mathbf{H}_{mn} \rangle_{\text{eq}}$ from equation (\[mobilityMatrix\]) in place of $\mathbf{H}_{mn}$ in the Ermack-McCammon algorithm given above. Similar to previous papers simulating bead-spring models [@liu2003translational], we choose to simulate with unit parameters, which in our case has $k_B T=1$ and $\eta=1$. We shall also hold the rms end-to-end distance constant with $\mu=1$, which we shall maintain by varying the statistical segment length $b$ as a function of the bead number $N$ as appropriate given the scalings explained in Section \[paramScaling\]. To ensure numerical stability of simulations, we found $\Delta t = 10^{-2} b^3 \eta / k_B T$ to be a good value to use.
In order to study the translational diffusion coefficient in simulations, we need to extend its definition for the simulations of the multi-resolution model. We define the mass of the polymer $\Omega$ as $$\Omega = \sum_{n=1}^N \sigma_n^2,$$ where $\sigma_n$ is the radius of the $n^{\text{th}}$ bead, $n=1,2,\dots,N$. Using scalings (\[scalings\]), we observe that $\Omega$ is invariant to our choice of resolutions in the multi-resolution scheme. This allows us to define the centre of mass of a polymer $\mathbf{r}_G$ at time $t$ as $$\mathbf{r}_G(t)
=
\frac{\sum_{n=1}^{N} \mathbf{r}_n(t) \sigma_n^2}{\Omega},$$ where $\mathbf{r}_n(t)$ is the position of the $n^{\text{th}}$ bead at time $t$. With this we retain the definition of the translational diffusion coefficient as $$D_G = \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{6t}
\langle (\mathbf{r}_G(t) - \mathbf{r}_G(0))^2\rangle.$$ Note that for the single scale simulation this reduces to the standard definition for the translational diffusion coefficient.
In this section we compare the translational diffusion coefficient approximations given in the form of an inverse matrix in equation (\[diffusionApprox\]) as well as the long chain limit approximation in equation (\[longChainDiffusion\]) to BD simulations for both the full mobility matrix as well as the pre-averaged approximation, as well as the rms end-to-end distance, which has expected value $1$ in all simulations by design. We run the BD simulations using both a pre-averaged and a non-pre-averaged mobility tensor for a total of $10^4$ timesteps (in the case of multi-resolution simulations, this refers to timesteps associated with the higher resolution beads), where each result is given as an average over $500$ runs, and contrast this to the diffusion approximations.
In the results tables we include 95% confidence intervals for the translational diffusion coefficient and the rms end-to-end distances. For the end-to-end distance we calculate the 95% confidence interval for $\langle \mathbf{R}^2 \rangle$ and take the square root for both lower and upper bounds to give a range (note that this is not symmetric about the rms value).
$N$ $D_{\text{MF}}$ $D_{\text{PA}}$ $\mu_{\text{PA}}$ $CI_{\mu_{\text{NPA}}}$ $D_{\text{NPA}}$ $\mu_{\text{NPA}}$ $CI_{\mu_{\text{NPA}}}$
----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------- ------------------------- ------------------- -------------------- -------------------------
5 0.178 $0.187\pm0.013$ 0.99 $[0.96,1.01]$ $0.180\pm0.013$ 1.00 $[0.96,1.03]$
10 0.184 $0.195\pm0.015$ 0.99 $[0.96,1.03]$ $0.185 \pm 0.014$ 1.00 $[0.97,1.04]$
30 0.189 $0.192\pm0.013$ 1.00 $[0.97,1.04]$ $0.186 \pm 0.013$ 1.00 $[0.96,1.03]$
50 0.191 $0.202\pm0.014$ 1.01 $[0.98,1.05]$ $0.180 \pm 0.013$ 1.01 $[0.97,1.04]$
100 0.191 $0.188\pm0.013$ 1.01 $[0.98,1.05]$ $0.174 \pm 0.012$ 1.01 $[0.98,1.05]$
200 0.192 $0.184\pm0.013$ 0.99 $[0.96,1.03]$ $0.193 \pm 0.014$ 1.00 $[0.96,1.04]$
We consider three illustrative examples. The first one is a single-scale system, so that $M=1$ and $s_1=1$. We use it as a control to compare the other simulations to. Our results are presented in Figure \[fig1\] and Table \[tabletwo\]. As we can see in the table, the matrix formulation $D_{\text{MF}}$ is covered within the 95% confidence interval all except one of the pre-averaged and non-pre-averaged values of $N$. The analytic value of $\mu=1$ fits in the confidence interval for all simulations.
![\[fig1\] [*The difference between the matrix formulation for the diffusion coefficient $(\ref{diffusionApprox})$ and the long chain limit $(\ref{longChainDiffusion})$ as $N$ gets large, for both the single scale-system (red dotted line) and the multiscale simulation, which has the middle $25$% of the polymer in high resolution (blue dashed line). Parameters are given in Section [\[seccomresults\]]{}. Note that the multi-scale system needs $N \geq 32$ by construction for the coarse grained particles to be placed.*]{}](./figure1.eps){width="48.33200%"}
The next system to consider is one in which the middle 25% of the polymer is in high resolution, while the remainder is coarse-grained by a factor of 2. Therefore we define $M=3$ with $s_1=2,$ $s_2=1,$ $s_3=2$, and $\widetilde{N}_1=3N/8$, $\widetilde{N}_2=N/4$, $\widetilde{N}_3=3N/8$. The diffusion and the rms end-to-end distance of this polymer is given in Table \[tablethree\]. The matrix formulation for the diffusion $D_{\text{MF}}$ is contained in the confidence intervals for all values of $N$, and the value of $\mu=1$ is contained in the confidence interval for all values of $N$. The convergence of matrix formulation to the long chain limit is shown in Figure \[fig1\].
The final system considered had an 8-times resolution increase in the middle 10% of the the polymer. This uses $M=3$ with $s_1=8,$ $s_2=1,$ $s_3=8$, and $\widetilde{N}_1=9N/20,$ $\widetilde{N}_2=N/10,$ $\widetilde{N}_3=9N/20$. We perform the simulation for $N=1280$, from which we can report $D = 0.189$, $\mu = 1.04$ for the pre-averaged case and $D = 0.180$, $\mu = 1.01$ where we do not use pre-averaging. The matrix formulation for the translational diffusion coefficient gives a value $D_{\text{MF}}=0.190$. The end-to-end distance in the pre-averaged case narrowly falls out of the 95% confidence interval, but the other three stastics lie within this range.
As can be seen from the simulations, there is good agreement both between the pre-averaged and non pre-averaged tensors, as well as between the diffusion approximations and the results from the simulations. In total out of $44$ observations, we had two fall outside of the 95% confidence interval. The overall goal of doing this coarse-graining is to improve the speed of simulations. In Figure \[fig2\], we compared the timings between the single-scale and multi-scale models for identical parameters as were used to produce Table \[tablethree\]. There is a pronounced difference between the multi-scale model and single-scale model without pre-averaging, most of which comes from having to use the Cholesky decomposition on smaller matrices, while the smaller difference in the model with pre-averaging comes from updating fewer beads in each timestep.
![[*The [CPU]{} times to simulate identical systems using four different algorithms: the multi-scale model using pre-averaging (red dotted line), the single-scale model with pre-averaging (purple dashed line), the multi-scale model without pre-averaging (blue dot-dashed line) and the single-scale model without pre-averaging (yellow solid line)*]{}. \[fig2\]](./figure2.eps){width="48.33200%"}
$N$ $D_{\text{MF}}$ $D_{\text{PA}}$ $\mu_{\text{PA}}$ $CI_{\mu_{\text{NPA}}}$ $D_{\text{NPA}}$ $\mu_{\text{NPA}}$ $CI_{\mu_{\text{NPA}}}$
----- ----------------- ----------------- ------------------- ------------------------- ------------------- -------------------- -------------------------
32 0.191 $0.183\pm0.013$ 0.99 $[0.95,1.02]$ $0.189\pm0.013$ 1.02 $[0.98,1.05]$
64 0.191 $0.195\pm0.013$ 0.99 $[0.95,1.02]$ $0.186 \pm 0.014$ 0.99 $[0.96,1.03]$
128 0.192 $0.185\pm0.014$ 1.00 $[0.96,1.04]$ $0.192 \pm 0.013$ 1.00 $[0.97,1.04]$
256 0.192 $0.186\pm0.013$ 1.00 $[0.96,1.03]$ $0.184 \pm 0.014$ 0.98 $[0.94,1.01]$
Discussion
==========
In this paper we have extended the bead-spring model for a polymer including hydrodynamic interactions to a multi-resolution model in order to gain computational efficiency for BD modelling. By considering a multi-resolution Gaussian chain model, we have utilised the Boltzmann distribution in order to form a Langevin equation for the multi-resolution model. From this we used a similar approach to [Ö]{}ttinger [@ottinger1987translational] in order to derive an integral equation for the diffusion of the polymer using the pre-averaging approximation, which was then manipulated to find a closed form equation for the diffusion in the long chain limit. This gave scaling laws for key parameters of the polymer at different scales. The developed multi-resolution approach keeps the rms end-to-end distance and the diffusion of the polymer invariant to the choices of how we split the polymer up into different resolutions. These scaling laws have been then supported by illustrative simulations, which used an adapted version of the Ermak-McCammon algorithm [@Ermak1978Brownian].
This work has been looking at extensions to a polymer model in a theta solvent, which is not the most general state that a polymer can exist in. To extend this model further, it is of interest to include excluded volume forces to allow for the study of a good solvent, of which there has been much analytical work to derive terms for the rms end-to-end distance [@freed1987renormalization; @flory1949configuration] in the single-scale model. Another possible extension is to look at including additional forces between monomers to get more realistic spring forces which are used in many recent studies of polymers [@goldtzvik2016importance; @schroeder2004effect; @rosa2008structure], for example to form a wormlike chain model [@hagerman1988flexibility; @marko1995stretching].
There have also been many recent developments in the algorithms which are used to study polymers with hydrodynamic interactions [@miao2017iterative; @fixman1986construction; @ando2012krylov; @geyer2009n], which could improve the computational efficiency of the multi-resolution modelling even further than the Ermack-McCammon algorithm [@Ermak1978Brownian], which has been used here as a demonstration of the scalings.
This work was supported by funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) \[grant number EP/G03706X/1\]. Radek Erban would also like to thank the Royal Society for a University Research Fellowship.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[35]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1742462) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1670977) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1673799) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.436761) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1747243) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe Chandra/ACIS-I observations of the massive $\sim$ 13–14 Myr-old cluster, h Persei, part of the famous Double Cluster (h and $\chi$ Persei) in Perseus. Combining the list of Chandra-detected sources with new optical/IR photometry and optical spectroscopy reveals $\sim$ 165 X-ray bright stars with V $\lesssim$ 23. Roughly 142 have optical magnitudes and colors consistent with cluster membership. The observed distribution of L$_{x}$ peaks at L$_{x}$ $\sim$ 10$^{30.3}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ and likely traces the bright edge of a far larger population of $\approx$ 0.4–2 M$_{\odot}$ X-ray active stars. From a short list of X-ray active stars with IRAC 8 $\mu m$ excess from warm, terrestrial-zone dust, we derive a maximum X-ray flux incident on forming terrestrial planets. Although there is no correlation between X-ray activity and IRAC excess, the fractional X-ray luminosity correlates with optical colors and spectral type. By comparing the distribution of L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ vs. spectral type and V-I in h Per with results for other 1–100 Myr-old clusters, we show that stars slightly more massive than the Sun ($\gtrsim$ 1.5 M$_{\odot}$) fall out of X-ray saturation by $\approx$ 10–15 Myr. Changes in stellar structure for $\gtrsim$ 1.5 M$_{\odot}$ stars likely play an important role in this decline of X-ray emission.'
author:
- 'Thayne Currie, Nancy Remage Evans, Brad D. Spitzbart, Jonathan Irwin, Scott J. Wolk, Jesus Hernandez, Scott J. Kenyon, and Jay M. Pasachoff'
title: 'The X-Ray Environment During the Epoch of Terrestrial Planet Formation: Chandra Observations of h Persei'
---
*Facility*:
Introduction
============
Intermediate and low-mass main sequence stars like the Sun show evidence for chromospheric/coronal activity. Diagnostics of this activity – Ca II H and K emission, X-ray emission, etc. – are likely produced from a self-sustaining magnetic dynamo, which results from a combination of convective energy transport and differential rotation [@Pa55; @Ba61; @Ba03]. Once stars begin to contract onto the main sequence, the X-ray luminosity (L$_{x}$) correlates with stellar rotation (v), with L$_{x}$ $\propto$ v$^{2}$ [@Pa81; @Gu97]. This evolution provides a quantifiable link between a major diagnostic of activity and the source of activity [see also @Pi03]. Therefore, studying the evolution of X-ray emission provides an insight into stellar structure and evolution and the influence of activity on the circumstellar environment.
Young analogs of main sequence field stars have much higher levels of X-ray emission than main sequence stars. X-ray surveys of young, $\lesssim$ 100 Myr-old open clusters reveal that intermediate mass ($\sim$ 1-3 M$_{\odot}$) and low-mass stars are strong X-ray emitters. Typical X-ray luminosities for young stars are $\sim$ 100-1,000 times larger than the characteristic solar X-ray luminosity [@Fe05; @Pr05; @Pr205]. X-ray observations of clusters (e.g. with Chandra) provide detailed constraints on the time history of chromospheric activity. As stars age and evolve onto the main sequence, their magnetic activity diminishes. Thus, their X-ray luminosity declines [@Sk72; @Mi85; @Gu97; @Fe99; @Es00; @Pr05]. This decay is likely due to the rotational spin-down of the star and reduction of differential rotation at the radiative/convective zone interface [e.g. @No84; @Ba95]. The youngest ($\sim$ 1 Myr old) stars less massive than $\sim$ 1-2 M$_{\odot}$ typically have L$_{x}$ $\sim$ 10$^{29}$–10$^{31}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ and fractional luminosities (L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$, where L$_{\star}$ is the bolometric luminosity) of $\sim$ 10$^{-3}$–10$^{-4}$ [@Pr05]. Observations of older clusters like the Pleiades [@Mi99] suggest that the typical X-ray luminosities drop to 10$^{29}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ and fractional luminosities drop to $\sim$ 10$^{-4}$–10$^{-4.5}$ by 100 Myr.
Observations of young stars also show that a stellar mass dependence of X-ray emission emerges sometime after $\approx$ 2 Myr. In the COUP observations of the Orion Nebula Cluster, young stars have a wide range of fractional luminosities which are not correlated with stellar mass [@Pr05; @Pr205]. X-ray activity from the magnetic dynamo is uncorrelated with rotation rate and is described as being “saturated”, L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\sim$ 10$^{-3}$, or “supersaturated”, L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $>$ 10$^{-3}$ [@Ra96; @Gu04]. In contrast, observations of older clusters like the Pleiades suggest clear relations between L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ and stellar mass [@Mi99], where lower-mass stars have a higher fractional luminosity. Thus, sometime between 1 Myr and 100 Myr, stellar rotation rates decrease sufficiently to bring the X-ray activity out of saturation [@Ps96; @Gu04].
As stars evolve to the main sequence, their X-ray emission may drive important processes in the circumstellar disk material from which planets form. X-ray active stars with ages of $\sim$ 1-10 Myr are surrounded by primordial circumstellar disks comprised of gas and small dust grains [@Kh95]. X-ray irradiation may provide an ionization source for primordial disks that powers disk viscosity to sustain disk accretion when MRI turbulence is otherwise ineffective [@Gl97]. Flash heating from X-rays in powerful solar flares may account for the formation of chondrules in the early solar nebula [@Sh96]. X-ray heating of solids during flaring events, perhaps even during the early debris disk stage, may also drive chemical reactions from spallation which produces the short-lived isotopes observed in some meteorites [@Fei02].
X-ray irradiation also has important consequences for the evolution of newly-formed planets. Large X-ray fluxes can ablate the hydrogen-rich atmospheres of short-period giant planets [@La03] and remove the atmosphere entirely for sufficiently high L$_{x}$ (see also @Ba05). For an X-ray luminosity function scaled to the Pleiades, nearly all ($\sim$ 85%) Neptune-mass gaseous planets at 0.02 AU from a solar-type star may be eroded to Super-Earths [@Pe08]. G-type stars with high X-ray luminosities can evaporate the atmospheres of a wide range of planet masses ($\sim$ 0.1-10 M$_{\oplus}$) within $\sim$ 0.1 AU. In the absence of evaporation, X-ray irradiation may also drive a variety of photochemical reactions in the atmospheres of terrestrial planets [e.g. @La07].
Understanding the evolution of stellar activity and the X-ray environment of circumstellar disks and planets requires observations of stars in clusters with ages of $\approx$ 10–30 Myr. Recent X-ray surveys have concentrated on $\lesssim$ 5 Myr-old clusters such as Orion, NGC 2264, and IC 348 and $\gtrsim$ 50–100 Myr old clusters such as $\alpha$ Persei and the Pleiades [@Pr96; @Mi99; @Pr02; @Pr05; @Dahm07]. The large gap in ages between the youngest and the oldest clusters makes it difficult to constrain the evolution of the X-ray luminosity function and the evolution of stellar activity. X-ray data for 10–30 Myr-old clusters also link constraints on the X-ray environment during accretion and grain growth in the primordial disk phase with those for $\gtrsim$ 100 Myr-old stars where planet formation should be complete in the terrestrial zone.
In this paper, we report analysis of Chandra observations of 13–14 Myr old h Persei, part of the famous Double Cluster h and $\chi$ Persei. Recent Spitzer observations of h Persei [@Cu07a; @Cu08a; @Cu08b] reveal that the cluster harbors a substantial population of stars with warm dust emission consistent with debris from active terrestrial planet formation [@Cu07b; @Cu08b]. At $\sim$ 13-14 Myr [@Sl02; @Me93; @Cu08b], h Persei probes ages during which terrestrial planets are potentially in the final stages of formation [@Kb06; @Ws93] and when nebular gas has recently dissipated (@Cu07c, see also @Th08 and references therein), leaving newly-formed gas giants unshielded from high energy X-ray photons.
Our main goals for this paper are twofold. First, we investigate the connection between X-ray activity and warm debris emission. For X-ray bright stars with evidence for warm dust, we estimate an X-ray flux in the terrestrial zone that provides input for planetary atmosphere evaporation models. Second, we provide constraints on the time-evolution of stellar X-ray activity linking studies of younger $\sim$ 1–2 Myr-old clusters like Orion and older clusters like the Pleiades. Chandra sensitivity limits likely preclude sampling the full distribution of X-ray active stars in h Persei. However, we can analyze the upper envelope of the distribution of L$_{x}$ and L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ as a function of stellar properties. From comparing the bright limit of the L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ distribution from h Per with the distribution from younger and older clusters, we look for evidence of evolution in stellar activity. A detailed investigation of the X-ray spectra for sources with the highest X-ray counts will be included in future work (N. Evans et al., in prep.)
Chandra Observations and Ancillary Data
=======================================
Observations, Image Processing, and Source Extraction
-----------------------------------------------------
Chandra observations of h Persei were taken with a 41.1 ksec exposure on Dec. 2, 2004 (Obs. ID 5407; Sequence Number 200341) with the ACIS detector [chips 0, 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7; @We02]. The data were obtained in dithered, timed mode, with a frametime of 3.2 seconds. On-board event rejection and event telemetry was in VFAINT mode. The field was centered on $\alpha_{2000}$=2$^{h}$19$^{m}$00$^{s}$, $\delta_{2000}$=57$^{o}$07’12“, close to the center of h Persei from @Bk05 ($\alpha_{2000}$=2$^{h}$18$^{m}$56.4$^{s}$, $\delta_{2000}$=57$^{o}$08’25”) and observed at a roll angle of 229$^{o}$. The data were not registered to an astrometric reference frame (e.g. 2MASS). The ACIS-I field covers a 17’x17’ area.
Figure \[image\] shows the reduced, smoothed image, binned by 4 pixels and then convolved with a 3 pixel gaussian to balance the prominence of the sources in the center of the field with those on the edges. On the original data (which is the basis for all further analysis) the sources in the center of the field are smaller than sources on the edge where the point spread function (psf) is larger. We process the images with the standard ANCHORS (An Archive of Chandra Observations of Regions of Star Formation) pipeline (<http://cxc.harvard.edu/ANCHORS/>; @Sp08). Based on the CIAO (Chandra Interactive Analysis of Observations) routines, this reduction system is designed to process Chandra images containing many point sources and diffuse emission. The CXC pipeline level 2 data products (DS version 7.6) required no reprocessing; we only applied an energy filter at 0.3–8.0 keV to eliminate the high-energy background. To select X-ray sources, we investigated several source detection algorithms available in CIAO. We used a recursive blocking scheme with WAVDETECT [@Free02 Mexican hat wavelet detection] with the significance set to yield about 1 false detection per field. A 15’x15’ region centered on the aimpoint was extracted at full resolution. WAVDETECT then identified sources in this region using wavelet scales of 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32. We merged the three lists, removing any duplicates.
This method yields 330 point source detections. Source positions were then adjusted using a centroiding routine. We extracted counts using an elliptical extraction region around each source based on point-spread function fitting as a function of chip position at 95% encircled energy. Background levels were computed using an annular ellipse with the same shape as the source extraction. The outer ellipse boundry has major and minor axes six times the size of the source; the inner boundry has axes three times the size of the source.
Deriving the X-Ray Flux and Temperature
---------------------------------------
We derived the X-ray flux and temperature for each Chandra source using a one temperature APEC model with absorption using the CIAO fitting and modeling package Sherpa, v. 3.4[^1]. Unless X-ray sources are very strong (100 counts or more), it is useful to fix several parameters in the fits to prevent unphysical values. The fixed parameters are the hydrogen column density, n$_{H}$, the initial X-ray temperature, and the abundance parameter.
We use the well-constrained reddening of h Persei to set n$_{H}$. Based on $\sim$ 100 high-mass stars, @Sl02 derive E(B-V) $\sim$ 0.56 $\pm$ 0.01, a value within 10% of estimates from similar work [e.g. @Ke01; @Bk05] and identical to that derived for $\chi$ Persei. From optical spectroscopy of $\sim$ 6,000 stars, @Cu08b and @Cu08c derive E(B-V) $\sim$ 0.56 for both h and $\chi$ Persei. @Cu08b identifies a full-width half-maximum of $\sim$ 0.1 in the distribution of E(B-V). Very few cluster stars have E(B-V) $\gtrsim$ 0.65 or $\lesssim$ 0.45. Because E(B-V) is proportional to n$_{H}$, adopting a single n$_{H}$ $\approx$ 3 $\times$ 10$^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ for E(B-V) $\sim$ 0.56 introduces a $\approx$ 10% uncertainty in n$_{H}$ and a $\approx$ 0.05 dex uncertainty in log(L$_{X}$) for each source. Additionally, there is a $\approx$ 10% systematic uncertainty as we chose a constant of proportionality for the E(B-V) to N$_{H}$ relation which is intermediate between the values of @Vuong2003 and @Ryter1996.
We adopted an initial temperature kT of 1.5 keV as a compromise between values typical of stars in younger clusters (e.g. M17, @Broos07) and stars in older clusters (e.g. the Pleiades, @Dlg02). An abundance parameter of 0.3 solar is routinely found in fits of X-ray spectra and assumed constant in our calculations [@Fei02]. The n$_{H}$ and abundance parameters remain fixed throughout the fitting, while kT is determined from fitting. The remaining free parameter is the normalization from which Sherpa derives both the absorbed and unabsorbed photon fluxes.
We performed a two-step fitting procedure. First, the unbinned data were fitted using C-statistics [@Cash79] and Powell optimization (identifies local fit statistic minimum nearest to initial guess. For sources with more than 30 counts, the data were then grouped for 8 counts/bin and refit using the result from the unbinned fit as an initial guess for the normalization and temperature. The binned fitting used $\chi$-dvar statistics and Levenberg-Marquardt optimization. The details of these optimization methods are described in the online Sherpa documentation[^2].
Table \[Chandradet\] lists data for Chandra-detected sources. Column 1 is the source ID, columns 2 and 3 list J2000 positions, columns 4 and 5 list the raw and net counts in the 95% encircled energy radius. The hardness ratios (columns 6–8) describe the energy of X-ray photons. Following @Get05, we use three hardness ratios. HR1 compares the full range of CXO sensitivity: 0.5–2.0 keV vs. 2.0–8.0 keV. HR2 highlights differences in the softer region (0.5–1.7 keV vs. 1.7–2.8 keV), while HR3 highlights differences in the harder regions (1.7–2.8 keV vs. 2.8–8.0 keV). Columns 10 and 11 list the X-ray temperature and uncertainty in temperature. Although a detailed analysis of the X-ray spectra is the subject of future work (N. Evans et al., in prep.), the median X-ray temperature for the entire sample is $\sim$ 1.6 keV, which is reasonable for stars with ages intermediate between $\sim$ 1 Myr and 100 Myr as described in §2.2. Columns 12 and 13 list the derived unabsorbed and absorbed X-ray fluxes. The median values for the unabsorbed and absorbed fluxes are 10$^{-14.6}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and 10$^{-14.8}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. The reduced $\chi^{2}$ of the Sherpa fits are listed in column 14.
Optical/IR Ancillary Data
-------------------------
There are several possible types of X-ray active sources on the Chandra field, including chromospherically active pre-main sequence stars, active galactic nuclei (AGN), and foreground/background red giant stars. Without useful proper motion data for this distant cluster, we rely on optical/infrared colors and deep Chandra number counts [e.g. @Bau04] to identify likely cluster members and to make plausibility arguments for sources without optical IDs. For populous clusters like h and $\chi$ Persei, we expect a well-defined locus in an optical color-magnitude diagram [e.g. @Ly06]. The optical luminosities for young (e.g 10–50 Myr) intermediate/late spectral type pre-main sequence stars (e.g. G0-M5) are up to $\approx$ 5 times greater than their main sequence field star counterparts [e.g. @Ba98]. Thus, field stars have far bluer colors at a given magnitude. Background AGN have very blue optical colors compared to pre-main sequence stars and have very faint optical magnitudes. Foreground red giant stars have far redder colors than cluster stars at a given magnitude. The differences in V/V-I positions for cluster stars and other X-ray active sources means that this color-magnitude diagram clearly identifies the positions of X-ray active cluster members in moderately massive clusters such as NGC 2547 [@Ly06]. Because h Persei is $\gtrsim$ 5–10 times more massive than NGC 2547, the cluster locus should be even more easily identifiable.
To identify the nature of Chandra-detected sources, we merged the Chandra catalog with deep VI optical photometry and optical spectra of h Persei[^3]. Optical photometry of h Persei was taken with the Mosaic Imager at the 4-meter Mayall telescope at the Kitt Peak National Observatory on October 13-16 and 27-30, 2006, as a part of the MONITOR project [@Ai07]. Exposures in V and I band were taken using 75 second integrations with a 36’x36’ field of view centered on the cluster. The data were reduced using the pipeline for the INT wide-field survey [@Ir01; @Ir07], correcting for the effects of fringing, cross talk, bias, and atmospheric extinction. Photometry was performed as in @Ir07; instrumental magnitudes were transformed into Johnson-Cousins system magnitudes. The catalog contains $\approx$ 42,000 sources detected in at least one band and are complete at the 5$\sigma$ level to V $\sim$ 23 and I $\sim$ 20.
For source matching, we use the optical photometry. For 14 Myr-old cluster stars at the distance and reddening of h Per [E(B-V) $\sim$ 0.56; d $\sim$ 2.3–2.4 kpc @Sl02; @Cu08c], stars with J-band magnitudes brighter than the 2MASS completeness limit (J $\sim$ 15.7) have V-I $\lesssim$ 1.75, V-J $\lesssim$ 3.3, and V $\lesssim$ 19 [@Kh95; @Ba98; @Si00]. Cluster stars with V $\sim$ 23 (the 5$\sigma$ limit for our optical data) have V-I $\sim$ 3, V-J $\sim$ 4.5, and J $\lesssim$ 18.5 [cf. @Kh95]. Thus, the optical data detect fainter, lower-mass cluster stars than the 2MASS data.
To provide more constraints on the properties of optically-detected Chandra sources, we include optical spectra of h Per sources. Optical spectroscopy of $\approx$ 5,000 h Persei sources were taken during Fall 2006 and Fall 2007 with Hectospec [@Fa05] on the 6.5m MMT telescope. We took three 10-15 minute exposures using the 270 g mm$^{-1}$ grating. This configuration yields spectra at 4000-9000 Å with 3 Å resolution. The data were processed using standard Hectospec reduction pipelines. The reduced spectra typically had signal-to-noise $\gtrsim$ 20-40. Finally, we include $\sim$ 1000 archival spectra from the FAST and Hydra spectrographs on the 1.5 m Tillinghast and 3.5 m WIYN telescopes, respectively. @Cu07b and @Cu08b describe these data in detail. The FAST and Hydra spectra consist mostly of bright, likely early-type stars in h Persei.
To derive spectral types from these spectra, we employed the semi-automatic quantitative spectral-typing code **SPTCLASS** from @He04 [see www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/hernandj/SPTclass/sptclass.html for more information], which is useful for classifying stars regardless of luminosity class and surface gravity. **SPTCLASS** calculates the spectral types of stars using spectral indices which compare the line flux of each spectral feature to continuum levels. The relationships between spectral indices and spectral types are derived from spectroscopic standards observed with Hectospec. Thus, **SPTCLASS** is particularly well suited to spectral type h Persei stars. The errors in spectral types are typically $\approx$ 2 subclasses.
To identify the presence or absence of warm, circumstellar dust around X-ray active stars, we match ACIS sources to the 2MASS/IRAC catalog from @Cu07a. @Cu07a describe the data reduction, photometry, and source matching between 2MASS and IRAC in detail. The catalog consists of $\sim$ 31,000 point sources and covers $\approx$ 0.75 square degrees on the sky, encompassing both h Persei and $\chi$ Persei. The completeness limit for the catalog corresponds to the 2MASS completeness limit (J $\approx$ 15.5); most stars brighter than J $\sim$ 15-15.5 have IRAC counterparts in at least one channel (3.6 $\mu m$, 4.5 $\mu m$, 5.8 $\mu m$, or 8 $\mu m$).
Of the 330 X-ray sources, 165 have optical photometric counterparts. The typical positional offsets are very small (mean offset is $\sim$ 0.60“, median $\sim$ 0.47”, and $\sigma$ $\sim$ 0.43") and comparable to the astrometric accuracy of Chandra. Of the 165 X-ray/optically-detected sources, 101 have spectral types; 123 have also 2MASS/IRAC photometry. We derive the X-ray luminosity for optically-detected Chandra sources assuming a distance of 2.4 kpc.
The catalog of optically-detected Chandra sources along with their net X-ray counts and absorption-corrected X-ray luminosities[^4], optical/IR photometry, and spectral types is listed in Table \[Chandralist\][^5].
Nature of Chandra Sources Lacking Optical Detections
----------------------------------------------------
By comparing the optical survey limits to colors and magnitudes for 14 Myr-old pre-main sequence stars and other X-ray active sources we can constrain the properties of Chandra sources lacking optical detections. The two main possibilities for these sources are fainter, low-mass cluster stars and background AGN. Simple arguments show that both fainter, low-mass cluster stars and AGN likely comprise the Chandra-detected population lacking optical detections.
For the Geneva/Baraffe isochrone (see §3.1), stars with V $\sim$ 22 have masses of $\sim$ 0.6 M$_{\odot}$ (Figure \[colorxray\]). While model uncertainties plague our understanding of the optical colors/magnitudes of lower-mass stars, these stars should be cooler and fainter than 0.6 M$_{\odot}$ stars of the same age. @Ba98 predict that h Per stars with M$_{\star}$ $\sim$ 0.25 M$_{\odot}$ have V $\sim$ 24, two magnitudes fainter than 0.6 M$_{\odot}$ stars and undetectable with our optical data. If these stars have high fractional x-ray luminosities ($\ge$ 10$^{-3}$, Chandra is likely sensitive enough to detect them. Because the 5$\sigma$ limit for the optical data is V $\sim$ 23, stars of slightly greater mass ($\lesssim$ 0.5 M$_{\odot}$) may also lack optical detections but have Chandra detections.
Assuming a Miller-Scalo Initial Mass Function [@Ms79], h Per stars with masses between 0.25 M$_{\odot}$ and 0.6 M$_{\odot}$ are 1.3 times as numerous as cluster stars with masses $\gtrsim$ 0.6 M$_{\odot}$. The number of optically-detected Chandra sources is equal to the number lacking optical detections. Therefore, lower-mass cluster stars plausibly comprise a significant fraction of the Chandra-detected population lacking optical detections.
Using the number counts of X-ray sources as a function of limiting flux from @Bau04, Chandra sources lacking optical detections likely include a significant population of optically faint, background AGN. The limiting (unabsorbed) flux for our survey is log(F$_{x}$, ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$) $\approx$ -14.7. @Bau04 derive the number of X-ray sources per sq deg with fluxes greater than log (F$_{x}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$) = -14.7 to be roughly 500 soft X-ray sources and 1000 hard X-ray sources. Because the ACIS-I coverage is $\approx$ 0.08 square degrees, our h Per field should have $\sim$ 40 (80) soft (hard) AGN. Most AGN with log F$_{x}$ $\sim$ $-14.7$ have faint optical magnitudes [R $\gtrsim$ 22–23; @Bau04] and are thus fainter than the 5 $\sigma$ limit of our optical survey.
Other properties of sources with and without optical Several X-ray sources on the field have 2MASS detections but no detectable optical counterparts. These are typically very faint and do not define a locus in near-IR color-magnitude diagrams consistent with cluster membership. These sources are then more likely to be AGN.
In summary, the Chandra sources lacking optical counterparts are likely to be a mix of low-mass cluster stars and background AGN. Deeper optical data will likely identify the origin of some currently unmatched sources. Deeper X-ray data will yield enough counts to fit a spectrum to many sources; analyzing their X-ray spectra can distinguish between pre-main sequence stars and AGN.
Analysis
========
Optical Properties of Chandra-detected Sources
----------------------------------------------
Most of the 165 optically-detected X-ray sources define a clear sequence in the V/V-I color-magnitude diagram consistent with cluster membership. Figure \[colorxray\] shows their positions (blue and green dots) with respect to all sources (grey dots) detected within 10’ of the h Persei center ($\alpha_{2000}$ $\sim$ 2$^{h}$19$^{m}$0$^{s}$, $\delta_{2000}$ $\sim$ 57$^{o}$8’35"; see @Bk05). The cluster sources define a sequence from V,V-I $\sim$ 10,0 to V,V-I $\sim$ 24, 3.6, which is clearly separable from the background field star population (V $\gtrsim$ 15 + 3(V-I) for V-I $\gtrsim$ 1). Foreground stars are less numerous than either the cluster stars or the background. The brightest X-ray active star (V $\sim$ 8) is located beyond the plot limits.
To compare the magnitudes and colors of these stars with theoretical predictions, we overplot a best-fit isochrone (14 Myr), covering a range in masses from 15 M$_{\odot}$ to 0.6 M$_{\odot}$. We construct our isochrone for intermediate/low-mass stars ($\lesssim$ 1.4 M$_{\odot}$) by interpolating between the 12.6 Myr and 15.8 Myr isochrones from @Ba98. For more massive stars, we use the Geneva isochrones [@Sch92; @Me93]. On Figure \[colorxray\], the @Ba98 and Geneva predictions meet at V $\sim$ 17, V-I $\sim$ 1.2. We adjust the isochrone to the distance and reddening of h Persei, assuming a distance modulus of 11.85 and E(B-V) $\sim$ 0.56 [@Sl02]. For the rest of the paper, we label the isochrone constructed from tracks for high-mass stars from the Geneva group and intermediate/low-mass stars from Baraffe as the ’Geneva/Baraffe’ isochrone.
The agreement between the predicted 14 Myr isochrone and the color-magnitude diagram for all h Per stars is exceptional. The isochrone accurately reproduces the cluster locus from V, V-I = 10, 0 to V, V-I = 22.5, 2.8. At 14 Myr, this range corresponds to stars with masses $\gtrsim$ 0.6 M$_{\odot}$. Isochrones for 12.6 Myr and 15.8 Myr (not shown) also show fair agreement, though slightly younger (11.2 Myr) and older (17.8 Myr) isochrones provide a much poorer fit[^6].
The vast majority (142/165) of Chandra-detected sources, especially those fainter than V=16, track this sequence extremely well. Many X-ray sources follow the isochrone from V $\approx$ 10 to V $\approx$ 21. A smaller number of much fainter X-ray sources (V $\sim$ 22–23, V-I $\sim$ 2.75-4) also track the locus of cluster stars. In addition to stars in the cluster, 12 foreground stars are X-ray active.
The X-ray active stars also follow clear sequences in an HR diagram (Figure \[specvvmi\], top panel) and in a diagram of V-I vs. spectral type (Figure \[specvvmi\], bottom panel). Aside from two early-type stars, there is a clear relation between color and spectral type in the lower panel of Figure \[specvvmi\]. The X-ray active cluster sequence extends from V = 11, V-I= 0.4 to V = 23.5, V-I= 3.5. Over this range, h Persei sources have spectral types betweeen B2 and M0. Most detected X-ray active stars are F5-G5 stars with V=16-20 and V-I = 1-1.5. Early A stars with an intrinsic V-I $\sim$ 0 have an observed V-I $\sim$ 0.7 consistent with the mean cluster reddening of E(B-V) $\approx$ 0.56 [@Bb88; @Sl02].
Using the same upper and lower bounds in V/V-I to identify probable cluster members lacking X-ray detections, Chandra detects less than 10% of the h Persei cluster members. Within 8.5’ of the center of the Chandra/ACIS coverage, 1,621 stars with V=11-22 lie within 0.75 mags of the isochrone. Of these stars, 130 have Chandra detections. These stars thus have optical colors and magnitudes consistent with cluster membership. The total fraction of X-ray detected cluster members with the same V, V-I limits and located within 8.5’ of h Per is $\approx$ 8% (130/1621)[^7]. In comparison, there are 1,764 stars within 8.5’ of h Per that lie off the isochrone; 28 of these have Chandra detections. Therefore, $\approx$ 1.6% of nonmembers show evidence for X-ray activity (28/1764).
Converting from optical color and magnitude to stellar mass using the Geneva/Baraffe isochrone further constrains the fraction of cluster stars detected as a function of stellar mass. Very few high mass stars (M=2 M$_{\odot}$–5 M$_{\odot}$, V/V-I = 0.52 — 0.75) are detected (2.6%, 6/230). A slightly larger fraction of subsolar-mass stars (0.6 M$_{\odot}$–1 M$_{\odot}$, V-I =1.87 — 2.66) is detected (5.9%, 24/407). The detection rate for intermediate (1–2 M$_{\odot}$, V/V-I = 0.78 – 1.87) mass stars is highest, $\approx$ 11% (97/911).
X-ray Luminosity and Fractional X-ray Luminosity
------------------------------------------------
The vast majority of Chandra-detected sources with optical counterparts have optical magnitudes, colors, and spectra consistent with membership in h Persei. We now analyze the X-ray properties of likely h Persei members. X-ray active members are defined as those within 0.75 magnitudes of the 14 Myr isochrone[^8]. We assume an extinction of E(B-V) $\sim$ 0.56, an age of 14 Myr, and a distance modulus of dM=11.85 for the cluster [@Sl02; @Cu08b].
From these membership criteria, we investigate the X-ray luminosity function and the distribution of fractional X-ray luminosities. The X-ray luminosity function probes the absolute X-ray luminosity produced by the stellar chromosphere; the fractional X-ray luminosity function explores how X-ray luminous the star is compared to its photosphere. We compare these luminosity functions with the stars’ dereddened colors and spectral types to investigate how they correlate with stellar properties.
The fractional luminosity, L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$, is estimated from the observed L$_{x}$ and the bolometric luminosity, L$_{\star}$, derived from the well-constrained age, reddening, and distance for h Persei. Assuming that all h Persei stars are $\sim$ 14 Myr old and have E(B-V) $\sim$ 0.56, we evaluated the expected spectral type, mass, and bolometric luminosity from V,V-I. The derived L$_{\star}$ for sources with V-I colors in between points on the Geneva/Baraffe isochrone grid is determined by interpolating between the points in theoretical log(L$_{\star}$) space.
### X-Ray and Fractional X-Ray Luminosity Functions
Figure \[lxdist\] shows the observed X-ray luminosity function for h Persei. The number counts peak at log(L$_{x}$, ergs s$^{-1}$) $\sim$ 30.3 (2 $\times$ 10$^{30}$ ergs s$^{-1}$). To compare the peak to predictions for the limiting X-ray luminosity, we follow @Fei02 [@Fe05] who compute the limiting L$_{x}$ for a given exposure time, source distance, and n$_{H}$. For the full 0.5–8 keV band, log(L$_{x, lim}$, ergs s$^{-1}$) $\sim$ 30.3, in agreement with the observed peak.
We also show the distribution for the subset of stars with V-I=1.585-2.225 (dotted line). At 14 Myr, these stars should have M$_{\star}$ $\sim$ 0.9–1.2 M$_{\odot}$ and have G spectral types on the main sequence. The distribution for 0.9–1.2 M$_{\odot}$ stars is similar to the function for the entire population, though it lacks any stars with log(L$_{x}$) $\ge$ 31.
Because Chandra detects $\lesssim$ 10% of all cluster stars, members without detections have lower X-ray luminosities. X-ray luminosity functions for both young and older clusters have many stars with log(L$_{x}$ ergs s$^{-1}$) $<<$ 30.3 [e.g. @Pr205; @Je06]. Thus, the distribution of L$_{x}$ shown in Figure \[lxdist\] identifies the completeness limit in L$_{x}$, and the true X-ray luminosity function peaks at log(L$_{x}$ ergs s$^{-1}$) $<<$ 30.3.
The distribution of L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ is peaked at L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\sim$ 10$^{-3.5}$ (Figure \[lxdist\]b). Because the vast majority of cluster stars are undetected, the true fractional X-ray luminosity function is likely peaked towards lower values. Three stars have a much higher fractional luminosity ($\approx$ 10$^{-2}$), and several have a lower fractional luminosity of $\approx$ 10$^{-3.8}$–10$^{-4.8}$.
Five sources– all early-type, high-mass stars– have an extremely low fractional luminosity of $\approx$ 10$^{-6}$–10$^{-7}$. High-mass stars produce X-ray emission from wind shocks, not a magnetic dynamo as in solar/subsolar-mass stars, which yields far lower L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ [@Ste05]. While an unseen low-mass companion could be responsible for the X-ray emission, this is an unlikely source for X-ray emission around high-mass stars in h Per. B5 stars with L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\approx$ 10$^{-6}$ typically have V $\approx$ 12; G stars with L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\approx$ 10$^{-3.5}$ have V $\approx$ 18. The bolometric corrections for B5 stars are BC $\approx$ -1.6; the corrections for G0 stars are BC $\approx$ -0.2. Therefore, B5 stars are $\approx$ 7.4 magnitudes brighter than G stars. Thus, the fractional X-ray luminosity of a G0 star in a G0/B5 binary needed to yield an observed L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ for the system of $\approx$ 10$^{-6}$ is $\approx$ 10$^{-3}$. Chandra detects only the most X-ray luminous G stars in h Per, which have L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\le$ 10$^{-3}$. Because $\gtrsim$ 90% of cluster G stars are less X-ray luminous, the likelihood that an unseen companion generates the X-ray flux observed from B stars is low.
Deeper X-ray observations would yield a better measure of the X-ray luminosity function and fractional X-ray luminosity function in h Per. In the younger Orion Nebula Cluster, @Pr05 detect $\gtrsim$ 90% of the 0.9-1.2 M$_{\odot}$ stars with typical L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\sim$ 10$^{-5}$ to 10$^{-2}$ and a median L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\approx$ 10$^{-3}$ to 10$^{-3.5}$. At the distance of h Persei, many of these stars would lie below the Chandra detection limit for G-type stars. Thus, the true X-ray and fractional X-ray luminosity functions are likely peaked at lower L$_{x}$ and L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ values.
### X-Ray Properties vs. Other Stellar Properties
The fractional X-ray luminosity correlates well with dereddened V-I color (Figure \[xvsopt\]a). Most sources occupy a region bounded by V-I = -0.2-1.3 and log(L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$) $\sim$ -4 to -3. Bright cluster stars with blue V-I colors have weak X-ray emission compared to their photospheres; fainter stars with red V-I colors have relatively strong X-ray emission. Figures \[xvsopt\]a and b show that the five extremely low fractional luminosity sources identified in Figure \[lxdist\]b are mostly B0-B5 stars. The lack of low-luminosity late-type stars is likely due to the Chandra sensitivity limits, which are shown as a dashed line. However, high-luminosity, early-type stars (log ($L_{x}$/L$_{\star}$) $\sim$ -3) with V-I $\sim$ -0.2 – 0.3 are absent in h Persei and should have been easily detected.
Because brighter clusters stars at a given age have earlier spectral types than fainter cluster stars, the fractional X-ray luminosity of h Persei stars also correlates with spectral type (Figure \[xvsopt\]b). Cluster stars with V-I $\sim$ -0.2 – 0.3 have spectral types between $\sim$ B0 and F5. Though h Persei contains thousands of stars with these spectral types, none of them have L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\gtrsim$ 10$^{-3.5}$.
In summary, Figure \[xvsopt\] shows that stars with small L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ ($\approx$ 10$^{-7}$–10$^{-5}$) are early type (B/A), higher-mass stars while those with larger L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ ($\approx$ 10$^{-5}$–10$^{-3}$) are intermediate type/mass stars (FGK). The B and A stars with X-ray emission are more massive than $\approx$ 2 M$_{\odot}$ at 14 Myr [@Ba98; @Si00]. The F–K stars with higher fractional luminosity have masses of $\approx$ 1–2 M$_{\odot}$. While Chandra likely detects only the most X-ray luminous cluster stars, these data provide some constraints on the X-ray luminosity function, specifically its upper envelope as a function of spectral type.
X-Ray Properties and IR Excess from Warm Debris Disks
-----------------------------------------------------
The Double Cluster, h and $\chi$ Persei, contains the largest known population of warm debris disks [@Cu07a; @Cu07b; @Cu08a; @Cu08b]. Ongoing terrestrial planet formation is the most likely source for the observed debris [@Kb04]. Here we analyze the X-ray properties of Chandra-detected h Persei sources with warm debris disks. We focus on a) whether X-ray luminosity correlates with the amount of debris emission and b) identifying the X-ray luminosity of X-ray bright stars that are likely forming terrestrial planets.
Figure \[stypekm4\] shows the spectral types of Chandra sources vs. their observed K$_{s}$-\[8\] colors. X-ray bright stars with IRAC detections cover a wide range of spectral types (B0-K3). Most stars have spectral types earlier than G3 with K$_{s}$-\[8\] $\approx$ 0–0.3. To compare these colors with the predicted colors of stellar photospheres, we add the locus of stellar K$_{s}$-\[8\] colors for B0–M0 stars from the Kurucz-Lejeune stellar atmosphere models using the SENS-PET tool available on the Spitzer Science Center website[^9]. The locus of photospheric colors is nearly independent of spectral type from A stars through G stars (K$_{s}$-\[8\] $\approx$ 0), covering almost the entire spectral type range of Chandra sources.
Figure \[stypekm4\] also reveals four Chandra sources with IR excess emission from circumstellar dust. @Cu07a identified 8 $\mu m$ excess sources as those with K$_{s}$-\[8\] $\ge$ 0.4 + $\sigma$\[8\], where $\sigma$\[8\] is the typical uncertainty in the 8 $\mu m$ magnitude. For FGK stars with typical \[8\] $\sim$ 13.75, $\sigma$\[8\] $\sim$ 0.1 [@Cu07a]. Three stars have K$_{s}$-\[8\] colors redder than $\sim$ 0.5 and thus have 8 $\mu m$ excess consistent with warm, terrestrial zone dust. A fourth star without a spectral type also has K$_{s}$-\[8\] $>$ 0.5. Thus, at least 4 Chandra detections have excess emission at 8 $\mu m$.
The frequency of 8 $\mu m$ excess emission among Chandra detections is comparable to the fraction in the entire cluster. The frequency of Chandra-detected stars with 8 $\mu m$ excess is 4/123 (3.3% $\pm$ 1.7%. The frequency for Chandra-detected cluster members is 4/106 (3.7% $\pm$ 1.9%). For all F0-G5 stars in h and $\chi$ Persei, the fraction ranges from $\approx$ 4% to 8% [@Cu07a; @Cu08b; @Cu08c]. Given the small sample of X-ray bright stars with evidence for warm dust, the similarity in excess frequency between them and stars lacking Chandra detections should be considered a tentative result.
Figure \[lxvwarm\] compares the K$_{s}$-\[8\] colors and X-ray luminosities for Chandra-detected cluster members. Most stars have log(L$_{x}$, ergs s$^{-1}$) $\sim$ 30-30.8. Sources with red K$_{s}$-\[8\] colors do not identify a unique space in this plot. Three 8 $\mu m$-excess stars have log(L$_{x}$, ergs s$^{-1}$) $\sim$ 30-30.4; a fourth has log(L$_{x}$, ergs s$^{-1}$) $\sim$ 30.8. The Spearman’s rank test, a non-parametric measure of correlation, reveals that the distribution of L$_{x}$ with K$_{s}$-\[8\] color is consistent with a random distribution (probability $\approx$ 23%, d=0.17).
Figure \[lxvwarm\]b shows the distribution of fractional X-ray luminosity with K$_{s}$-\[8\] color. Most IRAC-detected stars have L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\sim$ 10$^{-4.75}$–10$^{-2.75}$, which are typical of the X-ray bright population as a whole. Sources with 8 $\mu m$ excess define a slightly more narrow distribution between L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\sim$ 10$^{-4}$–10$^{-2.9}$. According to the Spearman’s rank test, the probability that L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ is not correlated with the K$_{s}$-\[8\] color is $\approx$ 0.89% (d=0.44). Thus, there is a 2–3$\sigma$ correlation between X-ray flux and K$_{s}$-\[8\] color.
If this trend is real, the fractional X-ray luminosity probably does not affect the amount of debris emission. @Cu07a and @Cu08c find that intermediate-type (FG) stars more frequently have 8 $\mu m$ excess than earlier stars. Intermediate-type stars also have higher fractional X-ray luminosities regardless of their circumstellar environment (Figure \[xvsopt\]b). Therefore, the correlation between L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ and IR excess in Figure \[lxvwarm\]b is likely due to the intrinsically larger fractional X-ray luminosities and higher frequencies of warm dust for intermediate-type stars compared to early-type stars.
In spite of these results, we caution that they apply only to the *X-ray bright* population of stars with warm dust, not the population of disk-bearing sources as a whole. Other stars with warm dust located within the Chandra coverage must be more X-ray faint. Deeper Chandra data are required to more definitively probe the relationship between X-ray activity and IR excess.
X-ray Active Stars and Planet Formation in h Persei
---------------------------------------------------
If the 8 $\mu m$ excess emission is due to active terrestrial planet formation, we can estimate the X-ray flux incident on forming planets given the temperature and location of the dust. @Cu08a derive dust temperatures of $\approx$ 250-400 K for stars with 8 $\mu m$ excess. Using the bolometric luminosity derived from the Geneva/Baraffe isochrone, we calculate the location of the dust assuming that dust grains are in radiative equilibrium with a temperature of $\approx$ 300 K. Derived dust locations range from $\approx$ 0.92 AU to 1.36 AU. From the location of the dust, we calculate the X-ray flux.
The incident X-ray flux on objects at the dust locations ranges from 1.53 $\times$ 10$^{2}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ to 2.20 $\times$ 10$^{3}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. These levels are equal to or larger than the X-ray flux intercepted by the atmosphere of the hot Jupiter HD 209458b ($\sim$ 200 ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ for L$_{x}$ $\approx$ 1.1$\times$ 10$^{27}$ ergs s$^{-1}$ at 0.045 AU, see @Pe08). Thus, a planet with a mass and radius similar to HD 209458b located at $\approx$ 1 AU from an X-ray luminous G star in h Per may experience similar rates of atmospheric erosion of up to $\approx$ 10$^{10}$ g s$^{-1}$ [@Vid03; @Vid04].
However, this level of atmospheric escape will not likely be sustained by any jovian planets in the terrestrial zones of h Per stars. @Pe08 indicate that the timescale for erosion of a significant fraction of a planet’s mass is on the order of 100 Myr–1 Gyr. Over this timescale, the X-ray luminosity of the star will drop by several orders of magnitude [@Pr05], which greatly reduces the rate of atmospheric escape.
Comparison With Other 1–100 Myr-old Chandra-observed Clusters
=============================================================
X-ray emission from young stars is most often associated with a magnetic dynamo, the “$\alpha$-$\Omega$” dynamo [@Pa55; @Ba61; @Ba03]. Differential rotation between an inner radiative core and an outer convective envelope drives the dynamo and powers chromospheric and coronal activity. For the @Si00 isochrones of a 14 Myr-old cluster, we expect stars with outer convective envelopes to have spectral types later than $\sim$ G0 and stellar masses less than $\sim$ 1.4–1.5 $M_{\odot}$.
Early-type stars without convective envelopes do not produce a dynamo. Thus, these stars do not display stellar activity. However, many early-type stars have large X-ray luminosities with typical $L_x / L_{\star} \approx$ $4-400 \times 10^{-6}$ [e.g., @Chl89; @Ste05]. Shocks in high velocity stellar winds are the most likely source of X-ray emission in these stars [e.g., @Feld97]. For h Per, we expect wind emission to dominate chromospheric activity for stars with spectral types earlier than F0 and masses larger than $\sim$ 1.7 $M_{\odot}$.
Our results suggest that h Per contains both types of X-ray sources. Late-type stars likely powered by the $\alpha$-$\Omega$ dynamo have $L_x / L_{\star} \lesssim$ $10^{-3}$ (Figure \[xvsopt\]). Stars with spectral types earlier than $\sim$ F0 have fractional X-ray luminosities comparable to typical wind-driven sources. These fluxes are probably not produced by an unseen late-type companion (§3.2.1). Thus, shocks probably produce X-ray emission in these stars.
In this section, we compare the X-ray properties of h Per stars with X-ray active stars in younger and older clusters studied by Chandra and XMM-Newton. We divide our sample into “early” (B0-A3) and “intermediate” (FGK) type stars. Comparing h Per data with results for other clusters then provides constraints on the evolution of X-ray activity from intermediate-type stars and stellar wind-driven emission from early-type stars.
X-Ray Emission from Early-Type, High-Mass Stars (B0-A3)
-------------------------------------------------------
@Ste05 divide early type X-ray active stars in the ONC into two groups. “Strong wind” stars have spectral types between O and B3 (M $\gtrsim$ 7 M$_{\odot}$); “weak wind” stars have spectral types between B5 and A9 (M $\sim$ 2–7 M$_{\odot}$). More than half (16) ONC early-type stars show clear evidence for X-ray emission. Orion stars with spectral types earlier than B3 are strong-wind stars with X-ray emission. About 64% of stars with spectral types between B5 and A9 are detected by Chandra.
At 14 Myr, assuming that the division between strong and weak-wind stars is set by stellar mass, strong wind sources in h Per have spectral types earlier than B3. Weak wind stars have spectral types between B3 and A3. Chandra detects 9 h Per stars earlier than A3. None of these stars correspond to Be stars or candidate Be stars identified by @Bk05, @Sl02, and @Cu08a and none show H$_{\alpha}$ emission characteristic of Be stars. Compared to the total population of B0-A3 stars within 8.5’ of h Persei (where V-I $\le$ 0.76), $\approx$ 4% are detected by Chandra. About 5.7% (6/106) of stars earlier than B3 (V-I $\lesssim$ 0.4) are detected, while 2.8% (6/217) of stars between B3 and A3 are detected. Other early-type cluster members either lack X-ray activity or have wind-driven X-ray luminosities less than $\approx$ 10$^{30}$ ergs s$^{-1}$.
If the X-ray luminosity function for strong and weak-wind sources does not evolve from $\sim$ 1 Myr to $\sim$ 14 Myr, Chandra should have detected more weak wind and strong-wind h Per stars. Most (6/9) of the strong-wind stars in Orion have X-ray luminosities greater than the peak in L$_{x}$ for h Per ($\sim$ 30.3 ergs s$^{-1}$). Similarly, 44% (3/7) of the weak-wind Orion stars have L$_{x}$ $\ge$ 30.3 ergs s$^{-1}$. Although sensitivity limits for h Per observations preclude more detailed comparisons between the ONC and h Per luminosities for early-type stars, these results may suggest that the X-ray luminosities for early-type, high-mass stars at 14 Myr are weaker than they are at 1–2 Myr.
X-Ray Emission from $\lesssim$ 3 M$_{\odot}$ (FGK) Stars
--------------------------------------------------------
Recent Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of young stellar clusters provide some constraints on the evolution of X-ray activity as a function of age and stellar mass for intermediate and low-mass stars. Independent of stellar mass, the typical fractional X-ray luminosity of 1 Myr-old stars in the ONC is L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\approx$ 10$^{-3}$ [@Pr205]. For most young stars, the stellar rotational velocity increases with stellar mass, so L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ is independent of rotation [@Pr05]. By analogy with dynamo models for X-ray activity, the fractional X-ray luminosity for these stars is “saturated”.
By $\approx$ 40-50 Myr, when intermediate-mass stars are on the main sequence, the stellar rotation rates of intermediate-mass have declined significantly [@Pr96; @Je06] and correlate better with X-ray flux. Stars in 50 Myr-old $\alpha$ Persei [@Pr96 Fig. 5] show a systematic decline in L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ from 1.2 M$_{\odot}$ (B-V $\sim$ 0.6, G1 at 50 Myr) to 1.4 M$_{\odot}$ (B-V $\sim$ 0.4, F5 at 50 Myr). Cluster stars with masses $<$ 1.2 M$_{\odot}$ have L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ $\sim$ 10$^{-3}$ and thus have saturated X-ray emission. The distribution of L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ for NGC 2547 (38 Myr) shows a similar trend [@Je06].
At ages $\gtrsim$ 100 Myr, subsolar-mass stars leave X-ray saturation. A wide range of stars in the Pleiades (M $\le$ 0.85 M$_{\odot}$; K3 at 100 Myr) are intrinsically much fainter in X-rays than younger stars with the same mass. Finally, older field stars more massive than $\gtrsim$ 0.1 M$_{\odot}$ also exhibit a decline in X-ray luminosity relative to younger clusters [@Pr205; @Pr05]. L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ ranges from 10$^{-4.5}$ to 10$^{-8}$ for solar-mass stars and 10$^{-4}$ to 10$^{-6.5}$ for subsolar-mass stars. The evolution of fractional X-ray luminosity vs. time shows a systematic decline and is consistent with the @Sk72 braking track [@Sk72 L$_{x}$(t) $\propto$ t$^{-1/2}$].
At least two mechanisms are responsible for the evolution of L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ as a star contracts onto the main sequence. Rotational spin-down of a star reduces differential rotation at the radiative zone/convective zone boundary. Because differential rotation is responsible for driving the magnetic dynamo that produces X-ray emission, X-ray activity diminishes [@Pr05].
Intermediate and high-mass stars also undergo significant structural changes as they evolve onto the main sequence. At the age of the Orion Nebula Cluster ($\sim$ 2 Myr), main sequence A stars (1.7–2.5 M$_{\odot}$) have spectral types between K1 and K4 [@Si00]. From 2 Myr to 30 Myr, $\sim$ 2 M$_{\odot}$ stars evolve in spectral type from K3 to G8 (5 Myr) to A3 (30 Myr). Main sequence F3 stars ($\sim$ 1.5 M$_{\odot}$) also undergo substantial changes in their internal structure, evolving from at $\sim$ K5 at 2 Myr, to K0 at 10 Myr, to F3 at 30 Myr. As stars evolve from G/K stars to A/F stars, their outer convective zones shrink and then disappear. The disappearance of their convective zones eliminates magnetic dynamo-induced X-ray activity [see @Gi86; @Ste05; @Pr05].
The X-ray detections for stars in h Per place useful constraints on both of these mechanisms. For h Per stars with masses $\sim$ 1.0–1.5 $M_{\odot}$, the maximum in log $L_x/L_{\star}$ ($\sim$ $-$2.8 to $-$3.0) is similar to the maximum observed in the ONC. Thus, there is no clear evidence for evolution in X-ray activity among 1–1.5 $M_{\odot}$ stars from $\approx$ 1 Myr to $\approx$ 14 Myr. Deeper Chandra data are required to probe the X-ray luminosity function of solar and subsolar-mass stars at smaller L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ and to constrain the evolution of their X-ray activity.
For more massive stars, there is clear evidence of evolution in X-ray activity. At $\approx$ 14 Myr, h Per stars with A0 to $\sim$ G0 spectral types have masses of 3 $M_{\odot}$ to 1.5 $M_{\odot}$. In the ONC, stars with these masses have a maximum log $L_x/L_{\star}$ $\approx$ $-$2.7 to $-$3.0. This maximum is independent of spectral type. In h Per, the maximum $L_x/L_{\star}$ clearly declines with spectral type. Our Chandra data yield an approximate relation log $(L_x/L_{\star})_{max}$ $\approx$ $-3.5 - (M_{\star} / 1.5 M_{\odot})$ for 1.5–3 $M_{\odot}$ stars. Thus, the fractional X-ray luminosity declines by a factor of roughly 30 (3) for 3 (1.5) $M_{\odot}$ stars.
Pre-main sequence stellar evolution is the simplest explanation for the evolution of log $(L_x/L_{\star})_{max}$ in 1.5-3 $M_{\odot}$ stars. As these stars evolve to the main sequence, their effective temperatures increase and they lose their convective envelopes. Stars with masses $\gtrsim$ 1.8 $M_{\odot}$ have spectral types earlier than A7 and lack the convective atmospheres need for magnetic dynamo-driven X-ray activity. Thus, the X-ray activity of these stars may be similar to the weak wind sources at earlier spectral types. Stars with masses $\sim$ 1.5–1.8 $M_{\odot}$ have $\sim$ A7–G0 spectral types and much smaller convective atmospheres than G-type stars. These stars can drive weak dynamos and thus have larger fractional X-ray fluxes than earlier type stars. In both sets of stars, the decline in X-ray activity appears linked to changes in stellar structure as the stars evolve from K-type stars at $\sim$ 1–2 Myr to A-type stars on the main sequence.
Deeper Chandra data in h and $\chi$ Per and other 5–50 Myr-old clusters can test these conclusions. If stellar evolution is responsible for the decay of X-ray emission among more massive stars approaching the main sequence, this decay should be correlated with spectral type and uncorrelated with stellar rotation. Chandra observations of other young clusters are needed to see how $(L_x/L_{\star})_{max}$ and the X-ray luminosity function of massive stars evolves with cluster age. If changes in the magnetic dynamo are responsible for the decay of X-ray activity among lower mass stars, deeper observations of (i) 10–20 Myr clusters (to measure the X-ray luminosity function for 0.1–1.5 $M_{\odot})$ stars) and (ii) 20–50 Myr clusters (to measure evolution in $(L_x/L_{\star})_{max}$) are required.
Summary
=======
We analyze the first Chandra survey of h Persei, part of the Double Cluster in Perseus. By matching Chandra-detected sources with optical/IR photometry and spectra, we identify X-ray active cluster members. Using the well constrained age and distance to h Per, we compute the bolometric luminosity of h Per stars and compare this luminosity to the derived X-ray luminosity. Comparing the X-ray luminosity and fractional X-ray luminosity to optical colors, spectra, and near-to-mid IR colors, we investigate the connection between X-ray activity and stellar/circumstellar properties.
These analyses yield the following results:
- There is a clear correlation of V, V-I with spectral type for the X-ray detections. The position of X-ray active stars relative to the observable cluster locus in V, V-I and their locus in V vs. spectral type shows that the vast majority of these stars are likely cluster members.
- Within the ACIS coverage, Chandra detects 8% of cluster stars more massive than $\approx$ 0.6 M$_{\odot}$. About 10% of 1–2 M$_{\odot}$ stars are detected while $\sim$ 3% of 2–5 M$_{\odot}$ stars and $\approx$ 6% of 0.6–1 M$_{\odot}$ stars are detected. Thus, the sources detected by Chandra likely correspond to the bright end of a much larger population of X-ray active stars.
- The observed distribution of X-ray luminosities for Chandra-detected h Per sources peaks at log(L$_{x}$) $\sim$ 30.3. Because of the sensitivity limitations of Chandra, the true X-ray luminosity function likely peaks at a lower luminosity.
- The observed distribution of fractional X-ray luminosities correlates well with the V-I color and with spectral type. Early-type stars (M $\gtrsim$ 2 M$_{\odot}$) have a very small fractional luminosity (log(L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$) $<$ -4 to -5); L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$ is much larger for G and K stars (M $\sim$ 1–1.4 M$_{\odot}$, (log(L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$) $\sim$ -4 to -3).
- There is no evidence for an X-ray saturated population of stars more massive than $\sim$ 1.5 M$_{\odot}$. In the Orion Nebula Cluster, the most X-ray active 1.5–3 M$_{\odot}$ stars have log(L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$) $\approx$ -3 independent of stellar mass. In h Persei, the most X-ray active 1.5–3 M$_{\odot}$ stars have log(L$_{x}$/L$_{\star}$) $\approx$ -3.5 - M$_{\star}$/1.5M$_{\odot}$. Changes in stellar structure as these stars contract onto the main sequence likely play a critical role in this decline of X-ray activity.
- From our sample of X-ray bright stars, the presence of warm, terrestrial zone circumstellar dust is not correlated with X-ray luminosity. While stars with higher fractional X-ray luminosity are more likely to have warm dust, this trend is likely due to the higher frequency of warm dust around intermediate-type stars than around early-type stars.
- The warm circumstellar dust emission from X-ray active stars studied in this paper likely results from debris emission due to terrestrial planet formation [e.g. @Cu07a; @Cu07b; @Cu08a; @Cu08c]. By computing the X-ray luminosity of these sources and assuming a dust temperature of $\approx$ 300 K, we derive an incident X-ray flux on forming terrestrial planets in systems with X-ray bright stars. This flux is very small compared to stellar irradiation and the radiated flux from terrestrial zone dust. Thus, X-ray emission is unlikely to affect the detectability of warm debris disks.
These data show that h Persei is important in understanding the evolution of X-ray activity for a range of stellar masses and provides connections between X-ray activity and terrestrial planet formation. Deeper Chandra observations of h Persei can better constrain the X-ray luminosity function to lower stellar masses, provide a much larger sample from which to compare X-ray activity and planet formation, and more clearly reveal the characteristic X-ray environment experienced by forming terrestrial planets. Deeper Chandra observations will also yield enough counts for X-ray bright sources to study the evolution of coronal temperatures in intermediate-mass stars.
We thank Leslie Hebb and Simon Hodgkin for KPNO observing and Nelson Caldwell, Susan Tokarz, Perry Berlind, and Mike Calkins for scheduling, taking, and reducing the Hectospec spectra. We also thank Tom Barnes and Rebecca Cover for early work on this project. Comments from the referee, Leisa Townsley, greatly improved the manuscript. This work is supported by NASA Astrophysics Theory grant NAG5-13278, Spitzer GO grant 1320379, and NASA TPF Foundation Science grant NNG06GH25G. T.C. received support from a SAO Predoctoral Fellowship. N.R.E., B.D.S, and S.J.W. are supported by NASA contract numbers NAS8-03060 and G0-6007A.
Aigrain, S., et al., 2007, , 375, 29 Babcock, H. W., 1961, , 133, 572 Baliunas, S., et al., 1995, , 438, 269 Baraffe, I., et al., 1998, A&A, 337, 403 Baraffe, I., Selsis, F., Chabrier, G., Barman, T., Allard, F., Hauschildt, P., Lammer, H., 2004, A&A, 419, 13L Barnes, S., 2003, , 586, 464 Bauer, F., et al., 2004, , 128, 2048 Bessel, M., Brett, J., 1988, , 100, 1134 Bragg, A. & Kenyon, S., 2005, , 130, 134 Broos, P., et al., 2007, , 169, 353 Cash, W., 1979, , 228, 939 Chlebowski, T., Harnden, F. R., Jr., & Sciortino, S. 1989, , 341, 427 Currie, T., et al., 2007, , 659, 599 Currie, T., Kenyon, S., Rieke, G., Balog, Z., Bromley, B., 2007, , 663L, 105 Currie, T., Kenyon, S., Balog, Z., Bragg, A., Tokarz, S., 2007, , 669L, 33 Currie, T., Kenyon, S., Balog, Z., Rieke, G., Bragg, A., Bromley, B., 2008, , 672, 558 Currie, T., Kenyon, S. J., 2008, submitted Currie, T., 2008, Ph.D. thesis, University of California-Los Angeles Currie, T., Plavchan, P., Kenyon, S. J., 2008, , 688, 597 Currie, T., Irwin, J., Hernandez, J., et al., 2008, in prep. Dahm, S., Simon, T., Proszkow, E. M., Patten, B. M., 2007, , 134, 999 Daniel, K., Linsky, J., Gagne, M., 2002, , 578, 486 Evans, N. R., Seward, F., 2000, , 538, 777 Evans, N., et al., 2008, in prep. Fabricant, D., et al., 2005, , 117, 1411 Feigelson, E., Montmerle, T., 1999, ARA&A, 37, 363 Feigelson, E., et al., 2002, , 572, 335 Feigelson, E., et al., 2005, , 160, 379 Feldmeier, A., Puls, J., & Pauldrach, A. W. A. 1997, , 322, 878 Freeman, P. E., Kashyap, V., Rosner, R., Lambd, D. Q., 2002, , 138, 185 Getman, K. V., et al. 2005, , 160, 319 Gilliland, R. L., 1986, , 300, 339 Glassgold, A., Najita, J., Igea, J., 1997, , 480, 344 Güdel, M., Guinan, E. F., & Skinner, S. L., 1997, , 483, 947 Güdel, M., 2004, A&A Rev, 12, 71 Güdel, M. et al. 2007, A&A, 468, 353 Habing, H. J., et al., 2001, A&A, 365, 545 Hernandez, J., et al., 2004, , 127, 1682 Irwin, M., Lewis, J., 2001, New Astronomy, 45, 105 Irwin, J., Irwin, M., Aigrain, S., Hodgkin, S., Hebb, L., Moraux, E., 2007, , 375, 1449 Jeffries, R., Evans, P. A., Pye, J. P., Briggs, K. R., 2006, , 367, 781 Keller, S.C., et al., 2001, , 122, 248 Kenyon, S., Bromley, B., 2004, , 602, 133L Kenyon, S. J., Bromley, B., 2006, , 131, 1837 Kenyon, S. J., Hartmann, L., 1995, , 101, 117 Lammer, H., Selsis, F., Ribas, I., Guinan, E. F., Bauer, S. J., Weiss, W. W., 2003, , 598, 124L Lammer, H., et al., 2007, Astrobiology, 7, 185 Lyra, W., et al., 2006, A&A, 453, 101 Meynet, G., Merilliod, J-C., Maeder, A., 1993, A&AS, 98, 477 Micela, G., et al., 1985, , 292, 172 Micela, G., et al., 1999, A&A, 341, 751 Miller, G., Scalo, J., 1979, , 41, 513 Noyes, R., Hartmann, L., Baliunas, S., Duncan, D., Vaughan, A., 1984, , 279, 763 Parker, E. N., 1955, , 122, 293 Penz, T., Micela, G., Lammer, H., 2008, A&A, 477, 309 Pallavicini, R., Golub, L., Rosner, R., Vaiana, G., Ayres, T., Linsky, J., 1981, , 248, 279 Patten, B., Simon, T., 1996, , 106, 489 Pizzolato, N., Maggio, A., Micela, G., Sciortino, S., Ventura, P., A&A, 397, 147 Preibisch, T., Zinnecker, H., 2002, , 123, 1613 Preibisch, T., et al., 2005, , 160, 401 Preibisch, T., Feigelson, E., 2005, , 160, 390 Prosser, C. F., et al., 1996, , 112, 1570 Randich, S., Schmitt, J., Prosser, C., Stauffer, J., 1996, A&A, 305, 785 Ryter, C. E., 1996, Ap&SS, 236, 285 Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., Maeder, A., 1992, A&AS, 96, 269 Siess, L., et al., 2000, A&A, 358, 593 Skumanich, A, 1972, , 171, 565 Shu, F., Shang, H., Lee, T., 1996, Science, 271, 1545 Slesnick, C., Hillenbrand, L., and Massey, P., 2002, , 576, 880 Spitzbart, B., et al., 2008, in prep. Stelzer, B., et al., 2005, , 160, 557 Thommes, E., Matsumura, S., and Rasio, F., 2008, Science accepted, arXiv:0808.1439 Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavalier des Etangs, A., Desert, J.-M., et al., 2003, Nature, 422, 143 Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavalier des Etangs, A., et al., 2004, , 604, 69L Vuong, M. H., Montmerle, T., Grosso, N., Feigelson, E. D., Verstraete, L., & Ozawa, H. 2003, A&A, 408, 581 Wetherill, G., Stewart, G., 1993, Icarus, 106, 190 Weisskopf, M. C., et al., 2002, , 114, 1
[^1]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/sherpa3.4/index.html/
[^2]: http://cxc.harvard.edu/sherpa/methods/methods.html
[^3]: The optical photometry and spectroscopy presented in this section will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming paper [@Cu08c].
[^4]: All X-ray luminosities discussed in the following sections are *absorption-corrected* luminosities
[^5]: The full versions of the tables are available in the electronic edition of this paper
[^6]: A more detailed analysis of the success/failure of isochrones of different ages as well as isochrones from different groups will be included in an upcoming paper [@Cu08c]
[^7]: Given that the locus of giant stars crosses the cluster locus at V-I $\sim$ 1.7, we expect a small amount of contamination and thus some uncertainty in the true fraction of X-ray detected cluster members.
[^8]: Technically, the upper limit should be larger than the lower limit because of binarity. For simplicity we make the upper and lower limits the same. Using a more restrictive lower limit (e.g. 0.3 magnitudes) does not affect our results.
[^9]: http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu/tools/senspet/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
G. Grunberg\
Centre de Physique Théorique, École Polytechnique, CNRS,\
91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France\
E-mail:
title: On threshold resummation of singlet structure and fragmentation functions
---
Introduction
============
Although threshold resummation of non-singlet structure and fragmentation functions is by now well established [@Sterman:1986aj; @Catani:1989ne; @Cacciari:2001cw; @Moch:2009my] in QCD, there is still not a comparable understanding of the similar problem in the singlet case. Motivated by some recent progress [@Soar:2009yh; @Vogt:2010cv; @Almasy:2010wn], this issue is addressed anew in the present paper. As in previous studies [@vanNeerven:2001pe; @Gardi:2007ma; @Grunberg:2007nc; @Moch:2009mu; @Grunberg:2009yi; @Moch:2009hr; @Grunberg:2009am; @Grunberg:2009vs; @Grunberg:2010sw] of the non-singlet case, the present approach, as well as that of [@Soar:2009yh], focuses on the properties of “physical evolution kernels” [@Furmanski:1981cw; @Catani:1996sc; @Blumlein:2000wh]. At the difference of [@Soar:2009yh] however, which uses a matrix kernel requiring the simultaneous consideration of another process (scalar $\phi$-exchange Deep Inelastic Scattering (DIS)) along with photon-exchange DIS, the present work adopts a more “intrinsic” point of view which decouples the two processes: namely, it deals with the study of the scalar physical evolution kernels (defined in section 2 and 5) occurring in the second order evolution equations [@Furmanski:1981cw; @Blumlein:2000wh] associated respectively to the singlet $F_2$ and $F_{\phi}$ structure functions. The large-$N$ behavior of the $F_2$ kernels is investigated in section 3, where it is pointed out that at large $N$ there is actually only [*one*]{} independent singlet physical kernel. In section 4, an obstruction to a standard form [@Gardi:2007ma] of threshold resummation in momentum space is observed in the three loop $F_2$ kernel at the next-to-leading logarithmic level, which is found to be removed in the “supersymmetric” case $C_A=C_F$. Assuming threshold resummation at $C_A=C_F$ does hold beyond three loop, the ensuing large-$N$ predictions for the four loop off-diagonal anomalous dimension $\gamma_{qg}^{(3)}(N)$ are derived. The corresponding predictions of [@Soar:2009yh] for the double logarithmic terms (now confirmed in [@Vogt:2010cv; @Almasy:2010wn]) are recovered, and some additional information is obtained concerning the single logarithmic terms. A similar study of the $F_{\phi}$ kernels is performed in section 5, yielding analogous large-$N$ information on $\gamma_{gq}^{(3)}(N)$. Fragmentation functions in $e^+e^-$ annihilation are dealt with in section 6, where a large-$x$ Gribov-Lipatov relation between the spacelike and timelike physical kernels is pointed out at two loop. Assuming a similar relation is valid at three loop, [*all*]{} large-$x$ logarithmic contributions to the three loop timelike splitting function $P^{(2)T}_{gq}(x)$ are predicted. The conclusions, and some additional discussion, are presented in section 7. The connection between the present approach and that of [@Soar:2009yh] is explained in Appendix A.
Physical evolution kernels of the $F_2$ singlet structure function
==================================================================
Consider the singlet $F_2$ structure function in Mellin moment space:
$$F(N,Q^2)=\int_0^1dx \ x^{N-1}F_2(x,Q^2)/x\label{F}\ .$$
At large $Q^2$, it satisfies the standard OPE representation:
$$F(N,Q^2)= <e^2_q> \Big(C_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s) q(N,\mu^2)+C_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s) g(N,\mu^2)\Big)\label{OPE}\ ,$$
where $C_a(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)$ ($a=q,g$) are the singlet quark and gluon coefficient functions, $q(N,\mu^2)=\sum_{i=1}^{n_f}(q_i+\bar{q}_i)$ the singlet quark distribution, $g(N,\mu^2)$ the gluon distribution, and the factorization scale in the coefficient functions has been chosen to be equal to the renormalization scale $\mu^2$ with $a_s= \alpha_s(\mu^2)/4\pi$. Taking two derivatives of eq.(\[OPE\]) with respect to $Q^2$, and eliminating the quark and gluon distributions, one obtains [@Furmanski:1981cw; @Blumlein:2000wh] the second order physical evolution equation:
$$\ddot {F}(N,Q^2)=K(N,Q^2)\dot {F}(N,Q^2)+J(N,Q^2)F(N,Q^2)\ ,\label{physkernels}$$
where $\dot {F}\equiv \partial F/\partial\ln Q^2$, which defines the singlet physical evolution kernels $K(N,Q^2)$ and $J(N,Q^2)$. $K$ and $J$ are renormalization group (and scheme) invariant quantities, which are obtained as combinations of coefficient functions. One gets:
$$K(N,Q^2)=\frac{C_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ddot {C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-C_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ddot {C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{C_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\dot {C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-C_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\dot {C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}\label{physkernel-K}\ ,$$
and
$$J(N,Q^2)=-\frac{\dot{C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ddot {C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-\dot{C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ddot {C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{C_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\dot {C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-C_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\dot {C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}\label{physkernel-J}\ ,$$
where $\dot {C_a}\equiv \partial C_a/\partial\ln Q^2$ (at [*fixed*]{} $\mu^2\neq Q^2$). Moreover, the renormalization group equations for the coefficient functions yield:
$$\dot {C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)=\beta(a_s)\frac{\partial C_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{\partial a_s}-\gamma_{qq}(N,a_s)C_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-\gamma_{gq}(N,a_s)C_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ ,\label{dCq}$$
$$\dot {C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)=\beta(a_s)\frac{\partial C_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{\partial a_s}-\gamma_{qg}(N,a_s)C_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-\gamma_{gg}(N,a_s)C_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ ,\label{dCg}$$
where the moment space anomalous dimensions are related to the splitting functions by the standard convention:
$$\gamma_{ab}(N,a_s)=-\int_0^1 dx \ x^{N-1} P_{ab}(x,a_s)\label{convention}\ ,$$
so that
$$\Big( \begin{array}{c} \!\! \dot{q}(N,\mu^2) \!\! \\ \! \dot{g}(N,\mu^2) \!\!
\end{array} \Big) \:=\:
- \Big( \! \begin{array}{cc}\gamma_{qq}(N,a_s)\! & \gamma_{qg}(N,a_s)\! \\
\gamma_{gq}(N,a_s)\! & \gamma_{gg}(N,a_s)\! \end{array}\! \Big) \Big( \begin{array}{c} \!\! q(N,\mu^2)\!\! \\ \! g(N,\mu^2) \!\! \end{array} \Big)
\label{A-P}\ .$$
Taking one $Q^2$ derivative of eqs.(\[dCq\]) and (\[dCg\]) one also gets: $$\ddot {C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)=\beta(a_s)\frac{\partial \dot{C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{\partial a_s}-\gamma_{qq}(N,a_s)\dot{C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-\gamma_{gq}(N,a_s)\dot{C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ ,\label{ddCq}$$ and:
$$\ddot {C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)=\beta(a_s)\frac{\partial \dot{C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{\partial a_s}-\gamma_{qg}(N,a_s)\dot{C}_q(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-\gamma_{gg}(N,a_s)\dot{C}_g(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ .\label{ddCg}$$
Inserting eqs.((\[dCq\])-(\[dCg\])) and ((\[ddCq\])-(\[ddCg\])) into eqs.(\[physkernel-K\]) and (\[physkernel-J\]), then setting $\mu^2=Q^2$ (which is legitimate since $K$ and $J$ are renormalization group invariant quantities), and using the expansions of the quark and gluon coefficient functions:
$$C_q(N,1,a_s)=1+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}c_q^{(i)}(N)a_s^i\label{Cq-expand}$$
$$C_g(N,1,a_s)=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}c_g^{(i)}(N)a_s^i\label{Cg-expand}\ ,$$
as well as those of the beta function and of the anomalous dimensions:
$$\beta(a_s)=-\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\beta_i a_s^{i+2}\label{beta-expand}$$
$$\gamma_{ab}(N,a_s)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}\gamma_{ab}^{(i)}(N)a_s^{i+1}\label{gamma-expand}$$
with $(a,b)=(q,g)$, one obtains:
$$K(N,Q^2)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}K^{(i)}(N) a_s^{i+1}
\label{K-expand}$$
and
$$J(N,Q^2)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}J^{(i)}(N) a_s^{i+2}
\label{J-expand}\ ,$$
where $a_s=a_s(Q^2)$, and $K^{(i)}(N)$ and $J^{(i)}(N)$ are expressed as (rather long) combinations of the coefficient functions and anomalous dimensions expansion coefficients.
Large-N
=======
Let us now consider the large-$N$ limit. Using the known large-$N$ expansions of the anomalous dimensions and of the coefficient functions, one deduces the large-$N$ expansions of $K^{(i)}(N)$ and $J^{(i)}(N)$. In the following, I shall focus on $K^{(i)}(N)$ only, since one can show (Appendix A.1) that at large $N$, $J(N,Q^2)$ can be expressed in term of $K(N,Q^2)$ and the physical evolution kernel $K_{ns}(N,Q^2)$ of the non-singlet $F_{2}$ structure function $F_{ns}$:
$$J(N,Q^2)\sim {\dot K}_{ns}(N,Q^2)-K_{ns}(N,Q^2)\Big[K(N,Q^2)-K_{ns}(N,Q^2)\Big]+{\cal O}(1/N^2)\label{J-largeN}\ ,$$
with $$\dot{F}_{ns}(N,Q^2)=K_{ns}(N,Q^2)F_{ns}(N,Q^2)\ .\label{ns-physkernel}$$ Thus at [*large*]{} $N$, only $K^{(i)}(N)$ and $K_{ns}^{(i)}(N)$ (with $K_{ns}(N,Q^2)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}K_{ns}^{(i)}(N) a_s^{i+1}$) are independent functions. In particular, eq.(\[physkernels\]) can be solved at large $N$ as:
$$\frac{\partial (\dot {F}-K_{ns}F)}{\partial\ln Q^2}\sim K_{ps}(N,Q^2)(\dot {F}-K_{ns}F)\ ,\label{large-N-sol}$$
where $K_{ns} F=\frac{\dot{F}_{ns}}{F_{ns}}F$ from eq.(\[ns-physkernel\]), and I defined:
$$K_{ps}(N,Q^2)\equiv K(N,Q^2)-K_{ns}(N,Q^2)\label{K-ps}\ .$$
$K_{ps}$ can be viewed as a “pure singlet” contribution to $K$. Since threshold resummation [@Sterman:1986aj; @Catani:1989ne] is well established [@Gardi:2007ma; @Friot:2007fd] for $K_{ns}(N,Q^2)$, one can consider only[^1] $K(N,Q^2)$.
a) :
For the one loop physical kernel coefficient $K^{(0)}(N)$ one finds:
$$K^{(0)}(N)=-\gamma_{qq}^{(0)}(N)-\gamma_{gg}^{(0)}(N)-\beta_0\label{K0}\ ,$$
which depends on the one loop [*diagonal*]{} anomalous dimensions (and $\beta_0=\frac{11}{3}C_A-\frac{2}{3}n_f$). Using the large-$N$ asymptotics [@Korchemsky:1988si]:
$$\gamma_{aa}^{(i)}(N)\sim A_{i+1}^a\ln \bar{N}-B_{i+1}^a\label{iloop-aa}$$
($a=q,g$) where $\ln \bar{N}=\ln N+\gamma_E$, one deduces:
$$K^{(0)}(N)\sim K_{11}\ln \bar{N}+K_{10}\label{K0-as}\ ,$$
with:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{11}&=& -(A_1^g+A_1^q)\label{K11}\\
K_{10}&=&B_1^g+B_1^q-\beta_0 \label{K10}\ ,\end{aligned}$$
where [@Altarelli:1977zs] $A_1^q=4C_F$, $A_1^g=4C_A$, $B_1^q=3C_F$, $B_1^g=\beta_0$. One thus gets:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{11}&=& -4(C_A+C_F)\label{K11-value}\\
K_{10}&=&3C_F \label{K10-value}\ .\end{aligned}$$
b) :
Beyond one loop, the $K^{(i)}(N)$ ’s depend also on the off-diagonal anomalous dimensions, as well as on the quark and gluon coefficient functions. Using eq.(\[iloop-aa\]) and the large-$N$ asymptotics of the off-diagonal anomalous dimensions [@Vogt:2004mw]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{qg}^{(i)}(N)&\sim&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{2i} D_{i+1 j}\ln^j \bar{N}\label{iloop-qg}\\
\gamma_{gq}^{(i)}(N)&\sim&\frac{1}{N} \sum_{j=0}^{2i} \Delta_{i+1 j}\ln^j \bar{N}\label{iloop-gq}\end{aligned}$$
(with $D_{10}=-2 n_f$, $\Delta_{10}=-2 C_F$), and of the coefficient functions [@Vermaseren:2005qc]:
$$\begin{aligned}
c_q^{(i)}(N)&\sim&\sum_{j=0}^{2i}c_{qj}^{(i)}\ln^j \bar{N} \label{iloop-cq}\\
c_g^{(i)}(N)&\sim&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{2i-1}c_{gj}^{(i)}\ln^j \bar{N} \label{iloop-cg}\ ,\end{aligned}$$
one gets for $i\geq 1$:
$$K^{(i)}(N)\sim\sum_{j=0}^{2i} K_{i+1 j}\ln^j \bar{N}\label{Ki-as}\ .$$
At two loop ($i=1$) one finds:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{22}&=&\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}_{22}\beta_0-\Big[2 c_{q2}^{(1)}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)}(A_1^g-A_1^q)\Big]\beta_0\label{K22}\\
K_{21}&=&\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}_{21}\beta_0-(A_2^g+A_2^q)\label{K21}\\
& &-\Big[2 c_{q1}^{(1)}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)}(A_1^g-A_1^q)+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)}(B_1^g-B_1^q-\beta_0)\Big]\beta_0\nonumber\\
K_{20}&=&\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}_{20}\beta_0+(B_2^g+B_2^q)-\beta_1\label{K20}\\
& &-\Big[2 c_{q0}^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)}(B_1^g-B_1^q-\beta_0)\Big]\beta_0\nonumber\ ,
\end{aligned}$$
with:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{D}_{ji}&= &D_{ji}/n_f=-2D_{ji}/D_{10}\label{norm-D}\\
\tilde{c}_{gi}^{(j)}&=&c_{gi}^{(j)}/n_f=-2c_{gi}^{(j)}/D_{10}\label{norm-cg}\ ,\end{aligned}$$
and the brackets contain only one loop quantities. Using known results on one loop coefficient functions and two loop anomalous dimensions (see e.g. [@Moch:2004pa; @Vogt:2004mw; @Vermaseren:2005qc] and references therein), one gets:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{22}&=& -2(C_A+C_F)\beta_0\label{K22-value}\\
K_{21}&=&\Big(-\frac{16}{3}+8\zeta_2\Big)C_A^2 +\Big(-\frac{16}{3}+8\zeta_2\Big)C_A C_F -\frac{32}{3}C_A\beta_0-\frac{35}{3}C_F\beta_0\label{K21-value}\\
K_{20}&=&(-4+12\zeta_3)C_A^2 +(-10-12\zeta_3)C_A C_F+\Big(\frac{3}{2}-12\zeta_2+24\zeta_3\Big)C_F^2 \nonumber\\
& &+2 C_A\beta_0+\Big(\frac{27}{2}+10\zeta_2\Big)C_F\beta_0-\beta_1 \label{K20-value}\ ,\end{aligned}$$
with $\beta_1=-7 C_A^2-11 C_A C_F+(5 C_A+3 C_F)\beta_0$.
c) :
At three loop, one finds:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{3i}&=&\tilde{D}_{3i}\beta_0+(lower\ loop\ quantities)\ (2\leq i\leq 4)\label{K3i}\\
K_{31}&=&\tilde{D}_{31}\beta_0-(A_3^g+A_3^q)+(lower\ loop\ quantities) \label{K31}\\
K_{30}&=&\tilde{D}_{30}\beta_0+(B_3^g+B_3^q)-\beta_2+(lower\ loop\ quantities) \label{K30}\ .
\end{aligned}$$
Using results on two loop coefficient functions (see e.g. [@Moch:1999eb; @Vermaseren:2005qc; @Soar:2009yh] and references therein) and three loop anomalous dimensions [@Moch:2004pa; @Vogt:2004mw], one gets:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{34}&=& 0\label{K34-value}\\
K_{33}&=& -\frac{4}{3}(C_A+C_F)\beta_0^2\label{K33-value}\\
K_{32}&=&\Big(-\frac{112}{3}+24\zeta_2\Big)C_A^2\beta_0 +\Big(\frac{128}{3}-8\zeta_2\Big)C_A C_F\beta_0 -16 C_F^2\beta_0-\frac{32}{3}C_A\beta_0^2-\frac{35}{3}C_F\beta_0^2\nonumber\\
& &-2( C_A+ C_F)\beta_1\label{K32-value}\\
K_{31}&=&\Big(-\frac{856}{9}+\frac{128}{3}\zeta_2-24\zeta_3\Big)C_A^2\beta_0 +\Big(-\frac{1393}{9}+\frac{32}{3}\zeta_2+168\zeta_3\Big)C_A C_F\beta_0 +(-64+72\zeta_2-96\zeta_3) C_F^2\beta_0\nonumber\\
& &+\Big(-\frac{238}{9}+8\zeta_2\Big)C_A\beta_0^2+\Big(-\frac{313}{9}+4\zeta_2\Big)C_F\beta_0^2-4 C_A\beta_1-5 C_F\beta_1-2\beta_0\beta_1\label{K31-value}\\
& &+\Big(\frac{224}{9}+\frac{64}{3}\zeta_2-\frac{176}{5}\zeta_2^2+176\zeta_3\Big)C_A^3+\Big(\frac{2039}{9}+\frac{64}{3}\zeta_2-\frac{176}{5}\zeta_2^2\Big)C_A^2 C_F+\Big(\frac{605}{3}-176\zeta_3\Big)C_A C_F^2\nonumber\ .\end{aligned}$$
d) :
For future use, I also quote the large-$N$ structures at the four loop level. One finds:
$$K_{4i}= \frac{3}{2}\tilde{D}_{4i}\beta_0+(lower\ loop\ quantities)\ (2\leq i\leq 6)\label{K4i}
\ ,$$
where I restricted to the range $2\leq i\leq 6$ which will be of interest in the following. The “lower loop quantities” in eqs.(\[K3i\]), (\[K31\]), (\[K30\]) and (\[K4i\]) are given by very long expressions, which need not be written down explicitly here, and depend [*both*]{} on anomalous dimensions and (quark and gluon) coefficient functions. One should mention however that these expressions do not involve the $\Delta_{ij}$’s coefficients, therefore the $K_{ij}$’s (hence the $K^{(i)}(N)$’s at [*large*]{} $N$) are [*independent*]{} of the off-diagonal $\gamma_{gq}(N)$ anomalous dimension[^2]. Moreover, the dependence upon the one loop coefficient $D_{10}=-2 n_f$ reveals itself only through the appearance of the “renormalized” off-diagonal coefficients $\tilde{D}_{ij}$ and $\tilde{c}_{gj}^{(i)}$ (eqs.(\[norm-D\]) and (\[norm-cg\])).
Momentum space results and threshold resummation
================================================
An obstruction to threshold resummation
---------------------------------------
In this section, a few observations are presented.
1\) The momentum space kernel $K(x, Q^2)$ is related in the standard way to the Mellin moment space one by:
$$K(N,Q^2)\equiv\int_0^1dx\, x^{N-1} K(x, Q^2) \label{K-tilde1}\ .$$
Usually, the moment space kernel $K(N,Q^2)$ cannot be inverted analytically to momentum space (due to the presence of $N$-dependent functions in the denominators of eq.(\[physkernel-K\])). However, this is no more the case at large $N$, as is clear from the expressions in the previous section.
2\) Using the large-$x$-large-$N$ correspondence:
$$\frac{\ln^n(1-x)}{(1-x)_+} <->\frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n+1}\ln^{n+1}N+...\label{x-N}\ ,$$
the momentum space physical kernel expansion coefficients $K^{(i)}(x)$ (obtained by inversion of the moment space ones) are seen for $0\leq i\leq 2$ to have only a single-logarithmic enhancement at large-$x$ (cf. in particular eq.(\[K34-value\])), similarly to the non-singlet kernel [@Grunberg:2009yi; @Moch:2009hr], namely:
$$K^{(i)}(x)={\cal O}\Big (\frac{\ln^i(1-x)}{(1-x)_+}\Big )\label{Ki-large-x}$$
3\) Consequently, it makes sense to ask whether an $x$ space threshold resummation, similar to the one valid [@Gardi:2007ma; @Grunberg:2009yi] for the non-singlet physical kernel $K_{ns}(x,Q^2)$, is also possible here, namely whether for $x\rightarrow 1$, $(1-x) K(x,Q^2)$ effectively depends only on the [*single*]{} scale $(1-x)Q^2$ :
$$\label{K-conjecture}
K(x,Q^2)\sim \frac{{\cal J}\left((1-x)Q^2\right)}{(1-x)_+}\ ,$$
where ${\cal J}\left(Q^2\right)$ is a renormalization group invariant quantity, so that:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\cal J}\left((1-x)Q^2\right)&=&j_{1}\ a_s+a_s^2[-j_{1}\beta_0 L_x+j_{2}]\label{j-expand}\\
&+ &a_s^3[j_{1}\beta_0^2 L_x^2-(j_{1}\beta_1+2 j_{2} \beta_0) L_x+j_{3}]\nonumber\\
&+ &a_s^4[-j_{1}\beta_0^3 L_x^3+(\frac{5}{2}j_{1}\beta_1\beta_0+3 j_{2} \beta_0^2) L_x^2-(j_{1}\beta_2+2 j_{2} \beta_1+3 j_{3} \beta_0) L_x+j_{4}]+...\ ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $a_s=a_s(Q^2)$ and $L_x\equiv \ln(1-x)$. Comparing eqs.(\[K-conjecture\]) and (\[j-expand\]) with the exact result (known up to ${\cal O}(a_s^3)$), inverting to momentum space the results of section 3 to get the leading ${\cal O}(1/(1-x))$ term in $K(x,Q^2)$, one finds :
i\) The leading logarithms in the exact result agree with the leading logarithms in eq.(\[j-expand\]), with
$$j_{1}=-K_{11}=4(C_A+C_F)\label{j1}\ .$$
ii\) There is a discrepancy at the next-to-leading logarithmic level, starting at ${\cal O}(a_s^3)$, namely:
Comparing the ${\cal O}(a_s^2)$ term in eq.(\[j-expand\]) with the corresponding term in the exact result, one determines
$$j_{2}=-K_{21}=(\frac{16}{3}-8\zeta_2)(C_A + C_F)C_A +\frac{32}{3}C_A\beta_0+\frac{35}{3}C_F\beta_0\label{j2}\ .$$
However, comparing with the exact coefficient of the single $\frac{\ln(1-x)}{1-x}$ term occurring at ${\cal O}(a_s^3)$ in $K(x,Q^2)$, one finds the latter is [*not*]{} given by $-(j_{1}\beta_1+2 j_{2} \beta_0)$ as required by eq.(\[K-conjecture\]) and (\[j-expand\]), but rather by:
$$2 K_{32}=-[j_{1}\beta_1+2 (j_{2}+\delta) \beta_0]\label{discrepancy}\ ,$$
with
$$\delta=16(C_A-C_F)[(2-\zeta_2)C_A-C_F]\label{delta2}\ .$$
This discrepancy represents an obstruction to a standard threshold resummation at the next-to-leading logarithmic level of the singlet physical kernel. The situation here looks similar to the one occuring [@Moch:2009mu; @Grunberg:2009am] in the case of the (non-singlet) $F_L$ structure function [@Akhoury:1998gs; @Akhoury:2003fw].
A conjectured threshold resummation for $C_A=C_F$ and four loop predictions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is remarkable that the obstruction $\delta$ to threshold resummation at the next-to-leading logarithmic level [*vanishes*]{} in the “supersymmetric” case $C_A=C_F$. This fact suggests that a standard threshold resummation, similar to the one available for the non-singlet physical kernel $K_{ns}(x,Q^2)$, might indeed also be possible for the singlet kernel in this case.
Let us derive the four loop predictions following by assuming the validity of the ansatz (\[K-conjecture\]) and (\[j-expand\]). As a warm-up, I consider first the two and three loop predictions. Eqs.(\[K-conjecture\]) and (\[j-expand\]) imply, after converting to Mellin moment space:
a) : $K_{22}=\frac{1}{2}K_{11}\beta_0$, from the ${\cal O}(a_s^2 L_x)$ leading logarithm (LL) term in eq.(\[j-expand\]), in agreement with the exact result (eq.(\[K22-value\])), as expected from the observations in section 4.1. Using eq.(\[K22\]), this constraint determines the two loop off-diagonal anomalous dimension coefficient $D_{22}$ from one loop quantities. One gets:
$$D_{22}=4n_f C_{AF}\label{D22predict}\ ,$$
where $C_{AF}=C_A-C_F$, which agrees as expected (after straightforward inversion to $x$-space, eq.(\[convention\])) with the exact result [@Vogt:2004mw] for the double logarithmic term in $P_{qg}^{(1)}(x)$.
b) :
i\) $K_{34}=0$, from the absence of an ${\cal O}(a_s^3 L_x^3)$ double logarithmic term in eq.(\[j-expand\]). Using eq.(\[K3i\]), this constraint determines $D_{34}$ from lower loop quantities. One gets:
$$D_{34}=-\frac{4}{3}n_f C_{AF}^2\label{D34predict}\ ,$$
which indeed agrees as expected with the exact result [@Vogt:2004mw].
ii\) $K_{33}=\frac{1}{3}K_{11}\beta_0^2$, from the ${\cal O}(a_s^3 L_x^2)$ LL term in eq.(\[j-expand\]). Then eq.(\[K3i\]) yields:
$$D_{33}=\frac{2}{3}n_f C_{AF}(3 C_F-\beta_0)\label{D33predict}\ ,$$
which again agrees as expected with the exact result [@Vogt:2004mw]. Thus double logarithmic terms ($\ln^i(1-x)$, $i=3,4$) in the off-diagonal three loop splitting function $P_{qg}^{(2)}(x)$ are correctly reproduced.
iii\) $K_{32}=\frac{1}{2}(K_{11}\beta_1+2 K_{21}\beta_0)$, from the ${\cal O}(a_s^3 L_x)$ next-to-leading (NLL) logarithm in eq.(\[j-expand\]). Eq.(\[K3i\]) then yields:
$$D_{32}\vert{predict}=\frac{4}{3}n_f C_{AF}[5\beta_0+(28-24\zeta_2)C_A+9C_F]\label{D32predict}\ .$$
This time, the above prediction disagrees for $C_A\neq C_F$ with the exact result [@Vogt:2004mw]:
$$D_{32}=\frac{4}{3}n_f C_{AF}[5\beta_0+(4-12\zeta_2)C_A+21C_F]\label{D32}\ ,$$
as expected from the fact that $\delta\neq 0$. I note however that for $C_A=C_F$, $D_{32}$ is correctly (as again expected) predicted to vanish. Since $D_{34}$ and $D_{33}$ also vanish in this limit, it follows after inversion to $x$-space that the leading single logarithmic term ($\ln^2(1-x)$) in $P_{qg}^{(2)}(x)$ also vanishes for $C_A=C_F$. This (a priori surprising) fact finds a nice interpretation in the present framework: it is seen to follow from the correctness (up to ${\cal O}(a_s^3)$) of eq.(\[K-conjecture\]) and (\[j-expand\]) for $C_A=C_F$.
Moreover, the large $\beta_0$ term in eq.(\[D32predict\]) is also correct. This result should be expected since the discrepancy $\delta$ (eq.(\[delta2\])) is non-leading at large $\beta_0$. Thus one might conjecture that the ansatz (\[K-conjecture\]) and (\[j-expand\]) is valid at large $\beta_0$ even for $C_A\neq C_F$.
c) : the ansatz (\[K-conjecture\]) and (\[j-expand\]) similarly implies at the ${\cal O}(a_s^4)$ level, after converting to Mellin moment space:
i\) $K_{46}=K_{45}=0$, from the absence of ${\cal O}(a_s^4 L_x^5)$ and ${\cal O}(a_s^4 L_x^4)$ double logarithmic terms in eq.(\[j-expand\]). Using eq.(\[K4i\]), these constraints determines the four loop off-diagonal anomalous dimension coefficients $D_{46}$ and $D_{45}$ from lower loop quantities. Using known results for the three loop coefficient functions [@Soar:2009yh; @Vermaseren:2005qc], one gets:
$$\begin{aligned}
D_{46}&=&0\label{D46predict}\\
D_{45}&=&n_f C_{AF}^2(-\frac{4}{3}C_F+\frac{2}{9}\beta_0)\label{D45predict}\ .\end{aligned}$$
ii\) $K_{44}=\frac{1}{4}K_{11}\beta_0^3$, from the ${\cal O}(a_s^4 L_x^3)$ LL in eq.(\[j-expand\]). Then eq.(\[K4i\]) yields:
$$D_{44}=n_f C_{AF}\Big[\Big(-\frac{40}{27}+\frac{80}{9}\zeta_2\Big)C_{AF}^2+\Big(-\frac{484}{27}+8\zeta_2\Big)C_{AF} C_F-\frac{80}{27}C_{AF}\beta_0+\frac{1}{2}C_F^2-\frac{1}{2}C_F\beta_0+\frac{1}{9}\beta_0^2\Big]
\label{D44predict}\ .$$
The predictions eqs.(\[D46predict\])-(\[D44predict\]), first obtained in [@Soar:2009yh], have recently been shown to be correct in [@Vogt:2010cv; @Almasy:2010wn]. Thus, after inversion to $x$-space, one finds that large $x$ double logarithmic terms ($\ln^i(1-x)$, $i=4,5,6$) in the off-diagonal $P_{qg}^{(3)}(x)$ splitting function are again correctly predicted by the present ansatz. The close connection with the approach of [@Soar:2009yh] is explained in Appendix A.2.
iii\) $K_{43}\vert{predict}=\frac{5}{6}K_{11}\beta_1\beta_0+ K_{21}\beta_0^2$, from the ${\cal O}(a_s^4 L_x^2)$ NLL in eq.(\[j-expand\]). Eq.(\[K4i\]) then yields:
$$D_{43}\vert{predict}=n_f C_{AF} \Big[-\frac{40}{27}\beta_0^2+\beta_0 P_1(C_A,C_F)+P_2(C_A,C_F)\Big]\label{D43predict}\ .$$
where $P_1$ and $P_2$ are respectively linear and quadratic homogeneous polynomials in $(C_A,C_F)$, which need not be written down since the corresponding terms are not expected to be correctly reproduced anyway by the present ansatz. However, the vanishing for $C_A=C_F$ of $D_{43}$ is again expected to be a valid prediction. Since $D_{45}$ and $D_{44}$ also vanish in this limit, the vanishing of $D_{43}$ implies, after inversion to $x$-space, the vanishing for $C_A=C_F$ of the leading single logarithmic term ($\ln^3(1-x)$) in $P_{qg}^{(3)}(x)$ (similarly to the three loop case). Moreover, the large $\beta_0$ term should also be correct.
iv\) $K_{42}\vert{predict}=\frac{1}{2}K_{11}\beta_2+ K_{21}\beta_1+\frac{3}{2}K_{31}\beta_0$, from the ${\cal O}(a_s^4 L_x)$ NNLL in eq.(\[j-expand\]). Eq.(\[K4i\]) then yields:
$$\begin{aligned}
D_{42}\vert{predict}&=&n_f\Big[\Big(\frac{40}{27}-\frac{2}{3}\zeta_2\Big)C_A\beta_0^2+\Big(-\frac{58}{27}-\frac{2}{3}\zeta_2\Big)C_F\beta_0^2+(26+2\zeta_2-16\zeta_3) C_F^2\beta_0\nonumber\\
& &+\Big(18-12\zeta_2-\frac{768}{5}\zeta_2^2-24\zeta_3+384\zeta_4\Big)C_F^3+C_{AF}\Big(\beta_0 Q_1(C_A,C_F)+Q_2(C_A,C_F)\Big)\Big]\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{2}{3}n_f \frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0}\delta\label{D42predict}\ ,\end{aligned}$$
where $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are respectively linear and quadratic homogeneous polynomials in $(C_A,C_F)$ which again are not expected to be correctly predicted by the present ansatz. The last term in eq.(\[D42predict\]), which depends on $\delta$ (eq.(\[delta2\])), is also obviously incorrect, and should be absent in the exact answer, since it is not even a polynomial in the color factors. However, this term vanishes for $C_A=C_F$, which represents a [*non-trivial consistency check*]{} of the present proposal.
It should be noted that the single logarithm coefficients $D_{21}$, $D_{31}$ and $D_{41}$ are [*not*]{} predicted in the present approach: rather, they represent input parameters for the threshold resummation, since they determine respectively $K_{21}$, $K_{31}$ and $K_{41}$, hence the ${\cal O}(a_s^2)$, ${\cal O}(a_s^3)$ and ${\cal O}(a_s^4)$ constant terms $j_2$ (see eq.(\[j2\])), $j_3$ and $j_4$ in eq.(\[j-expand\]). It is also remarkable the [*leading*]{} single logarithmic coefficients $D_{32}$ and $D_{43}$ are both predicted to vanish when $C_A=C_F$, which may be the signal of a systematic structure.
$\phi$-exchange DIS
===================
In the case of $\phi$-exchange DIS, quite similar formulas apply. Defining the moment space structure function by:
$$F_{\phi}(N,Q^2)=\int_0^1dx \ x^{N-1}F_{\phi}(x,Q^2)\label{Fphi}\ ,$$
we have the large-$Q^2$ OPE representation [@Soar:2009yh]:
$$F_{\phi}(N,Q^2)= C_{\phi,q}(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s) A_{q,nucl}(N,\mu^2)+C_{\phi,g}(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s) A_{g,nucl}(N,\mu^2)\label{phi-OPE}\ ,$$
where $C_{\phi,a}(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)$ ($a=q,g$) are the $\phi$-exchange quark and gluon coefficient functions, $A_{q,nucl}(N,\mu^2)$ and $A_{g,nucl}(N,\mu^2)$ the singlet quark and gluon nucleon matrix elements, and $a_s= a_s(\mu^2)$. The physical evolutions kernels for this process are defined by:
$$\ddot {F_{\phi}}(N,Q^2)=K_{\phi}(N,Q^2)\dot {F_{\phi}}(N,Q^2)+J_{\phi}(N,Q^2)F_{\phi}(N,Q^2)\ ,\label{phi-physkernels}$$
and can be expanded as:
$$K_{\phi}(N,Q^2)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}K_{\phi}^{(i)}(N) a_s^{i+1}
\label{Kphi-expand}$$
and
$$J_{\phi}(N,Q^2)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}J_{\phi}^{(i)}(N) a_s^{i+2}
\label{Jphi-expand}\ ,$$
where $a_s= a_s(Q^2)$. As in the photon-exchange case, I shall concentrate in the following on $K_{\phi}(N,Q^2)$, as $J_{\phi}(N,Q^2)$ can be expressed at large $N$ in term of $K_{\phi}(N,Q^2)$ and a large-$N$ non-singlet “gluonic” kernel $K_{\phi,ns}(N,Q^2)$ which satisfies a standard form of threshold resummation similarly to the non-singlet quark kernel $K_{ns}(N,Q^2)$ (see Appendix A.1).
Large-$N$
---------
The main formal difference between the photon and the $\phi$-exchange cases is that the leading ${\cal O}(a_s^0)$ (resp. ${\cal O}(a_s)$) behavior of the quark (resp. gluon) coefficient functions (eqs.(\[Cq-expand\]), (\[Cg-expand\])) are interchanged, namely we have:
$$C_{\phi,g}(N,1,a_s)=1+\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}c_{\phi g}^{(i)}(N)a_s^i\label{Cphig-expand}$$
$$C_{\phi,q}(N,1,a_s)=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}c_{\phi q}^{(i)}(N)a_s^i\label{Cphiq-expand}\ .$$
Consequently, at large $N$ the $K_{\phi}^{(i)}(N)$’s coefficients shall not depend upon the off-diagonal $\gamma_{qg}(N)$ anomalous dimension, but rather on the $\gamma_{gq}(N)$ one.
a) :
At this order, the results are the same as in the photon-exchange case, namely:
$$K_{\phi}^{(0)}(N)\sim K_{11}^{\phi}\ln \bar{N}+K_{10}^{\phi}\label{Kphi0-as}\ ,$$
with
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{11}^{\phi}&=&K_{11}= -4(C_A+C_F)\label{Kphi11}\\
K_{10}^{\phi}&=&K_{10}=3C_F \label{Kphi10}\ .\end{aligned}$$
b) :
Setting [@Soar:2009yh]:
$$\begin{aligned}
c_{\phi g}^{(i)}(N)&\sim&\sum_{j=0}^{2i}c_{\phi g,j}^{(i)}\ln^j \bar{N} \label{iloop-cphig}\\
c_{\phi q}^{(i)}(N)&\sim&\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{2i-1}c_{\phi q,j}^{(i)}\ln^{j} \bar{N} \label{iloop-cphiq}\ ,\end{aligned}$$
one gets for $i\geq 1$:
$$K_{\phi}^{(i)}(N)\sim\sum_{j=0}^{2i} K_{i+1 j}^{\phi}\ln^j \bar{N}\label{Kphii-as}\ .$$
At two loop one finds: $$\begin{aligned}
K_{22}^{\phi}&=&\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\Delta}_{22}\beta_0-\Big[2 c_{\phi g,2}^{(1)}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{\phi q,1}^{(1)}(A_1^g-A_1^q)\Big]\beta_0\label{Kphi22}\\
K_{21}^{\phi}&=&\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\Delta}_{21}\beta_0-(A_2^g+A_2^q)\label{Kphi21}\\
& &-\Big[2 c_{\phi g,1}^{(1)}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{\phi q,0}^{(1)}(A_1^g-A_1^q)+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{\phi q,1}^{(1)}(B_1^g-B_1^q-\beta_0)\Big]\beta_0\nonumber\\
K_{20}^{\phi}&=&\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\Delta}_{20}\beta_0+(B_2^g+B_2^q)-\beta_1\label{Kphi20}\\
& &-\Big[2 c_{\phi g,0}^{(1)}+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{\phi q,0}^{(1)}(B_1^g-B_1^q-\beta_0)\Big]\beta_0\nonumber\ ,
\end{aligned}$$ where:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Delta}_{ji}&= &\Delta_{ji}/C_F=-2\Delta_{ji}/\Delta_{10}\label{norm-Delta}\\
\tilde{c}_{\phi q,i}^{(j)}&=&c_{\phi q,i}^{(j)}/C_F=-2c_{\phi q,i}^{(j)}/\Delta_{10}\label{norm-cphiq}\ .\end{aligned}$$
I note that the above results are obtained from those of section 3 simply by interchanging the “renormalized” off-diagonal parameters, i.e. $\tilde{D}_{ji}$’s with the $\tilde{\Delta}_{ji}$’s, as well as the (“renormalized”) photon-exchange gluon coefficients with the (“renormalized”) $\phi$-exchange quark ones, and also the diagonal photon-exchange quark coefficients with the $\phi$-exchange gluon ones, consistently with the remarks at the beginning of section 5.1. Using known results on one loop coefficient functions and two loop anomalous dimensions (see e.g. [@Moch:2004pa; @Vogt:2004mw; @Soar:2009yh] and references therein), one obtains:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{22}^{\phi}&=& -2(C_A+C_F)\beta_0\label{Kphi22-value}\\
K_{21}^{\phi}&=&\Big(-\frac{16}{3}+8\zeta_2\Big)C_A^2 +\Big(-\frac{16}{3}+8\zeta_2\Big)C_A C_F -\frac{2}{3}C_A\beta_0-\frac{47}{3}C_F\beta_0-2\beta_0^2\label{Kphi21-value}\\
K_{20}^{\phi}&=&(-4+12\zeta_3)C_A^2 +(-10-12\zeta_3)C_A C_F+\Big(\frac{3}{2}-12\zeta_2+24\zeta_3\Big)C_F^2 \nonumber\\
& &+\Big(-\frac{10}{3}+4\zeta_2\Big) C_A\beta_0+\Big(17+6\zeta_2\Big)C_F\beta_0-\frac{29}{3}\beta_0^2-\beta_1 \label{Kphi20-value}\ .\end{aligned}$$
c) :
At three loop, one gets:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{3i}^{\phi}&=&\tilde{\Delta}_{3i}\beta_0+(lower\ loop\ quantities)\ (2\leq i\leq 4)\label{Kphi3i}\\
K_{31}^{\phi}&=&\tilde{\Delta}_{31}\beta_0-(A_3^g+A_3^q)+(lower\ loop\ quantities) \label{Kphi31}\\
K_{30}^{\phi}&=&\tilde{\Delta}_{30}\beta_0+(B_3^g+B_3^q)-\beta_2+(lower\ loop\ quantities) \label{Kphi30}\ .
\end{aligned}$$
Using results on two loop coefficient functions [@Soar:2009yh] and three loop anomalous dimensions [@Moch:2004pa; @Vogt:2004mw], one finds:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{34}^{\phi}&=& 0\label{Kphi34-value}\\
K_{33}^{\phi}&=& -\frac{4}{3}(C_A+C_F)\beta_0^2\label{Kphi33-value}\\
K_{32}^{\phi}&=&\Big(\frac{44}{3}-24\zeta_2\Big)C_A^2\beta_0 +\Big(-\frac{136}{3}+72\zeta_2\Big)C_A C_F\beta_0 +(20-32\zeta_2) C_F^2\beta_0-\frac{2}{3}C_A\beta_0^2-\frac{47}{3}C_F\beta_0^2\nonumber\\
& &-2\beta_0^3-2( C_A+ C_F)\beta_1\label{Kphi32-value}\\
K_{31}^{\phi}&=&\Big(-\frac{436}{9}+\frac{80}{3}\zeta_2-96\zeta_3\Big)C_A^2\beta_0 +\Big(-\frac{1597}{9}-\frac{28}{3}\zeta_2+192\zeta_3\Big)C_A C_F\beta_0 +(-6+48\zeta_2-48\zeta_3) C_F^2\beta_0\nonumber\\
& &+\Big(\frac{104}{9}+36\zeta_2\Big)C_A\beta_0^2+\Big(-\frac{676}{9}-12\zeta_2\Big)C_F\beta_0^2+6 C_A\beta_1-9 C_F\beta_1-4\beta_0\beta_1-\frac{20}{3}\beta_0^3\label{Kphi31-value}\\
& &+\Big(\frac{224}{9}+\frac{64}{3}\zeta_2-\frac{176}{5}\zeta_2^2+176\zeta_3\Big)C_A^3+\Big(\frac{2039}{9}+\frac{64}{3}\zeta_2-\frac{176}{5}\zeta_2^2\Big)C_A^2 C_F+\Big(\frac{605}{3}-176\zeta_3\Big)C_A C_F^2\nonumber\ .\end{aligned}$$
d) :
Finally, I quote the four loop result:
$$K_{4i}^{\phi}=\frac{3}{2}\tilde{\Delta}_{4i}\beta_0+(lower\ loop\ quantities)\ (2\leq i\leq 6)\label{Kphi4i}\ .$$
Threshold resummation and four loop predictions
-----------------------------------------------
Here again, one finds the analogue of the ansatz (\[K-conjecture\]), namely:
$$\label{Kphi-conjecture}
K_{\phi}(x,Q^2)\sim \frac{{\cal J}_{\phi}\left((1-x)Q^2\right)}{(1-x)_+}$$
is falsified in an interesting way. Indeed, setting:
$${\cal J}_{\phi}(Q^2)=j_{\phi 1}a_s+j_{\phi 2}a_s^2+j_{\phi 3}a_s^3+...\label{jphi}\ ,$$
one determines:
$$j_{\phi 1}=-K_{11}^{\phi}\label{jphi1}\ ,$$
$$j_{\phi 2}=-K_{21}^{\phi}\ ,$$
whereas the coefficient of the single $\frac{\ln(1-x)}{1-x}$ term occurring at ${\cal O}(a_s^3)$ in $K_{\phi}(x,Q^2)$ is found to be given by:
$$2 K_{32}^{\phi}=-[j_{\phi 1}\beta_1+2 (j_{\phi 2}+\delta_{\phi}) \beta_0]\label{phi-discrepancy}\ ,$$
with a “discrepancy” $\delta_{\phi}$ with respect to standard threshold resummation:
$$\delta_{\phi}=4(-5+8\zeta_2)(C_A-C_F)^2\label{deltaphi-2}\ .$$
The interesting new feature of eq.(\[deltaphi-2\]) compared to eq.(\[delta2\]) is that the discrepancy is now [*quadratic*]{} in $C_{AF}\equiv C_A-C_F$. As we shall see, this feature implies that the predictions following from the ansatz eq.(\[Kphi-conjecture\]) are correct at ${\cal O}(a_s^3)$ not only for $C_A=C_F$, but also up to terms [*linear*]{} in $C_{AF}$. Indeed one obtains (as in the case of the $D_{ij}$’s) the correct [@Vogt:2004mw] two and three loop predictions:
$$\Delta_{22}=-4C_F C_{AF}\label{Delta22predict}$$
and:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{34}&=&-\frac{4}{3}C_FC_{AF}^2\label{Delta34predict}\\
\Delta_{33}&=&\frac{2}{3} C_F C_{AF}(5\beta_0-15C_F+12 C_{AF})\label{Delta33predict}\ Ê.\end{aligned}$$
Moreover one also predicts:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{32}\vert{predict}&=&C_F\Big[-3\beta_0^2+18 C_F\beta_0-27C_F^2\nonumber\\
& &-\frac{62}{3}\beta_0 C_{AF}-\Big(\frac{10}{3}-16\zeta_2\Big)C_F C_{AF}-\mathbf{\Big(\frac{76}{3}-32\zeta_2\Big)}C_{AF}^2\Big]\label{Delta32predict}\ Ê,\end{aligned}$$
while the exact result [@Vogt:2004mw] is:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{32}&=&C_F\Big[-3\beta_0^2+18 C_F\beta_0-27C_F^2\nonumber\\
& &-\frac{62}{3}\beta_0 C_{AF}-\Big(\frac{10}{3}-16\zeta_2\Big)C_F C_{AF}-\mathbf{\frac{16}{3}}C_{AF}^2\Big]\label{Delta32}\ Ê,\end{aligned}$$
where the mismatch between eq.(\[Delta32predict\]) and eq.(\[Delta32\]) has been highlighted in boldface. Indeed it is seen that the mismatch concerns only the term [*quadratic*]{} in $C_{AF}$.
Finally, using known results on three loop coefficient functions [@Soar:2009yh], the four loop predictions following from leading logarithmic threshold resummation of $K_{\phi}(x,Q^2)$ are:
$$\Delta_{46}=0\label{Delta46predict}\ ,$$
$$\Delta_{45}=\frac{2}{9} C_F C_{AF}^2(\beta_0-6 C_F+8C_{AF})\label{Delta45predict}\ ,$$
and:
$$\Delta_{44}=-C_F C_{AF}\Big[\frac{8}{9}\beta_0^2-\frac{41}{6}C_F\beta_0+\frac{25}{2}C_F^2+\frac{208}{27}\beta_0 C_{AF}+\Big(\frac{224}{27}-8\zeta_2\Big)C_F C_{AF}+\Big(\frac{8}{27}+\frac{16}{9}\zeta_2\Big)C_{AF}^2 \Big]
\label{Delta44predict}\ ,$$
which have been first obtained in [@Soar:2009yh], and shown to be correct in [@Vogt:2010cv; @Almasy:2010wn].
Moreover, assuming the validity of the ansatz (\[Kphi-conjecture\]) also at the NLL level, one obtains the additional prediction:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{43}\vert{predict}&=&C_F\Big[\frac{4}{3}\beta_0^3-\frac{37}{3}C_F\beta_0^2+38 C_F^2\beta_0+\Big(-\frac{78037}{27}+\frac{15136}{9}\zeta_2+\frac{2048}{3}\zeta_3\Big)C_F^3\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{268}{27}\beta_0^2 C_{AF}+\Big(\frac{365}{27}-\frac{64}{3}\zeta_2\Big)\beta_0 C_F C_{AF}+\Big(-8677+\frac{15328}{3}\zeta_2+2048\zeta_3\Big)C_F^2 C_{AF}\nonumber\\
& &+C_{AF}^2 R_1(\beta_0,C_A,C_F)\Big]\label{Delta43predict}\end{aligned}$$
where the coefficient $R_1$ of the term quadratic in $C_{AF}$ is a linear homogeneous polynomial in $(C_A,C_F,\beta_0)$ which is not expected to be correctly predicted (at the difference of the coefficients of the terms [*linear*]{} in $C_{AF}$). Finally, the ansatz (\[Kphi-conjecture\]) at the NNLL level yields a prediction for $\Delta_{42}$. The latter however depends on the three loop non-logarithmic constant term $\Delta_{30}$, which could in principle be derived from the results in [@Vogt:2004mw]. Here I only quote one important meaningful feature of the ensuing prediction:
$$\Delta_{42}\vert{predict}=C_F P_3(\beta_0,C_A,C_F)+\frac{2}{3}C_F\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0}\delta_{\phi}\label{Delta42predict}\ ,$$
where $P_3$ is an homogeneous cubic polynomial in $(C_A,C_F,\beta_0)$ (as in eq.(\[Delta43predict\])), and the non-polynomial contribution is [*quadratic*]{} in $C_{AF}$ (see eq.(\[deltaphi-2\])). Eq.(\[Delta42predict\]) is thus [*consistent*]{} with the assumption that the ansatz (\[Kphi-conjecture\]) is correct up to terms *linear* in $C_{AF}$.
Singlet fragmentation functions in $e^+e^-$ annihilation
========================================================
Physical kernels
----------------
The (transverse) singlet fragmentation function [@Cacciari:2001cw; @Moch:2009my; @Moch:2009hr; @Blumlein:2000wh; @Rijken:1996vr; @Rijken:1996ns; @Rijken:1996npa; @Mitov:2006wy; @Mitov:2006ic; @Moch:2007tx; @Stratmann:1996hn] $F_T(N,Q^2)$ satisfies a short distance representation analogous to eq.(\[OPE\]):
$$F_T(N,Q^2)= <e^2_q> \Big( C_q^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s) q_T(N,\mu^2)+C_g^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s) g_T(N,\mu^2)\Big)\label{short-distance}\ ,$$
where $C_a^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)$ ($a=q,g$) are the singlet quark and gluon timelike coefficient functions, $q_T(N,\mu^2)=\sum_{i=1}^{n_f}(q_{iT}+\bar{q}_{iT})$ the singlet quark fragmentation distribution and $g_T(N,\mu^2)$ the gluon fragmentation distribution. The corresponding physical evolution kernels are defined as in eq.(\[physkernels\]):
$$\ddot {F_T}(N,Q^2)=K^T(N,Q^2)\dot {F_T}(N,Q^2)+J^T(N,Q^2)F_T(N,Q^2)\label{physkernels-T}\ .$$
In fact, all equations of section 2 take a similar form in the timelike case, except the renormalization group equations (\[dCq\])-(\[ddCg\]), where the indices $(qg)$ and $(gq)$ should be permuted, namely:
$$\Big( \begin{array}{c} \!\! \dot{q_T}(N,\mu^2) \!\! \\ \! \dot{g_T}(N,\mu^2) \!\!
\end{array} \Big) \:=\:
- \Big( \! \begin{array}{cc}\gamma_{qq}^T(N,a_s)\! & \gamma_{gq}^T(N,a_s)\! \\
\gamma_{qg}^T(N,a_s)\! & \gamma_{gg}^T(N,a_s)\! \end{array}\! \Big) \Big( \begin{array}{c} \!\! q_T(N,\mu^2)\!\! \\ \! g_T(N,\mu^2) \!\! \end{array} \Big)
\label{A-P-T}\ ,$$
hence:
$$\dot {C}_q^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)=\beta(a_s)\frac{\partial C_q^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{\partial a_s}-\gamma_{qq}^T(N,a_s)C_q^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-\gamma_{qg}^T(N,a_s)C_g^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ ,\label{dCqT}$$
$$\dot {C}_g^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)=\beta(a_s)\frac{\partial C_g^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{\partial a_s}-\gamma_{gq}^T(N,a_s)C_q^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-\gamma_{gg}^T(N,a_s)C_g^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ ,\label{dCgT}$$
and also: $$\ddot {C}_q^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)=\beta(a_s)\frac{\partial \dot{C}_q^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{\partial a_s}-\gamma_{qq}^T(N,a_s)\dot{C}_q^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-\gamma_{qg}^T(N,a_s)\dot{C}_g^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ ,\label{ddCqT}$$
$$\ddot {C}_g^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)=\beta(a_s)\frac{\partial \dot{C}_g^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)}{\partial a_s}-\gamma_{gq}^T(N,a_s)\dot{C}_q^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)-\gamma_{gg}^T(N,a_s)\dot{C}_g^T(N,Q^2/\mu^2,a_s)\ .\label{ddCgT}$$
Large-$N$ Gribov-Lipatov relations
----------------------------------
The timelike coefficient functions are presently known up to two loop [@Rijken:1996vr; @Rijken:1996ns; @Rijken:1996npa; @Mitov:2006wy], while the timelike singlet anomalous dimensions are known up to two loop for the off-diagonal elements [@Curci:1980uw; @Furmanski:1980cm; @Floratos:1981hs], and up to three loop for the diagonal ones [@Mitov:2006ic; @Moch:2007tx]. Therefore the physical kernels $K^T$ and $J^T$ can presently be computed only up to two loop [@Blumlein:2000wh].
The results for the $K^T(N,Q^2)$ kernel at large $N$ can be very simply summarized in the form of large-$N$ Gribov-Lipatov like relations. Setting:
$$K^T(N,Q^2)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}K^{(i)T}(N) a_s^{i+1}
\label{KT-expand}\ ,$$
one finds at large $N$:
a) :
$$K^{(0)T}(N)\sim K_{11}^T\ln \bar{N}+K_{10}^T\ ,\label{K0T-as}$$
with:
$$K_{1i}^T=K_{1i}\label{GL-1i}\ .$$
This result is not surprising, since it is a straightforward consequence (see eqs.(\[K11\]) and (\[K10\])) for $a=b$ ($a,b=q,g$) of the well-known one loop Gribov-Lipatov relation [@Gribov:1972ri]:
$$\gamma_{ab}^{(0)T}(N)=\gamma_{ab}^{(0)}(N)\ .\label{GL}$$
b) : More interestingly, although a Gribov-Lipatov like relation is known not to be valid at two loop at finite $N$, neither for the anomalous dimensions [@Curci:1980uw; @Stratmann:1996hn], nor for the physical evolution kernels [@Blumlein:2000wh], one finds it does hold for the latter at large $N$. Indeed, setting for $N\rightarrow\infty$:
$$K^{(1)T}(N)\sim\sum_{i=0}^2 K_{2i}^T\ln^i \bar{N}\ ,\label{K1T-as}$$
one gets, using the results in [@Rijken:1996vr; @Rijken:1996ns; @Rijken:1996npa; @Mitov:2006wy] and [@Curci:1980uw; @Furmanski:1980cm; @Floratos:1981hs]:
$$K_{2i}^T= K_{2i}\ (i=1,2)\label{GL-2i}\ ,$$
with:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{22}^T&=& \frac{1}{2}\tilde{\Delta}^T_{22}\beta_0-\Big[2 c_{q2}^{(1)T}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)T}(A_1^{gT}-A_1^{qT})\Big]\beta_0\label{K22T}\\
K_{21}^T&=& \frac{1}{2}\tilde{\Delta}^T_{21}\beta_0-(A_2^{gT}+A_2^{qT})\label{K21T}\\
& &-\Big[2 c_{q1}^{(1)T}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)T}(A_1^{gT}-A_1^{qT})+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)T}(B_1^{gT}-B_1^{qT}-\beta_0)\Big]\beta_0\nonumber\\
K_{20}^T&=&\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\Delta}^T_{20}\beta_0+(B_2^{gT}+B_2^{qT})-\beta_1\label{K20T}\\
& &-\Big[2 c_{q0}^{(1)T}+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)T}(B_1^{gT}-B_1^{qT}-\beta_0)\Big]\beta_0\nonumber\ .
\end{aligned}$$
The $\tilde{\Delta}^T_{ij}$’s are defined by:
$$\tilde{\Delta}^T_{ij}= \Delta^T_{ij}/C_F=-2 \Delta^T_{ij}/\Delta^T_{10}\label{Delta-norm}\ ,$$
with:
$$\gamma_{gq}^{(i)T}(N)\sim\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{2i} \Delta^T_{i+1 j}\ln^j\bar{N}\label{gammaTgq-as}\ ,$$
($i\geq 0$), and
$$\tilde{c}_{gj}^{(i)T}=c_{gj}^{(i)T}/C_F=-2c_{gj}^{(i)T}/\Delta^T_{10}\label{cgT-norm}\ ,$$
with:
$$c_g^{(i)T}(N)\sim\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{2i-1} c_{gj}^{(i)T}\ln^j \bar{N} \label{jloop-cgT}\ ,$$
($i\geq 1$). Moreover:
$$c_q^{(i)T}(N)\sim\sum_{j=0}^{2i} c_{qj}^{(i)T}\ln^j \bar{N} \label{jloop-cqT}\ .$$
Using eqs.(\[K22T\]), (\[K22\]) and (\[K21T\]), (\[K21\]), eq.(\[GL-2i\]) is seen to be equivalent to:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Delta}^T_{22}- \tilde{D}_{22}&=&0\label{GLbis-22}\\
\tilde{\Delta}^T_{21}- \tilde{D}_{21}&=&-(\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)})(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})\label{GLbis-21}\ ,\end{aligned}$$
where $\delta_{TS}f\equiv f^T-f$, and the relations [@Moch:2007tx; @Dokshitzer:2005bf; @Basso:2006nk]: $\delta_{TS}A_j^{a}=\delta_{TS}B_j^{a}=0$ and [@Moch:2009my] $\delta_{TS}c_{q2}^{(1)}=\delta_{TS}c_{q1}^{(1)}=0$ have been used, together with[^3]:
$$\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)}=0\label{delta-cg1}\ .$$
One also finds that a relation similar to eq.(\[GL-2i\]) does [*not*]{} hold for the $K_{20}^T$ constant term. Instead one gets:
$$K_{20}^T-K_{20}=-12 \zeta_2 (C_A+C_F)\beta_0\label{GL-20}\ .$$
Eq.(\[GL-20\]) means that in momentum space only the $\frac{1}{(1-x)_+}$ part of $K^{(1)T}(x)$ satisfies a Gribov-Lipatov relation, not the $\delta(1-x)$ part, namely we have for $x\rightarrow 1$:
$$\begin{aligned}
K^{(1)}(x)&\sim&\frac{2 K_{22}\ln (1-x)-K_{21}}{(1-x)_+}+(K_{20}-\zeta_2 K_{22})\delta(1-x) \label{K1-x-large}\\
K^{(1)T}(x)&\sim&\frac{2 K_{22}\ln (1-x)-K_{21}}{(1-x)_+}+(K_{20}^T-\zeta_2 K_{22})\delta(1-x) \label{K1T-x-large}\ .\end{aligned}$$
Similar large-$x$ relations[^4] have been observed [@Grunberg:2009vs; @Grunberg:2010sw] up to $i=2$ for the non singlet physical evolution kernels $K^{(i)T}_{ns}$ and $K^{(i)}_{ns}$.
Three loop timelike predictions
-------------------------------
Given the non-trivial character of eqs.(\[GL-2i\]) (see in particular eq.(\[GLbis-21\])), it is natural to assume they are not accidental, and that similar large-$N$ Gribov-Lipatov like relations also hold beyond two loop, as in the non-singlet case [@Grunberg:2009vs; @Grunberg:2010sw]. At three loop one gets for $N\rightarrow\infty$:
$$K^{(2)T}(N)\sim \sum_{i=0}^4 K^T_{3i}\ln^i \bar{N}\label{KT2-as}$$
with:
$$\begin{aligned}
K^T_{3i}&=&\tilde{\Delta}^T_{3i}\beta_0+(lower\ loop\ quantities)\ (2\leq i\leq 4)\label{KT3i}\\
K^T_{31}&=&\tilde{\Delta}^T_{31}\beta_0-(A_3^{gT}+A_3^{qT})+(lower\ loop\ quantities) \label{KT31}\\
K^T_{30}&=&\tilde{\Delta}^T_{30}\beta_0+(B_3^{gT}+B_3^{qT})-\beta_2+(lower\ loop\ quantities) \label{KT30} \ ,
\end{aligned}$$
where the “lower loop quantities” do not depend on the off-diagonal $\gamma^T_{qg}(N)$ anomalous dimension, i.e. on the $D^T_{ij}$’s. Assuming the large-$N$ Gribov-Lipatov relations:
$$K_{3i}^T= K_{3i}\ (1\leq i\leq 4)\label{GL-3i}\ ,$$
eqs.(\[KT3i\]), (\[K3i\]) and (\[KT31\]), (\[K31\]) then show that the $\tilde{\Delta}^T_{3i}$’s ($1\leq i\leq 4$) can be predicted in term of the $\tilde{D}_{3i}$’s (and three loop cusp anomalous dimensions) and lower loop quantities. Indeed eq.(\[GL-3i\]) yields:
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Delta}^T_{34}- \tilde{D}_{34}&=&0\label{GLbis-34}\\
\tilde{\Delta}^T_{33}- \tilde{D}_{33}&=&(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})\Big[-(\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g2}^{(2)}) +(\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)})c_{q2}^{(1)}\Big]\label{GLbis-33}\\
\tilde{\Delta}^T_{32}- \tilde{D}_{32}&=&-\frac{1}{4}(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})^2 (\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)}) (\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)T}+\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)})\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{1}{4}(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q}) (\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)})(\tilde{\Delta}^T_{21}+\tilde{D}_{21})+4(\delta_{TS}c_{q2}^{(2)})\nonumber\\
& & -(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})(\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(2)})+(B_1^{g}-B_1^{q}-2\beta_0)(\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g2}^{(2)})\nonumber\\
& &-\frac{1}{2}(\tilde{\Delta}^T_{20}- \tilde{D}_{20})\Big[\tilde{D}_{22}+(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)}\Big]\nonumber\\
& &+\Big[(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)}-4 c_{q2}^{(1)}\Big](\delta_{TS}c_{q0}^{(1)})\nonumber\\
& &-\frac{1}{2}(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})(\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)})(B_1^{g}-B_1^{q}-\beta_0)\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)}\nonumber\\
& &-\frac{1}{2}(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})(\tilde{\Delta}^T_{21}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)T}-\tilde{D}_{21} \tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)})\nonumber\\
& &+(\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g0}^{(1)})\Big[\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}_{22}(B_1^{g}-B_1^{q}-\beta_0)+(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})(B_1^{g}-B_1^{q})\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)}\nonumber\\
& &+(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})c_{q1}^{(1)}- (B_1^{g}-B_1^{q}-2\beta_0)c_{q2}^{(1)}-\beta_0(A_1^{g}-A_1^{q})\tilde{c}_{g1}^{(1)}\Big]
\label{GLbis-32}\end{aligned}$$
(with a similar, even more lengthy equation for $\tilde{\Delta}^T_{31}- \tilde{D}_{31}$, not written down for brevity), where I used [@Moch:2009my] $\delta_{TS}c_{q3}^{(2)}=\delta_{TS}c_{q4}^{(2)}=0$, and also eqs.(\[GLbis-22\]) and (\[GLbis-21\]), together with:
$$\delta_{TS}\tilde{c}_{g3}^{(2)}=0\label{delta-cg2}\ .$$
Thus the large-$N$ Gribov-Lipatov relations eq.(\[GL-3i\]) determines the $\Delta^T_{3i}$’s in term of the $D_{3i}$’s and lower loop quantities. One finds:
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^T_{34}&=&-\frac{4}{3}C_F C_{AF}^2\label{DeltaT-34}\\
\Delta^T_{33}&=&\frac{2}{3}C_F C_{AF}(12C_A-9C_F-\beta_0)\label{DeltaT-33}\\
\Delta^T_{32}&= & \frac{2}{3}C_F C_{AF}[(8-24\zeta_2)C_A+51 C_F+13 \beta_0)]\label{DeltaT-32}\\
\Delta^T_{31}&= &\Big(\frac{214}{9}-10\zeta_2\Big)C_F^2\beta_0+\Big(-\frac{196}{9}+14\zeta_2\Big)C_A C_F\beta_0+\Big(\frac{278}{9}+46\zeta_2-\frac{560}{3}\zeta_3\Big)C_A C_F^2\nonumber\\
& &+\Big(-\frac{206}{9}-32\zeta_2+\frac{208}{3}\zeta_3\Big)C_A^2 C_F+\Big(-14-26\zeta_2+\frac{352}{3}\zeta_3\Big) C_F^3\label{DeltaT-31}\ .\end{aligned}$$
Inverting to momentum space, one gets for $x\rightarrow 1$:
$$P_{gq}^{(2)T}(x)\sim\sum_{i=0}^{4} \bar{\Delta}^T_{3 i}\ln^i(1-x)\label{gammaTgq(x)-as}\ ,$$
with:
$$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\Delta}^T_{34}&=&\frac{4}{3}C_F C_{AF}^2\label{DeltabarT-34}\\
\bar{\Delta}^T_{33}&=&\frac{2}{3}C_F C_{AF}(12C_A-9C_F-\beta_0)\label{DeltabarT-33}\\
\bar{\Delta}^T_{32}&= & -\frac{2}{3}C_F C_{AF}[(8-12\zeta_2)C_A+(51-12\zeta_2) C_F+13 \beta_0)]\label{DeltabarT-32}\\
\bar{\Delta}^T_{31}&= &\Big(\frac{214}{9}-12\zeta_2\Big)C_F^2\beta_0+\Big(-\frac{196}{9}+16\zeta_2\Big)C_A C_F\beta_0+\Big(\frac{278}{9}+88\zeta_2-208\zeta_3\Big)C_A C_F^2\nonumber\\
& &+\Big(-\frac{206}{9}-56\zeta_2+80\zeta_3\Big)C_A^2 C_F+\Big(-14-44\zeta_2+128\zeta_3\Big) C_F^3\label{DeltabarT-31}\ .\end{aligned}$$
Of course, the double logarithmic terms $\Delta^T_{3i}\ (i=3,4)$ could also have been obtained from an alternative ansatz similar to the one used in section 4.2. The present Gribov-Lipatov ansatz however yields in addition the single logarithmic terms $\Delta^T_{3i}\ (i=1,2)$. I note the predicted $\Delta^T_{3i}$’s vanish when $C_A=C_F$ for $i=2,3,4$, similarly to the $D_{3i}$’s.
The Gribov-Lipatov relations eq.(\[GL-3i\]) are not expected to be valid for the constant terms ($i=0$). Nevertheless, it is interesting to speculate about a simple structure of the difference $K_{30}^T-K_{30}$, similar to the one observed in the two loop case, eq.(\[GL-20\]). Indeed one finds:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{30}^T-K_{30}&=&
-12 \zeta_2 (C_A+C_F)\beta_1+[\tilde{\Delta}^T_{30}- \tilde{D}_{30}]\beta_0\label{GL-30}\\
& &+\Big[(-6+48 \zeta_2+144 \zeta_2^2-24\zeta_3)C_A^2+(8+44 \zeta_2-240 \zeta_2^2-24\zeta_3)C_A C_F\nonumber\\
& &+(18-186 \zeta_2+192 \zeta_2^2+48\zeta_3)C_F^2\big]\beta_0+\Big[(4-12 \zeta_2)C_A+(6-134 \zeta_2)C_F\Big]\beta_0^2\nonumber\ ,\end{aligned}$$
where all explicitly calculated contributions arise from less then three loop, and $\tilde{D}_{30}$ could be in principle extracted from the results in [@Vogt:2004mw]. The first term on the right-hand side of eq.(\[GL-30\]) reveals that indeed the difference $K_{30}^T-K_{30}$ cannot vanish, since this term cannot be canceled by the other contributions, which are all proportional to $\beta_0$. However, as suggested by the right-hand side of eq.(\[GL-20\]), a number of cancellations may take place. In particular, one might expect that all terms with no factor of $\zeta_2$ cancel on the right-hand side of eq.(\[GL-30\]):
$$K_{30}^T-K_{30}={\cal O}(\zeta_2)\label{assumption1}\ ,$$
a possibility which would be interesting to check against the forthcoming exact result [@Vogt].
It is clear that similar methods may be used to predict the large-$x$ logarithmic coefficients ${\bar D}_{3i}^T$ ($1\leq i\leq 4$) in the three loop off-diagonal timelike splitting function $P_{qg}^{(2)T}(x)$:
$$P_{qg}^{(2)T}(x)\sim\sum_{i=0}^{4} \bar{D}^T_{3 i}\ln^i(1-x)\label{gammaTqg(x)-as}\ ,$$
assuming the analogue of the large-$N$ Gribov-Lipatov relations eq.(\[GL-3i\]) for the $\phi$-related physical kernels:
$$K_{3i}^{\phi T}= K_{3i}^{\phi}\ (1\leq i\leq 4)\label{phiGL-3i}\ .$$
Eq.(\[phiGL-3i\]) yields relations between the $ D_{3i}^T$’s and the $ \Delta_{3i}$’s, which however depend on the one and two loop $\phi$-decay timelike quark and gluon coefficient functions. The latter could in principle be determined [@Moch:2007tx] by analytic continuation of corresponding spacelike quantities.
Conclusion
==========
The large-$x$/ large-$N$ behavior of the physical evolution kernels associated to the second order evolution equations for the singlet $F_2$ (photon-exchange DIS) and $F_{\phi}$ ($\phi$-exchange DIS) structure functions has been investigated. It was shown that for each process at [*large*]{} $N$ there is actually only [*one*]{} independent “scalar” physical kernel $K(x,Q^2)$ (resp. $K_{\phi}(x,Q^2)$) for singlet evolution, in addition to the non-singlet one $K_{ns}(x,Q^2)$ (resp. $K_{\phi,ns}(x,Q^2)$).
The singlet kernel $K(x,Q^2)$ was found to satisfy up to three loop a leading logarithmic standard form of threshold resummation, analogous to the one valid for the non-singlet kernel, and which holds presumably also beyond three loop. This assumption allows to predict the double logarithmic contributions to the four loop off-diagonal splitting function $P^{(3)}_{qg}(x)$, thus recovering some of the results of [@Soar:2009yh]. It was shown that this agreement is not accidental, and that the assumption of leading logarithmic threshold resummation of the singlet “scalar” kernel $K(x,Q^2)$ is closely related to the assumption (now confirmed [@Vogt:2010cv; @Almasy:2010wn]) of single logarithmic behavior of the “matrix” physical kernel studied in [@Soar:2009yh]. The present more intrinsic “scalar” approach allows however to go a little further, and provides some information on the two leading large $x$ [*single logarithmic*]{} contributions ($\ln^i(1-x)$, $i=2,3$) to $P^{(3)}_{qg}(x)$. It is found that there is an obstruction to threshold resummation (as opposed to the non-singlet case) at the next-to-leading logarithmic level, which first manifests itself in the three loop kernel (a similar fact has been observed [@Moch:2009mu; @Grunberg:2009am] in the case of the non-singlet longitudinal $F_L$ structure function [@Akhoury:1998gs; @Akhoury:2003fw]). This obstruction turns out to be removed in the “supersymmetric” case $C_A=C_F$, as well as at large $\beta_0$, which suggests a full threshold resummation might still be possible in these cases, leading to the above mentioned additional predictions. On the other hand, no prediction is available for the ${\cal O}(\ln(1-x))$ term in $P^{(3)}_{qg}(x)$, which should be viewed as an [*input*]{} for the threshold resummation. Of course, more work is needed to justify the assumed threshold resummation for $C_A=C_F$ (for which a non-trivial consistency check has been provided, see the comment after eq.(\[D42predict\])), and to better understand the general $C_A\neq C_F$ situation.
The analogous study of $\phi$-exchange DIS, where the scalar $\phi$ is directly coupled to gluons, gives information on the other off-diagonal splitting function $P_{gq}(x)$. The interesting new feature in this case is that the discrepancy at three loop with threshold resummation is found to be [*quadratic*]{} in $C_A-C_F$, allowing to predict more terms in the single logarithmic contributions to $P^{(3)}_{gq}(x)$.
A similar approach has been applied to the study of the large-$x$ behavior of $e^+ e^-$ fragmentation functions. A large-$x$ Gribov-Lipatov relation (similar to the one holding [@Grunberg:2009vs; @Grunberg:2010sw] for the non-singlet kernels) has been observed in the two loop physical kernels. Assuming a similar relation is valid at three loop, [*all*]{} large-$x$ logarithmic contributions to the three loop timelike off-diagonal splitting function $P^{(2)T}_{gq}(x)$ are predicted and related to corresponding terms in $P^{(2)}_{qg}(x)$ , which could be checked against exact calculations [@Vogt] in the near future.
**Acknowledgements** I thank A. Vogt for a very helpful correspondence on the normalization conventions for the timelike gluon coefficient function, and A. Mitov for raising a thought-stimulating question.
Connection with the matrix physical evolution kernel for the $(F_2, F_{\phi})$ system
=====================================================================================
An standard alternative method [@Furmanski:1981cw] to construct physical evolution kernels for singlet evolution consists in the simultaneous introduction of another process in addition to the photon exchange one, in particular the exchange of a scalar $\phi$ directly coupled to gluons. This system has been considered in [@Soar:2009yh]. The matrix physical evolution kernel for the coupled $(F_2 ,F_{\phi})$ system is defined by:
$$\Big( \begin{array}{c} \!\! \dot{F}(N,Q^2) \!\! \\ \! \dot{F}_{\phi}(N,Q^2) \!\!
\end{array} \Big) \:=\:
\Big( \! \begin{array}{cc} K_{22}(N,Q^2)\! & K_{2\phi}(N,Q^2)\! \\
K_{\phi 2}(N,Q^2)\! & K_{\phi\phi}(N,Q^2)\! \end{array}\! \Big) \Big( \begin{array}{c} \!\! F (N,Q^2)\!\! \\ \! F_{\phi}(N,Q^2) \!\! \end{array} \Big)
\label{g-f-kernel}\ ,$$
with $F$ as in eq.(\[F\]). Taking the $Q^2$ derivative of both sides of eq.(\[g-f-kernel\]), considering the first line (relevant for the photon exchange case), and eliminating $F_{\phi}$ and $\dot{F}_{\phi}$, one recovers the “scalar” evolution equation eq.(\[physkernels\]) with the identifications:
$$\begin{aligned}
K(N,Q^2)&=&K_{22}(N,Q^2)+K_{\phi\phi}(N,Q^2) +\frac{\dot{K}_{2\phi}(N,Q^2)}{K_{2\phi}(N,Q^2)}\label{physkernel-K-bis}\\
J(N,Q^2)&=&K_{2\phi}(N,Q^2) K_{\phi 2}(N,Q^2)-K_{22}(N,Q^2) K_{\phi\phi}(N,Q^2)\nonumber\\
& &+\dot{K}_{22}(N,Q^2) -K_{22}(N,Q^2)\frac{\dot{K}_{2\phi}(N,Q^2)}{K_{2\phi}(N,Q^2)}\label{physkernel-J-bis}\ .\end{aligned}$$
Taking next the derivative of the second line of eq.(\[g-f-kernel\]), and eliminating $F$ and $\dot{F}$, one recovers similarly eq.(\[phi-physkernels\]), with $K_{\phi}(N,Q^2)$ and $J_{\phi}(N,Q^2)$ obtained by relations analogous to eqs.(\[physkernel-K-bis\]) and (\[physkernel-J-bis\]) with the indices $2$ and $\phi$ on the right-hand sides interchanged.
Relation between the $J$ (resp. $J_{\phi}$) and $K$ (resp. $K_{\phi}$) singlet physical kernels
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider now the large $N$ limit. I first observe that in this limit, $J(N,Q^2)$ can be expressed in term of $K(N,Q^2)$ and $K_{22}(N,Q^2)$. Indeed, it is known [@Soar:2009yh] that at large $N$, $K_{22}(N,Q^2)$ and $K_{\phi\phi}(N,Q^2)$ are ${\cal O}(N^0)$ (up to logarithms of $N$), while $K_{2\phi}(N,Q^2)$ and $K_{\phi2}(N,Q^2)$ are ${\cal O}(1/N)$. Thus for $N\rightarrow\infty$ one can neglect the first term on the right-hand side of eq.(\[physkernel-J-bis\]), and get:
$$J(N,Q^2)\sim {\dot K}_{22}(N,Q^2)-K_{22}(N,Q^2)\Big[K_{\phi\phi}(N,Q^2) +\frac{\dot{K}_{2\phi}(N,Q^2)}{K_{2\phi}(N,Q^2)}\Big]\label{J-largeN1}\ .$$
Using eq.(\[physkernel-K-bis\]), one then finds:
$$J(N,Q^2)\sim {\dot K}_{22}(N,Q^2)-K_{22}(N,Q^2)\Big[K(N,Q^2)-K_{22}(N,Q^2)\Big]\label{J-largeN2}\ .$$
Moreover, it follows from [@Soar:2009yh] that at large $N$, the ${\cal O}(N^0)$ part (modulo logarithms of $N$) of $K_{22}(N,Q^2)$ coincides with the non singlet kernel $K_{ns}(N,Q^2)$, which is known [@Gardi:2007ma; @Friot:2007fd] to satisfy a standard form of threshold resummation. Indeed, in momentum space one can check that eqs.(4.13)-(4.16) of [@Soar:2009yh] can be cast in the form of eqs.(\[K-conjecture\]) and (\[j-expand\]) (truncated to ${\cal O}(a_s^3)$), namely we have at large $x$:
$$\label{K22-conjecture}
K_{22}(x,Q^2)\sim \frac{{\cal J}_{ns}\left((1-x)Q^2\right)}{(1-x)_+}\sim K_{ns}(x,Q^2)\ ,$$
where ${\cal J}_{ns}\left((1-x)Q^2\right)$ satisfies the analogue of eq.(\[j-expand\]) (with $j_{ns,1}=4C_F$). Thus we obtain:
$$J(N,Q^2)\sim {\dot K}_{ns}(N,Q^2)-K_{ns}(N,Q^2)\Big[K(N,Q^2)-K_{ns}(N,Q^2)\Big]\label{J-largeN3}\ ,$$
which, for $N\rightarrow\infty$, expresses[^5] $J(N,Q^2)$ in term of $K(N,Q^2)$ and $K_{ns}(N,Q^2)$ up to ${\cal O}(1/N^2)$ corrections. It thus suffices to study the large-$N$ properties of $K(N,Q^2)$.
Similarly, $J_{\phi}(N,Q^2)$ can be expressed at large $N$ in term of $K_{\phi}(N,Q^2)$ and $K_{\phi \phi}(N,Q^2)$:
$$J_{\phi}(N,Q^2)\sim {\dot K}_{\phi \phi}(N,Q^2)-K_{\phi \phi}(N,Q^2)\Big[K_{\phi}(N,Q^2)-K_{\phi \phi}(N,Q^2)\Big]\label{Jphi-largeN2}\ .$$
The results of [@Soar:2009yh] also imply that $K_{\phi \phi}(N,Q^2)$ satisfies at large $N$ a standard non-singlet form of threshold resummation[^6], and can be identified to a non-singlet “gluonic” physical kernel. Indeed, one can check that eqs. (4.18)-(4.21) of [@Soar:2009yh] can also be cast in the form of eqs.(\[K-conjecture\]) and (\[j-expand\]) (truncated to ${\cal O}(a_s^3)$), namely we have:
$$\label{Kphiphi-conjecture}
K_{\phi \phi}(x,Q^2)\sim \frac{{\cal J}_{\phi,ns}\left((1-x)Q^2\right)}{(1-x)_+}\sim K_{\phi,ns}(x,Q^2)\ ,$$
where ${\cal J}_{\phi,ns}\left((1-x)Q^2\right)$ satisfies the analogue of eq.(\[j-expand\]) (with $j_1^{\phi,ns}=4C_A$).
To summarize, at large $N$ there are only two independent singlet “scalar” physical kernels ($K(N,Q^2)$ and $K_{\phi}(N,Q^2)$), and two independent non-singlet kernels ($K_{ns}(N,Q^2)$ and $K_{\phi,ns}(N,Q^2)$), which match the four elements of the matrix kernel (\[g-f-kernel\]).
Single logarithmic enhancement of $K_{2\phi}$ (resp. $K_{\phi 2}$) and leading logarithmic threshold resummation of $K$ (resp. $K_{\phi}$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Setting:
$$K_{2\phi}(N,Q^2)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}K_{2\phi}^{(i)}(N) a_s^{i+1}
\label{K2phi-expand}\ ,$$
let us first assume the large-$N$ behavior of the off-diagonal kernel coefficients $K_{2\phi}^{(i)}(N)$ to be doubly logarithmic (as a priori expected from the behavior of the off-diagonal splitting functions):
$$K_{2\phi}^{(i)}(N)\sim\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=0}^{2i} D^{\phi}_{i+1 j}\ln^j\bar{N}\label{K2phi-as}\ .$$
On the other hand, for the diagonal kernels coefficients $K_{aa}^{(i)}(N)$ ($a=2,\phi$), assuming a single logarithmic enhancement, as follows from their large-$N$ identification with non-singlet physical kernels, and their ensuing threshold resummation properties (Appendix A.1), one has:
$$K_{aa}(N,Q^2)=\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}K_{aa}^{(i)}(N) a_s^{i+1}
\label{Kaa-expand}\ ,$$
with:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{22}^{(i)}(N)&\sim&\sum_{j=0}^{i+1} K^{ns}_{i+1 j}\ln^j \bar{N}\label{K22-as}\\
K_{\phi\phi}^{(i)}(N)&\sim&\sum_{j=0}^{i+1} K^{\phi, ns}_{i+1 j}\ln^j \bar{N}\label{Kphiphi-as}\ .\end{aligned}$$
Using eqs.(\[K2phi-expand\])-(\[Kphiphi-as\]) into eq.(\[physkernel-K-bis\]), one deduces the large-$N$ behavior (eqs.(\[K0-as\]) and (\[Ki-as\])) of the $K^{(i)}(N)$’s (eq.(\[K-expand\])), namely:
i\) At one loop:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{11}&=& K^{ns}_{11}+K^{\phi, ns}_{11}\label{K11-bis}\\
K_{10}&=&K^{ns}_{10}+K^{\phi, ns}_{10}-\beta_0 \label{K10-bis}\ .\end{aligned}$$
ii\) At two loop:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{22}&=& K^{ns}_{22}+K^{\phi, ns}_{22}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\beta_0\label{K22-bis}\\
K_{21}&=&K^{ns}_{21}+K^{\phi,ns}_{21}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{21}\beta_0\label{K21-bis}\\
K_{20}&=&K^{ns}_{20}+K^{\phi, ns}_{20}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{20}\beta_0-\beta_1\label{K20-bis}\ ,
\end{aligned}$$
where:
$$\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{i j}=D^{\phi}_{i j}/n_f=2 D^{\phi}_{i j}/D^{\phi}_{10}\label{D-phi-norm}\ .$$
iii\) At three loop:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{34}&=&\Big[-\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{34}+\Big(\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\Big)^2\Big]\beta_0\label{K34-bis}\\
K_{33}&=&K^{ns}_{33}+K^{\phi, ns}_{33}+\Big[-\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{33}+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{21}\Big]\beta_0\label{K33-bis}\\
K_{32}&=&K^{ns}_{32}+K^{\phi, ns}_{32}+\Big[-\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{32}+\Big(\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{21}\Big)^2+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{20}\Big]\beta_0-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\beta_1\label{K32-bis}\\
K_{31}&=&K^{ns}_{31}+K^{\phi, ns}_{31}+\Big[-\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{31}+\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{21}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{20}\Big]\beta_0-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{21}\beta_1\label{K31-bis}\\
K_{30}&=&K^{ns}_{30}+K^{\phi, ns}_{30}+\Big[-\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{30}+\Big(\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{20}\Big)^2\Big]\beta_0-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{20}\beta_1-\beta_2\label{K30-bis}
\ . \end{aligned}$$
iv\) At four loop:
$$\begin{aligned}
K_{46}&=&\Big[-\frac{3}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{46}+\frac{3}{4} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{34} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}-\Big(\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\Big)^3\Big]\beta_0\label{K46-bis}\\
K_{45}&=&\Big[-\frac{3}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{45}+\frac{3}{4} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{34} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{21}+\frac{3}{4} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{33} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}-\frac{3}{2} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{21}\Big(\frac{1}{2} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\Big)^2\Big]\beta_0\label{K45-bis}\\
K_{44}&=&K^{ns}_{44}+K^{\phi, ns}_{44}+\Big[-\frac{3}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{44}+\frac{3}{4} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{34} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{20}+\frac{3}{4} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{33} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{21}+\frac{3}{4} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{32} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\nonumber\\
& &-\frac{3}{2} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\Big(\frac{1}{2} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{21}\Big)^2-\frac{3}{2} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{20}\Big(\frac{1}{2} \tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\Big)^2\Big]\beta_0+\Big[-\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{34}+\Big(\frac{1}{2}\tilde{D}^{\phi}_{22}\Big)^2\Big]\beta_1\label{K44-bis} \ ,\end{aligned}$$
with similar, but longer relations (not written down for brevity) for $K_{4i}$ ($i\leq 3$).
If one now takes into account the known [@Soar:2009yh; @Vogt:2010cv; @Almasy:2010wn] single logarithmic behavior of $K_{2\phi}^{(i)}(N)$, i.e. the fact that $D^{\phi}_{ij}=0$ for $j\geq i$, one gets:
$$K_{34}=K_{45}=K_{46}=0\label{K-null}\ ,$$
and:
$$K_{ii}= K^{ns}_{ii}+K^{\phi, ns}_{ii}\label{Kii}\ .$$
Using the relations [@Soar:2009yh] $K^{ns}_{ii}=-4C_F\beta_0^{i-1}/i$ and $K^{\phi, ns}_{ii}=-4C_A\beta_0^{i-1}/i$, which follow (at the leading logarithmic level) from the threshold resummation of the diagonal kernels mentioned in Appendix A.1, one then recovers the results following from the assumed leading logarithmic threshold resummation of the singlet kernel $K$ (section 4.2). These results show that the leading logarithmic threshold resummation of $K$ follows from the single logarithmic enhancement of the off-diagonal physical kernel $K_{2\phi}$, together with the (leading logarithmic) threshold resummation of the diagonal kernels $K_{22}$ and $K_{\phi\phi}$. I note that eqs.(\[K11-bis\])-(\[K30-bis\]) allow also to compute the $K_{ij}$’s, and thus check the results of section 3, using the results for the $D^{\phi}_{i j}$’s in [@Soar:2009yh].
Quite similarly, one can show that the leading logarithmic threshold resummation of $K_{\phi}$ follows from the single logarithmic enhancement of the off-diagonal physical kernel $K_{\phi 2}$ (together with the leading logarithmic threshold resummation of the diagonal kernels $K_{22}$ and $K_{\phi\phi}$). The (now confirmed [@Vogt:2010cv; @Almasy:2010wn]) ensuing predictions (eqs.(\[D46predict\])-(\[D44predict\])) of the double logarithmic off-diagonal four loop coefficients $D_{4i}$ ($4\leq i\leq 6$), as well as the similar predictions (eqs.(\[Delta46predict\])-(\[Delta44predict\])) of the off-diagonal four loop coefficients $\Delta_{4i}$ ($4\leq i\leq 6$) are thus equivalent to those of [@Soar:2009yh].
[00]{}
G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. [**B281**]{} (1987) 310. S. Catani and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. [**B327**]{} (1989) 323.
M. Cacciari and S. Catani, Nucl. Phys. B [**617**]{} (2001) 253 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0107138\]. S. Moch and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B [**680**]{} (2009) 239 \[arXiv:0908.2746 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Soar, S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B [**832**]{} (2010) 152 \[arXiv:0912.0369 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B [**691**]{} (2010) 77 \[arXiv:1005.1606 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. A. Almasy, G. Soar and A. Vogt, JHEP [**1103** ]{} (2011) 030. \[arXiv:1012.3352 \[hep-ph\]\].
W. L. van Neerven and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B [**603**]{} (2001) 42 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0103123\].
E. Gardi and G. Grunberg, Nucl. Phys. B [**794**]{} (2008) 61 \[arXiv:0709.2877 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Grunberg, arXiv:0710.5693 \[hep-ph\].
S. Moch and A. Vogt, JHEP [**0904**]{} (2009) 081 \[arXiv:0902.2342 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Grunberg and V. Ravindran, JHEP [**0910**]{} (2009) 055 \[arXiv:0902.2702 \[hep-ph\]\].
S. Moch and A. Vogt, JHEP [**0911**]{} (2009) 099 \[arXiv:0909.2124 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Grunberg, arXiv:0910.3894 \[hep-ph\].
G. Grunberg, Phys. Lett. [**B687** ]{} (2010) 405-409. \[arXiv:0911.4471 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. Grunberg, PoS [**DIS2010** ]{} (2010) 110. \[arXiv:1005.5684 \[hep-ph\]\].
W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, Z. Phys. C [**11**]{} (1982) 293.
S. Catani, Z. Phys. [**C75**]{} (1997) 665 \[hep-ph/9609263\].
J. Blumlein, V. Ravindran and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. B [**586**]{} (2000) 349 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0004172\].
S. Friot and G. Grunberg, JHEP [**0709** ]{} (2007) 002. \[arXiv:0706.1206 \[hep-ph\]\].
G. P. Korchemsky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**4**]{} (1989) 1257.
G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B [**126**]{} (1977) 298.
S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. [**B688**]{} (2004) 101 \[hep-ph/0403192\].
A. Vogt, S. Moch and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys. [**B691** ]{} (2004) 129-181. \[hep-ph/0404111\].
J. A. M. Vermaseren, A. Vogt and S. Moch, Nucl. Phys. [**B724** ]{} (2005) 3-182. \[hep-ph/0504242\].
S. Moch and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Nucl. Phys. [**B573** ]{} (2000) 853-907. \[hep-ph/9912355\].
R. Akhoury, M. G. Sotiropoulos and G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{} (1998) 3819 \[arXiv:hep-ph/9807330\]. R. Akhoury and M. G. Sotiropoulos, arXiv:hep-ph/0304131.
P. J. Rijken and W. L. van Neerven, Phys. Lett. [**B386** ]{} (1996) 422-428. \[hep-ph/9604436\].
P. J. Rijken and W. L. van Neerven, Nucl. Phys. [**B487** ]{} (1997) 233-282. \[hep-ph/9609377\].
P. J. Rijken and W. L. van Neerven, Phys. Lett. [**B392** ]{} (1997) 207-215. \[hep-ph/9609379\].
A. Mitov and S. -O. Moch, Nucl. Phys. [**B751** ]{} (2006) 18-52. \[hep-ph/0604160\].
G. Curci, W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B [**175**]{} (1980) 27.
W. Furmanski and R. Petronzio, Phys. Lett. [**B97** ]{} (1980) 437.
E. G. Floratos, C. Kounnas and R. Lacaze, Nucl. Phys. [**B192** ]{} (1981) 417.
A. Mitov, S. Moch and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B [**638**]{} (2006) 61 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0604053\]. S. Moch and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. [**B659** ]{} (2008) 290-296. \[arXiv:0709.3899 \[hep-ph\]\].
V. N. Gribov and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**15**]{} (1972) 438, [*ibid*]{}. [**15**]{} (1972) 675. M. Stratmann and W. Vogelsang, Nucl. Phys. [**B496** ]{} (1997) 41-65. \[hep-ph/9612250\].
Yu. L. Dokshitzer, G. Marchesini and G. P. Salam, Phys. Lett. B [**634**]{} (2006) 504 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0511302\].
B. Basso and G. P. Korchemsky, Nucl. Phys. B [**775**]{} (2007) 1 \[arXiv:hep-th/0612247\]. A. Vogt, private communication.
S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. [**B726** ]{} (2005) 317-335. \[hep-ph/0506288\].
[^1]: It should be noted that the large $N$ singlet quark coefficients (eq.(\[iloop-cq\]) below) coincide [@Vermaseren:2005qc] with the non-singlet ones, thus threshold resummation of $K_{ns}(N,Q^2)$ is related to threshold resummation of the singlet quark coefficient function itself.
[^2]: This is not the case for the $K^{(i)}(N)$’s at [*finite*]{} $N$ for $i\geq 2$.
[^3]: The normalization convention [@Vogt] adopted here (see eqs.(\[short-distance\]), (\[A-P-T\]) and (\[GL\])) requires the timelike gluon coefficient function $C^T_g $ to be $1/2$ the standard one in [@Rijken:1996vr; @Rijken:1996ns; @Rijken:1996npa; @Mitov:2006wy] (and the timelike gluon distribution $g_T$ to be $2 n_f\times$ the standard one).
[^4]: Similar relations hold [@Moch:2007tx; @Dokshitzer:2005bf; @Basso:2006nk] for the $1/(1-x)_+$ parts of [*diagonal*]{} splitting functions; in this case, the $\delta(1-x)$ terms are also equal.
[^5]: For $K(N,Q^2)=K_{ns}(N,Q^2)$, eq.(\[J-largeN3\]) becomes $J(N,Q^2)\sim{\dot K}_{ns}(N,Q^2)$, which also follows by taking the $Q^2$ derivative of eq.(\[ns-physkernel\]), and in this case is valid at finite $N$ too.
[^6]: This fact is closely related to the known [@Moch:2005ba; @Soar:2009yh] soft gluon exponentiation of $C_{\phi,g}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Tensor eigenvalues and eigenvectors have been introduced in the recent mathematical literature as a generalization of the usual matrix eigenvalues and eigenvectors. We apply this formalism to a tensor that describes a multipartite symmetric state or a spin state, and we investigate to what extent the corresponding tensor eigenvalues contain information about the multipartite entanglement (or, equivalently, the classicality) of the state. This extends previous results connecting entanglement to spectral properties related to the state. While for spin-1 states the positivity of the smallest tensor eigenvalue is equivalent to separability, we show that for higher values of the angular momentum there is a correlation between entanglement and the value of the smallest tensor eigenvalue.'
author:
- 'F. Bohnet-Waldraff$^{1,2}$, D. Braun$^{1}$, and O. Giraud$^{2}$'
date: 'August 11, 2016'
title: Tensor eigenvalues and entanglement of symmetric states
---
Introduction
============
In the study of multipartite entanglement, symmetric multipartite states have drawn some attention recently [@MultGeoEnt; @DetecEntDicke; @MaxEntGeoMeasure]. One reason for that is that they span a Hilbert space whose dimension grows only linearly with the number of constituents, rather than exponentially for arbitrary multipartite states. They are therefore easier to deal with than generic states, and they provide a first step towards a more general understanding of multipartite entanglement. A pure symmetric $N$-qubit state can be written as a superposition of the Dicke states familiar in quantum optics. A Dicke state is a state of $N$ two-level atoms (i.e. qubits) where a given number of excitations is symmetrically distributed over the $N$ constituents, so that the state is invariant under permutations of the qubits. Such states have important technological potential for quantum storage, as the coupling constants of photons to atoms can effectively be increased by a factor $\sqrt{N}$ when coupling the atoms symmetrically to the light field [@Dicke54]. Another physical realization of Dicke states is provided by angular momentum eigenstates, i.e. spin-$j$ states arising as collective angular momentum states of $N=2j$ physical spins-1/2. The Dicke states are formally equivalent to eigenstates $\ket{j,m}$ of operators ${{\bf J}}^2$ and $J_z$, where $J_x,J_y,J_z$ are the usual angular momentum operators. A mixed symmetric state is then defined as a mixture of pure symmetric states (note that this notion is distinct from that of ’symmetrized mixed state’, which would be a tensor product of spin-$1/2$ density matrices symmetrized by summing over all permutations).
Among the pure spin-$j$ states, spin coherent states (also called SU(2)-coherent states) are the ones that come as close as possible to the ideal of a classical phase space point, in the sense that their quantum fluctuations for the angular moment components are as small as allowed by Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation [@Per72]. Furthermore, they keep this property under the dynamics induced by Hamiltonians linear in the angular momentum components, corresponding physically for example to precession in a magnetic field. For a spin-$j$ coherent state, the expectation value of the angular momentum operator in a specific direction ${{\mathbf n}}$ is $\langle{{\bf J}}.{{\mathbf n}}\rangle=\hbar j$, a feature not true for a general pure spin-$j$ state. In this sense a spin-$j$ coherent state points in a well-defined direction (note that all pure spin-1/2 states are coherent states, as they can be specified by a Bloch vector on the unit sphere). If a spin-$j$ coherent state is interpreted as a symmetric $N$-fold tensor product of $N=2j$ qubits, it can be expressed simply as the tensor product of $N$ identical spin-1/2 coherent states. Therefore spin-$j$ coherent states coincide with symmetric separable pure states. Classical spin-$j$ states are defined as statistical mixtures of spin coherent states [@hillery_nonclassical_1987; @ClassSpinStates; @mari_positive_2012]. When expressed in the Dicke basis, they can be seen as separable symmetric $N$-qubit states.
Just as entanglement of a quantum state can be measured as the distance to the set of separable states, the quantumness (or non-classicality) of a spin-$j$ state can be measured as its distance to the set of classical states [@QQQ]. Our purpose here is to investigate quantumness properties of a state from its spectral properties. There has been substantial research trying to figure out what entanglement properties can be derived from the spectrum of eigenvalues of the density matrix representing a composite system [@separability_prop; @arunachalam_is_2014; @gurvits_largest_2002; @kus_geometry_2001; @verstraete_maximally_2001; @hildebrand_positive_2007; @johnston_separability_2013], and how to directly access the spectrum experimentally without having to reconstruct the full density matrix [@ekert_direct_2002; @tanaka_determining_2014; @ganguly_witness_2014]. Measures of entanglement based on the spectrum have the immediate advantages of being relatively easy to compute, and to be invariant under unitary transformations, i.e. to capture “absolute separability” [@kus_geometry_2001]. Other well-known entanglement criteria are based on bounds of spin-correlations [@TothGuehne; @UshPraRaj07], which in turn exploit the positive-partial transpose (PPT) criterion. In [@PRL2015] we introduced a tensorial representation for spin states. In this representation, a spin-$j$ density matrix is expanded as a sum over matrices of dimensions $(2j+1)\times(2j+1)$, and the expansion coefficients take the form of a tensor $A_{\mu_1\mu_2\ldots\mu_{N}}$ with $N=2j$ indices. We showed in [@etaPaper] that the PPT criteria applied to symmetric multi-qubit states can be unified by means of a matrix $T$, obtained from the tensor representation of the equivalent spin-$j$ state by splitting the set of indices in two subsets, and considering each set as coding for the row or column index of the $T$-matrix. Positive partial transpose is then equivalent to positivity of the $T$-matrix, and correlation criteria for observables, such as spin-squeezing inequalities, can also be derived from positivity of $T$ [@etaPaper].
In the light of these entanglement criteria based on spectral properties of the density matrix, or on positivity of the $T$-matrix constructed from the tensor $A$, one may wonder whether the spectrum of the tensor $A$ itself contains deeper information about the entanglement of the state. While the spectral theory of matrices is more than one century old, its extension to tensors is much more recent. The spectral theory of tensors has developed a lot in the past decade, and various tools have been proposed in the mathematical literature to tackle this problem (see [@RoughVersionQi] for a short review, and also Section \[SectionTensorEigevalues\] below). But the relevance of the spectral theory of tensors for the separability (or classicality) problem has just recently attracted some attention in the quantum information community. For example in [@QiEnt16] it was shown that for pure states the largest tensor eigenvalue is equal to the geometric measure of entanglement, i.e. the maximal overlap of the state with a pure separable state. This entanglement measure is in fact essentially equivalent to finding the best rank-one approximation of the tensor. Therefore, the largest tensor eigenvalue is directly related to the entanglement of a state. In this paper we will explore a new connection, which relates the *smallest* tensor eigenvalue to the entanglement of a pure or mixed state. This originates in the fact that the entanglement of a state is related to the positive-definiteness of a tensor, which in turn is linked to the sign of its smallest tensor eigenvalue.
In the present paper we report results of our investigations on the connection between spectral properties of the tensor of order $2j$ associated with a spin-$j$ state, and the classicality of that state. The paper is organised as follows. First we recall some definitions of quantumness and the tensor representation, and show how the spectrum of the tensor is connected to the quantumness/classicality question. In section \[SectionTensorEigevalues\] we introduce tensor eigenvalues, and as an illustration calculate them explicitly for two examples. In section \[SectionCalculatingquantumness\] we introduce an efficient algorithm for calculating the distance from a state to the set of classical states. Section \[SectionConnectionTensorQuantum\] explores numerically the connection between smallest tensor eigenvalue and quantumness.
Definitions {#sec:definitions}
===========
Entanglement and quantumness
-----------------------------
We consider a system of $N$ qubits and we restrict the Hilbert space to the subspace of symmetric states. We will describe them with the terminology of spin-$j$ states with $N=2j$. Spin coherent states can be written as [@Haake2000] $$\label{spin coherent}
\ket{\alpha} =\!\!\! \sum_{m=-j}^j \sqrt{\binom{2j}{j+m}} \left(\cos\frac{\theta}{2}\right)^{j+m}\left(\sin\frac{\theta}{2}e^{-i\phi}\right)^{j-m}\!\!\!\!\!\! \ket{j,m},$$ with $\theta \in [0,\pi]$ and $\phi \in [0,2\pi[$ spherical angles. Here $\ket{j,m}$ are the usual angular momentum basis vectors, i.e. the simultaneous eigenvectors of the total angular momentum squared ${{\bf J}}^2$ and its $J_z$ component, with eigenvalues $j(j+1)$ and $m$, respectively ($\hbar=1$). The spin coherent state $\ket{\alpha}$ can be seen as a spin-$j$ pointing in the direction ${{\mathbf n}}=(\sin\theta\cos\phi,\sin\theta\sin\phi,\cos\theta)$. A spin-$j$ state $\rho_c$ is classical if and only if it can be expressed as a mixture of spin coherent states with positive weights [@GirBraBra08], i.e. if there exist spin coherent states $\ket{\alpha_i}$ such that $$\label{classicalstates}
\rho_c= \sum_i w_i \ket{\alpha_i}\bra{\alpha_i},\qquad 0 \leq w_i \leq 1,\quad \sum_i w_i =1.$$ We denote by $\mathcal{C}$ the ensemble of such states. Since a coherent spin state is formally exactly a pure symmetric separable state and vice versa [@etaPaper], an entangled symmetric multi-qubit state is therefore a state which cannot be written as a classical state as in Eq. . The amount of entanglement translates into a certain amount of non-classicality, or quantumness, defined as the (Hilbert-Schmidt) distance to the convex set of classical states, i.e. $$\label{quantumness}
Q(\rho)=\min_{\rho_c\in\mathcal{C}} ||\rho-\rho_c||,$$ where $||A|| = \sqrt{\tr (A^\dagger A)}$ is the Hilbert-Schmidt norm [@QQQ]. A spin-$j$ state has a quantumness larger than zero whenever the corresponding $N$-qubit state is entangled.
It is known that the separable state closest to a symmetric state in terms of the Bures distance is also symmetric [@HubKle09]. However for other distances this may not be the case. In particular, the Hilbert-Schmidt distance from an $N$-qubit symmetric state to the set of separable states is in general not equal to the quantumness of the corresponding state of a physical spin-$j$ system, as some separable non-symmetric states may lie closer.
Tensor representation
---------------------
In order to conveniently deal with expansions of quantum states over spin coherent states, we use a representation suited to this purpose, that has recently been introduced in [@PRL2015]. We express a spin-$j$ density matrix $\rho$ in the following way. Let $\sigma_{a}$, $1\leq a\leq 3$, be the usual Pauli matrices, and $\sigma_0$ the $2\times 2$ identity matrix. We define the $4^{N}$ matrices $S_{\mu_1\dots\mu_{N}}$ (with $N=2j$) by $$\label{basisS}
S_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_{N}}=P \left(\sigma_{\mu_1} \otimes\sigma_{\mu_2} \cdots \otimes \sigma_{\mu_N}\right) P^\dagger,\quad 0\leq\mu_i\leq 3,$$ with $P$ the projector onto the symmetric subspace of tensor products of $N$ spins-$\frac12$ (the subspace spanned by Dicke states). The matrix $\rho$ can be expanded over the $S_{\mu_1\dots\mu_{N}}$ as $$\rho =\frac{1}{2^{N}}\,A_{\mu_1\mu_2\ldots\mu_{N}}S_{\mu_1\mu_2\ldots\mu_{N}}
\label{canonrhoj}$$ (summation over repeated indices is implicit), with real coefficients $$\label{defcoor}
A_{\mu_1\mu_2\ldots\mu_{N}}=\tr(\rho\, S_{\mu_1\mu_2\ldots\mu_{N}})$$ (see [@PRL2015] for detail). The $A_{\mu_1\mu_2\ldots\mu_{N}}$ are invariant under permutation of the indices and enjoy the property that for any $\mu_i$, $3\leq i \leq N$ and $0\leq\mu_i\leq 3$, $$\label{contraction}
\sum_{a=1}^{3}A_{aa\mu_3\ldots\mu_{N}}=A_{00\mu_3\ldots\mu_{N}}.$$ Normalization of the states $\rho$ in , $\tr \rho=1$, translates to $A_{00\ldots 0}=1$.
The coordinates $A_{\mu_1\mu_2\ldots\mu_{N}}$ can be seen as a symmetric order-$N$ tensor. We thus refer to as the tensor representation of $\rho$. This representation is a generalization of the spin-$\frac12$ Bloch sphere representation $$\rho=\frac{1}{2}\,A_{\mu} S_{\mu}
\label{canonrhoj12}$$ with Bloch vector ${\bf A}=\tr(\rho\,{\boldsymbol{\sigma}})$ and $A_0=1$ (noting that $S_{\mu}=\sigma_{\mu}$).
Classicality in the tensor representation
-----------------------------------------
The tensor associated with a spin coherent state $\ket{\alpha}$ pointing in direction $\vec{n}$ is simply given by $$\label{TensorCoherentState}
A_{\mu_1\mu_2\ldots\mu_{N}}=\bra{\alpha} S_{\mu_1 \mu_2 \dots \mu_{N}} \ket{\alpha}=n_{\mu_1} n_{\mu_2} \cdots n_{\mu_{N}},$$ with $n_0=1$ and ${{\mathbf n}}=(n_1,n_2,n_3)$ [@PRL2015]. The definition of classicality, Eq. , can be reexpressed in terms of tensors. A state is classical if and only if there exist positive weights $w_i$ and unit vectors $\vec{n}^{(i)}$ such that its tensor of coordinates $A$ can be written as $$\label{tensorClassState}
A_{\mu_1 \mu_2 \cdots \mu_{N}}=\sum_i w_i n^{(i)}_{\mu_1} n^{(i)}_{\mu_2} \cdots n^{(i)}_{\mu_{N}},$$ with $n_\mu^{(i)}=(1,\vec{n}^{(i)})$. Contracting such a tensor with an arbitrary real order-1 tensor $q$ gives $$\label{TensorMustBePositive}
A_{\mu_1 \mu_2 \cdots \mu_{N}} q_{\mu_1} q_{\mu_2}\cdots q_{\mu_{N}}=\sum_i w_i \left(n^{(i)}_\mu q_{\mu} \right)^{N}.$$ If $j$ is an integer (i.e. if $N$ is even), the right-hand side is always positive since the weights $w_i$ are positive. Therefore, any tensor having the form is such that its contraction with an arbitrary order-1 tensor is positive. This precisely corresponds to the definition of positive semi-definiteness of the tensor $A$ as introduced in [@Qi05]. A necessary condition for classicality of $\rho$ is thus that its associated tensor be positive semi-definite. In the case of a spin-1 system, where the tensor reduces to a matrix, this is also a sufficient condition [@Spin1QuantPaper]. However, for $j \geq 2$ it is not sufficient anymore, since there exist non-classical states which have a positive tensor representation, as will be discussed below.
Before continuing the discussion on the relationship between classicality and tensor properties, we introduce some elements of the spectral theory of tensors.
Tensor eigenvalues {#SectionTensorEigevalues}
==================
Definitions {#definitions}
-----------
Let $A_{\mu_1 \dots \mu_{N}} $ be the tensor representation of a spin-$j$ state. Its entries are real and symmetric under any permutation of indices. Tensor eigenvalues and eigenvectors of such a real symmetric tensor are defined in [@Qi05]. Different definitions have been introduced. For instance, for a tensor with $N$ indices, each ranging from $0$ to $n-1$ (in our case $n=4$), Z-eigenvalues, which we will use in this paper, are the real numbers $\lambda$ such that there exists a real vector $v$ with $n$ components verifying $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{Zeigenvalues1}
A v^{[N-1]}=\lambda v\\
v^T v=1,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $A v^{[k]}$ denotes the tensor of order $N-k$ given by $$\left(A v^{[k]}\right)_{\mu_{k+1}\dots\mu_N}=A_{\mu_1 \mu_2 \ldots \mu_N}v_{\mu_1} v_{\mu_2} \cdots v_{\mu_{k}},$$ and $v^T$ is the transpose of $v$.
The different definitions of tensor eigenvalues can be written as special cases of the B-eigenvalues, which are defined [@CuiDaiNie14] as $$\label{Beigenvalues}
A v^{[N-1]}=\lambda B v^{[m-1]}, \quad Bv^{[m]}=1,$$ where $B$ is a real symmetric order-$m$ tensor and $\lambda, v_{\mu} \in
\mathbb{C}$. If $B$ is chosen as the identity matrix (i.e. $m=2$) and $\lambda, v_{\mu}$ are restricted to real values, then the solutions $\lambda$ are the Z-eigenvalues defined in Eq. . If $m=N$ and $B$ is the identity tensor (i.e. $B_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_n}=1$ if all $\mu_i$ are identical and $B_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_n}=0$ otherwise), so that $Bx^{[m]}=x_0^{m}+x_1^{m}+\cdots x_n^{m}$, real solutions to are called H-eigenvalues [@Qi05]. Another type are the D-eigenvalues, which have recently found application in magnetic resonance imaging studies of the diffusion kurtosis coefficients of water molecules [@Qi08DEigenvalues]. They can be written as real B-eigenvalues if $m=2$ and there exist a symmetric positive definite matrix $D \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ with $Bx^{[2]}=x^T D x$, such that there exists a real vector $v$ with $$Av^{[m-1]}=\lambda D v, \quad v^T Dv=1.$$ For a more detailed overview on the topic of tensor eigenvalues see [@TensorOverviewKolda; @Qi05; @RoughVersionQi].
It is possible, via resultant theory, to generalize the usual matrix notions of determinant and of characteristic polynomial, and to obtain eigenvalues as the (generally complex) roots of the characteristic polynomial associated with the tensor [@Qi05]. Note however that the Z (or H)-eigenvalues defined above are real numbers. If this restriction to reals is lifted, many properties of ordinary matrix eigenvalues are recovered (for instance the number of eigenvalues, or their total sum, is known). Nevertheless, the restriction to real numbers is justified if one wants to generalize the property that a matrix is positive semi-definite if and only if its eigenvalues are positive. Indeed, both Z and H-eigenvalues share the property that a tensor is positive semi-definite if and only if all Z or H-eigenvalues are positive, which makes them the most natural suitable generalization of matrix eigenvalues. But the H-eigenvalues are not invariant under rotation, while Z-eigenvalues are, as will be shown below. Since spin coherent states behave in a very simple way under rotation, we will concentrate on the Z-eigenvalues defined by Eq. , which we will refer to, from now on, as “tensor eigenvalues”. Note that we also tested our methods on the H-eigenvalues, and they gave comparable results to the ones presented in section \[SectionConnectionTensorQuantum\].
Properties
----------
Tensor eigenvalues do not share all the properties of the familiar matrix eigenvalues. For example it is in general not true that the tensor eigenvalues of a diagonal tensor are just its diagonal elements. However, the tensor eigenvalues are invariant under rotations and the corresponding eigenvectors are just the rotated eigenvectors (Theorem 7. of [@Qi05]). In order to familiarize the reader with the tensor notation, let us show this explicitly. Take $v$ as a tensor eigenvector of the real symmetric tensor $A$ with tensor eigenvalue $\lambda$, i.e. fulfilling . Given a real orthogonal matrix $R$ and the rotated objects marked with primes, then $$\begin{aligned}
&A' v'^{[N-1]}= \prod_{i=1}^N R_{\mu_i,\nu_i}A_{\nu_1 \dots \nu_N} \prod_{j=1}^{N-1} R_{\mu_j,\eta_j} v_{\eta_j}\\
&=\prod_{j=1}^{N-1} (R^TR)_{\nu_j,\eta_j} R_{\mu_N,\nu_N} A_{\nu_1 \dots \nu_N} v_{\eta_j} \\
&= R_{\mu_N,\nu_N} A_{\nu_1 \dots \nu_N}\prod_{j=1}^{N-1} v_{\nu_j} \stackrel{\eqref{Zeigenvalues1}}{=} R_{\mu_N,\nu_N} \lambda v_{\nu_N}=\lambda v',\end{aligned}$$ which proves that the eigenvalues are unchanged by rotations and the new eigenvectors are just the rotated old ones. This feature is particularity important in our case, because a rotated spin-$j$ quantum state $\rho'=\hat{R}^\dagger \rho \hat{R}$, with $\hat{R}=\exp (-i\theta\, \vec{J} \cdot \vec{n})$ the spin-$j$ representation of a rotation, has a tensor representation given by $A'_{\mu_1 \dots \mu_N}=R_{\mu_1,\nu_1}\cdots R_{\mu_N,\nu_N}A_{\nu_1\dots\nu_N}$ with $R$ the $4\times 4$ matrix whose $3\times 3$ lower-right block is the orthogonal matrix associated with the rotation of axis $\vec{n}$ and angle $\theta$, and $R_{\mu, 0}=R_{0,\mu}=\delta_{0,\mu}$ [@PRL2015].
Determining tensor eigenvalues is usually a computationally hard problem. It can be expressed in the following way: The tensor eigenvalues defined by are the critical points of the polynomial $$L(\lambda;x_{1}, x_{2},\ldots,x_{N})=Ax^{[N]}-\lambda\left(||{\bf x}||_2^N-1\right),$$ with $$||{\bf x}||_2=\sqrt{x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2}.$$ Indeed, critical points of $L$ are defined by $\nabla L=0$; the conditions $\partial L/\partial x_{\nu}=0$ are equivalent to the first line in Eq. , as can easily be seen from the fact that if $A$ is a symmetric tensor one has $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{\nu}}Ax^{[N]}=N\left(A x^{[N-1]}\right)_{\nu}$$ and $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{\nu}}||{\bf x}||_2^N=N(x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)^{N/2-1}x_{\nu}.$$ Condition $\partial L/\partial \lambda=0$ gives the second line in Eq. . Thus the tensor eigenvalues can be obtained as the local extrema of $Ax^{[N]}$ over the 3-sphere $x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2=1$.
As shown in [@Li14], a real symmetric tensor is positive semi-definite, i.e. $Ax^{[N]}\geq 0$ for all $x$, if and only if all of its tensor eigenvalues are non-negative. Hence, it is sufficient to calculate the smallest tensor eigenvalue to determine the positivity of the tensor. In particular, a tensor can be positive definite only if the tensor has an even number of indices: Otherwise each tensor eigenpair $(\lambda,v)$ has also a negative counterpart $(-\lambda,-v)$, as can be seen by the definition . Numerically, the smallest tensor eigenvalue is obtained by computing the global minimum of $Ax^{[N]}$ over the 3-sphere. Such a problem can be tackled numerically using methods described e.g. in [@CuiDaiNie14]. In the next section we show examples of quantum states where tensor eigenvalues can be derived analytically.
Examples
--------
### Tensor eigenvalues of spin coherent states
For a spin-$j$ coherent state with Bloch vector ${\bf n}$ the tensor representation $A_{\mu_1 \dots \mu_N}$ takes the simple form . In order to deduce all tensor eigenvalues $\lambda$ and eigenvectors $x_{\mu}$, we have to solve Eq. , which then reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Anx}
A_{\mu_1 \dots \mu_N}x^{[N-1]} &=&(n_{\mu_1}x_{\mu_1})\ldots \nonumber
(n_{\mu_{N-1}}x_{\mu_{N-1}})n_{\mu_{N}}\\
=\lambda x_{\mu_{N}}, \quad ||{\bf x}||_2&=&1.\end{aligned}$$ Since the tensor eigenvalues are invariant under rotation, we can, without loss of generality, rotate $\bf n$ to the form $(1,0,0)$. This simplifies Eq. to $$(x_0+x_1)^{N-1} \begin{pmatrix}
1\\1\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix}=\lambda \begin{pmatrix}
x_0\\x_1\\x_2\\x_3
\end{pmatrix},\quad ||{\bf x}||_2=1.$$ From the third and fourth line it is visible that there are two solutions $\lambda=0$ or $x_2=x_3=0$. If $\lambda=0$, then $x_0=-x_1$ and $x_2,x_3 $ are arbitrary under the restriction $||{\bf x}||_2=1$. Otherwise, $\lambda=\sqrt{2}^N$ for $N$ even, or $\lambda=\pm \sqrt{2}^N$ for $N$ odd, and $x_0=x_1=\pm 1/\sqrt{2},x_2=x_3=0$. Thus the tensor eigenvalues of a tensor associated with a coherent spin-$j$ state are $(\pm1)^{N} \, 2^{j}$ and $0$. For integer $j$ we recover the fact that the tensor is positive, as it should since a spin coherent state is classical.
### Tensor eigenvalues of the maximally mixed state
For the maximally mixed state $\rho_0=\frac{1}{N+1}\mathbb{1}_{N+1}$, the tensor representation is given by $$\label{coorid}
Ax^{N}=\sum_{k=0}^{{\lfloor j \rfloor}}\frac{\binom{N}{2k}}{2k+1}x_0^{2(j-k)} \left({x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2}\right)^{k},$$ where ${\lfloor \cdot \rfloor}$ is the floor function [@PRL2015]. For vectors $\vec{x}$ constrained by $x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2=1$, Eq. can be rewritten as $$\label{TensorEigenMixMixedExplicit}
Ax^{N}=\sum_{k=0}^{{\lfloor j \rfloor}}\frac{\binom{N}{2k}}{2k+1}x_0^{2(j-k)}(1-x_0^2)^{k}:=g(x_0),$$ with $-1 \leq x_0 \leq 1$. If $j$ is an integer, $g(x_0)$ is a sum of positive terms and thus larger than zero. The tensor eigenvalues are local extrema of $Ax^{N}$ on the 3-sphere, or equivalently the local extrema of $g(x_0)$ over the interval $[-1,1]$. The local extrema on the border of the interval, $|x_{0}|=1$, give a tensor eigenvalue $\lambda=1$. Because $g(x_0)$ is symmetric there is a local extremum at $x_0=0$, which gives the tensor eigenvalue $\lambda=1/(N+1)$. For $j\geq 3$ the function $g(x_0)$ has exactly one extremum in the interval $]0,1[$, which gives a third tensor eigenvalue (see Appendix for a proof). Thus for integer $j$ the tensor associated with the maximally mixed state has three tensor eigenvalues and the minimal tensor eigenvalue is $\lambda_{min}=1/(N+1)$.
For half integer $j$ there are two tensor eigenvalues on the border of the interval which give $\pm 1$. For $j\geq 5/2$ the function $g(x_0)$ has a maximum in $ ]0,1 [$ (see Appendix for a proof), and since $g(x_0)$ is antisymmetric also a corresponding minimum in $ ]-1,0 [$. Thus the tensor has four tensor eigenvalues.
Calculating quantumness {#SectionCalculatingquantumness}
=======================
Our goal is to compare quantumness of a spin-$j$ state as measured by the distance with spectral properties of the tensor associated with it. In order to compute quantumness efficiently, the calculation can be rewritten as a quadratic optimization problem, by fixing a large number of spin coherent states in the sum and optimizing over the weights $w_i$. This is detailed in Section \[section Quadratic algorithm\]. However, this does not guarantee to find the global minimum, as the decompositions of the closest classical states may involve spin coherent states which do not belong to the large set chosen. To improve the accuracy of the estimation we will use the outcome of the quadratic optimization as starting point in a linear optimization routine detailed in Section \[seclinear\].
Quadratic algorithm {#section Quadratic algorithm}
-------------------
The state is written as a $[2(N+1)^2]$-dimensional real vector $\vec{r}$, whose entries are the real and imaginary entries of its density matrix $\rho$ in the $\ket{j,m}$ basis (or any other fixed basis). In the same way the classical state $\rho_c$ in Eq. is written as $ C \vec{w}$, where $C$ is a $[2(N+1)^2] \times M$ real matrix whose $i$th column is given by the real and imaginary parts of entries of $\ket{\theta_i,\phi_i}\bra{\theta_i,\phi_i}$ expressed in the same basis as $\rho$, $\bf{w}$ is the vector of weights, and $M$ is the number of spin coherent states used in the sum of the form of Eq. . The squared quantumness can be written as $$\label{squaredQuantumness}
Q^2(\rho)=\min\limits_{C,\vec{w}} \sum_{i=1}^{2(N+1)^2} \left[r_i-(C\vec{w})_i\right]^2,$$ which can be expressed as $$\label{quadratic algorithm}
Q^2(\rho)
=\min\limits_{C,\vec{w}}\left[\vec{w}^T \left( C^T C \right) \vec{w} - \left(2\vec{r}^T C\right)\vec{w} +\vec{r}^T \vec{r}\right].$$ To approximate the solution to this optimization problem we generate a large set of $M$ $(\sim 800)$ spin coherent states $\ket{\theta_i,\phi_i}$ that determine a matrix $C$ and a vector $\vec{c}=\left(\vec{r}^T C\right)$, and solve $$\begin{aligned}
\label{explicitquadraticalgorithm}
\min\limits_{\vec{w}} \vec{w}^T (C^TC) \vec{w} -2 \vec{c}^T \vec{w}, \qquad w_i\geq0 ,\end{aligned}$$ (we removed the constant term $\vec{r}^T \vec{r}$). Note that the entries of $(C^TC)$ are given by $$\begin{gathered}
(C^TC)_{ik}=|\langle \theta_i,\phi_i | \theta_k,\phi_k\rangle |^2 \\
=4^{-j} [1 + \cos\theta_i \cos\theta_k + \cos(\phi_i-\phi_k)\sin\theta_i\sin\theta_k]^{2j} \end{gathered}$$ and that $$\vec{c}_i=\bra{\theta_i,\phi_i}\rho\ket{\theta_i,\phi_i}.$$
The optimization can be performed with the powerful numerical algorithms available, e.g. the ’interior-point-convex’ method [@9780521833783]. It is notable that the size of the quadratic optimization problem, given by the vector $\vec{c}$ and the matrix $ C^TC $, does not depend on the spin size $j$, but only on the number of random spin coherent states used. However, for very large values of $j$ $(\sim1000)$ even the one-time calculation of $\vec{c}$ and $ C^T C $ can become computationally expensive.
To improve the outcome it is advantageous to iterate the optimization several times with different sets of spin coherent states. In the subsequent iterations, only the spin coherent states with large weights are kept and additional nearby states are added to the set. The set is then completed with random spin coherent states. After typically $\sim 8$ iterations, we take the best outcome as an approximation of the global minimum of . This also provides an approximation $\tilde{\rho_c}$ for the true closest classical state $\rho_c$. By construction, $\tilde{\rho_c}$ is a classical state, so that quantumness is necessarily overestimated, since the distance to any classical state gives an upper bound on the quantumness. To further improve its determination, a linear optimization can then be performed as follows.
Linear algorithm {#seclinear}
----------------
Suppose we have obtained an approximation $\tilde{\rho_c}$ for the closest classical state $\rho_c$ by running the quadratic algorithm above. If the classical state $\tilde{\rho_c}$ is not exactly on the border of the classical domain, it is possible to move it in the direction of the state $\rho$ while remaining in the classical domain. This yields a better approximation of the global minimum, and thus of the actual quantumness. This step can be formulated as a linear optimization problem by parametrizing the states inbetween the classical state $\tilde{\rho}_c$ and $\rho$, as $$\rho_k=(1-k)\tilde{\rho}_c +k\rho=\tilde{\rho}_c +k (\rho-\tilde{\rho}_c),$$ with $k \in [0,1]$. Now the optimization task is to maximize $k$ under the constraint that $\rho_k$ stays classical, which can be formulated in the form of linear constraints as $$\sum_i w_i \ket{\theta_i,\phi_i}\bra{\theta_i,\phi_i}+ k(\tilde{\rho}_c-\rho)=\tilde{\rho}_c,$$ and the optimization is now performed on $w_i$ and $k$ with $0 \leq w_i \leq 1$, and $k>0$ while $\ket{\theta_i,\phi_i}$ are (a large number of) fixed spin coherent states. Similarly as in section \[section Quadratic algorithm\], this optimization problem can be written as $$\max\limits_{\vec{w},k}\, k, \quad \mbox{with}\quad C\vec{w} + \left(\boldsymbol{\tilde{r}_c}-\boldsymbol{r}\right) k=\boldsymbol{\tilde{r}_c},$$ where the $i$-th columns of $C$ are given by the real and imaginary parts of entries of $\ket{\theta_i,\phi_i}\bra{\theta_i,\phi_i}$, and $\boldsymbol{r},\boldsymbol{\tilde{r}_c}$ are the real and imaginary parts of entries of the density matrices $\rho$ and $\tilde{\rho}_c$. Since a linear optimization is much faster than a quadratic optimization, the set of random spin coherent states used to fix the linear constraints can be much larger, e.g. usually by two orders of magnitude, and still have a runtime comparable to the quadratic optimization. However, in contrast to the quadratic algorithm the computational demands depend on the spin size $j$, since the number of rows in $C$ scales as $\mathcal{O} (j^2)$. In the results presented in the next section this linear optimization step improves the quadratic results usually by an amount smaller than $10^{-4}$. While this improvement is usually negligible, it becomes relevant to estimate quantumness of states close to the boundary of classical states, and to properly identify classical states.
Connection between tensor eigenvalues and quantumness {#SectionConnectionTensorQuantum}
=====================================================
Tensor eigenvalues for entanglement detection
---------------------------------------------
As mentioned earlier, a classical state must have a positive semi-definite tensor representation. Therefore, if its smallest tensor eigenvalue $\lambda_{\min}$ is negative the state is detected as non-classical, i.e. entangled. To test the rigour of the detection we generated states just on the border of the set of classical states. This was done by taking random states drawn from the Hilbert-Schmidt ensemble of matrices $\rho=GG^{\dagger}/\tr(GG^{\dagger})$, with $G$ a complex matrix with independent Gaussian entries (see [@zyczkowski_generating_2011] for detail), and calculating its closest classical state according to the method presented in the previous section. In Fig. \[fig:histogramZeigOnCCS\] the distribution of the smallest eigenvalues is shown for this ensemble of closest classical states. If positivity of $A$ were a sufficient condition for classicality, then $\lambda_{\min}$ would be equal to 0 for all closest classical states. Numerically, we rather get values centered around $0.03$, $0.04$ and $0.06$ for $j=4,3,2$, respectively.
Thus, states lying at the border of classical states, with zero quantumness, have a smallest tensor eigenvalue significantly larger than zero, which indicates that for the values of $j$ considered this method of entanglement detection is not well suited for too weakly entangled states.
![(Color online) Probability distribution of the smallest tensor eigenvalue $\lambda_{\min}$ for random states on the border of the classical domain, with $j=2$ (black, dots), $j=3$ (red, crosses) and $j=4$ (blue, solid). These states are the closest classical states to random mixed states and were determined with the quadratic and linear algorithm described in Section \[SectionCalculatingquantumness\].[]{data-label="fig:histogramZeigOnCCS"}](Histogram_Zeigenvalue_CCSV7){width="48.00000%"}
Conversely, one may wonder what is the typical quantumness of states which have a vanishing smallest tensor eigenvalue. To investigate this we generated states such that $\lambda_{\min}\simeq 0$, by mixing a random initial state $\rho$ with the maximally mixed state $$\label{createStatesIWthZeroEW}
a \rho+(1-a) \frac{1}{N+1}\mathbb{1}, \quad 0\leq a \leq 1$$ (with $\mathbb{1}$ the identity matrix), and decreasing $a$ until the smallest tensor eigenvalue was close to zero. The results for these states are shown in Fig. \[fig:Spin1-3Histogram\]. The quantumness is distributed around the value of $0.06$, irrespective of the spin size $j$, which again indicates that the smallest tensor eigenvalue is not able to detect weakly entangled states. This appears to be a systematic underperformance, because we did not find instances of classical states which also have a smallest tensor eigenvalue equal to zero. Instead, almost all states on the “detection border” $\lambda_{\min}= 0$ already have a quantumness larger than $0.02$.
To conclude, the smallest tensor eigenvalue detects entanglement (or quantumness) in spin-2 to spin-4 states only reliably if the quantumness is at least about $0.1$. In the other direction, spin-2 to spin-4 states can be assumed to be separable (or classical) only if the smallest tensor eigenvalue is larger than $0.12$.
![(Color online) Probability distribution of the quantumness $Q(\rho)$ for states having a positive smallest tensor eigenvalue smaller than $10^{-5}$. The states are created by mixing a random mixed state with the maximally mixed state according to and decreasing $a$ until the smallest tensor eigenvalue is close to zero. The numerical uncertainty of the quantumness is of the order $10^{-4}$. The three lines black (dotted), red (crossed), blue (solid) correspond to spin sizes $j=2,3,4$. These states are all entangled, but nevertheless have a positive definite tensor representation.\[fig:Spin1-3Histogram\]](Histogram_Quantumness_OnzeroZeigenV3){width="48.00000%"}
Measure of entanglement based on tensor eigenvalues
---------------------------------------------------
![(Color online) The quantumness as function of the smallest tensor eigenvalue for $\sim 60.000$ randomly generated mixed spin-$j$ states. The top figure corresponds to spin size $j=2$, the second to $j=3$ and the bottom to spin size $j=4$. There is a clear correlation between the amount of quantumness and the magnitude of negative smallest tensor eigenvalue, however, this correlation is getting weaker for $j=3$ and even weaker for $j=4$. []{data-label="fig:spin2-4"}](QvsEwSpin2V2Gimp){width="48.00000%"}
![(Color online) The quantumness as function of the smallest tensor eigenvalue for $\sim 60.000$ randomly generated mixed spin-$j$ states. The top figure corresponds to spin size $j=2$, the second to $j=3$ and the bottom to spin size $j=4$. There is a clear correlation between the amount of quantumness and the magnitude of negative smallest tensor eigenvalue, however, this correlation is getting weaker for $j=3$ and even weaker for $j=4$. []{data-label="fig:spin2-4"}](QvsEwSpin3V2Gimp){width="48.00000%"}
![(Color online) The quantumness as function of the smallest tensor eigenvalue for $\sim 60.000$ randomly generated mixed spin-$j$ states. The top figure corresponds to spin size $j=2$, the second to $j=3$ and the bottom to spin size $j=4$. There is a clear correlation between the amount of quantumness and the magnitude of negative smallest tensor eigenvalue, however, this correlation is getting weaker for $j=3$ and even weaker for $j=4$. []{data-label="fig:spin2-4"}](QvsEwSpin4V2Gimp){width="48.00000%"}
The results above show that while any state with $\lambda_{\min}<0$ is entangled, positivity of $\lambda_{\min}$ does not seem to be a good indicator of separability. However, for non-classical states, the amount by which $\lambda_{\min}$ is negative is correlated with the amount of entanglement as measured by the quantumness.
This is an approach similar as in the entanglement measure of negativity [@negativity], where the amount of entanglement is taken as the sum of all negative eigenvalues of the partially transposed state $\rho^{\textrm{PT}}$, namely $$\label{negativity}
\mathcal{N}(\rho) = \sum_i \frac{|\mu_{i}|-\mu_{i}}{2},$$ where $\mu_i$ are the eigenvalues of $\rho^{\textrm{PT}}$. For $j=1$, we showed in [@etaPaper] that the tensor eigenvalues are exactly the eigenvalues of $\rho^{\textrm{PT}}$. Unfortunately, in the case of tensor eigenvalues ($j\geq 3/2$), it is computationally expensive to find all tensor eigenvalues. But the smallest tensor eigenvalue provides at least an indicator for the amount of entanglement. This is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:spin2-4\], where quantumness is plotted as a function of the smallest tensor eigenvalue (computed by the algorithms described in Section \[SectionCalculatingquantumness\]) for a large set of random states. The correlation between the two quantities gets weaker for larger system sizes, i.e. $j\geq4$. For spin $j=6$, the correlation is almost gone, as can be seen in Fig \[fig:spin6\].
![(Color Online) The quantumness of $\sim 60000$ randomly generated spin-6 mixed states as function of their smallest tensor eigenvalue . For this system size there is almost no correlation, between the magnitude of the smallest tensor eigenvalue and the quantumness.[]{data-label="fig:spin6"}](QvsEwSpin6V7Gimp){width="48.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
We introduced a new connection between the mathematical concept of tensor eigenvalues and the study of entanglement. The smallest tensor eigenvalue can be used to detect quantumness in symmetric states and can also give an estimator of its amount. Interestingly, this extends previous results in the mathematical literature relating the largest tensor eigenvalue to the geometric measure of entanglement. For a spin-1, positivity of the smallest tensor eigenvalue is equivalent to separability of the state. However, for $j\geq 2$ they are not well suited for states which are just slightly quantum, since weakly entangled states have usually a positive semi-definite tensor representation (and are therefore not detected by the smallest tensor eigenvalue criterion). The correlation between the amount of quantumness and the magnitude of the (negative) smallest tensor eigenvalue is noticeable for $j=2,3,4$, but for higher values of $j$ quantumness and smallest tensor eigenvalues are almost uncorrelated.\
A possible way to improve these results might be to use the sum of all negative tensor eigenvalues as estimator for the quantumness of a state, instead of just the smallest tensor eigenvalue. However, the calculation of all tensor eigenvalue is computationally much more demanding.\
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} We thank the Deutsch-Französische Hochschule (Université franco-allemande) for support, grant number CT-45-14-II/2015.
Appendix: Tensor eigenvalues of the maximally mixed state {#appendix-tensor-eigenvalues-of-the-maximally-mixed-state .unnumbered}
=========================================================
Here we will prove that the function $g(x)$ defined in has only one local extremum in the open interval $]0,1[$ for $j\geq \frac52$. We reparametrize the function $g$ with $$\begin{aligned}
x \rightarrow \frac{\cos{t} + \sin{t}}{\sqrt2},\end{aligned}$$ with $t \in ]\frac{\pi}{4},\frac{3 \pi}{4}[$, so that we get $$\begin{aligned}
g(x) \rightarrow f(t)=\frac{2^j}{2 j+1} \frac{\cos ^{2 j+1} t - \sin ^{2 j+1} t }{\cos t - \sin t }.\end{aligned}$$ The condition $f'(t)=0$ is equivalent to $H(t)=0$, with $$\begin{gathered}
H(t):=(\sin t +\cos t ) \left(\cos^k t - \sin^k t \right) \\ + k \sin t \cos t (\sin t -\cos t ) \left(\cos^{k-2} t +\sin^{k-2} t\right),\end{gathered}$$ with $k=2j+1$. Using $H(\pi/4)=0$ and $H(3\pi/4)\leq 0$, we show that $H(t)$ has only one real root in the interval $]\frac{\pi}{4},\frac{3 \pi}{4}[$ by showing that it is strictly increasing then strictly decreasing then strictly increasing over this interval.
To find the extreme points of $H(t)$ we calculate $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Hstrich}
H'(t)=(k-1) (\cos t -\sin t ) \\
\times \left[\sin ^k t-\cos ^k t+k\left(\tan ^2 t \cos ^k t-\frac{\sin ^k t}{\tan ^2 t}\right)\right].\end{gathered}$$ Now we show that $H'(t)$ has two roots in $]\frac{\pi}{4},\frac{3 \pi}{4}[$ by setting $u=\cot t $ in with $u \in ]-1,1[$ and counting roots of $$\begin{aligned}
P(u):=-u^k+k u^{k-2}-k u^2 +1\end{aligned}$$ in the interval $]-1,1[$. Descartes’ rule of signs tells us that this function has either three or one roots in $]0,\infty[$. As $P(0)=1$, $P(1)=0$, $P'(1)=k(k-5)>0$ and $\lim_{u\to\infty}P(u)=-\infty$, there are necessarily three roots in $]0,\infty[$ and exactly one in $]0,1[$. To study the negative side $u<0$, note that if $k$ is even the function $P(u)$ is symmetric, so that there is also only one root in $u \in ]-1,0[$. In the case of odd $k$, we set $w=-u\in]0,1[$, and $$\begin{aligned}
P(-u)=\tilde{P}(w)=w^k-kw^{k-2}-k w^2+1.\end{aligned}$$ Applying Descartes’ rule again to $\tilde{P}$, we get that $\tilde{P}(w)$ has either two or zero real roots in $]0,\infty[$. However, since $\tilde{P}(0)=1$, $\tilde{P}(1)=2(1-k)<0$ and $\lim_{w\to\infty} \tilde{P}(w)= \infty$, the function has to have exactly one root in the interval $ ]0,1[$ and one in $]1,\infty[$.
This shows that $H'(t)$ has one root in $]\pi/4, \pi/2[$ and one in $]\pi/2, 3\pi/4[$. Since $H'(\pi/2)=1-k<0$, we conclude that $H(t)$ increases, decreases and then increases again, so that it has only one root in $]\pi/4, 3\pi/4[$. So $g(x)$ defined in also has only one extreme point in the open interval $]0,1[$, which gives a single tensor eigenvalue $x\in ]0,1[$.
[99]{} J. Martin, O. Giraud, P. A. Braun, D. Braun, and T. Bastin, Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 062347 (2010).
G. Tóth, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B [**24**]{}, 275 (2007).
M. Aulbach, D. Markham, and M. Murao, New J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 073025 (2010).
R. H. Dicke. Phys. Rev. [**93**]{}, 99 (1954).
A. M. Perelomov, Commun. Math. Phys. [**26**]{}, 222 (1972).
M. Hillery, Phys. Rev. A [**35**]{}, 725 (1987).
O. Giraud, P. Braun, and D. Braun, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 042112 (2008).
A. Mari and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 230503 (2012).
O. Giraud, P. Braun, and D. Braun, New J. Phys. [**12**]{}, 063005 (2010).
http://qig.itp.uni-hannover.de/qiproblems/15.
S. Arunachalam, N. Johnston, and V. Russo, Quant. Inf. Comput. [**15**]{}, 0694 (2015).
L. Gurvits and H. Barnum, Phys. Rev. A. [**66**]{}, 062311 (2002).
M. Ku[ś]{} and K. [Ż]{}yczkowski, Phys. Rev. A [**63**]{}, 032307 (2001).
F. Verstraete, K. Audenaert, and B. De Moor, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 012316 (2001).
R. Hildebrand, Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 052325 (2007).
N. Johnston, Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 062330 (2013).
A.K. Ekert, C.M. Alves, D.K.L. Oi, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and L.C. Kwek, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 217901 (2002).
T. Tanaka, Y. Ota, M. Kanazawa, G. Kimura, H. Nakazato, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 012117 (2014).
N. Ganguly, J. Chatterjee, and A. S. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 052304 (2014).
G. Tóth and O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 170503 (2009).
A. R. Usha Devi, R. Prabhu, and A. K. Rajagopal, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 060501 (2007).
O. Giraud, D. Braun, D. Baguette, T. Bastin, and J. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**114**]{}, 080401 (2015).
F. Bohnet-Waldraff, D. Braun, and O. Giraud, arXiv:1606.07635.
L. Qi, arXiv:1201.3424 (2012).
S. Hu, L. Qi, and G. Zhang, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 12304 (2016).
F. Haake, [*[Quantum Signatures of Chaos]{}*]{}, 3rd ed. (Springer, New York, 2010).
O. Giraud, P. Braun, and D. Braun, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 042112 (2008).
R. Hübener, M. Kleinmann, T.-C. Wei, C. González-Guillén, and O. Gühne, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 032324 (2009).
L. Qi, Journal of Symbolic Computation [**40**]{}, 1302 (2005).
F. Bohnet-Waldraff, D. Braun, and O. Giraud, Phys. Rev. A [**93**]{}, 12104 (2016).
C. Cui, Y. Dai, and J. Nie, SIAM. J. Matrix Anal. & Appl. [**35**]{}, 1582 (2014).
L. Qi, Y. Wang, and E. X. Wu, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics [**221**]{}, 150 (2008).
T. Kolda and B. Bader, SIAM Rev. [**51**]{}, 455 (2009).
C. Li, F. Wang, J. Zhao, Y. Zhu, and Y. Li, Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics [**255**]{}, 1 (2014).
Stephen Boyd and Lieven Vandenberghe, , (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
K. Życzkowski, K. A. Penson, I. Nechita, and B. Collins, J. Math. Phys. [**52**]{}, 062201 (2011).
G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 032314 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a method of generating entanglement using single photons and electron spins in the regime of resonance scattering. The technique involves matching the spontaneous emission rate of the spin dipole transition in bulk dielectric to the modified rate of spontaneous emission of the dipole coupled to the fundamental mode of an optical microcavity. We call this regime resonance scattering where interference between the input photons and those scattered by the resonantly coupled dipole transition result in a reflectivity of zero. The contrast between this and the unit reflectivity when the cavity is empty allow us to perform a non demolition measurement of the spin and to non deterministically generate entanglement between photons and spins. The chief advantage of working in the regime of resonance scattering is that the required cavity quality factors are orders of magnitude lower than is required for strong coupling, or Purcell enhancement. This makes engineering a suitable cavity much easier particularly in materials such as diamond where etching high quality factor cavities remains a significant challenge.'
author:
- 'A.B. Young'
- 'C.Y. Hu'
- 'J.G. Rarity'
title: 'Generating entanglement with low Q-factor microcavities'
---
Entanglement is a fundamental resource for quantum information tasks, and generating entanglement between different qubit systems such as photons and single electron spins has been shown to be a key to building quantum repeaters, universal gates[@PhysRevLett.92.127902; @Yao:2004uq; @waks:153601; @Yao:2005fk; @Barrett:2005kx; @PhysRevLett.104.160503; @PhysRevB.78.085307; @PhysRevB.80.205326; @PhysRevB.78.125318], and eventually large scale quantum computers[@PhysRevA.78.032318]. These previous proposals for generating entanglement using a deterministic spin photon interface have focussed on having the optical transitions of a spin system strongly coupled to an optical microcavity, or at least deep into the Purcell regime[@PhysRevB.78.085307; @PhysRevB.78.125318; @PhysRevB.80.205326]. Recent measurements in high quality-factor micropillars have suggested that it is hard to fulfil the requirement of strong coupling whilst maintaining the necessary input output coupling efficiency[@Young:2011uq]. In order to work around this we propose a non-deterministic spin photon interface that works in the low Q-factor regime where efficient in/out coupling of photons should be possible. The scheme works by operating in a regime of resonance scattering where the decay constants for the optical dipole transitions in bulk dielectric are matched to the decay parameters when resonantly coupled to an optical microcavity.
![Schematic diagram of a single sided cavity coupled to a dipole. $e$ and $g$ represent the excited and ground states of the dipole transition, $\kappa$ represents the coupling rate via the input output mirror and $\kappa_{s}$ represents the loss rate from the cavity system either from the side, transmission through the back mirror, or absorption.[]{data-label="schematic"}](singlesidedschematic.eps){width="40.00000%"}
If we consider the single sided dipole-cavity system in Fig.\[schematic\] then the system can be parameterised by four constants, these are: $\kappa$, the decay rate for intracavity photons via the input/output mirror (outcoupling), $\kappa_{s}$, the decay rate for intra-cavity photons into loss modes, which can include losses out the side of the cavity, transmission and absorption, $g$, the dipole-cavity field coupling rate, and $\gamma$, the linewidth of the dipole transition. We may now express the photon reflectivity when incident on the input/output mirror as[@PhysRevB.78.085307]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:ref}
&&r(\omega)=|r(\omega)|e^{i\phi}\\
&=&1-\frac{\kappa(i(\omega_{d}-\omega)+\frac{\gamma}{2})}{(i(\omega_{d}-\omega)+\frac{\gamma}{2})(i(\omega_{c}-\omega)+\frac{\kappa}{2}+\frac{\kappa_{s}}{2})+g^{2}}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $\omega_{d}$ and $\omega_{c}$ are the frequencies of the QD and cavity, and $\omega$ is the frequency of incident photons. If we match the linewidth of the dipole transition in bulk dielectric ($\gamma$), to the modified spontaneous emission lifetime in the cavity ($4g^{2}/\kappa$)[@PhysRevB.60.13276], then any photons that are input resonant to the dipole-cavity system are scattered into lossy modes. This is due to a destructive interference between the input light and light that is scattered from the dipole.
The reflectivity for an empty cavity, and reflectivity for a cavity resonantly coupled to a dipole ($\omega_{d}=\omega_{c}$) can be seen in Fig.\[fig:qdrscat\]. Here we consider a lossless single sided cavity ($\kappa_{s}=0$), and have set $g^{2}=\gamma\kappa/4$ (the condition for resonance scattering).
![Plots showing the reflectivity from an empty cavity ($r_{c}$) and a cavity resonantly coupled to a QD transition ($r_{d}$), using Eqn.\[eqn:ref\]. The dipole cavity coupling rate has been chosen to be $g^{2}=\gamma\kappa/4$ so that the QD transition resonantly scatters input photons into lossy modes[]{data-label="fig:qdrscat"}](qdrscat.eps){width="50.00000%"}
We can see that for the case when the dipole transition is resonantly coupled to the cavity then there is a dip in the reflectivity spectrum ($r_{d}$), that goes to zero at zero detuning ($\omega_{c}=\omega_{d}=\omega$). This dip is a result of resonance scattering and has the linewidth of the dipole transition($\gamma$), which we have set to be $\gamma=0.1\kappa$ as an upper limit where $\gamma$ is typically $<<0.1\kappa$ for most atom-cavity [@tu-prl-75-4710], and quantum dot-cavity [@nat-432-7014; @reitzenstein:251109] experiments. For the case when the cavity is empty ($r_{c}$), all of the input light is reflected. The result is a large intensity contrast between the case of a cavity resonantly coupled to a dipole and an empty cavity.
If instead of a single dipole transition we coupled a spin system to a cavity in the resonance scattering regime, then if the two dipole transitions corresponding to the $\uparrow$, $\downarrow$ states are distinguishable in some way (energy or polarisation) we can perform a quantum-non-demolition measurement of the spin[@Young:2009fk]. From this QND measurement it is possible to generate entanglement non-deterministically between spins and photons. We will now move on to consider some specific spin dipole systems to outline the benefits of generating this non deterministic entanglement in the resonance scattering regime.
Charged quantum dot in a pillar microcavity.
============================================
We consider the example of a charged quantum dot where the optical transitions for orthogonal spin states couple to orthogonal circular polarisation states of light. By coupling to a pillar microcavity an incident photon would obey the following set of transformations on reflection:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\left | R \right \rangle}\otimes{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}&\rightarrow& r_{d}{\left | R \right \rangle}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}\\
{\left | R \right \rangle}\otimes{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}&\rightarrow& r_{c}{\left | R \right \rangle}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}\\
{\left | L \right \rangle}\otimes{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}&\rightarrow& r_{c}{\left | L \right \rangle}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}\\
{\left | L \right \rangle}\otimes{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}&\rightarrow& r_{d}{\left | L \right \rangle}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}\end{aligned}$$
Here if the input photon has right circular polarisation ${\left | R \right \rangle}$, and the spin is in the state ${\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}$ the photon sees a dipole-coupled cavity system and has a reflectivity given by $r_{d}$. Conversely if the spin is in the state ${\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}$ then the input photon sees an empty cavity and has a reflectivity given by $r_{c}$.
If the input photon has left-circular polarisation ${\left | L \right \rangle}$ then it has the opposite interaction with the spin. In the case when the electron spin of the charged QD is in a equal superposition of spin up and spin down, and two linearly polarised (horizontal) photons are sequentially reflected from the QD-cavity then the output state will be:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}[({\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}+{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1})\otimes({\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}+{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2})\otimes({\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}+{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle})]\\\nonumber
&&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}(r_{c}^{2}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}+r_{d}^{2}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2}+\\\nonumber
&&r_{c}r_{d}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2}+r_{d}r_{c}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}){\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}\\\label{eq:pent}
&+&\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}(r_{c}^{2}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2}+r_{d}^{2}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}\\\nonumber
&&+r_{c}r_{d}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2}+r_{d}r_{c}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}){\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}\end{aligned}$$
Now after a Hadamard pulse ($\pi/2$) on the electron spin we have the state:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&{\left | \psi_{out} \right \rangle}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}[(r_{c}^{2}+r_{d}^{2})({\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}+{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2})\\
&&+2r_{c}r_{d}({\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2}+{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2})]{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}\\\nonumber
+&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}[(r_{c}^{2}-r_{d}^{2}){\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}+(r_{d}^{2}-r_{c}^{2}){\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2}]{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}\end{aligned}$$
From Fig.\[fig:qdrscat\], we can see the terms that are proportional to $r_{d}$ will disappear, and $r_{c}=1$. If the electron spin is then measured to be “up” ($\uparrow$) with either a third photon or using the single shot readout technique outlined in previous work[@Young:2009fk] then the two photon state will become:
$${\left | \psi_{out} \right \rangle}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}({\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}+{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2})$$
which is the ${\left | \psi^{+} \right \rangle}$ Bell state. Alternatively if the spin is measured to be down ($\downarrow$) we will project the two photons into the state:
$${\left | \psi_{out} \right \rangle}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}({\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}-{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2})$$
which is the ${\left | \psi^{-} \right \rangle}$ Bell state. Thus we have generated entangled states with unit fidelity except there is a reduced efficiency of $1/4$. In order to generate larger entangled states then we simply need to reflect more photons from the system however the efficiency scales as $1/2^{n}$, which would make the scheme intractable for entangling large numbers of photons (n).
![Schematic diagram of a scheme designed to entangle two spatially separrated spins. There are two charged dots strongly coupled to two spatially separated pillar microcavities. The spins are prepared in an equal superposition state, and a linearly polarised photon is reflected from both. The photon is then split by a polarising beam splitter, upon detecting a H polarised photon (detecter D1), the spins are projected into the ${\left | \Phi^{+} \right \rangle}$ Bell state. If a V polarised photon is detected (detector D2) the spins are projected into the ${\left | \Psi^{-} \right \rangle}$ Bell state.[]{data-label="spinentangler"}](spinentangler.eps){width="40.00000%"}
There is an analogous procedure for entangling many spins where photons can be reflected from more than one charged-QD cavity system. Consider the case as in Fig.\[spinentangler\] where the photon is sequentially reflected from two charged QD-cavity coupled devices operating in the resonance scattering regime. The joint two spin photon state at the output will be
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
{\left | \psi_{out} \right \rangle}=&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}[({\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{1}+{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{1})\otimes({\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{2}+{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{2})\otimes({\left | R \right \rangle}+{\left | L \right \rangle})]\\\nonumber
&&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}(r_{c_{1}}r_{c_{2}}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{2}+r_{d_{1}}r_{d_{2}}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{2}\\\nonumber
&&+r_{c_{1}}r_{d_{2}}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{2}+r_{d_{1}}r_{c_{2}}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{2}){\left | R \right \rangle}\\\label{eq:entresscat}
+&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}(r_{c_{1}}r_{c_{2}}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{2}+r_{d_{1}}r_{d_{2}}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{2}\\\nonumber
&&+r_{c_{1}}r_{d_{2}}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{2}+r_{d_{1}}r_{c_{2}}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{2}){\left | L \right \rangle}\end{aligned}$$
Where $r_{c_{1}}$, and $r_{c_{2}}$ represent the reflectivity from empty cavity for the first and second cavities respectively, and $r_{d_{1}}$ and $r_{d_{2}}$ represent the reflectivity’s from dipole-coupled-cavity systems in the resonant scattering regime for the first and send cavities respectively.
Assuming $r_{c_{1}}=r_{c_{2}}=1$, and $r_{d_{1}}=r_{d_{2}}=0$, if a Hadamard is performed on the photon (i.e. using a polarising beam splitter), upon detection of a horizontally polarised photon, the spins are projected into the state:
$${\left | \psi_{out} \right \rangle}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}({\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{2}+{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{2})$$
Which is the ${\left | \psi^{+} \right \rangle}$ Bell state. Alternatively upon detection of a vertically polarised photon, the spins are projected into the state:
$${\left | \psi_{out} \right \rangle}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{8}}({\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \uparrow \right \rangle}_{2}-{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | \downarrow \right \rangle}_{2})$$
Which is the ${\left | \psi^{-} \right \rangle}$ Bell state. This is identical to the photonic entanglement generated above and again has an efficiency of $1/4$ associated with photon loss. The benefit of using this technique to entangle spins is that the spin entanglement is heralded upon detection of a photon, thus it is possible to use many photons and keep reflecting them until one is detected.
Entanglement in lossy cavities
------------------------------
So far to outline this procedure we have assumed that we have a perfect cavity where all the photons escape through the input-output mode ($r_{c}=1$), or are lost through the resonant scattering process, however to make the ideas presented more realistic we must consider cavity imperfections that introduce losses. We must thus include $\kappa_{s}$ in our calculation of the reflectivity. In Fig.\[resscatF\].a. we can see a plot of the ratio of the rate of input-output coupling to the rate of losses ($\kappa/\kappa_{s}$) plotted against the reflectivity where the charged QD-cavity is resonantly coupled, and the probe photons are resonant with both ($\omega_{d}=\omega_{c}=\omega$). In this plot the Q-factor of the cavity remains constant, i.e. the total decay rate is not changed ($(\kappa+\kappa_{s})/\kappa_{T}=1$). We have set $g=\sqrt{\kappa_{T}\gamma/4}$, and set $\gamma=0.1\kappa$
![(a) Showing how the reflectivity at $\omega=\omega_{c}=\omega_{d}$ of an empty cavity ($r_{c}$) and a resonantly coupled charged QD-cavity ($r_{d}$) is affected by changing the ratio of side leakage $\kappa_{s}$ to input-output coupling $\kappa$. The QD-cavity coupling rate has been set to $g^2=\kappa_{T}\gamma/4$ so that we operate in the resonance scattering regime, and the total decay rate $\kappa_{T}=\kappa+\kappa_{s}=const$ (b) Corresponding plot showing how the efficiency $\eta$ and fidelity $F$ of generating the ${\left | \psi^{+} \right \rangle}$ and ${\left | \psi^{-} \right \rangle}$ entangled states is affected by the ratio $\kappa/\kappa_{s}$[]{data-label="resscatF"}](resscatandF2.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Let us first consider the case of an empty cavity given by the line $r_{c}$ in Fig.\[resscatF\].a. (black line) Here we can see that in the regime where $\kappa>>\kappa_{s}$, the reflectivity at zero detuning ($\omega_{c}=\omega$) is $\approx1$. As $\kappa_{s}$ is increased then the reflectivity on resonance drops corresponding to more light being lost from the cavity, until the point when $\kappa_{s}=\kappa$ at which point the reflectivity on resonance drops to $r_{c}=0$, this corresponds to the cavity resonantly transmitting light into lossy modes. As $\kappa_{s}$ is increased further then the coupling into the cavity becomes poorer, until in the regime when $\kappa_{s}>>\kappa$, when the coupling via the input output mode is negligible and the cavity behaves as a conventional mirror. For a charged quantum dot where the dipole transitions are resonantly coupled to a cavity (red dashed line), in the regime that $\kappa>>\kappa_{s}$ then $r_{d}=0$. This is what we expect to observe for the case of a resonantly coupled charged QD-cavity in the resonance scattering regime where input photons destructively interfere with scattered photons, and all of the light is lost to non-cavity modes. As $\kappa_{s}$ is increased an extra damping term is added the result is the destructive interference is no longer perfect and some light is reflected. As $\kappa_{s}$ is increased further it begins to dominate and the interference becomes constructive and the reflectivity from a dipole coupled cavity system ($r_{d}$), becomes greater than that of an empty cavity ($r_{c}$). In the limit when $\kappa_{s}>>\kappa$ then no light enters the cavity thus no light is scattered by the dipole transition and we have that $r_{d}=r_{c}$.
The effect of losses on the fidelity is that the terms proportional to $r_{d}$ in Eqn.\[eq:entresscat\] no longer disappear and the ${\left | \psi^{+} \right \rangle}$ entangled state is no longer prepared with unit fidelity, but instead with a reduced fidelity given by:
$$F_{\psi^{+}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{4(r_{d}r_{c})^{2}}{(r_{d}^{2}+r_{c}^{2})^{2}}}}$$
for the case when we wish to entangle two photons with one spin with an efficiency $\eta_{\psi^{+}}$ given by:
$$\label{eq:resscateff}
\eta_{\psi^{+}}=\frac{(r_{d}^{2}+r_{c}^{2})^{2}}{4}$$
For the case when we wish to entangle two spins with one photon then we have to slightly modify these equations so that fidelity is now:
$$F_{\psi^{+}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\frac{2(r_{d_{1}}r_{c_{2}})^{2}+2(r_{c_{1}}r_{d_{2}})^{2}}{(r_{d_{1}}r_{d_{2}}+r_{c_{1}}r_{c_{2}})^{2}}}}$$
where the efficiency is now:
$$\label{eq:resscateff2}
\eta_{\psi^{+}}=\frac{(r_{d_{1}}r_{d_{2}}+r_{c_{1}}r_{c_{2}})^{2}}{4}$$
Note that the fidelity is not influenced by the two charged-QD cavity systems having non equal values of $r_{c}$ and $r_{d}$, but only by the intensity contrast at both individual dipole cavity system. This means that both systems need not be identical a great advantage when it comes to fabrication of such structures.
The preparation of the ${\left | \psi^{-} \right \rangle}$ state is not affected by changes in $r_{d}$, and $r_{c}$ and always has $F=1$, but has an efficiency given by:
$$\eta_{\psi^{-}}=\frac{(r_{d}^{2}-r_{c}^{2})^{2}}{4}$$
In Fig.\[resscatF\].b we can see a corresponding plot for how the fidelity and efficiency is affected by changing the ratio of $\kappa/\kappa_{s}$. Note we have maintained an overall $\kappa_{T}=const$, thus the Q-factor is constant. At the point where $r_{d}=r_{c}$ ($\kappa\approx 2\kappa_{s}$) there is a minimum in fidelity for the preparation of the ${\left | \psi^{+} \right \rangle}$ state, as at this point the cross terms proportional to ${\left | R \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | L \right \rangle}_{2}+{\left | L \right \rangle}_{1}{\left | R \right \rangle}_{2}$ in Eqn.\[eq:pent\] are a maximum. When $\kappa=\kappa_{s}$ the reflectivity for an empty cavity is zero ($r_{c}=0$), therefore there is a peak in the fidelity and $F=1$, however the since $r_{d}\approx0.5$ the efficiency is low ($\eta\approx0.016$). As we move into the region where $\kappa<\kappa_{s}$ then both $r_{d}$ and $r_{c}$ increase and the efficiency increases, $r_{c}$ increases faster than $r_{d}$, until the limit when $\kappa<<\kappa_{s}$ where $r_{d}=r_{c}=1$ and $\eta=1$. However in this regime there is a minimum in fidelity ($F=1/\sqrt{2}$) for the preparation of the ${\left | \psi^{+} \right \rangle}$ state, again due to the two reflectivities being equal. Note the fidelity for the preparation of the ${\left | \psi^{-} \right \rangle}$ state remains $F=1$, however in a cavity with a large ratio of leaks to input-output coupling the efficiency $\eta_{\psi^{-}}$ drops to zero.
In order to achieve entanglement with the highest possible efficiency and fidelity for both ${\left | \psi^{+} \right \rangle}$ and ${\left | \psi^{-} \right \rangle}$ states it is necessary to have $\kappa>>\kappa_{s}$. This requirement at first sight is no different to the requirement for the deterministic spin photon-interface outlined in previous work[@PhysRevB.78.085307; @PhysRevB.78.125318; @PhysRevB.80.205326; @waks:153601]. So seemingly the non-deterministic scheme outlined offers no advantage, however the required cavity Q-factors are significantly less. In order to see some of the benefits of entanglement generation using resonance scattering it is necessary to consider in more detail some experimental parameters.
We consider some of the state of the art QD pillar microcavity experiments performed by Reithmaier et. al (2004)[@nat-432-7014]. Here they showed strong coupling of a QD to a pillar microcavity where the QD-cavity coupling rate $g=80\mu$eV, the cavity linewidth was $\kappa_{T}=180\mu$ev (Q=7350), and the QD linewidth was $\gamma<10\mu$eV at low temperature. If we now assume the maximum value for the QD linewidth ($\gamma=10\mu$eV), then the required cavity linewidth in order to fulfil the requirement for resonance scattering is $\kappa_{T}=2.56$meV (Q=517). This a significantly smaller value than would be required for a deterministic spin-photon interface in previous work[@PhysRevLett.92.127902; @PhysRevB.78.085307] where we would require $g>\kappa_{T}+\gamma$, meaning $\kappa_{T}=70\mu$ev (Q=18900). With the reduced Q-factor that is required to generate entanglement with resonance scattering, comes a secondary crucial benefit. The state of the art micropillars used in the experiment above and most high-Q micropillars, are limited by losses. Small diameter high Q micropillars have significant sidewall scattering and operate in the regime where $\kappa<\kappa_{s}$. Assuming the linewidth of the pillar is entirely defined by losses out the side $\kappa_{T}=\kappa_{s}=180\mu$eV. The Q-factor can then be reduced by removing, or growing fewer DBR mirror pairs. This will increase $\kappa$ whilst $\kappa_{s}$ should remain constant. Reducing the Q-factor in such a way so that $Q=517$, would result in $\kappa=2.38$meV, and $\kappa_{s}=180\mu$eV, thus have $\kappa/\kappa_{s}=13$. So by reducing the Q-factor we simultaneously increase the input-output coupling rate and move into a regime where the losses out of the side of the pillar become negligible. This means that we can entangle two spins or two photons using charged QD’s coupled to such cavities, with fidelity $F>99\%$ in both the ${\left | \psi^{+} \right \rangle}$ and ${\left | \psi^{-} \right \rangle}$ states, with an efficiency $\eta=0.14$.
We have already discussed that this scheme is best employed when used to herald entanglement between many spins. Assuming perfect detection it would be necessary to send in $\approx10$ photons to ensure one was detected heralding the entanglement of two spins. The photons would have to be separated by a time greater than the spontaneous emission lifetime of the QD $\approx1ns$, so it would take approximately $10ns$ to entangle two spins. Pairs of spins could be entangled in parallel and then entanglement could be generated between pairs by repeating the process between single spins from each pair. Hence a linear cluster of N spins could be entangled in $\approx 20ns$, well within the $\mu$s coherence time of a charged QD spin. By parallelising the entanglement procedure we compensate for the non-deterministic nature of generating entanglement using resonance scattering at the expense of the complexity of the photon source required to perform the experiment.
The advantage of the non-deterministic scheme for generating entanglement is that clearly the required Q-factor is low. A knock on effect is that low Q-micropillars naturally have good input-output coupling efficiency and it is easy to achieve $\kappa>>\kappa_{s}$. To realise the spin-photon interface in the strong coupling regime requires high Q-factor low loss pillars which are much more challenging to fabricate. Further the low Q-factor means the spectral width of the cavity is large compared to the linewidth of the dipole transitions $\gamma$. This means that charged QD’s in different micropillar samples have a larger range over which they can be tuned and still be resonantly coupled to the microcavity meaning it will be easier to realise the situation where both dipole transitions are at the same wavelength. Finally the low Q-factor will lessen the effects of any ellipticity or mode splitting in the cavity. Since the linewidth of the $E_{x}$ and $E_{y}$ modes will be large then any mode-spilitting as a result of fabrication error would be small in comparison
The downside to operating in the regime of resonance scattering is that the charged QD-pillar system has to be engineered so that $g^2=\kappa_{T}\gamma/4$. Since the position of self-assembled QD’s is random, fulfilling this requirement will be difficult, and may require the growth of site controlled QD’s with pillars etched out of the wafer around them. This is not a problem for the spin-photon interface in the strong coupling regime where the coupling rate $g$ just has to be above the threshold where $g>\kappa_{T}+\gamma$, but not have a specific value. Hence operating in the resonance scattering regime changes the nature of the engineering problem. It is easy to achieve a low loss micropillar, but it will be difficult to precisely control the structure to meet the condition for resonance scattering. One possible system that would lend itself to this sort of technique could be toroidal,or microsphere cavities where the Q-factor can effectively be tuned by changing the distance between the cavity and an evanescently coupled tapered fiber. It remains to be seen if the realisation of the structures required for this non-deterministic entanglement scheme will be any easier than the structures required for deterministic spin photon interface in the strong coupling regime.
application to NV center in diamond
===================================
![[**a.**]{} Energy Level diagram for $NV^{-}$ colour center in diamond showing the ground state is splitting[@fedor; @loubser]. [**b.**]{} Schematic diagram of a Barrett and Kok[@Barrett:2005kx] style scheme to entangle two NV centres coupled to optical microcavities in the resonance scattering regime. Photons 1 and 2 have energy corresponding to transition 1 ($\hbar\omega_{m=0}$) and are reflected from cavities 1 and 2 respectively and then interfered on a 50:50 beamsplitter.[]{data-label="nvscheme"}](NVschematic.eps){width="50.00000%"}
The entanglement protocol outlined here for charged QD-spins, could be applied to other spin systems for example the NV-center in a photonic crystal[@Young:2009fk]. Here distinguishing between the two spin states can be achieved with frequency instead of polarisation. If photons were passed through an electro-optical modulator then they can be placed in a superposition of two distinct frequencies $A$ and $B$. Frequency $A$ can then be tuned to be resonant with the $^{3}A_{(m=0)} \rightarrow ^{3}E$ transition (transition (1) Fig.\[nvscheme\].a.), and frequency $B$ resonant with the $^{3}A_{(m=\pm1)} \rightarrow^{3}E$ transition (transition (2) Fig.\[nvscheme\].a). Since the linewidth of the zero phonon line at low temperature is of order MHz[@0953-8984-18-21-S08] then there will be two dips in the reflectivity as a result of resonance scattering corresponding to the $m=0$ and $m=\pm1$ spin states of order MHz spilt by $\approx 2.88$GHz. The distinguishability of these two dips allows us to perform a quantum non-demolition measurement of the spin[@Young:2009fk], and generate entanglement using precisely the same protocol as outlined for the case of a charged quantum dot using photons in a superposition of frequency instead of polarisation.
Recent results[@Togan:2010fk] have also shown that the $m=\pm1$ spin states can be used as a qubit and orthogonal circular polarisations of light then couple the ground states to an excited state $A_{2}$. In this instance the resonant scattering protocol outlined for the charged QD could be directly applied to a NV-center coupled to an appropriate optical microcavity.
An alternative method to generating entanglement in this regime that is perhaps simpler for the case of the NV-center is to only use photons with frequency $\omega_{m=0}$ that are resonant with transition 1 in Fig.\[nvscheme\].a. In Fig.\[nvscheme\].b. we can see a schematic diagram of how this could work. We can take two photons 1 and 2 that are both resonant with the spin preserving transition 1, and reflect them from two cavity systems 1 and 2 that are both coupled to an NV-center in the resonance scattering regime. After the two photons are reflected they are then interfered on a 50:50 beamsplitter. The entanglement would then be generated using the exact same protocol as outlined by Barrett and Kok[@Barrett:2005kx], which could lead to the formation of large cluster states. One benefit of realising this type of scheme using a resonance scattering technique is that we do not need to use photons that are generated via spontaneous emission from spin in the cavity, and can use some external source, in fact photon 1 and photon 2 can be produced from the same source. This means it should be easier to ensure that the two photons are indistinguishable, which remains a challenge[@Bernien:2012fk], thus effectively removing a decoherence channel from the existing Barrett and Kok protocol. Further to produce indistinguishable phonons via spontaneous emission would require the photons produced to be transform limited. This would require some Purcell enhancement thus $g^{2}>\kappa_{T}\gamma/4$ hence the Q-factor required would need to be higher. Note that this technique is also possible for other spin cavity systems for example the charged QD system examined earlier where we would just set photons 1 and 2 to have the same circular polarisation.
Finally for illustrative purposes we can consider coupling a nitrogen vacancy centre to a photonic crystal cavity with current state of the art fabrication techniques. Recent results have shown[@Riedrich-Moller:2012kx] the fabrication of photonic crystals in diamond with Q-factor of $\approx700$ and a mode volume of $\approx 0.13\mu$m$^{3}$. Using this mode volume and given a typical oscillator strength for the ground to excited state triplet transitions of $f\approx0.12$[@nat_phs_2_408], then we can calculate the dipole-cavity coupling rate to be $g\approx13.5\mu$eV. Since the zero phonon linewidth at low temperature is $\gamma\approx0.1\mu$eV[@0953-8984-16-30-R03] then the Q-factor required to meet the resonance scattering condition in such a structure would be $Q\approx256$ nearly three times smaller than has already been experimentally realised. So provided the input/output coupling rate $\kappa$ can be made much larger than the loss rate $\kappa_{s}$ then current experimentally realised structures in diamond would be suitable for generating entanglement using resonant scattering techniques.
Summary
=======
In Summary we have shown a way to non-deterministically generate entanglement between electron spins and photons. We have shown how this can be applied to charged QD-spins, and nitrogen vacancy centers coupled to optical microcavities. The idea uses resonance scattering where orthogonal photon states are scattered and lost depending on the internal spin state of the electron spin. The advantage to this scheme is that it requires low Q micropillars where the input-output coupling rate is intrinsically high. The disadvantage is the non-deterministic nature makes scaling difficult compared to the spin-photon interface in the strong coupling regime.
[22]{}
urlstyle \[1\][doi: \#1]{}
L.-M. Duan and H. J. Kimble. Scalable photonic quantum computation through cavity-assisted interactions. , 92(12):127902, Mar 2004.
Wang Yao, Renbao Liu, and L. J. Sham. Nanodot-cavity electrodynamics and photon entanglement. , 92(21), 05 2004.
E. Waks and J. Vuckovic. Dipole induced transparency in drop-filter cavity-waveguide systems. , 96(15):153601, 2006.
W. Yao, R. B Liu, and L. J. Sham. Theory of control of the spin-photon interface for quantum networks. , 95(3), 07 2005.
Sean D. Barrett and Pieter Kok. Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics. , 71(6), 06 2005.
C. Bonato, F. Haupt, S. S. R. Oemrawsingh, J. Gudat, D. Ding, M. P. van Exter, and D. Bouwmeester. Cnot and bell-state analysis in the weak-coupling cavity qed regime. , 104(16):160503, Apr 2010.
C. Y. Hu, A. Young, J. L. O’Brien, W. J. Munro, and J. G. Rarity. Giant optical faraday rotation induced by a single-electron spin in a quantum dot: Applications to entangling remote spins via a single photon. , 78(8):085307, Aug 2008.
C. Y. Hu, W. J. Munro, J. L. O’Brien, and J. G. Rarity. Proposed entanglement beam splitter using a quantum-dot spin in a double-sided optical microcavity. , 80(20):205326, Nov 2009.
C. Y. Hu, W. J. Munro, and J. G. Rarity. Deterministic photon entangler using a charged quantum dot inside a microcavity. , 78(12):125318, Sep 2008.
A. M. Stephens, Z. W. E. Evans, S. J. Devitt, A. D. Greentree, A. G. Fowler, W. J. Munro, J. L. O’Brien, K. Nemoto, and L. C. L. Hollenberg. Deterministic optical quantum computer using photonic modules. , 78(3):032318, Sep 2008.
A. B. Young, R. Oulton, C. Y. Hu, A. C. T. Thijssen, C. Schneider, S. Reitzenstein, M. Kamp, S. H[ö]{}fling, L. Worschech, A. Forchel, and J. G. Rarity. Quantum-dot-induced phase shift in a pillar microcavity. , 84(1):011803–, 07 2011.
L. C. Andreani, G. Panzarini, and J. M Gérard. Strong-coupling regime for quantum boxes in pillar microcavities: Theory. , 60(19):13276–13279, Nov 1999.
Q A Turchette, C J Hood, W Lange, H Mabuchi, and H J Kimble. Measurement of conditional phase shifts for quantum logic. , 75:4710–4713, 1995.
J. P. Reithmaier. et al. Strong coupling in a single quantum dot-semiconductor microcavity system. , 432(7014):197–200, 2004.
S. Reitzenstein, C. Hofmann, A. Gorbunov, M. Strauss, S. H. Kwon, C. Schneider, A. Loffler, S. Hofling, M. Kamp, and A. Forchel. Alas/gaas micropillar cavities with quality factors exceeding 150.000. , 90(25):251109, 2007.
A Young, C Y Hu, L Marseglia, J P Harrison, J L O’Brien, and J G Rarity. Cavity enhanced spin measurement of the ground state spin of an nv center in diamond. , 11(1), 2009.
Ph Tamarat, N B Manson, J P Harrison, R L McMurtrie, A Nizovtsev, C Santori, R G Beausoleil, P Neumann, T Gaebel, F Jelezko, P Hemmer, and J Wrachtrup. Spin-flip and spin-conserving optical transitions of the nitrogen-vacancy centre in diamond. , 10(4):045004 (9pp), 2008.
J.H.N. Loubser and J.A. Van Wyk. Optical spin polarization in a triplet state in irradiated and annealed type 1b diamonds. , 11:11, 1977.
J. Wrachtrup and F. Jelezko. Processing quantum information in diamond. , 18(21):S807–S824, 2006.
E. Togan, Y. Chu, A. S. Trifonov, L. Jiang, J. Maze, L. Childress, M. V. G. Dutt, A. S. Sorensen, P. R. Hemmer, A. S. Zibrov, and M. D. Lukin. Quantum entanglement between an optical photon and a solid-state spin qubit. , 466(7307):730–734, 08 2010.
Hannes Bernien, Lilian Childress, Lucio Robledo, Matthew Markham, Daniel Twitchen, and Ronald Hanson. Two-photon quantum interference from separate nitrogen vacancy centers in diamond. , 108(4):043604–, 01 2012.
Janine Riedrich-Moller, Laura Kipfstuhl, Christian Hepp, Elke Neu, Christoph Pauly, Frank Mucklich, Armin Baur, Michael Wandt, Sandra Wolff, Martin Fischer, Stefan Gsell, Matthias Schreck, and Christoph Becher. One- and two-dimensional photonic crystal microcavities in single crystal diamond. , 7(1):69–74, 01 2012.
T. Gaebel, M. Domhan, I. Popa, C. Wittmann, P. Neumann, F. Jelezko, J. R. Rabeau, N. Stavrias, A. D. Greentree, S. Prawer, J. Meijer, J. Twamley, P. R. Hemmer, and J. Wrachtrup. Room-temperature coherent coupling of single spins in diamond. , 2(6):408–413, 2006.
F Jelezko and J Wrachtrup. Read-out of single spins by optical spectroscopy. , 16(30):R1089–R1104, 2004.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Marko Vasic$^{1,2}$, Aditya Kanade$^{1,3}$, Petros Maniatis$^1$, David Bieber$^1$, Rishabh Singh$^1$\
$^1$Google Brain, USA ` ` $^2$University of Texas at Austin, USA ` ` $^3$IISc Bangalore, India\
`[email protected]` ` ``{akanade,maniatis,dbieber,rising}@google.com`
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: Neural Program Repair by Jointly Learning to Localize and Repair
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We detail the enumeration of all two-intersection sets of the five-dimensional projective space over the field of order $3$ that are invariant under an element of order $7$, which include the examples of Hill (1973) and Gulliver (1996). Up to projective equivalence, there are 6635 such two-intersection sets.'
address:
- |
Centre for the Mathematics of Symmetry and Computation\
School of Mathematics and Statistics\
The University of Western Australia\
35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, W.A. 6009, Australia.
- |
Centre for the Mathematics of Symmetry and Computation\
School of Mathematics and Statistics\
The University of Western Australia\
35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, W.A. 6009, Australia.
- |
Centre for the Mathematics of Symmetry and Computation\
School of Mathematics and Statistics\
The University of Western Australia\
35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, W.A. 6009, Australia.
author:
- Michael Martis
- John Bamberg
- Sylvia Morris
title: 'An enumeration of certain projective ternary two-weight codes and their relationship to the cubic Segre variety'
---
Introduction
============
In the early 1970’s, Philippe Delsarte showed that there is a remarkable connection between three objects in mathematics:
1. strongly regular graphs;
2. linear codes with two weights;
3. sets of points in a projective space with two intersection sizes with respect to hyperplanes.
To illustrate these connections, consider the five-dimensional projective space over the field of order $3$. There are some captivating examples of two-intersection sets in this space, one of which was discovered by Ray Hill [@Hill73] in 1973 and it is known as *Hill’s $56$-cap* since it consists of $56$ points (of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,3)$), no three lying on a common line. This cap has the property that any hyperplane of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,3)$ has only two possible ways of intersecting the cap: in $11$ or $20$ points. Equivalently, we can associate the points of this cap with the columns of a generator matrix for a ternary linear code with parameters $[56,6]$ and weights $36$ and $45$. Using a beautiful geometric construction known as *linear representation*, Hill’s $56$-cap gives rise to a geometry known as a *partial quadrangle*, and it therefore gives rise to a strongly regular graph on $729$ vertices. Today, we also know that Hill’s $56$-cap is intimately linked to of the Hermitian variety $\mathsf{H}(3,3^2)$ and to an interesting imprimitive cometric $Q$-antipodal $4$-class association scheme [@VanDamEtAl]. There are other examples in this space found by Gulliver [@Gulliver1], and these examples have something in common; they each admit a common symmetry of order $7$, which happens to be $q^2-q+1$ when $q=3$. In general, when $q\not\equiv 2 \pmod{3}$, we can *factor out* this symmetry and identify these two-intersection sets with subsets of the classical algebraic variety known as the *cubic Segre variety* (see Section \[segre\]).
This paper details the search for, and enumeration of, a family of strongly regular graphs arising from two-intersection sets of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5, 3)$. Of the three mathematical objects above, two-intersection sets are the most readily computable, and hence effort was focused on finding two-intersection sets using linear programming techniques. In particular, the projective space ${\mathsf{PG}}(5, 3)$ was examined as a successor to ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,2)$, since the binary projective codes of dimension at most $6$ have been classified by Bouyukliev [@Bouyukliev]. Over 6000 new strongly regular graphs were discovered as a result of enumerating two-weight ternary codes of dimension $6$, many of which overlap the list of codes on Kohnert’s webpage[^1]. Up to projective equivalence, there are 6635 such two-intersection sets of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,3)$ invariant under a collineation of order $7$.
Correspondences between two-weight linear codes, two-intersection sets and strongly regular graphs
==================================================================================================
We begin with the elementary definitions of all three objects, and the relationships between them. An *$[n, k]$ linear code* is a $k$-dimensional subspace of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^n$, and its vectors are known as *codewords*. The weight of a codeword is the number of non-zero values in its coordinate vector. Every $[n, k]$ linear code is the rowspace of some $k \times n$ generator matrix. A linear code $C$ is *projective* if no two columns of its generator matrix are linearly dependent. Equivalently, $C$ is projective if the minimum weight of the dual code $C^\perp$ of $C$ is at least $3$. A two-weight linear code is simply a linear code in which all non-zero codewords have weight one of two fixed values $w_{1}$ or $w_{2}$. The family of two-weight linear codes is an important one; a $2$-error-correcting linear code is perfect if and only if its dual is a two-weight code, and a $1$-error-correcting linear code is uniformly packed if and only if its dual is a two-weight code [@CalderbankSurvey Theorem 4.2, Theorem 4.3].
A two-intersection set $\mathcal{K}$ with parameters $(n, k, h_{1}, h_{2})$ is a set of points in ${\mathsf{PG}}(k - 1, q)$ such that every hyperplane in ${\mathsf{PG}}(k - 1, q)$ is incident with either $h_{1}$ or $h_{2}$ points in $\mathcal{K}$. For example, the points lying on a line form a simple two-intersection set with parameters $(q + 1, k, 1, q + 1)$: every hyperplane either lies completely on the line (and hence intersects it at $q + 1$ points), or meets it at one point. The complement of a two-intersection set with parameters $(n, k, h_{1}, h_{2})$ is again a two-intersection set (but with different parameters).
Every projective two-weight linear code arises from a two-intersection set and gives rise to a strongly regular graph. A strongly regular graph with parameters $(n, k, \lambda, \mu)$ is a graph containing $n$ vertices in which every vertex has degree $k$, every two adjacent vertices share $\lambda$ common neighbours, and every two non-adjacent vertices share $\mu$ common neighbours. The following results were originally proved by Delsarte [@DelsarteSRG], and provide the necessary details for converting a two-intersection set into a two-weight linear code and for converting a two-weight linear code into a two-intersection set or a strongly regular graph.
If $\mathcal{K} = \{ p_{1}, p_{2}, \ldots, p_{n} \}$ is a two-intersection set with parameters $(n,
k, h_{1}, h_{2})$ that spans ${\mathsf{PG}}(k - 1 , q)$, then $$\mathcal{G} =\begin{bmatrix} p_{1}^{\perp} & p_{2}^{\perp} & \cdots & p_{n}^{\perp}
\end{bmatrix}$$ is the generator matrix of a projective two-weight $[n, k]$ linear code with weights $n - h_{1}$ and $n - h_{2}$, where it is understood that the $p_i$ are vectors representing the homogeneous coordinates of points of ${\mathsf{PG}}(k-1,q)$. Conversely, if $ \mathcal{G} = \begin{bmatrix} c_{1}\,
c_{2} \cdots c_{n} \end{bmatrix} $ is the generator matrix of a projective two-weight $[n, k]$ linear code with weights $w_{1}$ and $w_{2}$, then $\mathcal{K} = \{c_{1}^{\perp}, c_{2}^{\perp},
\ldots, c_{n}^{\perp}\}$ are the homogeneous coordinate vectors for a two-intersection set with parameters $(n, k, n - w_{1}, n - w_{2})$ that spans ${\mathsf{PG}}(k - 1 , q)$.
Delsarte defined the associated graph $\Gamma(\mathcal{C})$ of a projective two-weight linear code $\mathcal{C}$ with weights $w_{1}$ and $w_{2}$ as follows: let the vertices of $\Gamma(\mathcal{C})$ correspond to the codewords of $\mathcal{C}$. Two distinct vertices in $\Gamma(\mathcal{C})$ are adjacent if and only if the weight of the difference between their corresponding codewords is $w_{1}$.
$\Gamma(\mathcal{C})$ is a strongly regular graph for any projective two-weight linear code $\mathcal{C}$.
The Segre embedding in ${\mathsf{PG}}(5, q)$ {#segre}
============================================
Our motivation stemmed from the fact that many of the most interesting two-intersection sets of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5, 3)$ had a stabiliser divisible by $7$, and $7$ is a primitive prime divisor of $3^6-1$ (and so an element of order $7$ must act irreducibly). The Hill $56$-cap and the examples found by Gulliver could be constructed by taking unions of orbits of this cyclic subgroup. Restricting the search to two-intersection sets that could be constructed in this manner prevented the scope of the problem from becoming infeasible and allowed for a full enumeration of possible solutions. To classify all two-weight ternary codes of dimension $6$ seems to be out of the current range of computational power.
Let us model ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,q)$ simply as the field extension ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}^\times$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$. If $\omega$ is a primitive root of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}^\times$, then multiplication by $\omega$ yields a cyclic subgroup acting regularly on the points of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,q)$; the so-called *Singer cycle* of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,q)$. If we raise $\omega$ to a suitable power, namely $(q+1)(q^2+q+1)$, then we will obtain a field element of order $(q-1)(q^2-q+1)$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}^\times$, which will induce a collineation $\tau$ of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,q)$ of order $q^2-q+1$. Alternatively, we can write the orbits of $\tau$ down by taking the equivalence classes of the following relation: $$x \sim y \Leftrightarrow x^{(q^2 - q + 1)(q - 1)} = y^{(q^2 - q + 1)(q - 1)}, \label{eqn:equiv_rel}$$ where $x, y \in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}^\times$.
A two-intersection set invariant under $\tau$ will automatically span ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,q)$ since $\tau$ acts irreducibly on this space.
The map $\sigma : {\mathsf{PG}}(1, q) \times {\mathsf{PG}}(2, q) \to {\mathsf{PG}}(5, q)$ defined by $$\sigma([X_{1} , X_{2}], [Y_{1} , Y_{2} , Y_{3}]) = [X_{1} Y_{1} , X_{1} Y_{2} , X_{1} Y_{3} , X_{2} Y_{1} , X_{2} Y_{2} , X_{2} Y_{3}]$$ is a *Segre embedding*, and the image of this map is a cubic *Segre variety* $\mathcal{S}_{1,2}$ (see [@HirschfeldThas Chapter 25]). In order to work with this Segre embedding, it became necessary to find an equivalent operation over elements of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}$.
The map $(x, y) \mapsto xy$ from ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^\times \times {\mathbb{F}}_{q^3}^\times$ to ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}^\times$ is equivalent to the Segre embedding $\sigma$.
We model ${\mathsf{PG}}(1, q)$ as ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ with basis $\{ \chi_{1}, \chi_{2}
\}$, and ${\mathsf{PG}}(2, q)$ as ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^3}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$ with basis $\{ \psi_{1}, \psi_{2},
\psi_{3} \}$. Now suppose we have $x = [X_{1} , X_{2}] \in {\mathsf{PG}}(1, q)$ and $y = [Y_{1} , Y_{2} ,
Y_{3}] \in {\mathsf{PG}}(2, q)$; that is, $x = X_{1} \chi_{1} + X_{2} \chi_{2}$ and $y = Y_{1} \psi_{1} +
Y_{2} \psi_{2} + Y_{3} \psi_{3}$.\
Clearly, $$xy = X_{1} Y_{1} \chi_{1} \psi_{1} + X_{1} Y_{2} \chi_{1} \psi_{2} + X_{1} Y_{3} \chi_{1} \psi_{3} + X_{2} Y_{1} \chi_{2} \psi_{1} + X_{2} Y_{2} \chi_{2} \psi_{2} + X_{2} Y_{3} \chi_{2} \psi_{3},$$ so it suffices to show that $\{\chi_{1} \psi_{1}, \chi_{1} \psi_{2}, \chi_{1} \psi_{3} , \chi_{2} \psi_{1}, \chi_{2} \psi_{2}, \chi_{2} \psi_{3}\}$ is a basis for ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}$ (over ${\mathbb{F}}_q$).
To this end, suppose $ \lambda_{1} \chi_{1} \psi_{1} + \lambda_{2} \chi_{1} \psi_{2} + \lambda_{3}
\chi_{1} \psi_{3} + \lambda_{4} \chi_{2} \psi_{1} + \lambda_{5} \chi_{2} \psi_{2} + \lambda_{6}
\chi_{2} \psi_{3} = 0$. Further suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that $\lambda_{1} \psi_{1}
+ \lambda_{2} \psi_{2} + \lambda_{3} \psi_{3} \neq 0$. We may then rearrange the equation as follows: $$- \chi_{1} \chi_{2}^{-1} = (\lambda_{1} \psi_{1} + \lambda_{2} \psi_{2} + \lambda_{3} \psi_{3})^{-1}(\lambda_{4} \psi_{1} + \lambda_{5} \psi_{2} + \lambda_{6} \psi_{3}).$$
Noting that the left hand side of the equation is an element of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$, and the right hand side of the equation is an element of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^3}$, we conclude that both sides of the equation are elements of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^2} \cap {\mathbb{F}}_{q^3} = {\mathbb{F}}_q$. Then we must have $\chi_{1} = \lambda \chi_{2}$, for some $\lambda \in {\mathbb{F}}_q$ – a contradiction.
Hence, we must have $\lambda_{1} \psi_{1} + \lambda_{2} \psi_{2} + \lambda_{3} \psi_{3} = 0$ and consequently, $\lambda_{4} \psi_{1} + \lambda_{5} \psi_{2} + \lambda_{6} \psi_{3} = 0$. As $\psi_{1}$, $\psi_{2}$ and $\psi_{3}$ are linearly independent, we see that $\lambda_{1} =
\lambda_{2} = \cdots = \lambda_{6} = 0$. This confirms that $\{\chi_{1} \psi_{1}, \chi_{1} \psi_{2},
\chi_{1} \psi_{3} , \chi_{2} \psi_{1}, \chi_{2} \psi_{2}, \chi_{2} \psi_{3}\}$ is a basis for ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}$.
It was discovered that, for certain values of $q$, the image of $\sigma$ is a transversal of the orbits discussed above.
For $q \neq 2 \bmod 3$, every equivalence class of $(\ref{eqn:equiv_rel})$ contains exactly one element of the Segre variety arising from the products $ \mathcal{S} = \{x y : x \in
{\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^\times, y \in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^3}^\times\}.$
Consider the following subgroup of ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}^\times$ of order $(q^2-q+1)(q-1)$: $$\mathcal{W} := \{ x \in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}^\times : x^{(q^2-q+1)(q-1)} = 1 \}.$$ We will first show that the subgroup $\mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{W}$ is contained in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$.
The order of the intersection $\mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{W}$ must divide the order of both subgroups, and hence must also divide $$\gcd((q-1)(q+1)(q^2+q+1), (q^2-q+1)(q-1)) = (q-1) \gcd((q+1)(q^2+q+1), q^2-q+1).$$ Noting that $q^2 + q + 1$ and $q^2 - q + 1$ are coprime, we may simplify the expression to $(q-1)
\gcd(q+1, q^2-q+1).$ This can be further simplified to $(q-1) \gcd(q + 1, 3)$, with one step of the Euclidean algorithm. Clearly, when $q \neq 2 \bmod 3$, the above expression evaluates to $q -
1$. In these cases, the order of $\mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{W}$ divides the order of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$, and hence $\mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{W}$ is a subgroup of ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$.
Now we may proceed to proving the stated result. Suppose $x, x' \in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}^\times$ and $y, y' \in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^3}^\times$. We show that if $xy$ and $x'y'$ are in the same equivalence class of $(1)$, they represent the same element of the Segre variety. To do so, we suppose that $(xy)^{(q^2 - q + 1)(q - 1)} = (x'y')^{(q^2 - q + 1)(q - 1)}$. This equation can be rearranged into the form $[(x'x^{-1})(y'y^{-1})]^{(q^2 - q + 1)(q - 1)} = 1$.
So $(x'x^{-1})(y'y^{-1})$ is an element of $\mathcal{S} \cap \mathcal{W}$, and is therefore in ${\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$, using the fact shown above. Hence, we have $(x'x^{-1})(y'y^{-1}) = \lambda$, for some $\lambda \in {\mathbb{F}}_q^\times$, which may be rearranged into the form $x'y' = \lambda x
y$. Therefore, $xy$ and $x'y'$ are projectively equivalent. We have shown, then, that the Segre variety arising from $\mathcal{S}$ is a transversal of the given equivalence classes, as there are an equal number of equivalence classes and elements of $\mathcal{S}$.
This relationship between the Segre variety and the orbits of a collineation group allows for the expression of conforming two-intersection sets as geometric entities in the Segre variety. Every orbit included in such a two-intersection set corresponds to exactly one point in the Segre variety.
Fix a primitive root $\omega$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_{3^6}$. Then we can describe the eight orbits comprising the Hill $56$-cap by single elements of the Segre variety: $$1, \omega^{91}, \omega^{14}, \omega^{42}, \omega^{105}, \omega^{126}, \omega^{133}, \omega^{217}.$$ These elements of the Segre variety were obtained by taking the products $\omega^a\omega^b$, where $$(a,b)\in \{ (0, 0), (0, 91), (560, 182), (588, 182), (560, 273), (672, 182), (588, 273), (672,
273)\}.$$ Note that the first coordinates of these pairs are each divisible by $28$, and the second coordinates are each divisible by $91$ (and so $\omega^a\in {\mathbb{F}}_{q^3}$ and $\omega^b\in
{\mathbb{F}}_{q^2}$ for each $(a,b)$). We will catalogue each of our examples in Section \[results\] by points of the Segre variety in this way.
Necessary conditions for the existence of two-intersection sets
===============================================================
The following is an extension of the results presented by Penttila and Royle [@RoyleParameters §2], and was used to quickly identify implausible parameter sets in the computational search.
Suppose $\mathcal{K}$ is a two-intersection set with parameters $(n, k, h_{1}, h_{2})$. Then there must exist an integer solution to: $$n^2 \frac {q ^ {k - 2} - 1} {q - 1} + n ( (1 - h_{1} - h_{2}) \frac {q^{k - 1} - 1} {q - 1} - \frac {q^{k - 2} - 1} {q - 1} ) + h_{1} h_{2} \frac {q^k - 1} {q - 1} = 0.$$
If $t_{1}$ and $t_{2}$ are the number of hyperplanes that are incident with $h_{1}$ and $h_{2}$ points in $\mathcal{K}$, respectively, then counting arguments reveal the following equations:
[l|p[7cm]{}]{}\
$ t_{1} + t_{2} = (q^{k} - 1)/(q - 1)$ & counting the number of hyperplanes\
\
$h_{1} t_{1} + h_{2} t_{2} = n (q^{k-1} - 1)(q -1)$& counting incident point-hyperplane pairs\
\
$h_{1} (h_{1} - 1) t_{1} + h_{2} (h_{2} - 1) t_{2} = n (n - 1) (q ^ {k - 2} - 1)/(q - 1)$ &
counting triples $(p_1,p_2,\Pi)$ where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are two different points incident with the hyperplane $\Pi$
\
If we take the left-hand sides of these three equations, and sum them with coefficients $h_1h_2$, $1-h_1-h_2$, and $1$ accordingly, we will obtain $0$. The result then follows.
Suppose $\mathcal{K}$ is a two-intersection set with parameters $(n, k, h_{1}, h_{2})$. Then $h_{2}
- h_{1}$ must divide $q^{k - 2}$.
Suppose that $\rho_{1}$ and $\rho_{2}$ are the number of hyperplanes through a point $P \in
\mathcal{K}$ that are incident with $h_{1}$ and $h_{2}$ points in $\mathcal{K}$, respectively. Similarly, suppose $\sigma_{1}$ and $\sigma_{2}$ are the number of hyperplanes through a point $Q \notin \mathcal{K}$ that are incident with $h_{1}$ and $h_{2}$ points in $\mathcal{K}$, respectively. Then counting arguments show that: $$\rho_{1} + \rho_{2} = \frac{q^{k - 1} - 1}{q - 1},$$ $$\sigma_{1} + \sigma_{2} = \frac{q^{k - 1} - 1}{q - 1},$$ $$(h_{1} - 1)\rho_{1} + (h_{2} - 1)\rho_{2} = (n - 1)\frac{q^{k - 2} - 1}{q - 1}, \text{ and}$$ $$h_{1}\sigma_{1} + h_{2}\sigma_{2} = n\frac{q^{k - 2} - 1}{q - 1}.$$ By solving this system of equations, we see that $\rho_{2} - \sigma_{2} = \frac{q^{k - 2}}{h_{2} - h_{1}}$ must be an integer.
A computational search for two-intersection sets
================================================
A significant advantage of searching for two-intersection sets, rather than the other mathematical objects discussed in this paper, is the relative ease with which two-intersection sets can be found computationally. The task of finding two-intersection sets in a projective space can be naturally represented as a linear programming problem, as evinced by Kohnert [@KohnertCodes]. This section details a method of framing the task in such a way.
Let $G$ be a group of collineations of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,q)$. We let $M$ be the $G$-quotient of the point-hyperplane incidence matrix wherein the $(i, j)^{th}$ entry is the number of elements from the $i$th $G$-orbit on points incident with the $j$th $G$-orbit representative on hyperplanes. Alternatively, we can use a duality arising from a bilinear form, say, so that the hyperplanes are replaced by points and incidence is replaced by orthogonality. In our application, where $G$ is a cyclic group of order $q^2-q+1$ acting on ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,q)$, we can simply construct $M$ by indexing its rows and columns by the cubic Segre variety $\mathcal{S}_{1,2}$. The relative trace map (from ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}$ to ${\mathbb{F}}_q$) yields a bilinear form when we model ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,q)$ by the field ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}$: $$B(x,y):=\mathrm{Tr}_{q^6\to q}(xy).$$ Hence, we may instead calculate $M(i,j)$ by calculating the number of elements $g\in G$ such that $B(s_i g,s_j)=0$, where $s_i,s_j$ are the $i$-th and $j$-th elements of the Segre variety modelled in ${\mathbb{F}}_{q^6}$.
An *orbit inclusion vector* is a 0-1 vector in which the $i$th entry is $1$ or $0$, dependent on whether the $i$-th orbit is included or excluded from the current point set (resp.). Clearly, premultiplying the inclusion vector with the incidence matrix yields a vector wherein the $i$-th entry contains the number of points in the current point set incident with the $i$-th hyperplane.
In order to find a two-intersection set with intersection values $h_{1}$ and $h_{2}$, we need to find solutions to the system of equations: $$\textbf{x} M = ( h_{1} \text{ or } h_{2}, \quad h_{1} \text{ or } h_{2},\quad \ldots ,\quad h_{1} \text{ or } h_{2} ),$$ where $\textbf{x}$ is a 0-1 vector. While this is not a linear system, it can be converted into one with a minor modification. For a given solution $\textbf{x}$, we introduce a vector $\textbf{y}$ of length $n$, such that the $i$th entry of $\textbf{y}$ is $0$ if the $i$th hyperplane is incident with $h_{1}$ points, or $1$ if the $i$th hyperplane is incident with $h_{2}$ points. This allows the problem to be framed as a linear system of equations: $$\textbf{x} M + (h_{1} - h_{2}) \textbf{y} = \left( h_{1}, h_{1}, \ldots , h_{1} \right),$$ which can then be solved with software such as *Gurobi* [@gurobi]. This also has the benefit of immediately revealing which hyperplanes are incident with $h_{1}$ points and which are incident with $h_{2}$.
Optimising the search
=====================
An initial search for two-intersection sets, filtered only by fulfilment of the necessary conditions discussed above, was able to return hundreds of thousands of results without exhausting the problem space. To prevent the re-computation of redundant data, the action of the full collineation group was used to impose a number of constraints on the search. We computed valuable information regarding the symmetries of the projective space using the free software package <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">GAP</span> [@GAP4]. Firstly, it was noted that the normaliser of our element $\tau$ of order $7$ in the full collineation group acted transitively on the point-orbits of $\tau$, meaning any solution was equivalent to one that included the first orbit. Hence, the first orbit was selected in every one of the reported solutions.
Next, the subgroup that stabilised the first orbit was examined. This group had nine orbits itself, represented by the orbits with indices in the set $\{1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 17, 18, 20, 24\}$. Hence, any solution that included two or more orbits was equivalent to one that included either orbits 1 and 2, or orbits 1 and 3, or orbits 1 and 5 etc. The solution space was then restricted to ensure that one of these orbit pairs was always included.
{width="98.00000%"}
This method was reapplied to those subproblems that proved computationally difficult. For instance, including orbits 1 and 2 in a solution was shown to be equivalent to including one of nine triples of orbits. In this manner, a tree of computations was formed and traversed, sometimes reaching seven levels deep.
One optimisation that proved particularly efficient was facilitated by the use of the branching method discussed above. As noted, there are many sets of orbits that are equivalent to one another. The search was accelerated by precluding the consideration of any set equivalent to one already encountered. For example, there exist 52 pairs of orbits whose inclusion is equivalent to the inclusion of the orbits 1 and 2. Hence, after all solutions containing orbits 1 and 2 have been found, any of these 52 equivalent pairs of orbits can be excluded from appearing again in any future results.
These optimisation techniques allowed for the enumeration of all $\tau$-invariant two-intersection sets in ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,
3)$ within a viable time-frame (approximately 2 weeks).
In order to have confidence in the correctness of the search, we used the constraint satisfaction solver <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Minion</span> [@minion] to simulate some of our results. In particular, we enumerated all the two-intersection sets with parameters $\{11,20\}$, $\{21,30\}$, $\{26,35\}$, $\{28,37\}$, or $\{31,40\}$, invariant under a group with order divisible by $7$, and we obtained the same results which we outline in Table \[smallparams\]:
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Parameters | Number of | Stabiliser sizes\ |
| | two-intersection\ | (up to multiplicity) |
| | sets up to | |
| | equivalence | |
+:=====================:+:======================+:======================+
| $\{11,20\}$ | 1 | $40320$ |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| $\{21,30\}$ | 6 | $7^4, 42^2$ |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| $\{26,35\}$ | 4 | $7^2, 21^2$ |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| $\{28,37\}$ | 22 | $7^9, 14^3, 21^2, 42^ |
| | | 6, 168^1, 546^1$ |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| $\{31,40\}$ | 55 | $7^{46}, 14^8, 261273 |
| | | 60^1$ |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
: Examples for small parameter sets.[]{data-label="smallparams"}
More evidence for the efficacy of our computation is the third author’s[^2] enumeration of the spreads of the symplectic polar space $\mathsf{W}(5,q)$, for small $q$. In particular, the results were previously known for $q{\leqslant}4$, which verified the computational data obtained.
Results
=======
The following results were found using the methods discussed in the previous two sections. The “Segre variety representation” column lists the points in the Segre variety that correspond to the given two-intersection set, in the following format: each entry specifies a pair of exponents to the primitive root $\omega$ of ${\mathbb{F}}_{3^6}$, which is represented as ${\mathbb{F}}_3[x]/{\langle x^6 - x^4 +
x^2 - x - 1\rangle}$. The specific element of the Segre variety can be obtained by applying the multiplication map to the resulting elements. That is, the map $(a, b) \mapsto \omega^a \omega^b$ yields the correct element of the Segre variety in the model ${\mathbb{F}}_{3^6}^\times$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_{3}^\times$. The “stabiliser size” column lists the size of the largest group that stabilises the given orbit set. It is important to note that not all two-intersection sets, and hence not all strongly regular graphs, are present in the tables that follow: 6635 solutions were found altogether, with all but the 187 listed below having a full stabiliser of order $7$ in the collineation group. Every one of the 6635 computed two-intersection sets was found to correspond to a unique strongly regular graph. This was achieved by using the software `nauty` [@nauty] to identify the canonical representation of the graph. The full list of two-intersection sets can be found at the webpage <https://researchdataonline.research.uwa.edu.au/handle/123456789/1358>.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(672, 273)$ 40320
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
: Two-intersection sets of type $(56, 6, 11, 20)$
The only two-intersection set of size 56 is the Hill cap [@Hill73], which gives rise to a strongly regular graph with parameters $(729, 112, 1, 20)$ (this is also Example FE2 in [@CalderbankSurvey §11]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 182)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(560, 455)$, $(168, 182)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 182)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(448, 637)$ 42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
: Two-intersection sets of type $(84, 6, 21, 30)$
The above two-intersection sets give rise to strongly regular graphs with parameters $(729, 168, 27, 42)$. Gulliver’s $(84,6,54)$-code [@Gulliver1] has a stabiliser of order $7$ so does not appear in this list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(252, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(448, 546)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
: Two-intersection sets of type $(98, 6, 26, 35)$
The above two-intersection sets give rise to strongly regular graphs with parameters $(729, 196, 43, 56)$. Gulliver’s $(98,6,63)$-code [@Gulliver1] has a stabiliser of order $7$ so does not appear in this list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(56, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(448, 637)$ $14$
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 273)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(504, 273)$, $(560, 273)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(560, 455)$, $(56, 273)$ $168$
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(476, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(252, 91)$ $42^*$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(504, 546)$ $21$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(252, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(476, 546)$ $42$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$ $42$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(252, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 546)$ $42$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(700, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$ $14$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$ $42$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(588, 182)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(168, 182)$ $42$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$ $546^{**}$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(448, 637)$ $21^*$
$(0, 0)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ $14$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
: Two-intersection sets of type $(91, 6, 28, 37)$
The above two-intersection sets give rise to strongly regular graphs with parameters $(729, 182, 55, 42)$. The three examples in the table above that have an asterisk in the the last column arise from partial spreads of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,3)$; the ‘SU2’ construction in [@CalderbankSurvey §7]. One of these examples also arises from the ‘CY1’ construction in [@CalderbankSurvey §9], denoted by two asterisks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(56, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(252, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(476, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(560, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(476, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(252, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(476, 546)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(476, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 26127360
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 182)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(504, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(448, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$ 14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
: Two-intersection sets of type $(112, 6, 31, 40)$
The above two-intersection sets give rise to strongly regular graphs with parameters $(729, 224, 61, 72)$. The example above with stabiliser of order 26127360 is none-other than the points of the elliptic quadric $\mathsf{Q}^-(5,3)$ (this is also Example RT2 in [@CalderbankSurvey §10]).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(448, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$ 13063680
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(56, 91)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(56, 273)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(588, 273)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(56, 273)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(504, 455)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(560, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(476, 455)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$ 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
: Two-intersection sets of type $(126, 6, 36, 45)$
The above two-intersection sets give rise to strongly regular graphs with parameters $(729, 252, 81, 90)$. The example above with stabiliser of order 13063680 can be constructed by taking a quadratic form $Q$ of minus type defining an elliptic quadric $\mathsf{Q}^-(5,3)$, and then considering the $126$ points $p$ such that $Q(p)=1$.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(588, 455)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(476, 455)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(280, 637)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(672, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(476, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(588, 273)$, $(448, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(280, 546)$, $(588, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(504, 273)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(28, 273)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(560, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
: Two-intersecetion sets of type $(140, 6, 41, 50)$
The above two-intersection sets give rise to strongly regular graphs with parameters $(729, 280, 103, 110)$.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(560, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(672, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(588, 182)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(700, 182)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(560, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(280, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
: Two-intersection sets of type $(154, 6, 46, 55)$
The above two-intersection sets give rise to strongly regular graphs with parameters $(729, 308, 127, 132)$. These examples are different to Gulliver’s $(154,6,99)$-code [@Gulliver2], since his example has a stabiliser of order 11.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(168, 182)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(280, 637)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(700, 91)$, $(560, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(560, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(280, 637)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 91)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(56, 273)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(56, 273)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(28, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(476, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(280, 546)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(280, 546)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(588, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(560, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(28, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------
: Two-intersection sets of type $(168, 6, 51, 60)$
The above two-intersection sets give rise to strongly regular graphs with parameters $(729, 336, 153, 156)$.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
**Segre variety representation** **Stabiliser**
**size**
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(672, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(560, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(252, 91)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(560, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ $14^*$
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ $14^*$
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(448, 637)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(0, 273)$, $(28, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(280, 637)$, $(504, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(504, 455)$, $(560, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(476, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(700, 182)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(588, 455)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(476, 273)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(476, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(504, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(56, 273)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(700, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ 20160
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(28, 273)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(700, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(448, 546)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(476, 546)$, $(252, 91)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(168, 637)$, $(280, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(560, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(448, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(672, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(56, 182)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(504, 273)$, $(168, 637)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(56, 273)$, $(448, 637)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(28, 273)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$ $21^*$
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(700, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$ 21
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(700, 91)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(252, 91)$, $(448, 637)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(448, 637)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(700, 91)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(504, 546)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(476, 273)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(560, 182)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(504, 273)$, $(560, 273)$, $(28, 91)$, $(588, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(504, 546)$, $(252, 91)$ 42
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(672, 91)$, $(700, 91)$, $(28, 91)$, $(56, 91)$, $(448, 455)$, $(476, 455)$, $(504, 455)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(588, 455)$, $(252, 91)$ $546^{**}$
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(476, 273)$, $(504, 273)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(28, 91)$, $(672, 182)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(448, 455)$, $(280, 637)$, $(672, 273)$, $(700, 273)$, $(168, 91)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(588, 455)$, $(504, 546)$ 14
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 91)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(588, 182)$, $(168, 637)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(28, 182)$, $(504, 455)$, $(56, 182)$, $(168, 91)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(476, 546)$, $(252, 91)$ 168
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(56, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(476, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(560, 364)$, $(588, 364)$, $(252, 0)$, $(280, 0)$, $(672, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(560, 182)$, $(588, 182)$, $(252, 546)$, $(280, 546)$, $(672, 182)$, $(700, 182)$, $(28, 182)$, $(56, 182)$, $(448, 546)$, $(476, 546)$, $(504, 546)$, $(168, 182)$ $1092^{**}$
$(0, 0)$, $(0, 182)$, $(28, 0)$, $(448, 364)$, $(504, 364)$, $(168, 0)$, $(588, 364)$, $(700, 364)$, $(280, 455)$, $(476, 273)$, $(672, 91)$, $(588, 182)$, $(560, 273)$, $(56, 91)$, $(700, 182)$, $(252, 637)$, $(280, 637)$, $(476, 455)$, $(28, 182)$, $(672, 273)$, $(448, 546)$, $(560, 455)$, $(504, 546)$, $(56, 273)$, $(252, 91)$, $(168, 182)$ 84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
: Two-intersection sets of type $(182, 6, 56, 65)$
The above examples give rise to strongly regular graphs with parameters $(729, 364, 181, 182)$. The example with stabiliser of order $20160$ arises by taking the derived subgroup of the stabiliser of the Hill-cap. This group has orbit lengths $56$, $56$, $126$, $126$ on the points of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,3)$. Taking a union of an orbit of size $56$ with one of size $126$ yields a two-intersection set with parameters $(182, 6, 56, 65)$. The five examples in the table above that have an asterisk in the last column arise from partial spreads of ${\mathsf{PG}}(5,3)$; the ‘SU2’ construction in [@CalderbankSurvey §7]. Two of these examples arise from the ‘CY2’ construction in [@CalderbankSurvey §9], denoted by two asterisks.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
First the second author would like to acknowledge Pablo Spiga for invaluable discussions on research related to this work. In particular, there are some amorphic $3$-class association schemes related to some of the codes found in our search. We would like to thank Gordon Royle and Michael Giudici for their invaluable time and for the use of their computational facilities. Finally, we also acknowledge Andrew Bassom for supporting the first author in a Summer Vacation Scholarship.
[10]{}
Iliya Bouyukliev. On the binary projective codes with dimension 6. , 154(12):1693–1708, 2006.
R. Calderbank and W. M. Kantor. The geometry of two-weight codes. , 18(2):97–122, 1986.
Ph. Delsarte. Weights of linear codes and strongly regular normed spaces. , 3:47–64, 1972.
The GAP Group. , 2013.
I. P. Gent, C. Jefferson, and I. Miguel. a fast, scalable, constraint solver. , ECAI 06, 2006.
T. A. Gulliver. A new two-weight code and strongly regular graph. , 9(2):17–20, 1996.
T. Aaron Gulliver. Two new optimal ternary two-weight codes and strongly regular graphs. , 149(1-3):83–92, 1996.
Raymond Hill. On the largest size of cap in [$S_{5,\,3}$]{}. , 54:378–384 (1974), 1973.
J. W. P. Hirschfeld and J. A. Thas. . Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1991. Oxford Science Publications.
Gurobi Optimization Inc. Gurobi optimizer version 5.0. <http://www.gurobi.com/>.
Axel Kohnert. Constructing two-weight codes with prescribed groups of automorphisms. , 155(11):1451–1457, 2007.
B. D. McKay and A. Piperno. Practical graph isomorphism, [II]{}. , 60:94–112, 2013.
Tim Penttila and Gordon F. Royle. Sets of type [$(m,n)$]{} in the affine and projective planes of order nine. , 6(3):229–245, 1995.
Edwin R. van Dam, William J. Martin, and Mikhail Muzychuk. Uniformity in association schemes and coherent configurations: cometric [Q]{}-antipodal schemes and linked systems. , 120(7):1401–1439, 2013.
[^1]: `http://linearcodes.uni-bayreuth.de/twoweight/`
[^2]: Sylvia Morris, ‘Symplectic translation planes, pseudo-ovals, and maximal $4$-arcs’, dissertation for the Master of Philosophy (Research) of The University of Western Australia (2014).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The X-ray emission from the faintest X-ray elliptical and S0 galaxies is characterized by a hard $\sim$5 keV component, and a very soft $\sim$0.2 keV component. The hard component has generally been regarded as the integrated emission from low mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs), but the origin of the soft component is unknown. We present evidence which suggests that LMXBs also exhibit a soft component, which is responsible for the very soft X-ray emission in the faintest early-type galaxies. This soft component is present in two Galactic LMXBs which lie in directions of low Galactic hydrogen column densities, and in LMXBs in the bulge of M31, which comprise a majority of the X-ray emission in the bulge of that galaxy. The X-ray spectral characteristics and X-ray–to–blue luminosity ratios of the bulges of M31 and the Sa galaxy NGC 1291 are very similar to those of the X-ray faintest early-type galaxies, indicating that LMXBs are responsible for both soft and hard components in the latter. In addition, a low temperature interstellar medium might be present in some X-ray faint galaxies.'
author:
- 'Jimmy A. Irwin'
- 'Craig L. Sarazin'
title: 'Low Mass X-ray Binaries As the Source of the Very Soft X-ray Emission in the X-ray Faintest Early-Type Galaxies'
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
Although abundant evidence exists that the X-ray emission in bright early-type galaxies originates from a hot ($\sim$0.8 keV) interstellar medium, the nature of the X-ray emission in X-ray faint (having a low X-ray–to–optical luminosity ratio, $L_X/L_B$) early-type galaxies is far from certain. [*ROSAT*]{} and [*ASCA*]{} spectra of several X-ray faint galaxies are adequately fit by a two component thermal model in which one component has a temperature of several keV, and the other a temperature of $\sim$0.2 keV (Fabbiano, Kim, & Trinchieri 1994; Pellegrini 1994; Kim et al. 1996). The hard component has been attributed to the integrated emission from low mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs); this component is seen in the bulge of our own Galaxy. X-ray binary stars (LMXBs and high mass X-ray binaries) are believed to be the dominant source of X-ray emission in spiral galaxies (Trinchieri & Fabbiano 1985). Such a hard component appears to be present in many elliptical and S0 galaxies observed with [*ASCA*]{}, even those with high $L_X/L_B$ (Matsumoto et al. 1997).
The origin of the soft component has been the focus of considerable debate. Emission from M star coronae, RS CVn binary systems, and supersoft sources have been suggested as the source because of their soft X-ray properties, but none of these sources appear to contribute appreciably to the X-ray emission of the faintest early-type galaxies (Pellegrini & Fabbiano 1994; Irwin & Sarazin 1997; hereafter IS97). These sources are either too faint to account for the emission, or possess X-ray spectral characteristics which differ from the observed characteristics of the emission from the X-ray faint galaxies.
In this [*Letter*]{} we propose that LMXBs are responsible for a majority of the soft X-ray emission in addition to the hard emission. Such a soft component is seen in LMXBs in the bulge of M31, and in two Galactic LMXBs which lie in directions of low Galactic hydrogen column densities. The X-ray luminosities and spectral characteristics of the X-ray faintest early-type galaxies are consistent with what would be expected from a collection of LMXBs. In some of the brighter X-ray faint galaxies, a low temperature ($\sim$0.2 keV) ISM may also contribute appreciably to the X-ray emission.
X-RAY COLORS AND LUMINOSITIES {#sec:colors_luminosities}
=============================
A sample of 61 early-type galaxies observed with the [*ROSAT*]{} PSPC was used in this study. The selection criteria for the sample as well as the data reduction are described in IS97. The soft ($0.11-0.41$ keV; denoted ‘s’ for soft) X-ray–to–optical luminosity ratio, $L_X^s/L_B$, and the hard ($0.52-2.02$ keV; denoted ‘h’ for hard) X-ray–to–optical luminosity ratio, $L_X^h/L_B$, were calculated for each galaxy in the sample. All galaxies with $\log(L^h_X/L_B) < 29.7$ (in units of ergs s$^{-1}$ $L_{B,\odot}^{-1}$) were labeled as X-ray faint galaxies. Also calculated were two X-ray “colors", C21 and C32, defined as $$\label{eq:c21}
{\rm C21} =
\frac{\rm counts~in~0.52-0.90~keV~band}{\rm counts~in~0.11-0.41~keV~band}
\, ,$$ and $$\label{eq:c32}
{\rm C32} =
\frac{\rm counts~in~0.91-2.02~keV~band}{\rm counts~in~0.52-0.90~keV~band}
\, .$$ X-ray colors are useful for extracting spectral information from observations which contain too few counts to perform detailed spectral modeling, as is often the case for the X-ray faintest galaxies. Once calculated, the colors were corrected for foreground Galactic absorption, which affects the C21 color significantly and the C32 color to a lesser extent. To accomplish this, we determined the emitted colors (C21 and C32) and the absorbed colors (C21$^*$ and C32$^*$) for an extensive grid of Raymond-Smith (1977) thermal models with varying abundances (ranging from 20% to 100% of solar) and temperatures (ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 keV). They were subject to different amounts of foreground absorption, ranging from $N_H = 0.6$ to $6 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$; the upper limit corresponds to the upper limit allowed for inclusion in our sample. Using XSPEC, these models were folded through the PSPC spectral response. Empirically-determined functions were found which related C21 and C32 to C21$^*$ and C32$^*$ as a function of $N_H$ (see IS97 for details). This method was quite effective in correcting the colors for absorption, producing only a 6% rms error in C21 and a 2% rms error in C32 when comparing the absorption-corrected colors to the original unabsorbed colors derived from the spectral models.
It was found that the colors of the X-ray faint galaxies were substantially different from those of the rest of the galaxies in the sample. Whereas the X-ray brighter galaxies had colors consistent with thermal emission from metal-enriched ($10\%-100\%$ of the solar value) gas at temperatures of $0.6-1.5$ keV, the X-ray faintest galaxies had very low values of C21, the color which is sensitive to very soft X-ray emission. Although the colors of some of the X-ray faintest galaxies were consistent with thermal models with zero metallicity, such a model is not a physically plausible one, since it would be expected that any interstellar medium (ISM) in the galaxy would be polluted with some heavy elements from Type Ia supernovae and/or normal stellar mass loss (Fabbiano et al. 1994). Furthermore, some of the X-ray faintest galaxies had colors which were not even consistent with zero metallicity.
2.65truein
0.2truein
A summary of the average C21 and C32 values, as well as the observed range of $\log(L^h_X/L_B)$ and $\log(L^s_X/L_B)$ values for the X-ray faintest galaxies is given in Table \[tab:average\_values\]. The errors on the colors are the standard deviations for the sample rather than the statistical errors, in order to better represent the scatter of the property. The individual X-ray colors and X-ray–to–optical luminosity ratios for the galaxies classified as X-ray faint are plotted in Figure \[fig:colors\] and Figure \[fig:lxlb\], respectively.
COMPARISON TO SPIRAL BULGES AND GALACTIC LMXBS {#sec:spiral_bulges}
==============================================
Published estimates for the stellar contribution to the X-ray emission of early-type galaxies vary by more than a factor of 10 (Forman et al. 1985; Canizares, Fabbiano, & Trinchieri 1987), so it is not certain at what level stellar X-ray emission should become important. If stellar emission is important in the X-ray faintest early-type galaxies, then we might expect to see the same spectral characteristics in the bulges of spiral galaxies, whose old stellar population is similar to that of early-type galaxies. The bulge of M31 is a suitable candidate against which to test this hypothesis, since it is close enough that individual X-ray point sources can be resolved with [*ROSAT*]{}.
2.65truein
0.2truein
Supper et al. (1997) tabulated the count rates of 22 point sources found within $5^{\prime}$ of the center of the bulge of M31 in the same three [*ROSAT*]{} energy bands which we used to calculate our X-ray colors. We summed the count rates for the 22 sources in each of the three energy bands and calculated the integrated X-ray colors. The colors were corrected for Galactic absorption towards the direction of M31 ($6.73 \times 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$; Stark et al. 1992). The colors of the sum of the sources \[(C21, C32$)=(0.08, 1.15)$\] were remarkably similar to those of the X-ray faintest early-type galaxies. Supper et al. (1997) found that these 22 sources comprise 75% of the total X-ray emission from within $5^{\prime}$ of the bulge. Using [*ROSAT*]{} PSPC archival data of M31, we found that within a $5^{\prime}$ extraction radius the colors of the total emission from the bulge (resolved and unresolved) were (C21, C32$)=(0.13, 1.16)$ (see Figure \[fig:colors\]). Thus, the remaining 25% of unresolved flux only moderately increases the C21 color, while the C32 color is unchanged.
Also calculated were the $\log(L_X^h/L_B)$ and $\log(L_X^s/L_B)$ values of the inner 10$^{\prime}$ of the bulge of M31 (which corresponds to the effective half-light radius of the bulge). The results are shown in Table \[tab:average\_values\] and Figure \[fig:lxlb\]. Both X-ray–to–optical luminosity ratios fall within the observed ranges found for the X-ray faintest early-type galaxies.
[lcccc]{} Sample& C21 & C32 & $\log(L_X^h/L_B)$ & $\log(L_X^s/L_B)$\
&&& (ergs s$^{-1} L_{B,\odot}^{-1}$) & (ergs s$^{-1} L_{B,\odot}^{-1}$)\
X-ray faint galaxies & $0.16\pm0.06 $& $0.99\pm0.41$ & $<$29.7& $<$29.9\
M31 bulge (integrated) & $0.13\pm0.01$ & $1.16\pm0.05$ & 29.21 & 29.26\
M31 bulge (point sources only) & $0.08\pm0.01$ & $1.15\pm0.07$ & …& …\
NGC 1291 bulge & $0.12\pm0.01$ & $1.15\pm0.14$ & 29.43 & 29.68\
Her X-1 & $0.08\pm0.02$ & $1.56\pm0.04$ & …& …\
MS 1603+2600 & $0.07\pm0.01$ & $1.28\pm0.14$ & …& …\
The point sources in the bulge of M31 have X-ray luminosities in the range $10^{36}-10^{38}$ ergs s$^{-1}$. Since the brightest low mass X-ray binaries in our Galaxy have X-ray luminosities on this order, it is likely that a majority of these sources are LMXBs. Individually, all but two of these point sources exhibit a very soft C21 color, similar to those seen in the X-ray faintest early-type galaxies; the soft C21 color seen in the integrated emission from the bulge of M31 is not due to one or two extremely bright, extremely soft sources. Since the majority of the X-ray emission in the bulge of M31 is from LMXBs, and these LMXBs have X-ray characteristics similar to those of the X-ray faintest early-type galaxies, this strongly suggests that the bulk of the X-ray emission in the latter results from LMXBs also. These galaxies might also contain small amounts of warm ISM; this will be discussed in § \[sec:discussion\].
To confirm these results, we also determined the X-ray colors and X-ray–to–optical luminosity ratios for the bulge of the bright Sa galaxy NGC 1291. Although this galaxy is too far away for the X-ray emission to be resolved with [*ROSAT*]{}, nearly identical values for the colors were found for NGC 1291 as M31 (see Table \[tab:average\_values\] and Figure \[fig:colors\]). Somewhat higher $L_X/L_B$ values were found for NGC 1291, but still within the observed range among X-ray faint elliptical and S0 galaxies (Figure \[fig:lxlb\]).
It would be very useful to search for this soft component in Galactic LMXBs. Unfortunately, most Galactic LMXBs lie near the Galactic plane, where high hydrogen column densities completely absorb very soft X-rays. Two Galactic LMXBs which lie in directions of low column densities are Her X-1 ($N_H=1.73\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$) and MS 1603+2600 ($N_H=4.57\times10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$). Archival PSPC data of these two objects were extracted, and once corrected for absorption, these two LMXBs had X-ray colors similar to the bulges of M31 and NGC 1291, and the X-ray faint early-type galaxies (see Table \[tab:average\_values\] and Figure \[fig:colors\]). Specifically, very soft C21 colors were found for both Galactic LMXBs, indicative of very soft X-ray emission.
On the other hand, a very soft C21 color was not found for two globular cluster LMXBs, or LMC X-2 in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Verbunt et al. (1995) tabulated the count rates in our three bands for LMXBs in the globular clusters NGC 1851 and NGC 7078 (M15). After correcting the count rates for Galactic absorption, values of (C21, C32$)=(0.30, 2.37)$ and (C21, C32$)=(0.23, 3.28)$ were obtained for these two cluster LMXBs. In addition, spectral modeling of the archival data of LMC X-2 showed the emission from this LMXB was described adequately by a two component bremsstrahlung model. The colors of this model were (C21, C32$)=(0.24, 1.57)$. These colors are significantly higher than the colors of the LMXBs in the bulge of M31, Her X-1, and MS 1603+2600.
It is possible that the soft X-ray component in LMXBs depends on metallicity. The two globular cluster LMXBs and LMC X-2 are found in environments with a substantially lower metallicity than Her X-1, MS 1603+2600, and the M31 bulge LMXBs. The globular cluster NGC 7078 has a particularly low metallicity (1% solar; Adams et al. 1983) and the LMXB in this cluster has the highest C32 value of the LMXBs studied here. The Large Magellanic Cloud has a metallicity intermediate between the globular clusters and the bulges of M31 and NGC 1291, and its LMXB has a C32 color intermediate between those two systems. Given this possible dependence of the X-ray spectral properties on metallicity, it is probably best to use the M31 bulge LMXBs as a template for the X-ray emission expected from LMXBs in early-type galaxies, since the metallicities of the stellar populations are comparable in these two systems.
DISCUSSION {#sec:discussion}
==========
If the majority of the X-ray emission from X-ray faint early-type galaxies is from stellar sources, this would imply that most of the gas lost from stars has not been retained by the galaxy. Hydrodynamical simulations of the gas in elliptical galaxies (Loewenstein & Mathews 1987; David, Forman, & Jones 1991; Ciotti et al. 1991) have shown that some galaxies may be experiencing a wind phase in which Type Ia supernovae drive most of the gas lost from stars out of the galaxy. Alternatively, the gas may have been lost by ram pressure stripping or other external effects. In this scenario, the X-ray bright galaxies have retained most of their ISM while the X-ray faint galaxies have lost most of their ISM. The X-ray faint galaxies in our sample generally tend to have rather low stellar velocity dispersions, on the order of 200 km s$^{-1}$. As such, they have smaller gravitational potential wells than their X-ray bright counterparts, and this would make it easier to remove the gas from them.
Examination of Figure \[fig:colors\] reveals that although the colors of the majority of the X-ray faint galaxies are consistent with the colors of M31 and NGC 1291 at the $1\sigma$ level, many of the galaxies have slightly lower C32 values than the spiral bulges. This could be due to the presence of small amounts of warm ISM in these galaxies. For example, if a Raymond-Smith thermal model with a temperature of 0.2 keV and a metallicity of 50% solar is folded through the spectral response of the PSPC, the X-ray colors are (C21, C32$)=(0.21, 0.20)$. When the emission from this component is mixed in the right proportion with the emission expected from LMXBs, the colors of the X-ray faint galaxies are more accurately reproduced. For example, if 85% of the X-ray emission (by counts) is from LMXBs with the colors of those in the bulge of M31 \[(C21, C32$)=(0.08, 1.15)$\] and 15% from a 0.2 keV ISM \[(C21, C32$)=(0.21, 0.20)$\], the resulting emission would have colors of (C21, C32$)=(0.10, 0.86)$, in good agreement with what is observed for X-ray faint galaxies.
The spread in colors among X-ray faint galaxies could be explained by varying proportions of ISM emission. As the percentage of the X-ray emission attributable to the ISM is increased, the galaxy would move down and to the right on the color-color plot (Figure \[fig:colors\]). The galaxies with the highest percentage of ISM emission would also be expected to have the highest $L_X/L_B$ values. In fact, the 5 most X-ray luminous galaxies classified as X-ray faint lie furthest below and to the right of the spiral bulges. In these galaxies, the ISM may be responsible for as much as a quarter of the total X-ray emission.
Despite the fact that most of the X-ray emission in X-ray faint galaxies appears to be stellar in nature, Figure \[fig:lxlb\] illustrates that there does not seem to be a simple linear relation between the X-ray and optical luminosities. If there were, one would expect the X-ray faintest galaxies to cluster at a fixed point in this Figure, given by the values of $L_X^h/L_B$ and $L_X^s/L_B$ for purely stellar emission. However, a range of $L_X/L_B$ values are present for galaxies whose emission is suspected to be primarily stellar. The bulge of NGC 1291 has a $L_X^h/L_B$ value 1.7 times larger than that of M31. Although it is possible that NGC 1291 has an additional X-ray component not present in M31, this component would have to have X-ray colors which were identical to the LMXB component, since M31 and NGC 1291 have the same X-ray colors. This seems unlikely.
Figure \[fig:lxlb\] shows that there are 5 galaxies with upper limits on $L_X^h/L_B$ which are at least a factor of 3 less than that of M31 (whose X-ray emission is at least 75% stellar; see § \[sec:spiral\_bulges\]). Thus, at least for low optical luminosities, the X-ray emission does not scale linearly with the optical luminosity. The fact that the X-ray colors don’t vary as the X-ray–to–optical luminosity ratio varies (or equivalently, that $L_X^h/L_B$ and $L_X^s/L_B$ vary approximately linearly with one another) suggests that there is one dominant X-ray emission mechanism at work here, but that mechanism is stronger in some galaxies than others at a given optical luminosity. This variation would require that the relative number of LMXBs vary from galaxy to galaxy (see IS97).
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We propose that the very soft X-ray emission seen in X-ray faint elliptical and S0 galaxies results from LMXBs. The X-ray spectral properties of these galaxies are very similar to those of LMXBs in the bulges of M31 and NGC 1291, and the Galactic LMXBs Her X-1 and MS 1603+2600. Furthermore, LMXBs are luminous and numerous enough to account for the measured X-ray luminosities in these galaxies. Some warm ISM may also be present in these systems in small amounts.
Since LMXBs are luminous X-ray sources, this model predicts that the soft X-ray component in X-ray faint ellipticals will be resolvable into discrete sources given better spatial resolution and sensitivity than is possible with the [*ROSAT*]{} telescope. Given current estimates of their sensitivity, we find that the backside-illuminated CCD chips of the ACIS instrument on [*AXAF*]{} will have sufficient soft X-ray sensitivity, spectral resolution, and spatial resolution to detect and resolve individual LMXBs in early-type galaxies at the distance of the Virgo cluster or closer.
We thank Michael Loewenstein for many very useful comments and suggestions. We also thank Steve Balbus, Tim Kallman, Bob O’Connell, Richard Mushotzky, and Jean Swank for useful discussions. This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. J. A. I. and C. L. S. were supported in part by NASA ROSAT grant NAG 5–3308, and ASCA grant NAG 5-2526. C. L. S. was also supported by NASA Astrophysical Theory Program grant 5-3057. J. A. I. was supported by the Achievement Rewards for College Scientists Fellowship, Metropolitan Washington Chapter and NASA grant NAG 5-3247.
Adams, S., Scaton, M. J., Howarth, I. D., Auiere, M., & Walsh, J. R. 1983, MNRAS, 207, 471
Canizares, C. R., Fabbiano, G., & Trinchieri, G. 1987, ApJ, 312, 503
Ciotti, L., D’Ercole, A., Pellegrini, S., & Renzini, A. 1991, ApJ, 376, 380
David, L. P., Forman, W., Jones, C. 1991, ApJ, 369, 121
Fabbiano, G., Kim, D. -W., & Trinchieri, G. 1994, ApJ, 429, 94
Forman, W., Jones, C., & Tucker W. C. 1985, ApJ, 293, 102
Irwin, J. A., & Sarazin, C. L. 1997, ApJ, submitted (IS97)
Kim, D. -W., Fabbiano, G., Matsumoto, H., Koyama, K., & Trinchieri, G. 1996, ApJ, 468, 175
Loewenstein, M., & Mathews, W. G. 1987, ApJ, 319, 614
Matsumoto, H., Koyama, K., Awaki, H., & Tsuru, T., Loewenstein, M., & Matsushita, K. 1997, ApJ, 482, 133
Pellegrini, S. 1994, A&A, 292, 395
Pellegrini, S., & Fabbiano, G. 1994, ApJ, 429, 105
Raymond, J. C., & Smith, B. W. 1977, ApJS, 35, 419
Stark, A. A., Gammie, C. F., Wilson, R. W., Bally, J., Linke, R. A., Heiles, C., & Hurwitz, M. 1992, ApJS, 79, 77
Supper, R., Hasinger, G., Pietsch, W., Trümper, J., Jain, A., Magnier, E. A., Lewin, W. H. G., van Paradijs, J. 1997, A&A, 317, 328
Trinchieri, G., & Fabbiano, G. 1985, ApJ, 296, 447
Verbunt, F., Bunk, W., Hasinger, G., & Johnston, H. M. 1995, A&A, 300, 732
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The 64-channel Multianode Photo Multiplier has been evaluated as a possible choice for the photo detectors of the LHCb Ring Imaging Cherenkov detector.'
---
[Edinburgh 2000-26\
Dec 2000]{}
[**Multianode Photo Multipliers for Ring Imaging\
Cherenkov Detectors**]{}
[**Franz Muheim**]{}
[*The University of Edinburgh, Department of Physics and Astronomy\
Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland/UK\
E-mail: [email protected]*]{}
[*Contributed to the Proceedings of the 30$^{th}$ International Conference on High Energy Physics,\
7/27/2000—8/2/2000, Osaka, Japan*]{}
Introduction
============
The LHCb experiment will exploit the large rates of $B$ hadrons that will be produced at the Large Hadron Collider and make precision measurements of CP violation. Excellent particle identification is needed for LHCb, e.g. three kaons in a large momentum range are produced by the decay $B^0_s \to D_s^{\mp} K^{\pm}$, $D_s^+ \to \phi \pi^+$, $\phi \to K^+ K^-$ which is sensitive to the CP violating phase $\gamma$. Charged particles will be identified by means of two Ring Imaging Cherenkov (RICH) detectors. The RICH photo detectors must be sensitive to single photons with a quantum efficiency $\int QE dE \sim {\cal O}(1 eV)$ and provide spatial resolution with a granularity of about 2.5 x 2.5 mm$^2$ over a large area of $\sim 3 \rm m^2$. The photo detectors must work in the magnetic fringe fields due to the LHCb dipole magnet and must cope with traversing charged particles.
Multianode Photo Multipliers
============================
The multianode photo multiplier tube (MaPMT) consists of an array of 64 square anodes each with its own metal dynode chain incorporated into a single vacuum tube. The pixels have an area of $2.0
\times 2.0$ mm$^2$ and are separated by 0.3 mm gaps. The MaPMT, manufactured by Hamamatsu, has a 0.8 mm thick UV-glass window which transmits light down to a wavelength of 200 nm. The photons are converted in a Bialkali photo cathode with a quantum efficiency of maximum 22% at 380 nm. The mean gain of the 12-stage dynode chain is about $3 \times 10^5$ when operated at a voltage of 800 V.
The ratio of the sensitive photo cathode area to the total MaPMT area including the outer casing is only $\sim$ 48%. This geometrical coverage can be increased by placing a single lens with one refracting and one flat surface in front of each close-packed tube (Fig. \[fig:focus\]). If the distance $d$ of the refracting surface with radius-of-curvature $R$ to the photo cathode is chosen to be equal to $R$ the demagnification factor is $\approx 2/3$. Over the full aperture of the lens, light at normal incidence with respect to the photodetector plane is focused onto the photo cathode, thus restoring full geometrical acceptance.
R&D Results
===========
The pulse height spectrum for the MaPMT is shown in Fig. \[fig:amp\_spectrum\], measured with a LED light source. The pedestal peak and the broad signal containing mostly one photo-electron are clearly visible. The signal to pedestal width ratio is 40:1.
An array of 3x3 MaPMTs mounted onto the full-scale RICH1 prototype[@ref:vessel] has been tested in a beam at the CERN SPS facility. The cathode voltage was set at $-1000$ V. Quartz lenses were mounted onto the front face of each MaPMT. The radiator was gaseous CF$_4$ at a pressure of 700 mbar. The data were recorded with a pipelined electronic read-out system based on the APVm chip[@ref:apvm] and running at LHC speed (40 MHz).
The data analysis included a common-mode baseline subtraction on a event-by-event basis. With the pipelined read-out electronics cross-talk was observed. This has been investigated using LED runs and several sources -all in the electronics - were identified. The cross-talk is removed by rejecting signals in a pixel if there is a larger signal in one of its cross-talk partner pixels. Genuine double hits are lost by this procedure and the photon yield is corrected for it.
The integrated signals of two runs of 6000 events each are shown in Fig. \[fig:run2634\], one with and one without the lenses in front of the MaPMTs. The Cherenkov ring is clearly visible and the effect of the lenses is nicely demonstrated. The gain in in photo electrons by employing the lenses is 45%. The background is small. We measure $6.51 \pm 0.34$ photo electrons which is is in good agreement with a full Monte Carlo simulation.
We have also exposed the MaPMT/lens to charged particles. The measured response is used to model the background in LHCb. The sensitivity of the MaPMT to magnetic fields has been studied. The MaPMT is affected by longitudinal magnetic fields but can be effectively shielded from the expected field strengths with a $\mu$-metal structure.
Conclusions
===========
We have successfully tested a 3x3 array of MaPMTs. Cherenkov light can be detected over the full area of closely packed tubes by means of quartz lenses focusing the light onto the sensitive area of the device. We have demonstrated that the MaPMT meets the performance requirements for charged particle identification in the LHCb experiment. The MaPMT has been chosen as the backup photo detector for LHCb.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I thank all my MaPMT collaborators for their excellent work presented here.
[99]{}
E. Albrecht [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instr. and Meth. [**A 411**]{} (1998) 249.
L.L. Jones [*et al*]{}., “Electronics for LHC Experiments”, Rome 1998, CERN/LHCC/98–36 (1998) 185.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Alexandre Gabard
title: |
Ahlfors circle maps and total reality:\
from Riemann to Rohlin
---
-15pt
[*Key words.*]{} [Eigenvalues of the Laplacian, bordered Riemannian surface, conformal transplantation. ]{}
Introduction {#sec1}
============
[*Preliminary Warning.*]{} \[13.11.12\]—Despite its exorbitant size, the actual mathematical content of the present text is very limited. It focuses primarily on the Ahlfors map. Neither does our work have the pretence of being the logical sum of all knowledge accumulated in the past, nor will it give an accurate picture of real developments taking shape contemporaneously. Our intention was rather more to delineate a reasonably clear-cut perception of the early branches of the theory as to understand objectively the basic truths making Ahlfors theorem possible. Failing systematically, our pretence converted to that of throwing enough obscurantism on the whole theory as to motivate others to shed fresh lights over the edifice. Even the primary contribution to the field (that of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) has not yet been fully assimilated by the writer (compare optionally Section \[Ahlfors-proof:sec\] for our fragmentary comprehension). We strongly encourage mathematicians having a complete mental picture of Ahlfors proof to publish yet another account helping to clarify the original one. We hope during the next months (or years) to be gradually able to improve the overall organization of this text, in case our understanding of classical results sharpens. All of our ramblings starts essentially in the big-bang of Riemann’s Thesis. It looks almost a triviality alike to expect that subsequent developments will involve a deeper interpenetration between the conformal and algebro-geometric viewpoints. One oft encounters in the field problems requiring serious combinatorial skills or geometric intuition. For instance how does the moduli space of bordered surfaces stratifies along gonalities; Sec.\[sec:profile-histogram\] guesses some scenarios via primitive methods. Riemann surfaces or the allied projective realizations offer an ornithological paradise requiring patience and observational skills from the investigator. This is especially stringent when the complexes are traded against the real number field, and inside this universe of $3g-3$ real dimensions one encounters with probability $1/3$ the so-called real orthosymmetric curves of Felix Klein (1876–1882) subsumed to the paradigm of [*total reality*]{}. This little third is actually all what our topic of the Ahlfors map is about. Last but not least, experimental studies point to a large armada of potential counter-examples menacing the improved bound $r+p$ announced in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. It seems safe to declare as an open problem to either corroborate this bound (via other more analytic or algebraic treatments) or to reject it.
\[19.03.13\] The main addition to the present edition (v.2) of our text, is an essay to connect Ahlfors’ theory with Hilbert’s 16th problem (at least the part thereof pertaining to the topology of real plane algebraic curves). Again our dancing queen is the paradigm of total reality (Riemann, Schottky, Klein, Bieberbach, Teichmüller, Ahlfors, Alling-Greenleaf, Geyer-Martens, etc.), but now reoriented as a missile against Hilbert’s 16th (quite akin to an asteroid menacing peaceful life on planet Earth). This trend is not new having been much foreseen in Rohlin’s seminal work 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] effecting a Verschmelzung[^1] between the conceptions of Klein and Hilbert (when it comes to real geometry). Rohlin never refers back to Ahlfors’ work (which he probably ignored?), yet the connection is very vivid through Rohlin’s (conjectural) philosophy that [*schemes*]{} of type I (not in Grothendieck’s highbrow sense, but merely Rohlin’s synonym for a [*distribution of ovals*]{} à la Zeuthen-Harnack-Hilbert) are necessarily [*maximal*]{} in the hierarchy of all schemes of some fixed degree. Through the lines of Rohlin’s text transpires the intuition that what detects (pure) orthosymmetry of schemes is a vertiginous phenomenon of [*total reality*]{} positing existence of adjoint pencils cutting only real points on the given curve. The byproduct is that total reality should act prohibitively upon all schemes enlarging those totally flashed by a pencil, which are so-to-speak already Bézout-saturated. Hence total reality should contribute to Hilbert’s problem (isotopic classification of curves), though this method can hardly be said to have been systematically exploited as yet (apart of course in the prophetical allusions in Rohlin 1978).
This grand vision of Rohlin could benefit from the Klein-Ahlfors theory (which in our opinion has been much neglected in the tradition of the German-US-Italian-Russian school of real geometry involving such [*pointures*]{} as Hilbert 1891, Rohn 1888–1913, Ragsdale 1906, Brusotti 1910–50, Petrovskii 1933/38, Gudkov 1954–69, Arnold 1971, Rohlin 1972–78, Kharlamov, Viro, Marin, Fiedler, Shustin, Itenberg, etc.). Alternatively it could be reassessed through purely synthetical procedures that Rohlin himself envisioned (probably as consequences of deep 4D-topology, notably the type-I-forcing Kharlamov-Marin congruence modulo 8). Alas Rohlin’s synthetical proof even on the simplest prototype of sextics has never been published (and seems now to be lost forever), but was recently (partially) resuscitated in a tour de force of Séverine Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]. So the epoch seems ripe to dream about a big Ahlfors-Rohlin Verschmelzung with direct repercussions upon Hilbert’s 16th byway of prohibitions. It is already breathtaking (for a beginner) to contemplate how the Rohlin-Le Touzé total reality phenomenon for sextics explains nearly all prohibitions observed in Gudkov’s census (1969) of sextics curves (cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-TableTop:fig\]), which after all supplies (nothing less than) the [*complete*]{} solution to Hilbert’s problem in its original formulation (degree $m=6$). Those aspects are addressed in Sec.\[Klein-Rohlin-conj:sec\]&ff. For convenience we wrote a general overview in Sec.\[Hilbert’s16th-PartII:sec\] pointing to some open questions which looks semi-urgent to settle in order to build a more solid theory. All this second part, devoted to Hilbert’s 16th, could not have been written without the constant support and information generously shared by the leading experts (Viro, Marin, Kharlamov, Shustin, Orevkov, Le Touzé, Fiedler), whose instructive e-mails are reproduced in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]. Needless to say we have not yet assimilated all their wisdoms and advices, but have reproduced faithfully their messages in the hope that other amateurs of the field can also beneficially profit from their invaluable expertise.
\[11.04.13\] It seems (now) a firm conviction that a big piece of Hilbert’s 16th puzzle still remains to be fixed. This should be a fairly simple matter of assembly between the conceptions of Riemann-Schottky-Klein-Bieberbach-Teichmüller-Ahlfors about total reality and the theory of Hilbert-Rohn-Petrovskii-Gudkov-Arnold-Rohlin aiming to predict the distribution of ovals traced by algebraic curves (a God-given video game). Precisely, the isotopic classification of real plane curves should be regulated by a sole paradigm (total reality) itself piloted by the geometry of the canonical series (adjoint curves of order $m-3$) assigned to visit $(M-3)$ basepoints randomly selected among the most profound ovals of $(M-2)$-curves (alias the [*extended Rohlin-Le Touzé phenomenon*]{}, which in degree 4 boils down to the total reality of the Gürtelkurve quartic with 2 nested ovals). This looks special but wait a moment.
It is conjectured (\[primitive-manifestation-of-tot-real:conj\]) that [*any*]{} [*primitive*]{} manifestation of the phenomenon of total reality on a plane curve is of this sort (i.e. a Rohlin-Le Touzé “adjunction” for $(M-2)$-curves subsumed to the eightfold periodicity $\chi\equiv_8 k^2+4$ of Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin), except when it comes to the trivial case of $M$-curves, where total reality is nearly completely settled by an extension of (another) Le Touzé’s scholium (\[Le-Touzé-extended-in-odd-degree:scholium\]). The maximality of $M$-schemes being so trivial (Harnack-Klein inequality of 1876), this latter case looks a sterile syllogism not worth paying attention at, but this is probably not so via satellites. If [*not primitive*]{}, this is to say that the scheme is just derived as a [*satellite*]{} replicating the curve up to a certain multiplicity within its tube neighborhood. For instance satellites of a single oval of degree 2 reproduce the infinite series of deep-nests total under a pencil of lines \[by the way highly reminiscent to the “rondelles” of a certain artist known as Markus Schneider-Zeitler, Jura Suisse\]. Such deep-nests are Bézout-saturated hence extremal shapes in the Hilbert-Gudkov hierarchy. More generally, the magic formula reads $A+B=R m c^2$, i.e. Ahlfors plus Bézout implies Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (any scheme of [*type I*]{} kills all its enlargements). At this stage the architecture of higher Gudkov’s pyramids ($m\ge 7$) is completely predestined by (the felicity of) pure orthosymmetry à la Felix Klein, and (optionally) Rohlin’s theorem on the signature of spin $4$-manifolds governing the (Gudkov) $8$-fold periodicity via differential-topology. Paraphrasing, Hilbert’s 16th is virtually solved in [*all*]{} degrees, at least in its qualitative shape (prohibitions). It remains then of course to programme a (patchworking) machine doing all the constructions. This should be merely a matter of passive contemplation, requiring immortality and much patience from the investigator. It is evident that all this programme is not a novel idea, but much—not to say completely—anticipated by Rohlin 1978, safe that he does not seem to have been consciously aware of the Riemann-Ahlfors theory (nor perhaps the conjectural stability under satellites), but seemed rather adventurous enough to rediscover it [*ab ovo*]{} through purely synthetical processes, without any intrusion of analysis or transcendental gadgets, like Abelian integrals. Our messy text is just an invitation to inspect more exactly how the whole process will sediment itself within the next decades, probably via massive usage of Brill-Noether (i.e., Riemann for dummies). Then, the night of ignorance [*(les ténèbres de l’ignorance)*]{} allied to Hilbert’s combinatorial mess about the distribution of 16 ovals (recall that $M_7=11+5=16$) should be completely dissipated. Whether conversely, all this (ancient) geometry can acknowledge in feedback some impact upon 4D-differential-topology, e.g. the question of smooth structures on $S^4$ or $\CC P^2$ (so-called [*smooth Poincaré conjecture*]{}) is merely speculation of longstanding (reminding such names as Arnold, Maxwell, Milnor, Kuiper, Massey, Marin, Akbulut, Donaldson, Taubes, Finashin, Wang, Seiberg, Witten, etc.). But this is another story.
\[22.03.13\] Lastly, we adopted (not deliberately but because we were not clever enough to proceed differently) Arnold’s philosophy of the mushroom (compare Arnold 2004 [@Arnold_2004]). That is, not just presenting overwhelming theorems (arid as they are) but the slow organical eclosion of truths through mistakes, conjectures, historical meanders, etc. The drawback is an intolerable inflation in size, also partly caused by the abundance of pictures, which in our opinion form the true core of any mathematical truth[^2]. We expect in the future to reorganize the material à la Bourbaki as to offer a cleaner view of what happens (after distillation, the factual content should be compressible to ca. 20 pages). Especially crucial is a rectification due to Fiedler of an erroneous theorem of mine that would have proved one-half of the (still open) Ragsdale conjecture for $M$-curves via the Thom conjecture (Sec.\[Thom:sec\]).
$\star$$\star$$\star$
Works by Yamada 1978–2001, Gouma 1998 and Coppens 2011 suggest that fewer sheets than required in Ahlfors’ era is expectable for a clever placement of the basepoint(s) required to pose the extremal problem. E.g., is Coppens’ separating gonality (least degree of a circle map) always sustained by an Ahlfors function? How does the degree of the Ahlfors map fluctuates when the basepoint is dragged through the surface? A list of known applications is tabulated in the hope of guessing future ones. Some (e.g. Fraser-Schoen’s to Steklov eigenvalues) do not require the full swing of Ahlfors’ extremals, raising the hope that some improved control $\le r+p$ (Gabard 2004/06) on the degree of circle maps concretizing surfaces of genus $p$ with $r$ contours prompts some upgrades (e.g. in the corona problem with bounds of Hara-Nakai 1985). As to the foundation of the Ahlfors mapping theory itself, it is our partisan belief that much remains to be clarified both historically and logically. Albeit sembling a retrograde attitude, it is probably not since Ahlfors bound $r+2p$ certainly fails sharpness at least for low values of the invariants $(r,p)$. Apart from an abrupt claim by Teichmüller (1941) that everything (safe bounds) is to be found in Klein (what the writer was unable to certify from printed evidence), it is fair to admit that the bulk of the theory crystallized right after World War II. Several workers like Ahlfors 48/50, Matildi 45/48, Andreotti 50, Heins 50 (perhaps even Courant 39/40, not to mention Grunsky, one of the most brilliant protagonist albeit his work looks confined to the genus $0$ case) offered quite overlapping conclusions, but it seems fair to credit Ahlfors for having first expressed the story in the most clear-cut fashion. Quite shamefully, I confess that Ahlfors argument still escapes me slightly. A non-negligible amount of literature is devoted to reproving Ahlfors’ theorem: Heins 1950/75/85, Garabedian 1950, Kuramochi 1952, Read 1958 (student of Ahlfors), Mizumoto 1960 (topological methods), Royden 1962 (Hahn-Banach like Read), Forelli 1979 (extreme points and Poisson integral), Jenkins-Suita 1979 (Pick-Nevanlinna viewpoint), just to name those addressing the positive genus $p>0$ case. The actual tension between topological and analytic methods (made acute since the $r+p$ bound, granting its correctitude!), is possibly a temporary state of affairs destined to disappear after some examination of Ahlfors’ text (sharpening perhaps its ultimate convex geometry consideration). Another promising route is Meis’ work (1960) validating Riemann’s (semi)intuition of the $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ gonality of closed genus $g$ surfaces via some Teichmüller-theoretic approach. It is likely that Meis’ approach to be transmutability to the bordered setting, reassessing thereby Ahlfors’ result (probably even with the sharp bound $r+p$). To put it briefly, it seems that the Grötzsch-Teichmüller mode of thinking has not yet fully penetrated the paradigm of the Ahlfors circle maps, more generally that of branched coverings. Dually, it also seems desirable to reprove the Riemann-Meis bound via topological methods (e.g. that used in Gabard 2006, which perhaps is nothing else than Riemann’s parallelogram method). Poincaré (1895) invented “homology” (modulo the Riemann-Betti heritage) with precisely function theory (Abelian functions) as one of the key motivation (beside celestial mechanics and the like). ${\it Warning.}$—This draft is a preliminary version, so avoid printing it for environmental reasons. It contains a list of hopefully clear-cut questions intended to encourage investigators. Several synoptic diagrams (authors names, keywords, etc.) should permit a quick optical scan of the whole content. The article contains no original insights, instead a series of failing attempts to contemplate the theory from different angles. A commented bibliography (of ca. 900 entries) tries to brush a photograph of old and contemporary trends including some ramifications (potential theory, minimal surfaces, spectral theory, analytic capacity, operator theory, Gromov’s filling conjecture, etc.). We have not attempted to reach any overwhelming mathematical density, but rather tried to dilute through historico-philosophical anecdotes, as well as spending some time trying to understand the available sources and their affiliation. Finally, we enjoyed speculating about some mechanical interpretation of the Klein-Ahlfors theory of real orthosymmetric curves (and the allied totally real maps) in terms of gravitational systems, positing a wild extension of Kepler’s planetary motions around ellipses.
This is a prejudiced survey on the Ahlfors (extremal) function and (improvising terminology) the weaker [*circle maps*]{}, effecting the conformal representation upon the disc of an arbitrary differential-geometric membrane, alias [*compact bordered Riemann surface*]{}. Our jargon, borrowed from Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950], translates essentially the term [*Kreisabbildung*]{} used e.g., by Koebe 1915 [@Koebe_1915] and Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914].
Exciting works by Yamada 1978–2001 [@Yamada_1978], [@Yamada_2001], Gouma 1998 [@Gouma_1998] and Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011] suggest that fewer sheets than required in Ahlfors’ era is expectable, for a clever placement of the basepoint(s) required to pose the extremal problem. E.g., is Coppens’ (absolute) gonality of a membrane always sustained by an Ahlfors function? We also started tabulating a list of known applications in the hope of guessing future ones. Some applications (e.g. Fraser-Schoen’s recent one to Steklov eigenvalues [@Fraser-Schoen_2011]) do not require the full punch of Ahlfors’ extremals, raising the hope that the improved control $r+p$ on the degree of circle maps (predicted in Gabard’s Thesis 2004/06 [@Gabard_2006] for surfaces of genus $p$ with $r$ contours) could imply some ‘automatic’ upgrades (e.g. in the corona problem with bounds, as studied by Hara-Nakai 1985 [@Hara-Nakai_1985]).
As to the foundation of the Ahlfors mapping theory itself, the issue that the naive qualitative approach (used in Gabard 2004/06 [@Gabard_2006]) affords a bound, $r+p$, quantitatively stronger than Ahlfors’ original $r+2p$ is somewhat surprising. It results a certain psychological tension between topological and analytical methods, which hopefully is just a superficial and temporary state of affairs destined to disappear after renewed examination of Ahlfors’ argument. The latter seems indeed to leave some free man[œ]{}uvring room, in its ultimate convex geometry portion (cf. Sec.\[Ahlfors-proof:sec\] for some strategy).
It is our partisan belief that much remains to be clarified both historically and logically in the theory of the Ahlfors map. Albeit sembling a retrograde attitude, it is probably not since Ahlfors bound $r+2p$ certainly fails sharpness, at least for low values of the invariants $(r,p)$. (Consider for instance the topological type of Klein’s Gürtelkurve; i.e. $(r,p)=(2,1)$ where a projective realization (of the Schottky double) as a plane quartic with 2 nested ovals prompts existence of a total map of degree $3$ via projection from the inner oval. This beats by one unit Ahlfors’ bound $r+2p=4$.)
Apart from an abrupt claim by Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941], that everything (safe bounds) is to be found in Klein (what the writer was unable to certify from printed evidence), it is fair to admit that the bulk of the theory crystallized right after World War II. Several workers like Ahlfors 1948/50 [@Ahlfors_1950], Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48], Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950], Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950] (perhaps even Courant 1939/40 [@Courant_1939], not to mention Grunsky 1937–40–41–42 [@Grunsky_1937], one of the most brilliant protagonist albeit his work looks confined to the genus $0$ case) offered quite overlapping conclusions. It seems fair however to give full credit to Ahlfors for having first expressed the story in the most clear-cut fashion. Quite shamefully, I confess that Ahlfors argument still escapes me slightly. A non-negligible amount of literature is devoted to reproving Ahlfors’ theorem: Heins 1950/75/85 [@Heins_1950] [@Heins_1975] [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF], Garabedian 1950 [@Garabedian_1950], Kuramochi 1952 [@Kuramochi_1952], Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta] (student of Ahlfors), Mizumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960] (topological methods), Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] (Hahn-Banach like Read), Forelli 1979 [@Forelli_1979] (extreme points and Poisson integral), Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979] (Pick-Nevanlinna viewpoint), just to name those authors addressing the positive genus case ($p>0$).
Another promising route is Meis’ work 1960 [@Meis_1960] validating Riemann’s (semi)intuition of the $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ gonality of closed genus $g$ surfaces via some Teichmüller-theoretic background. It is likely that Meis’ approach is transmutable to the bordered setting, reassessing thereby Ahlfors’ result (probably even with the sharp bound $r+p$ in case the latter is reliable). To put it briefly, it seems that the Grötzsch-Teichmüller mode-of-thinking (of the [*möglichst konform*]{} mapping) has not yet fully penetrated the paradigm of the Ahlfors circle map, more generally that of branched coverings, except of course in Meis’ memoir (alas notoriously difficult to access). Dually, it also seems desirable to reprove the Riemann-Meis bound via topological methods (e.g. that used in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], which perhaps is nothing else than Riemann’s parallelogram method). Poincaré’s “Analysis Situs” (1895 [@Poincare_1895-Analysis-Situs]) invented “homology” (modulo the Riemann-Betti=Brioschi \[sic!\] heritage) with precisely function theory (Abelian functions) as one of the key motivation (beside celestial mechanics and the like). This, jointly with the subsequent work of Brouwer, gives the basic conceptual framework for implementing such topological methods.
[*User guide.*]{}—This draft is a preliminary version, so avoid printing it for environmental reasons. A list of hopefully clear-cut questions is given in Sec.\[sec:question\]. This is intended to challenge investigators. Several synoptic diagrams scattered as figures through the text should permit a quick optical scan of the whole content. More specifically, those includes:
$\bullet$ an [*exhaustive*]{} list (Fig.\[Map:fig\]) of [*all*]{} articles supplying (or claiming to supply) a proof of Ahlfors theorem (existence of circle maps),
$\bullet$ a list of keywords (Fig.\[Keyword:fig\]) tabulating concepts traditionally related to the Ahlfors map,
$\bullet$ a comprehensive map (Fig.\[Geneal:fig\]) of authors involved in the theory (at least those cited in the bibliography).
This essay, as already said, contains no original insights, instead a series of attempts to contemplate the theory from different angles. A commented bibliography (of ca. 900 entries) tries to brush a panorama of trends related to the Ahlfors map. This includes topics like Riemann surfaces, algebraic curves, conformal mapping, potential theory, Green’s functions, Dirichlet’s principle, Riemann mapping theorem, Kreisnormierung, parallel slit-maps, Bieberbach’s least-area map interpretation of the Riemann map, Bergman and Szegö kernels, minimal surfaces, Plateau’s problem, spectral theory, analytic capacity, removable singularities, corona problem, operator theory, Gromov’s filling conjecture, etc.). We have not attempted to reach any overwhelming mathematical density, but rather tried to dilute through historico-philosophical anecdotes.
There is some interplay between Ahlfors maps and total reality of Klein’s orthosymmetric curves which gives rise to the gallery of pictures mentioned in the abstract. For a tourist view, browse the string of figures starting from Fig.\[Pencil:fig\] up to Fig.\[Fcubic3:fig\]. For “do-it-yourself” purposes, it is probably more valuable to describe the general recipe used to manufacture such pictures. Take any configuration of simple objects like lines and conics, and smooth it in an orientation-preserving sense to get a dividing curve (one is free to keep certain nodes unsmoothed). (Rohlin’s eminent student Thomas Fiedler (1981 [@Fiedler_1981]) ensures for us that the smoothed curve is dividing, alias orthosymmetric in the sense of Klein.) According to Ahlfors theorem there must be a totally real pencil of auxiliary curves cutting only real points on the given curve (plus maybe some imaginary conjugate basepoints). Geometric intuition usually tells us where to locate such a total pencil, roughly by assigning basepoints among the [*deepest*]{} ovals (in the sense of D. Hilbert’s 16th Problem). Albeit this is just a Plato cavern style extrinsic manifestation of Ahlfors theorem, the possibility of finding [*always*]{} such a total pencil reveals strikingly (in our opinion) some of the depth of Ahlfors theorem. (Incidentally it is not to be excluded that a deep understanding of extrinsic algebraic geometry (say à la Brill-Noether) could reprove the full Ahlfors theorem from within the Plato cavern.) In philosophical terms, [*real orthosymmetric curves behave on the reals as if they were complex varieties*]{}: all intersections prompted by Bézout are visible over the reals. This phenomenon is what we (and others, e.g. Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977]) call the paradigm of [*total reality*]{}. It seems evident that a global study of such pencils bears some close connection with Poincaré index theory, foliations à la Poincaré-Kneser-Ehresmann-Reeb, etc., and that both experimentally and theoretically much remains to be explored along the way. In particular we failed to make such totally real pictures for an $M$-quintic (Sec.\[sec:Total-reality-Harnack-max-case\]). This could be a challenging problem of computer visualization.
As to our speculation about a mechanical interpretation of the Klein-Ahlfors theory of real orthosymmetric curves (and the allied totally real maps) in terms of gravitational systems, see Sec.\[sec:gravitation\]. This posits a broad extension of Kepler’s planetary motions around ellipses, enabling virtually all algebraic curves (and not just conic sections) to arise as the trajectories of a perfectly stable and periodic motion. Of course if such a grandiose connection between Klein-Ahlfors and Kepler-Newton-Coulomb-Poincaré is not verifiable, this may just be interpreted as a metaphoric language describing the dynamics of totally real morphisms prompted by Ahlfors theorem. In fact rather than mere gravitation, it is really a “[*dynamique de l’éléctron*]{}” which seems to be involved; for a toy example on the Gürtelkurve compare Fig.\[FGuert:fig\]. The resulting metaphysics is quite akin to Lord Kelvin’s speculations about the ultimate constitution (and stability) of matter (via the vortex atom geometrized by a knot), except that in our story the dancing queen is rather a (naked) bordered Riemann surface.
Our partisan belief even in its most basic aspects the theory of the Ahlfors function (even when confined to the finite bordered realm) is far from being a closed (and transparent) chapter of geometry despite its sexagenary oldness, and the absence of significative achievements since Ahlfors 1950. Historical continuity invited us to rely massively upon primary sources, and this contributed to the prohibitive size of our output. Looking for logical alternatives, we oft rambled into dubious ‘historical revisionism’, wondering if other sources (maybe Klein—as cryptically suggested by Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941]—or perhaps Courant 1939/40 [@Courant_1939], [@Courant_1940-Acta]) do not anticipated the Ahlfors map (1948/50), at least at the qualitative level of circle maps. The Italian school (Cecioni and his students, including Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48] and the related work Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950]) should not be neglected (Ahlfors himself meticulously indexed those Italian references in the Ahlfors-Sario book (1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960])). We warn again the present text is far from streamlined, so please avoid printing it for environmental reasons. It is rather intended to be an interactive browser, hopefully more structured than generic electronic databases, albeit the latter were of invaluable assistance to the present compilation. Human feedback is most welcome if some sloppy distortions look worth rectifying or the bibliography lacunary. Alas, we were soon confined to brush the large scale structure of the story without keeping close control over the logical details making the edifice. The field anyway is reputed for its overwhelming organical mode of growth, for Koebe proclaimed (im September 1921, Jena, DMV Jahresversammlung): “Es gibt viele Gebiete in der Mathematik, wo man sich durch Entdecken neuer Ergebnisse verdient machen kann. Es sind meistens lange und steile Gebirgshänge für meckernde Ziegen. Die Funktionentheorie ist aber mit einem saftigen Marschland zu vergleichen, besonders geeignet für dickes Rindvieh!” As usual, the paper is probably best read from the ending references, if one is patient enough. Else several synoptic diagrams (scattered through the text giving authors names and keywords) should permit a 5 minutes glimpse of the whole text. As the writer has zero analytic capacitance (=competence) this text should best be seen as a removable singularity in the realm of the literature devoted to the Ahlfors function, except possibly for our attempt to compile an up-to-date bibliography.
Trying to wet some appetite out of the blue
-------------------------------------------
Our aim is to discuss the following Riemann surface, giving an extremally biased view of some conformal mapping theory centering the discussion around the Ahlfors function.
A long time ago (ICM 1908 Rome), Poincaré argued that in mathematics we need a strong principle of economy of thoughts by conceptualizing such notions as ‘uniform convergence’ as if the sole naming process would spare us repeating long intricate arguments. On the other hand, Felix Klein, asserted boldly “die Franzosen unhistorisch wie Sie sind” (exercise recover the source) and liked the motto “Zurück zur Natur, sie bleibt die grö[ß]{}te Lehrmeisterin”. Beside all those psychological tips of the masters of geometrization, we can safely agree with both of them that science requires—as a matter of conciliating the principle of economy with that of historical continuity (of course not so structurally incompatible as neo-expressionism seems to assess) —a certain amount of respectfulness about wisdoms accumulated during the past. This explains our ca. 900 references (albeit the explosion was mainly caused by my lack of internet connection occasioning a manual references chasing).
In these notes we propose a (poorly guided) tour of some geometric function theory (GFT). The field is an old fashioned one, lying quite dormant with its old mysteries and legends (e.g., Koebe’s Kreisnormierungsprinzip, the exact determination of the Bloch constant in quasi-stagnation since Ahlfors-Grunsky 1937 [@Ahlfors-Grunsky_1937], etc.). Function-theory seems a volcano alike awaiting anxiously the next explosive eruption, whose pyroclastic rejections turned out to act (in the past at least) as a powerful fertilizer over neighbouring areas (like Riemannian and algebraic geometry, spectral theory, etc.). Actually Koebe had a more picturesque description, when proclaiming (im September 1921, Jena, Jahresversammlung der DMV[^3]): “Es gibt viele Gebiete in der Mathematik, wo man sich durch Entdecken neuer Ergebnisse verdient machen kann. Es sind meistens lange und steile Gebirgshänge für meckernde Ziegen. Die Funktionentheorie ist aber mit einem saftigen Marschland zu vergleichen, besonders geeignet für dickes Rindvieh!”
The field itself (GFT) seems to be a strange cocktail of qualitative-flexible versus quantitative tricks, or as Gauss puts it [*geometria situs*]{} versus [*geometria magnitudinis*]{}. If topological methods look a priori quite foreign to the discipline, it was probably Riemann who first revealed:
$\bullet$ the reactivity of the underlying topological substratum (anticipated maybe by Abel 1826 [@Abel_1826], who first introduced the [*genus*]{} (under a different name and the transcendant disguise of differentials of the first kind). \[The word [*Geschlecht*]{} is first coined in Clebsch 1865 [@Clebsch_1865 p.43]; and the allied [*Geschlechtsverkehr*]{}[^4] must have originated about the same period\] $\bullet$ the amazing plasticity (inherited from potential-theoretic considerations) of 2D-conformal mappings, leaving out moduli spaces of finite dimensionality after conformal evaporation of all metrical incarnation of a given surface. \[Gromov wrote in 1999 [@Gromov_1999]: [*Shall we ever reach spaces beyond Riemann’s imagination?*]{}\]
Our text will soon be biased toward a single obsession, the so-called [*Ahlfors function*]{}, which is one (among several other possible) generalisation of the [*Riemann mapping theorem*]{} (RMT) to configurations of higher topological structure than the disc. Such configurations (compact bordered surfaces) are topologically determined by the number $r$ of boundary contours and the genus $p$ (number of handles) (see Fig.1a), as is well-known since the days of Möbius 1860/63 [@Moebius_1863] and Jordan 1866 [@Jordan_1866] (and of course very implicit in all of Riemann’s work).
-35pt 0 -5pt0
The possibility of mapping any bordered surface to the disc conformally was pioneered by such towering figures as:
$\bullet$ Riemann 1857/76 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass] (manuscript not published during his lifetime), in which circular domains (hence $p=0$) of finite connectivity are mapped upon the disc. This fragment was edited by H. Weber and appeared in print only in 1876 in the first edition of Riemann’s Werke. The date of 1857 follows some oral tradition (Schwarz–Schottky), compare Bieberbach 1925 (Quote \[quote:Bieberbach-1925\] below), but conflicts slightly with Summer 1858 as estimated by Klein (cf. Quote \[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]). \[11.08.12\] To pinpoint more about the exact date, should we recall that Riemann himself reports in the introduction of “Theorie der Abel’schen Functionen” 1857 [@Riemann_1857 p.116] his involvement with the topic of conformal mapping of multi-connected “surfaces” (Flächen) right after his Thesis (Fall 1851–Begin 1852), but was then sidetracked to another subject ([*ward aber dann durch einen andern Gegenstand von dieser Untersuchung abgezogen*]{}).
$\bullet$ Schottky 1875–77 [@Schottky_1877] (=Dissertation under Weierstrass, Berlin, 1875), where a similar mapping is obtained for general real analytic contours. At first sight, it is natural to speculate that Schottky knew about Riemann’s Nachlass, but Schottky himself describes his trajectory as independent (cf. Quote \[quote:Schottky-1882\]). Apparently, it was Weierstrass’ special pupil, namely H.A. Schwarz who made Schottky aware of this connection, as reported in Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], compare Quote \[quote:Bieberbach-1925\]. Albeit independent of Riemann’s, Schottky’s work was likewise physically motivated as emphasized by Klein 1923 [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.579]=Quote \[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\] below, or via Schottky’s own recollections (1882)=Quote \[quote:Schottky-1882\].
$\bullet$ Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], found some elementary arguments (or just modernization) of the same Riemann–Schottky result, while emphasizing the trivial fact that the degree bound is optimum (apparently Schottky gave no bound),
$\bullet$ Grunsky 1937–41 [@Grunsky_1937; @Grunsky_1941_KA], 1940–42–49 [@Grunsky_1940; @Grunsky_1942; @Grunsky_1950], who in a first series of papers rederived Bieberbach’s result and then switched to an extremal interpretation of the mapping problem. This terrible quantitative/competitive weapon (with historical precedents to be soon discussed) culminated, finally, in:
$\bullet$ Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], but it remained until Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], to prove a generalization capable of including positive genera ($p>0$), superseding thereby quite dramatically the planarity (Schlichtartigkeit) where all previous efforts were perpetuated. (We shall attempt to ponder this absolute originality of Ahlfors, by comparing with others writers (e.g., Courant), but only with limited success due to my moderate competence with minimal surfaces and Plateau.)
$\bullet$ Subsequent ramifications in the West (corona, operator theory, etc.), in Russia with Golusin, and Havinson (domains of infinite connectivity), and in Japan.
For an overall picture of the roots plus some ramifications of Ahlfors, the reader may glance at the following map (Fig.\[Map2:fig\]) showing some of the links we are going to explore in this survey. We have opted for a Riemann surface style depiction of this histogram so as to give a quick-view of the varied [*troncs vivaces*]{} (in A. Denjoy’s prose when alluding to history of mathematics). Such trunks or handles are attached whenever some philosophical dependence (citation) is detected. Alas, it resulted a prolix accumulation of links creating a somewhat chaotical picture. For sharper pictures of the “Riemann galaxy”, we recommend Neuenschwander 1981 [@Neuenschwander_1981], Gray 1994 [@Gray_1994] and Remmert 1998 [@Remmert_1998].
-0pt0 -5pt0
-5pt0
[—The own contribution of the writer (Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) predicting an improved control $r+p$ upon Ahlfors’ degree $r+2p$ is enormously exaggerated, especially if it turns out to be false. Other distortions only reflects the writer’s poor understanding of this tentacular topic. For a more extensive compilation of authors involved in the theory, cf. Fig.\[Geneal:fig\]. If you are not cited on it, please send me an e-mail. ]{}
As already said, our central hero will be Ahlfors, especially his paper of 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]. In retrospect, it is not quite impossible that Riemann himself (or disciples like Schwarz, Schottky, Klein, Hurwitz, Koebe, Hilbert, Grötzsch, Teichmüller, etc., or also Bieberbach, Grunsky, Wirtinger, Courant, while not forgetting in Italy, Cecioni, Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48], Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950]) could have succeeded in proving such a version. Such speculations look not purely science-fictional especially in view of Ahlfors’ elementary argument in [@Ahlfors_1950 pp.124–126], which involves primarily only classical tricks (no deep extremal problem), like annihilating all the periods to ensure single-valuedness of the conjugate potential, and basic potential functions arising from the Green-Gauss-Dirichlet era. All these tricks are standard since Riemann’s days (cf. e.g. Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857 p.122], “[*so bestimmen da[ß]{} die Periodicitätsmoduln sämmtlich $0$ werden.*]{}”). Remember also, despite sembling dubious historical revisionism, that Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941](=Quote \[quote:Teichmueller-1941\]) seems to have possessed a clear-cut conception of the result at least without precise bound, while ascribing the assertion even back to Klein.
$\bullet$ Mizumoto’s topological argument in 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960];
$\bullet$ Gabard’s topological argument in 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
However it took ca. 91 years—say from Riemann’s 1857/58 Nachlass up to the 1948 Harvard lecture held on the topic by Ahlfors, cf. Nehari’s Quote \[Nehari-1950:quote\] of 1950—until somebody puts it on the paper and it turned out to be no less an authority than Lars Valerian Ahlfors[^5].
It is true that Ahlfors moved in considerably deeper waters by solving as well a certain [*extremal problem*]{}. This extremal viewpoint is more punchy, yet arguably the corresponding extremals (so-called Ahlfors functions) are only circle maps of a special character. We gain in punch but loose in flexibility. The extremal functions do not substitute to—nor are substituted by—circle maps. Deciding which viewpoint is more useful is another question, probably premature to answer except for guessing a complementary nature depending on the problem at hand. Incidentally in Ahlfors paper (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]), existence of circle maps is required as a preliminary step toward posing (non-nihilistically) the extremal problem. Ahlfors’ extremal problem stemmed surely not out of the blue, but was patterned along a tradition, whose first steps should probably be located in the following works. (We acknowledge guidance by Remmert’s book 1991 [@Remmert_1991 p.160–2, p.170–2], to which we refer for sharper historical details.)
$\bullet$ Koebe’s elementary proof 1907, 1909, 1912 [@Koebe_1912], 1915 [@Koebe_1915] of the (RMT); ([*Quadratwurzeloperationen*]{}, [*Schmiegungsverfahren*]{}, etc.)
$\bullet$ Carathéodory 1912 [@Caratheodory_1912]: similar iterative methods and convergence of his sequence via Montel’s theorem. This revitalized Koebe’s interest (cf. again Remmert’s description [@Remmert_1991 p.160, p.172]); in Carathéodory 1914 [@Caratheodory_1914] full details of the method were given in the Schwarz-Festschrift;
$\bullet$ Fejér and F. Riesz 1922 obtain the Riemann mapping via an extremal problem for the derivative (published in Radó 1922/23 [@Rado_1922-3]). Montel’s normal families are also used, plus a tedious derivative computation eradicated in: $\bullet$ Carathéodory 1928 [@Caratheodory_1928] and Ostrowski 1929 [@Ostrowski_1929], where (independently) ultimate simplifications are provided.
Carathéodory wrote about these developments:
\[quote:Caratheodory-1928\]
Nachdem die Unzulänglichkeit des ursprünglichen [*Riemann*]{}schen Beweises erkannt worden war, bildeten für viele Jahrzehnte die wunderschönen, aber sehr umständlichen Beweismethoden, die [*H.A. Schwarz*]{} entwickelt hatte, den einzigen Zugang zu diesem Satze. Seit etwa zwanzig Jahren sind dann in schneller Folge eine gro[ß]{}e Reihe von neuen kürzeren und besseren Beweisen \[von ihm selbst und von Koebe (Remmert’s addition); in the original Lindelöf 1916 is also quoted\] vorgeschlagen worden; es war aber den ungarischen Mathematikern [*L. Fejér*]{} und [*F. Riesz*]{} vorbehalten, auf den Grundgedanken von [*Riemann*]{} zurückzukehren und die Lösung des Problems der konformen Abbildung wieder mit der Lösung eines Variationsproblems zu verbinden. Sie wählten aber nicht ein Variationsproblems, das, wie das [*Dirichlet*]{}sche Prinzip, au[ß]{}erordentlich schwer zu behandeln ist, sondern ein solches, von dem die Existenz einer Lösung feststeht. Auf diese Weise entstand ein Beweis, der nur wenige Zeilen lang ist, und der auch sofort in allen neueren Lehrbüchern aufgenommen worden ist. \[Footnote 2: Siehe [*L. Bieberbach*]{}, Lehrbuch der Funktionentheorie, Bd.2 S.5.\] Mein Zweck ist nun zu zeigen, da[ß]{} man durch eine geringe Modifikation in der Wahl des Variationsproblems den [*Fejér-Riesz*]{}chen Beweis noch wesentlich vereinfachen kann.
Let us quote thrice Ahlfors in this connection (the second of which occurred while celebrating the centennial of Riemann’s Thesis, 1851):
\[Ahlfors-1961\]
In complex function theory, as in many other branches of analysis, one of the most powerful classical methods has been to formulate, solve, and analyze extremal problems. This remains the most valuable tool even today, and constitutes a direct link with the classical tradition.
\[Ahlfors-1953\]
Very important progress has also been made in the use of variational methods. I have frequently mentioned extremal problems in conformal mapping, and I believe their importance cannot be overestimated. It is evident that extremal mappings must be the cornerstone in any theory that tries to classify conformal mappings according to invariant properties.
\[Ahlfors-1958\]
Es ist mir zugefallen, eine Übersicht über die Extremalprobleme in der Funktionentheorie zu geben. Seit der Formulierung des Dirichletschen Prinzips ist es klar gewesen, dass die Cauchy-Riemannschen Gleichungen nichts anderes sind als die Eulerschen Gleichungen eines Variationsproblems, und in diesem Sinne ist alle Funktionentheorie mit Extremaleigenschaften verbunden. Aber es ist nicht immer von vornherein klar, wie diese Probleme gestellt werden sollen, damit sie in wesentlicher Weise die tiefen Eigenschaften der analytischen Funktionen abspiegeln. Es gibt natürlich unzählige Maximaleigenschaften, etwa in der konformen Abbildung, die ganz nahe an der Oberfläche liegen. Von da aus soll man zu schwierigeren Problemen aufsteigen. Das geschieht nicht etwa so, dass man ein beliebiges, wenn auch verlockendes, Extremalproblem ins Auge fasst und es zu lösen versucht. Im Gegenteil, die Entwicklung ist so vor sich gegangen, dass man die Aufgaben stellt, die man lösen kann. Dadurch ist ein reiches Erfahrungsmaterial entstanden, und die Aufgabe des heutigen Funktionentheoretikers besteht darin, dieses Material zu klassifizieren und dadurch weiter zu entwickeln.
\[…, and on page 7, of the same philosophical paper\]
Carathéodory sagte einmal, dass er immer wieder zur Funktionentheorie zurückkehrt, weil man gerade dort die verschiedensten und verblüffendsten Methoden verwenden kann. Das ist sicher wahr, und eben deshalb ist die Funktionentheorie kein eng spezialisierter Zweig der Mathematik. Im Gegenteil, die Funktionentheorie scheint fast wie ein Miniaturbild der gesamten Mathematik, denn es gibt kaum eine Methode in der Geometrie, der Algebra und der Topologie, die nicht früher oder später in der Funktionentheorie wichtige Anwendung findet. \[…\]
Such wisdoms cultivating the extremal philosophy—in particular as a growing mode for conformal mappings—presumably capture the deepest telluric part of the mushroom, out of which everything derives effortlessly. Alas, our survey is far from this ideal conception. In fact, we would be quite challenged if we were demanded to list a single application of Ahlfors’ extremal property, except of course in the planar case where one can easily mention all the activities centering around Painlevé’s problem.
Applications
------------
The writer’s interest in the topic was recently revived by the article of Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011], where the Ahlfors function received a clear-cut interaction with spectral theory (Steklov eigenvalue) with a view toward minimal surfaces.
At a more remote period of time, in the early 1950’s, when classification theory of open Riemann surfaces was a hot topic (especially in the Finnish and Japanese schools), Kusunoki 1952 [@Kusunoki_1952] proposed an application to the type problem, in the analytic sense of Nevanlinna’s Nullrand (null boundary). A (somewhat misleading but frequently used) synonym is [*parabolic type*]{} (not to be confused with the geometric sense of uniformization theory). This (analytic) sense of parabolicity is the one related to the transience of the Brownian motion (Kakutani, etc.)
In view of the extremal rôle played by the (round) hemisphere as a vibrating membranes (compare Hersch 1970 [@Hersch_1970], and less relevantly Gabard 2011 [@Gabard_2011]), the author speculatively expected—yet failed dramatically to establish (Summer 2011)—the following:
[(Gabard, April 2011, ca. 300 pages of sterile hand-written notes, unpublished)]{} There is a mysterious connection between the Ahlfors function and the (still open) [*filling area conjecture*]{} (FAC) of [Gromov 1983 [@Gromov_1983]]{}, whose genus zero case follows from the Thesis of [Pu 1952 [@Pu_1952]]{}, under Loewner 1949. More precisely, the filling area conjecture is true for all genus $p\ge 0$, and the proof will employ an Ahlfors map, at least as one of the ingredients \[others being Schwarz’s inequality, and group theoretical tricks à la Hurwitz–Haar–Loewner like in the $p=0$ case\]. The basic link is of course that conformal maps supply isothermic coordinates, yielding a way to compute areas via the infinitesimal calculus (of Newton–Leibniz, etc.).
The best available result on FAC is still the hyperelliptic case handled by Bangert-Croke-Ivanov-Katz 2004 [@Bangert_2004], implying the full conjecture for $p=1$ (as in this case the double is of genus $g=2$, hence automatically hyperelliptic). Remember the formulation of the FAC problem: among all compact bordered (orientable?) Riemannian surfaces bounding the circle without shortening its intrinsic distance, the round hemisphere has the least possible area.
The above “Ahlfors$\Rightarrow$Gromov” conjecture flashed my attention, after completing the note (Gabard 2011 [@Gabard_2011]) in view of the striking analogy between the isoperimetric rôle of the hemisphere both acoustically (spectral theory, like in Hersch 1970 [@Hersch_1970]) and geometrically in the Löwner-Pu-Gromov isosystolic ($\approx$filling) problem. Of course this analogy is already explicit in Gromov 1983 [@Gromov_1983], where Hersch 1970 () is cited. Incidentally, Gromov’s account also let play to Jenkins, Ahlfors’ student and Grötzsch’s admirator, a predominant logical rôle via the notion of “extremal length”. After more immature thinking (August 2012), it seems safer to formulate a relaxed version of the conjecture where the impulse does not necessarily come from the Ahlfors map but from some more ancestral source like the Green’s function (or the allied Gauss-Riemann isothermic coordinates). Also the (Lorenz-)Weyl’s asymptotic law enabling to “hear” the area of a drum from high-vibratory modes could be involved as well in FAC. When Marcel Berger describes Gromov’s systolic exploits (1983 ), he insinuates (surely with right) of them as lying at a much higher level of sophistication than 2D-conformal geometry (à la Gauss-Riemann, etc.). This acts as an optimism killer against anything like the above conjecture. Of course our conjecture or its relaxed variant “Conformal$\approx$Isothermic$\Rightarrow$Gromov” is far from prophetical, but only the expectation that the traditional methods (conformal theory and uniformization) which settled low-genus cases (Loewner 1949, Pu 1952 [@Pu_1952]) will extend soon or later to $p\ge 2$. Yet, who knows?
Remember that even Marcel Berger, once validated (or at least quoted) an erroneous proof (ca. 1998) of the 2D-case of the filling conjecture in question. Compare his brilliant “Panoramic view” (2002 [@Berger_2002-A-Panoramic-view-of-RG]), or rather his likewise excellent survey in JDMV (1998 [@Berger_1998-JDMV p.147]): “[*The simplest filling volume, namely that for the circle $S^1$, was only obtained in (\[N.\] Katz, 1998).*]{}”, where the reference is given as (cf. p.196) “[*Katz, N. (1998). Filling volume of the circle.*]{}” This work has apparently never been published and probably turned out to contain a gap. This reference is still quoted in the “Panoramic view” (2002 [@Berger_2002-A-Panoramic-view-of-RG p.790]) modulo a puzzling shift of authorship from Neil N. Katz to Mikhail G. Katz: “Entry \[794\]=[M.G. Katz]{}, Filling volume of the circle, to appear, 1998.” In the text of “A Panoramic view…” this reference is apparently not cited, and at any rate on p.367 we read “[*Today there is not a single manifold whose filling volume is known, not even the circle (for which Gromov conjectures the value \[is\] $2\pi$).*]{}”
Of course, probably no better guide than Ahlfors himself for listing applications of his method would have been desired. Alas it seems that the latter was suddenly sidetracked in the stratosphere of Teichmüller theory in the early 1950’s, leaving the Ahlfors map topic in some standby “in absentia” status. An exception is the later paper Ahlfors 1958 [@Ahlfors_1958], where Ahlfors discusses again extremal problems, though in a more philosophical way. Also the work of his student Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta] is described, which supplies another existence-proof of circle maps via a more abstract viewpoint (Hahn-Banach) inspired by other works like Macintyre-Rogosinski 1950 [@Macintyre-Rogosinski_1950], Rogosinski-Shapiro 1953 [@Rogosinski-Shapiro_1953], Rudin, etc. This Teichmüller shift in Ahlfors activities seems to coincide with the 100 years celebration of Riemann’s Thesis (in 1951), where L. Bers cames up with his list of urgent questions about Riemann surfaces. As a partial consolation, Grunsky worked out a brilliant book (1978 [@Grunsky_1978]) where much of the historical continuity is supplied.
[*Quoting some first-hand sources.*]{}— We shall have to reproduce several quotations from primary sources as an attempt to observe the mutual influences among the variety of viewpoints. It resulted some inflation in size, but hopefully excusable as the information of some relevance to our topic is otherwise dispatched through a vast amount of literature. Those are given in the self-explanatory format [**Quote (Author, year)**]{}.
Beside the historical aspect, the ultimate desideratum would be a logically optimal reconstruction of the theory. In the case at hand, our first task was just to list, locate (and sometimes understand) the several arguments already available.
—We shall essentially touch the following aspects (all in reference to the Ahlfors mapping):
\(1) Origins, background: prehistory of Ahlfors (Sec.\[Sec:Prehistory-Ahlfors\]); potential precursors (Sec.\[Sec:Precusors\]);
\(2) How the writer came across this topic? (via Klein); cf. Sections \[Sec:Klein\] and \[Sec:Biased-recollections-of-Gabard\];
\(3) Potential theory vs. extremal problems (both from the same variational soup);
\(4) Applications (Sec.\[Sec:Applications-of-the-Ahlf-map\]): equilibrium of electricity Riemann 1857, Painlevé’s problem, type problem, Carathéodory metric, corona problem, quadrature domains, spectral theory (Steklov or Dirichlet-Neumann);
\(5) Open problems fictionally related to the Ahlfors function (Sec.\[Sec:Virtual-applications-Ahlf-map\]);
\(6) (Partial) assimilation of Ahlfors or other works (logical reconstruction); via Green in Sec.\[Green:sec\] and via Ahlfors in Sec.\[Ahlfors-proof:sec\];
\(7) Sharpening Ahlfors work (for circle maps not necessarily subjected to the extremal problem).
Roughly speaking our text splits as follows. A first half is devoted to historical aspects, while a second half (initiated by Sec.\[Sec:Starting-from-zero\] titled “Starting from zero knowledge”) is more “logical”, or rather liberal and futurist. This second part tries to explore what sort of mathematics lies beyond Ahlfors theorem. Of course it is hard going beyond Ahlfors without having digested his own work, and consequently much energy is spent to the original account. His result affords considerable information, especially the realizability of all gonalities lying above Ahlfors bound $r+2p$. (The [*gonality*]{} $\gamma$ is the least degree of a circle map tolerated by the given bordered surface.) Classically, some (episodic) penetrations beyond Ahlfors occurred by Garabedian, Heins, Royden, etc., and more recently in the spectacular progresses made by Yamada, Gouma on the extremal function. In the dual direction (of circle maps), Coppens’ work on the gonality is likewise penetrating deep behind the line fixed by Ahlfors, and raises several questions of primary importance. This includes that of describing how the moduli space of bordered surfaces (with fixed topological type $(r,p)$) stratifies along gonalities. Calculating dimensions of the varied strata is a first step toward quantifying by how much and how frequently one can expect to improve Ahlfors bound. We obtain so the [*gonality profile*]{}, that is, the function assigning to each gonality $\gamma$ (in the Coppens range $r\le
\gamma \le r+p$, or outside it in case Gabard is wrong) the dimension of the moduli strata with prescribed gonality $\le
\gamma$ (Section \[sec:profile-histogram\]). Describing this gonality profile appears to me a challenging (but hopefully reasonably accessible) problem. Another “futurist” problem is the one of describing the list of all degrees of circle maps tolerated by a given surface. This we call the [*gonality sequence*]{}. It is full above Ahlfors bound $r+2p$, but what can be said below? These are perhaps two typical kind of problems hinting at what sort of games we may encounter “beyond Ahlfors”.
It seems also evident that a good understanding of (real) algebraic geometry could shed some light upon Ahlfors viewpoint. This interaction is alas quite rare to observe in the twenty century literature which is mostly split into specialized viewpoints.
Bibliographic and keywords chart
--------------------------------
The following chart (Fig.\[Map:fig\]) focuses on the tabulation of several articles where an existence-proof of Ahlfors circle maps is given. Such items are marked by full black circular symbols with eventual decorations. Applications are marked by triangular symbols. All entries of the picture (e.g. “Ahlfors 1950”) can unambiguously be located in the bibliography at the end of the paper. One counts essentially ca. 13 papers addressing the existential question of circle maps. Those includes: Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], Garabedian 1950 [@Garabedian_1950], Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], 1975 [@Heins_1975], 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF] and in the same spirit Forelli 1979 [@Forelli_1979]. Another trend is Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950] and Tietz 1955 [@Tietz_1955] (alas those works are a bit confusing, Tietz criticizes Nehari and is in turn attacked subsequently in Köditz-Timmann 1975 [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975]). The latter work (KT1975) actually offers an alternative existence-proof without degree control. In Japan we have Kuramochi 1952 [@Kuramochi_1952] and Mizumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960]. (One should probably add several works of Kusunoki from the early 1950’s, but those are often confusing with subsequent errata, etc.) Another mouvance is the usage of Hahn-Banach in the papers Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta] and Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]. Finally there is a work by the writer, Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], which even claim a better control $r+p$ upon the degree of circle maps. Of course this work should still be better understood and its result should be either disproved or consolidated by alternative techniques.
To this obvious list one can add some more telluric flows or possible forerunners:
$\bullet$ Teichmüller’s claim (1941 [@Teichmueller_1941]) that everything is already in Klein.
$\bullet$ Courant’s works starting say with Courant 1939 [@Courant_1939] where a Plateau-style approach à la Douglas is asserted to reproduce the Bieberbach-Grunsky “schlichtartig” case of Ahlfors.
$\bullet$ Italian workers: Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48] and Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950].
If one has a good memory or a glouton working mode it is rather impressive to see the high level of branching and complexity of several neighboring fields. It will be soon flagrant that the writer’s competence will quickly break down in front of our too ambitious survey project. Again the writer would be enormously acknowledgeable if some specialists wants to tell their own vision of this tentacular circle of ideas.
-25pt0 -5pt0
-5pt0
—Let us now put Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] at the center of the universe, while trying to describe the portion of the cosmos visible from this perspective. Picturing in the non-Euclidean crystal, we obtain something like the following chart of keywords (Fig.\[Keyword:fig\]): a nebulosity of sidereal dusts gravitating in the immediate conceptual vicinity of the Ahlfors map.
-25pt0 -5pt0
-5pt0
Mathematical questions {#sec:question}
----------------------
In this section we collect questions raised by our text. Most of our questions are of the retrograde sort “Can we reprove Ahlfors via …”, yet striving toward a perfect crystallography, where each result of the theory is certified by all methods ever imagined (compare optionally the kaleidoscopic Fig.\[Kaleidoscope:fig\] much below).
$\bullet$ [**Klein $\Rightarrow$ Ahlfors?**]{} \[reported 04.11.12\] Is it possible to reprove existence of Ahlfors circle maps via Klein’s Rückkehrschnitttheorem (RST) (cf. Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882_Ruckkehrschnitt] or Klein 1923 Ges. Math. Abh. III [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.622–626])? This paradigm RST may be conceived as a positive genus case of the Kreisnormierung (of Koebe, but implicit in the Latin version of Schottky’s Thesis, cf. Klein’s Quote \[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]). Further recall that Riemann (1857 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass]) was able to produce circle maps for domains bounded by circles, and by analogy it seems plausible that Klein’s RST implies (modulo some work à la Riemann) the Ahlfors circle map. Of course Klein himself may not have been able to prove rigorously his RST, but the result was completed via some Brouwer-Koebe techniques ca. 1911/12 [@Klein-Brouwer-Koebe_1912]. (For a few more details about this strategy, cf. Sec.\[sec:Ruckkehrschnittthm\].) \[18.11.12\] An allied historical question is whether Teichmüller’s accreditation to Klein (1941 [@Teichmueller_1941]) of circle maps is based on the same stratagem (RST) as we are just suggesting.
$\bullet$ [**Witt or Geyer $\Rightarrow$ Ahlfors?**]{} Can we reprove the theorem of Ahlfors via a purely algebraic method (say Abel, or Riemann-Roch) as Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934], Geyer 1964/67 [@Geyer_1964-67] or Martens 1978 [@Martens_1978] succeeded to do for the Witt mapping (of 1934)? For more on this, cf. Sec.\[sec:Witt\].
$\bullet$ [**Plateau $\Rightarrow$ Ahlfors?**]{} Can we reprove the theorem of Ahlfors via the method based on the Plateau problem (as Courant 1939 [@Courant_1939] did for the Riemann-Schottky-Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem, i.e. the schlichtartig case $p=0$ of Ahlfors). (See Sections \[sec:Courant\] and \[sec:Douglas\] for historical precedents (i.e., Douglas 1931 [@Douglas_1931-Solution]), and precise references about contemporary workers attacking related questions (Jost, Hildebrandt, von der Mosel). A closely related historical question is whether the works of Courant do not already contain (more-or-less explicitly) an existence-proof of Ahlfors circle maps.
$\bullet$ [**Bergman $\Rightarrow$ Ahlfors?**]{} Idem via the method of the Bergman kernel function. This seems implicit in the literature (say especially by Bell, e.g. Bell 2002 [@Bell_2002], the great specialist of the technique), but to the writer’s knowledge no pedestrian account is available to the mathematical public (in the positive genus case). Compare Sec.\[sec:Bergman\] for some links to the literature. Of course behind Bergman 1922 [@Bergman_1922] one finds Bieberbach’s characterization (1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]) of the Riemann map via an extremal problem involving least area. This problems should be in some duality with Ahlfors extremal problem, more about this soon.
$\bullet$ [**Behnke-Stein $\Rightarrow$ Ahlfors?**]{} \[reported 05.11.12\] The article (of Köditz-Timmann 1975 [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975 Satz 3, p.159]) seems to contain a qualitative version of Ahlfors’ theorem based upon an “Approximationssatzes von Behnke u. Stein”, yet without any bound on the degree. Can one improve the argument to get a quantitative control? As to Behnke-Stein 1947/49 [@Behnke-Stein_1947/49] (the famous paper going back to 1943), it contains the result that any open Riemann surface (arbitrary connectivity and genus) admits a non-constant analytic function. Is it possible conversely to deduce this theorem from Ahlfors theorem by exhaustion while pasting together various circle maps defined over a system of expanding compact subregions?
$\bullet$ [**Other techniques?**]{} Koebe’s iteration, circle packings (cf. Rodin-Sullivan 1987 [@Rodin-Sullivan_1987]), Ricci flow, etc. Virtually any technique involved in the proof of the RMT (=Riemann mapping theorem) or the allied uniformization is susceptible to reprove the Ahlfors circle map.
$\bullet$ [**Does Ahlfors imply Ahlfors?**]{} \[02.09.12\] This repetition is intentional and intended to emphasize that the writer was not able to digest Ahlfors argument in full details (compare Sections \[Green:sec\] and \[Ahlfors-proof:sec\]). If one remembers the proof of Koebe’s Kreisnormierung (say as implemented in Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978] or Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57]), then upon making abstraction of Koebe’s proof by iterative methods, it may be noticed that ultimately the proof depends on a topological principle (namely Brouwer’s invariance of domain). In comparison, Ahlfors’ proof of a circle map (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) makes no use of any topological principle, reducing rather to considerations of convex geometry (cf. Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). Should one deduce that the Ahlfors function lies somewhat less deep than Koebe’s Kreisnormierung? If not then maybe Ahlfors’ argument lacks a global topological character, and perhaps its validity needs to be reevaluated. (Of course this is only a superficial objection arising from my own frustration in not being able to catch the substance of Ahlfors text.)
$\bullet$ [**Does Brill-Noether ($+$ Harnack’s trick) imply Ahlfors?**]{} \[26.10.12\] Upon using projective models of Riemann surfaces, especially birational models in the plane, it is common practice to understand the geometry on a curve via auxiliary pencils living on the ambient plane. Of particular importance are the so-called adjoint series passing through the singularities of the model which have the distinctive feature of cutting economical series of points on the curve. Such pencils are thus involved in the description of low-degree pencils living on the (abstract) smooth curve, hence morphisms to the line. Adapting this methodology to orthosymmetric curves one can evidently hope to reprove Ahlfors theorem, provided one is able to ensure total reality of the corresponding morphism. Details look quite formidable to implement. If such a proof exists it will probably be a happy hour for its discoverer. For more vague ideas about this strategy, see Sec.\[sec:Brill-Noether-approach-to-Ahlfors\].
$\bullet$ [**Does Ahlfors imply Gabard?**]{} \[09.09.12\] Upon using Ahlfors’ original argument in [@Ahlfors_1950] for the existence of a circle map of degree $r+2p$, it seems evident that one could append to Ahlfors argument a sharper geometric lemma which could produce a better control than Ahlfors’. Ideally one would like to recover Gabard’s bound $r+p$. For some evidence of why this should be possible compare Sec.\[Red’s-function:sec\].
$\bullet$ [**Gabard true? If, yes analytifiable?**]{} \[June 2012\] Is the bound $r+p$ predicted by the writer on the degree of a circle map true? And if yes is it accessible to more conventional analytical methods? Remember that the derivation in Gabard use some topological methods combined with the classical Abel theorem.
$\bullet$ [**Gonality profile.**]{} \[June 2012\] Can we compute the dimension of the moduli spaces of membranes having fixed gonality $\gamma\le r+p$. (The [*gonality*]{} is the least degree of a circle map from the given bordered surface.) The similar question in the case of complex curves is well-known and easily predicted by a simple Riemann-Hurwitz count (but established rigorously much later). Slightly more on this in Sec.\[sec:profile-histogram\].
$\bullet$ [**Ahlfors extremals as economic as Gabard?**]{} \[March 2012\] Can the degree of the Ahlfors extremal function be made as economical as $r+p$, the circle map degree predicted by the writer, for a suitable location of the two points required to pose the extremal problem (resp. of a single point when considering the derivative maximizing variant of the problem)?
$\bullet$ [**Ahlfors extremals as super-economic as Coppens?**]{} \[March 2012\] Same question for the sharper [*(separating) gonality*]{} introduced by Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011], that is, the minimum sheet-number required to concretize the bordered Riemann surface as a (holomorphic) branched cover of the disc.
$\bullet$ [**Topology$\Rightarrow$Riemann-Meis complex gonality?**]{} \[21.06.12\] Can the topological method (irrigation) used in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] be adapted to prove that any complex curve of genus $g$ is $\le [\frac{g+3}{2}]$-gonal, meaning that there is always a morphism to ${\Bbb P}^1$ of degree $\le$ than the specified bound. (Perhaps this is already answered in the lectures of Gunning 1972 [@Gunning_1972], who uses Mattuck’s topological description of the symmetric powers of the curve).
Conversely, there is a dual problem:
$\bullet$ [**Grötzsch-Teichmüller-Meis$\Rightarrow$Ahlfors-Gabard separating gonality?**]{} \[16 June 2012\] According to secondary sources (e.g. Kleiman-Laksov 1974 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1974]), Meis’ proof (1960 [@Meis_1960]) of the complex gonality $\le
[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ of genus-$g$ curves, is eminently Teichmüller-theoretic. By analogy, it should therefore be possible to prove the $(r+p)$-gonality of membranes (cf. Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) by using the same (Teichmüller-style) method as Meis. This would incidentally give an “analytic” proof (or if you prefer, a “geometria magnitudinis” proof of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]). Notice the fighting interplay between topology and analysis (or geometry) since Teichmüller amounts essentially to the “möglichst konform” map of Grötzsch.
$\bullet$ \[05 June 2012\] Ozawa 1950 [@Ozawa_1950] presents a genuine extension of the Schwarz lemma to multiply-connected domain. Can we do the same job for a membrane of positive genus?
$\bullet$ [**Ahlfors$\Rightarrow$Gromov?**]{} \[Mai 2011\] Does Ahlfors (or perhaps the non-orientable variant of Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934]) implies Gromov’s filling area conjecture? Any solution to this puzzling problem is rewarded by 50 Euros by Mikhail Katz (cf. his home web-page). Perhaps, some other ingredients than Ahlfors are required. We (already) loosely suggested, Weyl’s asymptotic law (acoustic proof) or perhaps a sort of duality between “Ahlfors” extremal problem and that of Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] (more widely known for its connection to Bergman). Added \[02.09.12\], maybe it is enough to consider the isothermic coordinate generated by a single Green’s function (or a dipole avatar) instead of an Ahlfors function.
$\bullet$ [**Gromov non orientable**]{} (Easier?) \[June 2011\] Is the Gromov filling conjecture also true (and meaningful) for non-orientable membranes? Can it be generalized to several contours (desideratum J. Huisman 2011, oral e-mail communication).
We may also drift to related problems like KNP (Kreisnormierungsprinzip). This asserts that any domain (or planar Riemann surface) is conformally diffeomorphic to a domain bounded by circles (we suppose finite connectivity for simplicity).
$\bullet$ [**Extremal problem$\Rightarrow$KNP?**]{} Inspired by the paper Schiffer-Hawley 1962 [@Schiffer-Hawley_1962], where (Koebe’s) Kreisnormierung (in finite connectivity) is derived from a minimum problem of the Dirichlet type, one may wonder if a suitable variant of Ahlfors extremal function may not be used to reprove the Kreisnormierung. More about this is Sec.\[sec:KNP\] (related to works by Grötzsch, and others.).
$\bullet$ [**Bieberbach’s (least area) minimum problem.**]{} Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] considers in a simply-connected domain $B$ the problem of minimizing the integral $\int\!\! \int_B \vert f(z)\vert^2 d\omega$ amongst analytic functions $f\colon B \to {\Bbb C}$ normed by $f'(t)=1$ at some fixed point $t\in B$ of the domain. He shows that the minimum gives the Riemann map. (It is well-known that this problem constitutes the origin of the Bergman kernel theory, cf. besides Bergman’s original paper of 1922 [@Bergman_1922], e.g. Behnke’s BAMS review of Bergman’s 1950 book [@Bergman_1950].) The naive question is what sort of maps are obtained when this problem is formulated on a multiply connected domain? Do we obtain a circle map? And if yes, does this $\beta$-function coincides with the Ahlfors map? Can the problem be extended to Riemann surfaces? More on this is discussed in Sec.\[Sec:Bieberbach-Bergman\]. Of course this is closely allied to the Bergman kernel, and was treated by several authors, cf. e.g. Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950]. However as far as the writer browsed the literature, the qualitative feature of this $\beta$-map appear to have not been explicitly described. In fact it seems that ultimately the answer is a bit disappointing in the sense that the least-area map may lack single-valuedness. This is well-explained in papers by Maschler (1956–59, e.g. [@Maschler_1956]), and was probably known earlier by Bergman, Schiffer, etc.
$\bullet$ [**Heins’ proof?**]{} \[28.06.12\] Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950] proposes another existence-proof of circle maps à la Ahlfors, by using some theory of Martin and concepts from convex geometry (minimal harmonic functions and extreme points of convex bodies). Unfortunately, he does not keep a quantitative control upon the degree of the map so obtained. However, on p.571 Heins introduces the number $m$ (of loops generating the fundamental group), which is easily estimated as $2p+(r-1)$ for a surface of genus $p$ with $r$ contours. \[E.g., imagining contours as punctures, the first perforation liberates a free group of rank $2p$ (twice the genus), and each additional perforation creates a new generator.\] Since this must be augmented by one (cf. Heins’ lemma on p.568, i.e. essentially the issue that each point of a convex body in Euclidean $m$-space is expressible as a barycentric sum of $m+1$ extreme points of the body spanning an $m$-simplex) it seems probable that Heins’ proof reproduces the bound $r+2p$ of Ahlfors. More about this in Sec.\[sec:Heins\]. (Actually, Heins’ convex geometry argument looks quite akin to the one used “subconsciously” by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950].)
$\bullet$ \[22.10.12\] [**The gonality sequence.**]{} An emerging question of some interest is that of calculating for a given bordered surface $F$ (of type say $(r,p)$) the list of all integers arising as degrees of a circle map defined on the given surface. We call this invariant the [*gonality sequence*]{} of $F$. As a noteworthy issue Ahlfors upper bound $r+2p$ is always effectively realized, in sharp contrast to Gabard’s one $r+p$ which can fail to be. For some messy and premature thoughts on this problem cf. Sec.\[sec:gonality-sequence\]. Of course the problem looks a bit insignificant combinatorics, yet studying it properly seems to require both experimental contemplation of concrete Riemann surfaces and sharp theoretical analysis of the existence-proofs available presently. Asking fine quantitative questions should aid clarifying the qualitative existence theorems.
$\bullet$ \[03.11.12\] [**Generalized Keplerian motions via Klein-Ahlfors?**]{} It is well known that the motion of a single planet around a star describes an orbit which is a certain algebraic curve, namely an ellipse (other conics do occur for cold comets escaping at infinity without periodicity). To visualize Ahlfors circle maps on real plane algebraic curves of dividing type (Klein’s orthosymmetry), one can contemplate totally real pencils of curves sweeping out the given curve along totally real collections of points. The prototypical example is the Gürtelkurve (quartic with two nested ovals) swept out by a pencil of lines whose center of perspective is located inside the deepest oval. All such lines cut the quartic in 4 [*real*]{} points (cf. Fig.\[FGuert:fig\]). This paradigm of total reality is the exact algebro-geometric pendant of Ahlfors theorem, and suggests looking at real dividing curves as orbits of planetary systems with dynamics governed by a total pencil. For instance the Gürtelkurve could occur as the orbit of a system of 4 electrons gravitating around a proton with electric repulsive forces explaining the special shape of the Gürtelkurve (cf. again Fig.\[FGuert:fig\] below). In Sec.\[sec:electrodynamics\] we explore the (overambitious?) idea positing that the real locus of [*any*]{} real orthosymmetric curve (in the Euclid plane or space) arises as the orbital structure of an electrodynamical system obeying Newton-Coulomb law’s of attraction/repulsion via a dynamics controlled by an Ahlfors circle map (incarnated by a totally real pencil). This gives quite an exciting interpretation affording plenty of periodic motions to the $n$ body problem. This idea probably requires to be better analyzed. Even if physically irrelevant, one can (by Ahlfors) trace for any orthosymmetric real curve (in the plane) a totally real pencil generating usually quite intriguing figures, especially when members of the pencil are varied through the full color spectrum to create some rainbow effect. Depictions of such totally real rainbows are given in Sec.\[sec:electrodynamics\], but we failed drastically to make serious pictures for Harnack-maximal curves. This represents perhaps a certain challenge for computer graphics?
$\bullet$ \[27.12.12\] [**Green-Riemann imply Schoenflies?**]{} This question is quite outside our main track of 2D-conformal geometry, belonging really to highbrow unsettled differential topology. Remember first that the Riemann mapping theorem (and the closely allied Green’s function measuring the proliferation of a bacteria in a nutritive medium) is essentially the best approach toward the (topological) Schoenflies theorem (ca. 1906) stating that any plane Jordan curve bounds a disc. Compare the contributions of Osgood and Carathéodory 1912 [@Caratheodory_1912], plus the recent discussion in Siebenmann 2005 [@Siebenmann_2005]. When it comes to high-dimensional versions of Schoenflies, we know in the smooth category by combination of the topological version of Mazur-Brown with Smale’s $h$-cobordism theorem giving uniqueness of the smooth structure on high-dimensional balls ($\dim\ge 5$). However remind that presently differential-topologic methods failed to prove the (so-called) smooth Schoenflies conjecture in dimension $4$, that any smoothly embedded $S^3$ in ${\Bbb R}^4$ bounds a $4$-ball with its usual smoothness structure. It is tempting to wonder if the classical tools of potential theory (especially the Green’s function) are able to reprove at least the high-dimensional cases of Smooth-Schoenflies, and if so, if it is able to crack the residual remaining exceptional case resisting all efforts of topologists so far. More details and references in Sec.\[Schoenflies:sec\]. The intuition behind all this is that the bacteria expand from any given interior point as concentric circles (resp. spheres) in the infinitesimally small but soon realize where there is more free vital room for expanding more quickly in those directions (cf. Fig.\[Green:fig\]). In particular all bacteria reach the boundary spheroid simultaneously. Mathematically this is formalized by considering the Green’s function $G(z,t)$, where $z\in {\Bbb R}^n$ and $t$ is an interior point of the bounded component of $\Sigma$ the $S^{n-1}$ embedded in ${\Bbb R}^n$, defined as $\log \vert z -t
\vert - u$ where $u$ is the unique harmonic function with boundary values given by $\log \vert z -t \vert$ on the boundary $\Sigma$. Studying the Green’s lines,that is the trajectory orthogonal to the levels of $G(z,t)$ should (possibly) enable one to establish the required diffeomorphism between the (sealed) interior of $\Sigma$ with the ball $B^{n}$ endowed with its usual smooth structure. (It is unknown if $B^4$ supports an exotic differential structure but that this another question a priori much harder to decide.)
Some vague answers
------------------
This section tried to report question which looks exciting, and to which I tried some premature answer. It requires to be polished drastically and reorganized seriously. Hence it is probably safer to skip, but maybe readers fluent with techniques like Ahlfors extremals, Teichmüller extremal quasi-conformal maps, Plateau’s problem, etc. may find useful to clarify our vague ideas.
$\bullet$ [**Quantum fluctuations of Ahlfors’ degree**]{} \[20.09.12\] The following problem is somewhat ill-posed, yet it is just an attempt to excite the imagination. Suppose given a compact bordered Riemann surface $F$ with $r\ge 1$ contours and of genus $p\ge 0$. For each interior point $a\in \rm{int} (F)$ there is a uniquely defined analytic Ahlfors function $f_a$ solving the extremal problem of making the derivative $f'(a)$ as large as it can be, while keeping this magnitude positive real and the range inside the unit disc. This extremal function is uniquely defined and independent of the local uniformizer used to compute the derivative. It is known by Ahlfors 1950 that each $f_a$ is a circle map of degree somewhere in the range from $r$ to $r+2p$, that is a (surjective) branched cover of the disc. According to Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011] the generic bordered surface has gonality $r+p$ so that one can considerably squeeze the Ahlfors range to the interval $r+p$ to $r+2p$. One would like to understand in geometric term (if possible?) what phenomena is responsible of the fluctuation of the Ahlfors degree. Of course, if $p=0$ there is no fluctuation just because of the Ahlfors squeezing: i.e. $\deg f_a$ is constant when the center of expansion $a$ is dragged throughout the surface. However if $p>0$, it is likely that some jump must occur albeit I know no argument. Gabard 2006 only showed that there is a circle map of degree $\le
r+p$, but a priori there is no reason forcing such low degree maps to be realized as Ahlfors maps. Following Coppens we may define the gonality $\gamma$ of $F$ as the least degree of a circle map on $F$. By Gabard (2006 [@Gabard_2006]) $\gamma\le r+p$ (and trivially $r\le \gamma$). Coppens tell us that all intermediate values of $\gamma$ are realized (modulo the trivial exception that when $r=1$ and $p>0$, $\gamma=1$ cannot be realized). This gonality invariant infers a sharpened variability for the Ahlfors degrees, namely $r\le \gamma\le \deg f_a \le r+2p$, where $\gamma
\le r+p$. A priori all intermediate values could be visited (between $\gamma$ and $r+2p$). However this scenario is incompatible with the case of hyperelliptic membranes studied in Yamada and Gouma, where the effective Ahlfors degrees are either maximal $r+2p$ or minimal (i.e. $2$). Those examples still indicate that despite a sparse repartition the degree distribution is in some sense extremal, occupying the maximum space at disposition. Is this a general behavior? This is the maximum oscillation (Schwankung) conjecture (MOC). If true, then Coppens gonality would always be sustained by an Ahlfors map and also Ahlfors upper bound $r+2p$ would be sharp for any surface, whatsoever its differential-geometric granularity. MOC displays the most naive scenario for the fluctuation of Ahlfors degree, and it would be a little miracle if it is correct. If not, then what can be said? A very naive idea idea would be that there is a sort of conservation law like in the Gauss-Bonnet theorem: whatsoever you bend the surface the Curvatura integra keeps constant. (Of course this holds for a closed surface but not for a bordered one, unless the geodesic curvature of the boundaries is controlled, e.g. by making it null.) The vague idea would be that if we think of the Ahlfors degree $\deg f_a$ as a sort of discrete curvature $\delta(a)$ assigned to the point $a$ then maybe $\int_F \delta
(a) d\omega$ keeps a constant value (independent of the conformal structure). If so then at least in the cases where there is a hyperelliptic model (i.e. $r=1$ or $2$) one could conclude that the Ahlfors degree are somehow balanced. Yet recalling Yamada-Gouma’s investigations it seems that the maximum degree $r+2p$ occurs very sporadically for the center $a$ located on the finitely many Weierstrass points of the membrane, hence high values have little weight. So in the hyperelliptic case (with few contours $r=1$ or $2$) the Ahlfors degree are constantly very low $2$ with exceptional jump taking place on a finite set of points. Maybe this suggests a low energy scenario valid in general: given any (finite) bordered surface $F$ the Ahlfors degree is always equal to the gonality safe for some jump occurring on a finite set of points. Of course this must be perhaps refined suitably by saying that there is a stratification (decomposition) in pieces, where the lowest degree (i.e. the gonality) is always nonempty and containing the contours, and then as we penetrate more deeply inside the surface the degree may increase (eventually always reaching the extremum value $r+2p$?).
$\bullet$ [**Quasiconformal doodlings**]{} \[02.10.12\] As is well known, Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939] exploited the flexibility of quasiconformal maps to put Riemann’s intuition of the moduli of conformal classes of differential-geometric surfaces (Riemannian surfaces) on a sound footing. The idea is both soft and flexible, yet with the devil of capitalism (geometria magnitudinis) cached just behind for one counts the distortion effected upon infinitesimal circles into ellipses. Using Grötzsch idea of the möglischt konform map relating two configurations produces an extremal map relating both configurations, and this least distortion gives the Teichmüller metric (a first step to endow the moduli “set” of a genuine space structure). Maybe this methodology is also fruitful in the theory of the (Ahlfors) circle maps. The first desideratum is to show existence of circle maps, and then the game refines in finding best possible bounds (over the degree of such maps).
The framework is as follows (aping again Grötzsch-Teichmüller): given a finite bordered surface (and maybe also a mapping degree $d\ge r$) we look at all quasiconformal map (not necessarily schlicht), i.e. (full) branched cover of the disc (with the same topological feature as circle maps of taking the boundary to the boundary and the interior to the interior). Following Grötzsch’s idea we may look at the “möglischt konform” map, i.e. the most conformal quasiconformal map in the family (hoping eventually to find a beloved conformal one). Measuring distortion (largest eccentricity of the ellipses images of infinitesimal circles) one gets a numerical invariant $\varepsilon(F, d) \ge 0$, namely the infimum of the dilation among the class of all (differentiable) maps from the bordered surface $F$ to the disc. This invariant $\varepsilon(F, d)$ vanishes precisely when $F$ admits a (conformal) circle-map of degree $d$. Hence it vanishes if $d\ge
r+2p$ by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.124–126], and even as soon as $d\ge r+p$ if one believes in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], where as usual $p$ is the genus and $r$ the number of contours of $F$. However we are rather interested to use the Grötzsch-Teichmüller theory to rederive an independent existence-proof. Of course in contrast with the classical setting of Teichmüller’s approach to the moduli problem, where one considers exclusively schlicht(=injective) maps, we tolerate now multivalent mappings, but this should not be an insurmountable obstacle.
Our intuition is that it is not just a matter of measuring that is required, but one must somehow explore the pretzel underlying the surface to get an existence proof. Yet the flexible-quantitative viewpoint of measuring eccentricity probably gives an interesting numerical invariant which is now not a metric (Teichmüller metric), but rather a (potential) function on the moduli space. In fact we assign to a given (bordered) surface $F$ a series of number $\varepsilon(F,d)$ for $r\le d\le r+p$ (larger values of $d$ give $0$ by Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]), which is probably decreasing (after eventually modifying the original problem by permitting all maps of degree $\le d$ instead of those having degree exactly $d$). So we get attached to $F$ a series of dilations $\varepsilon(F,r)\ge\varepsilon(F,r+1)\ge \dots \ge
\varepsilon(F,r+p)=0$. Of course the sequence can crash to zero before the $r+p$ bound and indeed do so as soon as Coppens’ gonality $\gamma$ is reached (that is, the least degree of a circle map for the fixed $F$). \[Of course in the exact degree $d$ variant of the problem one can imagine more romantic behaviors with oscillation down to zero and then becoming positive again (touch-and-go phenomenology).\] Those $p$ invariants would refine Coppens gonality in a continuous fashion, yet fails to be “moduli” since there are $3g-3$ of them (Riemann-Klein) where $g$ is the genus of the double (that is $2p+(r-1)$), hence giving a total of $3g-3=3(2p+(r-1))-3=6p+3r-3$ free parameters which exceeds of course our $p$ parameters.
But coming back to the basic existence problem, one can get started by observing that any topological type of membrane admits a circle map. One trick is to use symmetric membranes (cf. Chambéry section \[sec:Chambery\] below). This amounts to imagine a membrane in $3$-space symmetric under rotation by 180 degree so that the quotient as genus zero (cf. Fig.\[Chambery:fig\] below). Once the handles are killed one is reduced to the simple (planar) case of Ahlfors due to Bieberbach-Grunsky (and largely anticipated by Riemann, Schottky (no bound by Schottky?), and Enriques-Chisini (via Riemann-Roch and a continuity argument, cf. e.g. Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006 Sec.4]). The degree of the resulting map is easily computed (and of degree essentially equal to $(r/2) \cdot
2=r$ the minimum possible value, for the rotation identifies pairs of contours and gyrate all handles over themselves, cf. again Fig.\[Chambery:fig\], below). Thinking in the moduli space $M$ we have shown that the set $C$ of all circle-mappable surfaces is nonempty, and using the connectedness (of $M$) it would suffice to show that $C$ is [*clopen*]{} (i.e., closed and open). Checking openness, certainly requires enlarging the mapping degree to larger values. Now given an arbitrary bordered surface $F$ we can quasiconformally map it to our symmetric model $S$ and then compose with the circle-map. The dilatation is then controlled in term of the Teichmüller distance from $F$ to $S$, giving an upper bound over the eccentricity invariant $\varepsilon$ (for the appropriate degree). Of course this is still miles away from reproving even Ahlfors but maybe the idea is worth pursuing.
In fact what is truly interesting is that we get for each $d$ a numerical function $\varepsilon_d$ (defined as $\varepsilon_d(F):=\varepsilon(F,d)$) on the moduli space $M_{p,r}$ of membranes of genus $p$ with $r$ contours, that vanishes precisely when $F$ has gonality $\le d$. Of course this sequence of functions is monotone decreasing when the index increases, and $\epsilon_d\equiv 0$ is identically zero (for $d\ge
r+p$). According to Coppens result each of these functions (let us call them the Teichmüller potentials) vanishes somewhere. It is then perhaps interesting to look at the gradient flow $\varphi_d$ (w.r.t. Teichmüller metric) of these functions $\varepsilon_d$ affording a dynamical system (=flow) in which each bordered surface evolves in time to a sort of best possible surfaces for the prescribed gonality. (Morally each surface tries to improve its gonality along the trajectory of steepest descent.) If the global dynamics is simplest (say each trajectory finishes its life on a surface of gonality $d$) it is therefore reasonable to expect that the whole Teichmüller space is retracted by deformation to a sort of spine consisting of surfaces having the prescribed gonality $d$. Maybe one can deduce that the global topology of this spine is that of a cell (like the full Teichmüller space). Further it seems probable that the flows preserve the stratification by the gonality of $M_{p,r}$ since if $F$ has gonality say $d$ then its future $F_t$ has lower gonality. \[The situation looks analog to some works of René Thom (isotopy lemma, vector fields preserving a stratification, and “fonction tapissante” as it arise in the Thom-Mather problem of the stability of polynomial mappings??\]
\[03.10.12\] Of course the above can be adapted to the case of closed (non-bordered) surfaces of genus say $g$, by replacing the target disc by the (Riemann) sphere. Likewise we define Teichmüller potentials $\varepsilon_d$, measuring the dilatation of the “möglichst konform” map of a fixed degree $d$ from the surface $F$ to $S^2$, and ideally one can imagine that the theory is able to reprove the famous (Riemann-Brill-Noether) bound $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ first proved by Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960]. Hence all what we are trying to do is surely already well-known (alas I was never able to find a copy of Meis’ work, which is Teichmüller-theoretic according to other sources). Hence if Meis theory is just a sort of Teichmüller theory for branched covers of the sphere, with the ultimate miracle that Teichmüller not only affords a solution to Riemann’s moduli problem but also to the gonality question. A priori Meis’ theory should adapt to the bordered setting and arguably lead to another proof of the Ahlfors map, and optimistically with the sharp bound predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. Sharpness of the bound is due to Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011]. Recall that, Teichmüller himself was close to this (bordered) topic in the article Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941], yet the details (as well as exact bounds) are probably missing.
$\bullet$ [**Ahlfors inflation/injection and generalized Ahlfors maps taking values outside the disc (alias, circle)**]{} \[09.10.12\] The theory of the Ahlfors function is primarily based upon the paradigm of maximizing the derivative (its modulus) within the family of maps with range confined to a (compact) container namely the unit disc. So it is primarily an inflation/injection (or pressurization) procedure (by opposition to the dual deflation/suction approach of Bieberbach-Bergman amounting to minimize the area among maps normed by $f'(z_0)=1$). Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] showed that if the source object is any compact bordered Riemann surface and the target the unit disc then the Ahlfors (inflating) map turns out to be a circle map, i.e. a full covering of the unit circle taking boundary to boundary. This behavior is not surprising since maximizing the distortion (scaling factor) at a given basepoint forces the whole surface to be maximally stretched over the target, like an elastic skin pushed to its ultimate limit (in the Hollywoodian context of aesthetical surgery). The existence of Ahlfors maps relies on a Montel normal family argument, in substance inherited from the compactness of the disc. This suggests replacing the target disc by any compact bordered Riemann surface. We formulate then the following extremal problem:
Given two finite bordered Riemann surfaces $F$ and $G$ and a given point $a \in F$ and $b\in G$, we look inside the family of all analytic maps $f\colon F \to G$ taking $a$ to $b$ at the map maximizing the modulus of the derivative $f'(a)$ computed w.r.t. local parameters introduced at $a$ and $b$.
By analogy with the Ahlfors et ali theory, we expect that the extremal function exist (compactness of the receptacle $G$), is unique (this is either less evident or false for in the classical case $G=\Delta$ the argument relied heavily on the Schwarz lemma for the disc, so that our only hope in favor of uniqueness is that what actually counts is the universal covering). Arguably, even if lacking uniqueness extremals could still be interesting. Finally it is reasonable to expect that extremals are not oversensitive to the choice of local uniformizers. So we can speak of the map $f_{a,b}$ of extremum dilatation at $a,b$. Finally we are interested about knowing if the extremals are total maps in the sense of taking boundary to the boundary, as do the classical Ahlfors map in the circle/disc-valued case. Before proceeding to examples let us perhaps observe that in the special case where $F$ is given as a subsurface of $G$ and both points $a=b$ coincide, then the (complex) tangent space are readily identified so that $f'(a)$ has an intrinsic meaning as scaling factor of this complex line. Another special case of interest is when $G$ is a plane subregion, in which case the tangent bundle is trivialized so that one can consider a relaxed form of the problem without the constraint $f(a)=b$, in which no point $b$ is given but the sole extremalization of $f'(a)$ will actually dictate where $a$ has to be mapped.
Albeit all we are saying looks a bit messy and unnatural (?), it should be noted that the whole game can be drastically simplified by just looking at avatars of circle maps, that is given two finite Riemann surfaces $F$ and $G$ when does there exist a total map (taking boundary to boundary) from the first to the second. (Of course this question is quite standard yet probably hard to answer precisely, cf. Landau-Osserman 1960 [@Landau-Osserman_1960], and Bedford 1984 [@Bedford_1984].) As we shall soon explain a vague answer is readily supplied by “algebraic geometry”, namely when the target $G$ is not the disc, and if $F$ has general moduli then in general there in not a single total map from $F$ to $G$. The moral is that circle maps enjoy a certain privilege due to their unconditional existence (by Ahlfors 1950 precisely).
A basic obstruction arises from the Riemann-Hurwitz formula. Indeed given $f\colon F \to G$ a total map, it has no ramification along the boundary and is a full covering surface (cf. e.g. Landau-Osserman 1960 [@Landau-Osserman_1960 p.266, Lemma 3.1]). Denoting by $d\ge 1$ the degree of the map, we have $\chi(F)=d \chi (G)-b$, where $b\ge 0$ counts the branch points. When $d=1$, there is no branching and the topological types must agree. Another constraint says roughly that a total map can only simplifies the topology, precisely $\chi(F)=d
\chi (G)-b\le d \chi (G)\le \chi(G)$, when $\chi(G)\le 0$.
If $G$ is not the disc then the existence of a bordered map $f\colon F \to G$ implies that the Euler characteristic satisfies $\chi(F) \le \chi(G)$. (Of course the conclusion persists when $G$ is the disc for it maximizes the Euler characteristic among bordered surfaces.)
Another simple constraint comes from the fact that a total map $f\colon F \to G$ induces a covering of the boundary $\partial
f\colon \partial F \to \partial G$. Hence if $G$ has $r'$ contours then $F$ has at most $d \cdot r'$ contours, i.e. $r\le d \cdot
r'$ where $r$ is the number of contour of $F$. On the other hand as $\partial f$ is onto, the surjection induced by $\partial f$ on the $\pi_0$ (=the arc-wise connected component functor from TOP to SET) implies that $r\ge r'$.
Then there is a little zoology of cases to study.
(Z1) Let us first suppose that the [*source*]{} is just the disc, then who is the (“Ahlfors”) extremal map? So we assume $F=\Delta$ and $G$ any bordered surface marked at $a=0$, $b\in G$ respectively. By uniformization (Koebe-Poincaré 1907) we know that the universal cover of the interior of any finite bordered surface is the disc. Now the extremal map $f_{a,b}\colon \Delta
\to G$ (maximizing the distortion) may be lifted to the universal cover as say $F \colon \Delta \to \Delta$. Now by the Schwarz-Pick principle of hyperbolic contraction for analytic maps, the latter map contracts the hyperbolic metric implying the universal projection to effect a greater dilatation than the presumed extremal $f_{a,b}$. It follows that $F$ must be the identity (up to rotation) and the extremal function get identified to the universal cover. (Actually, works by Carathéodory and Grunsky actually manage to prove uniformization via the (Ahlfors) extremal problem, whereas we assumed it.)
(Z2) Now consider the situation were both source and target have complicated topology. For instance the source is any bordered surface and the target an annulus. One may expect to get analogues of circle maps, i.e. [*total maps*]{} taking boundary to boundary (sometimes known as proper maps). (Such maps are called [*boundary preserving*]{} in Jenkins-Suita 1988 [@Jenkins-Suita_1988], cf. also Landau-Osserman 1960 [@Landau-Osserman_1960 p.265] who speak of maps “which takes the boundary into the boundary”, while ascribing to Radó 1922 [@Rado_1922-Z-Theorie-mehr] the basic result that such maps are full coverings taking each value of the image surface a constant number of times). Unfortunately, there is severe obstructions to boundary preservation of such (generalized) Ahlfors maps. One way to argue is via algebraic geometry and the Jacobians. It is indeed classic that a generic closed Riemann surface tolerates only nonconstant maps to the sphere (ruling out the trivial identity map or automorphisms available incidentally only for surfaces with specialized moduli). Assuming the Ahlfors map of $F$ to an annulus to be total, its symmetric extension to the Schottky-Klein double is a map from a closed surface to the torus, which for general moduli cannot exist at all! Of course all this requires better proofs, but is fairly well-known and classical (cf. e.g. Griffiths-Harris 1980 [@Griffiths-Harris_1980], who argue as follows (p.236–237): “[*A general curve $C$ of genus $g\ge 2$ cannot be expressed as a multiple cover of any curve $C'$ of genus $g'\ge 1$.*]{} This is readily seen from a count of parameters: the curve $C'$ will depend on $3g'-3$ parameters, and the $m$-sheeted covering $C\to
C'$ depends on $b$ parameters, where \[$\chi (C) = m \chi(C')-b$, that is\] $$b=2g-2-m(2g'-2)$$ is the number of branch points of the cover. Thus if $m\ge 2$, $C$ will depend on $$b+(3g'-3)=b+\frac{3}{2}(2g'-2)
=2g-2-\underbrace{\bigl(m-\frac{3}{2}\bigr)}_{\ge
1/2}\underbrace{(2g'-2)}_{\ge 0}\le 2g-2<3g-3$$ parameters, and so cannot be general.” (Another argument is given in the exercises of Arbarello-Cornalba-Griffiths-Harris 1985 [@Arbarello-Cornalba-Griffiths-Harris_1985-BOOK p.367, Ex.C-6], which of course we were not able to solve!)
(Z3) Finally one can imagine a bordered surface embedded in a slightly larger one (say of the same topological type). Then the inclusion map is permissible in the extremal problem, so the extremal map will have distortion $\ge 1$ at some basepoint, and naively should expand the small surface into the larger one. However by the argument of (Z2) in general it is unlikely that the extremal will be total, and also a priori it not even clear that a true expansion can occur (try to lift the map to the universal cover a get maybe a conflict with the Schwarz-Pick principle of contraction??) But of course this looks dubious for when the subsurface is a disc expansion is possible.
$\bullet$ [**Cyclotomic Riemann surfaces**]{} \[09.10.12\] (but similar examples in Chambéry Talk ca. 20 December 2004) At this stage we can do perhaps the following sort of experiment. As is well-known (Riemann-Prym-Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882]) a Riemann surface structure can also be defined in the most simplest way to visualize, namely as differential-geometric surface in $3$-space with metric (hence conformal structure) inherited by the Pythagorean/Euclidean line element. Consider a hemisphere in Euclidean 3-space surmounted by $m$ handles cyclotomically distributed as on Fig.\[Cyclo:fig\], joining themselves above the north pole.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Ignoring the south hemisphere, we obtain so a bordered surface $F$ with one contour ($r=1$) and of genus $p=m-1$. (Notice here the standard psychological aberration that the genus is one less than the “handles”, for the first handle is not yet coupled to another one to create a real handle!) On rotating by angle $\frac{2\pi}{m}$ the configuration $F$ upon itself we obtain a map from $F$ to the disc (hence a circle map), because the fundamental domain of the rotation is glued over itself to give a disc. The circle map so obtained has degree $m=p+1$. This matches with the general bound $r+p$ predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. Let us now assume that a bubbling, i.e. an Euclid-Riemannian deformation of the metric takes place at one of the handle (yet not on the remaining ones) then the rotational symmetry is killed and it becomes much nontrivial that a circle map of same degree is still persistent. This experiment seems to damage the truth of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] (but hopefully is not?) A naive parade would be to use the (Riemann-Schwarz) uniqueness of the conformal structure on the closed 2-cell to resorb the cancerigenic bubbling. Yet this looks cavalier (for we are not living in the soft smooth $C^{\infty}$ category) and this would not settle the case of less localized cancerigenic degenerations not supported over a disc, but along a subregion having itself moduli. Then one cannot repair easily the deformation by a simple surgical lifting. At this stage we see that the result of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], if true at all, looks quite formidable for it should resist all those plastic deformations within the flexibility of conformal maps.
Perhaps this might be not so surprising in view of the Riemann-Schwarz super-flexibility theorem telling us in particular that any simply-connected bordered surface (hence topologically the disc) is conformally the same as the disc or the hemisphere. Yet in our context where no simple connectivity is assumed an incarnation of the Riemannian miracle (highly counterintuitive but hopefully true)!
It could be interesting (by adapting Yamada-Gouma) to study the degree of the Ahlfors map of such cyclotomic Riemann surfaces, especially when the basepoint is situated on the 3 fixed points of the rotation.
$\bullet$ [**Special triangulations**]{} \[10.10.12\] Given a circle map of a bordered surface $F$, one can post-compose it with the map taking conformally the disc to an equilateral triangle (in the Euclid plane ${\Bbb C}$). (Recall that this can be done for any three point prescribed along the boundary). Upon subdividing the triangle in a mesh of equilateral triangles, and lifting via the conformal map we generate certain triangulations of $F$ which are almost equilateral. In fact if the mesh size is chosen so that all ramification points lye in the interior of the tiny triangles then the inverse image of such ramified triangles will be small hexagons. Try to study the differential geometry and specialize to Gromov’s Filling conjecture, or try to find a link with Belyi-Grothendieck (a Riemann surface is defined of $\overline{{\Bbb Q}}$ iff it admits an equilateral triangulation).
Another special triangulation of the disc is the hyperbolic tessellation depicted on the front cover of Grunsky’s Collected papers (by equilateral triangles with angles $\pi/6$). \[This tessellation is supposed via the Ahlfors-Grunsky conjecture (1937 [@Ahlfors-Grunsky_1937]) to play an extremal rôle in the Bloch schlicht radius of maps $\Delta \to {\Bbb C}$ for it dominates the densest circle packing of the Euclidean plane.\] Try to understand if it is useful (or aesthetical) to lift this tessellation to the bordered surface via a circle map.
$\bullet$ [**Plateau heuristics $\Rightarrow$ Ahlfors maps?**]{} \[17.10.12\] Soap film experiments of the Belgian physicist have a certain existential convincing power, albeit the rigorous mathematical existence proof (Douglas/Radó ca. 1930/31) required circa 30 years more delay than the allied Dirichlet principle (Hilbert 1900) itself interpretable at the equilibrium temperature distribution in a heat-conducting plate with assigned boundary values. Now Douglas 1931 [@Douglas_1931-Solution] observed that the Riemann mapping theorem (RMT) may be derived by specializing Plateau’s problem to the case where the contour degenerate to the plane, and Courant pushed the remark further so as to include the Riemann-Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (=planar case of the Ahlfors map). On the other hand Douglas 1936 [@Douglas_1936-Some-new-results] envisaged the so-called Plateau-Douglas problem (PDP, or just PP) for membranes of higher topological structure. It should thus follow (either logically or intuitively) a physico-chemical existence proof of the Ahlfors map.
Let $F$ a finite bordered Riemann surface of genus $p$ with $r\ge
1$ contours, and suppose also given a fixed circle in the plane interpreted as the prescribed wire frame of PP. More generally one can imagine a collection of $r$ contours to be given, and we look at the special case where all these coincide with the unit circle. Now cultivating the right intuition about PP it should be possible to deduce the existence of Ahlfors maps perhaps even with the degree control $r+p$ of Gabard. In fact it should even be possible to study wide extensions where not all frames are coincident with the unit circle. Can one take any frame prescription (e.g. disjoint round circles)? For instance take two unit circles with centers lying distance ten apart ($\vert z \vert=1$ and $\vert
z-10 \vert=1$). Suppose the membrane to have the topological type of an annulus ($r=2$ and $p=0$). Then the minimal surface is something like a flat catenoid, where the inside of each circle is covered once and a certain tube connecting both circles is covered twice by the map. Yet notice that the apparent contour (where the map is folded) of such a film violates the local behavior of holomorphic maps. As we just saw the folding obstruction makes unlikely to span contours consisting of disjoint maximal circles. (Circles being ordered by inclusion of their interior in the plane.) In contrast a nested configuration of circles should cause no trouble to holomorphy. Thus it should be possible to render Ahlfors intuitively obvious via soap film experiments. Of course this was essentially done in Courant’s book (1950 [@Courant_1950]), yet the exact juncture with Ahlfors result probably deserves some extra working. Of course the real challenge would be to investigate if Plateau-style approaches are susceptible to vindicate the degree bound $r+p$ advanced by Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
Another idea is to imagine a Plateau problem with “wind” blowing through 3-space in some prescribed way (along a given vector field). For instance a soap film spanning a planar disc at rest could deform under a perpendicular wind into say a hemispherical membrane. Try to connect this with Gromov’s filling conjecture, yet unlikely due to the embedded nature of Plateau. Another more plausible connection would be with Gottschalk’s conjecture on flows in 3-space (no vector fields in 3-space having only dense trajectories). This is probably one of the most alienating open problem in the qualitative theory of dynamical systems.
$\bullet$ [**(Ahlfors) circle maps of minimal degree**]{} \[19.10.12\] Given a finite bordered Riemann surface $F$ of genus $p$ with $r$ contours, there is always (by Ahlfors) a circle map. The set of (positive) integers being well-ordered there is a circle map of minimal degree. Call perhaps such maps [*minimal circle maps.*]{} We may ask to which extent such a map is unique and if not can we describe the “moduli space” of such maps. Of course in the most trivial case where $p=0$ and $r=1$ (topologically a disc) the Riemann map is essentially unique ignoring automorphisms of the disc. Likewise uniqueness holds for surfaces with hyperelliptic double provided the latter is not Harnack-maximal. Such hyperelliptic membranes have $r=1$ or $r=2$ and the hyperelliptic involution induces a totally real morphism of degree $2$. Our uniqueness assertion follows of course from the uniqueness for complex curves of the hyperelliptic involution when $g\ge 2$ and thus holds in our context provided $p\ge 1$ (recall that $g=(r-1)+2p$). When $p=0$ and $r=2$ uniqueness fails, for then the double has genus one and may be concretized as a smooth plane cubic with two circuits: one being a genuine “oval” bounding a disc in ${\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb R})$, the other being termed a pseudo-line. Projecting from any point located on the oval gives a totally real morphism of degree $2$, and correspondingly a circle map when restricted to the semi-Riemann surface. Another example is the Gürtelkurve, i.e. any smooth quartic with two nested ovals. Then the minimal degree of a circle map (for the half of the curve) is 3 (argue with the complex gonality of smooth plane curves), and such maps arise by projecting the curve from a real point located on the innermost oval of the nest. Hence there $\infty^1$ circle maps of minimum degree, those being parameterized by a circle $S^1$. Of course the problem does not depend only on the topology: the half of the Gürtelkurve belongs to the topological type $r=2$ and $p=1$, which contains also hyperelliptic representatives, those being circle mappable in a unique fashion via a map of degree 2.
When $F$ is planar ($p=0$) then the double is Harnack-maximal and either the argument of Enriques-Chisini or that of Bieberbach-Grunsky shows that any divisor with one point on each oval moves in a linear system which is totally real (cf. e.g. Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]). So we have now essentially a torus of dimension $r$ ($r$=number of contours) of circle maps of minimum degree. A details description is not so evident for such a divisor $D$ moves in a linear system of dimension $\dim \vert D
\vert \ge \deg D-g$ (Riemann’s inequality, a direct consequence of Abel), where $g=r-1$ is the genus of the double. Thus $\dim \vert
D \vert \ge r-(r-1)=1$ so that $D$ does not necessarily determines unambiguously a totally real pencil. Despite this difficulty it seems reasonable to assert that the set of circle maps for a planar membrane is a torus perhaps of dimension only $r-1$ for one has to unite divisors lying in the same pencil. Extrapolating such examples, we may wonder about structural properties of the set of (minimal) circle maps. Is it always compact? Always a manifold? Perhaps even always a torus. Is it always connected? Of course there are various way to formulate the question and there probably basic experiments giving quick answers to the naive connectedness assumption. Another question is to understand how the global degree $d$ of the circle map splits (partitioned) into the bordered degrees of the restriction to each contours. For instance in the case of the Gürtelkurve, albeit both ovals are perfectly equivalent from the viewpoint of analysis situs, it seems that on the Riemann surface the one corresponding to the inner oval can be mapped with degree 1 whereas the other is less “economic” requiring a wrapping of degree 2. Of course it would be nice to understand this in some intrinsic fashion? But how? (Perhaps via the uniformizing hyperbolic metric and the length of the corresponding ovals???)
Let us try a naive approach to the connectedness problem (by actually trying to corrupt it). Consider in the “abstract quadric surface” ${\Bbb P}^1\times {\Bbb P}^1$ a configuration of bidegree say $(3,3)$. We have chosen both degrees equal so that both projections have the same degree. Imagine 3 lines in each ruling and smooth out the corresponding line arrangement to create a smooth curve $C_{3,3}$ (cf. Fig.\[Cyclo:fig\]b). Actually we have performed sense-preserving smoothings (cf. again the figure) so that the resulting curve is dividing (Fiedler type argument [@Fiedler_1981]). Contemplating the figure we count $r=3$ “ovals”. Both projections on the factors are totally real morphisms of degree 3 (the minimum possible degree in view of the trivial lower bound $\deg f \ge r$). However it seems unlikely that one can continuously deform one map into the other (while keeping its degree minimum). Hence this may give some evidence that the space of minimal circle maps (for the corresponding bordered surface, namely the half of the orthosymmetric Riemann surface underlying our dividing curve $C_{3,3}$) is not connected. However our argument is quite sloppy, having equally well applied to bidegree $(2,2)$ in which case the corresponding curve is Harnack-maximal \[recall that $g=(a-1)(b-1)$ for bidegree $(a,b)$\], hence subsumed to the connectivity principle. Of course it is probable that some basic complex algebraic geometry (gonality of complex curves) suffices to complete the above argument. Is it true that a smooth curve of bidegree $(n,n)$ is $n$-gonal in only two fashions (provided $n\ge 3$) via the natural projections? Of course the assertion is false for $n=2$, for then $g=1$ and a smooth plane cubic model creates $\infty^{1}$ pencils of degree 2. For another plane example seeming to violate the connectivity principle of minimal maps see Fig.\[Coppens:fig\](code 313).
Some historical puzzles
-----------------------
$\bullet$ The most scorching question is whether Klein really anticipate Ahlfors as suggested in Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941]? (Compare Sec.\[sec:Teichmueller\], especially Quote \[quote:Teichmueller-1941\].) Of course the question bears not only historical interest, but has some didactic importance for if a Kleinian argument ever existed (and not just in Teichmüller’s imagination), it is quite likely to be more geometric than Ahlfors’ (decidedly analytic) account. As we already said, it is possible that the Klein-Teichmüller proof rest upon the Rückkehrschnitt intuition of Klein. Even in case Klein himself never anticipated the Ahlfors circle maps, one may wonder from where Teichmüller derived it? In turn one may wonder if Ahlfors took inspiration by Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941]? Of course Ahlfors himself never quoted this Teichmüller work, except in Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960], where also all the Italian workers are carefully listed (especially Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48] and Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950]).
$\bullet$ Does Courant’s paper of 1939 [@Courant_1939] (and the somewhat earlier announcement of 1938 [@Courant_1938], plus the later book treatment of 1950 [@Courant_1950]) presage (modulo a suitable interpretation) any anticipation over the circle map result of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]? (For more, compare Sec.\[sec:Courant\].)
The province of Felix Klein {#Sec:Klein}
===========================
Felice Ronga and Felix Klein’s influence
----------------------------------------
In fact the writer himself came across (a weak version of) the Ahlfors function topic from a somewhat different angle, namely via Klein’s theory of [*real algebraic curves*]{} (spanning over the period 1876–92). For Klein this was probably just a baby case of his paradigm of the Galois-Riemann Verschmelzung (Erlanger Program 1873, friendship with Sophus Lie, Ikosaheder and its relation to quintic in one variable, etc.). Yet, real curves surely deserved special (Kleinian) attention as it provided a panoramic view (through the algebro-geometric crystal) of the just emerging topological classification of surfaces (Möbius 1863 [@Moebius_1863], Jordan 1866 [@Jordan_1866], etc.). This offered also a bordered (even possibly non-orientable) avatars of Riemann surfaces, as shown in the somewhat grandiloquent title chosen by Klein “[*Über eine neue Art der Riemannschen Flächen*]{}” (=title of 1874 [@Klein_1874], 1876 [@Klein_1876]) . Those works of Klein were probably not extremely influential (and still today represent only a marginal subbranch of the giant tree planted by Riemann).
Klein himself lamented at several places his work not having found the quick impact he expected from. In 1892 [@Klein-Werke-II_1922 p.171] (ten years after his systematic theory presented in 1882 [@Klein_1882]), he writes: “[*Inzwischen hat noch niemand, so viel ich wei[ß]{}, die hier gegebene Fragestellung seither aufgegriffen, [\[…\]]{}*]{}”. About the same period in his lectures of 1891/92 [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen p.132], he wrote: [*Was ich bislang von diesen Theoremen publicirt habe (so die Einteilung der symmetrischen Flächen in meiner Schrift von 1881), hat nur wenig Anklang gefunden. Ich meine aber, da[ß]{} das nicht am Gegenstande der Untersuchung liegt, der mir viel mehr das grö[ß]{}te Intere[ß]{}e zu verdienen scheint, sondern an der knappen Form, mit der ich meine Resultate darstellte.* ]{}
Of course this impact was first limited to his direct circle of students, where we count Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876], Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883] and Hurwitz 1883 [@Hurwitz_1883] (also a student of Weierstrass). Klein was also very proud that his results on real moduli supplied a natural answer to questions addressed (but not solved) at the end of Riemann Thesis. Klein insists twice on this issue in 1882 [@Klein_1882]=[@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.572, §24] and in his subsequent lectures 1891/92 [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen p.154], where he writes: “[*Mit dieser Abzählung ist implicite die entsprechende Frage für beantwortet, was darum ein gewi[ß]{}es Intere[ß]{}e hat, weil diese Frage von Riemann in seiner Di[ß]{}ertation aufgeworfen, aber nicht zu Ende discutirt wird. Riemann denkt natürlich nur an berandete Flächen (nicht an Doppelflächen; dem deren Existenz wurde erst zehn Jahre später von Moebius bemerkt und wohl erst in meiner Schrift für funktionentheoretische Zwecke herangezogen).*]{}”
From the very beginning 1876 [@Klein_1876]=[@Klein-Werke-II_1922 §7,p.154], Klein noticed that real curves are subjected to the dichotomy of being dividing or not, where the former case amounts to a separation of the complex locus through its real part (consisting of [*ovals*]{}, a jargon immediately suggesting Hilbert’s 16th problem, yet used much earlier, e.g. by Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874]). Zeuthen’s work seems to have much inspired Klein’s investigation on real curves, starting circa 1876, just two years later (cf., e.g. Klein 1892 [@Klein-Werke-II_1922 p.171]: “[*Ich hatte 1876 den Ausgangspunkt unmittelbar von den Kurven genommen. Das war bei $p=3$ möglich, wo ich zahlreiche geometrische Vorarbeiten, insbesondere diejenigen des Herrn Zeuthen \[…\] (1874), benutzen konnte.*]{}”)
Perhaps, the more tenacious followers of Klein’s viewpoint came somewhat later and the real demographic explosion of the subject took place much later, say perhaps in the 1970’s. Here is a little chronology: $\bullet$ del Pezzo 1892 [@del-Pezzo_1892], where Klein’s trick of assigning the unique real point of an imaginary tangents is taken as the starting point of a study of curves of low genus.
$\bullet$ Berzolari 1906 [@Berzolari_1906], who in an encyclopedia article surveyed in few pages Klein’s achievements and virtually coined the term “Klein surfaces” (Kleinsche Flächen) as a way to designate possibly non-orientable and eventually bordered avatar of Riemann surfaces. To say the least, this terminology was dormant during several decades until Alling-Greenleaf managed in 1969 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969] a resurrection of Berzolari’s coinage, and since then the nomenclature gained in popularity.
$\bullet$ Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UrAK] who studied uniformization of real algebraic curves taking advantage of Klein’s distinction orthosymmetric vs. diasymmetric.
$\bullet$ Severi 1921 [@Severi_1921-Vorlesungen-u-alg.-Geom-BUCH p.230–6], who devotes some few pages of his book to Klein’s theory of real curves, \[Note: there Severi writes down the same formula as one used by Courant in his approach to conformal circle maps, ascribing it to Cauchy\].
$\bullet$ Comessatti 1924-25 [@Comessatti_1924/26] in Italy (full of admiration for Klein), who pushed the philosophy up to include a study of real abelian varieties, rational varieties, etc. (For this ramification we refer to the remarkable survey by Ciliberto-Pedrini 1996 [@Ciliberto-Pedrini_1996].)
$\bullet$ several works of Cecioni in the late 1920’s ([@Cecioni_1929], [@Cecioni_1933], [@Cecioni_1935]), and his students (Li Chiavi 1932 [@Stella-li-Chiavi_1932]) makes direct allusion to Klein’s works.
$\bullet$ In France, the work of Klein found a little echo in some passages of the book by Appell-Goursat whose second tome (1930) was apparently mostly written by Fatou. There, Klein’s orthosymmetry occurs at several places [@Appell-Goursat-Fatou_1930 p.326–332 and p.513–521].
$\bullet$ Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934], where a general existence theorem for [*invisible*]{} real algebraic curves (those with empty real locus like, e.g. $x^2+y^2=-1$) was established. This will be discussed later (Sec.\[sec:Witt\]), and is somehow quite akin to the Ahlfors function. Witt’s work makes explicit mention of Klein, and was subsequently elaborated by Geyer 1964/67 [@Geyer_1964-67], who arranged a purely algebraic interpretation of Weichold’s work. His pupil G. Martens, managed (1978 [@Martens_1978]) to determine the lowest possible degree of the Witt mapping;
$\bullet$ (Jesse) Douglas 1936–39 makes a systematic use of Klein’s symmetric surfaces in his study of Plateau’s problem for configuration of higher topological structure. (We shall have to come back to this in Sec.\[sec:Douglas\].)
$\bullet$ A marked influence of Klein upon Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939], 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941]. We shall try to explore this connection in greater detail later (Section \[sec:Teichmueller\]).
Then different events occurred at a rather rapid pace with several schools penetrating into Klein’s reality paradigm through different angles:
$\bullet$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], who never quotes Klein. Probably with Lindelöf and Nevanlinna as teachers one is more inclined toward hard analysis à la Schwarz, than innocent looking geometry à la Klein. Of course Ahlfors quotes instead Schottky, as typified by the terminology Schottky differential, etc. used in Ahlfors 1950 (). It may then appear as a little surprise that Ahlfors’ result affords a purely algebraic (in term of real function fields) characterization of Klein’s orthosymmetric curves. However to my knowledge, this connection—as trivial as it is—was never emphasized in print until much later, namely in Alling-Greenleaf 1969 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969].
$\bullet$ Schiffer-Spencer’s book 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954] (outgrowing from Princeton lectures held during the academic year 1949–50) where the book is started by recalling how Klein assimilated the full Riemannian concept after a 1874 discussion with Prym revealing him the ultimate secret of Riemann’s function theory developed over arbitrarily curved surfaces not necessarily spread over the plane. The original source reads as follows:
\[quote:Klein-Prym\] [Ich wei[ß]{} nicht, ob ich je zu einer in sich abgeschlossenen Gesamtaufassung gekommen wäre, hätte mir nich Herr Prym vor längeren Jahren (1874) bei gelegentlicher Unterredung eine Mitteilung gemacht, die immer wesentlicher für mich geworden ist, je länger ich über den Gegenstand nachgedacht habe. Er erzählte mir,]{} [*da[ß]{} die Riemannschen Flächen ursprünglich durchaus nicht notwendig mehrblättrige Flächen über der Ebene sind, da[ß]{} man viel mehr auf beliebig gegebenen krummen Flächen ganz ebenso komplexe Funktionen des Ortes studieren kann, wie auf den Flächen über der Ebene.* ]{}
From circa 1970 upwards, the study of so-called Klein surfaces (jargon of Berzolari [@Berzolari_1906]) [*per se*]{} enjoyed a rather exponential rate of growth as if the simple naming of them was a stimulus for a big expansion of the topic. After two decades an impressive body of knowledge has been accumulated (cf. e.g. the rich bibliography compiled in Natanzon’s survey 1990 [@Natanzon_1990/90]). Those developments can be roughly ranged into 3 main axes:
$\bullet$ [*Foundational aspects.*]{}—Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971], and also in Romania with the numerous contribution of Andreian Cazacu (1986–88 [@Andreian-Cazacu_1986], [@Andreian-Cazacu_1988-Interior]) about the structure of morphism between them (interior influence of Stoilow).
$\bullet$ [*Symmetry, automorphisms and NEC(=non-Euclidean crystallography).*]{}—This is especially active in the Spanish school but started somewhat earlier with Singerman 1971–88 (5 items), May 1975–88 (9 items), Bujalance 1981–89 (29 items) Costa, etc.
$\bullet$ [*Moduli spaces of Klein surfaces.*]{} This starts of course in Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882], to reach a certain climax in Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939] and the Ahlfors-Bers school, Earle 1971, Seppäla 1978–89 (6 items on Teichmüller and real moduli), Silhol 1982–89 (Abelian varieties and Comessatti), Costa, Huisman 1998+, etc.
All those works contributed to feel virtually as comfortable with real curves as with their complex grand sisters. We just mention one result of Seppälä 1990 (revisited by Buser-Seppälä-Silhol 1995 [@Buser-Seppala-Silhol_1995] and Costa-Izquierdo 2002 [@Costa-Izquierdo_2002]) to the effect that the moduli space of real curves is connected. (This sounds almost like a provocation to anybody familiar with the bio-diversity of topological types of symmetric surfaces listed by Klein). Of course the trick, here, is that those authors regard this moduli space projected down in that of complex curves (by forgetting the real involution). In other words we may deform the structure until new anti-conformal symmetries appears and switch from one to the other. Hence the subject is sometimes hard to grasp (due to varying jargon) and more seriously is full of real mysteries allied to the real difficulty of the subject.
$\bullet$ [*Geometry of real curves*]{}. Here much of the impulse—very much in Klein’s tradition—came through the paper of Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981]. In this or related direction, we may cite authors like Natanzon, Ballico, Coppens, G. Martens, Huisman, Monnier, etc. This area proved very active since the 2000’s up to quite recently and a remarkable variety of difficult question are addressed giving the field arguably some maturity soon comparable to the complex hegemony.
Of course, another line of thought is the interest aroused by Hilbert’s 16th problem (on the mutual disposition of circuits of real algebraic varieties esp. curves) especially among the early German, Italian and then mostly the Russian annexion of the subject. This captured and probably contributed to mask Klein’s more intrinsic viewpoint for a while. This axis includes the following workers (precise references listed in Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74]):
$\bullet$ Hilbert 1891–1900–09, Rohn 1886–1911–11–13; (it is interesting to note that Hilbert’s first 1891 paper on the subject is quite synchronized with Klein’s lectures of 1891/92, which conjecturally may have stimulated Hilbert’s interest, yet not a single allusion to Klein in this paper, and recall also that Hilbert was still in Königsberg at that time).
$\bullet$ Brusotti 1910–13–14–14–15–16–16–16–16–17–21–28–38/39–40–44/45–46–50/51–52–55–55 (characterized by “[*la piccola variazione*]{}”, i.e. the method of small perturbation permitting to construct real algebraic curves with controlled topology. The writer is indebted to Felice Ronga for this method, which of course has some historical antecedents older that Brusotti. In Klein 1873, footnote 2 in [@Klein-Werke-II_1922 p.11] the principle is traced at least back to Plücker 1839 [@Plücker_1839]. However Brusotti 1921 [@Brusotti_1921] may have been the first—modulo its reliance over work of Severi—to notice that the Riemann-Roch theorem admits as extrinsic traduction the possibility of smoothing independently the nodes of a plane curve. The main issue (as transmitted by Felice) is that the nodes a plane curve with nodal singularities impose independent conditions on curves of the same degree. Hence when the curve is being imagined as a point in the (projective) space of all curves, it sits on the discriminant hypersurface (parameterizing all singular curves) and nearby our nodal curve we see several transverse smooth branches crossing transversally. (In French or Italian, there are better synonyms like “falde analytiche” or “nappe”.) The net effect of transversality is that one can leave at will certain strata, while staying on others. This implies the independency of smoothing crossings, and thereby a rigorous foundation to the small perturbation method. (The resulting graphical flexibility of algebraic curves is a pleasant way to create Riemann surfaces, and we shall exploit it later in this text as a way to explore degrees of Ahlfors circle maps.)
$\bullet$ Comessatti (more in the spirit of Klein) 1924–25–27/28–31–32–33, etc.
$\bullet$ Petrovskii 1938–49 ([@Petrowsky_1938]), etc. many joint with Oleinik (real algebraic (hyper)surfaces and Betti numbers).
$\bullet$ Gudkov 1954–54–62–62–62–65–66–69–69–73 (those works include in particular the spectacular discovery of a sextic whose oval configuration was expected to be impossible by Hilbert).
$\bullet$ Arnold 1971–73.
$\bullet$ Rohlin 1972–72–73.
$\bullet$ Finally the long awaited (?) reunification of forces (call it maybe the Klein-Hilbert Verschmelzung) came in the work of Rohlin (himself apparently inspired by Arnold). Surprisingly, Rohlin took notice of Klein’s work quite late, ca. 1978 (compare Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]).
$\bullet$ Then real algebraic geometry exploded through the work of Kharlamov, Viro, Fiedler, Nikulin 1979, Orevkov, Finashin, etc. and in the west Risler, Marin, and many others gave a new golden age to a discipline reaching a certain popularity.
Sometimes the real theory seems only to adapt over ${\Bbb R}$ whatever has been achieved over ${\Bbb C}$, yielding usually a kaleidoscopic fragmentation of truths into a real zoology. Thus for instance the Castelnuovo-Enriques classification of (algebraic) surfaces can be pushed through reality: K3 (Nikulin-Kharlamov), Abelian surfaces (Comessatti-Silhol), elliptic surfaces, etc. The topic is then strongly allied to deep methods in differential topology, Galois cohomology, symplectic geometry, Gromov-Witten, enumerative problems, tropical geometry, etc. The present number of active workers is so impressive and the recent connections so amazing (Okounkov, etc.) that we prefer to stop here our impressionist touristic overview of real algebraic geometry.
Digression about Hilbert’s 16th problem (Klein 1922, Rohlin 1974, Kharlamov-Viro ca. 1975, Marin 1979, Gross-Harris 1981)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The connection between Klein’s theory (especially the ortho- and diasymmetric dichotomy) with Hilbert’s 16th problem (plane curves in the projective plane ${\Bbb P}^2$) were profoundly investigated by the Russian school in the early 1970’s especially Arnold, Rohlin, Viro, Kharlamov, etc. Klein himself always dreamed of such a relationship , without really being able to formulate its precise shape. Here is a quote which Klein added (ca. 1922) to his Werke (cf. [@Klein-Werke-II_1922 p.155, footnote]):
\[Klein-1922-immer-vorsgeschwebt:quote\]
Es hat mir immer vorgeschwebt, dass man durch Fortsetzung der Betrachtungen des Textes Genaueres über die Gestalten der reellen ebenen Kurven beliebigen Grades erfahren könne, nicht nur, was die Zahl ihrer Züge, sondern auch, was deren gegenseitige Lage angeht. Ich gebe diese Hoffnung auch noch nicht auf, aber ich muss leider sagen, dass die Realitätstheoreme über Kurven beliebigen Geschlechtes (welche ich aus der allgemeinen Theorie der Riemannschen Flächen, speziell der “symmetrischen” Riemannschen Flächen ableite) hierfür nicht ausreichen, sondern nur erst einen Rahmen für die zu untersuchenden Möglichkeiten abgeben. In der Tat sind ja die doppelpunktslosen ebenen Kurven $n$-ten Grades für $n>4$ keineswegs die allgemeinen Repräsentanten ihres Geschlechtes, sondern wie man leicht nachrechnet, durch $(n-2)(n-4)$ Bedingungen partikularisiert. Da man über die Natur dieser Bedingungen zunächst wenig weiss, kann man noch nicht von vornherein sagen, dass alle die Arten reeller Kurven, die man gemäss meinen späteren Untersuchungen für $p={ n-1 \cdot n-2 \over 2}$ findet, bereits im Gebiete besagter ebener Kurven $n$-ter Ordnung vertreten sein mü[ß]{}ten, auch nicht, da[ß]{} ihnen immer nur [*eine*]{} Art ebener Kurven entspräche. K.
It took several decades until the experimentally obvious conjecture (possibly anticipated by Klein, though he left no trace in print) that dividing curves in the plane have at least as many ovals as the half value of its degree found place in a paper of Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981 p.177, [*Note*]{}]. In fact, in a paper by Alexis Marin 1979/81 [@Marin_1979] this is stated as a corollary of a Rohlin formula (1978 [@Rohlin_1978]), involving intersection of homology classes deduced from the halves of the dividing curve capped off by the interiors of ovals in ${\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb R})$). In the case of $M$-curves (=the Russian synonym of Harnack-maximal coined by Petrowskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938]), this technique occurred earlier in Rohlin 1974/75 [@Rohlin_1974/75]. Moral: the tool missing to Klein was intersection theory of homology classes developed by Poincaré, Lefschetz, etc. In the little note Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000] it is verified that this Rohlin-Marin obstruction ($r\ge \frac{m}{2}$) is the only one, settling thereby completely the Klein-Gross-Harris question. This (simple) fact was known to Rohlin’s students Kharlamov and Viro which were familiar with this result as early as the middle 1970’s (as they both kindly informed me by e-mail). Of course the crucial ideas are due to Rohlin.
A long unnoticed tunnel between Klein and Ahlfors (Alling-Greenleaf 1969, Geyer-Martens 1977)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More importantly, for our present purpose is to keep the abstract viewpoint of Klein (by opposition to the embedded Hilbert’s 16th problem), and to make the following observation.
[(Klein?, Teichmüller 1941?, Ahlfors 1948/50, Matildi 1945/48?, Andreotti 1950?, who else?)]{} Dividing curves are precisely those admitting a real morphism (i.e., defined over the ground field ${\Bbb R}$) to the projective line ${\Bbb P}^1$ such that all fibers over real points consist entirely of real points.
The non-trivial implication of this fact follows precisely from Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (but is made very explicit only in Alling-Greenleaf 1969 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969], see also Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977]). To my actual knowledge there is no record in print of this fact prior to Ahlfors’ intervention, modulo the cryptical allusion in Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941] that the result was implicit in Klein’s works. Another related works are those of Matildi 1948 [@Matildi_1945/48] and Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950]. As we shall recall later Ahlfors’ result was exposed at Harward as early as 1948 (cf. Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950] reproduced here as Quote \[Nehari-1950:quote\]).
It is however picturesque to notice that an analog result stating that a real curve without real points maps through a real morphism upon the empty curve $x^2+y^2=-1$ (or projectively $x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2=0$) was established as long ago as Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934]. Perhaps both problems are of comparable difficulty, and the method employed by Witt—namely Abelian integrals—turns out to be likewise relevant to the Ahlfors context (i.e. dividing curves). Hence in our opinion, there were no technological obstruction to Ahlfors result being discovered much earlier, say by Witt in the 1930’s, or by Bieberbach in 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], or by Klein in the 1876–80’s, or even by Riemann in the late 1850’s (especially in view of his [*Parallelogramm methode/Figuren*]{}, cf. e.g., Haupt 1920 [@Haupt_1920]), and ultimately why not by Abel himself? (Of course all these peoples were probably involved with more urgent tasks, like some [*flüchtigen Versuche*]{} about the Riemann hypothesis, or regarding Klein the [*Grenzkreistheorem*]{} (in his health taking contest with Poincaré), which later became known as the uniformization theorem. The list of competent workers coming also very close to the paradigm ultimately discovered by Ahlfors could easily be elongated: especially Schwarz, Hurwitz (esp. in 1891 [@Hurwitz_1891-Uber-Riemannsche-Flachen]), Koebe, Courant (esp. in 1939 [@Courant_1939], 1940 [@Courant_1940-Acta] or 1950 [@Courant_1950]).
As to the interesting result of Witt 1934 (on invisible real curves), we will try to discuss it later in more details (Sec.\[sec:Witt\]).
Albeit, the writer lacks strong (analytical) competence, we shall attempt to delineate several schools (and teams of workers) scattered through the planet, which are still exploring this or related topics.
Motivation (better upper bounds exist)
--------------------------------------
Even though Ahlfors’ result is approaching 65 years (a venerable age for retirement) the basic result looks still grandiose, and mysterious enough if one wonders about the exact distribution of Ahlfors’ degrees (as suggested in Yamada-Gouma’s penetrating study (1978–1998–2001), discussed in Sec.\[Yamada-Gouma:subsec\]).
The writer published a paper in 2006 [@Gabard_2006] where a circle map with fewer sheets (viz. $\le r+p$) than that proposed by Ahlfors (namely $\le r+2p$) is exhibited. This quantitative improvement is the motivation for much of this survey, and will hopefully excuses the bewildering variety of topics addressed. An obvious game is to renegotiate known application of the Ahlfors’ mapping involving a controlled degree in the hope to upgrade the bound. As tactically simple as it may look, we were not very successful in this game as it often already requires analytical skills beyond the competence of the writer. Yet we shall mostly content to list some articles where some upgrade could be expected (e.g., Hara-Nakai’s quantitative version of the corona with bounds [@Hara-Nakai_1985] looks to be a challenging place to test). Of course for this [*bound upgrading procedure*]{} to work it requires that the application in question does not use the full strength of the Ahlfors function, but only its qualitative property of being a circle map. A concrete instance were this was accomplished is Fraser-Schoen’s paper 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011].
Alternatively we can dream of certain high powered applications requiring the full extremal power of the Ahlfors mapping. In this case it is known a priori (Yamada-Gouma) that we cannot lower the degree of the Ahlfors function, except possibly for very particular choices of base-points.
So the main philosophical issue is roughly the following point:
Is the Ahlfors extremal property truly required in applications, or just the arcane residue of those attempt to salvage the Dirichlet principle via extremal methods. Put differently, is the extremal problem just an artefact of the proof or something really worth exploiting in practice?
Full coverings versus Ahlfors’ extremals
----------------------------------------
To avoid any confusion, one must from the scratch relativize strongly the importance of the recent contribution on the $r+p$ bound (Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) for several reasons.
First the result is quite recent and probably not sufficiently verified as yet. In later sections when looking at explicit curves from the experimental viewpoint it seems that there is a large armada of potential counterexamples flying at high altitudes (flying fortresses).
Next, Ahlfors’ upper bound $r+2p$ is known to be sharp within the realm of the extremal problem it solves. Indeed, Yamada 1978 [@Yamada_1978] has a rather simple argument showing that the Ahlfors function centered at the Weierstrass points of a hyperelliptic membrane has degree precisely $r+2p$ (and not less). Maybe it is an open question whether a similar sharpness holds for all membranes.
Hence, one must keep in mind a subtle distinction between Ahlfors’ deep extremal problem (involving hard analysis via the paradigm of extremality) and the writer’s soft version ([@Gabard_2006]) which leads to a sharper bound but is based only upon (soft) topological methods, i.e. the Brouwerian degree and the allied criterion of surjectivity. To put it briefly, we must distinguish Ahlfors’ extremal function from the mere [*circle map*]{}, defined as follows (nomenclature borrowed from Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950 p.182]):
A circle map is an analytic function from a compact bordered Riemann surface to the disc, expressing the former as a (generally branched) cover of the disc, say $f\colon W \to D=\{\vert z\vert \le 1\}$. Each interior points maps to an interior points of the disc (otherwise there is a problem as infinitesimally the mapping is a power map $z\mapsto z^n$, $n\ge 1$). Thus, the restricted covering $\partial W \to
\partial D=S^1$ is unramified, whereupon it follows that $r\le \deg (f)$ (i.e. the number of contours is a trivial lower bound for the degree of a circle map).
Varied synonyms (or closely allied designations) are used throughout the literature (here is a little sampling with citation of the relevant sources):
$\bullet$ $n$ fach ausgebreitete Fläche, $n$ fach bedeckende Fläche (Riemann 1857–Weber 1876 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass p.473]);
$\bullet$ Schottky 1877 no clear cut terminology, and re-reading it (25.06.12) in details I realize that the statement about existence of circle maps is in fact not really proved (thus much of the written is somewhat biased), note that Bieberbach somewhat wrongly ascribe the result as well to Schottky, but that remains to be elucidated... In contrast, Grunsky never (?) credits Schottky, but rather Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925];
$\bullet$ mehrfach bedeckte Kreisscheibe, $n$-blättrige Kreisscheibe (Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925 p.6]);
$\bullet$ mehrblättrige Kreise, $n$-blättrige Kreisscheibe (Grunsky 1937 [@Grunsky_1937 p.40]);
$\bullet$ ein endlichvielblättriges Flächenstück über der oberen $z$-Halbebene mit endlich vielen Windungspunkten, das durch Spiegelung an der reellen Achse eine symmetrische geschlossene Riemannsche Fläche ergibt (Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941]);
$\bullet$ cerchio multiplo (Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48 p.82], a student of Cecioni);
$\bullet$ full covering surface of the unit circle (Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.124, p.132]);
$\bullet$ $(2g+m)$-sheeted unbounded covering surface of the unit disc (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics 1968/87 [@EDM_1968/87 p.1367]);
$\bullet$ unbounded finitely sheeted covering surfaces of the unit disk (Nakai 1983 [@Nakai_1983 p.164]);
$\bullet$ Schottky functions (Garabedian-Schiffer 1949 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1949 p.214], Kühnau 1967 [@Kuehnau_1967 p.96], and earlier (yet without this appellation) in several works of Picard, e.g. Picard 1913 [@Picard_1913] and Cecioni, e.g. Cecioni 1935 [@Cecioni_1935]);
$\bullet$ $p$-times covered unit-circle (Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950 p.87, line 5]);
$\bullet$ $n$-times covered circle, multiply-covered circle (Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950 p.256, resp. p.267], Stanton 1971 [@Stanton_1971 p.289 and 293] Aharonov-Shapiro 1976 [@Aharonov-Shapiro_1976 p.60]);
$\bullet$ Ahlfors mapping (Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950 p.256, p.267], Stanton 1971 [@Stanton_1971 p.289 and 293];
$\bullet$ Ahlfors function (Aharonov-Shapiro 1976 [@Aharonov-Shapiro_1976 p.60]);
$\bullet$ Ahlfors map (Alling 1966 [@Alling_1966 p.345–6], Stout 1967 [@Stout_1967-Interpolation p.274], and then in many papers by Bell);
$\bullet$ Ahlfors type function (Yakubovich 2006 [@Yakubovich_2006 p.31]);
$\bullet$ Einheitsfunktionen (Carathéodory 1950 [@Caratheodory_1950_Buch_Funktionentheorie vol.II, p.12]), translated as:
$\bullet$ [*unitary*]{} function in Heins 1965 [@Heins_1965 p.130], a jargon also adhered to by Fay 1973 [@Fay_1973 p.108, 111, etc.];
$\bullet$ unimodular function (Douglas-Rudin 1969 [@Douglas-Rudin_1969], Fisher 1969 [@Fisher_1969-BAMS-convex-combination-unimodular-fct], Gamelin 1973 [@Gamelin_1973-BAMS], Lund 1974 [@Lund_1974]);
$\bullet$ many-sheeted disc (A. Mori 1951 [@Mori_1951]);
$\bullet$ multi-sheeted circle (Havinson 1953 [@Havinson_1953]);
$\bullet$ finitely sheeted disks (Hara-Nakai 1985 [@Hara-Nakai_1985]);
$\bullet$ Vollkreisabbildung (Meschkowski 1951 [@Meschkowski_1951 p.121]);
$\bullet$ (volle) $n$-blättrige (Einheits)Kreisscheibe (Golusin 1957 [@Golusin_1952/57 p.240, 412], as translated by Grunsky or Pirl);
$\bullet$ interior mappings (Stoïlow, Beurling);
$\bullet$ inner functions (Beurling 1949 [@Beurling_1949], Hoffman 1962 [@Hoffman_1962] (esp. p.74, where Beurling is credited of the coinage), Rudin 1969 [@Rudin_1969], Stout 1972 [@Stout_1972 p.343], Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002 p.686]). This concept usually refers to analytic functions with modulus a.e. equal to one along the boundary, but some writers corrupted this sense to mean a circle map, cf. Stout 1966/67 [@Stout_1966/67] which is followed by Fedorov 1990/91 [@Fedorov_1991 p.271].
$\bullet$ boundary preserving maps (Jenkins-Suita 1984 [@Jenkins-Suita_1988]); maps taking the boundary into the boundary (Landau-Osserman 1960 [@Landau-Osserman_1960]).
$\bullet$ complete covering surfaces (cf. Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960 p.41–42, §21A]), i.e. one such that any point in the range has a neighborhood whose inverse image consists only of compact components; complete Klein coverings (Andreian Cazacu 2002 [@Andreian-Cazacu_2002]) (a direct extension of the former concept shown to be equivalent in the case of finite coverings to the next conception of Stoïlow).
$\bullet$ total Riemann coverings (Stoïlow 1938 [@Stoilow_1938-Lecons]), i.e. one such that any sequence tending to the boundary has an image tending to the boundary.
$\bullet$ unlimited covering surfaces (Nakai 1988 [@Nakai_1988], EDM=Japanese encyclopedia 1968/87 [@EDM_1968/87], Minda 1979 [@Minda_1979-hyperbolic-metric-and-coverings])
$\bullet$ proper (holomorphic) maps (onto the unit disc) (e.g., Bedford 1984 [@Bedford_1984 p.159], Bell 1999 [@Bell_1999-Ahlfors-maps p.329], Černe-Flores 2007 [@Cerne-Flores_2007], Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011]).
$\bullet$ distinguished map (Jurchescu 1961 [@Jurchescu_1961-A-maximal])
$\bullet$ Myrberg surface over the unit disc (Stanton 1975 [@Stanton_1975 p.559, §2] uses this terminology for a Riemann surface $W$ admitting an analytic function $z\colon
W \to \Delta$ realizing $W$ as an $n$-sheeted, branched, full covering surface of the unit disc $\Delta$).
As no ramification appears along the boundary, explains the naming:
$\bullet$ Randschlicht mapping (Köditz-Timann 1975 [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975]).
In fact the writer came across this concept through real algebraic geometry where I used (2006 [@Gabard_2006]) the term [*saturated*]{}, whereas Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011] proposes the term [*separating*]{} morphism. In the same context, Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977] coined:
$\bullet$ “total reell Morphismus”=totally real morphism/map, to which we shall adhere as it seems to be the most convenient terminology, especially when abridged just as “total maps”, which is quite in agreement with Stoïlow’s jargon.
We shall attempt to reserve the designation [*Ahlfors maps/functions*]{} for those solving the extremal problem formulated in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]. The latter are known (since Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) to be circle maps, but the converse is wrong. Indeed, circle maps may have arbitrarily large degrees (post-compose with a power map $z\mapsto z^n$ for some large integer $n$), whereas Ahlfors maps have degrees $\le
r+2p$ (in view of the deep result in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]).
Are circle maps of degree compatible with Ahlfors’ bound always realizable via an Ahlfors map? The answer seems to be in the negative, at least if attention is restricted to infinitesimal Ahlfors maps. This follows from Gouma’s restriction (1998 [@Gouma_1998]) in the hyperelliptic case. Indeed consider a 2-gonal membrane, then post-composing with $z\mapsto z^n$ we get circle maps of degrees ranging through all multiples $2n$, whereas only 2 and $r+2p$ are realized as degrees of Ahlfors maps, by a result of Gouma 1998 [@Gouma_1998]. Note that Gouma restricts to ponctual Ahlfors maps and our claim is only firmly established in this context.
A somewhat deeper question is whether any (or at least one) circle map of smallest degree arises via an Ahlfors map. We were not able to settle this question, but in a tour de force Yamada 2001 [@Yamada_2001] proved this in the hyperelliptic case. It amounts to know if the Ahlfors map is flexible enough to capture a circle map of the lowest possible degree (alias the gonality). Let us optimistically pose the conjecture, amounting to say that we can essentially take out the best of the two worlds:
\[gonality:conj\] Any (or at least one) conformal mapping realizing the gonality arises as an Ahlfors extremal function $f_{a,b}$ (perhaps for coalescing two points yielding then the Ahlfors map $f_a$ maximizing the modulus of the derivative at $a$).
Recent work by Marc Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011] supplies a sharp understanding of the gonality $\gamma$ as spreading through all permissible values $r\le \gamma \le r+p$ when the membrane is varied through its moduli space.
Paraphrased differently the conjecture wonders if a suitable Ahlfors map always realizes the gonality. As yet we lack evidence, but the vague feeling that Ahlfors’ method is the best possible (being distilled by the paradigm of extremality) inclines one to believe that its economy should be God given. In contradistinction, it may be argued that Ahlfors maps depend on so few parameters (essentially one or two points on the surface), that they are perhaps not flexible enough to explore the full room of all circle maps. Such simple minded question exemplifies that the old subject of the Ahlfors’ map still deserves better understanding. A fine understanding of the Ahlfors map would truly be worth studying if we had some clear-cut applications in mind (taking full advantage of the extremal property of the map). In practice, one is often content with the weaker notion of circle maps, but in the long run it is likely that more demanding applications requires the full punch of the Ahlfors map.
Sorting out applications: finite vs. infinite/compact vs. open
--------------------------------------------------------------
As to applications (of the Ahlfors map), there are several ramifications, which —at the risk of oversimplification—may be ranked in two headings ([*in finito*]{} vs. [*in infinito*]{}). By this we have in mind essentially the sharp opposition between compact and non-compact Riemann surfaces. The later were intensively approached by several schools (mostly Finnish, Japanese and US), but the theory is certainly less complete than for compact surfaces, which from our viewpoint already represent a serious challenge. Furthermore it is evident that there is essentially one and only one road leading from the finite to the infinite namely the exhaustion process affording a cytoplasmic expansion of a compact bordered Riemann surface in some ambient open surface. Now let us enumerate such applications.
\(A) [**Lifting truth from the disc via conformal transplantation.**]{} A reliable philosophy is roughly that a result known to hold good in the disc is lifted via the Ahlfors map to configurations of higher topological type. This is the strategy used by Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964] to transplant the corona of Carleson 1962 [@Carleson_1962] to Riemann surfaces. (The corona theorem amounts to say that the Riemann surface is dense in the maximal ideal space of its algebra of bounded analytic functions.)
In spectral theory this method (systematically utilized by Polyá-Szegö) is known as “[*conformal transplantation*]{}”. Subsequent elaborations arose through the work of Hersch 1970 [@Hersch_1970] and Yang-Yau 1980 [@Yang-Yau_1980] (where branched covering are admitted, thereby diversifying widely the topology).
Recently Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011] applied the Ahlfors mapping to spectral theory (Steklov eigenvalues). (This inspired a note of the writer [@Gabard_2011] extending Hersch 1970’s study of Dirichlet and Neumann eigenvalues on spherical membranes to arbitrary (compact) bordered surfaces.) Another spectacular work is due to Girouard-Polterovich 2012 [@Girouard-Polterovich_2012] where Fraser-Schoen’s work is extended to higher eigenvalues.
\(B) [**Exhaustion and infinite avatars.**]{} Another philosophy (Nevanlinna, Ahlfors, etc.) is to exploit the fact that (infinite, i.e. open Riemann surface) may be exhausted by compact subregions (reminding somehow the finitistic slogan of André Bloch, [*“Nihil est in infinito...”*]{}) offering thereby a wide range of application of compact bordered Riemann surfaces to the more mysterious realm of open Riemann surfaces. This ramifies quickly to the so-called classification theory of Riemann surface (Nevanlinna 1941 [@Nevanlinna_1941], Ahlfors 46, Sario 46–49, Parreau 1951 [@Parreau_1951], Royden 1952 [@Royden_1952], etc.) much completed by the Japanese school (Tôki 1951, A. Mori, Kuramochi, Kuroda, etc.). Several books attempt to give a coherent account of this big classification theory, e.g. Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960], Sario-Nakai 1970 [@Sario-Nakai_1970], where the guiding principle (due to Sario 1946) is to classify surfaces according to the force of their ideal boundary.
In another infinite direction, S.Ya. Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64] was the first (with Carleson 1967 [@Carleson_1967-book]) to extend the theory of the Ahlfors function to domains of infinite connectivity , and was followed by S. Fisher 1969 [@Fisher_1969], which propose some simplifications.
The Slovenian school of complex geometry (Černe, Forstnerič, Globevnik, etc.) are also employing the Ahlfors function, often in connection with the open problem (Narasimhan, Bell, Gromov, etc.) of deciding if any open Riemann surface embeds properly in ${\Bbb C}^2$. In Forstnerič-Wold 2009 [@Forstneric-Wold_2009] reduced the full problem to a finitary question as to whether each compact bordered Riemann surface embeds holomorphically in the plane ${\Bbb C}^2$. (Maybe this is achievable by a suitable of Ahlfors functions, or more sophisticated variant thereof like (?) in the broader Pick-Nevanlinna context). As suggested by those authors, it is maybe enough to embed one representant in each topological type (this is possible, compare Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002 Theorem 1.1]) and try to use a continuity argument through the Teichmüller (moduli) space.
Biased recollections of the writer {#Sec:Biased-recollections-of-Gabard}
==================================
Klein’s viewpoint: real curves as symmetric Riemann surfaces (as yet another instance of the Galois-Riemann Verschmelzung)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the writer is allowed to recollect his own memories about his involvement with this circles of ideas, it started as follows. Maybe a natural point of departure is the (basic) algebraic geometry of curves. While reading Shafarevich’s Basic algebraic geometry (ca. 1998) one encounters some nice drawings of the real locus of a plane cubic into its complex locus materialized by a torus (as we know since time immemorial: Euler?, Abel?, Jacobi, Riemann, etc.). A torus of revolution reflected across a plane cutting the torus along two circles yields a plausible visualization of the embedding of $C({\Bbb R})$ into $C({\Bbb C})$ (even with the symmetry induced by the complex conjugation).
Of course there are also real cubic curves whose real loci possess only one component. How to visualize the corresponding embedding? Lee Rudolph quickly helped us by just realizing that the Galois action (complex conjugation) acts over the torus $S^1\times S^1$ just by exchanging the two factors $(x,y)\mapsto (y,x)$ fixing thereby the diagonal (circle) $\{(x,x)\}\approx S^1$.
More generally how to picture out the topology of a real curve? The first observation is that the complex locus $C({\Bbb C})$ is acted upon by complex conjugation $\sigma$ relative to some ambient projective space ${\Bbb P}^n({\Bbb C})$ (where after all the concrete curve is embedded). Therefore to each real curve $C$ is assigned a [*symmetric surface*]{} $(C({\Bbb C}),
\sigma)=(X,\sigma)$ consisting of a pretzel $X$ together with an orientation reversing involution $\sigma\colon X\to X$. (For aesthetical reasons all of our algebraic curves are projective and non-singular, prompting thereby compactness of the allied Riemann surfaces.) With the invaluable assistance of (overqualified scholars) Claude Weber and Michel Kervaire, I learned how to classify such objects, according to the invariants $(g,r,a)$ where $g$ is the genus of $X$, $r$ the number of “ovals” (fixed under $\sigma$), and $a$ is the invariant counting mod 2 the number of components of $X-{\rm
Fix}(\sigma)$. In other words $a=0$ corresponds to the separating (or dividing) case where ${\rm Fix} (\sigma)$ disconnects $X$, whereas $a=1$ means that the fixed locus does not induce a morcellation of the surface.
I soon realized thanks to the paper Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981], that all this material was a well-known game for Felix Klein, who was essentially the first to classify symmetric surfaces taking advantage of the just established classification of compact bordered surfaces (Möbius 1863 [@Moebius_1863], Jordan 1866 [@Jordan_1866], etc.). The key trick is of course the yoga assigning to $(X,\sigma)$ its quotient $X/\sigma=:Y$ by the involution, and moving upward again via the orientation covering supplied by local orientations. If the point lies on the boundary then there is no duplication of the point by local orientations (alias “indicatrix” in older literature).
[(Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876]=[@Klein-Werke-II_1922 p.154], explicit in Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882], Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883])]{} There is one-to-one correspondence between symmetric surfaces and compact bordered surfaces. Moreover the correspondence extends to the realm of conformal geometry, i.e. Riemann surfaces or Klein surfaces, if you prefer.
[Modernized treatments of this Klein correspondence—say compatible with Weyl–Radó’s (1913/1925) abstract conception of the Riemann surface—are plenty, compare, e.g. Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939 p.99–101, Die Verdoppelung, §92, 93]=[@Teichmueller_1982], Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954 p.29–30, §2.2], Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971]. ]{}
Via this dictionary, it is plain that the dividing case corresponds precisely to the orientable case. \[As a matter of terminology, Klein used (since Wintersemester 1881/82) the jargon [*orthosymmetrisch*]{} versus [*diasymmetrisch*]{} corresponding to the dividing respectively nondividing case. For instance Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883 p.322] writes:
\[Weichold-1883:quote\]
Was ferner die symmetrischen Riemann’schen Flächen anbelangt, deren Betrachtung die Grundlage der folgenden Untersuchung bildet, so sind auch diese schon mehrfach behandelt worden, wenn auch zum Theil unter ganz anderen Gesichtspunkten. Es hat sich nämlich Herr Professor Klein in den Bänden VII und X der Mathem. Annalen in den Aufsätzen mit dem Titel: “Über eine neue Art von Riemann’schen Flächen” mit diesen Flächen eingehender beschäftigt und daselbst auch schon die Hauptunterscheidung derselben in orthosymmetrische und diasymmetrische Flächen aufgestellt. Diese Bezeichnung findet sich allerdings noch in keiner Publication angewendet; sie wurde zuerst in einem in Wintersemester 1881/82 von Herrn Professor Klein abgehaltenen Seminar eingeführt, in welchem derselbe auch die weiter unten erwähnte weitergehende Classification mittheite und bei welchem auch der Verfasser die unmittelbare Anregung für die vorliegende Arbeit empfing.
Perhaps it is worth tracking down further Klein’s motivation for this “savant” terminology; for this we supply the following extract:
\[Klein-1923:quote\]
Die Benennungen “diasymmetrisch” und “orthosymmetrisch” für die beiden Klassen symmetrischer Flächen wurden später von mir gerade wegen der im Text berührten Verhältnisse eingeführt; siehe Bd. 2 dieser Ausgabe, S.172. Vgl. auch Fu[ß]{}note $^{
58)}$ auf S.565/566 im vorliegenden Bande. K.
So this brings us at other places, the first cross-reference leads us to the following quote (whereas Fu[ß]{}note $^{ 58)}$ is merely a text written by Vermeil, not really worth reproducing here):
\[Klein-1892/22:quote\]
Reelle algebraische Kurven ergeben [*symmetrische*]{} Riemannsche Flächen und können umgekehrt allgemein gültig von letzteren aus defieniert werden, das ist der hier fundamentale Satz, den ich in §21 meiner Schrift entwickelte. Ich bezeichne dabei eine Riemannsche Fläche als symmetrisch, wenn sie durch eine konforme Abbildung zweiter Art von der Periode 2 in sich übergeführt wird (i.e. durch eine konforme Abbildung, welche die Winkel umlegt). Die symmetrischen Riemannschen Flächen eines gegebenen $p$ zerfallen, wie ich ebendort angab und Herr Weichold a.a.O. eingehender ausgeführt hat, nach der Zahl und Art ihrer “Symmetrielinien” in $[\frac{3p+4}{2}]$ Arten. Wir haben erstlich $[\frac{p+2}{2}]$ Arten [*orthosymmetrischer*]{} Flächen bez. mit $p+1, p-1, p-3, \dots$ Symmetrielinien; das sind solche symmetrische Flächen, welche längs ihrer Symmetrielinien zerschnitten, in zwei (zueinander symmetrische) Hälften zerfallen; — das einfachste (zu $p=0$ gehörige) Beispiel ist eine Kugel, welche durch “orthogonale” Projektion auf sich selbst bezogen ist —. Wir haben ferner $(p+1)$ Arten [*diasymmetrischer*]{} Flächen bzw. mit $p, p-1, \dots, 1, 0$ Symmetrielinien; das sind Flächen, die längs ihrer Symmetrielinien zerschnitten gleichwohl noch ein zusammenhängendes Ganzes vorstellen; — man vergleiche bei $p=0$, die durch eine “diametrale” Projektion auf sich selbst bezogene Kugel. —
Hence to summarize this explanation of Klein, the fundamental dichotomy seems to be motivated by the basic case of genus $0$ (the sphere), which may be acted upon in two fashions by a sense-reversing involution (orthogonal vs. diametral). This basic motivation is even more emphasized in Klein’s lectures, worth reproducing (despite its very elementary character):
\[quote:Klein-1891/92-ortho/dia\]
Wir beginnen damit, anzugeben, auf wieviel verschiedene Weisen eine Kugel mit sich selbst symmetrisch sein kann (d.h. durch eine $\Sigma$ von der Periode $2$ in sich selbst übergehen kann). Das ist offenbar auf $2$ wesentlich verschiedene Arten möglich: das eine Mal bezieht man die Kugel auf sich selbst durch eine Centralprojection, deren Centrum au[ß]{}erhalb liegt:
($1,1';2,2'; \dots$ sind entsprechende Puncte), das zweite mal durch eine Centralprojection, deren Centrum sich innererhalb der Kugel befindet.
Im ersten Falle giebt es auf der Kugel eine sogenannte , deren Puncte bei der Umformung sämmtlich festbleiben, das ist der Schnitt der Kugel mit der Polarebene des Projectionscentrums; im $2^{\rm ten}$ Falle giebt es eine solche Symmetrielinie nicht. Wir haben damit dasjenige Unterscheidungsmerkmal, nach welchem wir sogleich die symmetrischen Flächen einteilen: nach Erwähnen wir da gleich die Terminologie, welche ich anlä[ß]{}lich der Figuren 1 und 2 in Vorschlag gebracht habe. Figur 1 kann insbesondere so gezeichnet werden, da[ß]{} das Projectionscentrum unendlich weit liegt. Die Polarebene wird dann eine Diametralebene und die zugehörige Centralprojection eine orthogonale Projection. Ich sage dementschprechend überhaupt von der Figur 1, die Kugel sei bei der selben auf sich selbst bezogen. Die bei Figur 2 vorliegende Beziehung aber nenne ich , insofern bei ihr das Projectionscentrum, insbesondere in den Mittelpunkt der Kugel rücken kann, worauf je zwei diametrale Puncte der Kugel zusammengeordnet erscheinen. Diese Benennungen “orthosymmetrisch” u. “diasymmetrisch” übertrage ich dann demnächst in noch zu erklärender Weise auf die Flächen eines beliebigen $p$.
Ahlfors result precisely affords a deeper function-theoretical propagation of this Kleinian paradigm: orthosymmetric surfaces are precisely those mapping in totally real way to the orthosymmetric sphere!
The Russian school (Gudkov, Rohlin, Kharlamov, Viro, etc.) uses the (less imaginative) nomenclature Type I versus Type II, whose labelling is pure convention vintage; yet still a heritage from Klein’s initial nomenclature of 1876 [@Klein_1876]=[@Klein-Werke-II_1922 p.154] reproduced in the follwing:
\[Klein-1876:quote\]
Andererseits ergibt sich für die Kurven, deren Zügezahl $C>0$, $C<p+1$ eine bemerkenswerte Einteilung in zwei Arten.
[*Die Kurven der ersten Art haben die Eigenschaft, da[ß]{} ihre Riemannsche Fläche, längs der $C$ Züge zerschnitten, zerfällt: bei den Kurven der zweiten Art findet ein solches Zerfallen nicht statt.*]{}
Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.90] refers explicitly to Klein as follows:
\[Rohlin:quote\]
Following Klein (see \[4\], p.154), we say that $\alpha$ belongs to type I if $A$ splits ${\Bbb C}A$ and to type II if $A$ does not split ${\Bbb C}A$. For example, $M$-curves obviously belong to type I.
It is worth recalling that Rohlin made a surprisingly late discovery of Klein’s work as shown by the following extract:
\[Rohlin2:quote\]
As I learned recently, more than a hundred years ago, the problem of this article occupied Klein, who succeeded in coping with curves of degree $m\le 4$ (see \[4\], p.155). I do not know whether there are publications that extend Klein’s investigations.
It is concomitant to speculate that the infamous [*Klein bottle*]{} (=[*Kleinsche Fläche*]{} which traversed the Atlantic as a “Flasche”) probably originated during Klein’s study of real curves. It just amounts to have a real curve of genus one without real points, whose complex locus will be a torus (of revolution) acted upon by a diametral involution $(x,y,z)\mapsto (-x,-y,-z)$.
Criterion for Klein’s orthosymmetry=Type I, in Russian (Klein 1876–82; Rohlin 1978, Fiedler 1978 vs. Alling-Greenleaf 1969, Geyer-Martens 1977)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klein’s dichotomy for symmetric surfaces prompts for criterion detecting the dividing character of a real curve.
The writer knows of essentially two methods: the first being genetic and the other qualifiable of synthetic. Despite their simplicity those criterions where overlooked by Klein, who relied upon more complicated arguments (cf. the following optional remark).
[Besides, there are several other original methods due to Klein. One involves the dual curve, and more specifically a representation assigning to each imaginary point of the curve the real line passing through it and its conjugate. When the points becomes real the limiting position of this secant becomes the tangent. In this way Klein manages to visualize the complex locus of a plane curve living in the 4D-space ${\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb C})$ onto a the 2D real projective plane as a multiple cover, and to guess the type of the curve. Beautiful pictures are to be found in vol. II of his Ges. math. Abhandl. [@Klein-Werke-II_1922]). Another brilliant argument of Klein involves a degeneration to the hyperelliptic case.]{}
[**Genetic method.**]{} This is essentially a [*surgery*]{} (if we may borrow the jargon of Thom, Milnor, etc.), and applies primarily to curves gained by small perturbation of two curves whose type is known. Maybe it is best explained on a specific example. Consider the [*Gürtelkurve*]{} as a small deformation of two conics having two nested ovals. ([*Gürtel*]{} means “belt”, a nomenclature coined by Klein in 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf]=[@Klein-Werke-II_1922 p.111], presumably as a translation of the term “[*quartique annulaire*]{}” used by Zeuthen in 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874 p.417+Tafel I.,Fig.1].) Each conic corresponds to an equatorial sphere, and each smoothing amounts attaching a handle. During the process one can keep track of the two real braids to make a global drawing of the surface (compare right part of Figure \[Guertel-genetic:fig\]). Some contemplation of the drawing shows that when all smoothings are dictated by orientations then the resulting curve is dividing. Thus the Gürtelkurve is dividing. Indeed in this case all handles contains twisted braids and thus when travelling in the imaginary locus, say starting from position $A$ in the north (top) hemisphere of the left sphere and moving to the right sphere via an handle we reach position $B$ in the south hemisphere of the right sphere. Coming back to the left sphere, the twisting forces a return to the north hemisphere. We are thus never able to visit the south hemisphere of the left sphere.
-5pt0
-5pt0
[**Synthetic method.**]{} Another way to see the dividing character of the Gürtelkurve involves looking at the pencil of lines through a point lying deepest inside the two nested ovals (Figure \[Guertel-saturated:fig\]). Since each real line of this pencil cuts the quartic $C_4$ along a totally real collection of points, this induces a map between the imaginary loci $C_4({\Bbb
C})-C_4({\Bbb R})\to {\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb C})-{\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb R})$. It follows that $C_4$ is dividing since ${\Bbb P}^1$ is. (Just use the fact that the continuous image of a connected set is connected.)
-5pt0
-5pt0
More generally, this argument gives the following criterion (which quite curiously seems to have escaped Felix Klein’s attention, cf. e.g. his lectures notes 1891–92 [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen p.168–69], where in our opinion Klein draws the orthosymmetric character of the Gürtelkurve from more complicated arguments than those just given):
\[saturated:lemma\] If a real curve permits a morphism to the line whose fibers over real points are exclusively real, then the curve is dividing.
Conversely, one may wonder if any dividing curve is expressible as such a totally real cover of the line. I clearly remember having asked this question at several experts (ca. 1999), yet without receiving clear-cut answers, and so decided to embark on a self-study of this question. Being a slow and superficial worker, I needed circa 2 years of work until getting an answer, which turned to be positive:
\[saturated:Gabard\] [(Gabard 2001, first published in 2004)]{} Any dividing real curve admits a totally real morphism to the line. Moreover the degree of such a morphism can always be chosen $\le g+1$, where $g$ is the genus of the curve.
Having completed this work, I started some detective work, and via papers of Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977] and Alling-Greenleaf 1969 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969] (probably located via the bibliography of a survey by Natanzon 1990 [@Natanzon_1990/90]) realized that L.V. Ahlfors already proved this result in 1950 (and even exposed his results at Harvard in 1948 as reported in Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950]). This was a great deception, or rather more my first contact with the (glamorous) L.V. Ahlfors.
[**Very anecdotic details:**]{} However as Ahlfors’ result was not fairly well-known (among the real algebraic geometry community) I received a nice invitation to expose this re-discovery in a RAAG-conference at Rennes in 2001. It was a great pleasure to meet for the first time great specialists like Johannes Huisman, Natanzon, Finashin, Viro, etc. My original proof involved an argument with incompressible fluids and Abel’s theorem to prove (\[saturated:Gabard\]). Some one week after the talk (or maybe even during the week of that conference yet preceding my talk), I confusedly realized that my argument was probably vicious, and reworked it completely to find a topological parade, amounting to the paragraphs 5,6 of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. This argument looked more tangible and I was again invited to Rennes in 2001–2002 (by J. Huisman) to present it at a specialized seminar. At this stage I started to believe that one could improve the bound $g+1$ into $\frac{r+g+1}{2}$, which is the mean value of the number of ovals $r$ and the so-called [*Harnack bound*]{} $r\le g+1$. (In the abstract setting is truly a remark of Klein directly reducible to Riemann’s definition of the genus as the maximal number of retro-sections practicable on the pretzel without disconnecting, compare Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876 §7].) I needed some weeks (or months?) to establish this sharper version which gave a relative progress over Ahlfors.
\[saturated\_new:Gabard\] [(Gabard 2002, published 2004, 2006 [[@Gabard_2006]]{})]{} Any dividing real curve admits a totally real morphism to the line ${\Bbb P}^1$ of degree $\le \frac{r+g+1}{2}$, where $g$ is the genus of the curve and $r$ the number of “ovals” (=reellen Züge).
Using the Schottky(-Klein) double of a compact bordered Riemann surface (whose genus is visually seen to be $g=(r-1)+2p$) this can be translated as
\[saturated\_new\_bordered:Gabard\] Any compact bordered Riemann surface with $r$ contours of genus $p$ is conformally representable as full covering of the disc of degree $\le r+p$.
Dirichlet’s principle (Überzeugungskraft vs. mathematical comedy) {#Sec:Dirichlet}
=================================================================
This section (with parenthetical title derived from jokes by Hilbert 1905 [@Hilbert_1905] and Monna 1975 [@Monna_1975] resp.) recalls the early vicissitudes of a principle supported by strong physical evidence (as early as Green 1828 [@Green_1828] in print), which Riemann placed as the grounding for the edification of the theory of conformal mappings (and the allied Abelian integrals). This section can be skipped without any further ado, but it fixes the context out of which emerged (simpler?) variational problems more suited to pure function-theoretical purposes. However, Dirichlet’s principle (after Hilbert’s resurrection) pursued his life (especially in the fingers of Courant) and merged again to our main topic of the Ahlfors mapping (at least in the schlichtartig situation handled by Riemann-Schottky-Bieberbach-Grunsky). Of course, this “Dirichlet” line of thought is very active today, e.g., by Hildebrandt and his collaborators. In short, Dirichlet’s principle flourished above any expectation by Riemann, was “killed” by Weierstrass, but resurrected by Hilbert, yet re-marginalized by extremal methods (Fejér-Riesz, Carathéodory, Ostrowski, Grunsky, up to Ahlfors) and re-flourished by Douglas and Courant as a (reliable) instrument for the existence of conformal mappings.
Chronology (Green 1828, Gauss 1839, Dirichlet ca. 1840, Thomson 1847, Kirchhoff 1850, Riemann 1851–57, Weierstrass 1859/70, etc.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from a early contribution of Gauss 1825 [@Gauss_1825] about local isothermic parameters (conformal mappings in the small), the “global” theory of such mappings emerged from Riemann’s Thesis 1851 [@Riemann_1851] and his subsequent work 1857 [@Riemann_1857] on abelian functions. A landmark is the [*Riemann mapping theorem*]{} (RMT) (cf. Riemann 1851 [@Riemann_1851], and Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857]), derived from the so-called [*Dirichlet principle*]{}. This was apparently formulated by Dirichlet as long ago as the early 1840’s (lectures in Berlin, attended by Riemann in 1847/49). (The Göttingen 1856/57 version of those were published by Grube in 1876 as [@Dirichlet_1840-1876].) Independent formulations (or utilizations) of this principle are due to Gauss 1839 [@Gauss_1839], Thomson 1847 [@Thomson_1847] (popularizing the long neglected work of Green 1828 [@Green_1828]) and Kirchhoff 1850 [@Kirchhoff_1850]. It is known that Riemann knew all those works (when exactly in another question) from a manuscript estimated 1855/60 reproduced below (source=Neuenschwander 1981 [@Neuenschwander_1981 p.225]). Riemann does not cite Thomson and Kirchhoff in 1857 [@Riemann_1857].
Mit dem Namen des Dirichlet’schen Princip’s habe ich eine Mehode bezeichnet, um nachzuweisen, da[ß]{} eine Function durch eine partielle Differentialgleichung und geeignete lineare Grenzbedingungen völlig bestimmt ist, d.h.da[ß]{} die Aufgabe, eine Function diesen Bedingungen gemä[ß]{} zu bestimmen, eine Lösung und zwar nur eine einzige Lösung zulä[ß]{}t. Es ist diese Methode von William Thomson in seiner Note Sur une équation aux différences (Liouville.T.12.p.493.) und von Kirchhoff in seiner Abhandlung über die Schwingungen einer elastischen Scheibe angewandt worden, nachdem Gau[ß]{} schon vorher eine Aufgabe, welche als ein specieller Fall dieser Aufgabe betrachtet werden kann, ähnlich behandelt hatte (Allgemeine Lehrsätze.Art.29–34.) Ich habe diese Methode nach Dirichlet benannt, da ich von Hrn Professor Dirichlet erfahren hatte, da[ß]{} er sich dieser Methode schon $\langle$seit dem Anfang der vierziger Jahre (wenn ich nicht irre) \[Bl.66r\]$\rangle$ in seinen Vorlesungen bedient habe.
There is also a letter of Riemann dated 30.Sept.1852 (cf.Neuenschwander 1981 [@Neuenschwander_1981-lettres]), where it is reported that Dirichlet supplied some references to Riemann. Here is the relevant extract, out of which we may speculate that Riemann learned the ref. to Thomson and Kirchhoff at this occasion (through Dirichlet).
[Am Freitag Morgen, um in meinem Berichte fortzufahren, suchte Dirichlet mich in meinem Zimmer auf. Ich hatte ihn bei meiner Arbeit um Rath gefragt und er gab mir nun die dazu nöthigen Notizen so vollständig, da[ß]{} mir dadurch die Sache sehr erleichtert ist. Ich hätte nach manchen Dingen auf der Bibliothek sonst lange suchen können. D.\[irichlet\] war überhaupt äu[ß]{}erst nett theilte mir mit, womit er sich in den letzten Jahren beschäftigt hatte, ging meine Dissertation mit mir durch; und so hoffe ich, da[ß]{} er mich auch später nicht vergessen und mir seine Theilnahme schenken wird. ]{}
As we know the principle was disrupted by the (non-fatal) Weierstrass’ critique 1870 [@Weierstrass_1870], but resuscitated by Hilbert in 1900-1 [@Hilbert_1900] [@Hilbert_1901/04] [@Hilbert_1905], after partial results by Neumann 1870, 1878 [@Neumann_1878], and 1884 [@Neumann_1884] Schwarz 1869/70 [@Schwarz_1869-70_Zur-Theorie-der-Abbildung], 1870 [@Schwarz_1870], 1872 [@Schwarz_1872] ([*alternierendes Verfahren*]{}) and Poincaré for fairly general boundary contours.
Dirichlet’s principle (as Riemann christened it in 1857 [@Riemann_1857-DP]) amounts to solve the first boundary value problem for the Laplacian $\Delta u=0$ by minimizing the Dirichlet integral $$\int\!\!\int \Big\{ \bigl(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}\bigr)^2+\bigl(\frac{\partial
u}{\partial y}\bigr)^2\Big\} dx dy.$$ As a such the paradigm of [*extremality*]{} entered the arena of geometric function theory since its earliest day, and governed much of the subsequent developments.
Other noteworthy hot spots in this realm are:
$\bullet$ [*The Bieberbach conjecture*]{} (1916 [@Bieberbach_1916-BC]) $\vert a_n \vert \le n$ on the coefficients of schlicht (=univalent=injective) functions from the disc $\Delta=\{ \vert z \vert <1 \}$ to the (finite) plane ${\Bbb C}$ with Koebe’s function $k(z)=\frac{z}{(1-z)^2}=z+2z^2+3z^3+\dots$ as unique extremals among those satisfying the normalization $f(0)=0,f'(0)=1$. Completely solved by de Branges 1984.
$\bullet$ Grötzsch-Teichmüller extremal quasi-conformal mappings (1928–1939 [@Teichmueller_1939]), i.e. the search of the “möglichst konform” mapping relating two configurations. This gave a sound footing to Riemann’s liberal study of the moduli spaces (1857 [@Riemann_1857]), and paved the way to the modern theory of deformation of complex structures (Kodaira-Spencer).
Early suspicions about the Dirichlet principle (Weierstra[ß]{} 1859/70, Schwarz 1869, Prym 1871, Hadamard 1906)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weierstrass seems to have been the first to express doubts about the Dirichlet principle, pivotal to Riemann’s theory. Weierstrass lectured on his critique in 1870, and this appeared in print as late as 1894 in his Werke. However it is known that a meeting between Riemann and Weierstrass took place in Berlin, 1859, where this issue was discussed. Klein reports upon Riemann’s reaction at several places:
Er \[Riemann\] erkannte die Berechtigung und Richtigkeit der Weierstra[ß]{}chen Kritik zwar voll an; sagte aber, wie mir Weierstra[ß]{} bei Gelegenheit erzählte: “er habe das Dirichletsche Prinzip nur als ein bequemes Hilfsmittel herangeholt, das gerade zur Hand war—seine Existenztheoreme seien trotzdem richtig.” Weierstra[ß]{} hat sich dieser Meinung wohl angeschlossen. Er veranla[ß]{}te nämlich seinen Schüler H.A. Schwarz, sich eingehend mit den Riemannschen Existenzsätzen zu befassen und andere Beweise dafür zu suchen, was durchaus gelang.
Ich erinnere mich, da[ß]{} Weierstrass mir bei Gelegenheit erzählte, Riemann habe auf die Gewinnung seiner Existenzsätze durch das “Dirichletsche Prinzip” keinerlei entscheidenden Wert gelegt. Daher habe ihm auch seine (Weierstrass’) Kritik des “Dirichletschen Prinzips” keinen besonderen Eindruck gemacht. Jedenfalls ergab sich die Aufgabe, die Existenzsätze auf andere Art zu beweisen. Diese dürfte dann Weierstrass seinem Spezialschüler Schwarz übertragen haben, bei dem er die erforderliche Verbindung geometrisch-anschaulichen Denkens mit der Fähigkeit, analytische Konvergenzbeweise zu führen, bemerkt hatte.
A more detailed chronology is roughly as follows (cf. Elstrodt-Ullrich 1999 [@Elstrodt-Ullrich_1999 p.285–6]):
$\bullet$ In the late 1850s Weierstrass notices some gap in the Dirichlet principle (DP), and presents his objection to Riemann in 1859, who is not tremendously affected claiming that his existence theorems keep however their truths.
$\bullet$ Thieme 1862, who met Riemann and requested from him some elucidations about his theory of Abelian functions, and the conversation turned to the foundation of the Dirichlet’s principle. This is materialized by a letter of Thieme to Dedekind of 1878 (reproduced in Elstrodt-Ullrich 1999 [@Elstrodt-Ullrich_1999 p.270–1], or as Quote \[quote:Thieme\] below)
$\bullet$ Kronecker 1864, in a discussion with Casorati, also exposes some criticism of the (DP). This is materialized by notes taken by Casorati, and published by Neuenschwander 1978
$\bullet$ Schwarz 1869 [@Schwarz_1869-Ueber-einige-Abbildungsaufgaben p.120] expresses for the first time in print doubts about (DP) (compare Quote \[quote:Schwarz-1869\] below).
$\bullet$ Heine February 1870 [@Heine_1870 p.360] also puts in print the reserves expressed by Weierstrass and Kronecker, specifically their objections to the assumption that a minimum must exist.
$\bullet$ Weierstrass July 1870 [@Weierstrass_1870] presents a variational problem where the minimum is not attained. This note, however, appeared in print only in 1895 in the second volume of Weierstrass’s Werke [@Weierstrass_1870].
$\bullet$ Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871 p.361–4] gives the first (published) counterexample to the (DP) (as formulated, e.g. in Grube’s text 1876 [@Dirichlet_1840-1876] based upon Dirichlet’s lectures). Prym gives a continuous function on the boundary of the unit disc such that the Dirichlet integral for the associated harmonic solution to the Dirichlet problem is infinite. However Prym expressly emphasizes that Riemann never stated such a naive version of DP corrupted by Prym’s example. In fact Prym’s example seems rather to attack a vacillating attempt by Weber 1871 [@Weber_1870] to rescue the Dirichlet principle.
\[quote:Schwarz-1869\]
Dass es stets möglich ist, die einfach zusammenhängende Fläche, welche von einer aus Stücken analytischer Curven bestehenden einfachen Linie begrenzt ist, auf die Fläche eines Kreises zusammenhangend und in den kleinsten Theilen ähnlich abzubilden, hat [*Riemann*]{} mit Zuhülfenahme des sogenannten [*Dirichlet*]{}schen Principes zu beweisen gesucht.
Da gegen die Zulässigkeit dieses Principes bei einem Existenzbeweise hinsichtlich der Strenge gegründete Einwendungen geltend gemacht worden sind, war es wünschenswerth, ein Beweisverfahren zu besitzen, gegen welches die bezüglich des [*Dirichlet*]{}schen Principes geltend gemachten Bedenken nicht erhoben werden konnten.
\[quote:Thieme\]
Vielleicht werden Sie sich meiner noch erinnern, als ich mich im Sommer 1862 in Göttingen aufhielt um bei Riemann Aufklärung über seine Theorie der Abel’schen Funct. zu erbitten. Ich traf Sie damals in der Krone, wo wir beide abgestiegen waren, und das Gespräch kam auf die, meiner damaligen Meinung nach (was seitdem vielseitig anerkannt), nicht ganz stichhaltige Begründung des Dirichlet’schen Princips, welches in der Riemann’sche Theorie fundamental ist.
Philosophical remarks {#Sec:Philosophical}
=====================
Flexibility of 2D-conformal maps
--------------------------------
Maybe one way to enlarge slightly the discussion at the philosophical level is to observe some unifying plasticity in conformal maps. The underlying principle is roughly as follows:
If there is no topological obstruction to a mapping problem, then a conformal mapping exist.
This idea is very close to Koebe’s allgemeines Uniformisierungsprinzip in Koebe 1908 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3], which is stated as follow [*Jedes Problem der im Sinne der Analysis situs eine Lösung hat kann auch funktiontheoretisch verwirklicht werden.*]{}
Of course this is not quite true in view of say Riemann’s moduli for closed (or non closed) Riemann surfaces. However seminal instances where it works are the (RMT), the uniformization theorem (UNI) \[any simply-connected Riemann surface is biholomorphic to the sphere, the plane or the disc\], and the more general Koebe schlicht theorem to the effect that a schlichtartig Riemann surface is schlicht. Here the topological condition of “Schlichtartigkeit” (i.e. any Jordan curve divides) implies the stronger conformal embeddablility in the Riemann sphere.
[(Koebe 1908 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3], 1910 [@Koebe_1910_UAK2])]{} Any dichotomic[^6] (=schlichtartig) Riemann surface (i.e. one divided by any Jordan curve) embeds conformally in the Riemann sphere.
Since simply-connected implies dichotomic this implies the (UNI) via (RMT).
An even stronger assertion is Bochner 1928 that any Riemann surface of finite connectivity embeds in a closed Riemann surface.
Ahlfors’ result about circle maps likewise illustrates the above principle (CP), especially if we interpret it in Klein’s theory of symmetric surfaces (compare Lemma \[saturated:lemma\]).
Free-hand pictures of some Riemann-Ahlfors maps
-----------------------------------------------
It would be nice if some general methodology for picturing such mappings could be developed. Let us try a naive look for domains (Riemann surface are harder but not hopeless). Maybe first a comment by Poritsky 1949–52 [@Poritsky_1949-52:Book p.21]:
From the above it is clear that analytical methods, at least as developed thus far, have only limited power in solving the complicated field problems arising in electric machines. Electrical engineers have resorted extensively to the use of “flux plotting” or [*free-hand drawing*]{} of the flux lines and equipotentials. As is well known, these curves, when drawn for constant equal increments $\Delta \varphi=\Delta \psi$, form a curvilinear set of [*small squares*]{}. A certain aptitude, somewhat between mechanical drawing ability and artistic drawing, is required for successful flux plotting, and with practice people possessing such aptitude can learn to draw flux plots for a great variety of cases with relative ease.
The picture below (Fig.\[Riemann:fig\]) is supposed to depict the pullback of the radial-concentric bi-foliation of the disc via a conformal representation of this 4-ply connected circle domain by a Riemann map to the disc. (Usually the term “Riemann map” is reserved for the simply-connected case, but recall that Riemann was the first to prove the existence of such maps, cf. Riemann 1857/76 Nachlass [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass]). Physically one may try to interpret it at the galvanic current generated by 4 batteries (electric charge) situated on a conducting plate. Whenever the potential generated by two charge enter in conflicts some saddle type singularity is generated (those can be counted via an Euler characteristic argument à la Riemann-Hurwitz). In the present case there is 6 saddles. In general $\chi D=d \chi
(\Delta) -\deg (R)$, and $\chi D=2-r$ (holed sphere) and the degree $d$ is $d=r$, hence there is $\deg(R)=2r-2$ ramification points. (This was of course well-known to Riemann, compare his Nachlass, or Quote \[quote:Riemann\]). Dashed lines are equipotentials.
-5pt0
-5pt0
This sort of picture as mystical as it is (the reader confesses to have had some trouble to generate it without grasping completely the possible physico-chemical interpretation) gives the impression of grasping slightly Riemann’s title to his Nachlass (Gleichgewicht der Electricität), i.e. equilibrium potential of electricity. Our figure is pure free-hand drawing without much scientific understanding. Thus it would be nice if the computer can do better pictures, maybe via the Bergman kernel (an eminently computable object, compare e.g. Bell papers). In particular albeit it looks physically obvious, it is not clear if the charge may be placed arbitrarily. (For instance it is not clear why the corresponding divisor should be linearly equivalent to its conjugate, compare Lemme 5.2 in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].)
\[Some related references: Henrici Computational conformal map, Gaier, Konstruktive methoden in Konformen Abbildungen, etc... Or maybe Crowdy via the Klein’s prime\]
Extracting some global understanding in the non-schlicht case of such isothermic coordinates may be of some relevance to Gromov’s filling conjecture.
Further for less contours we may do similar pictures, and we then obtain the following figures (Fig.\[Annulus:fig\]). The fact that the boundary contours are circles is not crucial (but convenient for simple depiction). First we draw the electrical forces in the case of an annulus. Then we made two pictures for triply-connected with symmetrically disposed battery (electrical charge). Geometrically those are supposed to be the pull-back of the origin under the Riemann-Ahlfors map. Finally we would like to make a similar picture in the case where the charge distribution is not symmetric. Then the picturing becomes very difficult. Already in the symmetric cases it is hard to be convinced that what we are doing is really serious. There is a sort of subconscious algorithm to make such pictures: (1) first draw the thick black lines where the particles enter in collision, (2) draw at angle $\pi/4$ the dual saddle at those collision point, and then the filling by thin lines is essentially a matter of artistic feeling. Of course it is not always easy to arrange such that all lines meet perpendicularly, but experience gives some sort of algorithm to do this. Of course it is quite convenient to do such pictures on a computer rather than on the paper, as one can adjust trajectories by successive approximations. As we used a software Adobe Illustrator; with Bézier curves, thus the mathematical faithfulness of all this picture is highly questionable, but we hope that the picture are still of some qualitative value to help visualize such mappings, and to feel some sort of physical interpretation. One guess is that it amounts to have some positive electric charge at the marked point plus perhaps a distribution of such charges on the border. Then each positive particle is rejected by the charge and the border. Thus the particle move faster when there is much free-room in the plate. Alternatively one may have a biological interpretation where the source are bacteroides and the black line show the progression of the growing population which is faster in those direction where there is much vital room (imagine herbivores). Then the saddle amounts to junctions between various ethnical population, and at time one the full universe is explored. In this interpretation the proliferation of species can be slowed down either by proximity to the border (limitation of resources), or by vicinity of a competing population.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Hard problems and the hyperelliptic claustrophobia
--------------------------------------------------
Another unifying theme when it comes to hard problems regarding Riemann surfaces is the following constat:
Several problems are fully settled in the hyperelliptic case, but horribly complicated otherwise.
This is a paradigm well known since time immemorial. Probably one of the first problem were it came acute was Jacobi’s inversion problem occupying Jacobi, then Göpel and Rosenhain (hyperelliptic case) and only Weierstrass and above all Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857] could handle the general case. (Weierstrass never managed to put in print his own approach probably due to the extreme difficulty to follow an arithmetized path.) Another place is Klein’s trick of degeneresence to the hyperelliptic configurations (cf. Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet]).
In some more contemporary problems we already addressed briefly this hyperelliptic barrier also delineate the current frontier of knowledge regarding:
\(1) The Gromov filling area conjecture (compare the work by Bangert et al. [@Bangert_2004] where the conjecture is established in the hyperelliptic case, hence in particular for membranes of genus $p=1$).
\(2) The Forstnerič-Wold conjecture [@Forstneric-Wold_2009] that compact bordered Riemann surface embeds in ${\Bbb C}^2$ (this is also known in the hyperelliptic case).
\(3) The exact determination of Ahlfors degrees à la Yamada-Gouma (this is also settled in the hyperelliptic case, but not much seems to be known beyond those configurations).
Topological methods
-------------------
We started our Introduction by claiming that topological methods have some relevance to the field of function theory, Riemann surfaces, and the allied fields.
The experience of the writer in this realm is rather modest and essentially reduces to his lucky stroke in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], about lowering the degree of a circle map upon the prediction made by Ahlfors for his extremal function.
Such topological methods are quite common in function theory (Riemann, Klein, Poincaré, Brouwer, Koebe, etc.) albeit occupying a marginal place in comparison to potential-theoretic consideration or the allied quantitative extremum problems. Let us list some contributions using qualitative topological methods in the realm of classical function theory:
\(1) The most famous (and probably important) example is the continuity method of Klein-Poincaré related to the uniformization problem. (Prior to this we may detect earlier trace of the continuity method, as one learns by reading Koebe 1912 [@Koebe_1912_BdKm], in the work of Schwarz-Christoffel and Schläfli.)
\(2) The intuitions of Klein-Poincaré were put on a firm footing by Brouwer 1912 [@Brouwer_1912_Modulmannig], [@Brouwer_1912_top-Schwierig], using invariance of domain which he was the first able to prove via combinatorial topology.
\(3) Closer to our main topic, we cite Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949] who also relies heavily on combinatorial topology to select appropriately certain auxiliary parameters.
\(4) Mizumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960], who reproves the existence of (Ahlfors-type) circle map of degree $r+2p$ (i.e. like Ahlfors bound).
\(5) Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], where the degree is lowered to $r+p$ (also via topological methods).
Roughly, the philosophy is that Riemann surfaces are volatile objects when fluctuating through their moduli spaces, so that practically nothing is observable outside the inherent topological substratum which turns out to behave rather stably say w.r.t. the Abel-Jacobi mapping. At least this is philosophical substance of the proof in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
Bordered Riemann surfaces and real algebraic curves
---------------------------------------------------
It may seem at first that bordered surfaces are a bit borderline deserving less respectableness than the temple of closed Riemann surfaces. Likewise real algebraic geometry always appears like a provincial subdiscipline of pure complex algebraic geometry of the best stock.
Perhaps, less is true. The rehabilitation of reality within algebraic geometry is in good portion, especially regarding the connection with bordered (possibly) non-orientable surfaces, the credit of Felix Klein (especially in 1882 [@Klein_1882]). Moreover, independently of the algebro-geometric analytic correspondence (à la Riemann, etc.) there is another simple reason for which bordered (Riemann) surfaces took gradually more-and-more importance during the 20th century, especially under the fingers of the Finnish and Japanese schools. This pivotal rôle of compact bordered objects results indeed merely from their intervention as building elements of general open surfaces. The latter being always exhaustible through such compact elements as follows easily from Radó’s triangulability theorem of 1925 [@Rado_1925]. Once again this illustrates basically the philosophy “Nihil est in infinito…”.
Remind also that the device of exhaustion by finite (=compact) surface is somewhat older than those schools. It may have first occurred in Poincaré 1883 [@Poincare_1883] (where analytic curves or open Riemann surfaces are first taken seriously and subsumed to the uniformization paradigm) and then Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UbaK1] in same context. To caricature a bit Koebe’s proof, it amounts to use the RMT for compact discs (in a version cooked by Schwarz) and expand in the large. The exhaustion device is again used in Nevanlinna 1941 [@Nevanlinna_1941], where via exhaustions one constructs the corresponding so-called harmonic measure solving the Dirichlet problem for boundary values $0$ and $1$ on the initial resp. expanding contours of the exhaustion $F_n$, yielding the “Nullrand” dichotomy according to whether the $\omega_n$ flatten to $0$ or converge to a positive function. Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] also uses (or planned to use) a similar technique for other problem. This was enough to launch the big classification programme of open Riemann surfaces.
This philosophy is surely so well-known that it was probably not worth insisting on it so vaguely. Of course, in practice this is not a simple game but one which has experimented certain successes in the past.
Lebesgue versus Riemann
-----------------------
\[11.10.12\] This paragraph is free-style philosophical lucubration coming to me right after reading the fantastic paper Forelli 1978 [@Forelli_1979]. From a narrow minded viewpoint (the writer having zero measure theoretic knowledge) it seems that modernism, especially along the “capitalistic” line of thought involving measure theory, albeit initially quite concomitant with the (older complex) function theory, ultimately may have drifted a vast body of the vital fluid in a somewhat arid valley. (For a somewhat related diagnostic cf. Morse-Heins 1947 [@Morse-Heins_1947].)
Let us be more specific. Circa 1898 the way was paved toward measure theory starting from function theoretic preoccupations (not to mention the earlier “Cantorism” starting from Fourier series). We have of course in mind E. Borel 1898 [@Borel_1898], and then the stream along Lebesgue 1902 [@Lebesgue_1902], Fatou 1906 [@Fatou_1906], the old brother F. Riesz 1907 (Fischer-Riesz effecting an Hilbert-Lebesgue unification, etc.). All those grandiose efforts/achievements may have polluted the pureness of (Riemann’s) geometric conceptions by charging the theory with complicated pathological paradigms not truly inherent to its geometric substance (at least in its finitistic aspects, which are not completely elucidated yet, e.g. Gromov’s filling conjecture). Of course the antagonism we are speaking about goes back to older generations, e.g. already acute in the Hermite vs. Jordan opposition, who were resp. anti- and pro-Lebesgue[^7]). This tension is also felt when it comes to prove existence of circle maps, where say proofs like Ahlfors’ 1950 [@Mizumoto_1960], Mitzumoto’s 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960], and many others (maybe even Gabard’s 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) proceeds along essentially classical lines, often emphasizing the soft topological category (very implicit by Riemann-Klein-Poincaré-Brouwer) instead of measure theory (again Borel-Lebesgue-Fatou-Riesz). Of course initially topology also arose from capitalism over the real line, namely the notion of metric (distance function). Yet ultimately the theory (be it axiomatically Bolzano-Cantor-Hilbert-Fréchet-Riesz-Hausdorff-Weyl or through educated intuition Riemann-Klein-Poincaré-Brouwer-Thurston) reached some higher romantic stratosphere producing some lovely science essentially the most remote from capitalistic preoccupation we were able to produce. Alas or fortunately, Grisha Perelman (and precursors Thurston/Yau-Hamilton) showed us that the likewise pleasant Riemannian geometry (albeit slightly more quantitative) turned to have some important topological impact (typically over Poincaré’s conjecture).
In a survey article by Lebesgue (ca. 1927, easy to locate), a rather primitive mercantile metaphor is appealed upon to argue that his theory of integration supersedes Riemann’s. Lebesgue argues that when a huge amount of money (delivered as a chaotic mixture of pieces and bills) requires enumeration, his theory amounts to count things properly by first enumerating what has highest value and then paying attention to the more negligible money pieces. This procedure is tantamount to subdividing rather the range of the function as do Lebesgue instead of its domain as did Cauchy or Riemann. The bulk of the US production (Rudin, Gamelin, Forelli and many others) in the 1950-1970’s is much influenced by measure flavored analysis, and the art-form continues to prosper with deep paradigms allied to Painlevé’s problem (fully solved in Tolsa 2003 [@Tolsa_2003]).
In contrast, some older workers, e.g. Koebe (cf. Gray’s 1994 paper [@Gray_1994]) as well as Lindelöf (cf. Ahlfors’ 1984 [@Ahlfors_1984-The-Joy]) (and probably more recent ones) were never full partisans of Lebesgue’s integral. Of course the latter theory added a mass of grandiose contributions, yet in some finitary problems like the one at hand (Ahlfors circle maps) its significance can probably be marginalized, or completely eliminated. So measure theory exists, but does it really capture the quintessence of the problematic we are interested in, which is more likely to be first of a [*qualitative*]{} nature (coarse existence theory). Arguably, the next evolution step is the [*quantitative*]{} phase (e.g. Ahlfors extremal problem, which is essentially solved modulo fluctuating incertitudes about degree variations of such maps). Finally any theory should culminate in the [*algorithmic*]{} era, that is claustrophobic (computer ripe) era. Remind that Riemann precisely disliked Jacobi’s approach, finding it too algorithmic and not conceptual enough (according to some forgotten source, try maybe Klein’s history [@Klein_1926-Vorlesungen-über-die-Entwicklung]: “Jacobi war ihm zu algorithmisch.” \[quoted by memory\]). At such a stage it is safer to let computers do the work, but of course it remains to find the algorithms. Will the machine not quickly be more fluent in this game as well? (Compare the little green men survey by David Ruelle in Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. ca . 1986, who tabulated on the imminence of machines cracking theorems with more ease than we are able to do. Hopefully so, since the goal of any science (indeed any living being) is to reach immortality.
So if measure theory and general open (=non-compact) Riemann surfaces inclines much to Lebesgue (and the like), it seems evident that still much work must be clarified at the more basic (combinatorial) geometric level of simpler objects, e.g. super classical algebraic geometry should be cultivated again to penetrate more deeply in a variety of problems still unsolved.
Prehistory of Ahlfors {#Sec:Prehistory-Ahlfors}
=====================
This section attempts a fairly exhaustive tabulation of works antedating Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], bearing more-or-less direct connection to it. In some critical cases, some of those may also be considered as (vague?) anticipations of the Ahlfors mapping by other “pretenders”. In chronological order, we shall discuss contributions of Riemann 1857–58–76, Schottky 1875–77, Klein ca. 1876–82–92, Koebe ca. 1907, Bieberbach 1925, Grunsky 1937–41–49, Courant 1937–39–50, Teichmüller 1941.
Our history is not intended to be a smoothly readable account inclining to passive somnolence, but rather one inviting to further active searches to clarify several puzzling aspects, where in our opinion historical continuity is violently lacking. Historical turbulences arise mostly from several links hard to track down due to poor cross-referencing (especially in the case of Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941], who seems to credit Klein for a sort of qualitative version of the Ahlfors circle map, yet without bound upon the degree). In contrast, the first steps, i.e. the affiliation Riemann-Schottky-Bieberbach-Grunsky is well documented (but confined to planar surfaces, hence inferior to Ahlfors’ work). Courant’s contribution is more in the trend Dirichlet-Riemann-Plateau-Hilbert, but ultimately a bit sketchy when it comes to compare with Ahlfors.
Regarding Koebe, he was quite influenced by Klein’s orthosymmetry (which bears a direct connection to Ahlfors’ conformal circle map via the algebro-geometric viewpoint), but was more involved with uniformization (in particular of real curves) and the [*Kreisnormierungsprinzip*]{} (rooted back in Schottky, if not Riemann). Koebe’s work concentrates more upon conformal diffeomorphisms than branched covers. Perhaps an exception concerns his later works ca. 1910 influenced by Hilbert, where he comes to investigate more closely non-schlichtartig surfaces. However in the overall we could not find (as yet) in the torrential series of Koebe’s papers a clear-cut anticipation of Ahlfors’ result. (Relevant works of Koebe will in fact rather be surveyed in the next section.)
To summarize we have located essentially 3 potential forerunners of the Ahlfors circle map:
\(1) Klein, through a citation (or rather allusion) of Teichmüller in 1941 (supplied without precise reference!) and to which we were not able to supply sound footing (despite long searches through Klein’s collected papers, plus his harder-to-find Göttingen lectures in 1891–92 [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen], [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen]). In case no trace is to be found in Klein’s work, it is conceivable that Teichmüller distorted somehow his memory about Klein, in which case Teichmüller should be regarded as the genuine forerunner. It may be imagined that a micro-tunnel (=logical wormhole) links Klein to Ahlfors, and this may have existed in Teichmüller’s brain (but as far as I know no proofs are to be found in print).
\(2) Courant who makes a vague claim that the result of Riemann-Schottky-Bieberbach-Grunsky extend to configurations of higher genus. If Courant’s claim is correct, it would be of extreme interest to present the details, especially if it is possible to write down the bound arising from Courant’s argument (inspired from Plateau’s problem).
\(3) Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48] and Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950].
Tracing back the early history (Riemann 1857, Schwarz, Schottky 1875–77, H. Weber 1876, Bieberbach 1925, Grunsky 1937–50, Wirtinger 1942)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Grunsky’s papers (1937 [@Grunsky_1937], 1941 [@Grunsky_1941_KA], both cited in Ahlfors 1950’s paper) one can trace down the early history of Ahlfors theorem back to the very origin (i.e. Riemann) as follows. Grunsky was Bieberbach’s student. The latter proved a version of this theorem (yet without the extremal interpretation) for planar (schlichtartig membrane, i.e. $p=0$) in Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]. In this paper, one detects an early influence of Schottky’s Dissertation (Berlin 1875, under Weierstrass) published 1877 [@Schottky_1877], as well as a Nachlass of Riemann estimated of 1857 (which was published in his Werke ca. 1876). Riemann apparently only handles the case of a [*Kreisbereich*]{} (circular domain), yet it seems that Heinrich Weber—who edited this Riemann’s Nachlass—may have considerably amputated the original manuscript. (Of course it would be a first class Leistung if some specialist of Riemann’s work would undertake the difficult project of producing a more all-inclusive account.) Let us reproduce the introduction of Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]:
\[quote:Bieberbach-1925\] [Es handelt sich in dieser Arbeit um die Abbildung eines mehrfach zusammenhängenden schlichten Bereiches auf eine mehrfach bedeckte Kreisscheibe. Insbesondere stelle ich mir die Aufgabe, zu beweisen, da[ß]{} ein $n$-fach zusammenhängender Bereich stets auf eine $n$-blättrige Kreisscheibe abgebildet werden kann. Die erste im Druck erschienene Arbeit, die sich mit diesen Fragen beschäftigt, ist die Dissertation von Schottky (Berlin 1875), die im 83. Bande des Crelleschen Journal abgedruckt ist. Die Frage nach der kleinstmöglichen Blätterzahl ist dort nicht behandelt, aber die Analogie und die Beziehung zur Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen und ihrer Integrale liegt den Betrachtungen zugrunde, und auch die Beziehung zur Theorie der linearen Differentialgleichungen 2. Ordnung kommt zum Vorschein. Wie mir Herr Schottky erzählte, machte bald darauf H.A. Schwarz darauf aufmerksam, da[ß]{} sich Riemann im Sommer 1857 bereits mit der eingangs erwähnten Frage beschäftigte. In der von H. Weber bearbeiteten Darstellung dieses Teils des Riemannschen Nachlasses findet sich freilich keine volle Erledigung der Frage. Ich finde, da[ß]{} auch nicht alle Gedanken des Riemannschen Manuskriptes zur Verwendung kamen. (Vrgl. Riemanns Werke 2.Auflage S.440–444) Riemann knüpft bei seinen Überlegungen an die Theorie der linearen Differentialgleichungen an. Die Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen wird nach der Weberschen Darstellung zur Lösung des Abbildungsproblems nicht herangezogen. Dagegen scheinen mir die Riemannschen Notizen zu lehren, da[ß]{} Riemann auch einen über die Theorie der Abelschen Integralen führenden Weg unabhängig von dem bei Weber dargestellten erwogen hat. Welcher von beiden Wegen der frühere ist, vermag ich nicht zu entscheiden. ]{}
Hence the tension between Abelian integrals and potential theory seems to have always been surrounded by a little ring of mysteriousness, even in the passage of Bieberbach 1925’s article just quoted. Furthermore, after Grunsky completed in 1941 his series of papers on the question, it looked desirable to Wirtinger to publish 1942 [@Wirtinger_1942] his own interpretation of Riemann’s Nachlass which he probably knew since ca. 1899 during his duties as publisher of the second edition of Riemann’s Werke.
\[Wirtinger:quote\]
Die Abhandlung des Hrn. Helmut Grunsky, welche in diesen Berichten, Jahrgang 1941, Nr. 11, unter dem Titel “Über die konforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender Bereiche auf mehrblättrige Kreise II” erschienen ist, bringt mir Überlegungen wieder gegenwärtig, welche unmittelbar an die klassische Dissertation von F. Schottky (Berlin 1875) anschlie[ß]{}en, welche noch vor dem Bekanntwerden des Riemannschen Fragmentes über das Gleichgewicht der Elektrizität auf Zylindern von kreisförmigem Querschnitt (1876) erschienen ist. Zusammen mit dem dort entwickelten Symmetrieprinzip reicht die Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen vollkommen aus, um zu beweisen, da[ß]{} ein von $p+1$ Randkurven, welche völlig getrennt verlaufen und von denen keine sich auf einen Punkt reduziert, begrenzter Bereich sich konform auf die $p+1$fach überdeckte Halbebene der Variabeln $z=x+iy, y\ge 0$ abbilden lä[ß]{}t, wobei noch auf jeder Linie der dem Punkte $z=\infty$ entsprechende beliebig vorgegeben werden kann.
In the above quote, Bieberbach also mentions that H.A. Schwarz was well acquainted with this Riemann’s Nachlass. In this connection, it can be reminded that the whole trend connected to the so-called [*Schwarz lemma*]{} involving Schwarz 1869–70 [@Schwarz_1869-70_Zur-Theorie-der-Abbildung p.109], Carathéodory 1907 [@Caratheodory_1907], 1912 [@Caratheodory_1912] (where the coinage “Schwarz lemma” is first used), Pick 1916, Ahlfors 1938, with some intermediate steps due to E. Schmidt ca. 1906 (as acknowledged in Carathéodory 1907 [@Caratheodory_1907]) is well known to have been another inspiring source for Ahlfors’ extremal problem.
To be even more mystical, Carathéodory mentions—in his 1936 laudation to Ahlfors’ reception of the (chocolate) Fields medal (ICM 1936)—a certain “[*Ölfleckmethode*]{} of Schwarz, which seems to be related to all this. This intriguing terminology, probably refers to the common “Ölfleck” experiment consists of taking any “oil” region in a water recipient while exciting it slightly or even strongly with a thin instrument, yet preferably without causing a rupture of its connectedness. Observationally, one can then contemplate with which determination and structural stability the possibly highly distorted “Ölfleck” restores to the round circle-shape even if there are thin necks in the initial position. This seems to be one of the most beautiful way to visualize the Riemann mapping theorem in nature. Mathematically this Öfleck experiment bears perhaps more analogy to the normal curvature flow (Huisken, etc.), than the levels of the Riemann mapping function. One can wonder if there is an identity between the curvature flow and RMT.
Schottky 1875–77
----------------
All sources indicate that Schottky discovered the circle mapping for multiply-connected domains independently of Riemann’s Nachlass. Compare the next 3 quotes of Schottky (\[quote:Schottky-1882\]) and Klein (\[Klein-1923:quote:Schottky\]), (\[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]). In 1882, during the hot Klein-Poincaré “competition” on automorphic functions vs. Fuchsian functions, Schottky’s Thesis came again to the forefront, with Klein asking its writer for some precision about its genesis. Besides, Schottky rectified some (historically) inaccurate statement made by Klein. It resulted a letter published 1882 in Math. Annalen [@Schottky_1882_Brief], which we reproduce in part:
\[quote:Schottky-1882\]
Dass übrigens Riemann bereits die mit dieser Figur in Zusammenhang stehenden Functionen und ihre Differentialgleichungen entdeckt hat, wird durch die Stelle pag. 413–416 seiner gesammelten Werke bewiesen. \[$\bigstar$Footnote: Gleichgewicht der Electricität auf Cylindern mit kreisförmigem Querschnitt und parallelen Axen.—Herr Weber fügt als Herausgeber diesem Aufsatze die Bemerkung zu: “Von dieser und den folgenden Abhandlungen \[des Riemann’schen Nachlasses\] liegen ausgeführte Manuscripte von Riemann nicht vor. Sie sind aus Blättern zusammengestellt, welche ausser wenigen Andeutungen nur Formeln enthalten.”$\bigstar$\] Indess möchte ich betonen, dass meine Dissertation ein Jahr vor der Publication von Riemann’s Nachlass erschienen ist. Auch erfuhr ich von Letzterem erst[^8], als meine Arbeit bereits in ihrer zweiten Fassung zum Druck übergehen war. Aber ich bin glücklich, mit Ihnen die Priorität der Entdeckung Riemann’s constatiren zu können. …
Sie haben in freundlicher Weise den Wunsch geäussert, Genaueres über die Prämissen meiner damaligen Arbeit zu erfahren. Die Anregung zum selbständigen Eindringen in die Potentialtheorie verdanke ich Herrn Helmholtz. Das in der Arbeit behandelte Problem, der ursprünglichen Auffassung nach der Potentialtheorie gehörig, und wesentliche Anschauungen meiner Arbeit sind aus mathematisch-physikalischen Autoren geschöpft. Ich nenne neben den Vorlesungen und Schriften von Herrn Helmholtz insbesondere ein mir gütig von Herrn O.E. Meyer geliehenes Heft noch nicht publicirter Vorlesungen von Herrn F. Neumann, dann ferner ein Buch über Elektrostatik von Herrn Kötteritzsch, etc. Die Durchführung der so gewonnenen Ideen wurde mir sodann wesentlich erleichtert durch Herrn Weierstrass’ Vorlesungen über Abel’sche Functionen, sowie besonders durch die von Herrn Schwarz publicirten Untersuchungen über das Abbildungsproblem einfach zusammenhängender Flächen. Mit Rücksicht auf die letzteren wurde auf den Rath meines hochverehrten Lehrers, Herrn Weierstrass, der ursprünglich überreichte Entwurf der Arbeit so abgehändert, dass sich dieselbe in beiden veröffentlichten Fassungen an die Untersuchungen von Herrn Schwarz anschliesst. …
This work of Schottky enjoyed early and great recognition among colleagues, and still today is frequently cited. The reasons of this success are multiple, but I cannot resist to quote first Le Vavasseur 1902 [@Le-Vavasseur_1902] \[since in Geneva there is a prominent artist bearing a similar name\], himself quoting Picard:
Dans le Tome II de son [*Traité d’Analyse*]{}, page 285, M. Émile Picard écrit: “Deux aires planes $A$ et $A_1$, limitées chacune par un même nombre de contours, ne peuvent pas, en général, être représentées d’une manière conforme l’une sur l’autre. L’étude approfondie de ce problème a été faite par M. Schottky dans un beau et important Mémoire.”
Plus loin même Tome, page 497, en note, M. Émile Picard écrit encore: “Nous avons déjà eu l’occasion de citer le beau travail de M. Schottky; c’est un Mémoire fondamental à plus d’un titre.”
The enthusiasm for Schottky’s work diffused from France to Italy, cf. especially Cecioni 1908 [@Cecioni_1908], who may be credited for the first rigorous proof of the parallel slit map. The reason of Schottky’s popularity is the quite amazing novelty of his work in prolongation of Riemann’ ideas—but so in retrospect only for Schottky was not directly influenced by Riemann. The methods range from potential-theoretic to algebraic functions, flourishing into an breathtaking variety of results. Beside the circle map for multiply-connected domains, it contains both what later will be known as the Kreisnormierungsprinzip (KNP), plus the parallel-slit mappings (PSM). —[*Warning.*]{} In fact I am not sure that it contains KNP, but could easily have on the basis of a naive parameter count. Also it is never clear if material was amputated from the first 1875 edition of Schottky’s Thesis. According to Klein’s quote (\[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]), it seems however that the first Latin edition (1875) of Schottky’s Thesis contains the statement of the Kreisnormierung, yet “[*nur auf Grund einer Konstantenzählung*]{}”.— At any rate, it contains (explicitly or in embryo) virtually all of the varied canonical conformal maps which will be re-studied by Koebe during the period 1904–1930, trying even to extend the results to infinite connectivity. As is notorious, this ramifies to deep waters still not completely elucidated today, cf. He-Schramm 1993 [@He-Schramm_1993], which is still the best result reached so far on the Kreisnormierung problem. Schottky’s Thesis also contains the idea of symmetric reproduction of such a domain, where Klein identifies one of the first instance of automorphic functions. The name “Schottky uniformization” is still of widespread usage today (e.g. Bers, Maskit, etc.). The influence of Schottky’s work is also apparent in the jargon “Schottky differentials” widely used in several of Ahlfors’ papers, especially Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]. (From the algebro-geometric viewpoint this probably just amounts to a real differential.) Last but not least, the Schwarz principle of symmetry (1869 [@Schwarz_1869-Ueber-einige-Abbildungsaufgaben]) \[which afterwards Klein liked to identify in Riemann’s Nachla[ß]{} [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass] already, as testimonies the many brackets added in his collected papers, e.g. Klein 1923 [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.631, line 3]\] enables one to form the so-called [*Schottky double*]{}. All this appears first in this single work of Schottky.
The admiration for Schottky’s Thesis propagated long through the ages, e.g.:
An understanding of all identities between domain functions may be obtained by sustained application of Schottky’s theory of multiply-connected domains \[15\](=1877). Schottky proved that there is a close relation between the mapping theory of these domains and the theory of closed Riemann surfaces; the identities among domain functions have their complete analogue in the theory of Abelian integrals and might be proved by means of the latter. \[…, and on p.214\]
[**Schottky functions and related classes.**]{} Schottky \[15\](=1877) was the first to consider the family $\frak R$ of all functions which are single-valued and meromorphic in $D$ \[a multiply-connected domain\] and have real boundary values on $C$ \[the full contour of $D$\]. He developed an interesting theory of conformal mapping of multiply-connected domains from the properties of this family and established by means of it the relation of this theory with the theory of closed Riemann surfaces. It is evident that functions $f(z)\in \frak R$ are very useful in the method of contour integration.
Schottky’s Thesis originated in the ambiguous context of physical intuition vs. Weierstra[ß]{}ian rigor. It is notorious that the ultimate redaction was a hard gestation process subjected to incessant revisions demanded by Weierstra[ß]{}. As we know (from Schottky himself (\[quote:Schottky-1882\]), plus the next two quotes by Klein) the first impulse was physically motivated (Helmholtz, F. Neumann, the father of C. Neumann, etc.), and then only lectures of Weierstra[ß]{} and papers of Schwarz came to influence the mathematical treatment. It is notorious that Schottky’s Dissertation writing must have been a very difficult gestation process through Weierstra[ß]{} supervision, who drifted the methodology towards that of Schwarz. For Klein this excessive Weierstrassization is regarded from a sceptical angle (cf. again the next two quotes).
It is a delicate question to wonder about the rigor reached in Schottky, despite its ultimate foundation over technology of Schwarz as a substitute to the Dirichlet principle. To ponder its ultimate rigor, it suffices to say that all of Schottky’s results where subsequently revisited, by the following workers:
$\bullet$ Koebe for KNP in a (torrential) series of paper spread from 1906 to 1922.
$\bullet$ Cecioni 1908 [@Cecioni_1908] for the PSM (=parallel-slit mapping); the latter even mark (discretely) the superiority of his proof by emphasizing that Schottky’s argument relies on a parameter count, whereas he proposes to prove PSM “[*direttamente”*]{} (cf. p.1). This technical “gap” was of course known to Klein, cf. the next Quote \[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]. Also in Salvemini 1930 [@Salvemini_1930 p.3] (a student of Cecioni) the critique is made more explicit: “[*Questo risultato \[=PSM\] era stato enunciato dallo Schottky in base ad un computo di parametri, computo che non è poi esauriente.*]{}”
$\bullet$ Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] for the circle mapping problem.
None of those writers attacks frontally the standards of rigor in Schottky (as based upon the complicated but solid foundations laid by Schwarz). Still, the technical complications was seen as a need to find simpler derivations of the geometrical results. After sufficiently time elapsed, the subsequent generation tends to ascribe the (rigorous) proof of Schottky’s result to this second wave of workers. E.g., Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978] ascribes Schottky’s circle maps to Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] (cf. Quote \[quote:Grunsky-1978\]), and Bieberbach 1968 [@Bieberbach_1968-Das-Werk-Paul-Koebes] credits Koebe for the proof of KNP (in finite connectivity). All these redistributions are done without specific objections upon the original arguments Schottky’s. This is a usual loose process relegating methodologies just due to their cumbersomeness, as a sufficient reason for lack of rigor.
In contrast, even more contemporary workers still credits Schottky for the first proof of the Kreisnormierung result (cf. e.g., Schiffer-Hawley 1962 [@Schiffer-Hawley_1962 p.183]). So it is a subtle socio-cultural game to pinpoint precisely about which writer furnished the first acceptable proof.
Klein’s comments about Riemann-Schottky
---------------------------------------
In the third volume of his collected papers Klein makes several comments about Riemann and Schottky Thesis. He insists first on the physical motivations of Schottky, which were progressively “censured” under Weierstrass’ influence.
\[Klein-1923:quote:Schottky\]
Ich greife gern noch einmal auf die wiederholt genannte Arbeit Schottkys in Crelle Journal, Bd. 83 (1877) zurück, zumal ich weiter unten (S. 578/579) ohnehin ausfürlicher auf sie zurückkommen mu[ß]{}. Die gro[ß]{}e Ähnlichkeit der auf einen besonderen Fall bezüglichen Schottkyschen Untersuchungen mit den allgemeinen meiner Schrift war mir von vornherein aufgefallen. Ich schrieb also damals an Herrn Schottky und fragte ihn nach der Enstehung seiner Ideen. Hierauf antwortete her mir in einem Briefe von Mai 1882 (der in Bd. 20 der Math. Annalen abgedruckt wurde), da[ß]{} er in der Tat ursprünglich auch von der Bertrachtung der Strömungen einer inkompressiblen Flüssigkeit ausgegangen sei und diesen physikalischen Ausgangspunkt nur auf Rat von Weierstrass bei der Drucklegung durch die Bezugnahme auf Schwarz’ Untersuchungen über konforme Abbildung ersetz habe.
Then Klein recollects some more details in the following passage. This contains an anecdotic conflict (with Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]=Quote \[quote:Bieberbach-1925\]) about the estimated date of Riemann’s Nachlass. More interestingly, Klein expresses the view that Schottky’s theorem (to the effect that a multiply-connected domain is conformal to a circle domain) may be seen as the planar case of Klein’s [*Rückkehrschnitttheorem*]{}, which in turn seems to be one of the weapon that Klein used in his early strategy toward uniformization (an approach not successfully completed until Brouwer-Koebe ca. 1911 [@Klein-Brouwer-Koebe_1912]).
\[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]
Übrigens hat Riemann ja auch die andere Art automorpher Funktionen, die enstehen, indem man an einen von Vollkreisen begrenzten Bereich der Ebene an diesen Kreisen fortgesetzt symmetrisch reproduziert (Siehe das von H. Weber bearbeitete Fragment XXV in der ersten (1876 erschienenen) bzw. XXVI in der zweiten (1892 erschienenen) Auflage der Ges. math. Werke von Riemann.) Die Prüfung der Originalblätter hat ergeben, da[ß]{} Webers Mitteilungen den Vorbereitungen zu einer im Sommer 1858 gehaltenen Vorlesung entnommen sind. Und zwar geht Riemann dabei zunächst von der Aufgabe aus, für ein von mehreren Kugeln gebildetes Konduktorsystem das Gleichgewicht elektrostatischer Ladungen zu bestimmen. Hierfür war die Benutzung des Symmetrieprinzipes in den Arbeiten von W. Thompson vorgebildet, die als Briefe an Liouville in dessen Journal von 1845 an erschienen. Also auch hier sind die mathematischen Entwicklungen aus physikalischen Anregungen erwachsen.
Auf dieselben Funktionen ist dann unabhängig in seiner Berliner Dissertation 1875 Herr Schottky gekommen. Von seinem physikalischen Ausgangspunkte ist schon oben auf S.573, die Rede gewesen. Im übrigen sind die Schicksale der Schottkyschen Arbeit, wie sie sich nach persönlicher Mitteilung des Verfassers ergeben, so merkwürdig, da[ß]{} ich gern die Gelegenheit ergreife, sie hier mitzuteilen. Es erfolgten nach einander drei verschiedene Redaktionen:
a\) Eine lateinische Fassung, die nicht publiziert ist, sondern nur der Philosophischen Fakultät in Berlin vorgelegen hat,
b\) Eine deutsche Bearbeitung, welche 1875 in Berlin als Dissertation gedruckt wurde,
c\) Die umgearbeitete Darstellung in Crelles Journal, Bd. 83 (1877).
Bei Niederschrift von a) hat der Verfasser noch keine Fühlung mit Weierstrass gehabt, dafür aber ganz seiner freien Ideenbildung folgen können. Aus dem Gutachten, da[ß]{} Weierstrass über a) seinerzeit für die Fakultät abgegeben hat und von dem ich durch die Freundlichkeit von Herrn Schottky eine Abschrift vor Augen habe, scheint mit Gewi[ß]{}heit hervorzugehen, da[ß]{} Schottky hier, freilich nur auf Grund einer Konstantenzählung, das “Rückkehrschnitttheorem” für den besonderen, von ihm betrachteten Fall ausgeschprochen hat, d. h. die Möglichkeit, einen von $p+1$ regulären Randkurven begrenzten eben Bereich auf einen von $p+1$ Vollkreisen begrenzten Bereich konform abzubilden (also das Rückkehrschnitttheorem für den obersten orthosymmetrischen Fall, wie ich mich ausdrücke).
Die Redaktion b) ist dann durch eine erste Fühlungnahme mit Weierstrass bedingt. Bei der umfassenden Beherrschung ausgedehnter Teile der Mathematik und seiner stark ausgeprägten Persönlichkeit, die sich zu bestimmten Beweisgängen durchgearbeitet hatte, übte Weierstrass auf jüngere Forscher je nachdem einen au[ß]{}erordentlich fördernden, oder auch, wo ihm die Gedankengänge fremdartig waren, einen hemmenden Einflu[ß]{}. \[…\]. Schottky scheint ähnliche Erfahrungen gemacht zu haben, so da[ß]{} er in b) sich blo[ß]{} auf die Konstantenzählung beschränkt, ohne ihre Tragweite für das Fundamentaltheorem anzudeuten \[…\]. Die physikalische Ideenbildung aber, von der doch der Autor ausgegangen war, wird gänzlich ausgeschaltet und durch Zitate auf die das Existenzproblem der konformen Abbildungen betreffenden Arbeiten von Schwarz ersetzt.
In c) endlich ist auch noch besagte Konstantenzählung weggeblieben. \[\[\[Fu[ß]{}note: Dagegen hat Schottky in c) (S.330 daselbst), wiederum auf Grund blo[ß]{}er Konstantenzählung, den Satz ausgeschprochen, da[ß]{} sich jedes ebene, von $p+1$ Randkurven begrenzte, Gebiet umkehrbar eindeutig konform auf die Vollebene mit Ausnahme von $p+1$ geradlinigen, zur $x$-Achse parallelen Strecken abbilden lä[ß]{}t. Bereiche der letzteren Art spielen in der modernen Literatur unter dem Namen [*Schlitzbereiche*]{} bekanntlich eine wichtige Rolle.\]\]\] Statt dessen finden sich wertvolle, vorher nicht publizierte, Angaben über die verschiedenen Normalformen, die Weierstrass bei den Gebilden $p>2$ unterschied; \[…\]
Incidentally this [*Rückkehrschnitttheorem*]{}, may have some connection with the Ahlfors function albeit probably no direct link is evident, there is still some striking analogy developed in the next section.
A historical puzzle: why Klein missed the Ahlfors circle mapping?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
\[27.04.12\] After reading quite closely the above comments of Klein, plus having a vague idea of the content of Schottky’s Dissertation one is puzzled by how close Klein might have been (ca. 1882) to anticipate by circa 70 years the circle map of Ahlfors (1948–1950). Here is our reasoning.
First, Schottky’s Thesis (and in cryptical form already Riemann’s Nachlass) contains two striking results:
$\bullet$ the [*circle map*]{} (CM) of a (compact) multiply-connected domain to the disc, and beside
$\bullet$ what later came to be known (in Koebe’s era, cf. e.g., Koebe 1922 [@Koebe_1922]) as the [*Kreisnormierungsprinzip*]{} (KNP) to the effect that any such domain is conformally equivalent to a circular domain. (Recall from Klein’s quote (\[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]) that this occurs only in the original Latin version of Schottky’s Thesis.)
Both results are natural extensions of RMT (=Riemann mapping theorem) either by allowing branched coverings or just by using faithful conformal diffeomorphisms (but then of course the target depends upon moduli).
Now loosely speaking one may consider both results (CM and KNP) as lying at the same order of difficulty (at least both are to be found in Schottky’s Thesis).
Next, Klein points out (cf. right above Quote \[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]) that he was able in 1881–82 to prove an extension of (KNP) to positive genus $p>0$, which he calls (apparently with Fricke’s assistance—cf. Klein 1923 [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.623, footnote 4]) the [*Rückkehrschnitttheorem*]{} (RST). Klein was very proud of this result (cf. especially Klein 1923 [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.584], where this discovery is dated from September 1881 (Borkum)), comparing it (as a psychological experience) to Poincaré’s discovery of his general [*fonctions fuchsiennes*]{}.
Thus, there is an obvious commutative diagram (Fig.\[KNP-RST:fig\]), and whatsoever the actual meaning of Klein’s (RST) should be, there is only a single natural candidate to fill in the diagram at the (triple) question-marks, namely the Ahlfors circle map. This accentuates once more why Klein may have been a serious candidate to anticipate the Ahlfors circle map, at least without extremal interpretation.
-5pt0
Furthermore, in view of say Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], the Ahlfors mapping amounts essentially to Jacobi’s inversion problem in the real case, and here again this was one of Klein’s major preoccupation (cf. e.g., Weichold’s Thesis 1883 [@Weichold_1883], Hurwitz’s work 1883 [@Hurwitz_1883], plus other sources, e.g. Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet]).
Of course, it would be an excellent project to try getting acquainted with Klein’s techniques so as to inspect if they lead to another elementary existence-proof of Ahlfors maps. Again it should be recalled that even if Klein himself was never able to complete his programme some helping hand from Brouwer-Koebe ultimately vindicated all of Klein’s intuitions.
Rückkehrschnittteorem (Klein 1881–82) {#sec:Ruckkehrschnittthm}
-------------------------------------
Klein found this theorem in 1881, and published it 1882 in [@Klein_1882_Ruckkehrschnitt]. From the start the paper confesses to use some irregular methods.
What does Klein in this paper? First he takes a closed Riemann surface of genus $p>1$ (w.l.o.g) and traces on it $p$ disjoint Rückkehrschnitten (retrosections) and asserts that the cutted Riemann surface may be mapped to a $2p$-ply connected domain on the sphere, whose corresponding boundaries $A_i'$, $A_i''$ are related by a linear substitution. He then uses these $p$ substitutions to reproduce the conformal mapping ad infinitum (a trick already present in Riemann’s Nachlass 1857 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass]). He notes that the construction depends on the right number of free constants $3p$ compatible with Riemann’s moduli $3p-3$, thus yielding a sound evidence for some sort of uniformization. Of course it is not yet the standard uniformization as the reproduced domain filling more and more the sphere still avoids an infinite set (a Cantor set). In fact this construction gives an unramified infinite cover of the given closed Riemann surface by a subregion of the sphere (which is however not simply-connected).
Then he applies a similar method to the case of symmetric Riemann surfaces by using a symmetric system of retrosections while showing that the above construction may be done equivariantly. For instance in the simpler to visualize dividing case the above dissection process leads to a similar symmetric domain, symmetric with respect to the orthogonal symmetry of the sphere (whence the name [*orthosymmetric*]{}). In the nondividing case the structural symmetry is rather the diametral one (antipodal map), whence the name [*diasymmetric*]{}.
Logically it seems that Klein’s method depends on Schottky’s inasmuch as first doing the retrosections one is reduced to the schlichtartig case which turns out to be schlicht. (This result was extended by Koebe in 1908 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3] to schlichtartig surfaces of infinite connectivity: schlichtartig implies schlicht!)
Clearly something remains to be understood on this RST, and our guess that it is sufficiently strong to imply Ahlfors theorem is quite disputable. At any rate Klein seems to have had a clear-cut conception of how his dichotomy ortho- vs. diasymmetric is reflected into the Riemann sphere with its two real structures (equatorial symmetry vs. antipody). However the issue that dividing curves are precisely those mapping to the equatorial sphere in a totally real fashion may have escaped his attention and does not seem to be logically reducible to his RST. Yet since RST is supposed to be the positive genus case of KNP (cf. Klein’s quote (\[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\])) it may be expected that one first establishes KNP and from here one deduces a circle map, much like Riemann was able to do for the zero genus case in his Nachlass [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass]. This suggests yet another strategy to approach Ahlfors theorem.
\[04.11.12\] A more naive idea could be to start from a bordered surface of type $(r,p)$, and make $p$ retrosections to get it planar (but with $r+2p$ contours). Then there is on the dissected surface a circle map of degree $r+2p$. Of course the map is a priori not assuming the same values on both ridges of the retrosections and even if we can arrange this, we would like those points to get mapped in the interior and not the boundary of the circle.
Grunsky’s bibliographical notes (Grunsky 1978)
----------------------------------------------
Let us now reproduce Grunsky’s historical comments (in his monumental book 1978 [@Grunsky_1978 p.198]) about circle maps. (Brackets are ours additions. We added author’s names in front of the bracket-references to improve readability, plus page numbers, and finally inserted the symbol $\bigstar$ when disagreeing with Grunsky’s cross-references.)
\[quote:Grunsky-1978\]
Theorem 4.1.1. goes back to Riemann 1857/58/76 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass], who gave some hints for the proof if \[the domain\] $D$ is bounded by circles. The first proof is due to Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], who used the Schottky-double and deep results in the theory of algebraic functions. Elementary proofs were given by Grunsky 1937 [@Grunsky_1937], 1941 [@Grunsky_1941_KA]; for 4.1.3. \[a sort of auxiliary lemma in linear algebra\] see Furtwängler 1936, Bourgin 1939. Related proofs in Akira Mori 1951 [@Mori_1951], Komatu 1953 [@Komatu_1953] (containing generalizations), Tsuji 1956 [@Tsuji_1956]; cf. Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57], Tsuji 1959 [@Tsuji_1959-BOOK/Chelsea1975]. A proof based on the method for Plateau’s problem: Courant 1937 [@Courant_1937] \[$\bigstar$ in Gabard’s opinion this paper does not reprove the circle mapping, but rather the mapping to a Kreisbereich, due to Schottky–Koebe, cf. p.709 and p.717, of [*loc.cit.*]{}\], generalized in Courant 1939 [@Courant_1939]; cf. Courant 1950 [@Courant_1950] \[especially p.183–187\]. Another proof, using, like Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], the Schottky double in Wirtinger 1942 [@Wirtinger_1942]; cf. also Rodin-Sario 1968 [@Rodin-Sario_1968] \[where ???\]. Triply connected domains: Limaye 1973 [@Limaye_1973]. Representation of the mapping function (Ahlfors function, see 4.3.) by an orthonormal system in Meschkowski 1952 [@Meschkowski_1952], by the Bergman kernel in Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950]. Proofs using extremal properties in papers quoted in 4.3. and 6. \[More about this below (Quote \[quote:Grunsky-1978-B\]).\] An extension to certain domains of infinite connectivity in Röding 1975 [@Roeding_1975]. A more general type of image domain for doubly connected domains in Bieberbach 1957 [@Bieberbach_1957].
Some generalizations, based on ideas used in the aforementioned papers, mainly concerning Riemann surfaces in Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950], Tietz 1955 [@Tietz_1955] (cf. Köditz-Timmann [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975]), Mizumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960], Timmann 1969 (Diss., Hannover) [@Timmann_1969], Röding 1972 (Diss., Würzburg) [@Roeding_1972], Röding 1977 [@Roeding_1977_mero]. Cf. Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960] \[$\bigstar$ where?\], Carathéodory 1950 [@Caratheodory_1950_Buch_Funktionentheorie] \[$\bigstar$ where?\], Sario-Oikawa 1969 [@Sario-Oikawa_1969] \[$\bigstar$ where?\].
[**Comments (Gabard, Mai 2012):**]{} Alas, regarding the three last books no pagination is supplied by Grunsky, and as far as I browsed through them, I failed to locate any place where Ahlfors’ circle mapping is established anew.
Now we reproduce Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978 p.199]:
\[quote:Grunsky-1978-B\]
Theorem 4.3.1., a generalization of Schwarz’ lemma to multiply connected domains, is a special case of a more general theorem (individual bounds on each boundary component, prescribed zeros) proved by Grunsky in 1942 [@Grunsky_1942] (save for uniqueness, see Grunsky 1950 [@Grunsky_1950]). Cf. Hervé 1951 [@Herve_1951]. Another proof of 4.3.1. was given by Ahlfors in 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], completed in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (cf. Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57]) and the extremal function is called the “Ahlfors function”, a term frequently used in the broader sense of any function mapping \[the domain\] $D$ \[in a\] $(1,n)$ onto $U$ \[the unit disc\]; the result was carried on to characterization of the additional zeros of the extremal function. The method used by Ahlfors, Euler-Lagrange multipliers (also pointed out in Grunsky 1946 [@Grunsky_1946] and applied in Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940]) is likewise a basis for our §6. – For further proofs of our theorem see Nehari 1951 [@Nehari_1951] and Nehari 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK pp.378 ff.], and some of the papers quoted for theorem 4.6.4. – Ahlfors function in a ring domain Kubo 1952 [@Kubo_1952]. – Applications of the Ahlfors function in Alenicyn 1956 [@Alenicyn_1959], 1961 [@Alenicyn_1961], (cf. Mitjuk 1965 [@Mitjuk_1965]).
Italian school: Cecioni 1908, Stella Li Chiavi 1932, Matildi 1945/48, Andreotti 1950 {#sec:Italian-school}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course in the overall Grunsky’s comments and references are essentially sharp (especially a deep knowledge of Russian/Ukrainian works). Maybe only some contribution of the Italian school are ignored. (Those are however meticulously listed in the book Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960].)
For instance the simple continuity argument in the Harnack-maximal case based upon Riemann-Roch (without Roch) gives a simple proof in this case (compare e.g., Huisman 2001 [@Huisman_2001] or Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]). This simple argument goes back to Enriques-Chisini seminal book 1915/18 [@Enriques-Chisini_1915-1918], and may have been implicit in Riemann’s original manuscript (not published), compare Bieberbach’s quote (\[quote:Bieberbach-1925\]).
Further, closely allied work is to be found in works of Cecioni 1908 [@Cecioni_1908], and his students: Salvemini 1930 [@Salvemini_1930], Stella Li Chiavi 1932 [@Stella-li-Chiavi_1932], etc.
Those works certainly deserve closer studying, but they do not seem to anticipate Ahlfors circle map. One notable exception is the article Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48] (discovered by the writer as late as \[13.07.12\]), where existence of circle maps for surfaces bounded by a single contour seems to be established. (This Italian work was known to Ahlfors (or Sario?) at least as late as 1960, again being quoted in Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960].) Of course it would be interesting to see if Matildi’s method adapts to more contours, while trying to make (more) explicit the degree bound obtained by him. Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950] seems to go precisely in this sense by including several contours (alas the writer’s Italian declined fast enough to have failed understanding properly Andreotti’s achievements).
Is there any precursor to Ahlfors 1950? {#Sec:Precusors}
=======================================
What about Teichmüller 1941? {#sec:Teichmueller}
----------------------------
One can wonder about the content of Teichmüller’s Werke. Does it overlap with the Ahlfors function? While reading the long memoir of Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939] it transpires to anybody familiar with Klein’s work how strong the latter’s influence is; in particular Teichmüller gives a thorough account of the (now) so-called [*Klein surfaces*]{} (and their moduli). Of course such results were anticipated by Klein (at least at the heuristic level). Hence, it seems quite natural to wonder if Teichmüller anticipated the existence of Ahlfors function (for orientable membranes). Here is a report of those portions of Teichmüller’s works which looks closest to this goal, but it should still be debated how much of the Ahlfors circle maps was anticipated by Teichmüller.
The most relevant passage in Teichmüller’s writings seems to be the following extract of Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941] (reedited in [@Teichmueller_1982 p.554–5]):
\[quote:Teichmueller-1941\]
Wir beschäftigen uns nur mit [**orientierten endlichen Riemannschen Mannigfaltigkeiten.**]{} Diese können als Gebiete auf geschlossenen orientierten Riemannschen Flächen erklärt werden, die von endlich vielen geschlossenen, stückweise analytischen Kurven begrenzt werden. Sie sind entweder geschlossen, also selbst geschlossene orientierte Riemannsche Flächen, die man sich endlichvielblättrig über eine $z$-Kugel ausgebreitet vorstellen darf, oder berandet. Im letzteren Falle, kann man sie nach Klein durch konforme Abbildung auf folgende Normalform bringen: ein endlichvielblättriges Flächenstück über der oberen $z$-Halbebene mit endlich vielen Windungspunkten, das durch Spiegelung an der reellen Achse eine symmetrische geschlossene Riemannsche Fläche ergibt; \[…\]
(So lä[ß]{}t sich z.B. jedes Ringgebiet, d.h. jede schlichtartige endliche Riemannsche Mannigfaltigkeit mit zwei Randkurven, konform auf eine zweiblättrige Überlagerung der oberen Halbebene mit zwei Verzweigungspunkte abbilden.)
Unfortunately, no precise cross-reference to Klein is given and one needs to browse Klein’s works (with the option of some Göttingen Lectures Note 1891/92 [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen], [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen] not reproduced in Klein’s collected papers). This absence of precise location is quite annoying. A charitable excuse is the World War II context in which the paper was written: “[*Weil mir nur eine beschränkte Urlaubzeit zur Verfügung steht, kann ich vieles nicht begründen, sondern nur behaupten.*]{}” (compare [*loc.cit.*]{} [@Teichmueller_1982 p.554] 2nd parag.)
Detective work: Browsing Klein through the claim of Teichmüller
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Teichmüller’s cryptical allusion to Klein (as discussed in the previous section) we have the following candidates in Klein’s works (none of which at the present stage of our historical search truly corroborates Teichmüller’s crediting):
\(1) Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882 p.75]=[@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.567] where one reads:
**
Man hat also eine komplexe Funktion des Ortes, welche in symmetrisch gelegenen Punkten geiche reelle, aber entgegengesestzt gleich imaginäre Werte aufweist.
This looks quite close to the desired assignment, yet in reality only corresponds to the existence of a real morphism on any real curve; equivalently the existence for any (closed) symmetric Riemann surface of an equivariant holomorphic map to the sphere acted upon by the (usual) complex conjugation fixing an equator. Hence, in our opinion, this passage of Klein cannot be regarded as a genuine forerunner of the Ahlfors circle mapping.
\(2) Another place where Klein comes quite close to Teichmüller’s assertion occurs in the same 1882 booklet “[*Über Riemanns Theorie …*]{}”, where Klein computes the moduli of real algebraic curves—equivalently symmetric Riemann surfaces (cf. [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.568–9]):
\[quote:Klein-1882-moduli\]
Indem wir uns jetzt zu den [*symmetrischen*]{} Flächen wenden, haben wir noch eine kleine Zwischenbetrachtung zu machen. Zunächst ist ersichtlich, da[ß]{} zwei solche Flächen nur dann “symmetrisch” aufeinander bezogen werden können, wenn sie neben dem gleichen $p$ dieselbe Zahl $\pi$ der Übergangskurven \[=real “ovals”\] darbieten und überdies beide entweder der ersten Art oder der zweiten Art angehören. \[This is the dichotomy ortho- vs diasymmetric.\] Im übrigen wiederhole man speziell für die symmetrischen Flächen die Abzählungen des §13 betreffs der Zahl der in eindeutigen Funktionen enthaltenen Konstanten unter der Bedigung, da[ß]{} nur solche Funktionen in Betracht gezogen werden, welche an symmetrischen Stellen konjugiert imaginäre Werte aufweisen. Hiermit kombiniere man sodann nach dem Muster des §19 die Zahl solcher über der $Z$-Ebene konstuierbarer mehrblättrigen Flächen, welche in bezug auf die Achse der reellen Zahlen symmetrisch sind. \[…\] Die Sache ist dann so einfach, da[ß]{} ich sie nicht speziell durchzuführen brauche. Der Unterschied ist nur, da[ß]{} die in Betracht kommenden, früher unbeschränkten Konstanten nunmehr gezwungen sind, entweder [*einzeln reell*]{} oder [*paarweise konjugiert komplex*]{} zu sein. Infolgedessen reduzieren sich alle Willkürlichkeiten auf die Hälfte. Wir mögen folgenderma[ß]{}en sagen:
[*Zur Abbildbarkeit zweier symmetrischer Flächen $p>1$ aufeinander ist neben der Übereinstimmung in den Attributen das Bestehen von $(3p-3)$ Gleichungen zwischen den reellen Konstanten der Fläche erforderlich.*]{}
If this passage sounds a bit sketchy to the reader, we may refer to Klein’s subsequent lecture notes of 1892 [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen p.151–4], where full details are given.
The basic idea of this (Riemann-style) moduli count is to represent a given curve of genus $g$ as an $m$-sheeted cover of the line. If $m$ is large enough (so as to avoid exceptional cases of Riemann-Roch’s theorem), a group $g_m$ of $m$ points will move in a linear system of dimension $m-g$. To specify a map to ${\Bbb P}^1$ we may send the divisor $g_m=:D$ to $0$, say, and another $D'$ (linearly equivalent to the former) to $\infty$, leaving the possibility of a scaling factor. Thus the function depends on $2m-g+1$ constants. On the other hand by Riemann-Hurwitz such maps have $2m+2g-2$ branch points. Hence considering the totality of such covers modulo those yielding the same curve leaves $2m+2g-2-(2m-g+1)=3g-3$ essential constants. (cf. also Griffiths-Harris 1978 [@Griffiths-Harris_1978/94 p.256]).
\[15.12.12\] It is legitimate to wonder if this method (à la Riemann-Klein) is powerful enough to compute the gonality profile (cf. Definition \[gonality-profile:def\]).
Klein adapts this counting argument to the real case (again for full details we recommend Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen p.151–4]). Doing so we may hope that he anticipates the Ahlfors mapping when the construction is particularized to the orthosymmetric case.
Since a totally real morphism lacks real ramification, we must prescribe imaginary conjugate branch points. However this necessary condition is not sufficient as shown by a quartic smoothing a visible conic plus an invisible one like $x^2+y^2=-1$ (alternatively consider the Fermat curve $x^4+y^4=1$ projected from the inside of the unique oval). In this case the projection from the interior of the oval yields a real map without real ramification, but not totally real.
We see no obvious link from Klein’s equivariant branched covers to the stronger assertion that fibres over real points consists only of real points, and consequently one of the orthosymmetric halves maps conformally to the upper half-plane (as Teichmüller credits to Klein).
Of course it is not impossible that a suitable complement to Klein’s method yields something like an Ahlfors mapping. By a continuity argument in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006 Lemme 5.2], it would be enough to chose $g_m=:D$ as an [*unilateral*]{} divisor, i.e. one supported entirely by one half of the curve. Then we would be finished if the symmetric divisor $D^{\sigma}$ is linearly equivalent to $D$. But this condition is far from automatic and involves probably some lucky choice in the position of the initial divisor $D$.
Alternatively, one may try to specify the ramification and work out the Lüroth-Clebsch sort of argument to construct explicitly the finitely many conformal type of Riemann surfaces lying above the prescribed ramification. But the writer failed to draw any serious conclusion.
More is less: Teichmüller again (1939)
--------------------------------------
For those not overwhelmed by German prose, the following passage also bears some resemblances to the Ahlfors function:
Falls $\frak M$ eine orientierte und berandete Mannigfaltigkeit ist, braucht man $f$ nur auf $\frak M$ zu kennen, um $f$ auf $\frak F$ berechnen zu können. \[The latter is of course the doubled surface.\] $f$ mu[ß]{} dann auf den Randkurven von $\frak M$, die ja zu sich selbst punktweise konjugiert sind, reelle Werte haben. Umgekehrt ist eine Funktion der Fläche, die in unendlich vielen Randpunkten von $\frak M$ reell ist, eine Funktion von $\frak M$, denn sie stimmt mit der konjugierten in unendlich vielen Punkten überein und ist darum gleich ihrer konjugierten Funktion. Ja, wir können die Funktionen $f$ von $\frak M$ sogar ganz auf $\frak M$ charakterisieren:
Die Funktionen der orientierten berandeten endlichen Riemannschen Mannigfaltigkeit $\frak M$ sind genau die Funktionen $f$, die in $\frak M$ bis auf Pole regulär analytisch sind und die am Rande von $\frak M$ reell werden. D.h. die Punkte, wo die Funktion Werte eines abgeschlossenen Kreises der oberen oder der unteren Halbebene annimmt, sollen eine kompakte Menge im Innern von $\frak M$ bilden. In der Tat lassen sich diese Funktionen durch Spiegelung zu Funktionen von $\frak F$ machen, insbesondere sind sie auf den Randkurven von $\frak M$ stetig.
In this passage we note that just adding the single word “nur” in the third line of the 2nd parag. to read “die nur am Rande von $\frak M$ reell werden” would essentially lead to an anticipation of Ahlfors 1950. However taken literally this assertion of Teichmüller is weaker than Ahlfors’ and indeed the previous Quote \[quote:Teichmueller-1941\] is perhaps just a logical distortion (through hasty writing!) of the above more precise (but logically weaker) formulation. Under this hypothesis then we agree perfectly with Teichmüller 1941 (cf. again Quote \[quote:Teichmueller-1941\]) that this reality behaviour of functions was known to Klein.
The crucial distinction is between functions real on the boundary and those which are real only on the boundary. Now a priori a real function may be real on an interior point of the membrane, in which case the range (of the function) will not be contained in one of the half-plane, but overlap with both of them. In contrast a stronger reality behaviour arises when fibres of real points excludes imaginary conjugate points, in which case the range is contained in one of the half-plane, which is the context of Ahlfors’ circle mapping.
Courant 1937, 1939, 1950 {#sec:Courant}
------------------------
In the paper Courant 1939 [@Courant_1939], one detects another approach to the existence of circle maps via the methods of Plateau’s problem (at least so is claimed by Grunsky 1978, cf. Quote \[quote:Grunsky-1978\]). We cite some portion of Courant’s introduction:
\[quote:Courant-1939\]
The theory of Plateau’s and Douglas’ problem furnishes powerful tools for obtaining theorems on conformal mapping. Douglas emphasized (1931) that Riemann’s mapping theorem is a consequence of his solution of Plateau’s problem; then he treated doubly connected domains and in a recent paper (1939) multiply connected domains. With a different method I gave in a paper on Plateau’s problem (1937) a proof of the theorem that every $k$-fold connected domain can be mapped conformally on a plane domain bounded by $k$ circles. The same method can be applied to the proof of the parallel-slit theorem and, as will be shown in the thesis of Bella Manel, to mapping theorems for various other types of plane normal domains. It is the purpose of the present paper first to give a simplification of the method by utilizing an integral introduced by Riemann in his doctoral thesis, and secondly, to prove a mapping theorem of a different character referring to normal domains which are Riemann surfaces with several sheets. \[…\]
For the case $p=0$, the theorem was stated by Riemann, according to oral tradition. \[See Bieberbach 1925, where a proof is indicated; and Grunsky 1937, where another proof is given.\]
It should still be elucidated if this work by Courant (officially overlapping with Bieberbach-Grunsky) may also be connected to the Ahlfors circle mapping. This is still not completely clear to the writer. The topic is addressed again in Courant’s book of 1950, e.g., as follows:
[*Theorem 5.3:*]{} Every plane [\[footnote 12: As said before, in view of the general result of Chapter II the assumption that $G$ is a plane domain is not an essential restriction.\]]{} $k$-fold connected domain $G$ having no isolated boundary points can be mapped conformally onto a Riemann surface $B$ consisting of $k$ identical disks, e.g. interiors of unit circles, connected by branch points [\[footnote 13: The conformality of the mapping is of course interrupted at the branch points.\]]{} of total multiplicity $2k-2$. \[…\]
This somewhat loose footnote 12 of Courant may advance him as a forerunner of the Ahlfors circle map. Courant does not specify the degree derived by his method, but reading him literally one recovers (quite strikingly!) Ahlfors’ bound $r+2p$ (compare the following numerology):
The connectivity $k$ of a membrane of genus $p$ with $r$ contours is equal to $r+2p$ (each handles contributes 2 units to the connectivity). \[Alternatively, we may interpret the connectivity $k$ as $b_1+1$, where $b_1$ is the first Betti number. The Euler characteristic is $\chi=2-2p-r$, but also expressible as $\chi=1-b_1$ (since $b_2=0$). Back to the connectivity, we find $k=b_1+1=(1-\chi)+1=2-\chi=2-(2-2p-r)=2p+r$, as desired.\]
Adopting Courant’s branching multiplicity $b:=2k-2$, we compute the corresponding degree $d$. By Riemann-Hurwitz $\chi= d \cdot \chi (D^2)-b$, hence $d=\chi+b=(2-2p-r)+(2k-2)=2k-2p-r=2(r+2p)-2p-r=r+2p$. [*q.e.d.*]{}
This is pure numerology, without much control of the underlying geometry. More insight is suggested by Courant’s subsequent statement in [*loc.cit.*]{} [@Courant_1950 p.183–4, Thm5.3], which we reproduce:
Moreover, an arbitrarily fixed point $F_{\nu}$ on each boundary circle $\beta_{\nu}$ can be made to correspond to a fixed boundary point $P_\nu$ on the boundary continuum $\gamma_\nu$ of $G$, and the position of one simple branch point in $B$ may be prescribed. The class $\frak N$ of these domains depends on $3k-6$ real parameters: the $2k-3$ freely variable branch points represent $4k-6$ coordinates, while fixing the points $F_\nu$ reduces the number of parameters by $k$.
Extending this reasoning to (non-planar) membranes, we derive again Ahlfors’ bound, as follows:
We assume the membrane $F_{r,p}$ (of genus $p$ with $r$ contours) conformally mapped as a $d$-sheeted cover of the disc $D^2$ with $b$ branch points. As usual the Riemann-Hurwitz relation reads $\chi=d\cdot \chi(D^2)-b$. From the $b$ branch-points, one of them can be normalized to a definite position (through a conformal automorphism of the disc). Now the fibre over a boundary point of the disc gives $d$ points on $\partial F$. Those $d$ boundary points can be thought of as having a prescribed image. Thus the mapping itself is fully determined by $2(b-1)-d$ real constants.
On the other hand, we know since Klein 1882 (cf. our Quote \[quote:Klein-1882-moduli\]) that $F_{r,p}$ has $3g-3$ real moduli where $g$ is the genus of the double $2F$, i.e. $g=2p+(r-1)$. Positing the Ansatz that the family of $d$-sheeted covering surfaces has enough free-parameters to fill the full moduli space leads to the inequation $2(b-1)-d \ge 3g-3$. But $b=d-\chi$ and $2\chi=\chi(2F)=2-2g$. Hence $2(d-\chi-1)-d=d+(2g-2)-2\ge 3g-3$, i.e. $d\ge g+1$, which is Ahlfors’ bound $r+2p$.
Of course, this happy numerology (noticed by the writer the \[20.05.12\]) is no substitute to a serious proof of the Ahlfors circle map. However Courant formulates a variational problem à la Plateau-Douglas (or Dirichlet-Riemann-Hilbert) affording existence of a circle map (presumably with the same bound as predicted by Ahlfors as prompted by our heuristic count). Unfortunately, in Courant’s book the presentation is not directly adapted to the case of general membranes of positive genus ($p>0$), making the reading somewhat hard to digest. Hopefully someone will manage in the future to present a self-contained account based upon Courant’s method. (This project involves some hard analysis and will be deferred to a subsequent technical section. ABORTED: I had not the time/force to adapt Courant’s text to higher genera as suggested by his sloppy footnote 12.) Of course in view of Carathéodory’s philosophy (cf. Quote \[quote:Caratheodory-1928\]) one may wonder which of Courant’s vs. Ahlfors approach enjoys methodological superiority? Further remind that Ahlfors (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.125–6]) has also an elementary argument for circle mapping involving no extremal problem.
Another puzzling feature of the above numerology is that it gives the impression that any $r+2p$ points prescribed on the contours may be mapped to a fixed point of the circle. Whether this is really true deserves to be investigated.
Trying to read Courant’s book 1950 [@Courant_1950] with the focus of the Ahlfors circle map is not an easy task (in our opinion). We may then hope that reading the original 1939 article [@Courant_1939] is easier due to its more restricted content. Let us write down its main statement:
\[quote:Courant\_1939:statement\]
We consider a Riemann surface on a $u,v$-plane consisting of the interior of $k$ unit circles which are connected in branch points of total multiplicity $2k-2$; to this surface we affix $p\ge 0$ full planes with two branch points each. Thus we define a class of domains $B$ with the boundary $b$ on the plane of $w=u+iv$.
Now our theorem is: Each $k$-fold connected domain $G$ in the $x,y$-plane with the boundary curves $g_1,g_2,\dots,g_k$ \[…\] can be mapped conformally on a domain $B$ of our class for any fixed $p$.
In this mapping the branch points on the full planes and one more branch point may be arbitrarily prescribed and, moreover, on each boundary circle $b_\nu$ of $B$ a fixed point may be made to correspond to a fixed point of $g_\nu$.
Personally, I find this statement hard-to-read for several reasons, I shall list subsequently. Moreover it is not clear if suitably interpreted, it really implies the Ahlfors circle mapping.
How to interpret this statement of Courant? Here are some critics probably due to the writer’s incompetence (rigid brain)! On the one hand, we have $B$, which moves in a class of domains. Perhaps those are Riemann surfaces? For instance the operation of affixing $p$ full planes may give a surface of genus $p$, at least this is what is suggested by a latter publication of Courant 1940 [@Courant_1940-Acta], whose relevant portion we quote again for definiteness:
On the basis of the previous results, the proof of the characteristic relation $\varphi(w)=0$ for the solution of the variational problem becomes very simple, if the underlying class of domains $B$ is chosen not as a domain in the plane but as a Riemann surface all of whose boundary lines are unit circles. This class is defined as follows:
We consider for the case of genus zero a $k$-fold connected domain $B$ formed by the discs of $k$ unit circles which are connected in branch points of the total multiplicity $2k-2$. For higher genus $p$, we obtain domains $B$ by affixing to the $k$-fold circular disc $p$ full planes each in $4$ branch points \[footnote 2: Each such full plane represents a “handle” and increases the genus by $1$.\].
Well, but then the domain $B$ of Quote \[quote:Courant\_1939:statement\] would have genus $p$. Then how is it possible for him to get mapped conformally (in a one-to-one fashion?) to the domain $G$, which seems to be planar since its connectivity is equal to the number of boundaries! Perhaps $G$ should be assumed to be $(k+2p)$-fold connected (or put more briefly $G$ should have genus $p$ and $k$ contours)?
If so then Courant gives a (conformal) one-to-one(?) map (=diffeomorphism) $G\to B$ onto a “normal” domain $B$. To make a link with Ahlfors, it would be desirable to know if $B$ maps to the disc even after the affixing of the $p$ full planes. (Incidentally, this operation is somewhat poorly defined, but perhaps better exposed in other publications, cf. e.g., Courant’s book 1950 [@Courant_1950 p.80 and ff.] or Courant 1949/52 [@Courant_1949-52:Book].)
Hence the crucial point would be to know if $B$ is a many-sheeted cover of the disc, and if yes: how many sheets are required? Very naively $k+p$ could suffice, in which case Courant would not only compete with Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], but also with Gabard 2006 …(NB: This $(k+p)$-sheeted-ness occurs again in Courant 1940 [@Courant_1940-Acta p.78], and it would be of interest to decide if this constitutes an anticipation of Gabard 2006.)
If we push our misunderstanding of Courant to its ultimate limit, we may have the impression that what he do, is an attempt to mix the parallel-slit mapping he learned from Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909], with the Riemann-Schottky-Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem, but that the resulting surgery/transplantation does not lead to any really viable creature.
Of course, probably much of our misunderstanding is caused not merely from the difficult mathematics but also from a shift in language (plus perhaps some inaccuracies due to the torrential number of publications?), yet we may still hope that either an appropriate reading (or reorganization) of Courant’s thoughts may lead to an anticipation of the Ahlfors circle map. Hence, we encourage strongly any reader able to take the defense of Courant to publish an account in this direction. Finally, we cite another papers of Courant about conformal maps, which could be of some relevance:
$\bullet$ Courant 1937 [@Courant_1937], especially p.682, footnote 7, where we read: “[*If we assume the possibility of a conformal mapping on the unit circle for all surfaces admitted to competition \[…\]*]{}”. This could have some connection with Ahlfors circle maps, but probably does not. Later on, this article contains some conformal mapping theorems, which are only announced without proof. Perhaps, those could be of some relevance. Especially Fig.11, p.722, seems to be close to Klein’s Rückkehrschnitt-Theorem, and could eventually leads to a proof of Ahlfors? This paper also relates the ideas of J. Douglas about minimal surfaces (especially his extended version of the Plateau problem for surfaces of higher topological structures, where Douglas uses systematically Klein’s symmetric surfaces). One may therefore wonder if Ahlfors’ circle maps may somehow find application in this grandiose theory of minimal surfaces à la Plateau-Douglas-Radó-Courant, etc. As far as the writer knows no direct connection is presently available in print, despite the probable vicinity of both topics.
$\bullet$ Courant 1938 [@Courant_1938], especially p.522 “[*Every plane $k$-fold connected domain can be mapped conformally to a $k$-fold unit circle*]{}”. Hence the result—we are mostly interested in—occurs here already in 1938. In contrast to the 1939 version [@Courant_1939], here neither Riemann, nor Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], not even Grunsky 1937 [@Grunsky_1937] are cited. Did Courant rediscovered the result independently?
$\bullet$ Finally we quote, Courant 1919 [@Courant_1919], where (under some influence of Hilbert 1909, and Koebe 1909) conformal mappings to “normal domains” are discussed for non-schlichtartig surfaces (of finite genus). This is also re-discussed in Courant’s book of 1950 [@Courant_1950].
Last but not least, it is perhaps relevant to remind that some doubts where expressed by Tromba 1983 [@Tromba_1983-PREPRINT] about the validity of Courant’s argumentation regarding higher genus cases of the Plateau-Douglas problem (compare also Jost 1985 [@Jost_1985]). It is not clear to the writer if Tromba’s objections compromise seriously the validity of Courant’s assertions (regarding higher genus conformal maps re-derived via the method of Plateau). This could be a another obstacle toward completing a Courant-style approach to the Ahlfors map.
Douglas 1931–36–39 {#sec:Douglas}
------------------
Having discussed (very coarsely) Courant, it would be unfair to neglect J. Douglas. His resolution of Plateau’s problem interacts strongly with conformal mapping, with the distinctive attitude (partially successful) of not getting subordinated to the latter. As already pointed out (in Courant’s Quote \[quote:Courant-1939\]), Douglas re-derived the (RMT) as the 2D-case of Plateau (cf. Douglas 1931 [@Douglas_1931-Solution p.268]). Subsequently, Douglas extended his Plateau solution to configurations of higher topological structure (cf. Douglas 1936 [@Douglas_1936-Some-new-results], 1939 [@Douglas_1939-min-surf], 1939 [@Douglas_1939-The-most-general]). Thus, it is nearly natural to ask if Douglas (himself, or at least his methods) may anticipate/recover the Ahlfors circle map? Ironically, Douglas’ work relied on Koebe’s, and interestingly took a systematic advantage of (Klein’s) symmetric Riemann surfaces (e.g., orthosymmetry). Without entering the details of all those exciting connections, we just refer to the cited original works, plus the account of Gray-Micallef 2008 [@Gray-Micallef_2008], of which we quote some extracts:
An unexpected bonus of Douglas’s method is a proof of the Riemann-Carathéodory-Osgood Theorem, which follows simply by taking $n=2$. \[…\] Douglas was rightly proud that his solution not only did not require any theorems from conformal mapping but that some such theorems could, in fact, be proved using his method.
However, Douglas did have to use Koebe’s theorem in order to establish that his solution had least area among discs spanning $\Gamma$. He had hoped to fix this blemish, but he never succeeded. That had to wait for contributions from Morrey \[1948\] and, more recently, from Hildebrandt and von der Mosel \[1999\]. \[…\]
Even before working out all the details for the disc case, Douglas was considering the Plateau problem for surfaces of higher connectivity and higher genus. \[…\] As early as 26 October 1929, Douglas announced that his methods could be extended to surfaces of arbitrary genus, orientable or not, with arbitrarily many boundary curves in a space of any dimension. He may well have had a programme at this early stage, but it is doubtful that he had complete proofs. Even when he did publish details in \[3\](=1939 [@Douglas_1939-min-surf]), the arguments are so cumbersome as to be unconvincing. One should remember that Teichmüller theory was still being worked out at that time and that the description of a Riemann surface as a branched cover of the sphere is not ideally suited for the calculation of the dependence of the $A$-functional on the conformal moduli of the surface. Courant’s treatment in \[7\](=1940 [@Courant_1940-Acta]) was more transparent but still awkward. The proper context in which to study minimal surfaces of higher connectivity and higher genus had to wait until the works of Sacks-Uhlenbeck \[19\](=1981), Schoen-Yau \[20\](=1979), Jost \[11\](=1985) and Tombi-Tromba \[21\](=1988). \[…\]
Finally, we mention the recent work of Hildebrandt-von der Mosel 2009 [@Hildebrandt-von-der-Mosel_2009], plus the survey Hildebrandt 2011 [@Hildebrandt_2011]. Here we learn, that Morrey 1966 [@Morrey_1966] was the first to re-prove Koebe’s KNP (=Kreisnormierungsprinzip) via Plateau, modulo a gap fixed by Jost 1985 [@Jost_1985]. The ultimate exposition of 2009 (of loc.cit. [@Hildebrandt-von-der-Mosel_2009]) is intended to be “[*possibly simpler and more direct*]{}” (loc.cit., 2009, p.137) and “[*are complete analogs of the approach of Douglas and Courant*]{}” (loc.cit., 2011, p.77).
As an agenda curiosity, the “Plateau-ization” of conformal mapping theorems does occur along diabolic chronological regularity. From Riemann 1851 [@Riemann_1851] to Douglas 1931 [@Douglas_1931-Solution], gives an elapsing period of 80 years. For circle maps, we have from Riemann 1858 to Courant 1939($-1$) also 8 decades, and from Koebe 1904 (announcement of KNP, in his Thesis talk, yet without convergence proof until 1907/08) to Jost 1984 [@Jost_1985] gives the same interval of time. Thus Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] can safely wait up to 2030, before getting reproved via the method of Plateau?
Again, from our focused viewpoint, the critical question is whether within the problem of Plateau (à la Douglas–Radó–Courant, etc.) germinates an alternative proof of the Ahlfors mapping. As far as we know, the paper closest to this goal his Courant 1939 [@Courant_1939]. Yet, we cannot readily claim that it includes the result of Ahlfors 1950.
Cecioni and his students, esp. Matildi 1945/48, and Andreotti 1950
------------------------------------------------------------------
Among several interesting works of Cecioni and his students (cf. Sec.\[sec:Italian-school\]) we point out especially the article by Matildi 1948 [@Matildi_1945/48] (discovered by the writer as late as \[13.07.12\]). In it the existence of an (Ahlfors-type) circle map in the special case of surfaces with a single contour seems to be established via classical potential-theoretic tricks, plus at the end some algebraic geometry. This work was known to Ahlfors (or Sario?) at least as late as 1960, being quoted in Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960]. It would be interesting to see if Matildi’s method adapts to an arbitrary number of contours, and also try to make (more!) explicit the degree bound obtained by him. In that case Matildi should be considered as a serious forerunner of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], at least at the qualitative level (no extremal problem). Perhaps, il professore Cecioni himself has—and may have—several works (some of which we could not consult as yet) coming quite close to the circle mapping thematic à la Ahlfors.
The idea that Matildi’s argument should extend easily to the case of several contours looks an accessible exercise. Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950] seems to go precisely in this sense.
A global picture (the kaleidoscope)
-----------------------------------
The place occupied by RMT (Riemann mapping theorem) is quite pivotal in conformal mapping with an organical explosion of results around it, like:
$\bullet$ KNP=Kreisnormierungsprinzip (implicit in Riemann 1857/8, Schottky 1875 (Latin version of his Thesis, cf. Klein’s Quote \[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]), in full by Koebe 1905-10-20).
$\bullet$ RS=Riemann-Schottky mapping of a multiply-connected domain to the disc. (This is also known as the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem, so RS$\approx$BG, if you want.)
$\bullet$ AM=the Ahlfors mapping (of a compact bordered surface to the disc).
$\bullet$ GKN=generalized Kreisnormierung (of a compact bordered surface to a circular domain inside a closed Riemann surface of constant curvature having the same genus $p$): apart from some anticipation for $p=1$ Strebel 1987 [@Strebel_1987] and Jost (unpublished), the full result is due to Haas 1984 [@Haas_1984] (existence), and Maskit 1989 [@Maskit_1989] (uniqueness). For an approach via circle packings, compare also He 1990 [@He_1990] and He-Schramm 1993 [@He-Schramm_1993].
$\bullet$ RST=Rückkehrschnitttheorem of Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882_Ruckkehrschnitt] is yet another form of generalized Kreisnormierung to positive genera, and for simplicity we identify it loosely to GKN. The first (rigorous) proof of RST is to be found in Koebe 1910 UAK2 [@Koebe_1910_UAK2], see also Bers 1975 [@Bers_1975] for a modern account via quasiconformal deformations.
Of course (at least modulo some sloppiness) we have universal implications (just by specializing the topological structure) like $$\textrm{AM}\Rightarrow \textrm{RS} \Rightarrow \textrm{RMT}
\Leftarrow \textrm{KNP} \Leftarrow \textrm{GKN}.$$ Besides it is desirable that GKN or RST$\Rightarrow$AM, at least this would resolve our big historical puzzle about Klein-Teichmüller as anticipating Ahlfors. This desideratum is a bit cavalier, yet akin to the implication KNP$\Rightarrow$RS, which is cryptical since Riemann’s Nachlass (1857 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass]).
On the other hand there is a large panoply of methods including:
$\bullet$ algebraic functions (Abel 1826, Jacobi 1832, Riemann 1857, etc.),
$\bullet$ potentials (Dirichlet ca. 1840, Green 1828, Gauss 1839, Thomson 1848, etc.),
$\bullet$ iterative methods (Koebe, Carathéodory 1905–12),
$\bullet$ extremal problems (Fejér-Riesz 1922, Carathéodory 1928, Ostrowski 1929, etc.),
$\bullet$ orthogonal systems (Bergman kernel 1922, Szegö 1921)
$\bullet$ Plateau-Douglas functionals (Plateau 1849, Douglas 1930, Courant 1939 via Dirichlet resurrected),
$\bullet$ circle packings (originally in Koebe 1936, rediscovered by Andreev and Thurston 1985 with convergence proof by Rodin-Sullivan 1986),
$\bullet$ Ricci flow (Hamilton 1988 [@Hamilton_1988], which specialized to 2D enables one to recover the uniformization theorem); idem via Liouville’s equation (desideratum Schwarz, followed by Picard 1890–93, Poincaré 1899, Bieberbach 1916 [@Bieberbach_1916-Delta-u-und-die-automorphen-Funkt], etc., cf. Mazzeo-Taylor 2002 [@Mazzeo-Taylor_2002] for a modern account), and also e.g., Zhang [*et al.*]{} 2012 [@Zhang-et-al_2012], where a mixed Ricci flow/Koebe’s iteration is advocated.
Blending all these results with all those methods accessing them, we get the kaleidoscope depicted below (Fig.\[Kaleidoscope:fig\]) attempting to classify a body of results in a (more-or-less) systematic fashion. Black arrows stress out methods effective in solving a certain mapping problem, whose extremity points to the source (listed in our bibliography). Starting around RMT, arrows are propagated by translation to other locations (e.g., RS, or KNP). Arrows turn to white colored, if the corresponding method has not yet been applied to solve the relevant mapping problem. Of course several methods (like the balayage of Poincaré 1907, or some of Koebe’s method may be slightly outdated having few living practitioners). In contrast, Koebe’s iteration method is still quite popular due to its computational efficiency (see e.g., Zhang et al. 2012 [@Zhang-et-al_2012]), and presumably theoretically fruitful as well (where it is used in conjunction with the Ricci flow).
-55pt 0
Of course the picture is hard to make completely reliable, yet it may aid feeling the power (or popularity) of some methods (e.g, the extremal problem method seems to apply quite universally, except presently to GKN). On the other hand some recent methods like circle packings look very powerful, and may not have as yet explored their full range of applicability (e.g. regarding AM). As discussed in the previous section, we do not know if the Plateau method could crack the AM. Another powerful method is that of the Bergman kernel, which probably also leads to a derivation of the AM. When reading papers of the golden period (1948–1950, Bergman, Schiffer, Garabedian, etc.) this seems to be almost folklore, as well as in some papers of Bell (e.g. 2002 [@Bell_2002]). While spending some time reading precisely what is put on the paper, the writer rather developed the feeling that the positive genus case is never handled in full details. (As a general lamentation, it is an easy challenge to cite about 20 papers where results proved in the planar case are followed by the apocryphal allusion that the proof works through [*mutatis mutandis*]{} without planarity proviso.)
Digression on Bieberbach and Bergman {#Sec:Bieberbach-Bergman}
====================================
The Bergman kernel {#sec:Bergman}
------------------
Among the variety of methods mentioned in the previous section, one especially popular is the Bergman kernel function. This emerges in Bergman’s Thesis 1921/22 [@Bergman_1922]. The point of departure is an area minimal problem going back to Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] capturing some salient geometric feature of the Riemann mapping. Interestingly, Bergman 1922 ( [@Bergman_1922 p.245]) confesses to be not able to reprove the RMT with this method:
In dem betrachteten Spezialfall (Minimalabbildung durch analytische Funktion) ist die erhaltene Minimalfunktion die Kreisabbildungsfunktion. Wie oben gezeigt, kann man die Existenz der ersteren unabhängig von dem Hauptsatze der Funktionentheorie beweisen; es besteht somit die Möglichkeit, den Hauptsatz auf diesem Wege von neuem zu beweisen, was mir aber bis jetzt nicht gelungen ist.
A similar lamentation is expressed by Bochner 1922 [@Bochner_1922 p.184]:
Aus der Möglichkeit der Kreisuniformisierung eines einfach zusammenhängenden Bereiches folgt aber, wie Bieberbach bemerkt hat (l.c.), da[ß]{} die Minimalabbildung mit eben der Kreisabbildung identisch ist, indes ist es mir nicht gelungen, aus der Minimalabbildung der Kreisuniformisierung aufs neue herzuleiten.
In a similar vein, some 3 decades later one among the prominent aficionados of the method wrote (source=Math.-Reviews for Lehto’s Thesis 1949 [@Lehto_1949]):
Despite its great intrinsic elegance and its adaptability for numerical computations, the theory of complex orthonormal functions (centering about the concept of the Bergman kernel function) had the drawback of being a mere representation theory; the fundamental existence theorems had to be borrowed from other fields. In $\S 4$ the author fills this gap in one important instance by giving an existence proof for the parallel-slit mappings (in the case of simply-connected domains this is identical with the Riemann mapping theorem \[provided the slit is extended to $\infty$\]) within the framework of the orthonormal function theory.
So somewhere in between 1922–1949 some technological turning point must have occurred amplifying dramatically the power of the Bergman kernel method. When and how did this occurred exactly? Probably through the Bergman–Schiffer collaboration in the 40’s, plus some fresh blood like Garabedian or Lehto. In several subsequent publications of Garabedian and Schiffer, it is emphasized that parallel-slit mappings are easier than circle maps (cf. Quotes \[quote:Garabedian-Schiffer\_1950\] and \[quote:Garabedian\_1949-52\]). However the Ahlfors circle mapping seems accessible to the Bergman-Szegö orthogonal system method as suggested in Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950], where only the planar case is handled in detail. Often in literature, yet not in the just cited paper, it is sloppily insinuated that a method implemented in the planar case extends to Riemann surfaces. A typical specimen is the earlier paper by Garabedian 1950 [@Garabedian_1950] claiming another proof of the full Ahlfors theorem by deploying a broad spectrum of techniques (yet not readily reducible to the Bergman kernel) ranging from Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939-Dreikreisesatzes], Grunsky 1941–42 [@Grunsky_1940], [@Grunsky_1942], Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] and Schiffer’s inner variations.
Inspecting back the Bergman method itself, it is not hard to understand why it is most readily implementable in the planar case. It seems indeed to require a sort global ambient coordinate system. Let us look at the beautiful original paper Bergman 1922 [@Bergman_1922 p.240]. Here the key idea is a characterization of the Riemann function $w\colon B \to \Delta$ (of a \[simply-connected\] domain $B$ to the disc) as the one whose range $w(B)$ has smallest possible area amongst all functions $f\colon B \to {\Bbb C}$ constrained by $f'(0)=1$ (and $f(0)=0$ after harmless translation so that $0\in B$). The area swept out by $f$ is calculated by the integral $$\int \int_B f'(z) \overline{f'(z)} d\omega,$$ where $d \omega$ is the surface element in the $B$-plane, while the integrand $\vert f'(z)\vert^2$ measures the distortion effected at $z$. Following Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] (who in turn seems inspired by Ritz 1908 [@Ritz_1908]), Bergman plugs in place of $f(z)$ a polynomial (recall the finitistic motto of Bloch “[*Nihil est infinito …*]{}”): $$w_n(z)=a_0+a_1z+\dots+a_n z^n,$$ with coefficients determined as to minimize the above integral under the constraint $w_n'(0)=1$. There is always a unique such polynomial, which is computed by usual methods (finite extremum-problem). The limiting function $\lim_{n\to
\infty} w_n$ gives—again Bieberbach is cited—the required mapping. The method is so simple and elegant that it is hardly conceived why it fails to reprove the RMT (which Bergman and others call the [*Hauptsatz der Theorie der konformen Abbildung*]{} (p.240)). The reason is however a quite simple vicious circle, namely that the above (Bieberbach) “areal” characterization of the Riemann function logically rests on RMT. Hence the minimum function (of Bergman) is eminently computable, but the resulting power series may not have a priori the required geometrical property of univalence and the right disc-range. I guessed the latter property follows from Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914], hence the real problem is univalence. However on \[13.06.12\], after reading Bergman 1947 [@Bergman_1947 p.32], the opposite looks true: namely univalence is easy but the disc-range issue is not. There are mentioned two contributions, one by Bergman 1932 [@Bergman_1932] and also Schiffer 1938 [@Schiffer_1938-CRAS-domaines-minima] where the desideratum (of reproving RMT) is established for starlike domains. So almost as importantly, this source (of 1947) points out that Bergman’s dream of 1922 (new proof of RMT via the area extremum problem) was not borne out until 1947, and therefore seems really to be credited to the newer generation like Garabedian and Lehto.
Generally speaking, extremum problems are often solvable (even uniquely soluble), but it is another piece of careful analysis to control precisely the geometric behavior of solutions, e.g. in the hope to re-crack RMT. Of course, the problem was ultimately solved, cf. e.g., Garabedian 1950 [@Garabedian_1950] or the already mentioned Thesis of Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949], which are the first completed Bergman-style approaches to RMT.
The point for re-exposing the hearth of the method is to emphasize the rôle of polynomials generated by $z^n$ as a preferred system of global functions on the domain $B$ out of which an ideal object is processed through an extremum procedure handled [*in finito*]{}. How can one adapt this on a Riemann surface where no global parameters are supplied a priori? This is a little puzzle to the writer \[06.06.12\], but the masters (Bergman, Garabedian, Bell, etc.) often claim the method to suit the broader context with minor changes. Compare, e.g., the following sources:
$\bullet$ Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950 p.24, Remark] justifies in this book extensibility to Riemann surfaces by referring to results of Sario 1949–50.
$\bullet$ Garabedian 1950 [@Garabedian_1950 p.361], where one reads “[*For the sake of a simple presentation of results we have merely stated the theorem for the case of schlicht domains of finite connectivity. However the theorem is true with only one change if $D$ is a Riemann surface [\[…\]]{}. The reader will easily verify that the proof which we shall give of the theorem carries over with minor changes to the more general situation.*]{}” If not pure bluff, it is sad that Garabedian did not write down the details at that time. If we believe in the unity of mathematics especially the algebro-geometric curves and analytic Riemann surfaces at the compact level, then the existential aspect of circle maps is frankly more trivial in the “schlicht” and even “schlichtartig” case, compare e.g., the argument in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] (reproduced below as Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]), which in substance is the one of Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], Wirtinger 1942 [@Wirtinger_1942], but perhaps slightly streamlined by the mere usage of algebro-geometric language.
Minimizing the integral vs. maximizing the derivative (suction vs. injection), i.e. Bieberbach 1914-Bergman 1921/22 vs. Fejér-Riesz 1922, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trying to avoid the vicissitudes of life concomitant with the Dirichlet principle, the early 1920’s imagined two methods of attack to the RMT via extremum problems. Given $B \ni
a$ a simply-connected domain in the complex plane ${\Bbb C}$, which is not the plane and therefore can easily be assumed to be bounded via a suitable transformation, RMT amounts to find a conformal map to the disc. The following (animalistic) acronyms are derived by contracting the contributors’ names:
$\bullet$ (BIBER)=(Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] and Bergman\[n\] 1922 [@Bergman_1922]). \[Biber=German for “beaver” (=“castor” in French).\]
$\bigstar$ [*Amongst analytic functions $f\colon B
\to {\Bbb C}$ normed by $f(a)=0$ and $f'(a)=1$ minimize the integral $\int
\int_B \vert f'(z)\vert^2 d\omega$, where $d\omega$ is the surface element of the Euclidean metric.* ]{}
$\bullet$ (FROG)=(Fejér-Riesz 1922, Carathéodory 1928 [@Caratheodory_1928]$\leftrightarrow$Ostrowski 1929 [@Ostrowski_1929], and Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940], Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] in the multiply-connected context)
$\bigstar$ [ *Amongst analytic functions $f\colon
B \to \Delta$(= unit disc) normed by $f(a)=0$ maximize the modulus $ \vert f'(a)\vert$.*]{}
As remembered in the previous section, the problem BIBER was not prompt in supplying an autonomous proof of RMT, while succeeding only in the late 1940’s (Garabedian’s or Lehto’s Thesis). Further this succeeded perhaps only under the proviso of smooth boundary (Jordan curve), cf. e.g. Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950 p.164]: “[*The most serious drawback in our method is, perhaps, that we must make assumptions upon the smoothness of the boundary of the domain we consider, so that the general case is reached only after a topological approximation argument is given.*]{}”.
In contrast FROG met earlier success (cf. e.g., Ostrowski 1928/29 [@Ostrowski_1929] and Carathéodory 1928 [@Caratheodory_1928]) streamlining previous work of Fejér-Riesz 1922 (published in Radó 1923 [@Rado_1923-Uber-konf-Abb]).
For extensions to multiple-connectivity, or even Riemann surfaces, we have the following contributions:
$\bullet$ FROG leads to the works of Grunsky 1940–42 [@Grunsky_1940; @Grunsky_1942] (schlicht domains of finite connectivity) and Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (non-planar compact bordered Riemann surfaces), where the derivative $f'(a)$ is computed w.r.t. any local chart. In fact Ahlfors rather considers the variant where given two points $a,b$ the modulus of $f(b)$ has to be maximized amongst functions with $f(a)=0$.
$\bullet$ BIBER is somewhat harder to formulate on a Riemann surface $F$ (taking the rôle of the domain $B$) as the magnitudes involved in the problem require something more than the Riemann surface structure. A Riemannian metric would make the problem meaningful, but which metric to choose? Of course there is the canonical conformal metric given by uniformization of the doubled membrane $F$. Of course we deviate slightly from a self-contained proof of RMT or Ahlfors (=AMT), but this is maybe not a dramatic concession.
Thus, even in its basic formulation, some ideas are required to set a perfect analogue of the problem BIBER for a (bordered) surface. If this can be done, it is likely (or desirable) that the extremal function (whose existence and uniqueness is derived by Hilbert’s spaces arguments) is a circle map, i.e. effects a conformal representation over the disc. (This is a priori not the unit disc, but renormalize so.) In the simply-connected case, both extremals of BIBER and FROG (denoted $\beta$ and $\alpha$ respectively) yield the one and the same object, namely the Riemann mapping $B\to\Delta$ (again after a harmless scaling of $\beta$, cf. Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950 p.24] for its exact value in terms of the Bergman kernel). Hence, it is plausible that the least area map for the surface $F$ coincides with the Ahlfors function. So this would be a sort of conformal identity, perhaps of some practical significance.
Of course, the primary interest would be to reobtain (via BIBER) a novel proof of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]. (This game may be already implicit in several works, as those of Bergman and Garabedian itemized in the previous section, but no pedestrian redaction is available in our opinion.) Yet, the real novelty would be the resulting “binocular view” of the one and same object (i.e., the Ahlfors extremal) through two different angles, yielding a sharper perception of it. Perhaps, this gives sharper differential-geometric insights about the Ahlfors map of a membrane, and may have some implications toward Gromov’s FAC(=filling area conjecture). Remember our naive conviction that this problem FAC should succumb just under the powerful methods of 2D-conformal geometry.
Bergman kernel on Riemann surfaces
----------------------------------
\[13.06.12\] Consulting other sources (e.g. Weill 1962 [@Weill_1962]), it seems that the theory of the Bergman kernel can be developed over any Riemann surface. The idea is to use the Hilbert space structure on the space of analytic differentials. A complete exposition is e.g., Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960 p.302]. Whether or not this leads to another proof of Ahlfors circle maps is another question.
\[15.06.12\] Other references for the Bergman kernel on Riemann surfaces include Nagura 1951 [@Nagura_1951], and Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950] where the Ahlfors function is expressed in terms of the Bergman kernel.
\[25.06.12\] In fact the key observation is probably the [*conformal invariance*]{} of the integral involved in the minimum problem BIBER (of the previous section). Thus it may be hoped that this problem leads to an independent treatment of the Ahlfors mapping, treated from a Hilbert space \[of “areally” ([*aérolaire*]{}) square-integrable holomorphic functions\] viewpoint. This would give some culmination to the device of Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914].
So having in mind the possibility of extending the BIBER minimum area problem of the previous section to compact bordered Riemann surfaces (which looks reasonable in view of the conformal invariance of this area functional) we would like to reprove the existence of a circle map (à la Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]).
Relevant literature on this problem (but from our naive viewpoint not completely satisfactory) includes in chronological order:
$\bullet$ Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] (simply-connected schlicht case)
$\bullet$ Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950 p.24], where the fact that the range of the minimizing function is a circle is considered as well-known (with reference to Bieberbach’s Lehrbuch (1945 edition) [@Bieberbach_1945-Lehrbuch]). Later in Bergman’s book 1950 [@Bergman_1950 p.87] the circle map $B\to \Delta$ is recovered through the function $F(z,
\zeta)=\frac{\hat K(z, \bar \zeta)}{\hat L(z, \zeta)}$ defined on p.86, but it is not clear if this function solves the least area problem. (Perhaps the connection is easy to do.)
$\bullet$ Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950 p.166–7] where the BIBER problem is again formulated, but somehow only in the purpose of showing existence of the reproducing kernel function, in the optic of re-deriving the PSM (parallel-slit maps). In particular one may wonder if it possible to show by a direct analysis if the minimum function is a circle map. Circle maps are reobtained later in the paper (p.182) however through a different procedure.
$\bullet$ Nehari’s book 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK] where the BIBER minimum problem appears on p.362 (for multiply-connected domain only) and its relation to the Bergman kernel is made explicit in the subsequent pages (esp. p.368-9). However I do not think that the issue about the circle mapping property of the minimum function of BIBER is handled. Later in the book (p.378) the Ahlfors extremal function is treated, yet a priori there is no clear-cut identity between the Bieberbach and Ahlfors extremal function. Nehari’s book borrows a lot of ideas from other writers without referring to them, thus it is an easy task to observe strong overlap with the previous literature (e.g. Bergman 1950 and Garabedian-Schiffer 1950).
$\beta$ and $\alpha$ problems {#sec:beta-and-alpha-problems}
-----------------------------
\[27.06.12\] As already discussed in Section 7.8, there are essentially two problems BIBER and FROG amounting respectively to minimize an integral and to maximize a derivative. We may rebaptize them respectively the $\beta$-problem (for Bieberbach-Bergman) and the $\alpha$-problem for Ahlfors (albeit this should truly be Fejér-Riesz 1922, for historical sharpness).
For simplicity we restrict to domains, though the ultimate dream is to concoct didactic expositions pertaining to Riemann surfaces.
Regarding the $\beta$-problem (of minimizing the areal integral) it has a direct Hilbert-space interpretation (recall the affiliation Dirichlet-Riemann-Hilbert-(Schmidt)-Ritz-Bieberbach-Bergman), as finding the vector of minimal length on the hyperplane defined by the prescription $f'(t)=1$, where $t$ is some fixed point (previously denoted $a$). Such minimization traduces into orthogonality to this hyperplane, yielding the so-called [*reproducing property*]{} while permitting to identify the $\beta$-extremal with the Bergman kernel (function). For a detailed execution, cf. e.g. Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950 p.166–7] (henceforth abridged GS50).
Likewise the $\alpha$-problem received ultimately a similar treatment through Garabedian’s Thesis 1949 [@Garabedian_1949] (recast in the just cited Garabedian-Schiffer article), but the treatment is somewhat more involved appealing to the Szegö kernel instead, characterized via an orthogonalization taking place along the boundary of the domain (hence in substance the idea of length rather than area). It follows in particular an explicit formula for the derivative of the Ahlfors function $\vert
f'(t) \vert=2\pi k(t,t)$ in term of the Szegö kernel. (Garabedian’s work is such a tour de force that it was represented in virtually all major texts of that period, e.g. Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950] and Nehari 1952 [@Nehari_1950], plus also the paper GS50.)
Can we understand better the connection between both extremal problems? Our naive question is whether the $\beta$-map is a circle map. Remember that Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] has an argument in the case where the domain is simply-connected (via his first Flächensatz saying that a map from the disc with normalized derivative expands the area of the disc unless it is the identity). Combining this with the Riemann mapping, Bieberbach argues that the $\beta$-map must be disc-ranged, for otherwise we could deflate the area by post-composing with the Riemann map, hence violating the minimum property.
Alas, it seems that this argument is hard (impossible?) to extend to the multiply-connected case. Thus it is puzzling to wonder if the $\beta$-map is a circle map. If it is the case, then we could inject the $\beta$-solution into the Ahlfors problem and compare them. In view of the explicit formula of Garabedian we can even try a direct comparison of the respective derivatives at $t$ and hope to find an equality in which case by uniqueness we would have $\beta=\alpha$ (modulo scaling), i.e. a perfect coincidence between the Bieberbach and Ahlfors functions.
Of course, ideally everything should be done geometrically from the extremal problem, without duelling with hard analysis. Recall that each problem has its allied reproducing kernel, which serves to express its solution. In particular we may hope to derive the circle mapping property of the $\beta$-function from the property of its allied (Bergman) kernel (cf. GS50, p.167). And if not, we may hope to connect the $\beta$ to the $\alpha$-map through a somewhat accidental identity between their kernels functions. As far as the writer knows this is not explicitly made, and perhaps wrong.
Let us emphasize a naive duality between the $\alpha$- and $\beta$-problem. The first amounts to a maximal pressurization (inflation) within a limited container (the unit disc), whereas $\beta$ is a free vacuum deflation leading ineluctably toward a big-crunch to a point (constant map) if there were not the initial explosion sustained by the derivative normalization $f'(t)=1$. Hence it is not so surprising that the Ahlfors map is a circle-map but the same issue for the Bieberbach least-area map seems more like an isoperimetric miracle.
We learned from Gaier’s 1978 survey [@Gaier_1978-JDMV p.34–35, §C] the following piece of information. Gaier’s article contains a proof of a striking fact due to Grötzsch 1931 (see also Gaier 1977 [@Gaier_1977-Roumaine], where the precise ref. is identified as Grötzsch 1931 [@Groetzsch_1931]) that a map (non-unique!) minimizing the area integral $\int\int \vert
f'(z) \vert^2 d \omega$ (à la Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]–Bergman\[n\] 1922 [@Bergman_1922], but extended to the multiply-connected setting) under the schlichtness proviso (and the normalization $f(a)=0, f'(a)=1$) maps the domain upon a [*circular slit disc*]{} (with concentric circular slits centered at the origin). According to Gaier, Grötzsch’s paper contains no details outside the indication of using his [*Flächenstreifenmethode*]{} (striptease method). Gaier’s proof combines Carleman’s isoperimetric property of rings (relating the modulus to the area enclosed by the inner contour) with Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] (first area theorem) to the effect that a schlicht normalized map from the disc inflates area, unless it is the identity. A natural question \[13.07.12\] is what happens if we relax schlichtness of the map? Do we recover an Ahlfors circle map?
As a historical curiosity, Gaier 1977 [@Gaier_1977-Roumaine] remarks that the above least-area problem for schlicht functions was reposed as a research problem as late as 1976 in the Durham meeting by Aharonov (compare for the exact ref. the Math. Review by Burbea of Gaier 1977 [@Gaier_1977-Roumaine]). It is apparently Kühnau (Grötzsch’s eminent student) who pointed Grötzsch’s priority in the reference just cited (Grötzsch 1931 [@Groetzsch_1931]). It should be remembered that several treatments existed in print (prior to Aharonov’s question), e.g. the one in Sario-Oikawa’s book of 1969 [@Sario-Oikawa_1969] (see pages as in MR of Gaier 1977 [@Gaier_1977-Roumaine]), which is inspired from Reich-Warschawski 1960 [@Reich-Warschawski_1960]. All these treatments are quite involved, and Gaier 1977 [@Gaier_1977-Roumaine] claims to simplify them.
A paper related to Gaier’s and to this circle of ideas—i.e. Bieberbach’s area minimization, yet, alas not exactly furnishing our naive desideratum—is Alenicyn 1981/82 [@Alenicyn_1981/82]: this gives the exact reference to the relevant work of Carleman 1918 [@Carleman_1918] as well as to that of Vo Dang Thao 1976 [@Vo-Dang-Thao_1976] (the latter being however slightly criticized for mistakenly assuming the schlichtness of some function).
Philosophically such Bieberbach-type area minimization problem amounts to a deflation as opposed to the inflation of Ahlfors-type problem maximizing the derivative. According to popular wisdom, both viewpoints could coincide since a semi-empty bottle is the same as a half-filled one. (This reminds the story of Ahlfors’ whiskey bottle used as a defense-weapon against an aggressor.)
\[17.07.12\] We can also switch completely of extremal problem by looking at an Ahlfors (for short $\alpha$-type) extremal (inflationist) problem of maximizing the derivative among schlicht functions. Given $D$ a multiply-connected domain marked interiorly at the point $a\in D$, find among all schlicht functions $f\colon D \to {\Bbb C}$ bounded-by-one $\vert f\vert
\le 1$ the one maximizing the modulus of the derivative $f'(a)$. It is reasonable to guess that “the” (unique?) extremal map will take $D$ upon the full circle with circular slits (schlichtness being only fulfilled on the interior). It seems that this behavior is the one described in Meschkowski 1953 [@Meschkowski_1953] (basing his analysis upon a distortion result of Rengel 1932 [@Rengel_1932-33]), and see also the treatment by Reich-Warschawski 1960 [@Reich-Warschawski_1960]. Added 27.07.12: Compare also Nehari 1953 [@Nehari_1953-Inequalities p.264–5], where another treatment of this problem is given, and credits is given to Grötzsch 1928 [@Groetzsch_1928] and Grunsky 1932 [@Grunsky_1932].
[**Optional digression:**]{} Asking schlichtness up to the boundary, we get maybe the Kreisnormierung of Koebe? This would be interesting since as pointed out in one of Meschkowski’s paper cited in the bibliography (locate where exactly!?, but anecdotic because cf. also Schiffer-Hawley 1962 [@Schiffer-Hawley_1962], Hejhal 1974 [@Hejhal_1974], etc.) there was in the 1950’s no clear-cut extremal problem leading to the Kreisnormierung (even in finite connectivity). Maybe the situation changed slightly after several works of Schiffer (and his collaborator Hawley) where some Fredholm eigenvalues came into the dance (compare several refs. cited below in the period 1959–1963).
At this stage combining the analysis of Gaier 1978 [@Gaier_1978-JDMV] for the $\beta$-problem and that of Meschkowski/Reich-Warschawski for the $\alpha$-problem (refs. as in the penultimate paragraph) we see a perfect duality between the behavior of the extremal [*schlicht*]{} functions (at least qualitatively since both mappings carry the domain upon the same canonical region of a circular slit disc). Maybe one can even identify both functions (after harmless scaling). Those works raise some hope that the schlicht-relaxed $\beta$-problem (area minimization à la Bieberbach) produces again the Ahlfors map (or at least enjoys the same property of being a circle map). As far as we know \[20.07.12\], there is no such published account corroborating this intuition. This would be highly desirable to complete the symmetry of the picture below (Fig.\[alpha:fig\]) summarizing our discussion.
\[22.07.12\] On reading Alenicyn 1981/81 [@Alenicyn_1981/81 p.202], 1981/82 [@Alenicyn_1981/82], where one is referred for the least-area problem back to Nehari’s book of 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK], especially pp.340 (one can safely add p.341) and p.362. Nehari’s pages340–341 are perhaps not so relevant as it is merely a set of exercises. What is truly relevant is page 362, where the least area problem is posed and partially analyzed. In fact, this least area problem is handled earlier (with somewhat sharper information) in Garabedian-Schiffer 1949 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1949 p.201] where the solution is represented as $M(z,a) \,
M'(a,a)^{-1}=:M^{\ast}(z,a)$, where $M(z,a)=[A(z,a)-B(z,a)]/2$ is a combination of $A,B$ the two canonical parallel slit maps of the domain $B$ upon horizontal (resp. vertical) slit domains taking $a$ to $\infty$ as a simple pole with residue $+1$ (compare p.200).
\[26.07.12\] In fact this solution is already announced in Grunsky’s Thesis 1932 [@Grunsky_1932 p.140]! As to the geometry of this map $M^{\ast}$, Garabedian-Schiffer (p.201) add the fact that it is at most $n$-valent ($n$ being the number of contours of the domain, equivalently, its connectivity). (This information is not to be found in Nehari 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK].) Alas, Garabedian-Schiffer (1949 ) never seem to assert that the least-area map $M^{\ast}(z,a)$ is a circle map. On p.217, they show that any unitary function $E$ (=unit-circle map) may be expressed as a linear combination of the least-area maps $M(z, n_{\nu})$ centered at the $N$ zeros $n_{\nu}$ (‘Nullstellen’) of $E$ (assumed to be simple), compare Eq. (131) and (131’). Finally, on p.219 it is observed that the area of any such $E$, mapping the domain $D$ upon the unit-circle covered $N$ times, is exactly $N\cdot \pi$ (since area as to be counted with multiplicities). Of course, if our conjecture about the circle-mapping nature of least-area maps (there is one for each center $a$) is correct, then we could sharpen Garabedian-Schiffer’s assertion about the “at most $n$-valency” into an exact $n$-valency of those maps.
\[27.07.12\] It could be the case, that our conjecture about the circle mapping nature of the least area map is settled in Lehto’s Thesis 1949 [@Lehto_1949] (see especially p.41).
\[29.07.12\] However on consulting M. Maschler 1959 [@Maschler_1959] (esp. p.173) it seems to be asserted that the range of the least area maps are unknown for domains of connectivity higher than $2$.
\[26.07.12\] To our grand surprise, we notice that the least-area problem is handled in full generality (i.e., for compact bordered Riemann surfaces) in Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954 p.135]. However again (as in Garabedian-Schiffer 1949 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1949]) it is not shown that the resulting extremal function is a circle map.
At this stage we see that there is a wide variety of extremal problems, and as a rough rule we may split the most common of them into the $\alpha$- and $\beta$-type (for Ahlfors and Bieberbach resp.) Each problem is hard to analyze precisely but there is a large body of wisdoms accumulated about them by the masters (Koebe, Carathéodory, Bieberbach, Grötzsch, Grunsky, Ahlfors, Schiffer, Garabedian, Golusin, etc.) Optionally by a nebulous bottle principle there may be a certain duality (even possibly an identity) between $\alpha$- and $\beta$-solutions. At least so is the case in the simplest simply-connected setting according to Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914], and apparently in the multi-connected setting we have at least coincidence of the range when considering the restricted schlicht problems. We may also speculate that a careful analysis of a suitable extremal problem may lead to a solution of the Gromov filling area conjecture.
Finally we mention a related extremal problem treated in Schiffer 1938 [@Schiffer_1938], namely that of minimizing the maximum modulus in the family of schlicht functions $f\colon B \to
{\Bbb C}$ normalized by $f(a)=0$ and $f'(a)=1$. The (or rather any) extremal is shown to map (conformally) the Bereich $B$ upon a circular slit disc.
Least area problem vs. least momentum
-------------------------------------
\[03.08.12\] The menagerie of extremal problems leading to the Riemann mapping can still be further enlarged. Each extremal problem exploits the ordered structure of the real line via some real-valued functional. One may incidentally get some feeling of regression about this massive usage of real numbers in complex geometry problems, but this is common and respectable practice since Dirichlet’s principle. Regarding the problem of circle maps [*per se*]{} it is not perfectly clear what is the [*ideally suited*]{} extremal problem (if any beside that of maximizing the derivative)? What is somehow missing is an extremal principle selecting the best extremal problem! The competitive nature of such extremal problems fascinated generations but requires strong classification aptitudes in view of the difficulty of each problem and the diversity of them.
First the [*least-area problem*]{} consists in minimizing the area of the range of an analytic function counted by multiplicity. This is measured by the functional $A[f]=\int
\int \vert f' \vert^2 d\omega$ (which seems much allied to the Dirichlet integral). (To extend the problem to Riemann surfaces one just needs to take notice of the conformal invariance of this integral upon conformal change of metrics.) To avoid the minimizers collapsing to the (uninteresting) constant functions, one imposes the side condition $f'(t)=1$ at some inner point $t$ of the domain $B$. The least-area map (which exists uniquely by Hilbert space theory) effects when $B$ is simply-connected nothing but than the Riemann mapping (Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]). This viewpoint was widely pursued especially by Bergman, yielding in particular the concept of Minimalbereich. See for instance Bergman 1922 [@Bergman_1922], Bergman 1929 [@Bergman_1929-Hermite] where the concept seems to emerge, yet no precise definition. As noted in Maschler’s papers e.g. 1959 [@Maschler_1959] it seems that the nature of those minimal-domains was not completely elucidated in the late 1950’s. However, Maschler—extending a result of Schiffer 1938 [@Schiffer_1938-CRAS-domaines-minima]—observes that such minimal domains satisfy the mean property. Therefore on applying the result of Davis (as quoted in Aharonov-Shapiro 1976 [@Aharonov-Shapiro_1976]) characterizing the circle as the unique domain with a one-point quadrature identity (i.e. such that the mean value property holds for all harmonic functions) one may hope to infer our desideratum that the least area map has a range which is a disc.
As we remarked it is not very clear what the range of this map is, and we may speculate about it being a (multiply-covered) circle.
Another problem is that of the “least momentum” where one minimizes instead the integral $\int\int_B \vert f(z) \vert^2
d\omega$ (notice the suppression of the derivative) and again to avoid the trivial solution $f=0$ we impose $f'(t)=1$ at some point $t\in B$ of the domain. Another possible normalization is to ask $f(t)=1$, like in Fuchs 1945 [@Fuchs_1945/46]. Here again it seems reasonable to expect circularity of the range of the minimum mapping. The intuition being that the inertia-momentum of a rotating body gets minimized for a circular body (granting some atomical resistance avoiding a complete gravitational collapse of matter).
\[07.08.12\] Of course all those problems are super-classical, yet we still find it hard to delineate the relevant clear-cut results among the super-massive literature. Our naive intuition would be that such least-area (or momentum) map are closely allied to circle maps. However it is not sure that this is the pure truth for non-simply-connected domains (and a fortiori for bordered surfaces). As we already said the relevant sources includes for the area problem:
$\bullet$ Grunsky 1932 [@Grunsky_1932 p.140], alas no details, some more details in Garabedian-Schiffer 1949 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1949] (but no assertion of circularity) only the Grunsky formula expressing the least-area map as combination of the two slit-maps.
$\bullet$ for the least momentum see many works of Bergman starting from his Thesis 1922 [@Bergman_1922].
Perhaps it should be observed that the least-momentum problem is perhaps somewhat less easily extensible to Riemann surfaces in view of the lack of conformal invariance of its functional.
Finally, we can mention Walsh’s 1935 survey (Mémorial [@Walsh_1935]) where all such problems are united under a generalized form where more points $z_1, \dots z_n$ are prescribed in the domain joint with some prescribed values $\gamma_1, \dots
\gamma_n$ and one is required to find the map minimizing the functional under the interpolating condition $f(z_i)=\gamma_i$. Alas, in Walsh’s survey attention is confined to the simply-connected case and the multi-connected variants where at that time not systematically understood.
A digression about Nehari’s paper of 1955 {#Nehari-digression:sec}
-----------------------------------------
In Nehari 1955 [@Nehari_1955], the author presents a nice application of Bieberbach’s 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] existence theorem of a circle map for an $n$-ply connected domain upon the disc of degree $n$. Precisely Nehari deduces a bound on the number of linearly independent solutions to a certain extremal problem (akin to those treated by Szegö 1921 [@Szego_1921]). It seems plausible that this Nehari argument is sufficiently universal to extend directly to the more general setting of compact bordered Riemann surfaces (membranes for short) upon invoking Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] instead of Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]. As the argument uses only the circle mapping nature of the Ahlfors map, we may even appeal to Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] to obtain a sharper bound. In reality what is truly relevant is the absolute invariant of the (separating) gonality à la Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011]. Let us try to explore this connection, albeit some details require to be better worked out in order to really understand this technique of Nehari.
We try first to go quickly to the hearth of Nehari’s ideas. The starting point is the following extremal problem formulated for $D$ a compact domain bounded by $n$ analytic curves (for simplicity) forming its complete boundary contour $C$. Further in the interior of $D$ a set $C_1$ consisting of a finite number of rectifiable Jordan arc and/or curves is given. \[Warning: in his paper [@Nehari_1955 p.29] Nehari writes “$C_1$ will stand for a subset of $C$”, which in our opinion is just a misprint! $C$ should be $D$!? Of course, our domain $D$ differs from Nehari’s as ours includes the contours.\] Let also $L^2=L^2(D)$ be the (Hilbert) space of analytic functions on $D$ with finite integral $\int_C \vert
f(z) \vert^2 ds<\infty$ where $ds$ is the (Euclidean) length element.
. Find the functions $f\in L^2$ minimizing the norm $\int_C \vert f(z) \vert^2 ds $ under the constraint $\int_{C_1} \vert f(z) \vert^2 ds=1$.
This problem suggests looking at the functional $$J(f)=\frac{\int_C \vert f(z) \vert^2 ds}{\int_{C_1} \vert f(z)
\vert^2 ds}$$ whose minimizers are (up to scaling) the solution of problem (P).
Next Nehari sets up a certain integral equation whose eigenspace attached to the lowest eigenvalue parametrize the extremals of (P). We skip the details, but the key issue is just the linearity of the set of solutions to Problem (P). With this at hand, we can plunge directly to the core of Nehari’s argument, namely the:
[(Nehari 1955 [@Nehari_1955 p.36])]{} Assuming (as above) the domain $D$ of connectivity $n$ (=number of contours), problem [(P)]{} admits at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.
Nehari’s argument splits in 4 short steps:
[**Step 1 (Bieberbach 1925)**]{} According to the latter ([@Bieberbach_1925]) there is a circle map $f\colon D \to
\overline{\Delta}=\{\vert z\vert \le 1\} $ of degree $n$. This means that $\vert f(z) \vert=1$ exactly on the contours (i.e. $f^{-1}(\partial\overline{\Delta}=S^1)=C$) and upon changing the origin to an unramified place we may assume that $f$ has exactly $n$ zeroes, say $z_1,\dots,z_n$.
[**Step 2 (Nehari’s trick in linear algebra)**]{} Assume by contradiction that (P) has $n+1$ linearly independent solutions $f_i$ ($i=1,\dots,n+1$). We consider the linear map $${\Bbb C}^{n+1} \to L^2 \to {\Bbb C}^n\,,$$ where the first arrow maps $(A_1,\dots, A_{n+1})\mapsto
\sum_{i=1}^{n+1} A_i f_i$ and the second is the evaluation $
\varphi\mapsto (\varphi(z_1),\dots, \varphi(z_n))$ at the zeroes of the (Bieberbach) function $f$. For dimensionality reasons, there is a non-zero vector $(A_i)$ in the kernel which creates the function $f_0:=\sum_{i=1}^{n+1}A_i f_i$ vanishing at all $z_i$, yet without being identically $0$ (the $f_i$ being linearly independent).
[**Step 3 (Nehari factorizes)**]{} The function $g$ defined by $g
\cdot f=f_0$ is regular in $D$ (since writing $g=f_0/f$ we see that the zeroes of $f$ are cancelled out by those of $f_0$ which by construction englobe those of $f$). Now using the property of the circle map $f$ we find the following strict inequality $$J(f_0)=\frac{\int_C \vert f_0(z) \vert^2 ds}{\int_{C_1} \vert
f_0(z) \vert^2 ds}=\frac{\int_C \vert g(z)\vert^2 \overbrace{
\vert f(z) \vert^2}^{=1} ds}{\int_{C_1} \vert g(z) \vert^2
\underbrace{\vert f(z) \vert^2}_{< 1} ds}>\frac{\int_C \vert
g(z) \vert^2 ds}{\int_{C_1} \vert g(z) \vert^2 ds}=J(g)\,.$$ (Moreover reading backwards the numerators we see that the norm of $g$ equals that of $f_0$ so that $g\in L^2$.) The just obtained inequation $J(g)<J(f_0)$ shows that $f_0$ fails to solve (P).
[**Step 4 (Using the linear structure)**]{} However the $f_i$ ($i=1,\dots,n+1$) solve (P), hence by virtue of the linear structure of the extremals to (P) \[which Nehari derives from an interpretation as the eigenspace attached to the lowest eigenvalue, but which perhaps may be derived more directly\] it follows that $f_0$ solves also (P) \[after scaling appropriately\], violating the conclusion of Step 3.
Albeit our presentation is not completely polished (and Nehari’s maybe not perfectly organized for the beginner), we see that the basic trick looks sufficiently universal, as to extend to the following context.
Instead of the finitely-connected domain $D$, we consider $F$ a compact bordered orientable Riemannian surface of genus $p$ and with $r$ contours. Now $ds$ denotes the induced length element attached to the (Riemannian) metric. As above, we specify a subset $C_1$ of the interior of $F$ consisting of a finite “drawing” of Jordan arcs and curves (perhaps they do not even need to be pairwise disjoint). Then we set up the extremal problem (P) in this context, and they above proof seems to work mutatis mutandis, except for trading Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] or Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. Precisely, we may consider a circle map $f\colon F \to \overline{\Delta}$ of least possible degree, say $\gamma$. By Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] we know that $\gamma\le r+p$. So we arrive at the following statement:
Let $F$ be a membrane of genus $p$ with $r$ contours. Assume that $F$ has the gonality $\gamma$, i.e. the least degree of a circle map to the disc. (We know $\gamma\le r+p$) Then the extremal problem [(P)]{} admits at most $\gamma$ linearly independent solutions.
Ahlfors’ extremal problem
=========================
Ahlfors extremal problem (Grunsky 1940–42, Ahlfors 1947–50)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ahlfors’ method involves solving the following extremal problem:
\[Ahlfors-extremal:thm\] [(Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950])]{} Given any compact bordered Riemann surface (membrane for short) and two interior points $a,b$, find among all (analytic) functions bounded-by-one taking $a$ to $0$ the one maximizing the modulus $\vert f(b) \vert$.
Such a function exists (normal families argument à la Vitali-Montel) and is unique up to a rotation (=multilication by an unimodular complex number $\omega=e^{i \theta}$). Hence it is unambiguously defined by the points $a,b$ if $f(b)$ is required to be positive real, and we denote $f_{a,b}$ the corresponding function.
Furthermore Ahlfors’ extremal function $f_{a,b}$ concretizes the given surface as a full-covering of the disc $\Delta$, of degree $$r\le \deg f_{a,b} \le r+2p, \label{Ahlfors:pinch}$$ where $r$ is the number of contours and $p$ the genus (of the given membrane).
It is nowadays quite customary—following (another) Russian school (Golusin, S.Ya. Havinson, etc.)—to call the extremal an [*Ahlfors function*]{}, albeit even Ahlfors seems to have been rather embarrassed by this probably unearned distinction (cf. his comments in Collected Papers [@Ahlfors_1982_Coll_papers p.438]). The same idea occurred somewhat earlier in works of Grunsky 1940–42 [@Grunsky_1940], [@Grunsky_1942], yet the latter confined attention to plane domains (as did Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]). Being close colleagues—as materialized by their joint note (Ahlfors-Grunsky 1937 [@Ahlfors-Grunsky_1937]) about the best conjectural value for the [*Bloch constant*]{} (still open up to present days)—it is puzzling that both were not very aware of overlapping studies (admittedly imputable to the difficult World War II context).
Semi-fictional reconstruction of Ahlfors’ background (Fejér-Riesz 1922, Carathéodory 1928, Ostrowski 1929)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where does Ahlfors’ extremal problem come from? This is surely a non-trivial question yet let us attempt to give some elements of answers. The narrative is made more plausible by looking a bit around while trying to keep track of the historical continuity. We shall thus use several indirect sources, especially Remmert.
As notorious, the Dirichlet principle suffered ill-foundations during a long period of about 40 years (1860-1900). This was beneficial to Schwarz-Christoffel who developed some constructive methods for the RMT for polygons. Another trend involves directly rescuing the Dirichlet principle via the “alternierendes Verfahren” of Schwarz and the parallel work of C. Neumann. This influenced Picard’s [*méthodes des approximations successives*]{}, as well as Poincaré’s balayage.
Then came Hilbert’s breakthrough. Yet, alternative methods circumventing the intricacies of potential theory seemed worth attention. As reported in Remmert 1991 [@Remmert_1991], one can ascribe to Fejér-Riesz ca. 1921 (published by Radó 1923 [@Rado_1923-Uber-konf-Abb]) the first purely complex variables (potential-theoretic free) proof of the RMT by using the extremal problem of making the modulus of the derivative as large as it can be. Several technical simplifications were then obtained by Carathéodory 1928 [@Caratheodory_1928] and Ostrowski 1929 [@Ostrowski_1929] (independently). This leads in principle to the most elementary proof of the RMT. Extending this idea to multiply-connected domains (say first of finite connectivity) leads directly to the extremal problem considered by Grunsky 1940–42 [@Grunsky_1940], [@Grunsky_1942], and Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], and Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] when extended to Riemann surfaces.
In fact prior to Fejér-Riesz, it is fair to refer to Koebe’s (and Carathéodory’s) elementary proofs of the RMT, also via an extremal problem or at least iterative methods (compare e.g. Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950]).
As a matter of digression, it can be recalled that this extremal viewpoint leads as well to a proof of the uniformization theorem (without potential theory). Compare Carathéodory 1950 [@Caratheodory_1950], plus several papers by Grunsky (easily located in his collected papers).
Extremal problems and pure function-theoretic proofs of the RMT (Koebe, Carathéodory, Bieberbach)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The previous section is a bit caricatural and the real history is marvellously detailed in Gray 1994 [@Gray_1994]. Let us summarize the chronology of this period, in the center of which there is probably one of the main inspiring force toward the Ahlfors extremal function (namely the [*Schwarz lemma*]{} as Carathéodory christened it in 1912).
$\bullet$ Painlevé 1891 [@Painleve_1891]: boundary behavior of the Riemann mapping for a contour having an everywhere continuously varying tangent.
$\bullet$ Harnack 1887 [@Harnack_1887] provides a satisfactory proof for solving a suitable version of Dirichlet’s principle, and states what has become known as [*Harnack’s theorem*]{} on monotone limits of harmonic functions.
$\bullet$ Osgood 1900 [@Osgood_1900] applies Harnack’s theorem to draw the existence of a Green’s function for any simply-connected plane domain thereby resolving the Riemann mapping theorem (RMT). This dependance is eliminated in Koebe 1908 and Carathéodory 1912 (cf.items below), where Schwarz’s lemma is substituted.
$\bullet$ Poincaré 1907 [@Poincare_1907] (and independently Koebe 1907, cf. below) proves uniformization (rigourously). For this Poincaré combines his [*méthode de balayage*]{} (of 1890 [@Poincare_1890]) and simplifies it using Harnack’s theorem. From the Green’s function he deduces the conformal map of a Riemann surface (à la Weierstrass) to the disc, and uses earlier works of Osgood.
$\bullet$ Koebe 1907 also proves uniformization (UNI). In Koebe 1907c [@Koebe_1907_UbaK2] he compares his method to Poincaré’s. Like Poincaré he had relied on Schwarz’s method, but unlike him made a much more modest use of Harnack’s theorem. Koebe also insists upon his avoiding of the use of modular functions.
$\bullet$ Koebe 1908 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3] supplies another proof (of UNI) avoiding completely Harnack’s theorem. \[Subsequently Koebe interacted widely with Fricke’s attempt to modernize the original [*continuity method*]{} of Klein-Poincaré, and showed how this could be rigorized overlapping thereby with simultaneous work by Brouwer. This interaction with Brouwer seems to have ended quite contentiously.\]
$\bullet$ Koebe 1909 [@Koebe_1909_UAK1], 1910 [@Koebe_1910_UAK2] proof of his [*Verzerrungssatz*]{} (distortion theorem). From it he derives, the first elementary proof of the (RMT) appealing to a long list series of name going back via Arzelà and Montel 1907 [@Montel_1907] to Ascoli 1883.
$\bullet$ Carathéodory 1912 [@Caratheodory_1912 p.109] notes that [*Schwarz’s lemma*]{} (which he was the first to call by this name, and which he locates in Schwarz’s Ges. Abh., vol. 2, p.109) can act as a substitute to Harnack’s theorem (upon which Osgood 1900 relied heavily). \[Interrupting the present narrative this will have to play a major rôle in Ahlfors’ extremal problem.\] Using the Schwarz’s lemma and Montel’s theorem, Carathéodory obtains the Riemann mapping using an exhaustion of the domain $G$ by subdomains $(G_n)$ each mapped via $f_n$ to the disc and studied under which condition on $G_n$ the $f_n$ converges to a function $f$ giving the Riemann mapping (again without potential theory).
$\bullet$ Carathéodory 1913a [@Caratheodory_1913a] proves Osgood’s conjecture, that the Riemann map extends to a homeomorphism of the boundary iff the boundary is a Jordan curve. In Carathéodory’s opinion this achievement is mostly a byproduct of Lebesgue’s far-reaching theory of integration (1902 [@Lebesgue_1902]), and the consequences drawn from it by Fatou 1906 [@Fatou_1906]. This reliance upon Lebesgue-Fatou was soon disputed by Koebe 1913 (cf. item below).
$\bullet$ Carathéodory 1913b [@Caratheodory_1913b] discusses the boundary behavior when the boundary curve is not a Jordan curve. This paper is oft regarded as inaugurating the concept of [*prime ends*]{} (although earlier origins are in the work of Osgood, and related ideas in Study-Blaschke 1912 [@Study-Blaschke_1912]).
$\bullet$ Koebe 1913 [@Koebe_1913] disputes the need for Lebesgue’s theory in Carathéodory’s treatment, showing how to generalize a theorem of Schwarz to the same effect. A similar result is claimed independently by Osgood-Taylor 1913 [@Osgood-Taylor_1913].
$\bullet$ Bieberbach 1913 [@Bieberbach_1913] wrote a short paper disputing the (in his opinion) excessive Carathéodory’s reliance on Schwarz’s lemma, proposing to use only Montel’s theorem. The next year Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] invokes another extremum principle (area minimization of the range of the mapping suitably normalized) to simplify Carathéodory’s work. This freed the theory from any reliance upon Montel’s theorem (but uses instead ideas of Ritz).
$\bullet$ Back to Koebe, in 1912 [@Koebe_1912] could not resist after the stimulus aroused by Carathéodory’s work to go back to some old idea of his own ([*Quadratwurzeloperationen*]{}) to create his [*Schmiegungsverfahren*]{} (squeezing methods) for solving the Riemann mapping by the iterated taking of square roots. This presentation was entirely elementary.
$\bullet$ Carathéodory 1914 [@Caratheodory_1914] incorporated all these criticisms in his paper for the Schwarz Festschrift, which was to remain his final account until the newer methods of Perron were introduced. \[Here we may have also mentioned the argument of Fejér-Riesz 1921.\]
$\bullet$ Bieberbach 1915 in his pocket book Göschen [@Bieberbach_1915 p.95] also proposes to deal entirely within pure function theory, while rejecting the potential-theoretic approach (despite Hilbert’s work). This actually presents a version of Koebe’s Schmiegungsverfahren and concludes to the Riemann mapping theorem via Koebe’s Verzerrungssatz (seen as a preferred alternative over Schwarz’s lemma).
Interlude: Das Werk Paul Koebes
-------------------------------
In this section we digress slightly from our main path to look closer at the monumental works of Koebe. A useful guide is Bieberbach’s overview of Koebe’s work in 1968 [@Bieberbach_1968-Das-Werk-Paul-Koebes]. The main point of overlap of Koebe with our main theme (Ahlfors) lies in the Riemann-Schottky mapping (albeit for Koebe the mapping to a Kreisbereich is given full attention neglecting thereby the circle mapping). Of course, the other main aspect of Koebe’s life is the uniformization theorem of (Klein-Poincaré-Schwarz).
Again some chronology:
$\bullet$ Riemann 1857–58 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass] and Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877] (maybe only in the 1875 Latin version?) proved that any $n$-ply connected domain maps conformally to a Kreisbereich (circular domain). \[Bieberbach and indeed Koebe 1910 [@Koebe_1910_JDMV] ascribe this to Riemann, albeit we are not sure to be in total agreement with this assertion.\]
$\bullet$ In Bieberbach’s opinion the above Riemann-Schottky Kreisbereich-mapping is first rigourously proved by Koebe in a series of four papers written in 1906, 1907, 1910, 1920 (which we attempt to summarize in more details):
\(1) Koebe 1906 [@Koebe_1906_JDMV]: this starts with a rigidity result for two Kreisbereiche as being conformal to each other only through linear transformations. The proof uses potential theory (and the Cauchy integral). In the case of a Kreisbereich with two contours there is a pencil of orthogonal circles whose cross-ratio of any member affords the conformal invariant of the ring. It follows that $(\varrho+1)$-ply-connected Kreisbereiche depend upon $3\varrho -3$ essential constants when $\varrho
\ge 2$, the same quantity as predicted by Schottky for general multiply-connected domains of the same connectivity. This yields some evidence for the possibility of mapping those to a Kreisbereich. Actually Koebe (p.150) reminds that the Kreisbereich mapping is (essentially) solved by Schottky and by Poincaré (referring loosely to the first volumes of Acta). \[In the next paper Koebe adopts a more critical position, and does not take this as granted.\] Next, he claims the result extends to schlichtartig surfaces. His argument amounts to fill the Riemann surface by discs, to get a closed surface of genus 0, and appeal to Schwarz 1870 [@Schwarz_1870] to map this to a sphere. Next, Koebe proposes to relax the schlichtartig character to formulate a similar result for positive genus. Again one fills the surface by discs to gain a closed surface of genus $p$. This can be mapped as a ramified cover of the sphere of degree $p+1$ (as well-known since Riemann, but for Koebe being Schwarz’s pupil Riemann is taboo and an ad hoc \[somewhat sketchy\] argument is supplied). At any rate the result is that any compact bordered Riemann surface of genus $p$ is conformally embeddable in a closed Riemann surface of genus $p$, hence representable as a $(p+1)$-sheeted cover of the sphere. Although this result concerns like Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] compact bordered surfaces, it seems that this Koebe mapping lies not so deep as the image of the contours of the map are poorly controlled, in particular they need not coincide.
\(2) Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UrAK]: this starts by quoting again his rigidity result of the previous paper. Then more critically Koebe notices that the mapping of a planar $(\varrho+1)$-ply connected domain upon a Kreisbereich of the same connectivity is not so easily established, making abstraction of the Klein-Poincaré [*Kontinuitätsmethode*]{} ([*méthode de continuité*]{}) not yet effective in 1907. (This had to wait until the work of Brouwer and Koebe ca. 1911 [@Klein-Brouwer-Koebe_1912], and Koebe 1912 [@Koebe_1912_BdKm].) The rigidity result affords an essentially unique solution of the mapping problem. Then Koebe proceeds to show that a Kreisbereich mapping exists for triply-connected domains ($\varrho=2$), and generally if the domain is symmetric under complex conjugation provided the real axis cuts all contours. For triply connected domains, he takes the Schottky double, which conformally maps to a closed Riemann surface of genus $2$ (via massive quotations to Schwarz, Ges. Abh. II, S.133–143, S.144–171, S.175–210). As any curve of genus 2 this is hyperelliptic (canonical mapping via holomorphic 1-forms). As to the more general case, the problem involves cutting the domain along the real axis, yielding a simply-connected region. This is mapped conformally to the upper half-plane, and symmetrically reproduced. Then Green’s function is constructed via Harnack’s theorem (quotation to Harnack 1887 [@Harnack_1887], Poincaré 1883 [@Poincare_1883], Osgood 1900 [@Osgood_1900] and Johansson 1905).
\(3) Koebe 1910 [@Koebe_1910_JDMV]: the paper starts again with the objective to solve the [*Problem der konformen Abbildung eines $(p+1)$-fach zusammenhängenden Bereiches auf einen von $p+1$ Vollkreisen begrenzten Bereich*]{} (which he proposes to call [*Kreisbereich*]{} for short). Koebe recalls that the problem was first addressed by Schottky 1877 in his [*Doktordissertation*]{}, and earlier in Riemann’s Nachlass. He reminds from his first work \[item (1)\] that [*je zwei Kreisbereiche aufeinander nur durch lineare Funktionen konform abgebildet werden können*]{}. Then he repeats the two special cases he was able to solve previously, and now proposes to tackle the general case via two different methods (of his own): [*Überlagerungsfläche*]{} and [*iterierendes Verfahren*]{} \[cf. items (A) and (B) below\]. He proudly emphasizes that both methods have a larger applicability than to the present Kreisbereich problem, since their combination, allowed him to settle the whole series of classical mapping problems of Klein and Poincaré (1881–84) in their pioneering works on automorphic functions, and the allied uniformization. Hilbert’s 22th Problem (1900) is mentioned for reposing the uniformization question especially in connection to Poincaré 1883’s paper [@Poincare_1883]. Schwarz is again (justly) regarded as the father of the method [*der Überlagerungsfläche*]{}, which plays a key rôle in the newer developments in the automorphic theory, as exemplified through the work of Poincaré 1907 [@Poincare_1907] himself and Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909]. After these general remarks Koebe proceeds to prove the general Kreisbereich mapping. \[As warned in Bieberbach’s report, the present paper of Koebe does not contain full details, yet some lovely geometric ideas worth sketching. Complete details appear in the last contribution item (4), but then it is easy to get lost in technicalities.\]
\(A) Koebe assumes the contours of the domain $B$ to be analytic curves. Via some abstract [*Spiegelungsprozesses*]{} (ascribed to Schwarz) he constructs via symmetric reproduction of $B$ a schlichtartig Riemann surface $B^{(\infty)}$. (One must imagine $B$ glued with replicas thought of as the back-side of the domain.) Then he can apply his [*allgemeines Abbildungsprinzip*]{} to the effect that schlichartig implies schlicht (first established in Koebe 1908 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3], with subsequent approaches by Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909] and in Courant’s Thesis 1910/12 [@Courant_1912]). The new schlicht domain $B^{(\infty)'}$ is tesselated by replicas of the conformal copy $B'$ of $B$. Hence $B'$ admits a complete infinite system of symmetric reproduction. This is enough (for Koebe) to characterize a Kreisbereich. (Here we may agree with Bieberbach’s diagnostic that Koebe’s exposition is sketchy, but details were supplied later in Koebe 1920 [@Koebe_1920].)
\(B) Then is exposed the promised [*iterierendes Verfahren*]{}. This is a beautiful device based upon successive applications of the RMT to circularize a specific contour and then reflecting by a [*Spiegelgung*]{} (inversion by reciprocal radii) the domain across this circularized contour. Koebe draws nice pictures (like below Fig.\[KoebeiV:fig\]) suggesting that this iteration scheme produces domains with [*sukzessive Steigerung der Spiegelungsfähigkeit des Bereichs*]{} whereupon it is made plausible that when repeated ad infinitum the resulting domain has an infinite aptitude of symmetric reproduction, hence must be a Kreisbereich. The convergence proof uses his [*Verzerrungssatz*]{} (distortion theorem).
\(4) Koebe 1920 [@Koebe_1920], where full details are supplied. $\bullet$ In parallel, Koebe concentrates his efforts on the uniformization problem starting with Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UrAK] devoted to the uniformization of real algebraic curves, yet the real technological breakthrough occurs in the next paper.
-35pt 0
$\bullet$ Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UbaK1] discovers a first version of his [*Verzerrungssatz*]{} (VZS), which turns out to be relevant both to the Riemann-Schottky Kreisbereich-mapping, as to uniformization. As forerunners of the (VZS) Bieberbach mentions the works of Landau, Schottky related to Picard’s theorem (1879 [@Picard_1879]). This Koebe’s paper also contains (what later came to be known) as the [*Viertelsatz*]{} to the effect that the range of any schlicht function on the unit disc normalized by $f(0)=0$ and $\vert f'(0) \vert=1$ contains a disc of some universal positive radius $\varrho$. The sharp value $\varrho=1/4$ is conjectured, but only established by Bieberbach 1915 [@Bieberbach_1915]. Armed with this Verzerrungssatz (yet without the precise bound) Koebe manages to prove uniformization. This represents a generalization of the RMT to simply-connected Riemann surfaces. Bieberbach recalls that according to oral tradition the trick of the universal covering surface is due to H.A. Schwarz (ca. 11. April 1882, as carefully reported in Klein’s Werke [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.584]).
$\bullet$ Simultaneously and independently Poincaré 1907 [@Poincare_1907] also proves the uniformization theorem via his [*méthode de balayage*]{}.
$\bullet$ Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UbaK2] inspects Poincaré’s proof and proposes a variant using Harnack’s theorem (in potential theory) circumventing thereby the Viertelsatz, as well as Poincaré’s balayage.
$\bullet$ The new ingredient (Verzerrungssatz of Koebe) turned out to act usefully in other uniformization problems envisioned by Klein (e.g., the [*Rückkehrschnitttheorem*]{}, etc.) In Koebe’s formulation this resulted to the conformal mapping of a schlichtartig Riemann surface to a schlicht domain of the Riemann sphere. This result appears in Koebe 1908 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3]. Its proof uses beside the Verzerrungssatz a general convergence theorem (à la Montel-Vitali), which Koebe discovered independently \[according to Bieberbach\].
$\bullet$ Koebe 1909 [@Koebe_1909_UAK1] gives a sharper version of the [*Verzerrungssatz*]{} and applications to Klein’s general uniformization problem (via groups of linear transformations).
$\bullet$ Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909], using a variant of the Dirichlet principle, gives another method for the schlicht mapping of a schlichtartig surface (to the sphere), via a so-called parallel-slit mapping \[extending the Schottky-Cecioni result to infinite connectivity\].
$\bullet$ In response Koebe 1909 [@Koebe_1909_UbaK4], 1910 [@Koebe_1910_Hilbert] and independently Courant 1910/12 [@Courant_1912] proves anew the above Hilbert’s Ansatz about parallel-slit mappings.
$\bullet$ Already Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877] tried \[in Bieberbach’s opinion\] to prove the \[Riemannian\] theorem that every $n$-ply connected planar domain conformal-maps bijectively to a parallel Schlitzbereich. Hilbert’s new method proves this for arbitrary schlichartig Riemann surfaces. Koebe in the aforementioned two works, sharpens Hilbert’s theorem by noticing that the range of the mapping fill the full plane save a set of measure zero. At this occasion Koebe also formulates his [*Kreisnormierungsprinzip*]{}, still open today, despite the spectacular progress by He-Schramm 1993 [@He-Schramm_1993].
$\bullet$ Bieberbach emphasizes that the [*iterierendes Verfahren*]{} may really have first emerged through the Kreisbereich mapping problem. \[This conflicts slightly with Koebe’s claim that he employed it earlier for uniformization.\] At any rate Bieberbach writes “[*Solche iterierenden Verfahren entwickelt Koebe über Jahrzehnte hin immer weiter, bis alle Uniformisierungsprobleme algebraischer Gebilde dem iterierenden Verfahren zugänglich werden.*]{}”
$\bullet$ The proof of the (RMT) via repeated [*Quadratwurzelabbildungen*]{} itself constitutes an iterative method, which Koebe calls the [*Schmiegungsverfahren*]{}. Credit for this discovery is to be shared with Carathéodory.
$\bullet$ A rigorous foundation to the [*Kontinuitätsmethode*]{} of Klein-Poincaré is paid by Koebe much attention in a torrential series of paper starting with 1912 [@Koebe_1912_BdKm], 1912 [@Koebe_1912_BdKm2], 1914 [@Koebe_1914_UAK4], etc. Those works overlaps (and then may supplement) the works of Brouwer on the invariance of domain (and dimension), and its application to Riemann surfaces. The resulting priority question is very intricate. Even Klein in 1923 [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.734] writes: [*Die entscheidende Wendung trat aber erst 1911/12 durch das Einsetzen der Untersuchungen von Brouwer und Koebe ein. (Ich halte um so mehr an der alphabetischen Reihenfolge fest, als die gegenseitige Beziehung der beiden Forscher nicht ganz geklärt ist.)*]{} Soon afterwards Klein also cites footnote 2) in Brouwer 1919 [@Brouwer_1919], where Brouwer seems to revendicate some priority over Koebe, while reporting some falsification of his own (Gött. Nachr.) article via a citation to Koebe added after proof-reading.
Koebe and his relation to Klein or Ahlfors
------------------------------------------
In the overall Koebe’s monumental work is quite intricate with deep influences by methods of Schwarz (ca. 1870), results of Schottky (1875/77), visions of Klein and Poincaré (early 80’s), supplemented by methods of his own. The following chart (Fig.\[KoebeMap:fig\]) gives an Überblick maybe helping navigation through Koebe’s works and the logical links between his results.
-85pt 0
From our Ahlfors’ biased viewpoint several points are worth noticing:
\(1) Koebe frequently refers to Klein’s orthosymmetry for real algebraic curves. In view of the close connection between orthosymmetry and the Ahlfors circle mapping, it is tempting to wonder if Koebe was ever close to discover the Ahlfors circle mapping. Of course Koebe’s focus seems to have been more attracted by the uniformization problem (in particular for real algebraic curves), cf. Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UrAK]. However Klein’s orthosymmetry appears in many subsequent papers (e.g., 1919 [@Koebe_1919:47 p.29, p.35]), and we would not bet that one day someone discovers in Koebe some anticipation of the Ahlfors map (as it occurred say with the circles packing of Andreev–Thurston). If not directly, it could via the Rückkehrschnitttheorem of Klein (cf. Sec.\[sec:Ruckkehrschnittthm\]), which Koebe was the first to prove seriously (cf. Koebe 1910 UAK2 [@Koebe_1910_UAK2]). Hence schematically, there might exist a (harsh style) path like: $$\textrm{Koebe}\Rightarrow\textrm{Klein} \Rightarrow
\textrm{Teichm\"uller} \Rightarrow \textrm{Ahlfors}.$$
\(2) Koebe also notices at several places (e.g., 1907 UbaK1 [@Koebe_1907_UbaK1 p.199]) that the orthosymmetry concept for real algebraic curves extend to analytic real curves. One can then wonder if there is likewise a function theoretical characterization of orthosymmetry in terms of (totally real) mapping to the sphere. This would amount to say that any bordered surface is expressible as a total cover of the disc (taking boundary to boundary). Of course this might be a bit fantasist, but perhaps deserves to be analyzed more carefully. (Maybe this fails already for planar domains, cf. a work of Heins ca. 1954.)
Ahlfors’ background (Bergman 1941, Schiffer 1946, Schottky differentials)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us quote the introduction of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]:
\[Ahlfors-1950:quote\]
In the handling of the extremal problems we are in close contact with the methods of Bergman \[1941\]=[@Bergman_1941] and Schiffer \[1946\]=[@Schiffer_1946], which they have developed for plane regions. A convenient tool for applying these methods to regions on Riemann surfaces is found in the class of Schottky differentials, and it was the recognition that Bergman’s kernel-functions are in fact Schottky differentials that led us to undertake this study.
The second part of the paper (§§4–5) deals with an extremal problem that we have previously solved for plane regions. There are great simplification over my original proof for which I am partly indebted to my student P. Garabedian. An interesting point is that the extremal functions are again defined by means of Schottky differentials.
As a complement, we may reproduce a passage of Ahlfors’ comments in his collected papers [@Ahlfors_1982_Coll_papers p.438]:
\[Ahlfors-1982:quote\]
The purpose of \[36\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) was to study open Riemann surfaces by solving extremal problems on compact subregions and passing to the limit as the subregions expand. The paper emphasizes the use of harmonic and analytic differentials in the language of differential forms. It is closely related to \[35\](=Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950]), but differs in two respects: (1) It deals with Riemann surfaces rather than plane regions and (2) the differentials play a greater rôle than the functions.
I regard \[36\] as one of my major papers. It was partly inspired by R. Nevanlinna, who together with P.J. Myrberg had initiated the classification theory of open Riemann surfaces, and partly by M. Schiffer (1943) and S. Bergman (1950), with whose work I had become acquainted shortly after the war[^9]. The paper also paved the way for my book on Riemann surfaces with L. Sario \[1960\], but it is probably more readable because of its more restricted contents.
I would also like to acknowledge that when writing this paper I made important use of an observation of P. Garabedian to the effect that the relevant extremal problems occur in pairs connected by a sort of duality. This is of course a classical phenomenon, but in the present connections it was sometimes not obvious how to formulate the dual problem.
The allied infinitesimal form of the extremal problem
-----------------------------------------------------
The input required to pose Ahlfors’ extremal problem (Theorem \[Ahlfors-extremal:thm\]), is a membrane with two interior marked points, denoted $a,b$. When the point $b$ converges to the point $a$ (becoming infinitely close to it), we may think of a unique point of multiplicity two. This limiting process mutates the extremum problem into:
Let $a$ be a single point in the membrane $W$. Among all functions $f$ analytic on $W$ with $\vert f \vert \le 1$ on $W$ it is required to find the one which makes the modulus of the derivative $f'(a)$ to a maximum. Here the derivative is computed w.r.t. any holomorphic chart. Its maximum value has no intrinsic meaning, yet the extremal function exists and is uniquely defined (up to a rotation) and denoted by $f_{a,a}=f_a$.
It seems to be folklore that such functions are also circle maps subjected to the same Ahlfors bound $\deg f_{a}\le r+2p$. Presumably a continuity argument reduces to the case of (bipolar) functions $f_{a,b}$, or maybe adapt the whole argument in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]. At any rate, the result is taken for granted in Yamada 1978 [@Yamada_1978], Gouma 1998 [@Gouma_1998]. This can maybe deduced as a special case of Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979].
Higher extremal problems=HEP$\approx$High energy physics, alias Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happens if we take more than two points? For instance three points $a,b,c$? Should we then maximize the area of the simplex spanned by the image points? If yes for which metric on the disc (Euclid vs. hyperbolic)? How does the problem reformulate when the 3 points coalesce at the subatomic level into a point affected by a multiplicity 3. Does the problem amount then to maximize the modulus of the first two derivatives?
Maybe this brings us in the realm of Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation, a theory initially developed in the disc. Compare e.g. Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949], Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979].
Perhaps for any (effective) divisor $D=d_1 p_1+\dots +d_n p_n$ interior to the membrane there is an extremal problem denoted $EP(D)$. Then how much of Ahlfors’ theory extends: existence, uniqueness and qualitative circle mapping nature of the function, and estimates over the degree of the extremals. In the classic theory where $\deg(D)=2$ we have $\deg f_{a,b}=r+2p$. Maybe in general denoting by $f_D$ the extremal function allied to the divisor $D$ we find $\deg f_{D}\le r+ \deg(D) p$. Compare Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979] for more serious answers. If we could find a divisor of degree one then this would recover Gabard’s bound $r+p$. Maybe not a divisor is required but an ordered collections of points, as in Ahlfors’ original problem where $a$ seems to have a preferred rôle over $b$, getting mapped to zero.
Such higher extremal problems depending upon a higher number of free parameters are probably more flexible in the sense that if the original $\deg(D)=2$ case of Ahlfors fails to realize the gonality, then maybe higher versions succeed. Perhaps there is even a universal quantum limit of such problem $EP\infty$ for a divisor of infinite degree, leading thereby to a branched (yet Randschlicht) version of the Bieberbach coefficient problem. This is to mean a version of the Ahlfors map where all derivatives are simultaneously maximized as a large convey? One can speculate about the existence of such an universal extremal problem whose solution would be a branched avatar (non schlicht) of the Koebe extremal function (involved in the Bieberbach-de Branges theorem). This would be for the given bordered surface the best circle mapping and arguably it ought to realize the gonality. \[05.11.12\] In the classic Bieberbach problem involving the disc the coefficients of schlicht power series are estimated by $\vert
a_n\vert\le n$ when $f'(0)=1$. If we replace the disc by a finite bordered surface $F$ we could expect that all maps $F\to \Delta\to
{\Bbb C}$ factorizing as a circle map (of minimal degree) followed by a schlicht map also admit universal estimates upon the coefficients w.r.t. to a chart. Perhaps the upper bounds sequence involved in Bieberbach-de Branges (regularly spaced integers $n$) has to be replaced by certain spectral eigenvalues of $F$ conceived as a vibrating membranes. So the problem is the following. Given a bordered surface $F$ marked interiorly at some point $a$. We look at all analytic maps $F\to {\Bbb C}$ with $f(a)=0$ and $f'(a)=1$ w.r.t. some chart. We develop $f$ in power series and expect some universal estimates on the coefficients at least when $f$ factorizes as a circle map of minimal degree followed by a schlicht map. The dream would be that there is a unique extremal function maximizing simultaneously all coefficients and this would be essentially the best possible Ahlfors map post-composed with the Koebe function.
Of course it may happen that all this generality is not necessary in case the basic Ahlfors map $f_{a,b}$ is already the most ergonomic object, in the sense of realizing the gonality for suitable centers $a,b$.
A more orthodox way to formulate higher versions of Ahlfors’ extremal problem involves the theory of Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation. Cf. for instance Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979]. The original theory being formulated in the disc $\Delta$, one may hope to lift things via an Ahlfors map but this probably leads nowhere. Genuine avatars of Ahlfors extremal problem are formulated by prescribing Taylor section (jets) at a given collection of points. Compare again Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979], building upon a paper of Heins 1975 [@Heins_1975]. In this extended context all features of the Ahlfors map persist: existence of an extremal (via normal families), uniqueness of the solution (Heins 1975), finite sheeted covering of the disc, and upper bound over the mapping degree. Again a crucial question is whether such problems always achieve the gonality.
Ahlfors’ proof {#Ahlfors:sec}
==============
\[January 2012\] This section is a superficial glimpse into Ahlfors’ original resolution of his extremal problem emphasizing that Ahlfors requires first the qualitative existence of a circle map. A more detailed analysis will be attempted later (Sec.\[Ahlfors-proof:sec\]).
Soft part of Ahlfors 1950: circle maps with $\le
r+2p=g+1$ sheets {#sec:Ahlfors-soft}
------------------------------------------------
When writing the paper Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] (and a fortiori in my Thesis 2004 [@Gabard_2004]), I was very ignorant about the depth of Ahlfors’ paper (and the massive literature around it). To be honest I am still today quite ignorant having only a very fragmentary understanding of Ahlfors arguments. I take this opportunity, to rectify the arrogant claim (in [@Gabard_2006]) to the effect that a simplified proof of Ahlfors’ theorem is proposed. Of course, my paper only recovers the weaker assertion about existence of circle maps (in contradistinction to the deeper extremal problem analyzed by Ahlfors).
Furthermore even in the weaker circle maps context, I only realized recently \[January 2012\] that a much shorter portion of Ahlfors’ paper achieves this goal (cf. Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.124–126]), even with the $r+2p=g+1$ bound on the degree. We reproduce the relevant extracts (p.124 and then p.126):
\[Ahlfors-1950-circle-map:quote\]
\[p.124\] It must first be proved that the class of functions with $F(a)=0$ and $\vert F \vert=1$ on $C$ \[=the boundary contours\] is not empty. In other words, we must show that $\overline{W}$ can be mapped onto a full covering surface of the unit circle.
\[p.126\] The function \[…\] maps $\overline{W}$ onto a covering surface of the unit circle\[=disk\], and a standard argument\[=just number conservation\] shows that every point is covered exactly $P+1$ times. \[$P$ is the genus of the double in Ahlfors’ notation\]
Thus, we have the following historical:
As early as Spring 1948, Ahlfors had an existence-proof of circle maps of degree $\le r+2p$.
This conjecture is supported by the remarks made in Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950] (cf. our Quote \[Nehari-1950:quote\]). In contrast, the issue that the same upper bound $r+2p$ holds true for Ahlfors extremals may have required Garabedian formulation of the dual extremal problem for differentials. This is somehow in line with Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979], who speak of the [*Garabedian bound*]{} following a coinage of Heins 1975 [@Heins_1975 p.4].
At any rate, it seems first crucial to understand the easy part of Ahlfors’ argument (existence of a circle map of degree $\le
r+2p$). Even here we failed as yet.
[**Anecdote (skip!)**]{} Ahlfors’ argument bears some vague resemblance with the argument exposed by myself in the RAAG-conference of 2001. Here the game was that (in view of Riemann without Roch) any group of $g+1$ points on the curve moves. The orthosymmetric curve in question is of course the Schottky double of the given bordered surface. If such points are chosen on the real locus we are forced in the non-Harnack-maximal case ($r<g+1$, $r\equiv g+1 \pmod 2$) to select two points on the same oval (pigeon hole principle). All the subtlety is to ensure that those points will circulate along the complex orientation (as the border of one half) without doing collision repulsing them in the imaginary locus, and thereby violating total reality. Using Abel’s theorem plus some incompressible fluid argument I tried to argue that this is always possible for a clever choice of (totally real) divisor. However the argument was slightly vicious, and it would require me too hard work to repair it. If I have enough energy I should try to write down this argument, while trying to analyze it properly.
In Ahlfors’ paper (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]), one starts with a circle map of degree $\le r+2p$, and by a miraculous intervention of Garabedian the same bound turns out to be valid for all Ahlfors extremals. Let us refer to this vague principle as the Ahlfors-Garabedian divination (AGD). (Vagueness only alludes to my own poor understanding of their methods.)
Now in view of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], as well as the deeper investigation in Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011], we know that circle maps of lower degrees $\le r+p$ exist. Thus, granting the AGD-divination, we may expect to find Ahlfors extremals of correspondingly low degrees. Of course this amounts to take the best from two different worlds, and is extremely far from a serious argument. Hence a thorough study of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] perhaps suitably adapted (and augmented by other tricks) could lead to a confirmation of the naive Conjecture \[gonality:conj\]. Of course this is pure speculation, and arguably the emphasis could be a study circle maps [*per se*]{} without getting obnubilated by Ahlfors extremal problem.
Ahlfors hard extremal problem
-----------------------------
We have nothing to add for the moment, suffices to say that Lagrange multipliers play a crucial rôle (as in earlier work of Grunsky). Yet it would be nice to summarize the idea (and the logical structure):
\(1) [**Existence of extremals.**]{} Ahlfors first needs the existence of a circle map so as to arrange a nonempty set of competing functions (giving some ground under the foots to get started). Of course a function bounded-by-one would have been sufficient to get started, but Ahlfors achieves much more. Of course the normal families argument alone cannot supplant this preliminary study.
In papers subsequent to Ahlfors’, namely Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta] and Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] existence is derived via more abstract functional-analysis (Hahn-Banach). More on this in Sec.\[Read-Royden:sec\].
Other treatments Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950] appeals to Martin’s theory and elementary convexity consideration, which expressed in more highbrow setting essentially amounts to Krein-Milman existence of extreme points in convex bodies (cf. esp. Forelli 1979 [@Forelli_1979] and the discussion in Heins 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF]).
\(2) [**Uniqueness of the extremal.**]{} Looks easy (essentially like when defining something by a universal property in category theory). Universal properties of category theory are essentially akin to extremal problems in geometry. This is not completely true for some natural extremum problems admits several solutions). In the case at hand uniqueness is essentially a version of Schwarz’s lemma.
Other accounts of Ahlfors’ extremal problem
===========================================
Ahlfors’ paper of 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] aroused quick interest among the conformal mappers community (Nehari 1950, Heins 1950, Garabedian 1949–50, Schiffer, etc.). Numerous papers seems to reprove Ahlfors’ theorem along (better?) routes (e.g., Read 1958, slightly optimized in Royden 1962). The latter article seems to be among the most popular revision of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], with identic results but possible simplifications in the proof. The present section tries to review those (second generation) contributions while providing link to subsequent critiques (e.g., Nehari 1950 is criticized by Tietz 1955, who in turn is attacked by Köditz-Timmann 1975).
Garabedian 1949, 1950
---------------------
Garabedian qualifies himself as a hard-worker, who could absorb simultaneously the influence of three giants: Ahlfors, Bergman and Schiffer. As a result, he seems to have exerted a notable influence over the final shape of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], and is even apparently able to reprove the full result of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] in the paper Garabedian 1950 [@Garabedian_1950 p.361]. (A little Riemann-Hurwitz computation is required to convince that Garabedian reobtains exactly the same degree $r+2p$ as Ahlfors.) The proof deploys a rich mixture of techniques (Teichmüller, Grunsky, Ahlfors, plus the variational method of Schiffer).
Another point worth noticing is the following issue oft emphasized by Garabedian [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950 p.182]:
\[quote:Garabedian-Schiffer\_1950\]
Thus our procedure leads to the existence of the circle mapping $F(z)$ which is associated with Schwarz’s lemma. It is to be noted that the existence of this function lies somewhat deeper than the existence of the slit mappings $\varphi(w)$ and $\psi(w)$ in multiply-connected domains, and therefore it is not too surprising that the present section is more difficult that the preceding ones. Of course, for $n=1$, $F(z)$ is just the function found in the elementary Koebe proof of the Riemann mapping theorem.
Garabedian alone repeats a similar comment in Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949-52:Book p.207]:
\[quote:Garabedian\_1949-52\]
The conformal mappings which we obtain here are closely related to the generalization of Schwarz’s lemma to multiply connected domains in sharp form \[1, 7\] \[=resp. Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], and Garabedian 1949, Duke Math. J.\], and their existence lies somewhat deeper than that of the more standard canonical maps in a multiply connected region.
Nehari 1950, Tietz 1955, Köditz-Timann 1975
-------------------------------------------
Regarding the first two mentioned papers (Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950], Tietz 1955 [@Tietz_1955]), I suggested in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006 p.946], that those papers may have conjectured the improved control $r+p$ on the degree of circle maps. (When discovering the $r+p$ bound ca. 2001/02, I was not influenced by those papers which I located only later in 2005 while polishing the ultimate shape of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].) Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950] does not seem to give a new proof of circle maps (Ahlfors’ theorem), but inspired by it proposes to describe canonical slit maps (incidentally those for which Garabedian seems to have a lesser esteem, cf. Quotes \[quote:Garabedian-Schiffer\_1950\] and \[quote:Garabedian\_1949-52\]). Nehari also shows how to express the Ahlfors function in terms of the Bergman kernel function. (If I understand well the situation, this is just a representation theory yet not an alternative existence-proof.) Nehari’s paper shows that Ahlfors was in possession of the degree $r+2p$ as early as Spring 1948, at least for a circle map. It is a delicate question if the same bound for extremal maps requires Garabedian’s remark about the dual extremal problem. Heins’ paper 1975 [@Heins_1975] using the term “Garabedian’s bound” may suggest a positive answer. The reader is not well placed to guess the answer, but remember that the (published) proof in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] requires (and acknowledges) Garabedian’s dual problem. Let us quote the crucial extract of Nehari:
\[Nehari-1950:quote\]
It was recently shown by Ahlfors \[1\](=L. Ahlfors, Material presented in a colloquium lecture at Harvard University in Spring 1948.) that the well known canonical conformal mapping of a schlicht domain of connectivity $n$ onto an $n$-times covered circle \[5,7\] (=Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], Grunsky 1937–41 [@Grunsky_1937], [@Grunsky_1941_KA]) can be generalized, in the case of an open Riemann surface, in the following manner: an open Riemann surface of genus $g$ which is bounded by $n$ closed curves can be mapped conformally onto a multiply-covered circle, the number of coverings not exceeding $n+2g$.
Soon afterwards, Tietz 1955 [@Tietz_1955 p.49] criticizes (slightly) some of Nehari’s asserted results:
\[Tietz-1955:quote\]
Bei der Herleitung seiner Schlitztheoreme kommt Herr Nehari ebenfalls auf diese Frage; sein Beweis für die genannte Vermutung ist jedoch unhaltbar.
Nimmt man jedoch diese Neharische Behauptung als richtig an, so hie[ß]{}e das, da[ß]{} $R$ aus $p+r$, und damit $R^2$ aus $2p+r=G+1$ Blättern bestünde; …
This seems to be a forerunner of the bound $r+p$ (by commutativity of addition!), at the conjectural level at least. \[Parenthetically, I do not understand Tietz’s claim about the sheet number of the double $R^2$. I believe that the degree keeps the same value $p+r$, as one has to double the map not just the space.\] Finally, Tietz concludes his paper [@Tietz_1955 p.49] as follows:
So Tietz does not seem to be able reprove a result as strong as the one of Ahlfors 1950. In fact, the situation looks even worse, since even Tietz’s weak version is questioned in the paper by Köditz-Tillmann 1975 [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975 p.157], as shown in the following extract (parenthetical reference are ours addition):
The extract is followed by a specific objection (not reproduced here). The article (of Köditz-Timmann 1975 [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975 Satz 3, p.159]) seems however to contain a proof of Ahlfors’ theorem based upon an “Approximationssatzes von Behnke u. Stein”, yet without any bound on the degree.
A propos Behnke-Stein 1947/49 [@Behnke-Stein_1947/49] (the famous paper going back to 1943), it contains the result that any open Riemann surface (arbitrary connectivity and genus) admits a non-constant analytic function.
Can one deduce this Behnke-Stein theorem by agglomerating Ahlfors extremals (or weaker circle maps) relative to compact subregions of an adequate exhaustion?
In this connection let us remember the paper by Nishino 1982 [@Nishino_1982], where Ahlfors is applied to prove existence of (non-constant) analytic functions on certain complex surfaces (four real dimensions). Since this Nishino paper employs Ahlfors bound $r+2p$, it would be nice to understand it thoroughly to see if some better constant leads to some sharpened result. (Alas it seems that a subsequent paper of Nihino ca. 1983 proves a stronger result (pertaining to arbitrary complex dimension) while eradicating apparently any logical dependence upon Ahlfors 1950. The MR-reviewer, M. Hervé, seems to have been a bit overwhelmed by the work.)
Heins 1950 {#sec:Heins}
----------
Heins being one of the most prolific and pleasant-to-read writers of the U.S. school (student of Walsh), it is not surprising to find several first classes contributions regarding our special Ahlfors map topic. Specifically, the paper Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950] reproves Ahlfors’ result in presumably its full strength (this even without quoting Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] but the closely allied work Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949]). Remember that Ahlfors’ result was exposed at the Harvard seminar in Spring 1948 (cf. Nehari’s Quote \[Nehari-1950:quote\]), and must have widely circulated since then. Taking a closer look to Heins’ paper, it is at first sight not completely evident that a bound on the degree derives from his method but is quite likely to do since his quantity $m$ (number of generators of the fundamental group, cf. p.571) is easily recognized to be $2p+(r-1)$, where $p$ is the genus and $r$ the number of contours. Thus one certainly recovers exactly Ahlfors’ result with its bound. In some sense, Heins’ paper goes even deeper than Ahlfors by treating Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation.
Several subsequent works in Heins’ spirit (overlapping with Ahlfors theorem) are worth mentioning: Heins 1975 [@Heins_1975], Forelli 1979 [@Forelli_1979] and Heins 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF].
Kuramochi 1952
--------------
The paper Kuramochi 1952 [@Kuramochi_1952] also seems to recover Ahlfors bound for circle maps using the extremal problem. This is maybe the sort of technical paper with too much [*notatio*]{} and not enough [*notio*]{}? (This is a joke of Hellmuth Kneser, compare his paper in JDMV.) Kuramochi’s work seems to be inspired by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] and by a 1951 paper by Nehari (confined to the planar case). Nehari offers a positive review (in MathReviews):
\[Nehari-Kuramochi:quote\]
[Generalizing a method developed by the reviewer for the case of plane domains \[Amer. J. Math. 73 (1951), 78–106\], the author discusses extremal problems for bounded analytic functions on open Riemann surfaces of positive genus. The procedure is illustrated by a detailed treatment of the case corresponding to the classical Schwarz lemma which had previously been discussed, by different methods, by L.V. Ahlfors \[1950\]. A complete characterization of the extremal function is obtained and Ahlfors’ positive differential is constructed.]{}
Read 1958, Royden 1962 (via Hahn-Banach) {#Read-Royden:sec}
----------------------------------------
We start with:
$\bullet$ Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962], where existence of a solution to Ahlfors’ extremal problem is achieved via conjunction of Hahn-Banach with Riesz’s representation theorem (circumventing thereby both Euler-Lagrange and normal families). Exploiting the duality pointed out by Garabedian (pair of extremal problems with a dualizing Schottky differential, i.e. one extending to the double), the control on the degree is achieved by the usual index formula $\deg(\vartheta)=2g-2$ (Poincaré 1881–85, but already in Riemann in the holomorphic case at hand). Ahlfors’ upper bound $\deg f_{a,b}\le r+2p$ follows. Royden’s paper is therefore quite remarkable for supplying alternatives arguments. It seems to have been inspired mostly by:
$\bullet$ Read 1958 (two papers [@Read_1958_Fenn], [@Read_1958_Acta]). Read is also a student of Ahlfors (as one may learn in Ahlfors 1958 [@Ahlfors_1958]) and already relies on Hahn-Banach to prove existence of an Ahlfors function (but, as Royden observes, does not take care of making the argument with the Schottky differential so as to bound the degree). The technique employed (by Read) to prove extremals is to relate the dual extremal problems (à la Garabedian-Ahlfors, 1949–1950) to conjugate extremum problems of the Lebesgue classes $L_p$ and $L_q$, where $p^{-1}+q^{-1}=1$, where one maximizes an $L_p$-norm versus vs. minimizing an $L_q$-norm. Such problems classically reduce to Hahn-Banach. For this reduction of Garabedian-Ahlfors to Hahn-Banach, Read employs a converse to Cauchy’s theorem (itself an application of Stokes) due to Rudin 1955 [@Rudin_1955-class-Hp] in the planar case. Methods of Rogosinski–Shapiro 1953 [@Rogosinski-Shapiro_1953] are another ingredient to the proof.
To summarize, the Read-Royden approach via Hahn-Banach (functional analysis, coinage of Hadamard) effects a little drift from the traditional Euler-Lagrange variational approach (used in Grunsky 1940–46 ([@Grunsky_1940], [@Grunsky_1946]), Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). As conceptually brilliant as it is, this new method does not lead to an improved degree control. The reason is quite simple, namely Ahlfors’ bound $r+2p$ is sharp within the extremal problem it solves (contribution of Yamada 1978 [@Yamada_1978] in the hyperelliptic case).
The game naturally splits in existence of extremals (either via Montel’s normal families or via Hahn-Banach) and then to analyze its geometric properties. Ahlfors’ 1950 treatment (apparently influenced by Garabedian’s dual extremal problem) supplies the trick to bound the degree via a Schottky differential, and Royden’s argument looks, in this second geometric step, virtually osculant to Ahlfors’ original.
Remember yet that Ahlfors’ original proof—presented in Spring 1948 at Harvard as reported in Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950 p.258, footnote]), and perhaps nearly similar with pages 124–126 of the published paper 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]—manages without Garabedian’s influence to supply existence of circle maps of degree bounded by $r+2p$.
Existence of (inextremal) circle maps
=====================================
This section focuses on existence of circle maps on membranes (=finite bordered Riemann surfaces) without appeal to the extremal problem. In fact those are logically required (at least in Ahlfors’ account but not in Royden’s 1962 [@Royden_1962]) as a qualitative preparation to the analysis of the quantitative problem.
Ahlfors 1948/50, Garabedian 1949
--------------------------------
\[09.06.12\] We mean the papers Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] and Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949]. The additional 1948 date is intended to reflect that Ahlfors lectured on this material somewhat earlier, as shown by Nehari’s Quote \[Nehari-1950:quote\]. Those writers address the deeper extremal problem $\max \vert f'(a)\vert$ amongst functions bounded-by-one $\vert f\vert\le 1$, however it seems that they are well-acquainted with topological methods (e.g., Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949] cites Alexandroff-Hopf’s classical 1935 treatise “[*Topologie*]{}”). Such a qualitative topological inspection seems a logical prerequisite to their treatments of the quantitative extremal problem. Prior to posing any extremal problem, it is vital to ensure non-emptiness of the set of permissible competing functions. Perhaps the following trivial remarks are worth doing. For domains bounded by $r$ Jordan curves, we have clearly some function bounded-by-one (take the identity map suitably scaled to shrink the domain inside the unit-disc). For a general compact bordered surface, it is less obvious that such functions exist at all. Of course one can take the Schottky double to apply Riemann’s existence theorem (of a morphism to ${\Bbb
P}^1$) and look at the image of the (compact) half. However the latter can still cover the full Riemann sphere, which is annoying for our purpose. \[05.11.12\] Using Klein’s work one can certainly find an equivariant map from the double to the sphere acted upon by orthosymmetry (standard complex conjugation), yet it may still be the case that the full sphere is covered by the half of the double. \[As a simple example we may take a conic $C_2$ with real points and project it from a real point $p$ outside of the unique oval. The corresponding map $C_2\to {\Bbb P}^1$ is equivariant and surjective when restricted to one half of the complex locus of the conic $C_2$. Indeed given a point of ${\Bbb P}^1$ is tantamount to give a line $L$ through the center of perspective $p$. This line $L$ cuts $C_2$ in two points (except for the two real tangents). If $L$ is a real line cutting the real locus $C_2({\Bbb R})$ we can take as antecedent a point on the border of the half Riemann surface. If $L$ does not cut $C_2({\Bbb R})$ its intersection with $C_2$ is a conjugate pairs of points one of them lying in the fixed half of $C_2$. Finally if $L$ is an imaginary line then its intersection with $C_2$ consists of two points distributed in both halves of $C_2$. Indeed $L$ can by continuity be degenerated to a real line $L_0$ missing the real locus of $C_2$ (recall that the pencil of line is just an equatorial sphere with equator corresponding to real lines) and since during the process no points of $L\cap C_2$ became real it follows that both $L$ and $L_0$ have the same distributional pattern when intersected with the conic.\]
Hence in general some preparatory qualitative “topological” investigation is required to see that the extremal problem is non-vacuously posed. Remember that Ahlfors directly attacks the existence of a circle map, where it may have been sufficient to prove existence of a function bounded-by-one. His argument is in part topological inasmuch as it involves annihilating the periods of the conjugate differential of a suitable harmonic function, but also contains a great deal of non-trivial analysis, plus basic principles of convex geometry. We shall try later to penetrate in more details in Ahlfors proof.
Regarding Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949], topological considerations also plays a vital rôle in conjunction with Abelian integrals, etc. We refer the reader to the original paper. In retrospect, it may just be too sad that this brilliant work was not directly written in the broader context of Riemann surfaces.
Mizumoto 1960
-------------
This is the paper Mizumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960] (which I discovered only in March 2012), yet it looks quite original making use of a topological argument involving (Brouwer’s) topological degree of a continuous mapping. So it is spiritually close to Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. However Mizumoto [@Mizumoto_1960 p.63, Thm 1, with $N$ defined on p.58] only recovers the old bound of Ahlfors $r+2p$.
Gabard 2004–2006
----------------
The proof published in the writer’s Thesis 2004 [@Gabard_2004] is essentially the same as the one in 2006 [@Gabard_2006] (modulo slight modifications suggested by the referee, presumably J. Huisman). In fact J. Huisman already on the 2004 version supplied some corrections about naive little mistakes that I made (esp. a wrong statement of Abel’s theorem forgetting to ask both divisors to be of the same degree). Of course it is to be hoped that the new bound $\le r+p$ will stay correct in the long run. In case the result is true, it would be desirable if alternative more conventional analytic methods are able to reprove this bound $r+p$. Recent results of Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011] show the bound $r+p$ to be best-possible, at least for generic curves in the moduli space. Coppens’ work actually supplies a much sharper understanding of all intermediate gonalities (compare Sec.\[Coppens:subsec\] for more).
There is a little historical inaccuracy in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. When writing the paper, I did not realized properly that Ahlfors has also a quite elementary proof of the existence of circle maps of degree $r+2p$. Alas, I still do not completely understand Ahlfors’ proof yet it is clear-cut that its elementary part does not use the extremal problem! Accordingly, the sentence in Gabard 2006, p.946 reading as follows is quite inaccurate: “[*[\[…\]]{} un résultat équivalent fut démontré par L.V. Ahlfors en 1950, qui déduit d’un problème d’extrémalisation la possibilité de représenter toute surface de Riemann à bord compacte comme revêtement holomorphe (ramifié) du disque.*]{}
Related results
================
Some closely allied problems involves [*Parallelschlitzabbildung*]{} (parallel-slit mapping), the relationship with the Bergman kernel, etc. Although a bit outside our main theme of the Ahlfors map, the methods employed are quite similar and therefore a thorough knowledge of those proximate mapping problems can only reinforce the general understanding. In fact it is not to be excluded that the Kreisnormierung, or its positive genus case avatar, known as Klein’s Rückkehrschnitttheorem, is logically stronger than the Ahlfors mapping (but this is for the moment just a naked speculation).
Parallel slit mappings (Schottky 1877, Cecioni 1908, Hilbert 1909)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Those mappings (abridged PSM) involve several tentacles using varied technologies tabulated as follows:
$\bullet$ (Classical) Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877], Cecioni 1908 [@Cecioni_1908] (via methods of Schwarz, and Picard). Classically Schottky’s argument is criticized (by e.g. Klein, Cecioni, Salvemini, etc.) for depending only upon a constant count not fully sufficient to establish the mapping existence (this critique appears e.g., in Cecioni ) It is likely that subsequent rigorous continuity methods as developed by Brouwer upon topological ground can easily supplement Schottky’s heuristic argument (browse through Koebe’s works, etc.)\]
$\bullet$ (Dirichlet resurrected) Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909], Koebe 1910 [@Koebe_1910_Hilbert], Courant 1910/12 [@Courant_1912] (those writers extend the PSM to domains of infinite connectivity)
$\bullet$ (Extremal problem à la FROG Fejér-Riesz-Radó-(Carathéodory)-Ostrowski-\[Grunsky\]) de Possel 1931 [@de-Possel_1931], 1932 [@de-Possel_1932], Grötzsch, Rengel 1932/33 [@Rengel_1932-33], 1934 [@Rengel_1934],
$\bullet$ (Bergman kernel) Nehari 1949 [@Nehari_1949], Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949], Meschkowski 1951 [@Meschkowski_1951], etc.
A philosophical curiosity is that PSM is somewhat easier (according to specialists, cf. e.g. Garabedian’s Quote \[quote:Garabedian-Schiffer\_1950\] and Hejhal 1974 [@Hejhal_1974]) than the Kreisnormierung (KNP) (cf. next section), and this already in finite connectivity (cf. e.g. the very subtle approach to KNP imagined in Schiffer-Hawley 1962 [@Schiffer-Hawley_1962]). One may wonder about this sharp discrepancy of difficulty, since it is easily conceivable that for such canonical regions (bounded by elementary curves of the most elementary stock) one could easily pass from one normal-form to the other through explicit maps (at least in finite connectivity). \[Of course I do not claim that this is an easy game for me, but I suspect so for people like Schwarz-Christoffel or Schläfli it could be accessible. Of course there is maybe a difficulty in choosing the “accessory parameters” but this should be pulverizable through modern topological arguments à la Brouwer?\] Another striking asymmetry of the theory is that PSM hold true in infinite connectivity (since Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909] and the subsequent work of Koebe 1910 [@Koebe_1910_Hilbert]), whereas KNP is still wide open in infinite connectivity. (A very naive guess would be to deduce KNP$\infty$ from PSM$\infty$ through a continuity method for infinite dimensional manifolds. Maybe this suggests using Leray-Schauder theory as an infinite-dimensional avatar of the Brouwer degree?
Regarding PSM, lucid remarks are made in Burckel 1979 [@Burckel_1979 p.357–8], namely:
$\bullet$ the result in infinite connectivity is due to Hilbert, Koebe, Grötzsch, Rengel, de Possel (as we just said also),
$\bullet$ excellent book expositions are credited to Bieberbach 193?/67 [@Bieberbach_1967-BUCH-Einfuehrung-in-die-konf-Abb], Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57] and Nehari 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK],
$\bullet$ de Possel’s proof in 1931 [@de-Possel_1931] (and the allied work by Rengel and Grötzsch) via an extremum problem is recognized as reminiscent of Fejér-Riesz’s proof of RMT. However at one point of the proof RMT is invoked. Later de Possel 1939 [@de-Possel_1939] found a (short) constructive way around this (see also Garabedian 1976 [@Garabedian_1976]).
$\bullet$ for an approach to PSM, and the other canonical regions (radial or circular slits), via the Dirichlet principle see Ahlfors 1966 [@Ahlfors_1966-BOOK-Cplx-Anal].
Kreisnormierungsprinzip (Riemann 1857, Schottky 1875/77, Koebe 1906-08-10-20-22, Denneberg 1932, Grötzsch 1935, Meschkowski 1951–52, Strebel 1951–53, Bers 1961, Sibner 1965–68, Morrey 1966, Haas 1984, He-Schramm 1993) {#sec:KNP}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This (cavalier?) principle (abridged KNP) starts with the fact that a multiply-connected domain of finite connectivity maps conformally to a circular domain.
This was already implicit in Riemann’s Nachlass 1857/58/76 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass] (according to Bieberbach 1968 [@Bieberbach_1968-Das-Werk-Paul-Koebes p.148–9] who apparently saw a copy of Riemann’s original manuscript, cf. our Quote \[quote:Bieberbach-1925\] reproducing Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]; cf. also Koebe 1910 [@Koebe_1910_JDMV p.339]: “[*Den Hauptgegenstand dieser und des gegenwärtigen Vortrages bildet das Problem der konformen Abbildung eines $(p+1)$-fach zusammenhängenden Bereiches auf einen von $p+1$ Vollkreisen begrenzten Bereich, ein Problem, welches in der Literatur zuerst bei Schottky (Dissertation, Berlin 1875, umgearbeitet erschienen in Crelle 1877) in seiner bekannten Doktordissertation auftritt, jedoch früher bereits von Riemann in Betracht gezogen worden ist, wie aus seiner nachgelassenen Schriften hervorgeht.*]{}”).
The statement resurfaced more explicitly in Schottky’s Thesis 1875/77 [@Schottky_1877] (at least in the Latin 1875 version). The latter’s argument rests again only on a naive parameter count of moduli. Indeed, a circular domain with $r$ contours depends upon $3r$ free parameters to describe centers and radii of those $r$ circles, while removing the 6 (real) parameters involved in the automorphism group of the (Riemann) sphere, we get $3r-6$ essential constants. Invoking the (Schottky) double of the domain, whose genus is $g=r-1$, this number agrees with Riemann’s count of $3g-3$ moduli (where of course attention is restricted to “real” moduli). This adumbrates why circular domains are flexible enough to conformally represent any domain. Such naive counting arguments usually turn into rigorous proofs by appealing to some topological principles (like Brouwer’s invariance of the domain) vindicating the so-called continuity method. This sort of game occupy several of Koebe’s papers, who probably arranged this already; see also Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978] for an implementation of KNP in 12 pages (p.114–126).
Koebe devoted several papers to the KNP question in 1906 [@Koebe_1906_JDMV], 1907 [@Koebe_1907_JDMV], 1910 [@Koebe_1910_JDMV] (Überlagerunsfläche and iteration method), 1920 [@Koebe_1920].
As early as 1908 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3], Koebe advanced conjecturally the validity of this principle for domains of infinite connectivity: an issue still undecided today (2012), but corroborated in He-Schramm 1993 [@He-Schramm_1993] in the case of countably many boundary components (via the method of circle packings). Most of the contributions (listed in our subtitle) are carefully referenced in He-Schramm’s paper just cited.
Other proofs of the basic (finitary) KNP result are obtained by:
$\bullet$ Courant 1950 [@Courant_1950] (via a Plateau-style approach) \[Micro-Warning: Hildebrandt-von der Mosel 2009 [@Hildebrandt-von-der-Mosel_2009] and also Hildebrandt 2011 [@Hildebrandt_2011] credit rather Morrey 1966 [@Morrey_1966] for the first rigorous proof, modulo yet another gap filled by Jost 1985 [@Jost_1985]\].
$\bullet$ Schiffer and Hawley in several papers: Schiffer 1959 [@Schiffer_1959] (via the Fredholm determinant) and Schiffer-Hawley 1962 [@Schiffer-Hawley_1962] (via an extremal problem of the Dirichlet type).
It is common folklore that the Kreisnormierung, like the uniformization and even the Ahlfors circle map belong to a somewhat deeper class of problems than the parallel-slit mapping succumbing quickly to elementary techniques of potential theory. (Compare Garabedian-Schiffer’s Quotes \[quote:Garabedian-Schiffer\_1950\] and \[quote:Garabedian\_1949-52\], and also Hejhal 1974 [@Hejhal_1974 p.19] who makes similar remarks, for instance “[*We remark that the Koebe \[circular\] mapping is similar to the universal covering map, in that neither an explicit formula nor an explicit differential equation is known for it.*]{}”)
Such higher stock problems make it challenging to ask whether KNP(finite) could not be handled via an extremal problem à la Ahlfors, or to be historically sharper in the spirit of FROG=Fejér-Riesz-(Carathéodory)-Ostrowski-Grunsky.
\[$\bigstar$ Warning the sequel looks attractive yet erroneous, cf. the next paragraph for a rectification $\heartsuit$\] Maybe the relevant extremal problem (under educated guess) is to maximize the modulus of the derivative at a fixed point $a$ of the domain amongst functions bounded-by-one (in modulus) while imposing schlichtness to the mappings (otherwise we recover Ahlfors’ many-sheeted discs). Intuitively, this maximum pressurization exerted at the point $a$ ensures surjectivity of the mapping while filling most of the container in which the function in constrained by the condition $\vert f \vert \le 1$, yet roundness of the residual set of the image looks less intuitive. Speculating further, this “Ahlfors-schlicht” extremum problem could crack the fully general KNP in infinite connectivity (KNP($\infty$)). However, it suffices to remind that several complications are reported for the usual Ahlfors function in infinite connectivity (existence easy and uniqueness due to Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64], Carleson 1960/67 [@Carleson_1967-book], see also Fisher 1969 [@Fisher_1969]) by subsequent investigators like Röding 1977 [@Roeding_1977_Ahlfors], Minda 1981 [@Minda_1981-image-Ahlfors-fct], Yamada 1983–92 [@Yamada_1983-rmk-image-Ahlfors-fct] [@Yamada_1992-Ahlfors-fct-on-Denjoy], where the Ahlfors extremal function ceases to be a circle map and start to omit values). It is therefore quite overoptimistic to hope an Ahlfors-type (=FROG) strategy toward the prestigious KNP($\infty$). \[05.11.12\] $\heartsuit$ [*Correction.*]{}—The beginning of the previous paragraph is quite erroneous since the analogue of the Ahlfors map under the schlichtness proviso (=injectivity) is known to take a multi-connected domain not on a Kreisbereich but on a circular-slit disc. This result is due to Grötzsch 1928 [@Groetzsch_1928], Grunsky 1932 [@Grunsky_1932], Nehari 1953 [@Nehari_1953-Inequalities p.264–5] (another proof while crediting the just two cited works by Grötzsch and Grunsky), Meschkowski 1953 [@Meschkowski_1953] and finally Reich-Warschawski 1960 [@Reich-Warschawski_1960]. (Those references were already listed in Sec.\[sec:beta-and-alpha-problems\].) It is yet to be observed that such circular-slit-disc ranged maps fail schlichtness up to the boundary, and one can legitimately speculate about a suitable extremal problem akin to Ahlfors’ establishing KNP (in finite connectivity at least).
Röding 1977 (still not read)
----------------------------
The paper Röding 1977 [@Roeding_1977_mero] is perhaps quite dangerous (for Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]), yet I could not procure a copy as yet.
Behavior of the Ahlfors function in domains of infinite connectivity
--------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a series of works studying the behavior of the Ahlfors function for domains of infinite connectivity. Traditionally those works look more confined to the domain case.
The basic existence and uniqueness result are addressed by Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64], Carleson [@Carleson_1967-book] with simplifications in Fisher 1969 [@Fisher_1969]. In contrast to the finite case, the image of the Ahlfors function does not necessarily fill the full unit circle (=disc). We just list some main contributions:
Röding 1977 [@Roeding_1977_Ahlfors] (2 points are omitted), Minda 1981 [@Minda_1981-image-Ahlfors-fct] (fairly general discrete subset of omitted values), Yamada 1983 [@Yamada_1983-rmk-image-Ahlfors-fct] (omission of a fairly general set of logarithmic capacity zero), Yamada 1992 [@Yamada_1992-Ahlfors-fct-on-Denjoy] (characterization of omitted point-sets of the Ahlfors function in case of Denjoy domains).
The quest of best-possible bounds
=================================
The writers’s own contribution $r+p$ seems, at first glance, a dramatic improvement upon Ahlfors’ upper bound $r+2p$ (at least so sounded the diagnostic of the generous Zentralblatt reviewer of my article, namely Bujalance). In the long run it may be that Ahlfors’ extremals are always as good for suitable choices of points $a,b$, but only meagre evidence is presently available.
Distribution of Ahlfors’ degrees (Yamada 1978–2001, Gouma 1998) {#Yamada-Gouma:subsec}
---------------------------------------------------------------
The papers by Yamada 1978 [@Yamada_1978], 2001 [@Yamada_2001] and Gouma 1998 [@Gouma_1998] address the delicate question about the exact values realized as degrees of Ahlfors functions. Ahlfors’ pinching $r\le \deg(f_{a,b})\le r+2p$ collapses for planar surfaces ($p=0$) to an equality, and the question is trivially settled in this case.
Yamada and Gouma rather consider the infinitesimal form of the problem where just a single interior point $a$ is prescribed while maximizing $\vert f'(a) \vert$. They obtain spectacular complete results for membranes having a hyperelliptic double ([*hyperelliptic membranes*]{}), yet without being planar ($p=0$) in which case we are in the trivial range already discussed.
For a hyperelliptic membrane, the followings hold true:
[(1) (Yamada 1978)]{} The ponctual Ahlfors function $f_a$ has degree $g+1$ at the fixed points of the hyperelliptic involution (so-called Weierstrass points).
[(2) (Gouma 1998)]{} The degree of $f_a$ can only assume values $2$ or $g+1$.
[(3) (Yamada 2001)]{} The case of degree $2$ is always realized at suitable points.
\[05.11.12\] Gouma’s result shows large discrepancy between degrees taken by Ahlfors extremals and those of general circle maps. Of course the latter are more flexible with a specimen of degree 2 (just quotient by the hyperelliptic involution), whence circle maps exist in all even degrees (post-compose with a power map $z\mapsto z^k$).
Those works promise a grandiose link between Ahlfors and the classic tradition of Weierstrass points, which probably also regulate the degree of Ahlfors maps for general (non-hyperelliptic) surfaces.
Separating gonality (Coppens 2011) {#Coppens:subsec}
----------------------------------
In another direction of dramatic depth, Marc Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011] is able to show sharpness of the bound $r+p$ claimed in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. Actually, Coppens establishes the more spectacular realizability of all intermediate values for the gonality. Even if Coppens’ result looks at first sight subsumed to that of Gabard, it is in reality logically independent, so that a possible misfortune of Gabard’s result should not necessarily affect the truth of Coppens’ one. To be more specific, we introduce the following definition:
\[gonality:def\] The gonality (denoted $\gamma$) of a membrane (i.e. a compact bordered Riemann surface) is the least degree of a full (or total) covering map to the disc.
\[05.11.12\] A full (or total) covering map can be defined just as non-constant analytic map taking boundary to boundary. Then it makes good sense to Schottky-double the map and classic theory ensures the local power-map $z\mapsto z^k$ character of analytic functions, whence the branched cover nature of the map, in particular its surjectivity (via a clopen argument). The jargon “total” is borrowed from Stoilow 1938 [@Stoilow_1938-Lecons] and quite compatible with the “total reality” jargon (of Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977]) incarnating the algebro-geometric pendant of Ahlfors circle maps.
It is easy to show that a total map lacks ramification along the boundary. (Possible argument: Else it behaves locally like $z\mapsto z^2$ near a boundary uniformizer, but then the half-space is wrapped to a full domain expanding outside the permissible range of the map.)
In particular such a total map induces a usual (unramified) cover of the circle $\partial W \to
\partial D=S^1$, whereupon the trivial lower bound $r
\le \gamma$ follows, where $r$ is the number of boundary contours of the membrane $W$. On the other hand Gabard’s main result in 2006 [@Gabard_2006] asserts the upper bound $\gamma \le r+p$, where $p$ is the genus of $W$. Coppens’s striking result states:
[(Coppens 2011)]{} Practically, all intermediate values of the gonality compatible with the pinching $r\le\gamma\le r+p$ are realized as the gonality of a suitable membrane of topological type $(r,p)$. More accurately, there is a single trivial exception when $r=1$ and $p>0$, in which case the value $\gamma=1$ must be excluded.
Taking $\gamma=r+p$ supplies sharpness of Gabard’s upper bound. On the other hand, Coppens’ theorem tightens considerably Ahlfors’ squeezing $$r\le \deg f_{a,b} \le r+2p$$ into $$r\le\gamma\le \deg f_{a,b}\le r+2p,$$ yielding a notable contribution to Yamada-Gouma’s general question on the distribution of Ahlfors degrees (cf. previous section). Of course the contraction becomes most stringent when the gonality $\gamma$ attains its maximum value (i.e., $\gamma =r+p$ if thrusting Gabard), as it does for generic membranes in the moduli space ${\cal M}_{r,p}$ (parameterizing isomorphism classes of bordered Riemann surfaces).
Of course the moduli space stratifies through the gonalities. Imitating Riemann’s original count in our context it should be possible to predict dimensions of the varied strata. Such a deeper investigation looks desirable to complement the theory of Ahlfors circle maps. More on this in Sec.\[sec:gonality-sequence\].
\[05.11.12\] We are presently not aware of any total-bordered avatar of the simple Riemann-type counting argument, so efficient for closed surfaces in predicting correctly the gonality $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ as well as the dimensions of moduli strata of lower gonalities. It is suspected that this asymmetry is inherent to the boundary behavior of total maps which causes certain difficulties. Of course the difficulty is somewhat akin to the intricacies arising when doing real instead of complex algebraic geometry. Yet the problem is certainly not insurmountable.
Naive question: Ahlfors degree vs. the gonality
-----------------------------------------------
All information mentioned so far is summarized in the string of estimates: $$r\le \gamma \le \begin{Bmatrix} \le\deg f_{a,b} \\ \le r+p
\end{Bmatrix} \le r+2p.$$ An obvious question is whether inequality $\gamma \le \deg
f_{a,b}$ is best-possible:
Is Ahlfors extremal problem flexible enough that each membrane has an Ahlfors map $f_{a,b}$ of degree as low as the gonality $\gamma$ for suitable centers?
Yamada’s deep result (2001 [@Yamada_2001]) positively answers the case of hyperelliptic membranes (those which are 2-gonal $\gamma=2$).
Other sources (Fay 1973, Černe-Forstnerič 2002)
-----------------------------------------------
In Fay 1973 [@Fay_1973 p.116], one reads the following assertion:
\[Cerne-Forstneric-2002:quote\]
It has been proved in \[3, p.126\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) that there are always unitary functions with exactly $g+1$ zeroes [*all*]{} in $R$; and when $R$ is a planar domain, it is shown in Prop.6.16 that $S_{0,\dots,0}\cap
\Sigma_a$ is empty for $a\in R$ and that the unitary functions holomorphic on $R$ with $g+1$ zeroes are parametrized by the torus $S_0$.”
A similar comment is to be found in Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002 p.686]
\[Cerne-Forstneric-2002:quote\]
It is proved in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 pp.124–126] that on every bordered Riemann surface of genus $p$ with $r$ boundary components there is an inner function with multiplicity $2p+r$ (although the so-called Ahlfors functions may have smaller multiplicity).
Actually, it seems that Ahlfors’ proof shows even the slightly stronger fact that each integer $d\ge r+2p$ do arise as the degree of a circle map.
It is not perfectly clear to the writer how this claim must be interpreted: either as an exact degree $2p+r$ or as $\le 2p+r$.
On page 684, Rudin 1969 [@Rudin_1969] is quoted. Also on page 693 we find an interesting stability of inner functions of degrees $\ge r+2p-1$.
Applications of the Ahlfors mapping {#Sec:Applications-of-the-Ahlf-map}
===================================
This section lists some of the known applications of Ahlfors maps. Those applications either require the extremal property or merely conformality and the essentially topological feature of circle maps.
Gleichgewicht der Electricität (Riemann 1857)
---------------------------------------------
This source (Riemann 1857/58/76 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass]) is the very origin of all our story. Alas the physical applications Riemann had in mind were apparently only partially reproduced in H. Weber’s reconstruction of the original manuscript. Can someone imagine what Riemann had exactly in mind (eventually on the basis of the original manuscript, which must still be dormant somewhere in Göttingen)?
Here are some well-known remarks concerning this posthumous fragment; compare the “original” (as edited by H. Weber and reproduced in part below) as well as the remarks in Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925 p.9, §7].
Interestingly, Riemann starts with the first boundary value problem for plane domains, and actually uses the conformal circle map to solve it, whereas the reverse engineering may look more natural in view of his Dirichlet principle philosophy. Strikingly, Riemann anticipates both the Schwarz symmetry/reflection principle (Schwarz 1869 [@Schwarz_1869-Ueber-einige-Abbildungsaufgaben p.106]) as well as the Schottky double (Schottky 1875–77 [@Schottky_1877]). Typical to Riemann, an equality sign is virtually put between potential theory and algebraic functions: the Green theorem is used and Abelian integrals (of the third species) and their periods (Periodicitätsmoduln) enter the scene. \[05.11.12\] Recall also that Bieberbach 1968 [@Bieberbach_1968-Das-Werk-Paul-Koebes] asserts that Riemann’s work also contains a trace of the Kreisnormierung, and so does earlier Koebe 1910 [@Koebe_1910_JDMV]. Besides, Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] (cf. Quote \[quote:Bieberbach-1925\]) gives full credit to Riemann for the proof of circle maps in the planar case (both via potential theory and algebraic functions) emphasizing that Weber’s account is not completely faithful of the original manuscript. In contrast when based only on Weber’s account, reviewers of Riemann’s work tend to be more minimalist. E.g., Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978 p.198] writes: “[*Theorem 4.1.1. \[i.e. full covers of the disc for multi-connected domains\] goes back to Riemann, [\[423\]]{}, who gave some hints for the proof when $D$ is bounded by circles. The first proof is due to Bieberbach [\[88\](=1925 [@Bieberbach_1925])]{}, who used the Schottky-double and deep results in the theory of algebraic functions. Elementary proofs were given by Grunsky [\[195\](=1937–41); \[…\]]{}* ]{}”
\[quote:Riemann\]
Das Problem, die Vertheilung der statischen Electricität oder der Temperatur im stationären Zustand in unendlichen cylindrischen Leitern mit parallelen Erzeugenden zu bestimmen, vorausgesetzt, dass im ersteren Fall die vertheilenden Kräfte, im letzteren die Temperaturen der Oberfächen constant sind längs geraden Linien, die zu den Erzeugenden parallel sind, ist gelöst, so bald eine Lösung der folgenden mathematischen Aufgabe gefunden ist:
In einer ebenen, zusammenhängenden, einfach ausgebreiteten, aber von beliebigen Curven begrenzten Fläche $S$ eine Funktion $u$ der rechtwinkligen Coordinaten $x,y$ so zu bestimmen, dass sie im Innern der Fläche $S$ der Differentialgleichung genügt: $$\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} +\frac{\partial^2
u}{\partial y^2}=0$$ und an den Grenzen beliebige vorgeschriebene Werthe annimmt. \[So this is ‘just’ the first boundary value problem, alias Dirichlet problem.\]
Diese Aufgabe lässt sich zunächst auf eine einfachere zurückführen:
Man bestimme eine Function $\zeta=\xi + \eta i$ des complexen Arguments $z=x+iy$, welche an sämmtlichen Grenzcurven von $S$ nur reell ist, in je einem Punkt einer jeden dieser Grenzcurven unendlich von der ersten Ordnung wird, übrigens aber in der ganzen Fläche $S$ endlich und stetig bleibt. Es lässt sich von dieser Function leicht zeigen, dass sie jeden beliebigen reellen Werth auf jeder der Grenzcurven ein und nur einmal annimmt, und dass sie im Innern der Fläche $S$ jeden complexen Werth mit positiv imaginärem Theil $n$mal annimmt, wenn $n$ die Anzahl der Grenzcurven von $S$ ist, vorausgesetzt, dass bei einem positiven Umgang um eine der Grenzcurven $\zeta$ von $-\infty$ bis $+\infty$ geht. Durch diese Function erhält man auf der obern Hälfte der Ebene, welche die complexe Variable $\zeta$ repräsentirt, eine $n$fach ausgebreitete Fläche $T$, welche ein conformes Abbild der Fläche $S$ liefert, und welche durch die Linien begrenzt ist, die in den $n$ Blättern mit der reellen Axe zusammenfallen. Da die Fläche $S$ und $T$ gleich[^10] vielfach zusammenhängend sein müssen, nämlich $n$-fach, so hat $T$ in seinem Innern $2n-2$ einfache Verzweigungspunkte (vgl. Theorie der Abelschen Functionen, Art.7, S.113) und unsere Aufgabe ist zurückgeführt auf die folgende:
Eine wie $T$ verzweigte Function des complexen Arguments $\zeta$ zu finden, deren reeller Theil $u$ im Innern von $T$ stetig ist und an den $n$ Begrenzungslinien beliebige vorgeschriebene Werthe hat.
Kennt man nun eine wie $T$ verzweigte Function $\widetilde{\omega}=h+ig$ von $\zeta$, welche in einem beliebigen Punkt $\varepsilon$ im Innern von $T$ logarithmisch unendlich ist, deren imaginärer Theil $ig$ ausser in $\varepsilon$ in $T$ stetig ist und an der Grenze von $T$ verschwindet, so hat man nach dem Greenschen Satze (Grundlagen für eine allgemeine Theorie der Functionen einer veränderlichen complexen Grösse Art.10. S.18f.): $$u_{\varepsilon}=-\frac{1}{2\pi} \int u \frac{\partial
g}{\partial \eta} d \xi\,,$$ wo die Integration über die $n$ Begrenzungslinien von $T$ erstreckt ist.
Die Function $g$ aber lässt sich auf folgende Art bestimmen. Man setze die Fläche $T$ über die ganze Ebene $\zeta$ fort, indem man auf der unteren Hälfte (wo $\zeta$ einen negativ imaginären Theil besitzt) das Spiegelbild der oberen Hälfte hinzufügt. Dadurch erhält man eine die ganze Ebene $\zeta$ $n$fach bedeckende Fläche, welche $4n-4$ einfache Verzweigungspunkte besitzt und welche sonach zu einer Klasse algebraischer Functionen gehört, für welche die Zahl $p=n-1$ ist. (Theorie der Abel’schen Functionen Art.7 und 12, S.113, 119.)
Die Function $ig$ ist nun der imaginäre Theil eines Integrals dritter Gattung, dessen Unstetigkeitspunkte in dem Punkt $\varepsilon$ und in dem dazu conjugirten $\varepsilon'$ liegen, und dessen Periodicitätsmoduln sämmtlich reell sind. Eine solche Function ist bis auf eine additive Constante völlig bestimmt und unsere Aufgabe ist somit gelöst, sobald es gelungen ist, die Function $\zeta$ von $z$ zu finden.
Wir werden diese letztere Aufgabe unter der Voraussetzung weiter behandeln, dass die Begrenzung von $S$ aus $n$ Kreisen gebildet ist. Es können dabei entweder sämmtliche Kreise ausser einander liegen, so dass sich die Fläche $S$ ins Unendliche erstreckt, oder es kann ein Kreis alle übrigen einschliessen, wobei $S$ endlich bleibt. Der eine Fall kann durch Abbildung mittelst reciproker Radien leicht auf den andern zurückgeführt werden.
Ist die Function $\zeta$ von $z$ in $S$ bestimmt, so lässt sich dieselbe über die Begrenzung von $S$ stetig fortsetzen, dadurch dass man zu jedem Punkt von $S$ in Bezug auf jeden der Grenzkreise den harmonischen Pol nimmt und in diesem der Function $\zeta$ den conjugirt imaginären Werth ertheilt. Dadurch wird das Gebiet $S$ für die Function $\zeta$ erweitert, seine Begrenzung besteht aber wieder aus Kreisen, mit denen man ebenso verfahren kann, und diese Operation lässt sich ins Unendliche fortsetzen, wodurch das Gebiet der Function $\zeta $ mehr und mehr über die ganze $z$-Ebene ausgedehnt wird. \[…\]
This last paragraph is the one where Klein identifies (by Riemann) early examples of “automorphic functions” (compare Quote \[Klein-1923:quote:Riemann-1858\]).
Painlevé’s problem (Painlevé 1888, Denjoy 1909, Besicovitch, Ahlfors 1947, Ahlfors-Beurling 1950, Vitushkin, Melnikov, Garnett, Marshall, Jones, Tolsa 2003)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This connection is first explored in Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]. The point of departure is usually identified (modulo notorious sloppiness on finding the modern formulation) in Painlevé’s Thesis 1888 [@Painleve_1888] concerned with generalizations of Riemann’s removable singularity theorem: [*when do all bounded analytic functions defined in the vicinity of a compactum extend across the compactum?*]{} Riemann’s theorem settles removability of singletons.
A necessary and sufficient condition for removability is the vanishing of a certain numerical invariant directly attached to the Ahlfors function, the so-called [*analytic capacity*]{}. This is nothing but the maximum possible distortion $\vert
f'(\infty)\vert$ measured at infinity among all analytic functions defined on the complement of the compactum and bounded-by-one there. This characterization (due to Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]) is not regarded as a satisfactory answer to Painlevé problem requiring a purely geometric (quasi-optical) recognition procedure of removable sets. If the compact set lies on a rectifiable curve of the plane, removability is tantamount to zero length (Denjoy’s conjecture 1909 [@Denjoy_1909-Painleve/Sur-les-fct-anal-unif-a-sing-discontinues], initially a theorem which turned out to be “gapped”, but confirmed via Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977] in Marshall [@Marshall_1978?]). In the general case, Vitushkin 1967 [@Vitushkin_1967] proposed a characterization via “invisible sets” (due to Besicovitch in the 1930’s), i.e. those sets having orthogonal projections of zero Lebesgue measure along almost all directions. Verdera 2004 [@Verdera_2004] explains brilliantly a metaphor with ghost objects virtually impossible to photography. Alas, Vitushkin’s expectation turned out to be not entirely correct, cf. Jones-Murai 1988 [@Jones-Murai_1988] for a counterexample, yet it gives already an approximate idea of the whole problem. For instance, the prototypical example is the [*one-quarter Cantor set*]{}: a unit-square subdivided in $4\times
4=16$ congruent subsquares whose only 4 extreme “corner-squares” are kept, with this operation iterated ad infinitum (Fig.\[Cantor:fig\]). The resulting Cantor set turns out to be removable (Garnett 1970 [@Garnett_1970]), but has positive (Hausdorff) length since its projection on the line of slope $1/2$ fills a whole interval (again Fig.\[Cantor:fig\]). Here the 1/2-slope photography of the set is Lebesgue massive (hence “visible”), yet most other projections give sets of zero measures, in accordance with the removability of the set. Of course Garnett argues differently using in particular the classic analytic theory of Ahlfors-Garabedian.
The Painlevé problem engaged many investigators (Painlevé 1888 [@Painleve_1888], Denjoy 1909 [@Denjoy_1909-Painleve/Sur-les-fct-anal-unif-a-sing-discontinues], Urysohn, Besicovitch 1930’s, Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950], Vitushkin 1958 [@Vitushkin_1958], 1967 [@Vitushkin_1967], Garnett 1970 [@Garnett_1970], Melnikov 1967 [@Melnikov_1967], 1995 [@Melnikov_1995], Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977], 1978 [@Calderon_1978-ICM], G. David 1998 [@David_1998], and many others up to its ultimate solution in Tolsa 2003 [@Tolsa_2003]. This tour de force blends a vast array of technologies (Melnikov’s Menger curvature, stopping processes à la Carleson already involved in the corona, etc.)
As a naive question how much of this theory extends to Riemann surfaces, using say Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] instead of Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]. \[06.11.12\] Of course it may be argued that most compactums of interest are phagocytable in a chart or a schlichtartig region hence planar via Koebe’s theorem. However it may seem that non-planar compactums exist as well on Riemann surfaces? What is the simplest example if any? Of course I certainly miss(ed) something trivial. A naive example is to take the $1/4$-Cantor set and project it down to the torus ${\Bbb
R}^2/{\Bbb Z}^2$, but of course the latter set may be planarized again (via suitable retrosections).
Classical literature discussing Painlevé’s problem includes:
$\bullet$ Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]
$\bullet$ Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949]
Type problem (Kusunoki 1952)
----------------------------
In a 1952 paper [@Kusunoki_1952], Kusunoki found a clever application of the Ahlfors function to the type of open Riemann surfaces. Beware that the type of open Riemann surfaces is here understood in the analytic sense due the Finnish school (Myrberg 1933 [@Myrberg_1933], Nevanlinna 1941 [@Nevanlinna_1941]) of having a Nullrand.
More precisely, Nevanlinna 1941 () introduced a notion of surfaces with [*null-boundary*]{} (Nullrand). This amounts to exhaust the open Riemann surface by compact subregions $F_n$, while solving via Dirichlet (rescued by Schwarz, Hilbert, etc.) the boundary problem $\omega_n$ equal $0$ on $\Gamma_0=\partial
F_0$ and equal to $1$ on $\Gamma_n=\partial F_n$. As the subregions $F_n$ expand to infinity, two scenarios are possible:
$\bullet$ either the $\omega_n$ converges to $0$, or
$\bullet$ the sequence $\omega_n$ converges to a positive harmonic function, $\omega$.
In the first case, the open Riemann surface $F$ is said to have null-boundary, and in the second case to have positive boundary.
Null-boundary is equivalent to having no Green’s function, or a recurrent Brownian motion. More relevant to Kusunoki’s work is Nevanlinna’s equivalent formulation in terms of the convergence to $0$ of the Dirichlet integral $d_n=D[\omega_n]$.
Now, Kusunoki proves the following estimate (yielding a null-boundary criterion in case the right hand-side explodes to infinity):
[(Kusunoki, 1952)]{} $$\frac{1}{2\pi \lambda_n} \log{\frac{1}{\bar{r}_n}} \le
\frac{1}{d_n},$$ where $\lambda_n\le r_n+2p_n$ is the degree of an Ahlfors function $f_n\colon F_n\to D$ and $\bar{r}_n$ the maximum value of $f_n$ achieved on the Anfangsbereich $F_0$ of the exhaustion.
Kusunoki’s argument does not seem to use in any fundamental way the extremal property of the Ahlfors function. Thus perhaps any circle map (of possibly lower degree, e.g. $\le r_n+p_n$ via Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) accomplishes the job as well. This option is also corroborated by the fact that Kusunoki also appeals to Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] where no extremal property is put in the forefront. Accordingly there is some hope to derive a sharper Kusunoki’s estimate. Alas the magnitudes $r_n$ change during the process so the net bonus is hard to quantify.
Carathéodory metric (Carathéodory 1926, Grunsky 1940, etc.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cf. for instance Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940 p.232, §3], Burbea 1977 [@Burbea_1977-Caratheodory].
Corona (Carleson 1962, Alling 1964, Stout 1964, Hara-Nakai 1985)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964], the explicit degree bound $r+2p$ of the Ahlfors map is [*not*]{} employed. In fact any “innocent” circle map (of finite degree and not necessarily solving Ahlfors’ extremal problem) suffices to transplant the truth of Carleson’ corona theorem (1962 [@Carleson_1962]) from the disc to any finite bordered Riemann surface. Assuming that Ahlfors circle mapping theorem is really involved to prove, or speculating on a very apocalyptic earthquake destroying simultaneously all the ca. 13 proofs presently available, it is still true that the Alling/Stout extension of the corona persists all such crashes. Recall that Köditz-Timmann 1975 [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975] prove existence of a circle map (via a Behnke-Stein approximation theorem) without any control on the mapping degree. This weak form of Ahlfors is enough to complete Alling’s proof.
In contrast, Hara-Nakai 1985 [@Hara-Nakai_1985] exploit fully Ahlfors bound $r+2p$ for the finer [*corona problem with bound*]{}. The obvious problem is whether one can produce better corona bounds using circle maps of lowered degrees (e.g. those in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]). What probably plagues the game is that even in the disc case sharp estimation of the best corona constant is still an open difficult matter. Cf. e.g. Treil 2002 [@Treil_2002], where the best upper estimate of Uchiyama 1980 (Preprint) is supplemented by a lower bound improving one of Tolokonnikov 1981.
Literature includes:
$\bullet$ For the disc: Carleson 1962 [@Carleson_1962], Hörmander, Gamelin 1980 [@Gamelin_1980-Wolff's-proof] (Wolff’s proof), Garnett’s book 1981 [@Garnett_1981-BOOK], etc.
$\bullet$ For bordered surfaces: Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964], Hara-Nakai 1985 [@Hara-Nakai_1985], Oh 2008 [@Oh_2008].
Quadrature domains (Aharonov-Shapiro 1976, Sakai 1982, Gustaffson 1983, Bell 2004, Yakubovich 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is another discipline bearing deep connections with the Ahlfors function. For instance Aharonov-Shapiro 1976 [@Aharonov-Shapiro_1976] prove that Ahlfors maps associated to quadrature domains are algebraic. Combining this with works by Gustafsson 1983 [@Gustafsson_1983-Quadrature], Bell 2005 [@Bell_2005-Quadrature-domains] arrives at the striking conclusion: “[It is proved that quadrature domains are ubiquitous in a very strong sense in the realm of smoothly bounded multiply connected domains in the plane. In fact they are so dense that one might as well assume that any given smooth domain one is dealing with is a quadrature domain, and this allows access to a host of strong conditions on the classical kernel functions associated to the domain.]{}”
Compare also Yakubovich 2006 [@Yakubovich_2006], and the references therein.
Wilson’s optical recognition of dividing curves (Gabard 2004)
-------------------------------------------------------------
\[30.12.12\] Another highbrow (yet poorly explored) application of Ahlfors theorem was sketched in Gabard’s Thesis (2004 [@Gabard_2004 p.7]). This was an answer to Wilson’s question (1978 [@Wilson_1978 p.67]) on deciding the dividing character of a plane curve by sole inspection of its real locus. Here again Ahlfors theorem affords an answer: a real curve is dividing iff it admits a total pencil (with possibly imaginary conjugate basepoints). Yet it must be admitted that the answer, albeit perfectly geometric, has probably little algorithmic value unless complemented by further insights.
Steklov eigenvalues (Fraser-Schoen 2010, Girouard-Polterovich 2012)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Compare the paper by Fraser-Schoen 2010/11 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011] where, for the first time, the Ahlfors map is applied to spectral theory (the first Steklov eingenvalue). Of course the basic trick of conformal transplantation is akin to the closed case (Yang-Yau 1980 [@Yang-Yau_1980]), yet in the bordered case it seems that the Ahlfors map respects precisely what should be, when it comes to take care of the Neumann boundary condition. In this respect the Fraser-Schoen contribution looks extremely original.
Building upon a paper of Payne-Polya-Schiffer, Girouard-Polterovich 2012 [@Girouard-Polterovich_2012] are able to extend the (Fraser-Schoen) estimate to higher eigenvalues.
Other (Dirichlet-Neumann) eigenvalues (Gabard 2011)
---------------------------------------------------
Inspired by Fraser-Schoen exciting paper, I also tried the game with the modest arXiv note Gabard 2011 [@Gabard_2011], where the second inequality of Hersch 1970 [@Hersch_1970] is adapted to configurations of higher topological structure. Note that the other two remaining inequalities of Hersch are probably likewise extensible (involving the quadrant and octant of a sphere).
Klein’s intuition (Klein 1876, Marin 1988, Viro 2013, Gabard 2013)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Another little application of the Ahlfors map can be given to Klein’s intuition that a orthosymmetric (i.e. dividing or of type I) curve in the plane cannot acquire a solitary double point by progressive variation of its coefficients. This goes back to Klein 1876, and was probably justified by several workers though in a somewhat different shape from this original statement (e.g. Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988], and based upon him Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress]). For a clear-cut arguement using the deep Ahlfors theorem, cf. our Lemma \[Klein-via-Ahlfors(Viro-Gabard):lem\] below, which was essentially suggested to me by Viro (though in the modern Marin-Viro formulation differing somewhat from Klein’s original assertion). Our lemma below (\[Klein-via-Ahlfors(Viro-Gabard):lem\]) is however exactly Klein’s assertion, though proved by the device of Ahlfors maps. Even if Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941] should be right by ascribing to Klein the existence of Ahlfors circle maps, it is quite unlikely that Klein disposed of this as early as 1876 (the critical range being rather ca. 1882 right before the psychological collapse of Klein due to overwork). Accordingly our (Viro inspired) proof of Klein’s assertion via Ahlfors might be a bit too eclectic, yet it is quite hygienical while requiring little topological concentration.
Eclectic applications of the Ahlfors map {#Sec:Virtual-applications-Ahlf-map}
========================================
Those are only oneiric applications of Ahlfors maps, i.e. topics bearing only vague analogy to our main focus.
Filling area conjecture (Loewner 1949, Pu 1952, Gromov 1983)
------------------------------------------------------------
This was already discussed in the Introduction. One may wonder whether the FAC is also meaningful (and true) for non-orientable membranes. It seems so, imagine, e.g, a hemisphere surmounted by a microscopic cross-cap over a “glass-of-wine shaped” protuberance at the north pole (Fig.\[Wineglass:fig\]). This membranes satisfy FAC, for it effects no shortening of the intrinsic distance of the circle while having an area slightly larger than that of the hemisphere. One (possibly more accessible) question is whether the FAC holds true for membrane having the topological structure of a Möbius band (equivalently a disc with a single cross-cap). This case in view of simplicity of the topological structure is perhaps already known, or at least accessible via the traditional methods of Loewner-Pu, etc. (Alas, I am not aware of a specific reference.)
Another option is to generalize Gromov’s problem to membranes filling several contours (as suggested by J. Huisman ca. Sept. 2011). Arguably, a disjoint union of hemispheres is the best filling, at least when the contours are completely insulated (at infinite distance). Perhaps specifying some finite distance-functions $\rho_{i,j}$ between each pair of circles one can expect a least-area connected filling (without shortenings), but I have presently no clear view on how to pose properly such generalized problems.
Open Riemann surfaces embed in ${\Bbb C}^2$ (Narasimhan, Gromov, Slovenian school, etc.) {#Open-RS-embed-in-C2:sec}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Slovenian school of complex geometry (Černe, Forstnerič, Globevnik, etc.) are also frequently employing the Ahlfors map. One among the most notorious elusive open problem (Narasimhan, Gromov, Forstnerič, Wold, etc.) is:
\[Narasimhan:conj\] Any open Riemann surface embeds properly in ${\Bbb C}^2$ (equivalently such that the image is a closed set).
In Forstnerič-Wold 2009 [@Forstneric-Wold_2009], the full problem (or at least the case of interiors of finite Riemann surfaces) is reduced to the following finitary version, seemingly much more accessible, yet apparently still out of reach:
[(FW2009)]{} \[FW2009:conj\] Each compact bordered Riemann surface $F$ embeds holomorphically in the plane ${\Bbb C}^2$.
\[06.11.12 (based on ideas of ca. Sept. 2011)\] Such an embedding is possible whenever the corresponding real curve $C$ (namely the Schottky double of $F$) admits a [*totally real pencil of lines*]{}. This is for instance the case for Klein’s Gürtelkurve (any real plane quartic with 2 nested ovals). Fig.\[Coppens:fig\] below provides plenty of other baby examples (alas most of them being only immersed). Indeed in this situation (total pencil of lines) the corresponding projection is totally real and the allied morphism $C\to {\Bbb P}^1$ induces a continuous map between the imaginary loci, i.e. $C({\Bbb
C})-C({\Bbb R})\to {\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb C})-{\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb R})$. It follows that an imaginary line of the pencil cuts the curve $C$ [*unilaterally*]{} (i.e. only along one half of the orthosymmetric Riemann surface). Removing such an imaginary line from ${\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb C})$ leaves a replica of ${\Bbb C}^2$ containing entirely the original bordered surface $F$. This simple method fails miles-away from the full Forstnerič-Wold desideratum. Indeed Ahlfors theorem (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) only implies existence of a totally real pencil but a priori involving auxiliary curves of order higher than one. On the other hand when starting from the abstract bordered surface (and its double) we may have first a projective model in ${\Bbb P}^3$, which projected down to the plane ${\Bbb P}^2$ may develop singularities. Hence the model in question is only immersed in general. Our naive approach only helps grasping the notorious difficulty of the question, yet still permits to settle a limited collection of special cases. Actually the method, requiring a totally real pencil of lines, applies only to real dividing smooth curves of order $m=2k$ having a deep nest of profundity $k$ (that is, higher order avatars of the Gürtelkurve).
Another classical idea was to exhibit the required embedding $F\hookrightarrow {\Bbb C}^2$ via a suitable pair of Ahlfors circle maps (not necessarily extremals). This works in special cases, e.g. hyperelliptic configurations; see Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002], and also the related paper Rudin 1969 [@Rudin_1969]. Maybe more sophisticated variants of Ahlfors maps arising in the broader Pick-Nevanlinna context could do the job, but this looks extremely delicate.
Another natural strategy is to embed one representant in each topological type (this is actually possible by Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002 Theorem 1.1]), while trying to use a continuity argument inside Teichmüller (moduli) space as suggested in Forstnerič-Wold 2009 [@Forstneric-Wold_2009].
Naive approaches to the Forstnerič-Wold question
------------------------------------------------
This section tries (unsuccessfully) to connect some highbrow geometry on the isometric resp. conformal embedding problem with the FW-desideratum of the previous section. Available are some rather formidable weapons cooked resp. by Nash-Kuiper-Gromov and Teichmüller-Garsia-Rüedy-Ko, which alas lack some rigid analytic character upon the image model as to assess anything like the FW-conjecture. Of course the conformal embedding technique is most likely to pierce the hearth of the FW-problem, yet the merely smooth character of the conformal model hinders realizability as a holomorphic curve. However it is still conceivable that a suitable tour de force, somewhat akin to Garsia’s (1962/63 [@Garsia_1962/63-algebraic-surfaces]) conformal realizability as a real algebraic surface in $E^3$, is able to unlock the secret of the FW-problem.
\[06.11.12\] Another little puzzle is whether there is a connection with (Gromov’s and probably others) question as to whether [*any Riemannian surface embeds isometrically in Euclidean $4$-space $E^4$*]{}. (Compare Gromov 1999 [@Gromov_1999] delightful preprint “Spaces and questions”, note yet the article Gromov-Rohlin 1969 [@Gromov-Rohlin_1969] where the (real) projective plane with its round “elliptic” geometry is shown to lack such an embedding.) Thus orientability is required. Via a bordered version, we can probably embed our Riemann surface $F$ (equipped with a conformal Riemannian metric) in $E^4$ isometrically hence conformally. Via hasty thinking, the FW-desideratum (\[FW2009:conj\]) follows, but alas it does not due to the lacking rigid analytic nature of the image-model.
\[16.11.12\] A more rigid constant curvature version of Gromov’s isometric embedding conjecture would be actually sufficient:
\[Space-form-embedding:conj\] [(Space-forms embedding)]{} Any orientable bordered Riemannian surface of constant Gaussian curvature $K\equiv -1$ (and totally geodesic boundary) isometrically embeds in $E^4$.
When combined with the uniformization theorem, one should be able to deduce the FW2009 conjecture (but again this is illusory unless one is able to ensure complex analyticity of the image).
The space-form embedding [(\[Space-form-embedding:conj\])]{} implies the [FW2009]{} conjecture (and perhaps the full proper embedding problem [(\[Narasimhan:conj\])]{} via an exhaustion trick).
Given the bordered Riemann surface, we take its double $2F$, which is acted upon by a canonic involution $\sigma$. On this closed Riemann surface, there is by the uniformization theorem (Poincaré–Koebe 1907 [@Poincare_1907], [@Koebe_1907_UbaK1]) a conformal hyperbolic metric (whenever $\chi (F)=\frac{1}{2} \chi(2F)<0$) and the involution $\sigma$ becomes isometric. (This equivariant uniformization is due to Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UrAK], cf. also Jost 1985 [@Jost_1985] for another approach via Plateau.) It follows that the boundary of $\partial F$ are geodesics. On applying the space-form embedding (\[Space-form-embedding:conj\]) to $F$ we get the FW2009 desideratum.
Naively it seems that bordered hyperbolic space-forms already embed isometrically in $E^3$, cf. Fig.\[SpaceForms:fig\] for some qualitative pictures. Of course finding a hyperbolic model for a membrane of type $(r,p)=(1,1)$ is more tricky to visualize.
However on tessellating the hyperbolic pants one would (under suitable junctures) get probably trouble with the Cebyshev-Hilbert obstruction to realizing the hyperbolic geometry in 3-space. So maybe one must still accept variable (negative) curvature.
More flexible and suited to the problem at hand is the theory of Teichmüller-Loewner-Garsia-Rüedy realizing in the vicinity of any smoothly embedded closed surface in $E^3$ any conformal type of Riemann surface having the same topology via normal deformations. In particular:
\[Garsia’s-thm\] [(Garsia 1961 [@Garsia_1961])]{} Any closed Riemann surface embeds conformally in Euclidean $3$-space $E^3$. (The image model can also be made real-algebraic by techniques à la Nash, etc., cf. [Garsia 1962/63 [@Garsia_1962/63-algebraic-surfaces]]{}.)
(Rüedy 1971 [@Ruedy_1971] extended the result to open Riemann surfaces, and may also have contributed to the embedded version of Garsia, if the latter only showed an immersion, at least so is claimed in Ko 1993 [@Ko_1993-finite-type], yet not so in the papers by Rüedy.)
A direct bordered version of Garsia’s result is the following:
\[Conformal-embeddings:conj\] [(Conformal embeddings)]{} Any compact bordered Riemann surface embeds conformally in $E^3$.
This conjecture would still be sufficient to answer the FW2009 conjecture. In fact this last conjecture (\[Conformal-embeddings:conj\]) may appear as a direct consequence of Garsia’s theorem upon taking the Schottky double:
Any compact bordered Riemann surface embeds conformally in $E^3$.
Let $F$ be the given surface. Take its (Schottky) double, to get the closed Riemann surface $2F$. By Garsia’s theorem (\[Garsia’s-thm\]) $2F$ is conformally diffeomorphic to a classical surface in $E^3$. We conclude by restricting this embedding to the original half of the orthosymmetric Riemann surface $2F$.
The Garsia-Rüedy theorem climaxes the Riemann-Prym-Klein conception of the Riemann surface seen as a classic (Euclid-Gauss) differential-geometric curved surface in $3$-space (compare the introduction of Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882], equivalently Quote \[quote:Klein-Prym\]).
Next there is a series of papers by Ko starting with his Thesis in 1989 where the Garsia-Rüedy conformal embedding is extended by trading ambient 3-space by an arbitrary preassigned Riemannian manifold of dim $\ge 3$. Specifically, he obtains the following results:
[(Ko 1989, 1991, 1999, 2001)]{} Given any ambient orientable Riemannian manifold $\frak M$ of dimension $\ge 3$, then any Riemann surface $F$ embeds conformally in $\frak M$ provided:
[(1)]{} $F$ is compact(=closed) [(Ko’s Thesis 1989 [@Ko_1989-compact] reissued as Ko 2001 [@Ko_2001])]{}.
[(2)]{} $F$ has finite topological type, i.e. $\pi_1$ is of finite generation or equivalently homeomorphic to a finitely many punctured closed surface [(Ko 1993 [@Ko_1993-finite-type])]{};
[(3)]{} [nothing!]{}, i.e. $F$ is a completely arbitrary open surface [(Ko 1999 [@Ko_1999-open])]{}.
Specializing (1) to $\frak M=E^4$ seems to approach the desideratum of FW2009. However there is a serious plague, for when applied to a closed surface we get a conformal embedding in ${\Bbb
R}^4={\Bbb C}^2$, while complex-analyticity of the image is inhibited by the lack of non-constant bounded analytic functions on closed Riemann surfaces. Again the whole point is that the conformal model (of the Garsia-Rüedy-Ko=GRK theory) are only smooth $C^{\infty}$-surfaces and not holomorphic curves in ${\Bbb
C}^2$. While it is impossible to ensure complex-analyticity in the closed case, there is no evident obstruction in the (compact) bordered realm, except that the maximum modulus of any linear projection on a complex line must take its maximum modulus on the boundary.
\[27.12.12\] Assuming $F$ holomorphically embedded in ${\Bbb C}^2$, we get a family of holomorphic maps $\pi_t\colon F\to {\Bbb C}_t$ parameterized by the Riemann sphere of all (complex) lines through the origin. Since $F$ is compact bordered each such holomorphic mapping has compact range with maximum modulus reached on a boundary point. Of course the image is a priori not a disc (in which case we would have a circle map), but some more complicated shadow of the Riemann surface $F$. Concentrating much on this geometry it may be hoped that for some $F$ (alas not all remind the half of the Gürtelkurve) some obstruction is detected and FW is false. Alternatively effecting a linear projection on the Riemann sphere of all lines through a point $p=(x,y)\in{\Bbb C}^2$ gives the family of projections $\lambda_p\colon F \to {\Bbb
P}^1_p$, where the latter symbol is the pencil of lines through $p$. Using translation in ${\Bbb C}^2$ all such pencils identify to ${\Bbb P}^1_0$, where $0=(0,0)$ is the origin, and we get $\Lambda_p\colon F \to {\Bbb P}^1_0={\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb C})$ a holomorphic family parameterized by $p\in{\Bbb C}^2$. Again some obstruction could occur here, but it is hard to capture. Last one could look at the tangent line assignment yielding a sort of Gauss mapping $F\to {\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb C})$ and explore its geometry in the hope of detecting some fine geometric obstruction. All this is merely canary singing without tangible grounding.
In the other optimistic direction it can be hoped that a much boosted version of the Garsia-Rüedy-Ko theory proves the FW-conjecture.
\[19.12.12\] First we know (from Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002]) that any topological type of finite bordered surface contains a representative holomorphically embedded in ${\Bbb C}^2$. Applying the high-dimensional version of Garsia (due to Ko 1989 [@Ko_1989-compact], plus subsequent articles) we can realize all Riemann surfaces within a normal tubular neighborhood via an (infimal) normal variation. This is akin to a cellulite bubbling, alas destroying a priori the holomorphic character of the initial model. However it is not to be excluded that better controlled vibrations of the pudding permit to explore the full moduli space. This would assess the full Forstnerič-Wold conjecture. Of course what we are saying here is nothing new that was not already said in FW2009, and one requires serious new idea to make progresses.
A naive idea would be to take a holomorphic tube around the bordered surface $F\subset {\Bbb C^2}$, i.e. a neighborhood $N$ of $F$ together with a framing, i.e. a biholomorphic trivialization $N \to F\times \Delta$ where $\Delta$ is the unit disc. (I hope that a such exists but I am not sure!) One may also suppose with a compact tube involving the closed disc $\overline{\Delta}$, so $t\colon \overline N \to F\times \overline \Delta$. Via this trivialization any holomorphic normal variation amounts to a circle map, provided the amplitude of the variation is maximum along the boundary. Conversely given a circle map $f\colon F \to \overline \Delta$ we construct a holomorphic deformation by considering the image under the map $$F \buildrel{id\times f}\over{\longrightarrow} F \times \overline
\Delta \buildrel{t^{-1}}\over{\to} \overline N.$$ However the image curve is biholomorphic to the original $F$ and our variation is trivial. Perhaps one should use quasi-conformal avatars of circle maps (QCM for short) to perform a genuine variation of the complex structure. Such maps clearly exist, and we get so perhaps a tangible strategy toward Forstnerič-Wold 2009. Note however that the normal variation effected by a QCM destroys the analytic character of the image. On the other hand it is not essential to work with circle maps to get normal deformations so perhaps there is some freedom to be gained here. As another vague idea on how to construct the required trivialization of the normal bundle (or thickening $N$) one could imagine that it is fixed in the smooth category and then sliced by the normal 2-planes orthogonal to $F$. Each slice would be essentially a simply-connected domain and one would construct the trivialization by a version of the Riemann mapping theorem with parameters. This looks dubious but maybe leads somewhere? It is likely now that the trivialization $t$ is not holomorphic globally but only so in restriction to each slice (=fibre of the normal bundle). This is good for varying moduli, but of course disrupting the holomorphic character of the deformation.
Let us try to summarize a naive strategy toward FW2009:
[*Step 1*]{}.—Fix a semi-holomorphic trivialization $t$ of the normal neighborhood of $F$ in ${\Bbb C}^2$. (Seems accessible via a Riemann mapping theorem with parameters).
[*Step 2*]{}.—Among all normal deformations (cellulite bubbling) described by $C^\infty$ maps $f$ to the disc $\overline \Delta$ those inducing “rigid” analytic curves under the above displayed map.
[*Step 3*]{}.—By an avatar of the Teichmüller-Garsia-Rüedy technique try to calculate the moduli of the resulting deformations. Ko’s theorem ensures that all moduli are realized via soft $C^{\infty}$ deformations, but what happens when we restrict to the class of rigid perturbations?
Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation
-----------------------------
Compare the paper Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979].
Klein-Rohlin maximality conjecture(s) (Gabard 2013)
---------------------------------------------------
\[11.01.13\] The first paper were the notion of dividing curves appeared (namely Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876]) is concluded by some cryptical allusions which Klein might have derived from experimental data or by a theoretical argument involving his deep geometric intuition of Riemann surfaces.
Those intuitions were nearly forgotten for ca. 102 years until Rohlin picked them up again in his seminal paper 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] enriching the complete solution ca. 1969 by Gudkov’s of Hilbert’s 16th problem for sextics by the data of complex characteristics, i.e. Klein’s types I/II (erster und zweiter Art). This Rohlin achievement was in good part made possible by Arnold 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72] breakthrough of filling the half of an $M$-curves (or more generally) one of type I by discs bounding the ovals. Once this is in place Klein’s assertion or intuition found quite spectacular evidence and were somehow distorted by Rohlin in a related but somewhat more Hilbertian and grandiose conjecture: “a real scheme is of type I iff it is maximal”. One of the application was apparently destroyed in Shustin 1985/85 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin], yet the direct half “type I$\Rightarrow$maximal” could still be true.
A somewhat elusive desideratum would be that this reputed difficult conjecture of Rohlin follows from Ahlfors theorem. More about this in Sec.\[Klein-Rohlin-conj:sec\] below.
Starting from zero knowledge {#Sec:Starting-from-zero}
============================
As yet the text was mostly historiographical, but from now on our intention is to elevate to the higher sphere of complete mathematical arguments. (Of course the title of this section is borrowed from a joke of academician V.I. Arnold.)
The Harnack-maximal case (Enriques-Chisini 1915, Bieberbach 1925, Wirtinger 1942, Huisman 2001)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The theorem of Ahlfors (existence of circle maps) is easier in the planar case (and due in this case to Riemann-Schottky-Bieberbach-Grunsky, etc.). Using the corresponding Schottky double which is a real curve (of Harnack-maximal type), the assertion follows quite immediately from Riemann-Roch (Riemann’s inequality) via a simple continuity argument. This argument is implicit in Enriques-Chisini 1915 [@Enriques-Chisini_1915-1918] (perhaps even in Riemann 1857/58 manuscript [@Riemann_1857]), and was then rediscovered by many peoples including Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], Wirtinger 1942 [@Wirtinger_1942], Johannes Huisman 1999/01 [@Huisman_2001], and myself Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. The nomenclature [*Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem*]{} used say by much of the Japanese school (e.g. A. Mori 1951 [@Mori_1951], etc.) is thus slightly in jeopardy.
\[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\] [(Riemann 1857/8, Schottky 1875/77 ($\pm$), Enriques-Chisini 1915 ($\pm$), Bieberbach 1925, Wirtinger 1942, etc.)]{} Any planar bordered Riemann surface with $r$ contours has a circle map of degree $r$. Moreover the fibre over a boundary point may be prescribed as any collection of points having one point on each contour.
Double the surface to get a closed one of genus $g=r-1$. On the corresponding Harnack-maximal curve (i.e. $r=g+1$), pick one point $p_i$ on each oval to get a divisor $D_0$ of degree $g+1$. Riemann’s inequality states $\dim \vert D \vert
\ge d-g$, where $\vert D \vert$ is the complete linear system spanned by the divisor $D$ and $d$ is its degree. (This is Riemann-Roch without Roch, and follows easily from Abel’s theorem.) It follows that the divisor $D_0=\sum_{i=1}^{g+1} p_i $, moves in its linear equivalence class. We may thus choose in the linear system $\vert D_0 \vert$ a line (classically denoted) $g^1_d$, consisting of groups of $d=g+1$ points. Subtracting eventual basepoints, this $g^1_\delta$ ($\delta\le d$) induces a totally real morphism to ${\Bbb P}^1$, since by continuity the points $p_i$ cannot escape their respective ovals. Indeed looking at Fig.\[Enriques:fig\] while imagining one point evading the real locus $C({\Bbb R})$ another one must instantaneously jump to locate himself symmetrically w.r.t. the (Galois-Klein) symmetry $\sigma$ induced by complex conjugation. Since a totally real morphism has degree $\ge r$, the final degree $\delta$ must be $g+1=r$.
-35pt 0
Gabard’s argument: circle maps of $\deg\le r+p$ {#sec:Sketch-of-Gabard}
-----------------------------------------------
The basic principle used in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] to prove existence of circle maps is some topological stability of the embedding of a closed Riemann surface into its Jacobian via the Abel map, which is quite insensitive to variations of the complex structure. This is how we derived universal existence theorem valid for all Riemann surfaces with upper control on the degree of such maps.
We suspect that the same method (suitably adapted to closed surfaces) enables one to recover the Riemann-Meis bound $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ for the minimal sheet number concretizing a genus $g$ curve as a branched cover of the line ${\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb
C})$ (cf. Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857] and Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960]). Yet we failed presently to write down the details.
\[22.10.12\] Let us sketch rapidly the argument in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], to which we refer for more details.
\[Gabard:thm\] Any bordered surface $\overline{F}=\overline{F}_{r,p}$ of type $(r,p)$ supports a circle map of degree $\le r+p$.
Using the Schottky double $C=2 \overline{F}$, it is enough locating an unilateral divisor $D$ (i.e. one supported in the interior denoted $F$) linearly equivalent to its conjugate $D^{\sigma}$. By a simple continuity argument the pencil spanned by the pair $D, D^{\sigma}$ is totally real, hence induces a circle map; compare Lemme 5.2 in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] which we reproduce now:
The morphism induced by a pencil spanned by an unilateral pair of linearly equivalent divisors $D, D^{\sigma}$ is totally real.
Consider $g^1_d$ the linear series spanned by $D,
D^{\sigma}$. It is readily verified to be real. To check total reality imagine $D$ degenerating toward a point $D_0$ on the equator $g^1_d({\Bbb R})$ of the pencil $g^1_d$ (cf. Fig.\[Continuity-Gab:fig\]).
-5pt0
As long as $D$ stays imaginary it cannot acquire a real point (else as the morphism induced by $g^1_d$ is real it would have a real image). Therefore $D$ is so-to-speak magnetically confined to the original half, hence itself unilateral. Yet when $D$ becomes real it corresponds to a symmetric divisor (invariant under the involution $\sigma$), which must be the limit of unilateral divisors. The only possibility is for $D_0$ to be totally real. Since in a sphere, any point of the equator is accessible from the north pole, it follows that $D_0$ is always totally real. This completes the proof.
The task is thus reduced to exhibit an unilateral divisor such that $D\sim D^{\sigma}$ (linear equivalence on the curve $C$). Using Abel’s map $\alpha\colon C \to J$ to the Jacobian (variety) this amounts to say that $\alpha(D)$ is a real point of the Jacobian. Looking in the quotient $J/J({\Bbb R})$ this amounts to express zero as a sum of unilateral points. Taking any point $x_d$ in $F$, we search points $x_i\in F$ so that $$x_1+\dots +x_{d-1}=-x_d.$$ To solve this equation we use a principle of topological irrigation (subsumable to Brouwer’s theory of the mapping degree), but whose essence lies in the periodic behavior of the Abel map. Specifically, we know that $\alpha$ induces an isomorphism on the first homology. In a similar way (cf. Fig.\[Orthosym-basis:fig\]), the $r-1$ semi-cycles $\beta_1^+,
\dots, \beta_{r-1}^+$ (linking one contour to the others) and the $2p$ cycles $\widetilde{\alpha}_1, \dots,
\widetilde{\alpha}_p,\widetilde{\beta}_1, \dots,
\widetilde{\beta}_p$ winding around the $p$ handles form a basis of the first homology of the quotient $T^g:=J/J({\Bbb R})$, a $g$-dimensional (real) torus. Note that the extremity of the semi-cycles $\beta_i^+$ are pasted together when passing to the quotient.
-5pt0
The irrigation principle says that if we have $g$ cycles representing a basis of the 1st-homology of a $g$-dimensional torus $T^g$ then any point of the torus is expressible as the sum of at most $g$ points situated on the given cycles. Applying this, we can solve the above equation for $d-1\le (r-1)+2p$, i.e. $d\le
r+2p$ recovering Ahlfors bound. Since we are presently unable to reprove Ahlfors theorem via his original argument, let us state this as an independent theorem. (Note at the didactic level that our proof merely use Abel 1826 [@Abel_1826], and perhaps some Riemann in as much as we use that a curve of genus $g$ supports $g$ many holomorphic $1$-forms involved in the definition of the Abel map, yet nothing like say Green 1828 [@Green_1828] which is pivotal in Ahlfors’ implementation, although this is only stressed subconsciously.)
[(Ahlfors 1950, via Gabard’s method)]{} \[Ahlfors-via-Gabard:thm\] Any bordered surface $\overline{F}=\overline{F}_{r,p}$ of type $(r,p)$ supports a circle map of degree $\le r+2p$.
Now our points $x_i$ are situated on curves traced in advance around the handles. This constraint is not inherent to our problem, where only unilaterality is required. Thus the points enjoy more freedom and this is how we discovered (ca. 2002) the possibility of improving Ahlfors. More formally, we can imagine instead of the two cycles $\widetilde{\alpha}_i,\widetilde{\beta}_i$ winding around a handle a 2-cycle $\widetilde{\alpha}_i \star\widetilde{\beta}_i$ having the shape of a 2-torus. The latter torus is not traced on our surface $F$, but a vanishing cycle operation makes the torus visible. This torus is interpreted as a cycle with stronger irrigating power. Summarizing, we have in the quotient $T^g$ the $(r-1)$ semi-cycles and $p$ many 2-tori of stronger irrigating power. An (evident) variant of the irrigation principle gives solubility of the above equation for $d-1\le (r-1)+p$, i.e. $d\le
r+p$ (Gabard’s bound).
[*Warning.*]{}—\[06.11.12\] Presenting the full details in some less intuitive manner occupies the last 7 pages of Gabard 2006 (). It is hoped that the $r+p$ result is correct, but it should not be excluded that something wrong happened (or at least that the proof is not convincing enough). Thus more investigations require to be made to assess or disprove the above theorem. Of course the first part, where only Ahlfors’ bound $r+2p$ is recovered, seems less subjected to “corrosion”, because the irrigating cycles are readily traced on the bordered surface (without appeal to vanishing cycles, homologies, etc.).
Assigning zeroes and the gonality sequence {#sec:gonality-sequence}
------------------------------------------
\[22.10.12\] Here we explore some little new ideas inspired by the irrigating method discussed in the previous section. Alas, details are a bit messy (mostly due to severe degradations of the little I knew about algebraic curves). Most propositions of this section suffer the plague of hypothetical character. We hope that, despite vagueness of conclusions, the thematic addressed is worth clarifying. A general question of some interest is that of calculating for a given bordered surface the list of all integers arising as degrees of circle maps tolerated by the given surface. We call this invariant the [*gonality sequence*]{}. Another noteworthy issue is that apparently Ahlfors’ upper bound $r+2p$ is always effectively realized, in sharp contrast to Gabard’s one $r+p$ which can fail to be.
In the above argument (proof of (\[Gabard:thm\])) we may replace the point $x_d\in F$ by a collection of $k$ points say $z_1,
\dots, z_k\in F$. By the irrigation principle it is still possible to solve the following equation in the group $T^g=J/J({\Bbb R})$ $$x_1+\dots +x_{d-1}=-(z_1+ \dots+ z_k)$$ for $d-1\le (r-1)+p$. Alas, if the divisor $z_1+ \dots+ z_k$ is linearly equivalent to its conjugate the right hand side vanishes in $T^g$, and all $x_i$ could lye on the boundary of the semi-cycle (violating the unilaterality condition). However, in this case there is a circle map of degree $k$ exactly given by the divisor $D=\sum_{i=1}^k z_i$. Thus, we can still conclude the following:
(Circle maps with assigned zeroes) Given any collection $z_i$ of $k$ points in a bordered surface $\overline{F}$ of type $(r,p)$ there is a circle map of degree $\le (r-1)+p+k$ vanishing on the assigned points $z_i$.
It must just be observed that the pencil through $D,D^{\sigma}$, where $D=x_1+\dots +x_{d-1}+(z_1+ \dots+ z_k)$ is basepoint free due to the unilaterality of this divisor. (This holds true even if some of the $x_i$ or $z_i$ come to coincide.)
It seems even that there exists circles maps of any degree $d\ge
r+p$, but I am not sure about this point. Checking the truth of this requires the assertion that any point in the torus is expressible as the sum of the exact number of cycles available in the irrigating system. At first glance, this looks untrue in the trivial irrigating system for the flat 2-torus ${\Bbb R}^2/{\Bbb
Z}^2$ consisting of the 2 factors. Yet the origin may be redundantly expressed as sum of two points. Idem for a point on the vertical axis, there is an expression as that point plus the origin. So maybe it works. The general (hypothetical) statement would be:
(Hypothetical lemma=Sharp irrigation principle) Given cycles $\gamma_1, \dots, \gamma_k$ of dimensions (say one and two, yet this is certainly not essential) in a $g$-torus $T^g$ such that their Pontrjagin product $\gamma_1 \star \dots \star
\gamma_k$ represents the fundamental class of $T^g$. Then any point of $T^g$ is expressible as the sum of $k$ points $x_i$, one situated on each $\gamma_i$. (Some $x_i$ may coincide.)
Granting this we seem to get a sharpener version of the previous proposition.
(Very hypothetical!!!) \[hypothetical:prop\] Given any collection $z_i$ of $k$ points in a bordered surface $F$ of type $(r,p)$ there is a circle map of degree exactly $(r-1)+p+k$ vanishing on the assigned points $z_i$. In particular there exists circles maps of any degree $d\ge r+p$.
In fact the real problem is that our irrigating system involves the $r$ semi-cycles on $F$ (which close up into $J/J({\Bbb R})$). If the sum involves points located on the boundary of those semi-cycles, then those points must be discarded to ensure unilaterality of the divisor. Thus our method gives only an upper bound on the degree of the final map, but never an exact control.
Basic examples show that special Riemann surfaces may well admit circle maps of degree $d<r+p$ (cf. e.g. Fig.\[Chambery:fig\]).
The [*gonality*]{} $\gamma=\gamma(F)$ of a compact bordered Riemann surface $F$ is the least possible degree of a circle map tolerated by $F$.
Evidently $r\le \gamma\le r+p$ (the second estimate being Gabard’s claim). One can ask if each value $d\ge \gamma$ above the gonality occurs as the degree of a circle map. Alas, the above irrigation technique fails close to imply this. Our guess is that the response is in the negative, that is, there may be “gaps” in the sequence of all circle mapping degrees.
Thus to detect a gap it is natural to look among “special” surfaces of small gonality in comparison to its generic value $r+p$. A rapid glance at the combinatorics of Fig.\[Coppens:fig\] (below) helps us identify the simplest such example as a hyperelliptic surface with $(r,p)=(2,1)$. Then $\gamma=2<r+p=3$. Borrowing an idea of Klein, we can think of the corresponding real curve as a doubled conic. This occurs actually via the so-called canonical mapping (of algebraic geometry) which fails injectiveness for hyperelliptic curves. (Note: we switch constantly from bordered surfaces to real dividing curves, committing oft slight abuses of language.) Klein regards this doubled conic as a degeneration of the general Gürtelkurve (with two nested ovals) when both of them come to coalesce. This projective model of the hyperelliptic surface suggests that when projected from the doubled curve it has degree 2, but if the center of projection moves in the inside of the conic then the projection acquires degree 4 suddenly, without visiting the value 3. However substituting to the bordered surface this double conic is a bit fraudulent, e.g. because the latter is reducible and correspond rather to a disconnected Riemann surface. Also the doubled conic looks 2-gonal in $\infty^1$ ways whereas the original surface is uniquely 2-gonal. Thus another more reliable argument requires to be given. (This must probably be akin to the lemma proving uniqueness of the hyperelliptic involution.)
($\bigstar$) If I remember well there is a lemma saying that any basepoint free pencil $g^1_d$ on a hyperelliptic curve is composed with the hyperelliptic involution $g^1_2$. In more concrete words, any morphism to the line factors through the hyperelliptic projection, and so has even degree. If this is correct, Prop.\[hypothetical:prop\] is corrupted since the gonality sequence is exactly the set of even integers $2{\Bbb N}$. This remark would equally apply to any hyperelliptic membrane with $r=1$ or $2$, $p$ arbitrary.
However this conclusion conflicts with the Černe-Forstnerič claim (cf. 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002]) that Ahlfors proved any surface to exhibit a circle map of degree $r+2p$ exactly (take $r$ odd equal to 1). Of course the mistake is mine and to be found in the parag. ($\bigstar$) right above, as shown by the following example.
(Convention) Below and in the sequel, we shall often say just total morphism instead of totally real morphism.
[**Example 1.**]{} Consider a quartic with one node (so of genus $g=2$). This is hyperelliptic (alias 2-gonal) when projected from the node. However the curve also admits maps to the line of degree 3 (projection from a smooth point). Manufacturing a real picture gives the picture nicknamed 112 on Fig.\[F112:fig\] deduced via sense-preserving smoothings of both ellipses (ensuring the dividing character of the resulting curve by Fiedler 1981 [@Fiedler_1981]). The dashed circle indicates the node left unsmoothed. To avoid any mysticism, our nicknaming coding consists in writing the 3 invariants $r,p, \gamma$ as the string $rp\gamma$.
-5pt0
Picture 112 shows total morphisms (i.e. with totally real fibers over real points) of degree 2 (projection from the node), of degree 3 (projection from the inner loop) and of degree 4 (projection from inside the inner loop). One would like to know if $5$ is also the degree of a circle map, etc. We believe the answer to be positive: Ahlfors exhibits circle maps of degree exactly $r+2p$, and of all higher values too (as follows from his convexity argument). Hence the gonality sequence seems to be $\gamma=2=r+p, 3=r+2p, \dots$, where the dots mean all subsequent gonalities do occur after Ahlfors bound. This being a bit notationally messy, we introduce a graphical punching-card system on the figure, where the gonality sequence 234…is decorated by a triangle for $r+p$, an underlining of Ahlfors’ bound $r+2p$ (after which the gonality sequence is full), and the arrow indicating the least position from whereon the sequence is full. The given example does [*not*]{} confirm our initial guess about gaps in the gonality sequence, so let us examine another example.
[**Example 2.**]{} Consider a hyperelliptic model of type $(r,p)=(2,1)$. Then the genus $g$ of the double is $g=(r-1)+2p=1+2=3$. This prompts looking at plane smooth quartics having the right genus $3$, but alas the wrong gonality 3 (not 2). Thus we move to quintics (“virtual” smooth genus 6) and to lower down to $g=3$ we introduce one triple point (counting like 3 double points since perturbing slightly 3 coincident/concurrent lines creates 3 ordinary nodes). This gives the correct gonality $5-3=2$. Doing a real picture one may draw picture 212 on Fig.\[F112:fig\]. (Keep in mind the orientation-consistent smoothing ensuring the dividing=orthosymmetric character of the curve). It has $r=2$, and $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}=1$. Notice total maps of degrees 2 (projection from the “tri-node”=triple point), degree 4 (projection from the inner circuit) and degree 5 (projections from the inside of this inner circuit). Yet we missed degree 3. Over the complexes such a curve is not 3-gonal (because it is 2-gonal from the tri-node and 4-gonal when projected from a smooth point). Consequently, the allied bordered surface has circle maps of degrees $2,4,5$ but not $3$, which is missing. Hence this example probably corrupts our naive Prop.\[hypothetical:prop\]. Also, Gabard’s bound $r+p$ needs [*not*]{} to be exactly the degree of a circle map. Further this example shows the gonality sequence to be gapped in general.
Now one general question is to wonder what can be said about the following invariant.
\[def:gonality-sequence\] The [*gonality sequence*]{} $\Lambda=\Lambda(F)$ consists of the ordered list $\gamma<\gamma_1<\gamma_2<\dots$ of all integers occurring as degrees of circle maps tolerated by the given bordered Riemann surface $F$.
Fragmentary information includes the following facts, gathered as a theorem. (To nuance reliability of the varied constituents we assign them some percentages of truth likelihood, with frankly Schopenhauerian scepticism!)
For any bordered Riemann surface with topological invariant $(r,p)$ (viz. number of contours $r$ and genus $p$) and gonality $\gamma$ (i.e. the least degree of a circle map), the following estimates hold good ([*en principe[^11]*]{}):
[\[100%\] $\bullet$ (T) (Trivial)]{} $r\le\gamma$.
[\[99%\] $\bullet$ (KTA)]{} $\Lambda$ is nonempty or equivalently $\gamma<\infty$ is finite [(Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], or Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941] crediting Klein for the result; cf. also Köditz-Timmann 1975 [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975] for a proof via Behnke-Stein)]{}.
[\[100%\] $\bullet$ (Semigroup property)]{} the set $\Lambda$ is “multiplicative”, i.e. whenever it contains an element $\lambda
\in \Lambda$ it contains all integral multiples $k \lambda$. (This follows by composing the corresponding circle map by a power map $z\mapsto z^k$ from the disc to itself.) In particular [(KTA)]{} implies that $\Lambda$ is always infinite.
[\[98%\] $\bullet$ (A50) (Ahlfors 1950)]{} $\gamma\le r+2p$.
[\[75%\] $\bullet$ (G06) (Gabard 2006)]{} $\gamma\le r+p$.
[\[79%\] $\bullet$ (C11) (Coppens 2011)]{} $\gamma $ takes all intermediate values $r \le\gamma\le r+p$ (if $r=1$ the lower bound $r$ must be modified as $2$, excepted when $p=0$).
[\[97%\] $\bullet$ (AFCF) (Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.126], adhered to in Fay 1973 [@Fay_1973 p.116] and Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002])]{} Ahlfors bound $r+2p\in \Lambda$ always belongs the gonality sequence; and so do all higher values.
The last assertion follows from Ahlfors proof (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 pp.124–126]) where the origin is expressed as convex sum of points lying on a collection of circuits in ${\Bbb R}^g$. This is always feasible for $g+1=r+2p$ points, and a fortiori for more points. We shall try to digest Ahlfors argument in subsequent sections.
In contrast to (AFCF), Example 2 (=212 on Fig.\[F112:fig\]) above shows (or at least indicates strongly) that Gabard’s bound $r+p$ is not necessarily in the gonality sequence.
Further evaluations of the gonality sequence are tabulated on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\] as bold fonts. As before, the underlined number is Ahlfors (universal) bound $r+2p$, after which all gonalities are realized. The position pointed onto, by a triangle, is Gabard’s bound $r+p$. The little arrow is a pointer indicating the lowest integer after which the gonality sequence is full.
At an early stage of the tabulation, it seemed realist to advance the following.
\[conj:full-above-Gabard\] (Naive, destroyed by Example $4$) Strictly above $r+p$ each gonality occurs.
This is pure guessing, but if true it would considerably lower Ahlfors’ universal lower bound $r+2p$ for “fullness”. The next example still supports the guess, but the next Example 4 ought to violate it.
Consider, within the topological type $(r,p)=(1,2)$ where $g=(r-1)+2p=4$, a hyperelliptic model ($\gamma=2$). Looking at quintics (virtual genus 6) requires 2 nodes to correct the genus, but then the (complex) gonality is still 3 (and not 2 as we would like). The trick is (like in Example 2) to increase further the degree to permit a high order singularity lowering drastically the gonality. So we move to sextics (virtual genus 10) with a 4-node (counting for 6 ordinary nodes) decreasing correctly the genus to 4. As initial configuration we consider 3 coincident lines plus a conic through the coincidence and another line (in general position). An appropriate smoothing generates picture 122 on Fig.\[F122:fig\] with $r=1$ (all real circuits being connected through $\infty$). The gonality sequence seems to be $2, 5, 6,
\dots$. However 4 must be added to the list (being a multiple of 2). Hence the true sequence is $2,4,5,6, \dots$. Gabard’s bound is $r+p=3$, and strictly above it all values are realized (Ahlfors bound is $r+2p=5$).
-10pt0
\[23.10.12\]—[*Vague philosophy.*]{} An interesting feature of this example (122 on Fig.\[F122:fig\]) is that when gonality is very low in comparison to topological complexity, the Riemann surface, after having dispensed much energy to reach such a low gonality, seems falling into some dormant state without creating many new gonalities (missing the value 3). Perhaps this is a general phenomenon prompted by a principle of energy conservation.
\[28.12.12\]—[*Warning.*]{} On looking carefully at picture 122 above (Fig.\[F122:fig\]) it is seen that as the center of perspective is dragged from the $4$-node toward the two red loops or even their insides we may loose total reality for some lines of the pencil become tangent to the circuit somewhere (cf. dashed lines on picture 122) so that a suitable perturbation let disappear two intersections in the imaginary locus. Accordingly, it is not even evident form the picture that degrees $5, 6$ occur as degrees of total maps.
We now consider, in the topological type $(r,p)=(2,2)$ for which $g=(r-1)+2p=5$, again a hyperelliptic model. Looking at sextics with smooth genus $10$, we must use a correction by 5 (alas not a triangular number as those involved in multiple points). Thus we move to septics (order $m=7$) of smooth genus $\tilde{g}=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}=15$, and a 5-node (counting for $1+2+3+4=10$ ordinary nodes) effects the desired correction upon the genus. Smoothing a suitable configuration gives picture 222 on Fig.\[F122:fig\] with $r=2$ (two real circuits red and green colored). The gonality sequence includes the values $2,4,6=r+2p, \dots$. Six being Ahlfors bound the sequence is full from there on. When projected from the 5-node the degree is 2. Dragging the center of perspective along one of the two red loops gives total maps of degrees $7-1=6$ ([*warning:*]{} this is not even true, cf. again the dashed line on the picture!). The value 4 is not visible on the projective model, yet arises by the semigroup property. Studying the gonality over the complexes, it seems evident that 3 and 5 are not even complex gonalities, and we should be able to conclude that $2,4,6,\dots$ is the exact gonality sequence. (Here the “dots” refer again to the issue that all higher values belong to the gonality list, according to Ahlfors.) But then our conjecture \[conj:full-above-Gabard\] is violated (as $5$ does not belong the list). Incidentally, this example shows sharpness of Ahlfors bound $r+2p$ as the place from where the sequence is full.
Those examples can be iterated for higher values of the invariant $(r,p)$ while staying in the hyperelliptic realm. The arithmetical issue is the possibility to compensate the genus by a high-order singularity. We obtain for $(r,p)=(1,3)$, hence $g=6$, the figure 132 on Fig.\[F122:fig\], an octic (smooth genus 21) with a 6-node (counting for $\frac{6\cdot
5}{2}=15$ ordinary nodes) hence lowering down the genus to $6$. The gonality sequence is $2,4,6,7=r+2p, \dots$. Similarly, for $(r,p)=(2,3)$, $g=7$. Browsing through increasing degrees the genus are $10, 15, 21, 28, \dots$, whereas the nodes give the list $1,3,6,10,15,21, \dots$. The right pair is thus $28-21=7$. So we take a 9-tic (smooth genus $\tilde
g=\frac{(9-1)(8-1)}{2}=\frac{56}{2}=28$) with a 7-node. We construct easily picture 232 on Fig.\[F122:fig\], a curve whose gonality sequence is $2,4,6,8=r+2p, \dots$. (Note that in this case Ahlfors bound is sharp for the fullness of the sequence, but it was not in the previous example. It may again be observed that in the first example the $r+p$ bound occurs as a gonality, but it does not in the second example.)
The real outcome of these constructions is that for (certain, all?) hyperelliptic curves we can be totally explicit about the gonality sequence. Iterating ad infinitum we have:
For any topological type $(r,p)$ there is a surface of hyperelliptic type $(r,p)$ (with $r=1$ or $2$) whose gonality sequence $\Lambda$ is known explicitly. Namely,
$\bullet$ if $r=1$, then $\Lambda=\{2,4,6, \dots, 2p, r+2p, \dots
\}$, where the first “dots” runs through even values and the second means fullness after Ahlfors bound $r+2p$.
$\bullet$ if $r=2$, then $\Lambda=\{2,4,6, \dots, r+2p, \dots \}$, where the first “dots” runs through even values and the second means fullness after Ahlfors bound $r+2p$.
The natural question is of course to know if this spectrum distribution is specific to our models or generally valid for all hyperelliptic surfaces. (This looks likely, we think, maybe just by counting moduli.) Of course it is evident by the semigroup property that the gonality sequence contains the value listed, and is full after Ahlfors bound, yet the assertion that it reduces to this requires some argument.
A conjecture about fullness
---------------------------
\[23.10.12\] At this stage the situation is admittedly a bit messy. We try to clarify it by bringing into the picture the [*fullness invariant*]{} $\varphi$, that is the least integer from whereon the gonality sequence is full. (On the pictures discussed this is nothing but the little arrow used previously.) We have the string of inequalities: $$r\le \gamma \le \begin{Bmatrix} \buildrel{{\rm Ga}}\over{\le} r+p \le \\
\hskip4pt \le \hskip8pt \varphi \hskip8pt \buildrel{{\rm
Ah}}\over{\le}
\end{Bmatrix} \le r+2p.$$ Is any comparison possible between $r+p$ and $\varphi$? On example 212 of Fig.\[Coppens:fig\] $r+p=3$ beats the fullness $\varphi=4$. Many examples on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\] do satisfy $r+p\le \varphi$, but there is also several counter indicators, e.g. pictures 313, 414 or 223.
The following is a trivial consequence of inequation $\gamma\le
\varphi$:
Fullness below Gabard’s bound (i.e. $\varphi < r+p$) implies low-gonality (i.e. $\gamma < r+p$).
The converse fails, see pictures 212 or 222.
On the pictures of Fig.\[Coppens:fig\] the fullness $\varphi$ is indicated by a little upward arrow. Examining examples on this figure it seems that when the surface has generic gonality (i.e. $\gamma=r+p$) then its fullness coincides with the gonality (i.e. $\varphi=\gamma$). It would be interesting to know if a general theorem hides behind this experimental observation.
(Pressing up and down: fullness conjecture) \[conj:fullness\] If $\gamma=r+p$, then $\varphi=\gamma$. In other words if $\gamma$ achieves maximum value (granting the truth of Gabard’s bound!) then $\varphi$ collapses to its minimum value (namely $\gamma$). In particular the gonality sequence of a generic surface would be perfectly explicit, as being full from $r+p$. This would also show that generically Ahlfors bound $r+2p$ for fullness can be drastically lowered.
It seems plausible that an adaptation of Gabard 2006 could prove this conjecture. (Ahlfors’ original proof can also be useful.) The idea would be that in the irrigation method the equation $x_1+\dots +x_{d-1}=-x_{d}$ which is soluble for $d\le (r-1)+p$ points is, by the assumption made on $\gamma$, not soluble for fewer points. One would then like to extend this “exact solubility” to the equation $x_1+\dots+
x_{d-1}=-(z_1+\dots+z_k)$, where the $z_i$ is a collection of points assigned in $F$. A vague idea is then that if some $x_i$ (or their lifts to $\overline{F}$ belong to the border) then upon dragging the $z_i$ we may hope to displace them to avoid this circumstance (incompatible with unilaterality). This would construct an unilateral divisor of any assigned degree $\ge r+p$, producing in turn circle maps of all such degrees. The conjecture would follow.
Another basic phenomenon is that even when two surfaces have the same invariants $(r,p)$ and the same gonality $\gamma$ their gonality sequences may differ. (See for such an example both pictures 324 on Fig.\[F324:fig\]). Interestingly the left figure 324 is 4-gonal in $\infty^1$ ways (projection from the inner oval), whereas its companion 324bis, is 4-gonal in only 4 ways (projection from the nodes). Again some conservation law seems involved for all the energy absorbed by the many pencils of degree 4 living on the first model seems to provoke the missing of pencils of degree 6. It could be imagined that the right curve is totally real when swept out by the pencil of conics through the 4 nodes of degree $2\cdot 6 -4 \cdot 2=12-8=4$, but it fails to be total for the circular conics through the 4 nodes certainly misses the outer oval.
-5pt0
To investigate the fullness conjecture (\[conj:fullness\]) further, we test curves of higher topological structure.
$\bullet$ For $(r,p)=(3,2)$, we seek a surface with maximum gonality $\gamma=r+p=5$. If we imagine this gonality arising via linear projection it is natural to look at a sextic having a deep nest. The virtual genus is then $10$, but we want genus $g=(r-1)+2p=2+4=6$. Thus we introduce 4 nodal singularities. To keep the gonality maximum those nodes must not be accessible from the inner oval, and consequently we distribute the dashed circles (indicating unsmoothed nodes) in the “periphery”. We thus obtain curve nicknamed 325 (on Fig.\[Generic:fig\]). It has $\gamma=5$ and the gonality sequence is $5,6,7=r+2p,\dots$. In fact $\gamma$ could be $<5$ via some nonlinear pencil harder to visualize. A pencil of conics with 4 basepoints matching with the $4$ nodes creates a series of degree $2\cdot 6-4\cdot 2=12-8=4$, more economical than our $5$. However looking at picture 325, the special conic consisting of two horizontal lines fails to intersect the inner oval. Thus this pencil is not total, and we safely conclude that $\gamma=5$, exactly. In particular, the fullness conjecture (\[conj:fullness\]) is verified on this example.
-5pt0
$\bullet$ For $(r,p)=(4,2)$, we seek a surface with maximum gonality $\gamma=r+p=6$. Imagine again this gonality arising via linear projection, we consider a septic with a deep nest. The virtual genus is then $15$, but we want $g=(r-1)+2p=3+4=7$, hence we conserve 8 nodal singularities. We obtain so the curve labelled 426 on Fig.\[Generic:fig\]. It has $\gamma=6$ and the gonality sequence is $6,7,8=r+2p,\dots$. The fullness conjecture (\[conj:fullness\]) seems verified on this example. Warning \[25.10.12\]: now the claim $\gamma=6$ is possibly an optical illusion, for a pencil of cubics with basepoints assigned on the nodes has degree $3\cdot 7-8\cdot 2=21-16=5<r+p$. If the latter is total then $\gamma\le 5$, violating our claim $\gamma=6$. Of course tracing pencil of cubics is not an easy game. Experience tell us that total pencils arise when basepoints are deeply rooted inside the deepest ovals. In the case at hand (curve 426), this feature is not fulfilled. The 8 basepoints of the cubics pencil lye outside the inner oval, yet, it could be that the 9th basepoint falls (by a lucky stroke) inside this oval. In fact, it is enough to observe that the cubic, consisting of the ellipse through the 6 points lying highest on figure 426, plus the line through the remaining 2 points (lying lowest on the same figure), fails to cut the inner oval. This gives evidence that our pencil of cubics is not total. We conclude $\gamma=6$, exactly. In fact one must check that the 8 assigned basepoints impose independent conditions on cubics, and so our pencil is forced to contain the special reducible cubic just described. Independence is checked by the usual stratification method, where one imposes more and more conditions while verifying that each extra condition drops dimension by checking that the corresponding inclusion is strict. The method seems to apply to our situation, and we conclude $\gamma=6$ (with reasonable self-confidence). Of course another detail that must be taken care is our somewhat tacit supposition that the gonality (or the gonality sequence) do not depend tremendously on the choice of smoothing. The classical method of small perturbation (Brusotti, etc.) asserts existence of a curve effecting the assigned smoothings, but there is an infinitude of choices for the coefficients. A priori the fine gonality invariants are sensitive to the choice effected. Remember that Brusotti’s method relies on the fact that the initial curve (thought of as a point in the discriminant hypersurface) has a neighborhood consisting of several “falde analytice”, i.e. a divisor with normal crossings each branch of which corresponding to preserving a certain node. This explains the liberal way to smooth away nodes of our initial configurations. Yet more hazardous is the claim of a smoothing conserving the exact location of all nodes. This remark hinders slightly the previous argument made on figure 426.
$\bullet$ We next test the invariant $(r,p)=(5,2)$, and within it seek again a representative of maximum gonality $\gamma=r+p=7$. Using the same device as above, we are inclined to look at an octic (order $m=8$) with an interior oval kept protected from intrusion of singularities. The smooth genus is then $\tilde
g=\frac{7\cdot 6}{2}=21$, but need be lowered down to $g=(r-1)+2p=8$. We thus consider a distribution of 13 nodes distant from the inner oval to produce the curve nicknamed 337 (on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\], see also Fig.\[Gabard:fig\] for a larger depiction). This curve has $r=3$ (not 5 as desired!). This means that I am a bad experimentalist, but the curve 337 is worth looking at closer. Since $g=8$ by construction, and $r=3$ we have $p=3$ (recall $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}$). When projected from a point on the inner oval the curve is 7-gonal. This degree is [*larger*]{} than Gabard’s bound $r+p=6$! The example seems to violate Gabard’s bound $r+p$.
[*Summary.*]{}—While testing the fullness conjecture, we rather arrived to a counterexample to Gabard’s estimate $\gamma\le r+p$. We thus switch slightly of game, but try to keep in mind the fullness problem for later.
Potential counterexamples to Gabard 2006 ($\gamma\le r+p$)
----------------------------------------------------------
\[24.10.12\] The curve just discussed (337) seems a potential violation of the theorem $\gamma\le r+p$ asserted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. Can we solve this paradoxical situation? Either Gabard’s bound $r+p$ is false or something wrong happened. A possible explanation is that we were too cavalier when claiming $\gamma=7$; in fact the total lines pencil on curve 337 just shows $\gamma\le 7$. A priori there might be optical illusion about evaluating gonality. For instance sweeping our octic with 13 nodes by a pencil of cubics with 9 basepoints located on the nodes gives a linear series of degree $3\cdot 8-9\cdot 2=24-18=6$, rescuing the $r+p=6$ bound. Of course, it is another story to convince that such a map can be chosen total. Thus 337 still represents a severe aggression against $\gamma\le r+p$.
Similar counterexamples (be they illusory or real) can be manufactured in lower topological complexity. Starting with a configuration of 3 conics, we conserve the deep nest, but keep the maximum number of singularities in the periphery so as to lower the genus as much as possible. Keeping 7 nodes unsmoothed, but smooth away all others crossings in a sense-preserving fashion (to ensure the dividing character of the curve), we obtain the curve 215 with $r=2$ (on Fig.\[Gabard:fig\]). Its genus is $g=10-7=3$. Thus the genus of the half (complex locus split by the real one) is $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}=\frac{3-1}{2}=1$. Projecting from the interior oval gives $\infty^{1}$ total maps of degree $5$, and the hasty guess is that $\gamma=5$. Since $r+p=3$, Gabard’s bound $\gamma\le r+p$ looks again corrupted.
-25pt 0
However the curve at hand (215) having $g=3$ (and being dividing), elementary knowledge of Klein’s theory prompts that the canonical map $C\to {\Bbb P}^{g-1}$, here ${\Bbb P}^2$, will exhibit the curve as a “Gürtelkurve”, i.e. a quartic with two nested ovals. Then the gonality is reevaluated as $\gamma=3$, and Gabard’s bound is vindicated again (by the rating agency!).
Another way to argue, would be to take a pencil of cubics with 7 basepoints assigned on the 7 nodes and another basepoint on the curve. The degree is then $3\cdot 6- 7\cdot 2- 1\cdot
1=18-14-1=3$. The bound $r+p$ looks rescued again. Yet some hard work is required to check total reality of a suitable pencil. Perhaps there is some conceptual argument, else one really requires tracing carefully the pencil after an educated guess of where to place the extra assigned basepoint.
It is even possible to construct a quintic with “visual” gonality exceeding $r+p$. The cooking recipe is the same as above. Start from a configuration of 2 conics and one line, keep the inner oval while maximizing the number of peripheral singularities. It results picture 214 on Fig.\[Gabard:fig\]. We see $r=2$ real circuits. The genus is $g=6-3=3$ (3 nodes must be subtracted), and thus $p=1$. The naive gonality seems to be $4$, exceeding (hence violating) Gabard’s bound $r+p=3$. Again to resolve the paradox one can either argue via the canonical map carrying the curve to a Gürtelkurve, or find a total linear series of lower degree. Here this would involve a pencil of conics through the 3 nodes plus one assigned basepoint inside the deep oval. The resulting series has degree $2\cdot 5 - 3\cdot 2- 1\cdot
1=10-6-1=3$, in agreement with the $r+p$ bound.
A drawback of figure 214 is that the 3 remaining nodes are nearly collinear, rendering nearly impossible the depiction of the conics pencil. (In reality the 3 nodes are not aligned, else the line through them cuts the quintic in 6 points.) It is convenient to consider rather a related quintic $214bis$ on Fig.\[Pencil:fig\], where the line has penetrated the inner oval (yet without destroying it). All invariants $r,p$ (as well as the naive gonality) keep the same value as on the previous example 214. The new curve makes it easier to trace a total series cut out by a pencil of conics, where the extra basepoint has been chosen most symmetrically. Each member of it has beside the 4 assigned basepoints (counting for $3\cdot 2+ 1\cdot 1=7$ intersections) 3 moving points which are permanently all real, as follows (only?) through patient inspection of the picture.
-45pt 0 -35pt0
Fig.\[Pencil:fig\] attempts to show various members of the conics pencil, as well as the 3 mobile points of the series. Those sections are depicted by the same letters e.g. 1,1,1 corresponds to the section by the ellipse invariant under symmetry about the vertical axis. Ultimately, the whole figure has to be extended by this symmetry, but this is better done mentally for not surcharging the figure. The dynamics (circulation) is quite tricky to understand, but the motion looks much accelerated (hence hard-to-follow) when the (red) curve crosses the basepoints of the pencil. This is a bit if the particle motion would be much accelerated by a gravitational black hole. Once the picture is carefully analyzed, it is evident that all 3 mobile points stay permanently real. Thus our quintic curve has gonality $\gamma\le
3$. (Gabard’s bound is rescued on this simple example.)
Perhaps similar miracles (via high-order pencils hard-to-visualize) produce for all other pseudo-counterexamples to $\gamma \le r+p$. Yet this probably requires considerable work even just for the previous curves (of Fig.\[Gabard:fig\]). In full generality, some divine act of faith is required to imbue with chimeric respect the last vestiges of truth imputable to Gabard’s result. Note that pencil of cubics are required for the examples (Fig.\[Gabard:fig\]): even our sextic with 7 nodes achieves, via conics, only gonality $2\cdot 6- 4\cdot 2=4$, not as economic as the $r+p$ bound.
[*Summary.*]{}—Two scenarios are possible: either Gabard’s bound $\gamma\le r+p$ is false (which is not quite improbable as its proof is intricate and there is an infinite menagerie of potential counterexamples), or it is true in which case it might be proved extrinsically by a highbrow extension of the last example described (Fig.\[Pencil:fig\]). This brings us to the next section, which albeit not very tangible in our fingers is perhaps technically implementable (at least at the level of Ahlfors bound $\gamma \le r+2p$).
Brill-Noether-type (extrinsic) approach to Ahlfors via total reality {#sec:Brill-Noether-approach-to-Ahlfors}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
\[26.10.12\] Neutralizing all virtual counterexamples (of the previous section) to $\gamma\le r+p$ amounts a sort of high-powered Brill-Noether theory for totally real pencils able to reprove Ahlfors theorem $\gamma \le r+2p$ (and then optionally to corroborate Gabard’s $\gamma\le r+p$) in a purely synthetic way. This section touches superficially this grandiose programme, we are quite unable to complete.
Let us be more explicit. Any smooth projective curve (or, what is the same, closed Riemann surface) embeds in ${\Bbb P}^3$. A generic projection will realize the curve (like a knot projection) as a nodal model in the plane ${\Bbb P}^2$ having at worst ordinary double points. Specializing to real (orthosymmetric) curves we get a model in the plane, on which one can hope to first prove existence of a total pencil while evaluating the least degree of such a pencil. This should amount considering adjoint curves passing through the nodes so as to lower most the degree. The procedure would be as follows.
Let $F$ be a bordered Riemann surface of invariant $(r,p)$. We consider its Schottky double $C=2F$, interpreted as a real orthosymmetric curve of genus $g=(r-1)+2p$ with $r$ real circuits. Using a generic immersion in the plane gives a model $\Gamma_m$ of the curve $C_g$ of order $m$ having $r$ real circuits, and a certain number of nodes $\delta$. For simplicity assume the nodes to be simple, though the more general situation must perhaps not be excluded. We have of course $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}-\delta$. Let $\Delta$ be the divisor of double points of $\Gamma_m$. (Those can occur in conjugate pairs under complex conjugation.) Consider in the complete linear system $\vert kH\vert:=\vert {\cal O}_{\Bbb
P^2}(k)\vert$ of all curves of degree $k$, a linear pencil $L$ of curves passing through the nodes $\Delta$ of $\Gamma$ (adjunction condition). The resulting series has degree $\le k\cdot m- 2\cdot
\delta$. In fact a better control must be possible. First $k$ has to be chosen large enough so that the adjunction condition is possible at all. Since $\dim \vert k H\vert=\binom{k+2}{2}-1$, the integer $k$ is chosen as the least integer such that this dimension exceeds $\delta$. Then we may have some excess permitting to assign other (simple) basepoints.
Let us be even more explicit (we work first over the complex, for simplicity). So assume given $C$ a curve of genus $g$. We look first at the canonical embedding $\varphi\colon C \to {\Bbb
P}^{g-1}$. The image curve has degree $2g-2$. We manufacture a plane model via successive projections from points chosen on the curve. This lowers the degree by one unit after each projection. We arrive ultimately at a nodal model $\Gamma_m\in {\Bbb P}^2$ of degree $m=(2g-2)-[(g-1)-2]=g+1$. Experimental study or an inspired guess suggests considering adjoint curves of degree $k=m-3$. This value is calibrated so that our $k$-tics have enough free parameters to visit all $\delta$ nodes of $\Gamma$. Indeed $$\begin{aligned}
\dim \vert k H\vert
=\binom{k+2}{2}-1=\frac{(k+2)(k+1)}{2}-1&=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}-1\cr
&\ge\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}-g=\delta.\end{aligned}$$ We look at all curves of degree $k$ going through the nodes $\Delta$ of $\Gamma$. Denote $\frak d=\vert kH(-\Delta)\vert$ the corresponding linear system, and let $\varepsilon$ be its dimension. Obviously $$\varepsilon \ge \dim\vert kH\vert-\delta.$$ (In fact since nodes of an $m$-tic impose independent conditions upon adjoint curves of degree $m-3$ this is an equality. But we do not this deep fact essentially equivalent to Riemann-Roch.) Both displayed formulas show that $\varepsilon\ge 0$, and we may thus impose to our $k$-tics to pass through $\varepsilon-1$ extra points, while still moving inside a linear system of dimension $\ge 1$ (a so-called pencil). This gives a pencil $L\subset \frak
d$ of degree $$\begin{aligned}
&\le k\cdot m- 2\delta -1 \cdot (\varepsilon-1)\cr
&\le k\cdot m- 2\delta-\Bigl[\binom{k+2}{2}-1-\delta\Bigr]+1\cr
&= k\cdot m- \delta-\binom{k+2}{2}+2\cr
&= k\cdot m+ g-\binom{m-1}{2}-\binom{k+2}{2}+2 \quad \textrm{[now
recall $m=g+1$]}\cr
&= (m-3) m+ (m-1)-2\binom{m-1}{2}+2\cr
&= (m-3) m+ (m-1)-(m-1)(m-2)+2\cr
&= (m-3) m+ (m-1)\underbrace{[1-(m-2)]}_{-(m-3)}+2\cr
&= (m-3) [m-(m-1)]+2\cr
&= m-1=g.
$$ This proves that any curve of genus $g$ admits a pencil of degree $\le g$, which made basepoint-free induces a map of, eventually, lower degree. (Of course our assertion fails when $g=1$, but true otherwise granting some knowledge.) This “degree $g$” bound is a bit sharper than the usual degree $g+1$ prompted by Riemann(-Roch)’s inequality, but much weaker than the Riemann-Meis bound $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ for the complex gonality. A natural wish is obtaining the Riemann-Meis bound via the above strategy, hoping that special configurations of $\varepsilon-1$ points on the curve impose less conditions than expected, leaving some free room for additional constraints lowering further the degree. This is essentially what Riemann was able to do (at least heuristically) via transcendental methods, and (exactly) what Brill-Noether’s theory is about at the pure algebro-geometric level. Recall, yet, that both works apparently fail satisfying modern standards, cf. e.g. Kleiman-Laksov 1972 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1972] and H.H. Martens 1967 [@Martens_Henrik_1967], where the problem was not yet solved apart via Meis’ analytic (Teichmüller-style) approach.
At this stage, starts the difficulties. The big programme would be to adapt the above trick to real orthosymmetric curves, in order to tackle Ahlfors theorem. The latter prompts the bound $g+1$ rather, but this little discrepancy should not discourage us. So in some vague sense a “real” Brill-Noether theory is required, combining probably also principles occurring in Harnack’s proof (1876 [@Harnack_1876]) of the after him named inequality.
From the real locus $\Gamma({\Bbb R})$ one shall identify deep nests, and it is favorable to choose them as the extra basepoints to ensure total reality of the pencil we are trying to construct. Then there is also a foliation on the projective plane induced by the members of the pencil. Inside each oval, the foliation must exhibit singularities (otherwise total reality is violated). In fact total reality imposes the foliation to be transverse to the real circuits. Hence if there is no singularity we would have a foliation of the disc which is impossible. Perhaps Poincaré’s index formula is also required. To be brief there is some little hope that a very careful analysis of the geometry establishes existence of a total pencil of degree $g+1=r+2p$, recovering so Ahlfors result.
This would be pure geometry (or the allied devil of algebra) without intrusion of either potential theory, neither transcendental Abelian integrals, nor even topological principles. Perhaps only elementary topological tricks are required to ensure total reality by gaining extra intersections via a continuity argument akin to Harnack’s. This offers maybe another approach to Ahlfors, yet it requires some deep patience. It looks perhaps somewhat cavernous as (extrinsic) plane curves with singularities are just a “Plato cavern”-style shadow of the full Riemannian universe.
If this dream of a synthetic proof of Ahlfors theorem is possible, then it would be nice (if possible) to boost the method at the deeper level of special groups of points to gain the sharper Riemann-Brill-Noether-Meis sharp control upon the gonality, whose real orthosymmetric pendant is expected to be the $r+p$ bound (of Gabard).
Last, I know (only through cross-citations) the work of Chaudary 1995 [@Chaudary_1995-Thesis] where a real Brill-Noether theory is developed. This probably helps clarifying the above ideas.
[*Philosophical remark.*]{}—Everybody experimented difficulties when playing with extrinsic models of Riemann surfaces. A typical instance occurs with Harnack’s inequality $r\le g+1$, whose extrinsic proof (Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876]) is pretty more intricate than Klein’s intrinsic version (same year 1876 [@Klein_1876]) based on Riemann’s conception of the genus. By analogy, one can predict that any synthetic programme toward Ahlfors will ineluctably share some unpleasant features of Harnack’s proof. The substance of the latter is a spontaneous creation of additional intersection points forced by topological reasons, leading to an excess violating Bézout. Arguments similar to Harnack’s might be required to ensure total reality of a well chosen pencil. Instead of being obnubilated by real loci (of both the curve and the plane), it is sometimes fruitful to move in the “complex domain” to understand better reality. A typical example is Lemme 5.2. (in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) about unilateral divisors linearly equivalent to their conjugates. This was one of the key in my approach to Ahlfors maps. Perhaps this lemma is also relevant to the problem at hand ensuring total reality quite automatically. In the series of adjoint curves $\frak d$, one then imposes passing not through deeply nested ovals, but rather through imaginary points all located on the same half. The difficulty is of course showing existence of such a curve intersecting the fixed one only along one half (unilaterality condition), except eventually for some assigned basepoints (either real or imaginary conjugate).
Extrinsic significance of Ahlfors theorem
-----------------------------------------
\[07.11.12\] Another (less retrograde) desideratum is to explicit the extrinsic significance of Ahlfors theorem for real algebraic (immersed) plane curves. We touched this already in the Slovenian section \[Open-RS-embed-in-C2:sec\] but now a sharper idea is explored. The point is delicate to make precise and already quite implicit in my Thesis (2004 [@Gabard_2004], especially p.7 second “bullet”) plus of course in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] (albeit the latter may never have been aware of Ahlfors theorem). Today I discovered a certain complement which is perhaps worth presenting.
First Ahlfors theorem traduces in the following.
Any real orthosymmetric (=dividing) algebraic curve admits a totally real morphism to the line.
The half of the dividing curve is a bordered surface. By Ahlfors 1950, the latter tolerates a circle map, which Schottky-doubled gives the required total map. For another proof cf. e.g. the first half of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
This pertains to abstract curves (equivalently Riemann surfaces) but it acquires some extra flavor when the curve becomes concrete. Of course the ontological problem of concreteness is that there are plenty of ways for an abstract object to become concrete. Thus concreteness is oft the opposite extreme of canonicalness. Arguably, there is perhaps still a preferred “Plato cavern” namely the projective plane which can be used as an ambient space where to trace all Riemann surfaces provided we accept nodal singularities. Concretely this is done via generic projections from a higher projective space (${\Bbb P}^3$ actually suffices to embed any abstract curve), and then projecting down to the plane ${\Bbb P}^2$ gives a nodal model. All this being pure synthetic geometry it transpierces matters regarding fields of definition (A. Weil’s jargon) and so adapts to the reality setting. As yet just trivialities, but now we aim interpreting synthetically the (non-trivial) Ahlfors theorem.
Starting from a real dividing curve in some projective space, suitable projections exhibit a birational model, $C$, in the plane as a nodal curve. Existence of a total morphism traduces into that of a total pencil, i.e. one all of whose member cut only real points on the curve $C$, at least as soon as they are mobile. A priori basepoints may include conjugate pairs of points. (A simple example arises when we look at the pencil of circles through 2 points. Recall that circles always pass to the so-called cyclic points at $\infty$, but this is just an affine conception).
In extrinsic terms, Ahlfors theorem takes essentially the following form.
[(IAS=Immersed Ahlfors via Kurvenscharen)]{} Given a dividing (real algebraic) curve $C$ immersed nodally in the plane ${\Bbb P}^2$. There is a totally real pencil of (auxiliary) curves of some order $k$, all of whose members cut on $C$ solely real points plus eventually imaginary conjugate pairs of basepoints.
This reduces to the basic theorem that any abstract morphism of algebraic geometry admits a concrete description in terms of ambient linear systems when the abstract object is projectively concretized. In substance this is just the spirit of Riemann (algebraic curves=Riemann surfaces) but extended to the realm of morphisms. So the required theorem is just basic algebraic geometry but I forgot all the foundations. Historically add to Riemann, certainly Cayley-Bachach, Brill-Noether, (Klein?), all the Italians, and finally Weil, Grothendieck, plus of course many others.
Now the new observation \[07.11.12\] is that we may always assume $k=1$ (in the theorem IAS) up to changing of birational nodal model. The idea is that we may first reembed the curve $C$ via the complete linear system of all curves of degree $k$ (alias Veronese embedding) in some higher space ${\Bbb P}^N$, where $N=\binom{k+2}{2}-1$. Then the image curve $C'$ is (totally) swept out by a pencil of hyperplanes corresponding to the original total pencil $L$ of $k$-tics in the plane ($k$-tics=curves of degree $k$). If we project from the base locus of the hyperplane pencil which is a linear variety of codimension 2 we arrive down again in ${\Bbb P}^2$, but now with a new model total under a pencil of lines. It seems to me that this trick works and we get the:
[(IAP=Immersed Ahlfors via lines pencils)]{} Given an abstract dividing (real algebraic) curve, there is always a nodal(ly immersed) model in the plane ${\Bbb P}^2$ which is total under a pencil of lines.
This permits to remove one of the obstruction in our discussion of the Forstnerič-Wold problem (already touched in Sec.\[Open-RS-embed-in-C2:sec\]). We now deduce the stronger assertion:
Any finite bordered Riemann surface immerses in ${\Bbb C}^2$.
Let $F$ be the bordered surface, and $C:=2F$ be its Schottky double which is real orthosymmetric. By the theorem (IAP) we find a nodal model in the plane ${\Bbb P}^2$ total under a pencil of lines. The pencil being real its unique basepoint $p$ is forced to be real. Since the allied morphism (projection) is total the fibre of an imaginary point is an unilateral divisor, i.e. confined to one half of the curve. This means that all imaginary lines through the basepoint cuts unilaterally the curve. It suffices thus to remove (from ${\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb C})$) an imaginary line through $p$ to obtain an immersed replica of $F$ in ${\Bbb C^2}$. Note that if $p$ lies on the (nodal) curve then only the open half (interior of $F$) is so embedded, but we can probably arrange this by displacing slightly the center of perspective $p$ outside the curve while conserving total reality. The net bonus is that the whole bordered surface (boundary included) is in ${\Bbb C}^2$.
Of course this is still millions of lightyears away from Forstnerič-Wold postulated embedding (for all finite bordered surfaces), yet represents already a nice application of Ahlfors. Of course the corollary is also the special (finitary) case of the famous Gunning-Narasimhan theorem (1967 [@Gunning-Narasimhan_1967]), immersing any open Riemann surface in ${\Bbb C}^2$. Maybe their immersions are proper also, whereas ours are not. Maybe the Fatou-Bieberbach trick arranges this issue always, cf. e.g. Forstnerič-Wold 2009 [@Forstneric-Wold_2009]. Anyway using the quantitative form of Ahlfors (not used as yet) one can go perhaps further, maybe saying things on the degree of the model. Note also that the viewpoint of nodal model of orthosymmetric curves affords another numerical invariant, namely:
[(quite implicit in Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48])]{} Given an abstract dividing real curve $C$. The least order $\delta$ of a nodal birational model of $C$ is termed (by us) the nodality of the curve $C$. Via Schottky-doubling this invariant also makes sense for finite bordered Riemann surfaces.
Projecting down to ${\Bbb P}^2$ the canonical model in ${\Bbb
P}^{g-1}$ of a curve of genus $g$, we get a nodal model of degree $g+1=(2g-2)-[(g-1)-2]$ (each projection from a point on the curve decreases the degree by one unit). Hence $\delta \le g+1$.
If the theorem (IAP) is correct, one could also try to define the linear gonality of a bordered surface (or the allied orthosymmetric double) as the least degree of a nodal plane model totally real under a pencil of lines. This gives perhaps yet another invariant $\lambda$, which seems to satisfy $\gamma\le
\lambda+1$.
Another dream of longstanding (Gabard’s Thesis 2004 [@Gabard_2004]) is whether Ahlfors’ theorem implies Rohlin’s inequality $r\ge m/2$ for a smooth dividing curve of order $m$. If such a curve $C=C_m$ is total under a pencil of lines, then sweeping out the curve by the pencil gives collections of $m$ real points. When rotating the line around the basepoint, those $m$ points never enter in collision (else smoothness is violated), nor do they disappear in the imaginary locus (else total reality is violated). After a 180 degree rotation already, the line returns to its initial position while the group of $m$ points recover its initial position giving raise to a monodromy permutation. Total reality forces each circuit of the curve $C$ to be transverse to the foliation underlying the pencil of lines. It follows that the monodromy transformation is an involution (order 2) and we deduce:
[(Rohlin essentially)]{} Let $C_m$ be a smooth real curve of order $m$ totally real under a pencil of line. Then the real locus $C_m({\Bbb R})$ consists of a deep nest of $m/2$ ovals when $m$ is even, and if $m$ is odd there is as usual one pseudoline and ovals distribute in a nest of depth $(m-1)/2$.
In particular Rohlin’s inequality $r\ge m/2$ follows in this special case where total reality is given by a pencil of lines. The general case of Rohlin still appeals to some formidable work, but perhaps may be derived via a linear pencil on a nodal model. Alas we are unable to complete this project.
Let us however try to be more explicit. Given a smooth dividing $C_m$. Let $L$ be a total pencil of $k$-tics given by Ahlfors (theorem IAS). Then one can either try to study directly the corresponding foliation appealing to Poincaré’s index formula, and hope to mimic the above argument. Alternatively one can try to use the reembedding trick, where we use another model total under a pencil of lines. Now on the new nodal model of degree say $\lambda$, we apply the same sweeping procedure. We see on one initial line $L_0$ (assumed generic, i.e. avoiding the nodes) $\lambda$ points all real. When rotating by a half-twist the line we see groups of $\lambda$ points which now may cross themselves, but one can still assign a monodromy permutation. Naively any point finishes its trajectory on the other side of the basepoint (alas this makes no sense since a projective real line is a circle not disconnected by a puncture). The number of real circuits $r$ of the curve $C$ is equal to the number of cycles of the monodromy permutation, but a priori the latter number can be very low since crossings are permitted. (Imagine e.g. a spiral which after several growing revolution times closes up to form a single circuit.) Note that we do not yet exploited the smoothness hypothesis of the original model $C_m$. A naive way to exploit this is via the complex gonality $\gamma_{\Bbb C}$. We have indeed $m-1=\gamma_{\Bbb C}\le \gamma$ ($C$ being smooth). On the other hand $\gamma\le \lambda-1$. Hence $m\le \lambda$. This is interesting yet certainly not enough to conclude Rohlin’s inequality. So we give up the question for the moment.
The gonality spectrum
---------------------
An idea perhaps worth exploring is to enrich the gonality sequence (Definition \[def:gonality-sequence\]) into what could be called the [*gonality spectrum*]{}. This would just be the former weighted by the dimension of the space of all circle maps having the prescribed degree.
As we already observed earlier (hyperelliptic examples) it seems that when a surface has a very low gonality then it “somnolates” without creating new gonalities. Thus more generally, the intuition behind this spectrum invariant would be a conservation law somewhat akin to Gauss-Bonnet: whatever the Riemannian incarnation of a topological surface the curvatura integra keeps constant value equal to the Euler characteristic ($ \int_F K
d\omega= 2\pi \chi(F)$).
Of course experiments requires to be made (using e.g. the specimens on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\]). Alas I had not presently the time to do serious investigations about this spectrum. It seems also expectable that from a certain range on, the spectrum is independent from the conformal structure. (At least so is the case for the gonality sequence which is always full after $r+2p$.)
Of course some convention is required, probably consider only maps up to automorphisms of the disc.
Example the only example where the spectrum is very easy to describe is the disc: in this case the $\gamma$-sequence is full starting from 1, and there is essentially only one map of degree one (the Riemann map). Given any unilateral group $D$ of $d$ points in the disc, thought of as the north hemisphere of the Riemann sphere the pencil through $D$ and its complex conjugate $D^{\sigma}$ induces a totally real map. (cf. Lemme 5.2 in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]). Conversely, given the map its fibre over 0 gives an unilateral divisor, which up to a range automorphism may be assumed to contain 0. Normalizing by a rotation there are thus the map depends upon $2d-3$ real constants. (Make this more precise…). Such maps are (in the complex function literature) often called finite Blaschke products.
Once the setting is well understood, this gonality spectrum encodes valuable information upon all circle maps. Of course one perhaps still want to know more; e.g. to understand the incidence relation among the varied maps, especially how high-degree maps may degenerate to lower degree ones. Fig.\[Coppens:fig\] shows some interesting examples. Considering e.g. picture 313 we see that both maps of degree 3 are limit of maps of degree 4 (actually can be connected by such), and both of them are also limits of maps of degree 5.
Looking at picture 112 (again on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\]) we see that the unique (total) map of degree 2 is also the limit of maps of degrees 3 and 4. The gonality sequence $2,3,4,\dots$ can be enriched by weighting by dimensions to get $2_0,3_1, 4_2, \dots$. Beware that probably there are other maps of degree 4 than those visible on the picture as linear projection, namely the unique 2-gonal map post-composed by circle maps of degree 2 from the disc to itself. Our guess is that such Blaschke maps may degenerate to their originator (the hyperelliptic projection) but not to maps of degree 3.
More lowbrow counterexamples to $\gamma\le r+p$
-----------------------------------------------
\[27.10.12\] We now pursue the project of multiplying and diminishing further the order of virtual counterexamples to Gabard’s estimate $\gamma\le r+p$ (cf. Fig.\[Gabard:fig\] and Fig.\[Pencil:fig\]). There we found curves (via an uniform recipe) seemingly violating the gonality upper bound $r+p$. The simplest example had order 5, but it is easy to get examples of order 4. The game is again to depict total pencils vindicating Gabard’s bound. Albeit very modest corroboration of the bound, we found instructive to visualize the corresponding total pencils.
First remind the general recipe: to manufacture an (at least virtual) counterexample to $\gamma\le r+p$, we leave tranquil the inner oval but maximize the number of singularities, so as to lower the genus $g=(r-1)+2p$, and hence $(r,p)$. Having left quiet the inner oval the virtual gonality via linear projection is one less than the degree, but $r+p$ may go lower down this value.
We first consider a configuration of order 5 consisting of 2 conics plus one line, see picture 304 below (Fig.\[F304:fig\]). Smoothing it as dictated by orientations while keeping unsmoothed the dashed circles gives a curve with $r=3$ real circuits of genus $g=6-4=2$. Hence $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}=0$. The virtual gonality is $\gamma^\ast=4$ (projection from the inner oval). This seems to violate $\gamma\le r+p=3$. Looking at the pencil of conics through the 4 nodes gives a series of degree $2\cdot 5-4\cdot 2=10-8=2$. This violates the trivial bound $r\le \gamma$, but of course this pencil is not total: e.g. the conic consisting of the 2 horizontal (or better oblique) lines misses the inner oval. Assigning instead one of the 4 basepoints on the inner oval gives a pencil of degree $3$, which is claimed to be total.
Totality of the morphism requires examining (patiently) that each conic of the pencil cuts only real points on the quintic $C_5$. This is depicted on the large part of Fig.\[F304:fig\], where each triad of moving points of the series are labelled by triples $1,1,1$, then $2,2,2$, etc. Let us start from the conic consisting of the oblique line through $1,1$, plus the horizontal line. The latter cut the red pseudoline at infinity. This pair of lines deforms to a hyperbola cutting the triad $2,2,2$. This hyperbola is in turn pinched toward a pair of lines cutting the group $3,3,3$, etc, up to $7,7,7$. From here on, things becomes harder to visualize. (Alas our picture is not optimally designed.) The conic of the pencil now becomes very close to the primitive conic involved in the generation of the quintic $C_5$ via small perturbation. The net effect is that points on the green branch nearly “osculated” by the primitive ellipse are (violently) accelerated (like in CERN’s particles accelerator). At this stage it is quite delicate to make a consistent picture, but total reality seems to work: all particles stay real during the motion without disappearing as ghost in the imaginary locus (as conjugate pairs of points under Galois).
We promised a similar example of degree 4; this will be pictured later (Sec.\[sec:degree-four\]), being now sidetracked to another topic which looks more exciting.
Some crazy ideas about gravitation and unification of forces {#sec:gravitation}
============================================================
From gravitation to electrodynamics {#sec:electrodynamics}
-----------------------------------
Now we arrive at the following crazy interpretation (discovered the 27.10.12 at ca. 13h58). It would be nice if there is some relation of the Ahlfors maps with periodic solutions to the $n$ body problem in gravitation (celestial mechanics). The 4 basepoints of Fig.\[F304:fig\] may be thought of as supermassive black-holes, so massive that there is no interaction between them (imagine purely static objects lying in different sheets of the multiverse). Dually, the moving points of the linear system are imagined as massless microparticles (electrons, or better photons). There is also no gravitational interaction between them. Thus the sole interactions reigning are those between black holes and photons. It is also imagined that a photon can traverse a black-hole (without captivation).
As a wild speculation, the trajectories described by the 3 photons on Fig.\[F304:fig\] may satisfy exactly Newton’s law of gravitation. In particular the full trajectory would be the real locus of an algebraic curve! This would of course be a wide extension of Kepler’s law (on the rôle of conic sections in the simplest case of one sun and one planet).
If this is true we see a deep connection between Klein’s orthosymmetric curves, Ahlfors maps of conformal geometry and the totally real circulations positing periodic stable motions along circuits of an orthosymmetric curve. Exaggerating a bit this should explain the ultimate constitution of matter (and its relative stability) not via knots (as Lord Kelvin desired via Helmholtz vortices) but via bordered Riemann surfaces (probably quite ubiquitous already in the so-called string theory).
Note that our basic experiment (with Fig.\[F304:fig\]) is—as far as speed of motion is concerned—quite in line with this interpretation.
Let us look at one of the simplest example of orthosymmetric curve, namely the (Zeuthen-Klein) Gürtelkurve (aka [*courbe annulaire*]{}). This is a quartic with two nested ovals arising by smoothing two transverse ellipses having 4 intersections. The picture is given below (Fig.\[FGuert:fig\]). One can convincingly argue that the shapes of trajectories (especially the outer oval) are unlikely to be gravitational orbits. It seems that some hidden force repulses the particles (labelled 1 on the figure). Invoking some other (electric) force effecting repulsion between particles, then the trajectories of the Gürtelkurve look again physically tolerable. Thus the “physical” model should include two types of interactions: gravitational and electromagnetic.
-10pt0
Of course one can drag the position of the sun while still having a totally real pencil. This gives the next figure (Fig.\[FGuert2:fig\]). Note that we did not changed the curve, yet it is still plausible that for suitable initial conditions (velocity vectors) the orbits of our 4 bodies follows exactly the same quartic curve.
-5pt0
-10pt0
We arrive at the following metatheorem \[14h57\]:
[(Kepler generalized?)]{} \[metatheorem:thm\] Given any orthosymmetric real (algebraic) curve embedded (or immersed) in the Euclid plane ${\Bbb R^2}$ and a totally real pencil (existence ensured by Ahlfors theorem). There exists initial conditions (velocity vectors) such that the trajectories of particles obeying the inverse square law of Newtonian attraction resp. Coulombian repulsion match exactly the real circuits (“ovals”) of the given real algebraic curve. Further the dynamics (speed of motion) is dictated by the pencil. In particular there is plenty of periodic solutions to the $n$-body problem, essentially one for each such curve.
How to prove this? Philosophically, algebraicity might be not so surprising: recall Laplace’s potential-theoretic interpretation of Newton, and from Laplace there is just one step to Riemann, hence to Klein. The miracle should be essentially akin to Riemann’s existence theorem prompting any closed Riemann surface (an a priori completely fluid object) to rigidify canonically as an algebraic curve. Even if true the metatheorem is quite modest because in practice (meteorites, apocalyptic black holes scenarios, etc.) one is given the initial conditions and the goal is to predict the future evolution of the system. Here in contrast, we know in advance the trajectories (hence the destiny) while claiming existence of initial conditions compatible with the orbital structure. Generally, integrating the differential equations governing some motion, we meet a highly complex dynamical system subjected to the paradigm of chaotic determinism à la Poincaré. Note that a Euclidean model of the projective curve is required to give sense to Newton’s inverse square law.
Several questions naturally occurs assuming the truth of the metatheorem. The theorem affords plenty of periodic motions. Essentially we obtain as many periodic motions as there are real orthosymmetric curves. Even more than that, one requires an Ahlfors circle map (equivalently a totally real morphism à la Klein-Teichmüller). A first naive question is: do this recipe exhausts all periodic motions? Certainly not, try Euler and Lagrange’s periodic motions. Roughly all algebraic motions are periodic, but the converse has no chance to be true.
Observationally, Fig.\[FGuert2:fig\] looks anomalous because the series 1,2,3,4 closest to the sun looks much slowed down, whereas we are accustomed (Kepler) to rapid motions near a massive star. One requires perhaps a third type of interaction, say the [*strong interaction*]{}, to explain this. Namely both particles the proton and the electron are of a dualistic nature, hence they tend to “love” themselves like partners staying close together over a long period of time. This third force would have the net effect of diminishing the real speed by a factor proportional to the (squared?) distance separating the bodies. What is then the fourth force, alias [*weak interaction*]{} in contemporary physics? Maybe none is required in our model? Perhaps dually, particles of the same nature (namely electrons) dislike themselves like competitors and the [*weak force*]{} just produces some acceleration of the motion when they are in close vicinity. Visually this behavior is perhaps observed near the groups labelled 2,3 on the top part of Fig.\[FGuert2:fig\].
We have now a model with 4 fundamental forces. One must of course still define time. This would, on our example, just be the angular parameter of the pencil. Presumably the metatheorem should take into account these two extra forces, becoming somewhat sophisticated, yet probably still completely deterministic and hopefully reasonably easy to integrate. The miracle would be that it admits dividing (=orthosymmetric) real curves as periodic orbits. Of course to relativize, one can do similar games with real diasymmetric curves, but then there is no total reality prompted by Ahlfors theorem and particles sometimes disappear in the imaginary locus. We leave to the reader’s imagination appropriate physical interpretations (ghost particles, anti-matter, etc.)
Perhaps there is a more elementary way to explain slowness of the motion near the star (without appealing to the exotic forces at the subatomic level). Recall Kepler’s law in the elliptic case, that identic sectorial areas are swept out during the same amount of time. This suggests that the time parameter is not the angular parameter but the areal one. Of course one gets other troubles since the distant electron is supposed to move synchronously with the one closer to the proton (cf. Fig.\[FGuert:fig\]).
Some little objections
----------------------
\[28.10.12\] Another objection to our metatheorem (\[metatheorem:thm\]) is the following one. Assume the given orthosymmetric curve to be of the simplest stock, namely a line swept out by a total pencil of lines. Then one must assume that there is no forces between the two bodies to explain the rectilinear motion.
A more serious objection arises when $C$ is an ellipse swept out by a total pencil of lines through the middle of both foci. If all (four) fundamental forces involved satisfy the inverse square law, then so does the resulting force. Hence all interactions reduce to a single one which is attractive (to get an elliptic trajectory). However according to Kepler the orbit must be an ellipse with the sun located at one of the foci. Hence our geometric model where the basepoint of the total pencil lies at the center of the ellipse is not physically relevant.
This example suggests that the metatheorem requires corrections. Maybe one is only given in advance the orthosymmetric curve but not the total pencil, while the metatheorem states existence of a pencil physically observable. For an ellipse we would only be allowed to take pencil of lines through one of both foci; if the ellipse degenerates to a circle only the center would be permissible. \[30.12.12\] At this stage it might be relevant to remind that there is a vast theory of foci for high-order algebraic curves, due it seems to Plücker first and then Siebeck 1864 [@Siebeck_1864], etc. cf. e.g. Casas-Alvero 2013 [@Casas-Alvero_2013].
Of course this Kepler obstruction should not preclude physical systems obeying more complicated interactions laws with say several fundamental forces, maybe not all subsumed to the inverse square law. Such could validate exotic orbital structures, e.g. an ellipse with a sun at its center, as physically reasonable.
\[28.12.12\] Another possible objection comes from the following curve Fig.\[F324bis:fig\]. This possesses a total pencil of lines, yet some particles do not repulse, rather crossing themselves unsensitive of each other. On relabelling the particles one can posit a repulsion acting rather as a bounce of billiard balls (elastic shock). Another explanation could involve some quantumchromodynamics like assigning spins to the electrons neutralizing interaction between some of them.
-10pt0
Back to insignificant geometry
------------------------------
Let us now leave such complex modelling question, to contemplate more complicated systems arising from other curves than the Gürtelkurve, especially some of higher order. First staying of order 4 there is, dual to the Gürtelkurve, the curve arising by reversing orientation of one of the ellipses (cf. arrows on Fig.\[F4oval:fig\]). This gives a quartic with 4 ovals when smoothing compatibly with the prescribed orientations. A total pencil arises from all conics through 4 basepoints distributed inside the ovals (Fig.\[F4oval:fig\]).
-10pt0
Initially the point $a_1$ animated by a suitable horizontal velocity vector is mostly subjected to the attraction of the nearby star (=upper basepoints of the conics pencil). If $a_1$ and this star were to be alone in the universe, $a_1$’s orbit would be close to the dashed ellipse of “vertical eccentricity”, provided the upper star coincides with the focus of this ellipse. Yet in reality, as the body $a_1$ arrives near position $d_1$ and meanwhile body $a_8$ reached position $d_8$, electric repulsion is becoming predominant causing a (finally violent) deviation from the elliptic trajectory.
Instead of appealing to gravitation one can just imagine the basepoints (alias “stars” previously) as positively charged protons, the whole system reducing to an electrodynamical one obeying only Coulomb’s law of attraction resp. repulsion. The fixed protons would however not repulse, maintaining their fixed positions due to some nuclear cohesion (strong/weak forces).
It is easy to produce examples of higher topological complexity via curves of higher orders. Instead of starting with two ellipses, take three of them and smooth the configuration in a sense-preserving way to get Fig.\[Fsextic:fig\].
-10pt0
Reversing orientation of one of the ellipses (say that with horizontal major axis) gives the more interesting Fig.\[Fsext2:fig\] requiring a pencil of conics to exhibit total reality.
-10pt0
Again we use the same labelling as before, namely the first (cyan=pale blue colored) conic consisting of the vertical and horizontal lines cuts on the sextic $C_6$ the group of points labelled $a_1,\dots, a_{12}$, all of them being real. Moving clockwise from the top, a subsequent conic (blue colored) cuts the series denoted $b_i$, etc. One checks easily all conics of the pencil to cut only real points on the $C_6$. Looking at the corresponding dynamical process, we note that $a_1$ is first repulsed against $a_2$ being rejected as far as $c_1$, then attraction of the 4 protons (mostly the North and East one) track back the orbit to position $d_1$ where a repulsion against $d_{12}$ takes place, deflecting again the orbit along the way of the North proton, but then vicinity of $d_2$ causes another repulsion towards $e_1$ and $f_1$, which is finally gently repulsed by $a_{11}$. etc. The sequel of the story reproduces symmetrically.
It is now fairly evident how to construct similar dynamical systems of ever increasing complexity. It may be observed that the totally real map induced by the pencil gives a circle map of degree 12. Now the topological invariants are $r=5$ and $g=10$. Hence the half-genus is $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}=3$. Hence this map has degree exceeding Ahlfors bound $r+2p=11(=g+1)$. However a parietal degeneration of the 4 basepoints against the ovals immediately enclosing them (cf. “squigarrows” on Fig.\[Fsext2:fig\]) exhibits a total map of degree $2\cdot
6-4\cdot 1=12-4=8$. This is actually in accordance with the $r+p$ bound predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
It is tempting to consider the (mildly singular) foliation induced by the pencil (of conics). It seems clear from the picture that there is a relation between the sum of Poincaré indices extended to the interior of an oval and the number of points circulating on the oval. Observe also that the foliation is transverse to the boundary of the disc bounding the oval. This property is general and follows at once from the fact that totally real maps lack real ramification points. Using Ahlfors total reality paradigm combined maybe with Poincaré’s index formula we suspect that some old (and perhaps new?) information on the topology of real plane (dividing) curves can be re-derived. In particular we suspect that it must be possible to recover Rohlin’s inequality. This states $r\ge m/2$, i.e. any smooth dividing plane curve of order $m$ has at least so many circuits as the half value of its order. This is a fantastic project, but we leave it aside for now. \[vague details p.32 of hand-notes\].
\[08.11.12\] Another highbrow (yet poorly explored) application of Ahlfors theorem was sketched in Gabard’s Thesis (2004 [@Gabard_2004 p.7]). This was an answer to Wilson’s question (1978 [@Wilson_1978 p.67]) on deciding the dividing character of a plane curve by sole inspection of its real locus. Here again Ahlfors theorem affords an answer: a real curve is dividing iff it admits a total pencil (with possibly imaginary conjugate basepoints). Yet it must be admitted that the answer, albeit perfectly geometric, has probably little algorithmic value unless complemented by further insights. Of course another question is to decide the dividing character from the sole data of a ternary form (homogeneous polynomial in 3 variables with real coefficients). The simplest case of Wilson’s question is that of a deep nest, i.e. a smooth curve $C_m$ of say even degree $m=2k$ with a completely nested collection of $k$ ovals. Then linear projection from a point on the deepest oval is total of degree $m-1$. Since the complex gonality is also $m-1$, we deduce that the gonality $\gamma$ is also $m-1$. On the other hand the topological invariants are $r=k$ and $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}$. Hence in this case Ahlfors bound $r+2p=g+1$ is strongly beaten by the gonality $\gamma=m-1<\!\!<g+1=[1+2+3+\dots+(m-2)]+1$. Gabard’s bound $r+p$ is also much greater than the exact $\gamma=m-1$; indeed $r+p$ is nothing but the mean value of $r$ and $g+1$ and in the case at hand the former is $m/2$ but the latter is quadratic in $m$.
\[29.10.12\] We consider next an octic (Fig.\[Foctic:fig\]) arising from a sense-preserving perturbation of 4 ellipses rotated by 45 degrees. Of course if all ellipses are oriented clockwise we get a nest of depth 4 and accordingly a total pencil of lines through the innermost oval. Here instead, we reverse some orientations to create 16 ovals and no nesting (cf. black curve on Fig.\[Foctic:fig\]). The theorem of Ahlfors predicts existence of a total pencil. The general principle is to impose basepoints inside the deepest ovals, hence the desired pencil must have degree 4. At this stage depiction can be a fairly difficult artform (reminiscent of gothical “rosaces”= rosewindows). Our trick was to use a ground ellipse of pretty large eccentricity so that oblique line of (angular) slope different from $\pi/4$ (the green and lilac colored ones) also passes through the deep nests. Of course this trick is not supposed to affect the generality of the method (i.e. Ahlfors theorem) but just intended to simplify the artwork!
-10pt0
As to the arithmetics, recall that (plane) quartics depends upon $\binom{4+2}{2}-1$ parameters (coefficients counting), hence one is free to assign 13 basepoints. On the other hand, our dividing octic $C_8$ has genus $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}=\frac{7\cdot
6}{2}=21$ and $r=16$ ovals, thus the genus of the half (semi Riemann surface) is $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}=3$. Imagine now that among all 16 basepoints of the pencil 13 moves against the ovals, then a series of (reduced) degree $4\cdot 8- 13\cdot 1=32-13=19$ is obtained. This matches with the $r+p$ bound on the degree of circle maps predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. Geometrically it is pleasant to observe that certain members of the pencil are Gürtelkurven (see the lilac-colored curve). Those are not connected. Hence total reality of a pencil is not necessarily allied to connectedness of the auxiliary curves. For the fun of depiction, one can increase the number of curves of the pencil while sweeping out more and more of the full color spectrum, creating a sort of rainbow effect (cf. Fig.\[Foctic2:fig\]).
-10pt0
At this stage one gets the impression that the theory (or rather the pictures) works only for highly symmetric patterns. However the strength of Ahlfors result lies in its universal validness for all curves regardless of symmetry. This imbues some suitable respect plus a certain feeling of vertigo about the whole Ahlfors result.
Of course there is another possible orthosymmetric smoothing of our configuration of 4 ellipses. This is given by reversing one of the orientations of the ellipses, and we obtain the black-traced curve on Fig.\[Foctic3:fig\]. This times there is only 4 deep nests and a pencil of conics suffices to exhibit total reality.
-10pt0
As to arithmetic matters, this octic has still $g=21$ but now only $r=6$ ovals. Hence the semi-genus $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}=8$. Dragging the 4 basepoints against the deep ovals gives a total map of degree $2\cdot 8-4\cdot 1=16-4=12$. This is more economical that the $r+p$ bound, here equal to $14$.
Finally there is yet another smoothing of our 4 ellipses producing Fig.\[Foctic4:fig\] with 4 nests of depth 2. A pencil of conics suffices to show total reality.
-10pt0
Regarding the topological invariants we have $r=8$, hence $p=7$. As before there is a total map of degree 12 (via parietal degeneration), which is better that Gabard’s bound $r+p=15$. Naively this relative improvement over the previous example (in comparison to the $r+p$ bound) could be explainable by the higher symmetry of the new curve probably reflecting a further particularization of the “moduli”. (Recall that if one believes Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] and especially Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011] a bordered surface of type $(r,p)$ has generically gonality $\gamma =r+p$.)
Note yet that our total pencil of conics persists for any octic with 4 nests of depth 2, hence the symmetry of the pattern can be greatly damaged by large deformation of the coefficients without affecting the (estimated) gonality. So we certainly have the:
Any octic curve with $4$ nests of depth $2$ has gonality $\gamma\le 12$ (and presumably not lower, yet this remains to be elucidated).
Having clearly exhausted the smoothing options of our 4 ellipses, one is somehow disappointed that pencils of cubics were not yet required. Looking on p.7 of my Thesis [@Gabard_2004] I rediscover a simple such example involving only a sextic. Let me reproduce this with the rainbow technology. We start now from a configuration of 3 ellipses one of which is a circle and get Fig.\[Fcubic:fig\].
-10pt0
The sextic has $g=10$ and $r=9$ (hence pre-maximal amond dividing curves), and thus $p=1$. Cubics depends on $\binom{3+2}{2}-1=10-1=9$ parameters, hence 8 basepoints may be freely assigned. Pushing them along ovals gives a total map of degree $3\cdot 6-8\cdot 1=10$. This matches with Gabard’s bound $r+p$, hence the curve should be considered has having general moduli. Of course if the smoothing is done very symmetrically and if moreover we play with the radius of the initial circle, we can perhaps arrange that all 9 basepoints lands on the sextic curve in which case the gonality would lover to 9 the minimum value (recall $r\le \gamma$).
Starting from the above sextic, one can perform a large deformation of the coefficients staying inside the space of all smooth sextic curves. The real locus picture may then undergo drastic change of shape yet its topological type keeps unaltered and so in particular the orthosymmetric character. It is not clear anymore that our simple minded pencil of cubics (spanned by 2 pairs of 3 lines) suffices to exhibit total reality. This amounts essentially to the claim that for any 8 basepoints distributed among the ovals then the ninth basepoint luckily falls into the remaining one. This luckiness phenomenon becomes even more hazardous when it comes to vindicate Gabard’s bound by a synthetical procedure. The latter seems equivalent to the claim that given any such curve (orthosymmetric with 9 non-nested ovals it is always possible to choose 8 points one on each oval) so that the pencil through them creates an extra basepoint inside the remaining oval. This lucky-stroke phenomenon should perhaps be further explored either as an application of the $r+p$ bound or as a way to disprove it.
\[08.11.12\] Let us fail to be more specific as follows. Remember first that a real sextic curve with 9 unnested ovals needs not to be dividing, cf. e.g. Gabard’s Thesis 2004 [@Gabard_2004] p.8, but this is of course well-known since at least the Rohlin-Fiedler era, e.g. Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]. Second it is not even clear a priori that the conditions “dividing plus 9 unnested ovals” specifies a unique rigid-isotopy type of curves, i.e. a unique chamber in the space of all smooth sextics. This is a projective space of dimension $\binom{6+2}{2}-1=28-1=27$ parcelled into chambers by the discriminant hypersurface of degree $3(m-1)^2=3
\cdot 5^2=75$. (Inserted \[24.01.13\]: However this is true by a deep result of Nikulin 1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80].)
(very hypothetical!!) Any dividing sextic with $9$ unnested ovals admits a total pencil of cubics with $8$ basepoints on the sextic and the $9$th basepoint inside the remaining oval.
(pseudo-proof!) Since the curve is dividing we know by Ahlfors that there is a total pencil. We have very poor control on the degree of the curves of the pencil. We only know Ahlfors bound $r+2p=g+1=11$, Gabard’s one $r+p=10$ and the complex gonality $\gamma_{\Bbb C}=5$ which is completely useless. Stronger information comes from the trivial bound $r\le \gamma$. So the gonality $\gamma$ is fairly well squeezed as $9=r\le \gamma \le
r+p=10$. A priori a least degree total map could be given by a pencil of quartics. Then the degree could be as low as $4\cdot
6-16=24-16=8$; for quintics as low as $5 \cdot 6-25=5$; for sextics as low as $6\cdot 6-36=0$; septics $7\cdot 6-49=-7$; $k$-tics $k\cdot 6- k^2$ highly negative! Hence we have virtually no control on the degree of (members of) a total pencil, despite the bounds on the degree of the abstract total map. Let us thus shamefully postulate that the pencil in question can be chosen among cubics. For foliated reasons it is clear that the nine basepoints (elliptic points or “foyers” of Poincaré index $+1$) must be surjectively distributed among the 9 ovals. Indeed the total pencil is transverse to the real circuits and the disc bounding an oval cannot be foliated transversely (Euler-Poincaré obstruction). Hence we have the:
All basepoints of a total cubics pencil on a smooth sextic with $9$ unnested ovals are real, distinct, and surjectively(=equitably) distributed between the $9$ ovals (either in their insides or their periphery).
Applying the parietal degeneration trick we can take any 8 of the basepoints and drag them to the ovals. During the process we get new pencils (of possibly jumping dimension?) while the 9th basepoint could a priori escape its enclosing oval. The difficulty looks so insurmountable that we have to abort the project.
In fact the following principle is worth noticing. It gives a basic lower bound on the degree of total pencils, yet as we saw the real difficulty is rather upper bounds! As a matter of annoying nomenclature crash, note that the degree of the pencil is not that of the allied map but that of its constituting curves, so we should perhaps rather speak of the order of a (total) pencil.
[(Poincaré-style lower bound on the order of total pencils)]{}\[Poincare-lower-bound\] Given a (smooth) (dividing) plane curve with a total pencil of $k$-tics with $D$ many deepest ovals (i.e. the minimal elements of the nesting ordered structure). Then $D\le k^2$ or $k\ge \sqrt{D}$.
Each deep oval must enclose at least one singularity of the foliation. Remember that the latter is transverse to the curve by total reality. Poincaré’s index formula (1882/85) says that the sum of all indices equates the Euler characteristic. Applied to the disc bounding a deepest oval this forces the latter to encloses at least one singularity of index +1. Warning: one must explain why the disc could not be foliated by say two singularity of index $1/2$, so-called thorn singularities. The pencil has at most $k^2$ singularities of the foyer type (index=+1) materialized by the basepoints. Thus $D\le k^2$. Indeed for each deepest oval chose one foyer inside it. We get a map from the set of deepest oval to that of basepoints, which is injective since the deepest ovals are disjoint at least for a smooth curve. Try to clarify if smoothness is really required as a hypothesis!
\[30.10.12\] Let us look at another intriguing example. Start again with 2 ellipses invariant under rotation by 90 degrees, and add a concentric circle as the dashed one on Fig.\[Fcubic:fig\], but shrink its radius slightly beyond the critical radius where the circle passes through the 4 intersections of the 2 ellipses. Smoothing this configuration along our choice of arrows gives Fig.\[FcubicA:fig\]: a sextic with $r=9$ ovals one of them enclosing all others.
-10pt0
The picture has the annoying property that ovals are pretty small, challenging a bit the visual perception of homo habilis. Since the curve is dividing, Ahlfors theorem predicts the existence of a total map. It is evident that no pencil of lines, nor of conics, is total. (This is either optically clear or deduced from Poincaré’s bound $k\ge \sqrt{D}=\sqrt{8}=2.828\dots$, i.e. Lemma \[Poincare-lower-bound\]). The 8 deep ovals prompts seeking among pencil of cubics. Of course we may just assign 8 basepoints inside those deep ovals and hope for total reality. Yet to manufacture a concrete picture it is natural to assign basepoints in the most symmetric way. Once this is done one try to identify special singular curves passing through the 8 points. We find 4 degenerate cubics consisting of a line plus a conic (cf. colored curves on Fig.\[FcubicA:fig\]). Once those are detected it is an easy matter to interpolate between them (by continuity) to trace a qualitative picture of the pencil (Fig.\[Fcubic3:fig\]).
-10pt0
This archipelago sextic $C_6$ has $g=10$ as usual, and $r=9$, thus $p=1$. The total pencil can be lowered to degree $3\cdot 6- 8\cdot
1=10$, as predicted by the $r+p$ bound.
\[08.11.12\] Again several questions poses themselves naturally. (The sequel uses some jargon of Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], for instance the [*real scheme*]{} of a smooth plane real curve is the isotopy class of the embedding of its real locus in the real projective plane):
\(1) Is any sextic $C_6$ belonging to the real scheme of the archipelago (i.e. 8 unnested ovals altogether surrounded by an outer oval) of dividing type? The answer is probably known to Rohlin and his students, especially if there is a nondividing counterexample? \[Update 24.01.13: yes there is one and this was well-known at least since Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], yet his article was far from explicit when it comes to constructions. Personally I understood this point only after reading Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979], compare our Fig.\[GudHilbMarin:fig\] much below (virtually copied from Marin), which is a (clever) variant of Hilbert’s method of vibration.\]
Rohlin distinguishes real schemes as definite or indefinite depending on whether all its representatives belong to the same type or not, w.r.t. Klein’s dichotomy (ortho- vs. diasymmetric). (cf. Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978])
\(2) What is the exact gonalities occurring in this archipelago scheme (of course restricting attention to dividing models in case the scheme is indefinite)? If we believe in Gabard’s bound $\gamma\le r+p$, we have $9=r\le \gamma \le r+p=10$.
Perhaps answers are to be searched along the following direction. Maybe it is true that for any 8 basepoints (injectively) distributed in the 8 deepest ovals the corresponding cubics pencil is total. On counting intersections, we get roughly $8\cdot 2=16$ many coming from the 8 deep ovals and the outer oval should also contributes for 2 intersections. This is at least evident if the real part of the cubics are connected since the real circuit of each such cubic has to go at “infinity” (in the sense of moving outside the outer oval, for otherwise it would be contractible inside the bounding disc of the latter, whereas we know the cubic circuit to realize an “odd” nontrivial class in the fundamental group $\pi_1({\Bbb R}P^2)$ or just the allied homology). On the other hand, the cubic circuit must also visit the 8 assigned basepoint inside the outer oval, and so is forced to intercepts the latter. We arrive at a total of 18 real intersections, the maximum permissible by Bézout ($3\cdot 6=18$). Total reality would follow.
I remind vaguely of a standard result claiming that for a generic collection of 8 points there is a pencil of rational (hence connected) cubic interpolating them. (Cf. e.g. Kharlamov-Degtyarev survey ca. 2002). Now if all this is true, the archipelago scheme is dividing, and any such curve admits plenty of total cubics pencil of degree $3\cdot 6- 8\cdot 1=10$ (essentially one for each selection of 8 points on the deep ovals). It seems however hard to lower the gonality $\gamma$ up to the absolute minimum $r=9$, but I know no argument.
Total reality in the Harnack-maximal case {#sec:Total-reality-Harnack-max-case}
-----------------------------------------
\[08.03.13\] Much of this section is by now much illuminated by Le Touzé’s observation in Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics], where it is remarked that a very simple prescription of basepoints ensure total reality of a pencil of cubics on an $M$-quintic.
\[ca. 31.10.12\] Quite paradoxically it is much harder to depict total pencils on Harnack-maximal curves, alias $M$-curves (in Russia since Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938], cf. Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74 p.18]), especially when the order is $m\ge 5$. (For lower orders $m\le 4$ everything is essentially trivial: since $m=4$ just requires a pencil of conics passing through the 4 ovals of the quartic (with $g=3$).) Recall indeed that Ahlfors theorem is much easier in the planar case $p=0$, where it goes back to Bieberbach-Grunsky, if not earlier. Logically the argument simplifies much via Riemann-Roch and the absence of collision, cf. e.g. Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006 Prop.4.1] or Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\] above in this text.
Shamefully, the following section climaxes the poor level of organization of the present text. Of course the game is quite outside the main stream of our subject (Ahlfors theorem), yet we think that some phenomena require to be clarified. In particular we were not able to make any reliable picture of a total pencil on a Harnack-maximal (smooth) plane curve of order $m\ge 5$. After some three days of pictorial tergiversation we found a sort of weak obstruction to manufacturing such pictures involving a basic type of pencil spanned by two special cubics. This obstruction is described at the end of the section, which otherwise reduces to a messy gallery of failing attempts of the desired easy depiction! Yet the abstract theorem of Bieberbach-Grunsky implies the existence of total pencil but they probably involve delicate-to-visualize pencil of cubics (in the quintic case). We would like to challenge gifted amateurs to picture them appropriately.
Let us first recall the construction of such $M$-curves due to Harnack (in the variant of Hilbert). We start with degree 5. Consider as primitive configuration an ellipse $E_2$ plus a line $L_1$. Take further 3 parallel lines $l_1,l_2,l_3$. There is some psychological difficulties to know if we should first smooth $E_2
\cup L_1$ and then perturb along $l_1\cup l_2\cup l_3$ or if we can directly perturb $E_2 \cup L_1$ without taking care of smoothing. Let us adopt the shorter route (actually so do Hilbert) by putting directly $C_3=(E_2\cup L_1)+\varepsilon
\vartheta_3$. This cubic (in black thick stroke) oscillates across the ellipse $E_2$ meeting it in the maximum number of 6 real points. Next smoothing their union (=product) $C_3 \cup E_2$ we get the (red-colored) quintic $C_5$ realizing the maximum number $r=7(=g+1)$ of ovals (one of them being in fact a pseudoline i.e. a Jordan curve in ${\Bbb R}P^2$ not bounding a disc).
-10pt0
\[31.10.12\] Now the (perpetual) game is to find a total pencil on this dividing curve $C_5$ (recall that Harnack-maximal curves are always dividing). As usual the recipe is to distribute imposed basepoints $p_1, \dots, p_6$ in the deepest ovals. Those are fixed once for all and marked by black points on Fig.\[Harna1:fig\]. Since there are 6 ovals, pencil of lines or conics are not flexible enough to reveal the total reality of our $C_5$. We thus have to look among pencils of cubics. In view of the (vertical) symmetry of the curve $C_5$ it is natural to seek a symmetric pencil. We shall define them by specifying two of its members. A first vertically symmetric cubic through the 6 basepoints is the union of the 3 cyan-colored lines. This special (cyan) cubic $C_3$ cuts our quintic $C_5$ twice along each oval and once on the pseudoline, hence in $12+1=13$ points. Those are at finite distance but looking at infinity both horizontal cyan lines cuts the pseudoline branch of $C_5$ in two extra points, yielding a total of 15 point, the maximum possible (all of them being real). Beside, we consider another vertically symmetric cubic, namely the red-colored cubic $R_3$ consisting of the red ellipse through 5 points $p_i$ plus the red horizontal line (denoted $C$) through the remaining $p_i$. We can now consider the corresponding pencil spanned by the cyan and red cubics (equation $\lambda C_3+ \mu
R_3=0$). Unfortunately, the red cubic cuts $C_5$ along $2\cdot
6=12$ points on the ovals and only once at infinity. Indeed the pseudoline branch of $C_5$ is asymptotic to the line $D$ which in transverse to the red line $C$. Hence the intersection $R_3\cap
C_5$ is not totally real. Of course this defect does not prevent us from tracing the corresponding (non-total) pencil.
-10pt0
[*Note.*]{}—A pencil of cubic may be defined by assigning 8 basepoints. By letting degenerate those against the 6 ovals (or the pseudoline) we get a series of degree $3\cdot 5 - 8\cdot
1=15-8=7$ as predicted by Bieberbach-Grunsky (cf. e.g. Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]). But it is far from evident to ensure total reality. Of course a coarse calculation would stipulate that the 6 ovals contributes for $2\cdot 6=12$ many intersections and imposing 2 extra basepoints on the pseudoline gives 2 additional intersection, totalizing 14 many hence the last man surviving is forced to be real as well. This argument certainly holds good if we know that all cubics of the pencil are connected but a priori a cubic may well have an oval which could be nested in one of the tiny ovals of our sextic. If so is the case then this one cubic’s oval only visits one of the 8 basepoints, without spontaneous creation of intersection on one oval of the quintic $C_5$. Maybe this scenario is quite improbable but I missed some argument.
A modest improvement over our previous attempt is to take a red-colored cubic satisfying total reality. This is given by changing the red-colored ellipse by taking the one passing through the 5 “highest” (relatively to our figure Fig.\[Harna2:fig\]) black-colored basepoints. Symmetry forces us then to take an additional red-colored line passing through the “lowest” basepoint. We obtain the following Fig.\[Harna2:fig\]. Alas it is not evident that total reality is satisfied.
-10pt0
A third option is to change the cyan configuration of 3 lines and we get the following Fig.\[Harna3:fig\], which alas again seems to fail total reality.
-15pt0
\[01.11.12\] Of course we would like ultimately to extend the game to sextic. Let us first reproduce a picture in Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909-Ueber-die-Gestalt-sextic]. The idea is again that a union of two ellipses is vibrated into a quartic $C_4$ oscillating across one of the ellipse $E_2$ (which is a circle on Fig.\[Hilb1:fig\], left), and next $E_2\cup C_4$ is smoothed to a sextic with 11 ovals (compare Fig.\[Hilb1:fig\], right).
-10pt0
Again the challenge would be to trace a total pencil of curves on this $C_6$. We have 10 deep ovals, thus pencils of cubics look overwhelmed already with their only 8 assignable basepoints (and maximally 9 of them). Quartics have $\binom{4+2}{2}-1=15-1=14$ free parameters hence we can impose 13 basepoints. Choosing them in the deep ovals and doing a parietal degeneration gives a series of degree $4\cdot 6- 13 \cdot 1=24-13=11$. This matches with the Bieberbach-Grunsky bound, however it is far from evident that total reality is ensured.
In general if $C_m$ is a Harnack-maximal curve of order $m$, the previous examples (with $m=5,6$) suggest to consider auxiliary curves of degree $m-2$ forming a space of dimension $\binom{(m-2)+2}{2}-1=\binom{m}{2}-1$ and thus assigning $\binom{m}{2}-2$ basepoints will define a pencil. By parietal degeneration the resulting series has degree $(m-2)m-[\binom{m}{2}-2]$, and this is easily calculated as being equal to $$\begin{aligned}
(m-2)m-[\binom{m}{2}-2]&=(m-2)m-\frac{m(m-1)}{2}+2\cr
&=\frac{1}{2}[2(m-2)m-m(m-1)+2]+1=\frac{1}{2}[m^2-3m+2]+1\cr
&=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}+1=g+1, \end{aligned}$$ where $g$ is the genus. This again agrees with the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem, but of course does not reprove it, be it just for the simple reason that smooth plane curves have specialized moduli among all curve sof the same genus. Still it would be exciting to manufacture tangible pictures of such total pencils in the planar case.
Now let us try again to do better pictures of the $M$-quintic. Any such $M$-quintic has 6 ovals and one pseudoline. By Bézout no three ovals can be aligned (otherwise 6 intersection with a line). Thus the six ovals are somehow distributed along a configuration resembling a hexagon. This raises some hope to draw reasonable pencil of cubics spanned by two configurations of 3 lines according to one of the following patterns (left of Fig.\[Hilb2:fig\]). This suggested to draw another model whose 6 ovals are nearly situated like a regular hexagon. Using cyclotomy, we get quickly the right part of Fig.\[Hilb2:fig\].
-40pt0
A little piece of comment on the last Fig.\[Hilb2:fig\]: of course we started with a circle divided primarily in 6 equal parts, and have chosen the 3 horizontal lines as passing through the cyclotomic points. Those three lines are those used for the Harnack-Hilbert vibration trick, and the rest of the picture should be self-explanatory. Alas the bottom portion is quite difficult to observe. Yet a clear-cut portrait of Lars Valerian clearly emerges: the bottom oval is the mouth, then just above two big eyes “with an air of determination”, as well as some hairs emanating from the beret. In fact the portrait looks more like an alien, but the resemblance with Lars is much more flagrant when the circle is depicted as a “vertically oblong” ellipse. \[I apologize for adding some extra prose as otherwise the figures desynchronize from the text.\]
Now we consider the following pencil spanned by the cyan and red collections of lines (Fig.\[Hilb3:fig\]). Alas it fails to be totally real, for it contains the green cubic cutting only 13 real points on the quintic $C_5$. Of course the advantage of our pencil is that it is simple to draw, yet its disadvantage is that it has only 6 among the 8 assignable points located on the quintic. Somehow one should try to conciliate both properties.
-25pt0
Testing the other configuration (of 2 pairs of 3 lines through the hexagon) one gets Fig.\[Hilb4:fig\]. The situation is not much improved. Now the 3 additional basepoints (intersection of pairs of parallel lines) are ejected at infinity but are not lying on the (black-colored) quintic curve $C_5$ whose pseudoline is asymptotic to the horizontal line. The corresponding pencil of cubics (spanned by the cyan and red colored lines) is probably not total, for it should contain a nearly circular ellipse through the hexagon plus the line at infinity, and the aggregated corresponding cubic seems to cut the $C_5$ only along 12, plus one at infinity, so a total of only 13 real points!?
-0pt
-10pt0
One can also make the following picture Fig.\[Hilb5:fig\], where the 3 additional basepoints are marked by circles, one of them lying, alas, quite outside the range of the picture. A possible, yet delicate, desideratum would be to distort the configuration (pair of 3 lines arrangements) so that 2 of those circled basepoints lands on the quintic $C_5$. Then we would get a good candidate for an easy to depict total pencil of cubics on our quintic. Evidently this desideratum is probably impossible to arrange (a so-called “Irrweg”).
-0pt
-10pt0
Maybe another arrangement worth looking at is the following Fig.\[Hilb6:fig\]. Now among the 3 extra basepoints at least one (that one corresponding to the intersection of both horizontal lines) is located on the quintic $C_5$ (at infinity). Hence 13 points are ensured to be real for all members of the pencil. It is easily checked that both fundamental curves of the pencil (cyan and red cubics) cut the $C_5$ in a totally real fashion (15 real points). For symmetry reasons (along the axe at 120 degrees) the nearly circular ellipse through the 6 points at finite distance plus the line at angle 120 degrees belongs to the pencil, but alas its intersection with the $C_5$ it hard to understand. Note by the way that the hexagonal configuration of 6 points is slightly perturbed thus there is no perfectly well defined such ellipse. At this stage the whole exercise is akin to a dolorous acupuncture session. Note that our symmetry deduced member of the pencil has the wrong behavior through the basepoints at infinity, hence the right curve belonging to the pencil includes rather the line at infinity (or at least a slight perturbation thereof). Thus we count 12 intersections with the oval coming from the nearly circular circuit, and just one intersection at infinity. This underscored total of 13 seems to indicate that this pencil again fails total reality.
-10pt0
Albeit our exposition is not from the best stock, we hope at least to have demonstrated that the synthetic construction of total pencils on $M$-curves is not an easy matter. Of course it is not improbable that I missed something fairly easy!
[**Isoperimetric digression.**]{} During the session I wondered if the following problem makes sense. One of the notorious difficulty when trying to do real pictures of algebraic curves is that some ovals tend to be microscopic (especially for Harnack-maximal curves). Is there some optimal curve best suited for depiction? Admittedly the problem makes sense only for Euclidean affine models as opposed to projective curves (which could be pictured on the sphere up to a double cover). One could for instance ask the curves to enclose maximum area for a given length of the circuits. (Of course this makes sense only for curves of even degrees, except if we neglect the pseudoline.) This would be a sort of isoperimetric problem for curves competing among algebraic ones (of some fixed degree). Of course for degree two the isoperimetric solution is the circle. What about degree 4? A candidate is perhaps the Fermat curve $x^4+y^4=1$ whose real picture is somewhere between a circle $x^2+y^2=1$ and a square $x^{\infty}+y^{\infty}=1$. Of course one could argue that the optimal quartic is just a circle counted by multiplicity 2, but then the length of the circuit has to be counted twice. We have no certitude that our problem is well posed, nor that it is truly interesting. The naive scenario would be that the optimum is always the Fermat curves of higher even orders, yet what about $M$-curves? Maybe we need to restrict the problem to them, and ask for the best Euclidean realization of an $M$-curve? So for instance what is the best $M$-quartic? The best $M$-quintic? Does it looks like Ahlfors’ portrait (on Fig.\[Hilb2:fig\])?
Let us a last time return to our main problem of tracing a totally real pencil for an $M$-quintic. Remember once more that theoretical existence is ensured by the baby case (Bieberbach-Grunsky) of Ahlfors theorem on circle maps. Our dream would be that for such a quintic there is a simple-to-draw pencil generated by 2 configurations of 3 lines. Psychologically it is helpful to reverse the viewpoint. Instead of starting from the quintic $M$-curve $C_5$ and trying hard to depict the pencil, we shall start from the pencil and try to construct a curve tailored to it.
So we consider the pencil generated by 2 systems of parallel lines (colored cyan and red) with 9 basepoints (multicolored intersections) and try to build around this perfectly explicit pencil (cf. the previous Fig.\[Fcubic:fig\] Fig.\[Hilb6b:fig\]b below) a quintic having the following schematic picture (Fig.\[Hilb6b:fig\]a). This is to mean that each of the 6 ovals encloses one of the 9 basepoints, with the Bézout restriction that no aligned triad are enclosed (else 6 intersections in $C_5$ with a line) and further the pseudoline passes through 2 other basepoints. If such a “real scheme” (Rohlin’s jargon) exists then each curve of the pencil will cut on the $C_5$ a total of 15 real points. Indeed the 6 ovals contribute each for twice (now Fig.\[Hilb6b:fig\]b ensures connectedness of all cubics forming the pencil!) and the pseudoline for 2, hence a total of 14 and the last one is forced to be real as well (for algebraic “Galois theoretic” reasons).
-10pt0
So exhibiting this scheme would complete our goal. Note the absence of Bézout-type obstruction to the posited real scheme (Fig.\[Hilb6b:fig\]a). Yet maybe there is deeper topological obstructions involving say the foliation underlying the pencil. In fact the argument is more modest. The two basepoints connected by the pseudoline are separated by the green ellipse. So the arc joining them (choose one!) is forced to have an extra intersection with the green ellipse (on Fig.\[Hilb6b:fig\]b). Topology forces the creation of a second intersection (intuitively the pseudoline once trapped in the green ellipse has to escape it). Thus we arrive at a total of $12$ (6 ovals), plus the $2$ assigned basepoints on the pseudo-line and plus the 2 extra-points just created. This gives 16 intersections between $C_5$ and the green cubic (enough to overwhelm Bézout). This prohibits the desired scheme.
Another (a priori) tangible real scheme is the one depicted on Fig.\[Hilb6b:fig\]c. Then it seems that arguing with the lilac conic we may repeat something like the previous argument. More precisely, if the pseudoline never penetrates inside the lilac ellipse $L_2$ then it has to be tangent to it at the 2 assigned basepoints but this gives already 4 extra-points which added to the 12 God-given produce an excess $16>15$! Thus we may assume the pseudoline $P$ to penetrate in the lilac ellipse (total of 13 intersection). Then several cases may occur. If $P$ tries to evade from the lilac ellipse $L_2$ then we have $14$ intersections, yet it must still pass to the second basepoint and (being now outside the $L_2$) this creates at least 2 intersections (counted by multiplicity). So eventually the pseudoline $P$ is forced to reach the other basepoint while staying inside the lilac $L_2$, and hence to cut the lilac axis of this ellipse. The latter axis being contained in the inside of the green ellipse, we get again 4 extra intersections with the green cubic (beside the 12 arising de facto from the ovals); too much for Bézout.
All this (if correct?, and suitably simplified!) should prove the following:
It is impossible to sweep out in a totally real fashion an $M$-quintic via a basic pencil of cubics spanned by two arrangements of parallel lines.
If true and suitably generalized to other configurations (see $\bigstar$ right below) this explains perhaps why we had so much trouble to make an appropriate depiction of the desired pencil. Again totally real pencils exist in abstracto hence in concreto, yet are probably of a somewhat more elaborated vintage.
\[02.11.12\] $\bigstar$ For instance it should be noticed that there is another possible scheme (distribution of 6 ovals) satisfying the “no-three-in-line” condition prompted by Bézout. This is depicted on Fig.\[Hilb6b:fig\]d which is admissible provided the horizontal diagonal is not aligned. Hence the real picture looks rather like Fig.\[Hilb6b:fig\]e. Of course it would be too cavalier to claim that the previous obstruction to the case at hand as the ellipses were destroyed during the process.
We leave the problem in this very unsatisfactory state of affairs, but let us perhaps try to motivate why the explicit depiction project could be fruitful!
From the viewpoint of gravitational systems (cf. the previous Sec.\[sec:electrodynamics\]) the interest of $M$-curves is that they express in some sense the most complex orbital structure permissible for a given genus (at least the maximum number of real circuits). Hence if Metatheorem \[metatheorem:thm\] is reliable such $M$-curves should display some remarkable motions. The intricacy of the trajectories is already suggested by Hilbert’s $M$-sextic on Fig.\[Hilb1:fig\]. However until the total pencil (of Bieberbach-Grunsky-Ahlfors) is not made explicit the dynamics of the electrons is imbued by mystery and darkness. Remind from Bieberbach-Grunsky (=Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]) that Hilbert’s $M$-sextic is not only static object but one animated by a circulation (total pencil) having one electron on each oval. We can from the static picture vaguely try to guess where repulsions take places and arrive at something like Fig.\[Hilb7:fig\].
0 -10pt0
On Fig.\[Hilb7:fig\], italics numbers enumerate ovals while roman numbers indicates positions at various times $1,2,3,4$. Note that our Harnack-maximal curve being dividing, it has a complex orientation (as the border of one half). This orientation agrees with that inherited from the smoothing. Further it has to be respected by the circulation due to the holomorphic character of the (Bieberbach-Grunsky) circle map. Having this is mind it is straightforward to make the picture above (Fig.\[Hilb7:fig\]) using the rule that whenever a repulsion is observed then electrons must be in close vicinity and thus any pair of points minimizing the distance between two neighboring ovals must be synchronized, hence labelled by the same time unit. In contrast when two close ovals do not repulse them (like ovals [*1*]{} and [*10*]{}) then they must be anti-synchronized in the sense that both particles do not visit the contiguity zone at the same moment. For instance there is also a repulsion between electrons on ovals [*1*]{} and [*11*]{} at time 1. So far so good. However on completing the picture one sees between ovals [*6*]{} and [*11*]{} some anomalous (asynchronic) repulsion. Maybe one can explain this via distant repulsion involving other particles of the system (especially the electron on oval [*10*]{}).
All this is very informal and saliently illustrates the sort of obscurantism caused by a lack of explicit knowledge of the total pencil. This perhaps motivates once more to complete the programme of the present section (construction of total pencils in Harnack-maximal cases). Ultimately one could dream of a computer program showing in real time the circulation of electrons prompted by the Bieberbach-Grunsky Kreisabbildung(en) along an Hilbert $M$-sextic.
Let us finally observe that there are other $M$-sextics (Harnack’s, Hilbert’s and even Gudkov’s). Basically the one we depicted (Hilbert’s) is gained by smoothing the configuration $E_2\cdot C_4=0$ consisting of an ellipse $E_2$ (circle on the picture) and an $M$-quartic $C_4$ one of whose oval oscillates across the ellipse $E_2$. It may be noticed that the oscillating oval lies mostly inside the ellipse (cf. the left-top part of Fig.\[Hilb8:fig\]). \[This schematic—yet Bézout compatible—style of depiction is borrowed from Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74 p.20].\] One can reverse this situation, by putting the vibrating oval outside the ground ellipse to get another $M$-sextic (cf. the right-top part of Fig.\[Hilb8:fig\]). A concrete construction this is achieved on the bottom part of Fig.\[Hilb8:fig\]).
-10pt0
This curve has one “big” oval enclosing nine “small” ovals and the other lies outside. Of course if our metatheorem (\[metatheorem:thm\]) is plausible then it is challenging to interpret the dynamics especially the orbit along this long oval enclosing all others but one. Of course this would essentially boils down to visualize a total pencil for this $C_6$.
Finally let us make a little remark. We see that there must a deep reaching connection between Ahlfors theory of circle maps and the extrinsic geometry of real dividing curves, the link being given by the notion of total pencil. Another basic application of total pencils could arise in curve plotting problems. Assume given an algebraic equation $f(x,y)=0$ and a machine supposed to make a plot of the real locus. Suppose e.g. that the polynomial has degree 5, defines a smooth curve and that we have already traced within reasonable accuracy 2 ovals and a pseudoline and finally that both ovals are nested. Then the theory of total maps (but in fact Bézout suffices) ensures that the real locus has already been exhausted and we may stop the “root finding” algorithm. Of course the story becomes even more grandiose on appealing to Newton-Cayley iteration method and the allied fractals appearing as attracting basins. Likewise if an octic has 4 nests of depth 2 its real locus has already been exhausted (compare Fig.\[Foctic4:fig\]). Indeed in that case the pencil of conics through the 4 deeply nested ovals imposed to pass through another hypothetical point would create an excess of $8\cdot 2+1=17>16$ intersection points.
A baby pseudo-counterexample in degree 4 {#sec:degree-four}
----------------------------------------
We now give an example in degree 4. The recipe is always is the same and we get the example 102 below (Fig.\[F102:fig\]). It has $g=0$, $r=1$, thus $p=0$. At first glance the visual gonality as measured via a pencil of lines is $\gamma^{\ast}=2$ (projection from one of the nodes). This seems of course to violate Gabard’s bound $\gamma\le r+p$. However using a pencil of conics passing through the 3 nodes plus the point (labelled $8$ on the figure) gives a total pencil of the right degree. Of course the example is a paroxysm of triviality, yet it is still a nice case to visualize the fairly complex dynamics of total pencils. The forward semi-orbit of the series is depicted by points $1,2,\dots, 8$ after which the motion reproduces symmetrically.
Another example arises when we keep less singularities unsmoothed. We obtain so a linkage of “heartsuits” (cf. the middle picture 202 on Fig.\[F102:fig\]). Now $r=2$, $g=3-2=1$, and so $p=0$. A linear projection from one of the 2 nodes suffices to exhibit total reality, and so the gonality is $\gamma=2$. One can still trace pencils of conics through the nodes plus 2 extra points on the curve to get series of degree $2\cdot 4- 2\cdot 2-2\cdot
1=8-4-2=2$. Those gives more maps realizing the gonality. Of course one can also materialize such a curve as a smooth plane cubic, in which case we also see $\infty^1$ total pencils induced by linear projection from the unique oval. (Projecting from the pseudo-line, the oval of the cubic has some “apparent contour” and total reality fails.) One can also get the bottom picture 202 on Fig.\[F102:fig\], which has the same invariants.
Low-degree circle maps in all topological types by Harnack-maximal reduction {#sec:Chambery}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[Source=Gabard 2005, Chambéry talk (unpublished as yet)\] Once Ahlfors theorem is known in the simple Harnack-maximal case (cf. Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]) one can easily exhibit in any topological type some very special surfaces (in Euclid’s 3-space) admitting a circle map to the disc having very low degree. Of course this is far remote from reassessing the full Ahlfors theorem, yet it is an interesting construction, which perhaps could lead to a general proof when combined with some Teichmüller theory. But this is only a vague project we shall not be able to pursue further.
Let us start with a membrane in Euclidean 3-space (endowed with the conformal structure induced by the Euclidean metric). Suppose the surface invariant under a symmetry of order two (cf. Fig.\[Chambery:fig\]). The key feature of this figure is that the axis of rotation “perforates” each “hole” of the pretzel. Hence, when taking the quotient all handles are killed, and we get a proper(=total) morphism to a schlichtartig configuration (i.e. of genus $p=0$). This in turn admits a circle map of degree equal to the number of contours (by the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem=Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]).
The composed mapping gives a circle map of degree $2\cdot
\frac{r}{2}=r$ when $r$ is even, and of degree $2\cdot
\frac{r+1}{2}=r+1$ if $r$ is odd. (Compare again Fig.\[Chambery:fig\].)
Of course this has little weight in comparison to the general theorem of Ahlfors (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]), yet it is a simple example showing that the degree of circle maps can be fairly lower than the degrees $r+2p$ or even $r+p$.
Experimental evidence for Coppens’ gonality
-------------------------------------------
\[24.03.12\]/\[19.10.12\] In this section we discuss Coppens result (2011 [@Coppens_2011]) on the realizability of all gonalities compatible with the $r+p$ bound (Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) on the degree of an Ahlfors circle map. Our superficial approach will not recover Coppens full result, yet is worth presenting for it enhances the depth of Coppens’ result. Looking at explicit projective models of Riemann surfaces always makes Riemann-type existence theorems (like Ahlfors maps) look quite formidable jewels (not to say miracles) when looked at experimentally through the Plato cavern of extrinsic algebraic geometry. The game is also pleasant because sometimes one gets the impression that Gabard’s bound $r+p$ looks blatantly violated. Also interesting is the issue that such basic experimental studies (akin to the CERN particles collider at a modest scale) are quite useful for understanding the failure of connectivity of the space of minimal circle maps (those of lowest possible degree). Further experiments should contribute to add some valuable insights over Ahlfors’ theory. (A. Einstein puts it as follows: “Any knowledge of the world starts and ends with experiments.”)
Coppens’ result is the following. To stay closer to Ahlfors’ viewpoint, we paraphrase it in the language of [*compact bordered Riemann surfaces*]{} (abridged membranes) instead of that of real dividing curves. Albeit most of our examples are derived via algebraic geometry, we will never have to write down any (boring) equation due to the graphical flexibility of plane curves à la Brusotti/Klein/Plücker (reverse historical order). So we are drifted to a sort of synthetic geometry.
[(Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011])]{} Given any two integers $r\ge 1$ and $p\ge 0$, and any integer $\gamma$ satisfying $\max\{2, r \}\le \gamma \le r+p$, there is membrane $F_{r,p}$ with $r$ contours of genus $p$ whose gonality is the assigned value $\gamma$.
Recall that the gonality of the membrane is understood as the least degree of a circle map from the given membrane (to the disc).
$\bullet$ For $(r,p)=(1,0)$, the statement becomes vacuous, but of course we can alter the range of permissible values as $r\le
\gamma\le r+p$.
$\bullet$ When $p=0$, $\gamma$ can take only the value $r$ and the latter is realized via the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]).
$\bullet$ For $(r,p)=(1,1)$, the double has genus $g=(r-1)+2p=2$ hence is hyperelliptic. This actually proves the existence of a circle map of degree 2 ($=r+p$) in accordance with Gabard’s bound $r+p$. Coppens’s realizability theorem is trivially verified in this case for $\gamma$ can only assume value 2.
$\bullet$ For $(r,p)=(2,1)$, the range of $\gamma$ is $2\le \gamma
\le 3$. The value $\gamma=2$ is realized by a hyperelliptic model. The value $\gamma=3$ is obtained by considering a smooth quartic $C_4$ with two nested ovals while projecting it from a point on the innermost oval. This gives a [*totally real*]{} morphism of degree $3$. Total reality means that fibers above real points consists entirely of real points. We use also the abridged jargon [*total map*]{} which is quite in line with terminology used by Stoïlow 1938 [@Stoilow_1938-Lecons] or Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960], who use “complete coverings”.
-75pt 0
$\bullet$ For $(r,p)=(3,1)$, the genus of the double is $g=(r-1)+2p=2+2=4$. This is not the genus $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}$ of a smooth plane curve of order $m$ which belongs to the list $0,1,3,6,10,
\dots$ of triangular numbers, yet suggests looking at a quintic $C_5$ with two nodes. We thus consider a configuration of two conics plus a line and smooth it out in a orientation preserving way (so as to ensure the dividing character of the curve by a result of Fiedler 1981 [@Fiedler_1981]). We obtain so the curve depicted on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\] bearing the nickname 313. This actually encodes the value of the invariant $(r,p,
\gamma)$ written as the string $rp\gamma$, yet a priori the gonality $\gamma$ is not known and its value must be justified. On that figure 313 the dashed circles indicate those crossings that were [*not*]{} smoothed. The half of this curve is a bordered surface of type $(r,p)=(3,1)$, since $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}$. It remains to evaluate its gonality. The idea is always to look at the curve from the innermost oval. In the case at hand, we project the curve from one of the two nodes to get a total morphism of degree $5-2=3$. Since $r=3$ is a lower bound on the gonality $\gamma$, it follows that $\gamma=3$, exactly. Note that this example seems to [*answer in the negative our question about the connectivity of the space parameterizing minimal circle maps*]{}. Further one can drag one point to the other while travelling only through [*total*]{} maps of degrees 4 (namely projections from points located in the intersection of the interiors of the blue resp. red ovals). \[09.11.12\]—[*Warning.*]{} Remember that a similar picture (Fig.\[F102:fig\], right-middle part) gave an example where the curve looked 2-gonal in only 2 ways, but another model of the curve (as a plane cubic) prompted the same gonality in $\infty^1$ fashions. So some deeper argument is required either to assess (or disprove) the italicized assertion.
Next, still for the same topological invariants $(r,p)=(3,1)$, we would like to find a membrane of gonality $\gamma=4$. This may be obtained from the same initial arrangement while moving the location of the dashed circles (of inert crossings) to get picture labelled 314 on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\]. The corresponding quintic projected from a point situated on the inner (blue-colored) oval has $\gamma\le 4$. Over the complexes, this quintic has gonality $\gamma_{\Bbb C}=3$ (projection from one of the nodes) and this is the only way for the curve to be trigonal. Yet over the real picture (our 314) none of these (trigonal) projections is total (since the inner oval has an apparent contour, i.e. some tangent to it passes through the node). It follows that $\gamma=4$, exactly.
$\bullet$ Let us next examine $(r,p)=(4,1)$. Then $g=(r-1)+2p=5$, so we look at quintics with one node. To create as many ovals, it proves convenient to reverse the orientation of one of the conics. We obtain so the figure coded 415. After noting that $r=4$, we project the curve via a pencil of conics assigned to pass through 4 points chosen in the innermost ovals (asterisks on the figure). Letting those 4 points degenerate against the ovals while exploiting the possibility of pushing one of them toward the node (so as to lower by 2 units the degree) we find $\gamma\le 2\cdot 5- 3\cdot 1
-1\cdot 2=10-3-2=5$. Over the complexes, the curve at hand (uninodal quintic) is trigonal only when seen from its unique node and 4-gonal only when projected from a smooth point. Inspection of the figure shows that none of these maps is total. It follows that $\gamma=5$ exactly.
It remains to find an example with $\gamma=4$. For this we just drag below the dashed circle (cf. label 414 on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\]), do the prescribed smoothing (always in the orientation consistent way). The resulting curve has $r=4$ (as it should). The novel feature is that the node is now accessible from 2 basepoints of the pencil of conics assigned in the deep ovals. This permits a lowering of the degree to $\gamma\le 2\cdot
5- 2\cdot 1 -2\cdot 2=10-2-4=4$. Remarking that the unique morphism of lower degree 3 (linear projection from the node) is not total we deduce that $\gamma=4$ exactly. The other morphisms of degrees 4 (namely projections from real points on the curve) obviously fails to be total, thus we infer that the curve (or the allied membrane) is uniquely minimal (i.e. there is a unique circle map of minimum degree).
Before embarking on larger values of the invariants $(r,p)$, we make a general remark, related to the previous Sec.\[sec:Chambery\]. There a suitable membrane in 3-space invariant under rotation by $\pi=180^{0}$ with a totally vertical array of handles (cf. Fig.\[Chambery:fig\]) showed the following:
[(Barbecue/Bratwurst principle)]{}\[Barbecue:lem\] $\bullet$ If $r$ is even, there is for any value of $p$ a membrane of type $(r,p)$ admitting a circle map of degree $r$ (the minimum possible value), whose gonality is therefore $\gamma=r$ exactly.
$\bullet$ If $r$ is odd ($p$ arbitrary), there is a membrane of type $(r,p)$ admitting a circle map of degree $r+1$, whose gonality $\gamma$ is therefore $r\le \gamma\le r+1$. (Alas, the exact value remains a bit undetermined!)
This lemma fills quickly several positions of our Fig.\[Coppens:fig\], namely those marked by a square. In the special case $r=1$ (belonging to the indefinite odd case), we can get rid off the annoying indetermination, because as soon as $p\ge
1$ the minimal value $r$ of the range $r\le \gamma\le r+1$ cannot be attained. Corresponding invariants are reported by rhombuses (squares rotated by $\pi/4$) on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\].
$\bullet$ Next we study $(r,p)=(5,1)$. Then $g=(r-1)+2p=6$, prompting to look at smooth quintics (without nodes). Consider the curve denoted 516 on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\], which has $r=5$. When projected via a pencil of conics through the assigned 4 basepoints (depicted by asterisks on the figure) and letting them degenerate toward the ovals gives a total map of degree $2\cdot 5-
4\cdot 1 =10-4=6$. Hence $\gamma \le 6$. Morphisms of lower degrees exist in degree 4 (linear projection from a point situated on the curve), and degree 5 (projection from points outside the curve). Clearly none of these maps is total, so that $\gamma=6$ exactly. Of course the minimal degree maps considered are plenty (no uniqueness), yet their parameter space is connected.
Next we require a specimen with $\gamma=5$. It seems evident that we have exhausted the patience of quintics (at least for the given arrangement), hence let us move to sextics of genus 10 (when non-singular). To get the right genus $g=6$, we have to conserve 4 nodes. Starting from a configuration of 3 conics suitably oriented and smoothed we obtain the figure denoted 515 with $r=5$ (still on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\]). Using a pencil of conics with 4 assigned basepoints (asterisks on the figure) gives a (probably total) map of degree $2\cdot 6-1\cdot 2-3\cdot 1=12-2-3=7$. This agrees with Ahlfors bound $r+2p$, but seems to challenge Gabard’s bound $r+p=6$. Maybe a pencil of cubics is required instead. Such a cubics pencil has 9 basepoints but only 8 of them may be assigned. Hence creating some 4 new basepoints (denoted by bold letters [**1,2,3,4**]{} on the figure) and letting them degenerate to the ovals or better the nodes (when some are accessible) gives a map of degree $3\cdot 6-3\cdot 1- 5\cdot 2=18-3-10=5$, rescuing Gabard’s $r+p=6$ and also giving the desired gonality $\gamma=5$. Admittedly this example is quite complex and perhaps not the best suited to illustrate Coppens’ gonality result. Its interest is still that it seems to corrupt Gabard’s bound $r+p$, and the latter can only be rescued by appealing to fairly sophisticated pencils. Of course it could be the case a priori that our curve (515) admits a pencil of conics of lower degree than 7, but under the totality condition basepoints must be distributed in the deep ovals by a Poincaré index argument (cf. Lemma \[Poincare-lower-bound\]). This impedes a lowering of the degree via a more massive degeneration of the base-locus to the nodes of picture 515 on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\]. Admittedly the predicted total pencil of cubics ought to be described more carefully.
[*Summary of the situation.*]{}—Of course one should still work out the higher values of $r$ while keeping $p=1$. As you notice our method is far from systematic. (All the difficulties encountered so far already enhance the power of Coppens’ result.)
$\bullet$ Then one must also handle higher values of $p$, starting with $(r,p)=(1,2)$. The case $\gamma=2$ is easy (via the barbecue construction, Lemma \[Barbecue:lem\]). For $\gamma=3$ we can imagine a surface with 3-fold rotational symmetry (cf. picture 123X on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\]). For it $\gamma\le 3$, but how to show equality? Alternatively, one may consider an algebraic model. Since $g=(r-1)+2p=4$, we look among quintics with 2 nodes. A suitable smoothing gives figure named 123, with $r=1$ (one circuit). Linear projection for the “inner” node gives a total map of degree $1\cdot 5-1\cdot 2=5-2=3$, so $\gamma\le 3$. But the complex gonality of such a quintic is $\gamma_{\Bbb C}=3$. Since $\gamma_{\Bbb C}\le \gamma$ it follows that $\gamma=3$ exactly.
$\bullet$ Let us next explore $(r,p)=(2,2)$. Then $g=5$. A surface with $\gamma=2$ is easily found (barbecue rotational symmetry). To realize the other gonalities we look among quintics with one node. We first meet figure 223, which has a total morphism of degree 3 (projection from the node). Hence $\gamma\le 3$ which is in fact an equality, since 3 is also the complex gonality of an uninodal quintic. To get a curve with $\gamma=4$ we just drag the unsmoothed singularity to get figure 224. Projection from the node is not total anymore, but a total map arises when projecting from the (green) oval giving rise to degree $5-1=4$. Since such a quintic is uniquely trigonal (via projection from the unique node, which which failed to be total), we infer that $\gamma=4$, exactly. Coppens’s theorem is verified for this topological type.
[**Premature conclusion/State of the art.**]{} It is clear that one can continue the game to tackle higher and higher values of the invariants. Instead of looking solely in ${\Bbb P}^2$ it is also pleasant to trace curves in ${\Bbb P}^1\times{\Bbb P}^1$, albeit ${\Bbb P}^2$ is a universal receptacle (any Riemann surfaces nodally immerses in the projective plane). However it is clear that our naive approach is quite time consuming and as yet we did not deciphered a combinatorial pattern permitting to boost the speed of the procedure to the level of an inductive process. (Curves or Riemann surfaces of higher topological structures are like [*homo sapiens*]{}, the result of a long, intricate morphogenesis.) Coppens proved the full result in one stroke by somehow penetrating the genetic code governing the evolution of all species.
Minimal sheet number of a genus $g$ curve as a cover of the line {#Minimal-sheet:sec}
----------------------------------------------------------------
It is classical (since Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857 §5, p.122–123]) that a general curve of genus $g$ is expressible as a branched cover of the sphere ${\Bbb P}^1$ of degree the least integer $\ge \frac{g}{2}+1$ (equivalently of degree $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$). \[Indeed if $g$ is even $g=2k$ the first value is $k+1$ and $[\frac{g+3}{2}]=[(2k+3)/2]=(2k+2)/2=k+1$; if $g=2k+1$ is odd then the first value is $ g/2+1$ which rounded from above gives $(2k+2)/2+1=k+2$, and $[\frac{g+3}{2}]=[(2k+4)/2]=k+2$.\]
Riemann’s truly remarkable argument (involving Abelian integrals) is beautifully cryptical (I should still study it properly). It is not clear (to me) if it includes the stronger assertion that [*any*]{} curve of genus $g$ admits a sphere-map of degree $\le
[\frac{g+3}{2}]$. At any rate, all modern specialists agree that the first acceptable proof of this pièce de résistance is Meis’ account (1960 [@Meis_1960]). (Meanwhile the algebro-geometric community devised several alternative approaches.)
Another allied (but different?) argument is the one to be found in Klein’s lectures 1892 [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen p.98–99], cf. also Griffiths-Harris 1978 [@Griffiths-Harris_1978/94 p.261].
The latter’s argument works as follows. Assume there is a $d$-sheeted map $C_g \to {\Bbb P}^1\approx S^2$ of a genus $g$ surface to the Riemann sphere. Then Euler characteristics are related by $\chi(C_g)= d \chi(S^2)-b$, where $b$ is the number of branch points. This gives $b$ ramified positions, whose locations determine the overlying Riemann surface up to finitely many ambiguities. So the $d$-sheeted surface depends upon $b-3$ essential parameters (after substraction of the 3 arising from the linear transformations on ${\Bbb P}^1$). This quantity has to be $\ge 3g-3$ the number of moduli of genus $g$ curves. This implies $b\ge 3g$, i.e. $2d-\chi(C_g)\ge 3g$, or $2d\ge 3g+(2-2g)=g+2$. [*q.e.d.*]{}
So far as we know, a similar computation as never been written down for the case of a bordered Riemann surface expressed as a $d$-sheeted cover of the disc (i.e., the context of Ahlfors circle maps). The reason is probably quite mysterious, yet also quite simply that the naive parameter count seems to lead nowhere.
Let us attempt the naive computation. Suppose $F_{r,p}\to D^2$ to be a membrane of genus $p$ with $r$ contours expressed as a $d$-sheeted cover of the disc. Euler characteristics are related by $\chi(F)=d\chi(D^2)-b$, where $b$ is the number of branch points. The group of conformal automorphisms of the disc as (real) dimension $3$. Hence our $d$-sheeted surface depends upon $2b-3$ real constants, whereas the membrane $F$ itself depends on $3g-3$ real constants, where $g$ is the genus of the double (cf. Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882]). The Ansatz $2b-3\ge 3g-3$ gives $2b\ge
3g$, and since $b=d-\chi$ and $g=(r-1)+2p$, this gives $2d \ge
3g+2\chi=3[(r-1)+2p]+2(2-2p-r)=r+2p+1$, equivalently $d\ge
(r+1)/2+p$.
This beats the value $r+p$ predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], but looks blatantly overoptimistic. For instance taking $p=0$, gives the degree $\frac{r+1}{2}$ violating the absolute lower bound $r$ on the degree of a circle map. The provisory conclusion is that the naive parameters count leads nowhere in the bordered case. Does somebody know an explanation?
\[21.10.12\] A crude attempt of explanation is that the above count merely uses the Euler characteristic which is a complete topological invariant only for closed surfaces, but not for bordered ones. (Since $\chi(F_{r,p})=2-2p-r$, trading one handle against two contours leaves $\chi$ unchanged.) Of course the above counting uses also $g$ (the genus of the double $2F$) but the latter is also uniquely defined by $\chi(F)$, via the relation $2-2g=\chi(2F)=2\chi(F)$. Thus it is maybe not so surprising that Riemann(-Hurwitz)’s count predicts correctly the gonality of closed Riemann surfaces but fails seriously to do so in the bordered case. It could be challenging to find a moduli count existence-proof of Ahlfors circle maps supplemented probably by an adequate continuity method. For an (unsuccessful) attempt cf. Sec.\[Hurwitz-type\].
A very naive (numerological) parade is to introduce a new bound $\nu:=\max\{p+ \frac{r+1}{2}, r \}$ between the one found above and $r$ the absolute minimum of a total morphism. However a simple example probably shows this to be overoptimistic as well. Consider the plane quintic $C_5$ derived via a sense preserving smoothing of the depicted configurations of $2$ conics and a line (cf. Fig.\[quintic:fig\]).
Its genus is $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}=\frac{4\cdot3}{2}=6$, and we see $r=5$ real circuits. The relation $g=(r-1)+2p$ gives $p=1$ (genus of the half). Hence the new bound is $p+
\frac{r+1}{2}=1+3=4$, but $r=5$ so $\nu=\max=5$. However the membrane (corresponding to one half of the dividing curve $C_5$) cannot be represented with 5 sheets over the disc. Indeed a morphism of degree 5 from $C_5$ to the line ${\Bbb P}^1$ can arise through linear projection of the quintic $C_5$ from a point not on the curve (else degree $4$), but no such projection is totally real (compare central part of Fig.\[quintic:fig\], or argue via the Poincaré index, cf. Lemma \[Poincare-lower-bound\]).
\[09.11.12\] [*WARNING about the underlined “only”.*]{}—This argument looks at first sight quite convincing, yet it appears to be insufficient, and possibly the assertion itself on the gonality $\gamma(C_5)=6$ is erroneous. First, a total morphism of degree $r+p=5+1=6$ (as predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) should exist. This is corroborated by taking a pencil of conics through 4 points inside the 4 ovals of the above depicted $C_5$ (cf. Fig.\[FGuerN:fig\], left part) and letting them degenerate against the ovals, giving a total map of degree $2 \cdot 5-4=6$. This tell us only $\gamma \le 6$. A priori, it could be the case that higher order pencils access the low degree $5$, and with some good-fortune do it in a totally real way. In that case the gonality lowers down to $\gamma=5$ (the minimum permissible as $r=5$). Let us quickly discuss how this could happen, at least over the complexes. A priori pencils of cubics may have degrees as low as $3\cdot 5-3^2=6$ (hence not violating the previous token); quartics as low as $4\cdot 5-
4^2=4$, but quartics have dimension $\binom{4+2}{2}-1=14$ so that in reality only 13 basepoints may be assigned freely, hence the right value is $4\cdot 5- 13=7$; for quintics this is as low as $5\cdot 5- 5^2=0$ (yet all values $<4$ violates already the complex gonality of a smooth quintic, cf. e.g. Arbarello et al. 1985 [@Arbarello-Cornalba-Griffiths-Harris_1985-BOOK p.56, Exercise 18]). In fact the dimension of quintics is $\binom{5+2}{2}-1=20$ and thus the minimum degree is $5\cdot 5- 19=6$. For sextics the degree is as low as $6\cdot 5- 6^2=-6$, but since the sextics dimension is $\binom{6+2}{2}-1=27$, the real minimum degree is $30-26=4$ (and this beats linear projections from outside the curve). Recall incidentally that this is the value of the universal Riemann-Meis bound $[\frac{g+3}{2}]=[9/2]=4$, which was already attained by linear projections from the curve but nobody will exclude a priori a second return. Actually all 26 assigned basepoints fails to impose independent conditions on sextics, because our quintic $C_5$ aggregated to any line is a sextic meeting the requirement and varying among $\infty^2$ parameters (and not just the expected $\infty^1$ pencil). Thus we seem to fail getting a genuine pencil, but contrast this with the just remembered Riemann-Meis gonality. The situation is quite more tricky than initially expected. Another torpedo against the naive belief that a smooth $C_5$ has only $\infty^1$ series of type $g^1_5$ is the existence theorem of Brill-Noether-Kempf-Kleiman-Laksov theory (cf. e.g. Arbarello et al. [@Arbarello-Cornalba-Griffiths-Harris_1985-BOOK p.206]). The latter states the following.
Let $C$ be a (complex) curve of genus $g$. Every component of the variety $G^r_d$ parameterizing all linear series $g^r_d$ of dimension $r$ and degree $d$ has dimension at least equal to the so-called [*Brill-Noether number*]{} $\rho$, symbolically: $$\dim_{\ast} G^r_d\ge \rho:=g-(r+1)(g-d+r).$$ In particular when the latter number $\rho$ is $\ge 0$ the variety $G^r_d$ is nonempty.
In the case at hand it follows that $\dim_{\ast} G^1_5 \ge
6-(1+1)(6-5+2)=6-2\cdot2=6-4=2$. Hence there are other pencils of degree 5 than those readily visualized on the projective realization! This shows how vicious the Plato cavern is! Of course our appeal to the above general theorem, is a violation against the principle of do-it-yourself-ness, since low genus cases are in best treated by hand (cf. Arbarello et cie [@Arbarello-Cornalba-Griffiths-Harris_1985-BOOK p.209–211] for a possible treatment, alas not perfectly self-contained).
The following summarizes the swampy situation (while trying to extend the generality):
[(To be clarified with percentages of truth)]{}
$\bullet$ \[100 %\] Any smooth real quintics $C_5$ with $r=5$ (hence $4$ ovals and one pseudoline) is unnested (otherwise the line through the nest plus another oval gives 6 intersections, corrupting Bézout).
$\bullet$ \[80 %\] Furthermore taking a pencil of conics through the $4$ nests gives a total pencil (why exactly? clear on the Fig.ref[FGuerN:fig]{}(left part) but why in general?).
$\bullet$ \[79 %\] Assuming the previous point, the gonality is $\gamma\le 2\cdot5-4\cdot 1= 6$ (in accordance with Gabard’s bound $r+p$, but it is preferable to mistrust this!).
$\bullet$ \[100 %=0 %\] Alas it is not clear a priori that pencils of orders $\ge 6$ do not induce total pencils of possibly lower degree $=5$. (Recall that $r=5$ is an absolute lower bound for total maps!)
The only delicate point is the assertion about total reality of the pencil of conics. In fact this is fairly evident on the figure above, but in the general case I see no reason.
\[10.11.12\] In the light of the Kempf-Kleiman-Laksov existence theorem of special divisors (ESD) in the case of complex curves one may wonder about its relativization in the Ahlfors context of total maps. The point is of course that for $g^1_d$’s the existence theorem (ESD) boils down to the Riemann-Meis bound $\gamma_{\Bbb C}\le [\frac{g+3}{2}]$ for the gonality of complex curves. (Plug $d\ge g/2+1$ in the Brill-Noether number $\rho$ and notice its non-negativity.) Since Ahlfors 1950 $\gamma\le r+2p$ or maybe Gabard 2006 $\gamma \le r+p$ is to be considered as the genuine bordered (or orthosymmetric) avatar of the Riemann-Meis theorem one can dream of an orthosymmetric(=dividing) version of the whole special of divisor theory. It is not clear how to extend total reality for higher series $g^r_d$ which are not pencils $g^1_d$. Of course one can ask that all real members are totally real but this seems too restrictive. Is there any example at all? Perhaps not for simple dimension reason. For $g^2_d$’s this would amount to a plane model of the curve cut by all real lines in real points only. This looks overambitious by just perturbing a tangent at a non-inflection point outside the sense of curvature.
At any rate the theory surely works for pencils and the bonus is that we have a certain variety akin to $G^1_d$ parameterizing all total pencils of degree $d$ on a given dividing curve. How to denote it? I never understood for what the “$g$ or $G$” of resp. $g^1_d$ or $G^1_d$ is standing? (Candidates: groups of points, Gerade, Gebilde, Grassmann, ?) Improvising notation, we define $T^1_d$ the variety of total linear series of degree $d$ on a given dividing curve. We dream about repeating all the phenomenology of the classic theory, cf. e.g. p.203 of ACGH 1985 [@Arbarello-Cornalba-Griffiths-Harris_1985-BOOK]:
“[*A genus $g$ curve depends on $3g-3$ parameters, describing the so-called moduli. Our goal is to describe how the projective realizations of a curve vary with its moduli, and what it means to say that a curve is general or special. Accordingly, we would like to know, what linear series can we expect to find on a general curve and what the subvarieties of the moduli space corresponding to curves possessing a series of specified type look like. \[…\] A natural question is, how can we tell one curve from another by looking at these configurations \[$G^r_d$\], or more precisely, what do these look like in general, and how—and where—can they degenerate?*]{}”
For our “totality” varieties $T^1_d$ of total pencils we would gather them into a “telescope” $T^1:=\cup_{d=1}^{\infty} T^1_d$ naturally embedded in $C^{(\infty)}$, the infinite symmetric power of the (dividing) curve $C$. We have the degree function $\deg\colon C^{(\infty)}\to {\Bbb N}$, and the image of $T^1$ is nothing but than the gonality sequence $\Lambda$ (Definition \[def:gonality-sequence\]), whose least member is the (separating) gonality $\gamma$ (of Coppens). One would like to understand how total pencils may degenerate to lower degrees w.r.t the natural topology induced by $C^{(\infty)}$. We probably get a sort of telescope with high strata attached to lower dimensional ones (like in a CW-complex) and the game would be to understand the geometry or combinatoric of this tower. Understanding all this is arguably the most refined form of Ahlfors theorem one could desire. One would then like to know not only the gonality spectrum telling one the dimension of each strata $T^1_d$, but also know how they can degenerate to lower strata. Degeneration could still be encoded combinatorially in a simplicial-complex $\Lambda^{\ast}$ with vertices $\Lambda$ (gonality sequence). Two vertices $d_1<d_2\in \Lambda$ are linked by an edge if a total $g^1_{d_2}$ can degenerate to a $g^1_{d_1}$. More generally $d_1<d_2<\dots<d_{k+1}\in \Lambda$ form a $k$-simplex whenever each integer of the sequence admits a representative $g^1_d$ degenerating to its immediate predecessor, hence to all predecessors.
Working out this explicitly looks tedious already for simple example. For the Gürtelkurve (any smooth quartic $C_4$ with 2 nested ovals) the variety $T^1_3$ is a circle and $T^1_4$ is a 2-cell attached to the former in a natural way. Of course when a total $g^1_4$ degenerates to a total $g^1_3$ it acquires a basepoint, which as to be deleted (particle destruction). Total $g^1_d$ will ultimately be denoted as $t^1_d$’s. In view of the Brill-Noether theorem (ESD) the variety $G^1_4$ has dimension $\ge
\rho=3-2(3-4+1)=3$ and so we have a priori more than the $\infty^2$ evident total pencils $t^1_4$ arising via projection from the inner oval. For instance pencils of conics may have degree as low as $2\cdot 4- 4 \cdot 1=8-4=4$. Can they be total? I would have guessed not, but it seems that they can. Compare Fig.\[FGuerN:fig\] below.
It would be desirable if some continuity principle can ensure total reality, e.g. if the 4 basepoints are distributed both inside and outside the nested resp. unnested oval. Then like a salesman traveller, the conic has to visit all 4 basepoints and thus creates at least $8$ real intersections. Our picture would just be the limiting position of such a bipartite pencil, and the variety $T^1_4$ would be $\infty^4$, a much larger dimension than initially expected. Further if 3, among the 4 basepoints, become collinear then it may be argued that the conics pencil specializes to one of lines (after removing the static line). All this remains to be better analyzed.
Heuristic moduli count to justify Ahlfors or Gabard (Huisman 2001)
------------------------------------------------------------------
It is still plausible that one may gain some evidence in favor of the Ahlfors circle map (either with Ahlfors $r+2p$ or preferably the improved Gabard’s bound $r+p$) by arguing via a moduli count. (The reader reminds to have discussed orally this option with Natanzon and Huisman in Rennes in Summer 2001, resp. December 2001.) I do not know if it is possible to supply a better count than the unrealistic one of the previous section.
\[14.10.12\] In fact at a time when I only conjectured the bound $r+p$, Huisman (December 2001 or 2002?) reacted instantaneously with a parameter count giving some evidence to the conjecture. Let me reproduce this faithfully from hand written notes.
We adopt the viewpoint of dividing real (algebraic) curves. So let $C$ be a such with $r\ge 1$ ovals and of genus $g$. I mentioned to Johannes Huisman the intuition that there is a totally real morphism $C\to {\Bbb P}^1$ (i.e. inverse image of real locus contained in the real locus) whose degree is the barycenter of $r$ and $g+1$, that is $\frac{r+(g+1)}{2}$. (The heuristic reason behind this 2001 intuition are given in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], and in its most primitive form in the previous Section\[sec:Sketch-of-Gabard\].) “Let us count parameters!”. Thus spoke Huisman, like Zarathustra.
First the Riemann-Hurwitz relation written for the Euler characteristic is $\chi(C)= d \cdot \chi({\Bbb P}^1)-b $, where $d$ is the degree and $b$ the number of branch points (with multiplicity). Now we count real moduli. The ramification divisor of any totally real morphism actually lies in the imaginary locus of the sphere (not on the equator), but is of course symmetric w.r.t. the involution. Hence we may imagine the $b/2$ branch points prescribed only in the north hemisphere, thus depending on $2\cdot (b/2)=b$ real constants. The curve itself depends on $b-3$ moduli (subtract the dimension of the automorphism group of ${\Bbb
P}^1$ defined over ${\Bbb R}$), that is $$\begin{aligned}
b-3= d \cdot \chi({\Bbb P}^1)-\chi(C)&=\frac{r+g+1}{2} \cdot
2-\chi(C)-3\cr
&=(r+g+1)-(2-2g)-3=3g-4+r\ge 3g-3.\end{aligned}$$ This prompts enough free parameters to sweep out the full moduli space. Of course this does not reprove the existence of circle maps of the prescribed degree, yet give some evidence to the assertion.
\[15.10.12\] A notable defect of this Huisman count is that it is a posteriori, giving no hint why the degree value should be given by our Ansatz. It is thus preferable to make the same computation in a more organical way. As above the curve $C$ depends on $b-3$ real moduli, and we demand $b-3\ge 3g-3$. This gives $d\cdot
\chi(S^2)-\chi(C)\ge 3g$, i.e. $2d\ge 3g+(2-2g)=g+2$, or $d\ge
g/2+1$.
Two remarks are in order. The above is exactly the same heuristic calculation as the that (going back to Riemann) to be found in Griffiths-Harris for the complex gonality of a curves, and which we remembered before. (The least integer $d\ge (g+2)/2$ is $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$, obvious for $g$ even and also obvious when $g$ is odd.) Hence in substance this modification of Huisman’s count truly just assert that Gabard’s bound is compatible with the gonality of the underlying complex curve, yet does not predict the bound $(r+g+1)/2$.
Perhaps there is a better way to count, compare the section devoted to Courant (Sec.\[sec:Courant\]).
Since Riemann 1857 we know that a complex curve of genus $g$ depends on $3g-3$ moduli. For real curves the same assertion holds true by virtue of Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882]. (The modernized treatment is of course due to Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939].) In view of this we may formulate the Ansatz of an (Ahlfors) circle map to the disc and try to compute the minimal number of sheet and the allied ramification points required to supply the branched Riemann surface with enough free parameters so as to paint out the full moduli space.
I tried recently to redo this computation, but was not very successful. So we leave this as an easy project to be clarified at the occasion.
Other application of the irrigation method (Riemann 1857, Brill-Noether 1874, Klein, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The method used in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] is primarily based upon an irrigation principle in a torus, which in turn is logically reducible to the surjectivity criterion via the (Brouwer) topological degree of a mapping to a manifold.
Via this method we obtained (in ) the existence of an (Ahlfors) circle map of degree $\le r+p$. As pointed out there, the method also supplies a purely topological proof of Jacobi inversion theorem, to the effect that the Abel-Jacobi mapping from the symmetric powers $C^{(d)}$ of a complex curve to its Jacobian is surjective as soon as dimension permits (that is for $d\ge g$).
Of course the complex (or closed) avatar of the Ahlfors mapping is just the mapping of a closed genus $g$ surface as a branched cover of the sphere. In this situation it is classically known since Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857] and Brill-Noether 1874 [@Brill-Noether_1874] (but disputed by the modern writers) that the most economical sheet number required is $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$.
Contributions on this problem is vast (and according to the modern consensus first [*rigorously*]{} proved in Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960] for linear series of dimension one, whereas some classic references includes the more case of arbitrary dimensional series, esp. Brill-Noether and Severi)
$\bullet$ Riemann 1857 (Theorie der Abel’schen Functionen) [@Riemann_1857 §4],
$\bullet$ Brill-Noether 1874 [@Brill-Noether_1874] (working with plane curves with singularities, so a pure algebraization of Riemann’s theory if one does not fell claustrophobic in the Plato cavern.)
$\bullet$ Klein’s lectures of 1891 [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen p.99] (based on Abelian integrals and Riemann-Roch, essentially akin to Riemann’s original derivation)
$\bullet$ Hensel-Landsberg 1902 [@Hensel-Landsberg_1902 Lecture 31] (probably quite similar to Brill-Noether or inspired by Dedekind-Weber)
$\bullet$ Severi 1921 [@Severi_1921-Vorlesungen-u-alg.-Geom-BUCH Anhang G]
Then the modern era begins with:
$\bullet$ Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960] (Teichmüller theoretic) \[alas, this monograph is notoriously difficult to obtain\] $\bullet$ H.H. Martens 1967 [@Martens_Henrik_1967] (no proof, but a remarkable study of the geometry assuming non-emptiness)
$\bullet$ Kempf 1971 [@Kempf_1971] the first existence proof (simultaneous with the next contributors) of special divisors in general case (linear series of arbitrary dimension, extending thereby the pencil case first established by Meis 1960)
$\bullet$ Kleiman-Laksov 1972–74 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1972] [@Kleiman-Laksov_1974] (using resp. Schubert calculus, plus Poincaré’s formula and resp. singularity theory à la Thom, Porteous)
$\bullet$ Gunning 1972 [@Gunning_1972] using MacDonald computation of the homology of the symmetric power of the curve
$\bullet$ Griffiths-Harris 1978 [@Griffiths-Harris_1978/94 p.261], where the heuristic count à la Riemann-Klein is reproduced; and latter a rigorous argument (p.358) is supplied (along the line of Kempf’s Thesis ca. 1970).
In view of the interest aroused by this Riemann-Meis bound, and the apparent difficulty to prove it (appealing to a variety of ingenious devices), it seems reasonable to wonder if there is not a much simpler argument based upon the same “irrigation method” as the one used by the writer in relation with the Ahlfors map. This would merely use simple homology theory and the allied surjectivity criterion in term of the Brouwer degree. Heuristically, this amounts to see the genus $g$ pretzel inside its Jacobian and let it homologically degenerate over a bouquet (wedge) of $g$ $2$-tori irrigating the Jacobian. Thus it seems evident that with roughly $g/2$ points we may find a pair of (effective) divisor of that degree collapsing to the same point of the Jacobian. This pair of disjoint divisors serves to define the desired morphism to ${\Bbb P}^1$. The writer as yet did not found the energy to write down the details, but is quite confident that the strategy is worth paying attention. Of course it could be the case that this merely boils down (up to phraseological details) to the already implemented attack of Gunning 1972 [@Gunning_1972]. (Shamefully, I did not yet had the time to consult this properly.) Thus, it seems rather obvious that this result of Riemann-Brill-Noether-Meis as well (at least the existence of a mapping with such a degree) permits a proof via the irrigation method employed in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. Of course “irrigation” would not establish the sharpness of Meis’ bound (which is another question), but could predict its value as universal upper-bound upon the gonality.
Another application: Complex manifolds homeomorphic to tori
-----------------------------------------------------------
This section deviates from the mainbody of the text, but serves to illustrate another spinoff of the irrigation method. The writer wondered about the following naive question (ca. 2001/2?). Assume given a complex (analytic) manifold (arbitrary dimension), and suppose also the underlying manifold to be homeomorphic to a torus. [*Must such a manifold be biholomorphic to a complex torus, i.e. ${\Bbb C}^n$ modulo a lattice?*]{} The answer is easy in dimension one (Abel essentially). In general the answer is negative, by virtue of a construction of Blanchard (Thesis ca. 1955) closely allied to the Penrose twistor. Basically there is over $S^2$ a certain bundle parametrizing quaternionic structures, and taking a fiber product with an elliptic curve yields on the torus $T^6$ (of 6 real dimensions) a complex structure which turns out to be not Kähler. This answers negatively the question when the complex dimension is 3. (For more details cf. also work by Sommese (ca. 1978), etc.)
All this is rather exotic complex geometry, but one may wonder if the assertion becomes true under the Kähler assumption. Then Hodge theory applies, and we dispose of a bona fide analog of the Abel mapping (sometimes called the Albanese mapping). The latter is also a map to a complex torus (called Albanese) and using the irrigation principle it is easy to show that $\alpha$ induces an isomorphism on the top-dimensional homology. First, it induces an isomorphism on the $H_1$, but the latter elevates up to the top-dimension since tori have a total homology $H_{\ast}$ modelled upon the exterior algebra over the $H_1$. By the Brouwer degree argument (irrigation intuitively), it follows that $\alpha$ is surjective. Then one can show that it is injective as well (I have forgotten the exact argument, but essentially if Albanese collapse a submanifold then like by Abel it collapses linear varieties which are simply-connected projective spaces, hence liftable to the universal cover of the Albanese torus).
Any torus shaped Kähler manifold is biholomorphic to its Albanese torus.
Of course this is surely well-known, but we just wanted to remember this as another high dimensional—but baby—application of the irrigation principle. Further Kodaira’s classification of (complex analytic) surfaces plus a deformation argument of Andreotti-Grauert (which I learned from R. Narasimhan) implied also a positive answer to the basic question in (complex) dimension 2. But I take refuge in my failing memory, and to not remember the exact details. Thus in principle, Blanchard’s 3-dimensional counterexample is sharp.
Invisible real curves (Witt 1934, Geyer 1964, Martens 1978) {#sec:Witt}
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ahlfors’ theorem bears some analogy with Witt’s theorem (1934 [@Witt_1934]) stating that a (smooth) real curve without real points admits a morphism (defined over the reals ${\Bbb R}$) to the invisible real line (materialized by the conic $x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2=0$). The analogy is again that when there is no topological obstruction, then a geometric mapping exists.
Subsequent works along Witt’s direction are due to:
$\bullet$ Geyer 1964/67 [@Geyer_1964-67] (alternative proof of Weichold, and Witt via Galois cohomology and Hilbert’s Satz 90);
$\bullet$ Martens 1978 [@Martens_1978], where the precise bound on the degree of the Witt mapping has been determined.
Philosophically, it seems challenging to examine if such strongly algebraic techniques (Riemann-Roch algebraized à la Hensel–Landsberg 1902, Artin, etc.) are susceptible to crack as well the Ahlfors mapping? Geyer, Martens or others are perhaps able to address this challenge? (So far as we know, no such account exist in print.)
Martens’ statement (quantitative version of Witt) is the following.
Given a closed non-orientable Klein surface with algebraic genus $g$ (i.e. the genus of the orientable double cover[^12]) there is a morphism to the projective plane of degree $\le
g+1$. Moreover this is the best we can hope for, i.e. for each $g$ there is a Klein surface not expressible with fewer sheets.
Perhaps the first portion of the statement is already in Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934]. Of course this can—via the Schottky-Klein Verdoppelung—also be stated in term of symmetric Riemann surfaces (equivalently real algebraic curves) as follows:
Given a symmetric Riemann surface of genus $g$ without fixed point, there is an equivariant conformal mapping to the diasymmetric sphere of degree $g+1$. Moreover the bound is sharp.
This formulation of Martens’s result also appears in Ross 1997 [@Ross_1997 p.3097], who supplies additional comments which are quite in accordance with our own sentiments, especially the issue that the short argument by Li-Yau 1982 [@Li-Yau_1982 p.272] does not appear as very convincing. Moreover Ross supplies some attractive differential geometric applications of this Witt-Martens mapping theorem, e.g. to the effect that the totally geodesic ${\Bbb R}P^2$ is the only stable minimal surface in ${\Bbb R}P^3$.
The three mapping theorems (Riemann 1857, Ahlfors 1950, Witt 1934)
------------------------------------------------------------------
From the conformal viewpoint we have thus three basic mapping theorems enabling a gravitational collapse of all compact surfaces to their simplest representatives (the sphere, the disc or the projective plane) depending on whether the original surface is:
$\bullet$ closed orientable (Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857]);
$\bullet$ compact bordered orientable (Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]);
$\bullet$ closed non-orientable (Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934]).
None of those results tells what to do with a compact bordered non-orientable surface (whose simplest specimen is the Möbius band/strip). The latter does not carry positive curvature, which implies finiteness of the fundamental group for complete metrics (else punctured sphere). Alternatively the orientable double cover of Möbius is the torus, which has already moduli. Hence it is quite clear that the above three theorems form an exhaustive list of truths positing a fundamental trichotomy (of definitive crystallized shape). The motto “Alle guten Dinge sind drei”, is quite ubiquitous in life and mathematics! It is reasonable to expect that each of those mappings will pursue to find valuable applications in the future, yet much work remain to be done as to the stratification of the moduli space induced by the degree of such representations, etc.
For each of these 3 concretization problems one is interested in the exact determination of the lowest possible sheet number. In principle the answer is already known as follows:
For all $3$ types of conformal mapping to elementary surfaces of positive Euler characteristics $\chi >0$ (including $\chi (S^2)=2,
\chi (\Bbb R P^2)=1, \chi (\Delta=D^2)=1$) the sharp universal bound on the degree of such representation is known. More precisely,
$\bullet$ $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ always concretizes closed genus $g$ surfaces expressed as cover of the sphere [(Riemann, Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960])]{}, and the bound is sharp [(again Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960])]{}.
$\bullet$ $g+1$ always concretizes non-orientable closed surface of algebraic genus $g$ (i.e. genus of the orientation double cover) expresses as cover of the projective plane [(Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934])]{}, and the bound is sharp [(Martens 1978 [@Martens_1978])]{}.
$\bullet$ $r+p$ always concretizes bordered orientable surfaces with $r$ contours and $p$ handles as (full or total) cover of the disc [(Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006])]{}, and the bound is sharp [(Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011])]{}.
Adhering to Klein’s viewpoint of symmetric surfaces, one can always interpret such objects as real curves of some genus $g$ (the first class is an exception except if one tolerates disconnected surfaces). In the third bordered case $g=(r-1)+2p$. The $r+p$ bound can be rewritten as $\frac{r+(g+1)}{2}$. If $r$ is lowest, i.e. $r=1$, this is statistically equal to $g/2$, as so is the first Riemann-Meis bound. In contrast the Witt-Martens bound looks much higher. Of course if $r=g+1$ is highest (Harnack-maximality) then $r+p=r+0=g+1$, agreing with Witt-Martens’s bound. In the overall it may be argued that both Martens’ and Gabard’s bound are fairly less economical that Riemann-Meis’, and that this is due to the equivariance or even total reality of the corresponding maps. On the other hand Ahlfors bound $r+2p=g+1$ looks much more compatible with Martens’ and if one is sceptical about Gabard’s version one could imagine that Ahlfors is asymptotically sharp for large values of the invariants. This scenario remains hypothetically possible in case we are unable to reassess through other mean Gabard’s $r+p$ or able to disprove its validity.
The following tabulation summarizes the key contributions:
\(1) Riemann 1857: any (or at least the general) closed Riemann(ian) surface maps conformally to the sphere with $\le
[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ sheets, where $g$ is the genus. It is not clear-cut if Riemann showed sharpness of the bound.
Related works includes (in chronological order):
$\bullet$ Brill-Noether 1874 [@Brill-Noether_1874];
$\bullet$ Klein 1891 [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen p.99];
$\bullet$ Severi 1921 [@Severi_1921-Vorlesungen-u-alg.-Geom-BUCH];
$\bullet$ B. Segre 1928 [@Segre_1928];
$\bullet$ Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960];
$\bullet$ Kempf 1971 [@Kempf_1971] and Kleiman-Laksov 1972–74 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1972] [@Kleiman-Laksov_1974];
$\bullet$ Gunning 1972 [@Gunning_1972];
$\bullet$ Griffiths-Harris 1978 [@Griffiths-Harris_1978/94 p.261];
$\bullet$ Arbarello-Cornalba 1981 [@Arbarello-Cornalba_1981].
This sharp bound $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ as applied to spectral theory is observed in El Soufi-Ilias 1983/84 [@El-Soufi-Ilias_1983/84] (Yang-Yau 1980 [@Yang-Yau_1980] contented themselves with the weaker value $g+1$.) An interesting aspect of the Italian works is that they not only focus on the gonality upper bound, but also compute the dimensions of the lower dimensional strata for a prescribed gonality. Of course, the answer is the expected one (as easily predicted by Riemann-Hurwitz). \[The above Italian works, especially Segre has however a little objection to the simplicity of the exercise.\] We point out this is issue as it could be interesting to make a similar count for the Ahlfors circle map (bordered case). This topic will be briefly addressed in the next Sec.\[sec:profile-histogram\].
\(2) Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]: any compact bordered Riemann surface maps conformally to the disc with $\le r+2p$ sheets (where as usual $r$ is the number of boundary contours and $p$ the genus). This bound is not sharp (at least for low values of the invariants $(r,p)$, e.g. for the Gürtelkurve type $(r,p)=(2,1)$). Modulo a mistake by the writer (in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]), Ahlfors bound can be improved as $\le r+p$. The latter is in turn sharp according to Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011].
\(3) Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934]: any closed non-orientable surface maps conformally to the projective plane ${\Bbb R}P^2$. Witt does not specify a bound (?), or maybe he does but sharpness was obtained by Martens 1978 [@Martens_1978].
Witt’s result received, arguably, only sporadic spectral applications, except in the article Li-Yau 1982 [@Li-Yau_1982], which however does not quote Witt, but whose authors were apparently able to reprove the result by their own \[compare their argument on p.272\]. (As already mentioned, Ross 1997 [@Ross_1997] does not seem to be convinced by the Li-Yau argument.)
Of course all this “diaporama” is the direct heritage of Riemann (plus maybe indirectly some Abel!) the first result being often called Riemann’s existence theorem. The 2 avatars of Ahlfors and Witt are akin to the absolute case of Riemann, via the trick of the Schottky-Klein double (or Verdoppelung as Teichmüller calls it) but then some equivariance or total reality is required, acting as a sort of boundary condition explaining probably why those versions took longer to emerge. Of course such equivariance/or boundary behaviors just hide a reality condition encoded in the field of definition of the allied Riemann surfaces. All this is best summarized diagrammatically:
$$\begin{aligned}
i(p^*,{\cal F}^*)=1-\frac{c_*-c_*'}{4}&=1-\frac{2c-2c'}{4}\cr
&=2\bigl( 1-\frac{c-c'}{4}\bigr)-1
=2j(p, {\cal F})-1.\end{aligned}$$
The gonality profile, moduli strata and the Ahlfors space {#sec:profile-histogram}
---------------------------------------------------------
\[10.11.12\] Heuristically (cf. e.g. Segre 1928 [@Segre_1928]) one can count the dimension of closed Riemann surfaces expressible as coverings of degree $d$ of the sphere as follows. By Riemann-Hurwitz $\chi(C_g)=d \chi(S^2)-b$. Hence there are $b-3$ free parameters, that is $$b-3=(2d-\chi)-3=2d-(2-2g)-3=2d+2g-5.$$ In particular the strata of given gonality $\gamma=d$ increases its dimension along a very simple arithmetic progression (as a function of $d$) until the full moduli space is exhausted for $d$ the least integer $\ge g/2+1$ (Riemann-Meis bound). The smallest strata is the [*hyperelliptic locus*]{} ($d=2$) of dimension $4+2g-5=2g-1=(2g+2)-3$, in accordance with the $2g+2$ ramification points visible as invariant points of an half twist acting upon a purely vertical pretzel in 3-space. I do not know if such a regularity occurs for bordered surfaces. Coppens’s theorem states another form of regularity, namely full realizability of all intermediated gonalites, but it does not pertain to the dimensions of the corresponding moduli strata.
On behalf of Coppens’s theorem the situation could be as follows. For a given topological type $(r,p)$, Coppens tells us that all intermediate $r\le \gamma \le r+p$ are realized. So we have $p+1$ possible gonalities, the largest of which $\gamma=r+p$ fills the full moduli space of real dimension $3g-3$ (Klein’s count conjointly with Gabard’s bound). As usual $g=(r-1)+2p$, so $3g-3=6p+3r-6$. If we knew the number of moduli of the minimal strata $\gamma=r$ we could try a linear interpolation as a possible scenario for the dimensions increments of the gonality strata. Naively our rotationally invariant picture (Fig.\[Chambery:fig\]) could act as a bordered substitute to the hyperelliptic closed case (at least for $r$ even). If so is the case can we count its moduli? Everything would be determined by the quotient planar surface with $r/2=r'$ contours. This planar surface (whose double has genus $g'=r'-1$) depends on $3g'-3$ moduli. This expressed in terms of $r$, gives he following $3g'-3=3r'-6=3/2 \cdot r-6$. This a candidate for the dimension of the lowest strata. Looking for a progression in $p$ steps toward the maximum value, we consider the difference $[6p+3r-6]-[3/2
\cdot r-6]=6p+3/2\cdot r=1/2[12p+3r]$, which is not easily divided by $p$. $\bullet$ In fact we have looked at the quotient but barely omitted the branched locus. Taking this into account we get rather a dependance on $3g'-3+2(2p+2)$ (real) moduli for the lowest strata. Expressing this in terms of $(r,p)$, gives $3/2
\cdot r+4p-2$. Hence the difference of the top and lowest strata would be $2p+3/2\cdot r-1$, which is alas still not nicely divisible by $p$. $\bullet$ Another idea is just to use maps from $F_{r,p}$ to the disc of minimum degree $r$. Then we have $\chi(F)=r \chi(\Delta)-b$. Hence there are $2b-3$ free real parameters. Expressed in terms of $(r,p)$, this is $2b-3=2(r-\chi)-3=2(r-(2-2p-r))-3=4r+4p-7$. Hence the difference between the top dimensional and the lowest dimensional strata is $\delta=(6p+3r-6)-(4r+4p-7)=2p-r+1$, which is not even positive in general. It looks again dubious to divide this in $p$ equal parts as suggests Coppens result. Again this just confirms what we already noticed (earlier in the text) that the Riemann-Hurwitz count looks seriously jeopardized in the bordered case, at least as long as we apply it so naively as we do.
One can reverse the game: instead of speculating on the size of the lowest strata we can speculate on the increment as being by 2 real units (like in the complex case) and draw the dimension $\lambda$ of the lowest strata. This would give $\lambda=\dim
({\rm top \;strata})-p\cdot 2=(6p+3r-6)-2p=4p+3r-6$. Testing this on the type of the Gürtelkurve $(r,p)=(2,1)$ gives $\lambda=4+6-6=4$, whereas the hyperelliptic model depends on $2g+2-3=2\cdot3+2-3=5$ real parameters. Hence the later has codimension 1 in the full moduli of the Gürtekurve type, which as dimension $3g-3=3\cdot 3-3=9-3=6$. This motivates modifying the increment to one of only 1 unit. This leads to the following Ansatz: $\lambda=5p+3r-6$. This gives for $(r,p)=(2,1)$, $\lambda=5+6-6=5$ the correct number. But if we look at the type $(r,p)=(2,2)$ we get $\lambda =10+6-6=10$; but on the other hand the hyperelliptic models have $2g+2-3=2\cdot 5+2-3=9$ moduli conflicting the new Ansatz for $\lambda$.
Of course the real scenario about the increments might be pretty more complicated than the linear progression observed in the complex case (corresponding to closed Riemann surface). Another more neutral way to look at the question is as follows. Given is $(r,p)$ a pair of integers. Allied to this there is a moduli space ${\cal M}_{r,p}$ of all bordered (Riemann) surfaces of type $(r,p)$. Its dimension is $3g-3$ (Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882]), where $g$ is the genus of the double. We imagine the range of all possible gonalities $r\le\gamma\le r+p$ as a horizontal array of entries above each of which is reported the dimension of the moduli space of curve having gonality $\le
\gamma$. This is depicted as a vertical bar. At first, only the top dimension attached to $\gamma=r+p$ is known as $3g-3$. By Coppens we know that there will be $p$ descents of this highest bar to the lower gonalities between $r$ and $r+p$. Pause at this stage to notice that assigned to the sole data $(r,p)$ there is assigned unambiguously such a histogram of gonalities (cf. Fig.\[Histogr:fig\]).
One special case in which we can hope to be more explicit regarding the lowest strata is when $r$ equals 1 or 2. In this case we know that the moduli space contains hyperelliptic membranes. Assuming $p$ large enough ($p\ge 1$) the lowest gonality is $\gamma=2$. It is tautological that the hyperelliptic locus has this gonality, and conversely. So we control explicitly the dimension of the lowest strata. We find $(2g+2)-3$ real constants. Thus the dimension difference $\delta$ of the top and lowest strata is $\delta=3g-3-[(2g+2)-3]=g-2$. This rewritten in terms of $(r,p)$ is also $g-2=(r-1)+2p-2=r+2p-3$.
$\bullet$ If $r=1$, this gives $\delta=2p-2=2(p-1)$. Positing linearity of the increment, this ought to be divided in $p-1$ equals parts (since $r=1$ itself is not a gonality when $p\ge 1$), and we get exactly a progression by 2 units. Hence under the Ansatz of linearity the histogram would be completely known.
$\bullet$ If $r=2$, this gives $\delta=2p-1$. Assuming linearity of the increment, this ought to be divided in $p$ equals parts, and we get something like a progression by 2 units. However the non-divisibility implies that in this case it is impossible to have a linear progression of the histogram. Hence some jumps must occurs.
So in these cases there is some hope to be completely explicit about the histogram attached to $(r,p)$. It would essentially suffices to decide where occur some irregular jumps.
Let us formalize a bit. Given a pair of integers $(r,p)$, we have a moduli space ${\cal M}:={\cal M}_{r,p}$ of all bordered Riemann surfaces of type $(r,p)$. (To allege notation with omit the indices $(r,p)$, as the topology is fixed once for all.) Its dimension is invariably $3g-3$, where $g=(r-1)+2p$ is the genus of the double.
\[gonality-profile:def\] [Inside the full moduli space ${\cal M}:={\cal M}_{r,p}$, consider the sublocus $M_d$ of all surfaces with gonality $\gamma\le d$, and let $\mu_d=\dim M_d$ be its dimension. The histogram we were speaking about is essentially the function $d\mapsto \mu_d$, which we call the [*gonality profile*]{}.]{}
It is evidently monotone but a priori not strictly. Misinterpreting Coppens’s result one would guess strict monotony, but Coppens states only that each gonality is exactly realized, hence in symbols that $M_d-M_{d-1}$ is non-void (at least for $d$ in the range $[r,r+p]$). Thus a priori it could be the case that when incrementing the parameter $d$ we get new surfaces but their variety is not of larger dimension. Of course this scenario may look a bit unlikely due to the algebro-geometric character of the whole topic, but I do not know an argument. The domain of our function $d\mapsto \mu_d$ is the set of all integers but the interesting range is $[r, r+p]$ at least taking Gabard for granted. The latter amounts to say that $\mu_{r+p}=3g-3$.
Now if $r=1$ or $2$, then the moduli space ${\cal M}={\cal
M}_{r,p}$ contains hyperelliptic representatives, and the latter exhaust the locus $M_2$. We calculate easily $\mu_2=(2g+2)-3=2g-1$ and deduced the difference $\delta=\mu_{r+p}-\mu_2=(3g-3)-(2g-1)=g-2$. From here we inferred that:
$\bullet$ when $r=1$ (and $p\ge 1$) then $r$ itself is not a gonality and so there is really only $p-1$ descents. Since $\delta=g-2=r+2p-3=2p-2=2(p-1)$, we can divide (without rest) this by the number of $p-1$ descents, to get a statistical increment of 2 units. If one believes in the linearity regularity then the histogram would be completely known in that case.
$\bullet$ when $r=2$ then $r$ is a gonality, and we have exactly $p$ admissible descents along the range $[r,r+p]$. Now $\delta=g-2=r+2p-3=2p-1$, which is not divisible by $p$. We infer an obstruction to the scenario of linearly evolving histogram. (In other words the function is not linear on the segment $[r, r+p]$.) Perhaps it is just doing a gentle seesaw at some early place?
At this stage we may have exhausted all what can be said on trivial arithmetical grounds. Going further probably requires some geometric impetus, like looking at explicit models (extending the hyperelliptic case). So one needs probably to describe large families of $d$-gonal surfaces for $d\ge 2$. If a general result describing the gonality profile $d\mapsto \mu_d$ looks out of reach, one can start examining low values of $(r,p)$ to explore the situation.
\[11.11.12\] [*Examples.*]{}—$\bullet$ E.g. for $(r,p)=(2,1)$ (thus $g=3$) (the Gürtelkurve type) then the profile is completely known, namely $\mu_2=5$ (hyperelliptic locus of dimension $(2g+2)-3$) and $\mu_3=6$ (equal to $3g-3$). Of course Gabard’s $\gamma\le r+p$ follows in this case via the canonical embedding realizing the curve as a Gürtelkurve in ${\Bbb P}^2$.
$\bullet$ For $(r,p)=(2,2)$ (thus $g=5$), we have again the hyperelliptic locus giving $\mu_2=(2g+2)-3=9$. The top locus $M_{r+p}=M_4$ has dimension $\mu_4=\mu_{r+p}=3g-3=15-3=12$ (Gabard is used but maybe there is an argument by hand). What about $\mu_3$? To seek an answer we refer back to the table of Fig.\[Coppens:fig\], where we traced a picture (label 223) of an uninodal quintic with gonality $\gamma=3$. Quintics depends on $\binom{5+2}{2}-1=\frac{7\cdot 6}{2}-1=20$ parameters, but modulo the collinearity group $PGL(3)={\rm Aut}({\Bbb P}^2)$ of $3^2-1=8$ dimensions, this boils down to 12 effective parameters. Of course the uninodal quintic we consider is really compelled to live on the smaller discriminant hypersurface of dimension $19$ and so our curve 223 truly depends on only 11 essential parameters. Assuming that a full neighborhood of curve $223$ consists of curves keeping the same gonality $\gamma=3$ suggests therefore the value $\mu_3=11$ (at least as a lower bound). Observe that the picture 223 is total under a pencil of lines, and it seems reasonable to expect that when the curve is slightly perturbed along the discriminant hypersurface, total reality of the pencil persists on the ground of some topological [*stability*]{}. Remember e.g., that total reality amounts to the transversality of the foliation (induced by the pencil) along the curve, and transversality is the mother of any topological stability (Thom-style philosophy). Note of course that our curve (being uninodal) represents actually a smooth point of the discriminant and so we safely dispose of the required parameters of deformation. This is perhaps worth saying if one remembers certain plane cubics (or even conics) as examples of real algebraic varieties having an isolated real point. Maybe the above stability argument adapts to situations where there are several nodes via Brusotti’s theorem describing the infinitesimal structure of the discriminant near a multi-nodal curve (with say $\delta$ nodes) as an union of smooth branches crossing transversally (normal crossing).
$\bullet$ For $(r,p)=(3,2)$ (thus $g=6$), we have no hyperelliptic locus. The top locus $M_{r+p}=M_5$ has dimension $\mu_5=\mu_{r+p}=3g-3=18-3=15$ (Gabard is used but maybe there is an argument by hand). What about $\mu_3$ and $\mu_4$? We look again back to Fig.\[Coppens:fig\], where we find curve 324. This is merely a smooth quintic with 2 nested ovals hence with gonality $\gamma=4$. Remember that smooth plane $m$-tics have in general complex gonality $(m-1)$. As quintics depends on 12 essential parameters, the above stability argument shows that the strata $M_4$ contains the locus of all such quintics, and we infer $\mu_4\ge 12$. Is this an equality? How to estimate $\mu_3$? Due to time limitation, we have to leave all this (in our opinion) exciting topic at a fragmentary stage. Perhaps a last word, if we use picture 324bis (still on Fig.\[Coppens:fig\]), which is a sextic with 4 nodes also having $\gamma\le 4$ (projection from the node), then we get a model depending on $\binom{6+2}{2}-1=\frac{8\cdot 7}{2}-1=27$ constants, minus the $8$ coming from $PGL(3)$ gives $19$, of which must be subtracted 4 units (using Brusotti’s normal crossings description). The final result is 15. Repeating the above stability argument implies that $\mu_4\ge 15$. This is a much stronger lower estimate, which in fact must be an equality since we have already attained the dimension of the full moduli space. Hence we conclude $\mu_4=15$; strikingly as big as $\mu_5$! This answer is quite intriguing in case it is correct at all? It would show that the gonality profile does not need to be strictly increasing! \[11.12.12\] Alas all of our counts are completely erroneous in view of some basic examples shown in the next section. Of course the mistake is that not all birational (conformal) equivalence giving rise to Riemann’s moduli space need to be induced by a collineation as an automorphism of the ambient plane ${\Bbb P}^2$.
\[11.11.12\] Finally, it is perhaps fruitful to keep a view on the space of all (total) circle maps. This is the [*Ahlfors space*]{} (improvised jargon) quite akin to so-called Hurwitz spaces. All what we were concerned with in this subsection is arguably just a shadow of this larger space dominating the moduli space ${\cal
M}_{r,p}$. Precisely, the [*circle maps (or Ahlfors) space*]{} $C_{r,p}$ consists for a fixed pair $(r,p)$ (number of contours and handles resp.) of all circle maps $f\colon F \to \Delta$ on a “variable” bordered Riemann surface of specified topological type $(r,p)$. Forgetting the circle map $f$ induces a natural map $C_{r,p}\to {\cal M}_{r,p}$ to the moduli space. Of course one must consider the space $C$ modulo the equivalence relation of a conformal diffeomorphism commuting with the maps to the disc. The strata $M_d$ of all surfaces of gonality $\gamma\le d$ appear then as the projections of the fibres of the degree function on $C_{r,p}$. The fibre of the map $C\to M$ (indices omitted) is the space of all total maps on a fixed bordered Riemann surface $F$.
Correcting the previous section
-------------------------------
\[11.12.12\] There are many counterexamples to our naive moduli count via plane nodal models. For instance considering curves of $g=2$, and using the projective realization as a quartic with one node, we get the dependence upon $\dim \vert 4H
\vert=\binom{4+2}{2}-1=\frac{6\cdot 5 }{2}-1=14$ parameters, of which must be subtracted one unit to be on the discriminant (due to the presence of the node) and finally one has to remove the $8$ dimensions of $PGL(3)$. The end result is $14-1-8=5$, which exceeds by $2$ units Riemann’s $3g-3=3$. Of course this excess is due to the fact that we moded out only by (linear) automorphisms of the plane whereas there might be more mysterious birational equivalence relating to configurations of our family of uninodal quartics.
This demonstrates that the estimate we got in the previous section are completely erroneous and unreliable, and one must find some completely new ideas (i.e. old stuff à la Riemann) to really penetrate the intrinsic nature of the problem. For the moment I have no idea on how to attack the problem of describing the size (=dimensions) $\mu_d$ of the varied gonality strata $$M_d=\{ F\in {\cal M}_{r,p} : \gamma (F)\le d \}.$$ Let us try anew to attack this problem of describing the gonality profile $d\mapsto \mu_d$ for each pair $(r,p)$.
\[12.12.12\] First complete information is obtained in the easy case of planar membranes ($p=0$) as a consequence of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]).
When $p=0$ the gonality profile is a skyscraper concentrated at the single place $d=r=r+p=r+2p$, i.e. $\mu_r=3g-3$, where $g=(r-1)+2p=r-1$ is the genus of the double.
This follow at once from the trivial lower bound $r\le \gamma$ on the degree of circle maps (or the allied gonality $\gamma$), and the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]). (Notice that neither Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] ($\gamma \le r+2p$), nor Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] ($\gamma \le r+p$) is required.)
After that let us examine the cases with $p=1$. We start with:
$\bullet$ $(r,p)=(1,1)$: then we have $1=r\le \gamma\le r+p=2$ (using Gabard). However since the genus of the double is $g=(r-1)+2p=2$, the curve is hyperelliptic and we may avoid Gabard. The lower bound $r=1$ cannot be realized, since $p\neq 0$. We deduce:
For $(r,p)=(1,1)$, the gonality profile is a skyscraper concentrated at $d=2$, i.e. $\mu_d=3g-3=3$ for $d=2$ and $\mu_d=0$ elsewhere $(d\neq 2)$.
$\bullet$ $(r,p)=(2,1)$ (with $g=(r-1)+2p=3$): then we have $2=r\le \gamma\le r+p=3$ (using Gabard). However one can dispense Gabard by using the canonical embedding taking the double of the bordered Riemann surface to a Gürtelkurve $C_4 \subset {\Bbb
P}^2$, i.e. a quartic with 2 nested ovals. This proves $\gamma \le
3$ (via projection from the inner oval). So $\mu_3=3g-3=6$. Of course we have also a hyperelliptic locus, whose dimension is $(2g+2)-3=5$, so $\mu_2=5$. This proves the:
For $(r,p)=(2,1)$, the gonality profile is a “twin tower” concentrated at two places $d=2,3$, and $\mu_3=3g-3=6$ whereas $\mu_2=5$ (all other $\mu_d$ are zero).
$\bullet$ $(r,p)=(3,1)$ (with $g=(r-1)+2p=4$): then we have $3=r\le \gamma\le r+p=4$ (using Gabard). Without using Gabard, one can look at the canonical model in ${\Bbb P}^{g-1}={\Bbb P}^{3}$ of degree $2g-2=6$. This is probably a complete intersection of a cubic surface with a quadric, weighting bidegree $(a,b)=(3,3)$ on the latter, hence of genus $g=(a-1)(b-1)=2\cdot 2 = 4 $ (the expected value). One can then draw a picture by smoothing two pairs of 3 lines distributed in each ruling. When the lines are oriented in the most trivial way (each inducing the same integral homology class on the torus ${\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb R})\times {\Bbb
P}^1({\Bbb R})$) we get a total map of degree $3$ by projection on the factors of ${\Bbb P}^1\times {\Bbb P}^1$ (do a picture). Taking (somewhat cavalier) Gabard for granted we get $\mu_4=3g-3=9$. How to estimate $\mu_3$? Let us try several strategies:
\(1) [*Extrinsic plane projective realizations*]{}.—The naive idea is to look at Fig.\[Coppens:fig\] (picture 313). This is a quintic with 2 nodes and $\gamma\le 3$ (hence equal to $3$ by the trivial lower bound $r\le \gamma$). If we count the (naive) moduli of such a curve we obtain: $\dim \vert 5H
\vert=\binom{5+2}{2}-1=\frac{7\cdot 6}{2}-1=20$, of which must be subtracted $2$ for the two nodes, and $8=\dim PGL(3)$ to get $10$. This exceeds by one unit the full moduli space $3g-3$, and so we get an alienating count. Of course as already said the reason is that we only took into account linear collineations (ambient automorphisms) whereas one should mod out by all inherent isomorphisms of the family of curves. One way to remedy the situation would be to look at Cremona transformations (birational transformations of the plane), but it is not even evident that this would give the right answer on abstract moduli. Another idea is to look at higher order plane models with $\delta$ many nodes as to adjust the genus to $g=4$. For instance sextics with 6 nodes $C^6_6$, septics with 11 nodes $C_7^{11}$, octics with 17 nodes $C_8^{17}$, etc. However the same calculation shows that such family of curves depends on $\dim C^6_6=\frac{8\cdot
7}{2}-1-\delta-8=13$, $\dim C^{11}_7=\frac{9\cdot
8}{2}-1-\delta-8=16$, $\dim C^{17}_8=\frac{10\cdot
9}{2}-1-\delta-8=19$, etc. It seems that there is perpetually an increment by 3 units, and never get something realistic via naive counting.
\(2) [*Extrinsic projective realization as a branched cover of the line (or the disc), i.e. circle maps via Riemann-Hurwitz.*]{}—We fix as an Ansatz $\gamma=3$ (inside our fixed topological type $(r,p)=(3,1)$), and by the Riemann-Hurwitz relation applied to a circle map $F \to \overline{\Delta}$ of degree $3$, we find $\chi (F)= 3 \chi (\overline \Delta)-b$, so $b=3-\chi (F_{3,1})=3-(-3)=6$ many branch points. Moving those 6 points arbitrarily in the disc, and quotienting by automorphisms of the disc we arrive at $2\cdot 6 - 3=9$ (real) moduli. This looks again anomalous for we receive the same answer as for the full $3g-3$ moduli. (We already experimented this failure of Riemann-Hurwitz in the bordered setting, and we are in depressive mode.) The mystery is perhaps that we do not enjoy complete freedom in moving branch points in the bordered setting, but I lack any understanding of which sort of geometric restrictions have to be taken into account.
\(3) [*Intrinsic count à la Nielsen-Fenchel.*]{}—Another possible strategy, is to adapt the Nielsen-Fenchel count of moduli via a decomposition in pants. Remember that this works at the perfection to predict the dimension of the full moduli space (cf. e.g. our Sec.\[Nielsen-Fenchel:sec\] below). The idea would be that if we prescribe a lower gonality then an appropriate decomposition in pants (somehow calibrated on the circle map) should predict the moduli dimension of the restricted class too.
Alas for $\gamma=3$, I do not really see how to proceed, but let us first experiment the method on the simpler hyperelliptic case.
Consider e.g. a membrane with $(r,p)=(2,p)$, $p$ arbitrary, of gonality $\gamma=2$ (hyperelliptic case). On drawing the configuration, and decomposing it into pants invariant under the hyperelliptic involution (visualized as a half-twist rotation) we obtain Fig.\[Pants-hyper:fig\] (left part).
0 -5pt0
Introducing on the surface its uniformizing metric of constant curvature $-1$ (alias hyperbolic metric), we count moduli as the lengths of loops bounding pants affected by certain twist parameters. We get (reading contributions from the top to the bottom of the figure): $$2+2 \cdot 2 p-1=4p+1$$ free parameters. Indeed the first term ($2$) arises from the top loop (its length plus its twisting aptitude). Next we see $p$ shaded pants whose contours exhaust all junctures of the pants decomposition. However all bottom parts of the shaded pants are permuted via the hyperelliptic involution (half-turn rotation), hence of the same length. So each shaded pants really contributes for $2$ lengths each susceptible of a twist, whence the second term ($2 \cdot 2 p$). As to the last term ($-1$), notice that the very bottom contours of the surface have no gluing companion (to be twisted with), so one unit must be subtracted. The announced count follows.
On the other hand, such hyperelliptic curves depend (via a count à la Riemann-Hurwitz) on $(2g+2)-3$ parameters where $g=(r-1)+2p=2p+1$. Hence on $(2g+2)-3=[2(2p+1)+2]-3=4p+1$, in accordance with the result as calculated via the pants method.
A similar count works for hyperelliptic membranes with $(r,p)=(1,p)$, cf. right part of Fig.\[Pants-hyper:fig\]. In that case we obtain $$2+2\cdot 2(p-1)+1=4p-1$$ moduli, and on the other hand $(2g+2)-3=[2(2p)+2]-3=4p-1$ parameters. Both counts are again in accordance.
Of course we could even dream that the pants dissection method (cf. Fig.\[Pants:fig\], right part) affords yet another full proof of Ahlfors circle maps, but this looks a bit tricky to implement. Perhaps even more ambitious one could hope that pants dissection affords a proof of the Forstnerič-Wold 2009 [@Forstneric-Wold_2009] desideratum that each finite bordered surface embeds holomorphically in ${\Bbb C}^2$. (Notice that this is much stronger (viz. complex analytic) than the conformal embedding in $E^4$ prompted by the Garsia-Rüedy-Ko theory as implemented in Ko 1999 and 2001 [@Ko_2001]. At least the latter shows that there is no conformal obstruction to the Gromov conjecture/question (1999 [@Gromov_1999]) that any Riemannian surface should isometrically embed in $E^4$.)
Coming back to our problem of calculating $\mu_3$ for membranes of type $(r,p)=(3,1)$ we severely lack any reliable technique of calculation.
Existence of Ahlfors maps via the Green’s function (and the allied Dirichlet principle) {#Green:sec}
=======================================================================================
All what follows is extremely classical, yet the writer confesses to have assimilated (the first steps of the argument) as late as the \[04.08.12\]! First it is well-known that the solubility of the Dirichlet problem (say on a bordered Riemann surface) is tantamount to the existence of the Green’s function $G(z,t)$ with pole at $t$, for each $t$. (Actually, we primarily need that the former implies the latter.) This “Dirichlet-to-Green” mechanism will be recalled below along with the definition and some geometric (biochemical) intuition about the Green’s function. The latter has also strong electrostatic or hydrodynamic connotations. The definition of the Green’s function is somewhat easier in the case of plane domains, and its extension to bordered surface—while still laying in the range of Dirichlet—implicates some conceptual difficulties.
The [*Green’s function*]{} $G(z,t)$ with pole at $t$ (a fixed interior point) is a completely canonical function characterized by the properties: it is harmonic off $t$, vanishes along the boundary and its germ near has the singular behavior prescribed by the function $\log\vert z-t\vert$ in any local uniformizer $z$. It will be verified that $G(z,t)$ is negative on the interior of the bordered surface (consequence of Gauss’ mean value property of harmonic function and the resulting maximum principle). Then we shall try to approach the existence of the Ahlfors function by duplicating the Green-type proof of the Riemann mapping theorem (simply-connected case), which just amount to write down the magic formula $f(z)=e^{G(z,t)+i G^{\ast}(z,t)}$, where $G^{\ast}$ is the conjugate potential. Note that $G(z,t)\le 0$ ensures $\vert f(z)
\vert=e^{G(z,t)}\le 1$ with equality precisely along the boundary. The main difficulty about extending this “Green-to-Riemann” trick to the multiply-connected setting is to arrange single-valuedness of the conjugate potential $G^{\ast}$. This amounts to kill all periods of the $1$-form $dG^{\ast}$ from which $G^{\ast}$ arises through line-integration. To achieve this one is invited to introduce enough free parameters in the problem by considering a superposition of various Green’s functions $\sum_i \lambda_i G(z,
t_i)$ for several poles $t_i$ sufficiently abundant so as to enable the killing of all periods (via linear algebra). Since a planar domain with $r$ contours has $r-1$ essential cycles (up to homology) and attaching $p$ handles creates 2 new essential cycles, we need annihilating $(r-1)+2p$ periods. Taking one more pole (raising the total number to $r+2p$) supplies enough parameters for linear algebra to ensure existence of a non-trivial solution in the kernel of the period mapping. This prompts (almost) the existence of an Ahlfors circle map of degree $r+2p$ (as predicted in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). Alas, a serious technical difficulty occurs, namely ensuring the positivity of all $\lambda_i$. Ignoring this issue, any $r+2p$ points (in the interior) could be the zeroes of a circle map. Presently, we lack a complete existence of an Ahlfors map through this procedure. Of course it would be even more challenging to arrive at Gabard’s bound (mapping degree $\le r+p$) through this classical strategy (à la Green, Riemann, Grunsky, Ahlfors, Kuramochi, etc.). In Riemann the trick of annihilating periods appears of course very explicitly in the following jargon: “[*so bestimmen da[ß]{} die Periodicitätsmoduln sämmtlich $0$ werden.*]{}” (cf. e.g. Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857 p.122]). The core of Heins’ argument 1950 [@Heins_1950] is also exactly in this spirit and Heins seems able to complete the program via consideration of convex geometry. Our intention is first to recall the basic procedure, and we hope to be able later to settle the positivity problem. A priori it is not evident that the latter condition is always achieved for an arbitrary selection of poles $t_i$ of Green’s functions (which will mutate into zeroes of the “Riemann-Ahlfors map” $f$ after exponentiation).
\[25.08.12\] [*Corrigendum.*]{}—The above linear superposition $\sum_i \lambda_i G(z,t_i)$ on Green’s functions is maybe somewhat too continuous in nature. This may be seen by exponentiating and looking at the local behavior of $f$. Near some $t_i$, $G(z,t)\sim \lambda_i G(z,
t_i) \sim \lambda_i \log \vert z \vert$ so that $\vert
f(z)\vert \sim \exp(\lambda_i \log\vert z\vert)=\vert z
\vert^{\lambda_i}$ so that $f$ has not the character of a holomorphic function when $\lambda_i$ is not integral.
Another way to argue in the same sense is suggested by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.126–7, §4.3]. Assume that $f(z)$ is a circle-map $f\colon F \to \overline \Delta$ with zeros at $t_1,\dots, t_d$ (counted with multiplicities), then upon post-composing with the function $\log\vert z \vert$ (harmonic off the origin) we get the function $\log \vert f (z) \vert$ harmonic on $F$ save at the $t_i$ where it has logarithmic poles. Therefore this function must coincide with superposition $G:=\sum_{i=1}^d G(z,t_i)$ of Green’s potentials. Indeed, the difference $\log \vert f (z) \vert-G$ is throughout $F$ harmonic (cancellation of singularities) and vanishes along the border $\partial F$, hence is identically zero. \[NB: the above remark is to be found in Ahlfors (), who (in our opinion) fails to insist on the assumption that $f$ is a circle-map (i.e. $\vert f
\vert =1$ along the border), which is crucial to ensure that $\log
\vert f (z) \vert$ vanishes along the border $\partial F$.\]
So given a circle-map $f$ with $d$ zeros $t_i$ we have the formula $$\log \vert f (z) \vert=\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^d G(z,t_i).$$ Conversely, given points $t_i$, we may consider the right-hand side of the previous equation $$\label{Green-super:eq}
G:=\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^d G(z,t_i)$$ and the following formula will define a circle-map $$f(z)=e^{G+iG^{\ast}}$$ provided $dG^{\ast}$ (the conjugate differential of $G$) has all its periods integral-multiples of $2\pi$. (It follows incidentally, that a circle-map is uniquely determined up to a rotation by the geographic location of its zeros. This can also be seen algebro-geometrically, by considering the Schottky double, where the divisor of zeros $D$ becomes linearly equivalent to its symmetric conjugate $D^{\sigma}$, spanning together a pencil $g^1_{d}$ defining a total morphism to ${\Bbb P}^1$ of degree $d$, cf. Lemme 5.2 in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
The desired integrality of periods resembles a [*Diophantine condition*]{} (at least is qualified as a such by Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947 p.1]), emphasizing from the outset the relative difficulty of the problem. All of our freedom relies on dragging the points $t_i$ through the surface $F$ hoping that for a lucky constellation the $1$-form $dG^{\ast}$ acquires simultaneous integrality of all its periods along $\gamma_1, \dots, \gamma_g$ the $g:=(r-1)+2p$ many essential $1$-cycles traced on $F$ (cf. Fig.\[Green:fig\]e).
As a personal trouble, $dG^{\ast}$ seems to have singularities where $G$ does, but maybe they disappear. Bypassing this point, Ahlfors’ Diophantine problem (1947) looks well-posed and one may hope a direct attack upon arranging integrality of all periods. (Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (p.127) first reformulates the condition in term of Schottky differentials and then switches quickly to the extremal problem, so does not seem to attack directly the Diophantine question. In fact, its elementary proof on p.124–126 follows a somewhat different route by constructing a half-space map involving avatars of Green’s function with poles situated along the boundary. We shall come back to this subsequently.)
[**Trying a direct attack.**]{} Assuming the problem well-posed, we can consider a period mapping $$\wp\colon R^d\longrightarrow {\Bbb R}^g \longrightarrow ({\Bbb
R} / 2\pi {\Bbb Z})^g=:T^g,$$ where $R={\rm int} (F)$ is the interior of the bordered surface $F$, and the first map takes the periods along the fixed basis of the first homology $\gamma_i$ of the $1$-form $dG^{\ast}$ corresponding to the points $(t_1, \dots, t_d)\in R^d$ via formula . The second map is just the natural quotient map.
Now one may hope to apply the usual surjectivity criterion for a continuous map to a closed manifold (here $R^d\to T^g$) saying that if the representation induced on the top-dimensional homology of the target-manifold is non-zero then the mapping is surjective. For definiteness we recall its statement and short proof.
Let $f\colon X \to T$ be a continuous map from a (topological) space $X$ to a (target) manifold $T$ of dimension $n$, say. It is assumed that $T$ is closed (i.e. compact borderless). It is also essential to assume that $T$ is a Hausdorff manifold. If the induced homomorphism $H_n(f)$ is non-zero, then $f$ is onto.
One considers the map induced on the homology $H_n$ of dimension $n$ equal to that of the manifold $T$. If $f$ fails to be surjective, it factors through the punctured manifold $X \to T-\{t\}$ for some point $t$. Now it is a simple fact that the top-dimensional homology of a (Hausdorff) manifold vanishes, so in particular $H_n(T-\{t\})$ is trivial. By functoriality it follows that $H_n(f)=0$, violating our assumption.
In particular $0=(0,\dots, 0)\in T^g$ would be the image of some $(t_1, \dots , t_d)\in R^d$ and the corresponding potential $G$ given by would have a conjugate differential $dG^{\ast}$ meeting the Diophantine requirement.
This strategy requires a good understanding of the mapping $\wp$ perhaps in the sense that when one pole $t_i$ is dragged along the cycle $\gamma_j$ then the image winds once around the corresponding factor of the torus $T^g$. Choosing $d=g$ and in the Künneth factor of $H_g(R^d)$ the element $\gamma_1 \otimes \dots
\otimes \gamma_g$ which has the correct weight $g$ so as to be an element of $H_g(R^g)$ whose image would be the fundamental class of the torus $T^g$. This would establish the surjectivity of $\wp$ for $d=g$. Alas, this is a bit too optimistic in the planar case ($p=0$). So our argument must be foiled at some place. The reasonable result to be expected is $d=g+1$ (like Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) and boosting the method upon choosing $\gamma_1 \otimes\dots \otimes \gamma_{r-1} \otimes (\alpha_1
\star \beta_1)\otimes \dots \otimes(\alpha_p \star \beta_p)$ where the $\alpha_i, \beta_i$ are the cycles winding around the handles (cf. Fig.\[Green:fig\]e) one may expect to achieve $d=r+p$ as predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
Digression on Dirichlet (optional)
----------------------------------
The Dirichlet solution may be interpreted as the permanent equilibrium state of temperature in a heat-flow conducting medium. Arguably (physico-chemical intuition?), this phenomenology is completely insensitive to the topology. Hence Dirichlet’s problem is always soluble whatever the topological complexity of the bordered manifold is. One only requires a Riemannian metric to give a good sense to the (Beltrami) Laplacian (or the allied mean value property). Hence any metric bordered smooth manifold, say compact to stay in the reasonable realm of finiteness is suitable to pose and solve the first boundary value problem. \[Remember maybe that there is vast jungle of non-metric manifolds, those of Cantor 1883 and Prüfer 1922 being the most prominent examples, but the latter do not enter the scene of function theory at least in complex dimension 1.\] What is the most general context where the Dirichlet problem is soluble? Our guess is for any compact bordered Riemannian manifold, eventually non-orientable. Hence Dirichlet makes sense also on non-orientable manifolds, but the case of immediate interest is that of compact bordered Riemann surfaces ([*ipso facto*]{} orientable). Solid existence proofs were primarily devised by H.A. Schwarz, alternating method (ca. 1870), etc. with many subsequent extensions, e.g. Nevanlinna 1939 [@Nevanlinna_1939], several works of Ahlfors, H. Weyl 1940 [@Weyl_1940] (method of orthogonal projection), not to mention Neumann, Poincaré, Korn-Lichtenstein, etc., cf. e.g. Neumann 1900 [@Neumann_1900]). Another source is Hilbert-Courant’s book cited e.g. for this purposes in Royden’s Thesis 1950/52 [@Royden_1952]. \[For those inclined toward modern expressionism, there is surely a concept of “Dirichlet space” (Brelot, Beurling, Deny, etc.) which should englobe any bordered Riemannian manifold and much more.\] In the appropriate Hilbert space, minimizing the Dirichlet integral amounts to minimize the length of a vector lying on a certain hypersurface $M$ corresponding to the boundary data $f\colon\partial F\to {\Bbb R}$. A priori this hypersurface could spiral around the origin impeding existence of a minimum or be bumpy enough as to violate uniqueness. But one rather imagine it to be a linear manifold implying a unique minimum of the distance function (norm). Of course the hypersurface in question (corresponding to a certain boundary prescription) is readily shown to have linear character, as subtracting any member of it, its translate through the origin identifies with the set of functions vanishing along the boundary. The latter is vectorial, being the kernel of a linear mapping (restriction to the boundary). Dirichlet principle looks thus immediately imputable to an Euclid-Hilbertian conception of space, yet with difficulty concentrating on the existence question of a member (=point) in this hypersurface $M$ (i.e., of a function matching the boundary prescription having with finite Dirichlet integral). As we know Hilbert’s solution primarily involved the compactness paradigm, formalized as a such some few years later by Fréchet. The naive minimization procedure is not fairly evident, and indeed plagued by the counterexample of Hadamard 1906 [@Hadamard_1906], and the earlier one of Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871]. Prym (1871 ) describes a continuous function on the boundary of the unit disc such that the Dirichlet integral for the associated harmonic extension of the boundary function is infinite. \[The latter harmonic extension is known to exist independently of the Dirichlet principle, e.g. on the ground of Poisson’s formula which solves Dirichlet in the disc-case.\] Later Hadamard (1906 ) gave a similar example where any (continuous) function matching the boundary data has infinite Dirichlet integral. (Perhaps, any Prym data is also explosive in the sense of Hadamard?) The moral is quite subtle to grasp: roughly the Dirichlet principle fails but not the Dirichlet problem which is always uniquely soluble! Hilbert’s solution (ca. 1900 [@Hilbert_1900], [@Hilbert_1901/04]) under special hypotheses (involving only the space and not the boundary data?!) is certainly sufficient for the purpose at hand. Hilbert’s hypothesis where weakened in subsequent works by B. Levi 1906 [@Beppo-Levi_1906], Fubini 1907 [@Fubini_1907], Lebesgue 1907 [@Lebesgue_1907], compare also the historiography in Zaremba 1910 [@Zaremba_1910]). For practical purposes (e.g. for the construction of the Green’s function) one can probably restrict attention to reasonable boundary data, as those arising via geometric construction (e.g., the logarithmic charge allied to the construction of the Green’s function of a plane smoothly bounded domain). Possibly, for tame boundary data the original Dirichlet principle remains an efficient tool for a direct variational treatment of the boundary value problem.
Alternatively, of Dirichlet-Riemann-Hilbert one may use the classical but cumbersome alternating method of Schwarz (or Neumann’s variant) to solve the Dirichlet problem. To summarize we need the result:
[(Dirichlet, Riemann, Schwarz 1870, Hilbert 1900, etc.)]{} Given a compact bordered Riemann surface $F$, and a continuous boundary function $f\colon
\partial F \to {\Bbb R}$. There is a unique harmonic function $u\colon F \to {\Bbb R}$ extending $f$.
First (rigourously) obtained in Schwarz 1870 [@Schwarz_1870-alternirendes-Verfahren] via the alternating method. Variation of this technique Picard’s method of successive approximation (cf. Picard, Zaremba, Korn, Lichtenstein). Another variant of proof is Hilbert’s resurrection of the Dirichlet principle (direct variational method). Reference in book form cf. Hilbert-Courant. Another more modern trend is to use Perron’s method which affords great simplification. Compare for instance Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960 p.138–141, esp. 11G] for an execution of Perron’s method (joint with Harnack’s principle) in the context of abstract Riemann surfaces.
From Green to Riemann {#sec:From-Green-to-Riemann}
---------------------
In term of the Green function for a simply-connected domain one may write down the Riemann map as $$f(z)=e^{G+iG^{\ast}}\,,$$ where $G^{\ast}$ is the conjugate potential (satisfying the Cauchy-Riemann equations). \[This is basically the second proof given by Riemann in 1857 [@Riemann_1857-DP], and see also e.g. Picard 1915 [@Picard_1915].\] That $f$ is a circle map follows from $G\le 0$ with vanishing precisely on the boundary, and the fact that $G^{\ast}$ is single-valued since the domain is simply-connected. Details are supplied during the next Steps, where we examine the more delicate multiply-connected domains or even general compact bordered Riemann surfaces.
The conjugate $G^{\ast}$ potential is defined by the desideratum that $G+iG^{\ast}$ is holomorphic, i.e. ${\Bbb C}$-linearizable in the small. This gives the Cauchy-Riemann equations $$\frac{\partial G}{ \partial x}=\frac{\partial G^{\ast}}{
\partial y}, \qquad
\frac{\partial G^{\ast}}{ \partial x}=-\frac{\partial G}{
\partial y}.$$ Writing formally $G^\ast$ as the integral of its differential, gives $$\begin{aligned}
G^{\ast}= \int dG^{\ast}=\int (\frac{\partial G^{\ast}}{
\partial x} dx+\frac{\partial G^{\ast}}{ \partial y}dy)
=\int (-\frac{\partial G}{
\partial y} dx+\frac{\partial G}{ \partial x}dy),\end{aligned}$$ whose integrand (a $1$-form) coincides actually with the $dG$ twisted by multiplication by $i$ on the tangent bundle. Therefore $dG^{\ast}$ is a genuine $1$-form canonically attached to the function $G$. ([*Warning*]{}.—The symbol $G^\ast$ (taken alone) as no intrinsic meaning at least as a single-valued function unless $dG^{\ast}$ is period free.)
The Green’s function
--------------------
But what is the Green’s function at all about? It is a sort of logarithmic potential attached to an electric charge placed at $t$. It is easier to define in the case of a plane domain bounded by smooth curves. The case of ultimate interest (compact bordered Riemann surfaces) will be discussed later. Given a domain $B\subset {\Bbb C}$ (smoothly bounded) marked at an (interior) point $t$ one considers the function $\log \vert z-t\vert$ which induces (by restriction) a charge (temperature) on the boundary $\partial B=C$ and one solves the Dirichlet(=first boundary-value) problem for this data. It results an (everywhere regular) harmonic function $u=u(z,t)$, which subtracted from the original logarithmic potential gives the (so-called) [*Green’s function with pole at $t$*]{} $$( \log\vert z-t \vert )- u(z)=:G(z,t). \label{Green:eq}$$ By construction, it vanishes along the contour $\partial B$ and possesses a logarithmic singularity near the point $t$. This is a canonical function attached to the sole data of $B$ and a certain interior point $t$. Note that $G(z,t)$ tends to $-\infty$ as $z$ approaches $t$, so one may think of the Green’s function as a black hole centered at $t$ with a vertiginous sink plunging into deep darkness.
One can interpret this Green’s function as some electric potential (Galvanic current) on a conducting plate. If one prefers a biological metaphor one can visualize $G(z,t)$ as the proliferation of bacteroides originating from $t$ while expanding through the medium $B$ driven by an apparent global knowledge of the shape of the universe. To be more concrete, the expansion is more rapid where more free resources are available. In particular all bacteria reach synchronously the boundary having consumed all resources of the nutritive substratum in what looks to be the most equitable way. Compare the pictures in the simply-connected case (Fig.\[Green:fig\]a) and then for a multi-connected region (Fig.\[Green:fig\]b). Trying to imagine the same proliferation occurring on a bordered surface realized say in Euclidean $3$-space we get something like Fig.\[Green:fig\]d.
0 -5pt0
Now it is clear that the above formula $f(z)=f(z,t)=e^{G(z,t)+iG^{\ast}(z,t)}$ supplies the Riemann map with $f(t)=0$ and $f(z)\in S^1$ (unit circle) whenever $z$ lies on the boundary, where $G$ vanishes. Of course the map is only defined up to rotation, coming from an arbitrary additive constant in $G^{\ast}$. \[Compare for instance Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857-DP], Picard 1915 [@Picard_1915], etc.\]
If one tries to adapt this proof to multi-connected domains one meets the notorious difficulty that the conjugate potential $G^{\ast}$ is not single-valued, a priori. So the efforts focus on eliminating the periods of its differential $dG^{\ast}$ by choosing appropriately some accessory parameters. \[This universally known device goes back at least to Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857 p.122] Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877], see also Picard 1913 [@Picard_1913], Koebe 1922, Julia 1932 [@Julia_1932], Grunsky 1937 [@Grunsky_1937], etc.\]
Using this idea we may concoct a circle map $B\to
\overline{\Delta}$. \[cf. Grunsky 1937 [@Grunsky_1937] or Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978] and also Ahlfors\]. The natural trick is probably to take several poles $t_i$ (say $d$ many). Those will ultimately become the zeroes of the circle map we are looking for as $e^{-\infty}=0$. One now form the combination of the corresponding Green’s functions $$G(z):=\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^d \lambda_i G(z,t_i) \quad
(\lambda_i\in {\Bbb R}).$$ This gives a (finite) constellation of black holes scattered through the domain $B$ and we shall try to choose the constants $\lambda_i$ so that $dG^\ast$ has no period. Since the combination $G$ vanishes on the contour $\partial B$ (being a superposition of Green’s functions) the allied function $f(z)=f(z;
t_i, \lambda_i):=e^{G(z)+iG^{\ast}(z)}$ will map $\partial B$ onto $S^1$. To arrange it as a circle map $f\colon B \to
\overline{\Delta} $ requires the basic remarks of the next section, plus the more delicate issue of being able to choose positive $\lambda_i>0$.
Quasi-negativity of Green
-------------------------
The following property of the Green’s function is basic, yet important.
Each Green function $G_t(z):=G(z,t)$ is quasi-negative (i.e. $\le 0$ throughout the domain and strictly $<0$ in its interior).
From its definition it is clear that $G_t(z)\to -\infty$ as $t$ approaches the pole $t$. Thus choosing a very large negative (real) constant $C<0$ the corresponding level line $L_C$ of Green $G_t^{-1}(C)$ will be a nearly circular (Jordan) curve enclosing the pole $t$ in its interior. Further it looks evident that for $C<0$ large enough (in absolute value) this Jordan curve bounds a (topological) disc in the domain. (One could uses the general Schoenflies theorem requiring just to check that $L_C$ is null-homotopic in the domain $D$.) Next it is intuitive (but need to be arithmetized) that within this sufficiently small disc-shaped domain (i.e. the inside of $L_C$ for $C<0$ sufficiently large) the Green function $G_t$ is negative (indeed $\le C$).
Cutting away from the domain $D$ the interior of $L_C$ we obtain an excised domain $D^{\ast}$ with one more contour. On this new domain, the Green’s function $G_t$ solves Dirichlet (first boundary-value) problem for the data $0$ on all contours but $C<0$ on the newly created contour $L_C$. We now conclude via the next lemma.
\[Depressive:lem\] [(Depressiveness of Dirichlet, or rather the allied harmonic functions)]{} Let $F$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface. If the (continuous) boundary data function $f\colon \partial F \to {\Bbb R}_{\le 0}$ is non-positive, then so is its Dirichlet solution $u:=u(f)$, i.e. $u\le 0$ throughout $F$.
If not then $u(z_0)>0$ (positive) at some interior point $z_0$ of the surface $F$. By compactness $u$ achieves its maximum, which is positive. Since $f\le 0$ the latter would not be achieved on the boundary violating the maximum principle (compare the next lemma).
[(Maximum principle)]{} Any harmonic function $u$ on a compact bordered surface $F$ achieves its maximum on the boundary $\partial F$. In fact, if the maximum is achieved at some interior point then the function $u$ is constant.
Assume $z_0$ to be an interior point realizing the maximum $M$ of the harmonic function $u$ defined on $F$. We trace a little (metric) circle about $z_0$ of sufficiently small radius as to lye entirely inside $F$ (together with its interior disc $D$). Harmonicity may be characterized via the [*mean-value property*]{} (Gauss, it seems): $$\int \int_D u(z) d\omega = area(D) \cdot u(z_0).
\label{mean-value-prop:eq}$$ As $u(z)\le M$, we get $M\cdot area (D)\ge \int \int_D u(z)
d\omega = area(D) \cdot u(z_0)$. Since $M= u(z_0)$, both extreme members coincide and so does the last inequality. This forces constancy on the little disc $D$ ($u$ being continuous).
It follows by ‘propagation’ that $u$ is globally constant. (Alternatively use general topology: the set of points where $u$ achieves its maximum is both nonempty (compactness), closed and open.) Indeed choosing a path from $z_0$ to any point $z\in F$ covered by a chain of little discs $D_1, \dots, D_k$, each $D_i$ centered on the border of the previous one $D_{i-1}$, one argues that two successive discs have enough overlap to ensure constancy over the next disc.
[ \[11.08.12\] [There is a Garabedian paper 1951 (A PDE..., p.486) were it is asserted that the Green’s function of a convex clamped plate need not be of one sign; but of course this is not relevant to our matter were we use the usual the Laplacian $\Delta$ and not the bi-Laplacian $\Delta^2$ corresponding to clamped plated, instead of vibrating membranes. This is the seminal work of Garabedian (but others were also involved) were the famous Hadamard conjecture on the bi-Laplacian was disproved.]{} ]{}
Killing the periods
-------------------
The previous section ensures that any superposition of Green’s functions $G:=\sum_i \lambda_i G(z,t_i)$ will be likewise quasi-negative provided all $\lambda_i$ are positive. In this circumstance the function $f=e^{G+iG^{\ast}}=e^G \cdot e^{i
G^{\ast}}$ (whose modulus is $e^G$) is a unit-circle map ($\vert f
\vert \le 1$), because the real exponential takes nonpositive values $(-\infty, 0]$ to $(0,1]$. It is consistent by continuity to send the $t_i$ on $0$.
If $r$ is the connectivity of the domain $B$ (number of its contours) then there are homologically $r-1$ non-trivial loops $\gamma_1, \dots \gamma_{r-1}$ running around the $r-1$ holes in our domain (cf. Fig.\[Green:fig\]c illustrating the case $r=3$). We consider the linear period mapping $$\begin{aligned}
\label{period-mapping:eq}
{\Bbb R}^{d} &\longrightarrow {\Bbb R}^{r-1} \cr
(\lambda_1, \dots \lambda_d) &\mapsto
(\textstyle\int_{\gamma_1} dG^{\ast}, \dots,
\int_{\gamma_{r-1}} dG^{\ast})\end{aligned}$$ By linear algebra if $d$ is large enough (precisely already for $d=r$) we have enough free constants so as to find non-trivial $\lambda_i$ extincting all periods. \[Heuristically the electric poles of the multi-battery in the electrolytic tank (nomenclature as in e.g. Courant 1950/52 (Conformal book)) are affected by suitable charges so as to generate an “ideal” potential with single-valued conjugate.\] Exponentiating gives $f=e^{G+iG^{\ast}}$ a circle map with $d=r$ zeroes, provided one is able to ensure all $\lambda_i
>0$.
Without taking care of this last proviso, one may reach too hastily the impression that we have complete freedom in prescribing the location of the $d=r$ poles (of the Green’s functions, which convert ultimately to zeroes of the related circle map). The linear-algebra argument gives only a real-line inside the kernel of the (linear) period-mapping , but a priori this line could miss the “octant” ${\Bbb
R}_{>0}^{d}$ consisting of totally positive coordinates. In fact upon letting vanish some of the $\lambda_i$ what is only required is a non-trivial penetration of this line $\ell$ into the closed octant $\overline{O}={\Bbb R}_{\ge 0}^{d}$, i.e. the intersection $\ell \cap \overline{O}$ should not reduce to the origin. A true penetration of this line in the interior of $O$, or a degenerate one where the line meet along one of its face would be enough to complete the existence-proof. The latter case amounts to extinct some Green’s “batteries” by assigning a vanishing coefficient $\lambda_i=0$. The net effect would be degree lowering of the circle map $f$. Beware, that for planar domains (which correspond to Harnack-maximal Schottky doubles) no such lowering of the degree is possible for simple topological reasons ($r\le \gamma$). However the described theoretical eventuality may well happen in the non-planar case to be soon discussed. Understanding how and why to arrange degenerate penetrations could well offer a strategy toward improving Ahlfors $r+2p$ bound.
Extra difficulties in the surface case
--------------------------------------
It is obvious that the above method via Green’s functions adapts to bordered Riemann surface $F=F_{r,p}$ of (positive) genus $p$ with $r$ contours (Rand). Remember however that at this stage we did not offered a complete treatment of the planar case ($p=0$).
First note a conceptual difficulty regarding Green’s function, which, in the plane case of a domain $B\subset {\Bbb C}$, is constructed via $\log\vert z-t \vert$ appealing to a global coordinate system. In the abstract bordered setting, there is no such ambient medium. One could try to work with a (conformal) Riemann metric and the allied logarithmic distribution $ \log \varrho (z,t), $ where $\varrho$ is the intrinsic distance (defined as usual as the infimum of lengths of rectifiable pathes joining two given points). Note however that this construction specialized to the domain case does not duplicate the former, since the intrinsic distance $\varrho(z,t)$ does not coincide with the extrinsic one $\vert z-t\vert$, unless the domain $B\subset {\Bbb C}$ is starlike about $t$.
Bypassing this difficulty \[which will be resolved later\], we first note that each handle creates two $1$-cycles yielding a total of $(r-1)+2p$ many essential loops (compare Fig.\[Green:fig\]e). Thus introducing $d:=r+2p$ poles $t_i$ we dispose of enough free parameters to arrange (via linear algebra) the vanishing of all periods of the conjugate differential $dG^{\ast}$ of the potential $G=\sum_{i=1}^{d}\lambda_i G_{t_i}$. This explains quite clearly why Ahlfors discovered (about 1948) the upper-bound $r+2p$ for the degree of a circle map. Of course there is still the subtlety of explaining why it is possible to choose all $\lambda_i>0$ at least for a clever choice of the poles $t_i$.
All this is probably when suitably interpreted the quintessence of the Ahlfors mapping (of degree $r+2p$). Again the writer does not mask his happiness after having understood this point (as late as the 04.08.12). Now it is evident to reconstruct (even if somewhat fictionally) what must have happened in Ahlfors’ brain (at least as early as 1948, and presumably much earlier, yet no record in print). With this piece of information and, on the other hand, being well-aware of the modern purely function-theoretic proofs of RMT (à la Koebe-Carathéodory, Fejér-Riesz 1922 (published by Radó 1923), Carathéodory 1928 and Ostrowski 1929) it must have seemed highly desirable (or trendy) to reinterpret the above (somewhat heuristic but fruitful potential theory) in terms of a function-theoretic extremal problem. This leads e.g. to the problem we discussed at length of maximizing either the modulus of the derivative at some inner point $t=a$, or to maximize the distance of two points $a,b$ where the first maps to $0$ and the second is repulsed at maximum distance from the origin. In both case the competing functions are analytic and bounded-by-one in modulus $\vert f \vert \le 1$. So we get the Ahlfors function $f_a$ or $f_{a,b}$. It seems obvious that all those Ahlfors functions are included in the above trick à la Green-Riemann (GR), and thus subsumed to an electrolytic interpretation. Yet the exact dependance and location of the corresponding logarithmic poles of Green’s $G$ (becoming the zero of Riemann’s $f$, after exponentiation) must be a transcendentally sublime business. Also the corresponding degree of the Ahlfors function is another mystery.
It is conceivable that less than the $r+2p$ generically required poles suffices in case the linear period mapping ${\Bbb R}^d \to
{\Bbb R}^{(r-1)+2p}$ along fundamental loops has a degenerate image permitting to economize some poles $t_i$. The task is reduced to find the lowest $d$ such that the kernel of the period map is non-trivial and contains a non-zero element all of whose coordinates are $\ge 0$. Remember, that Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] showed—using another method, based on a topological argument of irrigation (Riemann-Betti-Jordan-Poincaré’s homologies, and Brouwer’s degree plus some basic Pontrjagin theory in the Jacobian torus as a very special commutative Lie group—that there is a circle map of degree $\le r+p$ (i.e. with one unit economized for each handle). Assuming that any circle map is allied to a Green-Riemann map there would be a fewer number namely $d\le r+p$ of batteries required to generate this mapping. Of course, the first part of the assertion looks evident: given a degree $d$ circle map $f$ with zeroes at $t_i$, then $\log \vert f(z) \vert$ coincides with $\sum_{i=1}^d G(z,t_i)$. This is Ahlfors formula following from the fact that both functions vanishes on the border and have the same singularities.
[*Philosophy.*]{} \[08.08.12\] Modulo elusive details, it is fair to resume the situation by saying that the Ahlfors circle maps (if not all existence theorems of function theory) derives form the Dirichlet principle (or the allied Green’s functions). \[This was of course best incarnated by Riemann, 1851 and 1857, where in bonus the whole algebraic geometry of curves was subsumed to this principle!\] Conversely one could hope that the Ahlfors function could be used to lift the Dirichlet solubility on the disc (via Poisson integral formula) to an arbitrary bordered surface. However it seems obvious that there is no way to descend the boundary function to the disc since the Ahlfors branched covering is multi-valent. We arrive at the conclusion that the true mushroom is the Dirichlet principle, while Ahlfors function being just one tentacle of the mushroom. Of course, the only paradigm susceptible of competing with Dirichlet are the function-theoretic extremal problems à la Koebe-Carathéodory-Fejér-Riesz-Bieberbach-Ostrowski, etc. For plane domains the Kreisnormierung (instead of the Ahlfors map) may be used as normal domains where the Dirichlet problem is easier to solve. This is akin to Poisson’s formula for the round disc case of Dirichlet, and quite implicit in Riemann’s Nachlass 1857 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass] (cf. also Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]). A similar reduction of Dirichlet for bordered surfaces occurs is also likely on the ground of Klein’s Rückkehrschnitttheorem (cf. Section \[sec:Ruckkehrschnittthm\]), supposed to be an extension of the Kreisnormierung.
Regarding the detailed execution of the removal of the period as to construct an Ahlfors-type mapping one should compare also the paper of Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], Kuramochi 1952 [@Kuramochi_1952] and (albeit confined to planar domains) the paper by D. Khavinson 1984 [@Khavinson-Dimitri_1984], whose argument is considered by its author akin to the arguments of Grunsky.
The Green’s function of a compact bordered Riemann surface=CBRS
---------------------------------------------------------------
\[14.08.12\] This section examines the issue that the Green’s function $G(z,t)$ with pole at $t$ is a canonically defined function in the generality of a CBRS. This is super-classical, cf. e.g., the treatises Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960] or Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954]. It is to be expected to find older treatments by Riemann, Schwarz, Klein, Koebe, etc. Several accounts by Nevanlinna proceed via Schwarz’s alternating method, a viewpoint which looked most convenient to adhere with.
As already noticed, the case of a plane domain $B\subset {\Bbb C}$ (bounded by smooth curves) it is easy to define Green’s function $G(z,t)$ via the (logarithmic) potential $\log \vert z-t \vert$ from which we subtract the Dirichlet solution matching the logarithmic potential restricted to the boundary $\partial B$. Alas, for a CBRS $F$ one lacks an ambient space like ${\Bbb C}$ permitting an analogous construction.
Of course, $\log \vert z-t \vert$ bears some significance only locally within a uniformizer chart about $t$. Taking another local chart, one may argue that in the small the expression will mutate into $\log \vert \alpha (z-t) \vert$ for some $\alpha\in{\Bbb
C}^{\ast}$ incarnating the derivative of the transition between the two charts. Thus the log-potential w.r.t. the new chart is $\log\vert \alpha \vert + \log \vert z-t \vert$, hence equal to the old one modulo an additive constant. Presumably some philosophical argument can corroborate the vague feeling that the asymptotic of the logarithmic pole is unaffected by such additive constant. \[Added in proof: compare Pfluger 1957 [@Pfluger_1957 p.110, 28.3] for an accurate formulation, or Farkas-Kra 1980/1992 [@Farkas-Kra_1980/1992 p.182, Remark].\] It seems then meaningful to set:
The Green’s function of a CBRS $F$ with pole at $t$ (an interior point of $F$) is the unique harmonic function on $F$ save $t$ with singularity $\log\vert z-t \vert$ near $t$ which vanishes continuously on the boundary $\partial F$.
Compare (modulo a different sign convention) Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960 p.158, 4B]. Uniqueness is considered as evident there. Indeed, a chart change affect the logarithmic potential by an additive constant and harmonic functions are quite rigid (being determined by their values on any open disc). Hence knowledge of the function on any punctured chart about $t$ via $\log \vert z-t \vert$ determines it uniquely. The delicate point is existence. Choose around $t$ a nice analytic Jordan curve $J$ and via RMT construct a holomorphic chart taking $D$ (the “sealed” interior of $J$, i.e. $J$ included) to the unit disc $\overline{\Delta}$. Consider $\log\vert z\vert$ in the unit circle and transplant to $D\subset
F$ and then after adding an additive constant we try to solve a Dirichlet-Neumann problem on $F-D$ piecing together smoothly the logarithmic piece with the Dirichlet-Neumann solution. In this procedure the Green’s function looks highly non-unique depending on the “ovaloidness” of the Jordan curve $J$ chosen. In fact $J$ cannot be chosen at will but must somehow be a level-line of Green (still undefined). Infinitesimally $J$ should be a perfect circle, and this is perhaps the key to put the naive pasting argument on a sound basis via a convergence procedure. (Infinitesimal circles are well-defined on Riemann surfaces via the conformal structure.) Existence and uniqueness look then plausible, but involve a considerable sophistication over the plane-case where the Green’s function reduced straightforwardly to the Dirichlet problem.
Let us paraphrase the above more formally. Take any chart $\varphi\colon U \to \Delta$ about the “pole” point $t$ (sending $t$ to the origin $0\in {\Bbb C}$), write down $\log\vert z\vert$ in that chart and shrink gradually attention to the (round) disc $\Delta_{\varepsilon}$ of radius $\varepsilon$. Let $D_{\varepsilon}$ be $\varphi^{-1}(\Delta_{\varepsilon})$. For each (positive) value of $\varepsilon$ one can solve the Dirichlet problem in $F-{\rm int} D_{\varepsilon}$ with boundary value $0$ on $\partial F$ and $\log \varepsilon$ on $\partial
D_{\varepsilon}$. Denote by $u_\varepsilon $ the corresponding solution. By construction $u_\varepsilon$ pasts continuously with the $\varphi$-pullback of the log-potential (i.e. $(\log \vert
z\vert) \circ \varphi$). Of course this glued function is a Frankenstein creature lacking a smooth juncture. For instance, if $\varepsilon=1$ then $u_{\varepsilon}$ is identically zero, whereas in $D_1$ we have the logarithmic “trumpet” with derivative $1$ along the normal direction. However as $\varepsilon$ decreases from $1$ to $0$, $u_\varepsilon$ becomes $\le 0$ (having prescribed the negative value $\log \varepsilon$ on $\partial D_{\varepsilon}$) and the dependence of $u_{\varepsilon}$ is perhaps monotonic. So it seems arguable (Harnack?) that while $\varepsilon \to 0$ (say via dyadic numbers $\varepsilon_n=1/2^n$) the $u_n$ converges to a harmonic function on $F-t$ which is the desired Green’s function $G(z,t)$. It seems evident (since $\partial D_n$ becomes more and more circular in $F$ as $n$ grows to infinity) that the limit is harmonic and independent of the gadgets used along the way (chart $\varphi$, dyadic sequence $\varepsilon$).
This vaguely explains existence and uniqueness can maybe be derived by a similar trick (combined with a “leapfrog” argument). Try to locate a reference along this naive line: maybe Schwarz?, Klein? Koebe? Weyl? Pfluger? and otherwise try Ahlfors-Sario [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960], Sario-Oikawa [@Sario-Oikawa_1969]. (Sometimes Sario’s formalism of the normal/principal operator is a bit awkward to digest.) For treatments of the Green’s function on a CBRS cf. Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954 p.33, and 93–94]. See also Sario-Oikawa 1969 [@Sario-Oikawa_1969 p.49–50]. We summarize the discussion by the
Given a CBRS $F$ and an interior point $t$, there is a uniquely defined Green’s function $G(z,t)$ with pole $t$ which is characterized by the following conditions: it is harmonic on $F-t$, vanishes (continuously) on the boundary $\partial F$ and it has the prescribed singularity $\log \vert z-t \vert$ near $t$.
For complete details, compare several sources:
$\bullet$ first Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960 p.158] and Sario-Oikawa 1969 [@Sario-Oikawa_1969 p.50] (both via Perron’s method, and Sario’s formalism of the normal operator).
$\bullet$ Then also Pfluger 1957 [@Pfluger_1957 p.110, end of §28.2, as well as p.110, §28.3 and last 3 lines of p.111]
$\bullet$ Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954 §4.2, p.93–94]
$\bullet$ Nevanlinna 1953 [@Nevanlinna_1953-Uniformisierung] via Schwarz’s alternating method (SAM). We detail this argument in the next section.
Schwarz’s alternating method to construct the Green’s function of a compact bordered surface (Nevanlinna’s account)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[15.08.12\] As promised, in this section we attempt to understand Nevanlinna’s exposition of the existence of Green’s functions on compact bordered surfaces. All pagination given refers to Nevanlinna 1953 [@Nevanlinna_1953-Uniformisierung], the book “Uniformisierung”. Nevanlinna follows Schwarz’s alternating method (SAM) quite closely. The argument is a bit tedious but quite elementary. It uses merely the following facts on a bordered surface $F$:
\(1) if $f\le g$ on $\partial F$ then the associated Dirichlet solution $u(f)\le u(g)$ (compare Lemma \[Depressive:lem\]).
\(2) maybe Harnack’s theorem is required?
In Nevanlinna’s book the relevant information is scattered at two places (at least) so we attempted to compactify the presentation for our own understanding.
First Nevanlinna introduces a concept of “Kreisbereich”. Alas the jargon is not very fortunate being already consecrated by Koebe in a different context, so let us speak rather of a “celluloid” (or a “Kreisgebilde”). This is \[cf.p.142\] a connected finite union of (closed) discs in a Riemann surface (whose images by a (parametric) chart are round discs in ${\Bbb C}$). On each such disc the first boundary value problem (abridged DP=Dirichlet problem) is soluble via Poisson’s formula. Assuming the contours of each pair of discs to have finite intersection, SAM enables one to solve DP on the union, hence on any celluloid.
So for instance it is clear that any CBRS is a celluloid. (A formal proof certainly requires Radó’s triangulation theorem 1925 [@Rado_1925].) To absorb the boundary in one stroke one could add annular regions where the DP is also soluble by an explicit recipe, sometimes ascribed to Villat 1912 [@Villat_1912].
The Green’s function will be obtained by specializing the following technical lemma \[cf.p.148\] \[due to Schwarz and probably related to what Koebe’s calls the “gürtelförmige Verschmelzung”($\approx$belt-shaped fusion)\]. Intuitively, the lemma amounts to construct a harmonic function $u$ with prescribed boundary values and with prescribed singularity $u_0$ near a point $t$, or rather on a ring enclosing the pole $t$. (At first, it is not perfectly transparent how to deduce the Green’s function from the lemma, but we shall try elucidate this issue later.)
Let $F$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface and $t\in {\rm int} F$ an interior point. Let $U$ be a neighborhood of $t$ mapped to the unit-disc $\Delta=\{ \vert z
\vert <1\}$ via a chart. In $U$, let $K$ be the ring corresponding to $r_1\le \vert z \vert \le r<1$. [\[It seems that $r_1=0$ is permissible and needed for the application to the Green’s function.\]]{} Let further $X$ be a celluloid containing the external contour of the ring $K$ $(\vert z \vert=r)$ in its interior, as well as the boundary $\partial F$ but missing the small disc in $U$ corresponding to $\vert z\vert \le r_1$. Set finally $A:=X
\cup K$ [(compare Fig.\[Nevanl:fig\]]{}).
Then given $u_0 \in H (K)$ (harmonic on the ring $K$) and $f\colon \partial F \to {\Bbb R}$ continuous, there is a unique $u \in H(A)$ such that $u_{\vert \partial F}= f$ and with $u-u_0$ extending harmonically to $B$, the disc corresponding to $\vert z\vert\le r$.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Before detailing the proof, let us see how this helps defining $G(z,t)$ the Green’s function. \[The difficulty is just so trivial to be not completely explicit in Nevanlinna \[p.198–199, §2, Art.6.4\].\] First we impose $f\equiv 0$. Then we choose the singularity function $u_0=\log\vert z\vert$ which has to be defined on $K$, hence we shrink $r_1$ to $0$ via a sequence of dyadic radii $r_n=1/2^n$. On applying the lemma we get a sequence of solution $u=u_n$ defined on $A_n$ a sequence of expanding subsurfaces (the outsides of the shrinking discs $\vert z\vert<
1/2^n$). Now observe that $u_n$ for a large $n$ solves the problem of the lemma for all smaller values of $n$: just take the restriction (and use uniqueness). Consequently all the $u_n$ form a telescopic system of functions (each restricting to all its predecessors) defined on larger and larger compact subregions $A_n$ ultimately expanding to the punctured surface $F-t$. The very constant (indeed completely monotone) limit of those $u_n$ gives the desired Green’s function $G(z,t)$.
It is harmonic on $F$ save $t$, vanishes on the boundary and $G(z,t)-\log\vert z \vert$ extends harmonically through $t$ (on a little neighborhood). It remains to check that those 3 properties defines $G(z,t)$ unambiguously. This is again the same sort of argument. Assume there were two Green’s solutions $G_1,G_2$, then $G_i-u_0=:h_i$ harmonic on some neighborhoods $V_i$ of $t$. So $G_1-G_2=(h_1+u_0)-(h_2+u_0)=h_1-h_2$ which is harmonic on the intersection $V_1 \cap V_2$. Hence the difference $G_1-G_2$ is harmonic throughout $F$, but with vanishing boundary value on $\partial F$. Consequently it must be identically zero (by the uniqueness part of Dirichlet) which follows from the maximum principle.
This is a matter of implementing Schwarz’s alternating method \[see p.148–150\] and we follow exactly Nevanlinna’s text (annotating our copy by the symbol $\bigstar$ to indicate the sole cosmetic difference).
$\bullet$ [*Uniqueness*]{} Assuming the existence of two functions $u_1, u_2$ solving the problem, their difference $u_1-u_2$ will be harmonic on $A$, and 0 on $\gamma:=\partial F$. But each difference $u_i-u_0=:h_i\in H(B)$ extends harmonically across $B$ ($i=1,2$). Hence on $B$, $u_1-u_2=(h_1+u_0)-(h_2+u_0)=h_1-h_2 \in
H(B)$, and therefore $u_1-u_2 \in H(A\cup B)$, and $A\cup B$ is all of $F$. It follows (Dirichlet’s uniqueness) that $u_1-u_2$ vanishes identically.
$\bullet$ [*Optional remark.*]{} It is clear that the case $f\equiv 0$ is typical, since the general case just requires adding the Dirichlet solution for the data $f$. \[This explains why I had the impression to find many misprints!\]
$\bullet$ [*Existence (after Schwarz)*]{} First it is observed that DP is solvable on both $A$ and $B$ ($B$ is just a ball and $A$ is a celluloid, yet of the general type involving a ring). Of course $A$ is also a compact bordered surface and therefore one is ensured of Dirichlet solvability, thereby bypassing the concept of a celluloid, and accordingly one can shorten slightly the statement of Nevanlinna’s lemma, with the direct bonus that one can make abstraction of all the little discs drawn on the picture. \[CAUTION: here it is perhaps NOT permissible to take $r_1=0$\]
We denote by $\alpha$ and $\beta$ the internal resp. external contour of $K$, and let $\gamma:=\partial F$. Set first $v_0\equiv 0$. We define inductively sequences $u_n\in H(A)$ and $v_n\in H(B)$ by their boundary values ($n\ge 1$) $$\label{SAM:eq}
u_n=\begin{cases} v_{n-1}+u_0 \quad &\textrm{on } \alpha, \cr
0 [\bigstar or f] \quad &\textrm{on } \gamma,
\end{cases}$$ and $$v_n=u_n-u_0 \quad \textrm{on } \beta.$$ \[This Ansatz comes a bit out of the blue, but notice that passing to the limit both definitions leads to the identity $u-u_0=v$ holding on $\alpha \cup \beta$ which is the full contour of the ring $K$, so that anticipating harmonicity this will hold throughout $K$, and $v$ will afford the required extension of $u-u_0$ (only defined on $A\cap K=K$) to the disc $B$ containing the ring $K$. Of course, it is also crucial to notice that both sequences $u_n,v_n$ are “interlocked” or “leapfrogged” requiring an alternating progression of one term to go one step further with the other.\]
The successive differences are given by $$\label{success-diff:eq}
u_{n+1}-u_n=\begin{cases} v_{n}-v_{n-1} \quad &\textrm{on }
\alpha \cr 0 \quad &\textrm{on } \gamma
\end{cases}$$ and $$v_{n+1}-v_n=u_{n+1}-u_{n} \quad \textrm{on } \beta.$$ Let us write $$M_n:=\max_{\beta} \vert u_{n}-u_{n-1}\vert=\max_{\beta} \vert
v_{n}-v_{n-1}\vert,$$ then by the maximum- and minimum-principle $ \vert
v_{n}-v_{n-1}\vert\le M_n$ in $B$, and so in particular on $\alpha$. Hence by , $ \vert
u_{n+1}-u_{n}\vert\le M_n$ on $\alpha$. Further, the difference $u_{n+1}-u_{n}$ vanishes on $\gamma$ (cf. ), and so it is bounded on the boundary of $A$ (and therefore throughout $A$) by the potential $M_n
\cdot \omega$, where $\omega$ is the harmonic function vanishing along $\gamma$ and equal to $1$ on $\alpha$. Hence $$\label{diff:eq}
\vert u_{n+1}-u_n \vert\le M_n \cdot \omega\quad \textrm{in }
A.$$ In the interior of $A$, one has $0<\omega < 1$. If $q$ is the maximum of $\omega $ on $\beta$, then $0<q<1$. Further on $\beta$ we have $$\vert u_{n+1}-u_n \vert\le q \cdot M_n,$$ and also (by definition of $M_n$) $$M_{n+1}\le q \cdot M_n.$$ By induction, it follows that $$M_{n+1}\le q^{n} \cdot M_{1},$$ and recalling again the definition of $M_n$ we get (first on $\beta$ and thus on $B$) $$\vert v_{n+1}-v_n \vert \le M_{n+1}\le q^{n} \cdot M_{1}.$$ When particularized to $\alpha$, this implies in view of $$\vert u_{n+1}-u_n \vert \le q^{n-1} \cdot M_{1} \quad \textrm{in }
\alpha,$$ and by the maximum principle this extends to $A$ (recall that $\partial A= \alpha \cup \gamma$ and the function $u_{n+1}-u_n$ vanishes on $\gamma$). Consequently, both series $\sum_{n}(u_{n+1}-u_{n})$ and $\sum_{n}(v_{n+1}-v_{n})$ converges uniformly on $A$ resp. $B$.
The limiting functions $u$ and $v$ of $u_n$ resp. $v_n$ are therefore harmonic on $A$ resp. $B$, and taking the limit in the definition of $u_n$ (see ) we see that $u$ vanishes on $\gamma$ \[$\bigstar$ equals $f$ on $\gamma$\].
We show finally that $u-u_0=v$ on $B$ \[$\bigstar$ $K$ probably?\]. Indeed, taking the limit in the first line of gives $u=v+u_0$ on $\alpha$, and the definition of $v_n$ pushed to its limit gives $v=u-u_0$ on $\beta$. Therefore the same identity $u-u_0=v$ holds on both contours of the ring $K$, and consequently its validity propagates throughout $K$.
Finally, as $v$ is harmonic on $B$ we are happy to conclude that $u$ fulfills all of our requirements: namely $u\in
H(A)$, $u=f$ on $\gamma=\partial F$ and $u-u_0$ defined on $A \cap
K=K$ coincide there with $v$ defined on the larger set $B\supset
K$, yielding the asserted harmonic extension.
\[NAIVE AND WRONG—see rather the argument given above\] Finally, \[compare p.198–199\] one obtains the Green’s function $G(z,t)$ by taking $u_0=\log \vert z \vert$, $f\equiv
0$ and $r_1=0$ \[Caution: this point is not made explicit in Nevanlinna\]. For this choice of $r_1$, note that $A=F-t$. The lemma supplies a unique $u\in H (F-t)$ such that $u_{\vert
\partial F}=0$ and so that $u-\log\vert z\vert=:h$ is harmonic on $F$. The function $u$ is the desired Green’s function $G(z,t)$.
Little green’s men dreams (extraterrestrial applications of Green’s)
====================================================================
The following three subsections are optional reading containing more questions than answers. The reader interested primarily in the Ahlfors map should preferably skip them.
From Green to Gromov? (directly bypassing Riemann and Löwner) {#sec:Green-to-Gromov}
-------------------------------------------------------------
To mention once more a deep frustration (the Gromov filling conjecture) it looks not completely crazy to hope that a careful examination of the Green’s function and the allied isothermic coordinates could prompt a solution of this problem. We tried quickly the \[14.08.12\] but failed dramatically as usual (along with circa 10 attempts of essentially the same vein). Roughly the idea would be to look at the streamlines of Green and its equipotentials, and remove every trajectory ending to the (finitely many) critical points of Green while attempting to estimate area via this (isothermic) parametrization. Of course, Schwarz’s inequality enters into the game but I only arrived at weak estimates like $\pi$ or $\pi/2$ (in place of $2\pi$!) upon doing highly fallacious calculus.
Schoenflies via Green? {#Schoenflies:sec}
----------------------
A notorious topological paradigm is the so-called Schoenflies theorem to the effect that a reasonably embedded sphere $S^{n-1}$ in ${\Bbb R}^n$ bounds a topological ball $B^n$. (There is a large debate (cf.e.g.Siebenmann 2005 [@Siebenmann_2005]) about who (and more broadly speaking which community) proved first the case $n=2$. In the topological-combinatorial realm there is a contribution of Schoenflies reaching full maturity ca. 1906, and somewhat earlier there is the contribution of Osgood which may have reached full stability with Carathéodory 1912 [@Caratheodory_1912]. Of course the statement (for $n=2$ and maybe even $n=3$) was largely anticipated heuristically by other workers, e.g. Moebius 1863 [@Moebius_1863]. Schoenflies’s theorem was extended to higher dimensions by J.W. Alexander ($n=3$ ca. 1922), B. Mazur and M. Brown (all $n$ ca. 1960) for any locally flat (e.g. smooth) hypersphere in ${\Bbb R}^n$. From Thom or Smale’s $h$-cobordism theorem (early 1960’s) it is inferred that the closed ball $B^n$ carries a unique smooth structure when $n\neq 4$ (the case $n=4$ being still largely unsettled). It follows that the interior of the smoothly embedded sphere is a ball differentiably. Another unsolved problem of longstanding is the truth of the same conclusion for $n=4$ (the so-called [*smooth Schoenflies*]{} in dimension $4$, SS4, see e.g. papers by Scharlemann). Naive physical (or bacteriological, cf. Fig.\[Green:fig\]) intuition about the Green’s function makes hard to visualize why there should be any anomaly for $n=4$, yet nobody ever succeeded to prove or disprove SS4. This belongs to the charming mysteries of low-dimensional differential topology at the critical dimension $n=4$. One may speculate about a naive approach to SS4 through the ca. 200 years older potential theory (of Laplace, Poisson, Green, Gauss, Dirichlet and Riemann’s era). Alas, there is few records in print of analysts feeling confident enough about the explorative aptitudes of the Green’s function (compare Fig.\[Green:fig\]) to claim the required diffeomorphism with $B^4$. Of course in the very small vicinity of the pole $t$ the levels of $G(z,t)$ (now $z\in {\Bbb R}^n$) look alike round spheres, and by the synchronization principle stating that each bacteria reaches the boundary at the same moment it may look immediate how to write down the diffeomorphism. Can somebody explain why this Green’s strategy fails to establish SS4. Less ambitiously can somebody reprove SSn (for $n \neq 4$) via the Green’s function. If yes with some little chance his/her proof will possibly include the case $n=4$.
Green, Schoenflies, Bergman and Lu Qi-Keng
------------------------------------------
\[06.08.12\] As discussed in the previous section, a dream would be to show SS4 (smooth Schoenflies conjecture) via the Green’s function in 4D-space ${\Bbb R}^4$. On reading an article by Boas 1996 (PAMS), where Suita-Yamada 1976 [@Suita-Yamada_1976] is cited we see a potential connection between both problems.
The problem of Lu Qi-Keng asks for domains where the Bergman kernel is zero-free (so-called Lu Qi-Keng=LQK-domains). Since Schiffer 1946 [@Schiffer_1946], there is an identity connecting the Bergman kernel to the Green’s function. It seems that the zeros of Bergman corresponds to the critical points of Green. Of course the latter is forced to have critical points as soon as the topology is complicated (not a disc). Suita-Yamada’s result that the Bergman kernel necessarily exhibits zeroes for membranes which are not discs looks nearly obvious. Hence LQK-bordered surfaces are precisely those topologically equivalent to the disc.
Now Boas in 1986 found a counterexample showing that no topological characterization of LQK-domains holds in higher dimensions: there exists in ${\Bbb C}^2$ a bounded, strongly pseudoconvex, contractible domain with $C^{\infty}$ regular boundary whose Bergman kernel does have zeroes. \[Addendum \[18.09.12\]: in fact upon reading Boas original paper (1986), Boas’ domain is diffeomorphic to the ball $B^4$.\]
[**Optimistic scenario (Green implies Schoenflies)**]{} It would be interesting to know what the topology of Boas’ hypersurface $S=\partial \Omega$ is. In view of Poincaré-Alexander-Lefschetz duality $S$ must be a homology sphere, if I don’t mistake. Now upon speculating that SS4 is true (by naive geometric intuition), and even more that it is provable via the streamlines of Green’s function, and granting a persistence of Schiffer’s Green-Bergman identity (in the realm of two complex variables), it may seem that Boas’s counterexample must have an “exotic” boundary (not diffeomorphic to $S^3$). \[Of course, not so in view of the just given Addendum.\]
[**Pessimistic scenario (Green does not implies Schoenflies).**]{} The other way around, assuming that Boas’ boundary is the 3-sphere, there would be critical points of the Green’s function $G(z,t)$ and Boas’s example may foil any naive attempt to reduces SS4 to the streamlines of the Green’s function. But even so maybe the Green-Bergman identity of Schiffer is specific to one complex variable, leaving some light hope that there is a potential-theoretic proof of the differential-topology puzzle of SS4.
So a bold conjecture (somewhat against Boas’ philosophy that there is no topological characterisation of LQK-domains) would be that any domain in ${\Bbb C}^2$ bounded by a smoothly embedded 3-sphere is a LQK-domain (i.e. its Bergman function is zero-free). \[This is wrong in view of Boas 1984 (addendum just mentioned)\]. However it could be true that the Green’s functions $G(z,t)$ for any center $t$ located in the inside of $\Sigma$ is critical point free, whereupon an elementary integration of its gradient flow should establish a diffeomorphism of the inside the spheroid with the ball $B^4$ with its usual differential structure. (Recall that it is yet another puzzle of low-dimensional topology, whether the $4$-ball has a unique smooth structure! All others balls (maybe except the five-dimensional one) do enjoy uniqueness by virtue of Smale’s $h$-cobordism theorem.) Note that the Bergman kernel is defined without reference to a basepoint whereas Green’s function requires a basepoint (its pole).
Arithmetics vs. Geometry (Belyi-Grothendieck vs. Ahlfors) {#sec:Belyi-Grothendieck}
---------------------------------------------------------
\[10.08.12\] Closed Riemann surfaces are subsumed to the (alienating) theorem of Belyi-Grothendieck, that [*a surface is defined over $\Qbar$ iff it admits a morphism to the line ${\Bbb
P}^1$ ramified at only $3$ points*]{} (so-called [*Belyi map*]{}). Another characterization (due to Shabat-Voevodsky 1989 [@Shabat-Voevodsky_1989/89]) is the possibility to triangulate the surface by equilateral triangles (with or without respect to the hyperbolic uniformizing metric). Basically this follows as one may sent homographically the 3 points to the vertices of the regular tetrahedron inscribed in the sphere. (Compare Belyi 1979/80 [@Beyli_1979/80], Grothendieck 1984 [@Grothendieck_1984/1997-esquisse-d'un-programme] “Esquisse d’un progamme”, Shabat-Voevodsky 1989 [@Shabat-Voevodsky_1989/89], Bost 1989/92/95 [@Bost_1989/92/95] (p.99–102), Colin de Verdière-Marin, etc.)
Is there an analog of this result for bordered surfaces in the context of Ahlfors (circle) mapping to the disc, and if so what is its precise shape? In the Riemann sphere any 3 points are transmutable through a Moebius rigid motion. The analog statement in the disc involves either one boundary point plus one interior point or 3 boundary points. Those are of course just the (heminegligent) hemispherical trace of real triads on the equatorial sphere corresponding to ${\Bbb P}^1$ with its standard real structure. (Remember that there is an exotic twisted real structure projectively realized by the invisible conic $x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2=0$.) This lack of canonical choice of a real triad on ${\Bbb P}^1$ could plague slightly an appropriate bordered version of Belyi-Grothendieck. \[12.11.12\] More seriously the ubiquity of real points in both those triads of the disc looks incompatible with Ahlfors maps lacking real ramification (when Schottky doubled to the realm of Klein’s orthosymmetric curves). Of course since bordered surfaces are in bijective correspondence with real orthosymmetric curves, one may expect first an answer along the line: [*a real orthosymmetric curve is defined over $\Qbar\cap {\Bbb R}\supset {\Bbb Q}$ iff it admits a totally real map ramified solely at $3$ real points or at one real point and $2$ imaginary conjugate points*]{}. Remember yet that total reality means that the inverse image of the real line is the real locus of the (orthosymmetric) curve, and since such maps lack real ramification our naive real version of Belyi-Grothendieck looks foiled. There seems to be a structural incompatibility between Belyi-Grothendieck and Klein-Ahlfors. Of course our desideratum of a simultaneous realization of Belyi-Grothendieck and arithmetization of Ahlfors may well just be a nihilist folly. By an “arithmetization of the Ahlfors map” we just mean something in much the same way as Belyi-Grothendieck arithmetizes Riemann’s existence theorem (any closed Riemann surface admits a morphism to the sphere ${\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb C})$). Possibly, one should be content with a reality version of Belyi-Grothendieck without bringing Ahlfors’ total reality into the picture. Then we have something like [*a real curve is defined over $\Qbar$ iff it admits a real morphism to the line ramified above only one of the two real triads, i.e. $0,1, \infty$ or $0,\pm i$.*]{} A priori this statement tolerates both types of real curves (ortho- and diasymmetric) and thus be more liberal than Ahlfors theorem (which tolerate only orthosymmetric curves). Adhering instead to the geometric interpretation of Belyi-Grothendieck (due to Shabat-Voevodsky 1989/89 [@Shabat-Voevodsky_1989/89]) in terms of equilateral triangulations might be more appealing. For instance one can imagine an orthosymmetric real curve with an equilateral triangulation invariant under (complex) conjugation. A such would according to BG be defined over $\Qbar$. It is clear that such a triangulation would contain the real circuits as subcomplex of the triangulation. In particular what is the significance of the corresponding vertices, e.g. as rational points of the curve. Also the tetrahedron plays some rôle in Belyi-Grothendieck-Shabat-Voevodsky and what are the rôle of the other Platonic solids? In particular the octahedron looks particularly well suited for getting pull-backed by the Ahlfors map? etc. \[14.11.12\] Of course invariant equilateral triangulability is not reserved to orthosymmetric patterns, as shown e.g. by the sphere acted upon by the antipodal map endowed with a Platonic triangulation invariant under the involution (octahedron and icosahedron). One can also consider in genus $1$ a rhombic lattice in ${\Bbb C}$ leading to a diasymmetric (non dividing) curve with $r=1$ real circuit. When the lattice is equilateral say spanned by 1 and $\omega$ a cubic root of $-1$, we have an obvious invariant equilateral triangulation by 8 triangles (with vertices at $0,
1/2,1,\omega/2,\omega/2+1/2,\omega$ and their conjugates).
\[10.08.12\] Back to the closed case, we know (Mordell-Faltings ca. 1981) that when the genus is $g\ge 2$ then the curve has finitely many rational points in any number field (finite extension of $\Bbb Q$). Of course this fails if we raise up to the full $\Qbar$ (as slicing a plane model by rational lines gives infinitely many $\Qbar$-points on the curve). One can dream on a connection between the “canonical” equilateral triangulation (ET) and the finitely many rational points evaluated in the various number fields.
Of course given an ET of an arithmetic (Riemann) surface we can imagine a subdivision into another ET. Given a Euclidean equilateral triangle it is obvious how to subdivide it in 4 smaller equilateral triangles (bisecting the edges). Is there an equivalent subdivision for hyperbolic equilateral triangles? (I cannot see one...) Thus maybe there is some rigidity. At any rate among all ET of an arithmetic $\Qbar$-surface there is one involving the least number of triangles. This gives an integer invariant for any Riemann surface defined over $\Qbar$. Can this value be related to the finitely many rational points when $g\ge
2$?
By Gauss(-Bonnet) \[$\alpha+\beta+\gamma=\pi+\int_T K dA$\] which reduces to $3\alpha=\pi-area$ for an equi-triangle in constant negative curvature equal to $-1$ we see a direct relation between the area and its angle of an equi-triangle.
\[11.12.12\] For a more lucid Real Belyi theory than our vague ideas, compare the account in Köck-Singerman 2006 [@Koeck-Singerman_2006], where however the Ahlfors maps does not seem not enter the arena.
Ahlfors’ proof {#Ahlfors-proof:sec}
==============
\[27.08.12\] This section is our modest attempt to examine and understand Ahlfors’ existence proof of a circle map (of degree $\le r+2p$). Alas we failed this basic goal, but it is perhaps of some interest to discuss the original text while trying to capture some mental pictures (made real) which may have circulated in Ahlfors’ vision. More objectively we also try to identify if Ahlfors argument can be boosted to reassess the prediction of maps with smaller controlled degree $\le r+p$ (Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]). We emphasize once more that Gabard’s result is potentially false, but even if so, it is evident that for low values of the invariants $(r,p)$ Ahlfors bound $r+2p$ fails sharpness. Near its completion, Ahlfors proof takes a geometric “tournure” (convex geometry) where there seems to be some free room suitable for improvements. We tried to imagine some (topological) strategy which could possibly sharpen Ahlfors result along his method (at least for low invariants). This is, apart from didactic interest, the only original idea of the present section.
In the original paper Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.124–126], the existence proof, we are interested in, occupies only a short 2 pages argument which looks essentially self-contained albeit not quite easy to digest. I would (personally) be extremely grateful if someone understanding Ahlfors proof could publish a more pedestrian account than Ahlfors’, explaining it in full details. Some of the background required is dispatched earlier in the text (esp. p.103–105 in ), hence trying some rearrangement could improve readability. We were personally not able to follow all the (boring) computations or formulas required by Ahlfors.
Alas, big masters tend to give only cryptical output of boring computations. Ahlfors is further typical for his annoying (arrogant?) style “it is clear that”, etc. and one often suffers a lot just to fill some details. Of course, nothing is clear in mathematics especially when it comes to follow mechanical computations. Maybe the presence of those just reveals a lack of conceptual grasp over the underlying geometry. Trying to be more optimistic and less severe due to frustration, it would be nice—I repeat myself intentionally—if somebody could take the defense of Ahlfors by presenting an argument as close as possible to the original (meaning perhaps just eradication of misprints, if any?) which further would be completely mechanical, i.e. where each identity is decorated by the appropriate tag referring to the formula under application.
Of course, Ahlfors’ proof seems to involve nothing more than the formalism of differential forms (à la Cartan, de Rham, etc., which he learned from A. Weil’s visit in Scandinavia during World War II), plus Stokes’ formula (already a nightmare to prove, at least for Bourbaki) and the allied integration-by-part formula (consequence of Leibniz’s rule). We were personally unable to produce a perfectly pedestrian (accessible to anybody, in particular myself!) exposition of Ahlfors’ account, lacking both intelligence and patience to make his text perfectly intelligible. The writer probably read this Ahlfors’ argument several times in diagonal (since ca. 2001/02), but never completely understood the details. My motivation for looking at it more closely became more acute, after realizing (August 2012) that it is not completely trivial to complete the Green’s function strategy to the problem (cf. previous Section \[Green:sec\]). It should be noted that Ahlfors’ argument does not employ exactly the Green’s function, but a close relative cousin with pole located on the boundary instead of the interior. As a matter of joking we refer to it as the [*Red’s function*]{}, and as far as we know there is no (standardized) terminology to refer to this object! Accordingly, Ahlfors rather constructs an half-plane map instead of a circle map. Of course both moneys are ultimately convertible, yet both geometrically and analytically this implies a little alteration of the viewpoint. One may then may get a bit confused about wondering on the optimal strategy.
Finally, remember that several workers in Japan or the US seem to have found necessary to rework Ahlfors’ proof in a more do-it-yourself fashion. Several other authors, having to cite Ahlfors work, often cross-cited those alternative proofs, like those produced by Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950] or Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] (cf. e.g. Stout 1972 [@Stout_1972] or Gamelin 1973 [@Gamelin_1973-Extremal-I p.3], who both cite Royden for the piece of work originally due to Ahlfors). For a more complete list of “dissident” authors drifting from Ahlfors’ account as the optimal source compare Sec.\[dissident:sec\]. The latter tabulation is supposed to illustrate that I may not be isolated in having missed the full joy of complete satisfaction with Ahlfors’ output. Yet, personally we still would like to believe that Ahlfors account is superior in geometric quintessence to all of what followed, but only regret to have missed some crucial details. As far as we know, nobody ever raised a fatal objection against Ahlfors’ proof. (Personally, I only criticize a lack of details in the execution, plus a matter of organization[^13] and finally a lack of geometric visualization.) It may also be speculated that the argument published by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (and reproduced below) is not the way Ahlfors originally discovered the statement (as early as 1948, cf. Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950]), which looks more intuitive when approached from the Green’s function viewpoint, or just bare Riemann-Roch theorem (yet with dangerous probability of collision, cf. the remark in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006 p.949]). In the sequel we shall attempt to conciliate Ahlfors’ analytic treatment with the geometric intuition behind it.
The goal is (as usual) to prove:
[(Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.124–126])]{} Let $\overline{W}$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface of genus $p$ with $r\ge 1$ contours. Then there exists a circle map $f\colon \overline{W}\to \overline{\Delta}$ of degree $\le
r+2p=g+1$, where $g:=(r-1)+2p$ can be either interpreted as the genus of the (Schottky) double or as the number of essential $1$-cycles on $F$ considered up to homologies (the so-called Betti number).
The core of Ahlfors’ argument
-----------------------------
For the proof Ahlfors uses the concept of a Schottky differentials. Those are differentials on the bordered surface which extends to the Schottky double. The following subclass plays a special rôle: $$S_r=\textrm{ the space of analytic Schottky differentials
which are real along $C=\partial \overline{W}$}.$$
\[bipole:lemma\] Given $g+1$ distinct points $z_j$ on the contour $C=\partial \overline{W}$ and corresponding reals $A_j \in
{\Bbb R}$, it is possible to construct an analytic differential $\theta_0$ which is real on[^14] $C$ and whose only singularities are double poles at the $z_j$ with singular parts: $$A_j \frac{dz}{(z-z_j)^2},$$ where the local variable $z$ at $z_j$ is chosen so as to map $C$ onto the real-axis ${\Bbb R}$ and inner points of $W$ into the upper half-plane.
Further such a differential $\theta_0$ is uniquely determined up to a differential $\theta\in S_r$, and for a proper choice of the latter we can make vanish the periods and half-periods of the imaginary-part $\Im \theta_0$.
Ahlfors prefers to construct instead of a circle map a upper half-plane mapping $F\colon \overline W \to \overline H=\{ \Im z
\ge 0\}$ which will ultimately arise through the equation $\theta_0=dF$, after arranging exactness of $\theta_0$ for a suitable location of the $z_j$ and some $A_j\ge 0$.
Once this is achieved we may write $\theta_0=dF$ for some analytic function $F$ on $\overline W$. The latter is uniquely defined modulo an additive constant and can be chosen real on $C=\partial \overline W$, except at the $z_j$ where $\Im F$ becomes positively infinite. The maximum principle ensures $\Im F >0$ on the whole interior $W$, and therefore $F$ is the desired half-plane mapping of degree $\le r+2p$.
This is the bare strategy of the argument, but it is time to adventure into the details.
A first ingredient is the fact (compare the second Corollary on p.109):
\[g-dimensional:lemma\] The real vector space $S_r$ (of Schottky differentials real along the border) has real dimension $g$.
This looks rather plausible upon thinking with the Schottky double and explains the second (uniqueness) clause of the above lemma. Notice indeed that there is $(r-1)$ half-periods corresponding to pathes on the bordered surface $\overline W$ joining a fixed contour $C_1$ to the remaining ones $C_2,
\dots, C_r$ and $2p$ full periods arising by winding around the $p$ handles.
To arrange exactness of $\theta_0$, Ahlfors employs the inner product $(\theta_0, \theta)$ and a corresponding criterion for exactness in terms of orthogonality to the space $S_r$ (cf. Lemma \[orthogonality:lemma\] below). (The reader can skip the proof of the next two lemmas to move directly to the core of the argument which in our opinion is Lemma \[clever-choice:lemma\].)
Before attacking the proof we first recall the pertinent definitions. The [*inner product*]{} of two differentials on a Riemann surface is defined by: $$(\omega_1, \omega_2)=\int_W \omega_1
\overline{\omega_2}^{\ast},$$ where the star denotes the [*conjugate differential*]{} and the bar is the [*complex conjugate*]{} (compare Ahlfors, p.103). (Locally if $\omega=a\, dx+b\,dy$ then $\omega^{\ast}=-b\, dx+a\,dy$ and $\overline\omega=\bar a\,
dx+\bar b\, dy$)
Further we need probably Stokes $$\int_W d\omega=\int_C \omega,$$ which combined with Leibniz $$d(f \omega)=df \cdot \omega + f d \omega.$$ gives the so-called integration by parts formula $$\int_W (df \cdot \omega + f d \omega)\buildrel{\rm
\tiny{Leibniz}}\over=\int_W d(f\omega) \buildrel{\rm
\tiny{Stokes}}\over{=}\int_C f\omega,$$ which can be rewritten as $$\int_W df \cdot \omega =\int_C f\omega- \int_W f d \omega,$$ which is hopefully the exact form used (subconsciously) in the sequel.
Further he requires an expression of this inner product in term of local variables. Namely the following:
\[loc-formula:lemma\] If $\theta=\alpha dz$ near $z_j$, then we have the following formula for the inner product $$\label{loc-formula:eq} (\theta_0,
\theta)=-\pi\textstyle\sum_{j=1}^{g+1}A_j \alpha(z_j),$$ where $\theta_0$ is the differential of Lemma \[bipole:lemma\].
As in the first lemma, once we have arranged vanishing of the period and the half-period of the imaginary part $\Im
\theta_0$ we may write something like $$\theta_0-\overline{\theta_0}=i \, dG,$$ where $G$ vanishes on $C$ except at the $z_j$. Then brute-force computation gives $$\label{inner-product:eq}
(\theta_0,
\theta)\buildrel{?}\over{=}(\theta_0-\overline{\theta_0},
\theta)=(i \, dG, \theta)=\dots=-\int_C G \bar \theta,$$ where the “dots” indicates steps left un-detailed by Ahlfors. Of course one should first apply the definition of the inner product and then use integration-by-part, as we just recalled, while noticing that the second term vanish involving the differential of an analytic function. \[Alas, the writer had not the energy to complete the detailed computation.\]
Now writing $\theta=\alpha dz$ near $z_j$, Ahlfors claims the following local expression for $G$ $$G \sim i\, A_j (\frac{1}{z-z_j}-\frac{1}{\bar z-z_j}),$$ whereupon he claims that the singularity at $z_j$ contributes the amount $-\pi A_j \alpha(z_j)$ to the last integral of . The announced formula should follow easily.
\[orthogonality:lemma\] $\theta_0$ is exact iff $(\theta_0, \theta)=0$ for all $\theta
\in S_r$.
A priori we could expect to save forces by proving only sufficiency (i.e. the implication $[\Leftarrow]$), but alas Ahlfors’ proof requires the direct sense as well, plus the previous lemma involving the rather (unappealing) computation in local coordinate. Enough philosophy and lamentation, and let us follow along Ahlfors’ exposition.
$[\Rightarrow]$ Write $\theta_0=dF$. Then Ahlfors write cryptically $$(\theta_0,\theta)\buildrel{?}\over{=}(\theta_0,\theta+\bar
\theta)=\int_W dF \overline{\cdots}=i\int_C F(\bar \theta-
\theta)=\pi \textstyle\sum_{j=1}^{g+1 } A_j \alpha(z_j),$$ and comparison with Equation shows that $(\theta_0, \theta)=0$, as required.
$[\Leftarrow]$ Conversely, suppose $(\theta_0, \theta)=0$ for all $\theta\in S_r$, and let $\varphi$ be the analytic Schottky differential making $\theta_0-\varphi$ exact. Then by the former implication[^15] $( \theta_0-\varphi, \theta)=0$ and so $(\varphi,
\theta)=0$ for all $\theta \in S_r$. This implies $\varphi=0$, and we conclude that $\theta_0$ is exact.
Combining both those lemmas, the exactness of $\theta_0$ is reduced to the following (tricky) lemma, involving a mixture of convex geometry and Stokes formula (which Ahlfors calls the [*fundamental formula*]{} probably due its anticipation by Green or Gauss and others).
\[clever-choice:lemma\] It is possible to choose the $z_j$ and the $A_j\ge 0$ so that $$\label{Ahlfors_sum-Aj:eq}
\textstyle\sum_{j=1}^{g+1}A_j \alpha(z_j)=0$$ for all $\theta \in S_r$ locally expressed as $\theta=\alpha dz$.
Let $\theta_i\in S_r$ ($i=1, \dots ,g$) be a basis of the $g$-dimensional space $S_r$ (cf. Lemma \[g-dimensional:lemma\]). Locally we can write $\theta_i= \alpha_i dz$ near $z_j$. Equation can be satisfied with $A_j\ge 0$ iff the simplex with vertices $$(\alpha_1(z_j), \dots, \alpha_g(z_j))\in {\Bbb R}^g
\qquad\textrm{ for } j=1, \dots, {g+1}$$ contains the origin $0\in {\Bbb R}^g$.
If this condition is not full-filled for any choice of the $z_j$, the convex-hull of the set of points $$K:=\{(\alpha_1(t), \dots, \alpha_g(t)) : \textrm{ for } t\in C
\}$$ would fail to contain $0$. (One can think of this set as a sort of link (in the sense of knot theory) traced in ${\Bbb
R}^g$ with $r$ components. However the latter is not perfectly canonical since the $\alpha_i(t)$ depends on the local chart.
[*Expressing some naive doubts.*]{} So here Ahlfors argument looks a bit fragile (or at least sketchy) as one probably requires to fix a finite system of holomorphic charts covering the full contour of the bordered surface). \[We do not have a specific objection, yet it should be noted that the whole Ahlfors theory even that of the refined extremal problem depends on the non-emptiness of the class of bounded functions, hence upon the present argument! In principle even if there should be a global crash of Ahlfors’ proof here, then the theorem should conserves its validity in view of several subsequent treatments hopefully logically more reliable, we cite:
$\bullet$ Kuramochi 1952 [@Kuramochi_1952] (alas quite unreadable?),
$\bullet$ Mizumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960],
$\bullet$ Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] (alas a bit functional-analytic, whereas the statement sentimentally belongs to pure geometric function theory), and maybe
$\bullet$ Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] (hopefully reliable, at least it first part not improving Ahlfors’ $r+2p$).
However it is likely that the set $K$ can be defined according to the totality of possible $\alpha_i(t)$ arising through a fixed system of permissible charts covering the contour $C$.
Now a (Euclidean) set of ${\Bbb R^g}$ whose convex-hull misses the origin is contained in a closed half-space \[maybe even an open half-space?\]. Thus there exists scalars $a_1, \dots, a_g
\in {\Bbb R}$ (not all zero) so that $$\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^g a_i \alpha_i(t)\ge 0 \quad \textrm {for
all } t\in C.$$ (Geometrically, this is to be interpreted as the scalar product with the vector $(a_1, \dots, a_g) \in {\Bbb R}^g$ orthogonal to the hyperplane whose half contains the set $K$.) Hence the corresponding differential $\theta= \sum_{i=1}^g a_i
\theta_i$ is $\ge 0$ along $C$. \[Maybe strict???\] However this violates the fact that $\int_C \theta=0$, as prompted by Stokes’ formula $$\int_{C=\partial \overline W} \theta=\int_{\overline W} d
\theta,$$ and the fact that $\theta$ belongs to $S_r$, hence analytic, and thus closed, i.e. $d\theta =0$.
Geometric interpretation as dipoles
-----------------------------------
\[28.08.12\] Let $F$ be a membrane (=compact bordered Riemann surface), then Ahlfors constructed (cf. previous subsection) a half-plane map $F\to \overline H:=\{\Im z\ge 0 \}$ to the closed upper-half plane. We get a circle map after post-composing with the natural conformal map to the unit-disc $ \overline H \to
\overline{\Delta}$. Under such a map, the horizontal lines transforms to a pencil of circles tangent to the boundary and vertical lines mutate to arc of circles orthogonal to the boundary. (cf. Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]a). One recognizes essentially the so-called Hawaiian earrings (cf. Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]b).
Given a circle map, one can pull-back the isothermic (=right-angled) Hawaiian bi-foliation to obtain a graphical representation of the circle map.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Starting with with a (doubly-connected) ring, one obtains Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]c or Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]d. Going to higher connectivity on gets for instance Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]e. The Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (or just Riemann-Roch, cf. e.g. Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]) tell us that we can prescribe a point on each contour and there is a circle map taking all those points to the same image in the unit-circle $S^1=\{ \vert z \vert=1\}$. Hence, we enjoy complete freedom in picturing the isothermic bi-foliation of circle maps, at least in the planar case. This situation is to be contrasted with the situation for the zeros, where some hidden symmetry requires to be fulfilled (compare e.g. Gabard 2006, where we have the condition $D\sim D^{\sigma}$ of linear equivalence of the divisor with its conjugate, an also Fedorov 1991 [@Fedorov_1991] who speaks of an opaque condition that must be satisfied to prescribe the zeros).
Of course, the contemplation (and manufacture) of such pictures raises more questions than clarifying the perception of Ahlfors’ theorem. One can hope some guidance via physical intuition (if one feels comfortable with the mineral world) or appeal again to the metaphor about proliferation of bacteria in some nutritive medium. We do not repeat the long discourse we made already for Green (cf. Sec.\[Green:sec\], esp. Fig.\[Green:fig\]) where one had radial expansions emanating from an inner point. Presently, the bacteria are rather located on the boundary, whereupon their local expansion is more of the Hawaiian type, or if you prefer look alike the Doppler effect at the critical speed of sound. The dipole of our title would occur upon considering the symmetric Schottky double of the membrane. This new Hawaiian/Doppler mode of expansion can again be explained via lacking nutritive resources caused by the boundary where the world stops.
On Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]f, we have attempted to picture the pull-back of the Hawaiian foliation under a circle-map of degree $r+p=1+1=2$ (for the value $r+p$ predicted by Gabard). This picture looks anomalous for the following reason. Letting grow the population, there is a first junction of the 2 populations right “under” the handle, then there is 2 self-junction at 2 points aside the handle. From now on the bacteria starts invading the handle from both “sides” and will actually merge on the core circle of it. This is problematic since ultimately the expansion should finish along the boundary contours (by definition of a circle-map). It easy to manufacture a picture where no such anomaly occurs (cf. e.g. Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]g which admittedly requires some little effort of concentration to contemplate its morphogenesis). Of course, similar pictures can be made by prescribing less boundary points than the degree of circle-maps predicted by Ahlfors $r+2p$ or $r+p$, e.g. by a choosing a single dipole, cf. Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]h and Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]i. However those patterns cannot correspond to circle-map due to obvious topological obstructions: first the degree of a circle-map must be $\ge r$ impeding Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]h to be allied to a circle-map. As to Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]i the degree would be one, implying the circle-map to be unramified and covering theory (of the simply-connected disc) implies the membrane $F$ to be the disc, violating its genus $1$ nature.
We stop this graphical discussion at this primitive stage, yet it is to be hoped that a deeper study of such figures could lead to some theoretical results complementing the understanding of the Ahlfors maps. Perhaps such (dipole) isothermic drawings are of some relevance to Gromov’s filling conjecture, as we already suggested in the case of Green’s function (Sec.\[sec:Green-to-Gromov\]).
\[29.08.12\] In fact there is a another more convincing obstruction impeding Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]f to represent a circle-map. This consists in identifying the counter-images of the growing Hawaiian circles past the critical levels while checking if they contribute to the correct numerical multiplicity permissible with the degree of the branched covering. To be concrete we enumerate a series of typical smooth levels on Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]f. The first one denoted $1$ consists of $2$ little circles. Past the first critical level, we see the curve $2$ with $1$ component. After the next critical level, we pick a curve $3$, which has $3$ components. This is too much for our mapping to be of degree 2. This proves that Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]f do not correspond to a circle-map.
In contrast repeating the same counting exercise for Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]g, no such excess occurs. The level $1$ has 2 components, level 2 (chosen after the first critical level) has one component, level 3 has 2 components and finally level 4 has 1 component. Thus the picture looks topologically coherent, but it is evident that it is far from metrically realist. Naively speaking we were forced to distort the propagation so has to have a virtually planar mode of depiction for the levels.
Trying to recover Ahlfors from the Red’s function {#Red's-function:sec}
-------------------------------------------------
\[29.08.12\] Let $F$ denote a finite (=compact) bordered Riemann surface of genus $p$ and with $r$ contours. From the previous section, it seems evident that there is some canonical function akin to the Green’s function yet with pole pushed to the boundary (dipole singularity when doubled). Call them perhaps the [*Red’s function*]{} as an [*ad hoc*]{} acronym honoring writers like Riemann, Schwarz, Klein, Koebe, Ahlfors, etc. Such a Red’s function denoted $R(z,t)=R_t(z)$ with (di)pole at $t\in \partial F$ (a boundary-point) is defined by the property of being harmonic, null along $\partial F$ save at $t$ where it becomes positively infinite according to a specific local singularity (maybe like ${\rm Re}(1/z^2)$). \[18.10.12\] As a more intrinsic definition one can define $R_t$ as the unique positive harmonic function vanishing continuously along $\partial F-\{
t\}$. The function then looks unique up to scalar multiple. Note however that Heins (in e.g. Heins 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF p.241, right after Thm3.1]) defines the function $u_{\zeta}$ our $R_t$ by adding the requirement of minimality (in the sense of Martin 1941 [@Martin_1941]). A positive function $u$ is minimal if whenever there is a smaller function $0<v<u$, $v$ is a constant multiple of $u$.
The sudden explosion of $R_t$ at just one boundary point looks at first almost paradoxical, but see again our previous Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]b-h-i) for a depiction of their levels and one can of course imagine such a function just as a “borderline” degeneration of the usual Green’s function. Now one can attempt to construct a half-plane-map (HP-map, for short), by considering a superposition $R(z):=\sum_{i=1}^{d} R(z, t_i)$ of such Red’s functions $R(z,t_i)$ for several points $t_i$ on the border. The formula $$\varphi:=R+i R^{\ast},$$ where $R^{\ast}$ is the conjugate function would then define the HP-map provided the conjugate potential is single-valued in other word that the conjugate differential of $R$, $(d{R})^{\ast}$ is period free. Since $F$ has $(r-1)+2p=:g$ essential cycles (homologically independent), a parameter count suggests that if $d=g+1$ there is enough freedom to annihilate all the $g$ periods of $d{R}^{\ast}$.
Maybe this approach (which presumably differs not very much from Ahlfors’) has some technical advantage over the Green’s technique (presented in Sec.\[Green:sec\]). First it seems that the dipole singularity has some linear character contrasting with the arithmetical rigidity of the logarithmic singularity. Thus it is permissible to form a more general linear combination $$R(z):=\textstyle\sum_{i=1}^{d} \lambda_i R(z, t_i),$$ with some reals $\lambda_i$ which must however be $\ge 0$. Hence killing the periods essentially reduces to linear algebra. Another advantage over the Green’s approach stems from the fact that in the interior we meet no singularity thus the period mapping looks less dubious.
As usual we write down the period mapping by integrating the $1$-form $dR^{\ast}$ along the $g$ many 1-cycles $\gamma_1, \dots,
\gamma_g$ and obtain for each fixed $t_1, \dots t_{g+1}\in
\partial F$ a linear map ${\Bbb R}^{g+1} \to {\Bbb R}^g$. Thus there is some non-zero vector in the kernel, and the corresponding $(\lambda_i)$ would solve the problem, provided one is able to check that they can be chosen $\ge 0$. This is non-trivial and a priori it is not evident (and nobody ever asserted) that this can be done for any choice of the $(g+1)$-tuple $t_i$.
So it is just here that the difficulty starts, and that some idea is required to complete the proof.
\[04.09.12\] Due to a lack of creativity/energy, I was blocked here for a couple of days. So let me make a list of writers who seem to have grasped the geometric quintessence of Ahlfors’ argument:
$\bullet$ Gamelin-Voichick 1968 [@Gamelin-Voichick_1968 p.926]: “According to \[1, §4.2\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]), there exist $r+1$ ($r=g$ in our notation) points $w_1, \dots, w_{r+1}$ on $bR$ such that if $B_j$ is the period vector of the singular function $T_j$ corresponding to a unit point mass at $w_j$, then $B_1, \dots, B_{r+1}$ are the vertices of a simplex in ${\Bbb R}^r$ which contains $0$ as an interior point.” \[10.09.12\]
$\bullet$ Fisher 1973 [@Fisher_1973 p.1187/88]: “By a theorem of Ahlfors \[A1; §4.2\] there is a set of $r+1$ points $p_j$ in $\Gamma$ such that if $v_j$ is the period vector of a unit mass at $p_j$, then $v_0,\dots, v_r$ form the vertices of a simplex in ${\Bbb R}^{r}$ which contains the origin as an interior point.” \[this looks alike verbatim copy of the previous source, yet reinforce confidence in the viewpoint\]
\[07.09.12\] In fact some little hope to complete the argument is raised by borrowing ideas of convex geometry used by Ahlfors, yet in our context which is perhaps not so reliable (albeit it seems to match with the Gamelin-Voichick twist of Ahlfors). Alas, we failed to recover Ahlfors statement, but we see obvious room for improving upon Ahlfors by using essentially his method of proof augmented by some further geometric tricks. Ideally one would like to recover the bound predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] by using an argument very close to Ahlfors’. Let us now be more concrete.
Again we fix some $d$ points $t_1, \dots t_d$ on the boundary $\partial F$, with at least one point one each contour $C_i$ (forming the boundary $\partial F$). For any point $t\in
\partial F$ the function $R_t(z):=R(z,t)$ is uniquely defined once a chart around $t$ is specified (otherwise it is unique only up to a positive scaling factor). Let us assume $R_t$ fixed once for all with a continuous dependence over the parameter $t$. (Alas the writer has no clear-cut justification of this possibility. \[09.09.12\] Maybe use a boundary uniformizer for an annular tubular neighborhood of each contour, cf. e.g. Hasumi 1966 [@Hasumi_1966 p.241], also Gamelin-Voichick 1968 [@Gamelin-Voichick_1968 p.926]. \[18.10.12\] Of course since $R_t$ is unique up to scalar multiple, we are somehow choosing a section of a ray-bundle and even if after winding once around an oval of $\partial F$ the $R_t$ should not return to its initial position $R_{t_0}$, it seems easy to apply a sort of “closing lemma” so that $R_t$ comes back to the original choice.)
We now introduce $\Pi(t)$ the period of $(dR_t)^{\ast}$ along the fixed representatives $\gamma_1, \dots, \gamma_g$ of the first homology, that is, $$\Pi(t)=(\textstyle\int_{\gamma_1} (dR_t)^{\ast}, \dots,
\int_{\gamma_g}(dR_t)^{\ast}) \in {\Bbb R}^g.$$ We seek $R$ of the form $R=\sum_{i=1}^{d} \lambda_i R_{t_i}$ with $\lambda_i>0$ such that the conjugate differential $(dR)^{\ast}$ is period-free. Period-freeness amounts to say that [*the simplex of ${\Bbb R}^g$ spanned by the $\Pi(t_1), \dots, \Pi(t_d)$ contains the origin in its interior*]{}[^16]. Then positive masses $\lambda_i$ can be assigned to the $\Pi(t_i)$ so that the origin occurs as barycenter of this masses distribution.
The italicized condition is equivalent to saying that the convex-hull of the set $X:=\Pi(\partial F)$ contains the origin (say then that the set $X$ is balanced). Balancedness paraphrases also into the condition that the set is not contained in a half-space delimited by a hyperplane through the origin.
Ahlfors derives his result from the following simple lemma applied to $X=\Pi(\partial F)$.
Let $X$ be a subset of some number space ${\Bbb
R}^g$. Any point in the convex-hull of $X$ is the barycenter (=convex combination involving positive coefficients) of at most $g+1$ points of $X$.
Of course the lemma is sharp in general: consider $X\subset {\Bbb
R}^2$ a set of 3 points in general position (not collinear) then any point chosen in the interior of the convex-hull of $X$ (a simplex) requires all 3 points in a barycentric combination. However if $X$ is a more continuous shape like a topological circle in ${\Bbb R}^2$ it is clear that 2 points situated on $X$ will suffice (cf. Fig.\[Convex:fig\]a). Indeed, imagine first that $X$ is a Jordan curve and that the point lies in its interior. Any line through the point intercepts the Jordan curve in at least 2 points which can be used for a convex combination of the given point. If the point is not in the interior, one can meet an “U-shaped” Jordan curve where the point is situated near the top of the “U” (Fig.\[Convex:fig\]b), yet still expressible as the barycenter of 2 points on the top of the “U”. This already raises some hope upon improving Ahlfors, and optimistically a careful inspection could recover the $r+p$ bound of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
-5pt0
-5pt0
Let us summarize the situation. The lemma shows is that if the convex-hull of $\Pi(\partial F)$ contains the origin $0$, then one can certainly find $g+1$ points $t_i$ (eventually fewer) and corresponding $\lambda_i>0$ such that $R=\sum \lambda_i R_{t_i}$ has a period-free conjugate differential. This implies the existence of a half-plane map (via $f=R+iR^{\ast}$) of degree $\le
g+1=r+2p$, recovering therefore Ahlfors’ result of 1950.
Thus the problem splits in two parts:
$\bullet$ Step (1): explain why the convex-hull of $\Pi(\partial
F)$ contains the origin $0$ (implying Ahlfors’ $r+2p$ bound); (Ahlfors is able to do this, yet hopefully the ambient context of his argument can be slightly simplified to our present setting which is closer say to Heins’ accounts in 1950 [@Heins_1950] or 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF])
$\bullet$ Step (2): try to lower Ahlfors degree $r+2p$ by taking advantage of the fact that $X=\Pi(\partial F)$ is not an arbitrary set but the continuous image of $r$ circles; (ideally try to recover the $r+p$ upper bound predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], or at least partial improvements of Ahlfors bound $r+2p$ for low values of the invariants $(r,p)$).
As to the first point (1), we notice that if it is violated then the set $\Pi(\partial F)$ is contained in a half-space of ${\Bbb
R}^g$. Thus there is a non-zero vector $a=(a_1,\dots, a_g)\in
{\Bbb R}^{g}$ such that the scalar product $(a, \Pi(t))>0$ for all $t\in \partial F$. This means $$\sum_{i=1}^g a_i \int_{\gamma_i}(dR_t)^{\ast}>0 \textrm{ for
all } t\in \partial F.$$ Alas, the writer failed to find a reason why this should be a contradiction. (In Ahlfors’ presentation Stokes’ theorem plays a crucial rôle.)
Even if the present geometric strategy (cooked by the writer via slow assimilation of the very classical strategy of annihilating periods) should be impossible to complete, nothing forbids to switch again to the original treatment of Ahlfors, and apply our Step (2), whose tangibleness relies on Fig.\[Convex:fig\]. The essential point is that ultimately the geometric setting is invariably the one and same problem of convex geometry, whether we start from Ahlfors “analytic” approach or from our more geometric reformulation via the Red’s functions.
Let us be more explicit. We have a map $\Pi\colon
\partial F=:C \to {\Bbb R}^g$. (“$C$” for contours, like in Ahlfors notation.) In Ahlfors’ paper this occurs as the map $C\ni t \mapsto (\alpha_1(t), \dots ,
\alpha_g(t))$ cf. p.125 of his article. (From the algebro-geometric viewpoint this must probably be the vectorial lift of the so-called [*canonical map*]{} $\varphi\colon C \to
{\Bbb P}^{g-1}$ (usually ascribed to Noether or Klein) allied to the canonical series $\vert K \vert$ living over the curve $C$, obtained by doubling the bordered Riemann surface.)
We try to address the second issue (2). The setting is a map $\Pi\colon C \to {\Bbb R}^g$ whose image is balanced (i.e. the convex-hull of the image contains the origin, or equivalently the set $\Pi(\partial F)$ is not contained in any open half-space of ${\Bbb R}^g$ delimited by a hyperplane through the origin). The whole problem is then reduced to the following geometric question.
\[problem:Ahlfors-circuit\] Given two integers $r\ge 1$ and $p\ge 0$. Let $g:=(r-1)+2p$, and suppose given in the corresponding Euclidean space ${\Bbb R}^g$ a collection of $r$ (possibly singular) circles $C_1, \dots, C_r$. It is assumed that the union of all these circles is balanced. Find the minimum cardinality of a group of $d$ points with at least one point on each $C_i$ spanning a simplex containing the origin.
The previous lemma solves the problem for degree $d=g+1=r+2p$ (recovering Ahlfors’ result). To do better we start from such a group and try to move the vertices, while taking care that the simplex still contains $0$. From the $r+2p$ points, we imagine $r$ many as essentially fixed and the other coupled in $p$ many pairs. The initial simplex is top-dimensional matching the dimension $g$ of the ambient number-space ${\Bbb R}^g$. Moving vertices, it looks reasonable that we may coalesce two points of the $g$-simplex to get a $(g-1)$-simplex still containing $0$. This presupposes both coalescing points being located on the same circuit $C_i$ (try to argue with the pigeon hole principle). After $p$ such collisions (one for each pair) we reach the degree $r+p$ predicted by Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
Alas this “piano mover” argument is not easy to believe, nor to prove. Perhaps a less naive variant involving an adequate trick (most probably of a topological nature akin say to the Borsuk-Ulam proof of the ham-sandwich theorem) could recover the $r+p$ bound. Less optimistically, it may happen that the above problem is not always soluble with $d\le r+p$, but only for circuits $C_i$ arising from bordered Riemann surfaces via the period map recipe.
At any rate, we see the prominent rôle of convex geometry in the question of the least possible degree of the Ahlfors function. In principle there is a canonically defined set $\Pi(C)\subset {\Bbb
R}^g$ (we shall call the [*Ahlfors figure*]{}) whose spanning simplices going through the origin affords a complete understanding (in theory at least) of the minimal degree of a circle map concretizing the given bordered surface $F$.
\[11.09.12\] Perhaps one can solve the above problem (\[problem:Ahlfors-circuit\]) for $d=r+p$ by an inductive procedure. Let us sketch an attempt that fails (reasonably close to the goal). Recall that given two integers $(r,p)$ and a balanced configuration of $r$ circles $C_i$ in ${\Bbb R}^g$, where $g:=(r-1)+2p$. We would like to show that the origin is the barycenter of at most $r+p$ points with at least one on each $C_i$. Of course the assertion holds true when $p=0$, because we know (by the lemma) that $d\le g+1=r+2p=r$ and on the other hand we have the trivial lower-bound $r\le d$ imposed by the fact that each circle supports at least one point. It follows that $d=r=r+p$, and the claim is vindicated.
Thus one can try an induction reducing to the “planar case” $p=0$. This can be done in several ways via the moves $(r,p)\mapsto (r,p-1)$, or $(r,p)\mapsto (r+1,p-1)$ or finally $(r,p)\mapsto (r+2,p-1)$. The latter of which has the advantage that the new value of $g$, denoted $g'$ stays invariant. Now given a geometric configuration of type $(r,p)$ in the number-space ${\Bbb R}^g$ we construct one of type $(r+2, p-1)$ in the same ${\Bbb R}^g$, maybe naively just by duplicating two of the circles (i.e., assigning them a multiplicity). This new configuration is still balanced, so by induction hypothesis the origin is expressible as the barycenter of $r'+p'=(r+2)+(p-1)=r+p+1$ points located on the $C_i$. Alas, this exceeds by one unit the desired $r+p$.
\[18.10.12\] Low-dimensional examples may help to give some weak evidence toward solving Problem \[problem:Ahlfors-circuit\] with Gabard’s bound $d=r+p$. Let us discuss this aspect. If we take $(r,p)=(1,1)$, then $g=2$. So geometrically we have one circuit in the plane ${\Bbb R}^2$. In this situation our Fig. \[Convex:fig\] prompts solubility of the problem with $d=2$. Note the agreement with Gabard’s bound $r+p$. This proves the (modest) theorem that [*a bordered surface with one contour and of genus one always admits a circle map of degree $2$*]{}, whereas Ahlfors only predicts degree $r+2p=1+2=3$. Another evidence comes from the well-known hyperellipticity of genus 2 curves. Indeed the double of such a membrane having genus 2, it is hyperelliptic and can therefore be visualized in 3-space as something like Fig.\[Convex2:fig\]a. Doing a rotation of angle $\pi$ we find the required circle map of degree 2 (look at the Figs.\[Convex2:fig\]b and \[Convex2:fig\]c).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Let us next examine the case $(r,p)=(2,1)$, then $g=(r-1)+2p=1+2=3$. So we have 2 circuits in space ${\Bbb R}^3$ (like in knot or link theory). Since the set of circuits is balanced, we have something like Fig.\[Convex2:fig\]d (assuming no knotting for simplicity). Balancing amounts picturesquely to say that if you dispose of a 180 degrees angular vision (like any respectable homo sapiens) you will never be able from the origin to contemplate the full link. Paraphrased differently, whatever the direction you choose to focus your vision the link will always move in your back. It seems plausible that, instead of the 4 points prompted by Ahlfors’ top-dimensional $3$-simplex, 3 points actually suffices to span a $2$-simplex passing through the origin (see again Fig.\[Convex2:fig\]d). Justifying this intuition could again corroborate the $r+p$ bound (at least for low invariants). Of course the genus (of the double) being now $g=3$ there is no hyperelliptic reduction, yet appealing to the canonical map $C_g\to {\Bbb P}^{g-1}$ (an embedding precisely when the curve is not hyperelliptic) our curve is concretized as a plane quartic (the canonical divisor $K$ having degree $2g-2$). Some basic knowledge of Klein’s theory then prompts that our orthosymmetric real quartic with $r=2$ must consist of two nested ovals. Projecting from a real point on the inner oval gives a totally real morphism of degree $4-1=3$, in accordance again with the $r+p$ bound.
All these little experiments raise the hope that Ahlfors original approach suitably sharpened by a geometric lemma about balanced collections of circuits in ${\Bbb R}^g$ should enable some improvements, and eventually confirm the prediction of the $r+p$ bound. However we confess that the required positive solution to Problem \[problem:Ahlfors-circuit\] with $d=r+p$ looks difficult to obtain and perhaps only true for special circuits arising through period maps. It is quite hard to connect Ahlfors method with the one in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] in which Abel’s map was exploited more systematically. Since both maps, $\Pi$ an Abel, involve periods, a natural guess is that [*Ahlfors’ figure*]{}, that is the set $\Pi(\partial F)\subset {\Bbb R}^g$, is closely related to the Abel map or at least the so-called (Noether-Klein) canonical map $C\to {\Bbb P}^{g-1}$ which is just the Gauss map of the Abel map: each tangent to the curve seen in its Jacobian is reported to the origin via translation in the Jacobi torus. If so interpretable, it is perhaps no surprise that Ahlfors approach is cumbersome because one is working in the Plato cavern where the essence (embedded-ness) of things is lost.
Still, the Ahlfors figure is perhaps useful for other questions. For instance if we take a top-dimensional spanning simplex with $g+1=r+2p$ vertices containing $0$ in its interior, it is clear that we may perturb slightly the vertices keeping the origin inside the simplex. This shows a sort of topological stability of Ahlfors maps having degrees $r+2p$. (This phenomenon is not new, compare Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002].) The same stability cannot be expected with the more economical $r+p$ bound, for a slight perturbation of our hypothetical simplex will generally miss the origin. Ahlfors’ figure also shows existence of circle maps for each degree $\ge r+2p$. For those of degrees $>r+2p$ there is a menagerie of convex combinations expressing $0$ and accordingly plenty of circle maps having the same fibre above a boundary point. Such results look not easily accessed via Gabard’s method (in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]).
Trying to make the last “menagerie” point more accurate could lead to interesting result. For simplicity imagine ${\Bbb R}^g$ as the plane ${\Bbb R}^2$ and in it a $2$-simplex spanning the origin. If we have more than $(g+1)$ points, say $g+2=4$ then we may interpret the convex-hull of those 4 points as the shadow (projection) of a $3$-simplex living in ${\Bbb R}^3$. Hence above the origin there is a segment in this higher $3$-simplex each elements of which is a convex sum of the 4 vertices. Hence we get $\infty^1$ circle maps having the same 4 points as prescribed value. This requires of course to be better presented but should be straightforward application of Ahlfors method.
Strip mappings (Nehari, Kuramochi)
----------------------------------
\[31.08.12\] As we saw instead of a circle map, Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] prefers to construct a half-plane map. Ultimately this amounts to the same except that the disc instead of being decorated by the polar coordinates it is by the Hawaiian dipole (Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]a). A third option is to envisage (as Nehari and Kuramochi 1952 [@Kuramochi_1952]) a strip mapping to the strip $S:=\{z: -1\le\Re(z)\le 1\}$. When rectangular coordinate on the strip are transplanted to the disc we obtain a dipole looking like a mitosis. This yields yet another isothermic system on the disc.
To synthesize, the disc can be decorated by 3 types of isothermic coordinates (systems):
\(1) the monopole attached to an inner point of the disc, which when the pole is the center is just the foliation by concentric circles plus the orthogonal rays. We may from here drag the pole away from the center to get other isothermic systems best interpreted as the geodesic expansion w.r.t. to the hyperbolic metric on the disc. Upon letting degenerate the pole to the boundary circle we get:
\(2) the dipole depicted on Fig.\[Dipole:fig\]a and finally upon disintegrating this source of multiplicity 2 into two separate elements of multiplicity one we get:
\(3) a genuine dipole which ultimately can be the mitosis about antipodal points of the circle.
In principle to each of these geometric decoration of the disc corresponds an existence-proof of the Ahlfors function differing so-to-speak just in the “cosmetic details”.
Finally, each isothermic system suggests an angle of attack to Gromov’s filling conjecture. Eventually, it seems plausible that the totality of those isothermic systems could be exploited collectively upon using an averaging process (somehow reminiscent to Löwner-Pu’s trick).
Hurwitz type proof of Ahlfors maps? {#Hurwitz-type}
===================================
\[21.10.12\] This section wonders about an elementary existence-proof of circle maps via a continuity method reinforcing some naive moduli count. As we noted (in Sec.\[Minimal-sheet:sec\]) the disaster with bordered surfaces is that their gonality is not prompted by a naive moduli count, and thus the project looks from the scratch a bit hazardous. However it is not impossible that we missed something crucial.
The general philosophy would be not to fix a surface and try hard to find a map, but rather to look at all possible maps and lift the complex structure of the disc while hoping that if the degree is large enough there are sufficiently many free parameters to paint the full moduli space. Hence any Riemann surface would be expressible as a branched cover of the disc of some controlled degree. (Natanzon suggested to me this strategy during an oral conversation at the Rennes conference 2001, and I came again to this idea by reading Natanzon et al. 2001 [@Natanzon-Shapiro-Vainshtein_2001/XX].)
The basic idea may be formalized as follows. We fix a topological type $(r,p)$ encoding the number of contours and the genus. We introduce the (Hurwitz) space $$H_{r,p}^d:=\textrm{ set of all circle maps from surfaces of type }
(r,p) \textrm{ having degree } \le d.$$ An element of this natural set (hence a space!) is a branched cover of which we may keep in mind only the “total space”. This gives a map $$\tau\colon H_{r,p}^d\to {\cal M}_{r,p},$$ to the moduli space of bordered surfaces of type $(r,p)$. We want to show that this mapping is surjective for $d$ sufficiently large (but controlled à la Ahlfors). First, we know (since Klein essentially) that ${\cal M}_{r,p}$ is connected. Thus it would be enough to find a suitable $d$ so that the $\tau$-image is closed, open and nonempty.
As $(r,p)$ is fixed we may omit it from the notation. Of course $H^d:=H_{r,p}^d$ is empty when $d<r$. The example of rotational surfaces (cf. Fig.\[Chambery:fig\]) shows that $H^d$ is non-void for $d=r$ or $d=r+1$ when $r$ is even resp. odd.
It seems also trivial (since we have defined $H^d$ by the condition $\deg(f)\le d$) that the image $\tau(H^d)$ is closed for any $d$. Intuitively a map can degenerate to a map of lower degree, but will never degenerate to one of higher topological complexity. Observationally, this is well seen on the example of the Gürtelkurve (plane quartic with two nested ovals): when projected from a point in the interior of the oval we get a total map of degree 4, which can degenerate to one of degree 3 if the center of projection is specialized toward the inner oval. However, if we take a sequence of maps of degree 3 given by such projections the limit will be a similar projection (the oval being closed) and we never reach a map of degree 4. Of course an abstract explanation requires be given (perhaps just by compactness of $H^d$).
The hard part is to show that $\tau$ is open for some large $d$.
Naively one could hope to do this via Brouwer’s invariance of the domain requiring something like $\tau=\tau_d$ being étale for a suitable $d$.
Another idea is perhaps to factorize $\tau$ by taking the fibre of the circle map $f\colon F \to \Delta$ ($\Delta$=closed disc, here!) over the origin $0$ of the disc to get a surface marked by a group of $d$ points. The nice feature is that $(F,f^{-1}(0))$ permits one to recover uniquely (up to rotation) the map $f$ (cf. Lemma 5.2 about unilateral divisors in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]). Taking instead the fibre over the real unit $1\in \Delta$ gives a surface marked by a group of $d$ distinct along the boundary. Taking simultaneously the fibre over $0$ and $1$ gives a surface marked by $d$ points on both the interior and the border.
So we have 3 natural spaces of marked surfaces living above the moduli space ${\cal M}={\cal M}_{r,p}$, namely $I^d$ (interior marking); $B^d$ (bordered marking); and $M^d$ (mixed marking). Forgetting the markings gives varied arrows descending to $M$. The map $\tau$ factorizes through all these marked moduli space.
An idea could be to show that the lift of $\tau$ (which is an embedding especially when we factor through the mixed marking) is sufficiently horizontal w.r.t. to the fiber bundle projection afforded by the forgetful map. Alas, this is not very evident and should of course hold for some special value of $d$.
Another route to explore is to make a Lüroth-Clebsch/Hurwitz type analysis of trying to understand from ramification and monodromy how one reconstruct the Riemann surface.
Miscellaneous
=============
Moduli counts via dissection in pants (Klein, Fricke, Nielsen, Fenchel, etc.) {#Nielsen-Fenchel:sec}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[25.11.12\] This section presents a well-known argument to count moduli of Riemann surfaces, which applies both to the closed and bordered cases. The argument uses a decomposition in pants and the hyperbolic metric, so differs somewhat from the original arguments of Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857] and Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882], respectively.
\[Nielsen-Fenchel:thm\] [(Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857], Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882], Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939])]{} The closed genus $g$ surface $F_g$ depends on $3g-3$ complex moduli or $6g-6$ real moduli, while compact bordered Riemann surfaces $F_{r,p}$ with $r$ contours and $p$ handles depend upon $3g-3$ real moduli, where $g=(r-1)+2p$ is the genus of the double.
First consider the closed case. Introduce on $F_g$ a uniformizing metric of curvature $K\equiv -1$ and choose a decomposition in [*pants*]{} (alias [*trinion*]{} by Möbius 1860/63 [@Moebius_1863]). Each pant is a bordered surface with $3$ contours and of genus $p=0$. The conformal structure is unambiguously defined by the lengths of the contours, plus some twisting parameters (rotation like) permissible at the junctures of pants. Looking at the left-hand side of Fig.\[Pants:fig\], we count $(g-2)$ shaded pants each contributing for 3 lengths, and one must add one loop on the top and two on the bottom part of the figure. We arrive at a total of $$1+3(g-2)+2=3g-3$$ many loops. Since each such loop is a juncture we add as many twisting parameters to get finally the dependence upon $$2(3g-3)=6g-6$$ real moduli.
-0.0cm0 -0.0cm0
-5pt0
In the bordered setting, we proceed similarly by looking at a pants decomposition of the bordered surface $F_{r,p}$ as depicted on the right-hand side of Fig.\[Pants:fig\]. Counting from the top to the bottom we get $$1+3(p-1)+(r-1)+r=3p+2r-3$$ many loops. Each of these loops is twistable by a parameter, except the $r$ boundary loops which have no companion loops. So we get $3p+r-3$ additional parameters, hence a total of $$6p+3r-6$$ real moduli. On the other hand the genus of the double of $F_{r,p}$ is $g=(r-1)+2p$, so that the above quantity is nothing but $3g-3$. This completes the proof.
Of course a more algebro-geometric count do as well the job while using the reality paradigm of the Galois-Riemann Verschmelzung. More concretely inside the complex moduli space one defines an antiholomorphic involution, and the moduli of “real surfaces” appears as the real (=fixed-point) locus of that involution so has half dimensionality. Such an argument has the advantage of encompassing directly the diasymmetric case, which leads to non-orientable Klein surfaces. For more details, cf. Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882], Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939], Earle 1971 [@Earle_1971-On-the-moduli], Seppäla 1978 [@Seppala_1978-Teich-spaces-of-Klein-surfaces], Huisman, etc.
Part II: Hilbert’s 16th {#Hilbert's16th-PartII:sec}
=======================
General overview
----------------
\[26.03.13\] As announced in the introduction, we enter now in the second part to our text dealing with Hilbert’s 16th problem. The switch from Ahlfors to Hilbert’s 16th flashed us when reading in more details Rohlin’s work of 1978 (cf. the next Sec.\[Klein-Rohlin-conj:sec\]). Since our assimilation of the material evolved in slow organical mode (with several mistakes of ours), it seems worth summarizing which waters were investigated and what seems to be urgent open problems in the field. This section should thus replace the reading of all the sequel which needs severe reorganization at several places. Further what we understood is still miles away of the fine jewellery reached by Russian scholars in this field, but to defend our messy text we also feel that the philosophy à la Ahlfors or Rohlin has not yet been fully exploited, nor elucidated.
First, Hilbert’s 16th includes the topological classification of real algebraic (smooth=non-singular) curves in $\RR P^2$. In its original formulation the critical degree was $m=6$ (sextics), where Hilbert’s intuition produced both the best (the Ansatz that an $M$-curve[^17] cannot have all its $11$ ovals unnested) as well as a misconception that persisted through several decades, until being refuted through Gudkov’s seminal 1969 construction of the curve $\frac{5}{1}5$ (5 ovals enveloped in a larger oval, plus 5 ovals outside). This was a big surprise as Hilbert expected that $M$-curves appear only along the scheme $\frac{1}{1}9$ discovered by Harnack 1876, and the one constructed by himself $\frac{9}{1}1$ in Hilbert 1891 (compare the top-row of Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). The Gudkov symbol $\frac{x}{1}y$ encodes a distribution of ovals where $x$ ovals are directly nested in one oval, while $y$ unnested ovals are lying outside (compare again Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\] if necessary). Petrovskii’s own scepticism about the unexpected twist of Gudkov’s solution, launched the work of Arnold 1971, and Rohlin 1972, where Gudkov hypothesis $\chi \equiv_8 k^2$ went verified through revolutionary insights on the “complexification”. Here $\chi$ always denotes the Euler characteristic of Ragsdale’s orientable membrane bounding the curve from “inside”, while $k=m/2$ is the semi-degree of a curve of even degree $m=2k$. The modern era of real algebraic geometry was launched, characterized by deep interconnections with 4D-differential topology (Rohlin’s early work on spin 4-manifolds, etc.)
What has this topic to do at all with Ahlfors maps? To say the least very few factual links have been tied up presently, but we can dream of a big connection. The sequel is our attempt to enhance the rôle which Ahlfors theory could play in Hilbert’s 16th. We should warn the reader that our viewpoint is much partisan (biased by what produced such masters as Ahlfors and Rohlin) and it may well be the case that the real mathematical terrain is not as plastic and smooth as the expressed in the next lines. First, we should stress that there is no anachronism in expecting such a connection with Hilbert since (modulo technical details) the quintessence of Ahlfors theory truly goes back to the Riemann-Schottky-Klein era (resp. 1851/57–1875/77–1876/82), which is much prior to Hilbert (1862–1943), and a fortiori to Hilbert’s geometrical period ca. 1891—when he left Algebra, Invariant theory, Number theory—to move in the softer realms of geometry, calculus of variations, or “functional” analysis, especially Dirichlet, Fredholm, etc.
To be honest, our connection was already envisioned by Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] (apparently completely unaware of Ahlfors work, as we were ourselves ca. 2001 when rediscovering the result independently), but who also used implicitly what we call [*total reality*]{} as a tool detecting the dividing character of curves. More strikingly, in a genius stroke without any antecedents, Rohlin asserts a phenomenon of total reality for certain $(M-2)$-sextics explaining a posteriori (nearly) all prohibitions of Gudkov’s table of periodic elements (=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). The latter table affords nothing less than the complete solution to Hilbert’s 16th by way of a curious pyramidal structure encoding all possible distributions of ovals realized by algebraic curves of degree 6 with real coefficients. Rohlin’s (unproved) synthetical assertion stayed dormant for more than 3 decades until Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics] recently managed to establish a slightly weaker form thereof. We can thus now feel confident in expecting that Ahlfors theory will have to play some major rôle in the future destiny of Hilbert’s 16th, i.e. for curves of degree $m\ge 8$. (The case $m=8$ looks nearly settled if one is expert enough in the field and willing to sacrifice a long period of his time to assemble many bits of knowledge scattered through the literature.) Hilbert’s problem (like any existential puzzle) splits naturally into constructions versus prohibitions. Now the rôle of Ahlfors could be as follows. If one has a distribution of ovals (à la Hilbert) such that all curves representing it are dividing(=type I=orthosymmetric) in the sense of Klein (what Rohlin calls [*a scheme of type I*]{}), then it seems a reasonable folly to expect the phenomenon of [*total reality*]{}, namely existence of a pencil of “adjoint” curves cutting only real points on the given curve. At least Ahlfors theorem implies no conformal obstruction to the scenario.
, while general topology (i.e. the image of a connected set is connected) implies an absence of topological obstruction to existence of such a total pencil.
Incidentally, it should be no surprise that both Ahlfors 1950 and Rohlin’s maximality claim (1978) refers back to a common denominator, namely works of Felix Klein. In Ahlfors’ case this is indirect since reference is more readily confessed to Schottky’s results somewhat prior to Klein’s (but also more schlichtartig than Klein’s). Via Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941] some return to Klein is implicit though poorly cross-referenced. In Rohlin’s case the analogy with Klein is inherent though disputed in Viro’s survey 1986 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress] via Marin’s assessment of Klein’s assertion that curves of type I cannot gain an oval by crossing the discriminant. Apart from those details it is evident that Klein (and before him Riemann) gave the impulse for all what followed, and the fusion awaited upon is probably merely a matter of reunifying the original conception of Riemann-Klein before it diverged into pure conformal geometry (Schwarz, Schottky, Klein, Koebe, Bieberbach, Grötzsch, Ahlfors, Grunsky, Teichmüller, Ahlfors again) versus plane curves in Hilbert’s 16th (Harnack, Hilbert, Ragsdale, Rohn, Brusotti, Petrovskii, Gudkov, Arnold, Rohlin). One can wonder how much knowledge went lost just through older generations passing away and how much time consuming it will be for us to revive old wisdoms that are probably the key to most of our naive questions.
Our 1st fundamental problem is to decide if Ahlfors theorem particularized to the setting of plane curves implies existence of such a total pencil. I personally always thought this being a triviality (see optionally Gabard 2004 [@Gabard_2004 p.7]), but recently Marin warned me that life might not be so easy (cf. letter in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]). Alas, meanwhile I forgot nearly all the little I ever knew about the foundations of algebraic geometry, so that what I thought to be trivial is now floating in some suspense (“ombre propice” as would say Thom).
Even if not true (or rather implementable), synthetical procedures à la Rohlin-Le Touzé (=RLT) could redeliver the phenomenon of total reality [*ab ovo*]{} (independently of Ahlfors conformal geometry). This seems to require a vertiginous and lengthy verification process climbing ad infinitum. In more gently slope, one can expect a gradual propagation of RLT from degree 6 to 8, and so on, that could be relevant to detect new prohibitions in Hilbert’s 16th.
Why so optimistic? As exemplified by the case of sextics $m=6$ (much influential upon Gudkov, Arnold, Rohlin, etc. and as demonstrated by those smart guys fairly typical of the general case $m=2k$) it is likely that a scheme of type I is totally real under a suitable pencil (or viceversa) and this should in turn imply the scheme being maximal in the hierarchy of all schemes. This produces prohibitions in Hilbert’s 16th, which a priori could be new, and governed by an uniform paradigm.
So a 2nd fundamental problem is to decide if Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (RMC) positing that “type I implies maximal” is true. At first sight, it seems that a positive solution to the 1st problem implies this as a byproduct, but there seems to be severe obstacles in completing the programme. For explicitness, it is worth sketching the (naive, uncomplete) argument. Given a scheme of type I, there is by Ahlfors a total pencil, which cuts only real points on the curves. Hence the curve is already saturated, and cannot be enlarged by adding an additional oval without violating Bézout. The difficulty however is that the enlargement is not a priori involving the same (or even a nearby curve) augmented by some other ovals, but can be a priori very distant of the original curve. ([*Added in proof*]{} \[13.03.13\], for a loose strategy using isotopies, cf. Sec.\[RMC-via-Mangler:sec\]\].)
However a 3rd route is that whenever we encounter a synthetic phenomenon of total reality à la Rohlin-Le Touzé looks (akin to a concretization of Ahlfors abstract theorem within the Plato cavern of Hilbert’s 16th involving only plane curves), then it seems evident (via Bézout-saturation) that Rohlin’s maximality conjecture will hold true for this specific scheme. Again the proof is not easy to formalize, but it is perhaps realist to expect a positive solution in the case of curves of degree 6, and hopefully somewhat higher as to produce new truths.
This brings us to the 4th problem. How to extend Rohlin’s total reality claim to high-degree curves $m> 6$. Is there any algorithm telling one where to assign basepoints in order to assure total reality of the corresponding pencil? One could dream that this can be done from the sole knowledge of Rohlin’s complex orientations, cf. optionally Sec.\[Galton-brett:sec\].
For plane $M$-curves of degree $m$, we prove below a basic Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\] stipulating a total pencil swept by curves of order $(m-2)$. This merely traduces the so-called Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem, which (apart from phraseological details like Dirichlet’s illness) truly belongs to Riemann 1857, Schottky 1875–77, Enriques-Chisini 1915, and only then Bieberbach 1925, Grunsky 1937, Wirtinger 1942 [@Wirtinger_1942], etc. A structural asymmetry appears: while $M$-curves are crudely-put reputed hardest-to-construct within Hilbert’s 16th, their conformal geometry is most trivial, due to the planar=schlichtartig character of the half of the curve. Total reality is simplest to ensure in the $M$-setting, just because it is like having one train on each track, hence no risk of collision. Precisely, the trick is just to choose one point on each oval getting so a group of $g+1$ points which moves (by Riemann-Roch or Abel), and total reality is automatically granted (cf. Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\] for more details). Making this abstract argument concrete proves the theorem.
Can we extend this to non-maximal curves? The risk is then an overpopulation of $g+1$ points scattered on $r<g+1$ ovals, hence 2 of them are forced to cohabit on the same oval (pigeonhole principle due to Dirichlet apparently) exposing us to a possible collision jeopardizing total reality! So what is demanded is controlling a dextrogyration of points when moving along linear equivalence. Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] or Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] affords basic tricks to achieve dextrogyration in the abstract setting. Can we transplant them directly inside the Plato cavern of plane curves, as we just managed to do for $M$-curves? As yet we never succeeded, but this should not discourage more serious attempts.
If we think more concretely à la Rohlin-Le Touzé (or perhaps to go back earlier in history à la Brill-Noether), numerological reasons make evident that $(M-2)$-curves of type I (or even schemes of type I) and degree $m$ will have their total reality exhibited by a pencil of curves of degree $(m-3)$. Evidence is given later in this text, but readily follows by analogy with Rohlin-Le Touzé and a simple constants count (cf. Remark \[M-2-curve-degree-like-Gabard:rem\], which is just the end product of numerological coincidences observed for $m=6,8,10,
\dots$). Remind perhaps at this stage old Italian works (recognized as possible competitors to Ahlfors 1950), like Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48], Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950]. Those could already anticipate our present desideratum. Since already Rohlin’s proof (which is lost) and that of Le Touzé (2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]) is quite delicate (or the sequel of this text which contains ca. 30 pages of unsuccessful attempts to prove Rohlin’s original claim), we are not claiming that total reality will be easy to prove in full generality but perhaps for degree $8, 10$ this remains manageable (at least within the next 4 decades). By experience we are accustomed in the field to slow progresses (remind Hilbert, Gudkov, etc.), and it is quite unlikely (but not impossible) that a new Abel or Riemann will crack the full puzzle in a single stroke.
Some part of our text tries to take the census of all such schemes of type I in degree 8. Alas our optical faculties tend to be much more limited than those of aliens, like insects with 8 eyes looking at their preys via pencil of cubics, chameleons with mobile ocular systems, or any sort of creature with 19 eyes (when it comes to look at the world through a pencil of quintics, …), and generally, $M-3$ basepoints (i.e. 19 when $m=8$, $34$ for $m=10$). Accordingly, we are presently (and probably for the rest of our life) confined to deduce total reality not from optical skills but via boring arithmetics, namely the subliminal (Rohlin?)-Kharlamov-Marin congruence $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$, which forces type I under this “shifted” Gudkov-style congruence mod 8.
This is a crucial weapon (whose proof we have not yet studied in full details). This harpoon detects for us a menagerie of schemes of type I, all possibly subsumed to total reality, and conjecturally (via RMC=Rohlin’s maximality conjecture) acting prohibitively upon all schemes(=distribution of ovals) pretending to enlarge the given one. Such schemes crystallize therefore Bézout-extremal (or saturated) shapes of Hilbert’s 16th, which as would say Klein cannot develop further without exploding the latent degree.
Call an RKM-scheme any scheme satisfying the RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv_8 k^2+4$. It is not clear to the writer, and the experts were a bit silent on this aspect as yet, if conversely any $(M-2)$-scheme of type I is forced to respect the RKM-congruence. This deserves perhaps to be clarified at the occasion. \[[*Added in proof*]{} \[13.04.13\] An answer is probably implicit in Rohlin 1978, Art.3.5, on p.93 (extremal property of Zvonilov-Wilson).\]
With some sloppiness, we arrive at some big picture along the following philosophy (in our opinion fairly implicit in Rohlin 1978). Any scheme of type I is detected:
$\bullet$ either trivially because it is an $M$-scheme whose total reality is exhibited à la Bieberbach-Grunsky (yet no direct impact upon Hilbert’s 16th by virtue of Harnack’s bound (1876), or more simply its intrinsic variant $r\le g+1$ due to Klein 1876 proved via retrosections à la Riemann), \[but some indirect impact by using satellites!! (13.04.13)\]
$\bullet$ or it is an $(M-2)$-scheme verifying the RKM-congruence, in which case total reality is flashed by a pencil of $(m-3)$-tics.
$\bullet$ or finally it arises as “satellite” of a scheme of lower degree dividing the given degree.
The idea of satellites arises simply by noting (or expecting) that total reality propagates when the curve is doubled, tripled and so on, by replicating several copies of the curve within a tube-neighborhood of it (\[satellite-total-reality:sec\]). For the conic with a single oval (unifolium) this just leads to the series of deep nests total under a pencil of lines, while for a quartic with 4 ovals (quadrifolium in the jargon of Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874] who inspired much Klein 1876) this leads to the series of curves in degrees multiple of $4$, totally real under a pencil of conics. The case of degree 8 is explicitly mentioned in Rohlin 1978, being just the double of the quadrifolium. We expect that satellites do extend to curves of odd degrees (\[Satellite-odd-degree:sec\]), yielding some interesting prohibitions on schemes of degree 10 when applied to an $M$-quintic doubled. Likewise doubling the Rohlin-Le Touzé sextic $\frac{6}{1}2$ (or its mirror $\frac{2}{1}6$) gives a scheme of degree 12 which should be maximal (hence killing all extensions of it).
The general philosophy is now clear. Total reality (basically due to Ahlfors 1950, though Teichmüller 1941 ascribes it to Klein directly) acts as an upper-bound on the complexity of Hilbert’s 16th problem, by killing all distributions of ovals adventuring above one totally flashed by a pencil. In substance everything boils down to a phenomenon of Bézout-saturation, with in the background of the scene an extension of the Riemann mapping theorem to surfaces of higher topological structures (so-called Ahlfors maps).
This looks a fundamental truth (or philosophy?) since it seems robust, and implementable when the flashing is as explicit as Rohlin-Le Touzé’s as opposed to the abstract nonsense of Ahlfors. If skeptical, the just predicted maximality of satellites in degree 10 and 12 should be tested against highbrow methods of constructions of the modern era (Viro-Itenberg). If the Ahlfors-Rohlin philosophy resists the shock against this structural test, then some experimental evidence is gained that the Ahlfors-Rohlin Verschmelzung is a deep reality governing a substantial part of Hilbert’s 16th at the universal scale (all degrees). If not, then the whole story of the 16th problem could be even more chaotical and unruly than it presently is, i.e. just a combinatorial mess only worth deserving the attention of computing machines. Of course the latter are quite likely to show us hidden patterns of symmetries, maximality, etc. that were not yet appreciated due to a lack of experimental data. More pragmatically, it must feasible to inspect if in degree 8, the Ahlfors-Rohlin scenario of total reality and the allied extremal principle of saturated schemes is compatible with factual data, and optimistically even able to preclude schemes that were not yet prohibited. Alas, we are not expert enough in the field to tell an answer, but peoples like Viro, Fiedler, Korchagin, Orevkov, Le Touzé, must already have a clear-cut vision along this idea. In degree 6 it is clear that the saturation principle of Rohlin is entirely covered (or re-explain) by the congruences mod 8 due to Gudkov and Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov, but it is not clear to me if the same subordination holds true in degree 8 (maybe in general). On the other hand if the RKM-congruence fails to detect a type I scheme, then there could be some sporadic phenomenon of total reality explaining it, and this would be a new source of saturation (perhaps not covered by the congruences mod 8).
This is the main-body of our quest, but during the trip we went sidetracked to other connected topics. Here are some aspects perhaps worth putting in evidence centering around the theme of rigid-isotopy, and the allied contraction principles where the end-point of the path is permitted to touch the discriminant (parameterizing all singular curves).
Total reality takes its simplest incarnation for the deep nests swept out by a total pencil of lines. A theorem by Nuij 1968 [@Nuij_1968] (later revisited by Dubrovin 1983 [@Dubrovin_1983/85]) states that such deep nests are rigid in the sense than one can pass from any 2 curves representing it by a continuous deformation of the coefficients without encountering any singular curve during the deformation. Such large deformation pertains to what is called [*rigid-isotopies*]{}, which actually refines Hilbert’s 16th problem. This topic always attracted geometers even prior to Hilbert’s era, e.g. Schläfli (apparently known for having the most massive human brain ever weighted with ca. 1.936 kg for only 157 cm of body height), or Zeuthen and Klein adding several contributions regarding curves and surfaces of low orders (quartic and cubics resp.). For quartic curves Klein established (1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf]) that the rigid-isotopy class is fully determined by the real scheme already.
It seems natural to ask if Nuij’s rigidity result (for deep nests) has equivalents whenever total reality holds true. Alas this fails by the Marin-Fiedler locking technique which refutes this Ansatz for $M$-curves of degree 7 (cf. Fig.\[Marin:fig\], for a hopefully lucid exposition of Marin’s trick). Despite this disruption of the naive scenario, it seems to us likely that rigidity holds true for satellites of the quadrifolium. We confess however to have not yet studied Nuij’s proof, nor do we know (a fortiori) if his proof extends mutatis mutandis.
Though rigid-isotopy merely involves the $\pi_0$ (=nullest homotopy group measuring the arcwise-connected components) of the space of curves excised along the discriminant, very little is known on such problems. A naive conjecture of us—based essentially on the failure of the Marin-Fiedler locking device, plus the fact (subsequent to Rohlin’s formula) that curves of type I have $r\ge m/2$ ovals (also valid if $m$ is odd)—postulates that curves with few ovals are necessarily [*rigid*]{}, i.e., are unambiguously determined up to a large deformation by their sole real schemes. Precisely this could hold true as soon as the curve has strictly less ovals than $DEEP+2$, where $DEEP:=\Delta:=[(m+1)/2]$ is the number of circuits of the deep nest of degree $m$. The intuition is simply that by Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]) this is the first dividing scheme encountered (as $r$ the number of ovals increases), and two units above this ($r=\Delta+2$) it is a simple matter to exhibit a scheme of indefinite type (Rohlin’s jargon to say that there is curves of both types I.vsII realizing a prescribed configuration of ovals).
This conjecture (called LARS, for low-altitude-rigidity-conjecture) is merely a cavalier extension of:
\(1) Nuij’s theorem of 1968, which is not specific to curves (but valid for algebraic hypersurfaces, where there is an evident notion of deep nest via concentric spheres, plus an eventual pseudo-plane).
\(2) Nikulin’s rigid classification of sextics in 1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80] implying the case $m=6$ of our LARS, and telling much more namely the fact that the real scheme (as tabulated on Gudkov’s table) enhanced by the data of Klein-Rohlin’s types affords a complete system of invariants under rigid-isotopy. Hence for $m=6$, Nikulin is stronger than LARS as it prompts rigidities at all altitudes. However as soon as $m\ge
7$ this is foiled (cf. again Marin’s example=Fig.\[Marin:fig\]).
\(3) A unofficial conjecture of Rohlin (reported in a Viro letter in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]) that curves of odd degrees with a single (pseudoline) component are rigid-isotopic, cf. also Viro 2008 [@Viro_2008-From-the-16th-Hilb-to-tropical]. By analogy, curves of even degrees with a single oval could be rigid-isotopic. Those questions are settled in degrees $m\le 6$ ($m=4$ Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf], $m=5$ Kharlamov 1981 [@Kharlamov_1981/81], $m=6$ Nikulin 1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80]), but still resist in degrees $\ge 7$. Hence our conjecture LARS appears very presumptuous, and it may be a more reasonable challenge trying to disprove it. Alas the locking method of Fiedler-Marin looks (as far as we experimented in the sequel) quite impuissant to destroy LARS.
What techniques could be used to prove LARS or more modest rigidity conjectures? Our naive idea is that geometric flows (amounting to look at orthogonal trajectories of suitable functionals like calculating the length or area of ovals) could prove this and related results of rigid-isotopies. This would give some intrusion of differential-geometric methods in problems of rigid-isotopies, a priori of a purely algebraic nature. Presently we were never able to complete any serious proof along this way, but our text contains ca. 20 pages of (dubious) trials along such lines. Viro’s survey 2008 [@Viro_2008-From-the-16th-Hilb-to-tropical] also contains a brief desideratum to know more about geometric properties of curves, and this could evidently pertain to rigid-isotopies, in a way perhaps reminiscent of the Ölfleck of H.A. Schwarz (where the Riemann mapping theorem is visualized by an oil-flake restoring to the circular shape), or the eclectic Ricci flow of Yau-Hamilton-Perelman, where a similar phenomenology appears in the abstract Riemannian setting (convergence to the round metric, with the well-known bonus about Poincaré’s conjecture).
Affiliated to those rigid-isotopy questions there is a conjecture of Itenberg-Viro (cf. Viro’s preface of the volume containing Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994]) to the effect that some empty oval of any curve can always be shrunk toward a solitary node. \[[*Added in proof*]{} \[13.04.13\].—Similar (but more vague) ideas are actually ubiquitous in Klein, e.g. 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet].\] This is still wide open, but Itenberg’s article just cited establishes the case $m=6$. Again one could hope that the flow minimizing the length of an oval could achieve such a contraction. Inspired by this conjecture we advanced a strengthened version CCC(=collective contraction conjecture) saying that all empty ovals can simultaneously contract toward solitary nodes. (This is like a perfect landing in Flight-Simulator v.18.5 with aircraft Antonov 72 having its 94 wheels touching the ground simultaneously!) If this (unlikely) miracle is true, one gets e.g. a 2-seconds proof of Hilbert’s Ansatz of the non-existence of an $M$-sextic without nesting by reduction to Bézout. Of course this is also more hygienically derived from Rohlin’s formula (or Arnold’s congruence mod 4), which involves softer homological intersection theory à la Poincaré-Lefschetz, etc. We were not as yet able to disprove our strong CCC-version of Itenberg-Viro. Its real impact being still obscure we did not pursued this issue in any serious fashion. A philosophical consequence, of large deformations is that they should (like total reality) act prohibitory, whereas small perturbations are classically exerting their swings at the constructive level (Harnack 1876, Hilbert 1891, Brusotti 1914/21, Gudkov 1969/72, Viro 1980, Itenberg 1993, etc.) Of course a clear-cut realm of where to corrupt CCC could be a dividing curve without nesting, for those could after [*strangulation*]{} be split into two complex-conjugate halves intersecting in as many points as there were ovals initially. Alas either Thom (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) or better Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]) forces such a curve to have $\chi=r\le
k^2$ resp. exactly $r=k^2$ ovals, hence we fail to corrupt Monsieur Étienne Bézout. It looks so quite challenging to kill CCC, albeit its truth looks very fragile, as it incarnates an extreme flexibility of algebraic objects reputed “rigid” in the large. Yet it should be remembered (though at some more local viz. regional scale) that Brusotti’s theorem gives via Riemann-Roch-Brill-Noether-Severi a remarkable flexibility of algebraic curves (independence of the smoothing of nodes). So one should not be surprised at last, if sometimes algebraic curves appear more plastic than expected a priori. However, as we shall soon discuss, Shustin disproved (in degree 8) a flexibility conjecture of Klein (1876) that nondividing curves can always acquire a solitary node through continuous variation of the coefficients ([*champagne bubble phenomenon*]{}). In slight contrast, building over the previously cited works of Nikulin 1979, Itenberg 1994, and the whole diagrammatic of the Gudkov-Rohlin table (1969–78), we think that Klein’s intuition of champagne bubbling is correct in degree 6 (cf. Prop.\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\]). The philosophical impact of Shustin’s disproof of Klein (though his aim was refuting a related assertion of Rohlin) is that we cannot expect to have solely topological obstructions regulating large algebraic deformations.
A last theme involves the impact of Thom’s conjecture (meanwhile Kronheimer-Mrowka’s theorem 1994) upon Hilbert’s 16th (Sec.\[Thom:sec\]). A classical trick (called the Arnold surface) is to fill Klein’s half of a dividing curve $C_m$ (of degree $m=2k$) by the real Ragsdale orientable membrane bounding the curve from inside. This gives a homology class of half-degree $k=m/2$, smoothly represented (after rounding corners, if necessary). This object looks ideally suited to an application of Thom’s genus estimate. Taking for granted orientability of the Arnold surface, we found an erroneous estimate $\chi\le k^2$ (for all dividing plane curves of degree $2k$ (cf. (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\])). Albeit wrong in general (as Fiedler kindly pointed out to us) it holds in special cases when all (primitive) pairs of ovals are positive in the sense of Rohlin, i.e. when complex and real orientations match together. Real vs. complex orientations may even disagree yet along pieces not connected by the Ragsdale membrane (cf. Lemma \[Arnold-surface-orientable-iff-oddly-charged:lem\]). If optimistic Thom or even Rohlin’s formula gives a way to attack the (still open) Ragsdale’s conjecture for $M$-curves, which amounts to $\vert \chi \vert \le k^2$ (\[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\]). Is the Arnold surface (=Klein’s half glued with the Ragsdale membrane) of an $M$-curve always orientable? If yes, then the proof of our (erroneous) Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\] implies Ragsdale’s conjecture via Thom’s estimate on the genus. Unfortunately, Arnold’s surface is nonorientable already for Hilbert’s $M$-sextic, cf. Lemma \[disproof-orientability-Arnold-M-curve:lem\].
Maybe the theorem à la Bieberbach-Grunsky specialized to plane $M$-curves (i.e. our Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]) could give (via dextrogyration[^18]) enough control on complex orientations of $M$-curves as to imply Ragsdale, either via Thom or directly via Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$ (where $\pi:=\Pi^+$, $\eta:=\Pi^-$ to abridge notation). (This amounts then to check that $\pi-\eta\le
n$, the number of negative ovals.) This admittedly looks naive, but we cannot exclude such a coarse strategy for the moment.
More modestly, it may be noted that filling Klein’s half with Ragsdale’s membrane of an $M$-sextic without nesting reduces Hilbert’s nesting Ansatz to the “baby” case of Thom for homology classes of degree 3, acquitted by Kervaire-Milnor 1961 [@Kervaire-Milnor_1961] building upon Rohlin’s early work 1951 on spin $4$-manifolds.
As said, our erroneous estimate $\chi\le k^2$ was corrected by Fiedler in a series of letters where he learned us the Petrovskii estimates on $\chi=p-n$, and Arnold’s strong avatars thereof involving hyperbolic ovals. This is again closely connected to the Ragsdale conjecture, which is still a [*pièce de resistance*]{} in the case of $M$-curves. Moreover though our estimate $\chi\le k^2$ was erroneously founded it turned out to be quite difficult to find an explicit counterexample. At least we failed via classical methods (cf. Figs.\[HilbGab1:fig\]–\[HilbGab4:fig\]), which rather inclined to think that $\chi\le k^2$ was sharp if true at all. Namely using Hilbert’s construction we find an infinite series of $M$-curves or $(M-2)$-curves such that $\chi=k^2$ exactly, but failed to beat $k^2$. We presume this is exactly the sort of experiments that led Ragsdale to her conjecture. However the story does not finish here, and the big surprise arrives now.
It is notorious that a marvellous construction of Viro-Itenberg (patchwork and $T$-construction, cf. Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]) killed the Ragsdale conjecture in degree 10 (even in its relaxed shape of Petrovskii), yet leaving intact the $M$-curves case. The Itenberg-Viro construction supplied us with the apparently simplest counterexample to our erroneous estimate $\chi \le k^2$ (for type I curves of degree $2k$). It produces namely an $(M-2)$-curves of degree 10 with $\chi=29
\nleqslant k^2=25$, hence necessarily dividing by the RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv_8 k^2+4$. This was the fatal stroke (coup de grâce) against our estimate $\chi \le k^2$, which is quite robust as it seems incorruptible via Harnack-Hilbert and challenging to refute in the $M$-case.
Last but not least, there is a disproof due to Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin] of one-side of Rohlin’s maximality conjecture namely “type I$\Leftarrow$ maximal”. This disproof is not so dramatic for Rohlin’s prohibitive programme which uses rather the converse (still hypothetical) implication “type I$\buildrel{?}\over\Rightarrow$ maximal”. Shustin’s note looks historically pivotal as it kills the second part of Klein’s intuition, pertaining to large deformations of nondividing curves as always admitting the apparition of a champagne bubble created by crossing the discriminant through a solitary node. Due to its extreme concision we had first not understood Shustin’s argument (and [*unduly*]{} mistrusted his result for a while). Finally, we understood its logic, but confess to have not yet assimilated all the results required to complete its proof. It suffices to say that Shustin’s work exploits Viro’s construction on the one side, and also advanced Bézout-style obstructions due to Fiedler and extended by Viro. Some details perhaps assisting beginners to grasp the structure of Shustin’s proof are to be found in Sec.\[Shustin-understood:sec\].
This a brief summary of the territories we managed to explore in ca. 3 months of investigation. Besides our text may have some didactic value on the following aspects.
(1).—We give a self-contained account of Gudkov solution to Hilbert’s 16th problem in degree $m=6$, by exposing the original constructions of Harnack, Hilbert and Gudkov. Those issues are well-known and described in Gudkov’s seminal survey (and at several other places like A’Campo’s Bourbaki survey 1979 [@A'Campo_1979], etc.). Yet not all species are always accompanied by decent pictures requiring sometimes clever twists of Harnack’s construction (oft messy to implement if one wants to realize a type given in advance). So we had long hours of trials with computer-assisted depictions. This can hopefully be of some use to some nonspecialist readers. Our intention was to reproduce all (including the infructuous) trials, but that generated “microfilm” pictures often too heavy for the purpose of arXivation. By the way our microfilm though still readable in pdf-format at 600 dpi resolution will still be hard to contemplate on the screen. \[[*Added in proof*]{} \[13.04.13\] This technical problem was settled by shrinking the size of pictures in the Adobe software, permitting so to economize much memory space, yet without altering the optical size of pictures.\]
(2).—We give also full details (and a graphical view=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) of Rohlin’s enhancement of Gudkov’s census of sextics by adding the complex topological characteristics of Klein (that were much neglected during the era of Hilbert, Ragsdale, Rohn, Petrovskii, Gudkov) up to the Arnold-Rohlin revival of the complexification (which turned to be the conceptual key to explain Gudkov’s experimental phenomenology). This is merely a simple exercise yet that can be quite time-consuming if one starts from zero-knowledge. Of course an excellent account of this, differing form ours only in the minor details, is already given in the masterpiece Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979]. (Our account differs just in using more primitive configurations of 3 ellipses.)
(3).—We give in Sec.\[Prohibitions:sec\] a reasonably exhaustive list of classical obstructions, especially a (nearly complete) proof of Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]). In the original source (Rohlin 1974 [@Rohlin_1974/75]) this is not presented in its full generality (only $M$-curves), though the adaptation to general dividing curves is very minor. This Rohlin’s formula looks extremely fundamental as it appears as the most universal obstruction that can be derived by nearly abstract nonsense (i.e. using very little from the assumption of algebraicity), yet still affording strikingly precise information while staying completely elementary. For instance it covers Hilbert’s Ansatz of nesting, and extends it to all degrees $m\ge
6$. It also formally implies the Arnold congruence mod 4, which is a weak form of Gudkov hypothesis for $M$-curves, yet an extension thereof to arbitrary dividing curves. Then there is a series of avatars of the Gudkov congruence mod 8, that truly requires more advanced topological tools, essentially in the spirit of Rohlin 1952 [@Rohlin_1952-4-manifolds]. Those more advanced results are not proved in our text, and we hope to be able to offer a lucid view on them in the future. Hence, to assimilate the marvellous congruences due to Rohlin, Gudkov-Krakhnov/Kharlamov, Kharlamov-Marin, etc., our reader is invited to consult the original sources (Rohlin 1972 [@Rohlin_1972/72-Proof-of-a-conj-of-Gudkov] (with a gap but essentially correct and repaired by Marin-Guillou, e.g. 1986 [@Guillou-Marin_1986] or Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979]), and also Kharlamov-Viro 1988/91 [@Kharlamov-Viro_1988/91], giving a synthesized view).
Challenging vs. less challenging open problems {#Challenging-open-prob:sec}
----------------------------------------------
\[28.03.13\] This section summarizes what looks to us major open questions in the field investigated. The reader is warned that our list is a mixture of hard Soviet conjectures of longstanding with newcomers (due to myself), therefore probably much easier to settle down when not ill-posed. To distinguish among them the symbol $\bigstar$ marks venerable Russian conjectures, while our more modest variants are marked by “$\bullet$”.
$\bigstar$ (R6) Can somebody reconstruct Rohlin’s lost proof that the $(M-2)$-sextics with schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ or $\frac{2}{1}6$ are totally real under a pencil of cubics assigned to pass through 8 points distributed on (or inside) the empty ovals. This is nearly solved in Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics], but she uses the RKM-congruence (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]) to infer a priori the curve being dividing. It could be more natural to draw dividingness from total reality via a purely synthetical procedure [*a priori*]{}. At any rate the conjunction of the RKM-congruence ($\chi\equiv_8 k^2+4$) with Le Touzé’s result implies that Rohlin’s assertion is true. Hence, it should be already “safe terrain” to explore. If much more pessimistic Rohlin’s claim is wrong and then either RKM, or Le Touzé is false, which is very unlikely.
$\bigstar$ (RLT6$\to$RMC6) Can someone complete the proof that the Rohlin-Le Touzé phenomenon of total reality (RLT6) prevents all sextic schemes extending those described in the previous problem (R6), so as to infer nearly all obstructions of Hilbert’s 16th via the paradigm of total reality (TR) and the allied phenomenon of Bézout-saturation. Cf. the diagrammatic of the Gudkov table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) to appreciate this issue in degree $m=6$. Of course this problem can be considered as very implicit in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], but in our opinion not solved there.
$\bullet$ (RLT$m>6$) How does the Rohlin-Le Touzé phenomenon described in (R6) above extend to higher degrees $m>6$? Cf. Sec.\[total-(M-2)-schemes:sec\] for a germ of answer.
$\bullet$ (A50$\to$R78) How valuable is the abstract theory of Ahlfors to assess Rohlin’s vision of total reality? Cf. e.g. Sec.\[Esquisse-dun-prog-deja-esquiss:sec\] for some scenarios. In particular is it true that any dividing plane curve admits a total pencil (i.e. whose real members cut only real points)? If yes, is it always of degree $\le (m-2)$ when the given curve has degree $m$? For the case of $M$-curves, cf. (\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]) which gives a total pencil of order $(m-2)$.
$\bullet$ (R78$\to$G13) Is it true as conjectured in our text (\[M-2-curve-degree-like-Gabard:rem\]) that any curve belonging to an $(M-2)$-scheme of type I and degree $m$ has its total reality exhibited by a pencil of curves of degree $(m-3)$. Further what is the exact rôle of Riemann, and Brill-Noether adjoint curves, in this game? Notice still in (\[M-2-curve-degree-like-Gabard:rem\]) a strange concomitance between Rohlin-Le Touzé’s role of cubics and Gabard’s $r+p$ bound on the gonality. The latter improves Ahlfors by replacing $g+1$ by the mean-value of Harnack’s bound $g+1$ and the number $r$ of real circuits. All this numerology looks to match too nicely for this being merely a fortuitous coincidence. In particular for quartics, quintics, sextics, etc. the total reality of $(M-2)$-curves of type I seems always exhibited by such a pencil of degree $(m-3)$.
$\bullet$ (RKM$\leftarrow$type I) The RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv_8
k^2+4 $ detects many $(M-2)$-schemes of type I, but does it detect all of them? The answer is yes for $m=6$ (cf. the Gudkov-Rohlin table Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Hence $m=8$ is the first place to look for a counterexample. Assuming there is one, then it could be that total reality detects type I schemes at places where RKM fails. \[[*Added in proof*]{} \[13.04.13\].—The answer to this question must be implicit in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.93, Art.3.5] (and due to Zvonilov-Wilson).\]
$\bigstar$ (RMC) Is Rohlin’s maximality conjecture true, i.e. all schemes of type I are maximal in the hierarchy of all schemes of fixed degree? Can this be disproved by the Viro-Itenberg patchwork, as it was possible to refute the converse sense of Rohlin’s conjecture (cf. Shustin’s note 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin]).
$\bullet$ (SAT) Are satellites of schemes of type I still of type I? For instance what about the 2nd satellite of the Rohlin-Le Touzé sextics of point (R6). Can this be disproved via patchwork? Assuming a positive answer to the first question (even in a special case) points to potential place where to corrupt RMC. Personally, we would be much more happy if RMC holds true, as then, and only then, there is some chance to make a big Riemann-Hilbert or Ahlfors-Rohlin synthesis.
$\bigstar$ (H8) Complete the solution of Hilbert’s 16th in degree 8, and analyze objectively if Rohlin’s maximality principle (RMC) has some things to say in this realm, as it did in degree $m=6$. In particular does Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (RMC) still persists in degree $8$. (Some hints are given in Orevkov’s letter in Sec.\[Orevkov:sec\].)
$\bullet$ (LARS) Can someone disprove our low-altitude rigidity speculation (LARS) positing that a curve with less ovals than 2 units above the deep nest is entirely determined up to large deformations by its real scheme. Cf. (\[LARS:conj\]).
$\bullet$ (URS) \[02.04.13\] The unnested rigidity speculation (URS) is akin to LARS, and posits that any unnested curve is rigid provided the number of ovals is not the square of the semi-degree ($r\neq k^2$, and assume $m$ even). Motivation comes from Rohlin’s formula (which forces such curves being of type II), and the case $m=6$ which follows from Nikulin. Another (weak) evidence comes from the fact that the locking technique of Fiedler-Marin seems to have little grip on such schemes as there is no way to choose a canonical triangle (moving frame).
$\bigstar$ (OOPS)=(One oval postulation).—In particular what about the much more modest (than LARS or URS, yet still wide open) rigidity conjecture for curves having only one component. Are such unifolium curves rigid as conjectured by Rohlin, Viro, etc. How useful are geometric flows to do this? Cf. (\[OOPS:one-oval-rigid-isotopic:conj\]). Actually Viro ascribes to Rohlin (cf. e-mail in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]) the rigidity of curves of odd degree with a unique component, but the case of even degrees looks likewise open. Further it seems evident (at least for Viro, cf. the same letter) that OOPS is implied by CC, i.e. the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture for empty ovals. By analogy it seems evident that our CCC (cf. right below) implies URS. Sketch of proof: contract all ovals simultaneously (which are all supposed empty) as to reach the connected empty chamber, and do this twice. Of course when $r=k^2$ the real scheme can be of both types, and this case has to be ruled out (or optimistically the type is the sole obstruction to rigid isotopy).
$\bullet$ (CCC)=(Collective contraction conjecture).—Can someone disprove our strong version CCC (of the Itenberg-Viro contraction principle for empty ovals) positing a simultaneous and collective contraction of all empty ovals toward solitary nodes. Cf. (\[CCC:conj\]).
$\bigstar$ (CC) \[30.03.13\] There is a (still open) conjecture of Itenberg-Viro (cf. Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994] and Viro’s preface of the same volume) positing that [*any*]{} empty oval of a real plane curve can be contracted to a point (solitary node). This is true in degree 6 as proved by Itenberg (), and weaker than our (CCC) above (cf. (\[CCviaCCC-Brusotti:lem\])).
$\bigstar$ (CC vs. TR) A noteworthy consequence of CC is that all obstructions in degree 6 derived (clumsily) via total reality (TR) are likewise derived by this contraction principle of Itenberg (CC6) (modulo knowledge of the RKM-congruence and Klein’s Thesis which is fairly easy to prove since Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988]). The problem is first to decide which method “total reality” versus “contraction” is more easily implemented in degrees $\ge
8$, while trying to make a comparative study of the prohibitions resulting from both procedures. In particular one may wonder if the Itenberg-Viro conjecture implies (formally or not) Rohlin’s maximality conjecture. Sketch of proof: Take any scheme of type I, and a curve enlarging it. Contract an empty oval so as to recover the initial scheme (note here an obvious difficulty, namely the additional oval of the extended scheme is not necessarily an empty one!), and conclude via Klein’s Thesis (a curve of type I cannot champagne-bubble).
$\bullet$ (Refuting CC via Shustin?) \[31.03.13\] By the proof of Prop. \[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\], we see that the Itenberg contraction principle combined with the diagrammatic of the Gudkov-Rohlin table (of all typed-schemes) implies [*Klein-vache*]{} (KV), i.e. the possibility for diasymmetric curve to acquire a solitary node and then a new oval ([*comme surgit du néant*]{}). Now as Klein-vache is disproved in degree 8, it seems that it is just a matter of waiting completion of Hilbert’s 16th problem in degree 8, until the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture get refuted. This is merely a crude scenario but of course one needs to keep track of a massive diagrammatic to get an extension in degree 8 of Rohlin’s theorem (\[Rohlin-type:thm\]) classifying all sextics according to their types.
$\bullet$ (GR8)=(Gudkov-Rohlin census in degree 8).—Assume someone has completed Hilbert’s 16th in degree 8 (i.e. isotopy classification of real schemes), how difficult will it be to complete the corresponding Rohlin table enhancing schemes by their types I or II. Assume this information available, does it follow (by analogy with our proof of Prop.\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\]) that under the contraction principle (CC), Klein-vache holds true in degree 8? If yes, then Shustin 1985 would refute the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture in degree 8 (CC8).
$\bigstar$ (RAG)=(Ragsdale).—While our erroneous Thom-style estimate $\chi\le k^2$ (cf. \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) is disproved by the Itenberg-Viro $(M-2)$-curve (Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]), is this estimate still true for $M$-curves? This amounts to one-half of Ragsdale conjecture $\vert \chi\vert \le k^2$ (still open in the $M$-context). A priori a “random” computer-assisted search along the Itenberg-Viro method could detect an $M$-curve refuting Ragsdale. How difficult is it to program a machine adventuring blindly and by brute force in such a random quest? In contradistinction, how difficult is it to write down a proof of Ragsdale’s conjecture in case it should be true. Could it be that a clever use of Thom, or Rohlin’s formula and even some knowledge of complex orientations derived maybe from our synthetic version (\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]) of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (planar case of Ahlfors) assesses the full puzzle. If feasible this would be a spectacular application of conformal geometry to the Hilbert-Ragsdale-Petrovskii 16th problem, boiling down in quintessence to Riemann’s Nachlass 1857 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass]. Of course we do not claim this to be an easy project.
$\bullet$ In degree 6, it may be observed that among the trinity of congruences mod 8 (due to GR, GKK, RKM, where G=Gudkov, R=Rohlin, K=Krakhnov or Kharlamov (twice), M=Marin, cf. (\[Gudkov-hypothesis:thm\]), (\[Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov-cong:thm\]), (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\])), the latter, i.e. RKM, implies the 2 formers, when combined with Rohlin’s maximality principle (RMC). Is this subsuming a general feature due to trivial geographical/arithmetical reasons? If yes can we condense, i.e. proceed to an unification of forces by reducing nearly all prohibitions of Hilbert’s 16th to the phenomenon of total reality.
$\bullet$ Can we write down an explicit ternary form with integral coefficients $F\in \ZZ[x_0,x_1,x_2]$ whose real locus is Gudkov’s curve $\frac{5}{1}5$, and estimate the smallest size of the coefficients involved? As discussed in Sec.\[Diophantine-and-proba:sec\], can we compute the natural masses (w.r.t. Lebesgue measure on the space of coefficients) of each of the 64 chambers (past the discriminant) of smooth sextic curves given by the census of Gudkov-Rohlin-Nikulin (i.e. Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
$\bullet$ \[31.03.13\] A more modest but fundamental problem is to publish (in the West side of Ural) an avatar in degree 8 of the Gudkov-Rohlin table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). For a partial depiction of just the simplest planar face of this 4D-pyramid, cf. Fig.\[Degree8:fig\]. I presume that one can by mean of an Atlas consisting of ca. 20 pages dress a list of all combinatorially possible schemes after taking into account the obvious Bézout-style obstructions (Bézout, Zeuthen, Hilbert’s bounds on the depth of nest, Gudkov, plus the total reality obstructions allied to the deep nest and doubled quadrifolium, etc.). Once this atlas of all octics is made available it should be a trivial matter to appreciate:
—how far/close we are to solve Hilbert’s 16th in degree 8 (soft-isotopy);
—how the paradigm of total reality (resp. the contraction principle) explain the prohibitions, and finally,
—whether the contraction principle (CC) implies Klein-vache, in which case CC would be disproved by Shustin’s refutation of Klein-vache in degree 8.
$\bullet$ (CG6)=(Contiguity graph for $m=6$) \[01.04.13\] Can we describe all the contiguity relation realizable via algebraic Morse surgeries on the Gudkov-Rohlin table of periodic elements (in degree 6). To be more specific, is some result along our Conjecture \[eversion-and-other surgeries:conj\] true. The proof of this could be merely a matter of adapting the work by Nikulin, and Itenberg, yet it seems quite challenging to decide precisely which eversions are realized algebro-geometrically.
$\bullet$ (KV7) Klein-vache (KV) was disproved in degree 8 by Shustin 1985 via a conjunction of Viro’s method and advanced Bézout obstructions due to Viro (and Fiedler). On the other hand, we prove below (\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\]) that KV is true in degree 6. So one may wonder about the case $m=7$, where to my knowledge KV is undecided.
$\bullet$ (II/II) Is the “toutou” conjecture true? This posits that any scheme of type II and even degree $2k$ augmented by a pseudoline to a scheme of degree $2k+1$ is of type II too. Cf. (\[toutou:conj\]) for some surgical motivation (à la Fiedler) and inspiration coming from reading Gross-Harris 1981, who were unable to settle the case of quintics with 2 unnested ovals (and a pseudoline of course). Perhaps a general solution of this problem merely follows from a conjunction of Rohlin’s and Mishachev’s formulae. If not, then one could use a large deformation principle.
$\bullet$ (Klein’s bipolarity conjecture). Is it possible for two real plane curves to have distinct distributions of ovals, yet conformally equivalent underlying symmetric Riemann surfaces (under an equivariant diffeomorphism). This can be paraphrased in the algebro-geometric language as the quest of two real planes curves with distinct distribution of ovals, but bi-rationally equivalent over $\RR$ as abstract curves. For more see (\[Klein-bipolarity:conj\]), where it is explained that the first place where to look for this (hypothetical but likely) phenomenon is degree $m=6$. It would be interesting to see if this question due to Klein 1922 (safe misunderstanding on my side) can be settled via Cremona transformations not inducing diffeomorphisms of $\RR P^2$.
$\bullet$ (RIG/SAT) Is rigidity stable under satellites? This is a wild speculation based on Nuij’s rigidity of the deep nest caricatured as reducible via satellite to the rigidity of the conic (known since time immemorial). Likewise the more highbrow rigidity result of Klein 1876 for quartics could induce rigidity of all satellites of the 6 possible quartic schemes, in particular of the quadrifolium (whose satellites are totally real under a pencil of conics). Further Nikulin’s rigidity result for sextics could imply also a vast array of rigidity results in degrees $6k$, by satellitosis of all schemes of degree 6 which are not of indefinite type (and which are explicitly known $64-2\cdot 8=48$ types by the Gudkov-Rohlin table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Perhaps all this stability of rigidity under satellites has to be combined with total reality, in which case the analogy with Nuij’s rigidity is still deeper. In that case we would only take satellites of Rohlin’s $(M-2)$-schemes of degree $6$, cf. (\[satellite-Rohlin-(6)-schemes-rigid:conj\]), and for quartics only the quadrifolium (and the deep nest) would be permissible.
$\bullet$ (ANTI-GAB) It seems that the case of $(M-4)$-sextics of type I offers a possible corruption of Gabard’s bound $r+p$. Compare Scholium \[(M-4)-sextics-corrupt-Gabard:scholium\]. If not, this is at least a [*pièce de résistance*]{} against the principle that any abstract pencil is concrete, and therefore Ahlfors abstract theorem is unlikely to apply without friction in Hilbert’s 16th problem. In other words Riemann’s canary feels claustrophobic in the Plato cavern of Brill-Noether-Hilbert.
$\bullet$ (LETOUZE-SCH) Inspired by a Scholium of Le Touzé 2013 (\[LeTouze-quintic:scholie\]), we extended her result to all $M$-curves of odd degrees, cf. Theorem \[Le-Touzé-extended-in-odd-degree:scholium\]. It seems of interest to extend her method to even degrees as well. We had just the time to treat the case of degree 6, cf. Lemma \[Le-Touzé-scholium-deg-6:lem\] which uses imaginary basepoints yet without affecting total reality. It could be challenging to see if this method of total pencil (becoming more and more explicit) could be used to reprove the deep prohibitions for $M$-curves due to Hilbert-Rohn-Gudkov-Rohlin.
$\bullet$ (RMC via Mangler 1939 and Ahlfors 1950, maybe implicit in Rohlin 1978).—-Rohlin’s maximality conjecture looks nearly implied by Ahlfors, safe for the difficulty that the enlargement of the type I scheme is a priori very distant from the enlarged curve realizing the orthosymmetric scheme. Using triviality of the mapping class group of $\RR P^2$ (Mangler 1939, probably a student of H. Kneser?), one can try to isotope the distant enlargement to make it identic with the original curve. The latter being swept out by a total pencil (Ahlfors 1950, plus epsilon!), one could get a corruption of the homological version of Bézout (i.e. intersection theory à la Poincaré, Lefschetz, etc.) Of course one requires a procedure to extend the (Mangler) isotopy to $\CC
P^2$, and one may object that our sketch of proof equally well applies to curves of type I whose scheme is however of indefinite type (but non-maximal). So there is perhaps some obstruction to extend Mangler’s isotopy as to preserve positivity of intersection-indices. Understanding this obstruction, and supposing one able to show its vanishing in case of a scheme of type I, could procure a proof of the elusive RMC. It seems very likely that Rohlin thought about this strategy, but never wrote something down. Perhaps experts like Marin can complete this game? Cf. Sec.\[RMC-via-Mangler:sec\] for slightly more details.
To keep some slight control on all these conjectures, see Fig.\[CCvsCCC:fig\] showing how they interact and their validity range.
-5pt0
-5pt0
\[30.03.13\] Let us conclude with a historical remark. It should always be remembered, and amazing to rediscover everyday, that “everything” in this topic goes back to Klein. Himself expected that the type of the symmetric Riemann surface (underlying a real curve acted upon by complex conjugation) has some interplay with Hilbert’s problem on the distribution of ovals. Compare a footnote added ca. 1922 in his Ges.Math.Abhdl., reproduced as Quote \[Klein-1922-immer-vorsgeschwebt:quote\], but of which we now reproduce the most prophetical side:
This is worth translating (in the poor English of the writer):
It always puzzled me, to infer more about shapes of real plane curves of arbitrary degrees by pursuing considerations of the text, not only regarding the number of circuits, but also their mutual dispositions. I do not abort this hope, but must alas confess, that the reality theorems on curves of arbitrary genus (which I deduce from the general theory of Riemann surfaces, specially that of symmetric Riemann surfaces), are not sufficient for this purpose, affording instead merely a framework for the menagerie of possibilities to be investigated.
It is striking to notice how this Kleinian prose remains very much actual, reflecting best our own frustration to make the Ahlfors-Rohlin Verschmelzung, we are dreaming about, a true reality. It shows also how much Klein would have appreciated the developments made possible in the 1970’s by Gudkov, Arnold, and especially Rohlin, etc., and perhaps even more, something like anticipating the vision of total reality by Rohlin.
\[05.04.13\] The last sentence of this same footnote, reads:
Da man über die Natur dieser Bedingungen zunächst wenig weiss, kann man noch nicht von vornherein sagen, dass alle die Arten reeller Kurven, die man gemäss meinen späteren Untersuchungen für $p={ n-1 \cdot n-2 \over 2}$ findet, bereits im Gebiete besagter ebener Kurven $n$-ter Ordnung vertreten sein mü[ß]{}ten, auch nicht, da[ß]{} ihnen immer nur [*eine*]{} Art ebener Kurven entspräche. K.
Here, one realizes that Klein anticipated the simple phenomenon of what Rohlin calls schemes of indefinite type, i.e. that the real scheme alone (i.e., distribution of ovals) does not need to determine the type (i.e. dividingness or not). Klein also emphasizes the issue that not all topologically permissible symmetric Riemann surfaces have to appear in the plane. In both cases the first examples appear in degree 5, and then massively in degree 6. For instance a quintic with only one pseudoline cannot be of type I , albeit since its genus is even (namely 6) the corresponding Riemann surface exists. (Compare (\[Klein-Marin-quintic:lem\]) which is based on Klein-Marin, or Gross-Harris argument via theta-characteristics discussed at the same place that was probably known to Klein in 1892.
Finally, it is also puzzling to see that Klein 1892 anticipated somewhat the contraction conjecture of Itenberg-Viro, cf. historical note right after (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]).
Albeit Klein missed some basic modern tricks (like Rohlin’s formula, or Fiedler surgical smoothing law), he also mastered perfectly the Riemannian theory (conformal maps, the allied circle maps and total reality as credited by Teichmüller 1941, theta-characteristics, allied deep enumerative problems of bitangents to quartics à la Plücker-Zeuthen). Further he appealed to contraction principles, as well as his own singular geometric method to represent complex loci as multiple cover of the projective plane as to infer the “complexified” topology of real curves (in the 1874–76 articles “Über eine neue Art der Riemannschen Flächen”). Hence Klein’s legacy on the topic is massive (ca. 300 pages, if one counts the Göttingen lectures [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen]), and much remains to be learned from it.
The Klein-Rohlin conjecture on real schemes of type I {#Klein-Rohlin-conj:sec}
=====================================================
\[01.01.13\] A fascinating question is raised by (the master) V.A. Rohlin in his 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.95] survey looping back directly to a (prophetic) allusion of Klein. Remember that Rohlin was fluent with German language, being involved during World War II as translator on the front-line, cf. Guillou-Marin’s book 1986 [@Guillou-Marin_1986 p.ix]: “[*En 1941, quand l’Allemagne attaqua l’U.R.S.S., Rohlin rejoignit le corps des volontaires du Peuple (unités militaires non entraînées). Son unité fut encerclé et Rohlin fait prisonnier par les allemands. Ensuite il réussit à s’échapper, à rejoindre l’armée soviétique et finit la guerre comme traducteur militaire (Rohlin parlait couramment l’allemand). Immédiatement après la guerre Rohlin fut emprisonné par la sécurité de l’armée (comme ce fut le cas pour de nombreux anciens prisonniers de guerre) mais fut libéré à la fin de l’année 1945.*]{}”
. [A study of the available factual material suggests that possibly a real scheme belongs to type I iff it is [*maximal*]{}, that is, it is not part of a larger real scheme of the same degree. This conjecture is true for $m\le 6$, and there is much to be said in its favour[^19] for $m>6$. There is an allusion to it in Klein: see \[4\], p.155 (=Klein 1922=Ges. Math. Abh. II [@Klein-Werke-II_1922]).]{}
The passage Rohlin had in mind is unambiguously identified as the following (going back actually to Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876]), which is worth reproducing albeit it is first quite hard to interpret (cf. also Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress p.67–68] or Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000 p.785], and especially Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988], clarifying earlier work partially incorrect of Cheponkus 1976 [@Cheponkus_1976]):
\[Klein\_1876-niemals-isolierte:quote\]
\[17.01.13\] It is essential to note that Klein’s quote contains two very distinct parts. The first part on which Klein is affirmative may be translated as the assertion that a dividing (=type I or orthosymmetric) plane curve cannot acquire a new oval by transgressing the discriminant at a solitary node (with imaginary conjugate tangents like the germ $x^2+y^2=0$). With the strong word “kann …niemals” (=never never!!), Klein emphasizes his complete self-confidence about the truth of his assertion. Alas no proof (as far as I know) were ever given by him, even in his Göttingen lectures 1892 [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen]. The first proof had to wait 112 years until Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988] write down a two-lines argument (of a somewhat stronger assertion). A recent e-mail exchange with Viro suggested that Klein’s Ansatz may easily be deduced from the Ahlfors map (cf. Lemma \[Klein-via-Ahlfors(Viro-Gabard):lem\]).
The second part of Klein’s text, starting with “während die Kurven …”, is pretty subtle to interpret and definitively less categoric. It is suggested that curves of type II are in contrast susceptible of acquiring new ovals springing [*ex nihilo*]{} from a solitary double point like a champagne bubble. The vague wording “sozusagen noch entwicklungsfähig” (=“so-to-speak still developable”) emphasizes that Klein did not saw any nondividing curve champagne-bubbling, but merely that he found no (topological) obstruction to such an eventuality. As we shall see, this second clause which we shall call “Klein-vache” is refutable (in degree $8$) via the disproof of one half of Rohlin’s conjecture by Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985]. Alas, we have not yet completely digested Shustin’s work, which relies on deep Bézout-style obstructions due to Fiedler-Viro. In the positive sense, we proved via a cocktail of Russian results that “Klein-vache” holds true in degree 6 (cf. Prop.\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\]).
\[01.01.13\] Rohlin’s conjectural criterium looks a pearl of observational skills. What does it mean, or rather how practical is it if true at all? One should make a list of all real schemes (i.e. isotopy classes) of curves of a given order. Then assuming one competent and patient enough to have tabulated the exhaustive list one could detect the dividing types by inspecting maximum elements in the lattice ordered by inclusion. ([*Insertion*]{} \[28.03.13\].—This is not really what happens in practice, especially since Shustin’s disproof, and it seems more likely that the residual half of Rohlin’s conjecture acts by means of prohibitions, that are anyway required to dress a table of all schemes.)
Let us work out low-order examples to gain some experimental evidence Rohlin is referring to.
First in degree $1$ there is just the line, which is of type I (=dividing). Then in degree 2, there is two isotopy classes represented either by the circle $x^2+y^2=+1$ and the invisible conic $x^2+y^2=-1$ (empty real locus). (This follows e.g. from Sylvester’s law of inertia, alias diagonalization of quadratic forms, also to be found earlier by Jacobi, and presumably many others? and on the case of 2 variables this can safely goes back to ancient Greeks, Euclid, etc.) In order 3 we have cubics (extensively studied by Newton and Plücker), but up to isotopy the story becomes much simpler and we have two isotopy classes differentiated merely by the number of real circuits $r=1,2$; the latter being dividing while the other is not. This follows readily from the abstract Klein-Weichold classification of symmetric surfaces (the latter being merely a mirror image of the Möbius-Jordan classification of abstract topological surfaces).
The little zoo of all quartics (Plücker 1839, Zeuthen 1874, Klein 1876, Rohlin 1978)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[01.01.13\] Next it comes to quartics (order 4). Here the number of real circuits $r$ fails to classify isotopy classes for there exist quartics with 2 ovals being either nested or not. The first basic thing-to-do (going back apparently to Plücker 1839 [@Plücker_1839]) is exploring varied examples by smoothing a pair of conics with 4 intersections (cf. Fig.\[KleinRohlin-quartic:fig\]).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Among all those curves only those marked by the attribute “dividing” are dividing as they result from sense-preserving smoothings. One can also remember Klein’s congruence $r\equiv g+1
\pmod 2$ in the dividing case to detect nondividing curves, e.g. those with $r=3,1$. Also under Harnack-maximality, i.e. $r=g+1$ (here $4$) then dividingness is automatic (by Riemann-Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876] or the more tedious synthetic argument of Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876]). So $r=2$ is the only ambiguous value. Here, as shown on the figure, the 2 ovals can either be nested or not. In the first case the curve is dividing (due to total reality under a pencil of lines through the innermost oval), while the unnested case is always nondividing (as Klein knew as early as 1876).
\[Klein-unnested-quartic-nondividing:lem\] [(Klein 1876)]{} All quartics with $r=2$ unnested ovals (and not just the two traced above) are nondividing.
This is already a nontrivial result. We sketch several proofs:
\(1) How Klein derived the result? Maybe as follows. Klein knew as early as 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf] (basing himself on deep works of Schläfli and Zeuthen on cubic surfaces and their apparent contours which are quartics) that quartics are rigidly classified by the real scheme. This is to mean that any two quartic curves having the same distribution of ovals can be continuously deformed through a large deformation of the coefficients without ever meeting a singular curve. Hence Klein had only to check the nondividing character of a specific quartic to get that of all curves with 2 unnested ovals. Klein used a special device of representation of the curve as a branched cover of the projective plane by assigning to each point (of the complexification) the unique real point of the tangent and so could see the curve. Nowadays the surgical recipe of Fiedler looks also best suited to do this. For an elementary graphical proof compare our Fig.\[Guertel-genetic:fig\] earlier in this text.
\(2) Perhaps one way to argue could involve Ahlfors theorem, yet some nontrivial details deserve being worked out. \[03.01.13\] Assuming Gabard there is a total map of degree $r+p=3$ if dividing (and not less via the complex gonality), yet since the ovals are unnested it cannot be induced by a pencil of lines. So the auxiliary curves are of order at least two. Assume first the order to be two, so we have a pencil of conics. Since the degree of the morphism is 3, we have $2\cdot 4-3=5$ basepoints on the $C_4$, but a pencil of conics has only 4 basepoints by Bézout. (Note that Ahlfors bound $r+2p=g+1=4$ would not be strong enough for this purpose!) If the auxiliary curve are of order $3$, then we must have $3\cdot 4-3=9$ basepoints on the $C_4$. No basic corruption is detected?
\(3) Another argument via theta-characteristics is implicit in Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet] (see also his Göttingen lectures 1891/92 [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen]) and appears in modernized form in Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981].
\(4) Another more elementary (and purely topological) proof follows from Rohlin’s formula 1974–78 (valid for dividing curves), cf. Sec.\[Rohlin-formula:sec\]. This formula reads $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$, where $\pi$, $\eta$ are the number of positive, resp. negative pairs of ovals. This distinction appears by comparing the orientation induced as boundary of the half of the Riemann surface underlying the curve, with that of the annuli bounding a pair of nested ovals. In our case there is no nesting hence $\pi=\eta=0$, and so $r=k^2=4$ violating the assumption $r=2$.
\(5) A related proof involves Arnold congruence 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72] for $M$-curves of degree $2k$ (with an obvious extension to dividing curves in Wilson 1978 [@Wilson_1978]). This reads $\chi:=p-n \equiv k^2 \pmod 4$ and suffices. Here $p, n$ are notation coined in Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938 p.190] for positive and negative ovals, also interpretable as the number of even and odd ovals. An oval is said to be [*even*]{} if it is lying within an even number of consecutive ovals. For the case at hand (2 unnested ovals), both are even (being subsumed to zero ovals), hence $p-n=2-0\equiv
k^2=4 \pmod 4$ is violated, and the nondividing character of the curve follows. The difference $p-n$ is readily interpreted as the Euler characteristic $\chi$ of the Ragsdale membrane bounding (orientably) the curve from inside. In the case at hand, the Ragsdale membrane is the disjoint union of 2 discs, whence obviously $\chi=2$.
Now using the theorem of Bézout, it is clear (cf. Zeuthen 1874) that our picture above (Fig.\[KleinRohlin-quartic:fig\]) exhaust all possible shapes traced by quartics. For instance a such cannot have 2 ovals nested in a third one, etc. So it is a simple matter to convince that we have listed all real schemes of quartics (with all of them safe the empty curve $x^4+y^4=-1$ arising through small perturbation of 2 ellipses). Of course a priori a quartic could have 5 ovals but this was precluded by Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876], and of course already by Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874 p.411] using a prototype of Harnack’s device. Indeed if a quartic had 5 ovals (or more) the conic through them would cut it in $5\cdot 2=10>8=2\cdot 4$ overwhelming Bézout. At any rate Klein’s argument of 1876 via the underlying Riemann surface gives the general Harnack bound $r\le g+1$ in some more intrinsic fashion.
Even stronger is the following result (due to Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf], though his proof makes a détour through surfaces and it could be interesting to find a more direct argument). Perhaps the transition through cubic surfaces is necessary as it rationalize the irrationality of quartics curves, though Klein in 1876 seems to have add a direct argument staying in the realm of curves, but he did not exposed details.
The real scheme is a complete invariant for rigid-isotopy classes of quartics.
(Rigid isotopy refers to the morcellation of the space of all curves of some fixed order effected by the discriminant hypersurface parametrizing singular curves.) Modulo such knowledge one can draw the lattice of all real schemes (right part of Fig.\[KleinRohlin-quartic:fig\]) on which the (Klein-)Rohlin intuition is verified: a real scheme is dividing (or of type I) iff it is maximal.
\[28.03.13\] In fact it is tempting to make a baby Gudkov table in degree 4 (inspired by the case of degree 6, cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) as to visualize the situation. Here the Gudkov symbol $\frac{x}{1}y$ is merely a symbolical way to mean that $x$ ovals are nested in a big oval (the denominator $1$), while $y$ ovals are lying outside. It is noteworthy that Rohlin’s maximality principle is fully validated here and prohibits all the schemes lying above the configuration $\frac{1}{1}$ of the nest of depth 2, which is already Bézout-saturated. It is also pleasant to notice the presence already of the highbrow Gudkov-Rohlin sawtooth (dashed on the picture) so typical of the solution of Hilbert’s 16th in degree 6 (cf. again Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). This extends to all degrees by the congruences of Gudkov-Rohlin $\chi\equiv_8 k^2=4$ for $M$-curves (\[Gudkov-hypothesis:thm\]), Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov for $(M-1)$-curve and Kharlamov-Marin for $(M-2)$-curves of type I). This sawtooth, which looks like a piecewise linear sine-curve, forces the scheme below its depressions, to be of type I. Of course it tends to pass unnoticed here ($m=4$) as it is such a trivial consequence of Bézout with lines.
-5pt0
-5pt0
As already announced we conjecture in general that the whole sawtooth can be explained by invoking the phenomenon of total reality for $(M-2)$-curves via adjoint curves of order $(m-3)$. At this stage a comparison with degree 6 (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) makes it puzzling to wonder if all schemes lying below the sawtooth are always realized, yielding a sort of denseness below the sawtooth (alias Gudkov line). The answer is no in degree 8 (cf. Fig.\[Degree8:fig\]), where Petrovskii’s estimate of 1933/38 (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]) starts to act prohibitively. Yet taking this and other conjectural hypothesis of Ragsdale into account, one can still wonder about the question of denseness of schemes, namely the issue as to whether prohibition are essentially confined to the high level of the pyramid (i.e. above $(M-2)$-curves), or if in contrast there is some sort of porism (or lacunae) killing schemes at low altitudes. As we shall see latter if the conjectural maximality principle of Rohlin as well as our stability of type I under satellites holds true, it is likely that for high degree $m$ (especially when the integer $m=2k$ as a rich factorization into primes) then there will be a myriad of cone-like [*no man’s land*]{} zone where schemes are killed because they extend a Bézout-Ahlfors-Rohlin saturated scheme subsumed to the paradigm of total reality.
Of course the situation of low degrees $m=4,6$ may give the wrong impression that the whole paradigm of obstruction by the saturation allied to total reality are already explained by the trinity of Russian congruences mod 8 (of all the workers already cited starting with Gudkov-Arnold-Rohlin). Yet in reality this is not even true for low degrees because under the disguise of Bézout it is already total reality which assures the planar character of the lowest Gudkov tables $m\le 6$. Otherwise we had to consider a menagerie of other schemes with more nested structures. So this gives some intuition a priori that Rohlin’s maximality principle (in our opinion much allied to Ahlfors) will not be subsumed to the trinity of congruence mod 8, albeit the lowest of it pertaining to $(M-2)$-curves may act as vivid generator of total reality phenomena.
Quintics (Klein 1892?, Rohlin-Mishachev 1976, Fiedler 78, Marin 79, Gross-Harris 1981) {#quintic-table-Klein-Gudkov:sec}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[04.04.13\] This survey has some repugnancy against curves of odd order for reasons hard-to-explain, perhaps allied to the cumbersomeness of the avatar of Rohlin’s formula (due to Mishachev). However the theory especially our main focus of total pencils works as well in this case. Let us take a small look at the “Gudkov-Rohlin” table in degree $m=5$. We recommend however to skip this section on first reading as our understanding is lacunary (in part because we do not discuss Mishachev’s formula, or because we do not entered into the Klein-Gross-Harris theory of real theta characteristics). Yet, the case of quintics and more generally curves of odd degrees (especially those of the shape $m=5+4n$, else Klein’s congruence suffices) offer a pleasant application of the Klein-Marin principle, when it comes to check that the scheme with only one circuit is of type II (see Lemmas \[Klein-Marin-quintic:lem\] and \[Klein-Marin-odd-degree:lem\]).
First, in degree $m=5$, Harnack’s bound is $M=g+1=7$, since $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}=(4\cdot 3)/2=6$. In odd degrees there is always a unique pseudoline (Möbius 18XX [@Moebius_18XX], von Staudt 18XX [@von-Staudt_18XX], Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874], Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876], Hilbert 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege], etc.), and we may omit it from the Gudkov symbols. Hence on the table below (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table-quintic:fig\]) we suppress the pseudoline from the real scheme depiction. As usual one of the most noteworthy configuration is the deep nest, here $\frac{1}{1}=(1,1)$ which is total under a pencil of lines, hence of type I.
[*Bibliographical puzzle*]{}.—This argument looks to us much more elementary than the one of Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981 p.175] via theta-characteristics which goes back probably to Klein 1892. Despite its extreme elementariness, it seems also to have escaped Klein’s attention. In fact Klein uses it in 1892 (p.177 of Ges. Math. Abh, II) but only after contracting the empty oval of the Gürtelkurve. We cite the relevant passage:
Sollen wir diese geometrischen Verhältnisse durch Beispiele belegen, so nehmen wir vielleicht zunächst den Fall der Gürtelkurve $p=3$. Hier hat es ersichtlich keine Schwierigkeit, das innere Oval auf einen Punkt zusammenzuziehen. Von diesem aus projizieren wir jetzt die Kurve auf eine gerade Linie. Die Gerade wird dann nach ihrer ganzen Erstreckung von den Bildpunkten doppelt überdeckt, so zwar, da[ß]{} dabei kein reeller “Scheitel” auftritt[^20]. Das entspricht in der Tat dem orthosymmetrischen Falle $\lambda=1$ des Geschlechtes $p=2$.
Later, the argument of total reality seems to have escaped the attention of another great master, namely Alexis Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979], compare especially on p.56 his complicated argument for “N’existe pas” in the bottom-right angle of the tabulation, as well as the question p.59: “Est-ce qu’une courbe ayant cette disposition sépare sa complexifiée.”
This total reality (or Bézout-saturation) kills all schemes enlarging it (cf. unframed white-colore schemes on Fig.\[Gudkov-Table-quintic:fig\]). Apart from this obstruction there is essentially no other. First we can construct an $M$-curve necessarily unnested (by Bézout-saturation) with symbol $6$ (again the pseudoline $J$ is omitted). This is constructed via a Hilbert-method on Fig.\[Gudkov-Table-quintic:fig\]a (for a less schematic picture cf. Fig.\[Harna0:fig\]). We presume that nobody knew existence of such a curve prior to Harnack 1876 (but this is just a historical challenge, perhaps Plücker, Zeuthen, Klein before but not sure).
-10pt0
Next Fig.b. shows a quintic with 5 ovals (and one pseudoline), which arises by slight perturbation of 2 ellipses plus a line. This was probably known to Plücker 1839 [@Plücker_1839], or earlier. The curve constructed is of type II by Fiedler’s signs law, or just by Klein’s congruence $r\equiv_2 g+1$. The latter forces actually all the schemes $5,3,1$ being of type II.
Below we have the scheme $4$. This admits realizations of both types (as knew Rohlin 1978, and perhaps Klein?), as shown by Fig.c and Fig.d (using Fiedler’s smoothing law). The curve of Fig.c has actually a total pencil of conics assigned to pass through the 4 ovals (which was depicted earlier in this text). Again it is interesting to note that Gross-Harris (p.176–177) used a somewhat more synthetic and complicated argument than just Fiedler’s law, to show existence of curves in both types I/II.
[*Historical note*]{}.—The above phenomenon is the first instance of where the type of a curve is not determined by the distribution of ovals. It admits as a simple consequence the fact that there exists obstructions to rigid-isotopy lying beyond the real scheme (remark due to Rohlin 1978). It is clear however that Klein knew (or at least suspected) this basic phenomenon, compare his footnote of 1922:
\[Inserted 05.04.13\].—In fact this can be interpreted either à la Rohlin, by saying that a real scheme can have realizations in both types (I/II=ortho- or diasymmetric). Somewhat more crazy would be the following interpretation.
\[Klein-bipolarity:conj\] [(Kleinian bipolarity—Klein 1922, Gabard 2013)]{}.—An abstract symmetric Riemann surface (SRS) can admit plane realizations with distinct distributions of ovals.
Actually I do not know if this phenomenon of “bipolarity” can occur. Of course it does trivially occur, with a line and a conic both representing the Riemann sphere with its standard real structure (equatorial involution). In degree 3, it cannot occur since the real scheme determines the type, and likewise in degree 4 (cf. previous section). In degree 5, predestination of the type by the real scheme is not true any more, yet the combinatorics of Fig.\[Gudkov-Table-quintic:fig\] is sufficiently simple as to preclude bipolarity. Indeed if the SRS is fixed, hence in particular the number $r$ of real circuits, the only height at which there are several distributions of ovals is $r=3$, where we have the nested ($\frac{1}{1}$) and the unnested ($2$) schemes. Yet both of them are differentiated by the type. Hence the first place to look for bipolarity is degree 6. Here we have (see the Gudkov-Rohlin table Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) a myriad of sextics having the same underlying (topological) symmetric surface. It is unclear if they can be conformally equivalent while exhibiting different distributions of ovals. It could be imagined that a Hilbert sextic is sometimes conformally diffeomorphic to one of Harnack, or even Gudkov. This question looks a bit artificial or puzzling, yet has perhaps of some importance if one likes to link with the abstract theory of Ahlfors taking into account only the abstract Riemann surface. To settle the bipolarity question we can look at the natural map from the hyperspace of smooth plane curves to the real moduli space of SRS, i.e. $\mH-\disc \to M_g$. Perhaps then two chambers may have overlapping images. As noted by the old Felix Klein (aged 73 at the moment of his 1922 footnote) plane curves have specialized moduli. Hence the images in question are fairly small subloci of the moduli space, but this does not prevent overlap. Another approach is to use Cremona transformations of the plane defined over $\RR$ which do not induce diffeomorphisms of the plane $\RR
P^2$ (this remembers works by Ronga-Vust ca. 2002, or their student J. Blanc). By this procedure we can perhaps alter the distribution of ovals, yet without distorting the conformal structure, as the curve and its image are in birational equivalence. Can this vague idea be implemented? Otherwise the approach can be the Teichmüller-theory of the map described above from concrete plane curves to the moduli space of abstract real(=symmetric) Riemann surfaces, while trying to study exactly the coincidences of this mapping. One could try to determine exactly which among the 64 chambers of sextics (Nikulin’s theorem (\[Nikulin:thm\])) are in bipolarity, i.e. contains conformal replicas of the same symmetric Riemann surface. This defines an additional graph structure on the Gudkov-Rohlin table where edges are traced whenever two vertices(=chambers) contains curves abstractly isomorphic over $\RR$. Of course the edges have to preserve the height $r$ on the Gudkov pyramid, as well as the types. Those (topological) obstructions to bipolarity could be the sole ones, in which case the graph in question would show plenty of edges. In particular it restricts to the complete graph on each levels at height $r$ not congruent to $g+1 \pmod 2$ where diasymmetry reigns ubiquitously (Klein’s congruence). Few other levels have pure types too, e.g. $M$-curves (type I only), and the level $r=3$ (types II only) (via Rohlin’s formula), see again Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]. At those levels the bipolar graph could be complete too.
After this digression, we return to the basic classification of quintics. The scheme $3$ is of type II by Klein’s congruence (as we already noted), and exists as shown by Fig.e.
Next the scheme 2 exists in type II as shown by Fig.f. It is however more tricky to prove that the scheme $2$ is of type II. This follows either from the avatar in odd degree of Rohlin’s formula (i.e. Mishachev’s formula). Perhaps there is a more elementary argument, say by using a pencil of lines while trying to permute 2 imaginary points during a sweeping. Also Gross-Harris have probably an argument via theta-characteristics, but alas those authors confess being not able to prove this compare p.175 of Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981] where we read: “In the non-nested case, we suspect that $a(X)$ is always 1 \[i.e. type II, or nondividing\] but have no proof”. Was Felix Klein (1892 paper [@Klein_1892_Realitaet] or lectures [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen]) able to tackle this case?
A crude principle that do this work is the postulation that whenever we add a pseudoline to a scheme of type II, it remains of type II. Recall that we know since Klein that the quartic scheme $2$ is of type II, cf. Lemma \[Klein-unnested-quartic-nondividing:lem\]. Some evidence comes from surgeries on the Riemann surface while noticing that diasymmetry is a dominating character in the genetical sense. This is implicit in Fiedler’s law of smoothing and really a simple matter of visualizing the corresponding Riemann surfaces. So let us posit the:
\[toutou:conj\] [(Gabard 2013, but probably standard by Rohlin-Fiedler, if not erroneous)]{}.—When a scheme of even degree $2k$ is of type II, then the same scheme of degree $2k+1$ augmented by a pseudoline is of type II too. (Il y a trop de toutous dans la langue anglaise, mon ostie!)
Proving this could again involve a large deformation principle (as discussed in the sequel) like minimizing the length of the pseudoline as to make it a line. There will then be a strangulation of the Riemann surface and we are reduced to Fiedler’s genetic law. Perhaps there is an elementary proof of the conjecture based on a conjunction of Rohlin’s and Mishachev’s formulae. Note also that the conjecture holds true for the empty scheme by Lemma \[Klein-Marin-odd-degree:lem\] below.
Another idea to show that the quintic (unnested) scheme $2$ is of type II could be to use Klein’s 1876 remark that a curve of type I cannot acquire a solitary node, cf. below for a proof (\[Klein-Marin:lem\]) essentially along the lines of Marin 1988. Then we are reduced to showing that any quintic with scheme 2 (again we omit the pseudoline $J$) can indeed acquire a new oval. This looks a priori hard, but in view of the diagrammatic of the table Fig.\[Gudkov-Table-quintic:fig\] (mostly prompted by Bézout) we could just make a deformation along a pencil spanned by the curve plus a curve with more ovals (e.g. Harnack’s or just $5$ of Fig.b). The difficulty however is that the deformation is not forced to raise immediately the number of ovals, as it may first lower down the number of ovals. Incidentally if this argument via Klein-Marin would have worked it would also have prohibited the type I realization of the scheme 4.
Next we have the scheme $1$ forced to be of type I, by Klein’s congruence, and easily constructed (e.g. by a slight alteration of the picture Fig.\[Gudkov-Table-quintic:fig\]f above).
Finally, the scheme $0$ poses again a little problem, but can also be shown to be of type II. This follows either from Rohlin-Mishachev, or via theta-characteristics. In this case Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981 p.175] were able to conclude type II via theta-characteristics (see their proof of Prop.7.1, p.173, which contains some minor misprints, namely “Prop.4.1” should be “Prop.5.1”, and “$h^0({\bf
a})=(d^2-1)/2$” should be “$h^0({\bf a})=(d^2-1)/8$”).
A somewhat more conceptual argument can be based on Klein’s Thesis (as Viro calls it) of 1876 to the effect that [*a curve of type I cannot gain an oval (at least when crossing a solitary node)*]{}. This was perhaps historically the first known proof, albeit Klein did not mentioned this consequence explicitly in print (1876 paper, nor later). On writing down the proof below, we realized that one needs the stronger version due to Marin 1988 of Klein’s Thesis relaxing the parenthetical proviso above. Hence our claim of historical priority is somewhat sloppy, but in substance Klein could have anticipated it.
\[Klein-Marin-quintic:lem\] [($\approx$Klein 1876, 1892, Rohlin-Mishashev ca. 1974–76, Gross-Harris 1981, Marin 1988, Gabard 2013 trying to assembly all this today)]{}.—Any quintic with only one pseudo-line is necessarily of type II (i.e. nondividing or diasymmetric).
Take such a curve $C_5$ (with only a pseudoline) and any auxiliary (smooth) curve with at least one oval (and so $r\ge 2$). Pass a line through both curves (in the hyperspace of curves) and perturb it slightly to ensure transversality w.r.t. the discriminant. Since the initial curve $C_5$ has the least possible number of real circuit (namely one), the first contact (along one of the 2 possible pathes inside the pencil) with the discriminant will be a “Morse” surgery (jargon Thom-Milnor) [*forced to increase the number of ovals*]{} ($\bigstar$).
This last (italicized) assertion ($\bigstar$) requires perhaps more substantiation. Let us admit it to conclude quickly. If the new oval raises from a solitary-node then Klein’s Thesis of 1876 (alas left unproven by the great geometer) suffices to conclude. If not, e.g. if the pseudoline self-collides with itself as to split off a new oval (Fig.\[Eversionpseudo:fig\]a), then Marin’s version of Klein completes the proof, cf. (\[Klein-Marin:lem\]) or Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988].
To justify better ($\bigstar$) we should check that all Morse surgeries of a pseudoline forces an augmentation of the number of circuits. In the case of an oval this is not true due to “eversions” (cf. Sec.\[Eversion:sec\] especially Fig.\[Eversion:fig\]), whence our extreme prudence. However doing naive experimental pictures deforming a pseudoline, it seems impossible to evert a pseudoline (Fig.\[Eversionpseudo:fig\]b). It remains of course to find a theoretical explanation.
-5pt0
-5pt0
It is clear that the above lemma extends to all other odd degrees:
\[Klein-Marin-odd-degree:lem\] Any curve with a unique real circuit is of type II, safe if it is a line or a conic (degree $m=1,2$).
[*Remark*]{}.—The argument of (Klein-)Gross-Harris only works under the (extraneous and stringent) assumption $m \equiv 5 \pmod
8$ (cf. their Prop.7.1, p.173).
The case of odd degrees follows by the same method using the Klein-Marin theorem. The case $m=3$ is of course more elementary and can be reduced to the uniformization of elliptic curves e.g. à la Weierstrass via the doubly-periodic $\wp$-function defined on a rhombic lattice. Sorry, it suffices actually to use Klein’s congruence, or to remember—if you do not want to sell your soul to the devil of arithmetics—that a symmetric torus with one fixed circuit is forced to be $S^1\times S^1$ acted upon by exchange of both factors (while fixing the diagonal circle).
Actually Klein’s congruence $r\equiv_2 g+1$ settles the lemma whenever $m=3+4n$. Indeed then $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}=\frac{(2+4n)(1+4n)}{2}=(1+2n)(1+4n)=1+6n+8n^2$, which is odd, and so Klein’s congruence (forced by type I) is corrupted, whence type II.
For the other cases $m=1+4n$, Klein’s congruence tells nothing and one make appeal to the Klein-Marin argument instead.
For even degrees, one can again treat half of the cases via Klein’s congruence, namely when $m=4, 8, 12, \dots$, i.e. $m=4n$ as then $g=\frac{(4n-1)(4n-2)}{2}=(4n-1)(2n-1)$ which is odd, and so Klein congruence is violated for $r=1$. For the other cases $m=2+4n$, the congruence tells nothing. However we can still conclude type II (of course provided $m\ge 4$), either via Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]) or maybe a variant of the Klein-Marin argument. However now the configuration with one circuit has not the minimal number of circuits and so we may first descend to the empty chamber and the Klein-Marin method looks impuissant. Of course perhaps some extra trick can ensure that we can increase the number of component immediately yet I do not see any obvious argument.
The impressive landscape of all sextics (Harnack 1876, Hilbert 1891/00/09, Rohn 1911/13, Petrowskii 1933/38, Gudkov 1948/54/69, Arnold 1971, Rohlin 1972/74/78)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[31.12.12\] Perhaps the Klein-Rohlin conjecture follows from Ahlfors theorem interpreted in terms of total reality. Intuitively having a total pencil, no real circuit can be added without corrupting Bézout (more on this in Sec.\[Rohlin-via-Ahlfors\]). Yet perhaps this is too naive as shown by an example of order 6 to be found in Gabard’s Thesis 2004 [@Gabard_2004 p.8] (I should acknowledge Kalla-Klein 2012 [@Kalla-Klein_2012-Computation-cite-Gabard] for reminding me that my Thesis contained this example).
-5pt0
-5pt0
This shows that the real scheme alone fails to determine the dividing character (alias type I=erster Art in Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876]). At first I thought this corrupts Rohlin’s assertion that his conjecture is true in degree 6. Of course Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] knew very much this phenomenon, which he calls “real schemes of indefinite type” (on p.94 of ), i.e. real schemes admitting representatives of both types (dividing or not). Hence it was first puzzling to wonder why he made such a basic mistake, or more likely why we first failed to interpret correctly his simple message?
Understanding the Klein-Rohlin conjecture requires some more mature thinking. One should list all schemes dominating the “nine unnested ovals” scheme. On p.95 Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] refers to the census (tabulation) set up by Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74 p.40] listing all the logically possible (real schemes of) sextic curves (taking into account Bézout for lines). This is worth reproducing as Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]. Recall that in Gudkov’s symbolism, $\frac{x}{1} y$ denotes the scheme consisting of $x$ ovals enclosed by one “big” oval, while there is $y$ ovals living outside. This gives a total of $1+2+3+\dots+11=\frac{12 \cdot
11}{2}=6\cdot 11=66$ logically possible curves (counting inside the “triangle”), to which must be added the empty real scheme (denoted $0$) and the deep nest of depth $3$ (denoted $(1,1,1)$ or $\frac{1}{{\frac{1}{1}}}$). We get so the 68 schemes ([*année érotique*]{}) mentioned by Gudkov (p.40).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Not all of those 68 schemes are actually realized. If they would this would roughly mean that all obstructions are Bézout-like prompted by tracing a single line. However the plane is swept out by a myriad of other curves. Quite eclectically, the architecture of Hilbert-Gudkov’s table of elements is a bit like a pharaohs pyramid (turn Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\] upsidedown) and those are known to have sanctuary galleries forming tunnels. The first to have spotted this porousness of the pyramid is no less an authority than Hilbert 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege], albeit it took several decades until his work got consolidated (especially by Rohn 1911, Petrovskii 1933/38) and pushed forward to its ultimate perfection (thanks to the efforts of Gudkov). Soon afterwards, Arnold and Rohlin offered quite dramatic simplifications based on pure topology, and extensions of the prohibitions to all degrees. We suspect this Hilbert-Gudkov pyramid to have some overlap—not yet much elucidated except perhaps for allusions in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.94]—with some more ancient force, namely Abel-Riemann-Klein-Teichmüller-Ahlfors and their circle maps. The latter are of course specific to dividing curves concomitant with the paradigm of total reality. In the case at hand (real plane smooth sextics), total reality is exhibited according to a Rohlin’s claim 1978 (not yet fully understood by the writer) via total pencil of cubics for certain schemes, e.g. $\frac{6}{1}2$ and its mirror $\frac{2}{1}6$. More trivial is the nest of depth $3$, totally real under a pencil of lines. This can be interpreted as a prohibition of diasymmetry for those schemes. Likewise the porous portion of Gudkov’s pyramid (=white cases above the broken line on Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) can be prohibited (and this is how I understand vaguely the Hilbert-Rohn method) by pure synthetic geometry. Paraphrasing, not merely linear Bézout obstructions do exist, but also those via the menagerie of all other curves grooving nonlinearly the plane. More than that, not just static curves but dynamical collections of such (e.g., pencils) have to be considered. It is charming to note a strong parallel between Hilbert’s and Rohlin’s claims that pure geometry is able to prohibit schemes, especially as both look insufficiently justified, but intuitively plausible. How much Rohlin’s synthetic proof of the type I of the schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and its mirror has in common with Hilbert-Rohn’s method?
A last word of caution for pyramids builders: one of the first ever constructed in Ancient Egypt had a somewhat pathetic destiny. Once arriving near the $2/3$ of the planned final size, fissures started to appear menacing the whole foundations to crack under pressure. The only reasonable option left to the engineers was to diminish the slope for the last third as to lower pressure. It is not known if this sufficed to ensure immortality of the Pharaoh. Thus, it should be no surprise that the most telluric part of the pyramid (near the funerary chamber where the pressure is highest) is the most secrete part of the edifice. This needed to wait the contribution of Gudkov 1969 [@Gudkov-Utkin_1969/78] who exhibited the most elusive schemes $\frac{5}{1}5$ of Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\] (cf. also Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\] for the explicit construction). At this stage Hilbert’s 16th problem was completely solved (at least for sextics which is arguably the official context of Hilbert’s question).
Now let us be more formal. As explained by Gudkov (1974 ), Kahn 1909 [@Kahn_1909] and Löbenstein 1910 [@Löbenstein_1910] published dissertations under Hilbert’s direction—(if I understood well the story, vgl. Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909-Ueber-die-Gestalt-sextic], both were feminine candidates)—attempting to prohibit sextics with 11 unnested ovals. (Challenge: try to prove this via Ahlfors 1950 or rather via Bieberbach-Grunsky (1925/1937). Philosophically, this would just, as it should, put Little Hilbert in the baskets of Big Riemann!) This follows also from Rohlin’s formula of 1974–78, cf. Sec.\[Rohlin-formula:sec\], or from Arnold’s congruence of 1971. Soon later Rohn 1911–1913 [@Rohn_1913] devoted two articles attempting by the same method to exclude sextics of type $\frac{10}{1}$ or $11$, making a big contribution to the development of Hilbert’s idea. The resulting prohibition method was christened by Gudkov (1974 ) the [*Hilbert-Rohn method*]{}. In Gudkov’s view, even Rohn’s proof is not perfectly sound due to some messy combinatorics impeding Rohn to take care of all logically possible cases. Gudkov then mentions several more Western attempts, by Wright 1907 (same idea as Hilbert, but not rigorous prohibition of type $11$). In Donald 1927, the same non-rigorous attempt is repeated (apparently without knowledge of Kahn, Löbenstein or Rohn’s work). Hilton 1936 devoted a paper criticizing Donald’s work.
The next step is essentially Gudkov’s work (yet do not miss what did Petrovskii 1933/38 though its impact upon the case of sextics is nearly covered by Hilbert-Rohn). Ultimately Gudkov was able to prohibit in 1969 and probably much earlier (Gudkov-Utkin 1969 [@Gudkov-Utkin_1969/78]) all schemes above the broken line of Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]. This breakthrough originated in 1948 when Andronov suggested (to Gudkov) applying the concept of [*roughness*]{} (also known later as [*structural stability*]{} in the West since Lefschetz, and adhered to by Thom, etc.) to the topology of real algebraic surfaces. Petrovskii’s advice (1950) suggested focusing rather on the case of sextic curves. Combining those novel Russian ideas with the Hilbert-Rohn method, enabled Gudkov in 1954 [@Gudkov_1954] to get solid prohibitive proofs above the critical line, and even beyond (sic! cf. lilac schemes $\frac{5}{1}y$, $3\le y \le 5$ on Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) but that turned out to be too massive amputation for the pyramid to support its own structural mass. Nowadays there are simpler proofs from the Arnold-Rohlin era (early 1970’s) or via Rohlin’s complex orientation formula 1974–78 which prohibit only a portion of those (namely those [*not*]{} lying on the continuation of the lattice by blue rhombs and red circles on Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). However Rohlin’s proof (1972/72 [@Rohlin_1972/72-Proof-of-a-conj-of-Gudkov]) of the Gudkov hypothesis inhibits all $M$-schemes above the broken line, but the price to pay is highbrow differential topology à la Rohlin from the early 1950’s (cf. Sec.\[Gudkov-hypothesis:sec\]). Related work by Gudkov-Krakhnov/Kharlamov prohibits all the four $(M-1)$-schemes above the broken line.
What happens under the critical line? Short-cutting a century of efforts, the answer is rapid: all of them are realized. In fact all specimens (except the 3 lilac-colored ones) are easily construct by (slight variants) of Harnack’s and Hilbert’s method. At least this is what we read in Gudkov’s survey 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74], yet the cases of $\frac{4}{1}5$, $\frac{3}{1}5$ are a bit tricky (but see our Fig.\[HarnaGudkov4-15:fig\] and Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXL:fig\] resp.). The three remaining ones $\frac{5}{1}5$, $\frac{5}{1}4$, $\frac{5}{1}3$ needed to wait until Gudkov’s trick (1969–1973) of using some Cremona transformations. Beware yet that historically, the very first argument of Gudkov’s Thesis 1969 was a pure existence proof along the line of Hilbert-Rohn’s method (ca. 20 pages long and extremely hard-to-follow according to Russian experts, cf. Polotovskii 1996 [@Polotovskii_1996-D-A-Gudkov], Viro, etc.), and was not constructive at all. Remind also that Gudkov himself at some early stage, in 1954, asserted incorrectly inexistence of those 3 difficult birds, quite in line with Hilbert’s intuition at the Paris Congress of 1900. As like to emphasize Arnold, it seems that Petrovskii himself was at first very skeptical about the twist taken by Gudkov’s solution.
Harnack’s and Hilbert’s constructions
-------------------------------------
First Fig.\[Harnack-original:fig\](left) recalls Harnack’s method of construction (trying to keep reasonably close to the original 1876 [@Harnack_1876 p.195], but making more explicit pictures (assisted by Viro 2008 [@Viro_2008-From-the-16th-Hilb-to-tropical p.188]). The top-right of Fig.\[Harnack-original:fig\] reproduces Hilbert’s more expeditious way to realize this scheme. The bottom-right is the new scheme discovered by Hilbert in 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege] (yet no pictures until Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909-Ueber-die-Gestalt-sextic], who traces only the top-right picture, whose scheme is Harnack’s). If The bottom nice picture is borrowed from A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979 p.08–09].
-2.3cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
Once all the knowledge synthesized in Gudkov’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) is understood (or admitted for short) one starts appreciating Rohlin’s maximality claim. Indeed having listed all real schemes (there remains $68-12=56$ many below the broken line) it is an easy matter to spot maximal elements in the lattice. We find 6 types red-circled on Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\] corresponding to
$\bullet$ the three $M$-schemes $\frac{9}{1}1$, $\frac{5}{1}5$, $\frac{1}{1}9$ of Hilbert, Gudkov, Harnack respectively,
$\bullet$ plus two $(M-2)$-schemes namely $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$,
$\bullet$ and finally one $3$-schemes $(1,1,1)$ corresponding to the deep nest.
Rohlin’s assertion is that those (distinguished) 6 schemes are precisely those which are definite of type I (i.e. universally orthosymmetric). Of course the assertion is trivial for the 3 possible $M$-schemes (since Harnack 1876 or via Klein’s 1876 intrinsic proof of Harnack’s inequality via the topology of Riemann surfaces). The deep nest of weight 3 is likewise trivially of type I, for it is enough to sweep it out by a total pencil of lines. It remains thus to analyze the two $(M-2)$-schemes with $r=9$, i.e. $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$ by showing that they are definite of type I. At first one can imagine to prove this via pencil of conics (or maybe cubics pencils?). A complete argument must be given in Rohlin. [*Insertion.*]{}—\[28.03.13\] In fact Rohlin claimed a proof which is now lost via pencils of cubics, so that there is strictly speaking presently still only one known proof which involves a congruence modulo 8 due to Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin (\[RKM-congruence-reformulated:thm\]). Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics] was able to validate the total reality assertion of Rohlin, yet only after supposing the curve dividing. It should however not be impossible that methods of Le Touzé suitably modified establish the full Rohlin claim. This seems to be an urgent problem to deal with. We personally tried a lot but failed dramatically. This sort of problem seems to require extreme cleverness.
Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] states the following theorem summarizing all those efforts (up to Gudkov plus his own input reconciliating with Klein’s viewpoints):
\[Rohlin-type:thm\] [(Rohlin 1978)]{} The $56$ possible real schemes for sextics (Harnack, Hilbert, Rohn, Gudkov) split as follows according to Klein’s types:
$\bullet$ There are $6$ schemes of type I (red-circles on Gudkov’s table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]);
$\bullet$ There are $42$ schemes of type II (green-squares on Gudkov’s table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]);
$\bullet$ There are $8$ schemes of indefinite(=mixed) type (blue-rhombs on Gudkov’s table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
Note that the resulting distribution of types to be nearly symmetric (on Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]), modulo some anomaly at the place $5$ (five unnested ovals). A similar remark is made in Fiedler 1981 [@Fiedler_1981 p.13]: “[*Bemerkung. Eventuell ist die Tabelle nicht vollständig. Aber es ist schon ersichtlich, da[ß]{} die Tabelle der zerteilenden Kurven im Unterschied zur Tabelle aller existierender Typen von singularitätfreien Kurven sechster Ordnung (vgl. [\[1\](=Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74])]{}) nicht symmetrisch ist.*]{}”. Indeed the asymmetry we (and Fiedler) notice (but of course implicit in Rohlin’s survey) is the (unique) symmetry breaking occurring between the schemes $\frac{4}{1}$ and the scheme ${5}$. The latter turns out to be of type II, as it cannot satisfy Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]), whereas the former scheme is easily seen to be indefinite (cf. Fig.\[R4-1:fig\]). Note that Arnold’s congruence $5-0=p-n=k^2
\pmod 4=3^2=9=5 \pmod 4$ is not fine enough to detect this break of symmetry.
Let us try to understand this spectacular statement of Rohlin (\[Rohlin-type:thm\]).
\(1) From the easy Klein congruence $r\equiv g+1 \pmod 2$ if type I, we draw that all schemes with an even number $r$ of ovals belong to type II (this explains all the green-squares at heights $r=0,2,4,6,8,10$, cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
\(2) As already explained all $M$-schemes (here $r=11$) are trivially of type I (Harnack’s inequality or Klein’s argument of 1876 [@Klein_1876]). For another reason the scheme $(1,1,1)$ (deep nest of profundity 3) is easily shown to be of type I (total pencil of lines).
\(3) For similar reasons (but deeper) is the assertion that the 2 circled schemes with $r=9$ belongs to type I. This is truly the work of Rohlin, albeit philosophically akin to Klein-Teichmüller-Ahlfors’ total reality. [*Insertion*]{}—\[28.03.13\] As just said this is still unproven synthetically, and the only proof available involves deep differential topology (Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin).
\(4) Appurtenance to the indefinite type is usually easy requiring merely exhibiting two curves, one in each type. So for instance the scheme $9$ (consisting of $9$ outer ovals without nesting) is indefinite (cf. our Fig.\[KleinRo-sextic:fig\]). Of course here the basic theoretic tool is Fiedler’s observation that the type is governed by the smoothing effected in the Plücker-Klein-Brusotti method of small perturbation. Full details are worked out in Sec.\[indefinite-types:sec\].
\(5) Another piece of information (now purely Rohlinian) is Rohlin’s inequality $r\ge m/2$ for a smooth plane curve of degree $m$. (Remind this to follow for Rohlin’s formula, in turn derived by a intersection theory argument of halves of the dividing curve capped off by real ovals and brought into general position by perturbing via a vector field normal to the real locus). Conceptually this involves Poincaré homology theory, and the allied intersection theory (e.g. by Lefschetz, etc.). From Rohlin’s inequality, one deduces that the scheme with $r=1$ is of type II.
\(6) Using the stronger Rohlin formula, one must be able to treat all schemes with $r=3$ to belong to type II (except the deep nest) and likewise assess type II for all other schemes. [*Insertion*]{} \[28.03.13\].—Yes this is essentially true. More precisely Rohlin’s formula admits the Arnold congruence as corollary (cf. \[Rohlin-implies-Arnold:lem\]), and the latter $\chi\equiv_4 k^2=9\equiv 1$, forces a curve of type I to live on the grid formed by blue rhombs (and red-circles) of Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]. So Rohlin’s assertion is evident safe for the scheme $5$, $\frac{1}{1}1$ and $1$. But all those cases are prohibited by Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$. Indeed in case of no-nesting Rohlin’s formula reduces to $r=k^2=9$, hence rules out the schemes $1$ and $5$. For $\frac{1}{1}1$, we have only one pair so $\pi+\eta=1$, while Rohlin’s formula says $\pi-\eta=-3$, whence $2\pi=-2$, which is impossible as $\pi$ is a cardinal (namely the number of positive pairs).
At this stage the proof of Rohlin’s theorem (\[Rohlin-type:thm\]) is complete.
What can be proved via Ahlfors?
-------------------------------
\[17.01.13\] From the viewpoint of our survey, it is of some interest to decide which results of the theory aroused from Hilbert’s 16th problem (Hilbert-Rohn, etc. and the Russian school Gudkov-Arnold-Rohlin, just to quote the 3 supermassive black holes) can be (re)proved via the Ahlfors map.
As we said already all this section was actually motivated by the guess that Ahlfors could be used to prove the still unsettled Rohlin maximality conjecture (at least what remains thereof post Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin]). However as yet we failed to complete this grandiose project.
Another more didactic aspect (yet perhaps not to be neglected as a first step toward subsequent progresses) would be to see if Ahlfors implies the (Gudkov-)Arnold congruence mod 4: $\chi=p-n=k^2 \pmod 4$ for dividing curves of degree $2k$.
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.13\].—This game looks quite artificial since Arnold’s congruence is, e.g., a fairly trivial consequence of Rohlin’s formula, cf. (\[Rohlin-implies-Arnold:lem\]).
The method would be to examine the Ahlfors foliation, i.e. that induced by the total pencil of curves while trying to apply Poincaré(-Bendixson-Kneser-Hamburger) index formula for foliations. Recall that $\chi$ is the Euler characteristic of the “Ragsdale-Petrovskii” (orientable) membrane of ${\Bbb R}P^2$ bounding the ovals. Of course it looks hard for Ahlfors to beat the elegance of Arnold’s argument based on intersection theory and the divisibility by 8 of the signature of spin manifold (as prompted by the algebra of integral quadratic symmetric form). However, as just mentioned, there is an even simpler proof of Arnold based on Rohlin’s formula.
Of course there is a myriad of sub-Arnoldian truths that could be treated via the Ahlfors foliation, e.g. Hilbert-Rohn prohibition of an $M$-sextic without nesting, or the type II of a quartic with two unnested ovals (all these assertions being implied by Arnold’s congruence).
Another game out of reach to Arnold, but proved via Rohlin’s formula is the prohibition of the sextic scheme $5_I$ of five unnested ovals in the type I case. This could perhaps also be proved via the Ahlfors map.
The only point which we managed (presently) to prove via Ahlfors is the (easy sense) of Klein’s Ansatz that a dividing curve cannot gain an oval while crossing the discriminant through a solitary node (with a complex conjugate pair of tangents). Compare for this Lemma \[Klein-via-Ahlfors(Viro-Gabard):lem\] suggested by a letter of Viro. However, we always use as a premiss the issue that for a plane curve the abstract total map of Ahlfors extends to the ambient projective plane. We should acknowledge a letter of Marin (cf. Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]) for having made us aware of this subconscious short cut. We still hope this to be true via basic algebraic geometry, of which we forgot all the foundations.
Klein’s Ansatz (1876) can also be proved without Ahlfors by using some Picard-Lefschetz and Dehn stuff, or rather just some “Anschauung” that might have been folklore as early as 1876.
Here is an argument (cf. also the next Sec.\[Klein-Marin:sec\]). At the level of the complexification, one can only explain the apparition of a solitary node as the strangulation of some vanishing cycle $\beta$ on the Riemann surface. Then we analyze all possibilities. By the reality of our deformation, the cycle $\beta$ must be invariant under conjugation $\sigma$, hence either be a real circuit (or “oval”[^21]) (pointwise invariant under $\sigma$), or an ortho-cycle (2 fixed points under $\sigma$) or a dia-cycle (no fixed point under $\sigma$). This is exhaustive via the classification of involutions on the circle, which via the quotient map and covering theory, reduces to the classification of one-dimensional manifolds (Hausdorff and metric).
As we already noted a dia-cycle cannot exist in the orthosymmetric case (Lemma \[antioval:lem\]). For an “oval” it can indeed shrink to a point (hence a solitary node) but then disappear of course (cf. Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\], right). If we have an ortho-cycle then two cases are to be distinguished. It can either cross two distinct “ovals”, in which case both ovals merges together after the Dehn twist (cf. Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\], left). The last possibility is an ortho-cycle cutting only one “oval”. In this case Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\] shows that $r$ stays constant, and of course we do not cross a solitary node in that case, but rather a non-isolated one with 2 real tangents.
This “proves” Klein’s Ansatz (modulo some Picard-Lefschetz theory), and even Marin’s stronger assertion that a dividing curve cannot increase its number component when crossing the discriminant. Indeed in all 3 cases analyzed, either $r$ drops by one unity (first two cases), or stays constant. Remark however that Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988] has a more conceptual proof.
What is Picard-Lefschetz theory in our context? Since any crossing of the discriminant can be interpreted as a smooth arc traversing the discriminant transversally, we may (in the small) always replace this little arc by a linear pencil, and are reduced to classical Picard-Lefschetz theory, where in our case we have holomorphic fibration of the plane by a pencil of curves. The theory in question tell us the geometric monodromy when winding around a singular member of the pencil, but also gives the Dehn twist description of what happens when we (more cavalier) cross frontally the singularity.
Recall that Picard’s thesis (the first work of Picard on another subject) is dated 1879 [@Picard_1879], while Klein’s Ansatz (no proof but probably Klein had one) is dated 1876 (3 years younger). So clearly our approach is somewhat historically contorted. Still, it is not impossible that Klein (and many others) were aware of the geometry behind our argument (via Dehn twists, ca. 1910). It is also possible that Klein’s argument was closer to Marin’s, albeit the latter result is perhaps slightly different (and of course stronger).
Rohlin’s conjecture almost implied by Klein-Marin (Klein 1876, Marin 1988, Viro 1986) {#Klein-Marin:sec}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[04.01.13\] This section presents another tactic (pseudo-proof) of Rohlin’s conjecture that probably everybody had in mind (especially Rohlin and Marin), yet nobody write it down as it fails blatantly. Although being a “pot-pourri” it is worth presenting as it helps clarifying the relation (or absence thereof) between Klein’s original assertion 1876 [@Klein_1876] as interpreted by modern workers, notably Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988] and Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress] (the latter being based on a “private communication” of the former).
First there is a remarkable observation of Klein 1876 that Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988] was probably the first to supply with a proof. To be perfectly accurate we believe that Marin’s result is slightly stronger than Klein’s original asserting only that a dividing curve cannot acquire a new oval like a champagne bubble emanating from a solitary node (compare Klein’s Quote \[Klein\_1876-niemals-isolierte:quote\] especially the phraseology “isolierte reelle Doppeltangente”). In Marin 1988 article, full credit is ascribed to Klein, either by over-modesty or because Marin overlooked to notice the little nuance between his and Klein’s weaker assertion. (Compare the recent e-mail exchanges in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\].)
\[Klein-Marin:lem\] [($\approx$ Klein 1876, but in the formulation of Marin 1988)]{}.—A (plane) dividing curve cannot increase its number of ovals when crossing a node (non-degenerate double point).
For Viro (1986 ) the curve does not actually need to be plane.
Perhaps Klein gained evidence from the case of quartics. Imagine a Gürtelkurve (quartic with 2 nested ovals), then there cannot be created a new oval without violating Bézout. Hence either both ovals amalgamate or the inner oval evanishes. In both cases the number of ovals decreases (by one unit). \[02.04.13\] This is not an exhaustive discussion, for there can be also an eversion (Sec.\[Eversion:sec\]), keeping $r=2$ constant.
Bringing into the picture the Riemann surface (of orthosymmetric type) underlying the dividing curve, then, as the latter traverses the discriminant (at some smooth point of it) our curve becomes uninodal via some vanishing cycle pinching the Riemann surface.
-0.2cm0 -1.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
This vanishing cycle can actually be an oval of the Riemann surface: once shrunk to a point it disappears and one oval gets lost (cf. Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\], right). This is not the only possibility as shown by the Gürtelkurve whose 2 ovals may coalesce. It is just a little harder to visualize the corresponding surgery on the Riemann surface. The key is to imagine an anti-invariant vanishing cycle $\beta$ whose contraction is depicted on Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\], left. The two ovals traversed by the cycle $\beta$ have merged together.
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.13\].—Further there is a 3rd possibility, of when the ortho-cycle $\beta$ intersects only one oval (cf. Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\]). Then the corresponding Morse surgery is an eversion keeping $r$ constant but destroying the dividing character of the curve.
(Marin’s proof in the dirty fingers of Gabaredian[^22]) Marin’s proof is somewhat different and in substance as follows (please refer to the French original for faithfulness). The initial curve is orthosymmetric. Such curves satisfy the Klein congruence $r\equiv g+1 \pmod 2$. On the other hand when traversing the discriminant the curve is uninodal and the real part undergoes a “Morse surgery” which alter the number of ovals by one unit.
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.13\].—Warning. Possibly $r$ can stay constant in case of an eversion, cf. Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\], but then the post-critical Riemann surface becomes diasymmetric.
At any rate, the new curve (past the discriminant) is necessarily diasymmetric, either by Klein’s congruence when $r$ moves by one, or by the Dehn-twist argument of Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\] when $r$ is kept constant. Marin concludes by arguing that a path between two conjugate points avoiding the real locus subsists in all nearby curve. (Alas I confess to have not properly understood this argument which is presumably much superior to the above via vanishing cycles.) Compare also Marin’s e-mail, where he explained us more details. (NB: Marin’s argument is also repeated in Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000 p.785, 4.6.8], and was apparently always easily digested by Russian scholars, Viro included.)
Armed with the lemma, let us try to attack Rohlin’s conjecture.
(Pseudo-proof of Rohlin via Klein-Marin) Suppose $S_1$ to be a scheme of type I which is not maximal, say embeddable in $S_2$. Take algebraic models $C_i$ of each $S_i$ ($i=1,2$). By general position we may assume that the line $L$ through $C_1$ and $C_2$, in the hyperspace of all curves of degree $m$ (à la Cayley, etc.), crosses transversally the discriminant hypersurfaces (in smooth points of it) at uninodal curves. This unique node is necessarily real (when we look at real members of the pencil $L$). Hence when we join $C_1$ to $C_2$ we get real curves (finitely many of them being singular). Whenever we cross the discriminant the real locus undergoes a “Morse surgery” which is (up to reversing time) is either
$\bullet$ the death of an oval (shrinking to a point)
$\bullet$ the fusion of two unnested ovals
$\bullet$ the fusion of two nested ovals.
Each operation effects a fluctuation of $\pm 1$ on the number $r$ of ovals. (Warning \[02.04.13\].—This is not even true due to eversions!) So we can imagine a staircase starting from $C_1$ to $C_2$ recording the history of the varied fluctuations of $r$ during the transition from $C_1$ to $C_2$ along the pencil $\lambda C_1 + \mu C_2=0$ (cf. Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\], center-bottom). By Klein-Marin the first staircase is moving downwards, and as we ultimately reach $C_2$ having more ovals, we are naively inclined to claim that we shall revisit the same scheme $S_1$ at some step after which $r$ only increases. This would be true if a scheme would be completely encoded by its number $r$ of circuits. In this naive world, we get an intermediate curve $C_1'$ also representing the scheme $S_1$ (hence dividing since $S_1$ is of type I) and after which $r$ only increases. This would violate the Klein-Marin theorem.
The moral is that Klein-Marin seems to imply, but fails implying, the Rohlin maximality conjecture (for an explicit objection see the little diagrammatic of ovals on Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\], bottom). Nonetheless, the Klein-Marin lemma certainly implies the:
The chambers past the discriminant corresponding to orthosymmetric curves are local maxima of the function $r$ counting the number of real circuits. Further all chambers adjacent to an orthosymmetric chamber are diasymmetric.
The last assertion follows directly from Klein’s congruence $r\equiv g+1 \pmod 2$. [*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.13\] This is true when $r$ varies (by one unit), but if it stays constant one has to invoke the Dehn-twist argument of Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\].
Hence orthosymmetric chambers are never contiguous (along a wall of codimension 1), but a priori they could still have closures with non-void intersections.
Back to degree 6: Rigid isotopy (Nikulin 1979 via K3’s, Torelli of Pyatetsky-Shapiro-Shafarevich 1971)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[05.01.13\] Even if Rohlin’s conjecture (type I $\Rightarrow$ maximal) looks out of reach, it might be easier in degree 6 (we mean by a theoretical argument independent of Rohlin’s census). In that case granting orthosymmetry of the schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$ one recovers all of Gudkov’s obstructions (prohibition of the semi-hexagons above those schemes, cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\], safe those that were established by Hilbert and Rohn, namely the schemes $11$ and $\frac{10}{1}$). Of course this is nothing new, yet methodologically distinct from the topological arguments à la Arnold-Rohlin explaining the Gudkov hypothesis. So we are asking for a fighting interplay between pure geometry and topology.
Also in view of the Morse surgery inherent in the Klein-Marin theorem, one can ask several questions about the contiguity of chambers in the space of all sextics and correlate this with the diagrammatic of Gudkov’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). The first basic point is that when we cross a wall $r$ fluctuates by $\pm 1$. Hence we do not have complete freedom to random-walk on the triangular lattice underlying Gudkov’s table (all horizontal edge cannot be used).
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.13\].—This is a naive misconception, since in fact there is also eversion (cf. Sec.\[Eversion:sec\]) keeping $r$ constant!
Define the [*distance*]{} between two chambers as the minimum number of walls needed to be crossed to join them (by a path transverse to the discriminant). Another “distance” is defined by restricting to pathes along (linear) pencils of curves.
A great miracle (specific to order 6) is the following result due to joint efforts of Kharlamov and Nikulin 1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80]:
[(Nikulin 1979)]{}\[Nikulin:thm\] The real scheme enhanced by the (Klein-Rohlin) type affords a complete invariant of the rigid-isotopy class of sextics. Thus via Rohlin’s classification (Theorem \[Rohlin-type:thm\]) there is $6+42+2\cdot 8=56+8=64=2^{8}$ “typed” schemes and so many rigid-isotopy classes. (This number being a power of 2 is perhaps just good fortune? probably because for quartics the number of chambers is $6$.)
This is yet another “tour de force”. It uses (but strangely does note cite!) the topological classification of Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] (making already a fusion between Klein 1876 and Hilbert 1891/1900’s 16th problem as solved by Gudkov 1969 [@Gudkov-Utkin_1969/78]). But that is not all! It also combines this with the complex geometry of K3 surfaces (Kummer-Kähler-Kodaira as coined by Weil), especially the contribution of Pyatetsky-Shapiro–Shafarevich 1971/71 [@Pyatetsky-Shapiro-Shafarevich_1971/71] on the global Torelli theorem, as well as the surjectivity of the period mapping (Kulikov 1977 [@Kulikov_1977]). Rohlin, and especially Kharlamov’s rôle in this proof seems to have been quite pivotal (and acknowledged as a such).
The Gudkov-Rohlin-Nikulin pyramid and the contiguity graph
----------------------------------------------------------
[*Warning*]{} \[02.04.13\].—This section is a miscellany of mistakes about the combinatorial structure of the hyperspace of all sextics. We kept our text intact in its original shape (modulo Insertions and corrections) since we think that it is more important to avoid the basic mistake than to reach the ultimate verity of what is quite likely to become a combinatorial mess if pushed to its ultimate perfection. We still encourage the indulgent reader to follow our output as it may contain interesting problems. In particular is it possible for a pencil of sextics to visit only a single chamber? This could be the case if there is a chamber contiguous to itself. You move in your chamber and tries to get out of it by traversing a wall, but alas fall again trapped in the same room as you started where.
\[05.01.13\] Looking (once again) at Gudkov’s table Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\] (while duplicating all the blue-rhombs) we get a complete picture of all chambers past the discriminant (i.e. rigid-isotopy classes of smooth curves). One would like to understand their contiguity relation to enhance this set into the [*contiguity graph*]{}.
Basically we have 6 moves prompted by the equilateral lattice underlying Gudkov’s table. But as all Morse surgeries amounts to the creation or destruction of an oval we can rule out the two horizontal moves (keeping $r$ unchanged and corresponding resp. to the evasion or encapsulation of an oval). Next certain Morse surgeries are of course incompatible with Bézout (e.g. that depicted on the top-right of Fig.\[Gudkov-contig:fig\]). A little moment thought shows that all admissible Morse surgeries correspond to one of the $4$ legal moves.
A further obstruction comes from the Klein-Marin theorem (\[Klein-Marin:lem\]) impeding the $2$ creationist moves (going up $r\mapsto r+1$) as soon as the chamber is of type I.
-1.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
Naively one is tempted to say that this is a complete list of legal moves. If so is the case then we would have a complete description of the contiguity graph (whose edges are depicted by red strokes on Fig.\[Gudkov-contig:fig\]). As we shall see later (eversions) this answers is quite unlikely to be the definitive answer.
(Exercise: count the number of edges of this graph: counting edges going to the North-West: we have $2\cdot 9+6+3\cdot 5+2+3\dot
1=18+6+15+2+3=44$. This must be doubled by symmetry to $88$. Then adding those edges going to the $8$ indefinite types adds $2\cdot
8-3=13$ edges. Next the empty scheme $0$ gives one edge and the deep nest for 2. In definitive, $88+13+3=104=2\cdot 52=2^2\cdot
26=2^3 \cdot 13$ edges. This is the number of contiguity zones of the discriminant hypersurface.)
It seems also that the most remote pair of vertices are the schemes $\frac{9}{1}$ and $10$ lying at distance 18 apart. On the other hand the discriminant has degree $\delta=3(m-1)^2$. (This can be proved via a Euler characteristic count in the fibration induced by a pencil of $m$-tics after blowing up the basepoints, and is also implied by the so-called Zeuthen-Segre formula in the algebro-geometric community, which is merely the avatar of Riemann-Hurwitz in one more dimension.) For sextics $m=6$ this gives $\delta=3 \cdot 5^2=75$. It follows that the linear distance between two chambers (as measured inside a linear pencil) is at most $[75/2]=[37.5]=37$ (the temperature of the human body). Probably this bound is far from sharp (except of course if there is a line hitting the discriminant 75 times on the reals), and one could try to find a least upper bound.
Given two chambers (=rigid-isotopy classes) define their distance $\delta$ as the minimum number of wall-crossings separating them. This is also the combinatorial distance in the contiguity graph.
$\bullet$ Define also their écart $\varepsilon$ as the minimum number of wall-crossings in a generic pencil (transverse to the discriminant) through two curves belonging to the given chambers.
We have always $\delta \le \varepsilon$; and when $m=6$, $\delta
\le 18$ and $\varepsilon \le 37$.
Since the degree of the discriminant is 75 ($\delta=3(m-1)^2$ is odd whenever $m$ is even) any pencil of sextics intersects the discriminant (in a real point) and so the curves undergo at least one Morse surgery, and assuming genericity there is an odd number of such surgeries. However the structure of the graph only permits loops of even length (the girth=systole of the graph is 4). This is almost a contradiction in mathematics. How to resolve it?
[*Insertion*]{} \[21.01.13\].—Just look at eversions, cf. Sec.\[Eversion:sec\]. Further using eversions it is likely that $\delta$ is much smaller than above, and we predict rather something like $\delta\le 11$ (cf. \[eversion-and-other surgeries:conj\] and the semi-conjectural Prop.\[Erdos-number-of-sextics=11:prop\]).
Then there is a host of combinatorial-geometric questions arising. E.g. is there a pencil cutting 75 times the discriminant (a sort of total reality of Bézout). If not what is the maximal number $\mu$ of real intersections a line can have with the discriminant? (Since the distance between the extreme $(M-1)$-schemes is 18, taking the line joining them we get a pencil with $18+18=36$ (aller-retour, no one way ticket!) real intersections, to which one can safely add one unit due to oddness of the degree, so $\mu
\ge 37$ the temperature of the human body.)
[*Insertion*]{} \[01.04.13\].—Alas this argument is foiled as it does not take into account eversions. With eversions the maximal distance seems to be 11 (between $M$-curves and the empty one), and so arguing as above gives only $\mu\ge 22+1=23$.
What is the least (resp. maximum) number of chambers visited by a pencil of sextics? Denote them $\alpha$ resp. $\omega$. Naively a pencil could stay entirely inside a chamber, but this is precluded by Bézout as $\deg \disc=75$ is odd (so $\alpha\ge 2$). A priori among the 64 chambers all could be visited since the discriminant has degree 75. Same question for the length of the loop induced in the contiguity graph by a (generic) pencil. (A priori this length can be as long as $75$, but not longer.) Is this loop always non-contractible (in the contiguity graph)? Can it be embedded (i.e. visits only once each chambers it visits)? Is there a pencil visiting only diasymmetric chambers? (It is evident from Klein’s congruence and surgeries affecting $r$ by $\pm 1$ that a pencil cannot visit only orthosymmetric chambers.) What is the maximum number of orthosymmetric chambers visitable by a pencil? (Of course at least two, take the line spanned by 2 points in two ortho-chambers, but probably some lucky Stonehenge alignment exists.)
What is the minimum height of a pencil? The height being just the invariant $r$, number of real circuits. An interesting result is the theorem of Cheponkus-Marin (cf. Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988 p.192]):
[(Cheponkus-Marin 1988)]{} In any generic (linear) pencil of curves of even degree $m> 2$ there is a curve having at most $M-3$ components ($r\le M-3$).
Looking at Gudkov’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) this looks almost evident, but is not. Since $M-3$ is the highest line full of squares, this Marin result implies that a pencil cannot confine its visits in one of the 3 regions lying above this line. One can define the depth $d$ of a pencil as the lowest value of $r$. So Marin’s result implies $d\le M-3$. Is this sharp at least for $m=6$?
Define three chambers as aligned if there is a line hitting them simultaneously. In view of Gudkov’s table enhanced by the Klein-Marin theorem one sees that there are $3+1=4$ special chambers which are contiguous to a single chamber (vertices of valency 1 in the contiguity graph), namely those of type I with schemes $\frac{8}{1}$, $9$, $\frac{4}{1}$ as well as the empty scheme $0$ ($\bigstar$). It follows that the triad consisting of any of those four, plus its unique neighbor and any chamber are aligned. It would be interesting to find a triad of chamber which are [*not*]{} aligned.
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.14\] Again the assertion right before the ($\bigstar$) above, looks foiled due to eversions. It looks more realist to expect that the empty scheme is the unique chamber contiguous to a single chamber. It could be interesting to describe the chambers adjacent to only 2 chambers. By the theory of eversion (developed latter), those includes the three $M$-schemes, and 2 Rohlin maximal $(M-2)$-schemes, plus apparently the 3 orthosymmetric chambers corresponding to symbols on the “boundary” of the pyramid, namely $\frac{8}{1}$, $9$, $\frac{4}{1}$. However it should not include a scheme like $10$, which by eversion is potentially related to $\frac{9}{1}$ (cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-eversion:fig\]). The above list could be exhaustive, but beware that the median schemes in type I, like $\frac{4}{1}4$, $\frac{3}{1}3$, $\frac{2}{1}2$ have also only two connections except for being potentially related to themselves under eversion. Yet later we shall see that eversion necessarily destroy the orthosymmetry, so that those schemes are eversively related to their type II twins lying below the sheet of paper. So those schemes have really valency 3. This raises however the question if a chamber can be contiguous to itself. By the diagrammatic of all Morse surgeries (eversion included) a necessary condition is that the chamber lies on the median line of the Gudkov table. By what as been said (orthosymmetry destroyed by eversions), the sole candidate for self-contiguity are $\frac{1}{1}1$ and $1$. Under this phenomenon of self-contiguity it could be the case that a pencil of sextics stays entirely within such a chamber safe for a quick perforation of the discriminant (forced by by Bézout), yet bringing us directly back to the same chamber. In that case the invariant $\alpha$ discussed above could be as low as $1$.
\[13.01.13\] Another aspect of Nikulin’s isotopic classification of sextics via the Rohlin pyramid is that it affords a broad generalization of the Nuij 1968 [@Nuij_1968] and Dubrovin 1983/85 [@Dubrovin_1983/85] theorem stating that the deep nest schemes represents a unique rigid-isotopy class of curves. (Actually Nuij’s theorem holds in arbitrary dimension.) By Nikulin’s theorem this uniqueness determination by the real scheme holds true more generally for all sextic schemes which are not hermaphrodite (i.e. of indefinite type).
All this just amount to the connectivity of the chambers, yet one may wish to know more on their individual topology (in the large). One obvious tool is the monodromy representation $$\pi_1(\textrm{ some chamber} ) \to {\frak S}(\textrm{ovals})$$ acting upon the ovals by permutation while following a loop inside some fixed chamber. Now for a scheme having both inner and outer ovals there is an obvious constraint preventing the permutation to shuffle inner ovals with outer ovals. In other words for a scheme of type $\frac{k}{1}\ell$ the range of monodromy would lye inside ${\frak
S}_k\times {\frak S}_{\ell}$. A (naive?) conjecture would be that this are the sole restrictions on the monodromy (i.e. the restricted morphism is epimorphic). If so is the case then all chambers are not simply-connected, except perhaps the 5 ones corresponding to the non-permutable schemes, i.e. $0$, $1$, $\frac{1}{1}$, $\frac{1}{1}1$ and $(1,1,1)$. For those schemes the monodromy of ovals is a trivial representation, and so there is no obstruction for those chambers to be simply-connected. Can one of those chambers even be contractible? A natural tactic is to ask if it can be starlike, in the sense of having a special viewpoint (curve) inhabiting the chamber so that each curve of the same chamber is accessible by the half-circle of the line joining the base curve to the “variable” one. Some obvious candidate are the Fermat equations $x^6+y^6=-1$ for chamber $0$ and $x^6+y^6=+1$ for chamber $1$, yet it is not clear at all if those are “visibility curve”.
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.13\].—Much sharper and complete results of the monodromy of sextics are due to Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_199X-monodromy-deg-6] extending results of Kharlamov. We shall come back this this latter.
Weak reformulation à la Marin-Viro of the Klein-Rohlin maximality conjecture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[13.01.13\] After some discussions with Marin (12–13 Jan. 2013, cf. Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]), the following issue came quite clear. First let us contemplate once more the Gudkov-Rohlin pyramid as depicted as the contiguity figure \[Gudkov-contig:fig\]. On it we imagine the blue rhombs schemes doubled with a “$\Lambda$” shaped pair of edges raising to the orthosymmetric chambers (provided not on the periphery of the pyramid), whereas the diasymmetric chamber have generically a $X$-shaped quadruplets of edges in the contiguity graph.
We can consider the POSET of all real schemes enhanced by the type I/II of Klein. This is essentially what did Rohlin 1978, safe that instead of declaring indefinite those “hermaphrodite” schemes tolerating both type of representatives (type I and II) we duplicate those schemes to see them as independent elements. This amounts considering all Gudkov’s symbols decorated by signs $\pm$ telling the ortho/dia-symmetry, and of course only those realized algebro-geometrically. This is a well-defined finite set of $64=2^8$ elements. How to define an ordered structure to make it into a POSET? Answer just as the picture Fig.\[Gudkov-contig:fig\] suggests, namely a type I scheme (alias ortho-scheme) has two legs going down (some leg may be amputated if the scheme is peripheral), whereas dia-schemes have two legs (going down) and two arm (going up), except if it lies in the periphery. For instance the scheme $0$ is maximally amputated having one arm but no legs.
Of course this order structure looks somewhat ad hoc yet quite in line with the remarks of Klein and the theorem of Marin 1988, which is a stronger variation thereof (apparently Marin did not noticed that his statement looks stronger than Klein’s original statement, compare our discussion in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]). Let me call the purified pyramid this poset. Paraphrasing Rohlin’s census (diagrammatically encoded in Fig.\[Gudkov-contig:fig\]) we plainly have:
The maximal elements of the purified pyramid of sextic ortho- and dia-schemes are exactly the orthosymmetric ones.
It seems evident that this statement extends trivially to all degrees as a mere paraphrase of Marin’s theorem (1988 [@Marin_1988]). Yet is non trivial to make a picture even for degree $8$. Yet this is worth trying to depict at the occasion (cf. Fig.\[Degree8:fig\]).
An eclectic proof of Rohlin’s conjecture via Ahlfors {#Rohlin-via-Ahlfors}
----------------------------------------------------
\[04.01.13\] Let us summarize the situation. Rohlin in 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] advanced (taking some indirect inspiration by Klein 1876) the bold conjecture that $$\textrm{a scheme is of type~I iff it is maximal,}$$ in the hierarchy of all real schemes of some fixed degree.
One sense of the conjecture turned wrong, in degree 8 by a conjunction of Polotovskii 1981 [@Polotovskii_1981] and Shustin 1985/85 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin] works (see also the remarks in Viro’s survey 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress p.67–68]). Namely Shustin showed existence of a maximal scheme in degree 8 of type II. So the “$\Leftarrow$” implication of Rohlin’s conjecture is disrupted. It remains the hope that the “$\Rightarrow$” implication is correct (still open in 2013):
[(Rohlin’s maximality conjecture—post Shustin)]{} Fix any integer $m\ge 1$, and consider only schemes of that degree $m$. If a real scheme is of type I, then it is maximal in the lattice (POSET) of all real schemes.
This is perhaps a trivial consequence of Ahlfors theorem:
[(Gabard 31.12.12 and 04.01.13)]{} If a real scheme is of type I, then it is maximal (among all schemes of the same degree).
Suppose the given scheme, say $S_1$, to be of type I. By contradiction assume it non-maximal so that it embeds in some larger scheme $S_2$ as a strict subset. But our schemes are algebraically realized by real algebraic curves say $C_1$ and $C_2$ (defined over ${\Bbb R}$) so that the inclusion $C_i({\Bbb R})\subset {\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb R})$ belongs to the respective isotopy classes of $S_i$ ($i=1,2$). Since $S_1$ is of type I, $C_1$ is dividing, and thus there is by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] a total pencil $\pi$ of auxiliary curves all of whose real members cut only real points on $C_1$ (at least as soon as they are mobile). Now $C_2$ has at least one extra real circuit over $C_1$ (which in fact must be an oval, as curves of odd order necessarily have a pseudoline). Naively, one would like to choose any point $p_0$ on $C_2({\Bbb R})$ and let pass through it a curve of the pencil $\pi$, say $\Gamma_0\ni p_0$ while arguing that this curve has supernumerary intersection with $C_2$, violating thereby Bézout. This works (effortlessly) if we could assume $C_1({\Bbb R})\subset C_2({\Bbb R})$, but this corrupts rigidity of algebraic curves.
We see that Ahlfors nearly implies Rohlin, but some gigantic gap requires to be filled. Obviously the problem has to be embedded in some more flexible medium so as to bridge the gap between algebraic rigidity and softness of isotopy classes à la Hilbert-Rohlin.
\[10.01.13\] The little flash on how to complete the argument came to me ca. \[05h20\] in the morning after some too early waking up. It is as follows. Suppose our curve $C_1$ to be of type I. By Ahlfors there is a total pencil of curves. If the scheme of $C_1$ is not maximal it can be enlarged, so there is a curve $C_2$ with larger scheme. But $C_1$ is transverse to the foliation induced by the total pencil, and transversality is a robust feature (structural stability à la Thom, etc.) Accordingly a small perturbation of $C_1$ towards $C_2$ is still maximally cut by the curves of the pencil. Propagating this so forth we see (assuming genericity of the pencil) that the first Morse surgery decreases the number of ovals. (This was anticipated by Viro yesterday \[09.01.13\] (cf. Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]), and goes back to Klein 1876.) However one would more, namely that $C_2$ cannot have more ovals than $C_1$. To be more precise one should compare the pencil $L$ spanned by $C_1, C_2$ to the total pencil for $C_1$, while understanding perhaps the filmography of the deformation in reference to this foliation. Thinking of the latter as locally vertical, the first Morse surgery is like the hyperbola $(x-y)(x+y)=x^2-y^2=\varepsilon<0$ transverse to the vertical foliation while degenerating to the pair of lines of slope $\pm 1$ and then becoming another hyperbola $x^2-y^2=\varepsilon>0$ no longer transverse to the vertical foliation. (In fact this is only the scenario of when the node is not a solitary one.) The effect of crossing the first critical level is that some member of the pencil loose their total reality. Yet not all of the total reality is lost. In fact merely an interval of “imaginariness” is inserted.
Pushing the analysis in the large (several Morse surgeries), while also treating the other case one may hope to ensure that when $C_2$ is reached still some totally real curve persists in the pencil.
In fact Ahlfors theorem (only) implies Klein’s thesis (cf. Klein’s Quote \[Klein\_1876-niemals-isolierte:quote\]):
\[Klein-via-Ahlfors(Viro-Gabard):lem\][(Klein 1876, in a presentation of Gabard inspired by Viro, while using Ahlfors)]{} When a dividing curve crosses the discriminant it cannot acquires a solitary double point. In particular all (discriminantal) walls bounding an orthosymmetric chamber correspond to nodes with real tangents.
(This was anticipated the \[10.01.13\] by Oleg Viro (e-mail communication in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]), but I only understand it now after ca. 10 hours of delay and some sleep in between.)
Imagine the curve moving, with suddenly, a solitary double point appearing in the real locus, like an ufo(=unidentified flying object) raising into the blue sky. If not believing in extraterrestrial flying saucers, think of this as the ex-nihilo creation of a champagne bubble from a point inflating slightly to a little oval. The initial curve $C_{-1}$ is dividing, hence admits by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] a total pencil of curves[^23]. The later induces a (mildly singular) foliation of the real projective plane, which we call the [*Ahlfors (or total) foliation*]{}. It can be assumed transverse to the given curve $C_{-1}$. A priori the (Ahlfors) foliation may be singular along the curve, yet upon dragging away the center(s) of perspectives it should always be possible to avoid this (compare upper row of Fig.\[Tube:fig\] for an implementation on the Gürtelkurve). W.l.o.g. suppose the curve (already) close to the discriminant and the deformation $C_t$ ($t\in[-1,1]$) to be a small one traversing that hypersurface. By continuity, transversality to the Ahlfors foliation persists after the critical level, and so a nascent champagne bubble would violate Bézout. Indeed, passing a curve of the total pencil through a point inner to the newly created oval (or on that oval) gives an excessive intersection with the post-critical curve $C_{+1}$.
Formalizing requires to fix a tubular neighborhood of the initial curve while noticing that its product structure is the trace of the total foliation. If the degree $m$ is odd then there is one pseudoline whose tubular neighborhood is a twisted bundle (Möbius band).
-5pt0
-5pt0
As long as the discriminant is avoided, a slight continuous variation of the coefficients engenders a small perturbation of the real locus (continuity lemma for rigid-isotopies). When the discriminant is crossed at a solitary node (ordinary double point with 2 imaginary conjugate tangents), the real locus acquires a (single) champagne bubble, while the rest of the curve is isotoped within the prescribed tube (compare Fig.\[Tube:fig\] bottom). It can be assumed (for simplicity, but not vital) that the deformed curves $(C_t)_{t\in[-1,+1]}$ stay transverse to the foliation. Inside of the tube, the intersection of the curve $\Gamma$ of the total pencil through the solitary node, with the post-critical curve $C_{+1}$ is in natural bijection with that of the pre-critical curve $C_{-1}$ . Yet the former intersection $C_{-1} \cap \Gamma$ is totally real, whereas the second contains two additional points when $\Gamma$ cuts the new created oval of $C_{+1}$ (better ask $\Gamma$ to pass through a point of this new oval). Bézout is violated, and our (Viro inspired) proof of Klein’s assertion is complete.
Klein’s thesis (as discussed in Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988] or Viro 1986) is the stronger assertion that a dividing curve cannot see its number of circuits increase when crossing the discriminant. This probably also follows from Ahlfors after some suitable thinking, yet perhaps is less close to Klein’s original statement. It is only now that Klein’s allusion (Quote \[Klein\_1876-niemals-isolierte:quote\]) appears to me quite transparent (yet via the powerful Ahlfors theorem). [*Insertion*]{} \[30.03.13\].—It is unlikely that this was the original proof of Klein (despite the fact that Teichmüller 1941 ascribes to Klein the theorem usually ascribed to Ahlfors). Klein’s original reasoning (alas unpublished in details, but only claimed in Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876]) might have been rather purely topological, essentially like Marin’s (though the latter’s statement is somewhat stronger). More on this will be discussed below, especially in (\[Klein-Marin:lem\]).
\[11.01.13\] One may wonder if, conversely, a nondividing curve can always acquire a solitary node and so a new oval. This is also implicit in Klein 1876 intuition, and probably true up to degree $6$ (cf. Gudkov’s table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\] for some evidence, while a rigorous proof probably rests on Nikulin’s rigid-isotopy classification via Rohlin’s enhanced Gudkov table by complex characteristics). (For a verification of Klein’s intuition in degree $6$, see Prop.\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\], and for a disproof in degree 8, cf. Shustin 1985 and our accompanying comments in Sec.\[Shustin-understood:sec\].)
Gudkov’s table shows however that the location for the apparition of a bubble cannot be chosen in advance. Indeed starting say from the scheme $10$ we could by bubbling create the scheme $11$ violating the Hilbert-Rohn-Petrovskii-Gudkov theorem, that such a scheme is not realized algebraically. Another more obvious argument is just to take any scheme (not on the “visible faces” of Gudkov’s pyramid, equivalently, such that $\frac{1}{1}1$ is a subscheme) and create a bubble inside the outer oval so that the new real scheme contains the subscheme $\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}$ consisting of 2 nests of depth 2, which violates Bézout.
Prohibitions {#Prohibitions:sec}
============
\[28.03.13\] From now on, we do not follow historical order, but rather logical necessity. Admittedly there is no universal measure of simplicity as it depends much on the background of the investigator. From a radical viewpoint, the unique measure of simpleness could be the natural historical time-arrow. Yet sometimes big surprises arise. Arguments extremely powerful and strikingly simple (nearly stemming from nowhere) tend to trivialize much of the past efforts. Such an example is Rohlin’s formula discussed below, which bears some antecedents only by Arnold, plus the topological heritage of Riemann, Betti, Poincaré, Lefschetz, Weyl, Pontryagin, etc (homological intersection theory).
The source of prohibitions in Hilbert’s 16th problem, are multiple. Albeit we are not expert in the field let us brush a brief historical sketch.
First there are evident restrictions coming from Bézout. Those were used by Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874], and exploited in full in Hilbert 1891 (boring bounds on the depth of ovals). A major prohibition (directly affiliated to Zeuthen) is the Harnack inequality $r\le g+1=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}$ of 1876, in no way specific to plane curves. Klein 1876, then aged 27, (but already Harnack’s teacher) gave a more intrinsic justification boiling down to a basic fact on the topology of surfaces directly imputable to Riemann’s definition of the genus (or rather its allied connectivity). Recall that the jargon of the genus is due to Clebsch. Harnack’s inequality is something very robust, as it extends to all dimensions via Smith theory, as was noticed by Thom and Milnor, yielding something like $b_\ast(\RR X)\le b_\ast (\CC
X)$, for $b_\ast$ the total Betti number. We shall not need this as we confine attention to curves (where enough work remains to be done).
As discussed above (\[Klein-unnested-quartic-nondividing:lem\]), Klein 1876 also used large deformations (rigid-isotopies), to prove e.g. that a quartic with 2 unnested ovals is nondividing. Later he also exploited theta-characteristics. The first method is unlikely to extend to curves of higher orders (despite Nikulin’s rigid classification), while the second has been poorly explored further since Klein 1892, and Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981], and does not seem able to compete seriously with information distilled by Rohlin’s formula. Perhaps those old Jacobi-Riemann-Klein methods deserve to be revived. As to Nikulin, it seems at first that it will tell nothing being rather built upon the Gudkov-Rohlin classification by types (cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). However in the fingers of Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994] (contraction theorem of empty ovals), we can expect (at least if this strengthens to our CCC=(\[CCC:conj\])) to rederive via strangulation the diasymmetry(=type II) of the schemes $1$ and $5$ of degree 6 (gaining so some analogy with Klein’s rigid-isotopy argument for the bifolium $2$ in degree 4). Yet, the difficulties are so great that this looks quite artificial as compared to the topological straightforwardness of Rohlin’s formula. By the way this would miss the scheme $\frac{1}{1}1$. Further this seems much limited to degree 6 as we lack precise information on rigid-isotopy in high-degrees. Then the connection with K3-surfaces is lost, and so the tool making Nikulin’s theorem possible (deep transcendental algebraic geometry, global Torelli theorem, etc.).
After Zeuthen-Harnack-Klein, came Hilbert’s 1891 intuition[^24] that an $M$-sextic is forced to nest. This has no antecedents (as far as I know), yet it could be challenging to reprove it via conformal geometry (i.e. the Riemann-Schottky-Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem). This has never been implemented and is probably a hard game, if feasible at all.
After Hilbert came several things like Ragsdale 1906, and Rohn 1911 who consolidated Hilbert’s method. This involves a deep analysis of the stratification of the space of curves and the usage of pencils. In Gudkov’s fingers, this produced an exhaustive list of prohibitions in degree 6. Perhaps an extension of this method also implies (or rather converges) with Rohlin-Le Touzé’s phenomenon of total reality. At least the diagrammatic of the Gudkov table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) strongly suggests this. In degree 6, all the information gained via Hilbert-Rohn is recovered for topological reasons à la Gudkov-Arnold-Rohlin (and extended to all degrees). It is not clear to me if this subsuming of HR to GAR is specific to degree 6 or a general feature. Probably not if I remember well a seminal talk by Orevkov (Geneva, ca. 2011) where Hilbert-Rohn was still much on the appetizer. After all it is unlikely that deep geometrical methods get completely phagocytozed by topological ones.
Enriques-Chisini 1915 [@Enriques-Chisini_1915-1918] gave a proof of Harnack’s inequality based on Riemann-Roch and a continuity argument (compare our Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\]). This is much akin to the phenomenon of total reality, and need to be extended to less trivial cases. Recall that from the viewpoint of total reality, $M$-curves constitute the trivial case. This desideratum is the main motivation of the present text yet we still have very few factual things to present.
The next great step is Petrovskii 1933/38, who seems to be the first to find universal obstructions (valid in all degrees). This is based on Euler-Jacobi-Kronecker’s interpolation formula plus some Morse theory.
Then there is Gudkov breakthrough (apparition of congruences mod 8 as opposed to mere estimates), and the theorists Arnold, Rohlin, etc. validating them via 4D-topology or Atiyah-Singer. In this move we have the trinity of congruences modulo 8 for $M$, $(M-1)$ and $(M-2)$-curves due to GR, GKK, RKM, respectively. Here G=Gudkov, R=Rohlin, 1st K=Krakhnov, 2nd and 3rd K=Kharlamov, while M=Marin. The importance of those can hardly be underestimated. First, the conjunction of GR and GKK explains all prohibitions in degree 6 on real schemes (i.e. Hilbert’s 16th), while the 3rd GKK (forcing orthosymmetry(=type I) of schemes with $\chi\equiv_8
k^2+4$) seems even to imply (via the hypothetical Rohlin maximality conjecture=RMC) the conjunction of GR+GKK. Even without the elusive RMC, it can be that explicit instances of total reality (e.g., Rohlin-Le Touzé’s) imply in low-degrees (say $m=6,8$) the truth of RMC in special situations. This looks after all plausible, since totality involves a geometrization of the type I topological condition by a stronger geometric property (total pencil). Here and in the sequel, we shall often abridge “total reality” by “totality”.
Then appears Rohlin’s formula 1974–78. This is very strong and completely elementary. In degree 6, it rules out all schemes above the broken-line of Gudkov’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) safe 6, namely the 2 triangles involving the symbols $\frac{7}{1}3$, $\frac{7}{1}2$, $\frac{6}{1}3$ and its mirror $\frac{3}{1}7$, $\frac{2}{1}7$, $\frac{3}{1}6$. Rohlin’s formula is very powerful, yet somewhat too elementary to grasp the full mystery. It need therefore to be complemented by more advanced weapons like the Gudkov congruence (GR), and GKK, or by Rohlin’s maximality principle allied to total reality.
In 1978, we have Rohlin’s maximality principle (RMC), still conjectural and not yet fully exploited in our opinion. This could loop-back to conformal geometry à la Riemann, Schwarz, Schottky, Klein, Koebe, Bieberbach, Grunsky, Teichmüller, Ahlfors. As said above, if RMC looks impossible to implement in universal generality it could be verifiable in special cases by using totality as a geometric strengthening of the (topological) type I-condition. For instance Rohlin-Le Touzé’s totality should suffice (either with or without RKM) to kill all expansions of the 2 orthosymmetric $(M-2)$-schemes of degree 6. This would unify all prohibitions in degree 6 safe the schemes $11$ and $\frac{10}{1}$ (easily ruled out via Rohlin’s formula).
Ca. 1978–80, we have advanced Bézout-style obstructions à la Fiedler-Viro (\[Viro-Fiedler-prohibition:thm\]) that really pertains to curves of degree $8$. Those plays a pivotal rôle in Shustin’s disproof of Klein’s champagne bubbling principle for nondividing curves, as well as the disproof of the reverse implication of Rohlin’s maximality principle. More generally those look indispensable in the higher cases $m=7,8$ of Hilbert’s 16th.
We have also the locking trick of Marin-Fiedler (also founded on Bézout for lines) that provides obstruction to rigid-isotopy on $M$-curves of degree $\ge 7$. Here the idea is that if we have a triangle (3 lines) which is Bézout-saturated and canonically attached to a scheme (typically a disc with 3 holes), then during a rigid-isotopy ovals cannot traverse this moving frame. Hence the distribution of ovals past such a fundamental triangle is an invariant of the rigid-isotopy class. Of course this method is not a method of prohibition of schemes, but prohibits the existence of pathes in the hyperspace of smooth curves.
Finally, we have probably a rôle of Thom’s conjecture on genus-bound (verified since Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994 [@Kronheimer-Mrowka_1994]), yet whose role is not so clear-cut as initially expected. The simple case of Thom, due to Kervaire-Milnor 1961 [@Kervaire-Milnor_1961], may be used to settle Hilbert’s nesting “theorem” for $M$-sextics. In general the role of Thom, is perhaps marginalized by Rohlin’s formula and other strong results, yet seems to give new information in the work of Mikhalkin 1994 [@Mikhalkin_1994-adjunction-Thom] when it comes to split curves (communication of Fiedler, not yet digested by the writer=Gabard).
This is a brief overview of nearly all what exists. In contrast one can ask for more conciseness when it comes to explain all the prohibitions of Hilbert’s problem (in degree 6) to a classroom. As often repeated, nearly everything could reduce to the (Klein-Ahlfors-)Rohlin-Le Touzé’s phenomenon of total reality. Remind that 2 technical points are still obscure, but philosophically trivial. The first is a complete proof of Rohlin’s claim (preferably without employing the RKM congruence mod 8). The second is to verify that Rohlin-Le Touzé’s total reality is strong enough to imply maximality of the two Rohlin’s $(M-2)$-schemes. Assuming this settled, we still miss the prohibition of Hilbert’s unnested scheme $11$, and Rohn’s maximally nested scheme $\frac{10}{1}$. This is paradoxical inasmuch as those 2 guys were historically the first ruled out by the Hilbert-Rohn method. The 1st scheme $10$ can be killed by the Kervaire-Milnor 1961 [@Kervaire-Milnor_1961] elementary case of Thom’s conjecture in degree $k=3$, but the second $\frac{10}{1}$ fails to succumb under Thom. However both of them are killed by Rohlin’s formula. Hence a good cocktail (for the classroom or the economical reader) is to mix total reality with Rohlin’s formula. This reduces all prohibitions in degree 6 to only 2 paradigms. As far as we know, apart form the Hilbert-Rohn method (as developed by D.A. Gudkov) there is no universal force unifying all prohibitions in a single one (even in degree 6). A substitute to Thom-Kervaire-Milnor is to use Petrovskii 1933/38 (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]). This rules out $11$ but not Rohn’s scheme $\frac{10}{1}$. The latter is not even killed by the strong Petrovskii inequality of Arnold (\[Strong-Petrovskii-Arnold-ineq:thm\]), i.e., $n-p^-\le
\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)=\frac{3}{2}3\cdot 2=9$, where $p^{-}=1$ is the number of hyperbolic positive ovals, so $n\le 10$ while Rohn’s scheme has $n=10$.
Obstructions via Rohlin’s formula (Rohlin 1974, 1978) {#Rohlin-formula:sec}
-----------------------------------------------------
\[03.01.13\] We repeat the proof of the following pivotal result (whose proof puzzled me a lot as I was young, and still imbues some suitable respect[^25] when getting older). Crudely put, Rohlin’s formula is nothing less than the most universal obstruction that one may derive by abstract non-sense (i.e. using virtually nothing from the algebraicity assumption).
[(Rohlin 1974–78)]{} \[Rohlin-formula:thm\] For any (real, smooth, algebraic, plane) dividing curve of even order $m=2k$ (odd orders were treated by Rohlin’s student Mishachev), the following equation holds: $$2(\Pi^+ -\Pi^-)=r-k^2, \label{Rohlin-formula:eq}$$ where $r$ is the number of ovals, while $\Pi^{\pm}$ are the number of positive (resp. negative) pairs of nested ovals. Each pair of nested ovals bounds a ring=annulus in ${\Bbb R}P^2$, and upon comparing with the complex orientation (as the border of the semi-Riemann surface) one defines a positive pair when both orientations (complex vs. real) agree, and a negative pair when they disagree (cf. Fig.\[Rohlinsformula:fig\]).
-0.3cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
The idea involves computing the self-intersection of the half of the dividing curve after capping off by discs bounding the ovals in the real projective plane, or rather the intersection with the conjugate capped off membrane. This argument seems inspired by a similar device used by Arnold in 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72], but now slightly more punch is acquired. The proof is very elementary using merely intersection of homology classes (available since the days of Poincaré, Lefschetz, Hopf, Pontryagin, etc.) and Poincaré’s index formula (available since Gauss?, Kronecker 1868, Poincaré 1885), plus some basic trick about the “Lagrangian property” of real parts of algebraic varieties (jargon used in Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000]). One can then nearly wonder why such a formula escaped Felix Klein’s attention, but this is of course just historical slowness of the revelation of brutal combinatorial truths.
\[06.03.13\] The detailed proof is given in Rohlin 1974/75 [@Rohlin_1974/75 p.332], but stated there only for $M$-curves. The adaptation to the general case requires only minor notational changes, even simplifying a bit Rohlin’s original. For convenience let us thus copy Rohlin’s prose (while adapting it to the broader context, brackets are our additions):
Denote by $B_C\subset \RR P^2$ the bounding disc for the oval $C$. Complete the half $C^+$ of the dividing curve to a closed surface $\Sigma$ by adding nonintersecting copies of the disc $B_C$. Let $T$ be the closed surface obtained from the other half $C^{-}$ by the same procedure, and let $\varphi \colon \Sigma \to \CC P^2$ and $\psi \colon T \to \CC P^2$ be mappings fixed[^26] on $C^+$ and $C^-$ and superimposing copies of $B_C$ onto these discs. Further, let $\xi$, $\eta$ be elements of the (integral) homology group $H_2(\CC P^2)$ determined by the mappings $\varphi$ and $\psi$ and the natural orientations on the pretzels $\Sigma$ and $T$ (i.e. the orientation obtained from $C^+$ and $C^-$). We shall establish Eq. by computing the intersection index $\xi \eta$ by two procedures \[geometrically and algebraically\].
1.—The first procedure is based on the fact that $\xi \eta$ can be interpreted as the algebraic number of points in the intersection of the oriented singular pretzels $\varphi\colon
\Sigma \to \CC P^2 $ and $\psi \colon T \to \CC P^2 $. This number cannot be determined directly, since the intersection consists of wholes disks, and we begin by applying a deformation to $\varphi$, making the intersection more regular\[=nearly transverse\]. Let $u$ be some tangent vector field on $\RR P^2$ with a finite number of zeros, not having zeros on $A:=C_m(\RR)$ and normal to $A$ on $A$. Since the field $iu$ is normal to $\RR P^2$ in $\CC P^2$ and normal to $\CC A:=C_m(\CC)$ on $A$, it can be normally extended to some field $v$ on $\RR P^2 \cup C^+$ (the latter, of course, will have zeros inside of $C^+$); let $\gamma\colon \RR P^2 \cup C^+
\to \CC P^2$ be a geodesic translation defined by the field $\delta v$, where $\delta$ is a sufficiently small positive number, and $\varphi'\colon \Sigma\to \CC P^2$ be the mapping defined by the formula $\varphi'(x)=\gamma(\varphi(x))$. For $\varphi'$ the algebraic number of points of intersection with $\psi$ is determined directly and can be found in the following way. Since the sum index of the singularities of $u$ in each of the disks $B_C$ is equal to 1 and multiplication by $i$ anti-isomorphically maps the tangent bundle of $\RR P^2$ onto its normal bundle in $\CC P^2$, the sum index of $v$ on each of the disks $B_C$ is equal to $-1$. Consequently, the contribution added by the pair of disks $B_C$ and $B_C'$ to the algebraic number \[$\xi \eta$\] of intersection points that we are interested in is equal to:
$\bullet$ $+1$ if $C=C'$;
$\bullet$ $+2$ if the pair $C,C'$ is negative, and equal to
$\bullet$ $-2$ if the pair $C,C'$ is positive.
This number itself is thus equal to $r-2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)$. Since $\varphi'$ is homotopic to $\varphi $, the index $\xi \eta$ is also like that and thus $$\xi \eta=r-2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-).$$
2.—The second procedure reduces to two remarks. First the class of $\xi + \eta$ is realized by the surface $\CC A$ and therefore coincides with $2k \alpha$, where $\alpha$ is the natural generator of the group $H_2(\CC P^2)$. Second, since the homomorphism $conj_\ast\colon H_2(\CC P^2)\to H_2(\CC P^2)$ represents multiplication by $-1$ \[as it flips the orientation of the generator interpreted as the fundamental class of a line defined over $\RR$\] and takes $\xi$ to $-\eta$, we have $\xi=
\eta$. From these remarks it follows that $\xi=k\alpha$, $\eta=k\alpha$ and $\xi \eta=k^2$.
Comparing the last equations obtained along each procedure, we obtain the announced formula .
We list some consequences. First a (promised) remark about quartics:
[(Klein 1876, Rohlin 1978)]{} Any quartic with $2$ unnested ovals is nondividing.
Since there is no nesting there in no pairs of ovals and the left-side of Rohlin’s formula vanishes, while the right-side is equal to $r-k^2=2-2^2=2-4=-2$.
The sextic scheme $5$ (five unnested ovals) is of type II. More generally the sextic scheme $r$ ($0\le r\le 11$ excepted $r=9$) is of type II (actually $11$ is not realized by Hilbert, Kahn 1909, Löbenstein 1910, Rohn 1911–13, Petrovskii 1938, Gudkov, but a more limpid proof follows from Rohlin’s formula).
(due to Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], also in Fiedler 1981 [@Fiedler_1981 p.13]). Since there is no nesting $\Pi^{\pm}$ are both zero, while the left-side $r-k^2=r-3^2$ of Rohlin’s formula vanishes only for $r=9$.
\[Rohlin’s-inequality:cor\] [(Rohlin’s inequality)]{} A dividing plane curve of (even) order $m$ has at least $r\ge m/2$ ovals. Further if equality $r=m/2$ holds (and the curve is dividing) then its real scheme must be a deep nest (i.e. $m/2$ ovals each pair of them being nested).
(explicit in Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979], or Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000 p.148], but due to Rohlin). Let $\Pi=\Pi^+ +\Pi^-$ be the total number of nested pairs of ovals. We have $$\Pi\le \textstyle\binom{r}{2},$$ (binomial coefficient counting the number of pair of a finite set of size $r$). Equality occurs only for a deep nest! Rohlin’s formula gives: $$r=k^2+2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)\ge k^2-2\Pi^-\ge k^2-2\Pi\ge k^2-2
\textstyle\binom{r}{2}=k^2-r(r-1),$$ whence (looking at the extremities) $r^2\ge k^2$, i.e. $r\ge k$. If an equality each intermediate estimates crunch to equality, in particular the estimate $\Pi\le \binom{r}{2}$, which is fulfilled only for a deep nest.
The sequel studies Rohlin’s consequence in degree 6. This is a bit pedestrian, and can be omitted as we gave a somewhat more conceptual explanation before, by noticing that Rohlin implies Arnold, etc.
Assume again no-nesting ($\Pi=0$). Then Rohlin’s formula gives $0=2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=r-9$, it follows $r=9+ 0= 9$ (in accordance with Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). It is quite remarkable to notice that this gives an instant proof of Hilbert’s conjecture (and semi-theorem of his students Kahn-Löbenstein and Rohn, etc.) to the effect that there is no $M$-curve with 11 unnested ovals.
Next we assume that there is one pair of nested ovals ($\Pi=1$). Then Rohlin’s formula gives $\pm 2=2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=r-9$, it follows $r=9\pm 2= 11, 7$ (in accordance with Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
Next suppose $2$ nested pairs ($\Pi=2$). Hence $\{ 4, 0,-4 \} \ni
2(\Pi^+ -\Pi^-)=r-k^2=r-9$, it follows $r=9+ \{ 4,0,-4 \}= 13,
9,5$ (in accordance with Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
For 3 nested pairs, $\{ 6, 2,-2, -6 \} \ni 2(\Pi^+
-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=r-9$, it follows $r=9+ \{ 6, 2,-2, -6 \}= 15, 11,
7,3$ (in accordance with Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
For 4 nested pairs, $\{ 8, 4, 0, -4,-8 \} \ni 2(\Pi^+
-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=r-9$, it follows $r=9+ \{ 8, 4, 0, -4,-8 \}= 17, 13,
9,5,1$ (in accordance with Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
For 5 nested pairs, $\{ 10, 6, 2, -2,-6, -10 \} \ni 2(\Pi^+
-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=r-9$, it follows $r=9+ \{ 10, 6, 2, -2,-6, -10 \}=
19, 15, 11, 7, 3, -1$ (in accordance with Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
Etc., at this stage it is clear how to link the arithmetics of Rohlin’s formula to the geometry of Gudkov’s table enhanced by Rohlin’s data, and we have proven Rohlin’s claim:
All green-squared schemes on Gudkov’s table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\] are of type II.
One noteworthy feature of the diagrammatic is that Rohlin’s formula gives a tiling by squares rooted on our blue-rhombs plus the red circles of Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]. Hence all the schemes not situated on this grid are necessarily of type II. In particular since $M$-schemes are forced to type I it follows from Rohlin that all $M$-schemes not on the square grid are prohibited as real schemes (yielding a significant contribution to Hilbert’s 16th problem). Explicitly we have:
All the $M$-schemes outside the grid are not realized (algebraically), that is $\frac{10}{1}$, $\frac{8}{1}2$, $\frac{6}{1}4$, $\frac{4}{1}6$, $\frac{2}{1}8$, $11$.
However Rohlin’s formula alone fails to prohibit the schemes $\frac{7}{1}3$ and $\frac{3}{1}7$ (which are situated on the grid). Those are however prohibited either by the Hilbert-Rohn-Gudkov method, or by the Gudkov hypothesis proved by Rohlin 1972/72 (as detailed in the next Sec.\[Gudkov-hypothesis:sec\]).
This last corollary helps the beginner to catch the substance of the following remark by Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000 p.736]: [*“Another fundamental result difficult to overestimate is Rokhlin’s formula for complex orientations. The notion of complex orientation of a dividing real curve (see below), as well as Rokhlin’s formula and its proof, seem incredibly transparent at first sight. The formula settles, for example, two of Hilbert’s conjectures on 11 ovals of plane sextics, which Hilbert himself tried to prove in a very sophisticated way and then included in his famous problem list (as the sixteenth problem).”*]{}
To remind it seems that Hilbert conjectured (wrongly) that only the schemes $\frac{9}{1}1$ and $\frac{1}{1}9$ do exist among $M$-schemes. This turned out to be wrong when Gudkov exhibited the scheme $\frac{5}{1}5$. So Rohlin’s formula settles actually six (!) of Hilbert’s conjectures (if taken as individual prohibition). Presumably what Degtyarev-Kharlamov had in mind were the extreme schemes $\frac{10}{1}$ and $11$ (eleven unnested ovals). The philosophical outcome of this spectacular Rohlin formula is how much information can be derived by basic topological methods, basically emanating from the Riemann-Betti-Poincaré tradition, yet to which workers like Klein or Hilbert were not enough familiar with. Of course a first class topologist like Rohlin was needed to reveal this truth.
Gudkov hypothesis (Gudkov 1969, Arnold 1971, Rohlin 1972, etc.) {#Gudkov-hypothesis:sec}
---------------------------------------------------------------
\[07.01.13\] For $M$-curves, the congruence $\chi\equiv_8 k^2$ was conjectured by Gudkov on the basis of experimental data gathered along his Hilbert-Rohn approach for sextics, and of course by looking as well to higher degrees via the Harnack-Hilbert construction. Figs.\[HilbGab1:fig\], \[HilbGab2:fig\], \[HilbGab4:fig\] below illustrate with which metronomic precision the Hilbert construction always produce $M$-curves respecting the congruence $\chi\equiv_8 k^2$. As pointed somewhere in Viro’s writings, nothing could thus have impeded Miss Ragsdale to detect this congruence in 1906 already. Yet it is the full-credit of Gudkov to have spotted this regularity. Once Arnold knew this, it was just a matter of hard-work toward elaborating the right strategy of proof, and some extra-skills of Rohlin turned to be indispensable.
So the full proof belongs to Rohlin 1972/72 [@Rohlin_1972/72-Proof-of-a-conj-of-Gudkov] (alas contain a little bug), boosting ideas initiated by Arnold 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72] (who got the weaker congruence mod 4). Rohlin’s proof extract his punch not just from algebra (divisibility by 8 of an even integral unimodular quadratic form) but from the deeper divisibility by 16 coming from his own old “grand cru” of 1952 (Rohlin 1952 [@Rohlin_1952-4-manifolds]) on the signature of spin smooth $4$-manifolds. It is notorious that Rohlin’s proof (1972/72 ) contains a mistake that was repaired by Guillou-Marin 1977 [@Guillou-Marin_1977] (compare e.g. Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000 p.736] and also Wilson 1978 [@Wilson_1978], who seems to have noticed (the same?) gap).
\[Ragsdale-Petrovskii:notatio\] [(Ragsdale 1906 [@Ragsdale_1906], Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938]) Given a plane curve of even order (or more generally a real scheme of ovals), it is customary to denote by $p$ the number of [*even ovals*]{} (those included in an even number of ovals) and by $n$ the number of [*odd ovals*]{} (defined analogously). The difference $p-n$ can always be interpreted as the Euler characteristic $\chi$ of the orientable membrane of $\RR P^2$ bounding the curve. The notation $p,n$ are Petrovskii’s, intended to stand for positive and negative ovals.]{}
\[Gudkov-hypothesis:thm\] [(Gudkov hypothesis/conjecture =Rohlin’s theorem of 1972, modulo a correction by Guillou-Marin 1977), and another proof in Rohlin 1974]{} A plane $M$-curve of degree $m=2k$ satisfies the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence: $$\chi=p-n\equiv k^2 \pmod 8.$$
The technique is akin to the subsequent Rohlin’s complex orientation formula of 1974–78, namely fill the halves of the orthosymmetric curve to a closed membrane and calculate the resulting intersection. However here the proof use (an extension of) the seminal Rohlin theorem 1952 [@Rohlin_1952-4-manifolds] on the divisibility by 16 of the signature of spin 4-manifolds. (At this stage there is a huge constellation of coincidence around Hilbert’s heritage: the 16th problem and as well his student, H. Weyl, whose “Analisis situs combinatorio” of 1922 is the first place where the signature of $4k$-manifolds is defined). So a breathtaking connection between differential topology and the more rigid algebraic geometry is accomplished in the Arnold-Rohlin era.
Logically this proof is a bit tricky to implement for one is warned of some mistakes in Rohlin’s initial paper. Hence pivotal is the Guillou-Marin extension of Rohlin’s signature formula, for a full exposition cf. Guillou-Marin 1986 [@Guillou-Marin_1986]. Once this is understood its application to Gudkov’s hypothesis is exposed in A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979] (following a presentation due to Marin).
Among all sextic $M$-schemes only those of Harnack, Hilbert and Gudkov exist.
Originally the proof was achieved by Gudkov 1954 [@Gudkov_1954] via the Hilbert-Rohn(-Gudkov) method, i.e. supplemented by the concept of roughness coming from the Andronov-Pontrjagin theory of dynamical (structural stability). However here we derive it rather from the above theorem (Rohlin 1972). For schemes of degree 6, written in Gudkov’s notation $\frac{k}1 \ell$, we obviously have $p=\ell+1$ and $n=k$. Some boring computation is required to check that this prohibit all $M$-schemes above the broken line in Gudkov’s table. Indeed:
$\bullet$ for $\frac{10}{1}$, $p-n=1-10=-9=-1\neq +1=k^2 \pmod 8$.
$\bullet$ for $\frac{9}{1} 1$, $p-n=2-9=-7=
+1=k^2 \pmod 8$ (no obstruction),
$\bullet$ for $\frac{8}{1} 2$, $p-n=3-8=-5\neq
+1=k^2 \pmod 8$,
$\bullet$ for $\frac{7}{1} 3$, $p-n=4-7=-3\neq
+1=k^2 \pmod 8$, etc. (progression by 2 units),
so the rest is better done mentally on looking at Gudkov’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) of which we reproduce the top portion below (Fig.\[Gudkov-TableTop:fig\]).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Interestingly, prohibiting sextic $M$-schemes is much easier (no deep differential topology à la Rohlin) for the schemes not situated at the two centers of the semi-hexagon of Gudkov’s table, i.e. $\frac{k}{1} \ell$ with $k$ even, whereas the “hexagonal” schemes $\frac{7}{1}3$ and its mirror $\frac{3}{1}7$ are much harder to disprove (at least in the modern Arnold-Rohlin theory). For sextics, one may wonder what is more elementary: Hilbert-Rohn-Gudkov or Rohlin 1952–1972.
Remember that Arnold 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72] proved the weaker congruence modulo 4 of Gudkov’s hypothesis:
[(Arnold 1971, Wilson 1978)]{} For $M$-curves of degree $2k$ (or more generally dividing curves, cf. [Wilson 1978 [@Wilson_1978 p.67–69]]{}), we have $$\chi=p-n\equiv k^2 \pmod 4.$$
This theorem of Arnold is more elementary than Gudkov-Rohlin, while prohibiting exactly the same $M$-schemes as those excluded by Rohlin’s formula (i.e. fails to exclude the $\frac{7}{1}3$ and its mirror $\frac{3}{1}7$). (Of course this is not so surprising as Rohlin owed some inspiration from Arnold.) Note also that Arnold’s congruence forces all schemes on the square-grid (extending the red-hexagons where $p-n\equiv -1 \pmod
4$) to be of type II as do Rohlin’s formula. The latter is however a bit stronger for ascribing type II to the schemes $5$, $\frac{1}{1}1$, and $1$. \[06.03.13\] In fact, as suggested in Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000 p.737]:
\[Rohlin-implies-Arnold:lem\] Rohlin’s formula [(\[Rohlin-formula:thm\])]{} implies straightforwardly the (extended) Arnold congruence $\chi\equiv k^2
\pmod 4$ (for dividing curves).
This involves some abstract nonsense (yet pleasant) combinatorics. Using the usual notation of Petrovskii (cf. \[Ragsdale-Petrovskii:notatio\]), we have $\chi=p-n$ (Euler characteristic of the Ragsdale membrane), $r=p+n$ (total number of ovals split into $p$ even ones and $n$ odd ones), and Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2$. Assembling this gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rohlin-to-Arnold:eq}
\chi=p-n=(p+n)-2n&=r-2n\cr
&=[2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)+k^2]-2n\cr
&=k^2+2(\Pi^+-\Pi^- -n).\end{aligned}$$ It remains to check that the “corrector term” $(\Pi^+-\Pi^- -n)$ is even. Modulo 2 we have, $ \Pi^+-\Pi^- \equiv_2 \Pi^+ +\Pi^- =
\Pi$. Hence we can ultimately ignore Rohlin’s complex orientations. The following lemma concludes the proof, via the usual construction (like on Fig.\[Stalin3:fig\]) assigning to a plane curve its nested hierarchy of ovals ordered by inclusion of their insides (i.e. the unique bounding disc of the oval afforded by “Schoenflies theorem” applied in $\RR P^2$). Recall that a Jordan curve on any surface is null-homotopic iff it bounds a disc. (Cf. e.g. Reinhold Baer’s proof ca. 1927, Thesis under H. Kneser, reproduced in Gabard-Gauld 2010 [@Gabard-Gauld_2010-Jordan-and-Schoenflies].)
-5pt0
-5pt0
\[Stalin:lemma\] Given a finite tree with a directed structure upward so that the tree really looks like the roots of a tree (or better a mushroom in Arnold’s metaphor). Formally we have a finite POSET where each element admits at most one superior, i.e. an element larger than it and minimal with this property (like in capitalistic or feodal hierarchies). Then the number $\Pi$ of pairs $x<y$ and the number $n$ of vertices lying at odd depths are congruent modulo $2$: $$\Pi\equiv n \pmod 2.$$
By additivity we may assume the tree connected. Then there is a unique maximal element in the hierarchy (Stalin), and we can draw from him all his subordinated elements as a “tree” growing downwards (cf. Fig.\[Stalin:fig\]) with several elements lying at different depths(=combinatorial distance to Stalin).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Let $p_0, p_2, p_4, \dots$ be the number of elements at even depths $0, 2, 4, \dots$, and $n_1, n_3, n_5, \dots$ be those at odd depths $1,3,5, \dots$ respectively. To count $\Pi$ the number of subordinations of the hierarchy, we range them by order of importance (proximity to Stalin). Since an element has as many superiors as its depth, this gives $$\Pi=n_1+2p_2+3n_3+4p_4+5n_5+\dots\equiv_2 n_1+n_3+n_5+\dots=n.$$ This enumeration clearly exhausts all possible hierarchical pairs, and the proof is complete.
Gudkov-Rohlin congruence via Rohlin’s formula? {#Gudkov-hyp-via-Rohlin's-formula:sec}
----------------------------------------------
\[11.03.13\] In fact the programme of this section looks extremely dubious, just by virtue of the diagrammatic of the Gudkov table in degree 6 (=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Indeed for a scheme like $\frac{7}{1}3$ the Rohlin equation is trivially soluble (cf. e.g. Theorem \[no-chance-to-reduce-Gudkov-to-Rohlin:thm\]). Therefore there is little chance to reduce Gudkov hypothesis to Rohlin’s formula and the sole signs-law on the Rohlin tree, unless one is able to infer sharper information on complex orientations from geometrical considerations, maybe via total pencils that are fairly easy to construct (cf. Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]) but it is probably another matter to visualize their dynamics. Hence we recommend to skip reading this section.
\[08.03.13\] In view of the previous reduction of Arnold’s mod 4 congruence to Rohlin’s formula, an evident idea is to get better control on the residue modulo 4 of the term $(\Pi^+- \Pi^- -n)$ occurring in Equation to draw sharper congruences (than Arnold’s). In the above proof we ignored completely (and could do so) the sign of Rohlin’s pairs, yet there is an evident composition law when the Hilbert tree of the scheme is decorated by signs (dictated by Rohlin’s pairs with complex orientations, see Fig.\[Rohlinsformula:fig\]). It seems however unlikely that one can boost the method up to include a proof of Gudkov hypothesis based on Rohlin’s formula. (If feasible, this would have certainly been mentioned in the Degtyarev-Kharlamov survey [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000]).
If optimistic one could use a total pencil (like in Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]) as to control complex orientations. This could give an elementary proof of Gudkov hypothesis via basic algebraic geometry instead of highbrow topology (like Rohlin 1952, or Marin 1977–79). Let us look if Rohlin’s formula implies the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence. As above, we start from the Rohlin-to-Arnold equation $$\chi=k^2+2(\Pi^+-\Pi^- -n),$$ and try now to control the residue modulo $4$ of the corrector term $(\Pi^+-\Pi^- -n)$ under the assumption that the curve $C_{m=2k}$ is an $M$-curve. (En passant, it seems that this corrector term is always $\le 0$ by Thom’s conjecture, cf. Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]. \[29.03.13\] Warning: this is false!) If one is able to show that this corrector term is $0$ modulo 4 then Gudkov hypothesis follows.
As in the previous reduction of Arnold-to-Rohlin, we consider the hierarchy of the scheme (alias tree or mushroom), but now one takes into account complex orientations. The latter induce a distribution of signs on all injective pairs of the tree. (An injective pair is any hierarchical pair $x>y$ like in Hegel’s dialectic “du maître et de l’esclave” where $x$ is not necessarily the direct superior of $y$.)
\[Signs-law:lem\] [(Signs-law)]{}.—In the Rohlin tree with (injective) pairs decorated with signs $\pm 1=\sigma_{x,y}$ we have given two (composable) pairs $x<y$, and $y<z$ the following “twisted” signs-law: $$\sigma_{x,z}=(-1)\sigma_{x,y} \cdot \sigma_{y,z}.$$ This looks a priori exotic, as it amounts to say that $+\times
+=-$, $-\times-=-$, i.e. consanguinity is bad, while mixing the genes is good, i.e. $+\times -=+$, $-\times+=+$.
This exotic signs law is justified by looking at Fig.\[Signs-law-dyad:fig\]:
-5pt0
-5pt0
Of course the boring sign $(-1)$ in the lemma could be avoided if we flipped the convention in Rohlin’s definition, but we are too conservative to risk such a modification. Actually, Rohlin’s convention is perfectly sound, cf. again Fig.\[Rohlinsformula:fig\].
Next, it may be observed that the difference $\Delta
\Pi=\Pi^+-\Pi^-$ computed locally in reference to a pair of consecutive edges is $\sigma_{x,y}+\sigma_{y,z}+\sigma_{x,z}=
\sigma_{x,y}+\sigma_{y,z}+(-1)\sigma_{x,y} \cdot \sigma_{y,z}$ which is always either $+1$ or $-3$ (compare again Fig.\[Signs-law-dyad:fig\]), hence always $+1$ modulo 4.
Globally on the whole Rohlin tree, we have the formula $$\Delta \Pi:=\Pi^+-\Pi^-= \sum_{all\; edges (x<y)} \sigma_{x,y}.$$ One could hope via the signs-law to evaluate this modulo 4, and all should boil down to $n$ modulo $4$ under the assumption of an $M$-curve. Along each triad $x<y<z$ the contribution is $+1$ modulo 4. However it becomes soon a combinatorial mess, and one cannot hope this in full generality, as otherwise the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence mod 8 would hold for all dividing curves and not merely for $M$-curves. This violates experimental knowledge, e.g. the Gudkov-Rohlin table in degree 6 (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
A naive idea is to write down a cumbersome formula evaluating $\Delta \Pi$, but alas this still does not use the $M$-curve assumption. Maybe this is a first necessary step unless one has some better idea.
Denote as before $p_0,n_1,p_2,n_3,p_4,\dots$ the number of ovals at depths $0,1,2,3,4,\dots$ respectively. Using Rohlin’s signs we define an oval at depth $\ge 1$ as positive if the edge immediately above it is a positive pair and as negative otherwise. Accordingly we get splittings: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{splitting-rel:eq}
n_1&=n_1^+ + n_1^-\cr
p_2&=p_2^+ + p_2^- =p_2^{++}+p_2^{+-}+p_2^{-+}+p_2^{--} \cr
n_3&=n_3^+ + n_3^-
=n_3^{++}+n_3^{+-}+n_3^{-+}+n_3^{--}=n_3^{+++}+n_3^{++-}+etc.,
$$ where $n_1^+$ is the number of oval at depth 1 which are positive, $p_2^{++}$ is the number of ovals at depth 2 such that the 2 edges right above it are positive, while $p_2^{+-}$ is the number of ovals at depth 2 surmounted by 2 edges of signs $+$ and $-$ (in this order when moving up), and so on. Once all this notation is introduced we can write down a cumbersome formula for $\Delta \Pi$ enumerating all edges (=injective pairs) weighted by their signs according to the depth of their starting-point: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \Pi =& n_1^+ - n_1^-\cr
&+p_2^+ -p_2^- + (-p_2^{++}+p_2^{+-}+p_2^{-+}-p_2^{--})\cr
&+n_3^+ -n_3^- + (-n_3^{++}+n_3^{+-}+n_3^{-+}-n_3^{--})\cr
&+(+n_3^{+++}-n_3^{++-}-n_3^{+-+}+n_3^{+--}
-n_3^{-++}+n_3^{-+-}+n_3^{--+}-n_3^{---})\cr &+etc.\end{aligned}$$ Using the splitting relations above this can be somewhat condensed as $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \Pi =& n_1^+ - n_1^-\cr
&+ 2p_2^{+-}-2p_2^{--}\cr
&+(+n_3^{+++}-n_3^{++-}+n_3^{+-+}-n_3^{+--}
-n_3^{-++}+n_3^{-+-}-n_3^{--+}-3n_3^{---})\cr
&+etc.\end{aligned}$$ alas some intelligence is required to decipher the hidden structure. Even if properly done we still require to put into action the $M$-curve assumption. Since each non maximal vertices of the Rohlin tree defines a unique edge above it we have the relation $r=p_0+ number\; of\; edges$. This is only a weak grip.
All this mess is just given as to motivate someone to arrange a combinatorial proof of the Gudkov hypothesis $\chi\equiv k^2 \pmod
8$ on the basis of Rohlin’s formula alone. This seems a serious combinatorial challenge. Since all classical proofs—(i.e., the first erroneous one of Rohlin 1972, the latter one by Rohlin 1974 via Atiyah-Singer, plus the Marin-Guillou rescue of Rohlin’s original misproof, yet still via an extension of Rohlin’s deep result on signatures of spin 4-manifolds)—use some deep results it is quite unlikely that our naive programme can be completed. Still someone gifted in combinatorics with a clever idea on how to exploit the $M$-curve assumption (Harnack maximality) can perhaps crack the problem in a very elementary fashion. A vague suggestion is to exploit the total reality result for $M$-curves given in Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\] prompting perhaps some information on complex orientations via the usual dextrogyration argument.
Another project along this reductionism to Rohlin’s formula would be to attack our naive converse conjecture to the RKM-congruence, cf. Conjecture \[RKM-converse:conj\]. But this is merely a naive conjecture quite unlikely to hold true.
A trinity of congruences: Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov and (Rohlin)-Kharlamov-Marin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[07.01.13\] To prohibit $(M-1)$-schemes (above Gudkov’s broken line) one can use (beside the Hilbert-Rohn-Gudkov method) the following analogue congruence (paralleling that of Gudkov-Rohlin) due to Kharlamov 1973/73 [@Kharlamov_1973/73] and independently Gudkov-Krakhnov 1973/73 [@Gudkov-Krakhnov_1973/73]:
[(Kharlamov 1973, Gudkov-Krakhnov 1973)]{} \[Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov-cong:thm\] A plane $(M-1)$-curve of degree $m=2k$ satisfies the congruence $$\chi=p-n\equiv k^2\pm 1 \pmod 8.$$
Several proof are available:
$\bullet$ The original sources just referred to.
$\bullet$ Since $(M-1)$-curves are not dividing the technique is different from the capping-off trick à la Arnold-Rohlin. However Marin is able to get an unified proof (à la Rohlin) by using the Guillou-Marin extension of Rohlin’s signature formula. For an exposition cf. A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979].
\[11.01.13\] We have also the following remarkable congruence (due independently to Kharlamov and Marin (first reported in print in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 3.4] and the first detailed proof is given in Marin 1979/80 [@Marin_1979]):
[(Kharlamov 197?, Marin 1979/80, first reported in print in Rohlin 1978)]{} \[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\] A plane $(M-2)$-curve of degree $m=2k$ and type II satisfies the congruence $$\chi=p-n\equiv k^2 \textrm{ or } k^2\pm 2 \pmod 8.$$ This can be paraphrased by saying that an $(M-2)$-curve with $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$ is necessarily of type I.
Compare Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 3.4] or Marin 1979/80 [@Marin_1979], or also Kharlamov-Viro 1988/91 [@Kharlamov-Viro_1988/91] for an unified account (and various approaches). For the paraphrase either look at the Gudkov table in degree 6, or more seriously do some boring arithmetics, cf. (\[RKM-congruence-reformulated:thm\]), which we reproduce quickly. The paraphrase follows from the fact that [*an $(M-2)$-curve of order $m=2k$ verifies universally $\chi \equiv
k^2 \pmod 2$.*]{} This is easy to prove using the relation $\chi=p-n$, $r=p+n=M-2$ $$\chi=p-n=(p+n)-2n\equiv_2 p+n = r=M-2,$$ while by Harnack’s bound and the genus formula $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}$ we have $$M=g+1=\textstyle\frac{(2k-1)(2k-2)}{2}+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2,$$ whence $$\chi\equiv_2 M-2=2k^2-3k \equiv_2 k \equiv_2 k^2.$$
Specializing to sextics ($m=6$, so $k=3$) implies the following (compare Fig.\[Gudkov-TableTop:fig\]):
[(Rohlin 1978)]{} The two real sextic schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$ are of type I.
It seems that this result had no classical counterpart à la Hilbert-Rohn-Gudkov prior to the Arnold-Rohlin revolution. Nonetheless Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] mentions the possibility of a synthetic argument involving pencil of cubics. More on this in Sec.\[total-(M-2)-schemes:sec\].
\[10.03.13\] In fact this synthetic argument of Rohlin is now lost but was partially reconstructed by Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]. This issue of Rohlin-Le Touzé should have a strong interaction with Ahlfors theorem, while affording the first nontrivial phenomenon of total reality. We will have the occasion to dwell more on this later in this text.
\[10.03.13\] Another little remark (valid in degree 6 but perhaps more universally) is the:
Once we know Arnold’s congruence and the Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov(=GKK) congruence then Gudkov hypothesis follows formally.
Indeed contemplating Gudkov’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]), the Arnold congruence prohibits all while-colored $M$-schemes safe those at the center of the semi-hexagons (i.e. $\frac{7}{1}3$ and it mirror $\frac{3}{1}7$). Further the GKK-congruence prohibits all white-colored $(M-1)$-schemes on that same Gudkov table. Hence if one of the two schemes $\frac{7}{1}3$ (or its mirror) existed, it would appear as an isolated island in the ocean. Yet, by transversality (à la Bertini-Morse-Whitney-Sard-de Rham-Thom[^27]) a generic pencil of curves through an (hypothetical) algebraic representant and any other curve with less oval, e.g. the anti-Fermat (invisible) curve with zero oval (equation $x_0^6+x_1^6+x_2^6=0$) would produce a combinatorial path on the Gudkov table. This violates isolation. (NB: even an eversion (Sec.\[Eversion:sec\]) can only take the scheme to its mirror, and so elementary Morse surgeries necessarily create an elementary path on the Gudkov table).
\[10.03.13\] A more radical intuition of Rohlin 1978 (now partially justified by Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]) is that owing to their total reality the $(M-2)$-schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ (and its mirror) are maximal. This explains all the prohibitions materialized by the (white) semi-hexagons on the Gudkov Table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]), safe the 2 schemes $11$ and $\frac{10}{1}$ that were prohibited since the Hilbert-Rohn era (at least modulo some German sloppiness, made perfectly rigorous by Academician D.A. Gudkov). Nowadays prohibiting them is a trivial consequence of either Arnold’s congruence or Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]). So at least in degree 6, we see that the phenomenon of total reality acts as a strong unifying principle for classical prohibitions. Rohlin probably had the intuition that this phenomenon perpetuates in higher degrees. More along this vertiginous idea (potentially allied to Ahlfors theorem) will be discussed in Sec.\[Esquisse-dun-prog-deja-esquiss:sec\].
Total reality of the two maximal sextic $(M-2)$-schemes (Rohlin 1978, Le Touzé 2013) {#total-(M-2)-schemes:sec}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[03.01.13\] This is akin to Ahlfors’ theorem, yet somewhat different and actually the hard part of the game. Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.94] writes the following cryptical note:
\[Rohlin1978-total-reality:quote\] [(Rohlin 1978)]{}
After a suitable modification, these arguments can be applied to some other schemes. For example, when we replace real lines by real curves of degree 2 we can establish that a real scheme of degree 8 consisting of 4 nests of depth 2 lying outside one another belongs to type I[^28], and when we apply it to curves of degree 3, we can establish (in a rather complicated way) that the schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1} 6$ of degree 6 \[considered below in §3.8\][^29] belong to type I. However, all the schemes that we have so far succeeded in coping with by means of these devices are covered by Theorem 3.4 and 3.5.
What is crucial here is the parenthetical comment “(in a rather complicated way)”. This is highly reminiscent of some Hilbertian prose “[*freilich auf einem au[ß]{}erordentlich umständlichen Wege*]{}”, cf. Hilbert 1891 (p.418, in Ges. Abh., Bd.II)): “[*Diesen Fall $n=6$ habe ich einer weiteren eingehenden Untersuchung unterworfen, wobei ich—freilich auf einem au[ß]{}erordentlich umständlichen Wege— fand, da[ß]{} die elf Züge einer Kurve 6-ter Ordnung keinesfalls sämtlich au[ß]{}erhalb un voneinander getrennt verlaufen können. Dieses Resultat erscheint mir deshalb von Interesse, weil er zeigt, da[ß]{} für Kurven mit der Maximalzahl von Zügen der topologisch einfachste Fall nicht immer möglich ist.*]{}” Of course both problems are slightly different but perhaps there is some common difficulty in both games, while it is not impossible that Rohlin’s made a direct winking at Hilbert’s prose.
So Rohlin claims being able to prove the following (on the basis of pure geometry):
[(Rohlin 1978, no published proof)]{} The two real sextic $(M-2)$-schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ ($6$ ovals encapsulated in one oval and $2$ outsides) and $\frac{2}{1} 6$ ($2$ ovals encapsulated in one oval and $6$ outsides) are of type I, i.e. any smooth real curve realizing one of those schemes is necessarily orthosymmetric (=dividing) in the sense of Klein.
On the basis of Rohlin’s Quote (right above) one guesses that the proof involves looking at a pencil of cubics through 8 points inside the deep ovals while checking total reality of the resulting morphism to the line. (As usual it results a circle map à la Ahlfors, which is of degree $3\cdot 6-8=10$ after degenerating the basepoints on the ovals. This quantity coincides with Gabard’s bound $r+p=\frac{r+(g+1)}{2}=\frac{(g-1)+(g+1)}{2}=g=10$.) Of course, it is quite sad that Rohlin did not found the place to write down the details.
Naively the proof could be as follows. Take a cubic in the pencil based at some 8 points inside the $2+6=8$ deep ovals (equivalently those containing no ovals). If the cubic is connected then it visits all 8 points. Counting intersection we have $2\cdot 8=16$ intersections coming from the deep ovals, plus two intersections coming from traversing the enclosing oval. This gives 18 the maximum permitted by Bézout, whence the desired total reality.
This looks simple, but this by no mean a complete argument. What to do if the cubic is not connected? One could of course try to arrange a pencil of connected cubics. Recall that the discriminant parametrizing singular cubics has degree $3(k-1)^2=3 \cdot 2^2=12$ of even degree. Thus there is no “Galois” obstruction to finding a line in the space of cubics $\vert 3 H \vert \approx {\Bbb P}^9$ missing the discriminant.
Another objection is that our simpleminded proof equally well applies to all other $(M-2)$-schemes excepted $9$. Indeed this is clear for all of them since the ovals are split in two packets by the enclosing oval. In the case of $\frac{8}{1}$ the enclosing oval is also necessarily cut twice, since $C_3({\Bbb R})$ is not null-homotopic. This would imply that all $(M-2)$-schemes safe the unnested one ($9$) are of type I. This is however too radical and incompatible with experience (or with theory, e.g. Arnold’s congruence). For instance it is easy to alter Hilbert’s method to get the scheme $\frac{7}{1}1$ in a nondividing way as switched some signs of smoothing (cf. Fig.\[TypeII:fig\]).
-5pt0
-5pt0
\[08.01.13\] Maybe a fruitful idea is to look at special pencils of cubics spanned by 2 reducible (split) cubics well-understood. For instance one could try with reducible cubics aggregating a conic and a line. (This looks too rigid as a conic can pass only through 5 points while the 3 remaining one are not necessarily aligned.) Another idea is to look for rational cubics (uninodal).
Inside any cubics pencil (e.g. one based on the 8 deep ovals), we have by the theorem of Cheponkus-Marin 1988 (cf. Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988 p.192]) a curve with at most $M-3=(g+1)-3=(1+1)-3=-1$ components. This looks exotic and wrong for cubics for it would lack real circuits violating thereby Galois-Bézout! Shame on me, I forgot that Cheponkus-Marin assume the pencil to be even degree $>2$!
However it is a well-known fact that a generic pencil of cubics has a curve with $r=1$, which sounds quite likely (though not forced by the even degree 12 of the discriminant). Even accepting this we get only one curve of the pencil which is connected, then of course a family of such, but we are by no mean ensured that all will be so.
The case of the Gürtelkurve, or that of the sextic having a nest of depth 3, inclines to believe that the total reality of Rohlin’s sextic schemes enjoy some structural stability in the sense that it is enough to assign the 8 basepoints inside the deep nests to ensured total reality. So we are looking for something quite rare yet reasonably robust.
Suppose we have some connected cubics in our pencils. When moving in the pencil it may splits in two components. This can occur (assuming genericity, i.e. transversality to the discriminant) either through the birth of an oval after crossing a solitary node or by a self-coalescence of the pseudoline of the cubic crossing in this case a non-solitary node (with two real branches).
$\bullet$ In the first case the newly created oval cannot contribute to additional intersections.
Here is our argument requiring some hypothesis. First our generic pencil will exhibit at most 12 uninodal curves (either solitary or non-solitary nodes). By general position it may be assumed that those 12 curves (as well as the allied 12 nodes) are not located on the given sextic $C_6$. When crossing the discriminant, the solitary node will inflate into a little surrounding oval (or at least nearby ovals). Thus by continuity this little oval do not interact with the $C_6$. In fact what is important is that our 12 nodes are not on the 8 basepoints. Hence our just born oval do not contribute visiting the base locus, which is therefore entirely visited by the residual pseudoline. This is connected and so total reality is preserved (even after crossing the wall), at least at some instantaneous future right after the crossing. Then the little bubble (oval) can inflate, yet as the number of real intersections is already maximum via the pseudoline, the oval cannot cross the $C_6$. Its motion is in some sense confined to its complement (of the $C_6$). Then two scenarios are possible, either the oval deflates again to some solitary points or it merges with the pseudoline. In both cases we come back to a curve with one circuit and total reality is ensured for topological reasons. This story has to be repeated perhaps 12 times but we seem finished, modulo analyzing the other case.
$\bullet$ In the second case (real normal crossing) our pseudoline of the moving cubic self-collides with itself and then splits in two branches. Of course it may then result a loss of total reality. Imagine the crossing (non solitary node) to be located on the $C_6$, then at the critical time there are locally two intersections and soon afterwards these may disappear loosing two intersections. Yet assuming by general position that our nodes are never located on the $C_6$ (after eventually perturbing the 8 basepoints) we still have right after the critical time two real intersections, and total reality is conserved in the short run. Now our curve is decomposed in two branches, and accordingly so are the basepoints. If the pseudoline (at the post-critical level) contains a mixture of points both inside and outside the nonempty oval of $C_6$ we are happy for two extra intersections are created while entering in and evading out this separating oval. If not, then the oval of $C_3$ visits the 6 inner ovals of $C_6$ and the pseudoline the 2 outer oval of $C_6$. (The other situation is also possible but then total reality is obvious for the pseudoline must evade the surrounding oval.) Now our oval in the long run may loose two intersections. However as the intersection $C_3\cap C_6$ was totally real, this can only occur by a retraction of a tongue slipping inside the separating oval, and then the 6 inner ovals of $C_6$ are trapped inside an oval of a cubic. The latter is reasonably rigid and convex. This oval still has $2\cdot 6=12$ intersection with the 6 inner ovals. In particular it cannot shrink to a point. It cannot also evolve to an ellipse, as otherwise the 6 inner basepoints would be co-elliptic, which can be avoided by general position. OF COURSE the proof is still not finished and some idea need to be discovered. Perhaps let pass a conic through 5 of the inner basepoints, while noting that a 6th intersection is created by Galois-Bézout, etc... Of course all this needs much more substantiation!
\[08.01.13\] The end of Rohlin’s Quote (above) shows that there must be alternative non-synthetic but crudely speaking topological proofs of the theorem. This is indeed what was discussed in the previous section.
E-mail correspondence {#e-mail-Viro:sec}
=====================
\[09.01.13\] This section gathers some responses given by experts (Viro, Marin, Orevkov, Kharlamov, Shustin, Le Touzé, etc.) to some naive questions of mine about the work of Rohlin. Here are the original messages in chronological order (inserted with the tacit approval of their authors). I acknowledge most sincerely their authors for the stimulating atmosphere it created and their generous sharing of knowledge.
\[09.01.13\] Two naive questions on Rohlin 1978
Dear Viatcheslav, Alexis, Oleg, Stefan and Grisha,
Sorry for disturbing so many experts among yours with some little aspect of the work of academician Vladimir Abramovich. (I should have written this message in French, yet cannot remember exactly about Oleg’s progresses over the last 6 years in that language.) I was those last days quite fascinated by reading Rohlin’s 1978 survey on complex topological characteristics of real curves in some more detail. As you all know, he gave a quite spectacular enhancement of Gudkov’s pyramid for all schemes of sextics by enriching it with the data of Klein’s type I/II (1876). (Compare optionally the attached pdf file giving a graphical snapshot view of Rohlin’s classification.)
My two questions are as follows.
\(1) First Rohlin (1978) claims to have a certain synthetic argument (via pencils of cubics) able to show the type I of the schemes 6/1 2 and 2/1 6. He confesses however his argument to be a complicated one. Let me cite Rohlin exactly:
“...when we apply it to curves of degree 3, we can establish (in a rather complicated way) that the schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1} 6$ of degree 6 belong to type I. However, all the schemes that we have so far succeeded in coping with by means of these devices are covered by Theorem 3.4 and 3.5.”
My first question is whether Rohlin’s synthetic argument has ever been published (assuming its truth of course)? I suspect the proof to be quite beautiful, but I am myself not able to prove it for the moment. Did one of you ever worked out the argument in detail, or remember about some exposition during Rohlin’s lectures? Is it of the same order of difficulty as the Hilbert-Rohn method, requiring “roughness” á la Andronov-Pontrjagin to turn round? Would it be didactically useful to publish (on the arXiv) an account of Rohlin’s argument if one is able to reconstruct it?
\(2) The second question is of course the general Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (a scheme is of type I iff it is maximal in the hierarchy of all real schemes of some fixed degree). As reported in Viro’s survey (1986 Progresses over the last 6 years) it seems that one implication was disproved by Polotovskii and Shustin (combined efforts ca. 1982, 1985). Yet one implication looks still possible, namely type I implies maximal (if I am not wrong). It seems to me that this (last vestige of the) Rohlin conjecture could be proved somewhat eclectically in two lines via Ahlfors theorem (1950) on the total reality of orthosymmetric curves (alias type I). Namely if the curve is of type I, then there is a pencil of curves cutting only real points on the curve, so its real scheme cannot be enlarged without violating Bezout. q.e.d. Some more thinking shows of course this argument to be insufficient but maybe there is a (clever) way to complete it. Qu’en pensez-vous?
Many thanks for your attention, and also for all your fantastic papers (I am presently trying to digest, so do not take the pain to answer me properly if my questions look too naive.) I apologize again for this collective message, but as the material is quite old, most of you probably forgot some details. So I hoped to maximize some chance of getting an answer from a collective chat room.
Best regards, Alex
PS: In attachment I send you a copy of an informal text of mine on the Ahlfors map. Section 24 (pp. 205–229) is more specifically devoted to Rohlin’s conjecture, yet contains nothing original (while being quite poorly organized).
$\bullet$ On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:33:23 +0100 ([email protected]) wrote to Kharlamov, Marin, Viro, Fiedler, Orevkov, and Mikhalkin a collective e-mail titled “Two naive questions on Rohlin 1978”:
Dear Viatcheslav, Alexis, Oleg, Thomas, Stepan and Grisha,
Sorry for disturbing so many experts among yours with some little aspect of the work of academician Vladimir Abramovich. (I should have written this message in French, yet cannot remember exactly about Oleg’s progresses over the last 6 years in that language.)
I was those last days quite fascinated by reading Rohlin’s 1978 survey on complex topological characteristics of real curves in some more detail. As you all know, he gave a quite spectacular enhancement of Gudkov’s pyramid for all schemes of sextics by enriching it with the data of Klein’s type I/II (1876). (Compare optionally Fig.71 on page 208 of the attached pdf file giving a graphical snapshot view of Rohlin’s achievement.)
My two questions are as follows.
\(1) First Rohlin (1978) claims to have a certain synthetic argument (via pencils of cubics) able to show the type I of the schemes 6/1 2 and 2/1 6. He confesses however his argument to be a complicated one. Let me cite Rohlin exactly:
“...when we apply it to curves of degree 3, we can establish (in a rather complicated way) that the schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1} 6$ of degree 6 belong to type I. However, all the schemes that we have so far succeeded in coping with by means of these devices are covered by Theorem 3.4 and 3.5.”
My first question is whether Rohlin’s synthetic argument has ever been published (assuming its truth of course)? I suspect the proof to be quite beautiful, but I am myself not quite able to write it down for the moment. Did one of you ever worked out the argument in detail, or remember about some exposition during Rohlin’s seminar? Is it of the same order of difficulty as the Hilbert-Rohn method, requiring “roughness” à la Andronov-Pontrjagin to turn round? Would it be didactically useful to publish (on the arXiv) an account of Rohlin’s argument if one is able to reconstruct it? Many thanks if you have some ideas (or recent references) on those or related questions...
\(2) The second question is of course the general Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (a scheme is of type I iff it is maximal in the hierarchy of all real schemes of some fixed degree). As reported in Viro’s survey (1986 Progresses over the last 6 years) it seems that one implication was disproved by Polotovskii and Shustin (combined efforts ca. 1982, 1985). Yet one implication looks still possible, namely “type I implies maximal” (if I am not wrong). It seems to me that this (last vestige of the) Rohlin conjecture could be proved (somewhat eclectically) in two lines via Ahlfors theorem (1950) on the total reality of orthosymmetric curves (alias type I). Namely if the curve is of type I, then there is a pencil of curves cutting only real points on the curve, so its real scheme cannot be enlarged without violating Bézout. q.e.d. Alas, some more thinking shows of course this argument to be insufficient but maybe there is a (clever) way to complete it. Qu’en pensez-vous?
Many thanks for your attention, and also for all your fantastic papers (I am presently trying to digest). So do not take the pain to answer me properly if my questions sound too naive. I apologize again for this collective message, but as the material is quite old, most of you probably forgot some details. So I hoped to maximize some chance of getting an answer from a collective chat room.
Best regards, Alex (Gabard)
PS: The attachment[^30] is a copy of an informal text of mine on the Ahlfors map. Section 24 (pp. 205–229) is more specifically devoted to Rohlin’s conjecture, yet contains nothing original (except being poorly organized).
$\bullet$ \[Viro’s answer the same day (09.01.13) ca. 20h00, additional footnotes are mine (Gabard)\]
Dear Alexandre,
Thank you for your message and manuscript. I was not aware about the Ahlfors theorem[^31]. It seems to be very interesting.
I doubt though if it can be used for proving the half of Rokhlin conjecture. It gives a proof for impossibility of raising the number of components of a type I curve by a single algebraic Morse modification (what I called Klein’s thesis).
I do not remember if I even ever heard about Rokhlin’s proof that you ask about, but the fact follows from the congruence. Slava[^32] did not mention it when he proved the corresponding congruence (at the moment the type was not yet considered). I learned this theorem from Slava in September 1977 and wrote down Slava’s proof to my notebook then. I guess the first proofs was[^33] published by Slava Nikulin (among many other statements) and Alexis Marin. Marin’s proof looks simpler, but requires Pin- structures.
Best regards, Oleg
$\bullet$ Gabard’s reply \[Same day (09.01.13) ca. 21h00\]
Dear Oleg,
Many thanks for your rapid and illuminating responses, plus all the historical details. If you see no objection, I would be very happy to cut-and-paste them in my survey. I still need to assimilate some congruences of the early phase (Rohlin, Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov, etc.) Hence you cannot imagine how your hints are illuminating my modest understanding of that golden period. Regarding Ahlfors, as you say, there is little hope to crack the big fish, yet of course I shall keep you informed if I get not too depressed by the immense difficulty.
All the best, and so many thanks again, Alex
$\bullet$ 10 Jan 2013 (Marin’s answer)
Cher Gabard
En plein déménagement, je met un peu plus de temps à vous répondre que Viro.
Comme Viro, je ne connais pas la preuve de Rohlin pour votre première question (c’est pourquoi j’avais imaginé la preuve dont parle Viro qui est dans “Quelques remarques sur les courbes algébriques planes réelle”, votre référence 742) Cependant ce séminaire de Paris VII est dans un carton et y restera tant que je n’aurai pû trouver un nouvel appartement assez grand pour contenir ma bibliothèque et, n’ayant le temps d’aller à la bibliothèque, ma mémoire ne me permet pas de vous en dire plus que Viro.
Pour la seconde question par contre je peux vous répondre, c’est à dire lever votre aveux d’incompréhension en fin (p. 226) de preuve du Lemme 24.20[^34].
Soit une courbe séparante gagnant un ovale de plus après franchiment d’un point quadratique ordinaire. Un argument de congruence (utilisant $d > 2$ dans le cas plan ou une hypothèse dans le cas général donnant que la désingularisée de cette courbe de franchiment est irréductible : l’ensemble de ses points complexe est connexe) donne que cette désingularisée de la courbe de franchiment est non séparante.
Ainsi deux points non réels conjugués de la courbe de franchiment sont lié par un arc évitant la partie réelle, en particulier le point singulier, et par extension des isotipie[^35] un tel arc subsite dans toute déformation vers l’un des des deux côtés du discriminant, en particulier avant le franchiment la courbe est non séparante ce qui contredit l’hypothèse.
Par contre si le franchiment du discriminant se fait en un point singulier plus compliqué il me semble que l’on peut augmenter le nombre de composantes connexes d’une courbe séparante. Je crois me souvenir que selon les constructions de Viro (ou peut être seulement après avec la présentation Itenbergienne de cette méthode de Viro) il y a une courbe singulière de degré 6 dont tout voisinage contient tous les types.
N’étant plus familier du sujet depuis plus de 20 ans je ne peux vous en dire plus, par contre pour les surfaces de degré 3 vous trouverez dans le second tome des oeuvres de Klein un magnifique article illustré de non moins magnifiques figures où il établi que tous les types de surface cubique s’obtiennent par déformation de la (unique à changement projectif de coordonnées) surface cubique qui a 4 points quadratiques ordinaire.
Merci de votre long article que j’essayerai de lire quand déménagement, vente,.... seront terminés.
Bien cordialement et bonne année.
Alexis Marin
PS 1 Je trouve Viro un peu “oublieux” d’écrire “ (at the moment the type was not yet considered)”: en parcourant le second tome des oeuvres de Klein vous vous appercevrez qu’un sciècle avant Viro “tout” était chez Klein!
2 Vous trouverez un article historique, beaucoup plus court\* et sur un autre sujet en mettant dans la boite de recherche d’Arxiv le mot clef “troupeau”
\*il fait 6 pages table des matières comprise et tout est dit (de façon “autocontenue” ) dans le résumé en français de la première page, mais si vous remontez à toutes les références\*\* des commentaires bibliographiques celà peut vous prendre un peu de temps.
\*\*accesibles à travers la "bibliothèque des sophomores http://alexis.marin.free.fr/BIB/
$\bullet$ Gabard’s answer \[12.01.13 ca. 23h00\]
Cher Alexis, C’est avec une immense joie que j’ai reçu votre message. N’ayant pas d’internet à la maison, je l’ai seulement découvert ce soir en visitant mon père, qui lui est connecté. Je vais donc tenter d’assimiler toutes vos remarques savantes, et si vous le permettez, de les intégrer dans mon survey, en spécifiant bien sûr qu’il s’agit de vos contributions. De mon côté, je me demande si une courbe non-séparante peut toujours acquérir un point double ordinaire solitaire. (C’est semi-implicite dans Klein 1876 qui écrivait “noch entwicklungsfähig”, mais il me semble que ça contredit le résultat de Shustin 1985 (contre-exemple à la conjecture de Rohlin), dont la logique m’échappe quelque peu, mais j’ai sûrement raté une subtilité).
Grâce à vos commentaires je devrais pouvoir produire prochainement une version plus solide et limpide de la section correspondante du survey, que je vous enverrai dès que possible. L’interaction avec Ahlfors me semble aussi prometteuse...
Amitiés, et merci infiniment pour votre message, Alex
PS J’espère que le déménagement se passe bien. Restez-vous à Grenoble, ou bien s’agit-il d’une opération plus conséquente?
PPS: J’ai bien à la maison votre article de Paris VII, qui a toujours été mon meilleur compagnon (en 1999-2000), et je suis content de le retrouver pour ce point encore plus profond.
PPPS: je me suis procuré une copie de l’article sur “il capo”, qui me semble fabuleux. Merci beaucoup. C’est exactement l’analyse que l’on rencontre à proximité de Dirichlet, etc jusqu’à Ahlfors, et Rogosinski, et que je dois essayer à l’occasion d’apprivoiser...
PS 1 Je trouve Viro un peu “oublieux” d’écrire “ (at the moment the type was not yet considered)”: en parcourant le second tome des oeuvres de Klein vous vous appercevrez qu’un sciècle avant Viro “tout” était chez Klein!
Vous avez parfaitement raison, et je suis moi même très “spécialisé ” dans l’oeuvre de Klein. Cependant le gros quiz, c’est l’assertion de Teichmüller 1941, qui prétend que Klein 18XX? anticipe Ahlfors 1950, de 70 ans environ. Toute courbe séparante (ou surface de Riemann orthosymmétrique, pour reprendre le jargon kleinéen) admet un morphisme réel vers la droite dont les fibres au dessus des points réels sont toutes exclusivement formées de points réels. C’est cet énoncé fondamental qui me semble être sous-exploité! Evidemment comme la noté Viro, il implique la partie facile de l’assertion de Klein (1876): une courbe séparante ne peut gagner un ovale spontanément comme une bulle de champagne surgit du néant.
$\bullet$ Réponse de Marin (le lendemain 13 Jan 2013 ca. 09h00)
de les intégrer dans mon survey, en spécifiant bien sûr qu’il s’agit de vos contributions.
A part l’explication de votre doute (où relativement à l’article que vous citez il n’y a que les mots “extension des isotopies” en plus) ce ne sont que de très vagues souvenirs que je vous conseille de vérifier (éventuellement auprès de plus compétent : Viro, Itenberg,... avant de les intégrer)
De mon côté, je me demande si une courbe non-séparante peut toujours acquérir un point double ordinaire solitaire.
voulez-vous dire dont les deux directions tangentes sont complexes conjuguée? celà me parait très très optimiste.
(C’est semi-implicite dans Klein 1876 qui écrivait “noch entwicklungsfähig”,
Êtes vous sûr que c’est ce que pensait Klein, ou incluait-il dans ce terme les modification par franchiment d’une courbe ayant un unique point double qui est quadratique ordinaire à tangentes réelles “apparu en rapprochant deux points d’un même ovale”?
mais il me semble que ça contredit le résultat de Shustin 1985 (contre-exemple à la conjecture de Rohlin), dont la logique m’échappe quelque peu, mais j’ai sûrement raté une subtilité).
PS J’espère que le déménagement se passe bien.
oui mais c’est long, à ce propos, vous trouverez sur
http://alexis.marin.free.fr/BIB/papier/
la liste des livres que j’ai en plusieurs exemplaires et (sauf ceux dont la colonne “héritier” est remplie (par Vinel et/ou Guillou)) qui sont à la disposition de qui (en particulier vous) les demande. Restez-vous à Grenoble, ou bien s’agit-il d’une opération plus conséquente?
Je reste près de Grenoble (mon adresse est dans la signature électronique ci-dessous
PPPS: je me suis procuré une copie de l’article sur “il capo”,
Voulez vous dire “Le capo”?
Cependant le gros quiz, c’est l’assertion de Teichmüller 1941, qui prétend que Klein 18XX? anticipe Ahlfors 1950, de 70 ans environ. Toute courbe séparante (ou surface de Riemann orthosymmétrique, pour reprendre le jargon kleinéen) admet un morphisme réel vers la droite dont les fibres au dessus des points réels sont toutes exclusivement formées de points réels.
Voulez-vous dire revêtement d’espace total l’ensemble des ovales? Il y a-t-il quelque chose de plus précis sur le degré et sa répartition parmis les ovales? Les références sont-elles dans votre article?
C’est cet énoncé fondamental qui me semble être sous-exploité! Evidemment comme la noté Viro, il implique la partie facile de l’assertion de Klein (1876): une courbe séparante ne peut gagner un ovale spontanément comme une bulle de champagne surgit du néant.
Soyez plus précis pourquoi un tel morphisme admettrait-il une déformation le long de la modification d’adjonction d’un ovale?
Amitiés.
Alexis
– http://le-tonneau-de-thales.tumblr.com/
Alexis Marin, chez Danielle Bozonat 6 Allée de la roseraie, 38240 Meylan fixe : 04 76 00 96 54 port. : 06 38 29 33 99, 00351925 271 040
$\bullet$ Gabard 13 Jan 2013 ca. 13h30
Cher Alexis, Merci pour votre message. Je vais en effet essayer d’intégrer vos commentaires de manière ciblée et prudente. De toute manière avant d’arXiver une nouvelle version d’ici six mois environ, j’aurai l’occasion de vous montrer précisement la prose que je vous aurez emprunté. J’essaye maintenant de répondre à vos questions:
De mon côté, je me demande si une courbe non-séparante peut toujours acquérir un point double ordinaire solitaire.
voulez-vous dire dont les deux directions tangentes sont complexes conjuguée? celà me parait très très optimiste.
REPONSE: Oui, exactement à tangentes imaginaires conjuguées. Cela me parait aussi très optimiste. Klein semble le prétendre semi-implicitement (du moins qu’il n’ y a a priori pas d’obstruction topologique à la formation de telles bulles de champagne). Cependant si ce truc fou (“Klein-vache”) est vrai alors un des sens de la conjecture de Rohlin 1978 (type I iff maximal real scheme) est vérifié. Malheureusement, ce que donne “Klein-vache” est le sens de Rohlin détruit par Shustin 1985 (dont je n’ai cependant pas compris l’argument). Mais vous avez surement raison “Klein-vache” est probablement beaucoup trop optimiste...
Êtes vous sûr que c’est ce que pensait Klein, ou incluait-il dans ce terme les modification par franchiment d’une courbe ayant un unique point double qui est quadratique ordinaire à tangentes réelles “apparu en rapprochant deux points d’un même ovale”?
REPONSE: je pense que oui, car Klein précise “isolierte reelle Doppeltangente”, comparez ma Quote 24.2[^36] page 205 de mon survey (si vous n’avez pas le volume 2 de Klein sous la main). Ainsi il me semble que votre interprétation moderne (Marin 1988) diffère un peu de l’original Kleinéen, en étant toutefois plus puissant que l’assertion d’origine.
PS J’espère que le déménagement se passe bien.
oui mais c’est long, à ce propos, vous trouverez sur
http://alexis.marin.free.fr/BIB/papier/
la liste des livres que j’ai en plusieurs exemplaires et (sauf ceux dont la colonne “héritier” est remplie (par Vinel et/ou Guillou)) qui sont à la disposition de qui (en particulier vous) les demande.
C’est une magnifique liste de trésor. Je voudrais bien les acquérir, mais je me demande si mon hygiène de vie (overwork) rend une telle acquisition raisonable...(Il faudrait que je passe à Grenoble avec la camionnette de mon oncle pour récupérer les “invendus”. Il est préférable en effet de trouver des preneurs plus compétents que moi. Si en dernier recours, vous ne trouvez pas de preneurs je pourrais récupérer les volumes restants en vrac...Merci infiniment pour cette généreuse proposition. Moi même je suis très marginal financièrement et spatialement, petit appartement à Genève partagé avec ma mère (avec environ 8 tonnes de littérature mathématique), mais dans le futur je pourrai peut être m’installer dans une ferme fribourgoise, où il reste de l’espace pour expandre la bibliothèque...)
PPPS: je me suis procuré une copie de l’article sur “il capo”,
Voulez vous dire “Le capo”? Oui, j’essayais d’improviser en italien, mais c’est une langue plus subtil que vous utilisez...
Cependant le gros quiz, c’est l’assertion de Teichmüller 1941, qui prétend que Klein 18XX? anticipe Ahlfors 1950, de 70 ans environ. Toute courbe séparante (ou surface de Riemann orthosymmétrique, pour reprendre le jargon kleinéen) admet un morphisme réel vers la droite dont les fibres au dessus des points réels sont toutes exclusivement formées de points réels.
Voulez- vous dire revêtement d’espace total l’ensemble des ovales? Il y a-t-il quelque chose de plus précis sur le degré et sa répartition parmis les ovales? Les références sont-elles dans votre article?
OUI, toute surface de Riemann à bord (=membrane compacte) s’exprime comme revêtement holomorphe ramifié du disque. C’est juste une version relative (à bord) du théorème d’existence de Riemann qui concrètise toute surface de Riemann close comme revetement conforme de la sphère (ronde). Il a fallut toutefois attendre la contribution d’Ahlfors 1950 qui donne en plus un contrôle sur le degré d’un tel revêtement conforme, à savoir r+2p, où r est le nombre d’“ovales” (mieux le nombre de contours de la membrane), et p son genre. La Thèse de moi-même (Gabard 2004, et l’article de 2006 au Commentarii Math. Helv.) donne un meilleur contrôle, à savoir $r+p$, en économisant donc une cartouche pour chaque anse. Les références précises sont dans le survey. L’énoncé d’Ahlfors était vachement anticipé dans le cas $p=0$ (membrane planaire ou schlichtartig pour reprendre la terminologie de Paul Koebe) par la grande lignée Riemann 1857 (Nachlass), Schottky 1875-77, Bieberbach 1925 et Grunsky 1937. Lorsqu’on passe au double de Schottky-Klein de la surface à bord on obtient (via Ahlfors) une courbe séparante avec un morphisme totalement réel vers la droite projective. Inversement toute courbe séparante est totalement réelle, puisqu’il suffit d’appliquer Ahlfors à une des moitiés orthosymétrique de Klein.
\[Gabard\] C’est cet énoncé fondamental qui me semble être sous-exploité! Evidemment comme la noté Viro, il implique la partie facile de l’assertion de Klein (1876): une courbe séparante ne peut gagner un ovale spontanément comme une bulle de champagne surgit du néant.
\[Marin\] Soyez plus précis pourquoi un tel morphisme admettrait-il une déformation le long de la modification d’adjonction d’un ovale?
\[Gabard\] Je pense que ça marche car lorsque la courbe est plongée dans le plan, le morphisme total d’Ahlfors admet une réalisation projective comme un pinceau de courbes planes dont tous les membres découpent seulement des points réels sur la courbe orthosymmétrique (=séparante). Par conséquent, en traçant la courbe du pinceau total qui passe par un point de l’oval spontanément créé, on obtient une contradiction avec Bézout. Donc Ahlfors 1950 implique Klein 1876, mais votre démonstration de 1988$-\varepsilon$ (votre preuve est déjà mentionnée dans Viro 1986) est surement plus intrinsèque et voisine de l’argument d’origine de Klein (s’il en avait un au delà de la pure contemplation empirique des quartiques notamment...)
Merci infiniment pour vos messages, et d’ici tout bientôt (3-4 jours) je vous enverrai une version mise-à-jour du survey qui clarifiera peut-être les assertions précédentes. Toutefois les grands problèmes et plein de détails m’échappent encore dans la pyramide Gudkovo-Rohlinienne. Quelle splendide pyramide qui joint à la perfection Klein et Hilbert! Un détail qui m’échappe, c’est le fait que le discriminant est de degré $3(m-1)^2=75$ pour $m=6$, tandis que que du point de vue des chirurgies “de Morse” il y a des cycles de longueur 4 dans la pyramide de Gudkov. Donc il y a un problème de parité si on déforme le long d’un pinceau générique (transverse au discriminant)...Désolé, de vous embêter avec ces détails que j’ai honte de ne pas réussir à clarifier depuis quelques jours.
Amitiés, et bon courage pour la suite du déménagement, Alex
$\bullet$ \[16h40 15.01.13\] Cher Alexis, Merci encore pour vos messages et vos remarques fascinantes que je dois encore bien digérer. De mon côté, j’ai fait de minimes progrès, et vous envoie malgré votre déménagement une version ajournée de mon survey. Il me semble que le truc fou dont nous parlions il y a quelques jours, que j’appele depuis “Klein-vache”, i.e. la possiblilité de faire naitre un noeud solitaire (à tangentes conjuguées) depuis n’importe quelle courbe diasymétrique est vrai pour les sextiques. Pour cela j’utilise un argument qui combine Rohlin 1978, Klein-Marin 1988, et Nikulin 1979 (classification isotopique) et un résultat relié de Itenberg 1994 (possibilité de contracter n’importe quel ovale vide, i.e. sans autre ovales dans son intérieur, sur un tel noeud isolé). Les détails de la preuve sont exposés dans la Prop.24.24\[meanwhile this is \[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\]\], page 235 du fichier ci-joint. ? Evidemment, en principe “Klein-vache” n’a aucune chance d’être vrai en degré supérieur. Cependant la seule obstruction que je connaisse est ce résultat de Shustin 1985, dont je ne comprends toujours pas la logique de base (sans même parler du fait que c’est fondé sur la méthode de Viro, dissipation de singularités tacnodales..., une technologie que je n’ai jamais maitrisée). Mes objections naives à l’argument de Shustin se trouvent en page 248 (dans le paragraphe qui précède la Figure 94\[=meanwile Fig.\[Shustin:fig\]\]). Dans cette figure, je ne sais pas comment prohiber le $(M-1)$-schémas encadré par le carré vert (à mi-hauteur de la figure), et dans son article de 1985 Shustin n’est pas trés explicite. Mais bon, il s’agit la d’une question assez ennuyeuse et en fait je vais peut-être prendre l’initiative d’écrire un nouveau message collectif pour clarifier ce point d’ici quelques heures. Merci infiniment encore pour vos messages, et meilleurs voeux de courage pour la suite du déménagement, Amitiés, Alex PS: Pour l’instant j’ai inégré en vrac tous nos échanges e-mail dans le survey (p.219 et suivante), mais bien entendu dès que possible je censurerai les remarques plus confidentielles..., et masquerai les répététitions, voire l’intégralité de la discussion si je parviens bien à résumer votre apport malgré mon anglais catastrophique. Cependant en relisant vos remarques, elles apportent une prose substantielle que je ne saurais jamais reproduire en anglais, donc je trouverais très dommage de censurer vos souvenirs en vracs!!! Evidemment rien ne presse et je suis désolé de vous avoir dérangé durant cette délicate opération du déménagement inter-grenoblois. Amitiés, encore, et je vous tiens au courant d’éventuelles progrès...Je suis surtout curieux des réponses de Shustin (et Viro) s’ils parviennent à éclairer ma lanterne. PPS: Je joins une copie de la note de Shustin, si jamais, mais je ne veux pas vous distraire de votre tâche prioritaire...
$\bullet$ \[15.01.13–18h30\] Dear Evgenii, Ilia, Oleg and Alexis (and Felix Klein),
I was much fascinated those last days by Evgenii’s counterexample to (one part of) Rohlin’s maximality conjecture to the effect that a real scheme is of type I iff it is maximal in the hierarchy of all schemes. Quite interestingly this work of you (Shustin) also destroys an old (semi-)conjecture of Klein (1876) positing that any nondividing plane curve can acquire a solitary node by crossing only once the discriminant (the resulting Morse surgery then sembling like the formation a champagne bubble arising like a blue sky catastrophe of little green men’s coming with flying saucers).
Alas from Shustin’s note of 1985 (in its English translation), I was not quite able to understand your proof (compare optionally the attached file, on page 248, in the paragraph right before Figure 94\[=Fig.\[Shustin:fig\]\]). In fact I do not know how to prohibit the $(M-1)$-scheme $4/1 2/1 1/1 11$ enlarging Shustin’s (M-2)-scheme. Alas I am not an expert in the field and I feel quite shameful disturbing you with such a detail. Despite having myself full Leningradian origins (through my father), I do not master the Russian language so that it may well be the case that the original Russian text is more detailed than its translation. Of course it is much more likely that I missed something well-known, that you perhaps may not have made completely explicit in the note? (Incidentally I send you a copy of Shustin’s note for convenience!)
I apologize for this question of detail, yet it seems quite important to me for your result of 1985 is the only obstruction (I am aware of) to the naive desideratum of truth about Klein’s conjecture. Klein himself is extremely clever and quite ambiguous about stating this as a conjecture or as a result (compare optionally Klein’s original quote reproduced on page 206 of the attachment). Today I managed as a simple exercise to check the truth of Klein’s hypothesis in degree 6, via an armada of Russian results (especially Itenberg 1994 contraction principle for empty ovals), plus the Klein-Marin theorem (for the details of this exercise cf. optionally Prop.24.24\[=\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\]\] on page 235 of the attached text).
You, Oleg Viro, in the preface of that volume presenting Itenberg’s article (1994) advanced the (crazy?) conjecture that one might always be able to contract empty ovals!!! Do you know if there is meanwhile some counterexample (in high degrees)? Of course there is some vague parallelism between Itenberg’s contraction and the one required to implement Klein’s hypothesis (which must amount shrinking an anti-oval, i.e. an invariant circle acted upon antipodically by conj).
Sorry again for disturbing you with all these naive questions, and do not take the pain answering me properly if you are overwhelmed by other more important duties. Many thanks for all your attention. Sincerely yours, Alex (Gabard)
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ \[16.01.13–02h57: Oleg Viro\]
Dear Alexandre,
I do not mind to pose crazy conjectures. I do not mind if my crazy conjecture would be disproved.
However, I suspect that my conjecture is not as crazy as possibility of shrinking of an anti-oval. The difference between the oval and an anti-oval is that the oval is assumed to exist and be empty, i.e., not linked with the complex curve in whatever sense, while the anti-oval apparently has none of these properties.
I am not aware about any counter-examples that you ask about. I do not bet that they do not exist, but find the question stimulating, and better motivated than the conjecture that was proven to be wrong.
Best, Oleg
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ \[16.01.13–14h56: Stepan Orevkov\]
A small remark:
It is wrong that $11 U 1<1> U 1<2> U 1<4>$ is not a part of an $(M-1)$-scheme. It is[^37]. Moreover, there is no known example of $(M-2)$-curve of type II which cannot be obtained from an $(M-1)$-curve by removing an empty oval.
In contrary, there are $(M-1)$-curves of degree $8$ (which are necessarily of type II) which do not come from any $M$-curve. These are:
$3<6>$
$4 U 1<2> U 2<6>$
$8 U 2<2> U 1<6>$
$12 U 3<2>$
Constru\[r\]ction (inspired by Shustin’s construction of $4 U
3<5>$):
Consire\[der\] a tricuspidal quartic $Q_{sing}$ symmetric by a rotation $R$ by $120$ degree and perturb\[e\] is\[=it\] so that each cusp gives an oval (we assume that this perturbation is very small). Let $Q$ be the perturbed curve. Two flex points appear on $Q$ near each cusp of $Q_{sing}$. We chose flex points $p_0, p_1,
p_2$ (one flex point near each cusp) so that $R(p_0)=p_1,
R(p_1)=p_2, R(p2)=p_0$. We choose homogeneous coordinates $(x_0 :
x_1 : x_2)$ so that the line $x_i = 0$ is tangent to $Q$ at $p_i$ $(i = 0,1,2)$.
Let $C$ be the image of $Q$ under the Cremona transformation $(x_0
: x_1 : x_2) \mapsto (x_1x_2 : x_2x_0 : x_0x_1)$. Then $C$ has 3 singular points, each singular point has two irreducible local branches: a branch with $E6$ and a smooth branch which cuts it “transversally”. By a perturbation of $C$ we obtain all the four curves mentioned above.
The fact that these curves cannot be obtained from $M$-curves immediately follows from the fact that, for any $M$-curve of degree 8 of the form $b U 1<a_1> U 1<a_2> U 1<a_3>$, all the numbers $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ are odd[^38].
Best regards Stepa O
$\bullet$ \[17.01.13 ca. 23h00\]
Dear Oleg and Stepa,
Many thanks for all your fascinating remarks and detailed answers. I look forward digesting them carefully tomorrow.
Sorry for my late reply as I have no internet at home and was quite busy trying to understand some basic facts, notably that one may have some “eversion” of a real scheme when the oval explodes at infinity undergoing a Morse surgery not affecting its connectedness. This implies that there is some hidden passages in the Gudkov-Rohlin pyramid of all sextics changing a Gudkov symbol $k/l \ell$ to its mirror $\ell/1 k$. The resulting combinatorics of this graph looks quite formidable and I wonder if it is known whether each of those secret edges corresponding to eversions (except those linking $M$-curves) can be explored algebraically. Perhaps the problem is related to Ilia’s shrinking process for empty ovals, but seems to involve yet another species of “anti-ovals”, namely those with two fixed points under conj, yet located on the same oval. All what I am saying is for sure well-known to you since time immemorial, yet I was very happy to understand this point which solved several paradoxes of mine, notably those related to the degree of the discriminant and the contiguity graph between chambers residual to the discriminant under elementary algebraic Morse surgeries, as Oleg says. Of course, I shall send you an updated version of my file, when I manage to reorganize slightly the exposition.
Many many thanks for all your excellent answers! All the best, Alex
$\bullet$ \[18.01.13 ca. 10h00, Viatcheslav Kharlamov\]
Dear Alex,
I followed rather attentively the discussions, but kept silence since had no much to add to the reaction of the others.
This “eversion”, as you call it, played some important role in the prehistory of the Gudkov conjecture. As you probably know, the first classification declared by Gudkov was wrong, and it is one of his “thesis referees”, Prof. Morosov, who had objected the first classification exactly because of a small irregularity with respect to “eversion” of the answer. Repairing this asymmetry Gudkov came to his final result, and, if my memory is correct, in particular, at this stage discovered the missing $M$-curve.
If honestly, I don’t remember did somebody ever before discussed seriously any conceptual explanation to this “eversion”. However, it was implicitly present in all results obtained through $K3$ and their lattices. Recently, studying the shadows of cubic surfaces with Sergey Finashin and having proven, to our own surprise, for them a very similar “symmetry”, which we have called “partners relation”, we have formalized it as follows.
First level of explanation is coming from lattices of double coverings: the partner relation consists indeed in transferring an $U$-summand (unimodular even lattice of rang $2$ and signature $0$) from one eighenlattice to another. Second level of explanation is coming from moduli in terms of periods: each partner in the partner pair can be deformed to a triple conic, near the triple conic the family looks as $Q^3+tbQ^2+t^2cQ+d=0$, and switching of the sign of $t$ (passing through the triple conic) replace curves of one deformation class by curves from the partners class: moreover, such degenerations are deformationally unique. Literally the same explanation (and with much easier proofs at the both levels) works for nonsingular sextics (the shadows are sextic curves with $6$ cusps on a conic; remarkably, in many respects they behave in a way more similar to that of nonsingular sextics, than other sextics with singularities).
Yours, Viatcheslav Kharlamov
$\bullet$ \[18.01.13, Kharlamov, title of message=Correction\] Writing the message a bit in a hurry I did not describe fully and appropriately the partner relation at the lattice language. The summand $U$ does play a crucial role, and it should be moved from one eighenlattice to another, but then additionally one should exchange the eighenlattices. In fact this $U$ contains indeed the $2$-polarization vector, $h¨2=2$, and thus the eighenlattice containing this distinguished U is aways $(-1)$-eighenlattice.
The existing exception to the partner relation (as I remember, in the nonsingular case, there is only one) is the case when the $(-1)$-eighenlattice does not contain such a pair $(U,h)$.
Sorry, for being in a hurry, but I should stop at this point. Hope that now it is more clear.
$\bullet$ \[18.01.13, Gabard, ca. 21h00\] Dear Viatcheslav, Oleg and Stepa (and all the others),
So many thanks for all the excellent comments, especially on Morosov. There was some allusion to this issue in Viro’s survey from 2006, in Japanese Journal of Math, as to the lack of symmetry in Gudkov’s initial answer. Yet Morosov was not mentioned if I remember well...
On my side I was quite stimulated by the last letter from Oleg, about the contraction conjecture, as looking indeed much more realist than Klein’s Ansatz on the champagne bubbling in any nondividing curve. I attempted today to imagine what sort of proof one could expect to find for this fascinating Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture of empty ovals.
After some trials with orthogonal trajectories to the functional computing the area of the empty oval, I arrived at some sort of strategy (probably completely fantasist) consisting in using the Riemann mapping theorem as applied to the interior of the empty oval. Naively as the contour is algebraic so is the Riemann map and hence the concentric sublevels of it ought to be algebraic curves of the same degree!!??? This would give the shrinking.
I am sure that tomorrow while checking more carefully the details all this argument will crash down. Hence sorry for this premature message. Some more details about this and my naive understanding of “eversions” are in the attached file, especially Section 24.15 (p.251) and p.242 (Section 24.12 for eversions). Regarding eversions I wonder which edges in the Gudkov pyramid are actually realized algebro-geometrically? All, except those connecting the $M$-schemes is my naive guess, yet it is probably too optimistic...
Many thanks again for sharing all your knowledge on that fascinating topic, and all your exciting letters. All the best, Alex
\[21.01.13, ca. 20h00\]
Dear real geometers,
Thank you again, Oleg, Alexis, Stepa, and Viatcheslav, for all your messages which I have carefully integrated in my TeX-notes, and to which I frequently refer for citation in my text. Your messages suggested me several ideas I would never have explored without your precious hints.
On my side, I noticed of course that the cavalier Riemann mapping strategy toward the (Itenberg-Viro 1994) contraction conjecture (CC) of empty ovals fails blatantly (cf. Section 25.7(=\[CC-via-Riemann:sec\]), pages 255-258, roughly even if the Riemann map of an algebraic oval would be algebraic then its degree seems to be twice as big as it should, or better the polynomials arising as norms of algebraic Riemann maps are not the most general representatives of their degree!!!). Perhaps the Riemann method works for special ovals, but of course they are unlikely to be interspersed in all chambers of the discriminant! This failure drifted me toward another formulation of the contraction conjecture which I call CCC, for collective contraction conjecture. This posits that all empty ovals of a real algebraic curve can be contracted simultaneously toward solitary nodes (by a path having solely its end-point in the discriminant). This looks even more “crazy” than CC, but I found no counterexamples (in my pockets). I would much appreciate if you already thought about this natural variant, especially if you detected some counterexample (perhaps arising from the Viro-Itenberg patchworking method or the dissipation of higher singularities, with which I am alas still unfamiliar with, like in Shustin’s counterexample to Rohlin’s maximality conjecture).
Here are the trivialities I managed to prove. Via Brusotti 1921, it is plain that CCC implies the usual contraction conjecture (CC) (cf. details in Lemma 25.22(=\[CCviaCCC-Brusotti:lem\]) on page 263 of the attached file). On the other hand CCC implies (as a large deformation principle) several well-known prohibitions. E.g. a two-seconds proof of the Hilbert-Rohn-Petrovskii prohibition of the sextic $M$-scheme $11$ (eleven ovals without nesting), as well as Rohlin’s prohibition of the sextic scheme $5$ of type I (by the way causing the unique asymmetry in the Gudkov-Rohlin table of sextics). Under CCC, all these facts appear as trivial consequences of Bézout (compare Section 25.8(=\[CCC:sec\]) on pages 258-259). I found this simplicity quite exciting (even though it leads to nothing new as compared to Arnold-Rohlin). One can wonder if Hilbert already used this, at least as a heuristic tool??? Philosophically, I found also interesting that such large deformation conjectures produce prohibitions, in contradistinction to small perturbations as being primarily a method of construction (Harnack-Hilbert-Brusotti, etc.). There is accordingly some nice duality between Luigi Brusotti and Ilia-Oleg’s contraction conjecture. Of course you surely noted this issue a long time ago, yet for me it was a happy discovery (yesterday).
Perhaps CCC and CC are actually equivalent, yet this looks more hazardous but maybe not completely improbable... (One would just have to synchronize the death of all ovals posited by CC.) This is all the modest news I have collected during the week-end. Of course I still have some naive hope that CCC (hence CC) could be attacked via some gradient flow, but it looks quite difficult to locate the right functional (or Morse function). Looking at the area (or length) of all empty ovals is probably too naive...Perhaps some “degree of roughness” à la Gudkov could be projectively more intrinsic and useful...
Thank you so much for your attention and all your brilliant letters and answers, while apologizing me for sending you only easy doodlings. Best regards, Alex
\[26.01.13, ca 20h00\]
Dear Oleg, Stepa, Viatcheslav, Evgenii, Alexis, Thomas, etc.
I continued my naive investigations of real plane curves. What a beautiful story! I finally “understood” and studied in detail the marvellous construction of Gudkov $\frac{5}{1} 5$ (ca. 1971-73), as to understand the more tricky (but related) construction proposed by Stepa, which I attempted to depict on Fig. 111(=\[Orevkov2:fig\]) of the attached file. (I did not as yet assimilated the full details but feel on the good way. In fact I tried to use the dissipation of $Z_15$ in Viro’s survey from 1989/90 in Leningrad Math. J., which I hope is the same as the $E_6$ advocated by Stepa. Sorry for being very ignorant about singularities...)
Yesterday, I also finally understood the correctedness of Evgenii’s argument. (As helped by Stepa’s e-mail, the point which I missed is this obstruction of Viro extending that of Fiedler) for $M$-schemes of degree 8 as having necessarily “odd content”.
On the other hand, I was scared (since three days) by the fact that something which I subconsciously thought as evident (or rather which I was sure to have read somewhere) is perhaps not true. My (naive) question is whether two empty curves are necessarily rigid-isotopic? This looks at first between metaphysical nonsense and “triviality”? Maybe it is unknown, when $m$ is large enough. (m=6 follows from Nikulin 1979, and as far as I know there is not a simpler proof, say valid for all (even) degrees). So I am quite shameful asking you about this point: Is the empty chamber always connected?
I tried a dynamical approach (to this problem) in Section 25.12(\[rigidity-empty-scheme-via-dyna:sec\]), but it is not very convincing. On the other hand, if the empty room is connected, then maybe the space of all curves with one component is also connected? (Naively one would apply the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture, to reduce to the empty case, move there for a while to resurface at the other curve (the contraction thereof). Perturbing this path in the “visible world” would conclude the proof modulo some difficulties...) Again, you Oleg, in your wonderful survey of 2008 (in Japanese J. Math) lists as an open problem the question of deciding the rigid-isotopy of curves of odd degree having a unique real circuit. As you emphasize the word “odd degree”, I wondered if the case of even degree (again with only one oval) is already settled?
In Section 25.10(=\[CCCviaDynamics:sec\]), I have attempted a naive dynamical approach to the collective contraction conjecture(CCC). This states that we can shrink simultaneously all the empty ovals toward solitary nodes. This is a bit like a perfect landing in flight simulator where all wheels touch the ground simultaneously. My naive strategy is just to study the gradient lines of the functional measuring the total area of all empty ovals, but it is surely not serious. It would be exciting, in my opinion, to describe a counterexample to CCC if there is one.
Many thanks for the attention, all your patience about my naive reasonings, and above all for the brilliant answers you already gave me. Best regards, Alex
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ samedi 26 janvier 2013 20:15:54, the prompt response of Eugenii Shustin:
Dear Alex,
The chamber of empty curves of a given (even) degree is indeed connected: two such curves can be defined by homogeneous polynomials, positive for any real not all zero variables, and their linear homotopy $(1-t)P+tQ$, $0\le t\le 1$, gives a path in the chamber of empty curves.
By the way, another (well) known connected chamber consists of hyperbolic curves (i.e. those which have totally real intersection with lines of certain pencil) - this is a consequence of Nuij W. A note on hyperbolic polynomials. Math. Scandinavica 23 (1968), no. 1, 69–72.
With best wishes, Eugenii
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ samedi 26 janvier 2013 21:08:27, Oleg Viro:
Dear Alex,
The counterpart of the Rokhlin conjecture[^39] about rigid-isotopy of any two curves of odd degree with one component is the obvious observation described by Evgenii, about empty curves of even degree. The question about curves of even degree with a single oval is equivalent to the question about removing this single oval by an algebraic Morse modification. I don’t think it was ever discussed, but I could miss it.
$Z_15$ is not $E_6$. The easiest way to construct the Gudkov $M$-curve is by perturbing two $J_10$ singularities of the union of 3 non-singular conics tangent to each other at 2 points.[^40]
Best, Oleg
$\bullet$ \[28.01.13, lundi 28 janvier 2013 20:03:58\] Gabard wrote euphorically[^41] an e-mail titled “Some more metaphysical non-sense about the rigid-isotopy of empty curves?”:
Dear Eugenii, Oleg, Viatcheslav, Alexis, Stepa, etc.
So many thanks, Eugenii, for putting me again on the right track, and recalling me the argument which I shamefully forgot about. Yesterday, I was quite excited by trying to digest your argument (albeit it seems so simple). In fact the little detail that worried me is that I do not know why during the linear homotopy $(1-t)P+tQ$ the variable curve could not acquire (while staying of course empty if $P,Q$ have both the same sign) a pair of conjugate nodal singularities. This puzzled me for a while, and then using systematically your argument, I arrived at the somewhat opposite conclusion that the empty (smooth) chamber must be disconnected (for all even degrees $m\ge 4$)!!! This violates all what we know since Rohlin 1978 (and surely Gudkov as well??), while the former refers directly back to the argument of Klein 1876 based on Schläfli cubics surfaces $F_3$’s and Zeuthen correspondence between cubic surfaces and quartics (via the apparent contour). Klein’s proof is a bit tricky and uses as well his rigidification (Klein 1873) of Schläfli’s isotopic classification. Needless to say I could not follow Klein’s reasoning completely, as I just studied it today for ca. 2 hours. Marin informed me recently that he, in contrast, was able to digest all of those Kleinian works!
So using your method of linear homotopy, one sees quickly that the (cone) space $C^+$ of positive anisotropic (=not representing zero) forms is contractile (convex actually) hence simply-connected. Its projection in the space of curves is the invisible locus $I$ consisting of all empty curves. Since the latter is merely a quotient of $C^+$ (by positive homotheties) it follows that it is also simply-connected (via the exact homotopy sequence of a fibering). But the discriminant is visible inside this invisible locus $I$, since it is a simple matter via Brusotti (1921) to construct empty curves with a pair of conjugate nodes. Thus we see inside the simply-connected manifold $I$ a certain hypersurface (namely a portion of the discriminant), which by Jordan-Brouwer (or a slight extension thereof) should separate this manifold $I$ in pieces (at least so is my naive intuition). It follows that our empty chamber (consisting of smooth curves) is disconnected!!!! This is my proof in its broad lines (for more details, compare Section 25.13, page 282-283 of the attachement, Theorem 25.29 and its proof on page 283). This is just one page long...
Since this conclusion contradicts violently what is asserted by Klein 1876 (and approved by Rohlin 1978), it is of course very likely that my proof contains a serious flaw, or at least that I am confusing somehow the basic conceptions. However presently I do not see where is my mistake! Of course, my pseudo-theorem also violates the part of Nikulin 1979 concerned with the rigid-isotopy of the empty chamber of sextics.
Many thanks again for your attention, and sorry for overflowing your mail boxes with my naive questions (and dubious reasonings). Thank you again so much for all your excellent and detailed responses (especially on $E_6$ and $Z_15$).
Best wishes, Alex PS: I send you a copy of my TeX-file in case someone would like to work out a specific passage. At the occasion I would also be happy to send you my figures in zipped format so that one of you can continue the project in case I make a fatal bicycle accident (like Academician V.I. Arnold?)
$\bullet$ \[30.01.13, 18h10\]
Dear Oleg, Eugenii, and the other experts,
I think that I found the mistake in my “proof” of the disconnection of the empty locus (that you certainly noticed meanwhile in case my explanation is the correct one). The reason seems to be simply that the discriminant inside the invisible locus has only real codimension 2, hence cannot separate anything. I have attempted to explain this in Section 25.14 on page 288. If this is not wrong it seems that the next natural question is to decide which chambers residual to the principal stratum of the discriminant contains such smaller pieces of the discriminant shrunk to codimension 2. I think to have found a topological obstacle for $M$ and $(M-1)$-curves, and conjecture (very naively) this to be the sole obstruction. In more geometric terms, this amounts essentially to decide which smooth curves can acquire a pair of imaginary conjugate nodes.
Many thanks, Eugenii and Oleg, for your detailed answers. As you said, it seems that the (Itenberg-Viro) contraction conjecture of empty ovals implies the rigidity conjecture for even order curves with a unique oval. However I should probably still try to understand this implication in some more details. Perhaps it is somehow related to the previous codimension 2 phenomenon inside the “invisible” chamber.
Sorry for all my confusing messages, and many thanks again for all your kind efforts in trying to educate myself. All the best, Alex
$\bullet$ \[01.02.13, ca. 20h00\] Obstruction to rigid-isotopy (strictly) below height DEEP+2?
Dear Oleg, Eugenii, Alexis, Thomas, Stepa, etc.
Many thanks for all your brilliant messages and articles I am still slowly trying to assimilate properly. I hope not taking too much of your precious time. Albeit I met all of you only rarely, I remind very accurately your brilliant talks (in Geneva or Rennes), and so it is a special pleasure to remind each of yours while trying to explore this fantastic topic.
On my side I was those last two days fascinated by the conjecture that the one-oval scheme ought to be rigid, as Oleg or Rokhlin conjectures. (Let me say that a scheme is rigid, if all the curves representing it are rigid-isotopic.) Given a degree $m$, one may wonder what is the smallest height $r(m)$ at which there is a non-rigid scheme. (For me the height of a scheme just means its number of components.)
For any degree $m$, there is of course the deep nest with $r=[(m+1)/2]=:DEEP$ real branches. Two units above the latter’s height, it is easy to construct (for each $m$) curves having the same real scheme yet different types (I vs. II) hence not rigid-isotopic. (This is a simple iteration of Rohlin’s construction in degree $5$, cf. Figs. 102, 103 in my file). Using the Marin-Fiedler method of the lock it is even possible to exhibit at this height $DEEP+2$ curves of degree 7 or 9 having the same real scheme and the same type II, yet not rigid-isotopic (Figs. 105, 104). (Probably the method extends to all other odd degrees.) However, it seems much more tricky (and the lock-method seems ineffective) to detect obstruction below this height $DEEP+1$ (i.e. one unit above the height of the deep nest). Could it be the case that all schemes at or below this height are rigid? Of course this looks super-optimistic as we do not even know rigidity at height one, but I was unable to find a counterexample. I would be very happy if you know one? If there is a simple candidate, I hope to detect it alone during the next few days…. So do not take care answering me if my question is trivial. (As I just work on this since two days, I probably missed something accessible.)
Paraphrasing slightly, I found quite puzzling, that the very explicit function $r(m)$ measuring the smallest height of a non-rigid scheme is only subsumed to the large pinching $1 \le
r(m)\le [(m+1)/2]+2=DEEP+2$. Of course a better lower bound seems out of reach, but perhaps you know better upper bounds.
I also wondered if there is an extension of the Nuij-Dubrovin rigidity of the deep nest to, say, the totally real scheme of degree 8 consisting of 4 nests of depth 2. I should think more seriously on this at the occasion.
Many thanks for your attention, and sorry again for all my enthusiastic and naive e-mails. All the best, Alex
$\bullet$ \[written 08.02.13 and sent 09.01.13\]
Dear Oleg, Eugenii, Stepa, Viatcheslav, etc.
I still continued my trip through real plane curves and cannot say that my curiosity is starting to fade out. I tried for several days to find a counter-example to the conjecture (of mine so probably quite wrong) that all schemes below height $DEEP+2$ are rigid, where $DEEP=[(m+1)/2]$ is the number of branches of the deep nest of degree $m$. At least the method of the lock (Fiedler-Marin) seems quite inoperant to detect an obstruction to rigid-isotopy at such low altitudes. If true, the proof probably involves a geometric flow collapsing either the pseudoline to a line (by shortening its length like a systole) or improving the rotundity of some oval to a circle (via an isoperimetric functional?). If all this works, it would reduce the low-altitude rigidity conjecture to Nikulin’s theorem (or maybe even Klein’s on $C_4$) as the starting step of a big recursive process. Of course this seems still quite out reach (canary music) unless one feels very motivated!
Next I tried to corrupt the truth of Slava’s remarkable rigid-isotopic classification (Nikulin 1979) of sextics via the Marin-Fiedler locking argument using Bézout saturation. Of course I have nothing against Slava, but this was rather intended to test experimentally the power of Nikulin’s result. Specifically I looked at sextic schemes of the form $3/1 \ell$, and wondered if for some specific curves the distribution of the $\ell$ outer ovals away the fundamental triangle traced through the 3 inner ovals (those enveloped by the unique nonempty oval) could be different for different curves. On all examples I tested it seems that the outer ovals are never separated by the “deep” triangle. So we find no violation of Nikulin’s theorem, and the latter rather implies that as soon as we are able to visualize the distribution for a single curve it will be the same for all curves belonging to this scheme. The case most tricky to understand is the maximal permissible, namely $3/1 5$. I managed to construct it à la Harnack (as preconized in Gudkov 1974 or 1954). But being quite unable to decide from this model the distributional question of the outer ovals past the fundamental triangle, I decided to switch to Oleg’s method of construction via dissipation of the singularities of a triplet of coaxial ellipses. I played this game yesterday but could not decide the distributional question for this Viro curve (cf. especially Fig.126 on page 320 and the hypothetical Theorem 26.29 on page 322). In fact today I tried again to inspect directly Harnack construction and found Lemma 26.27 on page 319 whose proof seemed to me very transparent until I found the little warning, which I think is not fatal. In conclusion I believe now that there is no separation by the fundamental triangle!!!??
Of course I imagine that, if I am not completely wrong, what I am investigating must be quite familiar to you. I would much appreciate if you know if this hypothetical theorem (26.29 page 322) is true. It amounts essentially to check whether in Viro’s construction of $3/1 5$ the triangle through the 3 deep inner ovals does not separate the 5 outer ovals. I find this question quite attractive as it seems to require some understanding of the geometric location of the microscopic ovals arising in Viro’s method (optionally compare Fig. 127 (page 322) which shows a scenario with the two bottom micro-ovals aligned vertically in which case the fundamental triangle would separate the outer ovals). This scenario seems to me quite unlikely but it does not seem to be impeded by naive Bézout obstructions.
Many thanks for your attention, and sorry again for all my naive and confuse questions. Thank you very much again for your precious guidance and answers.
All the best, Alex
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ (10.02.13) Bonjour Alexandre, Thomas m’a transmis ta question. La réponse est toute simple: soient $A$, $B$, $C$ trois ovales intérieurs et $D$, $E$ deux ovales exterieurs de ta sextique. Le triangle fondamental $ABC$ est entiérement contenu dans l’ovale non-vide. Si $D$ et $E$ sont dans deux triangles $ABC$ (non-fondamentaux) différents, alors la conique passant par $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$, $E$ coupe la sextique en $14$ points, contradiction. Avec des coniques, on montre plus généralement que: Les ovales vides de la sextique sont distribués dans deux chaines (int, ext), l’ordre cyclique est donné par les pinceaux de droites basés dans les ovales interieurs. Les ovales interieurs sont disposés en position convexe dans l’ovale non-vide. Bon dimanche, Séverine
$\bullet$ \[12.02.13\] Is the Gudkov chamber simply-connected?
Dear Séverine, Viatcheslav, Ilia, Oleg, and all the other experts,
First many thanks, Séverine, for your excellent answer on my distribution question of ovals of sextic, and sorry for my late reply on it as I lack an Internet connection at home.
I tried today to understand when a dividing (plane) curve admits a transmutation, i.e. a rigid-isotopy permuting both halves of the curve. I also studied the weaker notion of mutation of when there is a linear automorphism of the plane permuting both halves. Using the Kharlamov-Itenberg calculation of the monodromy of sextics I think that I managed to get some obstruction to mutability, especially for the 3 dividing curves which have trivial monodromies (compare Lemma 26.6, page 288, which is hopefully correct). However I don’t know if the Gudkov chamber (or the 2 other related “antidromic” chambers, i.e. having trivial monodromies) is simply-connected. I hoped to detect some non simple-connectivity by looking at the monodromy induced on the halves instead of the ovals. At least this works of course for the deep-nest chamber which is not simply-connected since there is a symmetric model which can be mutated. So my (hopefully not too naive) question is the following: is it known whether or not the Gudkov chamber is simply-connected? (equivalently is the Gudkov curve transmutable?) The same question looks attractive for the other 2 antidromic curves, i.e. the left wing “Rohlin curve” $6/1 2$ and $4/1 4$ in type I.
Thank you so much for all your attention and patience, and in advance for your answer if it is known. Best regards, Alex
$\bullet$$\bullet$ $\bullet$ mercredi 13 février 2013 04:34:12
Dear Alexandre, If I understand correctly the question then the answer is not, if I state the question appropriately then the answer is yes. I mean the following precise statements. Let consider the part of the projective space of real sextics that is represented by maximal sextics of Gudkov’s type. Then the fundamental group of this part is $Z/2$. It becomes simply connected after taking quotient by the natural action of $SL(3,R)$. In fact, before factorization it is a fibration over contractible base with the fiber $SL(3,R)$. These results (and there analogs for other maximal sextics and certain curves of lower degree) are contained in my talk On monodromies of real plane algebraic curves at one of Petrovsky seminars in 80th, I guess (short summary should be found in Russian Surveys). The proof (in the case of sextics) is rather straightforward as soon as based on the $K3$ surfaces periods uniformization. As it happens rather often with this approach, to treat the maximal curves is extremely easy, since the corresponding eighenlattices become unimodular. In general the period domain, which is the product of two polyhedra in the real case, represents the studied sextics (or associated K3 surfaces) only up to codimension 2. Which makes laborious to treat the fundamental group. But, surprise, in the case of maximal curves there are no codimension 2 phenomena, since such holes appear only as traces of $(-2)$-cycles having nontrivial components in the both eighenspaces, which is impossible since in the maximal case the components are integral and the eighenlattices are even. I don’t remember by heart the final result for other maximal sextics. It should be pointed in the same summary and by the way easy to get following the same approach I have pointed. The key is that even if it is no more a pure fibration - it has special fibers which are quotients of $SL(3,R)$ by the corresponding monodromy group (which indeed coincides with the maximal possible group of symmetries for the given type of sextics) - its fundamental group is exactly the fundamental group of this special quotient. Yours VK
$\bullet$ mercredi 13 février 2013 11:46:20
Dear Colleagues, Am I alone who did not receive a copy of Severine’s letter? I would be happy to know its content :) Yours VK
$\bullet$ mercredi 13 février 2013 13:43:10
Dear colleagues, I had written only to Alexandre, sorry! My answer was this: let $A, B, C$ be three inner ovals, and $D, E$ be two outer ovals of the sextic. The fundamental triangle $ABC$ is entirely contained in the non-empty oval. If $D$ and $E$ are in two different (non-fundamental) triangles $ABC$, then the conic through $A, B, C, D, E$ cuts the sextic at 14 points, contradiction. Using conics, one proves more generally that there is a natural cyclic ordering of the empty ovals, given by the pencils of lines based at the inner ovals. The empty ovals are distributed in two consecutive chains (inner, outer). The inner ovals lie in convex position in the non-empty oval. Best regards, Séverine
$\bullet$ \[14.02.13\]
Dear Viatcheslav, Séverine and all the other colleagues,
Thank you very much for this beautiful answer on the Gudkov chamber. I look forward to digest properly all that incredible technology that you and Nikulin developed. Again many thanks also to Séverine for the clever argument which I digested yesterday with great pleasure, and integrated in my notes in Section 26.10(=\[LeTouze:sec\]) pages 332–334. This gave me yesterday some motivation again to attack the very first question of all our chat room, namely Rohlin’s claim that the pencil of cubics through the 8 deep basepoints located inside the 8 empty ovals of any sextic curve of type $6/1 2$ or its mirror $2/1 6$ is totally real, hence of type I (also called orthosymmetry by Klein ca. 1881-82 and his student Weichold 1883).
In fact I (naively) hoped to prove this Rohlin claim via Poincaré’s index theorem, yet the qualitative picture (Fig. 133 on page 337) rather inclined me to believe that the proof cannot reduce to mere combinatorial topology of foliations (i.e. Poincaré’s index formula of 1885). So I am still puzzled, but perhaps an argument like Séverine’s one do the job. At any rate I would be very excited if someone manages to reconstruct this proof asserted by Rohlin (1978) if it is not too tantalizing for the brain.
Otherwise I am also much frustrated by failing to visualize totally real pencil on the three $M$-sextics, whose existence is I think predicted by Ahlfors theorem of 1950 (or better the special zero-genus case thereof known to Riemann 1857, and reworked by Schottky 1875-77, or even Bieberbach 1925 and his more respectable student Grunsky 1937). Marin warned me recently that the transition from the abstract Riemann surface viewpoint to the planar context “of Hilbert’s 16th problem” may be not so easy as I always assumed subconsciously. (If necessary, all the correspondence I received from all the colleagues is gathered in Section 24.6, p.221). Overpassing this difficulty (which I hope is not fatal) there should be on all $M$-curves (more generally dividing curves) auxiliary pencils which are totally real. Alas for $M$-sextics (even $M$-quintics), I am completely unable to trace them and know nothing about the degree of the curves involved (in the pencil). I hope to be able to tackle such questions in the future, but perhaps you have better ideas (or motivations) than I do have.
Thank you very much again for all your brilliant answers, and kind messages. All the best, Alex
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ samedi 16 février 2013 17:54:55
Dear Alexandre, dear other colleagues,
I have managed to prove that a pencil of cubics with eight base points distributed in the eight empty ovals of a sextic $2 \cup 1(6)$ is necessarily totally real. Details will follow soon in a paper. Yours,
Séverine
$\bullet$ \[16.02.13,19h41\]
Dear Séverine and colleagues,
Congratulations for this fantastic achievement. I am sure the proof must be very beautiful. On my side I tried to work out for all sextics of type I an optical recognition procedure of the type by some synthetical procedure akin to Rohlin’s claim, yet this is still much in embryo. In particular the case of $(M-4)$-sextics is quite puzzling as it seems to contradict the version of Ahlfors theorem due to myself (existence of a totally real map of degree the mean value the number of ovals and Harnack’s bound). I hope to send you more palatable material soon, but confess that the questions look quite hard and I seem much less efficient than Séverine. So I suppose that Rohlin’s claim is one among several other (less pure) total reality result. So I look forward with great interest to see Séverine’s article.
All the best, Alex
$\bullet$ \[19.02.13\] Dear colleagues,
Many congratulations again to Séverine for your fantastic achievement. Sorry to have been brief in my last letter, as I wrote (lacking an internet connection at home) from a friend of mine who had a romantic party with his girlfriend, and I do not wanted to disturb too long his romantic evening. Meanwhile I also tried hard to concentrate on a proof of the Rohlin-le Touzé’s theorem, which still overwhelms my intelligence. The last things that I have written are on pages 336–352 (Sections 27.1, 27.2, and 27.3), but this is poorly organized and supplies no serious proof of the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem.
Some few days ago, I got Theorem 27.5\[=\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]\] (on page 346), which (if it is correct) answers one of the question I asked in my penultimate e-mail (as well as desideratum of Alexis), namely the question of estimating the order of curves involved in a total pencil on an $M$-curve. It seems that there is always such a pencil of order $(m-2)$, i.e. two units less than the given degree $m$ of the $M$-curve. In fact, the proof is a nearly trivial adaptation of the abstract argument going back to several peoples (in chronological order Riemann 1857, Schottky 1875, Enriques-Chisini 1915, Bieberbach 1925, Grunsky 1937, Courant 1939, Wirtinger 1942, Ahlfors 1947, 1950, a myriad of Japaneses, a myriad of Russians including Golusin 1953/57, etc....., up to Huisman 2000, and Gabard 2001/2006, who else?). The point is that total reality is trivial in the case of $M$-curves since we have one point circulating on each oval (such a group moves by Riemann-Roch!!!) and so we have like a train-track with only one train on each track, hence no collision can occur and total reality is automatic. If we work with plane curves we only need to take curves of order $(m-2)$ which have enough free parameters to pass through any given distribution of $M$ points (one on each oval), and this works by looking at the residual group of points (details in the proof on page 346). So this is quite interesting but probably only a first step toward deeper things. (One could dream to recover all the Gudkov-Rohlin/Arnold congruence via this method but that looks hard work...)
After this little discovery I focused again on the Rohlin-Séverine theorem, yet without any success. So I have not more to report for the moment.
Thanks a lot for the attention, and all my congratulations again to Séverine for your deep advance. Best wishes, Alex
$\bullet$ 19.02.13 Dear Alex,
Let me ask you a question from your previous field of interest. Do you know any example of a non-Hausdorff 1-manifold which does not admit a differential structure? I heard about existence and could easily construct examples of exotic, i.e., homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic non-Hausdorff 1-manifolds. See
http://www.map.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/1-manifolds
Sincerely, Oleg
20.02.13
Dear Oleg, David and Mathieu,
Many thanks, Oleg, for your lovely question, and best greetings to the other friends. Alas my memory is failing quite dramatically, so my answer will be of poor quality. If I remember well I asked myself the same question some 3-4 years ago, but I cannot record to have ever found an answer. Thus I forward your question to David and Mathieu, the leading experts of non-metric surfaces who perhaps will supply a better answer. On my side I hope to think more seriously to your question when I see clearer with Rohlin-Le Touzé’s sextics.
Maybe a first idea is that there ought to be a (non-canonical) “twistor construction” assigning to each non-Hausdorff curve a Hausdorff surface fibered by (real) lines. This construction should go back to Haefliger’s very first note in the colloque de topologie de Strasbourg ca. 1955-1956 (yet it is not very detailed). In substance it is like a train-track construction à la Penner-Thurston…(some intuition about this is given in my article ‘Ebullition and gravitational clumping, arXiv, 2011). Do not worry if you don’t understand me, as I myself remember only vague souvenirs and are not so convinced by what I am saying!!! In fact Haefliger (ca. 1956) claims this construction only for second countable curve (even with a proviso on the fundamental group), but when I was in touch with the subject I was fairly convinced that it must work universally.
OPTIONAL REMARK: Haefliger, and Haefliger-Reeb 1957 use this construction to prove that any simply-connected curve (second countable) arises as the leaf space of a foliation of the plane. (Sketch of proof: take the twistor of the given curve which is by the exact sequence of a fibering 1-connected and (by Poincaré-Volterra) second countable, hence it is the plane, q.e.d)
So the idea would be to descend a smooth structure on the surface to get one on the curve. Alas, it is a well-known open problem whether any (non-metric but Hausdorff) surface admits a smooth structure (Spivak 1971, Nyikos, etc.) However quite puzzlingly Siebenmann 2005 (Russian Math Surveys) claims (and even prove in some details) that a PL structure exists universally on all such surfaces, merely as a consequence of Schoenflies theorem. So perhaps Siebenmann argument work as well for DIFF structures, and the metaphysical problem of Spivak-Nyikos is cracked. If this works (ask maybe Siebenmann, or an Indian in the States(=Ramachandran) who albeit not an expert was fairly convinced that there should be no asymmetry between PL and DIFF in dimension 2), then there is perhaps some chance to get a smooth structure on all non-Hausdorff curves. Of course there is perhaps a more direct strategy without transiting through surfaces.
Otherwise, regarding exotic smooth structures on curves the original reference is Haefliger-Reeb 1957 article in L’Enseignement Math. Perhaps you could quote this in your brilliant web-page.
Sorry for this vague answer, but at the moment my brain is much concentrated on this Rohlin-Le Fiedler total reality claim which still puzzles me a lot!!!
Best greetings to all, as well as to Rachel and Chiara. All the best, Alex
$\bullet$ \[22.02.13\] Dear colleagues (especially Séverine),
I worked hard (but without success) on the Le Touzé’s theorem, at least for 8 basepoints assigned on the nonempty ovals of a sextic of type $6/1 2$. If I understood well Séverine’s announcement, you rather handle the case of $2/1 6$ and assign more generally the points in the insides of the empty ovals (but of course I suppose that your argument adapts to $6/1 2$). Even in my weaker form I am not really able to conclude but send you my last thinking on the question (Section 27.4, p.352–356, esp. Fig.141). Ultimately I found a method which I call “barrages”. A special rôle is played by nodal cubics of the pencil, and I try to get a corruption with Bézout by looking at nodal curves with a barrage, i.e. such that 4 arcs of some other cubic joins pairwise the 8 basepoints distributed on the loop of the original cubic. (By the loop of a nodal cubic, I mean the unique path from the node to itself which is null-homotopic in the plane $RP^2$.) Of course I am not sure that details can be decently completed, but for the moment it is the only reasonable strategy I could imagine. I am sure that Séverine’s argument is much more elegant and convincing. My reasoning is completely conditioned by Fig.141, and I am probably too naive in believing that it reflects the general situation.
Sorry for sending you this very coarse material, and of course do not take the pain to react to this message. Many thanks again a lot to all for sharing so generously your knowledge and for all your answers. Best regards, Alex
\[25.02.13\] Dear real geometers,
I was still much fascinated by the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem (RLT) albeit still not able to prove it. Being frustrated by my failing attempts (probably due to a lack of stubbornness and competence in algebraic geometry) I decided to speculate a bit of why it is so important or at least to explore how the statement could generalize.
In its most elementary incarnation involving pencil of lines and conics, the phenomenon of total reality occurs along infinite series stable under the operation of satellite of a real scheme (of even order). Satellite just amounts to trace each oval with a certain multiplicity $k$ (jargon obviously borrowed from knot theory). So the unifolium scheme of degree 2 (allied to a conic) gives rise to the deep nests, and the quadrifolium scheme of degree 4 gives rise by taking its satellites to an infinite series of schemes of order multiples of 4 which are totally real under a pencil of conics (assigned to pass through the deepest ovals). It seems therefore natural to ask if the satellites (e.g. the second satellite) of the Rohlin’s scheme $6/1 2$ (or its partner $2/1 6$) are also totally real (and hence of type I) under the “same” pencil of cubics as posited by the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem. Alas I was not even able to settle this question. (Of course this seems evident (granting RLT) for a small perturbation of the algebraic double (essentially $F \cup F+\epsilon$), since total reality forces transversality of the foliation induced by the pencil with the curve.)
Next, I tried to understand what are the higher order avatars of the RLT-theorem (in the hope that it is not an isolated phenomenon as vaguely suggested by Ahlfors theorem). I found using the Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence ensuring the type I-ness (=orthosymmetry) of some $(M-2)$-schemes an (obvious) infinite series of avatars of the Rohlin’s $(M-2)$-schemes of degree 6 . Those are also $(M-2)$-schemes and total reality seems to be possible for a pencil of curves of order $(m-3)$, exactly like for the Gürtelkurve of Zeuthen-Klein (bifolium quartic with 2 nested ovals totally flashed by a pencil of line through the deep nest) or for the Rohlin’s sextic (flashed by a pencil of cubics). So it seems that the theory of adjoint curves of order $(m-3)$ plays some special rôle in this question of Rohlin-Séverine. I would be very happy if one of you knows if it is reasonable to expect an extension the RLT total reality theorem to all this schemes whose type I ness is ensured by Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence (sorry if I am not hundred percent right in crediting as I could not extract the exact history of this subliminal result). Specifically I have Conjectures 27.17 and 27.18 (page 365 and 367 resp.) which list some candidate-schemes for total reality in degree 8 and 10. If the conjectures are right, it would be of great interest to know if Séverine’s proof adapts to them. Sorry if I am too naive about the real difficulty of such problems, but I found exciting to wonder if there is something more general behind the cryptical allusion of Rohlin. Of course I presume that he derived the synthetic result a posteriori from highbrow topology (or Kähler geometry in Kharlamov’s case?), but perhaps there is a simple explanation with (“basic”) algebraic geometry and total reality as Séverine was able to do? As Oleg knows my problem is that I wasted too much time with non-metric manifolds and so forgot all the little I ever knew about algebraic geometry.
During the way, I think to have found a counterexample to the conjecture of mine (inspired by the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture of empty ovals), and according to which all empty ovals could be contracted simultaneously to solitary nodes. This counter-example is Thm 27.16 on page 364 (which I hope is correct and sharp as far as the degree is concerned).
Thanks a lot for the attention, and sorry for all the modest news (you surely thought about in sharper form already). All the best, Alex PS: The material summarized in this message occupies page 357-367 (Sections 27.5, 27.6, 27.7), as usual I had not much time to polish, but I hope it is still readable.
\[27.02.13\] A census of 100 octic $(M-2)$-schemes of type I satisfying the RKM-congruence, plus a little addendum for Oleg’s non-Hausdorff curves
Dear colleagues,
I have pursued some preliminary study toward the total reality phenomenon, yet merely in its combinatorial aspect prompted by the modulo 8 RKM-congruence (for Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin) ensuring the type I of $(M-2)$-schemes of degree $2k$ with $\chi = k^2+4 \pmod
8$. Accordingly, I call an RKM-scheme any $(M-2)$-scheme satisfying this congruence. While any RKM-scheme is of type I, I do not know alas whether the converse statement is true. If it is known I would be extremely grateful if someone can tell me (and our collective chat room) the answer. Further I noticed that the list given in my previous e-mail of RKM-schemes of degree 8 can be much enlarged. If I am not too bad in combinatorics, there are precisely 100 such schemes in degree 8, all of them being potentially subsumed to the phenomenon of total reality under a pencil of quintics akin to the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem (for sextics flashed by cubics). This modest material is to be found in Section 27.8, p.368-373 (especially Fig. 146 page 370 and Lemma 27.24, p.372, plus all the 36 Gudkov symbols on page 372). I hope of course that I missed nobody in this catalogue. Extrapolating a bit using the (hypothetical) converse statement to RKM, I would say that there are precisely 100 schemes of type I which are $(M-2)$-schemes. Is this well-known and correct?
Actually, I do not really know if all these 100 schemes are realized algebraically, but presume that most of them (all?) are. Possibly I am much too naive. Of course it is quite amazing to see that the only two RKM-schemes of degree 6 (namely $6/1 2$ and $2/1
6$) demographically explodes to a menagerie of 100 such schemes in degree $8$, but that should be no surprise for you much acquainted with the higher cases of Hilbert’s 16th problem. It would be even more crazy if all those 100 schemes (or at least a good portion thereof) are subsumed to the phenomenon of total reality. If you have some ideas on those circle of ideas, I would be extremely thankful.
Many thanks again for the patience and attention, and I hope that what I am telling is nearly correct (not too surrealist). Very best regards, Alex
PS: For Oleg, regarding my loose answer on smooth structures on non-Hausdorff 1-manifolds, I would like to add another philosophical remark related to the method of Haefliger’s “twistor”. This is of course like a thickening along a normal bundle except that there is no ambient manifold (safe the ether) and so the construction must be intrinsic. To my knowledge it was never exposed in details (albeit Haefliger’s 1st article ca. 1955-56 in Colloque de Topologie de Strasbourg uses implicitly this construction). Now my point is that albeit the twistor method looks somewhat indirect, I think that it is fairly useful. For instance, I was since 2006-07 puzzled by the naive question if the fundamental group of a one-manifold is always a free group. (Of course such non-Hausdorff curves resemble somehow graphs, whence some intuition). For instance the line with 2 origins has $\pi_1=Z$ as follows quickly from Seifert-van Kampen (and if 3 origins or 2 doubled origins then $\pi_1=F_2$ is free of rank 2). Ultimately in 2011 I found a general answer to this “freeness” puzzle by using the Haefliger twistor construction, while showing first that all open (non-metric) surfaces have free fundamental groups. (This is actually a very modest extension of the metric case, which to my knowledge is first treated in Ahlfors-Sario book of 1960, albeit it may have belonged to the folklore much earlier, say Kerekjarto, H. Kneser, Rado, in the 1920’s, Papakyriakopoulos in the 1940’s???). This material is exposed in some details in my arXiv note of ca. 2011 (Ebullition in Foliated surfaces versus gravitational clumping). I hope that those results are nearly correct but they certainly require more professional treatments and exposition than I was able to do. I hope this little remark makes perhaps more plausible that the approach via the (Hausdorffizing) Haefliger twistor is also reasonable for your problem of DIFF structures.
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ vendredi 1 mars 2013 19:07:12
Dear Alexandre, dear other colleagues, here is the note I had promised to send you. There are still many open questions, as Alexandre wrote. It would be also interesting to know whether one could find a totally real pencil with respect to the dividing $M-2$-sextics with real scheme of indefinite type. I will think about it when I have more time. Best regards,
Séverine
(01.03.13, 22h15)
Dear Séverine and the other colleagues,
So many thanks Séverine for sending us your splendid article. I am much excited to read the details tomorrow, as myself started today to doubt about the whole result (at least in the strong form that any points 8 points distributed on the empty ovals ensures total reality). (If I am not wrong the whole phenomenon depends upon the location of the 9th base point, namely the pencil is totally real iff the 9th base point lands in the inside of the nonempty oval.) So I was much depressed and lost in my poorly organized thoughts. So your sending arrives as a true deliverance for my brain.
Many congratulations again to Séverine for this fantastic work. Very best regards, Alex
\[02.03.13\] Can total reality fail for a distribution of 8 points on the empty ovals?
Dear Séverine and the other geometers (especially Professor Nikulin),
I enjoyed much a detailed look at your splendid article full of illuminating remarks. I will probably need much more time to digest the impressive technology you use, and need to print the material to make a deeper reading (especially of the former works upon which your argument seems to depend). So many thanks again for sending us your work in so rapid delay. I wrote some naive reactions in Section 27.11, where I mostly copied your sayings, and tried to add hopefully pertinent footnotes.
Regarding your question “Can conversely any dividing curve be endowed with some totally real pencil?”, I still wonder if a positive answer is not a trivial consequence of Ahlfors theorem (compare very optionally Gabard’s Thesis 2004, page 7). However since Marin warned me in January 2013 (cf. Section of e-mails) it may be the case that the transition from the abstract conception of Riemann-Schottky-Klein to the embedded viewpoints of Hilbert-Gudkov-Rohlin is not so easy. Yet I am still confident (or naive enough) to believe that it holds true. The point seems to be primarily a matter of projective algebraic geometry, namely the question if any abstract morphism on a concrete plane curve to the line $\PP^1$ is induced by a (linear) pencil of ambient curves. This is either trivially true or trivially wrong, but alas I do not know the answer due to my failing memory about the foundations of algebraic geometry.
Your article already helped much as I suffered under the misconception that your result states that any distribution of 8 points on the empty ovals induces a totally real pencil. Your statement is much more subtle, yet personally I do not know if this stronger (universal) form of total reality is wrong! If you know a counterexample foiling universal total reality I would be very happy. It could then still be the case that there is some special sextics for which universal total reality holds true, i.e. for all octuplets distributed on the empty ovals. (Perhaps reading more carefully your article, especially the aspect related to Nikulin-Kharlamov’s rigid-isotopic classification already answers those questions?)
(The newest material of mine (as usual confusing and poorly organized) occupies Section 27.9–27.11 on pages 373–378. Here I attempted a topological approach to the existence of octuplets inducing a totally real pencil, but alas was not able to conclude, presumably because I know too little on the predestination process creating the 9th basepoint as a function of the 8 assigned ones.)
Many congratulations again to Séverine for this breakthrough. Best regards, Alex
dimanche 3 mars 2013 18:07:57 a new version with small corrections?
Dear Alexandre, dear other colleagues, I owe you some apologies: the Theorem was slightly incorrect, as Alexandre pointed out. I let you discover this new version, where I have reformulated the Theorem, and added a few words in the end of the proof. Best regards, Séverine
(04.03.13) Dear Séverine and the other colleagues,
Many thanks for the new version. In fact, it seems that the main change is that you now assign the 8 basepoints ON the empty ovals instead of IN their insides. Rereading my previous message, I realize that I misstated your original statement and so it is pure chance that assignation on the ovals turned out to be “more correct”.
Your fascinating article gave me new forces to think about the problem, but alas still without success. For instance, I still do not know if there exist octuplets (on the empty ovals) failing to induce a totally real pencil. Of course assigning them in the insides gives more freedom, but presently it looks to me harder to ensure total reality. So despite your correction, it could still be the case (in my modest understanding) that the pencil is total for all octuplets chosen in the insides of the empty ovals. Perhaps you know a counterexample to this strongest form of the statement?
Many thanks again for the article, which guided much my thinkings. I hope to send you more exciting news soon, but the whole problem which you call “the lost proof of Rohlin” seems to me still much out of reach. All the best, Alex
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ answer to Alexandre’s questions (mardi 5 mars 2013 13:30:42)
Dear Alexandre, dear other colleagues, let me try to answer the question with a new formulation.
Assume first that the base points are distributed [*inside*]{} of the empty ovals. Applying your nice “dextrogyration argument” to all nine ovals gives the following lemma:
[*The pencil is totally real iff 9 lies inside of the non-empty oval $O$ and outside of the empty ovals.*]{}
If 9 is outside of $O$, the bad cubics are as shown in Figure 2 of the paper. If 9 is inside of an empty oval $X$, the bad cubics have an oval passing through the two base points 9 and X only, and this oval is entirely contained in the empty oval denoted also $X$. To get rid of this latter possibility, it suffices to take the base points [*on*]{} the empty ovals.
In ii), I give an explicit description of the pencil, valuable for any generic choice of the eight base points [*inside*]{} of the eight empty ovals. (It turns out that the only possible non-generic situation is that of a pencil with a double base point $9=2$, this means that the points 1, ..8 lie on a nodal cubic with node at 2.) Recall that 2 is the base point chosen in the extreme inner oval forming a positive pair with $O$. For this pencil, the only possibly bad cubics are those with an oval passing through 9 and 2 only. To grant total reality, it suffices to choose the base point 2 [*on*]{} the corresponding empty oval, the other base points lie arbitrarily in the inside discs of the other empty ovals. Thus, your conjecture 27.29\[=\[SRLT:conj\]\] is true, and an even stronger result holds for the sextic with six inner ovals. Best regards, Séverine
\[07.03.13\] Little news from Alex, and so many thanks to Séverine for the answer
Dear Colleagues,
First many thanks to Séverine for your very detailed answer (which I will study in detail tomorrow). Sorry for being always a bit differed in time due to my lack of internet at home.
I added some material in my loose notes. In Section 28.1–28.2 (pp.384–392), I tried once more to explore the grand programme that Rohlin might have had in mind, namely total reality and its connection with his maximality conjecture. As I often said it seems to me that the missing link could be played by Ahlfors theorem, or perhaps Rohlin had a grand vision that he could arrange total reality by purely synthetical processes extending in all degree the already tricky theorem of Rohlin-Le Touzé in degree $m=6$. This idea when explored in full looks to me extremely vertiginous, but its net impact would be a sort of upper bound upon the complexity of Hilbert’s 16th problem, and in some sense subsume all prohibitions (à la Gudkov et cie.) to the paradigm of total reality. All this necessitates to be made much more precise, but I \[have\] attempted to make a psychoanalysis of what Rohlin may have had in the brain, without that he himself ventured to put it on the paper due to his own modesty and pragmatism.
Next I discovered the little Theorem 28.7\[=\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]\] (p.393), which is just a matter of making explicit the consequence of Thom’s conjecture (=Kronheimer-Mrowka theorem) as it pertains to Hilbert’s 16th problem. The result is the lovely estimate[^42] $\chi \le k^2$ for a curve of type I and degree $2k$. With this I realized that my former counterexample (with the scheme $20$ in degree 8) to CCC(=collective contraction conjecture) is actually killed by Thom, and realized (later only!!) that it is also killed by Rohlin’s formula. So CCC is again resuscitated but probably not for long!?
Then I tried to make a comparative study of Rohlin’s formula versus the Thom obstruction. It seems that the latter is often implied by Rohlin’s formula, but not always. More in Section 28.4 (p.393). It seems however that at least for degree $m \ge 10$ there is some cases where Thom really affords new information not covered by Russian congruences or Rohlin’s formula (cf. Thm 28.11, p.396). Finally using the Gudkov table in degree 10 (=Fig.148 on page 395), I got some naive hope to disprove the Rohlin maximality conjecture, but this quickly turned into disillusion (cf. Point 3 on p.396–397).
Sorry for all these messy remarks, yet I found the rôle of Thom quite pleasant. I am sure that this is not new, and that I read it somewhere, but again could not recover where precisely. (I thought it was in Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000’s survey but apparently not, though Kronheimer-Mrowka is alluded to.) If you remember some anecdotes about the rôle of Thom’s conjecture in Hilbert’s 16th problem, and who puts it first into action as a such, I would be extremely happy to insert your remarks in my (messy) survey.
Thanks a lot for the attention, Best regards, Alex
Constructions
=============
\[29.03.13\] Construction of algebraic curves seems a syllogism since they are nearly God-given. Perhaps the word contemplation looks more appropriate, but clumsy. Despite existence of Gods, the art of tracing of algebraic (plane) curves goes back to time immemorial Newton, Plücker 1839 [@Plücker_1839], Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874], with the modern era usually identified by Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876], Klein 1876, Hilbert 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege]). The game is especially interesting over $\RR$, else nearly everything follows from Riemann.
Much of the elementary aspects can be treated by the primitive method of small perturbation, which nearly gives a good picture of what happens in degree 6. This is how worked Plücker, Klein, Harnack, Hilbert, Ragsdale, Brusotti, etc. However already in degree 6 the classical method starts showing some limitation. Albeit the Gudkov curve can be distilled by small perturbation, it requires an extra twist by means of Cremona transformations (at first difficult to visualize). It took the community ca. 8 decades (including such masters as Hilbert, Ragsdale, Brusotti, Petrovskii, Gudkov first not an exception) until to discover the fairly trivial picture traced by Gudkov ca. 1972 (Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\]) exhibiting a curve with topology $\frac{5}{1}5$.
Ca. 1980 Viro described how to dissipates more complicated singularities, allowing experts to create more funny curves refuting most of the conjectures erected along the primitive method. For instance also Gudkov’s sextic appears fairly trivially when one knows how to smooth a triplets of ellipses tangent at 2 points, compare Fig.\[Viro3-15:fig\]c. A variant of Viro’s patchwork due to Itenberg (called the $T$-construction) is purely combinatorial and permitted to disprove severely the Ragsdale conjecture (cf. Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]), as well as our naive Thom estimate $\chi\le k^2$ for dividing curves.
Constructing the two maximal $(M-2)$-schemes {#const-total-(M-2)-schemes:sec}
--------------------------------------------
\[05.01.13\] As to the existence of the two maximal $(M-2)$-schemes (namely $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$), they can be constructed (as observed in Gudkov 1974/74 [@Gudkov_1974/74 p.42]) by a slight modification of Hilbert’s method. Let us reproduce his figure (Fig.4, p.16). This gives (after smoothing) the left-side of Fig.\[Gudkov-Hilbert-modified:fig\]. Alas, this is not the desired scheme. Is there a mistake in Gudkov at this place? Apparently not as it seems approved in A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979] (alas no detail).
-5pt0
-5pt0
The right-part of Fig.\[Gudkov-Hilbert-modified:fig\] is just a variant inspired from Hilbert’s configuration. This has again the wrong real scheme. Since Gudkov does not seem to give exactly what he claims, we must rely on some do-it-yourself endeavor. A naive idea gives Fig.\[GudHilb2:fig\], failing again to have the correct scheme.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Let us now work more systematically. The key is first to make Walt-Disney pictures of Hilbert’s method à la Gudkov. This involves a simplified art-form, far from geometrically realist, but topologically faithful and more malleable. This produces the following pictures (Fig.\[GudHilb3:fig\]). The trick of Hilbert’s method is to let oscillate an oval across an ellipse while smoothing their union (cf. left part of Fig.\[GudHilb3:fig\]). Such oscillations are Bézout compatible: each oscillating quartic intersects 8 times the ellipse. A posteriori it is a simple matter (Hilbert’s method) to realize such oscillation by rigid algebraic curves suitably perturbed by lines arrangements. Yet it is valuable first exploring the softer topological figures as to understand which oscillation is able producing a prescribed topology (e.g. $\frac{6}{1}2$ and its companion $\frac{2}{1} 6$).
-1.0cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
The variant of Hilbert’s construction involves letting oscillate various ovals across the ground ellipse. On the middle row of Fig.\[GudHilb3:fig\] we let oscillate thrice one oval and once the opposite oval with respect to some ground ellipse. Smoothing gives some $(M-2)$-curves not realizing the desired schemes. Choosing instead a triple oscillation of the upper oval of the quartic combined with a simple oscillation of the nearby oval gives the desired schemes (right row of Fig.\[GudHilb3:fig\]) with either 6 outer ovals (top) or 6 nested ovals (bottom). Gudkov was right albeit his discourse was not in perfect adequation with his picturing.
It remains to geometrize such oscillations à la Hilbert. This is an easy matter, except that realist pictures require judicious scalings to make things visible. The first mode of vibration leading to $\frac{2}{1}6$ is geometrized on Fig.\[GudHilb5:fig\] below.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Some few comments on this figure: first one has the two blue ellipses forming a quartic $C_4$. Next one has 4 dashed lines (another quartic). Perturbing slightly the former along the other (within the pencil spanned by both) gives another $C_4$ traced in black. This has the virtue of oscillating across the circular ellipse (in blue). Finally, smoothing their union gives the sextic in red realizing the desired real scheme $\frac{2}{1}
6$ (i.e. 2 ovals captured in one and 6 outside).
The other scheme $\frac{6}{1}2$ is obtained similarly via the following system of oscillations (Fig.\[GudHilb6-12:fig\]) geometrizing the bottom-right part of Fig.\[GudHilb3:fig\]:
-5pt0
-5pt0
-5pt0
-5pt0
Using either the schematic pictures or the more geometric one it is an easy matter to see that both curves just traced are dividing. This follows as usual (Fiedler’s law) by checking that all smoothings are compatible with complex orientations (cf. Fig.\[GudHilbdividing:fig\] below).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Hence according to Ahlfors theorem there must be a total pencil of curves. Actually Rohlin claims much more that any sextic realizing those schemes is totally real under a pencil of cubics, but his argument has never been published[^43]. A bit like Hilbert in 1900, Rohlin 1978 says that his proof is too cumbersome to be written down. As we know Hilbert’s 2nd assertion that there is only two $M$-sextics was refuted by Gudkov some 7 decades latter, so it is not impossible that Rohlin’s claim is fallacious as well. Of course it can also be the case that Rohlin’s claim on the type I of the maximal $(M-2)$-schemes is correct, but that total reality via a pencil of cubics is erroneous. However as we noted cubics leads to a mapping-degree of $3 \cdot 6 -8=10$, in adequation with Gabard’s bound $r+p$ on the degree of circle maps.
At this stage the naivest thing-to-do is to convince that there is no trivial counterexample to Rohlin’s claim. So we trace more oscillations to get the following pictures (Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\]). Some noteworthy species appear especially the remarkable scheme $\frac{4}{1}4$, occupying the central position of Gudkov’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Our specimen is dividing and it looks hard to get the same scheme in the nondividing way (though Rohlin 1978 asserts its existence). Speculating that this scheme is of type I, while admitting the truth of Rohlin’s maximality conjecture, then all 3 sextics schemes dominating $\frac{4}{1}4$ would agonize along a blue sky catastrophe! Gudkov would be wrong and Hilbert right! Of course this seems a too apocalyptic scenario, yet up to now our text does not entail this option!
Also difficult to find are the schemes $\frac{5}{1}3$ and its mirror $\frac{3}{1}5$. Apart those exceptions, Hilbert’s method offers all possible $(M-2)$-schemes.
[*Insertion*]{} \[08.02.13\] For a Harnack method realization of $\frac{3}{1}5$, see Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXL:fig\] much below, while $\frac{5}{1}3$ truly requires the method of Gudkov (cf. Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\]).
If, via a small perturbation, one merges together $2$ small ovals on Harnack’s or Hilbert’s curve (cf. détail on Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\]), then one gets the $(M-1)$-schemes $\frac{1}{1}8$ resp. $\frac{8}{1}1$. The other $(M-1)$-schemes of Gudkov’s table are somewhat harder to exhibit, except of course if one is aware of a large deformation able to extinct the inner oval (case of Harnack) or the outer oval (in Hilbert’s case). This contraction of empty ovals is actually possible via Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994]—using the apparatus of Nikulin’s (1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80]) (rigid-isotopy classification via K3 surfaces)—but of course this is surely not the most economical argument for our purpose (known to Gudkov 1969 or earlier).
-1.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
It seems clear that we have exhausted the faculty of Hilbert’s method (and its variation where the vibration is dissipated on several ovals). Some naive questions: what can be obtained by perturbing an arrangement of lines (in general position)?
To go further one is helped once more by Gudkov 1974/74 [@Gudkov_1974/74 p.42] asserting that the scheme $\frac{4}{1} 5$ can be gained by a modification of Harnack’s method. Alas, Gudkov makes no picture but was aware of this at least since 1954.
[*Insertion*]{} \[08.02.13\].—For a picture of this cf. Fig.\[HarnaGudkov4-15:fig\] much below.
\[07.01.13\] Of course it is also possible to apply Hilbert’s oscillations to a Gürtelkurve (or other quartics), cf. Fig.\[GudHilb9:fig\]. Alas the list of schemes so obtained is not very exciting (no new species over the previous vibrations).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Constructing the indefinite types (Brusotti, Rohlin 1978, Fiedler 1978, Marin 1979, plus do-it-yourself) {#indefinite-types:sec}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[02.01.13\] Recall the definition (Rohlin 1978), a scheme is of [*indefinite type*]{} if it admits representatives of both types I and II, in the sense of Klein 1876, i.e. curves which are both dividing and not. This section aims to construct all schemes of indefinite type in degree 6 as to understand in full details Rohlin’s theorem (\[Rohlin-type:thm\]) enhancing Gudkov’s table by the data of Klein’s types. All the strategic information is tabulated in Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\], but each bit of coloring involves a little fight with the geometrical substratum. Again the ideas are purely those of Rohlin and his school, especially Fiedler. In Rohlin’s 1978 survey [@Rohlin_1978] detailed constructions are not given. After completion of this section, we noted that full details are given in Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979 p.57–58], whose constructions differ slightly from ours, but settling one case we failed to detect alone, namely the type $\frac{8}{1}_{II}$.
$\bullet$ First, consider the scheme $\frac{2}{1}2$. Smoothing positively a triad of conics gives the dividing curve on the left of Fig.\[R2-12:fig\].
-5pt0
-5pt0
On the other hand, starting from a triangular configuration of ellipse (center part of Fig.\[R2-12:fig\]) one may by free-hand drawing (without taking care of orientation) arrange the real scheme to be the prescribed one. After reporting signs of our chosen smoothing we find them to be all negatives. At this stage I thought the curve to be dividing. However, right below one of the orientation is reversed but the smoothing effected left unchanged. Now it is of mixed signs, so the curve is in fact nondividing. On the right-top part of Fig.\[R2-12:fig\] is depicted another free-hand drawing realizing the given given real scheme. Mixture of signs implies the nondividing type of this curve.
$\bullet$ On smoothing positively the configuration on the center-bottom part of Fig.\[R2-12:fig\] we get the (dividing) curve on the left-bottom of Fig.\[R2-12:fig\] which belongs to the real scheme $\frac{1}{1}5$. Next starting from the 3 ellipses, we got the miniature figure on the bottom of Fig.\[R2-12:fig\] who alas had not the right number of ovals. We thus started anew for the “radioactive” (triangular) triad of ellipses to find the right-bottom curve on Fig.\[R2-12:fig\] which has the correct real scheme and is nondividing (as it involves mixed signs).
$\bullet$ On smoothing positively the “radioactive triad” of ellipses for the prescribed orientation gives the dividing curve on the left of Fig.\[R4-1:fig\]. This belongs to the scheme $\frac{4}{1}$ (i.e. 4 ovals nested in one big oval and nothing outside). It is easy to trace the same scheme using as template the “atomic triad” of ellipses, cf. middle-part of Fig.\[R4-1:fig\], and checking orientation one finds a mixture of signs imposing the nondividing character of this curve. Another option also yielding a nondividing curve is given on the right-part of Fig.\[R4-1:fig\]
-5pt0
-5pt0
$\bullet$ Consider now a triad of ellipses with two ellipses invariant under rotation by $90$ degrees, plus one circle pinched in between. A positive smoothing creates the archipelago sextic on Fig.\[R8-1:fig\], which is dividing and of real scheme $\frac{8}{1}$ (i.e. $8$ ovals captured in a bigger one and nothing outside). It remains to find a nondividing realization of this scheme, cf. for this Marin’s picture=Fig.\[GudHilbMarin:fig\] below.
-5pt0
-5pt0
$\bullet$ Dragging down the archipelago circle gives a configuration of ellipses smoothable positively to the scheme $\frac{3}{1}3$, cf. Fig.\[R3-13:fig\](left). After several infructuous attempts (depicted as miniatures) one finds the strange triad of conics on the right-part of Fig.\[R3-13:fig\] which admits a smoothing belonging to the same real scheme, but which is nondividing due to mixed signs.
-5pt0
-5pt0
$\bullet$ After some patience and many trials (especially if one is tired) one finds another configuration of ellipses smoothable positively to the scheme $\frac{5}{1}1$, cf. left of Fig.\[R5-11:fig\]. Besides, one finds quickly the right-part of Fig.\[R5-11:fig\] belonging to the same real scheme, yet nondividing due to mixed signs.
-5pt0
-5pt0
[**What remains to be constructed?**]{} At this stage we are nearly finished (compare the list of schemes we explored with those marked by rhombs on Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). It remains us to find the scheme $\frac{4}{1}4$. As we did not found it presently as a perturbation of 3 ellipses, and since this lies quite near (on Gudkov’s table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) to Gudkov’s $M$-sextic (notoriously difficult to construct) one is imbued of some suitable respect. Possibly it is impossible to exhibit as a deformation of (transverse) 3 ellipses. Notice yet that the curve $\frac{4}{1}4$ exists as shown by a variant of Hilbert’s method (cf. Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\]). However presently this only realizes the scheme in the dividing way, whereas Rohlin claims this type to be indefinite.
\[12.01.13\] A somewhat mystical way to solve this question involves taking a curve lying just above the scheme $\frac{4}{1}4$, while contracting an empty oval via passage through a solitary node. (Remember this to be possible by Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994].) Reading the deformation backward it follows from Klein’s remark (1876)(=Marin’s theorem 1988 [@Marin_1988]) that the resulting curve has type II. However there is probably a more elementary proof by looking at the scheme $\frac{4}{1}5$, which according to Gudkov (1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74]) can be exhibited by a variant of Harnack’s method, while its mirror $\frac{5}{1}4$ is harder to construct (Gudkov 1954 [@Gudkov_1954] even claiming erroneously its non-existence).
\[07.02.13\] One elementary way to realize $\frac{4}{1}4$ in type II involves a modification of Harnack’s method depicted below (Fig.\[indef414:fig\]). (This is inspired by Gudkov’s text, but alas no picture there). This is the sort of bird hard to tackle down if one is tired. Beware also that in practicing Harnack’s method one never finds directly what one is seeking (I found this while searching $\frac{4}{1}5$.)
The trick here is that we leave much room between the vertical lines effecting Harnack’s oscillations. So we start with the 3 high vertical lines, and a slight perturbation of the circle union the horizontal line produces a cubic $C_3$ oscillating thrice about the horizontal line $L$. The reducible quartic $C_3\cup L$ is then perturbed by a quadruplet of lines, which again is much stretched so as to effect another intermediate vibration. Then we have an $M$-quartic $C_4$ oscillating 4 times across $L$. Via the same trick $C_4\cup L$ is perturbed by a quintuplet of vertical lines to produce a $C_5$ oscillating 5 times across $L$. Then using Brusotti’s theorem (that German workers used subconsciously it seems or used ad hoc tricks to complete their perturbations) we have two ways to smooth $C_5\cup L$ to get a smooth $C_6$. Taking caring of orientations, the first depicted choice leads a curve of type I, whereas the second involves a negative sign and therefore produces type II. It is easily checked that both curves belong to the scheme $\frac{4}{1}4$.
-2.2cm0 -15pt0
-5pt0
In a similar way, we do not have yet constructed the type II incarnation of the scheme $\frac{8}{1}$. Again in somewhat sloppy fashion, one could argue by contracting successively two empty ovals in Hilbert’s $M$-curve (scheme $\frac{9}{1}1$), namely the one outside and one inside the nonempty oval. Granting such a deformation through two (successive) solitary nodes, Klein’s remark implies the resulting curve being of type II, and we are done. Yet I presume there must be a more elementary construction.
\[17.01.13\] Indeed one such is sketched in Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979 p.57, very bottom left of the table]. Let us reproduce Marin’s picture as Fig.\[GudHilbMarin:fig\]b:
-5pt0
-5pt0
Marin’s trick here is to start from 2 ellipses tangent at one point but transverse elsewhere (Fig.a). Perturbing this by a suitable quadruplet of lines as in Hilbert’s method gives a quartic $C_4$ oscillating as depicted on Fig.a and with 3 ovals only. Hence the $C_4$ is nondividing (Klein’s congruence), and so is a fortiori the resulting sextic $C_6$ (as the nondividing character is dominant in the genetic sense), which realizes the $(M-1)$-scheme $\frac{9}{1}$ (Fig.a). A simple conjunction of two inner ovals yields the $(M-2)$-scheme $\frac{8}{1}$ (Fig.b), we were really interested in (and which is again of type II for the same genetical reason).
With this trick we can construct several other curves, depicted on the second row of Fig.\[GudHilbMarin:fig\], in particular we get the scheme $10$ as well as $\frac{8}{1}_{II}$ via a variant of Marin avoiding tacnodality. The little price to pay is that we concede two imaginary intersections between the ground ellipses so that the nondividing character of the $C_4$ (unnested) has to be derived by some ad hoc argument (e.g. Klein’s in (\[Klein-unnested-quartic-nondividing:lem\]), or Arnold’s congruence $2=\chi=p-n\equiv k^2 \pmod 4$, or Rohlin’s formula $0=2(\Pi^{+}-\Pi^{-})=r-k^2$ or even Bézout modulo the highbrow contraction conjecture CCC, cf. Sec.\[CCC:sec\]). Of course there must also be an elementary argument by noticing that the two imaginary intersections of both ellipses are “connecting” different halves, so that when smoothed as shown the resulting curve is nondividing. Once this $C_4$ is known to be nondividing the depicted $C_6$ is likewise by virtue of the genetical dominance of nondividingness. All this argument looks tricky but is in reality trivial (think-yourself, and compare optionally Rohlin 1978, Fiedler 1981 [@Fiedler_1981], Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979], and maybe Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000]).
As knowledge advances it will perhaps become as difficult to find new truths as to discover old mistakes. E.g., is Falting’s proof of Mordell correct? Is Freedman’s proof à la Bing reliable? Is Perelman’s proof of Poincaré really eclectic? If not should we retire him the million. No because because it was never accepted. Finding mistakes in those venerable implementations will perhaps be as challenging as claiming new truths? At any rate the game is always pleasant.
Gudkov’s sextic $\frac{5}{1}5$ (Gudkov 1969, 1973, etc.) {#Gudkov:sec}
--------------------------------------------------------
\[24.01.13\] Several constructions are available, but first some historical remarks.
$\bullet$ The very first treatment appears in D.A. Gudkov’s Doctor Thesis (1969 [@Gudkov_1969-Doctor's-Thesis]) under Petrovskii and the liberal supervision of Arnold (apparently none of the supervisors were able to digest the full swing of the candidate Dmitrii Andreevich). Upon this Polotovskii 1996 [@Polotovskii_1996-D-A-Gudkov] comments as follows: “It is interesting to remark that the first proof of this fact in \[18\](=1969 [@Gudkov_1969-Doctor's-Thesis]) was extraordinarily complicated. It takes up $28$ pages of text, is a “pure existence proof”, and was obtained by means of a combination of the Hilbert-Rohn method with quadratic transformations. Shortly after D.A. Gudkov suggested significantly simpler [*constructions*]{} of curves having this scheme, see \[19\](=1971 [@Gudkov_1971-const-new-ser-M-curv]), \[21\](=1973 [@Gudkov_1973-const-curve-deg-6-type-515]), \[23\](=1974/74 [@Gudkov_1974/74]).”
$\bullet$ This complicated proof was published in Gudkov-Utkin 1969/78 [@Gudkov-Utkin_1969/78] (English transl. issued in 1978).
$\bullet$ New simpler constructions, are due to Gudkov and to be found in Gudkov 1971 [@Gudkov_1971-const-new-ser-M-curv], or in [@Gudkov_1973-const-curve-deg-6-type-515]), reproduced in his survey Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74].
$\bullet$ This is also reexposed in A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979].
$\bullet$ Viro 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1076] also emphasizes Gudkov’s initial construction “was rather complicated” (an euphemism as compared to Polotovskii’s prose above). His second proof reduces “to the first stage of Brusotti’s construction, i.e., the classical small perturbation of the union of the curve and the line.” Yet the whole difficulty is to find a quintic oscillating 5 times across the line while enveloping 5 ovals in one “wave oscillation” while leaving one oval outside (cf. Viro’s figure 12 in , p.1077). According to Viro (, p.1076): “It was only in 1971 that Gudkov \[11\](=1971 [@Gudkov_1971-const-new-ser-M-curv]) found an auxiliary curve of degree 5 that did this.”
Hence Gudkov had two constructions of $\frac{5}{1}5$:
$\bullet$ A first very complicated one, published in Gudkov-Utkin 1969/78 [@Gudkov-Utkin_1969/78] (English transl. published in 1978) or Gudkov 1973 [@Gudkov_1973-const-curve-deg-6-type-515] (using Cremona), and
$\bullet$ a much more elementary one (à la Brusotti) given in Gudkov 1971 [@Gudkov_1971-const-new-ser-M-curv], by finding an $M$-quintic oscillating appropriately about a line, while smoothing their union.
(I don’t know upon which version is based A’Campo’s account, presumably the second simpler variant, yet A’Campo uses Cremona.)
Of course since Viro in the early 1980’s, Gudkov’s sextic may also be exhibited by Viro’s patchwork; or as a perturbation of three ellipses tangent at 2 points like Hawaiian earrings. This involves yet a deep understanding of how to dissipate such higher singularities. The interested reader can look at Fig.\[Viro3-15:fig\]c.
Now let us describe once more Gudkov’s trick (source used Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74 p.42–43] and some more détail in A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979 p.12–13]). This is artwork of the best stock (cf. Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\]).
-5pt0
-5pt0
$\bullet$ The first step is easy and consists to perturb a line at one of the 8 flexes of the quartic $C_4$ with $r=4$ slightly so that it creates 3 nearby intersections. Look at the fourth intersection, and from here trace two secant intercepting some other oval as shown, while cutting 2 nearby point on the “large” oval such that the line through them cut a little teats on the large oval. That all this can be achieved is already clever and explained in detail, first in Gudkov 1971 [@Gudkov_1971-const-new-ser-M-curv] or in A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979].
$\bullet$ The 2nd picture right below is merely a qualitative redrawing of the first.
$\bullet$ The 3rd picture shows the transformation of the $C_4$ experimented under the Cremona transformation centered at the 3 points $4,5,6$, mutating it into a quintic $C_5$. One way to argue is via the birational invariance of the genus, keeping the value $g=3$ constant. Hence as the image curve has 3 nodes (arising as the intersection of the fundamental triangle through $4,5,6$ with $C_4$), it must be a quintic. Another way to argue is to remember the definition of Cremona as the projective (rational) map induced by the linear system of conics through the 3 basepoints (located on the large oval). Hence the pullback of a line is a member of the system, cutting the $C_4$ along 8 points, but 3 of them being assigned, we find $5$ for the degree of the image of $C_4$. Likewise the image of the diagonal line $L$ intersecting only the large oval $\alpha$ is of degree 1, hence a line. To understand the Cremona-map picture of Gudkov, one must keep in mind that Cremona contracts any edge of the triangle $4,5,6$ to the opposite edge of this triangle (and viceversa its explodes each basepoint to the opposite side of the triangle). The map being actually an involution (order 2). So the 4 chambers residual to the triangle are preserved. It is then fairly easy to check that Gudkov’s picture is realist, where tildes are images under Cremona. Life becomes easier if we number some few points on the $C_4$, while denoting by the same letters their images under Cremona (omitting the tilde for simplicity), compare Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\]. It remains to convince that the location of $\tilde{\gamma}$, $\tilde{\delta}$ is as depicted by Gudkov.
The line $L$ is imagined as invariant under Cremona. In fact if we remove the 3 fundamental lines it remains 4 open triangles (homeomorphic to a cell ${\Bbb R}^2$) which are preserved. An involution of the plane has necessarily a fixed point (Brouwer, Kerekjarto, Smith, etc.) in fact a line or a singleton of fixed-points depending on whether it reverse or preserve orientation. The usual formula for Cremona $$(x_0, x_1, x_2)\mapsto(x_0 x_1, x_1 x_2, x_0 x_2)$$ shows that $(1,1,1)$ is fixed, and solving the fixed point equation (outside the fundamental triangle whence all $x_i\neq
0$) gives $(1,1,1)=\lambda(x_1, x_2, x_0)$ as unique solution. So the fundamental triangle splits ${\Bbb R}P^2$ in 4 chambers preserved under Cremona. How are they permuted? If we normalize the sign of the first coordinate as positive then we have the following signs distribution corresponding to the chambers $$I=(+,+,+),\; II=(+,+,-),\; III=(+,-,+),\; VI=(+,-,-).$$ The first chamber is preserved by Cremona. The second mutates to the fourth. The third maps to the second, and the fourth maps to the second. This looks a bit anomalous for by functoriality we would have expected that an involution induces an involution on the set of components (functor $\pi_0$).
Changing the formula to the one written down in Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74 p.43] gives $$(x_0,x_1,x_2)\mapsto (x_1 x_2, x_0 x_2, x_0 x_1),$$ and we get $$I\mapsto I, II\mapsto(-,-,+)=II, III\mapsto (-,+,-)=III, \textrm{
and } VI\mapsto (+,-,-)=VI,$$ which is more pleasant. Thus after mutation the ovals $\gamma,
\delta$ stays in the same chamber. Yet this is not enough for if they would lye like $ \gamma, \delta$ (without tilde) then we would get the scheme $\frac{3}{1}7$, which is prohibited either by Hilbert-Rohn-Gudkov or by Rohlin 1972 [@Rohlin_1972/72-Proof-of-a-conj-of-Gudkov] proof of Gudkov’s conjecture. (Remind Rohlin’s original proof to contain a little flow, repaired either by Rohlin via Atiyah-Singer or by Guillou-Marin!). So here we are quite close to adding another dramatic twist in the Hilbert-Gudkov saga.
However it is more realist that a more thorough examination of the Cremona map shows the location of $ \tilde\gamma, \tilde\delta$ to be the one depicted by Gudkov. Indeed the chamber (say $III$) containing $ \gamma, \delta$ is invariant (like any other). However the line $L$ is also invariant and divides the chamber $III$ in two pieces which have to be exchanged by the Cremona involution. It suffices indeed to use the topological classification of involutions in the plane ${\Bbb R}^2$ à la Brouwer, to notice that in all cases (orientation reversing or not) the involution is either a reflection about a line or about a point (rotation). In both cases the residual components of an invariant line are exchanged. Hence chamber $III$ splits in two halves ${III}_{+}$ and ${III}_{-}$, where the former contains $\gamma, \delta$. Their images have to lye in the other chamber ${III}_{-}$, and Gudkov’s depiction is verified. In fact looking at the image of the point $x$ as mapped to $6=7=8$ shows that Cremona restricted to $III$ acts as a rotation (having one fixed points). More algebraically, solving the fixed-point equation $(x_0,x_1,x_2)=\lambda (x_1x_2, x_0 x_2, x_0x_1)$ shows that $$x_0=\lambda x_1 x_2=\lambda^2 x_0 x_2^2$$ so that $x_2^2=1/\lambda^2$, and likewise—by repeating the calculation or anticipating it by symmetry—we find $x_0^2=1/\lambda^2$, and $x_1^2=1/\lambda^2$. Thus up to homothety we have $(x_0,x_1,x_2)=(1,1,1)$ modulo the 4 possible variations of signs $(+,+,+)$, $(+,+,-)$, $(+,-,+)$ and $(+,-,-)$. We conclude that Cremona has exactly 4 fixed points (one in the barycenter of each chamber). So in particular Cremona is orientation preserving (within each chamber).
$\bullet$ The fourth picture (of Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\]) contains also a little trick, namely the possibility to smooth the node (at $7=8$) of the trinodal quintic $C_5$ is such a way that its pseudoline penetrates slightly inside the line $\widetilde L$. Once this is done it suffices to smooth à la Brusotti $C_5 \cup
\widetilde{ L}$ to obtain the desired Gudkov sextic. And the miracle is full. Why did it took so long (ca. one century from Harnack up to Gudkov) to discover this curve? Why Hilbert missed it? Admittedly the construction is quite tricky, but completely elementary. Up to our knowledge there is not any further simplification in this second Gudkov proof, apart perhaps via Viro’s patchwork or dissipation method of higher singularities, which probably require more highbrow technologies making them didactically hard to compete with Gudkov’s construction[^44]. As a last (sentimental) outcome, look how the quintic $C_5$ of Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\] resemble a portrait of its happy discoverer, especially $\tilde \gamma, \tilde \delta$ are like the eyes, and $\tilde \beta$ the smiling mouth of Gudkov near to crack the centennial problem.
Finally it is plain from Gudkov’s curve to derive curves with less ovals, especially the $(M-1)$-curve $\frac{5}{1}4$ and the $(M-2)$-curve $\frac{5}{1}3$ (e.g. by changing the smoothing at the nodes $2$ and $1$). Those curves were notoriously hard to construct, and no construction independent of Gudkov’s is known. Using Fiedler’s signs-law it is plain that the curve $\frac{5}{1}3$ so constructed is of type II, as it should by virtue of say Arnold’s congruence.
If instead we change the smoothing in the inside of the oval along the smiling mouth $\tilde \beta$ of Gudkov, then we get the $(M-1)$-scheme $\frac{4}{1}5$, and the $(M-2)$-scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$. Those were however much easier to construct by a variant of Harnack’s method (as reported in Gudkov 1974); compare indeed our Fig.\[HarnaGudkov4-15:fig\] and \[HarnaGudkov3-15XXL:fig\].
Finally we note that we may also obtain the $(M-2)$-scheme $\frac{4}{1}4$ in type II by smoothing the Gudkov configuration $C_5\cup \widetilde{L}$. However there is surely a more elementary approach via $\frac{4}{1}5$ constructed by a variant of Harnack; yes indeed compare Fig.\[indef414:fig\].
Diophantine and probabilistic aspects {#Diophantine-and-proba:sec}
-------------------------------------
\[26.01.13\] Why did it took so long to discover Gudkov’s sextic? Is it only because it is the most secret part of the pyramid (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]), or because we have difficulty to visualize Cremona transformations? Is there some more intrinsic reason.
One boring algebro-arithmetic game is to think of curves as ternary forms $F(x_0,x_1,x_2)=\sum_{i,j,k:i+j+k=m} a_{i,j} x_0^i
x_1^j x_2^{k}$ with real coefficients. Up to rounding a bit the real coefficients randomly we may assume them rational numbers in ${\Bbb Q}$, and this can be done without affecting the topology nor the rigid-isotopy class. So we find nearby the given curve a smooth one defined over ${\Bbb Q}$, and we may put all coefficients in ${\Bbb Z}$ after scaling. As usual we may chase the common divisor of the equation to get a Diophantine equation with coefficients primes together $(\gcd (a_{i, j})=1)$. This we call the reduced equation of the rational curve (in the sense of Diophante as opposed to having genus $0$). It is unique up to sign. In particular there is a [*height*]{} defined as the largest coefficient of the equation.
Then there is a myriad of question. For instance, given an isotopy type of real curve (or even a rigid-isotopy class) what is the smallest height of a Diophantine equation realizing this type? To make this concrete imagine the case of sextics. The Fermat equation $x_0^m+x_1^m-x_2^m=0$ shows that the corresponding chamber (unifolium) has always height 1. Similar remark for the invisible curve $x_0^m+x_1^m+x_2^m=0$ (anti-folium) when $m$ is even (empty real locus). However it is unknown if the curve with $r=1$ real branches always corresponds to a unique chamber of the discriminant (cf. Viro 2008 [@Viro_2008-From-the-16th-Hilb-to-tropical]). What is the height of Gudkov’s curve? Can we write down (the best) explicit equation?
Another question is to look for some fixed integer $N$ (altitude) the set of all Diophantine equation $F(x_0,x_1,x_2)\in {\Bbb Z}
[x_0,x_1,x_2]$ of height $\le N$ and consider how they distribute between the chambers of the discriminant. If $m=6$ there is 64 many chambers by Klein-Rohlin-Kharlamov-Nikulin 1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80]) encoded by the chromatic Gudkov table of Rohlin (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Of course some sporadic equations may land on the discriminant. Now count the corresponding $65$ (or rather $64$, maybe I added one for the discriminant but this will tend to zero) frequencies and consider the corresponding probabilities $p_{i,N}$ (indexed by the Gudkov symbols $i=\frac{k}{1} \ell$ (plus $(1,1,1)$ deep nest) enhanced sometimes by the type as on Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Is the probability assigned to Gudkov’s chamber $\frac{5}1 5$ particularly low, say as compared to Hilbert’s or Harnack chamber? Paraphrasing slightly, how long would it take to a stupid computer to discover Gudkov’s sextic by merely tracing with clever algorithms the real locus of an explicit Diophantine equation, while randomly trying one equation after the other.
In contrast one may expect that when $N \to \infty$ there is some equidistribution, with all probabilities tending to be equal. Perhaps some special rôle is played by the empty chamber which is connected by Nikulin 1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80], or better by the more elementary argument valid in all degrees, cf. (\[empty-chamber-connected-Shustin:lem\]). Of course a priori it is not even clear that the limiting probabilities converge as $N\to \infty$.
What about the height of Gudkov’s chamber, i.e. the least size of the coefficient of a defining equation. Idem for Harnack and Hilbert’s chambers. Are they lower? Can we estimate the heights from above using the classical constructions made effective over ${\Bbb Q}$?
Of course all these questions look perhaps a bit unnatural or somewhat out of reach. Also they depend on the height function (maximum coefficient), while there is perhaps other more natural ways to measure the complexity of an equation, e.g. by the Pythagorean distance (sum of all spares of the coefficient $\sum_{i,i} a_{i,j}^2$). This grows like a ball instead of like a cube, but perhaps the corresponding probabilities are independent of the exhaustion process? In that case there would be canonical probabilities and their estimation could be interesting.
All this seems out of reach even when $m=6$, e.g. because we lack serious algorithms to detect the type from the equation (compare e.g. Viro 2008 [@Viro_2008-From-the-16th-Hilb-to-tropical]). Of course the asymptotic probability as $N\to \infty$ of landing in the discriminant will tend to zero (being a hypersurface of Lebesgue measure zero). So we should really have a distribution between $64$ numbers $p_i\in [0,1]$ (some possibly zero? yet unlikely) weighting the Gudkov-Rohlin pyramid (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) by real masses. Are those probabilities all equal (equidistribution), rational numbers, etc.? Is the empty chamber much more heavy than the other?
A crude intuition is that when coefficients get larger and larger, we get some thermodynamic excitation with all topological schemes (as complicated as they may be) fairly represented.
Another less arithmetical way to pose the question of the frequency (e.g. of curves as Gudkov’s) is just to put the natural(?) round elliptic volume element à la Riemann-Lebesgue on the space $\vert mH \vert\approx {\Bbb P}^N$ of all curves-coefficients dominated by the round (unit) sphere $S^N$. The latter is calibrated to volume $2$ as to arrange unity volume for its quotient ${\Bbb R}P^N$. Each of the 64 chambers (when $m=6$) has then a (natural) mass, which demands only to be explicitly determined. It would be again exciting to compare the mass of Gudkov’s $M$-chamber with those of Hilbert’s or Harnack’s. Now it is clear that the discriminant has measure zero being a hypersurface, whereas all other chambers are affected by positive masses.
How does a random equation (curve) look alike? Letting $p_i$ ($i=1,\dots, 64$) be the probabilities assigned to each of the (Rohlin-Kharlamov-Nikulin) chambers. Those are either all equal (equidistribution) which is quite unlikely, or some “curve” occurs more frequently? From zero-knowledge all what can be said is that some $p_i\ge 1/64$. What is the largest $p_i$? Maybe the empty chamber is the most massive?
Of course then there is also refined questions about the Riemannian geometry of those chambers. Assume for simplicity equidistribution of masses. Then the whole hotel $\vert mH
\vert-\frak D$ is shared by 64 families having chambers of the same volume, yet perhaps some are much more comfortable to live in. Annoying might be chambers highly contorted where there is little room to plug mobiliary inside. For instance we could look at the largest Riemannian ball expansible inside a given chamber, etc.
Perturbation of lines (Plücker 1839, Klein 1873, Finashin 1996) {#Line-perturbation:sec}
---------------------------------------------------------------
\[08.04.13\] This short section can be skipped. It was written at an early stage when we had not yet found all schemes asserted by Gudkov-Rohlin, primarily because we did not mastered sufficiently the Harnack method. So we attempted to realize schemes by perturbing lines. In this primitive context it could still be of interest to understand precisely what schemes are realized. If I remember well Felice Ronga (ca. 1999) once mentioned this problem as one challenging his imagination. Perhaps it is worth at the occasion trying to understand what can be said.
\[12.01.13\] As yet we missed several schemes whose existence is asserted in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]. This is one motivation for trying to look at what is obtainable by perturbing an arrangements of lines. Of course some more ancestral motivation like the work of Plücker 1839 [@Plücker_1839] as credited for by Klein 1873 [@Klein_1873-Uber-Flächen-dritter-Ordn] gives also such a motivation. In fact this section was motivated by a figure in Finashin 1996 [@Finashin_1996 Fig.10] which we shall now reproduce while trying to explore other choices. The general question could be which (typed) schemes of the Gudkov-Rohlin table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) can be realized by perturbing a line arrangement.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Contraction conjectures (Klein 1876, Rohlin 1978, Shustin 1985, Itenberg 1994, Viro 1994)
=========================================================================================
“Klein-vache”: Nondividing implies champagne bubbling? (Klein 1876, disproof Shustin 1985)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[14.01.13\] As early as 1876 [@Klein_1876], Klein asserted the firm conviction that curves of type I cannot gain an oval by crossing a solitary node. It required ca. 110 years until Marin 1988 took the pain to write down a proof of a somewhat stronger assertion (cf. Sec.\[Klein-Marin:sec\]). In the same paper, Klein (1876) speculated about a much more metaphysical converse allowing any nondividing curve to gain an oval after crossing a solitary node. This was never rigidly asserted by the cautious Felix Klein, but disproved 99 years later by Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin]. Personally, we have not yet assimilated the full details of Shustin argument, as it uses much technology, but all experts (Shustin, Viro, Fiedler, Orevkov, etc.) have validated this disproof.
[(Klein’s hypothesis of 1876, abridged “Klein-vache” in the sequel, disproved in Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin])]{} \[Klein-1876:conj-noch-entwicklungsfahig\] Given any nondividing plane curve of arbitrary degree $m$, it is possible to let it cross the discriminant through a solitary node via a path of curves $(C_t)_{t\in [-1,+1]}$ traversing only once the discriminant. In other words any diasymmetric chamber bounds a solitary wall.
\[15.01.13\] The conjecture is nearly evident when $m=6$ in view of Rohlin’s enrichment of Gudkov’s table by types and the subsequent rigid-isotopic classification of Nikulin 1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80] (Theorem \[Nikulin:thm\]). With this data available one gets a bijection between chambers past the discriminant and Rohlin’s enriched schemes (cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-contigBIS:fig\] below).
-5pt0
-5pt0
A moment contemplation of this table shows that all diasymmetric chambers admit at least one edge moving upwards in the hierarchy incrementing the number of ovals $r$ by one unit. Of course a priori such an increment does not necessarily correspond to the formation of a solitary node (isolated double point) but can also traduce the subdivision of an oval shrinking to a lemniscate. Hence more work is required, yet we believe strongly that “Klein-vache” holds true for sextics. In fact here is a complete proof:
\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\] [(Gabard 15.01.13, but a trivial corollary of Rohlin 1978, Nikulin 1979/80, Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994] and Klein-Marin 1876–1988)]{}.—The conjecture “Klein-vache” [(\[Klein-1876:conj-noch-entwicklungsfahig\])]{} holds true for $m=6$, i.e. any nondividing sextic can acquire a solitary double point by a rigid-isotopy crossing only once the discriminant transversally.
It is first a matter of paying attention to the combinatorics of Rohlin’s classification into types (Fig.\[Gudkov-contigBIS:fig\] above). The rest of the proof is then nearly self-explanatory. In slight contrast to Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] we forbid the “hermaphrodite” [*indefinite schemes*]{} (allowing projective realizations of both types I/II) but rather imagine them as two superposed (but distinct) elements, with the dividing schemes (especially the blue rhombs on Fig.\[Gudkov-contigBIS:fig\]) levitating slightly above the sheet of paper of that figure. By Nikulin’s theorem 1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80] those combinatorial symbols (with levitating twins above the blue-rhombs) are in one-to-one correspondence with the chambers past the discriminant. Now imagine on Fig.\[Gudkov-contigBIS:fig\] a sort of random flow moving downwards along the red-edges of that figure.
Let us be more precise. By a result of Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994 Prop.2.1, p.196] (based upon techniques used by Nikulin ()) [*each empty oval of a sextic can be contracted to a solitary node before disappearing in the blue sky*]{}. (An oval is said to be [*empty*]{} if it contains no oval in its interior.) Pick a curve in each chamber and pick two contractions (given by Itenberg) shrinking either an outer oval or an inner oval, provided both are available on the real scheme. If only inner or outer ovals are available, pick only one contraction. This can be visualized as a “random” vector field moving downward along the diagrammatic of Fig.\[Gudkov-contigBIS:fig\]. Each Itenberg contraction necessarily lands in type II (diasymmetric) chambers. Else if landing in an orthosymmetric (=dividing) chamber, then reading the Morse surgery backwards corrupts the Klein-Marin theorem (even in its weak original formulation of Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876], though the latter gave no proof but see (\[Klein-via-Ahlfors(Viro-Gabard):lem\]), or (\[Klein-Marin:lem\]), or the 1st hand source Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988]). Hence our random vector field has its “trajectories” ending on the bottom sheet of paper (as we imagine orthosymmetric chambers levitating somewhat above the sheet of paper, see again the blue-rhombs on Fig.\[Gudkov-contigBIS:fig\]). It is plain now that all diasymmetric chambers (green squares on Fig.\[Gudkov-contigBIS:fig\], plus those lying behind the blue rhombs) do occur as extremities of our vector field encoding the varied Itenberg contractions chosen. Interpreting this process backward-in-time proves “Klein-vache” in degree $6$. The proof is complete.
[*Insertion*]{} \[30.03.13\] It should be noted that Itenberg’s contraction theorem affords in degree 6 another proof (independent of total reality) of Rohlin’s maximality principle (in degree 6), at least if we take for granted the RKM-congruence (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]). This prompts another strategy toward Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (independent of total reality) and perhaps worth exploring further. Of course the hearth of the problem seems to be the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture for any empty oval (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]), but this does not seem to imply Rohlin’s maximality conjecture. In contrast to “Klein-vache” the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture is still open and certainly worth investigating further. It is also worth noting that at the earth of the above proof (\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\]) we have Itenberg’s contraction theorem. Thus roughly Itenberg implies Klein-vache, yet this is not the sole ingredient for otherwise in degree 8 Shustin’s disproof of Klein-vache would refute the contraction principle (which is still open in degree 8). So the above proof really uses more than just the contraction principle. In some sense it uses results by Nikulin but only as a mean to get Itenberg contractions. What looks more pivotal is the role of the Gudkov-Rohlin table. One may thus wonder if in degree 8, we can get sufficient grasp on the Gudkov-Rohlin table as to infer the logical move from the contraction principle to Klein-vache. If feasible, then Shustin’s disproof (1985) would refute the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture (1994) in degree 8. This scenario looks a priori quite likely and requires perhaps just completing the full diagrammatic of Hilbert’s 16th in degree 8, plus the extra-data of types. (This is perhaps available within the next decade, if we appreciated correctly the optimism of experts). Factually, the above proof can be summarized by saying “Itenberg contraction+Gudkov-Rohlin diagrammatic$\Rightarrow$Klein-vache”, yet without that it is crucial to have a bijection between typed-schemes and rigid-isotopy classes à la Nikulin. This correspondence being disrupted in degree 7 (and so probably 8) by Marin 1979 (cf. Fig.\[Marin:fig\]). Hence it seems likely that a completion of the Gudkov-Rohlin table in degree 8, will imply a refutation of the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture.
The above proof of Klein-vache (in degree 6) is quite attractive, but to be really sublime it should extend to higher orders. Several obstacles arise. First Itenberg’s contraction principle becomes conjectural for $m>6$ (compare Viro’s preface in the same volume). Next our argument rests on the deep combinatorial classification of Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], plus Nikulin’s rigid-isotopy classification via real schemes enriched by the type data (I/II). This ceases to be true for orders $m\ge 7$ (Marin 1979/80 [@Marin_1979], Fiedler 1982/83 [@Fiedler_1982/83-Pencil]). Thus the above proof looks jeopardized for higher orders. Of course, if one believes in Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin]), then “Klein-vache” is actually false when $m=8$. Historiographically, it is of course quite improbable that Klein’s (weak) intuition about “Klein-vache” was based upon the above procedure (Torelli for K3’s being needed by Nikulin), yet it is also not completely impossible that a more elementary proof than the one above exists (cf. optionally Sec.\[Klein-vache-proof:sec\]). At any rate Klein’s power of prediction via geometric intuition is once more quite amazing. More modestly, it should be stressed that Klein, interpreted in the lowbrow fashion, merely asserts that there is no topological obstacle toward implementing “Klein-vache”, yet he is prudent enough in not claiming this as a theorem (compare again Klein’s original Quote \[Klein\_1876-niemals-isolierte:quote\] which is beautifully ambiguous).
\[11.01.13\] A first natural question is whether Klein-vache implies the direct sense of Rohlin’s 1978 conjecture (i.e. “type I implies maximal”). In fact Klein-vache shows rather that if a scheme is not of type I (so contains a nondividing representative) then it is non-maximal. Paraphrasing, “type I is implied by maximal”. This is however the part of Rohlin’s conjecture that was refuted by Shustin 1985/85 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin]. So indirectly Shustin’s counterexample also destroys (the hard half of) Klein’s intuition (i.e. Klein-vache). Shustin’s result is somewhat stronger:
[(Shustin 1985)]{} \[Shustin:thm\] There exists a maximal scheme of degree $8$, which is of type II.
[(copied from the source)]{} Shustin proves first the following assertion.
There exists $(M-2)$-curves of degree $8$ with the schemes $10 \sqcup 1 \langle 1 \rangle
\sqcup 1 \langle 2 \rangle
\sqcup 1 \langle 4 \rangle$, and $6 \sqcup 1 \langle 2 \rangle \sqcup 1 \langle 4 \rangle \sqcup 1 \langle 5 \rangle$, in the notation of Viro (i.e. the notation $1 \langle k \rangle$ means one ovals enveloping directly $k$ empty ovals).
One starts with a certain quintic $C_5$ having controlled topology with respect to the $3$ axes (constructed in Polotovskii 1977 [@Polotovskii_1977/77]). Then applying a quadratic transformation gives a singular octic with “complicated” singularities. On dissipating such complicated singularities (Viro’s method 1980) one may create the 2 required schemes.
[*End of the proof of Theorem \[Shustin:thm\] (compare also Sec.\[Shustin-understood:sec\] for our slow assimilation of Shustin’s proof)*]{}. Applying a result of Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions], the $(M-2)$-schemes constructed above are of type II. It remains now to check that they are maximal.
[*Insertion*]{} \[31.03.13\].—The Euler-Ragsdale $\chi$ of the first scheme is $\chi=10+(1-1)+(1-2)+(1-4)=6$, while $k^2=16$. Hence Arnold’s congruence mod 4 (or the allied Rohlin’s formula) suffices to establish type II of the curve. For the second, $\chi
=6+(1-2)+(1-4)+(1-5)=-2$, and again Arnold/Rohlin suffices to show type II.
First Shustin says that the $(M-1)$-schemes obtained from them by addition of an oval (if they exist) are (always) of type II, referring to Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 point 3.2]. Needless to say, this is actually a trivial consequence of Klein’s congruence (1876) $r\equiv g+1 \pmod 2$. Yet more seriously it seems to me (Gabard) that we do not need only to know these schemes being of type II, but rather that they do not exist at all!? So in my opinion there may be a trivial misconception here? In fact we can apply the Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov congruence (Theorem \[Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov-cong:thm\]) for $(M-1)$-curves to all possible enlargements (cf. Sec.\[Degree8:sec\] for details) yet this fails prohibiting a specimen. Shustin’s argument looks uncomplete at this stage, or presumably rests on stronger obstructions used subconsciously by the author!?) (\[24.01.13\] Compare again Sec.\[Shustin-understood:sec\] for our assimilation of Shustin’s proof; what is required is a prohibition of Viro.)
Next Shustin argues that the $M$-schemes obtained from the given ones by the addition of two ovals are forbidden by the extremal comparison in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 point 1.3], and Viro 1980 [@Viro_1980-degree-7-8-and-Ragsdale Theorem 4].
[*Conclusion.*]{}—Beside Polotovskii 1977, Shustin’s result relies massively on Viro’s revolutionary technique of construction via dissipation of complicated singularities (which came to be known as “patchworking”). Yet the basic logics of Shustin’s reasoning looks a bit elusive and perhaps flawed. (\[24.01.13\] Not all, cf. again Sec.\[Shustin-understood:sec\].) Hence it is not clear to me if it really destroys the hard-half of Klein’s intuition (i.e. Conjecture \[Klein-1876:conj-noch-entwicklungsfahig\]).
Let us repeat once more the crucial quote of Klein 1876: [*Z. B. kann bei den Kurven der ersten Art durch allmähliches Ändern der Konstanten niemals eine isolierte reelle Doppeltangente neu enstehen, um dann einen $(C+1)$-ten Kurvenzug zu liefern; während die Kurven der zweiten Art in dieser Richtung nicht beschränkt sind. Die Kurven der zweiten Art sind sozusagen noch entwicklungsfähig, während es die Kurven der ersten Art nicht sind. Doch soll hier auf diese Verhähltnisse noch nicht näher eingegangen werden.*]{}
Translated in English (while adhering to Russian notation and jargon) gives something like:
[*For instance, for curves of type I an isolated solitary node can never rise as to produce a new real circuit through progressive variations of the coefficients; whereas curves of type II are not restricted in this way. Curves of type II are so-to-speak still developable, while those of the first type are not.*]{}
This demonstrates that Klein only cautiously asserted that curves of type II are not obstructed to acquire a solitary node, yet not claiming something so radical as our Conjecture \[Klein-1876:conj-noch-entwicklungsfahig\], albeit his second sentence goes closer to suggesting this interpretation. \[24.01.13\] At any rate this Ansatz of Klein turns out to be corrupted by Shustin’s article, relying heavily on the new prohibition detected by Viro (cf. again Sec.\[Shustin-understood:sec\] for our ultimate assimilation of this).
Degree 8: the Grand pyramid of Gizeh {#Degree8:sec}
------------------------------------
\[12.01.13\] Can we picture out the Gudkov-Rohlin pyramid in order 8? Since $m=8$ we have $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}=\frac{7\cdot
6}{2}=7\cdot 3=21$. So $M=g+1=22$. It is first quite easy to extend upwards the Gudkov symbols as to build a larger pyramid (Fig.\[Degree8:fig\]). Yet this contains only schemes with 1 (or less) nonempty oval. One can easily report the modulo 8 prohibitions coming from Gudkov-Rohlin, etc., as discussed in Sec.\[Gudkov-hypothesis:sec\].
-3.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.13\].—A naive trick is to think of the whole pyramid as fibred over the depicted one (Fig.\[Degree8:fig\]) which shows the range of $(\chi, r)$. So a basic procedure is to start from the given elementary configuration with symbol $\frac{x}{1}y$ and to make a menagerie of transfer of ovals conserving $\chi$. This involves a Bonsai-cutting art-form of the Hilbert tree. Yet this does not really solve our puzzle of making a good chart of all possible schemes in degree 8.
The others schemes having $\ge 2$ nonempty ovals are a bit messy to report. In particular it seems unrealistic willing to report all schemes on a single table! Should we try several charts, but then how to track their interrelations and overlaps? Can we split in several classes? Let us try to use the number $N$ of nonempty ovals as a splitting recipe.
$\bullet$ if $N=0$ we have the schemes $\ell$ ($0\le\ell\le 22$), so 23 schemes.
$\bullet$ if $N=1$ we have the schemes $\frac{k}{1}\ell$.
$\bullet$ if $N=2$ we have $\frac{k}{1}\frac{\ell}{1}m$ (if $m=0$ this is still pictured as the left semi-triangle, yet for larger $m$’s one must imagine several layers lying above the sheet of paper). Of course it may be assumed $k\ge \ell$.
$\bullet$ if $N=3$ we have $\frac{k}{1}\frac{\ell}{1}\frac{m}{1}n$
$\bullet$ if $N=4$ we have $\frac{k}{1}\frac{\ell}{1}\frac{m}{1}\frac{n}{1}o$, but using a pencil of conics we see that $o=0$, and that $k,\ell, m, n \le 1$ and so we have unique such scheme, namely 4 nests of depth 2.
$\bullet$ Schemes with $N\ge 5$ are prohibited by Bézout with conics.
Okay but all this is a bit overwhelming to depict (except if one is able to visualize a pyramid in 4D!). Yet we could ask if there is a reasonable classification of all schemes according to their 3 types (as did Rohlin 1978 for $m=6$). Apart from the obvious schemes of type I, and the natural consequences of Arnold-Rohlin, etc. giving a complete answer looks again a herculean effort. Incidentally, it is an open problem as still some few cases are resisting to the experts of Hilbert’s 16th.
Yet we can ask more specific questions like (as did Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin]) to corrupt one half of Rohlin’s maximality conjecture.
The trick is that under an enlargement of the scheme the number of nonempty ovals can only increase. So to see what lies above Shustin $(M-2)$-schemes with $N=3$, it is enough to contemplate the face of the pyramid with $N=3$, since $N=4$ is nearly empty.
Now writing one of Shustin’s scheme in Gudkov’s notation gives $\frac{4}{1}\frac{2}{1}\frac{1}{1}10$. Note that $\chi=p-n=(1-4)+(1-2)+(1-1)+(10)=+6=-2 \pmod 8$ so the Kharlamov-Marin congruence (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]) says nothing, but as observed above the more elementary Arnold congruence forces type II.
(Elementary B.A.-BA, hence skip).—To compute the value of $p-n$ (positive minus negative ovals also called even\[=pair in French\] and odds) one may use the trick of filling the ovals by an orientable membrane in ${\Bbb R}P^2$ bounding them in the obvious way, i.e. we take the interior of all the outer ovals, then remove the interior of the subsequent generation of ovals immediately nested inside, and aggregate again the inside of the next generation, etc. One has then the psychologically useful formula $p-n=\chi$, where $\chi$ is the Euler characteristic of this orientable planar membrane (which Möbius would call a reunion of binions, trinions, etc.)
Let us now examine the enlargements of Shustin’s scheme. First, we find four $(M-1)$-schemes ruling out those which are not Bézout permissible (cf. Fig.\[Shustin:fig\]). One of them $\frac{4}{1}\frac{2}{1}\frac{1}{1}11$ (framed on the figure) is not prohibited by the Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov-congruence $\chi=p-n\equiv k^2\pm 1 \pmod 8$ (Theorem \[Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov-cong:thm\]). Whether this scheme is actually realized is another question. If it is then Shustin’s result (1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin]) would be erroneous. \[\[24.01.13\] No sorry this is a misconception of Gabard, cf. Sec.\[Shustin-understood:sec\] for a clarification, but detailed right now for the impatient reader. The point is that if this $(M-1)$-scheme is realized, then it will be the counterexample to Rohlin (hence to Klein) for there is nothing above it by a Viro prohibition (stating that $M$-schemes of degree 8 have an odd content trough out, cf. (\[Viro-Fiedler-prohibition:thm\])). Further if it does not exist then the $(M-2)$-scheme $\frac{4}{1}\frac{2}{1}\frac{1}{1}10$ will be a counter-example to Rohlin’s conjecture, since it would be maximal but of type II. So we get the promised disproof of one-half of Rohlin and of Klein-vache, without having to know precisely what happens above Shustin’s $(M-2)$-scheme. As a matter of fact it seems, the first alternative correspond to reality, i.e. the $(M-1)$-scheme $\frac{4}{1}\frac{2}{1}\frac{1}{1}11$ is realized.\]
On reading again Shustin argument () he does not explain convincingly why this $(M-1)$-scheme enlarging his one does not exist algebraically, but merely notice that all $(M-1)$-schemes must be of type II (a triviality of course since Klein’s congruence $r\equiv g+1 \pmod 2$). So again I cannot follow Shustin’s reasoning, and perhaps it is not a serious torpedo against Rohlin’s maximality conjecture! Is there a flaw in this Shustin note???
-5pt0
-5pt0
Of course one can play the same game for the other scheme proposed by Shustin, namely $\frac{5}{1}\frac{4}{1}\frac{2}{1}6$, and we get the following Fig.\[Shustin2:fig\]. Alas again one larger $(M-1)$-scheme is not prohibited by Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Of course it can be the case that the $(M-1)$-scheme lying above Shustin’s scheme (we write in the singular as we fix attention to one of his scheme) can be prohibited by a stronger prohibition that Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov, which Shustin might have used subconsciously. Yet with what is written down in the article I could not verify his argument. So perhaps “Klein-vache” is still true (cf. Conjecture \[Klein-1876:conj-noch-entwicklungsfahig\]). In fact Shustin’s paper is the only (published) obstruction I am aware of against Klein’s intuition.
\[15.01.13\] Idea to explore (but skip as it leads nowhere \[02.04.13\]).—Maybe Shustin used subconsciously some inequalities stronger than the congruences, perhaps those à la Ragsdale-Petrovskii. (Those are discussed in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.87].) Let us try the Ragsdale conjecture. It states $$p\le \frac{3}{2} k(k-1)+1.$$ Rohlin asserts () that the first chance of refuting this inequality is the case $m=10$ (cf. indeed the breakthrough of Itenberg-Viro of Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]). So Ragsdale should be true for $m=8$ (despite having been subsequently disproved by Itenberg via Viro’s patchwork of a variant thereof (again Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]). Calculating on the first Shustin’s enlarged $(M-1)$-scheme we find $p=3+11=14$ versus $\frac{3}{2} k(k-1)+1=\frac{3}{2}
4(4-1)+1=2\cdot 9+1=19$. So Miss Ragsdale is far from violated.
Another idea would be to use a pencil of cubics through some deep ovals of the enlarged $(M-1)$-schemes. Yet some easy counting shows that we may force 22 real intersection by taking a connected cubics through 8 basepoints specified inside the deep ovals, but this not enough to overwhelm Bézout accepting $3\cdot 8=24$ intersections.
Finally understanding Shustin’s argument (with the help of Orevkov’s letter) {#Shustin-understood:sec}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[24.01.13\] Thanks to a letter of Stepa Orevkov, and a survey of Viro 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1126], we learned the presence of new Bézout-like prohibitions on $M$-schemes derived in Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions]. Those have the special feature of not being of topological origins, but rather algebro-geometric. (This also enabled Viro in 1979 to complete the (soft) isotopic classification of septics solving thereby the next case of Hilbert’s 16th, compare e.g. Viro 1989 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1124].)
Here is the relevant Viro’s result of which we actually just need the first clause (transcribed in conservative Gudkov’s notation, having in our opinion a slight advantage of compactness when it comes to put the symbols on a pyramid):
[(Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions])]{} \[Viro-Fiedler-prohibition:thm\]
$\bullet$ ($M$)—If $
\frac{\alpha}{1}\frac{\beta}{1}\frac{\gamma}{1} \delta$ is the real scheme of an $M$-curve of degree $8$ with $\alpha, \beta$ and $\gamma$ nonzero, then $\alpha, \beta$ and $\gamma$ are odd.
$\bullet$ ($M-2$)—If $
\frac{\alpha}{1}\frac{\beta}{1}\frac{\gamma}{1} \delta$ is the real scheme of an $(M-2)$-curve of degree $8$ with $\alpha, \beta$ and $\gamma$ nonzero and with $\alpha+\beta+\gamma\equiv 0 \pmod
4$, then two of the numbers $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are odd and one is even.
—\[25.01.13\] We postpone the proof to a latter occasion, and merely reproduce now the remark to be found in Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions p.416]: “The special case of Theorem 2.2.E when $\delta=0$ and $\beta=1$ is due to Fiedler \[11\](=Fiedler 1982/83 [@Fiedler_1982/83-Pencil]). Theorem 2.2E was stated as a conjecture by A.B. Korchagin in connection with my results on realization of the real schemes of $M$-curves of degree $8$. The theorem rules out $40$ real schemes which are not ruled out by Theorems 2.2.A–2.2.D (of these forty, four are ruled out by the special case of Theorem 2.2.E which was proved by Fiedler).”
The proof is completed on p.422 of Viro’s text. It starts as follows: Let $C=C_8$ denote a smooth octic with real scheme $\la
\alpha \vc 1\la \beta\ra \vc 1 \la \gamma\ra \vc 1\la \delta \ra
\ra$, where $\beta, \gamma$ and $\delta$ are nonzero. The crucial result is Theorem 4.2 in Viro, which itself is based upon Fiedler. So the proof looks too technical to be reproduced here. A self-contained account encompassing Fiedler and Viro’s article would require several pages, and we postpone this to a future occasion.
One may wonder if the special case implemented by Fiedler does not suffice actually to corrupt “Klein-vache”, i.e. Klein’s Ansatz that nondividing curve can bubble out a new solitary node out of the blue sky. However Fiedler’s result prohibit only the scheme $
\la 1 \la 1\ra \vc 1 \la \alpha \ra \vc 1\la \beta\ra \ra$ with even nonzero $\alpha$ and $\beta$ (cf. e.g. Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions p.420]), and a priori this is not enough to prohibit the enlargeability of some suitably chosen $(M-1)$-scheme (compare e.g. the constructions proposed by Orevkov in the next Sec.\[Orevkov:sec\]).
The first assertion prohibits the remaining $M$-scheme of Fig.\[Shustin:fig\].
As to the second clause of (\[Viro-Fiedler-prohibition:thm\]) pertaining to $(M-2)$-schemes, I do not know what to do with it. At this stage I read again Orevkov’s letter (cf. Sec. \[e-mail-Viro:sec\]), which I have some pain to interpret properly. Let us reproduce it right below for convenience, while adding some brackets of mine.
Before completing this reading, I finally understood Shustin’s argument. The point is that whether or not the $(M-1)$-scheme (framed on Fig.\[Shustin:fig\]) exists do not matter. Indeed if it does exist (algebraically) then it is of type II (by Klein’s trivial congruence) and maximal (by Viro’s prohibition in the above theorem), whereas if does not exist then Shustin’s $(M-2)$-scheme is maximal but of type II, by construction (or by Arnold). So in both cases Rohlin’s reverse implication “type I$\Leftarrow $ maximal” is foiled.
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.13\].—Of course it would be interesting to know if Shustin’s $(M-1)$-scheme enlargement do exist (algebraically), i.e. the scheme $\frac{4}{1}\frac{2}{1}\frac{1}{1}11$. If I interpret correctly the letter below of Orevkov (while removing a little misprint from it, namely trading the “11” for a “10”), it seems that the $(M-1)$-scheme written above is realized algebraically.
Stepa Orevkov’s letter {#Orevkov:sec}
----------------------
We now reproduce Orevkov’s letter (brackets=\[ \], are our additions):
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ \[16.01.13–14h56: Stepa Orevkov\]
A small remark:
It is wrong that $11 \cup 1\langle 1\rangle \cup 1\langle
2\rangle \cup 1\langle 4\rangle $ is not a part of an $(M-1)$-scheme. It is. \[Not clear how to interpret this? Does it mean that Shustin’s claim is wrong, or simply that this scheme is an $(M-1)$-scheme. My question was whether this $(M-1)$-scheme is realized algebraically, of course. Yet, I admit that my question was a bit ill posed. In fact I wonder if Orevkov not intended to write a “10” instead of the above eleven.\] Moreover, there is no known example of $(M-2)$-curve of type II which cannot be obtained from an $(M-1)$-curve by removing an empty oval. \[So Klein looks still plausible for $(M-2)$-schemes, while Shustin looks wrong. No sorry, in fact I misunderstood Shustin for a long time, as he does not claim that the framed $(M-1)$-scheme does not exist.\]
In contrary, there are $(M-1)$-curves of degree $8$ (which are necessarily of type II) which do not come from any $M$-curve. These are[^45]:
$3\langle 6\rangle $[^46]
$4 \cup 1\langle 2\rangle \cup 2\langle 6\rangle $
$8 \cup 2\langle 2\rangle \cup 1\langle 6\rangle $
$12 \cup 3\langle 2\rangle $
Construction (inspired by Shustin’s construction of $4 \cup
3\langle 5\rangle $ \[should locate the reference\]):
Consider a tricuspidal quartic $Q_{sing}$ symmetric by a rotation $R$ by $120$ degree and perturb is\[=it\] so that each cusp gives an oval (we assume that this perturbation is very small). Let $Q$ be the perturbed curve. Two flex points appear on $Q$ near each cusp of $Q_{sing}$. We chose flex points $p_0, p_1, p_2$ (one flex point near each cusp) so that $R(p_0)=p_1, R(p_1)=p_2,
R(p_2)=p_0$. We choose homogeneous coordinates $(x_0 : x_1 : x_2)$ so that the line $x_i = 0$ is tangent to $Q$ at $p_i$ $(i =
0,1,2)$.
Let $C$ be the image of $Q$ under the Cremona transformation $(x_0
: x_1 : x_2) \mapsto (x_1x_2 : x_2x_0 : x_0x_1)$. Then $C$ has 3 singular points, each singular point has two irreducible local branches: a branch with $E6$ and a smooth branch which cuts it “transversally”. By a perturbation of $C$ we obtain all the four curves mentioned above.
The fact that these curves cannot be obtained from $M$-curves immediately follows from the fact that, for any $M$-curve of degree 8 of the form $b \cup 1\langle a_1\rangle \cup 1\langle
a_2\rangle \cup 1\langle a_3\rangle $, all the numbers $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ are odd[^47].
Best regards Stepa O
This letter helped me much to understand finally Shustin’s proof, and is of course worth studying for its own (especially to make a picture of it). It gives another counterexample to Rohlin’s maximality conjecture, hence to Klein’s Ansatz of champagne bubbling nondividing curves.
\[25.01.13\] Now here is an attempt to vizualize Orevkov’s example. As he said we start with a tricuspidal quartic. This is known since time immemorial (maybe Euler 1745, Steiner 1857, cf. e.g. Briekorn-Knörrer 1981/86 [@Brieskorn-Knörrer_1981/1986 p.32] where it is described as a hypocycloid, cf. also Lawrence p.135, where it is called the Deltoid). This being given we smooth out the cusps to create some little ovals. I presume this can be done by hand, otherwise there is a theorem of Gudkov 1962 [@Gudkov_1962] extending to cusps that of Brusotti 1921. The more difficult task is to understand what happens under the Cremona transformation. Here I was much aided by the prototype of Gudkov’s example (cf. Sec.\[Gudkov:sec\]), which is the first place where Cremona maps were applied to topology of real varieties. Remind that Orevkov’s example, is inspired from Shustin, himself being a direct student of Gudkov.
So the first steps are fairly easy (say classical for Gudkov’s era), yet it took me some times to trace appropriately the Cremona transform of the $C_4$. I hope my picture is correct (ask Orevkov if needed)? It is imagined (I presume) that (like in Gudkov’s construction, cf. again Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\]) the flecnodal tangent is slightly perturbed to become transverse to the $C_4$. This implies then the funny behaviour “forth-back-and-forth” of the image $C_8$ at the place $1$, say. So there is an octic as depicted. To trace the picture it is useful to keep in mind that the Cremona map takes edges of the fundamental triangle to the opposite vertices of the triangle, while preserving the 4 residual component of the triangle.
-3.7cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
Now we arrive at the hard step, namely the dissipation of such singularities. Here comes the contribution of Viro (if we do not misunderstood history). As explained say in Viro 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1111–12], there is a myriad of high order singularity, and one would like to understand their dissipation. The singularity at hand in our case has 4 branches, while 3 of them have a second order contact (tangency) at the singular point. For this specific singularity, he quotes Korchagin (1988). So we have a table of possible template of dissipation, which may be locally glued in place of the singularity (exactly as in Brusotti’s method of small perturbation which amounts to the simplest singularity “$A_1$”).
Substituting one of this template, one may hope to find the schemes announced in Orevkov’s letter. Yet, it must be hoped that I use the right singularity (???, their naming being non-canonical apparently?), and as yet I failed
Worse if we take $\alpha=5$ and $\beta=1$ and the very first dissipation of Viro’s picture (right of Fig.\[Orevkov2:fig\]) (which is permissible in view of the congruence mod 4), then we get a curve with $18+3+3=24$ ovals violating frankly Harnack’s bound $M=g+1=(7\cdot 6/2)+1=21+1=22$. I got something wrong!!!
\[26.01.13\] Another explanation could be that for higher singularities there is no analog of Brusotti’s theorem on the independence of simplification. The latter is brilliantly explained in Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74], as reducing ultimately to Riemann-Roch, but also a theorem of Max Noether, and even special series. Note that in this passage of Gudkov, he seems to be not completely up-to-date with the problem of special series on curves, as was solved by Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960] in the special case of pencils, and by Kempf 1971 [@Kempf_1971], and Kleiman-Laksov 1972 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1972] independently in the early 1970’s.
Mistrusting Shustin 1985, while trying to prove “Klein-vache” 1876 (via Garsia-Rüedy or vanishing cycles à la Poincaré-Severi-Lefschetz-Deligne-Mumford, etc.) {#Klein-vache-proof:sec}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[06.03.13\] All of our (initial) mistrusting of Shustin’s proof is not really justified anymore, being in part clarified above (Sec.\[Shustin-understood:sec\]) modulo assimilation of the Viro-Fiedler advanced Bézout-style prohibition (\[Viro-Fiedler-prohibition:thm\]). Hence the sequel has to be read with suitable discernment, but was not completely censured as it may contains geometric ideas worth exploring further, and other issues of independent interest.
\[13.01.13\] Could it be that Shustin 1985 was wrong, while Klein 1876 is correct!? If so how to prove Klein-vache (\[Klein-1876:conj-noch-entwicklungsfahig\])? Of course this amounts to an amazing topological flexibility of Riemann surfaces as flying-saucers moving in the Plato cavern of plane projective geometry, where smooth curves are known to have “particular” moduli. More concretely one could imagine that this is always possible via pure Anschauung, namely the process dual to the subsequent Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\](left) read in reversed time. One would take a (globally) invariant cycle (=circle) traced on the diasymmetric surface which is however acted upon without fixed point by the symmetry (antipodal map on the circle). Such circles deserve a name:
\[antioval:def\] [An [*antioval*]{} of a symmetric (Riemann) surface is a topological circle traced on the surface invariant under the involution and acted upon antipodically by the symmetry.]{}
First, note as a trivial topological issue, the following.
\[antioval:lem\] Antiovals only exist on diasymmetric surfaces, all of them admitting one.
Assume the surface orthosymmetric (i.e. dividing) and containing an antioval. By definition an antioval lacks real points, being acted upon antipodically (by Galois). Take one point of the antioval and its conjugate (which is distinct) and look at an arc of the antioval linking $p$ to $p^\sigma$. This arc is in the imaginary locus, yet connects two conjugate points, violating the orthosymmetry assumption.
Conversely suppose given a diasymmetric surface $(S, \sigma)$, hence the quotient $S/\sigma$ is non-orientable. Choose a loop reversing the indicatrix (local orientation) and avoiding the boundary of $S/\sigma$. The counter-image of this circle in $S$ gives a circle $C$, since the orientation reversing loop lifts to an arc via the quotient map which is a genuine double cover outside the boundary (alias contour by analysts). Since the symmetric surface is recovered from the quotient via the orientation cover (Klein-Weichold yoga), the circle $C$ is the desired antioval.
By Klein 1876 (and Riemann), the number $r$ of ovals (better real circuits) is bounded by $r\le g+1$ (so-called Harnack bound, under the supervision of Klein who found a more intrinsic reason). It is natural asking about a similar bound for antiovals. The antipodal sphere $S^2$ shows that each great circle is an antioval, whence an infinity of such. Consider next an antipodal torus of revolution in 3-space invariant under rotation about the $z$-axis and acted upon by central symmetry $(x,y,z)\mapsto (-x,-y,-z)$. We see 2 evident antiovals by sectioning with the horizontal plane $z=0$ (Fig.\[Antioval-torus:fig\]a).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Varying the slope of this plane gives an infinitude of antiovals until we reach the critical tangent plane (Fig.\[Antioval-torus:fig\]b) after which the 2 ovals are not nested anymore. The argument certainly generalizes to any genus upon placing some symmetric pretzels in 3-space. So any diasymmetric surface without fixed points has infinitely many antiovals. In fact the above proof (part 2) shows that infinitude is a general feature without resorting to a Euclidean realization of Klein’s symmetric surfaces.
After this topological triviality let us try to attack Conjecture \[Klein-1876:conj-noch-entwicklungsfahig\], i.e. “Klein-vache” (allusion to Lefschetz’ vache coined by Grothendieck? Weil? and used by Deligne, etc.) The idea we try to exploit (but we are unable to complete the argument) involves another crazy intuition of Klein validated by Garsia-Rüedy building over works by Teichmüller, namely the fact that any Riemann surface admits a Euclidean realization in 3-space.
Suppose given a diasymmetric (real) plane curve $C_m$ of (arbitrary) degree $m$. We may as usual look at the underlying Riemann surface. According to Klein’s intuition (validated by Garsia and Rüedy, building over a contribution of Teichmüller) we know that all closed Riemann surfaces admit a conformal model in Euclidean $3$-space. Let us dream that this adapts as well in some equivariant form for symmetric surfaces (with an anticonformal involution).
Note en passant: of course closed non-orientable surfaces do not embedded in $E^3$ (Euclidean $3$-space), but if bordered they do. So the only boring diasymmetric surfaces are the invisible ones (no fixed points) but those luckily enough admit a centrally symmetric model in $E^3$.
Choose a conformal model of $C_m({\Bbb C})$ in $E^3$ supplied by Garsia-Rüedy. By the lemma we know that there is an antioval on the diasymmetric surface. Shrink the latter to a point via a (plastical) deformation in $E^3$ akin to Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\](left) read in reverse sense.
Note at this stage that not all antiovals pinch to a “connected” surface (e.g. a pretzel of genus 2 with a belt dividing into two pieces). So even the topological aspect deserves to be precised, by looking at “good” (i.e. nondividing antiovals). Let us assume that those always exists.
Next look at our isotopic deformation in $E^3$ to a pinched pretzel, generating a one-parameter family of Riemann surfaces. The difficulty is to ensure that they stay planar (embeddable in ${\Bbb P}^2$) during the deformation. This looks a priori quite implausible, but we have not yet exploited the full punch of Garsia-Rüedy. Their result states that all Riemann surfaces arise in the tubular vicinity of any classical surface in $E^3$ via a normal deformation of arbitrarily small amplitude. Picturesquely, if you have any old woman(=Riemann) surface, but feel erotically bored by her due to an acute case of cellulitis just let vibrate her skin to get any girl you ever dreamed about. In the oldest lady hides any beautified young girl with taught epiderm, at least so conformally! So there is some chance that even if our initial plastical shrink deviate outside the realm of plane curves (seen as a stratum $\Pi$ in the moduli space ${\cal M}_g$, where $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}$) we can still rectify the trajectory so as to stay scotched along the planarity manifold $\Pi$ (for each time). We get so an “abstract isotopy”, i.e. a path in $\Pi$ the planarity manifold.
Next we have a canonical map $\vert mH \vert-\disc \to \Pi \subset
{\cal M}_g$ from the space of smooth curves of order $m$ to the moduli space ($\disc$ being the discriminant hypersurface). It should be easy to lift our abstract isotopy to $\vert m H \vert$ while having only the extremity ending in $\disc$ (necessarily at a solitary node by construction). Then one continues by letting emerge an oval. If all this is feasible (taking further better care of the involution) then Garsia-Rüedy implies “Klein-vache”.
Perhaps the above strategy requires to be adapted in $E^4$ to gain more flexibility and more care about the symmetry. Also if the Garsia-Rüedy trick in $E^3$ is not best suited to the problem at hand, a more direct approach could be to stay in ${\Bbb
C}P^2$. Recall indeed that Ko 2001 [@Ko_2001] has a fairly general extension of the theorem to any ambient Riemannian manifold. Alternatively more classic algebro-geometric methods (Severi’s Anhang F, etc., e.g. as modernized by Harris, etc.) are perhaps quite likely to imply “Klein-vache” if such methods of degeneration adapt to the reality context (equivariance w.r.t. Galois which is quite a rule when pure synthetic geometry is involved). But I must seriously refresh my memory on those works.
Another tactic toward “Klein-vache” via Itenberg-Viro suggesting a general evanescence principle
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[14.01.13\] Is there a relation between “Klein-vache” and the natural Itenberg-Viro conjecture (cf. Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994], and the preface of that volume by Viro) positing that:
\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\] [(Itenberg-Viro 1994, abridged CC=contraction conjecture).]{}—Any empty oval of a (real, smooth) plane curve can be contracted to a point (solitary node) via a rigid-isotopy.
[*Historical note*]{} \[04.04.13\].—In Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet] (p.176 in the pagination of Ges. Math.Abh. 1922 [@Klein-Werke-II_1922]) there is discussed what he calls the “Doppelpunktsmethode” amounting essentially to contract any symmetry-line of the Riemann surface. This seems to anticipate the Itenberg-Viro contraction principle. It is not clear however that Klein ever formulated something as precise as the above conjecture (specific to plane curves). On p.176–177, Klein’s prose extracted from its context sounds a bit overoptimistic, namely: “Bei allen anderen Fällen hat die Durchführung des genannten Prozesses und damit die Zusammenziehung eines beliebiegen Ovals der Kurve zu einem isolierten Doppelpunkte keine Schwierigkeit.” This seems to trivialize the Itenberg-Viro conjecture but probably does not because Klein thinks really with abstract Riemann surfaces where there is much more flexibility than with plane curves. However it is not impossible that refining Klein’s argument/ideas could prove CC, but it is also quite likely that CC is false.
At first sight one may expect a direct logical subsuming of “Klein-vache” to “Itenberg-Viro’s contraction conjecture”. However some moment thought shows that there is no such direct “rapport de force”, i.e. “Klein-vache” is not implied, nor does it imply, the Itenberg-Viro contraction of empty ovals. However Prop. \[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\] gives a logical subordination of Klein-vache to the contraction principle in presence of additional combinatorial knowledge available in degree $6$. Via Nikulin’s theorem (\[Nikulin:thm\]) on the rigid-isotopy classification of sextics it is nearly evident that Conjecture \[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\] holds true for sextics. This is actually the object of Itenberg’s article just cited.
[*Insertion*]{} \[31.03.13\] In view of Viro’s isotopy classification in degree 7, and the philosophy that contraction plus combinatorial knowledge implies Klein-vache, one can also wonder if Klein-vache holds true in degree 7. Alas we lack a tool like K3’s in degree 7, and so the situation is somewhat obscure in degree 7. Possibly, Shustin’s disproof of Klein-vache descends from degree 8 to 7, and then maybe that the contraction principle is already disrupted in degree 7. Recall, that presently the contraction principle is wide open in degree 8, yet perhaps disprovable via Shustin (and a completed classification).
The true relationship between “Klein-vache” and Itenberg-Viro contraction hypothesis (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]) could be rather an analogy in the principle of proof that one might naively develop, namely the possibility of shrinking a cycle invariant under Galois(=complex conjugation). Indeed “Klein-vache” amounts essentially to shrink an antioval (cf. Def. \[antioval:def\]), whereas Itenberg-Viro amounts shrinking an empty oval.
Hence it may be suspected that there is a general strangulation principle specializing to both “Klein-vache” and “Itenberg-Viro” stipulating the following:
[(Shrinking principle)]{} \[shrinking-principle-vague:conj\] Any (Galois) invariant cycle(=circle) on a smooth plane curve of degree $m$ can be strangulated through a path in the hyperspace of curves crossing only once the discriminant at a smooth point of the latter (whenever there is no topological obstruction to do so).
The parenthetical proviso is required, for one cannot shrink a nonempty oval without shrinking all its inner ovals, creating thereby a singularity of higher complexity than nodal. The proof of (\[shrinking-principle-vague:conj\]) could be similar to the eclectic one sketched for “Klein-vache” in the previous section, i.e. either via Garsia-Rüedy (hence Teichmüller theoretic) or algebro-geometric via vanishing cycles à la Poincaré-Picard-Lefschetz-Severi, etc.
Let us examine the combinatorial possibilities for such a Galois-cycle. Being (by definition) invariant under complex conjugation $\sigma$, it can either be:
\(1) an oval (pointwise fixed by the Galois-Klein symmetry $\sigma$);
\(2) an antioval or dia-oval (acted upon antipodically by $\sigma$);
\(3) a pseudo-oval or ortho-oval (acted upon by $\sigma$ with two fixed points, hence like $(x,y)\mapsto (x,-y)$ on $S^1=\{x^2+y^2=+1\}$).
Our terminology ortho- and dia-oval is directly inspired by the figure of Klein 1892 (reproduced in our Quote \[quote:Klein-1891/92-ortho/dia\]), where given a circle and a point outside it one considers the involution of $S^1$ exchanging the 2 intersections of each line of the pencil. When the point lies inside the circle we get a diasymmetry (antipode like), while if it is outside an orthosymmetry (mirror with 2 fixed points).
Given a real curve (equivalently a symmetric Riemann surface in the sense of Klein), an oval exists except in the lowest diasymmetric case $r=0$ (of Klein’s classification). A dia-oval exists only in the diasymmetric case (Lemma \[antioval:lem\]). An ortho-oval can exist in both the dia- and orthosymmetric cases. An example of an ortho-oval is traced as the cycle $\beta$ on Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\].
Specializing the shrinking principle (\[shrinking-principle-vague:conj\]) to an oval implies the Itenberg-Viro contraction hypothesis (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]), to a dia-oval implies “Klein-vache” (\[Klein\_1876-niemals-isolierte:quote\]). Finally shrinking an ortho-oval leads to another natural:
Any two contiguous ovals can coalesce after crossing an ordinary node with real tangents.
[*Contiguous*]{} means here that both ovals can be joined in ${\Bbb R}P^2$ by an arc having only its extremities on the ovals. Two contiguous ovals can either be directly nested or unnested yet unseparated by a larger oval. One should not forget the possibility of a single oval subdividing himself. The latter operation is subsumed to no topological obstruction, except that one might enter in conflict with Bézout.
So we may dream of such an unifying principle explaining the perfect topological flexibility of “rigid-isotopies” permitted to traverse only once the discriminant transversally. In some sense (to be made precise) our shrinking conjecture asserts that any Galois-cycle shrinks provided there is no topological obstruction either in ${\Bbb R}P^2$ nor in the complex locus.
Alas our crude principle does not seem compatible with the:
\[Finashin-obstruction-to-coalesce-Harnack:lem\] [(Admitted, but not understood!, to whom is it due? Stated in Finashin 1996)]{} Harnack’s (sextic) scheme $\frac{1}{1}9$ can only degenerate toward the scheme $10$ by contraction of the inner oval, yet not by coalescence of the two nested ovals.
Cf. e.g. Finashin 1996 [@Finashin_1996 p.68, proof of Thm 6.2], who alas does not give a precise reference for this assertion.
So here we have a clear-cut example of a Galois-cycle (namely an ortho-oval) linking the inner oval with the nonempty one of Harnack’s curve (Fig.\[Finashin:fig\]), yet which cannot be shrunk.
Why is it so? Remember in contrast that the Gürtelkurve $C_4$ (quartic with 2 nested ovals) can see both its ovals coalesce (Fig.\[Finashin:fig\]). What is the difference between Zeuthen-Klein $C_4$ and Harnack’s $C_6$? If we take the pain of tracing the complex orientation (by Fiedler’s algorithm) we get the following pictures. It is seen that for the Gürtelkurve $C_4$ the complex orientation (in red-arrows) disagree from the orientation as the boundary of the annulus (grey-shaded), while for Harnack’s $C_6$ the ${\Bbb
C}$-orientation matches that as boundary of the ring. Could positive pairs of ovals be an obstruction to coalescence?
-5pt0
-5pt0
\[16.01.13\] As we said we may also take an ortho-oval cutting twice the same oval. Shrinking this would effect a (cellular) subdivision of the oval. A first example is a hyperbola pinching to a pair of lines to become another hyperbola. Projectively we have permanently a conic with a single oval, so there is no naive minded subdivision like that of a cell in the naive organical sense. Incidentally 2 ovals for a conic corrupt either Bézout or Harnack, especially in the formulation of Klein. Likewise the unique oval of a cubic (if available) cannot be subdivided (without corrupting either Bézout or Harnack-Klein $r\le g+1$). However an oval of a quartic can sometimes subdivides (cf. Fig.\[Subdivide:fig\]). (If this figure is realist it is tempting to create an octic by small perturbation with $16$ unnested oval, yet let us not be sidetracked by this.)
-5pt0
-5pt0
Visualizing the corresponding surgeries on the Riemann surface must be a pleasant exercise. If the curve is dividing (hence its Riemann surface orthosymmetric) then a subdivision is impossible without corrupting the strong form of Klein’s Ansatz proved by Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988].
It is still tempting to imagine an ortho-oval on a orthosymmetric curve, especially if it cuts only one oval. A myriad of choices are possible. Let us depict few of them. Fig.\[Orthoovals:fig\]a shows an ortho-oval dividing the surface. Hence when contracted we would get a reducible curve. As long as our naive picture (be it embedded or abstract) is respected this is incompatible with Bézout (or if you prefer the intersection theory of ${\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb C})$ whose generator $H$ of the second homology $H_2$ satisfy $H^2=+1$) unless both sides of the cycle $\beta$ have genus $0$. This proves the following lemma, whose significance is of course not confined to the case of real curves.
\[strangulation-impossible:lem\] A dividing cycle on a smooth plane curve $C_m$ of degree $m\ge 3$ cannot be strangulated by a rigid-isotopy crossing only once the discriminant.
By contradiction, assume strangulability possible along the given dividing cycle via a path of curves $(C_t)_{t\in [-1, +1]}$ starting from the given curve, i.e. $C_{-1}=C_m$ and so that only $C_0$ is singular and uninodal (smooth point of the discriminant). Denote by $S_t$ the corresponding Riemann surfaces, $S_t=C_t({\Bbb
C})$, where of course $S_0$ is mildly singular. Then the strangulated surface $S_0$ splits in two (smooth) orientable surfaces $S_1, S_2$ each porting a fundamental class $\sigma_i$ in $H_2({\Bbb C}P^2)\approx {\Bbb Z}$ ($i=0,1,2$). Hence we get in homology $\sigma_0=\sigma_1+\sigma_2$, and so taking respective degrees $m=m_0=m_1+m_2$, where $m_i=\deg \sigma_i$ (degree in the homological sense). The intersection $\sigma_1 \cdot \sigma_2$ computes as $m_1 \cdot m_2$, which have to be equal to $1$ (as the critical curve $C_0$ as just one normal crossing). It follows that $m_1=m_2=1$, violating the assumption $m\ge 3$.
The case $m=2$ is entirely different as a conic may degenerate to a pair of lines. The interesting option is to take a nondividing ortho-cycle $\beta$, as depicted on Fig.\[Orthoovals:fig\]b.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Let us now shrink such a nondividing cycle $\beta$ to a point getting something like Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\]b, which is a nodal curve (still irreducible, because its Riemann surface is connected). After the critical level we could expect to find Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\]d, but this is impossible for the genus drops by one (remind that all smooth curves of some fixed degree have the same genus, since on the complexes the discriminant does not disconnect having real codimension $2$). In fact as soon as the handle is strangulated by the vanishing cycle it reappears instantaneously as depicted on Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\]c. On meditating slightly this occurs like a twisting, compare the miniature figures below depicting the pre- and post critical levels near the singularity. During the twisting one see that the north hemisphere of the orthosymmetric surface is suddenly connected with the south hemisphere forcing the diasymmetric nature of the post critical curve. (All this phenomenology is of course allied to the name of Picard-Lefschetz and Dehn.)
-5pt0
-5pt0
Discovering eversions (Gabard 16.01.13, but surely in Möbius, von Staudt, Hilbert, Morosov, Gudkov, Kharlamov, Finashin, etc.) {#Eversion:sec}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[16.01.13\] How can this process (Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\]) occur at all if it is supposed to occur in the plane? In the naive Euclidean plane ${\Bbb R}^2$, any self-coalescence of a Jordan curve leads to a subdivision (compare the center of Fig.\[Klein-Marin:fig\] read backwardly) increasing the number of real circuits. However during our Riemann surface surgery (again Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\]) the number of real circuits is kept constant. Hence there seems to be a basic topological obstruction to our shrinking process, yet some more mature thinking shows this not to be the case. In reality we live in the projective plane ${\Bbb R} P^2$, so one oval may well expand “to infinity” to self-coalesce while keeping one component after having been “Morse surgered”. For varied depictions of this phenomenon, see Fig.\[Eversion:fig\] where as usual ${\Bbb R} P^2$ is depicted as a disc with contour antipodically identified.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Thus an oval can be Morse surgered without splitting off a new oval. Let us call this process [*eversion*]{}[^48] of an oval. Note that after the eversion all the inside of the oval appears suddenly outside of it! This basic phenomenon resolves several misconceptions or paradoxes that foiled for ca. 6 days my understanding of that theory, especially when it comes to a parity anomaly between the degree of the discriminant for sextics $3(m-1)^2=75$ and the legal moves in the Gudkov pyramid (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) encoding all real schemes combinatorially. If eversions are overlooked, the contiguity graph between chambers permits only closed circuits of even length, whereas by Bézout or Galois a generic pencil of sextics (defined of ${\Bbb R}$) has to cut an odd number of times the discriminant of degree 75. Nearly a contradiction in mathematics if eversion would not exist! Consequently,
\[eversion-deg-6-or-more-forced-by-loops:lem\] Any generic pencil of real curves of even order $m$ contains at least one eversion. At least this is clear for $m=4,6$, and hopefully correct in general.
(inserted \[01.04.13\], but contains a gap!) The discriminant has odd degree $3(m-1)^2$ when $m$ is even. Our pencil is generic in the sense of being transverse to the discriminant, hence induces a sequence of Morse surgeries. Those surgeries (if not “eversive”) can be visualized on the Gudkov table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) in degree 6 as moves along the lattice of red-rhombs which permits only closed pathes of even length, whence the assertion for $m=6$. In general we can introduce the invariants $(\chi, r)$ and notice that any Morse surgery which is not an eversion acts as one of the 4 transformations $(\chi, r)\mapsto ( \chi \pm 1, r \pm 1)$ where signs can be chosen independently. (Not all of them being possible as shown for $m=6$.) Alas this does not seem to be enough to conclude, because those sole invariants $(\chi, r)$ amounts to a planar projection of the whole pyramid (which in general is not a “planar” object say for $m=8$). So one really needs to understand the crystallography of higher pyramids which hopefully still contain merely loops of even length when eversions are omitted. Hopefully our lemma is still true (cf. maybe a related argument in Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000]).
Of course an oval belonging to a certain real scheme can be (topologically) everted iff it is [*maximal*]{} (i.e. not included in any larger oval). Let us consider some examples. Suppose the given scheme to be $\frac{1}{1} 9$, i.e. Harnack’s $M$-sextic. Then there are 10 maximal ovals available. Everting the unique nonempty oval of Harnack’s scheme gives Hilbert’s scheme $\frac{9}{1} 1$ (cf. Fig.\[Eversion2:fig\]), while everting of of the 9 outer ovals leads to a configuration which is not Bézout-tolerable. The net consequence is that in the hyperspace of all curves two schemes (better chambers) may be in reality much closer than they look far apart on Gudkov’s pyramid (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). There seems to be some secret passages permitting quick travelling in the pyramid. Of course whether Harnack’s chamber is really contiguous to that of Hilbert is another story! It would be fine so for them to sleep in good company, yet more mature thinking bring us back to the Riemann surface picture. The ortho-cycle effecting the strangulation is (since both are $M$-curves) necessarily dividing hence not strangulable by Lemma \[strangulation-impossible:lem\]. For instance one can imagine the top orthosymmetric surface with $r=g+1$ as the double of a planar domain $D$ (with $r$ contours). Suppose given on this an ortho-cycle $\beta$ meeting twice the same oval. The image of $\beta$ in one half (our plane domain) is an arc $\beta^{+}$ joining twice the same contour, and some moment thought shows that $\beta$ divides the surface. Indeed the arc $\beta^+$ can be completed to a Jordan curve in $D$ by aggregating an arc of the boundary and we apply Jordan. Better, argue that $\beta^+$ divides $D$ because we may shrink to a point the contour containing the extremities of $\beta^{+}$, and then apply Jordan separation. The separation effected by $\beta^+$ readily implies that by $\beta$. We have proven:
\[eversion-impossible-for-M-curves:lem\] An $M$-curve (of degree $m\ge 3$) cannot undergo an eversion (while crossing normally the discriminant). In particular Harnack’s chamber in the hyperspace of sextics is not contiguous to Hilbert’s.
If it could be everted, the corresponding path of curves would be materialized by the evanescence (strangulation) of an ortho-cycle $\beta$ cutting twice the same oval. But $M$-curves correspond to the top-orthosymmetric case with planar half. Thus by Jordan separation our cycle $\beta$ divides and therefore cannot be strangulated (by Lemma \[strangulation-impossible:lem\]).
-5pt0
-5pt0
One can imagine more complicated eversions of Harnack’s scheme (cf. bottom of Fig\[Eversion2:fig\]), yet the result is still the same. Everything depends merely on the oval being everted, for what was inside becomes outside and conversely. For instance Gudkov’s scheme $\frac{5}{1}5$ turns into itself under eversion of the nonempty oval, whereas everting a nonempty oval leads to a scheme enlarging $(1,1,1)$, the deep nest of depth 3, hence Bézout incompatible.
Is the Gudkov chamber self-contiguous to itself via an eversion? Again this is merely a topological possibility, but it requires a deeper investigation to see if it is really so. This would imply Gudkov’s chamber to be highly contorted like a banana-shaped, and it is quite likely that its closure is not simply-connected. However the lemma above (\[eversion-impossible-for-M-curves:lem\]) precludes a self-contiguity of the Gudkov chamber to itself.
The real option however is that there are two (non-maximal) chambers past the discriminant related by eversion, and actually we know this phenomenon to exist a priori in view of the degree argument of Lemma \[eversion-deg-6-or-more-forced-by-loops:lem\].
It seems of interest to understand the secrete passages between Gudkov symbols of Gudkov’s pyramid, at least those topologically permissible under eversion. For sextics we get the following enhancement of the Gudkov-Rohlin pyramid with curvilinear-edges amounting to the varied eversion (Fig.\[Gudkov-eversion:fig\]). Note that we may only evert the nonempty oval without corrupting Bézout (maximality of the deep nest $(1,1,1)$). The sole exception arise with the unnested schemes, plus the scheme $\frac{1}{1} {1}$ whose empty-oval eversion is precisely the deep nest, whereas the nonempty-oval eversion flips back the scheme to itself. We get something like the following messy picture (Fig.\[Gudkov-eversion:fig\]) attempting to keep track of all logically possible eversions.
-5pt0
-5pt0
The question is to decide which among those are effectively realized algebraically. We already know that those interconnecting $M$-schemes cannot be realized so due to a topological obstruction (Lemma \[eversion-impossible-for-M-curves:lem\]).
As usual blue-rhombs have to be duplicated according to their types and really correspond to 2 distinct chambers of the discriminant.
If a dividing curve (of degree $m\ge 3$) undergoes an eversion then the post-critical curve is nondividing.
Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\] nearly proves this via the occurrence of a Dehn-twist in the Picard-Lefschetz transformation. Again the proviso $m\ge 3$ is evident since Dehn twisting an equatorial sphere leads to the same equatorial sphere which is still orthosymmetric.
Incidentally this gives another proof of the impossibility of everting $M$-curves (Lemma \[eversion-impossible-for-M-curves:lem\]) since the latter are necessarily of type I (by Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876]).
[*Insertion*]{} \[01.04.13\] Moreover the lemma implies that both Rohlin’s chambers $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$ are not connected by an eversion, since those schemes are of type I (either by the RKM-congruence (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]) or via Rohlin’s (lost) proof of total reality via a pencil of cubics). Note here that the newly discovered version of Le Touzé is not strong enough for this purpose (as it uses RKM).
Thus if we imagine the type I chambers levitating somewhat higher than the sheet of paper, the eversion starting from a dividing chamber always moves down to the ground floor of the diagram. Can we conclude that conversely the diasymmetric type always rises up to orthosymmetric via eversion?
As already noticed, eversions are impossible for $M$-curves (except of course if $m=2$, i.e. conics). Thus the 2 top $M$-curves eversions are actually impracticable. Looking one stage lower at $(M-1)$-curves we see 3 eversions. Examining the corresponding Riemann surface, we can imagine something like Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\], i.e. an orthocycle cutting only one real circuit while Dehn twisting the handle it is strangulating. So the real picture is exactly the same as Fig.\[Orthoovals2:fig\] safe that one real circuit has to be imagined missing. It seems plain that the eversion will conserve the diasymmetric character. At this stage the problem becomes quite fascinating: for instance we could via eversion travel from $5_{II}$ to $\frac{4}{1}_{II}$ but not to $\frac{4}{1}_{I}$. Hence $\frac{4}{1}_{I}$ could not be everted to $5_{II}$. This anti-commutativity looks a bit puzzling, since any path can be travelled backwardly or forwardly. All this properly understood could help unravel the mystery allied to the break of symmetry prompted by Rohlin’s complex orientation formula, forbidding the scheme $5_{I}$. Despite this and other intricacies, it seems reasonable to put forward the:
\[eversion-and-other surgeries:conj\] All the red-edges of Fig.\[Gudkov-eversion:fig\] (except the top curvilinear ones linking $M$-curves, and the one linking the Rohlin’s $(M-2)$-schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$) can be realized by an eversion (crossing only once transversally the discriminant).
This would give a complete picture of the contiguity graph between chambers residual to the discriminant via elementary algebraic Morse surgeries. Nothing forbids that some edges actually correspond to various Morse surgeries, hence different wall crossings (e.g. coalescing two inner ovals amounts to coalesce one inner oval with the nonempty oval). Hence it is clear that our conjecture is only a crude approximation, for one might really want to catalogue all walls between chambers (including self-contiguous one) while describing the corresponding Morse surgeries. This number of walls is very likely to be much bigger than the number of edges depicted on Fig.\[Gudkov-eversion:fig\].
Modulo little adjustments about the combinatorics, such a spectacular result is perhaps not completely out of reach, as its proof could be akin to that implemented in Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994] for contracting empty ovals of sextics. (The latter implies our conjecture (\[eversion-and-other surgeries:conj\]) for all the [*straight*]{} edges.) The rough philosophy (at least for sextics) is that when there is no topological obstruction to shrink, one can strangulate in a rigid-isotopic way. However it is quite evident that there must be some extra obstruction, at least if Finashin’s claim (\[Finashin-obstruction-to-coalesce-Harnack:lem\]) that the schematic move $\frac{1}{1}9 \mapsto 10$ (from Harnack’s scheme to the configuration with 10 unnested ovals) can only be accomplished via contraction of the nested oval but not by its coalescence with the nonempty oval. Perhaps Finashin’s claim is merely subsumed to a topological obstruction, which we did not yet understood properly.
Strangulation principle (infarctus, etc.)
-----------------------------------------
\[27.03.13\] Infarctus=hearth-attack seems to be the generic mortality cause by geometers too much in love with their topis (Dirichlet, Gudkov, Rohlin, etc.)
\[18.01.13\] A message from Viro (16.01.13, cf. Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]) suggested us the following naive remark. Assume an oval (or a priori just a real circuit) to be contracted to a solitary node via a rigid-isotopy $C_t \in \vert m H \vert$ (having only one extremity in the smooth locus of the discriminant parametrized by uninodal curves). Call such a path a [*pseudo-isotopy*]{} for short. Of course our contraction supplies a homotopy shrinking the oval to a point, hence our circuit is null-homotopic in ${\Bbb R}P^2$ and so forced to be an oval. (By an extension of the theorem of Schoenflies ca. 1906 a Jordan curve in a surface is null-homotopic iff it bounds a disc; compare e.g. R. Baer 1928, Epstein 1966, or Gabard-Gauld 2011 [@Gabard-Gauld_2010-Jordan-and-Schoenflies], etc.)
The presence of this canonical bounding disc gives some evidence to the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture (IVO) of empty ovals, which supplies some membrane for the strangulation to occur.
[*Added in proof*]{} \[01.04.13\] If pessimistic, it may be also the case that the contraction conjecture is violently false (and perhaps deducible via Shustin 1985), along the line our Prop.\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\] which shows crudely that contraction plus classification implies Klein-vache.
Note at this stage that if there were some dividing plane curve with only one oval and of degree $m\ge 3$ then strangulating this oval would be impossible by Lemma \[strangulation-impossible:lem\]. Quite fortunately such curves do not exist by Rohlin’s inequality $r\ge m/2$ (\[Rohlin’s-inequality:cor\]).
So the contraction conjecture for empty ovals (CCEO) suggests perhaps having some bounding disc for a cycle to be strangulable, as to refine slightly the statement of the Shrinking principle (\[shrinking-principle-vague:conj\]):
[(Strangulation principle)]{} \[shrinking-principle:conj\] Any (Galois) invariant cycle (=circle) $\beta$ on a smooth plane curve $C$ of degree $m$ can be strangulated (through a path in the hyperspace of curves crossing only once the discriminant at a smooth point of the latter), whenever there exist in ${\Bbb C}P^2$ a smooth disc $D$ bounding $\beta$ which is invariant under complex conjugation, and intersects the complexification only along $\beta$ (i.e., $D\cap C({\Bbb
C})=\beta$). Say in this case that $\beta$ is fillable.
This is of course a true extension of (CCEO) perhaps susceptible to imply “Klein-vache”, i.e. any nondividing curve can acquire a solitary node by a pseudo-isotopy. Of course any nondividing curve admits an anti-oval (just lift an orientation reversing loop from the non-orientable quotient $C(\Bbb C)/\sigma$), but is another story to find one which is fillable. If so and if the above conjecture extending Itenberg-Viro’s conjecture is right we could deduce “Klein-vache”, which is however disproved in Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985].
If there is a filling disc $D$ then as it is invariant under conj=$\sigma$, we have an involution on the disc (so with a fixed point by Brouwer). In the case of an anti-oval acted upon by antipody, it seems that the involution has to act as an antipody on the whole disc. In general involutions on the disc are of 3 types (identity of order 1, orthosymmetry fixing a diameter, and antipody fixing the center). (This must be ex/implicit in work by Brouwer, Kerékjártó ca. 1914-1922.)
As argued by Viro’s e-mail, CCEO looks more natural that “Klein-vache” since the filling is virtually God-given, just taking the (sealed) inside of the oval. Yet perhaps this has some analog for an anti-oval in term of differential-geometric fillings, e.g. minimal surfaces in ${\Bbb C}P^2$ endowed with its “round” Fubini-Study metric coming from $S^5\to {\Bbb C}P^2$ (Hopf fibering).
One problem with anti-ovals is that there are plenty of them (not just finitely many like for ovals), and so one’s idea could be to select some preferred one, maybe as “the” systole. In the case of the diasymmetric sphere this is not enough to ensure finiteness, but perhaps suffices to single out some natural class of anti-ovals. Recall that systoles are geodesics, and so are usual ovals.
A recipe could be as follows: given a nondividing curve $C_m$ of some degree. Endow it with the natural Fubini-Study metric of ${\Bbb C}P^2$ to get a Riemannian metric on the Riemann surface $C_m(\Bbb C)$. Since the curve is diasymmetric it contains an antioval (invariant circle acted upon by antipody by $\sigma$). Hence by compactness there is also a such of minimal length, the so-called systole, not perfectly unique of course, but choose one such systolic antioval. Consider the latter as a circuit in the ambient ${\Bbb C}P^2$ and solve the Plateau problem for that contour, in its classical setting of soap films diffeomorphic to the disc. Plateau makes also sense for membranes of higher topological structure, but ignore them to stay closest to the Itenberg-Viro conjecture. Plateau is always soluble but the notorious difficulty is to ensure embeddedness of the solution. Perhaps this is true in $E^3$ and also in ${\Bbb C}P^2$ due to some simple-connectivity, or perhaps the special systolic properties of the boundary data. (\[21.01.13\] Beware that a minimal surface has vanishing mean curvature, while the natural Itenberg-Viro “reality” membrane is positively curved. But the former assertion is specific to $E^3$…)
2[${\Bbb C} P^2$]{}
As the given contour is invariant under $\sigma$ (an isometry of ${\Bbb C} P^2$) it is likely that Plateau’s solution enjoys a similar invariance, and we would be essentially finished (modulo the difficulties enumerated).
At this stage we would have a perfect analog of the bounding disc of Itenberg-Viro’s empty oval, via our Plateau filling of “the” systole realizing the anti-oval of shortest length. For the analogy to be perfect one should ensure that the Plateau film intersects the Riemann surface $C_m({\Bbb C})$ only along the contour (systolic anti-oval). This looks either hard or trivial. For instance recall (from Wirtinger, cf. also Mumford’s book [@Mumford_197X-BOOK-complex-alg-var]) that algebraic subvarieties of ${\Bbb C}P^n$ endowed with Fubini-Study are (precisely?) minimal surfaces. So there is perhaps some chance to prove disjointness. (If they intersect interiorly then try to build a canal surface by surgering a piece of $C_m({\Bbb C})$ to the Plateau film, trying so to violate its area minimization ….)
Maybe some interesting twist of Plateau’s problem is that one may be able to reconstruct the whole complex locus via Plateau if we are given only the real locus of the curve. Of course as there is now handles (except for $M$-curves) and several contours this will necessarily involve the so-called Plateau-Douglas problem permitting membranes of higher topological structure (than the disc). As hazardous as it is, this claim would perhaps only work for dividing curves.
Assume all this to work then we have a perfect analogy with Itenberg-Viro, but it is still not explained why the empty oval or our anti-ovals are strangulable via a pseudo-isotopy of algebraic character.
Naively from the given data consisting of minimal film bounding the cycle $\beta$ we can hope to shrink concentrically the disc (put via the Riemann mapping in conformal equivalence with the round disc) to its center. Solving the higher Plateau-Douglas problem for this shrinking contour gives a minimal surface (which by the converse of Wirtinger) would be an algebraic curve realizing the deformation we are looking for. Since this concentric shrinking respect the symmetry (of the round disc whatever its type, i.e. identity, antipodal diasymmetry or orthosymmetric mirror like $z\mapsto \bar z$), the given smaller contours are invariant under $\sigma$ in 2 and so we get real curves by solving Plateau-Douglas, and therefore the desired pseudo-isotopy from $C_m$ to a nodal curve (with a solitary point).
All this is a bit reminiscent of Riemann’s spirit (except for being of lesser vintage) yet dreaming like a canary is quite pleasant. The above strategy (with all its gaps) suggests even that in the Itenberg-Viro shrinking of an empty oval it could be arranged that the subsequent curves all have their ovals progressively shrinking inside the initial one. Whether this stronger conjecture has some chance to hold true is unknown to me.
The above argument suggests that a real algebraic curve should be reconstructible from a single oval. This is certainly true via something like the Nullstellensatz, yet the assertion that all this algebra can be supplanted by differential geometry à la Plateau looks a bit doubtful for we are not controlling the full contours of the membrane. Actually the dividing case looks psychologically more comfortable to a direct appeal of Plateau.
As “Klein-vache” is probably false (cf. Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin] and our partial discussion in Sec.\[Shustin-understood:sec\]), we shall from now on concentrate on the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture for empty ovals, which is still non refuted (hence more likely to be true) and easier technically due to the canonicalness of the film bounding the vanishing cycle.
So suppose given any empty oval of a smooth plane real algebraic curve. Goal: strangulate it algebraically via a pseudo-isotopy, i.e. a rigid-isotopy except for its extremity which is a solitary nodal curve. To the disc bounding the (marked) empty oval, apply the Riemann mapping theorem to take it conformally to the unit disc $\Delta:=\{z\in {\Bbb C}: \vert z\vert \le 1\}$ via a map $f\colon D\to\Delta$. This mapping is canonical up to conformal automorphism of the disc, hence unique once a center and a boundary point are chosen (variant choose $3$ boundary points). Consider the pullback $C_\rho:=f^{-1}(\Gamma_\rho)$ of the circles $\Gamma_\rho: \vert z\vert=\rho$ of radii $\rho$ ($0\le \rho\le
1$). Question: are those still algebraic ovals when $\rho<1$? In other words are the Riemann levels $C_\rho$ of an algebraic oval (which is empty) still algebraic curves (at least part thereof)? The truth of this assertion is of course a necessary condition for our above strategy of constructing the pseudo-isotopy via Plateau.
If the initial oval is a circle (or even an ellipse), algebraicity of the Riemann levels looks evident (at least classical I think). For the ellipse it could involve Schwarz’s explicit solution to the Riemann mapping.
Another idea: it would we nice if there is some flow effecting the contraction conjectured by Itenberg-Viro. One idea could be to take any empty oval, and look at its normal curvature flow à la Huisken. Usually this is presented in $E^2$ but there is surely a variant in $S^2$ the double cover of ${\Bbb R}P^2$ on which Fubini-Study induces the round metric (I think). Is it true that the normal curvature flow preserves algebraicity of ovals? If so, the flow would shrink one of the empty oval to a point (yet not necessarily one oval chosen in advance like by Itenberg-Viro), and perhaps it will shrink all ovals in some succession it is alone able to decide until all get shrunk. This could prove a weak form of the contraction conjecture.
Toward a naive dynamical treatment of the Itenberg-Viro conjecture {#CC-via-dynamics:sec}
------------------------------------------------------------------
\[18.01.13\] How large can an oval be? If we imagine a real projective curve as traced on the sphere $S^2$ we can wonder what the area or length of an oval can be. In degree 2 a quadratic cone can be as large as we please and so the inside area of the oval can be as close to $2\pi$ as we please, but of course not larger as its “twin” occupy the antipodal area of the sphere. If we restrict to even degrees then we have the Ragsdale orientable membrane bounding the ovals (that one with $\chi=p-n$). How large can its area be when lifted to $S^2$? For quartics and when $r=1$ we can enlarge the Fermat equation $x^4+y^4=+1$ as much as we want by taking $x^4+y^4=R^4$ which conserve the same shape (homothety), while covering more and more space of the sphere. So here the upper bound is again $4\pi$ (the full sphere). (We count now the full lift to $S^2$). But what about other quartics, e.g. the Gürtelkurve. Again we may imagine the latter just as a perturbation of two concentric circles. While the outer circle enlarges the inner contracts and so we get the Ragsdale membrane of nearly full area. It seems that there is little chance to find nontrivial upper bound. But what about an $M$-quartic with 4 ovals. How large can the area of its interior be? Again we can imagine a configuration of 2 transverses ellipses one very large but of small eccentricity and one fairly small but orthogonal and smooth it in the usual way to get 4 ovals; one very large and all 3 remaining fairly small. Expanding this at infinity shows that the Ragsdale membrane can cover nearly all the sphere and the upper bound is again $4\pi$. Such consideration could extend to all curves constructed say via Hilbert’s method. But how to treat the general case? At any rate to each rigid-isotopy class of curves we can consider the supremum of all areas of the corresponding Ragsdale membrane. Is this always equal to $4\pi$? Looking at the area of the Ragsdale membrane assigns to each curve a numerical value in $]0, 4\pi[$. Perhaps it is interesting to look at the orthogonal trajectories of this Ragsdale function? The allied gradient flow could provide a dynamical flow shrinking some empty ovals. There is plenty of other functionals perhaps better suited to a dynamical treatment of the Itenberg-Viro conjecture. For instance instead of Ragsdale area we could look at the [*empty area*]{} defined as the cumulated area of all empty ovals. Looking at the descending orthogonal trajectories of this function is likely to shrink ovals. Another choice is the function looking at the area of the smallest oval. Perhaps this has the drawback of lacking smoothness in case two ovals enter in competition for the infimum? Another strategy more suited to the Itenberg-Viro contraction problem is that we are given an empty oval, and during a rigid-isotopy we can follow him continuously. Hence given a curve with a marked empty oval we can define in the whole chamber residual to the discriminant (alias the rigid-isotopy class of the curve) the functional ascribing the area of the inside of this marked but moving oval. Of course when dragging the curve around a loop in its chamber the oval can be to another oval, so the function looks multivalued. Yet we get it single-valued on the space of curves with a marked oval. So the space of curves with a marked oval is actually an $r$ sheeted cover of the usual space of smooth curves (with $r$ variable on the different chambers of course).
As long as we keep the marked oval into view there is a way of steepest descent diminishing maximally the area of the oval. For this to make good sense we require orthogonal trajectories and so a metric on the space of all curves. The canonical choice seems to be the elliptic geometry on $\vert m H \vert \approx {\Bbb
P}^N({\Bbb R})$ the space of coefficients double covered by the round sphere $S^N$.
Now follow the corresponding trajectory of steepest descent. What can happen? By construction our marked oval will decrease in area, but will it docilely shrink to a point? Here are some evident difficulties (D.$n$, $n=1,2,\dots$)
(D.1) [*Wrong attractor (stable equilibrium).*]{} First one can imagine that our function as a sink trapping us into some “depression” like the basin of a lake yet not at zero altitude (e.g. lake Baikal). Then our motion stops and the goal fails blatantly, having only reached an algebraic curve realizing a local minimum of the area yet still positive. Perhaps some clever argument precludes such depression (e.g. if our functional turned out to be harmonic by some miracle?)
(D.2) [*Saddles points (unstable equilibrium).*]{} We may of course also reach something like a saddle point, where we need then to choose quite randomly one of the two (or more if not Morse) way of steepest descent. Generically up to perturbing the initial curve, we can avoid such accidents.
(D.3) [*Controlling the limit.*]{} Hence let us assume that the area shrinks to zero (assuming (D.1) to have been overcome). Naively one can imagine the oval shrinking to a complicated dendrite (though Bézout unlikely) or to a segment (again algebro-geometrically improbable). The sole possible limit seems to be a point. (This seems an easy task via implicit function theorem, Bézout, etc.)
(D.4) [*Choosing the right functional (i.e. arranging a “convex” or “harmonic” landscape).*]{} We have as yet only considered the area functional yet the length functional looks nearly as appropriate or better? Or even one could use a mixture of both like the isoperimetric ratio. Note that nearby a solitary node the behavior become nearly circular or at least elliptical like in the local model $x^2+y^2=\varepsilon^2$ or $ax^2+by^2 =
\varepsilon^2$ with $\varepsilon \to 0$.
Among all difficulties the most stringent seems to be (D.1) which of course as to be settled by playing with (D.4), i.e. choice of the functional. To settle (D.1) it is enough showing that nearby all curves there is one of smaller “energy”. For the area functional one could imagine an oscillation by perturbing slightly like in the Harnack-Hilbert method our marked oval by a collection of $m$ lines. Alas it result a vibration of the oval slaloming across its initial position so it is not obvious how to decrease area. So to impede getting blocked by (D.1) we are reduced to the “local” problem of finding an appropriate function which can always be decreased by small (algebraic) perturbations. What about the total curvature of the oval (or the inverse thereof as to go to zero for a shrinking circle), etc. If we work with area functional and if the oval is nearly circular, we can plug in it a smaller circle and taking this equation $k$ times (assume $m=2k$ even for simplicity). Perturbing the curve along this multiple circle may decrease area. This is of course just a very special case. It seems to apply to the case when the curve is a deep nest in which case the innermost (=empty) oval as to be “convex” (else Bézout is violated, compare Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874]).
The whole problem seems reduced to that of finding a good functional $\varphi$ which has no local minimum. Above it is not fundamental that the oval is convex, to plug a circle inside it. This just uses the fact that the interior of the oval is open, and tracing a little circle inside the oval while taking its $k$th multiple gives another curve $k\cdot E_2$, along which to deform inside the spanned linear pencil $\lambda C_m +\mu (k\cdot E_2)$. Alas nothing ensure the oval to stretch within its interior.
Another idea is to apply the Riemann mapping theorem and shrink the radius of the representing circle, while hoping that this new smaller Riemann level is still an algebraic curve of the [*same*]{} degree. If this work we are able to decrease the area functional.
This reminds me some work of Bell and Aharonov-Shapiro [@Aharonov-Shapiro_1976] to the effect that the Riemann (and more generally Ahlfors) map of a quadrature domain is algebraic, and that quadrature domains are dense in the space of all domains so that virtually any Riemann map is algebraic.
But in our context we have an algebraic contour(=oval) and the following would simplify life:
\[Riemann’s-level-algebraic:conj\] Given a nonempty oval of a real plane algebraic curve of degree $m$ and suppose the corresponding spherical calotte conformally mapped (via Riemann) to the unit disc $\{z: \vert z\vert \le 1
\}$. Then the pullbacks of the smaller circumferences $\vert
z\vert =r $ are still algebraic curves of the same degree $m$!(???)
If so then we can decrease area thus solving difficulty (D.1), and perhaps the whole conjecture of Itenberg-Viro. Of course this looks a bit optimistic (due to the a priori highly transcendental nature of the Riemann map), but at least the dynamical strategy looks quite stimulating. Needless to say we have not proved the Itenberg-Viro conjecture, but in case it is true, perhaps the above vague ideas are quite close (at least in broad lines) to its ultimate technical solution. We Summarize the discussion as follows:
Let $\vert m H\vert$ be the space of all real algebraic curves of fixed degree $m\ge 1$ and $\frak D$ be the corresponding discriminant parametrizing singular curves. The complement $S_m=\vert mH\vert - \frak D$ is the space of smooth curves. Suppose given some real positive-valued smooth functional $\alpha$ on the space MEO of all curves with a marked empty oval which has
\(H) no stable equilibrium (local minimum) and such that if $\alpha(C)\to 0$ then the curve $C\in S_m$ tends to a solitary nodal curve.
Then the trajectory of steepest descent (gradient flow) always converges toward a curve with a solitary node, after possibly slight perturbation of the initial data (permissible as we work up to rigid-isotopy). In particular the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture holds true.
Of course this is just the formal aspect of the story (i.e. imputable to the theory of ordinary differential equations). Yet the real problem is to find a functional $\alpha $ suiting hypothesis (H). A candidate is to take $\alpha$ the area of the marked oval, and then hypothesis (H) could follow from the optimistic Conjecture \[Riemann’s-level-algebraic:conj\] on the algebraicity of Riemann’s level.
Call for an attack via the Riemann mapping (yet another Irrweg=aberration?) {#CC-via-Riemann:sec}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[18.01.13\] Let us do some experiments. Suppose given some real algebraic curve and take an empty oval on it. Mark an interior point and consider the Riemann map $f$ taking the domain $D$ interior of the oval to the unit disc $\Delta$. Pull-backing polar coordinates on the disc gives an isothermic system of coordinates on $D$. Fig.\[ItenbergViroRiem:fig\] gives some qualitative pictures for an ellipse or with ovals of a cubic or even of some quartics.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Naively the levels $\vert f \vert = \rho$ of the Riemann mapping look again like curves of the same degree. This is especially striking for the contorted quartic with one oval of Fig.\[ItenbergViroRiem:fig\]c. It is like a volcano spreading its lava on the whole territory available in the island interior to the oval of this $C_4$. If algebraicity is true and degree conserved, then the levels of the Riemann map gives directly the contraction of the Itenberg-Viro conjecture (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]). Is there such a miracle? Maybe giving to Riemann an algebraic contour, the Riemann map itself is algebraic of the same degree and so are all its sublevels $\vert f\vert = \rho= const$.
Let us first consider the more basic converse assertion that if the Riemann map is algebraic then so is its contour. So let $f\colon D \to \Delta$(=unit disc) be a Riemann map which is algebraic, i.e. the power series of this analytic function is finite, i.e. a polynomial of finite degree $f(z)=c_0+c_1 z+c_2
z^2+ \dots +c_n z^n$. Then as $f^{-1}(\partial
\Delta=S^1)=\partial D$ we see that $$f(z)\overline{f(z)}=1$$ identically on the contour $\partial D=:\Gamma$. Doing the usual splitting in real and imaginary parts by letting $z=x+iy$ and $c_n=a_n+ib_n$ one sees that the product $f(z)\overline{f(z)}$ becomes a polynomial $P(x,y)+iQ(x,y)$, where $P(x,y)$ has degree $n$ \[[*Warning*]{}.—this is disproved in the sequel!\] while $Q(x,y)$ is identically zero. It follows that $P(x,y)-1=0$ identically on the contour $\Gamma$ which is therefore algebraic. Of course the same holds true for any sublevels of the Riemann map, i.e. sets $f(z)\overline{f(z)}=\rho$ are also algebraic. This proves the
\[Riemann-level-algebraic\] If the Riemann map $f$ is algebraic then the contour is a real algebraic curve and so are all sublevels. Further the degree of all this Riemann levels $f \bar f =\rho$ ($0\le \rho \le 1$) have the same degree as $f$.
This is the trivial sense. What about the converse? Suppose given a contour which is an oval of some algebraic curve can we conclude that the Riemann map is algebraic? This is what Arnold would call pure Riemannian predestination. We think this to be true as follows:
\[Riemann-map-algebraic:thm\] Suppose given an (empty) oval $\Gamma$ of a real algebraic curve $C_m$ of degree $m$. Mark any point $p$ inside this oval and let $D$ be the sealed interior of the oval. Let $f\colon D \to \Delta$ be the Riemann mapping taking $p$ to the origin $0\in \Delta$ (unique up to rotation). Then the Riemann map is a polynomial of degree $m$.
(vague sketch) The idea is simply to look at the function $f \bar f$ which is analytic and vanishes on an algebraic locus, namely $\Gamma$. So by an appropriate Nullstellensatz (Arnold’s predestination? or Bloch’s slogan “Nihil est in finito quod non prius fuerit in finito”) it must follow that the function $f \bar f$ is itself algebraic. The proof is complete. (???)
At this stage we would have deduced Itenberg-Viro’s contraction conjecture (as a simple corollary of the Riemann mapping theorem!!!):
\[Itenberg-Viro-via-Riemann:cor\] Any nonempty oval of a plane real algebraic smooth curve (of degree $m$) can be contracted to a solitary node.
Apply Theorem \[Riemann-map-algebraic:thm\] to the nonempty oval under consideration, to obtain a Riemann map $f$ which is algebraic. By Lemma \[Riemann-level-algebraic\] all the levels $\vert f\vert=\rho$ are algebraic curves of degree $m$, while shrinking the radius to $\rho=0$ the curve acquires a solitary node.
Some objections to the method (or details to be filled):
(DET.1) How to ensure that the nodal curve so obtained has only this solitary node as sole singularity?
(DET.2) We have worked as if the curve were affine and not projective. This is usually a harmless nuance via the usual yoga, (des)homogenization of the equations. More severe is our supposition that our oval can be put in some affine chart! As I learned from (the late) Felice Ronga (ca. 1999–02), there is a sextic with one oval only, such that any line cuts it in at least two (real) points. In other words no line avoids this sextic. This is simple to construct by perturbing à la Plücker-Brusotti a configuration consisting of two concentric circles, plus the two axes of coordinates. Smoothing this sextic arrangement quite randomly (slalom as much as you can), one gets easily the required curve (Fig.\[ItenbergViroRiem:fig\]d). \[Ronga’s original picture is to be found as the front cover of his book “Analyse réelle post-élémentaire, 1999 après J.Christ.” [@Ronga_1999-BOOK].\]
Such a “Ronga curve” causes some trouble to our procedure, which requires putting the oval in an affine chart which we identify to the complex plane. Perhaps this is not fatal as the Riemann mapping theorem has some more intrinsic character, namely any Riemannian membrane topologically equivalent to the disc is conformal to the unit disc. So maybe one should use this more general version, and adapt the above affine argument in this more global setting. Algebraically this would amount to work always with homogeneous coordinates and think with cones in ${\Bbb R}^3$. We may then apply the Riemann mapping theorem to the spherical calotte bounding the oval (there is two of them, but choose one), and use as cut function homogeneous polynomials. A variant is perhaps just to pass from the sphere covering ${\Bbb R}P^2$ to the complex plane via stereographic projection (from a point outside the oval). This projection is conformal, but does it preserve the degree of polynomials?
\[19.01.13\] Here is a more fatal destruction of the above pseudo-proof of the contraction conjecture via the Riemann mapping theorem.
The key is a little computation of $f(z)\overline{f(z)}$, where $$f(z)=c_0+c_1z+c_2 z^2+\dots +c_n z^n,$$ $$\overline{f(z)}=\overline{c_0}+\overline{c_1}\bar z+\overline{c_2}
{\bar z}^2+\dots +\overline{c_n} {\bar z}^n.$$ When expanding this product it is useful to write it as a “diamond”: $$\begin{aligned}
c_0 &\overline{c_0} \cr
c_0 \overline{c_1} \bar z + & c_1 \overline{c_0} z \cr
c_0 \overline{c_2} {\bar z}^2 +c_1 \overline{c_1}& z \bar z+ c_2
\overline{c_0} {z}^2 \cr
c_1 \overline{c_2} z {\bar z}^2 + & c_2 \overline{c_1} z^2 \bar
z \cr
c_2 \overline{c_2}& z^2 {\bar z}^2.\end{aligned}$$ This is the end result when $n=2$, but otherwise it will expand to larger rhombs. At any rate, the weightiest term is $c_n
\overline{c_n} z^n\bar{z}^n=\vert c_n\vert^2 (x^2+y^2)^n$, and so we get indeed a polynomial, but one of degree twice as big as that of $f$.
Now suppose the given contour to be an ellipse (which is not a circle), then even if the qualitative part of Theorem \[Riemann-map-algebraic:thm\] ought to be true, i.e., if the Riemann map $f$ of an algebraic contour is algebraic, then the degree of $f$ cannot be $1$ (for then $f$ is a similitude which preserves circles). Hence the degree of the Riemann map $f$ of an ellipse is at least $2$, hence by the above computation the degree of $f\bar f$ is at least $4$, and so the sublevels of the Riemann map are at least quartics, and not ellipses as we initially imagined (compare e.g. the misleading Fig.\[ItenbergViroRiem:fig\]a). Hence even granting algebraicity of the Riemann mapping of an algebraic contour, the corresponding levels would not be of the same degree.
Actually the above argument shows that our strategy fails for a conic, but is it really a disproof in general? Assume the initial curve $C_m$ to be a quartic, then the degree of the Riemann map could be $n=2$, and thus the degree of $f\bar f$ is four and so the sublevels would stay a deformation within quartics. More generally this numerology makes sense for any $C_{2k}$ curve of even degree $2k\ge 4$, by taking $n=k$.
A more severe objection is surely, as already apparent by looking at the highest power $c_n \overline{c_n} z^n\bar{z}^n=\vert
c_n\vert^2 (x^2+y^2)^n$, the fact that $f\bar f-1=0$ is not the most general curve of degree $m=2n$ (e.g. the monomial $x^{2n-1}y$ is missing). Hence there is no chance the Riemann map of any curve $C_{m=2k}$ being algebraic of degree $k$, and our strategy is definitively foiled.
As a modest consolation one can apply the above method to some few ad hoc curves with equations of the shape $f\bar f-1=0$ where $f$ is some algebraic Riemann map. The corresponding curves (say “Riemann curves”) could be contracted by the above recipe. This is of course far from settling the initial desideratum of Itenberg-Viro.
What can be retained from this attempt? Let us start with a polynomial $f(z)\in {\Bbb C}[z]$ of degree $n$. This induces a holomorphic map ${\Bbb C}\to {\Bbb C}$ of degree $n$ (Gauss–D’Alembert fundamental theorem of algebra) which is a branched covering. Sometimes it turns out that the unit disc is a trivializing open set for this covering. In the language of complex analysts (Bloch, Landau, Ahlfors, etc.) this is also what they would call a schlicht unit disc. Taking one among the $n$ many sheet lying over $\Delta$ gives a simply connected domain which by $f$ is conformally mapped to the disc, and so we recover a Riemann map. For all those domains (which are algebraic of degree $2n$ via the equation $f\bar f-1=0$ but with $n$ unnested ovals), we may a priori implement our contraction algorithm. (Overlooking the unnested condition, we could hope that such Riemann curves are spread in all chambers of the discriminant and hope a general attack.) Now back to our setting it must be noticed that during the shrinking $f \bar f=\rho$, with $\rho \to 0$ our algebraic curve sees all its $n$ ovals being simultaneously shrunk. Hence in this very favorable setting, the solitary node condition fails blatantly. Conclusion: our strategy via Riemann leads nowhere, if it pertains to implement the contraction conjecture of empty ovals.
CCC: collective contraction conjecture, as an avatar of Itenberg-Viro (Gabard 2013)
===================================================================================
[*Insertion*]{} \[04.04.13\].—As we noticed only today, in substance it seems that the conjecture posited below bears some analogy with Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet] (p.177 of Ges.Math.Abhd.) who wrote: “Wir könnten z.B. mehrere Züge unserer Kurve gleichzeitig in isolierte Doppelpunkte überführen”. More generally Klein 1892 discusses at this place (p.176) what he calls the “Doppelpunktsmethode” amounting essentially to contract any symmetry-line of the Riemann surface, and this of course seems to anticipate what we called before the Itenberg-Viro contraction principle. It is not clear however that Klein ever formulated something as precise as the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture (specific to plane curves). On p.176–177, Klein writes something which taken out from its context looks a bit overoptimistic namely: “Bei allen anderen Fällen hat die Durchführung des genannten Prozesses und damit die Zusammenziehung eines beliebiegen Ovals der Kurve zu einem isolierten Doppelpunkte keine Schwierigkeit.”
Failing with Riemann suggests a variant of Itenberg-Viro, viz. CCC=collective contraction conjecture: deformation in the large as a method of prohibition {#CCC:sec}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[19.01.13\] The above discussion suggests the following variant of the contraction conjecture, which has maybe some spontaneous appeal and independent interest. Suppose given a projective smooth plane real curve $C_m$. Look at all empty ovals simultaneously. Is it possible to shrink all of them in one single stroke toward solitary nodes (via a deformation of smooth curves sole for its end-point being in the discriminant)?
It seems likely that the contraction conjecture (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]) implies this, roughly by shrinking one oval, and then the second, etc. Of course one then needs to arrange a bit things so that prior to extinct one oval completely, one waits until the second empty oval becomes “small” enough, etc. Finally one synchronizes the ultimate “coup de grâce” to kill all the empty ovals at the same time (“time” being just the parameter of the path $[0,1]
\to \vert mH \vert$ in the space of all curves of order $m$).
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.04.13\].—It may help reading the sequel to remarked first that the reverse process, of deducing an individual (solitary) contraction (à la Itenberg-Viro) from our collective one, is much easier and a trivial consequence of Brusotti, if we did no mistake, cf. Lemma \[CCviaCCC-Brusotti:lem\] below. So the conjecture posited right below is stronger than the one of Itenberg-Viro (yet perhaps equivalent, or at least easier to disprove).
So let us (somewhat cavalier) formulate the:
[(Collective contraction conjecture=CCC, \[19.01.13, 22h40\])]{}\[CCC:conj\] Given any smooth real curve $C_m$ of degree $m$, it is possible to shrink all the empty ovals simultaneously toward solitary nodes. (Solitary but synchronized death of all ovals.)
This is obviously true for $m=2,3$ (being actually equivalent to the individual contraction principle) since there is at most one empty oval available.
The case $m=4$ is already more tricky, yet still compatible with Bézout. If $r=4$ ($M$-quartic), we would have a quartic with four isolated (solitary) nodes. This exists just take an imaginary conic $C$, and aggregate it with its conjugate $C \cdot C^\sigma$ (this is real but a priori the four intersections need not all be real). More simply take two transverse conics, look at signs and arrange a level so that there are 4 isolated points by making a naive picture of the graph of $E_2 \cdot F_2$. Since the real scheme encodes completely (in degree $m=4$) the rigid-isotopy class (Klein 1876, etc.) it follows that CCC holds true in degree $m=4$. The case $r=2,3$ are treated similarly by looking at the graph of a special equation and passing a plane tangent to the 3 (or lesser) hills.
Now what about degree 6? Deciding the truth of the above conjecture in degree 6 (CCC6), is already more tricky. Perhaps this follows from Itenberg’s CC6, if not formally by the method used therein, i.e. Nikulin’s theory with $K3$-surfaces. As said at the start it could be that CC implies CCC in all generality. In the sequel we assume CCC as granted and look what can be derived from it.
Let us first suppose that there is an $M$-sextic $C_6$ with 11 unnested ovals (what Hilbert, Rohn, Petrovskii, Gudkov, Arnold, etc. were fighting hard against). Shrink all of them to a point according to CCC (\[CCC:conj\]). Then the Riemann surface is strangulated along all its oval in two (algebraic) pieces which are topological spheres. Since the nodes are supposed to be solitary these two pieces are smooth curves of genus 0 intersecting transversally. Therefore (via the genus formula $p=\frac{(d-1)(d-2)}{2}$) they are of degree $1$ or $2$, but have to intersect in 11 points. Bézout is overwhelmed! (Alternatively the genus formula is corrupted, since we have a degeneration of $C_6$ toward two cubics $C_3$ and its conjugate $C_3^\sigma$!) This gives a new “proof” of Hilbert-Rohn-Petrovskii via CCC. Of course it is quite tempting to wonder if Hilbert (or subsequent workers) did not knew about this argument at least as a heuristic tool.
More generally:
[(like Hilbert 1891)]{} Under axiom CCC, a smooth $M$-curve (of even degree) cannot have all its ovals unnested unless its degree $m$ is less than four ($m\le 4$). In particular an $M$-sextic cannot have all its $11$ oval unnested (which is Hilbert’s original claim as early as Hilbert 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege].)
Shrinking collectively all the empty ovals of $C_m$ (via CCC) gives a splitting $C_m \to C_d \cup C_d^\sigma$ in two algebraic curves of degree $d=m/2$ intersecting transversally in $r$ points. So by Bézout $d^2=r$. Since both strangulated halves have genus $p=0$ (for we started from an $M$-curve), their common degree $d$ can only be $1$ or $2$. Hence $d\le 2$, and so $r=d^2\le 4$. Since $r=g+1$ ($M$-curve assumption) it follows $g\le 3$ and so $m\le
4$. (Variant: conclude more directly via $d=m/2$.)
As a matter of philosophical dilettantism (?), it may be wondered, whether Hilbert himself used the above argument, at least as a heuristic tool. To my knowledge there is no record in print along this sense. Yet, Hilbert, say unlike Poincaré was a formalist, in particular never writing down crazy ideas. Thus, it may be not be impossible (our subjective speculation) that Hilbert may have argued along this route. In fact it is probably more realist that Hilbert argued along another idea, cf. e.g. the passage of Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74], where Hilbert’s method is described as implemented by his students Kahn and Löbenstein.
Even more generally:
Under CCC, a smooth dividing curve (of even degree $m=2k$) cannot have all its ovals empty (equivalently unnested) unless:
[(1)]{} its number of ovals $r$ is a square ($1,4,9,\dots$), and actually the square of its semi-degree $k$[^49];
[(2)]{} some stringent arithmetical conditions (say predestination or coincidence) are verified, namely all the displayed formulas in the proof below have to be satisfied.
By CCC shrink all empty ovals of the curve $C_m$. The Riemann surface $C_m({\Bbb C})$ (“complexification”) has genus $$g=(m-1)(m-2)/2.$$ Once strangulated, it splits in two Riemann surfaces of genus $$p=[g-(r-1)]/2$$ (since $g=(r-1)+2p$ by visualizing the orthosymmetric surface). Both halves are algebraic smooth curves intersecting in $r$ points. Being actually interchanged by conjugation, they have some common degree, say $d$, verifying $$p=(d-1)(d-2)/2.$$ So by Bézout (or homological intersection theory) we infer $$d^2=r.$$ Hence $r$ must be a square. In fact a sharper argument based on the degeneration $C_{2k}\to
C_k\cup C_k^\sigma$ shows that $r=k^2$ directly by applying Bézout to both halves of the limiting curve of the collective contraction.
A this stage “Eureka” \[23h41\] we have already proved that the sextic scheme $5$ is necessarily of type II (as followed first from Rohlin’s complex orientation formula).
Likewise the sextic schemes $\ell$ ($\ell = 9$ excepted) cannot admit a type I incarnation (though this was already implied by Klein’s congruence modulo 2, and Arnold’s congruence mod 4), safe for $\ell =1$ where either Rohlin or our suggestive geometric argument do instead the job.
Indeed if $r=1$ and $m=6$, then both strangulated parts have genus $p=5$ (imagine the Riemann surface of genus $g=10$ split by the one oval), but this is not even the genus of a smooth curve. Hence strangulation is impossible violating axiom CCC. Of course the philosophy behind CCC is quite akin to the filling trick of Arnold-Rohlin safe that the closing is God given by some postulated (but hypothetical) shrinking procedure in the rigid algebraic category.
In general it remains the boring task of extracting the exact arithmetical consequences of CCC, while checking if it is really compatible with factual data. In degree $6$, CCC seems to live in perfect harmony with Rohlin’s enhancement of Gudkov’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Since the usual (individual) contraction conjecture CC holds true in degree $6$ (by Itenberg 1994 [@Itenberg_1994]), it is likely that the collective variant CCC holds good as well. Of course all the arithmetical relations are in reality less stringent that they look at first glance, since they are all coming from the genus formula which itself may be interpreted as a surgical process regulated by Bézout. (Recall the simple proof of the genus formula based on the morphogenesis of lines getting smoothed under surgeries.)
Applying CCC to Harnack’s sextic configuration leads nowhere since the Riemann surface keeps connected.
Another exercise: assume there is a dividing quartic with two unnested ovals. Apply CCC to both ovals. Then the Riemann surface of genus $g=3$ is strangulated in two surfaces of genus $p=1$, hence of degree $d=3$. But the latter cut themselves in 9 points and not two. This contradiction reproves (modulo CCC) the well-known fact (\[Klein-unnested-quartic-nondividing:lem\]) due to Klein 1876, Arnold 1971, Rohlin 1972–1978, Wilson 1978, Marin 1979, Gross-Harris 1981, etc., that a quartic with two unnested ovals is necessarily nondividing. (Variant of the argument: $r=2$ is not a square.)
The principle emerging is that large deformations prompted by contraction conjectures affords a puissant method of prohibition, as opposed to the method of small perturbations which is merely a toolkit for construction.
\[20.01.13\] At this stage, the method CCC looks quite powerful, at least as a heuristic tool, reducing to Bézout several deep assertions and results of Klein, Hilbert, Rohlin, etc. However as yet the method is quite limited to the case where all the ovals are empty so that the strangulation really implies an algebraic splitting of the dividing Riemann surface.
Perhaps the method can be extended beyond this proviso. For instance after shrinking the first generation of all empty ovals and making them effectively disappear from the real locus, a second generation of empty ovals appears, which would be contracted in turn to solitary nodes, etc. Iterating so collective contractions would contract all ovals and so achieve a splitting of the dividing Riemann surface. For the method to be effective it seems that the solitary nodes of the first generation ought to resurface as such right after the contraction of the second generation of empty ovals. All this looks very dubious, yet some more clever intelligence can perhaps extract something from this procedure.
Consider a specific example to make the difficulty more concrete. Consider the sextic scheme $\frac{10}{1}$, and let us call it (improvising terminology) the Rohn scheme (for Rohn 1911–13 [@Rohn_1913]) was the first attempting to disprove its existence via a substantiation of Hilbert’s method. Let us contract all empty ovals. The resulting Riemann surface is still connected, and we lack a splitting suited to an application of Bézout. The obvious idea is to make first an eversion of the nonempty oval so as to reduce to the unnested scheme $11$. (For the definition of “eversion” cf. Sec.\[Eversion:sec\].) So we need another highbrow large deformation principle, dual to the contraction principle stating that any maximal oval can be everted provided the resulting scheme is not prohibited by Bézout. Alas, eversions are not permitted for $M$-curves by virtue of Lemma \[eversion-impossible-for-M-curves:lem\], and this stratagem looks jeopardized.
[*Insertion*]{} \[01.04.13\].—After the collective strangulation of all empty ovals of a Rohn curve of scheme $\frac{10}{1}$, we would get a Riemann surface of genus 0 and degree 6, but with 10 nodes. Alas this is still permissible! Of course our argument being merely abstract (i.e. using the abstract topology) would equally well apply to the veritable $M$-curves, and this explains that.
Consider next the sextic $M$-scheme $\frac{2}{1}8$. Shrink all empty ovals to get a curve of genus $p=0$ with one oval (once it is desingularized). So it is really just a rational curve of the dividing type (like our orthosymmetric equatorial planet Earth). By a trivial case of Ahlfors (actually the Riemann mapping theorem) this has a unique conformal structure. So there is a total map of degree $1$. This in turn gives a total pencil of curves, of order say $k$. It seems clear that all solitary nodes of our (contracted) $C_6$ must be in the base locus of the pencil. Indeed else the pencil is sweeping out some node, and so the curve through it has one intersection (counting double) but zero nearby whence a disappearance in the imaginary locus (violating total reality). So our pencil must exhibit at least $10$ basepoints. Naively the disc inside the nonempty oval looks foliated by two foyers (index$=+1$) violating Poincaré’s index formula, but this looks too naive because it would kill as well Hilbert’s or Gudkov’s sextics. So we are again confronted to some complicated foliation argument which we know to be quite difficult to implement. We could dispense using CCC, by applying instead directly Bieberbach-Grunsky to the smooth curve $C_6$ (i.e. the genus zero case of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). All this looks difficult and let us abort here shamefully.
\[23.01.13\] Let us insert here an optional side remark. It is tempting to wonder what follows from Thom’s conjecture (Kronheimer-Mrowka theorem meanwhile of 1994) to the effect that algebraic curves minimize the genus among smooth orientable surfaces embedded in ${\Bbb C}P^2$ realizing the same fundamental homology class. If one fills by the half of a hypothetical real $M$-sextic of real scheme $11$ (eleven unnested ovals) by the interior of all ovals, one obtains a smooth surface of genus $0$ (round the corners) of degree $6/2=3$. This violates Thom-Kronheimer-Mrowka, which therefore implies again the Hilbert-Rohn-Petrovskii prohibition.
[*Insertion*]{} \[01.04.13\].—The degree 3 case of Thom is really due to Kervaire-Milnor 1961 [@Kervaire-Milnor_1961], based on deep works by Rohlin, ca. 1952.
Some thinking shows however that Thom’s conjecture does not imply much more, for the filled membrane has then genus $\ge 1$.
++[C++]{}
Do iterated contractions (++) imply Rohlin’s formula?
-----------------------------------------------------
\[02.04.13\] We recommend to skip this section which is neither exciting nor seriously written.
\[22.01.13\] One may wonder if there is not a stronger mode of degeneration (alias contraction) of a real smooth plane curve $C_m=C_{2k}$ than CCC yielding the Rohlin complex orientation formula $2(\Pi^{+}-\Pi^{-})=r-k^2$ as a corollary of Bézout. In the case of no nesting this is precisely what did the previous section. Indeed the solitary node degeneration of CCC implies symbolically $C_{2k}\to C_k \cup C_k^\sigma$ (a topologically dividing curve divides algebraically!), whence by Bézout $r=k^2$. This coincides with Rohlin’s formula since there is no nesting.
Let us call such a hypothetical mode of degeneration C++ (like Turbo Pascal?). If this exists this would be a geometrization of Rohlin’s formula, in the sense that topology (homological intersection theory à la Poincaré-Lefschetz-Weyl(1923)-Pontrjagin-de Rham (1930), who else?) would be subsumed to Monsieur Étienne Bézout (ca. 1768) alone. This would also posit a wide extension of the Itenberg-Viro conjecture. It seems evident that such a contraction C++ should exist. It remains only to be not overwhelmed by the combinatorics.
So suppose given a dividing curve $C_{2k}$ in the plane. The idea is to contract all its ovals so as to split the curve in two algebraic pieces exchanged by Galois(=conj), all this being just caused by a strangulation of the underlying Riemann surface.
Of course we apply first CCC to contract all empty ovals toward solitary nodes. Then it appears a second generation of nearly empty ovals (those which formerly were at height 1 in the tree of the nesting structure). We may hope to shrink those in turn while necessarily coalescing together all the solitary nodes inside this oval. Perhaps we can do this while keeping the tangents distinct at those solitary nodes gravitationally clumped together. One continues this big crunch process and once all ovals have been contracted one get a splitting $C_{2k}=C_k\cup C_k^{\sigma}$. Counting properly intersections with Bézout should give Rohlin’s formula $$k^2=r-2(\Pi^+ - \Pi^{-}).$$
Of course we need to be much more explicit (as if Rohlin would not have influenced us). Recall that $\Pi^{+}$ is the number of positive (injective) pairs of ovals that is with complex orientation matching that of the bounding annulus of ${\Bbb
R}P^2$, and likewise $\Pi^{-}$ being the number of pairs with disagreeing orientation when induced from the complexes versus the real bounding annulus. Recall that all pairs are taken into consideration not just oval succeeding themselves immediately.
On applying first CCC we can shrink all empty ovals to solitary nodes. Naively one would then like to shrink all the nearly empty ovals containing only solitary nodes, and so on. So we would have a degeneration $C_{2k}\to C_k\cup C_k^\sigma$. Computing the intersection $C_k\cap C_k^\sigma$ with Bézout gives $k^2$ algebraically. Geometrically, as each oval is shrunk to a pair of conjugate lines, and this explains the presence of the term $r$ on the RHS of Rohlin’s formula (as displayed above). Further the Riemann surface of the reduced curve can be naively imagined in 3-space as a pair of paraboloid of revolution together with their orthosymmetric replicas. Each branches intersect its conjugate in one point, but those contribution where already taken into account. So it remains to count the intersection of the top small paraboloid with the bottom large paraboloid, and vice-versa the large top with the bottom small. So we get 2 additional intersections, and this explains the term $+2\Pi^{-}$ of Rohlin’s formula. (Alas the term $-2\Pi^+$ looks much harder to explain.)
More clarification is required. A negative pair of ovals can be shrunk simultaneously. An example is provided by the Gürtelkurve, quartic $C_4$ with two nested ovals. Either via Fiedler or by Ahlfors it is plain that this $C_4$ has a negative pair of ovals. Looking at an equation like two concentric circles and perturbing slightly to get away from the reducible locus (and the discriminant) we have $$(x^2+y^2-\rho^2) (x^2+y^2-R^2)=0,$$ and if $0\le \rho<R$ then we can shrink $R\to 0$ and obtain the required multi-contraction. This example obviously extends to deep nest in any (even) degree, as to shrink negative towers of ovals.
Our guess is in contrast that positive pair of ovals resist simultaneous shrinking. Probably there is an evident topological obstruction which I missed to notice as yet.
If so then there is no possibility to reduce Rohlin’s formula to Bézout via a super strong contraction principle C++ reducing the whole curve to a microcosm of solitary nodes. If so, the whole curve under the action of some gravitational clumping would truly reduce to a constellation of isolated points with real scheme condensed at the atomic scale. (Imagine points and then infinitesimal circle surrounding the first generation of point, etc.) It seems more likely that there is an obstruction to shrink everything (algebraically), and so Rohlin’s proof is surely the best one can implement. Yet there could still be some geometry behind it suggested by the contraction principle.
[*Insertion*]{} \[01.04.13\] The latter is true in degree 6, and actually stronger than Rohlin’s formula, when combined with RKM (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]) since it rules out all schemes lying above the $(M-2)$-schemes of type I (e.g. $\frac{7}{1}3$), what Rohlin’s formula is unable to do alone.
Failing to reduce Rohlin to Bézout suggests again a dynamical approach {#CCCviaDynamics:sec}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\[22.01.13\] What is this geometry and is it worth paying attention at? Before trying answering this, note that even if a positive pair of ovals resists to shrinking it could undergo another type of Morse surgery, namely coalescence to a figure eight (lemniscate looking like a “sweetheart”, i.e. with one branch lying inside the other). Yet this operation corresponds to the contraction of an ortho-cycle without disconnecting the Riemann surface so as to produce an algebraic splitting $C_{2k}\to C_k \cup C_k^\sigma$.
Let us turn to the geometric aspect. Our goal is essentially to shrink the ovals at least those which are empty (CCC), and then eventually push further the deformation as to shrink the negative pairs (memno-technic trick imagine negative=depressive=shrinkable). The other positive pairs may offer some resistance (due to a topological obstruction, which we should still understand better).
To achieve such a shrinking it looks natural to look at the length-functional of [*all*]{} ovals (not just the empty ones). Consider the round metric on the unit sphere $S^2$ lying above ${\Bbb R}P^2$, and measure lengths in this metric. Given $C_m$ a curve (i.e. a homogeneous ternary form $F_m(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ with real coefficients up to homothety), look at the set $(F_m=0)\cap
S^2$ which is obviously rectifiable (Lebesgue, Jordan, Riemann, Gauss, Archimedes, etc.). Denote its length by $\lambda (C_m)$. This is zero iff $C_m({\Bbb R})$ is empty or contains merely isolated points. Further there is an obvious way to take into account the multiplicity of branches; e.g. a conic (degree 2) consisting of a double line has length not just $2\pi $ but twice that quantity. This is crucial to ensure continuity of $\lambda$ on the parameter space of all $m$-tics. Since the latter space is compact (actually an ${\Bbb R}P^N$, $N=\binom{m+2}{2}-1$) the length functional $\lambda$ reaches a maximum.
How long can an $m$-tics be? By the above compactness argument there is some universal constant $L_m$ bounding the length of all curves $C_m$ of some fixed degree $m$: $\lambda(C_m) \le L_m$, and the maximum is actually realized (a priori not by smooth curve). A configuration of $m$ lines produces the lower estimate $2\pi m \le L_m$, and by Brusotti 1921 [@Brusotti_1921] there are smooth curves $C_m$ of length as close as we please to $2\pi
m$, but slightly longer. Imagine a crossing getting smoothed then the geodesic of $S^2$ are entailed by curvilinear arcs which are longer (triangle inequality or Pythagoras in the small). So there certainly exist longer curves! But how long can an $m$-tic be? This is probably very difficult to answer.
When $m=2$, the above argument via Brusotti still makes sense. If we imagine quadratic cones in 3-space $E^3$ (say with elliptical affine cross-section at $x_2=1$), then they may cut strange ovals on $S^2$ possibly longer that $2\pi \cdot 2$???
When $m$ is odd then there is a pseudoline (or at least a circuit possibly singular) not null-homotopic in ${\Bbb R}P^2$. Obviously its length is at least $2\pi$, which is the lower bound of the functional $\lambda$ when $m=2k+1$ is odd.
The estimation of $L_m$ is surely an attractive problem, but let us try to be not sidetracked by this. Our goal would be rather to study the gradient flow of $\lambda$ as a dynamical process susceptible to implement the collective contraction conjecture CCC, or more elaborated versions thereof if feasible (e.g. some iterated contractions like C++).
Assume first $m$ even. Then $\lambda$ vanishes identically on the chamber corresponding to empty curves, as well as on its adherence which consists of curves with isolated real points (either solitary double points or of higher multiplicity necessarily even). Thus $\lambda $ cannot be analytic, but seems rather being $C^\infty$. (As usual with distance functions (e.g. $\vert x
\vert$) they sometimes lack even smoothness until tacking their squares. So perhaps take $\lambda^2$ squared.)
Consider the gradient flow of this functional $\lambda$, while hoping that the corresponding trajectories materialize the collective contraction conjecture (CCC).
Usually ovals fails severely to be geodesics on $S^2$, but are perhaps so when we look them in the Riemann surface $C_m({\Bbb
C})$ endowed with the Fubini-Study(=FS) metric on ${\Bbb C}P^2$. Is the corresponding length of the ovals the same, in other words does FS induce the round elliptic metric on $S^2$? It is (always) tempting to regard ${\Bbb C}P^2$ as the variety of groups of two points on the Riemann (round) sphere. In this model how to describe the FS-metric?
Another idea, at least if we restrict to smooth curves, is to take the uniformizing hyperbolic metric (of Schwarz-Klein-Poincaré-Koebe) on $C_m({\Bbb C})$ with curvature $K\equiv -1$, when $m\ge 4$ (so $g\ge 3$). Then we get another measure of length of the ovals, which we shall denote $h$. The problem here is that this length functional is not a priori defined on the full hyperspace of curves $\vert m H\vert$.
As soon as we look also in the complex domain, there is a myriad of other functionals like the systole of the Riemann surface, the area of one half in the dividing case, etc. We just remark that from the systolic viewpoint there might by an ortho-cycle of much shorter length than the real ovals, and which dynamically might be advantageous being first contracted.
Of course the technical difficulties look immense, but the problem involves a mixture of Poincaré-Morse versus Hilbert-Petrovskii, i.e. a synthesis thereof. So the game is certainly worth paying attention at. What seems called upon is a dynamical study of algebraic equations governed by motions regulated by (natural) geometric functionals on the corresponding varieties (zero loci). In particular find appropriate functionals whose trajectories converge (generically) to curves with solitary nodes as to implement the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture or its collective variant CCC.
To shrink all empty ovals simultaneously it seems not so fruitful to shrink the shortest oval. More collective optimization is asked as if one had to bring fastest to the harbor a convey of ships each carrying rough materials involved in the manufacture of some complex end-product (Polyà’s metaphor for Rayleigh eigenvalues). Here we are in a similar situation. If all empty ovals have to dye simultaneously (scenario posited by CCC), it is important to shrink faster the longer ovals. Perhaps this suggests looking and $\lambda^2$ the squared length functional penalizing longer ovals.
It is also tempting to look at the area $\alpha$ (of the interior of all empty ovals measured on $S^2$), and to play perhaps with the isoperimetric inequality. For instance the functional $\lambda^2/\alpha$ looks natural, and is bounded from below in the small by $(2\pi \rho)^2/(\pi \rho^2)=4\pi$, so it admits a finite limit when it shrinks. The isoperimetric functional $\iota=\lambda^2/ \alpha$ intuitively forces ovals to dye in a round manner, penalizing agonies along eccentric ellipses.
If optimistic, integrating the gradient flow of either $\lambda$ or $\alpha$, length resp. area of the empty ovals directly leads to a solution of CCC.
The serious obstacle is that there may be a sink, i.e. a local minimum of the functional preventing convergence to a curve with solitary nodes arising as contractions of the $r_0$ empty ovals.
One naive idea is to let vibrate the ovals via a configuration of lines (as in the Harnack-Hilbert method), hoping to decrease area through this perturbation. The oval then oscillates inside and outside itself but on a larger portion it would move inside himself, hence area decreases (cf. Fig.\[Vibrate:fig\]a). The similar assertion for the length functional looks even more fantasist. Hence the area functional looks better suited to the problem.
[*Insertion*]{} \[01.04.13\] One problem is that if we have several ovals it is not clear that decreasing the area of one will not enlarge area of the other empty ovals. This problem dissipates somewhat if we look only at the usual Itenberg-Viro conjecture, but of course also the latter is subject to doubts, e.g. those allied with Shustin’s disproof of Klein-vache.
-5pt0
-5pt0
A more naive idea is to look at some sublevel of the equation. For simplicity assume the given curve completely inside some affine chart (cf. however Ronga’s counter-example on Fig.\[ItenbergViroRiem:fig\]) with equation $f(x,y)=0$, and w.l.o.g. positive on the outside unbounded (in ${\Bbb R}P^2$ nonorientable) component residual to the curve. Then the sublevel $f(x,y)=-\varepsilon<0$ (small negative constant) ought to have a smaller area $\alpha$ (compare Fig.\[Vibrate:fig\]b).
Let us be more precise. Look at all empty ovals of the curve $C_m$. Then following Ragsdale-Petrovskii, some are positive and some negative (or, even and odd depending on the parity of the number of ovals surrounding it). Maximal ovals are even (being surrounded by zero ovals), those immediately inside them are odd, etc. Under our sign convention for the equation $f$ (positive outside) we see that even ovals decrease in area when considering the sublevel $f=-\varepsilon$, while odd ovals increase in area (compare Fig.\[Vibrate:fig\]b). The net bilan is hard to quantify, but on the situation of the picture where the even empty oval is much larger than the other empty ovals there is some chance to decrease the functional $\alpha$.
Is there some chance to deduce a general argument from our naive picture? Split all empty ovals in even and odd ones (denoted resp. 0 and 1 depending on their class modulo 2). Look which of both collections has more massive total area, i.e. compare $\alpha_0$ vs. $\alpha_1$. If $\alpha_0>\alpha_1$ then take $\varepsilon$ positive (and vice-versa if $\alpha_0<\alpha_1$ then take $\varepsilon$ negative). Of course if unlucky both magnitudes $\alpha_i$ are equal, in which case we are a bit lost (perhaps avoidable by genericity, as we work up to isotopy, hence can always perturb slightly the data).
Let us assume to be in first case $\alpha_0>\alpha_1$ (as on the picture). By a classical continuity lemma (cf. e.g. Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74]) we can preassign a tubular neighborhood of the curve in which the perturbation will stay confined. Thus we can probably control from above the area expansion of the odd ovals. It seems indeed that the tubular expansion is maximum for a circle as follows from the isoperimetric inequality. However it is not clear that the deflation of area of the even ovals ought to supersede this as it may be a very thin penetration (imagine the big south island as very mountainous hence poorly affected by a raise of the ocean level).
This leads to the idea of looking at the normal derivative of the defining (polynomial) function $f(x,y)$ across the sea level ($f=0$). The inflation of area resp. deflation of area of the empty ovals ought to be proportional to this normal slope and the length of those ovals via some explicit formula given by differential calculus. So we compare both quantities for even an odd ovals, and choose the right sign for $\varepsilon$ in order to create a deflation of area while keeping the degree constant. Of course if both quantities coincide we are a bit disturbed, but perhaps avoidable by genericity (two random real numbers are generically distinct.)
If this trick works there is some hope to show that the area functional $\alpha$ lacks local minima, and the corresponding orthogonal trajectories of steepest descent ought to converge toward curves with solitary nodes.
Note another phenomenon: imagine one empty oval shrinking prematurely before the others. Soon after this death another oval (formerly nonempty) may become suddenly empty implying a large jump of the area functional $\alpha$ which looks therefore discontinuous. The only reasonable parade against this catastrophe is that the trajectory of steepest descent will not kill abruptly the small oval as it is much more profitable to shrink first the voluminous ovals. Intuitively, the $\alpha$-flow would promote a collective contraction. Nonetheless the $\alpha$-functional can be discontinuous with big jumps across walls of the discriminant, as caused by the fact that we measure only empty ovals, which in contrast to all ovals, is subsumed to violent fluctuation.
Have we proved something? Maybe yes if quite sloppy. Let us resume some of the difficulties:
(D.1) First Ronga’s example of a $C_6$ not confined to an affine chart is presumably not a severe obstacle. For even degrees the sign of the projective equation $F(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ is always well-defined so that there is a variation $C_m^{\varepsilon}$ with disjoint real locus ($C_m\cap C_m^{\varepsilon}=\varnothing$). (For odd degrees nothing similar can be done so easily, but we confine attention to even degrees. That is already hard enough.)
(D.2) We look at the penetration index under a small perturbation as measured by the normal derivative of the landscape pondered against the length element of the oval. More precise, calculate along each point of $C_m$ the normal derivative $
\frac{\partial f}{\partial n},
$ and then integrate this against the length element $ds$ of some fixed oval $O$ to get $$\int_{O=an oval} \frac{\partial f}{\partial n} ds=: \pi (O).$$ This real number measures the rate of area change under a flood (variation of $\varepsilon$). Of course the normal derivative above can be interpreted as the gradient of $f$ on the coast line $f=0$. (If it is big in norm then the slope of the coast is low hence the territory much affected by floods, while if small then the coast slope is steep and the island has little to fear from inundations).
Call the above quantity $\pi(O)$ the “piaf” (protection index against floods). It is well-defined for any oval (up to sign and anodyne choices effecting a collective change). It seems to make also good sense in the projective context.
Next look at all the empty ovals $O_1, \dots, O_{r_0}$ of some smooth curve $C_m$, splits them in even and odd, and look which of both collections have the highest piaf. Depending on this knowledge, an appropriate choice of $\varepsilon$ create a variation of the curve with smaller inner area $\alpha$ .
(D.3) What to do exactly when both (even and odd) piafs are equal? Can we avoid this just by slight perturbation, i.e. is there always a small perturbation making them different? (Perhaps Petrovskii thought about such questions…)
Assume now that (D.3) can be overcome. Then the functional $\alpha$ has no stable equilibrium (local minimum) and we interpret it as a Morse function on the space $\vert mH \vert$ of all curves. In this generality it may rather look like a Grand canyon with big ravine when one cross a solitary node due to the brusque change of empty oval. Two attitudes are possible:
(A.1)—either we localize $\alpha$ to one chamber of the discriminant[^50] or
(A.2)—we look at the whole space of curves hoping that the trajectories dictated by the functional never cross such ridges (=ravine of $\alpha$).
After having introduced a natural metric on $\vert m H \vert$, e.g. the elliptic geometry available on each projective space, we look at the trajectories of steepest descents w.r.t. the function $\alpha$ (area of the nonempty ovals). This is as usual obtained by integrating the vector field ${\rm grad} \alpha $. By the above (D.2), for almost every initial condition $C_m$ it decreases endlessly up to reach level $\alpha=0$, which must necessarily be a curve with solitary nodes. Could the trajectory starts oscillating like a $\sin (1/x)$ curve without reasonable convergence? Looks unlikely due to the algebraic nature of our problem, but requires perhaps an argument. If the trajectory of $C_m$ converges to a saddle point (unstable critical point of $\alpha$) it suffices to perturb slightly the initial condition $C_m$ (which is allowable up to small rigid-isotopic perturbation). (In fact it is likely that such exceptional saddles correspond precisely to curves having the same even and odd piafs, especially if we have a rigorous proof that there is no local minimum for $\alpha$, as we tried to argue in Step D.2.)
At this stage we believe the proof would be completed (no additional difficulties) and we would conclude:
(Hypothetical!!!) Given any (non-void) curve $C_m$ (of even degree $m$ for simplicity), the trajectory of the gradient flow of the empty-ovals area $\alpha$ generically converges to a curve with solitary nodes in finite time, while the empty ovals themselves converges to the solitary nodes. If not then it finishes its trajectory to an unstable equilibrium and it suffices to perturb slightly to ensure convergence toward a solitary nodal curve (soliton for short, as compression of solitary and singleton). In particular, CCC holds true, i.e. there is a path in the space of curves such that all empty ovals contract to solitary nodes.
That the extinction of all the empty ovals occurs in finite time merely follows from the fact that the time parameter of any gradient flow is just the “height” function, here the functional $\alpha\colon \vert mH \vert \to {\Bbb R}$ but taking value in $[0, 4\pi]$ (where $4\pi$ is the area of the full sphere or $2\pi$ if you count this area divided by two).
Here we have looked at the empty-oval area functional $\alpha$. What happens if we look the same functional for all ovals. A priori the functional looks more continuous but be careful with eversions.
\[23.01.13\] Metaphor.—Problems of rigid-isotopy (or large deformations of curves) are like a video game in the sense that there is a joystick upon which one may act by freewill by varying the coefficients while there is in reaction a canonical picture emerging on the screen (the corresponding real locus of the algebraic curve conceived as an optical object). In some sense it is like a flight simulator (you move the “manche à balais” and the aircraft responds accordingly). The contraction conjecture CCC says that using the full freedom of the joystick one can always shrink the empty ovals simultaneously. The above theorem states roughly that there is some predestination, i.e. that a very sleepy autopilot or video game player suffices to land safely the aircraft, while performing actually a perfect landing (all wheels touch the ground simultaneously!). Of course in reality the autopilot in question is very well programmed for its action is governed by a principle of least action. The only little impulse required is when the aircraft arrives at critical points (global maximum of $\alpha$ or its saddle critical points), where some jiggling is required to perturb the initial condition.
Some few other applications of CCC {#application-of-CCC:sec}
----------------------------------
\[23.01.13\] What can be deduced from CCC? Quite a lot and alas no so much, compare the case of $M$-sextics. Applying it to Gudkov’s $C_6$ gives a rational (genus 0) real sextic with 10 solitary nodes equidistributed as $5$ inside and $5$ outside the unique oval. Of course there is no obstruction given by the genus formula to such a eventuality.
In general, given any curve $C_m$ with say $r$ ovals, then can be split as $r_0\le r$ empty ovals, which can be contracted to solitary nodes. Then applying Brusotti 1921 [@Brusotti_1921] we can let them disappear all, and so appears a new generation of empty ovals, to which the collective contraction process can be applied again, and so on. So we can reach the empty curves (or a pseudoline if $m$ is odd) after some few iterated contraction (as many as the height of the oval-graph encoding the nested structure of the original $C_m$). This we call the height of the curve $C_m$, denoted $h(C_m)$
This implies (as a crude estimate) that any two curves $C_m, D_m$ can be related by a rigid-isotopy crossing only $h(C_m)+h(D_m)$ times the discriminant. Of course it is not a transverse crossing in general for our critical curves have several solitary nodes. However by perturbing slightly we may cross the discriminant transversally, and each initial crossing through a multi-solitary curves implies as many intersection with $\frak D$ as there are nodes.
So counting properly we deduce:
[(modulo CCC and the connectedness of invisible curves=CIC)]{} Any two smooth curves $C_m, D_m$ of even degree $m$ can be joined by a path in the hyperspace of curves transverse to the discriminant while crossing it exactly $r(C_m)+r(D_m)$ times, where $r$ is the number of ovals (composing the real locus).
Applies iteratively CCC (conjointly with Brusotti) to both curves, to derive two curves with empty real locus. The latter are known to form a unique chamber of the discriminant, in other words to be rigid-isotopic by Lemma \[empty-chamber-connected-Shustin:lem\].
A similar assertion holds perhaps true in case of odd degrees, however it is still unknown whether two curves of the same odd degree are rigid-isotopic provided their real loci reduce to a pseudoline (compare Viro 2008 [@Viro_2008-From-the-16th-Hilb-to-tropical p.199]).
This goes in the sense of showing that the contiguity graph of chambers residual to the discriminant is a “small world”, in the sense that is has high connectivity and much “consanguinity”.
How good is the above estimate? More precisely the distance $\delta$ (or Erdös number) in the contiguity graph (of chambers) is majored by $\delta(C,D) \le r(C)+r(D)$. This is fairly good as compared to the estimate coming from the degree of the discriminant $3(m-1)^2$, which implies $\delta(C,D)\le
3/2(m-1)^2$, or the integral part thereof, as we may always choose the one side of the circle hitting less many times the discriminant.
For $m=6$, the discriminant estimate gives $\delta\le
[75/2]=[37.5]=37$, while the CCC estimate gives $\delta\le
11+11=22$. We can be more economical by not going down to the empty chamber but that having only one oval, which form already a unique rigid-isotopy class by Nikulin 1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80].
This raises the following question: we know either by Rohlin’s formula (or less rigourously by CCC) that any curve with one oval (hence of even degree) is nondividing provided $m=2k\ge 4$. Indeed if dividing apply CCC to get a splitting $C_{2k}\to C_k\cup
C_k^\sigma$, whence by Bézout $C_k \cap C_k^\sigma=k^2=r$, where $r=1$ whereas $k^2\ge 4$. Thus there is no obstruction to rigid-isotopy given by the Klein’s type between any two curves having only one oval, and extrapolating (violently) we arrive at the:
\[OOPS:one-oval-rigid-isotopic:conj\] [(OOPS=One oval postulation)]{} Any two smooth curves having only one oval are rigid-isotopic. (“Oval” is interpreted here in the strong sense of a Jordan curve which is null-homotopic, hence our curves are of even degree.)
(Perhaps there is an obstruction à la Fiedler-Marin, but unlikely as it seems to require a splitting of ovals, cf. Marin’s argument exposed below.) Remind also from Viro 2008 [@Viro_2008-From-the-16th-Hilb-to-tropical] that replacing above “oval” by pseudoline is still an open problem. Further Viro in his e-mail (dated 26.01.13 in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]) confirmed me that this is still an open problem and goes back to Rohlin.
[*Insertion*]{} \[02.02.13\].—A naive approach to this would be to assert that any $C_{2k+1}$ may degenerate by a large deformation to $L_1\cup C_{2k}$ a line $L_1$ union an invisible curve $C_{2k}$ of even degree. Perhaps one can demand that both curves in the limit are transverse. Call this process a rectification of the pseudoline. Now given two smooth curves whose real scheme consist of a unique pseudoline, one may apply twice rectification, and then isotope both corresponding empty curves. This could imply the Rohlin-Viro conjecture.
In degree 6 the Erdös number of the graph (supremum of $\delta$) is probably much smaller in view of Fig.\[Gudkov-eversion:fig\], i.e. Gudkov’s table with eversions. Of course this figure posits that all logically possible eversions are realized geometrically (safe those linking $M$-curves and both $(M-2)$-schemes of type I). Under this circumstance the Erdös number looks hardly greater than 8, i.e. $\delta \le 8$ universally. It seems indeed that the maximal distance is realized by Hilbert vs. Gudkov or Gudkov vs. Harnack. Naively on the table (without eversions) Hilbert’s scheme and Harnack’s looks far apart, but using the eversion $\frac{8}{1}1
\to \frac{1}{1}8$ shows that their real distance is only 3, i.e. $\delta (Hilbert, Harnack)=3$. This is the answer if we confine attention to the top of the table, but of course the most distant chambers are the $M$-curves as separated from the empty scheme $0$. Those are at distance $11$ apart. So the correct Erdös number is $\delta=11$, with this maximal distance being realized thrice (empty vs. Hilbert, Gudkov, Harnack respectively). Morally eversions do not shorten the vertical distance, and we have proven the following (modulo Conjecture \[eversion-and-other surgeries:conj\]).
[(Semi-conjectural)]{} \[Erdos-number-of-sextics=11:prop\] The Erdös number of the contiguity graph of sextics is actually equal to the Harnack bound $M=11$.
It is tempting to wonder if it so in general. Perhaps there is some little chance to answer this without having to work out the exact rigid-isotopy classification in each degree (an insurmountable task!?). The trick would be that eversions collapse sufficiently horizontal distances, so as to make only the vertical chain the only plausible candidate for maximizing $\delta$.
As to the above OOPS conjecture (\[OOPS:one-oval-rigid-isotopic:conj\]), one could of course also imagine a dynamical proof. The whole task reduces to finding the right functional. Heuristically the obvious attractor ought to be a circle (possibly multiple). This inclines to look at the isoperimetric functional looking the length squared divided by the area of the unique oval.
More pragmatically,
[(but apparently validated by Viro, cf. comments right-after the proof)]{}.—It seems clear that CCC (and of course the weaker formulation CC) implies the one oval postulate (OOPS).
(pseudo, of course!) Indeed take any two curves having only one oval. By CCC (CC suffices) each of them can be shrunk to a solitary node. By Brusotti there is slight perturbations to empty curves. The latter can be linked by a path, by virtue of the connectivity of the empty chamber (Lemma \[empty-chamber-connected-Shustin:lem\]). Since the empty chamber of the discriminant is a manifold with corners (like probably any other chamber by the way) which topologically is a manifold with boundary there is such a path staying close to the boundary. (Actually the boundary of the empty chamber has faces consisting of uninodal solitary curves with one isolated real point.) Pushing this path slightly outside the empty chamber would give the required isotopy. However there is a serious difficulty, if our path meets another wall of ${\frak D}$ outside the empty chamber. However by genericity of this path (as avoiding sets of codimension 2) we may assume this crossing to be a transverse one of a wall which must keep $r=1$ constant since we stay in the vicinity of the empty chamber with $r=0$. Note of course by CCC as applied to quartics for instance that chambers with higher $r$’s are also contiguous to the empty chamber, yet the are like cubes hitting the empty chamber imagined as a cube at some vertices of codimension 2. So we have some wall crossing keeping $r=1$ constant, which as a Morse surgery must correspond to an eversion. But this means that there is an eversive wall falling down to the boundary of the empty chamber like a tripod. This looks incompatible with the local structure of algebraic sets? Maybe there is a more direct argument in ${\Bbb R}P^2$. Another obstruction comes also from Brusotti’s description of the discriminant as branches with normal crossing. All this is very confuse, we confess.
\[30.01.13\] As kindly informed by Viro (cf. his e-mail, dated 26.01.13 in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]), it seems that the implication CC$\Rightarrow$OOPS causes no problem. It would be nice to write down complete details. Perhaps this simply follows from the fact that inside the empty locus the discriminant has real codimension 2 (cf. Lemma \[invisible-discriminant-codim-2:lem\]). Hence there is no wall inside it, hence no wall outside it by the “implicit function theorem”.
[*Insertion.*]{} \[01.04.13\] If CC$\Rightarrow$OOPS causes no troubles it would be interesting to extend the method to higher schemes (having more ovals than one).
\[URS:conj\] (URS)=(Unnested rigidity speculation).—The unnested configurations (which are of type II provided $r<k^2$ or even $r\neq k^2$, as shown by Rohlin’s formula) are always rigid (i.e. any $2$ curves representing the unnested scheme are rigid-isotopic provided $r\neq k^2$). When $r\neq k^2$ it could be that the type is the sole obstacle to rigid isotopy.
This holds true in degree 6 by Nikulin’s theorem (\[Nikulin:thm\]). Further it looks hard to disprove this by the Fiedler-Marin method as we lack a canonical choice for the fundamental triangle. Finally, it could be that the same argument as above shows that CCC implies URS.
[*Sketch of proof that CCC$\Rightarrow$URS*]{}.—Contract all ovals simultaneously to land in the connected empty chamber of curves without real points. So given 2 curves connect them by respective contractions to the empty locus, and therein by a path of invisible curves. The hard part is then to push this path by a small deformation again in the visible locus, and this in such a way that we never meet the discriminant. This looks feasible as the (closured) empty locus seems to be a bordered manifold, with connected boundary (being essentially fibred over $\RR P^2$ via assignment of the unique solitary node). So the joining-path in the empty locus can be pushed on the boundary and then further inside the chamber. Of course it remains the difficulty of ensuring that we do not meet other nappes of the discriminant. As above the loose argument is that since the discriminant as codimension 2 inside the empty locus, it will appear outside along the same dimension, and not effect any separation. This would supply the required rigid-isotopy between our pair of unnested curves. Of course it is essential to assume $r\neq k^2$ since otherwise there is curves of both types, yet this condition did not as yet appeared frankly in our argument, which is far from a serious proof. Of course one could expect that for $r=k^2$ the type is sole additional obstruction.
Looking around (in vain?) for counterexamples to CCC (=collective contraction conjecture)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[20.01.13\] An a priori easier game is to test if CCC (\[CCC:conj\]) has really some chance to be true. As usual experimentation is required. We may first consider a curve $C_8$ arising through perturbation of 4 ellipses rotated by $180/4=45$ degrees (cf. Fig.\[CCCRoses:fig\]b).
-1.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
The smoothing being compatible with orientations, this curve $C_8$ is dividing (Fiedler). It has $r=16$ unnested ovals (cf. Fig.\[CCCRoses:fig\]b). Assume it shrinkable via CCC, it will degenerate and decomposes as $C_8 \to C_d \cup C_d^{\sigma}$, where $C_d$ has genus $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}=\frac{21-(16-1)}{2}=3$, hence of degree $d=4$ (this can be inferred more directly via the degree of the degeneration). The relation $d^2=r$ is verified and there is no numerical obstruction to CCC. Note in contrast that in the same construction for 3 or 5 ellipses, we cannot arrange all ovals unnested while smoothing in a sense preserving way. Look and see! (Figs.\[CCCRoses:fig\]a and c).
The construction of our $C_8$ generalizes whenever the degree $m=4\ell$ is a multiple of four. Indeed rotate an ellipse by $\pi/
\ell$. Orient the ellipses “alternatively” and smooth in a sense preserving way. The resulting curve has $r=4 \ell^2$ unnested ovals (as easily counted by extrapolating the figures $C_8$ and $C_{12}$ of Fig.\[CCCRoses:fig\], while noting that the ovals in $\ell=m/4$ couches containing each $m=4\ell$ ovals). Shrinking $C_m$ via CCC gives two curves of genus $p=\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}$, where $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}=(4\ell-1)(2 \ell-1)$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
p
=[(4\ell-1)(2 \ell-1)-(4 \ell^2-1)]/2
&=[(2\ell-1) [(4\ell-1)-(2\ell+1) ]]/2 \cr
&=[(2 \ell-1) (2\ell-2)]/2,
$$ so that the half has degree $2\ell$, and intersects its conjugate in $4\ell^2$ points, which is precisely $r$. This little numerical miracle implies an absence of numerical obstruction to CCC via our rosewindows constructions. Of course, all the above computation can be shortcuted by noticing a degeneration $C_{m=4\ell} \to C_d \cup
C_d^{\sigma}$, where $d=2\ell$ necessarily (since the conjugation $\sigma$ preserves the degree of equations as it just acts upon the coefficients).
As yet the center of rotation was chosen inside the ground ellipse. Another series of picture arise when choosing it outside instead (but sorry this is probably not the right thing to do). Let us instead manufacture the dividing $C_6$ with $r=9$ unnested ovals as on Fig.\[CCCRoses2:fig\]a. Next we tried to construct a $C_{10}$ with 25 unnested ovals but failed somewhat. Note that this is not obstructed by Arnold’s congruence $\chi=p-n=k^2 \pmod
4$, as both sides are 25.
-1.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
Assume there is such a $C_{10}$ with real scheme $25$ (Gudkov’s notation) which is dividing. On applying CCC we find a splitting $C_{10} \to C_5 \cup C_5^{\sigma}$. The genus $g=9\cdot 8/2=9\cdot
4 =36$, hence $p=[g-(r-1)]/2=(36-24)/2=6$ which is indeed the genus of a quintic. So no obstruction on this side. Note also that Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+ -\Pi^-)=r-k^2$ implies no obstruction, since $\Pi^{\pm}=0$ (no nesting) and so $r=k^2$ with $k=5$.
After our stupid trials we find ultimately the right ground configuration of ellipse as Fig.\[CCCRoses2:fig\]y, which is dividing with $25$ ovals. It is clear now how to extend this in an infinite series of curves $C_{4 \ell +2=2( \ell +1)}$ with $(\ell+1)^2$ ovals lying outside each other, i.e. the scheme $(\ell+1)^2$ in type I. Fig.\[CCCRoses2:fig\]z gives the case of a $C_{14}$.
All this pictures are pleasant, yet they do not help at all to corrupt the conjecture CCC. Of course the latter has some chance to be true especially if the Itenberg-Viro conjecture (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]) is true. A dividing curve without nesting has to satisfy $r=k^2$ by Rohlin’s formula, and therefore applying CCC gives a degeneration $C_{2k}\to C_{k} \cup C_{k}^{\sigma}$ yielding no chance to corrupt Bézout. Also there is no chance to corrupt Klein $p=[g-(r-1)]/2$. Indeed $g=(2k-1)(2k-2)/2$, hence $$\begin{aligned}
p
=[(2k-1)( k-1)-(k^2-1)]/2
&=[(k-1) [(2k-1)-(k+1) ]]/2 \cr
&=[(k-1) (k-2)]/2,
$$ so that the half has degree $k$, as it should.
CCC versus Brusotti: large deformations vs. small perturbations
---------------------------------------------------------------
\[20.01.12\] Philosophically, it seems that such contraction conjectures (Itenberg-Viro (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]) or our collective version thereof (\[CCC:conj\]))—if they turn out to be true by some lucky stroke—incarnate a sort of large deformation principle illustrating once more the perfect graphical flexibility of algebraic curves despite their intrinsic rigidity. In some sense this is an avatar in the large of the small perturbation method à la Plücker-Klein-Harnack-Hilbert-Brusotti-Viro. Hence it seems indeed (as Viro advocated) being of some primary interest to establish the contraction conjectures. Flexibility in the small gives rise to the perturbation method which is primarily a method of construction, whereas flexibility in the large (contraction principles) implies as a byproduct prohibitions (as we superficially experimented at the beginning of Sec.\[CCC:sec\] and more convincingly because Itenberg’s contraction theorem for sextics re-explain all Gudkov-style prohibitions by reduction to the RKM-congruence). At this stage we feel some big duality: local versus global and constructions versus prohibitions (to be or not to be). What would be the net impact of the contraction principle for Hilbert’s 16th problem (in the extended sense of high degrees)? Somewhat optimistically it would reduce the whole task (or rather adventure) to a combinatorial video game best suited for machines. So exaggerating slightly, the contraction conjecture seems quite close to reveal the ultimate secret of the whole problem. Of course some supplementary large deformation principles ought also to complete the picture, e.g. certain permissible eversions compatible with Bézout, and more generally the full morphogenesis of all algebraic Morse surgeries. If all this is available, the video game solving Hilbert’s 16th problem would show in real time all the possible perestroikas which the real loci of projective curves of some fixed degree can undergo, while dragging at free will the joystick in the parameter space.
As sketched in the previous Sections \[CC-via-dynamics:sec\] and \[CC-via-Riemann:sec\]), in order to prove the contraction conjectures (CC or CCC), we could either imagine a dynamical proof via orthogonal trajectories, hence akin to Morse theory, or a direct intervention of conformal geometry à la Riemann (albeit our implementation failed seriously). Whatsoever the exact details it is quite likely that the proof of CC or CCC will employ the calculus of variation in the large over which practically every deep geometrical theorem is based upon (from the brachystochrone, to the Dirichlet principle, via the Riemann mapping theorem up the recent solution of the Poincaré conjecture via the Ricci flow.)
Note finally another very modest piece of evidence in favor of CCC. Remember that for small perturbations à la Brusotti, there is complete freedom to smooth the nodes of a plane curve with normal crossings (compare e.g. Gudkov 1980 [@Gudkov_1980/80-Brusotti]) in the sense that all crossings may be smoothed away or some may be conserved. By analogy CCC is just the case where all empty ovals are contracted simultaneously, while Itenberg-Viro’s CC is just the contraction of a single empty oval. Of course there ought to be the full panoply of intermediate contractions.
CCC implies CC (i.e. Gabard stronger than Itenberg-Viro)
--------------------------------------------------------
\[21.01.13\] Let us now observe that CCC implies CC, just via Brusotti’s theorem (1921 [@Brusotti_1921]):
\[CCviaCCC-Brusotti:lem\] Suppose given a collective contraction of all the empty ovals of a smooth real curve $C_m$, then it is possible to construct all partial contractions via Brusotti. In particular if CCC holds true then so does the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture [(\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\])]{}.
Let $C_m$ be a smooth real curve. W.l.o.g. let us assume it having some empty ovals, say $r_0\ge 1$ many (otherwise the curve just reduces to a pseudoline or to empty real locus). By CCC there is a path $c\colon [0,1] \to \vert mH \vert$ such that $c(0)=C_m$ and $c(t)\in \frak D$(=the discriminant) only for $t=1$ where $c(1)$ is a nodal curve with solitary nodes only ($r_0$ many). By Brusotti’s theorem the neighborhood of the nodal curve $c(1)$ consists of $r_0$ “falde analytiche” (=analytic branches or better [*nappes*]{}) meeting transversally at $c(1)$. Further each of those nappes corresponds to the conservation of some node in the vicinity. In other words the chamber of $C_m$ looks like manifold-with-corner near the nodal curve $c(1)$, locally diffeomorphic to ${\Bbb R}^N$ with $r_0$ many distinguished hyperplanes of coordinates. It is now plain how to construct all other contractions, in particular all the ones of Itenberg-Viro CC contracting just a single empty oval (compare Fig.\[CCCBrusotti:fig\]).
-5pt0
-5pt0
So if optimistic about the truth of CC, it may even seem that CCC is a fairly reasonable angle of attack. Of course one then needs a good functional (e.g. the area of all empty ovals).
Alas, it is less evident that CC implies CCC, as we suggested at the beginning of the investigation. This could be slightly easier if there is a contraction principle extended to solitary nodal curves while keeping the “solitons” in place.
Naively, one may dream of a contraction principle effecting a retraction of a whole chamber (past the discriminant) to its boundary. Yet compact bordered manifolds never retract to their boundaries (as shown by homology mod 2, as we learned from J.-C. Hausmann). This is evidently no obstacle against the contraction conjectures, for the retraction may be undefined on small loci, as since we work up to isotopy such equilibrium points can be avoided. More lucidly nobody ever asserted that the contractions should depend continuously on their initial point(=curve). Imagine as a very naive picture, the chamber as being a disc with a radial projection upon the boundary. Then it is undefined on the center of the disc but this is not a problem for perturbing it slightly it will get mapped somewhere. The whole analogy with retraction of bordered manifolds is not extremely pertinent as in general the chamber will have a boundary consisting not merely of faces touching the empty chamber. Hence under a retraction a curve close to the discriminant could first coalescence 2 ovals instead of shrinking one empty oval.
To show CC or even CCC we could employ a dynamical system (continuous flow) spreading nearly all curves toward the boundary of this chamber at curves having solitary nodes. This could occur as the orthogonal trajectories of some functional. (Another idea would be to look at the Green function of the chamber yet the Green’s lines, streamlines of the flow, would often finish at curves with non-solitary nodes.) Our flow should be strongly attracted by the multi-solitary nodal curves manifold, whereas all other walls corresponding to non-isolated singularities have to repulse the flow. A qualitative picture is given on Fig.\[CCCflow:fig\].
-5pt0
-5pt0
This picture proves nothing, safe maybe the absence of topological obstruction (a priori) to find such a flow (especially if it is allowed some equilibriums when the chamber has complicated topology). Again to get a proof it is likely that one should consider the gradient flow of some real-valued functional on the chamber. This could be the area or length of all empty ovals (as measured on the round metric of $S^2$ double covering ${\Bbb
R}P^2$). Note that CCC implies a little technical simplification over our previous pseudo-proof of CC, where we were troubled by marking one oval.
As already discussed, the main obstacle occurs if our function has some global attracting basin inside the chamber preventing us to reach the desired multi-solitary nodal curve shrinking all empty ovals. This is basically the sole difficulty yet it looks quite insurmountable.
At least for the area or length functional, we saw no obvious way to produce small variations diminishing the “energy”. Perhaps there is some more clever (projective) invariants like degree of roughness à la Gudkov (cf. e.g. Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74]). For instance one could look at the largest (quadratic) cones in ${\Bbb R}^3$ which can be nested inside the ovals, and the corresponding area intercepted on the unit sphere. This is another functional measuring the conical area of the empty ovals. Can we show that this functional is “good”, i.e. no sink inside the chamber? Naive idea: trace inside each oval some maximal ellipse and try to deform the $C_m$ along suitable multiples of those ellipses.
Now the problem looks reduced to a fantastic game probably only soluble by such authorities as Andronov, Leontovich, Gudkov, etc. mixing the qualitative theory of differential equations with that of algebraic curves. So it is truly a Poincaré-Hilbert Verschmelzung(=fusion in Klein’s prose) which seems demanded to settle CCC (or its avatar CC).
\[03.04.13\] Of course, it also safe to say pessimistic and expect maybe that Shustin’s disproof of Klein-vache in degree 8 also implies a disproof of CC. We do not repeat our vague strategy for this, but refer to Sec.\[Challenging-open-prob:sec\].
Problems of rigid-isotopy
=========================
\[09.02.13\] Two (real, plane) curves are said to be [*rigid-isotopic*]{} if one can pass from one to the other by continuous deformation of the coefficients of the defining equations which avoids the discriminant. This involves again the paradigm of [*large deformations*]{} like the contraction conjectures discussed in the previous section. In fact there should be some direct connections between both topics.
As a rule very little is known about the phenomenon of rigidity. All what is trivial is that any topological characteristic persists during a rigid-isotopy, so for instance the [*real scheme*]{} (i.e. the isotopy class of $C_m(\RR)\subset \RR P^2$) as well as Klein’s type I, II measuring the situation of the curve in its complexification. Such invariance were intuitively clear since the era of Schläfli, Zeuthen, Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf], but requires perhaps Ehresmann’s lemma that a locally trivial fibering over a contractible (paracompact$\approx$metric) base is globally trivial. Paracompactness is essential as shown by the simply-connected (indeed contractible) [*Prüfer surface*]{} (cf. works by Prüfer 1922, Radó 1925 [@Rado_1925], Calabi-Rosenlicht 1953, Spivak’s book on Diff. Geom., Vol. I, Appendix, Baillif).
Up to degree $\le 4$ the real scheme (or Klein’s types I/II) suffices to encode the rigid-isotopy class as knew Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf], building over Schläfli and Zeuthen’s works. In degree 5, and 6, the same real scheme plus Klein’s type suffices to ensure a rigid-isotopy. This spectacular result is joint work of Nikulin, with the collaboration of Kharlamov building over two pillars, namely:
\(1) the Gudkov-Rohlin census solving Hilbert’s 16th problem (for sextics) while revitalizing the earlier Riemannian conceptions of Klein about the complexification and,
\(2) the theory of K3 surfaces (Torelli, etc.).
The situation changes drastically from degree 7 upwards as shown by the Fiedler-Marin trick using a locking triangle which consists of $3$ Bézout-saturated lines, hence which cannot be crossed by ovals during a rigid-isotopy. Here the basic idea is that if one can associate to a curve in some canonical manner an auxiliary curve called the lock then the distribution of ovals past the lock is rigid-isotopically invariant. A typical example in degree 7 is the lock consisting of 3 lines through the inner ovals of a curve having the scheme $\frac{3}{1}\ell J$ for some $\ell$. When $\ell
2$ the fundamental triangle can separate in different ways the $\ell$ outer ovals, and curves having different splittings past the lock will not be rigid-isotopic.
This obstruction to rigid-isotopy requires several ovals, and does not seem suited to curves with few ovals where the rigidity problem looks fully open. It is presently very unclear which sort of scenario is to be expected. For instance it is still undecided for $m\ge 7$ whether curves having only one real circuit are always rigid-isotopic. As informed by Viro, this is at least for odd degrees a (confidential) conjecture due to Rohlin.
More generally we posit the following speculation (not that we strongly believe in it, but just as a way to confess our ignorance):
\[LARS:conj\] (LARS).—Curves of degree $m$ with less than $DEEP+2$ real branches, where $\Delta(m)=DEEP(m)=[(m+1)/2]$ is the number of components of the deep nest of degree $m$, are always rigid-isotopic provided they have the same real scheme.
The basic motivation for this conjecture is that below altitude $r\le \Delta+1$ all schemes are of type II except the deep nest which is of type I (by total reality under a pencil of lines). This follows from Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]), especially its corollary known as Rohlin’s inequality (\[Rohlin’s-inequality:cor\]), as well as Klein’s congruence $r\equiv_2 g+1$ forcing dividing curves to have their numbers of real circuits $r$ jumping by quanta of 2 units, hence we gain one type II level right above the deep nest. Further the deep nest is known to be rigid by Nuij 1968 [@Nuij_1968].
Apart form those elementary facts, we have little evidence for this “low-altitude rigidity speculation” (LARS), except suspecting that if the assertion is true it will use a geometric flow permitting a degeneration to curves of lower orders after splitting off a line or a conic. For instance given a curve of odd degree it is tempting to look at the flow shortening the length of the unique pseudoline. Orthogonal trajectories of this functional should abut to a curve splitting off a line, which after all is the shortest pseudoline. This could be the basis of a grand inductive process reducing the rigidity of curves with few branches ($r\le \Delta(m)+1$) to that of curves of lower orders.
It seems that much can be explored along this line of geometric flows, somewhat reminiscent of say Möbius 1863, Poincaré, Morse, etc., up to Perelman’s proof of Poincaré’s conjecture, except that in our case the dynamics lives merely on a finite-dimensional manifold (the hyperspace of all algebraic curves of some fixed degree).
Another source of rigidity comes from the empty scheme, which is rigid. In fact I started to doubt about this issue, until Shustin kindly remembered me the following simple argument. If we have two curves with empty real locus ([*invisible curves*]{} for short), then after choosing equations of the same sign, the linear deformation $(1-t)P+tQ$ will connect both curves while conserving the same sign (provided $0\le t\le 1$), hence producing a path of invisible curves. However it is not a priori (nor a posteriori!?) evident that our path avoids curves with singularities, which could occur in imaginary conjugate pair. Hence the complete proof seems to use the fact that empty curves with singularities form a locus of codimension 2, since there are two conjugate nodes generically.
Once rigidity of the empty scheme is known, rigidity of curves with one oval should follow simply by contracting the one oval and letting it then disappear. This gives the basic connection with the former section (which is primarily a remark of Viro). Also as we remarked earlier, the stronger version CCC of the contraction conjecture could accomplish stronger rigidity results like URS, cf. (\[URS:conj\]).
[*Insertion*]{} \[03.04.13\].—Conversely if the one-oval scheme (unifolium) is rigid then it suffices to contract the Fermat curve (of even degree) to establish CC, but alas only for this unifolium chamber. Incidentally the validity of CC even for the unifolium scheme is not completely obvious, for taking the linear pencil between such a curve and an empty one leads (after assuming general position w.r.t. the discriminant, i.e. transversality) to a sequence of Morse surgeries a priori much more complex than just the death of the oval.
\[10.02.13\] Another question of didactic interest is to study the interplay between Fiedler-Marin locking method and Nikulin’s rigid classification. For sextic schemes of the form $\frac{3}{1}\ell$ we have an obvious lock given by the 3 lines through pairs among the 3 deep inner ovals. Each such line cuts twice the ovals it visits and twice the (nonempty) surrounding oval, hence is Bézout-saturated. Further this fundamental triangle is canonically assigned to the configuration in the sense that the position of 3 points in the insides of the ovals is parametrized by the 3rd symmetric power of a cell which is a contractible space. Hence the distribution of the outer ovals past the deep (Bermudian) triangle is invariant under rigid-isotopy. This adumbrates a strategy toward corrupting Nikulin’s theorem, but in reality the latter rather implies an invariance of this Bermudian distribution of outer ovals for all curves having the same real scheme (and the same type in Klein’s sense). It is therefore of interest to determine this outer distribution past the fundamental triangle for some specific curves as it will imply the same for all isotopic curves. This question is elaborated in Sec.\[Nikulin-corruption:sec\].
[*Insertion*]{} \[03.04.13\].—All this problematic went in decrepitude after an illuminating message of Le Touzé (cf. Sec.\[LeTouze:sec\]) yielding a conceptual explanation of why it is impossible to corrupt Nikulin via Fiedler-Marin. The reason is a simple chromatic law for conics passing through $5=3+2$ points with 3 of them black-colored (situated or defining a triangle), while the location of the 2 remaining points (white colored) past the triangle will determine how the sequence of 5 points distributes on the conic interpolating them. When the 2 white-points belongs to different component of the (black) triangle the distribution will be dichromatic in the sense that the 2 white points are not standing nearby, but separated by black points ($1$ or $2$ depending on the path chosen on the topological circle underlying the conic). Applying this lemma on conics to the above setting, shows that all ovals of a sextic enlarging the scheme $\frac{3}{1}$ are necessarily not separated by the deep triangle, for otherwise we can trace a conic with 4 transitions black-and-white (i.e. inside-vs.-outside of the nonempty oval) with therefore $5\cdot 2+4=14>12=2\cdot 6$ real intersections violating Bézout.
A last phenomenon is the rigidity of the deep nest established in Nuij 1968 [@Nuij_1968] or Dubrovin 1983 [@Dubrovin_1983/85]. This seems connected with Ahlfors total reality, since the deep nest is totally real under a pencil of lines. Extrapolating the Nuij-Dubrovin rigidity one can speculate that curves (or schemes) totally real under other pencils are likewise rigid. (A real scheme is [*rigid*]{} if all curves belonging to it are rigid-isotopic.) For instance the scheme of degree 8 consisting of 4 nests of depth 2 is totally really under a pencil of conics and thus could be rigid. Note however that total reality in the abstract sense which is actually (by Ahlfors theorem) synonymous to “type I” is not sufficient to ensure rigidity as exemplified by Marin’s construction of two isotopic $M$-septics, yet not rigid-isotopic (cf. Fig.\[Marin:fig\] below). Therefore if there is any connection between total reality and rigidity it must be a more subtle one. This theme is explored in Sec.\[Nuij-Dubrovin-extended:sec\], but we lack any serious result presently.
Problems of rigid-isotopy amount studying the residual components past the discriminant $\disc$ which is a hypersurface of degree $3(m-1)^2$ in the hyperspace of all curves of degree $m$. Call such components, [*chambers*]{} “of” the discriminant. When $m\le 6$ virtually everything is known, e.g. there are precisely 64 chambers of sextics by Nikulin’s theorem built upon the Gudkov-Rohlin census (cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). A myriad of questions occur which are hard to handle systematically. For instance how many chambers in function of $m$? Is there an universal upper bound on the number of chambers residual to a hypersurface in function of its degree and dimension. This seems perhaps accessible via a conjunction of Harnack-Klein-Smith-Thom-Milnor and Jordan-Brouwer separation (plus Phragmen?). Asymptotic results in this sense were studied by Kharlamov-Orevkov.
One would like to describe the contiguity graph between chambers where edges label Morse surgeries while crossing the discriminant transversally along a principal stratum of codimension 1 (so-called [*walls*]{}). One can also investigate the topology of the varied chambers. Here one tool is the monodromy representation encoding how ovals permute when the curve is travelled along a loop in the given chamber. This and other issues is the object of next section, which is probably not extremely relevant to our main topic of the Ahlfors map, yet pleasant for its own. It can be left with loss of continuity.
The topology of chambers, symmetry, monodromy and transmutation (Kharlamov 1980, Itenberg 1994)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[10.02.13\] To each real scheme is attached a (Zeuthen)-Hilbert (multi-)tree (“forest”) with vertices the ovals and with edges whenever there is a nesting. Since any oval is immediately enveloped in at most one other oval this forest looks like a forest of pines (or a mushroom if you prefer). Hence, it is a directed set branching only downwards. The monodromy acts on this tree respecting its combinatorial structure. So for instance the deep nest is a “naked” tree having only a trunk but no branches. The automorphism group of this trivial tree is trivial, and so must be the monodromy representation. There is no obstruction to the deep-nest chamber having a simply-connected topology, and we can conjecture it to be simply-connected.
What about the empty chamber $E$? Define the [*invisible locus*]{} $I$ as the set of all curves with empty real locus. The empty chamber is $E=I-\disc$. A simple argument (detailed in the sequel) shows that $I$ is simply-connected and even contractible. Another simple argument based on Brusotti shows that $\disc \cap
I$ is nonempty (when $m\ge 4$). Further $I\cap \disc$ has real codimension 2 in the hyperspace of curves $\mH$ (or in $I$) and so is like a knot (possibly with singularity). In any case, it seems to follow ($I$ being noncompact) that the fundamental group $\pi_1(E)$ is non-trivial despite triviality of the monodromy. Perhaps $E$ is an Eilenberg-MacLane space $K(\pi, 1)$, i.e. aspheric. Can we compute $\pi_1(E)$ as a function of $m$? What about $m=6$ or even $m=4$?
Likewise for the deep chamber $D$ it seems hasty to expect simple-connectivity from trivialness of the monodromy. Consider for instance the Gürtelkurve $C_4$ quartic (with 2 nested ovals) and assume it a very symmetric perturbation of 2 transverse ellipses rotated by $90$ degrees. Assume further the existence of say a symmetry $\tau$ about the vertical axis. Since the group $G=PGL(3, \RR)$ is connected we can connected the identity to $\tau$ by a continuous path $c$. This $c$ induces a loop $\gamma$ in the space of quartics from $C_4$ to itself. As $C_4$ belongs to the deep chamber $D$ upon which the group $G$ acts, it makes sense to ask whether $\gamma $ is trivial or not in $\pi_1(D)$. For $c$ we may choose the path in $SO(3)$ given by $180$ degrees gyration about the vectorial line of $\RR^3\ni (x,y,z)$ parallel to the axis of symmetry of $C_4$ (viewed in the affine chart $z=1$). (Warning actually it seems that the line orthogonal to that is required!)
Actually choosing any path $c$ from $id$ to $\tau$ in $G=PGL$, its image in $D\subset \mH$ is a loop $\gamma$ likely to be not null-homotopic. Alas the map from $G$ to the orbit of $C_4$ is not really a covering, the argument looks a bit sloppy. A more convenient way to argue is to consider the double cover of the deep chamber $D$ by polarized curves, i.e. with a preferred half of the underlying orthosymmetric Riemann surface. Polarizing amounts specifying a complex orientation à la Rohlin (by taking the oriented boundary of the preferred half w.r.t. the canonical orientation induced by the complex structure). The loop $\gamma$ based at $C_4$ lifts—w.r.t. the polarized cover—to a [*non-closed*]{} path, since $\tau$ exchanges both halves of the complexification. Imagine indeed the symmetric surface underlying the Gürtelkurve as a pretzel of genus 3 with 2 ovals acted upon by an involution ($\tau$) with 4 fixed points then it must necessarily be a rotation by a half-twist about a line in 3-space perforating the ovals in 4 points.
It is clear that this argument extends to all deep nests and we obtain the:
For any integer $m$ (odd or even do not matter) the chamber of the deep nest (alias deep chamber) is not simply-connected.
Any curve in the deep chamber $D$ is of type I (Klein’s orthosymmetry) since there is a totally real pencil of lines. (This is the trivial sense of Ahlfors theorem so-to-speak.) We consider for each plane orthosymmetric curve the two possible ways to paint one half of the curve in black, and call the corresponding painted object a polarized curve (or Riemann surface). If $O$ is the union of all orthosymmetric chambers, we have a natural way to topologize the space $O_2$ of all polarized curves to turn it in a double cover of $O$, the orthosymmetric locus. In particular we have a double cover of the deep chamber $D_2\to D$.
Any member of the deep chamber admits a representative $C_m$ with a mirror involution $\tau$ given as $(x,y)\mapsto (-x,y)$ in affine coordinates. It suffices indeed to define $C_m$ as a small perturbation of an union of concentric circles (plus a horizontal line outside them when $m$ is odd). Either by inspecting the Riemann surface or just by noticing that $\tau$ reverses orientation of the ovals (and the pseudoline if $m$ odd) we infer that $\tau$ takes the polarized curve to its opposite (where the other half is preferred).
Using connectedness of $G=PGL(3, \RR)$ (more generally $PGL(n,
\RR)$ is connected whenever $n$ is odd because then both components of $GL(n, \RR)$ given by the sign of the determinant coalesce together since the identity matrix $I_n$ and its opposite $-I_n$ are homothetic yet of opposite determinants), we infer existence of a path $c$ in the Lie group $G$ connecting $id$ to the symmetry $\tau$. Applying this path to $C_m$ gives a loop $\gamma$ in the deep chamber $D$ based at $C_m$. Lifting this loop to the $O_2$ cover continuously amounts tautologically to apply the path $c$ to the polarized curve, whose end-point $c(1)$ is the opposite polarization as the one we started with. Hence the lift of the loop $\gamma$ is not a loop, and covering theory tell us that $\gamma$ is not null-homotopic.
If now $O$ denotes a specific orthosymmetric chamber we also have the double cover $O_2\to O$ (by polarized Riemann surfaces) and it is likely that the above argument extends to all or at least some orthosymmetric chambers having a representative with a mirror symmetry $\tau$. Each such chamber would not be simply-connected.
Abstractly an orthosymmetric surface can always be rotated by an half-twist permuting both halves. However it is not evident that this can be done in the plane, at least we know about no general argument. Thus we retract to examples in degree $m=6$, where due to the combined efforts of Harnack-Hilbert-Gudkov-Rohlin we know exactly what happens (cf. the Gudkov table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). In each orthosymmetric chamber we look for a symmetric representant under an involution fixing a line.
Consulting this table and gathering earlier constructions on a single plate (Fig.\[Symmetry:fig\] below) gives the following symmetric realizations of dividing sextics:
$\bullet$ the $M$-schemes of Hilbert and Harnack can both be given a symmetric realization as evidenced by the picture below. In both cases the invariant line intercepts 3 ovals.
$\bullet$ for Gudkov’s scheme $\frac{5}{1}5$ the existence of a symmetry is less obvious in Gudkov’s original construction (cf. Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\]). The situation appears more pleasant on Viro’s construction of the latter (compare Fig.\[Viro3-15:fig\]c), but alas since we cannot choose $\alpha=\beta=2$ both in V1 and V2 (please refer to the notation of that figure) we cannot conclude the existence of a global symmetry. Should we conjecture that Gudkov is somehow asymmetric?
$\bullet$ $\frac{8}{1}$ admits a symmetric realization as shown by a variant of Hilbert’s method (cf. figure below). Notice also the model with double (dihedral) symmetry. Again 3 ovals are intercepted by the (vertical) axis of symmetry.
$\bullet$ $\frac{6}{1}2$ in Hilbert’s realization below severely lacks symmetry. Appealing to Viro’s method (Fig.\[Viro3-15:fig\]c or below) does not aid (V5 twice looks promising yet do not confuse the values of $\alpha,\beta$!).
$\bullet$ $\frac{4}{1}4$ along Hilbert’s realization again lacks symmetry, and Viro’s method does not seem to help.
$\bullet$ $\frac{2}{1}6$ in Hilbert’s realization is asymmetric. Via Viro’s method this is realized by taking in V1 bottom $(\alpha, \beta)=(1,1)$ and in V2 top $(\alpha, \beta)=(0,4)$. Alas this is highly asymmetric.
$\bullet$ $9$ is symmetric under Hilbert’s construction, or a more elementary (Plücker-style) deformation of 3 ellipses, which is even more symmetrical.
$\bullet$ $\frac{5}{1}1$ is symmetric as shown below via a primitive perturbation of ellipses à la Plücker-Klein (pre Harnack-Hilbert oscillation trick). Again 3 ovals are intercepted by the symmetry-axis.
$\bullet$ $\frac{3}{1}3$ is symmetric by a perturbation of ellipses depicted below.
$\bullet$ $\frac{1}{1}5$ is likewise symmetric as shown by the depiction below.
$\bullet$ $\frac{4}{1}$ is highly symmetric as shown by a perturbation of ellipses below.
$\bullet$ $\frac{2}{1}2$ is symmetric as shown by the perturbation of ellipses below (2 models).
This is the exhaustive list of sextics of type I, modulo the omission of the deep nest (which is certainly symmetric). When taking 3 concentric circles one gets the impression of a continuous Lie group of symmetries, yet any perturbed curve will be more rigid (recall finiteness of automorphisms due to Schwarz-Klein-Poincaré-Hurwitz and the bound $84(g-1)$).
-1.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
From this investigation it follows the:
All orthosymmetric chambers of sextics are not simply-connected except perhaps the $4$ “antechambers” nearby Gudkov’s scheme that is $\frac{5}{1}5$, $\frac{6}{1}2$, $\frac{4}{1}4$, and $\frac{2}{1}6$. In fact all sextic orthosymmetric chambers $O$ have nontrivial polarization covering $O_2\to O$, safe perhaps the $4$ above asymmetrical schemes.
\[11.02.13\] Perhaps there is an obstruction for those 4 schemes to admit a symmetry about a line. In case of a Gudkov curve (of type $\frac{5}{1}5$), the symmetry has to leave invariant 3 ovals for the unique nonempty oval has to be preserved while the number of inner and outer ovals are odd. At this stage (or earlier) it is pleasant to visualize the Riemann surface in 3-space. Besides the horizontal orthosymmetry imagine a rotational symmetry under half-twist (180 degrees) leaving 3 ovals invariant while the 8 remaining one are pairwise exchanged. Of course per se this is no obstruction since Hilbert or Harnack have such a symmetry. So the obstruction is necessarily a subtle one if it exists perhaps say à la Arnold-Rohlin. Another idea is to smooth the Gudkov curve along the axis of symmetry and hope to get a septic violating Bézout (Fig.\[Symmetry:fig\]d), but looks improbable.
Let us look at Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+ -\Pi^-)=r-k^2$ (see (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\])). Applying it to a Gudkov curve we have $r=11$ and $k^2=9$, hence $(\Pi^+ -\Pi^-)=1$. But on Gudkov’s curve we have $5$ injective pairs of ovals, i.e. $5=\Pi=\Pi^{+}+\Pi^{-}$, and it follows $2\Pi^+=5+1=6$, whence $\Pi^{+}=3$ and $\Pi^{-}=2$. Can it be inferred that there is no symmetry? A priori not, since the 5 inner ovals could have their complex orientations being reversed by the symmetry while one oval is kept invariant. Doing the same calculation for Hilbert’s curve we find $(\Pi^+ -\Pi^-)=1$ and $9=\Pi=\Pi^{+}+\Pi^{-}$, so $2\Pi^+=9+1=10$ and $\Pi^{+}=5$ while $\Pi^{-}=4$.
The symmetry could be not a reflection about a line but a rotation about a point. Yet from the projective viewpoint this seems to be equivalent. At any rate Gudkov’s curve in Viro’s realization is anyway not symmetric under a rotation.
Let us apply Rohlin’s formula to the $(M-2)$-schemes which are potentially asymmetric, e.g., $\frac{6}{1}2$. Then $2(\Pi^+
-\Pi^-)=9-k^2=0$, hence $\Pi^+ -\Pi^-=0$, but $\Pi^+ +\Pi^-=6$ so that $2\Pi^+=6$, and $\Pi^+=3=\Pi^{-}$. Hence the symmetry cannot exchange the $6$ inner ovals in pairs without fixing any of them.
This requires some explanation. Recall we are looking for holomorphic involutions of some plane dividing curve $C_m$ induced by an element of $PGL(3, \RR)$ exchanging both halves. Call such an involution a [*mutation*]{}. If a curve has a mutation then its chamber $O$ has nontrivial polarized covering $O_2\to O$.
For sextics (except the deep nest and the unnested curves $1,2,\dots,10$) there is a unique nonempty oval. Distinguished as a such, this must be preserved by the mutation $\tau$, which must reverse its orientation. If not, orientation is preserved and $\tau$ acts as a rotation on this circle. Taking an invariant tube-neighborhood one deduces that both halves are preserved as $\tau$ respects orientation of the surface (hence of this tube), violating the mutating assumption.
Supposed fixed a complex orientation of the dividing curve. The mutation reverses orientation of the nonempty oval, and also the complex orientations of all other ovals because $\tau$ preserves orientation but exchanges both halves. Symbolically, we may see this by writing $\tau(\partial
C^+)=\partial (\tau C^+)=\partial (C^-)=-\partial (C^+)$.
At this stage we are ripe for picturing. Imagine the mutation given by a symmetry about a line (this is probably no loss of generality in projective geometry, as the other candidate namely a rotation about a point fixes the line at infinity). Consider the following schematic pictures (Fig.\[Sym2:fig\]). The first (Fig.a) is not mutating the orientation, hence precluded. Fig.b is mutating the complex orientation, but violates Rohlin’s formula. In fact the mutation condition in case where no inner ovals are invariant imposes an even number of positive injective pairs of ovals and Rohlin’s formula cannot be fulfilled. Hence Rohlin’s formula forbids a mutation without invariant inner oval. Fig.c shows a configuration where both mutation and Rohlin’s formula are satisfied. This is good schematically but bad theoretically, as it fails obstructing mutability of a curve of type $\frac{6}{1}2$. We are not much advanced in our problem. The other figures of Fig.\[Sym2:fig\] show that for each of the other asymmetric types there is always a schematic symmetry compatible with both mutation and Rohlin’s formula. So Rohlin fails to detect any structural asymmetry. Paraphrasing, asymmetry may just be a defect of our models (Hilbert and Viro) yet not an intrinsic property of the chamber.
-5pt0
-5pt0
In fact, the above Rohlin’s formula argument only shows for the two $(M-2)$-schemes of type I ($\frac{6}{1}2$ and its mirror), that if they have a mutation the latter must preserves 2 inner ovals.
\[12.02.13\] $\bullet$ A smooth dividing plane curve $C_m$ defined over $\RR$ is transmutable if there is a rigid-isotopy switching its half (called a transmutation).
$\bullet$ A mutation is a linear automorphism $\tau \in
G=PGL(3,\RR)$ of the curve $C_m$ permuting both halves of the curve, say in this case that the curve is mutable.
Since the group $PGL(3,\RR)$ is connected any mutation induces (non canonically) a transmutation. Indeed choose a path $c$ in $G$ joining $id$ to $\tau$ and its operation upon $C_m$ defines a loop in the corresponding chamber of the space of curves (past the discriminant) which is a transmutation. It is not essential that $\tau$ has order 2, but then speak of a $2$-mutation.
So any $2$-mutable (dividing) curve is mutable, and in turn transmutable. The converses looks a priori quite improbable. Are all dividing plane curves transmutable? or even mutable, or $2$-mutable after some rigid-isotopy? The question looks of interest because a non transmutable curve would have a preferred half (privileged so-to-speak) which looks a bit against the flavor of Galois-theory and French revolution “égalité, fraternité, etc.”.
A mutation (like any self map of $\RR P^2$) has a (real) fixed point (e.g. via Lefschetz fixed point theorem using homology over ${\Bbb Q}$), and any $2$-mutation is a mirror about a line fixing also a real isolated point, as inferred from linear algebra (existence of real eigenvalues for an endomorphism of a real vector space of odd dimension).
Perhaps the above questions can be handled via C. Segre’s classification of real structures on projective spaces, especially the fact that the plane ${\Bbb P}^2$ has a unique real structure, but looks unlikely as the curves are not taken into account.
One way to approach the problem in general would be to look at the action of $G=PGL(3, \RR)$ on the chamber past the discriminant containing a dividing curve. Existence of a mutation in each such chamber amounts this action being never free, i.e. with nontrivial isotropy subgroup $G_{C}$ at some suitable curve $C=C_m$. This is not enough for the automorphism in question needs not permute both halves. Omitting this difficulty, there would be a free Lie group operating, hence an induced foliation of the chamber by leaves of dimension 8 (=$\dim G$). Alas such a foliation also exists when the action is only locally-free, i.e. discrete isotropy are allowed. It would be nice to know if all chambers of the discriminant (not only the orthosymmetric chambers) contains a curve with (linear) automorphism in themselves. For orthosymmetric chambers we would further like to know if there is such an automorphism permuting the halves of the curve (i.e. a mutation).
In a remarkable article extending earlier work by Kharlamov, Itenberg 199X [@Itenberg_199X-monodromy-deg-6] is able to compute the monodromy groups of each chamber of sextics. Extracting from his tabulation, only the type I cases gives the:
[(Kharlamov, Itenberg)]{} The monodromy groups of smooth sextics of dividing type are given by the following list (where $\triv$ is the trivial group, $S_n$ the symmetric group on $n$ letters, and $D_n$ the dihedral group):
$\bullet$ $\frac{9}{1}1 \rightsquigarrow \ZZ_2 $, $\frac{5}{1}5 \rightsquigarrow \triv $, $\frac{1}{1}9 \rightsquigarrow S_3 $,
$\bullet$ $\frac{8}{1} \rightsquigarrow D_4 $, $\frac{6}{1}2
\rightsquigarrow \triv $, $\frac{4}{1}4 \rightsquigarrow \triv $, $\frac{2}{1}6 \rightsquigarrow \ZZ_2 $, $9 \rightsquigarrow S_9 $,
$\bullet$ $\frac{5}{1}1 \rightsquigarrow \ZZ_2 $, $\frac{3}{1}3 \rightsquigarrow \ZZ_2 $ $\frac{1}{1}5 \rightsquigarrow D_5 $,
$\bullet$ $\frac{4}{1} \rightsquigarrow S_3 $, $\frac{2}{1}2 \rightsquigarrow \ZZ_2 \times \ZZ_2 $, $\bullet$ $(1,1,1) \rightsquigarrow \triv$.
It is interesting to compare this result with our picture Fig.\[Symmetry:fig\], as sometimes the whole monodromy group can be realized by rigid projective motions.
Besides, it seems interesting to compare this monodromy of ovals to the monodromy upon the halves. Albeit the latter viewpoint is less rich in general (being only a representation on the group with 2 elements) it is sometimes of complementary nature in detecting non-triviality of the fundamental group of the fixed chamber. For the moment, our halves-monodromy is only more sensitive in the deep-nest case. (Question: does the $\pi_1$ of the deep chamber reduces to $\ZZ_2$?)
Finally, note that the oval-monodromy is also fairly small for the 4 exceptional schemes, asymmetric in Hilbert’s (or Viro’s) realization (again Fig.\[Symmetry:fig\]). Hence both methods oval-monodromy and half-monodromy (at least via rigid symmetries) fails to detect nontrivial elements in $\pi_1$ of the corresponding chamber for the schemes of Gudkov $\frac{5}{1}5$, of left-Rohlin $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{4}{1}4$. Can we extrapolate that those chambers are simply-connected? If yes then those 3 curves are not transmutable, hence not mutable and therefore structurally asymmetric (i.e. there is no model invariant under a mirror).
More factually, Itenberg’s calculation prevents a curve of type $\frac{6}{1}2$ to accept a mirror like Fig.\[Sym2:fig\]c. Indeed otherwise if $\tau$ is such a mirror, it suffices to take a path in $PGL(3, \RR)$ joining the identity to this $\tau$ to get a loop in the space of curves with non trivial monodromy. Likewise no curve of type $\frac{4}{1}4$ can accept a mirror like Figs.\[Sym2:fig\]d,e, and no curves of the Gudkov type $\frac{5}{1}5$ can accept a mirror like Figs.\[Sym2:fig\]i. Hence Itenberg’s calculation implies the following answer to one of our basic question:
None of the $3$ monodromically-trivial dividing curves—as listed by Itenberg, i.e. Gudkov’s, the left Rohlin curve $\frac{6}{1}2$, and that of type $\frac{4}{1}4$—can support a mirror.
A mirror is a linear involution of $PGL(3,\RR)$ which fixes a line (plus a point at $\infty$). By Bézout, the fixed line can intercept at most 3 ovals which are then invariant. Examining the following Fig.\[Sym3:fig\] shows that there is always some pair of ovals permuted by the mirror.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Alas, an oval can be invariant under the mirror without having to intersect the fixed line, say by running to infinity. Then one can try to argue with the line at infinity and Bézout.
A better way to argue is that the nonempty oval of the sextic has to be invariant under the mirror, hence at most 2 inner ovals can be left invariant under the mirror (else Bézout corrupted). So we infer existence of inner ovals permuted under the mirror $\tau$. Taking a path from $id $ to $\tau $ yields a loop in the chamber whose monodromy is nontrivial. This contradicts Itenberg’s calculation of the monodromy.
In particular this shows existence of curves without a $2$-mutation, since a $2$-mutation is certainly a mirror. However it is not clear if our 3 curves lack a mutation. Given a mutation (i.e. a linear automorphism) permuting the halves it is not a priori of order 2. However it has finite order (by Klein-Poincaré-Hurwitz finiteness of the automorphism group of closed Riemann surfaces of genus $\ge 2$). Since $\tau$ permutes the halves its order must be even say $n=2 e$. Hence $\tau^e$ is an involution, and a mutation if $e$ is odd. Alas in the other case, i.e. when $n$ is divisible by $4$, we cannot say much.
Assume given a mutation $\tau$ on a Gudkov curve, then it has to preserve the unique nonempty oval, and the inner and outer ovals have to be respected. Further $\tau$ (being a mutation) it has to reverse the complex orientation. As we may assume the order $n$ of $\tau$ divisible by $4$, it should follow that $\tau$ permutes the ovals along a 4-cycle, etc. Via some group theory there is presumably an obstruction to mutate the Gudkov curve?
Alternatively assume there is a mutation on some Gudkov curve $C_6$ then it will permute the ovals while preserving the nonempty one and the inner/outer ovals subdivision. Further it must reverse the complex orientation. If any permutation of the ovals is detected (which is precluded by the Kharlamov-Itenberg’s calculation of the monodromy as being trivial), we are finished. Assume so that the mutation preserves all ovals. Since it has to reverse their orientations, the mutation has 2 fixed points on each of them (an orientation reversing transformation of the circle has 2 fixed points e.g. via Lefschetz or via covering theory). But globally our mutation is of finite order (since it induces an automorphism of the Riemann surface of genus $10\ge
2$), and any element of finite order in $PGL(3, \RR)$ preserves a line. So we get a line intersecting the $C_6$ in 22 points, overwhelming Bézout. As another variant, once our mutation is known to have 2 fixed points on each ovals we have $2(g+1)$ of them, which is the maximum permitted by Lefschetz trace formula. We would like to conclude that $\tau $ is the hyperelliptic involution, which cannot exist on a smooth $C_6$ (which is only $5$-gonal).
Let us clarify this argument with the:
[A curve is [*antidromic*]{} if it monodromy group is trivial. A [*symmetry*]{} of a plane real curve is a linear automorphism of the plane (i.e. an element of $PGL(3,\RR)$) preserving globally the curve.]{}
[(1)]{} Any symmetry of an antidromic curve must leave each oval invariant. Hence all the $3$ antidromic sextics listed by Itenberg can only admit a mutation preserving all the ovals.
[(2)]{} In particular all the $3$ antidromic dividing sextics of Itenberg (the deep nest being excluded) lack a mutation. So Gudkov’s curve, and the left-wing Rohlin curve $\frac{6}{1}2$ and the dividing curve $\frac{4}{1}4$ are asymmetric at least under a mutation (i.e. they cannot mutate).
\(1) If there is a symmetry $\tau$ permuting somehow the ovals, then the path in $PGL(3,\RR)$ connecting $id$ to $\tau$ induces a loop in the space of curves with nontrivial monodromy (namely the ovals-permutation induced by $\tau$). (2) As to the second assertion, our oval-preserving mutation must necessarily invert the orientation of all ovals since it exchanges both halves. (Recall that a mutation reverses the complex orientation in the sense of Rohlin, since it preserves the orientation induced by the complex structure while exchanging both halves of the dividing curve.) Since a sense-reversing transformation of the circle has 2 fixed points as follows from Lefschetz’s fixed-point formula. (Indeed the Lefschetz trace number is $(+1)-(-1)=+2$ so there is a fixed point and removing it one obtains an orientation reversing homeomorphism of the line which has another fixed point, e.g. by applying Bolzano to the graph of this continuous decreasing function.) (Is it true that any sense-reversing transformation of the circle is an involution? We do not need this anyway!)
Since Itenberg’s antidromic curves have $r=11$ or $r=9$ ovals, we get 22 or 18 fixed points created. Next we have:
A linear automorphism in $PGL(3, \RR)$ that fixes $4$ (or more) points of $\RR P^2$ fixes either a line plus an isolated point or is the identity.
This follows by looking at the 4 corresponding eigen-lines in $\RR^3$, two of which have to correspond to the same eigenvalue (pigeonhole principle), and so there is the required fixed projective line. The third eigenvalue left (necessarily real) gives a third eigen-line and the announced alternative follows depending on whether this 3rd eigenvalue differs or coincides with the former double eigenvalue.
It follows that among our 22 or 18 many fixed-points (at least so many less one) are aligned, but this corrupts Bézout.
A priori it is much harder to detect an obstruction to transmute the Gudkov curve (or its 2 antidromic cousins), and likewise hard to show that it may be transmuted.
Assume there is a transmutation. Then since by Kharlamov-Itenberg’s lemma the curve is antidromic the induced permutation of ovals is trivial, but the complex orientation is reversed. Perhaps some obstruction can be deduced from this...
\[15.02.13\] Two days ago, Kharlamov informed me that the Gudkov chamber has fundamental group $\ZZ_2$ compare his letter (dated \[13.02.13\]) in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]. So I presume that the Gudkov curve can be transmuted, and that the isomorphism $\pi_1\approx \ZZ_2$ may be realized as the monodromy acting upon halves. Kharlamov’s messages also emphasize the issue that the $M$-curves case is somewhat easier than the other cases. Hence while the (oval)-monodromies are completely calculated by Itenberg, it may be the case that the determination of the fundamental group of each chamber is somewhat harder to obtain.
Some naive questions are as follows. We presume that the deep-nest chamber has $\pi_1=\ZZ_2$. Are the (fundamental) of chambers always finite? This would follow (theorem of Myers, Synge, Hopf, etc.) if there is a complete metric of positive curvature on the hyperspace of curves (which is the case) yet the natural elliptic metric is not complete when restricted to the chambers. Further since Gudkov’s chamber is not simply-connected, any Gudkov curve is presumably transmutable (this amounts to say that the Kharlamov isomorphism $\pi_1=\ZZ_2$ is realized by the monodromy of halves). If so is the case, perhaps that even all dividing plane curves are transmutable.
Isotopic rigidity of the empty scheme: connectedness of invisible curves {#rigidity-empty-scheme-via-dyna:sec}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[08.04.13\] We now come to a tortuous revelation of a basic truth, namely the fact that the empty chamber is connected, i.e. any 2 real smooth plane curves with empty real locus can be connected by a path of similar curves (avoiding the discriminant). This problematic covers no less than $6$ sections up to Sec.\[invisible-discriminant-codim-2:sec\], where it is elucidated that the portion of the discriminant inside the locus of empty(=invisible) real curves has codimension 2 hence cannot effect a disconnection. Pivotal in this search was a kind letter by Shustin explaining the linear homotopy argument between empty curves, which shows that the empty locus (including possibly singular curves) is connected, and actually much more like being contractible. So we warn the reader that those six sections are far from a geodesic toward the goal, but we had not the courage to censure any bit of our poorly organized material as it often ramifies toward considerations of independent interest.
\[23.01.13\] In fact to be honest I realize that even the foundation of our reasoning (in the previous section[^51]) is not completely sound, namely the following fact:
[(Folklore??? is it really true? If yes where is it proved?)]{} Any two empty curves are rigid-isotopic.
[*Insertion*]{} \[08.04.13\].—Folklore probably! True, certainly, compare Shustin’s letter, but also the codimension 2 lemma (poorly) established in our Lemma \[invisible-discriminant-codim-2:lem\]. Where it is proved? We still lack a detailed reference, but apparently the fact is so trivial that nobody took care writing down a complete proof. It would be of interest to make a deeper historical search of who knew first this simple result. Possible candidates: Schläfli 1863 [@Schlaefli_1863], Cayley, Klein 1873–1925, C. Segre, Hilbert ca. 1891, Berzolari 1906 [@Berzolari_1906], Severi e.g. 1921 [@Severi_1921-Vorlesungen-u-alg.-Geom-BUCH], Brusotti 1921 or earlier, Petrovskii 1933, etc.
(Sometimes instead of saying empty curves we shall say invisible curve, when the real locus $C_m({\Bbb R})$ is empty.)
I was sure this to be known (but completely forgot where I read this in case I am remembering well!!!) At first sight this looks trivial but is not. One could imagine the empty chamber to be starlike or even convex, but this is not even evident. Somehow invisible curves could be like the immersed half of an iceberg, hence connected, while the visible part of the iceberg may consist of several islands (peaks) corresponding to the menagerie of chambers past the discriminant, well-known in Hilbert’s 16th. Alas even if this metaphor ought to contain some truth, it is easy to construct an iceberg with disconnected immersed locus. Take a letter “E”, rotate it by $-\pi/2$ to get the symbol ($\Pi\!\!\Pi$) considered as a tripod with 3 legs immersed in the water. To go in 3D, just take the body of revolution of this symbol to get an iceberg with 2 immersed components[^52]. After having being puzzled for while one might suspect this to be a result à la Hilbert, that a form not representing zero is something like a sum of squares...(not clear).
\[24.01.13\] More geometrically, one can look at the distance between the complex locus of a real curve $C_m({\Bbb C})$ and the real plane ${\Bbb R}P^2$. It is natural to work with the Fubini-Study metric on ${\Bbb C}P^2$. Then look at “the” point of the real plane closest to $C_m({\Bbb C})$, which must be generically unique. If we let $E$ be the empty chamber (a priori not connected), we obtain so a random-map $\pi\colon E \to {\Bbb
R}P^2$ taking an invisible curve to its closest “projection” in ${\Bbb R}P^2$. Up to removing some subset of $E$, one could arrange $\pi$ to be single-valued, and one would check that $\pi$ is akin to a fibration with connected fibres. The connectedness of $E$ could follow. It is also tempting to imagine a flow driving invisible curves to solitary nodes. This would be just the gradient flow of the functional distance to the real locus ${\Bbb
R}P^2$. The corresponding trajectories of steepest descent could converge to a curve with a unique solitary node (generic case). At the level of the Riemann surface this isotopy (given by the path of trajectory) really amounts to the contraction of an anti-oval toward a solitary node. So this is just a special case of Klein’s Ansatz (\[Klein-1876:conj-noch-entwicklungsfahig\]), that a nondividing curve can acquire a novel solitary node (by a large deformation). (Of course recall this to be erroneous by Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985], yet it is perhaps true for empty curves). In fact:
Klein’s Ansatz is trivially true for empty curves (just by general position and surgery of the real locus).
Indeed, given any invisible curve $C_m$, take any pencil through it passing through a visible curve $D_m$ (with nonempty real locus), then making this line transverse to the discriminant we get Morse surgeries the first of which must necessarily be a solitary node formation.
[*Insertion*]{} \[08.04.13\] Maybe one can object again this proof, by arguing that the first contact with the discriminant could be through a pair of imaginary nodes. Paraphrasing a bit we could imagine that travelling along the pencil spanned by $C_m,D_m$ we hit the discriminant but then fall again in the empty chamber. Presumably both scenarios can be avoided if we know that the invisible discriminant has real codimension 2 (as we shall see in the sequel, cf. Lemma \[invisible-discriminant-codim-2:lem\].)
Our flow would precisely do this contraction yet in some more organic(ized) fashion (i.e. no choices). Yet notice that we could make the above pencil argument by choosing once for all some visible curve $D_m$, while driving all the invisible curves $C_m$ along the line spanned by $C_m$ and $D_m$. If this does not work look at the flow (discussed above).
Optimistically, this method may suffice to establish connectedness of the empty locus $E \subset \vert m H\vert$. One may wonder if a variant of the argument could not also establish Viro’s open problem on the connectedness of the pseudoline locus $P\subset
\vert m H \vert$ when $m$ is odd. (Added \[08.04.13\].—It seems that this conjecture really goes back to Rohlin, if we interpreted correctly a letter of Viro in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\], dated \[26.01.13\].)
Return yet to the case of the empty locus $E$ (non void only for curves of odd degree). By what could it be disconnected? A curve in the discriminant $\frak D$ may well have two imaginary conjugate singularities. But this locus has codimension 2, so it cannot disconnect $E$. Does this suffices to prove connectedness of $E$? Probably not as a priori it may have several components lying “far apart”.
Another idea is to fix an invisible conic, e.g. the “canonical” one $E_0\colon x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2=0$ (on which conj acts like an antipodal map). To each point of the plane one can attach the apparent contour of this ellipse (polar lines) as seen from the given point to get a group of two points on this ellipse which is a Riemann sphere. (This is the most synthetic way to establish the well-known isomorphism between ${\Bbb C}P^2$ and the second symmetric power of ${\Bbb C}P^1$.) Points of $E_0$ correspond to groups of superposed two points, while real points in ${\Bbb
R}P^2$ maps to antipodal pair (invariant under conj when seen as a pair). Define a function $\rho$ on ${\Bbb C}P^2$ which given a pair measures the distance on the round sphere $S^2$ between the corresponding 2 points. This is equal to $\pi=3.14\dots$ on ${\Bbb
R}P^2$ and vanishes on $E_0\colon x_0^2+x_1^2+x_2^2=0$.
Now given any compact sublocus of ${\Bbb C}P^2$ (in particular an invisible curve $C_m$) one can look at the maximum of $\rho$ on $C_m({\Bbb C})$, which is $<\pi$. This gives the functional $$\theta:=\max \rho\colon E \to [0,\pi[,$$ whose ascending gradient lines should converge to solitary nodal curves (perhaps with several such nodes). Note that the ground (invisible) ellipse $k \cdot E_0$ (counted $k=m/2$ times) is the unique absolute minimum of this functional. This $\theta$ is quite likely to be a Morse function (or a slight generalization thereof with Monkey saddles, etc.), yet the critical points (causing annoying stagnation of the dynamics) ought to be isolated (codimension 2 suffices), hence not affecting the connectivity of $E$. By construction our flow tends to make an invisible curve more “visible” by pushing it progressively closer to the real plane. In the limit we expect something visible having solitary nodes and generically just one should emerge. So upon excising from $E$ a small set (of codimension 2, since at least two nodes is bad) we find a (dense) subregion $E^{\ast}$ which maps ${\Bbb
R}P^2$ by assigning the unique solitary node of the limit of $C_m
\in E^{\ast}$ under the flow at time $\theta=\pi$ (using $\theta$ as time parameter as usual for gradient flow). Now the fibre of this map $E^{\ast}\to{\Bbb R}P^2$ is the same as the [*bassin d’attraction*]{} of the flow which is cone-like formed by several trajectories abutting to the same solitary node. So this cone is connected by the end point, and connectivity of $E^{\ast}$ (hence $E$) should follow.
Still, the main difficulty is (as usual) to show that the $\theta$-functional lacks a local maximum preventing convergence to a visible curve. So given any invisible curve one should produce a small perturbation with larger $\theta$. This is probably not too hopeless. Naively one could perturb $C_m$ inside the pencil spanned by $k E_0$ and $C_m$. Since $k E_0$ is the most invisible curve a deformation along it should decrease $\theta$, while one \[deformation\] away \[of\] it should increment $\theta$. Of course there is some objection to this, since in a projective (real) line (a circle) it is never clear what means “along” and “away”.
All this is somewhat confuse and unconvincing. Perhaps also there is a much more elementary argument without gradient lines. As we said this could involve deforming all empty curves along some fixed visible curve. But which direction of retraction should we choose in the corresponding pencil? Since $m=2k$ is even, $\vert m
H \vert$ is of dimension $\binom{m+2}{2}-1=(k+1)(2k+1)-1=2k^2+3k=k(2k+3)=:N$. So when $k$ is odd there must be another singular point in the foliation induced by the [*faisceau*]{} (sheaf, bundle) of all lines through $D_m$ (by Poincaré-Hopf). Can we orient this foliation? No because when $N=2$, we have a Möbius strip after puncturing the basepoint of the pencil. The situation would be somewhat simpler if we could find in the hyperspace of curves $\vert m H
\vert \approx {\Bbb R}P^N$ a hyperplane $H\ni C_m$ avoiding the empty locus $E$. I do not know whether this is possible? Then there would be a nice way to retract the whole complement of $H$ toward the point $C_m$ in some canonical way. In particular all points of $E$ (invisible curve) would mark a first impact on the real locus ${\Bbb R}P^2$. Alas it is not even obvious that connexity of $E$ follows.
\[23.01.13\] Recall that the related question for odd degrees is still an open problem.
[(Viro 2008 [@Viro_2008-From-the-16th-Hilb-to-tropical p.199])]{}.—[Are all non-singular real projective curves of a given [*odd degree*]{} with connected set of real points [*rigid-isotopic*]{} to each other?]{}
The emphasis is Viro, and may suggest that without odd degree the assertion is known to be false!? If so then our (OOPS) conjecture (\[OOPS:one-oval-rigid-isotopic:conj\]) would be oops!
[*Insertion*]{} \[08.04.13\].—The answer were given in Viro’s letter dated \[26.01.13\] in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\], and may be summarized as follows. First in the even degree case, the problem of rigidity of the curve with a unique oval is still open (but probably reducible to the contraction conjecture (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\])). Second, as we already said, the question ascribed above to Viro (2008) truly goes back to Rohlin (unpublished as far as we know).
Rigidity of the empty scheme (Shustin’s letter)
-----------------------------------------------
\[27.01.13\] This section treats the following desideratum: given two empty (plane) curves (hence of even degree), it is always possible to find a path of curves linking them while avoiding the discriminant.
In fact, I read about this fact a long time ago (ca. 2000) but could not remember from which source. Recently (24.01.13) failing to recover the source, we started to doubt about the truth of this assertion. Very kindly Shustin communicated us the simple (forgotten) argument giving a positive answer. Alas we have little idea of who proved this first. Shustin’s proof looks at first sight extremely trivial, but on more mature thinking the story looks a bit more tricky than expected.
\[empty-chamber-connected-Shustin:lem\] Any two empty curves are rigid-isotopic.
(Courtesy of Eugenii Shustin \[26.01.13\]) The chamber of empty curves of a given (even) degree is connected. Two such curves are defined by homogeneous polynomials $P,Q$, supposed (w.l.o.g.) positive for all real variables not all simultaneously zero. The linear homotopy $(1-t)P+tQ$, $0\le t\le
1$ gives then a path in the chamber of empty curves. Indeed the linear path between two positive numbers consists of positive numbers, and so all intermediate curves of this homotopy are empty curves.
A priori one can imagine that some intermediate curve of this homotopy (while staying empty) crosses the discriminant by acquiring a conjugate pair of nodes. (This eventuality was not mentioned in Shustin’s letter, but we think that is is a slight obstacle to the argument. However it seems to be not fatal as we shall discuss at length.)
Maybe the above argument should be supplemented by an examination of the partial derivatives $\frac{\partial P}{\partial x_i}$. Smoothness of a curve amounts the 3 partial derivatives (of the defining equation) lacking a common zero. Recall Euler’s relation $m F=\sum_i \frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i} x_i$ valid for any homogenous polynomial (form) of degree $m$. (This requires only to be checked on monomials $x_0^i x_1^j x_2^k$ such that $i+j+k=m$.) Combining this we infer that if there is some time $t\in [0,1]$ such that $(1-t)P+tQ$ is singular, then all its 3 partials vanishes simultaneously at some point $(x_0,x_1,x_2)$, which by Euler’s relation would be also a zero of $(1-t)P+tQ$. This violates however the emptiness of this curve. However for this argument to hold good it is essential for the point $(x_0,x_1,x_2)$ to be real, which is however not the case a priori.
Another more qualitative argument would be to first perturb slightly $P$ and $Q$ so that the linear pencil spanned by them is transverse to the discriminant. In that case if some member of the pencil acquires a singularity it will be a simple node, which consequently must be real. This violates emptiness of the intermediate curves $(1-t)P+tQ$, $0\le t\le 1$.
In summary the lemma looks true, yet not in the strong sense that any two empty smooth curves are linked by a linear homotopy consisting only of smooth curves. This strong form amounts to convexity of the empty chamber, and not just connectedness. Convexity is perhaps wrong, as the curve may traverse a pair of conjugate nodes during the linear deformation.
Can we corrupt convexity of the empty chamber? We think yes as follows. For the empty chamber to be nonempty, assume the degree $m$ even. Suppose given an empty curve $C_m$ with a pair of conjugate nodes. We shall later explain how to construct this, but one can already imagine in 3-space (or in the ether) a diasymmetric Riemann surface acted upon antipodically without fixed point, on which two symmetric vanishing cycles are contracted. Now through the given curve $C_m$ (considered as a point in the hyperspace of $m$-tics), trace a little rectilinear segment transverse to the discriminant. Both extremities of the segment will be smooth empty curves, yet the linear homotopy connecting them hits the discriminant (hence fails to be entirely in the empty chamber). This argument works fine provided the linear homotopy coincides with our little segment, instead of being actually the “long” residual pieces of it in the pencil (which is a circle).
When $m=2$, a conic can only have one node, when degenerating to a pair of lines. As we require $2$ conjugate nodes, let us look at quartics. Start with a pair of empty conics with transverse complexifications intersecting in 4 points $p,p^\sigma, q, q^\sigma$ (cf. Fig.\[ShustinEmpty:fig\]a for a schematic view). By Brusotti 1921 [@Brusotti_1921] (or earlier workers like Plücker, Klein, etc.) we can smooth $q,q^\sigma$ away to create an empty quartic $\Gamma_4$ with 2 nodes nearby $p,p^\sigma$. The corresponding (singular) Riemann surface (complex locus $\Gamma_4({\Bbb C})$) is visualized as a genus 3 surface (acted upon by antipody) with 2 handles shrunk to points $p, p^\sigma$ exchanged by conjugation (Fig.\[ShustinEmpty:fig\]b). We can also imagine the structure of the discriminant near $\Gamma_4$ as being a single nappe (Fig.\[ShustinEmpty:fig\]a). Take a little rectilinear segment transverse to this nappe. Both extremities of this segment are smooth curves $C_4$, $D_4$ which are empty. This gives our counterexample provided the linear homotopy $(1-t) C_4 + t D_4$, $t\in [0,1]$ visits $\Gamma_4$.
-5pt0
-5pt0
It is worth trying to clarify the above proof. Given two forms $P,Q$ of degree $m$, define the [*linear homotopy*]{} as the path of forms $(1-t) P+t Q$ where $t\in [0,1]$. Denote it symbolically $P\to Q$. If we look at curves (i.e. homothety classes of forms) then between any two curves $C, D$ of degree $m$ there is a pencil of curves $\lambda C +\mu D$ which is the line $\overline{CD}$ through both points seen in the hyperspace of curves. A little drawing (Fig.\[ShustinEmpty:fig\]c) shows that if $P, Q$ represents $C,D$ resp., then the linear homotopy $P\to Q$ projects to one piece of the line $\overline{PQ}$, while the linear homotopy $P\to -Q$ describes the other road of access in the circle $\overline{CD}$.
Shustin’s argument shows that if two forms $P, Q$ not representing zero have the same sign then the linear homotopy $P\to Q$ consists of forms not representing zero. (Recall that the sign of even degree forms is well-defined, because $F(\lambda x_0, \dots,
\lambda x_n)=\lambda^m F( x_0, \dots, x_n)$.) However it does not say that if $P,Q$ represents nonsingular curves, then so are all members of the linear homotopy $P\to Q$.
In our example with $C_4$ and $D_4$ we could argue that the corresponding polynomials $P,Q$ are very near (by Brusotti’s construction) so of the same sign, and further that the linear homotopy $P\to Q$ really passes through $R$ the defining equation of $\Gamma_4$. In that case Shustin’s argument would be in slight jeopardy.
Does our counter-argument work? We think yes we start from $R$ a form defining $\Gamma_4$, and perturb slightly the coefficients of $R$ by Brusotti to get the polynomials $P$ and $Q$ so that the linear homotopy $P\to Q$ passes through $R$. Note that $R$ has some well-defined sign on ${\Bbb R}P^2$, and by smallness of the perturbation $P$ and $Q$ have the same sign as $R$. Thus even when $P$ and $Q$ do have the same sign we are not ensured that the linear homotopy $P\to Q$ transits only through nonsingular curves.
In conclusion given two smooth[^53] empty curves $C,D$ and choose representing forms $P,Q$ (resp.) of the same sign, then the projection of the linear homotopy $P\to Q$ in the space of curves $\vert m H\vert$ correspond to empty curves yet not necessarily smooth.
[*Related literature for Shustin’s argument.*]{} Maybe Wilson, Shustin ICM, etc...
Of course even if the above Brusotti-type construction is correct, it does not prove that the locus of empty curves is disconnected, but merely that the proof via linear homotopies is insufficient.
One possible critique to our argument is that because $\Gamma_4$ has $2$ nodes it is not on a principal stratum[^54] (wall) of the discriminant of codimension 1. Yet in reality this is a pair of conjugate points so really one point in the sense of Grothendieck’s schemes (to which we are from adhering). Perhaps our segment not transverse but rather tangent to the nappe of $\frak D$. However this looks not so realist by construction. The key issue is to decide whether our binodal curve $\Gamma_4$ is a smooth point of the discriminant, which looks likely if we regard only real curves. Of course in the complexified discriminant $\frak D({\Bbb C})$ there is two nappes of passing through the binodal curves $\Gamma$.
If our reasoning is correct, we see that the problem of the connectedness of the empty chamber is not settled by the linear homotopy argument. Perhaps the empty locus is even disconnected? How to approach the problem?
Let $m$ be some fixed even degree. Consider $\vert m H \vert$ the space of all real curves, and $\frak D$ be the discriminant parametrizing real singular curves. Denote by $I$ the [*invisible locus*]{}, consisting of all empty curves, and let $E$ be the [*empty locus*]{} consisting of all smooth empty curves. Obviously $E\subset I$. In fact $E=I - \frak D$. The linear homotopy argument shows that $I$ is connected (even convex in some sense), but a priori the hypersurface $\frak D$ could split $I$ in several pieces.
In general a hypersurface does not need splitting a manifold (consider e.g. a (pseudo)line in ${\Bbb R}P^2$ or a meridian/parallel in a torus). In our case $\partial I$ the boundary (or frontier) of $I$ consists primarily of solitary nodal curves (principal strata) and further subsequent lower strata. Hence clearly, $\partial I \subset \frak D$. But what about $\frak D \cap \overline{I}$? A priori this does not reduce to $\partial I$. One can imagine additional nappes of $\frak D$ moving inside $I$, or even that $\frak D$ contains spheroids (or other closed manifolds) not directly connected to the boundary $\partial I$ (cf. Fig.\[ShustinEmpty:fig\]d).
Extending our Brusotti argument to $k=m/2$ pairs of empty conics having transverse complexifications shows that for any even integer $m\ge 4$, there is an empty curve $\Gamma_m$ of degree $m$ with 2 conjugate nodes $p,p^\sigma$. Such a curve belongs to $\frak D \cap {I}$, i.e. is both singular and invisible. Can such a curve be connected to $\partial I$ by a path in $\frak D$, and hence to the “visible world” $V:=\vert mH \vert- I$. The answer would be yes if $\frak D$ is connected. The latter is a real algebraic hypersurface, a priori with several components.
Looking at the (singular) Riemann surface (Fig.\[ShustinEmpty:fig\]b), we can try to contract algebraically the anti-oval winding around the middle hole toward a solitary node. This would give a path as required. This sort of problem was already discussed at length in another strangulation section, yet we lack a serious procedure.
Assume now the opposite, i.e., $\frak D$ disconnected in the sense of having a component inside $I$. The linear homotopy argument shows that $I$ is convex in the sense that between any two of its points the projective line joining them has one half contained in $I$. It follows that $I$ is a contractible manifold! (Warning since Whitehead 1936 do not draw hastily that $I$ is homeomorphic to ${\Bbb R}^N$). Such manifolds (more generally those which are simply-connected, or even under weaker homological condition) are subsumed to Jordan-Brouwer separation. Under our supposition that $\frak D$ has some component inside $I$, it would result a separation of $I$ by $\frak D$. In fact quite independently of this supposition even if $\frak D$ is connected there is still a separation.
Of course we need some lemma extending Jordan separation caused by a manifold, to a separation caused by a stratified variety (not necessarily smooth). This looks true either by Anschauung (cf. Fig.\[Shustin2:fig\]d) or by a reduction to the manifold case by selecting adequately strata as to manufacture first a topological (but piecewise smooth) manifold out of the strata (Fig.\[Shustin2:fig\]e). Of course this should rest upon Brusotti’s description of the discriminant.
Whatever the method used we get a morcellation of $I$ by the discriminant. Quite ironically the linear homotopy argument (reminded by Shustin) seems to do exactly the opposite job than its primary intention. More precisely it implies that $I$ is contractible, hence subsumed to Jordan-Brouwer separation. On the other hand our Brusotti-type construction shows that $\frak D$ appears inside $I$ (provided $m\ge 4$), hence must divide the invisible locus. Modulo details, we believe to have proved the following:
[(Revolutionary if true, but false!)]{}.—For any even integer $m\ge 4$ the empty smooth locus (past the discriminant) is disconnected.
If true this would wash up several misconceptions in the literature, e.g. that the rigid-isotopy type of quartics is unambiguously determined by the real scheme (this would be false for the empty scheme). This rigidity is due to Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf] and well-known to Russian geometers (e.g. Rohlin 1978, Viro 1984, 1989, 2008, etc.) Likewise it would corrupt the same assertion in degree 6, which is included in Nikulin’s theorem (1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80]).
Let us again examine our argument to find our probable mistake. It decomposes in 3 distinct steps. Remember that $I$ denotes the invisible locus consisting of all curves having empty real locus.
\(1) Linear homotopy implies that the invisible locus $I$ is a contractible manifold.
\(2) The discriminant $\frak D$ is visible inside the invisible locus $I$ for $m\ge 4$. (This follows via simple application of Brusotti.)
\(3) Jordan separation holds true in a contractible manifold (or more generally a simply connected one). This can be proved in several ways, either by homology or directly by building a certain double cover out of the hypersurface by a polarization trick going back to Riemann (cf. e.g. Gabard 2011 [@Gabard_2011-Ebullition], arXiv, “Ebullition in foliated surfaces vs. gravitational clumping”).
[*Insertion*]{} \[06.04.13\].—At the risk of killing some dialectic suspense, there is a 4th issue namely the codimension of the discriminant inside the invisible locus, as not being 1 but 2 instead!
The step which looks most fallacious is Step (1). The reason could be the following. While there is between any two $m$-forms $P,Q$ a path $(1-t)P+tQ$ of $m$-forms (called the linear homotopy $P\to
Q$), and which sweeps out forms not representing zero if $P$ and $Q$ have the same never changing sign, it is not clear that given (invisible) curves $C,D\in I$ there is always a consistent choice of sign for representing forms ensuring a global retraction of $I$ to a point. Claiming this amounts finding a section of the evident (tautological) bundle.
Let ${\cal F}_m$ be the set of all forms (=homogeneous polynomials) of degree $m$. If we include the zero polynomial this becomes a vector space, with the space of $m$-tics $\vert m H
\vert$ being its projectivization. Denote by $$\pi\colon {{\cal F}}_m \to \vert mH \vert$$ the corresponding projection.
Choose a basepoint $D$ in $I$ (e.g. the class of the form $Q=
x_0^m+x_1^m+x_2^m$). (This is akin to Fermat’s equation $x^n+y^n=z^n$ except for lacking real points.) $Q$ has positive sign on ${\Bbb R}P^2$. Given any point $C\in I$ choose a representing form $P$ which has positive sign. Then the linear homotopy $h_P\colon P\to Q$ defined by $h_P(t)=(1-t)P+t Q$ stays in $I$, which projected down to $\vert m H \vert$ gives a path joining $C$ to $D$. This path is actually independent of the chosen representative $P$ of $C$ (by a variant of Thalès, alias linearity). Define now $$H\colon I \times [0,1] \to I, \quad H(C,t)=\pi (h_P(t) ).$$ This would be the required contraction (retraction to a point) showing that $I$ is contractible. However the subtlety is whether we can choose $P=s(C)$ continuously as a function of $C$. This amounts asking if $\pi $ (the tautological projection) admits a continuous section above $I$. Of course $\pi$ lacks a (global) section by looking at the fundamental group $\pi_1$ while using functoriality. Indeed the base of the fibration has $\pi_1={\Bbb Z}_2$, while the total space has trivial $\pi_1$.
Over the smaller subregion $I$ the situation is less obvious. Can one compute $\pi_1(I)$? If it is non trivial then we cannot find a section, and we are annoyed.
Can we construct a section geometrically? We can look at the counter-image $\pi^{-1}(I)$ interpreted as the cone of forms not representing zero (so-called [*anisotropic*]{} forms, if we remember well some highbrow arithmetical jargon[^55]). While on ${\cal F}_m$ the sign of a form is well-defined at a point, on $\pi^{-1}(I)$ it is well-defined globally. So our cone $C:=\pi^{-1}(I)$ splits in two components $C^+, C^-$, each being connected by the linear homotopy argument.
Now choose the hyperplane $\Pi$ through $Q$ which is orthogonal to $Q$ seen as a vector. This could give a section.
In fact both $C^+$ and $C^-$ are contractile, being actually starlike and even convex by the linear homotopy argument. Each of them is fibred by rays (semi-lines=orbits under scaling by the positive reals ${\Bbb R}_{>0}$) and the quotient of each of these cones by the multiplicative group of positive reals ${\Bbb
R}_{>0}$ is naturally identified with $I$.
Abusing geometric intuition we could nearly conclude that $I$ is contractible. Yet, this is not so evident as we lack a global cross-section, e.g. by cutting by a hyperplane selecting globally a point in each fibres. This looks hazardous, so let us concede some little algebraic détour or rather homotopy theory (presumably the quintessence of topology since Jordan 1865, Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882], Poincaré 1895, Dehn-Heegard 1907 who coined the term, and then Brouwer, H. Hopf ca. 1926–30, Hurewicz, Borsuk ca. 1935, J.H.C. Whitehead, who else?[^56]).
The exact homotopy sequence of a fibration ${\Bbb R_{>0}} \approx
fibre \to C^+\to I$ gives $$0=\pi_1(fibre)\to \pi_1(C^+) \to \pi_1(I) \to \pi_0(fibre)=0,$$ and implies that $\pi_1(I)=0$ is trivial. So there is no algebraic obstruction to find a section over $I$ (but algebra is never enough to ensure geometric existence!). Pursuing in that way with the exact homotopy sequence of a fibration of the early 1940’s (Hurewicz, Hopf[^57], Stiefel, Eckmann, Steenrod, G.W. Whitehead, Pontrjagin, etc.) we get $$0=\pi_i(fibre)\to \pi_i(C^+) \to \pi_i(I) \to \pi_{i-1}(fibre)=0,$$ and so $\pi_i(I)=0$ for all $i=0,1,2,\dots, \infty$ (modulo “nihil est infinito”!). Note that $I$ is connected being the image of the connected set $C^+$. Now our space $I$ is not a bad one (remember Viro’s talk “Compliments to bad spaces”). More precisely, $I$ is a manifold (being an open set in the manifold $\vert m H \vert\approx {\Bbb R}P^N$). This manifold $I$ is metric moreover, hence it has the homotopy type of a CW-complex in the sense of J.H.C. Whitehead[^58] (compare Hanner, Borsuk, Milnor 1959 [@Milnor_1959], Palais 1962, Gabard 2006/08 [@Gabard-2006/08]). By a theorem of J.H.C Whitehead 1949, it follows that $I$ is contractile.
—From the 1940’s (Ehresmann-Feldbau=Laboureur[^59]-Hopf-Stiefel-Pontrjagin), etc., any locally trivial fibration over a contractile base (which is paracompact[^60]) is globally trivial, hence admits a continuous section. Applying this to $C^+ \to I$ gives the required section permitting to contract $I$ via $H$. However all this optional remark is not really logically required.
This proves the following:
The space $I$ of invisible curves is contractible, and so it is separated by the discriminant $\frak D$ in several components. In particular the “chamber” of empty curves $E_m$ is never connected as soon as $m\ge 4$. So call it rather the empty locus. (Insertion \[06.04.13\].—This last clause is probably erroneous.)
The determination of the number of components $\iota={\rm card}
(E_m)$ is probably another pleasant game. (Let us guess that $\iota_4=2$, and $\iota_6=3$?)
This theorem (especially its second clause) contradicts nearly everything what has been said about the empty locus. It shows (despite being a pure existence proof using primarily the exact homotopy sequence of a fibration and Whitehead) that there are obstructions to rigid-isotopy lying beyond the pure optical level. It is of course a marginal contribution to Hilbert’s 16th problem, who primarily asked the right opposite extreme (isotopy classification especially of $M$-curves). Here we live in the opposite invisible part of the mushroom (Arnold’s prose) of what could be called (by analogy with Petrovskii 1933/38 [@Petrowsky_1933], [@Petrowsky_1938]) $m$-curves, where $m$ stands for Harnack “minimal” or minimalist artwork (empty locus like Mark Rothko’s monochromes[^61]). In some sense our result of disconnectedness is reminiscent (albeit different in method) to Marin’s disproof (1979 [@Marin_1979]) of the rigidity of $M$-schemes in degree 7. In both cases the real scheme fails determining unambiguously a chamber of the discriminant, and this in situations where there is no duplication by Klein’s types I/II (what Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] calls schemes of indefinite type).
Simplifying the previous section: disconnection of the empty locus via Jordan separation and the exact homotopy sequence {#Disconnection-of-the-empty-locus:sec}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[27.01.13\] As the former section reflects our discovery process (as “meandering” as it may be) we prefer to keep its shape unchanged. Since our conclusion contradicts all what was asserted about the empty locus $E$ (especially Klein 1876, and Nikulin 1979), we shall here try to be more formal and direct, leaving aside historical considerations, and actually simplifying much the proof (in particular Whitehead’s criterion of contractibility via the vanishing of homotopy groups $\pi_i$ is not needed). \[28.01.13\] Our intention is to prove the following disconnection of the empty locus of plane curves of even order $m\ge 4$.
\[Gabard-anti-Klein-Rohlin:thm\] [(Gabard, 27.01.13, but certainly false)]{} The “empty locus” $E$ of all real smooth plane curves having empty real parts of some fixed degree $m\ge 4$ is disconnected. In other words there exists, for any even integer $m\ge 4$, two empty smooth curves of degree $m$ which are not rigid-isotopic.
We shall emphasize that this conclusion is quite unexpected. It seems to contradict much that has been said about rigid-isotopy of empty (smooth) curves. In particular, it is incompatible with the assertion going back to Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf] (see also Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.96], or Viro’s surveys 1986, 1989, 2008) that the real scheme of a quartic curve determines uniquely its rigid-isotopy class. (More on this at the end of this section.) It conflicts also with Nikulin’s result (1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80]) that for sextic real curves the real scheme enhanced by the type data (I/II) of Klein (1876 [@Klein_1876]) suffices to determine the rigid-isotopy class.
Hence it is very likely that our theorem contains a serious misconception, either at the conceptual level of definitions, and if not so, there must be a bug in the proof below. In fact it is well known that the empty chamber is connected. Eugenii Shustin was kind enough to recall us the simple argument of linear homotopy between two forms of the same sign. This is supposed to show connectedness, yet exploiting it systematically we arrived ironically at the opposite conclusion. In part, this discrepancy is merely a matter of deciding what we like to call the empty locus. The linear homotopy argument shows connectedness of what we call the [*invisible locus*]{} $I$ (consisting of all empty curves), whereas by the [*empty locus*]{} $E$ we really mean the sublocus of $I$ consisting of smooth curves. The latter space is the more relevant one when it comes to problems of rigid-isotopy, where the game is to travel as much as we can while avoiding the discriminant (i.e., never strangulate the underlying Riemann surface).
To avoid any misunderstanding, let us fix our jargon more precisely. A [*ternary form*]{} is a homogeneous polynomial in three variables of some degree $m$. We shall only consider those with real coefficients, and call them [*real forms*]{}. A [*real plane curve*]{} is a homothety class of real forms under scaling of the coefficients. This is nothing else that what A. Weil would call a plane curve defined over ${\Bbb R}$. Denote by ${\cal F}_m$ the set of all real forms of degree $m$, and by $\vert mH \vert$ the space of all real curves of degree $m$ (the latter being merely the projectivization of the former). Denote by $\pi\colon {\cal F}_m \to \vert mH \vert$ the tautological projection which is an ${\Bbb R}^{\ast}$-bundle over $\vert mH
\vert\approx {\Bbb R}P^N$, where $N=\binom{m+2}{2}-1$.
A plane curve is [*smooth*]{} (or [*nonsingular*]{}) if the three partial derivatives of any defining form do not vanish simultaneously on ${\Bbb C}^3-\{0 \}$; else it is said to be [*singular*]{}. The set of all real singular curves forms the [*discriminant*]{} (hypersurface) denoted $\frak D$. Elimination theory (or better some counting argument) shows the latter set to be an algebraic hypersurface in the hyperspace $\vert mH \vert$ of all $m$-tics. Note that a singular real curve may well have a smooth real locus (in the sense of differential topology), yet it will then have conjugate pairs of singularities exchanged by ${\rm
conj}\colon {\Bbb C} P^2 \to {\Bbb C} P^2$, $(x_0,x_1,x_2)\mapsto
(\overline{x_0},\overline{x_1},\overline{x_2})$.
A real form is [*anisotropic*]{} if it does not represents zero (non-trivially), i.e. the sole real solution of the equation $P(x_0,x_1,x_2)=0$ is $(x_0,x_1,x_2)=(0,0,0)$. This is tantamount to emptiness of the real locus $C({\Bbb R})$ of the corresponding curve. Say in this case that the real curve is [*empty*]{} or [*invisible*]{}. Intersecting with any line defined over ${\Bbb
R}$, one sees that any odd degree curve has non-void real locus. Let $I$ be the set of empty (invisible) curves. This is nonempty iff $m$ is even, and $\pi^{-1}(I)=C$ is the cone of anisotropic forms. Such a form has a well-defined sign $\pm$, and accordingly the cone $C$ splits in two halves $C^+,
C^-$ invariant under ${\Bbb R}_{>0}$-scalings. (We overuse the letter $C$, for being the cone, or the curve but no confusion should arise.)
The proof of our (dubious) theorem (\[Gabard-anti-Klein-Rohlin:thm\]) decomposes in 3 short steps.
$\bullet$ [*Step 1*]{} (Simple-connectivity of the invisible locus $I$).—We consider the fibration $\pi\colon C^+ \to I$, whose base is the set of invisible curves, while the total space is the space of positive-definite anisotropic form. The fibre is the space ${\Bbb R}_{>0}$ of positive reals.
The space $C^+$ is convex. Whenever we choose 2 points in it, say $P, Q \in C^+$, the barycentric combination $(1-t)P+tQ$ for $t\in
[0,1]$ belongs to $C^+$. Accordingly $C^+$ is certainly contractile, and in particular [*simply-connected*]{}. (Perhaps $C^{+}$, being starlike, is even diffeomorphic to a genuine cell, but we do not need that presently. This follows perhaps from J.W. Alexander’s lemma on isotopy, ask L. Siebenmann or A. Marin?)
The first stage of the exact homotopy sequence of the fibering ${\Bbb R}_{>0}\approx F\to C^+\to I$ reads $$0=\pi_1(fibre)\to \pi_1(C^+) \to \pi_1(I) \to \pi_0(fibre)=0,$$ and it follows that the space $I$ is also simply-connected.
$\bullet$ [*Step 2*]{} (Construction of invisible curves with singularities).—By a simple application of Brusotti 1921 [@Brusotti_1921], it is easy to construct invisible real curves $C_m$ of degree $m\ge 4$ having a pair of conjugate nodes, i.e. ordinary double points (cf. lemma below for details). (Abstractly, from the Riemann complexification viewpoint, imagine a pretzel acted upon by antipody with two handles strangulated to a pair of points $p, p^{\sigma}$ exchanged by conj.)
$\bullet$ [*Step 3*]{} (Jordan-Brouwer separation of the invisible locus $I$ by the discriminant ${\frak D}$).—Paraphrasing Step 2 in our notation, this means that $\frak D \cap I$ is nonempty. The space, we are really interested in, is the empty locus $E$ consisting of all smooth empty curves. By definition we have $E=I-{\frak D}$. So the empty locus $E$ arises from the invisible locus $I$ by removing a certain real algebraic hypersurface (or at least the portion ${\frak D} \cap I $ visible in $I$). Since the manifold $I$ is simply-connected (Step 1), it follows from the Jordan-Brouwer separation theorem that $\frak D \cap I$ disconnects $I$. We conclude that the residual set $E=I-{\frak D}$ has at least 2 components whenever $m=2k\ge 4$.
We now make more explicit the lemma required in Step 2 (for a schematic picture in the case $m=4$, cf. Fig.\[ShustinEmpty:fig\]a.):
\[Brusotti-binodal-invisible-curves:lem\] Given any even integer $m\ge 4$, there exists a degree $m$ real plane curve which is invisible (empty real locus) with $2$ ordinary nodes exchanged by complex conjugation.
Take a collection of $k=m/2$ real conics $E_1, \dots, E_k$ (degree 2) each having empty real locus such that the union of their complexifications has only normal crossings (ordinary nodes). By Brusotti’s theorem (1921 [@Brusotti_1921]), we may smooth away from $E_1\cup \dots\cup E_k$ all pairs of conjugate points safe one $p, p^{\sigma}$, where $\sigma={\rm conj}$ is complex conjugation. (Since $k\ge 2$, there is at least 4 nodes on our configuration of ellipses by Bézout.) The resulting binodal curves is real, invisible (being manufactured by small perturbation of an invisible curve). The proof of the lemma is complete.
In Step 3 of the proof of Theorem \[Gabard-anti-Klein-Rohlin:thm\], we use a slightly extended form of Jordan separation imposed by a variety (possibly singular) and not just by a manifold. In fact we may imagine that the structure of the discriminant permits one to deduce a sublocus of ${\frak D} \cap I$ which is a genuine topological manifold, yet piecewise smooth (nothing so crazy as Bing-Casson-Freedman). This would involve aggregating suitably some principal strata of the discriminant exploiting perhaps Brusotti’s description of the latter, or just general properties of algebraic sets.
It also conceivable that there is a direct proof by applying directly the homological apparatus involved in Jordan separation to the case of an algebraic hypersurface. Probably this is already implemented somewhere (maybe by H. Kneser, Bieberbach, Whitney, Thom, Milnor, Tognolli, Marin, Bochnak-Coste-Roy, etc.). Alas we do not know a more precise reference. Evidently the proof of separation within the simply-connected locus $I$ should just use some very basic properties of real algebraic hypersurfaces. Crudely speaking a real algebraic hypersurface cannot “stop” like a manifold with boundary (via the implicit function theorem), and so really effects a separation in the large (at least within the simply-connected subregion $I$). This elementary property of real algebraic variety was known for long (e.g. when Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874] speaks of a “branche complète”, etc.)
Rigid isotopy of quartics: classical sources (Schläfli, Zeuthen 1874, Klein 1873–76, Rohlin 1978) {#Klein-rigidity-of-quartics:sec}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[28.01.13\] This section discusses in some more details some masterpieces of classical literature conflicting strongly with our conclusion (Theorem \[Gabard-anti-Klein-Rohlin:thm\]).
A first place is Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.96], who ascribes the rigid-isotopy classification for $m=4$ to Klein, while writing the following:
“§4. Isotopy.—4.1. The classical problem. By virtue of the definition of a real plane projective algebraic curve of degree $m$, such curves form a real projective space of dimension $m(m+3)/2$. Singular curves, that is, curves with real or imaginary singularities, fill out in this space a hypersurface of degree $3(m-1)^2$, and non-singular curves fill out the complementary open set, which splits into a finite number of components[^62]. It is clear that curves that belong to one component have the same real scheme, that is, the class of all non-singular curves with a given real scheme consists of whole components. The investigation of these components is a very old problem, like the investigation of the classes themselves. It was known more than hundred years ago that for $m\le 4$ the components coincide with the classes[^63] (the least trivial case $m=4$ was considered by Klein; see \[4\](Klein 1922=Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf]), p.112). From the results of the previous section it follows that for $m\ge 5$ this is not so; for the complex scheme is constant on each component, but is capable of changing within one class for $m\ge 5$. \[…\]”
As usual Rohlin quotes Klein’s GMA=Ges.Math.Abhandl. (1922), yet the original source is the 1876 paper “Über den Verlauf der Abelschen Integrale bei den Kurven vierten Grades” [@Klein_1876_Verlauf]. Klein’s prose is as usual quite magical (like that of Rohlin), and reads as follows:
“ Eine wesentliche Eigenschaft dieser Einteilung der Kurven vierter Ordnung in sechs Arten ist in dem folgenden Satze ausgeschprochen, der weiterhin eine fundamentale Bedeutung für die Tragweite unserer Untersuchungen gewinnt:
[*Von jeder allgemeinen[^64] Kurve vierter Ordnung kann man zu jeder anderen, die derselben Art angehört, durch allmähliche reelle Änderung der Konstanten übergehen, ohne da[ß]{} bei dem Übergangsprozesse Kurven mit Doppelpunkt oder gar allgemeine Kurven, die einer anderen Art angehören, überschritten zu werden brauchten.*]{}
Ein direkter Beweis dieses Satzes hat keine Schwierigkeit[^65], aber er ist weitläufig. Es soll hier um so mehr Abstand genommen werden, als die bei ihm nötig werdenden Betrachtungen mit diejenigen, die im gegenwärtigen Aufsatze zu entwicklen sind, wenig Beziehungspunkte haben. \[So roughly Klein says that there is little connections between rigid-isotopy and Abelian integrals!\] Dagegen sei angedeutet, da[ß]{} man ihn vermöge kurzer Zwischenbetrachtungen führen kann, wenn man auf frühere Untersuchungen von Zeuthen und mir zurückkgreift. Ich habe \[in Abh. XXXV, S.24, 25\] gezeigt, da[ß]{} ein ähnlicher Satz gilt für die fünf Arten, welche man nach Schläfli bei den allgemeinen Flächen dritter Ordnung zu unterscheiden hat. Es hat dann Zeuthen bewiesen (Math. Ann., Bd.7 (1874), S.428), da[ß]{} die Arten der Kurven vierter Ordnung den fünf Flächen Arten in sehr einfacher Weise entschprechen. Projiziert man die $F_3$ von einem ihrer Punkte aus stereographisch auf eine Ebene, so tritt als scheinbare Umhüllung bei den Arten I, II, III, IV von Schläfli eine vierteilige, drei-, zwei-, einteilige Kurve vierter Ordnung auf. Die Art V ergibt, bei analoger Konstruktion, je nachdem man den Projektionspunkt auf ihrem unpaaren oder paaren Teile annimmt, die Gürtelkurve oder die imaginäre Kurve. Umgekehrt kann auch jede Kurve vierter Ordnung aus der entschpechenden Flächenart in der angegebenen Weise gewonnen werden. Hierin liegt der vor uns gewünschte Beweis. Um ihn völlig zu führen, hat man nur noch die Modifikationen zu untersuchen, welche die scheinbare Umhüllungskurve erfährt, wenn der Projektionspunkt auf der fest gedachten Fläche beliebig verschoben wird. Aber auch dieses hat Zeuthen ausgeführt \[Études des propriétés de situation des surfaces cubiques; Math Annalen, Bd.8, (1874/75).\]”
Let us summarize Klein’s proof of the rigid-isotopy of $C_4$’s: first Schläfli in 1863 [@Schlaefli_1863] found five isotopy class of real cubic surfaces $F_3$, and Klein showed them to be rigid-isotopic (in Klein 1873 [@Klein_1873-Uber-Flächen-dritter-Ordn]). Then Klein exploits the yoga of Zeuthen (which goes back to Geiser, compare Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874 p.428]) of looking at the apparent contour of the $F_3$ (projected from a point on the surface) to get a $C_4$ (all of them arising so). In fact the $F_3$ with 2 components produces both the Gürtelkurve or the empty $C_4$ depending on whether the center of vision is located on the pseudo-plane or on the spherical component. This is easily visualized if one imagine $F_3$, a small perturbation of a sphere union an equatorial plane (Fig.\[Zeuthen-Klein:fig\]). Note that the empty apparent contour arises from a phenomenon of total reality of the bundle of lines through the spherical component (this being again reminiscent of “Ahlfors”).
-5pt0
-5pt0
So a smooth $F_3$ with a marked point gives rise to a $C_4$, and all quartics arise so. One must still study the rôle of the marked point, and there is not just the five classes of Schläfli-Klein but one more due to the marking (being either on the pseudo-plane or the spheroid). Hence Klein’s argument looks quite convincing but we should understand the details more precisely. Maybe there is little gap in this proof when setting up explicitly the $F_3\leftrightarrows C_4$ correspondence. Is the contour apparent of a smooth $F_3$ always a smooth $C_4$ (and viceversa a singular cubic to a singular quartic), so that the Zeuthen-Klein correspondence really sets up a dictionary between the corresponding discriminants (hence rigid-isotopy classes). In particular to what sort of $F_3$ corresponds the empty quartic with a pair of conjugate nodes. Those are the essential guys which in our Theorem \[Gabard-anti-Klein-Rohlin:thm\] causes the disconnection of the invisible locus $I$.
Further as the center of projection is moving in 3-space the ZK-correspondence is somewhat non-canonical, i.e. there is not a fixed ${\Bbb P}^2$ on which to project. So the reduction proposed by Klein is perhaps foiled somewhere, at least requires to be modernized (and detailed) seriously. Naively our Theorem \[Gabard-anti-Klein-Rohlin:thm\] (if correct) could be an obstruction to completing Klein’s proof. If the ZK-correspondence is sound, it could be that Klein’s 1873 rigid-isotopy classification of $F_3$’s (cubic surfaces) is foiled.
Fixing the paradox
------------------
\[29.01.13\] Can it be that the discriminant $\frak D$ while penetrating inside the invisible locus $I$ appears there with (real) codimension 2 hence without separating $I$?
Recall that real loci of algebraic hypersurfaces (=primals in old British jargon, e.g. Semple-Roth) may look anomalously small. For instance a solitary node on a plane cubic curve is merely an isolated point of real dimension $0$ (hence real codimension $2$).
This phenomenon could foil Step 3 of the proof of Theorem \[Gabard-anti-Klein-Rohlin:thm\]. However via Brusotti description of the discriminant one could still hope that ${\frak
D} \cap I$ has real-codimension $1$. Naively the principal stratum corresponding to a curve with a conjugate pair of nodes looks at first of codimension 2 because there is two nodes. However by the reality condition one of them is forced and so it is really one closed point in the sense of Grothendieck’s schemes. Without Grothendieck such arguments of reality counting also abound in Klein, e.g. when it comes to coverings of the Riemann sphere with complex conjugate ramification. Here a complex ramification point count for 2 real dimensions, while a real branch point affords one freedom parameter. Yet under the symmetry condition both cases actually contribute to the same. It is with this sort of argument that Klein managed to compute the dimension of the moduli space of real curves by aping what did Riemann over the complexes.
Alas one can argue that the stratum of the complexified discriminant $\disc(\CC)$ with two nodes $x,y$ nearby $p,p^\sigma$ has geometric codimension 2 over the complexes, and it would follow that the real locus $\frak D$ has at most real codimension 2 when $x,y$ lye symmetric under $\sigma=$conj. Another way is to start the dimension count of the discriminant from the scratch. So we look at plane curves with a node or a higher singularity marked on it. This gives an incidence variety $(C,p)$ consisting of curves $C$ singular at $p$. Saying that $p$ is singular of $C$ amounts (via the Euler relation) to say that the 3 partials of a defining equation vanish at $p$, yielding 3 linear conditions on the coefficients. So looking at the projections $p\leftarrowtail
(C,p) \mapsto C$ we see fibres of codimension $3$, while moving the point $p$ gives codimension $1$ (hypersurface) in the space of curves.
Adapting this dimension count near our binodal empty curve $C$ shows that we have a pair of projections $p\leftarrowtail (C,p,
p^{\sigma}) \mapsto C$. Imposing a singularity at $p$ gives 3 linear conditions, but the point $p$ being any imaginary point of the plane its location depend upon 2 complex parameters (4 real parameters). When $C$ is defined over ${\Bbb R}$ the 3 equations for the partials are again linear (in the coefficients), but involve complex constants. Thus splitting into real and imaginary parts yields twice so many linear equations, hence 6 of them. Those being satisfied then $p^\sigma$ is also a node by symmetry, and so the variety ${\frak B}$ of (binodal) curves having a conjugate pair of nodes has real (co)dimension $4-6=-2$ in the space of curves. In that case it seems that the principal stratum ${\frak D}\cap I$ consisting of empty curves with a pair of conjugate node has also real codimension 2 in $\vert mH \vert$, and this would foil our theorem (\[Gabard-anti-Klein-Rohlin:thm\]).
For short let us call ${\frak D}\cap I$ the [*invisible discriminant*]{}, abridged $I$-discriminant. The above argument has to be polished by checking that the 6 linear equations are really independent conditions. The main issue is therefore to calculate the dimension of the invisible discriminant. If it has codimension 2 then $E=I-\frak D$ is connected, and so Klein-Rohlin were right. (Otherwise, if of codimension $1$, then it separates and Klein-Rohlin were wrong.)
If the $I$-discriminant has codimension 2, it is like a knot, and it seems interesting to compute its fundamental group (of its complement), and to look at the Picard-Lefschetz monodromic transformation arising when winding once around a meridian of this $I$-discriminant. Before adventuring we should first solve (more rigorously) the dimension problem of the $I$-discriminant. This must surely be done in Brusotti 1921 [@Brusotti_1921] (and known to Gudkov, maybe in the 1974 survey [@Gudkov_1974/74]). Perhaps this was already known in the era of Zeuthen-Klein-Harnack-Hilbert.
The invisible discriminant has codimension $2$ {#invisible-discriminant-codim-2:sec}
----------------------------------------------
\[29.01.13\] The goal of this section is to resolve our paradox, that the locus of empty smooth curves is disconnected (violating thereby well assessed knowledge of Klein, Rohlin-Nikulin, etc.). It seems that our sole mistake was based on the linguistical misconception of thinking that the discriminant-hypersurface is a hypersurface (throughout)! Names and terminologies are often misleading in mathematics. In fact we shall try to convince that inside the invisible locus (of curves with empty real loci) the discriminant has only codimension 2, hence too small to effect any Jordan-Brouwer separation. Once this is observed this raises some little questions about knowing which chambers residual to the principal strata of the discriminant (where it has really of codimension 1) contains such smaller strata of codimension 2. In more geometric terms, this amounts essentially deciding which smooth curves can acquire a pair of conjugate nodes.
Fix some even integer $m=2k$, and consider only real curves of fixed degree $m$. Let $\vert mH \vert\approx {\Bbb R}P^N$ be the corresponding parameter space of real $m$-tics. In this space we pay special attention to the space $I$ of [*invisible curves*]{} (those with empty real locus). This is clearly an open set in $\vert mH \vert$.
Let $\frak B$ be the variety of invisible real plane curves with at least one singular point (hence necessarily at least a pair thereof). We have $\frak B = {\frak D}\cap I$, the so-called [*invisible discriminant*]{} (abridged $I$-discriminant).
\[invisible-discriminant-codim-2:lem\] The $I$-discriminant has (real) codimension $2$ in the hyperspace of all curves.
Consider the incidence relation $B=\{ (C,p) \colon C \in I, p \in
Sing C \}$. We have natural projections $${\frak B}\buildrel{\pi_1}\over\longleftarrow B
\buildrel{\pi_2}\over{\longrightarrow} {\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb C}).$$ First study the fibre of the second projection $\pi_2\colon
(C,p)\mapsto p$ . This amounts to look at all curves having a prescribed singularity at $p$ an imaginary point. This imposes 3 linear equations (vanishing of the 3 partials, which suffices by Euler equation for the point to be on the curve). Splitting in real and imaginary parts gives 6 linear conditions, which looks linearly independent. So the fibre $\pi_2^{-1}(p)\approx (I \cap
{\Bbb R}P^{N-6})\times\{p\}$. Since $\pi_2$ is surjective onto ${\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb C})-{\Bbb P}^2({\Bbb R})$ it follows that the real dimension of $B$ is $\dim_\RR B= 4+(N-6)=N-2$. As the first projection $\pi_1$ is generically 2-to-1 (or finite-to-one except over special curves with multiple irreducible components), it follows that $\dim_\RR {\frak B}=N-2$, hence of codimension 2 in $I$ (or in $\vert m H \vert$).
More generally, imagine a visible curve (i.e. $C_m(\RR)\neq
\varnothing$) acquiring a conjugate pair of nodes. This will not affect the real scheme (=soft isotopy class of the embedding $C_m(\RR)\subset \RR P^2$). A priori inside each “class” can penetrate a portion of the discriminant of codimension 2.
Let us be more formal. Split the discriminant $\disc=\disc^+\sqcup \disc^{-}$ in two parts depending on whether $Sing C$ contains a real point or not. Precisely define $\disc^{-}$ as the set of singular curves lacking real singularities.
The argument of the above lemma shows that $\disc^{-}$ has real codimension two. We call it hence the [*hypo-discriminant*]{}. The set $\disc^+$ is defined as its complement, i.e. $\disc^+=\disc- \disc^{-}$. The latter has codimension 1 by a variant of the above argument. (Indeed a real singularity imposes 3 linear conditions, but moving the point create 2 dimensions, whence the defect of $-1$.) We call $\disc^+$ therefore the [*hyper-discriminant*]{}.
The assignment $\vert mH \vert -\disc \to \frak S$ of the real scheme to a non-singular equation is more generally defined on the larger space $\vert m H\vert-\disc^+$ residual to the hyper-discriminant, while being locally constant there. Crudely put, in problems of rigid-isotopies the hypo-discriminant can be neglected (being only of codimension 2, hence effecting no additional separations). However when we would like not only to study the connectivity of the chambers but also their topology then the hypo-discriminant ought to be considered again.
A first question is whether any chamber residual to the hyper-discriminant (abridged [*hyper-chamber*]{}) intersects the hypo-discriminant. (This is true for the empty chamber residual to $\disc^+$, by our Brusotti-style lemma \[Brusotti-binodal-invisible-curves:lem\].)
The general problem looks again to involve a contraction principle of Riemann surfaces, now under a symmetric pair of vanishing cycles. For $M$-curves, there seems to be a topological obstruction, since strangulating two imaginary cycles $\beta,
\beta^{\sigma}$ causes a disconnection of the Riemann surface in 2 algebraic pieces $C_m\to C_k\cup C_l$ of degree $k, l$ (hence cutting themselves in $k\cdot l$ points by Bézout). But $C_k,
C_l$ cuts transversally in $2$ points only, hence $k=2$, $l=1$ (up to renumbering). Hence, this eventuality can only occur for $m=3$ (cubics), where it does occur when an $M$-cubic degenerates to $E_2\cup L$ a conic union a disjoint line. This curve $E_2\cup L$ belongs to the hypo-discriminant since it lacks real singularities. (\[06.04.13\] Further the dimension of such split cubics is $5+2=7$, which is indeed of codimension 2 in the hyperspace of cubics of dimension $\binom{3+2}{2}-1=\frac{5\cdot
4}{2}-1=9$.)
Given a curve in the hypo-disc $\disc^-$, it seems likely that by genericity we may assume the latter to be a binodal curve with a conjugate pair of nodes. By Brusotti 1921 [@Brusotti_1921], smooth them away. Interpreting the process backward in time we see a pair of imaginary conjugate vanishing cycle $\beta,
\beta^{\sigma}$ strangulating toward the nodes $p,p^{\sigma}$. If this argument holds true we see that each hypo-discriminantal component gives rises to a bistrangulation along imaginary cycles. In particular:
Safe for $m= 3$, the hyper-chamber of an $M$-curve of degree $m$ never contains the hypo-discriminant.
Perhaps this is the sole obstruction, in the sense that any other hyper-chamber (than those of $M$-curves) intersects the hypo-discriminant. In fact there is perhaps still such an obstruction for $(M-1)$-curves. Naively the latter look like an $M$-curve safe that one “oval” is masked. Still if we imagine the corresponding symmetric Riemann surface it seems that a pair of imaginary cycles must divide.
\[30.01.13\] So we are led to the following general topological question:
\[bicycle-existence:ques\] (Existence of bicycles).—[Given a symmetric surface in the sense of Klein 1876 (i.e. an oriented closed surface $X$ with an orientation reversing involution $\sigma$), when is it possible to find a pair $\beta,\beta^{\sigma}$ of imaginary cycles(=Jordan curves) such that $\beta \cup \beta^{\sigma}$ does not divide $X$?]{} Here imaginariness means that $\beta$ has no point fixed under $\sigma$. It is also required that $\beta$ is disjoint from its conjugate $\beta^{\sigma}$. We call such a pair an (imaginary) [*bicycle*]{}.
As well-known since Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876], symmetric surfaces are either ortho- or diasymmetric (equivalently dividing or not, or of type I resp. II). The type together with the number $r$ of “ovals” (pointwise fixed circuit) and the genus $g$ fixes the equivariant topology of a symmetric surface.
As to our question it is plain that in the type I (dividing) case then there is a bicycle provided the surface is not maximal $r=g+1$ (“$M$-surface”). In the maximal case such a bicycle is not available, because the quotient $X/\sigma$ is planar hence schlichtartig (i.e. divided by any Jordan curve). Literally “schlichtartig” means planar like.
Incidentally recall the implications:
\[Gabard-five-lemma:lem\] “simply-connected$\Rightarrow$schlichtartig$\Rightarrow$ orientable” for a topological surface.
Exaggerating a bit the only rigorous proof, we are aware of, uses the five lemma and homology, cf. e.g. Gabard-Gauld 2011 [@Gabard-Gauld_2011-Dynamics Lemma 4.17], Dynamics of non-metric manifolds. It works universally without having even to assume the surface metrizable. Hausdorffness is however crucial (consider a branched plane and in it a Jordan curve on the upper sheet, then you can evade via the lower sheet so as to reach the outside of the upper sheet.)
The five lemma implies that when we have a Jordan curve $J\subset
U \subset M$ included in two nested spaces, then if it divides the large space $M$, it must divide the small one $U$, and viceversa provided $H_1(U)\to H_1(M)$ is onto. This latter fact prompts the first implication “$\Rightarrow$” by taking $U$ the tubular neighborhood of $J$ (which must be trivial since otherwise there would be an indicatrix-reversing loop violating the assumption $\pi_1(M)=0$). The second implication “$\Rightarrow$” follows from the first fact, namely a division in the large $M$ implies a division in the small $U$, hence is particular of the tubular neighborhood which must therefore be trivial.
When applied to the quotient of a symmetric surface, Lemma \[Gabard-five-lemma:lem\] gives for the latter: “ortho-sphere$\Rightarrow M$-surface$\Rightarrow$ dividing”.
Note also that if there is a bicycle on $(X,\sigma)$, then its projection in the quotient $\bar X=X/\sigma$ is a cycle $\bar
\beta$ interiorly traced which does not divide and preserves the indicatrix (=local orientation). (The non-division just follows from the fact that the image of the connected set $X-(\beta \cup
\beta^{\sigma})$ has to be connected.)
It remains to answer our question (\[bicycle-existence:ques\]) in the diasymmetric case. The lowest diasymmetric case $r=0$ is easy since then $(X,\sigma)$ may be visualized in 3-space as a pretzel invariant under central symmetry (antipody). Hence a bicycle exists provided the genus $g\ge 2$. (For $g=1$ there is a pair of cycle exchanged, but collectively they do divide. It cannot be otherwise by Riemann’s definition of the genus.)
For the other cases there are several models. One way due to Klein-Weichold-Kervaire (private communication of the latter in 1999) amounts to look at a Möbius band embedded in 3-space (make holes in it) and look at a thickening of the normal bundle of thickness vanishing along the boundary (Fig.\[Kervaire:fig\]a).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Alternatively, we may start from the Harnack-maximal case visualized as a planar membrane with $r=g+1$ contours (Fig.\[Kervaire:fig\]b), and kill successively contours by cross-capping them (à la von Dyck 1888 [@von-Dyck_1888 p.479], another of Klein’s student). This operation does not alter the Euler characteristic $\chi$, and so keep the genus of the double unchanged as $\chi (X)=2 \chi
(X/\sigma)$. The symmetric surface is constructed abstractly via the usual process of the double orientation cover (without duplication of the boundary points by local orientations).
So imagine a disc with $g$ holes while cross-capping them successively. If no cross-cap we have an $M$-curve[^66], if one cross-cap an $(M-1)$-curve, if two cross-caps an $(M-2)$-curve of type II, etc. As soon as there is $2$ cross-caps, connect them by a path and closing it back (Fig.\[Kervaire:fig\]d) gives a cycle $\bar \beta$ which preserves the indicatrix (as it traverses twice the cross-caps) and which does not divide $\bar X$ (because its apparent inside is connected with the outside via the cross identifications). Lifting $\bar \beta$ to $X$ gives the desired bicycle. Another, but slightly weaker argument, is that as soon as there is 3 cross-caps available, they can be traded against one cross-cap and one handle (as both contribute identically to the Euler characteristic). Then it is enough to take the meridian (or parallel) of that handle (Fig.\[Kervaire:fig\]e).
The case of where there is only one cross-cap is a bit more tricky, and it seems that we cannot find a nondividing cycle $\bar\beta$ which is indicatrix-preserving. (Trace a picture which can be either like a figure “8” crossing the cross-cap (Fig.\[Kervaire:fig\]f) or like a figure “$\omega$” with extremity linked together (Fig.\[Kervaire:fig\]g). This is abstractly just the figure 8, except that the one loop envelopes the other one. In both cases it is seen that a division is produced.)
Here is the obstruction:
An $(M-1)$-surface (with $r=g$) cannot have a bicycle.
Since the bicycle $\beta\cup \beta^{\sigma}$ does not divide the surface $X$, its image $\bar \beta$ in the quotient $\bar X$ does not divide it. The covering $X-{\rm Fix}(\sigma)\to \bar X-\partial \bar X$ restricted to the complement of $\bar \beta$ shows that $X-{\rm Fix}(\sigma)-(\beta \cup \beta^{\sigma})$ has at most $2$ components (exchanged by $\sigma$). Yet it suffices to add one oval (of ${\rm Fix}(\sigma)$) to make it connected. Hence we have $(g-1)+2=g+1$ retrosections not disconnecting the surface, violating Riemann’s definition of the genus.
If such a $\bar beta$ existed then lifting it to the symmetric surface would give 2 cycles $\beta,\beta^{\sigma}$ on $X$ of genus $g$. Since $\bar\beta$ does not divide $\bar X$, the covering $X-{\rm Fix}(\sigma)\to \bar X-\partial \bar X$ shows that $X-{\rm Fix}(\sigma)-(\beta \cup \beta^{\sigma})$ is still connected since it is the orienting cover of the connected surface $(\bar X-\partial \bar X)-\bar \beta$ which is still non-orientable. If orientable then the double orientation cover would be trivial on both pieces hence on their union.
In conclusion we exhibit $(g-1)+2=g+1$ cycles on $X$ the surface of genus $g$ not disconnecting it. This overwhelms Riemann’s definition of the genus.
In summary we have proven:
A symmetric surface admits a bicycle iff $g\ge 2$ and $r\le g-1$. In other words iff it is not an $M$-surface nor an $(M-1)$-surface.
Via Brusotti this seems to afford obstructions to the presence of the hypo-discriminant in certain hyper-chambers. More precisely:
Inside a pre-maximal hyper-chamber (i.e. $r\ge g$) the hypo-discriminant is vacuous. In particular a premaximal curve (i.e. an $M$- or an $(M-1)$-curve) cannot acquire a conjugate pair of nodes by continuous variations of its coefficients (among smooth curves safe for the extremity). \[Warning: the case $m=3$ is the sole exception.\]
More risky is the (converse) assertion that via a suitable (but very hypothetical) contraction principle the topological presence of a bicycle suffices to create an algebraic deformation toward a curve $C_m$ with an imaginary pair of nodes. If optimistic about the freedom of the joy-stick this supports the:
\[hypo-discriminant:conj\] Any (smooth real plane) curve $C_m$ which is not premaximal can acquire a conjugate pair of nodes (bi-node) via continuous deformation among smooth curves safe for its extremity. In particular the hypo-discriminant appears in all the corresponding (“ante-maximal”) hyper-chambers.
This is another large-deformation principle a bit akin to the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]) for empty ovals. To get serious prohibitions one would perhaps even require a strengthened collective form of it. For instance if $r=2$ and if we are dividing, we could contract several bicycles which collectively split the Riemann surface. Browsing through increasing degrees $m=3,4,5,6,7, \dots$ gives the genus $g=1,3,6,10,15,\dots$. By virtue of Klein’s congruence $r\equiv_2 g+1$ we look especially at $m=4$ or $m=7$ (or $m=3k+1$). When $m=4$, we find no obstruction to the splitting (since $g=3$ and we have 4 vanishing cycles contracting to $4=2\cdot 2$ points in agreement with Bézout, see Fig.\[Pretzel:fig\]a). If $m=7$, then $g=15$ and so there is $8$ bicycles (Fig.b) which strangulated toward nodes gives 16 (simple) intersections between both pieces of the degeneration $C_7\to C_k\cup C_l$, where $k+l=7$. Testing all values $(k,l)=(1,6),(2,5),(3,4)$ gives always the wrong number of intersections $k\cdot l=6,10,12$ never equal to $16$. This contradiction with Bézout reproves that a dividing septic cannot have $r=2$. (Of course this is best proved as a consequence of Rohlin-Mishachev’s formula).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Extending this to all degrees requires another form of contraction. In the case of $C_5$’s: then assuming $r=1$, there is 3 bicycles and 1 ortho-cycle (Fig.c). We have a splitting $C_5\to C_k\cup C_l$, and as $g=6$ we have 7 intersections in $C_k\cap C_l$ after strangulation of the Riemann surface. But this is never equal to $k\cdot l$ for $(k,l)=(1,4), (2,3)$. So this would prove again that a quintic with one circuit ($r=1$) cannot be dividing. Compare (\[Klein-Marin-quintic:lem\]) for another proof.
[*Insertion*]{} \[06.04.13\].—Applying the same method to a quintic with $r=3$, while imagining the underlying Riemann surface orthosymmetric and spliced by 2 bicycles and 1 orthocycle (Fig.d), the strangulation process leads to 2 algebraic pieces $C_k\cup C_l$ intersecting in 5 points. This is again not of the form $k\cdot \ell$ (equal as above to $4$ or $6$). This reasoning proves that a quintic with $r=3$ cannot be dividing, which is [*nonsense*]{} (remind the deep nest and its total reality). So the methodology (of such imaginary contractions) appears jeopardized. It seems at first that by “rotating” the pretzel of genus $6$ as to make the five cycles into reals circuit prompts a corruption of Itenberg-Viro (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]) by the same device. This is not so because one of the circuit is a pseudoline (since we are in degree $m=7$ odd). But of course we could imagine an example in even degree. In fact what protects a direct corruption of the Itenberg-Viro conjecture (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]) is Rohlin’s formula which in case of no-nesting forces $r=k^2$, and intersecting the half of the strangulated Riemann surface (now of degree $k$ since exchanged by Galois) is concomitant with Bézout.
More generally, one can perhaps by this method get another derivation of the Rohlin-Marin inequality $r\ge m/2$ for a plane dividing curve of degree $m$.
One could also imagine more radical degeneration by a bicycle $\beta, \beta^{\sigma}$ such that already $\beta$ divides $C_m({\Bbb C})$ (fig.f). A such is easy to visualize in the dividing case and would separate all imaginary handles from the real contours. However in the case of a $C_4$ of type I, such a pair $\beta,\beta^\sigma$ would strangulate the surface of genus $3$ in three pieces of genus 1, so the degree must be at least $3+3+3=9$, which is much greater than $4$. Hence such contractions are unlikely to exist algebraically.
\[31.03.13\] When $m=4$, the above conjecture (\[hypo-discriminant:conj\]) looks trivial, e.g. because all ante-maximal schemes $r\le M-2=2$ admits realization as pair of conics (either nested or disjoint).
Rigidity index
--------------
\[31.03.13\] Another naive remark concerns the rigidity of the “one-oval scheme” $1$. Once the empty scheme is known to be rigid, then via the contraction conjecture CC (\[Itenberg-Viro-contraction:conj\]), the one-oval scheme ought to be rigid as well. Naively via CC one could pursue inductively and all schemes would be rigid (which is not true as best and first shown by Rohlin via Klein’s type for $m\ge 5$). So there are subtle obstructions coming from separation between chambers at the next level. Despite such difficulties we call this method the [*rigidification procedure by reduction to the empty chamber*]{}.
So we start from the empty chamber $0$, and then there is the chamber $1$ (which should be still connected). Then “attached” to this there is the “chamber” $\frac{1}{1}$ and $2$, etc. Of course here “chamber” should rather be “isotopy class” and it should be proved that such schemes are rigid, i.e. that their respective isotopy classes correspond to a unique chamber of the discriminant.
For a fixed integer $m$, the smallest integer $r=r(m)$ such that all real schemes of degree with less than $r$ ($\le r$) real branches are rigid, is called the rigidity index in degree $m$.
As usual in mathematics, when we are unable to prove something we just introduce a:
[The [*bifurcation index*]{} $r(m)$ in degree $m$ is the smallest integer $r=\rig(m)$ such that there is a real scheme of degree $m$ with $r$ real branches which is non-rigid, i.e. represented by 2 real curves of degree $m$ which are not rigid-isotopic. It is set equal to $+\infty$ if all schemes are rigid. If finite, and diminished by one unit it could be called the [*rigidity index*]{}, since below it all schemes would be rigid. (Our terminology is a bit awkward, because a high rigidity index truly means that the video game is flexible.)]{}
Basically $\rig(m)$ measure the critical level at which the above rigidification algorithm fails surely. Very little is known on it as exemplified by the (still open) conjecture on the rigidity of the one-oval scheme (\[OOPS:one-oval-rigid-isotopic:conj\]), which traduces into the assertion $\rig(m)\ge 2$ for all even $m$. Even this modest estimate is pure speculation to present knowledge.
It is trivial that $\rig(1)=+\infty$, $\rig(2)=+\infty$ (because $PGL(3,\RR)$ acts transitively on lines or conics provided the latter are defined by quadratic forms with the same signature). $\rig(3)=+\infty$, i.e. all schemes of degree 3 are rigid is already somewhat more sophisticated since there are moduli. Yet this must follow either form Newton-Plücker or from the theory of elliptic functions (Euler-Legendre-Abel-Weierstrass, etc.) It is probably not completely trivial to write down the details, but looks evident if we keep in mind a reduction to the Weierstrass normal form $y^2=(x-a_1)(x-a_2)(x-a_3)$, where the distinct $a_i$ can either be all real or two of them imaginary conjugate.
The result of Schläfli-Zeuthen-Klein (cf. Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf]) implies that $\rig(4)=+\infty$. This is already less evident, and was first proved by Klein via cubic surfaces as discussed in Sec.\[Klein-rigidity-of-quartics:sec\].
For $\rig(5)$ we have a scheme of indefinite type (namely $4\sqcup
J$) which is elementary to find (see Fig.\[Gudkov-Table-quintic:fig\]) and first described in Rohlin’s era (cf. e.g. 1974 [@Rohlin_1974/75] and 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]). It suffices to smooth a pair of conics plus a line in two different ways as indicated on the left of Fig.\[Indefiniteodd:fig\]. It follows that $\rig(5)\le 5$. By Rohlin’s inequality ($r\ge m/2$ if type I) and Klein’s congruence holding right above, the above example is clearly minimal to detect an obstruction to rigid-isotopy via Klein’s types (see also the argument in Sec.\[quintic-table-Klein-Gudkov:sec\]). Thus it is fairly clear that $\rig(5)=5$, but we know no proof without appealing to Kharlamov’s version (1981/81 [@Kharlamov_1981/81]) of Nikulin’s classification in degree 6 (cf. next item).
Looking at the Gudkov-Rohlin table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) of sextics, it is clear that $\rig(6)=5$. The proof of this rests the deep result of Nikulin 1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80] that the type enhanced real scheme suffices to encode the rigid-isotopy class. It would be interesting to know if the CC conjecture is able to reprove the rigidity of all sextic schemes lying below $r<
5$ the bifurcation index. Of course Nikulin tells much more.
In view of the Rohlin-Marin inequality $r\ge m/2$ for a dividing curve, Klein’s types afford no obstruction to rigid-isotopy for curves with few branches. A naive optimist can expect no bifurcation below this value. By a bifurcation of a scheme we simply mean it being stretched apart in two chambers of the discriminant. So $m/2$ is a sort of ebullition temperature, below which everything is frozen, i.e. only type II schemes are represented apart from the deep nest scheme with $r=m/2$. The latter scheme is (pure) of type I by the simplest form of total reality, hence does not cause a type bifurcation, while being actually rigid by Nuij’s theorem (1968 [@Nuij_1968]).
The critical temperature $r=m/2$ can be augmented by unit, because the next $r$ is forced belonging type II by Klein’s congruence. (All this extends to the case where $m$ is odd by taking as critical temperature $r=(m+1)/2$ the number of branches of the deep nest).
Hence all schemes with $r\le [(m+1)/2]+1=[(m+3)/2]$ are necessarily of type II, safe for the deep nest. In particular there is no indefinite schemes below this level, and the first such indefinite scheme is expected to be found at height $[(m+1)/2]+2=[(m+5)/2]$. (The height of a scheme is merely its number of components, a jargon suggested by the diagrammatic of the Gudkov table Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\].)
[The [*type bifurcation index*]{} (or just [*indefiniteness*]{}) $\indef=\indef(m)$ is the minimal height of an indefinite scheme. It is set equal to $+\infty$ if all schemes of degree $m$ are definite (i.e. either of type I or II in the sense of Rohlin 1978).]{}
For $m\ge 5$ it seems evident that indefinite schemes always exist, but this requires some proof. (This and more will follow from Figs. \[Indefinite:fig\] and \[Indefiniteodd:fig\] below.)
The following is all what can be said at first sight:
We have $1 \le \rig(m)\le \indef(m)$, and $\indef(m)\ge [(m+5)/2]$. (In fact it is a simple matter to show that the latter is sharp for $m\ge 5$, cf. Figs.\[Indefinite:fig\] and \[Indefiniteodd:fig\].)
\(1) The first estimate is trivial when $m$ odd, and when $m$ is even it follows from the rigidity of the empty scheme, which is a consequence of the fact that the invisible discriminant has real codimension 2 (cf. Lemma \[invisible-discriminant-codim-2:lem\]).
\(2) The second estimate is a trivial consequence of the fact that a rigid-isotopy induces an equivariant isotopy between the allied symmetric Riemann surfaces. Formally the proof may require the Ehresmann-Feldbau-Pontrjagin, etc. trivialization of a fiber bundle over a contractible base (which is paracompact, else false tangent bundle to the (simply-connected) Prüfer surface). Actually it requires an equivariant version thereof, but by passing to the quotient and reconstructing the symmetric surface as the double orientation cover we can reduce to the classical setting.
\(3) The third estimate follows from Rohlin’s inequality, conjointly with Klein’s congruence, interpreted as obstructing type I right above the height of the deep nest (of type I being totally real under a pencil of lines).
The second estimate could be sharp. This dream is still much out of reach, and so is the nightmare of refuting this via the Fiedler-Marin method. At first the problem may look tractable, yet it certainly does not follow from Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000] where a sole classification of symmetric surfaces realizable as plane curves is given.
So below the height $[(m+3)/2]$ things are nearly pure and frozen (no indefinite types) and naively we could expect that all schemes are rigid below this altitude, i.e. when $r\le [(m+3)/2]$. Hence:
All schemes of degree $m$ with $r\le [(m+3)/2]$ are rigid.
(Check if this was not disproved by Fiedler, but we do not think so.)
We know (e.g. by the conceptual argument of Morse surgeries as exposed in Viro 1989 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction]) that all values of $r$ (number of real circuits) below Harnack’s bound are realized, by taking a generic pencil between an $M$-curve (e.g. Harnack’s) and an empty or Fermat curve with $r=1$. Likewise either by the pedestrian argument in Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000] or perhaps a variant of Viro’s conceptual argument we know that for all intermediate values there is a representative of type II (safe for $M$-curves). Of course the conceptual argument involves the Klein-Marin theorem (\[Klein-Marin:lem\]), since when lowering its number of component through a Morse surgery a curve of type II cannot become of type I. (Note yet that this is not enough to reprove the little theorem of Kharlamov-Viro-Gabard exposed in Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000] in a conceptual Morse-theoretic fashion.) At any rate it shows that the type II is ubiquitous at all levels of the “pyramid” as measured by the basic invariant $r$ (number of real circuit), safe at the maximal $M$-level ($M=g+1$).
The behavior of the function $\rig(m)$ is highly mysterious. It gives a measure of the flexibility of the video game allied to Hilbert’s sixteenth problem. You see on the screen $\RR P^2$ (essentially our retina) two curves of some fixed degree $m$ presenting the same isotopic topology (i.e. distribution of ovals), can you pass continuously from one to the other by moving the joystick in the hyperspace of all curves while avoiding the discriminant $\disc$? If you can [*always*]{} achieve this goal $\rig(m)=+\infty$ (you win always the game). If not $\rig(m)$ measure the smallest number of “ovals” (better real branches) where you can loose the game. A priori $\rig(m)$ could be as low as $\rig(m)=1$ when $m$ is large say $m>10^3=1000$, but some topologist expect the Hilbert-video-game to be a more flexible one, e.g. Rohlin-Viro-Itenberg positing rather that $\rig(m)\le 2$ for all $m$.
What is (inside each chamber of the discriminant) the curve with largest systolic ratio, i.e. the most healthy against infarctus (=hearth attack). Of course all this would be computed w.r.t. the Fubini-Study metric, or maybe the uniformizing metric. It seems likely that flows allied to such functionals ought to give some information on the above problem, essentially because when the systole shortens we approach the discriminant.
We learned the following from an e-mail of O.Viro (dated \[26.01.13\] in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]):
If the one-oval scheme (unifolium) is rigid then the contraction conjecture holds true for curves with one oval.
Let $C_{2k}$ be an even order smooth curve with one oval of degree $2k$. It is enough to construct a contraction for a specific curve $F_{2k}$ of degree $2k$. One can consider the Fermat contraction (in affine equation) $x^{2k}+y^{2k}=\rho^{2k}$ with $\rho\to 0$. The latter shrink to a point but alas the tangent cone is not really that of an ordinary solitary node but rather possess $2k$ branches which form $k$ conjugate pairs corresponding to the $2k$-th roots of $-1$. So we need a slightly different contraction toward a solitary node.
This can probably be done explicitly or more loosely by taking a curve of the form a circle $E_2$ union a $D_{2k-2}$ which is invisible, while shrinking the radius of $E_2^{\rho}\colon
x^2+y^2=\rho^2$ and smoothing by Brusotti the union $E_2^{\rho}\cup D_{2k-2}$.
Now let us estimate the indefiniteness $\indef(m)$, i.e. the lowest altitude at which there is a scheme of indefinite type. This amounts to construct an indefinite scheme of minimum height. This is fairly easy as shown by the following series of type I curves of even degree (upper row of Fig.\[Indefinite:fig\]). The bottom row of this figure exhibits type II curves with the same schemes. This is obtained by starting with a type II sextic while adding conics. Since type II is a genetically dominant character, all successors are also of type II. Hence all those schemes are indefinite and have the minimal height permissible by Rohlin’s inequality (\[Rohlin’s-inequality:cor\]), namely two units above the corresponding deep nest.
-5pt0
-5pt0
A similar series is easy to find in odd degrees (Fig.\[Indefiniteodd:fig\]) and hardly requires any further comments. This proves the:
-5pt0
-5pt0
For $m\ge 5$, $\indef(m)=[(m+1)/2]+2=[(m+5)/2]+2$.
For $m\ge 5$, we have the estimate $\rig(m)\le [(m+5)/2]$.
This implies a certain rigidity in the video game, and is merely a consequence of Rohlin’s work. Of course it would be miraculous if this estimate is sharp, prompting a maximal flexibility of the video game. For $m=5,6$ it is certainly sharp by the work of Kharlamov 1981 [@Kharlamov_1981/81] and Nikulin 1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80], respectively. So we must concentrate on degree 7, or 8, and by Rohlin’s inequality the required obstruction must necessarily be of a somewhat deeper nature than via Klein’s types.
Searching obstructions to rigid-isotopy below height $DEEP+2$
-------------------------------------------------------------
\[31.01.13\] Here the technology is due to Marin-Fiedler and involves the lock allied to the subscheme $S$ of degree 7 of symbol $\frac{3}{1}\sqcup J$ (3 ovals enveloped in one oval and a pseudoline $J$ outside). If we trace the triangle of 3 lines through the 3 empty ovals (Fig.\[Locks:fig\]a), each line has 7 real intersections (saturating Bézout). It follows that 2 schemes of degree 7 enlarging $S$ cannot be rigid-isotopic as soon as the distribution of the remaining ovals past the 3 lines is different. Alas $\indef(7)=4+2=6$, hence to beat this we must find a pair of isotopic but non rigid-isotopic curves with $r\le 5$ circuits, which is already the height of the Marin-Fiedler lock $S$. Hence this method seems not suited to our goal.
-5pt0
-5pt0
We could change the lock into $\frac{2}{1} 1\sqcup J$ (Fig.\[Locks:fig\]b), but this has still height $5$. Another choice is Fig.\[Locks:fig\]d but this has also height 5. Another lock could involve a conic through 5 ovals (Fig.\[Locks:fig\]e) but this is not locked as $10< 2\cdot
7=14$.
Another idea is to use [*pseudo-locks*]{} like on the second row. Alas a line is not dividing $\RR P^2$. Perhaps one can construct a lock by aggregating the pseudoline $J$ to the lock (cf. Fig.\[Locks:fig\]f), whence our name [*pseudo-lock*]{}. Then the red line union the pseudoline $J$ divides $\RR P^2$, and so the location of a fifth oval could be an obstruction to rigid-isotopy. Of course Fig.\[Locks:fig\]g is not interesting being saturated (maximal scheme). Fig.\[Locks:fig\]h could be employed as the former Fig.f. For this to work one should have an isotopic-invariant way to distinguish both residues to the [*augmented-lock*]{} consisting of the red line plus the pseudoline. Alas in view of the symmetry of the lock it seems that there is little chance to distinguish invariantly both halves (of the augmented lock). One could imagine to move from the empty oval to the deep oval (on Fig.\[Locks:fig\]f) along the line while choosing the route not intersecting the pseudoline $J$. W.r.t. this oriented segment there would be a left and right hand side residual to the lock. This concept is perhaps invariant under isotopy, and there is some little chance to detect 2 septics with $r=5$ which are isotopic but not rigid-isotopic.
Such a pair of septics is constructed on Figs.\[Locks:fig\]i,j, where the remaining oval lies either of the left (Fig.i) or on the right (Fig.j) of the oriented red segment from [*the*]{} empty unnested oval to the empty nested oval. Does this prove both curves being not rigid-isotopic? Maybe not since both are mirror images under a symmetry in $G=PGL(3,\RR)$, which is a connected group ($\RR P^2$ being non-orientable there is no way to reverse orientation) and so there is a path in $G$ from the identity to the mirror transformation. Applying this path to the first curve yields a rigid-isotopy to the second curve. So where is our former argument faulty? Culpability seems to be the italicized “the” some few line above. Indeed there is on Fig.i no canonical choice for the origin of the arrow, and if instead we had chosen it in the other (outer) oval then the free (unlocked) oval would of course sit on the right (instead of left) of the red arrow.
We can try to remedy this defect by allowing only one outer oval, but then there is another inner oval and there is no canonical way to choose it (cf. Fig.\[Locks:fig\]k). One could hope that one of both inner ovals is distinguished, say by complex orientations (but no chance as we are in the “post deep-nest case” $r=5=4+1$ hence nondividing).
\[01.02.13\] The situation becomes more favorable if we look at locks in degree 9, especially the one depicted on Fig.\[Locksdeg9:fig\]l. Then there is a canonical way to trace an arrow between the deep ovals (say from the less profound to the more profound one as on Fig.\[Locksdeg9:fig\]l). This is invariantly defined in case the remaining oval (dashed) lies outside the largest nonempty oval (as on Fig.\[Locksdeg9:fig\]l). Then the choice of this arrow is canonical and it is hoped that the position of the dashed oval on the left versus right of the arrow (augmented by the pseudoline) affords an obstruction to rigid-isotopy. It is easy to manufacture an algebraic curve realizing this schematic lock, cf. Fig.\[Locksdeg9:fig\]m where the free oval is righthanded. It causes no trouble to find a similar picture with the free oval lefthanded. This would give a nontrivial obstruction to rigid-isotopy below Rohlin’s temperature $\indef(m=9)=5+2=7$, namely at $r=6$. In particular Fig.m would not be rigid-isotopic to its mirror image. This violates however the above argument using connectedness of the group $PGL(3,\RR)$. Of course our mistake is that in the nonorientable $\RR P^2$ there is no consistent way to distinguish the left from the right. More precisely while it is possible to orient the red line from the less massive to the deepest oval, when the latter intercept the pseudoline there is no way to choose a left or right sense to bifurcate as the pseudoline itself lacks a preferred orientation.
-5pt0
-5pt0
The method becomes more effective if we permit one more ovals. Then the two “free” (dashed) ovals can either be separated by the augmented lock $L\cup J$ or not (Fig.\[Locksdeg9:fig\]n). Both cases do occur as shown by Figs.\[Locksdeg9:fig\]o,p. Both depicted curves are of type II (inspect the little 3 arrows and the negative smoothing right above it on Fig.\[Locksdeg9:fig\]o). The same local pattern appears on Fig.\[Locksdeg9:fig\]p, which is thus also of type II. However both curves are not rigid-isotopic, because during the rigid-isotopy the two free “dashed” ovals of Fig.\[Locksdeg9:fig\]n cannot traverse the red line which is Bézout-saturated nor can they traverse the pseudoline. This is a little success of the Fiedler-Marin method, alas occurring at the same height as the indefiniteness $\indef(m=9)=7$.
A similar example can be found already in degree 7, since we do not actually require to orient the line, compare Fig.\[Locks2:fig\]a,b which should be self-explanatory. Note again that both septics on Fig.\[Locks2:fig\]c,d are of type II, yet not rigid isotopic. This would be worth stating as a lemma since it is a little variant of the Fiedler-Marin method (with now separation caused by the added pseudoline). However this does not answer our puzzle of detecting obstruction to rigid isotopy below the critical temperature $DEEP+2$.
It is then tempting to lower to degree 5, while considering the lock Fig.\[Locks2:fig\]e,f, but then alas we lack a canonical choice for the red line. One can try other locks in degree 7, like Fig.\[Locks2:fig\]g, but then we lack again canonicalness. Still one could make some choice and propagate it consistently during the isotopy. So we get Figs.\[Locks2:fig\]h,i and arrive at the fallacious conclusion that the curve is not rigid-isotopic to itself. This nonsense helps emphasizing the importance of the lock being somehow God-given by the curve, and we (human beings) making minimalist intervention upon the creation.
-5pt0
-5pt0
It seems that detecting obstructions to rigid-isotopy beyond Klein’s type and below the critical temperature (=indefiniteness $\indef(m)$) is a hard business requiring completely new ideas, or at least some better acquaintance with the Marin-Fiedler obstruction.
\[01.02.13\] Paraphrasing, the method of the lock does not seem to obstruct rigid-isotopies below the indefiniteness $\indef(m)$, i.e. the lowest height of an indefinite scheme. So perhaps the first obstruction to rigid-isotopy is given by Klein’s type and occurs at height $\indef(m)=[(m+1)/2]+2=[(m+5)/2].$ In that case the rigidity index $\rig(m)$ would be highest possible equal to the indefiniteness $\indef(m)$.
\[02.02.13\] Let us summarize the discussion. For any degree $m$, there is a deep nest with $r=[(m+1)/2]=:DEEP$ real branches. Two units above the latter’s height it is easy to construct curves having the same real scheme yet different types (I vs. II) hence not rigid-isotopic. Using the method of the lock it is even possible to exhibit at this height curves of degree 7 or 9 having the same real scheme and the same type II, yet not rigid-isotopic. Probably the method described extend to all other odd degrees. However, it seems much more tricky and actually the locking method seems incapable detecting obstruction below this height, starting thus at height one unit above the height of the deep nest. Could it be that all schemes at or below this height are rigid, i.e. any two curves representing it are rigid-isotopic.
[*Minor question (skip)*]{}.—As a minor problem we suspect that for all odd degrees $m\ge 7$ there is a non-rigid scheme at height $DEEP+2$ containing a pair of type II curves which are not rigid-isotopic. This is probably easy and merely involves extending into series the examples of Figs.\[Locks2:fig\]c,d and \[Locksdeg9:fig\]o,p.
\[03.02.13\] [*Main problem*]{}.—So we first focus on the case $m=7$. Let us denote by $\Delta=DEEP=[(m+1)/2]$ the height of the deep nest. Our goal is to find obstruction to rigid-isotopy (strictly) below height $\Delta(m)+2$. For $m=7$, we have $\Delta=4$, and so we look at schemes with height $r=5$. Several cases occur and are primarily the schemes $$\frac{3}{1}J,\quad \frac{2}{1}1J,\quad \frac{1}{1}2J,\quad 4J,$$ where we use Gudkov’s notation and $J$ denotes the pseudoline (unique up to isotopy). The corresponding schemes are depicted on Fig.\[Locksdeg7:fig\], where the locks are depicted as red thick-lines which are Bézout saturated, while dashed-lines are not. The philosophy of the locking method is that a free oval cannot traverse during a rigid-isotopy the lock (without violating Bézout) and therefore the distribution of additional ovals [*among the residual components of the lock*]{} ([*past the lock*]{} for short) has to be respected. If is [*not*]{}, then we have an obstruction to rigid-isotopy. The dramaturgy in our case, where the height is as low as $r=\Delta+1$, is that we do not have any such additional ovals available (all having been consumed by the lock so-to-speak). On Fig.a we could kill the nonempty oval, but then we loose Bézout-saturation of the red-lines.
-5pt0
-5pt0
So we need some much deeper idea. One idea is to look how the locked ovals themselves are separated by the lock. This seems however to lead nowhere. Indeed examine the case of the scheme $\frac{1}{1}2J$ (i.e. Fig.\[Locksdeg7:fig\]c), where there is a menagerie of possible disposition of the pseudoline $J$ (Fig.\[Locksdeg7:fig\]e). To effect a nice separation we include the pseudoline into the lock. The pseudoline plus the 2 thick Bézout-saturated lines effects a separation in 4 zones, yet whatever the situation of $J$ the disposition of ovals in those zones is still the same. At least so are the number of residual components in each of these zones, weighted on Fig.\[Locksdeg7:fig\]e by the corresponding number of components $2,3,3b,4$. One can even play more sophisticated games by choosing one of this zone in some invariant manner. For instance given the 2 points of intersections of the thick lines with $J$, we may link them to the deep nest along the thick lines while choosing the way avoiding the dashed line, and close this by the piece of $J$ cutting the dashed line an even number of times (counted by multiplicity). Since this canonical curve $J_0$ cuts the dashed lines an even number of times, it is null-homotopic and bounds a unique disc, which is our canonical region. Alas one checks (experimentally) on Fig.\[Locksdeg7:fig\]e that it always contains 2 components of the scheme. There is a dual curve constructed by taking the segments linking the points of $J \cap
L_i$ to the deep nest via the path cutting once the dashed line, and aggregating the same portion of $J$ as above. This Jordan curve still cuts $L_3$ (dashed line) an even number of times, and so bounds a unique disc. The latter (alas) always contains 4 components of the curve.
Another little idea we had, is to mark for each point in $L_i\cap
J$ the vertices of the locking triangle which looks closest to the intersection point while travelling on the given $L_i$. However as shown by Figs.\[Locksdeg7:fig\]f,g this is completely insensitive to a variation of the position of the pseudoline.
Repeating ourselves, it seems that the [*method of the lock*]{} fails to detect any obstruction to rigid-isotopy at height $\Delta+1$ (or below). Accordingly one may suspect that there is no such obstruction.
Here is an idea. Given a smooth $C_7$, there is a unique pseudoline $J$. Let us speculate about a large deformation $C_7 \to C_6 \cup L_1$ toward a sextic plus a line. This is supposed to be a path in the space of curves avoiding the discriminant sole for its extremity. In particular the split curve is isotopic to the original $C_7$. We call this the rectification conjecture:
[(Rectification conjecture=RC)]{} \[rectif-conj:conj\] Given any (smooth, real, plane) curve of odd order $C_{2k+1}$ there is a deformation in the large toward a curve $C_{2k}\cup
L_1$ where $L_1$ is a line.
[*Objection*]{} \[07.04.13\] Already for quintics, this formulation is sloppy: take an $M$-quintic (hence with symbol $6J$), while quartics can have at most 4 ovals.
If this large deformation is implementable (more about this soon), then we deduce that $r(C_7)=r(C_6)+1$. If the given septic scheme has height $r\le \Delta(7)+1=4+1=5$, then the sextic has $r\le
4=\Delta(6)+1$. But in this low range sextic schemes are rigid by Nikulin’s rigid classification enhancing the Gudkov-Rohlin table (cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Hence we are inclined to think that septic schemes are rigid below height $\Delta+1$.
Indeed given 2 septics which are (soft) isotopic, i.e. belong to the same real scheme, we apply the rectification conjecture (\[rectif-conj:conj\]) twice to deduce sextics with the same real scheme and of low height $r\le 4$, hence rigid-isotopic. Now using a path between the split curves of degree $6+1$ and using a version of Brusotti’s theorem with parameters (yet to be formulated) one could argue that the 2 given septics are rigid-isotopic. The proof would be completed.
A brief word in favor of the conjecture (\[rectif-conj:conj\]). Given an odd order curve there is a unique pseudoline, and one may measure its length (w.r.t. the round elliptical geometry on the real projective plane $\RR P^2$). Obviously the (genuine) line is the pseudoline of minimum length, namely $\pi=3.14\dots$ if we work on the unit sphere as preferred double cover of $\RR P^2$. Hence for this functional (length of the pseudoline) the gradient lines ought to converge toward curves splitting off a line. (Maybe one can also look at the total geodesic curvature of the pseudoline as another competing functional doing the same job.)
Having this we may dream of a grand inductive process reducing the whole problem of rigid-isotopy (at least below the range $\Delta+1$) to Nikulin’s seminal theorem on sextics (itself relying on deformation theory of K3 surfaces). This would lead to a sharp estimation of the rigidity index $\rig(m)$ of the previous section as being equal to $\Delta(m)+2$.
However even for degree 8, this looks hazardous. One could imagine two modes of deformation of a $C_8$ to either a septic plus a line $C_7\cup L_1$ or a $C_6\cup E_2$. The latter looks dubious for the (8)-scheme consisting of 3 nests of depth 2 (of height $r=6=\Delta+2$), since removing one oval one has still the line through the two remaining nests creating 8 intersections (too much for a $C_6$). Yet the latter is precluded as we restrict to schemes of height $\le \Delta+1$. Listing all of them we find in Gudkov’s notation the following list of schemes (cf. Fig.\[Locksdeg8:fig\]): $$\frac{4}{1},\rau\frac{3}{1}1,\rau\frac{2}{1}2,
\rau\frac{1}{1}3,\rau
5,\rau
(1,\frac{1}{1}2), \rau
(1,\frac{3}{1}), \rau (1,\frac{2}{1}1), \rau (1,\frac{2}{1})1,
\rau (1,\frac{1}{1}1)1, \rau (1,\frac{1}{1})2,\rau
\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}1, \rau \frac{2}{1}\frac{1}{1}.$$
-5pt0
-5pt0
Albeit messy, our picture (Fig.\[Locksdeg8:fig\]) is supposed to take the census of all possible degenerations $C_8\to C_6\cup E_2$ which are Bézout permissible. Of course we do not claim that all these moves are algebraically realized, but at least Bézout gives no obstruction. Alas it is far from obvious (unlike in the odd degree case) which functional is capable effecting the large structural deformation (LSD) of “conification” $C_{2k}\to
C_{2k-2}\cup E_2$ splitting off a conic $E_2$. Naively we may expect that it is always some of the empty oval which shrinks to a solitary node, but that soon before getting extinct he splits off an infinitesimal circle (or ellipse). This could involve a sort of isoperimetric functional measuring rotundity of ovals, and the allied lines of steepest descent (or ascension). Note however that for the $8$-scheme $(1,\frac{3}{1}),
(1,\frac{2}{1}1),(1,\frac{2}{1})1$ (the 3 firsts of the third row on Fig.\[Locksdeg8:fig\]) we cannot “conify” the empty ovals without violating Bézout. Indeed removing one of the 3 possible empty ovals leads to scheme containing the deep nest of depth 3 as a (strict) subscheme. Of course those (8)-schemes really exist, as depicted on Fig.\[Locksdeg8:fig\]b. A priori nothing precludes a degeneration like Fig.\[Locksdeg8:fig\]c, where a nonempty oval would be “conified”.
[(Conical/ellipticity conjecture=EC) \[inserted 05.02.13\]]{} Given a (smooth, real, algebraic, plane) curve $C_{2k}$ of even degree $m=2k$ with few ovals (i.e. $r\le \Delta(m)+1$ where $\Delta(r)=k$ is the number of ovals of the deep nest of degree $m$) there is a deformation (=rigid-isotopy safe its extremity) toward a curve $C_{2k-2}\cup
E_2$ where $E_2$ is an ellipse, or equivalently a circle up to projectivity. Alas this cannot always occur by extinction of an empty oval, but sometimes by inflation of a large oval (perhaps via an isoperimetric gradient-flow).
The difficulty with this conjecture is that unlike for its odd degree avatar (\[rectif-conj:conj\]) we lack a canonical functional to be minimized like the length of the pseudoline. (The line is the shortest pseudoline, and being non-null-homotopic it is like a systole.) In the even degree case all ovals are null-homotopic and there is no systole in $\RR P^2$. Of course there could be a systole on the Riemann surface of the complexification. Alternatively one may replace the systolic problem by an isoperimetric one taking also area into account. Let us introduce the isoperimetric ratio ($\isop$) of an oval as its length squared divided by the area of its bounding disc, all in reference to the round elliptical geometry on $\RR P^2$. In Euclidean geometry this is minimum for a circle $(2\pi
\rho)^2/(\pi \rho^2)=4 \pi=12.566\dots$. For a large circle near the equator this can be as close as we please to $(2\pi)^2/ (2
\pi)=2\pi=6.28\dots$, which is smaller. This is probably the absolute infimum if we demand the oval on the unit sphere to be disjoint from its antipode. Now we could hope that the minimum isoperimetric ratio of all ovals leads to a functional whose gradient lines tend to inflate the most rotund oval toward an ellipse (rotundity being measured by the isoperimetric ratio). This could give the required degeneration. Perhaps in the limit the most rotund oval degenerate to a pair of lines (double line) and suppressing one of those leads to a odd degree curve of degree one less. This would give the other mode of degeneration:
Given any $C_{2k}$ of even degree of height $\le \Delta+1=k+1$, there is a rigid-isotopy safe extremity toward a curve $C_{2k-2}\cup (L_1)^2$ splitting off a double line $L_1$. More precisely the orthogonal trajectories of the rotundity functional (measured by the minimum isoperimetric ratio) drives any such curve toward such a curve in a canonical fashion.
If this conjecture holds true then we would have a sharp estimate of the rigidity index $\rig(m)$ for all degrees \[end insert 05.02.13\].
All what we are saying sounds very optimistical, and we are still very far from having a decent understanding of this problem of rigid-isotopy (strictly) below the height $\Delta+2$.
We can hope that the method of the lock is more efficient in degree 8 than it was in degree 7 (still confining our attention to heights $\le \Delta+1$). Fig.\[Locksdegree8:fig\] depicts some of them. The method of the lock is a jewel discovered in the late 1970’s by Marin and Fiedler independently (all being inspired by V.A. Rohlin’s work). It involves basically the idea of attaching in the most canonical way to a given curve a certain red configuration acting as a separator. More precisely special attention is paid to red thick lines which are Bézout-saturated, so that the remaining ovals of the curve cannot traverse this line during the isotopy. So basically we choose a triad of points inside some “deep” ovals and link them by a triangle of lines. Of course the choice of the points is not perfectly canonical, but we choose them inside the disc bounding an empty oval. The Marin-Fiedler trick is quite reminiscent of what Grothendieck calls “le principe des choix anodins” (in Esquisse d’un programme 1984 [@Grothendieck_1984/1997-esquisse-d'un-programme]) that whenever we make some choices within a contractible space the construction is nearly canonical, hence robust and fruitful. It is also reminiscent of the moving-frame method of Darboux-Cartan (repère mobile), since during the rigid isotopy will really move the whole triangle.
-5pt0
-5pt0
On the 3 first pictures of the 2nd row of Fig.\[Locksdegree8:fig\] we have a perfect lock by a triangle consisting of 3 lines which are Bézout-saturated. Alas we have no more ovals left to separate and the method looks inoperative. So let us look at the next degree $9$, and list all the schemes at height $\Delta+1=5+1=6$. It seems plain that this merely amounts to add a pseudoline to the former configurations listed in degree 8 (cf. Fig.\[Locksdegree9:fig\]).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Again the big deception is that no elementary obstruction given by locking appears in view. Of course one could interpret the figure as a rectification (\[rectif-conj:conj\]) toward octics which are (hypothetically) rigid at height $\Delta+1$ (say via a reduction to sextics), and so would be our curves of degree $9$.
The next real jump in complexity involves degree 10. Let us tabulate all schemes at the critical height $\Delta+1=5+1=6$ while avoiding any Gudkov symbolism (cf. Fig.\[Locksdegree10:fig\]). This is elaborated as follows. Start from any configuration, especially the maximum elements sembling highly concentric and protected medieval settlements like $(1,1,1,1,1,1)$, or $(1,1,1,1)(1,1)$, $(1,1,1)(1,1,1)$, $(1,1)(1,1)(1,1)$, and then apply basically two moves freeing an oval. Vertical moves correspond to liberating a deep oval, while horizontal moves freed a superficial oval (of small depth). Sometimes there are ovals at 3 different depths so that we have also a 3rd oblique move. The red framed schemes are prohibited by Bézout, yet are useful as generator (under the described moves) of other schemes that otherwise are easily overlooked.
-5pt0
-5pt0
\[04.02.13\] It seems evident at this stage that there is a combinatorial law (which overwhelms my intelligence) impeding the the locking method to act as an obstruction to rigid-isotopy. Looking at all possible locks on Fig.\[Locksdegree10:fig\], no obvious obstruction to rigid-isotopy strikes the vision. In contrast on the basis of the same picture, one may argue that erasing a suitable oval all our (10)-schemes reduce to one of degree 8, and if this cancellation is geometrized via the conification (elliptization) conjecture we could deduce rigidity of all the (10)-schemes at height $\Delta(10)+1=6$, from that of the corresponding (8)-schemes, which in turn was reduced to (6)-schemes where low-height rigidity holds true by virtue of Nikulin’s theorem (1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80]).
As a little experiment imagine the curve of degree $2k$ to have 3 nests of depth $d_1,d_2,d_3$. Since we are at height $\Delta(2k)+1=k+1$, we have $k+1=r=d_1+d_2+d_3$. Let $L_1,L_2,L_3$ be 3 lines passing through the deep nests and suppose them Bézout-saturated, then $d_1+d_2,d_2+d_3,d_1+d_3$ are all equal to $2k$, and thus summing and dividing by two we infer that $d_1+d_2+d_3=3k$, which is much greater than $r=k+1$.
If instead of 3 deep nests we have one deep nest containing 3 little ovals, then the 3 lines through them supposed Bézout-saturated cut the curves in $4+2d=2k$ real points where $d$ is the depth of the nest. Hence $r=d+3=(d+2)+1=k+1$, so that all ovals are exhausted by the lock (and nothing remains left to be separated).
Such arguments seem to extend to all other schemes of Fig.\[Locksdegree10:fig\]. There sometimes we lock with only two totally real lines like e.g. on the scheme $(1,1,1,1)2$ lying near the center of Fig.\[Locksdegree10:fig\] (right above the 2 anti-Bézoutian schemes). Two lines suffice to separate the plane $\RR P^2$, but here again the construction of the lock consumes all the ovals at disposal. In summary it seems hopeless to find an obstruction to rigid-isotopy at or below the height $\Delta(m)+1$ (at least via the lock-method of Marin-Fiedler).
As a last chance, consider the (10)-scheme of Fig.\[Locksdegree10:fig\] right before the “mild” arrow, that is $(1,(1,\frac{1}{1}1)1)$. This is distinguished by having 3 empty ovals at different depths. So we can link them by a $2$-simplex with boundary oriented as going from the deepest to the middle deep and then to the less profound oval closed back to the deepest one. This would induce a certain orientation on the inside of the largest oval (as usual ovals being ordered by inclusion of their insides). The problem however is that while the 2 lines through the deepest oval are saturated (hence there is preferred pathes joining them in the inside of the maximal oval), the third is not and so there is no preferred way to join the middle empty oval to the less deep one (compare Fig.\[Lock10:fig\]). However we could argue that whatsoever the way chosen we get the same orientation (compare Figs.\[Lock10:fig\]b and c). On the latter figures we follow the line until reaching the maximal oval $O_m$ and then follow the latter. The problem is which direction to choose when we meet $O_m$. A priori there is no preferred sense to bifurcate, but we may choose the path such that the circuit $1\to 2\to 3 \to 1$ does [*not*]{} enclose the deep oval of depth 3 (i.e. the one containing the point $1$). This has no intrinsic meaning unless we take the precaution of first rounding the corner at the vertices 1 as shown on Figs.\[Lock10:fig\]e,f. Note that there is a unique way to put near $1$ an arrow circulating on the deepest oval in such a way that we do not intercept the lines $1,2$ and $1,3$ too frequently (i.e. only twice instead of 4 times). This as an intrinsic meaning since those lines are saturated.
-5pt0
-5pt0
As a result any ten-ics $C_{10}$ belonging to the discussed scheme would have a canonical orientation of the inside disc of its maximum oval (hence of the latter as well). Of course this (semi-)local orientation of the maximal oval propagates continuously through a rigid-isotopy, but it seems that as $\RR
P^2$ is nonorientable no obstruction to rigid-isotopy can be derived from this complicated trick. So even if two such curves $C_{10}$ would have opposed canonical orientation over some region of overlap of there maximal discs (bounding the maximal oval) this would not impede them being rigid-isotopic.
Notwithstanding since the maximal disc (the inside of the maximal oval) is oriented canonically, we may look at the deep line $1,2$ through the deepest empty ovals. This line does not separate $\RR
P^2$, but certainly separates the maximal disc. Further the deep line is oriented by going from $1$ to $2$ while staying inside the maximum oval. Using the canonical orientation there is a left and right hand side of this deep line inside the maximal disc. The location of the superficial empty oval as being right- or left-sided could give an obstruction (since the 3rd superficial oval $O_3$ is not permitted to traverse the deep line during the rigid-isotopy). So if like on Fig.\[Lock10:fig\]a the superficial (empty) oval $O_3$ is left-sided with respect to the oriented line $1,2$ and the canonical orientation it will stay so during for all curves explored by the isotopy, in particular for the end curve. So naively it would suffices to apply a horizontal axis $1,2$ symmetry to Fig.\[Lock10:fig\]a (and realize the scheme geometrically which causes no difficulty via Brusotti) as to find a curve with $O_3$ sitting on the other (right) side. However we must really work with the canonical orientation of the maximal disc, looking at Fig.\[Lock10:fig\]abis shows that the oval $O_3$ really sits on the left albeit sembling on the right (where of course left has to be interpreted as the half pointed by the canonical orientation). With all these confusing remarks, it should be clear that there is no hope to detect an obstruction to rigid-isotopy.
\[05.02.13\] We can also study the embryology of the scheme as shown on Fig.\[Lock10bis:fig\] depicting a nearly exhaustive list of collision which an oval can acquire with the non-saturated line $2,3$ through the 2 most superficial ovals. This represents the possible cytoplasmic expansions of the ovals, but does not [*per se*]{} afford obstructions to rigid-isotopy since all configurations are linked to the initial one in some starlike fashion.
-5pt0
-5pt0
At the opposite extreme of such Bézout permissible moves, we have the following 3 motions forbidden by Bézout where one of the empty oval cannot traverse the saturated thick red line (Fig.\[Lock10tris:fig\]). So if we transgress the Bézout obstruction by letting the oval traverse the dead-line then we get the configuration of the second row of Fig.\[Lock10tris:fig\] which are priori could be non-rigid-isotopic to the initial one. Alas there is still this argument of symmetry using the connectedness of the group $PGL(3, \RR)$ which prevents one to conclude that the configuration pre- and post-transgression are not rigid-isotopic.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Trying in vain to corrupt Nikulin (via Marin-Fiedler) {#Nikulin-corruption:sec}
-----------------------------------------------------
\[05.02.13\] It is quite tempting (for dummies) to see if the method of the lock (Marin-Fiedler 1979–1980) can parasite Nikulin’s rigid-isotopy classification of sextic (1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80]). Of course this is not to palish the glory of Nikulin’s theorem which is perhaps the deepest jewel ever obtained along the lines of Hilbert’s 16th problem, but rather an experimental game emphasizing the profundity of Nikulin’s result. Usually, the more a theorem looks unbelievable, the deeper it stands.
For instance we may start with the basic scheme $\frac{3}{1}$ of degree 6 (locked by the triad of lines through the 3 pairs of deep ovals), and enhance it by adding 2 outer ovals to get the scheme $\frac{3}{1}2$. We look at the distribution of outer ovals past the locking triangle, which a priori can be as on Fig.\[Lock6:fig\] either monopartite or bipartite. If one is capable to exhibit two curves $C_6$ with distinct distributions then both curves are not rigid-isotopic, for during a rigid-isotopy the unlocked ovals cannot traverse the (moving) triangle which is already Bézout-saturated. (Of course the locking triangle works as well for $\frac{2}{1}1$, but then there is nothing to separate, and if we add ovals then canonicalness of the triangle is spoiled.) On tracing explicit sextic curves $C_6$ via the small perturbation method applied to configurations of 3 conics we always find the same mono-partite arrangement where both ovals lies in the same component residual to the triangle (Fig.\[Lock6:fig\]).
-5pt0
-5pt0
It seems impossible to corrupt Nikulin’s result. As the scheme $\frac{3}{1}2$ has height $r=6=\Delta+3$, three units above the deep nest it is necessarily of type II (by Klein’s congruence) and therefore Nikulin’s theorem actually implies the:
Any sextic $C_6$ belonging to the scheme $\frac{3}{1}2$ is such that the triangle through the $3$ deep ovals does not separate the outer ovals.
(We do not know whether this can be proved in an elementary fashion without using the technological arsenal behind Nikulin’s theorem.) \[07.04.13\] Update: yes we can, cf. Le Touzé in Sec.\[LeTouze:sec\].
\[06.02.13\] Of course we may also add to $\frac{3}{1}$ more ovals and examine the resulting distributions past the deep triangle. That is we consider the schemes $\frac{3}{1}\ell$, where $2\le
\ell \le 5$ according to Gudkov’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
Consider first the scheme $\frac{3}{1}3$. Smoothing 3 ellipses we can realize this scheme in two fashions either of type I or II (Fig.\[Lock6bis:fig\]). However in both cases the locking triangle through the deep (odd) ovals does not separate the 3 outer ovals. This is quite surprising as both curves are not rigid-isotopic, one could have expected that the lock-method to detect the obstruction. We may also realize this scheme via a variant of Hilbert’s oscillation method, but again the distribution of the 3 outer ovals is the same mono-partite one (at least on the Walt-Disney depiction of Hilbert “à la Gudkov”).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Since both types I, II have representatives with the same distribution, Nikulin’s theorem implies the:
Any sextic $C_6$ with scheme $\frac{3}{1}3$ (be it dividing or not) is such that the triangle through the $3$ deep ovals does not separate the $3$ outer ovals.
Next examine the scheme $\frac{3}{1}4$. Here we start with a schematic picture à la Hilbert-Gudkov producing the curve $\frac{4}{1}4$ (cf. Fig.\[Lock3-14:fig\]a) which has too much inner ovals (4 instead of the 3 desired). Such a Hilbert-vibration is realized by Fig.b. A suitable smoothing gives Fig.c. The latter has actually a companion generated by smoothing differently the 3 inner nodes. In both cases however the deep triangle does not separate the 4 outer ovals. Fig.d depicts a Hilbert vibration perturbing the union of both ellipses to the Zeuthen-Klein Gürtelkurve, but the quartic $C_4$ would then intersect too frequently (at least 10 times) the conic. Such a vibration is therefore precluded. The dual vibration however (Fig.e) is Bézout compatible (as the $C_4$ intersect $8$ times the two conics). It is questionable if such a vibration exists as the dual does not. Anyway let us (somewhat liberally) smooth Fig.e to get Fig.f, a somewhat funny curve belonging to the scheme $\frac{3}{1}3$. Tracing the triangle through the deepest ovals is somewhat challenging, but does not seem to effect a division of the 3 outer ovals. A priori the depiction could be like on the surrealist détail (i.e., the median oval lying on the “left” of the line through the other 2 inner ovals), but this does not even seem to affect our issue about distribution of outer ovals past the lock. Fig.g depicts another mode of vibration which still overwhelms Bézout. Fig.h depicts yet another mode of vibration essentially dual of Fig.b, but which also overwhelms Bézout. It is a bit puzzling that not any admissible vibration seems to admit a dual vibration.
-5pt0
-5pt0
At any rate if we believe in Nikulin’s theorem (as we should since it is Soviet mathematics of the best stock) our sole Fig.\[Lock3-14:fig\]c suffices to imply (since by Klein’s congruence our scheme $\frac{3}{1}4$ is of type II) the following:
Any sextic $C_6$ belonging to the scheme $\frac{3}{1}4$ is such that the triangle through the $3$ deep ovals does not separate the $4$ outer ovals.
Next we consider the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$. For this we can either look at Gudkov’s construction (Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\]) or at the easier construction via a variant of Harnack’s method. In Gudkov’s setting, we must presumably consider the pull-back of the triangle under the Cremona transformation and this a bit tricky to depict. This should be manageable if one is in good form but perhaps there is a more elementary direct construction via the Harnack method.
-5pt0
-5pt0
So it seems fundamental to construct the over-scheme $\frac{4}{1}5$ via the variant of Harnack’s method mentioned in Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74 p.42], where alas no details are supplied. The smaller scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$ we are interested in should then easily be deduced by taming the smoothing. Since this has some independent interest we devote the next section to the topic.
Gudkov’s variant of Harnack: construction of the $(M-1)$-scheme $\frac{4}{1}5$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[06.02.13\] We now try to fix Gudkov’s claim (in 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74 p.42]) that a suitable variant of Harnack’s method produces the $(M-1)$-scheme $\frac{4}{1}5$. [*Per se*]{} this is not extremely original for we already managed (on the shoulder of Gudkov’s “original” construction of $\frac{5}{1}5$, cf. Fig.\[GudkovCampo-5-15:fig\]) to exhibit this scheme, yet now a more elementary method is demanded. Despite elementariness, if one is not so clever (like the writer) this game can be pretty time consuming as demonstrated by the following section. This consisted in a sequence of failing trials, and alas TeX forced us to censure most of these instructive trials as otherwise our text was not anymore synchronized with the images.
For convenience the first picture (Fig.\[Harnack-Gudkovvariant:fig\]a) reminds the classical implementation of Harnack’s method of 1876 [@Harnack_1876] (little warning: in the original paper the depiction is much left to the imagination of the writer, and our picture though standard is really inspired by nice drawings available in Viro’s papers). A first idea is to put the oscillation inside the ground circle, but this looks too naive and we recover exactly Harnack’s scheme $\frac{1}{1}9$ (cf. Fig.\[Harnack-Gudkovvariant:fig\]b).
-10pt0
-5pt0
Next we may consider the following variant (Fig.\[Harnack-Gudkovvariant3:fig\]a) but after much effort it only leads to the scheme $9$.
Now we try another variant, and after much efforts manufacture the following picture (Fig.\[Harnack-Gudkovvariant3:fig\]b), upon which one arrives at a meta-mathematical contradiction. Namely we have constructed a sextic (of even degree) with a pseudoline! What we do is really real time mathematics with mistakes, irritation, dirty fingers, etc. At this stage the moral is double: first Harnack’s original method is a quite boring inductive process, and further it is not so easy to implement the variant advocated by Gudkov. Probably it is not so surprising that himself found not the place in his survey to make a decent picture. Geometry without pictures is not geometry it becomes alchemical arithmetico-symbolism impossible to assimilate. So we need to make more pictures and more careful ones. In fact the mistake we did is that we omitted to neutralize the curve $C_4$ of the previous step. What a grotesque mistake!
-5pt0
-5pt0
So let us make a better picture, and correcting the previous one gives Fig.\[Harnack-Gudkovvariant5:fig\]a. Alas the scheme so obtained is $\frac{1}{1}8$.
Our next idea was to invert the order of some oscillation as on Fig.\[Harnack-Gudkovvariant5:fig\]b, but alas this does not help much, and we obtain the same $(M-1)$-scheme $\frac{1}{1}8$ close to Harnack’s.
-5pt0
-5pt0
So it seems we are in need of a more drastic form of intertwining the oscillation. This lead us to the following Fig.\[Harnack-Gudkovvariant7:fig\]a which alas still represent the same scheme. (At this stage we really feel unclever or at least unlucky.)
The next part b. of the figure still remains to be done by slight permutation of the oscillation.
-5pt0
-5pt0
\[07.02.13\] In fact one may argue that if by our choice of starting from an $(M-1)$-cubic we would arrive at the scheme $\frac{4}{1}{5}$ which is pre-Gudkovian (i.e. $\frac{5}{1}{5}$) then we would also be likely to realize the latter by a Harnack construction. This seems unlikely, at least experimentally and there is perhaps a known theoretical obstruction. Accordingly it is perhaps better to start from the maximal vibration and loose one oval latter through the disposition of vibrations.
-5pt0
-5pt0
If one is somewhat tired (or hung over) one is even able to produce via Fig.\[Harnack-Gudkovvariant7:fig\]b the scheme $\frac{2}{1}8$ corrupting Gudkov’s knowledge or theoretical avatars like Arnold 1971’s congruence mod 4.
-5pt0
-5pt0
And in reality we only get the scheme $8$:
-5pt0
-5pt0
After much efforts and trials we ultimately found (the next day \[07.02.13\]) the solution as Fig.\[HarnaGudkov4-15:fig\]. The trick is to leave much room in between the vertical lines effecting the oscillation of Harnack’s method, so as to place the subsequent vibration in between. One of the difficulty we encountered before finding the solution is that since the desired configuration $\frac{4}{1}5$ is an $(M-1)$-curve one is tempted to start with an $(M-1)$-cubic. Then one can apparently loose much energy in the desert.
Instead we start form a Harnack-maximal cubic obtained by slight perturbation of an ellipse $E_2\cup L$ union the horizontal line $L$ and perturb this by a triplet of vertical lines. It results the black depicted $C_3$ on the first row of Fig.\[HarnaGudkov4-15:fig\] intersecting thrice the horizontal line.
The quartic curve $C_3\cup L$ is then perturbed by a quadruplets of lines. Those could be a priori be located everywhere, but we choose them in between as depicted on the figure. Here it seems quite crucial that as the number of lines is even we may concentrate the vibration on a single oval. After this vibration the large central oval looks like a pair of Ray-Ban eyeglasses (viewed in perspective). We have now a $C_4$ oscillating 4 times across the (horizontal) line $L$ and we perturb again the union. How to do this? Always by the same method but we are free to choose the location of the vibrator. A priori since an oval can vibrate an even number of times across a line we may want to choose only 4 vibrations in the “nearby glass” of the Ray-Ban and one outside. This leads to something interesting namely the scheme $\frac{4}{1}4$ (compare Fig.\[indef414:fig\], which we transported earlier in this text). Here instead we keep the 5 vibratory lines close together (this usually maximizes their vibratory impact), and all inside the big glass of the Ray-Ban, cf. second row of the figure. It remains to depict the resulting smoothing of $C_4\cup L$. The result is the red curve $C_5$ depicted but it is essential to choose this oscillation (and not the opposite one) in which case you destroy many ovals (this will be depicted concretely on the next Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-14:fig\]). So there is something like a snake visiting the nearby glass of the Ray-Ban. This gives a $C_5$ traversing 5 times the line $L$.
Smoothing the union $C_5\cup L$ produces the sextic of the 3rd row (of Fig.\[HarnaGudkov4-15:fig\]). Note that the two (red-colored) branches nearby the horizontal line are linked together at $\infty$ to form a single circuit, which we call the median circuit. More generally all branches going to infinity are connected with the diametrically opposite branch. The median circuit of the $C_6$ is clearly the unique nonempty oval. What appears naively in its interior is in reality a Möbius band (due to the diametral identification), hence its interior really contains 4 ovals. This shows that the constructed curve realizes the desired scheme $\frac{4}{1}5$.
-10pt0
-5pt0
Somewhat against our expectation this curve cannot be simplified toward the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$ we were interested in (in the previous section), as the 4 inner ovals are not coming from a vibration. Nonetheless during our exploration up to finding this premaximal scheme $\frac{4}{1}5$ nearly Gudkovian, we found a variant of the exposed construction yielding the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$ (cf. Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXL:fig\] below).
First let us choose the opposite mode of vibration as the lucky one we first depicted. This gives Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-14:fig\]. Now the snake oscillates around the nearby glass, wind around the nose of the investigator, to loop around the second (distant) glass of the Ray-Ban, etc. (As we must optically smooth the union of both black curves $C_4\cup L$, we could a priori hope to close up an oval with the bottom half of the first close glass, but this forces a 6th intersection in $C_5\cap L$ violating Bézout.) On smoothing $C_5\cup L$ we find a curve realizing the scheme $\frac{3}{1}4$. Although not so exciting as $\frac{3}{1}5$, this is already interesting for the purpose of the previous section (namely trying to corrupt Nikulin).
So the game is to trace the triangle through the 3 inner ovals and look upon the separation it effects upon the 4 outer ovals. Of course our picture has poor metrical qualities as we blew it up topologically as to see what happens within the viscera of Harnack’s method. Notwithstanding the naive green triangle depicted seems to leave unseparated the 4 outer ovals (which to me remembered appears “inside”). However upon dragging the upper vertex below while staying in the outer oval residual to the upper semi-circle, we can easily (at least on our topological picture) effect a separation. Remind (from the reasoning of the previous section) that if such a division occurs, then the rigid-isotopy classification of Slava Nikulin 1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80] is violated. Can we infer anything serious from such a topological picture of Harnack method? Maybe we can via a mental contraction of some ovals restore some metrical faithfulness in the depiction as to be sufficiently accurate to answer the (non)separation question by the fundamental triangle through the 3 (deep) inner ovals.
Let us start with the observation that the initial cubic $C_3$ looks on our distorted picture (Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-14:fig\]) more like a quintic (consider a line “parallel” to the horizontal one passing through the unique oval of the $C_3$). So in the real picture the central oscillating bump of the cubic is much less pronounced. Imagine the oval of the cubic as a sun radiating light, then there cannot be shadow lying behind the hill formed by this bump (otherwise 4 intersections with a line too much for Bézout).
So the real picture is heuristically like the 4th row of Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-14:fig\]. In particular the Ray-Ban glasses (=vibrating oval of the $C_4$) is much stretched vertically. One may argue that the Ray-Ban glass traps the oscillation, and also the resulting 4 outer ovals created in the last step of Harnack’s iteration. Accordingly it seems sufficient to use the $C_4$ as a sort of envelope. Since the 3 ovals of the quartic $C_4$ distinct from the Ray-Ban are actually (modulo infinitesimal perturbations) the 3 inner ovals of the final sextic $C_6$, and noting also that the line through two of them cannot intersect the Ray-Ban oval (Bézout), we may conclude that any triad of lines through the inner ovals of our $C_6$ does not separate the 4 outer ovals. This no-separation scenario is in accordance with our previous depiction of such a curve via the more user friendly Hilbert’s method (cf. Fig.\[Lock3-14:fig\]). Alas or fortunately our reasoning does not foil Nikulin’s theorem. We summarize this trapping argument by the:
For the sextic curve $C_6$ of scheme $\frac{3}{1}4$ realized via Harnack’s method the fundamental triangle through the deep ovals does not separate the $4$ outer ovals.
-10pt0
-5pt0
At this stage, it is with a mixture of happiness and disappointment that Nikulin still seems to resist our naive aggression via the Fiedler-Marin method. It remains however to look at the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$.
\[08.02.13\] How to realize it? Again several tests are required and usually we (at least the writer) lack an understanding of the predestination governing Harnack’s method. Using the technique of the microcosmic vibration “in between” we realized the schemes $\frac{4}{1}5$, $\frac{4}{1}4$ and $\frac{3}{1}4$ all hitting quite central positions of Gudkov’s pyramid (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). But how to get $\frac{3}{1}5$ lying more “eccentric” on this table? Incidentally one could dream that this Harnack method we are using leads to the eclectic Gudkov scheme $\frac{5}{1}5$. Of course this would corrupt experimental evidence assembled along centennial working tradition (Harnack 1876, Hilbert 1891, Rohn 1888–1913, Brusotti 1910–1945, Gudkov 1954–1973, etc.). However we do not know (personally) a theoretical obstruction impeding Harnack’s method to produce Gudkov’s scheme. Arguably if well assimilated Harnack’s method reduces to a finite collection (for a fixed degree say $m=6$) of combinatorially distinct locations for the vibratory lines. So it suffices to explore all choices and notice that Gudkov’s scheme never appears. We do not claim to be clever enough to complete this boring exercise, but our microfilm picture perhaps contributes to this (cf. Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15MICRO:fig\]). \[08.04.13\] It is not clear at this stage if this picture will be publishable in the arXiv due to size limitations.
But let us return to our main duty of exhibiting $\frac{3}{1}5$. Here a series of tests given in micro-film format (Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15MICRO:fig\] only consultable on a PC where one can zoom and alas unreadable on the paper). Alas we cannot give the pictures in decent format for otherwise the flow of pictures overrun dramatically what we have to say on the topic. We are in the realm of pure geometry were only pictures have some weight, but alas this does not seem to please my TeX-compilator, who accept at most two pictures per page. Here the second column picture of this microfilm shows an interesting variant of the scheme $\frac{3}{1}4$ where the 4 outer ovals are not directly enveloped by the “Ray-Ban” oval, and so our former argument does not readily apply here. It seems however dubious to expect a corruption of Nikulin. Without getting sidetracked by this issue, keep in mind our goal of realizing $\frac{3}{1}5$.
-10pt0
-5pt0
After several trials (cf. again the microfilm Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15MICRO:fig\]) we arrived at the idea of using the same vibratory configuration of lines as for $\frac{4}{1}5$ safe that instead of starting from an $M$-cubic we start from an $(M-1)$-cubic. This seems to require locating one of the vibratory line inside the circle. Our final picture is Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXL:fig\]. It hardly deserves to be commented upon once it is found, except for saying that the initial cubic is to be thought of as a small perturbation of the circle $E_2$ union the line, despite sembling a large deformation thereof. The trick in tracing Harnack’s curves is always to exaggerate small perturbations as to create some free room to depict the next stage of the inductive process (vibratory pudding). This is of course possible due to the malleability of the continuum $\RR$ of real numbers.
On this figure (Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXL:fig\]) we recognize again our Ray-Ban oval except that it has now acquired a “branch” (compare 2nd row of Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXL:fig\]). Again our interest is to apply the lock method of Fiedler-Marin. So we trace the triplet of lines through 3 points in the deep (inner) ovals $1,2,3$, and examine whether and how this triangle splits apart the outer ovals [*1,2,3,4,5*]{}. (Notice the importance of italicization in our notation: italics are outer ovals while roman-arabic numbers are the inner ovals.) In contrast to the Harnack curve realizing $\frac{3}{1}4$ where all the 4 outer ovals were encapsulated in the Ray-Ban oval, we notice now that the oval [*5*]{} lies outside this (Ray-Ban) oval. So our former argument does not readily apply. Notice also that the inner oval $2$ lies inside the Ray-Ban. All this is a bit puzzling but should not discourage us attempting to study the division of the outer ovals by the locking triangle for our Harnack-modified curve $C_6$. Note incidentally that the latter is not perfectly well defined as a curve unless we specify exactly the deformation constants involved in Harnack’s small perturbation method. Yet it seems natural to expect that the combinatorial data involved in our Harnack-Gudkov style description is enough to determine unambiguously a rigid-isotopy class. Hence by the Fiedler-Marin locking argument (involving merely Bézout saturation) we infer that the distribution of outer ovals within the 4 components past the lock is well-defined. It remains only to determine it.
-10pt0
-5pt0
In the sequel we shall often speak of “the line passing through two disjoint ovals”. This is a slight abuse of language for such a line is not uniquely defined, and is really intended to mean choose 2 points in the insides of the 2 disjoint ovals and trace the line joining them. Of course the phrasing “the line” becomes somewhat sloppy, but when the two ovals are inner ovals then any such line is Bézout saturated, and so from the viewpoint of analysis situs there is some canonicalness.
Since “the” (or a) line through the ovals $1,3$ regarded on the quartic $C_4$ cannot cut more times the $C_4$, we infer that it does not cut the Ray-Ban oval of the $C_4$ (the one oscillating 4 times across the horizontal line $L$). Next the line through the ovals $2,3$ interpreted on the quintic $C_5$ cannot cut more this curve safe for a point on its pseudoline. A similar remark holds for the line through $1,2$. All this looks a bit sterile and we really need the geometry of the picture to understand the distributional question. For this purpose, look at the 3 green-colored lines on Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXL:fig\], while enlarging slightly oval 3 as to adjust the picture. It seems then that the triangle separates oval [*5*]{} from the ovals [*1,2,3,4*]{}. Of course upon stretching further oval $3$, we could arrange that the line $2,3$ passes above oval [*5*]{} in which case the locking triangle effects no subdivision of the outer ovals. Which of both scenarios corresponds the reality? A priori the first scenario looks more likely (at least in line with our picture). Remind however the slogan (anonymous, Poincaré, etc.) “La géométrie c’est l’art de bien raisonner sur des figures mal dessinées”.
Let us attempt a more realist depiction on the following figure (Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXLTEST:fig\]). Even the first right-side picture (fig.d) is not Bézout permissible (the green-line cut the cubic $C_3$ five times). Further it may be observed that the line through $2,3$ may pass “below” the series of ovals [*1,2,3,4*]{}. This is a third possible scenario in which there is no subdivision.
-10pt0
-5pt0
Admittedly this question looks quite tricky to decide and requires some good idea or high optical acuity. Harnack’s method seems not ideally suited to clinch the matter. Hilbert’s method would be more convenient, yet does not seem capable producing the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$ which is slightly more on the Harnack right-hand side of Gudkov’s pyramid (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). This is surely no intrinsic reason since Harnack’s scheme itself is accessible to Hilbert’s method. Inspecting carefully our former Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\] cataloging several variants of Hilbert’s method it is pretty clear why Hilbert’s method fails producing the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$. Indeed what comes closest to $\frac{3}{1}5$ is the scheme $\frac{4}{1}4$ depicted near the center of Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\], and one may argue that the vibrating oval has always an even number of (cytoplasmic) expansions coming across the fundamental ellipse $E_2$ of Hilbert’s construction thereby creating an odd number of ovals. So to have 3 inner ovals requires 2 inner expansions like on the scheme $\frac{3}{1}3$ on the bottom of Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\] but this dissipates too much of the oscillating energy and not enough outer ovals are created.
As an attempt to corrupt Nikulin it would be interesting to detect a second realization of the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$ besides Harnack’s presented above, and study on it the distribution of outer ovals past the fundamental triangle through the deep ovals. Even without any scepticism about Nikulin the net effect is that if the latter is correct the determination of this distribution for a single curve $C_6$ belonging to the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$ which is of type II would by the Fiedler-Marin argument determines this distribution for all curves belonging to the scheme. (That such a curve is of type II necessarily, follows from Arnold’s congruence (\[Rohlin-implies-Arnold:lem\]) $(3=1-3+5=)\chi=p-n\equiv k^2
\pmod 4(=3^2=9\equiv 1)$ valid for all type I curves.) We get so some nice geometric theorem as a consequence of the truth of Nikulin. (Insertion \[08.04.13\]: a much more elementary argument is given by Le Touzé in Sec.\[LeTouze:sec\].)
\[09.02.13\] We now present some tricky argument in favor of non-separation of the outer ovals on the Harnack model constructed above.
Referring to Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXLTEST:fig\]a, let us look at the quartic $C_4$ with $r=3$ ovals occurring as an intermediate step of Harnack’s construction. The unique oval of the $C_4$ which oscillates 4 times across the horizontal line $L$ is referred to as the [*Ray-Ban oval*]{}. Label the intersection points in $C_4\cap L$ as $p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4$. Consider the 3 green-lines through the 3 inner ovals of the sextic $C_6$ (Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXLTEST:fig\]c) but imagined traced on this $C_4$ (i.e. on plate Fig.a). Since the oval $2$ of the $C_6$ is enveloped by the Ray-Ban oval (of the $C_4$) it may be inferred that the line $2,3$ does not intercept the Ray-Ban oval outside of the arc $p_3,p_4$ of the $C_4$ on Fig.a). Hence the line $2,3$ is actually much more horizontal than on our Fig.c. More precisely we infer the following.
Since the ovals [*1,2,3,4*]{} are encapsulated in the Ray-Ban oval (of the $C_4$), the line $2,3$ passes below them. (Of course “below” as no absolute sense in projective geometry, but here it has since we have another line $L$ as reference.)
Even better than that consider also the lines $1,2$ and $1,3$ as depicted on Fig.c. Here we see clearly (and if in doubt argue as above with Bézout saturation w.r.t. the Ray-Ban oval) that all 5 outer ovals [*1,2,3,4,5*]{} are not separated by the union $1,2 \cup 1,3$ of those lines. Once those both lines are removed passing below really means not separating them. Another way to formalize this is to look at the intersection $2,3 \cap L$ which should be either very negative or positive when $L$ is identified to the real line. This again not so appealing. In fact instead of trying to define formally what means passing below, we should merely say avoid the Ray-Ban oval of $C_4$ and hence cannot separate $1,2,3,4$. In fact the inside of the Ray-Ban smashed along $p_3,p_4$ linearly is a topological disc (say $D$) away the 3 green-lines, and containing the 4 ovals [*1,2,3,4*]{}.
Further it also passes below oval [*5*]{}, for otherwise it passes above but having to avoid the Ray-Ban it would then have to lounge the nasal portion of the Ray-Ban while passing between oval [*5*]{} and the curvilinear arc $p_2,p_3$ of $C_4$. (Recall that our line $2,3$ is de facto Bézout-saturated (w.r.t. to $C_6$ or even w.r.t. the $C_5$), hence cannot intercept any outer oval, in particular [*5*]{}.) But then the line $2,3$ would intersect twice the horizontal line $L$, violating the simplest case of Bézout.
In conclusion the line $2,3$ passes below all outer ovals [*1,2,3,4,5*]{}, and the real picture could be more like Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXLTEST:fig\]e. Alas this depiction does not seem possible because the line $2,3$ already crosses 6 times the sextic so the oval $1$ cannot cross this line. Since it moves above it on the right side of the picture it must resurface on the right side below the line $2,3$, which is not the case on our picture (Fig.e). Accordingly Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXLTEST:fig\]f might be more realistic, and the conclusion would be that the fundamental triangle does not separate the outer ovals.
Have we proved anything? Let us say “yes” and state the following lemma of which we shall supply a more formal proof right below.
The fundamental triangle consisting of the $3$ lines passing through the $3$ inner ovals of Harnack’s curve (depicted above as Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXL:fig\] or Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXLTEST:fig\]) realizing the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$ does not separate the $5$ outer ovals.
The trick toward a more formal proof is to consider the topological disc $D$ obtained from the inside of the Ray-Ban oval by expanding it at $p_2,p_3$ linearly while smashing it inside at $p_3,p_4$ (compare the shaded region on Fig.\[HarnaGudkov3-15XXLTEST:fig\]a). Since this region contains the 5 outer ovals [*1,2,3,4,5*]{} it suffices to check that this disk avoids the 3 green lines through the 3 inner ovals.
This is clear for the line $1,3$ which is Bézout-saturated on the $C_4$, hence can only attack our modified disc $D$ through the arc $p_2,p_3$, but as the inside of the Ray-Ban oval is avoided it results a second intersection with $L$ violating Bézout.
The same argument works for the remaining two lines $1,2$ and $2,3$ after noticing that since those lines intercept twice the oval $2$ of the sextic, it may be assumed that they intercept twice the curvilinear arc $p_3,p_4$ of $C_4$. This follows merely from the nature of the method of small perturbation. [*Warning*]{}.—In fact a priori we could imagine that the line $2,3$ penetrates in the oval $2$ much more vertically than on Fig.c meaning really that it intercepts the segment $p_3,p_4$ of $L$, but in that case too, it is clear that the fundamental triangle does not separate the outer ovals. In fact in this case our line $2,3$ cuts the Ray-Ban oval only twice, and we may excise from $D$ the half of the trace of our line on $D$ containing $p_4$, plus a little tubular neighborhood thereof. During this excision it is clear that we do not loose the covering of the outer ovals, since the line $2,3$ is Bézout-saturated on $C_6$.
Now each of our lines through oval $2$ is Bézout-saturated with the $C_4$ hence must avoid the inside of the Ray-Ban. However our line cannot penetrate the arc $p_2,p_3$, for otherwise a 2nd intersection with $L$ is created, hence has void intersection with $D$.
Viro’s construction specialized to the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$
------------------------------------------------------------
\[08.04.13\] This section explores other realizations than Harnack’s (especially of the scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$) which is somewhat cumbersome. It is primarily a matter of exploring Viro’s method, but the latter turns out to be not much more suited than Harnack’s model to fix the distribution question. As we already said the royal road is Le Touzé’s argument in Sec.\[LeTouze:sec\]. Of course Viro’s method has supernatural appeal too, but our exposition is far from explaining the true core of the dissipation method which is a secret to us. Hence this section can be omitted with loss of continuity.
\[08.02.13\] A first idea is to use Marin’s variant of Hilbert’s method but this seems only able to produce the scheme $\frac{3}{1}4$ (cf. Fig.\[Viro3-15:fig\]a). Another idea is to use Viro’s dissipation of 3 ellipses tangent at 2 points. This being again a small perturbation method like Harnack’s it is not a priori clear that we will be in a better position to tackle the distribution question past the deep triangle. The charming feature of Viro’s method is its ability to create nearly all sextics as perturbation of this configuration of 3 coaxial ellipses. To implement this, look at Fig.29 in Viro 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1103] showing all the possible dissipations of a germ of curve singularity of type $J_{10}^-$ consisting of 3 real branches having a second order tangency like on our global model of the 3 coaxial ellipses. This Viro figure is reproduced as Fig.\[Viro3-15:fig\]b below, which includes 5 modes of dissipation denoted by us V1,V2, …, V5 (V standing for Viro of course). Each of them admits an array of permissible values for spontaneous “champagne bubbling” of ovals created out of the blue. Then we can patchwork such smoothing [*independently*]{} at both singular points of the configuration of 3 ellipses to create a global curve with controlled topology. (This is of course highly reminiscent of Brusotti-Gudkov’s independence of smoothing, based on Severi and in turn upon Riemann(-Roch) via possible détours through the Plato cavern of Brill-Noether. Compare Brusotti 1921 [@Brusotti_1921] and Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74].)
-10pt0
-5pt0
For instance the dissipation V1-V2 with $(\alpha,\beta)=(4,0)$ and $(\alpha,\beta)=(4,0)$ resp. yields Hilbert’s scheme $\frac{9}{1}1$. Choosing instead for V1, $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,4)$ and for V2 $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,4)$ yields Harnack’s scheme $\frac{1}{1}9$. If we choose for V1, $(\alpha,\beta)=(4,0)$ and for V2 $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,4)$ yields Gudkov’s scheme $\frac{5}{1}5$. Pause a little moment at this stage, to be puzzled by the fact that Gudkov’s rare bird—which escaped the attention of all experts during 8 decades (from Hilbert to Gudkov)—appears in the fingers of Viro as a species not much more tropical than common birds like Harnack and Hilbert. Perhaps this banalization of Gudkov by Viro is against the philosophy expressed in Sec.\[Diophantine-and-proba:sec\] that Gudkov’s curve(s) ought to have some statistical and Diophantine rarity.
How to realize $\frac{3}{1}5$? It suffices to choose at V1 $(\alpha,\beta)=(2,0)$ and at V2 $(\alpha,\beta)=(0,4)$ (cf. Fig.c, right). Does Viro’s method help to solve our distributional problem. A priori not as shown by our naive depiction Fig.\[Viro3-15:fig\]d exhibiting both distribution (separating or not) as logically possible a priori. Recall yet that on behalf of Nikulin’s theorem both options cannot occur simultaneously. Of course naive geometric intuition tells us that the upper part of Fig.d is more likely with small ovals spread horizontally as a vestige of the horizontal tangent line at the singular point of the initial configuration of 3 coaxial ellipses. But of course even in this situation where the 2 microcosmic ovals (generated by the dissipation of the bottom singularity “V1”) are nearly horizontal (and so is the line through them) this does not prevent the “vertical” green-lines to separate the upper series of 4 ovals. But again on ground of some microscopical geometric intuition it seems realist to argue that even if the top vertex of the green-triangle is chosen very near to the top of the banana oval (i.e. the large inner oval of the curve $C_6$ resulting from the fusion of the two branches $2,3$ of ellipses when labelled from left to right), the little 4 top ovals will condense themselves as to be non-separated by the deep triangle. Actually if a separation would occur, then by sweeping the nearly vertical green-line inside the pencil of lines rooted at a basepoint in the bottom oval gives by continuity an intermediate line with 8 intersections with the sextic $C_6$ overwhelming Bézout (or the smoothness of the $C_6$). Indeed if the line through one of the bottom micro-oval has slope of ca. 135 degree it cuts twice the micro-oval, twice the banana and twice the (largest) nonempty oval, hence 6 times the curve. If we let this angle diminishes to 90 degree (plus $\varepsilon$) by dragging the upper (banana) vertex up to the top of the banana while supposing that the pair of lines effects a division of the 4 top micro-ovals for a suitably small value of $\varepsilon $ then both lines have again 6 intersections, but in between $135$ degrees and $90+\varepsilon$ degrees there must be a line cutting 8 times the curve $C_6$ namely the one line sweeping the separated oval. Sorry for this messy argument. Of course the key is just to observe that the green-lines are Bézout-saturated, hence the distribution of outer ovals cannot change.
By the same sort of argument, precisely by tracing the line through two points near the bottom of the inner banana and the outer banana we get a line which is already Bézout-saturated. Pushing this line to its ultimate confinement we get the bitangent through the most “meridional” points of both bananas. Following this motion by continuity implies that the 2 bottom ovals are pressed down below this bitangent, and so looks nearly horizontal. Alas this does not prevent the situation of the bottom half of Fig.\[Viro3-15:fig\]d where both microscopic ovals are sitting nearly one above the other but of course at much lesser height than depicted, that is below the bitangent to the most meridional portion of both bananas.
All this is quite exciting for the imagination, but does not seem to answer our puzzle on the distribution of outer ovals past the fundamental triangle. To analyze better the situation we should introspect in more detail the quantitative geometric aspects of Viro’s construction which certainly includes answers to our basic question.
Ignoring that issue for the moment, we can introduce the concept of the bundle spanned by two disjoint ovals. This is the collection of all lines traced through a pair of points chosen inside the respective ovals (“boundaries” included). This bundle is often supported by (or spanning) a bordered surface homeomorphic to a Möbius band. If we think of both ovals as celestial bodies (like Earth and Moon) then this bundle (or rather its support, i.e. what is swept out by this collection of lines) is essentially the region where one oval masks the other (at least partially) like during an eclipse. We call thus this region the [*eclipsus*]{} of both given ovals, or just their mutual [*shadow*]{}.
The shadow of the 2 bottom micro-ovals in case their mutual disposition is nearly vertical (like on the bottom half of Fig.\[Viro3-15:fig\]d) cannot intercept any further oval than the 3 obvious one (each of the 2 protagonists plus the nonempty oval enclosing them). In particular in that case of nearly vertical alinement of both “meridional” micro-ovals their shadow must find its way out through the little room left vacant between the top part of the outer banana and the top 4 micro-ovals. This is actually possible as suggested by Fig.\[Viro3-15shadows:fig\]c, provided both ovals really live at the microscopic scale. Fig.\[Viro3-15shadows:fig\]a depicts the shadow of both bananas. Each line in this shaded region is Bézout-saturated, hence no ovals can survive in this region, hence the situation is forced to be like on Fig.\[Viro3-15shadows:fig\]b. Once we have Fig.c then we must still analyze further shadows, but some thinking at the nanoscale should convince the reader that the verticality scenario posited by Fig.c is not further obstructed by Monsieur Étienne Bézout. Philosophically algebraic plane curves are like celestial configurations not liking to have their horizon too much saturated by galactic nebulosity. They express a principle of economy and purity.
-10pt0
-5pt0
Our conclusion is that the topological aspect of Viro’s method alone does not seem sufficient to settle the distributional question of a $C_6$ of type $\frac{3}{1}5$. However it is more likely that for some Viro curve $C_6$ the distribution of the bottom ovals is nearly horizontal, and therefore that the fundamental triangle through the 3 inner ovals does not separate the 5 outer ovals of this $C_6$. If this is true (and Nikulin’s theorem also) then we deduce first the following lemma and next the following theorem by uniting the forces of all lemmas of the previous Sec.\[Nikulin-corruption:sec\]:
Any sextic $C_6$ with scheme $\frac{3}{1}5$ is such that the fundamental triangle through the $3$ inner ovals does not separate the five outer ovals.
\[Nikulin-Fiedler-Marin-Gabard-no-separa:thm\] Any sextic $C_6$ belonging to a scheme of the form $\frac{3}{1}\ell$ (with $0\le \ell \le 5$ according to Gudkov’s table) is such that the fundamental triangle through the $3$ inner ovals does not separate the outer ovals.
If this theorem is true, one may of course wonder if there is an elementary proof circumventing the highbrow intervention of K3 surfaces, Torelli, etc. i.e. all the technology involved in Nikulin’s proof. \[13.02.13\] Such an elementary proof is given in the next section (\[LeTouze:sec\]) and was communicated by Le Touzé.
Fiedler-Le Touzé’s answer (conical chromatic law) {#LeTouze:sec}
-------------------------------------------------
\[13.02.13\] Three days ago, I received the following answer from Séverine Fiedler-Le Touzé (née Le Touzé, and often abridged as a such too avoid confusion with her husband Fiedler, who also worked in the field “a long time ago”).
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ \[10.02.13\] Bonjour Alexandre, Thomas m’a transmis ta question. La réponse est toute simple: soient $A$, $B$, $C$ trois ovales intérieurs et $D$, $E$ deux ovales exterieurs de ta sextique. Le triangle fondamental $ABC$ est entièrement contenu dans l’ovale non-vide. Si $D$ et $E$ sont dans deux triangles $ABC$ (non-fondamentaux) différents, alors la conique passant par $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$, $E$ coupe la sextique en $14$ points, contradiction. Avec des coniques, on montre plus généralement que: Les ovales vides de la sextique sont distribués dans deux chaines (int, ext), l’ordre cyclique est donné par les pinceaux de droites basés dans les ovales interieurs. Les ovales interieurs sont disposés en position convexe dans l’ovale non-vide. Bon dimanche, Séverine
Translated in my poor English this gives the:
\[LeTouze:lem\] Let $C_6$ be a sextic with $3$ inner ovals, and at least $2$ outer ovals, then the latter are in the same component past the fundamental triangle consisting of the $3$ lines through the deep ovals. In particular any sextic of type $\frac{3}{1}\ell$ has all its ovals distributed in the same component past the fundamental triangle.
[*Insertion*]{} \[08.04.13\].—As a loose idea it could be interesting to see if the method can be boosted as to prohibit the scheme $\frac{3}{1}6$. Of course this follows also via total reality of the scheme $\frac{2}{1}6$ also due to Le Touzé.
Assume on the contrary that the 2 outer ovals are in different subregions past the fundamental triangle. The idea is to look at the conic passing through the $3+2=5$ ovals (3 being deep and 2 being outer ovals). This conic certainly cuts the $C_6$ in at least $(5+1)\cdot 2=12$ points, like say on Fig.\[LeTouze:fig\]a albeit of course no depiction is required since those intersections are so-to-speak topologically forced. However from our supposition that the 2 outer ovals are separated by the fundamental triangle the real picture is rather like Fig.\[LeTouze:fig\]b or Fig.\[LeTouze:fig\]c yielding $2\cdot 5+4=14$ intersections. Bézout is overwhelmed.
-5pt0
-5pt0
It remains to find the intrinsic reason of why this holds true. The key is to look at the order of the 5 assigned points on the conic. On Fig.a the 3 inner points (in black) are not separated by the outer ones (white-colored), while on Fig.b the 3 inner points are separated by the 2 outer points. This explains the formation of extra intersections whenever we have to salesman-travel from the inside to the outside of the nonempty oval. More precisely when the 3 black inner points are separated by the 2 white outer points then we see 4 elliptical arcs with dichromatic boundary, each of which contributing for an intersection (with the nonempty oval separating the outer from the inner ovals). So the whole story is reduced to the following Hilfssatz somewhat hard to state elegantly:
[(Chromatic law for conics)]{}.—\[LeTouze-Gabard-Hilfssatz:lem\] Let us be given $3$ black-colored points in the plane $\RR P^2$ which are not aligned, and let $T$ be the triangle through them. Take $2$ additional (white colored) points outside the triangle. Then the unique conic $E$ through the $5$ points considered is smooth. Further if both white points are in the same component past the triangle $T$, then the $5$ points are monochromatically distributed on the conic as white-white-black-black-black (with only $2$ chromatic transitions when reading cyclically). If instead both white points are separated by the triangle, then the distribution is dichromatic as white-black-white-black-black, which read cyclically gives $4$ chromatic transitions (from black to white or viceversa).
Applying this Hilfssatz concludes the proof of the lemma (\[LeTouze:lem\]).
The philosophical outcome of this brilliant argument (communicated by Séverine Le Touzé) is that we cannot hope any corruption to Nikulin by the Fiedler-Marin locking technique. In fact the distribution of outer ovals past the fundamental triangle is always monopartite. In particular we get a more conceptual and lucid proof of several lemmas that we tried hard to establish on the cumbersome models of Harnack, Viro. In particular, we get an elementary proof of Theorem \[Nikulin-Fiedler-Marin-Gabard-no-separa:thm\] without the whole transcendental apparatus behind Nikulin’s theorem (K3 surfaces, Torelli, etc.).
Trying to extend Nuij-Dubrovin rigid-isotopy of the deep nest via total reality {#Nuij-Dubrovin-extended:sec}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[23.01.13\] Apart from the beautiful result of Nikulin on sextics, stating that the real scheme enhanced by Klein’s types suffices to determine unambiguously the rigid-isotopy class (\[Nikulin:thm\]) and the rigidity of the empty scheme, the only positive general result available is Nuij-Dubrovin’s theorem stating that the deep nest constitutes a unique rigid-isotopy class.
\[rigid-scheme:defn\] [Let us say that an ($m$)-scheme (i.e. a scheme of order $m$) is [*rigid*]{} if any two $m$-tics curves representing the scheme are rigid-isotopic.]{}
Since the deep nest is totally real (à la Ahlfors) under a pencil of lines one might wonder if other totally real schemes also enjoy rigidness. Examples of such total schemes include all the $M$-schemes by Bieberbach-Grunsky, the $(M-2)$-schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and its mirror $\frac{2}{1}6$ by an unpublished argument of Rohlin (nobody is able to reconstruct). More easily it includes the scheme of degree 8 $\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}$ (4 nests of depth 2) which is total under a pencil of conics.
Conjecturally for a scheme, type I implies maximal (Rohlin 1978).
$\bullet$ A scheme of degree $m$ is [*total of order $k$*]{} if any curve $C_m$ representing the scheme admits a total pencil of $k$-tics. (For instance the $2k$-scheme $(1,1,\dots,1)$ consisting of $k$ nested ovals is total of order 1.)
$\bullet$ Say that a scheme of degree $m$ is total if any curve representing the scheme admits a total pencil.
It seems natural to expect the:
If a scheme of degree $m$ is total then it is total of order $k$ for some universal $k$ depending only on $m$.
At first glance this could follow from Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]. At any rate we have the implications:
Total of some order $k$ $\Rightarrow$ total $\Rightarrow$ type I (perhaps implying maximal).
Marin convinced me that the transition from the abstract to embedded viewpoints might be not so easy, hence the converse of the second arrow might not be a trivial corollary of Ahlfors 1950, but we naively still hope so.
One may speculate on an extension of Nuij-Dubrovin’s theorem as follows:
For a scheme, totality of order $k$ (for some fixed $k$) implies rigidness.
[*Insertion*]{} \[08.04.13\].—This conjecture (like the subsequent one (\[M-schemes-rigid\])) is probably also disrupted by Marin’s obstruction (discussed in the next Sec.\[Marin:sec\]). Indeed by our extrinsic variant of Riemann-Bieberbach-Grunsky (\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]) the total reality of plane $M$-curves of degree $m$ is exhibited by a pencil of curves of degree $(m-2)$, hence we have totality for some universal degree, namely $k=m-2$ (depending only on the degree $m$ of the scheme and not on the geometry of the curve), yet no rigidity can be observed by Marin’s obstruction.
Perhaps it suffices to assume type I, or maybe even maximal implies rigidity (in increasing order of hazardousness). Here maximality is interpreted in the sense of Rohlin (as opposed to Harnack’s more specialized sense). Of course a priori there is very little evidence for a direct correlation between those concepts. (Again try to look if Fiedler, Marin give some counterexample, more on Marin soon.)
In particular we may have something like:
\[M-schemes-rigid\] [(Too Naive!!!, completely false as shown by Marin, Fiedler)]{}.—Any $M$-scheme is rigid.
A priori if the devil of algebra does well his job this ought to be completely false in high degrees $m\ge 8$, or say perhaps $m\ge
10^3=1000$.
Marin’s lock 1979: obstruction to rigid-isotopies {#Marin:sec}
-------------------------------------------------
\[23.01.13\] Alas it seems that the above conjecture (\[M-schemes-rigid\]) is completely wrong for $m=7$ already, compare Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979 p.60–61]. Alas I was on a bad day and could not completely understand his argument, which looks however fairly simple involving the prose: “La distinction des deux courbes se fait en étudiant la position des ovales extérieurs par rapport aux droites joignant les ovales impairs.” (cf. p.60, of ). At first this looks sloppy justification as we are not just playing with projectivities but with rigid-isotopies which (in marked contrast to their names) are completely soft pathes in the residue of the discriminant. Yet I am sure that Marin is right (as usual) but his argumentation is for highbrow readers?
Ah yes the argument must be that when dragging the curve in the parameter space (with the joystick) while choosing a triangle through the deep ovals as on Marin’s picture (reproduced as Fig.\[Marin:fig\]), then the forced intersection with the pseudo-line gives already total reality (or Bézout-saturation) of these lines with the septic $C_7$ preventing the remaining (outer) ovals to traverse the triangle during the motion (=rigid-isotopy). Hence the distribution of ovals past the deep triangle is an invariant of the rigid-isotopy class, i.e. any 2 curves exhibiting distinct distributions of ovals past the fundamental triangle cannot be deformed into the other.
-1.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
So this is a bit like the moving frame of E. Cartan, and seems indeed to corroborate Marin’s clever observation!!! (Compare also Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000] who call this trick a “lock”, while ascribing it as well to Fiedler.) Note that even the complex orientations agree on Marin’s example. This method of the lock (or moving frame/traingle) affords therefore an obstruction (à la Bézout) to rigid-isotopy. It uses the fact that a triangle in the projective plane subdivides it in 4 pieces. One can wonder if other (more complicated) locks are also useful. This method surely deserves to be better explored and assimilated (as remarked in Degtyarev-Kharlamov ). For instance one can wonder if it is enough to a lock with a pair of lines which suffices to separate the outer ovals of the top figure. During the isotopy we can keep track of them (at least the ovals where they are passing through). Of course Marin’s choice has the advantage of canonicalness. What is crucial is that the lock do not degenerate during the isotopy, which is ensured by the fact that the 3 inner ovals cannot become aligned without violating Bézout. We have proved Marin’s result:
[(Marin 1979, or Fiedler)]{} There is two isotopic $M$-septics, i.e. having the same real scheme (and in fact the same complex orientations, but that requires adding the arrows on Fig.\[Marin:fig\]), yet which are not rigid-isotopic (i.e., belong to distinct chambers past the discriminant).
[*Insertion*]{} \[08.04.13\].—This raises of course the question of counting the number of septics chambers corresponding to this scheme (of degree 7). Perhaps variants of Marin’s figure (Fig.\[Marin:fig\]) produce more than 2 chambers, but we are not sure.
Still some link between totality and rigidity? Highbrow Nuij’s principle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[23.01.13\] Is there still some link between total reality and rigidity? A priori imagine the simplest situation of total reality under a pencil of line (ensured whenever we have a deep nest). Then very naively one could imagine to contract progressively the curve to some normal form like concentric circles and then drag it as a such toward the other center of perspective and blow it up again along the radial foliation toward the other curve. Of course doing so we meet reducible curves hence the discriminant yet perturbing the path there is some hope to avoid it completely, proving thereby the Nuij theorem [@Nuij_1968]. Though surrealist this argument is the best we can give in favor of a connection between totality and rigidity.
How does Nuij or Dubrovin prove their fantastic results? Can we “do-it-yourself” by making precise the above idea? One trick would be to take a total pencil (vision from the innermost oval) and perturb the nest toward concentric circles around the center of perspective. Since both curves are (softly) isotopic there is some chance that one path along the pencil (this being a circle abstractly there is 2 such pathes) does not cross the discriminant while affording a rectilinear rigid-isotopy. Then one finishes as above.
$\bigstar$ [*Long Insertion*]{} \[08.04.13\].—In quintessence, the deep nest for which rigidity holds true by Nuij 1968, is the satellite of the conic (cf. Sec.\[satellite-total-reality:sec\]) whose rigidity can be nearly ascribed to ancient Greeks (or Descartes, Newton, Sylvester’s law of inertia for quadratics forms, etc.). By analogy the quadrifolium schemes of degree $m=4k$ consisting of 4 nests of depth $k$ are total under a pencil of conics (as is fairly trivial, and explicitly remarked in Rohlin 1978 at least for $m=8$). This in turn is the satellite of the quartic quadrifolium (degree $m=4$ with $r=4$ ovals) whose rigidity is known since Klein 1876 (Sec.\[Klein-rigidity-of-quartics:sec\]). Hence this gives some evidence that totality in degree 2 implies rigidity. Extrapolating further along a stability of rigidity under satellites it could follow from the Rohlin-Le Touzé $(M-2)$-schemes of degree 6 (whose rigidity is ensured by Nikulin’s theorem deeper than Klein but sharing with it the rôle of surfaces, viz. K3 quartics vs. cubics for Klein) that:
\[satellite-Rohlin-(6)-schemes-rigid:conj\] All satellites of Rohlin’s sextic schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ (and its mirror $\frac{2}{1}6$) are rigid.
Of course if rigidity is stable under satellites this would not only applies to the Rohlin (totally real) schemes but to all schemes of degree 6 which are of definite type as tabulated on the Gudkov-Rohlin table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). There are precisely $64-2\cdot 8=48$ many such schemes. $\bigstar$ [*End insertion*]{}.
Another method of proof (of Nuij’s theorem) could be dynamical like the one (we attempted) for CCC (\[CCC:conj\]), yet involving another functional a priori. Very loosely the functional ought to have a unique attractor consisting of a series of concentric circles (or perhaps ellipses). If the flow can be shown to have this unique attractor (itself a certain manifold) then every nested curve converges there and going forth and then back we link rigidly our both curves.
Can we adapt the above synthetic method (or find an even more synthetic method) to construct the (hypothetical) rigid-isotopy between two (8)-schemes consisting of 4 nests of depth 2? The naive canonical form would be the same with circle or ellipses yet its degree is twice too big (namely 16). ([*Added*]{} \[08.04.13\].—Perhaps as suggested above, the canonical form is the satellite of a quartic which has the correct degree.)
We can first observe that such an octic curve has, like the deep nest, all the nested ovals forming negative pairs (this can be seen either à la Fiedler on a model or à la Ahlfors via the total pencil which forces the orientation to gyrate in the same sense as swept by the pencil). As a such there is no topological obstruction to shrink them at the microscopic scale (or apply alternatively a variant of CCC). Once contracted at the microscopic scale our configuration moves without resistance in the free vacuum and then may be re-expanded at the next curve. This is very sloppy heuristic of course, sembling much like inter-sidereal travelling, but there may be some truth in this. At least one sees a connection with CCC. If this works we get a proof of the:
\[rigidity-sat-quadrifolium:conj\] The $8$-scheme $4\times\frac{1}{1}$ of $4$ nests of depth $2$ is rigid (i.e. any two of its representatives are rigid-isotopic). More generally the $4k$-scheme consisting of 4 nests of depth $k$ is rigid.
This could be the “degree 2” avatar of Nuij’s theorem, and ought to be proved by an iterated variant of CCC (like C++). As yet the total reality of the scheme was only involved to ensure that all the ovals belonging to some nest gyrate in the same sense according to complex orientation (what Rohlin 1978 calls negative pairs). Those negativity may be interpreted as some depressiveness permitting precisely the collapse to the microscopic scale where then we can travel without friction within the “ether”.
Given any collection of deep nests with negative pairs of ovals (gyrating in the same sense), we may hope to contract them at the nanoscale (via CCC or C++) and then travel and re-expand to reach any other curve with the same complex orientation. This looks topologically plausible yet the drawback of ignoring the total pencil (‘à la Ahlfors-Rohlin) is that our assumption does not only pertain on the real scheme but also upon its complex characteristics. So the assertion gain in generality but loose some elegance.
As yet we have merely considered schemes which are towers (i.e. without branching in their nesting graph). However Rohlin (1978) claims that the $(M-2)$-schemes of degree 6 $\frac{6}{1}2$ and its mirror $\frac{2}{1}6$ are total of order 3. Can we deduce that those schemes are rigid by a method independent of Nikulin 1979 [@Nikulin_1979/80], and analog to the one sketched above? One should be in position to visualize the cubic pencil so as to draw the complex orientation. Bypassing this difficult task we may appeal to Rohlin’s formula to deduce the complex orientation. Assume the scheme to be $\frac{2}{1}6$, hence $2(\Pi^+
-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=9-9=0$ tell us that one pair is positive and the other negative. So both inner ovals gyrate “differently” (in accordance with Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\]).
At this stage one is quite puzzled, i.e. one does not see how to bring the curve at the nanoscale via contractions. Of course granting CCC we can shrink the empty ovals, but a priori cannot shrink the nonempty one. So our heuristic method looks here quite impuissant! Another quasi-paradox of our heuristic method arises for a curve of type I belonging to the scheme $9$, which under a total pencil of cubics (easy to visualize, cf. Fig.\[Fcubic:fig\]) could be isotoped to the other curve(s) of this scheme of type II. Yet of course the second curve lacks a total pencil to re-expand.
All this is just supposed to illustrate that we see no direct relation between total reality and rigidity, at least via the naive contraction approach. However this does not preclude a deeper relationship. That would maybe involve exploiting more the total pencil as a tool to construct a first reduction to some normal shape, which ought to be then easily tele-transported and then re-expanded via the second total pencil. So the total pencil should act as some sort of (contracting) wormhole or as a railway guiding the curve to some canonical shape easier to tele-transport (at the speed of light). Alas this is much too vague to convince us about any implication like “total $\Rightarrow$ rigid”.
\[26.01.13\] After Shustin’s e-mail, who remembered me the reason why the empty scheme is rigid, one can suspect two basic scenarios ensuring rigidity. Taking the deep nest as prototype, where rigidity holds true by Nuij 1968 [@Nuij_1968] one could suspect that rigidity is causal either of total reality à la Ahlfors or by the proximity to the empty chamber (which is connected, and actually baricentrically “convex”). Both phenomena could explain Nuij’s rigidity of the deep nest while affording basic intuition about guessing further rigidity results. For instance total reality could explain the rigidity of schemes swept out by pencil of conics (e.g. $4\times \frac{1}{1}$ in degree 8), while the proximity to the empty locus could via CCC prompt rigidity of the scheme with one oval (in even degree at least).
Another naive idea I had (but which is now quite outdated) is that while total reality could imply rigidity via Ahlfors, the avatar of the latter for empty curves (namely Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934]) could be involved in the rigidity of the empty scheme.
More total reality
==================
Another attempt to prove Rohlin’s total reality claim
-----------------------------------------------------
[*Editorial note*]{} \[08.04.14\].—The prose of this section starts a bit abruptly, due to a permutation of section. Prior this material came right after Le Touzé’s section (Sec.\[LeTouze:sec\]), explaining why the chromatic law for conics impedes a direct corruption of Nikulin by Fiedler-Marin’s trick. This miracle of extra intersection created by dichromatism gave me some hope to attack Rohlin’s highbrow claim, but the difficult turned out to be immense to fill.
Further the impact of this method of extra intersections gained by dichromatism must probably also be the key behind Rohlin’s proof of the universal orthosymmetry of the sextic schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$. We call any curve having one of these schemes a [*Rohlin curve*]{} as the latter Academician in his 1978 article [@Rohlin_1978] was the first (and actually the unique creature in the universe except for possible extraterrestrial intelligences) to state the universal orthosymmetry of such curves.
Through the 8 deep ovals (equivalently the empty ones) of such a Rohlin curve we let pass a pencil of cubics. As above (\[LeTouze-Gabard-Hilfssatz:lem\]) we imagine the inner basepoints black colored while the outer basepoints are white colored.
Let $C_3$ be any cubic of the pencil, which we assume smooth for simplicity. If $C_3(\RR)$ is connected, then $C_3$ intersects $8\cdot 2=16$ plus twice the nonempty oval of $C_6$, and so the intersection is totally real. If $C_3$ is not connected then its splits an oval and a pseudoline. A priori the oval could visit the 6 inner points while the pseudoline the 2 outer ovals. In this case there is no forced extra intersections.
-5pt0
-5pt0
By Le Touzé’s lemma \[LeTouze:lem\] we may infer that the triangle through any 3 of the 6 inner ovals (assuming $\frac{6}{1}2$) does not separate the 2 outer ovals (Fig.\[LeTouzeRohlin:fig\]c). There are $\binom{6}{3}=20$ such triangles. But this does not seem very useful.
Let us start again. Consider a $C_6$ with scheme $\frac{6}{1}2$, a so-called [*left-wing Rohlin curve*]{} (in view of its position on the Gudkov table, Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Consider the pencil of cubics through 8 deep basepoints selected inside the $6+2=8$ empty ovals of the $C_6$. We claim (with Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]) that this pencil is totally real (and consequently the curve is of type I).
Total reality of $C_3\cap C_6$ is clear when the cubic is connected for then there are $2\cdot 6+2=18$ intersections, the last two being created while crossing the nonempty oval.
So let us assume the cubic disconnected. Two cases are possible either it is smooth or not. If singular then the cubic may either have a solitary point or even be a conic union a disjoint line. However since we are free to perturb the 8 basepoints the pencil can probably be assumed to be transverse to the discriminant so that its singular members are uninodal curves. This rules out the second case. In the first case of a solitary cubic then the solitary node cannot be one of the 8 basepoints, and so the connected pseudoline of this singular cubic visits all 8 points, creating thereby 2 additional intersections with the nonempty oval.
So may assume the cubic smooth and as soon as its pseudoline visits both inner and outer points we are finished (2 bonus intersections are created). On the other hand if the pseudoline visits only inner points then it must evade out of the nonempty oval (otherwise it would be null-homotopic) and so we score again 2 extra points, and gain total reality. Hence we may assume:
We have to show that this is contradictory, but are still far from the goal. In fact at the time of writing these lines the writer does not know if he will ever be able to complete this argument.
A first remark is that our pencil of cubic has another (non-assigned basepoint). Where is it? We think that it must be on the pseudoline of $C_3$ for simple vibratory reasons. Indeed look at Fig.\[LeTouzeRohlin:fig\]d and imagine a nearby cubics $C_\epsilon$ in the real locus of the pencil. The corresponding oval will have to oscillate about that of $C_3$ and since 6 basepoints are on the oval the oscillation closes up perfectly. (In savant terms the oval has a trivial tubular bundle.)
Another thing natural to do is to cut out the inside of the oval $O$ of the cubic $C_3$ of Fig.d in order to apply the Poincaré index formula to the foliation ${\cal F}$ induced by the pencil. Then the situation is a bit messy but as follows. The pencil hits the discriminant of cubics 12 times over the complexes as $\deg \disc_3=3(m-1)^2=12$ for $m=3$. A priori not all intersections are real, but can occur in conjugate pairs. Those singular curves which are real are either solitary cubics or have two real branches crossing transversally (“real bitangent” and we call them [*nodal cubics*]{}). Denote their respective number $\sigma$ and $\beta$ (where $\sigma$ stands for “solitary” and $\beta$ for “bitangent”). We have $\sigma+\beta=12-2k$.
Using the Poincaré local index formula $j=1+\frac{I-E}{2}$ where $I$, $E$ are the number of internal resp. external tangencies of the foliation with a small circle surrounding the singularity, it is a simple matter to compute indices. Of course a basepoint gives a foyer of index $+1$, a solitary cubic gives a “centre” of index +1 (since $I=E=2$), while a nodal cubic gives a hyperbolic saddle of index $-1$ (as $I=0, E=4$). Applying Poincaré’s index formula (cf. Poincaré 1885 or Gabard 2011 [@Gabard_2011-Euler-Poincare-obst-pretzel-long-tentacles], arXiv, “long tentacles”) it follows $$9+\sigma - \beta=\chi (\RR P^2)=1.$$ It may be deduced that $\beta \ge 8$, that is the following:
\[nodal-cubics-8-many-in-a-pencil:lem\] Any generic pencil of cubics contains at least $8$ nodal cubics.
Further we easily tabulate the possible value as $(\beta,
\sigma)=(8,0),(9,1), (10,2)$.
It would be however probably more interesting to apply the Poincaré formula in the inside of the oval $O$ (of the cubic $C_3$) doubled to get a sphere. (This doubling is merely a trick yet useful to eliminate the boundary.) The difficulty in doing so is that we do not really know a priori how the singularities of the foliation $\cal F$ induced by the pencil are distributed inside the oval $O$. So let us denote with subscript “naught=0” the corresponding quantity of singularities inside the oval $O$. Then we have $$6+2 \sigma_0- 2 \beta_0=\chi(S^2)=2,$$ where we used implicitly the fact that the 9th basepoint is not inside our oval (nor on its periphery since it is rather located on the pseudoline).
Alas at this stage the situation looks confuse. One idea is to imagine a solitary node inside the oval $O$. Then there is a unique time direction so that this oval inflates while moving inside the pencil. Since the oval $O$ has a tube neighborhood like Fig.\[LeTouzeRohlin:fig\]e this oval cannot hit the oval $O$, and must rather collide with the pseudoline component to form a nodal singularity of type $\beta$. So to each solitary node is canonically assigned a non-solitary node (all this occurring inside $O$). It seems evident that the corresponding map is injective, and so $\sigma_0\le \beta_0$. Alas this gives no contradiction when injected in Poincaré’s relation displayed above.
\[scholie:Rohlin-does-not-boils-to-Poincare\] [\[14.02.13\]]{}—In fact it seems unlikely that there is a proof of Rohlin’s total reality assertion (for $\frac{6}{1}2$ and its mirror) using Poincaré’s formula only.
We arrived at this conclusion after tracing a rather complicated foliation of the plane $\RR P^2$ containing the bad cubic $C_3$ as a leaf. (More about the discussion of the relevant pictures soon.) The bad cubic is one which is not totally real, hence whose oval is necessarily enclosed in the nonempty oval of the $C_6$.
In reality such a foliation is fairly easy to construct just by starting with the bad cubic and then merging its components together to a nodal cubic and pursuing the depiction in a more or less canonical fashion. At each step Bézout for $C_3\cap C_6$ is respected and Poincaré index formula is of course verified.
What should we deduce? Could it be that Rohlin’s total reality assertion is false, while its theorem on the type I of his schemes is right as follows from some highbrow topological congruence (due to himself, Kharlamov and Marin, cf. (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]))? If the latter super-classical congruence is correct then via Ahlfors theorem the total reality assertion is likely to hold true yet perhaps not for [*all*]{} pencil of cubics through the 8 empty ovals (or a priori for pencils involving curves of higher order). Perhaps the proof should involve Abel’s theorem applied on the cubics, yet they vary so seems unlikely. Perhaps Abel has to be used on the $C_6$?
All this is puzzling and we frankly confess our poor understanding which calls for a synthesis between the abstract viewpoint of Riemann-Klein-Ahlfors and the embedded viewpoint of Harnack-Hilbert-Gudkov-Rohlin. This subdivision of our science is still vivid today, compare e.g. in Russia the tradition along Natanzon vs. Kharlamov-Viro.
As we noticed earlier in this text (very optionally see Sec.\[sec:Total-reality-Harnack-max-case\]), it is also tantalizing to trace a total pencil on the $M$-sextics, already on those of Harnack and Hilbert. It would be of interest to know what is the degree of curves forming a total pencil in the $M$-case, whose existence follows in principle (modulo Marin’s private communication objection) from Ahlfors even in the simple schlichtartig variant of Bieberbach-Grunsky. ([*Added*]{} \[08.04.13\].—This question should now be settled via (\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]).)
Since an $M$-sextic has 10 empty ovals it looks quite improbable that total reality is exhibited by a pencil of cubics which has only 9 foyer-type singularities. This must, we believe, easily follow from Poincaré’s index formula. Indeed each empty oval must contain a singularity of positive index while thorn singularities of index $+1/2$ are precluded for an algebraic pencil.
Now let us discuss our picture leading to the announced Scholium \[scholie:Rohlin-does-not-boils-to-Poincare\]. The game is to foliate the plane by “flexible” cubics in the sense that we depict only the singular nodal curves abstractly like a figure “8”. A cubic cannot have a node plus an oval. Using this we sometimes have the impression that there is an obstruction to complete the foliated structure like on Fig.\[LeTouzeRohlin:fig\]. (Could it be the case that Rohlin made such a mistake, in the sense of a too hasty inference?)
-5pt0
-5pt0
However deleting curves and starting again one finds Fig.\[LeTouzeRohlin2:fig\] which is topologically admissible. On it each cubic looks like a cubic, Bézout is respected as well as Poincaré’s index formula (as it should). In fact our solution shows no solitary cubics. Of course we do not claim that this free-hand drawing foliation is algebraic (in which case Rohlin’s claim would be erroneous), but we are also not able to exclude this eventuality. What this picture really shows is that we cannot expect to prove Rohlin’s assertion via the sole apparatus of the combinatorial topology of foliations (à la Poincaré). So if true Rohlin’s statement has some deeper geometric significance, and it is quite tantalizing to imagine its complexity. Further by Ahlfors theorem it is likely that Rohlin’s claim is just the top of the iceberg of a plethora of another phenomena of total reality in higher degrees which must all be very delightful to visualize if not quickly overburdening any human intelligence. Again our prophecy (cf. Introd. of this text) is that this is linked to the stability of matter at the nano-scale, or at least that such totally real pencils describe the dynamics of electrons about an atomic nucleus, as ellipses described the trajectory of Mars about the Sun in Kepler’s days (ca. 1605).
Total reality from the elementary viewpoint
-------------------------------------------
\[15.03.13\] Broadly speaking our main Leitmotiv is the question of examining if there is any relation between total reality à la Ahlfors (or rather Riemann-Schottky-Klein-Bieberbach-Grunsky-Ahlfors, etc.) and Hilbert’s 16th problem. Rohlin’s claim about his sextic curves posits such a deep relation. In this section we try to explore more systematically this relation.
Before entering into the details let us pose some of the guiding questions. Given an (abstract) dividing curve $C$ there is according to Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], a totally real map $f\colon C\to \PP^1$ of the curve to the projective line $\PP^1$ (i.e. $f^{-1}(\PP^1(\RR))=C(\RR)$).
When this curve is plane does this map extends to the projective plane $\PP^2$ as to be induced by a pencil of curves? The question is actually pure geometry primarily meaningful over the complexes. Given a plane curve $C_m$ defined over $\CC$, and a holomorphic map $C_m(\CC) \to \PP^1(\CC)$ is it true that there is a pencil of curves so that the map induced by the pencil is the given holomorphic map.
If this is true then it is certainly true equivariantly and Ahlfors theorem implies that [*any plane dividing curve admits a total pencil of curves.*]{}[^67]
The next question is then to trace such pencils, and try to control its order (i.e. the degree of the curve constituting it). Tracing them in case of $M$-curves looks an especially hard exercise. (\[08.04.13\] Okay but see (\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]).)
Without appealing to Ahlfors theorem one can also study totally real pencils [*per se*]{}, as a tool to detect the dividing character of curves. Actually it is this trivial criterion (as applied to the Gürtelkurve, or also hyperelliptic curves) which lead the writer to discover Ahlfors’ theorem in ca. 2000–01 independently and prior of knowing about Ahlfors’ work. So whenever a curve $C_m$ is swept out by a total pencil of curves it is dividing.
So one can examine which sort of curves are exposed to such a total pencil to derive in principle an infinite series of orthosymmetry criterions. The prototype is the case of the deep nest totally swept out by a pencil of lines through the deepest oval. Then one would like to study pencil of conics, cubics, quartics, etc.
Some extra difficulty arises from the distinction between universal total reality where it is forced by the sole knowledge of the real scheme as in the case of deep nests or Rohlin’s sextics $\frac{6}{1}2$ and it mirror $\frac{2}{1}6$, and “versal” total reality where the detailed geometry of the curve is required to exhibit total reality. This is of course much allied to what Rohlin calls schemes of indefinite type.
For instance the octic scheme $4\times \frac{1}{1}$ consisting of 4 nest of depth 2 is universally totally real, under the pencil of conics through 4 basepoints inside the empty ovals. This example easily extends to schemes of degree $4k$ having 4 nests of depth $k$. Existence of such curves for each $k$ is demonstrated by Fig.\[Total:fig\]. (\[14.03.13\] A somewhat more conceptual reason is given by taking the algebraic satellites, i.e. nearby levels of the quadrifolium quartics, so $P_4\cup
P_4+\epsilon_2\cup\dots \cup P_4+\epsilon_k$ and smoothing this union of reducible curve.)
-5pt0
-5pt0
[*Insertion*]{} \[08.04.13\].—It may be observed (Fiedler’s smoothing law) that those curves are of type I for surgical reasons, providing another proof independent of total reality. Further the total pencil induces the complex orientations due to the holomorphic character of the underlying total map. It suffices then to imagine the pencil of conics to see that the intersection series will move along Fiedler’s arrows (this we shall vaguely refer to as dextrogyration). Understanding this properly in general could be the source of some progresses in the field, maybe?
Any curve $C_{4k}$ of degree $4k$ whose real scheme consists of $4$ nests of depth $k$ (for short) is total under the pencil of conics through the $4$ empty ovals.
Let $C_2$ be any conic of the pencil. First, $C_2(\RR)$ is connected, e.g. because it is a rational curve, aka as [*unicursal*]{} in Cayley’s jargon, cf. optionally the Introd. of Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876], which is of course not really required on the case at hand since it suffices like in Antiquity to sweep out the conic by lines from one of its point. It follows that $C_2(\RR)$ has to cut our curve $C_{4k}$ in $4\cdot 2k$ real points for topological reasons. But this is the maximum permissible according to Bézout, hence the pencil is totally real.
It seems likely that the converse statement holds true, namely any curve $C_{4k}$ totally real under a pencil of conics with 4 real basepoints has this scheme of 4 nests of depth $k$. Note at least that the depth of the ovals cannot be distributed otherwise without violating Bézout for lines. For instance if a $C_{12}$ instead of having 4 nests of depth 3, had nests of depths say $2,4,3,3$ then the line through the nests of depth $4$ and $3$ would have too much intersection (namely $8+6=14>12$).
It is worth noticing that the degree of such total maps are in accordance with the bound $r+p$ announced in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. Indeed if $C_{4k}$ is a quadrifolium, then $r=4k$. Hence by the obvious Klein relation $g=(r-1)+2p$ and the genus formula $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}$, where $m$ is the degree, we find $$g=\textstyle\frac{(4k-1)(4k-2)}{2}=(4k-1)(2k-1), \quad \textrm{
and }$$ $$p=\textstyle\frac{g-(r-1)}{2}=\textstyle\frac{(4k-1)(2k-1)-(4k-1)}{2}=
\textstyle\frac{(4k-1)(2k-2)}{2}=(4k-1)(k-1).$$ On the other hand by letting degenerate the 4 basepoints against the deep oval we find a total morphism of degree $2\cdot
4k-4=8k-4=4(2k-1)$. This has to be compared with the $r+p$ bound $$r+p=4k+(4k-1)(k-1),$$ which is indeed much greater as shown e.g. by evaluating for $k=1,2,\dots$. We find for $k=1$, $4(2k-1)=4\le r+p=4$. For $k=2$, $4(2k-1)=12\le r+p=8+7=15$, and so on due to quadratic growth of $r+p$. In fact the gonality of such curves is probably $\gamma=4(2k-1)$ (at least majored by this quantity) and so significantly lower than the universal upper bound $r+p$ stated in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
In fact it is worth testing the truth of this $r+p$ bound on sextics already. Then we shall basically pass into review all the dividing curves of the Gudkov-Rohlin table Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]. It would be natural to start from the top of this table but as $M$-curves are paradoxically tricky to understand from the viewpoint of total reality, we start from the bottom. The paradox is that the total reality phenomenon for abstract $M$-curves is basically the schlichtartig ($p=0$) case of Ahlfors theorem which is pretty much easier than the positive genus case. ([*Added*]{} \[08.04.13\].—This paradox is settled via (\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]).)
So starting from the bottom we have first the deep nest $(1,1,1)$. Then $r=3$ and $p=[g-(r-1)]/2=[10-2]/2 = 4$. The gonality $\gamma=5 \le r+p=7$ is exhibited by the pencil of lines through a point on the deepest oval.
For the scheme $\frac{4}{1}$ (when of type I) total reality comes from the conics pencil through the deep nest. It leads to a total series of degree $\gamma \le 2\cdot 6-4=8 \le r+p=5+3=8$ and Gabard’s bound is sharply realized. (Trick: while it is sometimes boring to compute $r+p$ it may be remembered that this is also $\frac{r+(g+1)}{2}$, i.e. the mean between $r$ and Harnack’s bound $g+1$.)
In fact checking total reality involves here the exact geometry and not merely knowledge of the real scheme. More specifically the 2 prototypes of curves of type $\frac{4}{1}$ are depicted on Fig.\[R4-1:fig\]. One would like to have a geometric criterion for deciding a priori the type.
In both cases we have 4 deep (=empty) ovals. Now we may choose 4 points in them. Given such a tetrad there are 2 cases to be distinguished (cf. Fig.\[Total2:fig\]a). Crudely put, either one of the 4 points can be inside the triangle spanned by the 3 other or not. However projectively this is a misconception as shown by Fig.b. Yet as we are given a curve of type $\frac{4}{1}$ it may look either like one of the 2 versions of Fig.c. Here the deep triangles (those traced through 3 deep ovals) have always a distinguished 2-simplex traced inside the nonempty oval. We call any such a (fundamental) simplex and there are 4 of them. Now two cases are possible: either one fundamental simplex is the union of the 3 others or not. Alternatively one oval is contained inside a fundamental simplex or not. (Check that this is well-defined requires keeping Bézout in the background memory.) Hence Fig.a recovers some intrinsic significance (and amounts essentially to the 2 possible visions we may have of a 3D-tetrahedron when projected on our 2D-retina). We call the second option a (as a short cut for stable tetrad like a prism stably posed on the sheet of paper, in contrast to the unstable tetrad posed on its edge hence in unstable equilibrium).
-5pt0
-5pt0
This being said we have the following recognition lemma of Klein-Rohlin’s type by pure geometry:
If the $4$ empty ovals of a sextic curve of type $\frac{4}{1}$ form a then the pencil of conics through the deep (empty) ovals is total, and in particular the curve is dividing (type I).
Let us choose any conic $C_2$ of the pencil (through the 4 deep points inside the empty ovals). Like on Fig.e this curve will appear inside the largest fundamental simplex. Then the idea is to surger the conic into 2 pseudolines $C_2=J_1+J_2$ as shown on Fig.f or g. There is several way to do this but choose one. This surgery amounts to aggregate a certain edge of the tetrahedron which is exempt of intersection with the nonempty oval $N$ (because it is already Bézout-saturated). Therefore $C_2\cap N=(J_1\cup J_2)\cap N=(J_1\cap N)\cup ( J_2\cap
N)$, but as each $J_i$ is a pseudoline each must intersect twice the nonempty oval $N$, and we gain 4 extra intersections. On the other hand $C_2$ intersect twice each empty oval and so we totalize $2\cdot 4+ 4=12$ intersections the maximum permitted by Bézout. Total reality follows, and the proof is complete.
Albeit not perfectly hygienical our proof shows how to gain extra intersections by this splitting method. (Ideally we could hope that this method is also the key to Rohlin’s total reality claim for the curve $\frac{6}{1}2$, but this is not clear a priori. Imagine the bad cubic whose oval is contained inside the nonempty oval of the $C_6$, and what to do next!!!?)
Next we would like a similar optical recognition criterion of the type for the sextic scheme $\frac{2}{1}2$. Here looking at Fig.\[R2-12:fig\] reproduced below as Fig.\[Total2-12:fig\]a,b below (which I borrowed from Degtyarev-Kharlamov’s survey 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000]) suggests that what distinguishes both types is whether the line through the 2 outer ovals separates or not the two inner ovals within the inside of the nonempty oval.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Somewhat more formally, let us extract from both prototypical curves (Fig.a, b resp.) some combinatorial datum. We mark in black inner ovals by choosing a point inside, and choose also 2 white points in the outer ovals. Unlike in the previously studied case, there is no preferred fundamental simplex inside the nonempty oval $N$, but we have a $1$-simplex entirely traced inside the nonempty oval $N$, which we mark by a double stroke. So we extract Fig.c resp.d and what distinguishes both is the issue that the line through the white vertices intercepts the line through the black vertices along its double marking or not. Let us call the first case (like Fig.c) a [*crucifix*]{} and then we have the:
If a sextic curve $C_6$ of real scheme $\frac{2}{1}2$ has a crucifix, then the pencil of conics through the empty ovals is totally real (and the curve is of type I).
We have defacto $4\times 2=8$ real intersections coming from the empty ovals. Take any conic of the pencil. Two cases may appear. Either the conic is [*dichromatic*]{}, that is when we follow it along some orientation we visit the 4 basepoints in the sequence black-white-black-white (BWBW) in this alternating way, or it can be monochromatic if this sequence reads BBWW (compare Fig.e). In the dichromatic case 4 intersections are created, and total reality is ensured. In the monochromatic case, we apply the splitting method which decomposes the conic $C_2$ as an union of two pseudolines $J_1,J_2$ traced on Fig.f obtained by cutting the conic at the two black points and adding the fundamental $1$-simplex linking both black vertices in the inside of $N$ (the nonempty oval). Since this $1$-simplex does not cut $N$, the intersection with $N$ remains the same after this surgery, but each pseudoline forces 2 intersections with $N$, and we gain the 4 required extra intersections. Total reality of the whole pencil is proved.
[*Insertion*]{} \[09.04.13\].—On a second reading of this proof, it is not clear what prevents to apply the same argument to the other configuration. Try to clarify this at the occasion.
To summarize the proof is the same as the previous one safe for an intervention of chromatism (black and white reflecting the inner and outer ovals). Note also that as $r$ is the same as in the previous case, Gabard’s bound $r+p$ is likewise verified (at least not quashed=invalidated)! $\bullet$ Can we continue this game? According to Gudkov-Rohlin’s table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) the next specimen to study is $\frac{5}{1}1$. As we have now $6$ empty ovals it is evident that a pencil of conics will not exhibit total reality. We probably have to move to cubics with 8 basepoints assignable.
Let us use the same naive device of combinatorial extraction from two prototypes (cf. Fig.\[Total5-11:fig\]). We get some beautiful bi-pyramid (or octahedron) and one should imagine each face (or interface) shaded whenever the corresponding triangle is fundamental (i.e. included in the outer oval of the sextic $C_6$). Alas both configurations so obtained look combinatorially equivalent, and we feel puzzled. The next idea that comes to mind is to look at the conic through the deep black points rooted in the inner ovals. It seems that what distinguishes both types (I vs. II) is the location of the outer points as being resp. inside or outside this conic. Another feature distinguishing both models is the absence resp. presence of a line through the outer oval missing the nonempty oval $N$.
-5pt0
-5pt0
In fact even on the model it is quite difficult to guess which pencil of cubics will exhibit total reality of the type I configuration (as predicted by Ahlfors’ theorem). One could take the horizontal line through the white point which cut the sextic 6 times, and take two extra basepoints on this line (perhaps in the 2 lower wings of the butterfly). Then at least the split cubic consisting of the conic through the 5 black and 3 white points would be totally real. Another puzzling point is that such a pencil will have mapping-degree $3\cdot 6- 8=10$ when the 8 basepoints degenerate on the curve $C_6$, whereas Gabard predicts one of degree $r+p=(r+g+1)/2$ the mean value of $r$ and Harnack’s bound that is $(7+11)/2=9$. So perhaps this constitutes a (potential) counterexample to Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], at least if all abstract pencils are concrete and realized by cubics pencils. If we look at quartics pencil with $\binom{4+2}{2}-1-1=13$ free basepoints then the degree would be $4\cdot 6- 13=11$, still higher than Gabard’s bound. For quintics there are $\binom{5+2}{2}-1-1=19$ free basepoints and so the degree is $5\cdot 6-19=11$, for sextics $\binom{6+2}{2}-1-1=26$, so the degree is $6\cdot 6-26=10$, for septics $\binom{7+2}{2}-1-1=34$, so the degree is $7\cdot 6-34=8$. Gabard seems rescued, yet it looks quite tantalizing to understand the geometry of such a total pencil if it exists. (If Gabard’s bound is true and the Riemann-Hilbert transition from the abstract to the concrete viewpoints equally holds true then such a total pencil should exist of order at least seven!)
[*Insertion*]{} \[09.04.13\] Let us summarize this as follows:
\[(M-4)-sextics-corrupt-Gabard:scholium\] $(M-4)$-sextics of type I are perhaps a good place where to corrupt Gabard’s bound $r+p$. And if not it is at least a pièce de résistance against the principle that any abstract pencil is concrete, and therefore Ahlfors abstract theorem is unlikely to apply without friction in Hilbert’s 16th problem. In other words Riemann’s canary feels claustrophobic in the Plato cavern of Brill-Noether-Hilbert. Perhaps the above example merely corrupts the conception that the mapping-degree of a total pencil is minimized when the order of its constituting curves is. However it could still be true that any dividing plane curve of degree $m$ has its total reality exhibited by a pencil of order $(m-2)$ (or less), compare e.g. [(\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\])]{} for the case of $M$-curve.
\[16.02.13\] Let us leave aside this problematic concerning the truth of Gabard’s bound $r+p$ to concentrate on the existence on a cubics pencil which is total on our sextic of symbol $\frac{5}{1}1$. Of course the existence of the latter is more an act of faith than a truth a priori, as it is not obviously implied by Ahlfors’ theorem. The latter probably gives the existence of a total pencil and one may wonder what is the least possible order of the curves in the pencil.
$\bullet$ Then we can look at the next curve $\frac{3}{1}3$ of the Gudkov tabulation (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Two models are depicted on Fig.\[Total3-13:fig\]c, and one may hope to distinguish them by some combinatorial recipe (perhaps by looking at the inner fundamental simplex and some outer simplex).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Another idea is that since our curve has 6 empty ovals one should look at the corresponding hexagon and at pencils of cubics spanned by 2 triangles. Specifically, we may choose a hexagon which visits the 3 black inner points and the 3 white outer points in dichromatic alternation (BWBWBW), cf. e.g. Fig.d. Then we may expect that the pencil of cubics spanned by the red and green cubics is total. Alas Fig.e refutes this expectation. Of course there are other dichromatic hexagons but this is unlikely to be the right method. For instance Fig.f is another dichromatic hexagon, yet the corresponding pencil is still not total as shown by Fig.g.
In conclusion those $(M-4)$-schemes are a bit puzzling from the viewpoint of total reality as there is no (obvious) canonically defined pencils since we have 6 empty ovals, which is not the number of basepoints of a pencil of plane curves, namely $4$ for conics and 8 for cubics. The two extra virtual basepoints for cubics could be chosen as high-order contacts imposed to the pencil and this done properly could exhibit total reality. It remains however to understand the natural geometric condition that are so-to-speak imposed by the geometrical vision of the curve. Remind indeed that total reality always amounts to place the ocular system “inside” of the glass so that the latter has no apparent contour (compare the baby case of the Gürtelkurve, Fig.\[Guertel-saturated:fig\].)
[*$(M-2)$-curves*]{}.—We may hope that the situation is improved when moving to $(M-2)$-curves. The first case to study is the scheme $\frac{8}{1}$. Fig.\[Total8-1:fig\] shows models of both types I vs. II, but it is again quite puzzling to decide which intrinsic criterion distinguishes both configurations. Of course a loose answer could be that the type I configuration is characterized by the fact that the pencil of cubics through the 8 empty ovals is total, however one could desire a more optical recognition algorithm. Perhaps what distinguishes the type I is the possibility of tracing a convex octagon through the empty ovals. Note that convexity has some meaning since given two points in the nonempty oval $N$ we shall always select the half-projective line (segment) which is inside this oval $N$. ([*Added*]{} \[09.04.13\].—But the oval $N$ can be non-convex, and so this is meaningful only when the 2 points are inside the deep ovals of course.)
-5pt0
-5pt0
For this scheme $\frac{8}{1}$, one could nearly argue that the pencil of cubics through the deep 8 points is always total, for we have $8\cdot 2$ automatic intersections, plus the 2 coming from the fact that the cubic is not null-homotopic hence must cut twice the nonempty oval. However this would contradict Rohlin’s remark that this scheme is indefinite as shown by the above constructions (pictures). However the sole obstruction to total reality of a cubic in this deep pencil is that the cubic has a small oval entirely inside some of the empty ovals. Indeed if the cubic is connected total reality is clear as $2\cdot 8+2=18=3\cdot 6$, and if not yet the oval of the $C_3$ visits at least two ovals of the sextic then each oval visited contribute for 2 intersections and total reality is evident.
[*Insertion*]{} \[09.04.13\].—This “soleness” looks inexact: another obstruction occurs when the cubic splits off an oval visiting all 8 basepoints and the pseudoline stays confined outside the nonempty oval of the $C_6$.
One would like to show that under a suitable geometric hypothesis (capturing the essence of the type I scheme) this sole obstacle cannot occur.
\[17.02.13\] All these questions are fairly delicate and have to be extended to all type I schemes listed by Rohlin (see again the Gudkov-Rohlin Table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Precisely what is demanded is an optical recognition procedure of the type in the sense of Klein (orthosymmetry vs. diasymmetry) via a synthetical device ensuring total reality of a certain class of pencils naturally attached to the curve (or its schemes). This would extend somehow Rohlin’s claim of the absolute orthosymmetry of the sextic schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$, which is the purest manifestation of the phenomenon. Meanwhile (yesterday), Séverine Fiedler-Le Touzé informed us (and several other colleagues, cf. letter in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\] dated \[16.02.13\]) that she was able to prove Rohlin’s claim for the scheme $\frac{2}{1}6$. Probably her argument contains crucial ideas that solve as well our slightly generalized problematic.
[*Insertion*]{} \[09.04.13\].—This is nearly true, safe that it turned out that Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics] proves a slightly weaker assertion than the full Rohlin claim, namely she relies on the RKM-congruence ensuring type I a priori.
Concretely we have then the scheme $\frac{4}{1}4$ for which one need to formulate an optical recognition, and the scheme $9$. For the latter it seems that the type I configuration is characterized by the fact that the pencil of cubics through 8 deep points inside some of $8$ ovals is such that the 9th basepoint lands in the 9th oval. A lucky stroke!
[*Insertion*]{} \[09.04.13\].—It is nearly implicit from the above that we posit:
Any dividing $(M-2)$-sextic has a total pencil of cubics. In a stronger shape: any cubics-pencil assigned to pass in the $8$ deep ovals is total, and it is permissible to let degenerate the basepoints on the ovals themselves.
Then it is also plain to see that this is much in line with Gabard’s bound $r+p=10$, since $3\cdot 6-8=10$ is the mapping degree when the 8 basepoints are degenerated upon the ovals.
Total reality of plane $M$-curves
---------------------------------
\[17.02.13\] Next we have the case of $M$-sextics. This puzzled me for a while, yet it seems clear that now cubics pencils will not exhibit total reality. The reason is that we have 10 empty ovals but only 9 basepoints available. On the other hand it seems evident that each empty oval must contain a singularity of foyer-type corresponding to a basepoint of the pencil. So this follows from Poincaré’s index formula applied to the foliation induced by the pencil (cf. Lemma \[Poincare-lower-bound\] much earlier in this text, but restituted below in perhaps clearer fashion).
This being said we shall move to pencil of quartics. The crucial idea is to remind the synthetic proof in the abstract context of the schlichtartig avatar of Ahlfors’s theorem, i.e. the theorem due to Riemann 1857-Schottky 1875–77-Bieberbach 1925-Grunsky 1937. More precisely we have in mind the simple argument via Riemann-Roch rediscovered by Huisman and Gabard, yet first clearly enunciated in Enriques-Chisini 1915. Bypassing all these historical details, the logical argument is simply given in our Lemma \[Enriques-Chisini:lemma\] (prior in this text). The idea is merely that if one has an abstract $M$-curve (not necessarily plane), then choosing one point on each oval (=real circuit which is linguistically better in this abstract context) one has a group of $g+1$ points which therefore move in its linear equivalence class by Riemann(-Roch), or just by Abel’s theorem since there are $g$ Abelian differentials (holomorphic one-forms) imposing magneto-hydrodynamical constraints upon the motion of a divisor in its linear equivalence class.
So our effective divisor of degree $g+1$ moves on the curve of genus $g$. Since there is only one point on each “oval”, it is like a miniature railroad, in which there is only one train one each track, and so there cannot be collisions and total reality is automatic.
Now when the $M$-curve is plane, I was frustrated to know nothing on the degree of such total maps. However the answer is “[*toute simple*]{}”(=very simple). Indeed inspired by the abstract proof, choose one point on each oval (and also one on the pseudoline if there is one). Then there is a standard recipe to construct the linear series spanned by a given group of points on a plane curve $C_m$ (due to Brill-Noether 1873/74?, Enriques-Chisini’s book 1915, Severi’s book 1921 [@Severi_1921-Vorlesungen-u-alg.-Geom-BUCH], van der Waerden’s book 1939/73 [@van-der-Waerden_1939/73], Walker’s book 1950 [@Walker_1950/62], who else?): just choose an integer $k$ large enough so as to have enough free parameters to pass a $k$-tics through the given group of points. Choose such a curve $C_k$ and look at the residual intersection with the curve $C_m$. Consider then all $C_k$’s passing through this residual intersection and the latter cut on the curve groups whose mobile part are divisors equivalent to the given one. This method clearly belongs to the genre of a sweeping method (balayage).
Applying this to an $M$-curve leads to the following very modest theorem (stated as a such just because it escaped my attention for several months, if not years):
\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\] Given any plane $M$-curve of degree $m$ there is a total pencil of $k$-tics of degree $k=m-2$ (two units less than the given degree $m$). In fact exactly like in the abstract Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem, any equidistribution of points (i.e., one point on each real circuit) moves in a linear system of dimension $\ge 1$ and induces a totally real pencil by the sweeping method. In particular each $M$-sextic is total under a pencil of quartics.
As the proof involves some arithmetical nonsense it is didactic to first handle the case of sextics. Then Harnack’s bound (in Petrovskii’s notation) is $M=g+1=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}+1=11$. The space of $k$-tics has dimension $\dim \vert k H \vert=\binom{k+2}{2}-1$, that is $5$ for conics, $9$ for cubics, 14 for quartics, etc. Choose an equidistribution of $11$ points one on each oval of the $C_6$. Then quartics have enough freedom to visit them. Choose a $C_4$ passing through the 11 points, and the residual group has $4\cdot 6-11=24-11=13$ points. But this is exactly one less than the dimension of all quartics, and so the residual series—consisting of all curves passing through the residual group—gives the required pencil. The total reality of the latter follows by the non-collision principle involving the continuity argument implicit in Enriques-Chisini’s anticipation of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem. Of course the impossible-to-beat anticipation is Riemann’s 1857 Nachlass [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass]!
The general case is merely the same numerological coincidence worked out in general. Given any $M$-curve $C_m$ of degree $m$, Harnack’s bound is $M=g+1=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}+1$. Choose $M$ points on the real locus $C_m({\RR})$, one on each oval. Locate the least integer $k$ such that $\dim \vert k H \vert \ge M$. Since both the genus and the dimension of this complete linear system are given by binomial coefficients, this traduces into $\binom{k+2}{2}-1 \ge \binom{m-1}{2}+1$ which is first satisfied for $k=m-2$ (but not at $k=m-3$). Indeed this amounts to $\binom{m}{2}-1 \ge \binom{m-1}{2}+1$ which is plain as $\binom{m}{2}=1+2+3+\dots+(m-1)$. Now the residual intersection of a $C_k$ through the $M$ points with $C_m$ gives so many points as the following expression, which turns out to be the dimension of the system $\vert k H \vert $ less one unit, as shown by the following boring calculation: $$\begin{aligned}
k\cdot m-M&=(m-2)m-\textstyle\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}-1 \cr
&\textstyle =(m-\frac{m-1}{2})(m-2)-1
=(\frac{m+1}{2})(m-2)-1=\dots=\dim \vert k H \vert -1.\end{aligned}$$ Somewhat more elegantly, $$\begin{aligned}
k\cdot m-M &=(m-2) m-[1+2+\dots+(m-2)]-1 \cr
&=[(m-1)+(m-2)+\dots+2]-1=\textstyle\binom{m}{2}-2=\dim\vert kH
\vert-1,\end{aligned}$$ for $k=m-2$.
Several questions arise as usual after discovering a trivial truth. (Derrière les montagnes encore des montagnes: Proverbe des iles créoles, if I remember well). In the case of sextics one can probably say therefore (modulo a more careful analysis of the case of $(M-4)$-sextics that all dividing sextics have their total reality exhibited by a pencil of degree $\le 4$). Perhaps it is true in general that:
Any dividing $m$-tic has its total reality exhibited by a pencil of curves of order less than $(m-2)$.
A more serious game would be to see if the above theorem essentially due to Riemann-Enriques-Chisini-Bieberbach-Grunsky-Wirtinger-Huisman-Gabard does not imply when suitably complemented by foliation theory à la Poincaré the well-known obstruction of Hilbert-Rohn-Petrovskii-Gudkov for $M$-sextics (e.g. the highbrow Gudkov-Rohlin congruence mod 8 or at least the weak version thereof mod 4 due to Arnold $\chi=p-n\equiv k^2 \pmod 4$). For higher degrees one may even dream of new results along this method, but all this requires more serious work. One could even dream that the method extends outside the realm of $M$-curves, as to recover e.g. Rohlin’s claim (meanwhile Le Touzé’s theorem) but this is unlikely because the continuity principle of no collision meets then serious difficulties, which are precisely those making Ahlfors theorem harder than Bieberbach-Grunsky’s theorem. Gabard 2006 gives an abstract topological algorithm overcoming this difficulty of collisions, but it looks hard to transplant this to the context of Hilbert’s 16th problem. [*Added*]{} \[09.04.13\].—The key is of course that if one has an overpopulation of trains circulating on a track one must ensure dextrogyration so as to avoid collisions. Then total reality is granted.
\[02.03.13\] As a lovely special instance of the above theorem (\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]), Le Touzé (1 March 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]) observes the:
[(Le Touzé 2013)]{} \[LeTouze-quintic:scholie\] “For an $M$-quintic $\langle J
\sqcup 6 \rangle$, one finds a suitable pencil of cubics with six basepoints distributed on the six ovals, and two further chosen on the odd component $J$. As this component must cut any cubic an odd number of times, the required $15$ real intersections are granted.”
—[Gabard’s addendum \[09.04.13\]:]{} As it will be observed in the sequel, but can already be noted here, one can also avoid this topological argument with the pseudoline, by noting that since $2\cdot 6+2=14$ intersections are granted, the remaining one is forced to reality by algebra (Galois-Tartaglia[^68] involution).
[*Long Insertion (ca. $2\frac{1}{2}$ pages)*]{} \[09.04.13\].—How to generalize this Le Touzé’s Scholium to an $M$-septic? Pencil of quintics have 19 basepoints assignable. Assign 17 of them on ovals and 2 on the pseudoline, then there is $34+3=37$ real intersections granted, overwhelming the $5\cdot 7=35$ of Bézout. But by Harnack $M_7=g_7+1=\frac{6\cdot 5}{2}+1=16$, so we do not have as many ovals as 17. Actually our sloppy argument reproves Harnack’s bound with one unit less. This is, by the way, not so surprising as Enriques-Chisini 1915’a purpose was precisely to re-derive a proof of Harnack via Riemann-Roch. Okay, but this sounds too modest and we can surely expect more clever generalizations of Le Touzé’s Scholium. Indeed, by Harnack we have $15$ ovals on the $C_7$ (recall from Möbius-von Staudt that odd order curves have exactly one pseudoline). Distribute the 19 basepoints on the $15$ many ovals, plus 4 on the pseudoline. Then $30+4=34$ real intersections are granted by topology, and the last one is forced by algebra (Galois-Tartaglia symmetry of complex conjugation). Hence total reality is granted. We have proven the:
Given any $M$-septic $C_7$, the pencil of quintic assigned to pass through the inside of all $15$ ovals (warning: it is more prudent to assign them directly on the ovals themselves) of $C_7$ and $4$ points marked on the pseudoline is totally real.
Two questions arise. A deep one is whether this can be used to infer something about Hilbert’s 16th (distribution of ovals solved for $m=7$ essentially by a single hero, Viro ca. 1979). Another question is whether Le Touzé’s Scholium extends to all (odd) degrees. More philosophically, it seems that our abstract argument of Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\] works in all degrees and gives the required total pencil of degree $(m-2)$, yet Le Touzé’s scholium (\[LeTouze-quintic:scholie\]) looks sharper as it tells precisely where to assign basepoints, without using the sweeping method and the Restsatz à la Brill-Noether.
In degree 6, Le Touzé’s method suggests looking at a Harnack-maximal $C_6$ swept by $C_4$’s. Those (quartics) have 13 basepoints assignable. Distribute $11$ of them on the ovals, but where to place the remaining 2? A priori only 22 real intersections are granted. Of course we still have 2 more basepoints, but they do not force new intersections. How to ensure total reality in this case?
Let us look at degree $m=9$. Then septics have $\binom{7+2}{2}-2=34$ basepoints assignable (for a pencil). For $m=9$, Harnack’s bound is $M_9=\frac{8\cdot7}{2}+1=29$. So distribute the 34 bases on the 28 ovals plus 6 on the pseudoline, granting so $2\cdot 28+6 = 56+6=62$ intersections (just one less than Bézout’s $7\cdot 9=63$), but algebra forces reality of the last man. At this stage it is evident that Le Touzé’s Scholium extends to all odd degrees as follows:
\[Le-Touzé-extended-in-odd-degree:scholium\] (Extended Le Touzé’s Scholium).—Given any $M$-curve of odd degree $m$, the pencil of $(m-2)$-tics assigned to visit once all ovals and with residual collection of basepoints assigned on the pseudoline is totally real. Further, the mobile part of the pencil has exactly one point moving on each real circuit, and the allied circle map has lowest possible mapping-degree namely the number $r=M$ of real circuits (exactly like in the Riemann-Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem).
What is first chocking is that when $m=5$ (Le Touzé’s Scholium) there is really an extra intersection gained by topology (of the pseudoline), while for $m=7,9$ our argument merely uses algebra. So a priori the argument could split in two cases depending on some (sordid) periodicity modulo 4. The geometer dislikes intrusion of capitalism and arithmetics in his garden. However it should be observed that even in Le Touzé’s argument one can use algebra, which is alas more capitalistic than her geometric argument. So it is still reasonable to expect an unified proof (without mod 4 stories) along pure arithmetical nonsense.
This is as follows: let $C_m$ be our $M$-curve of odd degree $m=2k+1$. We look at curves $C_{m-2}$. Those can be assigned $\binom{m}{2}-2=:B$ many basepoints. But by “Möbius-von Staudt” $C_m$ has $M-1$ ovals (just omit the pseudoline of course), and by Harnack $M-1=g=\binom{m-1}{2}$. We distribute the $B$ basepoints on the $g$ ovals and the $B-g$ remaining ones on the pseudoline. Let us calculate $B-g=[(1+2+\dots+(m-1))-2]-[1+2+\dots+(m-2)]=(m-1)-2=m-3$. So we have $2g+(B-g)$ real intersections granted by topology (of the ovals), and this is equal to $(m-1)(m-2)+(m-3)=m(m-2)-1$. But this is one unity less than Bézout’s number $m(m-2)$ of complex intersections in $C_m\cap C_{m-2}$, so that the last intersection is forced to reality too! Did we used the assumption that $m$ is odd in any dramatic fashion? I would say no, but we did! Probably the argument adapts to even degrees as well if one is a bit more clever than we were for $m=6$.
As to the last clause, it is evident by construction. Indeed since one basepoint is assigned on each oval, some extra (mobile) intersection is created on the oval. Further the last intersection granted by the Galois-Tartaglia symmetry conj, is forced to live on the pseudoline, since each real circuit contains at least one mobile point (by an evident sweeping principle or just the fact that any point has a well defined image).
Hence a problem of interest is to understand the even degree case, and we hope that someone will easily tackle this question. It is quite beautiful at this stage to feel some big harmony between Riemann, Harnack, Brill-Noether as well as Le Touzé, or Rohlin, at least a sort of unity between conformal and algebraic geometry. Poincaré wrote something like the following: [*“La pensée n’est qu’un éclair dans la nuit, mais c’est ce qui éclaire tout”*]{}.
In fact, when $m=6$ we have 13 basepoints (for quartics) and 11 ovals on the $C_6$. Could it be useful to impose the 2 additional basepoints as imaginary conjugate on the curve $C_6$. Those points will not be real, yet since they are statical they do not spoil total reality which merely involves dynamical points. (Note: this is not a new idea, cf. e.g. p.7 of Gabard’s Thesis 2004 [@Gabard_2004].) Note also that in the above proof (\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]) adapting Bieberbach-Grunsky to plane $M$-curves nothing grants that basepoints are real. In fact we start from any group of $g+1$ points equidistributed on the $M=g+1$ circuits, pass a curve of sufficiently large degree (i.e. $(m-2)$) through them and look at the residual intersection, which is a priori not totally real (but just real, stable under conj). This gives perhaps some evidence that we should for $m=6$ permit a pair of conjugate basepoints. Doing so we really have 11 real points moving on each oval in accordance with the train-track principle (i.e. Bieberbach-Grunsky, or Enriques-Chisini, etc.)
So we state:
\[Le-Touzé-scholium-deg-6:lem\] Given any $M$-sextic, the pencil of quartics assigned to visit any $11$ points marked on the $11$ ovals and a pair of conjugate points of $C_6$ is totally real and induces a (circle) map of degree $11$.
Quartics depend upon $\binom{4+2}{2}-1=14$ parameters and so $13$ basepoints may be assigned. Distribute them on the 11 ovals available and fix the 2 remaining ones as a conjugate pair of points of the $C_6$. For topological reason each real curve of the pencil cuts once more each oval (usual closing lemma for ovals), and so $2\cdot 11=22$ real intersections are granted. By Bézout there is a total of $4\cdot 6=24$ intersections. Hence, [*all*]{} intersections are under control, i.e. either the 22 real ones or 2 imaginary ones which are statical. The latter do [*not*]{} perturb total reality, since they are not moving “electrons”.
Probably the statement extends to all other even degrees (by working properly the arithmetics eventually by using what we already calculated in the odd degree case).
More geometrically (and returning to $m=6$), one may wonder if we could not by continuity push the 2 imaginary basepoints on the real locus so as to impose a tangential contact in the limit (zusammenrücken). Then the modest advantage is that all basepoints would again be visible on the reals, and total reality should be conserved by continuity. So we arrive at the:
For any $M$-sextic, the pencil of quartics assigned to visit any $11$ points marked on the $11$ ovals and tangent at a $12$th point of the $C_6$ is totally real and induces a (circle) map of degree $11$.
Hence some contact can be imposed at any point, and the resulting foliation will look like a dipole at this point of tangency. It would be interesting to see if we can infer any of the deep classical obstructions on the distributions of ovals due to Hilbert, Rohn, Gudkov, from this method.
Another idea (to be explored better than what follows) is to assign such imaginary basepoints on the puzzling case of $(M-4)$-sextics (of type I), cf. Scholium \[(M-4)-sextics-corrupt-Gabard:scholium\]. Then we had a pencil of cubics, of which we distribute the 8 basepoints on the 6 empty ovals and 2 points remain left. A priori we could imagine that an imaginary pair counts just for one linear condition (since after all the passage through one of them forces passing through the conjugate). So we could impose 2 imaginary pairs of additional basepoints, and the mapping-degree of the pencil would be $3\cdot 6- 6 -4=8$, again in accordance with Gabard’s bound $r+p=9$ (best interpreted as the mean of $r$ and Harnack’s bound). This looks however dubious since the pencil of cubics would then have $6+4=10$ basepoints overwhelming Bézout. This can be repaired if we impose only 5 real points and 2 imaginary pairs, and then Gabard’s bound is (exactly) verified, since $3\cdot 6-5-4=9$. However it another piece of work to check that total reality can be ensured. So let us be happy with a conjectural (and admittedly vague) statement:
Any $(M-4)$-sextic of type I admits a total cubics-pencil of degree $9$ (like Gabard) with $5$ basepoints assigned on the oval and $2$ pairs of imaginary basepoints assigned on the curve.
Here only $10$ real intersections are granted (among the $18-4=14$ which are moving) and so much work remains to be done to ensure totality under suitable assumptions. If we impose 6 real basepoints then 12 are granted, etc. [*End Long insertion.*]{}
\[18.02.13\] Let us try the following strategy. \[We now come back to Rohlin’s total reality problem.\] Suppose the sextic to have the scheme $\frac{6}{1}2$. Let us choose 8 points $p_i$ on the $8$ empty ovals, one on each oval, and consider the corresponding pencil of cubics. We would like to show total reality of this pencil. It is clear that any cubic cuts at least $2\cdot 8=16$ times the $C_6$. This is because the $C_3$ can be either tangent at $p_i$ to $C_6$ or transverse. In the first case, intersection multiplicity is two, while in the second, one side of an infinitesimal analytic arc of the curve is inside the oval while the outer is out, hence an extra intersection is gained by closing the real circuit.
Take any cubic in the pencil which is [*connected*]{} (and smooth). The latter is clearly totally real as 2 bonus intersections are created on the nonempty oval of the $C_6$ (which acts as a separator between the inner and outer basepoints). Note that we use the lemma that any pencil of cubics contains a connected cubics (which we nearly proved via Lemma \[nodal-cubics-8-many-in-a-pencil:lem\] showing that a pencil contains in general 8 nodal cubics).
Now a simple idea ensuring total reality would be to look at a nearby cubic $C_3'$ and look if the 2 extra intersections [*gyrate in the same sense*]{} (dextrogyrate) on the nonempty oval $N$. In case of dextrogyration, total reality follows because there would be no collision between both points on $N$. Indeed when we move the cubic curve in the pencil then the intersection points move continuously and none of them can suddenly change its sense of motion, for otherwise there would be 2 curves of the pencil (nearby hence distinct) passing through the same point.
So it suffices checking that the 2 intersections $p',q'$ of $C_3'\cap C_6$ located on $N$ move in same sense (dextrogyrate) on $N$, equivalently that $p',q'$ are separated by the corresponding 2 intersections $p,q$ for $C_3\cap N$.
Since the curve $C_3'$ is a small perturbation of $C_3$ it oscillates about it (in a slaloming fashion). Now a simple picture shows that the gyration is good (occurs in the same sense, or dextrogyre) iff the number of basepoints inside $N$ is odd. So the whole question reduces to knowing if the 9th (non-assigned) basepoint of the pencil is located inside $N$ (or not). If it is inside then we are finished and total reality follows. Alas I know about of no argument ensuring the inside-ness of the 9th basepoint.
The above argument (or rather strategy) relies on the existence of a connected cubic in the pencil which must be a simple matter. This can be bypassed if we argue differently. It is clear that the sole obstruction to total reality is a disconnected cubic whose oval lies inside $N$. Such a cubic is smooth except if it has a solitary node, yet in that case total reality is evident for the pseudoline of the solitary cubics has to connect an inner and outer point so contribute for an extra 17th intersections. Then either by algebra or topology the 18th intersection is real too. Given such a bad cubic $C_3$ which is smooth and whose ovals lies inside $N$, we can again look at a small perturbation $C_3'$ which will oscillate about $C_3$, and so do the corresponding ovals. Now it is clear by a slaloming argument that the oscillation is possible iff the number of inner basepoints (inside $N$) is even. Hence again we would have a contradiction, if we knew that the 9th basepoint of the cubics-pencil lies inside $N$.
Whatever the strategy adopted, Rohlin’s claim seems to require innerness of the 9th basepoint. So this gives a 2nd reduction of Rohlin’s claim.
As a metaphor it seems that such total reality proofs à la Rohlin-Le Touzé are akin to an Eiger-Nordwand ascension. There are several base-camps where to rest, but as the climbing goes on they become rarer and rarer and one is forced to follow a nearly canonical route, \[more and more vertiginous and perilous, by the way.\] It should be noted yet that our approach is slightly weaker than the Rohlin-Le Touzé claim for we do not check total reality of all pencils with 8 deep basepoints [*inside*]{} the empty ovals, but merely the case when the latter 8 points are located [*on*]{} the ovals. Our weaker variant suffices yet to detect total reality and so the type I of such Rohlin’s schemes (e.g. $\frac{6}{1}2$). Our tactic looks simpler, since when basepoints are assigned in the interior of ovals, they do not create defacto real intersections, because the cubic’s oval could be microscopically nested inside one oval of the sextic. [*A dubious strategy with the hexagon (skip the next 2 paragraphs)*]{}.—Another idea was suggested by a naive look at the Hilbert-style construction of $\frac{6}{1}2$. Here it seems that the hexagon through the inner points is not convex. $\bigstar$[*Inserted Objection*]{} \[09.04.13\].—This is so on the naive Walt-Disney picture Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\], but less clear on the more realist picture Fig.\[GudHilb6-12:fig\].$\bigstar$ On the other hand if there is a bad cubic (one whose oval is inside the nonempty oval of the $C_6$) then we know (since at least Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874]) that the oval of the cubic is convex. This is to mean that whenever we join two points inside the oval by the rectilinear segment inside the oval it stays entirely inside the oval. This is not well phrased and should be formulated by saying that whenever we take 2 points inside the cubic-oval the line through it dissected in 2 pieces by the 2 intersection points with the oval is such that the half not meeting the pseudoline is entirely within the inside of the oval.
So Rohlin’s claim would follow if it can be shown that the fundamental hexagon of our $C_6$ of type $\frac{6}{1}2$ is non-convex. Here the fundamental hexagon is defined as the union of all fundamental 2-simplices (triangles). Recall that given 3 points on the inner ovals (inside $N$) the lines joining them are Bézout-saturated and there is a unique full-triangle traced inside $N$, which we call fundamental. The fundamental hexagon of our $C_6$ (with $8$ marked points $p_i$ on the empty ovals) is the union of all these fundamental triangles rooted at the 6 inner points.
Another strategy is as follows. Choose any 8 points on the sextic $C_6$, one on each empty oval. To show: the pencil of cubics through them is totally real.
[*Step 0*]{}.—The sole obstruction to total reality is the presence of a bad cubic, i.e. one with an oval entirely traced inside the nonempty oval of $C_6$.
[*Step 1*]{}.—Assume that there is a bad cubic then the 6 inner points are hexagonally distributed on the oval.
[*Step 2*]{}.—Imagine the 6 inner points black and the 2 outer points white-colored. Then try to infer existence of a conic $C_2$ through 3 inner points and the 2 outer points which is dichromatic, i.e. such that the 2 white points split the 3 black points in 2 groups.
[*Step 3*]{}.—Such a conic has 4 transitions from black to white, hence cuts the $C_6$ in $10+4=14>12=2\cdot 6$ violating Bézout.
The difficult step is Step 2. To exhibit a dichromatic conic it suffices by Le Touzé’s lemma (\[LeTouze:lem\]) that some fundamental triangle through 3 black points separates the 2 white points.
So by contradiction assume that all black triangles does not separate the 2 white points. But alas I do not know why this circumstance (which is actually forced by Le Touzé’s lemma) implies a contradiction with the bad cubic assumption.
Yet another strategy via long run evolution of the bad cubic
------------------------------------------------------------
\[19.02.13\] In this section we explore another strategy toward a proof of the Rohlin-Le Touzé claim of total reality for Rohlin’s curve $\frac{6}{1}2$. The argument perhaps adapts to its mirror $\frac{2}{1}6$, yet we concentrate on $\frac{6}{1}2$ for simplicity. As above, we rather attack the somewhat weaker total reality assertion for a pencil with basepoints assigned [*on*]{} the ovals of the curve. By letting basepoints degenerate on the ovals, this is probably logically implied by the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem (of which at the time of writing we have not seen a proof). It seems also that Le Touzé proves rather the case of the mirror $\frac{2}{1}6$ but probably her argument adapts to $\frac{6}{1}2$. Our argument is just a strategy far from a complete proof, trying to study the dynamical evolution of a pencil lacking total reality while hoping to detect a contradiction. So it is a dynamical approach, but perhaps the real proof (of Rohlin and Le Touzé) is more clear-cut or based perhaps on the same idea.
Start by recalling certain trivialities, which we repeat for convenience. In all this section, $C_6$ denotes a “Rohlin curve” of type $\frac{6}{1}2$, i.e. 6 ovals enveloped in a larger one with 2 ovals outside. The 6 ovals are said to be inner ovals and the 2 ovals outside called outer ovals.
A pencil of cubics passing through $8$ basepoints injectively distributed on the $8$ empty ovals is said to be deep.
The following statement (for me still hypothetical) is a variant of the Rohlin 1978–Le Touzé 2013 theorem, and probably weaker than it, yet which seems to us easier to prove as there is not the possibility of microscopic ovals passing through the assigned basepoints yet without creating real intersections. Albeit weaker it is sufficient for detecting the type I of the given scheme, and in some sense stronger as it yields circle maps (or totally real maps) of smaller mapping-degree.
Any deep pencil on a sextic $C_6$ of real scheme $\frac{6}{1}2$ is totally real, i.e. any (real) curve of the pencil cuts only real points on the $C_6$.
The sequel is an (unsuccessful) attempt of proof of this (hypothetical) statement.
It is divided in several steps, each justified in the subsequent paragraph.
$\bullet$ [*Step 1*]{}.—Each cubic $C_3$ of such a deep pencil has at least 16 (real) intersections with the $C_6$.
Indeed $C_3$ is assigned to pass through 8 points $p_i$ distributed on the 8 empty ovals of $C_6$. Two cases can occur. Either the cubic is tangent to the sextic at $p_i$ in which case we have intersection multiplicity $2$, or the $C_3$ is transverse to $C_6$ in which case there is through $p_i$ a small analytic arc of the $C_3$ with extremities both inside and outside the corresponding oval of $C_6$. By basic properties of algebraic projective curves, this arc of curve has to close up itself and so a 2nd (real) intersection with $C_6$ is created. A priori $C_3$ could visit $p_i$ via just a solitary node (isolated real ordinary double point). In that case the intersection multiplicity is still $2$, and by the way I suspect that this case cannot occur by elementary properties of pencils which have a foyer-type singularity at the basepoints preventing an isolated singularity to appear there. (All this is clumsy due to a lack of profound algebro-geometric knowledge of the writer.)
Step 1 shows that we are quite close to total reality, where [*each*]{} cubic curve is required to have 18 real intersections (counted by multiplicity) with the sextic $C_6$.
$\bullet$ [*Step 2*]{}.—The sole obstruction to total reality is the presence of a [*bad cubic*]{}, i.e. a smooth cubic with 2 components whose oval is contained in the nonempty oval $N$ of the $C_6$.
If the cubic $C_3$ is connected (i.e. $C_3(\RR)$ is connected), then as it must visit both inner and outer points a 17th intersection is created and the 18th follows either by algebra or topology. If $C_3$ is not connected then it is either smooth with 2 components, or a solitary cubic with a solitary node. In the latter case the solitary node passes at most through one of the eight $p_i$ (though this is improbable), yet even in that case the pseudoline of the solitary cubics visits both inner and outer points so has to be total. Hence the sole curve possibly failing total reality is a smooth cubic with 2 real branches. It has further to be monochromatic in the sense that the outer and inner points $p_i$ have to be “purely” distributed on both real circuits of the $C_3$. Else if both an inner and an outer point among the $p_i$ land on a same circuit of $C_3$ then a 17th intersection is created by topology, and so an 18th one by algebra. Further if the inner points are on the pseudoline of $C_3$, then topology forces a 17th intersection (else the pseudoline would be contractible inside the bounding disc of the nonempty oval $N$). So the inner points are on the oval of $C_3$, and Step 2 is completed.
So from now on we shall assume that our deep pencil contains a bad cubic $C_3$, and try to infer a contradiction. Several basic remarks are perhaps useful.
1\. The unique oval of a cubic with 2 components is convex in some obvious sense. (Perhaps this already implies a contradiction, but need to be detailed.)
2\. The oval of our bad cubic $C_3$ will vibrate during an infinitesimal motion along the (deep) pencil $\Pi$. As $6$ basepoints are assigned on the oval $O$ of $C_3$, a vibratory (slaloming) principle implies that the oval oscillates an even number of times across itself. (Of course this may also be reduced to homological intersection mod 2.) It follows that the 9th basepoint of the pencil $\Pi$ is located on the pseudoline of the bad cubic $C_3$.
Now our strategy is the naive one of studying the long-run evolution of the bad cubic as time evolves, i.e. as the cubic is dragged along the pencil. Probably the real argument of Rohlin-Le Touzé is more clear-cut Bézout-style obstruction without dynamical process.
So what may happen to our bad cubic as time evolves? The discriminant of plane cubics has alas even degree $3(m-1)^2=12$ for $m=3$ (or more generally when $m$ is odd) so that we cannot infer presence of a singular curve in the pencil for basic degree reasons. Yet there is surely a deeper argument either like Klein-Marin (1876–1988 [@Marin_1988]) or via Poincaré’s index formula (1885) prompting the existence of a connected curve in any pencil of cubics. Cf. e.g. (\[nodal-cubics-8-many-in-a-pencil:lem\]).
Accordingly two scenarios may occur when the bad cubic is dragged along one of the two possible sense along the real locus of the pencil:
SC1.—The bad cubic has its oval coalescing with its pseudoline.
SC2.—The bad cubic sees its oval shrinking to a solitary node.
Of course SC2 seems unlikely since the oval of the bad $C_3$ passes through the 6 inner points so a shrinking looks impossible at least in the near future of $C_3$. So SC1 is the first thing to occur when the bad cubic is propagated along the deep pencil.
A qualitative picture (without high precision tracing instrument) may give something like Fig.\[Total-qualitative:fig\]a showing the coalescence of the oval of the bad (black) cubic with its pseudoline via transition through a nodal cubic (in red). On tracing naively the next lilac curve one seems to get a corruption with Bézout as the lilac curve seems intersecting 4 times the horizontal line. This is fairly naive and there must be ways to avoid such a trivial accident.
Another optical illusion is the following. On looking Fig.\[Total-qualitative:fig\] one may get the impression that in the transition from the red curve to the lilac one along the segment $A,B$ the cubic must necessarily split off the line $A,B$ (and accordingly a so-called residual conic $C_2$). If so, then the 6 remaining (assigned) basepoints have to lie on the residual conic $C_2$ which intersects $12+2=14$ times the $C_6$, since 2 bonus intersections are forced with $N$ (by dichromatism). (Note also to complete the argument that none of the 3 (assigned) basepoints can be aligned as then we get $6+2=8>6$ intersection of $C_6$ with a line.)
However on zooming (violently) the segment $A,B$ one arrives at Fig.\[Total-qualitative:fig\]b showing a transition from red to lilac by an undulating family of (qualitative) cubics respecting Bézout (at least as far as the intersection with line $A,B$ is concerned). During this undulation no splitting off of a line is forced.
-5pt0
-5pt0
A similar depiction could settle the pseudo contradiction with Bézout of Fig.a (involving the line $C,D$ and the lilac curve). This is suggested on our loose picture Fig.c. In reality nobody tell us that the picture is like this, being possibly rather like Fig.d or even different. It is clear at this stage that the argument becomes much involved if possible to complete at all. Philosophically the drawback of our strategy is that it is indirect (by contradiction). One could dream of a direct argument, but this surely requires different ideas. Our indirect argument requires solid consolidations perhaps by enumerating carefully the several Morse surgeries implied by the evolution. By genericity those could be assumed of elementary type (uninodal curves only). Also during the time the oval of the bad cubic stays an oval, its expansion seems, by convexity, confined within the fundamental triangle of Fig.a. Finally, in the limit when we encounter the first nodal curve of the pencil, the inside of this loop (which is also the geometric limit of the insides of the ovals past the bad cubic) has also to be convex and therefore contained in the fundamental triangle of Fig.a, plus its companion (forming a “David star”).
Another strategy to Rohlin-Le Touzé’s phenomenon
------------------------------------------------
\[21.02.13\] (based on hand-notes of the past 3 days).
We consider again a sextic $C_6$ of type $\frac{6}{1}2$. We distribute $8$ points on the empty ovals of the $C_6$. The phenomenon in question claims that the pencil of cubics through those 8 points is totally real, i.e., each real curve of the pencil cuts only real points on $C_6$.
First one notices that each curve of the pencil (denoted $\Pi$) cuts at least 16 points on the empty ovals. (Here and in the sequel, intersections are always counted by multiplicity.) Denote by $N$ the nonempty oval of $C_6$.
If the pencil $\Pi$ is not totally real, then it contains a bad cubic $C_3$, i.e. such that $C_3(\RR)\cap
N=\varnothing$.
If all cubics of $\Pi$ cut $N$ then all have 2 extra intersections located on $N$, and so the pencil is totally real.
Such a bad cubic is necessarily smooth, because singular cubics are either connected or have a solitary node, but in the latter case the real pseudoline connects inner and outer points so an interception of $N$ is forced by continuity.
Assume (by contradiction) that there is a bad cubic in $\Pi$. One idea is to look at the future of this bad conic along the pencil $\Pi$. One can introduce the projection induced by the pencil as the map $$\pi\colon C_6 \to \Pi$$ taking a point of the curve to the unique curve of the pencil passing through it. $\pi(N)=:G$ is the set of good conics, whose complement is $B$ the set of bad conics. Under our assumption that $B\neq \varnothing$, it is clear that $G$ is a (compact) interval in the circle $\Pi$. In fact as the pencil is defacto nearly total with 16 real intersections (over the 18 maximum permissible), the map $\pi\colon N\to G$ is two-to-one. Hence given $C_3$ our (initial) bad cubic we may let it degenerate toward one of the 2 extremities of the interval $G$ along 2 pathes consisting only of bad cubics safe for their extremities. As only 2 extra intersections are possible, this may occur in 3 fashions only (by a simple continuity argument):
\(I) Inner touch: the oval of $C_3$ inflates inside $N$ and ultimately touch it from the interior.
\(D) Double touch: the oval of $C_3$ inflates from inside and collides with the pseudoline of $C_3$ on a point of $N$.
\(O) Outer touch: the pseudoline of $C_3$ touches $N$ (necessarily from outside) while the oval stays inside $N$ disjoint from it.
Further when dragging the curve along $\Pi$, at some stage (first touch or contact) two real points eventually appear on $N$, and subsequently move apart along $N$ (without possible return by the property of linear systems or holomorphic maps) to merge again on the opposite first contact of $C_3$ with good cubics. This looks attractive but is probably only a first step toward a contradiction. In fact a simple picture (Fig.\[Tot1:fig\]a) shows that such a scenario is perfectly permissible, topologically at least.
-5pt0
-5pt0
This figure suggested another idea as follows. While the above picture (Fig.\[Tot1:fig\]a) is topologically legal, the thick traced blue curve seems to violate Bézout upon tracing a line through its node intercepting it 4 times. A tactic would be to argue by Poincaré’s index formula (applied to the inside of the egg $E$, i.e. the unique oval of our bad cubic $C_3$) that there is necessarily such a nodal curve in the pencil (with node located inside $E$), and by some messy combinatorial argument such a curve would necessarily corrupt Bézout, heuristically because it has to visit too many points forcing high-contortion like the thick blue curve above.
As to the Poincaré argument, look at the inside $E^{\ast}$ of the egg $E$ with the (mildly singular) foliation induced by $\Pi$ and double it to a sphere, $2E^{\ast}\approx S^2$. We see on the boundary (doubled!) 6 foyers of index $+1$ (locally like the pencil of lines through a point). A priori there could be centers (locally like concentric circles) with index $+1$ and arising from a solitary cubic. Finally nodal cubics (with non isolated ordinary singular point) contributes for (hyperbolic) saddles (locally like the levels of $x^2-y^2$) which are of index $-1$. Poincaré’s index formula tells the sum of indices being equal to the Euler characteristic of the manifold. Hence $6-2 S\ge \chi(S^2)=2$, where $S$ is the number of saddles, and we deduce that there is at least two of them inside $E$. (As $E$ is smooth they cannot be located on the boundary of $E^{\ast}$.)
The above programme sounds good (albeit requiring alienating combinatorics!) until the moment, one realizes that a nodal cubic is able to salesman-travel through the 6 basepoints on $E$ without being contorted. Remember at this stage that the 8 (assigned) basepoints of $\Pi$ determine (by Bézout) a 9th one, which for vibratory reasons has to be outside $N$ (otherwise a slight perturbation of $E$ would intercept an odd number of times $E$, violating the depiction or if you prefer homological intersection modulo 2.) Of course if the 9th unassigned basepoint lands on $N$ then total reality is evident.
Let us now depict such a nodal cubic able to visit the 6 inner points without being contorted (Fig.\[Tot1:fig\]b). \[22.02.13\] On the latter all the (rational) nodal cubics occurring in the pencil have relatively decent looks. To formalize the lack of contortion of such a cubic one can uses the pencil of lines through the node which cuts a group of 3 points with 2 of them statically monopolized by the node while the 3rd moving along the curve. So when one looks from a nodal cubic from its node one always see at most (an in fact exactly one) point forced to be real. Our idea was that at least one of the nodal cubics (ensured via Poincaré’s index formula) would be contorted, i.e. violating this tightness of nodal cubics, yet our Fig.\[Tot1:fig\]b gives little hope to complete this.
Another strategy also jeopardized by the above pictures (Fig.\[Tot1:fig\]) is that there ought to be always a cubic of the pencil which is dichromatic in the sense that the 6 inner points (black colored) and 2 outer points (white colored) are lying mixed on some suitable cubic of the pencil $\Pi$ with the 2 white points separating the collection of all 6 black points. If so is the case, 4 extra intersections are gained on the nonempty oval $N$, and Bézout is violated. Perhaps this strategy is the right one but requires more geometrical argument à la Le Touzé.
Yet another idea is that by using the nodal cubics of the system we may infer that the outer basepoints are strongly stretched apart, while by contrast Le Touzé’s lemma (chromatic law for conics, cf. \[LeTouze-Gabard-Hilfssatz:lem\]) forces them to be much condensed, in the sense of not being separated by any triangle through any triplet among the 6 inner points. Remember (from Le Touzé’s Sec.\[LeTouze:sec\]) that if a separation occurs then the conics through the 3 corresponding inner points and the 2 outer points is dichromatic (with the 2 white points separating the 3 black points) so that the corresponding conic has $10+4$ intersections with $C_6$ (violating Bézout).
Another idea is that since the 9th basepoint is outside $N$ (for the vibratory reasons already explained), all cubics of the pencil have to oscillate about those 3 points. This is perhaps incompatible with the tightness of (rational) nodal cubics.
Yet another idea was that the 9th basepoint of our pencil $\Pi$ (almost canonically assigned to the $C_6$) has to land inside $N$ and this would contradict the vibratory properties of a bad cubic. However this miraculous property looks logically much stronger (i.e. not logically equivalent) to the Rohlin-Le Touzé total reality claim, so that this is perhaps not a realistic strategy, at least we were not able to implement it.
Maybe what is required is an avatar of the chromatic law for cubics instead of the version for conics (Lemma \[LeTouze-Gabard-Hilfssatz:lem\]). The logics would be as follows. Trace the “diamond” of all $\binom{6}{2}=15$ lines through the 6 inner points. By the chromatic law for conics, this diamond does not separate the 2 outer points. So by a hypothetical chromatic law for cubics it could follow that the pencil of cubics through the 8 points is dichromatic, i.e. contains a dichromatic cubic. The latter would overwhelm Bézout. Of course all this if it works should use the assumption of a bad cubic which implies an hexagonal (convex) distribution of the 6 inner points on the egg-shaped oval $E$ of the bad cubic.
The bottom foliation (Fig.\[Tot1:fig\]c) extends the right-part (Fig.b) of that figure (while changing slightly the colorimetry), and shows again that there is no topological obstruction in the large. So it seems that the contradiction (if it exists, i.e. if Rohlin-Le Touzé are right) must really involve some deeper geometry (presumably at the level of Bézout, or maybe Cayley-Bacharach, Jacobi, etc.).
Of course our global picture shows some new nodal cubics which are highly contorted, for instance the thick-blue curves. Reminding tightness of nodal cubics, the inside of the loop of that cubic must be convex. By the [*loop*]{} of a nodal cubic we mean the unique arc joining the node to itself via the half which is null-homotopic in $\RR P^2$. This being said, we may from the node of the blue-thick curve $B_3$ trace a rectilinear segment joining the top-point of the loop of $B_3$, and lying entirely in the inside of the loop of $B_3$ (cf. dashed line on Fig.\[Tot1:fig\]c). This segment which is linear (despite the appearances!) cuts for topological reasons at least 4 times the lilac-colored cubic, hence Bézout is corrupted, and perhaps the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem is nearly proved.
Let us formalize the argument. Consider the pencil $\Pi$ of cubics through 8 basepoints (injectively) distributed on the 8 empty ovals of the $C_6$. If $\Pi$ is not totally real, there is a bad cubic $C_3$ whose real part is disjoint from $N$, the nonempty oval of $C_6$. Denote by $E$ the unique oval of this bad cubic which is necessarily smooth. By applying Poincaré’s index formula to $E$ (or the double of its inside) we infer that there is at least 2 saddle points inside $E$. On applying it to $\RR
P^2$ we infer that there is at least 8 saddle points on the whole projective plane. Such saddle points correspond to nodal cubics (and perhaps it is convenient to assume some genericity of the pencil after dragging slightly the 8 assigned basepoints).
By Bézout recall that $N$ is at most intercepted twice by each $C_3$ of the pencil, and actually exactly twice for each cubic which is not bad (i.e. which intersects $N$). Accordingly we get an involution with 2 fixed points on $N$ (namely the first contact of the bad cubic with good conics). This permits to fold the boundary of $N$ to get a topological sphere. Now depending on whether the first contact with good cubics are inner touch, or outer touch, or double touch (as discussed earlier) we get by the folding different type of singularities. Specifically an inner touch induce no singularity, and so do a double touch, while a outer touch induces a center (do some simple local pictures to get convinced).
So we may apply Poincaré inside $N$ (folded) and deduce that there is at least 4 saddles inside $N$ (in accordance with the picture) and perhaps at most 6 saddles (compare picture or think hard). All this to ensure that there is at least one saddle outside $N$ and the corresponding nodal cubic ought to have always a loop enveloping 4 transverse arcs of another nodal cubic with inner node (as on the picture). Remind that the existence of a lilac-colored cubic seems to be forced by Bézout. If all this works then we are finished and the general case is so-to-speak always reducible to the one depicted.
Of course we need to be slightly formal (and clever) for instance by defining the concept of a barred-pair of nodal cubics (or barrage for short). This is a pair of nodal cubics such that one of them appears 4 times inside the loop of the other. (For an example cf. again the thickest curves of Fig.\[Tot1:fig\]c.) It remains then to show that such a barred pair always exists, which requires some abstract self-confidence in combinatorics or a long discourse. Note on the picture (at least) that if we consider instead of the thick lilac curve the red one then there is also a barrage consisting of 4 disjoint arcs inside the loop of the blue curve. Hence the proof could decompose in the following 2 steps:
Step 1.—Show that there is always a nodal cubic whose loop visits all the 8 assigned basepoints.
Step 2.—Show that there is always another nodal cubic forming a barrage w.r.t. the nodal cubic of step 1, i.e. which appears in the inside of its loop as 4 pairs of transverse arcs joining the 8 basepoints in pairs.
This is perhaps a universal property of pencil of cubics (or maybe valid only in our special situation, where the 8 basepoints are on a $C_6$, with six of them hexagonally distributed of the convex egg of the bad cubic $C_3$). Universality would be better as then the proof could be simpler, but this looks too optimistic for in that case pencil of cubics would just not exist. Further if Step 1 looks too hard, one could imagine other types of barrages like the one depicted on the 3rd row of Fig.\[Tot1:fig\]d.
We hope that \[all\] this \[mess\] can be made clearer and perhaps there is a simpler argument (maybe Le Touzé’s proof).
Albeit difficult to make formal the above proof (if it is one!) shows the special rôle played by nodal cubics in the pencil which have lowest complexity from the viewpoint of algebraic geometry. Those are perhaps the unique “brèche par laquelle on puisse entrer dans une place réputée jusqu’ici imprenable”.
Doubling, Satellites and total reality {#satellite-total-reality:sec}
--------------------------------------
\[23.02.13\] As discussed at length, Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem is somewhat elusive to prove but let us assume it to be correct. Why is it so important? Why is it fairly difficult to prove? How does it generalize? As a last remark we note that any proof using the bad cubic tends to be indirect, and this makes any proof a bit frustrating. One could dream of a direct proof using maybe the fact that any cubic of the pencil is dichromatic in the sense of having both inner and outer points one the same component of the cubic. This would give a direct proof but of course still much remains to be justified.
Though quite unable to complete the proof, we may try to speculate of what comes next, and what is the true phenomenology governing such phenomena of total reality.
According to Ahlfors theorem (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) what is behind total reality is basically the orthosymmetric character of the curve. More concretely (or in the spirit of Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]), total reality seems to be sometimes forced by the sole knowledge of the real scheme. For instance, we have the prototype of the deep nest of depth $k$ and degree $2k$ which is totally real under a pencil of lines. The point here is that topology forces so many intersections as algebra permits whence total reality. Idem for a quadrifolium nest consisting of 4 nests of depth $k$ and degree $4k$ which is total under a pencil of conics assigned to pass through any 4 points distributed in the deepest ovals.
Modulo technicalities, some higher intelligence should be able to perceive total reality of Rohlin’s sextics with the same ease as in the above two examples. Of course certain aspects changes radically, like the 9th unassigned basepoint, as well as the issue that cubics are possibly disconnected, concomitantly with their irrationality, or positive genus of the underlying Riemann surfaces. Is this a sufficient reason to mistrust the ubiquitousness of the phenomenon of total reality, say as (partially) evidenced by Ahlfors theorem at the abstract level?
Typical to the basic cases of total reality—sweeping of deep nests via pencil of lines through a deep center of perspective, or the vision of quadrifolia through conics—is some concentric paradigm, namely an infinite series of species totally real under the same pencil. So one can start from a conic and imagine its unique oval (unifolium) doubled, then tripled, etc., and so we get the series of deep nests. The same “satellitosis” occurs by starting from the quadrifolium quartic and doubling each of its ovals in a tube neighborhood, to get an octic totally real, a twelve-tic, etc.
[Given a real scheme $S$ (of degree $m$) with only ovals (=nullhomotopic curves) we may abstractly define its [*$k$th satellite*]{} by replicating each oval up to a certain multiplicity $k\ge 1$ and get so the scheme $k\times S$ of degree $km$. (In Rohlin’s sense, a [*real scheme*]{} is primarily an isotopy class of embedding of a disjoint union of circles plus some integer $m$ given in the background memory, the so-called [*degree*]{} of the scheme.)]{}
Note that this abstract operation can be aped algebraically just by taking an equation of even degree realizing the scheme $S$ (we assume this to be possible) and then taking $k$ nearby levels close to zero while perturbing the union to get a smooth algebraic curve realizing the $k$th satellite schemes. This makes sense because the sign of an even degree form is well-defined.
In particular we can take Rohlin’s sextic scheme $\frac{6}{1}2$ and double it (second satellite) to get the scheme $2 \times
\frac{6}{1}2$ of degree 12, or triple it, and so on. It seems clear that this satellite is totally real under the same pencil of cubics as in Rohlin’s (unproven) phenomenon. This is evident when the satellite is realized as a small algebraic perturbation of parallel levels, because in that case we have on the original sextic curve a foliation transverse to the real locus \[\[10.04.13\] this is a bit sloppy but nearly true\], and transversality is topologically stable. So we get an infinite series of curves of type I (as forced by total reality), and it is likely that not merely the algebraic satellites are of type I but all the curves belonging to the schemes. This would be the case if the schemes were known to be rigid, i.e. each forming a unique rigid-isotopy class (\[rigid-scheme:defn\]). More pragmatically, the fact that total reality is exhibited by a synthetic procedure (namely by assigning 8 basepoints on the 8 empty ovals of the $C_6$ of Rohlin’s type or over any satellite of this scheme) makes that we have some robust recipe ensuring total reality. So it is likely that Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem implies the following:
[(Hypothetical)]{}.—Any $k$th satellite of Rohlin’s schemes of degree $6$ (they are 2 of them namely $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$) is again total under a pencil of cubics and so of type I. In particular the $2$nd satellites of Rohlin’s schemes are schemes of degree $12$ which are of type I.
With some good faith (or pessimism) one could fear that this implies a corruption of Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (type I implies maximal). The idea would be to take a fairly complicated configuration of 6 ellipses and smooth it à la Brusotti to get a curve whose scheme enlarges $2\times(
\frac{6}{1}2)$. Fig.\[Tot2:fig\] includes inconclusive attempts along this naive tactic.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Adhering to the opposite attitude, the 2nd satellite of any one of both Rohlin’s $6$-schemes are $12$-schemes (denoted $2\times R$ or just $2R$, cf. Fig.\[Tot2:fig\]a) which are totally real in some geometric way (pencil of cubics through the 8 empty ovals). Hence it is likely that those schemes cannot be enlarged without corrupting Bézout. More precisely assume a real $12$-scheme $S$ enlarging $2R$, then select in $S$ a replica of $2R$ and construct the allied total pencil. Let pass a curve through one of the deleted oval of $S$, and get a corruption with Bézout.
More generally if a scheme is of type I, one may expect its representing curves to be totally real under a pencil of curves in some geometrically controlled way. This posits both a concretization of Ahlfors theorem as well as an extension of Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem. The byproduct would be a general proof of Rohlin’s maximality conjecture. At this stage, we confess to have first understood the full swing of Rohlin’s prophetical allusion when formulating his maximality conjecture: “there is much to say in its favor” (cf. Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]). This idea will be developed in the next section.
We can also look at the 3 possible $M$-sextics permitted by Gudkov’s classification and take their satellites to get schemes of type I, actually total under a pencil of quartics via (\[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]). The emerging philosophy is that the phenomenon of total reality should be stable under satellitoses and possesses a series of minimal (or primitive) models in each degree. Pencils of lines correspond to deep nests. Pencils of conics (with 4 real basepoints) correspond to the quadrifolium quartics and its satellites. Pencil of cubics have two minimal models with Rohlin’s sextics. Pencil of quartics have (at least) 3 minimal models given by the $M$-sextics (cf. Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]), etc. All this is quite vague and need perhaps strong correction, but our intention is to suggest the idea of a big tower of total pencils, of which the Rohlin-Le Touzé phenomenon should just be one of the very first cornerstones supporting a big cathedral. Admittedly the latter may reach such altitudes, that its higher structure is still completely dissimulated behind the clouds.
The motive behind total reality seems to be a topological predestination forcing reality of all intersections. So the phenomenon ought to be fairly robust. Now if we are given a scheme of type I, then any curve representing it is totally real by Ahlfors theorem. \[$\star$ Not even obvious!\] Yet to attack Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (RMC) we need more namely total reality forced by topological reasons. This amounts essentially to a synthetic knowledge a priori of the location of the basepoints. In this case let us say that the scheme is photovoltaic, more precisely:
A real scheme is photovoltaic (PV) if there is a canonical recipe($\approx$algorithm$\approx$Turing machine) exhibiting a total pencil of curves on it. When the recipe is as simple as saying “by assigning basepoints on the empty ovals” of any representing curve of the scheme, the scheme is said to be photographic.
We have “photovoltaic” implies “type I”, and even “photovoltaic” implies “maximal”. Of course the problem is that our “canonical recipe” is poorly defined, but one may just understand some algorithm. For instance Rohlin’s $6$-schemes are photographic by the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem, while the $M$-schemes of degree 6 are photovoltaic since there is an algorithm to construct a total pencil via some residual series (cf. Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]). \[$\star$ But compare also (\[Le-Touzé-extended-in-odd-degree:scholium\]) showing that, in odd degree at least, there is a more concrete recipe for the total reality of $M$-schemes.\] One chance to go around the conceptual difficulty of the ill-posedness of our definition would be the following miracle:
All schemes of type I which are not $M$-schemes are actually photographic.
\[$\star$ Again in view of (\[Le-Touzé-extended-in-odd-degree:scholium\]) it is likely that $M$-schemes have not to be excluded.\]
This is true for sextics (granting the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem), and deserves to be investigated in general.
If the conjecture is true in general, type I implies photovoltaic (by virtue of Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]), and hence maximal, and Rohlin’s conjecture would be settled.
Of course we are using the implication “PV” implies maximal. It looks hard to prove it because “PV” is ill-defined, but we really may avoid this concept since $M$-schemes are automatically maximal (Harnack 1876), while the other are photographic (by the conjecture) so that Rohlin’s maximality conjecture follow form the:
(Hypothetical!!!) If a scheme is photographic then it is maximal.
\[$\star$ too vague!\] Suppose by contradiction that $S\subset E$ is an enlargement of the photographic scheme $S$. Choose $E_m$ a real curve representing the scheme $E$, and select a sublocus $\Sigma_m$ of $E_m$ realizing the scheme $S$. Alas we loose algebraicity doing so. However this sublocus $\Sigma_m$ is total under a pencil of curves with basepoints assigned (say) on the empty ovals of $\Sigma_m$ for “robust” topological reasons. This is to mean that any curve of the pencil of $k$-tics cuts $k\cdot m$ points on $\Sigma_m$ for topological reasons (e.g., like for the deep nests). Then we could conclude to a contradiction with Bézout by letting pass a curve of the pencil through the extra oval of $E_m$.
The above clumsy proof imposes a refinement of the definition making the above lemma true with “photogenic” instead of the “photographic” assumption.
An $m$-scheme is photogenic if any (differentiable, or real analytic) curve $\Sigma$ representing it admits a “total” pencil of $k$-tics such that each curve of the pencil cuts at least $k\cdot m$ points on $\Sigma$. It may even be assumed that the basepoints of such a pencil are assigned in the insides of the empty ovals.
This “photogeny” is a violent evasion outside the algebro-geometric realm, yet the deep nest as well as the quadrifolium of depth $k$ are photogenic schemes in this sense. It would be interesting to know if the Rohlin’s $6$-schemes are photogenic amounting to say that Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem accepts a purely topological proof. This seems already quite unlikely, and the right part of Fig.\[Tot3:fig\] supplies a simple counterexample. Here we consider a smooth cubic curve $C_3$ and triad of lines $D_3$ (both black colored). We trace (in the smooth category) the blue curve $C_6$ realizing the $6$-scheme $\frac{6}{1}2$ with 8 small ovals about 8 of the 9 intersections of the cubics, plus one large oval enveloping the oval of the smooth cubic. Now the pencil of cubics spanned by $C_3$ and $D_3$ may be interpreted as the pencil of cubics assigned to pass through the insides of the 8 empty ovals of the flexible curve $C_6$, yet it fails to be total as $C_3\cap C_6$ has only 16 points (and not $18$ the product of their degrees).
-5pt0
-5pt0
So we cannot expect to be so naive as to be photogenic. This relates to the fact that pencil of cubics (or higher order curves) generally contains disconnected curves. One crude way to ensure total reality could be to use degenerate pencils lying entirely in the discriminant and more than that consisting only of rational curves (forcing via Harnack-Klein or less, like Lüroth-Clebsch, or Cayley) the curve to be connected. However this looks overspecialized and probably not even suited to detect the universal orthosymmetry of Rohlin’s $6$-schemes.
It remains to clarify several aspects. Is total reality stable under satellites? In particular is there an infinite series of examples above Rohlin-Le Touzé’s phenomenon of total reality. What are the higher order avatars of Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem, and how frequent is the phenomenon? More precisely which schemes are photographic? This looks of course extremely hard requiring a highbrow extension of the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem. Are photographic schemes stable under satellites? If yes this is the trivial part of an iterative propagation of each total reality phenomenon. A priori one can speculate that photographic schemes are quite rare and essentially exhausted by pencil of lines, conics and cubics. In contrast one may expect the phenomenon to be ubiquitous and so frequent that all schemes of type I (safe perhaps some $M$-schemes) \[$\star$ this proviso looks not justified anymore, cf. (\[Le-Touzé-extended-in-odd-degree:scholium\])\] are photographic. In that case there is some little chance to tackle Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (the part thereof post-Shustin’s disproof). Alas even that looks difficult. One may also wonder how frequent are schemes of type I, again rarity versus abundance is quite puzzling.
Stability of type I under satellites
------------------------------------
\[24.02.13\] Are schemes of type I stable under satellites? The first case to test is $2\times R$ the 2nd satellite of Rohlin’s $6$-scheme $R:=\frac{6}{1}2$. Of course taking a perturbation of the double of Hilbert’s realization of $\frac{6}{1}2$ (Figs.\[GudHilb8:fig\] or \[GudHilb6-12:fig\]) it is likely that we find a dividing curve, and perhaps Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem is sufficiently robust as to imply universally the type I of this $12$-scheme. If not it may be that the $12$-scheme $2\times R$ is indefinite. A priori curves of degree 12 could be sufficiently messy as to allow a type II realization of the 12-scheme $2R$, or in contrast Rohlin-Le Touzé’s phenomenon could be sufficiently robust as to propagate to satellites.
The data of a curve plus a totally real pencil of “adjoint” curves is called a flash, and we say that the curve is flashed by the pencil. If a curve of even degree is flashed by a pencil then the doubled curve (and more generally its $k$th satellite) obtained by small perturbation of $k$ concentric levels is flashed by the same pencil. Note that for an algebraic satellite to be defined it is convenient to take an affine chart in which the whole curve is visible. This works certainly for Hilbert’s realization of Rohlin’s $6$-schemes. Hence it is clear that the 12-scheme $2R$ contains a representatives of type I (hence is not a scheme of type II). The question is to decide if this scheme is of type I or indefinite.
One idea could be to realize the 8 nests of depth 2 by an octic and then add two ellipses to get $2R$. However, passing a (connected) cubic through the 8 deep nests creates $4\cdot 8=32>3\cdot 8=24$ many intersections, and Bézout is much overwhelmed. Replacing the octic by a curve of degree 10 is still insufficient $(32>3\cdot 10=30)$.
A priori one could hope to find a type II realization of the $12$-scheme $2R$ by perturbing an arrangement of 12 lines. This is a bit messy to depict. The most approaching object we could trace is shown on Fig.\[Tot4:fig\]. This is rather akin to the double of the (other) Rohlin scheme $\frac{2}{1}6$, but alas there is not enough free room left to build the prescribed configuration.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Another idea is to use Hilbert’s method, but the latter does not seem ideally suited for the generation of nest of depth 2 (Fig.\[Tot5:fig\] of very poor quality). Let us shamefully leave this delicate question, as we sincerely hope that total reality is ubiquitous (in particular stable under satellites).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Satellites of curves of odd degrees {#Satellite-odd-degree:sec}
-----------------------------------
[*Inserted*]{} \[16.03.13\].—It seems evident that the construction of satellites extends to curve of odd degrees. Of course there is a slight complication coming from the fact that the pseudo-line lacks a trivial tube-neighborhood, and so we cannot replicate so canonically as in the even degree case. As a simple example consider a cubic with 2 circuits (one oval and a pseudoline). Doubling its oval and “doubling” its pseudoline will lead to a curve of degree 6 which (for a suitable smoothing) will be a nest of depth 3, hence again totally real under a pencil of lines.
By analogy if we look at the next odd degree, namely 5, we have examples of total reality given by the $M$-quintics (cf. Le Touzé’s Scholie \[LeTouze-quintic:scholie\]). So when taking its satellite we are supposed to find a nice example of total reality in degree 10 for a scheme of the form $(1,6\times
1)$, i.e. 6 nests of depth 2 enveloped in a larger oval. So it is natural to conjecture that this scheme of degree 10 is of type I.
If this is possible to prove this is quite interesting because the scheme in question has $r=13$ ovals which is fairly low in comparison to Harnack’s bound $M=37$, when $m=10$ as $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}=\frac{9\cdot 8}{2}=9\cdot 4=36$. Of course, the type I of this scheme is not covered by the RKM-congruence for $(M-2)$-curves. So this gives a certain addendum to Rohlin’s (somehow denigrating) remark that the method of total reality is somehow subsumed to the RKM-congruence (cf. his remark in 1978 which reads “However, all the schemes that we have so far succeeded in coping with by means of these devices are covered by Theorem 3.4 and 3.5. \[i.e., the congruences\]”, compare (\[Rohlin1978-total-reality:quote\]) for the integral citation.
Of course total reality (hence type I) is also observed for satellites of the unifolium or quadrifolium having the same property of being at lesser altitude than $(M-2)$-schemes. Thus the phenomenon under examination is formally not new, but those examples being so trivial they were probably not taken seriously enough. So:
\[satellite-of-M-quintic-total:conj\] The scheme of degree $10$ of symbol $(1, 6\times \frac{1}{1})$ (cf. Fig.\[satellite-of-Harnack’s-quintic:fig\]a) arising as the 2nd satellite of Harnack’s $M$-quintic with symbol $6 \sqcup
J$ (a unique rigid-isotopy class by Kharlamov-Nikulin) is totally real under a pencil of cubics, hence in particular of type I.
To prove this we use the method of Le Touzé’s scholie, namely to assign the 8 basepoints of a cubics-pencil on the 6 ovals of the quintic plus 2 on the pseudoline. Then we have 14 intersections and the last one is forced to reality either by algebra (Galois-Tartaglia) or topology (Möbius-von Staudt).
[*Optional side remark*]{}.—It may be observed that the scheme in question is not prohibited by Rohlin’s formula. Hint: decomposes the Hilbert tree of the scheme in $x$ and $y$ many branches of length 2 (so $x+y=6$) which are resp. positively or negatively charged. By Rohlin’s formula we have $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=13-25=-12$. By the signs-law (cf. Fig.\[Signs-law-dyad:fig\]) we find $\pi-\eta=x-3y$, and thus $x-3y=-6$, $x+y=6$. Eliminating $x$ gives $-4y=-12$, so $y=3$ and $x=3$. Rohlin’s equation with signs is thus soluble.
A priori Le Touzé’s total reality should adapt to the double. Formally we assign 6 basepoints on the deep ovals of the 6 nests and 2 on the maximal oval. Crudely speaking we await $6\cdot
4+3\cdot 2=24+6=30=3\cdot 10$ and total reality would be granted. However in reality we get less than that on basic topological grounds. However it is clear that for a small deformation of the doubled quintic we can expect total reality and the hope is that this propagates to the full scheme (chamber which a priori is not even known to be connected!) Maybe there is some deep reason ensuring total reality like in Le Touzé’s argument.
[*Insertion*]{} \[10.04.13\].—It also interesting to compute the mapping-degree of the allied circle map. The number of mobile points of Le Touzé’s series will be $6+12+4=22$, with 1 point circulating on each of the $6$ deep ovals, 2 on the 6 ovals immediately surrounding them and 4 moving on the doubled pseudoline (maximal oval). This degree of $22$ can be compared with Gabard’s bound $(r+M)/2=(13+37)/2=25$ and turns out to be compatible with it.
A validation of the conjecture (\[satellite-of-M-quintic-total:conj\]) could be of interest for the following reason related to Rohlin’s maximality conjecture(=RMC). If we think globally at the satellite operation and the arithmetics of small integers factorized into primes ($1,2,3,4=2\cdot 2,5,6=2\cdot
3,7,8=2^3,9=3^2,10=2\cdot 5,11,12=2^2 \cdot 3=2\cdot 6$, etc.), we remark that the first nontrivial satellite [*not*]{} totally real under a pencil of lines or conics truly arises in degree 10. Degree 9 involves the prime $3$, yet the 3rd satellite of the cubic with 2 components is merely the deep nest $4\sqcup J$ (totally real under lines). In degree 6 we have indeed the 2 total realities of Rohlin-Le Touzé yet they are primitive manifestations (not satellites), and of course in adequation with Gudkov’s classification and Rohlin’s maximality conjecture. Hence degree 10 is the first case where (granting our conjecture) we get a type I scheme which possibly is not maximal (in case we are skeptical about the truth of RMC). Of course this would be against our own philosophy that Ahlfors has much to say about Hilbert’s 16th. Yet we must keep in mind this eventuality.
Thus we can ask for a curve of degree 10 enlarging the doubled $M$-quintic (with 6 bifolia, plus one large oval, Fig.\[satellite-of-Harnack’s-quintic:fig\]a). The naive construction of Fig.\[satellite-of-Harnack’s-quintic:fig\]b does not even reach more than 4 bifolia nested in a larger oval. So other techniques of construction are demanded, perhaps Harnack, Hilbert or Viro.
-5pt0
-5pt0
If the posited phenomenon of total reality holds true, and is sufficiently explicit to imply maximality (as nearly evident by Bézout) then our scheme of degree 10 (Fig.\[satellite-of-Harnack’s-quintic:fig\]a called say the closed sextibifolia) would be maximal in the hierarchy of all schemes of degree 10. Hence this scheme could not be enlarged and it results, in one stroke, a myriad of prohibitions upon Hilbert’s 16th problem in degree 10 (still wide open), basically by virtue of the sole idea of total reality which goes back virtually to Riemann’s thesis 1851/57, then Schottky, Klein, Bieberbach, Teichmüller, Ahlfors just to name the heros.
So the question looks nephralgic. As a philosophical detail, while in Hilbert’s 16th there is some traditional focus upon curves maximizing the number of ovals (so-called $M$-curves since Petrovskii 1933/38), we see here in contrast that the lower the number of ovals is (for a curve subsumed to total reality) the stronger will be its prohibitive impact upon the higher stages of the pyramid. Of course the prototype is the deep nest, but this is merely the trivial case.
In degree 5 there are also $(M-2)$-curves which are totally real, typically under a pencil of conics, yet the corresponding scheme is not of type I. Its double will be of degree 10 and have a bi-quadrifolium (double couche) nested in a larger oval.
Toward a census of all type I (totally real) schemes or at least extension of the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s phenomenon prompted by the Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence for $(M-2)$-schemes {#census-and-extension-of-Rohlin-Le-Touzé:sec}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[24.02.13\] Another problem is to list all schemes of type I, or at least those totally real under a pencil of curves. We restrict attention to even degrees schemes ($m=2k$) and call [*order*]{} the degree $d$ of curves involved in the total pencil.
In degree $m=2$ we have a single oval (unifolium, denoted $1$ in Gudkov’s notation) which is total under a pencil of lines $d=1$ with center of perspective chosen inside the oval.
In degree $m=4$, we have the nest of depth 2 (denoted $\frac{1}{1}=(1,1)$ in Gudkov’s symbolism) total under a pencil of lines, and the quadrifolium $4$ total under a pencil of conics.
For $m=6$, we have the nest of depth 3 (Gudkov symbol $(1,1,1)$) total for $d=1$, and for $d=3$ the 2 Rohlin’s schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$, $\frac{2}{1}6$ (Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem), as well as the three $M$-schemes $\frac{9}{1}1$, $\frac{5}{1}5$, $\frac{1}{1}9$ of Hilbert, Gudkov, Harnack respectively. The latter are total for $d=4$ (cf. Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]).
Before attacking the case $m=8$, some remarks are in order. What is expected is that sometimes total reality is ensured by Bézout. This is the case when $d=1$, or $d=2$ where we have the extra knowledge of the connectivity of all members of the pencil due to the rationality (unicursality) of all genus $0$ curves. This property is lost when passing to high-orders $d\ge 3$ pencils. Still we can hope a priori that some other reasons prompt total reality in some favorable cases, which would be more elementary than the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem for $(m,d)=(6,3)$. It is with this naive hope that we feel encouraged to adventure in the jungle of $m=8$. Another vague motivation is that schemes of type I are conjecturally maximal, so we are really attacking a sort of simplified Hilbert’s 16th problem (or rather surfing on its upper envelope). A last remark is that we (sentimentally) expect via Ahlfors theorem that the dividing character of curves is always exhibited by a [*linear*]{} pencil inducing a map to the projective line (whose complexification is the Riemann sphere with its standard “equatorial” real structure like our planet Earth).
[*Optional (non-linear pencils).*]{}—However any totally real map to more complicated dividing curve suffices to exhibit the dividing character of the covering curve. So perhaps we should keep in mind to explore also such nonlinear pencil. How do they arise concretely is another question. A naive guess of mine was via a plane cubic $E_3$ with 2 circuits and its dual curve (variety of tangents). We could hope that any point of some curve $C_m$ determines a unique tangent to $E_3$ but alas there are (generally) 6 of them passing through a given point (intersect with the polar curve, a conic here). Perhaps a suitable adaptation of this idea leads somewhere. However it is fairly standard, and we briefly discussed this (in Part I devoted to the abstract theory of Riemann-Klein-Ahlfors) that generally speaking curves mapping to irrational curves of positive genus have specialized moduli. Hence it is quite unlikely that we shall gain a general methodology, though plane curves themselves are modularly confined.
$\bigstar$ For $m=8$, we have the deep nest of depth 4, denoted $(1,1,1,1)$ total for $d=1$, and the doubled quadrifolium $\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}=2\times 4$ which is total for $d=2$.
$\bullet$ We examine next $d=3$ (cubics-pencils). We have then 8 basepoints available assumed all real, and so we look at curves with this number of empty ovals. Imposing the 8 basepoints on the empty ovals, we are ensured for twice so many intersections (i.e. $16$) but this is still much less than $3\cdot 8=24$ (Bézout’s upper bound). Total reality looks hard to ensure. Of course we may envelop our empty ovals by some nonempty ovals. Remember that there is at most 4 nonempty ovals (as the doubled quadrifolium $2\times 4$ is total under a pencil of conics hence maximal). So we may range our 8 empty ovals in 4 groups of ovals and consider the scheme $\frac{k}{1} \frac{\ell}{1} \frac{m}{1} n$, where $k+\ell+m+n=8$. If optimistic each of the 3 nonempty ovals contributes for 2 intersections, and we arrive at $16+6=22$ which is still less than $24$. Hence it seems nearly impossible to find a (naive) phenomenon of total reality for $(m,d)=(8,3)$, but this does not of course exclude the possibility of such a phenomenon prompted by deep geometric reasons à la Rohlin-Le Touzé. Note also that the case $m=6$ showed that there is no (absolute) total reality for $d=2$, and so we cannot expect a priori to observe the phenomenon for each preassigned order and therefore let us skip the present value $d=3$.
$\bullet$ Assume next $d=4$. We have then $13$ basepoints assignable. Remember indeed that the space $\vert 4 H \vert$ of all quartics has dimension $\binom{4+2}{2}-1=\frac{6\cdot
5}{2}-1=14$, so that 13 conditions leave the mobility of a pencil. So we are again directed toward curves with 13 empty ovals (over which we shall as usual distribute our 13 basepoints), ensuring so 26 intersections, which is less than the $d m=4\cdot 8=32$ required. Enveloping our ovals in the at most 3 possible nonempty ovals (if 4 of them we reduce to the doubled quadrifolium) we get the schemes $\frac{k}{1} \frac{\ell}{1} \frac{m}{1} n$, where $k+\ell+m+n=13$. So the number of ovals is $r=13+3=16$ and we have an $(M-6)$-scheme (as $M=g+1=22$ for $m=8$). Perhaps like in the case $(m,d)=(6,3)$ some of them are total for deep geometrical reasons. If lucky, the 3 nonempty ovals creates 6 additional intersections, so reaching $26+6=32$ Bézout’s bound, and total reality would be granted. Remember yet that for $(m,d)=(6,2)$ there is no phenomenon of total reality, at least of the purest form where only knowledge of the real scheme is required. Repeating ourselves, we cannot expect a priori that total reality prevails for each value of $d$ given a fixed $m$.
$\bullet$ Examine next $d=5$. Then $\dim \vert 5 H \vert =
\frac{7\cdot 6}{2}-1=20$ so that 19 basepoints are assignable. By the same token, we look at schemes $\frac{k}{1} \frac{\ell}{1}
\frac{m}{1} n$, where $k+\ell+m+n=19$, ensuring $2\cdot 19=38<40=d
m=5 \cdot 8$ intersections. So in fact outside from the 19 empty ovals it is enough to have one nonempty oval being intercepted to gain total reality. We list the following candidates:
$\bullet$ $\frac{k}{1}\ell$, with $k+\ell=19$ and $r=20=M-2$.
$\bullet$ $\frac{k}{1}\frac{\ell}{1}m$, with $k+\ell+m=19$ and $r=21=M-1$ so cannot be total by Klein’s congruence $r\equiv g+1
\pmod 2$.
$\bullet$ $\frac{k}{1} \frac{\ell}{1} \frac{m}{1} n$, with $k+\ell+m+n=19$ and $r=19+3=22=M$, which are $M$-curves.
In the first class of $(M-2)$-schemes we may appeal to the Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]) to select the serious candidates. (It seems fairly plausible that this mode of reasoning was the true motivation behind Rohlin’s Ansatz of total reality for the $6$-scheme $\frac{6}{1}2$ and its mirror, and that he found his (unpublished) proof a posteriori of this deeper knowledge.) This RKM-congruence states that an $(M-2)$-curve of degree $m=2k$ and type II satisfies the congruence $\chi=p-n\equiv k^2$ or $k^2\pm 2 \pmod
8$. This looks a priori undigest, but as merely to be interpreted as a deviation from Gudkov’s hypothesis(=congruence proved by Rohlin), compare, e.g., the diagrammatic in degree 6 (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). So when the congruence is violated a scheme of type I is granted. Since $\chi=1-k+\ell$ and $k^2=4^2=16\equiv_8 0$ (beware the overuse of the letter $k$ but no risk of confusion). Recall the Swiss cheese algorithm for the Euler characteristic $\chi$ (that whenever we make a hole in the sense of removing a disc, $\chi$ drops by one unit, cf. Listing-Klein-von Dyck 1888, etc.). Starting with the scheme $\frac{19}{1}$, we find $\chi=1-19=-18\equiv_8 -2$. Then we have $\frac{18}{1}1$ for which $\chi=1-18+1$ equal to the former plus 2 units, and there is always an increment of 2. Running through the full list of such schemes we find that the condition $\chi\equiv_8 4$ ensuring type I occurs with periodicity 4 for the following schemes: $$\label{octics-five-examples-RKM:eq}
\frac{16}{1}3,\quad \frac{12}{1}7,\quad \frac{8}{1}11,\quad
\frac{4}{1}15,\quad 20.$$ The latter case (of the scheme $20$) seems to disprove our collective contraction conjecture (\[CCC:conj\]).
\[CCC-conj-disproof:thm\] [(ERRONEOUS—cf. $\bigstar$ below)]{}.—The collective contraction conjecture (of Gabard positing a wild extension of the contraction conjecture of Itenberg-Viro) is false in degree $8$ already.
$\bigstar$ \[05.03.13\] [*Corrigendum*]{}.—It follows easily from the so-called Thom conjecture that the scheme $20$ is not realized by an algebraic curve of degree 8 (necessarily of type I if it existed by the RKM-congruence), compare Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]. So the given argument is not a disproof of CCC. \[07.03.13\] In fact a simpler obstruction of this scheme comes from Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]), as $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$ but the left-side is zero, so $r=k^2=16$, which is no the case. \[10.04.13\] Further this scheme is also prohibited (and this was historically the first proof available) by Petrovskii’s inequality (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]), which reads $\chi\le \frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1=18+1=19$. This in contrast to the proofs via Thom or Rohlin does not use the dividing character of the curve prompted by RKM. Further it should be noted that our Thom-style theorem cited above is erroneous in the generality stated, yet sufficient to imply the present application as in the case at hand the filled surface is orientable (since we only glue disc to the half, and so there is no risk to create a twisted handle like in Klein’s bottle). For definiteness, let us briefly work out the argument. Since $20$ is an $(M-2)$-curve (of type I by RKM), we may split the Riemann surface and fill one half by the $20$ discs bounding the ovals. It will result a surface of genus $1$, whose fundamental class has degree $8/2=4$. However Thom conjectured (and Kronheimer-Mrowka, and others, proved) that the genus is minimized by algebraic (smooth) curves, hence at least $3$ in degree 4. Since our surface beats this bound, the real curve $20$ is prohibited.
\[Outdated, but keep in mind the 2nd part of the proof (strangulation argument), which under CCC would provide another obstruction of the scheme $20$, of a fairly intuitive character, though hard to implement with present technology.\] —It seems clear that this 8-scheme $20$ is realized by (a variant of) Hilbert’s method.[^69] (I should still work out this in some more detail.) The resulting curve is of type I by the just cited congruence of Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin, which is essentially based either on the deep Rohlin’s signature theorem for spin 4-manifolds, or perhaps on Kähler geometry in the presentation of Kharlamov (unpublished?). Alternatively on the model at hand (via Hilbert’s method) the type I of this curve realizing $20$ may be checked more elementarily via Fiedler’s sense-preserving smoothing law (elementary surgeries). However the resulting curve cannot be contracted collectively by shrinking simultaneously all its ovals to points, for if it could, then $C_8\to C_4 \cup
C_4^\sigma$ would degenerate to a pair of conjugate quartics obtained by strangulating the Riemann surface $C_8(\CC)$ along all the separating ovals, and so $C_4\cap C_4^\sigma$ would consist of 20 solitary nodes. Bézout is overwhelmed.
Moreover the above 5 schemes are avatars of the total reality claim of Rohlin-Le Touzé for $(m,d)=(6,3)$, i.e. sextics flashed by cubics, while now octics are flashed by quintics. In both cases we note the rôle of curves of order 3 units less than the given degree $m$, and one seems being sidetracked to the theory of adjoint curves à la Brill-Noether, etc. Recall indeed that adjoints of order $(m-3)$ cut out the so-called [*canonical series*]{} on the given plane curve, and thus there is perhaps some conceptual reason ensuring total reality of all these linear systems. This is perhaps the royal road to attack the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s assertion/theorem (and extension thereof prompted by the RKM-congruence).
In both cases $m=6$ or $8$ we have $(M-2)$-curves which are of type I, and swept out by a pencil of order $d=m-3$. The latter cuts the canonical series of the curve $C_m$ of degree $2g-2$ and dimension $(2g-2)-g=g-2$ or rather $g-1$?? In view of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] we may expect to find a total morphism of degree the mean value of $r=M-2$ and Harnack’s bound $M$, hence of degree $M-1$. So we could choose so many points on the ovals of $C_m$ while putting two of them on the nonempty oval. It is then hoped that the 2 points situated on the same oval will [*dextrogyrate*]{} (i.e. move along one orientation of the oval without entering in collision) and then total reality is ensured.
While any collection of $M=g+1$ points on a curve of genus $g$ moves in its linear equivalence class, only special collections of $M-1=g$ points will move but perhaps this is enough to ensure total reality hence recover the type I of the above list of schemes predicted by the RKM-congruence (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]).
It is not entirely clear if the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s phenomenon is true in full generality or only for special groups of points (at least this is the naive intuition coming from the abstract Ahlfors and Gabard viewpoint). Note in this respect that Rohlin’s claim is a priori less strongly formulated than Le Touzé’s assertion, in claiming only that a pencil of cubic exhibit total reality and not that all of them with deeply assigned 8 basepoints are total (compare Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.94] with Le Touzé’s 2013 announcement in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]). ($\star$ \[10.04.13\]—Meanwhile see also the article [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics].) It is likely (say by analogy with the trivial case $m=4$) that Rohlin had in mind the strong assertion of Le Touzé, and that it is only the extreme compression of Rohlin’s exposition that forced him to his somewhat looser version of the statement.
For $m=8$ we may assign 19 basepoints on the empty ovals of any of the $(M-2)$-scheme listed above (the scheme $20$ is exceptional in a sense that remains to be clarified[^70]). Then we can pass a quintic $C_5$ through these points and one extra point. Choose the latter on the nonempty oval $N$ of the $C_8$. Another intersection is created by topology. So we see 21 real points. The residual intersection of $C_5\cap C_8$ consist of $40-21=19$ points, etc...
Of course the difficulty looks immense but let us postulate the following avatar of Le Touzé’s theorem (i.e. strong form of Rohlin’s total reality claim):
\[tot-real-for-octics:conj\] For any octic representing one of the $8$-schemes listed above (Eq. \[octics-five-examples-RKM:eq\]) the pencil of quintics assigned to pass through the $19$ empty ovals (or even their insides) is totally real. (Of course the scheme $20$ deserves a modified statement of which we do not know yet the exact shape.)[^71]
If so is the case we get a total morphism $C_8\to \PP^1$ of degree $40-19=21$, which is the mean value of $r=20$ and $M=g+1=22$, in accordance with Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. Of course the latter affords only weak evidence as its result is subsumed to high suspicion.
It could be expected (granting Gabard’s result as correct) that a suitable interpretation thereof (at the level of extrinsic algebraic geometry à la Brill-Noether) could supply a proof of the conjecture at least in the weak form of a special configuration of $19+2=21$ points two of them being distributed on the same oval (while dextrogyrating). However ideally we would like a purely synthetical proof say as elementary as Bézout without incursion of such transcendental philosophers like Abel-Riemann. This is perhaps possible as some highbrow variant of the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem but remains to be explored and is quite likely to be extremely elusive. On the other hand it could be of vital interest that the Abel-Riemann abstract viewpoint may help to see clearer what happens in the Plato cavern of Hilbert’s 16th problem as twisted by Rohlin’s synthesis with Klein’s Riemannian viewpoint. In this optimistic scenario we may hope to get when enlarging further $m$ above $m=8$ an infinite series of schemes of type I totally flashed by pencil of $(m-3)$-curves. So the phenomenon of total reality à la Rohlin-Le Touzé would be fairly frequent (and in some sense an extrinsic reflection of Ahlfors abstract theorem).
Perhaps Le Touzé’s proof (2013) adapts to give the above the conjecture, but alas as I do not know yet the details. It can also be the case that additional difficulties occur while the combinatorics viz. geometry becomes more involved and the argument more tedious. The argument is likely to start as follows. As we have $2\cdot 19=38$ intersections granted, only two are missing to reach total reality at $40=5\cdot 8$. The sole obstruction is therefore a bad quintic $C_5$ in the pencil disjoint from the nonempty oval $N$ of the $C_8$. But this mean that there is an Abelian differential without zero on this oval, and try to derive a contradiction.
Remember that the differential has $2g-2$ zeros (Riemann-Poincaré index formula) and we may hope to infer something. When we look at the trajectories of a (generic) holomorphic $1$-form we see only hyperbolic saddles of index $-1$ explaining the degree of the canonical class as boiling down to Poincaré’s index formula (1881/85). In the case $m=6$ for the scheme $\frac{6}{1}2$ we have 8 zeros assigned each creating a companion on the same oval (so 16) and a total of $3\cdot 6=18$ zeros, in accordance with $2g-2$ for $g=10$ the genus of sextics. The above looks a numerical miracle alike, but is not for $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}$ so that $\deg K=2g-2=(m-1)(m-2)-2=m(m-3)$, showing that adjoint curves of degree $m-3$ are indeed involved in the canonical class. There is of course a more intrinsic reason allied to the adjunction formula.
The dream would be that there is some metaphysical/toplogical principle ensuring total reality on the basis of holomorphic 1-forms which can often be interpreted in terms of incompressible fluids. Note yet that the argument cannot be too abstract (else could imply that all $(M-2)$-curves are of type I regardless of the isotopy class, a nonsense already for $m=4$), yet ideally it would be as simple as in the case $m=4$ so $d=m-3=1$ where we really see total reality on the Gürtelkurve $C_4$ with 2 nested ovals. Here we see some potential place of action for old stuff à la Abel-Riemann-Klein (\[10.04.13\] or maybe also Thurston’s argument in Gross-Harris 1981), but alas this escaped much from my memory or my curriculum. And still there is always this objection that the argument should really use the assumption on the real scheme, and so ought to be more in the Arnold-Rohlin spirit.
Have we listed all schemes of degree 8 of type I? Probably not as our search was far from exhaustive. It remains of course to list $M$-schemes (and this is a classical still open problem for some few exceptional cases). Compare works by Viro, Korchagin, etc. It is however likely that our list is exhaustive for $(M-2)$-schemes. (\[08.03.13\] Not even true, as we shall soon see!)
$\bigstar$ What is next? Degree $m=10$ of course. Here we have the deep nest of depth 5, totally flashed by a pencil of lines. The quadrifolium $4$ does not give nothing by taking its satellite (as our $m=10$ is not a multiple of 4). Next we move directly to adjoint curves of order $d=m-3=7$ (septics). One has $\dim \vert
7H \vert= \binom{7+2}{2}-1=\frac{9\cdot 8}{2}-1=35$. So $34$ basepoints may be assigned freely, and we can force $34 \cdot
2=68<70=7\cdot 10$ nearly all points to be real by assigning the basepoints to be located on distinct ovals. Again it is a reasonably folly (by analogy with Rohlin-Le Touzé’s assertion) to expect that under adding an extra nonempty oval enveloping some of the ovals and if furthermore the RKM-congruence is satisfied that the resulting scheme (being of type I) is totally real under the described pencil. Precisely we look at the schemes $\frac{k}{1} \ell $, with $k+\ell =34 $. So we have $r=35$ ovals and $M=g+1=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}+1=\frac{9\cdot8}{2}+1=37$ is 3 units above the number of basepoints (no surprise as the dimension of the space of curves and the genus both involve the same binomial coefficient). So we are again in presence of $(M-2)$-curves. The RKM-congruence says that type II forces $\chi$ to be either $k^2=25\equiv_8 1, k^2\pm 2\equiv 3,-1\equiv 7 \pmod
8$ so that $\chi\equiv_8 5$ forces type I. Applying the Swiss cheese recipe to $\frac{34}{1}$, we find $\chi=
1-34=-33\equiv_8 -1 $ and then running through all subsequent schemes $\frac{33}{1}1$, etc., $\chi$ always increases by two units. So we first met $\chi=5$ for $\frac{31}{1}3$, and find using fourfold periodicity the following list of schemes (potentially totally real): $$\label{RKM-schemes-deg-10:planar:eq}
\frac{31}{1}3, \quad\frac{27}{1}7, \quad\frac{23}{1}11,
\quad\frac{19}{1}15, \quad\frac{15}{1}19,
\quad\frac{11}{1}23,\quad\frac{7}{1}27,\quad\frac{3}{1}31.$$ (Like for $m=6$ (but unlike the case $m=8$) the list is symmetrical under the evident mirror of partnership in the jargon of Kharlamov-Finashin.) Again we expect the following total reality:
All curves $C_{10}$ of degree $10$ representing any one of the schemes of the previous display are totally real under the pencil of septics assigned to visit $34$ basepoints injectively distributed among the $34$ empty ovals of the ten-ics $C_{10}$. Actually the last item $\frac{3}{1}31$ of the list is prohibited by either Thom [(\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\])]{} or by Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=35-25=10$, since $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le \Pi:=\Pi^+
+\Pi^-=3$.
[*Insertion*]{} \[10.04.13\].—The last scheme of the series is (alas) [*not*]{} prohibited by Petrovskii’s inequality (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]), but it is by the strong Petrovskii estimate of Arnold (1971), cf. (\[Strong-Petrovskii-Arnold-ineq:thm\]). This states $p-n^{-}\le
\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1$, where $n^{-}=0$ here (negative hyperbolic ovals), so $p\le 31$ while our scheme as $p=32$. (It may be useful—if you are better in geography than in arithmetics—to visualize all this on Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]. Crudely put, Arnold is as strong as the Ragsdale conjecture.) Further our assertion regarding the prohibition by Thom is certainly foiled as there is no reason ensuring orientability of the Arnold surface in the present case, as we are really attaching a 3-holed disc to the half of the complexification. (More explanations in Sec.\[Thom:sec\].)
It is evident (due to the little arithmetical coincidence between the genus and the dimension of the curve-hyperspace, plus the universal validity of the RKM-congruence) that this series of $(M-2)$-schemes propagates in each degree $m\ge 10$, and so we get an infinite (nearly tautological) repetition of the above conjectures for each even integer $m$. [*Can all these conjectures be proven in a single stroke?*]{} This would be a highbrow extension of the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem. This would give an infinity and certain abundance to the phenomenon of total reality as one could have suspected from Ahlfors’ theorem. Of course we do not claim that this will supply an exhaustive list of the phenomenon, but perhaps it is modulo the operation of satellites. More precisely:
\[primitive-manifestation-of-tot-real:conj\] Any primitive manifestation of the phenomenon of total reality on a curve $C_m$ of (even) degree $m$ arises either as an $(M-2)$-scheme totally real under a pencil of adjoint curves of order $m-3$ assigned to pass through the empty ovals of $C_m$, or as a pencil of curves of order $m-2$ if $C_m$ is an $M$-curve (cf. [Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]]{}).
If not primitive then the scheme is a satellite of either:
$\bullet$ the unifolium scheme $1$ of degree $2$ total under a pencil of lines (this gives the series of deep nests which exist in all degrees $m$), or
$\bullet$ the quadrifolium $4$ of degree $4$ total under a pencil of conics, with satellites in all degrees multiples of $4$, or
$\bullet$ the other $(M-2)$-schemes of Rohlin $\frac{6}{1}2$ or $\frac{2}{1}6$ with satellites in all degrees multiple of $6$, and so on inductively as the satellites of $(M-2)$-schemes predicted by the Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence, or finally
$\bullet$ as satellites of $M$-schemes of lower degrees always dividing the given one $m$.
If this conjecture is true we would have a complete classification of the phenomenon of total reality for plane curves. This is surely somewhat premature and probably requires some slight adjustments to reach more respectableness.
[*Insertion*]{} \[10.04.13\].—In particular, one must probably also takes into account satellites of curves of odd orders, cf. Sec.\[Satellite-odd-degree:sec\]. For instance in degree $m=10$, there is probably the 2nd satellite of Harnack’s $M$-quintic playing a rôle.
At any rate note that our initial expectation that some phenomenon of total reality is purely prompted by Bézout in a very primitive way is apparently never borne out. It seems rather that apart from the satellites of the elementary schemes (unifolium and quadrifolium) flashed resp. by the trivial pencil of lines and conics the phenomenon of total reality is at least as hard as Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem, but perhaps not much harder. At least both ought to be connected by the geometry of the canonical series.
More $(M-2)$-schemes in degree 8 of type I {#RKM-schemes-deg-8-MORE:sec}
------------------------------------------
\[26.02.13\] In fact it is clear that even for $m=8$ we have not listed all $(M-2)$-schemes of type I for we have only considered those with one nonempty oval, but we must also consider those with 2, or 3 nonempty ovals. Tabulating a complete list is merely an exercise of combinatorics.
Geometrically, it may not be essential to assign basepoints on empty ovals but some can be located on nonempty ovals, and we may expect total reality provided the RKM-congruence is fulfilled. The sole problem is that we then lack some recipe to assign basepoints, and so the game becomes somewhat obscure \[but quite challenging\].
First the RKM-congruence (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]) can be more conveniently paraphrased as:
\[RKM-congruence-reformulated:thm\] [(Rohlin 1978-Kharlamov 197?-Marin 1979)]{} Any $(M-2)$-scheme of degree $m=2k$ such that $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$ is of type I.
\[08.03.13\] [*Little Warning*]{}.—There is a minor metaphysical trouble with this statement. Indeed when $m=8$ (or for larger $m$) we have the scheme $20$ which satisfies the RKM-congruence, but which is not realized algebraically as follows either from Thom (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) or from Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=20-16=4$, since $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le \Pi:=\Pi^+
+\Pi^-=0$ due to the absence of nesting in $20$. There is two ways to go around this trouble, either add the assumption that the scheme is algebraic, or interpret Rohlin’s definition of the types of schemes by declaring (usual logical nonsense allied to the empty set) that a non-realized scheme is simultaneously of type I and type II (but not of indefinite type which needs algebraic representatives in both types). Of course when tracing pyramids, e.g. the Gudkov-Rohlin table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) we ascribe the type I label (red-circle) only to those schemes which are of type I in the concrete sense that the scheme is [*algebraic*]{} (and all its realizations are of type I).
The RKM-congruence (Theorem \[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]) says that an $(M-2)$-curve of degree $m=2k$ and type II satisfies the congruence $\chi\equiv k^2 $ or $k^2 \pm 2 \pmod 8$.
So the theorem follows after checking the following basic fact: [*an $(M-2)$-curve of order $m=2k$ verifies universally $\chi
\equiv k^2 \pmod 2$.*]{} (From the diagrammatic of pyramids, e.g. Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\], this is the fairly trivial matter that the rhombic equilateral lattice underlying the pyramid is adjusted at $k^2$, and one may infer that the claimed congruence holds more generally on all $(M-2i)$-levels.)
This is easy to prove using the relations $\chi=p-n$, $r=p+n=M-2$ $$\chi=p-n=(p+n)-2n\equiv_2 (p+n) = r=M-2,$$ and by Harnack’s bound and the genus formula $g=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}$ we have $$M=g+1=\textstyle\frac{(2k-1)(2k-2)}{2}+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2,$$ whence $$\chi\equiv_2 M-2=2k^2-3k \equiv_2 k \equiv_2 k^2.$$
Is the converse statement true? Remember that if a scheme of degree $m=2k$ is of type I, then it satisfies Arnold’s congruence $\chi\equiv k^2 \pmod 4$. Hence $\chi\equiv k^2, k^2+4 \pmod 8$, and the second option leads to type I, but I do not know if the first option necessarily implies type II or indefinite type. We know only that this converse holds true for $m\le 6$ by the Gudkov-Rohlin table (=our Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) which involve explicit constructions. So the RKM-congruence detects many $(M-2)$-schemes of type I, but it is not clear (to me) if it detects all of them.
\[RKM-converse:conj\] An $(M-2)$-scheme of degree $m=2k$ which is of type I necessarily satisfies the RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$.
[*Insertion*]{} \[11.04.13\].—Perhaps an answer can be found in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.93–94], esp. Art. 3.5 and the end of 3.6, where it seems that an extremal property of the strong Arnold’s inequalities observed by Zvonilov-Wilson prompts type I in situation apparently not covered by the congruence. Alas, I had not yet the time to assimilate this properly, but look forward with great excitement to do so in the future (after some long editorial duty).
\[08.03.13\] Again there is little worry about definitions. For instance when $m=6$ we can consider the (non-algebraic) scheme $(1,1,1)6$ which is thus of type I (in the logical sense but of course also of type II), yet with $\chi=(1-1+1)+6=7\neq
3^2+4\equiv_8 5$. So we tacitely assume the scheme of type I in the strong sense that it is algebraically realized.
Of course the conjecture \[RKM-converse:conj\] is true for $m=6$ (look at the Gudkov-Rohlin Table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]), which depends upon explicit construction of curves of type II for all schemes which are not RKM. Already for $m=8$, the conjecture seems to demand a menagerie of construction. One could hope that there is some theoretical argument.
Let us leave this question aside, as we merely want to list schemes of type I potentially subsumed to the phenomenon of total reality.
Let us now tackle the combinatorial aspect of dressing the list of all $(M-2)$-schemes of degree $m=8$ satisfying the RKM-congruence (hence of type I).
We may start with schemes with zero or one empty ovals and list all of them using the fourfold periodicity as we already did. Yet to be more systematic we start with $\frac{16}{1}3$ expand its Gudkov’s symbol as $\frac{16}{1}\frac{0}{1}\frac{0}{1}1$ to be of the shape $\frac{x}{1}\frac{k}{1}\frac{\ell}{1}m$ and then we trace a cubical lattice (Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\]) in 3-space encoding all variations of this symbol for varied values of $(k,\ell,m)$. To aid visualization it turned useful to ascribe colors to the different levels: the ground floor is orange, the 1st floor is lilac, the 2nd floor blue, the 3rd floor is cyan, the 4th floor is yellow-green. As we are interested in $(M-2)$-schemes we have the relation $x+k+\ell+m+3=M-2=20$. The crucial point is that when $k$ or $\ell$ increases by one unity, then one hole is traded against another hole, so that $\chi$ is left unchanged. In contrast an increment of $m$ reduces $x$ by one, and so a hole in “$x$” is traded against a disc outside, so that $\chi$ increases by two. Hence as the RKM-congruence is modulo 8, we have a 4-fold periodicity until reaching the same value for $\chi$. (This explains the vertical motion along the cubical lattice.) Those symbols surrounded by dashed lines are doubloons (non-normalized Gudkov’s symbol), yet useful to stop the combinatorial proliferation. Underbraced symbols are those whose Gudkov’s symbol admits a shorter expression given below the brace (when enough room is left available).
-5pt0
-5pt0
All those schemes are avatars of the 2 Rohlin’s $(M-2)$-schemes of degree 6 (subsumed to total reality). It is a simple matter to count them. First collect on the nearby face of Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\] all schemes lying in perspective beyond the red/thick numbers. Adding them vertically gives the blue/big numbers on the bottom row, yielding a total of $5 \cdot
11+9= 55+9=64$ schemes. (That this is a power of 2, incidentally the same as Rohlin’s count of all schemes of degree 6 decorated by types, is probably a mere coincidence.)
This is somewhat amazing combinatorics, and the geometrical conjecture would be that all these schemes are total under a pencil of quintics with suitably assigned 19 basepoints. The case which looks most appealing is when there are exactly 19 empty ovals. Those corresponds to the 4 schemes forming the vertical left 1-simplex of Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\], which we call the monolith. The monolith has some obvious structure of a 3-simplex, stratified as follows into sub-simplices:
$\bullet$ 0-simplex corresponding to the scheme $20$ with zero nonempty oval,
$\bullet$ $1$-simplex corresponding to the 4 schemes with 1 nonempty oval and so admitting a Gudkov’s symbol $\frac{k}{1}\ell$,
$\bullet$ $2$-simplex corresponding to the 20 schemes with 2 nonempty ovals admitting a Gudkov writing $\frac{k}{1}\frac{\ell}{1}m$,
$\bullet$ $3$-simplex corresponding to the 39 schemes with 3 nonempty ovals admitting a Gudkov writing $\frac{k}{1}\frac{\ell}{1}\frac{m}{1}n$.
Only the schemes forming the one simplex have exactly 19 empty ovals. For the other categories (with resp. 20, 19, 18, 17 empty ovals) one may assign the 19 basepoints among the nonempty ovals (by choosing say the most massive nonempty oval, i.e. containing the largest number of empty ovals). Of course this is pure speculation and maybe the exact opposite has to be done.
There is probably here work for several generations of computing machines, unless one is able to crack all total reality phenomenon in a single stroke. Somewhat brutally in comparison to our low understanding of where to assign basepoints, we posit that whenever the RKM-congruence is verified then there is a phenomenon of total reality:
Suppose given an $(M-2)$-curve of degree $m=2k$ verifying the RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$. Then the pencil of adjoint curves of order $(m-3)$ ascribed to pass through the empty ovals plus some other points distributed on the nonempty ovals is totally real.
As to the crude arithmetics, remember that the number $B$ of basepoints assignable to adjoints of order $(m-3)$ is given by the binomial coefficient $$B=\textstyle\binom{(m-3)+2}{2}-1-1,$$ while the pre-Harnack bound $$M-2=(g+1)-2=\textstyle\binom{m-1}{2}+1-2,$$ so that $$B=M-3.$$ This means that we have one basepoint less than the number of ovals, and so we may canonically distribute them when there is one nonempty oval.
\[M-2-curve-degree-like-Gabard:rem\] [\[03.03.13\] Assuming we are capable to ensure total reality of the pencil, it may be observed that the degree of the induced total map to $\PP^1$ would be in accordance with Gabard’s bound $r+p$, which is also the mean value of $r$ and $M=g+1$. This follows from a simple calculation. First $$2B=2(M-3)=2(\textstyle\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}+1-3)=(m-1)(m-2)-4=m(m-3)-2,$$ and so the degree of the map is $$m(m-3)-B=2B+2-B=B+2=M-1,$$ which is Gabard’s bound i.e. the mean of $r=M-2$ and $M$. ]{}
Of course if one as some self-confidence in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], then there is a total map of that degree on each dividing $(M-2)$-curve (in particular those satisfying the RKM-congruence which are universally of type I). By some concretization yoga this map would be induced by a total pencil, and by a dubious reverse engineering of the above arithmetics this would be a pencil of $(m-3)$-tics. This gives some very weak evidence for the:
Any dividing $(M-2)$-curve of degree $m$ is totally real under a pencil of curves of order $(m-3)$.
\[27.02.13\] In fact we are not even sure that the above cubical lattice (Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\]) gives an exhaustive list of RKM-schemes in degree 8, where we use the jargon:
A scheme of degree $2k$ is an RKM-scheme if it is an $(M-2)$-scheme satisfying the Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$ which forces type I (alias orthosymmetry) of the scheme, i.e. that the real locus disconnects the complex one.
While any RKM-scheme is of type I, we do not know whether the converse holds true (for $(M-2)$-schemes). It is true for $m=6$ as follows from the Gudkov-Rohlin classification (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). It seems that degree 8 is a perfidious iceberg killing any naive conjecture arising from contemplation of low order curves (say $\deg \le 6$). Specific illustration of this vague principle are Shustin’s disproof of the one-half of Rohlin’s maximality conjecture, and concomitantly the disproof of Klein’s Ansatz that nondividing curves may always acquire a solitary node. Another remark along the same line is the disproof (using the RKM-congruence) of the naive CCC-conjecture, cf. Theorem \[CCC-conj-disproof:thm\]. (\[06.03.13\] Alas this disproof of CCC is disproved by Thom’s conjecture, as remarked there!)
Now back to our classification of RKM-schemes of degree 8 we may wonder if there is one containing $(1,1,1)$ the nest of depth 3. As we focus on $(M-2)$-schemes and since $M=22$ when $m=8$, we may start with this configuration plus 17 outer ovals. In Gudkov’s notation this is the scheme $(1,1,1)17$. Any scheme $S$ of even degree is bounded by the Ragsdale orientable membrane $S^{\ast}$ with $\chi(S^{\ast})=p-n$. In our case $\chi((1,1,1)17^{\ast})=1-1+1+17=18\equiv 2 \pmod 8$ and not 4 as posited by the RKM-congruence. If we trade outer ovals against inner ovals lying deepest then $\chi$ is left unchanged. However if the trading is made for ovals at intermediate depth then the outer discs of the Ragsdale membrane becomes holes and $\chi$ diminishes by two. So the RKM-congruence is first arranged for the scheme $(1,\frac{1}{1}3)14$ (with $\chi=12$), and then using 4-fold periodicity the list is augmented as: $$\label{RKM-scheme-deg-8-four-primitive-type:eq}
(1,\frac{1}{1}3)14, \quad (1,\frac{1}{1}7)10, \quad
(1,\frac{1}{1}11)6, \quad (1,\frac{1}{1}15)2,$$ which are all RKM-schemes (containing the nest of depth 3). Once the Euler characteristic is adjusted to satisfy the RKM-congruence, we may trade outer ovals with innermost oval at depth 3 without altering $\chi$. So each of these schemes produces a list of derived schemes also RKM. Namely the 15 schemes $$\begin{aligned}
(1,\frac{1}{1}3)14,& (1,\frac{2}{1}3)13, (1,\frac{3}{1}3)12,
(1,\frac{4}{1}3)11, (1,\frac{5}{1}3)10, (1,\frac{6}{1}3)9,
(1,\frac{7}{1}3)8, (1,\frac{8}{1}3)7, \cr (1,\frac{9}{1}3)6,&
(1,\frac{10}{1}3)5, (1,\frac{11}{1}3)4, (1,\frac{12}{1}3)3,
(1,\frac{13}{1}3)2, (1,\frac{14}{1}3)1, (1,\frac{15}{1}3),\end{aligned}$$ and then the 11 schemes $$\begin{aligned}
(1,\frac{1}{1}7)10,& (1,\frac{2}{1}7)9, (1,\frac{3}{1}7)8,
(1,\frac{4}{1}7)7, (1,\frac{5}{1}7)6,\cr (1,\frac{6}{1}7)5,&
(1,\frac{7}{1}7)4, (1,\frac{8}{1}7)3, (1,\frac{9}{1}7)2,
(1,\frac{10}{1}7)1, (1,\frac{11}{1}7),\end{aligned}$$ and likewise the 7 schemes $$\begin{aligned}
(1,\frac{1}{1}11)6,\quad (1,\frac{2}{1}11)5,\quad
(1,\frac{3}{1}11)4,\quad (1,\frac{4}{1}11)3,\quad
(1,\frac{5}{1}11)2,\quad (1,\frac{6}{1}11)1,\quad
(1,\frac{7}{1}11),
$$ and finally, the 3 schemes $$\begin{aligned}
(1,\frac{1}{1}15)2,\quad (1,\frac{2}{1}15)1,\quad
(1,\frac{3}{1}15).\end{aligned}$$
(All together this gives $15+11+7+3=36$ additional schemes to be added to the 64 tabulated on Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\], hence a total of $64+36=100$.)
If we neglect the largest nonempty oval we have 19 ovals and we may expect total reality of the quintic pencil ascribed to pass trough any (injective) distribution of the 19 basepoints on those 19 ovals (which albeit not all empty are the deepest items of the combinatorial scheme).
At this stage we hope to have exhausted the RKM-schemes of degree 8:
\[RKM-schemes-deg-8-census:lem\] Any RKM-scheme of degree $8$ has either depth $\le 2$ in which case it is catalogued as one of the $64$ schemes of Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\], or it has depth $3$ in which case it is one of the $4$ displayed schemes or one of the $36$ derived products where an outer oval is traded against an innermost oval (cf. the last 4 display formulae tabulating the corresponding $36$ Gudkov’s symbols). In particular there are exactly $64+36=100$ schemes of degree $8$ which are RKM, and hence of type I (and therefore potentially subsumed to the phenomenon of total reality). \[06.03.13\] Addendum: One of them (at least), namely $20$ is not realized as it violates the Thom conjecture (cf. [\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]]{}), or better the Rohlin formula. \[13.03.13\] [*Warning*]{}.—The list of 100 schemes is far from exhaustive, cf. remarks right after that Lemma \[RKM-scheme-ruled-out:lem\].
(pseudo-proof) Alas we are not even sure that this list is now exhaustive albeit it might be likely by using the concept of depth of a scheme (the longest chain of ovals totally ordered by inclusions of their insides, i.e. the unique bounding disc given by the Schoenflies theorem in its smooth variant implicit in Möbius 1863 [@Moebius_1863], Hilbert (tacit), Dehn ca. 1899 (unpublished), Osgood 1902, Schoenflies 1906, etc., cf. e.g. Siebenmann 2005 [@Siebenmann_2005] for some historical background and the literature cited therein).
Given any scheme of degree $8$, its depth is at most 4. If equal to 4 it contains the deep nest and so the scheme is saturated (i.e. it cannot be enlarged without corrupting Bézout). If the depth is 3 then its contains $(1,1,1)$ the nest of depth 3, and if we were not too bad in combinatorics our recipe of 36 schemes above was exhaustive. For the same vague reason, when the depth is $\le 2$ then the catalogue of 64 schemes is exhaustive.
So we have one RKM-scheme of depth 1, $63$ such schemes of depth $2$, and 36 RKM-schemes of depth 3, while the unique scheme of depth 4 (deep nest (1,1,1,1)) is not an $(M-2)$-scheme hence not an RKM-scheme.
Further, it could be that sophisticated Bézout-style obstructions à la Fiedler-Viro (\[Viro-Fiedler-prohibition:thm\]) prohibit the realizability of some of those schemes in the algebraic realm. So perhaps several items albeit schemes in the abstract sense of Rohlin are not algebraically realized. (Improvising terminology and to conflict even more with the Grothendieck-Rohlin collapse of jargon we could speak of a Hilbert-scheme (H-scheme) when the scheme is realized algebraically.) So I do not know if the 100 RKM-schemes listed above are H-schemes. ([*Update*]{} \[06.03.13\] At least one of them $20$ is not realized as follows from Thom’s conjecture, cf. Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\], or better just apply Rohlin’s formula.) Taking another naive look at the Gudkov-Rohlin table for degree $m=6$ (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) shows that $(M-2)$-schemes are subjected to no restriction and so we can speculate the same for $m=8$, in which case all our 100 schemes would be $H$-schemes. At any rate we note that enlarging $m=6$ by just 2 units, involve a de-multiplication by the factor $50$ of all RKM-schemes.
(Skip this paragraph.) Have we really listed every RKM-schemes? We could start from another elementary configuration like 2 nests of depth 2 (Gudkov symbol $\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}=(1,1)(1,1)$) and then add 16 outer ovals to get $(1,1)(1,1) 16$. Then $\chi=
1-1+1-1+16\equiv 0 \pmod 8$, while the good RKM-value is 4. So we trade outer ovals for inner ovals at depth 1, and so $\chi$ diminishes by 2 units. Hence we find first $(1,3)(1,1)14=\frac{3}{1}\frac{1}{1}14$ or $(1,2)(1,2)14=\frac{2}{1}\frac{2}{1}14$. Those are already catalogued on Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\]. Then as the Euler characteristic is adjusted we may apply the same trick of trading outer ovals for innermost ovals without changing $\chi$, yet doing so we create schemes with 2 nests, one of depth 3 and one of depth 2, so that Bézout is violated by tracing the line through their “centers”. So it seems that no new candidates for total reality occurs along this way.
How to assign basepoints? {#How-to-assign-basept:sec}
-------------------------
\[01.03.13\] As a matter of extending the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem (still unpublished and abridged RLT) to degree 8, we would like to know where to assign basepoints on each item of our list of 100 RKM-schemes. A priori not all of them are totally real in some uniform way despite the presence of Ahlfors theorem. Recall that our census of 100 RKM-schemes may be interpreted as five families:
(1).—the scheme $20$, (not realized by Thom \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\], or Rohlin’s formula).
(2).—4 schemes of the form $\frac{k}{1}\ell$,
(3).—20 schemes of the form $\frac{k}{1}\frac{\ell}1 m$,
(4).—39 schemes of the form $\frac{k}{1}\frac{\ell}1 \frac{m}{1}
n$,
(5).—36 schemes enlarging the nest of depth 3.
The class (2) consist precisely of those elements having 19 empty ovals. And those are the most direct candidates for an avatar of the RLT-theorem. However in the class (5) there is also 19 preferred deep ovals, namely all those which are either empty or if nonempty which are not maximal (for the usual order on ovals given by inclusion of their bounding discs). So there is a family of 40 schemes where a direct extension of the RLT-theorem is straightforward (at least to state, but maybe not to prove).
On the other hand it could be the case that there is an extended formulation including all those 100 schemes. At least one idea would be to consider the notion of dextrogyre oval (abridged dextro-oval).
For a dividing curve, we say that an oval $O$ is a dextro-oval if its porous-inside $O^{\star}$, that is the inside minus the insides of all ovals directly inside it, has complex orientation matching $\partial
O^{\star}$ that arising as boundary of the porous-inside.
Of course any empty oval is dextro. As an example consider the Gürtelkurve $C_4$ of degree 4 with 2 nested ovals. Then either by using the total pencil of lines through a center in the innermost of the nest or by Fiedler’s law of positive smoothings the complex orientation consist of 2 concentric circles with the “same” orientation. So the nonempty oval is not dextro, while of course the inner oval is (being empty). Here we see that the pencil of lines is total precisely when its basepoint is assigned on the dextro-oval.
We may therefore expect that the pencil of quintics on our curves of degree 8 is total whenever the $19$ basepoints are distributed on $19$ dextro-ovals supposed available.
Consider e.g. the scheme $\frac{3}{1}\frac{1}{1} 14$. Then by Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^{+}-\Pi^{-})=r-k^2=20-16=4$, the difference $\Pi^{+}-\Pi^{-}$ is 2, while $\Pi^{+}+\Pi^{-}=4$, so that $\Pi^{+}=3$ and $\Pi^{-}=1$. From this one infers (picture) that there is at least one dextro-oval which is not empty. And so we have here precisely 19 dextro-ovals.
Obviously one can extend this to some other schemes, and running through the catalogue one could dress an exhaustive list of all schemes with 19 dextro-ovals (of course 20 will not belong to it), and expect the phenomenon of total reality for the latter.
Of course this method is somewhat ad hoc as it uses the dividing character of the curve while in its purest form (say as a way of taking independence of the RKM-congruence) one would like to avoid this knowledge.
Back to degree 6: weak form of RLT {#RLT:sec}
----------------------------------
\[01.03.13\] Obviously we were moving too fast by looking at degree 8 and need to return to degree 6, to get rid off of those combinatorial difficulties while concentrating on the geometry of total reality.
Our point now is that we may be pessimistic about Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem as being false in the generality announced by Le Touzé 2013[^72] (or at least difficult to prove). Recall moreover that Rohlin’s cryptical statement is not as strong as Le Touzé (at least leaves some free room for interpretation). Even if Le Touzé’s claim of total reality is correct, it could be that total reality is easier to prove for special 8 assigned basepoints. This weaker statement would still be sufficient to detect the dividing character of curves having an RKM-scheme, i.e. $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$.
\[9th-basepointI:lem\] Suppose given a sextic $C_6$ of type $\frac{6}{1}2$. Assign $8$ basepoints on the empty ovals, and look at the corresponding pencil $\Pi$ of cubics. Then there is a 9th basepoint $p_9$ of $\Pi$. To ensure total reality of $\Pi$ it is enough that $p_9$ is either on $N$ the nonempty oval of $C_6$ or more generally in its inside $N^{\ast}$.
As 16 intersections are forced by topology, it remains only to gain 2 extra intersections for totality. If $p_9\in N$ then this is clear, and if $p_9\in N^{\ast}$ then by taking a cubic $C_3$ of $\Pi$ through a point $p\in N$ which is connected then it is easy to see for vibratory reasons that the other point $q$ of $C_3\cap
N$ (whose existence is ensured either by topology or by algebra) will dextrogyrate on $N$. This is to mean that when $C_3$ is slightly perturbed both points $p,q$ will move on $N$ along the same orientation. This suffices to ensure total reality, as both points cannot then enter in collision to disappear in the imaginary locus.
This argument uses existence of a connected cubic in any pencil of cubics. Another slight variant is to argue by contradiction by appealing to a bad cubic $C_3$, i.e. disjoint from $N$. If $p_9$ is inside $N$ then the oval of $C_3$ cannot vibrate properly, and we reach a contradiction.
So the whole problem of Rohlin-Le Touzé in weakened form can be reduced to the:
Given any $C_6$ of type $\frac{6}{1}2$, there exists an (injective) distribution of $8$ points $p_1,\dots, p_8$ on the $8$ empty ovals such that the pencil of cubics $\Pi$ interpolating them has its $9$th basepoint located in the (sealed) inside $N^{\ast}$ (i.e. $N$ included) of the nonempty oval. (In particular such a calibrated pencil is totally real.)
One could hope to prove this weaker assertion by pure topology without having to enter in fine Bézout-style considerations (upon which Le Touzé’s proof is likely to rest).
How to prove this conjecture? One very naive way would be just to use that $N$ divides the plane and so it would suffice to find two octuplets $p_i$ such that $p_9$ is resp. inside and outside $N$. By continuity of the 9th basepoint as a function $\beta$ of the 8 assigned one, we would be ensured of another intermediate octuplet such that $p_9\in N$.
A less naive way would be to assume by contradiction that $p_9$ always misses $N^{\ast}$ (the sealed interior) and then retract on the core of the residual Möbius band. This seems to give an essential (non null-homotopic) map. On the other hand as $\beta$ extends to a (16-dimensional) cell (given by allowing the $p_i$ to explore the insides of the 8 empty ovals) it must be null-homotopic. Alas the first step of argument is not easy to complete. At any rate, designating by $E_i$ the 8 empty ovals of the $C_6$, we can define the Rohlin body of the $C_6$ as the image of the Rohlin map $$\beta \colon E_1\times\dots\times E_8 \to \RR P^2$$ taking the 8 assigned basepoints of $\Pi$ to the 9th unassigned basepoint $p_9$.
This map is well-defined by virtue of the following easy lemma.
\[independent-cond:lem\] Our $8$ basepoints impose independent conditions on the space of cubics, and this holds true more generally when the basepoints are allowed to vary in the insides $E_i^{\ast}$ of the empty ovals $E_i$.
Let $\Pi_i$ be the linear system of curves passing through the first $i$ points $p_1,\dots,p_i$, $i=1,\dots, 8$. We have a filtration $$\vert 3H \vert \supset \Pi_1 \supset \Pi_2 \supset \Pi_3 \supset
\Pi_4\supset \Pi_5\supset \Pi_6\supset \Pi_7\supset \Pi_8=\Pi,$$ and one checks that all inclusions are strict by exhibiting an appropriate curve. Strictness of the first inclusions is trivial by taking appropriate configuration of 3 lines (Fig.\[TotFiltra:fig\]). For strictness of $\Pi_6\supset
\Pi_7$, consider a conic $C_2$ passing through 5 inner points plus a line through the 6th inner point, yet missing the 2 outer points $7,8$. We have to check that this $C_3$ does not pass through $7$. If it does then $C_2\cap C_6$ would consist of $5\cdot 2+2+2=14>2\cdot 6$ points as two extra intersections are created with $N$, so that Bézout is violated. For the last strictness $\Pi_7\supset \Pi_8$ one takes the same $C_2$ and aggregate the line $L$ through the points $7,8$.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Denoting by $E:=E_1\times \dots \times E_8$ the Cartesian product of the empty ovals and by $E^\ast:=E_1^{\ast}\times \dots \times
E_8^{\ast}$ that of their insides $E_i^{\ast}$, we have a factorization of $\beta$ as $$\beta\colon E \to E^{\ast}\to \RR P^2,$$ where the first map is the inclusion and the second $\beta^{\ast}$ is given by the same recipe as $\beta$. It follows that $\beta$ is null-homotopic (since $E^{\ast}$ is a 16-cell).
On the other hand we may hope to show that if $\beta$ avoids $N^{\ast}$ the inside of the empty oval that the induced co-restriction map $\bar\beta\colon E\to \RR P^2-N^\ast$ whose target is homotopically a circle is [*essential*]{} (i.e. not null-homotopic). For this it would be enough to show that the induced morphism $\pi_1(\bar\beta)$ hits a odd multiple of the generator of the $\pi_1$ of $\RR P^2-N^\ast$ which is a Möbius band. This contradiction would prove the conjecture and so total reality of a suitable pencil. However this strategy demands some geometric understanding that presently elude us.
Another more naive strategy (using less topology) would be that the map $\beta\colon E \to \RR P^2$ is open (say as a vestige of the holomorphic character of the underlying complexification). Then it would be plain that $\beta(E)$ is compact (hence closed) and open, hence equal to all $\RR P^2$ by connectedness of the latter space. (As to be soon discussed this surjectivity of $\beta$ would however conflict with the Le Touzé theorem)
At any rate we see that the problem of total reality à la Rohlin-Le Touzé in its weakened form due to us (or perhaps Rohlin depending on the interpretation of his cryptical statement) is fairly basic at first sight. We are given a curve $C_6$ of type $\frac{6}{1}2$. Given any 8 points on the empty ovals $E_i$ we have some predestination mapping $\beta$ assigning to them the 9th basepoint (by a somewhat elusive recipe) and total reality of the pencil $\Pi$ of curves passing through the 8 points is ensured if $p_9$ lands in the inside $N^{\ast}$ of the nonempty oval $N$ of $C_6$. So crudely speaking we have one chance over two that total reality holds true, for a given configuration of point. We would like to show that it is always possible to have total reality for a clever configuration of 8 points, while the stronger Le Touzé’s announcement claims it for all choices of 8 points.
Our hope is that independently of whether this stronger statement is right or false there ought to be a simpler proof of the weaker assertion by say essentially topological methods. By using the dextrogyration argument it is clear that we have the:
\[9th-basepoint-totalII:lem\] The pencil $\Pi$ is total iff $p_9$ its non-assigned basepoint belongs to $N^{\ast}$ (the sealed inside of the nonempty oval $N$).
If $p_9\in N$ total reality is clear. If $p_9$ is in the open inside (interior) of $N$, then we have an odd number of basepoints insides. Looking at the oscillation of a connected member $C_3$ of the pencil about its basepoints it results that both points of $C_3\cap N$ (there cannot be more than two by Bézout) will dextrogyre, i.e. move along the same orientation of $N$ (compare Fig.\[Dextrogyre:fig\]a). Hence no collision can occur in the long run, since by the holomorphic character of the map a point cannot reverse spontaneously its sense of motion as the curve $C_3$ is dragged along the real locus of the pencil.
[*Insertion*]{} \[11.04.13\].—We can dispense connectedness of the $C_3$ (though quite easy to arrange) as follows. Choose any point on $N$ and consider the cubic $C_3$ through this point. If $C_3\cap C_6$ is not totally real, the oval of $C_3$ is necessarily inside $N$. For vibratory reasons this oval must visit an even number of basepoints, and actually must visit all 6 assigned inner basepoints (otherwise total reality of $C_3\cap C_6$ is granted). The 9th basepoint cannot be located on the oval of the $C_3$ (else it cannot vibrate properly), hence it is situated on its pseudoline and we may again conclude dextrogyration by the slaloming argument across an odd number of basepoints (compare Fig.\[Dextrogyre:fig\]b).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Conversely if the 9th basepoint $p_9$ lies outside of $N$ then there is an even number of basepoints inside $N$ and the 2 points of a connected $C_3$ located on $N$ will anti-dextrogyre. In that case there will be a collision in the long run and total reality is foiled.
Hence the option $\beta$ surjective would contradict the Le Touzé’s theorem. Of course this is not a serious objection against her theorem because usually holomorphic maps restricted to real loci fails blatantly to be surjective (a key prototype of this phenomenon opposite to total reality, is when one projects on a line an ellipse from an outer point).
[*Optional paragraph.*]{}—Another slight variant: we may assign 7 basepoints on all safe one empty ovals and the 8th one $p_8$ on $N$. Then a little advantage is that whenever $p_8$ is collinear with 2 points of the first seven $p_i$, we get a special split cubic in the pencil $\Pi$, namely the line plus a residual conic. It is not very clear if this little advantage is really useful, and leave open this discussion.
New meditation after reception of Le Touzé’s article
----------------------------------------------------
\[02.03.13\] Yesterday (01.03.13), we conjointly received (with several other Russian colleagues Kharlamov, Viro, Nikulin, etc.) a copy of Le Touzé’s article vindicating Rohlin’s cryptical assertion of total reality of the RKM-sextics of type $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1}6$ under a pencil of cubics.
This fascinating paper helped me to rectify several misconceptions of mine about the content of her earlier announcement. In particular, she writes the following illuminating remark (Le Touzé[^73] 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics p.3]):
“By a congruence due to Kharlamov \[8\](=Kharlamov-Viro 1988/91 [@Kharlamov-Viro_1988/91]), the real schemes $\la 2 \vc 1 \la
6\ra\ra$ or $\la 6 \vc 1 \la 2\ra\ra$ are both of type I. We use this fact in the proof, so we confirm that the sextics with this two schemes do not contradict Rokhlin’s conjecture. Rokhlin claimed that he could prove the very same statement [*without*]{} using the fact that the sextics are dividing. It’s a stronger result. Unfortunately, his proof was never published and is now lost[^74].”
The Rokhlin conjecture alluded to by Le Touzé is made explicit in (p.2–3 of ), which is again worth quoting:
“The $M$-curves are clearly dividing. The so-called hyperbolic curves are also dividing. A hyperbolic curve of degree $m=2k$ or $2k+1$, consists in $k$ nested ovals, plus one pseudo-line if $m$ is odd. A pencil of lines whose base point is chosen in the innermost oval sweeps out the curve in such a way that the $m$ intersections are always real. One says that this pencil of lines is totally real with respect to the hyperbolic curve. Starting from this observation, Rokhlin \[10\](=1978 [@Rohlin_1978]) presents a beautiful argument[^75] proving that if an algebraic curve is swept out by a totally real pencil of lines, then this curve is dividing. The argument generalizes to pencils of curves of higher degrees. Can conversely any dividing curve be endowed with some totally real pencil?[^76] A weaker conjecture suggested implicitly in \[10\](=Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]) is that any curve whose real scheme is of type I may be endowed with a totally real pencil[^77]. It turns out that the $M$-curves may indeed be endowed with suitable pencils of degree $(m-2)$, see \[6\], page 348(=Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\] in this work=Gabard 2012/13 [@Gabard_2012/13], pagination may have fluctuated meanwhile).”
Le Touzé’s article clarified several misinterpretation of mine about her announced result (dated 16 février 2013, cf. Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]) but which we reproduce now as we misunderstood it:
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ samedi 16 février 2013 17:54:55
Dear Alexandre, dear other colleagues,
I have managed to prove that a pencil of cubics with eight base points distributed in the eight empty ovals of a sextic $2 \cup 1(6)$ is necessarily totally real. Details will follow soon in a paper. Yours, Séverine
In fact my misconception was to think that Le Touzé claims total reality for [*any*]{} such pencil. So shame on me for not having read her message more carefully as she expressly writes [*a pencil*]{}. For me it is still unclear if the stronger claim of total reality for all such pencils holds true. Such a strong form of total reality holds in the basic cases (pencil of rational curves of degree $\le 2$) but perhaps the case of cubics is completely different for such curves need not being connected and also there is a 9th predestined basepoint which cannot be freely assigned (magneto repulsion well-known at least since Euler 1748 as reported e.g. in Griffiths-Harris 1978 [@Griffiths-Harris_1978/94 p.673]).
Taking (deliberately) the risk of being too cavalier let us put forward the strongest form of total reality (à la Rohlin-Le Touzé but perhaps too coarsely interpreted than what those authors ever wrote):
[*Added in proof*]{} \[08.03.13\].—Meanwhile Le Touzé validated the following conjecture, for explanations, cf. her message (dated 5 March 2013 in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]).
\[SRLT:conj\] [(SRLT=Strong Rohlin-Le Touzé total reality, as misinterpreted by Gabard)]{} Given any (smooth) sextic $C_6$ of type $\frac{6}{1}2$ or $\frac{2}{1}6$ and any (injective) distribution of $8$ points on the $8$ empty oval of $C_6$, the pencil of cubics through the $8$ assigned basepoints is totally real.
First, the basic Lemma \[independent-cond:lem\] (on independency of conditions) seems to imply that the given linear system is really a pencil. The next step would be to prove (or disprove) this strong conjecture of total reality. The (more cautious) statement of Le Touzé does not imply the conjecture, yet it would be interesting to know if Le Touzé is aware of an obstruction refuting the conjecture. Let us reproduce Le Touzé’s theorem (cf. Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]):
\[LeTouze-big-thm-01-March-13:thm\] [(Le Touzé 1st March 2013, announced 17 February 2013)]{} Any $(M-2)$-sextic with real scheme $\frac{2}{1}6$ or $\frac{6}{1}2$ may be endowed with a totally real pencil of cubics with $8$ basepoints distributed in the $8$ empty ovals.
Also very interesting (though somewhat disappointing) is the issue that Le Touzé’s proof uses the RKM-congruence (as brilliantly nuanced by herself), and so does not recover the [*synthetic a priori*]{} character of Rohlin’s claim (which so becomes even more cryptical than it ever was). This dependence of Le Touzé’s proof on the RKM-congruence (which she ascribes to Kharlamov alone, like in the original text Rohlin 1978) has some overlap with thoughts I had yesterday (especially Sec.\[How-to-assign-basept:sec\]).
Le Touzé’s work makes very acute the desire to find the so-called [*lost proof of Rohlin*]{}. We thought on the question from various angles yet our present understanding is very confused due to overwork and nervous collapse (i.e., plethora of strategies and panoply of statements of varying strength).
The naive strategy (toward conjecture SRLT=(\[SRLT:conj\]) or just a weakened form thereof) at which we arrived yesterday (Sec.\[RLT:sec\]), was to use the map $\beta$ assigning to the 8 assigned basepoints the 9th (unassigned) basepoint. With this the lost proof of Rohlin could be harpooned by an essentially topological argument, yet we failed to overcome the last difficulty.
For convenience let us repeat some of our ideas along this topological tactic. Given a $C_6$ say of type $\frac{6}{1}2 $ for simplicity. Denote by $E_i$ the 8 empty ovals. For any injective distribution of points on those 8 ovals we have a pencil $\Pi$ of cubics through them (Lemma \[independent-cond:lem\]), and the latter is totally real iff the 9th basepoint of $\Pi$ lands in the (sealed) inside $N^{\ast}$ of $N$ the nonempty oval of $C_6$ (cf. Lemmas \[9th-basepointI:lem\] and \[9th-basepoint-totalII:lem\]).
Formally we can so introduce the [*$9$th basepoint map*]{} $$\beta\colon E_1\times \dots \times E_8 \to \RR P^2$$ taking the octuplet $(p_1, \dots , p_8) $ to the 9th basepoint of the pencil $\Pi$ of cubics passing through $p_1, \dots, p_8$.
A priori we could hope this mapping to be onto for reasons of Brouwer’s topological degree of a map (in homology modulo 2). Precisely if the induced morphism $H_2(\beta, \ZZ_2)$ is non-trivial, the mapping $\beta$ would be surjective (for otherwise a point is missed and the map factorizes through a punctured (hence open) Hausdorff manifold whose top-dimensional homology vanishes). Of course all this general theory can be dispensed as we just have a punctured projective plane homotopically equivalent to a circle. In this surjectivity scenario for $\beta$, it would suffice to take an inner point $p_9\in N^{\ast}$ and any lift of it via $\beta$ yields an octuplet inducing a total pencil on the $C_6$. In contrast, taking a point outside $N$ would imply that the strong form of total reality (SRLT)=(\[SRLT:conj\]) for all octuplets fails.
However it is unlikely that this Brouwer-style surjectivity criterion works because the map $\beta$ extends (still by virtue of Lemma \[independent-cond:lem\]) to the (sealed) insides $E_i^{\ast}$ (bounding discs) of the $E_i$ as to give the map $$\beta^{\ast}\colon E_1^{\ast}\times \dots \times E_8^{\ast} \to
\RR P^2,$$ also defined by taking the 8 assigned basepoints to the 9th one. Since the source of the map $\beta^{\ast}$ is a contractible $16$-cell (hypercube) the induced map $H_2(\beta, \ZZ_2)=0$ is trivial.
Still there is some hope to do something good. If the range(=image) of the map $\beta\colon E:=\times_{i=1}^8 E_i \to
\RR P^2$ meets $N^{\ast}$ we have total reality at least in the weak form (RLT). (Asserting the strong form SRLT amounts knowing that $\beta(E)\subset N^{\ast}$.) Hence to prove RLT it suffices to show that the option $\beta(E)$ disjoint form $N^{\ast}$ leads to a contradiction. Our naive idea is then that the map $\beta$ would have its range confined to the Möbius band $M:=\RR
P^2-N^{\ast}$ residual to $N^\ast$. If one is able to show that $\beta\colon E \to M$ is not null-homotopic (e.g. by showing that it hits an odd multiple of the generator of $\pi_1(M)=\ZZ$), then it would follow that $\pi_1 (\beta)$ is nontrivial, violating the above factorization $\beta^{\ast}$ through a contractible 16-cell. This contradiction would prove the weak form of RLT, i.e. existence of an octuplet inducing a total pencil.
Of course the above tactic to be completed requires a proof of the hypothetical fact that there is a loop in the 8-torus $E$ taken by $\beta$ to the nontrivial element of $\pi_1(\RR P^2)$. This seems hard to prove and requires at any rate some geometric understanding of pencil of cubics, especially of the predestination process creating the 9th basepoint as a function of the 8 assigned ones.
More pragmatically we could define the [*Rohlin body*]{} of a given $C_6$ (of RKM-type) as the image $B:=\beta (E)$. This compactum and especially its location w.r.t. the nonempty oval $N$ will govern much of the total reality question of the $C_6$. Essentially we have a trichotomy of alternatives:
$\bullet$ Either $B \subset N^{\ast}$ in which case the $C_6$ is strongly totally real, in the sense that any octuplet (in $E$) induces a totally real pencil, or
$\bullet$ $B$ overlaps $N^{\ast}$ without being contained in it, in which case some octuplets induce a totally real pencil and some other do not, or finally
$\bullet$ $B$ is disjoint of $N^{\ast}$ in which case all octuplets fail inducing a total pencil. (This is nearly incompatible with the RLT total reality phenomenon).
In the first scenario we could say that the sextic $C_6$ is [*strongly totally real*]{}, in the second that is [*(weakly) totally real*]{}, and in the 3rd case that is “anti-real”.
We believe that a continuity/degeneration argument applied to Le Touzé’s theorem (2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]) prevents the 3rd option, by letting degenerate the 8 basepoints to the empty ovals. Alas it does not seem that Le Touzé’s theorem (\[LeTouze-big-thm-01-March-13:thm\]) gives sufficiently many inner permissible basepoints so as to ensure a degeneration to the ovals.
As to the first two scenarios, we do not know if both of them do occur, and if not which one is ubiquitous. Paraphrasing, we do not know if there is a single sextic of type $\frac{6}{1}2$ (or it mirror) such that any octuplet chosen on the empty ovals induces a totally real pencil of cubics, nor can we preclude the option that all sextics verify this property.
[*Insertion*]{} \[12.04.13\].—If we interpreted correctly the last news of Le Touzé, it seems that total reality holds in the strongest possible sense, i.e. for all octuplets and even when the latter are inside of the ovals and not on themselves directly. Compare her article (2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics], plus eventually her letter in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\].
Esquisse d’un programme (déjà esquissé): the Ahlfors-Rohlin Verschmelzung {#Esquisse-dun-prog-deja-esquiss:sec}
=========================================================================
\[07.03.13\] The programme in question was probably nearly implicit in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], safe that he seems to have missed the possible connection with Ahlfors theorem. It is only in this respect that our programme bears some originality, yet presently we are unable to substantiate it in any serious fashion.
Large scale structure of total reality as it pertains to Hilbert’s 16th problem
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[04.03.13\] Let us brush a sloppy summary of the situation. Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] in somewhat cryptical fashion asserted existence of a totally real pencil of cubics on all sextics curves of type $\frac{6}{1}2$ or its mirror, yielding therefore a geometrization of the RKM-congruence asserting that $\chi\equiv
k^2+4 \pmod 8$ forces the curve of degree $2k$ being of type I. After consulting several specialists (Viro, Marin, Kharlamov, Fiedler, Le Touzé), it seems that this proof is now lost forever (or dormant in some celestial Eden). It seems extremely challenging to rediscover it if it ever existed, i.e. if Rohlin’s argument was sound and complete, as opposed to a Fermat-style cryptical allusion destined to challenge geometers. On reading the survey Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000], it seems that this is not the sole prophetical allusion of Rohlin in his fantastic 1978 survey. Also the question of estimating the number of points through which one can pass a rational connected curve is also sloppily stated by Rohlin without proof, and Degtyarev-Kharlamov consider the problem as still open. Perhaps the status of this problem evolved meanwhile.
Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics] supplied the first (and unique) written proof of a weak form of Rohlin’s total reality phenomenon, yet assuming the RKM-congruence, and so the curve to be of type I. As suggested in Le Touzé’s article (2013 ), Rohlin seems to have cultivated a large expansion of the phenomenon of total reality, as follows:
[TOR=Total reality (Le Touzé 2013, Gabard 2004 [@Gabard_2004], who ascribed this as implicit in Ahlfors 1950, and Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941], who loosely claims this to be found in Klein’s works).]{}—Any dividing (plane) curve admits a totally real pencil of curves.
[ROTOR=Rohlin’s total reality (implicit in Rohlin 1978 according to Le Touzé 2013)]{}.—Any dividing curve representing a scheme of type I admits a totally real pencil.
[RMC=Radio Monte Carlo=Rohlin’s maximality conjecture]{}.—Any real scheme of type I is maximal in the hierarchy of all schemes (of some fixed degree).
As noted by Le Touzé (always ), TOR implies ROTOR, and it is always tempting to believe that the latter implies RMC.
At the very source of that string of implications, we should have the Ahlfors theorem (ATR=abstract total reality) (which Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941] ascribes to Klein)
[ATR=Abstract total reality (Ahlfors 1950, Gabard 2004–06).]{}—Any (abstract) dividing curve $C$ (or what Klein calls an orthosymmetric Riemann surface) admits a totally real map $C\to \PP^1$ to the projective line, i.e. such that $f^{-1}(\PP^1 (\RR))=C(\RR)$. Further the degree of such a map can be arranged $\le g+1$, where $g$ is the genus of $C$. According to Gabard 2006, but still deserves to be better analyzed, there should even be such a total map of degree $\le \frac{r+(g+1)}{2}$ where $r$ is the number of real circuits of the curve $C$.
ATR should imply TOR modulo some little difficulties. A first difficulty is merely due my incompetence, of knowing if an abstract morphism from a plane curve to the line is necessarily induced by a pencil of curves. Another little difficulty is that a priori some basepoints (of a total pencil given by Ahlfors) may be imaginary conjugate, so that total reality has perhaps to include a slightly broader definition (admittedly more cumbersome) than the one used in Le Touzé. So probably the correct definition of a totally real pencil has to involve total reality of the moving points of the linear series, while the (statical) basepoints themselves being permitted to be non real(=imaginary, as we say since Tartaglia-Cardano (1535/39), essentially).
At the very end of the string ATR$\Rightarrow$TOR$\Rightarrow$ROTOR$\Rightarrow$RMC, we seem to have (accepting the elusive RMC) a sort of subordination of all highbrow congruences modulo 8, that is the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence for $M$-curves, the Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov congruence for $(M-1)$-curves (\[Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov-cong:thm\]), to the (Rohlin)-Kharlamov-Marin congruence (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]). To appreciate this fact in degree 6, contemplate once more the Gudkov-Rohlin Table(=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Then we see that (virtually) all congruences are subordinated to that of Kharlamov-Marin modulo the truth of RMC, safe the prohibition of the schemes $11$ (Hilbert) and $\frac{10}1$ (Rohn). The latter may be prohibited either via Arnold’s congruence or Rohlin’s formula.
So in crude approximation (and modulo RMC) “all” the prohibitions of Hilbert’s 16th problem (say perhaps apart from refined Bézout-style obstructions à la Fiedler-Viro virulent in degree $8$ or higher) are subsumed to the Kharlamov-Marin congruence ensuring type I whenever $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$ (abridged RKM, where R stands for Rohlin, albeit I am not sure about his exact contribution, while most writers credit Kharlamov and Marin only, cf. e.g. Kharlamov-Viro 1988/91 [@Kharlamov-Viro_1988/91]). ([*Insertion*]{} \[12.04.13\].—In Rohlin’s 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.93] the result is credited to Kharlamov alone, but it is remarked that the proof of this theorem was still unpublished.)
Accepting the above string of implications, we arrive essentially at the conclusion that all of Hilbert’s 16th problem could be governed by the phenomenon of total reality. This would be especially true if there is a geometrization of the RKM-congruence via total reality. This requires a highbrow extension of the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem to all other $(M-2)$-schemes verifying the RKM-congruence. This looks hard but according to the previous sections it is likely that the total pencil is always of order $(m-3)$ involving the so-called adjoint curves of Brill-Noether incarnating the canonical series. The resulting degree of the map would then also be in accordance with Gabard’s version of Ahlfors theorem (compare Remark \[M-2-curve-degree-like-Gabard:rem\]).
To caricature a bit, as to emphasize our philosophy (especially as it pertains to the title of the present text devoted to Ahlfors), we formulate the:
All (or most) of Hilbert’s 16th problem can be reduced to the phenomenon of total reality, due to various authors. In in its most primitive schlichtartig form, this involves primarily Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass], Schottky 1875–77 [@Schottky_1877], Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], Grunsky, etc. and in general to Klein according to Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941], Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]).
Basically the phenomenon of total reality involves a linearization in the large of the curve via the concept of branched coverings, where any dividing curve is reduced to its most primitive incarnation, namely the line $\PP^1$. Any extraterrestrial planet, possibly with handles and several equators ([*exoplanet*]{}), yet not so exotic as to share with our planet Earth the character of orthosymmetry(=type I=dividing) involving 2 distinguishable hemispheres, can be conformally shrunk to our equatorial sphere so that fibers above the equator $\PP^1(\RR)$ are totally real, i.e. on the exo-equators of the exoplanet[^78].
This is an abstract theorem yet it should imply a concrete result of total reality like the above TOR. This process could be termed [*descent*]{} from the Riemannian universe (Gromov’s prose) to the terrestrial Plato cavern (of Hilbert’s 16th problem). Especially important would be a quantitative control on the order of those total pencils obtained by descent of the abstract Riemann-Schottky-Klein-Teichmüller-Ahlfors circle maps (equivalently total maps to $\PP^1$). For a simple implementation in the case of $M$-curves, cf. our Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\], which is a trivial adaptation of the no collision principle of Riemann-Enriques-Chisini-Bieberbach-Wirtinger, etc.
Next when we move down to $(M-2)$-curves the first concrete (and nontrivial) phenomenon of total reality is the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem (abridged RLT after their author’s names or for (total) ReaLiTy). Historiographically, it is noteworthy that Rohlin does not seem to have ever been aware of Ahlfors theorem, and it seems that the gap between both traditions (Riemann vs. Hilbert) as not yet been fully bridged. It is also notorious (either from the viewpoint of geometric function theory à la Riemann, or the algebro-geometric perspective) that total reality is much easier for $M$-curves as it involves a schlichtartig semi-Riemann surface (planar orthosymmetric half). This is also evidenced by the fact that there is no collision between a group of $g+1$ distributed on the $M=g+1$ ovals. In the non-Harnack maximal case, any group of $g+1$ points moves (Riemann-Roch) but then several of them being distributed on the same oval a risky collision can occur in the long run, foiling total reality. A subtle condition of dextrogyration must be ensured to gain total reality.
So what remains to be done?
Project 1.—Try to clarify the above logical implications between ATR, TOR, ROTOR, RMT. This is basically a Riemann-ification of Hilbert’s 16th problem.
Project 2.—Try to understand better the lost proof of Rohlin, and how the statement extends to curves of higher order.
Two routes toward (Project 2) seems a priori possible making the exploration somehow elusive or at least time consuming. Either work from the scratch in the Plato cavern of plane curves grooving the plane $\PP^2$ where Hilbert’s problem is formulated, or attempt a descent of the abstract result à la Riemann-Schottky-Klein-Enriques-Chisini-Bieberbach-Grunsky-Wirtinger-Teichmüller-Ahlfors-Gabard. The method of descent looks a priori delicate but worked for (plane) $M$-curves, cf. again Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]. The drawback of this method of descent is that it would (like Le Touzé’s proof) depend upon a knowledge a priori of the dividing character of the curve. If optimistic it could be that Gabard’s theorem (2004-2006 [@Gabard_2006]) could imply total reality for dividing $(M-2)$-curves of degree $m$ via a pencil of (adjoint) curves of degree $(m-3)$ (cf. again Remark \[M-2-curve-degree-like-Gabard:rem\] for some weak evidence). As a special case it could be the case that Gabard’s theorem implies a weak-form of the RLT-theorem, yet much work along ATR$\Rightarrow$TOR is required to bridge the gap.
Rohlin’s intuition vindicable via Ahlfors? Algorithmic rôle of RMC for plotting machines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[05.03.13\] All what we have to say is now essentially well-known, but alas still in embryonal state. Let us try to make the philosophy behind the grand dessin imagined by Rohlin more palatable, than in the previous section.
What is Hilbert’s 16th problem at all about? Answer: Topology of real plane algebraic curves. But in reality we are geometers and topology is merely a weakening of what wanted to study earlier geometers (say Diophante, Euclid, Archimedes, the algebro-geometrization of Fermat, Descartes, Newton, etc.) What is called upon is an understanding of the big video game where given an equation one traces the corresponding curve in real time. One should imagine a powerful enough machine showing us in real time the curve evolving when dragging with a joystick the coefficients of the equation.
Any machine able to do this presumably request at an algorithm telling when to stop the tracing procedure as the real locus has been represented within sufficient accuracy as to infer the exact topology of the curve.
It is at this stage that Rohlin’s maximality conjecture may enter into the scene. Indeed for a given degree there exists certain distinguished schemes (in the sense of Rohlin) representing so-to-speak fully crystallized extremal shapes not susceptible of any further apparition of ovals (as small as they may be). As popularized by Rohlin 1978, this intuition of saturated schemes truly goes back to Klein 1876, yet in some primitive sense distinct from Rohlin’s interpretation.
Consider for instance a curve of degree 6 whose real locus contains a deep nest of depth 3, then it is already saturated and there cannot be any further oval. More generally we have certain schemes of type I, which according to Rohlin’s intuition ought to be maximal, hence incarnating the maximum topological complexity permissible for the given degree.
The problem of understanding this ontological truth splits in two parts: Why is it true, and why is it useful?
First we try answering the second question. As already pointed out, Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (RMC) incarnates a sort of stopping process for the plotting machine (realizing the dynamical video game or just its statical variant). From the viewpoint of Hilbert’s 16th problem, the fact that the deep nest of depth 3 is a maximal scheme of degree 6 forbids a menagerie of other schemes enlarging it which a priori could exist, but do not essentially by virtue of Bézout’s theorem. Hence Rohlin’s type I schemes (granting their maximality) are like advanced sentinels prohibiting schemes of higher topological complexity. Without such prohibitions Hilbert’s 16th problem would be even more intractable than it already is. Hence Rohlin’s maximality conjecture is a sort of upper bound for the complexity of Hilbert’s 16th problem. This should be sufficient reasons for answering the utilitarian aspect.
As to the first question, it is somehow ironical that Klein seems to have been much in touch with both aspects of our question. First, as we said he is regarded (by Rohlin himself) as a precursor of Rohlin’s maximality conjecture. Second (but this is more elusive to testify with high accuracy), Klein is credited by Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941] as the true forerunner of Ahlfors theorem. At some broader scale, all goes back to Riemann (especially if his life would not have been so short).
Rohlin’s maximality conjecture should according to our intuition (Gabard ca. 1st January 2013) reduces to Ahlfors theorem, via what Le Touzé calls the Rohlin total reality conjecture, cf. (ROTOR) of the previous section. So it is quite interesting to see that the extremal shapes (maximal schemes) of Rohlin are induced by schemes of type I, and what makes this possible is the phenomenon of total reality. Behind the latter there is of course Ahlfors circle maps, and so basically an extension of the Riemann mapping theorem. This in turn is governed by potential theory, itself concomitant of the calculus of variation of Euler-Lagrange as applied to Laplace’s equation. All this détour to make apparent that the algebro-geometric extremal principle posited by Rohlin’s maximality conjecture seems governed by another extremal principle, namely those ensuring solvability of Dirichlet’s principle. So be it via Abel (and what some like to call Hodge theory) or directly via Euler-Lagrange-Laplace-Dirichlet-Riemann-etc-Ahlfors we have the phenomenon of total reality for curves of type I, and when the scheme itself is of type I this phenomenon acquires an extra punch of universality, making the scheme maximal in the Hilbert-Gudkov-Rohlin hierarchy.
Coarsely, our thesis could be that what missed to Rohlin to complete his programme (amounting essentially to bound the complexity of Hilbert’s 16th problem) is merely a rather simple theorem of function theory (due basically to Riemann-Schottky-Klein-Teichmüller-Ahlfors). The latter in turn being not much more than a bordered avatar of Riemann existence theorem exhibiting any closed Riemann surface as a branched cover of the projective line. In other words any abstract Riemann surface (à la Riemann-Prym-Klein-Weyl-Radó) becomes a concrete one (à la Abel-Galois-Cauchy-Puiseux-Riemann-Weierstrass, etc.)
Next it comes to make this Ahlfors-Rohlin fusion a reality. Here starts alas some little difficulties which we hope to able to overcome in the future. The problem breaks in two steps:
$\bullet$ Step 1. Make the Ahlfors theorem concrete by specializing it to dividing plane curves, and conclude the existence of a total pencil of “adjoint” curves exhibiting total reality.
$\bullet$ Step 2. Prove that a totally real pencil (often abridged total pencil) implies maximality of the scheme.
Start with a scheme of type I of degree $m$. This means by definition that any curve $C_m$ representing it is of type I. By ROTOR (i.e. a concretized version of Ahlfors theorem), there is a total pencil of curves $\Pi$ of order say $k$.
This means that each curve $C_k$ of the pencil cuts $C_m$ only along real points \[as soon as they are mobile\]. \[[*Brackets Added*]{} \[12.04.13\].—Probably imaginary basepoint have to be allowed, yet the mobile part of the pencil should be totally real.\] Such a balayage seems actually to supply a fast algorithm to trace the real locus by reduction to a problem in one variable (consider e.g. the Gürtelkurve swept out by a pencil of lines), which in turn could involve the Newton root-finding algorithm via linearization. Of course in general, curves of the pencil are not rational and so this asks for a tricky extension of Newton.
Once existence of a total pencil is granted we seems nearly finished, because if there are more ovals then passing a curve of the pencil through the additional point would corrupt Bézout. The notorious bug of that argument is that we assume implicitly the over-scheme to be realized by an augmentation of the given algebraic curve, which is priori not the case. \[12.04.13\] Further a total pencil exist as well on some type I curves belonging to indefinite (yet non-maximal) schemes, compare the case of sextics. This is of course another obstruction to completing crudely the just sketched argument.
However what makes that the argument works for the deep nest or the satellites of the quadrifolium? Is it the fact that the pencil curves are rational? or is it a sort of geometric intuition of the pencil, or perhaps some canonicalness of it? Maybe to get the RMC we need not only existence of a total pencil but some sort of uniqueness (up to anodyne choices like center of perspectives chosen in the “deepest” ovals).
It seems that a scheme of type I incarnates a family of curves which are so-to-speak totally real in some canonical way, and the total pencil is virtually God-given. (Beware yet that the family in question is not necessarily connected in the hyperspace of curves, cf. Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979] or Fig.\[Marin:fig\].)
At this stage it seems important to remember a metaphor allied to total reality. Total reality means that all intersections are visible on the reals. Using a pencil means essentially that we choose a mode of vision of the curve. Basepoints are eyes of some insect having several eyes and curves of the pencil are optical rays enhancing how the animal perceives the curve (Gebilde). What is strange is that total reality amounts saying that the vision is purely transverse and so the object is in reality invisible (no apparent contour). To make this concrete consider the example of the Gürtelkurve $C_4$ (2 nested ovals) projected from an innermost point inside the deepest oval. Paraphrasing in a real life metaphor, looking at a glass of wine from outside you see its apparent contour, but when placed inside of it, it suddenly becomes invisible. This is total reality.
It is tantalizing that total reality (via Ahlfors theorem) seems so close to prove RMC(=Rohlin’s maximality conjecture) but apparently fails. As we (or better Rohlin) suspected the assumption that the scheme is of type I must impose the corresponding curves being strongly harpooned by total reality. But how to make this idea precise?
We can imagine the space of all curves representing the scheme, and think about this a universal curve of type I. There should then be a version of Ahlfors theorem for family of curves or (as Teichmüller, Ahlfors, Bers, liked to say) for a [*variable*]{} Riemann surface.
The net effect would be that total reality is genetically imbued in the curve(s) itself in such a strong fashion that the scheme is maximal. So any scheme of type I has a canonical vision making it totally real, amounting essentially to look at the world form inside the glass (or bottle) of wine. This is akin to the photoelectric effect. (Compare with the known examples of the unifolium and its satellites, alias deep nests in the jargon of Hilbert and the Russian school, or the quadrifolium, and its satellite total under a pencil of conics, plus the (elusive) Rohlin-Le Touzé phenomenon for sextics).
Once this photoelectric vision of the curve is given then nothing more can appear in the blue sky and so the scheme is maximal. This is the intuition of why RMC holds true, but how to convert this in a mathematical proof. What seems to be in demand is a mechanism which from the shape alone of the scheme identifies the total vision of the curve. This we call the photorealism or photogenism.
If a scheme is of type I then it is photogenic, and then it must be maximal.
This seems to request for a general mechanism of where to assign basepoints which would extend the total reality of unifolium, quadrifolium, and 9-folium of Rohlin-Le Touzé flashed resp. by by pencil of lines, conics and cubics. As we discussed in a earlier section the case of degree 8 schemes looks a bit puzzling, where by the RKM-congruence we have plenty of $(M-2)$-schemes of type I (ca. 100 if we were not too bad in counting). The center of vision (basepoints) are then quite hard to predict. In general there are $B=M-3$ of them (where $M$ is Harnack’s bound), so $B=19$ for $m=8$, and alas it is presently not very clear where to assign them in full generality. Making all this explicit could solve the question of giving a precise sense to our notion of photogeny, and as a by product crack the RMC.
Is this a realist strategy? Is there a more abstract argument? If not, we really need some highbrow extensions of the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem dictating us for all schemes of type I where to assign basepoints. This seems to call first for a classification of schemes of type I.
[*Long (paragraph) Insertion*]{} \[12.04.13\].—To tell the truth it should be remarked that even in the case of Rohlin-Le Touzé (degree $m=6$) we lack presently a proof of the desideratum that the vision of total reality (via the pencil of cubics) is strong enough as to ensure maximality of the scheme. (This conclusion is of course true via the Gudkov census but we lack a direct proof along the philosophy of total reality.) Perhaps Rohlin knew a proof, but as far as we know it was not published too.) Note two things. First, the more naive principle of maximality of Klein-Marin 1876/1988, when combined with Itenberg’s contraction affords another approach to the problem of RMC, which is perhaps easier to implement (though in general only based on the conjectural principle of contraction). Second, it seems that in Rohlin’s approach we lack some flexible medium to carry the enlarged scheme to the original one. This could involve trying to approximated a diffeomorphism of $\RR P^2$ by something more algebraic (maybe a Cremona transformation), but then it looks hard to finish the job. So maybe $A+B+C=Rmc^2$, i.e. Ahlfors, plus Bézout, plus Cremona implies Rohlin’s maximality conjecture. One may also wonder if there is not a much more flexible proof of RMC say akin to Rohlin’s formula where merely soft topology is used (while avoiding any contraction principle). We have then basically 2 curves, one enlarging the other, and one of which universally of type I. So one could fill the half à la Rohlin, i.e. by all discs (like in the proof of Rohlin’s formula) and inspect the intersection of the homology class of degree $k$ with the homology class of the enlarging curve. The sequel is certainly hard to complete. (It is at this stage that we had the idea of using Mangler to isotope the enlarged curve back to the original, cf. Sec.\[RMC-via-Mangler:sec\] for more detail on this strategy to attack RMC via Ahlfors, plus Mangler.)
Here we know quite little, but as said earlier in this text, it could be the case that the RKM-congruence is a universal detector of $(M-2)$-schemes of type I, while all other type I schemes arise as satellites of schemes of type I of lower orders (dividing the given degree $m$). So when $m=2p$ is twice a prime number there should be no such satellite (except that of the unifolium) and all new type I schemes would be concentrated at the $(M-2)$-level. Of course we can always make abstraction of the $M$-schemes where RMC holds trivially true. So we see some sort of higher arithmetic structure emerging in Hilbert’s 16th problem as boosted by Rohlin’s conceptions, namely a sort of inductive process that could progressively step-by-step enumerate all schemes of type I, merely as $(M-2)$-schemes of type I satisfying the RKM-congruence mod 8, or as satellite of earlier such schemes, and for all of them expect a synthetical revelation of the type by a canonical pencil à la Rohlin-Le Touzé incarnating primitive forms of the phenomenon of total reality. This deserves nearly the name of Rohlin’s divination.
As the list of photogenic schemes increases at each step $m$, we may conclude RMC by having exhibited in some ad hoc fashion the total reality of all type I schemes, and the RMC would follow step-by-steps. Needless to say this requires an immense effort, and the induction required to validate RMC in all degrees looks a priori extremely tricky.
Furthermore one could imagine that all this ascension effected in autarchy from Ahlfors theorem by using rather ad hoc optical recognition procedure via total reality. This would be parallel to the evident total reality of the satellites of the unifolium (alias deep nests) and idem for the quadrifolium, or Rohlin’s schemes of degree 6 (modulo the lost proof of Rohlin). In that case the theory would be purely Rohlinian and this is probably essentially what Rohlin envisioned.
In contradistinction, when attacking RMC, we know a priori the scheme being of type I so there could be some inference of Ahlfors theorem permitting to shortcut the (pure) total reality vision of Rohlin. This inference could increase the (ascensional) speed conceding some abstractness in the verification of RMC. Yet, as observed, even this looks hard unless we get a better grip upon the abstract total reality of Ahlfors.
A first modest (but nontrivial) exercise is to write down a clear version of Rohlin-Le Touzé’s total reality claim, and using it deduce the maximality of those 2 schemes. Here again notice that exploiting the type I assumption as do Le Touzé is not a concession since we are interested in RMC. So here total reality seems sufficiently strong (canonical) to ensure maximality of the schemes and we rederive so from Le Touzé’s result the prohibition of Gudkov, etc. (compare Table \[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). In particular RMC holds true in degree 6 for some intrinsic reason allied to total reality, as opposed to being a byproduct of the full classification of Gudkov.
A more highbrow project would be to inject the function theory à la Ahlfors in the problem. Assume given a scheme of type I, we can for each representing curve $C_m$ choose a total pencil $\Pi$ which is a line in the space $\vert kH\vert$ of $k$-tics curves. It seems plausible that the dependence can be made continuous. Then we have a universal family of photoelectric effects on $C_m$ and its deformations (possibly in different chambers of the discriminant) in which case the line $\Pi$ may jump, a priori even in different hyperspaces indexed by different $k$.
On applying the $k$-tuple Veronese embedding $v_k$—i.e. the holomorphic map $\PP^2\to \PP^N$ induced by the linear system of all k-tics—the total reality of $v_k(C_m)$ would appear under a pencil of hyperplane, hence the curve would be total real under a pencil and therefore located as several spires gyrating around the base locus (plane of codimension 2 in $\PP^N$). Now it may be expected that the phenomenon of total reality is as evident as it was for the deep nest (i.e. reduction to the case of a linear pencil) and that we may conclude maximality from Bézout (applied of course now in the Veronese hyperspace).
After this little psychoanalysis of Rohlin’s secret garden, we see that “la réalité totale nous colle à la peau.” In some sense the phenomenon ought to be so inherent to a curve belonging to a scheme of type I that maximality of the scheme should follow via the photoelectric effect. By the latter we really mean that the total pencil being saturated nothing more is allowed to appear in the blue sky without corrupting Bézout. (Prototype: a deep nest with a pencil of lines through the deepest oval, or satellites of the quadrifolium in degree $4k$.)
As a foundational detail, I always thought that possibly imaginary basepoints have to be permitted in the definition of a totally real pencil, so that merely moving points of the series are real (cf. Gabard 2004, p.7). Now I am not sure that this is really required.
In all basic examples of total reality (i.e. the deep nests interpretable as satellites of the unifolium or the quadrifolium and its satellites) the permissible basepoints ensuring total reality are always varying through a contractible union of cells as they are located inside the deepest ovals. This is probably also true for the sextics of Rohlin-Le Touzé. If this is a general phenomenon then this is a bit in line with our desideratum that the total pencil ought to be almost canonically associated to the dividing scheme of type I. If instead we are interested in total maps of lowest possible degree then we are inclined to let degenerate the basepoints on the ovals themselves and so the total pencils of this sort are parametrized rather by tori.
Another idea \[developed in Sec.\[Thom:sec\]\] is to fill the plane curve by the (orientable) membrane of $\RR P^2$, to get a certain smooth surface in $\CC P^2$ whose fundamental class is $kH\in H_2(\CC P^2, \ZZ)$. Smoothing its corner and applying Thom’s conjecture (=Kronheimer-Mrowka’s theorem) could lead to some interesting consequence. (More about this soon, cf. Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\].) Of course this is basically related to the ideas of Arnold and Rohlin.
Following our main theme, the idea would be that there is always for a scheme of type I some preferred (up to the ambiguity of a contractible space of parameters) total pencil, which we call a photon. This would naively speaking be obtained by assigning basepoints among the deepest ovals. All this works good for degrees $\le 6$. In degree $8$, the RKM-scheme 20 already affords a little problem as quintics have 19 basepoints assignable and it is not clear which ovals have to be used as “anchor” basepoints. \[But this scheme is prohibited by Thom, cf. again Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\], or argue via Rohlin’s formula.\]
Once we have a photon (i.e. a canonical total pencil) then we would like to argue that its satisfies the photoelectric effect, and RMC would follow.
In the case of $(M-2)$-curves of type I we have $B=M-3$ basepoints for a pencil of $(m-3)$-tics that are freely assignable. This is one unit less than the number of ovals and it is not clear which one can be dispensed of being marked by a basepoint. We could imagine that we could always dispense the oval whose porous inside has the most negative Euler characteristic. To make this serious compare Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\], where we find however schemes where such a dispensed oval is not uniquely defined, e.g. $\frac{6}{1}\frac{6}{1}\frac{4}{1}1$. So our recipe is certainly dubious.
We hope to have made the nature of the question clear enough. It seems first that there is no direct reduction of RMC to Ahlfors theorem, except perhaps if one as some deeper grasp upon the geometry of a total pencil (photon) so as to ensure via the photoelectric effect the RMC. As we said at the beginning of the section, the net impact would be a sort of upper bound upon the complexity of Hilbert’s 16th problem. In fact it would really be the clef de voûte yielding some insights upon the architecture of the pyramid of all schemes of some fixed degree $m$, namely type I schemes ought to be maximal element (yet not the sole ones cf. Shustin 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin]). This conjectural maximality explains nearly all prohibitions (at least in the case $m=6$).
Despite our obsession to harpoon RMC via Ahlfors’ total reality (what Viro was sceptical about) and we have only the vague suggestions of the present section to propose \[see also maybe the next Sec.\[RMC-via-Mangler:sec\]\], it may be argued that even if it worked by a clever trick, it would perhaps not be as satisfactory as the full and slow progression along the menagerie of all schemes that must be tabulated along the higher order cases of Hilbert’s 16th problem. In other words we would like to know the whole pyramid and not just its maximal element. From the viewpoint of the French revolution we would like to know the whole folk and not just the aristocrats. More seriously we want to “see” the exact geometry of the phenomenon of total reality, and not just its capitalistical/hierchical impact via the photoelectric effect upon a validation of the RMC. \[12.04.13\] Also interesting is the question of the density of schemes below the aristocrats. Of course it seems that the pyramids as dense below the maximal elements: philosophically because an aristocrat seems unable to provide for its wants without the force of all its servitors.
An isotopic attack on RMC via Mangler 1939 {#RMC-via-Mangler:sec}
------------------------------------------
\[12.04.13\] As we often experimented RMC would follow from Ahlfors if we knew that the enlarged scheme lies in a tube neighborhood of the given curve of type I. The difficulty is that a priori the enlarging curve is very distant and hard to compare to the original one. Crudely put one could expect to reduce always to the easy case by using an isotopy.
So one could try to isotope the diffeomorphism taking the small curve to its enlargement to the identity. Recall this to be possible since the mapping class group of $\RR P^2$ is trivial) \[Mangler 1939 [@Mangler_1939], often used by Teichmüller 1939\]. One could then perhaps try to extend this isotopy to $\CC
P^2$ so as to get reduced to the case where the enlargement is a small perturbation (actually the identity). In this case Ahlfors suffice to imply RMC, since Ahlfors’s pencil affords something like a transverse structure, and one gets an easy corruption with Bézout by letting pass a curve of the pencil through the new oval (not within the tube neighborhood).
The difficulty is of course to check that Bézout (which is some something algebraic rigid) is conserved during the very plastical deformation of isotopy. Yet perhaps we may reinterpret intersections homologically as to gain more flexibility. Further the isotopy could be compatible with reality (equivariant and respecting $\RR P^2$ and its complement of imaginary points). Finally due to the geometric interpretation of intersection numbers (in homology) their values will be clearly conserved by the isotopy. So we arrive at the:
There is perhaps a trivial proof of RMC via isotopy of $\RR P^2$ equivariantly extended to $\CC P^2$, so that RMC reduces trully to Ahlfors.
Suppose $C_m$ to be a curve of degree $m$ belonging to a scheme of type I. Let $D$ be a curve (of the same degree) whose scheme enlarges that of $C_m$. Fix a diffeomorphism $f$ of pair $(\RR
P^2, C_m)\to (\RR P^2, D_{\ast})$ where $D_{\ast}$ is $D$ less one oval (w.l.o.g. or more ovals in general).
By Mangler 1939, we can isotope $f$ to the identity of $\RR P^2$. Now it seems reasonable to expect that there is a natural way to extend an isotopy of $\RR P^2$ to one of $\CC P^2$. This does not need to be strongly unique but merely to exist in some sense that it preserves real parts and maybe can be chosen equivariant w.r.t. conj. I.e. carrying a point along the isotopy up to time $t\in[0,1]$ commutes with the symmetry conj. Knowing that the quotient $\CC P^2/ conj$ is $S^4$ could be of valuable assistance to construct the extended-isotopy.
So we have $f_t$ an isotopy of $\RR P^2$ say with $f_1=f$ and $f_0=id$, and $F_t$ and extension thereof to $\CC P^2$. The map $f$ pushes injectively the ovals of the first good curve $C_m$ into those of the hypothetical enlargement $D$. So operating backward in time along the isotopy $F_t$ we may retract the complexified curve $D(\CC)$ so that its real part becomes close to that of $C_m$ (and even identic to it). Denote $D_0$ this “temporal retraction”, which is a “flexible” Riemannian surface, with fundamental class still of degree $m$, by homotopy-invariance of homology.
Now by total reality the first curve being of type I it admits a total pencil, all of whose members have Bézout saturated intersections with the curve. Taking a curve $P_k$ of the pencil passing through the additional oval of $D$ isotoped backward in time ($t=0$), create one extra intersection (that will count positively because the extended isotopy is orientation preserving). All other other intersections also counts positively if we are capable arranging the large isotopy $F_t$ to respect somehow the normal bundle of $\RR P^2$. Hence the pull-back $D_0$ will have excessive number of intersections with $P_k$. The homological Bézout (i.e. Poincaré, Lefschetz, etc.) is therefore corrupted. Rohlin’s maximality conjecture would be proved by “soft topology” plus some Ahlfors.
The critique to this argument however is that a priori it applies to any dividing curve supporting a total pencil and those can be of indefinite type (yet not maximal), cf. the case of degree $m=6$ where there is plenty of such examples (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). So a serious gap requests to be filled. Maybe this will be an easy game for Alexis Marin?
To be optimistic, our argument looks so close to prove the big desideratum (=RMC) that it is certainly worth exploring further. In particular since the argument is spoiled by the objection of indefinite schemes there must be (for instance in degree $6$ where the Ahlfors total pencil are very easy to describe explicitly, e.g. for the scheme $9$ where we have the simple Fig.\[Fcubic:fig\]) there must be some obstruction to extend the Mangler isotopy to $\CC P^2$ (at least in a fashion that positivity of intersections are conserved).
Understanding this obstruction, and assuming that one capable to show that it vanishes if the scheme is of type I could afford a proof of Rohlin’s maximality conjecture. The proof is likely to involve some 4D-topology (say à la Marin-Siebenmann-Alexander).
Additional remarks on Rohlin-Le Touzé total reality for $(M-2)$-sextics of RKM-type
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[04.03.13\] We concentrate again on the case of a sextic $C_6$ of type $\frac{6}{1}2$. Before entering into the elusive technical details we recall the basic problematic yet quite elusive for the moment. We would like to show a phenomenon of total reality, yet its exact shape is still obscure to us.
Either we can use the RKM-congruence to infer a priori that the curve is of type I. Then we could apply the (abstract) result of either Ahlfors 1950, or Gabard 2006 and hope to effect a descent in the plane, to get a total pencil (hopefully of cubics). This descent probably requires some theory à la Brill-Noether as a Plato-cavern-style reflection of Riemann’s work. Alternatively, we can try to follow the (direct concrete) route proposed by Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics] depending upon a detailed analysis of pencils of cubics.
Finally we could dream to recover the lost proof of Rohlin, i.e. without assuming the dividing character while trying directly to ensure total reality of such a curve under a pencil of cubics with suitably assigned $8$ basepoints. Here the problem is that we know presently very little of how general the phenomenon of total reality is, i.e. which octuplets induce total reality. More about this soon.
A very first (extremely basic remark) that we all use subconsciously is a sort of closing lemma for algebraic curves:
\[Closing-lemma:lem\] [(Closing lemma)]{}.—Given any real plane projective curve, its real locus (if non empty) consists of closed circuits (Jordan curves in $\RR P^2$) or possible poly-cycles like figure 8, etc, or eventually an isolated singularity. Topologically it is always locally a multi-node consisting of a certain number of branches crossing transversally, or an isolated point. When the point of the real curve is non-isolated then there is at least one Jordan curve based on the given point.
This is a mixture of algebraic-geometry, implicit function theorem, and topological compactness of $\RR P^2$, and abstract classification of compact (Hausdorff) $1$-manifolds (just the circle), and some singular “graph” avatars.
This pertains to the very first step of our total reality story as follows:
Assume given 8 basepoints distributed on the empty ovals $E_i$ of our $C_6$. Let $\Pi$ be the pencil of cubics passing through the 8 points. Then all curves of $\Pi$ cut the curve $C_6$ in at least 16 real points (i.e. just 2 units less than the maximum permissible by Bézout). Say in that case that the pencil is quasi-total.
Our 8 basepoints forces 8 real intersections, but by the closing lemma each intersection has at least one companion (possibly the same yet then with a tangency and so counted with multiplicity 2). More precisely we look at one of the basepoint and choose any curve of the pencil. First note that the basepoint cannot be an isolated real point of the curve $C_3$, and so there is by the closing lemma a topological Jordan curve in the real locus of $C_3$ which has thus at least 2 intersections with the given oval.
So to reach Rohlin’s (lost) theorem just 2 real intersections are missing (quasi-total) but the gap toward total reality is still immense.
Let us first observe the following extension where basepoints are located inside the ovals, as opposed to the former case where they were directly imposed on the ovals themselves:
(Interior distribution quasi-total).— If the $8$ basepoints are assigned in the insides of the empty ovals $E_i$, then the pencil is also quasi-total, i.e. $C_3\cap
C_6$ has $16$ real intersection for all $C_3\in \Pi$.
Suppose given such a $C_3$, hence visiting the basepoints $p_i$ labelled as to be in the insides of the $E_i$. Each $p_i$ forces 2 intersections in $C_3\cap C_6$, except if the circuit of $C_3$ through $p_i$ is a small oval inside $E_i$. But then the residual pseudoline of $C_3$ has to visit all 7 remaining points, and so is forced to intercept $N$ the nonempty oval of $C_6$. We count then $14+2=16$ intersections.
[*Addendum*]{}.—Further in the above situation of a small oval of $C_3$ inside $E_i$, then for vibratory reasons the 9th basepoint of $\Pi$ has to be on it.
Hence if $p_i$ is an inner point of $N$, then (even) total reality is fulfilled (Lemmas \[9th-basepointI:lem\] and \[9th-basepoint-totalII:lem\]).
If $p_i$ is an outer point then the residual pseudoline of $C_3$ will intercept (twice) $N$, and we have again $14+2=16$ (real) intersections.
The above [*Addendum*]{} is not formally required for the proof of the lemma but we include it as it nearly give a hope to attack Rohlin’s total reality claim (abridged RTR in the sequel). Beware that Rohlin’s statement is very loose in the original paper (Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]) and so RTR should not be given a too strong connotation from the scratch. Part of the problem is to decide with which level of generality Rohlin’s claim is correct.
With our zero knowledge, we can distinguish several layers of interpretation for RTR. In its strongest form this would be the assertion:
[(Inside total reality)=ITR]{} Denote by $E_i^{\ast}$ the (sealed) insides of the empty ovals $E_i$ of the $C_6$, then the pencil $\Pi$ of cubics through any points $(p_1,\dots, p_8)\in E_1^{\ast}\times \dots\times
E_8^{\ast}$ is totally real.
Then there are several weaker variants, namely the same conclusion under the assumption that the $p_i$ belong to the ovals $E_i$ themselves. The corresponding statement is called OTR, for oval total reality. Another weakening is to relax the conclusion by claiming only total reality of $\Pi$ for a suitable octuplet, as opposed to claiming it for all of them. This relaxed form induces statements called WITR resp. WOTR, where the “W” stands for weak total reality. Though being weak this would be enough to geometrize the degree $m=6$ case of the RKM-congruence. Le Touzé’s theorem is essentially WITR, i.e. weak inside total reality modulo the fact that Le Touzé assumes (or infers from the RKM-congruence) the dividing character of the curve.
Of course we have formal implications like the following commutative square $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\textrm{ITR} & \Rightarrow & \textrm{OTR}\\
\Downarrow \quad & &\quad \Downarrow\\
\textrm{WITR} & \Leftarrow & \textrm{WOTR}.\\
\end{array}$$ Alas we know very little about those statements. We do not know if the strong versions (upper row) are true, and if foiled it could a priori still be the case that they hold true for special sextics $C_6$. To be factual at the time of writing (and modulo an understanding of Le Touzé’s proof) the only available knowledge is that the weakest form WITR holds true, and even as we said under the assumption that the curve is of type I as may be inferred from the RKM-congruence. Hence of course the whole square can be extended to a cube with another square face of statements assuming the dividing character of the curves. Modulo RKM-both squares are actually formally equivalent, but a very purist could prefer eliminating this dependency. As asserted (but never proved) by Rohlin 1978, one could hope to do more and prove one of the above statement [*ex nihilo*]{} (without reliance upon RKM).
As usual in mathematics (or in the world of bird of preys) one should always start attacking the weakest prey, namely WITR. This is a bit strange because quasi-total reality is slightly easier to establish when the basepoints are located on the ovals. Further keep in the subconscious part of the brain, that Rohlin’s hints are so vague that it is not even clear that our 4-fold strategy covers all what is permissible (for instance it could be useful to assign the basepoint not on the empty ovals but one also on $N$. This looks exotic, but perhaps useful in extreme case of desperation).
So what is a reasonable strategy toward WITR?
We may start from the observation that the pencil $\Pi$ is totally real iff the 9th basepoint $p_9$ of $\Pi$ is in the sealed inside $N^{\ast}$ of the $C_6$ (cf. Lemma \[9th-basepoint-totalII:lem\]). In reality this lemma holds true for basepoints assigned on the ovals, but probably extends to the broader setting. This leads to the following:
(Hypothetical lemma) Assume $p_9$ to be in $N^{\ast}$ and the $p_i\in E_i^\ast$ in the (sealed) insides. Then $\Pi$ is totally real (abridged total).
Let us show where the naive proof breaks down. Assume given any curve $C_3$ of the pencil. A priori $C_3$ may pass through an inner point $p_i$ (i.e. inside $N$) via a microscopic oval $E$ of $C_3$ entirely inside $E_i$, thereby creating no real intersections. Of course then the residual pseudoline of $C_3$ (i.e. $J=C_3(\RR)-E$) intercepts (twice) the nonempty oval $N$, but this affords altogether only $14+2=16$ real intersections. Note that $p_9$ has for vibratory reasons necessarily to be located on $E$, yet this is no contradiction. Perhaps I missed something and there is a more clever argument establishing this modest technical conjecture. (Le Touzé probably has some idea.)
Let us skip this conjecture, while attacking rather the stronger looking WOTR proposition, as in the latter case total reality is easier to ensure. Of course doing so we loose some freedom for the parameters as the large 16-dimensional cell $E^\ast=\times_{i=1}^8 E_i^\ast$ is traded against the 8-dimensional torus $E=\times_{i=1}^8 E_i$ but perhaps this suffices to conclude. Further the advantage would be to get a total map of lower degree, namely one corroborating Gabard’s bound.
So it is a delicate matter to decide which strategy “insides of the oval versus the ovals themselves” is more likely to give a proof of RTR (=Rohlin’s total reality claim).
For the moment we have no better idea than the topological approach sketched in one of the previous section, i.e. to ensure that the 9th basepoint lands in $N^{\ast}$, and so abort this delicate question.
Thom’s conjecture vs. Hilbert’s 16th {#Thom:sec}
====================================
\[21.03.13\] [*Warning.*]{}—All this Sec.\[Thom:sec\] is poorly organized for reasons to be soon explained. In particular it contains several mistakes, but also such fundamental results as Petrovskii inequalities, the strong-Petrovskii-Arnold inequalities. Some higher Gudkov tables of periodic elements (e.g. Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]) show the geographical impact of Petrovskii-Arnold as compared to Ragsdale’s conjecture (briefly discussed in Sec.\[Ragsdale-conj:sec\]). The importance of the Petrovskii-Arnold results was pointed out to me by Thomas Fiedler, who corrected several benign mistakes and one much more fatal bug of mine. This section should thus be read with extreme discernment, as it mixes both the best (Petrovskii-Arnold and even the marvellous construction of Itenberg-Viro) and the worst (Gabard). Several footnotes and WARNINGS should aid the reader to avoid going into the same pitfall as I did. All those WARNINGS are due to kind letters of Fiedler who fixed all my misconceptions and posed me challenging problems. We hope in the future to be able to reorganize the text in a more decent fashion after exploring in more depth a possible fascinating interplay between Hilbert, Ragsdale, Thom=Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994 [@Kronheimer-Mrowka_1994] (independently Morgan-Szabó-Taubes 1995/96 [@Morgan-Szabo-Taubes_1996]), and the work of Petrovskii-Arnold (1938–1971). Of course the interested reader is invited to consult more professional sources, notably Mikhalkin 1994 [@Mikhalkin_1994-adjunction-Thom].
\[21.03.13\] This section was built around the fundamental result $\chi\le k^2$ for any dividing curve of even degree $2k$ (Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) directly inferred from the so-called [*Thom conjecture*]{} (which he humbly considered himself as rather belonging to the folklore, compare footnote in Lee Rudolph 1984 [@Rudolph_1984]). This should have implied a clear-cut impact of Thom upon Hilbert’s 16th problem. The summit of our fictional “Gabard-Thom” theory went so far as to establish one-half of Ragsdale’s conjecture, (still open for $M$-curves) (cf. Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\]) and to show that René Thom was on his 31, i.e. can be stronger than the conjunction of all Russian estimates, congruences and formulas (due primarily to Petrovskii 1938, Gudkov 1969, Arnold 1971 and Rohlin 1972–74–78), cf. Theorem \[Alsatian-scheme-Thom-strong-Petrov-Arnold:thm\]. This would have refuted a belief of Th. Fiedler (cf. his letter ca. 13 March in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]).
$\bigstar\bigstar\bigstar$ Fortunately, Fiedler brought us back to reality by showing that our reasoning is wrong as it overlooks the issue that despite being constructed by pasting two orientable pieces—namely Klein’s orthosymmetric half married with Miss Ragsdale’s membrane bounding the curve from inside—the so-called [*Arnold surface*]{} (1971) does [*not*]{} need to be orientable. My mistake is thus nearly as basic as having overlooked that one can create (like in Klein’s bottle) non-orientable objects merely by pasting a handle to itself in a twisted fashion (this reminds me some lovely pictures in the Fuks-Rohlin “Beginner’s course on topology”).
This being confessed, most of this section is foiled and we are much indebted to Th. Fiedler for having catched our mistake at the right moment and stimulated our investigations. Albeit much of the sequel is foiled we have decided to keep it for didactic reasons. In our case it was so pathetic to write ca. 40 pages based upon a misconception without noticing anything (prior to Fiedler’s correction) that we would by no mean that somebody else do the same mistake. More positively many questions arises through Fiedler’s correction.
\(1) Where (in particular in which degree) lives the first counterexample to the Gabard-Thom bound $\chi\le k^2$ (no false modesty in calling it so since it is false) for all dividing curves? \[The sole counterexample I know is the Itenberg-Viro curve corrupting Ragsdale. This is a beautiful picture, see Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\].\]
\(2) If “Gabard-Thom” is obviously false for theoretical reasons, why does it look nearly true as implying one-half of the vestiges of Ragsdale’s conjecture?
\(3) Under which condition is the estimate $\chi\le k^2$ still true? As noted by Fiedler, the answer seems rather clear namely iff the Arnold surface is orientable. This is in turn the case iff all primitive pairs are positive. The last condition is perhaps not an “iff”. In crude approximation one could say that the Arnold surface is orientable iff the Rohlin tree is positively charged throughout. At least if this is the case (a rather stringent condition) then Arnold’s surface is orientable, and the estimate $\chi\le k^2$ holds true (cf. the limpid proof of the erroneous Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]). Further it seems evident that when the tree is positively charged throughout then the Rohlin mass $\pi-\eta$ is maximized (We always set $\pi:=\Pi^+$, $\eta:=\Pi^-$ to abridge Rohlin’s notation). Alas even that is false (more details soon).
So Thom’s conjecture has still something to say on Hilbert’s 16th yet its impact is much more subtle than expected when doing the fundamental mistake. Finally, all this section on “Thom” contains above all comparative study with the strength of Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$ (see (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\])), hence a cuneiform formalism that really pertains to Rohlin’s complex orientations as it electrifies the Hilbert tree by putting charges (distributions of signs on the edge). Albeit our exploration of this topic was completely random (and biased by our erroneous Thom estimate), it should have some independent interest. Reorganizing all this material, without loosing any bit of information will take us several weeks, and cannot be done on the present edition. We hope in the future being able to give a more structured exposition of this cuneiform formalism (Hilbert’s tree with signs, alias Rohlin’s trees) and our messy account can motivate others to clarify this.
What can be salvaged after Fiedler’s earthquake?
------------------------------------------------
\[22.03.13\] As spotted by Fiedler, we overlooked that Arnold’s surface (arising by pasting Klein’s half with Ragsdale’s membrane) is not necessarily orientable though both its constituents are. Hence one cannot apply Thom so straightforwardly. Incidentally we hope that Thom applies without trouble coming from the necessity of rounding corners. This is folklore but it would be nice to find adequate reference (Thom?, Cerf?, Hirzebruch? Milnor?, Wall?, etc.)
Though Thom was a heuristic way to discover the inequality $\chi\le k^2$ it could be that it holds true for more elementary reasons directly rooted in Rohlin’s formula. Let us briefly explain how. \[$\bigstar$ Non-sense (!) by the Itenberg-Viro counterexample in degree $10$, Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\].\]
In the sequel we use the jargon of the [*Rohlin tree*]{} which is simply Hilbert’s tree (encoding the distribution of ovals via a POSET whose order relation comes from the inclusion of the insides of the ovals), plus a decoration of its edges by signs coming from Rohlin’s complex orientations of a curve of type I (in the sense of Klein, also called latter by him orthosymmetric curves). So if any plane real curve has a Hilbert tree, dividing curves have an extra distribution of signs on the primitive edges (those of length one) which by the signs-law (\[Signs-law:lem\]) propagates consistently along the whole injective pairs of the tree.
First if Rohlin’s tree is positively charged (i.e. if all primitive pairs of ovals are positive in the sense of Rohlin) then Arnold’s surface $A=C^+\cup R$ (=Klein’s half $C^+$ pasted with Ragsdale’s (orientable) membrane $R$) is orientable too! In that case via Thom we have $\chi\le k^2$ (cf. Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\] and its simple proof). \[$\bigstar$ Okay, but as we shall soon see this may also be inferred from Rohlin’s formula!\]
\(1) Moreover for a positively charged tree we have $\pi-\eta=n$, i.e. the Rohlin mass $\pi-\eta$ is equal to the number $n$ of negative=odd ovals (compare Lemma \[Rohlin-mass-of-a-positively-charged-tree:lem\] below).
\(2) Rohlin’s formula reads $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$, hence fixes the Rohlin mass $\mu:=\pi-\eta$ which is something coming from the “complexification” (i.e. the Riemannian) in terms of real characteristics ($r$ being the number of ovals and $k=m/2$ the semi-degree). This formula can be used to express the Euler-Ragsdale characteristic $\chi=\chi(R)$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rohlin-to-Arnold-tris:eq}
\chi=p-n=(p+n)-2n&=r-2n\cr
&=[2(\pi-\eta)+k^2]-2n\cr
&=k^2+2[(\pi -\eta) -n].\end{aligned}$$
Combining (1) and (2) gives the following lemma (incidentally remarked in Fiedler’s letter):
If all primitive pairs are positive (equivalently if the Rohlin tree is positively charged) then $\chi=k^2$.
Now it seemed to us realist to posit a sort of “positive mass conjecture” (POSMASS) stipulating that the Rohlin mass $\mu:=\pi-\eta$ (of a signed tree) is maximized when all primitive edges/pairs (of the tree) are positively charged. (We formulated this some 7 days ago, cf. optionally \[positive-mass-conjecture:conj\] dated \[15.03.13\].)
This looks quite appealing, albeit we have little evidence for the truth of this principle which if optimistic could be pure combinatorics (i.e. valid for any signed tree with charges respecting the signs-law) or be merely valid for such Rohlin signed trees arising via dividing curves. Of course it could be also false in this restricted case. Our evidence for POSMASS is presently only derived from the case of chains of length $\le 4$ (or so), compare the signs-law for dyads (Fig.\[Signs-law-dyad:fig\]), that for triads (Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]), and that for tetrads (Fig.\[Signs-law-tetrad:fig\]).
If POSMASS is true, then $\pi-\eta\le n$ and so the “Euler-Rohlin formula” implies $\chi\le
k^2$, i.e. the so-called Gabard-Thom (dubious) estimate. The striking issue is that the Gabard-Thom theorem would be still true but merely as a logical consequence of Rohlin’s formula (plus some combinatorics required to validate POSMASS). In particular the intervention of Thom could be completely dispensed.
This scenario looks risky, since Fiedler claims our Gabard-Thom theorem to be wrong. However, it is\[=was\] not clear to me if there is really a counter-example to the theorem, or if Fiedler just stated wrongness of our reasoning.
More ironically I forgot to remember that even 5 days before formulating POSMASS, I had a simple counterexample to it in the combinatorial setting (cf. Theorem \[Garidi-mass-conj-is-FALSE:thm\]). Hence there is no chance to prove the Gabard-Thom estimate via pure combinatorics.
Of course, it is also likely that the POSMASS conjecture is false also for Rohlin’s trees arising as dividing curves but that deserves an explicit example. Of course the method should be to ape algebraically the combinatorial structure of a batônnet that foils the mass conjecture (cf. Fig.\[Garidi-mass-false:fig\]a). A bâtonnet is merely a usual tree with a trunk that ramifies strongly into several branches at depth 2 (look at that picture Fig.\[Garidi-mass-false:fig\]a.)
Accordingly, my first idea was to look back in Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000 Fig.13, p.154] where is traced a classical (variant of) Hilbert’s construction of an $M$-curve of degree 8, which has nearly the required bâtonnet structure. We shall soon reproduce this and related pictures. Moreover why degree 8? Simply because in degree 6 the Thom-Gabard estimate $\chi\le k^2$ (for dividing curves) is trivially true as follows by glancing at Gudkov’s table (=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) of which we merely use Hilbert’s intuition/theorem that the unnested $M$-scheme (symbol $11$) is not algebraic, plus the fact that the unnested $(M-1)$-scheme (symbol $10$) has no dividing realization (as follows from Klein’s congruence $r\equiv_2 g+1$).
This being said let us do an iterated Hilbert construction (Fig.\[HilbGab1:fig\]). This gives first the well-known $M$-sextic $C_6$ of Hilbert (symbol $\frac{9}{1}1$), and then an $M$-octic $C_8$ with $\chi=16=k^2$, and then an $M$-curve of degree 10, $C_{10}$ with only $\chi=9$, yet still $\le k^2=25$ (and congruent to it mod 8 as it should by virtue of Gudkov hypothesis). Of course the Gabard-Thom estimate $\chi\le k^2$ has little chance to be corrupted so, since it formally implies one-half of Ragsdale’s conjecture (which is still open for $M$-curves, cf. Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\]). A more intrinsic reason is of course that Ragsdale conjectures were calibrated along a deep contemplation of the Harnack-Hilbert method. Hence historical continuity is fighting against our attempt to corrupt Gabard-Thom via Hilbert’s construct. As the (maximal) $M$-Ragsdale conjecture is still open (not succumbing even to the Viro-Itenberg method, cf. Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale]), it is much more likely to corrupt Gabard-Thom by using non-maximal curves. Keep this idea in mind for later.
-2.8cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
Before adventuring outside the realm of $M$-curves, let us do also a plate for Harnack $M$-curves constructed à la Hilbert (Fig.\[HilbGab2:fig\]). Those Harnack-style curves have a priori a larger $\chi$, so better suited to corrupt Gabard-Thom. Precisely Harnack’s $M$-sextic has $\chi=9=k^2$, then we get a $C_8$ with $\chi=16=k^2$, and then a $C_{10}$ with $\chi=25=k^2$. Our depicted $C_{12}$ (right) is not the most natural choice as we switched to an “internal vibration”, while in the first steps $C_6\rightsquigarrow C_{8}\rightsquigarrow C_{10}$ we consistently opted for an external oscillation (typical of Harnack’s curves reckoned à la Hilbert). It should be noted than even the natural choice of an external vibration does not lead to a $C_{12}$ with $\chi=36$, but we were only able to get one with $\chi=28$ (in accordance with Gudkov hypothesis). \[[*Added in proof*]{}.—THIS IS A MISTAKE, due to the fact that I reported ovals at the wrong place\] However Miss Ragsdale in 1906 was surely much more clever than we are \[THIS IS NOT PERTINENT ANY MORE\], and I presume she was able to reach always the “Gabard-Thom upper-bound” $\chi\le k^2$, since this really amounts to (one-half of) her conjecture (cf. again Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\]).
-2.8cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
\[23.03.13\] Correcting my mistake, an extension of this figure (Fig.\[HilbGab2:fig\]) shows the following result (compare Hilbert 1891, and Ragsdale 1906):
There is an infinite series of $M$-curves of degree $2k$ with $\chi=k^2$. Hence if Ragsdale’s conjecture $\chi\le k^2$ (for $M$-curves) is true, then it is sharp.
Look at the first steps of Fig.\[HilbGab2:fig\] and do not commit the mistake of making an inner vibration, but choose always external vibrations as we did for $C_6, C_8$. On looking at the Hilbert trees of $C_6, C_8, C_{10}$ one easily derive the general evolution of the Hilbert tree of $C_{2k}$. Namely the number of outer ovals $9,17,27$ augments along the increment $+8, +10, +12, etc.$, while the tree itself is always pushed down one step deeper while acquiring new branches on its top, compare the windows on the figure for $C_6, C_8, C_{10}$. In view of the extreme regularity of the construction it is easy to extrapolate the nested structure of $C_{2k}$. Writing down a general formula looks not even necessary, and the Gudkov symbol will be something like $$(1,(2k-6) (1, 2k-8 (1, 2k-10) \dots )) (9+8+10+\dots+2k).$$ In more geometric terms this means that the Hilbert tree of $C_{2k}$ has $9+8+10+\dots+(2k-2)+(2k)$ outer ovals, and a trunk of length $2k-7$ with branches hanging on. It should be an easy matter to compute directly the Euler characteristic of $C_{2k}$ by the evolution rule for the tree.
\[23.03.13\] Perhaps instead of using Hilbert’s method one must really uses the more time-consuming Harnack original method which amounts to oscillate around a ground-line instead of the ellipse used in Hilbert’s method. (Incidentally, I wonder if one wants a fast-Hilbert method, if it is possible to vibrate across a split quartic, union of 2 ellipses.)
All this is good but will perhaps only confirm the intuition (of Ragsdale) that her estimate $\chi\le k^2$ is sharp for $M$-curves (if true at all). Our object is somewhat different namely to refute the Gabard-Thom estimate $\chi\le k^2$ for all dividing curves. Of course it could be possible to disprove the Ragsdale $M$-estimate $\chi\le k^2$ yet this deserves highbrow methods as even the powerful Viro-Itenberg method apparently failed as yet in that game (compare Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale]).
So how to construct non-Harnack-maximal dividing curves? As we know from degree 6 (Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\]), the trick is just to disperse the vibratory energy on several ovals, as opposed to the monopole of Hilbert’s vibration where a single oval is oscillating. By Klein’s congruence we look at $(M-2)$-curves, and in degree 6 the specimen with largest $\chi$ is the scheme with symbol $9$, which can be obtained by (a variant of) Hilbert’s method where the vibration is dispatched on 2 ovals (cf. the earlier Fig.\[GudHilb8:fig\] or right below Fig.\[HilbGab3:fig\]). It is now hoped that when iterating the construction to higher degrees we get a refutation of Gabard-Thom.
Applying this idea we get the following series of $(M-2)$-curves (Fig.\[HilbGab3:fig\]), all of type I by Fiedler’s law of smoothing dictated by (and dictating) complex orientations. Of course at the higher steps we choose again a monopolized vibration as otherwise we descend further the energetic level and reach curves with less ovals that $(M-2)$. We use now a quicker depiction mode where vibration and smoothing are depicted on the same plate at each step of Hilbert’s inductive process. Further on the diagram standing right below each curve, we depict Hilbert’s nested tree encoding the distribution of ovals, and some easy calculation of topological characteristics of the curves so constructed. The conclusion is that we get an infinite series of $(M-2)$-curves with $\chi=k^2$ as shown by the figure up to $k=7$, and the regularity of the procedure is so evident that this property easily follows for all $k$. In particular it may be observed that the number of outer ovals evolves along the progression $9, 17,
27, 39, 53,\dots$, incrementing along the progression $+8,+10,+12, +14, \dots$, while the nested portion of the tree is simply pushed down at each step, with $(2k-6)$ new branches arising on the top.
-2.8cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
Hence, modulo some arithmetical nonsense, we have proved the:
There exists an infinite series of dividing $(M-2)$-curves $C_{2k}$ of degree $2k$ with $\chi=k^2$.
Alas, this does not refute the Gabard-Thom estimate, but rather show its sharpness in case it would be correct. (Another proof of the sharpness can be derived by perturbing ellipses, cf. Remark right after Thm \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]).
(The contrast between the present regularity and the lack thereof for $M$-curves was so striking that it permitted us to correct the earlier mistake that we did above.)
But where to find a counter-example to the Gabard-Thom-bound (as promised by Fiedler’s claim of erroneousness)?
Lacking some imagination let us redo the Hilbert vibration for $M$-curves more systematically by always vibrating from “outside”. This gives Fig.\[HilbGab4:fig\]. The same regularity is observed while the general pattern becomes evident after some few iterations. Hence one can reduce to the depiction of the trees. The latter get always more profound by one unit as $k$ increments, while the number of deepest ovals belongs to the series $9, 17,
27, 39, \dots$ which regularly increments by $+8,+10, +12, \dots$ so that one can predict the future evolution of the tree, compare the very bottom row. This shows that one times over two we will attain the Gabard-Thom bound $\chi=k^2$, while of course the sign of $\chi$ oscillates between negative and positive values. It is evident that we will not get a counterexample to Gabard-Thom in this fashion.
-2.8cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
Then we can still vary more the constructions, e.g. by starting with a Harnack-like outer vibration of the $C_6$ like on Fig.\[HilbGab2:fig\] and perform the dissipation (leading to $(M-2)$-curves) at the next step on the octic $C_8$. Alas we still found $\chi=k^2$ for the $C_8$ and even the $C_{10}$ (details of the picture on p.AR-114 of my hand-notes).
At this stage one gets a bit depressed. It seems hard to corrupt Gabard-Thom by construction à la Hilbert-Harnack. Maybe I missed something, or perhaps one should appeal to more sophisticated constructions like Viro-Itenberg. \[This turned out to be the good idea, more soon.\] At this stage I cannot therefore preclude the option that the Gabard-Thom estimate is true (of course for another reason than the gapped proof given in Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]).
So a priori 4 scenarios may happen:
(1).—Either there is an elementary counterexample to Gabard-Thom(=GT) via elementary constructions à la Harnack-Hilbert (and we missed it due to lack of cleverness).
(2).—There is a counterexample to Gabard-Thom via highbrow constructions à la Viro-Itenberg. In particular it is not impossible that the counterexample described by them to Ragsdale conjecture also supplies a counterexample to Gabard-Thom. This requires controlling the type in their construction (which is an issue known to them). More on this in the next Sec.\[Itenberg-Viro-disprove-Gab-Thom:sec\].
(3).—There is a counterexample to GT via another construction not covered by Viro-Itenberg. (To my knowledge there is no theorem stating that any algebraic curve is constructible via their method.)
(4).—GT is true for another reason than the one exposed in Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]. This would however conflict with Fiedler’s assertion that our theorem is wrong. (Again, it is not clear if Fiedler merely stated wrongness in the proof or of the statement.)
The next section gives a clear-cut answer to this puzzle.
A formal disproof of Gabard-Thom via Itenberg-Viro’s patchwork and Kharlamov-Marin {#Itenberg-Viro-disprove-Gab-Thom:sec}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[23.03.13\] Here we say “formal” just because we are not yet familiar with the patchwork method due to Viro, and elaborated by Itenberg later into the so-called $T$-curves context. Of course the method has nothing formal: it is crystallography of the best stock as we shall soon see.
As we failed along strategy (1) (cf. previous section), let us look at (2) which invites to take a better look on Itenberg-Viro seminal paper (1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale]). There on Fig.2 (p.20) we find a remarkable picture reproduced below as Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]. (Our sole change is to have traced the curve with less thickness to see better what happens than on the downloaded black-and-white pdf.) Note that the underlying triangulation (by triangles all of area one-half of the unit square) is symmetrical under the dihedral group (Vierergruppe $D_4\approx \ZZ_2\times \ZZ_2$, cf. Fig.a). I did not noticed this for a while when reproducing this figure! Then there is a signs-distribution that gives the red curve via a bisection procedure of all triangles. Interpret this merely as a piecewise-linear random walk if you have zero-knowledge like the writer. Tracing this curve is a miracle, very enjoying if one is computer assisted. Representing the curve alone gives Fig.b (a simple cut-and-past operation for the computer). As usual in projective geometry the boundary of the rhombs must be identified antipodically. Hence the 5 semi-ovals on the bottom left-side of the rhombs are really just capping off (closing) the long contorted oval occupying the oriental (Siberian) part of the rhombs. We count on Fig.c precisely 29 outer ovals. Hence the curve in question (which admits an algebraic realization by a deep theorem of Viro-Itenberg) has the scheme depicted on Fig.d, hence Gudkov symbol $(1, (1,2)2)29$. The total number of oval is $r=29+6=35$, i.e. 2 unit less than $M=37$ (temperature of the human body), so its an $(M-2)$-curve. Hence there no obstruction (via Klein’s congruence) for the curve being dividing. Looking optionally at the corresponding Hilbert tree (Fig.e) gives quickly $\chi=29+1-3+2=29$ (variant look at the scheme Fig.d and apply a Swiss cheese recipe à la Euler-Listing, etc.). Arnold’s congruence mod 4 ($\chi\equiv_4 k^2$ if type I) is verified and so there still no obstruction for the curve being dividing. In the fact, the wonderful RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$ (Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin, see (\[RKM-congruence-reformulated:thm\])) implies this scheme being of type I (and so is in particular any curve representing it). Hence the Itenberg-Viro curve is of type I, and it gives the long searched counter-example to our Gabard-Thom pseudo-theorem. Probably, there is a more elementary (organical) way to deduce the dividing character of the curve by an avatar of Fiedler’s signs-law in the realm of the Viro method. (This goes back to the early 1980’s, and perhaps in the present $T$-curve context is due to Itenberg. Parenti’s thesis 199X [@Parenti_199X] looks also involved in this topic.)
-0.4cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
So we are at this stage nearly in the paradise! To add some suspense note that this curve being of type I (even in the very strong sense that its scheme is) a vague conjecture of us (founded on Ahlfors) posits that there should be a total pencil of $(m-3)$-adjoint curves exhibiting the dividing character of the curve (as in the Rohlin-Le Touzé 1978–2013 theorem for sextics, cf. Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]). According to our (hypothetical) extension of the Le Touzé theorem, there should be a pencil of septics cutting only real points on the Itenberg-Viro curve. In general, the degree of such a pencil should be in accordance with Gabard’s bound $r+p$ on the degree of circle maps (compare Sec. \[census-and-extension-of-Rohlin-Le-Touzé:sec\], the numerology therein and especially Remark \[M-2-curve-degree-like-Gabard:rem\]). Pencil of septics have 34 basepoints freely assignable (in general this is $M-3$), whereas the Itenberg-Viro curve has 33 empty ovals. So where to assign the remaining basepoint? This is again a bit puzzling. However it is likely by the philosophy of dextrogyration that Rohlin’s complex orientation plays some rôle there. Rohlin’s formula applied to the Itenberg-Viro curve gives $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=35-25=10$, hence $\pi-\eta=5$, while $\pi+\eta=7$ as is apparent from the Hilbert tree (Fig.e, where one counts 2 additional pairs of length 2). Hence $\pi=6$ and $\eta=1$. The presence of a negative pair is no surprise, as Fiedler noticed this being the gap in our (erroneous) proof of the Gabard-Thom estimate (Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]). By the signs-law (\[Signs-law:lem\]) it is clear that the (unique) negative pair must have length one (primitive pair), otherwise all primitive edges are positively charged but then there are 2 negative pairs (those of length 2). Since there is always a bijective correspondence between primitive edges of Hilbert’s tree and (non-maximal) ovals by taking the bottom of the edge which is always uniquely defined. So there is one negative oval (i.e. whose edge) and thinking more with the signs-law it seems that the negative pair is forced to be the trunk (i.e. the edge that ramifies at depth 2, cf. Fig.e and lemma below). So this ovals (negatively charged right above it) is perhaps the good candidate of where to assign the remaining basepoint. All this deserves of course to be better understood, and is digressed upon in the next section (\[Galton-brett:sec\]).
Let us verify the simple:
The Rohlin tree of the Itenberg-Viro curve has a unique negative charge that is forced to be on the trunk.
As noted above Rohlin’s formula implies that there is a unique negative pair ($\eta=1$). Since in Rohlin’s arithmetics $+\times +=-$ (i.e. consanguinity is bad) the deepest subtree of length 2 (“Y”-shaped modulo horizontal mirror) cannot be positively charged else there would be 2 negative pairs of length 2. So a primitive minus-charge must be located on the “Y”-subtree. If it is on one of the 2 branches (as opposed to being on the trunk at depth $0-1$) then by uniqueness, the trunk and the (other) branch are positively charged, so that it results a minus-charge on their concatenation (of length 2), violating $\eta=1$. So the negative charge must be located on the trunk as asserted.
Where to assign basepoints to ensure total reality: toward a Galton-Brett algorithm? {#Galton-brett:sec}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[24.03.13\] The above fantastic example of Itenberg-Viro (Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]) raises again the general problem of deciding where to assign basepoints as to ensure total reality of an adjoint pencil. This means as usual a pencil of curves cutting only real points on a dividing curve. By general topology (the image of a connected set is connected) a dividing curve presents no obstruction to the existence of such a pencil. More than that, Ahlfors theorem says that there is no conformal obstruction to do this (being after all just an extended Riemann mapping theorem for bordered surfaces of higher topological structure that the disc). If one has a total map to the line $\PP^1$ then we have a branched cover taking boundary to boundary and interior to interior, and the map restricted to the real locus is an (unbranched) covering. Accordingly there is a phenomenon of dextrogyration, i.e. when the image-point circulates once around the fundamental circle $\PP^1
(\RR)$ the counter-images (fibre) circulate along the complex orientation of the abstract curve, i.e. as the boundary of the half. (This follows of course from the holomorphic, hence sense preserving, character of Ahlfors maps.)
If the curve is plane ($C\subset \PP^2$) we would like a procedure predicting where to assign basepoints. By the above dextrogyration principle, there should be some relation with Rohlin’s complex orientations, which measure merely the (abstract) complex orientations as compared with those of rings (annuli) bounding (injective) pair of ovals in the plane $\RR P^2$. By the signs law it suffices to determine Rohlin’s signs for primitive pairs of ovals.
A vague idea is as follows. Given a plane curve we have the Hilbert tree and Rohlin’s complex orientations decorate its edges with signs (pluses, minuses). We can imagine the resulting Rohlin tree as a “Galton Brett”, i.e. Galton’s table where billiard-balls fall downwards along an inclined table interspersed with a distribution of nails. Whenever meeting one of those nails the ball is deflected left or right with probability one-half. For the usual equilateral distribution we recover so the Chinese-Pascal binomial distribution.
Our naive idea is to interpret the Rohlin tree as a Galton-Brett, while putting balls at the top of Hilbert’s tree and looking where they stabilize to an equilibrium. It is imagined that negative pairs are inclined so that balls fall gravitionally along them. Consider the example of the deep nest. We know then either from Rohlin’s formula or via the dextrogyration argument applied to the obvious pencil of lines through the deep nest that all primitive pairs are negative. Here the Galton-Brett reduces to a simple track (without branching) always negatively charged, and the ball descends right up to its bottom. This is in agreement with the fact that total reality of a lines-pencil is ensured when assigning the basepoint in the deepest oval.
Similar considerations hold for the quadrifolium and its satellites, i.e. curves of degree divisible by four and totally really under a pencil of conics.
On the next example of Rohlin-Le Touzé’s sextics, e.g. that of type $\frac{6}{1}2$, the Rohlin tree has 6 branches emanating from an oval and Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=9-9=0$ shows that $\pi=\eta=3$ since we have a total $\pi+\eta=6$ of six pairs. So our tree has 3 negative and 3 positive edges. Our metaphor of the Galton-Brett already looks dubious on that example, since it would prescribe imposing basepoints only on the $3$ ovals surmounted by a negative charge (and of course the 2 outer ovals). So it remains to understand if an improved Galton-Brett principle permits to understand where to assign basepoints in function of a knowledge of Rohlin’s complex orientations.
Maybe an improved rule is to let balls fall-down regardless of signs along the Rohlin tree, and some few of them could stay in levitation (unstable equilibrium being blocked by a needle) with special signs-property, like being surmounted by a negative charge while branching down below (so-called hyperbolic ovals). This complicated condition comes to mind when looking at the deep nest plus the above Itenberg-Viro curve, where the trunk (of the tree) is negatively charged, which is the only reasonable signs-distribution compatible with Rohlin’s formula (cf. lemma above). So on the tree of Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]e balls would fall along the Hilbert tree and stabilize of course in each “deep” ovals (aka empty ovals), but some nontrivial equilibrium arises at the vertex at depth 2 which branches further (alias hyperbolic oval). Of course hyperbolicity alone is not enough as shown by Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem. However hyperbolicity plus a negative charge above it could give an equilibrium, i.e. a place where to assign a basepoint. Though a bit complicated this looks even reasonable from the viewpoint of Galton’s Brett. Namely hyperbolic ovals are those where there is an indetermination (bifurcation) when falling down, while negativity of the edge above is a sort of kinetic impulse giving the particle some momentum forcing it to move against the bifurcation, whence an “unstable” equilibrium (crystallizing thereby in the formation of a basepoint). Of course all this need to be further explored, and to be related to more intrinsic properties of dividing plane curves. For the Viro-Itenberg curve this algorithm would assign basepoints of the septics-pencil on the 33 empty ovals (stable equilibrium) plus one unstable equilibrium materialized by the unique hyperbolic oval at depth 1. This would give the 34 basepoints required in a pencil of septics, and total reality could follow (assuming that our Galton algorithm is somehow compatible with dextrogyration or perhaps indexes formulae à la Gauss-Kronecker-Poincaré-von Dyck).
Let us look at more examples. For octics we have 4 basic schemes listed in Eq. \[octics-five-examples-RKM:eq\] which satisfy the RKM-congruence (cf. also the Gudkov table in degree 8, Fig.\[Degree8:fig\]). Those were $$\frac{16}{1}3,\quad \frac{12}{1}7,\quad \frac{8}{1}11,\quad
\frac{4}{1}15,\quad 20.$$ The last of which is precluded as it violates either Petrovskii’s inequality (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]) or the Thom estimate $\chi\le k^2$ which is valid when there is no nesting (or even the more elementary Rohlin’s formula). However for all other schemes it may be reasonable to expect total reality for a pencil of quintics which has 19 basepoints (recall that $B=M-3$ for the number of basepoints in terms of Harnack’s bound $M$) and all of them are ascribed on the empty ovals (in accordance with our Galton principle).
All those 4 RKM-schemes are just the top of the iceberg depicted on Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\]. On that tabulation we find e.g. the scheme $\frac{3}{1}\frac{1}{1}14$. This has 18 empty ovals, and we need a 19th basepoint. Our algorithm of the negative hyperbolic oval fails to give it since looking at the Hilbert tree of the scheme we see a unique hyperbolic oval, and this has no edge above it! So our method fails and deserves to be further improved. Less likely, our method could be right and then it could preclude existence of those schemes in type I. (Note that our Galton method could have killed the scheme $20$, since we expect 19 basepoints but there are 20 stable equilibriums.) Of course all this must be further explored. Summarizing, a fundamental question seems to be:
Is there a general algorithm telling one where to ascribe basepoints in terms of the combinatorics of Rohlin’s tree encoding his complex orientations? If so then we get a mechanical device extending the Rohlin-Le Touzé phenomenon of total reality for $(M-2)$-sextics satisfying the RKM-congruence.
Viceversa, suppose zero-knowledge on the complex orientations one could argue that the principle of total reality via dextrogyration is a good recipe to infer a knowledge of them (e.g. as it is flagrant in the trivial deep nest case). Presently very little seems to be known in general, and this is of course much reminiscent of the lost proof of Rohlin’s (last) theorem.
When is Arnold’s surface orientable and Ragsdale via Bieberbach-Grunsky? {#Ragsdale-via-Riemann-Bieberbach-Grunsky:sec}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[27.03.13\] Here we propose a (naive) attack upon one half of the Ragsdale conjecture for $M$-curves. This may be translated as the condition $\chi\le k^2$ (cf. Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\]). As shown by the proof of the erroneous Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\], under the additional assumption that the Arnold surface is orientable, Thom applies and gives promptly the (upper) Ragsdale estimate $\chi\le k^2$. (Note: The full Ragsdale amounts to the pinching $-k^2\le \chi \le k^2$, equivalently $\vert \chi \vert \le k^2$.)
So the core of the question is to know when Arnold’s surface is orientable. We shall discuss this soon. The net impact could be as follows:
\[Arnold-surface-M-curves-orient:conj\] The Arnold surface of a (plane) $M$-curve is always orientable. If this is true then the upper-Ragsdale estimate $\chi\le k^2$ follows from Thom (cf. proof of (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\])). $\bigstar$ Alas, the sequel shows that this naive conjecture fails already for Hilbert’s $M$-sextic, cf. Fig.\[Ragsdale:fig\]c.
Recall that the [*Arnold surface*]{} of a dividing plane curve of even degree $2k$, is simply Klein’s half of the curve filled by Ragsdale’s membrane in $\RR P^2$ bounding the curve from inside. It will be orientable iff the orientation coming from the complexification and the real Ragsdale membrane match together in some sense made precise below.
First it is plain that if Rohlin’s tree is positively charged (on all its primitive edges) then Arnold’s surface is orientable (cf. Fig.\[Ragsdale:fig\]a). This positive-charge assumption is very stringent and implies actually much more, namely that the Rohlin mass $\pi-\eta$ equals $n$ (cf. Lemma \[Rohlin-mass-of-a-positively-charged-tree:lem\]). Via Rohlin’s formula rewritten as $\chi=k^2+2[(\pi-\eta)-n]$, this implies in turn that $\chi=k^2$ exactly.
However to derive the (elusive) upper-Ragsdale-estimate $\chi\le
k^2$ from Thom, it suffices that the Arnold surface is orientable. A small picture (Fig.\[Ragsdale:fig\]b) convinces one that this holds more generally whenever Rohlin’s tree is positively charged on odd edges. Here we always define the depth of an edge in reference to that of its bottom vertex (the latter being uniquely defined by—and defining uniquely—the given edge).
-5pt0
-5pt0
So we get the:
\[Arnold-surface-orientable-iff-oddly-charged:lem\] The Arnold surface is orientable iff the Rohlin tree is positively charged on odd edges (say then that it is oddly charged).
This condition is much weaker, but still implies Ragsdale via Thom. So the upper Ragsdale $M$-conjecture (URMC) reduces to the:
\[oddly-charged-M-curves:conj\] Any $M$-curve is oddly charged.
A guess could be to use our translation (Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]) of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (truly due to Riemann 1857). The idea is that for $M$-curves we have a fairly explicit way to construct a total pencil via curves of degree $(m-2)$ assigned to pass through any distribution of $g+1$ points (one on each oval) and then by looking at the residual group of points, while assigning them as basepoints. For more details cf. proof of Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\], but we repeat the general recipe of the construction of a total series on a plane $M$-curve $C_m$ of degree $m$:
1.—Choose any distribution $D$ of $g+1$ points one on each oval.
2.—Let pass a curve $\Gamma_{m-2}=:\Gamma$ of degree $(m-2)$ through $D$.
3.—Consider $R$ the residual intersection $\Gamma\cap C$ less the points of $D$.
4.—Assign $R$ as the basepoints to the system of curves of degree $(m-2)$, and get (or choose) a pencil $\Pi$ putting the initial group $D$ into motion.
5.—By continuity the pencil $\Pi$ is total since there is only one point one each circuit hence no risk of collision. Total reality follows.
The dream would be that this procedure is sufficiently explicit as to control complex orientations, especially the issue that the Rohlin tree is oddly charged. If this is possible we get a proof of the upper-half $\chi\le k^2$ of Ragsdale’s conjecture.
Concretely, once the distribution $D$ is fixed we are assured that the curve $\Gamma$ will cut $C$ once more along each ovals (by the closing lemma for algebraic circuits \[Closing-lemma:lem\]). So we have $2(g+1)$ real intersections in $\Gamma\cap C$, i.e. $2(g+1)=2(\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}+1)=(m-1)(m-2)+2=m^2-3m+4$. This is less than the $m(m-2)$ expected.
\[disproof-orientability-Arnold-M-curve:lem\] Alas, the oddly-charged conjecture (\[oddly-charged-M-curves:conj\]) or equivalently the orientability of the Arnold surface of an $M$-curve (\[Arnold-surface-M-curves-orient:conj\]) fails already in degree 6, e.g. for Hilbert’s $M$-sextic as shown on Fig.\[Ragsdale:fig\]c.
Indeed reporting complex orientation via Fiedler’s transmission-law we get Fig.\[Ragsdale:fig\]c. Here we report first the orientation induced on the quadrifolium quartic $C_4$ from the dashed ellipse, and then smooth $C_4\cup E_2$ (where $E_2$ is the thick-ellipse) along positive orientation and receive so the complex orientations of Hilbert’s sextic. We see that among the 9 nested ovals, 5 are dominated by a positive pair, while 4 are by a negative pair. This is in accordance with Rohlin’s formula, $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=11-9=2$, i.e. $\pi-\eta=1$ while $\pi+\eta=9$. Hence $2\pi=10$, i.e. $\pi=5$ and $\eta=4$. However this refutes our very naive conjecture (\[oddly-charged-M-curves:conj\]), which diagrammatically amounts saying that the Rohlin tree is positively charged on edges at odd depths. Of course the equivalent formulation in terms of the orientability of the Arnold surface (\[Arnold-surface-M-curves-orient:conj\]) is killed in the same stroke.
So our naive strategy fails severely but of course Hilbert’s sextic has $\chi$ very negative ($\chi=2-9=-8$). Hence there is perhaps a refined argument, that can establish Ragsdale. Alas it seems that what we just did kill definitively an approach via Thom which requires orientability of the Arnold surface. Of course one could expect a tricky case distinction along the sign of $\chi$, and a strengthened conjecture stating orientability of the Arnold surface (of an $M$-curve) provided $\chi>0$. Even this is easily disproved, e.g. by looking at the $M$-curve $C_{10}$ with $\chi=9$ of Fig.\[HilbGab1:fig\], and reporting the complex orientations via Fiedler’s law. This is a bit tedious but straightforward and gives Fig.\[HilbGab1bis:fig\]. We find that the 11 edges at depth 3 splits into 7 positive pairs and 4 negative ones. Rohlin’s formula can be verified via the signs-law. However Rohlin’s tree is not positively charged at the odd depth 3.
-3.5cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
Of course one could still expect that Rohlin’s tree is oddly-charged when $\chi>k^2$, and this would suffices via Thom to prove the upper Ragsdale conjecture, but we are obviously playing a sterile arithmetical game, without much geometrical penetration. Alternatively, if not via Thom one could hope to use directly Rohlin’s formula, but again some external information on complex orientations must be gained via some deep geometric procedure. As we said one can dream that a version of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem do the job, but that deserves investigating with much more care and patience than we are presently able to do. Good luck to anybody who still feel optimistic. Of course it may also be that Ragsdale’s upper bound is just false by a highbrow variant of the Itenberg-Viro construction (though since Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale] nobody apparently ever succeeded), and it is evident that we (personally) lack experimental data to feel really secure in claiming the Ragsdale bound. Hence we abort this problem for the moment.
A sporadic (?) obstruction via Thom (Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994)
------------------------------------------------------------
\[22.03.13\] It should be noted that the first examples of Thom’s conjecture as applied to Hilbert’s 16th where we fill an unnested curve by discs are not affected by Fiedler’s correction. So in particular the “elementary” degree 3 case of Thom due to Kervaire-Milnor 1961 (yet relying massively upon Rohlin’s early work ca. 1951–52) really implies e.g. a purely topological proof of Hilbert’s intuition of nesting for $M$-sextics. This is detailed below. More generally, Thom’s conjecture forbids in all (even) degrees $m=2k\ge 6$ the possibility of an unnested $M$-curve (symbol $M$). This was first proved by Petrovskii 1938, and can also be deduced from Rohlin’s formula $0=2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$, since $M$ is strictly larger than $k^2$ when $k\ge 3$.
\[05.03.13\] Now just a little remark along the Thom conjecture (=the Kronheimer-Mrowka theorem 1994 [@Kronheimer-Mrowka_1994], abridged as “Thom” in the sequel). If we look at the $(M-2)$-scheme $20$ of degree 8, and fill one half by the canonical orientable membrane we get a surface of genus $p=1$ whose homology class is $4H$ (where $H$ is the natural generator of $H_2(\CC P^2,\ZZ)=\ZZ$, the so-called hyperplane-section, here a line). By Thom the genus should be at least as big as that of a (smooth) quartic, hence 3. So we get the:
The scheme $20$ is not realized algebraically by a curve of degree $8$ (necessarily of type I by the RKM-congruence \[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]).
If we take the scheme $\frac{4}{1}15$ (cf. Fig.\[RKM-schemes-deg-8:fig\]), then the genus of the filled membrane will be $1+4=5$ and so Thom’s principle is not violated. No other scheme of that table are prohibited by Thom.
If we look at $m=6$, and the Gudkov table Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\], especially the seminal intuition of Hilbert ca. 1891–1900, that the unnested scheme $11$ does not exist algebraically, then again we see that this may be inferred from Thom’s conjecture (meanwhile a theorem). Indeed making the canonical filling of the half Riemann surface by the canonical (Ragsdale) membrane (often denoted $\RR P^2_+$) we get a surface of genus of 0 realizing the homology class $3H$, hence violating Thom’s conjecture.
[*Insertion*]{} \[21.03.13\].—As a matter of fact, this special degree 3 case of Thom’s conjecture was first established by Kervaire-Milnor 1961 [@Kervaire-Milnor_1961 Cor.2, p.1652], basing themselves much upon Rohlin’s work of 1951–52. Thom is alas not mentioned there (KM61). So historiographically, it is worth emphasizing that the Kervaire-Milnor paper afforded so-to-speak the first purely topological proof of Hilbert’s 1891 semi-intuition/semi-theorem that a Harnack-maximal sextic cannot have all its 11 ovals unnested! Prior to this we had only available: (1) the algebro-geometric (stratificational) proofs of Hilbert (1891 unpublished) and Rohn (1911–13), plus technical refinements of the same method by Gudkov ca. 1954 and (2) the proof of Petrovskii 1933/38 half analytical (Euler-Jacobi analytical interpolation) and half topological (Morse theory). Nowadays we have of course the proof via Rohlin’s formula (1974 [@Rohlin_1974/75]), which is more elementary and purely topological (or the related one via Arnold’s congruence mod 4).
Several ideas arise.
(1).—Of course this Thom argument is not the most elementary prohibition of the scheme $10$ of degree 6, but maybe it is a good way to prohibit the scheme $20$ in degree $8$ (at least I know no other method for the moment).
[*Update*]{} \[07.03.13\]: the prohibition of this scheme $20_{8}$ follows more elementarily from Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2$ (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]), since the absence of nesting implies vanishing of the left-hand side, hence $r=k^2$ has to be a square (even $16$ as $k=4$). Private anecdote, I missed this consequence of Rohlin, and noticed it while completing the Gudkov Table in degree 8 (cf. Fig. \[Degree8:fig\]). \[21.03.13\] Another way to prohibit this scheme $20$, I presume the first historically found, involves the Petrovskii inequalities, cf. (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]).
More generally what schemes can be prohibited by Thom, and did it affords new obstructions (not known before Kronheimer-Mrowka)? The first question is answered by Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\] below \[alas erroneous!\], while the second is perhaps answered via Theorem \[Alsatian-scheme-Thom-strong-Petrov-Arnold:thm\].
(2).—Looking at this canonical membrane filling might be a good device toward understanding the RKM-congruence. (But this is merely a matter of reading once carefully the Kharlamov or Marin arguments.) At least it is tempting to calculate the self-intersection of this filled membrane with itself (or its companion) to get some numerical relation. Doing so we probably obtain nothing new but what exactly? (guess the Arnold congruence).
(3).—Despite having corners this filled Riemann surface is perhaps a good object to do conformal geometry with (compare especially works by H.A. Schwarz ca. 1870 and his student Koebe ca. 1906–07, also that of Hilb ca. 1907, NB: Hilb is not Hilbert misprinted but a less well-known conformal geometer of that period).
(4).—As this Thom argument prohibits the scheme $20$ \[true despite Fiedler’s correction\], which was an obstacle toward assigning the 19 basepoint, try to pursue the game of understanding the order 8 avatars of the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem.
About (2), let $C_m$ be a dividing curve of even degree $m=2k$. Denote by $F$ the closed surface $C_m^{+}\cup R$, where $R:=\RR
P^2_+$ is the canonical “Ragsdale” membrane (my own jargon but historically justified I think after reading Viro’s admiration for Miss Ragsdale, as US-Studentin of Klein-Hilbert). On the one hand $F$ is homologous to $kH$. To compute the self-intersection $F^2$ we use a vector field on the canonical membrane $R$, which is either transverse or tangent along the boundary and with finitely many zeros inside $R$. We have by Kronecker-Poincaré’s index formula $\sum indices= \chi$, where $\chi$ is the Euler characteristic of the membrane $R$. Multiplying this vector field by $i=\sqrt{-1}$ permits to push one replica of $F$ in general position. Naively it seems to follow that $k^2=F^2=\chi$, but one needs to count better indices....
Another remark is to write down the Thom conjecture inequality for the filled surface, and this gives the following (which is certainly not new \[$\bigstar$ but alas false!!\], cf. maybe Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000], but after a rapid check it does not seem to be explicitly stated there):
\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]—[ERRONEOUS AT LEAST IN THE WEAK SENSE THAT THERE IS A BASIC BUG, YET NO CONCRETE EXAMPLE KNOWN TO ME[^79]]{} [(Thom applied to Klein-Hilbert-Ragsdale)]{}.—Let $C_m$ be a dividing plane curve of degree $m=2k$. Then $\chi \le k^2$, where $\chi$ denotes (as usual) the Euler characteristic of the Ragsdale membrane.
[*Insertion.*]{}\[14.03.13\].—For each $k$, it is a simple matter to convince that the estimate is sharp, compare Figs.\[CCCRoses:fig\] and \[CCCRoses2:fig\].
[*Inserted (optional reading).*]{} \[16.03.13\].—At first sight this result looks so limpid \[$\bigstar$ outdated now!\] that one may wonder if it extends to higher dimensions, e.g. to algebraic surfaces in $\PP^3$. First one requires an extension of the Thom conjecture for surfaces in $\CC P^3$. This is perhaps quite straightforward, by replacing the genus by the Euler characteristic and arguing experimentally that surgeries (aka spherical modifications increase the topological complexity, yet without changing the homology class). However the second step of the proof fails blatantly as we lack a natural extension of the concept of dividing curves to surfaces though several peoples (notably Viro) proposed extensions requiring e.g. that the homology class of the real part mod 2 vanishes in the complexification. Alas, the real locus of an algebraic surface, having (real) codimension 2 in its complexification, never divides. Even if it would the Ragsdale membrane has only (real) dimension 3, hence not ideally suited to cap off the 4D-half (if it existed). This could be remedied by looking at surfaces in $\PP^4$ instead, yet we still lack a way to split the complexification by the real locus. Of course all this failure is somewhat akin to the lack of a good extension of Rohlin’s formula to surfaces as deplored upon, e.g. in Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000]. Basically, the ideas behind Rohlin and the Thom estimate above are very similar, namely to fill the “imaginary” half by a “real” membrane coming from the real locus (either the Ragsdale membrane or bounding discs for ovals).
(of (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\])).—We paste to the (bordered) half $C_m^+$ of the dividing curve $C_m$ the Ragsdale membrane $R$ which is the orientable surface bounding $C_m(\RR)$. The resulting closed surface $F$ is orientable \[HERE IS THE MISTAKE (22.03.13)!!!\] and realizes the homology class $kH$ (of halved degree) in the group $H_2(\CC P^2, \ZZ)\approx \ZZ$. It is plain[^80] that we can smooth the “corners” arising along the “cut-and-paste-locus” to get a nearby smooth surface still denoted $F$. By Thom’s conjecture (=meanwile the Kronheimer-Mrowka theorem 1994 [@Kronheimer-Mrowka_1994]) we infer that the genus of $F$, say $f:=g(F)$, is at least as big as that of a smooth curve of the same degree, i.e., $$f\ge g(k)=\textstyle\frac{(k-1)(k-2)}{2}.$$ On the other hand we have by additivity of the characteristic $$\chi(F)=\chi (C_m^+)+\chi (R).$$ For the same reason $2\chi(C_m^+)=\chi(C_m)=2-2g(m)$, and so $$\begin{aligned}
\chi&:=\chi(R)=\chi(F)-\chi (C_m^+)=(2-2f)-1+g(m)=1-2f+g(m) \cr
&\le 1-(k-1)(k-2)+\textstyle\frac{(2k-1)(2k-2)}{2}\cr
&=1-(k-1)(k-2)+(2k-1)(k-1) =1+(k-1)(k+1)=k^2.\end{aligned}$$
As already discussed, this has some interesting applications, e.g. to the prohibition of Hilbert’s (unnested) scheme $11$ of degree 6, and to the scheme $20$ in degree 8. (However all this can be more elementarily deduced from Rohlin’s formula.) \[21.03.13\] Yet compare Theorem \[Alsatian-scheme-Thom-strong-Petrov-Arnold:thm\] below for an example showing that Thom’s estimate is sometimes stronger than the conjunction of several powerful prohibitions of the Russian school (Petrovskii 1938, Gudkov 1969, Arnold 1971, Rohlin 1972/74). Also pleasant is the direct link of this estimate with those conjectured decades prior to Thom by Virginia Ragsdale in 1906 (cf. Sec.\[Ragsdale-conj:sec\]). As I was informed by Th. Fiedler, it seems that it is Mikhalkin who first investigated systematically the repercussion of Thom-Kronheimer-Mrowka upon Hilbert’s 16th.
\[07.03.13\] When we look back at Gudkov’s Table (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) we see that we get a nearly complete system of prohibition by using total reality and the Rohlin maximality conjecture (RMC), while combining it with the Thom obstruction. Remember that RMC ought to be a reliable principle whenever total reality is exhibited in some concrete fashion as in the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem. Hence what misses is a prohibition of the scheme $\frac{10}{1}$ in degree 6. One may thus wonder if there is an avatar of Thom’s conjecture for non-orientable surfaces in $\CC P^2$, able to prohibit the sextic scheme $\frac{10}{1}$ (of Rohn). Cavalier, one could put forward something like the:
Every prohibition of Hilbert’s 16th problem, is either interpretable via total reality and the allied Rohlin maximality principle to the effect that a scheme flashed by a total pencil is maximal, or is a consequence of Thom’s conjecture plus an avatar thereof including non-orientable membranes.
Of course for the sextic scheme $\frac{10}{1}$, the idea would be to fill by the non-orientable membrane (residual to the Ragsdale membrane). Further our conjecture is certainly much premature unless it takes into account advanced Bézout-style prohibitions à la Fiedler-Viro (cf. Theorem \[Viro-Fiedler-prohibition:thm\]), and Petrovskii-Arnold style prohibitions (cf. Theorems \[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\] and \[Strong-Petrovskii-Arnold-ineq:thm\]).
Ragsdale’s conjecture (Ragsdale 1906, Petrovskii 1938, Viro 1979/80, Itenberg 1993, Thom 19XX-Kronheimer-Mrowka 1995, and still open, Fiedler) {#Ragsdale-conj:sec}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[18.03.13\] As I was made (personally) aware by Fiedler (cf. his 9 March 2013 letter reproduced in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]) there ought to be some connection between Thom’s and Ragsdale’s conjecture, which is still open for $M$-curves, despite the disproofs due to Viro 1979 (=Viro 1980/80 [@Viro_1980-degree-7-8-and-Ragsdale]) and Itenberg 1993 [@Itenberg_1993-ctrex-a-Ragsdale] (cf. also Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale]). I can also remember an oral discussion with Thomas Fiedler (Geneva ca. 2011), where Thomas alluded to all the effort he invested on the Ragsdale problem (for $M$-curves). At that time (and arguably still today), I could not appreciate the full swing of this investment.
This section makes no pretence of any breakthrough in the field. It is rather a humble attempt to get familiarized with the topic. Despite our incompetence, let us make some remarks. From our viewpoint of total reality much allied to Ahlfors theorem, which quite paradoxically seems more familiar to complex/conformal geometers than purely real ones (having in mind the antagonism between Riemann-Schottky-Klein-Bieberbach-Teichmüller-Ahlfors versus Harnack-Hilbert-Ragsdale-Rohn-Petrovskii-Gudkov-Arnold-Rohlin, etc.) we could expect a connection of Ragsdale’s conjecture to our paradigm of total reality, e.g. via Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\] as a first basic step. This vague suggestion should probably not be taken too seriously. Another vague idea is to wonder if there is some connection of Ragsdale with the contraction conjectures of Itenberg-Viro, or perhaps our version thereof called CCC, cf. (\[CCC:conj\]).
After those abrupt remarks, let us be more pedestrian. First what is Ragsdale’s conjecture at all about? What is known on it and what is not? Especially does it connect to 4D-dimensional topology as the whole Hilbert problem was realized to be since Arnold’s breakthrough 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72] and the deeper investigations of Rohlin (e.g., the validation of Gudkov’s hypothesis $\chi\equiv_8 k^2$). In particular how does Ragsdale connect with Thom’s conjecture which is basically a problem of embedded differential topology of smooth surfaces in the complex projective plane $\CC P^2$ (arguably the 4-manifold simplest to visualize as the configuration space of all unordered pairs grooving on the 2-sphere). As we shall see, the link Thom-Ragsdale is very clear-cut, at least for one half of the Ragsdale conjecture (cf. Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\]). \[$\bigstar$ Okay, but alas this is based on our erroneous estimate $\chi\le
k^2$!\]
First, Virginia Ragsdale, coming from the U.S. was a student of both Klein and Hilbert in Göttingen ca. 1906. Building upon a careful inspection of the features of Harnack’s and Hilbert’s constructions (of small vibratory perturbations), she posited a conjecture on the numbers $p,n$ of even resp. odd ovals of real plane algebraic curves. Although the chance of deriving any transcendental truth from such a specific mode of generation looks a priori very meagre, the conjecture in question turned out to be extremely robust requiring at least ca. 7 decades up to being disproved \[Viro, Itenberg\]. Yet some respectable vestiges remains open, and deserves further efforts.
Via some naive acquaintance with Gudkov’s Table in degree 6 (Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) (the little that we personally have at disposal) and the allied geometry of pyramids, it seems that the Harnack and Hilbert constructions explore only the superficies of the pyramid, while the profound part of the puzzle is cracked in Gudkov’s revolution (ca. 1969–72) constructing the scheme $\frac{5}{1}5$ (which is so-to-speak the Pharaoh chamber). The Ragsdale conjecture (in modernized shape) may be stated as the estimate $\vert \chi \vert \le k^2$, hence it is perhaps not too surprising that the particular methods of Harnack and Hilbert lead to sharp estimates at least for $M$-curves. What appears historically first is likely to be the most superficial objects, hence extremalizing the functional $\vert \chi\vert$ which roughly measures the level of superficiality in the pyramid.
We state now precisely Ragsdale’s original statement (compare Ragsdale 1906 [@Ragsdale_1906]).
\[Ragsdale-conj:conj\] [(Ragsdale 1906, disproved for the number $n$ of odd ovals by Viro 1979, and in general by Itenberg 1993)]{}—For any curve of even degree $m=2k$, we have $$p\le \textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1, \qquad n\le
\textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)$$
As explained in Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale] (especially p.24) this was refuted by Viro in 1979 for the number $n$ of odd ovals, and by Itenberg in general. Moreover it is explained (in ) that Petrovskii made similar conjectures, being apparently unaware of Ragsdale’s paper. In particular the so-called [*Petrovskii inequality*]{} (cf. (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\])) is considered there as having been formerly conjectured by Ragsdale as a weak form of her conjecture. Finally it is remarked that Petrovskii himself (1938) formulated a version of Ragsdale’s conjecture (\[Ragsdale-conj:conj\]), yet more cautious by one unit than Ragsdale’s on the number $n$, so that both bounds are identic equal to $\textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1$.
Despite the disproof (by Viro-Itenberg) of both the Ragsdale and the weaker Petrovskii conjectures, the interesting quick is that the case of $M$-curves is still open (at least in the weaker formulation of Petrovskii). Precisely
[(Ragsdale’s conjecture on $M$-curves 1906, still open)]{}—For any $M$-curve of even degree $m=2k$, the Euler characteristic $\chi=p-n$ of the Ragsdale membrane is bounded by the square of the semi-degree $k$, i.e. $$\vert \chi \vert \le k^2.$$
We borrowed this from Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale p.24] (cf. also Kharlamov-Viro (undated) [@Kharlamov-Viro_XXXX-UNDATED p.15]). It should be remarked that one half of this conjecture (namely the estimate $\chi\le
k^2$) follows directly (cf. Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) from Thom’s conjecture proved by Kronheimer-Mrowka in 1994 [@Kronheimer-Mrowka_1994]. Curiously, this is not pointed out in the Itenberg-Viro 1996 article (presumably due to backlog reasons). Actually as noted in Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\], the estimate $\chi\le k^2$ holds more generally for dividing curves.
$\bigstar\bigstar$ [*Insertion.*]{} \[23.03.13\] This historical puzzle is now completely fixed by Fiedler’s correction of my mistake of overlooking that the Arnold surface is not necessarily orientable.
Some few words are required to understand why the above conjecture $\vert \chi \vert \le k^2$ is termed Ragsdale’s conjecture. (It seems to me that Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale p.24] contains a serious misprint at this place, specifically on p.24 in the statement of the Ragsdale conjecture on $M$-curves the equivalent conditions $p\ge \frac{(k-1)(k-2)}{2}$ and $n\ge\frac{(k-1)(k-2)}{2}$ looks to me erroneous; and the same misprint appears in Kharlamov-Viro [@Kharlamov-Viro_XXXX-UNDATED p.15]) Let us clarify this as follows:
\[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\] For $M$-curves of degree $2k$, the condition $\vert \chi\vert\le
k^2$ is equivalent to Petrovskii’s cautious version of the Ragsdale conjecture, i.e. $$p\le \textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1, \qquad n\le
\textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1.$$ More precisely the upper estimate on $\chi$ (i.e. $\chi\le k^2$) is equivalent to the bound on $p$, while the lower estimate $-k^2\le \chi$ is equivalent to the bound on $n$. Further the first upper bound $\chi\le k^2$ follows from Thom’s bound (cf. [Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]]{} valid more generally for any dividing curve), while the other is perhaps still open, though one could dream reducing it to Thom too, after taking maybe an orientable cover (but looks dubious), or maybe by reducing it via differential geometry to Gauss-Bonnet and Wirtinger (as discussed below).
Start from the condition $-k^2\le\chi\le k^2$. By definition $\chi=p-n$, and $M=r=p+n$. As usual Harnack’s bound is $M=g+1=\frac{(2k-1)(2k-2)}{2}+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2$. Adding $\chi=p-n\le k^2$ to $p+n=M=2k^2-3k+2$ gives $$2p\le k^2+2k^2-3k+2=3k^2-3k+2=3k(k-1)+2,$$ whence Ragsdale’s bound on $p$. On the other hand, the lower estimate on $\chi$, i.e. $-k^2\le \chi=p-n$, rewritten as $k^2\ge
n-p$, gives when added to $p+n=M$ the 2nd Ragsdale estimate on $n$.
Again the text of Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale p.24] which reads as follows, seems not perfectly up-to-date \[SORRY MY MISTAKE!\] in view of Kronheimer-Mrowka’s validation of Thom’s conjecture:
[“Which of Ragsdale’s questions are still open now? The inequalities[^81] $$p\le \textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1, \qquad n\le
\textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1.$$ have been neither proved[^82] nor disproved for $M$-curves.”]{}
As shown by Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\] (implicit in Itenberg-Viro’s article modulo the misprint), Thom’s conjecture implies one half of Ragsdale conjecture \[ALAS NOT TRUE\], namely the “positive” half concerning $p$ where it matches exactly with Petrovskii’s subsequent rediscovery of the conjecture. However the second half looks much out of reach, as it requires the estimate $-k^2\le\chi=p-n$ which seems to take care of the non-orientable (“anti-Ragsdale”) membrane (not ideally suited to Thom).
First without any idea the lower bound on $\chi=\chi(B^+)$ the characteristic of the (orientable) Ragsdale membrane $B^+$, i.e. $-k^2\le \chi$, can be transmuted using $B^+\cup B^-=\RR P^2$ into $k^2\ge\chi(B^-)-1$.
So one seems forced to study this non-orientable membrane $B^-$. One idea to explore is to arrange an orientable membrane via the usual trick of the double orienting cover (essentially due to Gauss, Möbius, Klein, Teichmüller 1939, etc.) but which have now to be implemented in some embedded fashion. This looks dubious as we do not know what to do along the boundary of $B^-$. At least the surface we get (granting that there is some natural way to construct an oriented Verdoppelung=double) would have tripodal singularities along the boundary. This is common in soap film experiment, yet a priori outside the tolerance permitted in Thom’s conjecture.
As a completely different strategy there could be a result (dual to Thom’s) stating that for smooth surfaces the genus cannot be too big when attention is confined to smooth surfaces arising by rounding corners of the half of a dividing curve capped off by the Ragsdale membrane. Of course in general the genus of a smooth surface of prescribed (homological) degree can be made as large as we please (just attach small handles), yet perhaps the surfaces that arise by the “Ragsdale filling procedure” of Klein’s orthosymmetric half (a method truly inaugurated by Arnold 1971, and Rohlin 1974, etc.) are of a special type subsumed to an upper-bound upon the genus in terms of the degree.
Recall the Wirtinger’s inequalities stating that complex projective varieties (or even Kähler manifolds) minimize the volume among differential-geometric submanifolds in a given homology class. Perhaps this combined with Gauss-Bonnet can supply the required upper-estimate upon the genus dual to Thom’s estimate, hence validating the remaining half of Ragsdale’s conjecture (as modified by Petrovskii 1938).
\[19.03.13\] In fact I do not know if the lower estimate of the pinching $-k^2\le \chi\le k^2$ holds true more generally for dividing curves as do the upper estimate $\chi \le k^2$ by virtue of Thom’s (genus) bound (Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) \[FALSE, cf. Itenberg-Viro’s curve on Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]\]. It is worth first noting that the Petrovskii jargon (1938 [@Petrowsky_1938]) of $p$ and $n$ as positive and negative ovals is quite good as they contribute positively resp. negatively to $\chi$ of the Ragsdale membrane. \[Of course the sign of $\chi$ is a matter of convention that varied through the ages, but at least now we seem to all agree about its sign ($\chi(pt)=+1$).\] Then it is also useful to keep in mind the geography of the generic Gudkov pyramid (cf. Fig.\[Pyramidragsdale:fig\]) though this is a coarse simplification of the real one which is a multidimensional (non-planar) object as soon as $m\ge 8$. Now the point is that as shown by Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\] the Thom estimate $\chi\le k^2$ and its dual $-k^2\le\chi$ formally implies for $M$-curves the Ragsdale-Petrovskii estimates $p\le P$, and $n\le P$ respectively, where we set $P:=\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1$ (for Petrovskii’s bound). Diagrammatically, this amounts saying that [*Ragsdale’s zone*]{} ($p,n\le P$) arises from Thom’s vertical strip $\vert\chi\vert\le k^2$ by reflecting vertical rays at angle of 60 degrees (cf. Fig.\[Pyramidragsdale:fig\]). We get so a pentagonal diamond (the Ragsdale diamond) that was supposed to contain all algebraic schemes by virtue of the Ragsdale-Petrovskii conjecture, which alas turned out wrong by Itenberg-Viro \[Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]\]. However on the top face of the diamond ($M$-curves) the conjecture is still robust. Further, Thom’s strip $-k^2\le \chi \le k^2$ is perhaps a container for all dividing curves \[FALSE, cf. again the Itenberg-Viro Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\]\]. This holds true on the right positive side (still Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) \[FALSE!\] but the lower estimate is presently more dubious. A look on Gudkov’s table(=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) shows that $-k^2\le\chi$ holds true in degree $6$ (actually for all curves regardless of being dividing), yet this low-degree case is probably atypical.
-5pt0
-5pt0
By analogy with Thom’s conjecture, let us put forward the:
\[anti-Thom-conj:conj\] [(Anti-Thom conjecture, due to Gabard hence probably not serious at all)]{} Any plane dividing curve of even degree $m=2k$ respects a Thom-style lower bound $$-k^2\le \chi.$$
If true this would imply the remaining half of the Ragsdale conjecture for $M$-curves (via Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\]). It would be interesting to know if the Viro-Itenberg method (viz. counter-examples) already disproves this naive conjecture. \[QUITE PROBABLE!\] If not, one would like to imagine a proof along the above sketched line (Gauss-Bonnet-Wirtinger), or via an oriented double cover of the non-orientable Ragsdale membrane $B^-$. Another third strategy would be to use an eversion (cf. Sec. \[Eversion:sec\]) to reduce to the case of Thom, yet this looks hazardous as it requires a large deformation (for which very little is known apart vague speculation of us that differential-geometric flows could do such jobs).
At this stage it is wise to contemplate the higher Gudkov’s pyramids in degree 8 and 10 (cf. resp. Figs.\[Degree8:fig\] and \[Degree10:fig\]). In degree 8 (Fig.\[Degree8:fig\]) we see that the anti-Thom line $-k^2\le \chi$ is well adjusted to the blue-rhombs materializing Arnold’s congruence mod 4 for dividing curves. Hence there is little chance to corrupt our anti-Thom conjecture (\[anti-Thom-conj:conj\]). In contrast in the degree 10 table (Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]) there is a myriad of 7 schemes adventuring outside the anti-Thom line. Those are given by the symbols $\frac{34}{1}2$, $\frac{33}{1}1$, $\frac{32}{1}$ and $\frac{31}{1}3$, $\frac{30}{1}2$, $\frac{29}{1}1$, $\frac{28}{1}$. If any one of those schemes admits a type I(=orthosymmetric) realization our conjecture is faulty. This problem can either be approached by Harnack or Hilbert’s method of vibrations or by the Viro-Itenberg patchworking. Note that it is unlikely that those schemes (in type I) are prohibited by Rohlin’s formula. \[21.03.13\] However the first 3 listed (with $\chi=-31$) are prohibited by Petrovskii’s inequality (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]).
For the 4 remaining schemes (with $\chi=-27$) one can expect to do naive Hilbert constructions like on Fig.13 of Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000], and look what happens. That requires some concentration and is differed to latter.
\[21.03.13\] It may be noted that the strong Petrovskii inequality (\[Strong-Petrovskii-Arnold-ineq:thm\]) $n-p^- \le
\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)=30$ specialized to the range of our diagram (Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]) involving simple symbols of the form $\frac{x}{1}y$ where $p^-=1$ (one hyperbolic oval, i.e. which ramifies in Hilbert’s tree) implies that $n\le 31$ and so Ragsdale line is corroborated. This does not kill any of the 4 schemes in candidature above. Note further that it must be a general issue that the strong Petrovskii-Arnold estimate gives Ragsdale in the “planar” range of the pyramid involving symbols $\frac{x}{1}y$. On the right-side of Fig.\[Degree10:fig\], the (other dual) strong Petrovskii-Arnold estimate $p-n^-\le
\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)=30+1$ (with now $n^-=0$) also kills all schemes lying “above” Ragsdale’s line. This implies a severe crumbling in the corners of the pyramid (cf. Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]) on both the right and left side of it, yet note that a priori the scheme $\frac{31}{1}3$ (if it exists) seems to imply some mysterious asymmetry in the architecture. Further this scheme, being of type I, could be an interesting place to look for a counterexample to Rohlin’s maximality conjecture.
Thom versus Rohlin
------------------
\[07.03.13\] As noticed above the Thom obstruction (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) is at least for degree 6 (and to some extend in degree 8) subsumed to Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]). The latter also prohibits the scheme $\frac{10}{1}$ (cf. Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]) of degree 6 without that we have to worry about a dubious non-orientable extension of Rohlin’s formula. One can wonder if in general the information derived from Thom (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) is always subsumed to Rohlin’s formula.
Let us notice the following:
The scheme $20$ cannot be realized in degree $8$.
Let $C_8$ be a (hypothetical) octic of type $20$. By the RKM-congruence (\[Kharlamov-Marin-cong:thm\]) or better its reformulation as (\[RKM-congruence-reformulated:thm\]) the curve has to be of type I, but then its existence is ruled out by Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]).
\[21.03.13\] Another proof of the lemma (historically sharper) is to appeal to Petrovskii’s inequality (1933/38), cf. (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]).
It is worth then comparing the Gudkov table in degree 8 (Fig.\[Degree8:fig\]), which shows that several obstructions are not readily interpreted via total reality and Rohlin’s allied principle of maximality (look especially at the upper-right corner of that figure).
Now we turn to the question of deciding if Thom is subsumed to Rohlin (at least in the realm of Hilbert’s 16th problem). Glancing at Fig.\[Degree8:fig\] the answers seems to be yes for degree 8 (at least for schemes of the form $\frac{x}{1}y$ as those represented on that figure). If true in general this should follow from a simple combinatorial argument.
If we look at the degree $m=10$ table, we find the following structure (Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]). This picture is built as usual. First one compute Harnack’s bound $M=g+1=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}+1=\frac{9\cdot 8}{2}+1=36+1=37$. So one extends the previous pyramid in degree 8, up to that level $37$. Then there is the sawtooth broken line à la Gudkov. Its upper undulations have to be adjusted at the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence $\chi\equiv k^2 \pmod 8$, here $k^2=25$. Remind that on such pictures Euler-Ragsdale’s $\chi$ may (always) be interpreted as the abscissa (“$x$-axis”, i.e. horizontal axis). So we have the $M$-schemes lying at the top of the sawtooth broken line, while in their depressions (“creux”) we have the RKM-schemes with $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$, that are forced being of type I. All this can be extended into the lattice of blue-rhombs where type I curves are forced to live (Arnold’s congruence mod 4). \[[*Warning.*]{}—On our Fig.\[Degree10:fig\] this lattice of blue rhombs is correct on the upper half, but need to be adjusted (mentally) on the lower part, where we just copied the pyramid in degree 8. However we thought it would be more instructive to see this lower object intact as to appreciate better the growing mode of pyramids.\]
By Thom (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) we have $\chi\le k^2=25$ for curves of type I. It seems (at first sight) that several schemes permissible for Rohlin are prohibited by Thom, yet the ultimate answer will be nearly the opposite one.
-3.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
First the $M$-scheme $\frac{2}{1}34$ is prohibited by Thom \[DUBIOUS INFERENCE OF THOM!\] though it is not by the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence. (Incidentally this scheme is prohibited by Petrovskii (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]).) Is this scheme prohibited by Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2$? Here we have two nested pairs hence $\Pi=\Pi^+ +\Pi^-=2$, and $r-k^2=37-25=12$. So $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le \Pi=2$ and Rohlin’s formula cannot be fulfilled. So Thom brings nothing new.
Then there is the scheme $\frac{1}{1}33$, here $\Pi=1$, so $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le \Pi=1$, but $r-k^2=35- 25=10$ and Rohlin’s formula cannot hold.
For the scheme $33$, Rohlin’s formula cannot hold as well (here $\Pi=0$ so $\Pi^+-\Pi^-=0$) and $r$ has to be a square.
Next we have the RKM-scheme $\frac{3}{1}31$. Here $\Pi=3$ and so $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le 3$, while $r-k^2=35-25=10$ and again Rohlin’s formula cannot be verified.
Below the former we have $\frac{2}{1}30$. Here $\Pi=2$ and so $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le 2$, while $r-k^2=33-25=8$ and Rohlin cannot be fulfilled.
Below, we have $\frac{1}{1}29$, where $\Pi=1$ and so $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le 1$, while $r-k^2=31-25=6$ and Rohlin cannot be fulfilled.
Below, we have $29$ which is not realized in type I, as $r$ is not a square.
Conclusion: [*all schemes prohibited by Thom are actually also prohibited by Rohlin.*]{} (at least within the range of Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]).
Perhaps Rohlin even prohibits more than Thom. The next boy is the scheme $\frac{6}{1}30$. Here $\Pi=6$, and so $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le 6$, while $r-k^2=37-25=12$ and Rohlin can by now be fulfilled. So no obstruction.
All this little experiments points out to a subsumation of Thom to Rohlin (at least for schemes of the form $\frac{x}{1}y$).
For schemes of the type $\frac{x}{1}y$, Thom’s inequality is subsumed to Rohlin’s formula.
For a scheme of this form the total number of pairs (denoted $\Pi$) is $\Pi= x$, hence $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le x$. By Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]) we infer $$2x\ge 2(\Pi^+ -\Pi^-)=r-k^2=(1+x+y)-k^2.$$ Calculating $\chi$ gives $$\chi=1-x+y\le k^2,$$ by the above estimate.
Perhaps this is even true in general, but this deserves another argument. (Update the sequel, will show that the contrary is true, cf e.g. Theorem \[Alsatian-scheme-Thom-strong-Petrov-Arnold:thm\].)
First the argument extends to schemes of the form $\frac{x}{1}\frac{y}{1}z$. Then $\Pi=x+y$, and so $\Pi^+-\Pi^-\le
\Pi=x+y$. Then writing down Rohlin’s formula $$2(x+y)\ge 2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=(2+x+y+z)-k^2,$$ from which it is inferred that $$\chi=1-x+1-y+z=2-(x+y)+z\le k^2,$$ i.e. Thom’s estimate.
And so on, it seems that the passage from Rohlin to Thom will always succeed as long as the depth is at most one. So for a counterexample we shall investigate deeper schemes.
For instance in degree 8, we can look at an extension of the $3$-nest (of depth 3). For instance the $M$-scheme $(1,1,1)19=(3\times 1) 19 $ (in our satellite notation). Here $\Pi=3$, and Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+ -\Pi^-)=r-k^2=22-16=6$ is verified for $\Pi^+=3$, and $\Pi^-=0$. But Thom’s estimate $\chi\le k^2=16$ is not (as $\chi=1-1+1+19=20$). So here we get an example where Thom is not subsumed to Rohlin. However our example is artificial being prohibited by the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence $20=\chi\equiv
k^2=16 \pmod 8$. Yet our example makes unlikely a general subordination of Thom to Rohlin’s formula alone.
A basic idea is to adjust $\chi=20$ at $\chi=16$ to make it Gudkov-Rohlin compatible. Starting from the above scheme, we may trade an outer oval for one at depth 1 in the $3$-nest. Each such trading diminishes $\chi$ by 2, and so two trades are required to adjust $\chi=16$. Doing this we get the scheme $(1,\frac{1}{1}2)17$ but alas now Thom’s inequality is verified. (It is also easy to check that Rohlin’s formula is satisfied.)
So our game becomes: find a [ *French scheme*]{}, i.e. one prohibited by Thom yet not succumbing under the armada of Russian prohibitions (Gudkov, Arnold, and above all Rohlin, and its companions especially Kharlamov-Marin).
Let us look at degree 10, and to a deep scheme, say extending the $4$-nest. As the Harnack bound is $M=g+1=9\cdot 4+1=37$, we look at the scheme $(1,1,1,1)33=(4\times 1)33$. Now $\chi=(1-1+1-1)+33=33\equiv k^2=25 \pmod 8$, i.e. the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence is fulfilled. However the scheme is prohibited by Thom’s estimate $\chi \le k^2$. Further Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+ -\Pi^-)=r-k^2=37-25=12$, and $\Pi=\binom{4}{2}=6$ (count all pair in the $4$-nest) so that $\Pi^+=6$ and $\Pi^-=0$. So Rohlin’s formula affords no prohibition. We have proven the:
\[French-scheme:thm\] [(ERRONEOUS, cf. Corrigendum right below, and for a corrected version cf. Theorem \[French-scheme-corrected:thm\] below)]{} There exists a French scheme, i.e. where Thom is not subsumed to Rohlin’s formula nor to the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence mod $8$. The scheme in question is even an $M$-scheme of degree $10$, namely $(1,1,1,1)33$. However for schemes of depth $\le 2$, Rohlin’s formula is as strong (and of course stronger) than the Thom obstruction.
\[10.03.13\] [*Corrigendum*]{}.—Th. Fiedler objected as follows to the above theorem (compare his letter dated \[09.03.13\] in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]):
“The $M$-curve of degree 10 mentioned in your Thm 28.11\[=\[French-scheme:thm\]\] is in fact ruled out by Rokhlin’s formula. I think that you have mixed $\Pi^+$ with $\Pi^-$. In a positive couple the orientations are just opposite. So, four nested ovals can contribute at most $+2$ to Rokhlin’s formula.”
After some hesitation, Gabard realized of course that Fiedler is perfectly right. Let me paraphrase his explanation differently. This is of course allied to the signs-law of Fig.\[Signs-law-dyad:fig\], but let us be more specific. If we consider a 4-nest and choose on it complex orientations forming positive pairs at each immediately successive nested ovals then we get Fig.\[Fiedler-correction:fig\]a. Pairs of length 2 becomes negative, while the unique pair of length 3 is positive again. (This is seen either by looking at the picture or if one like extracting an arithmetical law one finds the twisted signs-law of (\[Signs-law:lem\]) akin to usual arithmetics modulo a twisted sign, so $+\times
+=-$, $+\times -=+$, $-\times +=+$, $-\times -=-$. This is best memorized by saying that “mixing the genes is good, while consanguinity is bad”!) So the contribution to $\Delta
\Pi:=\Pi^{+}-\Pi^{-}$ is at most 2, and certainly never equal to $6$ (though it can be $-6$ as on Fig.\[Fiedler-correction:fig\]b).
-5pt0
-5pt0
It remains now to see how Fiedler’s remark generalizes as to see if Thom’s estimate $\chi\le k^2$ is a formal consequence of Rohlin’s formula. If not then it remains to find another (more serious!) French scheme.
The naive scenario would be that Rohlin always implies Thom (at least within the realm of Hilbert’s 16th). The only chance to prove this seems to involve an estimation of the corrector term in the “Rohlin-to-Arnold formula” , which we reproduce for convenience $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Rohlin-to-Arnold-bis:eq}
\chi=p-n=(p+n)-2n&=r-2n\cr
&=[2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)+k^2]-2n\cr
&=k^2+2(\Pi^+ -\Pi^- -n).\end{aligned}$$ So setting $\Delta \Pi:=\Pi^+ -\Pi^-$ we would like to show the:
[(Garidi[^83] mass conjecture.)]{}—It holds universally $\Delta \Pi \le n$.
Of course the conjecture is true (at least if one believes in the Kronheimer-Mrowka validation of the Thom conjecture) \[THIS REASONING IS DUBIOUS BEING BASED ON OUR FALSE THOM ESTIMATE\], so that the true meaning of our conjecture is an independent derivation of the estimate via pure combinatorics. Let us be more precise.
[A signed or [*Rohlin tree*]{} is a combinatorial object consisting of a (finite) directed set plus a distribution of signs $\pm$ on its edges such that the signs-law (of Lemma \[Signs-law:lem\]) is verified. By a directed set we mean a finite POSET such that each element as at most one superior, i.e. an element larger and minimal with this property. Recall also that the signs-law can be easily remembered by saying that consanguinity is bad, i.e. $+\times +=-$, $-\times -=-$, while mixing the genes is good $+\times -= +$ and $-\times += +$ (this exotic signs-law is the exact opposite of the usual convention).]{}
Of course this concept arises naturally when taking a smooth dividing plane (algebraic) curve $C_m$ of even degree $m=2k$ and assigning to it its Hilbert tree (encoding the distribution of ovals), while decorating the edges with signs coming from the complex orientations as in Rohlin’s formula (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]).
More precisely, given an oriented real scheme (i.e. an isotopy class of embedding of a disjoint union of circles in $\RR P^2$ supplied with an orientation), we can assign to it a Rohlin tree. Conversely it is clear that any Rohlin tree arises in this fashion. To a real plane dividing curve is assigned a complex orientation (uniquely defined up to reversal of all orientations), yet this leaves invariant the concept of positive or negative pairs as defined by Rohlin. Hence to be very formal, we have first the map taking a dividing real curve to its real scheme with complex orientation, which is a “projectively” oriented real scheme (weel-defined up to reversing all orientations), which in turn defines unambiguously a Rohlin tree. Diagrammatically, $$\textrm{dividing plane} \to \textrm{oriented real schemes } \to
\textrm{Rohlin trees}.$$ -23pt $$\hskip-80pt\textrm{curves ($m=2k$) \hskip0.5cm (mod reversion) }$$
So the precise meaning of the above conjecture is that any Rohlin tree (not necessarily induced by a real algebraic curve) satisfies the above estimate $\Delta \Pi \le n$. After several hours of attempting to prove this “Garidi mass conjecture”, one finds a simple counterexample as follows.
To keep $n$ small (say $n=1$), we consider a tree with only one vertex at depth 1, but ramifying (violently) at depth 2 (cf Fig.\[Garidi-mass-false:fig\]a).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Let us introduce the sign distribution of Fig.a, and denote by $p_2$ the number of (even) vertices at depth 2. We find by using the twisted signs-law: $$\Delta \Pi= (-1)+p_2+p_2=2p_2-1.$$ (Here the first $-1$ comes from the top edge (visible on Fig.a), the second term $p_2$ is the contribution of the $+$-signs visible on Fig.a), while the 3rd term $p_2$ comes from the $p_2$ pairs of length 2 obtained by concatenation of elementary edges. The signs-law in question (based on Fig.\[Signs-law-dyad:fig\]) is the same as the usual one modulo a twist by $-1$. So here $+\times
-$ gives $+$ (the opposite of the usual sign rule!). The displayed formula is justified.)
Now as soon as $p_2\ge 2$, the above $\Delta \Pi $ will be $\ge
3$, foiling thereby the mass conjecture.
[*Insertion*]{} \[22.03.13\] For later reference, let us state this as a:
\[Garidi-mass-conj-is-FALSE:thm\] The Garidi mass conjecture is false, and therefore the positive mass conjecture (\[positive-mass-conjecture:conj\]) is erroneous too. For a simple counterexample cf. Fig.\[Garidi-mass-false:fig\]a right above.
This basic corruption aids us to detect a more serious French scheme (where Thom is not subsumed to Rohlin). As above we consider curves of degree $m=10$. Harnack’s bound is $M=g+1=\frac{9\cdot 8}{2}+1=9\cdot 4 +1=37$ (temperature of the human body). Our tree converts then to the scheme of Fig.\[Garidi-mass-false:fig\]b, where we see 2 nested ovals containing 35 unnested ones. The characteristic of the “Ragsdale membrane” is $\chi=(1-1)+35=35 \nleqslant 25=k^2$, so that the scheme is prohibited by Thom. Is this scheme (with Gudkov symbol $(1,1,35)$) prohibited by Rohlin’s formula?
Remember that Rohlin’s formula implies Arnold’s congruence (cf. (\[Rohlin-implies-Arnold:lem\])), so the answer is an (indirect) yes since $\chi\equiv k^2=25\neq 35 \pmod 4$.
As we have an $M$-scheme, let us even adjust to the (stronger) Gudkov congruence mod 8: $\chi\equiv k^2=25=33 \pmod 8$. So in order to diminish $\chi$ by 2 (from 35 to 33), let us trade a deep oval (at depth 2) against one at depth 1 (cf. transition from Fig.b to Fig.d). We have now $\chi=33$, and so Thom is still violated. Is this new scheme (symbol $(1,1(1,34))$) prohibited by Rohlin’s formula?
We count (e.g. via Fig.e) that the total number of pair is $\Pi=2+34+34=70$ (this can be viewed as an application of the formula $\Pi=n_1+2p_2+3n_3+4p_4+ etc$, cf. proof of (\[Stalin:lemma\])). To abridge Rohlin’s (heavy “Cyrillic”) notation let us set $\pi:=\Pi^+$, and $\eta:=\Pi^-$, and Rohlin’s formula then reads $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=37-25=12$. So we get the pair of equations $\pi-\eta=6$ and $\pi+\eta=\Pi=70$. Adding them gives $2\pi=76$, whence $\pi=38$, and $\eta=32$. So Rohlin’s is (formally) soluble but is there a distribution of signs compatible with the signs law?
To answer this let us consider a “variable” distribution of signs like on Fig.f with $x$ many $+$ and $y$ many $-$ for the edges rooted “at depth 1”, while both edges rooted at depth 0 have signs $-$. Of course we assume $x+y=34$. Counting the number of positive pairs $\pi$ we find $\pi=x+x=2x$ (were the second $x$ term comes from the sign-law $+\times -= +$ the opposite of the usual convention!). For the number $\eta$ of negative pairs we find $\eta=2+y+y=2+2y$, where the 3rd $y$ term comes again from the exotic sign-law (“of Rohlin”). Combining with the previous paragraph, gives $x=19$ and $y=15$. All equations are then verified! Conclusion there is a distribution of signs on the tree which satisfies Rohlin’s formula, which therefore does nor prohibit the scheme under examination, i.e. $(1,1(1,34))$. The latter is therefore a French scheme. So we hope to have this time proven the:
\[French-scheme-corrected:thm\] There exists a “French” $M$-scheme of degree $10$, namely that with Gudkov symbol $(1,1(1,34))$ (cf. [Fig.\[Garidi-mass-false:fig\]d]{} above), i.e. which is prohibited by Thom but not by the armada of Russian congruences (especially Gudkov’s) nor by Rohlin’s formula.
[*Insertion*]{}—\[17.03.13\] Thomas Fiedler kindly reacted as follows to this statement, cf. his \[12.03.13\]-letter in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\] reproduced below for convenience (our brackets are just automatized updates of labels):
“sorry, but all your $M$-schemes of degree 10 in Thm 30.14\[=\[French-scheme-corrected:thm\]\] and 30.15\[=\[French-scheme-corrected-bis:thm\]\] have $n=2$ and are ruled out simply by Petrovskis inequality. I don’t think that genus bounds give anything new for real schemes alone[^84] but they definitely do so for configurations of several real curves. Just take a look on Mikhalkin’s paper.”
Though a pertinent remark (since Petrovskii is not a French guy), Fiedler’s remark does not affect the modest truth of our statement but points to the Petrovskii inequality as another sharp Russian weapon. (Shamefully, I confess to have not properly appreciated this fundamental statement prior to Fiedler’s comment.) The latter states:
[(Petrovskii 1933/38 [@Petrowsky_1938])]{} \[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\] For any real plane smooth curve of even degree $m=2k$ we have the (so-called) Petrovskii inequalities (which are pure jewels nearly coming out of the blue safe for having been apparently anticipated conjecturally by Miss Ragsdale in 1906) $$- \textstyle\frac{3}{2} k(k-1)\le \chi \le \textstyle\frac{3}{2}
k(k-1)+1.$$ (An analogous but more complicated statement holds for curves of odd degrees.)
We make just some few remarks.
[*Historical substance.*]{}—Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938 p.191] comments that his method of proof is based on two ingredients:
\(1) a formula of Jacobi-Euler 1768–70 (and also cite en passant Kronecker, which as we know is also one of the forerunner of Poincaré’s index theory via Hermite’s transmissive rôle), and,
\(2) on the consideration of the deformations of lines $F(x,y)=C$ when $C$ crosses the critical values of $F(x,y)$. These last investigations being identified as analogous to those of Morse (1925 [@Morse_1925?]) on the critical points of a function.
[*Neo-expressionist proofs*]{}.—Another proof of Petrovskii’s inequalities namely the “Preuve d’Arnol’d dans une présentation de A. Marin” is given in A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979 p.537–17], where the result is stated as: $$\vert 2\chi-1 \vert \le \textstyle\frac{3m^2}{4}-\frac{3m}{2}+1,$$ which (after setting $m=2k$) is readily seen to be equivalent to the above formulation. Indeed $\vert 2\chi-1 \vert \le
\textstyle\frac{3(2k)^2}{4}-\frac{3(2k)}{2}+1=3k^2-3k+1=3k(k-1)+1$. Hence $3k(k-1) \le 2\chi\le 3k(k-1)+2$, and the equivalence is now obvious.
[*The original statement differs slightly.*]{}—On adapting to our (fairly standard modern) notations, Petrovskii’s original result is stated as follows (cf. p.190 of Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938]) $$\vert p-n \vert \le \textstyle\frac{3m^2-6m}{8}+1.$$ As $m=2k$ and $\chi=p-n$, this gives indeed $$\vert \chi \vert\le 3
\textstyle\frac{(2k)^2-2(2k)}{8}+1=\textstyle\frac{3}{2}(k^2-k)+1
=\textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1,$$ which is essentially the announced bound modulo a discrepancy on the lower-bound by one unit. In fact we copied the stated lower bound from Rohlin 1978 and hope that there is no misprint there.
Let us look at the example $k=3$ of sextics. Then $\frac{3}{2}
k(k-1)=\frac{3}{2} 3\cdot 2=9$, and so $-9\le \chi $, hence even the stronger version written down by Rohlin 1978 (also in Wilson 1978, p.55) does not prohibit “Rohn’s scheme” $\frac{10}{1}$ (cf. Gudkov’s Table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]).
Applied to our situation $k=5$, Petrovskii’s theorem shows that $\chi \le \frac{3}{2} 5\cdot 4+1=31$ and so our scheme with $\chi=33$ is prohibited by Petrovskii.
In general, for an even degree $m=2k$ we have Harnack’s bound $M=g+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2\approx 2k^2$, the universal Petrovskii’s bounds $-P\le \chi\le P+1$, where $P=\frac{3}{2}
k(k-1)\approx \frac{3}{2} k^2$, and finally Thom’s bound $\chi \le
k^2 $ for dividing curves (only). So when $k$ is large the “Hilbert-Petrovskii-Gudkov” pyramid looks as follows (Fig.\[PyramidPetrov:fig\]), and of course Thom will asymptotically be stronger than Petrovskii (at least for dividing curves and on the right-wing of the pyramid where $\chi$ is positive).
-5pt0
-5pt0
So I am not sure not adhere completely with Fiedler’s illuminating comment, because if we take a larger $m=2k$ than $10$ then it will be possible to arrange Petrovskii’s bound yet not Thom’s one, while further taking care of respecting Gudkov’s congruence and Rohlin’s formula.
Let us first take $m=12$ (so $k=6$) then Petrovskii’s upper-bound is $P+1=\frac{3}{2} 6\cdot 5+1=46$, while Thom’s is the sharper $k^2=36$. Arranging Gudkov’s hypothesis $\chi\equiv k^2 \pmod 8$ permits to take $36+8=44$ which is still lower than Petrovskii’s upper-bound. Now $M=g+1=\frac{11\cdot 10}{2}+1=56$. Hence to arrange $\chi=44$, we transplant 6 ovals of the unnested configuration at depth 1 (each such move drops $\chi$ by 2 units) to get the (12)-scheme[^85] $(1,6)49$ (with $\chi=44$). By Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=56-36=20$, hence $\pi-\eta=10$. As there are no deep nesting the signs-law is negligible and we merely have $\pi+\eta=6$, so that $2\pi=16$, whence $\pi=8$ and we get an obstruction.
\[17.03.13\][*Optional reading (skip if you do not want to loose the main-flow and move to $\clubsuit\clubsuit$)*]{}.—This argument extends to the following formal consequence of Rohlin (probably subsumed to Thom, yet much more elementary).
\[Rohlin-consequence-for-M-curves:lem\] An $M$-curve of degree $2k$ and of type $\frac{x}{1}y$ with few nested ovals in the sense that $x<\frac{(k-1)(k-2)}{2}$ is prohibited by Rohlin’s formula. In particular there is no unnested $M$-curve provided $k\ge 3$.
First recall that Harnack’s bound is $r=M=g+1=
(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2$. By Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=k^2-3k+2=(k-1)(k-2)$. So $\pi-\eta=\frac{(k-1)(k-2)}{2}=:\binom{k-1}{2}$. But $\pi+\eta=x$, so that $2\pi=x+\binom{k-1}{2}$, and hence $\pi=(x+\binom{k-1}{2})/2$. Yet the equation $\pi+\eta=x$ is impossible whenever $\pi>x$, that is when $\pi=(x+\binom{k-1}{2})/2>x$, i.e. as $(x+\binom{k-1}{2})>2x$, so when $x<\binom{k-1}{2}$, which is the asserted condition.
$\clubsuit\clubsuit$ \[18.03.13\] Back to our main object of the (12)-scheme $(1,6)49$, our idea is to remove this Rohlin obstruction by injecting more freedom gained by transferring some ovals at depth 2 (leaving thus $\chi$ unchanged). So starting from the (12)-scheme $(1,6)49$, whose tree is depicted as Fig.\[Fied3:fig\]a, we transplant ovals at depth 2 to get Fig.b with a certain quantity $x+y$ of ovals at depth 2. By Rohlin’s formula $\pi-\eta=10$, and from Fig.b we have $\pi+\eta=6+2(x+y)$. Adding the last equations gives $2\pi=16+2(x+y)$, whence $\pi=8+(x+y)$. The condition $\pi\le
\pi+\eta$ becomes so $8+(x+y)\le 6+2(x+y)$, i.e. $x+y\ge 2$, which is necessary to solve Rohlin’s equation.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Now introduce signs as on Fig.b by putting $a$ many pluses on the 5 edges at depth 1 and $b$ many minuses (so $a+b=5$), and a $+$-sign on the trunk ([*Warning.*]{}—This choice is fatally bad as we shall see, and a minus sign is more fruitful as we shall experiment soon). Applying the signs-law (cf. Fig.\[Signs-law-dyad:fig\]) to Fig.b we find by sorting out contribution according to their edge-length (which appears underbraced) $$\pi-\eta=\underbrace{a-b+1+x-y}_1+\underbrace{(-x+y)}_2=a-b+1.$$ But as $\pi-\eta=10$, we deduce the system $a-b=9$, $a+b=5$, whence $2a=14$ and $a=7$ which is incompatible with $a+b=5$.
(Then we repeated such calculation in higher degrees $14, 16$ finding always the same obstruction, though for $m=16$ there are even two possible values of $\chi$ permissible under Gudkov and Petrovskii).
However if we take a $-$-sign on the trunk (Fig.c), then the signs-law gives $$\pi-\eta=\underbrace{a-b-1+x-y}_1+\underbrace{(x-y)}_2=
a-b-1+2(x-y).$$ As by Rohlin we still have $\pi-\eta=10$, this gives the system $a-b=11-2(x-y)$, $a+b=5$, whence $2a=16-2(x-y)$, i.e. $a=8-(x-y)$. Let us fix $x-y=3$, so that $a=5$, $b=0$. Since $x+y\ge 2$ (cf. necessary condition discussed few lines above), we may choose $x=3$ and $y=0$. It is worth at his stage checking that the resulting signs distribution indeed solves Rohlin’s equation, and we have proven:
\[Alsatian-schemes:thm\] There exists an Alsatian scheme, i.e. a French scheme which furthermore respects Petrovskii’s inequalities. More precisely, there is an $M$-scheme of degree $12$ for instance $(1, 5(1,3))46$ (cf. [Figs.\[Fied3:fig\]d,e]{}) which respects both the Petrovskii bound, the Gudkov congruence and Rohlin’s formula, yet which is prohibited by Thom’s bound.
[*Insertion*]{}.—\[20.03.13\] Thomas Fiedler was kind enough to object (once more) to this result as follows (cf. his message dated 19 March 2013 in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\], yet reproduced here for convenience):
“sorry again, but your curve has $p=50$ and is ruled out by Arnold’s inequality : $p\le 3/2 k(k-1) + 1 + n_-$[^86], which is $47$ in this case. In fact Arnold’s inequalities are by fare the strongest result in the whole field.”
We will try to react to this objection right below the proof, cf. $\bigstar\bigstar$ below.
The assertion is clear by our search, but as it is easy to make mistakes, let us do an ad hoc self-contained verification. The scheme in question is depicted on Fig.\[Fied3:fig\]e. It has $\chi=(1-6+3)+46=44$. Petrovskii’s inequalities says $-P\le\chi\le P+1$, where $P:=\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)=\frac{3}{2}6\cdot 5=45$, and this is satisfied by our scheme. Gudkov’s congruence $\chi\equiv_8
k^2=6^2=36$ is also verified. Finally Rohlin’s formula is fulfilled when like on Fig.\[Fied3:fig\]d all signs are positive safe that on the trunk at depth 1 which has further ramifications at depth 2. (The depth of an edge is that of the unique vertex below it.) In that case the signs-law gives $$\pi-\eta=\underbrace{5-1+3}_1+\underbrace{3}_2,$$ where contributions are underbraced along the length of the pairs. Hence $\pi-\eta=10$ in accordance with Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=56-6^2=20$. However the scheme in question is prohibited by Thom’s estimate $\chi\le k^2=36$.
It should be easy to extend the result to other schemes but it looks artificial to strive toward maximum generality as our purpose was merely to find an example where Thom affords valuable information.
$\bigstar\bigstar$ [*Trying to fix Fiedler’s new objection based on Arnold’s strong Petrovskii inequalities*]{}.—The result mentioned by Fiedler is the following sometimes called the [*strong Petrovskii inequalities*]{}. Those are really due to Arnold 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72], and sharper than Petrovskii’s original inequalities of 1933/38. Apparently (cf. Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], p.87, footnote), Arnold’s original statement contained further unnecessary restrictions that were relaxed in Rohlin 1974 [@Rohlin_1974/75]. The final shape of the result is as follows:
\[Strong-Petrovskii-Arnold-ineq:thm\] [(Strong Petrovskii inequalities, aka Arnold inequalities).—(Arnold 1971, Rohlin 1974)]{}.—For any curve of even degree $m=2k$, $$n-p^- \le \textstyle\frac{3}{2} k(k-1), \qquad p-n^- \le
\textstyle\frac{3}{2} k(k-1)+1,$$ where $p^-, n^-$ are the number of positive=even resp. negative=odd ovals which are hyperbolic (cf. [Definition \[hyperbol-ovals:def\]]{} right below).
\[hyperbol-ovals:def\] $\bullet$
An oval of a plane real algebraic curve (or a scheme=distribution of ovals) is [*elliptic*]{}, [*parabolic*]{} or [*hyperbolic*]{}[^87] depending on whether its poros[^88] (cf. below) has positive, zero or negative Euler characteristic[^89].
$\bullet$ The [*poros*]{} of an oval of a plane curve $C_m(\RR)$ is the inside of the oval minus the insides of all ovals immediately nested in the given one (equivalently remove the insides of all subordinated ovals).
An oval is hyperbolic iff the Hilbert tree of the scheme ramifies at the corresponding vertex. This basic remark is the key to the little problem suggested by Fiedler’s objection.
Now our Alsatian question is again: is there a scheme where Thom is stronger than the conjunction of strong-Petrovskki=Arnold, Gudkov’s hypothesis and Rohlin’s formula. Our basic algorithm to do this is always same:
\(1) Start from the unnested configuration of $M$-ovals.
\(2) Then adjust $\chi$ to $k^2$ as to verify Gudkov’s hypothesis. (This can be done by transplanting outer ovals at depth 1, dragging them say inside a fixed oval.)
\(3) Then Thom’s estimate $\chi\le k^2$ is verified, but corrupt it by incrementing $\chi$ by 8. Do this as many times as Petrovskii’s bound $\chi\le \frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1$ permits.
\(4) Next without changing $\chi$ transplants outer ovals at depth 2 (as many as you want), while introducing a branched structure making Rohlin’s equation soluble. (This being essentially inspired by our counter-example to the Garidi mass conjecture discussed above.)
Let us be more explicit. Suppose $k=6$ (so $m=2k=12$). Harnack’s bound is $M=g+1=\frac{11\cdot 10}{2}+1=55+1=56$. Adjust to $\chi=k^2=36$ (Gudkov) and increment by 8 to get $44,52$. Petrovskii 1938 says $\chi \le \frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1=3\cdot 3\cdot
5+1=46$. So we consider $\chi=44$. Hence we transplant from the unnested scheme $M=56$, precisely $(M-\chi)/2=(56-44)/2=6$ ovals at depth 1 to get adjusted at $\chi=44$. This gives the scheme on Fig.\[Fied4:fig\]a with symbol $(1,6)49$. This scheme is prohibited by Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=56-36=20$, hence $\pi-\eta=10$, while $\pi+\eta=6$. This is of course soluble as $\pi=8$ and $\eta=-2$ (ruled out as $\eta\ge 0$ is a cardinal!). Variant: imagine signs on the edges of the tree (of Fig.a) we can have at most 6 pluses and so $\pi-\eta\le 6$ hence cannot be $10$. To arrange Rohlin the idea is to transplant ovals at depth 2 creating thereby more freedom to solve Rohlin’s equation.
-5pt0
-5pt0
The extra challenge is to take care of the (strong) Petrovskii-Arnold estimate. Note first that our configuration $(1,6)49$ has $p=50$ and this will not change under transfers at depth 2. Hence to respect Arnold’s estimate $$p\le \textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1+n^-=46+n^-,$$ it suffices to arrange $n^-=4$. Remember that $n^-$ counts the number of hyperbolic negative(=odd) ovals, so we just have to transplant ovals at 4 different places of Fig.a to get a tree like Fig.b with at least two extra branches growing at each 4 places. To ensure hyperbolicity it is sufficient to have branchings of “order 2”, so we look to Fig.c where the 3 first branches ramifies by 2, while the fourth by a magnitude $x+y$ (yet undetermined) safe for $x+y\ge 2$. On the left of the tree (still Fig.c), we put $+$-signs at $a$ many places (w.l.o.g. on the “left” though this has no intrinsic meaning here), and $-$-signs at $b$ many places. Hence $a+b=2$. Likewise on the right of the tree we introduce $x$ many $+$ resp. $y$ many $-$ as depicted on Fig.c. On the “center” of the tree where we have 3 branches like “Y”-letters inverted, we plug everywhere $-$-signs as those depressive guys are simplest to calculate by the signs-law ($-\times -=-$). This rigidification looks a reasonable Ansatz for there should be already enough free parameters available with $x,y$ and $a,b$ (subjected to $a+b=2$). Once the combinatorics of the tree is fixed and the signs-distribution too (modulo the free parameters) we can compute the Rohlin mass $\pi-\eta$ according to the signs-law. First note that each 3 central subtrees (“Y-shaped”) contributes for 5 pairs (3 visible, plus 2 concatenation) each being negatively charged. Hence the contribution of each such subtree is $-5$. Globally on the whole tree, we find therefore (upon remembering the signs-law (\[Signs-law:lem\]) saying that mixing the genes is good so $+\times -=+$, while consanguinity is bad, e.g. $-\times -=-$) $$\pi-\eta=a-b-15-1+2x-2y=a-b-16+2(x-y).$$ By Rohlin’s formula $\pi-\eta=10$, and we get the system $a-b=26-2(x-y)$, $a+b=2$. Hence $2a=28-2(x-y)$, i.e. $a=14-(x-y)$. Choose (freewill vs. predestination!) $x-y=12$, so that $a=2$, $b=0$, and choose again $x=12$, and $y=0$ as a special solution. This proves the:
\[Alsatian-scheme-Thom-strong-Petrov-Arnold:thm\] There exists an Alsatian $M$-scheme where Thom is stronger than the conjunction of (strong) Petrovskii-Arnold 1971, Gudkov hypothesis 1969–72 (proved by Rohlin-Marin), and Rohlin’s formula. Specifically, there is such a scheme in degree $12$, namely the one allied to [Fig.\[Fied4:fig\]c]{} for $x+y=12$, whose scheme is depicted on [Fig.d]{} called “René Thom sur son $31$” since the nested portion of the tree involves (counting along increasing depths) $p_0+n_1+p_2=1+6+18=25$ ovals so that it remains left $56-25=31$ outer ovals. The $M$-scheme in question has Gudkov symbol $(1,2(1,2)(1,2)(1,2)(1,12))31$.
Let us do again an ad hoc verification. From the scheme (Fig.c with $x+y=12$ or Fig.d) we have $\chi=1-6+18+31=44$. So Gudkov $\chi\equiv_8 k^2$ is happy. Petrovskii 1938, i.e. $\chi \le \frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1=45+1=46$ is also satisfied. Now the strong version of Petrovskii due to Arnold, reads $$p-n^-\le \textstyle\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1=46.$$ But our scheme has (cf. Fig.c or d) altogether $r^-=5$ hyperbolic ovals (i.e. containing immediately at least 2 other ovals in their insides), yet only 4 of them are at odd depth 1, so $n^-=4$. Though equivalent, working with the tree (as opposed to the scheme) looks more convenient to see this (at least when one is tired). On the other hand our scheme has either by its construction (cf. Fig.a) or by counting $p=50$, since $p=p_0+p_2=(1+31)+(6+12)=32+18=50$. Hence the Petrovskii-Arnold estimate is verified.
Note also that the other strong Petrovskii inequality $n-p^-\le
\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)=45$ is verified, as $n=6$ (either from Fig.c or from $p+n=r=M=56$, where $r$ is as usual in our notation the number of “reellen Züge”, denoted $l$ in Russia). Although not needed it may be noted that $p^-=1$ either via Fig.c or via the relation $p^- + n^-=r^-$ (splitting hyperbolic ovals according to their parities).
Finally Rohlin’s formula is verified for the signs-distribution of Fig.c where $x=12$, $y=0$ and $a=2$. Indeed the signs-law gives $\pi-\eta=2-3\cdot 5+(-1)+12+12=2-16+24=10$, in accordance with Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=56-36=20$. The verification is complete.
Old material (to skip or reorganize)
------------------------------------
[*Sequel of my text (prior to Fiedler’s objection(s) via Petrovskii, and then via Arnold)*]{}.—One can paraphrase the statement (\[French-scheme-corrected:thm\]) by saying that there is a complex scheme (i.e. with orientation) which satisfies Rohlin’s formula, but which is not realized algebraically (being ruled out by Thom’s $\chi\le k^2$). Our example is of degree 10, and is simply the complex scheme associated to the Rohlin tree of Fig.\[Garidi-mass-false:fig\]f for $(x,y)=(19,15)$, hence is representable as the complex scheme of Fig.\[Garidi-mass-false:fig\]g. In fact such schemes already exist in degree 6 (cf. optionally Theorem \[no-chance-to-reduce-Gudkov-to-Rohlin:thm\]), where it is just a matter of solving Rohlin’s equation for the two $M$-schemes of degree 6 which are prohibited by Gudkov’s hypothesis.
Of course the example proposed probably belongs to a larger list of such French schemes. More about this soon. On the other hand it could be nice to know if there is a French scheme in degree 8 already.
[*Degree $m=8$*]{}.—Then the Harnack bound is $M=g+1=\frac{7\cdot 6}{2}+1=22$. Applying the same method, we start with the $M$-scheme $(1,1,20)$ with $\chi=20$. This has to be adjusted to the Gudkov hypothesis $\chi\equiv_8 k^2=16$, but then Thom’s inequality $\chi\le k^2$ is satisfied, except if we could move up to $\chi=24$ but this violates the basic estimate $\chi\le M$. \[Proof: $\chi=p-n\le p+n=r\le M$ by Harnack.\] So it seems that there is no French in degree 8, but a more systematic study is required. As a loose evidence for the absence of French scheme in degree 8, we note that the RKM-congruence for $(M-2)$-schemes $\chi\equiv k^2+4 \pmod 8$ (ensuring type I) forces under Thom’s inequality ($16\le \chi \le M=22$ and Harnack’s bound) to have $\chi=20$. But then $p-n=20$ and $p+n=r=20$, so that $2p=40$, hence $p=20$ and $n=0$. So our scheme is forced to be unnested and is $20$, which is prohibited by Rohlin’s formula.
[*More French schemes in degree $10$*]{}.—By the above method we now proceed to find more French schemes. The idea is merely that starting from the scheme on Fig.d we may move innermost ovals at depth 2 outside at depth $0$ without changing $\chi=33$ (as forced by the Gudkov hypothesis). So we consider a scheme whose tree is like Fig.\[Fiedler3:fig\]a where there are $z$ outer ovals which are empty. We introduce $x$ and $y$ many free signs plus and minus resp. as on Fig.\[Fiedler3:fig\]a, with both top signs negative. To get an $M$-scheme we impose $x+y+z=34$. As before we seek to solve the Rohlin’s equation. Recall that we abridge $\pi:=\Pi^+$, $\eta:=\Pi^-$. By Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=37-25=12$ so $\pi-\eta=6$. But on the other hand by the signs-law, we have (by looking at Fig.a) $$\pi=2x \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \eta=2+2y.$$ If $z$ is given (a priori in the range $0\le z \le 34$, but we shall soon see that some more constraint are required), we solve in $x,y$ as to satisfy Rohlin’s formula. This gives $\pi-\eta=6$ and $\pi+\eta=2(1+x+y)$, so adding $2\pi=8+2(x+y)$, hence $\pi=4+x+y=38-z$. So $\eta=32-z$. Finally we find $x=\frac{\pi}{2}=19-\frac{z}{2}$. This requires so the assumption $z$ even ($\bigstar$!!!), which looks anomalous but more about this soon. And finally $y=\frac{\eta-2}{2}=\frac{30-z}{2}$, so that we must assume $z\le 30$. ($\bigstar$ HYPOTHESIS to add!)
Now when $z$ is odd we proceed similarly, but the trick is to change one of the top sign as on Fig.b into a plus. We still have $x+y+z=34$, but now by the signs-law applied to the new diagram (Fig.b): $$\pi=1+2x \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \eta=1+2y.$$ By Rohlin’s formula we still have $\pi-\eta=6$, and now $\pi+\eta=2(1+x+y)$ (actually like above!) and so repeating the above $\pi=38-z$, $\eta=32-z$. Solving gives $x=\frac{\pi-1}{2}=\frac{37-z}{2}$ and $y=\frac{\eta-1}{2}=\frac{31-z}{2}$. So we assume $z\le 31$ ($\bigstar$ Hypothesis!).
-5pt0
-5pt0
All this should prove the admittedly insignificant following result:
\[French-scheme-corrected-bis:thm\] For any integer $0\le z \le 31$, the $M$-scheme $(1,1(1,34-z))z$ (compare Fig.\[Fiedler3:fig\]c) is a French scheme, i.e. it is prohibited by Thom but not by Gudkov’s hypothesis nor by Rohlin’s formula.
From the proof $z=31$ is sharp with this property, but it is perhaps tranquilizing to check this more experimentally. Then the tree reduces to Fig.d, and the total number of pair is $\Pi=4+2=6$, but as $\pi-\eta=6$ (by Rohlin’s formula) we are forced to have only positive pairs, but this is impossible by the signs-law (since in Rohlin’s arithmetics $+$ times $+$ is minus!)
What to do next? A naive game would be to classify all French scheme in degree 10. Another more serious problem would be to detect some universal rule as to understand better the prohibitions given by Rohlin’s formula, or the lack thereof when the Hilbert tree can be given a sign distribution so that Rohlin’s formula is satisfied. All this looks a bit unappealing combinatorics, yet the lack of conceptualization in our above account surely ask for a better understanding of the Rohlin tree. One would like to understand all Rohlin trees of dividing curves. Any such must satisfy the Rohlin formula, but as we saw this is not the sole obstruction (as sometimes Thom imposes additional constraints).
As a more specific goal we could try to find a French $(M-2)$-scheme in degree 10. As noted earlier this is impossible to do on the “planar” face of the Gudkov pyramid (cf. our Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]). There Rohlin’s formula is always as strong as Thom. (This follows also from the truth of the Garidi mass principle for such simple schemes. We leave as a loose-end exercise to exhibit classes of schemes for which the mass conjecture holds true, albeit disproved in general for “batônnet” like schemes, cf. Fig.\[Garidi-mass-false:fig\].)
We now proceed to find $(M-2)$-schemes of degree 10 where Thom is stronger than Rohlin’s formula. The method is similar as above, but we repeat the detail by unifying somewhat the proof. The batônnet structure of schemes violating the mass conjecture suggests looking at the scheme $(1,1,33)$ (cf. Fig.\[Fiedler4:fig\]a). Here $\chi=33$, but in order to apply Thom we have to ensure type I, and the best known recipe to do this is to adjust to the RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv k^2+4=25+4=29
\pmod 8$. So as $\chi=p-n\le p+n=r=35$, we cannot move up to 37, but instead lower down $\chi=33$ to $29$. This is achieved by delocalizing two ovals at depth 2 toward ovals at depth 1, and we get the scheme $(1,2(1,31))$ (cf. Fig.\[Fiedler4:fig\]b).
The scheme $(1,2(1,31))$ and more generally its companions $(1,2(1,31-z))z$ (cf. Fig.\[Fiedler4:fig\]c) are by RKM of type I, but prohibited by Thom $\chi\le k^2=25$. However, provided $z\le 29$, all these schemes are not prohibited by Rohlin’s formula.
As above we prove that there is a distribution of signs on the Hilbert tree of the scheme compatible with the signs-law and with Rohlin’s formula. For this we consider the diagram of Fig.\[Fiedler4:fig\]d, where we have free parameters $x,y$ counting the number of positive resp. negative edges at depth 2. We introduce also $\epsilon, \delta$ counting positive resp. negative signs on the only 2 available edges at depth 1 (lacking prolongation). So $\epsilon+\delta=2$. The edge at depth 1 prolonging to depth 2 is given the sign $-1$. Further we have $z$ isolated vertices at depth 0 corresponding to the outer empty ovals of the scheme of Fig.c. We have thus $x+y+z=31$. .
-5pt0
-5pt0
By Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=35-25=10$, we find $\pi-\eta=5$. By applying the signs-law to Fig.d, we find $$\pi=2x+\epsilon \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \eta=2y+\delta+1.$$ So $\pi+\eta=2(x+y)+3$, and thus $2\pi=8+2(x+y)$, whence $\pi=4+(x+y)=35-z$ and $\eta=\pi-5=30-z$. So we solve $$x=\frac{\pi-\epsilon}{2}=\frac{35-z-\epsilon}{2} \quad
\textrm{and} \quad
y=\frac{\eta-\delta-1}{2}=\frac{29-z-\delta}{2}.$$ It remains just to ensure integrality by choosing appropriately the free parameters. Specifically,
$\bullet$ if $z$ is odd, then for $x$ to be integral choose $\epsilon$ even (and then $\delta$ is even and so $y$ as well, but sorry this parenthetical stuff is automatic!);
$\bullet$ if $z$ is even, choose $\epsilon$ odd.
Note that $z\le 29$ (to ensure $y\ge 0$), while for $z=29$ the system of equations is soluble for $\delta=0$, $y=0$ and $\epsilon=2$, whence $x=\frac{35-29-2}{2}=2$. (Optionally, one can check diagrammatically that Rohlin’s formula is verified on this extremal example, cf. Fig.e. where we have $\pi=4+2=6$ and $\eta=1$, so $\pi-\eta=5$ as it should by Rohlin.)
What is the moral of all these messy calculations with this exotic signs-law of Rohlin? Is there some respectable way to extract a general result. A vague moral is that it is always quite boring to apply Rohlin’s formula and it is quite easy to make mistakes, as was pointed out by Fiedler. Perhaps some higher intelligence than me is able to discern some order in this chaos of Rohlin trees and proves valuable corollaries of Rohlin’s formula. However it is also clear that the latter has some limitation in failing to prohibit schemes ruled out by Thom.
In the same spirit we wondered (earlier in this text, Sec.\[Gudkov-hyp-via-Rohlin’s-formula:sec\]) if Rohlin’s formula could imply the Gudkov hypothesis. Perhaps a variant of the method used right above can detect a counterexample, i.e. a scheme prohibited by Gudkov but not by Rohlin. Actually we have candidates in degree 6 already, namely the schemes $\frac{7}{1}3$ and its mirror $\frac{3}{1}7$. Taking the first its diagram-tree is like on Fig.\[Fiedler4:fig\]f, where we have $x$ many positive edges and $y$ many negative ones. Of course $x+y=7$. Since here we have no adjacent edges to compose, and we simply have $\pi=x$ and $\pi=y$ and Rohlin’s equation $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=11-9=2$ is trivial to solve. Indeed, $x-y=1$ and $x+y=7$ gives $2x=8$, whence $x=4$ and $y=3$. This proves the:
\[no-chance-to-reduce-Gudkov-to-Rohlin:thm\] There is no chance to reduce Gudkov’s hypothesis to Rohlin’s formula, unless one is able to put more stringent restriction on the complex orientations (via geometric procedures).
$\bigstar$—[*Old stuff, pre-Fiedler’s correction, hence to be read with discernment.*]{}—Several questions arise:
1.—On working out more carefully the combinatorics, try to understand if a French scheme already exists in degree 8.
2.—It seems that as the degree increases French schemes will be more and more frequent and so the rôle of Thom increases more and more and becomes a valuable complement to the Russian congruences, and Rohlin’s formula.
3.—Glancing at the Gudkov table in degree 10 (Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]), we see that the famous Gudkov broken line is subjected to a severe deformation. More precisely, the $M$-schemes $\frac{2}{1}34$ is prohibited by either Rohlin’s formula or by Thom \[or even by Petrovskii’s inequality (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\])\], and so is the $(M-2)$-scheme $\frac{3}{1}31$ for the same reasons plus (the full punch of) the RKM-congruence (\[RKM-congruence-reformulated:thm\]). The diagrammatic consequence is a distortion of the Gudkov front-line which is penetrated from above to become the lilac line on Fig.\[Degree10:fig\].
Hence directly below $\frac{3}{1}31$ we have 2 schemes (whose symbols are not even worth writing down), and which according to the diagrammatic of Fig.\[Degree10:fig\] are not maximal schemes. In contrast below the scheme $\frac{2}{1}34$ we have the two schemes $\frac{2}{1}33=:S_1$ and $\frac{1}{1}34=:S_2$. Those guys are interesting birds because they are maximal (at least in the planar model of the Hilbert-Gudkov pyramid, as follows from Rohlin’s formula), yet they are certainly not of type I (by Klein’s congruence $r\equiv_2 g+1$ of 1876). So there is some little opportunity here to corrupt Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (RMC). Of course as all what we are using here was well-known to Rohlin, our expectation will certainly quickly turn to disillusion.
[*Insertion.*]{} \[19.03.13\]—Apart from the fact that (as discussed in the sequel) it is hard to prohibit all extensions of any one of those schemes $S_1,S_2$, a sharper look at the Russian architecture of Fig.\[Degree10:fig\] shows that both those schemes are simply ruled out by Petrovskii’s inequality (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]) telling us that $\chi\le
\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1=\frac{3}{2}5(5-1)+1=3\cdot 5\cdot 2+1=31$.
A first question is whether those two $(M-1)$-schemes $S_1,S_2$ are realized[^90]. If so, then it remains to check that they are maximal. So we have to list all their possible enlargements (extensions).
Let us do this for $S_2=\frac{1}{1}34$ (which looks more appealing as it is “less nested”), we have (up to isotopy) 4 possible extensions depending upon the additional oval is added:
\(1) outside the nest, which option leads to $\frac{1}{1}35$, which is prohibited by the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence;
\(2) inside the nest at depth 1, which option leads to $\frac{2}{1}34$, which is prohibited by Rohlin’s formula (or Thom);
\(3) inside the nest at depth 2, which option leads to $(1,1,1)34$. Then $\chi=(1-1+1)+34=35\neq k^2=25 \pmod 8 $ so that the scheme is prohibited by the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence, while one can even note that its forerunner namely the Arnold congruence mod 4 suffices;
\(4) inside an outer oval, which option leads to $\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}33$. Then $\chi=(1-1)+(1-1)+33=k^2=25\pmod
8$ so that Gudkov-Rohlin is not violated. However Thom’s inequation is violated, and so this scheme is not realized. As to Rohlin’s formula we have $\Pi=2$, and so $2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=37-25=12$ cannot be verified as $(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)\le(\Pi^++\Pi^-)=\Pi$. Intuitively we see that when $\chi$ is large Rohlin’s formula forces some nesting.
At this stage we have clearly explored all possible extensions of $S_2$ and prohibited all of them via the classical congruence (Gudkov-Arnold-Rohlin) or the Rohlin formula.
Yet even that is wrong as the additional oval needs not to be a small one injected as above, but it can also surround other ovals. Hence we have at least the following two families of schemes enlarging $S_2$:
\(5) $(1,\frac{1}{1}x)y$ where $x+y=34$, and
\(6) $\frac{1}{1} \frac{x}{1} y $, where $x+y=34$.
This can of course be much diminished by the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence, as follows. For (5) and $x=0$, we have the primitive scheme $(1,1,1)34$ with $\chi=(1-1+1)+34=35$ which 2 unit above $33=25 \pmod 8$. Hence by trading outer “$y$” ovals against “$x$” ovals at depth 1 we decrease $\chi$ by 2, so that the first scheme with correct $\chi$ is $(1,\frac{1}{1}1)33$, and then the list extends by using 4-fold periodicity as $$(1,\frac{1}{1}1)33, \quad, (1,\frac{1}{1}5)29, etc.$$ with resp. $\chi=33, 25, etc.$ (descent by 8). Hence the first is still prohibited by Thom, yet the subsequent schemes are unlikely to be prohibited by Thom nor by Rohlin’s formula. At this stage our naive project to corrupt Rohlin’s maximality conjecture breaks down. For instance the second listed Thom compatible scheme $(1,\frac{1}{1}5)29$ has $\Pi=\binom{3}{2}+5=8$ and so Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2=37-25=12$ is soluble for the pair $\Pi^{\pm}=(7,1)$.
At this stage the only vestiges of expectance to foil RMC via our naive strategy would be that all those extended schemes are prohibited by a degree-10-extension of the Fiedler-Viro theorem (cf. Theorem \[Viro-Fiedler-prohibition:thm\] in degree 8), but that looks a dubious expectation.
Of course it is much more likely that either Harnack, Hilbert or Viro’s method of construction realize one of those schemes, and so that our scheme $S_2$ (and likewise $S_1$) are not maximal.
Some intuition behind Hilbert, Thom, Rohlin?
--------------------------------------------
\[12.03.13\] The theory of abstract real algebraic curves is essentially a closed chapter of mathematics. More precisely since Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857] paper on Abelian integrals, we have a clear-cut vision of all complex curves and their moduli. Avatars thereof in the bordered setting or even nonorientable realm were worked out by Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882] (upon the heritage of Gauss, Möbius, Listing the discoverers of “il nastro di Möbius”). Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939] put the nearly final touch by approaching the moduli problem via quasiconformal maps along the philosophy developed by Grötzsch 1928, Lavrentieff 1929, Ahlfors ca. 1930–35. Notwithstanding our thesis is that from the viewpoint of total reality (or what amounts to the same branched covers of the disc), some quantitative aspects have not yet attained their ultimate perfection and sharpness, though it may be only a matter of assimilating the heritage of previous generations. This is discussed at length in the Introduction of this text, but briefly we may recall that in the closed case the ultimate perfection regarding Riemann surfaces expressed as branched cover of the line(=Riemann sphere) is achieved in Riemann 1857, Brill-Noether 1874 [@Brill-Noether_1874], and especially Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960] (which I had never the occasion to consult). When it comes to bordered surfaces (equivalently orthosymmetric real curves), the first steps belongs to Riemann 1857 (Nachlass) [@Riemann_1857], Schottky 1875–1877, Bieberbach 1925, Grunsky 1937, Ahlfors 1950, etc., up to perhaps Gabard 2004 [@Gabard_2004], 2006 [@Gabard_2006], whose result still deserves better introspection, but whose sharpness is adhered upon (perhaps too hastily) in several works (e.g. Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011], Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011]. Actually Coppens’ result although adhering to the truth of Gabard’s is so logically independent that its truth may not be jeopardized by a disproof of Gabard’s bound $\gamma\le
r+p$.
Next we may move in the Plato cavern of plane curves and contemplate the so-called [*Hilbert’s problem*]{} on the topology of real plane algebraic curves. Here most of the difficulty is allied to a certain combinatorial mess arising from the nested structures of ovals and their distribution. The whole point is to look at a certain hierarchical structure (POSET) arising from the inclusion between the insides of ovals. We call it the [*Hilbert tree*]{}.
As early as 1891, Hilbert was the first to formulate the intuition that this Hilbert tree has a certain verticality, in the sense that an algebraic curve cannot reduce to an unnested collection of ovals. He formulates this for $M$-curves of degree 6, and of course the assertion holds only for maximal curves (cf. the Gudkov table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\] or for a specific example Fig.\[KleinRo-sextic:fig\]). The Hilbert tree of such an unnested scheme (Gudkov’s symbol $M$, where $M=g+1$ is Harnack’s bound) just reduce to a collection of vertices at depth 0, without nesting (hence without edges).
At some stage Thom had the following intuition.
[(Thom conjecture, Kronheimer-Mrowka theorem 1994, and independently Morgan-Szabó-Taubes 1995/96 [@Morgan-Szabo-Taubes_1996])]{}.—The genus of a smooth embedded oriented surface in $\CC P^2$ is at least as large than that of “the” algebraic smooth curve realizing the same homology class, alias the degree.
This prompts a wide extension of Hilbert’s verticality principle \[or nesting Ansatz\] that the Hilbert tree cannot be to flat. This is alas a bit like in human feodal systems where a certain concentration of power, slavery and subjection is observed. Precisely this is given by Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\] stating that any dividing curve of degree $m=2k$ satisfies $\chi \le k^2$. As the degree increases to 8, or 10, etc. this prohibits more and more schemes on the right wing of the Gudkov pyramid (cf. e.g. Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]), yet to some extend those schemes can also be more elementarily ruled out by Rohlin’s formula.
Since the Harnack bound is $M=g+1=\frac{(2k-1)(2k-2)}{2}+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2$, the asymptotic location as $m=2k\to \infty$ of Thom’s bound $k^2$ \[ALAS INCORRECT, MY MISTAKE CORRECTED BY FIEDLER\] is the half value of Harnack’s bound $M\approx 2k^2$, and so nearly one quarter of the $M$-curves are prohibited by Thom (cf. e.g. Fig.\[Degree10:fig\]). However this figure only represents schemes with one nonempty oval so that the real pyramid is much less amputated than its planar sheet leads one to suspect.
On the other hand the Hilbert hierarchies cannot be too deep. Indeed one cannot observe in degree $m$ a nested chain of ovals of depth larger than $k=m/2$ as follows directly from Bézout for lines. More generally using conics through 5 points there cannot be schemes with 5 chains of total length larger that $2m$. This is the well-known topics of Hilbert’s bound on the depth of nests.
Further when those deepest configurations are attained then the curve is necessarily of type I via the phenomenon of total reality.
Summarizing we see that the Hilbert tree cannot be too deep (as follows from reality consideration and Bézout) nor can it be too superficial (as follows from the complexification, e.g. Thom’s principle or the Petrovskii inequalities \[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\]). Further the total reality phenomenon ought to play some big rôle as envisioned by Rohlin. Of course all this needs to be made more precise (further explored).
On an arithmetical problem valorizing Thom in the detriment of Rohlin (and sometimes Gudkov): yet another numerical coincidence regarding Hilbert’s 16th
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[13.04.13\] This section (and its title!) is somewhat naive and misleading (as I failed to exploit the full punch of Rohlin’s formula), but diverges to a lovely basic arithmetic problem (on which I have little grasp, but must be very classical, surely Gauss? or probably much older Diophante?). Hence it was not censured but can safely be omitted.
\[16.03.13\] As we said, but repeat it once more, Hilbert arrived ca. 1891 (vgl. Hilbert 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege]) at the intuition (at least for sextics) that ovals of algebraic curves necessarily exhibit some feodal structure of nesting impeding all the ovals lying outside each others. Is this really true in general? \[OF COURSE, E.G., VIA ROHLIN’S FORMULA, AND FIRST KNOWN TO PETROVSKII 1933/38.\] Of course Hilbert posited this for $M$-curves (of order $m\ge 6$) and nearly proved it only for $m=
6$, yet presumably we are allowed to extrapolate his thoughts. In fact, the original text proceeds more carefully and reads as follows (cf. Hilbert 1891, , Fussnote, S.418, in Ges. Abhandl., Bd.II, Algebra, Invariantentheorie, Geometrie):
“Diesen Fall $n=6$ habe ich einer weiteren eingehenden Untersuchung unterworfen, wobei ich—freilich auf einem au[ß]{}erordentlich umständlichen Wege— fand, da[ß]{} die elf Züge einer Kurve 6-ter Ordnung keinesfalls sämtlich au[ß]{}erhalb und voneinander getrennt verlaufen können. Dieses Resultat erscheint mir deshalb von Interesse, weil er zeigt, da[ß]{} für Kurven mit der Maximalzahl von Zügen der topologisch einfachste Fall nicht immer[^91] möglich ist.”
Hilbert addressed this again, and more generally the question of elucidating the isotopic classification of sextic curves (or even quartics surfaces), into his well-known 16th problem at the Paris Congress of 1900. Circa 7 decades came the deep semi-experimental work of Academician Dimitrii Andreevich Gudkov solving Hilbert’s isotopic problem for sextics curves, though according to Arnold (e.g. 1997/00 [@Arnold_1997/200X-Symplectization-Complexification]) this left the supervising teacher Petrovskii quite dubitative, not to say skeptical). Later V.A. Rohlin made a series of jokes by noticing that his 1952 theorem on the divisibility by 16 of the signature (coined by Weyl 1923, in Analisis Situs Combinatorio written in Spanish with the assistance of his linguist wife) of a spinorial smooth $4$-manifold turns out to imply the Gudkov hypothesis $\chi\equiv k^2 \pmod 8$ for $M$-curves (extrapolating widely the phenomenology observed in degree $6$), where $\chi$ denotes as usual the Euler characteristic of the “Ragsdale” orientable membrane bounding the ovals from “inside”.
In the same elan, Rohlin 1974 (and 1978) wrote down the [*Rohlin formula*]{} $2(\Pi^+-\Pi^-)=r-k^2$ (cf. \[Rohlin-formula:thm\]) which is so fundamental that it seems worth (to save ink) to abridge notation by letting $\pi:=\Pi^+$ and $\eta:=\Pi^-$. When the curve has no nesting this formula implies that $r=k^2$ is a square (whenever the curve is dividing, as it is automatically the case for $M$-curves).
[*Warning.*]{}—\[17.03.13\] The sequel is much ill-posed as I (very shamefully) missed to notice that $r$ is not any square, but that of the semi-degree $k$. Yet since it seems to involve pleasant arithmetics, hence we did not censured it!
Restricting attention to $M$-curves of even degree $m=2k$, we are therefore invited to study the following arithmetical problem as a way to corrupt Hilbert’s feudalistic intuition (forced presence of nesting for $M$-curves of high-degrees $m\ge 6$).
[(Quadrature of the Harnack bound).]{}—Given any integer $k\ge$, set $m=2k$ (interpreted as the order of the curve) and let $M=g+1=\frac{(2k-1)(2k-2)}{2}+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2$ be the corresponding Harnack bound. For which values of $k$ is $M$ predestined to be a square, so that Rohlin does not prohibit the unnested $M$-scheme (THIS IS FALSE), and additionally try to arrange the Gudkov congruence $M=\chi\equiv k^2 \pmod 8$.
Assume that there is such an integer $k$ then the unnested $M$-scheme (Gudkov symbol $M$ also!) is not prohibited by Gudkov nor by Rohlin and so constitutes a potential violation of Hilbert’s principle. To kill the suspense, as far as I know this scenario could not have been precluded until the Kronheimer-Mrowka validation of Thom’s conjecture. Recall (from \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]) that Thom implies $\chi\le k^2$ and so $\chi$ cannot be as large as $M$ which is asymptotically twice so big (except of course for low degrees $m\le 4$).
So curiously I would say (personal feeling probably foiled due to a lack of Russian wisdoms) that before Thom-Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994 [@Kronheimer-Mrowka_1994] Hilbert’s intuition could have been completely wrong depending upon a resolution of the above arithmetical problem.
Of course I arrived at the problem by modest acquaintance with the geometry of Gudkov’s pyramid which look basically as follows (Fig.\[Pyramid:fig\]):
-5pt0
-5pt0
Now being as bad in arithmetics than in combinatorics, we propose to tackle the arithmetical problem naively. We want to know first of all when Harnack’s bound is a square. We know that Harnack’s bound evolves like the genus of plane curves as a quadratic function (Gauss freshman calculus at 5 years old) namely $g=g(m)=1+2+3+\dots+(m-2)=\frac{(m-1)(m-2)}{2}$. Here we concentrate upon even degrees $m=2k$ and we may tabulate the values of $M$ by adding a linear progression of increment 4 (cf. Fig.\[Pyramid:fig\] right-side table). Then we compare this with the list of all squares $1,4,9, 16\dots$. Apart from the trivial values $k=1,2$, the Harnack bound is never a square until we reach the value $k=17$ where $M=529$ is the square of $23$. Since $17=16+1$ this is yet another numerological coincidence in Hilbert’s 16th (yet surely not as deep of those of Gudkov-Rohlin). In view of this I naively expected that the next quadrature of Harnack’s bound occurs at $k=2\cdot 16+1=33$. But a simple calculation shows this to be a wrong intuition. What about $k=4
\cdot 16+1=65$, also not good! At this stage we stopped guessing and continued the tabulation by hand, and found the next square Harnack bound at $k=46$, namely $M=\frac{91\cdot 90}{2}+1=91\cdot
45+1=4096$ which is $64^2$.
It is now time looking at the Gudkov congruence. For $k=17$, the Harnack bound $M=529$ (which is also $\chi$ the characteristic of the Ragsdale membrane as we suppose no nesting) reduces modulo 8 to $529\equiv_8 49 $ (after removing $480$) and then to $1$ (after removing 48). On the other hand $k^2\equiv_8 17^2\equiv_8 1^2
\equiv_8 1$. Hence Gudkov’s congruence is satisfied. So the $M$-scheme (with Gudkov symbol $529$) could be a potential counter-example to Hilbert’s intuition, if Thom would not salvage it!
For the next value $k=46$, $\chi=M=4096\equiv_8 96 \equiv_8 16
\equiv_8 0$, whereas $k^2=(46)^2\equiv_8 (-2)^2=4$. So Gudkov hypothesis is not verified and here Hilbert’s intuition is already vindicated by Gudkov (and Rohlin who proved it). Notice that Arnold’s congruence would be not enough not rescue Hilbert.
This is essentially all what we have to say on this problem. Though the arithmetical problem looks attractive, I do not know how to solve it in general. Of course it looks an easy Diophantine equation $$x^2=2k^2-3k+2,$$ of degree 2 but this does not boils down to studying the rational points on a conic (via the usual method of sweeping like for Pythagorean triplets), as we are here really concerned with integral solutions of an equation laking homogeneity. Of course I presume it is a well-known and easy problem of arithmetics, yet actually its solution has little impact upon Hilbert’s sixteenth problem, since the corresponding (unnested) schemes are defacto prohibited by Thom. Still the particular solution exhibited above $(k,x)=(17, 23)$ offers another instance of French scheme where Thom is stronger that the conjunction of Gudkov and Rohlin. I do not if prior to Kronheimer-Mrowka one was able to prohibit the existence of the corresponding $M$-scheme of degree $34$ with $M=529$ unnested ovals.
\[17.03.13\] In fact the answer is a trivial consequence of Rohlin’s formula, since $0=2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$, but $r=529$ is not the square of $17$ (as $17^2=289$). More generally, all the problematic of this section is spoiled since I omitted at the beginning of the discussion to notice that Rohlin’s formula does not merely implies in the unnested case that $r$ is the square, but is indeed the square of the semi-degree $k$. In fact as shown, e.g. by Lemma \[Rohlin-consequence-for-M-curves:lem\] it is a trivial consequence of Rohlin’s formula that Hilbert’s nesting intuition occurs for $m\ge 6$. The simplest way to argue is as follows.
\[Hilbert’s-nesting-intuition:lem\] [(Hilbert’s nesting intuition, validated via Rohlin 1974 or via Petrovskii 1938)]{} Any $M$-curve of even degree $m=2k$ with $m\ge 6$ cannot be unnested, i.e. have all its ovals outside another. Actually, a dividing unnested curve is forced to have $r=k^2$ ovals.
A simple way to argue is via Rohlin’s formula 1974 (\[Rohlin-formula:thm\]). We have $0=2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$, hence $r=k^2$. But by the $M$-curve assumption $r=M=g+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2$, which is strictly larger than $r=k^2$ as soon as $k\ge 3$.
The first clause also follows by specializing Petrovskii’s upper-bound $\chi\le \frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1=:P$ valid for all curves. It is plain indeed to check that $P<M$ (“Petrovskii is sharper than Harnack”) for $k\ge 3$. Indeed the difference $M-P=(2k^2-3k+2)-(\frac{3}{2}k(k-1)+1)=\frac{1}{2}k^2
-\frac{3}{2}k+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{2}\underbrace{(k^2-3k+1)}$. The roots of the underbraced quadratics are $k_{1,2}=\frac{3\pm
\sqrt{9-4}}{2}=\frac{3\pm \sqrt{5}}{2}\le \frac{3+
\sqrt{9}}{2}=3$. Variant: $\sqrt{5}\approx 2.24$, so $k_1\approx
2.62$.
\[17.03.13\] Misha Gabard (my father) and his skills in Excel calculated the next values of $k$ making $M=2k^2-3k+2$ into a square. The complete list for $M\le 1'000'000=10^6$ is $$k=1,2,17,46,553,1538,18761,52222,637297,$$ where $M$ is resp. the square of $$x=1,2,23,64,781,2174,26531,73852,901273.$$ On looking at the successive ratio of $k$, one finds the list $$R:=\frac{k_{n+1}}{k_n}=2, 8.5, 2.71, 12.02, 2.78, 12.20, 2.7835,
12.2036.$$ So naively the progression oscillates between a factor of about 2.78 and one about 12.20. So there seems to some extreme regularity, and one can predict in advance the size of the solutions.
The long quest of a Caucasian scheme, i.e. where Rohlin is stronger than Thom and Gudkov (united)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[12.03.13\] The following section has been written in realm time out of paper notes, and we have reproduced our long march toward the trivial truth. The pressed reader can directly jump to Theorem \[Caucasian-scheme:thm\]. (WHICH IS ACTUALLY FALSE) So one must really read the first few sections which collects loosely organized thoughts on the problem of finding a scheme prohibited by Rohlin but not by Thom. Of course to avoid trivialities one must add more assumptions like the curve being an $M$-curves satisfying the Arnold or even Gudkov congruence.
\[12.03.13\] As a consequence of Thom’s estimate $\chi\le k^2$ (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]), it seems that the Gudkov pyramids are much amputated on their right wings causing thereby a certain asymmetry of them. It is at this stage of some interest to wonder what happens on the opposite left-wings where Thom becomes useless but perhaps Rohlin’s formula has still some prohibitive impact.
In view of Fig.\[Degree10:fig\] let us look at the scheme $\frac{34}{1}2$ (not prohibited by Gudkov’s hypothesis). Here $\chi=1-34+2=-31$ and we have no prohibition by Thom. Is this scheme prohibited by Rohlin’s formula? Certainly not because as the Rohlin tree is simple there is no signs-law and the Rohlin equation $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=37-25=12$ is soluble under the obvious additional relation $\pi+\eta=34$. Indeed $2\pi=40$, so $\pi=20$ and $\eta=14$. (Optional question: Is this scheme realized algebraically?) (\[21.03.13\] Answer: negative as follows from Petrovskii 1933/38 (\[Petrovskii’s-inequalities:thm\])!)
Without changing $\chi$ we may delocalize the 2 outer islands to make them islands in a lake. We find so the scheme $(1,(1,2)33)$ (cf. Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]b). Is this schemes prohibited by Rohlin? We think the answer is no and the proof proceeds along the usual algorithm of solving the Rohlin equation under the signs-law. Recall that the latter can be easily remembered by saying that consanguinity is bad, i.e. $+\times +=-$, $-\times
-=+$, while mixing the genes is good, i.e. $+\times -= +$ and $-\times += -$. This exotic signs law is the exact opposite of the usual convention.
Fig.c depicts the Hilbert tree of the scheme of Fig.b, and we decorate it with a sign distribution as depicted, i.e. with $x$-many plus, and $y$-many minus, and likewise $\epsilon$ plus and $\delta$ minus at the indicated place. We have thus $x+y=33$, and $\epsilon+\delta=2$. Using the signs-law we find for the number of positive $\pi:=\Pi^+$ resp. negative pair $\eta:=\Pi^-$ the following expressions: $$\pi=x+2\epsilon, \quad \textrm{and} \quad \eta =y+2\delta+1.$$ Adding gives $\pi+\eta=(x+y)+4+1=38$. By Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=37-25=12$, so $\pi-\eta=6$. Hence $2\pi=44$, so $\pi=22$ and $\eta=\pi-6=16$. Solving finally in $x$ gives $x=\pi-2\epsilon=22-2\epsilon$. We are free to choose say $\epsilon=2$, then $x=22-4=18$ and $y=15$. So Rohlin’s equation is soluble.
-5pt0
-5pt0
At this stage the question becomes under which condition is Rohlin’s equation not soluble? A priori it may be remarked that Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$ is coupled with the formula $\pi+\eta=\Pi$ the total number of pair. Both right-hand sides of this pair of equations are entirely determined by the real scheme without having to worry about orientations. So under reasonable hypothesis, like $r-k^2$ even which is a disguised (Russian) version of Klein’s congruence $r\equiv g+1 \pmod 2$—as follows from the boring calculation $$r\equiv_2 g+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2\equiv_2 3k \equiv_2 k
\equiv_2 k^2,$$ —we could expect that Rohlin’s equation is always soluble, especially if the (concomitant) Arnold congruence is satisfied.
However this is not the case as shown by Fiedler’s corrigendum. There we considered the $M$-scheme $(1,1,1,1)33$ (of degree 10) which is prohibited by Rohlin’s formula since $\pi-\eta\le 2$ by the signs-law for triad (compare Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]d). But on the other hand Rohlin’s formula forces $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=37-25=12$, hence $\pi-\eta=6$.
Hence the philosophy behind Fiedler’s corrigendum seems to be that Rohlin’s formula imposes restriction, when there is much predestination forced by the signs-law, and this is naively speaking the case when there is much nesting like on the example just given. It seems of course to be of some interest to generalize the estimate $\Delta \Pi=\pi-\eta\le 2$ for triads to tetrads, etc.
So the scheme $(1,1,1,1)33$ is prohibited by Rohlin (in its strong form of the signs-law), but it is also by Thom as $\chi=33
\nleqslant k^2=25$. Now however we would rather be interested in schemes prohibited by Rohlin but not by Thom.
A first idea we had was to start from the scheme on Fig.b, and move $z$-many ovals inside to get Fig.e. As to maximize the “predestination” it seems wise to move the empty oval outside, and to assume $z=33$. But still under these circumstances it turned out that the Rohlin equation is soluble for a suitable distribution of sign, cf. Fig.f, from which we infer by the signs-law the following (where underbraced is the length of the corresponding edges=pairs) $$\pi-\eta=\underbrace{x-y+2}_{1}+\underbrace{(-x+y-1)}_{2}
+\underbrace{(+x-y)}_{3}=x-y+1.$$ (In this calculation it is useful to remind the consanguinity law, and the Fig.d for a triad.) Hence as $\pi-\eta=6$ (by Rohlin), we $x-y=5$, and $x+y=33$. So $2x=38$, whence $x=19$, and $y=14$. So Rohlin’s equations is soluble.
Philosophically it seems to be that whenever we have the free parameters $x,y$ then we can solve despite the predestination forced by the signs law.
Keep in mind that our question is whether Rohlin implies prohibitions on the left wing of the pyramid (i.e. for $\chi \ll
0$ much negative) where Thom tells nothing. In fact $\chi \le k^2$ is enough for Thom to be non-prohibitive. Hence our next idea was to start from Fiedler’s example $(1,1,1,1)33$ with $\chi=33$, and lower down to $\chi=25$. This lowering may be achieved by trading the (oceanic) outer islands against lakes, i.e. ovals at odd depths, and this requires to be done four times. (This can be done in several ways, cf. Fig.g.) However on applying the usual algorithm of sign distributions, we were always able to solve the Rohlin equation in a way compatible with the signs-law. Details on p.AR91 of my hand-notes, but the philosophy seems to be basically that Rohlin’s formula gives one equation and the signs-law another but as soon as there free-parameter $x,y$ counting the number of signs on branches there is enough freedom to solve all equations consistently.
In fact let us write down the argument. Starting from Fiedler’s example $(1,1,1,1)33$ with $\chi=33$, we lower down to $\chi=25$ by dragging 4 outer ovals at odd depth. This can be done in several fashions as we said, for instance like on Fig.\[Fied9:fig\]a by putting the 4 ovals at depth 1. However this new $M$-scheme is not prohibited by Rohlin’s formula. The latter says that $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=37-25=12$, $\pi-\eta=6$. On the other hand by using the signs-law, and splitting the 4 empty ovals at depth 1 into $4=x+y$, where $x$ are positive, and $y$ are negative (w.r.t. the sign of the edge right above it), and assuming further for simplicity that the trunk is everywhere positive, we can still solve the equation. Indeed by the signs-law we have $\pi-\eta=2+x-y$, and so $x-y=4$, $x+y=4$ whence $x=4$, $y=0$.
If instead we drag the 4 ovals at depth 3 we get Fig.\[Fied9:fig\]b. Now the signs-law becomes more involved, but we find splitting according to the length of the pairs (underbraced index) the following expression (assuming for simplicity $+$-signs already fixed on the trunk and as above there are $x$ many $+$ and $y$ many $-$): $$\pi-\eta=\underbrace{3+x-y}_{1}+ \underbrace{(-2-x+y)}_{2}+
\underbrace{(+1+x-y)}_{3}=2+x-y,$$ where we used the signs-laws for triad (Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]d) As $\pi-\eta=6$, this gives $x-y=4$, $x+y=4$, which is soluble.
-5pt0
-5pt0
Then we can also disperse the 4 ovals at different heights like on Fig.\[Fied9:fig\]c where 2 are at depth 1 and the 2 others at depth 3. Instead of applying the method of indeterminate signs, we content to give a solving sign distribution as depicted with only $+$-signs. One checks that $\pi-\eta=\underbrace{7}_{1}+\underbrace{(-4)}_{2}+
\underbrace{(+3)}_{3}=6$, in agreement with Rohlin’s formula.
Finally it remains to analyze the case of Fig.d, where we rigidify already some signs. Here $x+y=3$. Calculating via the signs-law gives $$\pi-\eta=\underbrace{4+x-y}_{1}+\underbrace{(-3)}_{2}+
\underbrace{(+2)}_{3}=3+x-y,$$ whence, as $\pi-\eta=6$, the system $x-y=3$, $x+y=3$, which is soluble (integrally) as $x=3$, $y=0$. (One checks mentally that this everywhere positive distribution works, as one do quickly mistakes in such calculation!)
Last the case of Fig.\[Fied9:fig\]e, is also handled by the same method. Here $$\pi-\eta=\underbrace{4+x-y}_{1}+\underbrace{(-2-x+y)}_{2}+
\underbrace{(+1+x-y)}_{3}=3+x-y,$$ like above (!) hence soluble.
Some further idea would be to increase the “predestination” by adding one or more triads as on Fig.f,g, yet such schemes are already prohibited by Bézout. Actually to lower $\chi$ down to Thom’s range $\chi\le k^2$ we look at Fig.g, but the latter is not even prohibited by Rohlin as $\pi-\eta=T_1+T_2+T_3$ is contributed by 3 trunks each $T_i\in\{2,0,-6\}$ (by Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]d) hence soluble as by Rohlin $\pi-\eta=6$. On Fig.f instead we have only 2 trunks so the scheme is prohibited by Rohlin (of course more elementarily by Bézout), yet it is also by Thom. So it does not solve our problem of finding a scheme where Rohlin is stronger than Thom.
Hence Fiedler’s example looks a typical case of predestination of the Rohlin mass $\Delta \Pi=\pi-\eta$. Of course it may be generalized in higher degrees than $10$, by looking at $M$-schemes of the form $(1,1,1,1)M-4$. Then by Rohlin $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=M-k^2=(g+1)-k^2=(2k-1)(k-1)+1-k^2
=k^2-3k+2=(k-1)(k-2)$. But on the other hand by the signs-law for triad (Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]d) we have $\Delta\Pi:=\pi-\eta\le 2$. It follows that the scheme considered is prohibited as soon as $\pi-\eta=(k-1)(k-2)/2$ is $\ge 3$ that is for $k\ge 4$. (The case $k=4$ being quite stupid for Bézout would have sufficed.)
Okay, but such schemes are also prohibited by Thom. One could also try to deepen the nest as the degree increase. Yet our goal is really to find a “Caucasian” scheme, i.e. obstructed by Rohlin, but not by Thom (nor by Gudkov or Arnold).
Here is an example that I discovered later and of degree 8 already. It is the $M$-scheme of degree 8 with symbol $\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{17}$. Now Rohlin’s formula says $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=22-16=6$, so $\pi-\eta=3$. On the other hand $\pi+\eta=20$, so $2\pi=23$ which is insoluble. Besides we have $\chi=(1-3)+(1-17)=-2-16=-18$ SO GUDKOV NOT VERIFIED
\[14.03.13\] So let us approach this problem more systematically. First when $m=6$ it is clear that there is no Caucasian $M$-scheme as follows from Gudkov’s table (=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). Indeed all the Thom permissible $M$-schemes are prohibited by Gudkov.
So we move to $m=8$, so $M=22$. Here we start with the $M$-scheme $(1,1,1)19$ with $\chi=20$ (cf. Fig.\[Fied1:fig\]a). As the 3-nest corresponds to a dyad (2 pairs of length 1) they contribute by the signs-law to at most 1 to $\pi-\eta$. Hence Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=22-16=6$ (i.e. $\pi-\eta=3$) cannot be solved. Of course the scheme in question is also prohibited for deeper reasons (at via deeper results) like Gudkov hypothesis $\chi\equiv k^2=16\pmod 8$, or Thom’s inequality $\chi \le k^2$. Our goal is to find an $M$-scheme where the “elementary” Rohlin formula becomes stronger than the conjunction of 2 deep results (Gudkov hypothesis proved by Rohlin-Rohlin/Atiyah-Singer-Marin and Thom proved by Kronheimer-Mrowka).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Can we adjust the invariants as to neutralize Gudkov and Thom? A first idea is to drag one outer oval at depth 1. Then the contribution to the Rohlin (signed) mass $\pi-\eta$ is still $\le 2$, and so his formula cannot be solved. Yet doing so we have $\chi=18$ and the scheme is also prohibited by Gudkov or Thom.
If we delocalize one more outer oval at depth 1 we get Fig.c, where now Rohlin’s formula can be satisfied, and as $\chi=16$ both Gudkov and Thom are happy. So we see some annoying (as far as our Caucasian policy is concerned) concomitance between the 3 forces involved Rohlin, Gudkov, Thom.
This phenomenon is not specific to degree 8 and repeats itself in degree $m=10$, where $M=37$ (temperature of the body of a primate). Let us experiment this concretely. As Bézout now permits, we start now with a deep nest of profundity 4 (4 nested ovals) and add 33 outer ovals to reach Harnack’s bound $M=37$ (cf. Fig.d, which involve a “triad” chain with 3 consecutive edges). By Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=37-25=12$, so $\pi-\eta=6$. However by the signs-law for triad the contribution of the triad is at most $2$ (cf. Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]), and thus the scheme $(1,1,1,1)33$ is prohibited by Rohlin. As $\chi=33\equiv_8 k^2=25$, the scheme is not prohibited by Gudkov, but it is by Thom. So our Caucasian goal is not achieved.
To improve the situation we have to lower $\chi$ down to $k^2=25$. As far as the signs-law is involved we can transfer at most 3 oval at depth 1 (like on Fig.e), so as to have a contribution to $\pi-\eta$ still $\le 2+3=5<6$. Doing so $\chi=27$, and the scheme is still prohibited by Thom (and anew by Gudkov). Another idea is to use 3 dyads as on Fig.f as the latter also contribute to at most $1$ to Rohlin’s mass $\pi-\eta$. Alas doing so does not diminish $\chi$ in the Thom range, and actually violates Bézout (cf. Fig.g). This can be remedied if we abort the triad, and look at a configuration with 5 dyads (the maximum possible while still taking care to making Rohlin’s equation $\pi-\eta=6$ impossible). This gives Fig.h with alas still $\chi=27$. So this schemes is prohibited by both Rohlin, Gudkov, and Thom (but as far as I see not by Bézout even for conics).
If we nest one more outer oval we may get Fig.i with $\chi=25$, but suddenly Rohlin’s equation is now soluble (choose e.g. $+$-signs throughout). Likewise we may consider Fig.j, but Rohlin is likewise soluble. Considering Fig.k still calibrated as to make Rohlin’s equation impossible (as each triad contribute for $\le 2$), we only reach $\chi=27$ (of course this configuration is anti-Bézout). We can push it further to Fig.l, which despite being prohibited by Bézout it is not by Gudkov nor by Thom, yet alas not by Rohlin since $2+2+2=6$ and so Rohlin’s equation is soluble taking $+$-signs on all edges.
Our naive cuneiform construction can still be more varied, yet it seems unlikely that we will ever find a Caucasian scheme by this method. We still consider Fig.m (not interesting). Next look at Fig.n with $\chi=25$. Denoting by $x$, $y$ the number of $+$’s resp. $-$’s on the edge right above the corresponding letter, the signs-law gives (after fixing $+$ on the trunks) $$\pi-\eta=\underbrace{4+x-y}_{1}+\underbrace{(-3)}_{2}
+\underbrace{(+2)}_{3}=3+x-y,$$ whence the system $x-y=3$, $x+y=3$ soluble as $(x,y)=(3,0)$. So the scheme is not obstructed by Rohlin.
We can also transmute Fig.d into Fig.o, where again 3 branches are added so as to keep Rohlin’s formula impossible, but again $\chi$ drops only to $27$ (and not $25$). Of course such a scheme is defacto prohibited by the Bézout-Hilbert bound on the depth of nests (cf. Fig.p).
If it is not possible to find a Caucasian scheme in degree $10$, what about degree 12. First we need to extend the signs-law to tetrads. While the latter involves for dyads a square (4 possible products of two signs), and for triads a cube (with 8 possible signs combinations), we have now a 4D-hypercube with $2^4=16$ combinations. The signs-law for tetrads is depicted below (Fig.\[Signs-law-tetrad:fig\]). It corroborates the a-priori reasonable expectation that the maximum contribution arises when all 4 signs are $+$, in which case the contribution to Rohlin’s mass $\pi-\eta$ is 2. Still a priori we may expect that our (Caucasian) game will not become easier since Harnack’s bound $M=g+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2$ increases much faster than Thom’s bound $k^2$ and so we will have more pain to lower down $\chi$ in Thom’s range. Despite these objections [*a priori*]{} let us track down our prey more slowly.
-5pt0
-5pt0
\[15.03.13\] Hence:
The contribution to Rohlin’s mass $\pi-\eta$ of a deep nest is:
$\bullet$ for a dyad either $+1$ or $-3$,
$\bullet$ for a triad either $+2,0$ or $-6$,
$\bullet$ for a tetrad either $+2,0,-2$ or $-10$.
With some combinatorial ingeniousness it should be easy to extend to the general case. However let us first tackle our Caucasian problem in degree 12. Again we resort to the cuneiform formalism used above. When $m=12$, $M=g+1=\frac{11\cdot 10}{2}+1=55+1=56$. We consider first Fig.\[Fied2:fig\]a. Here $\chi=52$, while Gudkov says $\chi\equiv_8 k^2=36=44=52$, which is verified. By Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=56-36=20$, so $\pi-\eta=10$, but the contribution of the tetrad is at most 2 by the signs-law, and thus the scheme is prohibited by Rohlin. Of course it is also by Thom $\chi \le k^2$. As above the game is to lower $\chi$, by transferring outer ovals at depth 1. As to keep Rohlin in defeat, we may add at most 7 branches as on Fig.b, and obtain a scheme with $\chi=52-2\cdot 7=52-14=38$, again 2 unit above Thom’s bound. The next idea is to let branches of dyads (dyadic branches) hang on. Each contributes at most $1$ to Rohlin’s mass $\pi-\eta$, and so keeping Rohlin’s formula in check we may add 7 of them, but of course $\chi$ remains unchanged to $\chi=38$ (as we merely traded outer ovals at depth 0 for ones at depth 2). Next Fig.d involves only dyads contributing for at most 1, so keeping Rohlin check-mate we can plug 9 of them, and the resulting $\chi$ is still $38$. Using instead triadic branches as on Fig.e which contributes for 2 (at most) we may plug 4 of them and the remaining unit is consumed by inserting a dyadic branch, and we find of course again $\chi=38$. Considering only monadic branches as on Fig.f (und zwar 9 of them to Rohlin in check) yields again $\chi=38$. If like on Fig.g the monadic branches are not subsumed to a single dominator we find again introducing 9 of them, $\chi=38$. Using instead 9 dyadic branches of the same sort, we get Fig.h, where still $\chi=38$.
So it looks again hard to find a Caucasian scheme where Rohlin is stronger than Thom (and Gudkov united). Either we are looking at the wrong place or there is some subsumation of Rohlin to Thom, for some trivial arithmetical reasons. That is assume you have an $M$-scheme with $\chi\equiv_8 k^2$ (Gudkov) and $\chi\le k^2$ then Rohlin’s equation is always soluble. Indeed write formally $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$. By the $M$-curve assumption $r-k^2$ is $r-k^2=(2k-1)(k-1)+1-k^2=k^2-3k+2$, etc.
-5pt0
-5pt0
One could also ask if for $M$-curves the Thom and Gudkov obstructions are the sole one, but this is probably corrupted by Bézout-style obstruction à la Fiedler-Viro (in degree 8 already).
Some weak evidence against Caucasian schemes
--------------------------------------------
\[15.03.13\] In the previous section we tried (hard) to find a “Caucasian” scheme, i.e. prohibited by Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$ but not by Thom $\chi\le k^2$, but failed. Of course as Rohlin’s formula formally implies Arnold congruence it is actually a simple matter to find such a scheme, e.g. any $M$-scheme violating Arnold’s congruence but not Thom do the job. For instance in degree 6, the $M$-scheme $\frac{2}{1}8$ is prohibited by Rohlin, but not by Thom. Likewise for the $(M-2)$-scheme $\frac{1}{1}7$ in type I.
However if we add the Gudkov hypothesis as a side condition (or perhaps just the Arnold congruence) then it seemed difficult to find a Caucasian scheme where Rohlin is stronger than Thom. The sequel tries to give some evidence that it is impossible to find a Caucasian scheme, but our argument will be somewhat loose. The main difficulty is the mess arising with the signs-law and so the difficulty looks merely combinatorial. Of course it is not impossible that we missed a trivial counter-example that impedes the completion of the present programme.
First we described in the previous section the mess arising form the signs-law applied on dyad, triads, up to tetrads, which are totally ordered chains. In general the situation is more tricky as the Hilbert tree of the scheme may be highly branched.
Recall that to a dividing curve is assigned complex orientations (up to global reversion of all of them), which in turn decorates the Hilbert tree (of the curve) with a signs-distribution (abridged charge) making it into what we call the Rohlin tree. (Of course the tree can be a “forest”, i.e. have several components, and it really “branches downwards” as to look more like Arnold’s paradigm of the mushrooms.)
Each such (Rohlin) signed tree is completely determined by the signs ascribed to the edges of length 1 as it then extends to longer edges by the signs-law. Further each such tree has a Rohlin mass $\mu=\pi-\eta$ which is the difference between $\pi:=\Pi^+$ the number of positive pairs and $\eta:=\Pi^-$ the number of negative pairs.
When the Rohlin tree is the one induced by a curve of degree $m=2k$, (the marvellous) Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$ fixes the mass in function of $r$ the number of ovals and $k$ the semi-degree. Further $\pi+\eta=\Pi$ is the total number of pair, and so one gets the wrong impression that Rohlin’s equation is always soluble but there is some hidden rôle played by the mass $\mu:=\pi-\eta$ which for certain configuration can only be very low (especially on chains), cf. Fiedler’s example with $(1,1,1,1)33$ in degree 10.
So the core of the problem is to understand the behavior of the Rohlin mass $\mu$. In the previous section we nearly understood this for vertical chains. Especially easy, is the case where all signs are positive, in which case it is a simple matter to show the:
Given an $n$-chain of $n$ consecutive edges all positively charged then the Rohlin mass of the chain is the integer part $[\frac{n+1}{2}]$
Look and see (i.e. make pictures). Indeed looking at the Signs-laws for triad ($n=3$) or tetrad ($n=4$), we get resp. $\mu=3-2+1=1+1=2$ and $\mu=(4-3)+(2-1)=1+1=2$. For a 5-chain this extends as $\mu=(5-4)+(3-2)+1=3$, for a 6-chain as $\mu=(6-5)+(4-3)+(2-1)=3$, and so on.
In general for a signed tree there ought to be a sort of skein relation permitting an iterated evaluation of the Rohlin mass $\mu$, based on the formula that $\mu$ of an inverted “Y” looking like a $\Lambda$ surmounted by a chain is equal to $\mu$ of the left maximal chain in the inverted “Y” plus the right chain, minus $\mu$ of the common trunk. If this is not clear, please compare Fig.\[Fied2:fig\]i. This formula is of course a formal consequence of the inclusion-exclusion principle in combinatorics or measure theory.
Now in sloppy fashion first, the idea is that under certain assumptions (like the conjunction of Gudkov and Thom’s $\chi\le
k^2$) one could show the existence of a charge (=distribution of signs) solving Rohlin’s equation. Perhaps this can be done via a sort of linear algebra modulo 2.
First the charge in question is merely a $\pm 1$-valued function on the set $E$ of all edges of the tree. The set of all such distributions denoted $\cal E$ can be turned into a vector space over the field ${\Bbb F}_2$ with 2 elements. Define indeed the sum of two charges $\epsilon, \delta$ as $(\epsilon+\delta)(e)=\epsilon(e)\times \delta(e)$, where $\times$ is the Rohlin product given by the signs-law (i.e. the opposite of the usual sign convention for products). The neutral element is $\epsilon_0$ the minus distribution, as $(\epsilon+\epsilon_0)(e)=\epsilon(e)\times (-1)=\epsilon(e)$. Also each element has order 2, as it should. (More boring details in p.AR99=hand-notes, especially the inversed charge where all signs are switched is not the inverse charge!) The multiplication by a scalar is naturally defined. The Rohlin mass is the function $\mu\colon \cal E \to {\Bbb Z}$.
Now that we have a good vector space, we could hope our problem reducible to linear algebra! Intuitively if $\chi\le k^2$ then there must be enough edges as to solve Rohlin’s equation. More precisely Rohlin’s formula fixes the mass via $2\mu =r-k^2$, and via the skein relation the mass of the tree reduces to that of chains which in turn can be reduced to that of edges via the signs-law, i.e. the knowledge of the charge $\epsilon$ itself. If one is good in combinatorics there is a little hope to show that each skein relation induces a linear equation and count that there is enough free parameter as to solve the equation. [*Warning.*]{}—As remarked in more details latter, already in degree 6 we have the scheme $5$ whose type I realization is prohibited by Rohlin but not by Thom, so there is no chance to complete this programme, unless extra assumptions are added, e.g. that of being an $M$-curves (which further must satisfy the Arnold congruence, else prohibited by Rohlin but not by Thom).
As a trivial example we may extend the observations of the previous section. Consider an $M$-scheme without nesting. Then $\chi=M$. Now to diminish $\chi$ we introduce edges (i.e. nested pairs), cf. Fig.\[Fied2:fig\]g for an example. We have $r=M=g+1=(2k-1)(k-1)+1=2k^2-3k+2$, so $r-k^2=k^2-3k+2=(k-1)(k-2)$. By Rohlin’s formula $\mu:=\pi-\eta=(k-1)(k-2)/2$. Hence to keep Rohlin’s formula in default, we introduce only $\mu-1$ edges. Then we compute $\chi$, and find $\chi=r-2(\mu-1)$ and a boring calculation shows this to be $k^2+2$. So if obstructed by Rohlin then also by Thom. (More details in p.AR.99 of the hand-notes.) Of course this is not the general case as the scheme has a very specific structure akin to Fig.\[Fied2:fig\]g. Can we generalize, perhaps but requires to work out some messy combinatorics.
A somewhat more appealing idea is that if the scheme is obstructed by Rohlin then it is because its mass $\mu$ is strictly less than $\pi-\eta=(r-k^2)/2$ even when the tree is positively charged, and conjecturally this should maximize the mass. All this is vague but points to the right direction. Namely it gives the idea of computing the Rohlin mass of a tree with positive charges only. The answer turns out to be simple and elegant:
\[Rohlin-mass-of-a-positively-charged-tree:lem\] The Rohlin mass $\mu$ of a positively charged (signed) tree $T$ is equal to $$\mu(T)=n_1+n_3+n_5+\dots=n,$$ the number of ovals at odd depths, where $n_1$ counts those at depth $1$, $n_3$ at depth $3$, and so on.
Make a picture of a tree with possibly several components. Put plus signs everywhere as stipulated. By additivity we may focus attention on a single component of the tree. Each vertex at depth $\ge 1$ has exactly one edge above it. All pairs are enumerated by starting from vertices at depth 1 and looking at edges above them gives the contribution $n_1$. Next we look at the $p_2$ many vertices at depth 2, each inducing two pairs above it (of length 1 and 2 resp.). The first contribute for $+1$, while the other has sign $-1$ by the signs-law $+\times +=-$ (recall that consanguinity is bad). So ovals at depth 2 contributes for $p_2-p_2=0$. Continuing in this fashion we find: $$\mu=n_1+(p_2-p_2)+(n_3-n_3+n_3)+(p_4-p_4+p_4-p_4)+\dots,$$ which implies the announced formula.
As implicit above we posit the:
\[positive-mass-conjecture:conj\] The Rohlin mass of a signed (Rohlin) tree is maximized when the tree is positively charged throughout.
Some evidence comes from the case of chains (as tabulated on the signs-law tables, e.g. Fig.\[Signs-law-tetrad:fig\]). There is perhaps a simple argument.
But do we really need this? Let us make another observation based on the lemma.
Assume that Thom holds, i.e. $\chi\le k^2$. In general, we have: $$\chi=p_0-n_1+p_2-n_3+p_4-\dots,$$ where each symbol $p_i, n_i$ counts the number of ovals at depth $i$, where $p,n$ are just “residue” of Petrovskii notations for positive and negative but best interpreted in terms of even or odd depth resp. (The notation are nearly consistent in French-Swiss-German, where “even=pair” and “odd=uNgerade”.)
Besides, the total number of ovals, denoted $r$, is expressible as $$r=p_0+n_1+p_2+n_3+p_4+\dots,$$ so that subtracting the double of the Rohlin mass $\mu$ of the positively charged Rohlin tree (as calculated in the lemma) gives the relation: $$r-2\mu=\chi,$$ which holds universally when the tree is positively charged.
So if Thom is verified, i.e. $\chi\le k^2$, we find $2\mu=r-\chi\ge r-k^2$. This means that there is no obstruction [*a priori*]{} to solve Rohlin’s equation, since Rohlin’s mass is as large as it should by virtue of Rohlin’s formula $2\mu=r-k^2$. Paraphrasing, Rohlin’s equation is virtually soluble.
If Thom’s estimate $\chi\le k^2$ is fulfilled, then there is no “quantitative” obstruction to solve Rohlin’s equation. Yet beware that there may of course be finer arithmetical reasons impeding solubility as with the scheme $5$ of degree $6$ which has no type I realization.
This prompts some evidence toward the:
There is no Caucasian scheme, where Rohlin is stronger than Thom (at least modulo adding some suitable hypotheses, e.g. that of an $M$-scheme).
Can we find a formal proof? A crudely idea is to notice that if we charge the tree negatively throughout then by the signs-law all pairs are negative as $-\times -=-$. So the Rohlin mass of the negatively charged tree is $-\Pi$, where $\Pi$ is the total number of pairs. Hence by a dubious mean-value theorem (in the discontinuous realm of the arithmetics of quanta) we would like to infer existence of a charge fulfilling Rohlin’s formula.
Another idea is to introduce indeterminate signs and try to solve a system of linear equations. We did this frequently formerly, but we had some grasp on the geometry of the tree. Whether this can be done in abstracto is not clear to me, and may of course converge to the first strategy using linear algebra on the spaces of all charges (plus the skein-relation).
Of course recall that we have the Rohlin-Marin inequality that a dividing curve $C_{m=2k}$ has $r\ge m/2=k$, i.e. at least as many ovals as the semi-degree. This is a formal consequence of Rohlin’s formula and precludes in degree $6$ a type I incarnation of the scheme $1$ (unifolium), which is not prohibited by Arnold’s congruence mod 4 (cf. the Gudkov-Rohlin table=Fig.\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]). This example (or also the scheme $5$ in degree 6) are of course trivial counterexamples to the above conjecture (freed from the parenthetical proviso). The latter gains however some more credibility when the curve is assumed to be an $M$-curve (or perhaps even an $(M-2)$-curve).
It is evident that our whole problem is somewhat ill-posed, yet we hope to have demonstrated that some complicity between Rohlin and Thom requires to be elucidated.
The simple example of the scheme $5$ in degree 6, where Thom’s estimate $\chi\le k^2$ as well as Arnold’s congruence are fulfilled, but whose realizability in type I is precluded by Rohlin’s formula (as $r$ is not a square and there is no nesting hence $\Pi=0$, and so a fortiori $\pi=\eta=0$) shows that our above desideratum of solving Rohlin’s equation under the sole assumption of being in Thom’s range is not realistic. So one must really add some extra assumptions, typically that of being an $M$-curve, which can perhaps be somewhat relaxed.
Let us close the discussion via precise conjectures:
$\bullet$ An $M$-scheme verifying the Gudkov congruence $\chi\equiv k^2 \pmod 8$ and the Thom estimate $\chi\le k^2$ is never prohibited by Rohlin’s formula.
$\bullet$ An $(M-2)$-scheme verifying the RKM=Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence $\chi\equiv k^2 +4 \pmod 8$ (ensuring the scheme to be of type I) and the Thom estimate $\chi\le k^2$ is never prohibited by Rohlin’s formula.
A basic mistake in the search of a Caucasian scheme
---------------------------------------------------
DO NOT READ THE SEQUEL IT IS FALSE!
Our next idea was to look at an $M$-scheme extending 5 nests of depth 2 (cf. Fig.\[Fiedler6:fig\]a,b). By Rohlin’s formula we still have $\pi-\eta=6$, but $\pi-\eta\le \pi+\eta=\Pi=5$ so Rohlin is violated, but alas $\chi=27$ hence the scheme is also prohibited by Thom. Can we diminish $\chi$? Yes as usual by trading an outer oval at depth 0 against one at depth 0, cf. Fig.c. But then the corresponding tree (Fig.d) has $\Pi=6$ pairs and so Rohlin’s formula is soluble with $\pi=6$ (i.e. all edges positive).
Finally, we started from the scheme $(1,1)35$ (cf. Fig.e) with $\chi=35$ and to lower to Thom’s range $\chi=25$, we make 5 moves to get Fig.f and its allied tree on Fig.g. But again we have $\Pi=6$ and so can solve Rohlin’s equation by putting only positive signs.
From this last configuration, we decided to drag one of the ovals at depth 2 to get Fig.h, which has still $\chi=25$. By Rohlin $\pi-\eta=6$. Now introducing free variables $x,y$ counting positive resp. negative signs on the 5 edges and choosing any distribution of signs on the trunk of length 2, we know that the latter will contribute for at most $\le 2$ to $\Delta\Pi:=\pi-\eta$ (by Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]d) and its contribution $T$ is either $2,0,-6$, which is at any rate even. WARNING: HERE I MADE A BASIC CONFUSION IN THE LENGTH OF THIS CHAIN!!! On calculating $\pi-\eta$ by the signs-law we get $$\pi-\eta=T+x-y,$$ so $x-y=6-T$ and $x+y=5$ so that $2x=11-T$ which is impossible modulo 2! So we found our first scheme prohibited by Rohlin but not by Thom, an therefore:
\[Caucasian-scheme:thm\] (WARNING=ERRONEOUS) There exists a “Caucasian” scheme[^92], where Rohlin is stronger than Gudkov and Thom. More precisely the $M$-scheme of degree 10 of Fig.h that is $(1,(1,1)5)29$—in Gudkov’s notation—is prohibited by Rohlin’s formula, but not by Gudkov’s hypothesis $\chi=k^2 \pmod 8$ nor by Thom’s inequality $\chi\le k^2$. The example has $\chi=25$ (by construction).
-5pt0
-5pt0
Of course the above argument extends to the case where we drop 3 ovals at depth 2 (Fig.i) so that we have $x+y=3$ still odd. (This could even be $x+y=1$.) Indeed denoting by $T_1,T_2,T_3$ the contributions of the 3 trunks of length 2 on Fig.i and by $T$ their sum (which is even by signs-law for triad), we find by the signs-law $$\pi-\eta=T+x-y,$$ and therefore as $\pi-\eta=6$ (by Rohlin’s formula) we have $x-y=6-T$ and $x+y=3$, so that summing $2x=9-T$, which is impossible modulo 2.
The phenomenon just discovered is probably not new and perhaps related to Slepyan’s law (also a formal consequence of Rohlin’s formula), cf. perhaps Rohlin 1978 or Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000].
\[13.03.13\] It is quite evident that we may generalize somewhat the result. What seems essential to the argument is that the Hilbert tree of the scheme as the structure of Figs.h.i with an odd number $x+y$ of empty ovals at depth 1, so to be like Fig.\[Fiedler7:fig\]a with $x+y$ odd.
In fact let us be more general and leave degree 10. So suppose to have an $M$-scheme of (arbitrary) degree $2k$ (or more generally a scheme of type I, but we reserve this for latter) so that the dividing character is granted and therefore Rohlin’s formula applies.
We suppose additionally that the scheme is like Fig.a with $x+y$ denoting the number of empty ovals at depth 1, partitioned into $x$ many positive pairs and $y$ many negative pairs (when looking at the unique edge right above those ovals).
The argument is then to compute $\pi-\eta$ in two fashions. One way involves Rohlin’s formula $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$, while the other route involves the signs-law for triad (cf. Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]d) and gives $$\pi-\eta=T+x-y,$$ where $T$ is the contribution of the trunks of length 2 which is necessarily even (again by Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]d). Now if $r-k^2\equiv 0\pmod 4$, by Rohlin $\pi-\eta$ is even and the signs-law equation is corrupted if $x-y\equiv_2 x+y$ is odd. Viceversa if $r-k^2$ is not divisible by 4, then Rohlin says that $\pi-\eta$ is odd, but the signs-law that it is even provided $x+y$ is even.
Finally for $M$-curves it is a simple matter to check that $r-k^2\equiv 0\pmod 4$ iff $k\equiv 1,2 \pmod 4$. Indeed $$r-k^2=(g+1)-k^2=(2k-1)(k-1)+1-k^2=k^2-3k+2,$$ which is mod 4 for $k=1$, $1-3+2=0$ and for $k=2$, $4-6+2=0$, while for $k=3$, it is $9-9+2=2$ and for $k=0=4$, it is $2$.
Hence we have proved the:
Define a dendritic scheme as one like depicted on Fig.\[Fiedler7:fig\]a, i.e. with Gudkov symbol of the form $(1,(1,1)\dots(1,1) x+y ) z$.
If $k\equiv 1,2 \pmod 4$, there is no $M$-curve of degree $2k$ with dentritic scheme having an odd number of empty ovals at depth 1.
If instead $k\equiv 1,2 \pmod 4$, there is no such curve having an even number of empty ovals at depth 1.
Some additional remarks are in order, which we detail right after.
1.—First it is a simple matter to see that Caucasian schemes exists already in degree 8.
2.—Second it seems clear that we may formulate of the theorem for $(M-2)$-schemes satisfying the RKM-congruence ensuring type I.
3.—Third, we could expect to extend the result to the case where there are several dendrites, or deeper nests.
1.—Indeed for definiteness we may assume that there is a single trunk of length 2 (like on Fig.b). For $m=8$, $M=22$ and so for an $M$-curve we have $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=22-16=6$, so that $\pi-\eta$ is odd. Yet calculating via the signs-law prompts that $\pi-\eta=T+x-y$ which is even provided the number $x+y$ of branches of length 1 is even. (THIS IS AGAIN A MISTAKE CAUSED BY CONFUSION IN THE LENGTH OF THE CHAIN: BASICALLY IT INVOLVES 3 OVALS BUT THE LENGTH IS 2!!!) So we get schemes prohibited by Rohlin along the series depicted on Fig.c, which traduced in Gudkov’s symbols gives the list $$(1,1,1)19, (1,(1,1)2)17, (1,(1,1)4)15, (1,(1,1)6)13, (1,(1,1)8)11,
\dots, (1,(1,1)18)1,$$ where $\chi$ is first $\chi=(1-1+1)+19=20$ (hence the scheme is also prohibited by Gudkov or Thom) and then successively drops by 4 units, so that the second listed scheme $(1,(1,1)2)17$ has $\chi=16$ (hence not prohibited by Gudkov nor by Thom, but prohibited by Rohlin), and so on. At $\chi=8$ we find another Caucasian scheme $(1,(1,1)6)13$.
-5pt0
-5pt0
2.—For $(M-2)$-schemes satisfying the RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv
k^2+4 \pmod 8$ we are ensured to be of type I. We consider again a dentritic scheme like on Fig.\[Fiedler7:fig\]a and repeat the above argument. By Rohlin $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2$, while on the other hand $\pi-\eta=T+x-y$ where $T$ is the contribution from the trunks which is even. As $x+y\equiv_2 x-y$, we get a contradiction as soon as $x+y$ and $(r-k^2)/2$ have opposite parities. When $r=M-2$, $r-k^2$ is congruent to 0 mod 4 precisely when $k\equiv
0,3 \pmod 4$ (just shift by 2 the previous calculation).
To get an example, consider $m=8$ and take just one trunk like on Fig.c, but now consider the $(M-2)$-scheme $(1,1,1)17$. It has $\chi=18$. But we impose the RKM-congruence, hence adjust $\chi$ to $12$. Hence we consider $(1,(1,1)3)14$, and this is prohibited by Rohlin. Indeed his formula becomes $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=20-16=4$, which is divisible by 4 (as predicted above), while by the signs-law $\pi-\eta=T+x-y$ is odd since there are $x+y=3$ little branches hanging on. \[21.03.13\] THIS IS ERRONEOUS BUT MAYBE CAN BE CORRECTED BY CHANGING OF PARITY, as the trunks contributes for an odd number.
So the real outcome of this method of prohibition based on Rohlin’s formula and the signs-law seems to be a powerful tool for prohibition. It remains of course to examine its exact significance, and how it generalize to nest of deeper structure.
It may be noted that earlier in this text we attempted a complete classification of RKM-schemes of degree 8. This was rather a census, i.e. a weak form of combinatorially possible schemes yet without any claim of realizability. Now with the present method we see that some of them are prohibited. It remains to understand which of them are prohibited by Rohlin enhanced by the signs-law. Clearly the argument given above extends and implies the following lemma.
\[RKM-scheme-ruled-out:lem\] (ERRONEOUS) The four primitive types of RKM-schemes, i.e. $$(1,(1,1)3)14, (1,(1,1)7)10, (1,(1,1)11)6, (1,(1,1)15)2,$$ already listed in Equation \[RKM-scheme-deg-8-four-primitive-type:eq\], are prohibited by Rohlin’s formula.
However their derived products looks harder to prohibit as they ramify and do not anymore belong to the dendrite type.
For instance for the scheme $(1,(1,2)3)13$ one can easily solve Rohlin’s equation with a distribution of sign, and so probably for all other derived products. That remains to be checked.
On the other hand, it is clear that our census of 100 schemes was far from exhaustive. Indeed we may consider a dendrite with 2 trunks like on Fig.d. This has $\chi=16$, and to adjust the RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv_8 k^2+4=20\equiv_8 12$ we move down to $\chi=12$ by transferring 2 outer ovals at depth 1 to get Fig.e. This scheme is not prohibited by Rohlin. Indeed $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=20-16=4$ (so $\pi-\eta=2$), and by the signs-law $\pi-\eta=T_1+T_2+x-y$ where each trunks contributes to $T_i\in \{2,0,-6\}$ by Fig.\[Signs-law-triad:fig\]d. Even if we impose $T_1=T_2=2$, the system is still soluble, being $x-y=2$ and $x+y=2$, hence $(x,y)=(2,0)$.
As usual, the RKM-scheme of Fig.e whose (Gudkov) symbol is $(1,\frac{1}{1}\frac{1}{1}2)13$ has a myriad of companions. One can either:
$\bullet$ without changing $\chi$ transfer outer ovals at depth 2 (in various ways);
$\bullet$ drop $\chi$ by 8 units by transfer quanta of 4 ovals at depth 1.
All this is a bit messy to write down, and this will still not be exhaustive as we can start from the configuration with 3 trunks (Fig.f) which has $\chi=14$, and to adjust to RKM we make one transfer at depth 1 (Fig.g) and get so another RKM-scheme. This times the scheme is prohibited by Rohlin as $2(\pi-\eta)=r-k^2=20-16=4$ (so $\pi-\eta=2$), but by the signs-law $\pi-\eta=T+x-y$ where each 3 trunks contributes evenly while $x-y\equiv_2 x+y=1$ is odd. Likewise if from Fig.g we transfer quanta of 4 outer ovals at depth 1 the number of branches $x+y$ is still odd, and so those schemes are prohibited too. However those schemes derived from Fig.g by transferring outer ovals at depth 2 are probably not prohibited.
Then there is still the cases of 4, 5, etc. trunks and the classification looks quite messy to obtain. Fortunately the story the story as soon as the tree contains 4 disjoint edges, since this correspond to 4 nest of depth 2 (a configuration which is saturated by Bézout or better Rohlin’s maximality principle). Note incidentally that this principle also prohibits the schemes like Fig.g with 3 trunks since there are extra branches, so that the above prohibition via Rohlin’s formula can be subsumed to total reality. \[Warning this last sentence looks dubious!\] Albeit messy, it could be of primary importance to get a good view of what happens along the way to extend the Rohlin-Le Touzé phenomenon of total reality from degree 6 to degree 8.
So a pivotal question is whether there is any reasonable way to list all RKM-schemes of degree 8? If so then make some cleaning by ruling out those prohibited by Rohlin’s formula (enhanced by the signs-law), and finally try to understand which are realized algebraically (simplified form of Hilbert’s 16th nearly solved by the experts, but by far by myself, as one requires certainly the Viro method). Once this s achieved try to understand if all those schemes are subjected to the phenomenon of total reality (probably under pencil of quintics, as we discussed earlier). If so then there is some chance that Rohlin’s maximality conjecture holds true in degree $8$.
All this requires either Herculean forces or some good idea.
Toward a complete census of RKM-schemes of degree 8
---------------------------------------------------
\[13.03.13\] Our goal is to list all RKM-schemes of degree 8. Those are $(M-2)$-scheme satisfying the RKM-congruence $\chi\equiv
k^2+4=20 \pmod 8$. Of course there is a menagerie of them, but we have also upper bound given by the saturation principle of Rohlin allied to total reality, once the depth is 4 the configuration is saturated and cannot develop further. Actually the nest of depth 4, is not an $(M-2)$-scheme and so the depth is at most 3 (or 2 depending on the way you count). Likewise the pencil of conics shows that that there can be at most 4 nests of depth 2, or when translated in the cuneiform language of Hilbert’s tree there is at most 4 edges which are disjoint.
With this upper bound in mind, there is some little hope to make a complete classification. Further as the number of ovals $r$ is fixed to $M-2=20$, we may kill all empty ovals lacking a superior (so-called outer ovals) and thus condense a bit notation. So to each scheme is assigned a “skeleton” (kill the outer ovals) from which we may recover the scheme unambiguously.
We abort this project as it is quite overwhelming.
Trying to corrupt Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (RMC)
------------------------------------------------------
WARNING DO NOT READ: FULL OF MISTAKES. But try to correct at the occasion. Compare p.AR95–96 for the original, and keep in MIND the example of p.AR96. This is the $M$-scheme of degree 8 with symbol $\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{17}$ which is prohibited by Rohlin, since $\pi-\eta=3$ (via Rohlin), but $\pi+\eta=20$, so $2\pi=23$ which is not soluble integrally. BUT yet another MISTAKE, this scheme is already prohibited by Gudkov (or even Arnold!) as $\chi=(1-3)+(1-17)=-18$
\[14.03.13\] Another basic question is whether from all schemes (in particular $M$-schemes) that we prohibited via Rohlin (and the signs-law), if it is not possible to corrupt RMC by finding an $(M-1)$-scheme right below which is maximal, but of course not of type I by Klein’s congruence $r\equiv g+1 \pmod 2$ for dividing curves.
One such scheme in degree 8 was given by $(1,\frac{1}{1}2)17$ (cf. Fig.\[Fiedler7:fig\]c) with $\chi=16$. WARNING THIS IS A MISTAKE, as Rohlin’s equation can be solved with all signs positive!!! Of course there is a myriad of other such $M$-schemes verifying the Gudkov congruence $\chi\equiv k^2 \pmod 8$ but prohibited for different reasons (Rohlin with signs-law, or by Thom (\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\])). So the vague idea is that if the scheme is French or Caucasian (i.e. prohibited by Thom resp. Rohlin but not by Gudkov) then the scheme is nearly realized in the sense that killing one of its oval then the GKK-congruence $\chi\equiv k^2\pm 1 \pmod 8$ (cf. \[Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov-cong:thm\]) is satisfied and so there is some hope to construct some $(M-1)$-curve. Further, and this is the most dubious part of the game, we would like that the resulting $(M-1)$-curve cannot be enlarged, which requires to inspect a menagerie of schemes.
Of course we play this game [*à contre coeur*]{} as it is against our philosophy that the phenomenon of total reality is ubiquitous, and as posited by Rohlin 1978, that it governs the saturation principle (alias Rohlin’s maximality conjecture) saying that a scheme of type I is maximal in the hierarchy of all schemes.
Note actually our logical MISTAKE, namely our project only disproof the half of RMC already disproved by Shustin, as it will exhibit a maximal $(M-1)$-scheme which is not of type I. However the harder game is to find a scheme of type I which is not maximal.
Let us however work out an example of this disproof strategy for RMC as a potential application of the Rohlin formula and the signs-law obstruction.
We start with an $M$-scheme which is prohibited by Rohlin though not by Gudkov. Our (fairly random) candidate is, as said above, the $M$-scheme in degree 8 given by $(1,\frac{1}{1})$ (cf. Fig.\[Fiedler7:fig\]c or Fig.\[Fiedler8:fig\]) with $\chi=16$. The latter can be diminished to an $(M-1)$-schemes, 3 typical ways being depicted on Fig.b, where either the trunk is killed, or a branch or an outer oval. Of course one could also kill the maximal nonempty oval like on Fig.c, but then the GKK-congruence is not verified as $\chi=19$.
The 3rd specimen of Fig.b...
WARNING A THIS STAGE I HAD TO STOP AS I NOTICED AN EARLIER MISTAKE!!!!
-5pt0
-5pt0
E-mail correspondence {#e-mail-Viro:sec}
=====================
\[09.01.13\] This section gathers responses given by experts (Viro, Marin, Orevkov, Kharlamov, Shustin, Le Touzé, Fiedler, etc.) to some naive questions of mine about the work of Rohlin. Here are the original messages in chronological order (inserted with the tacit approval of their authors). I acknowledge most sincerely their authors for the stimulating atmosphere it created and their generous answers. Messages are left in their original shapes safe for adding brackets \[ \] supplying electronically-updated label-links to the present text.
\[09.01.13\] Two naive questions on Rohlin 1978
Dear Viatcheslav, Alexis, Oleg, Stefan and Grisha,
Sorry for disturbing so many experts among yours with some little aspect of the work of academician Vladimir Abramovich. (I should have written this message in French, yet cannot remember exactly about Oleg’s progresses over the last 6 years in that language.) I was those last days quite fascinated by reading Rohlin’s 1978 survey on complex topological characteristics of real curves in some more detail. As you all know, he gave a quite spectacular enhancement of Gudkov’s pyramid for all schemes of sextics by enriching it with the data of Klein’s type I/II (1876). (Compare optionally the attached pdf file giving a graphical snapshot view of Rohlin’s classification.)
My two questions are as follows.
\(1) First Rohlin (1978) claims to have a certain synthetic argument (via pencils of cubics) able to show the type I of the schemes 6/1 2 and 2/1 6. He confesses however his argument to be a complicated one. Let me cite Rohlin exactly:
“...when we apply it to curves of degree 3, we can establish (in a rather complicated way) that the schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1} 6$ of degree 6 belong to type I. However, all the schemes that we have so far succeeded in coping with by means of these devices are covered by Theorem 3.4 and 3.5.”
My first question is whether Rohlin’s synthetic argument has ever been published (assuming its truth of course)? I suspect the proof to be quite beautiful, but I am myself not able to prove it for the moment. Did one of you ever worked out the argument in detail, or remember about some exposition during Rohlin’s lectures? Is it of the same order of difficulty as the Hilbert-Rohn method, requiring “roughness” á la Andronov-Pontrjagin to turn round? Would it be didactically useful to publish (on the arXiv) an account of Rohlin’s argument if one is able to reconstruct it?
\(2) The second question is of course the general Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (a scheme is of type I iff it is maximal in the hierarchy of all real schemes of some fixed degree). As reported in Viro’s survey (1986 Progresses over the last 6 years) it seems that one implication was disproved by Polotovskii and Shustin (combined efforts ca. 1982, 1985). Yet one implication looks still possible, namely type I implies maximal (if I am not wrong). It seems to me that this (last vestige of the) Rohlin conjecture could be proved somewhat eclectically in two lines via Ahlfors theorem (1950) on the total reality of orthosymmetric curves (alias type I). Namely if the curve is of type I, then there is a pencil of curves cutting only real points on the curve, so its real scheme cannot be enlarged without violating Bezout. q.e.d. Some more thinking shows of course this argument to be insufficient but maybe there is a (clever) way to complete it. Qu’en pensez-vous[^93]?
Many thanks for your attention, and also for all your fantastic papers (I am presently trying to digest, so do not take the pain to answer me properly if my questions look too naive.) I apologize again for this collective message, but as the material is quite old, most of you probably forgot some details. So I hoped to maximize some chance of getting an answer from a collective chat room.
Best regards, Alex
PS: In attachment I send you a copy of an informal text of mine on the Ahlfors map. Section 24 (pp. 205–229) is more specifically devoted to Rohlin’s conjecture, yet contains nothing original (while being quite poorly organized).
$\bullet$ On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 13:33:23 +0100 ([email protected]) wrote to Kharlamov, Marin, Viro, Fiedler, Orevkov, and Mikhalkin a collective e-mail titled “Two naive questions on Rohlin 1978”:
Dear Viatcheslav, Alexis, Oleg, Thomas, Stepan and Grisha,
Sorry for disturbing so many experts among yours with some little aspect of the work of academician Vladimir Abramovich. (I should have written this message in French, yet cannot remember exactly about Oleg’s progresses over the last 6 years in that language.)
I was those last days quite fascinated by reading Rohlin’s 1978 survey on complex topological characteristics of real curves in some more detail. As you all know, he gave a quite spectacular enhancement of Gudkov’s pyramid for all schemes of sextics by enriching it with the data of Klein’s type I/II (1876). (Compare optionally Fig.71\[=\[Gudkov-Table3:fig\]\] on page 208 of the attached pdf file giving a graphical snapshot view of Rohlin’s achievement.)
My two questions are as follows.
\(1) First Rohlin (1978) claims to have a certain synthetic argument (via pencils of cubics) able to show the type I of the schemes 6/1 2 and 2/1 6. He confesses however his argument to be a complicated one. Let me cite Rohlin exactly:
“...when we apply it to curves of degree 3, we can establish (in a rather complicated way) that the schemes $\frac{6}{1}2$ and $\frac{2}{1} 6$ of degree 6 belong to type I. However, all the schemes that we have so far succeeded in coping with by means of these devices are covered by Theorem 3.4 and 3.5.”
My first question is whether Rohlin’s synthetic argument has ever been published (assuming its truth of course)? I suspect the proof to be quite beautiful, but I am myself not quite able to write it down for the moment. Did one of you ever worked out the argument in detail, or remember about some exposition during Rohlin’s seminar? Is it of the same order of difficulty as the Hilbert-Rohn method, requiring “roughness” à la Andronov-Pontrjagin to turn round? Would it be didactically useful to publish (on the arXiv) an account of Rohlin’s argument if one is able to reconstruct it? Many thanks if you have some ideas (or recent references) on those or related questions...
\(2) The second question is of course the general Rohlin’s maximality conjecture (a scheme is of type I iff it is maximal in the hierarchy of all real schemes of some fixed degree). As reported in Viro’s survey (1986 Progresses over the last 6 years) it seems that one implication was disproved by Polotovskii and Shustin (combined efforts ca. 1982, 1985). Yet one implication looks still possible, namely “type I implies maximal” (if I am not wrong). It seems to me that this (last vestige of the) Rohlin conjecture could be proved (somewhat eclectically) in two lines via Ahlfors theorem (1950) on the total reality of orthosymmetric curves (alias type I). Namely if the curve is of type I, then there is a pencil of curves cutting only real points on the curve, so its real scheme cannot be enlarged without violating Bézout. q.e.d. Alas, some more thinking shows of course this argument to be insufficient but maybe there is a (clever) way to complete it. Qu’en pensez-vous?
Many thanks for your attention, and also for all your fantastic papers (I am presently trying to digest). So do not take the pain to answer me properly if my questions sound too naive. I apologize again for this collective message, but as the material is quite old, most of you probably forgot some details. So I hoped to maximize some chance of getting an answer from a collective chat room.
Best regards, Alex (Gabard)
PS: The attachment[^94] is a copy of an informal text of mine on the Ahlfors map. Section 24 (pp. 205–229) is more specifically devoted to Rohlin’s conjecture, yet contains nothing original (except being poorly organized).
$\bullet$ \[Viro’s answer the same day (09.01.13) ca. 20h00, additional footnotes are mine (Gabard)\]
Dear Alexandre,
Thank you for your message and manuscript. I was not aware about the Ahlfors theorem[^95]. It seems to be very interesting.
I doubt though if it can be used for proving the half of Rokhlin conjecture. It gives a proof for impossibility of raising the number of components of a type I curve by a single algebraic Morse modification (what I called Klein’s thesis).
I do not remember if I even ever heard about Rokhlin’s proof that you ask about, but the fact follows from the congruence. Slava[^96] did not mention it when he proved the corresponding congruence (at the moment the type was not yet considered). I learned this theorem from Slava in September 1977 and wrote down Slava’s proof to my notebook then. I guess the first proofs was[^97] published by Slava Nikulin (among many other statements) and Alexis Marin. Marin’s proof looks simpler, but requires Pin- structures.
Best regards, Oleg
$\bullet$ Gabard’s reply \[Same day (09.01.13) ca. 21h00\]
Dear Oleg,
Many thanks for your rapid and illuminating responses, plus all the historical details. If you see no objection, I would be very happy to cut-and-paste them in my survey. I still need to assimilate some congruences of the early phase (Rohlin, Gudkov-Krakhnov-Kharlamov, etc.) Hence you cannot imagine how your hints are illuminating my modest understanding of that golden period. Regarding Ahlfors, as you say, there is little hope to crack the big fish, yet of course I shall keep you informed if I get not too depressed by the immense difficulty.
All the best, and so many thanks again, Alex
$\bullet$ 10 Jan 2013 (Marin’s answer)
Cher Gabard
En plein déménagement, je met un peu plus de temps à vous répondre que Viro.
Comme Viro, je ne connais pas la preuve de Rohlin pour votre première question (c’est pourquoi j’avais imaginé la preuve dont parle Viro qui est dans “Quelques remarques sur les courbes algébriques planes réelle”, votre référence 742\[=[@Marin_1979]\]) Cependant ce séminaire de Paris VII est dans un carton et y restera tant que je n’aurai pû trouver un nouvel appartement assez grand pour contenir ma bibliothèque et, n’ayant le temps d’aller à la bibliothèque, ma mémoire ne me permet pas de vous en dire plus que Viro.
Pour la seconde question par contre je peux vous répondre, c’est à dire lever votre aveux d’incompréhension en fin (p. 226) de preuve du Lemme 24.20[^98].
Soit une courbe séparante gagnant un ovale de plus après franchiment d’un point quadratique ordinaire. Un argument de congruence (utilisant $d > 2$ dans le cas plan ou une hypothèse dans le cas général donnant que la désingularisée de cette courbe de franchiment est irréductible : l’ensemble de ses points complexe est connexe) donne que cette désingularisée de la courbe de franchiment est non séparante.
Ainsi deux points non réels conjugués de la courbe de franchiment sont lié par un arc évitant la partie réelle, en particulier le point singulier, et par extension des isotipie[^99] un tel arc subsite dans toute déformation vers l’un des des deux côtés du discriminant, en particulier avant le franchiment la courbe est non séparante ce qui contredit l’hypothèse.
Par contre si le franchiment du discriminant se fait en un point singulier plus compliqué il me semble que l’on peut augmenter le nombre de composantes connexes d’une courbe séparante. Je crois me souvenir que selon les constructions de Viro (ou peut être seulement après avec la présentation Itenbergienne de cette méthode de Viro) il y a une courbe singulière de degré 6 dont tout voisinage contient tous les types.
N’étant plus familier du sujet depuis plus de 20 ans je ne peux vous en dire plus, par contre pour les surfaces de degré 3 vous trouverez dans le second tome des oeuvres de Klein un magnifique article illustré de non moins magnifiques figures où il établi que tous les types de surface cubique s’obtiennent par déformation de la (unique à changement projectif de coordonnées) surface cubique qui a 4 points quadratiques ordinaire.
Merci de votre long article que j’essayerai de lire quand déménagement, vente,.... seront terminés.
Bien cordialement et bonne année.
Alexis Marin
PS 1 Je trouve Viro un peu “oublieux” d’écrire “ (at the moment the type was not yet considered)”: en parcourant le second tome des oeuvres de Klein vous vous appercevrez qu’un sciècle avant Viro “tout” était chez Klein!
2 Vous trouverez un article historique, beaucoup plus court\* et sur un autre sujet en mettant dans la boite de recherche d’Arxiv le mot clef “troupeau”
\*il fait 6 pages table des matières comprise et tout est dit (de façon “autocontenue”) dans le résumé en français de la première page, mais si vous remontez à toutes les références\*\* des commentaires bibliographiques celà peut vous prendre un peu de temps.
\*\*accesibles à travers la "bibliothèque des sophomores http://alexis.marin.free.fr/BIB/
$\bullet$ Gabard’s answer \[12.01.13 ca. 23h00\]
Cher Alexis, C’est avec une immense joie que j’ai reçu votre message. N’ayant pas d’internet à la maison, je l’ai seulement découvert ce soir en visitant mon père, qui lui est connecté. Je vais donc tenter d’assimiler toutes vos remarques savantes, et si vous le permettez, de les intégrer dans mon survey, en spécifiant bien sûr qu’il s’agit de vos contributions. De mon côté, je me demande si une courbe non-séparante peut toujours acquérir un point double ordinaire solitaire. (C’est semi-implicite dans Klein 1876 qui écrivait “noch entwicklungsfähig”, mais il me semble que ça contredit le résultat de Shustin 1985 (contre-exemple à la conjecture de Rohlin), dont la logique m’échappe quelque peu, mais j’ai sûrement raté une subtilité).
Grâce à vos commentaires je devrais pouvoir produire prochainement une version plus solide et limpide de la section correspondante du survey, que je vous enverrai dès que possible. L’interaction avec Ahlfors me semble aussi prometteuse...
Amitiés, et merci infiniment pour votre message, Alex
PS J’espère que le déménagement se passe bien. Restez-vous à Grenoble, ou bien s’agit-il d’une opération plus conséquente?
PPS: J’ai bien à la maison votre article de Paris VII, qui a toujours été mon meilleur compagnon (en 1999-2000), et je suis content de le retrouver pour ce point encore plus profond.
PPPS: je me suis procuré une copie de l’article sur “il capo”, qui me semble fabuleux. Merci beaucoup. C’est exactement l’analyse que l’on rencontre à proximité de Dirichlet, etc jusqu’à Ahlfors, et Rogosinski, et que je dois essayer à l’occasion d’apprivoiser...
PS 1 Je trouve Viro un peu “oublieux” d’écrire “ (at the moment the type was not yet considered)”: en parcourant le second tome des oeuvres de Klein vous vous appercevrez qu’un sciècle avant Viro “tout” était chez Klein!
Vous avez parfaitement raison, et je suis moi même très “spécialisé ” dans l’oeuvre de Klein. Cependant le gros quiz, c’est l’assertion de Teichmüller 1941, qui prétend que Klein 18XX? anticipe Ahlfors 1950, de 70 ans environ. Toute courbe séparante (ou surface de Riemann orthosymmétrique, pour reprendre le jargon kleinéen) admet un morphisme réel vers la droite dont les fibres au dessus des points réels sont toutes exclusivement formées de points réels. C’est cet énoncé fondamental qui me semble être sous-exploité! Evidemment[^100] comme la noté Viro, il implique la partie facile de l’assertion de Klein (1876): une courbe séparante ne peut gagner un ovale spontanément comme une bulle de champagne surgit du néant.
$\bullet$ Réponse de Marin (le lendemain 13 Jan 2013 ca. 09h00)
de les intégrer dans mon survey, en spécifiant bien sûr qu’il s’agit de vos contributions.
A part l’explication de votre doute (où relativement à l’article que vous citez il n’y a que les mots “extension des isotopies” en plus) ce ne sont que de très vagues souvenirs que je vous conseille de vérifier (éventuellement auprès de plus compétent : Viro, Itenberg,... avant de les intégrer)
De mon côté, je me demande si une courbe non-séparante peut toujours acquérir un point double ordinaire solitaire.
voulez-vous dire dont les deux directions tangentes sont complexes conjuguée? celà me parait très très optimiste.
(C’est semi-implicite dans Klein 1876 qui écrivait “noch entwicklungsfähig”,
Êtes vous sûr que c’est ce que pensait Klein, ou incluait-il dans ce terme les modification par franchiment d’une courbe ayant un unique point double qui est quadratique ordinaire à tangentes réelles “apparu en rapprochant deux points d’un même ovale”?
mais il me semble que ça contredit le résultat de Shustin 1985 (contre-exemple à la conjecture de Rohlin), dont la logique m’échappe quelque peu, mais j’ai sûrement raté une subtilité).
PS J’espère que le déménagement se passe bien.
oui mais c’est long, à ce propos, vous trouverez sur
http://alexis.marin.free.fr/BIB/papier/
la liste des livres que j’ai en plusieurs exemplaires et (sauf ceux dont la colonne “héritier” est remplie (par Vinel et/ou Guillou)) qui sont à la disposition de qui (en particulier vous) les demande. Restez-vous à Grenoble, ou bien s’agit-il d’une opération plus conséquente?
Je reste près de Grenoble (mon adresse est dans la signature électronique ci-dessous
PPPS: je me suis procuré une copie de l’article sur “il capo”,
Voulez vous dire “Le capo”?
Cependant le gros quiz, c’est l’assertion de Teichmüller 1941, qui prétend que Klein 18XX? anticipe Ahlfors 1950, de 70 ans environ. Toute courbe séparante (ou surface de Riemann orthosymmétrique, pour reprendre le jargon kleinéen) admet un morphisme réel vers la droite dont les fibres au dessus des points réels sont toutes exclusivement formées de points réels.
Voulez-vous dire revêtement d’espace total l’ensemble des ovales? Il y a-t-il quelque chose de plus précis sur le degré et sa répartition parmis les ovales? Les références sont-elles dans votre article?
C’est cet énoncé fondamental qui me semble être sous-exploité! Evidemment comme la noté Viro, il implique la partie facile de l’assertion de Klein (1876): une courbe séparante ne peut gagner un ovale spontanément comme une bulle de champagne surgit du néant.
Soyez plus précis pourquoi un tel morphisme admettrait-il une déformation le long de la modification d’adjonction d’un ovale?
Amitiés.
Alexis
– http://le-tonneau-de-thales.tumblr.com/
Alexis Marin, chez Danielle Bozonat 6 Allée de la roseraie, 38240 Meylan fixe : 04 76 00 96 54 port. : 06 38 29 33 99, 00351925 271 040
$\bullet$ Gabard 13 Jan 2013 ca. 13h30
Cher Alexis, Merci pour votre message. Je vais en effet essayer d’intégrer vos commentaires de manière ciblée et prudente. De toute manière avant d’arXiver une nouvelle version d’ici six mois environ, j’aurai l’occasion de vous montrer précisement la prose que je vous aurez emprunté. J’essaye maintenant de répondre à vos questions:
De mon côté, je me demande si une courbe non-séparante peut toujours acquérir un point double ordinaire solitaire.
voulez-vous dire dont les deux directions tangentes sont complexes conjuguée? celà me parait très très optimiste.
REPONSE: Oui, exactement à tangentes imaginaires conjuguées. Cela me parait aussi très optimiste. Klein semble le prétendre semi-implicitement (du moins qu’il n’ y a a priori pas d’obstruction topologique à la formation de telles bulles de champagne). Cependant si ce truc fou (“Klein-vache”) est vrai alors un des sens de la conjecture de Rohlin 1978 (type I iff maximal real scheme) est vérifié. Malheureusement, ce que donne “Klein-vache” est le sens de Rohlin détruit par Shustin 1985 (dont je n’ai cependant pas compris l’argument). Mais vous avez surement raison “Klein-vache” est probablement beaucoup trop optimiste...
Êtes vous sûr que c’est ce que pensait Klein, ou incluait-il dans ce terme les modification par franchiment d’une courbe ayant un unique point double qui est quadratique ordinaire à tangentes réelles “apparu en rapprochant deux points d’un même ovale”?
REPONSE: je pense que oui, car Klein précise “isolierte reelle Doppeltangente”, comparez ma Quote 24.2[^101] page 205 de mon survey (si vous n’avez pas le volume 2 de Klein sous la main). Ainsi il me semble que votre interprétation moderne (Marin 1988) diffère un peu de l’original Kleinéen, en étant toutefois plus puissant que l’assertion d’origine.
PS J’espère que le déménagement se passe bien.
oui mais c’est long, à ce propos, vous trouverez sur
http://alexis.marin.free.fr/BIB/papier/
la liste des livres que j’ai en plusieurs exemplaires et (sauf ceux dont la colonne “héritier” est remplie (par Vinel et/ou Guillou)) qui sont à la disposition de qui (en particulier vous) les demande.
C’est une magnifique liste de trésor. Je voudrais bien les acquérir, mais je me demande si mon hygiène de vie (overwork) rend une telle acquisition raisonable...(Il faudrait que je passe à Grenoble avec la camionnette de mon oncle pour récupérer les “invendus”. Il est préférable en effet de trouver des preneurs plus compétents que moi. Si en dernier recours, vous ne trouvez pas de preneurs je pourrais récupérer les volumes restants en vrac...Merci infiniment pour cette généreuse proposition. Moi même je suis très marginal financièrement et spatialement, petit appartement à Genève partagé avec ma mère (avec environ 8 tonnes de littérature mathématique), mais dans le futur je pourrai peut être m’installer dans une ferme fribourgoise, où il reste de l’espace pour expandre la bibliothèque...)
PPPS: je me suis procuré une copie de l’article sur “il capo”,
Voulez vous dire “Le capo”? Oui, j’essayais d’improviser en italien, mais c’est une langue plus subtil que vous utilisez...
Cependant le gros quiz, c’est l’assertion de Teichmüller 1941, qui prétend que Klein 18XX? anticipe Ahlfors 1950, de 70 ans environ. Toute courbe séparante (ou surface de Riemann orthosymmétrique, pour reprendre le jargon kleinéen) admet un morphisme réel vers la droite dont les fibres au dessus des points réels sont toutes exclusivement formées de points réels.
Voulez- vous dire revêtement d’espace total l’ensemble des ovales? Il y a-t-il quelque chose de plus précis sur le degré et sa répartition parmis les ovales? Les références sont-elles dans votre article?
OUI, toute surface de Riemann à bord (=membrane compacte) s’exprime comme revêtement holomorphe ramifié du disque. C’est juste une version relative (à bord) du théorème d’existence de Riemann qui concrètise toute surface de Riemann close comme revetement conforme de la sphère (ronde). Il a fallut toutefois attendre la contribution d’Ahlfors 1950 qui donne en plus un contrôle sur le degré d’un tel revêtement conforme, à savoir r+2p, où r est le nombre d’“ovales” (mieux le nombre de contours de la membrane), et p son genre. La Thèse de moi-même (Gabard 2004, et l’article de 2006 au Commentarii Math. Helv.) donne un meilleur contrôle, à savoir $r+p$, en économisant donc une cartouche pour chaque anse. Les références précises sont dans le survey. L’énoncé d’Ahlfors était vachement anticipé dans le cas $p=0$ (membrane planaire ou schlichtartig pour reprendre la terminologie de Paul Koebe) par la grande lignée Riemann 1857 (Nachlass), Schottky 1875-77, Bieberbach 1925 et Grunsky 1937. Lorsqu’on passe au double de Schottky-Klein de la surface à bord on obtient (via Ahlfors) une courbe séparante avec un morphisme totalement réel vers la droite projective. Inversement toute courbe séparante est totalement réelle, puisqu’il suffit d’appliquer Ahlfors à une des moitiés orthosymétrique de Klein.
\[Gabard\] C’est cet énoncé fondamental qui me semble être sous-exploité! Evidemment comme la noté Viro, il implique la partie facile de l’assertion de Klein (1876): une courbe séparante ne peut gagner un ovale spontanément comme une bulle de champagne surgit du néant.
\[Marin\] Soyez plus précis pourquoi un tel morphisme admettrait-il une déformation le long de la modification d’adjonction d’un ovale?
\[Gabard\] Je pense que ça marche car lorsque la courbe est plongée dans le plan, le morphisme total d’Ahlfors admet une réalisation projective comme un pinceau de courbes planes dont tous les membres découpent seulement des points réels sur la courbe orthosymmétrique (=séparante). Par conséquent, en traçant la courbe du pinceau total qui passe par un point de l’oval spontanément créé, on obtient une contradiction avec Bézout. Donc Ahlfors 1950 implique Klein 1876, mais votre démonstration de 1988$-\varepsilon$ (votre preuve est déjà mentionnée dans Viro 1986) est surement plus intrinsèque et voisine de l’argument d’origine de Klein (s’il en avait un au delà de la pure contemplation empirique des quartiques notamment...)
Merci infiniment pour vos messages, et d’ici tout bientôt (3-4 jours) je vous enverrai une version mise-à-jour du survey qui clarifiera peut-être les assertions précédentes. Toutefois les grands problèmes et plein de détails m’échappent encore dans la pyramide Gudkovo-Rohlinienne. Quelle splendide pyramide qui joint à la perfection Klein et Hilbert! Un détail qui m’échappe, c’est le fait que le discriminant est de degré $3(m-1)^2=75$ pour $m=6$, tandis que que du point de vue des chirurgies “de Morse” il y a des cycles de longueur 4 dans la pyramide de Gudkov. Donc il y a un problème de parité si on déforme le long d’un pinceau générique (transverse au discriminant)...Désolé, de vous embêter avec ces détails que j’ai honte de ne pas réussir à clarifier depuis quelques jours.
Amitiés, et bon courage pour la suite du déménagement, Alex
$\bullet$ \[16h40 15.01.13\] Cher Alexis, Merci encore pour vos messages et vos remarques fascinantes que je dois encore bien digérer. De mon côté, j’ai fait de minimes progrès, et vous envoie malgré votre déménagement une version ajournée de mon survey. Il me semble que le truc fou dont nous parlions il y a quelques jours, que j’appele depuis “Klein-vache”, i.e. la possiblilité de faire naitre un noeud solitaire (à tangentes conjuguées) depuis n’importe quelle courbe diasymétrique est vrai pour les sextiques. Pour cela j’utilise un argument qui combine Rohlin 1978, Klein-Marin 1988, et Nikulin 1979 (classification isotopique) et un résultat relié de Itenberg 1994 (possibilité de contracter n’importe quel ovale vide, i.e. sans autre ovales dans son intérieur, sur un tel noeud isolé). Les détails de la preuve sont exposés dans la Prop.24.24\[meanwhile this is \[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\]\], page 235 du fichier ci-joint. ? Evidemment, en principe “Klein-vache” n’a aucune chance d’être vrai en degré supérieur. Cependant la seule obstruction que je connaisse est ce résultat de Shustin 1985, dont je ne comprends toujours pas la logique de base (sans même parler du fait que c’est fondé sur la méthode de Viro, dissipation de singularités tacnodales..., une technologie que je n’ai jamais maitrisée). Mes objections naives à l’argument de Shustin se trouvent en page 248 (dans le paragraphe qui précède la Figure 94\[=meanwile Fig.\[Shustin:fig\]\]). Dans cette figure, je ne sais pas comment prohiber le $(M-1)$-schémas encadré par le carré vert (à mi-hauteur de la figure), et dans son article de 1985 Shustin n’est pas trés explicite. Mais bon, il s’agit la d’une question assez ennuyeuse et en fait je vais peut-être prendre l’initiative d’écrire un nouveau message collectif pour clarifier ce point d’ici quelques heures. Merci infiniment encore pour vos messages, et meilleurs voeux de courage pour la suite du déménagement, Amitiés, Alex PS: Pour l’instant j’ai inégré en vrac tous nos échanges e-mail dans le survey (p.219 et suivante), mais bien entendu dès que possible je censurerai les remarques plus confidentielles..., et masquerai les répététitions, voire l’intégralité de la discussion si je parviens bien à résumer votre apport malgré mon anglais catastrophique. Cependant en relisant vos remarques, elles apportent une prose substantielle que je ne saurais jamais reproduire en anglais, donc je trouverais très dommage de censurer vos souvenirs en vracs!!! Evidemment rien ne presse et je suis désolé de vous avoir dérangé durant cette délicate opération du déménagement inter-grenoblois. Amitiés, encore, et je vous tiens au courant d’éventuelles progrès...Je suis surtout curieux des réponses de Shustin (et Viro) s’ils parviennent à éclairer ma lanterne. PPS: Je joins une copie de la note de Shustin, si jamais, mais je ne veux pas vous distraire de votre tâche prioritaire...
$\bullet$ \[15.01.13–18h30\] Dear Evgenii, Ilia, Oleg and Alexis (and Felix Klein),
I was much fascinated those last days by Evgenii’s counterexample to (one part of) Rohlin’s maximality conjecture to the effect that a real scheme is of type I iff it is maximal in the hierarchy of all schemes. Quite interestingly this work of you (Shustin) also destroys an old (semi-)conjecture of Klein (1876) positing that any nondividing plane curve can acquire a solitary node by crossing only once the discriminant (the resulting Morse surgery then sembling like the formation a champagne bubble arising like a blue sky catastrophe of little green men’s coming with flying saucers).
Alas from Shustin’s note of 1985 (in its English translation), I was not quite able to understand your proof (compare optionally the attached file, on page 248, in the paragraph right before Figure 94\[=Fig.\[Shustin:fig\]\]). In fact I do not know how to prohibit the $(M-1)$-scheme $4/1 2/1 1/1 11$ enlarging Shustin’s (M-2)-scheme. Alas I am not an expert in the field and I feel quite shameful disturbing you with such a detail. Despite having myself full Leningradian origins (through my father), I do not master the Russian language so that it may well be the case that the original Russian text is more detailed than its translation. Of course it is much more likely that I missed something well-known, that you perhaps may not have made completely explicit in the note? (Incidentally I send you a copy of Shustin’s note for convenience!)
I apologize for this question of detail, yet it seems quite important to me for your result of 1985 is the only obstruction (I am aware of) to the naive desideratum of truth about Klein’s conjecture. Klein himself is extremely clever and quite ambiguous about stating this as a conjecture or as a result (compare optionally Klein’s original quote reproduced on page 206 of the attachment). Today I managed as a simple exercise to check the truth of Klein’s hypothesis in degree 6, via an armada of Russian results (especially Itenberg 1994 contraction principle for empty ovals), plus the Klein-Marin theorem (for the details of this exercise cf. optionally Prop.24.24\[=\[Klein-vache-deg-6:prop\]\] on page 235 of the attached text).
You, Oleg Viro, in the preface of that volume presenting Itenberg’s article (1994) advanced the (crazy?) conjecture that one might always be able to contract empty ovals!!! Do you know if there is meanwhile some counterexample (in high degrees)? Of course there is some vague parallelism between Itenberg’s contraction and the one required to implement Klein’s hypothesis (which must amount shrinking an anti-oval, i.e. an invariant circle acted upon antipodically by conj).
Sorry again for disturbing you with all these naive questions, and do not take the pain answering me properly if you are overwhelmed by other more important duties. Many thanks for all your attention. Sincerely yours, Alex (Gabard)
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ \[16.01.13–02h57: Oleg Viro\]
Dear Alexandre,
I do not mind to pose crazy conjectures. I do not mind if my crazy conjecture would be disproved.
However, I suspect that my conjecture is not as crazy as possibility of shrinking of an anti-oval. The difference between the oval and an anti-oval is that the oval is assumed to exist and be empty, i.e., not linked with the complex curve in whatever sense, while the anti-oval apparently has none of these properties.
I am not aware about any counter-examples that you ask about. I do not bet that they do not exist, but find the question stimulating, and better motivated than the conjecture that was proven to be wrong.
Best, Oleg
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ \[16.01.13–14h56: Stepan Orevkov\]
A small remark:
It is wrong that $11 U 1<1> U 1<2> U 1<4>$ is not a part of an $(M-1)$-scheme. It is[^102]. Moreover, there is no known example of $(M-2)$-curve of type II which cannot be obtained from an $(M-1)$-curve by removing an empty oval.
In contrary, there are $(M-1)$-curves of degree $8$ (which are necessarily of type II) which do not come from any $M$-curve. These are:
$3<6>$
$4 U 1<2> U 2<6>$
$8 U 2<2> U 1<6>$
$12 U 3<2>$
Constru\[r\]ction (inspired by Shustin’s construction of $4 U
3<5>$):
Consire\[der\] a tricuspidal quartic $Q_{sing}$ symmetric by a rotation $R$ by $120$ degree and perturb\[e\] is\[=it\] so that each cusp gives an oval (we assume that this perturbation is very small). Let $Q$ be the perturbed curve. Two flex points appear on $Q$ near each cusp of $Q_{sing}$. We chose flex points $p_0, p_1,
p_2$ (one flex point near each cusp) so that $R(p_0)=p_1,
R(p_1)=p_2, R(p2)=p_0$. We choose homogeneous coordinates $(x_0 :
x_1 : x_2)$ so that the line $x_i = 0$ is tangent to $Q$ at $p_i$ $(i = 0,1,2)$.
Let $C$ be the image of $Q$ under the Cremona transformation $(x_0
: x_1 : x_2) \mapsto (x_1x_2 : x_2x_0 : x_0x_1)$. Then $C$ has 3 singular points, each singular point has two irreducible local branches: a branch with $E6$ and a smooth branch which cuts it “transversally”. By a perturbation of $C$ we obtain all the four curves mentioned above.
The fact that these curves cannot be obtained from $M$-curves immediately follows from the fact that, for any $M$-curve of degree 8 of the form $b U 1<a_1> U 1<a_2> U 1<a_3>$, all the numbers $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$ are odd[^103].
Best regards Stepa O
$\bullet$ \[17.01.13 ca. 23h00\]
Dear Oleg and Stepa,
Many thanks for all your fascinating remarks and detailed answers. I look forward digesting them carefully tomorrow.
Sorry for my late reply as I have no internet at home and was quite busy trying to understand some basic facts, notably that one may have some “eversion” of a real scheme when the oval explodes at infinity undergoing a Morse surgery not affecting its connectedness. This implies that there is some hidden passages in the Gudkov-Rohlin pyramid of all sextics changing a Gudkov symbol $k/l \ell$ to its mirror $\ell/1 k$. The resulting combinatorics of this graph looks quite formidable and I wonder if it is known whether each of those secret edges corresponding to eversions (except those linking $M$-curves) can be explored algebraically. Perhaps the problem is related to Ilia’s shrinking process for empty ovals, but seems to involve yet another species of “anti-ovals”, namely those with two fixed points under conj, yet located on the same oval. All what I am saying is for sure well-known to you since time immemorial, yet I was very happy to understand this point which solved several paradoxes of mine, notably those related to the degree of the discriminant and the contiguity graph between chambers residual to the discriminant under elementary algebraic Morse surgeries, as Oleg says. Of course, I shall send you an updated version of my file, when I manage to reorganize slightly the exposition.
Many many thanks for all your excellent answers! All the best, Alex
$\bullet$ \[18.01.13 ca. 10h00, Viatcheslav Kharlamov\]
Dear Alex,
I followed rather attentively the discussions, but kept silence since had no much to add to the reaction of the others.
This “eversion”, as you call it, played some important rôle in the prehistory of the Gudkov conjecture. As you probably know, the first classification declared by Gudkov was wrong, and it is one of his “thesis referees”, Prof. Morosov, who had objected the first classification exactly because of a small irregularity with respect to “eversion” of the answer. Repairing this asymmetry Gudkov came to his final result, and, if my memory is correct, in particular, at this stage discovered the missing $M$-curve.
If honestly, I don’t remember did somebody ever before discussed seriously any conceptual explanation to this “eversion”. However, it was implicitly present in all results obtained through $K3$ and their lattices. Recently, studying the shadows of cubic surfaces with Sergey Finashin and having proven, to our own surprise, for them a very similar “symmetry”, which we have called “partners relation”, we have formalized it as follows.
First level of explanation is coming from lattices of double coverings: the partner relation consists indeed in transferring an $U$-summand (unimodular even lattice of rang $2$ and signature $0$) from one eighenlattice to another. Second level of explanation is coming from moduli in terms of periods: each partner in the partner pair can be deformed to a triple conic, near the triple conic the family looks as $Q^3+tbQ^2+t^2cQ+d=0$, and switching of the sign of $t$ (passing through the triple conic) replace curves of one deformation class by curves from the partners class: moreover, such degenerations are deformationally unique. Literally the same explanation (and with much easier proofs at the both levels) works for nonsingular sextics (the shadows are sextic curves with $6$ cusps on a conic; remarkably, in many respects they behave in a way more similar to that of nonsingular sextics, than other sextics with singularities).
Yours, Viatcheslav Kharlamov
$\bullet$ \[18.01.13, Kharlamov, title of message=Correction\] Writing the message a bit in a hurry I did not describe fully and appropriately the partner relation at the lattice language. The summand $U$ does play a crucial rôle, and it should be moved from one eighenlattice to another, but then additionally one should exchange the eighenlattices. In fact this $U$ contains indeed the $2$-polarization vector, $h¨2=2$, and thus the eighenlattice containing this distinguished U is aways $(-1)$-eighenlattice.
The existing exception to the partner relation (as I remember, in the nonsingular case, there is only one) is the case when the $(-1)$-eighenlattice does not contain such a pair $(U,h)$.
Sorry, for being in a hurry, but I should stop at this point. Hope that now it is more clear.
$\bullet$ \[18.01.13, Gabard, ca. 21h00\] Dear Viatcheslav, Oleg and Stepa (and all the others),
So many thanks for all the excellent comments, especially on Morosov. There was some allusion to this issue in Viro’s survey from 2006, in Japanese Journal of Math, as to the lack of symmetry in Gudkov’s initial answer. Yet Morosov was not mentioned if I remember well...
On my side I was quite stimulated by the last letter from Oleg, about the contraction conjecture, as looking indeed much more realist than Klein’s Ansatz on the champagne bubbling in any nondividing curve. I attempted today to imagine what sort of proof one could expect to find for this fascinating Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture of empty ovals.
After some trials with orthogonal trajectories to the functional computing the area of the empty oval, I arrived at some sort of strategy (probably completely fantasist) consisting in using the Riemann mapping theorem as applied to the interior of the empty oval. Naively as the contour is algebraic so is the Riemann map and hence the concentric sublevels of it ought to be algebraic curves of the same degree!!??? This would give the shrinking.
I am sure that tomorrow while checking more carefully the details all this argument will crash down. Hence sorry for this premature message. Some more details about this and my naive understanding of “eversions” are in the attached file, especially Section 24.15 (p.251) and p.242 (Section 24.12 for eversions). Regarding eversions I wonder which edges in the Gudkov pyramid are actually realized algebro-geometrically? All, except those connecting the $M$-schemes is my naive guess, yet it is probably too optimistic...
Many thanks again for sharing all your knowledge on that fascinating topic, and all your exciting letters. All the best, Alex
\[21.01.13, ca. 20h00\]
Dear real geometers,
Thank you again, Oleg, Alexis, Stepa, and Viatcheslav, for all your messages which I have carefully integrated in my TeX-notes, and to which I frequently refer for citation in my text. Your messages suggested me several ideas I would never have explored without your precious hints.
On my side, I noticed of course that the cavalier Riemann mapping strategy toward the (Itenberg-Viro 1994) contraction conjecture (CC) of empty ovals fails blatantly (cf. Section 25.7(=\[CC-via-Riemann:sec\]), pages 255-258, roughly even if the Riemann map of an algebraic oval would be algebraic then its degree seems to be twice as big as it should, or better the polynomials arising as norms of algebraic Riemann maps are not the most general representatives of their degree!!!). Perhaps the Riemann method works for special ovals, but of course they are unlikely to be interspersed in all chambers of the discriminant! This failure drifted me toward another formulation of the contraction conjecture which I call CCC, for collective contraction conjecture. This posits that all empty ovals of a real algebraic curve can be contracted simultaneously toward solitary nodes (by a path having solely its end-point in the discriminant). This looks even more “crazy” than CC, but I found no counterexamples (in my pockets). I would much appreciate if you already thought about this natural variant, especially if you detected some counterexample (perhaps arising from the Viro-Itenberg patchworking method or the dissipation of higher singularities, with which I am alas still unfamiliar with, like in Shustin’s counterexample to Rohlin’s maximality conjecture).
Here are the trivialities I managed to prove. Via Brusotti 1921, it is plain that CCC implies the usual contraction conjecture (CC) (cf. details in Lemma 25.22(=\[CCviaCCC-Brusotti:lem\]) on page 263 of the attached file). On the other hand CCC implies (as a large deformation principle) several well-known prohibitions. E.g. a two-seconds proof of the Hilbert-Rohn-Petrovskii prohibition of the sextic $M$-scheme $11$ (eleven ovals without nesting), as well as Rohlin’s prohibition of the sextic scheme $5$ of type I (by the way causing the unique asymmetry in the Gudkov-Rohlin table of sextics). Under CCC, all these facts appear as trivial consequences of Bézout (compare Section 25.8(=\[CCC:sec\]) on pages 258-259). I found this simplicity quite exciting (even though it leads to nothing new as compared to Arnold-Rohlin). One can wonder if Hilbert already used this, at least as a heuristic tool??? Philosophically, I found also interesting that such large deformation conjectures produce prohibitions, in contradistinction to small perturbations as being primarily a method of construction (Harnack-Hilbert-Brusotti, etc.). There is accordingly some nice duality between Luigi Brusotti and Ilia-Oleg’s contraction conjecture. Of course you surely noted this issue a long time ago, yet for me it was a happy discovery (yesterday).
Perhaps CCC and CC are actually equivalent, yet this looks more hazardous but maybe not completely improbable... (One would just have to synchronize the death of all ovals posited by CC.) This is all the modest news I have collected during the week-end. Of course I still have some naive hope that CCC (hence CC) could be attacked via some gradient flow, but it looks quite difficult to locate the right functional (or Morse function). Looking at the area (or length) of all empty ovals is probably too naive...Perhaps some “degree of roughness” à la Gudkov could be projectively more intrinsic and useful...
Thank you so much for your attention and all your brilliant letters and answers, while apologizing me for sending you only easy doodlings. Best regards, Alex
\[26.01.13, ca 20h00\]
Dear Oleg, Stepa, Viatcheslav, Evgenii, Alexis, Thomas, etc.
I continued my naive investigations of real plane curves. What a beautiful story! I finally “understood” and studied in detail the marvellous construction of Gudkov $\frac{5}{1} 5$ (ca. 1971-73), as to understand the more tricky (but related) construction proposed by Stepa, which I attempted to depict on Fig. 111(=\[Orevkov2:fig\]) of the attached file. (I did not as yet assimilated the full details but feel on the good way. In fact I tried to use the dissipation of $Z_15$ in Viro’s survey from 1989/90 in Leningrad Math. J., which I hope is the same as the $E_6$ advocated by Stepa. Sorry for being very ignorant about singularities...)
Yesterday, I also finally understood the correctedness of Evgenii’s argument. (As helped by Stepa’s e-mail, the point which I missed is this obstruction of Viro extending that of Fiedler) for $M$-schemes of degree 8 as having necessarily “odd content”.
On the other hand, I was scared (since three days) by the fact that something which I subconsciously thought as evident (or rather which I was sure to have read somewhere) is perhaps not true. My (naive) question is whether two empty curves are necessarily rigid-isotopic? This looks at first between metaphysical nonsense and “triviality”? Maybe it is unknown, when $m$ is large enough. (m=6 follows from Nikulin 1979, and as far as I know there is not a simpler proof, say valid for all (even) degrees). So I am quite shameful asking you about this point: Is the empty chamber always connected?
I tried a dynamical approach (to this problem) in Section 25.12(\[rigidity-empty-scheme-via-dyna:sec\]), but it is not very convincing. On the other hand, if the empty room is connected, then maybe the space of all curves with one component is also connected? (Naively one would apply the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture, to reduce to the empty case, move there for a while to resurface at the other curve (the contraction thereof). Perturbing this path in the “visible world” would conclude the proof modulo some difficulties...) Again, you Oleg, in your wonderful survey of 2008 (in Japanese J. Math) lists as an open problem the question of deciding the rigid-isotopy of curves of odd degree having a unique real circuit. As you emphasize the word “odd degree”, I wondered if the case of even degree (again with only one oval) is already settled?
In Section 25.10(=\[CCCviaDynamics:sec\]), I have attempted a naive dynamical approach to the collective contraction conjecture(CCC). This states that we can shrink simultaneously all the empty ovals toward solitary nodes. This is a bit like a perfect landing in flight simulator where all wheels touch the ground simultaneously. My naive strategy is just to study the gradient lines of the functional measuring the total area of all empty ovals, but it is surely not serious. It would be exciting, in my opinion, to describe a counterexample to CCC if there is one.
Many thanks for the attention, all your patience about my naive reasonings, and above all for the brilliant answers you already gave me. Best regards, Alex
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ samedi 26 janvier 2013 20:15:54, the prompt response of Eugenii Shustin:
Dear Alex,
The chamber of empty curves of a given (even) degree is indeed connected: two such curves can be defined by homogeneous polynomials, positive for any real not all zero variables, and their linear homotopy $(1-t)P+tQ$, $0\le t\le 1$, gives a path in the chamber of empty curves.
By the way, another (well) known connected chamber consists of hyperbolic curves (i.e. those which have totally real intersection with lines of certain pencil) - this is a consequence of Nuij W. A note on hyperbolic polynomials. Math. Scandinavica 23 (1968), no. 1, 69–72.
With best wishes, Eugenii
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ samedi 26 janvier 2013 21:08:27, Oleg Viro:
Dear Alex,
The counterpart of the Rokhlin conjecture[^104] about rigid-isotopy of any two curves of odd degree with one component is the obvious observation described by Evgenii, about empty curves of even degree. The question about curves of even degree with a single oval is equivalent to the question about removing this single oval by an algebraic Morse modification. I don’t think it was ever discussed, but I could miss it.
$Z_{15}$ is not $E_6$. The easiest way to construct the Gudkov $M$-curve is by perturbing two $J_{10}$ singularities of the union of 3 non-singular conics tangent to each other at 2 points.[^105]
Best, Oleg
$\bullet$ \[28.01.13, lundi 28 janvier 2013 20:03:58\] Gabard wrote euphorically[^106] an e-mail titled “Some more metaphysical non-sense about the rigid-isotopy of empty curves?”:
Dear Eugenii, Oleg, Viatcheslav, Alexis, Stepa, etc.
So many thanks, Eugenii, for putting me again on the right track, and recalling me the argument which I shamefully forgot about. Yesterday, I was quite excited by trying to digest your argument (albeit it seems so simple). In fact the little detail that worried me is that I do not know why during the linear homotopy $(1-t)P+tQ$ the variable curve could not acquire (while staying of course empty if $P,Q$ have both the same sign) a pair of conjugate nodal singularities. This puzzled me for a while, and then using systematically your argument, I arrived at the somewhat opposite conclusion that the empty (smooth) chamber must be disconnected (for all even degrees $m\ge 4$)!!! This violates all what we know since Rohlin 1978 (and surely Gudkov as well??), while the former refers directly back to the argument of Klein 1876 based on Schläfli cubics surfaces $F_3$’s and Zeuthen correspondence between cubic surfaces and quartics (via the apparent contour). Klein’s proof is a bit tricky and uses as well his rigidification (Klein 1873) of Schläfli’s isotopic classification. Needless to say I could not follow Klein’s reasoning completely, as I just studied it today for ca. 2 hours. Marin informed me recently that he, in contrast, was able to digest all of those Kleinian works!
So using your method of linear homotopy, one sees quickly that the (cone) space $C^+$ of positive anisotropic (=not representing zero) forms is contractile (convex actually) hence simply-connected. Its projection in the space of curves is the invisible locus $I$ consisting of all empty curves. Since the latter is merely a quotient of $C^+$ (by positive homotheties) it follows that it is also simply-connected (via the exact homotopy sequence of a fibering). But the discriminant is visible inside this invisible locus $I$, since it is a simple matter via Brusotti (1921) to construct empty curves with a pair of conjugate nodes. Thus we see inside the simply-connected manifold $I$ a certain hypersurface (namely a portion of the discriminant), which by Jordan-Brouwer (or a slight extension thereof) should separate this manifold $I$ in pieces (at least so is my naive intuition). It follows that our empty chamber (consisting of smooth curves) is disconnected!!!! This is my proof in its broad lines (for more details, compare Section 25.13, page 282-283 of the attachement, Theorem 25.29 and its proof on page 283). This is just one page long...
Since this conclusion contradicts violently what is asserted by Klein 1876 (and approved by Rohlin 1978), it is of course very likely that my proof contains a serious flaw, or at least that I am confusing somehow the basic conceptions. However presently I do not see where is my mistake! Of course, my pseudo-theorem also violates the part of Nikulin 1979 concerned with the rigid-isotopy of the empty chamber of sextics.
Many thanks again for your attention, and sorry for overflowing your mail boxes with my naive questions (and dubious reasonings). Thank you again so much for all your excellent and detailed responses (especially on $E_6$ and $Z_15$).
Best wishes, Alex PS: I send you a copy of my TeX-file in case someone would like to work out a specific passage. At the occasion I would also be happy to send you my figures in zipped format so that one of you can continue the project in case I make a fatal bicycle accident (like Academician V.I. Arnold?)
$\bullet$ \[30.01.13, 18h10\]
Dear Oleg, Eugenii, and the other experts,
I think that I found the mistake in my “proof” of the disconnection of the empty locus (that you certainly noticed meanwhile in case my explanation is the correct one). The reason seems to be simply that the discriminant inside the invisible locus has only real codimension 2, hence cannot separate anything. I have attempted to explain this in Section 25.14 on page 288. If this is not wrong it seems that the next natural question is to decide which chambers residual to the principal stratum of the discriminant contains such smaller pieces of the discriminant shrunk to codimension 2. I think to have found a topological obstacle for $M$ and $(M-1)$-curves, and conjecture (very naively) this to be the sole obstruction. In more geometric terms, this amounts essentially to decide which smooth curves can acquire a pair of imaginary conjugate nodes.
Many thanks, Eugenii and Oleg, for your detailed answers. As you said, it seems that the (Itenberg-Viro) contraction conjecture of empty ovals implies the rigidity conjecture for even order curves with a unique oval. However I should probably still try to understand this implication in some more details. Perhaps it is somehow related to the previous codimension 2 phenomenon inside the “invisible” chamber.
Sorry for all my confusing messages, and many thanks again for all your kind efforts in trying to educate myself. All the best, Alex
$\bullet$ \[01.02.13, ca. 20h00\] Obstruction to rigid-isotopy (strictly) below height DEEP+2?
Dear Oleg, Eugenii, Alexis, Thomas, Stepa, etc.
Many thanks for all your brilliant messages and articles I am still slowly trying to assimilate properly. I hope not taking too much of your precious time. Albeit I met all of you only rarely, I remind very accurately your brilliant talks (in Geneva or Rennes), and so it is a special pleasure to remind each of yours while trying to explore this fantastic topic.
On my side I was those last two days fascinated by the conjecture that the one-oval scheme ought to be rigid, as Oleg or Rokhlin conjectures. (Let me say that a scheme is rigid, if all the curves representing it are rigid-isotopic.) Given a degree $m$, one may wonder what is the smallest height $r(m)$ at which there is a non-rigid scheme. (For me the height of a scheme just means its number of components.)
For any degree $m$, there is of course the deep nest with $r=[(m+1)/2]=:DEEP$ real branches. Two units above the latter’s height, it is easy to construct (for each $m$) curves having the same real scheme yet different types (I vs. II) hence not rigid-isotopic. (This is a simple iteration of Rohlin’s construction in degree $5$, cf. Figs. 102, 103 in my file). Using the Marin-Fiedler method of the lock it is even possible to exhibit at this height $DEEP+2$ curves of degree 7 or 9 having the same real scheme and the same type II, yet not rigid-isotopic (Figs. 105, 104). (Probably the method extends to all other odd degrees.) However, it seems much more tricky (and the lock-method seems ineffective) to detect obstruction below this height $DEEP+1$ (i.e. one unit above the height of the deep nest). Could it be the case that all schemes at or below this height are rigid? Of course this looks super-optimistic as we do not even know rigidity at height one, but I was unable to find a counterexample. I would be very happy if you know one? If there is a simple candidate, I hope to detect it alone during the next few days…. So do not take care answering me if my question is trivial. (As I just work on this since two days, I probably missed something accessible.)
Paraphrasing slightly, I found quite puzzling, that the very explicit function $r(m)$ measuring the smallest height of a non-rigid scheme is only subsumed to the large pinching $1 \le
r(m)\le [(m+1)/2]+2=DEEP+2$. Of course a better lower bound seems out of reach, but perhaps you know better upper bounds.
I also wondered if there is an extension of the Nuij-Dubrovin rigidity of the deep nest to, say, the totally real scheme of degree 8 consisting of 4 nests of depth 2. I should think more seriously on this at the occasion.
Many thanks for your attention, and sorry again for all my enthusiastic and naive e-mails. All the best, Alex
$\bullet$ \[written 08.02.13 and sent 09.01.13\]
Dear Oleg, Eugenii, Stepa, Viatcheslav, etc.
I still continued my trip through real plane curves and cannot say that my curiosity is starting to fade out. I tried for several days to find a counter-example to the conjecture (of mine so probably quite wrong) that all schemes below height $DEEP+2$ are rigid, where $DEEP=[(m+1)/2]$ is the number of branches of the deep nest of degree $m$. At least the method of the lock (Fiedler-Marin) seems quite inoperant to detect an obstruction to rigid-isotopy at such low altitudes. If true, the proof probably involves a geometric flow collapsing either the pseudoline to a line (by shortening its length like a systole) or improving the rotundity of some oval to a circle (via an isoperimetric functional?). If all this works, it would reduce the low-altitude rigidity conjecture to Nikulin’s theorem (or maybe even Klein’s on $C_4$) as the starting step of a big recursive process. Of course this seems still quite out reach (canary music) unless one feels very motivated!
Next I tried to corrupt the truth of Slava’s remarkable rigid-isotopic classification (Nikulin 1979) of sextics via the Marin-Fiedler locking argument using Bézout saturation. Of course I have nothing against Slava, but this was rather intended to test experimentally the power of Nikulin’s result. Specifically I looked at sextic schemes of the form $3/1 \ell$, and wondered if for some specific curves the distribution of the $\ell$ outer ovals away the fundamental triangle traced through the 3 inner ovals (those enveloped by the unique nonempty oval) could be different for different curves. On all examples I tested it seems that the outer ovals are never separated by the “deep” triangle. So we find no violation of Nikulin’s theorem, and the latter rather implies that as soon as we are able to visualize the distribution for a single curve it will be the same for all curves belonging to this scheme. The case most tricky to understand is the maximal permissible, namely $3/1 5$. I managed to construct it à la Harnack (as preconized in Gudkov 1974 or 1954). But being quite unable to decide from this model the distributional question of the outer ovals past the fundamental triangle, I decided to switch to Oleg’s method of construction via dissipation of the singularities of a triplet of coaxial ellipses. I played this game yesterday but could not decide the distributional question for this Viro curve (cf. especially Fig.126 on page 320 and the hypothetical Theorem 26.29 on page 322). In fact today I tried again to inspect directly Harnack construction and found Lemma 26.27 on page 319 whose proof seemed to me very transparent until I found the little warning, which I think is not fatal. In conclusion I believe now that there is no separation by the fundamental triangle!!!??
Of course I imagine that, if I am not completely wrong, what I am investigating must be quite familiar to you. I would much appreciate if you know if this hypothetical theorem (26.29 page 322) is true. It amounts essentially to check whether in Viro’s construction of $3/1 5$ the triangle through the 3 deep inner ovals does not separate the 5 outer ovals. I find this question quite attractive as it seems to require some understanding of the geometric location of the microscopic ovals arising in Viro’s method (optionally compare Fig. 127 (page 322) which shows a scenario with the two bottom micro-ovals aligned vertically in which case the fundamental triangle would separate the outer ovals). This scenario seems to me quite unlikely but it does not seem to be impeded by naive Bézout obstructions.
Many thanks for your attention, and sorry again for all my naive and confuse questions. Thank you very much again for your precious guidance and answers.
All the best, Alex
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ (10.02.13) Bonjour Alexandre, Thomas m’a transmis ta question. La réponse est toute simple: soient $A$, $B$, $C$ trois ovales intérieurs et $D$, $E$ deux ovales exterieurs de ta sextique. Le triangle fondamental $ABC$ est entiérement contenu dans l’ovale non-vide. Si $D$ et $E$ sont dans deux triangles $ABC$ (non-fondamentaux) différents, alors la conique passant par $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$, $E$ coupe la sextique en $14$ points, contradiction. Avec des coniques, on montre plus généralement que: Les ovales vides de la sextique sont distribués dans deux chaines (int, ext), l’ordre cyclique est donné par les pinceaux de droites basés dans les ovales interieurs. Les ovales interieurs sont disposés en position convexe dans l’ovale non-vide. Bon dimanche, Séverine
$\bullet$ \[12.02.13\] Is the Gudkov chamber simply-connected?
Dear Séverine, Viatcheslav, Ilia, Oleg, and all the other experts,
First many thanks, Séverine, for your excellent answer on my distribution question of ovals of sextic, and sorry for my late reply on it as I lack an Internet connection at home.
I tried today to understand when a dividing (plane) curve admits a transmutation, i.e. a rigid-isotopy permuting both halves of the curve. I also studied the weaker notion of mutation of when there is a linear automorphism of the plane permuting both halves. Using the Kharlamov-Itenberg calculation of the monodromy of sextics I think that I managed to get some obstruction to mutability, especially for the 3 dividing curves which have trivial monodromies (compare Lemma 26.6, page 288, which is hopefully correct). However I don’t know if the Gudkov chamber (or the 2 other related “antidromic” chambers, i.e. having trivial monodromies) is simply-connected. I hoped to detect some non simple-connectivity by looking at the monodromy induced on the halves instead of the ovals. At least this works of course for the deep-nest chamber which is not simply-connected since there is a symmetric model which can be mutated. So my (hopefully not too naive) question is the following: is it known whether or not the Gudkov chamber is simply-connected? (equivalently is the Gudkov curve transmutable?) The same question looks attractive for the other 2 antidromic curves, i.e. the left wing “Rohlin curve” $6/1 2$ and $4/1 4$ in type I.
Thank you so much for all your attention and patience, and in advance for your answer if it is known. Best regards, Alex
$\bullet$$\bullet$ $\bullet$ mercredi 13 février 2013 04:34:12
Dear Alexandre, If I understand correctly the question then the answer is not, if I state the question appropriately then the answer is yes. I mean the following precise statements. Let consider the part of the projective space of real sextics that is represented by maximal sextics of Gudkov’s type. Then the fundamental group of this part is $Z/2$. It becomes simply connected after taking quotient by the natural action of $SL(3,R)$. In fact, before factorization it is a fibration over contractible base with the fiber $SL(3,R)$. These results (and there analogs for other maximal sextics and certain curves of lower degree) are contained in my talk On monodromies of real plane algebraic curves at one of Petrovsky seminars in 80th, I guess (short summary should be found in Russian Surveys). The proof (in the case of sextics) is rather straightforward as soon as based on the $K3$ surfaces periods uniformization. As it happens rather often with this approach, to treat the maximal curves is extremely easy, since the corresponding eighenlattices become unimodular. In general the period domain, which is the product of two polyhedra in the real case, represents the studied sextics (or associated K3 surfaces) only up to codimension 2. Which makes laborious to treat the fundamental group. But, surprise, in the case of maximal curves there are no codimension 2 phenomena, since such holes appear only as traces of $(-2)$-cycles having nontrivial components in the both eighenspaces, which is impossible since in the maximal case the components are integral and the eighenlattices are even. I don’t remember by heart the final result for other maximal sextics. It should be pointed in the same summary and by the way easy to get following the same approach I have pointed. The key is that even if it is no more a pure fibration - it has special fibers which are quotients of $SL(3,R)$ by the corresponding monodromy group (which indeed coincides with the maximal possible group of symmetries for the given type of sextics) - its fundamental group is exactly the fundamental group of this special quotient. Yours VK
$\bullet$ mercredi 13 février 2013 11:46:20
Dear Colleagues, Am I alone who did not receive a copy of Severine’s letter? I would be happy to know its content :) Yours VK
$\bullet$ mercredi 13 février 2013 13:43:10
Dear colleagues, I had written only to Alexandre, sorry! My answer was this: let $A, B, C$ be three inner ovals, and $D, E$ be two outer ovals of the sextic. The fundamental triangle $ABC$ is entirely contained in the nonempty oval. If $D$ and $E$ are in two different (non-fundamental) triangles $ABC$, then the conic through $A, B, C, D, E$ cuts the sextic at 14 points, contradiction. Using conics, one proves more generally that there is a natural cyclic ordering of the empty ovals, given by the pencils of lines based at the inner ovals. The empty ovals are distributed in two consecutive chains (inner, outer). The inner ovals lie in convex position in the nonempty oval. Best regards, Séverine
$\bullet$ \[14.02.13\]
Dear Viatcheslav, Séverine and all the other colleagues,
Thank you very much for this beautiful answer on the Gudkov chamber. I look forward to digest properly all that incredible technology that you and Nikulin developed. Again many thanks also to Séverine for the clever argument which I digested yesterday with great pleasure, and integrated in my notes in Section 26.10(=\[LeTouze:sec\]) pages 332–334. This gave me yesterday some motivation again to attack the very first question of all our chat room, namely Rohlin’s claim that the pencil of cubics through the 8 deep basepoints located inside the 8 empty ovals of any sextic curve of type $6/1 2$ or its mirror $2/1 6$ is totally real, hence of type I (also called orthosymmetry by Klein ca. 1881-82 and his student Weichold 1883).
In fact I (naively) hoped to prove this Rohlin claim via Poincaré’s index theorem, yet the qualitative picture (Fig. 133 on page 337) rather inclined me to believe that the proof cannot reduce to mere combinatorial topology of foliations (i.e. Poincaré’s index formula of 1885). So I am still puzzled, but perhaps an argument like Séverine’s one do the job. At any rate I would be very excited if someone manages to reconstruct this proof asserted by Rohlin (1978) if it is not too tantalizing for the brain.
Otherwise I am also much frustrated by failing to visualize totally real pencil on the three $M$-sextics, whose existence is I think predicted by Ahlfors theorem of 1950 (or better the special zero-genus case thereof known to Riemann 1857, and reworked by Schottky 1875-77, or even Bieberbach 1925 and his more respectable student Grunsky 1937). Marin warned me recently that the transition from the abstract Riemann surface viewpoint to the planar context “of Hilbert’s 16th problem” may be not so easy as I always assumed subconsciously. (If necessary, all the correspondence I received from all the colleagues is gathered in Section 24.6, p.221). Overpassing this difficulty (which I hope is not fatal) there should be on all $M$-curves (more generally dividing curves) auxiliary pencils which are totally real. Alas for $M$-sextics (even $M$-quintics), I am completely unable to trace them and know nothing about the degree of the curves involved (in the pencil). I hope to be able to tackle such questions in the future, but perhaps you have better ideas (or motivations) than I do have.
Thank you very much again for all your brilliant answers, and kind messages. All the best, Alex
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ samedi 16 février 2013 17:54:55
Dear Alexandre, dear other colleagues,
I have managed to prove that a pencil of cubics with eight base points distributed in the eight empty ovals of a sextic $2 \cup 1(6)$ is necessarily totally real. Details will follow soon in a paper. Yours,
Séverine
$\bullet$ \[16.02.13,19h41\]
Dear Séverine and colleagues,
Congratulations for this fantastic achievement. I am sure the proof must be very beautiful. On my side I tried to work out for all sextics of type I an optical recognition procedure of the type by some synthetical procedure akin to Rohlin’s claim, yet this is still much in embryo. In particular the case of $(M-4)$-sextics is quite puzzling as it seems to contradict the version of Ahlfors theorem due to myself (existence of a totally real map of degree the mean value the number of ovals and Harnack’s bound). I hope to send you more palatable material soon, but confess that the questions look quite hard and I seem much less efficient than Séverine. So I suppose that Rohlin’s claim is one among several other (less pure) total reality result. So I look forward with great interest to see Séverine’s article.
All the best, Alex
\[19.02.13\] Dear colleagues,
Many congratulations again to Séverine for your fantastic achievement. Sorry to have been brief in my last letter, as I wrote (lacking an internet connection at home) from a friend of mine who had a romantic party with his girlfriend, and I do not wanted to disturb too long his romantic evening. Meanwhile I also tried hard to concentrate on a proof of the Rohlin-le Touzé’s theorem, which still overwhelms my intelligence. The last things that I have written are on pages 336–352 (Sections 27.1, 27.2, and 27.3), but this is poorly organized and supplies no serious proof of the Rohlin-Le Touzé’s theorem.
Some few days ago, I got Theorem 27.5 (on page 346), which (if it is correct) answers one of the question I asked in my penultimate e-mail (as well as desideratum of Alexis), namely the question of estimating the order of curves involved in a total pencil on an $M$-curve. It seems that there is always such a pencil of order $(m-2)$, i.e. two units less than the given degree $m$ of the $M$-curve. In fact, the proof is a nearly trivial adaptation of the abstract argument going back to several peoples (in chronological order Riemann 1857, Schottky 1875, Enriques-Chisini 1915, Bieberbach 1925, Grunsky 1937, Courant 1939, Wirtinger 1942, Ahlfors 1947, 1950, a myriad of Japaneses, a myriad of Russians including Golusin 1953/57, etc....., up to Huisman 2000, and Gabard 2001/2006, who else?). The point is that total reality is trivial in the case of $M$-curves since we have one point circulating on each oval (such a group moves by Riemann-Roch!!!) and so we have like a train-track with only one train on each track, hence no collision can occur and total reality is automatic. If we work with plane curves we only need to take curves of order $(m-2)$ which have enough free parameters to pass through any given distribution of $M$ points (one on each oval), and this works by looking at the residual group of points (details in the proof on page 346). So this is quite interesting but probably only a first step toward deeper things. (One could dream to recover all the Gudkov-Rohlin/Arnold congruence via this method but that looks hard work...)
After this little discovery I focused again on the Rohlin-Séverine theorem, yet without any success. So I have not more to report for the moment.
Thanks a lot for the attention, and all my congratulations again to Séverine for your deep advance. Best wishes, Alex
$\bullet$ 19.02.13 Dear Alex,
Let me ask you a question from your previous field of interest. Do you know any example of a non-Hausdorff 1-manifold which does not admit a differential structure? I heard about existence and could easily construct examples of exotic, i.e., homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic non-Hausdorff 1-manifolds. See
http://www.map.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/1-manifolds
Sincerely, Oleg
20.02.13
Dear Oleg, David and Mathieu,
Many thanks, Oleg, for your lovely question, and best greetings to the other friends. Alas my memory is failing quite dramatically, so my answer will be of poor quality. If I remember well I asked myself the same question some 3-4 years ago, but I cannot record to have ever found an answer. Thus I forward your question to David and Mathieu, the leading experts of non-metric surfaces who perhaps will supply a better answer. On my side I hope to think more seriously to your question when I see clearer with Rohlin-Le Touzé’s sextics.
Maybe a first idea is that there ought to be a (non-canonical) “twistor construction” assigning to each non-Hausdorff curve a Hausdorff surface fibered by (real) lines. This construction should go back to Haefliger’s very first note in the colloque de topologie de Strasbourg ca. 1955-1956 (yet it is not very detailed). In substance it is like a train-track construction à la Penner-Thurston…(some intuition about this is given in my article ‘Ebullition and gravitational clumping, arXiv, 2011). Do not worry if you don’t understand me, as I myself remember only vague souvenirs and are not so convinced by what I am saying!!! In fact Haefliger (ca. 1956) claims this construction only for second countable curve (even with a proviso on the fundamental group), but when I was in touch with the subject I was fairly convinced that it must work universally.
OPTIONAL REMARK: Haefliger, and Haefliger-Reeb 1957 use this construction to prove that any simply-connected curve (second countable) arises as the leaf space of a foliation of the plane. (Sketch of proof: take the twistor of the given curve which is by the exact sequence of a fibering 1-connected and (by Poincaré-Volterra) second countable, hence it is the plane, q.e.d)
So the idea would be to descend a smooth structure on the surface to get one on the curve. Alas, it is a well-known open problem whether any (non-metric but Hausdorff) surface admits a smooth structure (Spivak 1971, Nyikos, etc.) However quite puzzlingly Siebenmann 2005 (Russian Math Surveys) claims (and even prove in some details) that a PL structure exists universally on all such surfaces, merely as a consequence of Schoenflies theorem. So perhaps Siebenmann argument work as well for DIFF structures, and the metaphysical problem of Spivak-Nyikos is cracked. If this works (ask maybe Siebenmann, or an Indian in the States(=Ramachandran) who albeit not an expert was fairly convinced that there should be no asymmetry between PL and DIFF in dimension 2), then there is perhaps some chance to get a smooth structure on all non-Hausdorff curves. Of course there is perhaps a more direct strategy without transiting through surfaces.
Otherwise, regarding exotic smooth structures on curves the original reference is Haefliger-Reeb 1957 article in L’Enseignement Math. Perhaps you could quote this in your brilliant web-page.
Sorry for this vague answer, but at the moment my brain is much concentrated on this Rohlin-Le Fiedler total reality claim which still puzzles me a lot!!!
Best greetings to all, as well as to Rachel and Chiara. All the best, Alex
$\bullet$ \[22.02.13\] Dear colleagues (especially Séverine),
I worked hard (but without success) on the Le Touzé’s theorem, at least for 8 basepoints assigned on the nonempty ovals of a sextic of type $6/1 2$. If I understood well Séverine’s announcement, you rather handle the case of $2/1 6$ and assign more generally the points in the insides of the empty ovals (but of course I suppose that your argument adapts to $6/1 2$). Even in my weaker form I am not really able to conclude but send you my last thinking on the question (Section 27.4, p.352–356, esp. Fig.141). Ultimately I found a method which I call “barrages”. A special rôle is played by nodal cubics of the pencil, and I try to get a corruption with Bézout by looking at nodal curves with a barrage, i.e. such that 4 arcs of some other cubic joins pairwise the 8 basepoints distributed on the loop of the original cubic. (By the loop of a nodal cubic, I mean the unique path from the node to itself which is null-homotopic in the plane $RP^2$.) Of course I am not sure that details can be decently completed, but for the moment it is the only reasonable strategy I could imagine. I am sure that Séverine’s argument is much more elegant and convincing. My reasoning is completely conditioned by Fig.141, and I am probably too naive in believing that it reflects the general situation.
Sorry for sending you this very coarse material, and of course do not take the pain to react to this message. Many thanks again a lot to all for sharing so generously your knowledge and for all your answers. Best regards, Alex
\[25.02.13\] Dear real geometers,
I was still much fascinated by the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem (RLT) albeit still not able to prove it. Being frustrated by my failing attempts (probably due to a lack of stubbornness and competence in algebraic geometry) I decided to speculate a bit of why it is so important or at least to explore how the statement could generalize.
In its most elementary incarnation involving pencil of lines and conics, the phenomenon of total reality occurs along infinite series stable under the operation of satellite of a real scheme (of even order). Satellite just amounts to trace each oval with a certain multiplicity $k$ (jargon obviously borrowed from knot theory). So the unifolium scheme of degree 2 (allied to a conic) gives rise to the deep nests, and the quadrifolium scheme of degree 4 gives rise by taking its satellites to an infinite series of schemes of order multiples of 4 which are totally real under a pencil of conics (assigned to pass through the deepest ovals). It seems therefore natural to ask if the satellites (e.g. the second satellite) of the Rohlin’s scheme $6/1 2$ (or its partner $2/1 6$) are also totally real (and hence of type I) under the “same” pencil of cubics as posited by the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem. Alas I was not even able to settle this question. (Of course this seems evident (granting RLT) for a small perturbation of the algebraic double (essentially $F \cup F+\epsilon$), since total reality forces transversality of the foliation induced by the pencil with the curve.)
Next, I tried to understand what are the higher order avatars of the RLT-theorem (in the hope that it is not an isolated phenomenon as vaguely suggested by Ahlfors theorem). I found using the Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence ensuring the type I-ness (=orthosymmetry) of some $(M-2)$-schemes an (obvious) infinite series of avatars of the Rohlin’s $(M-2)$-schemes of degree 6 . Those are also $(M-2)$-schemes and total reality seems to be possible for a pencil of curves of order $(m-3)$, exactly like for the Gürtelkurve of Zeuthen-Klein (bifolium quartic with 2 nested ovals totally flashed by a pencil of line through the deep nest) or for the Rohlin’s sextic (flashed by a pencil of cubics). So it seems that the theory of adjoint curves of order $(m-3)$ plays some special rôle in this question of Rohlin-Séverine. I would be very happy if one of you knows if it is reasonable to expect an extension the RLT total reality theorem to all this schemes whose type I ness is ensured by Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence (sorry if I am not hundred percent right in crediting as I could not extract the exact history of this subliminal result). Specifically I have Conjectures 27.17 and 27.18 (page 365 and 367 resp.) which list some candidate-schemes for total reality in degree 8 and 10. If the conjectures are right, it would be of great interest to know if Séverine’s proof adapts to them. Sorry if I am too naive about the real difficulty of such problems, but I found exciting to wonder if there is something more general behind the cryptical allusion of Rohlin. Of course I presume that he derived the synthetic result a posteriori from highbrow topology (or Kähler geometry in Kharlamov’s case?), but perhaps there is a simple explanation with (“basic”) algebraic geometry and total reality as Séverine was able to do? As Oleg knows my problem is that I wasted too much time with non-metric manifolds and so forgot all the little I ever knew about algebraic geometry.
During the way, I think to have found a counterexample to the conjecture of mine (inspired by the Itenberg-Viro contraction conjecture of empty ovals), and according to which all empty ovals could be contracted simultaneously to solitary nodes. This counter-example is Thm 27.16 on page 364 (which I hope is correct and sharp as far as the degree is concerned).
Thanks a lot for the attention, and sorry for all the modest news (you surely thought about in sharper form already). All the best, Alex PS: The material summarized in this message occupies page 357-367 (Sections 27.5, 27.6, 27.7), as usual I had not much time to polish, but I hope it is still readable.
\[27.02.13\] A census of 100 octic $(M-2)$-schemes of type I satisfying the RKM-congruence, plus a little addendum for Oleg’s non-Hausdorff curves
Dear colleagues,
I have pursued some preliminary study toward the total reality phenomenon, yet merely in its combinatorial aspect prompted by the modulo 8 RKM-congruence (for Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin) ensuring the type I of $(M-2)$-schemes of degree $2k$ with $\chi = k^2+4 \pmod
8$. Accordingly, I call an RKM-scheme any $(M-2)$-scheme satisfying this congruence. While any RKM-scheme is of type I, I do not know alas whether the converse statement is true. If it is known I would be extremely grateful if someone can tell me (and our collective chat room) the answer. Further I noticed that the list given in my previous e-mail of RKM-schemes of degree 8 can be much enlarged. If I am not too bad in combinatorics, there are precisely 100 such schemes in degree 8, all of them being potentially subsumed to the phenomenon of total reality under a pencil of quintics akin to the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem (for sextics flashed by cubics). This modest material is to be found in Section 27.8, p.368-373 (especially Fig. 146 page 370 and Lemma 27.24, p.372, plus all the 36 Gudkov symbols on page 372). I hope of course that I missed nobody in this catalogue. Extrapolating a bit using the (hypothetical) converse statement to RKM, I would say that there are precisely 100 schemes of type I which are $(M-2)$-schemes. Is this well-known and correct?
Actually, I do not really know if all these 100 schemes are realized algebraically, but presume that most of them (all?) are. Possibly I am much too naive. Of course it is quite amazing to see that the only two RKM-schemes of degree 6 (namely $6/1 2$ and $2/1
6$) demographically explodes to a menagerie of 100 such schemes in degree $8$, but that should be no surprise for you much acquainted with the higher cases of Hilbert’s 16th problem. It would be even more crazy if all those 100 schemes (or at least a good portion thereof) are subsumed to the phenomenon of total reality. If you have some ideas on those circle of ideas, I would be extremely thankful.
Many thanks again for the patience and attention, and I hope that what I am telling is nearly correct (not too surrealist). Very best regards, Alex
PS: For Oleg, regarding my loose answer on smooth structures on non-Hausdorff 1-manifolds, I would like to add another philosophical remark related to the method of Haefliger’s “twistor”. This is of course like a thickening along a normal bundle except that there is no ambient manifold (safe the ether) and so the construction must be intrinsic. To my knowledge it was never exposed in details (albeit Haefliger’s 1st article ca. 1955-56 in Colloque de Topologie de Strasbourg uses implicitly this construction). Now my point is that albeit the twistor method looks somewhat indirect, I think that it is fairly useful. For instance, I was since 2006-07 puzzled by the naive question if the fundamental group of a one-manifold is always a free group. (Of course such non-Hausdorff curves resemble somehow graphs, whence some intuition). For instance the line with 2 origins has $\pi_1=Z$ as follows quickly from Seifert-van Kampen (and if 3 origins or 2 doubled origins then $\pi_1=F_2$ is free of rank 2). Ultimately in 2011 I found a general answer to this “freeness” puzzle by using the Haefliger twistor construction, while showing first that all open (non-metric) surfaces have free fundamental groups. (This is actually a very modest extension of the metric case, which to my knowledge is first treated in Ahlfors-Sario book of 1960, albeit it may have belonged to the folklore much earlier, say Kerekjarto, H. Kneser, Rado, in the 1920’s, Papakyriakopoulos in the 1940’s???). This material is exposed in some details in my arXiv note of ca. 2011 (Ebullition in Foliated surfaces versus gravitational clumping). I hope that those results are nearly correct but they certainly require more professional treatments and exposition than I was able to do. I hope this little remark makes perhaps more plausible that the approach via the (Hausdorffizing) Haefliger twistor is also reasonable for your problem of DIFF structures.
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ vendredi 1 mars 2013 19:07:12
Dear Alexandre, dear other colleagues, here is the note I had promised to send you. There are still many open questions, as Alexandre wrote. It would be also interesting to know whether one could find a totally real pencil with respect to the dividing $M-2$-sextics with real scheme of indefinite type. I will think about it when I have more time. Best regards,
Séverine
(01.03.13, 22h15)
Dear Séverine and the other colleagues,
So many thanks Séverine for sending us your splendid article. I am much excited to read the details tomorrow, as myself started today to doubt about the whole result (at least in the strong form that any points 8 points distributed on the empty ovals ensures total reality). (If I am not wrong the whole phenomenon depends upon the location of the 9th base point, namely the pencil is totally real iff the 9th base point lands in the inside of the nonempty oval.) So I was much depressed and lost in my poorly organized thoughts. So your sending arrives as a true deliverance for my brain.
Many congratulations again to Séverine for this fantastic work. Very best regards, Alex
\[02.03.13\] Can total reality fail for a distribution of 8 points on the empty ovals?
Dear Séverine and the other geometers (especially Professor Nikulin),
I enjoyed much a detailed look at your splendid article full of illuminating remarks. I will probably need much more time to digest the impressive technology you use, and need to print the material to make a deeper reading (especially of the former works upon which your argument seems to depend). So many thanks again for sending us your work in so rapid delay. I wrote some naive reactions in Section 27.11, where I mostly copied your sayings, and tried to add hopefully pertinent footnotes.
Regarding your question “Can conversely any dividing curve be endowed with some totally real pencil?”, I still wonder if a positive answer is not a trivial consequence of Ahlfors theorem (compare very optionally Gabard’s Thesis 2004, page 7). However since Marin warned me in January 2013 (cf. Section of e-mails) it may be the case that the transition from the abstract conception of Riemann-Schottky-Klein to the embedded viewpoints of Hilbert-Gudkov-Rohlin is not so easy. Yet I am still confident (or naive enough) to believe that it holds true. The point seems to be primarily a matter of projective algebraic geometry, namely the question if any abstract morphism on a concrete plane curve to the line $\PP^1$ is induced by a (linear) pencil of ambient curves. This is either trivially true or trivially wrong, but alas I do not know the answer due to my failing memory about the foundations of algebraic geometry.
Your article already helped much as I suffered under the misconception that your result states that any distribution of 8 points on the empty ovals induces a totally real pencil. Your statement is much more subtle, yet personally I do not know if this stronger (universal) form of total reality is wrong! If you know a counterexample foiling universal total reality I would be very happy. It could then still be the case that there is some special sextics for which universal total reality holds true, i.e. for all octuplets distributed on the empty ovals. (Perhaps reading more carefully your article, especially the aspect related to Nikulin-Kharlamov’s rigid-isotopic classification already answers those questions?)
(The newest material of mine (as usual confusing and poorly organized) occupies Section 27.9–27.11 on pages 373–378. Here I attempted a topological approach to the existence of octuplets inducing a totally real pencil, but alas was not able to conclude, presumably because I know too little on the predestination process creating the 9th basepoint as a function of the 8 assigned ones.)
Many congratulations again to Séverine for this breakthrough. Best regards, Alex
dimanche 3 mars 2013 18:07:57 a new version with small corrections?
Dear Alexandre, dear other colleagues, I owe you some apologies: the Theorem was slightly incorrect, as Alexandre pointed out. I let you discover this new version, where I have reformulated the Theorem, and added a few words in the end of the proof. Best regards, Séverine
(04.03.13) Dear Séverine and the other colleagues,
Many thanks for the new version. In fact, it seems that the main change is that you now assign the 8 basepoints ON the empty ovals instead of IN their insides. Rereading my previous message, I realize that I misstated your original statement and so it is pure chance that assignation on the ovals turned out to be “more correct”.
Your fascinating article gave me new forces to think about the problem, but alas still without success. For instance, I still do not know if there exist octuplets (on the empty ovals) failing to induce a totally real pencil. Of course assigning them in the insides gives more freedom, but presently it looks to me harder to ensure total reality. So despite your correction, it could still be the case (in my modest understanding) that the pencil is total for all octuplets chosen in the insides of the empty ovals. Perhaps you know a counterexample to this strongest form of the statement?
Many thanks again for the article, which guided much my thinkings. I hope to send you more exciting news soon, but the whole problem which you call “the lost proof of Rohlin” seems to me still much out of reach. All the best, Alex
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ answer to Alexandre’s questions (mardi 5 mars 2013 13:30:42)
Dear Alexandre, dear other colleagues, let me try to answer the question with a new formulation.
Assume first that the base points are distributed [*inside*]{} of the empty ovals. Applying your nice “dextrogyration argument” to all nine ovals gives the following lemma:
[*The pencil is totally real iff 9 lies inside of the non-empty oval $O$ and outside of the empty ovals.*]{}
If 9 is outside of $O$, the bad cubics are as shown in Figure 2 of the paper. If 9 is inside of an empty oval $X$, the bad cubics have an oval passing through the two base points 9 and X only, and this oval is entirely contained in the empty oval denoted also $X$. To get rid of this latter possibility, it suffices to take the base points [*on*]{} the empty ovals.
In ii), I give an explicit description of the pencil, valuable for any generic choice of the eight base points [*inside*]{} of the eight empty ovals. (It turns out that the only possible non-generic situation is that of a pencil with a double base point $9=2$, this means that the points 1, ..8 lie on a nodal cubic with node at 2.) Recall that 2 is the base point chosen in the extreme inner oval forming a positive pair with $O$. For this pencil, the only possibly bad cubics are those with an oval passing through 9 and 2 only. To grant total reality, it suffices to choose the base point 2 [*on*]{} the corresponding empty oval, the other base points lie arbitrarily in the inside discs of the other empty ovals. Thus, your conjecture 27.29\[=\[SRLT:conj\]\] is true, and an even stronger result holds for the sextic with six inner ovals. Best regards, Séverine
\[07.03.13\] Little news from Alex, and so many thanks to Séverine for the answer
Dear Colleagues,
First many thanks to Séverine for your very detailed answer (which I will study in detail tomorrow). Sorry for being always a bit differed in time due to my lack of internet at home.
I added some material in my loose notes. In Section 28.1–28.2 (pp.384–392), I tried once more to explore the grand programme that Rohlin might have had in mind, namely total reality and its connection with his maximality conjecture. As I often said it seems to me that the missing link could be played by Ahlfors theorem, or perhaps Rohlin had a grand vision that he could arrange total reality by purely synthetical processes extending in all degree the already tricky theorem of Rohlin-Le Touzé in degree $m=6$. This idea when explored in full looks to me extremely vertiginous, but its net impact would be a sort of upper bound upon the complexity of Hilbert’s 16th problem, and in some sense subsume all prohibitions (à la Gudkov et cie.) to the paradigm of total reality. All this necessitates to be made much more precise, but I \[have\] attempted to make a psychoanalysis of what Rohlin may have had in the brain, without that he himself ventured to put it on the paper due to his own modesty and pragmatism.
Next I discovered the little Theorem 28.7\[=\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]\] (p.393), which is just a matter of making explicit the consequence of Thom’s conjecture (=Kronheimer-Mrowka theorem) as it pertains to Hilbert’s 16th problem. The result is the lovely estimate[^107] $\chi \le k^2$ for a curve of type I and degree $2k$. With this I realized that my former counterexample (with the scheme $20$ in degree 8) to CCC(=collective contraction conjecture) is actually killed by Thom, and realized (later only!!) that it is also killed by Rohlin’s formula. So CCC is again resuscitated but probably not for long!?
Then I tried to make a comparative study of Rohlin’s formula versus the Thom obstruction. It seems that the latter is often implied by Rohlin’s formula, but not always. More in Section 28.4 (p.393). It seems however that at least for degree $m \ge 10$ there is some cases where Thom really affords new information not covered by Russian congruences or Rohlin’s formula (cf. Thm 28.11, p.396). Finally using the Gudkov table in degree 10 (=Fig.148 on page 395), I got some naive hope to disprove the Rohlin maximality conjecture, but this quickly turned into disillusion (cf. Point 3 on p.396–397).
Sorry for all these messy remarks, yet I found the rôle of Thom quite pleasant. I am sure that this is not new, and that I read it somewhere, but again could not recover where precisely. (I thought it was in Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000’s survey but apparently not, though Kronheimer-Mrowka is alluded to.) If you remember some anecdotes about the rôle of Thom’s conjecture in Hilbert’s 16th problem, and who puts it first into action as a such, I would be extremely happy to insert your remarks in my (messy) survey.
Thanks a lot for the attention, Best regards, Alex
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ Thomas Fiedler wrote (samedi 9 mars 2013 17:32:59)
Dear Alexandre,
I am no longer in business in this field, but let me just make some remarks which could be perhaps helpful.
The $M$-curve of degree 10 mentioned in your Thm 28.11\[=\[French-scheme:thm\]\] is in fact ruled out by Rokhlin’s formula. I think that you have mixed $Pi^+$ with $Pi^-$. In a positive couple the orientations are just opposite. So, four nested ovals can contribute at most $+2$ to Rokhlin’s formula.
It is an interesting idea to apply the Thom conjecture to real algebraic curves. To my knowledge the only new result obtained this way is contained in G. Mikhalkin “Adjunction inequality for real algebraic curves”.
Let me formulate the problem (which exists certainly already somewhere).
GENERALIZED THOM PROBLEM.
Let $X$ be a simply connected smooth closed $4$-manifold and let $h$ be a non trivial integer $2$-dimensional homology class. Let $F$ be a smoothly embedded oriented surface which represents $h$ and such that the components of $F$ represent classes which are linearly independent over $Z/2Z$. What is the maximal Euler characteristic of $F$?
In the complex projective plane this boils down to the Thom problem, because evidently the surface F has to be connected in this case. However, it becomes interesting in a more general complex surface. It is an easy matter to make a non connected surface $F$ connected but the opposite is quite hard. It is equivalent to finding an embedded “membrane” with trivial normal Euler number. I don’t know wether Seiberg-Witten theory nowadays can give a sufficient criterium to ensure the existence of such a membrane (as stretching the neck of the surface $F$). But it seems to me that this is the place to look at.
If one considers as $X$ the double cover of the projective plane ramified in the complexification of an $M$-curve of even degree then one can consider as $F$ the fix point set of one of the two induced anti-holomorphic involutions on $X$. We know $2b_0(F)+b_1(F)$ from Harnacks equality. Hence the Euler characteristic $2b_0(F)-b_1(F)$ is maximal when $b_1(F)$ is minimal, i.e. the numbers $p$ or $n$ of the real curve are maximal. So this problem is closely related to the still open Ragsdale conjecture for $M$-curves.
Best regards, Thomas
$\bullet$ \[Gabard, 09.03.13, ca. 21h00\] Does the Gudkov hypothesis (mod 8) reduces to Rohlin’s (complex orientation) formula
Dear Colleagues,
On reading recently the Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 survey, I learned the (simple) fact that the Arnold congruence mod 4 (weak Gudkov hypothesis) can be reduced to Rohlin’s formula. I wrote down a proof of this simple issue in Lemma 24.16\[=\[Rohlin-implies-Arnold:lem\]\], on page 219 of the messy survey.
Of course then I wondered if a sharpened combinatorial argument taking into account the signs distribution on the edges of the “Hilbert tree” (encoding the distribution of ovals) prompted by Rohlin’s complex orientations could likewise subsume the Gudkov hypothesis to Rohlin’s formula. The combinatorics becomes much more messy and I lack a good idea on how to exploit the $M$-curve assumption (apart from the dubious idea of using the dextrogyration allied to a totally real pencil, but this looks somewhat ad hoc!!!?). If feasible (so or otherwise), the net impact would be that the highbrow topology used in the Rohlin-Rohlin/Atiyah-Singer-Marin proofs could be replaced perhaps by basic algebraic geometry. This issue is merely didactic of course, yet it looks perhaps technically challenging to implement this modest “dream”. My (unsuccessful) attempt to tackle this reduction is given in Section 24.5, pages 220–223.
Of course, I am sure that you already tried hard along this way and that this is a pot-pourri naive problem. So I write you the letter, only in the hope that someone already worked this reduction successfully, though I doubt (as otherwise it would certainly have been mentioned in the Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 survey).
Many thanks again for all your attention and all your precious hints, Alex
PS: I apologize much to Séverine for not having yet found the time to study carefully enough the last brilliant explanations, but look forward doing so in the best delay.
PPS: Many thanks also to Thomas for the brilliant answer on Thom and Mikhalkin, Seiberg-Witten, etc. I will include your letter in (the next version of) my notes so that anybody can contemplate it.
$\bullet$ \[11.03.13\]
Dear Thomas and the other Colleagues,
So many thanks to Thomas for having catched my mistake regarding Thom versus Rohlin (existence of schemes prohibited by Thom but not by Rohlin’s formula). I have written down a corrected version of the Theorem (whose first clause is I think still true despite Thomas’s corrigendum) as Thm 30.14 on page 382. I hope this time it is correct! The subsequent Thm 30.15 and Lemma 30.16 describe larger family of such schemes. Alas, what I have written is not extremely appealing, but I hope still readable for such experts as you are (though I confess that it is not extremely exciting!). The philosophy is just of course that there is no subsumation of Thom’s estimate $\chi\le k^2$ to Rohlin’s formula.
Many thanks again to all for all your kind answers, and especially to Thomas for taking care to bring me on the right track!
Best regards, Alex
PS: I have drifted the Section of your e-mails at the end of the text, in particular the last letter of Thomas is to be found on page 435. Alas, I had not yet the time to digest its full swing, but the idea looks very promising!
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ mardi 12 mars 2013 13:56:45
Dear Alexander,
sorry, but all your $M$-schemes of degree $10$ in Thm 30.14 and 30.15 have $n=2$ and are ruled out simply by Petrovskis inequality. I don’t think that genus bounds give anything new for real schemes alone but they definitely do so for configurations of several real curves. Just take a look on Mikhalkin’s paper.
Best regards Thomas
\[16.03.13\]
Dear Geometers,
Many thanks again to Thomas for his former correction. I got so drifted in a sort of cuneiform formalism of trees with signs but mostly lost myself into dubious combinatorics of (what I call) the Rohlin tree (=Hilbert’s nested tree with signs materializing of course Rohlin’s complex orientations). Ultimately after several basic combinatorial mistakes, I did NOT even succeeded in finding a Caucasian $M$-scheme where Rohlin’s formula is stronger than Thom $\chi \le k^2$. This problem is discussed in Sections 30.7 and 30.8 (pages 393–402). It seems to me that there is (for $M$-curves at least) a certain concomitance between Rohlin and Thom, i.e. you cannot corrupt Rohlin’s formula without corrupting simultaneously Thom’s bound. So maybe it is reasonable to conjecture that if Thom’s estimate is fulfilled then Rohlin’s equation is always soluble for a suitable distribution of signs on the edges of the tree. Sorry that my summary is vague as I do not myself understand properly what happens.
Today, I switched on a somewhat more pleasant arithmetical problem exposed in Section 30.6, p.391–392. This is hopefully more readable, and you surely studied this a long time ago. Here the question is to find an $M$-scheme without nesting of high-degree (say $m\ge 6$ assuming zero-knowledge). As we know, Hilbert posited the intuition that $M$-curves are forced to exhibit nesting. (In fact on reading this afternoon more carefully Hilbert’s text, he is not so categoric but let us assume so, to add some suspense to our story!) In view of Rohlin’s formula (which forces the number of ovals of an unnested dividing curve to be a square) and the Gudkov congruence mod 8, one is invited to ask when the Harnack bound $M=g+1$ of a degree $2k$ curve is a (perfect) SQUARE? This leads to a little arithmetical problem which admits a nontrivial solution at $k=17$ for $M=529$ which is by a lucky stroke equal to $23$ squared. (Of course I found this just by an “exhaustive” tabulation.) (Note at this stage that $17=16+1$ yet another subconscious coincidence in Hilbert’s numbering!!??) It turns out moreover that the Gudkov congruence is then fulfilled! So this leads me to ask if, you in Russia, knew a way (prior to Thom-Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994) to prohibit this $M$-scheme of degree $2k=34$ with 529 ovals (all lying outside another, i.e. no nesting). Personally, I would be very happy if someone can tell me an answer (in case I did not foiled the arithmetics!!!) Incidentally, I am so ignorant in that field that I do not know how to solve in general the Diophantine problem of the quadrature of Harnack’s bound, i.e. for which $k$ is Harnack’s bound $M=g(2k)+1$ a square (=Problem 30.19, on page 391).
Finally, this morning, building upon Séverine’s (elementary) remark on $M$-quintics totally real under a pencil of cubics (nothing so hard as the Rohlin-Le Touzé theorem for sextics), I had the idea to extend the construction of satellites to curves of odd degrees, and so found a scheme of degree 10 (the 2nd satellite of Harnack $M$-quintic). This schemes, according to the philosophy of total reality, should be of type I (stability under satellites). This material is exposed in Section 29.8 page 352–353. The scheme in question has 13 ovals one of them enclosing 6 nests of depth 2 (cf. Fig 149 p.353). Assuming that this scheme is of type I, it could be a counterexample to Rohlin’s maximality conjecture, in case someone ever saw a curve of degree 10 enlarging it. Otherwise, more in line with Rohlin’s philosophy, this scheme being totally real in some explicit way it should be maximal and it results a myriad of prohibitions on all schemes enlarging it! If you know some experimental construction à la Viro-Itenberg that may help to see clearer, I would be extremely thankful. Of course, it would also be very interesting to know if Séverine thinks that there is some good chance that total reality holds true for this satellite.
Many thanks for your attention, and I hope my questions are not too ill-posed for such experts as you are! All the best, Alex
PPS: Many thanks for the message meanwhile received from Thomas which I hope make my message not to obsolete. Best regards.
PPPS: Dear Viatcheslav, I try twice to send you my message as I received delivery failure notification! I hope I am not overloading your mail-box. I try now with a zipped file hopefully toujours lisible pour vous. Amitiés. Alexandre
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ mardi 19 mars 2013 17:54:39
Dear colleagues, my note “totally real pencils. . .” is now available on the archiv, here is the reference: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4341 Best regards, Séverine
$\bullet$ \[19.03.13, ca. 19h30\] An Alsatian scheme and planning to put a version on arXiv in ca. 10 days (please confirm me if you accept the insertion of your kind letters in my messy survey)
Dear Colleagues,
Many thanks to Thomas again for pointing out the marvellous Petrovskii’s inequalities (which I confess I had not assimilated properly before, despite all the brilliant surveys available). Shame on me! So of course most of the questions of my previous message were rather stupid. In particular that relating to the arithmetical problem was completely ill-posed as I missed to use the full punch of Rohlin’s formula. I apologize much for all these inconsistencies.
Meanwhile I have attempted to find what I call an Alsatian scheme where Thom is stronger than the conjunction of Petrovskii 1933/38, Gudkov hypothesis (1969–72=Rohlin’s semi-proof) and Rohlin’s formula (1974–78). I think that such an Alsatian scheme do exist (cf. Thm 30.22 on page 392). This answers (I hope correctly) a question raised by Thomas in the message reproduced right below, where if I understand it well Thomas expected that Thom says nothing new already known earlier in Russia.
Then in view of Thomas’ stimulating messages and also the marvellous Itenberg-Viro 1996 Math. Intelligencer article, I adventured slightly in the province of Miss Ragsdale. Here first I learned that the Ragsdale conjecture for $M$-curves really boils down to Thom (at least one-half thereof)[^108]. I found strange that Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994, was not cited in Itenberg-Viro 1996 probably due to backlog reasons (by Intelligencer)[^109]? Further it seems to me that there is a misprint in the statement of the RAGSDALE CONJECTURE ON $M$-CURVES (on p.24 of Itenberg-Viro 1996). At any rate, I tried to write down my own naive account on Ragsdale in Sect. 30.4\[=\[Ragsdale-conj:sec\]\] (p.380–384) which details more slowly what I understood (hopefully correctly). In fact, I wonder at my (premature) stage if the full Ragsdale conjecture could not follow à la Thom via the lower estimate $-k^2 \le \chi$ which I very naively conjecture to be true for all dividing curves? (I confess that I made no experiments even with the methods of constructions I am aware of, i.e. Hilbert-Harnack).
So as you see, life really starts becoming exciting. Alas I fear that I will be strongly interrupted due to editorial reasons of our Journal L’Enseign. Math. in Geneva of which I am the TeX-editor. So perhaps I should stop thinking and try to polish a bit the big mess I produced (during ca. 10 days), before putting it on the arXiv (prior to my long editorial job). Alas, I had already great difficulties to submit the previous version of my file (due to size limitation policy of arXiv), but received an exceptional derogation to do so. Now my text on Ahlfors + Rohlin is twice as large as it was before (600 vs. 300 pages) so there is little chance that I get accepted. I will try to see if an arXiv administrator looks optimistic. Meanwhile, I would be very happy if you all confirm me that you accept the integration of your marvellous letters in my modest text. Of course answer me only in case of objection. I plan to submit the new version ca. the 1 March 2013. Of course my text is so messy that your letters alas are not properly pushed into evidence, but I expect to produce a better text in the next months or years.
Many thanks again to all for your letters, indulgence, patience and kind answers!
Best regards, Alex
$\bullet$$\bullet$$\bullet$ [*Reproduction of Fiedler’s former letter (already above but the other colleagues did not saw it)*]{} mardi 12 mars 2013 13:56:45
Dear Alexander,
sorry, but all your $M$-schemes of degree $10$ in Thm 30.14 and 30.15 have $n=2$ and are ruled out simply by Petrovskis inequality. I don’t think that genus bounds give anything new for real schemes alone but they definitely do so for configurations of several real curves. Just take a look on Mikhalkin’s paper.
Best regards Thomas
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ mardi 19 mars 2013 22:17:27
Dear Alexandre,
sorry again, but your curve has $p=50$ and is ruled out by Arnold’s inequality: $p\le 3/2 k(k-1) + 1 + n_-$, which is $47$ in this case. In fact Arnold’s inequalities are by fare the strongest result in the whole field.
Best regards Thomas
$\bullet$ \[20.03.13\] “René Thom sur son 31?”
Lieber Thomas (and the other colleagues),
Es wird jadoch immer spannender, oder wat? Many thanks for the new challenge raised by Thomas (which I received as a special gift on my birthday date, today 20st of March). As Thomas demonstrated yesterday evening (cf. message reproduced below), my example of Alsatian scheme (where Thom is stronger than the Soviet Red army) (cf. Thm 30.22\[=\[Alsatian-schemes:thm\]\], p.392) collapses under the strong Petrovskii inequality of Academician Vladimir Igorevich Arnold. It took me just some few hours (as I was quite tired) to find a stronger candidate of Alsatian scheme where Thom looks stronger that the conjunction of (strong) Petrovskii-Arnold 1971, Gudkov 1969 (proved by Rohlin 1972-Marin ca. 1977), and Rohlin’s formula (1974–78). For the exact statement cf. Thm 30.25\[=\[Alsatian-scheme-Thom-strong-Petrov-Arnold:thm\]\] on page 395. I hope I made no mistake (I checked the details twice). By (3-fold) experience, I am quite confident that Thomas will find a new obstruction in his pockets killing this new example.
Hence many thanks again to Thomas for all this precious guidance that oriented much my modest working. As I said I am now under strong temporal constraints, and will not be able to pursue any thinking for a long period of circa 1 month. So please feel free to elaborate more upon the direction indicated by Thomas if it looks hard stopping the inertia. Myself find the Alsatian topic quite pleasant, yet it would (I presume) be interesting to penetrate deeper in the geographical question (by really understanding the diagrammatic impact of Petrovskii-Arnold, Ragsdale, etc. upon the higher Gudkov’s tables of periodic elements) I made several pictures of big pyramids (e.g Fig. 153\[=\[Degree10:fig\]\] p. 386) and that could be a first step toward understanding better what happens. Of course all this must be familiar to you, yet personally I still lack a good algorithm to make good (color-plates) maps evidencing “all” obstructions.
My main worry now, is how to publish (and polish) the 600 pages long article that I have produced, especially in view of stringent size restrictions imposed by the arXiv administrators.
Many thanks that you seem to all approve the insertion of your letters in my survey, which looks to me essential as you influenced much my (chaotical) trajectory. Of course in the future we will have the occasion to clean better in case some bugs are detected, which is quite unlikely (apart of course in my own letters full of inconsistencies).
All the best, Alex
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ jeudi 21 mars 2013 07:51:45
Dear Alexandre,
unfortunately your Theorem 30.7\[=\[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\]\] is wrong. Half of the curve together with R is usually called Arnold’s surface. It is an orientable surface iff R has an orientation which induces the complex orientation on its boundary, i.e. the real curve. Hence if there is a negative pair of ovals in in the boundary of one component of R then Arnold’s surface is not orientable.
By the way it is well known and easy to prove that if Arnold’s surface is orientable then $p-n=k^2$.
Best regards, Thomas
$\bullet$ \[21.03.2013, ca. 22h00\] Dear Thomas and the other Colleagues,
Many thanks to Thomas for having spotted out my fundamental mistake. I apologize much hence for all the dubious letters that I sent you the former days. I hope I will still be able to repair a bit the situation in the next weeks, though this will require dramatic changes in my messy text! So many thanks again to Thomas for having detected this great Harnaque!!!
All the best, Alex
$\bullet\bullet\bullet$ vendredi 22 mars 2013 07:54:47
Dear Alexandre,
don’t worry. Just read Mikhalkins paper and find other interesting applications of his method. Having a reducible dividing curve you can switch the canonical orientation of exactly one component. This allows to construct immersed surfaces which are far from being complex curves. Then indeed genus bounds start to work.
Best regards, Thomas
$\bullet$ \[24.03.13\] Is there a simpler counter-example to “Gabard-Thom” than via Itenberg-Viro mirabilis $(M-2)$-curve of degree 10 disproving Ragsdale
Dear Colleagues,
As pointed out by Thomas (cf. my last message) my proof of the “Gabard-Thom” estimate $\chi \le k^2$ for all dividing curves of degree $2k$ was highly fraudulent as it was based on the (erroneous) assumption that the Arnold surface (=Klein’s half married with Miss Ragsdale) is always orientable. Of course Thom has still something to say on Hilbert’s 16th e.g. in the very special case of no nesting. As a historical curiosity one can notice that the elementary case due to Kervaire-Milnor (1961) of Thom in degree 3 gives in my opinion the first purely topological proof of Hilbert’s Ansatz of nesting for $M$-sextics. Prior to that we had only Hilbert-Rohn (stratificational as explained by Eugenii), and Petrovskii 1933/38 which involves the Euler-Jacobi-Kronecker stuff (interpolation formula). Of course Kervaire-Milnor is merely Rohlin’s early work 1951 disguised!
Next I was a bit puzzled by Thomas’s claim that my “Gabard-Thom” theorem is wrong, since I was not able to find an explicit counter-example. I tried a while with elementary constructions à la Harnack-Hilbert but could not find a single counterexample. So I found the pleasant plates Fig. 152-153-154-155\[=\[HilbGab1:fig\]–\[HilbGab4:fig\]\] on pages 382 and ff. Here we get nice infinite families of curves with $\chi=k^2$ that were surely known to Hilbert and Ragsdale. Alas this inclined more toward thinking that Gabard-Thom is sharp, rather than disproving it. Then of course I had the idea to take a closer look to Itenberg-Viro 1996’s article (disproof of Ragsdale), which came like a deliverance and killed in the same stroke the Gabard-Thom dubious estimate. I used the Kharlamov-Marin congruence to check type I of the Itenberg-Viro curve (which I reproduced on Fig. 156\[=\[Itenberg:fig\]\], p.387), though there is surely a more elementary argument à la Fiedler-Viro-Itenberg-Parenti. Many congratulations by the way to Ilia and Oleg for this geometric paradise, which I contemplated with much pleasure and extreme admiration yesterday evening!!! A naive question of mine, is whether we really need to resort to the patchwork method to disprove Gabard-Thom, in the sense that perhaps I missed (a non-maximal) counterexample via Harnack-Hilbert.
Finally this marvellous curve (Itenberg-Viro’s) poses again the question of total reality, this time under a pencil of septics (in general I conjecture total reality for adjoint curves of order $m-3$ when it comes to $(M-2)$-curves). The question is where to assign exactly the anchor basepoints! I tried some guesses in Sec. 31.3\[\[Galton-brett:sec\]\] (p. 388). This deserve perhaps much deeper investigations than what I am presently able to do. Perhaps Séverine and Thomas already have some good ideas. My own dream is that there should be a combinatorial recipe telling one from the sole knowledge of the Rohlin tree (=Hilbert’s one with signs given by complex orientations) where to assign basepoints. One should perhaps imagine the Rohlin tree as a Galton-Brett=table with billiards balls falling downwards to the empty ovals and perhaps stabilizing at some other (unstable) equilibriums when they meet a “nail”, which in first approximation could be a hyperbolic oval negatively charged on the edge right above it.
All my thanks again to Thomas for having catched my fundamental mistake at the right moment. I hope to polish a bit the text during the next days before submitting it to the arXives. Then I must move toward doing more boring editorial duties for the Swiss journal L’ Ens. Math. (close to collapse by the way).
Good Sunday to all, and best regards, Alex
PS: Many thanks also for Thomas’s last letter which I just discover now. It is an invitation to read Mikhalkin’s article, which alas I had not yet the time to do properly...
Synoptic tabulations
====================
This is an attempt to gather information scattered through the literature. The first synoptic project compiles a list of nomenclatures. A second tabulation reflects how Ahlfors work (existence of circle maps) has been appreciated by subsequent workers of a slightly dissident nature in the sense that they cite conjointly other sources.
Nomenclature project
--------------------
This section tries to get sharp lower bounds on the basic nomenclature of our topic. As Poincaré tried to convince Felix Klein “[*Name ist Schall und Rauch*]{}” (cf. e.g. Klein 1923 [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.611]), but it is somehow pleasant to investigate the historical background of some jargons to use them hopefully appropriately.
$\bullet$ (Gauss 1825/1844, F.T. Schubert earlier?) [**Conformal mapping=konforme Abbildung**]{}, maybe the first non-trivial result is to be found in Gauss 1825 [@Gauss_1825], yet the word “conformal” itself appears in Gauss 1844 in the first paper on higher geodesy: “[*ich werde daher dieselben conforme Abbildungen oder Übertragungen nennen, indem ich diesem sonst vagen Beiworte eine mathematisch scharf bestimmte Bedeutung beilege*]{}” \[Werke IV, p.262\]. As noted in Struik 1933 [@Struik_1933 p.164] (via Cantor), the word “conformal” is already used prior to Gauss by F.T. Schubert in “De projectione sphaeroidis ellipticae geographica”, [*Nova Acta Petr.*]{}, p.130–146.
$\bullet$ (1865) [**Riemann surface**]{}, maybe first coined by C. Neumann 1865 [@Neumann_1865], followed by Lüroth 1871 [@Lueroth_1871], Clebsch 1872 [@Clebsch_1872], Klein 1874–76 [@Klein_1876], [@Klein_1876], Clifford 1877 [@Clifford_1877] and then too many to record.
$\bullet$ [**Berandete (Riemannsche) Flächen, Compact bordered Riemann surfaces, finite Riemann surface, membranes**]{}. The first appellation appears often in Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882] (reprint in Klein 1923 [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.569,§23]) and others. The second appellation is coined and popularized in Ahlfors-Sario’s 1960 book [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960], whereas the third competing name is used in Schiffer-Spencer’s book of 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954]. The term membrane also occurs (in this context) by Klein in his lecture notes.
$\bullet$ (1907?) [**Uniformization**]{} probably a coinage of Poincaré. In 1883, just the word “fonction uniforme” appears and the word “uniformization” as a such, came in vogue ca. two decades latter in Poincaré 1907 [@Poincare_1907] and Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UbaK1].
$\bullet$ (1908) [**Kreisnormierungsprinzip**]{} coined and proved (in fairly general special cases: finite connectivity and symmetric under complex conjugation) by Koebe in 1908 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3].
$\bullet$ (1912) [**Schwarz’s lemma**]{}. The coinage as a such appears first in Carathéodory 1912 [@Caratheodory_1912], but already published in the modern fashion in 1907 by the same writer [@Caratheodory_1907], acknowledging the argument of E. Schmidt.
$\bullet$ (1916) [**Extremal problems=Extremalprobleme**]{} used in function theory by Bieberbach 1916 [@Bieberbach_1916].
$\bullet$ (ca. 1914) [**Circle mapping=Kreisabbildung.**]{} This is used (at least) since Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914 p.100], Koebe 1915 [@Koebe_1915], Bergman\[n\] 1922 [@Bergman_1922 p.238], Bochner 1922 [@Bochner_1922 p.184], with the English translation appearing first in Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950].
$\bullet$ (ca. 1975–1977) [**Total reality, “total reell”, etc.**]{} The adjective “total reell” (totally real) is first used (in the generality) in Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977 p.101, p.103], where the connection with Ahlfors theorem is made explicit along the line already suggested in Alling-Greenleaf 1969 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969]. Geyer-Martens ascribe (cf. p.101) the concept of total reality (when paraphrased in the language of field extensions) to J.T. Knight 1969 [@Knight_1969]. Somewhat earlier in lesser generality of Galois coverings “total reell” appears already in Martens 1975 [@Martens_1975]. Meanwhile I think that “totally real” is quite widespread, especially in the growing field of real enumerative algebraic geometry (e.g. works by Sottile).
$\bullet$ [**Erster Art=Type I, orthosymmetric and dividing curves**]{} All this jargon is due to Klein. More precisely, Erster Art appears in Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876] and is much used in Russian literature (meanwhile diffusing in the west), cf. e.g. Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] (and Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74]???). I remember some irony of Grisha Mikhalkin during a talk by Orevkov, where he found Klein’s subsequent jargon “orthosymmetric” (first in print in Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883]) quite awkward. Yet, Klein himself turned to be quite proud of this more intrinsic coinage. This turned to be quite influential, adhered by eminent workers like Koebe, J. Douglas, etc. albeit quite in desuetude today. The reason is mostly due to synonyms like dividing (or separating) curves.
Summarizing, the following words are used resp by:
$\bullet$ “Erster Art=Type I” first coined in Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876], and adhered to by Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.90], and then much of the subsequent Russian literature,
$\bullet$ orthosymetrisch Klein ca. 1882 (lectures), adhered to Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883] (first occurrence in print), then Klein 1891/92 [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen] (Vorles. Göttingen), and followed by Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UrAK] (etc.), Fatou 1930 (in Appel-Goursat 1930 [@Appell-Goursat-Fatou_1930]), Julia 1932 [@Julia_1932], Douglas 1936 [@Douglas_1936-Some-new-results]–1939 [@Douglas_1939-The-most-general], etc.
$\bullet$ “zerteilend vs. nichtzerteilend” in Fiedler 1981 [@Fiedler_1981 p.7]
$\bullet$ “divide” alone is briefly mentioned in Arnold 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72] (yet only as a property of $M$-curves)
$\bullet$ “dividing curves” is used by Wilson 1978 [@Wilson_1978 p.66], Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress p.58] Kharlamov-Viro 1988/91 [@Kharlamov-Viro_1988/91 p.359], Gilmer 1991 [@Gilmer_1991], Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000 p.736,737].
$\bullet$ “separating curves”, occurs in Fiedler 1982/83 [@Fiedler_1982/83-Pencil p.162], Dubrovin 1983/85 [@Dubrovin_1983/85], Nikulin 1983/84 [@Nikulin_1983/84], Benedetti-Risler 1990 [@Benedetti-Risler_1990], Natanzon 1990 [@Natanzon_1990/90] or 1999 [@Natanzon_1999-Moduli-real-alg-surf.superanal-differ-spinors], Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011],
$\bullet$ “courbes séparantes” in Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979], “courbe qui sépare sa complexifiée in Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988], Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] (alas in French it sounds strange to say “courbe divisante”).
The following concept is a priori foreign to our survey, albeit it would be interesting to see if the methods of Grötzsch-Teichmüller are of some relevance to the Ahlfors mapping of 1950. This is another mathematical question, but here we content ourselves with a point of terminology:
$\bullet$ (1928/1935) [**Quasiconformal mappings=quasikonforme Abbildungen**]{}. This nomenclature is usually ascribed to Ahlfors 1935, who however could not remember precisely from where he borrowed the jargon, according to Kühnau 1997 [@Kuehnau_1997 p.133]), which is worth quoting:
Der Name Grötzsch ist wohl bei vielen vor allem mit der Theorie der quasikonformen Abbildungen verbunden, die er ab 1928 begründete. Die Bezeichnung “Quasikonforme Abbildungen” wurde allerdings erst später von L.V. Ahlfors eingeführt. (Freilich sagte mir Ahlfors Februar 1992 in Oberwolfach, da[ß]{} er diese Bezeichnung bei jemandem “gestohlen” habe, er wisse nur nicht mehr bei wem.)
Maybe it contributes to the question to remember that the jargon “[*quasikonform*]{}” appears already in 1914, und zwar bei Carathéodory 1914 [@Caratheodory_1914 §16](=page 294 in the pagination of the Ges.Math.Schriften,Bd.3).
Dissidence from Ahlfors {#dissident:sec}
-----------------------
\[31.08.12\] Sec.\[Ahlfors-proof:sec\] attempted to present Ahlfors’ proof in full details, but failed to digest the details. This deplorable issue motivated us to tabulate a list of “dissident” authors, who instead of quoting the original source Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] adhered to subsequent treatments. Two accounts emerge with high rating, namely:
$\bullet$ Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950]
$\bullet$ Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]
Of course, our “dissident” writers (quoting beside Ahlfors some derived product) never (as far as I know) criticizes directly the 1950 work of Ahlfors. At least there dissidence may suggest that themselves were not completely happy with (resp. convinced by) the original text finding more convenient another implementation. Albeit nobody ever expressed frontal objections against Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], it is not to be excluded (yet of very low probability ca. $10^{-14}$) that somebody once detected some little bug, explaining perhaps the numerous initiatives to reprove Ahlfors’ result from different viewpoints. (We mention again the articles by Mizumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960] and Kuramochi 1952 [@Kuramochi_1952] (undigest?), and refers for a extensive tabulation of such initiatives to the circled item of Fig.\[Map:fig\]).
Here is a sample of dissident authors (grouped according to their preferred source) with relevant extracts in “…”:
$\bullet$ Stout 1972 [@Stout_1972 p.345]: “…a theorem of Ahlfors \[2\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) shows that $\cal H(R)$ contains many inner functions. (See also the elegrant \[sic!\] construction of Heins \[15\](=Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950]) as well as the earlier paper of Bieberbach \[3\](=Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]) which deals with the case of planar domains.)”
$\bullet$ Khavinson 1984 [@Khavinson-Dimitri_1984 p.377]: “The following theorem is a classical result of Bieberbach and Grunsky (see \[6\](=Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57]), \[8\](=Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978])). For a different approach due to L. Ahlfors, see \[1\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). Our proof, although discovered independently, is almost the same as that due to M. Heins in \[11\](=preprint=now published as Heins 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF]) or H. Grunsky in \[8\](=Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978]). [Theorem 3.]{} [*Let $\zeta_1, \dots, \zeta_n$ be arbitrary fixed points on $\gamma_1, \dots,\gamma_n$ respectively. Then, for each $j$, $\phi(z)$ is the unique function giving a conformal mapping of $G$ onto an $n$-sheeted right half-plane such that $\phi(\zeta_j)=\infty$, for all $j$, $\phi(z_0)=1$.*]{}
$\bigstar$ admittedly, this Khavinson’ extract in not hundred percent pertinent to our present purpose inasmuch as the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem is confined to the planar case.
$\bullet$ Stout 1965 [@Stout_1965]: “In order to establish our result, we shall need to make use of a result of Ahlfors \[1\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). (For an alternative proof, one may consult Royden \[15\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962].)
Theorem 3.1 [*There exists a function $P$ holomorphic on a neighborhood of $\bar R$ which maps $R$ onto the open unit disc in an one-to-one manner for some $n$ and which satisfies $\vert P \vert =1$ on $\partial R$.*]{}”
$\bigstar$ Of course the above “one-to-one” is a typo to be read as “$n$-to-one”.
$\bullet$ Alling 1966 [@Alling_1966 p.346]: “Finally, I am indebted to Professor Royden for his excellent paper, [*The boundary values of analytic and harmonic functions*]{}, \[24\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]), which not only gave a new proof of the existence of the Ahlfors’ map, but also gave generalizations of the classical boundary value theorems over the disc. …”
$\bullet$ Stout 1966/67 [@Stout_1966/67 p.366]: “Let $R$ be a finite open Riemann surface whose boundary $\Gamma$ consists of $N$ analytic, pairwise disjoint, simple closed curves. Let $\eta$ be an analytic mapping from $R$ onto $U$, the open unit disc which is holomorphic on a neighborhood of $\overline R$ and which is of modulus one on $\Gamma$. That such functions exists was first established by Ahlfors \[1\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]); another proof of their existence is in the paper \[12\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]).”
$\bullet$ Stout 1967 [@Stout_1967-Interpolation]: “It is convenient to make use of an [*Ahlfors map*]{} for $R$, i.e., a function continuous on $\overline R$ and holomorphic in $R$ which is constantly of modulus one on $\Gamma$. The existence of such function was established by Ahlfors in \[1\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]); an alternative proof of their existence is in \[4\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]).”
$\bullet$ O’Neill-Wermer 1968 [@O'Neill-Wermer_1968]: “Let $W$ be a region on some Riemann surface whose boundary is the union of a finite number of analytic simple closed curves and with $W$ having compact closure. In “Open Riemann surfaces and extremal problems on compact subregions”, (1950), L. Ahlfors considers the following extremal problem:
[*Problem*]{} I. [*Let $a,b$ be points of $W$. among the functions $F$ analytic on $W$ with $\vert F(z)\vert\le 1$ on $W$ and $F(a)=0$, it is required to find the one which makes $\vert F(b)\vert$ a maximum.*]{}
He shows that this problem has a unique solution[^110] $f$ which maps $W$ in an $n$-to-$1$ fashion[^111] onto the unit disk, for some $n$. His method of proof depends on a certain associated extremal problem introduced by P.R. Garabedian in his Thesis. (See Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949]). Another proof is given by H. Royden, “The boundary values of analytic and harmonic functions,” Math. Z. 78 (1962), 1–24.”
$\bullet$ Stanton 1971 [@Stanton_1971 p.293]: “Our argument rests on the following theorem of Ahlfors \[1\](=1950). [Theorem.]{} [*There is a function $f$ which is analytic on $W\cup \Gamma$ and which maps \[the interior\] $W$ onto $U$ and $\Gamma$ onto $T$.*]{} This theorem is also proved in Royden \[7\](=1962). A function $f$ of the kind described in this theorem is called an [*Ahlfors mapping*]{}.”
$\bigstar$ Upon recalling, that Stanton is a Royden student this may eventually be counted as a self-voting.
$\bullet$ Hejhal 1972 [@Hejhal_1972 p.119]: “Suppose first of all that $W$ is the interior of a compact bordered surface $\overline W$. L. Ahlfors \[2\](=1950) and H. Royden \[24\](=1962) have studied the present linear extremal problem on such $W$ at least for the case $\chi \equiv {\rm constant}$ and $\frak L [f]=f(b)$ with $b\in W$. …”
$\bullet$ Gamelin 1973 [@Gamelin_1973-Extremal-I p.3]: “…the paper of H.L. Royden deals with finite bordered Riemann surfaces.”
$\bullet$ Gamelin 1973 [@Gamelin_1973-BAMS p.1105]: “For dual extremal problems on Riemann surfaces, see \[2\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) and \[36\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]).”
$\bullet$ Fisher 1973 [@Fisher_1973 p.1183]: “A similar problem \[…\] has been investigated by L. Ahlfors \[A1\], H. Royden \[R\], and others. In that case, the class of competing function is convex, the solution is unique, is analytic across the boundary $\Gamma$, and has modulus one on $\Gamma$.” And further on page 1187: “Let $F$ be the solution to the Ahlfors-Royden extremal problem described in the introduction. …”
$\bullet$ Lund 1974 [@Lund_1974 p.495]: “Let $U$ be the open unit disk in ${\Bbb C}$. We call $F$ an unimodular function if $F$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $\overline{R}$ and maps $\overline R$ onto $\overline U$ so that $F$ is $n$-to-one if we count the multiplicity of $F$ where $dF$ vanishes. If $T$ is the unit circle, then $F$ maps $\Gamma$ onto $T$. The existence of such a function was first proved by Ahlfors \[1\](=1950). Later, Royden \[4\](=1962) gave another proof of this result.”
$\bullet$ Kirsch 2005 [@Kirsch_2005]: “Ahlfors generalized Garabedian’s result to regions on Riemann surfaces \[2\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]); see Royden’s paper \[159\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]) for another treatment as well as further references to the literature.”
$\bullet$ Alpay-Vinnikov 2000 [@Alpay-Vinnikov_2000 p.240]: “It has been shown by Ahlfors \[4\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) that such a function \[=ramified $n$-sheeted covering of the unit disk\] always exists, and it may be chosen to have the minimal possible degree $g+1$; see also \[5\](=Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971]), \[19\](=Fay 1973 [@Fay_1973]), and \[21\](=Fedorov 1991 [@Fedorov_1991]).”
Apart from the fact that the writer (Gabard) does not adhere with Alpay-Vinnikov’s claim about $g+1$ being the minimal possible degree for such a mapping ($g$ is the genus of the double, cf. op.cit. p.230), the three proposed references are in our opinion not perfectly adequate as substitute to Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]. Alling-Greenleaf [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971 p.16, Thm1.3.6] only states Ahlfors’ result yet without reproving it, whereas both Fay and Fedorov recover the result in the planar case only.
Acknowledgements
----------------
The author wishes to thank the following long list of geometers (in chronological order of their interaction with the writer in connection to the present text)
$\bullet$ Felice Ronga (ca. 1997/98 for his explanation of Brusotti’s theorem),
$\bullet$ Claude Weber, Michel Kervaire (for their explanations on how to classify Klein’s symmetric surfaces by looking at the quotient bordered surface)
$\bullet$ Frédéric Bihan for pleasant discussions about real algebraic geometry,
$\bullet$ Lee Rudolph (ca. 1999 for explaining to us what is the natural topological model for a real elliptic curve with only one “oval”, namely just a torus $S^1\times S^1$ acted upon by factor permutation $(x,y)\mapsto (y,x)$ fixing thereby the diagonal circle),
$\bullet$ Alexis Marin, Viatcheslav Kharlamov, Oleg Viro, Jean-Jacques Risler, Thierry Vust, Michel Kervaire, Pierre de la Harpe, John Steinig (for their comments and corrections improving the shape of the article Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000])
$\bullet$ Ragahavan Narasimhan, Jacek Bochnack (ca. 1999 for [*not*]{} having been in touch with Ahlfors’ result of 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] enabling me some free gestation about thinking on the problem)
$\bullet$ Manfred Knebusch for his kind interest in the modest work Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000],
$\bullet$ Johannes Huisman for his constant interest (2001–04–06), and his care about correcting bugs in both my Thesis and the article Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006],
$\bullet$ Sergei Finashin for an exciting discussion in Rennes 2001,
$\bullet$ Jean-Claude Hausmann (ca. 2000/01) for telling me about the standard surjectivity criterion via the Brouwer degree, which was decisive to complete Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006],
$\bullet$ Antonio Costa, for his fascinating talks in Geneva,
$\bullet$ Bujalance for his surely over-enthusiastic Zentralblatt review of my article (Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]),
$\bullet$ Fraser-Schoen, whose brilliant work revived my interest in the theory of the Ahlfors’ mapping (ca. the 13 March 2011) at a stage were I was mostly sidetracked by “non-metric manifolds” thanks to efforts of Mathieu Baillif and David Gauld.
$\bullet$ Stepan Orevkov, Oleg Viro (2011) for their talks and pleasant discussions,
$\bullet$ Marc Coppens (2011–12) for e-mails, and his work on the separating gonality (2011 [@Coppens_2011]) adumbrating sharper insights on the degree of the Ahlfors function (or rather the more general allied circle maps). His turning-point result appeals to a better conciliation of the analytic theory of Ahlfors with the algebro-geometric viewpoint.
$\bullet$ (2011/12) Hugo Parlier, Peter Buser, Alexandre Girouard, Gerhard Wanner und Martin Gander are acknowledged for their recent e-mail exchanges.
$\bullet$ (Oct. 2012) Daniel Coray for enlarging the capacity of my TeX-compilator, and for his lovely (Cambridge-style) teaching about the geometric Galois action in ca. 1999.
$\bullet$ (16 Nov.2012) Franc Forstnerič for pointing out his text with Wold (2012 [@Forstneric-Wold_2012]) showing the state of the art on the proper holomorphic embedding problem.
$\bullet$ (09 Jan. 2013) Oleg Viro for his excellent answers on some naive questions on Rohlin’s paper (cf. Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]).
$\bullet$ (10 Jan. 2013) Alexis Marin for his invaluable insights on Klein’s intuitions and more (cf. Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]).
$\bullet$ (January-February-March 2013) Viatcheslav Kharlamov, Stepa Orevkov, Eugenii Shustin, Séverine Le Touzé, Thomas Fiedler for all their letters reproduced in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\].
Bibliographic comments
======================
The writer does not pretend that the following bibliography is complete (nor that he absorbed all those fantastic contributions in full details). More extensive bibliographies (overlapping ours), but covering more material include those of:
$\bullet$ Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960] (ca. 40 pages times 25 items per pages=1000 entries covering such topics as the Dirichlet problem, extremal problems, the type problem, the allied classification theory, etc.);
$\bullet$ Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978] (=562 refs, including 48 Books).
Most entries of our bibliography are followed by some comment explaining briefly the connection to our primary topic of the Ahlfors map. The following symbolism is used:
$\clubsuit$ serves to point out a special connection to Ahlfors 1950 (especially alternative proofs).
$\spadesuit$ gives other comments (attempting to summarize the paper contents or to explicit the connection in which we cite it).
$\P$ signals papers not quoted in the main-body of the text but connected to our topic.
$\bigstar$ marks sources, I could not as yet procure a copy.
47
50
60 78
$\bullet$ the stickers/sigles 60, 78 are assigned when the source has already been cited in Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960] resp. Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978].
$\bullet$ 50 designates those references citing the paper Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (there represents circa 106 articles on “Google”), and occasionally 47 those quoting Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947].
[**$\heartsuit$n**]{} is something like the indicator of the US rating agency (to be read “liked by $n$”). It indicates the cardinal number [**n**]{} of citations of the paper as measured by “Google Scholar”. The latter machine often misses cross-citations, especially those in old books, or old articles with references given in footnotes format. Many sources cited in Grunsky’s book (1978 [@Grunsky_1978]) are never cited electronically. Accordingly, those rating numbers only supply a statistical idea of the literature ramifications lying beyond a given entry. Also low-citation articles are sometimes the most polished product ripe for museum entrance. Forelli 1979 [@Forelli_1979] is typical: self-contained, elegant and polished proof of Ahlfors result, yet only rated by 3. Our bibliography is somewhat conservative with comparatively few modern references. Our excuse is two-fold: modern expressionism is sometimes harder to grasp, and recent references are usually well detected through computer search. (Papers are listed in alphabetical, and then chronological order, regardless of shared co-authorship.)
The primary focus is on the Ahlfors map and the weaker (but more general) circle maps. As a such the topic overflow slightly over the territory of real algebraic geometry. Ahlfors-Sario’s book 60 address Riemann surfaces, whereas Grunsky’s book 78 focuses to the case of planar domains. Hence both bibliographies 60, 78 are quite complementary, and ours is essentially a fusion of both, but we gradually included more and more recent contribution. Still additional references are welcome. For conformal maps, it is helpful when browsing the vast literature to keep in mind the basic question: [*what result through which method?*]{}
[**Results.**]{} Objects traditionally range along increasing order of generality through: simply-connected regions, multiply-connected ones and finally Riemann surfaces. We often add a humble compactness proviso, as the passage to open objects is traditionally achieved through the exhaustion trick (going back at least to Poincaré 1883 [@Poincare_1883], and see also Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UbaK1]), and active in recent time (e.g. Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950].)
As to the mappings, they may all be interpreted in some way or another as ramification of RMT (Riemann’s mapping to a circle=disc). We distinguish primarily:
$\bullet$ CM=circle maps (usually not univalent, but multi-sheeted disc with branch, or winding points=Windungspunkte)
$\bullet$ KNP=Kreisnormierung(sprinzip) (univalent map to a circular domain)
$\bullet$ SM=slit mappings for various types of them (parallel, circular, radial, logarithmic spiral, etc.). Those are all allied to certain natural foliation of the sphere, and some extreme generality in this respect is achieved in Schramm’s Thesis where any foliation is permitted as support for the slits.
[**Methods.**]{} They may be classified in two broad classes quantitative vs. qualitative (each having some branchings):
$\bigstar$ (Quantitative) variational methods, including:
$\bullet$ DP=Dirichlet principle (or more broadly speaking, potential theory=PT, centering around such concepts as the Green’s function, harmonic measures (i.e. harmonic function with special null/one boundary prescription of the various contour), etc. Of course, there is a standard yoga between Dirichlet and Green, so all this is essentially one and the same method.
$\bullet$ IM=Iterative methods (originators: Koebe and Carathéodory), and by extension this may proliferate up to including the circle packings.
$\bullet$ EP=extremal problems (e.g. the one of maximizing the derivative amongst the class of function bounded-by-one) and leads to the Ahlfors map.
$\bullet$ BK=Bergman kernel (or Szegö kernel), here the fundamental ideas rest upon Hilbert’s space methods, and the idea of orthogonal system. Initially, the method is also inspired by Ritz, and Bieberbach extremal problem (1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]) for the area swept out by the function. Since the middle 1940’s, there were found several conformal identities among so-called domain functions (Green’s, Neumann’s, etc.) and the kernel functions so that virtually this is now highly connected to DP$\approx$PT. Also the Ahlfors map is expressible in term of the Bergman kernel (cf. e.g., Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950]) so that this heading is strongly connected to EP.
$\bullet$ PP=Plateau problem style methods (for RMT, this starts with the observation of Douglas 1931 [@Douglas_1931-Solution]). This strongly allied to DP, albeit some distinction is useful to keep in mind just for cataloguing purposes.
$\bigstar$ (Qualitative) topological methods:
$\bullet$ the [*continuity method*]{}, as old as Schläfli, (as Koebe notices somewhere) is involved in the accessory parameters of Schwarz-Christoffel, in Klein-Poincaré’s uniformization through automorphic functions, Brouwer (invariance of the domain), Koebe, etc., e.g. Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57])
$\bullet$ Brouwer topological degree and the allied surjectivity criterion (cf. e.g., Mizumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960], Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]). Here the idea is that there is some topological stability of the embedding of a curve into its Jacobian via the Abel mapping in the sense that its homological feature are unsensitive to variation of the complex (analytic) structure (moduli), and this enables one to draw universal statement by purely topological considerations.
Finally we have attempted to manufacture a genealogy map showing the affiliation between the authors. The picture turned out to be so large that TeX prefers reject it at the very end of the file.
-1.2cm0 -4.2cm0 -5pt0
-5pt0
\[15.10.12\] When I reached 884 references, I unfortunatel met the so-called “TeX capacity exceeded, sorry.” obstruction (cf. Knuth’s “The TeX Book”, p.300 for more details). Thus I had to deactivate some references which are not used for cross-citation, albeit they clearly belong to our topic. \[16.10.12\] This problem was ultimately solved by my advisor Daniel Coray, to whom I express my deepest gratitude for enlarging the TeX capacity of my compilator.
[9]{}
H. Abe, [*On some analytic functions in an annulus*]{}, Kodai Math. Sem. Rep. 10 (1958), 38–45. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Minda 1979 [@Minda_1979] in connection with the theta function expression of the Ahlfors function of an annulus\]
N.H. Abel, [*Mémoire sur une propriété générale d’une classe très étendue de fonctions transcendantes*]{}, présenté à l’Académie des Sciences à Paris le 30 octobre 1826; published (only) in: [*Mémoires présentés par divers savants*]{}, t. VII, Paris, 1841. Also in [Œ]{}uvres, t. I, 145–211. \[$\spadesuit$ first occurrence of Abel’s theorem, which in Gabard 2004/06 [@Gabard_2006] is used as the main weapon toward proving existence of Ahlfors circle maps\]
N.H. Abel, [*Remarques sur quelques propriétés générales d’une certaine sorte de fonctions transcendantes*]{}, Crelle J. Reine Angew. Math. 3 (1828). \[$\spadesuit$\]
N.H. Abel, [*Démonstration d’une propriété générale d’une certaine classe de fonctions transcendantes*]{}, Crelle J. Reine Angew. Math. 4 (1829), 201–202. \[$\spadesuit$\]
W. Abikoff, [*The Real Analytic Theory of Teichmüller spaces*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 820, Springer, 1980. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M.B. Abrahamse, [*Toeplitz operators in multiply connected domains*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 96 (1974), 261–297. \[$\spadesuit$ extend to finite Riemann surfaces? try Alpay-Vinnikov 2000 [@Alpay-Vinnikov_2000]\]
M.B. Abrahamse, R.G. Douglas, [*A class of subnormal operators related to multiply connected domains*]{}, Adv. Math. 19 (1976), 106–148. \[$\spadesuit$ for extension to finite Riemann surfaces? try Alpay-Vinnikov 2000 [@Alpay-Vinnikov_2000], Yakubovich 2006 [@Yakubovich_2006]\]
M.B. Abrahamse, J.J. Bastian, [*Bundle shifts and Ahlfors functions*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1978), 95–96. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors function of a domain $R$ with $n$ contours is applied to the calculation of a bundle shift (that is, a pure subnormal operator with spectrum contained in the closure of $R$ and normal spectrum contained in the boundary of $R$)\]
M.B. Abrahamse, [*The Pick interpolation theorem for finitely connected domains*]{}, Michigan J. Math. 26 (1979), 195–203. \[$\spadesuit$ extend to finite Riemann surfaces? try Heins 1975 [@Heins_1975], Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979], both works subsuming in principle Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]\]
N. A’Campo, [*Sur la première partie du seizième problème de Hilbert*]{}, Sém. Bourbaki 537 (1979). \[$\spadesuit$ contains a nice picture of Hilbert’s method in degree 6 $\spadesuit$ an exposition of Gudkov’s construction of the $M$-scheme $\frac{5}{1}5$ omitted by Hilbert\]
R. Accola, [*The bilinear relation on open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. ?? (1960), ??–??. 50 \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Agler, J. Harland, B.J. Raphael, [*Classical function theory, operator dilation theory, and machine computation on multiply-connected domains*]{}, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 191 (2008), 159pp. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ cite Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978] and gives via the Grunsky-(Ahlfors) extremal function an interpretation of the Herglotz integral representation via the Kreĭn-Milman theorem $\spadesuit$ \[06.10.12\] contains also a nice desription of circle maps (in the form of half-plane maps, which seems to be directly inspired from Heins’ treatment (1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF]) who probably offers an alternative derivation of Ahlfors’ bound $r+2p$) $\spadesuit$ “In three chapters the authors first cover generalizations of the Herglotz representation theorem, von Neumann’s inequality and the Sz.-Nagy dilation theorem to multiply connected domains. They describe the fist through third Herglotz representation and provide an …”\]
D. Aharonov, H.S. Shapiro, [*Domains on which analytic functions satisfy quadrature identities*]{}, J. Anal. Math. 30 (1976), 39–73. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ includes the result that the Ahlfors map of a quadrature domain is algebraic, see also papers by Gustafsson, Bell, etc.\]
P.R. Ahern, D. Sarason, [*On some hypo-Dirichlet algebras of analytic functions*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 89 (1967), 932–941. \[$\spadesuit$\]
P.R. Ahern, D. Sarason, [*The $H^p$ spaces of a class of function algebras*]{}, Acta Math. 117 (1967), 123–163. \[$\spadesuit$ “This paper is a study of a class of uniform algebras and of the associated Hardy spaces of generalized analytic functions. It is a natural continuation of a number of similar studies which have appeared in recent years; see Bochner \[7\], Helson and Lowdenslager \[15\], ...”\]
P.R. Ahern, [*On the geometry of the unit ball in the space of real annihilating measures*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 28 (1969), 1–7. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited on p.4, yet not exactly for the result we have in mind, but see also the related paper Nash 1974 [@Nash_1974] where the fascinating study of the geometry of the convex body of representing measures is continued $\spadesuit$ \[13.10.12\] it could be fascinating to penetrate the geometry of this body in relation to the “link” (collection of circles in the “same” Euclidean space ${\Bbb R}^g$, where $g$ is the genus of the double), as it occurs in Ahlfors original proof 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). Understanding this is probably the key to a sharper understanding of circle maps, in particular of their lowest possible degrees\]
L.V. Ahlfors, H. Grunsky, [*Über die Blochsche Konstante*]{}, Math. Z. 42 (1937), 671–673. \[$\spadesuit$ not directly relevant to this text, except for the hardness of some extremal problems. Compare the front cover of Grunsky’s Coll. Papers for a depiction of the hyperbolic tessellation allied to the conjectured extremal function. Basically one consider in the Euclidean plane ${\Bbb C}$ the triangulation by equilateral triangles and above it in the hyperbolic disc one manufactures a equilateral triangle of angle the half value namely $\pi/6$. Mapping conformally (via Schwarz-Christoffel) this hyperbolic triangle to the fatter Euclidean triangle, while reproducing this map by the (Riemann)-Schwarz principle of reflection yields a function conjectured to have extremal Bloch constant. The latter amounts to have the largest schlicht disc avoiding the ramification. In our case the densest packing (à la Kepler) is clearly the equilateral triangulation of ${\Bbb C}$, so the above Ahlfors-Grunsky function is the natural candidate for having the maximum Bloch radius, alas nobody ever succeeded to show this. Similar problems make sense for other geometries, e.g. planar to spherical, in which case the Bloch constant was estimated in the breakthrough of Bonk-Eremenko, ca. 2002\]
L.V. Ahlfors, [*Bounded analytic functions*]{}, Duke Math. J. 14 (1947), 1–11. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ the planar case of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], cite Grunsky 1940–42 [@Grunsky_1940; @Grunsky_1942] as an independent forerunner $\spadesuit$ albeit less general than the next item (Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], which includes the case of positive genus) this article is more quoted that its successor essentially due to the intense activity centering around analytic capacity and the Painlevé null-sets implying a super vertical series of workers like Vitushkin, Melnikov, Garnett, Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977], David, etc. culminating to Tolsa’s 2002/03 [@Tolsa_2003] resolution of the Painlevé problem $\spadesuit$ as a detail matter, it may be recalled that the present article contains a minor logical gap fixed in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (cf. the later source, especially footnote p.123) and also the “Commentary” in the Collected papers Ahlfors 1982 [@Ahlfors_1982_Coll_papers p.438]: “When writing the paper I overlooked a minor difficulty in the proof. This was corrected in \[36\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]).” $\spadesuit$ compare also the comment in the German edition of Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57 p.415, footnote 2]: “Der biesherige Beweisgang erlaubt es nicht, zu schlie[ß]{}en, da[ß]{} keine der $n-1$ Nullstellen eine mehrfache ist. Diese Lücke des [Ahlfors]{}schen Beweises wurde von P.R. Garabedian in seiner Dissertation (=1949 [@Garabedian_1949]), beseitigt., Anm.d.Red.d.deutschenAusgabe.”\]
L.V. Ahlfors, [*Open Riemann surfaces and extremal problems on compact subregions*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 24 (1950), 100–134. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ the central reference of the present article $\clubsuit$ contains the first existence-proof of a circle map on a general compact bordered Riemann surface $\clubsuit$ in fact both a qualitative existence result as well as a quantitative extremal problem are presented\] 60, 78
L.V. Ahlfors, A. Beurling, [*Conformal invariants and function-theoretic null sets*]{}, Acta Math. 83 (1950), 101–129. 60, 78
L.V. Ahlfors, [*Development of the theory of conformal mapping and Riemann surfaces through a century*]{}. In: [*Contributions to the Theory of Riemann Surfaces. Centennial Celebration of Riemann’s Dissertation*]{}, Annals of Math. Studies 30, 3–13, Princeton 1953; or [*Collected Papers*]{}, Vol.1, 1929–1955, Birkhäuser, 1982. \[$\spadesuit$ a colorful historical survey of Riemann, Schwarz, Poincaré, Koebe, Nevanlinna, Grötzsch, Grunsky and Teichmüller\]
L.V. Ahlfors, [*Variational methods in function theory*]{}. Lectures at Harvard University, 1953 transcribed by E.C. Schlesinger. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta]. Does this contains another (more pedestrian) treatment of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]?\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
L.V. Ahlfors, [*On quasiconformal mappings*]{}, J. Anal. Math. (Jerusalem) 3 (1953–54), 1–58. ($+$Erratum) \[$\spadesuit$\]
L.V. Ahlfors, [*Extremalprobleme in der Funktionentheorie*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn., A.I., 249/1 (1958), 9 pp. \[$\spadesuit$ survey like, but pleasant philosophy\]
L.V. Ahlfors, [*The complex analytic structure of the space of closed Riemann surfaces*]{}, In: Analytic functions, Princeton Univ. Press, 1960, 45–60. \[$\spadesuit$\]
L.V. Ahlfors, L. Sario, [*Riemann Surfaces*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, 1960.
L.V. Ahlfors, [*Classical and contemporary analysis*]{}, SIAM Review 3 (1961), 1–9.
L.V. Ahlfors, [*Complex Analysis*]{}, McGraw-Hill Book Co. (2nd ed.), 1966. \[$\spadesuit$ p.243–253 proof of the PSM (and other radial/circular avatars) via the Dirichlet principle\]
L.V. Ahlfors, [*Lectures on Quasiconformal mappings*]{}, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 1966, 146pp. \[$\spadesuit$\]
L.V. Ahlfors, [*Collected Papers, Vol. 1, 1929–1955*]{}, Birkhäuser, 1982. \[$\spadesuit$ p.438 is worth quoting in extenso: “The point of departure in \[30\](=Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]) is Painlevé’s problem: Given a compact set $E\subset {\Bbb C}$, when does there exist a nonconstant bounded analytic function $f(z)$ on ${\Bbb C}\setminus E$? I was really interested in the function with the smallest upper bound of $\vert f(z)\vert$ when normalized so that $f(z)\sim
1/z$ at $\infty$. This smallest maximum is now called the [*analytic capacity*]{}[^112] of $E$, and the Russians[^113] used to refer to the extremal function, if it exists[^114], as the “Ahlfors function”, an unexpected and probably unearned distinction. In this form Painlevé’s problem is closely related to the precise form of Schwarz’s lemma[^115] for an arbitrary region, and that is what the paper is actually about. To be specific: if $\Omega\subset {\Bbb C}$ is a region and if $\vert f(z)\vert \le 1$ in $\Omega$ while $f(z_0)=0$ for a given $z_0\in \Omega$, exactly how large can $\vert
f'(z_0)\vert$ be?—The difficulty lies in the fact that while $u=\log\vert f(z)\vert$ is a harmonic function with a logarithmic pole at $z_0$, the single-valuedness of $f$ translates into diophantine conditions on the conjugate harmonic function $\nu$. Quite obviously this makes the problem much harder than if only the absolute value $\vert
f(z)\vert$ were required to be single-valued.—In my paper I restrict myself to a region $\Omega$ of finite connectivity $n$, and my aim is to describe the extremal function $f(z)$. I show that $\vert f(z)\vert=1$ on the boundary and that $f$ has exactly $n-1$ zeros[^116]. In other words, $f$ maps $\Omega$ on an $n-1$ times covered disk[^117]. In addition there are conditions on the location of the zeros[^118]. When writing the paper I overlooked a minor difficulty in the proof. This was corrected in \[36\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]).—The purpose of \[36\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) was to study open Riemann surfaces by solving extremal problems on compact subregions and passing to the limit as the subregions expand. The paper emphasizes the use of harmonic and analytic differentials in the language of differential forms. It is closely related to \[35\](=Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950]), but differs in two respects: (1) It deals with Riemann surfaces rather than plane regions and (2) the differentials play a greater role than the functions.—I regard \[36\] as one of my major papers. It was partly inspired by R. Nevanlinna, who together with P.J. Myrberg (1954[^119]) had initiated the classification theory of open Riemann surfaces, and partly by M. Schiffer (1943 [@Schiffer_1943]) and S. Bergman (1950 [@Bergman_1950]), with whose work I had become acquainted shortly after the war. The paper also paved the way for my book on Riemann surfaces with L. Sario (1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960]), but it is probably more readable because of its more restricted contents.—I would also like to acknowledge that when writing this paper I made important use of an observation of P. Garabedian to the effect that the relevant extremal problems occur in pairs connected by a sort of duality. This is of course a classical phenomenon[^120], but in the present connections it was sometimes not obvious how to formulate the dual problem.”\]
L.V. Ahlfors, [*The Joy of function theory*]{}, ca. 1984. \[$\spadesuit$ p.443: “It has been customary to write about the joy of everything, from the joy of cooking to the joy of sex, so why not the joy of function theory?” $\spadesuit$ p.444: “I remember vividly how he \[=Lindelöf\] encouraged me to read the collected papers of Schwarz and also of Cantor, but he warned me not to become a logician, for which I am still grateful. Riemann was considered too difficult, and Lindelöf never quite approved of the Lebesgue integral.” $\spadesuit$ p.445: “It is impossible to change an analytic function at or near a single point without changing it everywhere. This crystallized structure is a thing of great beauty, and it plays a great role in much of nineteenth-century mathematics, such as elliptic functions, modular functions, etc. On the other hand, it was also an obstacle, perhaps most strongly felt in what somewhat contemptuously was known as “Abschätzungsmathematik”. Consciously or subconsciously there was a need to embed function theory in a more flexible medium. For instance, Perron used the larger class of subharmonic functions to study harmonic functions, and it had also been recognized, especially by Nevanlinna and Carleman, that harmonic functions are more malleable that analytic functions, and therefore a more useful tool.”\]
V.B. Alekseev, [*Abel’s Theorem in Problems and Solutions*]{}, Nauka, Moscow, 1976. (Russian).$\bigstar$
Ju.E. Alenicyn, [*On some estimates for functions regular in a region of finite connectivity*]{}, (Russ.) Mat. Sb. N. S. 49 (1959), 181–190. 78 $\bigstar$
Ju.E. Alenicyn, [*An extension of the principle of subordination to multiply connected regions*]{}, (Russ.) Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov 60 (1961), 5–21; Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) 43, 281–297. 78 $\bigstar$
Ju.E. Alenicyn, [*Conformal mappings of a multiply connected domain onto many-sheeted canonical surfaces*]{}, (Russ.) Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Mat. 28 (1964), 607–644. 78
Ju.E. Alenicyn, [*An estimate of the derivative in certain classes of function, analytic in a multiply connected domain*]{}, Zap. Nauch. Sem. Leningrad Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov 24 (1972), 6–15; English transl. (1974), 565–571. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors extremal problem is recalled and extended to a more general setting, where instead of considering functions bounded-by-one in modulus, there is some continuous positive function $\lambda(z)$ defined on the contour which acts as the upper-bound over the permissible modulus via $\lim\sup_{z\to
z_0\in \partial D} \vert f(z) \vert \le \lambda(z_0)$\]
Ju.E. Alenicyn, [*Inequalities for generalized areas for multivalent conformal mappings of domains with circular cuts*]{}, Translated from Matematicheskie Zametki 29 (1981) 387–395; \[$\spadesuit$ extension of the result of Vo Dang Thao 1976 [@Vo-Dang-Thao_1976] and Gaier 1977 [@Gaier_1977-Roumaine] (which the latter ascribes to Grötzsch 1931 [@Groetzsch_1931]) $\spadesuit$ this is close to (but not exactly) the desideratum that Bieberbach’s minimum problem (1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]) yields another interpretation of the Ahlfors circle map when extended to multiply-connected domains $\spadesuit$ p.202 a cross-reference to Nehari 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK] is given, but this does not really answer our question whether the minimal map (of least area) is a circle map (it is just observed that in higher-connectivity it is [*not*]{} schlicht)\]
Ju.E. Alenicyn, [*Least area of the image of a multiconnected domain of $p$-sheeted conformal mappings*]{}, Translated from Matematicheskie Zametki 30 (1981) 807–812; \[$\spadesuit$ extension of the result of Vo Dang Thao 1976 [@Vo-Dang-Thao_1976] and Gaier 1977 [@Gaier_1977-Roumaine] (which Gaier 1978 [@Gaier_1978-JDMV] ascribes to Grötzsch 1931) $\spadesuit$ this is close to (but not exactly) the desideratum that Bieberbach’s minimum problem (1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]) yields another interpretation of the Ahlfors circle map when extended to multiply-connected domains\]
J.W. Alexander, [*Functions which map the interior of the unit circle upon simple regions*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 17 (1915), 12–22. \[$\clubsuit$\]
N.L. Alling, [*A proof of the corona conjecture for finite open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 70 (1964), 110–112. \[$\clubsuit$ applies Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] to the corona as a lifting procedure of the disc-case established in Carleson 1962 [@Carleson_1962] $\spadesuit$ for an alternative proof of the same result avoiding the Ahlfors map but using uniformization instead, cf. Forelli 1966 [@Forelli_1966]\]
N.L. Alling, [*Extensions of meromorphic function rings over non-compact Riemann surfaces. I*]{}, Math. Z. 89 (1965), 273–299. \[$\clubsuit$ idem as Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964] with full details\]
N.L. Alling, [*Extensions of meromorphic function rings over non-compact Riemann surfaces. II*]{}, Math. Z. 93 (1966), 345–394. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ p.346: “Finally, I am indebted to Professor Royden for his excellent paper, [*The boundary values of analytic and harmonic functions*]{}, \[24\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]), which not only gave a new proof of the existence of the Ahlfors’ map, but also gave generalizations of the classical boundary value theorems over the disc. …” $\spadesuit$ p.345: “As in Alling 1965, theorems are frequently proved for $\overline{X}$ \[=a finite open Riemann surface\] by lifting the corresponding classical result for the disc, using the Ahlfors map in conjunction with various algebraic facts. For example, Fatou’s theorem and Nevanlinna’s theorem (about functions of bounded characteristics) are easily proved in this way.”\]
N.L. Alling, in MathReviews, Review of Stout 1965, Bounded holomorphic functions on finite Riemann surfaces. \[$\clubsuit$ quoting an extract of the text: “It is now clear that a great many of the results for the disc $U$, which can be found, for example in K. Hoffman’s book (=1962 [@Hoffman_1962]), also hold for $R$ \[=the interior of a compact bordered surface\]. The choice of technique to extend such results depends then on the ease of proof, the intuition generated by the setting, and the predisposition of the investigator. Uniformization and the algebraic approach \[based upon Royden’s idea (1958=[@Royden_1958]) of a lifting procedure along an Ahlfors map\] seem to have an advantage over annular analysis in that they treat the whole space and the whole ring simultaneously. Still, special advantages in using uniformization and in using the algebraic approach persist. For example, the theory of the closed ideals in the standard algebra on $R$, ${\cal A} (R)$, and the theory of invariant subspaces have been worked out by M. Voichick (=1964 [@Voichick_1964]), using uniformization, but has not been achieved yet using the algebraic approach. (See also Voichick 1966 [@Voichick_1966], and a paper by Hasumi now in preprint \[=Hasumi 1966 [@Hasumi_1966]\], all of which deal with the invariant subspace problem.)” $\spadesuit$ \[13.10.12\] for an upgrade giving full answer to Alling’s desideratum of an Ahlfors-map proof of the closed ideals, see Stanton 1971 [@Stanton_1971] $\spadesuit$ the review is concluded with the following: “Finally, concerning the corona problem,as far as the reviewer knows, no one has given a new proof of Carleson’s theorem or re-proved it on $R$; everyone, to generalize it to $R$, has merely lifted the result to $R$ \[Or “descended” in the case of the uniformizing approach.\]. A substantially simpler and more lucid proof of Carleson’s theorem still remains the most challenging question in this subject.” $\spadesuit$ possible upgrades the new proofs à la Hörmander/Wolff (cf. e.g. Gamelin 1980 [@Gamelin_1980-Wolff's-proof]), and also the localization of the corona done by Gamelin 1970 [@Gamelin_1970-Localization-of] should be satisfactory answers. Yet our impression is that eventually any sharper understanding of the geometry of Ahlfors map (e.g. Gabard’s improved bound (2006 [@Gabard_2006]) on the degree of the Ahlfors circle maps) could implies modest quantitative refinements in the corona with bounds (cf. Hara-Nakai 1985 [@Hara-Nakai_1985] and Oh 2008 [@Oh_2008])\]
N.L. Alling, N. Greenleaf, [*Klein surfaces and real algebraic function fields*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 75 (1969), 869–872. \[$\clubsuit$ the first paper (to the best of my knowledge) which makes explicit the link between Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] and the much older Kleinian theory (1876–82) of orthosymmetric (=dividing) real algebraic curves, see Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876] and Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882]\]
N.L. Alling, N. Greenleaf, [*Foundations of the Theory of Klein Surfaces*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 219, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971. \[$\clubsuit$ repeat the same Klein-Ahlfors connection (cf. comments to the previous entry Alling-Greenleaf 1969 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969]), and develop a systematic theory of Klein surfaces, a new jargon derived from Berzolari 1906 [@Berzolari_1906] $\clubsuit$ Ahlfors’ theorem (compare p.16, Theorem 1.3.6) is stated as follows: “Theorem 1.3.6 (Ahlfors \[${\rm A}_1$\]). Let $\frak
X$ be \[a\] compact, connected, orientable Klein surface with non-void boundary. There exists $\underline{f}\in E(\frak X)$ such that $\partial X=\Gamma_{\underline f}$. $\spadesuit$ if I do not mistake Ahlfors’ result is only stated but not reproved in the text (perhaps quite contrary to the hope borne out by the cross-citation in Alpay-Vinnikov 2000 [@Alpay-Vinnikov_2000]) $\spadesuit$ personal reminiscence \[03.09.12\]: I can remind clearly that I knew this famous Alling-Greenleaf text quite early (ca. Spring 1999), but did not appreciated directly the significance of Ahlfors result, and had to rediscover it later (ca. 2001) after some intense own work (ca. 2 years of efforts) $\spadesuit$ this is a bit ironical for showing how one can severely miss a crucial information through quick reading, but permitted me to develop an independent approach which ultimately turned out to give a sharper result than Ahlfors’ $\spadesuit$ so this is probably a perfect illustration of how a poor knowledge of the literature is sometimes beneficial for the creativity in “young men games” (if we can borrow Hardy’s bitter joke)\]
N.L. Alling, B.V. Limaye, [*Ideal theory on non-orientable Klein Surfaces*]{}, Ark. Mat. ?? (1972), 277–292. \[$\clubsuit$ extension of the Beurling-Rudin result for the disc to non-orientable bordered surfaces, hence cannot employ the Ahlfors map (whose existence is confined to the orientable case), for which case see Stanton 1972 [@Stanton_1971] who uses the Ahlfors map for the same purpose (extension of Beurling-Rudin)\]
N.L. Alling, [*Analytic geometry on real algebraic curves*]{}, Math. Ann. 207 (1974), 23–46. \[$\spadesuit$\]
D. Alpay, V. Vinnikov, [*Indefinite Hardy spaces on finite bordered Riemann surfaces*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 172 (2000), 221–248. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ p.240 Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited and other references are given namely Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971] (where however no existence-proof is given), Fay 1973 [@Fay_1973] (where perhaps only the schlicht case is treated?), and finally Fedorov 1991 [@Fedorov_1991] (where probably only the planar case is treated) $\spadesuit$ still on p.240 it is asserted that $g+1$ is the minimal possible degree for expressing a compact bordered Riemann surface as ramified covering of the unit-disc ($g$ being as usual the genus of the double, cf. p.230) $\spadesuit$ if correct this assertion would (blatantly) corrupt the main result of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] (which by virtue of the incertitude principle could be false) $\spadesuit$ however the sharpness of $g+1$ in general is easily corrupted on the basis of simple concrete example of Klein’s Gürtelkurve (real quartic with two nested ovals) projected from a real point situated in the inner oval (cf. Figure 6 in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006 p.955]), and therefore Alpay-Vinnikov’s assertion looks slightly erroneous. NB: this little misconception about the sharpness of Ahlfors bound seems to originate in Fay’s book, cf. Fay 1973 [@Fay_1973] $\spadesuit$ of course this sloppy detail does not entail at all the intrinsic beauty of this paper namely the study of Hardy spaces on finite bordered Riemann surface: “Furthermore, each holomorphic mapping of the finite bordered Riemann surface onto the unit disk (which maps boundary to boundary)determines an explicit isometric isomorphism between this space \[a certain Kreĭn space\] and a usual vector-valued Hardy space on the unit disk with an indefinite inner product defined by an appropriate Hermitian matrix.”\]
E. van Andel, [*Extending Riemann mapping capabilities for the sage mathematics package*]{}, Calvin College, 2011. \[$\spadesuit$ p.1: “computation and visualization tools for the Riemann mapping”, “Ahlfors spiderweb”; p.3: “the Ahlfors map conformally maps multiply-connected regions to the unit circle. \[Of course in this case it is more traditional (at least correct) to speak of the Bieberbach-Grunsky map.\] This map is such that for a region with $n$ holes, $n+1$ points in the original region will map to $1$ point in the unit circle.”\]
C. Andreian Cazacu, [*On the morphisms of Klein surfaces*]{}, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 31 (1986), 461–470. \[$\clubsuit$ inspired by Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971] and Stïlow 1938 [@Stoilow_1938-Lecons] $\spadesuit$ \[17.10.12\] for another (more elementary) proof of this result, cf. a paper by Cirre 1997\]
C. Andreian Cazacu, [*Interior transformations between Klein surfaces*]{}, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 33 (1988), 21–26. \[$\clubsuit$ from the Introd.: “The interior transformations were introduced by Simion Stoilow in order to solve Brouwer’s problem: the topological characterization of analytic functions. By means of these transformations he founded a vast topological theory of analytic functions with essential implications in the study of Riemann surfaces \[8\](=Soilow 1938 [@Stoilow_1938-Lecons]). In this paper we show that interior transformations are a powerful tool in Klein surfaces theory \[2\](=Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971]) too. \[$\dots$\]”\]
C. Andreian Cazacu, [*Complete Klein coverings*]{}, Bull. Soc. Sci. Lett. [Ł]{}ódź Sér. Rech. Déform. 37 (2002), 7–14. \[$\clubsuit$ the notion of the title is introduced as a generalization of the Ahlfors-Sario notion of complete Riemann coverings (1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960 p.42, §21A]), i.e. any point in the range has a neighborhood whose inverse image consists only of compact components. For the case of coverings with a finite number of sheets, it is shown that a Klein covering is complete iff it is total, in the sense of Stoïlow (1938 [@Stoilow_1938-Lecons]), that is any sequence tending to the boundary has an image tending to the boundary. $\spadesuit$ \[13.10.12\] such purely topological conceptions are mentioned for they subsume the topological behaviour of Ahlfors circle maps (i.e. full covering of the circle, alias disc)\]
A. Andreotti, [*Un’applicazione di un teorema di Cecioni ad un problema di rappresentazione conforme*]{}, Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa (3) (1950), 99–103. 60, but not in 78 \[$\clubsuit$ seems to extend the result of Matildi 1948 [@Matildi_1945/48] to the case of several contours, hence could be an (independent) proof of the existence of a circle map (than that of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) $\clubsuit$ in fact the writer (Gabard) was not able to follow all the details of Andreotti’s proof but I have no specific objection to make (it would be a good challenge if somebody is convinced by the argument to translate it in English to make the argument more generally accessible, ask maybe Coppens or Huisman) $\clubsuit$ it would be interesting to see which degree is obtained by this method (presumably the genus of the double plus one, i.e. $p+1$ cf. p.101, where $k>p$ \[by Riemann-Roch\]) $\clubsuit$ maybe a last comment is that in Andreotti’s result it is not perfectly clear if the circumference can be arranged to coincide, so has to get an Ahlfors circle map\]
P. Appell, E. Goursat, [*Théorie des fonctions algébriques*]{}, Paris, 1895. \[$\spadesuit$\]
P. Appell, E. Goursat, [*Théorie des fonctions algébriques d’une variable et des transcendantes qui s’y rattachent*]{}, Deuxième édition revue et augmentée, Tome II, Fonction automorphes, par Pierre Fatou, Paris, Gauthier-Villars, 1930. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ discusses Klein’s orthosymmetry\]
E. Arbarello, M. Cornalba, [*Footnotes to a paper of Beniamino Segre. The number of $g^1_d$’s on a general $d$-gonal curve, and the unirationality of the Hurwitz spaces of $4$-gonal and $5$-gonal curves*]{}, Math. Ann. 256 (1981), 341–362.
E. Arbarello, M. Cornalba, P.A. Griffiths, J. Harris, [*Geometry of algebraic curves, Volume I*]{}, Grundlehren der math. Wiss. 267, Springer-Verlag, 1985. \[$\spadesuit$ p.217: “The existence theorem for $g_1^d$’s was first proved by Meis \[1\](=Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960]). Later, at a time when the techniques of enumerative geometry were better understood, the first fundamental theorem of the theory was established with a completely modern approach. In fact (partly under the influence of unpublished work of Mumford) simultaneously Kempf and Kleiman–Laksov gave the first rigorous proof of the Existence Theorem, and of Theorem (1.3). (See Kempf \[1\](=1971/72 [@Kempf_1971]), Kleiman–Laksov \[1,2\](=1972 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1972], 1974 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1974]))” $\spadesuit$ \[09.10.12\] again one may wonder if this enumerative geometry technology is susceptible to adapt to the context of the Ahlfors map, which amounts to real curves of the orthosymmetric(=dividing) type (ideally the goal would be to adapt the Kempf/Kleiman–Laksov proof to recover the bound of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] interpreted as a bordered avatar of Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960]) $\spadesuit$ another reason for quoting this book in connection with the Ahlfors map is the issue about generalized Ahlfors maps taking values not in the disc but in another finite bordered Riemann surface. Then there is a certain evidence that such Ahlfors maps generally fail to be full covering surface, for the doubled map relates two closed Riemann surfaces. But the latter are severely restricted and generally not existing. This can be either argued via a moduli count as in Griffiths-Harris 1980 [@Griffiths-Harris_1980] or via Exercise C-6. given on p.367 (of the book under review): “From the preceding exercise and the theorem on global monodromy proved in Chapter X conclude that a general curve of genus $g\ge 2$ does not admit a nonconstant map to a curve of positive genus.” $\spadesuit$ of course the statement is a bit sloppy for there is always the identity map as a trivial counterexample, but probably maps of non-unity degree are excluded tacitly. The proof given seems to use the fact that given a branched covering of curves the fundamental class of the inverse image of the Jacobian variety of the image curve is not a rational multiple of $\theta^{g-h}$, where $\theta$ is the theta divisor and $g,h$ are the resp. genuses of the curves\]
R. Arens, [*The closed maximal ideals of algebras of functions holomorphic on a Riemann surface*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 7 (1958), 245–260.\[$\spadesuit$\]
V.I. Arnold, [*Distribution of ovals of the real plane algebraic curves, the involutions of four-dimensional smooth manifolds, and the arithmetic of integral quadratic forms*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozen 5 (1971), 1–9; English transl., Funct. Anal Appl. 5 (1972), 169–175. \[$\spadesuit$ some revolutionary ideas preparing the terrain for Rohlin’s breakthrough\]
V.I. Arnold, [*Index of a singular point of a vector field, the Petrovskii-Oleinik inequalities, and mixed Hodge structures*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozen 12 (1978), 1–14; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 12 (1978), 1–12. \[$\spadesuit$\]
V.I. Arnold, O.A. Oleinik, [*The topology of real algebraic varieties*]{}, Vestnik Moscov.Gos. Univ. Ser. 1 (1979), 7–17; English transl., Moscow Univ. Math. Bull. 34 (1979), 5–17. \[$\spadesuit$ a survey (?) oft cited, e.g. in Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress]\]
V.I. Arnold, [*The branched covering ${\Bbb C}P^2\to S^4$, hyperbolicity and projective topology*]{}, Sibirsk. Mat. Zh. 29 (1988), 36–47; English transl., Sib. Math. J. 29 (1989), 717–726. \[$\spadesuit$ compare also Anosov’s “obituary of Pontrjagin” where this famous homeomorphism ${\Bbb C}P^2/ {\rm
conj}\approx S^4$ (Kuiper-Massey-Marin) is ascribed back to Pontrjagin $\spadesuit$ Rohlin expressed (orally) the same opinion, cf. e.g. Finashin 1995/98 [@Finashin_1995/98] $\spadesuit$ yet according to Arnold this result can be traced back to Maxwell\]
V.I. Arnold, [*Topological content of the Maxwell theorem on multipole representation of spherical functions*]{}, Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal. 7 (1996), 205–217. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000 p.757]: “as explained in \[5\](=Arnold 1996=this entry [@Arnold_1996]), this beautiful explicit proof was essentially known to Maxwell; \[…\]”\]
V.I. Arnold, [*Symplectization, complexification and mathematical trinities*]{}, Fields Inst. Communications ?? (20??), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$ p.7: “Near 1970 Petrovsky asked me to help in evaluating a thesis of a mathematician Gudkov from Nizhni Novgorod (it was Gorky at that time). He was studying the Hilbert problem 16, the question on the plane algebraic curves of degree 6: what are the possible shapes of the set $f(x,y)=0$, if $\deg
f=6$?—The classical answers for degree $2$ were extended to degrees $3$ and $4$ by Newton and Descartes. But then the difficulties starts. Hilbert was unable to solve the case of degree $6$, and this problem was explicitly formulated in his list. One may also consider the affine version but it is more complicated and instead we may consider the projective one, dealing with \[the\] curves in ${\Bbb R}P^2$. Even to this, easier question no answer was known at Hilbert’s time.—The only known thing was the celebrated theorem of Harnack \[…\] Gudkov claimed to obtain the complete possible configurations list of ovals of degree $6$ curves but Petrovsky was doubtful of his result. Let us describe it. The list contains three $M$-curves. \[…\] And this relation $\chi\equiv k^2 \pmod 8$ was observable in all examples of $M$-curves of degree $2k$ which Gudkov was able to construct for higher degrees. But there were no explanations for this behavior.—I was aware that congruences modulo $8$ were standard in $4$-dimensional topology. So my idea was that there existed somewhere a $4$-dimensional manifold which governed the topology of the real plane curve. But how to construct it? This was the place where the complexification came into the game and became very helpful. \[…\] p.14 [**Question.**]{} [Did Gudkov get the recommendation for his thesis?]{}—[**Answer**]{} The thesis was of course defended even though I was never able to read it. But as a result I invented all the matter I have explained to you: I was working hard for a month and after this I proved his conjecture modulo 4. The most difficult thing was some lemma which I was able to guess but not to prove. I always had very good undergraduate students and at that time I asked Varchenko to help me. \[…\] Unfortunately Varchenko had declined to sign the final paper as a coauthor.—D.A. Gudkov became the leader of a strong team in real algebraic geometry at Nizhni Novgorod (Utkin, Polotovskii, Shustin, …). Some of the results of Gudkov and his student were recently rediscovered by C.T.C. Wall. \[…\]”\]
V.I. Arnold, [*I.G. Petrovskii, Hilbert’s topological problems and modern mathematics*]{}, Uspekhi Math. Nauk 57 (2002), 197–207; English transl., Russain Math. Surveys 57 (2002), 833–845. \[$\spadesuit$ p.197: “The content of Hilbert’s problem is [*to give a topological classification of real algebraic curves and manifolds (of fixed degree)*]{}. It is one of the principal and eternal problem of mathematics which is also important for many of its application (where these curves and manifolds describe laws of nature). [*What algebraic curves look like*]{}; even today this is unnown, even for plane curves of degree $8$ consisting of 22 connected ovals \[…\].” $\spadesuit$ p.834: “There are 1812 [*topologically possible*]{} arrangements of $11$ ovals in the plane. Hilbert’s result stated that of all these arrangement only two are realised by [*algebraic*]{} curves of degree $6$.—This result of Hilbert is wrong, as was shown 70 years later by D.A. Gudkov, who was a student of both Petrovskii and the physicist A.A. Andronov. Gudkov showed that there are three, not two, realizable arrangements.”\]
V.I. Arnold, [*From Hilbert’s superposition problem to dynamical systems*]{}, Amer. Math. Monthly 111 (2004), 608–624. \[$\spadesuit$ p.608: “Some people, even though they study, do so without enough zeal, and therefore live long.”—Archbishop Genady of Novgorod, ca. 1500. $\spadesuit$ p.608: philosophy of the mushroom $\spadesuit$ p.622: “[**Question**]{} (J. Milnor) You often told us about important mathematical work in Russia that we did not know about and you gave another example today. I wonder if you can explain to us how to locate something interesting in the literature starting with zero information.”—[**Answer**]{}. \[…\] I usually start with the German [*Encyclop[æ]{}dia …*]{}. In Klein’s [*Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Math. im 19. Jahrhundert*]{} there is a lot of information on whatever happened in the nineteenth century and before. \[…\]”\]
(On) V.I. Arnold, by A.A. Davydov, S.M Gusein-Zade, Yu.S. Ilyashenko, M.E. Kazaryan, A.G. Khovanskii, A.G. Kushnirenko, S.K. Lando, A.N. Varchenko, V.A. Vassiliev, and V.M. Zakayukin, [*Vladimir Igorevich Arnold in the eyes of his students*]{}, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 259 (2007), 1–5. \[$\spadesuit$ p.3: “Arnold’s seminar covered everything, for example real algebraic geometry. Hilbert spent a lot of effort constructing real plane algebraic curves of a given degree that have the maximum possible number of ovals. Unsuccessful attempts to construct such curves with an a priori possible topology of arrangement on the projective plane convinced him that not all possibilities are feasible. Hilbert collected open problems of real algebraic geometry in his 16th problem. D.A. Gudkov solved one of these problems for curves of degree $6$; however, the general picture remained unclear. Arnold general surprisingly fine topological obstacles showing that many a priori possible arrangements of curves with the maximal number of ovals cannot be realized. Arnold’s studies were picked up by V.A. Rokhlin, D.A. Gudkov, and their students. As a result real algebraic geometry has reached a completely new modern level.”\]
V.I. Arnold, [*Topological properties of eigenoscillations in mathematical physics*]{}, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 273 (2011), 25–34. \[$\spadesuit$ discussion of Courant’s theorem on the number of residual component of the nodal hypersurface of an oscillating manifold (vibrating membrane) and its relationship with Hilbert’s 16th problem $\spadesuit$ precisely, Abstract: “Courant proved that the zeros of the $n$th eigenfunction of the Laplace operator on a compact manifold $M$ divide this manifold into at most $n$ parts. He conjectured that a similar statement is also valid for any linear combination of the first $n$ eigenfunctions. However, later it was found out that some corollaries to this generalized statement contradict the results of quantum field theory. Later explicit counterexamples were constructed by O. Viro. \[…\] ”\]
D.S. Arnon, S. McCallum, [*A polynomial time algorithm for the topological type of a real algebraic curve*]{}, J. Symb. Comput. 5 (1988), 213–236. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Kalla-Klein 2012 [@Kalla-Klein_2012-Computation-cite-Gabard]\]
N. Aronszajn, [*Theory of reproducing kernels*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 68 (1950), 337–404. \[$\spadesuit$ abstract unified view on the theory of the reproducing kernel containing the special cases of Bergman and Szegö, etc.\]
C. Arzelà, [*Sul Principo di Dirichlet*]{}, Nota letta alla R. Accademia delle Scienze dell’Instituto di Bologna nell’Adunza del 24 Gennaio 1897. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Zaremba 1910 [@Zaremba_1910] as a precursor of Hilbert’s resurrection of the Dirichlet principle\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M.F. Atiyah, [*Riemann surfaces and spin structures*]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 4 (1971), 47–62.
G. Aumann, C. Carathéodory, [*Ein Satz über die konforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender ebener Gebiete*]{}, Math. Ann. 109 (1934), 756–763. 78, but not in 60
H.F. Baker, [*Abel’s theorem and the allied theory including the theory of the theta function*]{}, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1897. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J.A. Ball, [*Operators of class $C_{00}$ over multiply-connected domains*]{}, Michigan Math. J. 25 (1978), 183–196. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ p.187, Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] is cited for the following result (in fact due to Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] in this formulation): “If $R$ is a domain in the complex-plane bounded by $n+1$ nonintersecting analytic Jordan curves, there exists a complex-valued inner function on $R$, which is analytic on a neighborhood of $\bar R$, has precisely $n+1$ zeros in $R$, and wraps each component of the boundary of $R$ once around the unit disk \[sic, but “disk” should rather be “circle”\] $\spadesuit$ this theorem (of Bieberbach-Grunsky-Ahlfors) is then applied to a problem in operator theory\]
J.A. Ball, [*A lifting theorem for operator models of finite rank on multiply-connected domains*]{}, J. Operator Theory 1 (1979), 3–25. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] is cited on p.11 (in a context where perhaps Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] would have been logically sufficient) $\spadesuit$ again the philosophy of the paper seems to transplant via the Ahlfors function a certain lifting theorem for operator models on the disc (due to Sz.-Nagy-Foiaş) to the more general case of a multi-connected domain $\spadesuit$ one can of course wonder about extension on bordered Riemann surfaces, probably established meanwhile (?)\]
J.A. Ball, K. Clancey, [*Reproducing kernels for Hardy classes on multiply-connected domains*]{}, Integral Equations Operator Theory 25 (1996), 35–57. \[$\spadesuit$ extension to finite bordered Riemann surface, try Alpay-Vinnikov 2000 [@Alpay-Vinnikov_2000]\]
E. Ballico, [*Real algebraic curves and real spanned bundles*]{}, Ricerche di Matematica 50 (2001), 223–241. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Ballico, G. Martens, [*Real line bundles on $k$-gonal real curves*]{}, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 71 (2001), 251–255. \[$\spadesuit$ real curves, “symmetric” Riemann surfaces, diasymmetric/orthosmmetric, p.251: “One cannot expect irreducible moduli for real curves of genus $g$. But as already indicated by Klein (in permitting shrinkage of components of $X({\Bbb R})$ to isolated double points, \[9\]=(Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet])), the set of (real or complex, whatsoever) isomorphism classes of real stable curves of arithmetic genus $g\ge 1$ can be equipped with a topology making it a connected space (\[14\]=Seppälä 1991 [@Seppala_1991-Moduli]). $\spadesuit$ p.252: “In particular the classical bound $k_{{\Bbb C}}\le (g+3)/2$ may be false for the real gonality $k$ (\[5\](=Chaudary 1995 [@Chaudary_1995-Thesis]), \[10\](=Martens 1978 [@Martens_1978])). If $n(X)>0$ one knows (\[3\]=Ballico 2003 [@Ballico_2003]) that $k\le (g+3)/2+3$; it seems not known if this is sharp for some $g$.”\]
E. Ballico, [*Gonality and Clifford index for real algebraic curves*]{}, Collectanea Math. 53 (2002). \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Ballico, [*Codimension 1 subvarieties of ${\cal M}_g$ and real gonality of real curves*]{}, Czechoslovak Math. J. 53 (2003), 917–924. \[$\spadesuit$ some results seem to be reanalyzed in Coppens-Huisman 2010...\]
E. Ballico, [*Real curves with fixed gonality and empty real locus*]{}, Le Matematiche 60 (2005), 129–131. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Ballico, [*Real ramifications points and real Weierstrass points of real projective curves*]{}, Glasnik Mat. 41 (2006), 233–238. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S. Banach, [*Théorie des opérations linéaires*]{}, Warsaw, 1932. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta], where the Hahn-Banach theorem is put in connection to the Ahlfors map\]
C. Bandle, M. Flucher, [*Harmonic radius and concentration of energy; hyperbolic radius and Liouville’s equations $\Delta
U= e^U$ and $\Delta U=U^{\frac{n+2}{n-2}}$*]{}, SIAM Review 38 (1996), 191–238. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] is cited on p.200 as follows: “Corollary 4 extends Liouville’s formula to multiply connected planar domains and so does the following formula from Mityuk’s monograph \[79\](=1985). Denote by $f\colon \Omega
\to B$ an [*Ahlfors map*]{} of $\Omega$ (cf. Ahlfors \[1\](=Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]), obtained as a solution of the same extremal problem that we used for the definition of the Riemann map (§1). Then the inner radius of $\Omega$ is given by $r(x)=\frac{1-\vert f(x)\vert^2}{\vert f'(x)\vert}
\exp\bigl(-2\pi \sum_{\{y\neq x: f(y)=x\}} G_x(y)\bigr)$, provided $f'(x)\neq 0$. Note that on a $k$-connected domain the Ahlfors map is a $k$-sheeted branched covering. A modified formula involving higher derivative of $f$ holds at the branch points. The proof is similar to that of Corollary 4.” $\spadesuit$ perhaps instead of the mentioned monograph, the original articles of Mitjuk already contain this (multi-connected) extended formula, cf. Mitjuk 1965 [@Mitjuk_1965-inner-radius] (and also Mitjuk 1968 [@Mitjuk_1968] for the statement (in English), yet without the proof)\]
V. Bangert, C. Croke, S. Ivanov, M. Katz [*Filling area conjecture and ovalless real hyperelliptic surfaces*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal. ?? (2005), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$ solve the hyperelliptic case of the filling area conjecture due to Gromov, hence in particular the genus-one case $p=1$ $\spadesuit$ the hearth of the argument seems to be an old result of Hersch\]
W.H. Barker II, [*Kernel functions on domains with hyperelliptic double*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 231 (1977), 339–347. (Diss. under M.M. Schiffer) \[$\spadesuit$ p.345, the Ahlfors (extremal) function of a domain is discussed by referring to Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950], Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], and also the original treatment due to Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] and that of Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949]\]
E. Bedford, [*Proper holomorphic mappings*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 10 (1984), 157–19?. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ p.159, Ahlfors 1950 is quoted as follows: “The existence of many proper mappings is given by a result of Grunsky \[55\](=[@Grunsky_1937]) and Ahlfors \[1\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). [Theorem]{}. [*If $M$ is a finite Riemann surface with nondegenerate boundary components, then there exists a proper mapping $f\colon M \to \Delta$.*]{} In general, however, given two Riemann surfaces $M$ and $N$, it does not seem easy to say whether there exists a proper mapping $f\colon M \to N$.”\]
H. Behnke, H. Zumbusch, [*Konforme Abbildung von Bereichen auf in ihnen liegenden Bereiche*]{}, Semester-Ber. math. Sem. Münster 8 (1936), 100–121. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940 p.233], in connection with the definition of the Carathéodory metric (first appearance in Carathéodory 1926 [@Caratheodory_1926]) for multi-connected domains\]
H. Behnke, K. Stein, [*Entwicklungen analytischer Funktionen auf Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Math. Ann. 120 (1947/49), 430–461. \[$\spadesuit$ proves that any open Riemann surface carries a nonconstant analytic function $\spadesuit$ in the case where the Riemann surface is the interior of a compact Riemann surface this also follows form Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] in the much sharper form of a branched covering of the disc $\spadesuit$ naive question \[01.10.12\]: by using an exhaustion of the open Riemann surface by finite bordered ones what sort of functions can be constructed on the whole surface? Is it in particular possible to subsume the Behnke-Stein theorem to that of Ahlfors? (looks a bit naive I confess)\]
H. Behnke, F. Sommer, [*Theorie der analytischen Funktionen einer komplexen Veränderlichen*]{}, Die Grundlehren der math. Wiss. in Einzeldarstellungen, Bd.77, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1955; Third Edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1965. \[$\spadesuit$ pp.581–2 is quoted in Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002] for the “(Schottky) double” $\spadesuit$ other sources for this purposes are Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882] (in romantic pre-axiomatic style), else Koebe 1928 [@Koebe_1928-Acta], or Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939] and of course also Springer’s book 1957 [@Springer_1957-BOOK-Introd-to-RS] or Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954]\]
S.R. Bell, [*Numerical computation of the Ahlfors map of a multiply connected planar domain*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 120 (1986), 211–217. \[$\spadesuit$ from the Introd.: “N. Kerzman and E.M. Stein discovered in \[6\](=1978 [@Kerzman-Stein_1978]) a method for computing the Szegö kernel of a bounded domain $D$ in the complex plane with $C^{\infty}$ smooth boundary. In case $D$ is also simply-connected, the Kerzman-Stein method yields a powerful technique for computing the Riemann mapping function associated to a point $a\in D$ (see \[6\](=Kerzman-Stein 1978 [@Kerzman-Stein_1978]), \[7\](=Kerzman-Trummer 1984)). In this note, we show how the Kerzman-Stein method can be generalized to yield a method for computing the Ahlfors map associated to a point in a finitely connected, bounded domain in the plane with $C^2$ smooth boundary. The Ahlfors map is a proper holomorphic mapping of $D$ onto the unit disc which maps each boundary component of $D$ one-to-one onto the boundary of the unit disc.—The Ahlfors map might prove to be useful in certain problems arising in fluid mechanics. For example, in the problem of computing the transonic flow past an obstacle in the plane, a conformal map of the outside of the obstacle onto the unit disc is used to set up a grid which is most convenient for making numerical computations (see \[5\](=Jameson 1974, “Iterative solution of transonic flows over airfoils and wings, including flows at Mach $1$”)). The Ahlfors map could be used in a similar way in problems of this sort in which more than one obstacle is involved. \[…\]”\]
S.R. Bell, [*The Szegö projection and the classical objects of potential theory in the plane*]{}, Duke Math. J. 64 (1991), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in McCullough 1996 [@McCullough_1996] for the result that the Ahlfors function acquires distinct (simple) zeros when the center $a$ (the place where the derivative is maximized) is chosen near enough the boundary of the domain $\spadesuit$ a probably related result is to be found in Ovchintsev 1996/96 [@Ovchintsev_1996/96] $\spadesuit$ question \[20.09.12\]: does this result extend to bordered surfaces\]
S.R. Bell, [*The Cauchy transform, potential theory, and conformal mapping*]{}, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 1992. 50 \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
S.R. Bell, [*Complexity of the classical kernel functions of potential theory*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 44 (1995), 1337–1369. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S.R. Bell, [*Ahlfors maps, the double of a domain, and complexity in potential theory and conformal mapping*]{}, J. d’Anal. Math. 78 (1999), 329–344. \[$\spadesuit$ proof that generically two Ahlfors maps suffice to generate the field of meromorphic function of the double of the domain (so-called primitive pairs)\]
S.R. Bell, [*Complexity in complex analysis*]{}, Adv. Math. 172 (2002), 15–52. 50
S.R. Bell, [*Möbius transformations, the Carathéodory metric, and the objects of complex analysis and potential theory in multiply connected domains*]{}, Michigan Math. J. 51 (2003), 352–361. \[$\spadesuit$ p.361: “It is also a safe bet that many of the results in this paper extend to the case of Riemann surfaces. I leave these investigations for the future.”\]
S.R. Bell, [*Quadrature domains and kernel function zipping*]{}, Ark. Math. 43 (2005), 271–287. \[$\spadesuit$ p.271 (Abstract): “It is proved that quadrature domains are ubiquitous in a very strong sense in the realm of smoothly bounded multiply connected domains in the plane. In fact they are so dense that one might as well assume that any given smooth domain one is dealing with is a quadrature domain, and this allows access to a host of strong conditions on the classical kernel functions associated to the domain.”\]
S.R. Bell, [*The Green’s function and the Ahlfors map*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 57 (2008), 3049–3063. \[$\spadesuit$ yet another fascinating paper among the myriad produced by the author, where now a striking expression is given for the Green’s function of a finitely connected domain in the plane in terms of a single Ahlfors mapping answering thereby (see third page of the introd.) a subconscious desideratum of Garabedian-Schiffer 1949 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1949]\]
S.R. Bell, [*The structure of the semigroup of proper holomorphic mappings of a planar domain to the unit disc*]{}, Complex Methods Function Theory 8 (2008), 225–242. \[$\spadesuit$ a description of all circle maps is given by returning to the original papers of Bieberbach and Grunsky\]
S.R. Bell, [*The Szegö kernel and proper holomorphic mappings to a half plane*]{}, Comput. Methods Funct. Theory 11 (2011), 179–191. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ construction (for domains) of proper holomorphic maps of arbitrary mapping degree, reminiscent of Heins’ argument 1950 [@Heins_1950] about positive harmonic functions\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$
E. Beltrami, [*Saggio di interpretazione della geometria non-euclidea*]{}, Giornale di Matematiche 6 (1868), 262–280. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Beltrami, [*Teoria fundamentale degli spazii di curvatura costante*]{}, Annali di Matematica (2) 2 (1868), 232–255. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R. Benedetti, J.-J. Risler, [*Real Algebraic and Semi-algebraic Sets*]{}, Hermann, Paris, 1990. \[$\spadesuit$ contains much material (and where from I initially learned the Brusotti theorem in “un lavoro di Diploma” under the guidance of Felice Ronga) $\spadesuit$ p.260: elementary properties of separating curves $\spadesuit$ exposition (not always with complete proofs) of some results of the Germano-Russian school: Harnack, Hilbert, Gudkov, Arnold, Rohlin, etc. $\spadesuit$ p.288: “…it can easily by\[=be\] (sic!) proved that any configuration under the broken line of figure 5.24, can be realized by a smooth curve of degree 6.” This is a bit sloppy, for Gudkov’s skill is required!\]
M. Berger, [*Riemannian geometry during the second half of the twentieth century*]{}, Jber. d. Dt. Math.-Verein. 100 (1998), 45–208. \[$\spadesuit$ p.147: “The simplest filling volume, namely that for the circle $S^1$, was only obtained in (\[N.\] Katz, 1998).”), where the reference is (cf. p.196) “Katz, N. (1998). Filling volume of the circle.” $\spadesuit$ This work, presaging a complete solution to Gromov’s filling conjecture, has apparently never been published and probably turned out to contain a gap.\]
M. Berger, [*A Panoramic View of Riemannian geometry*]{}, Springer, 2002. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S. Bergman\[n\], [*Über die Entwicklung der harmonischen Funktionen der Ebene und des Raumes nach Orthogonalfunktionen*]{}, Math. Ann. 86 (1922), 238–271. (Thesis, Berlin, 1921.) \[$\spadesuit$ formulates—like Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]—the desideratum that the function minimizing the area integral $\int \int \vert
f'(z)\vert^2 d\omega$ is the Kreisabbildung (alias Riemann mapping) $\clubsuit$ this desideratum will be only accomplished in the late 1940’s, i.e. Garabedian/Lehto’s era\]
S. Bergman\[n\], [*Über eine Darstellung der Abbildungsfunktion eines Sternbereiches*]{}, Math. Z. 29 (1929), 481–486. \[$\spadesuit$ Minimalbereich in a special case\]
S. Bergman\[n\], [*Über unendliche Hermitesche Formen, die zu einem Bereiche gehören, nebst Anwendunden auf Fragen der Abbildung durch Funktionen von zwei komplexen veränderlichen*]{}, Math. Z. 29 (1929), 641–677. \[$\spadesuit$ p.641 formulates—inspired by Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]—the concept of a Minimalbereich, by referring to 3 of his previous work (alas no precise cross-references)\]
S. Bergman\[n\], [*Eine Bemerkung über schlichte Minimalabbildungen*]{}, Sitzgsber. Berliner Math. Ges. 30 (1932) \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949] for yet another formulation—like Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]—of the desideratum that the function minimizing the area integral $\int \int \vert f'(z)\vert^2
d\omega$ is the Kreisabbildung (alias Riemann mapping) $\clubsuit$ this desideratum will be only accomplished in the late 1940’s, i.e. Garabedian/Lehto’s era, cf. Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949 p.46]\]
S. Bergman\[n\], [*Über die Kernfunktion eines Bereiches und ihr Verhalten am Rande*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 169 (1933), 1–42; and 172 (1934), 89–128. \[$\spadesuit$ p.3 footnote 2 contains some brief indication on the case of multi-connected domains (in one complex variable) and a cross-ref. to Zarankiewicz 1934 [@Zarankiewicz_1934-numerisches]\]
S. Bergman, [*Partial differential equations, Advanced topics*]{} (Conformal mapping of multiply connected domains), Publ. of Brown Univ., Providence, R.I., 1941. \[$\spadesuit$ probably completely incorporated in Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
S. Bergman, [*A remark on the mapping of multiply-connected domains*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 68 (1946), 20–28. \[$\spadesuit$ uniformize via the Bergman kernel domains of finite connectivity, and via Koebe (1914/15) can be used for the Kreisnormierung.\] 78
S. Bergman\[n\], [*Sur les fonctions orthogonales de plusieurs variables complexes avec les applications à la théorie des fonctions analytiques*]{}, Mémorial des Sci. Math. 106 (1947), 1–63. \[$\spadesuit$ p.32 points out that the old desideratum of Bieberbach-Bergman 1922 [@Bergman_1922] of reproving RMT via the problem of least area was still not achieved until this date of 1947, except for the special case of starlike domains (Bergman 1932 [@Bergman_1932] and Schiffer 1938 [@Schiffer_1938-CRAS-domaines-minima]). The breakthrough may have occurred only by Garabedian and Lehto’s Thesis, cf. e.g. [@Lehto_1949]\]
S. Bergman\[n\], [*Sur la fonction-noyau d’un domaine et ses applications dans la théorie des transformations pseudo-conforme*]{}, Mémorial des Sci. Math. 108 (1948). \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Maschler 1956 [@Maschler_1956] for the theory of minimal domains $\spadesuit$ p.41, Kufarev [@Kufareff_1935/37] is credited for the issue that for a doubly-connected domain the least area map is not univalent(=schlicht) $\spadesuit$ of course it looks evident that univalence fails as well in higher connectivity, cf. e.g. Garabedian-Schiffer 1949 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1949] $\spadesuit$ yet nobody seems to claim that the range is a circle\]
S. Bergman, [*The kernel function and conformal mapping*]{}, Mathematical Surveys 5, Amer. Math. Soc., New York, 1950. 50, 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.87 existence of a circle map for domains via an explicit formula (p.86) as a ratio of two kernel functions $\spadesuit$ a second revised edition was published in 1970\]
S. Bergman, M. Schiffer [*Kernel functions and conformal mapping*]{}, Compositio Math. 8 (1951), 205–249. 60, 78
A. Bernard, J.B. Garnett, D.E. Marshall, [*Algebras generated by inner functions*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 25 (1977), 275–285. \[$\spadesuit$ p.282, the Ahlfors function is briefly mentioned as follows: “To show the inner functions separates the points of $X$ we modify the well-known construction of the Ahlfors function for a Denjoy domain.” $\spadesuit$ the bulk of the paper is devoted to the question of knowing when the unit ball of an uniform algebra (typically $H^{\infty}(\Omega)$ for $\Omega$ a finitely connected domain) is the closed convex hull of the inner functions $\spadesuit$ Corollary 5.2 (p.285) gives this conclusion provided the inner functions separate the points of the Shilov boundary, but the authors seem to confess that they do not know whether this proviso is automatically fulfilled (note: of course the simple argument of Stout 1966 [@Stout_1966/67 p.375] saying that inner functions separates points on the Riemann surface (just because the Ahlfors function based at the two given points do separate them) does not apply here, as we are truly looking at mystical points of the Shilov boundary) $\spadesuit$ p.276, one reads: “Minor modifications of the proof for this case \[i.e. finitely connected plane domain\] will give the result when $\Omega$ is a finite open Riemann surface, but we leave those details to the interested reader.” $\spadesuit$ conclusion: since the whole paper actually seeks for an extension of a disc result of Marshall (asserting precisely that the unit ball of the disc algebra $H^{\infty}(\Delta)$ is the closed convex hull of the inner functions), one could wonder if there is not a more naive strategy exploiting more systematically the Ahlfors function\]
L. Bers, [*Quasiconformal mappings and Techmüller’s theorem*]{}, in: Analytic functions, Princeton Univ. Press, 1960, 89–119. \[$\spadesuit$ modernized account of Teichmüller theory\]
L. Bers, [*Uniformization by Beltrami equation*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 14 (1961), 215–228. \[$\spadesuit$ contain striking results on the Kreisnormierung\]
L. Bers, [*Automorphic forms for Schottky groups*]{}, Adv. Math. 16 (1975), 332–371. \[$\spadesuit$ modernized proof via quasiconformal deformation of the retrosection theorem (alias Rückkehrschnitttheorem=RST) going back to Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882_Ruckkehrschnitt] and first seriously proved in Koebe 1910 UAK2 [@Koebe_1910_UAK2] $\spadesuit$ a question of some interest is whether the bordered avatar of this RST implies the Ahlfors circle mapping\]$\bigstar$
L. Berzolari, [*Allgemeine Theorie der höheren ebenen algebraischen Kurven*]{}, in: Enzyklopädie der math. Wissenschaften, Bd. III, 2, 1, 313–455, Leipzig, 1906. \[$\spadesuit$ a short survey of Klein’s theory of symmetric surfaces while coining first the designation “[*Klein’s surfaces*]{}” made popular much later by Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971].\]
L. Berzolari, [*Algebraische Transformationen und Korrespondenzen*]{}, in: Enzyklopädie der math. Wissenschaften, Bd. III, C, 1, 1, 1781–2218, Leipzig, 1933. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Betti, [*Sopra gli spazi di un numero qualunque di dimensioni*]{}, Annali di Matematica (2) 4 (1871), 140–158. \[$\spadesuit$ inspired from Riemann 1852/53 Fragment aus der Analysis situs [@Riemann_1852/53-Fragment-aus-der-Analysis-Situs], and will in turn inspire (modulo being misspelled as Brioschi) Poincaré 1895 [@Poincare_1895-Analysis-Situs] $\spadesuit$ this well-known line of thoughts leads to “homology theory” and is inasmuch relevant to the present article for the issue that several peoples (starting with Riemann, Klein, Poincaré, Brouwer, etc.) used topological methods in function theory, and in the specialized context of Ahlfors circle maps (similar inferences were used by Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949], Mizumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960], and Gabard 2004/06 [@Gabard_2006])\]
A. Beurling, [*Sur un problème de majoration*]{}, Thèse, Upsala, 1935, 109 pp.
A. Beurling, [*On two problems concerning linear transformation in Hilbert space*]{}, Acta Math. 81 (1949), 239–255. \[$\spadesuit$ the so-called Beurling’s invariant subspaces theorem $\spadesuit$ for an extension to finite bordered Riemann surface see M. Hasumi 1966 [@Hasumi_1966] (and also related work by Voichick 1964 [@Voichick_1964]), yet without using the Ahlfors map, but cite Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] which is closely allied $\spadesuit$ \[03.10.12\] one can wonder if like for the corona problem/theorem there is a direct inference of the Ahlfors map upon Beurling’s invariant subspaces (as Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964] managed to do for the corona)\]
G.V. Beylĭ, [*On Galois extensions of the maximal cyclotomic field*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 43 (1979), 269–276; English transl., Math. USSR Izv. 14 (1980), 247–256. \[$\spadesuit$ proof that a closed surface is defined over $\Qbar$ iff it ramifies only above 3 points of the sphere $\clubsuit$ can this be extended to bordered surfaces in the context of Ahlfors maps?\]
G.V. Beyli, [*A new proof of the three points theorem*]{}, Sb. Math. 193 (2002), 329–332. \[$\spadesuit$\]
L. Bieberbach, [*Über ein Satz des Herrn Carathéodorys*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1913), 552–560.
L. Bieberbach, [*Zur Theorie und Praxis der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Rend. del Circolo mat. di Palermo 38 (1914), 98–112. \[$\spadesuit$ this had some influence over Bergman’s Thesis 1921/22 [@Bergman_1922], and is in turn inspired by W. Ritz ca. 1908–09 $\spadesuit$ p.100, first formulation of the principle that the function minimizing the area integral $\int \int \vert f'(z)\vert^2 d\omega$ is the Kreisabbildung (alias Riemann mapping), and the hope is expressed of getting an independent proof of its existence through this least area problem $\clubsuit$ this desideratum (vividly sustained in Bergman’s Thesis 1921/22 [@Bergman_1922] and Bochner’s 1922 [@Bochner_1922]) will be only achieved in the late 1940’s, i.e. Garabedian/Lehto’s era (see Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949]) $\clubsuit$ another desideratum (Gabard 16-$\varepsilon$ June 2012, but perhaps already known) would be that such an extremal problem (closely allied to the theory of the Bergman kernel) yields an alternative proof of the Ahlfors mapping $\clubsuit$ even more since it is eminently geometric can we crack—via this Bieberbach-Bergman philosophy—the Gromov filling area conjecture? (Recompense 50 Euros)\]
L. Bieberbach, [*Einführung in die konforme Abbildung*]{}, Sammlung Göschen, Berlin, 1915. \[$\spadesuit$ pp.94–108 deal specifically with Bieberbach’s minimizing principle (cf. Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914])\]
L. Bieberbach, [*$\Delta u= e^u$ und die automorphen Funktionen*]{}, Math. Ann. 77 (1916), 173–212. \[$\clubsuit$ p.175 speaks of (Klein’s) orthosymmetry, and write a sentence (which when read ouside of its context) bears strange resemblance with the Ahlfors circle map: “[*Wir nehmen die Fläche orthosymmetrisch an, d.h. sie möge durch diese Symmetrielinien in zwei symmetrische Hälften zerlegt werden, so da[ß]{} es sich also im Hauptkreisfalle um die konforme Abbildung eines berandeten Flächenstückes—der einen Flächenhälfte—auf das Innere des Einheitskreises handelt.*]{}” $\spadesuit$ the real issue in this paper is to implement Schwarz’s desideratum (Göttinger Preisaufgabe 1889) (primarily followed by Picard and Poincaré) of uniformizing (compact) Riemann surfaces via the Liouville equation whose geometric interpretation amounts searching a conformal metric of constant Gaussian curvature $\spadesuit$ \[03.10.12\] probably the above should not be interpreted as an Ahlfors map but rather as the fact that the interior of any compact bordered Riemann surface is uniformized by the unit disc (i.e. the universal covering of the interior is the unit disc)\]
L. Bieberbach, [*Über einige Extremalprobleme im Gebiete der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Math. Ann. 77 (1916), 153–172. \[$\spadesuit$ includes (among other nice geometrical things) the first proof of Koebe’s Viertelsatz with the sharp constant $1/4$ upon the radius of a disc contained in the range of a schlicht map of the unit disc normed by $\vert f'(0) \vert
=1$\]
L. Bieberbach, [*Über die Koeffizienten derjenigen Potenzreihen, welche eine schlichte Abbildung des Einheitskreises vermitteln*]{}, S.-B. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (1916), 940–955. \[$\spadesuit$ where the Bieberbach/coefficient conjecture is first formulated. Solution: de Branges 1984/85.\]
L. Bieberbach, [*Über einen Riemannschen Satz aus der Lehre von der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Sitz.-Ber. Berliner Math. Ges. 24 (1925), 6–9. 60, 78 (also cited in Courant 1939 [@Courant_1939]) \[$\clubsuit$ the schlicht(artig) case of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is proved, and earlier work by Riemann 1857/58 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass] and Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877] is put in perspective\]
L. Bieberbach, [*Lehrbuch der Funktionentheorie*]{}, vols. 1 and 2, Berlin, New York, 1945. (Photographic reprint of the 4th edition of Band I (1934) and the 2nd edition of Band II (1931)) \[$\spadesuit$ cited by Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950 p.24] for the proof that the minimum function for the problem $\int \int_{B} \vert f'(z)\vert^2
d\omega$ has circle range; of course the original source is Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
L. Bieberbach, [*Conformal mapping*]{}, Chelsea, New York, 1953. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
L. Bieberbach, [*Eine Bemerkung zur konformen Abbildung zweifach zusammenhängender Gebiete*]{}, Math. Z. 67 (1957), 99–102. 78
L. Bieberbach, [*Einführung in die konforme Abbildung*]{}, Sammlung Göschen Bd. 768/768a, Walter de Gruyter and Co. (6th ed., 1967). 78 \[$\spadesuit$ includes a proof of the Hilbert-Koebe PSM (in infinite connectivity) $\spadesuit$ presumably an earlier edition (as the one cited in Burckel 1979 [@Burckel_1979]) do the job as well\]
L. Bieberbach, [*Das Werk Paul Koebes*]{}, Jahresber. Deutsche Math.-Verein. 70 (1968), 148–158. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ contains a complete tabulation of Koebe’s work\]
E. Bishop, [*Subalgebras of functions on a Riemann surface*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 9 (1959), 629–642. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Bishop, [*Abstract dual extremal problems*]{}, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 12 No.1 (1965), 123. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in O’Neill-Wermer 1968 [@O'Neill-Wermer_1968] for an abstract version of Ahlfors’ extremal problem pertaining to a function algebra over a compact space $X$\]
E. Biswas, [*On line bundles over real algebraic curves*]{}, Bull. Sci. Math. 134 (2010), 447–449. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Bloch, [*La conception actuelle de la théorie des fonctions entières et méromorphes*]{}, L’Enseign. Math. 25 (1926), 83–103. \[$\spadesuit$ great French prose and finitistic philosophy à la Kronecker, culminating to the slogan “Nihil est infinito…”\]
A. Bloch, [*Les fonctions holomorphes et méromorphes dans le cercle-unité*]{}, Mémorial des Sci. Math. 20 (1926), 1–61.
, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 295 (1987), 268–272; English transl., Soviet Math. Dokl. 36 (1988), 38–42. \[$\spadesuit$\]
Some propositions concerning the geometric representation of imaginaries. [*Ann. of Math. 7*]{} (1892/93), 70–76. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Bochnack, W. Kucharz, [*A characterization of dividing real algebraic curves*]{}, Topology (1996), 451–455. \[$\spadesuit$ definition of dividing curves à la Klein $\spadesuit$ albeit the title could be perfectly adequate to reflect the Ahlfors circle map existence theorem, the paper treat another characterization of dividing curves in terms of “regular mapping” (in the sense of real algebraic geometry) and their Brouwer’s topological degree, plus the Hopf’s theorem (classification of sphere valued mappings up to homotopy by the Brouwer degree)\]
J. Bochnack, W. Kucharz, R. Silhol, [*Morphisms, line bundles and moduli spaces in real algebraic geometry*]{}, Publ. Math. IHES (1997 ca.), 5–65. \[$\spadesuit$ p.12: “dividing curves” appear, and occur in some problems about approximation of the smooth category by the algebro-geometric one\]
S. Bochner, [*Über orthogonale Systeme analytischer Funktionen*]{}, Math. Z. 14 (1922), 180–207. (Thesis, Berlin, 1921.) \[$\spadesuit$ p.184: like Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] and Bergman 1922 [@Bergman_1922] the author confesses to be not able to reprove the RMT via Bieberbach’s minimum problem (least area map) $\spadesuit$ this problem will be cracked (independently) in Garabedian and Lehto’s Thesis (cf. Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949] and Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949])\]
S. Bochner, [*Fortsetzung Riemannscher Flächen*]{}, Math. Ann. 98 (1927), 406–421. \[$\spadesuit$ any Riemann surface of finite genus embeds conformally into a closed Riemann surface of the same genus $\spadesuit$ any Riemann surface embeds into a non-prolongeable Riemann surface\]
C.F. Bödigheimer, [*Configuration models for moduli spaces of Riemann surfaces with boundary*]{}, Abh. Math. Seminar Hamburg (2006). \[$\spadesuit$\]
M.D. Bolt, S. Snoeyink, E. van Andel, [*Visual representation of the Riemann and Ahlfors maps via the Kerzman-Stein equation*]{}, Involve 3 (2010), 405–420. \[$\spadesuit$ from MR: “The paper provides an elementary description of the Riemann and Ahlfors maps using the Szegö kernel. It further describes a numerical implementation of the maps.”\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
E. Borel, [*Leçons sur la théorie des fonctions*]{}, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1898. \[$\spadesuit$ complex function theory, but also the starting point of modern measure theory (influence over Lebesgue)\]
J.B. Bost, [*Introduction to compact Riemann surfaces, Jacobians and Abelian varieties*]{}, in: From Number Theory to Physics, Springer-Verlag, 1992, Second Corrected Printing 1995. \[$\spadesuit$ p.99–104 contains an account of the Belyi-Grothendieck theorem as well as its geometric traduction in terms of equilateral triangulations\]
M. Brandt, [*Ein Abbildungssatz für endlich-vielfach zusammenhängende Gebiete*]{}, Bull. de la Soc. des Sciences et des Lettres de Łódź XXX, 3 (1980). \[$\spadesuit$ extension of Koebe’s KNP to shapes with arbitrary contours; similar result in Harrington 1982 [@Harrington_1982] $\spadesuit$ variant of proof in Schramm 1996 [@Schramm_1996]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M. Brelot, G. Choquet, [*Espaces et lignes de Green*]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier 3 (1951), 199–263. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ the paper is started with a result of Evans (1927) that the streamlines of the Green’s function $G(z,t)$ \[with pole at $t$\] in a simply-connected plane domain have almost all (in the angular sense about $t$) finite length and therefore converge to a frontier-point $\spadesuit$ this is adapted to domains of arbitrary connectivity (as well as to “superior spaces”) $\spadesuit$ presumably as well as to bordered surfaces: \[11.08.12\] incidentally one could dream of a proof of Gromov’s FAC just via the Green’s function, while using the corresponding isothermic coordinates to calculate the area\]
M. Brelot, [*La théorie moderne du potentiel*]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier 4 (1952), 113–140. \[$\spadesuit$ p.114 “Mais si l’on peut dire que tout est dans l’[œ]{}uvre de Gauss, il apparut bientôt que la [*rigueur*]{} était insuffisante” $\spadesuit$ a historical survey starting from Poisson, then Gauss 1840 (who considers as evident that the minimum energy is attained, electrostatic influence, problème du balayage), and the culmination of Frostman’s Thesis (1935); meanwhile Dirichlet, Riemann and Hilbert; and also Neumann, Schwarz, Harnack and Poincaré’s balayage; next Fredholm’s theory (1900) and its application to Dirichlet and Neumann; Zaremba’s works; Lebesgue’s integral found an application in Fatou’s study of the Poisson integral and Evans introduced the Radon integral in potential theory; Perron and Wiener renewed the Dirichlet problem; F. Riesz introduced subharmonic functions (precursors like Poincaré and Hartogs are signaled on p.134); ca. 1930 de la Vallée Poussin took up again the méthode du balayage to study “les masses balayées”, etc.\]
E. Brettler, [*Absolute Galois groups of real function fields in one variable*]{}, Diss. McGill, Univ. Montréal 1972. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977]\]
E. Brieskorn, H. Knörrer, [*Ebene algebraische Kurven*]{}, Birkäuser Boston, 1981; English translation: [*Plane Algebraic Curves*]{}, Trans. from the German by John Stillwell, Birkäuser Basel, 1986. \[$\spadesuit$ p.ii: “Es ist die Freude an der Gestalt in einem höheren Sinne, die den Geometer ausmacht. (Clebsch, in memory of Julius Plücker, Gött. Abh. Bd. 15).”\]
A. Brill, M. Nöther, [*Ueber die algebraischen Functionen und ihre Anwendung in der Geometrie*]{}, Math. Ann. 7 (1874), 269–310. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Brill, M. Noether, [*Bericht über die Entwicklung der Theorie der algebraischen Functionen in älterer und neuerer Zeit*]{}, Jahresber. Deutsche Math.-Verein. 3 (1894), 107–566. \[$\spadesuit$ a monumental historiography spreading over more than 400 pages, from Descartes to Riemann and much more\]
A. Brill, [*Über dden Weierstra[ß]{}chen Vorbereitungssatz*]{}, Math. Ann. 64 (1910), 538–549. \[$\spadesuit$\]
L.E.J. Brouwer, [*Über die topologischen Schwierigkeiten des Kontinuitätsbeweises der Existenztheoreme eindeutig umkehrbarer polymorpher Funktionen auf Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1912), 603–606. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ topological methods as applied to uniformization\]
L.E.J. Brouwer, [*Über die Singularitätenfreiheit der Modulmannigfaltigkeit*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1912), 803–806. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ idem\]
L.E.J. Brouwer, [*Ueber eineindeutige, stetige Transformationen von Flächen in sich (6. Mitt.)*]{}, KNAW Proceedings 21 (1919), 707–710. \[$\spadesuit$ Brouwer seems to vindicate his priority over Koebe for a topological proof of uniformization via the continuity method\]
L. Brusotti, [*Sulla generazzione di curve piane algebriche reali mediante “piccola variazione” di una curva spezzata*]{}, Annali di Mat. (3) 22 (1913), 117–169. \[$\spadesuit$ systematic small perturbation method for the independent smoothings of nodal plane curves (based upon an extrinsic version of Riemann-Roch (??), worked out over ${\Bbb C}$ by Severi $\spadesuit$ forerunners Plücker 1839 [@Plücker_1839], Klein 1873 [@Klein_1873-Uber-Flächen-dritter-Ordn], Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876], etc\]
L. Brusotti, [*Curve generatrici e curve aggregate nella costruzione di curve piane d’ordine assegnato dotate del massimo numero di circuiti*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 42 (1917), 138–144. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Mikhalkin 2000 [@Mikhalkin_2000]\]
L. Brusotti, [*Sulla “piccola variazione” di una curva piana algebrica reale*]{}, Rend. Rom. Acc. Lincei (5) 30 (1921), 375–379. \[$\spadesuit$ systematic small perturbation method for the independent smoothings of nodal plane curves (based upon an extrinsic version of Riemann-Roch, worked out over ${\Bbb C}$ by Severi $\spadesuit$ forerunners Plücker 1839 [@Plücker_1839], Klein 1873 [@Klein_1873-Uber-Flächen-dritter-Ordn], Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876], etc. $\spadesuit$ immediate follower Gudkov 1962 [@Gudkov_1962] (extension to cusps), Gudkov 1980/80 [@Gudkov_1980/80-Brusotti] (extension to other surfaces), etc.\]
L. Brusotti, [*Su talune questioni di realita nei loro metodi, resultati e problemi*]{}, in: Colloque sur les questions de réalité en géométrie, (Liège 1955), Georges Johne, Liège, et Masson, Paris, 1956, 105–129. \[$\spadesuit$ briefly discussed in Viro’s survey 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction] and also cited in Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress]\]
E. Bujalance, J.J. Etayo, J.M. Gamboa, G. Gromadzki, [*Automorphisms groups of compact bordered Klein surfaces*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 1439, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Bujalance, A. Costa, S. Natanzon, D. Singerman, [*Involutions of compact Klein surfaces*]{}, Math. Z. 211 (1992), 461–478. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Bujalance, G. Gromadzki, D. Singerman, [*On the number of real curves associated to a complex curve*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 120 (1994), 507–513. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Burbea, [*The Carathéodory metric in plane domains*]{}, Kodai. Math. Sem. Rep. 29 (1977), 159–166. \[$\spadesuit$ application of the Ahlfors function to a curvature estimate of the Carathéodory metric (defined via the analytic capacity) along the line of Suita’s works $\spadesuit$ Abstract: “Let $D\notin O_{AB}$ be a plane domain \[i.e., supporting non-constant bounded analytic functions\] and let $C_D(z)$ be its analytic capacity at $z\in D$ \[that is the maximum distortion of a circle-map centered at $z$\]. Let ${\cal K}_{D}(z)$ be the curvature of the Carathéodory metric $C_D(z) \vert dz \vert$. We show that ${\cal K}_D(z)<-4$ if the Ahlfors function of $D$ w.r.t. $z$ has a zero other than $z$. For finite \[domains\] $D$, ${\cal
K}_D(z) \le -4$ and equality holds iff $D$ is simply-connected. As a corollary we obtain a result proved first by Suita, namely, that ${\cal K}_D(z)\le -4$ if $D\notin O_{AB}$. Several other properties related to the Carathéodory metric are proven.” $\spadesuit$ a little anachronism is noteworthy, here logically the Ahlfors function and the allied analytic capacity (1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]) precedes the Carathéodory metric (1926 [@Caratheodory_1926] and 1927 [@Caratheodory_1927]), but of course in view of the real history, especially Carathéodory 1928 [@Caratheodory_1928] the definitional aspect is essentially compatible with the historical flow\]
J. Burbea, [*The curvatures of the analytic capacity*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan 29 (1977), 755–761. \[$\spadesuit$ p.755: Ahlfors function à la Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64], i.e. for domains $D\notin O_{AB}$, analytic capacity, method of the minimum integral w.r.t. the Szegö kernel\]
J. Burbea, [*Capacities and spans on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1978), 327–332. \[$\spadesuit$ p.329: “Ahlfors function” is mentioned (in connection with the analytic capacity, yet it is not clear to me \[03.10.12\] if this definition is meaningful not for a domain but also on a finite Riemann surface)\]
J. Burbea, [*The Schwarzian derivative and the Poincaré metric*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 85 (1979), 345–354. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Burbea, [*The Cauchy and the Szegö kernels on multiply connected regions*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) 31 (1982), 105–118. \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors function mentioned on p.106 an p.116\]
R.B. Burckel, [*An Introduction to Classical Complex Analysis*]{}, Vol.1, Mathematische Reihe 64, Birkhäuser, 1979. \[$\spadesuit$ p.357 some nice comments upon the literature about PSM\]
W. Burnside, [*On functions determined from their discontinuities, and a certain form of boundary condition*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. 22 (1891), 346–358. \[$\spadesuit$ detected \[30.07.12\] via W. Seidel’s bibliogr. (1950/52), who summarize the paper as: a method is given for mapping a region bounded by $m$ simple closed curves $C_i$ on an $n$-sheeted Riemann surface over the $w$-plane, where the curves $C_i$ correspond to rectilinear slits $\spadesuit$ surprisingly this paper is not quoted in Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960] nor in Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978] $\spadesuit$ the topic addressed bears some vague resemblance with the Bieberbach-Grunsky-Ahlfors paradigm of the circle map\]
W. Burnside, [*On a class of automorphic functions*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 23 (1892), 49–88. \[$\spadesuit$\]
P. Buser, M. Seppälä, R. Silhol, [*Triangulations and moduli spaces of Riemann surfaces with group actions*]{}, Manuscr. Math. 88 (1995), 209–224. \[$\spadesuit$ connectedness of the moduli space of real curves when projected down in the complex moduli\]
A.P. Calderón, [*Cauchy integrals on Lipschitz curves and related operators*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 74 (1977), 1324–1327. \[$\spadesuit$ implies a resolution of the so-called Denjoy conjecture, according to which a subset of a rectifiable curve is removable for the class of bounded analytic functions (alias Painlevé null-sets) iff it has zero length $\spadesuit$ the explicit link from Calderón-to-Denjoy is made explicit in Marshall [@Marshall_1978?], upon combining a long string of previous works (Garabedian, Havinson, Davie 1972 [@Davie_1972])\]
A.P. Calderón, [*Commutators, singular integrals on Lipschitz curves and applications*]{}, ICM Helsinki 1978, 85–96. \[$\spadesuit$ the Denjoy’s conjecture is mentioned as an application of Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977], as follows (p.90): “Now let us turn to applications. Let $\Gamma$ be a simple rectifiable arc in the complex plane. Then the function $G(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\Gamma
\frac{f(w)}{w-z} dw$, where $f(w)$ is a function on $\Gamma$ which is integrable w.r.t. arc length, has a limit almost everywhere in $\Gamma$ as $z$ approaches nontangentially a point of $\Gamma$. \[…\] Another application is the following result due to D.E. Marshall (personal communication) which confirms an old conjecture of A. Denjoy (1909 [@Denjoy_1909-Painleve/Sur-les-fct-anal-unif-a-sing-discontinues]): the analytic capacity $\gamma(E)$ of a compact subset $E$ of a rectifiable arc in the complex plane is zero if and only if its one-dimensional Hausdorff measure vanishes.” $\spadesuit$ for the detailed proof see Marshall [@Marshall_1978?] (and maybe also Melnikov 1995 [@Melnikov_1995])\]
A.P. Calderón, [*Acceptance speech for the Bôcher Price*]{}, Notices A.M.S. 26 (1979), 97–99. \[$\spadesuit$ the solution to the Denjoy’s conjecture is mentioned as one of the most significant application of the article Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
A. Candel, [*Uniformization of surface laminations*]{}, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. (1993). \[$\spadesuit$ ... To have the same relation between Riemann surface laminations and oriented surface laminations with riemannian metric we then need a regularity theorem for the Beltrami equation depending on parameters. This is precisely what Ahlfors and Bers proved in their classical ... \]
C. Carathéodory, [*Sur quelques applications du théorème de Landau-Picard*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 144 (1907), 1203–1204; also in: Ges. Math. Schriften, Band 3, 6–9. \[$\spadesuit$ first modern proof of the Schwarz lemma, acknowledging E. Schmidt, compare footnote 2: “Je dois cette démonstration si élégante d’un théorème connu de M. Schwarz (Ges.Abh.,t.2,p.108) à une communication orale de M. E. Schmidt.”\]
C. Carathéodory, [*Über die Variabilitätsbereich der Koeffizienten von Potenzreihen die gebebene Werte nicht annehmen*]{}, Math. Ann. 64 (1907), 95–115. \[$\spadesuit$ this and the next entry where the first work bringing together Minkowski’s theory of convex sets with complex function theory $\spadesuit$ for an extension of this Carathéodory theory to finite Riemann surface, cf. Heins 1976 [@Heins_1976]\]
C. Carathéodory, [*Über die Variabilitätsbereich der der Fourierschenkonstanten von positiven harmonischen Funktionen*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 32 (1911), 193–217. \[$\spadesuit$\]
C. Carathéodory, L. Fejér, [*Über den Zusammenhang der Extremen von harmonischen Funktionen mit ihren Koeffizienten und über den Picard-Landauschen Satz*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 32 (1911), 218–239. \[$\spadesuit$ for a (vague?) interconnection of this article with the Ahlfors map, cf. Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979]\]
C. Carathéodory, [*Untersuchungen über die konformen Abbildungen von festen und veränderlichen Gebieten*]{}, Math. Ann. 72 (1912), 107–144. 78
C. Carathéodory, [*Über die gegenseitige Beziehung der Ränder bei der konformen Abbildung des Inneren einer Jordanschen Kurve auf einen Kreis*]{}, Math. Ann. 73 (1913), 305–320.
C. Carathéodory, [*Über die Begrenzung einfach zusammenhängender Bereiche*]{}, Math. Ann. 73 (1913), 323–370.
C. Carathéodory, [*Elementarer Beweis für den Fundamentalsatz der konformen Abbildung*]{}. In: Mathematische Abhandlungen, Hermann Amandus Schwarz zu seinem fünfzigjähren Doktorjubiläum am 6. August 1914 gewidmet von seinen Freunden und Schülern, 19–41; also in: Ges. Math. Schriften, Band 3, 273–299. \[$\spadesuit$ p.294 perhaps the first usage of the jargon “[*quasikonform*]{}”, compare Ahlfors’ memory failure reported in Kühnau 1997 [@Kuehnau_1997] $\spadesuit$ more importantly the classical square-root procedure is developed in detail\]
C. Carathéodory, [*Über das Schwarzsche Lemma bei analytischen Funktionen von zwei komplexen Veränderlichen*]{}, Math. Ann. 97 (1926), 76–98. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940 p.233], who discusses the connection between the Carathéodory metric and the “Ahlfors” function (which in the present connection should be definitively better called the “Grunsky-Ahlfors function”)\]
C. Carathéodory, [*Über eine spezialle Metrik, die in der Theorie der analytischen Funktionen auftritt*]{}, Atti Pontifica Acad. Sc., Nuovi Lincei 80 (1927), 135–141. \[$\spadesuit$ where the so-called Carathéodry metric is first defined (but see also the previous entry Carathéodory 1926 [@Caratheodory_1926]), which in turn turned out to be closely related to the Ahlfors function, cf. e.g. Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940], Simha 1975 [@Simha_1975], Burbea 1977 [@Burbea_1977-Caratheodory], Krantz 2008 [@Krantz_2008]\]
C. Carathéodory, [*Bermerkungen zu den Existenztheoremen der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 20 (1928), 125–134; also in: Ges. Math. Schriften, Band 3, 300–310. 60 \[$\clubsuit$ along lines initiated by Fejér-Riesz (published by Radó 1922/23 [@Rado_1922-3]) a new proof of RMT is given via an extremal problem, which is a simply-connected prelude to Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] $\clubsuit$ as pointed out by Remmert 1991 [@Remmert_1991] Carathéodory’s elegant proof appears rarely in book form (exception Narasimhan’s book), and is somewhat less popular than the variant of Fejér-Riesz-Bieberbach-Ostrowski $\spadesuit$ the article involves (cf. p.303) the extremal problem $\max \vert f(z_1) \vert$ of maximizing the modulus of the function at an auxiliary point $z_1$, whereas the other method (Fejér-Riesz, etc.) maximizes the derivative at the basepoint $z_0$ $\spadesuit$ it is precisely Carathéodory’s version which is extended in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], but of course the other formulation lead likewise to a circle map\]
C. Carathéodory, [*Conformal representation*]{}, Cambridge Tracts in Math. and Math. Physics 28, London 1932. (2nd edition 1958) 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ an introduction to problem of conformal mapping\]
C. Carathéodory, [*On Dirichlet’s problem*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 59 (1937), 709–731. \[$\spadesuit$ surprisingly this item is not quoted in Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960] $\spadesuit$ p.710: “In the foregoing chapter, I have tried to give a very elementary treatment of the principal properties of harmonic functions culminating in the existence proof for Dirichlet’s problem devised by O. Perron \[=1923 [@Perron_1923]\] and very much simplified by T. Radó and F. Riesz \[=1925 [@Rado-Riesz_1925]\]. I have done this in order to show how the whole theory can be condensed if one puts systematically from the outset Poisson’s Integral in the limelight.”\]
C. Carathéodory, [*A proof of the first principal theorem on conformal representation*]{}, Studies and Essays presented to R. Courant on his 60th birthday, Jan. 8, 1948, Interscience Publ., 1948, 75–83; also in: Ges. Math. Schriften, Band 3, 354–361. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ another proof of RMT through an iterative method, using square-roots operations, Schwarz’s lemma and Montel $\spadesuit$ naive question, although this might be more in line with the earlier approach ca. 1910 of Koebe-Carathéodory, this approach looks more involved than the extremum problem in the previous item [@Caratheodory_1928], and perhaps less susceptible of extension to Riemann surfaces\]
C. Carathéodory, [*Funktionentheorie, I, II*]{}, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1950. 60, 78
C. Carathéodory, [*Bemerkung über die Definition der Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Math. Z. 52 (1950), 703–708. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ purist approach to uniformization via extremal problems, similar ideas in several papers by Grunsky not listed here, cf. his Coll. Papers $\spadesuit$ the (Grenzkreis) uniformization appears also in Carathéodory 1928 [@Caratheodory_1928]\]
A.L. Carey, K.C. Hannabuss, [*Infinite dimensional groups and Riemann surfaces field theories*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 176 (1996), 321–351. \[$\spadesuit$\]
T. Carleman, [*Über ein minimal Problem der mathematischen Physik*]{}, Math. Z. 1 (1918), 208–212. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ used in Gaier 1978 [@Gaier_1978-JDMV] and Alenycin 1981/82 [@Alenicyn_1981/82] in connection with an extension of the (Bieberbach 1914) minimum area problem to multiply-connected regions\]
T. Carleman, [*Sur la représentation conforme des domaines multiplement connexes*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 168 (1919), 843–845. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ another proof of KNP=Kreisnormierungsprinzip, originally due to Koebe 1907/1920, if not (implicit in) Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877]\]
T. Carleman, [*Über die Approximation analytischer Funktionen durch linear Aggregate von vorgegebenen Potenzen*]{}, Arkiv för mat., astron. o. fys. 17 (1922). \[$\spadesuit$ credited in Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949 p.8] for some work (independent of Bergman 1922 [@Bergman_1922] and Bochner’s 1922 [@Bochner_1922]) inaugurating the usage of orthogonal systems in the theory of conformal mappings\]
L. Carleson, [*On bounded analytic functions and closure problems*]{}, Ark. Mat. 2 (1952), 283–291. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
L. Carleson, [*Interpolations by bounded analytic functions and the Corona problem*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 76 (1962), 547–559. \[$\spadesuit$ one of the super-famous problem solved by Carleson, and which received (thanks Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964] and others) an extension from the disc to any compact bordered Riemann surface via the Ahlfors circle map\]
L. Carleson, [*Selected problems on exceptional sets*]{}, Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1967. \[$\spadesuit$ p.73–82 uniqueness of the Ahlfors extremal function \[the one maximizing the derivative at a fixed point amongst functions bounded-by-one\] for domains of infinite connectivity; similar work in Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64] and simplifications in Fisher 1969 [@Fisher_1969]\]
L. Carleson, [*Lars Ahlfors and the Painlevé problem*]{}. In: [*In the tradition of Ahlfors and Bers*]{} (Stony Brook, NY, 1998), 5–10. Contemp. Math. 256, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000. Nostrand, Princeton, 1967. \[$\spadesuit$ survey of the theory of removable sets for bounded analytic functions (a.k.a. Painlevé null-sets) from Painlevé, Denjoy to G. David, via Ahlfors (analytic capacity), Garabedian and Melnikov (Menger curvature). Future research is suggested along the 3 axes: (i) develop a theory of periods for the conjugate of positive harmonic functions (ii) sharper study of the extremal function (and induced measure) that appear in Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949] (iii) to continue the study of the Cauchy integrals in relation with Menger curvature and rectifiability\]
F. Carlson, [*Sur le module maximum d’une fonction analytique uniforme. I*]{}, Ark. Mat. Astron. Fys. 26 (1938), 13pp. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ quoted (joint with Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939] and Heins 1940 [@Heins_1940-Extremal]) in Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940] as one of the precursors of the extremal problem for bounded analytic functions\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
H. Cartan, [*Théorie él’ementaire des fonctions analytiques d’une ou plusieurs variables complexes*]{}, Hermann, Paris, 1961. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Casas-Alvero, Roots of complex polynomials and foci of real algebraic curves, L’Enseign. Math. 2013. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A.L. Cauchy, [*Mémoire sur la théorie des intégrales définies*]{}, communicated to the Paris Academy in 1814, and first published in 1827. \[$\spadesuit$ first occurrence of the Cauchy-Riemann equations, as criterion for the analyticity (holomorphy) of functions of a complex variable, modulo earlier occurrences in the work of Euler on hydrodynamics, and even earlier in the work of Jean le Rond d’Alembert (1717–1783) (on behalf of p.12 of Monastyrsky 1987/99 [@Monastyrsky_1987/99/08-even-1979], who do not give the exact sources)\]
A.L. Cauchy, [*Mémoire sur les intégrales définies prises entre des limites imaginaires*]{}, De Bure Frères, Paris, 1825, posthumous papers not published until 1874, in: [Œ]{}uvres de Cauchy, 1876, Série II, tome XV, 41–89. \[$\spadesuit$ definition of the integral of a function in the complex domain, including the case of singularity in which case the integral may depend on the path $\spadesuit$ first appearance of the notion of residue\]
A.L. Cauchy, [*???*]{}, work completed in 1831, published in 1836. \[$\spadesuit$ power series expansion of an analytic function and the integral representation of $f(z)$ inside a circle (Cauchy formula)\]
A.L. Cauchy, [*Considérations nouvelles sur les intégrales définies qui s’étendent à tous les points d’une courbe fermée, et sur celles qui sont prises entre des limites imaginaires*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 23 (1846), 689. \[$\spadesuit$ Cauchy’s residue theorem\]
F. Cecioni, [*Sulla rappresentazione conforme delle aree piane pluriconnesse su un piano in cui siano eseguiti dei tagli paralleli*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 25 (1908), 1–19. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ another derivation of the parallel-slit map of Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877], via several citation to Picard’s book for the foundational aspects $\spadesuit$ as Schottky’s proof depends on a heuristic moduli count, this paper of Cecioni may well be regarded as the first rigorous existence proof of PSM (cf., e.g., Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978 p.185])\]
F. Cecioni, [*Sulla rappresentazione conforme delle aree pluriconnesse appartenenti a superficie di Riemann*]{}, Annali delle Università Toscane 12, nuova serie (1928), 27–88. \[$\spadesuit$ cited via Matildi 1948 [@Matildi_1945/48]; WARNING: this entry looks much like the next item, yet differs in the pagination\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$
F. Cecioni, [*Sulla rappresentazione conforme delle aree pluri-connesse appartenenti a superficie di Riemann*]{}, Rend. Accad. d. L. Roma (6) 9 (1929), 149–153. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ cited via Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$
F. Cecioni, [*Osservazioni sopra alcuni tipi aree e sulle loro curve caratteristiche nella teoria della rappresentazione conforme*]{}, Rend. Palermo 57 (1933), 101–122. \[$\spadesuit$ la parole “curve catteristiche” means the Schottky(-Klein) double $\spadesuit$ contains several nice remarks about the Klein correspondence when particularized to orthosymmetric curve tolerating a direct-conformal involution which is sense reversing on the ovals\]
F. Cecioni, [*Un teorema su alcune funzioni analitiche, relative ai campi piani pluriconnessi, usate nella teoria della rappresentazione conforme*]{}, Ann. Pisa (2) 4 (1935), 1–14. 78
M. Černe, J. Globevnik, [*On holomorphic embedding of planar domains into ${\Bbb C}^2$*]{}, J. Anal. Math. 81 (2000), 269–282. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Koebe’s Kreisnormierungsprinzip is combined with the Ahlfors function to show that every bounded, finitely connected domain of ${\Bbb C}$ without isolated boundary points embeds properly holomorphically into ${\Bbb C}^2$ $\spadesuit$ of course, those are not the sole ingredients for otherwise the method would probably extend to positive genus surfaces in view of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], and positive genus extensions of KNP due to Haas 1984 [@Haas_1984]/Maskit 1989 [@Maskit_1989]\]
M. Černe, F. Forstnerič, [*Embedding some bordered Riemann surfaces in the affine plane*]{}, Math. Research Lett. 9 (2002), 683–696. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 is cited at several places $\spadesuit$ p.684: “On each smoothly bounded domain $\Omega\Subset {\Bbb C}$ with $m$ boundary components there exists an inner function $f$ with $\deg(f)=m$ \[Ahl\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950])[^121]. The map $F(x)=(f(x),x)\in{\Bbb C}^2$ for $x\in \overline\Omega$ satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 1.2 and hence $\Omega$ embeds in ${\Bbb C}^2$. This is the theorem of Globevnik and Stens[ø]{}nes \[GS\](=1995).” $\spadesuit$ p.684: “We shall call a bordered Riemann surface $\cal R$ hyperelliptic if its double is hyperelliptic. Such \[an\] $\cal R$ has either one or two boundary components[^122] and it admits a pair of inner functions $(f,g)$ which embed ${\rm int}{\cal R}$ in the polydisc $U^2$ such that $b{\cal R}$ is mapped to the torus $(bU)^2$; moreover, one of the two functions has degree $2g_{\cal
R}+m$ and the other one has degree $2$ (see \[Ru1\](=Rudin 1969 [@Rudin_1969]) and sect.2 in \[Gou\](=Gouma 1998 [@Gouma_1998])). Thus $\cal R$ is of class ${\cal F}$ and we get:—[**Corollary 1.3**]{} [*If ${\cal R}$ is a hyperelliptic bordered Riemann surface then ${\rm int} {\cal R}$ admits a proper holomorphic embedding in ${\Bbb C}^2$. In particular, each torus with one hole embeds properly holomorphically into ${\Bbb C}^2$.*]{} $\spadesuit$ p.686: “[**Comments regarding class ${\cal F}$.**]{} It is proved in \[Ahl,pp.124–126\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) that on every bordered Riemann surface $\cal
R$ of genus $g_{\cal R}$ with $m$ boundary components there is an inner function $f$ with multiplicity $2 g_{\cal R}+m$ (although the so-called Ahlfors functions may have smaller multiplicity). A generic choice of $g\in A^1({\cal R})$ gives an immersion $F=(f,g)\colon {\cal R}\to \overline U \times {\Bbb C}$ with at most finitely many double points (normal crossings). The main difficulty is to find $g$ such that $F=(f,g)$ is injective on ${\cal R}$. We do not know whether such $g$ always exists as Oka’s principle does not apply in this situation (Proposition 2.2).” $\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 is cited once more on p.687 during the proof of Theorem 1.1 stating that there is no topological obstruction to holomorphic embeddability in ${\Bbb C}^2$, in the following sense (p.683) “[**Theorem 1.1**]{} [*On each bordered surface $\cal R$ there exists a complex structure such that the interior ${\rm int} {\cal R}={\cal R}\setminus \partial
{\cal R}$ admits a proper holomorphic embedding in ${\Bbb C}^2$.*]{} $\spadesuit$ p.693: “[**Remark.**]{} As already mentioned, Ahlfors \[Ahl\](=1950) constructed inner functions of multiplicity $2g_{\cal R}+m$ on any bordered Riemann surface. Proposition 4.1 shows that such functions are stable under small perturbations of the complex structure. On the other hand this need not be true for the Ahlfors function $f_p$ which maximizes the derivative at a given point $p\in {\cal R}$ since the degree of $f_p$ may depend on $p$.” $\diamondsuit$ \[28.09.12\] maybe there is a somewhat more elementary approach to the main result (no topological obstruction) by looking at some real algebraic models in ${\Bbb
P}^2$ or ${\Bbb P}^1\times {\Bbb P}^1$, for instance taking a saturated pencil on the Gürtelkurve (cf. Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) and removing an imaginary line of this pencil one gets an embedding of the bordered surface (half of the real quartic $C_4$) into ${\Bbb C}^2$\]
M. Černe, [*Nonlinear Riemann-Hilbert problem for bordered Riemann surfaces*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 126 (2004), 65–87. 50 \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Černe, M. Flores, [*Generalized Ahlfors functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), 671–686. \[$\spadesuit$ a promising generalization of the Ahlfors function is given where the (static) unit-circle is replaced by a dynamical family $\{\gamma_z \}_{z\in \partial F}$ of Jordan curves enclosing the origin parametrized by the boundary of the bordered surface $F$\]
M. Černe, F. Forstnerič, [*Embedding some bordered Riemann surfaces in the affine plane*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 9 (2002), 683–696. \[$\spadesuit$ it is shown that there is no topological obstruction to embed membranes in ${\Bbb C}^2$ $\spadesuit$ this is a good starting toward the difficult conjecture about proper embedding of open Riemann surfaces in the same recipient\]
S. Chaudary, [*The Brill-Noether theorem for real algebraic curve*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis. Duke University, 1995. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
?. Chebotarev, [*?*]{}, ? , 1948. \[$\spadesuit$ a textbook on analytic functions and Riemann surfaces cited in Gudkov 1974/74 [@Gudkov_1974/74] for the intrinsic proof of Harnack’s inequality $\spadesuit$ this entry is possibly the source of some historical confusion crediting Hurwitz instead of Klein for this result (compare comments after Gudkov 1974/74 ) $\spadesuit$ Hurwitz extended to the case of singular curves, but modulo the normalization (desingularization) everything reduces to the smooth case\]
A.L. Cheponkus, [*On nests of real plane algebraic curves*]{}, Litovsk. Mat. Sb. 16 (1976), 239–243, 257; English transl., Lithuanian Math. J. 16 (1976), 634–637. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], cf. also a paper by Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988] for another proof $\spadesuit$ in fact Cheponkus’ proof turned out to be incorrect (cf. e.g. Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress p.68] and especially Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988] for a specific objection)\]
I.V. Cherednik, [*Reality condition in “finite-zone integration”*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 252 (1980), 1104–1108; English transl., Soviet Phys. Dokl. 25 (1980), 450–452. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Dubrovin 1983/85 [@Dubrovin_1983/85]\]
S.S. Chern, P. Hartman, A. Wintner, [*On isothermic coordinates*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 28 (1954), 301–309. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S.S. Chern, [*Complex Manifolds without Potential Theory*]{}, Second Edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979. \[$\spadesuit$\]
C. Chevalley, [*Introduction to the Theory of Algebraic Functions of One Variable*]{}, Math. Surveys 6, Amer. Math. Soc., New York, 1951, 188 pp. \[$\spadesuit$\]
Yu.S. Chislenko, [*Pencils of real algebraic curves*]{}, Leningrad Topology Conference, 1982, 28. \[$\spadesuit$ correct proof of a special case of Cheponkus’ theorem, namely through 13 points in general position in the real projective plane passes a connected quartic $\spadesuit$ for a generalization based upon Klein’s remark (1876), cf. Marin 1988 [@Marin_1988]\]
Yu.S. Chislenko, [*$M$-curves of degree $10$*]{}, Zap. Nauch. Sem. Leningrad 122 (1982), 142–161; English transl., 1984. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Christ, [*A $T(b)$ theorem with remarks on analytic capacity and the Cauchy integral*]{}, Colloq. Math 60/61 (1990), 1367–1381. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Christoffel, [*Ueber die Abbildung einer $n$-blättrigen einfach zusammenhängender ebenen Fläche auf einen Kreise*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1870), 359–369. \[$\spadesuit$ the so-called Schwarz-Christoffel formula effecting the (one-to-one) conformal representation of a polygon upon the disc $\spadesuit$ more precisely Schwarz 1869 [@Schwarz_1869-Ueber-einige-Abbildungsaufgaben] stated that the formula is easily generalized to the case of a multi-sheeted domain bounded by straight lines and containing branch points, and Christoffel considers here this generalization in some detail $\spadesuit$ \[07.10.12\] can we connect the Schwarz-Christoffel theory with that of the Ahlfors map? try perhaps Kühnau 1967 [@Kuehnau_1967]\]
Y.-B. Chung, [*The Ahlfors mapping function and an extremal problem in the plane*]{}, Houston J. Math. 263 (1993), 263–273. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
Y.-B. Chung, [*The Bergman kernel function and the Ahlfors mapping in the plane*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 42 (1993), 1339–1348. \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors mapping, Bergman kernel, etc.\]
Y.-B. Chung, [*Higher order extremal problem and proper holomorphic mapping*]{}, Houston Math. J. 27 (2001), 707–718. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors extremal problem (in the domain-case) with multiplicity (i.e. some first derivatives are imposed to be $0$ at some base-point $a$)\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$\[MR-OK\]
Y.-B. Chung, [*The Bergman kernel function and the Szegö kernel function*]{}, J. Korean Math. Soc. 43 (2006), 199–213. \[$\spadesuit$ the “Ahlfors map” of a smoothly bounded domain in the plane occurs several times through the paper\]
C. Ciliberto, C. Pedrini, [*Annibale Comessatti and real algebraic geometry*]{}, Rend. Cont. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) Suppl. 36 (1994), 71–102. \[$\spadesuit$\]
C. Ciliberto, C. Pedrini, [*Real abelian varieties and real algebraic curves*]{}. In: Lectures in Real Geometry, F. Broglia (ed.), de Gruyter Exp. in Math. 23 (1996), 167–256. \[$\spadesuit$ a modernized (neoclassical) account of the theories of Klein, Weichold and Comessatti\]
K. Clancey, [*Representing measures on multiply connected planar domains*]{}, Illinois J. Math. 35 (1991), 286–311. \[$\spadesuit$ what about Riemann surface? try Alpay-Vinnikov 200 [@Alpay-Vinnikov_2000], and also Nash 1974 [@Nash_1974]\]
A. Clebsch, [*Ueber die Anwendung der Abelschen Functionen in der Geometrie*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 63 (1863), 189–243. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Clebsch, [*Ueber diejenigen ebenen Curven, deren Coordinaten rationale Functionen eines Parameters sind*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 64 (1865), 43–65. \[$\spadesuit$ coins the nomenclature genus, conceptually put in the limelight by Riemann (plus maybe Abel in some algebraic disguise)\]
A. Clebsch, P. Gordan, [*Theorie der Abelschen Functionen*]{}, Teubner, Leipzig, 1866. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Clebsch, [*Zur Theorie der Riemann’schen Flächen*]{}, Math. Ann. 6 (1872), 216–230. 60 \[CHECK date for Ahlfors-Sario 1960, it is 1873?\]
C.H. Clemens, [*A Scrapbook of Complex Curve Theory*]{}, Plenum Press, New York, 1980, 186 pp. \[$\spadesuit$\]
W.K. Clifford, [*On the space-theory of matter*]{}, Cambridge Philos. Society’s Proc. 2 (1876), 157–158. \[$\spadesuit$\]
W.K. Clifford, [*On the canonical form and dissection of a Riemann’s surface*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. 8 (1877), 292–304. \[$\spadesuit$ not cited in Ahlfors-Sario 1960!\]
R. Coifman, G. Weiss, [*A kernel associated with certain multiply connected domains and its application to factorization theorems*]{}, Studia Math. 28 (1966), 31–68. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.31: “Our main result is a generalization of the classical factorization theorem for function in the Nevanlinna class of the unit disc.”\]
R.R. Coifman, A. McIntosh, Y. Meyer, [*L’opérateur de Cauch définit un opératuer borné sur $L^2$ pour les courbes lipschitziennes*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 116 (1982), 361–387. \[$\spadesuit$\]
Y. Colin de Verdière, A. Marin, [*Triangulations presques équilatérales des surfaces*]{}, J. Differential Geom. 32 (1990), 199–207. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Comessatti, [*Fondamenti per la geometria sopra le superficie razionali dal punto di vista reale*]{}, Math. Ann. 43 (1912), 1–72. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Comessatti, [*Sulla connessione delle superficie razionali reale*]{}, Math. Ann. ?? (1914), 215–283. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Comessatti, [*Sulle varietà abeliane reali, I, II*]{}, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 2 (1924), 67–106; (4) 4 (1926), 27–71.
H. Comessatti, [*Sulla connessione delle superficie algebriche reali*]{}, Verhandl. Internat. Math. Kongress Zürich, vol.2, p.129. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Comessatti, [*Reelle Fragen in der algebraischen Geometrie*]{}, Jahresb. d. Deutsch. Math. Verein. 41 (1932), 107–134. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Comessatti, [*Problemi di realtà per le superficie e varietà algebriche*]{}, Reale Accad. Ital. (Fondaz. A. Volta), Atti dei Convegni, vol.9 (1939), Rome 1943, 15–41. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Nikulin 1983/84\]
. Oxford University Press, London, 1931.
M. Coppens, [*One-dimensional linear systems of type II on smooth curves*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, Utrecht, 1983. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Coppens, G. Martens, [*Linear series on general $k$-gonal curves*]{}, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 69 (1999), 347–371. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Coppens, [*Totally non-real divisors in linear ssystems on smooth real curves*]{}, Adv. Geometry 8 (2008), 551–555. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Coppens, G. Martens, [*Linear pencils on real algebraic curves*]{}, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214 (2010), 841–849. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited in the following fashion (p.843): “Let $X$ be a real curve of genus $g$ with $s\ge 1$ real components and $g^1_d$ be a basepoint free pencil on $X$. Since $X({\Bbb R})\neq \varnothing$ the image curve $X'$ of the morphism $\varphi$ induced by the pencil is the rational real curve ${\Bbb P}^1_{\Bbb R}$. Assume that the fibre of $\varphi$ at every real point of $X'$ consists entirely of real points of $X$ (or, what is the same, that $\varphi$ separates conjugate points of $X_{\Bbb C}$: $\varphi(\sigma P)\neq
\varphi(P)$ for any non-real point $P\in X_{\Bbb C}$); we call such a $g^1_d$ [*totally real*]{}. Then $\varphi$ is a ramified covering of bordered real surfaces (in the topological sense, cf. \[7, part3\](=Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977])), and the induced covering $X({\Bbb R})\to X'({\Bbb R})\cong S^1$ is unramified. In particular, $s\le d$. Since $X'=({\Bbb P}^1_{\Bbb
C} {\rm\; mod\; conjugation})$, a half-sphere with boundary, is an orientable real surface it follows that also the Klein surface \[of\][^123] $X$ must be orientable which implies $s\not\equiv g
\mod 2$ (cf. \[7, part.2\](=Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977]))[^124]. Hence the assumed property that every divisor of $X$ in the $g^1_d$ is entirely made up by real points puts severe restrictions on $X$. So we cannot expect to find such a pencil on every real curve. More precisely, by a result of Ahlfors \[10\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) there is a totally real pencil of degree $g+1$ on $X$ iff the Klein surface $X$ is orientable thus giving an interesting algebraic characterization of a topological property.”\]
M. Coppens, J. Huisman, [*Pencils on real curves*]{}, arXiv (2011). \[$\clubsuit$\]
M. Coppens, [*The separating gonality of a separating real curve*]{}, arXiv (2011); or Monatsh. Math. 2012. \[$\clubsuit$ the spectacular result is proven that all intermediate gonalities compatible with Gabard’s bound ($\le r+p$) are realized by some compact bordered Riemann surface $\spadesuit$ the work is written in the language of real algebraic geometry, especially dividing (or separating) curve and is a tour de force involving several techniques: Kodaira-Spencer deformation theory, Meis’ bound and its phagocytose into modernized Brill-Noether theory, stable curves à la Deligne-Mumford (1969), geometric Riemann-Roch, Hilbert scheme, etc.\]
M. Coppens, [*Pencils on separating $(M-2)$-curves*]{}, arXiv (2012). \[$\clubsuit$\]
A.F. Costa, [*On anticonformal automorphisms of Riemann surfaces with nonembeddable square*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124 (1996), 601–605. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A.F. Costa, [*Embeddable anticonformal automorphisms of Riemann surfaces*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 72 (1997), 203–215. \[$\spadesuit$ outgrowth of the work by Garsia/Rüedy on conformal embeddings, in particular Prop.1.1. [*Let $f$ be an anticonformal involution of a Riemann surface $S$ then $f$ is embeddable iff either $S/f$ is orientable or $S/f$ is non-orientable without boundary.*]{} $\spadesuit$ Since the problem of conformal embeddings of Reimann surface as classical surface was first posed by Klein, it is easy to imagine how this result is a double Kleinian synthesis, which would have much pleased the “magister ludis”\]
A.F. Costa, M. Izquierdo, [*On the connectedness of the locus of real Riemann surfaces*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math. 27 (2002), 341–356. \[$\spadesuit$ a new proof is offered of a result due Buser-Seppälä-Silhol 1995 [@Buser-Seppala-Silhol_1995], stating the connectedness of the projection of the real moduli down to the complex one (upon forgetting the anti-holomorphic involution) $\spadesuit$ intuitively this means that any symmetric Riemann surface can be deformed so as to create a new symmetry and one can explore the full real moduli space (doing some jump when one switch the symmetry)\]
A.F. Costa, M. Izquierdo, [*On real trigonal Riemann surfaces* ]{}, Math. Scand. (2006). \[$\spadesuit$ A closed Riemann surface X which can be realized as a $3$-sheeted covering of the Riemann sphere is called trigonal, and such a covering will be called a trigonal morphism. A trigonal Riemann surface $X$ is called real trigonal if there is an anticonformal involution (symmetry) ...\]
R. Courant, [*Über die Anwendung des Dirichletschen Prinzipes auf die Probleme der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Math. Ann. 71 (1912), 141–183. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Diese Arbeit ist bis auf einige redaktionelle Änderungen ein Abdruck meiner Inauguraldissertation, Göttingen 1910.\]
R. Courant, [*Über eine Eigenschaft der Abbildungsfunktion\[en\] \[sic!?\] bei konformer Abbildung*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1914), 101–109. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ this work is regarded by Gaier 1978 [@Gaier_1978-JDMV p.43] (and probably many others) as the first apparition of the length-area principle, which will be largely exploited by Grötzsch (Flächenstreifenmethode) and Ahlfors-Beurling (extremal length), etc., and which in the long run should obviously constitutes one of the key to the resolution of the Gromov filling conjecture $\spadesuit$ uses also the area integral $\int \int \vert f'(z)\vert^2 dx dy$ like Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]\]
R. Courant, [*Über konforme Abbildung von Bereichen, welche nicht durch alle Rückkehrschnitte zerstückelt werden, auf schlichte Normalbereiche*]{}, Math. Z. 3 (1919), 114–122. 60
R. Courant, D. Hilbert, [*Methoden der mathematischen Physik. I*]{},Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1931. (Reedited 1968) \[$\spadesuit$ cited e.g. in Simha 1975 [@Simha_1975] for an explicit formula for Jacobi theta function, the latter being involved in an explicit description of the Ahlfors map and the Carathéodory metric\]
R. Courant, [*Plateau’s problem and Dirichlet’s principle*]{}, Ann. of Math. 38 (1937), 679–725.
R. Courant, [*Remarks on Plateau’s and Douglas’ problem*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 24 (1938), 519–522. \[$\clubsuit$ this is first place where the theorem of Bieberbach-Grunsky is reproved via Plateau, yet without citing them $\spadesuit$ a more detailed proof is given in the next entry (Courant 1939 [@Courant_1939])\]
R. Courant, [*Conformal mapping of multiply-connected domains*]{}, Duke Math. J. 5 (1939), 814–823. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem is re-proved à la Plateau; now Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] and Grunsky 1937 [@Grunsky_1937] are cited as well as Riemann (as an oral tradition)\]
R. Courant, [*The existence of minimal surfaces of given topological structure under prescribed boundary condition*]{}, Acta Math. 72 (1940), 51–98. \[$\spadesuit$ specializing to the case of ambient dimension 2 might perhaps reprove a theorem like the Ahlfors circle map $\spadesuit$ recall however that Tromba 1983 [@Tromba_1983-PREPRINT] seems to express doubts about the validity of Courant’s proof, compare also Jost 1985 [@Jost_1985]\]
R. Courant, M. Manel, M. Shiffman, [*A general theorem on conformal mapping of multiply connected domains*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 26 (1940), 503–507. 78 \[¶Result generalized in Schramm’s Thesis ca. 1990, cf. arXiv\]
R. Courant, [*The conformal mapping of Riemann surfaces not of genus zero*]{}, Univ. Nac. Tucumán Revista A. 2 (1941), 141–149. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ detected only the 13.06.2012, via Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960] $\spadesuit$ alas Gabard could not a find a copy of this article, and it seems unlikely that the article contains material not overlapping with previous and subsequent work by Courant, especially it is unlikely that the paper contains an existence of circle maps à la Ahlfors\] $\bigstar$
R. Courant, [*Dirichlet’s principle, Conformal Mapping, and Minimal Surfaces*]{}, with an appendix by M. Schiffer. Pure and appl. math. 3, New York, Interscience Publishers, 1950. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ overlap much with the previous ref., but somehow hard to read due to its large content and mutatis mutandis type proof, in particular it is not clear if p.183 contains another proof of the circle map of Ahlfors $\spadesuit$ p.169 contains a proof of the Kreisnormierung in finite connectivity\]
R. Courant, [*Flow patterns and conformal mapping of domains of higher topological structure*]{}. In: [*Construction and Applications of Conformal Maps*]{}, Proc. of a Sympos. held on June 22–25 1949, Applied Math. Series [*18*]{}, 1952, 7–14.
D. Crowdy, J. Marshall, [*Green’s functions for Laplace’s equation in multiply connected domains*]{}, IMA J. Appl. Math. (2007), 1–24. \[$\spadesuit$ p.13–14, contains beautiful pictures of the levels of the Green’s function on some circular domains\]
D. Crowdy, [*Conformal mappings from annuli to canonical doubly connected Bell representations*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 340 (2008), 669–674. \[$\spadesuit$ p.670, the Ahlfors map is briefly mentioned in connection with the work of Jeong-Oh-Taniguchi 2007 [@Jeong-Oh-Taniguchi_2007] on deciding when Bell’s doubly-connected domain $A(r)=\{
z\in{\Bbb C} : \vert z+z^{-1} \vert<r \}$ is conformally equivalent to the Kreisring $\Omega(\rho^2)=\{ \zeta \in {\Bbb
C}: \rho^2<\vert \zeta \vert <1 \}$\]
G. David, [*Unrectifiable $1$-sets have vanishing analytic capacity*]{}, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 14 (1998), 369–479. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ p.369: “[**Abstract.**]{} We complete the proof of a conjecture of Vitushkin that says that if $E$ is a compact set in the plane with finite $1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure, then $E$ has vanishing analytic capacity iff $E$ is purely unrectifiable (i.e., the intersection of $E$ with any curve of finite length has zero $1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure). \[…\]” $\spadesuit$ \[29.09.12\] this is quite close to a solution of Painlevé’s problem, but just not so due to the proviso $H^1(E)<\infty$, which cannot be relaxed for p.370: “Actually Vitushkin’s conjecture also said something about the case when $H^1(K)=+\infty$[^125], but this part turned out to be false (\[Ma1\]=(Mattila 1986 [@Mattila_1986]))”\]
G. David, [*Analytic capacity, Calderón-Zygmund operators, and rectifiability*]{}, Publ. Mat. 43 (1999), 3–25. 47 \[$\spadesuit$\]
A.M. Davie, [*Analytic capacity and approximation problems*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 171 (1972), 409–414. \[$\spadesuit$ a reduction is effected of the Denjoy conjecture (on removable sets lying on rectifiable curves) to the case where the supporting curve is $C^1$, giving one of the ingredient toward the ultimate solution of Denjoy’s conjecture (compare Marshall [@Marshall_1978?]), where the last piece of the puzzle is the contribution of Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977]\]
A.M. Davie, B. [Ø]{}ksendal, [*Analytic capacity and differentiability properties of finely harmonic functions*]{}, Acta Math. 140 (1982), 127–152. \[$\spadesuit$\]
P. Davis, H. Pollak, [*A theorem for kernel functions*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 2 (1951), 686–690. \[$\spadesuit$ parallel-slit mapping via Bergman kernel\] 78
B. Deconinck, M. van Hoeij, [*Computing Riemann matrices of algebraic curves*]{}, Physica D 152/153 (2001), 28–46. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
R. Dedekind, [*??*]{}, Abhandlungen der Königl. Gesellchaft der Wiss. zu Göttingen 13 (1868). \[$\spadesuit$ first published report of Riemann’s Habilitationsvortrag (1854 [@Riemann_1854-Habilitation/Ueber-die-Hypothesen]) analyzing primarily the mathematical side of Riemannian geometry $\spadesuit$ in particular the so-called Laplace-Beltrami operator ought to be discussed here; there is somewhere a commented version in French\]
R. Dedekind, H. Weber, [*Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen einer Veränderlichen*]{}, Crelles J. 92 (1879). \[$\spadesuit$ “arithmetized” account of algebraic function and the allied Riemann surfaces, cf. also in the same spirit Hensel-Landsberg 1902 [@Hensel-Landsberg_1902] and H. Weber 1908 [@Weber_1908]\]
A. Degtyarev, V. Kharlamov, [*Topological properties of real algebraic varieties: Rokhlin’s way*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 55 (2000) 129–212; English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 55 (2000), 735–814. \[$\spadesuit$ p.736: “Another fundamental result difficult to overestimate is Rokhlin’s formula for complex orientations. The notion of complex orientation of a dividing real curve (see below), as well as Rokhlin’s formula and its proof, seem incredibly transparent at first sight. The formula settles, for example, two of Hilbert’s conjectures on 11 ovals of plane sextics, which Hilbert himself tried to prove in a very sophisticated way and then included in his famous problem list (as the sixteenth problem).” $\spadesuit$ p.739: “Note that the topological properties of abstract, not embedded, real curves are simple and have been understood completely since Klein’s time; see for example, \[87\](=Natanzon 1990 [@Natanzon_1990/90]) and \[99\](=Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]).” $\spadesuit$ p.757: “According to Arnol’d, the following result is due to Maxwell.—[**3.2.1 Theorem**]{}. The orbit space ${\Bbb P}^2/{\rm
conj}$ is diffeomorphic to $S^4$.” $\spadesuit$ p.785: “[**4.6.8. Klein’s statement.**]{} If a real curve of type I undergoes a Morse surgery through a non-degenerate double point, then the number of connected components of this curve cannot increase. \[…\]” (For related literature see Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876]), Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], and Marin?, etc. $\spadesuit$ p.788: “[**Digression: real rational curves**]{}. As far as we know, the following problem is still open: is it possible to draw an irreducible real rational curve (or more precisely a connected component of it) of degree $q$ through any set of $3q-1$ real points in general position? In \[99\](=Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]) the question is answered in the affirmative; however, the proof has never been published; possibly it contained a gap. \[…\] The first non-trivial case (and the only case in which the complete answer is known) is $q=3$, namely through 8 generic points one can draw 12 rational cubics; depending on the arrangement of the points, the number of real cubics among them can be $8,10$ or $12$. (All three va,ues occur; the 12 rational cubics in a pencil are real iff the pencil contains 2 cubics with a solitary real double point.)”\]
K. de Leeuw, W. Rudin, [*Extreme points and extremum problems in $H_1$*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 8 (1958), 467–485. \[$\spadesuit$ gives a characterization of the extreme points of the unit ball of the disc-algebra $H^1(\Delta)$, an analogue of which for the same algebra attached to a finite bordered Riemann surface will be given in Gamelin-Voichick 1968 [@Gamelin-Voichick_1968] upon making use of the Ahlfors map or at least techniques closely allied to its existence-proof (as given by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950])\]
P. Deligne, D. Mumford, [*Irreducibility of the space of curves of given genus*]{}, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes. Études Sci. 36 (1969), 75–109. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Denjoy, [*???*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 14? (1907), 258–260. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ yet another Denjoy conjecture (not to be confounded with that of the next entry) on the number of asymptotic values of entire functions of finite order $\spadesuit$ formulated by Denjoy at age 21, it was solved by Ahlfors in 1928 (at age 21), 21 years after its formulation (arithmetical curiosity noticed by Denjoy)\]$\bigstar$
A. Denjoy, [*Sur les fonctions analytiques uniformes à singularités discontinues*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 149 (1909), 258–260. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ the following theorem is proved (or rather asserted since a gap was later located in proof) but Denjoy’s assertion turned out to be ultimately correct via Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977] and Marshall [@Marshall_1978?]: “a closed set of positive length lying on a rectifiable arc is unremovable in the class of bounded analytic functions” $\spadesuit$ this became the famous “Denjoy conjecture” $\spadesuit$ partial positive results on it where obtained by Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950] in the case where the supporting arc is a segment (for this case they credit Denjoy himself) and then they extend the result to an analytic curve via conformal mapping $\spadesuit$ Ivanov treated the case of curves slightly smoother than $C^1$ $\spadesuit$ Davie 1972 [@Davie_1972] proved that it sufficed to assume the curve $C^1$ (i.e. the rectifiable case of Denjoy can be reduced to the $C^1$ case) $\spadesuit$ then, Caderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977] proved that the Cauchy integral operator, for $C^1$ curves, is bounded on $L^p$, $1<p<\infty$ $\spadesuit$ at this stage, Marshall [@Marshall_1978?] put the “touche finale” by writing a note explaining how Calderón implies Denjoy via classical results of Garabedian, Havinson and finishing the proof with Davie’s reduction to the $C^1$-case, validating thereby Denjoy’s assertion announced ca. 7 decades earlier $\spadesuit$ Calderón himself was first not aware of the relevance of his work to Denjoy’s (as one learns e.g. from Verdera 2004 [@Verdera_2004 p.29]), but in the acceptance speech for the Bôcher price (see Calderón 1979 [@Calderon_1979]), Calderón mentions the solution to the Denjoy conjecture as one of the most significative application of his article (see also Calderón 1978 [@Calderon_1978-ICM], ICM lecture)\]$\bigstar$
H. Denneberg, [*Konforme Abbildung einer Klasse unendlich-vielfach zusammenhängender schlichter Bereiche auf Kreisbereiche*]{}, Ber. Verhd. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig 84 (1932), 331–352. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ a contribution to KNP\]$\bigstar$
J. Dieudonné, [*Cours de géométrie algébrique*]{}, Presses universitaires de France, Paris, 1974. \[$\spadesuit$ as mixture of Bourbakist pesanteur mixed with the usual charming touch of the gifted “God-given” writer\]
J. Diller, [*Green’s functions, electric networks, and the geometry of hyperbolic Riemann surfaces*]{}, Illinois J. Math. 45 (2001), 453–485. \[$\spadesuit$ p.456, Swiss cheese description of Hardt-Sullivan’s work (1989 [@Hardt-Sullivan_1989]) on the Green’s function for a bordered Riemann surface given as a branched cover of the unit-disc $\spadesuit$ so this Hardt-Sullivan work may possibly interact with the Ahlfors function\]
P.G. Lejeune Dirichlet, [*??*]{}, Crelle’s Journal 1829. \[$\spadesuit$ first convergence proof of the Fourier series toward the given (continuous) function\]
P.G. Le Jeune Dirichlet, [*Vorlesungen über die im umgekehrten Verhältniss des Quadrats der Entfernung wirkenden Kräfte*]{}, herausgegeben von Dr. F. Grube, Leipzig, 1876. \[$\spadesuit$ first version of DP available in print under (essentially) Dirichlet’s own pen, as Grube reproduced a Dirichlet Göttingen lecture (ca. 1856) $\spadesuit$ alas Dirichlet’s formulation was a bit ill-posed, as came very apparent through the example of Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871] (compare also Elstrodt-Ullrich 1999 [@Elstrodt-Ullrich_1999])\]$\bigstar$
S. Donaldson, [*Yang-Mills invariants of smooth four-manifolds*]{}, in: Geometry of low-dimensional manifolds, vol. 1, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990, 5–40. \[$\spadesuit$ contains some trick to transmute to holomorphic the antiholomorphic involution induce by Galois on a real quartic surface (or more general K3 surfaces=Kummer-Kähler-Kodaira in Weil’s designation)\]
S. Donaldson, [*Complex curves and surgery*]{}, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Ét. Sci. 1989, 91–97. \[$\spadesuit$ a discussion of Thom’s conjecture, p.91: “An entrancing problem in Geometric Topology, usually ascribed to R. Thom, asks whether $C$ minimises the genus among all $C^\infty$ representatives for the homology class.” p.92 Lee Rudolph (1984 [@Rudolph_1984]) counterexamples for “topologically locally flat” surfaces are mentioned $\spadesuit$ Kirby’s 1970 list [@Kirby_1970--95] of problems already contains (conjecturally) an extension of Thom to any complex projective surface\]
J. Douglas, [*Solution of the problem of Plateau*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 33 (1931), 263–321. \[$\spadesuit$ a new proof of RMT is given via Plateau, including the Osgood-Carathéodory refinement about the boundary behaviour of the Riemann map $\spadesuit$ reduces the mapping problem to that of minimizing a functional (named after Douglas by now)\]
J. Douglas, [*Some new results in the problem of Plateau*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 61 (1939), 590–608.
J. Douglas, [*Minimal surfaces of higher topological structure*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 40 (1939), 205–298. 78
J. Douglas, [*The most general form of the problem of Plateau*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 61 (1939), 590–608. 60
R.G. Douglas, W. Rudin, [*Approximation by inner functions*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 31 (1969), 313–320. \[p.314 the Ahlfors function (in the very trivial case of an annulus $D=\{z \colon r_1<\vert z\vert < r_2\}$) is involved in the proof of the following theorem: the set of all quotients of inner functions is norm-dense in the set of unimodular functions\]
B. Drinovec Drnovšek, [*Proper discs in Stein manifolds avoiding complete pluripolar sets*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 11 (2004), 575–581. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited\]
B. Drinovec Drnovšek, F. Forstnerič, [*Holomorphic curves in complex spaces*]{}, Duke Math. J. 139 (2007), 203–252. \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited in the bibliography, but apparently not within the text $\spadesuit$ yet the connection with Ahlfors is evident in view of the following extract of the review of the paper: “Since the early 1990’s a series of papers, motivated mainly by works J. Globevnik and of Forstnerič, has been devoted to constructing holomorphic discs $f\colon \Delta \to M$ in complex manifolds that are proper. The article under review offers a culmination of the subject, lowering as much as possible the convexity assumptions, working on complex spaces with singularities, and “properizing” not only discs, but general open Riemann surfaces whose boundary consists of a finite number of closed Jordan curve. \[…\]”\]
V.N. Dubinin, S.I. Kalmykov, [*A majoration principle for meromorphic functions*]{}, Sbornik Math. 198 (2007), 1737–1745. \[p.1740 a majoration principle is specialized to the Ahlfors function upon using the formula expressing the logarithm of the modulus of the Ahlfors function as a superposition of Green’s functions with poles at the zeros of the Ahlfors function\]
B.A. Dubrovin, I.M. Krichever, S.P. Novikov, [*The Schrödinger equation in a periodic field and Riemann surfaces*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 229 (1976), 15–18; English transl., ?? ? (197?), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Dubrovin 1983/85 where some connection with Klein’s orthosymmetry/separating type I is given\]
B.A. Dubrovin, S.M. Natanzon, [*Real two-zone solutions of the sine-Gordon equation*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 16 (1982),27–43; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 16 (1982), 21–33. \[cited in Vinnikov 1993 [@Vinnikov_1993] who claims a simplified proof\]
B.A. Dubrovin, [*Matrix finite-zone operators*]{}, (Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki) 23 (1983), 33–78; English transl., Contemporary problems in math. ? (1985), 20–50. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Vinnikov 1993 [@Vinnikov_1993 p.478] for a proof of the rigid-isotopy of any two smooth plane real curves having a deep nest (a result first established by Nuij 1968 [@Nuij_1968]) $\spadesuit$ p.48: “We shall now list themost important properties of real Riemann surfaces. A Riemann surface is called real if on it there is given an antiholomorphic involution \[…\] There are two possible cases: I) the union of real ovals decomposes $\Gamma$ into two components \[…\]; or II) the union of ovals does not decompose $\Gamma$. Surfaces of type I we call surfaces of separating type, while those of type II we call surfaces of nonseparating type.” $\spadesuit$ p.43: “The Riemann surface $\Gamma$ with antiinvolution $\tau$ belongs to \[the\] separating type. (the proof given on p.43–44 seems to use a sort of total reality?) $\spadesuit$ p.41: “separating type” $\spadesuit$ p.42: Fay 1973 [@Fay_1973] is cited, yet not clear to Gabard \[12.01.13\] if Dubrovin’s paper has any dep connection with Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] $\spadesuit$ p.43: Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] is cited for the simple fact that a plane curve with a deep nest is separating\]
B.A. Dubrovin, [*Theory of operators and real algebraic geometry*]{}, in: Global Analysis and Math. Physics, III, Voronezh State Univ., 1987; English transl., Lecture Notes in Math. 1334, 1988, 42–59. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
B.A. Dubrovin, S.M. Natanzon, [*Real theta-function solutions of the Kadomtsev-Petviashvili equation*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 52 (1988), 267–286; English transl., Math. USSR Izv. 32 (1989), 269–288. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
B.A. Dubrovin, S.P. Novikov, A.T. Fomenko, [*Modern Geometry: Methods and Applications*]{}, 3rd ed., Nauka, Moscow, 1986; English transl., Part I, II, III, Springer, 1984, 1985, 1990. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
C.J. Earle, A. Marden, [*On Poincaré series with application to $H^{p}$ spaces on bordered Riemann surfaces*]{}, Illinois J. Math. 13 (1969), 202–219. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Forelli 1979 [@Forelli_1979], where the automorphic uniformization is employed to construct the Poisson kernel of a finite bordered Riemann surface, which in turn is involved in a new derivation of Ahlfors circle maps of controlled degree $\le
r+2p$\]
C.J. Earle, A. Schatz, [*Teichmüller theory for surfaces with boundary*]{}, J. Differential Geom. 4 (1970), 169–185. \[$\spadesuit$\]
C.J. Earle, [*On the moduli of closed Riemann surfaces with symmetries*]{}, In: Advances in the Theory of Riemann Surfaces, Annals of Math. Studies 66, Princeton Univ. Press and Univ. of Tokyo Press, Princeton, N.J., 1971, 119–130. \[$\spadesuit$ modernized account of Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882] and Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939], cf. also related works by Natanzon and Seppälla 1978 [@Seppala_1978-Teich-spaces-of-Klein-surfaces] $\spadesuit$ [*Warning*]{}. According to Natanzon 1999 [@Natanzon_1999-Moduli-real-alg-surf.superanal-differ-spinors p.1101], Earle’s description of the topological structure of the components of the moduli space of real algebraic curves (as being each diffeomorphic to ${\Bbb R}^{3g-3}/ {\rm Mod}_{g,r,\varepsilon}$ for a suitable discrete modular group) while being correct, its proof (using the theory of quasiconformal maps) is not, since it relies on a Kravetz (1959 [@Kravetz_1959]) theorem “which turned out latter to be wrong”. Still according to Natanzon () “A correct proof based on the theory of quasiconformal maps was obtained in Seppälä 1978 [@Seppala_1978-Teich-spaces-of-Klein-surfaces].”\]
T. Ekedahl, S. Lando, M. Shapiro, A. Vainshtein, [*Hurwitz numbers and intersections on moduli spaces*]{}, Invent. Math. 146 (2001), 297–327. \[$\spadesuit$ a new derivation of Hurwitz’s count of the number of branched coverings of the sphere having prescribed ramification\]
A. El Soufi, S. Ilias, [*Le volume conforme et ses applications d’après Li et Yau*]{}, Sém. Théo. Spectrale Géom. (1983/84), 15pp. \[$\spadesuit$ exploits the optimum $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ gonality (Riemann-Brill-Noether-Meis) in the realm of spectral theory\]
J. Elstrodt, P. Ullrich, [*A real sheet of complex Riemannian function theory: a recently discovered sketch in Riemann’s own hand*]{}, Historia Math. 26 (1999), 268–288.
, edited by Kiyosi Itô, Vol. II, Second Edition, English transl. (1987) of the third (Japanese) edition (1968) \[sic!\]. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ on p.1367 the result of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is quoted as follows (with exact source omitted but given on the next page p.1368): “L. Ahlfors proved that a Riemann surface of genus $g$ bounded by $m$ contours can be mapped conformally to an at most $(2g+m)$-sheeted unbounded covering surface of the unit disk.”\]
F. Enriques, [*Sul gruppo di monodromia delle funzioni algebriche, appartenti ad una data superficie di Riemann*]{}, Rom. Acc. L. Rend. 13 (1904), 382–384. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ just quoted to ponder a bit the severe diagnostic to be found in the next entry (i.e. Ahlfors was of course by no mean ignorant about the Italian algebro-geometric community)\]
F. Enriques, O. Chisini, [*Lezioni sulla Teoria Geometrica delle Equazioni e delle Funzioni Algebriche*]{}, Zanichelli, Bologna, 1915–1918–1924. \[$\spadesuit$ appears to the writer as a clear-cut forerunner of both Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1915] and Wirtinger 1942 [@Wirtinger_1942], as argued in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006 p.949] (cf. also Huisman 2001 [@Huisman_2001] for a similar proof) $\spadesuit$ actually Enriques-Chisini give another derivation of Harnack’s bound (on the number of components of a real curve) via Riemann-Roch, but their argument supplies an immediate proof of the so-called [*Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem*]{} (cf. Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], Grunsky 1937 [@Grunsky_1937] and for instance A. Mori 1951 [@Mori_1951]), that is, the planar version of the Ahlfors map $\spadesuit$ as far as I know this little anticipation of Enriques-Chisini over Bieberbach-Grunsky has never been noticed (or admitted?) by the function-theory community (say Bieberbach, Grunsky, Wirtinger, Ahlfors, A. Mori, Tsuji, …) showing an obvious instance of lack of communication between the analytic and geometric communities\]
F. Enriques, [*Sulle curve canoniche di genere $p$ dello spazio a $p-1$ dimensioni*]{}, Rend. Accad. Sci. Ist. Bologna 23 (1919), 80–82. \[$\spadesuit$ so-called canonical curve termed “Normalkurve der $\varphi$” in Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet] and also studied by M. Noether\]
B. Epstein, [*Some inequalities relating to conformal mapping upon canonical slit-domains*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. ?? (1947), ??–??. \[$\spadesuit$\]
B. Epstein, [*The kernel function and conformal invariants*]{}, J. Math. Mech. 7 (1958). \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Gustafsson 2008\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
L. Euler, [*Instit. Calc. Integr. Petrop.*]{}, 1768–70, 2, 1169. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Petrowsky 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938] as one of the tool used in the proof of the Petrovskii’s inequalities via the so-called Euler-Jacobi interpolation formula (Kronecker also involved) concerning solutions of systems of algebraic equations and yielding a highbrow extensions to curves of higher orders of the results of Hilbert-Rohn for sextics\]
G. Faber, [*Neuer Beweis eines Koebe-Bieberbachschen Satzes über konforme Abbildung*]{}, Sitz.-Ber. math.-phys. Kl. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. (1916), 39–42. \[$\spadesuit$ related to the so-called area principle of Gronwall 1914/15 [@Gronwall_1914/15], Bieberbach 1916 [@Bieberbach_1916]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
G. Faber, [*Über den Hauptsatz aus der Theorie der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Sitz.-Ber. math.-phys. Kl. Bayer. Akad. Wiss. (1922), 91–100. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ must be another proof of RMT $\spadesuit$ regarded in Schiffer 1950 [@Schiffer_1950-Appendix-Courant p.313] as one of the originator of the method of [*extremal length*]{} (jointly with Grötzsch (1928) and Rengel 1932/33 [@Rengel_1932-33]), cf. also the introductory remarks of Bieberbach 1957 [@Bieberbach_1957] $\spadesuit$ maybe another origin is Courant 1914 [@Courant_1914] (at least for the length-area principle), cf. e.g. Gaier 1978 [@Gaier_1978-JDMV]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
G. Faltings, [*Endlichkeitssätze für abel’sche Varietäten über Zahlkörpern*]{}, Invent. Math. 73 (1983), 349–366. \[$\spadesuit$ proof of the so-called Mordell conjecture that a curve defined over ${\Bbb Q}$ (or a more general number field, i.e. a finite extension of ${\Bbb Q}$) has only finitely many rational points provided the genus $g$ of the underlying complex curve has genus $g\ge 2$ $\spadesuit$ it would we interesting to detect if the finer Kleinian invariants allied to real curves also have some similar arithmetical repercussion (to my knowledge nothing is known along this way, even at the conjectural level)\]
G. Faltings, [*Real projective structures on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Compos. Math. 48 (1983), 223–269. \[$\spadesuit$ p.231: “Any Riemann surface may be considered as an algebraic curve defined over ${\Bbb C}$. Sometimes this algebraic variety is already definable over the real numbers. This happens precisely if there exist an antiholomorphic involution on the surface, and these involutions correspond bijectively to the different real models of the curve.—The basic example here is the double of a Riemann surface with boundary, which has a canonical real structure. The real points of this real curve are the fixed-points of the involution, hence the points in the boundary of our original Riemann surface.—Not every real curve is of this form, since for example there exist curves $X$ over ${\Bbb R}$ for which $X({\Bbb
C})-X({\Bbb R})$ is connected. ($X({\Bbb C})$, $X({\Bbb R})$ denote the ${\Bbb C}$-respectively ${\Bbb R}$-valued points of a real algebraic curve $X$.) We shall see that all counterexample are of this form.” (Okay but all this is of course trivial since Felix Klein.) $\spadesuit$ \[20.12.12\] an evident “Jugendtraum” of mine (and probably of many others, Gross, Faltings, etc.?) since ca. 1999/2000 is whether the finer topological invariants of Klein of a real curve (as opposed to the sole Riemannian genus fixing the topology of the underlying complex curve) have any arithmetical repercussion, à la Mordell-Faltings, namely finiteness of the rational points $C({\Bbb Q})$ whenever the genus $g\ge 2$. To my knowledge not a single result of the sort is known and it is quite hard to speculate about any such topologico-arithmetical connection. Crudely speaking the implication could be of the format if the curve is dividing then the cardinality of $C({\Bbb Q})$ is even, but this is surely wrong\]
H.M. Farkas, I. Kra, [*Riemann surfaces*]{}, Second Edition, Grad. Texts in Math. 71, Springer, 1992. (1st edition published in 1980)
P. Fatou, [*Séries trigonométriques et séries de Taylor*]{}, Acta Math. 30 (1906), 335–400. \[$\spadesuit$ influenced by Lebesgue, and will in turn influence F. Riesz (so called Fischer-Riesz theorem)\]
J. Fay, [*Theta functions on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 352, Springer, 1973. 47, 50 \[$\spadesuit$ cite Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] and write down explicit formulas for the Ahlfors function (at least in the planar case) in terms of theta-functions $\spadesuit$ gives perhaps another proof of Ahlfors 1950 (cf. Alpay-Vinnikov 2000 [@Alpay-Vinnikov_2000]) but this hope is probably not borne out (Fay probably only recovers the Ahlfors circle map in the planar case) $\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited thrice in this booklet $\spadesuit$ on p.108 (just for the double) $\spadesuit$ on p.116: “It has been proved in \[3, p.126\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) that there are always unitary functions with exactly $g+1$ zeroes [*all*]{} in $R$; and when $R$ is a planar domain, it is shown in Prop.6.16 that $S_{0,\dots,0}\cap \Sigma_a$ is empty for $a\in R$ and that the unitary functions holomorphic on $R$ with $g+1$ zeroes are parametrized by the torus $S_0$.” \[Added by Gabard \[10.09.12\]: of course one can wonder how much of this is anticipated in Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]\] $\spadesuit$ p.129: “Using this result, a solution can be given to an extremal problem for bounded analytic functions as formulated in \[3, p.123\](=Ahlfors 1950):” where the Ahlfors function is expressed in terms of the theta function and the prime form, yet it should be noted that unfortunately at some stage Fay’s exposition is confined to the case of planar domains $\spadesuit$ somewhat earlier in the text (in a portion not yet confined to the planar case) we read on p.114: “The spaces $S_{\mu}$ parametrize the generic unitary functions on $C$ with the minimal $(g+1)$ number of zeroes:”, maybe this claim of minimality is erroneous as it could be incompatible with Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], and even if the latter is incorrect there is basic experimental evidence violating this minimality claim on the bound $g+1$, compare our remarks after Alpay-Vinnikov 2000 [@Alpay-Vinnikov_2000]\]
S.I. Fedorov, [*Harmonic analysis in a multiply connected domain, I*]{}, Math. USSR Sb. 70 (1991), 263–296. \[$\spadesuit$ credited by Alpay-Vinnikov 2000 [@Alpay-Vinnikov_2000 p.240] (and also Yakubovich 2006 [@Yakubovich_2006]) for another existence-proof of the Ahlfors map (at least for planar domains), cf. p.271–275 $\spadesuit$ on p.272 it is remarked that one cannot prescribe arbitrarily the $n$ zeroes of a circle-map on an $n$-connected domain of minimum degree $n$ as follows: “Unfortunately we cannot prescribe $n$ points on $\Omega_{+}$ arbitrarily in such a way that their union will be the set of zeros of an $n$-sheeted inner function $\theta$ of the form (3), since the zeros of an $n$-sheeted function $\theta$ must satisfy the rather opaque condition $\sum_{k=1}^n
\omega_s(z_k), \; s=1, \dots, n-1,$ where $\omega_s$ is the harmonic measure of the boundary component $\Gamma_s$.” $\spadesuit$ \[26.09.12\] it seems to the writer (Gabard) that this condition already occurs (at least) in A. Mori 1951 [@Mori_1951] $\clubsuit$ it would be interesting to analyze carefully Fedorov’s argument (or Mori’s) to see if it can be extended to the positive genus case (this is perhaps already done in Mitzumoto 1960 [@Mizumoto_1960]) $\spadesuit$ p.272 desideratum of a constructive procedure for building all $n$-sheeted inner functions on an $n$-connected domain, which is answered on p.274 via “Theorem 1. Let $z_1, \dots, z_n$ be arbitrary points with $z_k\in \Gamma_k$, $k=1,\dots, n$. Then there exist positive numbers $\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_n$ such that the function $w=\int_{z_\Gamma}^z \sum_{j=1}^n \lambda_j \nu_{z_j}$, $z_\Gamma\in \Gamma$, $z_\Gamma\neq z_j$, $j=1,\dots,n$, is a single-valued $n$-sheeted function on $\hat \Omega$, real-valued on $\Gamma$, with positive imaginary part on $\Omega_+$. The function $\theta=\frac{w-i}{w+i}$ is an $n$-sheeted inner function.” $\spadesuit$ of course in substance (or essence) this is nothing but what Japaneses calls the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (cf. Mori 1951 [@Mori_1951] or Tsuji 1956 [@Tsuji_1956])\]
J.L. Fernandez, [*On the existence of Green’s function in Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 96 (1986), 284–286. \[$\spadesuit$\]
$\bigstar$ Fiedler, student of Rohlin, ca. 1978.
T. Fiedler, [*Eine Beschränkung für die Lage von reellen ebenen algebraischen Kurven*]{}, Beiträge Algebra Geom. 11 (1981), 7–19. \[$\spadesuit$ the eminent DDR student of Rohlin, who seems to have been the first to notice the simple fact that orientation-preserving smoothings conserve the dividing character of curves, compare also Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] where the contribution of Fiedler is already mentioned\]
T. Fiedler, [*Geraden Büschel und die Topologie der reellen algebraischen Kurven*]{}, Dissertation, 1981. \[$\spadesuit$ (in part) reproduced in the next entry Fiedler 1982/83 [@Fiedler_1982/83-Pencil]\]
T. Fiedler, [*Pencils of lines and the topology of real algebraic curves*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 46 (1982), 853–863; English transl., Math. USSR Izv. 21 (1983), 161–170. \[$\spadesuit$ p.161 (Abstract): “\[…\] a new invariant of the strict isotopy type of the curve is given, which in particular distinguishes some seventh degree $M$-curves with the same complex scheme.”\]
T. Fiedler, [*New congruences in the topology of real plane algebraic curves*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 270 (1983), 56–58; English transl., Sov. Math. Dokl. 27 (1983), 566–568. \[$\spadesuit$\]
T. Fiedler, [*New congruences in the topology of singular real plane algebraic curves*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 286 (1986), 1075–1079; English transl., Sov. Math. Dokl. 33 (1986), 262–266. \[$\spadesuit$\]
T. Fiedler, [*Additional inequalities in the topology of real plane algebraic curves*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. ?? (1986), ?–?; English transl., Math. USSR Izv. 27 (1986), 183–191. \[$\spadesuit$\]
T. Fiedler, [*Real points on complex plane curves*]{}, Math. Ann. 284 (1989), 267–284. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S. Fiedler-Le Touzé, [*Orientations complexes des courbes algébriques réelles*]{}, Thèse doctorale 2000. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in the entry Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]\]
S. Fiedler-Le Touzé, [*Cubics as tools to study the topology of $M$-curves of degree $9$ in ${\Bbb R}P^2$*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 66 (2002), 86–100. \[$\spadesuit$ p. dividing curves\]
S. Fiedler-Le Touzé, [*Pencils of cubics with eight base points lying in convex position in $\RR P^2$*]{}, arXiv, v2, 53 pages, Sept. 2012. \[$\spadesuit$ contains foundations required in the next entry Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics]\]
S. Fiedler-Le Touzé, [*Totally real pencils of cubics with respect to sextics*]{}, a marvellous preprint received the 1 March 2013 (v.1), and a second version (v.2) the 3 March 2013 (where the basepoints are assigned on the ovals instead of in their insides like in v.1). Final version on arXiv 18–19 March 2013. \[$\spadesuit$ a seminal work containing proofs of Rohlin’s 1978 (unproven) total reality assertion for certain $(M-2)$-sextics totally swept out by suitable pencil of cubics $\spadesuit$ this is the first non-trivial (i.e. not involving pencil of lines or conics) extrinsic manifestation of Ahlfors theorem $\spadesuit$ another but much more modest phenomenon of total reality occurs for $M$-curves (as slowly discovered by Gabard, cf. Theorem \[total-reality-of-plane-M-curves:thm\]) but this is merely at the level of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem, i.e. the genus zero case of Ahlfors theorem $\spadesuit$ \[20.03.13\] as brilliantly explained in the paper in question (p.3), Le Touzé proves actually a slightly weaker statement that Rohlin’s original claim, namely the dividing character is not deduced a priori from total reality (as Rohlin claimed being able to do), but rather the dividing character is taken as granted via the Rohlin-Kharlamov-Marin congruence while total reality of the pencil of cubics is built upon this preliminary knowledge. Hence it could still be of some interest to reconstruct a proof [*purely a priori*]{} assuming of course that there is a such. This looks quite likely, yet apparently quite elusive to implement.\]
S.M. Finashin, [*The topology of the complement of a real algebraic curve in ${\Bbb C}P^2$*]{}, Zap. Nauch. Sem. LOMI 122 (1982), 137–145; English transl., J. Soviet Math. 26 (1984), 1684–1689. \[$\spadesuit$ briefly discussed in Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress]\]
S.M. Finashin, [*Differential topology of quotients of complex surfaces by complex conjugation*]{}, Zap. Nauch. Sem 231 (1995), 215–221; English transl., J. Math. Sciences 91 (1998), 3472–3475. \[$\spadesuit$ p.3472: “A well-known example is $X={\Bbb C} P^2$, for which \[the quotient by conj is\] $Y \cong
S^4$. According to V.A. Rohlin, the last equality was quite widely known in the mathematical folklore, in any case to those who reflected on the four-dimensional Poincaré conjecture, for example, to Pontryagin. However, the author knows no mention of this account before Arnold’s paper \[2\](=1971 [@Arnold_1971/72]) and no published proofs before the papers of Kuiper \[9\](=1974) and Massey \[10\](=1973).” $\spadesuit$ according to some subsequent publication by Arnold, the result goes back to Maxwell!\]
S.M. Finashin, [*Rokhlin conjecture and quotients of complex surfaces by complex conjugation*]{}, J. reine angew. Math. 481 (1996), 55–71. \[$\spadesuit$ p.68: some remarks on sextics, e.g. Fig.10 gives the $(M-1)$-scheme $10$ via a perturbation of a line arrangement $\spadesuit$ p.68: “It is well known and not difficult to see directly from the Hilbert and Gudkov constructions of nonsingular real sextics (cf. \[V\](=Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress])), that the ones with schemes $\langle \alpha \sqcup 1 \langle \beta \rangle$ can be deformed to the both schemes \[having resp. one less outer oval or inner oval\] by passing through a cross-like real node which connects the ambient oval with an exterior oval resp. with an interior one. The only exceptio is the scheme $\langle 9 \sqcup 1 \langle 1 \rangle$ \[ of Harnack\] which can be reduced to $\langle 10 \rangle$ only by contracting the inner oval.”\]
S.M. Finashin, [*On the topology of real plane algebraic curves with nondegenerate quadratic singularities*]{}, Algebra i Analiz 8 (1996), 186–204; English transl., St. Petersburg Math. J. 8 (1997), 1039–1051. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A.E. Fischer, A.J. Tromba, [*On a purely “Riemannian” proof of the structure and dimension of the unramified moduli space of a compact Riemann surface*]{}, Math. Ann. (1983). \[$\spadesuit$ ... Ahlfors \[2\]. The space of extremal quasi-conformal maps between two Riemann surfaces (the so-called Teichmüller space) is in fact a ramified covering of the space of conformal classes of Riemann surfaces of prescribed genus (the real moduli space). In \[4\] Ahlfors shows that ...\]
S.D. Fisher, [*Exposed points in spaces of bounded analytic functions*]{}, Duke Math. J. 36 (1969), 479–484. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ cite Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] and the following result is obtained: the exposed points of the algebras $A(\overline R)$ (resp. $H^{\infty}(R)$) are uniformly dense in the unit sphere of the respective space\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
S.D. Fisher, [*Another theorem on convex combination of unimodular functions*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. ?? (1969), 1037–1039. \[$\spadesuit$ finite Riemann surfaces, inner functions and it is proved that the closed convex-hull of the inner functions is the unit ball (for the sup norm) of the algebra $A(R)$ of analytic functions continuous up to the border $\spadesuit$ this is proved via an interpolation lemma due to Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], which is closely allied to the Ahlfors function (plus maybe some Garabedian) $\spadesuit$ this is stated as: “Lemma 1: Let $z_1,\dots,z_N$ be distinct points of $R$ (=a finite Riemann surface) and let $h$ be an analytic function on $R$ bounded by $1$. Then there is an inner function $f$ (i.e. of modulus one on the boundary $\partial R$) in $A(R)$ with $f(z_j)=h(z_j)$, $j=1,\dots,
N$.” $\spadesuit$ one can take $h\equiv 1$ then $f$ looks strange for it maps inner points to the boundary point 1, yet still $f=1$ works $\spadesuit$ the question is of course whether this reproves Ahlfors 1950, but this looks unlikely especially as no control is supplied on the degree, but see Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], which suitably modified should recover Ahlfors result by controlling appropriately the bound involved\]
S.D. Fisher, [*On Schwarz’s lemma and inner functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 138 (1969), 229–240. 47, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ after Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64] and Carleson 1967 [@Carleson_1967-book], study the Ahlfors map for domains of infinite connectivity $\spadesuit$ subsequent ramifications in Röding 1977 [@Roeding_1977_Ahlfors], Minda 1981 [@Minda_1981-image-Ahlfors-fct], Yamada 1983–92 [@Yamada_1983-rmk-image-Ahlfors-fct; @Yamada_1992-Ahlfors-fct-on-Denjoy]\]
S.D. Fisher, [*The moduli of extremal functions*]{}, Michigan Math. J. 19 (1972), 179–183. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors function of a domain (supporting nonconstant bounded analytic functions) is shown to be of unit modulus on the Šilov boundary of $H^{\infty}$\]
S.D. Fisher, [*Non-linear extremal problems in $H^{\infty}$*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 22 (1973), 1183–1190. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ p.1183/7 speaks of the “Ahlfors-Royden extremal problem” $\spadesuit$ the author explains that in Ahlfors extremal problem the class of competing functions is convex, explaining uniqueness of the soution and studies a variant of the problem with a side-condition amounting to require “no other zeros” which leads to a non-convex problem lacking uniqueness $\spadesuit$ p.1187/88, grasp of the geometric quintessence of Ahlfors’ argument: “By a theorem of Ahlfors \[A1; §4.2\] there is a set of $r+1$ points $p_j$ in $\Gamma$ such that if $v_i$ is the period vector of a unit mass at $p_j$, then $v_0,\dots, v_r$ form the vertices of a simplex in ${\Bbb R}^{r}$ which contains the origin as an interior point.”\]
S.D. Fisher, [*Function theory on planar domains*]{}. A second course in complex analysis. Pure and Applied Mathematics (New York). A Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1983.
S.D. Fisher, D. Khavinson, [*Extreme Pick-Nevanlinna interpolants*]{}, Canad. J. Math. 51 (1999), 977–995. \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors function (in the domain case only), its connection with Blaschke products and the Green’s functions, Pick bodies (jargon of Cole, Lewis, Wermer) and interpolation\]
H. Florack, [*Reguläre und meromorphe Funktionen auf nicht geschlossenen Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Schr. Math. Inst. Univ. Münster no. 1 (1948), 34pp. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ cited also in Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] (yet not within the text?) and briefly summarized in a ICM talk ca. 1954 of Behnke\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
F. Forelli, [*Bounded holomorphic functions and projections*]{}, Illinois J. Math. 10 (1966), 367–380. \[$\spadesuit$ the universal covering method is employed to derive another proof of the corona theorem for interiors of compact bordered Riemann surfaces, relativizing thereby the ubiquitousness of the Ahlfors function given in Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964] $\spadesuit$ Forelli’s proof uses the following tools: $\bullet$ (p.368) “measure and Hilbert space theory, and the harmonic analysis that goes with the Hilbert space $H^2$” $\bullet$ (p.373,374) existence of analytic differentials with prescribed periods on the Schottky double (via Pfluger 1957 [@Pfluger_1957]) $\bullet$ Beurling’s invariant subspace theorem (p.366), but this can be dispensed in the compact bordered case by appealing to a holomorphic function continuous up to the border “whose zeros are the critical point of the Green’s function with pole at $t(0)$” (p.377)\]
F. Forelli, [*Extreme points in $H^1(R)$*]{}, Canad. J. Math. 19 (1967), 312–320. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
F. Forelli, [*The extreme points of some classes of holomorphic functions*]{}, Duke Math. J. 46 (1979), 763–772. \[$\spadesuit$ study of the extreme points of the family of analytic functions with positive real part on a given finite Riemann surface normalized to take the value $1$ at a given point $\spadesuit$ the paper Heins 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF] supplements the results of Forelli by precise characterizing results for the case where the genus of $S$ is positive $\clubsuit$ \[11.10.12\] in fact this Forelli paper is a jewel (that I was only able to read today=\[11.10.12\], shame on me!) $\clubsuit$ despite presenting itself too humbly as a modest appendix to Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], its main result (Theorem 3.2, p.766) gives the chain of inclusions $N_q(W,
\zeta)\subset
\partial N(W, \zeta) \subset
\bigcup_{q}^{2p+q} N_k(W, \zeta)$, which readily implies a new proof of circle maps of degree $\le 2p+q$ (like Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). To understand this point, first recall Forelli’s notation: $\overline{W}$ is a compact bordered Riemann surface of genus $p$ with $q$ contours, $W$ is of course its interior; $N(W, \zeta)$ is the class of holomorphic functions $f$ on $W$ with positive[^126] real part (${\rm Re} f>0$) normalized by $f(\zeta)=1$ at some fixed $\zeta \in W$ (it is easily verified that $N(W, \zeta)$ is convex and compact in the compact-open topology) \[notion due to Arens/Fox, if I remember well???\]; the symbol $\partial$ used above refers [*not*]{} to the boundary but to the set of all extreme points of a convex body, i.e. those points of the body not expressible as convex (=barycentric) combination $t x + (1-t)y$ ($t\in
[0,1]$) of two (distinct) points $x,y$ of the body. This is also the smallest subset of the body permitting its complete reconstruction via the convex-hull operation; finally $N_k(W,
\zeta)$, for $k>0$ a positive integer, is the subclass of $N(W,\zeta)$ consisting of functions that cover the right half-plane $k$ times. $\clubsuit$ having explained notation, it is plain to deduce Ahlfors’ result. Indeed from the cited properties of convexity and compactness for $N(W,\zeta)$ one deduces (via Krein-Milman) existence of extreme points, i.e. $\partial N(W,\zeta)\neq \varnothing$ (this issue is not explicit in Forelli’s paper, but so evident that it is tacit, cf. e.g., Heins’ commentary in 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-Pick-Nevanlinna p.758]: “My paper \[7\](=Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950]) showed the existence of minimal positive harmonic functions on Riemann surfaces using elementary standard normal family results without the intervention of the Krein-Milman theorem[^127] and gave applications to qualitative aspects of Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation on Riemann surfaces with finite topological characteristics and nonpointlike boundary components.” $\clubsuit$ Now Forelli’s second inclusion implies immediately the desideratum (existence of circle maps of degree $d$ such that $q\le d\le
2p+q$) $\spadesuit$ note of course that the first set of the string, that is $N_q(W, \zeta)$, can frequently be empty. Consider e.g. $\overline W$ be one-half of [*Klein’s Gürtelkurve*]{}[^128], that is any real plane smooth quartic, $C_4 \subset
{\Bbb P}^2$, with two nested ovals, then $q=2$ but quartics and more generally smooth plane curves of order $m$ are known to be $(m-1)$-gonal). For an even simpler example, consider any bordered surface $W$ with only one contour ($q=1$) and of positive genus $p>0$, then there cannot be a circle-map of degree $d=q=1$ for a such would be an isomorphism (by the evident branched covering features of analytic maps), violating the topological complexity prompted by $p>0$ $\spadesuit$ several questions arise naturally form Forelli’s work. A first one is the perpetual question about knowing if the method can recover the sharper bound $p+q$ ($\approx r+p$) of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]. (Here and below $\approx $ refers to notational conversion from Forelli’s notation to the one used in the present paper). Again it is our belief that the ultimate convex geometry reduction of the problem (already explicit in Ahlfors) could be slightly improved so as to do this (compare below for more details). Another problem is to understand the distribution of degrees corresponding to extreme points of Forelli’s convex body $\partial N(W, \zeta)$ (maybe call it the Carathéodory-Heins-Forelli body to reflect better the historical roots of the technique, brilliantly discussed in Heins 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-Pick-Nevanlinna]). For instance is the least degree half-plane map (equivalently circle map) always an extreme point, as the nebulous principle of economy ($\approx$ least effort) could suggest? (Nature always tries to relax itself along an equilibrium position necessitating the minimum existential stress-tensor!??) Finally one would like to see the connection between Ahlfors extremals and the extreme points of Heins-Forelli. Of course there is a little tormenting routine to switch from the one to the others via a Möbius-Cayley transformation from the disc to the half-plane. Yet loosely it seems that Ahlfors functions are a subclass of the extreme points, for they former depend on less parameters. For instance as noted by Forelli in the special planar case $p=0$, the above chain of inclusions collapses to give the clear-cut equation $\partial N(W,
\zeta)=N_q(W,\zeta)$ characterizing the set of extreme points in, essentially, purely topological terms. Yet the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], or A. Mori [@Mori_1951]) tell us that circle maps are in this case ($p=0$) fairly flexible insofar that we can preassign one point on each contour and find a circle map (of degree $q$) taking those points over the same boundary point[^129]. Hence for large values of $q$ such minimal degree circle maps depends on essentially $q$ real parameters, whereas for Ahlfors maps we can only specify the basepoint undergoing maximum distortion (hence just 2 real free parameters). $\clubsuit$ Finally some words about Forelli’s method of proof: It uses some “functional analysis” in the form of measure theory. Specifically Radon measures are mentioned, and a proposition permitting to express extreme points of a body $B$ specified by $n$ linear integral conditions as combination of $(n+1)$ extreme probability measures (cf. Prop.2.1 for the exact statement identified as dating back to Rosenbloom 1952 [@Rosenbloom_1952], \[but in geometric substance a similar lemma is already employed in Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], as well as in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950])\]. This is then specialized to the case where the space $X$ is the boundary of the bordered surface $\partial W$[^130], and the $n$ conditions amounts essentially to ask the vanishing of the periods along representatives of a homology basis of $\overline W$, consisting of $n:=2p+(r-1)$ cycles. The crucial potential theory is done via the Poisson integral inducing a bijective map $\#\colon P(\partial W) \to
h_+(W, \zeta)$ between probability measures on the boundary and positive harmonic functions normalized by taking $\zeta$ to $1$. It is defined by $\mu^{\#}(w)=\int_{\partial W} Q(w,y)
d\mu (y)$, where $Q(w,y)$ is the Poisson kernel of $W$ ($w\in
W, y\in
\partial W$). Now to find and describe (extreme) half-plane maps in $\partial N(W, \zeta)$, we are reduced via the above correspondence to a special set $B$ of measure verifying $n$ integral equations. On applying (Rosenbloom’s) proposition, the measure $\mu$ defined by $\mu^{\#}={\rm Re} f$ where $f\in
N(W, \zeta)$ is decomposed as a convex sum (i.e. with positive coefficient $t_k$) of Dirac measures $\mu=\sum_1^m t_k
\delta_k$ concentrated at some boundary points $y_k\in
\partial W$, where $m\le n+1$. It follows by calculation (Poisson+Dirac’s trick) that ${\rm Re}
f(z)=\sum_1^m t_k Q(w, y_k)$ (because integrating a function against the Dirac measure concentrated at some point just amounts evaluating the function at that point). Of course notice at this stage that the Poisson function $Q(w,y)$ is nothing else than the Green function with pole pushed to the boundary (so the object that we manipulated during our attempt to decipher Ahlfors’ proof). At this stage the proof is essentially finished. $\spadesuit$ as a matter of details Forelli further discuss the construction of the Poisson kernel taking inspiration from techniques of Earle-Marden 1969 [@Earle-Marden_1969-On-Poincare], using primarily the uniformization of Poincaré-Koebe. To sum up Forelli’s is able to reprove existence of circle maps but needs uniformization, admittedly in a simple finitistic context. Of course Ahlfors proof seems to avoid this dependance, which is anyway perhaps not so dramatic. $\spadesuit$ The latter issue should of course not detract us from the geometrical main aspect of the proof. First Forelli’s proof uses heavily a little yoga between measures and harmonic functions converting the one to the others via the Poisson integral. This technique involves so Poisson, then Stieltjes and finally the so-called Herglotz-Riesz (1911 [@Herglotz_1911-U-Potenzreihen]) (representation) theorem, a special incarnation of Fischer-Riesz (1907). Of course the yoga in question boils down to the Dirichlet principle when the measure has continuous density so that Herglotz-Riesz is just the Dirichlet problem enhanced by Lebesgue integration. Of course all this is beautiful, yet probably not fully intrinsic to the problematic of half-plane (or the allied circle) maps, which can probably be arrived upon via more classical integration theories (and in particular the classical Dirichlet problem, plus the allied potential functions, Green’s, Poisson’s or whatever you like to call them). I personally used the term Red’s function (somewhere in this text) as colorful contrast to evergreens tree, honoring George Green, but of course Poisson’s function might be historically more accurate. (After all, human beings descend from fishes rather than vegetables, and Green himself quotes of course Poisson, and Dirichlet was a Poisson student). $\clubsuit$ but now the key issue would be to penetrate even deeper in the geometry of Forelli’s proof. Again the hearth of the problem is the possibility of expressing a certain point as convex combination of [*at most*]{} $(n+1)$ points; in Forelli’s treatment cf. Prop.2.1, where however the “at most” proviso is not explicit but implicitly used later in the proof of Theorem 3.2. Like in our attempt to push Ahlfors proof down to recover Gabard’s bound, we believe that a better inspection of this convex geometry could corroborate the possibility of locating half-plane maps of lower degree. The situation we have in mind is the following (to which we were reduced by reading carefully Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]): suppose we are given in ${\Bbb R}^(n\approx g)$ a collection of $q\approx r$ curves forming a balanced configuration (all $\approx$ signs just amounts to conversion from Forelli’s notation to the one used in the present text), in the sense that the convex hull encloses the origin, then it is of course possible to express the origin as convex sum of $\le
n+1\approx g+1$ point (recovering thereby Ahlfors’ result). However it must be also possible to be more economical by using a more special, lower-dimensional simplex, able to cover the origin with a smaller quantity of points. We hope that this is a problem of pure (Euclid/convex/Minkowski) geometry (perhaps involving some topological tricks like in the Borsuk-Ulam (ham-sandwich) theorem, which can concomitantly be proved via more simple center of masses considerations, cf. e.g. Fulton’s book on “topology”). Alas I can only try to convince the reader by looking at the (very special) case where $n\approx g=2$ coming (via $g=2p+(r-1)$) from the values $p=1, r=1$. Then we have one balanced circle in the plane ${\Bbb R}^2$. If we follow Ahlfors, we just have the plain remark that there is $g+1=r+2p=1+2\cdot 1=3$ points spanning a simplex covering the origin (which is trivial for dimensional reason), however it is evident that a more special and lucky constellation (Stonehenge alinement) of two points situated on the topological circle (Jordan curve) corresponding to the contour of the bordered surface, suffice to cover the origin with a $1$-simplex, giving existence of a circle map of degree $2$, like the $r+p$ bound predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] $\spadesuit$ of course all we are saying does not detract the possibility that the extreme points studied by Forelli always contain an element landing in the highest possible degree $2p+q \approx 2p+r=g+1$\]
J.E. Fornaess, N. Sibony, [*Some open problems in higher dimensional complex analysis and complex dynamics*]{}, Publ. Mat. 45 (2001), 529–547. \[$\spadesuit$ p.539: “Question 3.16. [*Can one embed all Stein Riemann surfaces as closed complex submanifolds of ${\Bbb C}^2$? (See [\[GS\]=Globevnik-Stensones 1995 [@Globevnik-Stensones_1995]]{})*]{}”\]
O. Forster, [*Riemannsche Flächen*]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1977, 223 pp; English trans., available. \[$\spadesuit$ sheaf-theoretic approach\]
F. Forstnerič, E.F. Wold, [*Bordered Riemann surfaces in ${\Bbb C}^2$*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. 91 (2009), 100–114. \[$\spadesuit$ reduction of the big problem of embedding open Riemann surfaces in the affine plane to that of embedding compact bordered surfaces, which looks more tractable due to its finitary nature, yet apparently completely out of reach\]
F. Forstnerič, E.F. Wold, [*Embeddings of infinitely connected planar domains in ${\Bbb C}^2$*]{}, arXiv (2012). \[$\spadesuit$ “Abstract. We prove that every circled(=circular) domain (=Koebe’s Kreisbereich) in the Riemann sphere admits a proper holomorphic embedding (=PHE) in ${\Bbb C}^2$.” This is yet another spectacular advance on the proper embedding problem, giving insights on how to crack the general problem. (This may be restated as, p.1: “[*Is every open Riemann surface biholomorphic to a smoothly embedded, topologically closed complex curve in ${\Bbb C}^2$.*]{}”) Of course, when combined the He-Schramm 1993 [@He-Schramm_1993] uniformization result this gives the “Theorem 1.1.—[*Every domain in the Riemann sphere with at most countably many boundary components, none of which are points, admits a PHE in ${\Bbb C}^2$*]{}.” p.2: This result gives a wide extension of the similar statement in finite connectivity due to Globevnik-Stens[ø]{}nes 1995 [@Globevnik-Stensones_1995]. p.17: “There exists a Cantor set in ${\Bbb P}^1$ whose complement embeds PH into ${\Bbb C}^2$ (Orevkov 2008 [@Orevkov_2008]), but it is an open problem whether this holds for each Cantor set.”\]
J. Fourier, [*Théorie analytique de la chaleur*]{}, 1822. \[$\spadesuit$ trigonometric series expansion of an arbitrary function (so-called Fourier series), despite some earlier appearance of them in works by by Clairaut and Euler $\spadesuit$ Fourier’s first work on the topic was presented to Paris Academy in 1807, yet rejected by Lagrange, Laplace and Legendre\]
W.F. Fox, [*Harmonic functions with arbitrary singularity*]{}, Pacific J. Math. (1961), 153–164. \[$\spadesuit$ discusses and rederives old results of Schwarz 1870, Koebe while pointing out to the developments made by Sario $\spadesuit$ p.153 probably corroborates the intuition that the solvability of the Dirichlet principle on a compact bordered Riemann surface was first treated by Schwarz 1870\]
A. Fraser, R. Schoen, [*The first Steklov eigenvalue, conformal geometry, and minimal surfaces*]{}, Adv. in Math. 226 (2011), 4011–4030. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ applies Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (and even Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) to spectral theory, especially first Steklov eigenvalue. For higher eigenvalues, cf. Girouard-Polterovich 2012 [@Girouard-Polterovich_2012], and for Dirichlet-Neumann eingenvalues, cf. Gabard 2011 [@Gabard_2011].\]
I. Fredholm, [*Sur une classe d’équations fonctionnelles*]{}, Acta Math. 27 (1903), 365–390. \[$\spadesuit$ early influence of Abel (1823), then Neumann’s approach to the Dirichlet problem and Volterra (1896) where Neumann’s method was successfully applied to an integral equation\]
R. Fricke, F. Klein, [*Vorlesungen über die Theorie der automorphen Functionen*]{}, Two volumes, Teubner, Leipzig, 1897, 1912, 634 pp., 668 pp.; Reprinted by Johnson Reprint Corp., New York and Teubner, Stuttgart, 1965. \[$\spadesuit$ contains versions of RST (=Rückkehrschnitttheorem), while the completion of the second volume seem to have received some helping hand from Paul Koebe $\spadesuit$ p.180ff. contains anothe account of the classification of Klein’s syymmetric Riemann surfaces\]
G. Fubini, [*Il Principio di minmo i teoremi di esistenza per i problemi al contorno relativi alle equazioni alle derivate parziale di ordini pari*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (1907). \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Zaremba 1910 [@Zaremba_1910] as another extension (beside Beppo Levi 1906 [@Beppo-Levi_1906] and Lebesgue 1907 [@Lebesgue_1907]) of Hilbert’s resurrection of the Dirichlet principle\]
B. Fuchs, [*Sur la fonction minimale d’un domaine, I, II*]{}, Mat. Sbornik N.S. 16 (58) (1945); 18 (60) (1946). \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949] and consider the problem of least momentum, i.e. minimizing $\int\!\!\int_B \vert f(z)\vert^2 d\omega$ under the side-condition $f(t)=1$ at some interior point\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$\[part I OK, part II still not found\]
A. Gabard, [*Topologie des courbes algébriques réelles: une question de Felix Klein*]{}, L’Enseign. Math. 46 (2000), 139–161. \[$\spadesuit$ furnish a complete answer to a question raised by Klein as a footnote to his Coll. Papers, using an inequality due to Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]. Previous (unpublished) work on the same question due to Kharlamov-Viro in the Leningrad seminar of topology supervised by V.A. Rohlin. Confirms incidentally a desideratum of Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981].\]
A. Gabard, [*Sur la topologie et la géométrie des courbes algébriques réelles*]{}, Thèse, Genève, 2004. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ includes the improved bound $r+p$ upon the degree of a circle map of a membrane of genus $p$ with $r$ contours. Up to minor redactional change this is the same as the next entry Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]\]
A. Gabard, [*Sur la représentation conforme des surfaces de Riemann à bord et une caractérisation des courbes séparantes*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 81 (2006), 945–964. 50 (This result also appeared previously in the Ph.D. Thesis of the author published in 2004, cf. the previous item.) \[$\clubsuit$ proposes an improved bound upon Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], as discussed in the previous item $\spadesuit$ for an update regarding the question about the sharpness of the bound so obtained see Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011] $\spadesuit$ \[03.10.12\] all this is fairly good yet a certain discrepancy with Ahlfors viewpoint is annoying and much remains to be clarified $\spadesuit$ \[03.10.12\] further one can wonder if there is not a Teichmüller-theoretic proof of the existence of such circle maps, parallelling that of Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960] in the case of closed surfaces, and conversely one can of course wonder if Meis cannot be proved via the topological method used in the present entry (Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006])\]
A. Gabard, [*A separable manifold failing to have the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex*]{}, arXiv 2006, and another (simpler?) proof suggested by the referee in, Archiv der Math. (2008). \[$\spadesuit$ this little note was primarily intended to give a counterexample to an assertion made by Milnor in 1959, to the effect that all separable manifolds have the homotopy type of a CW-complex. Alas, this is completely wrong (as soon as one familiar with the Prüfer surface 1922–25). Notwithstanding, more mature knowledge of mine (ca. 2009) I realized that Milnor was not wrong at all, except that for him separable meant at that time second countable or metrizable (compare for instance sone of his preprint ca. 1958–59 available on the net). So the explanation is simply that the term “separable” had a different meaning in the first half of the 20th century (up to some residues moving as high as Milnor’s 1959 article [@Milnor_1959])\]
A. Gabard, D. Gauld, [*Jordan and Schoenflies in non-metrical analysis situs*]{}, arXiv 2010. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Gabard, D. Gauld, [*Dynamics of non-metric manifolds*]{}, arXiv 2011. \[$\spadesuit$ this is just cited for the proof of the implication: simply-connected $\Rightarrow$ schlichtartig $\Rightarrow$ orientable, which may be reduced to the five lemma\]
A. Gabard, [*Compact bordered Riemannian surfaces as vibrating membranes: an estimate à la Hersch-Yang-Yau-Fraser-Schoen*]{}, arXiv 2011. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ inspired by Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011], this adapts Hersch 1970 [@Hersch_1970] (isoperimetric property of spherical vibrating membranes) to configurations of higher topological structure using the Ahlfors circle map with the bound of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] $\spadesuit$ notice an obvious (but superficial) connection with Gromov’s filling area conjecture (FAC) (1983 [@Gromov_1983]) positing the minimality of the hemisphere among non-shortening membranes, hence it would be fine that conformal geometry/transplantation—enhanced perhaps by Weyl’s asymptotic law for the high vibratory modes (out of which we can ‘hear’ the area of the drum)—affords a proof, either geometric or acoustic, of FAC. This would maybe be a spectacular application of the Ahlfors map, or maybe some allied conformal maps, e.g. that of Witt-Martens [@Witt_1934], [@Martens_1978], for non-orientable membranes. Recall indeed Gromov’s trick of cross-capping (à la von Dyck) the boundary contour of the membrane reduces the filling area problem (in genus zero) to Pu’s systolic inequality for the projective plane\]
A. Gabard, [*Ebullition in foliated surfaces vs. gravitational clumping*]{}, arXiv 2011. \[$\clubsuit$ not relevant to the present topic, but just cited for a Jordan separation argument via covering theory that can be ascribed to Riemann with some imagination\]
A. Gabard, [*Euler-Poincaré obstruction for pretzels with long tentacles à la Cantor-Nyikos*]{}, arXiv, Dec. 2011. \[$\clubsuit$ not relevant to the present topic, but just cited for some rudiment about Poincaré’s index formula for foliations\]
A. Gabard, [*Ahlfors circle maps: historical ramblings*]{}, arXiv 2012. \[$\clubsuit$ this is the present article available on the arXiv, but which soon afterward (2013) was expanded so has to reinforce the connection with Rohlin’s work on Hilbert’s 16th problem. The pivotal motivation for this junction between Ahlfors-Rohlin is Rohlin’s cryptical claim of total reality for certain $(M-2)$-sextics having a real scheme forcing the type I. Also instrumental for this expansion (of material) is the Rohlin conjecture (or at least the vestige thereof post Shustin) that a scheme of type I is maximal. This problem (still open) bears some connection with earlier speculations of Klein (1876) which however could not resist Shustin’s work 1985 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin] (much based upon the Viro revolution as well as deep Bézout-style obstructions coming from Fiedler-Viro)\]
D. Gaier, [*Konforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender Gebiete durch direkte Lösung von Extremalproblemen*]{}, Math. Z. 82 (1963), 413–419. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ what sort of maps via which (extremal) method? Essentially the PSM via the Ritz-Ansatz (ca. 1908), à la Bieberbach-Bergman (1914/22), plus Nehari’s 1949 integral representation of such slit mappings\]
D. Gaier, [*Konstruktive Methoden der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Ergebnisse d. Angew. Math. 3, Springer, Berlin, 1964. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Chap.III discusses in details the extremal properties of the Riemann mapping for a plane simply-connected region (distinct of ${\Bbb C}$), namely that the range of the map normalized by $f'(z_0)=1$ has minimal area (first in Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]) or that the boundary of the range has minimal length (probably first in Szegö 1921 [@Szego_1921]) $\spadesuit$ this material was also presented (in book format) by Julia 1931 [@Julia_1931]\]$\bigstar$
D. Gaier, [*Über ein Flächeninhaltsproblem und konforme Selbstabbildungen*]{}, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 22 (1977), 1101–1105. \[$\spadesuit$ cited for the same reasons as the next item and complement some details of it (especially in the sharpness of cross-references)\]
D. Gaier, [*Konforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender Gebiete*]{}, Jber. d. Dt. Math.-Verein. 81 (1978), 25–44. \[$\spadesuit$ p.34–35, §C, brilliant proof (of a fact discovered and briefly handled by Grötzsch 1931 \[alas no precise cross-ref.\]) via his [*Flächenstreifenmethode*]{} that “the” (non-unique!) map minimizing the area integral $\int\int \vert f'(z) \vert^2 d \omega$ (à la Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]–Bergman\[n\] 1922 [@Bergman_1922], but extended to the multiply-connected setting) under the schlichtness proviso (and the normalizations $f(z_0)=0, f'(z_0)=1$) maps the domain upon a circular slitted disc (with concentric circular slits centered about the origin) $\spadesuit$ Gaier’s proof is based upon a Carleman isoperimetric property of rings relating the modulus to the area enclosed by the inner contour, plus Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914] (first area theorem) to the effect that a schlicht normed map ($f'(a)=1$) from the disc inflates area, unless it is the identity $\clubsuit$ a natural (naive?) question of the writer (\[13.07.12\]) is what happens if we relax schlichtness of the map? Do we recover an Ahlfors circle map? Try maybe to get the answer from the entry Garabedian-Schiffer 1949 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1949]\]
T.W. Gamelin, M. Voichick, [*Extreme points in spaces of analytic functions*]{}, Canad. J. Math. 20 (1968), 919–928. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahflors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is quoted several times through the paper, the most relevant being $\clubsuit$ p.926: “According to \[1, §4.2\], there exist $r+1$ ($r=g$ in our notation) points $w_1, \dots, w_{r+1}$ on $bR$ such that if $B_j$ is the period vector of the singular function $T_j$ corresponding to a unit point mass at $w_j$, then $B_1, \dots, B_{r+1}$ are the vertices of a simplex in ${\Bbb R}^r$ which contains $0$ as an interior point.” $\clubsuit$ This is indeed the geometric heart of Ahlfors’ existence proof of a circle map of degree $\le g+1=r+2p$ $\spadesuit$ \[28.09.12\] the obvious game is whether one can lower the number of $w_j$ to recover the degree predicted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] $\spadesuit$ as to the content of this entry, it is involved with an extension of the de Leeuw-Rudin (1958 [@deLeeuw-Rudin_1958]) characterization of the extreme points of the unit ball of the disc-algebra $H^1(\Delta)$ as the outer functions of norm $1$, and as usual this is obtained upon appealing to the Ahlfors map, or techniques closely allied to its existence-proof\]
T.W. Gamelin, [*Embedding Riemann surfaces in maximal ideal spaces*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 2 (1968), 123–146. \[$\spadesuit$ p.130: “Let $R$ be a finite bordered Riemann surface with boundary $\Gamma$. Let $A$ be the algebra of functions continuous on $R\cup \Gamma$ and analytic on $R$. Let $\varphi$ be the evaluation at some point $z_0$ of $R$. Then the harmonic measure for $z_0$ on $\Gamma$ is a unique Arens-Singer measure for $\phi$ on $\Gamma$. The spaces $N_c$ consists of the boundary values along $\Gamma$ of the analytic differentials on the doubled surface of $R$, the so-called Schottky differentials of $R$. The space $N_c$ is finite-dimensional.” $\spadesuit$ p.133: “Since $P$ admits a finite-sheeted covering map over $\{\vert \lambda
\vert<1\}$, $P$ must be one-dimensional.” $\spadesuit$ it is not clear (to Gabard) if this Gamelin argument makes tacit use of the Ahlfors map\]
T.W. Gamelin, [*Uniform algebras*]{}, Prentice Hall, 1969. \[$\spadesuit$ p.195–200, analytic capacity as the first coefficient in the Laurent expansion of the Ahlfors function $\spadesuit$ p.197, existence and uniqueness of the Ahlfors function for a general open set in the plane $\spadesuit$ p.198, proof of the following convergence property of the Ahlfors function $f_E$ of a compact plane set $E$ (meaning the one, centered at $\infty$, of the outer component of $E$, i.e. the component of the complement of $E$ containing $\infty$): if $E_n$ is decreasing sequence of compacta with intersection $E$, and $f_n$ be the Ahlfors functions of $E_n$, then $f_n$ converge to $f$ uniformly on compact subsets of the outer component of $E$, and the corresponding analytic capacities converge $\gamma(E_n) \to
\gamma(E)$ $\spadesuit$ \[21.09.12\] this reminds perhaps one the famous conjecture (e.g. of Bing) about knowing if a descending sequence of plane (topological) discs must necessarily converge to a compactum satisfying the fixed-point property, even when the latter has the ugliest possible ‘dendrite’ shape $\spadesuit$ one may wonder if function theory, especially boosted version of RMT, could crack the problem (this is of course just a naive challenge)\]$\bigstar$
T.W. Gamelin, [*Localization of the corona problem*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 34 (1970), 73–81. 78
T.W. Gamelin, J. Garnett, [*Distinguished homomorphisms and fiber algebras*]{}, Amer. J. Math. ?? (1970), 455–474. \[$\spadesuit$ p.474 Ahlfors function mentioned as follows: “It is more difficult to relate the Shilov boundary of $H^{\infty}(D)$ to the Shilov boundaries of the fiber algebras. The problem is to decide whether the distinguished homomorphisms $\phi_\lambda$ lie in the Shilov boundary of $H^{\infty}(D)$. This question was resolved negatively by Zalcman \[11\](=1969 [@Zalcman_1969-TAMS]) for the domains he considered, because in this case the Ahlfors function of $D$ could be seen to have unit modulus on the Shilov boundary of $H^{\infty}(D)$.”\]
T.W. Gamelin, [*The algebra of bounded analytic functions*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 79 (1973), 1095–1108. 47, 50, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.1104: “The Ahlfors function tries hard to be unimodular on the boundary of an arbitrary domain.” The following result of Fisher is quoted (and reproved) “The Ahlfors function for a bounded domain $D$ in ${\Bbb C}$ has unit modulus on the Šilov boundary of $H^{\infty}(D)$.” $\spadesuit$ circa 12 occurrences of “Ahlfors function” throughout the paper $\spadesuit$ p.1104: “Incidentally, the preceding proof \[via the Šilov boundary\] also establishes the uniqueness of the Ahlfors function.” $\spadesuit$ p.1104: “Combined with cluster value theory, Fisher’s theorem yields information on the Ahlfors function which is already sharper than that which had been obtained by classical means.” p.1106–07: “if the harmonic measure for $D$ is carried by the union of an at most countable number of boundary components of $D$, then the Ahlfors function $G$ for $D$ is inner; that is, the composition $G\circ \pi$ with the universal covering map $\pi\colon \Delta \to D$ has radial boundary values of unit modulus a.e. ($d\theta$). Without the hypothesis on the harmonic measure, the Ahlfors function needs not be inner, and an example is given in \[17\](=Gamelin, to appear) of a domain $D$ with Ahlfors function $G$ satisfying $\vert G \circ \pi
\vert<1$ a.e. ($d\theta$) on $\partial \Delta$.” $\clubsuit$ the paper Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is quoted in the following brief connection: “For dual extremal problems on Riemann surfaces, see \[2\](=Ahlfors 1950) and \[36\](=Royden 1962).”\]
T.W. Gamelin, [*Extremal problems in arbitrary domains*]{}, Michigan Math. J. 20 (1973), 3–11. 50, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Hayashi 1987 [@Hayashi_1987] for the issue that the following property: “the natural map of a Riemann surface $R$ into its maximal ideal space $\frak M (R)$ (this is an embedding if we assume that the algebra $H^{\infty}(R)$ of bounded analytic functions separates points) is a homeomorphism onto an open subset of $\frak M
(R)$” has some application to the uniqueness of the Ahlfors function, as well as to its existence via Hayashi 1987 [@Hayashi_1987] $\spadesuit$ Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] is cited instead of the original work Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] for the treatment of extremal problems on finite bordered Riemann surfaces\]
T.W. Gamelin, [*Extremal problems in arbitrary domains, II*]{}, Michigan Math. J. 21 (1974), 297–307. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.297, Ahlfors function is quoted as follows: “Hejhal proof’s depends on the methods developed by Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64], who proved the uniqueness of the Ahlfors function of arbitrary domains. Now there is in \[4\](=Gamelin 1973 [@Gamelin_1973-Extremal-I]) an economical proof of Havinson’s theorem that depends on function-algebraic techniques (see also \[3\](=Gamelin 1972, La Plata Notas) and \[5\](=Gamelin 1973 [@Gamelin_1973-BAMS])\]
T.W. Gamelin, [*The Shilov boundary of $H^{\infty}(U)$*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 96 (1974), 79–103. \[$\spadesuit$ p.79, the Ahlfors function is cited and the author finds a bounded domain in the plane whose Ahlfors function fails to be inner (violating thereby a guess formulated, e.g. in Rubel 1971 [@Rubel_1971]) $\spadesuit$ let us quote the text (p.79): “Let $U$ be a bounded domain in the plane, and let $H^{\infty}(U)$ be the algebra of bounded analytic functions on $U$, and $\frak M (U)$ be its maximal ideal space. Our object here is to study the Shilov boundary $S(U)$ of $H^{\infty}(U)$. It will be shown that $S(U)$ is extremely disconnected, and that every positive continuous function on $S(U)$ is the modulus of a function in $H^{\infty}(U)$. Fisher \[7\](=1972 [@Fisher_1972-The-moduli-of-extremal-fctions]) has shown that there exist nonconstant functions in $H^{\infty}(U)$ with unit modulus on $S(U)$. In fact, he proves that the Ahlfors function for $U$ is unimodular. We will show that there is an abundant supply of unimodular functions in $H^{\infty}(U)$, sufficiently many to separate $S(U)$ from the points of ${\frak M} (U )\setminus S(U)$ which are adherent to $U$. In the negative direction, we show that the property of having unit modulus on the Shilov boundary of $H^{\infty}(U)$ does not yield a great deal of information concerning the classical boundary values of functions in $H^{\infty}(U)$. In fact, an example is given of a reasonably well-behaved domain $U$ with the following property: If $f$ is any nonconstant function in $H^{\infty}(U)$ such that $\|f\|\le 1$, then the lift of $f$ to the open unit disc via the universal covering map has radial boundary values of modulus $<1$ a.e. ($d\theta$).” $\spadesuit$ the latter assertion specialized to an Ahlfors function (at some center) shows that the latter can fail to be inner (indeed not even hypo-inner in the sense of Rubel)\]
T.W. Gamelin, J.B. Garnett, L.A. Rubel, A.L. Shields, [*On badly approximable functions*]{}, J. Approx. Theory 17 (1976), 280–296. \[$\spadesuit$ if $F$ is a finite bordered Riemann surface, let $A(F)$ be the algebra of functions, analytic in the interior with continuous extension to the boundary $\Gamma:=\partial F$. The boundary value map $A(F)\to
C(\Gamma)$ is injective (upon splitting into real/imaginary parts and applying the uniqueness of the Dirichlet problem). The algebra $C(\Gamma)$ (complex-valued functions on the boundary $\Gamma$) is endowed with the sup-norm $\|\varphi\|=\sup_{z\in \Gamma} \vert \varphi(z) \vert$. Now given any $\varphi \in C(\Gamma)$ there must be a best analytic approximant $f\in A(F)$, that is minimizing $\|
\varphi - f\|$. The authors (following Poreda 1972) call $\varphi\in C(\Gamma)$ [*badly approximable*]{} if its distance $d(\varphi, A(D))$ to the space $A(D)$ is equal to the norm $\|\varphi\|$. This amounts saying that the best analytic approximant of $\varphi$ is $0$ (zero function). $\spadesuit$ \[01.10.12\] of course such badly approximable function are the opposite extreme of the boundary-values of an Ahlfors function (or of a circle map), since the latter coincide with their best analytic approximant. Despite this contrast, badly approximable functions are shown to have constant modulus along the boundary (Theorem 1.2, p.281) sharing a distinctive feature of circle maps, but deviates from them by having a small index (=winding number), namely ${\rm ind} (\varphi)<2p+(r-1)$, where $p$ is the genus and $r$ the contour number of $F$. Precisely Theorem 8.1 (p.294) states: “[*If $\varphi\in C(\Gamma)$ is badly approximable, then $\varphi$ has nonzero constant modulus, and ${\rm ind}(\varphi)<2p+(r-1)$.*]{}” The proof involves the theory of Toeplitz operators and reduces ultimately to the theory of Schottky differentials (forming a real vector space of dimension equal to the genus $g$ of the double which is precisely the upper bound involved above). Hence the connection with Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is evident (at least at some subconscious level), and accentuated by the numerous citations to the allied paper Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]. $\spadesuit$ finally, let us maybe observe that the converse of the above statement (Theorem 8.1) can be foiled as follows: via Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] there is always a circle map $f$ of degree $d\le r+p$. Its boundary restriction $\partial f=:\varphi$ has index equal to this degree ${\rm ind } (\varphi) =d\le
r+p\buildrel{!}\over{<}2p+(r-1)$, provided $p>1$. Yet the map $\varphi$ is not badly approximable, for by construction it admits a perfect analytic approximant.\]
T.W. Gamelin, [*Cluster values of bounded analytic functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 225 (1977), 295–306. \[$\spadesuit$ several aspects of the Ahlfors function are discussed, and some new property (extending a result of Havinson) is given. To be more precise, we quote some extracts $\spadesuit$ p.296: Recall that the Ahlfors function $G$ of $D$, depending on the point $z_0 \in D$, is the extremal function for the problem of maximizing $\vert f'(z_0)\vert$ among all $f\in H^{\infty}(D)$ satisfying $\vert f \vert \le
1$; $G$ is normalized so that $G'(z_0)>0$, and then $G$ is unique. If $\zeta$ is an essential boundary point of $D$, then $\vert G \vert =1$ on $\amalg\!\!\!\,\amalg_{\zeta}$ (Šilov boundary). Furthermore, either $\lim_{D\ni z \to
\zeta} \vert G(z)\vert=1$ or ${\rm Cl}(G, \zeta)=
\overline{\Delta}$(=closed unit disc). S.Ya. Havinson \[7, Theorem 28\] has proved that $G$ assumes all values in $\Delta$, with the possible exception of a subset of $\Delta$ of zero analytic capacity. $\spadesuit$ p.297: we conclude the following sharper version of Havinson’s Theorem. [**1.2 Corollary.**]{} Let $G$ be the Ahlfors function of $D$, and let $\zeta$ be an essential boundary point of $D$ such that ${\rm
Cl}(G, \zeta)=\overline{\Delta}$. Then values in $\Delta$ are assumed infinitely often by $G$ in every neighborhood of $\zeta$, with the exception of those lying in a set of zero analytic capacity.\]
T.W. Gamelin, [*Wolff’s proof of the corona theorem*]{}, Israel J. Math. ?? (1980), ??–??. \[$\spadesuit$ “Abstract. An expository account is given of T. Wolff’s recent elementary proof of Carleson’s Corona Theorem (1962). The Corona Theorem answers affirmatively a question raised by S. Kakutani (1957) as to whether the open unit disc in the complex plane is dense in the …”\]
T.W. Gamelin, M. Hayashi, [*The algebra of the bounded analytic functions on a Riemann surface*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 382 (1987), 49–73. \[$\spadesuit$ p.72 some sophisticated (but lucid) questions about the Grunsky-Ahlfors (abridged Grahl=Graal=Sangreal) extremal problem of maximizing the derivative $f'(p)$ among functions bounded-by-one $\vert f
\vert \le 1$ (where $p$ is a given point and the derivative is taken w.r.t. a fixed local coordinates). The following questions are posed under the proviso that $H^{\infty}(R)$ separates points. [**Problem 1.**]{} For a fixed $p\in R$, is there an $f\in H^{\infty}(R)$ such that $f'(p)\neq 0$? If such an $f$ exists, then any extremal function for the Grahl-problem normalized so that $f'(p)>0$ is termed an [*Ahlfors function*]{} corresponding to $p$. [**Problem 2.**]{} For fixed $p\in R$, assume the Grahl-extremal problem is non-trivial. Is the Ahlfors function unique? Does it have unit modulus on the Shilov boundary of $H^\infty(R)$? $\spadesuit$ the writer (Gabard) is not aware of any update on those questions, yet it may be emphasized that partial answers are sketched in Hayashi 1987 [@Hayashi_1987], namely that under the assumption that the natural map of $R$ to its maximal ideal space $\frak M (R)$ takes $R$ homeomorphically onto an open set of $\frak M (R)$, then existence and uniqueness of the Ahlfors function is ensured\]
M. Gander, G. Wanner, [*From Euler, Ritz and Galerkin to modern computing*]{}, (2012), 49–73. \[$\spadesuit$ a historical survey about Galileo, Bernoulli, Euler, Lagrange, Chladni,…, Ritz, Galerkin and their influence upon modern computing\]
P.R. Garabedian, M.M. Schiffer, [*Identities in the theory of conformal mapping*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 65 (1949), 187–238. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.201, the problem of least area is considered (i.e. minimization of $\int\!\!\int \vert f'(z)
\vert^2 d\omega$) among [*all*]{} (not necessarily schlicht) mappings $f$ normed by $f(a)=0, f'(a)=1$ defined on an $n$-connected domain $\spadesuit$ it should be emphasized that the solution of this problem was stated (without proof) by Grunsky 1932 [@Grunsky_1932 p.140]; Grunsky’s influence is recognized in the introduction (p.188), yet not made explicit at the relevant passage (p.201, Problem I.) for the specific result of the least area map $\spadesuit$ assert (without detailed proof) that the solution is at most $n$-valent $\spadesuit$ alas it is not asserted that those least-area maps are circle maps (which looks a natural conjecture)\]
P.R. Garabedian, [*Schwarz’s lemma and the Szegö kernel function*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 67 (1949), 1–35. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ includes the formula $f'(t)=2\pi k(t,t)$ for the derivative of the Ahlfors function in terms of Szegö’s kernel function, other expositions of the same result in Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950], Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950] and Nehari 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK] $\spadesuit$ at several crucial stage this paper makes use of topological arguments (hence a possible connection with Gabaredian 2006 [@Gabard_2006] remains to be elucidated)\]
P.R. Garabedian, [*The sharp form of the principle of hyperbolic measure*]{}, Ann. of Math. 51 (1950), 360–379. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ claims to recover the full Ahlfors (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) theorem on existence of circle maps (by deploying a large array of techniques blending from Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939-Dreikreisesatzes], Grunsky 1940–42 [@Grunsky_1940], [@Grunsky_1942], Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] and the variational method of Schiffer/Hadamard), but the detailed execution is limited to the planar case, and only the same bound as Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is obtained\]
P.R. Garabedian, [*The class $L_p$ and conformal mapping*]{}, Trans. Amer Math. Soc. 69 (1950), 392–415. \[$\clubsuit$\]
P.R. Garabedian, M.M. Schiffer, [*On existence theorems of potential theory and conformal mapping*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 52 (1950), 164–187. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ reprove RMT via the Bergman kernel (for smooth boundary, p.164), but the general case follows by topological approximation (exhaustion) $\spadesuit$ p.182 points out that circle maps lye somewhat deeper than slit mappings $\spadesuit$ p.181 recover the circle map for domains (of finite-connectivity) $\spadesuit$ recover also the parallel-slit mappings and cite Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949] for equivalent work $\spadesuit$ p.182 coins the designation “circle mapping”, to which we adhere in this survey.\]
P.R. Garabedian, [*A new proof of the Riemann mapping theorem*]{}. In: [*Construction and Applications of Conformal Maps*]{}, Proc. of a Sympos. held on June 22–25 1949, Applied Math. Series [*18*]{}, 1952, 207–213. \[$\spadesuit$ consider a (strange) least area problem yet without making very explicit the range of the geometry of the extremal function\]
P.R. Garabedian, [*Univalent functions and the Riemann mapping theorem*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 61 (1976), 242–244. \[$\spadesuit$ yet another new proof of RMT via an extremal problem and normal families $\spadesuit$ also cited for the reasons annotated after de Possel 1939 [@de-Possel_1939], namely the issue of avoiding the use of RMT in the extremal proof of PSM\]
L. Garding, [*The Dirichlet problem*]{}, Math. Intelligencer 2 (1979/80), 43–53. \[$\spadesuit$ historical survey of the Dirichlet problem with Poisson, Gauss 1839 [@Gauss_1839], its influence upon Thomson 1847 [@Thomson_1847], Stokes (credited for the maximum principle!?), Dirichlet, Riemann, Weierstrass, Schwarz, Neumann, Poincaré (balayage) and its modern ramification by Perron [@Perron_1923] and Radó-Riesz 1925 [@Rado-Riesz_1925], up to Frostman, Beurling-Deny\]
J. Garnett, [*Positive length but zero analytic capacity*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 24 (1970), 696–699. \[$\spadesuit$ simplifies the example of Vitushkin 1957 [@Vitushkin_1959] by taking advantage of the homogeneity of the compactum which is a simple planar Cantor set obtained by keeping only the 4 corner squares of a subdivision of the unit-square in $4\times
4$ congruent subsquares, and iterating ad infinitum $\spadesuit$ compare Murai 1987 [@Murai_1987] for another direct strategy (via Garabedian instead of Ahlfors) which is supposed to give more insight about the general problem\]
J. Garnett, [*Analytic capacity and measures*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 297, Springer, Berlin, 1972, 138 pp. \[$\spadesuit$ p.18, Ahlfors function $\spadesuit$ p.36, Denjoy conjecture (cf. for its resolution Marshall [@Marshall_1978?] via Calderón mostly)\] 78
J.B. Garnett, [*Bounded analytic functions*]{}, Pure and Appl. Math. 96, Academic Press, New York, 1981. \[$\spadesuit$ includes proofs of the corona theorem\]
J. Garnett, J. Verdera, [*Analytic capacity, bilipschitz mappings and Cantor sets*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 10 (2003), 515–522. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A.M. Garsia, [*Calculation of conformal parameters for some imbedded Riemann surfaces*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 10 (1960), 121–165. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A.M. Garsia, [*Imbeddeding of Riemann surfaces by canal surfaces*]{}, Rend. Circ. Math. Palermo (2) 9 (1960), 313–333. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A.M. Garsia, E. Rodemich, [*An imbeddeding of Riemann surfaces of genus one*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 11 (1961), 193–204. \[$\spadesuit$ p.193: “Theorem. [*Any compact Riemann surface of genus one can be $C^\infty$ embedded in $3$-space.*]{}” $\spadesuit$ inspiration=Teichmüller 1944 [@Teichmueller_1944-Beweis-der-analytischen-Abhaengigkeit] and Ahlfors 1953/54 [@Ahlfors_1953/54-On-quasiconformal-mappings] $\spadesuit$ extension of the result in the next entry Garsia 1961 [@Garsia_1961]\]
A.M. Garsia, [*An imbedding of closed Riemann surfaces in Euclidean space*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 35 (1961), 93–110. \[$\spadesuit$ yet another brilliant student of Loewner; it is shown that any closed Riemann surface admits a conformal model in Euclid’s $3$-space $E^3$. \[10.12.12\] Upon taking taking the Schottky double, the same assertion holds true for bordered Riemann surfaces, and this is perhaps enough when $E^3$ is replaced by the more generous $E^4$ to settle the Forstnerič-Wold 2009 [@Forstneric-Wold_2009] desideratum that any compact bordered Riemann surface embeds holomorphically in ${\Bbb C}^2$. \[11.12.12\] Warning: not at all enough for the image is merely a smooth surface, and not a complex analytic curve $\spadesuit$ p.94: “The main result of the present paper is a proof that there exists in Euclidean space a conformally equivalent $C^{\infty}$ model for every compact Riemann surface of genus $g\ge 2$.” Compare also Rüedy 1968 [@Ruedy_1968] $\spadesuit$ “The methods that we have followed are essentially an extension of those in \[9\]. However, here certain devices introduced by J. Nash in \[13\], together with some results of L. Ahlfors \[2\] and L. Bers \[3\] on spaces of Riemann surfaces are quite crucial…” $\spadesuit$ to be fair the main technique permitting the breakthrough on this almost centennial problem conjectured by Klein (realizability of all Riemann surfaces as classical surface in $E^3$) is primarily Teichmüller theory, especially the 1944 paper [@Teichmueller_1944-Beweis-der-analytischen-Abhaengigkeit]. $\spadesuit$ \[19.12.12\] Garsia’s result can be given the following metaphoric interpretation (for single people having the Riemann($\approx$ woman) surface) as sole sentimental partner during their whole life, e.g. Koebe who never married): in the vicinity of any surface embedded in Euclid’s $3$-space $E^3$ one can realize any conformal structure via small variations confined to the normal bundle of the initial surface. This holds true for arbitrarily small thicknesses $\varepsilon$ of the tubular neighborhood. Metaphorically, this amounts to say that if the Riemann surface becomes a woman surface (materialized by the skin of some naked woman) then a minim variation of the skin permits to explore all other (women) surfaces by epidermic bubbling, alas generically akin to a cellulite formation. $\spadesuit$ This metaphor seems again to say something on the Forstnerič-Wold 2009 [@Forstneric-Wold_2009] desideratum. First we know (from Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002]) that any topological type of bordered surface contains a representative holomorphically embedded in ${\Bbb C}^2$. Applying the high-dimensional version of Garsia (due to Ko 1989 [@Ko_1989-compact], plus subsequent articles) we can realize all Riemann surfaces within a normal tubular neighborhood via an (infimal) normal variation. This is akin to a cellulite bubbling, alas destroying a priori the holomorphic character of the initial model. However it is not to be excluded that better controlled vibrations of the pudding[^131] permit to explore the full moduli space.\]
A.M. Garsia, [*On the conformal type of algebraic surfaces in euclidean space*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 37 (1962–63), 49–60. \[$\spadesuit$ “It has been an open question for some time whether or not the classical (i.e. $C^2$ surfaces) of Euclidean space (3-dimensional) exhaust all possible conformal types. In the non compact case the question is still open. \[UPDATE: Rüedy 1971 [@Ruedy_1971]\] In the compact case it can be shown (see \[1\]=Garsia-Rodemich 1961 [@Garsia-Rodemich_1961] and \[2\]=Garsia 1961 [@Garsia_1961]) that among the $C^\infty$ surfaces of Euclidean space there are surfaces conformally equivalent to any given compact Riemann surface.—In this paper we are to improve the results in \[1\] and \[2\]. It will be shown that for any given compact Riemann surface conformally equivalent models can be found among the algebraic surfaces of ordinary space. Here by “algebraic surface” we mean a surface satisfying an equation of the type $F(x,y,z)=0$, where $F(x,y,z)$ is a real polynomial in its argument.—\[...\] it is not known whether or not the affine images of the tori of revolution contain all conformal types of surfaces of genus one.—Perhaps it should be noted that the ease with which the results in \[2\] and specially those of this paper are obtained illustrate once more the power of the Teichmüller results on quasiconformal mappings and the usefulness of the concept of Teichmüller space for the study of families of compact Riemann surfaces. $\spadesuit$ of course in view of Garsia’s result one would like to bound the degree of the representing algebraic surface..., for more on this cf. Pinkall 1985 [@Pinkall_1985]\]
C.F. Gauss, 1811 (unpublished) correspondence with F.W. Bessel. \[$\spadesuit$ complex integration and the formula $\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_l \frac{dz}{z}=1$, where $l$ is a circle enclosing the origin\]
C.F. Gauss, Allgemeine Auflösung der Aufgabe: die Theile einer gegebnen Fläche auf einer andern gegebnen Fläche so abzubilden, dass die Abbildung dem Abgebildeten in den kleinsten Theilen ähnlich wird. Als Beantwortung der von der königlichen Societät der Wissenschaften in Copenhagen für 1822 aufgegebnen Preisfrage, in: [*Schumacher’s Astronomische Abhandlungen*]{}, Drittes Heft, pp. 1–30, Altona 1825. (Also in: Werke, Bd.4, 189–216.) \[$\spadesuit$ This is probably the only record in print which may be regarded as a weak (very local) forerunner of the RMT. This text was of course known to Riemann, while adumbrating the conformal plasticity of 2D-mappings $\spadesuit$ in fact this Gauss text 1822/25 is the pre-big-bang, for it is the only reference cited in Riemann’s Thesis 1851 [@Riemann_1851], who however had several other inspirators like Dirichlet, Cauchy, etc. $\spadesuit$ some antecedents of this Gauss work is that by Lagrange 1779 [@Lagrange_1779] involved with a cartography problem, yet failing to prove, as Gauss do (in op.cit.), that locally any surface is conformally flat\]
C.F. Gauss, Disquisitiones generales circa superficies curvas, 1827. \[$\spadesuit$ concept of Gaussian (total) curvature, theorema egregium (the curvature $K$ is isometry-invariant, e.g. under bending), etc.\]
C.F. Gauss, [*Allgemeine Lehrsätze in Beziehung auf die im verkehrten Verhältnisse des Quadrates der Entfernung wirkenden Anziehungs- und Abstossungs-Kräfte*]{}, Magnetischer Verein (1839). Werke vol. 5, 195–242. \[$\spadesuit$ a forerunner of the Dirichlet principle. This text was known to Riemann $\spadesuit$ this Gauss work is supposed to lack in rigor, yet encompass the substance of the all potential theory (compare Brelot 1952 [@Brelot_1952] for a modern appreciation)\]
P.M. Gauthier, M. Goldstein, [*From local to global properties of subharmonic functions on Green spaces*]{}, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 16 (1977), 458–466. \[$\spadesuit$ p.465, includes the following application of the Ahlfors function. Let $\overline{\Omega}$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface with interior $\Omega$ and contour $C=\partial \overline{\Omega}$. Given $f\colon C \to
\overline{\Bbb R}=[-\infty,+\infty]$ an extended real-valued continuous function, one says that $f$ is Dirichlet soluble if it continuously extends to $\overline{\Omega}$ so that its restriction to the interior $\Omega$ is harmonic. In this case, $f^{-1}(+\infty)$ is a closed set of HMZ(=harmonic measure zero). Now the authors shows the converse statement. Indeed, given $E\subset C$ closed and of HMZ, its image under an Ahlfors function (cf. Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) $F\colon \overline{\Omega} \to \overline{\Delta}$ is a subset of the circumference $S^1=\partial\overline{\Delta}$ of measure zero (Sard required?). According to Fatou 1906 [@Fatou_1906] any null-set of the circle occurs as $u_1^{-1}(\infty)$ for a continuous function $u_1\colon
\overline{\Delta}\to \overline{{\Bbb R}}$ harmonic in the interior. The composed map $u_1\circ F$ has the desired properties $\spadesuit$ note however that the trick of the Ahlfors function seems not well suited for reducing the Dirichlet problem (even with non-extended boundary values) on a compact bordered Riemann surface to the case of the disc where it is soluble via the Poisson integral (albeit this may have been a partial intention in Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1915])\]
W.-D. Geyer, [*Ein algebraischer Beweis des Satzes von Weichold über reelle algebraische Funktionenkörper*]{}, In: [*Algebraische Zahlentheorie*]{} (Ber. Tagung Math. Forschungsinst. Oberwolfach, 1964), 83–98. \[$\spadesuit$ includes a new proof of the theorem of Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934]\]
W.-D. Geyer, G. Martens, [*Überlagerungen berandeter Kleinscher Flächen*]{}, Math. Ann. 228 (1977), 101–111. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ after Alling-Greenleaf 1969 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969], Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is also interpreted in terms of Klein’s orthosymmetric real curves, specifically p.106: “Gewisserma[ß]{}en als Umkehrung von a) ist das resultat von Ahlfors (\[1\], §4) anzusehen, wonach jede Kleinsche Fäche vom Typ $+(g,r)$ mit $r>0$ eine $(g+1)$-blättrige verzweigte Überlagerung der zur reellen projectiven Geraden ${\Bbb P}_1$ gehörenden Kleinschen Fläche $\overline{\Bbb C}/\sigma$ (=Riemannsche Zahlenhalbkugel) ist.” $\spadesuit$ p.101: “Seit Klein \[6, 12\] zieht man zum Studium reeller algebraischer Funktionenkörper $F$ einer Variablen mit Erfolg die zur Komplexifizierung von $F$ gehörige Riemannsche Fläche, versehen mit einer antiholomorphen Involution $a$, heran, oder auch die Kleinsche Fläche \[…\].—Unter den algebraischen Körpererweiterungen $E\vert F$ gibt es gewisse, durch ihr Realitätsverhalten ausgezeichnete Typen, die zuerst von Knight in \[7\](=1969 [@Knight_1969]) betrachtet wurden. Wir nennen $E\vert F$ total reell, wenn über reellen Stellen von $F$ nur reelle Stellen von $E$ liegen. Da die reellen Stellen von $F$ auf $\frak R$ eine disjunkte Vereinigung endlich vieler Kreise $Z1, \dots, Z_r$ bilden, induziert eine total reelle Erweiterung $E\vert F$ (unverzweigte) Überlagerungen der $Z_i$.” $\clubsuit$ p.102: “Die Kleinsche Fläche $\frak K=\frak R /
\sigma$ is ebenfalls kompakt und zusammenhängend; sie ist genau dann orientierbar wenn $\frak R-\cal C ({\Bbb R})$ unzusammenhängend ist \[3,6\](=Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971], Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882]). Eine algebraische Kennzeichnung der Orientierbarkeit gab Ahlfors in \[1\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]): $\frak K$ ist genau dann orientierbar, wenn es eine Funktion $f\in F$ gibt, die nur auf $\cal C ({\Bbb R})$ reelle Werte annimt.” $\spadesuit$ p.103: “Ein Morphismus $\varphi\colon \cal B\to
\cal C$ reeller Kurven hei[ß]{}t [*total reell*]{}, wenn $\varphi^{-1} {\cal C} ({\Bbb R})={\cal B} ({\Bbb R})$ ist. Dann ist also eine Erweiterung $E\vert F$ reeller Funktionenkörper total reell, wenn jede reelle Stelle von $F$ nur reelle Fortsetzungen hat, und ein Morphismus Kleinscher Flächen is total reell, wenn der Rand respektiert wird, d.h. nur Randpunkte auf Randpunkte abgebildet werden.”\]
W.-D. Geyer, [*Reelle algebraische Funktionen mit vorgegeben Null- und Polstellen*]{}, Manuscripta Math. 22 (1977), 87–103. \[$\spadesuit$ p.91: “Ein Morphismus $\varphi\colon Y\to X$ reeller Kurven hei[ß]{}e total reell, wenn $\varphi^{-1}
X(K)=Y(K)$ ist, d.h. wenn alle reellen Stellen von $F=K(X)$ nur relle Forsetzungen in $E=K(Y)$ haben.”\]
P. Gilmer, [*Algebraic curves in $RP^1 \times RP^1$*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 113 (1991), 47–52. \[$\spadesuit$ switching the Hilbert problem to ${\Bbb P}^1\times {\Bbb P}^1$\]
P. Gilmer, [*Real algebraic curves and link cobordism*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 153 (1992), 31–69. \[$\spadesuit$ promise (in the next entry Gilmer 1996 [@Gilmer_1996-Link-cobordismII]) a new derivation of the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence for $M$-curves, as well as the related congruence for $(M-1)$-curves\]
P. Gilmer, [*Real algebraic curves and link cobordism, II*]{}, in: Topology of Real Algebraic Varieties and Related Topics, ed. by V. Kharlamov et al., Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 2 173, Amer. Math. Soc.., Providence, Ri, 1996, 73–84. \[$\spadesuit$ new derivation of the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence for $M$-curves, as well as the related congruence for $(M-1)$-curves\]
A. Girouard, I. Polterovich, [*Steklov eigenvalues*]{}, arXiv (2012). 50 \[$\clubsuit$ extension of Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011] to higher eigenvalues\]
A.M. Gleason, [*Function algebras*]{}, Seminar on analytic functions, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, N.J., 1957. \[$\spadesuit$ where the Gleason parts are defined as the equivalence classes of the following relation $\spadesuit$ for an arbitrary function algebra $A$ on a compact metrizable space $X$, let $M$ be its maximal ideal space and $S$ its Shilov boundary. Realizing $A$ as a function algebra on $M$, two points $m_1, m_2 \in M $ are (Gleason) equivalent if $\sup \{ \vert f(m_1)\vert: f(m_2)=0, \|
f\| \le 1 \}<1$. $\spadesuit$ for a connection with the Ahlfors map cf. e.g. O’Neill-Wermer 1968 [@O'Neill-Wermer_1968]\]
J. Globevnik, B. Stens[ø]{}nes, [*Holomorphic embeddings of planar domains in ${\Bbb C}^2$*]{}, Math. Ann. 303 (1995), 579–597. \[$\spadesuit$ it is show that any plane domain of finite connectivity without point-like (punktförmig) boundaries has a proper holomorphic embedding in the affine complex plane $\spadesuit$ for a wide extension to infinite connectivity, cf. Forstnerič-Wold 2012 [@Forstneric-Wold_2012]\]
G.M. Golusin, [*Auflösung einiger ebener Grundaufgaben der mathematischen Physik im Fall der Laplaceschen Gleichung und mehrfach zusammenhängender Gebiete, die durch Kreise begrenzt sind*]{}, (Russian, German Summary) Mat. Sb. 41 (1934), 246–276. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ Seidel’s summary: a harmonic function $U$ of two real variables is sought exterior to the circles $C_1, \dots, C_n$, with $U(\infty)$ finite, which on $C_k$ assumes preassigned continuous values $f_k$. The problem is reduced to the solution of a finite system of functional equations which are solved by successive approximations. The method is applied to solve Neumann’s problem and other similar problems for Laplace’s equation and for regions of the above type. The Green’s functions of such regions and the functions which map them on slit planes are determined\]$\bigstar$
G.M. Golusin, [*Sur la représentation conforme*]{}, (French, Russian Summary) Mat. Sb.=Rec. Math. 1 (43) (1936), 273–282. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ p.273, Lemme 1 gives another proof of a basic lemma about areas of rings under conformal maps $\spadesuit$ Pólya-Szegö 1925 are cited, but it should go back to Carleman 1918 [@Carleman_1918] $\spadesuit$ for the relevance of this lemma to the least area problem of multi-connected under schlicht maps see Gaier 1977 [@Gaier_1977-Roumaine] where a dissection process shows that a solution (non-unique!) to this problem effects a representation upon a circular slit disc $\spadesuit$ incidentally the proof of Thm 1, p.274 looks very akin to Gaier’s argument of 1977 [@Gaier_1977-Roumaine]\]
G.M. Golusin, [*Iterationsprozesse für konforme Abbildungen mehrfach zusammenhängender Bereiche*]{}, (Russian, German Summary) Mat. Sb. N.S. 6 (48) (1939), 377–382. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ Iterative methods are established by means of which a schlicht conformal map of regions of finite connectivity on some canonical domains is reduced to a sequence of conformal maps of simply-connected regions\]$\bigstar$
G.M. Golusin, [*Geometrische Funktionentheorie*]{}, Übersetzung aus dem Russischen. Hochschulbücher f. Math. Bd. 31, Berlin, VEB Deutscher Verlag d. Wiss., 1957. English transl.: Geometric theory of functions of a complex variable, 1969. (Russian original published in 1952.) 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.240–4, proof of a circle map in the schlicht(artig) case following Grunsky 1937–41 (potential-theoretic) $\spadesuit$ p.412–8, the extremal approach is presented (Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] is cited, and ref. to Grunsky 1940–42 [@Grunsky_1940; @Grunsky_1942] where added by the German editors (probably Grunsky himself) $\spadesuit$ p.200–217 present a proof of Koebe’s KNP via the continuity method (approached via Brouwer’s invariance of the domain)\]
T. Gouma, [*Ahlfors functions on non-planar Riemann surfaces whose double are hyperelliptic*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan 50 (1998), 685–695. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ detailed study of the degrees of the Ahlfors map in the hyperelliptic case $\clubsuit$ a complement (tour de force) is to be found in Yamada 2001 [@Yamada_2001] $\spadesuit$ for an application to proper holomorphic embeddings in ${\Bbb C}^2$, cf. Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002] $\spadesuit$ Köditz’s summary (MathReviews): “Let $R$ be a finite bounded \[=bordered\] Riemann surface with genus $p$ and $q$ contours and let $P$ be a point in $R$. The author studies the set of Ahlfors functions on $R$. These functions are the extremal functions obtained by maximizing the derivative $\vert f'(P) \vert$ (in some local parameter at $P$) in the class of holomorphic functions on $R$ bounded by one. Each Ahlfors function has modulus $1$ on the boundary of $R$ and gives a complete[^132] covering of the unit disk. It is known that the degree $N$ of any Ahlfors function satisfies $q\le N \le 2p+q$ (Ahlfors, 1950=[@Ahlfors_1950]). The set of degrees $N(R)$ of Ahlfors functions on a given Riemann surface $R$ is not well known. In this paper, the author deals with Ahlfors functions on non-planar Riemann surfaces whose doubles are hyperelliptic. Among others, examples for such Riemann surfaces with $N(R)=\{2, 2p+q\}$ are constructed.”\]
W.H. Gottschalk, [*Conformal mapping of abstract Riemann surfaces*]{}, Published by the author, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 1949, 77p. $\bigstar$ 60
L.B. Graĭfer, S.Ja. Gusman, V.V. Dumkin, [*An extremal problem for forms with singularities on Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Perm. Gos. Univ. Učen. Zap. 218 (1969), 47–52. \[$\spadesuit$ from MathReview (by Kiremidjian): “In 1950, Ahlfors showed that a number of extremal problems on compact subregions of open Riemann surfaces could be solved by studying the class of Schottky differentials \[Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]; errata, MR 13, p.1138\]. In recent years, certain aspects of Ahlfors’ work were investigated in the case of $n$-dimensional orientable differentiable manifolds \[the second author, 1966\]. I the present paper, the authors study the class of Schottky-Ahlfors forms with singularities.” $\spadesuit$ so those cited works constitute a rare but foolhardy attempt to extend Ahlfors’ theory to higher dimensions $\spadesuit$ perhaps one is prompted by the (naive!) question if one could formulate a theory able to (re)prove the famous 3D-conjecture of Poincaré-Perelman in its bordered incarnation: any compact bordered $3$-manifold is topologically equivalent to the $3$-ball, provided it is contractible or simply-connected and bounded by the $2$-sphere (of course the modest antecedent being the fact that one can prove the Schoenflies theorem via RMT thanks to Osgood/Carathéodory) $\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors function $W^3\to \Delta^3$ has then perhaps to be a harmonic map with maximal distortion at some basepoint, and if the contours are surfaces distinct from the sphere then there is no chance to have a covering along the boundary, but otherwise e.g. for $W^3$ the interspace of two concentric spheres it is not difficult to visualize a 3D-avatar of the Ahlfors map (just by taking the revolution of a map from a annulus to the disc, cf. our Fig.\[Annulus:fig\])\]
J. Gray, [*On the history of the Riemann mapping theorem*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) 34 (1994), 47–94. \[$\spadesuit$ from Riemann to Koebe’s area, through Osgood, etc.\]
J. Gray, M. Micallef, [*The work of Jesse Douglas on minimal surfaces*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 45 (2008), 293–302. \[$\spadesuit$ contains several critiques (mostly raised by Tromba 1983 [@Tromba_1983-PREPRINT]) about the rigor of the work of Douglas/Courant on the Plateau problem, especially when it comes to higher topological structure\]
H. Grassmann, [*Die lineare Ausdehnungslehre*]{}, 1844. \[$\spadesuit$ summarized in Briekorn-Knörrer 1981/86 [@Brieskorn-Knörrer_1981/1986 p.122]: “A very important contribution to the development of the manifold concept was made by H. Grassmann in \[t\]his work, in which he spoke of $n$-tuply extended manifolds for the first time and developped, among other things, modern $n$-dimensional analytic geometry anfd linear algebra, in which the mathematical theory structure is worked out in a coordinated-free way, allowing the simplest treatment of problems in $n$-dimensional geometry, and in other fields as well.”\]
G. Green, [*An essay on the application of mathematical analysis to the theories of electricity and magnetism*]{}. Printed for the Author by Whellhouse T. Nottingham, 1828, 72 pp. Also in: Mathematical Papers of George Green, Chelsea Publishing Co., 1970, 1–115; and reprinted in three parts in J. Reine Angew. Math. 39 (1850), 73–89; 44 (1852), 356–374; 47 (1854), 161–221. \[$\spadesuit$ this Crelle reprint was organized by W. Thomson $\spadesuit$ contains a form of the Dirichlet principle, presumably the first ever put in print $\spadesuit$ as to the connection with our problem of the Ahlfors map, the connection is evident and implicit in Ahlfors 1950 paper [@Ahlfors_1950], albeit the latter employs a variant of the Green’s function with “dipole” singularity placed at a boundary point\]
P. Griffiths, J. Harris, [*Principles of Algebraic Geometry*]{}. Wiley, New York, 1978, 813 pp.; Wiley Classic Library edition, 1994; Russian transl., Vol.1, Mir, Moscow, 1982. \[$\spadesuit$ contains both an heuristic and formal proof of the $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ gonality of closed Riemann surfaces of genus $g$, a result predicted since Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857] but only firmly validated in the modern era through the work of Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960] $\spadesuit$ see especially p.358, (special linear systems) and the proof presented is presumably quite close (??) to that of Kempf 1971 [@Kempf_1971]\]
P. Griffiths, J. Harris, [*On the variety of special linear systems on a general algebraic curve*]{}, Duke Math. J. 47 (1980), 233–272. \[$\spadesuit$ p.236/7 gives a parameter count argument (via Riemann-Hurwitz and Riemann’s $3g-3$ moduli) to show that “a general curve $C$ of genus $g\ge 2$ cannot be expressed as a multiple cover of any curve $C'$ of genus $g'\ge 1$.” $\spadesuit$ this can be employed to show that the avatar of the Ahlfors map with range not a disc but a membrane of higher topological complexity fails generally to share the property of the usual circle-valued Ahlfors map of taking the boundary to the boundary\]
M. Gromov, V.A. Rohlin, [*Embeddings and immersions in Riemannian geometry*]{}, Russian Math. Surv. 25 (1969), 1–57. \[$\spadesuit$ p.14: “In Appendix 4 we show that the real projective plane with a metric of positive curvature, in particular, the elliptic plane, cannot be isometrically $C^2$-embedded in ${\Bbb R}^4$.”\]
M. Gromov, [*Filling Riemannian manifolds*]{}, J. Differential Geom. 18 (1983), 1–147. \[$\spadesuit$ present a modernized proof of the Loewner-Pu isosystolic inequality, by quoting Jenkins, hence indirectly Grötzsch, so back to Koebe–Poincaré, genealogically. Of course the uniformization required for Loewner (torus) and Pu (projective plane) are of a simpler nature, (Abel and Riemann, Schwarz resp.).\]
M. Gromov, [*Spaces and questions*]{}, Preprint (1999).
T.H. Gronwall, [*Some remarks on conformal representation*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) (1914/15), 72–76. \[$\spadesuit$ probably one of the first usage of the area-principle, cf. also Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914], Bieberbach 1916 [@Bieberbach_1916] and Faber 1916 [@Faber_1916]\]
B. Gross, [*Real algebraic curves and their Jacobians*]{}, preprint, 1979. \[$\spadesuit$ this is cited in Jaffee 1980[@Jaffee_1980], yet probably never appeared as a such but might have been phagocytosed in the next entry Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981]\]
B.H. Gross, J. Harris, [*Real algebraic curves*]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 14 (1981), 157–182. \[$\spadesuit$ modern account of Klein’s theory of real curves with many innovative ideas and viewpoints $\spadesuit$ the question posed on p.177 about the number of ovals for dividing plane smooth curves easily follows from the ideas of Rohlin[^133] 1974/75 [@Rohlin_1974/75], 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], compare Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000] for a detailed discussion\]
A. Grothendieck, [*Techniques de construction en géométrie analytique*]{}, Sém. H. Cartan 1960/61, Exp.7, 9–17, Paris, 1962. \[$\spadesuit$ Teichmüller theory à la Grothendieck\]
A. Grothendieck, [*Techniques de construction et théorèmes d’existence en géométrie algébrique IV. Les schéms de Hilbert.*]{} Sém. Bourbaki 221, 1960/61. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Grothendieck, [*Techniques de construction et théorèmes d’existence en géométrie algébrique V. Les schéms de Picard.*]{} Sém. Bourbaki 232, 1960/61. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Grothendieck, [*Esquisse d’un programme*]{}, 1984; reproduced in: L. Schneps and P. Lochak (eds), Geometric Galois Actions I. Around Grothendieck’s Esquisse d’un programme, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser. 242, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997, 5–48. \[$\spadesuit$ Teichmüller, Thurston, legos, etc. plus the Belyi-Grothendieck theorem that a closed Riemann surface is defined over $\Qbar$ iff it has only 3 ramifications over the sphere\]
H. Grötzsch, [*Über einige Extremalprobleme der konformen Abbildung* ]{}, Ber. Verh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig 80 (1928), 497–502. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ credited by Nehari 1953 [@Nehari_1953-Inequalities] for the solution of maximizing the derivative (distortion) at a given point of a multi-connected domain among schlicht functions bounded-by-one (extremals mapping upon a circular slit disc)\]
H. Grötzsch, [*Über konforme Abbildung unendlich vielfach zusammenhängender schlichter Bereiche mit endlich vielen Häufungsrandkomponenten*]{}, Ber. Verh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig (1929), 51–86. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ first proof of the circular slit disc mapping in infinite connectivity, see also Reich-Warschawski 1960 [@Reich-Warschawski_1960] for more subsequent references\]
H. Grötzsch, [*Das Kreisbogenschlitztheorem der konformen Abbildung schlichter Bereiche*]{}, Ber. Verh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig (1931), 238–253. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ another proof of the circular slit disc mapping in infinite connectivity, compare Grötzsch 1929 [@Groetzsch_1929]\]
H. Grunsky, [*Neue Abschätzungen zur konformen Abbildung ein- und mehrfach zusammenhängender Bereiche*]{}, (Diss.) Schriften Math. Semin., Inst. angew. Math. Univ. Berlin 1 (1932), 95–140. \[$\spadesuit$ \[26.07.12\] p.140, Grunsky announces (without proofs) the result that a suitable combination $c(\frak x (\zeta;z) - \frak y (\zeta;z))$ of the horizontal $\frak x$ (resp. vertical $\frak y$) \[those being the fraktur letters for $x$ resp. $y$!\] slit-maps affords the solution to the problem of least area among all analytic functions normed by $f'(z)=1$ $\spadesuit$ on reading the rest of the paper it seems that the image might fail to be a disc, compare esp. p.135 where a similar least area problem is handled $\spadesuit$ this topic is addressed again in Garabedian-Schiffer 1949 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1949] and Nehari 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK]\] 60, 78
H. Grunsky, [*Über die konforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender Bereiche auf mehrblättrige Kreise*]{}, Sitzungsber. Preu[ß]{}. Akad. (1937), 40–46. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ new potential-theoretic proof of the circle map for domains\]
H. Grunsky, [*Über die konforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender Bereiche aud mehrblättrige Kreise, II*]{}, Abh. Preu[ß]{}. Akad. Wiss. Math.-nat. Kl. 11 (1941), 1–8. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ idem as the previous item\]
H. Grunsky, [*Eindeutige beschränkte Funktionen in mehrfach zusammenhängenden Gebieten I*]{}, Jahresb. d. Deutsch. Math.-ver. 50 (1940), 230–255. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ extremal-problem description of circle maps for domains\]
H. Grunsky, [*Eindeutige beschränkte Funktionen in mehrfach zusammenhängenden Gebieten II*]{}, Jahresb. d. Deutsch. Math.-ver. 52 (1942), 118–132. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ sequel of the previous item\]
H. Grunsky, [*Zur Funktionentheorie in mehrfach zusammenhängenden Gebieten*]{}, Ber. Mathematikertagung Tübingen (1946), 68–69; in Coll. Papers, 245–6. 78
H. Grunsky, [*Nachtrag zu meinen Arbeiten über “Eindeutige beschränkte Funktionen in mehrfach zusammenhängenden Gebieten”*]{}, Math. Z. 52 (1950), 852. 78
H. Grunsky, [*Über die Fortsetzung eines auf einer berandeten Riemannschen Fläche erklärten meromorphen Differentials*]{}, Math. Nachr. 39 (1969), 87–96. \[$\clubsuit$ one of the rare work by Grunsky concerned with bordered surfaces, yet it does not seem to reprove the existence of a circle map à la Ahlfors\]
H. Grunsky, [*Lectures on Theory of Functions in Multiply Connected Domains*]{}, Studia Mathematika, Skript 4, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht in Göttingen, 1978. \[$\clubsuit$ all inclusive account but focusing to the case of domains (no Riemann surfaces)\]
$\bigstar$ Gudkov (1918–1992), student of Andronov and Petrovskii. Famous for his sextic solution to Hilbert’s 16th problem (1 st part thereof on the mutual arrangements of ovals), and in particular for its refutation of Hilbert’s conjecture that there is only two possible configurations in degree $6$ (his own and the earlier one of Harnack). Influential over Arnold 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72], hence also over Rohlin, etc. Gudkov’s students includes Utkin, Polotovskii, Shustin, Korchagin.
D.A. Gudkov, [*Establishing all existing types of non-singular plane algebraic curves of the sixth order with real coefficients*]{}, Ph.D. Dissertation, Gorki, 1952. \[$\spadesuit$ the title sounds slightly overambitious, compare comment in the next entry Gudkov 1954 [@Gudkov_1954]\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*The complete topological classification of non-singular real algebraic curves of the sixth order in the projective plane*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 98 (1954), 521–524. \[$\spadesuit$ albeit this paper contains some mistakes (too prohibitive), it must contain the first serious prohibitions via the Hilbert-Rohn method consolidated by Andronov-Pontrjagin theory of roughness (structural stability) $\spadesuit$ thus the method is still of interest, and its charming power is perhaps only eclipsed by more topological variants of the Arnold-Rohlin era, e.g. Arnold 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72] or Rohlin 1972/72 [@Rohlin_1972/72-Proof-of-a-conj-of-Gudkov]\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*On certain questions in the topology of plane algebraic curves*]{}, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 58 (1962), 95–127. \[$\spadesuit$ some overlap with Brusotti 1921 [@Brusotti_1921], yet an extension thereof to curves having “turning points” (=cusps)\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*On the topology of plane algebraic curves*]{}, Doctor’s Thesis, Gor’kii, 1969, 1–351. \[$\spadesuit$ first disproof of Hilbert’s conjecture about the nonexistence of the scheme $\frac{5}{1}5$. According to Polotovskii 1996 [@Polotovskii_1996-D-A-Gudkov]’s overview: “It is interesting to remark that the first proof of this fact in \[18\](=this entry) was extraordinarily complicated. It takes up $28$ pages of text, is a “pure existence proof”, and was obtained by means of a combination of the Hilbert-Rohn method with quadratic transformations. Shortly after D.A. Gudkov suggested significantly simpler [*constructions*]{} of curves having this scheme, see \[19\](=1971 [@Gudkov_1971-const-new-ser-M-curv]), \[21\], \[23\]. ”\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*Complete topological classification of the disposition of ovals of a sixth order curve in the projective plane*]{}, Gor’kov. Gos. Univ. Ucen. Zap. Vyp. 87 (1969), 118–153. \[$\spadesuit$ where Hilbert got corrected?!\]
D.A. Gudkov, G.A. Utkin, [*The topology of sixth-order curves and fourth-order surfaces*]{}, Gor’kov. Gos. Univ. Učen. Zap. Vyp. 87 (1969), 154–211; English transl., in: Nine papers on Hilbert’s 16th problem, Amer. Math Soc. Transl. (2) 112 (1978). \[$\spadesuit$ where Hilbert got corrected by Gudkov: disproof of one of one of Hilbert’s conjectures on the arrangement of ovals of plane $M$-sextic (that is Harnack-maximal). Gudkov corrected Hilbert’s conjecture by including the newly discovered so-called Gudkov curve and showed that only the trinity Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876], Hilbert 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege] and Gudkov’s 1969 can exist, yielding a complete classification up to isotopy of $M$-sextic (when combined with the prohibition à la Hilbert-Rohn which Gudkov was the first to implement correctly in 1954 [@Gudkov_1954] upon combining the classical method with “roughness” à la Andronov-Pontrjagin) $\spadesuit$ more generally this work contains a complete classification of all 56 isotopy classes realized by plane sextic (hence a complete solution to Hilbert’s 16th problem), but the story does not end here (cf. e.g. Rohlin’s 1978 enhancement by complex characteristics à la Klein, hence concomitant with Ahlfors, cf. our discussion in Sec.\[Klein-Rohlin-conj:sec\]) $\spadesuit$ another subsequent step is Nikulin 1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80] stronger classification of $C_6$ up to rigid-isotopy showing the completeness of the Klein-Rohlin invariants (the proof uses the whole apparatus of the complex geometry of K3 surfaces)\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*Construction of a new series of $M$-curves*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 200 (1971), 1269–1272; English transl., Soviet Math. Dokl. 12 (1971), 1559–1563. \[$\spadesuit$ Gudkov construction is reproduced (at least in abridged form) in Gudkov 1974/74 [@Gudkov_1974/74], in A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
D.A. Gudkov, [*Construction of a curve of degree $6$ of type $\frac{5}{1}5$*]{}, Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Mat. 3 (1973), 28–36; English transl., Soviet Math. (Iz. VUZ) (1973). \[$\spadesuit$ simplification in the disproof of Hilbert’s conjecture on the arrangement of ovals of plane $M$-sextics (that is Harnack-maximal). Gudkov corrected Hilbert’s conjecture by including the newly discovered so-called Gudkov curve (this contribution appears first in Gudkov’s Doctor Thesis (1969 [@Gudkov_1969-Doctor's-Thesis]), yet in a much more sophisticated way\]
D.A. Gudkov, A.D. Krakhnov, [*On the periodicity of the Euler characteristic of real algebraic $(M-1)$-manifolds*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 7 (1973), 15–19; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 7 (1973), 98–102 \[$\spadesuit$ same result as in Kharlamov 1973 [@Kharlamov_1973/73], i.e. an obstruction on $(M-1)$-schemes, e.g. for plane curves of degree $2k$, which is independent of the Hilbert-Rohn-Gudkov geometric method\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*The topology of real projective algebraic varieties*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 29 (1974), 3–79; English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 29 (1974), 1–79. \[$\spadesuit$ a masterpiece survey full of historical details and mathematical tricks $\spadesuit$ contains an extensive bibliography (157 entries) of early real algebraic geometry (in Germany, Italy and Russia), mostly in the spirit of Hilbert (by contrast to Klein’s more Riemannian approach) $\spadesuit$ p.2 and p.17 contain in my opinion a historical inaccuracy which imbued alas some of the subsequent literature (e.g. A’Campo 1979 [@A'Campo_1979 p.01], Jaffee 1980 [@Jaffee_1980 p.82]), namely Hurwitz 1891–92 is jointly credited for the intrinsic proof of Harnack’s inequality ($r\le
g+1$), while it goes back of course to Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876] (and not only Klein 1892 lectures as cited by Gudkov)\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*On the topology of algebraic curves on a hyperboloid*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 34 (1979), 26–32; English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 34 (1979), 27–35. \[$\spadesuit$ p.27: “Algebraic curves on a hyperboloid of one sheet have been studied for a long time. A start was made by Plücker and Chasles in the mid-nineteenth century (see \[1\], Ch.IV)=(Klein 1926 [@Klein_1926-Vorlesungen-über-die-Entwicklung]). In a fundamental article \[2\](=Hilbert 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege]) Hilbert proved \[…\]”\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*Generalization of a theorem of Brusotti for curves on a surface of second order*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 14 (1980), 20–24, 96; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 14 (1980), 15–18. \[$\spadesuit$ p.15: “Brusotti \[1\](=1921 [@Brusotti_1921]) proved the following assertion in 1921.—[*Brusotti’s theorem.*]{} If all the singular points of a curve $F$ in the complex projective plane ${\Bbb C}P^2
(x_0:x_1:x_2)$ are simple double points, then the simplifications of these singular points are independent.—This means that by adding an arbitrarily small term of degree $m$ (with real coefficients) to the polynomial $F$, it is possible to get a curve $\Phi$ such that each real singular point of the curve $F$ either remains or else simplifies in one of the two possible ways (depending on our choice, cf. \[5\]), and each pair of imaginary conjugate singular points either remains or vanishes (depending on our choice).”\]
D.A. Gudkov, G.M. Polotovskii, [*Stratification of a space of fourth-order curves. Contiguity of strata*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 42 (1987), 152. \[$\spadesuit$\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*Plane real projective quartic curves*]{}, in: Lecture Notes in Math. 1346, Springer, Berlin, 1988, 341–347. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Shustin 1990/91 [@Shustin_1990/91-Geom-of-discr-alg-curve] for a complete description of the discriminant of quartics $\spadesuit$ presumably some overlap with the previous entry $\spadesuit$ is this description of Gudkov compatible with our crazy disconnection result in Sec.\[Disconnection-of-the-empty-locus:sec\]\]
D.A. Gudkov, [*N.I. Lobachevskii. Biographical enigmas*]{}, Nizhnii Novgorod, 1992 (monograph in print). \[$\spadesuit$\]
L. Guillou, A. Marin, [*Une extension d’un théorème de Rohlin sur la signature*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci Paris Ser. A 285 (1977), 95–98. \[$\spadesuit$ useful in correcting Rohlin’s proof of the Gudkov hypothesis $p-n\equiv k^2 \pmod 8$ (compare Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000]) $\spadesuit$ this paper is an announcement and more details are to be found in the book Guillou-Marin 1986 [@Guillou-Marin_1986 p.97–118]\]
L. Guillou, A. Marin, [*A la recherche de la topologie perdue, I Du côté de chez Rohlin, II Le côté de Casson*]{}, Progress in Math. 62, Birkäuser, Boston, Basel, Stuttgart, 1986. \[$\spadesuit$ contains French translation of Rohlin’s ground-breaking works in low-dimensional differential topology, plus some of its applications to real algebraic geometry\]
R.C. Gunning, [*Lectures on Riemann surfaces*]{}. Princeton Acad. Press, Princeton, 1966. \[$\spadesuit$\] $\bigstar$
R.C. Gunning, R. Narasimhan, [*Immersion of open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Math. Ann. 174 (1967), 103–108. \[$\spadesuit$ no directly visible connection with Ahlfors 1950, but there must be some link in the long run\]
R.C. Gunning, [*Lectures on Riemann surfaces: Jacobi varieties*]{}, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1972, 189 pp. \[$\spadesuit$ new (essentially topological?) proof of Meis’ result upon the gonality of complex curves (=closed Riemann surfaces) $\spadesuit$ \[21.06.12\] the following extract of H.H. Martens’s review in MathReviews is capital for it brings the hope to gain a Teichmüller theoretic approach to the existence of circle maps with the best possible bounds (hence hinting how to recover Ahlfors and even Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] by an analytic (or rather geometric!) approach competing seriously with the naive topological proof of the writer): “A pièce de résistance is served in the appendix in the form of a proof of the existence of functions of order $\le [\frac{1}{2}(g+3)]$ on any closed Riemann surface. This result was previously obtained by T. Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960] using Teichmüller space techniques, and it is a special case of the more general results of Kleiman-Laksov 1972 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1972] and Kempf 1971 [@Kempf_1971].”\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
B. Gustafsson, [*Quadrature identities and the Schottky double*]{}, Acta Appl. Math. 1 (1983), 209–240. \[$\spadesuit$ \[13.10.12\] can the theory be extended to non-planar domains?\]
B. Gustafsson, [*Applications of half-order differentials on Riemann surfaces to quadrature identities for arc-length*]{}, J. Anal. Math. 49 (1987), 54–89. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Haas, [*Linearization and mappings onto pseudocircle domains*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 282 (1984), 415–429. \[$\spadesuit$ Koebe’s Kreisnormierungsprinzip for positive genus, uniqueness complement in Maskit 1989 [@Maskit_1989]\]
J. Hadamard, [*Sur le principe de Dirichlet*]{}, Bull. Soc Math. France (1906). \[$\spadesuit$ p.135 an example is given of a continuous function on the boundary of a domain such that none functions satisfying the boundary prescription has finite Dirichlet integral $\spadesuit$ a similar example was given in Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871], where a continuous function is given on the circle such that the harmonic function matching this boundary data (whose existence is derived by another procedure, e.g. the Poisson integral) has infinite Dirichlet integral $\spadesuit$ of course, heuristically any Prym’s boundary data must be of the Hadamard type (precisely by virtue of the just corrupted Dirichlet principle!): if the harmonic solution explodes any vulgar solution (hence less economical) must explode as well\]
J. Hadamard, [*Mémoire sur le problème d’analyse relatif à l’équilibre de plaques élastiques encastrées*]{}, Mémoires présentés par divers savants à l’Académie des Sciences 33 (1908), 128pp. \[$\spadesuit$ Discussion of the famous method, named after Hadamard, of variation of domains $\spadesuit$ further developed by Schiffer especially\]
G. Halphen, [*Mémoire sur la classification des courbes gauche algébriques*]{}, J. École Polytech. 52 (1882), 1–200. \[$\spadesuit$ sharing the price with M. Noether\]
R.S. Hamilton, [*The Ricci flow on surfaces*]{}, In: Mathematics and General Relativity (Santa Cruz, CA, 1986). Contemporary Mathematics 71, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1988, 237–262. \[$\spadesuit$ uniformization of surfaces via the 2D-Ricci flow (at least in the compact case)\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M. Hara, M. Nakai, [*Corona theorem with bounds for finitely sheeted disks*]{}, Tôhoku Math. J. 37 (1985), 225–240. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ applies Ahlfors mapping in a quantitative fashion (making use of its degree in contrast to Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964]) $\clubsuit$ naive question (ca. Sept. 2011) can we improve the bounds by appealing instead to Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]\]
A. Harnack, [*Ueber die Vieltheiligkeit der ebenen algebraischen Curven*]{}, Math. Ann. 10 (1876), 189–198. \[$\spadesuit$ a proof is given (via Bézout’s theorem) that a smooth plane real curve of order $m$ possesses at most $g+1=\frac{(m-1)(m-1)}{2}+1$ components (reellen Züge) and such Harnack-maximal curves are constructed for each degree via a method of small perturbation $\spadesuit$ as everybody knows a more intrinsic proof was given by Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876] by simply appealing to Riemann’s definition of the genus as the maximum number of retrosections not morcellating the surface $\spadesuit$ a more exotic derivation of the Harnack bound (using Riemann-Roch) is to be found in Enriques-Chisini 1915 [@Enriques-Chisini_1915-1918], whose argument actually supplies a proof of the so-called Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (cf. Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], Grunsky 1937 [@Grunsky_1937] and for instance A. Mori 1951 [@Mori_1951]) which is the planar version of the Ahlfors map\]
A. Harnack, [*Die Grundlagen der Theorie des logarithmischen Potentiales, und der eindeutigen Potentialfunktionen in der Ebene*]{}, Teubner, Leipzig, 1887.
R. Hardt, D. Sullivan, [*Variation of the Green function on Riemann surfaces and Whitney’s holomorphic stratification conjecture*]{}, Publ. Math. I.H.E.S. (1989), 115–138. \[$\spadesuit$ \[10.08.12\] the starting point of the paper (p.115) is a representation of a Riemann surface as a $k$-sheeted branched covering of the unit disc (denoted $B$) with branch point $a_1,
\dots, a_l$ in $B_{1/2}$ (ball of radius one-half) $\spadesuit$ this situation resembles sufficiently to Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] to ask if a precise connection can be made $\spadesuit$ of course one may notice that a map of the type required (by Hardt-Sullivan) exists for any interior of a compact bordered Riemann surface: indeed take a Ahlfors map or just a circle map (existence ensured by Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], or other sources, e.g. Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) and then upon post-composing by a power-map $z\mapsto z^n$ we may contract the modulus of the branch points to make them as small as we please upon choosing $k$ large enough $\spadesuit$ perhaps the dual game of looking at largest possible winding points should relate to the problem of finding the circle maps of lowest possible degrees $\spadesuit$; at least one should be able to define a conformal invariant of a bordered surface $F$ by looking at the largest possible modulus of a branch point of a circle map (of course composing with a disc-automorphism, the branch point can be made very close to $1$, so one requires a normalization, e.g. mapping a base-point of $F$ to $0$) $\spadesuit$ this defines a $[0,1)$-valued numerical invariant of a marked compact bordered Riemann surface $(F,b)$; how does it depends on $b$ when the latter is dragged through the (fixed) surface and does this invariant takes the value $0$ only for when $F$ is the disc $\spadesuit$ as another variant without marking, we may always assume that $0$ is nor ramified, and we may look for the largest radius free of ramification, this defines another numerical invariant taking values in $]0,1]$; obviously it takes the value one only when $F$ is topologically a disc (Riemann mapping theorem maybe in the variant firmly established by Schwarz) $\spadesuit$ maybe in the spirit of Bloch there is an absolute (strictly) positive lower bound on this “schlicht radius” at least for prescribed topological characteristic (i.e. the invariant $p$ and $r$ counting the genus and the contours) $\spadesuit$ call this constant $B_{p,r}$: how does it depend on $p,r$ asymptotically (maybe convergence to $0$ if $p,r \to \infty$); further is the infimum achieved by some surfaces, if so can we describe the extremal surfaces (naive guess the ramification is then cyclotomic); compare maybe work of Minda ca. 1983 for related questions\]
G.H. Hardy, [*On the mean modulus of an analytic function*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. 14 (1915), 269–277. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A.N. Harrington, [*Conformal mappings onto domains with arbitrarily specified boundary shapes*]{}, J. d’Anal. Math. 41 (1982), 39–53. \[$\spadesuit$ extension of Koebe’s KNP; similar result in Brandt 1980 [@Brandt_1980] $\spadesuit$ method: potential theory and (algorithmic) Brouwer’s fixed point $\spadesuit$ variant of proof in Schramm 1996 [@Schramm_1996]\]
J. Harris, [*On the Severi problem*]{}, Invent. Math. 84 (1986), 445–461. \[$\spadesuit$ based on virtually the same idea as Severi 1921, and Brusotti 1921, cf. e.g. Shustin 1990/91 [@Shustin_1990/91-Geom-of-discr-alg-curve]\]
R. Hartshorne, [*Algebraic Geometry*]{}, Grad. Texts in Math. 49, Springer-Verlag, 1977. \[$\spadesuit$ some elementary aspects of curves and surfaces via the sheaf theoretic approach (Leray, etc.)\]
M. Hasumi, [*Invariant subspaces for finite Riemann surfaces*]{}, Canad. J. Math. 18 (1966), 240–255. \[$\spadesuit$ extension of Beurling’s theorem (1949 [@Beurling_1949]) for the disc to the case of finite bordered Riemann surface, yet without using the Ahlfors map, but cite Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] which is closely allied\]
O. Haupt, [*Ein Satz über die Abelschen Integrale 1. Gattung*]{}, Math. Z. 6 (1920), 219–237. \[$\spadesuit$ only cited for the Riemann parallelogram method, which bears (perhaps?) some resemblances with Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] $\spadesuit$ work is influenced by Prym, tries to answer a question of Klein, further influence of Wirtinger, etc. $\spadesuit$ for modern ramification cf. Gerstenhaber 1953 [@Gerstenhaber_1953]\]
S.Ya. Havinson, [*On an extremal problem in the theory of analytic functions*]{}, (Russian) Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 4 (1949), 158–159. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
S.Ya. Havinson, [*On extremal properties of functions mapping a region on a multi-sheeted circle*]{}, Doklady Akad. Nauk. SSSR (N.S.) 88 (1953), 957–959. (Russian.) 60 $\bigstar$
S.Ya. Havinson, [*Extremal problems for certain classes of analytic functions in finitely connected regions*]{}, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 36 (78) (1955), 445–478; Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. 5 (1957), 1–33. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ generalized linear extremal problems (finite connectivity), i.e. maximization of the modulus of the derivative replaced by an arbitrary linear functional\]$\bigstar$
S.Ya. Havinson, G.C. Tumarkin, [*Existence of a single-valued function in a given class with a given modulus of its boundary values in multiply connected domains*]{}, (Russian), Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 22 (1958), 543–562. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Khavinson 1984 [@Khavinson-Dimitri_1984 p.378], and the same problem of prescribing the boundary modulus had been already treated by Grunsky 1942 [@Grunsky_1942]\]$\bigstar$
S.Ya. Havinson, [*Analytic capacity of sets, joint nontriviality of various classes of analytic functions and the Schwarz lemma in arbitrary domains*]{}, Mat. Sb. 54 (96) (1961), 3–50; English transl., Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. (2) 43 (1964), 215–266. 47, 50, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ uniqueness of the (Ahlfors) extremal function for domains of infinite connectivity (similar work in Carleson 1967 [@Carleson_1967-book]); but Khavinson’s work goes deeper (according to Hejhal 1972 [@Hejhal_1972]) into the study of the behavior of the extremal function\]
S.Ya. Havinson, [*Factorization theory for single-valued analytic functions on compact Riemann surfaces with boundary*]{}, Uspekhi Math. Nauk. 44 (1989), 155–189; English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 44 (1989), 113–156. \[$\spadesuit$ p.117 explains the usual trick of annihilating the $2p+(h-1)$ periods along essential cycles on a finite Riemann surface, for which we may take any $r-1$ of the boundary contours, as well as meridians and parallels taken along each handle $\spadesuit$ so this is quite close to our naive attempt to reprove Ahlfors’ theorem, compare Sec.\[Ahlfors-proof:sec\]\]
S.Ya. Havinson, [*Duality relations in the theory of analytic capacity*]{}, St. Petersburg Math. J. 15 (2004), 1–40. (Russian version published in 2003.) \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors function appears on pp.2,11,13,20 $\spadesuit$ the terminology “analytic capacity” (or “Ahlfors capacity”) is credited to V.D. Erokhin’s: “In accordance with V.D. Erokhin’s proposal (1958), the quantity $\gamma(F)$ has been called the [*analytic capacity*]{} or the [*Ahlfors capacity*]{} since that time.”\]
N.S. Hawley, M. Schiffer, [*Half-order differentials on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Acta Math. 115 (1966), 199–236. \[$\spadesuit$\]
N.S. Hawley, M. Schiffer, [*Riemann surfaces which are double of plane domains*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 20 (1967), 217–222. 78 \[$\spadesuit$\]
N.S. Hawley, [*Weierstrass points of plane domains*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 22 (1967), 251–256. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ addresses the question of the distribution of Weierstrass points upon the Schottky double of a plane domain. Precisely, for a planar membrane with hyperelliptic double, all W-points are located on the boundary. The author gives an example, derived from a real quartic with 4 ovals, whose W-points are not confined to the boundary. Such questions make good sense over positive genus membranes and are perhaps worth investigating further. Probably updates are already known, and one would like to explicit any possible relation between W-points and the degree of the Ahlfors function. Compare for this issue, Yamada 1978 [@Yamada_1978]\]
M. Hayashi, [*The maximal ideal space of the bounded analytic functions on a Riemann surface*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan 39 (1987), 337–344. \[$\spadesuit$ the following property: “the natural map of a Riemann surface $R$ into its maximal ideal space $\frak M (R)$ (this is an embedding if we assume that the algebra $H^{\infty}(R)$ of bounded analytic functions separates points) is a homeomorphism onto an open subset of $\frak M (R)$” has some application to the uniqueness of the Ahlfors function (cf. Gamelin 1973 [@Gamelin_1973-Extremal-I]), as well as to its existence $\spadesuit$ the bulk of this paper consists in giving examples where this property fails answering thereby a question of Gamelin 1973\]
Z.-X. He, [*Solving Beltrami equation by circle packing*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 322 (1990), 657–670. \[$\spadesuit$ includes another proof of GKN (generalized Kreisnormierung) where a compact bordered Riemann surface is conformally mapped upon a circular domain in a space-form (=constant curvature) \[of the same genus?\] $\spadesuit$ similar statement obtained by Haas 1984 [@Haas_1984] and Maskit 1989 [@Maskit_1989] (curiously non-cited here)—maybe also Jost 1985 [@Jost_1985] $\spadesuit$ perhaps the “syntax” of the main result (Thm 5.1, p.669) must be slightly corrected, probably by assuming the contours of $\partial{\overline{\Omega}}$ to bounds discs in the surface $M$ (equivalently to be null-homotopic)\]
Z.-X. He, O. Schramm, [*Fixed points, Koebe uniformization and circle packings*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 137 (1993), 369–406. \[$\spadesuit$ the deepest advance upon the KNP=Kreisnormierungsprinzip (raised by Koebe 1908 UbaK3 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3]), which is established for countably many boundary components $\spadesuit$ The general case is still unsettled today (2012), and maybe undecidable within ZFC? (just a joke, of course)\]
Z.-X. He, O. Schramm, [*On the convergence of circle packings to the Riemann map*]{}, Invent. Math. 125 (1996), 285–305. \[$\spadesuit$ improvement and generalization of the Rodin-Sullivan proof (1987 [@Rodin-Sullivan_1987]), making it logically independent of RMT (thus reproving it via the technology of circle packings) $\spadesuit$ \[08.10.12\] what about the same game for the Ahlfors map?\]
E. Heine, [*Ueber trigonometrische Reihen*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 71 (1870), 353–365. \[$\spadesuit$ the rôle of uniform convergence is emphasized (i.e. Weierstrass’ notion, yet first only familiar to his direct circle of students)\]
M.H. Heins, [*Extremal problems for functions analytic and single-valued in a doubly connected region*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 62 (1940), 91–106. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ quoted (joint with Carlson 1938 [@Carlson_1938] and Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939-Dreikreisesatzes]) in Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940] as one of the forerunners of the extremal problem for bounded analytic functions (alias Ahlfors map, subsequently)\]
M. Heins, [*On the iteration of functions which are analytic and single valued in a given multiply connected region*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 63 (1941), 461–480. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ regarded by Minda 1979 [@Minda_1979 p.421] as the proper originator of the [*annulus theorem*]{} (i.e., an analytic self-map of an annulus can take the generator of the fundamental group only upon a $0$ or $\pm 1$ multiple of itself, and the $\pm 1$ case forces the map to be a conformal automorphism)\]
M. Heins, [*A lemma on positive harmonic functions*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 52 (1950), 568–573. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ may contain another proof of the existence of the Ahlfors function (at least a circle map), yet not very clear which degree Heins’ argument supplies $\clubsuit$ in fact since the quantity $m$ appearing on p.571 for a generating system of the fundamental group is easily found to be $m=2p+(r-1)$ (where $p$ is the genus and $r$ the number of contours) it is quite likely (albeit the writer has no certitude!) that Heins’ method may reproduce (by specialisation) exactly Ahlfors upper bound upon the degree of a circle map $\spadesuit$ \[06.10.12\] for a possible corroboration of this intuition, check also the subsequent paper Heins 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF] which truly seems to get again the $r+2p$ bound of Ahlfors (1950) $\spadesuit$ treats Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation for a bordered surface (extending the work of Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949])\]
M. Heins, [*Symmetric Riemann surfaces and boundary problems*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 14A (1965), 129–143. \[$\spadesuit$ looks closely allied to Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], which is not cited, but so are some direct descendants, Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta] and Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] $\spadesuit$ enters into the category of “transplanting papers” where some result for the disc is lifted to a compact bordered surface (=membrane) $\spadesuit$ in the present case M. Riesz’s theorem on the conjugate Fourier series, and the unique decomposition of $f\in L^p$ into interior/exterior Fatou boundary functions of functions in $H_p$\]
M. Heins, [*Hardy classes on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 98, Springer, 1969. \[$\spadesuit$ p.59–65 contains a re-exposition of Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], yielding probably an alternate proof of the Ahlfors circle maps\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M. Heins, [*Nonpersistence of the Grenzkreis phenomenon for Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation on annuli*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. 596 (1975), 1–21. 50, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979] $\spadesuit$ from MathReviews: “Let $A$ be a subset of the open unit disc $\Delta$. Consider the family of functions $f$ regular in $\Delta$ such that $\vert f\vert \le 1$ on $\Delta$ and at each point of $A$, a specified initial Taylor section is assigned. For $b\in \Delta$, let $W(b)$ denote the set of values assumed by the functions of the family at $b$. \[As Heins explains in the original article “W(b) is termed the [*Wertevorrat*]{} of the family at $b$.”\] The Pick-Nevanlinna-Grenzkreis phenomenon asserts that if there is more than one function in the family and $b\in \Delta-A$, then the set $W(b)$ is a closed circular disc of positive radius. The author constructs a counter example to show that this is no longer true for multiply connected domains. Let $\Omega$ be the annulus $r<\vert z\vert< r^{-1}$ and let $B(c)$ denote the set of functions $f$, analytic in $\Omega$, such that $\vert f\vert \le
1$, $f(-1)=0$ and $f'(-1)=c$, where $c$ is small and positive. The author shows that in this case $W(b)$, $b\neq -1$, is a set with nonempty interior but is not a circle.—A result of Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949] asserts that if $\Omega$ is a domain of finite connectivity such that no boundary component reduces to a point and if the values of the function are assigned at a finite number of points, then the unique extremal function which takes at $b$ a given value on ${\rm Fr} W(b)$ maps $\Omega$ onto $\Delta$ with constant valency. The author shows that this remains true for his example although the initial Taylor section assigned is of order one at $z=-1$. There is also a general discussion of the problem in the general setting of Riemann surfaces with finite topological characteristics.” $\spadesuit$ \[07.10.12\] as a modest task one may wonder if Heins’ paper reproves Ahlfors’ existence of circle maps of degree $\le r+2p$. As a pessimistic remark it seems that there is a wide variety of extremal problems, somehow reflecting our mankind capitalistic/competitive aberration, making it unclear what the God given problem is, especially the one capturing circle maps of lowest possible degree $\spadesuit$ more optimistically it is clear that there is a fascinating body of knowledge among such problems (interpolation by prescribed Taylor section). Given a finite Riemann surface $\overline F$ (bordered), choose a finite set $A$ each point being decorated by a Taylor section (w.r.t. a local uniformizer), look at all functions bounded-by-one matching the Taylor data. For any $b\in F-A$, define $W(b)\subset \Delta$ as the set of values assumed at $b$ by functions of the family. $\spadesuit$ as above we look at the function $f_{b,w}$ taking at $b$ a given value $w$ of the frontier of $W(b)$. Q1. Is then Garabedian’s result on the constant valency of $f_{b,w}\colon F \to \Delta$ true in this non-planar setting? If yes what is the degree of the corresponding circle map (Q2). Of course the case where $A=\{a\}$ is a singleton with Taylor section $f(a)=0$ ($b\neq a$) and $w$ chosen so as to maximize the modulus in the set $W(b)$ gives exactly the Ahlfors map $f_{a,b}$ studied in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]. This induces (via the assignment $\overline{F}\mapsto \vert f_{a,b}(b)\vert$) a real-valued function ${\cal M}_{r,p}\to ]0,1[$ on the moduli space of surfaces with two marked points. One can dream about understanding the Morse theory of this function. $\spadesuit$ The answer to our two naive questions (Q1, Q2) is apparently already in Heins’ paper, for Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979 p.83] write: “Quite recently Heins \[10\](=1975 [@Heins_1975]) proved uniqueness of the extremal function $f_0$ which maximizes ${\rm Re}(e^{i\theta} f(z_0))$ among the class of analytic functions $f$ bounded by unity and with given Taylor sections \[…\] on a compact bordered Riemann surface $\Omega$. He also proved the extremal $f_0$ maps $\Omega$ onto a finite sheeted covering of the unit disc and gave a bound on the number of sheets called the [*Garabedian bound*]{}.” $\spadesuit$ \[07.10.12\] as a micro-objection the terming “Garabedian bound” is probably slightly unfair for Ahlfors as the latter probably knew it (in the case of a single interpolating point) without Garabedian’s helping hand (at least for circle maps, yet arguably not for the Ahlfors’ extremals) (cf. of course the acknowledgments to be found in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], but see also Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950] where the Ahlfors upper bound $r+2p$ is credited back to Ahlfors’ Harvard lectures in Spring 1948) $\clubsuit$ \[12.10.12\] Heins’ statement is as follows (p.18): “(3) [*The Garabedian bound*]{}. We consider a determinate Pick-Nevanlinna problem relative to $\Omega$ with a finite set of data and denote the solution by $f$. \[…\] For an interpolation point $b$ we let $\nu(b)$ denote the order of interpolation at $b$ augmented by one. We let $\nu$ denote the sum of the $\nu(b)$ taken over the interpolation points $b$. The Euler characteristic of $\Omega$ will be denoted by $\chi$. We shall show—[**Theorem 8.2**]{} [*f has at most $\nu+\chi$ zeros counted by multiplicity.*]{} $\clubsuit$ this statement subsumes the upper estimate of Garabedian, but also that of Ahlfors: indeed Ahlfors extremal problem is the case where there is a single interpolating point of order zero. So $\nu=0+1=1$. Now given a bordered surface $\Omega$ of genus $p$ with $r$ contours, we have $\chi(\Omega)=2-2p-r$ \[beware that Heins seems to work with the old convention about the sign of the Euler characteristic, hence just change his formula to $\nu-\chi$\]. So we get $\deg f \le \nu-\chi= \nu-2+2p+r\approx
r+2p$ (note a little arithmetical discrepancy from Ahlfors, surely easily explained) $\clubsuit$ Heins’ proof uses the following tools: $\bullet$ basic facts concerning Hardy classes on Riemann surfaces for which one is referred to Heins 1969 [@Heins_1969-LNM-Hardy] $\bullet$ a variational formula of F. Riesz 1920 [@Riesz_1920-Ueber-Potenzreihen] $\bullet$ the theorem of Cauchy-Read (cf. Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta]) $\bullet$ the Fatou boundary function, $\bullet$ the Green’s function $\bullet$ the qualitative Harnack inequality $\spadesuit$ a slightly different proof of a much related result (on “Garabedian bound”) is given as Theorem 3 of Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979], which uses maybe less machinery (?), an instead of Read the closely allied paper Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]. Yet Jenkins-Suita’s proof depend on Heins’ proof when it comes to the “interpolation divisor”\]
M. Heins, [*Carathéodory bodies*]{}, Comm. in honorem Rolf Nevanlinna LXXX annos nato, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A.I, Math. 2 (1976), 203–232. \[$\spadesuit$ extension to the setting of finite Riemann surfaces of Carathéodory’s theory on the “Variabilitätsbereich” (1907 [@Caratheodory_1907-Variabilitaetsbereich], 1911 [@Caratheodory_1911-Variabilitaetsbereich]) of coefficient of analytic functions with positive real part (bringing together Minkowski’s theory of convex sets with complex function theory), while encompassing interpolation problems subsuming those of Pick-Nevanlinna type\] $\bigstar$
M. Heins, [*Extreme normalized analytic functions with positive real parts*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. I. Math. 10 (1985), 239–245. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ localized via Bell 2009/11 [@Bell_2009_PREPRINT/2011] $\spadesuit$ also quoted in Khavinson 1984 [@Khavinson-Dimitri_1984 p.377] for another proof of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem $\spadesuit$ Heins handles the more general non-planar case recovering probably the Ahlfors circle maps of 1950, and so seems indeed to be the case according to MathReviews (translated from Hervé’s review in Zentralblatt): “Let $P$ be the family of holomorphic functions $f$ on a given Riemann surface $S$ satisfying ${\rm Re f}>0$ on $S$ and $f(a)=1$ for a given point $a\in S$. If $S$ is the unit circle, the extremal elements of $P$ are the functions $z\to
(\eta+z)/(\eta-z)$, $\vert \eta \vert=1$. If $S$ is a bounded open plane region whose boundary consists of $c$ analytic Jordan curve $\Gamma_1,\dots, \Gamma_c$, the author associates the extremal elements $f_\zeta$ of $P$ with the system $\zeta=(\zeta_1, \dots,
\zeta_c)\in \Gamma_1\times \dots \Gamma_c$; ${\rm Re} f_{\zeta}$ is an appropriate linear combination of minimal harmonic functions $>0$ on $S$ with poles $\zeta_k$, $k=1,\dots, c$. This results extends to the case in which $S$ is an open region of a compact Riemann surface of genus $g$, but here the real parts of the extremal element of $P$ are linear combination of \[AT MOST\][^134] $2g+c$ minimal positive harmonic functions on $S$.” $\spadesuit$ \[06.10.12\] so it seems that this new work of Heins, albeit quite close to Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], may be a bit more explicit and truly include the existence of (Ahlfors) circle map with the bound $r+2p$ like Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] $\spadesuit$ \[06.10.12\] it would be of course of primary importance to study if Heins’ methods is susceptible of recovering the sharper $r+p$ bound asserted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] $\spadesuit$ \[12.10.12\] after reading the original text, it must alas recognize that Heins’ proof is not perfectly satisfactory, for when it comes to the case of positive genus, he writes simply (p.243): “the corresponding developments of Section 3 \[=planar case\] may be paraphrased.” $\spadesuit$ hence the pedestrian reader will not find it easy to recover even Ahlfors basic (but deep) result from Heins’ account. So let me try once to degage the substance of the argument, while trying to locate “en passant” those critical steps which in our opinion is not made explicit in Heins’ exposition. (I shall use my notation hopefully for convenience of the reader.) We start as usual with $\overline{F}$ a compact bordered Riemann surface of genus $p$ and with $r$ contours. Let $a\in F$ be some fixed interior point. Heins considers $P$ the set of analytic functions $f$ on $F$ with ${\rm Re} f>0$ and $f(a)=1$. (The family $P$ is convex and compact, hence admits extreme points by Krein-Milman. Actually we shall probably not need this, albeit being an interesting viewpoint.) Let $g:=2p+(r-1)$ and $\gamma_1, \dots,
\gamma_g$ be representatives of the homology group $H_1(F)$. For $u$ harmonic on $F$, let $\pi(u)$ be the period vector given by $\pi(u)=(\int_{\gamma_1} \delta u, \dots, \int_{\gamma_g} \delta
u)$, where $\delta u$ is a certain abelian differential given by some local recipe. In fact it is perhaps more natural (and equivalent?) to define $\delta u$ as the conjugate differential $(du)^{\ast}$. For $\zeta \in \partial F$, Heins considers (p.241) $u_{\zeta}$ the minimal positive harmonic function on $F$ vanishing on $\partial F-\{\zeta\}$ and normalized by $u_\zeta(a)=1$. \[Maybe here Heins still relies subconsciously on Martin 1941 [@Martin_1941], yet arguably this is nothing else that the Green’s function with pole pushed to the boundary, what I called a Red’s function, but perhaps calls it a Poisson function, as may suggest the paper Forelli 1979 [@Forelli_1979].\] We seek to construct a half-plane map $f$ by taking a combination $u=\sum_{k=1}^d \mu_k u_{\zeta_k}$ of such elementary potentials, with $\mu_k>0$ while trying to arrange the free parameters (e.g. the $\zeta_k\in
\partial F$) so as to kill all periods of $(du)^{\ast}$. If this can be achieved for some $d$, then $f=u+iu^{\ast}$ (where $u^{\ast}$ is defined by integrating the differential $(du)^{\ast}$) supplies a half-plane map of degree $d$. (Recall indeed that $u$ vanishes continuously on the boundary $\partial F$, except at the $\zeta_k$ which are catapulted to $\infty$. Hence the map is boundary preserving and has therefore constant valency, here $d$.) To kill all periods, we may look at the map $\varphi\colon \partial F
\buildrel{u}\over{\to} h(F) \buildrel{\pi}\over{\to} {\Bbb
R}^g$, where $u(\zeta)=u_\zeta$ and $h(F)$ denotes the space of harmonic functions. At this stage it must be explained that the image $\varphi(\partial F)$ is “balanced”, i.e. not situated in a half space of ${\Bbb R}^g$. \[I am not sure that Heins explains this in details.\] If so then it is plain that there is a collection of $d\le g+1$ points (assume $d=g+1$ if you want) on $\varphi(\partial F)$ spanning a simplex containing $0$. This is just the principle that in Euclidean space of some dimension, a collection of one more points than the given dimension span a top-dimensional simplex with optimum occupation property of the territory (=Euclid space). Thus expressing the origin as convex combination of those $g+1$ points we find scalars $\mu_k>0$, which injected in the formula defining $u$, gives us an $u$ meeting the requirement. This reproves Ahlfors 1950, but alas I still do not have a simple explanation for the balancing condition. Next the challenge, is of course to improve the geometry by remarking that clever placements of points may span a lower dimensional simplex yet still covering the origin. Hopefully one may reprove the $r+p$ upper bound of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], along this path (which is essentially Ahlfors’ original approach).\]
M. Heins, [*Extreme Pick-Nevanlinna interpolating function*]{}, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 25–4 (1985), 757–766. \[$\spadesuit$ p.758: “It is appropriate to cite instances of convexity considerations related to the present paper. The pioneer work of Carathéodory \[2\](=1907 [@Caratheodory_1907-Variabilitaetsbereich]),\[3\](=1911 [@Caratheodory_1911-Variabilitaetsbereich]) on coefficient problems for analytic functions with positive real part is, as far I am aware, the first bringing together of the Minkowski theory of convex sets and complex function theory. Extreme points are present in the fundamental work of R.S. Martin \[12\](=1941 [@Martin_1941]) on the representation of positive harmonic functions as normalized minimal positive harmonic functions. My paper \[7\](=Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950]) showed the existence of minimal positive harmonic functions on Riemann surfaces using elementary standard normal families results without the intervention of the Krein-Milman theorem and gave application to qualitative aspects of Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation on Riemann surfaces with finite topological characteristics and nonpointlike boundary components. Such Riemann surfaces will be termed [*finite*]{} Riemann surfaces henceforth. In \[8\](=Heins 1976 [@Heins_1976]) the Carathéodory theory cited above was extended to the setting of finite Riemann surfaces for interpolation problems subsuming those of Pick-Nevanlinna type. Forelli \[5\](=1979 [@Forelli_1979]) has studied the extreme points of the family of analytic functions with positive real part on a given finite Riemann surface $S$ normalized to take the value $1$ at a given point of $S$. In my paper \[9\](=Heins 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-normalized-LIKE-AHLF]) the results of Forelli were supplemented by precise characterizing results for the case where the genus of $S$ is positive.”\]
D.A. Hejhal, [*Linear extremal problems for analytic functions*]{}, Acta Math. 128 (1972), 91–122. 50, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ generalized extremal problem, existence as usual via normal families, and so uniqueness is given “a reasonably complete answer” (p.93) $\spadesuit$ p.119 Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] is cited for another treatment of Ahlfors’ extremal problem\]
D.A. Hejhal, [*Theta functions, kernel functions and Abelian integrals*]{}, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 129, 1972. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Burbea 1978 [@Burbea_1978-Capacities], where like in Suita 1972 [@Suita_1972] an application of the Ahlfors function is given to an estimation of the analytic capacity\] $\bigstar$
D.A. Hejhal, [*Some remarks on kernel functions and Abelian differentials*]{}, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 52 (1973), 199–204. 78
D.A. Hejhal, [*Universal covering maps for variable regions*]{}, Math. Z. 137 (1974), 7–20. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ just quoted for the philosophical discussion on p.19, especially the issue that the (Koebe) Kreisnormierung (=circular mapping) \[not to be confused with our circle maps!\] is “[*somewhat more involved*]{} than the other canonical mappings, esp. the PSM\]
D.A. Hejhal, [*Linear extremal problems for analytic functions with interior side conditions*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser.A 586 (1974), 1–36. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979]\]$\bigstar$
D.A. Hejhal, [*On Schottky and Teichmüller spaces*]{}, Adv. Math. 15 (1975), 133–156. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
B. Heltai, [*Symmetric Riemann surfaces, torsion subgroups and Schottky coverings*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 100 (1987), 675–682. \[$\spadesuit$\]
?. Henoch, [*De Abelianarum Functionum Periodis*]{}, Inaugural-Dissertation, Berlin. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in both Hurwitz 1883 [@Hurwitz_1883] and Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883], who both relax hyperellipticity from Henoch results on the periods of Abelian integrals on real algebraic curve, while extending also Klein’s general version for $g=3$ (cf. Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876_Verlauf])\]
K. Hensel, W. Landsberg, [*Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen einer Variabeln und ihre Anwendung auf algebraische Kurven und Abelsche Integrale*]{}, Leipzig, 1902. \[$\spadesuit$ contains the sharp estimate $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ of Riemann-Brill-Noether upon the gonality of a closed surface, but the treatment is not considered as convincing (to contemporary scientists) until the work of Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960], compare e.g., H.H. Martens 1967 [@Martens_Henrik_1967] and Kleiman-Laksov 1972 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1972]\]
G. Herglotz, [*Über Potenzreihen mit positivem reellen Teil im Einheitskreis*]{}, Ber. Verhandl. Sächs. Ges. Wiss. Leipzig 93 (1911), 501–511. \[$\spadesuit$ yet another theorem in the disc susceptible (???) of a transplantation to finite bordered Riemann surface, try e.g Agler-Harland-Raphael 2008 [@Agler-Harland-Raphael_2008] (multi-connected planar domains), or Heins 1985 [@Heins_1985-Extreme-Pick-Nevanlinna] $\spadesuit$ Herglotz’s representation theorem is concerned with the so-called Poisson-Stieltjes representation for analytic functions on the unit disc $\Delta$ with $\ge 0$ real part (simultaneous work by F. Riesz), and cf. the above cited work of Heins for an application (of Herglotz-Riesz 1911) to a description of extreme points of a class $I$ of analytic function arising from a Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation problem involving functions $\Delta \to \{{\rm Re} z>0 \}$: “Theorem 1. The extreme points of $I$ \[in the sense of convex geometry\] are precisely the members of $I$ having constant valence on $\{Re z>0\}$, the value $\nu$ of the valence satisfying $1+n<\nu<1+2n$.” \[$n$ being the number of interpolation points\] $\spadesuit$ such results are probably extensible to the situation where the source (=disc $\Delta$) is replaced by a finite bordered Riemann surface, and the resulting theory probably interacts with the Ahlfors map $\spadesuit$ \[13.10.12\] in fact the Poisson-Stieltjes-Herglotz-Riesz representation formula is rather involved in another proof of Ahlfors circle maps, see for this Forelli’s brilliant account (1979 [@Forelli_1979])\]
J. Hersch, [*Quatres propriétés isopérimétriques de membranes sphériques homogènes*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 270 (1970), 1645–1648. \[$\spadesuit$ contains 4 spectral (eigenvalues) inequalities for disc-shaped membranes emphasizing the extremality of resp. the round sphere, the hemisphere, the quarter of sphere and of the octant of sphere $\spadesuit$ the first inequality has been extended via conformal transplantation to closed surfaces of higher topological type by Yang-Yau 1980 [@Yang-Yau_1980] (who failed to take advantage of the well-known sharp gonality bound of Riemann-Meis (1960 [@Meis_1960]), but see El Soufi-Ilias 1983/84 [@El-Soufi-Ilias_1983/84]) $\spadesuit$ the first inequality has been extended by Gabard 2011 [@Gabard_2011] upon using the Ahlfors map $\spadesuit$ \[08.10.12\] of course it would be also interesting trying to get extensions of the two remaining Hersch’s inequalities (involving the quarter of sphere and its octant resp.)\]
J. Hersch, L.E. Payne, M.M. Schiffer [*Some inequalities for Steklov eigenvalues*]{}, Arch. Rat. Mech Anal. 57 (1973/74), 99–114. \[$\spadesuit$ contain estimates of Steklov eigenvalues along the method of Szegö 1954 [@Szego_1954], Weinstock 1954 [@Weinstock_1954], Weinberger 1956 [@Weinberger_1956], etc. (i.e. conformal transplantation) $\spadesuit$ in the light of Fraser-Schoen’s article (2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011]) one can remark two things: (1) it is strange that the present paper does not cite the planar avatar of the Ahlfors map (that is the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem); this is perhaps done subconsciously in §5.2, p.106 (2) of course (at least since Fraser-Schoen’s paper 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011]) it is obvious that the result can (via the Ahlfors map) be extended to bordered Riemann surfaces; for an exact implementation cf. Girouard-Polterovich 2012 [@Girouard-Polterovich_2012]\]
M. Hervé, [*Quelques propriétés des transformations intérieures d’un domaine borné*]{}, Ann. sci. École norm. sup. (3) 68 (1951), 125–168. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Grunsky’s works, as well as Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] are cited, and it could be nice to look for extensions to bordered surfaces\]
R.A. Hidalgo, A.F. Costa, [*Anticonformal automorphisms and Schottky coverings*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn 26 (2001), 489–508. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R.A. Hidalgo, [*Schottky uniformization of stable symmetric Riemann surfaces*]{}, Notas de la Soc. Mat. de Chile (N.S.) 1 (2001), 82–91. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R.A. Hidalgo, [*Real surfaces, Riemann matrices and algebraic curves*]{}, In: [*Complex Manifolds and Hyperbolic Geometry*]{}, Guanajuato 2001, Contemp. Math. 311, Amer. MAth. Soc., Providence, 2002. \[$\spadesuit$ a neoclassical account on the Rückkehrschnitttheorem of Klein 1882 $\spadesuit$ question: is it sufficient to reprove existence of Ahlfors circle maps?\]
R.A. Hidalgo, B. Maskit, [*On Klein-Schottky groups*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 220 (2005), 313–328. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R.A. Hidalgo, B. Maskit, [*On neoclassical Schottky groups*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 358 (2006), 4765–4792. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R.A. Hidalgo, [*On the retrosection theorem*]{}, Proyecciones 27 (2008), 29–61. \[$\spadesuit$ a neoclassical account on the Rückkehrschnitttheorem of Klein 1882 $\spadesuit$ question: is it sufficient to reprove existence of Ahlfors circle maps?\]
R.A. Hidalgo, [*On the inverse uniformization problem: real Schottky uniformization*]{}, Rev. Mat. Complut. 24 (2011), 391–420. \[$\spadesuit$ p.394: “The reciprocal is valid by the retrosection theorem \[13\](=Koebe 1910 UAK2 [@Koebe_1910_UAK2]) (see \[4\]=(Bers 1975 [@Bers_1975]) for a modern proof using quasiconformal deformation theory).”\]
D. Hilbert, [*Über die reellen Züge algebraischen Kurven*]{}, Math. Ann. 38 (1891), 115–138; or Ges. Abhandl., Bd.II. \[$\spadesuit$ where Hilbert’s 16th problem (Paris 1900) starts taking shape, in the sense of asking for the isotopy classification of plane smooth real sextics in ${\Bbb R}P^2={\Bbb
P}^2 ({\Bbb R})$ $\spadesuit$ a method of oscillation is given permitting to exhibit a new scheme of $M$-sextic not available via Harnack’s method of 1876 (this is nowadays called Hilbert’s method) which is quite powerful (but not omnipotent) to analyze the topology of plane (real) sextics $\spadesuit$ in particular Hilbert develops the intuition that a sextic cannot have 11 unnested ovals, so must be nested yielding some noteworthy form of complexity of algebraic varieties $\spadesuit$ a complete proof of this assertion will have to wait for a longue durée series of attempt by his own students Kahn 1909 [@Kahn_1909] Löbenstein 1910 [@Löbenstein_1910] and especially Rohn 1911–13 [@Rohn_1913]. All these attempts where judged unconvincing, and from the Russian rating agency not judged as sufficiently rigorous until the intervention of Petrovskii 1933–38 [@Petrowsky_1938] and Gudkov 1948–1969, cf. e.g. Gudkov 1974/74 [@Gudkov_1974/74] $\spadesuit$ p.418 (in Ges. Abh., Bd.II): “Diesen Fall $n=6$ habe ich einer weiteren eingehenden Untersuchung unterworfen, wobei ich—freilich auf einem au[ß]{}erordentlich umständlichen Wege— fand, da[ß]{} die elf Züge einer Kurve 6-ter Ordnung keinesfalls sämtlich au[ß]{}erhalb un voneinander getrennt verlaufen können. Dieses Resultat erscheint mir deshalb von Interesse, weil er zeigt, da[ß]{} für Kurven mit der Maximalzahl von Zügen der topologisch einfachste Fall nicht immer möglich ist.” $\spadesuit$ for the next episode in Hilbert’s pen, cf. Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909] where Hilbert ascribes to his students a complete proof of the result (inexistence of the unnested scheme of 11 ovals)\]
D. Hilbert, [*Mathematische Probleme*]{}, Arch. Math. Phys. (3) 1 (1901), 213–237; also in Ges. Abh., Bd.III. \[$\spadesuit$ includes Hilbert’s 16th problem on the mutual disposition of ovals of plane curves (especially sextics), completely solved by Gudkov ca. 1969, cf. Gudkov-Utkin 1969 [@Gudkov-Utkin_1969/78]\]
D. Hilbert, [*Über das Dirichletsche Prinzip*]{}, Jahresb. d. Deutsch. Math.-ver. 8 (1900), 184–188. \[$\spadesuit$ \[08.10.12\] the technological breakthrough based upon the “direct method” in the calculus of variation, where one directly minimizes the integral (without transiting to its first variation, alias Euler-Lagrange equation) via the idea of minimizing sequences implying a topologization of the space of test functions while checking its compactness (=Fréchet’s jargon) of the resulting family $\spadesuit$ the method also differs from its predecessors Schwarz-Neumann-Poincaré where the problem was first solved for the disc and combinatorial tricks permitted proliferation to higher topological complexity\] 60
D. Hilbert, [*Über das Dirichletsche Prinzip*]{}, Math. Ann. 59 (1904), 161–186. (Abdruck aus der Festschrift zur Feier des 150jährigen Bestehens der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1901.) 60 \[$\spadesuit$ p.161 (Introd.): “Unter dem Dirichletschen Prinzip verstehen wir diejenige Schlu[ß]{}weise auf die Existenz einer Minimalfunktion, welche Gauss (1839)\[=[@Gauss_1839]\], Thomson (1847)\[=[@Thomson_1847]\], Dirichlet (1856)\[=of course much earlier, at least as early as when Riemann studied in Berlin, ca. 1849–50!\] und andere Mathematiker zur Lösung sogennanter Randwertaufgaben angewandt haben und deren Unzulässigkeit zuerst von Weierstrass erkannt worden ist. \[…\] Durch das Dirichletsche Prinzip hat insbesondere Riemann die Exitenz der überall endlichen Integrale auf einer vorgelegten Riemannschen Fläche zu beweisen gesucht. Ich bediene mich im folgenden dieses klassischen Beispiels zur Darlegung meines strengen Beweisverfahrens.”\]
D. Hilbert, [*Über das Dirichletsche Prinzip*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 129 (1905), 63–67. (Abdruck eines Vortrages aus dem Jahresb. d. Deutsch. Math.-ver. 8 (1900), 184–188.) 60
D. Hilbert, [*Zur Theorie der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1909), 314–323; Ges. Abh. 3, 73–80. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ parallel-slit mapping including positive genus (and infinite connectivity) $\spadesuit$ influenced much Courant, and also Koebe 1910 [@Koebe_1910_Hilbert]\]
D. Hilbert, [*Über die Gestalt einer Fläche vierter Ordnung*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1909), 308–313; Ges. Abh. 2, 449–453. \[$\spadesuit$ contains a good picture for the construction of Harnack-maximal sextic $\spadesuit$ p.453, Hilbert ascribes to his students G. Kahn 1909 [@Kahn_1909] and Löbenstein 1910 [@Löbenstein_1910] a complete proof that a real sextic cannot have 11 unnested ovals (but that was not judged solid enough by subsequent workers, e.g. Rohn, Petrovskii, and Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74]): “\[…\] eine ebene Kurve 6-ter Ordnung hervorgehen, die aus elf au[ß]{}erhalb voneinander getrennt verlaufenden Zügen bestände. Da[ß]{} aber eine solche Kurve nicht existiert, ist einer der tiefstliegenden Sätze aus der Topologie der ebenen algebraischen Kurven; derselbe ist kürzlich von G. Kahn und K. Loebenstein (Vgl. die Göttinger Dissertationen derselben Verfasserinnen.) auf einem von mir angegebenen Wege bewiesen worden.” $\spadesuit$ nowadays there is five-minute proof of what Hilbert called one of the deepest problem in the topology of plane curves, via Rohlin’s formula ca. 1974–78 (cf. e.g. our Sec.\[Rohlin-formula:sec\]), yet we believe that there is perhaps also a proof via the Ahlfors map (in the special case due to Riemann-Schottky-Bieberbach-Grunsky). This would be a fantastic project\]
D. Hilbert, S. Cohn-Vossen, [*Anschauliche Geometrie*]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1932. (Translation: Geometry and the Imagination) \[$\spadesuit$\]
S. Hildebrandt, H. von der Mosel, [*Conformal mapping of multiply connected Riemann domains by a variational approach*]{}, Adv. Calc. Var. 2 (2009), 137–183. \[$\spadesuit$ new proof of the Kreisnormierung for (planar) domains via Plateau-style method $\spadesuit$ question: can we apply the same method for the (Ahlfors) circle map? (cf. Courant 1939 [@Courant_1939] for the planar case \[$p=0$\]) $\spadesuit$ “Abstract. We show with a new variational approach that any Riemannian metric on a multiply connected schlicht domain in ${\Bbb R}^2$ can be represented by globally conformal parameters. This yields a “Riemannian version” of Koebe’s mapping theorem.”\]
S. Hildebrandt, [*Plateau’s problem and Riemann’s mapping theorem*]{}, Milan J. Math. (2011), 67–79. \[$\spadesuit$ survey putting in perspective several recent developments, including the previous item\]
F. Hirzebruch, [*Topological methods in algebraic geometry*]{}, Springer, 1978; translated from the Original German text ca. 1955. \[$\spadesuit$ how to put Pontrjagin, Thom, cobordism, the signature theorem, etc. into action to get the generalized Riemann-Roch theorem\]
W. Hodge, [*The Theory and Applications of harmonic integrals*]{}, Cambridge, 1941.
K. Hoffman, [*Banach spaces of analytic functions*]{}, Prentice-Hall (Englewood Cliffs), 1962; Dover Reprint, 1988.
M. Homma, [*Separable gonality of a Gorenstein curve*]{}, Math. Contemp. ca. 2004. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Ballico 2003 [@Ballico_2003]\]
M. Horikawa, [*On deformations of holomorphic maps I*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan 25 (1973), 372–396. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Huisman, [*Real quotient singularities and nonsingular real algebraic curves in the boundary of the moduli space*]{}, Compos. Math. 118 (1999), 42–60. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Huisman, [*Real Teichmüller spaces and moduli of real algebraic curves*]{}, Contemp. Math. 253 (2000), 145–179. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Huisman, [*On the geometry of algebraic curves having many real components*]{}, Rev. Mat. Complut. 14 (2001), 83–92. \[$\spadesuit$ p.87, Prop.3.2 contains an algebro-geometric proof of the so-called Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (for antecedent along similar lines compare Enriques-Chisini 1915/18 [@Enriques-Chisini_1915-1918], Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], and Wirtinger 1942 [@Wirtinger_1942]) $\spadesuit$ of course Huisman’s paper goes much deeper by exploring the properties of linear series on Harnack-maximal curves (alias $M$-curves)\]
J. Huisman, [*Non-special divisors on real algebraic curves and embeddings into real projective spaces*]{}, Ann. di Mat. 182 (2003), 21–35. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Hurwitz, [*Über die Perioden solcher eindeutiger, $2n$-fach periodischer Funktionen, welche im Endlichen überall den Charakter rationaler Funktionen besitzen und reell sind für reelle Werte ihrer $n$ Argumente*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 94 (1883), 1–20. (Math. Werke, Bd. I) \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Hurwitz, [*Über Riemannsche Flächen mit gegebenen Verzweigungspunkten*]{}, Math. Ann. 39 (1891), 1–61. \[$\spadesuit$ \[13.10.12\] if we fix a ramification divisor in the sphere of degree $b$ and a mapping degree $d$ there is finite number of Riemann surfaces $F$ of Euler characteristic $\chi (F)=d
\chi(S^2)-b$ having the prescribed topological behaviour (Hurwitz is able to make a fine study, using of course the monodromy and so to get upper bounds on the number of admissible maps). It seems evident that the game should extend in the bordered setting in the context of Ahlfors circle maps, which are truly (upon doubling) real maps of a special kind (totally real, saturated or separating) from Klein’s orthosymmetric real curves to the real projective line. Then one can try to adventure into similar group theoretical (combinatorial) games as did Hurwitz in the complex case (in fact Hurwitz himself give close attention to reality questions) $\spadesuit$ a more modest question is whether a careful variation of branch points does not produce a quick “action-painting” or “sweeping out” proof of the existence of circle maps of lowest possible degree. $\spadesuit$ as yet I was never able to proceed along this way, which looks yet a reasonable strategy for in the complex case such argument yield at least the right prediction about the gonality of complex curves as divinized by Riemann 1857 (cf. e.g. the heuristic count in Griffiths-Harris 1978 [@Griffiths-Harris_1978/94]). I remind clearly that this idea was suggested by Natanzon (Rennes ca. 2001), and in Rennes 2001/02 (Winter) Johan Huisman also presented to me a simple moduli parameter count somehow comforting the bound $r+p$ (when I suggested him the possibility of the sharpened $r+p$ bound); for the details of Huisman’s count cf. \]
A. Hurwitz, [*Über algebraische Gebilde mit eindeutigen Transformationen in sich*]{}, Math. Ann. 41 (1893), 403–442; or Math. Werke, Bd.I, Funktionentheorie. \[$\spadesuit$ it is proved that if a conformal self-map of a closed Riemann surface of genus $>1$ induces the identity on the first homology group then the self-map is the identity. Historically, one may wonder how this formulation borrowed from Accola ca. 1966 is reliable for the language of homology was not yet “invented” at least in this precise context (recall Poincaré 1895, but of course a myriad of people used the term “homology” in different contexts, e.g. Jordan) $\spadesuit$ despite this detail the assertion is correct\]
A. Hurwitz, R. Courant, [*Vorlesungen über allgemeine Funktionentheorie und elliptische Funktionen*]{}, Grundl. der. Math. Wiss. 3, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1922. (Subsequent editions 1929, 1964, 706 pp.) \[$\spadesuit$ contains another proof of the KN(=Kreisnormierung) in finite connectivity, according to Schiffer-Hawley [@Schiffer-Hawley_1962], also quoted for this purpose in Stout 1965 [@Stout_1965] $\spadesuit$ Ahlfors once said (recover the source!!) that it this in this book that he learned the length-area principle so fruitful in the theory of quasi-conformal maps (roughly the pendant of Grötzsch’s Flächenstreifenmethode)\]
Y. Imayoshi, [*Holomorphic families of Riemann surfaces and Teichmüller spaces*]{}, Ann. of Math. Stud, 1981. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M.S. Ioffe, [*Extremal quasiconformal embeddings of Riemann surfaces*]{}, Sib. Math. J. (1975), 520–537; English transl. 1976. \[$\spadesuit$ Teichmüller theory for finite bordered surfaces (with optional punctures)\]
I.V. Itenberg, [*Curves of degree 6 with one nondegenerate double point and groups of monodromy of nonsingular curves*]{}, in: Real Algebraic Geometry, Proceedings, Rennes 1991, Lecture Notes in Math. 1524, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992. \[$\spadesuit$\]
I.V. Itenberg, [*Contre-exemples à la conjecture de Ragsdale*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris (Sér.I) 317 (1993), 277–282. \[$\spadesuit$ where Ragsdale conjecture is seriously destroyed, yet it remains open the case of $M$-curves, compare also Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale]\]
I.V. Itenberg, [*Groups of monodromy of non-singular curves of degree 6*]{}, in: ???, 199?. \[$\spadesuit$ extending a private communication of Kharlamov, the monodromy groups (ovals permutation) of each chamber of the discriminant is described $\spadesuit$ relies on Nikulin’s classification via K3 surfaces and uses Coxeter, Vinberg, etc.\]
I.V. Itenberg, [*Rigid isotopy classification of curves of degree 6 with one nondegenerate double point*]{}, in: Topology of Manifolds and Varieties, Advances in Soviet Math. 18, Amer. Math. Soc., 1994, 193–208. (English) \[$\spadesuit$ p.196: “Proposition 2.1. [*Each empty oval of a nonsingular curve of degree $6$ can be contracted and there is only one rigid-isotopy class of the result of such a degeneration.*]{}” $\spadesuit$ the method employed seems to depend upon “Nikulin’s approach for obtaining rigid-isotopy classification of nonsingular curves of degree $6$” (cf. p.193) $\spadesuit$ as noted by Viro (in the same volume, p.xiii): “I only want to formulate a conjecture, suggested by Itenberg’s Prop. 2.2: each empty oval of a nonsingular real algebraic plane projective curve can be contracted by a deformation of the curve in the class of curves of the same degree. According to Prop. 2.2, this is true for curves of degree $6$. It is easy to check for curves of degree $\le 5$. The first case for which it is unknown is the case of degree $7$.” $\spadesuit$ \[08.01.13\] In the same vein one can perhaps conjecture that any two ovals lying at the same depth can always coalesce to a single one.\]
I.V. Itenberg, O. Viro, [*Patchworking algebraic curves disproves the Ragsdale conjecture*]{}, The Math. Intelligencer 18 (1996), 19–28. \[$\spadesuit$ self-explanatory title $\spadesuit$ contains (besides some fascinating historical sketches) in particular a formulation of the last vestige of Ragsdale’s conjecture which is still open for $M$-curves (as I learned personally from Th. Fiedler)\]
C. Jacob, [*Sur le problème de Dirichlet dans un domaine plan multiplement connexe et ses applications à l’hydrodynamique*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. 18 (1939), 363–383. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ cf. also the next entry\]
C. Jacob, [*Introduction mathématique à la mécanique des fluides*]{}, 1959. (ca. 1286 pp.) \[$\spadesuit$\]
C.G.J. Jacobi, [*Considerationes generales de transcendentibus Abelianis*]{}, Crelle J. Reine Angew. Math. 9 (1832), 394–403. \[$\spadesuit$ Jacobi inversion problem, and first place where jargon like Abelian integrals are employed\]
C.G.J. Jacobi, [*Gesammelte Werke, III*]{}. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938] for the so-called Euler-Jacobi formula, as being one of the tool towards Petrovskii’s proof of the extended Hilbert-Rohn theorem forcing the presence of nesting in $M$-curves (though Petrovskii’s inequalities have a universal validity)\]
S. Jacobson, [*Pointwise bounded approximation and analytic capacity of open sets*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 218 (1976), 261–283. \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors function appears on p.261, 272, 274 in the context of analytic capacity, which is examined from the angle of the semi-additivity question (Vitushkin) $\spadesuit$ the latter aspect has meanwhile been settled in the seminal breakthrough of Tolsa 2003 [@Tolsa_2003] giving also a complete (geometric) solution to Painlevé’s problem\]
A. Jaffe, S. Klimek, L. Lesniewski, [*Representation of the Heisenberg algebra on a Riemann surface*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 126 (1990), 421–433. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Jaffee, [*Real algebraic curves*]{}, Topology 19 (1980), 81–87. \[$\spadesuit$ p.82: “We state Harnack’s Theorem in a slightly strengthened form which is probably due to Hurwitz:—[Theorem 2]{}. [*Let $(X, \rho, g,r)$ be as in §$1$. The number $c$ of components of the space $X-X^{\rho}$ is at most $2$. If $c=2$, then $r\le 1+g$ and $g-r$ is odd. If $c=1$, then $r\le g$.*]{}” $\spadesuit$ of course this is historical non-sense, read “Klein” in place of “Hurwitz” $\spadesuit$ \[05.01.13\] the explanation for this historical mistake (alas quite widespread in literature) seems to find its origin in Gudkov’s survey 1974/74 [@Gudkov_1974/74], where Klein’s priority is not sufficiently emphasized! $\spadesuit$ otherwise the paper is quite pleasant albeit quite elementary, especially it cites (p.86) a preprint of Gross 1979 [@Gross_1979-PREPRINT] which probably was phagocytosed in Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981]\]
P. Järvi, [*On some function-theoretic extremal problems*]{}, Complex Variables Theory Appl. 24 (1994), 267–270. \[$\spadesuit$ related to the Ahlfors function\]$\bigstar$
J.A. Jenkins, [*On the existence of certain general extremal metrics*]{}, Ann. Math. (2) (1957). \[$\spadesuit$\]
J.A. Jenkins, [*Some new canonical mappings for multiply-connected domains*]{}, Ann. Math. (2) 65 (1957), 179–196. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ new derivation of the parallel-slit maps (and radial avatar) in the slightly extended context of rectangular multi-connected domains (resp. radioactive) domains bounded respectively by rectangles or by rectangles in polar coordinates $\spadesuit$ technique: the classical continuity method à la Brouwer-Koebe, but augmented by some quasi-conformal technology (à la Grötzsch, etc.)\]
J.A. Jenkins, N. Suita, [*On the Pick-Nevanlinna problem*]{}, Kōdai Math. J. 2 (1979), 82–102. \[$\clubsuit$ includes probably an extension and thus also a new derivation of the Ahlfors circle map, compare also Heins 1975 [@Heins_1975] who probably already achieves this goal\]
J.A. Jenkins, N. Suita, [*On analytic maps of plane domains*]{}, Kōdai Math. J. 11 (1988), 38–43. \[$\clubsuit$ for $D$ a plane bordered surface, an analytic map $f\colon D \to \Delta$ to another bordered surface is called [*boundary preserving*]{} it it takes boundary to boundary. “A boundary preserving map $f\colon D \to \Delta$ covers the image domain finitely many times. It can also be extended to the doubles as $\hat D\to \hat \Delta$. Now the Seveli-deFranchis’ theorem[^135] states finiteness for the number of nonconstant analytic maps between two closed Riemann surfaces of genuses both $>1$, hence we get as a dividend finiteness for the above boundary preserving maps, as soon as the genus of the doubles are $>1$. $\spadesuit$ p.40: “Since $f$ is boundary preserving, $f$ has no branch points on the boundary.”, this is completely akin to the Ahlfors map $\spadesuit$ of course the problematic addressed by Jenkins-Suita extends directly to bordered surface of positive genus, and it could be nice to work out corresponding bounds\]
M. Jeong, [*The Szegö kernel and a special self-correspondence*]{}, J. Korea Soc. Math. Educ. Ser. B: Pure Appl. Math. 5 (1998), 101–108. \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors map is briefly mentioned in the following connection: “Since the zeroes of the Szegö kernel are parts of the zeroes of the Ahlfors map and give rise to a particular basis for the Hardy space $H^2(b\Omega)$ (see \[5\]=Bell 1995 [@Bell_1995-Complexity-Indiana]), they can be the powerful tools for getting the properties of the mapping for planar domains.”\]
M. Jeong, M. Taniguchi, [*Bell representations of finitely connected planar domains*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131 (2002), 2325–2328. \[$\spadesuit$ a problem posed by Bell (1999/2000) is given a positive answer, even in the following sharper form: “Theorem 1.2. [*Every non-degenerate $n$-connected planar domain with $n>1$ is mapped biholomorphically onto a domain defined by $\{ \vert z+
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\frac{a_k}{z-b_k}\vert<1\}$ with suitable complex numbers $a_k$ and $b_k$.*]{}” $\spadesuit$ the philosophy of such Bell’s domain is a sort of reverse engineering: instead of constructing the Ahlfors function of a given domain one first gives the function $f$ and define the domain as $\vert f(z) \vert <1$ $\spadesuit$ p.2326, it is observed that Bell’s domains depend on $2n-2$ complex parameters (so $4n-4$ real parameters) exceeding the $3g-3=3(n-1)-3=3n-6$ real moduli predicted by Riemann-Schottky-Klein-Teichmüller $\spadesuit$ this discrepancy is explained by the fact “that every Bell domain is actually associated with an $n$-sheeted branched covering of the unit disk”, for knowing the $a_k,b_k$ we may construct the circle-map $f(z)=z+\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\frac{a_k}{z-b_k}$ (call it the Bell representation) $\spadesuit$ of course the question arise of describing the “Ahlfors locus” (within the Hurwitz space) of those parameters $a_k,b_k$ such that the Bell representation is actually an Ahlfors extremal function $\spadesuit$ this problem is reposed again in Taniguchi 2004 [@Taniguchi_2004] $\spadesuit$ from the more traditional point view, starting form an $n$-connected domain (with contours $C_1, \dots, C_n$) one can construct a circle map (of minimal degree $n$) by prescribing boundary points $p_i\in
C_i$ mapping to $1\in S^1$ (Bieberbach-Grunsky), thus roughly speaking circle maps depends over $n$ parameters, whereas the Ahlfors functions $f_a$ (or $f_{a,b}$) depend only on 2 real parameters (resp. $4$) $\spadesuit$ compare maybe Agler-Harland-Raphael [@Agler-Harland-Raphael_2008] (and its MathReview summary) for a description of the Grunsky functions as the extreme points of the compact convex set of holomorphic functions with positive real parts normalized by $f(z_0)=1$ for some fixed interior point\]
M. Jeong, [*The exact Bergman kernel and the extremal problem*]{}, Kangweon-Kyungki Math. J. 13 (2005), 183–191. \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors map appears twice on p.185–6\]
M. Jeong, J.-W. Oh, M. Taniguchi, [*Equivalence problem for annuli and Bell representations in the plane*]{}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 325 (2007), 1295–1305. \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors function is employed in the problem of determining the parameter for which a certain doubly connected domain of Bell, namely $\vert z+z^{-1}\vert < r$, is conformal to a circular (concentric) ring\]
G. Jones, D. Singerman, [*Belyi functions, hypermaps and Galois groups*]{}, Bull. London Math. Soc. 28 (1996), 561–590. \[$\spadesuit$\]
P.W. Jones, D.E. Marshall, [*Critical points of Green’s function, harmonic measure, and the corona problem*]{}, Ark. Mat. 23 (1985), 281–314. 47, 50 \[$\spadesuit$ p.293–4 the Ahlfors function enters into the dance as follows: “We mention one more method for solving the corona problem. The previous methods have the drawback that Green’s function does not ignore subsets of $\partial {\cal R}$ which have zero analytic capacity and positive logarithmic capacity. To avoid this we can use Ahlfors’ function, $A$, instead. Ahlfors’ function for a point $\zeta_0 \in{\cal R}$ is defined by $A'_{\zeta_0}(\zeta_0)=\sup \{{\rm Re} f'(z_0) : f\in
H^{\infty}({\cal R}), \|f\|_{\infty} \le 1\}$. \[…\] Ahlfors \[1\](=1947), \[2\](=1950) has shown that for our “nice” Riemann surfaces $\vert A_{\zeta_0}(\zeta)\vert =\exp \{
-\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} g(\zeta, \zeta_j)\}$ for some points $\zeta_1, \dots, \zeta_{n-1}\in{\cal R}$. \[…\] Then all of the results of this section hold for the critical points of Ahlfors’ function $\{w_{j,k}\}$ as well as for the critical points of $G$. One can easily construct Riemann surfaces where $\sum_k G(\zeta_k, \zeta')=\infty$, so that the methods using the critical points of $G$ will not work, yet this method using Ahlfors’ function gives solution to the corona problem. \[…\] We remark that we chose the Ahlfors function here because of its natural association with $H^{\infty}({\cal
R})$, but we could have chosen any function $F\in
H^{\infty}({\cal U})$ with $-\log \vert F(z)\vert=\sum_{j=1}^m
G(\pi(z), \alpha_j)$, $\alpha_j\in {\cal R}$.” $\spadesuit$ p.286: “If $\cal R$ is a planar domain, then it is a simple consequence of the argument principle that $G(\zeta, \pi(0))$ has $N-1$ critical points (counting multiplicity), where $N$ is the number of closed boundary curves. See e.g. \[33\](=Nehari 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK])[^136] More generally, the number of critical points of $G$ isthe first Betti number, or the number of generators of the first singular homology group, of $\cal R$ \[46\](=Widom 1971 [@Widom_1971]), and hence is finite. See Walsh \[44, Chap.VII\](=Walsh 1950 [@Walsh_1950-The-location:AMS-Colloq.-Publ.]) for more information concerning the location of the critical points.”\]
P.W. Jones, T. Murai, [*Positive analytic capacity but zero Buffon needle probability*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 133 (1988), 99–114. \[$\spadesuit$ self-explanatory, i.e. a counter-example to the Vitushkin conjecture (that a plane compactum is a Painlevé null-set iff it is invisible, i.e. a.e. projection of the set have zero length) $\spadesuit$ note: the Buffon needle problem was solved by Crofton in 1868: if $E$ is a compactum in the plane, let $\vert P_{\theta}(E)\vert$ be the Lebesgue measure of the orthogonal projection of $E_{\theta}$ on the line of angular slope $\theta$ and define the Crofton invariant as $CR(E)=\int_{0}^{2\pi}\vert P_{\theta}(E)\vert d\theta$. This quantity may be interpreted as the probability of the body $E$ falling over a system of parallel lines equidistantly separated by the diameter of $E$\]
P.W. Jones, [*Square functions, Cauchy integrals, analytic capacity, and harmonic measure*]{}, in: Proc. Conf. on Harmonic Analysis and Partial Differential Equations, El Escorial 1987, Lecture Notes in Math. 1384, Springer-Verlag, 1989, 24–68. \[$\spadesuit$\]
P.W. Jones, [*Rectifiable sets and the travelling salesman problem*]{}, Invent. Math. 102 (1990), 1–16. \[$\spadesuit$\]
C. Jordan, [*Sur la déformation des surfaces*]{}, J. Math Pures Appl. (2) 11 (1866), 105–109. \[$\spadesuit$ after Möbius 1863 [@Moebius_1863] in the closed case, discuss a classification of compact orientable bordered surfaces, by the genus and the number of contours $\spadesuit$ quoted in Klein’s lectures 1892/93 [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen p.150], and in Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883 p.330], who need the non-orientable case as well\]
J. Jost, [*Conformal mappings and the Plateau-Douglas problem in Riemannian manifolds*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 359 (1985), 37–54. \[$\spadesuit$ reprove some results about conformal mapping (uniformization of real orthosymmetric curves) surely well-known since Koebe’s era (and conjectured by Klein) via the method of Plateau $\spadesuit$ then attack and solve a very general case of Plateau’s problem in a generality unifying the desire of Douglas (positive genus) and Morrey (curvy ambient Riemannian manifold instead of flat Euclid) $\spadesuit$ reports also some of Tromba’s critics over the solution of Courant to the Plateau-Douglas problem of higher genus $\clubsuit$ it is not clear to the writer if such critics (of Tromba) affects as well the whole content of Courant’s book 1950 [@Courant_1950] especially regarding the varied type of conformal maps $\spadesuit$ at any rate Jost propose a parade using techniques of Mumford and Schoen-Yau, but the “meandreousness” of the resulting proof is slightly criticized in Hildebrandt-von der Mosel 2009 [@Hildebrandt-von-der-Mosel_2009]\]
J. Jost, [*Two-dimensional geometric variational problem*]{}, Wiley, New York, 1991. \[$\spadesuit$ from Sauvigny’s review in BAMS: “Chapter 3 deal with conformal representation of surfaces homeomorphic to the sphere $S^2$, circular domains, and closed surfaces of higher genus. The proof is given by direct variational methods and not as usual by uniformization, completing a fragmentary proof of Morrey.\]
G. Julia, [*Sur la représentation conforme des aires simplement connexes*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 182 (1926), 1314–1316. \[$\spadesuit$ another characterization of the (Riemann) mapping function by a minimum principle\]
G. Julia, [*Développement en série de polynômes ou de fonctions rationelles de la fonction qui fournit la représentation conforme d’une aire simplement connexe sur un cercle*]{}, Ann. Éc. Norm. Sup. 44 (1927), 289–316. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: a determination of a sequence of polynomials is given which converges to the properly normed (Riemann) mapping function of a simply-connected region\]
G. Julia, [*Leçon sur la représentation conforme des aires simplement connexes*]{}, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1931. \[$\spadesuit$ one among the early book format exposition of the extremal properties of the Riemann mapping for a plane simply-connected region (distinct of ${\Bbb C}$), namely that the range of the map normalized by $f'(z_0)=1$ has minimal area (first in Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]) or that the boundary of the range has minimal length (probably first in Szegö 1921 [@Szego_1921]) $\spadesuit$ for both those extremal principles see also the detailed treatment in the book Gaier 1964 [@Gaier_1964-BOOK-Konstruktive-methoden]\]
G. Julia, [*Sur la représentation conforme des aires multiplement connexes*]{}, Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa (2) 1 (1932), 113–138. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ still in great admiration for Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877] and use Klein’s jargon of orthosymmetry, yet confined to the case of domains $\spadesuit$ however the main purpose is the study of a new sort of mapping introduced by de la Vallée Poussin (and which will in turn fascinate Walsh and Grunsky)\]
G. Julia, [*Reconstruction d’une surface de Riemann $\sigma$ correspondant à une aire multiplement connexe $\cal
A$*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 194 (1932), 423–425. 60
G. Julia, [*Prolongement d’une surface de Riemann $\sigma$ correspondant à une aire multiplement connexe $\cal A$*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 194 (1932), 580–583. 60
G. Julia, [*Leçon sur la représentation conforme des aires multiplement connexes*]{}, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1934, 94 pp. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$\]
G. Julia, [*La représentation conforme des aires multiplement connexes*]{}, L’Enseign. Math. 33 (1935), 137–168. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ survey from Riemann, Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877] through Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909], Koebe, up to the extremal treatments by de Possel and Grötzsch (slit mappings in infinite connectivity)\]
G. Julia, [*Quelques applications fonctionnelles de la topologie*]{}, Reale Accademia d’Italia Fondazione A. Volta, Att dei Convegni 9 (1939), Rome, 1943, 201–306. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Ahlfors-Sario 1960\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M. Juurchescu, [*A maximal Riemann surface*]{}, ???? ?? (1961?), 91–93. \[$\spadesuit$ p.91, a map between bordered Riemann surfaces taking boundary to boundary is termed [*distinguished*]{}\]
G. Kahn, [*Eine allgemeine Methode zur Untersuchung der Gestalten algebraischer Kurven*]{}, Inaugural Dissertation, Göttingen, 1909. \[$\spadesuit$ Dissertation under Hilbert (cf. e.g. Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909-Ueber-die-Gestalt-sextic]), attempting to prohibit the real sextic scheme consisting of 11 unnested ovals $\spadesuit$ considered non-rigorous in Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74] $\spadesuit$ historical anecdote: Kahn’s work as well as the related Thesis by Löbenstein 1910 [@Löbenstein_1910] were instead considered as rigorous in Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909-Ueber-die-Gestalt-sextic])\]
S. Kakutani, [*Rings of analytic functions*]{}, Lectures on functions of a complex variable, 71–83, Univ. of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1955. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
C. Kalla, Ch. Klein, [*On the numerical evaluation of algebro-geometric solutions to integrable equations*]{}, Nonlinearity 25 (2012), 569–596. \[$\spadesuit$\]
C. Kalla, Ch. Klein, [*Computation of the topological type of a real Riemann surface*]{}, arXiv (2012). \[$\spadesuit$\]
L.V. Kantorovič, [*FOUR ARTICLES IN FRENCH in the period 33–34 including multi-connected and potentially based upon Bieberbach’s method*]{} $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
L.V. Kantorovič, V.I. Krylov, [*Methods for the approximate solution of partial differential equations*]{}, Leningrad–Moscow, 1936, Russian. \[$\spadesuit$ Chap.V is devoted to conformal mapping. §1 is introductory. §2 takes up the method of Bieberbach (1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]) which reduces the problem of conformal mapping to a minimum principle (for the area). This is then solved by Ritz’s method. In §3 a second extremal property for mapping functions is discussed and Ritz’s method is again applied §4 takes up orthogonal polynomials of Szegö and Bochner-Bergman types and applies them to the above minimizing problems.\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
V. Karimipour, A. Mostafazadeh, [*Lattice topological field theory on nonorientable surfaces*]{}, J. Math. Phys. 38 (1997), 49–66. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M.G. Katz, S. Sabourau, [*Hyperellipticity and systoles on Klein surfaces*]{}, Geom. Dedicata 159 (2012), 277–293. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S. Katz, C.-C.M. Liu, [*Enumerative geometry of stable maps with Lagrangian boundary conditions and multiple covers of the disc*]{}, Geom. Topol. Monogr. 8 (2006), 1–47; reproduced from: Adv. in Theoret. Math. Phys. 5 (2002), 1–49. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M.V. Keldysh, M.A. Lavrentief, [*Sur la représentation conforme des domaines limités par des courbes rectifiables*]{}, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Sup. 54 (1937), 1–38. \[$\spadesuit$ only the case of simply-connected domains bounded by a rectifiable Jordan curve in the plane, but deep questions about the boundary behavior of the Riemann map $\varphi$ as well as the Smirnov problem of deciding when the harmonic function $\log \vert \varphi'(w)\vert$ is representable in the unit-disc by the Poisson integral of its (limiting) values on the circumference\]
M.V. Keldysh, [*Sur la résolubilité et la stabilité du problème de Dirichlet*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. URSS 18 (1938), ???–??? (French). \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Walsh-Sinclair 1965\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M.V. Keldysh, [*Sur l’approximation en moyenne quadratique des fonctions analytiques*]{}, Mat. Sb. (N.S.) 5 (1939), 391–401. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Walsh-Sinclair 1965\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M.V. Keldysh, [*Conformal mappings of multiply connected domains on canonical domains*]{}, (Russian) Uspehi Mat. Nauk 6 (1939), 90–119. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ a survey of the developments in the field, up to 1939\]
O.D. Kellogg, [*Foundations of potential theory*]{}, Grundl. d. math. Wiss. 31, Springer, Berlin, 1929. \[$\spadesuit$ “Introduction to fundamentals of potential functions covers: the force of gravity, fields of force, potentials, harmonic functions, electric images and Green’s function, sequences of harmonic functions, fundamental existence theorems, the logarithmic potential, and much more.”\]
G. Kempf, [*Schubert methods with an application to algebraic curves*]{}, Stichting mathematisch centrum, Amsterdam, 1971. \[$\spadesuit$ the first (simultaneous with Kleiman-Laksov 1972 [@Kleiman-Laksov_1972]) existence proof of special divisors in the general case, extending thereby the result of Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960]\]
B. Kerékjártó, [*Vorlesungen über Topologie I, Flächen Topologie*]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1923. \[$\spadesuit$ a seminal work (Part II never occurred) with parcelled appreciation (disliked by Lefschetz but admired by Weyl) $\spadesuit$ cited in Natanzon 1993 [@Natanzon_1993 p.268] for the basic result that one may lift a complex structure under a branched covering $\spadesuit$ \[30.12.12\] boosting somewhat the method one could hope to reprove so the Ahlfors theorem\]
M. Kervaire, J. Milnor, [*On $2$-spheres in $4$-manifolds*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 47 (1961), 1651–1657. \[$\spadesuit$ as noted in Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994 [@Kronheimer-Mrowka_1994]\]
N. Kerzman, E.M. Stein, [*The Cauchy kernel, the Szegö kernel, and the Riemann mapping function*]{}, Math. Ann. 236 (1978), 85–93. \[$\spadesuit$ quite influential, especially over Bell\]
G. Khajalia, [*Sur la représentation conforme des domaines doublement connexes*]{}, (French) Mat. Sb. N.S. 8 (1940), 97–106. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: the problem of mapping a doubly connected finite region on a circular ring is reduced to minimizing an area integral for a certain class of functions. If the region is accessible from without, then a sequence of minimal rational fractions converges uniformly to the desired mapping function $\spadesuit$ in fact the condition in question seems to ensure the least area map (minimizing $\int\int_{B}\vert f'
(z)\vert^2 d\omega$) to be schlicht and maps it upon the concentric circular ring $1<\vert w-w_0\vert<R$, thus the problem is different from that à la Bieberbach-Bergman handled in Kufareff 1935/37 [@Kufareff_1935/37] where the least area map is not univalent $\spadesuit$ a naive question \[05.08.12\] is whether Khajalia’s method could perform the Kreisnormierung in higher connectivity\]
V.M. Kharlamov, [*The maximum number of components of a surface of degree $4$ in ${\Bbb R}P^3$*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 6 (1972), 101; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. ? (197?), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$ besides Gudkov 1969, yet another solution to one part of Hilbert’s 16th problem (or even Rohn 1886 [@Rohn_1886]) asking for the maximum number of “sheets” of the 4th order in three dimensional space (Kharlamov’s answer $10$, already in his Master Thesis 1972)\]
V.M. Kharlamov, [*New congruences for the Euler characteristic of real algebraic manifolds*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 7 (1973), 74–78; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 7 (1973), 147–150. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Wilson 1978 [@Wilson_1978] for an $(M-1)$-avatar (i.e. $p-n=k^2\pm 1 \pmod
8$) of the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence modulo 8 (i.e. $p-n=k^2 \pmod
8$).\]
V.M. Kharlamov, [*The topological type of nonsingular surfaces in ${\Bbb R}P^3$ of degree four*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 10 (1976), 55–68; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 10 (1976), 295–305. \[$\spadesuit$ topological classification of nonsingular quartics surfaces in 3-space resting on the theory of K3 surfaces (via Tyurina, but [*not*]{} via Torelli’s theorem of Pyatetsky-Shapiro-Shafarevich 1971/71 [@Pyatetsky-Shapiro-Shafarevich_1971/71])\]
V.M. Kharlamov, [*Isotopic types of nonsingular surfaces of fourth degree in ${\Bbb R}P^3$*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 12 (1978), 86–87; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. ? (197?), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$\]
V.M. Kharlamov, [*Real algebraic surfaces*]{}, Proc. Internat. Congr. of Mathematicians, Helsinki, 1978, 421–428. \[$\spadesuit$\]
V.M. Kharlamov, O.Ya. Viro, [*Congruences for real algebraic curves with singularities*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 35 (1980), 154–155; English transl., ?? (198?), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Kharlamov-Viro 1988/91 [@Kharlamov-Viro_1988/91]\]
V.M. Kharlamov, [*Rigid classification up to isotopy of real plane curves of degree $5$*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 15 (1981), 88–89; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 15 (1981), 73–74. \[$\spadesuit$ as a historical curiosity the same result in degree $6$ was effected earlier in Nikulin 1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80]\]
V.M. Kharlamov, [*On the classification of non-singular surfaces of degree $4$ in ${\Bbb R}P^3$ with respect to rigid*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 18 (1984), 49–56; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 18 (1984), 49–56. \[$\spadesuit$\]
V.M. Kharlamov, O. Viro, [*Extensions of the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence*]{}, in: Topology and Geometry, Rohlin Seminar, edited by O.Ya. Viro, 1984–86, Lecture Notes in Math. 1346, Springer (1988 or 1991? CHECK DATE), 357–406. \[$\spadesuit$ p.359: “type I or dividing”\]
V.M. Kharlamov, O. Viro, [*Easy reading on topology of real plane algebraic curve*]{}, UNDATED but (ca. 1978–2013), i.e. a shortened version of the book planned (but apparently never completed) by Rohlin-Kharlamov-Viro. \[$\spadesuit$ \[21.03.13\] p.15, contains valuable information on Ragsdale, yet overlapping with Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale]. It seems to me (Gabard) that one-half of the Ragsdale conjecture follows from Thom[^137], cf. Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\], and so answers one half of question 10.E posed on p.15 (where incidentally it seems to me that there is the same misprint as in Itenberg-Viro 1996 [@Itenberg-Viro_1996-disproves-Ragsdale])\]
D. Khavinson, [*On removal of periods of conjugate functions in multiply connected domains*]{}, Michigan Math. J. 31 (1984), 371–379. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ p.377 reproves the Bieberbach-Grunsky-Ahlfors theorem in the planar case while quoting Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950] and using the classical device of annihilating “the periods of the conjugate function”\]
R. Kirby, [*Problems in low-dimensional topology*]{}, 1970, updated in 1995 (available on the net). \[$\spadesuit$ Thom’s conjecture is mentioned as Problem 4.36, where the proof of Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994 and Morgan-Szabó-Taubes 1995 are cited\]
G. Kirchhoff, [*Über das Gleichgewicht und die Bewegung einer elastischen Scheibe*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 40 (1850), 51–88. \[$\spadesuit$ Riemann was aware of this ref. in connection to the Dirichlet principle (cf. Neuenschwander 1981 [@Neuenschwander_1981]), yet never mentions it in print $\spadesuit$ the next big revolution is Ritz, see Gander-Wander 2012 [@Gander-Wanner_2012] for a thorough “mise en perspective”\]
S. Kirsch, [*Transfinite diameter, Chebyshev constant and capacity*]{}, in: Handbook of Complex Analysis, Elsevier, 2005. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ extract from the web (whence no page): “Ahlfors generalized Garabedian’s result to regions on Riemann surfaces \[2\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]); see Royden’s paper \[159\](=1962 [@Royden_1962]) for another treatment as well as further references to the literature.” $\spadesuit$ compare (if you like) our (depressive) Sec.\[dissident:sec\] for a complete list of “dissident” authors having apparently (like me) some pain to digest Ahlfors proof, and therefore cross-citing often Royden $\spadesuit$ “Abstract. The aim of the present chapter is to survey alternate descriptions of the classical transfinite diameter due to Fekete and to review several generalizations of it. Here we lay emphasis mainly on the case of one complex variable. We shall generalize this notion…”\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
S.L. Kleiman, D. Laksov, [*On the existence of special divisors*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 94 (1972), 431–436. \[$\spadesuit$ cite Riemann 1857 [@Riemann_1857], Hensel-Landsberg 1902 [@Hensel-Landsberg_1902] for linear series of dimension $1$, and Brill-Noether 1874 [@Brill-Noether_1874], Severi 1921 [@Severi_1921-Vorlesungen-u-alg.-Geom-BUCH] in the general case $\spadesuit$ supplies an existence proof of its title via Schubert calculus, Poincaré’s formula, some EGA (=Grothendieck), and a bundle constructed in Kempf’s Thesis $\spadesuit$ compare Kempf 1971 [@Kempf_1971] for a simultaneous solution of the same fundamental problem $\spadesuit$ \[08.10.12\] since this Kempf-Kleiman-Laksov result includes as a special case the result of Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960], it enables one eradicating Teichmüller theory from the gonality problem (this is not so surprising for Poincaré’s formula is essentially “homology theory” (intersection theory) specialized to the Jacobian variety, and the theta-divisor, image the $(g-1)$-symmetric power $C^{(g-1)}$ of the curve into the Jacobian via the Abel map $\spadesuit$ thus roughly speaking (and with some imagination) we are back to the method used in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] $\spadesuit$ for less arrogant looseness it would be nice to adapt the methods of Kempf/Kleiman-Laksov to the problem of the Ahlfors mapping with sharp bounds (i.e. like in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] granting of course the latter to be correct, else)\]
S.L. Kleiman, D. Laksov, [*Another proof of the existence of special divisors*]{}, Acta Math. 132 (1974), 163–176. \[$\spadesuit$ cite Gunning’s work of 1972 [@Gunning_1972] as an alternative to Meis’ (for linear series of dimension $1$) $\spadesuit$ novel proof via the theory of singularities of mappings (Thom polynomial, Porteous’ formula, plus influence of Mattuck) $\spadesuit$ \[08.10.12\] like in the previous entry, try again to specialize the Thom-Porteous technique to the context of real algebraic geometry (orthosymmetric curve à la Klein) so as to recover the circle maps of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], optionally with the bound of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] $\spadesuit$ of course the view point of special divisors (=essentially those moving in linear systems $g_d^r$ of dimensions higher than predicted by Riemann’s inequality $\dim \vert D \vert
\deg D -g$ (due to the $g$ constraints imposed by Abelian differentials) seems to indicate that the theory of the Ahlfors map is just the top of a much larger iceberg, probably already partially explored by experts (Coppens, Huisman, Ballico, Martens, Monnier, etc.)\]
F. Klein, [*Über die sogenannte Nicht-Euklidische Geometrie*]{}, Math. Ann. 4 (1871), also in Ges. math. Abh. I, 244–253. \[$\spadesuit$\]
F. Klein, [*Über Flächen dritter Ordnung*]{}, Math. Ann. 6 (1873), also in Ges. math. Abh. II, 11–62. \[merely cited for Plücker 1839 [@Plücker_1839] as being the oldest user (recorded) of the method of “small perturbation”, compare also Gudkov 1974/74 [@Gudkov_1974/74] whose first entry in his Refs. list is Plücker 1839 $\spadesuit$ “Wenn eine Kurve mit Doppelpunkten gezeichnet vorliegt, so kann man aus ihr Kurven derselben Ordnung ohne Doppelpunkt oder mit weniger Doppelpunkten schematisch ableiten, indem man die in den Doppelpunkten oder einigen derselben zusammensto[ß]{}enden Kurvennäste durch ähnlich verlaufende, sich nicht treffende ersetzt. Nach diesem ebenso einfachen als fruchtbaren Prinzip \[footnote=Wer diese Prinzip zuerst verwertet hat, lä[ß]{}t sich bei dessen gro[ß]{}er Selbstverständlichkeit wohl kaum festellen. Dem Verf. is dasselbe, sowie namentlich das Beispiel der Erzeugung einer Kurve $n$-ter Ordnung aus $n$ geraden Linien, von Plücker her bekannt: vgl. z.B. dessen Theorie der algebraischen Kurven (1839), in welcher fortwärend ähnliche Überlegungen angewandt werden.\] erhählt man z.B. ohne weiteres die beiden Grundformen der ebenen Kurven dritter Ordnung, wenn \[…\]”\]
F. Klein, [*Bemerkungen über den Zusammenhang der Flächen*]{}, (zwei Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1874 und 1875/76), Math. Ann. 7, 9 (1874, 1875/76), also in Ges. math. Abh. II, 63–77. \[$\spadesuit$ some discussions with Ludwig Schläfli about the topology of surfaces (especially in the non-orientable case) $\spadesuit$ taken together with the earlier works of Riemann, Möbius 1860/63 [@Moebius_1863] and Jordan 1866 [@Jordan_1866] this constitutes a complete classification of finite(=compact) surfaces be they orientable or not, bordered or closed $\spadesuit$ this classification is of course instrumental to Klein’s classification of the topology of real algebraic curves (equivalently symmetric Riemann surfaces), as discussed in Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876], Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882] or Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet], as well as in Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883]\]
F. Klein, [*Über eine neue Art der Riemannschen Flächen*]{} (Erste Mitteilung), Math. Ann. 7 (1874), also in Ges. math. Abh. II, 89–98. \[$\spadesuit$ first apparition of some “new” types of Riemann surface, which later will evolve to the concept of “Klein surfaces”, but at this stage this is merely a synthetic visualization of the complex locus of a plane curve defined over the reals upon the real projective plane via the map assigning the unique real point of an imaginary line. Also this is not yet “[*was ich den “echten” Riemann zu nennen pflege*]{}” as Klein expresses himself in the Introd. to volume 2 of his Coll. Papers [@Klein-Werke-III_1923 p.5] $\spadesuit$ however it is obvious that this mode of representation is almost forgotten by now and perhaps it could be useful in the future (e.g., to reprove the Rohlin inequality saying that plane dividing curves have at least as many ovals than their half degree, cf., e.g., Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000] for more details and the original refs.)\]
F. Klein, [*Über den Verlauf der Abelschen Integrale bei den Kurven vierten Grades*]{} (Erster Aufsatz), Math. Ann. 10 (1876); also in Ges. math. Abh. II, 99–135.
F. Klein, [*Über eine neue Art von Riemannschen Flächen*]{} (Zweite Mitteilung), Math. Ann. 10 (1876), also in Ges. math. Abh. II, 136–155. \[$\spadesuit$ p.154 the first place where the dichotomy of “dividing” curves appears, under the designation “Kurven der ersten Art/zweiten Art” depending upon whether its Riemann surface is divided or not by the real locus (this is from where derived the Russian terminology type I/II) \[hopefully Klein came up later with the better terminology ortho- vs. diasymmetric!\] $\spadesuit$ p.154 contains also the first intrinsic proof of the Harnack inequality (1876)\]
F. Klein, [*Ueber die conforme Abbildung von Flächen*]{}, Math. Ann. 19 (1882), 159–160. \[$\spadesuit$ a lovely announcement of the next item [@Klein_1882], showing a little influence of Schwarz (Ostern 1881). NB: item not reproduced in the Ges. math. Abh.\]
F. Klein, [*Über Riemann’s Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen und ihrer Integrale*]{} B.G. Teubner, Leipzig, 1882. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ a masterpiece where Klein’s theory reaches full maturity $\spadesuit$ long-distance influence upon Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939] (moduli problems including the case of possibly non-orientable surfaces, alias Klein surfaces since Alling-Greenleaf), and Douglas 1936–39 [@Douglas_1936-Some-new-results; @Douglas_1939-The-most-general] and also Comessatti 1924/26 [@Comessatti_1924/26], Cecioni 1933 [@Cecioni_1933], etc. $\clubsuit$ evident (albeit subconscious) connection with Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], yet first made explicit (in-print) only by Alling-Greenleaf 1969 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969] (to the best of the writer’s knowledge)\]
F. Klein, [*Über eindeutige Funktionen mit linearen Transformationen in sich. Erste Mitteilung.*]{} Math. Ann. 19 (1882); also in [*Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen. Dritter Band*]{}. 1923, Reprint Springer-Verlag, 1973, 622–626.
F. Klein, [*Über eindeutige Funktionen mit linearen Transformationen in sich. Zweite Mitteilung.*]{} Math. Ann. 20 (1882); also in [*Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen. Dritter Band*]{}. 1923, Reprint Springer-Verlag, 1973, 627–629.
F. Klein, [*Neue Beiträge zur Riemannschen Funktionentheorie*]{}, Math. Ann. 21 (1882/83); also in [*Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen. Dritter Band*]{}. 1923, Reprint Springer-Verlag, 1973, 630–710.
F. Klein, [*Über Realitätsverhältnisse bei der einem beliebigen Geschlechte zugehörigen Normalkurve der $\varphi$,*]{} Math. Ann. 42 (1892), 1–29. \[$\spadesuit$ this means the canonical embedding by holomorphic differentials into ${\Bbb P}^{g-1}$, which is like the Gauss map of the Abel embedding normalized through translation within the Jacobi torus $\spadesuit$ an incredible interplay between the intrinsic geometry of the symmetric Riemann surface (including its topological characteristics) and the real enumerative issues allied to the canonical embedding, compare Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981] as the most cited best modern counterpart\]
F. Klein, [*Riemannsche Flächen, I.*]{} Vorlesung, gehalten während des Wintersemester 1891–92, Göttingen 1892, Neuer unveränderter Abdruck, Teubner, Leipzig 1906. 60
F. Klein, [*Riemannsche Flächen, II.*]{} Vorlesung, gehalten während des Sommersemester 1892, Göttingen 1893, Neuer unveränderter Abdruck, Teubner, Leipzig 1906. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ for those not overwhelmed by German prose and handwritings, these lecture notes gives a very exciting view over Klein’s lectures and a good supplement to his papers. NB: these 2 items are [*not*]{} reprinted in the Ges. math. Abh., and somewhat hard-to-find in Switzerland but well-known in Russia, cf. e.g. Gudkov [@Gudkov_1974/74] and Natanzon 1990 [@Natanzon_1990/90], plus also in some US references, of course\]
F. Klein, [et al.]{} [*Zu den Verhandlungen betreffend automorphe Funktionen, Karlsruhe am 27. September 1911. Vorträge und Referate von F. Klein, L.E.J. Brouwer, P. Koebe, L. Bieberbach und E. Hilb*]{}. Jahresb. d. Deutsch. Math.-verein. 21 (1912), 153–166. \[$\spadesuit$ an account of the dramatic events occurring in 1911, when Brouwer was able to re-crack the uniformization (of Poincaré-Koebe, at least in the reasonable near to compact context) via topological methods (viz. invariance of domain) implementing thereby the old dream of Klein-Poincaré (or vice versa if you prefer)\]
F. Klein, [*Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen. Zweiter Band*]{}. 1922, Reprint Springer-Verlag, 1973. 60
F. Klein, [*Gesammelte mathematische Abhandlungen. Dritter Band*]{}. 1923, Reprint Springer-Verlag, 1973. 60, 78
F. Klein, [*Vorlesungen über die Entwicklung der Mathematik im 19.Jahrhundert, Teil I*]{}. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften in Einzeldarstellungen, Bd.24, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1926; Russian transl., [*Lektsii o razvitii matemiki v XIX stoletti*]{}, ONTI, Moscow-Leningrad, 1937. \[$\spadesuit$ where according to the legend Arnold learned all his background about mathematics $\spadesuit$ often cited, e.g. by Arnold, Gudkov, etc.\]
T. Klotz, [*Imbedding compact Riemann surfaces in $3$-space*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 11 (1961), 1035–1043. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Garsia 1961 [@Garsia_1961] as follows: “Some interesting results on $C^{\infty}$ imbeddings in the higher genus case have been obtained by T. Klotz in \[10\](=this paper). This author is almost successful in proving that the set of Riemann surfaces of a given genus $g\ge 2$ which can be imbedded in Euclidean space is open \[footnote 2: using the results of Kuiper it could be shown that it is dense.\] in the Teichmüller topology. Perhaps we should point out that from some of the results of the present paper one obtains the arguments that are needed to complete her proof.”\]
M. Knebusch, [*On real algebraic curves over real closed fields. I*]{}, Math. Z. 150 (1976), 49–70. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Knebusch, [*On real algebraic curves over real closed fields. II*]{}, Math. Z. 151 (1976), 189–205. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J.T. Knight, [*Riemann surfaces of field extensions*]{}, Proc. Cmabridge Philos. Soc. 65 (1969), 635–650. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Geyer-Martens?, Monnier 2007\]
S.-K. Ko, [*Embedding Riemann surfaces in Riemannian manifolds*]{}, University of Connecticut, Dissertation, Aug. 1989. \[$\spadesuit$ it is shown that every compact (=closed) Riemann surface admits a conformal embedding in any preassigned Riemannian manifold of dimension $\ge 3$. Compare also the treatment in Ko 2001 [@Ko_2001]\]
S.-K. Ko, [*Embedding bordered Riemann surfaces in Riemannian manifolds*]{}, J. Korean Math. Soc. 30 (1993), 465–484. \[$\spadesuit$ §0, Introd.: “Around 1960, A. Garsia (\[6\]=1961 [@Garsia_1961]) proved that every compact Riemann surface can be conformally immersed in Euclidean $3$-space ${\Bbb R}^3$. He stated that he had found a realization of every compact surface as a classical surface although Klein required that classical surfaces be embedded. \[Garsia’s proof uses Teichmüller’s idea, results, and constructions inspired by Nash’s embedding theorem and Brouwer’s fixed point theorem.\][^138]—In 1970, Rüedy extended Garsia’s result to open Riemann surfaces $S$ by applying Garsia’s techniques to compact exhaustions of $S$ (\[16\]=Rüedy 1971 [@Ruedy_1971]) and later[^139] he proved that every compact Riemann surface can be conformally embedded in ${\Bbb R}^3$ (\[17\]=Rüedy 1971 [@Ruedy_1971-BOOK], \[18\]=Rüedy 1968 [@Ruedy_1968]).” $\spadesuit$ \[10.12.12\] It is not clear (to Gabard) if this reflects the real history, for Rüedy himself seems always to ascribe the full embedded result to Garsia, yet perhaps by over-modesty in case Ko’s description is correct!?? $\spadesuit$ next: “In 1989, author apply[^140] Teichmüller theory to prove that we can find a conformally equivalent model surface in an orientable Riemannian manifold $\frak M$ of $\dim \frak M \ge 3$ for every compact Riemann surface (\[8\]=Ko 1989 [@Ko_1989-compact]).—Here we prove the [*extension of the Embedding theorem for compact Riemann surfaces (Ko \[8\]=Ko 1989 [@Ko_1989-compact]) to finite topological type Riemann surfaces in orientable Riemannian manifolds.*]{}\]
S.-K. Ko, [*Embedding open Riemann surfaces in Riemannian manifolds*]{}, J. Geom. Anal. 9 (1999), 119–141. \[$\spadesuit$ like in the previous entry the author persists in his assertion that Garsia only obtained immersed conformal maps to classical surfaces, while ascribing the embedded results again to Rüedy. $\spadesuit$p.119 (abstract): “Any open Riemann surface has a conformal model in any orientable Riemannian manifold. Precisely, we will prove that, given any open Riemann surface, there is a conformally equivalent model in a prespecified orientable Riemannian manifold \[of $\dim\ge 3$\].”\]
S.-K. Ko, [*Embedding compact Riemann surfaces in Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Houston J. Math. 27 (2001), 541–577. \[$\spadesuit$ seems to be a published account of the result arrived at in the Ph.D. Dissertation of the writer (Ko 1989 [@Ko_1989-compact]); i.e. p541 (abstract): “Any compact Riemann surface has a conformal model in any orientable Riemannian manifold. Precisely, we will prove that, given any open Riemann surface, there is a conformally equivalent model in a prespecified orientable Riemannian manifold \[of $\dim\ge 3$\]. The techniques we use include Garsia’s Continuity Lemma, Brouwer’s Fixed Point Theorem along with techniques from Teichmüller theory.”\]
S. Kobayashi, N. Suita, [*On analytic diameters and analytic centers of compact sets*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 267 (1981), 219–228. 47, 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors function and the allied conceptions of Vitushkin (analytic diameter and center), plus negative answers to several of Minsker’s questions (cf. Minsker 1974 [@Minsker_1974])\]
S. Kobayashi, [*On analytic centers of compact sets*]{}, Kodai Math. J. 5 (1982), 318–328. 47, 50 \[$\spadesuit$ second derivative variant of the Ahlfors function developed along conceptions of Vitushkin (analytic diameter and center) and Minsker\]
B. Köck, D. Singerman, [*Real Belyi theory*]{}, Quarterly J. Math. 58 (2007), 463–478. \[$\spadesuit$ “Abstract. We develop a Belyi-type theory that applies to Klein surfaces, that is (possibly non-orientable) surfaces with boundary which carry a dianalytic structure. In particular, we extend Belyi’s famous theorem from Riemann surfaces to KLein surfaces.”\]
P. Koebe, [*Über konforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender ebener Bereiche, insbesondere solcher Bereiche, deren Begrenzung von Kreisen gebildet wird,*]{} Jahresb. d. Deutsch. Math.-Ver. 15 (1906), 142–153. \[$\spadesuit$ special cases of the KN=Kreisnormierung\]
P. Koebe, [*Über konforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender ebener Bereiche*]{}, Jahresb. d. Deutsch. Math.-Ver. 16 (1907), 116–130. \[$\spadesuit$ special cases of the KN=Kreisnormierung\]
P. Koebe, [*Über die Uniformisierung reeller algebraischer Kurven*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1907), 177–190. \[$\spadesuit$ self-explanatory and relies heavily on Klein’s ortho- and diasymmetry\]
P. Koebe, [*Über die Uniformisierung beliebiger analytischer Kurven*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1907), 191–210. \[$\spadesuit$ joint with Poincaré 1907 [@Poincare_1907], the first acceptable and accepted proof of uniformization of open Riemann surfaces (alias analytical curves, by opposition to algebraic reflecting compactness, in the jargon of Fréchet) $\spadesuit$ key ingredient the “Verzerrungssatz”, for which Koebe confess some little “coup de pouce” from the colleague Carathédory\]
P. Koebe, [*Über die Uniformisierung beliebiger analytischer Kurven, (2. Mitt.)*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1907), 633–669. \[$\spadesuit$ another proof of the general uniformization inspired by the reading of Poincaré’s account, and using methods of Schwarz (esp. the Gürtelförmigeverschmelzung)\]
P. Koebe, [*Über die Uniformisierung beliebiger analytischer Kurven, (3. Mitt.)*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1908), 337–358. \[$\spadesuit$ discusses other types of uniformizations, and put forward the KNP, which he is already able to prove (in finite connectivity, or even in infinite connectivity under special symmetry), but no detailed arguments\]
P. Koebe, [*Über die Uniformisierung der algebraischen Kurven durch automorphe Funktionen mit imaginärer Substitutionsgruppe*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1909), 68–76. \[$\spadesuit$ announce other types of uniformization formulated by Klein\]
P. Koebe, [*Über die Uniformisierung beliebiger analytischer Kurven, (4. Mitt.)*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1909), 324–361.
P. Koebe, [*Ueber die Uniformisierung der algebraischen Kurven, I*]{} Math. Ann. 67 (1909), 145–224. \[$\spadesuit$ detailed proof\]
P. Koebe, [*Über die konforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender Bereiche*]{} Jahresb. d. Deutsch. Math.-Ver. 19 (1910), 339–348. \[$\spadesuit$ contains the general case of the KN in finite connectivity, via 2 methods: Überlagerungsfläche and the so-called Koebe iteration method $\spadesuit$ again no complete proof but the convergence is ensured by the “Verzerrungssatz” $\spadesuit$ full details only much latter in 1920–22? [@Koebe_1922] (according, e.g., to Bieberbach 1968 [@Bieberbach_1968-Das-Werk-Paul-Koebes]) $\spadesuit$ p.339: “Den Hauptgegenstand dieser und des gegenwärtigen Vortrages bildet das Problem der konformen Abbildung eines $(p+1)$-fach zusammenhängenden Bereiches auf einen von $p+1$ Vollkreisen begrenzten Bereich, ein Problem, welches in der Literatur zuerst bei Schottky (Dissertation, Berlin 1875, umgearbeitet erschienen in Crelle 1877) in seiner bekannten Doktordissertation auftritt, jedoch früher bereits von Riemann in Betracht gezogen worden ist, wie aus seiner nachgelassenen Schriften hervorgeht.”\]
P. Koebe, [*Über die Hilbertsche Uniformisierungsmethode*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1910), 59–74.
P. Koebe, [*Ueber die Uniformisierung der algebraischen Kurven, II*]{} Math. Ann. 69 (1910), 1–81.
P. Koebe, [*Begründung der Kontinuitätsmethode im Gebiete der konformen Abbildung und Uniformisierung. (Voranzeige)*]{}, Nachr. Königl. Ges. Wiss. Gött., Math.-phys. Kl. (1912), 879–886. \[$\spadesuit$ self-explanatory, but compare the practically simultaneous work of Brouwer 1912 [@Brouwer_1912_top-Schwierig], plus the announcements in 1911 [@Klein-Brouwer-Koebe_1912]\]
P. Koebe, [*Ueber eine neue Methode der konformen Abbildung und Uniformisierung,*]{} Nachr. Königl. Ges. Wiss. Gött., Math.-phys. Kl. (1912), 844–848. \[$\spadesuit$ introduction of the Schmiegungsverfahren (osculation method?)\]
P. Koebe, [*Begründung der Kontinuitätsmethode*]{}, Ber. Math. Math.-phys. Kl. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig 64 (1912), 59–62.
P. Koebe, [*Ränderzuordnung bei konformer Abbildung*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1913), 286–288. \[$\spadesuit$ contests the heavy reliance upon Lebesgue’s measure theory in Carathéodory’s proof (1912) of the boundary behavior of the Riemann mapping for Jordan curves, by appealing to a device of Schwarz\]
P. Koebe, [*Ueber die Uniformisierung der algebraischen Kurven, IV (Zweiter Existenzbeweis der allgemeinen kanonischen uniformisierenden Variablen: Kontinuitätsmethode)*]{}, Math. Ann. 75 (1914), 42–129.
P. Koebe, [*Abhandlungen zur Theorie der konformen Abbildung, I, die Kreisabbildung des allgemeinsten einfach und zweifach zusammenhängenden schlichten Bereichs und die Ränderzuordnung bei konformer Abbildung*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 145 (1915), 177–223. \[$\spadesuit$ uses the word “Kreisabbildung” which is perhaps first coined in Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]\]
P. Koebe, [*Abhandlungen zur Theorie der konformen Abbildung, IV*]{}, Acta Math. 41 (1918), 305–344. \[$\spadesuit$ first existence proof of the circular/radial slit maps for domains of finite connectivity (general case in Grötzsch 1931 [@Groetzsch_1931]); subsequent proof in Reich-Warschawski 1960 [@Reich-Warschawski_1960]\]
P. Koebe, [*Über die Strömungspotentiale und die zugehörenden konformen Abbildungen Riemannscher Flächen*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1919), 1–46.
P. Koebe, [*Abhandlungen zur Theorie der konformen Abbildung. VI. (Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender schlichter Bereiche auf Kreisbereiche. Uniformisierung hyperelliptischer Kurven. Iterationsmethoden)*]{}, Math. Z. 7 (1920), 235–301.
P. Koebe, [*Abbildung beliebiger mehrfach zusammenhängender schlichter Bereiche auf Kreisbereichen*]{}, Math. Z. 7 (1922), 116–130.
P. Koebe, [*????*]{}, Acta Math. ?? (1928), ??–??.
P. Koebe, [*Das Wesen der Kontinuitätsmethode*]{}, Deutsche Math. 1 (1936), 859–879. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ survey-like with many refs.\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
H. Köditz, St. Timmann, [*Ranschlichte meromorphe Funktionen auf endlichen Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Math. Ann. 217 (1975), 157–159. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ supply a proof of a circle map (without bound) using techniques of Behnke-Stein $\clubsuit$ criticizes and demolishes an earlier argument of Tietz 1955 [@Tietz_1955] intended to give another treatment of the Ahlfors circle map\]
G. Kokarev, [*Variational aspects of Laplace eigenvalues on Riemannian surfaces* ]{}, arXiv:1103.2448, 2011. \[$\spadesuit$ Abstract: We study the existence and properties of metrics maximising the first Laplace eigenvalue among conformal metrics of unit volume on Riemannian surfaces. We describe a general approach to this problem (and its higher eigenvalue versions) via the direct ...\]
J. Kóllar, [*The topology of real and complex algebraic varieties*]{}, Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 31 (2001), Math. Soc. Japan, 127–145.
Y. Komatu, [*Identities concerning canonical conformal mappings*]{}, Kōdai math. Sem. Rep. 3 (1953), 77–83.
W. Koppelman, [*The Riemann-Hilbert problem for finite Riemannian surfaces*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 12 (1959), 13–35. \[$\spadesuit$ work oft cited in the investigation of the Slovenian school, see e.g. Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002] $\spadesuit$ “The problem of finding a function, analytic in some domain $D$, for a given relation between the limiting values of its real and imaginary parts on the boundary of $D$ was originally mentioned by Riemann in his dissertation \[12\]. Here we shall treat the special case where …”\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
A.B. Korchagin, [*$M$-curves of degree $9$: New prohibitions*]{}, Math. Notes 39 (1986), 277–293. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
A. Korn, [*Application de la méthode de la moyenne arithmétique aux surfaces de Riemann*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 135 (1902), 94–95. 60 \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
A. Korn, [*Sur le problème de Dirichlet pour des domaines limités par plusieurs contours (ou surfaces)*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 135 (1902), 231–232.$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$60
A. Korn, [*Über die erste und zweite Randwertaufgabe der Potentialtheorie*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 35 (1913), 317–323. \[$\spadesuit$ application of the authors’s theory of the asymmetrical kernel to the first and second boundary value problem of potential theory and its resolution by the method of the arithmetical mean (C. Neumann, Robin) leading anew to the solution predicted by Poincaré 1896 [@Poincare_1896], which the author first succeeded in 1901 after appealing to a result of Zaremba (1901)\]
I. Kra, [*Maximal ideals in the algebra of bounded analytic functions*]{}, ???? 31 (1967), 83–88. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is applied to a characterization of “point-like” maximal ideals in the function algebra $\spadesuit$ more precisely Ahlfors is cited on p.85 as follows (yet without precise control on the degree except for its finiteness): “Lemma 5. Let $X$ be a finite domain of the Riemann surface $W$. Then for each discrete sequence $\{x_n\}\subset X$, there exists an $f\in B(X)$ \[=the ring of bounded holomorphic functions, cf. p.83\] such that $\lim_{n\to \infty} f(x_n)$ does not exist.—[*Proof*]{}. Ahlfors \[1\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) has shown that there exists a mapping $p$, analytic in a neighborhood of ${\rm Cl} X$, that is an $N$-to-one covering of the closed unit disc, for some positive integer $N$. Moreover $p\vert X$ is an $N$-to-one covering of the interior of the closed unit disc, and $p\vert {\rm Cl} X-X$ is an $N$-to-one covering of the unit circle. Because ${\rm Cl} X$ is compact we may assume (by choosing a subsequence) that $x_n\to x \in {\rm Cl} X-X$. Then $p(x_n)\to 1$ \[modulus missing??\] and $\vert p(x_n)\vert<1$. Again, we may choose a subsequence such that $p(x_n)$ is distinct \[???\] and infinite and constitutes an interpolating sequence (see Hoffman \[6,pp.194–204\]). Choose a bounded analytic function $f$ on the unit disc such that $f(p(x_{2n+1}))=0$ and $f(p(x_{2n}))=1$ for $n=0,1,2,\dots$. Then $f\circ p \in B(X)$, and $\lim_{n\to \infty}(f\circ p)(x_n)$ does not exist. \[q.e.d.\]” $\spadesuit$ p.87: “Theorem 2 is a generalization of Theorem 1, because every boundary point of a finite domain is an essential singularity for some bounded holomorphic function. The unit disc certainly has this property. The general case is reduced to the unit disc [*via*]{} any Ahlfors maps. (See the proof of Lemma 5.)”\]
I. Kra, [*Automorphic Forms and Kleinian Groups*]{},Benjamin, Reading, Mass., 1972, 464 pp. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S.G. Krantz, [*The Carathéodory and Kobayashi metrics and applications in complex analysis*]{}, Amer. Math. Monthly 115 (2008), 304–329. \[$\spadesuit$ p.311 brief mention of the Ahlfors function and as it is connected to the Carathéodory metric; for more on the Ahlfors function the reader is referred to Fisher 1983 [@Fisher_1983] or the book Krantz (2006)\]
V.A. Krasnov, [*Albanese mapping for real algebraic varieties*]{}, Mat. Zametki 32 (1982), 365–374; English transl., Math. Notes 32 (1983), 661–666. \[$\spadesuit$\]
V.A. Krasnov, [*Albanese map for GM${\Bbb Z}$ varieties*]{}, Mat. Zametki 35 (1984), 739–747; English transl., Math. Notes 35 (1984), 391–396. \[$\spadesuit$\]
D. Kraus, O. Roth, [*Critical points, the Gauss curvature equation and Blaschke products*]{}, arXiv (2011). 47, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.15 the Ahlfors map is mentioned\]
S. Kravetz, [*On the geometry of Teichmüller spaces and the structure of their modular groups*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A I Math. Dissertationes 278 (1959), 1–35. \[$\spadesuit$ according to Natanzon 1999 [@Natanzon_1999-Moduli-real-alg-surf.superanal-differ-spinors p.1101], this Kravetz’s paper was employed in Earle’s 1971 [@Earle_1971-On-the-moduli] description of the topological structure of the components of the moduli space of real algebraic curves as being each diffeomorphic to ${\Bbb R}^{3g-3}/ {\rm
Mod}_{g,r,\varepsilon}$ for a suitable discrete (modular) group. Earle’s proof used the theory of quasiconformal maps, but relied on a Kravetz’s theorem “which turned out latter to be wrong”. Still according to Natanzon () “A correct proof based on the theory of quasiconformal maps was obtained in Seppälä 1978 [@Seppala_1978-Teich-spaces-of-Klein-surfaces].”\]
?. Krazer, [*Lehrbuch der Thetafuntionen*]{}, Teubner, 1903. \[$\spadesuit$ student of Prym, in turn student of Riemann\]
I.M. Krichever, S.P. Novikov, [*Virasoro-Gelfand-Fuchs type algebras, Riemann surfaces, operator theory of closed strings*]{}, J. Geom. Phys. 5 (1988), 631–661. \[$\spadesuit$\]
L. Kronecker, [*Über die Diskriminante algebraischer Funktionen*]{}, Crelles J. 91 (1881). \[$\spadesuit$\]
L. Kronecker, [*Über einige Interpolationsformeln für ganze Funktionen mehrer Variabeln*]{}, Werke Leipzig 1895, Bd.I, 133–141. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938] as one of the tool involved in the proof of the Petrovskii’s inequalities, where Kronecker’s work connects to the so-called Euler-Jacobi (interpolation) formula\]
P.B. Kronheimer, T.S. Mrowka[^141], [*The genus of embedded surfaces in the projective plane*]{}, Math. Res. Letters 1 (1994), 797–808. \[$\spadesuit$ a proof of the Thom conjecture on the genus of smooth surfaces embedded in the complex projective plane, via Gauge theory (Donaldson theory, etc.) $\spadesuit$ this has some modest relevance to Hilbert’s 16th problem, cf. e.g. Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\] in this text $\spadesuit$ the special degree $3$ case of Thom’s conjecture was known to Kervaire-Milnor 1961 [@Kervaire-Milnor_1961]\]
V. Krylov, [*Une application des équations intégrales à la démonstration de certains théorème de la théories des représentations conformes*]{}, (Russian, French Summary) Rec. Math. de Moscou \[Mat. Sb.\] 4 (1938), 9–30. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: the problem of mapping conformally a region of connectivity $n$, bounded by $n$ analytic contours, on various canonical domains is reduced to the problem of solving a system of simultaneous integral equations\]
T. Kubo, [*Bounded analytic functions in a doubly connected domain*]{}, Mem. Coll. Sci. Univ. Kyoto, A. 26 (1951), 211–223.
T. Kubota, [*Über konforme Abbildungen. I.*]{}, Science Reports Tôhoku Imperial Univ. ser. I, 9 (1920), 473–490. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Grunsky 1932 [@Grunsky_1932 p.135] for the simply-connected case of an extension of Bieberbach’s first Flächensatz\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
T. Kubota, [*Über konforme Abbildungen. II.*]{}, Science Reports Tôhoku Imperial Univ. ser. I, 10 (1921). \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
P. Kufareff, [*Über das zweifach zusammenhängende Minimalgebiet*]{}, Bull. Inst. Math. et Mec. Univ. de Tomsk 1 (1935–37), 228–236. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949] and Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950], and akin to the works of Zarankiewicz 1934 [@Zarankiewicz_1934; @Zarankiewicz_1934-numerisches] $\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: a minimal problem is set up for functions analytic and single-valued in a circular ring and the mapping effected by the minimizing function is discussed\] $\bigstar$ $\bigstar$$\bigstar$
R. Kühnau, [*Über die analytische Darstellung von Abbildungsfunktionen, insbesondere von Extremalfunktionen der Theorie der konformen Abbildung*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 228 (1967), 93–132. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.95–96 proposes a contribution to a question raised by Garabedian-Schiffer 1949 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1949] related to the representation of the so-called Schottky function (via [*Normalabbildungsfunktionen*]{}) $\spadesuit$ Kühnau alludes to several (subsequent) work of Schottky where the circle maps should appear again? (no precise refs. hence requires some detective work)\]
R. Kühnau, [*Geometrisch-funktionentheoretische Lösung eines Extremalsproblems der konformen Abbildung, I, II*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 229 (1967), 131–136; 237 (1969), 175–180. 78 \[$\spadesuit$\]
R. Kühnau, [*Herbert Grötzsch zum Gedächtnis*]{}, Jber. d. Dt. Math.-Verein. 99 (1997), 122–145. \[$\spadesuit$ alas, cited merely for the matter of the “quasi-conformal” jargon, as occuring apparently first (the jargon, not the concept) in Carathéodory 1914 [@Caratheodory_1914]\]
V.S. Kulikov, [*Epimorphicity of the period map for $K3$ surfaces*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 32 (1977), 257–258. (Russian) \[$\spadesuit$ employed in Nikulin’s (1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80]) rigid-isotopy classification of plane real sextics\]
Z. Kuramochi, [*A remark on the bounded analytic function*]{}, Osaka Math. J. 4 (1952), 185–190. 50, 60 \[$\clubsuit$ p.189 seems to reprove the result of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] about the existence of a circle map of degree $\le r+2p$ by using the Green’s function (while generalizing a method of Nehari 1951 [@Nehari_1951] for the case of plane domains) $\spadesuit$ unfortunately Kuramochi’s paper is written in some mysterious tongue (the Nipponglish), and despite its moderate size (of ca. 5 pages) it contains several dozens of misprints obstructing seriously its readability $\spadesuit$ despite our critical comments this work is quoted in Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960] so should probably be not completely science-fictional $\spadesuit$ it would perhaps be desirable (in case this paper emerged from some solid underlying structure) to undertake a polishing of this Kuramochi paper to improve its readability\]
A. Kuribayashi, [*On analytic families of compact Riemann surfaces with non-trivial automorphisms*]{}, ??? ?? (1966), 119–165. \[$\clubsuit$ Teichmüller theory à la Ahlfors-Bers, plus an influence of Shimura $\spadesuit$ p.133: “Thm 2.17. [*There exists one and only one Riemann surface up to conformal equivalence which has group of automorphism of order 168 among compact Riemann surfaces of genus $3$.”*]{} $\spadesuit$ is this uniqueness new? perhaps already in Hurwitz?\]
Y. Kusunoki, [*Über die hinreichenden Bedingungen dafür, dass eine Riemannsche Fläche nullberandet ist,*]{} Mem. Coll. Sci. Univ. Kyoto 28 (1952), 99–108. 60 \[also cited in Sario-Nakai [@Sario-Nakai_1970] CHECK $\spadesuit$ an application of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (and the older predecessor Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]) is given to the type problem\]
Y. Kusunoki, [*Contributions to Riemann-Roch’s theorem*]{}, Kyoto J. Math. ? (1958), ?–?. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited\]
Y. Kusunoki, [*Square integrable normal differentials on Riemann surfaces*]{}, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 3 (1963), 59–69. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited on p.64, in the following connection (as usual many “notatio”): “If $R$ is a bordered surface with $p$ contours, $\{A_n,B_n, C_{\nu}\}_{n=1, \dots, g; \nu 1, \dots,
p-1}$ is admissible for $\Gamma_0=\Gamma_{aS}=\Gamma_{AB}
\oplus\Gamma_C$ and $P_\gamma$ gives a one-to-one mapping of $\Gamma_0=\Gamma_0'$ to $(2g+p-1)$-dimensional vector space by (II) (Ahlfors \[1\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950])).”\]
M.P. Kuvaev, P.P. Kufarev, [*An equation of Löwner’s type for multiply connected regions*]{}, Tomskiĭ gos. Univ. Uč. Zap. Mat. Meh. 25 (1925), 19–34. 78 $\bigstar$ $\bigstar$$\bigstar$
J.-L. Lagrange, [*??*]{}, 1779. \[$\spadesuit$ a source often quoted e.g. by Koebe \[ca. 1910, in Math. Ann.\], and Monastyrsky 1987/99 [@Monastyrsky_1987/99/08-even-1979] where one reads (p.15): “It is noteworthy that Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736–1813) obtained the Cauchy-Riemann equations conditions also in 1779, also in connection with the solution to a cartographic problem.”\]
J.-L. Lagrange, [*Mecanique analitique*]{}, 2 volumes, Paris, 1788. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J.-L. Lagrange, [*Theorie des fonctions analytiques*]{}, Paris, 1797, 2ème édition 1813. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Landau, [*Einige Bermerkungen über schlichte Abbildung*]{}, Jahresb. Dt. Math.-Verein. 34 (1926), 239–243. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H.J. Landau, R. Osserman, [*On analytic mappings of Riemann surfaces*]{}, J. Anal. Math. (1960), 249–279. \[$\spadesuit$ p.266 contains the basic lemma that an analytic map taking the boundary to the boundary is a (full) branched covering (this follows directly from the local behavior of such maps and bears a certain relevance to the Ahlfors circle map) $\spadesuit$ however the paper does not seem to supply an existence proof of the Ahlfors map $\spadesuit$ in fact it is worth reproducing the text faithfully (p.265): “We now turn to the problem of mapping one Riemann surface into another. We shall need a lemma which, in a special case, was proved by Radó \[12\](=Radó 1922 [@Rado_1922-Z-Theorie-mehr]). Let us recall that a sequence of points in a Riemann surface is said to tend to the boundary if the sequence has no limit points in $R$[^142]. We shall say that a map $f$ of one Riemann surface $R_1$ into another, $R_2$, takes the boundary into the boundary if for every sequence of points in $R_1$ which tends to the boundary, the image sequence tends to the boundary of $R_2$. Let us note that if $R_1$ and $R_2$ are relatively compact regions on Riemann surfaces, the above definition coincides exactly with the usual notion of mapping the boundary into the boundary.—[**Lemma 3.1:**]{} [*Let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be any two Riemann surfaces and $f$ an analytic map of $R_1$ into $R_2$ which takes the boundary into the boundary. Then $f$ maps $R_1$ onto $R_2$, and every points of $R_2$ is covered the same number of times, counting multiplicities.*]{}” $\spadesuit$ for this basic lemma see also the treatments in Stoïlow 1938 [@Stoilow_1938-Lecons Chap.VI] and Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960 p.41, 21B.]\]
G. Landsberg, [*Algebraische Untersuchungen über den Riemann-Roch Satz*]{}, Math. Ann. 50 (1898), 333–380. \[$\spadesuit$ drifting the transcendental theory toward arithmetization\]
G. Landsberg, [*Über das Analogon des Riemann-Roch Satz in der Theorie der algebraischen Zahlen*]{}, Math. Ann. 50 (1898), 577–582. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Lavrentieff, [*On the theory of conformal mapping*]{}, Trav. Inst. phys.-math. Stekloff 5 (1934), 159–245. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Schiffer 1950 [@Schiffer_1950-Appendix-Courant]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
P.D. Lax, [*Reciprocal extremal problems in function theory*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 8 (1955), 437–453. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ extract from Rogosinski’s review (MathReview): “This principle is dual to one used for similar problems by the reviewer and H.S. Shapiro (=Rogosinski-Shapiro 1953 [@Rogosinski-Shapiro_1953]); both principles are easy interpretations of the Hahn-Banach extension theorem in the complex case. \[…\] This important paper is somewhat marred by numerous misprints and a rather loose presentation.” \] $\bigstar$
R.F. Lax, [*On the dimension of the varieties of special divisors*]{}, Illinois J. Math. 19 (1975), 318–324. \[$\spadesuit$ extract from H.H. Martens’s review (MathReview): “The proof is inspired by the methods of T. Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960], and the paper contains, in addition to the author’s results, a very useful review of Meis’ monograph, which is rather difficult to obtain.” \] $\bigstar$
R. Le Vavasseur, [*Sur la représentation conforme de deux aires planes à connexion multiple, d’apès M. Schottky*]{}, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse (2) 4 (1902), 45–100. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ re-expose the results of Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877]\]
H. Lebesgue, [*Intégrale, Longueur, Aire*]{}, Annali di Mat. 7 (1902), 231–358. \[$\spadesuit$ Lebesgue’s Thesis, where Lebesgue’s integration and the allied geometry is introduced (yet another descendant of Riemann) $\spadesuit$ Fatou 1906 [@Fatou_1906], F. Riesz 1907 and Carathéodory 1912 [@Caratheodory_1912] are the best illustration of the rôle of measure theory in (complex) function theory, a rôle disputed by Koebe at least in the early steps (compare Gray’s fine analysis [@Gray_1994])\]
H. Lebesgue, [*Sur le principe de Dirichlet*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 24 (1907), 371–402. \[$\spadesuit$ extension of Hilbert’s solution to the Dirichlet problem by allowing general boundaries, cf. also Zaremba 1910 [@Zaremba_1910] for possible simplifications and (Beppo Levi 1906 [@Beppo-Levi_1906] and Fubini 1907 [@Fubini_1907] for related contributions of the same period $\spadesuit$ further (quasi-ultimate) simplifications in Perron 1923 [@Perron_1923], in turn simplified in Radó-Riesz 1925 [@Rado-Riesz_1925]\]
S. Lefschetz, [*On certain numerical invariants of algebraic varieties with applications to Abelian varieties*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 22 (1921), 327–482. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S. Lefschetz, [*L’analysis situs et la géométrie algébrique*]{}, Gauthier-Villars, 1924. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Lehner, M. Newman, [*On Riemann surfaces with maximal automorphism groups*]{}, Glasgow Math. J. 8 (1967), 102–112. \[$\spadesuit$\]
O. Lehto, [*Anwendung orthogonaler Systeme auf gewisse funktionentheoretische Extremal- und Abbildungsprobleme*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. I. 59 (1949), 51 pp. \[$\spadesuit$ new existence proof of parallel-slit mappings via the Bergman kernel (and so in particular of RMT, answering thereby the old desideratum of Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914]-Bergman 1922 [@Bergman_1922]-Bochner 1922 [@Bochner_1922]); equivalent work in Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950] $\spadesuit$ p.48 reproves the identity $B(z)=1/S(w(z)-w^{\ast}(z))$ (expressing the least area map as combination of the two Schlitzfunktionen $w$ and $w^{\ast}$) announced by Grunsky 1932 [@Grunsky_1932] $\clubsuit$ p.41 seems to show that the least area map is a circle map\]
O. Lehto, K.I. Virtanen, [*Quasiconformal mappings in the plane*]{}, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973. \[$\spadesuit$\]
O. Lehto, [*Univalent functions and Teichmüller spaces*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986. \[$\spadesuit$\]
O. Lehto, [*On the life and work of Lars Ahlfors*]{}, Math. Intelligencer (1998), 4–8. \[$\spadesuit$ p.7: “In this same paper (1953/54), Ahlfors also defined the notion which he called Teichmüller space.”\]
G.W. Leibniz, [*Characteristica Geometrica*]{}, 1679. \[$\spadesuit$ beside Descartes (pseudo?)-anticipation of the Euler characteristic theorem for spherical polyhedrons ($V-E+F=2$), this is oft regarded as the first “topological” text, summarized as follows in Monastyrsky 1987/99 [@Monastyrsky_1987/99/08-even-1979], p.89: “In 1679 Leibniz published \[t\]his famous book \[…\], in which (in modern terms) he tried to study the topological rather than the metric characteristics of properties of figures. He wrote that, aside from the coordinate representation of figures, ‘we are in need of another analysis, purely geometric or linear, which also defines the position (situs), as algebra defines magnitude.’ It is interesting to note that Leibniz tried to interest Christiaan Huygens (1629–1695) in his work, but the latter showed little enthusiasm. This was the first (albeit unsuccessful) attempt to interest a physicist in topology.” $\spadesuit$ so this Leibniz’s text must be the first place where the term “analysis situs” appears in embryo, then rebaptized “Topologie” in Listing 1847 [@Listing_1847-Vorstudien-zur-Topologie] (yet receiving only slow acceptance, say in the 1920’s, e.g. Riemann, Poincaré, etc. used exclusively the term “analysis situs”).\]
F. Leja, [*Une méthode de construction de la fonction de Green appartenant à un domaine plan quelconque*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 198 (1934), 231–234. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidels’ summary: a method for constructing the Green’s function of an arbitrary region is given. The approximating functions are closely related to Lagrange polynomials)\]
F. Leja, [*Construction de la fonction analytique effectuant la représentation conforme d’un domaine plan quelconque sur le cercle*]{}, Math. Ann. 111 (1935), 501–504. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: for a given bounded simply-connected \[sic!?\] region in the plane (of the complex variable $z$), a sequence of elementary functions is constructed which tends to the \[Riemann\] mapping function of the region\]
F. Leja, [*Sur une suite de polynômes et la représentation conforme d’un domaine plan quelconque sur le cercle*]{}, Annales Soc. Polonaise de Math. 14 (1936), 116–134. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: a set of polynomials is obtained by means of which the mapping function of a region $D$, with $z=\infty$ as interior point, on $\vert w\vert>1$ can be expressed. If $D$ is simply-connected, the map is one-to-one (schlicht) $\spadesuit$ question (of Gabard) and if not, does it relates to the map of Riemann-Bieberbach-Grunsky-Ahlfors (cf. e.g. Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] and Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947])\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
J. Lewittes, [*Automorphisms of compact Riemann surfaces*]{}, Amer. J. Math. (1963), 738–752. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
J. Lewittes, [*Riemann surfaces and the theta function*]{}, Acta Math. 111 (1964), 37–61. \[$\spadesuit$\]
B. Levi, [*Sul Principo di Dirichlet*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (1906). \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Zaremba 1910 [@Zaremba_1910] an extension of Hilbert’s resurrection of the Dirichlet principle\]
P. Li, S.-T. Yau, [*A new conformal invariant and its application to the Willmore conjecture and the first eigenvalue of a compact surface*]{}, Invent. Math. 69 (1982), 269–291. \[$\spadesuit$ p.272 claims a result along the line of the Witt-Martens mapping theorem for symmetric surfaces without fixed points, but the Li-Yau argument appears as sketchy, or maybe even invalid according to Ross 1997 [@Ross_1997]\]
J.-L. Lions, [*Remarks on reproducing kernels and some function spaces*]{}, In: Function Spaces, Interpolation Theory and Related topics, Proceedings, Lund, Sweden, 2000, Walter de Gruyter, 2002, 49–59. \[$\spadesuit$ present the definition of the reproducing kernel in the general setting due to Aronszajn (p.50): “This definition is due to N. Aronszajn \[1\](=Aronszajn [@Aronszajn_1950]) who studied general properties of reproducing kernels.—In particular cases, such notions have been introduced by S. Bergman \[2\](=1922 [@Bergman_1922]), G. Szegö \[11\](=1921 [@Szego_1921]), M. Schiffer \[9\](=1946 [@Schiffer_1946]), S. Zaremba \[12\](=1908 [@Zaremba_1908-calcul-numerique]), where the corresponding reproducing kernels are computed and estimated; cf. N Aronszajn, loc.cit., and P. Garabedian \[3\](=1949 [@Garabedian_1949]).” $\spadesuit$ p.56: “All these kernels can be computed by the same strategy as above. But we have not been able to recover by this method the results of P. Garabedian \[3\](=1949 [@Garabedian_1949]), which give the connection between $S(x,b)$ and $B(x,b)$.”\]
J.B. Listing, [*Vorstudien zur Topologie*]{}, Göttinger Studien, 1847. \[$\spadesuit$ influenced by Descartes, Leibniz 1679 [@Leibniz_1679], Euler, Gauss, etc. and influential upon Riemann (who attended in 1850 a seminar on mathematical physics run by W.Weber, Listing, Stern, and Ulrich), cf. e.g. p.9 of Monastyrsky 1987/99 [@Monastyrsky_1987/99/08-even-1979], as well as upon Tait and Kelvin\]
M.S. Li Chiavi, [*Sulla rappresentazione conforme delle aree pluriconnesse appartenti a superficie di Riemann su un’opportuna superficie di Riemann su cui siano eseguiti dei tagli paralleli*]{}, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 3 (1932), 95–107. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ Maria Stella Li Chiavi is a student of Cecioni\]
L. Lichtenstein, [*Randwertaufgaben der Theorie der linearen partiellen Differentialgleichungen zweiter Ordnung vom elliptischen Typus. II*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 143 (1913), 51–105. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Nevanlinna 1939 [@Nevanlinna_1939] for Schwarz’s alternating procedure recasted as the solution of an integral equation through successive approximations\]
L. Lichtenstein, [*Zur Theorie der konformen Abbildung nichtanalytischer, singularitätenfreier Flächenstücke auf ebene Gebieten*]{}, Bull. Internat. Acad. Sci. Cracovie, Cl. Sci. Math. Nat. Ser. A. (1916), 192–217. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ an extension of Gauss 1825 [@Gauss_1825] (local isothermic coordinates), simultaneous work by Korn\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
L. Lichtenstein, [*Zur konformen Abbildung einfach zusammenhängender schlichter Gebiete*]{}, Archiv der Math. u. Physik 25 (1917), 179–180. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidels’ summary: the problem of mapping conformally on a circle a simply-connected region bounded by a simple closed curve with continuous curvature is reduced to the solution of a linear integral equation\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
L. Lichtenstein, [*Neuere Entwicklung der Potentialtheorie. Konforme Abbildung*]{}, Encykl. d. math. Wiss. II, 3., 1. Hälfte, 177–377. Leipzig, B.G. Teubner, 1919. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ should contain another proof of the Kreisnormierung in finite connectivity, according to Hawley-Schiffer 1962 [@Schiffer-Hawley_1962]\] $\bigstar$
B.V. Limaye, [*Blaschke products for finite Riemann surfaces*]{}, Studia Math. 34 (1970), 169–176.\[$\spadesuit$ the paper starts with a little manipulation amounting to annihilate the periods of a conjugate differential, hence quite in line with say Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], yet does not seem to reprove the existence result of a circle map\]
B.V. Limaye, [*Ahlfors function on triply connected domains*]{}, J. Indian Math. Soc. 37 (1973), 125–135. 78 $\bigstar$
I. Lind, [*An iterative method for conformal mappings of multiply-connected domains*]{}, Ark. Mat. 4 (1963), 557–560. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ another proof of PSM (due to Schottky 1877, Cecioni 1908 [@Cecioni_1908], Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909], Koebe, etc.) via iterative scheme à la Koebe (who uses rather this device for the harder Kreisnormierung)\]
E. Lindelöf, [*Memoire sur la théorie des fonctions entières de genre fini*]{}, 1902. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Lindner, [*Über Mannigfalfigkeiten ebener KKurven mit Singularitäten*]{}, Archiv. Math. 28 (1977), 603–606. \[$\spadesuit$ cited e.g. in SHustin 1990/91 [@Shustin_1990/91-Geom-of-discr-alg-curve] $\spadesuit$ seems to contain a variant of the Severi-Brusotti description of the discriminant\]
F. Lippich, [*Untersuchungen über den Zusammenhang der Flächen im Sinne Riemann’s*]{}, Math. Ann. 7 (1874), 212–230. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ topology of surfaces, overlaps slightly with Möbius and Jordan 1866 [@Jordan_1866], but no cross-citations\]
K. Löbenstein, [*Über den Satz, dass eine ebene algebraische Kurve 6. Ordnung mit $11$ sich einander ausschliessenden Ovalen nicht existiert*]{}, Inaugural Dissertation, Göttingen, 1910. \[$\spadesuit$ Dissertation under Hilbert, attempting to prohibit the real sextic scheme consisting of 11 unnested ovals $\spadesuit$ considered non-rigorous in Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74], albeit it was in Hilbert’s view (cf. Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909-Ueber-die-Gestalt-sextic])\]
O. Lokki, [*Über Existenzbeweise einiger mit Extremaleigenschaft versehenen analytischen Funktionen*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. I. 76 (1950), 15 pp. 60, 78 $\bigstar$
B. Lund, [*Subalgebras of finite codimension in the algebra of analytic functions on a Riemann surface*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 51 (1974), 495–497. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ quotes Ahlfors’ existence of a circle map (termed therein unimodular function) and cite also Royden’s proof of 1962 [@Royden_1962] $\spadesuit$ the paper itself is devoted to the following result: if a uniform subalgebra $A$ of $A(R)$ the algebra of all analytic functions on the interior of a compact bordered Riemann surface $\bar R$ and continuous up to its boundary included contains a circle map, then $A$ has finite codimension in $A(R)$ $\spadesuit$ question: what about the converse? If the codimension is zero this boils down to Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]\]
J. Lüroth, [*Note über Verzweigungsschnitte und Querschnitte in einer Riemann’schen Fläche*]{}, Math. Ann. 3 (1871), 181–184. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ considered as sketchy by Clebsch 1872 [@Clebsch_1872], and consequently supplemented with more details\]
A.M. Macbeath, [*On a theorem of Hurwitz*]{}, Proc. Glasgow Math. Assoc. 5 (1961), 90–96. \[$\spadesuit$ construction of infinite families of surfaces for which Hurwitz’s bound $84(g-1)$ is attained\]
A.M. Macbeath, [*Generators of the linear fractional groups*]{}, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. (Houston, 1967). \[$\spadesuit$ construction of infinite families of surfaces for which Hurwitz’s bound $84(g-1)$ is attained\]
A.M. Macbeath, [*The classification of non-euclidean plane crystallographic groups*]{}, Canad. J. Math. 19 (1967), 1192–1205. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A.J. Macintyre, W.W. Rogosinski, [*Extremum problems in the theory of analytic functions*]{}, Acta Math. 82 (1950), 275–325. \[$\spadesuit$ this enters into our specialized picture as follows: this paper, joint with Rogosinski-Shapiro 1953 [@Rogosinski-Shapiro_1953], and Rudin 1955 [@Rudin_1955-class-Hp] constitutes a stream influencing the production of the paper of Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta] and Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962], where a new existence-proof of the Ahlfors map is given via functional analytic tools (Hahn-Banach) $\spadesuit$ challenge \[30.09.12\] upon assuming that Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] is true, prove it via Hahn-Banach (good luck!)\] $\bigstar$
F. Maitani, Y. Kusunoki, [*Canonical functions on open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations (1992). \[$\spadesuit$ The canonical functions are meromorphic functions with a finite number of poles and their real parts are, roughly speaking, constant on each ideal boundary component of an open Riemann surface. The existence and geometrical: properties of such functions have been ...\]
B. Manel, [*Conformal mapping of multiply connected domains on the basis of Plateau’s problem*]{}, Revista Univ. Nac. Tucuman 3 (1942), 141–149. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ title essentially self-explanatory modulo the question of knowing which types of mappings are handled: Kreisnormierung, circle map, or some slit mappings?\] $\bigstar$
W. Mangler, [*Die Klassen von topologischen Abbildungen einer geschlossenen Fläche auf sich*]{}, Math. Z. 44 (1939), 541–554. \[$\spadesuit$ oft quoted, e.g. by Teichmüller\]
Yu.I. Manin, [*Superalgebraic curves and quantum strings*]{}, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. 183 (1990), 126–138; English transl., Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 183 (1991), 149–162. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Marden, [*On homotopic mappings of Riemann surfaces.*]{} Ann of Math. (2) (1969), 1–8. \[$\spadesuit$ Lemma 2 (on unlimited branched covering surfaces) is probably akin to the well-known lemma ascribed to Radó 1922 [@Rado_1922-Z-Theorie-mehr], compare Landau-Osserman 1960 [@Landau-Osserman_1960]\]
A. Marin, [*Quelques remarques sur les courbes algébriques planes réelles.*]{} In: Séminaire sur la géométrie algébrique réelle. Publ. Math. Univ. Paris VII, 1979, 51–86. \[$\spadesuit$ where the writer (Gabard) learned about the Rohlin inequality $r\ge m/2$, which does not appear in print by Rohlin although quite easily derived from the Rohlin formula in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]. For more details, cf. Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000] and the refs. therein\]
A. Marin, [*Sur un théorème de Cheponkus*]{}, in: Real Analytic and Algebraic Geometry, Proceedings Trento, 1988 (Eds. M Galbiati, A. Tognoli). Springer, Lecture Notes in Math., 1420, 191–193. \[$\spadesuit$ contains a corrected version of a theorem of Cheponkus (unsuitably proved in the original), as well as a proof of Klein’s intuition that curves of type I cannot acquire a new oval by continuous deformation of the coefficients. $\spadesuit$ \[26.03.13\] in fact it seems to me that Marin’s statement is slightly stronger than Klein’s original (unproved) assertion inasmuch as Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876] supposed that the curve traverses the discriminant across an isolated double point (with imaginary conjugate tangents), alias solitary double points in the Russian jargon of Arnold, Viro, etc.\]
D.E. Marshall, [*An elementary proof of the Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation theorem*]{}, Mich. Math. J. \[$\spadesuit$\]
D.E. Marshall, [*Removable sets for bounded analytic functions*]{}, In: [*Linear and complex analysis problem book*]{}. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1043. Springer, Berlin, 1984, 2233–2234. CHECK PAGINATION incompatible with Murai 1990/91 [@Murai_1990/91-ICM] \[$\spadesuit$ if I do not mistake this is the first place where it is explained why Calderón’s achievement (Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977] on the $L^p$-continuity of the singular integral operator with a Cauchy kernel on a smooth curve) implies the so-called Denjoy conjecture (Denjoy 1909 [@Denjoy_1909-Painleve/Sur-les-fct-anal-unif-a-sing-discontinues]) about the removability of a closed set lying on a rectifiable curve being equivalent to the vanishing of its length $\spadesuit$ historical detail: Murai 1990/91 [@Murai_1990/91-ICM p.904–905] seems to ascribe the Denjoy conjecture to Calderón-Havin-Marshall using the (cryptical) abbreviation CHM on p.905 (but quotes only the present text of Marshall) $\spadesuit$ the Calderón-to-Denjoy implication is obtained by combining classical results of Garabedian, Havinson with Davie’s reduction of the Denjoy conjecture to the $C^1$-case, completing thereby the proof of Denjoy’s conjecture $\spadesuit$ in fact, Denjoy announced this as a theorem, but his proof turned out to be erroneous (compare Marshall [@Marshall_1978?] or Melnikov 1975/76 [@Melnikov-Sinanyan_1975/76 p.691] or Verdera 2004 [@Verdera_2004 p.29]) $\spadesuit$ alas, people rarely say explicitly who located the gap in Denjoy’s claim (this is a non-trivial historical quiz), but maybe Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950 p.122] are good candidates, yet they do not criticize directly Denjoy but rather establish the special case of Denjoy’s conjecture for linear and then analytic curves\]
G. Martens, [*Komponentenzerfällende abelsche Erweiterungen reeller algebraischer Funktionenkörper einer Variablen*]{}, Diss. Univ. Heidelberg, 1974. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Martens 1975 [@Martens_1975], and might be the first place where the phrasing “total reell” appears in print\]
G. Martens, [*Galoisgruppen über aufgeschlossenen reellen Funktionenkörpern*]{}, Math. Ann. 217 (1975), 191–199. \[$\spadesuit$ p.197: total reality (“total reelle Galois Erweiterungen” are defined in the context of Galois extensions of real function fields)\]
G. Martens, [*Minimale Blätterzahl bei Überlagerungen Kleinscher Flächen über der projectiven Ebene*]{}, Archiv der Math. 30 (1978), 481–486. \[$\spadesuit$ sharp bound upon the degree of the Witt mapping $\spadesuit$ differential geometric application in Ross 1999 [@Ross_1997]\]
G. Martens, [*Die Zerlegungscharaktere abelscher total reeller Erweiterungen reeller Funktionenkörper einer Variablen*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. ?? (ca. 1978), ??–??. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977]\]
G. Martens, [*Funktionen von vorgegebener Ordnung auf komplexen Kurven*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 320 (1980), 68–85.
H.. Martens, [*A new proof of Torelli’s theorem*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 78 (1963), 107–111. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H.H. Martens, [*On the varieties of special divisors on a curve*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 227 (1967), 111–120. \[$\spadesuit$ self-explanatory title, but do not prove the existence of special divisors\]
R.S. Martin, [*Minimal positive harmonic functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 49 (1941), 137–172. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ plays a fundamental rôle in Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950], who seems to offer an alternative proof of the existence of a circle map as the one of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]\]
M. Maschler, [*Minimal domains and their Bergman kernel function*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 6 (1956), 501–516. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Maschler, [*Classes of minimal and representative domains and their kernel functions*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 9 (1959), 763–782. \[$\spadesuit$ contain (according to entry Maschler 1959 [@Maschler_1959 p.173]) a description of the geometric shapes of minimal domains (i.e. essentially the range of the least area maps) in the case of doubly-connected domains\]
M. Maschler, [*Analytic functions of the classes $L^2$ and $l^2$ and their kernel functions*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) 8 (1959), 163–177. \[$\spadesuit$ p.173 seems to assert that the range of the least area maps are unknown for domains of connectivity higher than $2$ $\spadesuit$ still on p.173 Kufarev 1935/37 [@Kufareff_1935/37] is credited for establishing that the least area map in the case of doubly-connected domains is not univalent, but schlicht upon a (two sheeted) Riemann surface\]
B. Maskit, [*The conformal group of a plane domain*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 90 (1968), 718–722. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ proves two results to the effect that any plane domain (resp. Riemann surface of \[finite\] genus $g$) conformally embeds into either the sphere or a closed Riemann surface of the same genus so that, under this embedding, every conformal automorphism of the original surface is the restriction of one of the compactified closed surface $\spadesuit$ the proof proceeds (via exhaustion) by reduction to the case of finite Riemann surfaces, previously established by the author\]
B. Maskit, [*Moduli of marked Riemann surfaces*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (1974). \[$\spadesuit$\]
B. Maskit, [*Canonical domains on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 106 (1989), 713–721. \[$\spadesuit$ Kreisnormierung for surfaces supplementing the uniqueness lacking in the existence proof in Haas 1984 [@Haas_1984]\]
J. Mateu, X. Tolsa, J. Verdera, [*The planar Cantor sets of zero analytic capacity and the local $T(b)$-theorem*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (2002), 19–28. \[$\spadesuit$ a complete characterization of the sets in the title is given via a little incursion of the Ahlfors function (on p.25) $\spadesuit$ \[23.09.12\] since Vitushkin and especially Garnett 1970 [@Garnett_1970] it is known that the $1/4$-Cantor set has $\gamma=0$ (zero analytic capacity), but positive length. More generally one may consider a $\lambda$-Cantor set $E(\lambda)$ for $0<\lambda<1/2$ (obtained by keeping only the four subsquares of length $\lambda$ pushed to the 4 corners of the unit-square and iterating ad infinitum) and ask about the ‘critical temperature’, i.e. the smallest $\lambda$ such that $\gamma(E(\lambda))>0$ $\spadesuit$ the critical value $\lambda$ is precisely $\lambda=1/4$, as follows from Theorem 1 of the cited work, describing more generally the case of a Cantor set $E(\lambda)$ associated to a sequence $\lambda=(\lambda_n)_{n=1}^{\infty}$ with variable $\lambda_n$ (in the range \]0,1/2\[) $\spadesuit$ naive question: in the case where $\lambda$ is constant (self-similar Cantor set) can we describe the behavior of $\gamma(E(\lambda))$ as a function $]0, 1/2[ \to [0,+\infty)$: is it monotone, bounded, analytic or at least derivable (especially at the critical value)? $\spadesuit$ naive answers: monotone most probably, bounded also certainly namely by $\gamma$ of the unit square corresponding to $E(1/2)$\]
P. Matildi, [*Sulla rappresentazione conforme di domini appartenenti a superficie di Riemann su di un tipo canonico assegnato*]{}, Ann. Scuola Norm. Super. Pisa (2) 14 (1945), (1948), 81–90. 60 \[$\clubsuit$ this paper (read by writer only the 13.07.12) seems to establish the existence of a circle map ([*cerchio multiplo*]{}) for compact bordered Riemann surface having only [*one*]{} contour. Thus with some imagination this may be regarded as a precursor of the Ahlfors circle map. (Recall that Ahlfors was well aware of this paper at least subsequently for it is cited in Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960], alas without detailed comment.) Matildi also proposes a bound on the degree of the mapping whose dependence upon the topology is, however, not made completely explicit. He proposes namely, the degree $\lambda\le n(2n-3)$, where $n$ is the minimum degree of a projective-plane model for the Schottky-double of the given membrane. Perhaps it would be useful to estimate his bound purely in term of the topology (via basic algebraic geometry) $\clubsuit$ an extension of Matildi’s work to the case of membranes having several contours is claimed in Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950], but it still hard to decide if ti really cover the Ahlfors theorem of 1950\]
S. Matsuoka, [*Nonsingular algebraic curves in $RP^1\times
RP^1$*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. ?? (1991–93 ca. CHECK), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$ Hilbert’s problem in ${\Bbb P}^1\times {\Bbb P}^1$, while extending to this context the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence and inequalities of Petrovskii and Arnold\]
S. Matsuoka, [*The configuration of the $M$-curves of degree $(4,4)$ in $RP^1\times RP^1$ and periods of real K3 surfaces*]{}, Hokkaido Math. J. 19 (1990), 359–376. \[$\spadesuit$ Hilbert’s problem in ${\Bbb P}^1\times {\Bbb P}^1$, while extending to this context the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence and inequalities of Petrovskii and Arnold\]
P. Mattila, [*Smooth maps, null-sets for integralgeometric measure and analytic capacity*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 123 (1986), 303–309. \[$\spadesuit$ includes a counterexample to the original formulation of Vitushkin’s conjecture ($E$ removable iff purely unrectifiable, i.e. the intersection with any curve of finite length has zero $1$-dimensional Hausdorff measure $H^1$) $\spadesuit$ Mattila’s counterexample has $H^1(E)=\infty$ (infinite length) $\spadesuit$ for the validation of Vitushkin’s conjecture in the case $H^1(E)<\infty$, see G. David 1998 [@David_1998]\]
P. Mattila, M.S. Melnikov, J. Verdera, [*The Cauchy integral, analytic capacity and uniform rectifiability*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 144 (1996), 127–136. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ analytic capacity, Ahlfors function and a step forward in understanding Painlevé null-sets geometrically $\spadesuit$ for the complete solution see Tolsa 2003 [@Tolsa_2003]\]
R. Mazzeo, M. Taylor, [*Curvature and uniformization*]{}, Israel J. Math. 130 (2002), 323–346. \[$\spadesuit$ uniformization via Liouville’s equation (Schwarz’s strategy, cf. also Bieberbach 1916 [@Bieberbach_1916-Delta-u-und-die-automorphen-Funkt]), as we know since Koebe (Überlagerungsfläche) this gives then the Kreisnormierung, cf. e.g. Bergman 1946 [@Bergman_1946]\]
S. McCullough, [*The trisecant identity and operator theory*]{}, Integr. Equat. Oper. Theory 25 (1996), 104–127. \[$\spadesuit$ pp.113–5: discussion of the Ahlfors function along the lines of Fay 1973 [@Fay_1973] and p.125 mentions Bell’s result 1991 [@Bell_1991-Szego] that the zeros of Ahlfors function are distinct if the center $a$ is chosen near enough the boundary $\spadesuit$ \[20.09.12\] as we already observed once, it could be interesting to investigate if Bell’s result extends to bordered surfaces (compact) of positive genus $p>0$. Of course in this case the degree of the Ahlfors map may jump from points to points (within the Ahlfors range $r\le \deg\le r+2p$), and this phenomenology is probably connected with deep algebro-geometric or differential-geometric invariants of the surface (Weierstrass points, etc.), compare the work of Yamada 2001 [@Yamada_2001] and Gouma 1998 [@Gouma_1998] for the hyperelliptic context (phenomenology of the mutation of the Ahlfors maps and their fluctuating degree upon dragging away the basepoint) $\spadesuit$ maybe it could be also worth looking if Bell’s result is somehow connected to Solynin’s result (2007 [@Solynin_2007]) about the confinement of the zeros of the Green’s function inside a compactum when the pole is dragged through the surface $\spadesuit$ at first sight, this looks quite plausible in view of Ahlfors formula (cf. 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] and 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) that if $f$ is a circle map with zeros at $t_1, \dots , t_d$ then $\log \vert f(z)\vert$ matches a superposition of Green’s functions with poles at the $t_i$, i.e. $\log \vert f(z)\vert=\sum_{i=1}^d G(z,t_i)$, since both functions vanish on the contours and present the same singularities at the $t_i$ $\spadesuit$ since it is not the critical points of the individual Green’s function, but those of the superposed Green’s functions which are responsible for the ramification of $f$, a direct application of Solynin looks hazardous $\spadesuit$ still, one may wonder if the ramification of the Ahlfors map stay likewise trapped within a compactum upon dragging the center $a$ of the Ahlfors map $f_a$ through the membrane\]
A.D. Mednykh, [*Nonequivalent coverings of Riemann surfaces with a prescribed ramification type*]{}, Sibirsk Mat. Zh. 25 (1984), 120–142. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
A.D. Mednykh, [*Determination of the number of nonequivalent coverings on a compact Riemann surface*]{}, Doklady SSSR 239 (19??), 269–271. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Natanzon 1993 [@Natanzon_1993] as akin to Hurwitz 1891 [@Hurwitz_1891-Uber-Riemannsche-Flachen]\]$\bigstar$
A.D. Mednykh, [*Branched coverings of Riemann surfaces whose branch orders coincide with the multiplicity*]{}, Comm. in Algebra 18 (1990), 1517–1533. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
Th. Meis, [*Die minimale Blätterzahl der Konkretisierung\[en\] einer kompakten Riemannschen Fläche*]{}, Schriftenreihe des Math. Inst. der Univ. Münster, Heft 16 (1960). \[$\spadesuit$ a much quoted—but hard-to-find—source where the gonality of a general closed Riemann surface of genus $g$ is found to be the bound predicted by Riemann, Brill-Noether, etc., namely $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ $\diamondsuit$ Meis belongs to the Münster school (Behnke–Stein, etc.) $\clubsuit$ \[04.10.12\] it seems probable that the technique employed by Meis (which involves Teichmüller theory according to secondary sources, e.g. H.H. Martens’ MathReview of Gunning 1972 [@Gunning_1972]) could be adapted to the context of bordered surfaces and thus lead to a new proof of the Ahlfors map, even perhaps with the sharp bound given in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] $\spadesuit$ this seems to us to be a task of primary importance, but lacking a copy of Meis article we were relegated to make some general speculations (cf. Sec.\[sec:question\] which we summarize briefly) $\spadesuit$ the basic idea is to develop a “relative” Teichmüller theory not for pairs of Riemann surfaces of the same topological type (hence relatable by a “möglichst konform” diffeomorphism effecting the minimum distortion upon infinitesimal circles), but for just one Riemann surface which we try to express as a branched cover of the sphere (or the disc) for a fixed mapping degree $d$, while exhibiting the (quasiconformal) map of least distortion. Measuring this least dilatation, we get instead of the usual Teichmüller metric (distance) on the moduli space, a Teichmüller temperature $\varepsilon_d$ (or potential) whose vanishing amounts to the possibility of expressing the given surface as a (conformal!) branched cover of the disc (or the sphere), thereby resolving the Ahlfors mapping problem (or the Riemann-Meis problem) depending on the bordered or closed context. \[As a matter of convention the distortion (eccentricity of infinitesimal ellipses is $\ge 1$ and this is converted in values $\ge 0$ upon taking the logarithm)\] $\spadesuit$ in fact upon looking at the gradient flow of the Teichmüller temperature (trajectories of steepest descent orthogonal to the isothermic hypersurfaces $\varepsilon_d={\rm const.}$) we get a flow on the moduli space ($M_g$, if closed or $M_{p,r}$, if bordered) with the net effect of improving the gonality of each individual surface during its evolution $\spadesuit$ as the Teichmüller space is a cell one can hope to derive the existence of stagnation point of the flow by the usual Poincaré-Brouwer-Hopf index formula giving so an existence-proof of a conformal map. However this is a bit artificial for the existence of low degree maps is usually evident (looking at hyperelliptic surfaces and their bordered avatars). Of course it must perhaps be ensured that the flow only stagnates when the temperature vanishes (i.e. no saddle points nor sinks of positive temperature) $\spadesuit$ in such favorable circumstances any closed surface of genus $g$ would flow toward a hyperelliptic model representing the smallest possible gonality (=two) $\spadesuit$ likewise, in the bordered context one expects that any membrane of type $(p,r)$ converges to a membrane of least possible gonality, that is $r$ (excepted when $r=1$ and $p>0$ where the least topological degree is $2$) $\spadesuit$ admittedly, all this does not readily reprove Meis’ gonality (nor that of Ahlfors-Gabard) but maybe it is a first step toward a solution along this path, which—we repeat—should be found in the work of Meis (which in substance is nothing else than a relative (or ramified) version of classical Teichmüller theory) $\spadesuit$ perhaps the flow we are speaking about is not logically needed in Meis’ proof but it can certainly enhance the game $\spadesuit$ basically for each $d$ the continuity of the temperature function shows that the set of $d$-gonal surfaces is closed in the moduli space $M_g$, and since the set is nonempty as soon as $d\ge 2$ (hyperelliptic models) it suffices to show that it is open when $d$ is appropriately large. The expected value for $d$ is $[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ (resp. $r+p$ in the bordered case of $M_{p,r}$), yet it is precisely here that some idea is required $\spadesuit$ naively if the degree is high enough one disposes of enough free parameters to make variations exploring locally the full moduli space $\spadesuit$ alternatively one can perhaps argue that the temperature function $\varepsilon_d$ is real-analytic on $M_g$ so that it would suffice to check its vanishing on a small parametric (open) ball consisting of Riemann surfaces with explicitly given equations (this resembles perhaps Meis’ approach through the little I know of it via indirect sources, e.g. R.F. Lax 1975 [@Lax_1975-special-divisors-II])\]$\bigstar$
M.S. Melnikov, [*Structure of the Gleason part of the algebra $R(E)$*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 1 (1967), 97–100; English transl. (1968), 84–86. \[$\spadesuit$ p.86, Ahlfors function via Vitushkin 1958 [@Vitushkin_1958] $\spadesuit$ the paper itself is devoted to giving another proof (via the apparatus of analytic capacity) of Wilken’s theorem that the Gleason part of the algebra $R(E)$ (of uniform limits on a compactum $E\subset {\Bbb C}$ of the rational functions of the variable $z$) consists either of one point (and is then a peak point), or it has positive area\]
M.S. Melnikov, S.O. Sinanyan, [*Aspects of approximation theory for functions of one complex variable*]{}, Itogi Nauki i Tekhniki 4 (1975), 143–250; English transl. in J. Soviet Math. 5 (1976), 688–752. \[$\spadesuit$ Vitushkin’s theory (i.e., uniform approximation by rational functions) and its relation to the Ahlfors function and the allied analytic capacity\]
M.S. Melnikov, [*Analytic capacity: discrete approach and curvature of measure*]{}, Sb. Math. 186 (1995), 827–846. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ analytic capacity (p.827), Ahlfors function (p.830, 838) and introduction of the concept of the curvature of a (positive Borel) measure in the plane \[Menger curvature\], which enables a new proof of Denjoy’s conjecture (without using Calderón’s $L^2$-estimates for the singular Cauchy integral) $\spadesuit$ this technique of Melnikov is also instrumental in Tolsa’s solution (2003 [@Tolsa_2003]) of the (full) Painlevé problem\]
M.S. Melnikov, J. Verdera [*A geometric proof of the $L^2$ boundedness of the Cauchy integral on Lipschitz graphs*]{}, Internat. Math. Research Notices 7 (1995), 325–331. \[$\spadesuit$ another approach to Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977]\]
O. Mengoni, [*Die konforme Abbildung, gewisser Polyeder auf die Kugel*]{}, Monatsh. f. Math. u. Phys. 44 (1936), 159–185. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: the paper is a contribution to the problem of conformal mapping of simply-connected closed polyhedra upon the sphere. According to H.A. Schwarz, this problem can be reduced to the determination of a number of constants from a set of transcendental equations. It is shown that the explicit solution can be determined in a number of cases not considered by Schwarz. The paper concludes with a discussion of the results form the viewpoint of numerical computations\] $\bigstar$
S.N. Mergelyan, [*Uniform approximations to functions of a complex variable*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. 1001 (1954).
H. Meschkowski, [*Beziehungen zwischen den Normalabbildungsfunktionen der Theorie der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Math. Z. 55 (1951), 114–124. 78
H. Meschkowski, [*Über die konforme Abbildung gewisser Bereiche von unendlich hohen Zusammenhang auf Vollkreisbereiche, I*]{}, Math. Ann. 123 (1951), 392–405. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ some infinite connectivity cases of KNP, via iterative methods à la Koebe and area estimates due to Rengel 1932/33 [@Rengel_1932-33]\]
H. Meschkowski, [*Über die konforme Abbildung gewisser Bereiche von unendlich hohen Zusammenhang auf Vollkreisbereiche, II*]{}, Math. Ann. 124 (1952), 178–181. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ sequel of the previous paper, building again over a Rengel (1932/33 [@Rengel_1932-33]) area estimate for 4-gons and using Grötzsch’s (1929 [@Groetzsch_1929]) mapping of a domain of infinite connectivity upon a Kreisschlitzbereich, reducing therefore the general study to this special case\]
H. Meschkowski, [*Einige Extremalprobleme aus der Theorie der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. I. 117 (1952), 12pp. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ which mappings?, essentially all types, but relies heavily on previous works of Garabedian-Schiffer and Nehari $\spadesuit$ mention the issue that there is no known extremal problem yielding the Koebe Kreisnormierung, for an update on this question see several works of Schiffer via Fredholm eigenvalues\]
H. Meschkowski, [*Verzerrungssätze für mehrfach zusammenhängende Bereiche*]{}, Compositio Math. 53 (1953), 44–59. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Kreisbogenschlitz map, and somewhat relevant to the point discussed in Gaier 1978 [@Gaier_1978-JDMV] $\spadesuit$ more precisely shows that the Ahlfors-type problem of maximizing the derivative among [*schlicht*]{} function bounded-by-one gives a conformal map upon a Kreisschlitzbereich (=circular slit disc). See also Reich-Warschawski 1960 [@Reich-Warschawski_1960]\]
G. Mikhalkin, [*Adjunction inequality for real algebraic curves*]{}, arXiv (1994). \[$\spadesuit$ as pointed out by Th. Fiedler (letter of the 9 March in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]), this paper of Mikhalkin seems to be one of the earliest application of the Thom conjecture to Hilbert’s 16th\]
G. Mikhalkin, [*The complex separation of real surfaces and extensions of Rokhlin congruence*]{}, Invent. Math. 118 (1994), 197–222. \[$\spadesuit$\]
G. Mikhalkin, [*Adjunction inequality for real algebraic curves*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 4 (1997), 45–52. \[$\spadesuit$\]
G. Mikhalkin, [*Real algebraic curves, the moment map and amoebas*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 151 (2000), 309–326. \[$\spadesuit$\]
I.P. Millin, [*The method of areas for schlicht functions in finitely connected domains*]{}, (Russian) Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov 94 (1968), 90–121. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978 p.185], hence possibly relevant to the issue discussed in Gaier 1978 [@Gaier_1978-JDMV]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
J. Milnor, [*On spaces having the homotopy type of $CW$complexes*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. ? (1959), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$ states the result that a metric manifolds has always the homotopy type of a $CW$-complex, building over result of the Polish and Swede school (Kuratowski, Borsuk, Hanner), cf. also the more detailed implementation in Palais 1962 $\spadesuit$ be careful about terminology, Milnor states this result under the assumption of separability, yet if this means (as it does presently) existence of a denumerable dense part, then there is some simple counter-example of Prüfer described in Gabard 2006/08 [@Gabard-2006/08] \]
J. Milnor, [*On the Betti numbers of real varieties*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 15 (1964), 275–280. \[$\spadesuit$ cf. also Thom 1965 [@Thom_1965]\]
C.D. Minda, [*The Aumann-Carathéodory rigidity constant for doubly connected regions*]{}, Kodai Math. J. 2 (1979), 420–426. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ p.422 an elementary existence-proof of the Ahlfors function is given in the case of an annulus $A:=\{z: 1/R<\vert z\vert < R\}$ conjointly with the fact that the map is uniquely prescribed by its two zeros $a,b$ (up to rotation) subjected to the relation $\vert a
b\vert=1$ $\spadesuit$ one can wonder if in this case the circle maps of minimum degree (here $r=2$, i.e. two contours) coincide exactly with the Ahlfors map $f_a$ maximizing the distortion at $a$ (both depends upon $2$ real parameters) $\spadesuit$ p.424, still in the annulus case an explicit expression of the Ahlfors function is given in terms of the theta function, in a way analogous to work of Robinson 1943 [@Robinson_1943] and Abe 1958 [@Abe_1958] (\[03.10.12\] compare maybe also Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57]) $\spadesuit$ this is then applied to give an explicit formula for the Aumann-Carathéodory rigidity constant (1934 [@Aumann-Caratheodory_1934]) $\spadesuit$ p.420, another proof of the so-called annulus theorem is given (quoting the variety of proofs due to H. Huber 1951, Jenkins 1953, Kobayashi 1970, Landau-Osserman 59/60 [@Landau-Osserman_1960], Reich 1966, Schiffer 1946), but emphasizing that the present proof is patterned along Heins 1941 [@Heins_1941-iteration] showing “that the annulus theorem should properly be traced back to Heins’ work”\]
C.D. Minda, [*The hyperbolic metric and coverings of Riemann surfaces*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 84 (1979), 171–182. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] and 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] are cited as follows (p.180): “A function $\tilde{f}$ in ${\cal B}(X)$ which maximizes $\vert\tilde{f}'(p)\vert$ is called an Ahlfors function (\[1\](=1947), \[2\](=1950)) and $c_B(p)=\max \{
\vert\tilde{f}'(p)\vert : \tilde{f} \in {\cal B}(X)\}$ is called the analytic capacity metric.” $\spadesuit$ from the abstract (freely and perhaps loosely reproduced): given two Riemann surfaces $X,Y$ endowed with their hyperbolic metrics, the principle of hyperbolic metric (aka Schwarz-Pick-Ahlfors lemma) says that any analytic map $f\colon X\to Y$ is a contraction. “Moreover, equality holds if and only if $f$ is an (unbranched, unlimited) covering of $X$ onto $Y$” $\spadesuit$ \[04.10.12\] the latter property is essentially topological so applies to any Ahlfors map (even in the extended sense of—what we call—circle maps). We could then lift the hyperbolic (Riemann-Poincaré) metric on the disc to the bordered surface. Alas the ramification creates singularities (in this metric attached to a circle map), so that we certainly do not recover the hyperbolic metric on the interior of the bordered surface. The other way around we may assume uniformization (recall that the interior of any bordered surface is hyperbolic) and try to investigate the metric properties of varied circle maps. In particular is there any special feature related to the circle maps of smallest degree (alias the separating gonality in Coppens 2011 [@Coppens_2011])? Also, given a point $p\in F$ (in the interior) there is a unique Ahlfors map $f_p$ from $F$ to the disc maximizing the derivative and since $f_p$ is “étale” at $p$ we get the above mentioned capacity metric which is more negatively curved that the hyperbolic metric (cf. Suita and Burbea’s papers). Unfortunately the degree of the Ahlfors function is quite mysterious (being subjected to spontaneous quantum fluctuations), but since everything is encoded in the hyperbolic metric there must be an algorithm which given the input of $F$ with the marked point $p$ computes the degree of $f_p$ in terms of the intrinsic geometry of $F$ $\spadesuit$ Some very vague guesses: given $p$ there is a homology basis consisting of loops all based at $p$, and by compactness a smallest “systolic-type” system of such curves of minimal total length probably individually consisting of geodesics; this gives a real number and \[pure guess\] its integer part is the degree of $f_p$. Variant: there is a compact bordered surface capturing all the homology (plus the given point $p$) whose finite volume(=area) $\spadesuit$ Further once the hyperbolic metric is introduced on $F$ any Ahlfors map at $p$ gives a stretching factor at $p$ which by the principle of contraction is $\le 1$, and we get a (probably continuous) function $\delta\colon F\to ]0,1]$ of $F$ measuring this distortion. Does the function extends to the boundary $\partial F$? (and could it be harmonic??). Intuitively when the degree of $f_p$ is low one may expect that the distortion is high. On the other hand there is largest schlicht disc centered at the origin where $f_a$ is unramified, but beware that ramification may come from another point than $p$ lying above the origin. So the right viewpoint is that there is a maximal disc centered at $p$ which is ramificationless. \]
C.D. Minda, [*The image of the Ahlfors function*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 83 (1981), 751–756. \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors function for domains of infinite connectivity $\spadesuit$ p.751: “Ahlfors \[1\](=1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]) showed that $h(\Omega)=B$ \[i.e. the Ahlfors function is surjective on the disc $B$\] for regions $\Omega$ of finite connectivity that have no trivial boundary components. More precisely, he proved that $h$ expresses $\Omega$ as an $n$-sheeted branched covering of $B$, where $n$ is the order of connectivity of $\Omega$. In the general situation Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64] and Fisher 1969 [@Fisher_1969] demonstrated that $B\setminus
h(\Omega)$ has analytic capacity zero; \[…\]. It is not difficult to give an example of a region $\Omega$ such that $B\setminus h(\Omega)\neq \varnothing$. For example, let $K$ be a closed set of $B$ which has analytic capacity zero and $\Omega=B\setminus K$. If $0\in \Omega$, then the Ahlfors function $h$ for $\Omega$ and $0$ is the identity function, so $h(\Omega)=B\setminus K$. The question of the size of $B\setminus
h(\Omega)$ becomes more interesting if it is required that $\Omega$ be a maximal region for bounded holomorphic functions in the sense of Rudin 1955 [@Rudin_1955]. \[$\to$ Recall Rudin’s definition (p.333): “A boundary point $x$ of $D$ \[=domain in the Riemann sphere\] is said to be [*removable*]{} if for every $f\in B(D)$\[=bounded analytic function\] there exists a neighborhood $V$ of $x$ such that $f$ can be extended to $V$. By an [*essential*]{} boundary point of $D$ we mean one that is not removable. If every boundary point of $D$ is essential, we say that $D$ is [*maximal*]{}.”\] For such a maximal region $\Omega$, Fisher 1972 [@Fisher_1972-The-moduli-of-extremal-fctions] raised the question of whether the Ahlfors function must map $\Omega$ onto $B$. Röding 1977 [@Roeding_1977_Ahlfors] answered this question in the negative by exhibiting a maximal region $\Omega$ and a point $p\in \Omega$ such that the Ahlfors function for $\Omega$ and $p$ omitted two values in $\Omega$. We shall extend Röding’s result by showing that an Ahlfors function for a maximal region can actually omit a fairly general discrete set of values in $B$.” $\spadesuit$ p.755: “Therefore, it is still an open question whether the Ahlfors function for a maximal region can actually omit an uncountable set of zero analytic capacity.” $\spadesuit$ \[05.10.12\] an update (positive answer) is implied by Yamada 1992 [@Yamada_1992-Ahlfors-fct-on-Denjoy] where an example is given where the omitted set of the Ahlfors function has positive logarithmic capacity (hence uncountable, because sets of logarithmic capacity zero are stable under countable unions, see e.g. Tsuji 1959 [@Tsuji_1959-BOOK/Chelsea1975])\]
C.D. Minda, [*Bloch constant for meromorphic functions*]{}, Math. Z. ?? (1982), ??–??. \[$\spadesuit$ “Our geometric approach to the construction of an upper bound is more elementary and clearly shows the analogy with the Ahlfors-Grunsky example. \[…\] Let $XXXX$ be a compact bordered Riemann surface with genus $g$ and $m$ boundary components.”\]
S. Minsker, [*Analytic centers and analytic diameters of planar continua*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 191 (1974), 83–93. \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors function is mentioned twice on p.91, 92 $\spadesuit$ the paper itself contains results about analytic centers and analytic diameters (concepts arising in Vitushkin’s work on rational approximation)\]
N.M. Mishachev, [*Complex orientations of plane $M$-curves of odd degree*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 9 (1975), 77–78; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 9 (1975), 342–345. \[$\spadesuit$ adaptation of Rohlin’s complex orientation formula to odd degrees\]
I.P. Mitjuk, [*The principle of symmetrization for multiply connected regions and certain of its applications*]{}, (Russ.) Ukrain. Mat. Ž 17 (1965), 46–54; Amer. math. Soc. Transl. 73, 73–85. 78 $\bigstar$
I.P. Mitjuk, [*The inner radius of a region and various properties of it*]{}, (Russ.) Ukrain. Mat. Ž 17 (1965), 117–122; Amer. math. Soc. Transl. ??, ??–??. \[$\spadesuit$ a formula expressing the inner radius $r(G,0)$ of a domain $G$ containing the origin and bounded by $n$ analytic Jordan curves is given in terms of the Ahlfors function $F_G(z,0)$ (normalized as usual by $F_G(0,0)=0$ and $F'_G(0,0)>0$) and the Green’s function $g_G(z,0)$ $\spadesuit$ the formula reads $r(G,0)=\frac{1}{F'_G(0,0)}\exp(\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}g_G(0,z_k))$, where $z_k$ are the $n-1$ extra zeros of the Ahlfors function $\spadesuit$ related material in Bandle-Flucher 1996 [@Bandle-Flucher_1996]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
I.P. Mitjuk, [*Extremal properties of meromorphic functions in multiply connected domains*]{}, Ukrain. Mat. Ž 20 (1968), 122–127; Amer. math. Soc. Transl. 76, 116–120. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors’ function occurs thrice: twice on p.116 and once on p.117 and is applied to obtain a connection between the inner radius and the transfinite diameter\]
Y. Miyahara, [*On relations between conformal mappings and isomorphisms of spaces of analytic functions on Riemann surfaces*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan 31 (1979), 373–389. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ on p.375, Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited for a result on the existence of a basis of analytic Schottky differentials whose periods along a canonical homology basis are calibrated to Kronecker’s delta. Hence the discussion is not directly relevant to the circle map, yet the general construction is quite akin (Green’s function, period of the conjugate differential, etc.) $\spadesuit$ p.380, one reads: “Let $g$ be a nonconstant function in $A(S')$ satisfying $\vert g\vert=1$ on $\partial S'$. (This is a so-called inner function.)” $\spadesuit$ the existence of a such a map follows (perhaps) from Ahlfors 1950, and if so the author perhaps fails to emphasize this issue adequately\]
Y. Miyahara, [*On local deformations of a Banach space of analytic functions on a Riemann surface*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan 40 (1988), 425–443. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ on p.436, Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited in essentially the same context as for the previous entry, i.e. Miyahara 1979 [@Miyahara_1979]\]
H. Mizumoto, [*On conformal mapping of a Riemann surface onto a canonical covering surface*]{}, Kōdai Math. Sem. Rep. 12 (1960), 57–69. 50, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ an essentially topological proof of (Ahlfors) circle maps is given, recovering the same degree $r+2p$ as Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] $\clubsuit$ for a (possible) improvement to $r+p$, cf. Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] $\spadesuit$ in case Mizumoto’s argument is solid, this seems to be a much underestimated paper as it is quoted by $0$ according to the electronic counters, but it is in Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978]\]
A.F. Möbius, [*Über die Grundformen der Linien der dritten Ordnung*]{}, ?? (18??), ??–??. (Möbius Werke II, S.89). \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Hilbert 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege] for the elementary property of what we call now “ovals” versus “pseudolines” (then called “paare und unpaare Curvenzüge”) and also in Harnack 1876 (p.190), but not in Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874] who only cites von Staudt 18XX [@von-Staudt_18XX]\]
A.F. Möbius, [*Theorie der elementaren Verwandschaft*]{}, Ber. Verhandl. Königl. Sächs. Gesell. d. Wiss., mat.-phys. Klasse 15 (1863), 18–57. (Möbius Werke II). \[$\spadesuit$ a revolutionnary paper fixing the bases of “Morse theory” and classifying en passant the closed orientable surfaces, $\spadesuit$ followed by Jordan 1866 [@Jordan_1866], and vital to Klein’s theory of symmetric surfaces. Of course according to Klein (cf. 1892 [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen]), this topological classification must have been known to Riemann\]
M. Monastyrsky, [*Riemann, Topology and Physics*]{}, 1st edition 1987; Second Edition 1999, Reprint in 2008, Modern Birkhäuser Classics (Part I of the 1st ed., Moscow, 1979). \[$\spadesuit$ p.20: “The concluding remarks in the dissertation show that the general nature of the problem of analytic functions on arbitrary multiconnected domains was already clear to Riemann.” $\spadesuit$ compare for similar remarks Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882], Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen] $\clubsuit$ p.72: “Riemann’s note, “Equilibrium of electricity on circular cylinders”, evidently dates to this same period. The problem of the distribution of electrical charge in cylindrical conductors leads to the purely mathematical problem of solving Laplace’s equation in a simply connected[^143] domain with prescribed boundary condition. Here for the first time automorphic functions arise.” $\spadesuit$ \[26.12.12\] quoting Weierstrass: “To the question, Can one really obtain anything directly applicable from those abstract theories with which today’s contemporary mathematicians occupy themselves?, I can answer that Greek mathematicians studied the properties of conic sections in a purely theoretical way long before the time when anyone could foresee that these curves represent the paths along which the planets move. I believe that many more functions with such properties will be found; for example, the well-known $\theta$-functions of Jacobi make it possible, on the one hand, to find the number of squares into which any given number decomposes, thereby making it possible to rectify an arc of ellipse, and, on the other hand, they make it possible to find the true law of the oscillations of a pendulum.”\]
A.F. Monna, [*Dirichlet’s principle. A mathematical comedy of errors and its influence on the development of analysis*]{}, Oosthoek, Scheltema, and Holkema, Utrecht, 1975. $\bigstar$
J.-P. Monnier, [*Divisors on real curves*]{}, Adv. Geom. 3 (2003), 339–360. \[$\spadesuit$ compare for a partial rejection of Monnier’s conjecture the discussion in Coppens-Martens 2010 [@Coppens-Martens_2010]\]
P. Montel, [*Sur les suites infinies de fonctions*]{}, Ann. École Norm. Sup. (3) 4 (1907), 233–304. \[$\spadesuit$ Montel’s Thesis building over Arzelá, Vitali, Lebesgue, etc. leading to the concept of “normal families”, pivotal in the resolution of extremal problems involving bounded functions (e.g. the so-called Ahlfors function) $\spadesuit$ the nomenclature “normal families” was coined afterwards in Montel 1913 [@Montel_1913-CRAS] $\spadesuit$ simultaneous related work appeared independently by Koebe ca. 1907 in relation with his distortion theorem, compare e.g. the historical analysis of Bieberbach 1968 [@Bieberbach_1968-Das-Werk-Paul-Koebes p.150–151] who writes: “Beim Beweis wird nun neben dem Viertelsatz ein allgemeiner Konvergenzsatz benutzt. Das ist nichts anderes als das, was man in Montels Theorie der Normalen Funktionenfamilien, heute kurz den [*Vitalischen Reihensatz*]{} nennt. Koebe hat ihn selbständig entdeckt \[11\](=Koebe 1908 UbaK3 [@Koebe_1908_UbaK3]). Er leitet ihn aus der Wurzel ab, die auch den anderen Forschern die Anregung gab: Hilberts Arbeit über das Dirichletsche Prinzip (1901) und die vierte Mitteilung über Integralgleichung (1906) des gleichen Forschers. \[…\]”\]
P. Montel, [*???*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 153 (1911), 996–998. \[$\spadesuit$ where the nomenclature “normal families” appears first in the literature\]
P. Montel, [*Leçons sur les familles normales de fonctions analytiques et leurs applications*]{}, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1927. \[$\spadesuit$ Montel’s treatise on the subject which appeared 20 years after the subject began\]
G. Moore, N. Seiberg, [*Classical and quantum conformal field theory*]{}, Commun. Math. Phys. 123 (1989), 177–254. \[$\spadesuit$ p.178: “The Riemann surface can be formed by sewing a number of three holed spheres (a.k.a. trinions).” \[this jargon is due to Möbius 1860/63 [@Moebius_1863]\]\]
J.W. Morgan, Z. Szabó, C.H. Taubes, [*The generalized Thom conjecture*]{}, Preprint 1995; cf. also next entry \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Kirby’s list 1970–95 [@Kirby_1970--95], as another (independent of Kronheimer-Mrowka’s) proof of the Thom conjecture\]
J.W. Morgan, Z. Szabó, C.H. Taubes, [*A product formula for the Seiberg-Witten invariants and the generalized Thom conjecture*]{}, J. Differ. Geometry 44 (1996), 706–788. \[$\spadesuit$ proof of a generalized Thom conjecture for smooth holomorphic curves with $C\cdot C\ge 0$ (nonnegative self-intersection) in an arbitrary Kähler surface (or even a symplectic $4$-manifolds) $\spadesuit$ p.707: “The Thom conjecture and very similar generalizations of it have been established independently by Kronheimer-Mrowka; see \[4\](=Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994 [@Kronheimer-Mrowka_1994]).”\]
A. Mori, [*Conformal representation of multiply connected domain on many-sheeted disc*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan 2 (1951), 198–209. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ reprove the circle map (ascribed to Bieberbach/Grunsky) via potential theory (Green’s function), plus a mixture of linear algebra and topology (homology) $\spadesuit$ Lemma 1 gives also an “iff” condition for a group of points in the interior to be the fibre of a circle map (in terms of harmonic measure) (compare Fedorov 1991 [@Fedorov_1991] for a similar game) $\spadesuit$ \[26.09.12\] it would be nice(?) to extend such a characterization to the positive genus case, and try to recover the Gabard bound $r+p$ by this procedure\]
C.B. Morrey, [*Multiple Integrals in the Calculus of Variations*]{}, Grundlehren der math. Wissenschaften 130, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1966. \[$\spadesuit$ includes a proof of Koebe’s Kreisnormierung via a Plateau-style approach (extending thereby Douglas’ derivation (1931 [@Douglas_1931-Solution]) of the RMT) $\spadesuit$ however some little gaps in the execution are noticed (but filled) by Jost 1985 [@Jost_1985], cf. also Hildebrandt-von der Mosel 2009 [@Hildebrandt-von-der-Mosel_2009] $\spadesuit$ \[07.10.12\] it is tempting to conjecture that the Plateau-style approach should also have something to say about the Ahlfors circle maps (cf. Courant 1939 [@Courant_1939] for the planar case, i.e. the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem), however to (my knowledge) it was never attempted to tackle the case of positive genus ($p>0$)\]
M. Morse, [*?*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 27 (1925?). \[$\spadesuit$ crtical point theory, cited in Petrowsky 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938] as one of the tool used in the proof of the Petrovskii’s inequalities\]
M. Morse, M. Heins, [*Topological methods in the theory of a function of a complex variable*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. ?? (1947), 1–14. \[$\spadesuit$ p.1: “The modern theory of meromorphic functions has distinguished itself by the fruitful use of the instruments of modern analysis and in particular by its use of the theories of integration. It success along the latter line has perhaps diverted attention from some of the more finitary aspects of the theory which may be regarded as fundamental.”\]
M. Morse, [*La construction topologique d’un réseau isotherme sur une surface ouverte*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 35 (1956), 67–75. 60 $\bigstar$
D. Mumford, [*Theta characteristics of an algebraic curve*]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 4 (1971), 181–192. \[$\spadesuit$\]
D. Mumford, [*Curve and Their Jacobians*]{}, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1975, 104 pp; reprinted in the “Red Book of Varieties and Schemes”, 2nd Edition, Lecture Notes in Math. 1358, Springer, 1999. \[$\spadesuit$\]
D. Mumford, [*Complex algebraic varieties*]{}, ??, Springer, 197X. \[$\spadesuit$\]
T. Murai, [*Construction of $H^1$ functions concerning the estimate of analytic capacity*]{}, Bull. London Math. Soc. 19 (1987), 154–160. \[$\spadesuit$ p.154 mentions the Ahlfors function (via Garnett’s book 1972 [@Garnett_1972 p.18]) and its indirect rôle in Garnett’s 1970 [@Garnett_1970] exposition (of Vitushkin’s 1959 example [@Vitushkin_1959] of a set of positive length but vanishing analytic capacity), but then Murai prefers to switch to the so-called Garabedian function to derive a direct proof of the vanishing of the analytic capacity\]
T. Murai, [*Analytic capacity for arcs*]{}, In: Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Kyoto, Japan, 1990, 901–911, The Mathematical Soc. of Japan, 1991. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ 3 occurrences of the Ahlfors function, on p.902 (via Garnett 1970 [@Garnett_1970 p.24]), p.904, p.905 $\spadesuit$ seems to ascribe the Denjoy conjecture to Calderón-Havin-Marshall using the (cryptical) abbreviation CHM on p.905 (but quotes only Marshall [@Marshall_1978?])\]
T. Murai, [*The arc-length variation of analytic capacity and a conformal geometry*]{}, Nagoya Math. J. 125 (1992), 151–216. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ 4 occurrences of the Ahlfors function, on p.152, 159, 191, 199 $\spadesuit$ analytic capacity (of a compact plane set) and its variation under a small change of the compactum $E$ (theory of Hadamard-Schiffer), with apparently a connection to Löwner’s differential equation\]
P.J. Myrberg, [*Über die Existenz der Greenschen Funktionen auf einer gegebenen Riemannschen Fläche*]{}, Acta Math. 61 (1933), 39–79. 60 \[$\spadesuit$\]
S. Nagura, [*Kernel functions on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Kōdai Math. Sem. Rep. (9) 35 (1951), 73–76. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ theory of the Bergman kernel on a Riemann surface using an exhaustion by compact bordered subregions with analytic boundaries\]
M. Nakai, [*The corona problem on finitely sheeted covering surfaces*]{}, Nagoya Math. J. 92 (1983), 163–173. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ p.164: “As is well known these surfaces \[=finite open Riemann surfaces\] are represented as unbounded finitely sheeted covering surfaces of the unit disk $\Delta$ (cf. e.g. Ahlfors \[1\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950])).” $\spadesuit$ comment of Gabard \[12.09.12\]: it may appear as a bit unfair that Alling’s works are omitted in the bibliography of this work, and more specifically Gamelin’s accreditation of the bordered corona on p.164 looks historically erroneous in view of the earlier work of Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964], and Alling 1965 [@Alling_1965] (for full details)\]
M. Nakai, 1985 see Hara-Nakai 1985 [@Hara-Nakai_1985].
M. Nakai, [*Valuations on meromorphic functions of bounded type*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 309 (1988), 231–252. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited in the following context (of valuation-theoretic stability) on p.240: “The following is due to Frank Forelli \[4\](=private communication) to whom the author is very grateful for many valuable suggestions and information:—[Example 1.]{} [*Any finitely sheeted disc is stable*]{}.—The result follows immediately from Theorem 1 \[[*an unlimited finite covering surface is stable iff its base is*]{}\] and Theorem 2 \[[*the open unit disc is stable*]{}\]. Plane regions bounded by finitely many mutually disjoint nondegenerate continua are finitely sheeted disks by the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (cf. e.g. \[16\](=Tsuji 1959/75 [@Tsuji_1959-BOOK/Chelsea1975])) or more generally finite open Riemann surfaces are finitely sheeted disks by the Ahlfors theorem \[1\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). Here a finite open Riemann surface is a surface obtained from a closed surface by removing a finite number of mutually disjoint nondegenerate continua. Hence as a special case of the above example we have—[Corollary.]{} [*Finite open Riemann surfaces are stable.*]{}” $\spadesuit$ the notion of stability involved is the following (p.231): “Any valuation on the field $M(W)$ of single-valued meromorphic functions on a Riemann surface $W$ is a point valuation (Iss’ssa 1966). What happens to valuations on subfields of $M(W)$? An especially interesting subfield in this context is the field $M^{\infty}(W)$ of meromorphic functions of bounded type on $W$ (cf. \[2\](=Alling 1968)) $\spadesuit$ the exact definition is given on p.232: “A single-valued meromorphic function $f$ on a Riemann surface $W$ is said to be [*of bounded type*]{} if $f=\frac{g}{h}$ on $W$ where $g$ and $h$ are bounded holomorphic functions on $W$ with $h \not\equiv 0$.” $\spadesuit$ p.232/4: “We say that a Riemann surface $W$ is [*stable*]{} if $M^{\infty}(W)$ is nontrivial and any valuation on $M^{\infty}(W)$ is a point valuation.” $\spadesuit$ \[29.09.12\] roughly it seems that this notion of stability leads to a theory quite parallel to that of the corona problem, for the above positive (finitistic) result of Nakai is quite parallel to that of Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964] in the “coronal realm” and further the open question are similar e.g. p.241: “[Open problem 2]{}. [*Is there any stable plane region of infinite connectivity?*]{}” $\spadesuit$ however in the Corona problem it is still an open problem whether any plane region satisfies the corona theorem, but here Nakai (p.241) gives a nonstable plane region “obtained from the punctured open unit disc $\Delta_0$ by removing a sequence of mutually disjoint closed disks with centers on the positive real axis that accumulates only at $z=0$ (a \[so-called\] Zalcman $L$-domains \[17\](=Zalcman 1969 [@Zalcman_1969-TAMS]))\]
M. Namba, [*Geometry of Projective Algebraic Curves*]{}, Marcel Dekker, New York and Basel, 1984. \[$\spadesuit$ a textbook on curves via a mixture of transcendant and algebro-geometric recipes (browsed through it ca. 1998–2000, so cannot remember exactly the content)\]
D. Nash, [*Representing measures and topological type of finite bordered Riemann surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 192 (1974), 129–138. (Dissertation Berkeley, Advisor: Sarason) 50 \[$\spadesuit$ cite Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], yet apparently not within the main-body of the text $\spadesuit$ given $\overline R$ a finite bordered surface, let $A$ be the usual hypo-Dirichlet algebra consisting of functions continuous on the bordered surface and holomorphic on its interior $R$. For a point $a\in R$, let $e_a$ be the corresponding evaluation. A [*representing measure for $e_a$*]{} is a positive Borel measure $m$ of total mass one supported on $\partial R$ such that $f(a)=\int_{\partial R} f
dm$ for all $f\in A$. The collection of all such measures form a compact convex set ${\frak M}_a$. The paper shows some connections between the topology and even the conformal type of the surface $R$ and the geometry of the convex body ${\frak
M}_a$ of representing measures. It is shown that if ${\frak
M}_a$ has an isolated extreme point, then $R$ must be a planar surface. $\spadesuit$ let $g$ be the genus of $R$ and $s$ the number of contours, Theorem 1.2 states: “If $g=0$ and $s=3$, then ${\frak M}_a$ has precisely four extreme points if $a$ lies on one of three distinguished analytic arcs, and ${\frak
M}_a$ is strictly convex if $a$ lies off these arcs. If $g=s=1$, then ${\frak M}_a$ is strictly convex for all $a\in
R$.” $\spadesuit$ \[28.09.12\] it seems evident that this article (using such concepts as harmonic measure, Green’s function, Schottky differentials, convex bodies, etc.) must bear some close connection with Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], and it would be nice if the degree of the Ahlfors map $f_a$ (at $a$) could somehow be related to the geometry of the body ${\frak M}_a$\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Invariant lines of Fuchsian groups and moduli of real algebraic curves*]{}, Candidate (Ph.D.) dissertation, Moscow, 1974. (Russian) \[$\spadesuit$\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Moduli of real algebraic curves*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 30 (1975), 251–252. (Russian) \[$\spadesuit$ it is shown (in line with Klein’s intuition or Teichmüller’s work 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939]) that all real algebraic curves of a given topological type $(g,k,\varepsilon)$ (viz. genus, invariant “ovals” and the “dividing” type) form a connected space of dimension $3g-3$ $\spadesuit$ for an English translation see also Natanzon 1978/80 [@Natanzon_1978/80]\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Automorphisms of the Riemann surface of an $M$-curve*]{}, Funct. Anal. Appl. 12 (1978), 228–229. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Moduli spaces of real curves*]{}, Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obshch. 37 (1978), 219–253; English transl., Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. 37 (1980), 233–272. \[$\clubsuit$ modernized account of the theory of Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882] and Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939] $\spadesuit$ compare also nearly parallel work by Seppäla 1978 [@Seppala_1978-Teich-spaces-of-Klein-surfaces]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
S.M. Natanzon, [*Spaces of real meromorphic functions on real algebraic curves*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 279 (1984), 803–805; English transl., Soviet. Math. Dokl. 30 (1984), 724–726. \[$\clubsuit$ contains a topological description of real meromorphic function, cf. also the subsequent note Natanzon 1987/88 [@Natanzon_1987/88] and full details in Natanzon 1993 [@Natanzon_1993]\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Topological classification of pairs of commuting antiholomorphic involutions of Riemann surfaces*]{}, Russian Math. Surveys 41 (1986), 159–160. \[$\spadesuit$ p.159: “It is well known that the topological equivalence class of a pair $(P, \alpha)$ consisting of a compact \[orientable\] surface $P
$ and an orientation-reversing involutory homeomorphism $\alpha\colon P \to P$ is determined by the genus $g=g(P)$ of $P$, the number of ovals $k= \Vert P^\alpha \Vert$, and whether the set $P-P^\alpha$ is connected $(\varepsilon=0)$ or not $(\varepsilon=1)$. The triple $(g,k,\varepsilon)$ is called the [*topological type*]{} of $(P, \alpha)$. For such triples the Weichold \[read Klein to be slightly more accurate\] relation hold (see \[4\](=Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883]), \[5\](=Natanzon 1978 [@Natanzon_1978/80])):—(1) $0\le k \le g$ when $\varepsilon=0$,—(2) $1\le k\le g+1$ and $k \equiv g+1 \pmod 2$ when $\varepsilon=1$.\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Real meromorphic functions on real algebraic curves*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 297 (1987), ?–?; English transl., Soviet. Math. Dokl. 36 (1988), 425–427. \[$\clubsuit$ contains a fine topological study of real meromorphic functions (using the method of Clebsch 1873 [@Clebsch_1872]), yet (apparently) without reproving Ahlfors theorem $\spadesuit$ \[30.12.12\] the proofs seem only sketched,but it is of utmost interest to assimilate better this and subsequent works by Natanzon (e.g. Natanzon 1993 [@Natanzon_1993])\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Finite groups of homeomorphisms of surfaces and real forms of complex algebraic curves*]{}, Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obsh. 51 (1988), 3–53. \[$\spadesuit$ inspiration Clebsch 1873 [@Clebsch_1872] and Hurwitz 1891 [@Hurwitz_1891-Uber-Riemannsche-Flachen]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
S.M. Natanzon, [*Spinor bundles over real algebraic curves*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 44 (1989), 165–166; English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 44 (1989), 208–209. \[$\clubsuit$\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Prymians of real curves and their applications to the effectivization of Schrödinger operators*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 23 (1989), 41–56; English. transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 23 (1989), 33–45. \[$\clubsuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
S.M. Natanzon, [*Klein surfaces*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 45 (1990), 47–90; English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 45 (1990), 43–108. \[$\clubsuit$ contains an extensive bibliography, through which—if I remember accurately—I discovered circa 2001 the papers Alling-Greenleaf 1969 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969] and Geyer-Martens 1977 [@Geyer-Martens_1977] which pointed out to me the connection between Klein’s dividing curves and the Ahlfors map of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (i.e. circle maps) $\spadesuit$ “The structure of a Klein surface is an analogue of the complex-analytic structure for surfaces with boundary and non-orientable surfaces. Similar to the way in which the theory of compact Riemann surfaces gives an adequate language for the description of complex …”\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Topology of $2$-dimensional coverings and meromorphic functions on real and complex algebraic curves*]{}, Selecta Math. (formerly Sovietica) 12 (1993), 251–291; Originally published in: Trudy Sem. Vektor. Tenzor. Anal. 23 (1988), 79–103; and ibidem 24 (1991), 104–132. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Moduli of Riemann surfaces, Hurwitz-type spaces, and their superanalogs*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 54 (199?), 61–116; English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 54 (1999), 61–117. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S.M. Natanzon, [*Moduli of real algebraic surfaces, and their superanalogues. Differentials, spinors, and Jacobian of real curves*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 54 (199?), 3–60; English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 54 (1999), 1091–1147. \[$\spadesuit$ real algebraic curves (à la Klein-Weichold), antiholomorphic involution and its action upon all structures allied to the Riemann surface (vector bundles, Jacobians, Prymians and so on), topological invariants and the corresponding moduli spaces, inspiration=mathematical physics (solitons, string theory, etc.) $\spadesuit$ p.1092: “According to standard definitions, a [*real algebraic curve*]{} is a pair $(P,\tau)$, where $P$ is a complex algebraic curve (that is, a compact Riemann surface) and $\tau\colon P\to P$ is an antiholomorphic involution. The category of real algebraic curves is isomorphic to the category of Klein surfaces \[1\](=Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971]), \[35\](=Natanzon 1990 [@Natanzon_1990/90]). Investigations of real algebraic curves were started by Klein \[25\] (=1892=Vorles. Gött.[^144] [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen], [@Klein_1892_Vorlesung-Goettingen]) and Weichold 1883 [@Weichold_1883]. For a long time thereafter researchers studied only plane algebraic curves[^145], that is, real curves embedded in ${\Bbb R P}^2$. The systematic study of “general” real algebraic curves was renewed only in the seventies \[1\](=Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971]), \[16\](=Earle 1971 [@Earle_1971-On-the-moduli]), \[20\](=Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981]), \[31\]–\[33\](=Natanzon 1974 [@Natanzon_1974-PhD], 1975 [@Natanzon_1975], 1978/80 [@Natanzon_1978/80]), \[48\](=Seppälä 1978 [@Seppala_1978-Teich-spaces-of-Klein-surfaces]). The method of algebraic-geometric integration of works by S.P. Novikov and his school, posed a number of new problems in the theory of real curves and significantly stimulated the development of this theory \[10\](=Cherednik 1980 [@Cherednik_1980/80]), \[12\]–\[14\](=Dubrovin 1987/88 [@Dubrovin_1987/88], Dubrovin-Natanzon 1982 [@Dubrovin-Natanzon_1982/82], Dubrovin-Natanzon 1988 [@Dubrovin-Natanzon_1988/89]), \[34\](=Natanzon 1989 [@Natanzon_1989/89]), \[37\](=Natanzon 1992), \[42\](=Natanzon 1995). Conformal field theory and, in particular, string theory \[9\](=Carey-Hannabuss 1996 [@Carey-Hannabuss_1996]), \[23\](=Jaffe-Klimek-Lesniewski 1990 [@Jaffe-Klimek-Lesniewski_1990]), \[24\](=Karimipour-Mostafazadeh 1997 [@Karimipour-Mostafazadeh_1997]), \[49\](=Vajsburd-Radul 1991 [@Vajsburd-Radul-1991]) has become another area of applications of real curves.” \]
S.M. Natanzon, B. Shapiro, A. Vainshtein, [*Topological classification of generic real rational functions*]{}, arXiv (2001) or J. Knot Theory Ramif. 11 (2002), 1063–1075. \[$\clubsuit$ §3.1, p.7 (arXiv pagination) titled “On the space of branched covering of a hemisphere by a Riemann surface with boundary” should evidently bears some strong connection with Ahlfors theory. In fact the authors describe the “set ${\cal
H}_{g,m}^k$ of all generic degree $m$ branched coverings of the form $f\colon P \to \Lambda^{+}$” where $P$ is a topological surface of genus $g$ with $k$ contours and $\Lambda^{+}$ is the upper hemisphere $\{ z \in \overline {\Bbb C}: {\rm Im} (z)\ge 0
\}$. $\spadesuit$ \[21.10.12\] this space is of course thought of as a Hurwitz space and it may be partitioned according to the varied multi-degrees of the restricted maps along the $k$ contours, which are indexed by partitions $(m_1,\dots, m_k)$ of $m$. The corresponding subspace of the Hurwitz space having fixed bordered degree $(m_1, \cdot, m_k)$ is shown to be connected (via an extension of the Lüroth-Clebsch theorem). $\spadesuit$ alas, it is not clear to me (Gabard) if the article shows an Ahlfors-type existence result, amounting to the non-emptiness of ${\cal
H}_{g,m}^k$ for $m$ sufficiently large (cf. Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], or Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]). But note that the surface is here only topological, so that the viewpoint is different! Yet perhaps compatible if one lifts the complex structure of the disk/hemisphere via all topological maps obtaining a “variable” Riemann surface with enough free moduli to realize them all, recovering so perhaps Ahlfors’ theorem via an Hurwitz-type strategy. (I clearly remember to have discussed this idea with Natanzon in a 2001 Rennes conference, but as yet never managed to deduce an existence proof corroborating either Ahlfors 1950 or Gabard 2006.) The argument could start as follows: set ${\cal H}_{g}^k$ the set of all branched covers of the disc (without specified degree). Lifting the complex structure, gives a map ${\cal H}_{g}^k \to M_{g,k}$ to the moduli space of bordered surfaces of type $(g,k)$ (=genus, number of contours). The latter is probably continuous and one would like to show (by a topological argument akin to the continuity method made rigorous by Brouwer-Koebe) that the map is onto when restricted to the Hurwitz space of degree $m$, for some suitable value of $m$. Of course the lack of compactness of the moduli space may suggest to invoke a Deligne-Mumford compactification? Alternatively one can maybe avoid compactification via a clopen argument based on Brouwer’s invariance of the domain\]
Z. Nehari \[né Willi Weisbach\], [*Analytic functions possessing a positive real part*]{}, Duke Math. J. 15 (1948), 165–178. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ cites the result of Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], Grunsky 1937–41 [@Grunsky_1937; @Grunsky_1941_KA], Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], i.e. only planar domains via extremal methods\]
Z. Nehari, [*The kernel function and canonical conformal maps*]{}, Duke Math. J. 16 (1949), 165–178. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ integral representation of the varied slit-mappings (parallel/circular slits or circular holes) via the Bergman kernel\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$ Z. Nehari, [*The radius of univalence of an analytic function*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 71 (1949), 845–852. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ application of the Ahlfors function 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] and of Garabedian’s identity $2\pi F'(z)=K(z,z)$ (Szegö kernel) to the problem of determining the radius of univalence to some families of analytic functions on multi-connected domains, generalizing thereby sharp estimates of Landau for bounded functions in the unit-circle\]
Z. Nehari, [*On bounded analytic functions*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 1 (1950), 268–275. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ alternative (simplified, but lucky-guess type) derivation of Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] and Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949] results around the Schwarz’s lemma via potential theory (Green’s function) and the Szegö kernel\]
Z. Nehari, [*Conformal mapping of open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 68 (1950), 258–277. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ the paper starts with the historically interesting fact that the main result in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] was already presented in Spring 1948 at Harvard (multiply-covered circle with number of sheets not exceeding $(r+2p)$) $\clubsuit$ contains various type of slit mappings (parallel vs. circular or radial), where the first type is given an elementary proof whereas the second requires Jacobi inversion (cf. Ahlfors’ in MathReviews) \[Incidentally one may wonder whether the first (parallel-slit) result is not already implicit in Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909]?\] $\clubsuit$ $\spadesuit$ p.267: “Representation of the Ahlfors mapping in terms of the kernel function.” $\spadesuit$ NB: some part of this paper are criticized by Tietz 1955 [@Tietz_1955], but himself is critiqued later so it is not clear who (and what) is right and how reliable those papers are $\clubsuit$ the writer asserted in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006 p.946], that Nehari and Tietz may have conjectured the improved bound $r+p$ upon the degree of a circle map, yet on more mature thought this assignment may be a bit cavalier. We leave the competent readers make their own opinion\]
Z. Nehari, [*Bounded analytic functions*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 57 (1951), 354–366. 50, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ an interesting survey of the Ahlfors’ extremal function (the name appears on p.357) emphasizing its relation to other domain functions such as the kernel functions and the Green’s function\]
Z. Nehari, [*Extremal problems in the theory of bounded analytic functions*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 73 (1951), 78–106. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ only multiply-connected domains, but the methodology is extended to the positive genus case by Kuramochi 1952 [@Kuramochi_1952], which seems to recover Ahlfors’ 1950 result [@Ahlfors_1950] with the same upper-bound\]
Z. Nehari, [*Conformal Mapping*]{}, Mac Graw-Hill, New York, 1952. (Dover reprint 1975.) 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ only the planar case (domains)\]
Z. Nehari, [*Some inequalities in the theory of functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 75 (1953), 256–286. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.264–65 another derivation of the fact (ascribed to Grötzsch 1928 [@Groetzsch_1928] and Grunsky 1932 [@Grunsky_1932]) that the mapping maximizing the derivative at some inner point of a multi-connected domain amongst schlicht functions bounded-by-one (i.e. $\vert f \vert
\le 1$) is a circular slit mapping\]
Z. Nehari, [*An integral equation associated with a function-theoretic extremal problems*]{}, J. Anal. Math. 4 (1955), 29–48. \[not quoted in 60 nor in 78\] \[$\spadesuit$ p.36 cite Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925] (i.e. existence of a circle map of degree equal to the number of contours for a planar domain) and find a brilliant application of it to bound the the number of linearly independent solutions of a certain extremal problem. It seems realist to expect that this Nehari argument could be widely generalized by using Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] (and optionally Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]) in place of Bieberbach 1925 (). However the writer \[Gabard, 30.07.12\] does not understand why the inequality advanced by Nehari on p.36 ought to be strict (as the integration is taking place within the contours where the modulus of the Bieberbach(-Ahlfors) function is unity! Hence try to locate the bug... $\spadesuit$ in fact helped by an article of Leung 2007 (On an isoperimetric …) it seems that Nehari’s argument is hygienical modulo correcting the misprint on p.29 that $C_1$ should be a subset of the (open) domain $D$ (instead of the asserted contour $C$) \[this is in agreement with the reviews generated by MR and ZB\] $\spadesuit$ then everything looks more plausible, and there is some hope to extend Nehari’s arguments to the more general setting of bordered surfaces—compare our treatment in Sec.\[Nehari-digression:sec\]\]
E. Neuenschwander, [*Lettres de Bernhard Riemann à sa famille*]{}, Cahiers du séminaire d’histoire des mathématiques 2 (1981), 85–131.
E. Neuenschwander, [*Über die Wechselwirkungen zwischen der französischen Schule, Riemann und Weierstra[ß]{}. Eine Übersicht mit zwei Quellenstudien*]{}, Arch. History Exact Sci. 24 (1981), 221–255. \[$\spadesuit$ Cauchy, Puiseux 1850, Weierstrass and the geometrization by Riemann\]
C. Neumann, [*Das Dirichletsche Prinzip in seiner Anwendung auf die Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Leipzig bei B.G. Teubner, 1865. $\bigstar$ \[$\spadesuit$ probably—together with the next item—one of the first place where the jargon “Riemann surface” is used in history\]
C. Neumann, [*Vorlesungen über Riemanns Theorie der Abelschen Integrale*]{}, Leipzig bei B.G. Teubner, 1865. \[$\spadesuit$ (For the Zweite Auflage, cf. 1884 [@Neumann_1884]. $\spadesuit$ seems to post- resp. anti-cipate what is called nowadays the Riemann-Hurwitz relation (cf. e.g. the discussion in Scholz 1999 [@Scholz_1999])\]
C. Neumann, [*Neumann’s Untersuchungen über das Logarithmische und Newton’sche Potential*]{}, (Referat des Verfasser). Math. Ann. 13 (1878), 255–300.
C. Neumann, [*Vorlesungen über Riemanns Theorie der Abelschen Integrale*]{}, Zweite Auflage, 1884, 472 pp. 60 $\bigstar$ \[$\spadesuit$ contains, e.g., the first purely topological proof of the (so-called) Riemann-Hurwitz relation, according to Laugel’s French translation of Riemann’s Werke, p.164.\]
C. Neumann, [*Über die Methode des arithmetischen Mittels insbesondere über die Vervollkommnungen, welche die betreffende Poincaré’schen Untersuchungen in letzter Zeit durch die Arbeiten von A. Korn und E.R. Neumann erhalten haben*]{}, Math. Ann. 54 (1900), 1–48. 60 $\bigstar$
R. Nevanlinna, [*Ueber beschränkte analytische Funktionen, die in gegebenen Punkten vorgeschriebene Werte annehmen*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. BXV (1919), 71pp. \[$\spadesuit$ Nevanlinna’s first paper on the so-called Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation $\spadesuit$ for a connection with the Ahlfors map (or generalization thereof) cf. e.g. Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979] $\spadesuit$ as to Pick’s work cf. Pick 1916 [@Pick_1916-U-d-Beschraekungen]\]
R. Nevanlinna, [*Ueber beschränkte analytische Funktionen*]{}, Comm. in honorem Ernesti Leonardi Lindelöf, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. A XXXII (1929), 75pp. \[$\spadesuit$ Nevanlinna’s second paper on the so-called Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation $\spadesuit$ same comment as for the previous entry [@Nevanlinna_1919-U-beschr-anal-Funkt]\]
R. Nevanlinna, [*Das harmonische Mass von Punktmengen und seine Anwendung in der Funktionentheorie*]{}, C.R. Huitième Congr. Math. Scand., Stockholm, 1934, 116–133. 60 $\bigstar$ \[$\spadesuit$ presumably the first place where the name “harmonic measure” appears, the concept going back at least to H.A. Schwarz (compare, e.g. Sario-Nakai 1970 [@Sario-Nakai_1970])\]
R. Nevanlinna, [*Eindeutige analytische Funktionen*]{}, 1936. 60 \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
R. Nevanlinna, [*Über die Lösbarkeit des Dirichletschen Problems für eine Riemannsche Fläche*]{}, Nachr. zu Gött. 1 (1939), 181–193. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Brelot-Choquet 1951 [@Brelot-Choquet_1951], but the case of open Riemann surfaces\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$\[ZB OK\]
R. Nevanlinna, [*Über das alternierende Verfahren von Schwarz*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 180 (1939), 121–128. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: the convergence of the alternating procedure of Schwarz is proved under more general conditions on the boundary of the region than those considered by Schwarz and the problem is reformulated as a method of successive approximation applied to a certain integral equation\]
R. Nevanlinna, [*Quadratisch integrierbare Differentiale auf einer Riemannschen Mannigfaltigkeit*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. I. 1 (1941), 34 pp. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ an indispensible prerequisite to understand Kusunoki 1952 [@Kusunoki_1952]: application of the Ahlfors mapping to the type problem.\] R. Nevanlinna, [*Über die Neumannsche Methode zur Konstruktion von Abelschen Integralen*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 22 (1949), 302–316. 60 R. Nevanlinna, [*Uniformisierung*]{}, Zweite Auflage, Grundlehren der math. Wiss. 64, Springer, 1953, 391 pp. (The Second edition to which we refer, published in 1967) 60 \[$\spadesuit$ p.148–150, contains a very illuminating implementation of Schwarz’s alternating method applied to the problem of constructing harmonic functions with prescribed singular behavior, in particular the Green’s function of a compact bordered surface\]
D.J. Newman, [*???*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 92 (1959), 501–507. \[$\spadesuit$ like the very deep corona problem, Newman’s characterization of interpolating sequence (also studied by Carleson, cf. e.g. Hoffman 1962 [@Hoffman_1962] for more historical details) is yet another paradigm which can be lifted from the disc to more general finite bordered Riemann surface via appeal to the Ahlfors map, as shown by Stout, cf. e.g. his second implementation in Stout 1967 [@Stout_1967-Interpolation]\]
I. Newton, [*The method of fluxions and infinite series with applications to the geometry of curves*]{}, in: The Mathematical Papers of Isaac Newton, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1967. \[$\spadesuit$\]
V.V. Nikulin, [*Integral symmetric bilinear forms and some of their applications*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 43 (1979), 111–177; English transl., Math. USSR Izv. 14 (1980), 103–167. \[$\spadesuit$ cited by many (e.g. Fiedler 1982/83 [@Fiedler_1982/83-Pencil p.168]) for “the strict/rigid-isotopy classification of curves of degree six” showing that the real scheme enhanced by the type in the sense of Klein 1876 (and Rohlin 1978) affords a complete invariant of the rigid-isotopy class of sextics $\spadesuit$ the proof employs the apparatus of complex K3 surfaces, especially the version of Torelli’s theorem due to Pyatetsky-Shapiro–Shafarevich 1971/71 [@Pyatetsky-Shapiro-Shafarevich_1971/71] as well via remarks of Kharlamov the profound description in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] of complex topological characteristics (i.e. Klein’s orthosymmetry) in the realm of real plane sextic $\spadesuit$ quite strangely Rohlin’s 1978 paper is not even cited in Nikulin’s albeit it is logically used (for the assertion made on p.107), namely: “As a supplement to Gudkov’s isotopic classification \[42\](=Gudkov-Utkin 1969 [@Gudkov-Utkin_1969/78]) of plane sextics, we shall show that this classification differs from the coarse projective classification(=rigid-isotopy) only for the following sequence of ovals(=real schemes): $\frac{8}{1}, \frac{4}{1}4, 9, \frac{5}{1}1,
\frac{3}{1}3, \frac{1}{1}5, \frac{4}{1}, \frac{2}{1}2$, while each of these listed ovals corresponds to precisely two coarse projective equivalence classes (see \[…\]).” $\spadesuit$ this is, of course, precisely the list of indefinite schemes as listed in Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978] (upon which Nikulin rests without reproving it)\]
V.V. Nikulin, [*Involutions of integral quadratic forms and their applications to real algebraic geometry*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 47 (1983), 109–188; English transl., Math. USSR Izv. 22 (1984), 99–172. \[$\spadesuit$ just cited for the nomenclature “separating” (on p.158)\]
T. Nishino, [*L’existence d’une fonction analytique sur une variété analytique complexe à deux dimensions*]{}, Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ. 18 (1982), 387–419. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ applies Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] to complex surfaces (4 real dimensions), and specifically the existence of an analytic function under a suitable assumption $\spadesuit$ Nishino’s result was quickly extended by himself to arbitrary dimensions, yet during the process it seems that the relevance of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] disappeared\]
M. Noether, [*Zur Grundlegung der Theorie der algebraischen Raumcurven*]{}, Verlag d. Königl. Akad. d. Wiss., Berlin, 1882, 120 pp. \[$\spadesuit$ price shared with Halphen 1882 [@Halphen_1882]\]
W. Nuij, [*A note on hyperbolic polynomials*]{}, Math. Scand. 23 (1968), 69–72. \[$\spadesuit$ proof that two smooth plane curves with a deep nest are rigidly isotopic in the space of all algebraic curves $\spadesuit$ cited in Vinnikov 1993 [@Vinnikov_1993], who point out also the proof of Dubrovin 1983 [@Dubrovin_1983/85] and also in Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress p.74]: “In conclusion I state an old result on rigid-isotopy, which for a long time was not known to experts in the topology of real algebraic manifolds. In 1968, Nuij \[24\](=this entry) proved that any two hypersurfaces of degree $m$ in ${\Bbb R}P^n$ containing $[m/2]$ spheres totally ordered by inclusion are rigidly isotopic. Recently Dubrovin \[5\](=1983 [@Dubrovin_1983/85]) obtained this result for the case of plane curves by a different method.” $\spadesuit$ (from an e-mail of Shustin \[26.01.13\]) By the way, another (well) known connected chamber consists of hyperbolic curves (i.e. those which have totally real intersection with lines of certain pencil) - this is a consequence of Nuij W. A note on hyperbolic polynomials. Math. Scandinavica 23 (1968), no. 1, 69–72. \]
B.G. Oh, [*A short proof of Hara and Nakai’s theorem*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 136 (2008), 4385–4388. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950’s result on circle maps is used in a quantitative version of the corona $\spadesuit$ question of the writer (since Sept. 2011): is it possible to exploit the improved bound of Gabard 2004/06 [@Gabard_2006] in this sort of game $\spadesuit$ p.4387, Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited as follows: “[**Theorem 3**]{} (Ahlfors \[1\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950])). [*Suppose $R$ is a finitely[^146] bordered Riemann surface with $g(R)=g$ and $b(R)=b$. Then there exists an $m$-sheeted branched covering map $f\colon R \to {\Bbb D}$, called the [*A*hlfors map]{}, such that $b\le m\le 2g+b$.*]{}”\]
M. Ohtsuka, [*Dirichlet problems on Riemann surfaces and conformal mappings*]{}, Nagoya Math. J. 3 (1951), 91–137. 60 \[$\spadesuit$\]
O.A. Oleinik, [*Estimates of the Betti numbers of real algebraic hypersurfaces*]{}, Mat. Sb. 28 (1951), 635–640 (Russian). \[$\spadesuit$\]
O.A. Oleinik, [*On the topology of real algebraic curves on an algebraic surface*]{}, Mat. Sb. 29 (1951), 133–156 (Russian). \[$\spadesuit$\]
B.V. O’Neill, Jr., J. Wermer [*Parts as finite-sheeted coverings of the disk*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 90 (1968), 98–107. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ p.98, the paper is started by citing Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] and mentions the alternative proof of Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] $\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors’ function is given an application to Gleason parts (certain analytic discs in the maximal ideal space) extending thereby a previous disc-result of Wermer 1964 $\spadesuit$ p.98, it is emphasized that E. Bishop 196 5 [@Bishop_1965] gave an abstract version of Ahlfors’ extremal problem in the context of function algebra on a compact space $X$ (i.e. an algebra of complex-valued continuous functions containing the constants, separating the points, and closed under uniform convergence)\]
S.Yu. Orevkov, [*Link theory and oval arrangements of real algebraic curves*]{}, Topology 38 (1999), 779–810. \[$\spadesuit$ can be realized holomorphically, pseudo-holomorphically, holomorphically, pseudo-holomorphically, etc.\]
S.Yu. Orevkov, [*Riemann existence theorem and construction of real algebraic curves*]{}, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. 12 (4) (2003), 517–531. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S.Yu. Orevkov, [*Proper analytic embedding of ${\Bbb CP}^1$ minus a Cantor set into ${\Bbb C}^2$*]{}, Uspehki Math. Nauk 63 (2008), 155–156; English transl.: Russian Math. Surveys 63 (2008), 168–169. \[$\spadesuit$ shows the result of the title, but as pointed out in Forstnerič-Wold 2012 [@Forstneric-Wold_2012 p.17] it is an open problem whether this holds for each Cantor set.\]
D. Orth, [*On holomorphic families of holomorphic maps*]{}, Nagoya Math. J. 39 (1970), 29–37. \[$\spadesuit$ p.33, Ahlfors 1950 is cited as follows: “Ahlfors \[1\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) has shown the existence of a holomorphic map $f$ from a bordered Riemann surface with finite genus and a finite number of boundary components onto a full covering surface $S\buildrel{\pi}\over{\longrightarrow} D$ of the unit disk. N. Alling \[2\] has shown that $\pi\circ f\vert U$ is a covering map of $D$ near $\partial D$ for some open neighborhood $U$ of $\partial X$. Theorem 2.–4. can be thought of as concerning holomorphic families of such maps.”\]
B. Osgood, [*Notes on the Ahlfors mapping of a multiply connected domain*]{}, Unpublished (?) manuscript (available from the web), undated (estimated date in the range 1993/2005). \[$\spadesuit$ pleasant re-exposition of the neo-expressionist sort of the Ahlfors-Garabedian theory (inspired by Bell, Kerzman-Stein, etc.), in particular the formula for the Ahlfors function as the ratio of the Szegö kernel divided by the Garabedian kernel\]
W.F. Osgood, [*On the existence of the Green’s function for the most general simply connected plane region*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 1 (1900), 310–314. 60
W.F. Osgood, [*Jordan curve of positive area*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1903), 107–112. \[$\spadesuit$ shows how pathological Jordan curve can be\]
W.F. Osgood, E.H. Taylor, [*Conformal transformations on the boundary of their regions of definition*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1913), 277–???.
W.F. Osgood, [*Existenzbeweis betreffend Funktionen, welche zu einer eigentlichen diskontinuierlichen automorphen Gruppe gehören*]{}, Palermo Rend. 35 (1913), 103–106. 60
R. Osserman, [*Riemann surfaces of class $A$*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 82 (1956), 217–245. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R. Osserman, [*A hyperbolic surface in $3$-space*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 7 (1956), 54–58. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ example of a function ${\Bbb R}^2\to {\Bbb R}$, whose graph (endowed with the Euclidean metric) defines a surface of hyperbolic type, i.e. conformally equivalent to the disc, answering thereby a question of Ch. Loewner, reported by L. Bers in 1951 on the occasion of the 100th Birthday of Riemann’s Thesis\]
A. Ostrowski, [*Mathematische Miszellen XV. Zur konformen Abbildung einfach zusammenhängender Gebiete*]{}, Jahresb. Deutsch. Math.-Ver. 38 (1929), 168–182. \[$\clubsuit$ omitted in both 60 and 78; however this (joint with Carathéodory 1928 [@Caratheodory_1928]) is the simply-connected version of the Ahlfors map\]
K. Ott, [*Über die Konstruktion monogener analytischer Funktionen mit vorgegebenen Unstetigkeitsstellen auf der Riemann’schen Fläche*]{}, Monatsh. Math. 4 (1893), 367–375. 60 $\bigstar$
M.P. Ovchintsev, [*Optimal recovery of functions of class $E_p$, $1\le p\le \infty$, in multiply connected domains*]{}, Siberian Math. J. 37 (1996), 288–307. \[$\clubsuit$ p.293, three occurrences of “Ahlfors function” for $m$-connected domains; in particular Prop.1 asserts the existence of neighborhoods of the boundary contours such that if $z_0$ lies in one of these neighborhood then the extra zeros of the Ahlfors function lie one-by-one in the other domains; in particular it seems likely that such neighborhoods can be chosen pairwise disjoint, in which case we recover a result of Bell 1991 [@Bell_1991-Szego]\]
M. Ozawa, [*On bounded analytic functions and conformal mapping, I*]{}, Kōdai Math. J. (1950), 33–36. 78
M. Ozawa, [*A supplement to “Szegö kernel function on some domains of infinite connectivity”*]{}, Kōdai Math. J. 13 (1961), 215–218. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.215: “Let $D$ be an $n$-ply connected analytic domain and ${\frak B}(D) $ be the class of regular functions in $D$ whose moduli are bounded by the value $1$. In ${\frak B}(D) $ there exists, up to rotation, a unique extremal function by which the maximum $\max_{{\frak B}(D) } \vert f'(z_0)\vert$ for a fixed point is attained. This extremal function $F(z, z_0)$ maps $D$ onto the $n$ times covered unit disc \[1\](=Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]), \[3\](=Garabedian 1949 [@Garabedian_1949]), \[4\](=Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950]), \[9\](=Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950-PAMS-On-bounded-anal-fcts]), \[11\](=Schiffer 1950 [@Schiffer_1950-Duke]). In ${\frak B}(D) $ there exists an infinite number of essentially different functions which map $D$ onto the $n$ times covered unit disc \[2\](=Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925]), \[5\](=Grunsky 1937 [@Grunsky_1937]), \[8\](=Mori 1951 [@Mori_1951]).”\]
P. Painlevé, [*Sur les lignes singulières des fonctions analytiques*]{}, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse 2 (1888), 130 pp. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ the classical Painlevé problem, interest revived through the work of Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] and complete solution in Tolsa 2003 [@Tolsa_2003]\]
P. Painlevé, [*Sur la théorie de la représentation conforme*]{}, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 112 (1891), 653–657. \[$\spadesuit$ one of the first study of the boundary behavior of the Riemann mapping for a domain bounded by a smooth Jordan curve $\spadesuit$ same holds true for a general (topological) Jordan domain, cf. Osgood and Carathéodory\]
H. Pajot, [*Analytic capacity, rectifiability, Menger curvature and the Cauchy integral*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 1799, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
P. Parenti, [*Combinatorics of dividing $T$-curves*]{}, Tesi di dottorato, Pisa, (1996), 133 pp. Tutori: Galbiati, Itenberg \[$\spadesuit$ combinatorial construction of curves with a control of the type, building upon Viro’s method (early 1980’s) and the special case thereof called the $T$-construction $\spadesuit$ contains a combinatorial version of Rohlin’s formula for $T$-curves\]$\bigstar$
S. Paris, [*An extremal property of Rokhlin’s inequality for real algebraic curves*]{}, Math. Ann. 304 (1996), 613–620. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
J. Parkkonen, V. Ruuska, [*Finite degree holomorphic covers of compact Riemann surfaces*]{}, Acta Math. Sinica, English Ser. 23 (2007), 89–94. \[$\spadesuit$ “A conjecture of Ehrenpreis (1970) states that any two compact Riemann surfaces of genus $\ge 2$ have finite degree unbranched holomorphic covers that are arbitrarily close in moduli space. Here we prove a weaker result …”\]
M. Parreau, [*Sur les moyennes des fonctions harmoniques et analytiques et la classification des surfaces de Riemann*]{}, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 3 (1951), 103–197. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is briefly cited in two footnotes $\spadesuit$ the work also contains a study of Hardy classes on Riemann surfaces extending the classical Hardy-Riesz’s brothers theory for the disc, and some overlap is to be found with the (subsequent) work of Rudin 1955 [@Rudin_1955-class-Hp]\]$\bigstar$
O. Perron, [*Eine neue Behandlung der ersten Randwertaufgabe fur $\Delta u=0$*]{}, Math. Z. 18 (1923), 42–54. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ a new solution to the Dirichlet problem (using Poisson and Lebesgue’s integration) yielding the result in the same generality on the boundary (cf. p.53–54) as those obtained by Lebesgue 1907 [@Lebesgue_1907], Courant 1914 [@Courant_1914] and Lichtenstein (1916), but further very much simplified in Radó-Riesz 1925 [@Rado-Riesz_1925] (according to e.g., Carathéodory 1937 [@Caratheodory_1937-On-Dirichlet's-problem p.710]) $\spadesuit$ the paper is concluded by the simple remark (already made by Zaremba 1910 [@Zaremba_1910]) that the Dirichlet problem does not permit isolated boundary component (reducing to an isolated point), e.g. the punctured disc with boundary prescription $1$ on the circumference and $0$ at the center does not admit a harmonic extension, since otherwise the mean value property would be violated (intuitively a punktförmig radiator is too insignificant to induce a heat flow equilibrium) $\spadesuit$ on the other hand this paper tolerates non-schlicht surfaces covering multiply the plane and therefore may be regarded as a suitable treatment of the Dirichlet problem on a compact bordered Riemann surface (given abstractly à la (Riemann-Prym-Klein)-Weyl-Radó), compare for this well-known affiliation the following ref. given backwardly in time: Radó 1925 [@Rado_1925], Weyl 1913 [@Weyl_1913], and Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882]\]
K. Petri, [*Über die invariante Darstellung algebraischer Funktionen einer Veränderlichen*]{}, Math. Ann. 88 (1923), 242–289. \[$\spadesuit$\]
I.G. Petrovsky \[Petrovskii\], [*Sur la topologie des courbes réelles et algébriques*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 197 (1933), 1270–1273. \[$\spadesuit$ announcement of results with proofs detailed in the next entry (Petrowsky 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938])\]
I.G. Petrowsky \[Petrovskii\], [*On the topology of real plane algebraic curves*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 39 (1938), 189–209. (in English of course.) \[$\spadesuit$ where the jargon $M$-curve is coined, and where some obstruction is given (using the Euler-Jacobi interpolation formula), yielding perhaps the first proof, e.g. of the fact (first enunciated by Hilbert, Rohn, etc.) that a plane sextic cannot have 11 unnested ovals $\spadesuit$ note however that Petrovskii validates Rohn’s proof of 1911 by writing on p.189: “After a series of attempts the above mentioned theorem announced by Hilbert was at last proved in 1911 by K. Rohn(=Rohn 1911 [@Rohn_1911]).” This contrast with Gudkov’s latter diagnostic (e.g. in Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74]) that even Rohn’s proof was not logically complete, though the method fruitful when suitably consolidated with Russian conceptions of roughness.\]
I.G. Petrovskii, [*On the diffusion of waves and the lacunas for hyperbolic equations*]{}, Mat. Sb. 17 (1945), 289–370. (in English.) \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress p.58] as a forerunner of Rohlin’s complex orientations for dividing curves\]
I. Petrovskii, O.A. Oleinik, [*On the topology of real algebraic surfaces*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Mat. 13 (1949), 389–402. (Russian) \[$\spadesuit$\]
P. del Pezzo, [*Sulle superficie di Riemann relative alle curve algebrice*]{}, Palermo Rend. 6 (1892), 115–126. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ presumably one among the first reaction to the reality works of F. Klein outside his direct circle of student (Harnack, Hurwitz, Weichold)\]
A. Pfluger, [*Ein alternierendes Verfahren auf Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 30 (1956), 265–274. 60 \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Pfluger, [*Theorie der Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Grundlehren der math. Wiss. 89, Springer, Berlin, 1957, 248pp. 50, 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ quotes the article Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] at several places (p.126, 181, 185, 202) yet never in close connection with the circle map paradigm $\spadesuit$ of course the book itself is a masterpiece of Swiss-German architecture and we do not attempt to summarize its broad content\]
E. Picard, [*Sur une propriété des fonctions entières*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 88 (1879), 1024–1027. \[$\spadesuit$ where the famous Picard theorem appears first (a nonconstant entire function (on ${\Bbb C}$) omits at most one value, for otherwise lifting to the universal covering $\Delta$ of $S^2-\{3 {rm pts}\}$ we get ${\Bbb C}\to \Delta$ a bounded analytic function violating Liouville’s theorem) $\spadesuit$ widespread influence over Borel 1896, Schottky, Landau 1904, Lindelöf 1902 [@Lindeloef_1902], Phragmén, Iversen, Montel, Bloch, Littlewood, Nevanlinna 1923, Ahlfors, Sario, etc. $\spadesuit$ \[07.10.12\] since ${\Bbb C}$ is the punctured sphere and Liouville’s theorem may be interpreted as Riemann’s removable singularity for bounded analytic function, one can also state that any analytic function defined on a punctured closed Riemann surface omits at most 3 values, but this is completely wrong for the monodromy principle does not apply anymore\]
E. Picard, [*De l’équation $\Delta u=k e^u$ sur une surface de Riemann fermée*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. (4) 9 (1893), 273–291. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ supply an attempt to uniformize via the so-called Liouville equation, such a strategy seems to follow a problem suggested by H.A. Schwarz; for a modern execution of this programme cf. Mazzeo-Taylor 2002 [@Mazzeo-Taylor_2002] (and also a related work of Bieberbach 1916 [@Bieberbach_1916-Delta-u-und-die-automorphen-Funkt])\]
E. Picard, [*Traité d’analyse, Vol.II, Fonctions harmoniques et fonctions analytiques. Introduction à la théorie des équations différentielles, intégrales abéliennes et surfaces de Riemann*]{}, Gauthier-Villars, Paris 1892. Reedited 1926, 624pp. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ contains a treatment of Schottky’s theory of 1877 (cited e.g. in Le Vavasseur 1902 [@Le-Vavasseur_1902], Cecioni 1908 [@Cecioni_1908] and Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954])\]
E. Picard, [*Sur la représentation conforme des aires multiplement connexes*]{}, Ann. École Norm. (3) 30 (1913), 483–488. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ a brilliant re-exposition of Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877], which was much appreciated by Julia 1932 [@Julia_1932]\]
E. Picard, [*?????*]{}, Ann. École Norm. (3) 30 (1915), 483–488. \[$\spadesuit$ yet another brilliant re-exposition of the Riemann mapping theorem via the Green’s function\]
G. Pick, [*Ueber die Beschränkungen analytischen Funktionen, welche durch vorgegebene Funktionswerte bewirkt werden*]{}, Math. Ann. 77 (1916), 7–23. \[$\spadesuit$ the beginning of so-called Pick-Nevanlinna interpolation, and see Heins 1975 [@Heins_1975] or Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979] for an extension to finite bordered Riemann surface offering an overlap (indeed an extension) of the Ahlfors map\]
U. Pinkall, [*Hopf tori in $S^3$*]{}, Invent. Math. 81 (1985), 379–386. \[$\spadesuit$ p.379: “Corollary. [*Every compact Riemann surface of genus one can be conformally embedded in ${\Bbb
R}^3$ as an algebraic surface of degree $8$.*]{}—Garsia \[2\](=1962/63 [@Garsia_1962/63-algebraic-surfaces]) had shown that every compact Riemann surface (of any genus) can be conformally embedded in ${\Bbb R}^3$ as an algebraic surface, but his method of proof was not constructive and he therefore did not obtain bounds for the degree of this surface.” $\spadesuit$ this result does not seem to answer the Garsia question (1962/63 [@Garsia_1962/63-algebraic-surfaces]) if the image can always be chosen among torus of revolution twisted by an affine transformation of $3$-space. In this case the degree would be four. $\spadesuit$ for each genus $g$ we can define the Garsia degree $d(g)$ as the smallest integer $d$ such that each surface $F_g$ conformally embeds as an algebraic surface of degree $\le
d$. In fact from Garsia’s theorem (1962/63 ) it is not perfectly clear that there is a uniform bound depending only on the topology. (So in general $d(g)$ is possibly ill-defined.) Of course $d(0)=2$ (every sphere is conformal to the round $2$-sphere, Riemann, Schwarz 1870); $d(1)\le 8$ (Pinkall 1985, [*op.cit.*]{}), but is this sharp?, in general do somebody know a bound on $d(g)\le ???$\]
U. Pirl, [*Über isotherme Kurvenscharen vorgegebenen topologischen Verlaufs und ein zugehöriges Extremalproblem der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Math. Ann. 133 (1957), 91–117. 78 \[$\spadesuit$\] (another well-known student of Herbert Grötzsch)
J.A.F. Plateau, [*Statique expérimentale et théorétique des liquides soumis aux seules forces moléculaires*]{}, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1873. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Plemelj, [*Ein Ergänzungssatz zur Cauchy’schen Integraldarstellung analytischer Funktionen, Randwerte betreffend*]{}, Monats. f. Math. u. Phys. 19 (1908), 205–210. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Nehari 1955 [@Nehari_1955]\]
J. Plücker, [*System der analytischen Geometrie*]{}, Berlin, 1835. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Brieskorn-Knörrer 1981/86 [@Brieskorn-Knörrer_1981/1986]\]
J. Pücker, [*Theorie der algebraischen Curven*]{}, Bonn 1839. \[$\spadesuit$ cited by all the masters, e.g. Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874 p.415], Klein 1873 [@Klein_1873-Uber-Flächen-dritter-Ordn], Gudkov 1974/74 [@Gudkov_1974/74] $\spadesuit$ according to Klein 1873 [@Klein_1873-Uber-Flächen-dritter-Ordn] might be one of the first place where the method of small perturbation is mentioned $\spadesuit$ p.253, contains a conjecture on the number of real bitangents to a quartic as taking only the values $28, 16, 8,
4,0$, the last case of which was prohibited in Zeuthen 1874 [@Zeuthen_1874]\]
H. Poincaré, [*Mémoire sur les fonctions fuchsiennes*]{}, Acta Math. 1 (1882), 193–294. 60
H. Poincaré, [*Sur un théorème général de la théorie des fonctions*]{}, Bull. Soc. Math. France 11 (1883), 112–125. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ proposes (and succeeds partially) to uniformize not only algebraic, but also analytic curves (=open, a priori highly transcendental, Riemann surfaces). Programm completed in Poincaré 1907 [@Poincare_1907], independently Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UbaK1].\]
H. Poincaré, [*Sur les groupes des équations linéaires*]{}, Acta Math. 4 (1884), 201–311. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Poincaré, [*Sur les équations aux dérivées partielles de la physique mathématique*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 12 (1890), 211–294. \[$\spadesuit$ where the [*méthode du balayage*]{} is first introduced\]
H. Poincaré, [*Analysis Situs*]{}, J. École Polytechnique 1 (1895), 1–121. \[$\spadesuit$ embryo of modern homology theory, quite relevant to problems of conformal mappings (especially circle maps), e.g. in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006]\]
H. Poincaré, [*Sur la méthode de Neumann et le problème de Dirichlet*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 120 (1895), 347–352. 60 $\spadesuit$
H. Poincaré, [*La méthode de Neumann et le problème de Dirichlet*]{}, Acta Math. 20 (1896), 59–142. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ it seems that the method in question, may in turn goes back to Gauss 1839 [@Gauss_1839]\] $\spadesuit$
H. Poincaré, [*Sur l’uniformisation des fonctions analytiques*]{}, Acta Math. 31 (1907), 1–63. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ simultaneously with Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UbaK1] uniformize arbitrary complex analytic curves (equivalently open Riemann surfaces), completing the 1883 desideratum of Poincaré in [@Poincare_1883], revived in Hilbert’s 22th problem\]
G.M. Polotovskii, [*Problem of topological classification of the disposition of ovals of nonsingular algebraic curves in the projective plane*]{}, in: Methods of the Qualitative Theory of Differential Equations \[in Russian\], Vol.1, Gorki (1975), 101–128. \[$\spadesuit$\]
G.M. Polotovskii, [*A catalogue of $M$-reducible curves of order $6$*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 236 (1977), 548–551; English transl., Soviet Math Dokl. 18 (1977), 1241–1245. \[$\spadesuit$\]
G.M. Polotovskii, [*$(M-2)$-curves of order $8$ and some conjectures*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk SSSR 36 (1981), 235–236. \[$\spadesuit$ contains some observation on Rohlin’s conjecture, that were ultimately employed in Shustin 1985/85 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin] to disprove one implication of Rohlin’s conjecture (in degree 8)\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
G.M. Polotovskii, [*Dimitrii Andreevich Gudkov*]{}, in: Topology of Real Algebraic Varieties and Related Topics, Amer. MAth. Soc. Transl. 173, 1996, 1–9. \[$\spadesuit$ survey of Gudkov’s contributions with an exhaustive list of his scientific works\]
Ch. Pommerenke, [*Über die analytische Kapazität*]{}, Archiv der Math. 11 (1960), 270–277. \[$\spadesuit$ some estimates of the analytic capacity (defined as in Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]) and its connection to Schiffer’s span 1943 [@Schiffer_1943] $\spadesuit$ uses heavily Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950] and Nehari 1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK]\]
H. Poritsky, [*Some industrial applications of conformal mapping*]{}. In: [*Construction and Applications of Conformal Maps*]{}, Proc. of a Sympos. held on June 22–25 1949, Applied Math. Series [*18*]{}, 1952, 207–213. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted for a joke about free-hand drawings\]
R. de Possel, [*Sur le prolongement des surfaces de Riemann*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 186 (1928), 1092–1095. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ problem of deciding when an (open) Riemann surface can be continued to a larger one $\spadesuit$ relates to work of Radó 1924 [@Rado_1924-Uber-nicht-fortsetzbare], and Bochner 1927 [@Bochner_1927]\]
R. de Possel, [*Sur le prolongement des surfaces de Riemann*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 187 (1929), 98–100. 60 \[continuation of the previous work in the spirit of Radó and Bochner\]
R. de Possel, [*Zum Parallelschlitztheorem unendlich-vielfach zusammenhängender Gebiete*]{}, Gött. Nachr. (1931), 199–202. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ proof of the parallel-slit mapping à la Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877]-Cecioni 1908 [@Cecioni_1908]-Hilbert 1909 [@Hilbert_1909]-Koebe 1910 [@Koebe_1910_Hilbert]-Courant 1910/12 [@Courant_1912], via an extremal problem (method analogous to Carathéodory 1928 [@Caratheodory_1928], but uses also the Flächensatz of Bieberbach) $\spadesuit$ of course Schottky-Cecioni are not cited as they only treats the case of finite connectivity $\spadesuit$ it is noteworthy that the similar problem for the Kreisnormierung is still unsolved in full generality. This supports once more the philosophy advanced by Garabedian-Schiffer 1950 [@Garabedian-Schiffer_1950] that parallel-slit mappings are easier than circle maps\]
R. de Possel, [*Quelques problèmes de représentation conforme*]{}, J. École Polytech. (2) 30 (1932), 1–98. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ parallel (as well as radial) slit maps in the case of domains via an extremal problem $\spadesuit$ some little details of it seem to be criticized in Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950]\]
R. de Possel, [*Sur quelques propriétés de la représentation conforme des domaines multiplement connexes, en relation avec le théorème des fentes parallèles*]{}, Math. Ann. 107 (1932), 496–504. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ again parallel-slits via an extremal problem, overlap with work by Grötzsch\]
R. de Possel, [*Sur les ensembles de type maximum, et le prolongement des surfaces de Riemann*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 194 (1932), 98–100. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ still relates to work of Radó, and Bochner and reports some mistakes in the previous notes\]
R. de Possel, [*Sur la représentation conforme d’un domaine à connexion infinie sur un domaine à fentes parallèles*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 18 (1939), 285–290. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ as noted in Burckel 1979 [@Burckel_1979], this de Possel paper affords a trick to circumvent the reliance upon RMT in his 1931 proof of the PSM through an extremum problem, similar trick in Garabedian 1976 [@Garabedian_1976]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
W. Pranger, [*Extreme points in the Hardy class $H^1$ of a Riemann surface*]{}, Canad. J. Math. 23 (1971), 969–976. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is quoted twice: on p.975 for certain decompositions and on p.976: “On a compact bordered surface $R$ the periods of the conjugate of a function which is harmonic on $R$ and continuous on its closure may be specified arbitrarily (see \[1, p.110\]=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.110])\]
F.E. Prym, [*Zur Integration der Differentialgleichung $\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}+\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial
y^2}=0$*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 73 (1871), 340–364. \[$\spadesuit$ p.361–364, an example is given of a continuous function on the unit-circle whose harmonic extension to the disc has infinite Dirichlet integral! (The existence of such an extension is established directly in the first part of the paper, independently of Schwarz’s 1870 [@Schwarz_1870-Zurich-15ter-Jahrgang] solution based upon Poisson’s integral.) This Prym’s example is nothing less than a counterexample to the Dirichlet principle (as formulated, e.g., in Grube’s text [@Dirichlet_1840-1876]=redaction of Dirichlet’s lectures). Compare Elstrodt-Ulrich 1999 [@Elstrodt-Ullrich_1999 p.285]. Prym emphasizes at the end of his paper (p.364) that Riemann himself never committed such a “basic” mistake, but (still on p.364) Prym formulates an implicit critique to all contemporary attempts to rescue the Dirichlet principle based on the tacit assumption of finiteness of the Dirichlet integral, presumably including the one of Weber 1870 [@Weber_1870] (who is however not directly attacked for diplomatique reasons) $\spadesuit$ a related example (where any continuous function matching the boundary data has infinite Dirichlet integral) is due to Hadamard 1906 [@Hadamard_1906] $\spadesuit$ such counter-example affects directly the Dirichlet-Riemann argument of minimizing the Dirichlet integral, and seems to destroy as well H. Weber’s attempt (1870 [@Weber_1870]) to consolidate Riemann’s proof $\diamondsuit$ student of Riemann, who played a pivotal rôle as well in explaining to Klein, that Riemann himself did not confined his attention to surfaces spread over the plane but included a more organical mode leading to the “abstract” Riemann surfaces, compare Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882]\]
P.M. Pu, [*Some inequalities in certain nonorientable Riemannian manifolds*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 2 (1952), 55–71. \[$\spadesuit$ includes a proof of the isosystolic estimates for the projective plane ${\Bbb R}P^2$ (by adapting the method of Loewner 1949 for the torus) stating that the round elliptical metric has the best systolic ratio (i.e. is the more robust less susceptible to dye from a “Herzinfarkt”: that is $sys^2/area\le
(\pi)^2/2 \pi=\pi/2=1.570796327\dots$) $\spadesuit$ this results implies directly the Gromov filling conjecture for genus $p=0$, upon cross-capping the boundary contour (cf. Gromov 1983 [@Gromov_1983])\]
V.A. Puiseux, [*Recherches sur les fonctions algébriques*]{}, Journal de Math. 1 15 (1850), 365–480. \[$\spadesuit$ study of the algebraic equation $f(z,u)=0$ ($f$ a polynomial), poles, branch points, concept of essential singularities (where the Laurent series expansion contains an infinity of negative terms, e.g. $e^{1/z}$ at $z=0$) $\spadesuit$ independent investigations of the same material by Weierstra[ß]{}\]
I.I. Pyatetsky-Shapiro, I.R. Shafarevich, [*A Torelli theorem for algebraic surfaces of type K3*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. 35 (1971), 530–572; English transl., Math. USSR Izv. 5 (1971), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$ used by Nikulin 1979/80 [@Nikulin_1979/80] in his rigid-isotopy classification of plane sextic via Klein-Rohlin’s type (I/II=ortho- vs. dia-symmetry)\]
T. Radó, [*Zur Theorie der mehrdeutigen konformen Abbildung*]{}, Acta Szeged 1 (1922), 55–64. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Landau-Osserman 1960 [@Landau-Osserman_1960], who ascribe to Radó the basic fact that an analytic map taking boundary to boundary is a full covering surface taking each value a constant number of times $\spadesuit$ hence this Radó bears an obvious connection to the Ahlfors map, albeit it does not reprove its existence when the target surface is the disc\]
T. Radó, [*Über die Fundamentalabbildung schlichter Gebiete*]{}, Acta Sci. Math. Szeged 1 (1922/23), 240–251; cf. also Fejér’s Ges. Arb. 2, 841–842. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ supplies in print an argument of Fejér-Riesz proving RMT via an extremal problem (maximization of the derivative), perfected in Carathéodory 1928 [@Caratheodory_1928] and Ostroski 1929 [@Ostrowski_1929] $\clubsuit$ this constitutes the underlying background for the extremal methods used by Grunsky and Ahlfors, leading ultimately to Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]\]
T. Radó, [*Bemerkung zu einem Unitätssatz der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Acta litt. ac. scient. Univ. Hung. 1 (1923), 101–103. 78
T. Radó, [*Über die konforme Abbildung schlichter Gebiete*]{}, Acta litt. ac. scient. Univ. Hung. 2 (1924), 47–60. 78
T. Radó, [*Über eine nicht fortsetzbare Riemannsche Mannigfaltigkeit*]{}, Math. Z. 20 (1924), 1–6. 60
T. Radó, [*Über den Begriff der Riemannschen Fläche*]{}, Acta Szeged 2 (1925), 101–121. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ aside from Weyl 1913 [@Weyl_1913] (“sheaf theoretic”) this supplies the first (modern) definition of an “abstract” Riemann surface, modulo Klein who anticipated the “atlas” idea quite explicitly in [@Klein_1891--92_Vorlesung-Goettingen] (“Dachziegelige Überdeckung”). \[CHECK, pages\] Klein knew it essentially since Prym indicated him how Riemann saw the story, as reported, e.g., in the introduction of Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882]. $\spadesuit$ compare also the discussion in Remmert 1998 [@Remmert_1998] $\spadesuit$ besides the article contains a bunch of results: triangulability of surfaces (via what is nowadays known as the Schoenflies theorem), existence of non-metric surfaces following the (unpublished) construction of Prüfer (ca. 1922)\]
T. Radó, F. Riesz, [*Über die erste Randwertaufgabe für $\Delta u=0$*]{}, Math. Z. 22 (1925), 41–44. \[$\spadesuit$ supplies drastic simplifications over Perron’s method (Perron 1923 [@Perron_1923]) according to Carathéodory 1937 [@Caratheodory_1937-On-Dirichlet's-problem p.710]\]
T. Radó, [*Subharmonic functions*]{}, Berlin, 1937.
V. Ragsdale, [*On the arrangement of the real branches of plane algebraic curves*]{}, Amer. J Math. 28 (1906), 377–404. \[$\spadesuit$ formulation of the Ragsdale conjecture saying that if $m=2k$, and $p,n$ are the number of even resp. odd ovals then $p\le \frac{3k(k-1)}{2}+1$ and $n\le \frac{3k(k-1)}{2}$. This conjecture was disproved by Itenberg in 2000 using Viro’s patchworking (in degree 10)\]$\bigstar$
Z. Ran, [*Families of plane curves and their limits: Enriques’ conjecture and beyond*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 130 (1989), 121–157. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H.E. Rauch, [*Weierstrass points, branch points, and the moduli of Riemann surfaces*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 12 (1959), 543–560. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
H.E. Rauch, [*A transcendental view of the spaces of algebraic Riemann surfaces*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 71 (1965), 1–39. \[$\spadesuit$ the cream of the theory (Riemann, Teichmüller, Ahlfors, etc. revisited)\]
A.H. Read, [*Conjugate extremal problems of class $p=1$*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn., A.I., 250/28 (1958), 8 pp. 60, 78
A.H. Read, [*A converse to Cauchy’s theorem and applications to extremal problems*]{}, Acta Math. 100 (1958), 1–22. 50, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ an alternative proof of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is given via Hahn-Banach $\clubsuit$ subsequent work via a similar approach in Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] $\diamondsuit$ we probably do not need to recall that both Royden and Read were students of Ahlfors\]
E. Reich, S.E. Warschawski, [*On canonical conformal maps of regions of arbitrary connectivity*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 10 (1960), 965–985. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ like Meschkowski 1953 [@Meschkowski_1953] (which is not cited!) shows that the Ahlfors-type problem of maximizing the derivative among [*schlicht*]{} function bounded-by-one gives a conformal map upon a Kreisschlitzbereich (=circular slit disc). This analysis is also based upon Rengel’s inequality, or a variant thereof closer to Grunsky’s Thesis 1932\]
H.J. Reiffen, [*Die differentialgeometrischen Eigenschaften der invarianten Distanzfunktion von Carathéodory*]{}, Schrift Math. Inst. Univ. Münster 26 (1963). \[$\spadesuit$ quoted e.g. in Burbea 1977 [@Burbea_1977-Caratheodory]\]$\bigstar$
R. Remmert, [*Funktionentheorie 2*]{}, Grundwissen Mathematik [*6*]{}, Springer-Lehrbuch, 1991. (1. unveränderter Nachdruck 1992 der 1. Auflage.)
R. Remmert, [*From Riemann surfaces to complex spaces*]{}, Séminaire et Congrès 3, Société Math. de France, 1998, 203–241.
E. Rengel, [*Über einige Schlitztheoreme der konformen Abbildung.*]{} (Diss.), Schriften math. Semin., Inst. angew. Math. d. Univ. Berlin 1 (1932/33), 140–162. 60, 78 $\bigstar$
E. Rengel, [*Existenzbeweise für schlichte Abbildungen mehrfach zusammenhängender Bereiche auf gewisse Normalbereiche*]{}, J.-Ber. Deutsche Math.-verein. 44 (1934), 51–55. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ via the extremal problem method in vogue at the time obtain the exitence of the circular/radial slit maps for domain of finite connectivity (cf. also de Possel, and Grötzsch) $\spadesuit$ the terminology “Normalbereiche” goes back to Weierstrass, compare Schottky’s Thesis 1877 [@Schottky_1877] $\spadesuit$ this paper shows the existence of a schlicht mapping of a finitely-connected domain upon a circular slit disk $\spadesuit$ antecedent in Koebe 1918, see also Reich-Warschawski 1960 [@Reich-Warschawski_1960]\]
H. Renggli, [*Zur konformen Abbildung auf Normalgebiete*]{}, (Diss. ETH Zürich) Comment. Math. Helv. 31 (1956), 5–40 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ limited to plane domains, where the various slit mappings are reproved via an extremal problem involving the extremal length, Montel’s normal families are used\]
M. von Renteln, [*Friedrich Prym (1841–1915) and his investigations on the Dirichlet problem*]{}, Suppl. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 44 (1996), 43–55 \[$\spadesuit$ detailed discussion of Prym’s counterexample to the (naive) Dirichlet principle (compare Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871])\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
S. Richardson, [*Hele-Shaw flows with time-dependent free boundaries involving a multiply-connected fluid region*]{}, European J. Appl. Math. 12 (2001), 571–599 \[$\spadesuit$\]
B. Riemann, [*Grundlagen für eine allgemeine Theorie der Functionen einer veränderlichen complexen Grösse*]{}. Inauguraldissertation Göttingen, 1851. In: Ges. math. Werke 1876/1892/1990 [@Riemann_1990]. \[$\clubsuit$ first proof of RMT, some bad tongues claim that the proof is dubious (even abstraction made of the difficulty allied to the Dirichlet principle), whereupon Riemann reacted with [@Riemann_1857-DP]\]
B. Riemann, [*Über die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zugrunde liegen*]{}. Habilitationsvortrag 1854, first published in: Abhandlungen der Königl. Ges. d. Wiss. Göttingen 13 (1867), reproduced in Ges. math. Werke [@Riemann_1990]. \[$\spadesuit$ a breathtaking generalization of geometry, ramifying to the eclectic topic of Riemannian geometry, Dedekind, Beltrami, Ricci, etc., up to Gromov, Perelman, etc.\]
B. Riemann, [*Fragment aus der Analysis Situs*]{}. circa 1852/53. Published In: Ges. math. Werke [@Riemann_1990]. \[$\spadesuit$ a first attempt to generalize the connectivity number to high-dimensional manifolds, leads to the work of Betti, and Poincaré 1895 [@Poincare_1895-Analysis-Situs]\]
B. Riemann, [*Theorie der Abel’schen Functionen*]{}, Crelle J. Reine Angew. Math. 54 (1857), ?–?. In: Ges. math. Werke [@Riemann_1990 88–142]. \[$\spadesuit$ contains in particular the statement that any (or at least one with general moduli?) closed Riemann surface of genus $g$ maps conformally to the sphere with $\le[\frac{g+3}{2}]$ sheets $\spadesuit$ this assertion not accepted by modern geometers until Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960] $\clubsuit$ p.116, some historical hints given by Riemann shows an involvement with conformal maps of multiply-connected regions (maybe even surfaces) as early as Fall 1851 (up to Begin 1852), but then he was sidetracked to another topic\]
B. Riemann, [*Bestimmung einer Function einer veränderlichen complexen Grösse durch Grenz- und Unstetigkeitsbedingungen*]{}, Crelle J. Reine Angew. Math. 54 (1857), 111–114. \[$\clubsuit$ after Riemann 1851 [@Riemann_1851] the second (more solid, but less romantic) proof of RMT, of course in retrospect not sound until Hilbert’s resurrection of the Dirichlet principle\]
B. Riemann, [*Gleichgewicht der Electricität auf Cylindern mit Kreisförmigem Querschnitt und parallelen Axen. Conforme Abbildung von durch Kreise begrenzten Figuren*]{} (Nachlass XXVI). In: Ges. math. Werke [@Riemann_1990 p.472–476]. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ the first version of the “Ahlfors map” in the planar case (perhaps confined to the case of circular domains) $\spadesuit$ for subsequent works see primarily Schottky 1875/77 [@Schottky_1877], Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925], Grunsky 1937–41/40–42, Ahlfors 1947–50 [@Ahlfors_1950]\]
B. Riemann, [*Ueber das Verschwinden der Thetafunctionen*]{}, ?? ?? (1865), ?–?. In: Ges. math. Werke [@Riemann_1990 ?–?]. \[$\spadesuit$ another complete solution to the problem of inverting Abelian integrals $\spadesuit$ Schottky’s problem (1903): what conditions must be imposed on the Riemann matrices to arise as period matrices $\spadesuit$ full effective solution in Shiota 1986\]
B. Riemann, [*Gesammelte mathematische Werke, wissenschaftlicher Nachlass und Nachträge,*]{} Nach der Ausgabe von H. Weber und R. Dedekind, Teubner, Leipzig, 1876; neu herausgegeben von R. Narasimhan, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990. \[$\spadesuit$ the first edition 1876 (as well as the subsequent editions) contains the first publication of Riemann’s Nachlass ([@Riemann_1857_Nachlass] estimated 1857/58), where existence of circle maps is proven for planar surfaces, especially in the case of a domain bounded by circles\] 60
F. Riesz, [*Ueber Potenzreihen mit vorgeschriebenen Anfangsgliedern*]{}, Math. Z. 18 (1923), 87–95. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Heins 1975 [@Heins_1975], who employs a Riesz variational formula to derive another proof of Ahlfors’ circle maps with upper control upon the degree $\spadesuit$ in fact the cited variational formula of F. Riesz, was given by him for the case $p=1$ (Hardy classes index) and for the disc $\Delta$. However it is available suitably modified for any (finite) bordered Riemann surface and all possible Hardy classes indexes $1\le p <\infty$. (source=p.20 of the just cited Heins work, where for details one must probably browse Heins 1969 [@Heins_1969-LNM-Hardy])\]
F. Riesz, [*Über die Randwerte einer analytische Funktion*]{}, Math. Z. 18 (1923), 87–95. \[$\spadesuit$\]
F. Riesz, [*Sur les fonctions subharmoniques et leur rapport à la théorie du potentiel*]{}, Acta Math. 54 (1930), 321–360. \[$\spadesuit$ somehow inspired by Perron 1923 [@Perron_1923]\]
J.-J. Risler, [*Les nombres de Betti des ensembles algébriques réels, une mise au point*]{}, Gazette des math. ?? (1992), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Ritter, [*Die multiplicativen Formen auf algebraischem Gebilde beliebigen Geschlechts mit Anwendung auf die Theorie der automorphen Formen*]{}, Math. Ann. 44 (1894), 261–374. \[$\spadesuit$\]
W. Ritz, [*???*]{}, ??? ?? (1908), ??–??. \[$\spadesuit$ inspired Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914], who in turn inspired Bergman 1922 [@Bergman_1922], which had some influence on Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] $\spadesuit$ for a brilliant discussion of Ritz work [*per se*]{} cf. Gander-Wanner 2012 [@Gander-Wanner_2012]\]
??. Robertson, [*On the theory of univalent functions*]{}, Ann. of Math. 37 (1936), 374–408. \[$\spadesuit$ contains a simple derivation of the Bieberbach conjecture $\vert a_n\vert \le n
\vert a_1 \vert$ for starlike regions via the Schwarz-Christoffel formula\]
G. Robin, [*Sur la distribution de l’éléctricité à la surface des conducteurs fermés et des conducteurs ouverts*]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. 3 (1886), 3–58. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R.M. Robinson, [*Analytic functions in circular rings*]{}, Duke Math. J. 10 (1943), 341–354. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Minda 1979 [@Minda_1979] in connection with the theta function expression of the Ahlfors function of an annulus $\spadesuit$ for this see also Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57] $\spadesuit$ also quoted in Jenkins-Suita 1979 [@Jenkins-Suita_1979]\]
R.M. Robinson, [*Hadamard’s three circles theorem*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 50 (1944), 795–802. 78 \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
G. Roch, [*Ueber die Anzahl der willkürlichen Constanten in algebraischen Functionen*]{}, Crelle J. Reine Angew. Math. 64 (1865), 372–376.
R. Rochberg, [*Almost isometries of Banach spaces and moduli of Riemann surfaces*]{}, Duke Math. J. ?? (1973), ??–??. \[$\spadesuit$ compact bordered Riemann surfaces\]
R. Rochberg, [*Deformation of uniform algebras on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 121 (1986), 135–181. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ on p.142 Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited as follows: Ahlfors has shown that given $S$ in $\cal S$ \[the set of all connected finite bordered Riemann surfaces, cf. p.135\] and $x,y$ in $S\setminus
\partial S$ there is a function $F=F_{x,y}$ in $A(S)$ which has $\vert F \vert=1$identically on $\partial S$, $F(x)=0$, $F(y)\neq 0$, and $F$ maps $S$ onto the closed unit disk in an $m$ to one manner (counting multiplicity). Furthermore, if $g$ denotes the genus of $S$ and $c$ the number of components of $\partial S$, then $F$ can be selected so that $m$ satisfies $c\le m \le 2g+c$. $\spadesuit$ on the same page the Ahlfors’ bound ($r+2p$ in our notation) is applied to a problem a bit too technical to be summarized here, and naively one could ask if the improved bound $r+p$ of Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006] could be applied to Rochberg’s work. This is not evident because a lowest possible degree map does not a priori separates two points prescribed in advance (hence we have not pursued the issue further)\]
B. Rodin, L. Sario, [*Principal functions*]{}, Princeton, van Nostrand, 1968. 78 $\bigstar$$\bigstar$
B. Rodin, [*The method of extremal length*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 80 (1974), 587–606. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.590 Teichmüller listed (without reference!) amongst the contributor to the Löwner-Pu systolic inequality? $\spadesuit$ if this is true it would be nice to localize the precise source\]
B. Rodin, D. Sullivan [*The convergence of circle packings to the Riemann mapping*]{}, J. Differ. Geom. 26 (1987), 349–360. \[$\spadesuit$ building over work of Koebe 1936 (not cited), Andreev 1970 and Thurston 1985, develop a convergence proof of (finitistic) approximation by circle packings of the Riemann mapping $\clubsuit$ an obvious desideratum would be to implement a similar proof for the case of the Ahlfors function on compact bordered Riemann surface\]
E. Röding, [*Konforme Abbildung endlicher Riemannscher Flächen auf kanonische Überlagerungsflächen der Zahlenkugel*]{}, Diss. Würzburg, 1972, 71 S. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ this entry is cited on the “critical” page 198 of Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978], according to which it gives a generalization to Riemann surfaces of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (i.e. circle map in the planar case) $\spadesuit$ in particular, it could be the case that Röding reproves the existence of an Ahlfors circle map, yet probably this is not the case $\spadesuit$ perhaps this aspect has been subsequently published in Röding 1977 [@Roeding_1977_mero]\] $\bigstar$
E. Röding, [*Nichtschlichte konforme Abbildung\[en\] unendlich vielfach zusammenhängender Teilgebiete der Ebene*]{}, Arch. d. Math. 26 (1975), 391–397. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ infinite connectivity analog of the “Riemann-Bieberbach” mapping theorem.\]
E. Röding, [*Über die Wertannahme der Ahlforsfunktion in beliebigen Gebieten*]{}, Manuscr. Math. 20 (1977), 133–140. 78
E. Röding, [*Über meromorphe Funktionen auf endlichen Riemannschen Flächen vom Betrag eins auf den Randlinien*]{}, Math. Nachr. 78 (1977), 309–318. 78
M. Roggero, [*Real divisors on real curves*]{}, Le Matematiche 54 (1999), 67–76. \[$\spadesuit$ “...every divisor \[on a smooth real algebraic curve having a nonempty real part\], which is linearly equivalent to its conjugate, is also equivalent to a divisor supported on a set of real points.” $\spadesuit$ this resembles slightly the reformulation of Ahlfors theorem given in Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006], but differs substantially for Roggero’s result applies also to diasymmetric curves (with real points) $\spadesuit$ p.75–76: an example is given of a smooth real plane quartic such that every line intersect the (supposed nonempty) real locus in at most 2 points; evidently such a curve has at most one oval and another such example is the Fermat quartic $x^4+y^4=1$\]
W.W. Rogosinski, H.S. Shapiro, [*On certain extremum problems for analytic functions*]{}, Acta Math. 90 (1953), 287–318. \[$\spadesuit$ this article pertains to our topic (of the Ahlfors map) inasmuch as it may have influenced some new generation existence-proof (of “abstract” functional analytic character) of the Ahlfors map (where Hahn-Banach takes over the rôle of Euler-Lagrange), like those of Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta], and the popular version of Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]\]
V.A. Rohlin, [*New results in the theory of $4$-dimensional manifolds*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 84 (1952), 221–224; French transl. available in Guillou-Marin 1986 [@Guillou-Marin_1986]. \[$\spadesuit$ seminal result of 4D-differential topology on the divisibility by 16 of a simply-connected manifold with even intersection form $\spadesuit$ this (suitably generalized) turned out to be relevant to Hilbert’s 16th problem yielding a proof of the Gudkov hypothesis, cf. Rohlin 1972/72 [@Rohlin_1972/72-Proof-of-a-conj-of-Gudkov]\]
V.A. Rohlin, [*Proof of a conjecture of Gudkov*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 6 (1972), 62–64; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 6 (1972), 136–138. \[$\spadesuit$ the congruence in question (nowadays known as the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence) states that a plane $M$-curve of order $2k$ satisfies $p-n\cong k^2 \pmod 8$ $\spadesuit$ when particularized to degree 6 it affords a new “elementary” solution to Hilbert’s 16th problem (free from the vicissitudes allied to the Hilbert-Rohn-Gudkov method) $\spadesuit$ alas Rohlin’s first proof contains a little flaw (cf. next $\spadesuit$) though being essentially correct using the seminal Rohlin’s divisibility by 16 of the signatures of spin $4$-manifolds (even forms of intersection on the $2$-dimensional homology) $\spadesuit$ from Kharlamov-Viro 1988/91 [@Kharlamov-Viro_1988/91 p.361]: “Three proof of the Gudkov-Rohlin congruence have been published. They are due to V.A. Rohlin \[16\](=1972/72 [@Rohlin_1972/72-Proof-of-a-conj-of-Gudkov]=Proof of Gudkov’s hypothesis), \[17\](=[@Rohlin_1972/72-Cong-mod-16]=Congruence modulo $16$ in Hilbert’s 16th problem) and A. Marin \[12\](=1979/80 [@Marin_1979]). The third \[12\](=Marin ) appears to be an improvement of the first. The example considered by Marin \[12\](=) seems to show that there is no correct proof of (1.A)\[=Gudkov’s hypothesis\] which is closer to Rohlin’s argument than Marin’s proof.—Marin’s \[12\] and Rohlin’s second \[17\] approaches \[are\] based on quite different techniques. Rohlin’s proof work in any dimension while no generalization of Marin’s proof to higher dimensions is known. Nevertheless the approaches seem to be closely related. Rohlin asked his students to find a relation and said that an understanding of it might lead to essential progress.” $\spadesuit$ from Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000 p.736]: “In Rokhlin’s first paper \[97\](=this entry) there is a mistake in the proof of Gudkov’s conjecture. However the approach in the paper, namely, using characteristic surfaces in a $4$-manifold to evaluate the signature $\mod 16$, became a powerful method in the study of real algebraic curves. It was used by Marin, who together with Guillou (see \[46\](=Guillou-Marin 1977 [@Guillou-Marin_1977])) extended Rokhlin’s signature formula to non-orientable characteristic surfaces and thus corrected the mistake.”\]
V.A. Rohlin, [*Congruence modulo 16 in Hilbert’s sixteenth problem*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 6 (1972), 58–64; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 6 (1972), 301–306. \[$\spadesuit$ severe restriction upon the isotopy classification of $M$-curves reinforcing earlier work of Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938] and Arnold 1971 [@Arnold_1971/72]\]
V.A. Rohlin, [*Congruence modulo 16 in Hilbert’s sixteenth problem, II*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 7 (1973), 91–92; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. ? (197?), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$\]
V.A. Rohlin, [*Complex orientations of real algebraic curves*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 8 (1974), 71–75; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 8 (1974), 331–334. \[$\spadesuit$ present a general method of closing the one half of a dividing real plane curve by piecing together real discs to construct a closed membrane, whose (fundamental) homology class yields via intersection theory a certain numerical relation known as Rohlin’s complex orientation formula. The latter implies the striking fact that a dividing curve exhibits at least as many ovals as the half value of its degree(=order). This answers a question of Klein, made more explicit in Gross-Harris 1981 [@Gross-Harris_1981]. Compare Gabard 2000 [@Gabard_2000] for more details. NB: In this seminal paper, Rohlin treats only the case of $M$-curve(=Harnack-maximal) (the general formula being written down in the next entry Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978], but the proof is easy to adapt). $\spadesuit$ Rohlin’s formula also prohibits many (but not all) $M$-schemes of sextics (e.g. that consisting of eleven unnested ovals) supplying so a 5 minutes proof of the tricky theorem of Hilbert (1891–00–08), which he was never able to complete himself (or with his numerous students)\]
V.A. Rohlin, [*Complex topological characteristics of real algebraic curves*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 33 (1978), 77–89; translation: Russian Math. Surveys 33 (1978), 85–98. \[$\spadesuit$ shows strikingly that Rohlin discovered Klein’s work at a very late stage (despite the fact that Klein is generously quoted e.g. in Gudkov 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74]), but with great happiness apparently (p.85): “As I learned recently, more than hundred years ago, the problems of this article occupied Klein, who succeeded in coping with curves of degree $m\le 4$ (see \[4\](=Klein 1922 [@Klein-Werke-II_1922]), p.155).” $\spadesuit$ p.93–94 prove the result that a real plane curve with a nest of maximal depth is dividing, via an argument which (in our opinion) can be slightly simplified as follows $\spadesuit$ given $C_m\subset {\Bbb P}^2$ a nonsingular curve of degree $m$ with a deep nest then projecting the curve from any point chosen in the innermost oval gives a morphism $C_m \to {\Bbb
P}^1$ whose fibers over real points are totally real. Hence there is an induced map between the imaginary loci $C_m({\Bbb
C})-C_m({\Bbb R}) \to {\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb C})-{\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb R})$ and it follows that $C_m$ is dividing (just by using the fact that the image of a connected set is connected). q.e.d. (this argument avoids the consideration of the canonical fibering ${\rm pr}\colon
{\Bbb C} P^2- {\Bbb R} P^2 \to S^2$ envisaged by Rohlin) $\spadesuit$ p.94: “If $A_1$ and $A_2$ belong to type I, then the question is rather complicated, in general, but Fiedler first noted that everything is radically simplified when $s=m_1 m_2$ \[i.e. all intersections are real\]. Namely, in this situation, $A$ belongs to type I” $\spadesuit$ some interesting question is raised on p.95: “[**3.9 A conjecture about real schemes of type I**]{}. A study of the available factual material suggests that possibly a real scheme belongs to type I iff it is [*maximal*]{}, that is, it is not part of a larger real scheme of the same degree. This conjecture is true for $m\le 6$, and there is much to be said in its favour for $m>6$. There is an allusion to it in Klein: see \[4\], p.155 (=Klein 1922=Ges. Math. Abh. II [@Klein-Werke-II_1922]).” \[31.12.12\] Gabard’s guess: perhaps this conjecture of Klein-Rohlin follows from Ahlfors theorem translated in terms of total reality (intuitively having a total pencil, no real circuit can be added for otherwise Bézout would be corrupted, yet perhaps this is too naive, cf. our Sec.\[Klein-Rohlin-conj:sec\]) $\spadesuit$ [*Warning.*]{} p.788 of Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000] one reads: “[**Digression: real rational curves**]{}. As far as we know, the following problem is still open: is it possible to draw an irreducible real rational curve (or more precisely a connected component of it) of degree $q$ through any set of $3q-1$ real points in general position? In \[99\](=Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978]) the question is answered in the affirmative; however, the proof has never been published; possibly it contained a gap.”\]
V.A. Rohlin, [*New inequalities in the topology of real plane algebraic curves*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 14 (1980), 37–43; translation: Russian Math. Surveys ?? (198?), ??–??. \[$\spadesuit$\]
V.A. Rohlin, [*Two aspects of the topology of real algebraic curves*]{}, Proc. Leningrad Internat. Topology Conf., Nauka, Leningrad, 1983; (translation available?). \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress]\]
K. Rohn, [*Flächen vierter Ordnung hinsichtlich ihrer Knotenpunkte und ihrer Gestaltung*]{}, Preisschriften der Fürstlich Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig, 1886; also in Math. Ann. 29 (1887), 81–96. \[$\spadesuit$\]
K. Rohn, [*Die ebenen Kurven 6. Ordnung mit elf ovalen*]{}, Leipzig Ber. Dezember 1911. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Petrovsky 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938] and considered there as the first rigorous proof of Hilbert’s announced theorem that an $M$-sextic cannot have all its $11$ ovals lying unnested. However Gudkov (e.g. in 1974 [@Gudkov_1974/74]) is more severe and does not consider Rohn’s proof as complete. $\spadesuit$ \[18.03.13\] perhaps nowadays the most expediting way to prove this Hilbert-Rohn theorem is via Rohlin’s formula for complex orientations, which proves more generally that any $M$-curve (of even degree) has some nesting provided its degree $m=2k\ge 6$. The first proof of this statement (and much more) goes really back to Petrovskii’s seminal inequalities of 1938, cf. Petrovskii 1933/38 [@Petrowsky_1938]\]
K. Rohn, [*Die Maximalzahl und Anordnung der Ovale bei der ebenen Kurve 6. Ordnung und bei der Fläche 4. Ordnung*]{}, Math. Ann. 73 (1913), 177–229. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Röhrl, [*Unbounded coverings of Riemann surfaces and extensions of rings of meromorphic functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 107 (1963), 320–346. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Alling 1965 [@Alling_1965], and one may wonder about a connection with Ahlfors 1950, i.e. the “unbounded covering” in question (cf. definition on p.328) are probably related to circle maps, at least extended versions thereof where the target is not necessarily the unit disc of course Röhrl’s notion is quite standard, albeit the terminology is far from uniformized, cf. e.g. Ahlfors-Sario’s “complete covering surfaces” (in 1960=[@Ahlfors-Sario_1960 p.42] themselves patterned after Stoilow’s “total coverings” $\spadesuit$ alas, it does not seem that Röhrl reproves Ahlfors result (which would have been pleasant in view of Röhrl great familiarity with Meis’ work 1960 [@Meis_1960])\]
F. Ronga, [*Analyse réelle post-élémentaire*]{}, Presses polytechniques romandes, 1999. \[$\spadesuit$ cited for the picture Fig.\[ItenbergViroRiem:fig\]d\]
P.C. Rosenbloom, [*Quelques classes de problèmes extrémaux*]{}, Bull. Soc. Math. France 80 (1952), 183–215. \[$\spadesuit$ this worked is cited in Forelli 1979 [@Forelli_1979], where it is employed to derive another existence-proof of circle-maps with the same control upon the degree as in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]\]
M. Ross, [*The second variation of nonorientable minimal submanifolds*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 349 (1997), 3093–3104. \[$\spadesuit$ p.3097 criticizes the argument of Li-Yau 1982 [@Li-Yau_1982] for the Witt-Martens mapping $\spadesuit$ gives differential geometric application of it to (non-orientable) minimal surfaces\]
H.L. Royden, [*Harmonic functions on open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 73 (1952), 40–94. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ this is, in substance, the author’s Thesis \[Harvard University, 1951\] (under Ahlfors) $\spadesuit$ it contains very deep material “sufficient condition for the hyperbolic type in term of a triangulation of the surface” (causing a great admiration by Pfluger, etc.), yet from our finitistic perspective the paper seems to contain little about the Ahlfors map, for this issue see rather the subsequent paper Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]\]
H.L. Royden, [*Rings of meromorphic functions*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (1958), 959–965. \[$\clubsuit$ this article is often credited by Alling to be the first employment of Ahlfors map as a technique to lift truths from the disc to more general finite bordered surfaces, e.g. in the Acknowledgements of Alling 1965 [@Alling_1965] or in Alling’s review of Stout 1965 [@Stout_1965] one reads: “The third technique is dependent on the existence of the Ahlfors map $P$ (=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]), which maps a compact bordered Riemann surface $\overline R$, finite-to-one, onto $\overline U$. This gives rise to the algebraic approach, for the adjoint of $P$ is an isomorphism of $H_{\infty}(U)$ into $H_{\infty}(R)$, the extension being finite and very tractable. This approach was apparently first used by Royden 1958 \[=this entry=[@Royden_1958]\]. Later it was utilized extensively by the reviewer, who working independently of the author\[=Stout\], announced his extension of Carleson’s corona result to $R$ \[$\dots$\]”\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
H.L. Royden, [*The boundary values of analytic and harmonic functions*]{}, Math. Z. 78 (1962), 1–24. \[$\clubsuit$ re-prove the existence and properties of the Ahlfors function via Hahn-Banach, along the path of Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta]\]
L.A. Rubel, J.V. Ryff, [*The bounded weak-star topology and the bounded analytic functions*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 5 (1970), 167–183. 47, 50 \[$\clubsuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$NY(only-MR)
L.A. Rubel, [*Bounded convergence of analytic functions*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 77 (1971), 13–24. 47, 50 \[$\clubsuit$ p.18 the two works of Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] are quoted in connection with the following problem about inner functions: “In the case of the general region $G$ \[supposed (cf. p.17) to support nonconstant bounded analytic functions and to enclose no removable singularities for all bounded analytic functions\], one would guess that the solution, known to exist, of any of several extremal problems would be inner, and consequently hypo-inner. For example, choose a point $z_0\in
G$ and consider $f\in B_H(G)$ \[i.e. the space of bounded analytic function\] so that $\| f\|_{\infty}\le 1$ and $f(z_0)=0$, and maximize $\vert f'(z_0)\vert$. The extremal function is the so-called Ahlfors function, and in case $G$ is finitely connected, it is known \[2\](=Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]), \[3\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) to be inner.” $\spadesuit$ let us recall definitions (cf. p.17–18): a bounded analytic function on the disc $F\in
B_H(D)$ is [*inner*]{} if $\|F\|_{\infty}\le 1$ and if its Fatou radial limit function $F^{\ast}(e^{i\theta})=\lim_{r\to
1} F(re^{i\theta})$ has unit modulus for almost all $\theta$ (w.r.t. usual arc length). It is said to be [*hypo-inner*]{} if the Fatou limit has unit modulus for a set of $\theta$ of positive measure. For a function on a general domain $G$, $f\in B_H(G)$, the notions of inner and hypo-inner are transposed via precomposition with the universal covering map $D \to G$. $\spadesuit$ now as to Rubel’s guess, it seems to be answered in the negative in Gamelin 1973 [@Gamelin_1973-BAMS p.1107], with details to be found in Gamelin 1974 [@Gamelin_1974-Shilov]\]
L.A. Rubel, [*Some research problems about algebraic differential equations*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 280 (1983), 43–52. \[$\clubsuit$ p.47 the Ahlfors function is mentioned as follows: “To prepare the way for the next problem, we shall define the [*Ahlfors function*]{}. If $G$ is a (presumably multiply connected) region and $z_0$ is a point in $G$, we define the Ahlfors function $\alpha_{z_0}$ with [*basepoint*]{} $z_0$ as the (unique)solution of the following extremal problem: (i) $\alpha(z_0)=0$, (ii) $\vert \alpha(z)\vert \le 1$ for all $z\in
G$, (iii) $\alpha'(z_0)$ is as large as it can be for the class of functions satisfying (i) and (ii). In case $G$ is simply-connected, $\alpha_{z_0}$ becomes the Riemann map of $G$ onto $D$ that takes $z_0$ to $0$, with positive derivative there. [*Problem*]{} 11. [*Suppose $\alpha_{z_0}$ is hypotranscendental, and let $z_1\in G$ be another base point. Must $\alpha_{z_1}$ be hypotranscendental too?*]{}\]
W. Rudin, [*Some theorems on bounded analytic functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 78 (1955), 333–342. 47, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ new (simpler) proof of an (unpublished) theorem of Chevalley-Kakutani stating that a plane domain $B$ such that for each of its boundary-point $p$ there is a bounded analytic function on $B$ possessing at $p$ a singularity is determined (modulo a conformal transformation) by the ring of all bounded analytic functions on $B$ $\spadesuit$ the proof makes uses of general results of Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], yet apparently no use is made of the Ahlfors function\]
W. Rudin, [*Analytic functions of class $H^p$*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 78 (1955), 46–66. 47 \[$\spadesuit$\]
W. Rudin, [*The closed ideals in an algebra of continuous functions*]{}, Canad. J. Math. 9 (1957), 426–434. \[$\spadesuit$ proof of an unpublished result of Beurling describing the ideal theory of the algebra $A(\overline
\Delta)$ of continuous function on the closed disc analytic on its interior $\spadesuit$ for extensions of this Beurling-Rudin result to compact bordered surfaces, cf. Voichick 1964 [@Voichick_1964], Limaye’s Thesis 1968 and Stanton 1971 [@Stanton_1971] (who makes use of the Ahlfors map) $\spadesuit$ for an extension to non-orientable Klein surfaces (where no Ahlfors map are available!), see Alling-Limaye 1972 [@Alling-Limaye_1972]\]
W. Rudin, [*Pairs of inner functions on finite Riemann surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 140 (1969), 423–434. \[$\spadesuit$ inner function as a synonym of the (Ahlfors) circle maps\]
W. Rudin, [*Real and complex analysis*]{}, McGraw-Hill. \[$\spadesuit$\]
L. Rudolph, [*Some topologically locally-flat surfaces in the complex projective plane*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 59 (1984), 592–599. \[$\spadesuit$ locally-flat counterexamples to Thom’s conjecture (based upon work of Freedman) $\spadesuit$ p.593 contains the sharpest historical information I am aware of about the terminology “Thom conjecture”, namely: “Professor Thom has remarked (personal communication, November 19, 1982) that the conjecture perhaps more properly belongs to folklore.” $\spadesuit$ As far as I know the designation “Thom conjecture” appears first in Kirby’s problem list (1970) [@Kirby_1970--95]\]
R. Rüedy, [*Einbettungen Riemannscher Flächen in den dreidimensionalen euklischen Raum*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 43 (1968), 417–442. \[$\spadesuit$ p.417: “Flächen im Sinne der elementaren Differentialgeometrie können zu Riemannschen Flächen gemacht werden, indem man die iostheremen Parameter als lokale Koordinaten benutzt. Diese Struktur nennt man die [*natürliche*]{}, weil genau diese lokalen Darstellung winkeltreu sind.—F. Klein warf schon 1882 in seiner Schrift [*Über Riemanns Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen und ihrer Integrale*]{} das Problem auf, ob sich jede Riemannsce Fläche konform und bijectiv auf eine solche differentialgeometrische Fläche abbilden lasse.—Der Weg zu diesem überraschend schwierig zugänglichen Problem wurde durch die fundamentalen Arbeiten von Teichmüller geöffnet; aber erst um 1960 gelang der Beweis für den folgenden Satz:—[Einbettungssatz von Garsia.]{} [*Jede kompakte Riemannsche Fläche ist konform äquivalent zu einer differentialgeometrischen Fläche, die reelle-algebraisch im dreidimensionalen euklidischen Raum eingebettet ist.*]{}”\]
R. Rüedy, [*Embeddings of open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 46 (1971), 214–225. \[$\spadesuit$ p.214: “In the final section of his famous thesis Riemann states that in his investigations the branched covering surfaces of the plane could be replaced by smooth orientable surfaces embedded in Euclidean $3$-space. \[…\] In his lectures Felix Klein emphasized the concept of viewing classical surfaces as Riemann surfaces, …. It was also he who asked in 1882 if every Riemann surface were conformally equivalent to a classical surface. \[F. Klein, [*Ges. math. Abh.,*]{} Bd.3 (Springer 1923), p.502 and p.635.\]—For a long time the only result in this direction were that every compact Riemann surface of genus zero is conformally equivalent to the sphere, every non-compact planar (schlichtartig) surface is conformally equivalent to a subregion of the plane, and a compact Riemann surface of genus $1$ is conformally equivalent to a ring surface provided its modulus is purely imaginary (see \[16\]=Weyl 1913/65 [@Weyl_1913], 3.Auflage).—The first result beyond these facts was obtained by Teichmüller in \[15\](=1944 [@Teichmueller_1944-Beweis-der-analytischen-Abhaengigkeit]), where he applied his theory of spaces of Riemann surfaces to the embedding problem. He could show that not all compact embedded surfaces of genus $1$ are conformally equivalent to ring surfaces. More important than this result was the method by which he obtained it: He deformed an embedded surface by moving each point along the normal line and studied the dependence of the modulus of the deformed surface on the deformation.—Around 1960 Garsia constructed a surprisingly large class of compact Riemann surfaces whose moduli could be determined (\[5\](=1960 [@Garsia_1960-Pacific]),\[6\](=1960 [@Garsia_1960-Rend.])). But he succeeded in answering Klein’s question in the affirmative for all compact Riemann surfaces only when he abandoned his beautiful models and embarked on Teichmüller’s road. His proof in \[7\](=Garsia-Rodemich 1961 [@Garsia-Rodemich_1961]) and \[8\](=Garsia 1961 [@Garsia_1961]) is an ingenious combination of Teichmüller’s ideas and results, constructions inspired by Nash’ isometric embeddings, and Brouwer’s fixed point theorem.—We will see in this paper that his methods are even strong enough to prove this theorem for noncompact surfaces too. \[…\], we may formulate our theorem as follows:—[Embedding theorem.]{} [*Every Riemann surface $R$ is conformally equivalent to a complete classical surface. A model can be constructed by deforming any topologically equivalent complete classical surface $X$ in the direction of the normals. [$X$ is complete, if $X$ is a closed subset of Euclidean space.]{}*]{}—A nontrivial corollary (due to R. Osserman) follows, if $R$ is the unit disc and $X={\Bbb
C}$: For a suitable real-valued $C^{\infty}$-function $f$ the classical surface represented by $(x,y)\to(x,y,f(x,y))$, $x+iy\in{\Bbb C}$, is hyperbolic.”\]
R. Rüedy, [*Deformations of embedded Riemann surfaces*]{}, Ann. of Math. Studies 66, 1971. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S. Saitoh, [*The kernel functions of Szegö type on Riemann surface*]{}, Kodai Math. Sem. Rep. 24 (1972), 410–421. \[$\spadesuit$ Bergman kernel on compact bordered Riemann surfaces\]
S. Saitoh, [*The exact Bergman kernel and the kernels of Szegö*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 71 (1977), 545–557. \[$\spadesuit$ Bergman kernel on compact bordered Riemann surfaces\]
S. Saitoh, [*The Bergman norm and the Szegö norm*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 249 (1979), 261–279. \[$\spadesuit$ Bergman kernel on compact bordered Riemann surfaces\]
S. Saitoh, [*A characterization of the adjoint $L$-kernel of Szegö type*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 96 (1981), 489–493. \[$\spadesuit$ compact bordered Riemann surfaces, Green’s function and reproducing kernel\]
S. Saitoh, [*Theory of reproducing kernels and its applications*]{}, Pitman Res. Notes in Math Series 189, 1988. x+157pp. \[$\spadesuit$ reproducing kernel in the abstract united exposition of Aronszajn 1950 [@Aronszajn_1950], followed by a specialization to the case of multiply connected plane domains (esp. Garabedian’s $L$-kernel as the solution to an extremal problem for the Dirichlet integral)\]
S. Saitoh, [*Theory of reproducing kernels; applications to approximate solutions of bounded linear operator equations on Hilbert spaces*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc. Transl., 2010. \[$\spadesuit$ mentions the “Ahlfors function”\]
M. Sakai, [*On constants in extremal problems of analytic functions*]{}, Kodai Math. Sem. Report 21 (1969), 223–225. \[$\spadesuit$ p.223 seems to consider the problem of minimizing the Dirichlet integral $D[f]=\int\int_W df \cdot
\overline{df^{\ast}}$ among the analytic functions $f$ on a Riemann surface $W$ normalized by $f(t)=0$ and $f'(t)=1$ (w.r.t. some local uniformizer) \[see also Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954]\] $\spadesuit$ alas nothing seems to be asserted about the range of the least area mapping (in particular we still wonder if it is a circle map as looks plausible in view of the simply-connected case treated in Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914])\]
T. Salvemini, [*Sulla rappresentazione conforme delle aree piane pluriconnesse su una superficie di Riemann di genere zero in cui sono siano eseguiti dei tagli paralleli*]{}, Ann. Scuola Norm. Super. Pisa (1) 16 (1930), 1–34. \[$\spadesuit$ just cited to mention that Schottky’s proof of PSM relied on a parameter count not completely justified at his time\]
M.V. Samo\[k\]hin, [*On some questions connected with the problem of existence of automorphic analytic functions with given modulus of boundary values*]{}, Mat. Sb. 111 (1980); English transl.: Math. USSR Sbornik 39 (1981), 501–518. \[$\spadesuit$ p.505 occurrence of the Ahlfors function as an example of non-constant function in $H^{\infty}$ whose Gelfand transform is unity on the Šilov boundary of $H^{\infty}$, p.509: “We used an Ahlfors function to “knock down” the growth of the function…”, p.512: another occurrence of the Ahlfors function\]
M.V. Samokhin, [*Cauchy’s integral formula in domains of arbitrary connectivity*]{}, Sb. Math. 191 (2000), 1215–1231. \[$\spadesuit$ From the Abstract: An example of a simply-connected domain with boundary of infinite length is constructed such that for fairly general functionals on $H^{\infty}$ no extremal function (including the Ahlfors function) can be represented as a Cauchy potential\]
D. Sarason, [*Representing measures for $R(X)$ and their Green’s functions*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 7 (1971), 359–385. \[$\spadesuit$ some questions asked in the paper are answered in Nash 1974 [@Nash_1974]\]
L. Sario, [*A linear operator method on arbitrary Riemann surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 72 (1952), 281–295. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ perhaps first a general remark about Sario: to the best of my knowledge none of Sario’s papers (or books) works out a reproof of Ahlfors circle maps, albeit he is often gravitating around closely related or even more grandiose (i.e. foundational) paradigms. Quite ironically, much of the impulse and modernity along the Nevanlinna-Sario tradition finds its starting point in the Schwarz alternating method (which seemed outdated after Hilbert 1900 [@Hilbert_1900] “direct” resolution (=resuscitation) of the Dirichlet principle) $\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited in the bibliography yet apparently not within the text\]
L. Sario, [*Extremal problems and harmonic interpolation on open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 79 (1955), 362–377. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited on p.364 as follows: “Concerning extremal problems for differentials, the reader is referred to the comprehensive study \[1\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) by Ahlfors.” $\spadesuit$ “The ultimate purpose of the present paper is to study interpolation of harmonic and analytic functions on open Riemann surfaces $W$. We shall, however, first take a less restricted viewpoint and consider, in general, extremal problems on Riemann surfaces.” $\spadesuit$ the bulk of the paper is a reduction of a certain extremal problem over very general open Riemann surfaces to the special case of compact bordered surface (with analytic contours) via the usual exhaustion trick\]
L. Sario, [*Strong and weak boundary components*]{}, J. Anal. Math. 5 (1956/57), 389–398. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Reich-Warschawski 1960 [@Reich-Warschawski_1960] for another proof of Grötzsch’s extension to infinite connectivity of the Kreisbogenschlitztheorem\]
L. Sario, K. Oikawa, [*Capacity Functions*]{}, Grundlehren d. math. Wiss. 149, Springer, Berlin, 1969. 47, 50, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited at three places: pp.46, 110, 175, where this last citation come closest to our interest (but the discussion seems to be confined to plane regions $W$, cf. p.175 (top)). $\spadesuit$ We cite the relevant extract (p.175): “Concerning the quantity $c_B$, Schwarz’s lemma give us the unique function minimizing $M[F]$ if $W$ is simply-connected. The problem has not been solved completely for an arbitrary region $W$. However, Carleson \[1\](=1968 [@Carleson_1967-book]) established the uniqueness of the minimizing function if $c_B>0$. For a regular region $W$ (in which case $c_B>0$), further results have been obtained by Ahlfors \[1\](=1947 [@Ahlfors_1947]), \[2\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]), Garabedian \[1\](=1949 [@Garabedian_1949]), and Nehari \[2\](=1951 [@Nehari_1951-survey-BAMS]), \[3\](=1952 [@Nehari_1952-BOOK]). For the function minimizing $M[F]$, they obtained a characterization which in particular implies that the function maps $W$ onto an $n$-sheeted disk of radius $1/c_B$, where $n$ is the connectivity of $W$; note that this property does not in turn characterize the minimizing function. Garabedian and Nehari further derived a relationship with Szegö’s kernel function (Szegö \[1\](=1921 [@Szego_1921]), Schiffer \[5\](=1950 [@Schiffer_1950-Duke])). However, we shall not go into a more detailed discussion of these interesting results.”\]
L. Sario, M. Nakai, [*Classification Theory of Riemann Surfaces*]{}, Grundlehren d. math. Wiss. 164, Springer, Berlin, 1970, 446 pp. 47, 50, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ cite the work Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] in the bibliography (p.412), but not in the main body of the text (sauf erreur!) $\spadesuit$ p.452, the article by Kusunoki 1952 [@Kusunoki_1952] (where the Ahlfors map of a bordered surface is applied to the so-called “type problem”) is cited (and as far as I know this is the [*unique*]{} citation of Kusunoki’s work throughout the world literature). Alas, Kusunoki’s work does not seem to be quoted inside the main body of the text. $\spadesuit$ p.332: “The concept of harmonic measure was introduced by Schwarz \[1\](=Ges. math. Abh. 1890) and effectively used by Beurling \[1\](=1935 [@Beurling_1935-These]). Nevanlinna \[1\](=1934 [@Nevanlinna_1934]) coined the phrase “harmonic measure” and introduced the class of “nullbounded” surfaces characterized by the vanishing of the harmonic measure. That this class coincides with the class $O_G$ of “parabolic” surfaces was shown by Myrberg \[2\](=1933 [@Myrberg_1933]) for surfaces of finite genus.”\]
S. Scheinberg, [*Hardy spaces and boundary problems in one complex variables*]{}, Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton University, 1963. \[$\spadesuit$ includes a proof of the corona theorem on annuli, cf. also Stout 1965 [@Stout_1965]\]$\bigstar$
L. Schläfli, [*On the distribution of surfaces of the third order into species, in reference to the absence or presence of singular points, and the reality of their lines*]{}, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London 153 (1863), 195–241. \[$\spadesuit$ the heaviest brain ever met ca. 1.9 kg?\]
E. Schmidt, [*Entwicklung willkürlicher Funktionen nach Systemen vorgeschriebener ???*]{}, Math. Ann. 63 (1907), 433–476. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Nehari 1955 [@Nehari_1955]\]
E. Schmidt, [*Zur Theorie der linearen und nichtlinearen Integralgleichungen*]{}, Math. Ann. 64 (1907), 161–174. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950]\]
M. Schiffer, [*Sur les domaines minima dans la théorie des transformations pseudo-conformes*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 207 (1938), 112–115. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Maschler 1956 [@Maschler_1956 p.506] for the issue that minimal domains satisfy the mean value property; thus perhaps if ranges of least area maps are minimal domains we may hope that by virtue of a theorem of XXX-Schiffer (cited in the introd. of Aharonov-Shapiro 1976 [@Aharonov-Shapiro_1976]) the least area map is a circle map \[02.08.12\] $\spadesuit$ also quoted in Bergman 1947 [@Bergman_1947 p.32] for the issue that for a proof of the partial result that for starlike domains the least area map effects the Riemann mapping upon the circle\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M. Schiffer, [*Sur un théorème de la représentation conforme*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 207 (1938), 520–522. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ located via Reich-Warschawski 1960 [@Reich-Warschawski_1960], who cite the paper for another proof of Grötzsch’s extension 1929–1931 [@Groetzsch_1931] to infinite connectivity of the Kreisschlitzbereich mapping of Koebe 1918 [@Koebe_1918] $\spadesuit$ contains indeed a proof based upon an extremal problem of the circular slit map, yet the argument seems to depend upon the longer paper Schiffer 1937/38 [@Schiffer_1937/38]\]
M. Schiffer, [*A method of variation within the family of simple functions*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) 44 (1937/38), 432–449. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ principle of areas (Flächensatz) of Bieberbach-Faber $\spadesuit$ quotes Grötzsch 1930 and extends a result of Marty 1934\]
M. Schiffer, [*The span of multiply connected domains*]{}, Duke Math. J. 10 (1943), 209–216. 60, 78 $\bigstar$
M. Schiffer, [*The kernel function of an orthonormal system*]{}, Duke Math. J. 13 (1946), 529–540. 78 $\bigstar$ $\bigstar$$\bigstar$ \[$\spadesuit$ establish for domains an identity relating the Bergman kernel to the Green’s function\]
M. Schiffer, [*An application of orthonormal functions in the theory of conformal mapping*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 70 (1948), 147–156. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ new derivation via the Bergman kernel of inequalities of Grunsky’s Thesis 1932, which were previously derived by variational methods\]
M. Schiffer, [*Various types of orthogonalization*]{}, Duke Math. J. 17 (1950), 329–366. $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M. Schiffer, [*Some recent developments in the theory of conformal mapping*]{}, Appendix to R. Courant, 1950 [@Courant_1950], 249–324. \[$\spadesuit$ an extremely readable survey of several trends in potential theory, including the Green-Dirichlet yoga, the kernel method and some of the allied extremal problems, plus the method of extremal length and schlicht functions\]
M. Schiffer, [*Variational methods in the theory of conformal mapping*]{}, Proc. Internat. Congr. Math., Cambridge, Mass., 1950, (1952), 233–240. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ survey of variational methods\]
M. Schiffer, D.C. Spencer, [*Functionals of Finite Riemann Surfaces*]{}, Princeton Mathematical Series, Princeton University Press, 1954. \[$\clubsuit$ \[noticed the 26.07.12\] on p.135 the authors consider the problem of the least-area map (normed at a point $q$)for a compact bordered Riemann surface $\clubsuit$ it would be extremely desirable to know if the extremal map is a circle map, and if it relates to the Ahlfors function described in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]\]
M. Schiffer, [*Extremum problems and variational methods in conformal mapping*]{}, Proc. Internat. Congr. Math., Stockholm, 1958, 211–231. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.229 suggest a new proof (via Fredholm) of Schottky’s famous circular mapping (i.e. Kreisnormierung): details to be found in the next voluminous paper\]
M. Schiffer, [*Fredholm eigenvalues of multiply connected domains*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 9 (1959), 211–269. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ includes a new proof (via an extremum problem involving the Fredholm determinant) of the Schottky-Koebe Kreisnormierung; for yet another proof cf. the next item [@Schiffer-Hawley_1962]\]
M. Schiffer, N.S. Hawley, [*Connections and conformal mapping*]{}, Acta Math. 107 (1962), 175–274. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.183–189 includes yet another proof of the Schottky-Koebe Kreisnormierung (finite-connectivity) via an extremum problem of the Dirichlet type\]
M. Schiffer, [*Fredholm eigenvalues and conformal mapping*]{}, Rend. Mat. e Appl. (5) 22 (1963), 447–468. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ which mappings? the method must be the same as the previous item\]
M. Schiffer, G. Springer, [*Fredholm eigenvalues and conformal mapping of multiply connected domains*]{}, J. Anal. Math. 14 (1965), 337–378. 78
M. Schiffer, [*Half-order differentials on Riemann surfaces*]{}, J. SIAM Appl. Math. 14 (1966), 922–934. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ summary of research joint with Hawley, $\spadesuit$ immediate generalization for the Bergman kernel for any closed Riemann surface to be found in Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954] $\spadesuit$ contour integration introduced by Riemann himself\]
M. Schiffman, [*The Plateau problem for non-relative minima*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 40 (1939), 834–854. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: the problem of mapping a region bounded by a simple closed curve with a continuously turning tangent is reduced to that of minimizing a functional, somewhat similar to that of Douglas (cf. Douglas 1931 [@Douglas_1931-Solution]). This functional has an electrostatic interpretation which may provide an effective mechanical method for the determination of conformal maps\]
M. Schiffman, [*Uniqueness theorems for conformal mapping of multiply connected domain*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 27 (1941), 137–139. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950]\]
P. Schmutz, [*Riemann surfaces with shortest geodesics of maximal length*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal. 3 (1993), 564–631. \[$\spadesuit$\]
P. Schmutz-Schaller, [*Geometry of Riemann surfaces based on closed geodesics* ]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 35 (1998), 193–214. \[$\spadesuit$... Extremal problems have been considered in similar contexts; see in particular Bollobás \[9\] for extremal graphs and Ahlfors \[3\] for extremal problems in conformal geometry. ...\]
A. Schönflies, [*Über gewisse geradlinig begrenzte Stücke Riemann’scher Flächen*]{}, Nachr. Akad. Wiss. Göttingen (1892), 257–267. $\bigstar$ \[$\spadesuit$ detected via AS60.\]
E. Scholz, [*Geschichte des Mannigfaltigkeitsbegriff von Riemann bis Poincaré*]{}. Birkäuser, 1980. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E. Scholz, [*The concept of manifold, 1850–1950.*]{} Chapter 2, in: History of Topology, 25–64. Elsevier, 1999 \[$\spadesuit$ p.26: “Also leading mathematicians like Cauchy and Gauss started to use geometrizing language in ${\Bbb R}^n$ in publications (Cauchy, 1847) or lecture courses (Gau[ß]{}, 1851/1917). Gauss, in his lecture courses, even used the vocabulary of [*$(n-k)$-dimensional manifolds (Mannigfaltigkeiten)*]{}, but still restricted in his context to affine subspaces of the $n$-dimensional real space (Gau[ß]{}, 1851/1917, pp.477ff.). There is no reason to doubt that Riemann got at least some vague suggestion of how to generalize the basic conceptual frame for geometry along these lines from Gauss and developed it in a highly independent way.” $\spadesuit$ p.36: “In geometric function theory divers authors contributed to a refined understanding of the rôle of topological concepts, in particular C. Neumann with his calculation of the connectivity of a Riemann surface from the winding orders of branch points \[Neumann 1865 [@Neumann_1865-Vorlesungen]\], Lüroth, Clebsch and Clifford with their normalized representation during the 1870-s for branched coverings of $P_1({\Bbb C})$, which represent a Riemann surface with given number of leaves, given loci and winding numbers of branch points.”\]
F. Schottky, [*Ueber die conforme Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender ebener Flächen*]{}, (Diss. Berlin 1875) Crelle J. für die Math. 83 (1877), 300–351. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ after Riemann 1857/58 [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass], the first existence proof of the Ahlfors map in the planar case $\spadesuit$ contains in germ all type of mapping like the Circle mapping, the Kreisnormierung plus the parallel-slit maps $\spadesuit$ the only drawback is a certain confinement to planar regions, but this will be quickly relaxed in Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882] $\spadesuit$ regarding the rigor of proofs, the appreciation are rather random, compare Cecioni 1908 [@Cecioni_1908] and Grunsky 1978 who ascribes the first rigorous proof of the PSM to Cecioni\]
F. Schottky, [*Ueber eindeutige Functionen mit linearen Transformationen in sich. (Auszug aus einem Schreiben an Herrn F. Klein.)*]{} Math. Ann. 19 (1882), ?–?.
F. Schottky, [*Ueber eindeutige Functionen mit linearen Transformationen in sich,*]{} Math. Ann. 20 (1882), 293–300. 60 $\bigstar$
F. Schottky, [*Zur Frage: Haben die Klassenfunktionen Differentialgleichungen,*]{} Sitz.-Ber. Peu[ß]{}. Akad. Wiss., math.-phys. Kl. (1922), 414–423. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978 p.197] as follows: “Considering meromorphic functions on $D$ with real boundary values (which he later called “Klassenfunktionen”, \[476\](=this entry); now they are called Schottky functions) and proving the existence of a real algebraic relation between any two of them, he disclosed an intimate relation between problems in multiply connected domains and the theory of algebraic functions. The most concise expression of this relation is the idea of the “Schottky double” of a multiply connected domain (or of any finite Riemann surface) with analytic boundary; this is a compact Riemann surface, gained by identifying boundary points of two replicas …”\] $\bigstar$
O. Schramm, [*Conformal uniformization and packings*]{}, Israel J. Math. 93 (1996), 399–428. \[$\spadesuit$ new proof of the Brandt-Harrington (1980 [@Brandt_1980] and 1982 [@Harrington_1982]) generalization of Koebe’s KNP via a topological method (mapping degree), plus the PSM (parallel slit maps) and some other gadgets\]
K. Schüffler, [*Zur Fredholmtheorie des Riemann-Hilbert-Operator*]{}, Arch. Math. 47 (1986), 359–366. \[$\spadesuit$ p.359: “Ausgehend von dem bekannten klassischen Riemann-Hilbert Randwertproblem \[8,S.181ff\](=Vekua 1963 [@Vekua_1963]) betrachten wir den Operator $RH\colon
A^m(\Omega)\to H^{m-1/2}(\partial \Omega, {\Bbb R})$, $RH(f):={\rm
Re}(\bar \lambda f)\vert_{\partial \Omega}$. \[…\] das Symbol “$A^m$” bezeichne den Sobolevraum $H^{m,2}$ der auf $\Omega$ holomorphen Funktionen, $m\ge 2$; die komplexwertige Funktion $\lambda$ sei nullstellenfrei (auf $\partial \Omega$) und o.E. glatt.—Es ist bekannt, da[ß]{} der Operator $RH$ für glattberandete, endliche Riemannsche Flächen ein Fredholmoperator ist. Sien Index hängt sowohl von der Topologie von $\Omega$ (Anzahl der Randkomponenten und Geschlecht) als vom “geometrischen Index, dem Argumentzuwachs $\kappa(\lambda)=\Delta
\arg (\lambda)/ 2\pi \in {\Bbb Z}$ von $\lambda$ beim positiven Durchlaufen von $\partial \Omega$ ab (siehe \[8, S.189\]=Vekua 1963 [@Vekua_1963])” $\spadesuit$ \[17.10.12\] this seems connected to the Ahlfors map, by taking $\lambda$ its boundary restriction\]
H.A. Schwarz, [*Ueber einige Abbildungsaufgaben*]{}, Crelle J. für die Math. 70 (1869), 105–120. \[$\spadesuit$ introduces the principle of symmetry $\clubsuit$ solves special case of the RMT by hand\]
H.A. Schwarz, [*Zur Theorie der Abbildung*]{}, Züricher Vierteljahrsschrift (1869/70); also (theilweise umgearbeitet ca. 1890) in Ges. Abh. II, 108–132.
H.A. Schwarz, [*Ueber die Integration der partiellen Differentialgleichung $\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial
x^2}+\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2}=0$ für die Fläche eines Kreises*]{}, Züricher Vierteljahrsschrift (1870), 113–128; reprinted (or rather integrated) in the longer paper Schwarz 1872 [@Schwarz_1872]. \[$\spadesuit$ this entry is the first rigorous solution to the Dirichlet problem to have appeared in print (for the very special case of the disc) and via usage of the Poisson integral (occurring in several publications dated 1820–23–27–29–31–35) $\spadesuit$ see also Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871] for an essentially simultaneous resolution (which however turned out to have less impact on the future events)\]
H.A. Schwarz, [*Ueber einen Grenzübergang durch alternirendes Verfahren*]{}, Züricher Vierteljahrsschrift (1870), 272–286; also in Ges. Abh. II, 133–143.
H.A. Schwarz, [*Ueber die Integration der partiellen Differentialgleichung $\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial
x^2}+\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2}=0$ unter vorgeschriebenen Grenz- und Unstetigkeitsbedingungen*]{}, Berliner Monatsb. (1870), 767–795; or Ges. Abh. Bd. II, 144–171 \[$\spadesuit$ p.167–170 uniqueness of the conformal structure on the 2-sphere\]
H.A. Schwarz, [*Zur Integration der partiellen Differentialgleichung $\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial
x^2}+\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2}=0$*]{}, Crelle J. für die Math. 74 (1872), 218–253; or Ges. Abh. II, 175–210.
A. Sebbar, Th. Falliero, [*Equilibrium points of Green’s function for the annulus and Eisenstein series*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 135 (2007), 313–328. \[$\spadesuit$ p.314: “By the classical Hopf’s lemma, the normal derivative of the Green’s function is positive on the boundary \[of a multi-connected domain\], and one may ask if there is a compact set \[in the domain\], independent of the pole, containing all the equilibrium points of the Green’s function.” $\spadesuit$ a positive answer to this problem is supplied by Solynin 2007 [@Solynin_2007]\]
B. Segre, [*Sui moduli delle curve poligonali, e sopra un complemento al teorema di esistenza di Riemann*]{}, Math. Ann. 100 (1928), 537–551.
W. Seidel, [*Bibliography of numerical methods in conformal mapping*]{}. In: [*Construction and Applications of Conformal Maps*]{}, Proc. of a Sympos. held on June 22–25 1949, Applied Math. Series [*18*]{}, 1952, 269–280. \[$\spadesuit$ a useful compilation of (old) conformal maps literature emphasizing the numerical methods, and out of which we borrowed several summaries\]
H.L. Selberg, [*Ein Satz über beschränkte endlichvieldeutige analytische Funktionen*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 9 (1937), 104–108. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Hayashi-Nakai 1988\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$\[CHECK\]
M. Seppälä, [*Teichmüller spaces of Klein surfaces*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser.AI Math. Dissertationes 15 (1978), 1–37. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Seppälä, [*Quotient of complex manifolds and moduli spaces of Klein surfaces*]{}, ?? (198?), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Seppälä, R. Silhol, [*Moduli spaces for real algebraic curves and real abelian varieties*]{}, Math. Z. 201 (1989), 151–165. \[$\spadesuit$ modernization of Klein’s resp. Comessatti’s theories\]
M. Seppälä, [*Real algebraic curves in the moduli spaces of complex curves*]{}, Compos. Math. 74 (1990), 259–283. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Seppälä, [*Moduli spaces of stable real algebraic curves*]{}, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Sup. 24 (1991), 519–544. \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Seppälä, [*Computation of period matrices of real algebraic curves*]{}, Discr. Comput. Geom. (1994). \[$\spadesuit$ Abstract. In this paper we derive a numerical method which allows us to compute periods of differentials on a real algebraic curve with real points. This leads to an algorithm which can be implemented on a computer and can be used to study the Torelli mapping numerically.\]
F. Severi, [*Vorlesungen über algebraische Geometrie*]{}, Leipzig, Teubner, 1921. \[$\spadesuit$ p.159 re-proves the upper bound for the gonality of a complex curve (according to Segre 1928 [@Segre_1928]), but for the “modern standards” the first accepted proof is that of Meis 1960 [@Meis_1960] $\spadesuit$ contains a brief discussion of Klein’s theory of real algebraic curves $\spadesuit$ Anhang F also contains the complex case of Brusotti’s theorem (1921 [@Brusotti_1921]) on the independence of smoothing nodal curves $\spadesuit$ the same ideas where used in Harris’ proof on the irreducibility of the variety of plane curves of fixed degree and prescribed genus\]
F. Severi, [*Sul teorema di esistenza di Riemann*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 46 (1922), 105–116.
G.B. Shabat, V.A. Voevodsky, [*Equilateral triangulations of Riemann surfaces and curves over algebraic number fields*]{}, Doklady SSSR 304 (1989), 265–268; Soviet Math. Dokl. 39 (1989), 38–41. \[$\spadesuit$ geometric translation of Belyi-Grothendieck’s theorem that a curve is defined over $\Qbar$ iff it ramifies only over 3 points of the sphere. Question: can one extend this to Ahlfors maps in the bordered case cf. Sec.\[sec:Belyi-Grothendieck\] for a pessimist answer, yet probably all real curves are to be integrated. So what about real Riemann surfaces with an equilateral triangulation invariant under complex conjugation. So the vertices occurs as ${\Bbb Q}$-ratioanl points? etc.\]$\bigstar$
G.B. Shabat, V.A. Voevodsky, [*Drawing curves over number fields*]{}, in: Grothendieck Festschrift, Birkhäuser.
I.R. Shafarevich, [*Basic Algebraic Geometry*]{}, NAuka, Moscow, 1972; English. transl., Die Grundlehren der math. Wiss. in Einzeldarstellungen, Bd.213, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1974. (many subsequent reeditions) \[$\spadesuit$ contain a lovely picture of a real elliptic curve (with two real circuits) acted upon by complex conjugation (I confess that this little picture is actually, besides some theory told by Felice Ronga and Daniel Coray, the very origin of my modest involvement with the topic of real algebraic curves)\]
C.S. Sheshadri, [*Space of unitary vector bundles on a compact Riemann surface*]{}, Ann. of Math. 85 (1967). \[$\spadesuit$\]
M. Shiba, K. Shibata, [*Singular hydrodynamical continuations of finite Riemann surfaces*]{}, Kyoto J. Math. (1985). \[$\spadesuit$ The present study arose, in close relationships to a series of our investigations \[16\],\[17\] and \[18\], from an attempt to embed an arbitrary open Riemann surface of finite genus into another closed Riemann surface of the same genus, so that the prolongation of the ...\]
G.E. Shilov, [*On rings of functions with uniform convergence*]{}, Ukrain. Mat. Z. 3 (1951), 404–411. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
V.V. Shokurov, [*The Noether-Enriques theorem on canonical curves*]{}, Mat. Sb. Nov. Ser. 86 (1971), 367–408; English transl., Math. USSR Sb. 15 (1972), 361–401. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
E.I. Shustin, [*The Hilbert-Rohn method and bifurcation of complicated singular points of curves of degree $8$*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 38 (1983), 157–158; English transl., ??. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
E.I. Shustin, [*Gluing of singular algebraic curves*]{}, in: Methods of qualitative theory. Gorky Univ. Press, Gorky, 1985, 116–128 (Russian). \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
E.I. Shustin, [*Independent removal of singular points and new $M$-curves of degree $8$*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 40 (1985), ?–?; English transl., ??. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
E.I. Shustin, [*The Hilbert-Rohn method and smoothing of singular points of real algebraic curves*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 281 (1985), 33–36; English transl., Soviet Math. Doklady 31 (1985), 282–286. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
E.I. Shustin, [*Counterexamples to a conjecture of Rokhlin*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen 19 (1985), 94–95; English transl., Funct. Anal. Appl. 19 (1985), 162–163. \[$\spadesuit$ counterexamples in degree 8 to Rohlin’s conjecture (type I iff maximal), based on earlier work by Polotovskii [@Polotovskii_1981] compare the discussion in Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress] $\spadesuit$ \[25.01.13\] this note also implies a counterexample to an Ansatz of Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876], to the effect that nondividing curves could always win a supplementary oval by crossing a solitary node. In fact Shustin’s note uses predominantly a Bézout-like obstruction for $M$-octics due to Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions] extending the one of Fiedler 1982/83 [@Fiedler_1982/83-Pencil]. In Shustin’s disproof, the counterexample is an $(M-2)$-curve, which (either itself or more likely one of its $(M-1)$-enlargements) is maximal but of type II. $\spadesuit$ \[25.01.13\] I do not know if Klein’s Ansatz has some chance to be true in degree $7$. $\spadesuit$ nor do I know if it could old for $(M-2)$-curves, or more generally all curves except possibly $(M-1)$-curves. Compare Orevkov’s remark in Sec.\[Orevkov:sec\], which seems to prompt that there is some open problem here.\]
E.I. Shustin, [*A new $M$-curve of degree $8$*]{}, Mat. Zametki 42 (1987), 180–186; English transl., Math. Notes 42 (1987), 606–610. \[$\spadesuit$ this is perhaps the paper to which Orevkov is referring to in Sec.\[Orevkov:sec\]\]
E.I. Shustin, [*Versal deformations in the space of a fixed degree curves*]{}, Funct. Anal. Appl. 21 (1987), 90–91. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E.I. Shustin, [*Smoothness and irreducibility of varieties of singular algebraic curves*]{}, in: Arithmetic and geometry of algebraic varieties. Saratov Univ. Press/Kuibyshev branch, Kuibyshev, 1989, 102–117. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E.I. Shustin, [*Geometry of discriminant and topology of algebraic curves*]{}, in: Proc. Internat. Congr. Math., Kyoto, Japan, 1990, Math. Soc. Japan. (1991), 559–567. \[$\spadesuit$ p.566: “\[…\] the complete description of discriminant in the space of plane real quartics curves and complete classification of inflexion point arrangements on these curves \[9\](=Gudkov 1988 [@Gudkov_1988-quartic]).” $\spadesuit$ p.566: “It should also be noted that there is $M$-curve of degree $8$, whose constructions does not satisfy conditions of Viro method and is based on Theorem 4 \[22\](=Shustin 1987 [@Shustin_1987/87-a-new-M-curve-of-deg-8]).”\]
E.I. Shustin, [*On manifolds of singular algebraic curves*]{}, Selecta Math. Soviet. 10 (1991), 27–37; this is the English transl., of the Russian original dating back to 1983. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R.J. Sibner, [*Uniformization of symmetric Riemann surfaces by Schottky groups*]{}, (Diss.) Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 116 (1965), 79–85. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ new proofs of the Rückkehrschnitttheorem (retrosection theorem) and the Kreisnormierung=KNP via quasiconformal mappings techniques (Ahlfors-Bers)=Teichmüller modernized; as oft emphasized in our text (cf. Sec.\[sec:question\]) thiis might be the route through which one can hope to reprove the Ahlfors mapping via the original method of Klein (as cryptically asserted in Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941])\]
R.J. Sibner, [*Symmetric Fuchsian groups*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 90 (1968), 1237–1259. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R.J. Sibner, [*Remarks on the Koebe Kreisnormierungsproblem*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 43 (1968), 289–295. 78 \[$\clubsuit$ quasiconformal reduction of KNP: can every plane domain be deformed quasiconformally onto a circle domain? (still open today June 2012)\]
R.J. Sibner, [*An elementary proof of a theorem concerning infinitely connected domains*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 37 (1973), 459–461. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ simplifies by circumventing the usage of quasi-conformal techniques (normal family proof instead) an earlier proof of the fact that any domain of infinite connectivity admits a conformally equivalent model bounded by analytic contours (Jordan curves) $\spadesuit$ as probably just a matter of nomenclature it is not perfectly clear (to the writer) if this is obtained for all domains (as stated e.g. in Grunsky’s review (1978) [@Grunsky_1978 p.196] of this work) or if the assertion is only established in the case of countably many boundary components (cf. the parenthetical proviso on p.459 of [*opera cit.*]{}) $\spadesuit$ of course the real dream of Koebe (Kreisnormierung) would be that all these Jordan contours are ultimately circles!\]
, Ueber eine neue analytische Behandlungsweise der Brennpunkte. [*J. Reine Angew. Math. 64*]{} (1865), 175–182. \[$\spadesuit$\]
L. Siebenmann, *The Osgood-Schoenflies theorem revisited*, Russian Math. Surveys [ 60]{} (2005), 645–672. See also the online version available in the Hopf archive: http://hopf.math.purdue.edu/cgi-bin/generate?/Siebenmann/Schoen-02Sept2005 (from which a number of the editors misprints have been removed.)\[$\spadesuit$ contains a brilliant historical discussion of the contribution due to the complex analytic community (Osgood, Carathéodory) upon the so-called Schoenflies theorem about the bounding disc property of plane Jordan curves\]
C.L. Siegel, *Topics in Complex Function Theory*, Vols.I–III. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1960, 1971, 1973. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J.-C. Sikorav, [*Proof that every torus with one hole can be properly holomorphically embedded in ${\Bbb C}^2$*]{}, preprint, October 1997 (unpublished). \[$\spadesuit$ self-explanatory title, and see Černe-Forstnerič for an extension of Sikorav’s result\]$\bigstar$
R. Silhol, [*Real algebraic surfaces*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 1392, Springer-Verlag, 1989. \[$\spadesuit$\]
R. Silhol, [*Compactifications of moduli spaces in real algebraic geometry*]{}, Invent. Math. (1992). \[$\spadesuit$ It is probably useful to begin this paper by explaining why an approach, specific to real algebraic geometry, is necessary for Moduli problems. We will only be concerned in this paper, with the moduli problems for curves and abelian varieties (but the remarks we ...\]$\bigstar$
R. Silhol, [*The Schottky problem for real genus 3 $M$-curves*]{}, Math. Z. 236 (2001), 841–881. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
R.R. Simha, [*The Carathéodory metric of the annulus*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 50 (1975), 162–166. 50, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ write down everything (Ahlfors function, Carathéodory metric) in the case of an annulus\]
S.O. Sinanjan, [*Approximation by polynomials in the mean with respect to area*]{}, Mat. Sbornik 82 (1970); English transl.: Math USSR Sbornik 11 (1970), 411–421. \[$\spadesuit$ p.416: “Let $\phi(z)$ be an Ahlfors $p$-function of the set $E$: $\gamma_p(E,\phi)=\gamma_p(E)$, $\phi \in A^p_E$. Such a function exists due to the compactness of the set $A^p_E$.” $\spadesuit$ p.420 one further occurrence of the Ahlfors function\]
D. Singerman, [*Automorphisms of compact non-orientable Riemann surfaces*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 10 (1969), 376–394. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ “Using the definition of a Riemann surface, as given for example by Ahlfors-Sario, one can prove that all Riemann surfaces are orientable. However by modifying their definition one can obtain structures on non-orientable surfaces. In fact non-orientable Riemann surfaces have been considered by Klein and Teichmüller amongst others. The problem we consider here is to look for the largest possible groups of automorphisms of compact non-orientable Riemann surfaces and we find that this throws light on the corresponding problem for orientable Riemann surfaces, which was first considered by Hurwitz \[1\](=1893 [@Hurwitz_1893-U-algebr-Gebilde-m-eind-Transf-in-sich]). He showed that the order of a group of automorphisms of compact orientable Riemann surface of genus $g$ cannot be bigger than $84(g-1)$. This bound he knew to be attained because Klein had exhibited a surface of genus $3$ which admitted $PSL(2,7)$ as its automorphism group, and the order of $PSL(2,7)$ is $168=84(3-1)$. More recently Macbeath \[5,3\](=1967 [@Macbeath_1967],=1961 [@Macbeath_1961]) and Lehner and Newman \[2\](=1967 [@Lehner-Newman_1967]) have found infinite families of compact orientable surfaces for which the Hurwitz bound is attained, and in this paper we shall exhibit some new families.”\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
D. Singerman, [*Mirrors on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Contemp. Math. 184 (1995), 411–417. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
V. Singh, [*An integral equation associated with the Szegö kernel function*]{}, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 10 (1960), 376–394. 78 \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
E.P. Smith, [*The Garabedian function of an arbitrary compact set*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 51 (1974), 289–300. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors function is mentioned in its usual connection with the analytic capacity (p.289, 290) $\spadesuit$ Gamelin’s summary in 1973 [@Gamelin_1973-BAMS]: “Recently E. Smith \[43\](=the present entry Smith 1974 [@Smith_1974]) settled a problem left open by S.Ya. Havinson \[26\](=Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64]), proving that if domains $D_n$ with analytic boundaries increase to an arbitrary domain $D$, then the Garabedian functions of the $D_n$ converge normally. The limiting function depends only on $D$ and on the point $z_0$, and it is accordingly called the Garabedian function of $D$. In order to study the subadditivity problem for analytic capacity, Smith had been led to investigate the dependence of the Szegö kernel on certain perturbations of domains with analytic boundaries. The result on the Garabedian function dropped out as a special dividend. There is now the problem of simplifying Smith’s proof, and of freeing the result from Hilbert space considerations, in order to extend the theorem to more general extremal problems. [Added in proof]{}. A simple proof, which still depends on Hilbert space considerations, has been given by N. Suita 1973 (=[@Suita_1973])”\]
A.Yu. Solynin, [*A note on equilibrium points of Green function*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 136 (2008), 1019–1021. \[$\spadesuit$ given a finitely connected planar domain, it is shown that there is a “universal” compactum (inside the domain) containing all critical points of the Green’s functions $G(z,t)$ whatever the location of the pole $t$ is (answering thereby a question of Sebbar-Falliero 2007 [@Sebbar-Falliero_2007]) $\clubsuit$ question (Gabard \[11.08.12\]): does this fantastic result extends to (compact) bordered surfaces $\spadesuit$ further there must be a minimum Solynin’s compactum $K$, what can be said about its shape, area, etc. $\spadesuit$ considering the example of a ring (annulus, say circular to simplify) it seems evident that upon dragging the pole around the hole the unique critical point of Green will rotate (being roughly located at the “antipode”), thus it seems that Solynin’s compactum will be a sub-annulus it this case $\spadesuit$ maybe in general the inclusion of $K$ into the domain is a homotopy equivalence\]
A.J. Sommese, [*Real algebraic spaces*]{}, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa 4 (1977), 599–612. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Speiser, [*Über symmetrische analytische Funktionen*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 16 (1944), 105–114. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ not symmetric in the “reality” sense of Felix Klein, so a priori no link with Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]\]
G. Springer, [*Introduction to Riemann surfaces*]{}, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1957, 307 pp. \[$\spadesuit$ contains a discussion of the Schottky double, the Prüfer surface, etc.\]
Ch.M. Stanton, [*The closed ideals in a function algebra*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 154 (1971), 289–300. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ a clear-cut application of the Ahlfors function (mapping) is given to a “bordered surface” extension of a “disc result” of Beurling (unpublished)—Rudin (1957) (telling that—in the function algebra $A(W)$ of functions analytic in the interior and continuous up to the boundary—[*every closed ideal is the closure of a principal ideal*]{}) $\spadesuit$ this extension was actually first derived by Voichick 1964 [@Voichick_1964], via the more complicated universal covering whose uniformizing map presents rather complicated boundary behavior $\spadesuit$ p.293, as Royden’s student, the author points out that Ahlfors result is re-proved in Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] (this is not an isolated attitude, cf. Sec.\[dissident:sec\] for an exhaustive list) $\spadesuit$ p.289, the author remarks that similar use of Ahlfors’ theorem was initiated by Alling 1965 [@Alling_1965] and Stout (in the corona realm) $\spadesuit$ naive question of the writer \[08.08.12\]: is it reasonable to expect that the same Ahlfors-Alling lifting procedure conducts to an extension of Fatou’s theorem about existence of radial limits a.e. from the disc to a bordered surface: the notion of radiality is simple to define (orthogonality to the boundary), yet a function on the bordered surface does not descend to one on the disc via the Ahlfors branched covering (thus rather a method of localization is required, and the problem is surely well treated by several authors (e.g. Heins, Voichick 1964, Gamelin (localization of the corona), etc.) UPDATE \[12.09.12\]: see also Alling 1966 [@Alling_1966 p.345], who claims that Fatou is trivial to extend upon appealing to the Ahlfors map $\spadesuit$ \[08.08.12\] in the same vein it should be noted that the Ahlfors function shows some weakness for instance in the problem of solving the Dirichlet problem which in the disc-case can be cracked via the Poisson formula (H.A. Schwarz’s coinage) and one could hope to lift the solution to the bordered surface via the Ahlfors map. Alas, for given boundary values along the contours of the bordered surface there is no naturally defined procedure to descend the data along the boundary of the disc (implying a failure of the naive lifting trick). Consequently, the Dirichlet problem (for a bordered surface) lies somewhat deeper than the Ahlfors function, since it is probably well-known that the Ahlfors function may be derived from Dirichlet (or its close avatar the Green’s functions), see our Sec.\[Green:sec\] where we shall attempt to redirect to the first-hand sources implementations (Grunsky (planar case), Ahlfors, maybe Cecioni’s students, and Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950]).\]
Ch.M. Stanton, [*Bounded analytic functions on a class of open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 59 (1975), 557–565. \[$\spadesuit$ p.559 uses the terminology Myrberg surface for a concept closely allied to the Ahlfors function in the sense of our circle maps\]
K. Stein, [*Topics on holomorphic correspondences*]{}, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 2 (1972), 443–463. \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited on p.457: “By a theorem of Ahlfors \[1\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) there is always a meromorphic function $\varphi\colon \widehat{R_0} \to
\overline{\Bbb C}$ \[from the double of a bordered surface to the sphere\] such that $R_0=\{ \xi \in \widehat{R_0} : \vert
\varphi(\xi)\vert <1$; hence $R_0$ is a distinguished polyhedral domain in $\widehat{R_0}$.”\]
S. Stoïlow, [*Leçons sur les principes topologiques de la théorie des fonctions analytiques*]{}, Gauthier-Villars, Paris 1938. (Second edition in 1956,; Russian translation 1964.) \[$\spadesuit$ includes in particular a notion of “total Riemann covering”, defined by asking that any sequence tending to the boundary has an image tending to the boundary. This topological behaviour subsumes of course those of Ahlfors circle maps. $\spadesuit$ of course Stoïlow’s concept is also implicit in Radó 1922 [@Rado_1922-Z-Theorie-mehr], as one sees e.g. from Landau-Osserman’s account (1960 [@Landau-Osserman_1960]) $\spadesuit$ from Grunsky’s Review (JFM): “in die Definition der Mannigfaltigkeit wird dabei kein Abzählbarkeitsaxiom aufgenommen; es folgt der Beweis des Brouwerschen Satzes von der Invarianz des inneren Punktes nach [*Lebesgue-Sperner*]{}. \[$\dots$\] Zur Verdeutlichung dienen Beispiele nicht orientierbarer Fläche sowie ein von [*Prüfer*]{} stammendes Beispiel einer nicht triangulieren zweidimensionalen Mannigfaltigkeit (in der Formel Zeile 11 v.u. S.72 findet sich ein störender Druckfehler: \[$\dots$\]).” $\spadesuit$ In fact most relevant to our purpose (of the Ahlfors map) is Chap.VI of the book, which Grunsky (loc. cit.) summarizes as follows: “Ferner werden innere Abbildungen einer Riemannschen Fläche $R$ auf eine andere, $S$, betrachtet. Eine solche hei[ß]{}t eine totale Überdeckung von $S$ durch $R$, wenn jede Punktfolge aus $R$, die keine kompakte Teilfolge enthält (die “gegen den Rand strebt”) in eine ebensolche übergeht. Die Überdeckung ist dann auch vollständig, d.h. [*jeder*]{} Punkt von $S$ wird überdeckt, und au[ß]{}erdem auch jeder gleich oft.”\]
S. Stoïlow, [*Sur les surfaces de Riemann normalement exhaustibles et sur le théorème des disques pour ces surfaces*]{}, Compositio Math. 7 (1940), 428–435. \[$\spadesuit$\]
S. Stoïlow, [*Einiges über topologische Funktionentheorie auf nicht orientierbaren Flächen*]{}, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 19 (1974), 503–506. \[$\spadesuit$\]
E.L. Stout, [*Bounded holomorphic functions on finite Riemann surfaces*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 120 (1965), 255–285. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ on p.263 (and 272), Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is quoted as follows (without precise bound): “In order to establish our result, we shall need to make use of a result of Ahlfors \[1\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). For an alternative proof, one may consult Royden \[15\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]). Theorem 3.1 [*There exists a function $P$ holomorphic on a neighborhood of $\bar R$ which maps $R$ onto the open unit disc in an one-to-one manner for some $n$ and which satisfies $\vert P \vert =1$ on $\partial R$.*]{}” $\spadesuit$ first it is evident that “one-to-one” is a misprint that should be read as “$n$-to-one” $\spadesuit$ the paper addresses primarily the corona problem (overlapping with Alling 1964 [@Alling_1964]) and the allied interpolation, notably an extension of the celebrated results of Carleson and Newman on interpolation sets for the disc (i.e. those subsets enjoying the property that every bounded complex-valued function on $E$ can be extended to a bounded analytic function on the disc)\]
E.L. Stout, [*On some algebras of analytic functions on finite open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Math. Z. 92 (1966), 366–379; with Corrections in: Math. Z. 95 (1967), 403–404. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ cite Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] twice, on p.366: “Let $R$ be a finite open Riemann surface whose boundary $\Gamma$ consists of $N$ analytic, pairwise disjoint, simple closed curves. Let $\eta$ be an analytic mapping from $R$ onto $U$, the open unit disc which is holomorphic on a neighborhood of $\overline R$ and which is of modulus one on $\Gamma$. That such functions exists was first established by Ahlfors \[1\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]); another proof of their existence is in the paper \[12\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]).” Then on p.375: “Ahlfors \[1\] has shown that if $z_0, z_1$ are distinct points of $R$ (neither in $\Gamma$), then any solution of the extremal problem $\sup\{\vert f(z_0): f \textrm{ in } H_{\infty}[R], f(z_1)=0,
\|f \|\le 1\}$ is an inner function in $A[R]$. Thus inner functions separate points on $R$. …” $\spadesuit$ quoted by Fedorov, for using “inner function” as a synonym of “circle map”\]
E.L. Stout, [*Interpolation on finite open Riemann surfaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (1967), 274–278. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ p.274, Ahlfors 1950 is quoted as follows: “It is convenient to make use of an [*Ahlfors map*]{} for $R$, i.e., a function continuous on $\overline R$ and holomorphic in $R$ which is constantly of modulus one on $\Gamma$. The existence of such function was established by Ahlfors in \[1\](=Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]); an alternative proof of their existence is in \[4\](=Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962])” $\spadesuit$ The Ahlfors map (and the machinery of uniformization) are again utilized to lift the characterization of interpolating sets for the disc (available from the celebrated results of Carleson, Newman, cf. also Hoffman 1962 [@Hoffman_1962]). The main theorem states that a subset $E\subset R$ of a finite open Riemann surface is an interpolating set for $R$ [*iff*]{} $\inf_{z\in E} d_R(z,
E)>0 $, where $d_R(z,E):=\sup \{ \vert f(z) \vert : f\in
H_{\infty}(R), f_{\vert E-\{z\}}=0, \|f\|_R \le 1 \}$. For convenience, recall that the subset $E$ is called an interpolation set for $R$ if every bounded complex-valued function on $E$ can be extended to a bounded analytic function on $R$.\]
E.L. Stout, [*Inner functions, doubles and special analytic polyhedra*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 94 (1972), 343–365. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ p.345 credits Heins 1950 [@Heins_1950] for another (beside Ahlfors’ 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) eleg[*r*]{}ant \[sic\] construction of inner functions on compact bordered surfaces\]
E. Study, W. Blaschke, [*Vorlesungen über ausgewählten Gegenstände der Geometrie*]{}, vol.2, Konforme Abbildung einfach zusammenhängender Bereiche, Teubner, Leipzig, 1912. \[$\spadesuit$ closely related to Carathéodory’s seminal study of the boundary behaviour of the Riemann map along an arbitrary Jordan curve and the more general theory of prime ends\]
A. Stray, [*Approximation by analytic functions which are uniformly continuous on a subset of their domain of definition*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 99 (1977), 787–800. \[$\spadesuit$ p.797 brief apparition of the Ahlfors function via cross-reference to Gamelin 1969 [@Gamelin_1969]\]
K. Strebel, [*Über das Kreisnormierungsproblem der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. I. 101 (1951), 22 pp. 60, 78 \[$\diamondsuit$ Kurt Strebel is a student of R. Nevanlinna (who teached frequently in Zürich)\] $\bigstar$
K. Strebel, [*Über die konforme Abbildung von Gebieten unendlich hohen Zusammenhangs, (I. Teil)*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 27 (1952), 101–127 78 \[$\clubsuit$ partial results on the Kreisnormierung in infinite connectivity\]
K. Strebel, [*Ein Klassifizierungsproblem für Riemannsche Fläche vom Geschlecht 1* ]{}, Arch. Math. 48 (1987), 77–81. \[$\clubsuit$ p.77: “Herr K. Schüffler benötigt in seiner Arbeit \[2\] zur Theorie der Minimalflächen vom Geschlecht 1 den Satz, da[ß]{} [*jeder $p$-fach gelochte Torus auf einen ebensolchen mit kreisförmigen Löchern konform abgebildet werden kann, und da[ß]{} eine solche Abbildung durch diese geometrische Forderung im wesentlichen eindeutig bestimmt ist.*]{} Dabei wird der Torus durch die komplexe Ebene ${\Bbb C}$ modulo einer Translationsgruppe dargestellt, und die Kreisförmigkeit der Löcher ist ebenfalls in ${\Bbb C}$ gemeint.” $\spadesuit$ \[17.10.12\] one naturally wonders about higher genuses than one (where one must probably interpret the Kreisförmigkeit within the hyperbolic plane/disc), and it seems that such positive genus instances of the Kreisnormierung are also handled in Haas 1984 [@Haas_1984]\]
V. Strehl, [*Minimal transitive products of transpositions–the reconstruction of a proof by A. Hurwitz*]{}, Sem. Lothar. Combinat. 37 (1996), Art.B37c, 12pp. \[$\spadesuit$ modern reconstruction of Hurwitz’s count of the number of Riemann surfaces having prescribed ramification, cf. also Ekedahl-Lando-Shapiro-Vainshtein 2001 [@Ekedahl-Lando-Shapiro-Vainshtein_2001]\]
D.J. Struik, [*Outline of a history of differential geometry II*]{}, Isis 20 (1933), 161–191. \[$\spadesuit$ Gauss 1844 (and even F.T. Schubert) are credited for the nomenclature “conformal” as follows, p.164: “Of Gauss’ contribution to notation and nomenclature we mention the symbols $E,F,G,D,D',D''$ for what we now call the coefficients of the first and second fundamental differential form, and the word “conformal”. (6a)=footnote=(6a) In the first paper on higher geodesy, 1844: “ich werde daher dieselben conforme Abbildungen oder Übertragungen nennen, indem ich diesem sonst vagen Beiworte eine mathematisch scharf bestimmte Bedeutung beilege” \[Werke IV, p.262\]. The word is indeed, already used by F.T. Schubert, “De projectione sphaeroidis ellipticae geographica”, [*Nova Acta Petr.*]{}, p.130–146, see Cantor IV, p.575.”\]
T. Sugawa, [*Unified approach to conformally invariant metrics on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Proc. of the Second ISAAC Congress, Vol.2 (Fukuoka, 1999), 1117–1127, Int. Soc. Anal. Appl. Comput., 8, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 2000. \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors function is mentioned on p.5: “The quantity $c_R(p)$ is sometimes called the analytic capacity. An extremal function $f\colon R \to \Bbb D$ satisfying $\vert df \vert(p)=c_R(p)$ is usually called the [*Ahlfors function*]{} at $p$ and known to be unique up to unimodular constants (see \[4\](=Fisher 1983 [@Fisher_1983])). We remark that the condition $c_R(p)=0$ at some point $p$ need not imply that $c_R(p)=0$ at every point $p$ in the case that $R$ is non-planar. A counterexample was constructed by Virtanen \[13\](=Virtanen 1952 [@Virtanen_1952]) (see also \[10,X.2K\]=Sario-Oikawa 1969 [@Sario-Oikawa_1969]).” $\spadesuit$ the article as whole present an unified framework to the interplay between conformally invariant metrics and extremal problems emphasizing the contractive property of holomorphic maps (à la Schwarz-Pick-Ahlfors) $\spadesuit$ more precisely several metrics are presented culminating to their comparison as $$a\;\le \;s \!\!\!\!\buildrel{\rm AB50S69}\over{\le}\!\!\! c
\le
\begin{Bmatrix} \;\;\;\le \;\;r\buildrel{\rm Bu79}\over{\le} k \\
\buildrel{\rm HeSu72}\over{\le}\!\!\! b\;\;\; \le\;\, q
\end{Bmatrix}\le h,$$ where $a$ stands for Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950], $s$ for span (or Schiffer!), $c$ for Carathéodory(-Reiffen) (or for analytic capacity), $r$ for Robin (or logarithmic capacity), $k$ for Kobayashi, $b$ for Bergman, $q$ for quadratic differentials (Grötzsch-Teichmüller!), $h$ for Hahn $\spadesuit$ the inequality AB50S69 is due to Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950] for the planar case and in general to Sakai 1969/70 [@Sakai_1969] $\spadesuit$ inequality Bu79 is due to Burbea 1979 [@Burbea_1979-Schwarzian] $\spadesuit$ inequality HeSu72 is due to Hejhal 1972 [@Hejhal_1972-Memoirs-AMS p.106] (case of finite bordered surface) and Suita 1972 [@Suita_1972] in general\]
T. Sugawa, [*An explicit bound for uniform perfectness of the Julia sets of rational maps*]{}, Math. Z. 238 (2001), 317–333. \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors map is briefly mentioned as follows: “In fact, for a finitely connected planar domain $U$ whose boundary consists of Jordan curves, it is known that there exists a branched holomorphic covering map from $U$ onto the unit disk (e.g. the Ahlfors map). Thus $L_U$ cannot be estimated from below by only the data of $W$ (in this case $L_W=+\infty$).”\]
N. Suita, [*Capacities and kernels on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 46 (1972), 212–217. \[$\spadesuit$\]
N. Suita, [*On a metric induced by analytic capacity*]{}, Kodai Math. Sem. Report 25 (1973), 215–218. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors function à la Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64], i.e. for domains $D\notin O_{AB}$ (i.e. supporting nonconstant bounded analytic functions), analytic capacity and conformal metrics $\spadesuit$ the metric in question is also known as the Carathéodory metric (cf. e.g., Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940])\]
N. Suita, [*On a class of analytic functions*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 43 (1974), 249–250. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.249, the Ahlfors function is discussed as follows: “If $\Omega \notin O_{AB}$ \[i.e. $\Omega$ is a plane region having a nonconstant bounded analytic function\], there exist the extremal functions $A(z)$ which maximize $\vert
f'(z_0)\vert$ in ${\frak B}_0$ \[the class of analytic functions $f$ such that $f(z_0)=0$ and $\vert f(z) \vert \le
1$\]. Those functions are called the [*Ahlfors functions*]{} which are unique save for rotations \[3\](=Havinson 1961/64 [@Havinson_1961/64]).” $\spadesuit$ the note includes a counterexample to an (erroneous) claim made by Ahlfors-Beurling 1950 [@Ahlfors-Beurling_1950] about the compactness of the class ${\frak E}_0$ of those analytic functions in a plane region $\Omega \notin O_{AB}$ vanishing at $z_0\in \Omega$ and such that $1/f$ omits a set of of values of area $\ge \pi$\]
N. Suita, [*On a metric induced by analytic capacity, II*]{}, Kodai Math. Sem. Report 27 (1976), 159–162. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ the Ahlfors function appears on p.160 and 161 $\spadesuit$ for a plane region $\Omega\notin O_{AB}$ (i.e. supporting nonconstant bounded analytic functions) it was known (Suita 1973 [@Suita_1973] via “making use of a supporting metric due to Ahlfors 1938”) that the curvature $\kappa(\zeta)$ of the metric $ds_B=c_B(\zeta) \vert
d\zeta\vert$ induced by analytic capacity $c_B(\zeta)=\sup
\vert f'(\zeta)\vert$ in the class of functions bounded-by-one (=stretching factor of the Ahlfors function at $\zeta$) is $\le -4$ $\spadesuit$ the present article rederives this estimate ($\kappa \le -4$) by a limiting/exhaustion argument reducing to the case of a regularly bounded finitely connected domain which is analyzed via Bergman’s method of minimal integrals, but making also extensive use of Garabedian’s sharp analysis (our opinion!) $\spadesuit$ the novelty of the present article is that the ‘Bergman-Garabedian method’ gives the “more precise estimation $\kappa(\zeta)<-4$” for regions with more than one contour $\spadesuit$ paraphrase (p.161): “the equality $\kappa(\zeta)=-4$ at one point $\zeta\in
\Omega$ implies that $\Omega$ is conformally equivalent to the unit disc.” $\spadesuit$ \[23.09.12\] maybe it would be worth looking if Suita’s work extends to finite bordered surfaces (the problem being that quantity $\vert f'(\zeta)\vert$ depends on a local uniformizer), yet it seems that the theory is extensible (cf. e.g. Sugawa 1999/00 [@Sugawa_1999/00])\]
N. Suita, A. Yamada, [*On the Lu Qi-keng conjecture*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 59 (1976), 222–224. \[$\spadesuit$ “We shall give a complete answer to the Lu Qi-keng conjecture for finite Riemann surfaces. Our result is that every finite Riemann surface which is not simply-connected is never a Lu Qi-keng domain, i.e. the Bergman kernel $K(z,t)$ of it has zeros for suitable $t$’s.”\]
G. Szegö, [*Über orthogonale Polynome, die zu einer gegebenen Kurve der komplexen Ebene gehören*]{}, Math. Z. 9 (1921), 218–270 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Szegö kernel representation of the Riemann mapping (p.245) $\spadesuit$ like Bergmann 1922 [@Bergman_1922] or Bochner 1922 [@Bochner_1922] it is confessed (p.249) that the method does not duplicate a new existence proof of the Riemann mapping (this had to wait upon Garabedian and Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949]) $\spadesuit$ what is the geometric interpretation (i.e. the allied extremal problem): answer of course it is just that of minimizing the integral $\int_C \vert f(z) \vert^2 ds$, where integration is taken along the contour $C$ of the domain (and $ds$ is its Bogenelement)\]
G. Szegö, [*Über die Randwerte einer analytischer Funktion*]{}, Math. Ann. 84 (1921), 232–244 \[$\spadesuit$\]
G. Szegö, [*Verallgemeinerung des ersten Bieberbachschen Flächensatzes auf mehrfach zusammenhängende Gebiete*]{}, Sitz.-Ber. Preu[ß]{}. Akad. d. Wiss., math.-phys. Kl. (1928), 477–481 78 \[$\spadesuit$ can we do the same on a Riemann surface? and relate this to a Bergman-style proof of the Ahlfors map?\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
G. Szegö, [*Inequalities for certain eigenvalues of a membrane of given area*]{}, J. Rat. Mech. Anal. 3 (1954), 343–356 \[$\spadesuit$ one of the early implementation of the conformal transplantation method to vibratory/elasticity problem; for wide extensions cf. Hersch 1970 [@Hersch_1970], Yang-Yau 1980 [@Yang-Yau_1980] and Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011], the last article effecting the junction with the Ahlfors map\]
J. Tagamlizki, [*Zum allgemeinen Kreisnormierungsprinzip der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Ber. Verhandl. Sächs. Akad. Wiss., math.-phys. Kl. 95 (1943), 111–132. 78 $\bigstar$
M. Taniguchi, [*Bell’s result on, and representations of finitely connected planar domains*]{}, Some Japanese fonts 1352 (2004), 47–53. \[$\spadesuit$ survey of several results of Bell on the Ahlfors function and concludes by some questions about Bell representations, i.e. a certain family of canonical domains admitting an evident proper holomorphic map to the disc\] $\bigstar$
T.J. Tegtmeyer, A.D. Thomas, [*The Ahlfors map and Szegö kernel for an annulus*]{}, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 29 (1999), 709–723. \[$\spadesuit$ contains some lovely pictures of Ahlfors function in the case of an annulus\]
O. Teichmüller, [*Eine Verschärfung des Dreikreisesatzes*]{}, Deutsche Math. 4 (1939), 16–22. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ quoted (joint with Carlson 1938 [@Carlson_1938]) in Grunsky 1940 [@Grunsky_1940] as a forerunner of the extremal problem for bounded analytic functions $\diamondsuit$ Oswald Teichmüller (1913–1943) is formally a student of Hasse, but his interest shifted to function theory (presumably due to lectures held in Göttingen ca. 1935 by R. Nevanlinna) and then joined ca. 1937 Berlin where Bieberbach was located\]
O. Teichmüller, [*Extremale quasikonforme Abbildungen und quadratische Differentiale*]{}, Abh. Peu[ß]{}. Akad. Wiss. math.-naturw. Kl. 22 (1939), 1–197; also in the Collected Papers, 335–531. 60, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ discusses in details the Klein dictionary between symmetric surfaces and bordered Riemann surfaces through the [*Verdoppelung*]{} (=Schottky-Klein double) $\spadesuit$ discusses moduli in a way quite anticipated in Klein 1882 [@Klein_1882], modulo of course the usual Riemann-style heuristics\]
O. Teichmüller, [*Über Extremalprobleme der konformen Geometrie*]{}, Deutsche Math. 6 (1941), 50–77; also in Collected Papers, 554–581. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ a mention is made (without proof and a cryptical unreferenced allusion to Klein) of a statement which could be interpreted as a forerunner of the Ahlfors circle map $\spadesuit$ despite long searches, the writer (Gabard) was unable—on the basis of printed evidence—to adhere conclusively to Teichmüller’s accreditation of the result to Klein, compare Sec.\[sec:Teichmueller\] for more tergiversations $\spadesuit$ the original Teichmüller text reads as follows (p.554–5): “Wir beschäftigen uns nur mit [**orientierten endlichen Riemannschen Mannigfaltigkeiten.**]{} Diese können als Gebiete auf geschlossenen orientierten Riemannschen Flächen erklärt werden, die von endlich vielen geschlossenen, stückweise analytischen Kurven begrenzt werden. Sie sind entweder geschlossen, also selbst geschlossene orientierte Riemannsche Flächen, die man sich endlichvielblättrig über eine $z$-Kugel ausgebreitet vorstellen darf, oder berandet. Im letzteren Falle, kann man sie nach Klein[^147] durch konforme Abbildung auf folgende Normalform bringen: ein endlichvielblättriges Flächenstück über der oberen $z$-Halbebene mit endlich vielen Windungspunkten, das durch Spiegelung an der reellen Achse eine symmetrische geschlossene Riemannsche Fläche ergibt; \[…\] —(So lä[ß]{}t sich z.B. jedes Ringgebiet, d.h. jede schlichtartige endliche Riemannsche Mannigfaltigkeit mit zwei Randkurven, konform auf eine zweiblättrige Überlagerung der oberen Halbebene mit zwei Verzweigungspunkte abbilden.)” $\spadesuit$ Another puzzle would be to know if Teichmüller’s text exerted some influence over Ahlfors subsequent findings (1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]). Possibly yes, but note the absence of cross-citation until Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960]. All this should by no mean palish the originality of Ahlfors achievement which looks substantially sharper by controlling the mapping degree.\]
O. Teichmüller, [*Beweis der analytischen Abhängigkeit des konformen Moduls einer analytischen Ringflächenschar von den Parametern*]{}, Deutsche Math. 7 (1944), 309–336; also in Collected Papers, ??–??. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Rüedy 1971 [@Ruedy_1971] as the technological forerunner of the Garsia embedding result\]
O. Teichmüller, [*Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Collected Papers*]{}, Herausgegeben von L.V. Ahlfors und F.W. Gehring, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1982.
R. Thom, [*Sur l’homologie des variétés algébriques réelles*]{}, in: Differential and Combinatorial Topology, Symposium in honor of Marston Morse, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1965, 255–265. \[$\spadesuit$ cf. also a related work by J. Milnor 1964 [@Milnor_1964]\]
W. Thomson (later Lord Kelvin), [*Sur une équation aux différences partielles qui se présente dans plusieurs questions de physique mathématique*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. 12 (1847), 493–496. \[$\spadesuit$ one of the early apparition of the Dirichlet principle, cf. also Green 1928 [@Green_1828], Gauss 1839 [@Gauss_1839], Kirchhoff 1850 [@Kirchhoff_1850], Riemann 1851–57–57 [@Riemann_1851; @Riemann_1857; @Riemann_1857-DP] and Dirichlet as edited by Grube 1876 [@Dirichlet_1840-1876]\]
W. Thurston, [*The geometry and topology of $3$-manifolds*]{}, Princeton University Notes, Princeton, N.J., 1979. \[$\spadesuit$ circle packing theorem, cf. precise citations e.g. in He 1990 [@He_1990], i.e. especially Corollary 13.6.2 and Theorem 13.7.1 (circle packing theorem)\]
H. Tietz, [*Eine Normalform berandeter Riemannscher Flächen*]{}, Math. Ann. 129 (1955), 44–49. 50, 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ cite Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] and Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950], then criticizes the arguments of the latter $\clubsuit$ seems to reprove a sort of circle map for bordered surfaces inspired by Ahlfors (but with the desideratum of schlichtness along the boundary), alas Tietz’s argument is criticized (and apparently destroyed) in Köditz-Timmann 1975 [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975] $\spadesuit$ Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978 p.198] also seems to approve the Köditz-Timmann critique for he cites the (present) paper Tietz 1955 [@Tietz_1955], but right after add the parenthetical proviso “(cf. \[266\])”, that is Köditz-Timmann $\spadesuit$ despite those defects the prose of the introduction is brilliant and worth quoting (especially as it emphasizes the historical rôle of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], note however that Tietz seems to neglect both the Italian works as well as the cryptical allusion in Teichmüller 1941 [@Teichmueller_1941]): “Die Existenz eindeutiger analytischer Funktionen auf Riemannschen Flächen[^148] bedeutet, da[ß]{} jede Klasse konformäquivalenter Riemannscher Flächen “realisiert” werden kann durch Überlagerungsflächen der Zahlenebene. Damit stellt sich die Frage nach besonders einfachen Realisierungen oder Normalformen[^149].—Das wichtigste Ergebnis zu dieser Frage ist der Riemannsche Abbildungssatz, der sie für einfach-zusammenhängende Riemannsche Flächen beantwortet[^150]. Einen Schritt weiter gehen die Schlitztheoreme, die von den topologischen Voraussetzungen des Riemannschen Abbildungssatzes nur die Schlichtartigkeit der Riemannschen Fläche beibehalten. Hierher gehört auch der Satz, da[ß]{} jede berandete schlichtartige Riemannsche Fläche einem mehrfach überdeckten Kreis mit geeigneten Verzweigungsschnitten, die den Rand nicht treffen, konformäquivalent ist[^151].—Die Frage nach kanonischen Riemannschen Flächen im Falle höheren Geschlechtes is erst in letzter Zeit von Herrn [Ahlfors]{} \[1\](=1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]) angeschnitten und von Herrn [Nehari]{} \[2\](=1950 [@Nehari_1950]) systematisch behandelt worden:—Herr [Ahlfors]{} zeigt, da[ß]{} jede berandete Riemannsche Fläche realisiert werden kann als mehrfach überdeckter Einheitskreis, während Herr [Nehari]{} die Schlitztheoreme auf diesen Fall überträgt[^152]. \[…\]—Es erscheint wünschenswert, eine Normalform für berandete Riemannschen Flächen zu besitzen, die—im Gegensatz zur [Ahlfors]{}schen—sicherstellt, da[ß]{} das Bild jeder einzelnen Randkurve schlicht über die Linie des Einheitskreises liegt. \[…\]” $\clubsuit$ Tietz concludes his paper (p.49) as follows: “Die selben Überlegungen, die zu unserem Abbildungssatz führten, ermöglichen auch einen neuen Existenzbeweis für die Ahlforsche Normalform, wiederum jedoch ohne eine Schranke für die Anzahl der benötigten Blätter zu ergeben.” so this would be another (weak) version of Ahlfors, alas it seems that Tietz’s arguments where the object of critics, cf. Köditz-Timmann 1975 [@Koeditz-Timmann_1975]\]
H. Tietz, [*Zur Realisierung Riemannscher Flächen*]{}, Math. Ann. 128 (1955), 453–458. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ with corrections in the next entry [@Tietz_1955_Berechtigung]\]
H. Tietz, [*Berechtigung der Arbeit “Zur Realisierung Riemannscher Flächen”*]{}, Math. Ann. 129 (1955), 453–458. 60
St. Timmann, [*Kompakte berandete Riemannsche Flächen*]{}, Diss. Hannover, 1969, 56 S. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ this entry is cited on the “critical” page 198 of Grunsky 1978 [@Grunsky_1978], according to which it gives a generalization to Riemann surfaces of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem (i.e. circle map in the planar case) $\spadesuit$ in particular, it could be the case that Timmann’s reproves the existence of an Ahlfors circle map, yet probably this is not the case\] $\bigstar$
X. Tolsa, [*Painlevé’s problem and the semiadditivity of analytic capacity*]{}, Acta Math. 190 (2003), 105–149. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ complete solutions of both problems of the title are given, the first being usually regarded as implicitly posed in Painlevé 1888 [@Painleve_1888] (albeit nobody was ever able to locate the precise place, see e.g. Rubel 1971 [@Rubel_1971] or Verdera 2004 [@Verdera_2004] for why) and the second emanated from Vitushkin’s advanced studies in the 1960’s $\spadesuit$ the introduction contain a historical sketch, from Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947], Vitushkin 1950’s to Murai 1988 [@Murai_1987], Melnikov 1995 [@Melnikov_1995] (curvature of measures), G. David 1998 [@David_1998] (solution of Vitushkin’s conjecture), etc.\]
G. Toumarkine, S. Havinson, [*Propriétés qualitatives des solutions des problèmes extrémaux de certains types*]{}, In: Fonctions d’une variable complexe. Problèmes contemporains. Paris 1962, p.73. \[$\spadesuit$ survey containing a quite complete bibliography\]
S. Treil, [*Estimates in the corona theorem and ideals of $H^{\infty}$: a problem of T. Wolff*]{}, J. Anal. Math. 87 (2002), 481–495. \[$\spadesuit$ improved lower estimates for the solution of the corona problem, but with still a large gap up the upper bound of Uchiyama 1980 (cf. esp. p.494)\]
C.L. Tretkoff, M.D. Tretkoff, [*Combinatorial group theory, Riemann surfaces and differential equations*]{}, In: [*Contribution to Group Theory*]{}, Contemp. Math. 33, 467–519. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1984. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
A. Tromba, [*On Plateau’s problem for minimal surfaces of higher genus in ${\Bbb R}^n$*]{}, SFB 72-Preprint 580, Bonn, 1983. \[$\spadesuit$ doubts expressed about the validity of Douglas and Courant for the Plateau problem in the case of higher topological structure, compare Jost 1985 [@Jost_1985]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
A. Tromba, [*Dirichlet’s energy on Teichmüller’s moduli space and the Nielsen realization problem*]{}, Math. Z. 222 (1996), 451–464. \[$\spadesuit$\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$
V.V. Tsanov, [*On hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces and doubly generated function algebras*]{}, C.R. Acad. Bulgare Sci. 31 (1978), 1249–1252. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Černe-Forstnerič 2002 [@Cerne-Forstneric_2002]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M. Tsuji, [*A simple proof of Bieberbach-Grunsky’s theorem*]{}, Comment. math. Univ. St. Paul 4 (1956), 29–32. 78 \[$\spadesuit$ Nehari’s review (in MR): “A new proof of the classical result that there exists a $(1,n)$ conformal mapping of a plane domain $D$ of connectivity $n$ onto the unit circle which carries a given point on each of the boundary components of $D$ into the same point of the unit circumference.”\] $\bigstar$
M. Tsuji, [*Potential theory in modern function theory*]{}, Tokyo, Maruzen, 1959. (Chelsea edition 1975.) $\bigstar$ 78 \[$\spadesuit$ contains apparently yet another proof of the Bieberbach-Grunsky theorem, perhaps the same as in the previous item\]$\bigstar$
A.W. Tucker, [*Branched and folded coverings*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 42 (1936), 859–862. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
G. Tumarkin, see Toumarkine.
N.X. Uy, [*On Riesz transforms of bounded functions of compact support*]{}, Michigan Math. J. 24 (1977), 169–175. \[$\spadesuit$ p.170 the Ahlfors function (referenced via Gamelin’s book 1969 [@Gamelin_1969]) is involved in a theorem involving the Riesz transform\]
L. Vajsburd, A. Radul, [*Non-orientable strings*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 135 (1991), 413–420. \[$\spadesuit$ real algebraic (diasymmetric) curves as applied to string theory, more related refs. in Natanzon 1999 [@Natanzon_1999-Moduli-real-alg-surf.superanal-differ-spinors]\]
Ch. de la Vallée Poussin, [*Sur la représentation conforme des aires multiplement connexes*]{}, Ann. École Norm. (3) 47 (1930), 267–309 78
J. Verdera, [*Removability, capacity and approximation*]{}, in: Complex Potential Theory, NATO ASI Series, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, 1994, 419–473. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Verdera, [*The $L^2$ boundedness of the Cauchy integral and Menger curvature*]{}, Contemp. Math. 277 (2001), 139–158. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Verdera, [*Ensembles effaçables, ensembles invisibles et le problème du voyageur de commerce, ou comment l’analyse réelle aide l’analyse complexe*]{}, Gazette des Math. 101 (2004), 21–49 47 \[$\spadesuit$ a thorough survey about Painlevé null-sets including the following points: $\spadesuit$ Painlevé’s problem about searching a geometric characterization of null-sets (nobody ever found an explicit formulation in Painlevé’s writings, but Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] may be considered as the father of the modern era (introduction of the analytic capacity and insistance upon pure geometric conditions) $\spadesuit$ Tolsa’s resolution (ca. February 2003) of Painlevé’s problem (via bilipchitzian invariance of analytic capacity) is mentioned $\spadesuit$ p.29: the Denjoy conjecture (i.e., a compactum of a rectifiable curve is a (Painlevé) null-set iff its length is zero). This conjecture was cracked by the seminal work of Calderón 1977 [@Calderon_1977] as was made explicit in a note of Marshall $\spadesuit$ the (Vitushkin)-Garnett 1970 [@Garnett_1970] example of the $1/4$-Cantor set is discussed: this has positive length (because a certain projection is a full segment) but is a null-set (removable) $\spadesuit$ this is used to motivate Besicovitch’s notion of “invisible sets”, i.e. those projecting to sets of zero-length along almost every angular direction $\spadesuit$ Vitushkin’s conjecture: a compactum of the plane is a null-set iff it is invisible (alas, there is counter-examples of Mattila, and Jones-Murai 1988 [@Jones-Murai_1988]), yet the direct sense is true if finite length (as follows from the Denjoy conjecture solved since Calderón), hence $\spadesuit$ weak Vitushkin conjecture (1967): among compacta of finite length, the null-sets coincide with the invisible sets. This was completed in G.David 1998 [@David_1998] upon combining a chain of contributions: Christ 1990, Mattila-Melnikov-Verdera 1996 [@Mattila-Melnikov-Verdera_1996] and Jones 1990\]
I.N. Vekua, [*Generalized analytic functions*]{}, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1962. \[$\spadesuit$ an account of the theory of the Beltrami equation, with roots going back to Gauss, Korn, Lichtenstein, Morrey, Lavrentiev, Bojarski, Lehto, Ahlfors and Bers, etc.\]
I.N. Vekua, [*Verallgemeinerte analytische Funktionen*]{}, Berlin 1963 \[$\spadesuit$ Riemann-Hilbert problem on finite bordered Riemann surfaces (and the allied Fredholm theory), cf. also Koppelman 1959 [@Koppelman_1959] Schüffler 1986 [@Schueffler_1986]\]
H. Villat, [*Le problème de Dirichlet dans une aire annulaire*]{}, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 33 (1912), 149 \[$\spadesuit$ a brief proof of Villat’s formula in Komatu (1945)\]
V. Vinnikov, [*Self-adjoint determinantal representations of real plane curves*]{}, Math. Ann. 296 (1993), 453–479. \[$\spadesuit$ a brilliant presentation of the theory of Klein-Weichold of real curves and simplified proof of results of Dubrovin-Natanzon, discuses complex orientations (à la Rohlin) $\spadesuit$ mentions the result that a real plane curve with a nest of maximal depth is dividing (via Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.93]), whose argument can (in our opinion) can be slightly simplified as follows $\spadesuit$ given $C_m\subset {\Bbb P}^2$ a nonsingular curve of degree $m$ with a deep nest then projecting the curve from any point chosen in the innermost oval gives a morphism $C_m \to {\Bbb
P}^1$ whose fibers over real points are totally real, hence there is an induced map between the imaginary loci and it follows that $C_m$ is dividing (just by using the fact that the image of a connected set is connected). q.e.d. (N.B.: this is exactly Rohlin’s argument except that we avoid the consideration of the canonical fibering ${\rm pr}\colon {\Bbb
C} P^2-{\Bbb R} P^2 \to S^2$ envisaged by Rohlin) $\spadesuit$ p.478 mentions the result of Nuij 1968 [@Nuij_1968]: “any two real smooth plane curves of degree $n$ having a nest of of ovals of maximal depth are [*rigidly isotopic*]{} (i.e. belongs to the same component in the space of all real smooth plane curves of degree $n$)” $\spadesuit$ \[30.09.12\] I vaguely remember of a sharper question (result?) asking if the space of deeply nested curves is not even a (contractible) cell $\spadesuit$ \[02.10.12\] probably this question was rather asked for ovalless real curves, yet the idea (coming to me only today) is that the $\pi_1$ (fundamental group) of any chamber (=component of the complement of the discriminant hypersurface $D\subset \vert {\cal O}_{{\Bbb P}^2}(m) \vert=\vert mH\vert$ consisting of all singular curves) must act on the set of ovals of any fixed plane curves. Hence when there is no oval or a nest (not necessarily of maximal depth) then the induced (monodromy) permutation must be trivial and consequently there is no obstruction to the chamber having a simple topology. More generally this applies when there are several nests of different depths (then again nothing can be permuted). In contrast when there is collection of non-nested ovals (or two nests of the same depth) then there is no obstruction to there permutability (e.g. imagine a quartic with $4$ ovals resulting from the smoothing of two conics then by rotating the plane we can achieve a transitive permutation of cyclic type). But probably the monodromy group of this quartic is bigger. How large exactly? $\spadesuit$ a problem would be to count the number of component of $\vert mH\vert-D$ and if possible to describe the complex encoding the adjacency relation between the different chambers $\spadesuit$ of course in the general question of describing the monodromy of a given curve, one can exploit Rohlin’s idea of the complex orientation in the case where the curve is dividing, as the latter must probably be conserved during an isotopy-loop (up to reversion). If so then for the 4 ovals quartic we get an obstruction to there complete permutability, and the monodromy group is not the full symmetric group ${\frak S}_4$. Naively two ovals gyrate clock-wise and two anti-clock-wise (draw the complex orientations by doing sense preserving smoothings), yet since ${\Bbb R}P^2$ is nonorientable nothing is secure (i.e. the clockwise can continuously mutate in the anti-clock-wise)? (of course all this must be described somewhere with more care!) $\spadesuit$ as in Nuij’s result one can ask when the real scheme (Rohlin’s jargon) determine unambiguously the isotopy type (or what is the same a unique chamber). A naive (probably wrong) guess is that if the monodromy is trivial, then the chamber is unique\]
V. Vinnikov, [*Commuting operators and function theory on a Riemann surface*]{}, In: Holomorphic spaces (Berkeley 1995), MSRI Publications 33, 1998. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ p.468, Ahlfors 1950 is briefly cited as a mapping onto the upper half-plane, and is applied to problems of operator theory and maybe as well to a generalization of the Riesz-Nevanlinna-Smirnov factorization $\spadesuit$ compare optionally Havinson 1989/89[@Havinson_1989/89] where a similar desideratum was found to be difficult (and unsolved?) $\spadesuit$ from the abstract: “In the late 70’s M.S. Livsic has discovered that a pair of commuting nonselfadjoint operators in a Hilbert space, with finite nonhermitian ranks, satisfy a polynomial equation with constant (real) coefficients; …”, whence the link with real curves (à la Klein) and therefore with Ahlfors\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*Construction of multicomponent real algebraic surfaces*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 248 (1979), 279–282; English transl., Soviet Math. Dokl. 20 (1979), 991–995. \[$\spadesuit$\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*Construction of $M$-surfaces*]{}, Funkt. Anal. i Prilozhen. 13 (1979), 71–72; English Transl. in: ???. \[$\spadesuit$\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*Curves of degree $7$, curves of degree $8$, and the Ragsdale conjecture*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 254 (1980), 1305–1310; English Transl., ???. \[$\spadesuit$\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*Gluing of plane real algebraic curves and construction of curves of degree $6$ and $7$*]{}, in: Topology, Proc. Leningrad 1982, Lect. Notes in Math. 1060, 1984, 185–200. \[$\spadesuit$\]
O. Viro, [*Progress over the last five years in the topology of real algebraic varieties*]{}, Proc. Internat. Congr. of Mathematicians, Warsaw 1983, 525–611. \[$\spadesuit$ a more expanded version of the same material in Viro 1986/86 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress]\]
O. Viro, [*Real varieties with prescribed topological properties*]{}, Doct. Thesis, Leningrad Univ., 1983. \[$\spadesuit$ under the direction of V.A. Rohlin\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*??*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Mat. 47 (1983), 1135–1150; English Transl., ???. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Shustin 1985/85 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin]\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*Real plane curves of degree $7$ and $8$: new prohibitions*]{}, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Mat. 47 (1983), 1135–1150; English Transl., Math. USSR Izv. 23 (1984), 409–422. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Shustin 1985/85 [@Shustin_1985/85-ctrexpls-to-a-conj-of-Rohlin] for his counterexample to Rohlin’s maximality conjecture $\spadesuit$ another point of this paper is that it completes the isotopy classification of septics, thereby cracking the next case of Hilbert’s 16th problem. This is based on work of 1979 by Viro, where after a bunch of construction it remained him to prohibit the scheme $\langle J \sqcup 1 \langle 14 \rangle \rangle$. This was done using auxiliary curves of degree $2$ and the theory of complex orientations. The resulting classification involves $121=11^2$ real schemes (cf. e.g. Viro 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1124]). $\spadesuit$ \[24.01.13\] try at the occasion to draw the corresponding pyramid. Another idea try to prohibit Viro’s scheme $\langle J \sqcup 1
\langle 14 \rangle \rangle$ via CCC (collective contraction conjecture of empty ovals, cf. Sec.\[CCC:sec\]), yet looks difficult unless another idea appears $\spadesuit$ by Marin 1979 [@Marin_1979] (or Fiedler) we know that such schemes even when enriched by the type (or the stronger complex orientations) do not encodes unambigously the rigid-isotopy class, hence the rigid-isotopy classification is even much harder and probably still unsolved, compare e.g. Viro 2008 [@Viro_2008-From-the-16th-Hilb-to-tropical]. As a pure guessing (of Gabard) one could expect something like $512=2^9$ chambers???\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*Gluing of algebraic hypersurfaces, smoothing of singularities and construction of curves*]{}, Proc. Leningrad Int. Topology Conf., 1983, 149–197; English Transl., ???. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Kharlamov-Viro 1988/91 [@Kharlamov-Viro_1988/91]\]
O. Viro, [*Progress in the topology of real algebraic varieties over the last six years*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 41 (1986), 45–67; English Transl., Russian Math. Surveys 41 (1986), 55–82. \[$\spadesuit$ “Contents. Introduction 55 §1. Real algebraic curves as complex objects 57 §2. Numerical characteristics and encoding of schemes of curves 59 §3. Old restrictions on schemes of curves 60 §4. New restrictions on schemes of curves 63 §5. Klein’s assertion 67 §6. …”\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*Real algebraic plane curves: constructions with controlled topology*]{}, Alg. i Analiz 1 (1989), 1–73; English transl., Leningrad Math. J. 1 (1990), 1059–1134. \[$\spadesuit$ includes a complete solution of Hilbert’s 16th problem for $M$-curves up to orders $m\le 7$\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*Patchworking real algebraic varieties*]{}, preprint: http://www.math.uu.se/$\sim$oleg \[$\spadesuit$\]
O.Ya. Viro, S.Yu. Orevkov, [*Congruence modulo $8$ for real algebraic curves of degree $9$*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 56 (2001), 137–138; English transl., Russian Math. Surveys 56 (2001), 770–771. \[$\spadesuit$\]
O.Ya. Viro, [*From the sixteenth Hilbert problem to tropical geometry*]{}, Japan. J. Math. 3 (2008), 185–214. \[$\spadesuit$ includes a complete solution of Hilbert’s 16th problem for $M$-curves up to orders $m\le 7$\]
K.I. Virtanen, [*Über die Existenz von beschränkten harmonischen Funktionen auf offenen Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. I. 75 (1950), 8 pp. 50, 60 \[cite Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] in a footnote (p.6) as follows: “Zusatz b.d. Korr.: Die Extremalfunktion $\eta_n$ findet sich auch bei Ahlfors 1950 (=[@Ahlfors_1950]).” $\spadesuit$ yet this function is only a harmonic function, hence not the (analytic) Ahlfors map we are focused upon. In particular Virtanen’s paper does not reproves the existence of the Ahlfors maps, its main purpose being rather to establish the inclusion $O_{HB}\subset O_{HD}$ in the so-called classification theory of open Riemann surfaces\]
K.I. Virtanen, [*Über Extremalfunktionen auf offenen Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A. I. 141 (1952), 7 pp. 60 \[Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited maybe?\]
A.G. Vitushkin, [*Analytic capacity of sets and some of its properties*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 123 (1958), ?–?. (Russian) \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Melnikov 1967 [@Melnikov_1967] for the definition of the Ahlfors function\]
A.G. Vitushkin, [*Example of a set of positive length but zero analytic capacity*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 127 (1959), 246–249. (Russian) \[$\spadesuit$ compare also the (simplified) construction in Garnett 1970 [@Garnett_1970], who warns us that Vitushkin’s paper contains many typographical errors $\spadesuit$ the basic implication “zero analytic capacity whenever zero linear measure” is a classical theorem of Painlevé (cf. e.g. Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947 p.2], a simple application of Cauchy’s formula)\]
A.G. Vitushkin, [*Analytic capacity of sets in problems of approximation theory*]{}, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 22 (1967), 141–199; English transl.: Russian Math. Surveys 22 (1967), 139–200. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ Ahlfors function appears on p.142 $\spadesuit$ formulation of the problem of the semi-additivity of analytic capacity solved (jointly with the older Painlevé problem on the geometric characterization of removable singularities) in Tolsa 2003 [@Tolsa_2003]\]
Vo Dang Thao, [*Über einige Flächeninhaltsformeln bei schlichtkonformer Abbildung von Kreisbogenschlitzgebieten*]{}, Math. Nachr. 74 (1976), 253–261. \[$\spadesuit$ cited in Alenicyn 1981/82 [@Alenicyn_1981/82]\] $\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
M. Voichick, [*Ideals and invariant subspaces of analytic functions*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 111 (1964), 493–512. \[$\spadesuit$ bounded analytic functions, nontangential boundary values (almost everywhere), inner function, Beurling’s invariant subspace theorem extended to finite Riemann surfaces (tools: Harnack’s principle, Fatou’s theorem, plus Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta] and Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] (both direct descendants of Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950]), but the link if any is masked behind “une propice brume d’analyse fonctionnelle”) $\spadesuit$ similar work by Hasumi 1966 [@Hasumi_1966] $\spadesuit$ Voichick’s work also contains a “bordered” extension of the Beurling-Rudin description of closed ideals in the disc algebra, for which result Stanton 1971 [@Stanton_1971] proposes another route hinging on the use of the Ahlfors map\]
M. Voichick, L. Zalcman, [*Inner and outer functions on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (1965), 1200–1204. \[$\spadesuit$ factorization theory in the Hardy classes $H^p$ for finite bordered Riemann surfaces extending the classical theory (Hardy and the Riesz brothers) on the disc (antecedent by Parreau, Rudin 1955 [@Rudin_1955-class-Hp], and Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962]), inner function, Blaschke product, Green’s function, etc. $\spadesuit$ naively speaking one could hope that the Ahlfors function alone is a sufficient tool to lift the truth from the disc to the bordered surface, yet the implementation usually diverge slightly (here by using the universal covering to effect the reduction to the classical disc case)\]
M. Voichick, [*Extreme points of bounded analytic functions of infinitely connected regions*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 11 (1966), 83–86. 50, 78 \[$\spadesuit$ p.1369, cite Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] for the existence of a negative harmonic function whose harmonic conjugate has prescribed periods $\spadesuit$ this page contains an acrobatical implementation of the usual yoga attempting to annihilate periods to ensure single-valuedness (hence quite close to Ahlfors’ existence-proof of a circle map) $\spadesuit$ p.1367: “It should be noted that Gamelin in \[2\](=to appear=and seems to have appeared under extended coauthoring, namely Gamelin-Voichick 1968 [@Gamelin-Voichick_1968]) characterized the extreme points of the unit ball of $H^{\infty}(R)$ when $R$ is a finite bordered Riemann surface.”\]
M. Voichick, [*Invariant subspaces on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Canad. J. Math. 18 (1966), 399–403. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
V. Volterra, [*Sul Principo di Dirichlet*]{}, Palermo Rend. 11 (1897), 83–86. 60 \[$\spadesuit$\]
B.L. van der Waerden, [*Topologie und Uniformisierung der Riemannschen Flächen*]{}, Ber. Verh. Sächs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig Math.-Phys. Kl. 93 (1941), 147–160. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ cf. also Carathéodory 1950 [@Caratheodory_1950] and ref. therein, esp. to Reichardt.\] $\bigstar$
B.L. van der Waerden, [*Einführung in die algebraische Geometrie*]{}, Die Grundlehren der math. Wiss. in Einzeldarstellungen, Bd.51, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973. (Zweite Auflage of the 1939 original). \[$\spadesuit$ p.223, Riemann-Roch in der Brill-Noetherschen Fassung, etc.\]
W. von Dyck, [*Beiträge zur Analysis situs. I Aufsatz, Ein- und zwidimensionale Mannigfaltigkeiten*]{}, Math. Ann. (1888), 457–512. \[$\spadesuit$ contains an account of what was known at that time (nearly definitive results) on the topology of surfaces, as well a historical account of the theory of foliation. The sole possible forerunner of that period is Poincaré 1885, which in our opinion (albeit not perfectly organized) is sometimes more digest than Dyck’s account, especially when it comes to the “Poincaré” index formula, which can perhaps only be regarded as anticipated by masters like Cauchy, Gauss, Riemann, Kronecker\]
?. von Staudt, [*Geometrie der Lage*]{}, ??. \[$\spadesuit$ often cited by early worker in the topology of real curves, for the notion of ovals and pseudo-line, i.e. isotopy classification of a circle in the real projective plane $\spadesuit$ so cited e.g. in Harnack 1876 [@Harnack_1876], Hilbert 1891 [@Hilbert_1891_U-die-rellen-Zuege]\]
J. Wahl, [*Deformations of plane curves with nodes and cusps*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 96 (1974), 529–577. \[$\spadesuit$ cited e.g. in Shustin 1990/91 [@Shustin_1990/91-Geom-of-discr-alg-curve]\]
R.J. Walker, [*Algebraic Curves*]{}. Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1962; unabridged and corrected reprint of the work first published as Princeton Mathematical Series [*13*]{}. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1950.\[$\spadesuit$ often cited e.g. by Gudkov\]
J.L. Walsh, [*The approximation of harmonic functions by harmonic polynomials and by harmonic rational functions*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 35 (1929), 499–544. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted via Axler’s review (BAMS) of Fisher’s book, for the harmonic conjugate as generally multiple-valued with periods\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
J.L. Walsh, [*Interpolation and functions analytic interior to the unit circle*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 34 (1932), 523–556. \[$\spadesuit$ Pick-Nevanlinna like still in the disc but see Heins 1975 [@Heins_1975] for an extension subsuming (in principle) the theory of the Ahlfors map\]$\bigstar$
J.L. Walsh, [*Approximation by polynomials in the complex domain*]{}, Mémorial des Sci. Math. 73 (1935), 1–72. \[$\spadesuit$ formulates a general formalism of best approximation which encloses as special cases the least area interpretation of the Riemann mapping of Bieberbach 1914 [@Bieberbach_1914], as well as generalizations of Julia, and many other workers including Kubota, Wirtinger, Kakey, F. Riesz (cf. esp. p.61) $\spadesuit$ further on p.64 it is emphasized that (at time) virtually nothing was known for multiply-connected regions (this had to wait over Grunsky, Ahlfors, etc.)\]
J.L. Walsh, [*On the shape of level curves of Green’s function*]{}, Amer. Math. Monthly 44 (1937), 202–213. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
J.L. Walsh, [*The critical points of linear combinations of harmonic functions*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. ?? (1948), 196–205. 47 \[$\spadesuit$ p.196: “In various extremal problems of function theory the critical points of linear combinations of Green’s functions and harmonic measures are of significance (See for instance M. Schiffer 1946; L.V. Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947].) $\spadesuit$ p.205: “In connection with the methods we are using, a remark due to Bôcher (1904) is appropriate: “The proofs of the theorems which we have here deduced from mechanical intuition can readily be thrown, without essentially modifying their character, into purely algebraic form. The mechanical problem must nevertheless be regarded as valuable, for it suggests not only the theorems but also the method of proof.” ”\]
J.L. Walsh, [*The location of critical points*]{}, Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Publ. 34, 1950. \[$\spadesuit$ Chap.VII is quoted in Jones-Marshall 1985 [@Jones-Marshall_1985] “for more information on the location of the critical points” \[of the Green’s function\]\]
J.L. Walsh, [*Note on least-square approximation to an analytic function by polynomials, as measured by a surface integral*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 10 (1959), 273–279.
J.L. Walsh, [*History of the Riemann mapping theorem*]{}, Amer. Math. Monthly 80 (1973), 270–276. \[$\spadesuit$ a brilliant essay, which on p.273 mentions briefly the counterexamples to the “naive” Dirichlet principle cooked by Prym 1871 and Hadamard 1906 (the precise links are not given but are Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871] and Hadamard 1906 [@Hadamard_1906])\]
S. Warschawsky, [*Über einige Konvergenzsätze aus der Theorie der konformen Abbildung*]{}, Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen (1930), 344–369. 60 $\bigstar$
H. Weber, [*Note zu\[m\] Riemann’s Beweis des Dirichlet’schen Prinzips*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 71 (1870), 29–39. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ an attempt is made to complete the reasoning of Riemann to establish the Dirichlet principle $\spadesuit$ this work is quoted in Ahlfors-Sario’s masterpiece [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960], but Weber’s work seems to be subjected to serious objections (according to Zaremba 1910 [@Zaremba_1910]) including the basic one of Weierstrass about the existence of a minimum value for the Dirichlet integral $\spadesuit$ further \[as our attempt to make Zaremba’s objections more explicit\] on p.30 (line 4) Weber makes the tacit assumption that he can find a function $u$ matching the boundary values and of [*finite*]{} Dirichlet integral: this is however violently attacked by the Hadamard 1906 [@Hadamard_1906] counterexample of a boundary data all of whose matching functions explode to infinite Dirichlet integral $\spadesuit$ a weaker result of this type was already obtained by Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871] who gave a continuous function on the unit-circumference whose harmonic extension to the disc (existence via e.g. Poisson) has infinite Dirichlet integral $\spadesuit$ can we characterize such exploding functions? Maybe in terms of wild oscillations (can a such be differentiable (probably recall the wild functions à la Köpcke–Denjoy, etc.), $C^1$ (=continuously derivable), etc.) $\diamondsuit$ H. Weber albeit not a direct student of Riemann, was regarded as one of the efficient successor (e.g. by Thieme, compare Elstrodt-Ulrich [@Elstrodt-Ullrich_1999]). Weber played a pivotal rôle (joint with Dedekind) in editing Riemann’s Werke (including the Nachlass [@Riemann_1857_Nachlass]), and replaced Clebsch who desisted from this task due to health problems\]
H. Weber, [*Lehrbuch der Algebra*]{}, Bd.I und II. Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn Verlag, Braunschweig, 1898/99. \[$\spadesuit$ Galois theory made in Germany, etc.\]
H. Weber, [*Lehrbuch der Algebra*]{}, Bd.III. Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn Verlag, Braunschweig, 1908. \[$\spadesuit$ Vorwort (p.VII): “Dagegen habe ich, einem mehrfach an mich herangetretenen Wunsche entschprechend, einen Abri[ß]{} der Theorie der algebraischen Funktionen auf arithmetischer Grundlage beigefügt, der sich im wesentlichen an die Abhandlung von Dedekind und mir im 92.Bande von Crelles Journal anschlie[ß]{}t, aber durch Anwendung der Theroie dr Funktionale, auf die ich im zweiten Bande der Theorie der algebraischen Zahlen gegründet habe, wie mir scheint, eine Vereinfachung erreicht.”\]
G. Weichold, [*Ueber symmetrischen Riemann’sche Flächen und die Periodicitätsmoduln der zugehörigen Abel’schen Normalintegrale erster Gattung*]{}, Z. Math. Phys. 28 (1883), 321–351. \[$\spadesuit$ exposes the theory of Klein’s symmetric surfaces in full detail (basing the topological study upon the Möbius-Jordan classification [@Jordan_1866]), and do some more subtle things with period matrices $\spadesuit$ this latter object is re-treated in Klein 1892 [@Klein_1892_Realitaet], and will influence the work of Comessatti 1924/26 [@Comessatti_1924/26] $\diamondsuit$ Guido Weichold was a student of Klein, who seems to have been strongly attracted to the topic of symmetric Riemann surfaces through Klein’s lectures. Apparently, Weichold did not pursued his research on this topic\]
K. Weierstrass, [*Über das sogenannte Dirichletsche Princip*]{}. In: Werke vol. 2, Mayer & Müller, 49–54, 1895. gelesen in der Königl. Akademie der Wissenschaften am 14. Juli 1870. \[$\spadesuit$ a little objection to the Dirichlet principle, yet with desastrous repercussions $\spadesuit$ resurrection by Hilbert 1900, etc. [@Hilbert_1900] $\diamondsuit$ Karl Weierstrass needs not to be introduced. Formally a student of Gudermann, he came across the problem of Jacobi inversion, but unfortunately never published his solution (probably being slightly devanced by Riemann 1857 in this respect). Of course as the whole Riemann approach was for a long time subjected to critics, it would have been of prior interest to know what can be achieved through the pure Weierstrass conceptions collapsing to a sort of arithmetics of power series\]
K. Weierstrass, [*Vorlesungen 1875/76*]{}. In: Werke, Bd.IV. \[$\spadesuit$ algebraic and Abelian functions\]
A. Weil, [*The field of definition of a variety*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 78 (1956), 509–524. \[$\spadesuit$\]
A. Weil, [*Modules des surfaces de Riemann*]{}, Sém. Bourbaki, Mai (1958). \[$\spadesuit$ Teichmüller et cie.\]
G.G. Weill, [*Reproducing kernels and orthogonal kernels for analytic differentials on Riemann surfaces*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 12 (1962), 729–767. \[$\spadesuit$ refers to Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960] for the Bergman kernel on Riemann surfaces, other source includes Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954] $\diamondsuit$ Weill is a student of Sario (Ph.D.) ca. 1962\]
H.F. Weinberger, [*An isoperimetric inequality for the $N$-dimensional free membrane problem*]{}, J. Rat. Mech. Anal. 5 (1956), 633–636. \[$\spadesuit$ inspired by Szegö, but starts to give a more topological argument but the existence of balanced test functions; culminate to Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011], where the junction with the Ahlfors map is made explicit\]
R. Weinstock, [*Inequalities for a classical eigenvalue problem*]{}, J. Rat. Mech. Anal. 3 (1954), 745–753. \[$\spadesuit$ inspired by Szegö, but Steklov eigenvalues; culminate in Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011], where the junction with the Ahlfors map is made explicit\]
G. Weiss, [*Complex methods in harmonic analysis*]{}, Amer. Math. Monthly 77 (1970), 465–474. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
J. Wermer, [*Function rings and Riemann surfaces*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 67 (1958), 45–71. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
J. Wermer, [*Rings of analytic functions*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 68 (1958), 550–561. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
J. Wermer, [*Analytic disks in maximal ideal spaces*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 86 (1964), 161–170. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
H. Weyl. [*Das asymptotische Verteilungsgesetz der Eigenwerte linearer partieller Differentialgleichungen*]{}, Math. Ann. 71 (1912), 441–479. \[$\spadesuit$ the so-called Weyl’s (asymptotic) law asserting that one can hear the area of a drum $\spadesuit$ naive conjecture \[ca. Mai 2011\] can this Weyl’s law be employed as tool to prove the Gromov filling area conjecture (eventually in conjunction with an Ahlfors map to make the usual conformal transplantation of vibratory modes, cf. e.g. Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011] for the first implementation of Ahlfors’ circle maps in spectral theory)\]
H. Weyl. [*Die Idee der Riemannschen Fläche*]{}, B.G. Teubner, Leipzig und Berlin 1913.
H. Weyl. [*Ueber das Pick-Nevanlinnasche Interpolationsproblem und sein infinitesimales Analogon*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 36 (1935), 230–254. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Weyl. [*The method of orthogonal projection in potential theory*]{}, Duke Math. J. 7 (1940), 411–440. 60 $\bigstar$
H. Whitney, [*Complex analytic varieties*]{}, Addison Wesley Publ. Company, Reading, Mass. 1972. \[$\spadesuit$\]
H. Widom. [*Extremal polynomials associated with a system of curves in the complex plane*]{}, Adv. Math. 3 (1969), 127–232. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
H. Widom, [*$H_p$ sections of vector bundles over Riemann surfaces*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 94 (1971), 304–324. 60 \[$\spadesuit$ the geometric quintessence of the paper seems to be Lemma 6 (p.320), created with apparently some helping hand from Royden, and amounting to prescribe (modulo $2\pi$) the periods of the conjugate differential of a superposition of (modified) Green’s functions $\spadesuit$ albeit Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is not directly cited, a certain technological “air de famille” transpires throughout the execution $\spadesuit$ alas, Widom’s argument (pp.320–1) seems to give only a poor control upon the number of poles $\zeta_k$ required, and is therefore unlikely to reprove Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] by specializing to the trivial line bundle case $\spadesuit$ but of course, Widom do something quite grandiose and so the real depth of the work cannot be appreciated by focused comparison with Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] $\spadesuit$ in particular Widom (re)discover a certain class of open Riemann surfaces (alias of Parreau-Widom) type which are characterized by a moderate growth of the Betti number during the cytoplasmic expansion generated by levels of the Green’s function, which turns out to be a very distinguished class of Riemann surfaces where paradigms like the corona, etc. extends reasonably\]
R.J. Wille, [*Sur la transformation intérieure d’une surface non orientable dans le plan projectif*]{}, Indagationes Math. 56 (1953), 63–65. \[$\spadesuit$ probably a nonorientable avatar of Stoïlow’s work, and maybe related to Witt 1934 [@Witt_1934]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
G. Wilson, [*Hilbert’s sixteenth problem*]{}, Topology 17 (1978), 53–73. \[$\spadesuit$ discusses Klein’s orthosymmetry (as dividing curves) and ask whether the dividing character of a real plane curve may be recognized by sole inspection of its real locus, p.67: “I do not know if one can tell whether or not $X$ divides by examining only the real part $X_{\Bbb R}\subset {\Bbb R}P^2$.” $\spadesuit$ Our partisan answer (compare Gabard 2004 [@Gabard_2004 p.7]) is a decided [*yes*]{}, posited by Ahlfors theorem $\spadesuit$ however this is pure existence theory and some algorithmic recipes still deserve to be implemented at the occasion. For related efforts cf. e.g. Kalla-Klein 2012 [@Kalla-Klein_2012]\]
A. Wiman, [*Über die reellen Züge der ebenen algebraischen Kurven*]{}, Math. Ann. 90 (1923), 222–228. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J. Winkelmann, [*Non-degenerate maps and sets*]{}, Math. Z. (2005), 783–795. 50 \[$\spadesuit$ \[27.09.12\] Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950] is cited, yet not within the main-body of the text, but its companion Bell 1992 [@Bell_1992-Book] is cited for the same purpose. In fact Winkelmann’s article only uses the planar case of the Ahlfors function, hence citing Ahlfors 1947 [@Ahlfors_1947] may have been more appropriate (yet recall that the latter article contains a little gap fixed in Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950 p.123, footnote]) $\spadesuit$ the author gives the following lovely application of the Ahlfors map of a plane bounded domain $\spadesuit$ call a holomorphic map [*dominant*]{} if it has dense image, and a complex manifold universally dominant (UDO) if it admits a dominant map to any irreducible complex space. The author shows first that the unit disc $\Delta$ is UDO (Cor.3, p.786), and via the Ahlfors function this implies more generally that any complex manifold admitting a nonconstant bounded analytic function (BAF) is UDO. Here are the details. $\spadesuit$ first if the complex manifold is UDO, then it dominates the unit disc $\Delta$, and so it carries a nonconstant BAF. Conversely, let $f\colon X \to {\Bbb
C}$ be a nonconstant BAF then $f(X)$ is a bounded domain. (It is crucial here to assume $X$ connected, for $X$ the disjoint union of say two Riemann spheres carries a nonconstant BAF, yet fails to be UDO.) Now observe the following fact. [**Lemma.**]{} [*The Ahlfors map $f_a$ at $a$ of the bounded domain $G\ni a$ is dominant.*]{}—[*Proof.*]{} If not, then the map $f_a\colon G\to
\Delta$ misses a little disc $D\subset \Delta$ not overlapping the origin (recall that $f_a(a)=0$). Since the identity map restricted to the ring $\Delta-\overline{D}$ is bounded-by-one (hence admissible in the extremal problem), it follows that the Ahlfors map for the ring centered at $0$, say $g_0$, has a derivative with modulus strictly larger than unity, i.e. $\vert g'_0(0)\vert > \vert
(id)' (0) \vert=1$. But then the composed map $(g_0 \circ
f_a)$ effects the stretching $\vert (g_0 \circ f_a )'(a)
\vert=\vert (g_0'(f_a(a)) \cdot f_a'(a) \vert=\vert g_0'(0)
\cdot f_a'(a) \vert> \vert f_a'(a) \vert$, violating the extremal property of $f_a$. q.e.d.—$\spadesuit$ At this stage it may be observed that the Ahlfors map of a bounded domain needs not be surjective. Consider indeed the unit disc $\Delta$ punctured at say $1/2$, then the Ahlfors function of $\Delta-\{1/2\}$ centered at $0$, denoted $f_0$, is the identity (up to a rotation). Indeed, since a (pointlike) puncture is a removable singularity for BAF any function admitted in the extremal problem extends analytically across the whole unpunctured disc. More generally, the Ahlfors map is insensitive to the puncturing of a removable singularity (alias Painlevé null sets), e.g. Cantor’s $1/4$-set described in Garnett 1970 [@Garnett_1970] $\spadesuit$ back to Winkelmann’s argument, the above lemma applied to $G:=f(X)$ gives a dominant map $f_a$ to the disc, hence a dominant map $X\to f(X)\to \Delta$. Summarizing: [*any complex manifold $X$ supporting a nonconstant BAF dominates the disc.*]{} $\spadesuit$ Perhaps one could try to improve this by using the surjectivity of the Ahlfors map for a domain of finite connectivity (without pointlike boundaries), assuming e.g. that $X$ has a finitely generated fundamental group $\pi_1$. Alas, this does not seem to imply automatically that $\pi_1(f(X))$ is of finite generation and we need of course to control the shape of the image $f(X)$, which has to be a finite region bounded by Jordan curves $\spadesuit$ finally since the disc $\Delta$ dominates any irreducible complex space $Y$ (of course the definition of the latter must be calibrated so as to avoid non-metric complex manifolds of Calabi-Rosenlicht of the Prüfer type, at least those specimens which are not separable), the composition $X\to f(X) \to \Delta \to Y$ yields the desired dominant map showing that $X$ is UDO. This completes Winkelmann’s proof.\]
W. Wirtinger, [*Untersuchungen über Thetafunktionen*]{}, Teubner, 1895.
W. Wirtinger, [*Algebraische Funktionen und ihre Integrale*]{}, Enzykl. d. math. Wiss. $2_2$ (1902), 115–175. 60
W. Wirtinger, [*Über die konforme Abbildung der Riemannschen Flächen durch Abelsche Integrale besonders bei $p=1,2$*]{}, Denkschr. Wien (1909), 22pp. 60
W. Wirtinger, [*Über eine Minimalaufgabe im Gebiete der analytischen Funktionen*]{}, Monatsh. Math. u. Phys. 39 (1932), 377–384. \[$\clubsuit$ quoted p.269 of Schiffer 1950 [@Schiffer_1950-Appendix-Courant] for a the first notice of a certain reproducing kernel property, also quoted in Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950] $\spadesuit$ poses (and solves via the Green’s function) the problem of the best analytic approximation $f$ in $L^2$-norm $\int\int_B \vert f-
\Phi \vert^2 d \omega$ of a given continuous function $\Phi$\]
W. Wirtinger, [*Zur Theorie der konformen Abbildung mehrfach zusammenhängender ebener Flächen*]{}, Abh. Preu[ß]{}. Akad. Wiss. math.-nat. Kl. 4 (1942), 1–9. 60, 78 \[$\clubsuit$ reproves the theorem of Riemann-Schottky-Bieberbach-Grunsky(=RSBG), i.e. the schlicht(artig) case of the Ahlfors map, via algebraic functions (i.e. Riemann-(Roch) essentially)\]
E. Witt, [*Zerlegung reeller algebraischer Funktionen in Quadrate*]{}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 171 (1934), 4–11. \[$\clubsuit$ contains a sort of non-orientable version of the Riemann/Ahlfors map. Subsequent developments in Geyer 1964/67 [@Geyer_1964-67] and Martens 1978 [@Martens_1978]\]
E. Witten, [*Two dimensional gravity and intersection theory on the moduli space*]{}, Survey in Differential Geometry, Leigh Univ., 1991, 243–310. \[$\spadesuit$\]
J.J. Wolfart, [*The ’obvious’ part of Belyi’s theorem and Riemann surfaces with many automorphisms* ]{}, In: [*Geometric Galois Actions, 1*]{}, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series 242, 1997. \[$\clubsuit$\]
S. Wolpert, [*The length spectra as moduli for compact Riemann surfaces*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) (1979). \[$\clubsuit$\]
D.V. Yakubovich, [*Real separated algebraic curves, quadrature domains, Ahlfors type functions and operator theory*]{}, J. Funct. Anal. 236 (2006), 25–58. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ contains also (after Alling-Greenleaf [@Alling-Greenleaf_1969]) a clear-cut formulation of the Klein-Ahlfors correspondence: i.e. a curve is dividing/separating iff it maps to the line in a totally real fashion (i.e. real fibres are entirely real)\]
A. Yamada, [*On the linear transformations of Ahlfors functions*]{}, Kōdai Math. J. 1 (1978), 159–169. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ evaluate the degree of the Ahlfors function at the Weierstrass points of a non-planar hyperelliptic membrane as taking the maximum value permissible, i.e. $r+2p=g+1$\]
A. Yamada, [*A remark on the image of the Ahlfors function*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 88 (1983), 639–642. \[$\spadesuit$ domains of infinite connectivity $\spadesuit$ p.639 (abstract extract): “By an example we show that the complement in the unit disc of the image of the Ahlfors function for $ \Omega $ and $ p$ can be a fairly general set of logarithmic capacity zero.”\]
A. Yamada, [*Ahlfors functions on Denjoy domains*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 115 (1992), 757–763. \[$\spadesuit$ domains of infinite connectivity $\spadesuit$ p.757: “The main result of our paper gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset of the unit disc to be the omitted set of the Ahlfors function $F$ for some maximal Denjoy domain and $\infty$ such that $F$ is a covering onto its image. As a corollary we give examples of omitted sets of Ahlfors functions that have positive logarithmic capacity.” $\spadesuit$ \[05.10.12\] if I don’t mistake Yamada’s example thus answers a question by Minda 1981 [@Minda_1981-image-Ahlfors-fct p.755] about knowing if the Ahlfors function can “omit an uncountable set”. (Recall indeed that sets of zero logarithmic capacity are stable under countable unions, cf. p.762, where Yamada refers to Tsuji 1959 [@Tsuji_1959-BOOK/Chelsea1975 p.57].)\]
A. Yamada, [*Ahlfors functions on compact bordered Riemann surfaces*]{}, J. Math. Soc. Japan 53 (2001), 261–283. 50 \[$\clubsuit$ establish a conjecture of Gouma 1998 [@Gouma_1998] to the effect that the Ahlfors degree of a hyperelliptic membrane centered outside the Weierstrass points always degenerates to the minimum value $2$\]
P.C. Yang, S.-T. Yau, [*Eigenvalues of the Laplacian of compact Riemann surfaces and minimal submanifolds*]{}, Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. di Pisa (4) 7 (1980), 55–63. \[$\spadesuit$ applies conformal branched covering of [*closed*]{} Riemann surfaces to the sphere and the trick of conformal transplantation to generate test functions yielding an estimate of the first three Laplace eigenvalues of a closed Riemann surface considered as a vibrating membrane. Inspiration Szëgo, Hersch 1970 [@Hersch_1970], but goes somewhat deeper as there is no fear of multi-sheetedness $\spadesuit$ for an adaptation of Yang-Yau’s method to bordered surfaces via the Ahlfors map see Fraser-Schoen 2011 [@Fraser-Schoen_2011], or some derived products like Gabard 2011 [@Gabard_2011] or Girouard-Polterovich 2012 [@Girouard-Polterovich_2012]\]
O. Yavuz, [*Invariant subspaces for Banach space operators with a multiply connected spectrum*]{}, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 58 (2007), 433–446. \[$\spadesuit$ p.439–440, the Ahlfors function (via Fisher’s book 1983 [@Fisher_1983]) is employed to extend a result on the existence of invariant subspaces for operators with a multiply-connected spectrum (previously known when the spectrum contained the unit-circle)\]
O. Yavuz, [*A reflexivity result concerning Banach space operators with a multiply connected spectrum*]{}, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 68 (2010), 473–485. \[$\spadesuit$ p.475–6, Ahlfors function via Fisher’s book 1983 [@Fisher_1983]\]
N.X. Yu, [*On Riesz transforms of bounded function of compact support*]{}, Michigan Math. J. 24 (1977), 169–175. \[$\spadesuit$ p.170, Ahlfors function via Carleson’s book 1967 [@Carleson_1967-book ChapterVIII]\]
L. Zalcman, [*Analytic capacity and rational approximation*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 50, Springer-Verlag, Berlin–New York, 1968. 50 \[$\spadesuit$\]
L. Zalcman, [*Analytic functions and Jordan arcs*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (1968), 508. \[$\spadesuit$\]
L. Zalcman, [*Bounded analytic functions on domains of infinite connectivity*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 144 (1969), 241–270. \[$\spadesuit$\]
K. Zarankiewicz, [*Sur la représentation conforme d’un domaine doublement connexe sur un anneau circulaire*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 198 (1934), 1347–1349. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: method for the effective construction of the conformal mapping of a doubly connected domain upon a circular ring, via orthogonal systems (Bergman kernel) $\spadesuit$ consider (with Bergman \[no precise cross-ref.\]) the problem of maximizing the modulus of $f(t)$ among functions with $L^2$-norm bounded by $1$: $\int\int_B
{\vert f(z)\vert}^2\le 1$\]
K. Zarankiewicz, [*Über ein numerisches Verfahren zur konformen Abbildung zweifach zusammenhängender Gebiete*]{}, Zeitschr. f. angew. Math. u. Mech. 14 (1934), 97–104. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: a detailed account is given of the method indicated in Zarankiewicz 1934 [@Zarankiewicz_1934], i.e. Bergman kernel style numerical device to compute the conformal map of a doubly connected domain $\spadesuit$ oft quoted e.g. in Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949], Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
S. Zaremba, [*Sur le calcul numérique des fonctions demandées dans le problème de Dirichlet et le problème hydrodynamique*]{}, Bull. Inst. Acad. Sci. Cracovie (1908), 125–195. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted (e.g.) in Lions 2000/02 [@Lions_2000/02] as one of the very early apparition of the notion of reproducing kernel\]
S. Zaremba, [*Sur le principe de Dirichlet*]{}, Acta Math. ? (1910), 293–316. \[$\spadesuit$ Hadamard’s 1906 [@Hadamard_1906] counterexample to the Dirichlet principle is cited (but not the earlier one of Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871]) and further (p.294) asserts that Weber’s 1869/70 [@Weber_1870] attempt to consolidate Riemann’s proof is subjected to serious objections $\spadesuit$ unfortunately, Zaremba does not make explicit any objection, but it is implicit that he has in mind the Weierstrass critique (of a functional not achieving a minimum) and further Weber’s tacit assumption that the Dirichlet integral is finite is violently attacked by the Hadamard 1906 [@Hadamard_1906] counterexample of a boundary data all of whose matching functions have infinite Dirichlet integral (of course, Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871] is a sufficient torpedo to destroy completely Weber’s argumentation) $\spadesuit$ notice that Arzelà 1897 [@Arzela_1897] has to be counted as a forerunner of Hilbert’s triumph of all the difficulty of the question (in certain particular cases), and mentions the remarkable extensions due to B. Levi 1906 [@Beppo-Levi_1906], Fubini 1907 [@Fubini_1907] and Lebesgue 1907 [@Lebesgue_1907], while proposing to recover those results through a simpler method without loosing anything essential to their generality\]
R. Zarrow, [*Anticonformal automorphisms of compact Riemann surfaces*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 54 (1976), 162–164. \[$\spadesuit$ cf. little corrections in Costa 1996 [@Costa_1996-PAMS]\]
H.G. Zeuthen, [*Sur les formes différentes des courbes du quatrième ordre*]{}, Math. Ann. 7 (1874), 410–432. (+Tafel I, II, Fig.1,2,3,4,5) \[$\spadesuit$ a work who inspired much of Klein investigation $\spadesuit$ cite von Staudt (Geometrie der Lage) $\spadesuit$ uses the term “ovale” $\spadesuit$ p.411: “Une courbe du quatrième ordre ([*quartique*]{}) a, au plus, quatre branches externes l’une à l’autre, ou deux branches dont l’une se trouve dans la partie du plan interne à l’autre, et dans ce dernier cas la branche interne ne peut avoir des tangentes doubles ou d’inflexion.—Car s’il en était autrement on pourrait construire des coniques rencontrant la courbe en plus de 8 points, ou des droites la rencontrant en plus de 4 points.” (This is the sort of Bézout-type argument out of which will emerge the Harnack inequality 1876 [@Harnack_1876]), yet the full intrinsic grasp (especially the interpretation via Riemann surfaces) will be effected through Klein’s work 1876 [@Klein_1876] $\spadesuit$ p.412: “Nous appelons ici réelle toute courbe dont l’équation ne contient que des coefficients réels.” $\spadesuit$ p.428, cite Geiser and the yoga between cubic surface and quartic curves, which is instrumental in Klein 1876 to make the rigid-isotopy classification of quartic curves.\]
H.G. Zeuthen, [*Études des propriétés de situation des surfaces cubiques*]{}, Math. Ann. 8 (1874/75), 1–30. \[$\spadesuit$ also quoted by Klein 1876, as to complete the rigid-isotopy classification of quartics by reduction to the case of cubics (Schläfli 1863 [@Schlaefli_1863] and Klein 1873 [@Klein_1873-Uber-Flächen-dritter-Ordn])\]
M. Zhang, Y. Li, W. Zeng, X. Gu, [*Canonical conformal mapping for high genus surfaces with boundaries*]{}, Computers Graphics 36 (2012), 417–426. \[$\spadesuit$ completely in line with our present topic, and use high powered machinery like Koebe’s iteration and (Yau-Hamilton’s) Ricci flow for conformal theoretic purposes $\spadesuit$ can we adapt such algorithms to the (Ahlfors) circle map\]
V.A. Zmorovič, [*The generalization of the Schwarz formula for multiply connected domains*]{}, (Ukrainian) Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ukrain. SSR 7 (1962), 853–856. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Khavinson 1984 [@Khavinson-Dimitri_1984]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
V.I. Zvonilov, [*Complex topological characteristics of real algebraic curves on surfaces*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. 16 (1982), 56–57; English transl. in Funct. Anal. Appl. 16 (1982), 202–204. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
V.I. Zvonilov, [*Complex orientations of real algebraic curves with singularities*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 268 (1983), 22–26; English transl., Soviet Math. Dokl. 27 (1983), 14–17. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
V.I. Zvonilov, [*Complex topological characteristics of real algebraic curves on a hyperboloid and an ellipsoid*]{}, Funkt. Anal. Prilozhen. ?? (1986), ?–?; English transl. in Funct. Anal. Appl. ?? (1986), ?–?. \[$\spadesuit$\]$\bigstar$
Zal68 L. Zalcman, [*Analytic capacity and rational approximation*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 50, Springer-Verlag, Berlin–New York, 1968. 50 \[$\spadesuit$\]
Zal68b L. Zalcman, [*Analytic functions and Jordan arcs*]{}, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (1968), 508. \[$\spadesuit$\]
Zal69 L. Zalcman, [*Bounded analytic functions on domains of infinite connectivity*]{}, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 144 (1969), 241–270. \[$\spadesuit$\]
Zar34 K. Zarankiewicz, [*Sur la représentation conforme d’un domaine doublement connexe sur un anneau circulaire*]{}, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 198 (1934), 1347–1349. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: method for the effective construction of the conformal mapping of a doubly connected domain upon a circular ring, via orthogonal systems (Bergman kernel) $\spadesuit$ consider (with Bergman \[no precise cross-ref.\]) the problem of maximizing the modulus of $f(t)$ among functions with $L^2$-norm bounded by $1$: $\int\int_B
{\vert f(z)\vert}^2\le 1$\]
Zar34b K. Zarankiewicz, [*Über ein numerisches Verfahren zur konformen Abbildung zweifach zusammenhängender Gebiete*]{}, Zeitschr. f. angew. Math. u. Mech. 14 (1934), 97–104. \[$\spadesuit$ Seidel’s summary: a detailed account is given of the method indicated in Zarankiewicz 1934 [@Zarankiewicz_1934], i.e. Bergman kernel style numerical device to compute the conformal map of a doubly connected domain $\spadesuit$ oft quoted e.g. in Lehto 1949 [@Lehto_1949], Bergman 1950 [@Bergman_1950]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
Zar08 S. Zaremba, [*Sur le calcul numérique des fonctions demandées dans le problème de Dirichlet et le problème hydrodynamique*]{}, Bull. Inst. Acad. Sci. Cracovie (1908), 125–195. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted (e.g.) in Lions 2000/02 [@Lions_2000/02] as one of the very early apparition of the notion of reproducing kernel\]
Zar10 S. Zaremba, [*Sur le principe de Dirichlet*]{}, Acta Math. ? (1910), 293–316. \[$\spadesuit$ Hadamard’s 1906 [@Hadamard_1906] counterexample to the Dirichlet principle is cited (but not the earlier one of Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871]) and further (p.294) asserts that Weber’s 1869/70 [@Weber_1870] attempt to consolidate Riemann’s proof is subjected to serious objections $\spadesuit$ unfortunately, Zaremba does not make explicit any objection, but it is implicit that he has in mind the Weierstrass critique (of a functional not achieving a minimum) and further Weber’s tacit assumption that the Dirichlet integral is finite is violently attacked by the Hadamard 1906 [@Hadamard_1906] counterexample of a boundary data all of whose matching functions have infinite Dirichlet integral (of course, Prym 1871 [@Prym_1871] is a sufficient torpedo to destroy completely Weber’s argumentation) $\spadesuit$ notice that Arzelà 1897 [@Arzela_1897] has to be counted as a forerunner of Hilbert’s triumph of all the difficulty of the question (in certain particular cases), and mentions the remarkable extensions due to B. Levi 1906 [@Beppo-Levi_1906], Fubini 1907 [@Fubini_1907] and Lebesgue 1907 [@Lebesgue_1907], while proposing to recover those results through a simpler method without loosing anything essential to their generality\]
Zeu74 H.G. Zeuthen, [*Sur les formes différentes des courbes du quatrième ordre*]{}, Math. Ann. 7 (1874), 410–432. (+Tafel I, II, Fig.1,2,3,4,5) \[$\spadesuit$ a work who inspired much of Klein investigation $\spadesuit$ cite von Staudt (Geometrie der Lage) $\spadesuit$ uses the term “ovale” $\spadesuit$ p.411: “Une courbe du quatrième ordre ([*quartique*]{}) a, au plus, quatre branches externes l’une à l’autre, ou deux branches dont l’une se trouve dans la partie du plan interne à l’autre, et dans ce dernier cas la branche interne ne peut avoir des tangentes doubles ou d’inflexion.—Car s’il en était autrement on pourrait construire des coniques rencontrant la courbe en plus de 8 points, ou des droites la rencontrant en plus de 4 points.” (This is the sort of Bézout-type argument out of which will emerge the Harnack inequality 1876 [@Harnack_1876]), yet the full intrinsic grasp (especially the interpretation via Riemann surfaces) will be effected through Klein’s work 1876 [@Klein_1876] $\spadesuit$ p.412: “Nous appelons ici réelle toute courbe dont l’équation ne contient que des coefficients réels.”\]
Zha12 M. Zhang, Y. Li, W. Zeng, X. Gu, [*Canonical conformal mapping for high genus surfaces with boundaries*]{}, Computers Graphics 36 (2012), 417–426. \[$\spadesuit$ completely in line with our present topic, and use high powered machinery like Koebe’s iteration and (Yau-Hamilton’s) Ricci flow for conformal theoretic purposes $\spadesuit$ can we adapt such algorithms to the (Ahlfors) circle map\]
Zmo62 V.A. Zmorovič, [*The generalization of the Schwarz formula for multiply connected domains*]{}, (Ukrainian) Dokl. Akad. Nauk Ukrain. SSR 7 (1962), 853–856. \[$\spadesuit$ quoted in Khavinson 1984 [@Khavinson-Dimitri_1984]\]$\bigstar$$\bigstar$
Alexandre Gabard
Université de Genève
Section de Mathématiques
2-4 rue du Lièvre, CP 64
CH-1211 Genève 4
Switzerland
[email protected]
[^1]: =Fusion in Klein’s prose when viewing all his work (and that of Sophus Lie) as being merely a Galois-Riemann synthesis.
[^2]: Best example thereof, read Borsuk’s article ca. 1936 where a contractible compactum lacking the fixed-point property is presented. If you have just the boring (unreadable) formulas of Borsuk you understand nothing, but if you know the picture that the space in question is a crumpled-cube spiraling twice around itself as pictured by Bing, you start to believe why the fact holds true.
[^3]: Source=H. Cremer, Erinnerungen an Paul Koebe, Jahresber. DMV, 1968, p.160. (Mitteilung von Heinrich Behnke).
[^4]: For more historical details on the theory of quasiconformal mappings compare Ahlfors 1984 [@Ahlfors_1984-The-Joy] or Lehto 1998 [@Lehto_1998]. \[02.10.12\] Alas we were not as yet able to show any deep connection between the theory of Ahlfors circle maps and that of quasiconformal maps, yet it is not unlikely that such a connection is worth studying, more in Section \[sec:question\].
[^5]: Prose borrowed by Louis de Branges.
[^6]: This nomenclature is used by Hajek, compare some arXiv preprints of the author joint with Gauld.
[^7]: There is a letter form Jordan to Lebesgue saying roughly: “Perséverez dans vos recherches mathématiques, vous allez y éprouver beaucoup de plaisirs, mais il va vous falloir apprendre à y gouter seul, car en général les géomètres ne se lisent même pas entre eux-mêmes.” (quoted by pure memory, hence highly unreliable).
[^8]: Apparently via H.A. Schwarz, compare Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925].
[^9]: Notice that Ahlfors never quote Teichmüller 1981 [@Teichmueller_1941], except in Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960], where also all the Italian works of Matildi 1945/48 [@Matildi_1945/48] and Andreotti 1950 [@Andreotti_1950] are cited.
[^10]: Gabard micro-comment: Here the last edition of Riemann’s Werke contains a little misprint $F$ instead of the obvious $T$, not present e.g., in the French translation of Riemann by Laugel, Paris 1898.
[^11]: Joke of Ivan Babenko, yet irritating the western auditors coming down from the “alpage”.
[^12]: This is not explicitly specified in the paper, but is the (common) jargon in Klein surface theory, probably due to Alling-Greenleaf 1971 [@Alling-Greenleaf_1971].
[^13]: Of course this can hardly be taken seriously, in view of the messy nature of the present text!
[^14]: Perhaps it would be more corrected to say “along” here. Compare in this respect Ahlfors, p.108, the text just preceding footnote 3)
[^15]: Here our argument shorten slightly the prose of Ahlfors, hopefully without loosing in precision?!
[^16]: In the combinatorial sense, by opposition to the topological sense.
[^17]: Since Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938] it is customary to call an $M$-curve, any curve realizing Harnack’s bound $r\le g+1$ of 1876.
[^18]: This concept is not really meaningful for $M$-curves.
[^19]: \[28.03.13\] I would personally be much interested, if someone can guess more explicitly what Rohlin had in mind at this place!
[^20]: This shows that Klein anticipated the phenomenon of total reality.
[^21]: Alas the word “oval” is quite ambiguous, as it is either just a real component of the abstract curve, or sometimes used in the much more specific sense of a component of a plane curve which is null-homotopic (equivalently bounds a disc) in ${\Bbb R}P^2$. Whenever we use the term oval in this abstract sense, due to a lack of better synonym (in German there is a good one “Zug/Züge”), we write it “entre guillemet” (=inverted comma in English, according to my Dictionary).
[^22]: This appellation is now a common joke in Geneva, based on a mixture of the writer’s name with themuch more eminent Paul Garabedian, the notorious student of Ahlfors, Schiffer, Bergman, who seems to have played a pivotal rôle in the ultimate shape of Ahlfors theorem, as published in 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950].
[^23]: \[30.03.13\] Strictly speaking I do not know how to proof this, but hope this to be a triviality of basic algebraic geometry.
[^24]: Unpublished, but see Rohn 1911 [@Rohn_1911], 1913 [@Rohn_1913], yet not judged complete by Gudkov 1974.
[^25]: Prose borrowed by Jack Milnor, when he speaks about non-metric manifold, cf. his preprint on foliated bundles.
[^26]: I.e. identity.
[^27]: Thom learned Sard from de Rham, cf. the 1954 Commentarii article.
[^28]: \[29.03.13\] This is just a very special case of a more general satellite principle, cf. Sec.\[satellite-total-reality:sec\].
[^29]: Omit this bracketing for it is just to refer to Gudkov’s notation.
[^30]: I.e. the present text as it was on the date of the 09.01.13, meanwhile pagination may have changed.
[^31]: This is not perfectly true, as I exposed Ahlfors theorem to Oleg Viro during its last visit in Geneva (ca. 2010–11, his talk on fields of char 1, Connes, tropical geometry, etc.), yet probably my explanations where so obscure that Oleg immediately forgot about it.
[^32]: =Vladimir Abramovich Rohlin, of course.
[^33]: Sic, singular or plural? Not so important of course.
[^34]: i.e. Lemma \[Klein-Marin:lem\], warning meanwhile the numbering may changes, but the one in this footnote is automatic (hence the right one)
[^35]: “isotopie” of course.
[^36]: Meanwhile this numbering may have changed into Quote \[Klein\_1876-niemals-isolierte:quote\].
[^37]: Not clear how to interpret this? Does it mean that Shustin’s claim is wrong, or simply that this scheme is an $(M-1)$-scheme. My question was whether this $(M_1)$-scheme is realized algebraically, of course. Yet, I admit that my question was a bit ill posed.
[^38]: \[24.01.13\] On reading Viro’ survey 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1085, 2.5.H], one should easily locate the source for this assertion. References seems to be Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions], and the survey Viro 1986 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress]. As explained there (Viro 1989/90, p.1085) this is a prohibition not coming from topology, but from Bézout. In fact this result is mentioned again in Viro 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1126, 5.3.E], with the exact cross-reference as being Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions]
[^39]: \[30.01.13\] This is another very interesting (inedited?) piece of information, as to my knowledge this never appeared under the (printed) pen of V.A. Rohlin. So here Viro tell us something very interesting not yet available in print (as far as I know).
[^40]: \[30.01.13\] This is probably true yet this requires a more highbrow dissipation theory, than in Gudkov’s second existence proof which apart from the trick with Cremona uses only dissipation of ordinary nodes à la Brusotti 1921 (so-called $A_1$-singularities).
[^41]: \[30.01.13\] This alas turned out to be quite foiled as the invisible part of the discriminant as real codimension 2.
[^42]: \[26.03.13\] Alas as spotted by Th. Fiedler this turned out to be wrong as it was based on the tacit supposition that the Arnold surface is always orientable, compare Fiedler’s letter dated \[21.03.13\].
[^43]: \[29.03.13\] A nearby corroboration of Rohlin’s claim is now available in Le Touzé 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics].
[^44]: \[30.03.13\] This is not exactly Viro’s opinion, cf. his letter in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\].
[^45]: I presume this list is not exhaustive, as Shustin’s scheme above ought to be also realized? If I have well understood the former “It is.”.
[^46]: This is Viro’s notation, and mean 6 ovals enveloped in one, and this thrice. So 21 ovals.
[^47]: \[24.01.13\] The exact reference for this result is Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions]
[^48]: Our (non-standard) terminology: V. Kharlamov explained us (cf. Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]) that this phenomenon was quite crucial a motivation when Morosov suspected some anomaly in Gudkov’s initial solution to Hilbert’s 16th problem along the lines expected by Hilbert. Compare for more Viatcheslav’s e-mail in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\], and his terminology “partner relationship”. \[01.04.13\] It would be interesting to know if the low Gudkov-schemes $\frac{5}{1}4$, and $\frac{5}{1}3$ can be constructed from their mirrors.
[^49]: This conclusion actually holds true unconditionally as follows from Rohlin’s formula $2(\Pi^{+}-\Pi^{-})=r-k^2$.
[^50]: We often commit an abuse of language, as we should say one chamber residual to the discriminant. Such an abuse is harmless like when speaking of the group of a knot, when it is really that of its complement.
[^51]: After several permutation in this text, it is not clear anymore what was the “previous section”, but checking dates and contents this can be almost surely identified as Sec.\[application-of-CCC:sec\].
[^52]: I should acknowledge the assistance of my cousin Élias Boulé-Schneider for several discussions on such topics, like topographical discussions about Hilbert’s 16th.
[^53]: We use “smooth” as an abridgement of nonsingular in the algebro-geometric sense, or if you prefer smoothness of the complexification, but not merely of the real locus. So a curve may look smooth while having imaginary conjugate singularities. Such a curve is not considered as smooth by us.
[^54]: I borrow this jargon from Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000].
[^55]: Indeed, we remember well, cf. e.g. EDM=Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Mathematics 1968/87 [@EDM_1968/87 p.46, Art. 13 G] “\[…\] the form $f$ is anisotropic, i.e. the homogeneous equation $f=0$ has no solution other than zero in $k$”. Or cf. Serre’s “Cours d’arithmétique”, 1970–1977, who seems clever enough to avoid the jargon, yet speaks of isotropic for quadratic forms. I don’t know who coined the term (in arithmetics), maybe Minkowski, Hilbert, Weil? Ask a competent arithmetician.
[^56]: Joke of Misha Gromov (yet another notorious student of V.A. Ro\[k\]hlin).
[^57]: Student of E. Schmidt, himself student of D. Hilbert. So we are not to far apart form the 16th problem.
[^58]: But widely anticipated by Poincaré, Tietze, Brouwer, and many others combinatorial topologists of the early 20th century.
[^59]: Laboureur means nearly laborieux in French, and was Feldbau’s pseudonym to publish Comptes Rendus notes during the German occupation of France (World War II, 1939–45). Alas, it did not helped to save his life from the Nazi persecutions. Another notorious victim of the genocide soon afterwards was F. Hausdorff, 1944. Why so much dramas in the human history is a puzzle to each philosopher. Materialism, capitalism, caused by the ontological existential fears ought to be the cause of such disasters. We can only hope that the Riemann(=woman) surface will quickly lead us to stabler psychological comforts (immortality, and global resurrection as to repair such disasters).
[^60]: Without this proviso it is false, e.g. the tangent bundle to the simply-connected Prüfer surface is not trivial, for otherwise the manifold could be given a Riemann metric tensor, hence be metricized. Compare Radó 1925 (publishing a contribution of Heinz Prüfer 1922), Calabi-Rosenlicht 1953, Spivak 1970 (Vol.I, Appendix of Differential Geometry), or ask Mathieu Baillif why. The latter’s e-mail is: labaffle(at)gmail.com
[^61]: Peintre américain d’origine russe (Dvinsk 1903–New York 1970). Il est célèbre pour la formule d’abstraction chromatique qu’il a établie vers 1950. (Source=Larousse Dictionnary, 1991).
[^62]: Read “chamber” if you prefer.
[^63]: Read “isotopy classes”, if you like.
[^64]: This seems to just mean non-singular curve, cf. footnote in GMA.
[^65]: If you are called Felix Klein!, else it may be tricky especially if our previous theorem is right in which case Klein-Rohlin are false! But of course, it is more likely that Gabard missed something. \[06.04.13\] More seriously, it would be interesting if a detailed account of this direct proof (alluded to by Klein) has been worked out meanwhile. Some details are perhaps gleanable from Degtyarev-Kharlamov 2000 [@Degtyarev-Kharlamov_2000].
[^66]: This is a slight abuse of language to suit Russian jargon (coined by Petrovskii 1938).
[^67]: \[08.04.13\] Compare with Le Touzé’s article 2013 [@Fiedler-Le-Touzé_2013-Totally-real-pencils-Cubics], where it is asserted that this was implicitly conjectured by Rohlin, in 1978. Recall that Le Touzé’s husband Fiedler is a direct student of Rohlin, and so this may also be based upon some oral tradition, in case Rohlin was too cautious to put crazy ideas on the paper.
[^68]: Tartaglia, also known as Niccolo Fontana (1500?–1557) won in 1535 a mathematical contest by solving many different cubics, and gave his solution to Cardano (1501–1576), who published in 1539 “Artis Magnae” alias the “Great Art, or the Rules of Algebra”, where complex numbers are used in Cardano’s formula to express the real roots of cubics.
[^69]: Again this claim is a mistake: an obstruction follows from Thom’s conjecture, meanwhile the theorem of Kronheimer-Mrowka 1994 [@Kronheimer-Mrowka_1994].
[^70]: \[08.03.13\] Fortunately this schemes is not realized.
[^71]: \[06.03.13\] This special treatment can be dispensed as this scheme is prohibited by Thom conjecture, cf. Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\], or more elementarily by Rohlin’s formula.
[^72]: \[02.03.13\] This is a misconception of mine and Le Touzé’s statement is finer and so caricatural (or strong) as I misinterpreted her announcement, more discussion about this soon. However I still do not know whether the strong caricatural statement is wrong or not.
[^73]: The official name of this author is Fiedler-Le Touzé, yet as well-known née Le Touzé and abridged as a such in the sequel.
[^74]: This seems alas to be the bitter state of affairs as follows from a recent consultation (January 2013) of the leading experts (Viro, Marin, Kharlamov, Fiedler, Le Touzé, etc.); compare e-mails gathered in Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]
[^75]: I agree, but the argument is nearly trivial in the sense that it just uses the fact that the image of a connected set is connected (Marin’s oral remark during my talk in Grenoble ca. 1999). Personally, I knew this argument since 1999 (arguing with pathes prior to Marin’s oral simplification of it). We cannot record if we rediscovered it independently of Rohlin 1978 (but do record that we may have found some indirect inspiration from Gross-Harris 1981, who treat the case of hyperelliptic curves $y^2=f(x)$, with $f(x)>0$ throughout). At any rate it is evident that Rohlin’s argument can be drastically simplified. Rohlin uses a lot a certain fibering while it is plain that it suffices to use the map to the equatorial (orthosymmetric) sphere, cf. e.g. Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
[^76]: My opinion was always that a positive answer should be a trivial consequence of Ahlfors theorem (cf. e.g. Gabard’s Thesis 2004 [@Gabard_2004 p.7]). However since Marin warned me in January 2013 (cf. Sec.\[e-mail-Viro:sec\]) it may be the case that the transition from the abstract to the embedded viewpoints is not so easy. Yet I am still confident that it holds true. The point is primarily a matter of projective algebraic geometry, namely the question if any abstract morphism on a concrete plane curve is induced by a pencil of ambient curves. This is either trivially true or trivially wrong, but alas I do not know the answer due to failing memory about the foundations of algebraic geometry. \[12.04.13\] Additionally, it can also be that sometimes imaginary basepoints have to be allowed, and so total reality really the mobile part of the pencil. We hope to be capable presenting this more clearly in the future, but see perhaps already (\[Le-Touzé-scholium-deg-6:lem\]).
[^77]: Whether this is implicit or not is an interpretation-matter, unless of course some direct contact with Rohlin (e.g. via the husband) testifies such a conjecture of Rohlin. Again it could be the case that Ahlfors theorem nearly trivially implies this (novel) conjecture of Rohlin. Even if so in abstracto then the game is probably far from finished as one would like to get synthetic descriptions of the total pencils. It seems quite likely that this game can keep busy several generation of workers. \[12\]
[^78]: \[12.04.13\] (Please skip this footnote, if you believe in capitalism).—We invented this exoplanet metaphor in 2004, as to sell our postdoc-research programme to an FNS-administrator (FNS=SNF=Schweizerische National Fond), specialized in astronomy (at some Geneva observatory). The success was very limited, no funding were ever obtained and much energy and time wasted for nothing. Some few weeks later another Swiss cooperative stole me 15’000 Euros of economies. Life then started to require environmental punch (nutrition in the containers, and other pleasant duties like bicycling the heavy nutriments over steep mountains). Can we develop a more tolerant science enrolling more people on less restrictive financial constraints, especially more modest retribution of the workers? Ahlfors is far from a hero in this respect (elitist attitude than looks much overdone in view of the little originality of his contributions to science, compare what he borrowed from Courant, Hurwitz, Riemann, Grötzsch, Teichmüller, etc.). The real question is of course: can we get rid off of capitalism, granting the fact that a sufficient motor of life is to reach immortality (for free and for all), as it was ever encoded in our genes since the amoebic morphogenesis.
[^79]: \[27.03.13\] Meanwhile the simplest counterexample, I was able to find is the Itenberg-Viro curve constructed on Fig.\[Itenberg:fig\].
[^80]: \[21.03.13\] Find accurate references, by Thom, Cerf, Hirzebruch, Milnor, Wall, etc. I confess that I lack a precise reference.
[^81]: That is the cautious Petrovskii version of Ragsdale’s estimates.
[^82]: It seems to me that the estimates on $p$ follows from Thom’s conjecture, as explained in Lemma \[Thom-implies-one-half-of-Ragsdale:lem\]
[^83]: Tarik Garidi (aus der Nordseeküste) is a well-known scientist in Geneva (student of Piron), specialized in anti-de-Sitter and notorious for having introduced a mass concept which can be negative-valued, like the signed difference $\Delta \Pi:=\Pi^+-\Pi^-$ of Rohlin.
[^84]: \[18.03.13\] I think that (modest) Theorem \[Alsatian-schemes:thm\] below corrupts this belief of Th. Fiedler (who left the subject a long time ago), yet this does not jeopardize at all his invaluable help (and incredible memory!) in view of all the crucial corrections he took care to make on the present text.
[^85]: Our notational trick is to denote with parenthesis the degree of the scheme, since without parenthesis e.g. in an $M$-scheme the magnitude in front is traditionally not the degree but the number of ovals of the scheme.
[^86]: The usual notation is $n^-$ at least to be conform with Rohlin 1978 [@Rohlin_1978 p.86–87], but I keep it so to stay faithful to the message of Fiedler.
[^87]: As far as I am informed the general coinage of this trichotomy is due to Felix Klein (in geometry) and Dubois-Reymond (in PDE’s).
[^88]: From the Greek “poros”=“hole” (aping a bit Grothendieck’s “topos” or “topoi”).
[^89]: It is crucial here to adopt the modern convention regarding the sign of Euler’s $\chi$. This is courtesy of Michel Kervaire, that turned out to be correct when looking at old texts, like perhaps Listing, von Dyck 1988, Poincaré 1885–1895, etc., where the opposite sign convention was used!
[^90]: \[19.03.13\] The answer is no and follows from Petrovskii’s inequalities.
[^91]: As we shall soon recall, since Thom/Kronheimer-Mrowka 1995 we may replace “nicht immer” by “never”!!! (provided $m\ge 6$) and $m$ even. \[17.03.13\] In fact this was known much earlier since Petrovskii 1938, cf. Lemma \[Hilbert’s-nesting-intuition:lem\] below. An elementary proof also follows from Rohlin’s formula as reminded in the same lemma. It would be interesting to say more on the odd degree case (again Petrovskii 1938 [@Petrowsky_1938] should suffice to corroboration “Hilbert thesis” for $m\ge 7$).
[^92]: So-called because V.A. Rohlin was born in Bakou, from parents themselves coming from Odessa, and if I am not wrong in Geography Bakou belongs to Caucasus.
[^93]: This French prose is borrowed by René Thom, in a letter to André Haefliger reproduced in part in a recent issue of L’Enseign. Math., ca. 2011–12.
[^94]: I.e. the present text as it was on the date of the 09.01.13, meanwhile pagination may have changed.
[^95]: This is not perfectly true, as I exposed Ahlfors theorem to Oleg Viro during its last visit in Geneva (ca. 2010–11, his talk on fields of char 1, Connes, tropical geometry, etc.), yet probably my explanations where so obscure that Oleg immediately forgot about it.
[^96]: =Vladimir Abramovich Rohlin, of course.
[^97]: Sic, singular or plural? Not so important of course.
[^98]: i.e. Lemma \[Klein-Marin:lem\], warning meanwhile the numbering may changes, but the one in this footnote is automatic (hence the right one)
[^99]: “isotopie” of course.
[^100]: \[26.03.13\] This “evidently” sounds to me a bit sloppy, as the full credit for this remark goes to Viro.
[^101]: Meanwhile this numbering may have changed into Quote \[Klein\_1876-niemals-isolierte:quote\].
[^102]: Not clear how to interpret this? Does it mean that Shustin’s claim is wrong, or simply that this scheme is an $(M-1)$-scheme. My question was whether this $(M_1)$-scheme is realized algebraically, of course. Yet, I admit that my question was a bit ill posed.
[^103]: \[24.01.13\] On reading Viro’ survey 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1085, 2.5.H], one should easily locate the source for this assertion. References seems to be Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions], and the survey Viro 1986 [@Viro_1986/86-Progress]. As explained there (Viro 1989/90, p.1085) this is a prohibition not coming from topology, but from Bézout. In fact this result is mentioned again in Viro 1989/90 [@Viro_1989/90-Construction p.1126, 5.3.E], with the exact cross-reference as being Viro 1983 [@Viro_1983/84-new-prohibitions]
[^104]: \[30.01.13\] This is another very interesting (inedited?) piece of information, as to my knowledge this never appeared under the (printed) pen of V.A. Rohlin. So here Viro tell us something very interesting not yet available in print (as far as I know).
[^105]: \[30.01.13\] This is probably true yet this requires a more highbrow dissipation theory, than in Gudkov’s second existence proof which apart from the trick with Cremona uses only dissipation of ordinary nodes à la Brusotti 1921 (so-called $A_1$-singularities).
[^106]: \[30.01.13\] This alas turned out to be quite foiled as the invisible part of the discriminant as real codimension 2.
[^107]: \[26.03.13\] It turned that this is wrong, cf. Fiedler’s letter dated \[21.03.13\].
[^108]: \[26.03.13\] This is again a misconception of mine, since the estimate $\chi\le k^2$ of Theorem \[Thom-Ragsdale:thm\] was based on the erroneous supposition that the Arnold surface is always orientable, cf. again Fiedler’s letter dated \[21.03.13\].
[^109]: For the same reason as the previous footnote this comment is not pertinent anymore.
[^110]: Presumably, the authors omit the rotational ambiguity.
[^111]: Of course Ahlfors’ statement is somewhat stronger giving $r \le n\le r+2p$, where $r$ is the number of contours and $p$ the genus.
[^112]: According to Havinson 2003/04 [@Havinson_2003/04-Erokhin1958], this terminology is due to Erokhin 1958: “In accordance with V.D. Erokhin’s proposal (1958), the quantity $\gamma(F)$ has been called the [*analytic capacity*]{} or the [*Ahlfors capacity*]{} since that time.”
[^113]: Who exactly? candidates: Golusin, Havinson, Havin, Vitushkin, etc., but see also Nehari (alias Willi Weisbach) as early as 1950. Indeed, “Ahlfors’ extremal function” occurs already in Nehari’s survey 1950 [@Nehari_1951-survey-BAMS p.357], and “Ahlfors mapping” alone occurs in Nehari 1950 [@Nehari_1950 p.267]. This probably beats any Russian contribution, for one of the first text is Golusin 1952/57 [@Golusin_1952/57], where actually the term “Ahlfors function” is not employed. However Havinson torrential list of publication on the topic starts as early as 1949 [@Havinson_1949].
[^114]: Existence is ensured under the mild condition that the domain supports nonconstant bounded analytic functions.
[^115]: A coinage of Carathéodory, cf. Carathéodory 1912 [@Caratheodory_1912].
[^116]: This seems to be a misprint, and should be “$n$ zeros” (\[27.09.12\]). Further it is tacitly assumed that the domain is bounded by Jordan curve, for pointlike punctures are removable singularities hence do not affect the Ahlfors function. To be concrete making $(n-1)$ punctures in the unit disc the domain reaches connectivity $n$ but its Ahlfors function is still the identity as if there were no punctures.
[^117]: Again “$n$ times covered disk” sounds more correct.
[^118]: This is indeed one of the fascinating difficulty also discussed in A. Mori 1951 [@Mori_1951] and Fedorov 1991 [@Fedorov_1991], who coins the lovely prose of a “rather opaque condition must be satisfied”.
[^119]: Here there is maybe a wrong cross-reference and Myrberg 1933 [@Myrberg_1933] was rather understood?
[^120]: Can one be more explicit? Hahn-Banach like in Read 1958 [@Read_1958_Acta] or Royden 1962 [@Royden_1962] or just something more in the realm of classical analysis.
[^121]: Of course for this purpose it would have been enough to cite Bieberbach 1925 [@Bieberbach_1925].
[^122]: This is true modulo the possibility of the planar case (i.e. Harnack-maximal Schottky double).
[^123]: Addition of Gabard, otherwise seems an abuse of notation.
[^124]: This argument looks all right, yet it seems to the writer than one can easily dispense of the concept of orientability, by just using the separation effected by the existence of the map induced on imaginary loci, i.e. $X({\Bbb C})-X({\Bbb R})\to {\Bbb P}^1({\Bbb C})-{\Bbb
P}^1({\Bbb R})$.
[^125]: This is maybe a misprint and the “$K$” should be an $E$?
[^126]: Of course the notation $P$ instead of $N$ could have been more appealing, yet Forelli had obviously to reserve the letter $P$ for “probability measures”, to enter soon the arena! So imagine the “$N$” standing for non-negative real parts (which is incidentally more correct if we let penetrate the boundary behavior in the game).
[^127]: Of course behind both techniques there is the paradigm of compactness in suitable function spaces, first occurring as a such in the related Hilbert’s investigation on the Dirichlet principle (add maybe Arzelà-Vitali to be fair, cf. e.g. Zaremba 1910 [@Zaremba_1910]). So everything started to be solid after Hilbert 1900, and Montel 1907, etc.
[^128]: This is German for belt (=ceinture) in French.
[^129]: This is indeed quite trivial to see, if we know the Riemann(-Roch) inequality, cf. e.g. Gabard 2006 [@Gabard_2006].
[^130]: Of course any geometric topologist (or reasonable being) could find the writing $\partial \overline
W$ semantically more precise, yet we follow Forelli’s alleged notation.
[^131]: “Les anglaises c’est comme le pudding, elles ne bougent pas quand on fait l’amour.” (Joke from Sherbrooke, learned from Gaston Boulé).
[^132]: Jargon of Ahlfors-Sario 1960 [@Ahlfors-Sario_1960 p.42], implying that the map covers each point the same number of times (counting properly by multiplicity); but of course inspired by Stïlow’s book 1938 [@Stoilow_1938-Lecons].
[^133]: Some specialists from Grenoble (especially Emmanuel Ferrand) told me (ca. 1999/00) that the idea of filling the membrane by the insides of the ovals truly goes back to Arnold, which is probably essentially correct, yet Rohlin’s full credit for effecting the lovely perturbation and counting things properly is surely not at all affected.
[^134]: Gabard’s addition
[^135]: Severi perhaps? Try also Hurwitz??
[^136]: Try also Nevanlinna.
[^137]: \[26.03.13\] This is a misconception of Gabard, that was corrected in Fiedler’s letter dated \[21.03.13\].
[^138]: This prose is bracketed as it seems to be verbatim copied from Rüedy 1971 [@Ruedy_1971].
[^139]: It seems to be rather earlier!??
[^140]: No attempt to correct the English, since Gabard’s English is even more indigest than the everything what has been ever written.
[^141]: Means “mouche” in Polish
[^142]: Perhaps it would be better to say no accumulation point.
[^143]: Read perhaps multiconnected to be more faithful to Riemann’s original text.
[^144]: Easy to sharpen as Klein 1876 [@Klein_1876].
[^145]: This is especially true under the Russian perspective, yet in the West workers were a bit more universalist, e.g. Koebe 1907 [@Koebe_1907_UrAK], J. Douglas 1936 [@Douglas_1936-Some-new-results], Teichmüller 1939 [@Teichmueller_1939], Ahlfors 1950 [@Ahlfors_1950], Schiffer-Spencer 1954 [@Schiffer-Spencer_1954], etc.
[^146]: Read “finite” to be more conventional.
[^147]: Big challenge: find where? Possibly this is not to be found in Klein and Teichmüller (probably lacking a good library during the war time) sloppily extrapolated what he remembered from his Klein reading (namely reality of Riemann surfaces, yet as far as we know never the total reality of orthosymmetric curves).
[^148]: If the surface is open this the non-trivial result of Behnke-Stein 1947/49 [@Behnke-Stein_1947/49].
[^149]: This jargon goes back to Weierstrass (vgl. etwa Schottky 1877 [@Schottky_1877]).
[^150]: Maybe here one can pinpoint about a confusion with the uniformization of Klein-Poincaré-Koebe.
[^151]: This is essentially the theorem of Bieberbach-Grunsky (with antecedent by Riemann and Schottky).
[^152]: Compare maybe also Hilbert and Courant for similar works
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on a study of the electromagnetic response of three different families of high-$T_c$ superconductors that in combination allowed us to cover the whole doping range from under- to overdoped. The discussion is focused on the $ab$-plane charge dynamics in the [*pseudogap state*]{} which is realized in underdoped materials below a characteristic temperature $T^*$; a temperature that can significantly exceed the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$. We explore the evolution of the pseudogap response by changing the doping level, by varying the temperature from the above to below $T^*$, or by introducing impurities in the underdoped compounds. We employ a memory-function analysis of the $ab$-plane optical data that allows us to observe the effect of the pseudogap most clearly. We compare the infrared data with other experimental results, including $c$-axis optical response, dc transport, and angular resolved photoemission.'
address:
- ' $^{(1)}$ Department of Physics and Astronomy, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4M1'
- ' $^{(2)}$ Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York, 11973-5000'
author:
- 'A.V. Puchkov$^{(1)}$, D.N. Basov$^{(2)}$, and T. Timusk$^{(1)}$'
date: ', submitted to J. Phys. Condens. Matter'
title: 'Pseudogap State in High-$T_c$ Superconductors: an Infrared Study'
---
-0.15cm -0.55cm
INTRODUCTION
============
There is mounting evidence that the normal state of underdoped high-$T_c$ superconductors (HTSC) is dominated by a pseudogap. A number of physical probes show that below a characteristic temperature $T^*$, which can be well above the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$, the physical response of HTSC materials can be interpreted in terms of the formation of a partial gap or a pseudogap by which we mean a suppression of the density of low-energy excitations. This gap persists in the superconducting state. $T^*$ decreases with increasing doping in the underdoped regime and since $T_c$ rises with doping, the two curves meet at the optimal doping level, as shown in the schematic phase diagram in Fig. \[phase-dia1\].
The earliest experiments to reveal gap-like behavior in the normal state were nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements of the Knight shift,[@warren89; @yoshinari] which probes the uniform spin susceptibility. In conventional superconductors and the cuprates at optimal doping, the Knight shift is temperature independent in the normal state but drops rapidly below $T_c$ due to pairing of electronic spins into (singlet) superconducting Cooper pairs. In underdoped cuprates, however, the Knight shift begins to drop well above the superconducting transition temperature. Warren [*et al.*]{} concluded that in these materials spin pairing takes place well above the bulk superconducting transition at $T_c$, thus producing a normal-state energy gap, referred to as a “spin gap”.[@warren89]
=0.5
Deviations from the well known linear temperature dependence of the $ab$-plane resistivity,[@gurvitch] $\rho_{ab}(T)$, were observed in underdoped cuprates as well,[@bucher93; @batlogg; @ito93; @walkes93] with the slope of $\rho_{ab}(T)$ changing below a characteristic temperature $T^*$. As the doping is increased towards the optimal level, $T^*$ decreases and the near-optimal doping $\rho_{ab}(T)$ is linear over the range of temperatures from $T_c$ to above 800 K.[@ito93; @batlogg]
The magnitude of $T^*$ as well as its variation with doping suggest that the suppression of the spin susceptibility observed in NMR measurements and the change of slope of $\rho_{ab}(T)$ have a common physical origin. It has been suggested that if the scattering responsible for the linear temperature dependence of ${\rho_{ab}}(T)$ involves scattering on spin fluctuations, then the spin gap seen in NMR below $T^*$ would naturally account for the depression of $\rho_{ab}(T)$ below $T^*$ as well. Similar evidence for the suppression of the spin susceptibility has been extracted from neutron scattering experimental results.[@rossat-mignod91] Specific heat measurements on underdoped YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_x$ (Y123), however, show that there is a large decrease in entropy below a temperature, closely related to the $T^*$, which can not be accounted for by assuming that a gap in the spin degrees of freedom is solely responsible.[@loram94]
There is spectroscopic evidence of anomalies in the properties of HTSC that were originally associated with the formation of the superconducting gap, but were found to occur at $T>T_c$ in underdoped samples. The shift in the position and width of Raman frequencies of certain phonons, associated with the onset of superconductivity,[@friedl90b] were shown to occur in the normal state of underdoped cuprates and it was suggested they were related to the spin gap.[@litvinchuk92] Similarly, broad peaks in the electronic Raman continuum, also interpreted as an evidence for the formation of a superconducting gap,[@cooper88] were found to occur well above $T_c$ in underdoped samples.[@slakey90]
Indications of normal-state, gap-like anomalies in underdoped cuprates were observed in infrared optical measurements as well. To a first approximation the $ab$-plane optical properties of HTSC are those of a metal where the charge carriers move coherently through the lattice. Such coherent motion gives rise to a conductivity peak, centered at zero frequency, called the Drude peak, whose width is a measure of the inverse lifetime of the carriers. In this paper we call systems that have a conductivity peak at zero frequency coherent systems. In contrast, transport in the c-axis direction does not show a peak a zero frequency and we call this incoherent transport. On closer examination the reflectance of most high temperature superconductors was found to deviate from simple Drude behavior which predicts a reflectance decreasing monotonically with frequency. A structure in the form of a “knee” was found at approximately 500 cm$^{-1}$. This structure was sometimes interpreted as a manifestation of a conventional superconducting gap. It has been found, however, that in underdoped materials the knee starts to develop already in the normal state. [@reedyk88a; @thomas88a; @orenstein90; @kamaras90; @vandermarel91a; @schlesinger90; @rotter91; @schlesinger94] A comparison with other probes suggests that the knee structure and deviations observed in the dc transport and NMR experiments all occur at a characteristic temperature remarkably similar to $T^*$. The corresponding changes in the complex optical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)=\sigma_1(\omega) + i \sigma_2(\omega)$ involve a shift of part of the $\sigma_1(\omega)$ spectral weight from 300- 700 cm$^{-1}$ to [*lower*]{} frequencies, resulting in a marked narrowing of the Drude peak. This behavior is in accord with decreasing dc resistivity and was interpreted in terms of coupling of electrons to the longitudinal optical (LO) phonons[@timusk91; @reedyk92e] or as a manifestation of the spin gap.[@orenstein90; @rotter91; @schlesinger94]
It should be emphasized that in the case of a [*coherent*]{} system, such as the underdoped cuprates in $ab$-plane direction, there is no direct mapping between the electronic density of states (DOS) and the shape of the real part of conductivity, $\sigma_1(\omega)$. For example, even if there is a gap in electronic DOS and its magnitude is larger than the characteristic energy associated with the [ *elastic*]{} scattering (clean limit[@kamaras90; @timusk88b]), the gap will not manifest itself in the $\sigma_1(\omega)$ spectra. In the same way, a pseudogap in the electronic DOS of a coherent system, that may appear due to strong interactions in the system, does not appear as an obvious gap in the conductivity.
=0.55
The charge dynamics along the interplane $c$-direction is [ *incoherent*]{}, at least in the underdoped materials. While both underdoped Y123 and YBa$_2$Cu$_4$O$_8$ (Y124) compounds, collectively referred as YBCO, exhibit a gap-like depression in the c-axis conductivity as well,[@homes93; @basov94c; @tajima95] the $c$-axis conductivity shows no coherent peak at low frequencies, Fig. \[homes-caxis\]. Contrary to the $ab$-plane response, as the temperature decreases from 300 K to $T_c$ the $c$-axis $\sigma_1(\omega)$ spectral weight is transferred from the gap region to [*higher*]{} frequencies.[@homes93; @leggett92] This is inferred from the sum rule for the optical conductivity, or spectral weight. The spectral weight lost at low frequency, as the gap develops, does not go to low frequencies since the magnitude of the low-frequency conductivity is in good agreement with the dc resistivity[@homes95] which shows a “semiconducting” behavior (i.e. resistivity increases at low T). Thus by default it must go to high frequencies and in the the case of La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (La214) the spectral weight has been shown to transfer to the 1 eV region.[@basov95c] A number of mechanisms have been proposed that would result in an incoherent conductivity spectrum. [@kumar90; @kumar92; @rojo93; @graf93; @ioffe93; @nyhus95; @clarke95; @alexandrov96] The c-axis conductivity depression in both Y123 and Y124 occurs at a temperature scale that matches the spin susceptibility determined from the NMR measurements. This is shown in the inset of Fig. \[homes-caxis\] where the Knight shift[@takigawa91] is shown along with the experimental c-axis conductivity. The onset energy of the c-axis gap in YBCO is ${\approx}200$ cm$^{-1}$ and the half value point is ${\approx}300$ cm$^{-1}$. Above 500 cm$^{-1}$, the c-axis conductivity is both temperature and frequency independent.[@homes95]
A pseudogap has also been observed in the c-axis conductivity of La214 where for x=0.14 a very large gap has been reported [@basov95c] and for x=0.12 a gap of the same magnitude as in YBCO can clearly be seen.[@uchida96] The Pb$_2$Sr$_2$(Y/Ca)Cu$_2$O$_8$ material also shows a c-axis pseudogap.[@reedyk96]
Recent angular-resolved photoemission (ARPES) results for Bi$_2$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ (Bi2212) show evidence of a normal-state gap-like depression of the electronic density of states of underdoped cuprates as well.[@marshall96; @loeser96; @ding96] The momentum dependence of this gap resembles that of the $d_{x^2- y^2}$ gap observed in the superconducting state.[@loeser96] This, and the fact that no significant changes are observed upon crossing into the superconducting regime, have led to the suggestion that the normal-state gap may be a precursor of the superconducting gap. As the doping level is increased to near- and above optimal the normal-state gap-like feature disappears.
In the following, we summarize the recent experimental optical results obtained from several series of HTSC materials at doping levels ranging from underdoped to strongly overdoped. We find that in the pseudogap state the optical response of underdoped cuprates is marked by an increase in coherence of the electronic system. Since the coherence effects are seen more clearly through the frequency dependent charge-carrier scattering or memory function analysis, we have chosen to use this approach. The essential features of this very general formalism are described in Section III. We will also restrict our survey to the ab-plane optical properties. The c-axis optical data are less complete since the large, thick crystals needed for this work are not available for all systems. We will, however, try to address the question of the correlation between the $ab$-plane and the $c$-axis pseudogap properties as we change materials, doping and temperature.
THE EXPERIMENTAL TECHNIQUE
==========================
In order to cover a broad range of doping regimes we performed reflectivity measurements upon three families of high-$T_c$ cuprates: YBCO (including Y123 and Y124), Bi2212 and Tl$_2$Sr$_2$CuO$_{6+\delta}$ (Tl2201). This was necessary because, with the exception of La214, none of the existing cuprates allows one to explore a full spectrum of doping regimes. For instance, Y123 materials can be conveniently underdoped by reducing the amount of oxygen from the optimally doped level at $x=6.95$. However these crystals are not suitable for strong overdoping. On the contrary, Tl2201 samples could be only overdoped by introducing interstitial O atoms between the TlO planes so that $T_c$ is suppressed from about 90 K in the [*stoichiometric*]{} composition down to less than 4 K in the overdoped composition. Single crystals of Bi2212 can be both overdoped and underdoped, but the suppression of the critical temperature is very limited on the overdoped side. We have also used Bi2212 crystals with 20% of Bi substituted by Pb which allows one to achieve a higher degree of overdoping. The influence of disorder on the infrared response of YBCO crystals was studied by substituting Cu atoms in the CuO$_2$ planes with Zn.[@dabrowskizn]
The response of YBCO crystals was studied in three carrier density regimes: in an optimally doped Y123 crystal with oxygen content set at x=6.95 ($T_c$=93.5 K), in the [*same*]{} crystal deoxygenated down to x=6.6 ($T_c$=59 K)[@liang] and in a double-chained Y124 crystal with $T_c$=82 K.[@dabrowski] The carrier density in the stoichiometric and naturally untwinned Y124 corresponds to that of Y123 samples with $x{\simeq}6.85$. The Y123 crystal was mechanically detwinned so that both $a$- and $b$-axis components of the conductivity tensor were obtained independently, allowing us to probe the response of the CuO$_2$ planes [*only*]{} without any contribution from the charge reservoir structural blocks.
We have also performed reflectivity measurements on two underdoped ($T_c$=67 K and $T_c$=82 K), one optimally doped ($T_c=90$ K), and one overdoped ($T_c$=82 K) Bi2212 single crystal. All the Bi2212 crystals were prepared from the as-grown crystals by annealing in argon and/or oxygen.[@Pat] To achieve a higher degree of overdoping we have performed measurements on Pb-doped Bi2212 Bi$_{1.66}$Pb$_{0.34}$Sr$_2$CaCu$_2$O$_{8+\delta}$ ((Bi/Pb)2212) with $T_c$=70 K (optimum $T_c$=88 K). The two T2201 single crystals used in the measurements had $T_c$’s of 90 K (highest $T_c$ achievable) and 23 K (strongly overdoped). The superconducting transition temperatures for all samples were measured in a SQUID magnetometer.
The reflectivity was measured over a broad energy range: from 30 - 50 cm$^{-1}$ up to 20,000 cm$^{-1}$ for Y123, Y124, and Bi2212 samples; from 30 - 50 cm$^{-1}$ up to 50,000 cm$^{-1}$ for Tl2201 samples. The far-infrared reflectance measurements were carried out using a rapid scan interferometer with focused optics on a sample mounted in a continuous flow cryostat. For near-infrared and visible measurements, a grating spectrometer with appropriate detector-filter combinations with overlapping frequency ranges was used. To obtain the absolute value of the reflectance, geometrical scattering losses were accounted for by [*in situ*]{} evaporation of a metallic film (Au or Al) onto the surface of the sample. The coated sample was then remeasured and the absolute value of the reflectance R is then given by the ratio of spectra before and after plating, corrected for the absolute reflectance of the metallic film.[@homes93a]
The complex optical conductivity $\sigma_1(\omega) +
i\sigma_2(\omega)$ of single crystalline samples was obtained from Kramers-Kronig analysis of reflectivity. To perform the required integrations it was necessary to extend the reflectance beyond the actually measured range.[@timusk1] Below the lowest frequency measured we have tried different types of reflectivity approximations, from the Hagen-Rubens formula to a straight line between unity at zero frequency and the last experimental point. We found that in the frequency region that we will be of interest in this work ($\omega>100$ cm$^{-1}$) the particular choice of the low-frequency approximation is not important. At high frequencies, the reflectivity of Y123 and Y124 samples was extended using the results of previous measurements[@romberg] up to 300,000 cm$^{-1}$. The reflectivity of Tl2201 was approximated by a constant between 50,000-200,000 cm$^{-1}$. For Bi2212, the results of ellipsometric measurements[@humlicek90] were used between 20,000-50,000 cm$^{-1}$ while above this frequency range a constant reflectivity approximation was used up to 200,000 cm$^{-1}$. Above 200,000 cm$^{-1}$ for Bi2212 and Tl2201 and above 300,000 cm$^{-1}$ for YBCO the reflectivity was allowed to fall as $\omega^{-4}$. In the case of the Y123 material we compared the optical constants obtained using Kramers-Kronig analysis with those obtained more directly by optical ellipsometry in 2-5 eV range,[@cooper93] and excellent agreement was found. This attests to the reliability of the results obtained through Kramers-Kronig analysis of the reflectance.
THE EXTENDED DRUDE FORMALISM.
=============================
Complex Memory Function.
-------------------------
The classical Drude formula for the dynamical conductivity $\sigma(\omega)=\sigma_1(\omega)+i\sigma_2(\omega)$ [@timusk1; @Ashcroft] can be obtained by using a standard Boltzmann equation and approximating the collision integral with a single collision frequency $1/\tau$. The Drude formula describes the free-carrier contribution to $\sigma_1(\omega)$ as a Lorentzian peak centered at zero frequency with an oscillator strength $\omega_p^2/8$, where $\omega_p^2=[e^2/(3\pi^2\hbar)]{\int}{\bf v}
{\cdot} d{\bf S}_F$ and ${\bf v}$ is the electron velocity and ${\bf S}_F$ is the element of Fermi surface. For a spherical Fermi surface $\omega_p^2=4{\pi}ne^2/m_e$, where $n$ is the free-carrier density and $m_e$ is the electronic band mass. The Lorentzian width is determined by a constant scattering rate $1/\tau$. The imaginary part of $\sigma(\omega)$ is just the real part multiplied by $\omega\tau$:
$$\sigma(\omega)= {1 \over {4\pi}}
{{\omega_p^2} \over {1/\tau-i\omega}}={{\omega_p^2} \over {4\pi}}
[{\tau \over {1+(\omega\tau)^2}} + i{{\tau^2\omega} \over
{1+(\omega\tau)^2}}]$$
A derivation of Eq. 1 by using the standard kinetic Boltzmann equation assumes that the elementary system excitations are well-defined. However, a description of a system by using elementary excitations is possible, strictly speaking, only if the (energy) width of the wave packet representing the electronic excitation is small compared to the energy of the packet. In more formal language, for the approximations leading to Eq. 1 to be valid, a spectral function of electronic excitations, defined as:
$$A({\bf k},\omega)=-{1 \over \pi}|ImG({\bf k},\omega)|={1 \over \pi}
{{Im \Sigma(\omega}) \over {(\omega-\epsilon_k-Re\Sigma(\omega))^2+
(Im\Sigma(\omega))^2}},$$
must be a narrow peak centered at $\omega=\epsilon_k+Re\Sigma(\omega)$. Here $G({\bf k},\omega)$ is a Green function of electronic excitation and $\Sigma(\omega)$ is the self-energy part. The narrowness of the peak means that the excitation energy must be much larger than the damping term $\gamma(\omega)=-2Im\Sigma(\omega)$. This is certainly true in case of standard Fermi-liquid theory, where $Re\Sigma(\omega)\sim\omega$ and $Im\Sigma(\omega)\sim\omega^2$ so that the electronic excitations (quasiparticles) are well-defined at zero temperature and energies close to the Fermi energy $E_F$.[@AGD] It can also be shown[@Shulga] that a weak electron-phonon coupling, although it violates the quasiparticle description at energies very close to $E_F$, does not drastically change the transport properties at low temperatures, since in this case the number of electronic states where the quasiparticle description is violated is small. Therefore, the Drude formula is applicable only for simple metals at low frequencies and low temperatures where elastic scattering from impurities and weak quasielastic scattering from thermally excited excitations such as phonons dominate.[@timusk1; @Shulga]
On the other hand, following the original ideas of Anderson,[@anderson87] it is now widely accepted that the electronic system of HTSC materials represent a new kind of quantum liquid and the simple Fermi-liquid quasiparticle description is not applicable to the normal-state properties of these materials. For example, the key ingredient of the phenomenological “marginal” Fermi-liquid theory,[@MFL] advanced to explain these properties, is the assumption that the $Im\Sigma(\omega)\sim\omega$ and, consequently, $Re\Sigma(\omega)$ diverges logarithmically at the Fermi energy, thus making $G({\bf
k},\omega)$ entirely incoherent at $E_F$. On a more microscopic level, a similar result is expected for the quasi-one dimensional Hubbard model, which was identified by Anderson as an appropriate paradigm for the resonant valence bond (RVB) description.[@anderson87] Even in more Fermi-liquid-like scenarios, sufficiently strong coupling of an electronic system to a bosonic energy spectrum may result in a violation of the quasiparticle description.[@Shulga] In addition, the Fermi energy is estimated to be only $E_F=1-2$ eV, which is not much larger than the energies probed in infrared experiments (4-300 meV). Such a low $E_F$ may be another reason for violation of a quasiparticle description. Since this implies the absence of well-defined elementary excitations, the approximations used to obtain Eq. 1 are not justified. The breakdown of the quasiparticle description has also been discussed by Emery and Kivelson in the context of abnormally short values of the mean free path that lead to the violation of the Ioffe-Regel criterion.[@emeryprl]
However, the optical conductivity can be described in a much more general way by making the damping term in the Drude formula complex and frequency-dependent: $1/\tau=M(\omega)=M'(\omega)+iM''(\omega)$, where $M(\omega)$ is called a memory function.[@Allen_M; @Mori; @Gotze] The $M(\omega)$ satisfies $M'(\omega)=M'(-\omega)$ and $M''(\omega)=-M''(-\omega)$. The consequences of this formalism, usually referred to as the extended Drude model, have been derived for the infrared conductivity of metals with a strong electron-phonon interaction by Allen[@Allen] and Allen and Mikkelsen[@Allen_M] for the case of zero temperature. The analysis was later extended for the case of finite temperatures by Shulga [*et al.*]{}[@Shulga] It is also believed that the resulting theory is valid in the case of coupling of a Fermi liquid to any bosonic energy spectrum. Some aspects of the extended Drude model were also examined in detail by Götze and Wölfe.[@Gotze] We are not aware of any quantitative predictions regarding the extended Drude model in the completely non-Fermi-liquid scenario, such as the Luttinger-liquid theory. Therefore, in the following we will employ the Fermi-liquid terminology. The formalism has been previously applied to transition-metal compounds,[@Allen_M] heavy-fermion materials,[@Webb; @Shulga_1] and the HTSC cuprates.[@thomas88a; @collins90; @rieck95; @basov96c; @puchkov96b]
Rewriting the complex conductivity $\sigma(\omega)$ in terms of a complex memory function, $M(\omega,T)=1/\tau(\omega,T)-i\omega\lambda(\omega,T)$, one obtains[@timusk1; @Mori]:
$$\sigma(\omega,T)={1 \over {4\pi}} {{\omega_p^2}
\over {M(\omega,T)-i\omega}}=
{1 \over {4\pi}} {{\omega_p^2}
\over {1/\tau(\omega,T)-i\omega[1+\lambda(\omega,T)]}}$$
Although, in the case of a metal, Eq. 3 can be obtained using Boltzmann-equation formalism with a frequency dependent scattering rate,[@Allen_M] this form has in fact a range of validity more general than the Boltzmann-equation approach.[@Allen_M; @Mori] Adopting the Boltzmann-type terminology, the quantities $1/\tau(\omega,T)$ and $\lambda(\omega,T)$ describe the frequency-dependent scattering rate and mass enhancement of electronic excitations due to many-body interactions.
Using the more general form of Eq. 3, one can check the range of validity of the classical Drude formula of Eq. 1 by expanding the memory function into Taylor series for small frequencies:
$$\lim_{\omega\rightarrow
0}M(\omega)={1 \over \tau(0)}-i\lambda(0)\omega + O(\omega^2)$$
Substituting this into Eq. 3 one finds:
$$\sigma(\omega,T)= {1 \over {4\pi}}
{{\omega_p^2} \over {1/\tau(0)-i\omega(1+\lambda(0))}},$$
recovering Eq. 1. The classical Drude result is thus valid whenever expansion of Eq. 4 makes sense and $\lambda(0)$ is small compared to unity.
Eq. 3 can be reduced to the familiar Drude form of Eq. 1 by introducing the so called renormalized scattering rate $1/\tau^*(\omega,T)=1/[\tau(\omega,T)(1+\lambda(\omega,T))]$ and the effective plasma frequency $\omega_p^{*2}(\omega,T)=\omega_p^2/(1+\lambda(\omega,T))$:
$$\sigma(\omega,T)={1 \over {4\pi}} {{\omega_p^{*2}(\omega,T)}
\over {1/\tau^*(\omega,T)-i\omega}}$$
As it can be seen from this equation, the optical conductivity is now composed of an infinite set of Drude peaks, each describing $\sigma(\omega)$ in the vicinity of a particular frequency $\omega$ with a set of parameters $1/\tau^*(\omega)$ and $\lambda(\omega)$ (for simplicity in the following we will drop the temperature parameter when it is not relevant to a discussion). The $1/\tau^*(\omega)$ has a phenomenological meaning of a width of the Drude peak local to a frequency $\omega$ while $\lambda(\omega)$ represents the interaction-induced velocity renormalization. The renormalized scattering rate $1/\tau^*(\omega)$ is not causal and, other than the local Drude width, does not have a real physical sense as it includes both the velocity renormalization and the lifetime effects.
On the other hand, $1/\tau(\omega)$ is, up to a constant, the real part of $1/\sigma(\omega)$
$$1/\tau(\omega)={\omega_p^2 \over {4\pi}} Re({1 \over \sigma(\omega)}),$$
that is, a real part of a physical response function. In the limit of zero frequency the normal-state optical conductivity is completely real and Eq. 4 becomes $1/\sigma_{dc}(T)=\rho_{dc}(T)=m_e/(\tau(T)ne^2)$, where $\rho_{dc}(T)$ is the dc resistivity. This is the same form as the relaxation-time expression for the dc resistivity of a free electron gas and therefore $\tau(\omega,T)|_{\omega=0}$ may be viewed as an electronic lifetime.
The mass enhancement factor $\lambda(\omega)$ is given as the imaginary part of $1/\sigma(\omega)$:
$$1+\lambda(\omega)=-{\omega_p^2 \over {4\pi}} {1 \over \omega} Im({1
\over \sigma(\omega)}).$$
The total plasma frequency $\omega_p^2$ in Eqs. 7,8 can be can be found from the sum rule $\int_0^{\infty}\sigma_1(\omega)d\omega=\omega_p^2/8$. Since $\sigma(\omega)$ is causal, $\lambda(\omega)$ and $1/\tau(\omega)$ are not independent and are related by the Kramers-Kronig relation.[@timusk1] Using the relations $1/\tau(\omega)=1/\tau(-\omega)$ and $\lambda(\omega)=\lambda(-\omega)$ we obtain:
$$\lambda(\omega)={2 \over \pi} {\cal P}\int_0^\infty {{1/\tau(\Omega)}
\over {\Omega^2-\omega^2}} d\Omega$$
$$1/\tau(\infty)-1/\tau(\omega)={2 \over \pi} {\cal P}\int_0^\infty
{{\Omega^2\lambda (\Omega)} \over {\Omega^2-\omega^2}} d\Omega$$
If $1/\tau(\omega)$ and $\lambda(\omega)$ have no poles at $\omega=0$ one immediately obtains the following useful relation:
$$1/\tau(\infty)-1/\tau(0)={2 \over \pi} \int_0^\infty \lambda(\Omega)
d\Omega$$
We see that the complex memory function $M(\omega)$ is a physical response function and experimental data can be presented in terms of $M(\omega,T)$ or the complex optical conductivity $\sigma(\omega,T)$ equally well. The particular choice should be made judging from the situation at hand. For example, the memory function analysis may be useful if one is interested in the relaxation processes that determine a system response to electromagnetic radiation. Also, in certain cases the memory function is easier to calculate analytically, thus making it easier to analyze the physics behind the system behavior using experimental results for $M(\omega)$. For example, simple analytical formulae for $M(\omega)$ have been derived for electron-phonon scattering while the optical conductivity has to be calculated numerically.[@Shulga]
Finally, we would like to stress that, although Eq. 3 is very general, obviously the [*interpretation*]{} of experimental results for $M(\omega,T)$ in terms of scattering rate and mass enhancement only makes sense when a (generalized) Boltzmann equation can be used. For example, if the optical response is determined by two distinct charge carrier systems (two-component), so that the optical conductivity takes form:
$$\sigma(\omega)=\sigma^I(\omega)+\sigma^{II}(\omega),$$
the interpretation of $M'(\omega)$ and $M''(\omega)$ as a scattering rate and a mass enhancement is meaningless, as can be seen from Eq.’s 7,8. This is the case if an interband transition is present in the same frequency region where there is an intraband response. We note however, that the form (12) can arise from a double-relaxation process (two different scattering mechanisms) as well.[@Allen_M]
Since in the superconducting state $\sigma_1(\omega)$ is suppressed, the low-frequency optical conductivity is dominated by the imaginary term $\sigma_2(\omega)=\omega_{ps}^2/(4\pi\omega)$. In this case the low-frequency mass enhancement factor gives a ratio of the total plasma frequency, $\omega_p^2$, to the plasma frequency of the superconducting carriers, $\omega_{ps}^2$,: $1+\lambda(\omega)=\omega_p^2/\omega_{ps}^2$.
Electron-boson scattering.
---------------------------
Memory-function analysis has been most extensively developed for the case of electron-phonon scattering.[@Allen_M; @Allen; @Shulga] It can be shown in the limit of frequencies comparable to the Debye frequency and/or high enough temperature, the quasiparticle description breaks down.[@Shulga] Using more general many-body calculations Shulga [*et al.*]{} obtained the following expression for $1/\tau(\omega,T)$:
$$\begin{aligned}
{1 \over \tau}(\omega,T)={\pi \over \omega} \int_0^{\infty} d\Omega
\alpha_{tr}^2(\Omega)F(\Omega)[2{\omega}{\coth}({\Omega \over {2T}})-
(\omega+\Omega){\coth}({{\omega+\Omega} \over {2T}})+ \nonumber \\ +
(\omega-\Omega){\coth}({{\omega-\Omega} \over {2T}})] +
{1 \over \tau_{imp}}.\end{aligned}$$
Here $\alpha_{tr}^2(\Omega)F(\Omega)$ is a phonon density of states weighted by the amplitude for large-angle scattering on the Fermi surface and T is measured in frequency units. The last term in (13) represents impurity scattering. In the limit of zero temperature this reduces to Allen’s result:[@Allen]
$${1 \over \tau}(\omega)={{2\pi} \over \omega} \int_0^\omega d\Omega
(\omega-\Omega) \alpha_{tr}^2(\Omega)F(\Omega) + {1 \over \tau_{imp}}.$$
The dc scattering rate is obtained in the limit of $\omega=0$ in Eq. 13:
$${1 \over \tau}(0,T) = \pi \int_0^{\infty} d\Omega
\alpha^2_{tr}(\Omega)F(\Omega) {\Omega \over T} {\sinh}^{-2}({\Omega
\over {2T}}) + {1 \over \tau_{imp}}.$$
At temperatures much higher than the phonon spectrum upper-energy cut-off, $T{\gg}\Omega_{c}$, the above expression reduces to:
$$\lim_{T/\Omega_c\rightarrow \infty}{1 \over \tau}(0,T) = 4\pi T
\int_0^{\infty} d\Omega {{\alpha^2_{tr}(\Omega)F(\Omega)}\over
\Omega} + {1 \over \tau_{imp}},$$
which is just the familiar result that the high-temperature electron-phonon contribution to a dc resistivity is linear in temperature.
In the limit of high $\omega$, $\omega{\gg}\Omega_{c}$,
$$\lim_{\omega/\Omega_c\rightarrow \infty}{1 \over \tau}(\omega,T) =
2\pi \int_0^{\infty} d\Omega \alpha^2_{tr}(\Omega)F(\Omega)
{\coth}({\Omega \over {2T}}) + {1 \over \tau_{imp}},$$
which at high temperatures, $T{\gg}\Omega_c$, assumes the same value as the zero-frequency limit (16). Therefore, at very high temperatures the scattering rate becomes frequency-independent and the Eq. 6 reduces to the classical Drude expression (1).
We note that the effective scattering rate $1/\tau(\omega)$ is different from the quasiparticle attenuation $\gamma(\omega)$. For example, at zero temperature $\gamma(\omega)$ is given by:[@Allen; @Millis]
$${\gamma}(\omega)=-2Im\Sigma(\omega)={2\pi} \int_0^\omega d\Omega
\alpha^2(\Omega)F(\Omega) + {1 \over \tau_{imp}}.$$
Here $\alpha^2(\Omega)F(\Omega)$ is the isotropically weighted phonon density of states. One can see from Eq’s 14,18 that at $T=0$ the effective scattering rate $1/\tau(\omega)$ is, if the difference between $\alpha_{tr}^2$ and $\alpha^2$ is neglected, an [*average*]{} of $\gamma(\omega)$ over frequencies from 0 to $\omega$ and therefore $\gamma(\omega)$ enters into the effective scattering rate in a way non-local in frequency.[@Shulga; @Mori; @Allen] As a consequence, $1/\tau(\omega)$ is actually equal to the quasiparticle attenuation $\gamma(\omega)$ only at $\omega=0$, where $1/\tau(0)=\gamma(0)=1/\tau_{imp}$. The two quantities also asymptotically approach each other in the limit of high frequencies, $\omega{\gg}\Omega_c$, where both $\gamma(\omega)$ and $1/\tau(\omega)$ become frequency-independent. As the temperature is increased, the difference between $\gamma(\omega)$ and $1/\tau(\omega)$ is smeared out, and in the limit of $T{\gg}\Omega_c$ they are asymptotically equal. Generally, however, $\tau(\omega,T)$ deviates from the quasi-particle lifetime $\gamma^{-1}(\omega,T)$.
Eq’s. 13,14, which have been derived for an electron-phonon scattering, are believed to be valid in the case of coupling of an electronic spectrum to any bosonic excitations.[@Webb; @Shulga_1] In this case the Eliashberg function $\alpha_{tr}^2(\Omega)F(\Omega)$ in Eqs. 13,14 is replaced by the corresponding, suitably weighted, bosonic spectral density ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$. To give a flavor of the results expected on the basis of Eq’s 13,14 we will perform calculations for several model shapes of ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$: a $\delta$-peak, a “square”-like spectrum and ${\cal
A}_{tr}(\omega)=\Gamma\omega/(\Gamma^2+\omega^2)$. The last spectrum is believed to be appropriate for scattering of electrons on spin fluctuations.[@millis90]
In the case of ${\cal
A}_{tr}(\omega)=\omega_0\delta(\omega-\omega_0)$ the integration of Eq. 13 can easily be done. The effective mass enhancement $\lambda(\omega)$ can be calculated using the Kramers-Kronig relation (9). As soon as both $1/\tau(\omega,T)$ and $\lambda(\omega,T)$ are known, the optical conductivity can be calculated using Eq. 3. The impurity scattering has been set to $1/(2{\pi}\omega_0\tau_{imp})=0.01$. The results obtained are presented in Fig. \[theory1\] at five different temperatures: $T=0,
0.125\omega_0, 0.25\omega_0, 0.5\omega_0, \omega_0$.
=0.50
For the two other choices of ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$, the integration of Eq. 13 was done numerically. We then used the Kramers-Kronig relation to obtain $\lambda(\omega,T)$. The same impurity scattering rate as in the case of $\delta$-function was used to calculate $\sigma_1(\omega)$. The results are presented in Fig. \[theory2\] and Fig. \[theory3\] at different temperatures, measured in units of the characteristic frequency of bosonic spectrum ${\cal
A}_{tr}(\omega)$.
=0.50
As was discussed above, if the ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$ spectrum has a high-energy cut-off, $1/\tau(\omega,T)$ saturates at frequencies that are much higher than the cut-off. The value of $1/\tau(\omega,T)$ in the saturation regime is strongly temperature-dependent, and linear in T at high enough temperatures according to (17). However, if there is no cut-off in ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$, as in the case of magnetic spectrum in Fig. \[theory3\], there is no high-frequency saturation of $1/\tau(\omega,T)$, rather it continues to increase. The temperature dependence of the absolute value of the scattering rate is, however, still strong.
=0.50
In Fig. \[theory1\], the effective mass enhancement $\lambda(\omega,T)$ is larger at low frequencies and decreases to zero at high frequencies. This has a simple physical interpretation that at high frequencies the boson “cloud” is not capable of following the charge carriers. The sharp increase in the low-temperature $\lambda$ around the frequency of bosonic excitation $\omega_0$ corresponds to the onset of boson-emission process, since only carriers with energy greater than $\hbar\omega_0$ can emit a boson. A similar onset can be seen in Fig. \[theory2\]. In the case of the magnetic ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$, this feature is not observed since bosons can be emitted by a carrier with arbitrarily small energy. At high temperatures $\lambda$ asymptotically approaches zero, in agreement with the frequency-independent scattering rate $1/\tau$.
The low-temperature conductivity in Fig. \[theory1\] shows a pronounced absorption band, called a Holstein band, with a sharp onset at $\omega_0$. The band corresponds to an additional absorption channel associated with boson emission processes. Similar absorption onset can be seen in Fig. \[theory2\] but not in Fig. \[theory3\]. The reason for this, as in the case of $\lambda$, is the large boson spectral density at all non-zero frequencies for the magnetic ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$. As the temperature is increased, all sharp features in $\sigma_1$ are smeared out and at very high temperatures the conductivity can be described by a single Lorentzian of Eq. 1.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
====================
This section is divided into three subsections: underdoped, optimally doped and overdoped. In each of the subsections we first present the raw experimental results in the form of absorption $A(\omega)=1-R(\omega)$ for a selected material at many different temperatures. Before we proceed to the memory function analysis, we will also present the results for the same material in terms of more commonly used real optical conductivity $\sigma_1(\omega)$. However, we will focus the analysis on the real and imaginary parts of the memory function $M(\omega)=M'(\omega) + i M''(\omega)$, that will be presented for several materials on a second diagram in each subsection. While for a selected material in each subsection we will show many different temperatures, to simplify the diagrams for others, only three temperatures will be shown: T=300 K, $T{\simeq}T_c$ and the lowest (superconducting) temperature.
We note here again that we are fully aware that in most real situations, and especially in HTSC, the real and imaginary parts of $M(\omega)$ are not solely determined by the scattering effects and the corresponding enhancement of an effective mass. Nevertheless, mostly for historical reasons, we will refer to the effective scattering rate and to the effective mass defined as $1/\tau(\omega)=M'(\omega)$ and $m^*=1+\lambda(\omega)=1-M''(\omega)/\omega$ respectively. Keeping this in mind, we will now present the experimental results and indicate the common trends, leaving the interpretation for the discussion section. Since we will mainly be interested in the evolution of the optical response in the pseudogap energy region we will present the experimental data up to 2000 cm$^{-1}$ only.
Underdoped cuprates.
--------------------
A typical plot of the temperature dependence of raw absorption data $A(\omega,T)$ for an underdoped HTSC is shown in Fig. \[under-abs\], this particular example being underdoped Bi2212 material with $T_c=67$ K. In the temperature range 300-150 K the absolute value of the low-frequency absorption decreases smoothly with decreasing temperature without any sharp features. However, at a temperature $T<T^*{\simeq}150$ K, the absorption below 600-700 cm$^{-1}$ starts to decrease faster than at higher frequencies, developing a threshold structure which is characteristic for an underdoped HTSC in the pseudogap state.
=0.75
The corresponding changes in the real part of optical conductivity $\sigma_1(\omega)$ are also shown in Fig. \[under-abs\] at selected temperatures. The in-plane response of all samples is metallic, [*i.e.*]{} the absolute value of $\sigma_{1}(\omega)$ decreases from the dc value with increasing $\omega$. However, while the $\sigma_1(\omega)$ spectra are quite broad at temperatures above $T^*$, the rapid decrease of the low-frequency absorption below $T^*$ results in an abrupt narrowing of the low-frequency conductivity with substantial spectral weight being transferred towards zero frequency. As temperature is reduced below $T_c$, no dramatic changes are observed in the optical response of underdoped cuprates: the only change is just a [*continued*]{} narrowing of the intense low-frequency peak, that has already initiated in the normal state.
The scattering rate $1/\tau$ and the effective mass $m^*/m_e=1+\lambda$ for the Bi2212 crystal with $T_c=67$ K, calculated from the optical conductivity using the formulae described in section III, are shown in Fig. \[under-tau\]. We have used a plasma frequency value of $\omega_p=14300$ cm$^{-1}$, obtained by using the conductivity sum-rule analysis[@timusk1; @puchkov96a] with integration of $\sigma_1(\omega)$ over all frequencies up to 1 eV. We note that the value of $\omega_p$ obtained this way is somewhat ambiguous since there is no clear separation between the frequency regions of the free- and bound-carrier optical responses. However, a particular choice of $\omega_p$ only multiplies $1/\tau(\omega)$ and $m^*(\omega)$ by a constant. Since in this paper we are mostly interested in the [*frequency dependence*]{} of these quantities, the exact value of $\omega_p$ is not of primary importance. To keep the absolute values consistent throughout the paper, in Bi2212 and Tl2201 series we will use plasma frequency values obtained by integrating the real part of optical conductivity up to 1 eV, which seems to be an energy below which the conductivity is substantially changed by doping.[@orenstein90; @puchkov96a] In YBCO series we will use an energy of 1.5 eV as an upper integration limit since the reflectivity plasma minimum is higher for these materials.[@timusk1]
=0.94
The scattering rate $1/\tau(\omega)$ of underdoped Bi2212 with $T_c=67$ K is linear at frequencies from 800 cm$^{-1}$ to at least 3000 cm$^{-1}$ at all temperatures. While at room temperature the low-frequency $1/\tau(\omega)$ deviates upwards from the high-frequency linear law, at $T=200K$ the spectrum is linear over the whole frequency range from 100-3000 cm$^{-1}$. However, as temperature is reduced below $T^*$, the scattering rate is suppressed more rapidly at low frequencies ($\omega<700$ cm$^{-1}$) while it remains nearly unaffected at higher energies. A result of this development is an appearance of a distinct threshold in the $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra. Another interesting phenomenon, that we will return to later, is the remarkable temperature-independence of the high-frequency $1/\tau(\omega)$.
Similar to other quantities, the effective mass $m^*(\omega)$ displays a rapid change at frequencies below 700 cm$^{-1}$ as temperature is reduced below $T^*$. We note that the narrowing of the low-frequency optical conductivity is a result of [*both*]{} a decrease of $1/\tau(\omega)$ and an increase of $m^*(\omega)$ since heavy carriers are more difficult to scatter. The width of a conductivity peak is determined by a renormalized scattering rate $1/\tau^*(\omega)=m_e/(\tau(\omega)m^*(\omega))$. At low temperatures the effective mass saturates at $m^*(0){\simeq}3-4$.
The experimental results obtained for several other cuprate materials at different doping levels in the underdoped state are qualitatively similar. In the rest of Fig. \[under-tau\]. we show the effective scattering rate and the carrier mass obtained for Y123 with oxygen content $x=6.6$ and $T_c=58$ K, naturally underdoped Y124 with $T_c=80$ K, and slightly underdoped Bi2212 with $T_c=82$ K. The in-plane plasma frequency $\omega_p$, related to the conductivity by $\omega_p^2/8 = \int_0^\infty \sigma_1(\omega) d\omega$, scales with $T_c$ in accordance with earlier measurements.[@orenstein90; @puchkov96a] Integration of the conductivity up to 1.5 eV yields the following values of the plasma frequency: 15000 cm$^{-1}$ in YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.6}$, 16000 cm$^{-1}$ in YBa$_2$Cu$_4$O$_8$ and 15600 cm$^{-1}$ in Bi2212. For clarity, only three temperatures are shown for each material: room temperature, just above $T_c$ and well below $T_c$.
All of the samples show the same characteristic suppression of the amplitude of the scattering rate at $T<T^*$, which seems to increase as doping level decreases. Despite the differences in the values of $T^*$ in the different samples, the energy scale associated with the suppression of $1/\tau(\omega)$, does not change significantly with doping. In particular, a deviation from the linear behavior in all studied samples occurs at the same frequency $\omega<700$ cm$^{-1}$. As the doping level is increased towards the optimal, the normal state depression of $1/\tau(\omega)$ becomes progressively shallower, while in the superconducting state the depression remains almost unchanged. The net effect is that the difference between the low-temperature normal-state and the superconducting-state $1/\tau(\omega)$ becomes more prominent as doping level approaches the optimal. At the same time, qualitatively, the shape of the normal-state $1/\tau(\omega)$ at $T<T^*$ remains similar to that in the superconducting state. With an exception of Y124 sample, the high-frequency $1/\tau(\omega)$ is linear up to at least 3000 cm$^{-1}$ (2000 cm$^{-1}$ for Y124) and for all samples it is nearly temperature-independent. The low-temperature effective mass $m^*(\omega)$ becomes enhanced at low frequencies when temperature is reduced below $T^*$. In all samples $m^*(\omega)$ saturates at about the same value of ${\approx}3-4$.
To summarize, the optical response of underdoped cuprates is characterized by the following generic features: (i) the scattering rate is nearly linear with $\omega$ at $T>T^*$; (ii) At $T<T^*$ (the pseudogap state) the low-frequency scattering rate is suppressed corresponding to the rapid narrowing of the Drude-like feature in the conductivity spectra. The energy scale associated with the changes of $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra was found to be the same in all samples. The magnitude of the depression weakens as doping is increased towards the optimal level. (iii) The high-frequency $1/\tau(\omega)$ remains effectively temperature-independent and linear from 700 cm$^{-1}$ up to at least 3000 cm$^{-1}$ in most underdoped HTSC samples.
Optimally doped and lightly overdoped cuprates.
-----------------------------------------------
A similar threshold structure in the raw absorption spectra is observed in the optimally doped crystals as well. As an example, in Fig. \[opt-abs\] we show absorption and conductivity data obtained from optimally doped Y123 material. The important difference from the underdoped cuprates is that now a threshold in $A(\omega)$ develops only at temperatures below $T_c$. The corresponding $1/\tau(\omega)$ and $m^*(\omega)$ spectra are plotted in Fig. \[opt-tau\]. We have used a plasma frequency ${\omega}_p=18000$ cm$^{-1}$, obtained from the sum-rule analysis with integration up to 1.5 eV. All of the optical constants show the same characteristic features as in underdoped cuprates but the onset temperature is determined now by $T_c$. A remarkable feature of the optimally doped samples is the similarity between the behavior of the superconducting-state optical response obtained in these crystals with the data obtained in the underdoped materials at $T_c<T<T^*$. This would be consistent with the notion that the $T_c$ and $T^*$ boundaries in Fig. \[phase-dia1\] cross around the optimal doping. As a result, the difference between the normal-state and the superconducting state spectra becomes dramatic in optimally doped samples.
=0.70
In the normal state, as the temperature is reduced from 300 K down to $T{\simeq}T_c$, both the scattering rate and the renormalized effective mass, in optimally doped samples, show relatively minor changes. These changes are mainly restricted to the decrease of the absolute value of $1/\tau(\omega)$ in the low frequency parts of the spectra. However, in contrast to the underdoped materials, the normal-state scattering rate in Y123 does not reveal any sharp changes in the frequency dependence as temperature is reduced.
=0.7
In the rest of Fig. \[opt-tau\] we show data obtained on Bi2212 with $T_c=90$ K and Tl2201 with $T_c=90$ K. We should note that although we assigned the material Tl2201 to this section, the peak in $T_c$ as a function of doping has not being observed for Tl2201 and some data suggest that this material may be somewhat overdoped.[@puchkov96a] The plasma frequency used for Bi2212 was $\omega_p=16000$ cm$^{-1}$ and for Tl2201 $\omega_p=15300$ cm$^{-1}$. The normal-state spectra of $1/\tau(\omega)$ are featureless. In case of Tl2201 the threshold structure appears only at $T<T_c$ but in Bi2212 a weak structure can still be seen at T=90 K. In fact, it persists even in the lightly overdoped samples. Thus it is possible that the pseudogap state in Fig. \[phase-dia1\] can somewhat penetrate into the overdoped regime. Qualitatively, the depression in $1/\tau(\omega)$ at $T<T_c$ in the optimally doped cuprates is very similar to what is observed in the $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra in the pseudogap state of the underdoped cuprates. However in contrast with the underdoped materials, the temperature dependence of the scattering rate now seems to extend over a broader frequency range. In particular, in the Bi2212 and Tl2201 samples the $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra reveal some shift in the high-frequency part (above the 700 cm$^{-1}$ threshold) whereas in the underdoped materials no temperature dependence was observed at these frequencies.
Another weak feature that seems to be common for both the optimally doped Y123 and $T_c=90$ K Tl2201 is an “overshoot” of the superconducting-state $1/\tau(\omega)$ above the spectrum of $1/\tau(\omega)$ for $T{\simeq}T_c$.
In summary, the response of the optimally doped high-$T_c$ cuprates demonstrates the following features: (i) A threshold feature in $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra at $T>T_c$ is either strongly suppressed or disappears completely when doping level approaches optimal; (ii) The high-frequency $1/\tau(\omega)$ remains linear but may acquire a weak temperature dependence in lightly overdoped cuprates.
Overdoped cuprates.
--------------------
Since the strongly overdoped regime is not accessible in the Bi2212 or in the YBCO materials, we have chosen Tl2201, (Bi/Pb)2212 and slightly overdoped Bi2212 in order to study this doping regime. In Fig. \[over-abs\] we show the data for a strongly overdoped high-$T_c$ superconductor (Tl2201 with $T_c=23~$K). The raw absorption spectra are qualitatively different from those obtained in optimally doped or underdoped regimes. The $A(\omega)$ is temperature-dependent over a much broader frequency range. The spectra shift down uniformly as temperature decreases but no sharp features develop. Unfortunately, in this crystal absorption is already very small in the normal state at $T=35$ K. It is difficult to determine the exact shape of $A(\omega)$ in the superconducting state. Thus it remains unclear if the absorption spectra of this crystal shows the same threshold structure as the less heavily doped materials.
=0.7
The $\sigma_1(\omega)$ spectra for the strongly overdoped Tl2201 are shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[over-abs\] while $1/\tau(\omega)$ and $m^*(\omega)$ spectra are shown in Fig. \[over-tau\]. The plasma frequency is $\omega_p=15100$ cm$^{-1}$. Consistent with the behavior of the absorption spectra there is no sharp change in the frequency dependence in any of these response functions as the temperature is decreased in the normal state. Instead, the $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra scale downwards almost parallel to each other. This is in a sharp contrast with the $1/\tau(\omega)$ behavior in the underdoped regime, where the scattering rate was found to be temperature independent above 1000 cm$^{-1}$. We also note that the frequency dependence of $1/\tau(\omega)$ for this strongly overdoped material may become superlinear, flattening out at low frequencies. The effective mass $m^*(\omega)$ does not show any pronounced temperature dependence and remains largely flat in the whole frequency region shown. To show the continuity in the evolution of the optical response of the cuprates from under- and optimally doped to the strongly overdoped case we plot $1/\tau(\omega)$ and $m^*(\omega)$ spectra for other overdoped samples in the rest of Fig. \[over-tau\]. These include Bi2212 ($T_c=82$ K) and (Bi/Pb)2212 ($T_c=70$ K) annealed in oxygen ($\omega_p=15600$ cm$^{-1}$ for Bi2212 and 16500 cm$^{-1}$ for (Bi/Pb)2212). As we have noted in the previous section, the $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectrum for the slightly overdoped Bi2212 still shows a weak normal-state pseudogap feature at T=90 K, defined as a downwards deviation from the linear high-frequency behavior. However, (Bi/Pb)2212 shows no sign of a threshold formation above $T_c$. While the scattering rate remains close to linear in $\omega$ at high frequencies, it seems to gradually pick up a temperature dependence as the doping level is increased from the optimal to overdoped. Also, the absolute value of the scattering rate is gradually suppressed with increased doping.
=0.7
In the superconducting state the threshold structure seems to weaken as doping is increased towards strong overdoping. Correspondingly, the superconducting-state mass enhancement also becomes weaker. Unfortunately, as in case of absorption, we can not unambiguously determine the exact nature of changes that occur below $T_c$ in either $1/\tau(\omega)$ or $m^*(\omega)$ for the Tl2201 sample with $T_c=90$ K.
In summary, as doping level is increased above optimal to overdoped and strongly overdoped levels: (i) No threshold is observed in $1/\tau(\omega)$ at $T>T_c$. (ii) The scattering rate $1/\tau(\omega)$ acquires temperature dependence over a much broader frequency range than in underdoped cuprates. (iii) The frequency dependence of $1/\tau(\omega)$ may become superlinear in the strongly overdoped cuprates.
The effect of zinc doping
-------------------------
In Fig. \[Zn\] we show the spectra of the scattering rate and the effective mass for a pure crystal of Y124 and for two samples containing 0.425 $\%$ and 1.275 $\%$ of Zn. As the result of Zn substitution, $T_c$ is suppressed from 82 K in pure crystal down to 45 K in the material with 0.425 $\%$ of Zn. In the sample with 1.275 $\%$ Zn, superconductivity is not observed above 4 K. It is believed that Zn substitutes Cu atoms primarily in the CuO$_2$ planes.
=0.80
In the crystals with Zn substitution the scattering rate is enhanced over the whole energy scale. The frequency dependence of $1/\tau(\omega)$ is modified as well. In particular, the threshold structure at $\omega\simeq 600$ cm$^{-1}$ weakens with increasing Zn content. The behavior of the non-superconducting crystal is in fact very similar to what is observed in the optimally doped samples at $T>T^*$. The principle difference for the Zn-doped underdoped crystals and optimally doped materials is that the threshold structure in $1/\tau(\omega)$ does not appear even below $T_c$.
At the low-frequencies we observe an upturn in the $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra. A similar upturn is also observed in the disordered (Bi/Pb)2212 system and in Tl2201.[@puchkov95] It is likely that this behavior of the scattering rate could be attributed to incipient localization in the CuO$_2$ planes initiated by impurities. The upturn becomes stronger as the temperature decreases. We note that the dc properties of these materials, and in particular the temperature dependence of the dc resistivity, are determined by $1/\tau(\omega)$ at $\omega\rightarrow 0$. Thus an obvious consequence of the low-frequency upturn would be to reduce the slope of the $d\rho/dT$ dependencies and to create a residual resistivity.
Discussion
==========
General trends in $1/\tau(\omega)$ data.
----------------------------------------
With regards to the underdoped cuprates, two distinct features in the $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra deserve mentioning. First, it must be recognized that $1/\tau(\omega)$ is linear and almost temperature independent at high frequencies. Second, a threshold structure develops at low frequencies and temperatures below $T^*$. When the doping reaches the optimal level the threshold structure in the ab-plane scattering rate shows up only in the superconducting state. This is accord with the phase diagram where the two curves, the pseudogap boundary and the superconducting transition temperature $T_c$, cross at optimal doping ($T^*{\leq}T_c$). In the overdoped cuprates the threshold structure appears only below $T_c$ and seems to become weaker even in the superconducting state as doping progresses. Unfortunately, the limitations of our experiment do not allow us to say with certainty if the structure persists in the strongly overdoped materials. The important difference between $1/\tau(\omega)$ for overdoped and underdoped materials is a strong temperature dependence of the high-frequency part of $1/\tau(\omega)$ in the overdoped case.
The common feature in all spectra is the linear dependence of the high-frequency scattering rate. The linear frequency dependence has been seen previously in the scattering rate of the $a$-axis Y123 both in the optimally doped and underdoped spectra.[@schlesinger90; @rotter91] In Table. 1 we present the slopes and zero-frequency intercepts of the high-frequency part of scattering rate obtained by fitting it to a straight line $1/\tau(\omega)=\alpha\omega+\beta$. The results are presented at two temperatures: T=300 K and at the lowest normal temperature (in parentheses).
We note here that the coefficients determined directly from $1/\tau(\omega)$ may be ambiguous since they involve the plasma frequencies that were obtained by integrating the real part of conductivity up to a somewhat arbitrary chosen frequency. However, the same cut-off integration frequency was used for each of the series at all doping levels (1.5 eV for YBCO and 1 eV for Bi2212 and Tl2201). While the absolute value of $\omega_p$ obtained in this manner may still be ambiguous, the [*changes*]{} in $\omega_p$ with doping reflect changes in the carrier density for each of material series.[@puchkov96a] For these reasons the materials presented in Table. 1 are grouped by series. Another way to get around the problem of the unknown plasma frequency is to divide scattering rate by $\omega_p^2$: $4\pi/(\omega_p^2\tau)$. This quantity may be called “optical resistivity”, or $\rho_{opt}$, since it has the same functional form as a dc resistivity in a simple Drude model.[@Ashcroft] Since it is directly obtained from the measured complex optical conductivity: $\rho_{opt}(\omega)=Re(1/\sigma(\omega))$, it may be useful to examine variations of the slope and zero-frequency intercept of $\rho_{opt}(\omega)$ instead of $1/\tau(\omega)$. The corresponding results are listed in the last two columns of Table. 1.
Material $T_c$ $\alpha$ $\beta$ (cm$^{-1}$) $4\pi\alpha/\omega^2_p$ ($\mu\Omega$cm$^2$) $4\pi\beta/\omega^2_p$ ($\mu\Omega$cm)
-------------------- -------- ------------- --------------------- --------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
Y123 (u.d) 58 K 1.26 (1.45) 790 (560) 0.34 (0.39) 210 (149)
Y123 (opt.d) 93.5 K 0.79 (0.93) 890 (590) 0.15 (0.17) 165 (108)
Bi2212 (u.d.) 67 K 0.84 (0.91) 1280 (1200) 0.25 (0.27) 377 (352)
Bi2212 (u.d) 82 K 0.76 (0.95) 990 (750) 0.19 (0.23) 243 (185)
Bi2212 (opt.d.) 90 K 0.71 (0.72) 850 (650) 0.17 (0.17) 200 (150)
Bi2212 (o.d.) 82 K 0.73 (0.77) 890 (550) 0.18 (0.19) 219 (135)
(Bi/Pb)2212 (o.d.) 70 K 0.63 (0.65) 551 (118) 0.13 (0.14) 117 (25)
Tl2212 (o.d.?) 90 K 0.64 (0.75) 473 (90) 0.16 (0.19) 121 (23)
Tl2212 (o.d.) 23 K 0.63 (0.54) 337 (-318) 0.17 (0.14) 89 (-84)
: The slopes and zero-frequency intercepts of the high-frequency linear part of $1/\tau(\omega)=\alpha\omega+\beta$, third and fourth columns. The linear coefficients normalized to the plasma frequency, fifth and sixth columns. The fit was performed over a frequency range from 900-3000 cm$^{-1}$. The Y124 material is not shown since the high-frequency scattering rate significantly deviates from linear above 2000 cm$^{-1}$.
\[table1\]
The result of both approaches is that both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ seem to decrease with doping for all of the series. However, while the decrease in the slope is insignificant (and may even be inside our error bar estimated to be about 20%), the drop in the intercept, especially its low-temperature value, is dramatic. We also note the large difference between the room-temperature and low-temperature (numbers in parenthesis) intercept values in the overdoped cuprates, which is a result of the intense temperature dependence of the high-frequency part of $1/\tau(\omega)$. The low-temperature intercept even becomes negative for strongly overdoped Tl2201.
The low intercept values in overdoped cuprates suggest that the temperature dependence and the low-frequency threshold in $1/\tau(\omega)$ are closely related. The intense temperature-induced suppression of $1/\tau(\omega)$ over a large frequency range makes the high-frequency background at $T{\simeq}T_c$ very small. Any further suppression of $1/\tau(\omega)$, similar to that observed in under- and optimally doped samples, could potentially produce only a weak feature that would be difficult to detect experimentally.
To conclude this sub-subsection, we make a comparison between our data on the temperature/frequency dependence of the scattering rate with earlier results. In the optimally doped Y123 and Bi2212 samples, microwave and infrared experiments demonstrated that $1/\tau(\omega\rightarrow 0)$ drops abruptly below the superconducting transition temperature.[@bonn92; @romero92] A suppression of the scattering rate in the superconducting state was confirmed through transport experiments.[@salamon] These results are consistent with the behavior of $1/\tau(\omega)$ plotted in Fig. \[opt-tau\].
In the underdoped regime, the suppression of the scattering rate occurs already in the normal state and thus a comparison can be made with dc resistivity data. In underdoped cuprates the resistivity is a linear function of T for $T>T^*$, but it shows a crossover to a steeper slope at $T<T^*$.[@ito93] Since dc resistivity is, within a constant factor, the zero frequency limit of $1/\tau(\omega)$, the crossover behavior could be completely accounted by with the low-frequency suppression of the scattering rate. We also note that the dc resistivity of underdoped cuprates, at least below 300 K, is determined by the charge dynamics in a relatively small energy range (below the threshold structure) while in the strongly overdoped cuprates, much larger energies are involved. It is not quite clear, however, how the $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra in the underdoped cuprates will evolve above room temperatures where dc $\rho_{ab}(T)$ is still increasing with temperature. In particular, it is not clear whether the $1/\tau(\omega)$ will remain linear and temperature-independent at high frequencies.
Theoretical models for $1/\tau(\omega)$
---------------------------------------
There is yet to be a clearly superior theoretical explanation for the peculiar behavior of the infrared optical response presented in the previous section, but a few models deserve mentioning. We will start here with the models that rely on inelastic scattering processes as the mechanism that determines the frequency and temperature behavior of the real and imaginary parts of the memory function, and will continue with other models later.
=0.50
As we have stressed previously, the modeling of the real part of $M(\omega)$ in terms of the carrier-scattering only makes sense if there are reasons to believe that the optical response in the energy region under study is predominantly due to mobile carriers (no interband contribution) and that there is only one type of carrier participating in optical excitations (one-component model). It is not at all clear that these requirements are satisfied in the HTSC cuprates at all frequencies, particularly in the midinfrared range, where some of the interband transition processes may have energies comparable with the those of the intraband excitations. The situation is complicated further by the fact that these contributions do not have characteristic sharp features which would make facilitate their separation. As an example, a typical frequency dependence of the room-temperature ab-plane complex memory function $M(\omega)$, in the functional form of $1/\tau(\omega)$ and $m^*(\omega)$, is shown in Fig. \[8000\] on a large frequency scale for Y123 ($x=6.95$) material ($E{\parallel}a$). Evidence for the interband process comes from, for example, $m^*(\omega)$ being negative[@interband-note] at ${\omega}>8000$ cm$^{-1}$.
Nevertheless, there are reasons to believe that the carrier-scattering approach can be used at frequencies below 2000-3000 cm$^{-1}$ where we have presented data in Section IV. First, the conductivity is observed to be temperature dependent[@footnoteromero] at $\omega<2000-3000$ cm$^{-1}$, and it is natural to assign the temperature- dependent part to the “free” carrier contribution; Second, as it was noted earlier by Thomas [*et al.*]{},[@thomas88a] the number of carriers that one obtains using the sum rule analysis for the real part of optical conductivity is consistent with estimates from chemical valence arguments for the carrier density provided, the sum rule is taken up to about 8000 cm$^{-1}$.
Therefore the carrier-scattering mechanisms is at least a plausible mechanism for the optical response in HTSC at frequencies less than 2000-3000 cm$^{-1}$. Below we will outline some approaches that are based on carrier-scattering mechanisms as well as some problems associated with them.
The first approach is electron-phonon scattering.[@Shulga] While this model qualitatively reproduces the gap-like depression in $1/\tau(\omega)$ at low temperatures (see, for example, calculations presented in Figs. \[theory1\],\[theory2\]), it is not nearly as sharp as that seen in the experimental data. An even more severe problem is the absence of the predicted temperature dependence of $1/\tau(\omega)$ at high frequencies. A signature of the electron-phonon theories is their prediction of significant temperature-induced changes (proportional to $k_B$T at high temperatures). Furthermore, as discussed in Section III, within the electron-boson scattering scenario, the characteristic temperature below which a low-frequency depression in $1/\tau(\omega)$ occurs is determined by the high-energy cut-off of the bosonic spectrum ${\cal
A}_{tr}(\omega)$. The experimental fact is that the characteristic temperature in the cuprates, $T^*$, depends on doping level. This is inconsistent with electron-phonon scenario, since the phonon cut-off is doping-independent. Thus we believe that the electron-phonon scattering model fails to reproduce the essential features of the experimental data for underdoped cuprates.
It is still possible, however, that phonons play some role in the mechanism responsible for the experimentally observed behavior of $1/\tau(\omega)$, but in a more unconventional way. We note in this respect that the frequency scale in the spectra of $1/\tau(\omega)$ associated with the pseudogap state, which does not significantly change with doping, remarkably coincidences with the high-frequency cut-off energy of the phonon density of states in HTSC.[@renker88]
More generally, a serious defect of all models that employ scattering of electrons by bosonic excitations to describe the optical response of underdoped HTSC is their failure to account for the observed behavior in the high-frequency part of $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra. As discussed in Section IV, underdoped cuprates do not show any temperature dependence in $1/\tau(\omega)$ at $\omega>700-800$ cm$^{-1}$. On the other hand, in Section III we saw that scattering of electrons by any temperature-independent bosonic spectrum leads to a strong temperature dependence of $1/\tau(\omega)$ at high frequencies. The only way to get around this contradiction is to assume that the boson spectral function ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$ is also a function of [*temperature*]{}: ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega,T)$. In this case, if the absolute value of ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega,T)$ scales properly with temperature, it may account for the observed temperature-independent scattering rate at high frequencies. The phonon density of states does not show any such changes.[@renker88]
One of the mechanisms that may yield a temperature-dependent ${\cal
A}(\omega)$ function is the scattering of charge carriers on local fluctuations towards an antiferromagnetic order. The energy scale associated with spin fluctuations is measured[@bourges95] to be of the order of 50 meV. The features in the scattering rate spectra that we observe in the pseudogap state are on the same energy scale, supporting such models. This mechanism would also provide a qualitative explanation for the doping dependence of the pseudogap.
Finally, we can roughly estimate the boson spectral function that is needed to obtain the threshold structure in $1/\tau(\omega)$ in the pseudogap state at $T<T^*$. This estimate can be obtained by inverting the lowest temperature normal-state experimental results for $1/\tau(\omega)$ using Allen’s expression (Eq. 14). The complete inversion formula can be written as ${\cal
A}(\omega)=1/{\omega}d/d{\omega}[{\omega^2}d/d{\omega}(1/{\tau}(\omega))]$. [@marsiglio96] Since the process of numerical differentiating greatly amplifies the noise level of our spectra, we have chosen the following approach to minimize the added noise: The experimentally obtained $1/\tau(\omega)$ for underdoped Bi2212 was fitted with four straight lines, as shown in Fig. \[alpha\] and then the inversion formula was applied to the resulting artificial spectrum composed of the straight pieces. In this scheme, the exact inversion formula reduces to the first derivative, that is the slope of the straight lines. The resulting ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$ spectrum is shown in the bottom panel of Fig. \[alpha\]. Obviously the rather crude approximation of the experimental curve prevents us from observing any fine details of the spectrum. The significant result is, however, that an intense peak in ${\cal A}_{tr}(\omega)$ at 500-700 cm$^{-1}$, superimposed on a broad background, is needed to account for the behavior of the scattering rate in the pseudogap state if one adopts an electron-boson scattering model.
=0.6
We note that at least some of the current electron-electron scattering models suffer the same problems as the electron-boson ones. Namely, they cannot account for the weak or completely absent temperature dependence of $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra in underdoped cuprates at high frequencies. In the conventional Fermi liquid theory, for example, electron-electron scattering rate is proportional to $(\hbar\omega)^2+({\pi}k_BT)^2$, that is the frequency and temperature dependence of the scattering rate “mirror” one another.[@pines66] Another example of this type of mirroring is provided by the heavy fermion compound URu$_2$Si$_2$[@bonnurusi] or the perovskite Sr$_2$RuO$_4$.[@katsufuji96] In both cases a scaling of $\hbar\omega=2k_BT$ collapses the dc resistivity curve on the frequency dependent scattering rate curve. This is in contrast to the experimental observations of underdoped cuprates where a significant frequency dependence, but no temperature dependence, were observed at frequencies above 1000 cm$^{-1}$. Other Fermi-liquid type models, such as the nested Fermi-liquid (NFL) model or the marginal Fermi-liquid (MFL) model, also predict a significant temperature dependence at high frequencies.[@rieck95; @MFL] For example, the main assumption of the phenomenological MFL model is that the scattering rate varies as $1/\tau(\omega,T)=\alpha\omega + \beta T$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are constants of the order of unity. It is clear that in the underdoped materials $1/\tau$ does not follow this behavior since $\beta=0$, [*i.e.*]{} there is no temperature dependence associated with the linear in frequency scattering rate. As we have seen, a temperature dependence of the scattering rate does develop, but only in optimally doped and overdoped materials.
We note that from a completely different point of view, the two component model of optical conductivity[@tanner92a] where the infrared conductivity is divided into a free-carrier and a midinfrared component, these observations imply that the mid infrared component is temperature independent in underdoped materials.
Some hints regarding the microscopic origin of the scattering mechanism in HTSC can be obtained from the analysis of impurity effects. As was shown in section IV, the effect of Zn doping was not just the introduction of an additional frequency independent term in $1/\tau(\omega)$ spectra. Zinc substitution also modifies the frequency dependence of the scattering rate suggesting that [ *inelastic*]{} processes are affected by Zn as well. The $c$-axis results obtained for the sample with 0.425 $\%$ Zn reveal a [*complete suppression*]{} of the pseudogap.[@basov96c] The effect of Zn on the $c$-axis pseudogap is similar to the one observed in the spin-lattice relaxation time 1/$TT_1$.[@ishida] The similar concentrations of Zn in ceramic pellets of Y124 completely suppress the pseudogap feature in the temperature dependence of $1/TT_1$, despite the fact that behavior of the Knight shift remains unchanged from that of a pure sample. The results obtained from crystals with Zn substitution strongly suggest that spin fluctuations may be involved or may even be the dominant mechanism of scattering in underdoped cuprates.
There are several other theoretical models that attempt to explain the pseudogap phenomenon from different assumptions.
The model due to Emery and Kivelson[@emerynat] predicts that the low carrier density in the underdoped regime may result in pairing without pair-pair coherence at temperatures well above the actual $T_c$, thus producing a pseudogap. As the temperature is lowered the phase coherence is established, leading to bulk superconductivity. This model would provide an explanation for the lack of dramatic changes upon crossing into the superconducting state, which is consistent with our optical experiments as well as ARPES measurements. However, it is not quite clear why the high-frequency onset energy of the optical pseudogap does not change as a function of doping while $T^*$ and $T_c$ do.
In the spin-charge separation picture,[@anderson87] spin singlets form at $T^*$, giving rise to a spin gap while the charge carriers, holes which are bosons, Bose condense at the superconducting transition.[@Kotliar88; @Rice92; @Fukuyama92; @Lee92] Other models invoke a spin density wave[@kampf90; @barzykin95] in the context of a normal Fermi liquid to form a gap in the spin excitations which are the predominant scatterers of the charge carriers.
Effect of Zn doping
-------------------
As a small fraction of Cu is substituted by Zn, the optical response of underdoped Y124 changes dramatically. Contrary to what is seen in the underdoped samples in the pseudogap state or the optimally doped sample in the superconducting state, there is no structure in the scattering rate neither above nor below $T_c$. These results suggest the temperature characterizing the pseudogap state $T^*$ can be very small and definitely much lower than $T_c$. We note that a similar effect may be seen in overdoped cuprates. Therefore we suggest that the addition of Zn may have an effect similar to the overdoping of Y124 compounds.
The normal-state plasma frequency is not affected by Zn substitution. Indeed, as was demonstrated by Puchkov [*et al.*]{},[@puchkov96a] overdoping does not lead to any significant changes in the value of the in-plane plasma frequency. At the same time, overdoped compounds usually show a higher dc conductivity than their under- or optimally doped counterparts. That is not the case in the Y124 material with Zn where the conductivity $\sigma_a(\omega\rightarrow 0)$ is reduced. However this may simply reflect the fact that Zn is put directly in the CuO$_2$ planes and this inevitably causes additional impurity scattering. The latter effect is so strong that crystals with 1.25$\%$ of Zn show an evidence for a charge-carriers localization behavior in the optical conductivity. This point shall be addressed in detail elsewhere.
It is critical to determine whether the effects observed in the Y124 crystals with Zn substitution are unique for this specific impurity or whether other types of disorder would produce similar results.
The relation between ab-plane and c-axis pseudogap.
---------------------------------------------------
A comparison of $a$-axis results for Y123 materials with earlier $c$-axis data[@homes93; @basov94c] suggests that the pseudogap directly observed in the $c$-axis conductivity at $T<T^*$ is necessarily accompanied by a suppression of the in-plane $1/\tau(\omega)$ at low frequencies. Indeed, the threshold feature in $1/\tau_{a}(\omega)$ is found in underdoped crystals at $T<T^*$ [*only*]{} when the spectrum of $\sigma_c(\omega)$ exhibits a pseudogap. The suppression of the pseudogap in $\sigma_c(\omega)$, either by an increase of temperature above $T^*$, or by an increase of the carrier density from x=6.6 to x=6.95 in Y123, or by the substitution of Cu with Zn in underdoped Y124,[@basov96c] restores the nearly-linear frequency dependence of the in-plane scattering rate. Therefore, we conclude that the same microscopic mechanism leads to the opening of the pseudogap in the interplane response of YBCO crystals [*and*]{} the low-frequency anomalies in the lifetime effects within the CuO$_2$ planes.
It is interesting to note that the frequency shape of $c$-axis conductivity is somewhat similar to the bosonic spectral function, shown in Fig. \[alpha\], that is needed to reproduce the [ *in-plane*]{} behavior of $1/\tau(\omega)$. This suggests that there may be an intricate connection between the two.
The superconducting state
-------------------------
One of the most striking features of the curves, in our view, is how closely the $1/\tau$ curves for the underdoped cuprates in the superconducting state resemble those in the pseudogap state. It is useful to compare the energy scales for the various experiments that reveal the presence of a pseudogap.
The maximum gap seen in ARPES experiment is about $2\Delta=360$ cm$^{-1}$ (45 meV) whereas the c-axis conductivity (in YBCO) shows an onset at ${\sim}200~$cm$^{-1}$ (25 meV) rising to a plateau at 360 cm$^{-1}$ (45 meV). The ab plane $1/\tau$ scale is considerably higher with the steepest part of the curve at ${\sim}500~$cm$^{-1}$ (62 meV) merging with the high frequency linear curve around 750 cm$^{-1}$ (93 meV) in all of the materials studied. Another high energy scale is the energy range of the depression of c-axis conductivity at the superconducting transition — of the order of or larger than 600 cm$^{-1}$.
Thus it appears to us that the energy scales associated with the pseudogap and with the superconducting state are different. In Y124 crystals with Zn substitution, superconductivity persists while the pseudogap is suppressed. We also note that in all samples we find finite absorption extending down to the lowest frequencies. In an $s$-wave superconductivity scenario, this absorption implies a very anisotropic superconducting gap. As for the $d$-wave gap models, our data may be consistent with the theoretical predictions[@carbotte95; @carbotte96; @hirshfeld96] only if one assumes a significant amount of impurities present in the crystals. This assumption is, however, inconsistent with the linear penetration depth observed in the high quality YBCO crystals used in this work.[@hardy; @zhang]
Although changes in $1/\tau(\omega)$ upon crossing into the superconducting regime in the optimally doped cuprates are apparently dramatic, it may simply be due to the simultaneous formation of the pseudogap and superconducting condensate. Also, as noted above, it is only in the c-axis conductivity where we see evidence of a larger energy scale associated with the superconducting state.[@basov94c]
In superconducting state, the spectra of the effective mass are remarkably similar in all crystals we have studied. In particular, the absolute value of $m^*(\omega\rightarrow 0)$ is about 4 both in Y123 and Y124 materials. As noted in section III, the zero frequency extrapolation of the effective mass gives a square of a ratio of the total plasma frequency, $\omega_p$, to the plasma frequency of the superconducting condensate, $\omega_{ps}$. This value is in good agreement with the results obtained directly from the use of the sum rule analysis of $\sigma_1(\omega)$ or from an analysis of the imaginary part of the conductivity. The fact that the zero-frequency extrapolations of the effective mass are roughly the same, $m^*(\omega\rightarrow 0){\simeq}3.5-4$, for all underdoped materials suggests that the superfluid condensate density scales with the total carrier density in the underdoped cuprates. Therefore, we conclude that there are no pairbreaking effects in the pseudogap state. However, as doping is increased above optimal, the mass enhancement becomes weaker, which indicates a decrease in the superfluid density. This behavior is in agreement with the earlier $\mu$SR results.[@uemura89; @uemura91; @niedermayer93]
The phase diagram and the comparison with c-axis data
-----------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[phase-dia1\] we showed a phase diagram where the characteristic temperatures $T^*$ (determined from the $c$-axis conductivity) and $T_c$ for several different samples from the YBCO family are plotted as a function of superfluid density $\omega_{ps}^2 = n_s/m^*$ in the CuO$_2$ planes. The superfluid density is obtained from the optical conductivity as described in section III. Our choice of superfluid density rather than $\omega_p^2$ of the normal-state carriers is governed by the fact that the former quantity could be determined unambiguously from the real part of the ab plane infrared conductivity. From under- to optimally-doped regimes the critical temperature scales with the superfluid density in the CuO$_2$ planes and the $T_c$ points for YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.6}$ and YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{6.95}$ crystals fall on the universal dependence first proposed by Uemura [*et al.*]{}[@uemura89; @uemura91] The $T_c$ of Y124 is 20 $\%$ above the universal line. The $T_c$ [*v.s.*]{} $n_s/m^*$ boundary in the phase diagram is well defined since both $T_c$ and $n_s/m^*$ could be determined very accurately. However, the $T^*$ [*v.s.*]{} $n_s/m^*$ boundary cannot be determined with same high precision since the uncertainty in $T^*$ is about 20-30 K, based on the $c$-axis conductivity data. The four $T^*$ points correspond to the following crystals: $T^*=300$ K - Y123 crystal with $x=6.6$, $T^*=180$ K - Y123 with $x=6.7$,[@homes93a] $T^*=140$ K - Y124 crystal and for Y123 with $x=6.95$ $T^*=T_c=93.5$ K. The variation of $T^*$ between the different YBCO samples significantly exceeds the error in the absolute value of $T^*$. So far crystals with the oxygen content less than $x=6.5$ have not been investigated in detail. Thus it is unclear if the pseudogap temperature continues to grow as one approaches the insulating region in the phase diagram or if it saturates at the level of 300-400 K.
Open questions
--------------
At the time of writing this survey of the $ab$-plane pseudogap phenomenon, there remain many open questions. The first question that must be addressed is whether or not the pseudogap state is generic among all high-$T_c$ materials. In particular, does anything similar exist for non-cuprate superconductors such as BKBO or RENi$_2$B$_2$C.
It has been suggested that the pseudogap is a manifestation of interlayer coupling and is specific to the double layer materials such as YBCO and Bi2212.[@millis90] Support for this view comes from NMR measurements, which show a rather weak depression of magnetic susceptibility in La214 in the temperature range where the transport data show evidence of a strong suppression of scattering. As we have seen from our presentation of the data for overdoped single-plane Tl2201 samples, the $ab$-plane $1/\tau(\omega)$ curves look similar to those of the two-plane materials [*in the superconducting state*]{}.
Experimental optical data exists for the one plane La214 material [@gao93; @uchida96; @startseva96] which, in the underdoped regime, shows a very strong depression in $1/\tau(\omega)$ at low temperatures which is consistent with the pseudogap picture. However, one must be cautious at this stage since the data from various laboratories show considerable variation in the magnitude of the effect. In some cases, the structure in reflectivity is so strong that it produces an unphysical singularity in the $1/\tau(\omega)$ curves.[@uchida96] More work on a range of samples must be done for this system. Similar strong features are seen in the electron-doped Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_4$ material.[@startseva96]
It has been suggested that the one-component model of charge transport in the cuprates is particularly unsuited for the La214 system where, at least at low doping levels, $\sigma(\omega)$ shows a separate midinfrared band[@cooper94] rather than a smooth free-carrier band with excess conductivity at high frequencies. It is also known that at very low doping levels, in the insulating state, there is a separate band or several bands [@thomas91; @perkins93] and a one component picture is clearly inappropriate.
Another important effect that needs to be examined is the role of impurities. We have seen that Zn has the effect of destroying the pseudogap in Y124, both in the $c$-axis $\sigma_1(\omega)$ and in the $ab$-plane $1/\tau(\omega)$ curves which acquire a frequency dependence similar to what is seen in the overdoped materials. Zn is an impurity that has a strong effect on $T_c$ and a systematic study of the influence of Zn may help us to isolate its effect on $T^*$, the onset of the pseudogap phase, and $T_c$, the onset of superconductivity.
Phonons play an important, if perhaps subsidiary, role in high temperature superconductivity. As we have seen in section III, the standard electron-phonon mechanism predicts a temperature dependent $1/\tau(\omega)$ at all frequencies whereas the observations in the pseudogap state show a temperature independent high-frequency $1/\tau(\omega)$. On the other hand, the frequency range of the steepest rise of $1/\tau(\omega)$ falls in the oxygen mode region of the phonon spectrum and seems to vary little with temperature, chemical composition or doping. This inertness of the pseudogap frequency suggests that phonons may be involved in some indirect way.
One process that affects the $ab$-plane conductivity in all high-$T_c$ materials is the coupling of the $ab$-plane electrodynamic response to $c$-axis LO phonons.[@reedyk92e; @timusk91; @kostur96] To separate this process from other processes, it is necessary to measure the in-plane optical response on the $ac$ face of an underdoped crystal where the LO$_c$ coupled structure vanishes.[@reedyk92e]
The signature of the pseudogap state of YBCO materials is that the in-plane conductivity is enhanced whereas the interplane conductivity is suppressed. It is important to find out whether this is manifested by other cuprates.
Conclusions
===========
In our review of the recent optical data, we see that there is a universal depression of the real part of the memory function $M'(\omega)$, or $1/\tau(\omega)$, below an energy of the order of 700-800 cm$^{-1}$ in all underdoped materials below a characteristic temperature $T^*$. At the optimal doping level $T_c{\simeq}T^*$ and in the strongly overdoped regime the gap-like depression is not seen. While the high-frequency $1/\tau(\omega)$ was found to be temperature-independent in the underdoped cuprates, an obvious temperature dependence is seen in the strongly overdoped cuprates. We believe that these optical results add to the growing evidence for the existence of a normal state pseudogap in the physical response function of the underdoped HTSC.
While intense theoretical work has been done to explain the observed phenomenon, none of it has been completely successful. It is necessary for any theoretical model to explain not only the formation of the gap in the $ab$-plane response, but also a wealth of phenomena, such as the $c$-axis transport and the remarkable temperature dependencies that are observed, both for the $c$-axis pseudogap as well as the $ab$-plane response.
The authors wish to acknowledge a collaboration with the following crystal-growing groups, without whom this work would not be possible: The Bi2212 single crystals were grown at Stanford University by P. Fournier and A. Kapitulnik; the Tl2201 single crystals were grown by N.N. Kolesnikov in the Institute of Solid State Physics, Russia, and S. Doyle and A.M. Hermann in University of Colorado, Boulder; the detwinned Y123 crystals came from our long time collaborators, R. Liang, D.A. Bonn and W.H.Hardy at the University of British Columbia; the Y124 single crystals were grown by Bogdan Dabrowski at the Northern Illinois University.
We are very grateful to C.C. Homes, T. Rõõm and T. Startseva for allowing us to use their experimental data in this paper.
The authors also wish to acknowledge illuminating discussions with A.A. Abrikosov, P.B. Allen, A.J. Berlinsky, D.A. Bonn, N. Bontemps, J.P. Carbotte, J.C. Cooper, O.V. Dolgov, R.C. Dynes, V.J. Emery, W.N. Hardy, C.C. Homes, M. Julien, K. Kallin, S.A. Kivelson, R.B. Laughlin, P.A. Lee, A.G. Loeser, J.W. Loram, A.J. Millis, F. Marsiglio, D. Pines, M. Strongin, Z.-X. Shen, D. van der Marel, Y. Uemura. This work was supported by the Canadian Institute of Advanced Research (CIAR) and Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
W.W. Warren, Jr., R.E. Walstedt, G.F. Brennert, R.J. Cava, R. Tycko, R.F. Bell, and G. Dabbagh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{} 1193, (1989). Y. Yoshinari, H. Yasuoka, Y. Ueda, K. Koga, and K. Kosuge, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**59**]{}, 3698 (1990); H. Alloul, T.Ohno, and P. Mendels, J. Less-Common Met. [**164-165**]{}, 1022 (1990).
M. Gurvitch and A.T. Fiory, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **59**]{}, 1337 (1987).
B. Bucher, P. Steiner, J. Karpinski, E. Kaldis, and P. Wachter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2012 (1993).
B. Batlogg, H.Y. Hwang, H. Takagi, R.J. Cava, H.L. Kao, and J. Kwo, Physica C [**235–240**]{}, 130 (1994).
T. Ito, K. Takenaka, and S. Uchida, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3995 (1993).
D.R. Walkes, A. Carrington, A.P. Mackenzie, and J.R. Cooper, unpublished, cited in M. Gabay, and P. Lederer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{}, 14462 (1993). J. Rossat-Mignod, L.P. Regnault, C. Vettier, P. Bourges, P. Burlet, J. Bossy, J.Y. Henry, and G. Lapertot, Physica C [**185-189**]{}, 86 (1991); J.M. Tranquada, P.M. Gehring, G. Shirane, S. Shamoto, and M. Sato, Phys. Rev. [**B 46**]{}, 5561 (1992).
J.W. Loram, K.A. Mirza, J.R. Cooper, and W.Y. Liang, J. of Superconductivity, [**7**]{}, 261 (1994). B. Friedl, C. Thomsen, and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66,**]{} 915 (1990). A.P. Litvinchuk, C. Thomsen, and M. Cardona, Solid State Comm. [**83**]{}, 343 (1992). S.L. Cooper, M.V. Klein, B.G. Pazol, D.M. Rice, and D.M. Ginsberg Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 5920 (1988). F. Slakey, M.V. Klein, J.P. Rice, and D.M. Ginsberg, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 2643 (1990). M. Reedyk, D.A. Bonn, J.D. Garrett, J.E. Greedan, C.V. Stager, T. Timusk, K. Kamarás, and D.B. Tanner, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 11981 (1988). G.A. Thomas, J. Orenstein, D.H. Rapkine, M. Capizzi, A.J. Millis, R.N. Bhatt, L.F. Schneemeyer, and J.V. Waszczak, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1313 (1988).
J. Orenstein, G.A. Thomas, A.J. Millis, S.L. Cooper, D. Rapkine, T. Timusk, L.F. Schneemeyer, and J.V. Waszczak, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 6342 (1990).
K. Kamarás, S.L. Herr, C.D. Porter, N. Tache D.B. Tanner, S. Etemad, T. Venkatesan, E. Chase, A. Inham, X.D. Wu, M.S. Hegde, and B. Dutta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 84 (1990). D. van der Marel, H.-U. Habermeier, D. Heitmann, W. König, and A. Wittlin, Physica C [**176**]{}, 1 (1991). Z. Schlesinger, R.T. Collins, F. Holtzberg, C. Feild, S.H. Blanton, U. Welp, G.W. Crabtree, Y. Fang, and J.Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 801 (1990). L.D. Rotter, Z. Schlesinger, R.T. Collins, F. Holtzberg, C. Feild, U. Welp, G.W. Crabtree, J.Z. Liu, Y. Fang, K.G. Vandervoort, and S. Fleshler Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2741 (1991).
Z. Schlesinger, R.T. Collins, L.D. Rotter, F. Holtzberg, C. Feild, U. Welp, G.W. Crabtree, J.Z. Liu, Y. Fang, K.G. Vandervoort, and S. Fleshler, Physica C [**235-240**]{}, 49 (1994).
T. Timusk, C.D. Porter, and D.B. Tanner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 663 (1991). M. Reedyk and T. Timusk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **69**]{}, 2705 (1992).
T. Timusk, S.L. Herr, K. Kamar[' a]{}s, C.D. Porter, D.B. Tanner, D.A. Bonn, J.D. Garrett, C.V. Stager, J.E. Greedan, and M. Reedyk, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 6683, (1988).
C.C. Homes, T. Timusk, R. Liang, D.A. Bonn, and W.N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1645 (1993). D.N. Basov, T. Timusk, B. Dabrowski and J.D. Jorgensen, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 3511 (1994).
S. Tajima, J, Schützmann, and S. Miyamoto, Solid State Comm. [**95**]{}, 759 (1995). A.J. Leggett, Braz. J. Phys. B [**50**]{}, 496 (1994).
C.C. Homes, T.Timusk, R. Liang, D.A. Bonn, and W.H. Hardy, Physica C, [**254,**]{} 265-280, (1995).
D.N. Basov, H.A. Mook, B.Dabrowski, and T. Timusk, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, R13141 (1995).
N. Kumar, P.A. Lee, and B. Shapiro, Physica A [**168**]{}, 447 (1990). N. Kumar and A.M. Jayannavar, Phys. Rev. B [ **50**]{}, 438 (1992).
A.G. Rojo and K. Levin, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 16861 (1993). M.J. Graf, D. Rainer, and J.A. Sauls, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 12089 (1995). L.B. Ioffe, A.I. Larkin, A.A. Varlamov, L. Yu, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 8936 (1993). P. Nyhus, M.A. Karlow, S.L. Cooper, B. Veal, and A.P. Paulikas, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 13898 (1994). D.G. Clarke, S.P. Strong, and P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 4499 (1995). A.S. Alexandrov, V.V. Kabanov, and N.F. Mott, (unpublised)
M. Takigawa, A.P. Reyes, P.C. Hammel, J.D. Thompson, R.H. Heffner, Z. Fisk, and K.C. Ott, Phys. Rev. B [ **43**]{}, 247 (1991). S. Uchida, K. Tamasaku, and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 14558, (1996). M. Reedyk, unpublished (1996). D.S. Marshall, D.S. Dessau, A.G. Loeser, C.H. Park, Z.-X. Shen, A.Y. Matsuura, J.N. Eckstein, I. Bozovik, P. Fornier, A. Kapitulnik, W.E. Spicer, and Z.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 4841 (1996).
A.G. Loeser, Z.-X. Shen, D.S. Dessau, D.S. Marshall, C.H. Park, P. Fornier, and A. Kapitulnik, Science [ **273**]{}, 325 (1996).
H. Ding, T. Tokoya, J.C. Campuzono, T. Takahashi, M. Randeria, M.R.Norman, T. Mochiku, K. Kadowaki, and J. Giapintzakis, Nature [**382**]{}, 51 (1996).
B. Dabrowski, unpublished (1996).
Ruxiang Liang, P. Dosanih, D.A. Bonn, D.J. Baar, J.E. Carolan, and W.N. Hardy, Physica C [**195**]{}, 51 (1992).
B. Dabrowski, K. Zhang, J.J. Pluth, J.L. Wagner, and D.G. Hinks, Physica C [**202**]{}, 271 (1992).
P. Fournier, A. Kapitulnik, and A.F. Marshall, Physica C [**257**]{}, 291 (1996); N.N. Kolesnikov, M.P. Kulakov, V.N. Molchanov, I.F. Schegolev, R.P. Shibaeva, V.I. Simonov, R.A. Tamazyan, and O.M. Vyaselev, Physica C [**242**]{}, 385 (1995). C.C. Homes, M.A. Reedyk, D.A. Crandles, and T. Timusk, Applied Optics [**32**]{}, 2976 (1993). T. Timusk and D.B. Tanner, Infrared Properties of High $T_c$ Superconductors, in [ *Physical Properties of High Temperature Superconductors I*]{} D.M. Ginsberg, editor, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989) p. 339.
H. Romberg, N. Nucker, J. Fink, Th. Wolf, X.X. Xi, B. Kock, H.P. Geserich, M. Durrler, W. Assmus, and B. Gegenheimer, Z.Phys. B [**78**]{}, 367 (1990). J. Humli[c]{}ek, E. Schmidt, L. Bo[\~ c]{}[' a]{}nek, M. Carriga, and M. Cardona, Solid State Comm. [**73**]{}, 127 (1990).
S.L. Cooper, D. Reznik, A. Kotz, M.A. Karlow, R. Liu, M.V. Klein, W.C. Lee, J. Giapintzakis, D.M. Ginsberg, B.W. Veal, and A.P. Pulikas, Phys. Rev. [**B 47**]{}, 8233 (1993).
N.W. Ashcroft and N.D. Mermin, Solid State Physics, Saunders College, Philadelphia, 1976.
A.A. Abrikosov, L.P. Gorkov, and I.E. Dzyaloshinski, Methods of Quantum Field Theory in Statistical Physics, Dover Publications, New York, 1975.
S.V. Shulga, O.V. Dolgov, and E.G. Maksimov, Physica C [**178**]{}, 266 (1991).
P.W. Anderson, Science [**235**]{}, 1196 (1987).
S. Schmitt-Rink, C.M. Varma, and A.E. Ruckenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 2793 (1988).
V.J. Emery and S.A. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 3253 (1995).
P.B. Allen and J.C. Mikkelsen, Phys. Rev. B [ **15**]{}, 2953 (1976).
H. Mori, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**34**]{}, 399 (1965).
W. Götze and P. Wölfe, Phys. Rev. B [**6**]{}, 1226 (1972).
P.B. Allen, Phys. Rev. B [**3**]{}, 305 (1971).
B.C. Webb, A.J. Sievers, and T. Mihalisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 1951 (1986).
O.V. Dolgov and S.V. Shulga, J. of Superconductivity [**8**]{}, 611 (1995).
R.T. Collins, Z. Schlesinger, F. Holtzberg, P. Chaudhari, and C. Feild, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**39**]{}, 6571 (1990).
C.T. Rieck, W.A. Little, J. Ruvalds, and A. Virosztek, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 3772 (1995).
D.N. Basov, R. Liang, B. Dabrowski, D.A. Bonn, W.N. Hardy, and T. Timusk, unpublished (1996). A.V. Puchkov, P. Fournier, D.N. Basov, T. Timusk, A. Kapitulnik, and N.N. Kolesnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3212 (1996).
A.J. Millis, S. Sachdev, and C.M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 4975 (1988).
A.J. Millis, H. Monien, and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. B [ **42**]{}, 167 (1990).
A.V. Puchkov, P. Fournier, T. Timusk, and N.N. Kolesnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1853 (1996).
A.V. Puchkov and T. Timusk, unpublished (1996); A.V. Puchkov, T. Timusk, S. Doyle, and A.M. Hermann, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 3312 (1995).
D.A. Bonn, P. Dosanih, R. Liang, and W.N. Hardy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 2390 (1992).
D.B. Romero, C.D. Porter, D.B. Tanner, L. Forro, D. Mandrus, L. Mihaly, G.L. Carr, and G.P. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1590 (1992).
R.C. Yu, M.B. Salamon, J.P. Lu, and W.C. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1431 (1992).
Since an interband transition can be roughly modeled by an oscillator centered at $\omega_i$, the imaginary part of conductivity is negative below $\omega_i$.
Romero [*et al.*]{} proposed a somewhat similar way of differentiating the two contributions.[@romero92] They suggest that the response of conducting carriers completely collapses into a $\delta$-function at $T{\ll}T_c$. Therefore, the spectrum of $\sigma_1(\omega)$ at $T{\ll}T_c$ represents the “midinfrared component” in the conductivity. While this approach appears to be useful under the circumstances and allows one to extract the temperature dependence of the scattering rate below $T_c$, it also has serious deficiencies. The most significant one stems from the fact that the conductivity in the superconducting state remains finite down to the lowest available frequencies and even increases in a Drude-like fashion at $\omega<50$ cm$^{-1}$ (Fig. \[opt-abs\]).
B. Renker, F. Gompf, E. Gering, D. Ewert, H. Rietschek, and A. Dianoux, [*Z. Phys. B – Condensed Matter*]{} [**73**]{}, 309 (1988).
P. Bourges, Y. Sidis, L.P. Regnault, B. Hennion, R. Villeneuve, G. Collin, C. Vettier, J.Y. Henry, and J.F. Marucco, J. Phys. Chem Solids, [**56**]{}, 1937 (1995).
F. Marsiglio, unpublished (1996).
D. Pines and P. Nozi[' e]{}res [*The Theory of Quantum Liquids*]{}, Benjamin, New York, 1966.
D.A. Bonn, J.D. Garret, and T. Timusk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1305 (1988).
T. Katsufuji, M. Kasai, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 126 (1996). D.B. Tanner and T. Timusk, Optical Properties of High-Temperature Superconductors, in [ *Physical Properties of High Temperature Superconductors III*]{} D.M. Ginsberg, editor, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992) 105 pp.
G. Zheng, T. Odaguchi, T. Mito, U. Kitaoka, K. Asayama, Y. Kodama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**62**]{}, 2591 (1993); K. Ishida, Y. Kitaoka, N. Ogata, T. Kamino, K. Asayama, and J.R. Cooper, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**62**]{}, 2803 (1993).
V.J. Emery and S.A. Kivelson, Nature(London) [ **374**]{} 434, (1995).
G. Kotliar and J. Liu, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 5142 (1988).
T.M. Rice in [*The Physics and Chemistry of Oxide Superconductors,*]{} edited by Y. Iye and H. Yasuoka (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1992), p. 313.
H. Fukuyama, Prog. Theor. Phys. Supp. [**108**]{}, 287 (1992).
P.A. Lee and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 5621 (1992).
A.P. Kampf and J.R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. B [ **42**]{}, 7967 (1990). V. Barzykin and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. B [ **52**]{}, 13585 (1995). J.P. Carbotte, C. Jiang, D.N. Basov, and T. Timusk, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{} 11798 (1995).
C. Jiang, E. Schachinger, J.P. Carbotte, D. Basov, and T. Timusk, Phys. Rev. B [**54**]{}, 1264 (1996).
S.M. Quinlan, P.J. Hirshfeld, and D.J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 8575 (1996)
W.N. Hardy, D.A. Bonn, D.C. Morgan, R. Liang, and K. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3999 (1993).
K. Zhang, D.A. Bonn, S. Kamal, R. Liang, D.J. Baar, W.N. Hardy, D. Basov, and T. Timusk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 2484 (1994).
Y.J. Uemura, G.M. Luke, B.J. Sternlieb, J.H. Brewer, J.F. Carolan, W.N. Hardy, R. Kadono, J.R. Kempton, R.F. Kiefl, S.R. Kreitzman, P. Mulhern, T.M. Riseman, D.Ll. Williams, B.X. Yang, S. Uchida, H. Takagi, J. Gopalakrishnan, A.W. Sleight, M.A. Subramanian, C.L. Chien, M.Z. Cieplak, G. Xiao, V.Y. Lee, B.W. Statt, C.E. Stronach, W.J. Kossler, and X.H. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2317 (1989).
Y.J. Uemura, L.P. Le, G.M. Luke, B.J. Sternlieb, W.D. Wu, J.H. Brewer, T.M. Riseman, C.L. Seaman, M.B. Maple, M. Ishikawa, D.G. Hinks, J.D. Jorgensen, G. Saito, and H. Yamochi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 2665 (1991).
Ch. Niedermayer, C. Bernhard, U. Binninger, H. Gl[ü]{}cker, J.L. Tallon, E.J. Ansaldo, J.I. Budnick, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1764 (1993).
F. Gao, D.B. Romero, D.B. Tanner, J. Talvacchio, and M.G. Forrester, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 1036 (1993). T. Startseva, R.A. Hughes, A.V. Puchkov, D.N. Basov, T. Timusk, and H.A. Mook, unpublished (1996).
S.L. Cooper and K.E. Gray in [*Anisotropy and Interlayer Coupling in the High $T_c$ Cuprates (Physical Properties of High Temperature Superconductors IV)*]{} ed Donald M. Ginsberg, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994) p. 61.
G.A. Thomas, D.H. Rapkine, S.L. Cooper, S.-W. Cheong, and A.S. Cooper Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2906, (1991). J.D. Perkins, J.M. Graybeal, M.A. Kastner, R.J. Birgeneau, J.P. Falck, M. Greven, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 1621 (1993). V.N. Kostur, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 2273 (1996).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.